Correctional Service Canada
www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Research Reports
This Web page has been archived on the Web.
Field Test of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale:
A Study of Offenders on Caseload
Prepared by:
Laurence L. Motiuk and
Frank J. Porporino
Research Branch
December 1989
no. R-06
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
We wish to express our appreciation to the Division of Community Release Programs and Support Services at National Headquarters for their full support of this project.
Further, we are grateful to John Lawrence, Len Epp, Chris Trowbridge, and Louis Brunet for their steadfast belief and assistance in this research.
Most of all, we acknowledge our debt to the CSC parole offices, private sector agencies and the central parole office of the Alberta Solicitor General whose many staff and supervisors willingly served on committees and gathered data across Canada.
Executive Summary
Recent studies conducted by the Correctional Service of Canada, the Ministry Secretariat Corrections Branch, and various academic researchers in Canada and the United States have confirmed that the systematic and structured assessment of the risk and needs levels of offenders can provide useful information about the likelihood of re-offending under conditional release.
These studies have shown:
- that there are criminal history factors that relate to outcome on conditional release (e.g., as measured by the Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale);
- that there is a consistent relationship between the type and number of needs that offenders present and the likelihood of their re-offending; and, most importantly,
- that combined assessment of both the level of risk and needs can improve our ability to differentiate cases according to likelihood of re-offending.
As part of the field testing of new Standards for Conditional Release Supervision, the Research Branch has worked in collaboration with the Division of Community Release Programs and Support Services to develop and assess a Community Risk/Needs Management Scale as a means of classifying offenders for varying levels of community supervision (i.e., intensity or frequency of contact).
The intention was to evaluate the potential usefulness of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale as a means of focusing supervision resources and monitoring changes in the offender’s behavior, attitudes and circumstances while under supervision.
The report on the project describes, in detail, the development of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale, presents an overview of the first wave of caseload data collected during the field test, provides a descriptive profile of the needs of offenders under supervision, and examines some of the validation data gathered on the instrument. Finally, the report assesses the need for any adjustments or refinements of the instrument.
Application of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was initiated on October 1, 1988 on a pilot basis at twelve separate community field-test sites across Canada. A total of 453 Federally sentenced male offenders, on caseload as of that date, were assessed by their supervising case managers. The sample of cases studied were either on day parole (25.2%), full parole (55.0%) or mandatory supervision (19.8%); a distribution that compared favorably with the proportion of cases nationally within the CSC under each category of conditional release (day parole 20%, full parole 52%, and mandatory supervision 28%). The behavior of those offenders who were assessed was subsequently monitored for a six-month follow-up period.
The results of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale field test validated previous findings regarding the predictive value of offender risk/needs assessment. offenders were easily differentiated by case managers as to the nature and level of needs presented, and these assessments of "case needs" were consistently related with conditional release outcomes at the six month follow-up. only two of the twelve need factors studied did not significantly relate to outcome (i.e., suspension or revocation) on conditional release. The two need factors found not to be significant were Mental Ability and Health.
The ten need factors which related significantly to the likelihood of failure and success on conditional release were: Academic/Vocational Skills; Employment Pattern; Financial Management; Marital/Family Relationships; Companions/Significant Others; Accommodation; Behavioral/Emotional Stability; Alcohol Usage; Drug Usage; and Attitude.
While the presence of particular needs was clearly related to release outcomes, the field test also sought to determine whether offenders could be accurately and meaningfully grouped by level of needs.
Of special interest was the finding that by simply combining case manager assessments of "criminal history risk" with global ratings of "case needs" as many as 47.5% of offenders assessed as high risk and high need were suspended within six months of their initial assessment. Similarly, those cases who were both high risk and high need had the highest rates of revocation (27.1%) with an extended nine month follow-up.
In marked contrast, substantially fewer offenders assessed as both low risk and low need were suspended (5.1%) or revoked (1.9%) while on conditional release. This low risk and low need group was the largest category among the groupings that were identified (representing 35% of the total sample of cases that were assessed). Reducing the frequency of supervision for these cases could therefore have important implications for the reallocation and re-focusing of community resources.
An important feature of the research was to examine various scoring mechanisms for the ‘Case Needs’ component of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale. Four different scoring methods were examined as follows:
- global ratings of need level as provided by case managers,
- simple tallies of the number of identified needs,
- scaled ratings of need areas (i.e., the level of need was scaled from 0 to 3), and
- weighted ratings of each need area (i.e., as indicated by a statistical analysis of the strength of relationship between each need area and likelihood of re-offending).
While considerable predictive value was found for each scoring method, it was found that better levels of precision, and more apparent differentiation could be achieved by using the most sophisticated "weighted ratings" method for classifying offenders. The disadvantage, however, is that this method requires some summation and calculation that may be perceived by case managers as too mechanistic and clerical in nature.
Overall, the field test of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale strongly supports the potential usefulness of an objective risk/needs assessment process in establishing guidelines or standards for varying levels of supervision on conditional release. It would seem that the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale can be used effectively to focus supervision resources by capitalizing on the professional judgment of case management staff regarding case needs. Moreover, it can also provide a useful means of monitoring changes in the offender’s behavior, attitudes and circumstances which are clearly related to release outcome.
FIELD TEST OF THE COMMUNITY RISK/NEEDS MANAGEMENT SCALE:
A STUDY OF OFFENDERS ON CASELOAD
I. Introduction
In May 1988, a set of draft Standards for Conditional Release Supervision were prepared for consultation with the Correctional Service of Canada and National Parole Board (CSC/NPB, 1988). Subsequently, approval was given to field test these new standards across Canada. Section 5 in the draft ‘Standards’ document required that there be a "systematic method of assessing the needs of the offender, the risk of re-offending, and any other factors which affect the offender’s successful reintegration into the community". In keeping with this new standard, it was decided to develop a Community Risk/Needs Management Scale and field test the classification instrument as a component of the overall supervision standards project. Given that all decisions regarding frequency of contact with an offender should be guided by the assessment and periodic reassessment of both risk and needs, the National Parole Board’s assessment of risk was to be used in conjunction with parole supervisor’s judgments of case needs using the Community Risk/ Needs Management Scale. An assessment of the benefits of adopting this classification tool was to be conducted, and this was to include in particular:
- an analysis of the impact on classification decisions... to determine the usefulness and appropriateness of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale in classifying offenders to varying levels of supervision.
Although the predictive validity of assessing and combining criminal history risk and needs in relation to release outcome has been established in earlier studies (Andrews, 1983; Baird, Heinz, & Bemus, 1979; Motiuk & Porporino, 1989), an actual field test of a newly devised Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was considered essential before proceeding with national implementation.
The present report describes, in detail, the development of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale, presents an overview of the first wave of caseload data collected during the field test, provides a descriptive profile of the needs of offenders under supervision, and examines some of the validation data gathered on the instrument. Finally, the report assesses the need for any adjustments or refinements of the instrument.
II. Description of Community Risk/Needs Management Scale
The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was designed to capture information on a critical set of "Case Need" dimensions that would be relevant for the classification of Federally sentenced offenders while under conditional release. The Scale consists of two components: the assessment of ‘Criminal History Risk’ and the assessment of ‘Case Needs’. The Community Risk/ Needs Management Scale, in practice, allows for a relatively efficient and structured assessment of need areas that can predict an offender’s probability of failure while under supervision. As with other assessment tools which combine risk and need factors to determine required levels or intensity of supervision (Clear & Gallagher, 1983), the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was similarly designed to be both empirically related to release outcome and responsive to intervention.
A copy of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale is shown in Appendix A. It provides an efficient system for recording criminal history risk and case needs, level of risk and need, required frequency of contact, and related background information on each offender (i.e., release status, warrant expiry date).
After the initial version of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale had been drafted, members of the conditional release supervision standards project team developed a detailed set of rating guidelines for each of the twelve case needs dimensions listed (see Appendix B). In order to illustrate the manner in which case managers utilized the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale, both the ‘Criminal History Risk Assessment’ and ‘Case Needs Assessment’ components of the Scale are described in detail.
Criminal History Risk Assessment
In order to assess risk (of re-offending) systematically and consistently, the National Parole Board has officially adopted the Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) Scale (Nuffield, 1982) as a release risk scoring system. The SIR scale involves an extensive review of an individuals official criminal record. Given that during the field test the SIR Scale was not routinely available to case managers, two other sources of criminal history information were suggested as possible alternatives so that level of criminal history risk could be determined in an objective, reliable and accurate way. Case managers who were unable to complete a SIR scale could either rely on the National Parole Board’s assessment of risk (i.e., low versus not low) or use their own judgment of criminal history risk based on a thorough review of an offender’s criminal record.
Case Needs Assessment
In drafting the Case Needs component of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale, we wanted to cover as wide a variety of need areas or dimensions as possible. Construction of the new scale purposefully followed the model of the Force-Field Analysis of Needs (CSC/SCC 826 (R-86-10)) used in the ‘Case Management Strategies’ approach for assessing the individualized case needs of offenders. In so doing, we wanted to capitalize on information that was already available in most community case files. However, over and above the Force-Field Analysis of Needs, we wanted to be able to objectify and systematize case manager judgments of offender needs not only in context (i.e., community vs. institution) but also to allow for change across time and settings. Most importantly, we were interested in putting into practice a simple scheme that would allow us to classify offenders into low, medium, and high needs groupings.
The need areas selected for the Needs component of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale are typical of those included in most other needs instruments. A total of twelve need areas are covered as follows: academic/vocational skills, employment patterns, financial management, marital/family relationships, companions/significant others, accommodations, behavioral/emotional stability, alcohol usage, drug usage, mental ability, health and attitude. While these twelve need areas essentially parallel those found in the Force-Field Analysis of Needs, several were modified in terms of definition and rating guidelines (i.e., companions/significant others) and one area was deleted (i.e., sexual behavior).
In constructing a Needs Scale that would attend to the community supervision needs of certain special categories of offenders (i.e., sexual and mentally disordered), two additional special needs categories were included. A special needs category of ‘other’ was reserved for those who did not meet the aforementioned criteria but were viewed by case managers as meriting an over-ride rating.
In realizing that one could expend a considerable amount of time and effort completing a thorough and systematic assessment of offender needs, it was thought that the time needed to complete such assessments could be dramatically reduced if case managers reviewed their case file documentation, drew upon their current knowledge of the case, and rated each need according to specific guidelines. For example, in assessing ‘Employment Pattern’, a rating of "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment" would indicate that the employment had been very satisfying for the offender during the period in question. A rating of "no immediate need for improvement" would indicate that neither employment, under employment, sporadic employment, nor chronic unemployment had interfered with daily functioning. An offender received a rating of "some need for improvement" if any of the aforementioned had caused minor adjustment problems while in the community and "considerable need for improvement" if the employment situation had caused serious adjustment problems.
Given the amount of file documentation available in most cases and the case manager’s experience with the offender, it was assumed that case managers in the community could easily draw upon this knowledge to assess needs in a relatively efficient and straightforward fashion. While each need area was rated according to specified guidelines, an overall rating of ‘Case Needs’ was simply the compilation of case manager judgments into three risk/needs level groupings; "low", "medium", "high".
In order to obtain the maximum allowable benefit from case managers exercising their professional judgments on each case, we did not provide any mechanized scoring scheme for the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale. To this end, a more complete scoring scheme for the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was to be developed with the combined effort of community case managers and research.
III. Description of Field Test
Twelve field test sites were selected across Canada in order to test the draft standards. Five of these sites were CSC parole offices; CSC-Charlottetown, CSC-Moncton, SCC-Lafontaine in Montreal, CSC-Brantford, and CSC-New Westminster. Four field test sites were agencies; John Howard Society of P.E.I., St. Leonard’s in Brantford, and John Howard Society in Edmonton, and Catholic Charities in New Westminster. Two field test sites were halfway houses; Carrefour Nouveau Monde and Phoenix in Montreal. Finally, the central parole office of the Alberta Solicitor General in Edmonton was also involved in the field test of the draft standards.
In consultation with the field test sites, it was decided to start-up the Conditional Release Supervision Standards Project with a one-day training workshop for all field staff who would be applying the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale. A set of detailed instructions on how to complete the Scale was provided to give definitions and explanations for each needs category that would ensure consistency and uniformity of application.
Application of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale on a pilot basis was initiated at all Field test sites on October 1, 1988. All offenders on each caseload as of October 1, 1988, except those on parole reduced, those who had less than 6 months prior to their warrant expiry date, and those that were suspended awaiting disposition were to be assessed using the scale. In addition, all new releases were to be assessed for the next three month period and followed-up after six and twelve months. Moreover, all offenders who were initially assessed (i.e., on caseload) were also to be systematically reassessed at a point six months and twelve months after their initial assessment. In this report, we focus only on the first wave of cases that were assessed using the scale. That is, all cases on caseload as of October 1, 1988.
It should be noted that the supervision standards project was also organized according to three separate phases or periods of uninterrupted time on conditional release; Phase #1: the first six months following release; Phase #2: six to twelve months following release; and, Phase #3: twelve months or longer.
IV. Preliminary Findings
A. Sample Size
A total of 453 male offenders were assessed by 50 parole supervisors in twelve separate field test sites across Canada. The distribution of cases across the 12 field test sites is shown in Appendix C.
B. Characteristics Of Sample
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the time under supervision and the release status for all cases who were assessed. As Table 2 indicates, the sample is largely represented by Phase #3 cases (39.3%), followed by those cases in Phase #1 (35.8%) and Phase #2 (24.9%).
With respect to release status, we see the expected variation according to which Phase of conditional release is being examined. As expected, the majority of those on conditional release in Phase #1 (O to 6 months) were on Day Parole (51.1%). In contrast, most of those on conditional release in Phase #2 (6 to 12 months) and Phase #3 (12 months and over) were on Full Parole (59.3% and 83.1%, respectively).
| Phase 1: 0 - 6 Months 35.8% (n=162) |
Phase 2: 6 - 12 Months 24.9% (n-113) |
Phase 3: > 12 months 39.3% (n=178) |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day Parole | Full Parole | M.S. | Day Parole | Full Parole | M.S. | Day Parole | Full Parole | M. S. |
| 53.1% (n=86) | 21.0% (n=34) | 25.9% (n=42) | 19.5% (n=22) | 59.3% (n=67) | 21.2% (n=24) | 3.4% (n=6) | 83.1% (n=148) | 13.5% (n=24) |
Figure 1 contrasts the distribution of cases in the sample, by category of conditional release, with the distribution occurring nationally within the CSC. As Figure 1 shows, the distribution of cases studied (i.e., day parole 25.2%, full parole 55%, and mandatory supervision 19.8%) compares favorably with the proportion of cases nationally within the CSC under each category of conditional release (day parole 20%, full parole 52%, and mandatory supervision 28%).
FIGURE 1 - CONDITIONAL RELEASE STATUS: SAMPLE AND NATIONAL POPULATIONS
C. Criminal History Risk Levels
In order to determine level of criminal history risk, case managers who were unable to complete SIR scales could either rely on the National Parole Board’s assessment of risk (i.e., low versus not low) or use their own judgment of criminal history risk based on a thorough review of the offender’s criminal record. Below, we show how the cases assessed were distributed by criminal history risk level. We note that 49.9% were classified as low risk and that 50.1% were classified as high risk.
| Risk Level | Percentage of Cases |
|---|---|
| Low | 49.9 |
| High | 50.1 |
The overall 50-50 split that we obtained in classifying offenders into differential criminal history risk levels serves to illustrate the kinds of practical limitations that traditional "risk assessments" can have for correctional decision-makers. Essentially fixed and unchangeable, criminal history risk criteria appear to not only lose their predictive value over time (i.e., with more time under supervision) but they also remain fairly unresponsive to differential management strategies on conditional release. This dilemma has led us and other jurisdictions to develop assessment tools made up of Case Need factors that are both empirically related to release outcome and responsive to intervention. The rationale is that as need areas are addressed, the relative risk the offender represents will be reduced and less supervision and contact will be required to manage that offender effectively in the community.
D. Case Needs Levels
In working towards the development of a clear and comprehensive approach to assessing offender ‘Case Needs’, we looked at both the nature and level of needs presented, and sought to determine whether independently, or in combination, these factors were related to release outcomes. At this point, we also examined four different methods for scoring the ‘Case Needs’ component of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale. These included:
- global ratings of need level as provided by case managers,
- simple tallies of the number of identified needs,
- scaled ratings of need areas (i.e., the level of need was scaled from 0 to 3), and
- weighted ratings of each need area (i.e., as indicated by a statistical analysis of the strength of relationship between each need area and likelihood of re-offending).
In exploring each of the above-mentioned scoring methods, it should be noted that we sought to base alternative methods for scoring the Scale on the distribution of cases that was achieved by the case manager’s global ratings of Case Needs. That is, regardless of the method used, the same number of cases would be distributed across the Needs level groupings. Within this distribution, we examined four different methods for scoring the Scale.
A global rating of an offender’s Case Needs was simply the compilation of case manager’s professional judgments into one of three need levels; ‘low", ‘medium’, and ‘high’.
Below, we show how offenders were distributed according to global ratings of Case Needs that were provided by case managers. We note that the majority of offenders were assessed by case managers as low needs (51.2%). In contrast, only 30.0% of cases were assessed as medium needs and 18.8% as high needs.
| Needs Level | Percentage of Cases |
|---|---|
| Low | 51.2 |
| Medium | 30.0 |
| High | 18.8 |
Simple Summation of Identified Needs
Ratings on each need dimension were provided by case managers with particular emphasis on the most recent contacts with the offender. These ratings were re-scored into a binary format (i.e., 0 or 1), indicating simply whether a particular need was either identified or not identified by the supervising case manager. For example, a need area (i.e., employment pattern) requiring "some need for improvement" or "considerable need for improvement" would be an identified need and scored as "1".
Table 2 shows the percentage of cases with identified needs who were assessed using the Scale. As Table 2 shows, all of the need dimensions that were covered by the scale were evidenced in the sample. Notably, 40.4% of the cases were assessed by case managers as having a companions/significant others need, 36.9% of the cases assessed had a financial management need, and 35% of the cases assessed had an employment pattern need.
| Need Dimension | # of Cases | % |
|---|---|---|
| Academic/vocational skills | 94 | 20.8 |
| Employment pattern | 158 | 35.0 |
| Financial management | 167 | 36.9 |
| Marital/family relationships | 150 | 33.2 |
| Companions/significant others | 182 | 40.4 |
| Accommodation | 70 | 15.5 |
| Behavioral/emotional stability | 157 | 34.8 |
| Alcohol usage | 84 | 18.6 |
| Drug usage | 71 | 15.7 |
| Mental ability | 39 | 8.7 |
| Health | 41 | 9.1 |
| Attitude | 112 | 25.1 |
In moving towards a more sophisticated scoring mechanism for the Scale, we added the number of needs that were identified for each offender and constructed a total Case Needs score for each case. Summed in this fashion, the total Case Needs score could range from 0 to 12. With respect to the total number of identified needs, Table 3 presents the percentage distribution of identified needs total scores (i.e., multi-need cases). We note that 72.4% of the cases assessed had at least one identified need, 55.6% had at least two identified needs, and 47.4% had at least three identified needs on conditional release. Interestingly, only 27.6% of the cases were assessed as having no identified needs.
| # of Identified Needs | # of Cases | Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | 0 | 125 | 27.6 | 27.6 |
| 1 | 76 | 16.8 | 44.4 | |
| 2 | 37 | 8.2 | 52.6 | |
| Medium | 3 | 55 | 12.1 | 64.7 |
| 4 | 44 | 9.7 | 74.4 | |
| 5 | 23 | 5.1 | 79.5 | |
| High | 6 | 21 | 4.6 | 84.1 |
| 7 | 23 | 5.1 | 89.2 | |
| 8 | 25 | 5.5 | 94.7 | |
| 9 | 11 | 2.4 | 97.1 | |
| 10 | 10 | 2.2 | 99.3 | |
| 11 | 3 | 0.7 | 100.0 | |
In keeping with the distribution of cases prescribed by the case manager’s global ratings, the total Case Needs scores were divided into the three groupings as shown below.
| Need Level | # of Identified Needs | % of Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Low | (O to 2) | 52.6 |
| Medium | (3 to 5) | 26.9 |
| High | (6+) | 20.5 |
Scaled Ratings of Identified Needs
Scaled ratings for each need dimension were generated by simply assigning the following values: 101 for "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment", Ill for "no immediate need for improvement", 121 for "some need for improvement", and 131 for "considerable need for improvement".
For each need area, Table 4 shows the percentage distribution of the various scaled ratings. As Table 4 clearly indicates, there is considerable variation in scaled ratings within each need area. For example, within the ‘employment pattern’ need area, 22.1% of the cases were seen to have their employment as an asset to community adjustment, 42.9% were viewed as having no immediate need for improving their employment, 23.5% were assessed to have some need to improve their employment situation, and 11.5% were rated as having an employment pattern which had considerable need for improvement.
| Identified Need | Scaled Rating | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Academic/vocational skills | -- | 79.2 | 16.4 | 4.4 |
| Employment pattern | 22.1 | 42.9 | 23.5 | 11.5 |
| Financial management | 14.8 | 48.2 | 15.7 | 11.3 |
| Marital/family relationships | 22.1 | 44.7 | 23.5 | 9.7 |
| Companions/significant others | 18.4 | 41.2 | 30.6 | 9.8 |
| Accommodation | 35.2 | 49.3 | 10.4 | 5.1 |
| Behavioral/emotional stability | -- | 65.2 | 23.5 | 11.3 |
| Alcohol usage | -- | 81.4 | 11.7 | 6.9 |
| Drug usage | -- | 84.2 | 8.7 | 7.1 |
| Mental ability | -- | 91.3 | 6.9 | 1.8 |
| Health | -- | 90.9 | 7.4 | 1.8 |
| Attitude | 20.1 | 54.8 | 20.1 | 4.9 |
Again, in moving towards another scoring mechanism for the Scale, we then added together the ascribed values for each scaled rating into a Case Needs score for each case. Scored in this manner, the total scores on the Case Needs Scale could range from 0 to 36 for all offenders.
With respect to the Case Needs scored in this fashion, Appendix D presents the percentage distribution of total Case Needs scores.
Once more, utilizing the distribution of cases derived from the case manager’s global ratings, the total Case Needs scores using scaled ratings fell into three Case Needs level groupings as shown below.
| Need Level | Total Needs Score | % of Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Low | (0 to 13) | 51.7 |
| Medium | (14 to 18) | 28.5 |
| High | (19+) | 19.9 |
Weighted Ratings of Case Needs
In exploring a statistically derived scoring mechanism for the Scale, we decided to weight the scaled ratings of each need area according to the relative strengths and directions of the relationships that were found to exist between scaled need ratings and outcomes on conditional release (see Appendix E). For the actual weights used for each need dimension see Appendix F.
With respect to the scaled need ratings weighted in this manner, Appendix G presents the percentage distribution of Case Needs total scores derived from weighted ratings.
Similarly, we again applied the distribution of cases derived from the case manager’s global ratings. As shown below, the total Case Needs scores fell into the following three groupings:
| Need Level | Total Needs Score | % of Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Low | (-8 to 2) | 50.8 |
| Medium | (3 to 11) | 29.6 |
| High | (12+) | 19.7 |
E. Criminal History Risk And Outcome On Conditional Release
An important question that remains is the relationship between criminal history risk and case needs assessments and subsequent conditional release outcome. Failure on conditional release included suspension warrants issued within six months of initial assessment and revocations within an extended nine month follow-up period. The reason we chose to extend the length of follow-up for revocations was to allow some extra time for any procedural delays (i.e., court, etc.) to be resolved among those cases who had also been suspended within the six month follow-up period. It should be noted that even by extending the follow-up period an extra three months for revocations, we are not capturing the full extent of revocations which may have been initiated through suspensions which occurred during the first six months of follow-up.
Overall, 104 (23%) cases who were assessed during the field test were suspended within six months of their assessment. In addition, 58 (12.8%) cases were subsequently revoked within a nine month follow-up period. we were able to determine the exact reason for suspension in only 50% of the cases who participated in the field test. Of these, the majority (55.8%) were suspended for involvement in criminal activity (i.e., break and enter 9.6%, theft under 5.8%, armed robbery 3.8%). Alcohol consumption (23.1%) and use of non-prescription drugs (5.8%) were also major reasons for suspension while on conditional release.
In Table 5, we present the overall percentage distribution of cases who failed (i.e., suspended and revoked) within the two criminal history risk level groupings (i.e., low versus high). As expected, those offenders who were classified as high risk had the highest rates of suspension (36.6%) and revocation (21.2%) on conditional release, with those classified as low risk showing considerably lower rates of failure.
| Risk Level | Outcome Measure | |
|---|---|---|
| Suspension (n=104) | Revocation (n=58) | |
| Low (n=226) | 9.3% | 4.4% |
| High (n=227) | 36.6% | 21.2% |
F. Case Needs And Outcomes On Conditional Release
Table 6 shows the number of cases in the sample where a particular need was identified. For each need area, the Table also shows the percentage distribution of failures (i.e., suspensions) associated with that need. Statistical analysis revealed that only two of the twelve need factors assessed did not significantly relate to failure on conditional release. The two need factors found not to be significant were mental ability and health.
The ten need factors which significantly differentiated between failure and success on conditional release were related to outcome as follows: 1) the more an offender’s specific vocational skills and/or education caused interference, the higher the probability was of that offender being suspended; 2) the less stable an offender’s employment pattern, the greater the likelihood of that offender being suspended; 3) the more ineffective an offender was in managing personal finances, the greater were his chances of being suspended; 4) the less satisfying an offender’s marital/family relationships, the more likely that offender was to be suspended; 5) the more negative an offender’s associations in the community, the higher the probability of being suspended; 6) the less satisfactory an offender’s accommodation was in the community, the greater the likelihood of that offender being suspended; 7) the more behaviorally or emotionally unstable an offender, the greater were his chances of being suspended; 8) the more dysfunctional an offender’s alcohol usage, the more likely that offender was to be suspended; 9) the more dysfunctional an offender’s drug usage, the more likely that offender was to be suspended; and 10) the less responsive the offender was to assistance, the greater were the chances of being suspended.
| Need Dimension | % with Identified need | Suspension within six months | Significant Statistical relations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic / vocational skills | 20.8 | 35.1 | ** |
| Employment pattern | 35.0 | 36.1 | *** |
| Financial Management | 37.0 | 37.1 | *** |
| Marital / family relationships | 33.2 | 37.3 | *** |
| Companions / significant others | 40.4 | 40.7 | *** |
| Accommodation | 15.5 | 45.7 | *** |
| Behavioral / emotional stability | 34.8 | 34.4 | *** |
| Alcohol usage | 18.6 | 46.4 | *** |
| Drug usage | 15.7 | 39.4 | *** |
| Mental ability | 8.7 | 28.2 | ns |
| Health | 9.1 | 14.6 | ns |
| Attitude | 25.1 | 40.2 | *** |
| Note: ns = non-significant; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 | |||
Table 7 presents the percentage distribution of failures (i.e., suspensions) associated with each particular scaled rating. It can be seen from the results that when scaled ratings for each need factor are used, a consistent pattern of outcomes emerges. That is, we see that as scaled ratings increase so do the number of cases failing. only one need factor did not hold with this common direction. The need factor found not to be consistent was health. In fact, the findings suggest that if health is causing interference in an offender’s daily functioning then they are more likely to be successful on conditional release.
| Identified Need | Scaled Rating | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Academic/vocational skills | -- | 19.8 | 35.1 | 35.0 |
| Employment pattern | 6.0 | 21.1 | 35.9 | 36.5 |
| Financial management | 4.5 | 17.4 | 37.1 | 37.3 |
| Marital/family relationships | 8.0 | 19.8 | 35.9 | 40.9 |
| companions/significant others | 1.2 | 15.6 | 38.4 | 47.7 |
| Accommodation | 6.3 | 27.8 | 51.1 | 34.8 |
| Behavioral/emotional stability | -- | 16.7 | 34.0 | 35.3 |
| Alcohol usage | -- | 17.7 | 45.3 | 48.4 |
| Drug usage | -- | 20.0 | 41.0 | 37.5 |
| Mental ability | -- | 22.7 | 29.0 | 25.0 |
| Health | -- | 24.0 | 15.2 | 12.5 |
| Attitude | 7.8 | 21.2 | 38.9 | 45.5 |
In Table 8, we show the overall percentage of cases who failed on conditional release within the three Case Needs level groupings using the four different scoring methods. As expected, those offenders who were classified as high and medium case needs had the highest rates of suspension and revocation on conditional release, with those classified as low case needs showing proportionately lower rates of failure.
While considerable predictive value was found for each scoring method, it was found that better levels of precision, and more apparent differentiation could be achieved by using the most sophisticated "weighted ratings" method for classifying offenders. The disadvantage, however, is that this method requires some summation and calculation that may be perceived by case managers as too mechanistic and clerical in nature.
| Criterion/Need Level | Global Ratings | Simple Summation | Scale Ratings | Weighted Ratings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suspension | Low | 10.8 | 11.3 | 11.5 | 10.9 |
| Medium | 32.4 | 26.2 | 24.0 | 23.1 | |
| High | 41.2 | 48.4 | 51.1 | 53.9 | |
| Revocation | Low | 4.7 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 3.9 |
| Medium | 19.9 | 16.4 | 15.5 | 16.4 | |
| High | 25.5 | 29.0 | 31.1 | 30.3 | |
G. Predictive Accuracy Statistics for Different Scoring Procedures of Case Needs
In order to establish the comparability of predictive accuracy and efficiency of the various methods for scoring Case Needs, we present in Table 9 several measures of predictive efficiency. Correctly classified cases refers to the percentage of cases that were correctly identified as failures or successes by each scoring method. Correctly identified failures refers simply to those cases that were predicted to fail on conditional release and did so. Finally, Relative Improvement Over Chance (Loeber & Dishion, 1983) provides a measure of predictive efficiency which is less sensitive to varying base rates (i.e, overall failure rates) and selection rates (i.e., predicted failure rates).
In general, one expects that using a more sophisticated scoring procedure will result in better predictive accuracy and efficiency. This does not always turn out to be the case, especially when examining different outcome measures. As Table 9 indicates, relatively few gains in predictive accuracy and efficiency are to be made by using more sophisticated means of scoring Case Needs for determining an offender’s probability of suspension. On the other hand, there are consistent gains in predictive accuracy and efficiency to be made with level of sophistication in assessing Case needs for determining an offender’s probability of revocation. of special note, the weighted ratings method was found to perform considerably better than global ratings of identified needs for revocations.
| Criterion / Method | Correctly Classified % | Correctly Identified Failures % | Relative Improvement Over Chance % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suspensions/ (BR = 23.0) | Global ratings of Need Level | 63.1 | 76.0 | 53.1 |
| Simple Tallies of Identified Needs | 63.6 | 74.0 | 50.6 | |
| Scaled Ratings of Nead Areas | 62.7 | 74.0 | 49.7 | |
| Weighted Ratings of Each Need Area | 62.7 | 76.0 | 52.7 | |
| Revocations/ (BR = 12.8) | Global Ratings of Identified Needs | 59.2 | 81.0 | 53.0 |
| Simple Tallies of Identified Needs | 60.5 | 81.0 | 63.9 | |
| Scaled ratings of Need Areas | 60.0 | 82.8 | 66.6 | |
| Weighted Ratings of Each Need Areas | 59.6 | 84.5 | 69.4 | |
| BR= Base Rate; Overall suspension and revocation rates. | ||||
H. Combined Risk/Needs Levels and Outcome on Conditional Release
Although we examined the predictive value of criminal history risk level and the various methods of determining Case Needs levels for differentiating outcomes of offenders on conditional release, another focus in this report was to explore the relationship between a combined risk/needs assessment and conditional release outcomes.
Table 10 presents the relationship between combined risk/needs levels and conditional release outcome for four separate scoring mechanisms (i.e., global rating, simple summation, scale ratings, and weighted ratings). The data presented include the percentage distribution of failures (i.e., suspensions) on conditional release associated with that risk/needs level. We also employed revocations as an outcome measure,, and compared combined risk/needs levels for each of the scoring mechanisms. The results of these runs are appended because they essentially replicate our findings using suspensions.
The risk/needs level combinations are ordered in Table 10 according to needs levels within criminal history risk from the highest to the lowest. It can be seen from the results that when criminal history risk and case needs are combined that consideration of an offender’s needs is also critical. For example, in examining the effects of combining assessments of criminal history risk with each possible method of scoring case needs level, it was found that low risk and high need cases had higher rates of failure than high risk and low need cases.
Overall, the findings from this table suggest that a systematic method of combining criminal history risk and case needs is a worthwhile pursuit, especially in light of its predictive value in relation to conditional release outcomes. While the choice of any one particular scoring method for an assessment instrument is primarily dependent on the level of precision required, it is clear from the results that if minimal scoring effort is also a prime consideration then both may be gained by scaled ratings of identified needs. A closer look at Table 10 reveals that should Case Needs be scored in this manner, the number of failures in the low risk and medium need category would be reduced while at the same time placing more failures in the low risk and high need classification. More importantly, however, there is better separation between low risk-high need and high risk-low need cases in terms of failure rates on conditional release (49.9% and 24.0%, respectively).
While it is clear that improved differentiation among offenders can be achieved by systematically scoring the Case Needs, it is perhaps the relative ease in which the Case Needs levels can be computed using scale ratings of identified needs that makes this approach to scoring the scale the most attractive.
| Risk/Need Level | Global Ratings | Simple Summation | Scale Rating | Weighted Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Risk - Low Need | 5.1 | 5.1 | 5.7 | 5.6 |
| Low Risk - Medium Need | 13.6 | 9.1 | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| Low Risk - High Need | 26.9 | 36.0 | 42.9 | 42.8 |
| High Risk - Low Need | 22.4 | 23.5 | 24.0 | 22.9 |
| High Risk - Medium Need | 41.3 | 35.9 | 33.7 | 31.5 |
| High Risk - High Need | 47.5 | 52.9 | 53.6 | 57.4 |
V. Discussion
The results of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale field test validated previous findings regarding the predictive value of offender risk/needs assessment. Offenders were easily differentiated by case managers as to the nature and level of needs presented, and these assessments of "Case Needs" were consistently related with conditional release outcomes at the six month follow-up. The following summarizes the major findings:
- the field test reconfirmed that case manager assessments of "criminal history risk" can predict outcome on conditional release.
- the findings of the field test replicated earlier research which found a consistent relationship between identified need areas and conditional release outcome.
- for scoring the ‘Case Needs’ component of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale, it was discovered that better levels of precision, and more apparent differentiation could be achieved by using the most sophisticated "weighted ratings" method.
- combining case manager assessments of "criminal history risk" with ratings of "case needs" can result in improved predictive efficiency.
In sum, the field test of the Community Risk / Needs Management Scale strongly supports the potential usefulness of an objective risk/needs assessment process in establishing guidelines or standards for varying levels of supervision on conditional release. It would seem that the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale can be used effectively to focus supervision resources by capitalizing on the professional judgment of case management staff regarding case needs. Finally, the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale can also provide a useful means of monitoring changes in the offender’s behavior, attitudes and circumstances which are clearly related to release outcome.
VI.References
Andrews, D. A. (1983). The Level of supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up . Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
Baird, S. C., Heinz, R. C., & Bemus, B. J. (1979). Project report #14: A two year follow-up . Wisconsin: Department of Health and Social Services, Case Classification/Staff Deployment Project, Bureau of Community Corrections.
Clear, T. R., & Gallagher, K. W. (1985). Probation and parole supervision. A review of current classification practices. Crime and Delinquency, 31 , 423-443.
CSC/NPB (1988). Standards for Conditional Release Supervision:Draft for Consultation. Ottawa.
Loeber, R., and Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 94 , 68-99.
Motiuk, L. L., & Porporino, F. J. (1989). Offender risk/needs assessment: A study of conditional releases . Correctional Service Canada: Ottawa.
Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Research towards decision Guidelines . Ottawa: Communications Division.
Appendices
Appendix B: COMMUNITY RISK/NEEDS MANAGEMENT SCALE
RATING GUIDELINES
After an initial version of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was drafted, members of the conditional release supervision standards project team sought to develop rating guidelines for each of the case needs categories listed.
The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale consists of the following case needs categories:
- Academic/Vocational Skills
- Employment Pattern
- Financial Management
- Marital/Family Relationships
- Companions/Significant Others
- Accommodation
- Behavioral/Emotional Stability
- Alcohol Usage
- Drug Usage
- Mental Ability
- Health
- Attitude
RATING GUIDELINES
The following outlines some general criteria to be used in the rating of case needs categories. When rating these categories for an initial assessment, then the year preceding a client’s admission and/or time spent in an institution is taken into account. At six months, the rating should take into account mainly the six months on supervision with some consideration given to the pre-admission year and/or time spent in an institution. The twelve month and subsequent annual assessments should consider only the last twelve month period on supervision.
ACADEMIC/VOCATIONAL SKILLS
This category requires a rating from "no immediate need for improvement" to "considerable need for improvement" where "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that either a lack of or surplus of reading, writing, arithmetic, motor, specific vocational skills, and/or education has not interfered with the client’s daily functioning. A client exhibits "some need for improvement" if any of the aforementioned have caused them minor interference with daily functioning and "considerable need for improvement" if the level of skills has caused them serious interference with daily functioning.
EMPLOYMENT PATTERN
For this category, a rating of "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment" indicates that the employment has been very satisfying for the client during the period in question. A rating of "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that neither employment, under employment, sporadic employment, nor chronic unemployment have interfered with daily functioning. A client receives a rating of "some need for improvement" if any of the aforementioned have caused minor adjustment problems while in the community and "considerable need for improvement" if the employment situation has caused serious adjustment problems.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
In this category, a rating of "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment" indicates that the client has been effectively managing their finances during the period as previously stipulated. A rating of "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that a lack of assets, credit, or net income has not been causing difficulties. A rating of "some need for improvement" is given if any of the aforementioned has been causing situational or minor difficulties while under supervision and "considerable need for improvement" if the client’s management of finances has been causing severe difficulties.
MARITAL/FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
For this category, a rating of "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment" indicates that there has been evidence of very positive relationships and considerable support of either parents, relatives, or spouse. A rating of "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that there is evidence of there having been a satisfying and caring relationship within a marriage and/or family which has resulted in there being no current difficulties while under supervision. A rating of "some need for improvement" indicates that there has been evidence of uncaring, hostility, arguments, fighting or indifference in the marital/ family relationships resulting in occasional instability. A rating of "considerable need for improvement" is given if any of the aforementioned have been causing a very unstable pattern of marital/family relationships.
COMPANIONS/SIGNIFICANT OTHERS
In this category, a rating of "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment" indicates that there is evidence of the client having had positive personal associations and considerable support during the period in question. A rating of "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that there is evidence of the client having had mostly non-criminal and/or positive associates. A rating of "some need for improvement" indicates that throughout the period being assessed there has been a lack of positive associates and/or some negative companions (e.g. criminal). A rating of "considerable need for improvement" is given if either of the aforementioned have been interfering consistently with the client’s performance on supervision.
ACCOMMODATION
For this category, a rating of "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment" indicates that the client’s accommodation has been very satisfactory during the period under consideration. A rating of "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that the client’s living arrangement, standard of living, and/or location of residence have not caused any difficulties. A client receives a rating of "some need for improvement" if any of the aforementioned have caused minor adjustment problems while in the community and "considerable need for improvement" if the living situation has resulted in serious adjustment problems.
BEHAVIORAL/EMOTIONAL STABILITY
This category requires a rating from "no immediate need for improvement to "considerable need for improvement" where "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that none of the client’s cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and/or interpersonal characteristics or patterns have been interfering with daily functioning in the community. A client exhibits "some need for improvement" if characteristics or patterns of depression, anxiety, acting-out behaviors, and/or volatile situations have caused minor interference while under supervision and "considerable need for improvement" if any of the aforementioned has seriously interfered with daily functioning while under supervision.
ALCOHOL USAGE
In this category a rating is required ranging from "no immediate need for improvement to "considerable need for improvement" where "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that the extent, nature, and patterns of alcohol consumption by the client while under supervision has had no influence on their adjustment (e.g.’s., abstinence, social drinking). A client demonstrates "some need for improvement" if alcohol consumption has caused them moderate adjustment problems while under supervision and "considerable need for improvement" if problem drinking and/or alcoholism has caused them serious adjustment problems while in the community.
DRUG USAGE
Again, this category requires a rating from "no immediate need for improvement to "considerable need for improvement" where "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that the extent, nature, and patterns of drug use by the client while under supervision has had no influence on their adjustment (e.g.’s, abstinence, compliance with prescriptions). A client demonstrates "some need for improvement" if licit or illicit drug use has caused them moderate adjustment problems while under supervision and "considerable need for improvement" if problem drug use and/or addiction has caused them serious adjustment problems while in the community.
MENTAL ABILITY
A rating from "no immediate need for improvement to "considerable need for improvement" is required in this category where "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that the client’s intellectual competencies have enabled them to adapt to physical, occupational, educational, and/or social demands while under supervision. A client exhibits "some need for improvement" if the their intellectual functioning has been associated with some impairment in adaptation while in the community and "considerable need for improvement" if the client’s intellectual functioning severely limits their ability to adapt while under supervision.
HEALTH
This category requires a rating from "no immediate need for improvement to "considerable need for improvement" where "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that physical health, handicapping conditions, fitness, and/or activity level has not interfered with the client’s daily functioning. A client exhibits "some need for improvement" if any of the aforementioned have caused them minor interference with daily functioning and "considerable need for improvement" if health has caused them serious interference with daily functioning.
ATTITUDE
In this category, a rating of "factors seen as an asset to community adjustment" indicates that there has been evidence of a very positive attitude and considerable involvement in prosocial activities (e.g.’s., work, school, family, treatment, supervision). A rating of "no immediate need for improvement" indicates that there is evidence of the client’s desire to improve their behavior or situation and being receptive to assistance. A rating of "some need for improvement" indicates that there has been evidence of recognition on the part of the client that some improvement in behavior/situations is warranted, but he or she is not taking concrete steps to meet these problem areas. A rating of "considerable need for improvement" is given if there is evidence of firm denials of responsibility, rationalizations for crime, and/or rejection of assistance while under supervision.
SPECIAL NEEDS
In constructing a Community Risk/Needs Management Scale that is uniquely responsive to the community supervision of both sexual and mentally disordered offenders, two additional special needs categories are noted. A special needs category labeled "other" is reserved for those offenders who do meet the aforementioned criteria but merit an over-ride rating. Should special needs be warranted, then the rating assigned should be specified. In addition, the amount of influence that these special needs have with respect to the overall risk/needs rating should also be indicated. These categories are intended to reflect the pronounced needs and deficits of special needs offenders. It is because of the extra demands that these categories pose for community supervision that special needs were added.
SEXUAL OFFENDER
An over-ride rating is required in this category where the extent, nature, and patterns of sex acts or sexual identity by the client while under supervision could interfere with their adjustment.
MENTAL DISORDER
For this category, an over-ride rating is required where reality contact, disturbances in thinking, delusions, hallucinations, lack of insight, or suicidal ideation interfere with daily functioning.
OVERALL RISK/NEEDS RATING:
Ratings for each case needs category are arrived at from a systematic review of community case file information, with particular emphasis on the professional judgments of community case managers. An overall case needs rating is simply the compilation of these professional judgments into three risk/needs level groupings; "low", "medium", "high". To this end, a more complete scoring scheme for the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale will be developed with the combined effort of community case managers and researchers.
Appendix C: Distribution of Cases Assessed
| Region | Office/Agency | # of CMO’s | # of Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic | CSC- Charlottetown | 2 | 4 |
| JHS-P.E.I. | 2 | 25 | |
| CSC- Moncton | 4 | 68 | |
| Quebec | SCC-LaFontaine | 12 | 55 |
| Carrefour Noveau Monde | 5 | 21 | |
| Phoenix | 3 | 27 | |
| Ontario | CSC-Brantford | 4 | 39 |
| St. Leonard’s-Brantford | 1 | 17 | |
| Prairies | ASG-Edmonton | 10 | 115 |
| JHS-Edmonton | 2 | 11 | |
| Pacific | CSC-New Westminster | 3 | 58 |
| Catholic Charities-B.C. | 2 | 13 | |
| Total | 12 | 50 | 453 |
Note: CMO’s = Case Management Officers
Appendix D: Percentage Distribution of Case Needs Scores
Using Scaled Ratings
| Case Needs Score | # of Cases | Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ‘low’ | 6 | 14 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| 7 | 15 | 3.4 | 6.6 | |
| 8 | 23 | 5.2 | 11.8 | |
| 9 | 32 | 7.3 | 19.1 | |
| 10 | 23 | 5.2 | 24.3 | |
| 11 | 31 | 7.0 | 31.4 | |
| 12 | 43 | 9.8 | 41.1 | |
| 13 | 40 | 9.1 | 50.2 | |
| ‘medium’ | 14 | 33 | 7.5 | 57.7 |
| 15 | 35 | 8.0 | 65.7 | |
| 16 | 26 | 5.9 | 71.6 | |
| 17 | 21 | 4.8 | 76.4 | |
| 18 | 14 | 3.2 | 79.5 | |
| ‘high’ | 19 | 13 | 3.0 | 82.5 |
| 20 | 14 | 3.2 | 85.7 | |
| 21 | 12 | 2.7 | 88.4 | |
| 22 | 9 | 2.0 | 90.5 | |
| 23 | 10 | 2.3 | 92.7 | |
| 24 | 3 | 7 | 93.4 | |
| 25 | 7 | 1.6 | 95.0 | |
| 26 | 5 | 1.1 | 96.1 | |
| 27 | 5 | 1.1 | 97.3 | |
| 28 | 4 | 0.9 | 98.2 | |
| 29 | 2 | 0.5 | 98.6 | |
| 30 | 3 | 0.7 | 99.3 | |
| 32 | 2 | 0.5 | 99.8 | |
| 34 | 1 | 0.2 | 100.0 | |
Appendix E: Need Rating Correlation with Conditional Release Outcomes
| Dimension | Suspension | Revocation |
|---|---|---|
| Academic/vocational skills | 0.16*** | 0.14** |
| Employment pattern | 0.27*** | 0.25*** |
| Financial management | 0.25*** | 0.26*** |
| Marital/family relationships | 0.27*** | 0.23*** |
| Companions/significant others | 0.39*** | 0.28*** |
| Accommodation | 0.29*** | 0.27*** |
| Behavioral/emotional stability | 0.16*** | 0.16*** |
| Alcohol usage | 0.26*** | 0.15** |
| Drug usage | 0.14** | 0.08 |
| Mental ability | 0.03 | 0.05 |
| Health | -0.07 | -0.01 |
| Attitude | 0.23*** | 0.20*** |
Note: * p< .05; ** p< .01; *** p< .001
Appendix F: Weighted Ratings for Case Need Areas
| Need Dimension | Factors seen as an asset to community adjustment | No immediate need for improvement | Some need for improvement | Considerable need for improvement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Academic/ vocational skills | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Employment pattern | -1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Financial management | -1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Marital / family relationships | -1 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Companions/ significant others | -2 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
| Accommodation | -1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| Behavioral/ emotional stability | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Alcohol usage | 0 | 2 | 3 | |
| Drug usage | 0 | 1 | 2 | |
| Mental ability | 0 | 1 | 4 | |
| Health | -1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Attitude | -1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
Appendix G: Percentage Distribution of Case Needs Scores Using Weighted Ratings
| Case Needs Score | # of Cases | Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ‘low’ | -8 | 14 | 3.2 | 3.2 |
| -7 | 14 | 3.2 | 6.4 | |
| -6 | 14 | 3.2 | 9.5 | |
| -5 | 20 | 4.5 | 14.1 | |
| -4 | 22 | 5.0 | 19.3 | |
| -3 | 20 | 4.5 | 23.6 | |
| -2 | 20 | 4.5 | 28.2 | |
| -1 | 37 | 8.4 | 36.6 | |
| 0 | 20 | 4.5 | 41.1 | |
| 1 | 19 | 4.3 | 45.5 | |
| 2 | 17 | 3.9 | 49.3 | |
| ‘medium’ | 3 | 21 | 4.8 | 54.1 |
| 4 | 15 | 3.4 | 57.5 | |
| 5 | 19 | 4.3 | 61.8 | |
| 6 | 18 | 4.1 | 65.9 | |
| 7 | 16 | 3.6 | 69.5 | |
| 8 | 12 | 2.7 | 72.3 | |
| 9 | 17 | 3.9 | 76.1 | |
| 10 | 8 | 1.8 | 78.0 | |
| 11 | 8 | 1.8 | 79.8 | |
| ‘high’ | 12 | 12 | 2.7 | 82.5 |
| 13 | 5 | 1.1 | 83.6 | |
| 14 | 6 | 1.4 | 85.0 | |
| 15 | 8 | 1.8 | 86.8 | |
| 16 | 5 | 1.1 | 88.0 | |
| 17 | 10 | 2.3 | 90.2 | |
| 18 | 4 | 0.9 | 91.1 | |
| 19 | 7 | 1.6 | 92.7 | |
| 20 | 2 | 0.5 | 93.2 | |
| 21 | 5 | 1.1 | 94.3 | |
| 22 | 1 | 0.2 | 94.5 | |
| 23 | 4 | 0.9 | 95.5 | |
| 24 | 6 | 1.4 | 96.8 | |
| 25 | 2 | 0.5 | 97.3 | |
| 26 | 3 | 0.7 | 98.0 | |
| 27 | 2 | 0.5 | 98.4 | |
| 28 | 3 | 0.2 | 99.1 | |
| 29 | 1 | 0.2 | 99.3 | |
| 30 | 1 | 0.2 | 99.5 | |
| 31 | 1 | 0.2 | 99.8 | |
| 32 | 1 | 0.2 | 100.0 | |
Appendix H: Conditional Release Outcomes for Combinations of Risk/Needs Levels for Different Scoring Procedures (Revocations)
| Risk /Need Level | Global Ratings | Simple Summation | Scale Rating | Weighted Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Risk - Low Need | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Low Risk - Medium Need | 6.8 | 6.8 | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| Low Risk - High Need | 15.4 | 16.0 | 19.1 | 19.1 |
| High Risk - Low Need | 10.5 | 9.9 | 8.0 | 7.1 |
| High Risk - Medium Need | 26.1 | 21.8 | 21.7 | 22.5 |
| High Risk - High need | 27.1 | 33.8 | 34.8 | 33.8 |
