Actuarial and clinical assessment of criminogenic needs: Identifying supervision priorities among federal probation officers

Journal of Crime and Justice

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 239-248

  Oleson, J C ^a   VanBenschoten, Scott ^b   Robinson, Charles ^b   Lowenkamp, Christopher T ^b   Holsinger, Alexander M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

^b Administrative Office of the United States Courts   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Needs; PCRA; Responsivity; Risk

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889025216     PISSN: 0735648X     EISSN: 21589119     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0735648X.2012.674819     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ægisdóttir, S., 2006. The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: fifty-six years ofaccumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. Counseling Psychologist, 34 (3): 341–382.
2. Alexander, M., and VanBenschoten, S., 2008. The evolution of supervision within the federal probation and pretrial system. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47 (3): 319–337.
3. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., and Hoge, R. D., 1990. Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17: 19–52.
4. Andrews, D. A., and Dowden, C., 2007. The risk–need–responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: crime-prevention jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49 (4): 439–464.
5. Ansbro, M., 2010. The nuts and bolts of risk assessment: when the clinical and actuarial conflict. Howard Journal, 49 (3): 252–268.
6. Aos, S., Miller, M., and Drake, E., 2006. Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates, Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
7. Buddress, L. A.N., 1997. Federal probation and pretrial services–a cost-effective and successful community corrections system. Federal Probation, 61 (1): 5–12.
8. Cullen, F., and Gendreau, P., 2000. “ Assessing correctional rehabilitation: policy, practice, and prospects ”. In Criminal Justice 2000, Edited by: Horney, J., 109–175. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
9. Fitzgibbon, W., Hamilton, C., and Richardson, M., 2010. A risky business: an examination ofIrish probation officers' attitudes towards risk assessment. Probation Journal, 57 (2): 163–174.
10. Flores, A. W., 2005. Evidence of professionalism or quackery: measuring practitioner awareness of risk/need factors and treatment strategies. Federal Probation, 69 (2): 9–14.
11. Gendreau, P., Little, T., and Goggin, C., 1996. A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works!. Criminology, 34 (4): 575–607.
12. Grove, W. M., and 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.
13. Grove, W. M., 2000. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12 (1): 19–30.
14. Horsefield, A., 2003. Risk assessment: who needs it?. Probation Journal, 50 (4): 374–379.
15. Hughes, J., 2008. Results-based management in federal probation and pretrial services. Federal Probation, 72 (2): 4–14.
16. Jalbert, S. K., 2011. A multi-site evaluation of reduced probation caseload size in an evidence-based practice setting, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2006-IJ-CX-0011.
17. Judicial Conference. 2006. September proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Washington, DC: Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
18. Kemshall, H., 1998. Defensible decisions for risk: or ‘it's the doers wot get the blame’. Probation Journal, 45 (2): 67–72.
19. Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., and Gendreau, P., 2002. Beyond correctional quackery–professionalism and the possibility of effective treatment. Federal Probation, 66 (2): 43–49.
20. Lynch, M., 1998. Waste managers? The new penology, crime fighting, and parole agent identity. Law and Society Review, 32 (4): 839–869.
21. Meehl, P. E., 1954. Clinical versus mechanical prediction, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
22. Monahan, J., 2001. Rethinking risk assessment, New York: Oxford University Press.
23. Oleson, J. C., 2011. Training to see risk: measuring the accuracy of clinical and actuarial risk assessments among federal probation officers. Federal Probation, 75 (2): 52–56.
24. Petersilia, J., 2004. What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68 (2): 4–8.
25. Sackett, D. L., 2000. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd ed, New York: Churchill Livingstone.
26. Schneider, A. L., Ervin, L., and Snyder-Joy, Z., 1996. Further exploration of the flight from discretion: the role of risk/need instruments in probation supervision decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24 (2): 109–121.
27. Taxman, F. S., Shepardson, E. S., and Byrne, J. M., 2004. Tools of the trade: a guide to incorporating science into practice, Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
28. VanBenschoten, S., 2008. Risk/needs assessment: is this the best we can do?. Federal Probation, 72 (2): 38–42.
29. Ward, T., Melser, J., and Yates, P., 2007. Reconstructing the risk–need–responsivity model: a theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12: 208–228.