About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

16 Criminology & Pub. Pol'y 281 (2017)
Automated Offender Risk Assessment

handle is hein.journals/crpp16 and id is 283 raw text is: POLICY ESSAY RECIDIVISM RISK ASSESSMENT Automated Offender Risk Assessment The Next Generation or a Black Hole? J. Stephen Wormith University of Soskatchewan he offender risk assessment enterprise has been moving at warp speed since the turn of the millennium and shows no signs of slowing. This is good. It reflects the importance of offender risk assessment in the field of criminal justice, as well as the energy, thought, and creativity that is being invested in efforts to build a better mousetrap. It is a vibrant and robust area of research that has a direct application to correctional policy and practice in numerous ways. Nevertheless, the development of offender risk assessment began long before the many developments of this modern era. This review describes how the recently constructed Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk (MnSTARR, 2.0), and its related research by Grant Duwe and Michael Rocque (2017, this issue) in Minnesota, represent a culmination of this history and points out some questions that the scale's implementation has for policy and practice. Offender Risk Assessment Generations and Other Variations Bonta (1996) documented the early offender risk assessment innovations in what he de- scribed as a series of progressions or generations beginning with traditional clinical judg- ment (first generation), followed by the movement to actuarial assessments that were based on static risk factors (second generation), and then by assessments of risk and (dynamic) criminogenic need factors (third generation), which generate not only an assessment of offender risk but also give direction for clinicians and correctional staff to pursue in their work with offenders. By the turn of the century, the results of meta-analyses convincingly established the superiority of mechanical (second and third generation) over subjective (first generation) predictions of human behavior in numerous disciplines, but the differences Disclosure: J. Stephen Wormith receives royalty payments for the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory from its publisher, Multi-Health Systems, Toronto, Canada. Direct correspondence to J. Stephen Wormith, Department of Psychology, 9 Campus Drive, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon SK, Canada, 57N 5A5 (e-mail: s.wormith@usask.ca). DOI:10. 1111/1745-9133.12277 Q 2017 American Society of Criminology 281 Criminology & Public Policy * Volume 16 * Issue 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most