Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal
Justice System

Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
July 24, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R44087


Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Summary
The number of people incarcerated in the United States has increased significantly over the past
three decades from approximately 419,000 inmates in 1983 to approximately 1.5 million inmates
in 2013. Concerns about both the economic and social consequences of the country’s growing
reliance on incarceration have led to calls for reforms to the nation’s criminal justice system.
There have been legislative proposals to implement a risk and needs assessment system in federal
prisons. The system would be used to place inmates in rehabilitative programs. Under the
proposed system some inmates would be eligible to earn additional time credits for participating
in rehabilitative programs that reduce their risk of recidivism. Such credits would allow inmates
to be placed on prerelease custody earlier. The proposed system would exclude inmates convicted
of certain offenses from being eligible to earn additional time credits.
Risk and needs assessment instruments typically consist of a series of items used to collect data
on behaviors and attitudes that research indicates are related to the risk of recidivism. Generally,
inmates are classified as being high, moderate, or low risk. Assessment instruments are comprised
of static and dynamic risk factors. Static risk factors do not change, while dynamic risk factors
can either change on their own or be changed through an intervention. In general, research
suggests that the most commonly used assessment instruments can, with a moderate level of
accuracy, predict who is at risk for violent recidivism. It also suggests that no single instrument is
superior to any other when it comes to predictive validity.
The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model has become the dominant paradigm in risk and needs
assessment. The risk principle states that high-risk offenders need to be placed in programs that
provide more intensive treatment and services while low-risk offenders should receive minimal or
even no intervention. The need principle states that effective treatment should focus on
addressing needs that contribute to criminal behavior. The responsivity principle states that
rehabilitative programming should be delivered in a style and mode that is consistent with the
ability and learning style of the offender.
However, the wide-scale adoption of risk and needs assessment in the criminal justice system is
not without controversy. Several critiques have been raised against the use of risk and needs
assessment, including that it could have discriminatory effects because some risk factors are
correlated with race; that it uses group base rates for recidivism to make determinations about an
individual’s propensity for re-offending; and that risk and needs assessment are two distinct
procedures and should be conducted separately.
There are several issues policymakers might contemplate should Congress choose to consider
legislation to implement a risk and needs assessment system in federal prisons, including the
following:
• Should risk and needs assessment be used in federal prisons?
• Should certain inmates be excluded from earning additional time credits?
• Should risk assessment be incorporated into sentencing?
• Should there be a decreased focus on punishing offenders?

Congressional Research Service

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Contents
An Overview of Risk and Needs Assessment .................................................................................. 2
Risk and Needs Factors ............................................................................................................. 3
Can Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments Accurately Predict Risk? ................................... 3
How Risk and Needs Assessment is Used in the Criminal Justice System ............................... 4
Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) Principles .................................................................................... 5
Risk Principle ............................................................................................................................ 6
Needs Principle .......................................................................................................................... 6
Responsivity Principle ............................................................................................................... 7
“Central Eight” Risk and Needs Factors ................................................................................... 7
Empirical Basis for the RNR Principles .................................................................................... 8
Critiques of Risk and Needs Assessment ......................................................................................... 9
Making Judgments about Individuals Based on Group Tendencies .......................................... 9
Should Risk Assessment Be Separate from Needs Assessment? ............................................. 10
Potential for Discriminatory Effects ........................................................................................ 11
Select Issues for Congress ............................................................................................................. 12
Should Risk and Needs Assessment Be Used in Federal Prisons? .......................................... 12
Should Certain Inmates Be Excluded from Earning Additional Time Credits? ...................... 13
Should Priority Be Given to High-Risk Offenders? ................................................................ 13
Should Risk and Needs Assessment Be Used in Sentencing? ................................................. 14
Should There Be a Decreased Emphasis on Punishment? ....................................................... 15

Tables
Table 1. Major Risk and Needs Factors: The “Central Eight” ......................................................... 7
Table B-1. Commonly Used Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments ......................................... 24

Appendixes
Appendix A. Comparison of Risk and Needs Assessment Legislation .......................................... 17
Appendix B. Commonly Used Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments ..................................... 23

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

he number of people incarcerated in the United States has increased dramatically over the
past three decades. In 1983, there were approximately 419,000 inmates under the
Tjurisdiction of state and federal correctional authorities.1 By the end of 2013, this figure
reached approximately 1.5 million inmates.2 The incarceration rate increased from 179 per
100,000 people in 1983 to 478 per 100,000 in 2013. While research indicates that the expanded
use of incarceration during the 1980s and 1990s did contribute to the declining crime rate, the
effect was likely small,3 and incarceration has probably reached the point of diminishing returns.4
Concerns about both the economic and social consequences of the country’s burgeoning prison
population have resulted in organizations such as Right on Crime and the Coalition for Public
Safety calling for reforms to the nation’s criminal justice system. Congress also formed the
Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections to examine the growth of the federal prison
population and provide recommendations for reforms.5
There are two, not mutually exclusive, methods to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals
in the United States: send fewer people to prison (e.g., placing offenders on probation or in a
diversion program like a drug court) and/or release more inmates (e.g., placing inmates on parole
or granting them early release by allowing them to earn more good time credits). While the ideas
of diverting “low-level drug offenders” from prison or granting non-violent offenders early
release so they can serve a greater proportion of their sentence in the community have been
popular proposals to reduce the prison population, the crime someone is convicted of is not
always the best proxy for the risk that person might pose to the community. For example, people
who might not be violent individuals and who pose a low risk for future violence might be
convicted of, what are legally defined as, violent crimes (e.g., illegal gun possession or driving
the get-away car for someone who committed an armed robbery).6 On the other hand, violent
people might be sentenced to prison for non-violent crimes as a result of a plea deal.7
Because courts and correctional officials make decisions about who can safely be diverted from
incarceration or granted early release, they may benefit from tools that can help in this process.
Actuarial risk assessment tools may serve this purpose. Needs assessments could also help
correctional officials make determinations about which offenders need higher levels of
supervision and/or rehabilitative programming. Assessment instruments might help increase the
efficiency of the criminal justice system by identifying low-risk offenders who could be
effectively managed on probation rather than incarcerated, and they might help identify high-risk
offenders who would gain the most by being placed in rehabilitative programs.

1 University at Albany, School of Criminal Justice, Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center, Sourcebook of
Criminal Justice Statistics (online)
, Table 6.28.2012.
2 E. Ann Carson, Prisoners in 2013, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, NCJ 247282, Washington, DC, September 2014, p. 2.
3 Research by the Brennan Center for Justice and the New York University School of Law estimates that 0%-7% of the
decline in crime in the 1990s can be attributed to increased incarceration, while 0%-1% of the decrease in crime since
2000 can be attributed to increased incarceration. Oliver Roeder, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling, What
Caused the Crime Decline?
, Brennan Center for Justice, New York, NY, February 12, 2015, p. 6.
4 Anne Morrison Piehl and Bert Useem, “Prisons,” in Crime and Public Policy, ed. Joan Petersilia and James Q.
Wilson, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 542.
5 See P.L. 113-76 and the joint explanatory statement to accompany P.L. 113-76, printed in the January 15, 2014,
Congressional Record, p. H514.
6 Leon Neyfakh, “OK, So Who Gets to Go Free?,” Slate, March 4, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/
news_and_politics/crime/2015/03/prison_reform_releasing_only_nonviolent_offenders_won_t_get_you_very_far.html.
7 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
1

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

The use of risk and needs assessment in the criminal justice system is not without controversy,
however. Proponents of assessment assert that the tools used to assess the risk and needs of
inmates are better than the independent judgment of clinicians and that the tools have
demonstrated the ability to make distinctions between high- and low-risk offenders.8 Nonetheless,
risk and needs assessment is not 100% accurate. Two experts in the field note that “[a]lthough
statistical risk assessment reduces uncertainty about an offender’s probable future conduct, it is
subject to errors and should be regarded as advisory rather than peremptory. Even with large data
sets and advanced analytical techniques, the best models are usually able to predict recidivism
with about 70% accuracy—provided it is completed by trained staff.”9
There have been legislative proposals introduced in the current Congress that would require the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to implement a risk and needs assessment system.10 The system would
evaluate inmates and place inmates in rehabilitative programs and productive activities. Under the
proposed system some inmates would be allowed to earn additional time credits for participating
in rehabilitative programs that reduce their risk of recidivism. Such credits would allow inmates
to be placed in prerelease custody earlier.
This report provides information on the use of risk and needs assessment in the criminal justice
system. It starts with an overview of risk and needs assessment and a discussion of some of the
critiques of it. The report concludes with a discussion of the issues policymakers might consider
if they debate legislation to expand the use of risk and needs assessment in the federal prison
system.
An Overview of Risk and Needs Assessment
A risk and needs assessment instrument measures offenders’ criminal risk factors and specific
needs that if addressed will reduce the likelihood of future criminal activity.11 Assessment
instruments typically consist of a series of questions that help guide an interview with an offender
in order to collect data on behaviors and attitudes that research indicates are related to the risk of
recidivism.12 Data collected during the interview is typically supplemented with information from
an official records check, such as a criminal history records check.13 A total score is calculated
using the risk and needs assessment instrument, and that score places the offender into a risk
category (typically “low,” “moderate,” or “high”).

8 Eileen Sullivan and Ronnie Green, “States Predict Inmates’ Future Crimes with Secretive Surveys,” Associated Press,
February 24, 2015, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/027a00d70782476eb7cd07fbcca40fc2/states-predict-inmates-future-
crimes-secretive-surveys.
9 Edward J. Latessa and Brian Lovins, “The Role of Offender Risk Assessment: a Policy Maker Guide,” Victims and
Offenders
, vol. 5, 2010, p. 212 (hereinafter “The Role of Offender Risk Assessment”).
10 See for example, S. 467, H.R. 759, and H.R. 2944. A more detailed comparison of the three bills can be found in the
Appendix A.
11 Pew Center on the States, Risk/Needs Assessment 101: Science Reveals New Tools to Manage Offenders, issue brief,
September 2011, http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2011/
PewRiskAssessmentbriefpdf.pdf, p. 2 (hereinafter, “Risk/Needs Assessment 101”)
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
2

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Risk and Needs Factors
Generally speaking, risk and needs assessment instruments typically consist of both static and
dynamic risk factors. Static risk factors do not change over time. Examples include age at first
arrest, gender, past problems with substance or alcohol abuse, prior mental health problems, or a
past history of violating terms of supervision (e.g., parole or probation).14
Dynamic risk factors, also called “criminogenic15 needs,” change and/or can be addressed through
interventions. Examples include current age, education level, or marital status; being currently
employed or in substance or alcohol abuse treatment; and having a stable residence.16
Can Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments Accurately
Predict Risk?

In general, research indicates that most commonly used risk and needs assessment instruments
can, with a moderate level of accuracy, predict who is at risk for recidivism.17 It also indicates
that no one instrument is superior to any other when it comes to predictive validity.18 One group
of researchers concluded that “[o]verall, our results showed that all of the nine tools predicted
violence at above-chance levels, with medium effect sizes, and no one tool predicting violence
significantly better than any other. In sum, all did well, but none came first.”19
The relative interchangeability of risk and needs assessment instruments was demonstrated by an
experiment whereby items from four instruments were written on pieces of paper and placed in a
coffee can, and researchers drew 13 of the items from the coffee can at random to create four new
instruments. The researchers found that the four “coffee can” instruments predicted violent
recidivism as well as the four original needs and risk assessment instruments.20
Two scholars have posited that there might be two explanations for why well-validated risk and
needs assessment instruments have similar levels of performance. First, some evidence suggests
that there is a “natural limit” to the predictive utility of instruments.21 Simply stated, there is a
limit to how accurately recidivism can be predicted given society’s current level of knowledge

14 James Austin, “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol.
16, no. 3, February 2004, p. 5 (hereinafter “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections”).
15 “Criminogenic” is commonly understood to mean factors that can contribute to criminal behavior.
16 “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections,” p. 5.
17 Appendix B provides information on some commonly used risk and needs assessment instruments.
18 Public Safety Canada, Predicting Violent Recidivism, Research Summary, vol. 12, no. 3, May 2007,
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/prdtng-rcvds/index-eng.aspx; Mary Ann Campbell, Sheila French, and
Paul Gendreau, “The Prediction of Violence in Adult Offenders; A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Instruments and
Methods of Assessment,” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 36, no. 6, June 2009, pp. 567-590; Min Yang, Stephen
C.P. Wong, and Jeremy Coid, “The Efficacy of Violence Prediction: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Nine Risk
Assessment Tools,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 136, no. 5, 2010, pp. 740-767.
19 Min Yang, Stephen C.P. Wong, and Jeremy Coid, “The Efficacy of Violence Prediction: A Meta-Analytic
Comparison of Nine Risk Assessment Tools,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 136, no. 5, 2010, p. 757.
20 Daryl G. Kroner, Jeremy F. Mills, and John R. Reddon, “A Coffee Can, Factor Analysis, and Prediction of Antisocial
Behavior: The Structure of Criminal Risk,” International Journal of Law and Psychology, vol. 28, 2005, pp. 360-374.
21 John Monahan and Jennifer L. Skeem, “Risk Redux: The Resurgence of Risk Assessment in Criminal Sanctioning,”
Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 26, no. 3, February 2014, p. 162 (hereinafter “Risk Redux”).
Congressional Research Service
3

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

about criminal behavior. Second, well-validated instruments may show similar levels of
performance because they are tapping “common factors” or shared dimensions of risk, even
though the instruments utilize different items or have different approaches.22 For example, the
researchers who conducted the “coffee can” experiment found that assessment instruments gauge
four overlapping dimensions: criminal history, persistent antisocial lifestyle, psychopathic
personality, and alcohol/mental health issues.
How Risk and Needs Assessment is Used in the Criminal
Justice System

Risk and needs assessment can be used at nearly all points of the criminal justice system, as
highlighted by a Vera Institute of Justice memorandum:23
Pretrial detention: Courts use risk assessment instruments to help them make
decisions about which defendants can be safely released pending trial. The
assessment typically measures the likelihood the defendant will appear if released
and whether the defendant is likely to commit another offense while on release.
Sentencing: Risk and needs assessment can be used to help a sentencing judge
decide whether an offender should be incarcerated or placed on community
supervision. The result of the assessment can also help the judge decide whether
any conditions should be placed on the offender.
Probation/Post-Release Supervision: Probation and parole agents use risk and
needs assessment instruments to predict the likelihood that offenders will
recidivate and to identify offenders’ criminogenic needs. The results of the
assessment help probation and parole agents make decisions about (1) the level
of supervision offenders will receive, (2) developing an individualized case
management plan that focuses on placing offenders in programs that help reduce
their risk of recidivism; and (3) sanctions for violations of the conditions of
release.
Prison: Correctional authorities use risk assessment to make decisions about the
security level to which inmates will be assigned (e.g., a high, medium, low, or
minimum security facility). Prison classification systems traditionally try to
identify inmates who are at a high risk for escaping or who might be management
problems.
Parole Boards and Releasing Authorities: Risk assessment can be used by
parole boards and releasing authorities to make decisions about which inmates
can be safely released from incarceration.
Two experts on the use of risk and needs assessment note that while there is evidence that risk
and needs assessment is widely used in corrections, there is a great deal of variation in how it is

22 Ibid.
23 Vera Institute of Justice’s Center of Sentencing and Corrections, Risk and Needs Assessment, memorandum to the
Delaware Justice Reinvestment Task Force, October 12, 2011, pp. 9-12, https://ltgov.delaware.gov/taskforces/djrtf/
DJRTF_Risk_Assessment_Memo.pdf (hereinafter “Vera Institute of Justice’s memorandum re: risk and needs
assessment”).
Congressional Research Service
4

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

implemented and employed.24 Some states have adopted and implemented standardized
assessment instruments that are used throughout the state and across a wide variety of settings.25
Other states use risk and needs assessment in a less systematic manner. Ohio is highlighted as a
noteworthy example because the state developed a statewide risk and needs assessment system
that is used across all levels of its correctional system.
An Example of Risk and Needs Assessment from Ohio
The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) provides an example of how risk and needs assessment can be integrated
into the criminal justice system. Ohio passed a law that required the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections to develop a risk assessment tool to evaluate the likelihood of recidivism for adult offenders.26 The law
required the risk assessment tool to be used by

each municipal, county, and common pleas court, when it orders an assessment for sentencing or other
purposes,

the probation department serving those courts,

state and local correctional institutions,

private correctional institutions,

community-based correctional facilities, and

the Adult Parole Authority and the Ohio Parole Board.
ORAS was “developed as a statewide system to assess the risk and needs of Ohio offenders in order to improve
consistency and facilitate communication across criminal justice agencies.”27 The goal was to develop assessment tools
that were predictive of recidivism at different stages in the criminal justice system; specifically, pretrial release,
community supervision, prison intake, and community reentry. The ORAS consists of seven different tools that are
used at various points in the criminal justice system:

the Pre-Trial Tool (PAT),

the Community Supervision Screening Tool (CSST),

the Community Supervision Tool (CST),

the Prison Screening Tool (PST),

the Prison Intake Tool (PIT),

the Reentry Tool (RT), and

the Supplemental Reentry Tool (SRT)
Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) Principles
The Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model of risk and needs assessment and offender treatment
incorporates many of the evidence-based practices for reducing recidivism.28 As the name

24 The Role of Offender Risk Assessment, p. 205.
25 Ibid.
26 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Ohio Risk Assessment System, http://www.drc.ohio.gov/web/
oras.htm.
27 Edward J. Latessa, Richard Lemke, and Matthew Makarios, et al., “The Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk
Assessment System (ORAS),” Federal Probation, vol. 74, no. 1 (June 2010).
28 Pamela M Casey, Roger K. Warren, and Jennifer K. Elek, Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment Information at
Sentencing: Guidance for Courts from a National Working Group
, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg,
VA, 2011, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
5

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

implies, the model has three main principles: assessing risk, addressing criminogenic needs, and
providing treatment that is responsive to the offender’s abilities and learning style.29
The RNR model is based on the social psychology of offending, which posits that individuals and
social/situational factors intersect to create values, cognitions, and personality orientations that
are conducive to criminal conduct.30 These ways of thinking and responding are learned and
become reinforced through feedback, and they eventually result in individual differences in the
propensity for criminal behavior.31 The RNR model has become a dominant paradigm in the
assessment literature because it is one of the few comprehensive theories of how to provide
effective intervention to offenders. Experts in the field of risk and needs assessment assert that
assessment systems should adhere to the RNR model. As the Vera Institute of Justice notes,
“[u]nderlying the development of evidence-based practices in the criminal justice system are the
risk, need, and responsivity principles” [emphasis original].32
Many other theories of criminal behavior focus on the social causes of criminal behavior, factors
that cannot be addressed through treatment. On the other hand, the RNR model focuses on the
proximate causes of criminal behavior, which can be the focus of effective correctional treatment.
Risk Principle
The risk principle has two aspects: (1) criminal behavior can be predicted, and (2) the level of
treatment should be matched to the risk level of the offender.33 The risk principle states that high-
risk offenders need to be placed in programs that provide more intensive treatment and services
while low-risk offenders should receive minimal or even no intervention.
Needs Principle
The needs principle states that effective treatment should focus on addressing criminogenic
needs, that is, dynamic risk factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct.34 Also,
according to the needs principle, effective treatment should not focus on addressing

29 There are several principles other than risk, needs, and responsivity that are a part of the RNR model. These include
three overarching principles: delivering services with respect for people, basing programs on psychological theory, and
reducing criminal victimization. In addition to the risk, needs, and responsivity principles, there are several other core
principles, including introducing human services in order to reduce recidivism, targeting more criminogenic needs
relative to noncriminogenic needs, assessing offenders’ strengths to enhance prediction and specific responsivity
effects, using structured assessments, and only using professional discretion for very specific reasons. There are also
three organizational principles: a preference for community-based services, services are enhanced when delivered by
therapists and staff with high-quality relationships skills in combination with high-quality structuring skills, and
management should closely oversee the provision of services. For a more detailed overview of all of the principles of
the RNR model, see Chapter 2 of D.A. Andrews and James Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th ed. (New
Providence, NJ: Anderson Publishing, 2010) (hereinafter “The Psychology of Criminal Conduct”).
30 Francis T. Cullen and Cheryl Lero Jonson, “Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs,” in Crime and Public Policy,
ed. James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 319.
31 Ibid.
32 Vera Institute of Justice’s memorandum re: risk and needs assessment, p. 2.
33 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, p. 47.
34 The Role of Offender Risk Assessment, p. 209.
Congressional Research Service
6

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

noncriminogenic needs, because changes in noncriminogenic needs are not associated with
reduced recidivism.35
Responsivity Principle
The responsivity principle states that rehabilitative programming should be delivered in a style
and mode that is consistent with the ability and learning style of the offender.36 The responsivity
principle is further divided into two elements. The general responsivity principle states that
cognitive-behavioral and social learning therapies are the most effective form of intervention.37
The specific responsivity principle states that treatment should consider the relevant
characteristics of the offender (e.g., the offender’s motivations, preferences, personality, age,
gender, ethnicity, and cultural identification, along with other factors).
“Central Eight” Risk and Needs Factors
The developers of the RNR principles identified what they deem the “central eight” risk and
needs factors. These risk and needs factors include the “big four,” which they believe to be the
“major predictor variables and indeed the major causal variable in the analysis of criminal
behavior in individuals.”38 The remaining four risk and needs factors are referred to as the
“moderate four.” The “central eight” risk and needs factors are presented in Table 1.
Even though antisocial behavior is the most prominent of the “central eight” risk and needs
factors, a common mistake in risk assessment is conflating past antisocial behavior with current
antisocial behavior. The seriousness of the current offense is not a risk factor.39 A past history of
antisocial behavior is what indicates a risk of future offending.
Table 1. Major Risk and Needs Factors: The “Central Eight”
Risk/Need Factor
Indicator
Target for Intervention
The Big Four
History of Antisocial Behavior
This includes early involvement in any
History cannot be changed, but
number of a variety of antisocial
targets for change include developing
activities. Major indicators include
new noncriminal behaviors in high-
being arrested at a young age, a large
risk situations and building self-
number of prior offenses, and rule
efficacy beliefs supportive of reform.
violations while on conditional
release.
Antisocial Personality Pattern
People with this factor are impulsive,
Building skills to address weak self-
adventurous, pleasure-seeking,
control, anger management, and poor
involved in generalized trouble,
problem-solving.
restlessly aggressive, and show a
callous disregard for others.

35 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, p. 49.
36 Ibid., p. 49.
37 Ibid., pp. 49-50.
38 Ibid., p. 55.
39 Ibid., p. 60.
Congressional Research Service
7

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Risk/Need Factor
Indicator
Target for Intervention
Antisocial Cognition
People with this factor hold attitudes,
Reducing antisocial thinking and
beliefs, values, rationalizations, and
feelings through building and
personal identity that is favorable to
practicing less risky thoughts and
crime. Specific indicators include
feelings.
identifying with criminals, negative
attitudes towards the law and justice
system, beliefs that crime will yield
rewards, and rationalizations that
justify criminal behavior (e.g., the
“victim deserved it”).
Antisocial Associates
This factor includes both association
Reduce association with procriminal
with procriminal others and isolations others and increase association with
from anticriminal others.
anticriminal others.
The Moderate Four
Family/Marital Circumstances
Poor-quality relationships between
Reduce conflict, build positive
either the child and the parent (in the
relationships, and enhance monitoring
case of juvenile offenders) or spouses
and supervision.
(in the case of adult offenders) in
combination with either neutral
expectations with regards to crime or
procriminal expectations.
School/Work
Low levels of performance and
Enhance performance, involvement,
involvement and low levels of
rewards, and satisfaction.
rewards and satisfaction.
Leisure/Recreation
Low levels of involvement in and
Enhance involvement in and
satisfaction from noncriminal leisure
satisfaction from noncriminal leisure
pursuits.
activities.
Substance Abuse
Problems with abusing alcohol and/or
Reduce substance abuse, reduce the
other drugs (excluding tobacco).
personal and interpersonal supports
Current problems with substance
for substance-oriented behavior, and
abuse indicate a higher risk than past
enhance alternatives to substance
substance abuse problems.
abuse.
Source: Adapted from Table 2.5 in D.A. Andrews and James Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th ed.
(New Providence, NJ: Anderson Publishing, 2010).
Empirical Basis for the RNR Principles
Research on the risk principle suggests that recidivism is only reduced when high-risk offenders
are placed in programs where they receive intensive levels of services.40 In some instances,
research also found that low-risk offenders who were placed in intensive treatment programs
actually had an increased likelihood of recidivism.41 This could be because placing low-risk
offenders in intensive programming interrupts support structures or self-correcting behaviors that
already exist, or because it exposes low-risk offenders to high-risk offenders who may have a
negative influence on low-risk offenders’ thoughts or behaviors.42

40 Ibid., p. 48.
41 Ibid.
42 Vera Institute of Justice’s memorandum re: risk and needs assessment, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
8

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Research suggests that programs that adhere to the RNR principles are more effective at reducing
recidivism.43 Specifically, the more of the RNR principles a treatment program adheres to, the
greater the reduction in recidivism. Research also indicates that treatment can be more effective
when provided in a community setting, though treatment that adheres to the RNR principles can
still be effective when provided in a custodial setting (i.e., prison or jail).
The developers of the RNR principles argue that research results indicate that the “central eight”
risk and needs factors are the best predictors of future criminal behavior. A review of eight meta-
analyses on the relationship between certain risk and needs factors and criminal behavior found
moderate effect sizes for both the “big four” and the “moderate four” risk factors. In comparison,
the mean effect size for four minor risk factors was not statistically significant.
Critiques of Risk and Needs Assessment
Proponents assert that risk and needs assessment instruments are effective enough that they can
help officials make decisions about who needs to be incarcerated and who can be safely treated
and supervised in the community. However, while risk and needs assessment instruments have
demonstrated the ability to predict the risk of recidivism with some degree of accuracy, there are
people who are concerned about how these instruments are used in the criminal justice system.
One expert notes that risk and needs assessment involves judgments about uncertainty.44 Risk and
needs assessment can limit the range of plausible speculation about a potential outcome, but it
will never be certain. This expert notes that there are so many determinants of human behavior
that it is impossible to reason through all of the possible outcomes. This section of the report
provides an overview of some of the critiques of risk and needs assessment.
Making Judgments about Individuals Based on Group Tendencies
One of the key critiques of risk and needs assessment is that while there is evidence of some
predictability in group behavior, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make a determination about
how individual members of a group will behave.45
Two scholars argue that “[o]n the basis of empirical finding, statistical theory, and logic, we
conclude that predictions of future offending [using risk and needs assessment] cannot be
achieved in the individual case with any degree of confidence.”46 They note that it is a logical
fallacy to make a causal inference about a member of a group based on the group’s
characteristics.47

43 James Bonta and D.A. Andrews, Risk‒Need‒Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation, Public
Safety Canada, June 2007, pp. 9-12, http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-eng.aspx,
hereinafter, “RNR Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation.”
44 R. Karl Hanson, “The Psychological Assessment of Risk for Crime and Violence,” Canadian Psychology, vol. 50,
no. 3 (2009), p. 172.
45 James Austin, “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol.
16, no. 3, February 2004, p. 3 (hereinafter, “The Proper and Improper Use of Risk Assessment in Corrections”).
46 David J. Cook and Christine Michie, “Limitations of Diagnostic Precision and Predictive Utility in the Individual
Case: A Challenge for Forensic Practice,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 34, 2010, p. 259 (hereinafter, “Limitations of
Diagnostic Precision and Predictive Utility in the Individual Case”).
47 Ibid., p. 271.
Congressional Research Service
9

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

However, the supposition that risk and needs assessment provides no useful information for
criminal justice decision making has been vigorously contested. Two scholars assert that while
the probabilities associated with assessment clearly will never be certain, group data can help
criminal justice professionals make decisions about who is at risk of recidivating.48 Proponents of
the use of assessment note that the insurance industry makes decisions about risk based on
actuarial methods.49 Insurance companies set the price for insurance on a purchaser’s membership
in a group. Without relying on such probabilities it would be impossible for insurance companies
to set prices.
However, researchers who question the use of risk and needs assessment to predict individual risk
assert that this analogy is false because insurance companies are interested in predicting what
proportion of insured individuals will, for example, die within a certain time frame; they are not
interested in predicting the deaths of certain individuals.50
Should Risk Assessment Be Separate from Needs Assessment?
Research suggests that including dynamic risk factors in risk and needs assessment can increase
its accuracy.51 However, some experts in the field have also advocated for shorter risk assessment
instruments that focus on a relatively short list of static risk factors.
One scholar of risk and needs assessment argues that risk and needs should not be measured
together. He notes that many early assessment instruments were simple and consisted of fewer
than a dozen factors.52 More recently the focus of risk assessment has changed from solely
predicting risk to “risk reduction.” The focus on risk reduction means that instruments added
dynamic risk factors that can change with time and/or are amenable to treatment and, therefore,
reduce the offender’s risk level.53 However, some research has shown that some dynamic risk
factors are not related to any measure of recidivism.54 Also, dynamic risk factors might be more
difficult to measure accurately.55
It is argued that the inclusion of a bevy of dynamic risk factors has diluted the ability of risk and
needs assessment instruments to classify cases accurately.56 Most assessment instruments, even
though they contain risk factors that might be extraneous to predicting risk, contain enough valid
risk factors that they are able to predict with modest accuracy which groups of offenders are the
most likely to recidivate. However, “[t]here is substantial evidence available to suggest that

48 Jennifer L. Skeem and John Monahan, Current Directions in Violence Risk Assessment, University of Virginia Law
School, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, no. 2011-13, March 2011, pp. 8-9.
49 Ibid.
50 Limitations of Diagnostic Precision and Predictive Utility in the Individual Case, p. 271.
51 Stephen D. Gottfredson and Laura J. Moriarty, “Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications,”
Crime and Delinquency, vol. 52, no. 1, January 2006, p. 191 (hereinafter “Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems
and New Applications”).
52 Christopher Baird, A Question of Evidence: A Critique of Risk Assessment Models Used in the Justice System,
National Council of Crime and Delinquency, February 2009, p. 3 (hereinafter “A Question of Evidence”).
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
55 Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications, p. 191.
56 A Question of Evidence, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
10

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

relatively brief risk indices outperform longer, more complex models.”57 For example, one study
in Pennsylvania found that risk assessment accuracy was improved by using only 8 of the 54
factors in one commonly used instrument.
Two scholars have argued that risk assessment should be conducted separately from needs
assessment.58 Combining risk and needs assessment has the potential to introduce variables that
might be useful when trying to assess what interventions would be effective to reduce an
offender’s risk, but it might reduce the ability of the instrument to predict risk accurately in
situations where only predicting risk is all that is warranted (e.g., should someone be granted
pretrial release or should an inmate be released on parole).
Potential for Discriminatory Effects
There is a concern that the wide-scale use of risk and needs assessment might exacerbate racial
disparities in the nation’s prison systems. One scholar contends that research on assessment
instruments has not adequately vetted the tools for use on racial minorities.59 This scholar notes
that social context, such as gender, race, and economic and socio-structural factors, plays a role in
crime, and assessment does not account for these factors.60
It is also possible that minorities might score higher on risk and needs assessments because “of
their elevated exposure to risk, racial discrimination, and social inequality—not necessarily
because of their criminal propensities or the crimes perpetrated.”61 One expert noted that most
instruments use socioeconomic factors that correlate with race and ethnicity, and include factors
that punish people for choices that people are allowed to make in a free society (e.g., whether to
get married, live in a stable residence, or have a regular job).62
Another researcher has warned of the need to thoroughly evaluate risk and needs assessment
instruments to ensure that the classifications of risk are not biased against African-Americans and
Hispanics.63 Cutoff points developed using reoffending rates for white offenders might lead to
over- or under-classification for some minorities.
A review of the research on the relationship between race/ethnicity and predictive validity of risk
and needs assessment found contradictory and mixed results.64 The researchers found a total of
eight meta-analyses that evaluated the role that race/ethnicity played in mediating the ability of
instruments to predict recidivism. Three studies found that the higher the percentage of white
offenders in the sample, the higher the predictive validity of the instrument—suggesting that

57 Ibid., p. 5.
58 Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications, p. 192.
59 Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Actuarial Sentencing: An “Unsettled” Proposition, paper presented at University at Albany
Symposium on Sentencing, September 2010, p. 16 (hereinafter “Actuarial Sentencing: An ‘Unsettled’ Proposition”).
60 Ibid., p. 14.
61 Ibid., p. 17.
62 Michael Tonry, “Legal and Ethical Issues in the Prediction of Recidivism,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 26, no.
3, February 2014, p. 171.
63 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, p. 333.
64 Jay P. Singh and Seena Fazel, “Forensic Risk Assessment: a Metareview,” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 37,
no. 9, September 2010, p.978.
Congressional Research Service
11

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

instruments can better predict risk for white offenders. The other five studies found no evidence
that predictive validity varied based on the race/ethnicity of the participants.
Select Issues for Congress
There are three pieces of legislation before Congress that would establish a risk and needs
assessment system in the BOP. The above discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of
assessment might raise a question among some policymakers about whether the BOP should use a
risk and needs assessment system. Even if policymakers decide that the BOP should use
assessment, there might be additional questions about how to implement an effective assessment
system. The two legislative proposals might also raise questions about whether other measures
should be taken in order to reduce the number of inmates in federal prisons. This section of the
report discusses some of the issues that might arise if Congress considers either piece of
legislation.
Should Risk and Needs Assessment Be Used in Federal Prisons?
An overarching issue policymakers might consider is whether the BOP should use risk and needs
assessment. Research suggests that assessment instruments can make distinctions between high-
and low-risk offenders with some degree of accuracy. Furthermore, assessment systems that
adhere to the RNR principle appear to be effective at reducing recidivism. Implementing an
assessment system in federal prisons would appear, based on the current research, to be an
evidence-based way to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitative programming, and when
combined with additional time credits for some inmates who participate in rehabilitative
programs and productive activities, it might provide a means for reducing the federal prison
population without increasing the risk to public safety.
However, risk and needs assessment systems are not flawless. There will always be false positives
(e.g., inmates who are determined to be high risk but are actually a low risk for recidivism) even
though the predictive accuracy of instruments has improved over the years with more research
into the correlates of crime and the development of a theory of criminal behavior and effective
rehabilitation (i.e., the RNR model).
There are also concerns that the use of risk and needs assessment will have a discriminatory effect
on minorities. As discussed previously, the research on the applicability of currently used
instruments for minorities is mixed. Some policymakers might be concerned that instruments
might find minorities to be at a higher risk for recidivism than whites because of the use of static
risk factors, such as criminal history, that might be more prevalent in minority communities
because they are more at risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system. While this
is a valid concern, it should also be noted that many commonly used instruments consider a wide
variety of dynamic risk factors that could allow all inmates to reduce their assessed risk level.
Also, actuarial assessment is the norm, which makes the process of assessing each offender’s risk
level more objective. Before the use of actuarial assessment, decisions about who was to be
assigned to which treatment program and who was to be released on parole were left to criminal
justice professionals who made assessments based on their own sets of standards, which might
have been influenced by overt or subconscious biases.
Congressional Research Service
12

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Should Certain Inmates Be Excluded from Earning Additional
Time Credits?

One issue policymakers might consider is whether certain inmates should be excluded from
earning extra time credits for participating in rehabilitative programs and productive activities.
Some legislative proposals would exclude inmates who were convicted of certain offenses, such
as violent and sex offenses, from earning additional time credits for participating in rehabilitative
programming.65 Research suggests that inmates should be assessed for risk and decisions about
programming and supervision should be made based on those assessments regardless of the
inmate’s current offense. However, it might be argued that inmates who are convicted of serious
offenses, such as violent or sex offenses, should not be eligible to be released from prison early,
regardless of what they do to reduce their risk of recidivism.
Another issue that policymakers might consider is whether excluding inmates convicted for
certain offenses would have a disparate effect on racial or ethnic minorities. Some policymakers
might be concerned that excluding inmates convicted of certain offenses from being eligible to
receive additional time credits under the proposed assessment system might mean that inmates of
color would be more likely to have to serve more time in prison. However, this would only be
true to the extent that inmates of color are more likely to be convicted of offenses that would
make inmates ineligible to receive additional time credits. Data available through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics’ Federal Criminal Case Processing Statistics program is not detailed enough to
allow CRS to analyze the potential disparate effects of the exclusions listed in the current
legislative proposals. Congress might consider whether it wants to ask the U.S. Sentencing
Commission or the BOP to assess the potential effects of excluding inmates convicted for certain
offenses.
Should Priority Be Given to High-Risk Offenders?
Policymakers might consider whether the proposed risk and needs assessment system should
focus on high-risk inmates. The RNR principles state that high-risk individuals should be the
focus of interventional programming.
Research on the risk principle suggests that recidivism is only reduced when high-risk offenders
are placed in programs where they receive intensive levels of services.66 In some instances,
research also found that low-risk offenders who were placed in intensive treatment programs
actually had an increased likelihood of recidivism.67 This could be because placing low-risk
offenders in intensive programming interrupts support structures or self-correcting behaviors that
already exist, or because it exposes low-risk offenders to high-risk offenders who may have a
negative influence on low-risk offenders’ thoughts or behaviors.68
Some legislative proposals would require the BOP to phase-in the risk and needs assessment
system.69 During the phase-in period, low-risk prisoners would be given priority for programs and

65 See, for example, S. 467, H.R. 759, and H.R. 2944.
66 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, p. 48.
67 Ibid.
68 Vera Institute of Justice’s memorandum re: risk and needs assessment, p. 2.
69 See, for example, H.R. 759.
Congressional Research Service
13

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

activities over moderate- and high-risk prisoners. In addition, higher-risk inmates would be
required to participate in more rehabilitative programming, but inmates with low or no risk of
recidivating would also be required to participate in rehabilitative programming. Other legislative
proposals would require inmates who are deemed to be low risk and without need of recidivism
reduction programming to continue to participate in productive activities.70 Policymakers might
consider whether inmates who are deemed to be low risk should immediately be placed in
prerelease custody in order to open spots for moderate- and high-risk inmates who are in need of
rehabilitative programming.
Should Risk and Needs Assessment Be Used in Sentencing?
Another issue policymakers might consider is whether risk and needs assessment should be used
in sentencing to help identify low-risk offenders who could be diverted to community supervision
rather than incarcerated. As discussed previously, research suggests that low-risk offenders should
not be subjected to intensive treatment (and some research indicates that it might be
criminogenic) and they might be able to be effectively supervised in the community. Some
legislation would require the BOP, to the extent practicable, to house low-risk inmates together,
which might help reduce the criminogenic effects of placing low-risk offenders in prison.71
Legislative proposals would also seek ways to try to place some inmates in prerelease custody
earlier.72 However, if the purpose of the legislation is to reduce the federal prison population and
save money, it is significantly cheaper to place offenders on probation compared to incarcerating
them.73
While some scholars have argued for integrating risk assessment into sentencing guidelines to
help judges determine the appropriate sentences for offenders,74 research suggests that if such
assessment were to be integrated into sentencing, it might be best to use it as a way to screen-out
low-risk offenders. Three researchers who conducted a meta-analysis of the research on risk
assessment instruments concluded that instruments could be used to make informed decisions
about treatment or management of offenders.75 However, the high number of false positives limits
their effectiveness as a tool to make decisions about who should be sent to prison for longer
periods of incarceration because they pose the greatest threat of reoffending. Simply stated, if
assessment were to be used to make decisions about who should be incarcerated for long periods
of time because certain offenders were at a high risk for committing more offenses, there is the
potential to incarcerate a significant number of people who would not commit any more offenses.

70 See, for example, S. 467.
71 See, for example, S. 467.
72 See, for example, S. 467, H.R. 759, and H.R. 2944.
73 The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reports that in 2012 the average annual cost of probation supervision
was $3,347 per probationer, compared to $28,948 to house an inmate in a federal prison. Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts, “Supervision Costs Significantly Less than Incarceration in Federal System,” July 18, 2013,
http://news.uscourts.gov/supervision-costs-significantly-less-incarceration-federal-system.
74 Jordan M. Hyatt, Mark H. Bergstrom, and Steven L. Chanenson, “Follow the Evidence: Integrate Risk Assessment
into Sentencing,” Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 23, no. 4, April 2011, pp. 266-268.
75 Seena Fazel, Jay P. Singh, and Helen Doll, “Use of Risk Assessment Instruments to Predict Violence and Antisocial
Behaviour in 73 Samples Involving 24,827 People: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” BMJ: British Medical
Journal
, vol. 345, July 24, 2012, http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/345/bmj.e4692.full.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

The researchers concluded that the results of their analysis “suggest that these tools can
effectively screen out individuals at low risk of future offending.”76
However, the idea of using risk and needs assessment in sentencing is not without controversy.
DOJ, while acknowledging the important role the use of evidence-based practices plays in
effective rehabilitation programs and reentry practices, has raised concerns about making risk
assessment a part of determining sentences for federal offenders.77 DOJ echoes previously
mentioned concerns that risk assessment bases decisions on group dynamics and that determining
someone’s risk of reoffending on static risk factors might place certain groups of offenders at a
disadvantage. DOJ also argues that using risk assessment in determining sentences would erode
the certainty in sentencing, something Congress attempted to address when it passed the
Sentencing Reform Act (P.L. 98-473), which eliminated parole for federal inmates and
established a determinate sentencing structure under the federal sentencing guidelines. Certainty
in sentencing, argues DOJ, is a key factor in deterring crime. DOJ also argues that sentencing
should primarily be about holding offenders accountable for past criminal behavior.
Should There Be a Decreased Emphasis on Punishment?
If Congress were to consider legislation to implement risk and needs assessment in the federal
prison system, policymakers might consider whether implementing a policy of making decisions
based on an offender’s risk level is compatible with a perceived desire to continue to incarcerate
certain offenders for as long as possible. Some legislation would exempt inmates convicted of
certain crimes from being eligible from earning extra time credits.78 This would mean that
offenders convicted of certain offenses would be required to serve a greater proportion of their
sentences in prison even if they are deemed to be at a low risk for recidivism. As discussed
previously, it is an offender’s past history of antisocial behavior, and not the offender’s current
offense, that is indicative of a risk for recidivism. Therefore, the policy of requiring certain
offenders to serve most of their sentences in prison might, in some capacity, undermine the
potential effectiveness of a risk and needs assessment system.
Research has questioned the effectiveness of incarceration as a way to reduce crime. It suggests
that while incarceration did contribute to lower violent crime rates in the 1990s, there are
declining marginal returns associated with ever-increasing levels of incarceration.79 The
diminishing level of return resulting from higher levels of incarceration might be explained by the
fact that higher levels of incarceration are likely to include more offenders who are either at the
end of their criminal careers or who were at a low risk of committing crimes at a high rate (so-
called “career criminals”).80 Another possible reason for diminishing marginal returns might be
that more of the individuals incarcerated over the past three decades have been incarcerated for
crimes where there is a high level of replacement (i.e., incarcerating one offender “opens the

76 Ibid., p. 4.
77 Letter from Jonathan J. Wroblewski, Director, Office of Policy and Legislation, Criminal Division, U.S. Department
of Justice, to The Honorable Patti B. Saris, Chair, U.S. Sentencing Commission, July 29, 2014.
78 See, for example, S. 467, H.R. 759, and H.R. 2944.
79 Anne Morrison Piehl and Bert Useem, “Prisons,” in Crime and Public Policy, ed. Joan Petersilia and James Q.
Wilson, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 542.
80 Doris Layton MacKenzie, “Reducing the Criminal Activities of Known Offenders and Delinquents: Crime
Prevention in the Courts and Corrections,” in Evidence-based Crime Prevention, ed. Lawrence W. Sherman, David P.
Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie (New York: Routledge, 2002), p. 337.
Congressional Research Service
15

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

market” for a new offender to take that person’s place).81 For example, if a drug dealer is
incarcerated and there is no decrease in demand for drugs in the drug market, it is possible that
someone will step in to take that person’s role; therefore, no further crimes may be averted by
incarcerating the individual. It is also possible that being imprisoned with other offenders is
actually criminogenic, especially for low-risk offenders.82
Research on the psychology of punishment also provides insight into why incarceration might
provide a limited deterrent effect. For punishment to be successful at suppressing behavior it
requires
• the immediate delivery of an intense level of punishment,
• catching and punishing criminals for every offense,
• not allowing the offender to be able to escape from the consequences of the
behavior,
• making the density of the punishment associated with the behavior greater than
the density of the rewards, and
• the punishment be consistent with the characteristics of the offender.83
However, “the necessary conditions for effective punishment are virtually impossible to meet for
the criminal justice system. Police cannot be everywhere to ensure the certainty of detection, the
courts cannot pass sentence quickly enough, and correctional officials have difficulties ensuring
adequate supervision and monitoring.”84
There is also an argument to be made about the purpose of incarceration. While there might be a
minimal general deterrent effect associated with incarceration, it does provide for incapacitation,
which can reduce the number of crimes an incarcerated offender can commit. Also, long prison
terms might provide for society’s sense of justice. Sentencing someone to prison for several years,
or even decades, could be viewed as a way for society to say that there are certain behaviors that
will not be tolerated, and those who commit such transgressions deserve to receive severe
punishment for them.

81 Bert Useem and Anne Morrison Piehl, Prison State: The Challenge of Mass Incarceration (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), p. 74.
82 The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, p. 433.
83 Ibid., pp. 443-447.
84 Ibid., p. 451.
Congressional Research Service
16

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Appendix A. Comparison of Risk and Needs
Assessment Legislation

This appendix provides a comparison of the risk and needs assessment-related provisions in three
bills introduced in the 114th Congress: S. 467, the CORRECTIONS Act; H.R. 759, the Recidivism
Risk Reduction Act; and H.R. 2944, the Sensenbrenner-Scott SAFE Justice Reinvestment Act of
2015.
Establishment of an Assessment System
S. 467 would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to establish, within 30 months of the
enactment of the bill, a Post-Sentencing Risk and Needs Assessment System (Assessment
System) for use in the BOP that would
• assess and determine the recidivism risk level of all inmates and classify each
inmate as being at low, moderate, or high risk for recidivism;
• to the extent practicable, determine the risk of violence for all inmates;
• ensure that, to the extent practicable, low-risk inmates are housed and assigned to
programs together;
• assign inmates to rehabilitative programs and productive activities based on their
risk level and criminogenic needs;
• periodically reassess and update an inmate’s risk level and programmatic needs;
and
• provide information on best practices concerning the tailoring of rehabilitative
programs to the criminogenic needs of each inmate.
H.R. 759 would also require DOJ to develop and release an Assessment System for use by the
BOP, but it would require DOJ to establish the system within 180 days of the bill becoming law.
The requirements for the Assessment System under H.R. 759 are similar to those of S. 467, but
H.R. 759 would not require the Assessment System to determine the risk of violence for all
inmates, nor require that low-risk inmates be housed together and assigned to the same programs.
H.R. 2944 would require DOJ to develop an Assessment System within one year of the bill
becoming law. The requirements for the system that would be established under H.R. 2944 are
similar to those of the other two bills in that H.R. 2944 would require the system to be used to
assess and determine the risk and needs factors for federal inmates and to assign inmates to
recidivism reduction programs based on their risk and needs. The Assessment System that would
be established by the bill would not be required to assess each inmate’s risk of violence nor
require low-risk inmates to be segregated. However, the bill notes that “some activities or
excessive programming may be counter-productive for some prisoners” and as such, it would
allow DOJ to provide guidance to the BOP on the quality and quantity of rehabilitative
programming that is both appropriate and effective.
All three pieces of legislation would require DOJ, when developing the Assessment System, to
use the best available research and best practices in the field of risk and needs assessment. Both
S. 467 and H.R. 759 would allow DOJ to develop its own instrument or use an existing
Congressional Research Service
17

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

instrument. H.R. 2944 would require DOJ to prescribe a “suitable intake assessment tool” but it is
silent as to whether the instrument would need to be developed in-house or if an existing
instrument could be used. In addition, all three bills would require DOJ either to validate the
instrument on the federal prison population or to ensure that the instrument has been validated
using federal inmates.
Expanding Rehabilitative Programs
S. 467 would require the BOP, subject to the availability of appropriations, to make recidivism
reduction programs and productive activities available to all eligible inmates within six years of
enactment of the legislation. The bill would also require the National Institute of Corrections to
evaluate all programs and activities to ensure that they are evidence based and effective at
reducing recidivism.
H.R. 2944 would require the BOP, subject to the availability of appropriations, to make
recidivism reduction programs and productive activities available to all eligible inmates within
one year of enactment.
H.R. 759 would also require the BOP to expand, subject to appropriations, recidivism reduction
programs and productive activities for inmates. However, H.R. 759 would phase in expansion of
programs and activities. The BOP would be required to provide rehabilitative programming and
productive programs to 20% of inmates within one year of the date when risk and needs
assessments are completed for all inmates. The BOP would be required to provide rehabilitative
programming and productive activities to an additional 20% of inmates each year until they are
serving all inmates. During the phase-in period, low-risk inmates would be given first priority for
participation in rehabilitative programs and productive activities. Moderate- and high-risk
inmates would be given second and third priority, respectively. Also, within risk levels, priority
would be given to inmates who are closer to finishing their sentences.
All three bills would allow the BOP to enter into partnerships with nonprofit organizations,
educational institutions, and private entities in order to provide rehabilitative programs and
activities for inmates.
Assessing the Risk and Needs of Inmates
S. 467 would require the BOP to conduct an initial risk and needs assessment for all inmates
within 30 months of the bill becoming law. The bill would also require the BOP to reassess each
inmate at least once a year for inmates within three years of release; at least once every other year
for inmates who are within 10 years of release; and at least once every three years for every other
inmate.
H.R. 759 would require the BOP to periodically reassess inmates who successfully participate in
rehabilitative programs and productive activities (with high- and moderate-risk inmates receiving
more frequent evaluations) and assign inmates to the proper programs and activities if their risk
levels change.
H.R. 2944 would require the BOP to develop a case plan for each inmate that targets each
inmate’s risk and needs and helps guide the inmate’s rehabilitation. Case plans would have to be
completed within 30 days of an inmate’s initial admission. Case plans would be required to
Congressional Research Service
18

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

• include programming and treatment requirements based on the inmate’s assessed
risk and needs;
• ensure that inmates whose risk and needs do not warrant recidivism reduction
programming participate in and successfully complete productive activities,
including prison jobs; and
• ensure that eligible inmates participate in and successfully complete recidivism
reduction programming or productive activities throughout their entire term of
incarceration.
H.R. 2944 would require the BOP to provide each inmate with a copy of the case plan and discuss
the case plan with the inmate. The BOP would be required to review the case plan with the inmate
every six month to assess the inmate’s progress towards completing it and whether the inmate
needs to participate in additional or different rehabilitative programs.
Training for Staff on Using the Assessment System
All three bills would require BOP staff who are responsible for administering the Assessment
System to be trained on how to properly use the system, which includes a requirement that staff
demonstrate competence in administering the instrument. S. 467 and H.R. 759 would require DOJ
to monitor and assess the use of the Assessment System and to periodically audit the use of the
system in BOP facilities. H.R. 2944 would require DOJ, the Government Accountability Office,
and DOJ’s Inspector General’s Office to monitor and assess the use of the Assessment System
and to conduct separate and independent periodic audits of the use of the system.
Additional Time Credits and Other Incentives
S. 467 would grant additional time credit for inmates who successfully complete 30 days of
rehabilitative programming and productive activities. Every inmate would be eligible to earn five
additional days of credit upon completion. Inmates who are deemed low risk would be eligible to
receive an additional five days. However, the following inmates would be exempted from earning
additional time credits:
• inmates serving a sentence for a second federal offense;
• inmates who were in the highest criminal history category under the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines at the time of sentencing; and
• any inmate sentenced for a terrorism offense,85 a crime of violence,86 a sex
offense,87 racketeering,88 engaging in a continuing corrupt criminal enterprise,89 a
federal fraud offense for which the inmate was sentenced to more than 15 years
imprisonment, or a crime involving child exploitation.90

85 As defined at 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5).
86 As defined at 18 U.S.C. §16.
87 As described in 42 U.S.C. §16911.
88 As defined at 18 U.S.C. §1962.
89 As defined at 21 U.S.C. §848.
90 As defined at 42 U.S.C. §17601.
Congressional Research Service
19

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

H.R. 759 would also allow inmates to earn additional time credits for successfully participating in
rehabilitative programs or productive activities, but the credit structure would be different. Under
H.R. 759, low-risk inmates would be eligible to receive 30 days of time credits for each month
they successfully participate in a rehabilitative program or productive activity; moderate-risk
inmates would be eligible to receive 15 days, and high-risk inmates would be eligible to receive 8
days. H.R. 759 lists 47 offenses that would make federal inmates ineligible to receive additional
time credits for participating in rehabilitative programs or productive activities. The enumerated
offenses could generally be classified as violent offenses, terrorism offenses, espionage offenses,
human trafficking offenses, sex and sexual exploitation offenses, and high-level drug offenses.91
The bill would also exclude inmates with three or more convictions for crimes of violence or drug
trafficking offenses.
H.R. 2944 would allow inmates to earn 10 days of time credits for each month they successfully
comply with their case plans. Unlike the other two pieces of legislation, under H.R. 2944 all
inmates would be eligible to receive the same amount of time credits, regardless of risk score.
Also, unlike the two other pieces of legislation, H.R. 2944 would allow the BOP to retroactively
award time credits to eligible inmates for participating in rehabilitative programs and activities
before enactment of the bill. Inmates who have been convicted of murder,92 terrorism,93 or sex
offenses94 would not be eligible to receive time credits for participating in rehabilitative
programming.
S. 467 and H.R. 2944 would require the BOP to develop other incentives, such as additional
telephone or visitation privileges, for inmates who are exempt from earning additional time
credits. H.R. 759 would allow any prisoner who successfully participates in a rehabilitative
program or productive activity to receive, for use with family, close friends, mentors, and
religious leaders, up to 30 minutes per day and up to 900 minutes per month in phone privileges
and, as determined by the facility’s warden, additional visitation time.
H.R. 2944 would require the BOP to amend its inmate disciplinary program to provide for the
reduction of earned time credits for inmates who violate institutional rules or the rules of the
rehabilitative program or productive activity.95 The amendments would be required to specify the
level of violations and the corresponding penalties; that any loss of earned time credits does not
apply to earning credits in the future; and a procedure for inmates to have lost time credits
restored based on their progress. H.R. 759 includes a similar requirement. S. 467 would allow the
BOP to reduce earned time credits for misbehavior, but it would not require the BOP to do so.
Under S. 467, inmates would not be allowed to accrue the proposed additional time credits if the
inmate has accrued other time credits for participation in another program under another

91 “High-level drug offenses” means offenses under section 401(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
841(a)), relating to manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, but only in the case of a conviction for an
offense described in subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of subsection (b) of that section for which death or serious bodily
injury resulted from the use of such substance.
92 Only in cases where it was shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the inmate had the intent to cause death and death
resulted.
93 As defined at 18 U.S.C. §2332b(g)(5).
94 As described in section 111 of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Title I of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248)).
95 For more information on BOP’s inmate disciplinary program see CRS Report R42486, The Bureau of Prisons
(BOP): Operations and Budget
, by Nathan James.
Congressional Research Service
20

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

provision of law. Under both house bills, the time credits earned for participating in rehabilitative
programs and productive activities would be in addition to any other rewards or incentives for
which inmates might be eligible.
Placement in Prerelease Custody
The extra time credit inmates could earn under S. 467 and H.R. 759 would allow them to be
placed on prerelease custody earlier. Under S. 467 inmates who are deemed to be at a low risk for
recidivism within one year of being eligible to be placed in prerelease custody, or inmates who
are deemed at a moderate risk for recidivism but their most recent risk and needs assessment
shows that their risk of recidivism has decreased, would be eligible to be placed in a residential
reentry center (RRC, i.e., a halfway house) or home confinement. Inmates who are deemed to be
low risk for recidivism can be placed on community supervision. Inmates who have earned less
than 36 months of additional good time credit would only be eligible to spend one-half of that
time on community supervision, while inmates who have earned 36 months or more of additional
good time credit would be eligible to serve the amount of such credit exceeding 18 months on
community supervision.
H.R. 759 would allow the BOP to place inmates who are deemed to be low risk, who have earned
time credits equal to the amount of time remaining on their sentences, and who are otherwise
deemed qualified, in prerelease custody. All inmates transferred to prerelease custody would be
placed on home confinement. Inmates would be required to remain on home confinement until
they served at least 85% of their imposed sentence.
Under S. 467, any period of supervised release imposed on an inmate would be reduced by the
amount of time the prisoner spent in prerelease custody. Inmates would not be eligible to be
transferred to community supervision unless the amount of time the inmate could spend on
community supervision is equal to or greater than the amount of time remaining on the inmate’s
period of prerelease custody.
H.R. 2944 does not contain any provisions related to special conditions for inmates placed on
prerelease custody pending completion of their sentences.
Judicial Review of Prerelease Custody Placement
S. 467 would not allow the BOP to transfer any inmate sentenced to more than three years of
incarceration to prerelease custody unless the BOP provides notice to the U.S. Attorney’s office in
the district where the inmate was convicted. The federal government would be allowed to
challenge an inmate’s prerelease custody. A court would be allowed to deny an inmate’s transfer
to prerelease custody or modify the terms of such transfer if, after conducting a hearing, the court
finds by a preponderance of the evidence that placing the inmate on prerelease custody is
inconsistent with the factors specified in paragraphs (2), (6), and (7) of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).
H.R. 759 would require the BOP to notify the court in the district in which the inmate was
convicted of its intention to place the inmate in prerelease custody. A judge would be required to
approve or deny the recommendation within 30 days. However, the judge would only be able to
deny the recommendation if he or she finds through clear and convincing evidence that the
inmate’s actions after conviction warrant denial of the transfer to prerelease custody. Failure of
the judge to approve or deny the recommendation within 30 days would be treated as an approval.
Congressional Research Service
21

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Neither bill contains language that would allow inmates to appeal a court’s decision to deny them
placement in prerelease custody.
Congressional Research Service
22

Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System

Appendix B. Commonly Used Risk and Needs
Assessment Instruments

There are many different risk and/or needs assessment instruments currently available. Some are
only comprised of static risk factors while some use a combination of static and dynamic risk
factors. Some are used to predict general recidivism while others focus on predicting recidivism
for certain populations of offenders, such as sex offenders or domestic abusers. Table B-1
presents a summary of the key aspects of seven commonly used risk and needs assessment
instruments. The information provided in Table B-1 is meant to provide examples of the
differences in how some risk and needs assessment instruments are developed, the requirements
to administer them, and the items they use to assess risk and needs.
Congressional Research Service
23


Table B-1. Commonly Used Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments
Instrument
Background Information
Administration Requirements
Instrument Contents
Correctional Offender Management
The original COMPAS system was
COMPAS allows for some degree of
The COMPAS Core assessment for
Profiling for Alternative Sanctions
created in the late 1990s. The
flexibility in the administration process.
adult offenders contains both static and
(COMPAS)
instrument was designed to assess key
Offender data collection options include
dynamic factors. Content may be
risk and needs factors in adult and youth
offender self-report, scripted interviews,
individually tailored based on
correctional populations and to provide
and structured interviews as part of a
jurisdictional needs and resources, but
decision support for practitioners
web-based, automated assessment
can include four risk and four need
charged with case planning and
process. The developer offers training
scales:
management. COMPAS can assess four
that covers practical use, interpretation
types of risk (general recidivism, violent
of results, and case planning strategies.

Risk: failure to appear, non-
recidivism, non-compliance, and failure
Advanced training options are available
compliance (technical violations),
to appear). Originally developed and
on the theoretical underpinnings of
general recidivism, violent
validated using offenders in New York,
offender assessments, gender
recidivism.
COMPAS has since been modified as
responsivity training, motivational

Criminogenic needs: cognitive-
revalidation data offers new insights on
interviewing, and other topics.
behavioral, criminal
the performance and validity of the
associates/peers, criminal
instrument.
involvement, criminal opportunity,
criminal personality, criminal
thinking (self-report), current
violence, family criminality, financial
problems, history of non-
compliance, history of violence,
leisure/boredom, residential
instability, social adjustment, social
environment, social isolation,
socialization failure, substance
abuse, vocation/education
Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and
IORNS was created in 2006 as an
Administrators must hold a degree in
IORNS is a 130-item true/false self-
Strengths (IORNS)
offender assessment of static risk,
forensic or clinical psychology or
report questionnaire that assesses static
dynamic risk/need, and protective
psychiatry plus satisfactory completion of risk, dynamic risk/need, and protective
strength factors. The tool is
appropriate coursework in psychological
strength factors in separate indices. It
complemented by several subscales for
testing, or have a license or certification
consists of four total indices and eight
specific assessments in the areas of
from an agency that requires such
scales.
violent and sexual criminal behavior.
training and experience. Line staff can
administer the self-report assessment to

The Static Risk Index (SRI) contains
offenders and score the results, but they
12 criminal history items.
must be supervised by a licensed

The Dynamic Need Index (DNI)



Instrument
Background Information
Administration Requirements
Instrument Contents
professional who is also responsible for
contains 79 items in the form of six
interpreting the instrument.
dynamic need scales: Criminal
Orientation, Psychopathy,
Intra/Interpersonal Problems,
Alcohol/Drug Problems, Aggression,
and Negative Social Influences.

The Protective Strength Index (PSI)
contains 26 items in the form of
two scales: Personal Resources and
Environmental Resources.
Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-
LSI-R was developed in 1995 and
LSI-R and LS/CMI are administered
LSI-R and LS/CMI contain a mix of static
R), Level of Service/Case Management
validated using a Canadian criminal
through a structured interview between
and dynamic factors, developed from
Inventory (LS/CMI), and Level of
population. It is a “third generation” risk
the interviewer and offender, with the
recidivism literature, professional
Service/Risk, Need, Responsivity
and needs assessment instrument.
recommendation that supporting
opinions of probation officers, and
(LS/RNR)
documentation be collected from family
relevant social learning theory on
LS/CMI is the “fourth generation”
members, employers, case files, drug
criminal behavior.
revision of LSI-R that assesses offender
tests, and other relevant sources as
risk, needs, and responsivity (RNR) to
needed. Those who administer the exam
LSI-R is a 54-item risk and needs
inform case planning via a built-in case
must have an understanding of the
assessment instrument that consists of
management system. The LS/RNR is
principles of tests and measurements or
10 areas: Criminal History, Education
similarly comprised of the updated risk,
be supervised by someone who does; a
and Employment, Financial, Family and
need, and responsivity scales, but offer
professional with advanced training in
Marital, Accommodations, Leisure and
these separately from the LS/CMI case
psychological assessment or a related
Recreation, Companions, Alcohol/Drug
management system for organizations
discipline must assume responsibility for
Problems, Emotional/Personal, and
already equipped with established case
the instrument’s use, interpretation, and
Attitudes/Orientation.
management systems of their own.
communication of results.
LS/CMI refined and combined content of
the LSI-R into 43 items in 8 sections:
Criminal History,
Education/Employment, Family/Marital,
Leisure/Recreation, Companions,
Alcohol/Drug Problems, Procriminal
Attitude/Orientation, and Antisocial
Pattern.
LS/CMI system contains seven additional
sections. Sections 2-5 of LS/CMI identify
additional risk factors (personal
problems; social, health, and responsivity



Instrument
Background Information
Administration Requirements
Instrument Contents
considerations; perpetration history;
mental health; procriminal
attitude/orientation; incarceration
history, and concerns). Sections 6-7
provide a summary of risks and needs,
allowing for clinical overrides of
assessment recommendations based on
atypical offender situations. Section 8
provides tools for program and
placement decisions.
Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)
ORAS was developed in 2006 as a
No specialized education is necessary to
ORAS consists of 101 items divided
col aborative effort between the Ohio
administer ORAS. However, researchers between six tools. All tools contain both
Department of Rehabilitation &
at CCJR have assembled a mandatory
static and dynamic factors. The tools in
Correction (DRC) and the University of
training package for those interested in
ORAS are
Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice
using ORAS. ORAS uses a combination
Research (CCJR). The goal was to create of structured interviews, official records,

Pretrial Assessment Tool;
a consistent, reliable, standardized
and other collateral sources to complete

Community Supervision Screening
system of tools that could be used at
the assessment instrument. Offenders
Tool;
various decision points in the criminal
also complete a self-report questionnaire
justice system to facilitate
to supplement this information.

Community Supervision Tool:
communication and continuity across
assesses criminal history, education,
criminal justice agencies. ORAS is a
employment, and financial situation,
“fourth generation” assessment
family and social support,
instrument.
neighborhood problems, substance
use, peer associations, and criminal
attitudes and behavioral patterns;

Prison Screening Tool;

Prison Intake Tool (PIT): assesses
age, criminal history, school
behavior and employment, family
and social support, substance abuse
and mental health, and criminal
lifestyle; and

Prison Reentry Tool: assesses age,
criminal history, social bonds, and
criminal attitudes and behavioral
patterns.



Instrument
Background Information
Administration Requirements
Instrument Contents
Offender Screening Tool (OST)
In 1998, the Maricopa County (Arizona)
OST is administered at the
The OST contains 44 items (14 static, 30
Adult Probation Department (MCAPD),
presentencing stage by interviewers who
dynamic) in 10 domains:
working with consultant Dr. David
enter information into a computerized
Simourd, developed and implemented its
system for automated scoring. No

Vocational/Financial,
own assessment instrument, the
specialized certifications are required,

Education,
Offender Screening Tool (OST). MCAPD but al staff members receive training. In
originally sought to create a risk/needs
Maricopa County, the presentence

Family and Social Relationships,
tool that would (1) provide a broad,
division receives training on how to
overall assessment of offender
administer and interpret results from

Residence and Neighborhood,
risk/needs, (2) incorporate static and
OST; al other probation department

Alcohol,
dynamic risk factors most predictive of
staff receive training on interpretation
criminal behavior, (3) provide
and how to use results to inform case

Drug Abuse,
information that could be used to
planning and management.

Mental Health,
determine risk of recidivism and guide
case planning/management decisions, and

Attitude, and
(4) be meaningful and valuable to staff.
As a greater variety of cognitive-

Criminal Behavior.
behavioral treatment programs became
The final domain, Physical
available in the county, Dr. Simourd and
Health/Medical, is used exclusively as a
MCAPD expanded OST to include
responsivity factor.
additional needs domains. OST was
implemented statewide in 2005.
Static Risk and Offender Needs Guide
In 1999, the Washington Legislature
The Static Risk Assessment is conducted
STRONG consists of two separate
(STRONG)
directed the Department of Corrections
based on a thorough investigation of
assessments. The Static Risk Assessment
(DOC) to improve the classification of
offender criminal history information.
is conducted first based on the
felony offenders and to deploy staff and
No offender interview is necessary. No
offender’s criminal history information
rehabilitative resources more effectively.
specialized administrator qualifications
and contains 26 items in the following
The Washington State Institute for
are required to administer the Offender
domains: demographics, juvenile record,
Public Policy (WSIPP) examined the
Needs Assessment; staff members may
commitment to the DOC, total adult
validity of the risk instrument the DOC
conduct the structured interview. It is
felony record, total adult misdemeanor
was using at the time (LSI-R) and thought recommended that line staff complete
record, and total sentence/supervision
that the predictive power of the
routine booster training sessions in
violations.
assessment could be improved by
addition to an initial training program for
including more static risk items. WSIPP,
quality assurance purposes. For
Calculated separately, the Offender
at the behest of DOC, created a new
improved quality control, Washington
Needs Assessment contains 55 items in
static risk instrument (Static Risk
established a small, dedicated intake unit
10 domains: education, community
Assessment) comprised of only offender
to conduct all risk assessments
employment, friends, residential, family,
demographic and criminal history
statewide.
alcohol/drug use, mental health,



Instrument
Background Information
Administration Requirements
Instrument Contents
information, which was completed in
aggression, attitudes/behaviors, and
2006. In 2008, DOC implemented their
coping skills.
automated offender assessment and case
planning system. This automated system
included the Static Risk Assessment and
an Offender Needs Assessment, which is
used to identify offender needs and
protective factors for use in case
planning. STRONG is considered a
“fourth generation” risk and needs
assessment instrument.
Wisconsin Risk/Needs Scales (WRN)
The Wisconsin Classification System was
No specialized education is required;
WRN is a 53-item interview-driven
and Correctional Assessment and
created in 1977. This system is
trained line staff can administer WRN or
assessment. Content areas include
Intervention System (CAIS)
comprised of the Wisconsin Risk/Needs
CAIS. NCCD developed and administers
criminal history, education/employment,
scales (WRN) and the Client
a training package for the CAIS tool.
family/friends, mental/emotional stability,
Management Classification (CMC)
plans/problems, health, sexual behavior,
responsivity and case management tool.
drug/alcohol usage, and financial
To facilitate practitioner use of the
management. The CMC is a 71-item
system, the National Council on Crime
interview-based case planning process
and Delinquency (NCCD) updated the
that categorizes offenders into one of
tools in 2004 and created the automated,
four possible typologies (Selective
web-based Correctional Assessment and
Intervention, Casework/Control,
Intervention System (CAIS).
Environmental Structure, and Limit
Setting). These classifications can then be
used to guide case planning strategies.
CAIS is an automated assessment and
case management system that includes
an updated version of WRN and CMC.
A new risk and needs tool was created
based on the results of a meta-analysis
and can be included in CAIS.
Source: CRS presentation of information provided in Appendix A to Pamela M Casey, Roger K. Warren, and Jennifer K. Elek, Using Offender Risk and Needs Assessment
Information at Sentencing: Guidance for Courts from a National Working Group
, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, VA, 2011.


Risk and Needs Assessment in the Criminal Justice System


Author Contact Information
Nathan James
Analyst in Crime Policy
njames@crs.loc.gov, 7-0264

Congressional Research Service
29