151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT:FROM THEORY AND METHODS TO POLICY AND PRACTICE
Laurence L. Motiuk*

I. INTRODUCTION
Policy makers and practitioners in the field of corrections have a keen interest in repeat offending
because of the enormous costs to victims. While crime continues to present a serious social problem,changes in legal definitions and sentencing practices coupled with reduced public tolerance for serious
crimes and focused media attention have led to increases in victim reporting and to greater offenderaccountability. Notwithstanding the many improvements in both court processing and criminal prosecution,
there has been more sanctioning — both custodial and non-custodial — of violent, sex and repeat offenses
over the last decade.
Being acutely aware that the general public does not fully understand the inner workings of correctional
systems, administrators and staff are being called upon to provide timely responses and accurate informationon the care, custody and reintegration of offenders. The fact that the media has stretched public tolerance tothe limit for any failure, whether in institutions or the community, means that correctional service providers
need to apply everything there is to know about managing the risk and needs of violent, sex and repeat
offenders and become actively involved in public relations.
To summarize the problem — offenders, staff, volunteers and public opinion are exerting a significant
influence over the realization of correctional service delivery objectives. In particular, the task of safely
reintegrating offenders in the community continues to fall squarely on the shoulders of staff and volunteers
located in correctional facilities and the community at large. Most certainly, these people are being called
upon to deliver more sophisticated services to a clientele that is constantly changing and for a public that is
uncertain. Moreover, they must do so in an effective and cost efficient manner.

II. Offender Reintegration
Of all the factors that influence public safety, correctional service providers in collaboration withreleasing authorities can affect the safe release of offenders into the community. There is solid evidence
supporting the premise that the gradual and structured release of offenders is the safest strategy for theprotection of society against new offences by released offenders. For example, recidivism studies (Waller,
1974; Harman & Hann, 1986) have found that the percentage of safe returns to the community is higher for
supervised offenders than those released with no supervision. Therefore, offender reintegration is seen as
working to better prepare offenders for release and providing them with greater support once they are in
the community. Reintegration efforts should yield dividends in terms of higher rates of safe return to thecommunity and lower rates of criminal recidivism.

III. Theoretical Foundations
There are three general theories of criminal behaviour: Sociological, Clinical Criminology , and Social
Learning . Only theories that can be supported by empirical evidence (research) are appropriate to apply tocorrectional management. Theories should be able to explain, predict, and help reduce criminal conduct.
* Special Adviser, Infrastructure Renewal Group, Correctional Service Canada. The opinions expressed in this paper are thoseof the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Correctional Service of Canada or the Government of
Canada.

3

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

For many years, sociology was the framework for most theories of criminal behaviour. Sociologicaltheories assume that most crime is caused by social, political and economic factors, not because ofindividuals. Two prominent sociological theories of criminal behaviour include: Opportunity Theory andLabeling Theory . Both of these theories suggest that criminal activity is a direct result of social position:
economic class, ethnicity, gender, and/or age.
Clinical criminology views crime as being caused by psychopathology (mental disorder), or a psychologicaldeficit, or an inability to live up to one’s potential, not because of society. Clinical criminologists work at
establishing friendships, advocating, boosting self-esteem and reducing personal distress (such as: feelings ofanxiety, depression, and loneliness).
Social learning theory1 proposes that criminal behaviour, like all other behaviours, is learned, not because
they are born criminal and/or have a brain injury. Criminal behaviour results from an interaction between
important personal factors and the situation that the person encounters. There are many possible conditions
which shape and support criminal behaviour, and the routes to crime can change over time.
Social learning theorists suggest that criminal behaviour is often rewarding, not only because of illicit
gains but also because of other criminogenic factors; for instance, criminal behaviour can be rewarded by thesocial support of criminal peers, by the excitement associated with the risk, by the reaffirmation of criminal
attitudes, and through the acquisition of criminal skills. Social Learning Theory has become the framework
for the assessment, treatment and management of offenders in Canada.
The Personal, Interpersonal, and Community-Reinforcement perspective2 on deviant behaviour (PIC-R)
uses Social Learning Theory as the underlying psychology. PIC-R is a broad perspective that encompasses
the contributions of many theories (motivational and control antecedent/consequent). Criminal behaviour
reflects not just particular motivations or particular costs, but also the density of signaled rewards and costs.
Canadian researchers have extended this theoretical perspective into a psychology of criminal conduct
and a set of case-based principles for effective intervention — risk, need, and responsivity. First andforemost, the risk principle posits that treatment (programming) must match the offender’s level ofrecidivism risk. When offenders are divided into groups according to risk level and provision of services
aimed at reducing criminal behaviour, a significant pattern emerges. What can reduce recidivism ? Whenlower-risk offenders receive minimal services, their rate of recidivism is low. When higher-risk offenders
receive intensive services, then the rate of recidivism decreases. What can increase recidivism ? Whenlower-risk offenders receive intensive services, then the rate of recidivism increases. When higher-risk
offenders receive minimal services, then the rate of recidivism increases.

IV. Risk Management
The public is concerned with the manner in which violent, sex and repeat offenders are managed because
those providing custody and reintegration services are seen as being responsible for their safety. In keepingwith this important task, Motiuk (1995: 24) notes:

Faced with the fact that most offenders eventually return to the community the best way toserve the public is to recognize the risk presented by an individual, and to then put to good use
the tools, the training and our fundamental understanding of what it really means to manage
offender risk.
1 Albert Bandura, born in Alberta, Canada and currently at Stanford University, USA, is considered to be the most important

contemporary theorist in the world. “Human functioning is the product of a dynamic interplay of personal, behavioural, andenvironmental influences.” His major works include: Aggression: Social Learning and Personality Development (1963); Social
Learning Theory (1977); and Social Foundations of Thought and Action (1986). Since the late 1960s, behaviourism has given
way to the “cognitive revolution,” of which Bandura is considered a part.
2 Don A. Andrews is well known for having developed a general personality and social-psychological perspective of criminal
behaviour. “Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced.” Together, he and his colleagues (J. Bonta & R. Hoge) have
evolved a theoretical model which emphasizes the importance of risk and need factors that form a bridge between offenderassessment and treatment.

4

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Effective risk management implies that decisions impacting on the organization are made using
the best procedures available, are in keeping with the overall goals of the system.
For correctional service providers, the application of risk management principles in reducing the likelihoodof criminal recidivism is all that is required to develop or improve an effective risk management program.
These risk management principles include the assessment of risk (analysis); the sharing of information(communication); the monitoring of activities (evaluation); and if deemed appropriate, an intervention(incapacitation, programming). Public safety is improved whenever these risk management activities areintegrated into every function and level of the organisation providing care and control.
Many jurisdictions have been implementing new and improved offender risk and need assessment andmanagement technology. This paper addresses three important and related questions: "What is offender risk
and need?", "How do we assess it?", and "How do we manage it?" Then, we ask ourselves a final question,"What more needs to be done?"V. Risk: Uncertainty of Outcome
In the criminological literature, there have been many attempts to demonstrate the relative efficacy ofrisk management procedures in meeting various correctional objectives. So far, attention has focused on
both institutional adjustment and post-discharge/release outcome as the variables most relevant to criminal
justice and mental health decision-making (Motiuk, 1991).
Most investigations exploring the issue of institutional adjustment have evaluated offenders in termsof disruptive or rule-breaking behaviour such as: riots, assaults, homicides, rule infractions, incident
reports, misconducts, drug abuse, escapes, transfers, self-mutilations and suicide attempts. Another large
collection of investigations examining the topic of institutional adjustment has assessed offenders withrespect to illness behaviour. For these studies, adjustment criteria have included illness complaints, sick callattendance, medical diagnosis, medication line attendance and hospitalisations.
Traditionally, studies addressing the topic of post-discharge/release outcome have evaluated released
patients/offenders in terms of recidivism measures. The most significant of these measures have beenarrest, reconviction, parole violation and return to prison. From the public's perspective, violent or sexual
recidivism is an important problem to address because of its detrimental impact on victims. Moreover, it
provides an indication of the effectiveness of correctional interventions (Lipton, Martinson, & Wilkes, 1975;
Sechrest, White, & Brown, 1979).

Principle 1: Risk Assessment
Resolving uncertainty about decisions, after all due consideration of relevant risk factors, is thecornerstone of any effective risk management program. In practice, the analysis of offender risk should
serve to structure much of the decision-making with respect to custody/security designations, temporary/
conditional release, supervision requirements and program placement. Therefore, it is not surprising tofind attempts to design, develop and implement objective risk/need assessment procedures for classifying
offenders.
Risk assessment has well over 5,000 years of history (Covello & Mumpower, 1985). Dating back to
3,500 BC, there are accounts of the Asipu, a group of consultants in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, who
could interpret the signs and etch them on clay tablets, and then by using tallying techniques provide a
recommendation to a decision-maker. Then there was Arnobius the Elder (circa AD 400), who while writinga personal treatise on belief in the afterlife, crafted the dominance principle which would later be known
as contingency table analysis in risk prediction paradigm. Perhaps the most significant advancement was
the link made between risk and probability theory which took place with a series of works by noted Frenchmathematicians and scientists such as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) for probability theory and later computer
programming language; Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) for Bayesian interpretation of probability theory;
Siméon Poisson (1781-1840) for the Poisson distribution in probability; and Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) for
Pasteurization and infection control. The later application of the actuarial method to health concerns was

5

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

understandably a major advancement in risk assessment technology.
Notwithstanding the millenniums it took to advance risk assessment via the actuarial method, Covelloand Mumpower (1985) noted the many important changes that have taken place over the past decade fromturnaround in the nature of risk (infectious disease, heart disease and cancer, crime, terrorism); to increasein life expectancy; to new risks (nuclear waste, plane crashes, pesticides); to increases in the role of thegovernment in the assessment of risk and management (new laws on health, security environment); and toincreases in the public interest, concern and demand for protection.
Presently in North America, the bulk of objective classification instruments used were originally developed
during the late 1970s and early 80s. Some prominent examples include the Level of Supervision Inventory
or LSI (Andrews, 1982); the Wisconsin Assessment of Client Risk Scale (Baird, 1981); the Adult InternalManagement System or AIMS (Quay, 1984); the Salient Factor Score or SFS (Hoffman & Beck, 1980); andthe Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale or SIR (Nuffield, 1982). Despite the considerable researchthat had gone into their development, acceptance of these objective classification instruments into everyday
correctional practice is still challenged by practitioners and policy-makers.
Although objective classification instruments can yield significant gains both in understanding andpredicting criminal behaviour, the fact remains that the amount of variance left unexplained continues tooutweigh that which can be explained for a variety of important correctional outcomes (e.g. temporary
absence, parole). While this may be cause for disillusionment with classification tools per se, it suggests that
offender risk assessment has to move beyond the limitations of any one tool and view offender classification
as an integrated process incorporating a variety of methodologies (Motiuk, 1993).
To meet the correctional challenges of the new millennium, it is crucial to align offender-intake-assessment
procedures with a plan of intervention and systematic re-evaluations (to make significant gains in risk
management). To this end, the most important characteristics guiding the design, development and deliveryof the next generation of assessment models are predictive validity, reflecting reality, flexibility, emphasisingprofessional discretion, and being both qualitative and quantitative.
It is believed that comprehensive assessment at the intake/admission stage is critical to the ability
to gauge accurately risk during the later phases of the sentence, when decisions as to possible release
are taken. At the same time, it is noteworthy that there are successful models of risk assessment forconditionally released offenders in the community. Such work can and has laid the foundation for developing
assessment processes for violent, sex and repeat offenders at the front-end. The amalgamation of front-end
and back-end processes into one integrated system requires the ability to conduct systematic and objective
assessments upon intake/admission and to link up in meaningful ways (i.e. use the same language and cues)with community-based reassessments. First, an approach to assessing criminal risk and identifying theneeds of an offender at the time of admission is described, then a community reassessment process.
Previous research regarding the predictive value of offender risk assessments has led to three major
conclusions: 1) criminal history factors are strongly related to outcome on release (Nuffield, 1982); 2) aconsistent relationship exists between the type and number of criminogenic needs offenders present and thelikelihood of their re-offending (Motiuk & Porporino, 1989a); and most importantly, 3) combined assessmentof both the level of risk and level of needs can significantly improve the ability to differentiate cases
according to likelihood of reoffending (Bonta & Motiuk, 1992).
Risk principle considerations address the assessment of risk, the prediction of recidivism, and thematching of levels of treatment service to the risk level of the offender (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990).
While there is considerable empirical evidence to support the “risk principle,” it cannot be made fully
operational until a framework is put into place for establishing program priorities, implementing programs
and allocating resources to best meet the needs of offenders.
In 1994, the Offender Intake Assessment (OIA) and process represented for the Correctional Service ofCanada, the latest generation of risk assessment technology (Motiuk, 1993; 1997a; Taylor, 1997). Revisedin 2009, it integrates information gathered from a variety of sources (police, court, probation, family,

6

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

employers) using many techniques (self-report, face-to-face-interviews, case-file reviews). The mechanicsof the whole intake assessment process are beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, beginning at thetime of sentence, caseworkers co-ordinate the collection of all relevant information about offenders fromsources within and outside the correctional system. This information forms the basis for all future decisions
and recommendations that case workers must provide throughout the course of managing the offender'ssentence, in addition to being the central figure in the intake assessment process, and playing a major rolein treatment planning, institutional supervision, preparing cases for decision (parole board and release), andcommunity supervision.
Upon receiving a custodial sentence, the offender is interviewed by a caseworker. Whether the recently
sentenced offender is at a local jail, remand or detention facility, the caseworker begins the intake assessment
process by orienting the offender to the system. First, and foremost, caseworkers start with identifying any
critical concerns (e.g. suicide potential, personal security, and physical/mental health). Then, the caseworker
collects the offender's court, police, probation, forensic and jail records. Shortly thereafter, this informationis transferred along with the offender to an institution which has a specialised area designated as the intake
assessment unit.
Even after the offender has been transferred, a post-sentence community investigation is initiated by acaseworker located in the offender’s home community. The post-sentence community assessment reportcontains collateral sources of information. Knowledge of the case is gained about the nature of the relationshipwith significant persons (e.g. family, employers), the impact of future contacts with the offender during
incarceration or at time of release, and the degree of support that others are prepared to offer to the offender
upon return to the community. Moreover, collateral perceptions of the offender's needs are obtained in relation
to employment, marital/family relations, substance abuse, etc.
Upon arrival at an institution, the offender undergoes an admission interview and orientation session.
During this period, the offender receives an initial assessment which screens for immediate physical health,security (personal and others’ safety), mental health and suicide concerns. Should any concerns arise at thisstage of the assessment process a psychological referral is made, followed by an appropriate intervention, if
required.
Upon completing the initial assessment, the offender then proceeds to the two core components of the
OIA process: 1) Static Factors Assessment (criminal history) and 2) Dynamic Factors Identification andAnalysis. A closer look at some of these areas will illustrate how progress can be achieved in improving
overall offender risk assessment methods.

VI. Assessing Static Risk Factors
At intake, a rating of static risk for every offender is based on the following: the criminal history record,
the offence severity record, the sex offence history checklist, whether detention criteria are met, the resultof the Statistical Information on Recidivism – Revised 1 scale, and any other risk factors as detailed in acriminal profile report. The criminal profile report provides details of the crime(s) for which the offender iscurrently sentenced.

The Criminal History Record . By systematically reviewing the offender's file, which includes police
reports, court transcripts and criminal records, a criminal history record is completed on both the previous
offence(s) and the current offence(s). Information is gathered on previous offence(s), the number and type ofconvictions, youth court dispositions, adult court sanctions and crime-free periods. This information reflects
the nature and extent to which an offender has been involved with the criminal justice system.
The Offence Severity Record . Similarly, a systematic review of the offender's file is used to complete an
offence severity record covering both previous and current offence(s). This offence severity record consistsof an historical index of offence severity and an index of the severity of the offence for which the offenderis currently serving a sentence. As for current offence(s), the type of conviction(s), sentence length,
the number and types of victim(s), the degree of force used on victim(s), and the degree of physical andpsychological harm to victim(s). This information reflects the nature and degree to which an offender has

7

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

inflicted harm on society in general, and victims in particular.

The Sex Offender History Checklist . Again, the offender's file is reviewed thoroughly to complete a sex
offence history checklist. This checklist consists of the following: sex offender status, type of sex offence(current sentence), type of sex offence (past sentences), victims, serious harm, assessment and treatment
history. Offenders are identified as sex offenders if they are currently serving a sentence for a sex offence,
have been convicted in the past for one or more sex offences, are currently serving a sentence for a sexrelated offence or have previously been convicted of an offence that is sex-related. For current and pastsentences, the type of sex offence is identified as one or more of the following: incest, paedophilia, sexualassault or other sex offences (e.g. voyeurism, exhibitionism, fetishism, bestiality). Information on thenumber of victims, including their gender and age, is recorded. The determination of serious harm is basedon whether the current offence resulted in the victim’s death or significant bodily injury. Information is also
gathered on prior psychological or psychiatric assessments, prior treatment or intervention and current
treatment or intervention for sex offending. Finally, all this information reflects the nature and extent ofsexual offending, the amount of harm inflicted on victims, and involvement in assessment, treatment orintervention in relation to sexual offending.
Static Risk Level . An overall rating of static risk is the compilation of professional judgements derived
from the results of the criminal history record, offence severity record, and sex offence history checklist.
In addition, a review of detention criteria for the current offence(s) reflects the nature of the offence(s) andthe degree of harm to victim(s) is taken into account. Then, the SIR-R1 scale (Nuffield, 1982; CSC revised
1996), a statistically derived tool for predicting recidivism, is completed. The SIR-R1 scale combines
measures of demographic characteristics and criminal history in a scoring system that yields estimates ofchances of recidivism for different groups of offenders. One should keep in mind that the establishment ofstatic risk level might also incorporate a great deal of other assessment information as well. For example,
additional information might be obtained from specialised assessments (e.g. phallometric measurement forsex offenders) and input from case conferences.

VII. Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis
The Dynamic Factors Identification and Analysis protocol covers seven need dimensions linked topost-release outcome. These include employment, marital/family situation, associates/social interaction,
substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation and attitude. A list of indicatorsand rating guidelines are provided for each of the seven need dimensions. In rating each need area duringassessment, the sex offender's entire background is considered. This includes personal characteristics,
interpersonal influences, situational determinants and environmental conditions.

Dynamic Factors Level . An overall rating of dynamic factors consists of the compilation of professional
judgements derived from the results of an initial assessment (medical, mental health, suicide risk) and theobservations or impressions (i.e. degree or severity of need) on each of the seven need areas.

VII. Other Inputs to the Intake Assessment Process
Added to the intake assessment process are psychological evaluations to measure personality, cognitive
functioning and intellectual capacity; behavioural observations of staff; and supplementary assessments
such as education and substance abuse. All of the aforementioned case-based information is then brought
together at a case conference that is attended by a multidisciplinary team. It is recognised that any
consensus reached by the assessment team about the offender's risk and needs should result in significant
improvements in the predictive validity of our intake assessments.
The end product of this intake assessment process is a summary report about the offender. This OIA
report contains for each offender a bottom-line or overall level of reintegration potential ranging from low,
moderate to high; a statement on each of the seven dynamic factors ranging from “factor seen as an asset tocommunity adjustment” to “considerable need for improvement”; a prioritisation of needs; an estimate ofmotivation; a custody rating designation ranging from minimum-, medium- to maximum-security; a completesocial history; and institutional placement. It is expected that this comprehensive and integrated assessment

8

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

package will serve as the basis to formulate an individualised treatment plan for each offender.

IX. The Community Reassessment Process
As part of the standards for community supervision (Correctional Service of Canada/National Parole
Board, 1988), parole officers are required to use a systematic approach to assess the criminogenic needsof offenders, their risk of reoffending and any other factors which might affect successful reintegration
to the community. In keeping with this standard, a “Community Intervention Scale” (formerly called theCommunity Risk/Needs Management Scale) was developed and used to capture case-specific information
on “criminal history” and a critical set of “needs” for classification while on conditional release (Motiuk &Porporino, 1989b).

X. Dynamic Risk Assessment
A systematic assessment and reassessment approach can assist in identifying appropriate treatment
targets by cataloguing those changes during treatment that are associated with changes in the likelihood of
institutional maladjustment or post-release recidivism (Bonta, Andrews, & Motiuk, 1993). This test-retest
methodology can also play a critical role in measuring changes that can have significant impact on the designand development of effective correctional programs.
Case-need areas are considered to be dynamic risk factors and a subset of an overall offender risk. More
importantly, case-need dimensions are designed to be able to reflect change. Whereas the Community Risk/
Needs management Scale had emphasised the evaluation of offender risk and needs with respect to criminal
recidivism, it gave relatively little consideration of the interaction between risk/needs and the level ofintervention. However, this approach to offender risk assessment should lend itself well to the application of
the “risk principle” for varying levels of service and it should also improve the ability to identify appropriate
targets of rehabilitative effort. Andrews, Bonta and Hoge (1990) described this aspect of case classificationfor effective rehabilitation as the “need principle”. In practice, the “need principle” essentially puts the focus
on offender characteristics (e.g. substance abuse) that, when changed are associated with changes in the
chances of recidivism.

Principle 2: Sharing of Information
While the sharing and communication of information is crucial to the case management process asa whole, it is especially relevant to successful risk management. The collection of relevant and timely
information on violent, sex and repeat offenders from the police, courts and probation is an important firststep towards a successful risk management process. Moreover, directing resources towards improvements
in information sharing agreements with other criminal justice and mental health agencies is seen as
beneficial. Whether it be simply identifying contact persons in other agencies or facilitating the reproductionof court transcripts or case work records, any gain in the speed of collecting criminal justice and mental
health information must be seen as improving the overall risk management process.

Principle 3: Monitoring of Activities
In keeping with this risk management principle is the continuous evaluation of correctional activities
related to public, staff, volunteer and offender safety. Among other supports to this type of evaluation,
developing a computerised means to monitor offender progress throughout the sentence is extremely
helpful. A fully automated capacity can equip criminal justice and mental health administrators and planners
with valuable risk management information. Whether or not there have been any significant changes in
the profile of the offender/patient population under community supervision over time is useful informationin any risk management enterprise. As expected, the ability to routinely produce an offender population
profile can prove to be extremely useful for raising awareness about community supervision, providing basic
statistics with respect to risk/needs levels and estimating resource implications with respect to frequencyof-contact considerations. Furthermore, an ability to monitor the risk/needs levels of an entire caseload or
population can move further a system considerably, towards the delivery of an effective and well-integrated
risk management program.

9

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

Principle 4: Intervention
Whenever it becomes necessary to reject the risk that violent, sex or repeat offenders pose to society,staff, other offenders or even themselves, human-service providers are often equipped with extraordinary
powers to respond. Service providers in correctional and mental health facilities may conduct searches ofinmates/patients, cells/rooms, visitors and vehicles. Moreover, they have the power to seize contraband orevidence relating to a disciplinary or criminal offence. As well, they can invoke disciplinary sanctions which
can be warnings or reprimands, the loss of privileges, an order to make restitution, a fine; extra duties, andin the case of a serious disciplinary offence, segregation from other offenders/patients.
In some jurisdictions, options for managing violent or sex offenders while under sentence include statutory
release or the use of detention provisions during the period of statutory release. Detention provisions allow
one to detain high-risk offenders beyond their statutory release date and up to their sentence expiration date.
Should an offender pose any sort of threat while on conditional release, one can reject this risk by imposing
special conditions (e.g. not associate with known criminals, abstain from substances, abide by curfews, etc.)
or issue suspension warrants for their arrest. Another important approach to responding to offender risk iscommonly referred to as treatment or programming.

XI. Re-engineering Risk/Need Assessment Procedures
Development of any new risk/needs assessment instrumentation or process should purposefully follow
and expand on the assessment procedures currently in place. The intention is to capitalise on existing
information-gathering practices, retain essential outputs and build on risk assessment training to date.
Some of the major reasons for a classification tool's decline in effectiveness include shifts in the clientele’s
profile (e.g. age distribution, cultural diversity, and offence-type composition) and changes in legislation orpolicy. Perhaps an even more compelling reason for periodically retooling risk assessment procedures is thedrift towards over-classification that appears to be inherent in human-service-delivery systems (Bonta &Motiuk, 1992).
A few examples of correctional systems that have recently devised systematic and objective risk/needassessment procedures include but are not limited to Namibia, Hong Kong and Bosnia-Herzegovina. For
the purposes of illustration, the risk/need assessment project that took place in Bosnia-Herzegovina ishighlighted in the following discussion.

XII. The Bosnia-Herzegovina Risk/Needs Project
The Council of Europe (CoE), in collaboration with Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) corrections
authorities, was actively engaged in developing a system of individualized risk and needs assessment for
prisoners. The project was organized into four phases with the main objective of establishing an evidencebased risk-needs assessment system for BiH.
The first phase of the project (December 2005) involved holding a familiarization seminar on risk-needs
assessment and conducting a viability study for development. The second phase (April-May 2006) of the
project involved surveying convicted prisoners in BiH, designing risk-needs instrumentation, and piloting a
new assessment protocol. The third phase (July 2006) of the project involved consolidating instrumentationand practice guidelines, hands-on training and field testing. The fourth and final phase (October-November2006) involved compiling and analyzing pilot and field test data, conducting a train-the-trainers session, andoverseeing multiple groups of training participants. The following steps were offered for development of the
BiH RNA process:10

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Project Phases
Phase 1:
Familiarization &Viability
Phase 2:
Survey, Instrument Design and Pilot
Phase 3:
Field Test
Phase 4:
Implementation

The BiH pilot and field tests had revealed considerable previous involvement with the criminal justicesystem as more than half of the sample had previous adult convictions and more than a third had earlier
prison terms. In addition, all nine criminogenic need areas were found to be represented in the distribution
with considerable variation. For newly sentenced admissions, unemployment at time of offence, values
orientation (disrespect for property and/or people), and cognitive/behavioural skills deficits were the mostprominent need areas. The aforementioned provided promising targets for correctional intervention.
Although the predictive value of BiH RNA remains to be tested as extended follow-up periods wererequired for establishing relationships with relevant correctional outcomes, the robustness of the pilot
and field test results suggested the full application of the RNA and Treatment Planning process would
have added benefits in BiH whereby standardised reports are generated, sentence plans are produced andvaluable management information is gathered for strategic planning purposes.
A Train-the-Trainers manual was assembled which involved trainers in making presentations and/or
providing feedback on six sessions: 1) Risk-Needs Assessment ; 2) The Risk-Needs Assessment Process ;3) Criminal History Risk Assessment ; 4) Criminogenic Needs Assessment ; 5) Admission Assessment
Summary ; and 6) Case Presentation and Scoring . Accompanying the sessions, a series of 36 slides wereused to facilitate the training. It is noteworthy that both former focus group and field test participants greatly
assisted during these sessions as they had previously become familiar with scoring the RNA protocol andpresenting cases during training.
With the design, development, testing and training phases completed, the BiH RNA process was deemed
ready to be considered for system-wide implementation. At the time, BiH had become well positioned
to introduce a systematic approach to individualized prisoner risk-needs assessment. An objective andcomprehensive assessment process had been designed, developed, piloted, and field tested. With successful
completion of the fourth phase of the project, BiH prisons would have a modern assessment technology,
qualified trainers, trained assessors, practice guidelines and training manuals. To date, senior managers andfield staff engaged during the project openly expressed strong support for the initiative. Operationally, the
BiH RNA process was seen to assist them in the difficult task of assessing prisoners for risk, safety anddeveloping individualized treatment plans.

XIII. Conclusion
Is the accuracy of available assessment instruments for predicting violent, sex and repeat offending
high enough to support their use as single criterion for making decisions about incapacitating offenders forlong or indefinite periods? It is frequently argued that those who are likely to commit violent, sex or repeat
offences upon release can be identified in advance with high accuracy using risk prediction devices. It issometimes proposed that scores on such measures could be used as criteria for granting release or detaining
individuals beyond their normal release dates. However, reliance on single measures invites the risk ofomitting data that might be crucial in the prediction of future offending behaviour in individual cases.
Barring any major new developments in offender risk assessment technology, it is highly unlikely thatany one tool or risk dimension could provide sufficient predictive accuracy on its own to guarantee safe

11

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

decisions about which cases should be released and which cases should be detained for indefinite periods
because they may be violent. Correctional systems should avoid the use of single tools or measures
for making decisions about release outcomes because more comprehensive methods of collecting andintegrating risk information are available. Poor assessment procedures can lead to the release of violenceprone individuals into society, or conversely, low-risk individuals being incarcerated for longer periods thannecessary at considerable public expense. Instead, adopting a multi-method, multi-predictor assessment andreassessment approach is preferred.

XIV. REFERENCES
Andrews, D.A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up . Toronto: Ministryof Correctional Services (Ontario).
Andrews, D.A. (1995). “The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and Effective Treatment.” In J. McGuire(Ed.). What Works? Reducing Re-offending . (pp. 35-62). New York: Wiley.
Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). “Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering
psychology.” Criminal Justice & Behaviour, 17 , 19-52.
Baird, S.C. (1981). “Probation and parole classification: The Wisconsin model.” Corrections Today, 43 ,
35-41.
Bonta, J., Andrews, D.A., & Motiuk, L.L. (1993). Dynamic risk assessment and effective treatment .
A paper presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Phoenix,
Arizona.
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L.L. (1992). “Inmate classification.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 , 343-353.
Correctional Service of Canada (1996). Revised Statistical Information on Recidivism Scale (SIR-R1) .
Ottawa.
Covello, V.T. & Mumpower, J. (1985). “Risk analysis and risk management: An historical perspective.”
Risk Analysis , 5(2), 103-119.
Harman, W.G., & Hann, R.G. (1986). Predicting General Release Risk for Penitentiary Inmates . User
Report: Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, No. 1986-32.
Hoffman, P.B., & Beck, J.L. (1980). “Revalidating the salient factor score: A research note.” Journal of
Criminal Justice, 8 , 185-188.
Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilkes, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment - A survey oftreatment evaluation studies . New York: Praeger.
Motiuk, L.L. (1991). The antecedents and consequences of prison adjustment: A systematic assessment
and reassessment approach . Doctoral Dissertation. Ottawa: Carleton University.
Motiuk, L.L. (1993). “Where are we in our ability to assess risk?” Forum on Corrections Research, 5 ,14-18.
Motiuk, L.L. (1995). “Refocusing the role of psychology in risk management: Assessment, communication,
monitoring and intervention.” In Leis, T.A., Motiuk, L.L., & Ogloff, J.R. (Eds.). Forensic Psychology:
Policy and Practice in Corrections . Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Motiuk, L.L. (1997a). “Classification for correctional programming: The Offender Intake Assessment(OIA) process.” Forum on Corrections Research , 9 (1), 18-22.
Motiuk, L.L. (1997b). “The Community Risk/Needs Management Scale: An effective supervision tool.”
Forum on Corrections Research, 9 (1), 8-12.

12

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Motiuk, L.L., & Porporino, F.J. (1989a). Offender risk/needs assessment: A study of conditional releases .
R-01. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Motiuk, L.L., & Porporino, F.J. (1989b). Field test of the Community Risk/Needs Management Scale: A
study of offenders on caseload . R-01. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Nuffield, J. (1982). Parole decision-making in Canada: Research towards decision guidelines . Ottawa:
Communications Division.
Quay, H. (1984). Managing adult inmates . Washington: American Correctional Association.
Sechrest, L., White, S., & Brown, E. (1979). The rehabilitation of criminal offenders . Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences.
Taylor, G. (1997). “Implementing risk and needs classification in the Correctional Service of Canada.”
Forum on Corrections Research, 9 (1), 32-35.
Waller, I. (1974). Men Released from Prison . Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto Press.

13