The development of an actuarial risk assessment instrument for U.S. pretrial services

Federal Probation

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 33-36

  Lowenkamp, Christopher T ^a   Whetzel, Jay ^a  

^a Admin Office of the US Courts   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350519597     PISSN: 00149128     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. References Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
2. Beeley, A. L. (1927). The Bail System in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Doueck, H., English, D. DePanfilis, D. and Moote, G. (1993). Decision making in child protective services: a comparison of selected risk assessment systems. Child Welfare, 75(5), 441-452.
4. Foote, C. (1954). Compelling Appearance in Court: Administration of Bail in Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 102, 1048-1049.
5. Gottfredson, D.M., & Snyder, H.N. (2005). The Mathematics of Risk Classification: Changing Data into Valid Instruments for Juvenile Courts Washington, D.C.: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
6. Grove, W. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
7. Grove, W. G., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B., Snitz, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
8. Hilton, N.Z., Harris, G.T., & Rice, M. E. (2009). Risk assessment for domestically violent men: Tools for criminal justice, offender intervention, and victim services. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
9. VanNostrand, M. & Keebler, G. (2009). Pretrial risk assessment in the Federal Court. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
10. Zinger, I. (2004). Actuarial risk assessment and human rights: A commentary. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(5), 607-620.