In correctional settings across America, the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model is actively used to assess offender security and programmatic needs. James (2018) discussed the Ris

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal

Prison System

Nathan James

Analyst in Crime Policy

July 10, 2018

Congressional Research Service

7-5700

www.crs.gov

R44087

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System

Congressional Research Service

Summary The number of people incarcerated in federal prisons increased dramatically over the past three

decades. While the number of inmates in the federal prison system has decreased since FY2013,

the federal prison population remains substantially larger than it was three decades ago.

Concerns about both the economic and social consequences of the country’s reliance on

incarceration have led to calls for reforms to the nation’s criminal justice system, including

improving the federal prison system’s ability to rehabilitate incarcerated offenders by better

assessing their risk for recidivism and addressing their criminogenic needs. “Criminogenic

needs,” are factors that contribute to criminal behavior that can be changed and/or addressed

through interventions.

There have been legislative proposals to implement a risk and needs assessment system in federal

prisons. The system would be used to place inmates in appropriate rehabilitative programs. Under

the proposed system some inmates would be eligible for earned time credits for completing

rehabilitative programs that reduce their risk of recidivism. Such credits would allow inmates to

be placed on prerelease custody earlier. The proposed system would exclude inmates convicted of

certain offenses from being eligible for earned time credits.

Risk and needs assessment instruments typically consist of a series of items used to collect data

on offender behaviors and attitudes that research indicates are related to the risk of recidivism.

Generally, inmates are classified as being at a high, moderate, or low risk of recidivism.

Assessment instruments are comprised of static and dynamic risk factors. Static risk factors do

not change (e.g., age at first arrest or gender), while dynamic risk factors can either change on

their own or be changed through an intervention (e.g., current age, education level, or

employment status). In general, research suggests that the most commonly used assessment

instruments can, with a moderate level of accuracy, predict who is at risk for violent recidivism. It

also suggests that of the most commonly used risk assessments none distinguishes itself from the

others when it comes to predictive validity.

The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model has become the dominant paradigm in risk and needs

assessment. The risk principle states that convicted offenders need to be placed in programs that

are commensurate with their risk level; in other words, provide more intensive treatment and

services to high-risk offenders while low-risk offenders should receive minimal or even no

intervention. The need principle states that effective treatment should also focus on addressing the

criminogenic needs that contribute to criminal behavior. The responsivity principle states that

rehabilitative programming should be delivered in a style and mode that is consistent with the

ability and learning style of the offender.

There are several issues policymakers might contemplate should Congress choose to consider

legislation to implement a risk and needs assessment system in federal prisons, including the

following:

 Is there the potential for bias in the use of risk and needs assessment?

 Should certain inmates be ineligible for earned time credits?

 Should prison programming focus on inmates at high risk of recidivism?

 Should risk assessment be incorporated into sentencing?

 Should there be a decreased focus on long prison sentences?

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System

Congressional Research Service

Contents

An Overview of Risk and Needs Assessment ……………………………………………………………………… 3

Risk and Needs Factors ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Can Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments Accurately Predict Risk? ……………………………. 4

Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) Principles ……………………………………………………………………….. 4

Risk Principle ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 Needs Principle …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 Responsivity Principle ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6 “Central Eight” Risk and Needs Factors ……………………………………………………………………….. 6 Empirical Basis for the RNR Principles ………………………………………………………………………… 7

Select Issues for Congress ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Concerns About Bias in Risk and Needs Assessment ……………………………………………………… 8 Should Certain Inmates Be Excluded from Receiving Time Credits? ………………………………. 11 Should Priority Be Given to High-Risk Offenders? ………………………………………………………. 15 Should Risk and Needs Assessment Be Used in Sentencing? …………………………………………. 16 Should There Be a Decreased Emphasis on Long Prison Sentences? ………………………………. 17

Tables

Table 1. Major Risk and Needs Factors: The “Central Eight”………………………………………………… 6

Table 2. Conviction Offenses for Inmates Held in BOP Facilities at the End of FY2014…………. 13

Contacts

Author Contact Information ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 18

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System

Congressional Research Service 1

he number of people incarcerated in federal prisons increased dramatically over the past

three decades. The total number of inmates in the federal prison system increased from

approximately 25,000 in FY1980 to over 219,000 in FY2013.1 Since the peak in FY2013,

the number of inmates in the federal prison system decreased each subsequent fiscal year, falling

to approximately 186,000 inmates in FY2017.2 However, even with the recent decrease in the

number of federal prison inmates, the federal prison population is more than seven times larger

than it was three decades ago.

While research indicates that the expanded use of incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s

contributed to the declining crime rate, the effect was likely small,3 and it has likely reached the

point of diminishing returns.4 Concerns about both the economic and social consequences of the

country’s burgeoning prison population have resulted in a range of organizations including the

American Civil Liberties Union, Right on Crime, and the American Conservative Union’s Center

for Criminal Justice Reform calling for reforms to the nation’s criminal justice system. Congress

also formed the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections to examine the growth of the

federal prison population and provide recommendations for reforms.5

There are two, not mutually exclusive, methods to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals

in the United States: send fewer people to prison (e.g., placing offenders on probation or in a

diversion program like a drug court) and/or shorten prison sentences (e.g., allowing inmates to

serve a portion of their prison sentence on parole or granting them early release by allowing them

to earn time off their prison sentence). While diverting “low-level drug offenders” from prison or

granting nonviolent offenders early release have been popular proposals to reduce the prison

population, the crime someone is convicted of is not the best proxy for the risk that person might

pose to the community. For example, an offender who has no history of violence and who poses a

low risk for future violence might be convicted of what is legally defined as a violent crime (e.g.,

illegal gun possession or driving the get-away car for someone who committed an armed

robbery).6 On the other hand, an offender with a history of violence might be sentenced to prison

for a nonviolent crime or have a violent offense downgraded to a nonviolent offense as a result of

a plea deal.7

The assessment of offender risk was originally a matter of professional judgment. Prison staff,

based on their own experience and training, would typically determine at intake which offenders

were more or less likely to be a safety or security risk. These assessments would then be used to

assign inmates to the appropriate institution or unit based on their risk determination. Over time,

1 Data on the number of federal prison inmates can be found online at https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/

population_statistics.jsp.

2 In FY2013, the number of inmates under BOP’s jurisdiction was 219,298, in FY2014 it was 214,149, in FY2015 it

was 205,723, in FY2016 it was 192,170, and in FY2017 it was 185,617. At the time this report was updated, FY2017

was the most recent fiscal year for which federal prison population data were available.

3 Research by the Brennan Center for Justice and the New York University School of Law estimates that 0%-7% of the

decline in crime in the 1990s can be attributed to increased incarceration, while 0%-1% of the decrease in crime since

2000 can be attributed to increased incarceration. Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What

Caused the Crime Decline?, Brennan Center for Justice, New York, NY, February 12, 2015, p. 6.

4 Anne Morrison Piehl and Bert Useem, “Prisons,” in Crime and Public Policy, ed. Joan Petersilia and James Q.

Wilson, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 542.

5 See P.L. 113-76 and the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-76, printed in the January 15, 2014,

Congressional Record, p. H514.

6 Leon Neyfakh, “OK, So Who Gets to Go Free?,” Slate, March 4, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/

news_and_politics/crime/2015/03/prison_reform_releasing_only_nonviolent_offenders_won_t_get_you_very_far.html.

7 Ibid.

T

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System

Congressional Research Service 2

the limitations of using professional judgment alone were increasingly recognized and beginning

in the 1970’s actuarial tools to assess risk were developed and implemented in correctional

settings. Subsequent research on these tools revealed that they were better at predicting future

criminal behavior than professional judgment alone. Since then, a variety of risk assessment tools

have been developed and implemented incorporating important advances suggested by research,

including adding factors because they are theoretically relevant (versus adding factors that are

simply available in correctional data systems), adding factors that are changeable (e.g., dynamic

factors), and conducting risk assessment in the context of a risk and recidivism reduction model.8

Because courts and correctional officials make decisions every day about who can safely be

diverted from incarceration or granted early release, they may benefit from tools that can help in

this process. Actuarial risk assessment tools may serve this purpose. Needs assessments could

also help correctional officials make determinations about which offenders need higher levels of

supervision and/or match them to the appropriate rehabilitative programming.

The use of risk and needs assessment in the criminal justice system is not without controversy,

however. Proponents of assessment assert that the tools used to measure the risk and needs of

inmates are better than the independent judgment of courts and corrections officials alone, and

that research on the tools have demonstrated their ability to make relevant distinctions between

high- and low-risk offenders.9 Nonetheless, risk and needs assessment is not 100% accurate. Two

experts in the field note that “[a]lthough statistical risk assessment reduces uncertainty about an

offender’s probable future conduct, it is subject to errors and should be regarded as advisory

rather than peremptory. Even with large data sets and advanced analytical techniques, the best

models are usually able to predict recidivism with about 70% accuracy—provided it is completed

by trained staff.”10

Legislation has been introduced in the current Congress that would require the Bureau of Prisons

(BOP) to implement a risk and needs assessment system.11 Currently, BOP utilizes a classification

and designation tool to make determinations about inmates’ security and custody classification.12

However, BOP’s classification and designation system is only validated to predict institutional

misconduct.13 In addition, BOP staff use their discretion to determine the rehabilitative programs

in which inmates will be placed.14 While the process involves evaluations by a psychologist and

subsequent assessments by a case manager, BOP does not use a validated assessment instrument

8 James Bonta and D.A. Andrews, “Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation, 2007-

06,” Public Safety Canada, https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspx#a3

9 Pew Center on the States, Risk/Needs Assessment 101: Science Reveals New Tools to Manage Offenders, issue brief,

September 2011, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2011/

PewRiskAssessmentbriefpdf.pdf, (hereinafter, “Risk/Needs Assessment 101”)

10 Edward J. Latessa and Brian Lovins, “The Role of Offender Risk Assessment: a Policy Maker Guide,” Victims and

Offenders, vol. 5, 2010, p. 212 (hereinafter “The Role of Offender Risk Assessment”).

11 See, for example, S. 1917, S. 1994, and H.R. 3356.

12 BOP makes determinations based on a review and coding of sentencing material, including the presentence report,

provided by the sentencing court, the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, and the U.S. Marshals. Factors that can

affect an inmate’s security and custody classification include criminal history, prior substance abuse, education level,

public safety factors, and program needs. For more information see U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons,

Inmate Security Designation and Custody Classification, Program Statement 5100.08, http://www.bop.gov/policy/

progstat/5100_008.pdf.

13 Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, Transforming Prisons, Restoring Lives: Final Recommendations

of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections, January 2016, p. 32.

14 Ibid.

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System

Congressional Research Service 3

to place inmates in rehabilitative programs.15 The system that would be established by legislation

before Congress would evaluate inmates and be used to determine appropriate levels of

supervision and place them in rehabilitative programs and productive activities that match their

needs. Under the proposed system, some inmates would be eligible for earned time credits for

participating in rehabilitative programs that reduce their risk of recidivism. Such credits would

allow inmates to be placed in prerelease custody earlier than under their original sentences.

This report provides information on the use of risk and needs assessment instruments. It starts

with an overview of risk and needs assessment. This includes a discussion of the Risk-Needs-

Responsivity principles, which has become the dominant paradigm for reducing the likelihood of

recidivism among convicted offenders. The report concludes with a discussion of the issues

policymakers might consider if they debate legislation to expand the use of risk and needs

assessment in the federal prison system.

An Overview of Risk and Needs Assessment A risk and needs assessment instrument measures offenders’ criminogenic16 risk factors and

specific needs that if addressed will reduce the likelihood of future criminal activity.17 Assessment

instruments typically consist of a series of questions that help guide an interview with an offender

in order to collect data on behaviors and attitudes that research indicates are related to the risk of

recidivism.18 Data collected during the interview is typically supplemented with information from

an official records check, such as a criminal history records check.19 The risk and needs

assessment instrument generates a total score that places the offender into a risk category

(typically “low,” “moderate,” or “high”).

Risk and Needs Factors

Generally speaking, risk and needs assessment instruments consist of both static and dynamic risk

factors. Static risk factors do not change over time. Examples include age at first arrest, gender,

past problems with substance or alcohol abuse, prior mental health problems, or a history of

violating terms of supervision (e.g., parole or probation).20

Dynamic risk factors, also called “criminogenic needs,” change and/or can be addressed through

interventions. Examples include current age, education level, marital status, employment status,

current substance use, and residential stability.21

15 Ibid.

16 “Criminogenic” is commonly understood to mean factors that can contribute to criminal behavior.

17 Risk/Needs Assessment 101, p. 2.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 James Austin, “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol.

16, no. 3, February 2004, p. 5 (hereinafter “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections”).

21 “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections,” p. 4.

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System

Congressional Research Service 4

Can Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments Accurately

Predict Risk?

In general, research indicates that most commonly used risk and needs assessment instruments

can, with a moderate level of accuracy, predict who is at risk for recidivism.22 It also indicates

that of the most commonly used risk and needs assessments, no one instrument is superior to any

other when it comes to predictive validity.23 One group of researchers concluded that “[o]verall,

our results showed that all of the nine tools predicted violence at above-chance levels, with

medium effect sizes, and no one tool predicting [sic] violence significantly better than any other.

In sum, all did well, but none came first.”24

Two scholars have posited two explanations for why well-validated risk and needs assessment

instruments have similar levels of performance. First, some evidence suggests that there is a

“natural limit” to the predictive utility of instruments.25 Simply stated, there is a limit to how

accurately recidivism can be predicted given the current level of knowledge about the causes and

correlates of criminal behavior. Second, well-validated instruments may show similar levels of

performance because they are tapping “common factors” or shared dimensions of risk, even

though the instruments utilize different items or have different approaches.26 For example,

research has found that assessment instruments typically gauge four overlapping dimensions:

criminal history, persistent antisocial lifestyle, psychopathic personality, and alcohol/mental

health issues.27

Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) Principles The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model is one of the most dominant paradigms in the risk

and needs assessment field. It has emerged as a prominent framework for guiding offender

assessment and treatment because it is one of the few comprehensive theories of how to provide

effective recidivism reduction interventions to offenders. Experts in the field of risk and needs

assessment assert that assessment systems should adhere to the RNR model. As the Vera Institute

of Justice notes, “[u]nderlying the development of evidence-based practices in the criminal justice

system are the risk, need, and responsivity principles” [emphasis original].28

22 The National Center for State Courts provides an overview of some of the most commonly used risk and needs

assessment instruments in their report on using risk and needs assessment in sentencing. See Pamela M Casey, Roger

K. Warren, and Jennifer K. Elek, Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment Information at Sentencing: Guidance for

Courts from a National Working Group, Appendix A, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, 2011

23 Public Safety Canada, Predicting Violent Recidivism, Research Summary, vol. 12, no. 3, May 2007,

http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/prdtng-rcvds/index-eng.aspx; Mary Ann Campbell, Sheila French, and

Paul Gendreau, “The Prediction of Violence in Adult Offenders; A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Instruments and

Methods of Assessment,” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 36, no. 6, June 2009, pp. 567-590; Min Yang, Stephen

C.P. Wong, and Jeremy Coid, “The Efficacy of Violence Prediction: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Nine Risk

Assessment Tools,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 136, no. 5, 2010, pp. 740-767.

24 Min Yang, Stephen C.P. Wong, and Jeremy Coid, “The Efficacy of Violence Prediction: A Meta-Analytic

Comparison of Nine Risk Assessment Tools,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 136, no. 5, 2010, p. 757.

25 John Monahan and Jennifer L. Skeem, “Risk Redux: The Resurgence of Risk Assessment in Criminal Sanctioning,”

Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 26, no. 3, February 2014, p. 162 (hereinafter “Risk Redux”).

26 Ibid.

27 Daryl G. Kroner, Jeremy F. Mills, and John R. Reddon, “A Coffee Can, Factor Analysis, and Prediction of Antisocial

Behavior: The Structure of Criminal Risk,” International Journal of Law and Psychology, vol. 28, 2005, pp. 360-374.

28 Vera Institute of Justice’s Center of Sentencing and Corrections, Risk and Needs Assessment, memorandum to the

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Federal Prison System

Congressional Research Service 5

The RNR model of risk and needs assessment and offender treatment incorporates evidence-

based practices for reducing recidivism.29 As the name implies, the model has three main

principles: assessing risk, addressing criminogenic needs, and providing treatment that is

responsive to the offender’s abilities and learning style.30

The RNR model is based on the social psychology of offending, which posits that individuals and

social/situational factors intersect to create values, cognitions, and personality orientations that

are conducive to criminal conduct.31 These ways of thinking and responding are learned and

become reinforced through feedback, and eventually result in individual differences in the

propensity for criminal behavior.32

Many other theories of criminal behavior focus on the social causes of criminal behavior, factors

that cannot be addressed through individual-level treatment. On the other hand, the RNR model

focuses on the proximate causes of criminal behavior, which can be the targets of evidence-based

correctional treatment.

Risk Principle

The risk principle has two aspects: (1) the risk of criminal behavior can be predicted, and (2) the

level of intervention should be matched to the risk level of the offender.33 The risk principle states

that high-risk offenders need to be placed in programs that provide more intensive treatment and

services while low-risk offenders should receive minimal or even no intervention.

Needs Principle

The needs principle states that effective treatment should focus on addressing criminogenic

needs, that is, dynamic risk factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct.34 Also,

according to the needs principle, effective treatment should not focus on addressing

Delaware Justice Reinvestment Task Force, October 12, 2011, p. 2, https://ltgov.delaware.gov/taskforces/djrtf/

DJRTF_Risk_Assessment_Memo.pdf (hereinafter “Vera Institute of Justice’s memorandum re: risk and needs

assessment”).

29 Pamela M Casey, Roger K. Warren, and Jennifer K. Elek, Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment Information at

Sentencing: Guidance for Courts from a National Working Group, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg,

VA, 2011, p. 5.

30 There are several principles other than risk, needs, and responsivity that are a part of the RNR model. These include

three overarching principles: delivering services with respect for people, basing programs on psychological theory, and

reducing criminal victimization. In addition to the risk, needs, and responsivity principles, there are several other core

principles, including introducing human services in order to reduce recidivism, targeting more criminogenic needs

relative to noncrimino

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.