Forensic psychology: Part 2: Chapter 2: Background

Refocusing the Role of Psychology in Risk Management: Assessment, Communication, Monitoring and Intervention

by Laurence L. Motiuk, Ph.D.^{Footnote 1}

Our client, the public, is primarily concerned with how corrections is managed because we (the Correctional Service of Canada) are perceived as being responsible for their safety. Faced with the fact that most offenders eventually return to the community, the best way to serve the public is to appropriately recognize the risk presented by an individual, and to then put to good use the tools, the training and our fundamental understanding of what it really means to manage offender risk.

Effective risk management implies that decisions impacting on the organization are made using the best procedures available, and are in keeping with the overall goals of the system.

For corrections, applying risk management principles to manage the chance of criminal futures (recidivism) is all that is required to develop an effective risk management program, or to improve on an existing one. These risk management principles include: the assessment of offender risk, the sharing of information, the monitoring of activities, and if deemed appropriate, a correctional intervention (e.g., incapacitation, programming).

Whenever these risk management activities are integrated into every function and level of the correctional organization, public safety is improved.

The Correctional Service of Canada continues to develop and improve risk assessment and management technology. This paper addresses two important and related questions for psychology operating within a risk management enterprise: "How do we assess risk in corrections?" and "How do we manage it?" Then, we ask ourselves a final question, "What else needs to be done?"

From the public's perspective, criminal recidivism is an important problem because it reflects criminal futures and provides an indication of the effectiveness of correctional interventions. From a correctional management perspective, maladjustment in prison and/or community is an important problem because it results in disruptive or rule-breaking behaviour.

When assessing the likelihood of a criminal future or maladjustment, two things come into play:

1. recognition; and
2. response (accept or reject).

Resolving uncertainty about decisions, after all due consideration of relevant risk factors, is the cornerstone of any effective risk management program. In practice, the analysis of offender risk should serve to structure much of correctional decision-making with respect to custody/security designations, temporary and conditional release, supervision requirements, and program placement. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that attempts to design, develop and implement objective procedures for assessing criminal offenders have proliferated throughout North America (Andrews, Bonta & Hoge, 1990).

The bulk of objective risk instruments being used today were originally developed during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Despite the considerable research that has gone into their development, acceptance of these risk instruments into everyday correctional practice has been uneven.

Although risk instruments can yield significant gains both in understanding and predicting criminal behaviour, the fact remains that the amount of variance left unexplained continues to outweigh that which can be explained for a variety of important correctional outcomes (i.e., temporary absence, parole). While this may be cause for some disillusionment, it suggests that risk assessment in corrections will have to move beyond the limitations of any one tool, and view offender assessment as an integrated process incorporating a variety of methodologies; more specifically, Multi-predictor/Multi-method Assessment and Re-assessment (Motiuk, 1991).

To meet the correctional challenges of the '90s, new risk assessment procedures, coupled with a program of systematic re-assessment will be required to make significant gains in risk management. To this end, the Correctional Service of Canada will need to implement a newly devised psychological assessment model. Among the most important characteristics which will guide the design and development of this new psychological assessment model are: predictive validity, reflecting reality, flexibility, emphasizing professional discretion, and being both qualitative and quantitative.

Comprehensive risk assessment at the admission stage is critical for being able to accurately gauge risk during the later phases of the sentence, when decisions regarding an offender's parolability are taken. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the Service has a successful model of risk assessment for conditionally released offenders in the community. This work has laid the foundation for developing an assessment process for offenders at the front-end. To combine front-end and back end processes into one integrated system will require the ability to conduct assessments upon admission to prison, and to link them up in meaningful ways (i.e., use the same language and cues) with re-assessments conducted while incarcerated and during conditional release.

Previous research regarding the predictive value of offender risk/needs assessments has led to three major conclusions: criminal history factors are strongly related to outcome on conditional release (Nuffleld,1982); a consistent relationship exists between the type and number of needs that offenders present and the likelihood of their re-offending (Motiuk & Porporino, 1989a); and most importantly, combined assessment of both the level of risk and level of needs can significantly improve our ability to differentiate cases according to likelihood of reoffending (Bonta & Motiuk,1992).

Risk principle considerations address the assessment of risk, the prediction of recidivism, and the matching of levels of treatment service to the risk level of the offender (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). While there is considerable empirical evidence to support the "risk principle", it cannot be fully operationalized until a framework is put into place for establishing program priorities, implementing programs, and allocating resources to best meet the needs of offenders. The Correctional Service of Canada has embarked on an ambitious correctional strategy initiative whereby it has recognized the need for a comprehensive and integrated process to assess offenders at intake.

The Offender Intake Assessment Process represents for us, the latest generation of risk assessment technology. It integrates information gathered from a variety of sources (police, court, probation, family, employers), using many techniques (self-report, face-to-face interviews, case-file reviews). While the mechanics of the whole intake assessment process are beyond the scope of this paper, its main components could require psychological input at each stage.

Beginning at the time of sentence, case managers coordinate the collection of all relevant information about offenders from sources within and outside the Correctional Service of Canada. This information, which case managers must provide throughout the course of managing the offender's sentence, forms the basis for all future decisions and recommendations about the offender. In addition to being the central figures in the intake assessment process, case managers play a major role in correctional planning; institutional supervision; preparing cases for decision (parole board and release); and community supervision. In a similar fashion, psychology staff play a significant role in providing focused assessments which contribute to a better understanding of the offender at each stage of the correctional process.

Once an offender receives a federal sentence (two years or more), the offender is interviewed by a case manager (parole officer). Whether the recently sentenced offender is at a local jail, in remand or at a detention facility, the case manager begins the intake assessment process by orienting the offender to the federal correctional system. First, and foremost, case managers start with identifying any critical concerns (i.e., suicide, security, health). Then, the case manager collects the offender's court, police, probation, forensic and jail records. Shortly thereafter, this information is transferred along with the offender, to a federal institution which has a specialized unit designated as the Intake Assessment Unit (IAU).

Even after the offender has been transferred, a post sentence community investigation is initiated by a case manager located in the community from which the offender came. The post-sentence community assessment report contains collateral sources of information. Knowledge is sought about the nature of the offender's relationship with significant others (i.e., family, employers), the impact of future contacts with the offender during incarceration or at time of release, and the degree of support that others are prepared to offer to the offender once released into the community. Moreover, collateral perceptions of the offender's needs are obtained in relation to employment, marital/family relations, substance abuse, etc.

Upon arrival at an IAU, the offender undergoes an admission interview and orientation session. During this period, the offender receives an initial assessment which screens for immediate physical health, security (personal and the safety of others), mental health, and suicide concerns. At this stage of the assessment process, should any concerns arise, a psychological referral is made, followed by an appropriate intervention (i.e., psychological), if required.

After having undergone an initial assessment, the offender then proceeds to the two core components of the intake assessment process: I) Criminal Risk Assessment; and 2) Case Needs Identification and Analysis. If the offender is identified as a sex offender, then an automatic referral is made to psychology staff for in-depth assessment. Otherwise, referrals are made for psychological evaluations based on a requirement for focused assessment (i.e., neuropsychological testing).

Once an offender enters the federal correctional system, a rating of criminal risk is determined for that offender based on the following:

• the criminal history record;
• the offence severity record;
• the sex offence history checklist;
• whether detention criteria are met;
• the result of the SIR scale; and
• any other risk factors assessed and detailed in a criminal profile report.

The criminal profile report provides details of the crime(s) for which the offender is currently sentenced.

The criminal history record

By systematically reviewing the offender's file, which includes police reports, court transcripts and criminal records, a criminal history record is completed on both the offender's previous offence(s) and the current offence(s). Information is gathered on previous offence(s), the number and type of convictions, youth court dispositions, adult court sanctions and crime free periods. This information reflects the nature and extent to which an offender has been involved with the criminal justice system.

The offence severity record

Similarly, a systematic review of the offender's file is used to complete an offence severity record covering both previous and current offence(s). This offence severity record consists of a historical index of offence severity and an index of the severity of the offence for which the offender is currently serving a sentence. As for current offence(s), the type of conviction(s), sentence length , number and types of victim(s), the degree of force used on victim(s), and the degree of physical and psychological harm to victim(s) are all considered. This information reflects the nature and degree to which an offender has inflicted harm on society in general and victims in particular.

The sex offender history checklist

Again, the offender's file is reviewed thoroughly to complete a sex offence history checklist. This checklist consists of the following: sex offender status, type of sex offence (current sentence), type of sex offence (past sentences), victims, serious harm, assessment and treatment history. Offenders are identified as sex offenders if they are currently serving a sentence for a sex offence, have been convicted in the past for one or more sex offenses, are currently serving a sentence for a sex-related offence or have previously been convicted of an offence that is sex related. For current and past sentences, the type of sex offence is identified as one or more of the following: incest, paedophilia, sexual assault and other sex offenses (e.g., voyeurism, exhibitionism, fetishism, bestiality). With respect to victims, information is assembled as to their number, gender and age. The determination of serious harm is based on whether the current offence resulted in death or serious harm. Information is also gathered on prior psychological or psychiatric assessments, prior treatment or intervention and current treatment or intervention for sex offending. Finally, all this information reflects the nature and extent of sex offending, the amount of harm inflicted on victims and involvement in assessment, treatment or intervention in relation to sex offending.

Criminal risk level

An overall rating of criminal risk is determined by compiling professional judgments derived from the results of the criminal history record, offence severity record and sex offence history checklist. In addition, a review of detention criteria for the current offence(s) reflects the nature of the offence(s) and the degree of harm to victim(s). Then, the SIR scale, a statistically derived tool for predicting recidivism, is completed. The scale combines measures of demographic characteristics and criminal history in a scoring system that yields estimates of chances of recidivism for different groups of offenders. One should keep in mind that the establishment of criminal risk level may also incorporate a great deal of other assessment information as well. For example, additional information might be obtained from specialized assessments (e.g., sex offenders) and input from case conferences.

The Case Needs Identification and Analysis protocol collapses the 12 currently defined need areas of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale into seven need dimensions:

• employment;
• marital/family;
• associates/social interaction;
• substance abuse;
• community functioning;
• personal/emotional orientation; and;
• attitude.

A list of indicators (about 200 in total) and rating guidelines are provided for each of the seven need dimensions. In rating each need area during assessment, the offender's entire background is considered. This includes personal characteristics, interpersonal influences, situational determinants and environmental conditions.

An overall rating of needs consists of the compilation of professional judgments derived from the results of an initial assessment (medical, mental health, suicide risk) and the observations or impressions (i.e., degree or severity of need) on each of the seven need areas.

Added to the intake assessment process are psychological evaluations, behavioural observations of IAU staff, and supplementary assessments (i.e., education, substance abuse). All of the aforementioned case based information is then brought together at a case conference which is attended by a multi-disciplinary IAU team. This team may include unit managers, case management officers, psychologists, nurses, correctional officers, or any others who might contribute to a fuller understanding of the case. It is recognized that any consensus reached by the IAU team about the offender's risk and needs should result in significant improvements in the predictive validity of intake assessments.

The end product of the intake assessment process is a summary report about the offender. This report contains for each offender, a bottom-line or overall risk/needs level ranging from low-risk/low-need to high-risk/high-need; a statement on each of the seven need areas ranging from "factor seen as an asset to community adjustment" to "considerable need for improvement"; a prioritization of needs; an estimate of motivation; a custody rating designation ranging from minimum- to medium- to maximum-security; a complete social history; and an institutional placement decision. It is expected that this comprehensive and integrated assessment package will serve as the basis for formulating a correctional plan for the offender.

Unit management has been embraced by the Service as the organizational and operational standard for all federal institutions. Our unit management program ensures the integration of case management, psychology, programs, and security functions. Moreover, unit management concepts emphasize the promotion of positive staff/offender association through mutual, open communication, staff teamwork, and consistency of operations.

In the regions, the creation of IAUs has meant centralizing the offender assessment and penitentiary placement process where before, the responsibility for these tasks fell somewhere between the local jail, parole office and receiving institution. It is expected that these IAUs will become focal points for research and development in new offender assessment technologies. More importantly, IAUs will be centres of excellence for gaining knowledge about the offender population.

A systematic assessment and re-assessment approach can assist in identifying appropriate treatment targets by cataloging those changes during treatment that are associated with changes in the likelihood of prison maladjustment or post-release recidivism (Bonta, Andrews & Motiuk, 1993). This test-retest methodology can also play a critical role in measuring changes which can have significant impact on the design and development of effective correctional programs.

Case need areas are considered to be dynamic risk factors and a subset of overall offender risk. More importantly, case need dimensions are designed to reflect change. A systematic intake assessment and community-based re-assessment approach to risk should lend itself well to the application of the "risk principle" for levels of service; it should improve our ability to identify appropriate targets of rehabilitative effort. Andrews et al. (1990) described this aspect of case classification for effective rehabilitation as the "need principle." In practice, the "need principle" essentially puts the focus on offender characteristics (i.e., substance abuse), that when changed, are associated with changes in the chances of recidivism.

While the sharing and communication of information is crucial to the case management process as a whole, it is especially relevant to successful risk management. Recognizing that collecting relevant and timely information on offenders from the police, courts, probation and mental health professionals is an important first step towards a successful risk assessment process, directing resources toward improvements in information sharing with other criminal justice and mental health agencies is beneficial. Whether it be simply identifying contact persons in other agencies or facilitating the reproduction of court transcripts, any gain in the speed of collecting criminal justice and mental health information will improve the overall risk assessment process.

In keeping with this risk management principle is the need to continuously evaluate correctional activities related to public, staff, and offender safety. Among other supports to this type of evaluation, the Service needs to develop a method (i.e., computerized) to monitor offender risk levels.

Whether or not there been any significant changes in the risk profile of the offender over time and how field staff have been responding to this change, is useful information in any risk management enterprise. As expected, the ability to produce an offender risk profile of an entire conditional release population can be extremely useful for raising awareness about community supervision, for providing basic statistics with respect to risk levels, and for estimating resource implications with respect to frequency of contact considerations. This Service's ability to monitor the risk levels of the offender population could move it considerably further toward the delivery of an effective and well-integrated risk management program.

Whenever it becomes necessary to reject the risk an offender poses to either society, staff, other offenders or even themselves, corrections is mandated by society with extraordinary powers to respond. CSC staff have the authority to search inmates, cells, visitors and vehicles. Moreover, they have the power to seize contraband or evidence relating to a disciplinary or criminal offence. As well, they can invoke disciplinary sanctions which can be warnings or reprimands; the loss of privileges; an order to make restitution; a fine; extra duties; and in the case of a serious disciplinary offence, segregation from other inmates.

Our options for managing violent offenders while under sentence include statutory release or the use of detention provisions during the period of statutory release. The detention provisions of our Corrections and Conditional Release Act allow us to detain high risk violent offenders beyond their statutory release date and up to their warrant expiry date. Should an offender pose any sort of threat while on conditional release, we can reject this risk by imposing special conditions (i.e., not associate, curfews), or issue suspension warrants for their arrest.

Another approach to responding to offender risk is commonly referred to as treatment. While there exists an extensive body of research on the topic of "what works" in corrections, some key areas of correctional programming for offenders include: substance abuse pre-release programming; relapse prevention with sex offenders; and cognitive behavioral interventions.

Corrections is about people, not just numbers. We can come up with all the tools, procedures, and guidelines necessary, but unless an organization's people (staff), at all levels, are committed to crime prevention, and are supportive of various initiatives within their respective jurisdictions, we will be unable to move corrections forward into the future.

Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. & R. Hoge. (1990). "Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology,"Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.

Bonta, J., Andrews, D.A. & L.L. Motiuk. (1993). Dynamic Risk Assessment and Effective Treatment. A paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix, Ariz.

Bonta, J. & L.L. Motiuk. (1992). "Inmate classification,"Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 343-353.

Motiuk, L.L. & F.J. Porporino. (1989a). Offender Risk/Needs Assessment: A Study of Conditional Releases. R-01. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

Motiuk, L. L. (1991). Antecedents and Consequences of Prison Adjustment: A Systematic Assessment and Reassessment Approach. Doctoral Dissertation, Carleton University.

Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole Decision-making in Canada: Research Towards Decision Guidelines. Ottawa: Communications Division.