U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

The First Step Act of 2018:

Risk and Needs Assessment 

System - UPDATE

January 2020
__________________________

___________________________ 

 i 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction...................................................................................... 1 

II. Summary of DOJ’s Efforts Following Publication of the 

July 2019 Risk and Needs Assessment Report....................... 2 

III. Changes to PATTERN Based on Suggestions Received 

After the July 2019 Report............................................................. 7 

IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................26

Attachment A: Examples of Scoring Under PATTERN 1.2 

(Using General Risk Score) .......................................................27

Appendix I: Technical Corrections .........................................35

Appendix II: Revised Points Assigned in the PATTERN 

Risk Assessment Models ............................................................37
__________________________ 

________________________ 

1 

I. Introduction

The efficient and effective implementation of the First Step Act (FSA) continues to 

be a priority for the Department of Justice (DOJ or the Department) and for this 

Administration. In July 2019, the Department announced a new Risk and Needs 

Assessment System (RNAS or the System). In developing the System, the Department 

worked to make the benefits of the FSA as widely available as possible without 

compromising predictive reliability. The initial System, which was based on the 

information available at the time, was robust, and the Department committed to 

improve it, with more time, consultation, data, and research. 

In the months that followed, the Department has worked vigorously to fulfill this 

commitment. Importantly, we continued to work with the Independent Review 

Committee (IRC) and our experts, Drs. Grant Duwe and Zachary Hamilton, to 

identify ways to improve the Department’s RNAS, the Prisoner Assessment Tool 

Targeting Estimated Risk and Need (PATTERN), while maintaining its high level of 

predictability. Moreover, we continued to engage a range of stakeholders and have 

listened to their concerns and suggestions. This input has been invaluable as we strive 

to ensure the equity and effectiveness of PATTERN.

In this follow-up report, the Department is highlighting the changes made to 

PATTERN as a direct result of the input and suggestions on this crucial issue. The 

Department has taken the feedback seriously and considered the various and, at times, 

competing views presented. In all cases, DOJ strove to engage stakeholders and 

implement the most equitable, effective, and predictive tool possible to ensure that the 

goals of the FSA are achieved.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

2 

II. Summary of DOJ’s Efforts Following Publication of the 

July 2019 Risk and Needs Assessment Report

a. Independent Review Committee (IRC) Meetings 

The IRC’s input has been critical to the Department’s development and review related 

to PATTERN. On October 7, 2019, staff from the Office of the Deputy Attorney 

General (ODAG), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Federal Bureau of 

Prisons (BOP) met with the IRC to discuss the IRC’s views and recommendations 

regarding PATTERN and potential improvements and advancements for the 

subsequent version of the risk tool. Following that meeting, BOP provided NIJ 

contractors with additional programmatic and disciplinary infraction data to facilitate 

further analysis of PATTERN. In the weeks that followed, NIJ’s consultants spent 

more than 100 hours addressing questions and concerns raised by the IRC. While not 

all of the IRC’s recommendations were accepted by DOJ, many of them, in addition 

to the additional analyses completed by the consultants, helped confirm DOJ’s 

confidence in the accuracy of PATTERN.

The Attorney General met with the IRC on November 19, 2019, to discuss proposed 

changes to PATTERN, including several refinements suggested by the IRC. The IRC 

recommended that the Attorney General implement the changes described herein and 

agreed to continue providing advice to the Department on the implementation of 

these changes and other issues identified by the IRC regarding the FSA. BOP and NIJ 

concurred with this recommendation. 

NIJ LISTENING SESSIONS. Antoine Prince Albert of The Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights / Education Fund speaks to David Muhlhausen of NIJ, Antoinette Bacon of ODAG, 

Kathleen Hawk Sawyer of BOP, and Hugh Hurwitz of BOP at the listening session on September 11, 

2019.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

3 

b. Stakeholder Listening Sessions and 45-Day Public Comment Period on 

PATTERN

On September 10-11, 2019, NIJ hosted two listening sessions in response to the 

release of PATTERN. Criminal justice stakeholders, advocates, and interested citizens 

were invited to Washington, D.C. to provide comments1 on DOJ’s implementation of 

the FSA and, specifically, the development of PATTERN. Eight stakeholder 

organizations provided public comment. An additional eight sets of comments were 

provided to NIJ for consideration. 

NIJ LISTENING SESSIONS. Laura Mate (left), Jeremiah Mosteller (center), and James Felman 

(right) participate in the listening session on September 11, 2019.

Following the release of PATTERN in July, DOJ provided a specific email address 

(FirstStepAct@usdoj.gov) for interested members of the public to provide comment 

and feedback on the risk tool and FSA Report. NIJ actively monitored the feedback 

submitted to the email address—nearly 175 comments and statements were received 

during the 45-day public comment period. Additionally, twenty statements were 

submitted by external stakeholders to NIJ as part of an invitation to participate in a 

third round of listening sessions. Through both written comment and in oral 

presentations, stakeholders raised a diverse set of issues and offered suggestions and 

opportunities for improvement. 

 

1 The full set of comments submitted to NIJ can be found here: 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254142.pdf 
__________________________ 

________________________ 

4 

ENGAGEMENT. The DOJ delegation poses for a photo with CSC staff.

c. Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) National Headquarters Engagement

On September 17-18, 2019, staff from ODAG, NIJ, BOP, Dr. Patti Butterfield, a 

member of the IRC, and Drs. Zachary Hamilton and Angela Hawken, two of NIJ’s 

external expert consultants, traveled to the national headquarters of the CSC. CSC is 

the Canadian federal government agency responsible for the incarceration and 

rehabilitation of convicted criminal offenders sentenced to two years or more. CSC 

explained that it has taken decades to achieve its current level of sophistication, and it 

continues to be a leader in the advancement and development of risk and needs 

assessments. Meeting with CSC provided an important opportunity for DOJ to learn 

about the successes and challenges of developing and implementing an innovative risk 

and needs assessment system in a large jurisdiction. 

For CSC, treatment begins on day one. Importantly, CSC provides cognitivebehavioral therapy to all offenders in their custody starting at the term of their 

confinement. CSC delivers such therapy to all offenders regardless of their specific 

needs. In this way, offenders receive the opportunity to learn about criminal thinking 

and other aspects of criminal behavior that may have affected their lives. Offenders 

with specific needs receive appropriate treatment with regard to dosage. 

To review CSC operations and discuss risk and needs assessments further, the 

aforementioned group of staff visited the Joyceville Institution, an intake processing 

facility located in Kingston, Ontario, where inmates undergo an extensive initial needs 

assessment. Offenders spend hours completing assessment instruments to more fully 

understand an individual’s complex needs. The group toured the facility, discussed 

existing program offerings, and were provided briefings on future plans for additional 

programs being developed and expanded at the facility. They also met with facility 

management to compare U.S. and Canadian federal systems and spoke with inmates 

as to their intake progress. 
__________________________

________________________

5

d. Needs Assessment Symposium 

On September 23-25, 2019, BOP conducted a Needs Assessment Symposium to 

gather input and feedback from experts to assist BOP in addressing the needs 

assessment requirements of the FSA. The group met for three days with the goal of 

developing recommendations for enhancing BOP’s current needs assessment tools. 

The event included subject-matter experts from state corrections and research 

organizations and involved facilitated discussions of needs assessment best practices. 

The symposium resulted in recommendations regarding which needs should be 

assessed, how to assess those needs, and ways in which BOP could improve its overall 

infrastructure and needs assessment processes. These recommendations will be 

considered by BOP’s Executive Staff to determine which recommendations are 

consistent with BOP’s strategic plans and can be implemented.

The following experts participated in the symposium: 

• Holly Busby, National Institute of Corrections

• Dr. Patti Butterfield, Independent Review Committee

• Dr. Marie Garcia, National Institute of Justice

• Wendy Goodman, Virginia Department of Corrections

• Dr. Angela Hawken, New York University and NIJ Contractor

• Dr. Matthew Makarios, University of Northern Iowa

• Dr. Jon Mandracchia, Missouri Western State University

• Gary Mohr, Former Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction

• Dr. Jennifer Pankow, Texas Christian University

• Dr. Emily Salisbury, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

• Dr. Jennifer Skeem, University of California, Berkeley

• Shirley Moore Smeal, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (retired)

• Dr. Solveig Spjeldnes, Ohio University

• Dr. Jody Sundt, Indiana University—Purdue University Indianapolis

• Donna Tebought, Georgia Department of Corrections

• Dr. Stephen Tripodi, Florida State University

• Dr. Wendy Williams, Alabama Department of Corrections

e. Use of Risk and Needs Assessment in Prisons Workshop

On August 28-29, 2019, NIJ, in collaboration with the RAND Corporation, hosted a 

workshop on the Use of Risk and Needs Assessment in Prisons. The workshop 

brought together staff from four state departments of corrections – Minnesota, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and Tennessee – and staff from BOP’s Reentry Services Division, as 

well as scholars with expertise in risk and needs assessments, including Drs. Zachary 

Hamilton and Faye Taxman, a member of the IRC. 
__________________________ 

________________________ 

6 

Over the two-day meeting, participants discussed and identified the challenges prisons 

face when implementing an RNAS. To illustrate the complexity and uses of risk and 

needs assessment, each department of corrections discussed the risk and needs 

processes in its department. This discussion was valuable in comparing and contrasting 

the use of RNAS in the state corrections departments. A full report detailing identified 

issues and needs, as well as recommendations from the workshop, will be available in 

Spring of 2020.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

7 

III. Changes to PATTERN Based On Suggestions Received 

After the July 2019 Report

1. In response to feedback that PATTERN should encourage inmates to take 

advantage of programming and should incentivize change, DOJ considered 

adding more dynamic factors and removing static factors.

In developing a new risk tool, the Department placed emphasis on a system that 

accurately measures an inmate’s change during incarceration, and provides 

opportunities for inmates to reduce their risk scores post-intake during periodic 

reassessments. Accordingly, PATTERN includes a diverse set of factors to determine 

the risk of recidivism for BOP inmates; many of these factors are dynamic, meaning 

that an inmate’s risk of recidivism could change with appropriate programming and 

services or could be affected by the inmate’s behavior. These factors, in conjunction 

with an inmate’s commitment to reform, are crucial to the assessment process. 

Importantly, adding dynamic factors to the risk tool and minimizing static factors 

(those features of an offenders’ history that are not amenable to change) provides a 

greater opportunity for offenders to reduce their risk scores over time during periodic 

reassessments. The inclusion of dynamic factors in PATTERN will assist BOP in 

identifying an offenders’ needs, determining the services and programming responsive 

to the needs, and determining more accurately an offender's actual risk of recidivism. 

The dynamic factors initially included in PATTERN were:

1. Infraction convictions (any)2

2. Infraction convictions (serious and violent)3

3. Number of programs completed (any) 

4. Number of Technical or Vocational Courses 

5. Federal Prison Industry employment (only for women) 

6. Drug treatment while incarcerated

7. Drug education while incarcerated

8. Non-Compliance with financial responsibility (only for women) 

9. Education Score (only for women) 

10. History of Violence 

11. History of Escape 

In response to suggestions from the IRC and others, the Department sought to 

identify other dynamic factors that would be appropriate measures to add to 

PATTERN. As part of that process, BOP provided additional programmatic data to 

NIJ’s consultants, who performed further analyses to assess whether the addition of

new programmatic data and the augmentation and removal of variables from the 

 

2 The “Infraction convictions (any)” measure includes a decay function. Any infraction convictions that 

occurred ten or more years prior are removed from the count.

3 The “Infraction convictions (serious and violent)” measure includes a decay function. Serious or 

violent infraction convictions that occurred ten or more years prior are removed from the count.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

8 

model affected its ability to accurately predict an offender’s risk of recidivism. Based 

on results from the analyses, and upon the recommendation of the IRC, DOJ intends 

to augment PATTERN as follows: 

• Include an additional dynamic measure of offender’s “infraction free” period 

during his or her current term of incarceration;4 and 

• Modify programming measures by adding psychology treatment programs 

(BRAVE, Challenge, Skills Program, Sex Offender Treatment (both residential 

and non-residential), STAGES, and Step Down programs), the faith-based 

Life Connections Program (LCP), and the BOP’s Drug Education program to 

the “Number of programs completed (any)” measure and combine 

technical/vocational and UNICOR into a new work programming measure. 

 

WORK PROGRAMS. Inmates participate in a horticulture vocational program at FPC Bryan.

2. The Department removed certain variables in furtherance of its commitment 

to ensuring that PATTERN is fair and accurate.

The goal of a risk assessment is to create a fair and accurate prediction of risk that an 

inmate will commit a crime. The Department received correspondence stating that the 

criminal justice system discriminates against minorities and advocating that 

PATTERN must avoid perpetuating or exacerbating racial disparities. The 

Department agrees that inmates and the public are not served by a risk assessment tool 

that is racially biased or does not accurately reflect inmate risk.

 

4 This measure identifies the duration of time an individual was infraction free prior to their release. As 

a dynamic measure of behavior, this measure is an indicator of an offender’s readiness for release.
__________________________

________________________

9

As previously stated, PATTERN used many factors that are scientifically-weighted 

based on their predictability of reduced recidivism. The Department analyzed 

hundreds of different iterations and variables in order to find those factors most 

predictive of the risk of recidivism. The process of weighting the variables was based 

on scientific research and analysis.

The Department measured PATTERN to ensure that it was predictive across all races 

and genders. As shown in the chart below, PATTERN is a neutral assessment tool, as 

evidenced by the nearly equal scores on the Area Under the Curve (AUC) analysis. 

Recidivism Male Female

General All White AA5 Hispanic Other All White AA Hispanic Other

PATTERN 0.80 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.76 0.81

Violent All White AA Hispanic Other All White AA Hispanic Other

PATTERN 0.77 0.80 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.78 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.81

The risk assessment tool cannot correct for any outside biases that lead to higher 

recidivism. DOJ agrees, however, that the risk assessment tool should avoid adding or 

exacerbating any bias that may exist. Critically, it must predict recidivism fairly, 

accurately, and objectively with the available information.

Although PATTERN uses scientifically-based factors that help predict an inmate’s risk 

of recidivism, the Department removed or changed certain measures that might be 

associated with bias, especially racial bias, in order to implement the most fair and 

predictive tool possible. The following factors were removed from PATTERN: 

• Age of first arrest/conviction; and

• Voluntary surrender.

These changes reduce PATTERN’s predictive accuracy by approximately one percent. 

The IRC and DOJ both viewed this decrease as acceptable, if it prevents the actual or 

perceived perpetuation of any bias.

One criticism relayed to DOJ was that considering “supervised release violations” as 

a factor in the risk score would disproportionately affect African Americans and 

Hispanics because it was alleged they are more likely to have their supervised release 

revoked due to biases in the criminal justice system. DOJ researched whether this 

assumption was true. After research and analysis of the issue, the Department found 

that the opposite was actually true—removal of supervised release violations from the 

data would actually increase the potential racial disparity and have a negative impact 

on the predictability of the tool.

There are two categories of supervised release violations: (1) the commission of a new 

crime, and (2) the violation of a term of supervised release. BOP consulted with the 

 5 African-American is abbreviated here as “AA.”
__________________________ 

________________________ 

10

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) and found that statistics 

demonstrated that African American and Hispanic offenders were not returned to 

prison for a supervised release violation more often than white offenders, as many 

critics assumed. The following tables illustrate this finding.

BOP Inmates Released in FY 2009 – FY 2015

1. Inmates who recidivated only for a Supervised Release Violation, out of all releases 

in FY 2009 through FY 2015. 

Group White AA Hispanic Other6 Total

Number 6,294 6,382 3,213 1,746 17,635

% 7.89% 7.27% 7.51% 13.82% 7.91%

Total Number 79,740 87,838 42,760 12,632 222,970

2. Inmates who recidivated only for a Supervised Release Violation and were 

Returned to the BOP, out of all inmates who recidivated only for a Supervised 

Release Violation. 

Group White AA Hispanic Other Total

Number 3,417 3,336 1,595 1,120 9,468

% 54.29% 52.27% 49.64% 64.15% 53.69%

Total Number 6,294 6,382 3,213 1,746 17,635

As the tables show, there is little difference in the rates of supervised release violations 

between White, African American, and Hispanic inmates. Thus, there is no evidence 

that racial disparity or racial bias is increased by including supervised release violations 

in the recidivism outcome measure for PATTERN. 

With the changes set forth in Item 1 above, and this item, the updated version of 

PATTERN is a more streamlined version of the risk tool previously released. As 

updated, PATTERN contains fifteen factors, eleven dynamic and four static, as 

follows: 

Dynamic Factors:

1. Infraction convictions (any) current incarceration

2. Infraction convictions (serious and violent) current incarceration

3. Infraction-free (any) current incarceration

4. Infraction-free (serious and violent) current incarceration

5. Number of programs completed (any) 

6. Work programming 

7. Drug treatment while incarcerated

 

6 The “Other” category represents Asian and Native American inmates.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

11

8. Non-compliance with financial responsibility7

9. History of violence 

10. History of escapes

11. Education score8

Static Factors:

12. Age at time of assessment

13. Instant violent offense 

14. Sex offender (Walsh) 

15. Criminal history score 

With these changes,9 PATTERN still retains a high level of predictability, across races 

and sexes, as reflected in the chart below. 

AUC Comparisons Across Race and Ethnicity, and Gender

for the Revised Version of PATTERN

 

Recidivism Male Female

General All White AA Hispanic Other All White AA Hispanic Other

PATTERN 0.79 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.82 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.76 0.80

Violent All White AA Hispanic Other All White AA Hispanic Other

PATTERN 0.77 0.80 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.77 0.75 0.79 0.75 0.80

3. In response to feedback that under a model found on the Internet,10 PATTERN 

does not appear to allow inmates to move from higher to lower risk categories 

over the course of incarceration, the Department considered assigning more 

weight to dynamic factors and provided illustrative examples of inmates’ 

abilities to move categories.

A crucial component of the FSA is the ability of inmates to show that they are 

reformed through the use of training, programming, and other factors to lower their 

risk score and reduce the time they serve in secure confinement. PATTERN was 

validated using numerous factors that are scientifically-weighted based on their 

predictability of reducing recidivism. The Department analyzed more than a hundred 

different iterations and variables in order to find those factors most predictive of the 

risk of recidivism. The process of weighting the variables was based on scientific 

research and analysis. As noted above, the Department will be updating PATTERN 

 

7 For females, this factor was included only in the general recidivism model. It was not included in the 

violent recidivism model because it was not predictive of this outcome. Additionally, this factor was 

predictive only for females, not males. 

8 Education score was found to be predictive only for females, not males. 

9 The appendix to this report contains technical clarifications and corrections to errata in the July 2019 

Report. Those changes were non-substantive and do not affect the AUC analysis. 10 The IRC informed the Department that the IRC had identified some errors in that Internet model.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

12

to include additional programming measures and will take into account behaviors that 

occur during the current period of incarceration. 

The Department tested the updated version of PATTERN to ensure that individuals 

could successfully move from a higher to a lower risk score. The examples in 

Attachment A show how different types of inmates can use the dynamic factors in the 

updated PATTERN to lower their risk score and how a motived inmate’s risk score 

will improve compared to an unmotivated inmate who does not thoroughly complete 

evidence-based recidivism reduction programs. 

WORK PROGRAMS. Inmates learn how to properly perform a four-wheel vehicle wheel alignment 

as part of an automotive chassis vocational program at FCI Bennettsville.

4. The Department has clarified the terms “general” and “violent” recidivism to 

further promote transparency.

The Department received criticism about the lack of clarity regarding “general” and 

“violent” recidivism and understands this confusion. There are many different 

definitions of violent and general recidivism. Risk assessment tools and crime statistics 

are not uniform in the definition employed. In an attempt to clarify this confusion, as 

well as improve overall transparency regarding the tool and its functions, the 

Department has tried to be as consistent as possible in the terms it uses across the risk 

assessment tool and in the crime statistics it has collected. 

PATTERN calculates two risk scores: one for general recidivism risk and one 

specifically for violent recidivism risk. The definitions of general and violent recidivism 

mirror those used by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). General recidivism is 

defined as a return to BOP custody or a re-arrest within three years of release from 

BOP custody, excluding all traffic offenses except driving under the influence (DUI) 

and driving while intoxicated (DWI). Violent recidivism is defined as a re-arrest for a 
__________________________

________________________

13

suspected act of violence within three years of release from BOP custody. Examples 

of the violent offenses captured in this definition include, but are not limited to, 

firearms violations, homicide, child abuse, robbery, sex trafficking, and sexual assault.11

5. In response to suggestions to narrow the definition of “recidivism” to include 

only convictions, not arrests, the Department considered whether changing 

from the longstanding definition of “recidivism” would be beneficial and 

appropriate.

There is no uniform definition of “recidivism” in criminal justice systems across the 

United States. As discussed previously, “recidivism” is currently defined in PATTERN 

to include a return to BOP custody or a re-arrest within three years of release from 

BOP custody, as well as DUI and DWI offenses. This definition is consistent with the 

definition used by BJS. Some have suggested that it would be fairer to narrow the 

definition of recidivism so that it only includes convictions and does not count those 

who were arrested but either never charged with a crime or were acquitted. We 

explored the possibility of changing the definition to exclude acquittals and arrests not 

resulting in charges over a five-year period12 and found that, unfortunately, the data 

for such a review is not available.

BOP does not have access to accurate and complete data for case dispositions (i.e., 

convictions or acquittals). BOP receives state recidivism data as keyed by the states, 

which each have different reporting processes. Some jurisdictions report only arrests, 

while others report arrests and convictions. BOP lacks the authority to compel the 

states to enhance their reporting and to dedicate the resources needed to include 

disposition. BOP’s review of criminal history data for purposes of Second Chance Act 

studies indicates that an estimated fifty percent of reconviction data is missing. This 

missing data, if used to determine recidivism rates, would significantly bias the analysis 

of PATTERN and have a profound impact on its predictability.

DOJ also considered adopting one of the definitions of recidivism used by different 

states. Two states define recidivism as returns to custody in only their state, and DOJ 

considered defining recidivism as only a return to BOP custody. That definition is 

problematic, because if someone is released from BOP custody and then is convicted 

in state court of murder, that person would not count as a recidivist, even though that 

person committed a very serious offense. Another state defines recidivism as the 

percentage of people who are convicted of a felony, released from incarceration in a 

 11 A detailed list of violent offense codes can be provided upon request.

12 The change from a three-year to five-year period is necessary to account for the lengthy period 

between arrest and judgment. In the federal system, there is a time gap between arrest, trial, verdict, and 

judgment entry that could run well over one year in many cases. Consider the case of a person arrested 

for murder two-and-a-half years after his/her release from prison, who was convicted at trial eight 

months later, and the judgment filed and sentence imposed three months beyond. If recidivism was 

measured by conviction only, that person would be counted as a “non-recidivist,” despite a conviction 

for a violent offense. Omissions such as these types of cases would have a profound impact on 

PATTERN’s predictability and would undermine confidence in the system.
__________________________

________________________

14

local jail or the state’s Department of Correction facility, and are reincarcerated within 

three years of release. BOP found that definition also lacking, as a defendant charged 

with RICO two years after release from prison, who was convicted after trial and 

sentenced to prison 18 months later, would not count as a recidivist, and neither would 

a repeat con artist sentenced to prison for stealing senior citizens’ life savings, 

sentenced to prison but given bond pending appeal.

Having considered a variety of definitions, the Department sees benefits associated 

with using the long-standing definition of arrests over a three-year period. For 

example, keeping the same definition helps the BOP assess and study the effectiveness 

of its programming. The FSA’s goal is to identify programs that reduce recidivism, 

offer those programs to inmates, and allow inmates to reduce their risk of recidivism. 

Over forty-four percent of inmates released from BOP custody to U.S. communities 

during FY 2013 recidivated, as defined previously (44.2%). By keeping the same 

definition of recidivism, BOP can more accurately measure how well a program is 

working. No one benefits from continuing programs that do not work. Therefore, 

accurately measuring changes in recidivism year over year is critical to the success of 

the FSA. By changing the definition, the ability to conduct this type of accurate 

comparison is lost.

Additionally, because the definition of recidivism is the most widely used in the federal 

system, keeping that definition would make comparisons across risk assessment and 

criminal justice systems easier. The U.S. Sentencing Commission, BJS, and AOUSC 

all rely on post-release arrest data for more accurate and complete analyses. By using 

the same definition, BOP and the public have more meaningful data with which to 

assess progress. 

The Department intends to continue exploring other ways to readily obtain complete 

and accurate disposition data. In the meantime, to avoid any delay associated with 

deploying PATTERN and the corresponding FSA benefits, the Department intends 

to continue using the standard definition of recidivism. 

6. DOJ has begun the process of identifying a fourth group to independently test 

and validate PATTERN in response to requests to publish the underlying 

PATTERN data to allow stakeholders to independently test its validity.

The Department understands the desire for stakeholders and advocates to 

independently review and validate PATTERN. The Department has encouraged 

thoughtful criticism and input on how to improve PATTERN. Unfortunately, the 

distribution of the data underlying PATTERN is restricted because the data includes 

arrest and conviction information provided directly to DOJ by state and local 

jurisdictions, who have a significant interest in protecting their data. The retrieval, 

disclosure, and redistribution of that criminal history data is prohibited by the sharing 

agreements used to acquire the underlying data.

With that said, and in order to ensure independence and integrity in the development 

of the risk tool, DOJ arranged for external experts to evaluate and validate PATTERN.
__________________________

________________________

15

Initially, DOJ contracted with two external experts (Drs. Grant Duwe and Zachary 

Hamilton) to statistically analyze an anonymized version of the data and use it to 

develop PATTERN. The IRC also received access to subsequent results from the 

analysis and reanalysis of PATTERN to help verify the assumptions, analysis, and 

conclusions incorporated. Researchers were only able to access information about 

PATTERN after completing required background investigations. Since background 

checks are expensive and lengthy, in the absence of a contractual relationship, sharing 

the data widely is thus not a feasible solution to increasing transparency with outside 

stakeholders.

To demonstrate the Department’s commitment to addressing concerns about peer 

review and transparency, and in order to further promote independence and to 

enhance transparency of the process, NIJ will release a funding opportunity to solicit 

proposals for a five-year project to review and revalidate the new version of 

PATTERN. Upon completion of appropriate background investigations, and 

permission from relevant justice agencies to access administrative data, these experts 

will access and analyze data to validate PATTERN’s reliability. NIJ expects to fund 

this research in 2020.

7. To promote further transparency, the Department is reaffirming its 

commitment to publishing the annual validation data, as well as annual 

recidivism data.

DOJ intends to publish results from the annual review and validation of the risk 

assessment system and recidivism data in its annual report required by 18 U.S.C. § 

3634, which will include the programs completed by inmates. The FSA specifically 

requires the Department to submit a report to congressional committees that includes, 

among other items:

• A summary of the activities and accomplishments in carrying out the FSA.

• A summary and assessment of the types and effectiveness of the evidencebased recidivism reduction programs and productive activities in prisons 

operated by BOP, including—

o Evidence about which programs have been shown to reduce 

recidivism;

o The capacity of each program and activity at each prison, including the 

number of prisoners along with the recidivism risk of each prisoner 

enrolled in each program; and

o Identification of any gaps or shortages in capacity of such programs 

and activities.

• Rates of recidivism among individuals who have been released from Federal 

prison; and

• The status of prison work programs at facilities operated by BOP.
__________________________

________________________

16

This report is due to Congress on December 18, 2020, two years from the date the 

FSA was passed into law. DOJ has already begun collecting this information and fully 

intends to meet the deadline.

The IRC and other interested stakeholders recommended that DOJ publish recidivism 

data in real-time. DOJ sees benefits in releasing this data as we continue to study and 

to refine PATTERN and to robustly implement the FSA, however, there is no feasible 

mechanism to retrieve real-time arrest data for a group of individuals. Instead, DOJ is 

capable of retrieving criminal history data for groups of individuals on a monthly 

basis.13 The Department notes that publishing monthly recidivism data might lead to 

confusion, as seasonal trends might skew perceptions or lead to hasty or improper 

conclusions about the efficacy of the FSA based on a time period that is not 

traditionally used for recidivism analysis (i.e. monthly vs. three-year).14 Additionally, 

random irregularities in the data could cause the recidivism rate to spike or dip, leading

to inaccurate conclusions about the risk of the relevant group of releasees in relation 

to others.

Considering the many concerns and interests, the Department has concluded that it 

will begin a pilot program to publish recidivism data on a quarterly basis, beginning in 

or around April 2020, and will publish annual data in its report. The Department will 

continue to assess the efficacy and practicality of periodic reporting and will be poised 

to make adjustments as appropriate.

8. In response to a claim that PATTERN’s separate modelling for men and 

women raises constitutional concerns, the Department further considered 

whether to collapse PATTERN into one model for both men and women.

PATTERN employs separate modeling for men and women to account for their 

gender-specific pathways to crime and risk factors. Evidence-based research shows 

that gender shapes the pathways to crime differently for men and women.15 Moreover, 

 13 Arrest data is retrieved from Nlets, a private non-profit corporation owned by the States, which was 

created to facilitate the cooperative exchange of criminal justice information among law enforcement 

agencies. As part of an agreement with the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS) and 

Nlets, BOP is able to retrieve information on post-prison arrests occurring in all 50 states and by 

federal agencies in order to fulfill statutorily-authorized (e.g. the Second Chance Act) reporting 

requirements. For typical recidivism analysis, and consistent with other DOJ reports (e.g. the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance), recidivism is defined as (a) a new arrest in the U.S. by federal, state, or local 

authorities within 3-years of release or (b) a return to Federal prison within the 3-years of release.

Reporting of criminal history data is not uniform across jurisdictions.

14 DOJ anticipates that the post-FSA recidivism rate for initial releasees will differ from its traditional 

reported rate for all releases because not all inmates recidivate in the first month or year. The quarterly 

rate will steadily rise until a post-FSA 3 year recidivism rate is established and able to be used as a 

benchmark.

15 See Salisbury, E. J., & Van Voorhis, P. (2009). Gendered pathways: A qualitative investigation of 

women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36(6), 541-566; Bloom, B., 

Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding 

principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 

Corrections.
__________________________

________________________

17

some stakeholders echoed this evidence and encouraged DOJ to employ genderspecific models. Because the connection to crime varies for men and women, it was 

imperative that PATTERN model the risk of recidivism for these groups separately. 

Furthermore, in PATTERN’s dataset, women are outnumbered by men almost 6 to 

1. If men and women were scored using a single model, women would be scored 

according to a model that centered on men. When other risk assessments have scored 

women’s risk using a male model, women are more likely to receive higher risk scores 

than their relatively-low recidivism rate would merit. This approach has resulted in 

women being over-classified and over-supervised, which results in unfair treatment of 

women.

By modeling the risk of men and women separately, BOP will be better positioned to 

address the specific risks and needs of offenders in their custody. Addressing the needs 

of offenders with appropriate evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and 

productive activities will improve the lives of offenders returning to their communities 

and enhance public safety, key goals of the FSA and the Department.

9. The Department is committed to ensuring that victims of crime are treated 

fairly throughout the criminal justice process. In response to feedback that 

PATTERN did not meet victims’ needs, the Department confirmed that the 

Victim Notification System will alert victims to changes in release date, should 

an inmate receive early release due to the FSA. The Department further 

reinforced that victims’ views should be included as part of FSA 

implementation.

Every act of recidivism results in victimization of an individual or harm to the 

community. That is why DOJ is committed to implementing the FSA—to reduce 

recidivism, which in turn, reduces the number of victims and makes our communities 

safer. 

DOJ and other federal agencies are committed to ensuring that victims of federal crime 

are treated fairly as their case moves through the criminal justice system. DOJ will 

continue to engage and communicate with organizations that represent crime victims 

as it works to fully implement PATTERN, the forthcoming needs assessment, and 

other provisions of the FSA.

In order to provide victims with information on case events, as required by the 

Victims' Rights and Restitution Act and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, DOJ has 

developed the Victim Notification System (VNS), which is funded by the Crime 

Victims Fund of the Office for Victims of Crime. The Fund was established by the 

Victims of Crime Act of 1984. The Fund is financed by fines and penalties paid by 

convicted federal offenders, not from tax dollars. As part of the VNS notification 

service, BOP provides notifications to the VNS when inmates move to pre-release 

custody (such as a residential reentry center or home confinement) or release. VNS 

then provides the information to registered individuals. We encourage all victims who 

are interested in learning of these and other events to register with VNS. Victims may 

learn more about the automated system and register by browsing the VNS website.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

18

10. The Department received feedback expressing concerns about BOP’s 

programming capacity, as according to the July 2019 Report, very few inmates 

appear to participate in programming. In response to that feedback, the 

Department is clarifying the data in the July Report and is providing an update 

on some of the efforts to expand programming.

BOP believes that reentry begins at day one and encourages inmates to participate in 

its robust program offerings. The vast majority of Bureau programs do not have 

capacity-related constraints. The term “waitlist” is colloquially used to refer to a staging 

mechanism that ensures inmates are enrolled in needed courses at the appropriate 

times in their incarceration. Our case management and programming staff monitor 

these lists based on inmate need and release date/plans, to ensure relevant programs 

are completed in appropriate timeframes.

Federal Prison Industries (FPI) does have a waitlist. BOP is grateful to Congress for 

the expansions to FPI in the FSA, and anticipates these expansions will over time allow 

it to increase business and re-open factories, thereby increasing capacity and decreasing 

waitlists. However, this expansion will take time, as growing the businesses, hiring on 

additional staff to manage the business lines, and re-opening factories is not a quick 

process.

The Resolve Program, which provides trauma treatment, also has a true capacitydriven waitlist, but BOP has used some of the funding in its FY 2019 base budget to 

increase staffing and materials, and BOP believes it will improve program availability. 

Note that prior to the FSA, inmates could volunteer to take programs regardless of 

need. As part of the FSA implementation, the BOP is assigning codes to approved 

evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities to enable 

tracking and monitoring of their capacity and use. BOP will also begin assigning 

inmates to specific programs to address identified needs, which will allow it to further 

EDUCATION. BOP inmates participate in a GED program.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

19

examine inmate interest and program capacity. Based upon these changes, BOP can 

expand or contract capacity consistent with the inmate needs and interests.

BOP does not compel inmates to complete recidivism-reduction programs and, as 

such, BOP historically has not tracked all inmate program participation prior to the 

FSA. Consequently, the data concerning program participation and availability set 

forth in the July 2019 report might have caused confusion and could benefit from 

further explanation. 

At the outset, the chart on page 47 of the report did not reflect every inmate’s 

participation in every BOP program. It only listed participation in a small subset of 

programs. BOP has hundreds of programs in operation across the country, many of 

which were not previously tracked using standardized assignments demonstrating 

completion. Therefore, the report data was under-inclusive. 

Because programming is optional, low participation rates do not necessarily equate 

with lack of program capacity. BOP has not historically tracked the number of inmates 

who declined to participate in programs. As part of the FSA implementation, BOP is 

working diligently to improve tracking of its program participation. Such improved 

tracking will allow reporting of participation rates for the full complement of BOP 

programs.

Moreover, the report data included a large number of short-term inmates (less than 

one year), who, by virtue of their short sentence, would have had relatively little time 

to complete programs. The chart below has removed those inmates serving sentences 

of less than one year and provides the corresponding risk reduction rates under 

PATTERN. It is worth repeating that these charts are limited to the select number of 

programs that BOP tracked and is not indicative of all programs. 

Program Completion Rates for Inmates Confined for One Year or More

That Were Released Between FY 2009 and FY 2015
__________________________ 

________________________ 

20

PATTERN Risk Scoring

Number of Programs Completed (any)

Male Female Male Female

General Violent

No (0) Programs Completed 0 0 0 0 

One (1) Program Completed -2 -1 -1 -1

More than One (> 1), Less than or Equal to 

Three (<= 3) Programs Completed -4 -2 -2 -2 

More than Three ( > 3), Less than or Equal 

to Ten (<= 10) Programs Completed -6 -3 -3 -3 

More than Ten (> 10) Programs Completed -8 -4 -4 -4 

As the chart above reflects, close to 50 percent of inmates confined for one year or 

more in BOP custody and released between 2009 and 2015 completed three or more 

programs. As the second chart shows, when applying the scoring for PATTERN to 

this population, inmates that participate in programming could earn a reduction of 

three to twelve points in their risk score depending on the amount of programming 

taken and type of recidivism predicted. For example, males who completed more than 

ten programs would earn a twelve-point reduction in General Recidivism. Similarly, 

females who completed ten programs would receive an eight-point reduction in their 

General Recidivism score. 

BOP shares the stakeholders’ concerns about program availability and is preparing to 

meet an anticipated increased demand as inmates will be eligible to receive incentives 

for completing programs. 

WORK PROGRAMS. A vocational student grinds a test plate that was welded in the Gas Metal Arc 

Welding (MIG) Process at FCI Morgantown.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

21

WORK PROGRAMS. Students apply the concepts of horticulture through hands-on learning at FCC 

Coleman in Sumter County, FL.

BOP has already begun expanding programs and hiring staff to deliver the programs.

While the FSA did not come with appropriated funds in FY 2019, the Deputy Attorney 

General announced in July 2019 that BOP had taken the initiative to adjust funding 

within its budget to cover a variety of targeted FSA activities, including:

• Increasing Volunteers/Partnership Opportunities 

• Enhancing Medication Assisted Treatment 

• Providing English as a Second Language Workbooks and Textbooks 

• Expanding Education Programs and Programs for Women 

• Providing Certifications for Vocational Training 

• Increasing Vocational Training Opportunities 

• Performing Evaluations for Evidence-Based Programs

• Developing a Needs Assessment System

With respect to FY 2020,

16 the Administration requested approximately $116 million 

for the following: 

• Expansion of Evidence-Based Reentry Programs ($52.3 million, of which $30 

million is for buildings and facilities): Expands physical space and program 

capacity for existing mental health, life skills, special needs, and educational 

and vocational programs; also adds new programs as they are identified and 

evaluated.

• Expansion of Capacity for Prerelease Custody ($10.0 million): Expands BOP’s 

capacity to place inmates into halfway houses (also known as Residential 

 

16 FY2020 runs from October 1, 2019 through September 31, 2020.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

22

Reentry Centers) prior to the expiration of their prison sentence to help them 

transition back into society. 

• Expansion of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) Nationwide ($42.6 

million): Expands the number of inmates who can participate in treatment 

designed to prevent relapse to opioid use upon reintegration in the community; 

this treatment may also reduce an inmate’s risk for recidivism. Vivitrol will 

continue to be available at all BOP facilities, and Buprenorphine and 

Methadone will be available at half of BOP institutions. 

• Increase of Information Technology Services for Inmates ($6.3 million):

Increases BOP’s capacity to support the I-Connect inmate education network 

and expand recidivism program offerings, as well as provide inmate video relay 

services for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, and connect inmates with their 

families potentially through video communication services. 

• Evaluation of Programs and Services ($5.0 million): Supports a multi-year 

effort to evaluate the programs and services offered by BOP in order to 

develop recommendations regarding evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs and productive activities. The risk tool developed for BOP will also 

be revalidated and assessed as required by FSA.

The approved FY 2020 budget for DOJ from both the House and the Senate provides 

seventy-five million dollars ($75 million) for FSA implementation activities.

17

WORK PROGRAMS. Inmates participate in a cosmetology vocational program at FPC Bryan.

 

17 From October 1, 2019 through December 20, 2019, BOP was operating under a continuing resolution 

and had not received any FSA funding.
__________________________

________________________

23

11. The Department is continuing to work toward updating and improving its 

needs assessment tool, as comments rightly noted that the current tool could 

benefit from improvement and PATTERN, in its current form, does not 

contain a new needs tool.

The Department agrees that the current needs assessment system could be enhanced

and has been implementing the plan set forth in the July 2019 report to identify and 

to make those enhancements. In the meantime, DOJ staff has been using BOP’s 

current needs assessment system to ensure assessment and programming are not 

delayed while we endeavor to improve the system.

Since the publication of the July 2019 report, the BOP has begun updating its needs 

assessment process. For example, BOP identified 13 needs areas18 and began assessing 

them for all inmates. Additionally, BOP adopted methods to assess each inmate in 

every one of these need areas. A list of programs that address each of the needs will 

be used to ensure inmates enroll in the proper programs to address their individual 

needs, with the goal of eventually lowering their recidivism risk.

BOP also took several steps toward further developing the needs assessment system. 

Those efforts include: 

• BOP engaged the MITRE Corporation19 to assist with various FSA-related 

tasks, specifically, developing a framework to independently evaluate programs 

submitted by external entities; conducting market research on needs 

assessment best practices; and developing a design and prototype of the new 

needs assessment system.

• BOP implemented a new trauma screening tool as part of its intake processing.

• In the July 2019 report, BOP noted inclusion of a dyslexia screening as part of 

the needs assessment tool. BOP completed negotiation with the National 

Union and published its Management of Inmates with Disabilities policy. This 

update will enable the implementation of dyslexia screening, as required by the 

FSA, for inmates.

• BOP trained all staff on the updated needs assessment process and the use of 

additional screening tools to identify specific criminogenic needs. This training 

will enable case management staff to assign relevant programs. This process 

will be used while DOJ, BOP, and MITRE formalize a final needs assessment 

tool. When the final needs assessment tool is in place, BOP will be able to 

 18 The need areas to be assessed are anger/hostility, antisocial peers, cognitions, dyslexia, education, 

family/parenting, work, finance/poverty, medical, mental health, recreation/leisure/fitness, substance 

abuse, and trauma.

19 The MITRE Corporation (MITRE) is a non-profit organization that operates federally funded 

research and development centers (FFRDCs). FFRDCs are unique organizations that assist the United 

States government with scientific research and analysis; development and acquisition; and systems 

engineering and integration. MITRE also has an independent research program that explores new and 

expanded uses of technologies to solve customer problems. For more information: 

https://www.mitre.org/.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

24

track the amount of need and the proportion of inmates who receive 

programming. 

• The BOP published a Request for Information to solicit feedback from 

subject-matter experts and the public to further inform its work to improve 

needs assessments.20

12. The DOJ received feedback identifying significant barriers to successful 

implementation, including adequate staffing, appropriate training on the tool, 

and funding for expanding programs. The Department is providing an update 

on efforts to overcome those challenges and to successfully implement the FSA. 

The Department agrees that appropriate staffing, training, and funding are three keys 

to successful implementation of the FSA, especially considering the expedited 

statutory timelines.

In terms of funding, BOP leadership has repeatedly stated that adequate funding is 

necessary to ensure successful implementation of the FSA. The Department is 

committed to implementing the FSA at whatever level of funding it is given, but agrees 

that more funding is crucial to the successful implementation of the Act. As stated 

above, the BOP took the initiative to redirect $75 million in July 2019 to begin 

expanding inmate programming. BOP has used some of that money to increase 

staffing at female institutions and to enhance male and female trauma treatment and 

vocational training offerings.21 BOP has requested funds in the FY 2020 and FY 2021 

budgets to continue program expansion. 

Maintaining appropriate staffing levels is a second key to successful implementation.

BOP has been actively focused on hiring new employees, especially program staff and 

case management staff, and as reflected above, has requested FY 2020 funding to 

enhance resources and staffing for program delivery. As part of this enhancement, the 

BOP is also seeking to amend the responsibilities and duties of BOP counselors, who 

are part of the Unit Team, to provide greater support for inmate program participation.

Recently, BOP inmate-to-staff ratios were updated and approved by the BOP 

Executive Staff for Unit Management departments to ensure the successful 

implementation of the FSA. 

 

20 See https://beta.sam.gov/search?keywords=15BNAS20RFI0005&sort=-

relevance&index=opp&is_active=true&page=1. 21 BOP is using a variety of strategies to very aggressively address its hiring challenges. These strategies 

include hiring seven contractors to supplement BOP’s staffing unit in an effort to expedite hiring and 

hiring twenty temporary positions to help staffing and background investigation units to expedite hiring. 

BOP is also using incentives, including pay setting above the minimum rates, student loan repayment, 

annual leave credit, recruitment incentives, special salary rates, retention incentives, and relocation 

incentives to on-board more staff. Since March, BOP hiring has exceeded separations each month and 

that is tremendous progress. Staffing up fully is an ongoing process, and the timeline will vary at BOP 

institutions nationwide. Some sites can staff up quickly due to favorable applicant market conditions, 

but for others it will take more time.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

25

TRAINING. BOP Unit Managers receive training at the FCC Victorville Complex in Victorville, CA.

Training is a third key to successful implementation. BOP has already deployed a 

comprehensive training program for relevant program areas responsible for portions 

of the risk assessment process. 

Such training has included: 

• All Wardens, Associate Wardens, Central Office Administrators, Public 

Information Officers, and Case Management Coordinators; 

• BOP Regional Office and Privatization staff; and 

• BOP Case Managers and Unit Managers in all 122 BOP institutions. 

All case management staff have been trained and relevant programs staff received 

initial training in November 2019. Additionally, BOP is developing a National Training 

Conference for Correctional Counselors. 
__________________________ 

________________________ 

26

IV. Conclusion 

Thanks to the helpful input from the IRC, NIJ’s expert consultants, and stakeholders, 

the Department has launched an enhanced version of PATTERN. BOP has begun 

the process of assessing the risk levels and needs for every inmate and anticipates 

completing all risk assessments by the January 2020 statutory deadline. This tool, while 

enhanced, is not static. DOJ intends to monitor its use, study the data, and in 

consultation with the IRC, consider any improvements and adjustments that should 

be made for future assessments.

We appreciate the feedback and input and look forward to continuing to implement 

the FSA. 
__________________________

________________________

27

Attachment A

Examples of Scoring Under PATTERN 1.2 (Using General Risk Score)

1. Young Drug Offender Taking Multiple Programs

Male. 25-year-old male with a 5-year sentence for drug trafficking. Previously 

convicted for a felony aggravated assault at age 16, and a non-violent misdemeanor at 

age 21. No degree. Has a drug abuse problem.

• Score at entry = 57 (High risk)

o 35 points for age, 16 for criminal history, 6 for history of violence

• Model inmate score at release = 21 (Low risk)

o Completes maximum programs and no infractions.

o -14 for aging, -2 for staying clean on history of violence, -4 for earning 

GED, -6 for completing RDAP, -8 for completing 11+ programs, and 

-2 for completing 2+ work programs.

• Mixed prison record score at release = 32 (Medium risk, almost low)

o Completes 3 programs and 1 work program. Completes RDAP. 

Skipped GED class. Committed two minor infractions, but early in the 

prison term. Financially compliant.

o -14 for aging, -2 for staying clean on history of violence, +2 for 

infractions, -6 for completing RDAP, -4 for programs, -1 for work 

program.

• Non-compliant inmate score at release = 63 (High risk)

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of 

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape 

(extremely rare, except minor escapes at a minimum-security camp).

o -14 for aging, +1 for history of violence, +3 for infractions, +6 for 

serious infractions, +6 for not being infraction-free, +3 for not being 

serious-infraction-free, +1 for financial non-compliance.

Hypothetical: Young Male Drug Offender with Good Opportunities in PATTERN

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry 57 57 57

Aging -14 -14 -14

History of Violence -2 -2 +1

Earned GED -4 0 0

Drug Treatment -6 -6 0

Completed Programs -8 -4 0

Completed Work Programs -2 -1 0

Infractions 0 +2 +3

Serious Infractions 0 0 +6

Clean Infraction History 0 0 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +1

Score at Release 21 32 63
__________________________ 

________________________ 

28

Female. 25-year-old female with a 5-year sentence for drug trafficking. Previously 

convicted for a felony aggravated assault at age 16, and a non-violent misdemeanor at 

age 21. No degree. Has a drug abuse problem.

• Score at entry = 47 (High risk)

o 25 points for age, 16 for criminal history, 6 for history of violence

• Model inmate score = 15 (Low risk)

o Completes maximum programs and no infractions. 

o -10 for aging, -2 for staying clean on history of violence, -6 for earning 

GED, -8 for completing RDAP, -4 for completing 11+ programs, and 

-2 for completing 2+ work programs. 

• Mixed prison record score = 26 (Low risk)

o Completes 3 programs and 1 work program. Completes RDAP. 

Skipped GED class. Committed two minor infractions, but early in the 

prison term. Financially compliant.

o -10 for aging, -2 for staying clean on history of violence, +2 for 

infractions, -8 for completing RDAP, -2 for programs, -1 for work 

program.

• Non-compliant inmate score = 56 (High risk)

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape.

o -10 for aging, +1 for history of violence, +3 for infractions, +3 for 

serious infractions, +6 for not being infraction-free, +3 for not being 

serious-infraction-free, +3 for financial non-compliance. 

Hypothetical: Young Female Drug Offender with Good Opportunities in PATTERN

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry 47 47 47

Aging -10 -10 -10

History of Violence -2 -2 +1

Earned GED -6 0 0

Drug Treatment -8 -8 0

Completed Programs -4 -2 0

Completed Work Programs -2 -1 0

Infractions 0 +2 +3

Serious Infractions 0 0 +3

Clean Infraction History 0 0 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +3

Score at Release 15 26 56
__________________________ 

________________________ 

29

2. “Average” Released Inmate (based on PATTERN dataset, which is biased 

toward short-term inmates)

Male. 36-year-old male with a drug charge for 2 years. Has two prior convictions, one 

of which was for a serious violent offense at least 15 years ago. Has a drug abuse 

problem and a degree (high school/GED). 

• Score at entry = 35 (Medium risk) 

o 21 points for age, 16 for criminal history, 2 for history of violence, -4 

for degree

• Model inmate score = 19 (Low risk)

o Completes maximum programs (may be tough in 2 years) and no 

infractions. 

o -6 for completing RDAP, -8 for completing 11+ programs, and -2 for 

completing 2+ work programs.

• Average prison record score = 30 (Low risk, almost medium) 

o Completed 1 program. Completes RDAP. Committed one minor 

(almost serious) infraction, about 11 months before release. Financially 

compliant. 

o +1 for infraction, +2 for only 11 months infraction-free time, -6 for 

completing RDAP, -2 for program.

• Non-compliant inmate score = 59 (High risk)

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of 

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape.

o +5 for history of violence, +3 for infractions, +6 for serious 

infractions, +6 for not being infraction-free, +3 for not being seriousinfraction-free, +1 for financial non-compliance.

Hypothetical: Male “Average” Released Inmate

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry 35 35 35

Aging 0 0 0

History of Violence 0 0 +5

Earned GED 0 0 0

Drug Treatment -6 -6 0

Completed Programs -8 -2 0

Completed Work Programs -2 0 0

Infractions 0 +1 +3

Serious Infractions 0 0 +6

Clean Infraction History 0 +2 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +1

Score at Release 19 30 59
__________________________ 

________________________ 

30

Female. 36-year-old female with a drug charge for 2 years. Has one prior conviction 

for a minor violent offense at least 15 years ago. Has a drug abuse problem and a 

degree (high school/GED). 

• Score at entry = 18 (Low risk)

o 15 points for age, 8 for criminal history, 1 for history of violence, -6 

for degree

• Model inmate score = 4 (Minimum risk, almost low) 

o Completes maximum programs (may be tough in 2 years) and no 

infractions. 

o -8 for completing RDAP, -4 for completing 11+ programs, and -2 for 

completing 2+ work programs.

• Average prison record score = 10 (Low risk)

o Completed 1 program. Completes RDAP. Committed one minor 

infraction early in the prison term. Financially compliant. 

o +1 for infraction, -8 for completing RDAP, -1 for program.

• Non-compliant inmate score = 42 (Medium risk)

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of 

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape.

o +6 for history of violence, +3 for infractions, +3 for serious 

infractions, +6 for not being infraction-free, +3 for not being seriousinfraction-free, +3 for financial non-compliance.

Hypothetical: Female “Average” Released Inmate

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry 18 18 18

Aging 0 0 0

History of Violence 0 0 +6

Earned GED 0 0 0

Drug Treatment -8 -8 0

Completed Programs -4 -1 0

Completed Work Programs -2 0 0

Infractions 0 +1 +3

Serious Infractions 0 0 +3

Clean Infraction History 0 +2 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +3

Score at Release 4 10 42
__________________________

________________________

31

3. An Aging Career Criminal

Male. A 42-year-old male with a 20-year sentence for aggravated assault. Has 3 prior 

felonies and 7 misdemeanors. Earned a GED during a prior prison term. Has a drug 

abuse problem.

• Score at entry = 62 (High risk)

o 14 points for age, 40 for criminal history, 7 for history of violence, 5 

for violent instant offense, -4 for degree

• Model inmate score = 27 (Low risk)

o Completes maximum programs and no infractions. Plenty of time for 

the programs, but tough to stay clean for 20 years.

o -14 for aging, -5 for staying clean on history of violence, -6 for 

completing RDAP, -8 for completing 11+ programs, and -2 for 

completing 2+ work programs.

• Mixed prison record score = 40 (Medium risk)

o Completes 9 programs and 2 work programs. Completes RDAP. 

Committed four minor infractions and two serious infractions. One 

infraction was a fight 8 years ago, but no infractions in the past year. 

Financially compliant.

o -14 for aging, -4 for staying clean on history of violence, +6 for 

infractions, +4 for serious infractions, -6 for completing RDAP, -6 for 

programs, -2 for work program.

• Non-compliant inmate score = 67 (High risk)

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of 

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape.

o -14 for aging, +3 for infractions, +6 for serious infractions, +6 for not 

being infraction-free, +3 for not being serious-infraction-free, +1 for 

financial non-compliance.

Hypothetical: Male Aging Career Criminal

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry 62 62 62

Aging -14 -14 -14

History of Violence -5 -4 0

Earned GED 0 0 0

Drug Treatment -6 -6 0

Completed Programs -8 -6 0

Completed Work Programs -2 -2 0

Infractions 0 +6 +3

Serious Infractions 0 +4 +6

Clean Infraction History 0 0 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +1

Score at Release 27 40 67
__________________________ 

________________________ 

32

Female. A 42-year-old female with a 20-year sentence for a major drug trafficking 

offense. Has 3 prior felonies and 7 misdemeanors, but nothing violent. Earned a GED 

during a prior prison term. Has a drug abuse problem. 

• Score at entry = 44 (Medium risk)

o 10 points for age, 40 for criminal history, -6 for degree

• Model inmate score = 20 (Low risk)

o Completes maximum programs and no infractions. 

o -10 for aging, -8 for completing RDAP, -4 for completing 11+ 

programs, and -2 for completing 2+ work programs. 

• Mixed prison record score = 28 (Low risk) 

o Completes 9 programs and 2 work programs. Completes RDAP. 

Committed four minor infractions and two serious infractions. One 

infraction was a fight 8 years ago, but no infractions in the past year. 

Financially compliant.

o -10 for aging, +3 for history of violence, +3 for infractions, +2 for 

serious infractions, -8 for completing RDAP, -4 for programs, -2 for 

work program.

• Non-compliant inmate score = 59 (High risk)

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of 

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape.

o -10 for aging, +7 for history of violence, +3 for infractions, +3 for 

serious infractions, +6 for not being infraction-free, +3 for not being 

serious-infraction-free, +3 for financial non-compliance. 

Hypothetical: Female Aging Career Criminal

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry 44 44 44

Aging -10 -10 -10

History of Violence 0 +3 +7

Earned GED 0 0 0

Drug Treatment -8 -8 0

Completed Programs -4 -4 0

Completed Work Programs -2 -2 0

Infractions 0 +3 +3

Serious Infractions 0 +2 +3

Clean Infraction History 0 0 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +3

Score at Release 20 28 59
__________________________ 

________________________ 

33

4. A White Collar Offender

Male. A 45-year-old male with a 3-year sentence for fraud. No prior record. Has a HS 

degree and no drug problems. 

• Score at entry = 1 (Minimum risk)

o 14 points for age, -4 for degree, -9 for no drug need 

• Model inmate score = -9 (Minimum risk)

o Completes maximum programs and no infractions. 

o -8 for completing 11+ programs, and -2 for completing 2+ work 

programs.

• Mixed prison record score = -2 (Minimum risk)

o Completes 3 programs and 1 work program. Committed two minor 

infractions, but early in the prison term. Financially compliant. 

o +2 for infractions, -4 for programs, -1 for work program.

• Non-compliant inmate score = 36 (Medium risk)

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of 

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Another serious infraction was drug use, leading to a diagnosis that the 

inmate needs drug abuse treatment. Inmate refused treatment. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape.

o +7 for history of violence, +9 for untreated drug need, +3 for 

infractions, +6 for serious infractions, +6 for not being infraction-free, 

+3 for not being serious-infraction-free, +1 for financial noncompliance. 

Hypothetical: Male White Collar Offender

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry 1 1 1

Aging 0 0 0

History of Violence 0 0 +7

Earned GED 0 0 0

Drug Treatment 0 0 +9

Completed Programs -8 -4 0

Completed Work Programs -2 -2 0

Infractions 0 +2 +3

Serious Infractions 0 0 +6

Clean Infraction History 0 0 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +1

Score at Release -9 -2 36
__________________________ 

________________________ 

34

Female. A 45-year-old female with a 3-year sentence for fraud. No prior record. Has 

a HS degree and no drug problems. 

• Score at entry = -8 (Minimum risk)

o 10 points for age, -6 for degree, -12 for no drug need 

• Model inmate score = -14 (Minimum risk)

o Completes maximum programs and no infractions. 

o -4 for completing 11+ programs, and -2 for completing 2+ work 

programs.

• Mixed prison record score = -9 (Minimum risk)

o Completes 3 programs and 1 work program. Committed two minor 

infractions, but early in the prison term. Financially compliant. 

o +2 for infractions, -2 for programs, -1 for work program.

• Non-compliant inmate score = 29 (Low risk) 

o Completes no programs. Commits 3 serious infractions in prison, of 

which one was a serious violent incident within 3 months of release. 

Another serious infraction was drug use, leading to a diagnosis that the 

inmate needs drug abuse treatment. Inmate refused treatment. 

Financially non-compliant. Did everything wrong except try to escape.

o +7 for history of violence, +12 for untreated drug need, +3 for 

infractions, +3 for serious infractions, +6 for not being infraction-free, 

+3 for not being serious-infraction-free, +3 for financial noncompliance. 

Hypothetical: Female White Collar Offender

Model Mixed Non-compliant

Score at Entry -8 -8 -8

Aging 0 0 0

History of Violence 0 0 +7

Earned GED 0 0 0

Drug Treatment 0 0 +12

Completed Programs -4 -2 0

Completed Work Programs -2 -1 0

Infractions 0 +2 +3

Serious Infractions 0 0 +3

Clean Infraction History 0 0 +6

Clean Serious Infraction History 0 0 +3

Financial Compliance 0 0 +3

Score at Release -14 -9 29
__________________________ 

________________________ 

35

Appendix I:

Technical Corrections

The following errata were identified in the July report after publication: 

1. On page 45, the report states: “Federal industry employment, also known as UNICOR, 

was indicated ‘yes’ if the individual worked in UNICOR during his or her (emphasis 

added) current incarceration.” The original version of PATTERN only scored this 

item for women. For operational reasons, BOP already collects this information for 

both genders, which also addresses any research needs. 

2. On page 45, both infraction items are described as including all guilty findings “that 

the inmate has incurred during the current incarceration.” In fact, under the original 

PATTERN, this element should have included all guilty findings from the past 10 

years, including past BOP incarcerations. However, this error, has been rendered moot 

because the revised version of PATTERN will only count misconduct during the 

current incarceration period. 

3. On page 45, the report describes the Number of Programs Completed item as 

including drug treatment, which was incorrect. Other items already covered drug 

treatment. The Number of Programs Completed item was modeled with Adult 

Continuing Education, parenting, technical, and vocational courses, and it was only 

intended to count those courses. However, this issue is rendered moot in the revised 

version of PATTERN. 

4. The Offense Severity item was not included in the descriptive statistics (page 48) and 

had its header deleted at the end of the scoring table (page 56). Offense Severity was 

part of the PATTERN violence scores, so it should have been fully included in the 

report. However, it has been dropped for the revised version of PATTERN. 

5. On page 48, the values of “BRAVO-R Initial: History of Escapes” do not add to 100%. 

The correction is that the “none” category should have been 87% instead of 74%. 

6. Several items in PATTERN derive from BRAVO, but the descriptive statistics table 

(page 48) describes those items as coming from BRAVO-R; technically, all PATTERN 

items came from BRAVO, not BRAVO-R. BRAVO-R uses the same items as 

BRAVO, with different scores for the items. PATTERN was developed using 

BRAVO’s items and scores, not BRAVO-R’s scores.

7. The scoring for the male general recidivism scores was switched between the two 

infraction items on page 54. Serious infractions are instead worth 0, 3, 6, or 9 points 

and all infractions are worth 0, 2, 4, or 6 points. 

8. The Education item should be scored as 0, -1, and -2. On page 56, the report indicated 

it was 1, 0, and -1.

9. The Voluntary Surrender item incorrectly reports the violence scores as -1 and -2 for 

men and women on page 56. Those are the weights, not the scores. The actual scores 

should be -3 and -6, respectively.
__________________________

________________________

36

Two other items related to the discussion of PATTERN in the RNAS report warrant 

clarification:

1. On page 72 and 73, the report states the Designation, Sentencing and Computation 

Center (DSCC) completes the first PATTERN assessment for each inmate. The BOP 

has determined that the inmate’s Unit Team, which meets within the inmate’s first 

month of arrival at the institution, will complete the first PATTERN assessment. 

2. On page 47, the “Drug treatment while incarcerated” item indicated 57% of the 

sampled inmates had a drug treatment need but received no treatment. This statistic is 

misleading and has generated significant confusion. According to a recent evaluation 

of RDAP, 0.6% of inmates who needed and signed up for RDAP drug treatment did 

not get a chance to participate in RDAP before release, not 57% of all inmates. 

PATTERN’s drug treatment item measured “drug treatment need” by using the 

“drug/alcohol abuse” item from the Bureau’s Risk and Verification Observation 

(BRAVO) risk instrument. This BRAVO item was originally intended to be used 

internally by BOP to measure substance abuse within the past five years. However, in 

accordance with BOP’s classification policy, this item also includes any inmates with 

“a conviction of a drug or alcohol-related offense.” Consequently, this item 

accidentally counts drug dealers and traffickers as having a drug need, even if they do 

not use drugs themselves. It would be more accurate to say that 57% of sampled 

inmates have an untreated “potential drug need,” with a very loose definition of 

potential drug need. It does not indicate a confirmed, untreated drug need. Within 

BOP, inmates are identified as eligible for RDAP after a Psychology Services 

evaluation where treatment staff examine conduct for the past year. More importantly, 

participation in programs is voluntary and inmates may refuse engagement, which also 

reduces the number of inmates with a drug need that actually receive treatment. In the 

future, PATTERN will switch to a more appropriate, accurate measure of drug need 

as soon as it becomes available in a centralized database.
__________________________ 

________________________ 

37

Appendix II:

Revised Points Assigned in the PATTERN

Risk Assessment Models

(Previously published on pages 53-56 of the July report.) 

The table below displays the scores assigned to the items used to develop PATTERN. 

Each column represents a different gender and outcome-specific prediction model, 

i.e., general or violent recidivism. Cell values represent response scores, where blank 

cells indicate items not identified as predictive for a given model. For example, the 

score for a male over the age of 60 in the general recidivism category for the item ‘age 

at time of assessment’ is 0. Larger values indicate greater prediction strength for a given 

model. Each individual’s response scores are summed to compute a total score. 

Item General Male Violent Male General Female Violent Female

Age at time of assessment

> 60 0 0 0 0

< 50, <= 60 7 4 5 1

> 40, <= 50 14 8 10 2

> 29, <= 40 21 12 15 3

> 25, <= 29 28 16 20 4

>= 18, <= 25 35 20 25 5

Infraction convictions 

(any) current incarceration

0 0 0 0 0

> 0, <= 1 1 1 1 1

> 1, <= 2 2 2 2 2

> 2 3 3 3 3

Infraction convictions 

(serious and violent) 

current incarceration

0 0 0 0 0

> 0, <= 1 2 2 1 1

> 1, <= 2 4 4 2 2

> 2 6 6 3 3

Infraction-Free (any)

None/12 months+ 0 0 0 0

7-12months 2 1 2 1

3-6months 4 2 4 2

<3 months 6 3 6 3

Infraction-Free (serious 

and violent)

None/12 months+ 0 0 0 0

7-12months 1 2 1 1

3-6months 2 4 2 2

<3 months 3 6 3 3
__________________________ 

________________________ 

38

Item General Male Violent Male General Female Violent Female

Number of programs 

completed (any) 

0 0 0 0 0

1 -2 -1 -1 -1

> 1, <= 3 -4 -2 -2 -2

> 3, <= 10 -6 -3 -3 -3

> 10 -8 -4 -4 -4

Work Programming

0 0 0 0 0

> 0, <= 1 -1 -1 -1 -1

> 1 -2 -2 -2 -2

Drug treatment while 

incarcerated

No need indicated -9 -3 -12 -3

Completed residential drug 

treatment during incarceration -6 -2 -8 -2

Completed drug treatment 

during incarceration -3 -1 -4 -1

Need indicated but no 

treatment during incarceration 0 0 0 0

Non-Compliance with 

financial responsibility

No 0 0 0

Yes 1 1 3

Instant offense violent

No 0 0 0

Yes 5 5 3

Sex offender (Walsh)

No 0

Yes 1

Criminal History Score

0-1 points 0 0 0 0

2-3 points 8 4 8 4

4-6 points 16 8 16 8

7-9 points 24 12 24 12

10-12 points 32 16 32 16

13+ points 40 20 40 20

History of Violence

None 0 0 0 0

>10 years minor 1 1 1 1

>15 years serious 2 2 2 2

5-10 years minor 3 3 3 3

10-15 years serious 4 4 4 4

<5 years minor 5 5 5 5

5-10 years serious 6 6 6 6

<5 years serious 7 7 7 7
__________________________ 

________________________ 

39

Item General Male Violent Male General Female Violent Female

History of Escapes

None 0 0 0 0

>10 years minor 2 1 3 2

5-10 years minor 4 2 6 4

<5 years minor or any serious 6 3 9 6

Education Score

HS degree or GED -

Verified -4 -2 -6 -2

Enrolled and progressing in 

GED -2 -1 -3 -1

No verified degree and not 

participating in GED 

program 0 0 0 0