Correctional Service Canada
www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
Research Reports
This Web page has been archived on the Web.
1994, N°. R-34
Laurence L. Motiuk
Shelley L. Brown
Research and Statistics Branch
Correctional Service Canada
November, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Community-based Case Needs Identification and Analysis
- Subjects
Part 1. Characteristics of the Release Sample
Part 2. Male Releases
- A. Regional Overview
- B. Release Status Overview
- C. Predictive Validity
Part 3. Female Releases
- A. Risk, Need, Risk/Need Level Overview
- B. Release Status Overview
- C. Descriptive Statistics
Table 1. Distribution of Release Cases
Table 2. Characteristics of Release Sample
Table 3. Overall Risk Level: Male Releases
Table 4. Overall Case Needs Level: Male Releases
Table 5. Overall Risk/Needs Level: Male Releases (n)
Table 6. Percentage of Male Releases with Identified Needs
Table 7. Percentage of Male Releases with Number of Identified Needs
Table 8. Overall Risk Level by Release Status (Males)
Tables 9. Overall Case Needs Level by Release Status: (Males)
Table 10. Overall Risk/Needs Level by Release Status (Males)
Table 11. Percentage of Males with Identified Needs by Release Status
Table 12. Percentage of Males with Number of Identified Needs by Release Status
Table 13. Outcome on Conditional Release by Risk Level (Males)
Table 14. Outcome on Conditional Release by Needs Level (Males)
Table 15. Outcome on Conditional Release by Risk/Needs Level (Males)
Table 16. Outcome on Conditional Release for Cases with Identified Needs (Males)
Table 17. Outcome on Conditional Release by Number of Identified Needs (Males)
Table 18. Outcome on Conditional Release by Employment Domain Indicators (Males)
Table 19. Outcome on Conditional Release by Marital/Family Domain Indicators (Males)
Table 20. Outcome on Conditional Release by Associates/Social Interaction Domain Indicators (Males)
Table 21. Outcome on Conditional Release by Substance Abuse Domain Indicators (Males)
Table 22. Outcome on Conditional Release by Community Functioning Domain Indicators (Males)
Table 23. Outcome on Conditional Release by Personal/Emotional Domain Indicators (Males)
Table 24. Outcome on Conditional Release by Attitude Domain Indicators (Males)
Table 25. Outcome on Conditional Release by Level of Motivation
Table 26. Outcome on Conditional Release for Males with Special Conditions
Table 27. Overall Risk Level: Female Releases
Table 28. Overall Case Needs Level: Female Releases
Table 29. Overall Risk/Needs Level: Female Releases (n)
Table 30. Percentage of Female Releases with Identified Needs
Table 31. Percentage of Female Releases with Number of Identified Needs
Table 32. Overall Risk Level by Release Status: Females
Table 33. Overall Case Needs Level by Release Status: Females
Table 34. Overall Risk/Needs Level by Release Status: Females
Table 35. Percentage of Females with Identified Needs by Release Status
Table 36. Percentage of Females with Number of Identified Needs by Release Status
Table 37. Employment Domain Indicators (Females)
Table 38. Marital/Family Domain Indicators (Females)
Table 39. Associates/Social Interaction Domain Indicators (Females)
Table 40. Substance Abuse Domain Indicators (Females)
Table 41. Community Functioning Domain Indicators (Females)
Table 42. Personal/Emotional Domain Indicators (Females)
Table 43. Attitude Domain Indicators (Females)
Table 44. Level of Motivation (Females)
Table 45. Special Conditions (Females)
Appendix A: Case Needs Identification and Analysis
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to express our appreciation to the Ontario region’s correctional strategy working group for their full collaboration in this project. In this regard, we are grateful to Bob Brown, Pat Castillo, Eric Duggan, Bruce Jefferson, Gareth Hughes, Lynn Stewart, Craig Townson and Gertie Witte for their steadfast commitment and assistance in this project.
We would like to give special thanks to Ray Belcourt, Roger Boe and Sue Seguin at National Headquarters for their assistance with data extraction from CSC’s automated offender information system.
Most of all, we acknowledge our debt to the parole offices and private sector agencies whose many staff and supervisors participated in the correctional strategy exercise.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The application of a systematic approach to assessing the needs of offenders, the risk of re-offending and any other factor which might affect successful reintegration to the community is a major component of the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) and National Parole Board’s (NPB) standards for conditional release supervision. More recently, ensuring that community-based programming and service delivery effectively meets offender needs has evolved into a service-wide Correctional Strategy. This research examines the validity of an enhanced case management approach to offender needs identification and analysis in community corrections.
The ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ portion of the Offender Intake (Front-end) Assessment Process, was adapted and piloted in the Ontario region for community corrections. While the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ protocol had collapsed the 12 need areas of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale into seven need areas (employment, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation, attitude), the individual ratings for both criminal risk (low- , high-) and case need levels (low-, medium-, high-) were retained as well as the individual ratings for each target domain. In addition, the community version of ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ was enhanced to capture current employment status (e.g., full-time, part-time, etc.), need for intervention, level of motivation for intervention, and whether or not there is a special NPB condition which could be used to effect an intervention.
A sample of 604 federally sentenced adult offenders (573 males; 31 females) who had been released from institutions in the Ontario region over a six month period were gathered for study. The community-based ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ was administered by case managers (parole officers) at 22 CSC parole offices (including one community correctional centre) and 7 private agency offices. As expected, the largest proportion of releases were obtained from the Central district (55%) followed by East/North (26%) and Western (19%) districts. While the majority of cases were under the direct supervision of the CSC, about 16% of the sample were under the supervision of a private agency.
An examination of selected case characteristics for the release sample revealed that the majority of offenders were over 25 years of age, serving less than four year sentences and had major admitting offenses (offence which received the longest sentence) of robbery (36.5%), property-related (36.5%) and drug offenses (26.9%). The distribution of cases was roughly equivalent across the three categories of release type: day parole (35.5%), full parole (31.7%) and mandatory supervision (32.8%).
The results of the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ pilot validated previous findings regarding the operational value of systematically assessing and re-assessing offender risk and need. Both male and female offenders on conditional release were easily differentiated by case managers as to the nature and level of criminal risk and case needs presented. While the distributions of low- and high-risk cases were roughly equivalent for men (53% and 47%, respectively) and women (50% and 40%, respectively), a similar pattern emerged with respect to the distribution of low-, medium-, and high-need cases for men (28%, 45% and 27%, respectively) and women (17%, 53% and 30%, respectively).
In relation to the type of needs, however, some gender-related differences did emerge. Male offenders were found to have more identified needs in the areas of associates/social interaction, substance abuse and attitude than females. Female offenders showed more problem areas in employment, marital/family and community functioning than males. Both genders were similar in the percentage of cases identified with personal/emotional needs. As for number of case needs identified, a larger proportion of the female releases was found to be multi-need (two or more needs identified) than male offenders on conditional release (71% and 65%, respectively).
As expected, the largest proportion of cases assessed as [high-risk, high-need] was found among those offenders released on mandatory supervision and the smallest proportion of cases assessed as [high-risk, high-need] was among those offenders released on full parole. In fact, nearly half of the those released on full parole were assessed as [low-risk, low-need] cases. Interestingly, the proportions of [high-risk, high-need] and [low-risk, low-need] cases were roughly equivalent for both male and female offenders released on day parole. These distributions obtained by ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ reflect the same risk/need level profile obtained nationally using the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale.
While the reasons for suspending an offender are varied, the issuing of a suspension warrant is most often associated with indicators of re-offence. The reasons for suspension were not examined in this study. Previous research has found that the two major reasons for issuing suspension warrants were criminal charge and breach of condition. A six month follow-up of the release sample revealed that 116 (21%) male offenders and 4 (13%) female offenders had been issued suspension warrants. Due to the low number of suspensions found among the female release sample, predictive validity estimates are reported for male releases only.
By combining assessments of criminal risk with global ratings of case needs as many as 36.7% of male offenders assessed as [high-risk, high-need] had suspension warrants issued within six months of their initial risk/needs assessment. In contrast, substantially fewer offenders assessed as [low-risk, low-need] were issued suspension warrants (9%). While the 36.7% suspension rate for [high-risk, high-need] cases was substantially above the 21% overall base rate for suspension, the 9% suspension rate observed among those assessed as [low-risk, low-need] cases was substantially below the 21% overall base rate for suspension of male releases. This finding replicates earlier validation work conducted on the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale as well as other needs assessment devices. Furthermore, it provides empirical support for using an objective risk/needs assessment process in establishing guidelines or standards for varying levels of supervision on conditional release.
All seven need areas or target domains related significantly to the likelihood of suspension warrants being issued to male releases within a six month follow-up period. As expected, the fewer needs male releases had in the community the less likely they were to be suspended while on conditional release. Important predictors of suspension on conditional release for male offenders were lack of education, dissatisfaction with job/trade/skill, unstable job history, marital problems, poor family functioning, criminal associations, unstable accommodation, poor financial management, deficient cognitive skills and antisocial attitudes. Variables found to be unrelated to conditional release outcome were learning disability, physical impairment, physical/sexual abuse as a child, social isolation, assertiveness, health, self-presentation, sexual dysfunction and mental deficiency.
Previous research has found that several needs areas were unrelated to outcome on conditional release (e.g., mental ability, health). Therefore reducing the scope of need areas covered by the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ protocol to seven target domains appears to be warranted for the purposes of efficiency and clarity.
Case manager ratings of motivation to address needs were obtained by deciding whether the offender was ‘low’ (willing to involve self), ‘medium’ (willing if required by case manager) or ‘high’ (self-motivated) level of motivation. Interestingly, statistically significant relationships were obtained between level of motivation and outcome for each of the following need areas: marital/family, associates/social interaction, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation and attitude. As expected, the lower the level of motivation the greater the likelihood of suspension warrants being issued. While statistical significance was not reached for employment and substance abuse domains, the same pattern of results were obtained with lower levels of motivation to address these needs. It would appear that the results of the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ pilot test strongly supports the potential usefulness of assessing the level of motivation to address identified needs.
In extending further ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ while on conditional release, we undertook an examination of special National Parole Board conditions which could be used to effect an intervention for identified needs. We note that 71.7% of release cases had received a special condition in relation to the substance abuse domain (e.g., abstain) and 50% for the personal/emotional orientation domain (e.g., counselling). However, of all seven need areas covered by special conditions, only for identified personal/emotional needs was a significant relationship found with outcome on conditional release.
Upon having piloted the community-based ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ as a paper-and-pencil exercise, the collection of this important case-based information lends itself well to full automation and then field tested as an offender assessment system on personal computers. Moreover, an automated approach to assessment could have added functionality whereby standardized risk/need assessment reports are generated, correctional plans can be produced and progress summaries outputted as well as valuable management information databases being delivered. In this regard, we could shift the focus from a correctional strategy exercise of surveying offender needs to an enhanced case management function.
THE VALIDITY OF OFFENDER NEEDS IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
Section Five, of the Conditional Release Supervision Standards (CSC, 1989), stipulates that Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) case management staff use a systematic approach to assess the needs of offenders, the risk of re-offending and any other factor which might affect successful reintegration to the community. In order to meet this standard, a ‘Community Risk/Needs Management Scale’ was designed, developed and implemented to capture case-specific information on both "Criminal History" and a critical set of "Case Need" dimensions for classifying of federally sentenced offenders while under conditional release (Motiuk, 1989; Motiuk & Porporino, 1989b).
While the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale was intended to be used as a means of focusing supervision resources (i.e., frequency of contact) and monitoring changes in the offender’s behavior, attitudes and circumstance while under supervision, it’s design had purposely followed the Case Management Strategies approach to offender needs assessment which uses an instrument called the Force-field Analysis of Needs. The Force-field approach to offender needs assessment had been developed in the mid-west United States for youthful probationers (Lerner, Arling, & Baird, 1986) and adopted for assessing the individual case needs of federally sentenced adult prisoners. However, over and above the Force-field Analysis of Needs, there remained a requirement for CSC to be able to objectify and systematize case manager (parole officer) judgements of offender needs, not only in context (i.e., community versus institution), but also to allow for changes across time and settings. Therefore, the ‘Community Risk/Needs Management Scale’ was essentially putting into practice a simple scheme that would allow case managers to classify offender needs into ‘low-‘, ‘medium-‘ or ‘high-‘ level groupings (Motiuk & Porporino, 1989b).
Previous research regarding the predictive value of offender risk/needs assessments had revealed the following: 1) criminal history factors were strongly related to outcome on conditional release (Nuffield, 1982), 2) a consistent relationship existed between the type and number of needs that offenders present and the likelihood of their re-offending (Motiuk & Porporino, 1989a); and most importantly 3) combined assessment of both the level of risk (e.g., criminal history) and needs (e.g., employment, substance abuse) significantly improved our ability to differentiate cases according to likelihood of re-offending (Andrews, 1982; Bonta & Motiuk, 1990, 1992; Motiuk & Porporino, 1989a).
In field testing the ‘Community Risk/Needs Management Scale’, it was found that case managers in the community (parole officers) could easily differentiate federal offenders as to the nature and level of risk/needs presented, and these offender risk/need assessments were consistently related with conditional release outcome (Motiuk & Brunet, 1991). Motiuk and Porporino (1989b) also found 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, high-need] were suspended within six months of their initial assessment. On the other hand, substantially fewer offenders assessed as [low-risk, low-need] were suspended (5.1%) while on conditional release. Of particular interest, this [low- risk, low-need] group was the largest category among the risk/need level groupings that were identified (representing 35% of the total sample of cases that were assessed). Therefore, reducing the frequency of supervision for these lower risk cases had important implications for the re-allocation and re-focusing of community resources.
While a consistent relationship exists between the type and number of needs that offenders present and the likelihood of their re-offending, it is not surprising to find that addressing offender needs is at the very core of the Correctional Service of Canada’s Correctional Strategy. More specifically, offender needs should be driving program and service delivery, and should be the focus for successful reintegration into the community.
II. PRESENT STUDY
In August 1991, under the auspices of the CSC’s Correctional Strategy initiative, it was put forward that an offender’s needs should drive programming and service delivery should be primarily focusing on successful reintegration into the community. At the time, the Force-field Analysis of Needs was being used to conduct offender needs assessments upon admission to federal corrections. However, upon closer examination the Force-field Analysis of Needs was deemed to be limited in so far as offender needs at admission were being prioritized and subsequently identified on the basis of two criteria: 1) alterability and
2) program availability. Notwithstanding the aforementioned constraints, a three-district working group in the Ontario region concluded that the Force-field Analysis of Needs in its present form and administration was an inadequate tool for the expressed purposes of the Correctional Strategy (i.e., profiling offender needs) and in the context of community corrections.
Consequently, in collaboration with the Research and Statistics Branch at National Headquarters, an Ontario region working group adopted and adapted the schemata being developed at the time for the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ portion of the Offender Intake (Front-end) Assessment project that had been underway since December 1990. A ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ protocol had collapsed the 12 need areas of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale into seven need dimensions or target domains (Motiuk & Pisapio, 1991). These need areas included: employment, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation and attitude.
While the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ protocol is comprised of some 200 indicators and is currently being pilot tested, it was principally designed and developed for offender needs assessment upon admission to federal custody. The Ontario region working group utilized the conceptual framework for the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ protocol, however, they streamlined the scope of the needs assessment by eliminating indicators that yielded case history information deemed to be unresponsive to intervention. Most important, however, the individual ratings for both ‘criminal risk’ and ‘case need’ level were retained as well as the individual ratings for each need area. It was thought that this framework for systematic risk/need assessment while on conditional release would thereby be aligned with risk/need assessment upon admission to federal corrections. Subsequently, approval was given to pilot test this community-based ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ or risk/need assessment process across all of the parole offices and private sector agencies in the Ontario region.
Community-based Case Needs Identification and Analysis
As mentioned, construction of new instrumentation purposely followed the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ schemata being piloted at admission to federal corrections. In so doing, the intention was to capitalize on the extensive consultation with case management and program delivery staff that had already taken place. The seven need areas (i.e., targets for intervention) selected for ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ are typical of those included in offender need assessment instruments used in other jurisdictions. A total of seven need areas were organized and further broken down by means of various indicators therein (see Appendix A). These included:
- Need Domains
- Employment (9 indicators);
- Marital/Family (7 indicators);
- Associates/Social Interaction (6 indicators);
- Substance Abuse (2 indicators);
- Community Functioning (6 indicators);
- Personal/Emotional (12 indicators); and
- Attitude (4 indicators).
In addition to the aforementioned, the community-based ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ process was enhanced to capture employment status (e.g., employed full-time, part-time, etc.), need for intervention, level of motivation for accepting intervention(s) [’low’ (unwilling to involve self), ‘moderate’ (willing if required by case manager), ‘high’ (self-motivated)] and whether there was a special National Parole Board condition which could be used to effect the above intervention(s).
III. METHOD
Subjects
A sample of 604 federally sentenced adult offenders (573 males; 31 females) who had been released from institutions in the Ontario region over a six month period were selected for this study. The three districts in the Ontario region included Central (n = 332), Western (n = 114) and East/Northern (n = 158).
Twenty-two of the sites were CSC parole offices (including one community correctional centre) and seven were private agency offices (Elizabeth Fry, John Howard, Salvation Army). In Table 1, we present a distribution of release cases by district, office/agency within district and by gender. As expected, the largest proportion of releases were obtained from the Central district (55%), followed by East/North (26%) and Western (19%) districts. While the majority of cases were under the direct supervision of the Correctional Service of Canada, about 16% were under the supervision of a private agency.
Table 1.
Distribution of Release Cases
DISTRICT |
OFFICE/AGENCY |
MALE |
FEMALE |
CENTRAL |
Barrie | 14 |
0 |
| Hamilton | 44 |
2 |
|
| Hamilton Elizabeth Fry Society | 0 |
1 |
|
| Hamilton John Howard Society | 8 |
0 |
|
| Keele C.C.C. | 44 |
0 |
|
| Peel | 24 |
2 |
|
| Muskoka | 2 |
0 |
|
| Toronto Downtown | 16 |
1 |
|
| Toronto East | 39 |
0 |
|
| Toronto West | 16 |
1 |
|
| T.O. Team Supervision Unit | 20 |
0 |
|
| Toronto Elizabeth Fry Society | 0 |
12 |
|
| Toronto Salvation Army | 53 |
0 |
|
| York/Durham | 33 |
0 |
|
| Sub-total | 313 |
19 |
|
WESTERN |
Brantford | 8 |
1 |
| Guelph | 21 |
0 |
|
| London | 20 |
0 |
|
| London John Howard Society | 0 |
0 |
|
| London Salvation Army | 7 |
0 |
|
| St. Catharines | 30 |
0 |
|
| St. Catharines Salvation Army | 10 |
1 |
|
| Windsor | 13 |
0 |
|
| Windsor John Howard Society | 3 |
0 |
|
| Sub-total | 112 |
2 |
|
EAST/NORTH |
Kingston Supervision | 45 |
8 |
| Ottawa | 46 |
2 |
|
| Peterborough | 35 |
0 |
|
| Portsmouth | 6 |
0 |
|
| Sault Ste. Marie | 0 |
0 |
|
| Sudbury | 16 |
0 |
|
| Timmins | 0 |
0 |
|
| Sub-total | 148 |
10 |
|
| Total | 573 |
31 |
|
IV. RESULTS
PART 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RELEASE SAMPLE
Table 2 presents a distribution of selected characteristics for the release sample. We note that the majority of the release sample was over 25 years of age (87.5%) and serving less than four year sentences (71.5%). In addition, the largest proportion of cases had major admitting offenses of robbery (35.5%), property (36.5%) and drug (26.9%) offenses. Interestingly, the distribution of cases was roughly equivalent across the three categories of release type; day parole (35.5%), full parole (31.7%) and statutory release (32.8%).
Table 2.
Characteristics of Release Sample
CHARACTERISTIC |
PERCENTAGE OF CASES |
| AGE: | |
| < 19
(years) 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50+ |
0.2 12.3 25.9 38.3 16.1 0.2 |
| SENTENCE LENGTH: | |
| < 4
(years) 4 - 10 10+ Life |
71.5 18.8 5.1 4.6 |
| MAJOR OFFENCE: | |
| Homicide Manslaughter Attempt Murder Sex Offence Robbery Drug Property |
3.8 5.0 0.6 7.8 36.5 26.9 36.5 |
In order to identify the personal attributes and circumstances of offenders that are predictive of future outcome on conditional release, we examined the predictive value of a variety of measures assessed at release in relation to suspension warrants being issued over a six month follow-up period. For male releases, we present a series of descriptive, chi-square and correlational analyses with respect to the following: levels of risk (e.g., criminal history), need (e.g., employment, substance abuse), risk and need levels combined, identified needs, number of needs, indicators within each need domain, level of motivation and special NPB conditions.
A. Regional Overview
Level of Risk.
To arrive at a level of risk, case managers either rely on the NPB assessment of risk (i.e., low versus not low), the Statistical Information on Recidivism (SIR) scale or their own judgement of criminal risk based on a thorough review of the offender’s criminal record. In Table 3, we show how the male releases were distributed by criminal risk level. We note that 53% were classified as low risk and that 48% were classified as high risk. The almost 50-50 split that we obtained serves to illustrate the kinds of practical limitations that traditional approaches to offender risk assessment can have in correctional decision-making. Reliance on historical information (e.g., criminal record) can result in a measure which is essentially fixed and unchangeable. Consequently, such measures lose much of their predictive value over time and remain unresponsive to differential intervention strategies on conditional release.
Table 3.
Overall Risk Level: Male Releases
RISK LEVEL |
PERCENTAGE OF CASES |
LOW (n = 294) |
53.2 |
HIGH (n = 259) |
46.8 |
Level of Need.
Upon reflection of the nature and level of needs an offender presented, a level of need was simply a compilation of case manager professional judgements into one of three need level groupings: low-, medium-, or high-need. Table 4 displays how the male releases were distributed according to global ratings of case needs. We note that the majority of male releases were assessed by case managers as medium-need (44%). In contrast, about the same percentage of cases were assessed as low-need and high-need cases (28% and 27%, respectively).
Table 4.
Overall Case Needs Level: Male Releases
NEEDS LEVEL |
PERCENTAGE OF CASES |
LOW (n = 155) |
28.0 |
MEDIUM (n = 248) |
44.8 |
HIGH (n = 151) |
27.3 |
Level of Risk/Need.
In Table 5, we present the percentage distribution of male releases who were classified within risk and need levels combined. It is noteworthy that the percentage distribution of male releases assessed as [low-risk, low-need], [low-risk, medium-need] and [high-risk, high-need] were roughly equivalent (24.5%, 26% and 25%, respectively) and accounted for the majority of cases.
Table 5.
Overall Risk/Needs Level: Male Releases (n)
RISK\NEED |
LOW |
MEDIUM |
HIGH |
LOW |
24.5% (135) |
26.6% (147) |
2.2% (12) |
HIGH |
3.4% (19) |
18.1% (100) |
25.2% (139) |
Identified Needs.
By rating each need dimension, case managers identified those needs areas (e.g., employment, etc.) requiring "some need for improvement" or "considerable need for improvement". Taken together these ratings would indicate whether a particular need was either identified or not identified. In Table 6, all seven need areas that were covered by the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ process were evidenced in the sample. Notably, substance abuse (53%), employment (47%), personal/emotional orientation (45%) and marital/family (44%) were among the most prominent needs identified for male releases.
Table 6.
Percentage of Male Releases with Identified Needs
NEED DIMENSION |
# OF CASES |
% |
| Employment | 272 |
47.5 |
| Marital/Family | 249 |
43.5 |
| Associates/Social Interaction | 239 |
41.7 |
| Substance Abuse | 304 |
53.1 |
| Community Functioning | 165 |
28.8 |
| Personal/Emotional Orientation | 257 |
44.9 |
| Attitude | 133 |
23.6 |
Number of Identified Needs.
By adding the number of needs that were identified for each offender, we constructed a total needs score which could range from 0 to 7. Table 7 presents the percentage distribution of identified needs total scores for male releases. As Table 7 shows, about 65% of male release sample were multi-need cases (i.e., more than one need area identified). Interestingly, 16% had no needs identified and 18% had only one need identified.
Table 7.
Percentage of Male Releases with Number of Identified Needs
# OF NEEDS
|
# OF CASES
|
%
|
CUMULATIVE # OF CASES
|
CUMULATIVE %
|
None
|
93
|
16.2
|
93
|
16.2
|
One
|
103
|
18.0
|
196
|
34.2
|
Two
|
90
|
15.7
|
286
|
49.9
|
Three
|
74
|
12.9
|
360
|
62.8
|
Four
|
71
|
12.4
|
431
|
75.2
|
Five
|
55
|
9.6
|
486
|
84.8
|
Six
|
54
|
9.4
|
540
|
94.2
|
Seven
|
33
|
5.8
|
573
|
100.0
|
B. Release Status Overview
Level of Risk.
In Table 8, we present the distribution of risk levels obtained for male releases with respect to each type of conditional release. As we expected, the largest proportion of low-risk cases was found among those released on full parole (84.6%), whereas the largest proportion of high-risk cases was obtained for those released on mandatory supervision (72.5%). Interestingly, the proportion of low- and high-risk cases was almost equivalent among those released on day parole.
Table 8.
Overall Risk Level by Release Status (Males)
STATUS
|
|||
RISK LEVEL
|
Day Parole
(n = 202) |
Full Parole
(n = 162) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 189) |
LOW (n = 294)
|
52.0
|
84.6
|
27.5
|
HIGH (n = 259)
|
48.0
|
15.4
|
72.5
|
Level of Need.
A distribution of need level ratings for male releases by each type of conditional release is presented in Table 9. As Table 9 shows, the largest proportion of low-need cases was found among those released on full parole (51.5%), whereas the largest proportion of high-need cases was obtained for those released on mandatory supervision (42.3%). While the proportions of low- and high-need cases were about the same among those released on day parole (29.7% and 28.7%, respectively), the proportion of medium-need cases was similar across each type of conditional release.
Table 9.
Overall Case Needs Level by Release Status: (Males)
STATUS
|
|||
NEEDS LEVEL
|
Day Parole
(n = 202) |
Full Parole
(n = 163) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 189) |
LOW (n = 155)
|
29.7
|
51.5
|
5.8
|
MEDIUM (n = 248)
|
41.6
|
40.5
|
51.9
|
HIGH (n = 151)
|
28.7
|
8.0
|
42.3
|
Level of Risk/Need.
In examining the risk/need level ratings for male releases with respect to each type of conditional release, Table 10 shows that the largest proportion of [low-risk, low-need] cases was obtained for those released on full parole (48.8%), whereas the largest proportion of [high-risk, high-need] cases was found among those released on mandatory supervision (49.4%). It is also noteworthy that only 6.8% of those offenders released on full parole were assessed to be [high-risk, high-need] cases.
Table 10.
Overall Risk/Needs Level by Release Status (Males)
STATUS
|
|||
RISK/NEEDS LEVEL
|
Day Parole
(n = 202) |
Full Parole
(n = 162) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 188) |
LOW RISK-LOW NEEDS
|
24.8
|
48.8
|
3.2
|
LOW RISK-MEDIUM NEEDS
|
25.3
|
34.6
|
21.3
|
LOW RISK-HIGH NEEDS
|
2.0
|
1.2
|
3.2
|
HIGH RISK-LOW NEEDS
|
5.0
|
2.5
|
2.7
|
HIGH RISK-MEDIUM NEEDS
|
16.3
|
6.2
|
30.3
|
HIGH RISK-HIGH NEEDS
|
26.7
|
6.8
|
39.4
|
Identified Needs.
Table 11 presents the distribution of identified needs for male releases according to each type of conditional release. Among those offenders released on mandatory supervision the most prominent needs identified were employment (69%), substance abuse (66%), personal/emotional orientation (61.4%), marital/family problems (56.4%) and associates/ social interaction (54.8%). The most prevalent need identified for those released on either day parole or full parole was substance abuse (51% and 40.6%, respectively).
Table 11.
Percentage of Males with Identified Needs by Release Status
STATUS
|
|||
NEED DIMENSION
|
Day Parole
(n = 206) |
Full Parole
(n = 170) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 197) |
Employment
|
38.8
|
32.9
|
69.0
|
Marital/Family
|
39.3
|
33.5
|
56.4
|
Associates/Social Interaction
|
44.2
|
23.5
|
54.8
|
Substance Abuse
|
51.0
|
40.6
|
66.0
|
Community Functioning
|
22.8
|
14.7
|
47.1
|
Personal/Emotional Orientation
|
46.1
|
24.1
|
61.4
|
Attitude
|
17.5
|
11.8
|
39.1
|
Number of Identified Needs.
In relation to the number of needs identified for male releases, we present distributions within each type of conditional release (Table 12). Not surprisingly,
a larger percentage of mandatory supervision releases (81.7%) were found to be multi-need cases (two or more identified needs) relative to day parole (64%) or full parole (45.8%) releases.
Table 12.
Percentage of Males with Number of Identified Needs by Release Status
STATUS
|
|||
NEED DIMENSION
|
Day Parole
(n = 206) |
Full Parole
(n = 170) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 197) |
None
|
17.5
|
27.1
|
5.6
|
One
|
18.5
|
27.1
|
9.6
|
Two
|
18.5
|
15.9
|
12.7
|
Three
|
12.6
|
13.5
|
12.7
|
Four
|
14.1
|
5.9
|
16.2
|
Five
|
7.8
|
6.5
|
14.2
|
Six
|
6.8
|
2.9
|
17.8
|
Seven
|
4.4
|
1.2
|
11.2
|
C. Predictive Validity
For male releases, we present a series of chi-square and correlational analyses with respect to levels of risk (e.g., criminal history), need (e.g., employment, substance abuse), risk and need levels combined, identified needs, number of needs, indicators within each need domain, level of motivation and special NPB conditions.
Level of Risk.
We examined the predictive value of risk level ratings on the issuing of suspension warrants for male releases. As Table 13 shows, the suspension rate for low-risk cases was substantially lower than high-risk cases (12% and 31.3%, respectively). As expected, these rates were found to be significantly different [X2 (1, N = 523) = 31.8, p < .001].
Table 13.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Risk Level (Males)
RISK LEVEL
|
% OF CASES SUSPENDED
|
LOW
|
12.0
|
HIGH
|
31.3
|
Level of Need.
In a similar fashion, we examined the predictive value of need level in relation to the issuing of suspension warrants to male releases (Table 14). Male releases which were assessed as low-need cases had the lowest suspension rates (11.7%) followed by medium-need cases (19%) and substantially apart from high-need cases who had the highest suspension rate (33.8%) by end of follow-up. Chi-square analysis revealed that the suspension rates presented in Table 14 significantly differed from one another [X2 (2, N = 523) = 23.9, p < .001] by end of follow-up.
Table 14.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Needs Level (Males)
| NEEDS LEVEL | % OF CASES OF SUSPENDED |
LOW
|
11.7
|
MEDIUM
|
19.0
|
HIGH
|
33.8
|
Level of Risk/Need.
Predictive validity analyses were also conducted for male releases by risk/needs level in relation to suspension. As we show in Table 15, there was a four-fold increase in the likelihood having been issued a suspension warrant for those assessed as [high-risk, high-need] cases relative to [low-risk, low-need].
Table 15.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Risk/Needs Level (Males)
RISK/NEEDS LEVEL
|
% OF CASES
|
% OF CASES SUSPENDED
|
|
LOW RISK-LOW NEEDS
|
24.3
|
9.0
|
LOW RISK-MEDIUM NEEDS
|
26.7
|
15.7
|
LOW RISK-HIGH NEEDS
|
2.2
|
0.0
|
HIGH RISK-LOW NEEDS
|
3.5
|
31.6
|
HIGH RISK-MEDIUM NEEDS
|
18.2
|
24.0
|
HIGH RISK-HIGH NEEDS
|
25.2
|
36.7
|
Identified Needs.
Table 16 displays the percentage of cases in the male release sample where a particular need was identified and the percentage distribution of failures (i.e., suspensions) associated with that need. Statistical analyses revealed all seven need areas covered by ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ were significantly related to suspension on conditional release.
Table 16.
Outcome on Conditional Release for Cases with Identified Needs (Males)
NEED DIMENSION
|
% WITH
IDENTIFIED NEED |
SUSPENSION
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS |
SIGNIFICANT
STATISTICAL RELATIONS |
Employment
|
47.6
|
27.9
|
***
|
Marital/Family
|
43.5
|
25.7
|
**
|
Associates/Social Interaction
|
41.8
|
28.9
|
***
|
Substance Abuse
|
53.1
|
26.3
|
***
|
Community Functioning
|
28.9
|
30.3
|
***
|
Personal/Emotional Orientation
|
44.9
|
26.9
|
**
|
Attitude
|
23.3
|
36.1
|
***
|
Note: ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Number of Identified Needs.
In Table 17, we show the percentage of male releases by number of identified needs and the percentage distribution of suspensions associated with that number of identified needs. As Table 17 indicates, the fewer needs offenders had in the community the less likely they were to be issued suspension warrants while on conditional release.
Table 17.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Number of Identified Needs (Males)
# OF NEEDS
|
% OF
CASES |
% SUSPENDED
CUMULATIVE |
% OF CASES
CUMULATIVE |
% SUSPENDED
|
None
|
16.1
|
7.6
|
16.1
|
7.6
|
One
|
18.0
|
13.6
|
34.1
|
17.8
|
Two
|
15.7
|
10.0
|
49.8
|
25.4
|
Three
|
12.9
|
27.0
|
62.8
|
42.4
|
Four
|
12.4
|
29.6
|
75.2
|
60.2
|
Five
|
9.6
|
23.6
|
84.8
|
71.2
|
Six
|
9.4
|
42.6
|
94.2
|
90.7
|
Seven
|
5.8
|
33.3
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
A closer examination of indicators within each need area, the percentage of cases issued suspension warrants and the relationship between indicators and outcome are presented separately for employment, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation, and attitude domains.
Employment Domain.
A look at the employment domain indicators for male releases revealed that two out of three cases had less than grade 12 and nearly one half had an unstable job history (see Table 18). With respect to suspension warrants issued at follow-up, half of the employment domain indicators were predictive of this outcome. Amongst the major correlates of suspension were no high school diploma (r = .12), dissatisfied with job/skill/trade (r = .14), unstable job history (r = .19), unreliable on job (r = .10) and difficulty with meeting workload requirements.
Table 18.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Employment Domain Indicators (Males)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
r
|
p
|
Less than grade 8
|
21.7
|
20.2
|
.01
|
ns
|
No high school diploma
|
65.8
|
24.2
|
.12
|
**
|
Indication of learning disability
|
6.9
|
29.7
|
.06
|
ns
|
Any physical impairment
|
11.6
|
29.2
|
.08
|
ns
|
Dissatisfied with job/skill/trade
|
33.6
|
27.5
|
.14
|
**
|
Unstable job history
|
47.4
|
28.9
|
.19
|
***
|
Unreliable on job
|
15.5
|
28.6
|
.10
|
*
|
Difficulty with workload requirements
|
6.9
|
35.5
|
.12
|
*
|
Poor interpersonal skills at work
|
9.3
|
29.3
|
.09
|
ns
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Marital/Family Domain.
The marital/family domain indicators are presented in Table 19. We note that a substantial proportion of male releases had experienced problems in their common law/marriage, one third had poor family functioning and over a quarter had experienced physical/sexual abuse as child. Interestingly, only three of the seven marital/family domain indicators demonstrated any predictive value with respect to suspension. These were problems in common law/marriage (r = .12), perpetrator of spousal abuse (r = .13) and poor family functioning (r = .12).
Table 19.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Marital/Family Domain Indicators (Males)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
r
|
p
|
Physical/sexual abuse as a child
|
26.8
|
26.1
|
.07
|
ns
|
Problems in common law/marriage
|
42.0
|
25.0
|
.12
|
**
|
Perpetrator of spousal abuse
|
13.6
|
33.9
|
.13
|
**
|
Victim of spousal abuse
|
4.4
|
27.3
|
.04
|
ns
|
In trouble as a result of child abuse
|
7.9
|
10.5
|
-.07
|
ns
|
Ineffective as a parent
|
11.9
|
21.7
|
.04
|
ns
|
Poor family functioning
|
34.3
|
26.9
|
.12
|
**
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Associates/Social Interaction Domain.
Table 20 presents the various associates/social interaction domain indicators for male releases. Not surprisingly, a large proportion of cases had criminal friends and acquaintances. Almost one third associated with drinkers/drug abusers. In regards to suspension, four out of six indicators were significantly correlated with that outcome measure. For suspension, criminal friends and acquaintances (r = .22), associates with drinkers/drug abusers (r = .19), relations with others are exploitive (r = .17) and easily influenced by others (r = .11) had predictive value.
Table 20.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Associates/Social Interaction Domain Indicators (Males)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
r
|
p
|
Socially isolated
|
13.6
|
23.3
|
.03
|
ns
|
Criminal friends and acquaintances
|
42.2
|
31.2
|
.22
|
***
|
Associates with drinkers/drug abusers
|
31.0
|
31.8
|
.19
|
***
|
Relations with other are exploitive
|
12.9
|
37.5
|
.17
|
***
|
Easily influenced by others
|
30.7
|
26.7
|
.11
|
*
|
Under assertive
|
15.1
|
20.0
|
-.01
|
ns
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Substance Abuse Domain.
In Table 21, we present the substance abuse domain indicators for male releases. Although there were only two indicators within this need area, it is noteworthy that half of the sample had drinking and drug use problems identified. For suspensions, only drug use interferes had any predictive value at six month follow-up.
Table 21.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Substance Abuse Domain Indicators (Males)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
r
|
p
|
Drinking interferes
|
50.1
|
22.8
|
.04
|
ns
|
Drug use interferes
|
50.1
|
24.6
|
.10
|
*
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Community Functioning Domain.
A distribution of the community functioning domain indicators for male releases is presented in Table 22. As Table 22 shows, over one third of the sample had poor financial management and about three out of ten cases had unstable accommodation. Both of these indicators were significantly correlated with suspension at follow-up.
Table 22.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Community Functioning Domain Indicators (Males)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
r
|
p
|
Unstable accommodation
|
29.0
|
28.6
|
.13
|
**
|
Poor self-presentation
|
7.8
|
31.8
|
.08
|
ns
|
Poor physical health
|
9.1
|
27.5
|
.05
|
ns
|
Poor financial management
|
36.4
|
28.0
|
.16
|
***
|
No hobbies
|
20.9
|
26.9
|
.08
|
ns
|
Difficulty using social services
|
7.7
|
30.0
|
.07
|
ns
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Personal/Emotional Orientation Domain.
Table 23 presents a distribution of personal/emotional orientation domain indicators for male releases. An inspection of Table 23 reveals that a substantial proportion of offenders on conditional release showed evidence of deficient cognitive skills. Interestingly, all five of the cognitive skills indicators covered by the community version of ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ were found to have predictive value in relation to suspension at follow-up. Four indicators (sex dysfunction, mental ability, suicide attempts, eating disorder) were of low occurrence (less than 5%) and had no predictive value.
Table 23.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Personal/Emotional Domain Indicators (Males)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
r
|
p
|
Poor problem solving
|
30.6
|
29.1
|
.15
|
**
|
Unable to set goals
|
16.5
|
39.3
|
.21
|
***
|
Low empathy
|
12.6
|
40.6
|
.20
|
***
|
Impulsive
|
30.4
|
32.1
|
.19
|
***
|
Difficulty controlling temper
|
28.6
|
32.2
|
.19
|
***
|
Copes poorly with stress/frustration
|
43.9
|
30.7
|
.20
|
***
|
History of illegal sexual behavior
|
10.2
|
13.5
|
-.06
|
ns
|
Has problems with sex dysfunction
|
4.2
|
28.6
|
.05
|
ns
|
Mentally low functioning
|
4.5
|
36.0
|
.08
|
ns
|
Suicide attempts/self-injury
|
4.3
|
33.3
|
.07
|
ns
|
Eating disorder
|
2.4
|
15.4
|
-.02
|
ns
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Attitude Domain.
In Table 24, we present the attitude domain indicators for male releases. Although there was relatively low frequency of these indicators in the sample, we note that predictive value was obtained with all four indicators in relation to suspension at follow-up.
Table 24.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Attitude Domain Indicators (Males)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
r
|
p
|
Antisocial
|
14.4
|
35.0 x
|
35.0 .15
|
**
|
Believes women inferior to men
|
6.1
|
44.4
|
.16
|
**
|
Believes other ethnic groups inferior
|
3.9
|
43.8
|
.12
|
*
|
Unable to work towards life goals
|
16.9
|
38.9
|
.21
|
***
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Level of Motivation.
A distribution of the offender’s level of motivation for accepting intervention(s) in targeted need areas are presented in Table 25. In general, male releases were found to be accepting of the intervention(s) to meet their needs. As expected, the less motivated an offender was rated, the more likely they were to be suspended on conditional release.
Table 25.
Outcome on Conditional Release by Level of Motivation
NEED DIMENSION LEVEL
|
% OF CASES
|
% SUSPENDED
|
p
|
|
Employment
|
Low Medium High |
13.3
38.3 48.5 |
32.6
26.6 21.0 |
ns
|
Marital/Family
|
Low Medium High |
17.3
41.9 40.8 |
38.0
28.1 13.6 |
***
|
Associates/Social Interaction
|
Low Medium High |
24.5
47.8 27.7 |
36.8
27.1 7.8 |
***
|
Substance Abuse
|
Low Medium High |
12.9
47.2 39.9 |
34.8
24.4 19.0 |
ns
|
Community Functioning
|
Low Medium High |
21.7
42.3 40.0 |
36.4
26.2 11.0 |
***
|
Personal/Emotional Orientation
|
Low Medium High |
18.4
49.4 32.2 |
32.8
27.4 11.2 |
***
|
Attitude
|
Low Medium High |
24.0
47.5 28.5 |
39.7
30.4 5.8 |
***
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
Special Conditions.
At the time of conditional release decision-making, the NPB may impose any one of or a number of special conditions for an offender to abide during their period of community supervision. We undertook to examine the relative occurrence and predictive value of these special NPB conditions grouped according to the seven need domains (see Table 26). Interestingly, nearly three quarters of the male release sample had special NPB conditions under the substance abuse domain, one half under the personal/emotional orientation and nearly again as many under associates/social interaction and one third under the marital/family domain. We note that only "special condition" under the personal/emotional orientation demonstrated any predictive value in relation to suspension at follow-up.
Table 26.
Outcome on Conditional Release for Males with Special Conditions
NEED DIMENSION
|
% WITH
SPECIAL CONDITION |
SUSPENSION
WITHIN FOUR MONTHS |
SIGNIFICANT
STATISTICAL RELATIONS |
Employment
|
8.4
|
35.7
|
ns
|
Marital/Family
|
33.3
|
25.5
|
ns
|
Associates/Social Interaction
|
44.0
|
27.3
|
ns
|
Substance Abuse
|
71.7
|
24.2
|
ns
|
Community Functioning
|
16.5
|
28.6
|
ns
|
Personal/Emotional Orientation
|
50.5
|
31.4
|
**
|
Attitude
|
19.3
|
31.9
|
ns
|
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; ns = non-significant.
In extending further the validity of community-based ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’, we explored the personal attributes and circumstances of female offenders assessed at release. However, due to the small sample size (N = 31) and number of cases who were issued suspension warrants at follow-up (N = 4), predictive validity estimates are not provided. Therefore, for female releases, we present only descriptive statistics with respect to the following: levels of risk (e.g., criminal history), need (e.g., employment, substance abuse), risk and need combined, identified needs, number of needs, indicators within each need domain, motivation and special NPB conditions.
A. Risk, Need, Risk/Need Level Overview
Level of Risk.
For female releases, level of risk was established by a systematic and thorough review of the criminal history record. In Table 27, we note a 50-50 split in the number of cases assessed as low and high criminal history risk. As we had similarly found with male releases, this 50-50 split in criminal history risk level serves to illustrate again the practical limitations that the traditional criminal history approaches to offender risk assessment poses for correctional decision-making. Once more, reliance on historical information (e.g. criminal record) necessarily results in measure which is static in nature and incapable of reflecting change in response to intervention(s).
Table 27.
Overall Risk Level: Female Releases
RISK LEVEL
|
PERCENTAGE OF CASES
|
LOW (n = 15)
|
50.0
|
HIGH (n = 15)
|
50.0
|
Level of Need.
The level of needs that female releases presented is displayed in Table 28. We note that the majority of female releases were assessed by case managers as medium-need (53%) cases.
Table 28.
Overall Case Needs Level: Female Releases
RISK LEVEL
|
PERCENTAGE OF CASES
|
LOW (n = 5)
|
16.7
|
MEDIUM (n = 16)
|
53.3
|
HIGH (n = 9)
|
30.0
|
Level of Risk/Need.
Risk and need level ratings for female releases are presented Table 29. We note that 50% of the cases were assessed to be [low-risk, low-need] and [low-risk, medium-need].
Almost one third were assessed to be [high-risk, high-need] cases.
Table 29.
Overall Risk/Needs Level: Female Releases (n)
RISK\NEED
|
LOW
|
MEDIUM |
HIGH |
LOW
|
16.7% (5)
|
33.3% (10) |
0.0% (0) |
HIGH
|
0.0% (0)
|
20.0% (6) |
30.0% (9) |
Identified Needs.
Table 30 presents the distribution of identified needs for female releases.
For these offenders on conditional release, the most prominent needs identified were marital/family problems (64.5%), employment (58.1%) and substance abuse (48%).
Table 30.
Percentage of Female Releases with Identified Needs
NEED DIMENSION
|
# OF CASES
|
%
|
Employment
|
18
|
58.1
|
Marital/Family
|
20
|
64.5
|
Associates/Social Interaction
|
9
|
29.0
|
Substance Abuse
|
15
|
48.4
|
Community Functioning
|
12
|
38.7
|
Personal/Emotional Orientation
|
13
|
41.9
|
Attitude
|
3
|
9.7
|
Number of Identified Needs.
Taken together, the number of identified needs for each female offender is presented in Table 31. As Table 31 shows, about 70% of female release sample were multi-need cases (i.e., more than one need identified). Of special note, 20% had no needs identified.
Table 31.
Percentage of Female Releases with Number of Identified Needs
# OF NEEDS
|
# OF CASES
|
%
|
CUMULATIVE
# OF CASES |
CUMULATIVE
% |
None
|
6
|
19.4
|
6
|
19.4
|
One
|
3
|
9.7
|
9
|
29.0
|
Two
|
3
|
9.7
|
12
|
38.7
|
Three
|
10
|
32.3
|
22
|
71.0
|
Four
|
2
|
6.5
|
24
|
77.4
|
Five
|
1
|
3.2
|
25
|
80.6
|
Six
|
4
|
12.9
|
29
|
93.5
|
Seven
|
2
|
6.5
|
31
|
100.0
|
B. Release Status Overview
Level of Risk.
Table 32 presents the distribution of risk levels obtained for female releases with respect to each type of conditional release. Not surprisingly, the largest proportion of low-risk cases was found among those on full parole (71.4%), whereas the largest proportion of high-risk cases was obtained for those released on mandatory supervision (83.3%).
Table 32.
Overall Risk Level by Release Status: Females
| STATUS | |||
RISK LEVEL
|
Day Parole
(n = 10) |
Full Parole
(n = 14) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 6) |
LOW (n = 15)
|
40.0
|
71.4
|
16.7
|
HIGH (n = 15)
|
60.0
|
28.6
|
83.3
|
Level of Need.
The distribution of need level ratings for female releases by each type of conditional release is presented in Table 33. We note that the largest proportion of high-need cases was found among those released on mandatory supervision (66.6%). The proportion of medium-need cases was proportionately larger for those released on day parole (50.0% and full parole (64.3%).
Table 33.
Overall Case Needs Level by Release Status: Females
| STATUS | |||
NEEDS LEVEL
|
Day Parole
(n = 10) |
Full Parole
(n = 14) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 6) |
LOW (n = 5)
|
20.0
|
21.4
|
0.0
|
MEDIUM (n = 16)
|
50.0
|
64.3
|
33.3
|
HIGH (n = 9)
|
30.0
|
14.3
|
66.7
|
Level of Risk/Need.
We examined the risk/need level ratings for female releases with respect to each type of conditional release. Table 34 shows that a similar proportion of [low-risk, low-need] cases (about 20%) was obtained for those released on day parole and full parole, whereas the largest proportion of [high-risk, high-need] cases was found among those released on mandatory supervision (66.7%).
Table 34.
Overall Risk/Needs Level by Release Status: Females
| STATUS | |||
RISK/NEEDS LEVEL
|
Day Parole
(n = 10) |
Full Parole
(n = 14) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 6) |
LOW RISK-LOW NEEDS
|
20.0
|
21.4
|
0.0
|
LOW RISK-MEDIUM NEEDS
|
20.0
|
50.0
|
16.7
|
LOW RISK-HIGH NEEDS
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
HIGH RISK-LOW NEEDS
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
HIGH RISK-MEDIUM NEEDS
|
30.0
|
14.4
|
16.7
|
HIGH RISK-HIGH NEEDS
|
30.0
|
14.3
|
66.7
|
Identified Needs.
In Table 35, we present the distribution of identified needs for female releases according to each type of conditional release. Among those offenders released on mandatory supervision the most prominent needs identified were employment (100%), substance abuse (100%) and associates/social interaction (83.3%). The most prevalent case needs identified for those released on day parole were employment (70%), marital/family problems (60%) and personal/emotional orientation (50%). For female offenders released on full parole, the most prevalent case need identified was marital/family problems (66.7%).
Table 35.
Percentage of Females with Identified Needs by Release Status
| STATUS | |||
NEED DIMENSION
|
Day Parole
(n = 10) |
Full Parole
(n = 15) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 6) |
Employment
|
70.0
|
33.3
|
100.0
|
Marital/Family
|
60.0
|
66.7
|
66.7
|
Associates/Social Interaction
|
10.0
|
20.0
|
83.3
|
Substance Abuse
|
40.0
|
33.3
|
100.0
|
Community Functioning
|
40.0
|
26.7
|
66.7
|
Personal/Emotional Orientation
|
50.0
|
26.7
|
66.7
|
Attitude
|
10.0
|
6.7
|
16.7
|
Number of Identified Needs.
We explored the number of needs identified for female releases within each type of conditional release (see Table 36). Interestingly, all of the mandatory supervision releases were found to be multi-need cases (two or more identified needs). On the other hand, 30% of those released on day parole and 20% of those released on full parole were assessed as having no identified needs.
Table 36.
Percentage of Females with Number of Identified Needs by Release Status
| STATUS | |||
NEED DIMENSION
|
Day Parole
(n = 10) |
Full Parole
(n = 15) |
Mandatory Supervision
(n = 6) |
None
|
30.0
|
20.0
|
0.0
|
One
|
0.0
|
20.0
|
0.0
|
Two
|
10.0
|
13.3
|
0.0
|
Three
|
20.0
|
40.0
|
33.3
|
Four
|
20.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Five
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
16.7
|
Six
|
20.0
|
0.0
|
33.3
|
Seven
|
0.0
|
6.7
|
16.7
|
Employment Domain.
An examination of the employment domain indicators for female releases revealed that almost two thirds of the cases had no highschool diploma and nearly one quarter had less than grade 8 (see Table 37). Also noteworthy, more than one third had an unstable job history and nearly one half of the cases were dissatisfied with their skill area, trade or profession.
Table 37.
Employment Domain Indicators (Females)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
Less than grade 8
|
24.1
|
No high school diploma
|
63.3
|
Indication of learning disability
|
0.0
|
Any physical impairment
|
22.6
|
Dissatisfied with job/skill/trade
|
44.8
|
Unstable job history
|
38.7
|
Unreliable on job
|
3.7
|
Difficulty with workload requirements
|
7.4
|
Poor interpersonal skills at work
|
7.7
|
Marital/Family Domain.
The distribution of indicators for the marital/family domain are presented in Table 38. While the majority of female releases had experienced problems in their common law/marriage, nearly one half had been either abused as a child, a victim of spousal abuse, or experienced poor family functioning.
Table 38.
Marital/Family Domain Indicators (Females)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
Physical/sexual abuse as a child
|
48.0
|
Problems in common law/marriage
|
60.7
|
Perpetrator of spousal abuse
|
10.7
|
Victim of spousal abuse
|
42.3
|
In trouble as a result of child
abuse
|
21.4
|
Ineffective as a parent
|
26.9
|
Poor family functioning
|
48.3
|
Associates/Social Interaction Domain.
In Table 39, we present the associates/social interaction domain indicators for female releases. We note that a substantial proportion of cases were identified as being easily influenced by others (44.4%).
Table 39.
Associates/Social Interaction Domain Indicators (Females)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
Socially isolated
|
9.7
|
Criminal friends and acquaintances
|
22.6
|
Associates with drinkers/drug abusers
|
17.2
|
Relations with other are exploitive
|
23.3
|
Easily influenced by others
|
44.4
|
Under assertive
|
30.0
|
Substance Abuse Domain.
The substance abuse domain indicators for female releases are presented in Table 40. It is noteworthy that nearly half of the sample had drug use problems identified, while about three out of ten cases had alcohol problems.
Table 40.
Substance Abuse Domain Indicators (Females)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
Drinking interferes
|
29.0
|
Drug use interferes
|
46.7
|
Community Functioning Domain.
In Table 41, a distribution of the community functioning domain indicators for female releases is presented. As we can see in Table 41, poor financial management (43.3%) and unstable accommodation (32.1%) were the most prevalent indicators.
Table 41.
Community Functioning Domain Indicators (Females)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
Unstable accommodation
|
32.1
|
Poor self-presentation
|
3.2
|
Poor physical health
|
13.3
|
Poor financial management
|
43.3
|
No hobbies
|
22.6
|
Difficulty using social services
|
3.2
|
Personal/Emotional Domain.
Table 42 displays the distribution of personal/emotional orientation domain indicators for female releases. As Table 42 reveals, one third of the cases were found to cope poorly with stress and/or frustration. It is noteworthy that none of the female release sample had any history of suicide attempts or self-injury.
Table 42.
Personal/Emotional Domain Indicators (Females)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
Poor problem solving
|
30.0
|
Unable to set goals
|
20.0
|
Low empathy
|
9.7
|
Impulsive
|
6.7
|
Difficulty controlling temper
|
16.7
|
Copes poorly with stress/frustration
|
33.3
|
History of illegal sexual behavior
|
3.6
|
Has problems with sex dysfunction
|
5.3
|
Mentally low functioning
|
3.2
|
Suicide attempts/self-injury
|
0.0
|
Eating disorder
|
3.6
|
Attitude Domain.
In Table 43, the attitude domain indicators for female releases are displayed. We note the relatively low occurrence of attitudinal problem indicators among the female release sample.
Table 43.
Attitude Domain Indicators (Females)
INDICATOR
|
% OF CASES
|
Antisocial
|
6.5
|
Believes women inferior to men
|
0.0
|
Believes other ethnic groups inferior
|
0.0
|
Unable to work towards life goals
|
13.3
|
Level of Motivation.
In Table 44, we explored level of motivation for accepting intervention(s) in targeted need areas. Consistently, female releases were found to be very accepting of the intervention(s) recommended to meet any one of their identified needs.
Table 44.
Level of Motivation (Females)
NEED DIMENSION
|
% OF CASES
|
Employment Low
Medium High |
8.7
30.4 60.9 |
Marital/Family Low
Medium High |
3.7
37.0 59.3 |
Associates/Social Interaction Low
Medium High |
3.9
42.3 53.9 |
Substance Abuse Low
Medium High |
4.0
32.0 64.0 |
Community Functioning Low
Medium High |
0.0
26.1 73.9 |
Personal/Emotional Orientation
Low
Medium High |
0.0
29.6 70.4 |
Attitude Low
Medium High |
0.0
22.7 77.3 |
Special Conditions.
A distribution of special NPB conditions grouped according the seven need domains is presented for female releases in Table 45. Overall, we note that the occurence of special conditions imposed on female releases was relatively low. The most frequent special condition applied was in relation to substance abuse (32%).
Table 45.
Special Conditions (Females)
NEED DIMENSION
|
% WITH
SPECIAL CONDITION |
Employment
|
8.7
|
Marital/Family
|
14.8
|
Associates/Social Interaction
|
15.4
|
Substance Abuse
|
32.0
|
Community Functioning
|
4.2
|
Personal/Emotional Orientation
|
15.0
|
Attitude
|
9.1
|
V. DISCUSSION
The application of a systematic approach to assessing the needs of offenders, the risk of re-offending and any other factor which might affect successful reintegration to the community is a major component of the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) and National Parole Board’s (NPB) standards for conditional release supervision. Recently, ensuring that community-based programming and service delivery effectively meets offender needs has evolved into a service-wide Correctional Strategy. This research examined the validity of an enhanced case management approach to offender needs identification and analysis in community corrections.
In order to capture relevant "Criminal History Risk" and "Case Need" information, the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ portion of the Offender Intake (Front-end) Assessment Process was adapted and pilot tested for use in community corrections. While the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ protocol had collapsed the 12 need areas of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale (Motiuk & Porporino, 1989b) into seven need areas (employment, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, personal/ emotional orientation, attitude), the individual ratings for both "Criminal History Risk" (low- high-) and "Case Need" levels (low-, medium-, high-) were retained as well as the individual ratings for each target domain. In addition, the community version of ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ was enhanced to capture current employment status (e.g., full-time, part-time, etc.), need for intervention, level of motivation for intervention, and whether or not there is a special NPB condition which could be used to effect an intervention.
A six month post-release follow-up of suspension for federal male releases revealed the following:
1) the pilot reconfirmed that case manager assessments of "Criminal History Risk" can predict outcome on conditional release for male releases;
2) the findings of the pilot test replicated earlier research which found a relationship between identified "Case Need" areas, number of identified needs and suspension while on conditional release for male releases;
3) combining case manager assessments of "Criminal History Risk" with ratings of "Case Needs" level resulted in improved predictive efficiency for male releases;
4) the distribution of low- and high-risk as well as low-, medium-, and high-need cases were roughly equivalent for both male and female releases;
5) some gender-related differences did emerge in relation to type of needs. Male offenders had more identified needs in the areas of associates/social interaction, substance abuse and attitude than females. Female offenders showed more problem areas in employment, marital/family and community functioning than males;
6) case manager ratings of motivation to address identified needs in the area of marital/family, associates/social interaction, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation and attitude were predictive of outcome for male releases;
7) female offenders were found by case managers to be very accepting of the intervention(s) recommended to meet any identified needs; and
8) an examination of special NPB conditions which could be used to effect an intervention revealed that only for an identified personal/emotional need was there found a significant relationship with outcome at follow-up.
In sum, the pilot of a community-based ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ revealed that ‘static’ (e.g., criminal history) and ‘dynamic’ (e.g., marital situation, substance abuse) factors continue to play an important role in the successful reintegration of both male and female offenders into the community. It would seem that this systematic approach to offender risk/needs analysis can be used effectively to communicate the intensity of supervision resources required by capitalizing on the professional judgement of case management staff regarding criminal risk and case needs. As well, ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ can also provide a useful means to monitor changes in the offender’s behavior, attitudes and circumstances which are clearly related to release outcome. More importantly, the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ process can yield important targets for intervention while on conditional release. If we can effectively target offender needs and provide the appropriate programming to relieve them, then, we should be able to bring about a reduction in the likelihood of re-offending (Andrews, Bonta, & Hogue, 1990).
Upon having piloted the ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ process as a labour- intensive paper-and-pencil exercise, the collection of this important case-based information lends itself well to full automation and then field testing as an integrated offender assessment system on personal computers. Moreover, an automated approach to offender assessment could have added functionality whereby standardized risk/need assessment reports are generated, correctional plans can be produced and progress summaries outputted as well as valuable management information databases being delivered. In this regard, we could shift the focus of ‘Case Needs Identification and Analysis’ from a correctional strategy exercise of simply surveying offender needs to an enhanced community offender management strategy.
VI. REFERENCES
Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto: Ministry of Correctional Services (Ontario).
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. , & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 17, 19-52.
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1990). Classification to halfway houses: A quasi-experimental evaluation. Criminology, 28, 497-506.
Bonta, & Motiuk, L. L. (1992). Inmate classification. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-353.
Lerner, K., Arling, G., & Baird, C. (1986). Client management classification strategies for case supervision. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Motiuk, L. L. (1989). Identifying and assessing needs of offenders under community supervision: The conditional release supervision standards project. A paper presented at the First Annual Corrections Research Forum, Ottawa.
Motiuk, L. L., & Brunet, L. (1991). Conditional release supervision standards: An update on training for offender risk/needs assessment. A paper presented at the Second Annual Corrections Research Forum, Quebec City.
Motiuk, L. L., & Pisapio, D. (1991). Correctional strategy: Front-end Assessment. A paper presented at the Living Skills Coaches Convention. Montreal.
Motiuk, L. L., & Porporino, F. J. (1989a). Offender risk/needs assessment: A study of conditional releases. R-01. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Motiuk, L. L., & Porporino, F. J. (1989b). Field test of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale: A study of offenders on caseload. R-06. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Research towards decision guidelines. Ottawa: Communications Division.
Appendix A: Case Needs Identification and Analysis
