The Usefulness of Using Static Assessments to Predict Levels of Risk in Offenders - Coursework Example

Risk Assessment Literature Review Name Institution Course Date of Submission Risk Assessment Literature Review Introduction While working in the criminal justice field, it is vital for someone to be able to correctly assess the probability that an offender can cause problems when confined, fail to complete post-release requirements or reoffend once released as well as other issues that come up with offenders. Dynamic and static risk assessment instruments are both useful in assessing the likelihood of these situations and many others. Despite the fact that dynamic and static assessment instruments have several differences and similarities, they both also have their weaknesses and strengths. A static factor is described as the factor that does not vary or change over time. For instance, prior felonies, escape history, and severity of offense are all regarded as static factors. There are several instruments that rely on static factors to predict offender misconduct when institutionalized and they have been found to be valid. Nevertheless, these instruments have been found to be not valid in concern to female prisoners in recent years, and hence they are only acceptable to be used with male prisoners (Van Wormer, 2010). In order to compensate for the undynamic nature of static facors, reclassification systems destress characteristics or make use of additional characteristics used in the course of the preliminary classification so as to more precisely place offenders (Holloway, Bennett & Farrington, 2005). A dynamic factor is the opposite of the static factor as it changes over time. So as to appropriately direct offenders where they shall get the correct level of assistance or supervision, these factors are supposed to be reassessed after a given period. Examples of dynamic factors include items such as financial situations, drug abuse, and educational level[DCa08]. Instruments that rely on dynamic factors are partly capable of reassessing offenders in the absence of having to change the instrument from one assessment to the other. By making use of this ability and additional dynamic factors, it is possible to reassess an offender more easily and efficiently. In addition, it has been found that these instruments are valid for both female and male offenders, though instruments designed specifically for female offenders are available (Van Wormer, 2010). The main purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the usefulness of using static assessments to predict levels of risk in offenders. This will be achieved by presenting an overview of the research done previously that provides the required background for risk assessment. It will concentrate on various issues associated with the static and dynamic risk assessment methods. The paper will begin with a thorough coverage of the static and dynamic risk assessment methods topics that will assist in setting the context of this research. Discussion To differentiate lower risk offenders from high risk offenders is essential for correctional workers, courts, police, and the general public. Risk assessments are normally concerned with two vital questions. First, how is an offender likely to commit a new offence? Second, what can be done to reduce this probability? Several procedures of risk assessment have been proposed, but it is not clear how well the already available measures are able to evaluate changes in risk levels. There are many formal methods of assessing risk, but they may be classified as either clinical or actuarial (or statistical). Actuarial methods involve compiling a huge amount of historical data that is likely to suggest whether an offender can re-offend. It involves predicting an offender behavior based on the person’s similarity to members of violent groups or how others have acted in similar situations. It involves the use of risk factor tools and statistical models. Actuarial tools can be used to measure either dynamic or static risk factors. For example, an actuarial risk prediction tool can be used to determine the offender’s relationship to the victim, age at the time of the offence, and prior convictions, all static risk factors, in addition to dynamic risk factors such as criminal association and response to treatment (Harper & Chitty, 2005). Clinical assessment procedure depends on professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists, who assume a more holistic pattern to identify whether an offender is likely to re-offend. Clinicians might weigh mental illness, personality traits as well as psychological, social and biological factors that are associated with the offending. Clinicians assess risk based on their experience with offenders, theoretical knowledge and professional training. In clinical assessment, the risk factors used are usually different for each assessed and may change over time. They include social skills, personal history, behavior, attitudes, and mental disabilities[DHo02]. When clinicians take these personal characteristics as a whole, they are able to come up with the real nature of an individual, and a decision concerning the potential harm the individual in question may present is made. Although clinical risk assessment has achieved legal recognition, its ability to correctly differentiate offenders who will not recidivate from those who will is questionable. When clinicians are carrying out the assessment, they often fail to consider risk factors such as criminal history, gender, and age. According to Davies & Beech (2012), the difference between offenders classified as low-risk from those who are considered as high-risk is the type of crime committed. Other studies have indicated that laypersons can make clinical as accurate as clinicians when given enough information, and in some cases, make better clinical predictions. More studies show that clinicians often arrive to different conclusions after assessing the same offender[RJa08]. McMurran, Khalifa & Gibbon (2009), argue that differences that occur in clinical opinion are as a result of lack of precision in clinician training. Some of these findings doubt the concept of clinical ‘professionalism’ in precariousness prediction, showing that the risk assessment process is discretion and that the outcome of an individual offender exclusively relies on whoever conducts the assessment. While using actuarial tool to assess an offender, an individual’s personal characteristics are identified and listed, and his or her risk classified depending on whether such an individual possesses a number of factors related to recidivism. In the assessment process, the information considered, drawn from case files and an institution intake report, regularly include suspected or known mental disabilities, employment status, education level, and offender’s criminal history. This kind of information helps to assess the risk possessed by an offender being considered for release. For instance, if a certain characteristic common to individuals who recidivate is identified in a potential parolee, his or her risk is judged higher than for an individual who does not bear that trait[MTH09]. Likewise, people who show characteristics frequent to non-recidivists are classified as lower risk. A crucial benefit of actuarial assessment procedure is that it presents the offenders with more reliable information concerning their status, and this makes actuarial assessment to appear less discretion[CHo04]. Actuarial risk assessment mainly concentrates on the static factors that identify recidivism. Several studies have shown that the static factor with the most intense impact on general recidivism is mental health systems or prior contact with the criminal justice (Bartol & Bartol, 2008). Violent offence recidivism is better predicted by the history of substance abuse, mental illness, and prior violent offences (Canter, 2008; Holmes, 2010; Canter, & Youngs, 2009). For sex offenders, sexual offence recidivism is more common among people who have indicated a sexual preference for children, victims who are not family members, one or more boy victims, and who have prior sexual offences (Hodgins & Muller-Isberner, 2001). Sex offenders who go back to criminal behavior by re-committing non-sexual violent offences are of a minority race, unmarried and typically young. Static factors are comparatively easy to code since no later judgment is required, and they are extensively used in actuarial risk assessment tools. However, a list of static variables alone does not provide a real picture of the risk as these factors will never change; nonetheless, the chance of the offender recidivating can change. In the correctional facilities, offenders are usually given treatment to reduce the probability of future offending; if this treatment lessens the offender’s risk of re-offending, static factor list will not be in a position to determine this change in risk. Dynamic factors have been indicated to predict recidivism just like static factors or even better (Holloway, Bennett & Farrington, 2005), and are also evaluated by a number of actuarial risk assessment tools. To assess changes in an offender’s risk level, the necessary thing is the knowledge of dynamic factors (Canter & Youngs, 2009). When an offender participates in a rehabilitative programme, the offender may become less likely to recidivate, but parolee workers and corrections are not capable of evaluating this change unless the offender is assessed on the basis of changeable factors. Dynamic factors that are related general recidivism include substance abuse, interpersonal conflict, social achievement, and antisocial personality[CHo04]. In regard to sex offenders, Huss (2009) indicates that a tolerant attitude toward sexual assault, antisocial lifestyle, and poor social support are the factors that have a strong relationship with sex offence recidivism. Unfortunately, both clinical and actuarial risk assessment methods has not turned out particularly accurate, but each risk assessment procedure has its supporters/proponents who claim that one method is better than the other [RJa08]. According to Canter (2008), several studies have shown that actuarial judgments are more adventageous than clinical judgments, but apprise that the indicators on which actuarial assessment depend on are not adequaltely standardized. Another study conducted by Holloway, Bennett & Farrington (2005) show that actuarial risk assessment procedure to be more effective than clinical risk assessment, but still believe the accuracy of actuarial risk assessment to be modest. In fact, there are no risk assessment procedures that are considered to be highly effective or accurate. In the risk assessment processes, error happens when an offender indicated as a high-risk is released and does not go to inappropriate behavior (commonly referred to as ‘false positive’) or when an offender indicated as low-risk re-offends after release (commonly referred to as ‘false negative’). To improve the accuracy of predicting risk, a number of suggestions have been brought forth by justice policy makers, clinicians, and researchers. Using the combination of clinical and actuarial assessments might provide a higher degree of accuracy than using one assessment in isolation. In addition, both dynamic and static risk factors should be considered while determining risk; several risk assessment tools measure unchangeable historical data only. Justice workers can better assess the level of risk presented by an offender if they look at static factors in addition to variables that can influence future behavior that are subject to change. Despite the current enhancements, the fact of the matter remains that risk assessment shall remain to be an educated guess work. Risk assessment results have serious consequences for both the society and the individual in question. For the individual offender, the assessment results will decide his or her release, while for the society; the assessment will decide whether an individual who is potentially dangerous will be discharged into the community. Risk prediction is crucial in the justice process, but predictions should not be accepted as fact. Unluckily, the error inherent in the risk assessment process frequently results in longer periods of imprisonment for some offenders classified to be high-risk, but when discharged; do not involve themselves in further crimes. Justice professionals carry out risk assessments on a daily basis. They are usually carried out during pre-trail, prior to release, when identifying security level in custody, before sentencing, and after breaches or serious incidents happen (Davies & Beech, 2012). These assessments can either be performed in an informal or formal manner[DHo02]. Risk assessment is vital to criminal justice process as it is a way of differentiating between offenders who are at a lower risk of re-offending and those who are likely to re-offend. Conclusion To differentiate lower risk offenders from high risk offenders is essential for correctional workers, courts, police, and the general public. While working in the criminal justice field, it is vital for someone to be able to correctly assess the probability that an offender can cause problems when confined, fail to complete post-release requirements or reoffend once released as well as other issues that come up with offenders. Dynamic and static risk assessment instruments are both useful in assessing the likelihood of these situations and many others. There are many formal methods of assessing risk, but they may be classified as either clinical or actuarial (or statistical). Actuarial methods involve compiling a huge amount of historical data that is likely to suggest whether an offender can re-offend. It involves predicting an offender behavior based on the person’s similarity to members of violent groups or how others have acted in similar situations. Clinical assessment procedure depends on professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists, who assume a more holistic pattern to identify whether an offender is likely to re-offend. Clinicians assess risk based on their experience with offenders, theoretical knowledge and professional training. In fact, there are no risk assessment procedures that are considered to be highly effective or accurate. In the risk assessment processes, error happens when an offender indicated as a high-risk is released and does not go to inappropriate behavior or when an offender indicated as low-risk re-offends after release. According to Canter (2008), several studies have shown that actuarial judgments are more adventageous than clinical judgments, but apprise that the indicators on which actuarial assessment depend on are not adequaltely standardized. Another study conducted by Holloway, Bennett & Farrington (2005) show that actuarial risk assessment procedure to be more effective than clinical risk assessment, but still believe the accuracy of actuarial risk assessment to be modest. References List DCa08: , (Canter, 2008), DHo02: , (Howitt, 2002), RJa08: , (Jackson, 2008), MTH09: , (Huss, 2009), CHo04: , (Hollin, 2004), Read More

In addition, it has been found that these instruments are valid for both female and male offenders, though instruments designed specifically for female offenders are available (Van Wormer, 2010). The main purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the usefulness of using static assessments to predict levels of risk in offenders. This will be achieved by presenting an overview of the research done previously that provides the required background for risk assessment. It will concentrate on various issues associated with the static and dynamic risk assessment methods.

The paper will begin with a thorough coverage of the static and dynamic risk assessment methods topics that will assist in setting the context of this research. Discussion To differentiate lower risk offenders from high risk offenders is essential for correctional workers, courts, police, and the general public. Risk assessments are normally concerned with two vital questions. First, how is an offender likely to commit a new offence? Second, what can be done to reduce this probability? Several procedures of risk assessment have been proposed, but it is not clear how well the already available measures are able to evaluate changes in risk levels.

There are many formal methods of assessing risk, but they may be classified as either clinical or actuarial (or statistical). Actuarial methods involve compiling a huge amount of historical data that is likely to suggest whether an offender can re-offend. It involves predicting an offender behavior based on the person’s similarity to members of violent groups or how others have acted in similar situations. It involves the use of risk factor tools and statistical models. Actuarial tools can be used to measure either dynamic or static risk factors.

For example, an actuarial risk prediction tool can be used to determine the offender’s relationship to the victim, age at the time of the offence, and prior convictions, all static risk factors, in addition to dynamic risk factors such as criminal association and response to treatment (Harper & Chitty, 2005). Clinical assessment procedure depends on professional opinions of psychiatrists and psychologists, who assume a more holistic pattern to identify whether an offender is likely to re-offend.

Clinicians might weigh mental illness, personality traits as well as psychological, social and biological factors that are associated with the offending. Clinicians assess risk based on their experience with offenders, theoretical knowledge and professional training. In clinical assessment, the risk factors used are usually different for each assessed and may change over time. They include social skills, personal history, behavior, attitudes, and mental disabilities[DHo02]. When clinicians take these personal characteristics as a whole, they are able to come up with the real nature of an individual, and a decision concerning the potential harm the individual in question may present is made.

Although clinical risk assessment has achieved legal recognition, its ability to correctly differentiate offenders who will not recidivate from those who will is questionable. When clinicians are carrying out the assessment, they often fail to consider risk factors such as criminal history, gender, and age. According to Davies & Beech (2012), the difference between offenders classified as low-risk from those who are considered as high-risk is the type of crime committed. Other studies have indicated that laypersons can make clinical as accurate as clinicians when given enough information, and in some cases, make better clinical predictions.

More studies show that clinicians often arrive to different conclusions after assessing the same offender[RJa08]. McMurran, Khalifa & Gibbon (2009), argue that differences that occur in clinical opinion are as a result of lack of precision in clinician training. Some of these findings doubt the concept of clinical ‘professionalism’ in precariousness prediction, showing that the risk assessment process is discretion and that the outcome of an individual offender exclusively relies on whoever conducts the assessment.

Read More