CORRECTIONAL CLASSIFICATION FOR RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY
In the correctional setting, supervisors, therapists, educators, and other correctional staff are faced with a variety of decisions involving the offenders under their care or supervision. Within a jail or prison environment these decisions would include the classification of the prisoner based on such factors as the likelihood of escape or the danger to other prisoners and staff. In the probation and parole arena, the supervising officer’s decisions could include the treatment programs into which an offender should be placed or the action(s) to be taken in the event of a violation. To facilitate the decision-making process by the person responsible, an assessment of the offender must be accomplished. The specific goal of the assessment may play a large factor in the type of assessment model to be used.
Assessment “attempts to answer questions about how and why people think, feel, and behave in different ways. They do this by providing information about how the individual being tested was feeling, thinking, and functioning at the time that the assessment was administered and by integrating this information with the daily observations provided by the correctional counselor or other staff.” (Van Voorhis, Braswell & Lester 2004). The assessments used fall into two models – static and dynamic – although some assessment tools make use of both models.
Static assessments measure factors that remain unchanged over lengthy periods of time. These are factors which describe how the person relates to the world or society, the person’s problem-solving skills and basic personality style. (Van Voorhis, et al. 2004). In correctional intake classification systems some static factors that might be considered include: past institutional violence, severity of current and previous offenses, escape history, age, education and employment. (Van Voorhis, et al. 2004). The Salient Factor Score developed by the U.S. Parole Commission evaluated static factors such as prior convictions, prior commitments of more than 30 days, the age of the offender at the time of the current offense, correctional commitments during the previous three years, correctional escape, and heroin / opiate dependence. (Van Voorhis, et al. 2004). Social status, race, ethnicity, and financial status (which is relatively stable absent a winning lottery ticket) are other static factors. (Andrews & Bonita 2003). Static factors are not generally subject to change as the result of treatment.
Static assessments are useful in decisions related to placement or release. (Andrews & Bonita 2003). Analysis of the static assessment factors would be useful in deciding such matters as to whether probation is appropriate as the sentence for this offender or in deciding in which prison an offender should be incarcerated or whether the prisoner should be classified as low-, medium, or high-security. In other words, these factors are ideal for risk assessment to determine custody or facility classification and to ensure community or institutional safety. (Van Voorhis, et al. 2004). Static assessments may also produce practical recidivism estimates over the long-term, but are not adaptable to changes in the offender. (Harris & Hanson 2003). Static assessments are generally brief and require only minimal training. As such they are highly efficient in respect to staff time. (Bonita 2002). Therefore, static assessments are practical where evaluation time is in short supply or where there is not a readily available staff of people who can administer more complex dynamic assessments. Static assessments should not be used to make treatment decisions because they offer little guidance on the need or appropriateness of treatment. (Bonita 2002). Bonita (2002) suggests that over-reliance on static factors in making treatment decisions, particularly for those characterized as “unchangeable” based on these factors, may mean that some people who would be responsive to treatment would not be referred to appropriate treatment programs.
Dynamic assessments measure factors that are subject to change over time, even relatively short periods of time. Harris and Hanson (2003) divide the dynamic factors into stable and acute. “Stable dynamic factors represent skill deficits or entrenched attitudes that endure for months or years. … Acute dynamic factors are transient states or situations that can change over a period of days or hours and signal the timing of new offenses, including drunkenness and sexual preoccupations. These acute dynamic factors cue the supervising officers when to intervene to prevent imminent relapse or reoffense.” Dynamic factors would include associations, values, beliefs, and attitudes. Philipse, Koeter, Van Den Brink & Van Der Staak (2004) put forth a Checklist of Hypothesized Dynamic Predictors of Risk. This 48-factor list included such items as “Patient is easily influence by others”, “His conscience is impaired: internalization of generally accepted norms and values is almost completely absent”, “He is unable to imagine how other people are feeling”, “Patient spends his leisure time in an active way”, “Patient compels others to adjust to his needs and wishes”, and “Patient allows himself to be guided by current needs and impulses.” (Philipse, et al. 2004).
Dynamic factor assessment seems to be particularly well suited to treatment decisions. Finding appropriate treatment (and the changes that accompany it) is closely tied to a reduction in recidivism. Reexamination or reevaluation using the dynamic factors also provides information on treatment progress. They allow the treatment to be modified based on the individual needs of the offender. These factors can also be used to make risk determinations. “Even if treatment is not a concern to the correctional agency, dynamic risk-needs instruments can help staff monitor changes in offenders and their situations that influence their risk for criminal behavior.” (Van Voorhis, et al. 2004). Such a result would not be possible with static factors analysis because the analysis would be unchanged. Dynamic assessment is more complex and because it tends to be of a behavioral or psychological nature, requires a more highly trained staff to complete (as opposed to the relatively simple, anyone can be trained to do it, static assessments.)
As indicated, the use of dynamic risk factors can be directly tied to attempts to reduce recidivism. This is particularly true when they assess criminogenic needs. These are needs, which are related to criminal conduct and which can be treated to provide an overall or specific reduction in the risk of recidivism. (Bonta 2002; Philipse, et al. 2004). Reduction of criminogenic needs generally equates with a reduction of recidivism. (Bonta 2002). These criminogenic needs can be fairly specific and include measures of substance abuse, anger, hostility, and antisocial attitudes. (Bonta 2002). Identification of these needs allows for the targeting of these needs for “resolution” in treatment. (Bonta 2002).
Combined assessment systems are assessment systems that make use of both static and dynamic factors. Bonta (2002) felt these systems worked best at risk/need assessment particularly as relates to reduction of recidivism. The benefits gained by being able to target criminogenic needs, while still addressing the risk component of the offender, far outweigh the greater complexity of the dynamic assessment model. The Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) is the most widely adopted of such systems. (Van Voorhis, et al. 2004; Bonta 2002).
In brief, then, static factors are those which do not change much over time; dynamic factors are those which are changeable, even over a relatively short time. Both are amenable to use for determining risk or likelihood of recidivism. However, static factors seem better suited to risk analysis, while dynamic factor assessment is better suited to treatment and reduction of recidivism.
REFERENCE LIST
Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (2003). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 3rd ed., Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Press.
Bonta, J. (2002). Offender Risk Assessment: Guidelines for Selection and Use. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 29:355-379.
Harris, A. & Hanson, R.K. (2003). The Dynamic Supervision Project: Improving the
Community Supervision of Sex Offenders. Corrections Today, 65 (5): 60-63.
Philipse, M., Koeter, M., Van Den Brink, W. & Van Der Staak, C. (2004). The structural
coherence of clinically derived dynamic indicators of reofffending risk. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health. 14: 263-279.
Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M & Lester, D. (2004). Correctional Counseling &
Rehabilitation. 5th ed., Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press.