How Much Risk Can We Take? The Misuse of Risk Assessment in Corrections

Federal Probation, Sep 2006 by Austin, James

AFTER DECADES OF intellectual neglect, the field of corrections has decided to embrace the world of science and adhere to the dictums of "evidence-based" corrections. The term "evidence based" originates from the field of medicine as far back as the 19th century in Europe and means many things to many people.1 In medicine it is very important that medical procedures and the use of healing drugs and medicine actually demonstrate their effectiveness through rigorous experimental studies before they are brought to market. In the social sciences, evidence-based research suggests that governmental policies must be shaped by scientific evidence that shows the policy has some cause and effect value. For many good reasons, the field of corrections has never had to pass such a high standard. But after American corrections has set world records in the numbers of persons incarcerated and placed on probation and parole, some criminal justice professionals believe the field needs to get serious about its $60 billion a year industry and produce a better product.

Plagued by recidivism rates that have remained stubbornly stagnant for 30 years (or more) and by a general feeling among most politicians that about the only thing that corrections can do is inflict widespread punishment, criminal justice practitioners have seen the more benign goals of treatment and rehabilitation take a back seat to the more politically appealing ideologies of deterrence, incapacitation, and retribution. It's a given that no politician can successfully run on a platform demanding more and better treatment for the two million plus prisoners held in our nation's jails and prisons.

But the times are a changing. Led by a small number of Canadian and American criminologists, there is now a considerable effort to get rehabilitation and treatment back on the map. Their argument is advertised not as ideological but as empirical. The major premise is that treatment does work if it is done right. Therefore, the primary reason treatment is ineffective is because it is more often done wrong.

One major reason that treatment is not done right is that offenders are not properly assessed for risk by most correctional agencies. Without the proper diagnosis, it is not possible to assign prisoners to the proper treatment. Indeed, prior research has shown that assigning low-risk people to treatment they really don't need actually increases recidivism. A recent evaluation of Ohio's community corrections act clearly shows that many correctional programs are not targeting the proper offender, which in turn diminishes the capacity to reduce recidivism rates.2

The widespread absence of risk assessment in corrections has historically hampered correctly targeted treatment. It was not until the 1980s that prison systems, due in part to a number of federal lawsuits, finally started using custody classification systems to assign prisoners to the correct prisons. The results have been impressive in most states, with increasing numbers of prisoners now being assigned to minimum security settings. The taxpayers have benefited somewhat because the lower the security, the lower the incarceration costs. Unfortunately, the huge increases in the correctional populations have largely negated whatever savings taxpayers would have realized.

Parole boards, which still govern the date and conditions of release for prisoners in most states, have only recently (and only in a few states) embraced the idea that their decisions would be influenced by some calculation of the prisoner's risk to recidivate. Probation and parole agencies have also begun to implement risk instruments to guide their decisions as to what levels of supervision are most appropriate for their burgeoning caseloads.

But despite these advances, no jurisdiction can point to significant reductions in recidivism rates-and that includes Canada, from which most of the new emphasis on rehabilitation has emanated.3 Many probation and parole officers seem less interested in risk assessment and case management and more concerned with racking up as many violations of their caseload as they can. I don't recall any prison, parole, or probation department being chastised for having too high a recidivism rate, even though there is considerable evidence that they could have a positive effect on these rates.

The remainder of this article focuses on the state of risk assessment. I concede that in order for rehabilitation to have a meaningful impact on recidivism rates, the proper identification of persons by their risk level is essential. But I now worry that the field is placing too much emphasis on risk assessment with little effort to provide those basic treatment services that are needed.

The Basics of Risk Assessment

Before an agency decides to adopt a risk assessment system, a number of tests need to be completed to ensure it will work. There seems to be a trend in corrections to uncritically accept the latest "innovation" and adopt it without understanding its strengths and limitations. In risk assessment, unless these steps are completed, application of the risk assessment process may prove more harmful than helpful as offenders will be improperly classified.