The Organizational Politics of Implementing Risk Assessment Instruments in Community Corrections

Abstract

Much talk has surrounded the use of risk assessment in community corrections. Community corrections agencies continue to struggle with what risk instrument to adopt and how to implement it in a comprehensive way. One of the most important factors that impedes the successful implementation of risk assessment instruments is organizational politics. This essay evaluates some of the organizational politics that inhibit the successful implementation of risk assessment instruments and highlights several factors that can mitigate this effect.

Challenges for the theory and application of dynamic risk factors

“…In addition to the type and demographics of offenders, the predictive validity of risk assessment tools is also highly impacted on by the way in which the measure is applied, both in terms of the quality of training provided on a given measure, and in the adherence to scoring guidelines demonstrated by the clinician or researcher (Lowenkamp et al, 2004;Schlager, 2009). Assessments of risk that incorporate self-report measures also have the added threat of validity of responses, which might be affected by offender biases, both conscious and sub-conscious; although the literature largely suggests that the concern about the erosion of prediction accuracy as a result of offenders "faking good" is not empirically founded (Beggs & Grace, 2011;Stevens et al, under revision) one still must consider the impact of biased responding on the ability of clinicians to gauge the specific level and types of needs that should form the focus of treatment.…”

“…It has also been suggested by some researchers that this reliance on clinical judgement rather than the structured scoring criteria might result from a reluctance of professionals to accept the idea that their judgements might be less accurate than purely quantitative methods of assessing risk (Schlager, 2009;Schneider, Ervin, & Snyder-Joy, 1996). There is also some evidence to suggest that the fear of political and professional implications of having rated someone as low risk who later goes on to reoffend (even if the rating was correct), leads correctional staff to manipulate dynamic scores in a way that overestimates risk, with large resource and financial implications for the corrections service as a whole (Lanterman, Boyle, & Ragusa-Salerno, 2014;Schlager, 2009;Schneider et al, 1996).…”

Implementation of Actuarial Risk/Need Assessment and its Effect on Community Supervision Revocations

“…In some respects, the use of actuarial risk/needs assessments can be considered the cornerstone of correctional intervention. An agency (regardless of its specific function) must gather useful information in order to process individuals properly, build case plans, chart progress, make referrals, and inform discharge/exit plans (Gottfredson & Moriarty, 2006;Schlager, 2009). Actuarial risk/needs assessment provides agencies with the necessary tools to follow the "risk" and "need" principles of correctional intervention (Bonta, 1996).…”

Challenges for the theory and application of dynamic risk factors

“…It is also important to recognise that the predictive validity of quantitative risk measures is in a large part dependent on the sample used in the validation; for this reason, we highlight the necessity of validating measures in different countries or jurisdictions, and with different types of offenders. In addition to the type and demographics of offenders, the predictive validity of risk assessment tools is also highly impacted on by the way in which the measure is applied, both in terms of the quality of training provided on a given measure, and in the adherence to scoring guidelines demonstrated by the clinician or researcher (Lowenkamp et al, 2004;Schlager, 2009). Assessments of risk that incorporate self-report measures also have the added threat of validity of responses, which might be affected by offender biases, both conscious and sub-conscious; although the literature largely suggests that the concern about the erosion of prediction accuracy as a result of offenders "faking good" is not empirically founded (Beggs & Grace, 2011;Stevens et al, under revision) one still must consider the impact of biased responding on the ability of clinicians to gauge the specific level and types of needs that should form the focus of treatment.…”

“…This would be particularly salient for measures that use a largely unstructured scoring format, allowing for a greater influence of personal heuristics and cognitive biases (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993). It has also been suggested by some researchers that this reliance on clinical judgement rather than the structured scoring criteria might result from a reluctance of professionals to accept the idea that their judgements might be less accurate than purely quantitative methods of assessing risk (Schlager, 2009;Schneider, Ervin, & Snyder-Joy, 1996). There is also some evidence to suggest that the fear of political and professional implications of having rated someone as low risk who later goes on to reoffend (even if the rating was correct), leads correctional staff to manipulate dynamic scores in a way that overestimates risk, with large resource and financial implications for the corrections service as a whole (Lanterman, Boyle, & Ragusa-Salerno, 2014;Schlager, 2009;Schneider et al, 1996).…”