Offender Risk Assessment Paper

On 06/06/17, offender Madrid informed CCM Thimmesch that he wanted to be released from segregation. Offender Madrid stated on 05/20/17 he requested protective custody because he was having problems with another offender. Offender Madrid reported the offender he was having issues with was locked up. Offender Madrid was asked if he knew the name of the offender he was having issues with, which he reported that he only knew the offender nickname “Texas”. Offender Madrid reports that he has no enemies at Tipton Correctional Center, and would like to return to general population.

Worksheets, such as the Missouri and Washington Risk Assessments are valuable tools used by criminal justice practitioners. Moreover, Risk Assessment scales are used in both formal and informal capacities, to determine the potential risk or harm an individual poses to society should he or she be released from detention or custody. The following is an example of how the Missouri and Washington Risk Assessment worksheets can be utilized when applied in two completely different cases; it is important to remember that the primary purpose of both Risk Assessment Scales are to identify specific classifications of juvenile offenders. Offenders are classified on a scale of being low, moderate, or at high-risk behavior and each assessment places

Since 2003, the National Probation Service (NPS) has incorporated the Offender Assessment Systems (OASys), (Bracken, 2010). OASys is a standardised, evidence based instrument used to measure the likelihood of recidivism and ROSH. Consideration is also given, to the circumstances of the offence, the type and vulnerability of the victim and the criminogenic needs associated with offending (NOMS, 2010). Robust risk assessments are a mandatory aspects of professional practice (Kemshall, 2007) however, there are no set guidelines which determine criminality (Howard, 2000). ROSH needs to be assessed individually, as no one static, dynamic or acute risk factor is ever indicative of a specific offending behaviours (Powis, 2002). There has been some

Utilization of the VRAG-R model would be effective risk assessment tool in this case. This is due to the fact the model predicts the amount of risk the individual has for recidivism and violence (Serin, 2011). After the 12 factors within the model are assessed the intensity of the treatment should match the corresponding level of risk (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Furthermore, if the intensity of the intervention is high, low risk offenders may be susceptible for increased risk in violence and recidivism (Andrew & Bonta, 2010). When looking at Ricky, greater intensity would be purposeful as he can be classified as a high-risk

The criminal justice system is composed of three main parts; police, courts, and corrections. Each system has a unique purpose within our society. In corrections, they deal with the individuals who are sentenced whether it be an adult, or youth member. Part of their job is to determine what risk does the individual pose to society, and how does their everyday life influence the choices they make. They use a method called RNR, which stands for risk, needs, and responsivity. This helps probationary officers determine what the offenders case plan will be during their sentence and when being reintroduced into society. Probationary officers also have tools and test to help them determine these factors like the central eight

Dependent Variable. The effectiveness and the impact of the drug court will be assessed by analyzing the recidivism rates between the treatment group and the comparison group of probationers. Recidivism will be measured by examining both felony and misdemeanor charges and arrests, and drug related arrests will further be examined. Outcome data pertaining to arrests will be collected from the months of June, July, and August of 2016, allowing for an average follow-up time of 517 days. The data to be collected will include official rearrest results upon the completion of the drug treatment program and upon the completion of a probation sentence for the comparison group. Through the arrest results, further examination will be conducted on the severity of the crimes committed and whether they involved drug offenses.

The benefits of risk assessments are you are able to see into the areas where the person struggles and you are able to predict if they will participate in future criminal behavior. The risk assessment helped me into deciding what Tim needed by telling me he would not stop smoking marijuana until he is caught drug tests will catch him, make him pay a fine because he said money is very important to him and also make him meet positive people and be around them rather than his negative friends because he said friends are important to

The RNR model first came into existence in nineteen ninety, over the following twenty years, the Risk Need and Responsivity Principles became the core of the theoretical frameworks used in correctional systems around the world. It proposes that misconceptions, unrealistic and mistranslations of the model in practice are contributing to concerns about its validity and utility and stifling needed improvement in the development in certain areas such as Female offending and both treatment resources, and of RNR interventions. Founded on three core principles of offender classification—Risk, Need and Responsivity—today the RNR model is one of a few models used however, the RNR model remains an important empirically validated guide for criminal

An Offender Manager’s (OM) role identified by Goldhill & Skinner, 2013, is to build a rapport, understand an offender’s pathway to offending, undertake a risk assessment that addresses the risk of reoffending, the risk of harm that they pose, and to devise a plan for supporting them out of offending. In order to manage the risk in both cases, I have used the risk assessment tools Offender Assessment System (OASys) and the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (OGRS) to determine that both the offenders which I will be referring to pose a medium risk of reoffending. OASys was introduced in the Probation Service in

At intake, all inmates are assessed for mental illness, potential mental health issues, need for treatment, and to identify inmates who are likely to be a danger to themselves or others (Adams & Ferrandino, 2008). The risk assessment process is an important factor in placing inmates within the facility and should be assessed thoroughly by a trained staff member. Monahan (1996) asserts that actuarial models are more accurate than clinical models and should therefore be used to determine who is more likely to be violent and should take the place of clinical approaches. However, Banks, Robbins, Silver, Vesselinov, Steadman, Monahan, and Roth (2004) used a multi-test approach, where several instruments were used to assess offenders rated as high or low risk. The idea is that several instruments are used to assess at an individual level rather than a group level, in turn providing a more accurate probability of risk of offending. The assessment process is an important tool to assess each of the special inmate populations throughout their sentence of incarceration. Each correctional facility within the state of Florida will provide drug and alcohol counseling

Assisting in a research study, “BSCC Study of Intermediate Criminal Justice Outcomes,” I was responsible for identifying, collecting, and analyzing data to be used in describing a set 6 to 12 recommended performance metrics that were commonly available and could be used to provide information about the results of a county’s community corrections system. I identified data sources by searching criminal justice web sites and web pages containing crime data and demographic data comparable to data found in County reports and on their web sites. To determine defensible and usable data, I checked the data sources and data sets by crosschecking variables with other data sets to identify consistent collection methods and sources, variable definitions

Prior record(s) have a huge impact on the decisions to sentence and the duration of time served. The conclusions in the Criminal Behavior and Mental Health article showed, “There is a distinct advantage when attempting to predict recidivism to employing measures such as the LSI-R, which includes dynamic variables and intervention related criminogenic domains, over a measure purely of fixed characteristics, such as the GSIR; however, if there is discordance between the risk estimates, caution should be exercised and more reliance on the more static historically based instrument may be indicated.” (MILLS & KRONER, P. 155) Meaning that prior records cannot change, they are a static dynamic and will be looked with more emphasis than the risk assessment when determining to release the offender.

Chronicity in this chapter refers to the recurrence of people committing crimes. When people are exposed to a variation of personal and social problems at an early age, they run a higher

The process of measuring recidivism can impact the evaluation effectiveness of corrections policies, because different people look at recidivism in different ways. Accuracy in these types of measures cannot be totally accurate, as not all violations are reported because some are more lenient than others are, as far as how or what they report. There has not been a “universally accepted measure of recidivism” (Israel & Chui, 2006, p.184) and because of the uncertainty of the ways measures are taken, policy changes should not be based off of that data as it would not be effective in its usage. While most research findings are similar, and normally lead to the same conclusions “the magnitude of the comparative findings differ” (Maxfield, 2005,

Research on recidivism reveals a variety of different ways to define and measure its effectiveness on the outcome. One instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R was developed with short-term offenders and community supervisees. It assesses largely risk factor for recidivism and is designed to inform parole management decisions (Manchak et al., 2008). The 54 items of the LSI-R assess ten “risk-needs” factors: criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, peers/companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitude/orientation (p. 478). Results indicate that the LSI-R moderately predicts general, but not necessarily violent recidivism (p. 477). The utility of the LSI-R in predicting community recidivism is well established for probationers and minor offenders.