The Implementation of a Risk/Needs Assessment Tool by County Judges in Pennsylvania: A Review of the Literature*

Transcription

1 The Implementation of a Risk/Needs Assessment Tool by County Judges in Pennsylvania: A Review of the Literature* As part of a white paper report presented to: The Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission s Re-Sentencing Guidelines Sub-Committee By: Penn State Harrisburg Criminal Justice Program 777 West Harrisburg Pike Middletown, PA December 2009 *Questions about this report should be directed to Dr. Barbara Sims, Criminal Justice Chair, at bas4@psu.edu.

2 Part 1: Information and Background Executive Summary Risk/need assessment tools have been used by criminal justice practitioners for more than half a century. The risk assessment aspect of the tool evaluates static (non-changing) items, such as criminal history, as well as dynamic (changeable) items, such as substance abuse problems. The need assessment aspect of the tool evaluates dynamic items, such as anti-social attitudes, that can be changed over time with the help of treatment programs. Currently, there is no one assessment tool utilized uniformly by county judges in Pennsylvania. Several other criminal justice agencies within the state, however, utilize such instruments, including the Department of Corrections and some county jails. Virginia has implemented a statewide risk/need assessment tool for use by its county judges, and preliminary studies have concluded that the instrument has been successful in not only guiding a judge s sentencing decision, but also in diverting 25% of eligible offenders to alternative sanctions. Choosing a tool to implement is not an easy task; it should be pilot tested on the specific population that it will be used on before it is actually implemented. In addition, the tool should evidence strong predictive utility, construct validity, external validity, and reliability. Part 2: Risk to Reoffend and Criminogenic Needs Tools Risk/need assessment tools can be either clinician-administered or self-administered. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections currently utilizes the Risk Screen Tool (RST), Offender Violence Risk Typology (OVRT), the Criminal Sentiments Scale- Modified (CSS- M), and the Texas Christian University Drug Screen- II (TCUDSII). The Bucks County Department of Corrections utilizes the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ), the Pride in Delinquency Scale (PID), the Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ), and the Novaco Anger Scale (NAS) are utilized by other states, and it has been concluded through empirical research that each have strong predictive utility, construct validity, and reliability.

3 PART 1: INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND Criminal justice professionals have been using risk/need assessment tools to estimate an offender s risk to reoffend for more than half a century (Campbell, French, & Gendreau, 2009). According to Rex Hildebrand, Chief of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Assessment and Classification Bureau of Treatment Services, assessment in the criminal justice realm is the systemic collection, analysis, and utilization of objective information about an offender s level of risk and need (emphasis in original) (Hildebrand, 2009). Risk is defined as the statistical probability that an offender will commit an additional offense after release from incarceration, not dangerousness (Hildebrand, 2009). Risk can be calculated using both static (nonchanging) items, such as criminal history, as well as dynamic (changeable) items, such as substance abuse problems. Need is defined as the specific issues, such as anti-social attitudes, that contribute to an offender s criminal behavior (Hildebrand, 2009). Criminogenic needs are dynamic and can be modified over time with the help of treatment programs. In short, risk/need assessments tools are instruments that contain both static and dynamic items, which address risk factors that have been empirically shown to be proximally related to criminality that when summed, tell a criminal justice professional the likelihood that an offender will reoffend (Schlager and Simourd, 2007, p. 546). Since the 1950s, these tools have assisted professionals in making informed decisions regarding an offender s case, whether it involves sentencing the offender to some sort of community supervision instead of institutional confinement (diversion), referring that individual to a specific treatment program after establishing a substance abuse problem or criminogenic need, or releasing him or her from incarceration early and placing him or her on parole. Utilized correctly, these tools are crucial to properly rehabilitating offenders, reducing prison overcrowding, and, perhaps most importantly,

4 1 saving taxpayers money without compromising their safety (Hildebrand, 2009; Ostrom, Kleiman, Cheesman, Hansen, and, Kauder, 2002). The point of this research project was to identify a risk/need instrument that could be easily employed by a county judge in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or his or her designee, such as a probation officer, when imposing a sentence on an individual, particularly one who has recidivated. Currently, there is no one assessment tool utilized uniformly by county judges in Pennsylvania. As a result, judges are guided only by the established Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines and their personal discretion. Some judges, however, have expressed that this is not enough 1, and point to the high recidivism rates of offenders as proof. Obviously, the original sanction(s) imposed after utilizing the Sentencing Guidelines Matrix and personal judgment did not work, and at some point during their sentence, the criminal justice system failed to help rehabilitate the offender. In addition, one judge from Alabama questions his colleagues and his qualifications to have personal discretion in the matter, explaining: When sentencing options include such things as drug treatment in addition to hard time, sentencing takes on some of the characteristics of social work, rather than just simply punishment [ ] The typical judge ruling from the bench, however, generally has not been trained in the methodology of social work. The social work curriculum includes basic education in sociology and psychology and advanced studies in such topics as Substance Abuse Intervention, Human Behavior and the Social Environment, and Populations at Risk. The professional social worker is, by training and experience, suited to make informed referrals to appropriate programs for individuals who have failed at basic life skills. The judge, a law school graduate, on the other hand, may have an undergraduate degree in any field of study from accounting, to engineering, to theatre, or to drama. The law school curriculum includes such topics as Property, Estate Planning, Civil Procedure, and Torts. Donning a black robe does not, in and of itself, qualify a judge to do social work. This is an expertise not acquired by most judges and a job for which many are ill suited (emphasis in original). (Jones, 2009, pp. 2-3) 1 J. Turgeon, personal communication, May 20, 2009.

5 2 This is not to say, however, that after many years and several encounters of all types of offenders with various needs that judges do no intuitively pick-up on what sentencing options could work for a specific individual. However, it has been consistently demonstrated that objective, actuarial assessment tools are better than clinical judgment alone in making program placement decisions. These tools are meant to inform clinical judgment, not replace it (emphasis in original) (Hildebrand, 2009). Although a courtroom is certainly not a clinical setting, it could be argued that a judge is taking on the role of a clinician, prescribing a treatment for a problem, whether it be a criminality problem, a substance abuse problem, an anger/hostility problem, or a sexual offending problem. As such, implementing a statewide risk/assessment tool for use by county judges could be the key supplemental component in choosing appropriate sentences for offenders. Such an implementation is not a novice idea. In 2002, Ostrom and colleagues presented a report on their findings of a pilot study that was conducted to examine the usefulness of a risk/assessment instrument that could identify good candidates for diversion from incarceration. The instrument had been developed by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. Probation officers and judges from six different jurisdictions in Virginia reportedly found the application of the tool to be a useful addition to state sentencing guidelines (Ostrom et al., 2002). Their tool was designed to identify larceny, fraud, and drug offenders who, by virtue of the sentencing guidelines, would otherwise be sentenced to incarceration, and instead divert them to some form of alternative punishment (Ostrom et al., 2002). In the pilot program, the instrument only told the judge whether the offender was a good candidate for diversion; it did not specify which sentence or treatment program was best suited for them. That decision was left to the discretion of the judge. In addition, the judge was not

6 3 bound by the results of the assessment tool; it was only meant to guide them, and as such, he or she could disregard the tool s results (Ostrom et al., 2002). Virginia formally adopted a risk assessment tool for use by sentencing judges in 2003, and research has indicated that 25% of all offenders who would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment were diverted to other sanctions instead (Warren, 2007). Furthermore, in a 2007 report to the Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections, Roger Warren highlighted the importance of using evidenced-based practice to help reduce the recidivism of offenders. Specifically, Warren (2007, p. 66) commented, It is important that state sentencing policy encourage the use of accurate risk-assessment instruments since the research indicates that risk of re-offense cannot be accurately assessed by relying exclusively on the type of offense committed or the offender s prior criminal history. In addition, the use of a risk/need assessment tool is not novice for other criminal justice agencies and institutions in Pennsylvania. For example, the Department of Corrections (DOC) currently assesses all incoming inmates at one of their State Correctional Institute Diagnostic Centers (Camp Hill for males and Muncy for females). Currently, the DOC utilizes the Risk Screen Tool (RST), The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M), the Hostile Interpretations Quiz (HIQ), the Texas Christian University Drug Screen-II (TCUDSII), the Static 99, and the Offender Violence Risk Typology (OVRT) (Hildebrand, 2009). Also, the Bucks County Department of Corrections utilizes the LSI-R (Gubernick, 2009). All of these instruments will be described in detail later in this report. As mentioned previously, however, the one criminal justice branch in Pennsylvania that does not employ a risk/need assessment tool, at least not uniformly, is the judiciary. Ultimately, choosing to implement a tool is a two-step process. First, all key stakeholders must agree to try

7 4 it, as well as support it. Second, a reliable and comprehensive instrument must be developed. This report is meant to assist in doing the latter. Unfortunately, the task of identifying a reliable and comprehensive risk/need instrument is a tedious one. There are several dozen instruments being employed not only throughout the United States, but also the world. Some agencies employ tools created in-house (i.e. The Louisiana Risk Needs Assessment II or The Iowa Risk Assessment Model), while others use a more universal one (i.e. the Level of Service Inventory-Revise [LSI-R] or the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [PCL-R]). To further compound the issue, not all tools have the same administration techniques. Some are self-administered, others clinician-administered, and others a mixture of both. Some involve interviews while others involve case file reviews (Campbell et al., 2009). As a result, it is best to select a tool that has been thoroughly and empirically evaluated and subsequently determined to be satisfactory for use. To help the reader better understand what the literature has concluded about the different assessment tools that are in existence, as well as make informed decisions about which tool is best suited to meet their needs, it is important to first be cognizant of certain terms and concepts that are employed in empirical research. In a recent article, Skeem and Eno Louden (2007) explained several key terms that are routinely used in research that examines different tools. First, the appropriate tool must have sound evidence of predictive utility. That is, the instrument must be proven to be able to predict whether an individual will re-offend if not placed in secure confinement, whether that re-offending is general offending, violent offending, or the commission of a technical violation while on probation or parole (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007). Likewise, the tool should have sound predictive utility in order to reduce the likelihood

8 5 of false positives, a score that indicates that an offender is very likely to re-offend when, in reality, he or she is very unlikely to, and false negatives, a score that indicates that a person is very unlikely to recidivate when, in reality, he or she is very likely to. Next, the instrument must have construct validity. Construct validity simply means that the tool must measure the risk or criminogenic need it purports to measure. For example, if the instrument has a scale that is intended to measure substance abuse, that scale should be measuring substance abuse, not criminal behavior. Construct validity can be inferred through logical analysis, internal structure analysis, and cross-structure analysis (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007). Logical analysis seeks to identify whether the items on the scale of a tool correspond with the concepts or constructs they were designed to measure. In other words, does the tool measure criminogenic needs that have been identified by the literature as being ones that must be addressed for successful rehabilitation? For example, do the items on the substance abuse scale conform with the literature on that particular criminogenic need? (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007) Internal structure analysis seeks to identify whether all of the items on the scale of a tool correspond to what they are supposed to reflect (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007). That is, do each of the items on the scale measure the same construct? For example, do all of the questions on the substance abuse scale hang together and, as a whole, measure substance abuse? Cross-structure analysis seeks to identify whether the scale taps the risk or criminogenic need that the investigator meant to tap. First, there must be evidence of convergent validity. To establish convergent validity, measures of the same criminogenic need must be derived from two different sources. For example, if the LSI-R identifies the offender as having a substance abuse

9 6 problem, the COMPAS should, too. Next, there must be discriminant validity. Discriminant validity ensures that no two items are used to measure two different constructs. For example, an item that is used to measure substance abuse should not be an item used to measure antisocial personality (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007). In addition, the tool should have external validity. External validity is concerned with whether research findings from a study that utilized one population are applicable to a different population that may not share the same attributes of the original population (Maxfield and Babbie, 2006). For example, one scholar argued that the LSI-R may not be useful for a Pennsylvania prison population because it was developed utilizing a Canadian population (see Austin, 2006). As a result, any tool that is selected to be used by an agency should be piloted first to ensure that it is applicable to the attributes of the specific population (Austin, 2006). Finally, the instrument must have sound evidence of reliability, or low measurement error (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007). There are two ways to test the reliability of an instrument: testretest reliability and interrater reliability. First, test-retest reliability means that an offender who is administered an assessment tool should receive the same or very similar score when tested at two different points (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007). For example, if Tom was administered the LSI-R on Monday and received a score of 21, when he is administered the same tool the following Thursday, he should receive a score very near 21. However, these scores should change over longer periods if the tool is assessing criminogenic needs, which are dynamic and change over time. Interrater reliability indicates that two different criminal justice professionals should be able to use an assessment tool on the same offender and get the same score (Skeem and Eno Louden, 2007). For example, on Monday Dr. Smith administers John the LSI-R, and he receives

10 7 a score of 19. The following Wednesday, Dr. Jones is scheduled to administer the LSI-R to John again. If the tool has sound interrater reliability, Dr. Jones should end up with a score very close to 19 as well. In addition to these key definitions, there are five more pieces of pertinent information. First, in order for the instrument to be included in this report, there had to be empirical evidence of its predictive utility, construct validity, reliability, and if possible, external validity. Second, this report details tools that are utilized for general populations in adult criminal justice settings. Therefore, no sexual offending or juvenile assessment tools are included. Third, and perhaps most importantly, these tools have been primarily researched using samples of offenders that were already incarcerated or on probation, were being considered for parole, or were already on parole. Since the concept of utilizing a risk/needs assessment tool at the sentencing stage is a relatively recent idea, though not novice, no particular instruments created specifically for sentencing purposes have been extensively examined to meet the research criteria for inclusion in this study. The limitations of using research that is not specifically designed for one s purpose is obvious, but unfortunately, at this stage, it is necessary. However, it should be stressed that all of the following tools are theoretically derived from what the literature has stated to cause criminality or increase an individual s likelihood of recidivating. If a particular individual has the propensity to commit additional crimes, this proclivity should surface at any stage of the criminal justice process before the appropriate treatment is administered. Fourth, the tools are presented in a chronological manner that will assist the reader in fully understanding the content of each instrument. Many of the more recent tools incorporate components of older tools, so naturally the latter must be presented first. This setup is no way

11 8 suggesting an advantage of any one tool over the other. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide which instrument is best suited for his or her particular purpose(s). Finally, it is suggested that no instrument is fully implemented by an agency without first conducting a pilot study in order to ensure that the tool has sound external validity. While many of the universal tools have been extensively studied and found to be useful with various American populations as well as foreign ones, there is no way to forecast any tool s usefulness on specific Pennsylvania populations without actually testing it. In addition, the only in-house instruments included in this report are those developed for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Since in-house instruments are, by nature, developed to cater to an explicit population, it makes sense to only include the ones that has been developed specifically for the Pennsylvania offender population. 2 2 James Austin (2006, p. 59), researcher for the JFA Institute, comments: There is a tendency for correctional agencies to simply borrow or buy an instrument that has been developed on another population that may not reflect the attributes of their own offender populations. Many times, however, the instrument will fail for the borrowing agency because the tool is not catered to their particular offender population.

12 9 PART 2: RISK TO REOFFEND AND CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS TOOLS I. Risk to Reoffend Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is perhaps the most commonly employed risk/need assessment tool throughout North America, England, and Australia (Schlager and Simourd, 2007). It measures both static (unchanging) risk factors, such as criminal history, as well as dynamic (changeable) risk factors, such as alcohol/drug problems. It is composed of fifty-four items that measure the following areas: (1) criminal history, (2) education/employment, (3) finance, (4) family/marital, (5) accommodation, (6) leisure/recreation, (7) companions, (8) alcohol/drug problems, (9) emotional/personal problems, and (10) attitudes/orientations (Fass, Heilbrun, Dematteo, and Fretz, 2008). Because this tool is so widely used, a plethora of studies have examined its usefulness. It has been empirically discovered that this tool has sound construct validity and predictive utility for both violent and nonviolent re-offending (Gendreau, Goggin, and Smith, 2002; Gendreau, Little, and Goggin, 1996; Hollin and Palmer, 2003; Kelly and Welsh, 2008; Manchak, Skeem, Douglas, and Siranosiam, 2009; Simourd, 2004; Smith, Cullen, and Latessa, 2009), reliability (Folsom and Atkinson, 2007; Simourd, 2004), use for males (Holsinger, Lowenkamp, and Latessa, 2003; Holsinger, Lowenkamp, and Latessa, 2006; Hsu, Caputi, and Byrne, 2009; Kelly and Welsh, 2008; Manchak, et al., 2009), use for females (Folsom and Atkinson, 2007; Holsinger et al., 2003; Holsinger et al., 2006; Hsu at al., 2009; Manchak et al., 2009; Palmer and Hollin, 2007; Smith et al., 2009), use for drug offenders (Kelly and Welsh, 2008) and use for different races and ethnicities, such as Native American (Holsinger et al., 2003), Australian (Hsu et al., 2009), English (Hollin and Palmer, 2003; Palmer and Hollin, 2007), Canadian (Simourd,

13 ), and Hispanic (Schlager and Simourd, 2007). However, the research is mixed in terms of use for African Americans. Some literature states that the LSI-R may be biased towards African Americans, either under-predicting or over-predicting their likely of being re-arrested (Fass et al., 2008; Whiteacre, 2006). On the other hand, however, Schlager and Simourd (2007) report that the LSI-R has acceptable psychometric and predictive utility properties for the group. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections had utilized the LSI-R from 2003 until November Shortly after its inception, Dr. David Simourd conducted a validation study for its use on Pennsylvania s prison population. Dr. Simourd concluded that while the LSI-R had good inter-rater reliability, the recidivism prediction was not reliable for the Department of Corrections population (Hildebrand, 2009), thus demonstrating the importance of testing for external validity. In addition, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole commissioned Dr. James Austin to conduct an LSI-R recidivism study in Dr. Austin concluded there were eight risk factors found to perform better than the 54-item LSI-R for predicting male offenders risk of recidivism. These eight items were used to create the Risk Screen Tool- Pilot (RST-P). This tool was piloted at the Camp Hill Diagnostic Center in September 2008, and in May 2009, a tweaked version of the original instrument was implemented as the primary assessment tool for correctional program planning, replacing the LSI-R completely (Hildebrand, 2009). The instrument currently being used is titled the Risk Screen Tool. Risk Screen Tool (RST) The Risk Screen Tool (RST) provides an objective, valid measure of the likelihood that the offender will commit additional crimes (recidivate). It has seven factors: (1) age at first arrest, (2) current age, (3) prior convictions as adult, (4) sanctioned behavior in an institutional

14 11 setting, (5) violated period of community supervision, (6) failed to attain 12 th grade education, and (7) AOD problem during lifetime. The RST is only able to predict general recidivism; it is not able to distinguish whether the offender is likely to engage in violent or nonviolent recidivism (Hildebrand, 2009). Therefore, the Department of Corrections employs the Offender Violent Risk Typology (OVRT) to predict the likelihood of violent reoffending (Hildebrand, 2009). The Offender Violence Risk Typology (OVRT) The Offender Violence Risk Typology (OVRT) was adopted by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in order to distinguish the risk category (High, Medium, or Low) of offenders. The assigned category is used to determine programming requirements, community release options, and supervision (Beard, 2009). The following three factors are combined to place the offender into the appropriate category: instant offense, violent criminal history, and Risk Screen Tool (RST) score. The instant offense is calculated using an expanded definition of violence provided by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. This factor identifies the offender by violent or nonviolent instant or current offense (Beard, 2009). Violent criminal history can include the following subfactors: (1) violent conviction within the past ten years, (2) prior conviction or adjudication for violent offense at age fifteen or under, (3) possession or use of deadly weapon in commission of a convicted offense within the past ten years, (4) probationer or parolee revoked/committed for use of possession of a gun within the past ten years, and (5) Deadly Weapon Enhancement sentence with two or more firearm violations (Beard, 2009).

15 12 The Risk Screen Tool (RST) score, as previously mentioned, is used to determine the likelihood of general re-offending (Beard, 2009). Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) The Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) is used at all stages of the criminal justice process such as: assessing likelihood of failing to appear if released on bail, when compiling information for the pre-sentence investigation and sentencing recommendations, for case planning while under community supervision, and when considering changes in supervision level or early release (New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, 2009). The COMPAS provides Overall Risk Potential for each of the following: (1) violence, (2) recidivism, (3) failure to appear, and (4) community failure. In addition, it also provides a Criminogenic and Needs Profile for the offender, having 18 total items that include the following topics: (1) criminal history, (2) needs assessment, (3) criminal attitudes, (4) social environments, (5) socialization failure, (6) criminal opportunity, (7) criminal personality, and (8) social support (Fass et al., 2008). Brennan, Dieterich, and Ehret (2009) evaluated the COMPAS and concluded that there were acceptable levels of: (1) construct validity, (2) reliability, and (3) predictive utility for both male and female populations, as well as White and African American subgroups. As of 2007, the COMPAS was being used by Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, Wyoming, and New York (Association of Parole Authorities International, 2007; New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, 2009). The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) The PCL-R is a psychologist-administered, interview-based measure composed of twenty items that encompass two highly correlated factors. Factor 1 assesses an individual s callous

16 13 disregard for the feelings and rights of others. Factor 2 assesses the presence of persistent antisocial behavior. The twenty items are as follows: (1) glibness/superficial charm, (2) grandiose sense of self-worth, (3) need for stimulation/proneness to boredom, (4) pathological lying, (5) conning manipulative, (6) lack of remorse or guilt, (7) shallow effect, (8) callous/lack of empathy, (9) parasitic lifestyle, (10) poor behavioral control, (11) promiscuous sexual behavior, (12) early behavior problems, (13) lack of realistic long-term goals, (14) impulsivity, (15) irresponsibility, (16) failure to accept responsibility, (17) many short-term marital relationships, (18) juvenile delinquency, (19) revocation of conditional release, and (20) criminal versatility (Vitale, Smith, Brinkley, and Newman, 2002). The PCL-R has been demonstrated to have sound construct validity (Vitale et al., 2002), predictive utility (Salekin, Rogers, and Sewell, 1997), and reliability (Sullivan, Abramowitz, Lopez, and Kossom, 2006; Vitale and Newman, 2001; Vitale et al., 2002), In addition, it was concluded that the tool can be used for males and females (Vitale and Newman, 2001; Vitale et al, 2002), as well as Caucasians (Cooke, Kosson, and Michie, 2001; Skeem, Edens, Camp, and Colwell, 2004; Sullivan et al., 2006) African Americans (Cooke et al., 2001; Skeem et al., 2004; Sullivan et al., 2006; Vitale et al., 2002), and Latinos (Sullivan et al., 2006). However, many studies have demonstrated that Part II of the instrument is a better predictor of recidivism than Part I (Gonslaves, Scalora, and Huss, 2009; Walters, 2003). Locally, the Bucks County Department of Corrections sometimes uses the PCL-R (Gubernick, 2009). The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) The Self- Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ) is a self-report risk/need assessment tool that estimates violent and nonviolent recidivism. It consists of 72 true/false items and contains the following subscales: (1) criminal tendencies [CT], (2) anti-social personality properties [AP], (3)

17 14 conduct problems [CP], (4) criminal history [CH], (5) alcohol/drug abuse [AD], (6) antisocial associates [AS], (7) anger subscale [SAQAN], and (8) a validity subscale [SAQVAL]. Only the first six subscales are used for the prediction of violence. The Anger Subscale is not used in the total score because of the debatable relationship between anger and recidivism (See Loza and Loza-Fanous, 1999; Mills and Kroner, 2003). However, the score on this subscale can be used to assign offenders to treatment programs. The Validity Subscale is incorporated within other subscales and serves to validate the offender s truthfulness in responding to SAQ items (Loza, MacTavish, and Loza-Fanous, 2007). Many studies have demonstrated that self-report assessment tools are just as effective as clinician-administered tools and can be more costeffective (See Loza and Green, 2003). The SAQ tool has been found to have sound construct validity (Loza, Dhaliwal, Kroner, and Loza-Fanous, 2000), predictive utility (Loza and Green, 2003; Loza and Loza-Fanous, 2000; Loza et al., 2007), and reliability (Loza, Neo, Shahinfar, and Loza-Fanous, 2005). In addition, it was discovered that it is able to predict violent and nonviolent recidivism (Loza et al., 2007; Loza and Loza-Fanous, 2000; Loza and Loza-Fanous, 2003; Loza and Green, 2003), as well as recidivism in males (Loza et al., 2007), females, Caucasians, African Americans, Asians (Loza et al., 2005), and mentally disordered offenders (Villeneuve, Oliver, and Loza, 2003). The SAQ was used by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections during the 2002 Assessment Pilot study, but it was discovered that the CSS-M had the greatest benefits for the targeted population while simultaneously being the most cost effective for the state (Hildebrand, 2009).

18 15 II. Criminogenic Needs Tools Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M) The Criminal Sentiments Scale- Modified (CSS-M) is a self-report assessment tool that contains 41 questions and the following five subscales that measure the appropriate criminogenic needs: (1) attitudes toward the law, (2) attitudes toward the court, (3) attitudes toward the police, (4) tolerance for law violations, and (5) identification with criminal others (Simourd and Van De Ven, 1999). It has been demonstrated that the CSS-M has sound construct validity, predictive utility, and reliability (Simourd, 1997; Simourd and Van De Ven, 1999). The CSS-M is currently utilized by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Pride in Delinquency Scale (PID) The Pride in Delinquency Scale (PID) is a self-report assessment tool that requires respondents to rate the degree of pride or shame they would feel in committing certain hypothetical behaviors. The PID has two factors: (1) Factor 1- Attitude toward Offenses Factor, and (2) Factor 2- Criminal Subculture Factor. Several studies have demonstrated that the PID has sound construct validity, predictive utility, and reliability (Simourd, 1997; Simourd and Van De Ven, 1999). Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ) The Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ) is a 35-item self-report inventory. It consists of seven vignettes that represent common social situations. There are five questions for each vignette. Items are scored so that there is an overall measure of hostility, a measure of hostility for each social situation, and measures of different components of hostility. Social situations include: (1) authority relationships [hostility towards authority figures], (2) intimate/family relationships [hostility in close interpersonal relationships], (3) acquaintance

19 16 relationships [hostility in distant interpersonal relationships], (4) work relationships [hostility in work relationships], and (5) anonymous relationships [hostility in stranger interactions]. Hostility components include: (1) overgeneralization [pervasive hostility based on limited information], (2) attribution of hostility [hostility attributed to others], (3) personal responsibility [degree to which respondent s behavior affects social situations], (4) hostile reactions [likelihood of responding in a hostile manner], and (5) external blame [degree of blame toward others for own hostility] (Simourd and Mamuza, 2000). It has been concluded that the HIQ has acceptable construct validity, predictive utility, and reliability (Simourd and Mamuza, 2000). In addition, Simourd and Mamuza (2000) found that the HIQ may be able to identify specific areas of criminogenic need. For example, an individual may have a low total HIQ score but a high intimate/family subscale score, indicating that the person would benefit the most from a low-intensity program focusing on family-related issues. Novaco Anger Scale (NAS) The Novaco Anger Scale (NAS) is a self-report instrument that contains two-parts. Part A contains 48 items measuring the three domains of anger: (1) cognitive, (2) arousal, and (3) behavioral. Part B contains 25 questions that measure: (1) disrespectful treatment, (2) unfairness/injustice, (3) frustration/interruption, (4) annoying traits, and (5) irritations (Baker, Van Hasset, and Sellers, 2008). Baker et al. (2008) examined the construct validity and reliability of the NAS on males and females and concluded the tool has sound properties for both. However, there was no evidence on its predictive utility. The NAS was included in this report because it had been used by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections during the 2002 Assessment Pilot study, but it

20 17 was discovered that the HIQ the greatest benefits for the targeted population while simultaneously being the most cost effective for the state (Hildebrand, 2009). Texas Christian University (TCU) Drug Screen The TCU Drug Screen is a fifteen-question self-administered assessment tool that serves to identify individuals with a history of heavy drug use or dependency (based on the DSM and the NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule), and who therefore should be eligible for treatment options. It is particularly useful in criminal justice settings, especially for offenders eligible for treatment as an alternative to regular incarceration (Simpson, Knight, and Huskey, 2002). It was concluded that the tool has sound construct validity, predictive utility, and reliability (Knight, Simpson, and Morey, 2002; Simpson et al., 2002). In addition, it is effective for males and females, as well as different ethnic subgroups (Simpson et al., 2002). Currently, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections utilizes the Texas Christian University Drug Screen-II (TCUDSII). Inmates scoring in the higher ranges of the TCUDSII are also administered the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Initial Assessment (PADOCIA) which provides rich clinical detail about specific aspects of the inmate s substance use problem, as well as motivation for treatment (Hildebrand, 2009). The PADOCIA provides a report rather than a score that can contribute to the construction of a specific treatment plan. Texas Christian University researchers worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Staff on the modification of the PADOCIA (Hildebrand, 2009).

21 18 PART 3: CONCLUSION Currently, Pennsylvania has not adopted a risk/needs assessment tool for use by its county judges when sentencing an offender. Citing high recidivism rates, many advocates of such instruments believe that the Pennsylvania Sentencing Guidelines Matrix and personal discretion alone are not enough to effectively sentence an offender. Fortunately, the literature has demonstrated that objective, actuarial assessment tools can be valuable supplements for a sentencing judge. As such, there has been a recent trend across the United States to start implementing the use of such instruments. For example, Virginia implemented a statewide tool in Ironically, the use of risk/need assessment instruments in Pennsylvania is not novice. Several criminal justice agencies, particularly the Department of Corrections, have been utilizing different tools for several years. It would seem obvious that the judiciary branch would at least consider doing so as well, even if it is just a pilot study. Even if there is, however, state-wide support for implementing such a tool, the harder task seems to be identifying one that will work best with the Pennsylvania offender population. The latter part of this report aimed to present the best-practices currently in use. Doing so was made much easier thanks to the work that the Department of Corrections already did in creating an in-house instrument that best fits its offender population. Though there is no way to say for certain whether the RST and OVRT will be effective for use by sentencing judges, it certainly is a place to start in terms of piloting a tool. The other instruments that were presented are more universal in nature and have been extensively studied using different populations with diverse demographics. Alas, once again, there is no way to tell if any of the instruments will be effective for a given population without actually testing it on them first. Whichever tool is ultimately

22 19 decided upon, however, should have strong evidence of construct validity, predicative utility, and reliability.

23 20 BIBLIOGRAPHY Association of Parole Authorities International. (2007). APAI survey results. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from The Official State of Connecticut website: 10.pdf. Austin, J. (2006). How much risk can we take? The misuse of risk assessment in corrections. Federal Probation, 70, Baker, M. T., Van Hasset, V. B., & Sellers, A. H. (2008). Validation of the Novaco Anger Scale in an Incarcerated Offender Population. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, Beard, J. A. (2009). Reentry. Retrieved September 15, 2009, from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections website: stats/reentry.pdf. Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Ehret, B. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, Campbell, M. A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, Cooke, D. J., Kosson, D., & Michie, C. (2001). Psychopathy and ethnicity: Structural, item, and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants. Psychological Assessment, 13, Fass, T. L., Heilbrun, K., Dematteo, D., & Fretz, R. (2008). The LSI-R and the COMPAS: Validation data on two risk-needs tools. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, Folsom, J., & Atkinson, J. (2007). The generalizability of the LSI-R and the CAT to the prediction of recidivism in female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the unparalleled measure of offender risk?: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, Gonslaves, V.M., Scalora, M. & Huss, M. T. (2009). Prediction of recidivism using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles within a forensic sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36,

24 21 Gubernick, H. (2009). County of Bucks Department of Corrections. PowerPoint presented at Penn State University Harrisburg for the Pennsylvania Re-Sentencing Work Group, June 2, in Middletown, Pennsylvania. Hildebrand, R. (2009). Assessment tools used by the PA Department of Corrections. PowerPoint presented at Penn State University Harrisburg for the Pennsylvania Re- Sentencing Work Group, June 16, in Middletown, Pennsylvania. Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2003). Level of Service Inventory- Revised profiles of violent and nonviolent prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, Holsinger, A. M., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2003). Ethnicity, gender, and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, Holsinger, A. M., Lawenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. T. (2006). Exploring the validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised with Native American offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, Hsu, C., Caputi, P., & Byrne, M. K. (2009). The Level of Service Inventory- Revised (LSI-R): A useful risk assessment measure for Australian offenders? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, Jones, M. T. (2009). Prison overcrowding: The sentencing judge as social worker. Widener Law Journal, 18 WIDLJ 491. Kelly, C. E., & Welsh, W. N. (2008). The predictive validity of the Level of Service Inventory- Revised for drug-involved offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, Knight, K. D., Simpson, D., & Morey, J. T. (2002). Evaluation of the TCU Drug Screen. Retrieved August 10, 2009, from the National Criminal Justice Reference Services (NCJRS) website: Loza, W., Dhaliwal, G., Kroner, D. G., & Loza-Fanous, A. L. (2000). Reliability, construct, and concurrent validities of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire: A tool for assessing violent and nonviolent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, Loza, W., Neo, L. H., Shahinfar, A., & Loza-Fanous, A. (2005). Cross-validation of the Self- Appraisal Questionnaire: A tool for assessing violent and nonviolent recidivism with female offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, Loza, W., MacTavish, A., & Loza-Fanous, A. (2007). A nine-year follow-up study on the predictive validity of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire for predicting violent and nonviolent recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22,

25 22 Loza, W., & Green, K. (2003). The Self-Appraisal Questionnaire: A self-report measure for predicting recidivism versus clinician-administered measures: A 5-year follow-up study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, Loza, W., & Loza-Fanous, A. (1999). Anger and prediction of violent and nonviolent offenders recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, Loza, W., & Loza-Fanous, A. (2000). Predictive validity of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ): A tool for assessing violent and nonviolent release failures. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, Loza, W., & Loza-Fanous, A. (2003). More evidence for the validity of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire for predicting violent and nonviolent recidivism: A 5-year follow-up study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, Manchak, S. M., Skeem, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Siranosiam, M. (2009). Does gender moderate the predictive utility of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) for serious violent offenders? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (2006). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and Criminology, 1st Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. K. (2003). Anger as a predictor of institutional misconduct and recidivism in a sample of violent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. (2009, June 3). Technology advancing practices. Retrieved from technology.htm. Ostrom, B. J., Kleiman, M., Cheesman, F., Hansen, R. M., & Kauder, N. (2002). Offender risk assessment in Virginia: A three-stage evaluation: Process of sentencing reform, empirical study of diversion and recidivism, and benefit-cost analysis. Official report presented to the National Center for State Courts and the Virginia Sentencing Commission. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from Publications/Res_Senten_RiskAssessPub.pdf. Palmer, E. J., and Hollin, C. R. (2007). The Level of Service Inventory Revised with English women prisoners: A needs and reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1997). A review and meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist- Revised: Predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3,

26 23 Schlager, M. D., & Simourd, D. J. (2007). Validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) among African American and Hispanic male offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, Simourd, D. J. (1997). The Criminal Sentiments Scale- Modified and Pride in Delinquency Scale: Psychometric properties and construct validity of two measures of criminal attitudes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, Simourd, D. J. (2004). Use of dynamic risk/need assessments among long-term incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, Simourd, D. J., & Mamuza, J. M. (2000). The Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and construct validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, Simourd, D. J., &Van De Ven, J. (1999). Assessment of criminal attitudes: Criterion-related validity of the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and Pride in Delinquency Scale. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, Simpson, D., Knight, K., & Huskey, H. (2002). Research Summary: Focus on Using the TCU Drug Screen (TCUDS). Retrieved August 9, 2009, from the Institute of Behavioral Research at Texas Christian University website: newslet/rs-tcuds-02.pdf. Skeem, J. L., Edens, J. F., Camp, J., & Colwell, L. H. (2004). Are there ethnic differences in levels of psychopathy? A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 28, Skeem, J. L., & Eno Louden, J. (2007). Assessment of evidence of the quality of the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS). Report prepared for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Retrieved August 9, 2009, from Research_Documents/COMPAS_Skeem_EnoLouden_Dec_2007.pdf. Smith, P., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. (2009). Can 14, 737 women be wrong? A meta- analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, Sullivan, E. A., Abramowitz, C. S., Lopez, M., & Kossom, D. (2006). Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino, European American, and African American male inmates. Psychological Assessment, 18, Villeneuve, D. B., Oliver, N., & Loza, W. (2003). Cross-validation of the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire with a maximum-security psychiatric population. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18,

27 24 Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised with female sample: Reliability, validity, and implications for clinical utility. Clinical Psychology, 8, Vitale, J. E., Smith, S. S., Brinkley, C. A., & Newman, J. P. (2002). The reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in a sample of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, Walters, G. D. (2003). Predicting institutional adjustment and recidivism with the Psychopathy Checklist Factor Scores: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 27, Warren, R. (2007). Evidenced-based practice to reduce recidivism: Implications for state judiciaries. Report presented to the Crime and Justice Institute and the National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from Library/ pdf. Whiteacre, K.W. (2006). Testing the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) for racial/ethnic bias. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17,