NCJ Number
193810
Date Published
February 2001
Length
58 pages
Annotation
This report presents the methodology and findings of a 1998
nationwide survey of probation and parole agencies regarding
their case classification procedures, so as to determine the
state-of-the-art in case classification in community corrections
for adult offenders in the United States.
Abstract
A review of the literature on offender risk and needs assessment
technology in probation and parole supervision concludes that
there have been few efforts to describe the current case
classification procedures in community supervision, although
there have been a number of summary reviews of the
risk-prediction literature. The 1998 survey conducted for the
current research involved all adult probation and parole agencies
and a random sample of community corrections service providers in
the United States. A total of 385 probation and parole agencies
(63.4 percent) and 133 community treatment agencies (26.6
percent) responded. The findings indicate that classification and
assessment of offenders is an important and valued aspect of
community corrections throughout the United States. The vast
majority of agencies used some form of standardized and objective
tool to assess offender risks and needs. Most respondents rated
the use of these instruments as very important to their work; the
larger the agency, the more likely it was to use these
instruments. The Wisconsin or some variation was the most widely
used tool; however, the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) has gained a significant place in
probation and parole assessments for classification, as it was
cited as the instrument most likely to be considered for future
adoption. Management issues reported included training, the cost
of the instrument, and the ease of its use. The Wisconsin
instruments in general were reported to be more easily and
quickly scored than either the Case Management Classification System (CMC) or LSI, and staff training was
not as rigorous or costly. Relatively few of the agencies had
validated their instrument on local populations, despite some
evidence that they had made modifications to the instruments.
Only about one-third of the respondents had automated their
classification process. Most agencies reassessed offenders; few
assessed responsivity factors; and many did not link assessment
to service delivery. Consequently, standardized and objective
classification and assessment instruments have not been used to
their full potential in community corrections. Suggestions are
offered for future research. 14 tables, 35 references, and
appended survey questionnaire
Date Published: February 1, 2001