U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Attorney General 

The First Step Act of 2018: 

Risk and Needs Assessment 

System 
The First Step Act of 2018: 

Risk and Needs Assessment 

System 
Table of Contents 

Letters From Leadership .......................................................................................................iv 

Introduction.................................................................................................................................1 

Chapter 1 

Developing the First Step Act of 2018 

Risk and Needs Assessment System ..........................................................................................4 

Chapter 2 

Characteristics of an Effective 

Risk and Needs Assessment System ........................................................................................25 

Chapter 3 

The First Step Act of 2018 

Risk and Needs Assessment System ........................................................................................42 

Chapter 4 

Implementing the First Step Act of 2018 

Risk and Needs Assessment System ........................................................................................70 

iii 
(@fffre of t~e 1\ttorttet,? ~enentl 

B'as-4ingfon, m. <!!. 20,5.30 

July 19, 2019 

The efficient and effective implementation of the First Step Act is a priority for the 

Department of Justice and this Administration. Today, the Department is announcing three 

major achievements related to the implementation ofthis important criminal justice reform 

measure. 

First, the Bureau of Prisons will release approximately 3,100 from its custody, as the First 

Step Act's provision increasing good conduct time takes effect. This action is in addition to the 

approximately 1,691 individuals whose sentences have been reduced due to the retroactive 

application of the Fair Sentencing Act. 

Second, the Department will fully fund the $75 million authorized by the First Step Act 

in FY2019. I visited a BOP facility and saw first-hand how effective programs can have a 

positive impact on inmates. Therefore, I directed that existing resources be reallocated in 

FY2019 to expand vocational training and job readiness programs, to increase the availability of 

Medication Assisted Treatment, to support programs tailored to the needs ofthe female inmate 

population, and to increase education opportunities for inmates. 

Third, we have developed a new Risk and Needs Assessment System called the Prisoner 

Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs, or simply "PATTERN." In crafting the 

System, the Department worked to make the benefits of the FSA as widely available as possible 

without compromising predictive reliability. The System is a good initial step based on the 

available information, and we will aim to improve it, with more time, consultation, data, and 

research. 

The Department drew on the expertise of a wide range of stakeholders in developing 

PATTERN. I would like to thank the Director ofthe Bureau of Prisons, the Director of the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the Director ofthe Office of Probation and 

Pretrial Services, the Director of the National Institute of Justice, the Director ofthe National 

Institute of Corrections, and the members of the Independent Review Committee (IRC), with 

whom I consulted in developing the System. I also want to thank the experts, practitioners, and 

policy makers, the public, and other stakeholders who engaged in this process. Finally, thank 

you to the dedicated staff at the Department of Justice, who have worked tirelessly to faithfully 

implement the First Step Act. 

While the launch of PATTERN is a big step, it is only the first step. The Department is 

committed to making the benefits of the Act widely available while maintaining the System's 

predictive reliability. To that end, the Department is holding a 45-day public study period, in 

which the public will be able to review the System and consider ways in which it may be 
improved. Following this study period, the Department in September will invite stakeholders, 

public interest organizations, and the public to comment on the system. The experience ofthese 

communities will aid the Department as it works to improve the System. 

Our communities are safer when we do a better job ofrehabilitating offenders in our 

custody and preparing them for a successful transition to life after incarceration. The 

Department remains committed to this important aim and will continue to work to make 

America's communities safer. 

William P. Barr 

Attorney General 
   

July 19, 2019

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Federal Bureau of Prisons 

Washington D.C. 20534

I am extremely proud of the more than 35,000 staff of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the 

work we do every day keeping the American people and our Nation's communities safe. Throughout 

our nearly 90-year history, providing programs and training to prepare federal inmates for a 

successful return to the community has been central to our mission. The First Step Act (FSA) – the 

first meaningful criminal justice reform in many years – will allow us to enhance and improve these 

efforts. 

The BOP, along with the Department of Justice, is fully committed to the successful 

implementation of the FSA. A number of important changes have already taken place. Over 1,500 

inmates received sentence reductions under the FSA’s retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing 

Act of 2010. BOP expanded its compassionate release and Second Chance Act home confinement 

programs. The BOP also continues to update existing policies to ensure they reflect the changes now 

memorialized in federal law. The BOP has completed new projected release date calculations for 

over 3,000 inmates due for release because of the FSA’s Good Conduct Time changes. We wish 

these individuals every success in their transition back into our communities. For those still in 

custody, the BOP is working to ensure inmates maintain close ties with loved ones by transferring 

inmates closer to their release residences in accordance with BOP policy and practice, and consistent 

with the FSA. 

We are committed to helping inmates return to their communities to lead productive, crimefree lives. The new risk and needs assessment system will ensure we conduct individualized 

assessments of each inmate’s specific needs. These assessments will help us to create plans with 

programs and productive activities tailored to meet identified needs. These plans will provide 

inmates the opportunity for improvement and growth and promote successful reentry into their 

communities. 

This is an exciting time for the Bureau of Prisons. The FSA will have a lasting impact on 

federal corrections and may serve as a model for state and local corrections as well. The dedicated 

corrections professionals throughout our 122 federal prisons nationwide remain mission-focused on 

helping change lives and enhancing public safety. 

Hugh J. Hurwitz 

Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

 National Institute of Justice

 _________________________________________________________________________ 

Office of the Director Washington, D.C. 20531 

July 19, 2019 

An offender’s first steps out of prison are important steps toward a crime-free and productive life. 

The First Step Act of 2018 aims to reduce recidivism and reform the federal prison system so that those 

exiting the system do not return. 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is playing a key role in fulfilling those objectives. We are 

working with our federal partners, specifically the Bureau of Prisons in several areas, including 

prioritizing who should receive evidence-based recidivism reduction programming and determining who 

may be eligible for early release into the community. We are assisting to develop recommendations 

based, as always, on empirical evidence: Which recidivism reduction programs and activities work best? 

How are these programs assessed, and can we strengthen the best programs, and improve or end the 

worst? 

At NIJ, we understand that research, development, and evaluation cannot happen in a vacuum. 

You have to listen to those on the front lines and get input from all perspectives. The development of a 

new risk and needs assessment system is no different. As an example, and in cooperation with the 

Department of Justice, we have hosted three listening sessions to obtain a diverse set of perspectives 

about the development of a risk and needs assessment system. 

Beyond conducting research on recidivism and prison reform, NIJ has already taken critical steps 

in the development of the new risk and needs assessment system. We have reviewed and continue to 

review existing risk and needs assessment systems and the available empirical research to determine how 

NIJ can contribute to this important line of inquiry and development. We will continue to consult with 

external experts and stakeholders, including researchers, think tanks, prison reform advocates, corrections 

and law enforcement groups, and victims and victim advocacy groups, to learn more about how NIJ can 

support research to inform evidence-based practices. 

The current recidivism statistics are not encouraging. Far too many offenders leave prison only 

to return. Taking steps toward reducing recidivism and reforming the federal prison system will take a 

sustained investment and commitment. NIJ is and remains dedicated to addressing these important 

challenges. 

David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., Director 

National Institute of Justice 
viii 
Introduction 

“America wins when citizens with a criminal record can contribute 

to their communities as law-abiding members of our society.” 

-President Donald J. Trump 

June 13, 2019, from the East Room of the White House 

On December 21, 2018, President 

Donald J. Trump signed the First 

Step Act of 2018 into law. Title I of 

the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA or the Act) 

is focused on reforms to reduce recidivism 

among the federal prison population. Many 

of Title I’s reforms hinge on the creation of a 

risk and needs assessment system. 

Under the FSA, the Attorney General is 

charged with developing and releasing a 

risk and needs assessment system for use in 

the federal prison system. With this report, 

Attorney General William P. Barr releases 

the First Step Act of 2018 Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. 

Tis report outlines the work of the 

Department of Justice to develop and 

implement the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System (System). It also introduces the new 

System that the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

will deploy in its facilities. And the report 

announces the Department of Justice’s 

strategic plan to evaluate, validate, and 

enhance the System over time. 

Chapter 1 

Chapter 1, Developing the First Step 

Act of 2018 Risk and Needs Assessment 

System, details the requirements of the FSA 

regarding the development of a risk and 

needs assessment system, including the 

responsibilities of the Attorney General and 

the Independent Review Committee. Tis 

chapter also summarizes the Department of 

Justice’s work to fully implement the Act’s 

requirements in creating the System. 

Chapter 2 

In Chapter 2, Characteristics of an Efective 

Risk and Needs Assessment System, this 

report identifes those characteristics and 

principles that are fundamental to developing 

an efective risk and needs assessment system. 

Tis chapter also describes the valuable data 

and information that the Department of 

Justice received from our federal and state 

partners and experts in the feld on developing 

a strong risk and needs assessment system. 

Tese characteristics, principles, and data 

informed the development of the System. 

1 
Chapter 3 Chapter 4 

Chapter 3, Te First Step Act of 2018 Risk 

and Needs Assessment System, describes the 

adopted System in detail, including the new 

assessment tool that will be deployed in the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. Tis chapter then 

provides an explanation of the strengths of 

the tool and enhancements ofered by the 

new System. 

Chapter 4, Implementing the First Step Act 

of 2018 Risk and Needs Assessment System, 

presents the Department’s strategic plan to 

fully and completely implement the System 

in the feld. It also includes an agenda 

for continued engagement with experts, 

stakeholders, and the public on the System. 

Te chapter concludes by describing the 

signifcant resources that the Department 

of Justice is expending and will expend to 

implement the System. 

2 
3 
 

Chapter 1 

Developing the First Step Act of 2018 

Risk and Needs Assessment System 

BACKGROUND 

President Donald J. Trump signed 

the First Step Act (FSA or the Act),1 

into law on December 21, 2018. Te 

Act passed both houses of Congress with 

bipartisan support. As President Trump has 

said, the FSA “will give countless current 

and former prisoners a second chance at life 

and a new opportunity to contribute to their 

communities, their states, and their nation.”2 

Te FSA makes signifcant reforms to the 

criminal justice system. 

As discussed below, several of the FSA’s 

reforms turn on the development of a risk 

and needs assessment system for use in 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Tis 

chapter discusses the FSA’s requirements 

with respect to that system, including the 

responsibilities of the Attorney General 

and the Independent Review Committee 

mandated by the Act. It also summarizes the 

Department of Justice’s work to implement 

the requirements related to the system. 

President Trump signs the First Step Act on December 21, 2018, in the Oval Ofce at the White House. 

4 
 

 

I. Statutory Obligations 

A. Description of the Risk and 

Needs Assessment System 

In passing the First Step Act, Congress 

placed a particular emphasis on the 

development and deployment of a risk 

and needs assessment system in the BOP 

Indeed, Section 101 of the FSA requires the 

Attorney General, in consultation with an 

Independent Review Committee (discussed 

in further detail below), to “develop and 

release publicly on the Department of Justice 

website a risk and needs assessment system.”3 

Te FSA provides that the Attorney General 

“may use existing risk and needs assessment 

tools, as appropriate.” 4 

Pursuant to the FSA, the risk and needs 

assessment system “shall be used” to: 

(1) determine the recidivism risk of 

each prisoner as part of the intake 

process, and classify each prisoner as 

having minimum, low, medium, or 

high risk for recidivism; 

(2) assess and determine, to the extent 

practicable, the risk of violent or 

serious misconduct of each prisoner; 

(3) determine the type and amount of 

evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programming that is appropriate 

for each prisoner and assign each 

prisoner to such programming 

accordingly, and based on the 

prisoner’s specifc criminogenic 

needs, and in accordance with 

subsection (b); 

(4) reassess the recidivism risk of 

each prisoner periodically, based 

on factors including indicators of 

progress, and of regression, that are 

dynamic and that can reasonably be 

expected to change while in prison; 

(5) reassign the prisoner to appropriate 

evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs or productive activities 

based on the revised determination 

to ensure that -

(A) all prisoners at each risk level 

have a meaningful opportunity to 

reduce their classifcation during 

the period of incarceration; 

(B) to address the specifc 

criminogenic needs of the prisoner; 

and 

(C) all prisoners are able to 

successfully participate in such 

programs; 

(6) determine when to provide 

incentives and rewards for successful 

participation in evidence-based 

recidivism reduction programs or 

productive activities in accordance 

with subsection (e); 

(7) determine when a prisoner is 

ready to transfer into prerelease 

custody or supervised release in 

accordance with section 3624; and 

(8) determine the appropriate use of 

audio technology for program course 

materials with an understanding of 

dyslexia.5 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tus, the system is to be used to “determine 

the recidivism risk of each prisoner as part 

of the intake process, and classify each 

prisoner as having minimum, low, medium, 

or high risk for recidivism [and] assess and 

determine, to the extent practicable, the risk 

of violent or serious misconduct of each 

prisoner.”6 Te system also must be used 

periodically to reassess the recidivism risk 

of each prisoner “based on factors including 

indicators of progress, and of regression, 

that are dynamic and that can reasonably be 

expected to change while in prison.”7 

A prisoner’s risk classifcation level may 

afect the prisoner’s ability to receive certain 

rewards and incentives. For example, eligible8 

prisoners are to earn 10 days of time credits 

for every 30 days of successful participation 

in evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programming or productive activities.9 

Eligible prisoners who are classifed in the 

minimum or low risk categories and who 

have not increased their risk of recidivism 

over two assessments may receive fve 

additional days of time credit for every 30 

days of successful participation in evidencebased recidivism reduction programming or 

productive activities.10 Tese time credits are 

available for eligible inmates who successfully 

complete evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programming or productive activities. A 

prisoner’s risk assessment over time also 

afects that prisoner’s ability to use those 

time credits to receive prerelease custody or 

early supervised release.11 

Te results from the system will be used 

to “provide guidance on the type, amount, 

and intensity of evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programming and productive 

activities that shall be assigned for each 

prisoner.”12 For example, the FSA requires 

the BOP to prioritize access to recidivism 

reduction programs for those who are at a 

higher risk of reofending.13 Results from 

the system also will be used to reassign 

prisoners to evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs or productive activities 

based on the periodic reassessments of their 

recidivism risk.14 

Te system’s other requirements include 

using results to provide “guidance on 

program grouping and housing assignment 

determinations” and, afer taking account 

of the safety of prisoners and others at the 

prison, “provid[ing] that prisoners with a 

similar risk level be grouped together in 

housing and assignment decisions to the 

extent practicable;”15 providing incentives 

and rewards for prisoners “to participate in 

and complete evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs,” including phone and 

visitation privileges, transfer to an institution 

closer to a prisoner’s release residence 

(taking account of availability, security, and 

the recommendation of the warden where 

the prisoner is currently held), and other 

increased privileges and time credits;16 

determining “when to provide incentives 

and rewards for successful participation 

in evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs or productive activities;”17 and 

determining “the appropriate use of audio 

technology for program course materials 

with an understanding of dyslexia.”18 

Te system must be released no later than 

210 days afer enactment of the FSA—July 

20, 2019.19 

6 
 

 

 

B. Responsibilities of the 

Attorney General 

In carrying out his responsibilities with 

respect to the system, the Attorney General 

must consult with the Director of the Bureau 

of Prisons, the Director of the Administrative 

Ofce of the United States Courts, the 

Director of the Ofce of Probation and 

Pretrial Services, the Director of the 

National Institute of Justice, the Director of 

the National Institute of Corrections, and 

the Independent Review Committee (IRC) 

authorized under the FSA.20 

Attorney General William P. Barr and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Benjamin S. Carson, 

Sr., M.D., attend a First Step Act celebration in the East Room of the White House on April 1, 2019. 

Photo: Chip Somodevilla (Getty Images). 

Te FSA specifcally directs21 the Attorney that exist in State-operated prisons 

General, in consultation with the IRC, to: throughout the United States; 

(1) review the efectiveness of (3) identify the most efective 

evidence-based recidivism reduction evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs that exist as of the date programs; 

of enactment of this subchapter in (4) review the policies for entering prisons operated by the Bureau of into evidence-based recidivism Prisons; reduction partnerships described in 

(2) review available information section 3621(h)(5); and 

regarding the efectiveness of (5) direct the Bureau of Prisons evidence-based recidivism reduction regarding - programs and productive activities 

7 
 

 

 

(A) evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs; 

(B) the ability for faith-based 

organizations to function as a 

provider of educational evidencebased programs outside of the 

religious classes and services 

provided through the Chaplaincy; 

and 

(C) the addition of any new 

efective evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs that the 

Attorney General fnds. 

Te Attorney General also must “develop and 

implement training programs for Bureau of 

Prisons ofcers and employees responsible 

for administering” the system and “monitor 

and assess” the use of the system, including 

conducting annual audits of the BOP’s use of 

the system.22 

Afer releasing the system, the Attorney 

General must annually “review, validate, and 

release publicly on the Department of Justice 

website the risk and needs assessment system.”23 

Consistent with this annual requirement, the 

Attorney General must “conduct ongoing 

research and data analysis”24 on: 

(A) evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs relating to 

the use of prisoner risk and needs 

assessment tools; 

(B) the most efective and efcient 

uses of such programs; 

(C) which evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs are the most 

efective at reducing recidivism, and 

the type, amount, and intensity of 

programming that most efectively 

reduces the risk of recidivism; and 

(D) products purchased by Federal 

agencies that are manufactured 

overseas and could be manufactured 

by prisoners participating in a prison 

work program without reducing job 

opportunities for other workers in 

the United States. 

C. Independent Review Committee 

1. Responsibilities 

Te IRC must assist the Attorney General 

in carrying out his responsibilities under 18 

U.S.C. §§ 3631(b), 3632, and 3633.25 Tat 

includes26 assisting in: 

(1) conducting a review of the existing 

prisoner risk and needs assessment 

systems in operation on the date of 

enactment of this Act; 

(2)  developing recommendations 

regarding evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs and productive 

activities; 

(3) conducting research and data 

analysis on— 

(A) evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs relating to 

the use of prisoner risk and needs 

assessment tools; 

(B) the most efective and efcient 

uses of such programs; and 

(C) which evidence-based 

recidivism reduction programs 

are the most efective at reducing 

recidivism, and the type, amount, 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and intensity of programming that 

most efectively reduces the risk of 

recidivism; and 

(4) reviewing and validating the risk 

and needs assessment system. 

Te Director of the Bureau of Prisons is 

required to assist the IRC in performing 

its duties and in promptly responding to 

requests from the IRC for access to BOP 

facilities, personnel, and information.27 

Within two years of the enactment of the FSA, 

the IRC must produce a report to the Senate 

and House Judiciary Committees and Senate 

and House Appropriations Subcommittees 

on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 

Agencies.28 

2. Composition of the IRC 

Te members of the IRC “shall all have 

expertise in risk and needs assessment 

systems.”29 Te FSA requires the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) to “select a 

nonpartisan and nonproft organization with 

expertise in the study and development of 

risk and needs assessment tools to host the 

Independent Review Committee.”30 Tat 

outside organization then must appoint not 

fewer than six members to the IRC.31 

II. First Step Act Implementation 

A. Department Implementation 

Eforts 

Following the enactment of the FSA, the 

Department of Justice began the process 

of reviewing and implementing the Act’s 

requirements. Department leadership, 

including the Ofce of the Deputy Attorney 

General and the Ofce of Legal Policy, began 

to coordinate implementation eforts of 

relevant components, including the BOP, the 

NIJ, the Executive Ofce for United States 

Attorneys and the U.S. Attorney community, 

the Criminal Division, and the Ofce of 

Legislative Afairs. Tis coordinated efort 

has ensured that the Department carefully, 

diligently, and fully implements the FSA’s 

requirements. For example, as discussed in 

Chapter 2, the Department has consulted 

with experts from state and federal criminal 

justice systems to inform its implementation 

eforts. 

B. Appointing the Independent 

Review Committee 

On April 8, 2019,32 NIJ announced33 that 

the nonpartisan and nonproft Hudson 

Institute would host the IRC. In selecting 

an organization, NIJ considered a variety 

of factors, including the organization’s 

legislatively mandated status as a nonproft 

and nonpartisan organization, the ability to 

build a qualifed team of experts, expertise 

regarding risk and needs assessments, 

stafng capabilities, and ability to complete 

high-profle projects in a timely manner. 

Te Host Committee’s role is akin to that of 

a project manager, hosting, supporting, and 

monitoring the activities of the IRC. Hudson, 

as the Host Committee, administers the grant, 

establishes a secure document-retention 

system for archiving all ofcial records and 

fnancial transactions, coordinates logistics, 

and selects the IRC members. 

Hudson is not the IRC and has no formal role 

in developing the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System. However, its selection is necessary 

9 
 

to create the IRC, whose members would be 

leaders in their feld and have expertise to design and implement a new system. 

Te Hudson Institute subsequently identifed34 six people to serve as members of the 

IRC. Tose members include experts in 

criminology and prison systems, as well as 

former senior justice sector policymakers. 

Biographies of the IRC members are included below. 

Within a week of funds being made available to select the IRC, the IRC host 

organization and membership were named.35 

Subsequently, the IRC independently 

organized its activities and gave advice to 

Department subject matter experts, the 

NIJ’s outside experts, and the Attorney 

General. Tis advice occurred through 

formal meetings with the Attorney General, 

Deputy Attorney General, and Department 

subject matter experts and through informal 

consultation sessions between IRC members 

and NIJ outside experts. 

Patti Butterfeld, Ph.D. Dr. Butterfeld is an adjunct faculty member 

at Southern New Hampshire University and a former Senior Deputy 

Assistant Director in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Reentry 

Services Division. In addition to serving in leadership in the 

BOP’s reentry services programs, Dr. Butterfeld previously served 

as a prison psychologist and coordinator for inmate treatment 

programs. As a result, Dr. Butterfeld has an appreciation for the 

needs of inmates within a prison and the needs of defendants as 

they reenter society. 

James M. Byrne, Ph.D. Dr. Byrne is a Professor and Associate Chair at the 

School of Criminology and Justice Studies at University of Massachusetts 

Lowell and Director of the Global Community Corrections Initiative. Dr. 

Byrne received his undergraduate degree in Sociology (Summa 

cum Laude) from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1977), 

and his Masters (1980) and Doctoral degree (1983) in Criminal 

Justice from Rutgers University. He is the author of several books, 

monographs, journal articles, and research reports on a range of 

criminal and juvenile justice policy and program evaluation issues. 

Dr. Byrne is the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Victims and Ofenders: An International 

Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice. Dr. Byrne also serves on the 

editorial boards of two other journals, Criminology and Public Policy, and the European 

Journal of Probation, and on the National Advisory Committee for the journal, Federal 

Probation, a publication of the Administrative Ofce of the U.S. Courts. 

10 
Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. Dr. Taxman is an University Professor and 

Director of the Center for Advancing Correctional Excellence! 

at George Mason University. Dr. Taxman’s areas of research 

include evidence-based courts and corrections programs, 

including program design and interventions. She is currently 

researching, among other things, the development of web-based 

risk-needs-responsivity tools for federal, state, and local criminal 

justice agencies; she has developed the RNR Simulation Tool to 

determine whether the services provided are responsive to the risk and need factors of 

ofenders in their correctional systems. Dr. Taxman is on the Editorial Boards of the 

Journal of Experimental Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, and Journal of 

Ofender Rehabilitation. She is co-editor of Health & Justice. She received the University 

of Cincinnati award from the American Probation and Parole Association in 2002 for her 

contributions to the feld. She is a Fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology 

and a member of the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel (CSAP) of England. In 

2008, the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Sentencing and Corrections 

recognized her twice as Distinguished Scholar. In 2017, she received the Joan McCord 

Award from the Division of Experimental Criminology. In 2018, she was awarded a 

Fellow of the American Society of Criminology. 

George J. Terwilliger III. Mr. Terwilliger has served in numerous 

leadership roles in the Department of Justice, including as 

Deputy Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, and United 

States Attorney for the District of Vermont. While serving as 

Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Terwilliger oversaw the Justice 

Department’s operations, including the operation of the Bureau 

of Prisons. In total, Mr. Terwilliger served for 15 years with the 

Justice Department. Mr. Terwilliger currently is a partner at the Washington, DC, ofce 

of McGuireWoods. 

11 
 

 

John P. Walters. Mr. Walters is chief operating ofcer of the Hudson 

Institute and former director of the Ofce of National Drug Control 

Policy (ONDCP) in the cabinet of President George W. Bush. Mr. 

Walters served as the nation’s “Drug Czar” from 2001 until 2009. In 

that position, Mr. Walters “guided all aspects of federal drug policy 

and programs—supporting eforts that drove down teen drug use 

25 percent, increased substance abuse treatment and screening in 

the healthcare system and dramatically dropped the availability of 

cocaine and methamphetamine” in the United States.36 Mr. Walters previously served as 

Chief of Staf and Deputy Director of Supply Reduction at ONDCP. Mr. Walters also has 

served as Assistant to the Secretary and Chief of Staf at the United States Department of 

Education. 

John E. Wetzel. Secretary Wetzel is Secretary of Corrections 

for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Immediate Past 

Chair and member of the Executive Committee of the Council of 

State Governments Justice Center. Afer initially being appointed 

Secretary of Corrections in 2011, Secretary Wetzel was reappointed 

in 2015 and 2019. Secretary Wetzel has almost 30 years in the feld of 

corrections. He is currently the President of the Association of State 

Correctional Administrators and a member of Harvard’s Executive 

Session on Community Corrections. Secretary Wetzel previously was appointed as the 

corrections expert to the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections.37 

C. Working with Outside Experts to 

Develop the System 

In addition to receiving advice from the 

IRC, the Department went beyond the 

requirements of the FSA by working with 

outside experts and researchers throughout 

the country to develop the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. On April 8, the NIJ 

announced that it began contracting with 

three experts, two of whom (Dr. Grant 

Duwe and Dr. Zachary Hamilton) focused 

on the development of the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. Biographies of Drs. 

Duwe and Hamilton are included below. 

Drs. Duwe and Hamilton quickly began to 

collect and review data from BOP. Tat data 

included information on BOP prisoners, 

prisoners released into the community, and 

BOP’s risk prediction instrument, BRAVO 

(Bureau Risk Assessment Verifcation and 

Observation). BRAVO was designed to 

predict serious misconduct in prison. Drs. 

Duwe and Hamilton also learned about 

BOP’s revised tool BRAVO-R, which is 

designed to address recidivism in the 

community. One of the experts completed 

a tour of BOP’s Designation and Sentence 

Computation Center, located in Grand 

Prairie, Texas. Visiting the center enabled 

12 
 

the expert to learn about current risk and experts likewise met regularly with members 

need tools that in are place and how those of the IRC and consulted personally with the 

tools ft into the BOP’s operations. Tese Deputy Attorney General. 

Grant Duwe, Ph.D. Dr. Duwe is the Director of Research for the 

Minnesota Department of Corrections and a nationally recognized 

expert on the development of recidivism risk assessment systems. Dr. 

Duwe created the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism 

Risk (MnSTARR), as well as three other separate risk assessment 

instruments. Dr. Duwe was awarded the American Society of 

Criminology’s Practitioner Research Award based on his development 

of the MnSTARR assessment system. Dr. Duwe has written over 60 

articles that were published in peer-reviewed academic journals, including Criminology, 

Criminology and Public Policy, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Sexual Abuse: A Journal 

of Research and Treatment. Dr. Duwe is a non-resident scholar at the Institute for Studies 

of Religion at Baylor University. 

Zachary Hamilton, Ph.D. Dr. Hamilton is an Associate Professor 

of Criminal Justice and Criminology and the Director of the 

Washington State Institute for Criminal Justice. Dr. Hamilton has 

developed nationally renowned risk-need assessment systems for 

both juveniles and adults in Washington State, Nebraska, Tennessee, 

Delaware, and Iowa. Dr. Hamilton is a co-editor of the Handbook 

of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools (2018). Dr. Hamilton 

has authored or co-authored numerous peer-reviewed publications, reports, and 

manuscripts on ofender risk assessments. Dr. Hamilton’s recent publications have 

appeared in Experimental Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Criminology and Public Policy, 

Criminal Justice & Behavior, and Ofender Rehabilitation. 

13 
 

 

D. Consulting with Experts, Stakeholders, 

and Other Interested Parties 

As part of the System’s development, the 

Department held three listening sessions 

to enable experts, stakeholders—including 

organizations representing crime victims— 

and public interest organizations to comment 

on the development of the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. Te sessions took place 

on April 3, 2019, April 5, 2019, and May 3, 

2019, at the Ofce of Justice Programs in 

Washington, DC. 

First Step Act – Risk and Needs Assessment System listening session held on April 3, 2019, at the Ofce of 

Justice Programs. 

First Step Act – Risk and Needs Assessment System listening session held on April 5, 2019, at the Ofce of 

Justice Programs. 

14 
First Step Act – Risk and Needs Assessment System listening session held on May 3, 2019, at the Ofce of 

Justice Programs. 

Senior Department leadership, including the 

Director of NIJ and representatives from the 

Ofce of Deputy Attorney General and the 

BOP, welcomed those who ofered comments 

and others who attended. 

Tose who ofered oral and written 

comments included: 

Aamra Ahmad, Sentencing Resource 

Counsel of the Federal Public and 

Community Defenders; 

Sarah Anderson, Federal Afairs Manager, 

FreedomWorks; 

Sakira Cook, Director of Justice Reform 

Program, Te Leadership Conference on 

Civil and Human Rights; 

Monique Dixon, Deputy Director of Policy, 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund, Inc.; 

Ellen Donnarumma, President, International 

Community Corrections Association, and 

Vice President of Justice Services, Community 

Resources for Justice; 

Jim Felman, American Bar Association; 

Richard Fiano, Regional Vice President, 

Association of Federal Narcotics Agents 

(AFNA); 

Mark Holden, Senior Vice President, Koch 

Industries; 

John Hollywood, Senior Operations 

Researcher, RAND Corporation; 

DeAnna Hoskins, President and CEO, 

JustLeadershipUSA; 

Susan Howley, Center for Victim Research, 

Justice Research and Statistics Association; 

Jessica Jackson, National Director and 

Co-Founder, #cut50; 

John Koufos, National Director of Reentry 

Initiatives, Right on Crime; 

15 
 

 

 

Paul Larkin, Senior Legal Research Fellow, 

Te Heritage Foundation; 

Nancy La Vigne, Vice President, Justice 

Policy, Urban Institute; 

Mary Graw Leary, Chair, United States 

Sentencing Commission Victims Advisory 

Group; 

Tom Manger, Major Cities Chiefs 

Association; 

Marc Mauer, Executive Director, Te 

Sentencing Project; 

Jesselyn McCurdy, Deputy Director, 

American Civil Liberties Union; 

Pat O’Carroll, Executive Director, Federal 

Law Enforcement Ofcers Association; 

Sarah Picard, Research Director, Center for 

Court Innovation; 

Arthur Rizer, Director, Criminal Justice & 

Civil Liberties, R Street Institute; 

Christopher Scott, Director of Criminal 

Justice, Education, and Policing Reform, 

Open Society Policy Center; 

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, Director, American 

Friends of Lubavith (Chabad); 

Lindsay Silverberg, Te Network for Victim 

Recovery of DC; 

Faye Taxman, Professor, Criminology, 

Law and Society Department, George 

Mason University, and Director, Center for 

Advancing Correctional Excellence!; and 

Jonathan Tompson, Executive Director 

and CEO, National Sherifs’ Association. 

Te participants ofered constructive advice 

and comments on the following topics, 

among others: the contents of a useful risk 

assessment; the process for constructing 

a risk assessment; the need to avoid racial 

bias in the drafing and administration of 

risk assessments; the need to implement the 

FSA fully and expeditiously; and the desired 

contents of future criminal justice reform 

legislation. Additionally, some participants 

emphasized the need to take account of the 

harms sufered by crime victims. 

Te full written statements of the listening 

session participants will be available on the 

Department of Justice website. 

E. Summary of Work to Develop the 

Risk and Needs Assessment System 

Te Department, its outside experts, and the 

IRC have conscientiously and expeditiously 

worked to meet the FSA’s requirements with 

respect to developing the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. Tis section highlights 

the Department’s eforts. 

1. Overview 

As an initial matter, the Department and 

NIJ’s experts researched and evaluated the 

attributes of a successful risk and needs 

assessment system. As discussed in Chapter 

2, the Department requested and received 

information and recommendations from 

state prison systems and the BOP regarding 

recidivism and risk assessment tools. Te 

outside experts from NIJ learned about 

BOP’s revised recidivism tool, BRAVO-R, 

and analyzed it using relevant data from 

BOP. Tose same experts looked for ways 

to improve the predictive accuracy of 

16 
BRAVO-R and to build a strong risk and 

needs assessment system. 

While working on the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System, NIJ’s experts regularly 

collaborated with members of the IRC. As 

part of this consultation process, the IRC 

reviewed NIJ’s eforts, asked questions, and 

provided input. 

In addition to the work of the Department of 

Justice’s experts, Attorney General William 

P. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Jefrey 

A. Rosen were personally involved in the 

process of developing the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. Both the Attorney 

General and the Deputy Attorney General 

received information and input from 

Department components. And both of the 

Department’s top leaders met individually 

with the members of the IRC to discuss the 

development of the System. 

Te Attorney General and Deputy Attorney 

General both personally visited BOP facilities 

to examine and understand the ways that a 

new risk and needs assessment system would 

impact inmates and the BOP system. 

On July 8, 2019, the Attorney General toured 

the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) 

in Edgefeld, South Carolina. Te Attorney 

General met with and was accompanied 

by U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim 

Scott of South Carolina. Senators Graham 

and Scott strongly supported passage of the 

FSA, and Senator Scott served as an original 

cosponsor of the bill. While at FCI Edgefeld, 

Attorney General Barr spoke with prison 

ofcials, including vocational training, 

psychology, and education staf. Te Attorney 

General also spoke with inmates who are 

participating in model BOP programs 

aimed at reducing recidivism and promoting 

Attorney General William P. Barr, along with Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott, receive a presentation 

from Supervisor Stephanie Ewing, of the Culinary Arts Vocational Training program at FCI Edgefeld. 

17 
successful reentry into the community. 

Te Attorney General toured Edgefeld’s 

UNICOR clothing and textile factory, 

an occupational and vocational training 

program, as well as other occupational and 

vocational training programs ofered at the 

facility. Inmates in UNICOR clothing and 

textile factories cut, sew, weave, embroider, 

and use silk screening processes, among 

other things. In occupational and vocational 

programs, inmates learn a variety of skillsbased, marketable job disciplines, such as 

the culinary arts, computer applications, 

and automobile service and maintenance. 

Te Attorney General also learned about the 

facility’s Residential Drug Abuse Program 

(RDAP), Non-Residential Drug Abuse 

Program (NR-DAP), faith-based programs, 

and reentry services that help inmates 

successfully reintegrate into society. 

Te Deputy Attorney General visited the FCI 

in Englewood, Colorado, on July 2, 2019. 

During his visit, the Deputy Attorney General 

focused on programming opportunities 

for inmates. Tese opportunities included 

the National Roofng and Paving Program 

based at FCI Englewood, RDAP, NR-DAP, 

Culinary Arts Vocational Training (VT), 

UNICOR, and educational opportunities, 

among others. Consistent with the FSA’s 

focus on evidence-based programming, the 

treatment philosophy in RDAP and NRDAP is evidence-based, with both using 

Cognitive Behavioral Terapy. Skilled 

training, certifcates, and licenses such as the 

Culinary Arts VT, UNICOR, and National 

Inmate at FCI Englewood demonstrates Computer Aided Design (CAD) Drafing to Deputy Attorney General 

Jefrey A. Rosen. 

18 
 

Roofng and Paving Program also are key to 

success under the FSA because they provide 

inmates with real-life employment skills and 

a better appreciation for the importance of 

developing responsible work habits. 

2. FSA Statutory Obligations Met 

Troughout the process of developing the 

Risk and Needs Assessment System, the 

Attorney General satisfed the obligations 

listed in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631(a) and 3633. 

As required by section 3631(a), the Attorney 

General consulted with the Director of 

BOP, the Director of NIJ, the Director of 

the Administrative Ofce of the United 

States Courts, the Director of the Ofce of 

Probation and Pretrial Services, the Director 

of the National Institute of Corrections, and 

the IRC in developing the System. 

Te Directors of BOP and NIJ have 

consistently supported and advanced the 

Department’s eforts to develop the Risk and 

Needs Assessment System. For example, 

as noted previously, NIJ hired and worked 

closely with outside experts on risk and needs 

assessment systems to research, evaluate, 

and make recommendations as part of the 

process of developing the System. BOP has 

supported those experts’ work and made its 

own experts available to work with NIJ on 

the risk and needs assessment tool. While 

the Department was developing the System, 

BOP also acted diligently to implement the 

FSA’s initial requirements in its facilities 

through new and updated Bureau-wide 

policies. BOP and NIJ will remain closely 

involved as the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System is implemented and enhanced over 

time. 

Both the Director of the Administrative 

Ofce of the United States Courts and 

the Director of the Ofce of Probation 

and Pretrial Services consulted with the 

Department regarding the FSA. 

Te Acting Director of the National Institute 

of Corrections (NIC) consulted with the 

Department during NIC’s Advisory Board 

Meeting on Friday, June 21, 2019. During 

this meeting, the Acting Director and 

NIC’s Advisory Board members ofered 

recommendations and input regarding 

developing and implementing a new 

risk and needs assessment system. In 

addition to this in-person consultation, 

the Acting Director subsequently sent 

the Attorney General a detailed letter 

containing recommendations regarding the 

development and implementation of a risk 

and needs assessment system. Te Attorney 

General considered the NIC’s suggestions as 

part of the process of developing, publishing, 

and implementing the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. 

As discussed previously, the Attorney General 

and Deputy Attorney General personally 

consulted with the IRC. Te IRC’s members 

also regularly consulted with other members 

of the Department, including the NIJ and its 

experts. Te IRC provided valuable input 

and raised probing questions to improve 

the risk and needs assessment tool. Te 

Department will continue to consult with 

the IRC as the Department implements the 

Risk and Needs Assessment System. 

In addition to satisfying the FSA’s consultation 

requirements in developing the Risk and 

Needs Assessment System, the Attorney 

19 
 

Attorney General William P. Barr and members of the Independent Review Committee discuss the First Step 

Act of 2018 Risk and Needs Assessment System on July 11, 2019. 

General satisfed the fve requirements 

outlined in 18 U.S.C. §  3633(a).38 First, as 

discussed previously, the Attorney General, 

through the eforts of BOP, NIJ, and other 

Department components, reviewed the 

efectiveness of evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs in the BOP. Te 

Attorney General also received input and 

recommendations regarding programming 

from the IRC. 

Second, the Attorney General reviewed 

available information regarding such 

programs in state-operated prisons 

throughout the country. For example, 

Department representatives on June 27, 2019, 

visited the Volunteers of America Reentry 

Center (VOA) in Baltimore, Maryland. At 

the state reentry center, men and women 

receive counseling, job training, and 

customized support to help ensure success 

as they reenter their communities. Te 

visitors had the chance to meet the leaders 

of the VOA, hear from individuals who have 

“graduated” from the center, and observe 

classes and a substance abuse support group. 

Tird, as a result of the above eforts, the 

Attorney General identifed the most 

efective evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs and has included aspects 

of those programs in the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. Fourth, the Attorney 

General reviewed the policies for entering 

into evidence-based recidivism reduction 

partnerships. Fifh, the Attorney General 

directed the BOP regarding evidence-based 

recidivism reduction programs, the addition 

of any new evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs, and the ability of faithbased organizations to provide educational 

evidence-based programs outside of 

religious classes and services. In carrying 

out these obligations, the Attorney General 

“consider[ed] the prevalence and mitigation 

of dyslexia in prisons.”39 

20 
Tus, the Department has taken informed and 

proactive steps to study, develop, and publish 

a robust risk and needs assessment system. 

Tis report’s subsequent chapters discuss in 

greater detail the information learned and 

the steps taken to develop and implement the 

Risk and Needs Assessment System. Chapter 

2 addresses the characteristics of an efective 

risk and needs assessment system. Chapter 

3 discusses the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System that the Department has developed. 

To conclude, Chapter 4 addresses processes 

to implement that System. 

Attorney General William P. Barr and members of the Independent Review Committee. From lef to right: 

George J. Terwilliger III, Dr. James M. Byrne, Dr. Patti Butterfeld, the Attorney General, Secretary John E. 

Wetzel, and John P. Walters. Dr. Faye S. Taxman is not pictured. 

21 
 

NOTES 

1

 Pub. L. 115-391. 

2 Remarks by President Trump at 2019 

Prison Reform Summit and FIRST STEP 

Act Celebration (April 1, 2019), https:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/briefngs-statements/ 

remarks-president-trump-2019-prisonreform-summit-first-step-act-celebration/ 

(last visited July 11, 2019). 

3

 Pub. L. 115-391, § 101 (creating 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3632(a)). 

4

 18 U.S.C. § 3632(a). 

5 Id. 

6 Id. § 3632(a)(1), (2). 

7 Id. § 3632(a)(4). 

8 See Id. § 3632(d)(4)(D), (E) (listing 

categories of prisoners who are ineligible 

to receive time credits). Eligible prisoners 

may earn time credits only by “successfully 

complet[ing] evidence-based recidivism

reduction programming or productive

activities.” Id. § 3632(d)(4)(A). 

9 Id. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(i). 

10 Id. § 3632(d)(4)(A)(ii). 

11 Id. §§ 3624(g)(1), 3632(a)(7). Section 

3624(g) takes efect “beginning on the 

date that the Attorney General completes 

and releases the risk and needs assessment 

system.” First Step Act, Pub. L. 115-391, 

102(b)(2). 

12 18 U.S.C. § 3632(b); see also 18 U.S.C. § 

3632(a)(3). 

13 Id. § 3621(h)(6). 

14 Id. § 3632(a)(5). 

15 Id. § 3632(c). 

16 Id. § 3632(d). 

17 Id. § 3632(a)(6). 

18 Id. § 3632(a)(8). 

19 Id. § 3632(a). 

20 Id. § 3631(a). 

21 Id. § 3633(a); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3631(b) 

(1), (b)(2) (requiring the Attorney General 

to “develop recommendations regarding 

evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs and productive activities in 

accordance with section 3633”). In carrying 

out his obligations under section 3633(a), 

the Attorney General “shall consider the 

prevalence and mitigation of dyslexia in 

prisons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3633(b). 

22 18 U.S.C. § 3632(f), (g). 

23 Id. § 3631(b)(4); see also id. § 3631(b)(5) 

(requiring the Attorney General to “make 

any revisions or updates to the risk and 

needs assessment system that the Attorney 

General determines appropriate pursuant to 

the review under paragraph (4)”). 

24 Id. § 3631(b)(3). 

25 First Step Act, Pub. L. 115-391, § 107(e). 

26 Id. 

27 Id. § 107(f). 

28 Id. § 107(g). Te Attorney General also 

must provide a report to Congress, as 

discussed in 18 U.S.C. § 3634. 

22 
29 Id. § 107(d). 

30 Id. § 107(b). 

31 Id. § 107(c). 

32 Te Department selected the nonproft and 

nonpartisan Hudson Institute as the host 

organization on April 8, 2019, afer the 30 

day deadline included in the FSA. Tis delay 

was unavoidable for two related reasons. 

First, under the Anti-Defciency Act, the 

Department was unable to fund the IRC 

without an appropriation or congressionallyapproved reprogramming of existing funds. 

Second, one day afer the FSA was signed, 

many of the appropriations that fund the 

Department lapsed and the Department 

was partially shut down until Friday, 

January 25, 2019. Most of the staf working 

on FSA-related projects were furloughed 

until that date, and nearly all FSA-related 

work, including identifying funds to be 

reprogrammed, did not qualify as excepted 

work. 

Despite these challenges, the Department 

diligently worked to ensure the creation of 

the IRC. When the Government opened on 

Monday, January 28, 2019, the Department 

began the process of identifying organizations 

that might serve as the Host Committee 

and worked to identify sources of funding 

for the IRC. Te Department submitted a 

reprogramming request to the House and 

Senate Appropriations Committees in early 

March, 2019. 

While awaiting Congress’s determination, 

the Department engaged with those 

organizations deemed the most qualifed to 

serve in this administrative role, including 

the Hudson Institute. At the end of that 

process, Hudson was selected as the most 

qualifed organization. 

Te House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees’ approval for the reprogramming 

request was completed on April 2, 2019. 

Within days of this approval, the Department 

obligated those reprogrammed funds and 

selected the Host Organization. 

33 Department of Justice Announces First 

Step Act Implementation Progress (April 

8, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ 

department-justice-announces-first-stepact-implementation- (last visited July 12, 

2019). 

34 Hudson Institute To Host First Step 

Act’s Independent Review Committee 

(April 8, 2019), https://www.hudson. 

org/research/14945-hudson-institute-tohost-first-step-act-s-independent-reviewcommittee (last visited July 12, 2019). 

35 See Note 33. 

36 John P. Walters Biography Page, https:// 

www.hudson.org/experts/559-john-pwalters (last visited July 12, 2019). 

37 John Wetzel Biography Page, https:// 

www.cor.pa.gov/Pages/Secretary%20of%20 

Corrections.aspx (last visited July 12, 2019). 

38 See also 18 U.S.C. § 3631(b)(1), (2). 

39 18 U.S.C. § 3633(b). 

23 
24 
 

 

Chapter 2 

Characteristics of an Effective Risk and Needs 

Assessment System 

I

n order to develop a robust risk and needs 

assessment system that is efective for the 

federal prison population, it is critical 

to frst examine and defne the general 

characteristics of an efective risk and needs 

assessment system. Tis chapter discusses 

the fundamental aspects of an efective 

risk and needs assessment system and its 

common characteristics. It also discusses 

the necessity of validating a risk and needs 

assessment tool against the population for 

which it is being used and the importance of 

using scales to assess risk and needs. Finally, 

this chapter summarizes the information 

that experts in the feld shared with the 

Department regarding the development of a 

robust risk and needs assessment system. 

I. Common Elements of Efective 

Risk and Needs Assessment Tools 

Risk and needs assessments are cornerstones 

of correctional systems and ofender 

supervision management. Many correctional 

and post-supervision agencies in the United 

States utilize tools to assess ofender risk.1 

Some of those agencies leverage tools to 

measure ofender needs.2 Tese tools are 

used to determine an ofender’s risk of 

carrying out misconduct while in custody, 

what criminogenic needs (i.e., needs that 

research shows are associated with an 

ofender’s risk of recidivism) an ofender 

may have and which programs may address 

those needs, and an ofender’s risk for 

reofending once the ofender returns to 

the community.3 Although there are many 

diferent assessment tools in use, the most 

accurate assessment tools share a number of 

common characteristics, including dynamic 

individualized assessment, periodic revalidation and update, racial and ethnic 

neutrality, and a proper assessment of 

criminogenic needs. 

25 
 

 

Common Elements of Efective Risk and Needs Assessment Tools 

• Dynamic Individualized Assessment

• Periodic Re-Validation and Update

• Racial and Ethnic Neutrality

• Assessment of Criminogenic Needs

A. Dynamic Individualized 

Assessment 

Te federal prison population changes 

over time, both demographically and 

culturally. Likewise, individual inmates also 

typically change over the course of their 

incarceration.4

 An efective risk and needs 

assessment (RNA) system should be able to 

recognize changes in each inmate and update 

that inmate’s assessment score accordingly. 

Te First Step Act (FSA or Act) requires an 

RNA system to “determine the recidivism 

risk of each prisoner as part of the intake 

process, and classify each prisoner as having 

minimum, low, medium, or high risk for 

recidivism.”5

 Te Act also requires periodic 

reassessment of prisoners.6 And the FSA 

requires the system to provide “information 

on the best ways that the Bureau of Prisons 

can tailor . . . programs to the specifc 

criminogenic needs of each prisoner so as 

to most efectively lower each prisoner’s risk 

of recidivism.”7 Providing individualized 

assessments ensures the measurement of 

individual needs and the assignment of 

programming are based on an inmate’s 

personal characteristics. 

Nearly all efective RNA tools incorporate 

both static and dynamic factors.8 Static 

factors are characteristics of inmates that are 

historical and therefore unchangeable, such 

as ofense severity, age at frst arrest, and 

criminal history at prison entry. By contrast, 

dynamic factors are variables that may 

change over time and may refect more recent 

inmate behavior, such as prison misconduct 

or substance abuse. Te use of dynamic 

factors in a risk and needs assessment tool 

helps agencies monitor individual changes in 

an inmate’s risk or needs, and is a requirement 

of the FSA.9 Dynamic factors are also more 

responsive to treatment options, because 

static items by defnition do not change, 

even in response to an efective treatment. 

In many cases, however, dynamic items are 

only incrementally predictive of criminal 

behavior, as compared to the static items in 

various RNA tools.10 

26 
   

  

 

 

Additionally, as one of its core functions, the 

risk tool must be able to diferentiate inmates 

at a higher risk for recidivism from inmates 

at a lower risk for recidivism. Based on 

the principles of Risk-Needs-Responsivity, 

the focus of treatment and programming 

is prioritized for high risk ofenders.11 Tis 

approach is key in areas where resources are 

limited. Consistent with these principles, the 

FSA requires the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

to ensure that “priority for participation in 

recidivism reduction programs shall be given 

to medium-risk and high-risk prisoners, 

with access to productive activities given to 

minimum-risk and low-risk prisoners.”12 

For purposes of needs assessment and 

programming, correctional staf should 

conduct a needs assessment for each 

inmate at or near the beginning of service 

of the sentence to determine the inmate’s 

programming requirements.  Te specifc 

needs identifed by this assessment should 

include areas empirically associated with 

ofender recidivism, such as substance 

abuse and educational and vocational 

needs.13 Te needs assessment also may 

identify  additional critical targets for 

intervention, such as reducing symptoms of 

mental illness, improving ofender quality of 

life, and improving institution adjustment. 

A needs assessment should also be updated 

periodically, through reassessments, to refect 

an ofender’s progress toward addressing 

programming needs or to identify the 

emergence of any additional needs during 

incarceration.14 

B. Periodic Re-Validation 

and Update 

A robust risk and needs assessment tool 

should be re-validated (reviewed to confrm 

the tool is still accurate) and periodically 

updated to ensure it continues to measure risk 

and needs accurately. Te tool should adapt 

as the inmate population changes. Te FSA 

incorporates this best practice by requiring 

the Attorney General, “on an annual basis, 

[to] review, validate, and release publicly on 

the Department of Justice website the risk 

and needs assessment system.”15 An RNA 

tool should be re-validated by analyzing the 

most recent ofender information available, 

including both custodial and post-release 

conduct. An RNA tool should contain 

as much current information as possible, 

while accepting that there will be a time 

lag to collect recidivism data for the system 

re-validation process. 

Te needs assessment tool should 

be validated to ensure that the  needs 

assessments accurately measure an inmate’s 

actual needs. In addition, the needs measures 

used in the tool should be relatively reliable, 

in that scorings by diferent assessors of the 

measure would yield the same approximate 

score.  Consistent evaluations of a system’s 

needs assessment will ensure its continued 

reliability and validity. 

As noted previously, the FSA requires the 

Attorney General to “review, validate, and 

release publicly” the RNA system annually.16 

To fulfll that requirement, an efective RNA 

tool may collect data on new test items that 

receive no weight or have a minor impact 

on the inmate’s risk assessment. A test 

27 
 

 

item is a suspected risk factor that is not 

currently included in the RNA tool and the 

correctional organization does not currently 

collect information about; for example, “age 

at frst arrest” is a common risk factor.17 

Without information or data, researchers 

cannot test whether it is an efective 

recidivism predictor that could enhance the 

RNA tool. By collecting the necessary data, 

researchers could determine if the test item 

should be included in a future version of the 

risk assessment. When the risk assessment 

is later re-validated, the test item may be 

shown as an efective predictor of recidivism, 

in which case it may be fully scored and used 

in future versions of the RNA tool. 

C. Racial and Ethnic Neutrality 

An efective RNA system includes risk tools 

that are racially unbiased, where “racially 

unbiased” is defned as having the tool 

correctly calibrated or standardized within 

racial and ethnic groups. To be racially 

unbiased or neutral, the tool should ensure 

race and ethnicity have no efect on the 

tool’s outcomes, specifcally the prediction of 

whether an individual will recidivate, once 

the total score is controlled.18 In concrete 

terms, this means that if an RNA tool applies 

the same risk score to two ofenders of 

diferent races, the two ofenders must still 

be proven to have the same recidivism rate.19 

Tis methodology was primarily how the 

Administrative Ofce of the U.S. Courts’ Post 

Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) tool 

was previously tested for racial bias.20 It was 

also how one study of Correctional Ofender 

Management Profling for Alternative 

Sanctions (COMPAS) validated that tool as 

racially unbiased.21 

Alternately, an efective RNA tool can be 

proven to be racially or ethnically neutral 

based on some other acceptable criterion for 

fairness and equality. Tere is an ongoing 

academic debate regarding how to develop 

such a tool. For example, a ProPublica article 

criticized that same COMPAS RNA tool for 

having more false positives and fewer false 

negatives among black ofenders than among 

white ofenders,22 even as COMPAS was 

properly calibrated within groups.23 Tere 

are multiple defnitions for racial fairness, 

and they are mutually exclusive.24 When 

defning racial fairness as calibrated groups, 

COMPAS was racially unbiased, but to meet 

the standard of calibrated groups, it had to 

be racially biased by the defnition of equal 

false-positive rates. Unless the racial groups 

have the exact same recidivism base rates, an 

RNA tool cannot achieve racial fairness by 

more than one defnition of racial fairness at 

the same time.25 

D. Assessment of Criminogenic Needs 

Although RNA tools should assess 

criminogenic needs, an efective RNA 

system distinguishes needs from risks.26 

Whereas risk refers to an inmate’s statistical 

propensity for recidivism or some other 

adverse outcome, needs represents the areas 

of intervention that must be addressed 

to mitigate the risk of recidivism.27 On 

theoretical grounds, criminogenic needs are 

directly or indirectly linked to an adverse 

outcome, such as recidivism. However, 

they may not be predictive of that outcome 

and should not be included in the risk score 

unless they are predictive.28 

28 
Although research varies about how each 

of these needs is linked to recidivism risk, 

criminal thinking, antisocial peers, substance 

abuse, and education and vocational 

needs typically are identifed as important 

criminogenic needs.29 “Antisocial peers” 

means the extent to which an ofender’s 

social network is comprised of other criminal 

ofenders. Criminal thinking encompasses 

the “attitudes, values, and/or behaviors of 

ofenders that infuence their involvement in 

criminal behavior.”30 

An efective RNA system includes tools 

to assess criminogenic needs for two key 

reasons. First, to the extent that needs 

assessments are conducted over time, inmate 

progress can be dynamically monitored 

consistent with that inmate’s reentry goals. 

Certain needs areas, such as substance abuse 

patterns, can be assessed repeatedly. Tat 

repeated assessment allows correctional 

staf to determine whether an inmate’s risk 

is adequately mitigated in that area or if 

the inmate would beneft from additional 

treatment. Other needs areas are more 

difcult to assess dynamically, but measures 

do exist and may be deployed with some 

degree of success.31 

Second, a needs assessment can assist in 

programming decisions, as correctional 

departments match inmates to programs 

that address their specifc criminogenic 

needs. For example, if an inmate has no 

assessed need for substance abuse treatment, 

then such treatment is likely to be of no 

beneft to the inmate and likely to represent a 

poor use of resources. Te treatment will be 

more cost efective if high-need inmates can 

be identifed and placed in the appropriate 

programs, thus maximizing taxpayer value 

and the total number of inmates who can 

participate in appropriate services. 

Finally, an efective RNA system is practical 

about the needs assessment. It measures 

needs that correspond to the evidence based 

recidivism reducing programs and treatments 

that are available in the correctional system, 

currently or in the near future. Efective RNA 

tools do not collect data on measures that 

have no operational value. 

II. Validating a Tool Against 

the Appropriate Population 

Efective RNA tools must be validated on 

the population for which they will be used. 

“Te intent of actuarial risk assessment is 

to identify subgroups within an ofender 

population who have signifcantly diferent 

rates of recidivism.”32 One example of 

subgroups is male and female. As diferent 

correctional systems will have diferent 

subgroups within them, an efective RNA 

tool must be tailored to best identify and 

diferentiate the subgroups that exist in each 

correctional system. 

When it comes to risk assessments, there is 

no “one size fts all” tool. Tis is particularly 

important since the BOP inmate populations 

difer from the ofender populations in state 

and local correctional systems, in numerous 

ways. Based on data collected by the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics (BJS),33 the following 

table displays the diferences in demographic 

and population characteristics between 

the prison populations of federal and state 

correctional jurisdictions. 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparison of Federal and State Inmates in 2017, 

based on BJS National Prisoner Statistics Data 

Category Descriptor Federal Inmate State Inmate 

Gender Female 6.8% 7.6% 

Race/Ethnicity* White 27.6% 31.1% 

Black 37.1% 32.6% 

Hispanic 31.9% 21.6% 

Other 3.4% 14.7% 

Citizenship Non-US Citizen 19.7% 5.8% 

Offense Type Drug Offense 47.3% 14.8% 

Weapons 17.0% 4.2% 

Immigration 6.7% 0.0% 

Other Public Order (non-weapon, 

non-immigration) 

14.9% 7.7% 

Homicide 1.6% 14.2% 

Robbery 3.8% 13.1% 

Other Violent Offense 2.4% 27.9% 

Burglary 0.2% 9.4% 

Other Property Offense 5.7% 8.1%

 * “Hispanic” includes all races with Hispanic ethnicity; all other categories include non-Hispanics 

of that race. 

Te BJS table also indicates that most federal 

inmates are incarcerated for drug trafcking, 

weapons charges, and other (meaning nonweapon and non-immigration) public order 

ofenses. Te majority of state inmates are in 

prison for violent ofenses, such as murder 

and robbery.34 State correctional populations 

also include more inmates with convictions 

for property ofenses (mainly burglary), 

whereas the relatively few property ofenders 

in the federal system are usually convicted 

of fraud. In terms of race and ethnicity, 

federal inmates are more ofen Hispanic or 

non-US citizens than state inmates, but they 

are slightly more likely to be black. Finally, 

federal inmates are slightly less likely to be 

female than state inmates. 

Notably, these BJS statistics were drawn from 

the sentenced federal prison population. As 

30 
 

compared to the population of incoming or 

outgoing inmates, the general population 

will skew toward more severe crimes and 

longer sentences. For example, 14% of state 

inmates are in prison for murder, but far less 

than 14% of state crimes are murder. Rather, 

murderers tend to serve signifcant sentences 

and take up a disproportionate share of the 

prison beds. State ofenders convicted of 

minor crimes may be numerous, but because 

they move in and out of prison more quickly, 

relatively few are using prison beds at any 

given time. 

Due to these diferences, state inmates may 

have more variety in their criminal histories 

than federal inmates, which would afect 

the predictive nature of a risk tool designed 

for a state prison population. A risk factor 

can better predict recidivism not only if it is 

more strongly related to recidivism, but also 

if there is more variety in the risk factor’s 

scores and more individuals with extreme 

scores. State and federal prisons both have 

many ofenders with extremely low violent 

histories, but if state prisons have more 

inmates with very violent histories, then 

violent history may be a stronger predictor 

of recidivism in state prisons. Accordingly, if 

the BOP imported a state-validated RNA tool 

into the federal prison system and made no 

adjustments, the imported tool would likely 

overestimate the inmate’s history of violence 

as an important risk predictor. Instead, a 

good risk and needs assessment tool should 

be validated for the population for which it 

will operate. 

III. Te Importance of Using Scales 

to Assess Risk and Needs 

Risk and needs assessment tools ofen include 

scales to assess ofender risk and needs. 

Scales are standardized measures that permit 

an objective and reliable way of interpreting 

a response. For example, afer the question 

“how satisfed are you with our service” you 

might fnd the following scale of responses: 

1 – very unsatisfed; 2 – unsatisfed; 

3 – neutral; 4 – somewhat satisfed; or 

5 – very satisfed. For an inmate’s risk 

and needs assessment, specifcally, data 

are collected regarding the inmate, scored, 

and compared with normative data to yield 

a determination of specifc needs areas 

requiring intervention. 

Example of Standardized Measures in a Scale 

Question: How satisfied are you with our service?

1 – Very Unsatisfied 2 – Unsatisfied 3 – Neutral 4 – Somewhat Satisfied 5 – Very Satisfied 

Statement: Sometimes I lose my temper. 

1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Not Sure 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree 

Statement: I have friends that I trust. 

1 – Strongly Disagree 2 – Disagree 3 – Not Sure 4 – Agree 5 – Strongly Agree 

31 
 

 

 

As an example of a needs assessment 

tool, the Tests of Adult Basic Education 

(TABE) is a measure currently used in the 

BOP and other adult education settings to 

assess the needs of adult learners.35 Based 

on an inmate’s results on the TABE, that 

inmate may be referred to literacy or other 

educational programs. In addition to 

standardized measures like the TABE, needs 

assessments may also include empiricallybased questionnaires. For example, the 

Adverse Childhood Experiences Survey has 

been shown to predict suicide risk and other 

critical outcomes, and is therefore a strong 

predictor of the need for mental health 

programming.36 

Te use of scales in assessment tools helps 

ensure that data are collected and used in 

a more quantifable, consistent, reliable, 

and accountable manner. Actuarial risk 

assessments are generally more efective 

than subjective professional judgment at 

predicting recidivism and other adverse 

outcomes.37 Additionally, it is more efcient 

to train staf to use a scale than it is to teach 

the years of experience required to leverage 

subjective professional judgment. It is 

also more efcient to validate, amend, and 

improve the scales over time. By contrast, 

professional judgment is harder to test 

systematically and harder to improve in an 

objective manner. Tus, scales are key to an 

efective RNA system. 

IV. Guidance from the Experts 

Te Department has consulted with experts 

from state and federal criminal justice 

systems to inform its implementation eforts. 

Specifcally, experts from the Administrative 

Ofce of the United States Courts, 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 

Minnesota Department of Corrections, and 

the BOP provided informative briefngs on 

the research, development, and 

implementation of risk and needs assessment 

systems. Tese briefngs provided critical 

information and evidence to assist in 

developing an efective risk and needs 

assessment system. 

A. Administrative Ofce of the 

United States Courts 

Te Administrative Ofce of the United 

States Courts, Probation and Pretrial 

Services Ofce (Administrative Ofce), 

briefed the Department on its pre-trial 

risk assessment and post-conviction 

risk assessment tools. Tis included a 

discussion of the federal Post Conviction 

Risk Assessment (PCRA), which is used to 

help probation ofcers manage defendants 

while on supervision. Te Administrative 

Ofce explained the prolonged process that 

it employed to evaluate existing commercial 

risk assessment tools and ultimately to decide 

to create its own risk assessment tool.38 For 

example, the Administrative Ofce met with 

the developers of major existing risk and 

needs assessment tools, assembled a panel 

of experts, and began a pilot project in fve 

districts. Afer completing that process, the 

Administrative Ofce decided “that creating 

an instrument with data specifc to the 

federal probation system was preferable.”39 

Te Administrative Ofce also discussed the 

need for high inter-rater reliability—that is, 

the extent to which diferent raters (in this 

32 
 

 

case, corrections and probation ofcials) 

yield consistent results. Te Administrative 

Ofce also noted that training staf to enter 

data accurately and consistently was a key 

requirement for an efective system. 

Te Administrative Ofce also provided 

guidance on best practices that contributed 

to positive changes in an individual 

probationer’s behavior: “1) intensive 

correctional interventions should be 

directed to higher risk rather than lower 

risk persons under supervision (risk 

principle), 2) dynamic risk factors should 

be targeted for change (need principle), and 

3) strategies such as cognitive behavioral 

treatment should be delivered in a way that is 

specifcally responsive to the characteristics 

of the individual (responsivity principle).”40 

Te Administrative Ofce shared research 

regarding the predictive efect of PCRA.41In 

one study, “changes in ofender risk were 

associated with changes in re-arrest rates. 

Specifcally, high-, moderate-, and low/ 

moderate-risk ofenders with decreases in 

either their risk classifcations or overall 

PCRA scores had lower recidivism rates 

compared to their counterparts whose risk 

levels or scores either remained unchanged 

or increased, while increases in ofender 

risk were associated with higher rates of 

rearrests.”42 Te Administrative Ofce 

emphasized that PCRA was designed to 

assess behaviors for federal probationers 

and was not intended to be transferable to 

other jurisdictions or ofender populations 

without appropriate modifcation. 

Research studies also have evaluated 

PCRA for forms of bias, including racial 

bias. While a 2016 study found “that black 

ofenders obtained higher average PCRA 

scores than white ofenders, most of the 

racial diferences in the PCRA scores (about 

69%) were attributable to the criminal 

history domain[.]”43 Te remainder of the 

diference was attributable to employment 

and education, as well as social networks and 

attitudes.44 Additionally, PCRA “strongly 

predicted rearrests for both black and white 

ofenders across the instrument’s risk levels. 

Stated diferently, a given PCRA score had 

essentially the same meaning—i.e., the same 

probability of recidivism—across the two 

race groups[.]”45 

B. Pennsylvania Department 

of Corrections 

Te Pennsylvania Department of Corrections 

(PA DOC) briefed the Department of Justice 

on its risk and needs system and the research 

underlying that system. PA DOC explained 

the process used to select its suite of risk 

assessment tools and the situations in which 

those tools are deployed. 

PA DOC emphasized the need to connect 

the risk assessment tool to the population 

for which it is being used–for example, 

by developing the tool based on that 

population. PA DOC promoted the idea of 

using computers to automate the process of 

calculating risk assessment scores to improve 

scoring consistency and to allow staf to 

spend more time engaged in other benefcial 

activities. PA DOC also emphasized the 

need to train staf on how to administer risk 

assessment tools properly. 

33 
 

 

Like other organizations that provided a a randomly selected recidivist would have 

brief, PA DOC used the area under the curve received a higher risk rating than a randomly 

(AUC) to test the predictive validity of various selected non-recidivist. Te closer the AUC 

tools. AUC represents the probability that value is to 1, the more predictive it is. 

Area Under the Curve (AUC) Scores 

C. Minnesota Department 

of Corrections 

Te Minnesota Department of Corrections 

(MNDOC) briefed the Department of Justice 

on its risk and needs system, Minnesota 

Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk 

(MnSTARR assessment system) and the 

research that Minnesota found to be most 

relevant. MNDOC summarized the history 

of risk assessment tools and how current 

tools assess a defendant’s risk and treatment 

needs. MNDOC also summarized the work 

of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky,46 

who researched how cognitive biases afect 

decision-making. An example of such 

biases includes anchoring (giving too much 

weight to unimportant variables). Efective 

risk assessment tools minimize or address 

cognitive biases by relying on empirically 

validated factors. 

MNDOC also noted how current risk 

assessment tools include both static and 

dynamic risk factors. Examples of dynamic 

risk factors include education, substance 

abuse, and criminal thinking. Current tools 

also more completely integrate protective 

factors (factors that reduce the risk of 

recidivism). 

MNDOC discussed the benefts of using 

automated risk assessment tools, which 

leverage technology to allow staf simply to 

answer questions and input information. 

Such tools are more efcient, requiring less 

staf time manually calculating scores. 

MNDOC emphasized the need for 

risk assessments to be designed for the 

population for which they are being used. 

For example, a facility should not assume 

that a risk assessment based on one prison 

34 
 

population will be an accurate predictor of 

recidivism for another prison population. 

Tis is because risk factors may vary among 

prison populations (such as males and 

females). MNDOC (like PA DOC) stated 

that it is essential that an assessment tool be 

used on the same population that was used 

to develop the tool. 

D. Federal Bureau of Prisons 

In addition to the information received from 

other experts, researchers from the Bureau of 

Prisons provided a briefng on its recidivism 

risk prediction instrument, BRAVO 

(Bureau Risk Assessment Verifcation and 

Observation). BRAVO is specifcally used to 

predict serious misconduct in prison. 

Consistent with the Administrative Ofce, 

PA DOC, and MNDOC, BOP discussed the 

AUC and the implications of the AUC values 

for its instruments. Using AUC, BOP found 

that BRAVO is a more dynamic predictor of 

recidivism for male ofenders, with an AUC 

of 0.77. 

BOP noted its risk assessment tool has 

included dynamic factors for several 

decades. Tose dynamic factors include 

history of escape or attempts to escape; 

history of violence in prison; age; drug use 

while incarcerated; education level; program 

participation; contact with family and 

community; and criminal behavior while in 

prison. 

Additionally, BOP demonstrated how a 

dynamic risk needs tool called BRAVO-R, 

customized to predict recidivism, was 

superior to BRAVO at accurately predicting 

recidivism for both male (AUC of 0.79) and 

female (AUC of 0.77) ofenders and superior 

to other relevant instruments commonly 

used in predicting recidivism for both males 

and females.47 As shown in the following 

Figure, BOP compared the AUC statistic for 

BRAVO-R to the AUCs for other well-known 

tools (including PCRA) and found higher 

AUCs for BRAVO-R than those reported for 

the other state and federal risk instruments. 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

AUCs for Commonly-Used Recidivism Predictors and the BRAVO-R Risk Assessment Tool 

COMPAS LSI-R SPIN-W STRONG WRN-R PCRA BRAVO-R BRAVO-R 

(Male) (Female) 

0.67 

0.64 

0.73 0.74 

0.66 

0.73 

0.79 

0.77 

0.5 

0.55 

0.6 

0.65 

0.7 

0.75 

0.8 

0.85 

0.9 

0.95 

1 

Commonly Used Recidivism Predictor Tools 

Acronym 

Examples of Locations Where 

Full Name the Tool is Being Used 

COMPAS Correctional Offender Management Profile 

for Alternative Sanctions 

FL, MI, NM, NY, and WI 

LSI-R Level of Service Inventory – Revised CA, CO, DE, HI, IA, IL, NE, 

PA, and WV 

SPIN-W Service Planning Instrument – Women CT 

STRONG Static Risk and Offender Needs Guide WA 

WRN-R Wisconsin Risk and Needs – Revised WI 

PCRA Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts for Federal 

Probation 

The six recidivism predictor tools shown on the above graph were selected for comparison based on their 

level of use and the existence of a published AUC, which facilitates direct comparison. 

BOP also emphasized that a risk assessment 

tool must be validated on each population 

for which it is used. For example, federal 

ofenders are diferent from state ofenders in 

material ways and those diferences should 

be refected in the RNA. 

E. Common Principles 

Several common principles arose from the 

expert briefngs. For example, multiple 

briefers emphasized that risk assessment 

tools should be developed using the 

36 
populations for which they ultimately will be 

used. Likewise, risk assessment tools should 

be statistically validated on the populations 

for which they will be used. 

Te experts also agreed that risk assessment 

tools should include a mixture of static 

and dynamic risk factors. Finally, decisionmakers should continually improve risk 

assessment tools based on ongoing research 

regarding the predictive value of certain 

risk factors. Te AUC is widely used to test 

the predictive validity of risk assessment 

tools. Tese principles were instructive in 

developing an efective and robust risk and 

needs assessment system. 

Common Principles from Federal and State Authority Briefngs 

• Develop Tools Using Appropriate Inmate Population 

• Validate Tools on Appropriate Inmate Population 

• Deploy Static and Dynamic Factors 

• Continually Improve Tools Trough Ongoing Research 

37 
NOTES 

1 Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs 

Assessment Tools 3-6 (Jay P. Singh et al. 

eds., 2018). 

2 Id. at 7-8. 

3

 Tomas H. Cohen, et al., Te Federal PostConviction Risk Assessment Instrument: A 

Tool for Predicting Recidivism for Ofenders 

on Federal Supervision, in Handbook of 

Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment 

Tools 77-100 (Jay P. Singh et al. eds., 2018). 

4

 Craig Haney, Te Psychological Impact of 

Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison 

Adjustment, From Prison to Home: the 

Effects of Incarceration and Reentry 

on Children, Family and Communities 

Project (2001). 

5

 18 U.S.C. § 3632(a)(1). 

6

 18 U.S.C. § 3632(a)(4). 

7

 18 U.S.C. § 3632(b)(2). 

8 Supra note 1. 

9

 18 U.S.C. § 3631(b)(4)(C). 

10 Faye S. Taxman, Risk assessment: Where 

do we go from here?, in Handbook of 

Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment 

Tools 271-284 (Jay P. Singh et al. eds., 2018). 

11 Risk-need-responsivity model for ofender 

assessment and rehabilitation 2007-06, 

Public Safety Canada, https://www. 

publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-ndrspnsvty/index-en.aspx (last modifed Jan. 

31, 2018). 

12 18 U.S.C. § 3621(h)(6). 

13 James Bonta & Douglas A. Andrews, The 

Psychology of Criminal Conduct 180-

181 (6th ed. 2017). 

14 See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(5). 

15 18 U.S.C. § 3631(b)(4). 

16 Id. 

17 Scott D. Camp, Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, A Risk Assessment Tool for 

Recidivism by Federal Inmates (2018). 

18 American Educational Research Association 

et al., Standards for Educational and 

Psychological Testing (1985). 

19 While the FSA does not explicitly require 

the Attorney General to create a race-neutral 

RNA system, 18 U.S.C. § 3631(b)(4)(E) 

requires the Attorney General to periodically 

conduct “an evaluation of the rates of 

recidivism among similarly classifed prisoners 

to identify any unwarranted disparities, 

including disparities among similarly classifed 

prisoners of diferent demographic groups, in 

such rates.” 

20 Jennifer L. Skeem & Christopher T. 

Lowenkamp, Risk, Race, and Recidivism: 

Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact. 54 

Criminology 680-712 (2016). 

21 Anthony W. Flores et al., False Positives, 

False Negatives, and False Analyses: A 

Rejoinder to Machine Bias: Tere’s sofware 

used across the country to predict future 

criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. 80 

Federal Probation 38 (2016). 

22 Julia Angwin et al., Machine bias: Tere’s 

sofware used across the country to predict 

38 
 

future criminals. And it’s biased against 

Blacks. ProPublica (2016). 

23 Supra note 21. 

24 Richard Berk et al., Fairness in Criminal 

Justice Risk Assessments: Te State of the Art, 

Sociological Methods & Research 1 

(2018). Found at https://journals.sagepub. 

com/doi/full/10.1177/0049124118782533. 

25 Id. at 17-24. 

26 Christopher Baird, A Question of Evidence: 

A Critique of Risk Assessment Models Used in 

the Justice System, Nat’l Council on Crime 

and Delinquency (2009). 

27 Tony Ward & Shadd Maruna, 

Rehabilitation: Beyond the Risk 

Paradigm, 48-49 (2007). 

28 Supra note 26. 

29 Supra note 13. 

30 Faye S. Taxman et al., Construct and 

Predictive Validity of Criminal Tinking 

Scales. 38(2) Criminal Justice and 

Behavior 174–87 (2011). 

31 Alese Wooditch et al., Which Criminogenic 

Need Changes Are Most Important in 

Promoting Desistance From Crime and 

Substance Use? 41(3) Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 276-99 (2014). 

32 Supra 26 at page 3. 

33 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2017 

1 – 44 (2019), https://www.bjs.gov/index. 

cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6546. 

34 Id. at 22. 

35 Tests of Adult Basic Education, Data 

Recognition Corporation (2019), https:// 

tabetest.com. 

36 Tifany M. Jones et al., Modeling life course 

pathways from adverse childhood experiences 

to adult mental health. 80 Child Abuse & 

Neglect 32–40 (2018). 

37 John A. Swets et al., Better Decisions through 

Science. 283(4) Scientific American 82-87 

(2000). 

38 See An Overview of the Federal Post 

Conviction Risk Assessment, Administrative 

Ofce of the United States Courts Probation 

and Pretrial Services Ofce (June 2018), 

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fles/ 

overview_of_the_post_conviction_risk_ 

assessment_0.pdf (last visited May 13, 2019). 

39 Id. at 9. 

40 Id. at 17. 

41 See Federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment 

Risk Compendium, Administrative Ofce 

of the United States Courts Probation and 

Pretrial Services Ofce (March 2018). 

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fles/ 

federal_post_conviction_risk_assessment_ 

research_compendium_0.pdf (last visited 

May 13, 2019). 

42 Supra note 3. 

43 Id. 

44 Jennifer L. Skeem and Christopher T. 

Lowenkamp, Risk, Race, and Recidivism: 

Predictive Bias and Disparate Impact 

(2016), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 

full/10.1111/1745-9125.12123. (last visited 

May 24, 2019). 

39 
45 Supra note 41 at 3. 

46 See, e.g., Daniel Kahneman and Amos 

Tversky, Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). 

47 Supra note 1. 

40 
41 
Chapter 3: 

The First Step Act of 2018 

Risk and Needs Assessment System 

Introduction 

I

n late March 2019, the National Institute 

of Justice (NIJ) contracted with Dr. 

Zachary Hamilton and Dr. Grant Duwe1 

to serve as consultants for the development 

and validation of a risk and needs assessment 

system to be implemented by the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) pursuant to the 

First Step Act (FSA or the Act). Hamilton 

and Duwe began their work by attending a 

series of listening sessions organized by NIJ. 

Moreover, they participated in numerous 

conference calls with staf from the BOP, NIJ, 

and the Independent Review Committee in 

which they discussed data availability and 

background information on BOP policies 

and practices. 

Hamilton and Duwe began reviewing 

research material that BOP Ofce of 

Research and Evaluation (ORE) staf had 

prepared on Bureau Risk and Verifcation 

Observation (BRAVO), the BOP’s current 

classifcation system,2

 and the BRAVORecidivism (BRAVO-R) tool. BRAVO-R is 

a risk assessment instrument developed by 

ORE and designed to predict recidivism—a 

new arrest or return to federal prison within 

three years afer release from prison—for the 

BOP inmate population. BRAVO-R, which 

contains both static and dynamic items, is a 

modifed version of the BRAVO assessment 

instrument the BOP currently uses to predict 

misconduct for custody-level classifcation 

purposes. 

In May, the NIJ experts and BOP staf held 

a series of conference calls to exchange 

contextual information regarding quantitative 

data available for the development of risk 

and needs tools. Te NIJ experts and BOP 

ORE and Reentry Services Division staf 

attended the weekly calls. Additional 

conference calls were also completed with 

BOP reentry staf to assess the availability 

of needs assessment data. On May 21, 2019, 

Hamilton visited the BOP’s Designation 

and Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) 

in Grand Prairie, Texas. At the DSCC, 

Hamilton met with custody designation staf 

responsible for gathering many of the data 

collected about inmates admitted to BOP 

facilities. Hamilton observed the assessment 

process, learned how the BOP uses its 

classifcation assessment, and identifed 

other routinely collected data that could be 

used to develop and/or improve the risk and 

needs assessment system. 

In early May, Hamilton and Duwe received 

access to de-identifed data, including threeyear rearrest data, on BOP inmates. Te 

dataset contained 278,940 BOP inmates 

released from BOP facilities between 2009 

and 2015. Te dataset included only those 

42 
inmates released to the community. It 

excluded released inmates who died during 

the three-year follow-up period and inmates 

scheduled for deportation. In addition to 

three-year rearrest data, the dataset contained 

a large number of variables relevant for the 

assessment of risk and needs. In particular, 

the dataset contained measures commonly 

associated with recidivism risk, such as 

criminal history, demographic characteristics 

such as age, prison misconduct, and 

participation in programming. Te dataset 

also included measures used in both BRAVO 

and the recently-developed BRAVO-R. 

As described below in more detail, Hamilton 

and Duwe used the BOP datasets to develop 

and validate a new tool, the Prisoner 

Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk 

and Needs (PATTERN).3

 Te PATTERN 

instrument is an assessment designed 

to predict the likelihood of general and 

violent recidivism for all BOP inmates over 

a three-year follow-up period. As required 

by the FSA,4 the PATTERN assessment 

instrument contains static risk factors as well 

as dynamic items that are associated with 

either an increase or a reduction in risk. Like 

BRAVO-R, PATTERN is a gender-specifc 

assessment providing predictive models, or 

scales, developed and validated for males 

and females separately. Tese eforts make 

the tool more gender responsive, as prior 

fndings have indicated the importance of 

gender-specifc modeling.5 

Operating under an extremely short timeline, 

the development of PATTERN is a signifcant 

advancement in the U.S. Department of 

Justice’s (the Department’s) implementation 

of the FSA for the following reasons: 

• Te PATTERN assessment tool achieves 

a high level of predictive performance 

and surpasses what is commonly found 

for risk assessment tools for correctional 

populations in the United States; 

• Te PATTERN instrument makes great 

use of dynamic factors, enabling inmates 

to work to make behavioral changes while 

in prison; 

• PATTERN’s predictive performance 

reduces bias and aims to improve parity 

across race and ethnic classifcations; and 

• Te PATTERN instrument is a single 

assessment, incorporating a design that 

seeks to encourage risk reduction behavior 

over time by inmates. 

Te following section briefy reviews the 

BRAVO-R assessment tool from which 

PATTERN builds. Te next section then 

discusses the methods used to develop and 

validate PATTERN. And the following section 

details the enhanced predictive performance 

results for PATTERN. Finally, the chapter 

discusses the needs assessment component 

of the Risk and Needs Assessment System. 

I. BRAVO-R 

Te BRAVO-R instrument is, as noted 

above, a modifed version of the existing 

classifcation assessment the BOP created 

in the 1970s and has updated periodically 

as part of regular reviews. Te current 

43 
classifcation assessment, the BRAVO 

instrument, enables staf to perform an initial 

assessment at the DSCC once they have 

received the sentencing documentation from 

the U.S. Probation Ofce.6

 A reclassifcation 

assessment is completed afer an inmate has 

been in prison for seven months and every 

12 months thereafer. Te initial assessment 

contains items that measure whether the 

inmate has a detainer (a separate pending 

sentence of proceeding), ofense severity, 

criminal history, history of escape/attempts, 

history of violence, voluntary surrender/precommitment,7

 age, drug use, and education 

level. Te reclassifcation assessment 

contains these items along with the following 

additional measures: percentage of time 

served, program participation, living skills, 

prison misconduct type and frequency, 

and family/community ties. Terefore, 

the BRAVO instrument contains not only 

static factors, but also dynamic items that 

measure whether risk has increased or 

decreased while an inmate is confned. Te 

same version of both assessments—initial 

and reclassifcation—are given to males and 

females, however the groups are measured 

using diferent cut points to account for 

gender diferences in risk. 

Taking advantage of the overlap between 

misconduct and recidivism, the BOP 

recalibrated its classifcation tool to predict 

recidivism once an inmate is released into 

the community.8

 Similar to the BRAVO 

instrument, the BRAVO-R instrument 

contains initial and reclassifcation 

assessments, which are the same for males 

and females with diferent cut points. 

BRAVO-R, however, contains three fewer 

items than BRAVO. More specifcally, the 

detainer, ofense severity, and percentage of 

time served items were removed because the 

BOP found them to be inconsistent measures 

in predictive accuracy. 

Analyses performed by BOP ORE show that 

BRAVO performs very well in predicting 

misconduct for the BOP population. 

Independent analyses conducted by the NIJ 

consultants reveal that BRAVO-R performs 

similarly well in predicting recidivism. 

II. Methodology for Developing 

PATTERN 

In an efort to expand, enhance, and 

provide an assessment that meets the FSA’s 

requirements, the NIJ experts were tasked 

with the development and creation of a risk 

and needs assessment tool. Trough calls 

and site visits, every attempt was made to 

identify all available data elements that could 

be used in the development of the risk and 

needs tools. Using available, quantifable 

data, the NIJ experts, in consultation with 

the Department and considering the advice 

of the Independent Review Committee, 

developed PATTERN, the risk and needs 

assessment tool that will be deployed in 

BOP facilities. PATTERN builds from 

the BRAVO-R tool, which was already 

quite good at predicting recidivism. Te 

analyses used to develop PATTERN refect 

recent advancements in risk assessment 

tool construction adding both gender and 

outcome (i.e., general and violent recidivism) 

specifcity. Recognizing the FSA’s emphasis 

on using dynamic factors, additional items 

44 
relating to an inmate’s program participation 

and performance were added to the possible 

predictors. PATTERN’s prediction models 

were then developed and assessed for 

predictive validity and bias. Te details of the 

analysis plan are provided below. 

A. Data and Sample 

As indicated, several factors were selected 

for testing from BRAVO/BRAVO-R, while 

others were created based on BOP-provided 

indicators. BRAVOBRAVO-R indicators 

selected for the PATTERN models included 

criminal history score, history of violence, 

history of escapes, voluntary surrender, 

and education score.9

 Additional indicators, 

including several dynamic factors, were 

also developed using routinely collected 

BOP data elements. Te new or redesigned 

dynamic predictors include:10 

• Infraction convictions (any), a count 

measure11 identifying the number of 

infractions resulting in a guilty fnding 

that the inmate has incurred during the 

current incarceration.12 

• Infraction convictions (serious and 

violent), a count measure identifying the 

number of serious infractions (identifed 

as being at the 100 or 200 level)13 resulting 

in a conviction that the inmate has 

incurred during the current incarceration. 

• An overall measure of the number 

of benefcial programs completed by 

the inmate (for example, education, 

parenting, drug treatment, and technical 

and vocational programs), converted into 

ordinal categories. 

• Te number of technical and vocational 

courses created as a count metric. 

• Federal industry employment, also known 

as UNICOR, was indicated “yes” if the 

individual worked in UNICOR during his 

or her current incarceration. 

• Drug treatment was assessed as a 

categorical measure, identifying 

programming need based on the BRAVO 

drug/alcohol abuse indicator and further 

assessing residential, non-residential, 

or no treatment completed during the 

current incarceration. 

• Drug education completed during the 

current incarceration. 

• And an ofender’s willingness to use 

income earned during incarceration 

for payment toward victim restitution 

and dependents was indicated with the 

created “non-compliance with fscal 

responsibility” measure.14 

Te additional or redesigned static factors 

include: 

• Age at frst conviction,15 an ordinal 

measure identifying the number of years 

between the individual’s date of birth and 

his or her frst recorded conviction by 

BOP assessment staf. 

• Age at the time of assessment, calculated 

as the diference between the ofender’s 

current age when the BRAVO assessment 

is conducted and an individual’s date of 

birth. 

45 
• If the crime of conviction that resulted 

in the current BOP incarceration was 

violent,16 a “yes” response was identifed 

in the instant ofense measure. 

• Finally, a “yes” response was indicated 

for an individual identifed as a “sex 

ofender” based on that individual’s initial 

assessment under the Walsh criteria.17 

To evaluate the PATTERN development 

sample, the NIJ experts computed basic 

statistics describing the sample. Eligible 

members of the sample included those 

who were released from a BOP facility to a 

location in the United States and had received 

a BRAVO assessment. Tis provided an 

eligible sample size of 222,970 individuals. 

Consistent with prior risk assessment 

development, continuous measures were 

converted to ordinal, categorical indicators. 

Category ranges were constructed based on 

the prevalence of responses and the impact 

on recidivism. Response prevalence for the 

development sample is provided in Table 1. 

While a large pool of items was considered, 

to provide a concise review of model 

descriptive statistics, only items selected via 

model prediction algorithms are displayed.18 

Table 1. Sample Descriptive Statistics (N = 222,970) 

MEASURE PERCENT OF SAMPLE 

Age at frst arrest 

>= 35 14 

< 35, >= 25 15 

< 25, >= 18 52 

< 18 18 

Age at time of assessment 

> 60 4 

< 50, <= 60 11 

> 40, <= 50 22 

> 29, <= 40 38 

> 25, <= 29 14 

>= 18, <= 25 11 

Infraction convictions (any) 

0 63 

> 0, <= 1 17 

> 1, <= 2 8 

> 2 12 

46 
MEASURE PERCENT OF SAMPLE 

Infraction convictions (serious and violent) 

0 82 

> 0, <= 1 12 

> 1, <= 2 3 

> 2 3 

Number of programs completed (any) 

0 49 

1 15 

> 1, <= 3 16 

> 3, <= 10 15 

> 10 5 

Number of technical or vocational courses 

> 1 8 

> 0, <= 1 10 

0 82 

Federal industry employment (UNICOR) 

Yes 

No 

8 

92 

Drug treatment while incarcerated 

No need indicated 22 

Completed residential drug treatment during incarceration 8 

Completed drug treatment during incarceration 13 

Need indicated but no treatment during incarceration 57 

Drug education while incarcerated 

No 

Yes 

60 

40 

Non-Compliance with fnancial responsibility 

No 

Yes 

97 

3 

Instant ofense violent 

No 

Yes 

71 

29 

47 
MEASURE PERCENT OF SAMPLE 

Sex ofender (Walsh) 

No 

Yes 

90 

10 

BRAVO-R Initial: Criminal History Score19 

0-1 points 33 

2-3 points 14 

4-6 points 17 

7-9 points 13 

10-12 points 9 

13+ points 14 

BRAVO-R Initial: History of Violence 

None 58 

>10 years minor 4 

>15 years serious 6 

5-10 years minor 5 

10-15 years serious 5 

<5 years minor 6 

5-10 years serious 8 

<5 years serious 6 

BRAVO-R Initial: History of Escapes 

None 74 

>10 years minor 4 

5-10 years minor 3 

<5 years minor or any serious 5 

BRAVO-R Initial: Voluntary Surrender 

Yes 

No 

25 

75 

BRAVO-R Initial: Education Score 

HS degree or GED - Verifed 67 

Enrolled and progressing in GED 15 

No verifed degree and not participating in GED program 18 

Sample 

Training 

Test 

67 

33 

48 
 

MEASURE PERCENT OF SAMPLE 

Gender 

Male 

Female 

85 

15 

Recidivism 

General 47 

Violent 15 

B. Assessment Construction and 

Validation 

Te NIJ consultants used a dataset of all 

BOP releases from 2009 to 2015 to develop 

and validate PATTERN. Te vast majority 

of items within the dataset were drawn 

from SENTRY, the BOP’s centralized inmate 

management system. Te BOP also provided 

data on recidivism, which was measured as a 

new arrest or return to BOP custody within 

three years of release. 

Te NIJ experts used both split-sample and 

K-fold procedures to develop and validate the 

predictive models. Te classic split-sample 

procedure is a simpler approach in which 

data are partitioned into two equal halves, 

and one subset is used for training while the 

other is used to test how well the tool predicts 

recidivism. Tis method is limited in that it is 

unable to use all available data for each step, 

potentially resulting in prediction instability. 

Split-sample procedures are also limited in 

that the training set is smaller than what is 

otherwise achieved via the K-fold method, 

resulting in a less accurate fnal model. 

Despite these limitations, the split-sample 

procedure also makes it possible to carry out 

an objective, “apples-to-apples” comparison 

with BRAVO-R on a test (or validation) set. 

To create the PATTERN instrument, the 

NIJ experts placed all BOP inmates released 

between 2009 and 2013 in the training set 

(i.e., the data used to develop the predictive 

models). As shown in Table 1 above, roughly 

two-thirds (66 percent) of the development 

sample were included in the training set, and 

the remaining one-third (33 percent) was 

reserved for the testing sample. 

Gender is also relevant when trying to create 

an ideal assessment tool. Gender responsivity 

has been regarded as an essential component 

of risk instrument development.20 Genderresponsive risk metrics are developed by 

separating males and females into individual 

samples to produce gender-specifc 

prediction models, which improves both 

the context and accuracy of prediction.21 To 

accommodate gender-specifc modeling, two 

samples were also subdivided to create male- 

(85 percent) and female-only (15 percent) 

samples. 

Most risk assessments utilize Burgess, or 

unweighted, scoring schematics.22 Such 

49 
schemes treat each item equally in predicting 

recidivism, and the overall risk score is then 

summed. Based on fndings of previous 

studies,23 analytically weighting assessment 

items improves predictive accuracy, and this 

was the method adopted for PATTERN. 

Related to gender-responsive modeling 

techniques, outcome specifcity is also 

a concern. Instruments used to predict 

general recidivism may not be accurate if 

they are used only to identify a specifc type 

of reofending.24 To accommodate outcome 

specifcity, two PATTERN models were 

computed to predict general recidivism (any 

arrest or return to BOP custody following 

release) and violent recidivism (violent 

arrests following release) within three years. 

As indicated in Table 1, the base recidivism 

rate for all ofenders is roughly 47 percent for 

general and 15 percent for violent recidivism. 

Te NIJ experts used this same process to 

develop predictive models for general and 

violent recidivism for males and females 

separately. More specifcally, the team created 

four distinct predictive models: 1) general 

recidivism for males; 2) general recidivism 

for females; 3) violent recidivism for males; 

and 4) violent recidivism for females. 

C. Predictive Performance Metrics 

Model predictive validity, also known as 

discrimination, measures the degree to 

which an assessment separates the recidivists 

from the non-recidivists. One of the most 

widely used metrics for evaluating predictive 

performance is the area under the curve 

(AUC).25 

D. Evaluating Predictive Performance 

on the Test Set 

Relying on the AUC as the primary metric 

for evaluating predictive validity, the 

research team analyzed how the PATTERN 

instruments performed in predicting 

recidivism on the test set, which consisted 

of inmates released between 2014 and 

2015. More specifcally, risk points for each 

instrument (that previously were created in 

the training set) were calculated for subjects 

in the test set. AUC results showed how each 

assessment performed in predicting general 

and violent recidivism for males and females. 

Further analyses were completed to assess 

potential issues related to racial and ethnic 

neutrality. 

E. Development of Risk Level Cut 

Points 

Consistent with the FSA’s requirement to 

“classify each prisoner as having minimum, 

low, medium, or high risk for recidivism,” 

18 U.S.C. § 3632(a)(1), the NIJ consultants 

identifed risk level categories (RLCs) via cut 

points, which are risk score thresholds that 

place individuals into four categories: high, 

medium, low, or minimum. While there are 

several known methods for creating RLC 

cut points, PATTERN’s cut points were set 

around the recidivism base rate. Briefy, 

each item response (see Table 2) results in 

a score, and an individual’s response scores 

are summed to compute a total score. Te 

total scores for individuals are analyzed, and 

their RLC is ascertained based on the score’s 

reference to all other released inmates in 

the sample. An “aggregate,” or collection of 

50 
scores, can be identifed by determining the 

distribution of BOP releasees’ total scores. 

Typically, this aggregation approximates a 

normal distribution in which most of the 

scores are near the average. 

Cut points were next established to 

determine an individual’s RLC. To identify 

which individuals are high, medium, low, 

and minimum risk, PATTERN uses the base 

rate, which is roughly the “average” rate of 

recidivism for the entire BOP development 

data set. Te cut point is then set at a value 

above or below the base rate. As an example, 

let us assume a risk instrument had scores 

ranging from -50 to 100, where the average 

risk score was 25 with an accompanying 40 

percent recidivism base rate (see Figure 1). 

To provide an objective understanding of 

what low risk means for this population, one 

could then identify the risk score associated 

with a 20 percent probability of reofending 

(or half the base rate) and set that as the 

mark for low risk. Using this example, if the 

average risk score is 25, and the risk score 

associated with 20 percent probability is 5, 

then any individual scoring 5 or less would 

be classifed as low risk (see Figure 2). 

Similarly, the BOP base rates for general 

and violent recidivism were used to help 

determine how inmates could be assigned to 

the four risk level categories for PATTERN. 

Specifcally, the low risk threshold was set at 

roughly half the base rate (or 24 percent) for 

general recidivism and just over two-thirds 

the base rate for violent recidivism (or 12 

percent). Te minimum risk category was set 

at just under one-quarter of the base rate (or 

10 percent) for general recidivism and onethird of the base rate for violent recidivism 

(or 5 percent). Te high risk category was 

set at roughly two-thirds above the base rate 

(or 80 percent) for general recidivism, and 

just over twice the base rate (or 33 percent) 

for violent recidivism. Tose individuals 

not identifed as minimum, low, or high 

risk were classifed as medium risk. Tis 

specifc set of cut points was one of nearly 

a dozen examined and tested. Te current 

cut points endeavor to set the appropriate 

balance between maximizing the number 

of inmates eligible to earn early release 

time credits and to participate in evidencebased programming that would reduce 

their recidivism risk to a low or minimum 

category, while also considering public safety 

and the risk of recidivism upon release. 

Te four categories were created for both 

general and violent recidivism risk scores. A 

fnal set of categories was created where an 

individual must be identifed as minimum 

risk of both general and violent recidivism to 

be classifed as minimum in the fnal RLCs. 

An individual that was identifed as lower 

than medium risk in both the general and 

violent models was labeled as low risk in 

the fnal RLC. Tose individuals identifed 

as high risk in either the general or violent 

models were classifed as high risk in the 

fnal RLCs. Finally, those not classifed as 

minimum, low, or high risk were identifed 

as medium risk in the fnal RLCs. 

To prevent over-classifcation of female 

ofenders, this process was completed 

separately for male and female samples, using 

the gender-neutral base rates for general 

51 
Figure 1. Example Risk Score Distribution 

Average Risk Score 

Lowest Risk Scores 

Higher Risk Scores 

-50 25 100 

Lowest Risk Score Average Risk Score Highest Risk Score 

Figure 2. Illustration of Aggregate Risk Score Distribution and Cut Point Creation 

20% 40% 

Base Rate 

Low 

Risk 

1⁄2  ̃e 

Base Rate 

5 25 

Low Average 

Cut Point Risk Score 

52 
and violent recidivism (47 and 15 percent, 

respectively). Once again, the NIJ experts 

analyzed the impact of the RLCs on race/ 

ethnicity, including diagnostic odds ratios 

to assess risk level category discrimination 

between FSA-eligible and non-eligible RLCs. 

In order to identify potential sources of bias, 

a relative rate index (RRI) was computed 

to assess the magnitude of disparity across 

risk categories. Te RRI compares the rate, 

or proportion, of individuals across race/ 

ethnicity groups in the RLCs of PATTERN.26 

III. PATTERN Results 

Tis section provides the fndings from the 

developed PATTERN general and violent 

risk models, as well as the created RLCs. 

Results from the prediction models are 

displayed frst, with comparisons between 

the PATTERN and BRAVO-R models, 

showing the achievements of PATTERN. 

Ten, the RLC proportions and category 

recidivism rates are presented. Finally, 

tests and comparisons for racial and ethnic 

neutrality are provided. 

A. PATTERN Risk Prediction Models 

Four risk models were created for the BOP 

sample of individuals released.27 Table 2 

provides the response scoring for each of the 

four models created. 

Each column represents a diferent genderand outcome-specifc prediction model. 

Cell values represent response scores, where 

blank cells indicate items not identifed as 

predictive for a given model. Larger values 

indicate greater prediction strength for 

a given model. Of note is the overlap in 

predictors; they are more common than 

distinct across models. However, where some 

items distinctly predict for certain models, 

fndings are consistent with expectations of 

recidivism specifcity. 

Table 2. Points Assigned in the PATTERN Risk Assessment Models 

MEASURE 

General Violent 

Male Female Male Female 

Age at frst conviction 

>= 35 

< 35, >= 25 

< 25, >= 18 

< 18 

0 

4 

8 

12 

0 

5 

10 

15 

0 

2 

4 

6 

0 

1 

2 

3 

53 
MEASURE 

General Violent 

Male Female Male Female 

Age at time of assessment 

> 60 0 0 0 0 

> 50, <= 60 6 3 3 1 

> 40, <= 50 12 6 6 2 

> 29, <= 40 18 9 9 3 

> 25, <= 29 24 12 12 4 

>= 18, <= 25 30 15 15 5 

Infraction convictions (any) 

0 0 0 0 0 

> 0, <= 1 3 2 2 1 

> 1, <= 2 6 4 4 2 

> 2 9 6 6 3 

Infraction convictions (serious and violent) 

0 0 0 0 0 

> 0, <= 1 2 2 2 2 

> 1, <= 2 4 4 4 4 

> 2 6 6 6 6 

Number of programs completed (any) 

0 0 0 0 0 

1 -3 -2 -1 -1 

> 1, <= 3 -6 -4 -2 -2 

> 3, <= 10 -9 -6 -3 -3 

> 10 -12 -8 -4 -4 

Number of technical or vocational courses 

0 -2 -4 

> 0, <= 1 -1 -2 

>1 0 0 

Federal industry employment (UNICOR) 

Yes 

No 

-1 

0 

-1 

0 

54 
MEASURE 

General Violent 

Male Female Male Female 

Drug treatment while incarcerated 

No need indicated -6 -9 -3 -3 

Completed residential drug treatment during 

incarceration 

-4 -6 -2 -2 

Completed drug treatment during incarceration -2 -3 -1 -1 

Need indicated but no treatment during 

incarceration 

0 0 0 0 

Drug education while incarcerated 

No 

Yes 

0 

-1 

0 

-1 

0 

-1 

Non-compliance with fnancial responsibility 

No 

Yes 

0 

3 

Instant ofense violent 

No 

Yes 

0 

4 

0 

5 

0 

3 

Sex ofender (Walsh) 

No 

Yes 

0 

1 

0 

1 

BRAVO Initial: Criminal History Score 

0-1 points 0 0 0 0 

2-3 points 6 6 2 2 

4-6 points 12 12 4 4 

7-9 points 18 18 6 6 

10-12 points 24 24 8 8 

13+ points 30 30 10 10 

BRAVO Initial: 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 

55 
MEASURE 

General Violent 

Male Female Male Female 

5-10 years serious 

<5 years serious 

6 

7 

6 

7 

6 

7 

6 

7 

BRAVO Initial: History of Escapes 

None 

>10 years minor 

5-10 years minor 

<5 years minor or any serious 

0 

2 

4 

6 

0 

2 

4 

6 

0 

1 

2 

3 

0 

2 

4 

6 

BRAVO Initial: Voluntary Surrender 

Yes 

No 

-12 

0 

-9 

0 

-1 

0 

-2 

0 

BRAVO Initial: Education Score 

HS degree or GED - Verifed 

Enrolled and progressing in GED 

No verifed degree and not participating in 

GED program 

0 – Lowest 

1 – Low/Moderate 

3 - Moderate 

5 – High 

7 – Greatest 

-2 

-1 

0 

0 

1 

3 

5 

7 

-2 

-1 

0 

0 

1 

3 

5 

7 

B. Predictive Validity 

Te strength of the predictive validity is of 

key importance. As described previously, 

predictive validity is measured through AUC 

values. As shown in Figure 3, PATTERN 

achieves a higher level of predictability and 

surpasses common risk assessment tools for 

correctional population in the U.S. 

Simply put, an AUC of .5 means there is a 50 

percent probability that the result is accurate, 

which is the same as a coin toss. An AUC of 

1.0 means there is a 100 percent probability 

in the result, which is essentially perfection. 

Many risk assessments in the United States 

have an AUC in the .6 to .75 range. Afer 

computing the test sets’ total scores using 

the PATTERN and BRAVO-R models, the 

predictive validity was compared. Using the 

two recidivism types (general and violent), 

AUC values were computed for males and 

females. Given that BRAVO-R has two tools, 

one at intake and one for reclassifcation, 

scores were combined so that if an individual 

possessed a reclassifcation score, it was 

56 
Figure 3. AUC Values for Tools Used in the United States 

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

Violent Male Female

 ̃e Average 

AUC of Other 

Tools is .684 

PATTERN is 

15% More 

Predictive 

 ̃an Other 

Tools 0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

COMPAS LSI-R LSI:SV RMS SPIN-W STRONG WRN WRN_R PCRA PCRA PATTERN PATTERN

0.67

0.64

0.57

0.67

0.73 0.74

0.67 0.66

0.73

0.76

0.8 0.79

Table 3. Te PATTERN and BRAVO-R AUC Comparisons 

Model 

General Violent 

Male Female Male Female 

PATTERN AUC Testing Dataset 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 

BRAVO-R AUC Testing Dataset 0.77 0.77 0.75 0.76 

AUC Enhancement 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 

used. By contrast, an initial score was used 

only if a reclassifcation score was not 

available for a given ofender. Findings from 

these analyses are presented in Table 3. 

When examining the models’ AUC values, 

PATTERN demonstrates a consistent, 

modest improvement when compared to 

BRAVO-R, which was already a high-scoring 

tool. Specifcally, there was a 1 to 3 percent 

improvement in AUC using the PATTERN 

model scoring. 

Next, cut points were established for 

PATTERN based on the analytic placement 

method previously described.28 Test set 

fndings are presented in Table 4. As 

indicated, cut points were developed for the 

general and violent models and for females 

and males separately. Te presented fndings 

below show the model cut points, percentage 

of the population, and recidivism rates for 

each RLC. 

Importantly, given the scoring for all four 

assessment models (see Table 2) and the cut 

point system developed to assign risk levels 

(see Table 4), 99 percent of ofenders have 

the ability to become eligible for early release 

57 
Table 4. Te PATTERN RLC Cut Point Scores, Population Distribution and Recidivism Rates 

RLC Cut Point Population Recid. 

Any Male Female 

Minimum 10 9 20 10 

Low 33 29 28 32 

Medium 45 45 17 51 

High 35 73 

RLC Cut Point Population Recid. 

Violent Male Female 

Minimum 21 22 49 4 

Low 35 30 35 19 

Medium 40 35 9 32 

High 8 44 

Note: Te base rate is 47 percent for general recidivism and 15 percent for violent recidivism. 

through the accumulation of earned time 

credits even though they may not be eligible 

immediately upon admission to prison. Tat 

is, as ofenders participate in evidence-based 

programming, carry out work assignments, 

and complete courses, nearly all have the 

ability to reduce their risk score to the low 

risk category. 

Next, the RLC proportions and each 

category’s associated rate of recidivism 

were examined (see Table 5). Nearly half of 

the population (48 percent) identifed as 

low or minimum risk and thus eligible for 

early release under the FSA through earned 

time credits. When examining recidivism 

proportions, the proportion of recidivism 

increases as risk increases from minimum 

to high. General recidivism rates increase, 

on average, 22 percent with each successive 

RLC category and an average increase of 10 

percent. Odds ratios comparing minimum 

and low risk ofenders to those ofenders 

who are not FSA eligible, or to those in 

the medium and high risk categories, were 

identifed. With regard to general recidivism, 

minimum and low risk ofenders possess 86 

percent reduced odds of recidivating, and 

88 percent reduced odds of recidivating 

violently, as compared to medium and high 

risk ofenders. Collectively, these fndings 

show that a substantial proportion of the 

population is deemed eligible for early 

release through the accumulation of FSA 

earned time credits, and the odds ratio 

statistics identify a substantial demarcation 

in recidivism rates between early-releaseeligible (minimum and low) and noneligible (medium and high) risk categories. 

Furthermore, the RLC levels identify their 

achieved goal, balancing public safety 

concerns (i.e., a low rate of recidivism) while 

58 
Table 5. Te PATTERN RLC Sample Proportions and Recidivism 

PATTERN 

RLC Population Recid. 

Violent 

Recid. Recid OR Violent OR 

Minimum 20 9 1 

Low 28 31 6 0.14 0.12 

Medium 17 51 13 

High 35 73 30 

Table 6. Te PATTERN RLC Gender Comparisons 

PATTERN Population Recidivism 

Recidivism 

OR 

Violent 

Recidivism Violent OR 

RLC Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 

Minimum 17 38 10 9 1 1 

Low 25 42 30 35 0.14 0.16 7 4 0.13 0.19 

Medium 18 14 50 60 14 11 

High 40 6 73 74 31 17 

simultaneously maximizing the proportion 

of individuals eligible for early release 

through the accumulation of earned time 

credits. 

Next, gender diferences were examined 

using the PATTERN RLCs. Te population 

proportions and recidivism fndings are 

presented in Table 6. In contrast to the 

overall RLC breakdown (see Table 5) there 

is a substantial distinction in population 

proportions when comparing males and 

females. Specifcally, 42 percent of males 

versus approximately 79 percent of females 

are identifed to be eligible for early release 

under the FSA through the accumulation 

of earned time credits. However, the rates 

of both general and violent recidivism are 

similar across all four RLCs. Furthermore, 

the odds ratios identity similar prediction 

strength with minimum and low risk males 

identify 86 percent reduced odds of general 

and 87 percent reduced odds of violent 

recidivism; where FSA eligible females 

identify 84 percent reduced odds of general 

and 81 percent reduced odds of violent 

recidivism. Collectively, these fndings 

indicate gender parity when examining 

recidivism by RLC category. 

C. Race/Ethnicity 

Te fnal set of tests examined potential issues 

related to racial and ethnic neutrality. While 

nearly all indicators likely to be used within 

a risk assessment model have the potential 

59 
to be correlated with socio-economic 

status (SES), race, and/or ethnicity, recent 

fnding29 have indicated that bias is reduced 

when assessments include dynamic needs 

indicators. Dynamic programmatic needs 

measures tend to have lower associations 

with SES/race/ethnicity30 and, in turn, tend 

to reduce the impact of criminal history 

measures that are more highly correlated 

with SES/race/ethnicity. Terefore, when 

developing PATTERN, there was an 

attempt to include many predictive dynamic 

indicators. Tis efort served two purposes: 

to reduce potential sources of racial disparity 

and to develop an assessment that would 

allow ofenders the opportunity to reduce 

their risk scores over time via good behavior 

(i.e., a lack of infraction behavior) and 

successful completion of programming. 

Below, AUC comparisons broken down by 

race/ethnicity are provided for PATTERN. 

Next, RLC population distribution variations 

are examined across the four primary BOP 

race/ethnicity categories—white, AfricanAmerican (AA), Hispanic, and Other. Te 

Relative Rate Index (RRI) is then computed 

to assess the likelihood of non-white 

individuals being identifed as FSA-eligible, 

or the likelihood that minimum and low 

risk ofenders will be eligible for the time 

credits. ORs are then provided, examining 

the diferences between PATTERN’s general 

and violent recidivism rates for both white 

and non-white FSA-eligible individuals. 

To provide a detailed examination, race/ 

ethnicity fndings are broken down by gender. 

As displayed in Table 7, AUC fndings are 

consistent across these groups. In particular, 

the PATTERN AUC values are consistently 

large. Specifcally, AUC values for general 

recidivism range from 0.78 to 0.83 for males 

and from 0.76 to 0.81 for females. With regard 

to violent recidivism, AUC values range for 

0.75 to 0.82 for males and from 0.75 to 0.81 

for females. Overall, these fndings indicate 

strong and comparable prediction strength 

for PATTERN models across all race/ 

ethnicity categories, suggesting minimal 

racial/ethnic disparity for PATTERN’s 

prediction strength. 

In performing their analysis, the NIJ experts 

also examined gender and race/ethnicity 

variations across population distributions 

Table 7. Te PATTERN Race/Ethnicity AUC Comparisons 

Recidivism Male Female 

General All White AA 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 

60 
for PATTERN. Tose results are shown in 

Tables 8 -10. 

IV. Needs Assessment Process 

Under the FSA, the risk and needs 

assessment system must include both a risk 

component (PATTERN, described above) 

and a needs component. Specifcally with 

respect to inmate needs, the system must 

be used to determine “the type and amount 

of evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programming that is appropriate for each 

prisoner and assign each prisoner to such 

programming ... based on the prisoner’s 

criminogenic needs.”31 As discussed in 

detail in Chapter 4, the BOP has a strong 

needs assessment process in place to match 

inmates with programs to address their 

criminogenic needs. Trough the FSA 

implementation process, and in consultation 

with the IRC and others, the Department 

identifed an opportunity to expand upon 

the present system and to create an updated, 

more comprehensive needs assessment. Te 

details surrounding the project timeline are 

set forth in Chapter 4. 

Dyslexia Screening 

Under the FSA, the BOP is required to 

“incorporate a dyslexia screening program 

into the System,”32 screen inmates for 

dyslexia, and “incorporate programs 

designed to treat dyslexia into the evidencebased recidivism reduction programs 

or productive activities.”33 Te BOP 

currently provides a variety of educational 

opportunities to inmates housed within its 

122 institutions. 

Specifcally, Program Statement 5200.05, 

Management of Inmates with Disabilities, 

outlines the BOP’s strategy for managing 

inmates living with disabilities, including 

dyslexia. According to the policy and 

consistent with the FSA’s requirements, 

inmates are pre-screened at the time 

designation takes place and assessed 

for disabilities once they arrive at an 

institution. Individualized accommodation 

procedures require institutions to convene 

interdisciplinary committees to ensure 

inmates have appropriate access to treatment, 

programs, and services. 

As required by the FSA and to ensure a 

strong screening process specifc to dyslexia, 

the BOP expanded current requirements for 

assessing and accommodating disabilities as 

part of the work of developing the Risk and 

Needs Assessment System. Psychologists and 

education experts within the agency consulted 

external experts and reviewed studies on the 

prevalence of dyslexia in prison populations 

within the United States and worldwide.34 

Te FSA requires that tools used in dyslexia 

assessment be psychometrically valid, efcient, 

low cost, and readily available.35 Terefore, 

the BOP dyslexia screening process consists 

of two steps that ensure a quality assessment 

allowing for a diagnosis. Te frst step is the 

inmate screening. Te FSA defnes dyslexia 

as “an unexpected difculty in reading for an 

individual who has the intelligence to be a 

much better reader, most commonly caused 

by a difculty in the phonological processing 

(the appreciation of the individual sounds 

of spoken language), which afect the ability 

of an individual to speak, read, and spell.”36 

61 
62 

Table 8. PATTERN Population Distribution 

PATTERN 

Male Female 

White AA Hispanic Other White 

NonWhite RRI White AA Hispanic Other White Non- White RRI 

Minimum 30 7 16 19 39 36 37 37 

Low 27 20 31 20 43 39 47 40 

Medium 15 20 20 16 0.41 0.63 1.54 14 15 12 17 0.21 0.22 1.08 

High 29 53 33 45 5 10 4 7 

Table 9. PATTERN General Recidivism Rates by Gender 

PATTERN 

Male Female 

White AA Hispanic Other White 

NonWhite Dif White AA Hispanic Other White Non- White Dif 

Minimum 9 9 10 8 9 8 9 9 

Low 31 29 26 38 39 29 28 49 

Medium 51 49 46 65 0.13 0.16 -0.03 62 55 56 69 0.17 0.17 0.00 

High 73 73 70 81 75 75 70 72 

Table 10. PATTERN Violent Recidivism Rates by Gender 

PATTERN 

Male Female 

White AA Hispanic Other White 

NonWhite Dif White AA Hispanic Other White Non- White Dif 

Minimum 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 

Low 6 8 5 6 4 5 5 4 

Medium 12 16 10 15 0.13 0.15 -0.02 8 14 9 12 0.25 0.17 +0.08 

High 26 34 26 33 13 23 13 26 
 

Because experts in diferent disciplines may 

use other defnitions, the BOP considered 

three additional diagnostic criteria to 

inform their process: the Specifc Learning 

Disorder,37 the Specifc Learning Disability,38 

and the International Dyslexia Association’s 

defnition of dyslexia.39 

Based on these requirements, BOP staf 

developed the Screening Checklist for 

Dyslexia. Tis checklist consists of three 

sections with questions related to historical 

information (e.g., past diagnosis of a learning 

disorder), processing skills, and perceptual 

problems. Tis 30-question checklist will be 

read aloud to the inmate at the time of intake 

processing by education staf. A threshold 

score is set that indicates the possible presence 

of dyslexia. If this threshold is reached or if 

additional information suggesting dyslexia 

is obtained at any time during the screening, 

the inmate proceeds to the second step of the 

assessment process. 

For inmates determined to possibly 

experience symptoms of dyslexia, step two 

of the process requires the BOP Special 

Learning Needs teacher to administer both 

batteries of the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests 

of Achievement and Oral Language, following 

the guidance provided by its authors.40 Tis 

information is then used to determine 

whether criteria for dyslexia are met, and 

if so, the inmate will receive appropriate, 

individually determined accommodations. 

Tis may include assistance (e.g., tutors, 

extended time) with existing programming 

or specialized programming designed to 

treat dyslexia, such as courses on phonics. 

Conclusion 

Te Risk and Needs Assessment System 

is strong. Utilizing available data metrics, 

the expert team created an optimal risk 

instrument, PATTERN, that outlines a single 

assessment which incorporates a design that 

encourages risk reduction behavior (i.e., 

lack of infractions and increases in program 

participation) over time. PATTERN also 

provides scales for general and violent 

recidivism that are the same across all 

assessments. 

Te development of PATTERN is a 

signifcant advancement in the Department’s 

implementation of the FSA. First, PATTERN 

achieves a high level of predictive 

performance and surpasses what commonly 

is found for risk assessment tools for 

correctional populations in the United States. 

Second, the PATTERN instrument more 

appropriately aligns with the goals of the 

FSA because it makes greater use of dynamic 

factors. Tird, the PATTERN instrument’s 

predictive performance is unbiased 

across racial and ethnic classifcations. 

Fourth, PATTERN is a single assessment, 

incorporating a design that may encourage 

risk reducing behavior by inmates over time. 

Furthermore, BOP has needs assessment 

and dyslexia screening processes to identify 

and address the needs of inmates. 

63 
Notes 

1

 Dr. Alex Kigerl, assistant research professor 

of criminal justice and criminology at 

Washington State University, provided 

valuable assistance to Duwe and Hamilton 

in the development of PATTERN. 

2

 BRAVO, the BOP’s classifcation system, is 

used to predict serious misconduct while an 

inmate is incarcerated in BOP facilities. It is 

also used to assign inmates to an appropriate 

security level. PATTERN, on the other 

hand, is used to predict general and violent 

recidivism afer an inmate leaves BOP 

custody. 

3

 As presently developed, PATTERN does 

not currently include a needs assessment 

component. As discussed in Chapter 4, the 

BOP will continue to use its current needs 

assessment system, which is being modifed 

and enhanced at the time of this writing. 

Te BOP’s needs assessment system will 

continue to be developed and enhanced over 

the coming months. 

4

 18 U.S.C. §3632(a)(4). 

5

 Hamilton, Z., Kigerl, A., Campagna, 

M., Barnoski, R., Lee, S., van Wormer, 

J., & Block, L. (2016). “Designed to Fit: 

Te Development and Validation of the 

STRONG-R Recidivism Risk Assessment.” 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 230-263. 

6 See Chapter 4 of this report for a more 

detailed discussion of how inmates are 

processed into federal custody. 

7 Voluntary surrender means the inmate was 

not escorted by a law enforcement ofcer to 

either the U.S. Marshals Ofce or the place of 

confnement. Additionally, this item applies 

only to post-sentencing voluntary surrender, 

and does not include cases where the inmate 

surrendered to the U.S. Marshals on the 

same day as sentencing. Voluntary Surrender 

Credit may only be applied to the initial term 

of confnement; it may not be applied to any 

subsequent Supervised Release, Mandatory 

Release or Parole Violation return to custody. 

See BOP Program Statement 5100.08, 

Inmate Security Designation and Custody 

Classifcation: https://www.bop.gov/policy/ 

progstat/5100_008.pdf. 

8

 Harer, M., Langan, N., & Gwinn, J. (2019). 

Te Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate 

Classifcation Instrument as a BehavioralChange Predictor of Serious Prison Misconduct 

and Post Release Recidivism. Unpublished 

manuscript. 

9

 For greater detail on selected BRAVO items 

and their operationalization, see Harer, M., 

Langan, N., & Gwinn, J. (2019). “Te Federal 

Bureau of Prisons Inmate Classifcation 

Instrument as a Behavioral-Change 

Predictor of Serious Prison Misconduct and 

Post Release Recidivism.” Washington, DC: 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Ofce of Research 

and Evaluation. 

10 During the 45-day public study period 

discussed in Chapter 4, the Department 

welcomes input on what changes to these 

variables may increase predictability. 

11 A count measure refers to data in which 

the values are non-negative whole numbers 

such as 0, 1, 2, 3, etc. 

64 
12 BOP Program Statement 5100.08, 

Inmate Security Designation and Custody 

Classifcation: https://www.bop.gov/policy/ 

progstat/5100_008.pdf. 

13 Per the BOP’s Program Statement 5270.09, 

Inmate Discipline Program, 100 security 

level ofenses are categorized as the greatest 

severity level prohibited acts. Tey include 

but are not limited to “killing (100) and 

“assaulting“[a]ssaulting any person, or an 

armed assault on the institution’s secure 

perimeter (a charge for assaulting any 

person at this level is to be used only when 

serious physical injury has been attempted or 

accomplished) (101).” Also, 200 level ofenses 

are categorized as high security level, for 

example, “escape“[e]scape from a work 

detail, non-secure institution, or other nonsecure confnement, including community 

confnement, with subsequent voluntary 

return to Bureau of Prisons custody within 

four hours (200),” and “fghting with another 

person (201).” See https://www.bop.gov/ 

policy/progstat/5270_009.pdf. 

14 Age at frst conviction measures the frst 

conviction for any ofense. 

15 Violent recidivism is any arrest that falls into 

the category “homicide/aggravated assault,” 

“weapons/explosives,” “sexual assault,” 

“assault,” “robbery,” or “other violent.” 

16 Te Walsh criteria refers to whether the 

inmate is a sex ofender as defned in the Sex 

Ofender Registration and Notifcation Act 

(SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Act. 

See https://www.justice.gov/archive/olp/pdf/ 

adam_walsh_act.pdf. 

17 Diagnostic examinations were also 

completed (but not displayed), including 

bivariate assessments of item prediction 

strength. All fndings indicated substantial 

prediction strength of selected risk items, 

and computed risk models were identifed to 

meet model assumptions. 

18 Te measure is the United States Sentencing 

Guidelines Criminal History item, used as 

part of the inmate’s sentence computation. 

19 Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E.M., Salisbury, E., 

& Bauman, A. (2010). “Women’s Risk Factors 

and Teir Contributions to Existing Risk/ 

Needs Assessment: Te Current Status of a 

Gender-Responsive Supplement.” Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 37, 261-288. 

20 Hamilton, Z., Campagna, M., Tollefsbol, 

E., van Wormer, J., & Barnoski, R. (2017). 

“A More Consistent Application of the RNR 

Model: Te STRONG-R Needs Assessment.” 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 261-292. 

21 Hamilton, Kigerl, Campagna, Barnoski, 

Lee, van Wormer, & Block (2016). “Designed 

to Fit.” 

22 Duwe, G. (2019). “Better Practices in the 

Development and Validation of Recidivism 

Risk Assessments: Te Minnesota Sex 

Ofender Screening Tool–4.” Criminal Justice 

Policy Review, 30, 538-564; Hamilton, Kigerl, 

Campagna, Barnoski, Lee, van Wormer, & 

Block (2016). “Designed to Fit”; and Duwe, 

G. (2014). “Te Development, Validity, and 

Reliability of the Minnesota Screening Tool 

Assessing Recidivism Risk (MnSTARR).” 

Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 579-613. 

65 
23 Vincent, G.M., Laura, S.G., & Grisso, T. 

(2012). “Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: 

A Guidebook for Implementation.” Chicago, 

IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur 

Foundation. 

24 As Davis and Goadrich (2006) point out, 

the AUC can provide an overly optimistic 

estimate of predictive discrimination for 

imbalanced datasets. Nevertheless, the AUC 

is relatively robust across diferent recidivism 

base rates and selection ratios. See Smith, W. 

(1996). “Te Efects of Base Rate and Cutof 

Point Choice on Commonly Used Measures 

of Association and Accuracy in Recidivism 

Research.” Journal of Quantitative 

Criminology, 12(1), 83-111; and Davis, J. 

& Goadrich, M. (2006). “Te Relationship 

Between Precision-Recall and ROC Curves,” 

in Proceedings of the 23rd International 

Conference on Machine Learning. Canada: 

Banf, 1-12. 

25 Puzzanchera, C., & Hockenberry, S. 

(2013). An Interpretation of the National 

DMC Relative Rate Indices for Juvenile 

Justice System Processing in 2010 (National 

Disproportionate Minority Contact 

Databook). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Juvenile Justice for the Ofce of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

26 See detailed AUC discussion in Chapter 2. 

27 As discussed, boosted regression models 

were computed for each of the four models, 

with selected items and weights created from 

model coefcients. Coefcient values for 

each model were converted (multiplied by 

100) to whole numbers to improve ease of 

risk scoring. 

28 Note that cut points were created using the 

training set and then applied on the test set. 

29 See Hamilton, Z., Kowalski, M.A., Kigerl, 

A., & Routh, D. (2019). “Optimizing 

Youth Risk Assessment Performance: 

Development of the Modifed Positive 

Achievement Change Tool in Washington 

State.” Criminal Justice and Behavior. 

DOI: 10.1177/0093854819857108; and 

Hamilton, Z., Kowalski, M.A., Schaefer, 

R., & Kigerl, A. (2019). “Recrafing 

Youth Risk Assessment: Developing the 

Modifed Positive Achievement Change 

Tool for Iowa.” Deviant Behavior. DOI: 

10.1080/01639625.2019.1609302. 

30 Ibid. 

31 18 U.S.C. § 3632(a)(3). 

32 18 U.S.C. § 3632(h)(1). 

33 18 U.S.C. § 3632(h)(2). 

34 External experts consulted and studies 

reviewed on the prevalence of dyslexia in 

prison populations within the United States 

and worldwide include: 

American Psychiatric Association 

(2013). Defnition of Specifc Learning 

Disorder, in Diagnostic and Statistical 

Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). 

Breaux, K., & Eichstadt, T. (2018). 

Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A 

Dyslexia Toolkit. 

Fabelo, T., et al. (2004). “Te Impact 

of Ignoring Dyslexia and Reading 

Disabilities in the Criminal Justice 

System: What We Know and Need to 

66 
 

Know.” In Report to the Dyslexia Research 

Foundation, Inc. 

Gilbert, J.K., et al. (2012). “Early 

Screening for Risk of Reading Disabilities: 

Recommendations for a Four-Step 

Screening System.”Assessment for Efective 

Intervention: Ofcial Journal of the Council 

for Educational Diagnostic Services, 38(1), 

6-14. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ 

pdf/10.1177/1534508412451491. 

Indiana Department of Education 

(2018). Criteria for Dyslexia Screeners. 

https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/ 

files/literacy/criteria-used-for-vettingand-approving-dyslexia- screeners.pdf. 

International Dyslexia Association 

(2018). Dyslexia Screener for Adults. 

https://dyslexiaida.org/screening-fordyslexia/dyslexia-screener-for-adults/. 

International Dyslexia Association 

(2002). Defnition of Dyslexia (2002). 

http://www.dyslexiaida.org. 

Jameson, M. (2014). “Screening 

Checklists for Adults with Dyslexia,” 

Releasing the Potential of Ofenders with 

Dyslexia and Related Specifc Learning 

Difculties: A Practical Guide for Staf 

Working with Ofenders. http://www. 

dyslexia-malvern.co.uk/docs/justice/ 

Releasing%20Potential.pdf. 

Kooij, J. (2013). “Comorbidity and 

Diferential Diagnosis: ADHD and 

Dyslexia.” Adult ADHD Diagnostic 

Assessment and Treatment, 83 (3rd ed.). 

Loucks, N. (2006). Te Prevalence and 

Associated Needs of Ofenders with 

Learning Difculties and Learning 

Disabilities. London: Prison Reform 

Trust. http://www.prisonreformtrust. 

org.uk/uploads/documents/NOKNL. 

pdf. 

Mather, N., et al. (2016) “Use of the 

Woodcock-Johnson IV for Dyslexia 

Evaluations.” WJ Perspectives. 

One Hundred Fifeenth Congress of the 

United States (2018). S. 756 – 14, ss 3635. 

Defnitions (1) Dyslexia. https://www. 

congress.gov/115/bills/s756/BILLS115s756enr.pdf 

Proctor, C.M., et al. (2015). “Use of 

the Woodcock-Johnson IV for the 

Assessment of Dyslexia.” WoodcockJohnson IV Assessment Service Bulletin, 6. 

Rose, J. (2009). “Identifying and 

Teaching Children and Young People 

with Dyslexia and Literacy Difculties.” 

British Dyslexia Association. https:// 

www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about. 

U.S. Department of Education. Defnition 

of Specifc Learning Disability. Section 

300.8: Child with a Disability. IDEA: 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/ 

b/a/300.8. 

35 18 U.S.C. § 3635(2). 

36 18 U.S.C. § 3635(1). 

37 American Psychiatric Association (2013). 

“Defnition of Specifc Learning Disorder.” In 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 

Disorders (5th ed.). 

67 
38 U.S. Department of Education. Defnition 

of Specifc Learning Disability. Section 300.8: 

Child with a Disability. IDEA: Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act. https://sites. 

ed.gov/idea/regs/b/a/300.8. 

39 International Dyslexia Association (2002). 

Defnition of Dyslexia. http://www. 

dyslexiaida.org. 

40 Proctor et al. (2015). “Use of the WoodcockJohnson IV.” 

68 

Chapter 4

Implementing the First Step Act of 2018 

Risk and Needs Assessment System 

With this report, the Attorney 

General is publishing the First 

Step Act of 2018 Risk and Needs 

Assessment System (System). Te publication 

of the System is only the frst step in an 

ongoing, collaborative, and dynamic process 

to enhance prison programming, improve 

inmate outcomes, and ultimately reduce 

recidivism and make every community safer. 

Te First Step Act (FSA or the Act) requires 

signifcant work to be completed in a short 

period of time. Te Department met the FSA’s 

ambitious deadline to publish the System 

within 210 days of the Act’s enactment.1 In 

crafing the System, the Department worked 

to make the benefts of the FSA as widely 

available as possible without compromising 

the predictive reliability of the risk and needs 

tool. In developing and validating the System, 

the Department necessarily was limited by 

the data available. Although the System is 

a good initial step based on the available 

information, it can be improved with more 

time, consultation, data, and research. 

Te Department is committed to improving 

the System’s operation and implementation. 

To that end, the Department will engage in 

regular and ongoing dialogue with a wide 

range of stakeholders, experts, and the 

public. Te experience and expertise of 

these communities will aid the Department 

as it works to improve the System. Just as 

the Department seriously considered the 

available data at the time of the System’s 

release, the Department will consider 

potential new sources of data, new research, 

and new metrics on an ongoing basis. Te 

Department also is committed to continuing 

to work and to consult with the Independent 

Review Committee (IRC) and rely on its 

expertise to improve the System. 

During a 45-day public study period 

following the publication of the System, the 

public will be able to review the System and 

consider ways in which it may be improved. 

Further work can and will be done during 

the 45 days to look for ways to improve 

the System. Following this study period, 

the Department in September will invite 

stakeholders, public interest organizations, 

and the public to comment on the System. 

In seeking ways to make the System better, 

the Department will welcome comment on 

ways to make the benefts of the FSA widely 

available while maintaining the System’s 

predictive reliability. Te Director of the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and other 

senior Department leadership will be present 

in September to receive input and feedback. 

Afer reviewing the input, we will reassess 

the tool, make any appropriate changes, and 

begin the process of assessing each individual 

inmate. 

70 
 

Angela Hawken, Ph.D. Dr. Hawken is a Professor of Public Policy at New 

York University and the founder and director of NYU’s Litmus/BetaGov 

program. Her team’s Segregation Solutions project works with corrections 

agencies to reduce the use of segregated housing, reform practices to reduce 

violent behavioral infractions, provide incentives for pro-social behaviors, and 

reduce stress. Te project supports corrections agencies with strategic planning, 

policy guidance, data analysis, and evaluation. She is the principal investigator 

of Graduated Reintegration. Graduated Reintegration explores the feasibility 

and efectiveness of a resource- reallocation program that allows prisoners to release early into supported 

scattered-site housing and structured programming to ease the transition from prison to the community. 

Dr. Hawken primarily will assist the Department in implementing the risk and needs assessment system. 

In addition, the National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ) has contracted an outside 

expert, Dr. Angela Hawken, to assist with 

implementation of the System. Dr. Hawken’s 

biography is included above. 

Tis chapter outlines the Department’s plan 

to implement the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System in BOP facilities. First, it outlines 

the Department of Justice’s robust plan for 

implementing the new System. Second, it 

provides estimated deadlines for completion 

of the steps in this work plan. Tird, it 

describes how the System will be re-validated 

through further research. Fourth, this 

chapter chronicles the training that BOP will 

provide to its staf members on the Risk and 

Needs Assessment System, which is critical 

to the implementation process. Fifh, this 

chapter outlines the process for assessing the 

implementation of the System to ensure an 

efective and strong system. Sixth, the report 

explains how the risk and needs assessment 

tool will be used to determine the evidencebased recidivism reduction programming 

and productive activities that are appropriate 

for each inmate and assign those programs 

and activities. Finally, the chapter outlines 

how BOP will communicate efectively with 

inmates and stakeholders throughout the 

implementation process. 

I. Implementing the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System 

Following the publication of the System, 

the FSA requires BOP to complete an 

initial intake risk and needs assessment for 

each inmate within 180 days.2

 Te BOP 

is committed to completing this initial 

assessment for each inmate within this 

time frame. Te Act also requires BOP to 

assign inmates to appropriate evidencebased recidivism reduction programs 

and productive activities based on that 

determination. Te BOP, in consultation 

with the Department, is reviewing all 

programs currently ofered at BOP facilities. 

When that review is complete, no later than 

January 2020, a full list of the approved 

programs will be posted on the BOP’s 

website. BOP is committed to completing 

each of the tasks outlined below to meet the 

FSA’s requirements. Te implementation of 

the System, and other FSA requirements, 

71 
 

 

 

will involve a signifcant commitment 

of BOP resources. Te Department has 

identifed funds it received in Fiscal Year 

2019 that may be used to support First Step 

Act priorities. Te Department is working 

with the Administration and Congress to 

ensure that necessary funds will be available 

in Fiscal Year 2020 and beyond. 

A. Assigning a Recidivism Risk Level 

and Conducting a Needs Assessment 

As discussed above, BOP is responsible 

for assigning a recidivism risk level and 

conducting a needs assessment for all 

inmates, including newly committed 

inmates and current inmates. Once the 

Risk and Need Assessment System is fully 

operational and BOP staf fully trained, newly 

committed inmates will be assessed as they 

are processed into the BOP. Current inmates 

will have their needs assessed and their risk 

level communicated to them during regular 

Unit Management Team meetings, which are 

explained further below. 

1. Newly-Committed Inmates 

When an inmate is sentenced (or the BOP 

accepts custody of a sentenced individual), 

trained staf at the Designations and 

Sentence Computation Center (DSCC) 

in Grand Prairie, Texas perform an initial 

assessment of the inmate for purposes of 

determining where an inmate will serve 

his/her sentence (called “designation”). 

Te DSCC staf review information from 

the U.S. Probation Ofce and the U.S. 

Marshals Service, including the Judgement 

and Commitment Order, the Statement of 

Reasons,3

 and the Presentence Investigation 

Report. Te DSCC staf may also receive 

information from the U.S. Attorney’s Ofce 

or Department component that prosecuted 

the inmate.4

 DSCC staf use this information 

to enter the inmate into the BOP’s inmate 

management system and conduct the initial 

security scoring (via the Inmate Load and 

Security Designation Form). Subject-matter 

experts at the DSCC (including medical staf 

and clinical psychologists) also perform a 

preliminary review of the inmate’s needs 

with regard to medical, mental health, and 

criminogenic programming, which may 

infuence the designation decision. As part 

of the FSA implementation and in addition 

to the designation steps listed above, DSCC 

staf, with assistance from BOP Legal staf, 

will use the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System to assign each incoming inmate an 

initial recidivism risk level of Minimum, 

Te BOP Grand Prairie Ofce Complex, located in Texas. 

72 
Low, Medium or High.5

 BOP will require 

additional staf resources added at the DSCC 

to support this work. 

Once the inmate arrives at his or her 

designated facility, he or she is assessed 

again as part of intake in the Receiving and 

Discharge area. Within the frst twenty-eight 

days of incarceration, the inmate has an initial 

interview by his or her Unit Management 

Team (comprised of the Unit Manager, Case 

Manager, and Correctional Counselor). 

Additionally, the inmate is seen by medical 

staf (which may include an exam) and mental 

health staf to determine initial treatment 

needs. Every inmate also participates in the 

Admissions and Orientation program, which 

is designed to familiarize inmates with the 

facility, including the rules and procedures, 

typical schedules for operations and visiting, 

and available programs and services ofered. 

Unit Management Team staf will interview 

the inmate to determine and assign any 

required programs (e.g., the GED program6

). 

Te automated workfow for the collection 

and documentation of this assessment 

uses a BOP application called Insight. Te 

Unit Management Team will also make 

recommendations for additional programs 

as necessary. Te inmate will also receive 

a work assignment, provided that he or she 

is physically able to work.7

 As part of this 

assessment, the inmate will be formally 

advised of his or her risk level under the FSA. 

Inmates may grieve their FSA eligibility using 

existing administrative remedy procedures. 

Based on the interviews with the inmate, 

as well as input from mental health staf 

and information in the inmate’s sentencing 

documentation, the Unit Management 

Team will provide the inmate with an 

initial Needs Plan. Te inmate will review 

this individualized plan to ensure he or 

she understands what is either required 

or is being recommended. BOP’s Insight 

application is used to create the plan. 

Te inmate may also undergo additional tests 

and screening. Educational staf will screen 

inmates for disabilities and will use tests to 

determine recommended courses for those 

inmates that need literacy programming. 

BOP provides a variety of educational 

opportunities to the inmates within its 122 

institutions. 

Under the FSA, BOP is required to 

“incorporate a dyslexia screening program 

into the System,”8

 screen inmates for dyslexia, 

and “incorporate programs designed to treat 

dyslexia into the evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs or productive activities.”9 

As described earlier in this report, BOP has 

expanded current requirements for assessing 

and accommodating disabilities to ensure a 

strong screening process for dyslexia. 

Te BOP also performs additional assessment 

screenings. A clinical psychologist interviews 

inmates requiring mental health treatment. 

Te psychologist will then develop an 

appropriate treatment plan and communicate 

this plan to the inmate’s case manager. A 

Drug Treatment Specialist screens inmates 

requiring drug treatment. Each inmate 

is then interviewed by a Drug Treatment 

Coordinator (who is a clinical psychologist) 

to determine if the inmate should receive 

residential drug treatment. Sex ofenders are 

referred for appropriate treatment.10 

73 
Inmates’ needs are reassessed every six 

months (or every three months once the 

inmate is within a year of release) and 

documented using the Insight application. 

Staf will meet individually with the inmate 

and review the prior Needs Plan, document 

the inmate’s progress, and update the Needs 

Plan. Tis assessment includes feedback 

solicited directly from relevant program 

areas including Health Services, Education, 

Religious Services, and Psychology. Unit 

Management Team staf determine if an 

inmate is successfully participating in 

assigned programs, has good work reviews, 

and is otherwise satisfying the terms of his or 

her sentence (such as payment of fnes and 

restitution). Staf will also assess the inmate’s 

institution adjustment (e.g., whether he or she 

has engaged in misconduct) and any personal 

issues (e.g., lack of family contacts, etc.). If 

unit management staf determine additional 

programs are required or recommended, 

they will describe the programs(s) to the 

inmate and, in some cases, incentivize 

participation in them. Inmates may choose 

Attorney General William P. Barr, U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott of South Carolina, BOP 

Acting Director Hugh J. Hurwitz, and others observe a UNICOR clothing and textile facility at Federal 

Correctional Institution (FCI) Edgefeld. 

74 
 

 

 

 

to enroll in these programs or may decline 

to do so.11 

As inmates successfully complete programs 

and succeed in addressing their assigned 

programming needs, their progress is 

captured in the BOP’s inmate management 

system and in Insight as part of an educational 

transcript. If an inmate has no remaining 

needs to address, he or she can continue to 

participate in productive activities in order 

to continue improving his or her reentry 

outcomes. A collaborative process with the 

inmate throughout the needs assessment 

process is optimal. Te inmate’s Needs Plan 

is modifed as the inmate addresses his or her 

needs by successfully completing programs 

or demonstrates new needs areas. 

2. Currently-Admitted Inmates 

Under the FSA, inmates currently serving 

a term of imprisonment must also have 

a recidivism risk level assigned and their 

needs assessed using the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. BOP subject-matter 

experts from DSCC, the Correctional 

Programs Division case management staf, 

and the Ofce of Information Technology 

(OIT) are conducting an initial review of 

all current inmates to determine whether 

any are ineligible under the FSA’s statutory 

bar based on the inmate’s conviction.12 If 

the exclusion process can be automated, 

the BOP’s DSCC will work collaboratively 

with the BOP’s Ofce of General Counsel 

staf to conduct the review of all inmates,13 

prioritizing assignment based on projected 

release dates. Once those inmates are 

assigned a recidivism risk level, the inmate’s 

Unit Management Team will schedule them 

for an initial needs assessment, as required 

by the FSA, to determine what additional 

programming, including evidence-based 

recidivism reduction programs and 

productive activities, would beneft the 

inmate. 

BOP will reassess the needs of existing 

inmates on an ongoing basis in the same 

manner as described for newly-committed 

inmates.14 BOP ordinarily reviews and 

assesses all inmates every six months. Te 

inmate’s Unit Management Team reviews 

the inmate’s programming and needs, 

as well as conduct, by relying on several 

sources of information, including a personal 

interview with the inmate and input from 

various departments in the facility, including 

Education, Psychology, Health Services, and 

Religious Services. Te Unit Management 

Team performs the reassessment of an 

inmate’s risk level. 

B. Enhancing the Needs 

Assessment Process 

BOP is committed to enhancing its needs 

assessment process to incorporate additional 

objective tools and data to better capture 

the inmate’s individualized needs and refne 

program and productive activity assignment 

to address those needs. For example, BOP has 

held preliminary discussions with the United 

States Probation Ofce about supplementing 

the Presentence Investigation Report15 with 

more detailed education information about 

learning needs. Similarly, and as described 

above, BOP is implementing an enhanced 

screening process for dyslexia. 

BOP is engaging an outside research 

contracting partner to assist with FSA 

75 
implementation in two areas: 1) program 

evaluation and 2) design of an enhanced 

needs assessment tool. Te FSA requires 

BOP to expand available evidencebased recidivism reduction program and 

productive activities, including those 

ofered by external organizations.16 Te 

IRC suggested the Department consider 

implementing a process for analyzing new 

programs that might qualify as evidencedbased, and cited a model used in the United 

Kingdom as one example of such process. 

Following that recommendation, the BOP is 

forming a working group composed of NIJ 

researchers, BOP researchers and program 

staf, and the outside research contracting 

partner to develop and publish a standardized 

process and framework to review and analyze 

requests from external entities for program 

submission. Te working group will then 

serve as a clearinghouse by providing 

research expertise to determine whether 

a proposed program satisfes the FSA 

defnition for an evidence-based recidivism 

reduction program, including that it “has 

been shown by empirical evidence to 

reduce recidivism or is based on research 

indicating that it is likely to be efective in 

reducing recidivism.”17 Any program or 

activity approved for consideration under 

the FSA will be assessed in light of security 

procedures, BOP protocols, BOP mission 

requirements, practicality, and resource 

availability. 

Te Department, specifcally the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ), is committed 

to sponsoring a long-term research and 

evaluation agenda that will support the 

full and sound implementation of the 

FSA in the years to come. Tis agenda 

will include NIJ working closely with the 

BOP to perform independent validations 

of PATTERN and scientifcally rigorous 

evaluations of BOP programs, including 

programs designated under the FSA as 

“evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs.” Research and evaluations 

will be conducted consistent with ethical, 

legal, security, and operational concerns. 

In addition, BOP, in close consultation with 

the Independent Review Committee (IRC) 

will conduct research on prevailing best 

practices and tools in the area of needs 

assessment, particularly as it relates to 

corrections and recidivism. Te research 

will include consideration of existing 

assessment tools that may be available for 

implementation by BOP. BOP will also 

coordinate meetings and briefngs with 

various state and international correctional 

systems, including meetings with staf of 

large correctional systems in the United 

States. Briefngs will include discussions 

with program staf, researchers, and 

correctional management regarding the 

available tools in use for needs assessment 

and the efectiveness of the tools. 

Consistent with the Department’s 

commitment to engage in continuous 

dialogue to improve the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System, BOP will partner 

with NIJ to host a meeting in August 2019 

that will focus on needs assessments and 

how they are used in correctional settings. 

Invitees include research directors from 

Departments of Corrections, reentry and 

programming staf, researchers, and other 

relevant partners. Tis meeting will serve 

as a platform for BOP’s continued work 

76 
in this area. Additionally, BOP will host a 

three-day symposium on needs assessment 

in October 2019. Invitees will include 

1) practitioners with expertise on needs 

assessment from state correctional systems 

that conduct assessments at all prisons in 

their system; 2) academic researchers with 

demonstrated experience working on needs 

assessment systems and an understanding 

of diversity issues in implementation; and 

3) staf representatives from federal partners 

including NIJ and the National Institute of 

Corrections. Tis symposium, moderated by 

BOP program staf, will include presentations 

from the diferent corrections systems and 

discussions with researchers on how to apply 

the material gleaned from the corrections 

presentations. 

Following this meeting, and in furtherance 

of its research, the BOP will issue a request 

for information (RFI) regarding potential 

inclusions or sources of data for the needs 

assessment process. Te purpose of this 

RFI is to provide an opportunity for 

advocacy groups, outside researchers, and 

any individuals to share input and suggest 

additions to the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System process, in regards to needs 

assessment. Te RFI will be published for 45 

days to allow for a robust comment period. 

Te information gleaned from the overall 

research and the RFI solicitation will be used 

to design an enhanced needs assessment tool 

and process. BOP anticipates this overall 

engagement and collection process to take 

six months (culminating by March 2020). 

Te BOP will screen all inmates for risk 

using the PATTERN tool described in 

Chapter 3.18 In addition, the BOP will screen 

all inmates for needs using BOP’s current 

needs assessment system. At the same time, 

as described herein, the Department will 

begin immediate work building a more 

comprehensive needs assessment system. 

While the research is being conducted, BOP 

will work with NIJ to explore how additional 

existing data can be incorporated into the 

needs process and evaluate the impact of this 

additional data on the accuracy of the riskscoring tool. In September, Department 

staf, members of the IRC, and an NIJ expert 

will travel to Ottawa, Canada to meet with 

the Correctional Service of Canada to learn 

about the development of its automated 

needs assessment system. Meanwhile, the 

BOP will continue to leverage its existing 

processes to assess, review, and address 

inmate needs to ensure that other aspects 

of the FSA are being carried out. As the 

assessment process is enhanced, changes will 

be incorporated into the current assessment 

and all inmates will continue to be reassessed 

using the updated system. 

In the next several months, the BOP will add 

several additional data items into the current 

needs assessment process. Te BOP is aware 

of the incredibly high rates of trauma and 

the associated impact of this trauma on the 

inmate population. By September 30, 2019, 

the BOP will add the Adverse Childhood 

Experience questionnaire to its existing 

screening process to better incorporate this 

need into the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System. Also by September 30, 2019, the 

BOP Reentry Services and Correctional 

Programs subject matter experts will meet 

with the IRC to present on the current 

needs assessment process and discuss ideas 

for expanding upon the existing system. 

Additionally, the Correctional Programs 

Division will review the current Insight 

system to determine if more discrete (non77 
narrative) data regarding job performance 

and completion of specifc programs can be 

captured to enhance evaluation of inmate 

risk and needs. 

Te BOP’s overall research results will 

then be used to drive the design of a needs 

assessment tool that best addresses the 

processes and composition of the federal 

inmate population. Te BOP will also engage 

the BOP’s National Union in the design and 

development of the system to ensure that 

the ideas and concerns of staf, particularly 

case management and program staf, are 

incorporated into the design. 

Te BOP anticipates the design of the system 

to encompass several key requirements 

including, but not limited to, determination 

of: 1) the static and dynamic factors which 

identify the inmate’s needs; 2) those tools 

and instruments which can best identify 

an inmate’s specifc criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs; 3) when those tools 

and instruments are best administered in 

the corrections cycle; 4) the evidence-based 

recidivism reduction programs (both those 

currently used and those that may be used) 

that will best minimize the risk that the 

prisoner will recidivate; 5) what measures 

can be used to indicate progress and 

regression; and 6) if and how to automate the 

assignment of programs based on the results 

of the assessment while allowing for sound 

judgment and decision-making. 

Te prototype system addressing the items 

above is expected to be available for testing 

by the second quarter of 2020. Te testing 

of the system will involve training BOP 

staf in the use of the tools or instruments, 

assessing the system’s efectiveness by 

evaluating available metrics such as prison 

misconduct or recidivism, and evaluating 

whether the tools or instruments are being 

applied in a consistent manner. Depending 

on the complexity of the tools or needs 

instruments, the BOP would either use 

electronic questionnaires or develop sofware 

Enhancing the Needs Assessment Process 

• Implement Enhanced Dyslexia Screening

• Engage Outside Research Partner

• Conduct Research and Issue RFI

• Hold Needs Assessment Meeting

• Convene BOP Symposium 

• Review Current Insight System

• Develop New Needs Tool

• Pilot New Needs Tool 

• Execute New Tool/Process Across BOP 

• Train all BOP Staff 

• Engage with BOP’s National Union

78 
 

 

 

to integrate the tools and instruments into 

Insight. 

To collect a sufcient amount of data for 

evaluation purposes, identify issues and 

trends, and conduct a preliminary assessment 

of efectiveness, BOP plans to test the system 

using eight facilities, across four security 

levels and six regions, for twelve months. 

Afer testing has been conducted and the 

results validated, BOP will implement the 

fnal system and begin rolling it out to the 

remaining 114 BOP sites. 

 During this time, any required modifcations 

would be made to the system and additional 

training provided to staf. All case 

management staf, programs staf, and 

correctional management will be trained in 

the new instruments and tools. Te BOP 

will develop training materials, conduct inperson training, and leverage webinars and 

a train-the-trainer approach as part of the 

deployment strategy. 

C. Implementing the Earned Time 

Credit System 

Under the FSA, an eligible inmate may earn 

time credits for successfully completing approved evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs or productive activities.19 No later than January 2020, a list of approved evidence-based recidivism reduction programs 

and productive activities will be posted on 

the BOP’s website. As required by the Act, 

an inmate cannot earn time credits if he or 

she is serving a sentence for a disqualifying 

ofense or has a disqualifying prior conviction.20 

An eligible inmate may “earn 10 days of 

time credits for every 30 days of successful 

participation in evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programming.”21 Additionally, 

an inmate at a minimum or low risk for 

recidivating may “earn an additional 5 days 

of time credits for every 30 days of successful 

participation in evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programming or productive 

activities.”22 

BOP will track and award time credits 

based on actual work and program activities 

completed. BOP will ensure that every 

evidence-based recidivism reduction 

program has an approved standardized 

curriculum, including duration and hours. 

To track participation and completion, 

assignment codes for each approved 

program will be created in the BOP’s inmate 

management system. BOP will automate the 

calculation of the amount of programming 

activities completed. Unit Management 

Team staf will ensure that the inmate did 

in fact successfully complete the program.23 

BOP will also track inmate participation in 

productive activities. 

Tere are clear instances when inmates 

would not be able to participate in evidencebased recidivism reduction programs or 

productive activities. Such circumstances 

include when inmates are: placed in a Special 

Housing Unit; in designation status outside 

the institution (e.g. for an outside medical 

trip, an escorted trip, etc.); in the custody of 

another jurisdiction (e.g. on state or federal 

writ; transfer to state custody for service 

of sentence; transfer to ICE, etc.); under 

medical/mental health/psychiatric holds; in 

detention as a material witness or for civil 

contempt; under Adam Walsh or other civil 

commitment; and refusing to participate in 

programs. 

79 
Tere are additional factors that may warrant 

limitations on the earning or application of 

time credits, such as being investigated for 

ongoing criminal conduct while in custody 

or while in the community in pre-release 

custody. Additionally, an inmate’s recidivism 

risk score could increase if he or she engages 

in misconduct - for example, if the inmate 

assaults a corrections ofcer or other inmate, 

uses a contraband cell phone, or attempts to 

escape. 

As discussed previously, case management 

staf will be trained on which programs 

and productive activities are approved for 

earning of time credits and on how to use the 

programs as part of their assessments using 

the BOP’s Insight application. 

Department staf toured an RRC and met 

with recently-released individuals who had 

participated in BOP programs and activities. 

Tese individuals provided feedback that 

inmates ofen spend the majority of their 

time in recreation, rather than on activities 

that will prepare them for a more successful 

transition. Inmates who participated in 

activities, such as fnancial responsibility and 

parenting, were ofen ridiculed or heckled. 

Tose at the RRC encouraged the Department 

to incentivize and promote participation in 

productive activities centered on parenting, 

education, and fnancial responsibility and to 

decrease emphasis on recreation. Tis would 

help change the culture within prisons and 

remove pressure from those seeking to better 

themselves. Te Department recognizes the 

value that individuals in RRCs and those 

who were recently released and achieved a 

successful transition may contribute to this 

process and intend to seek input from this 

group in developing the list of productive 

activities. 

Inmates participating in the UNICOR program. 

80 
 

 

To ensure that both inmates and staf 

understand the award and suspension of 

time credits and to ensure that stakeholders 

have an opportunity to provide feedback on 

this important issue, BOP will update federal 

regulations and BOP policy to describe 

the time credit methodology. To promote 

transparency in the process, the BOP will 

update and publish Program Statement 

5100.08, Inmate Security and Custody 

Classifcation Manual. 

D. Automation of Workfow 

Currently, the BOP staf assign an 

inmate’s security designation and custody 

classifcation scores using an automated 

workfow, where using information 

technology replaces manual and paperbased processes. Tis automation expedites 

the processing of tasks and eliminates errors. 

For these reasons, the BOP also plans to 

calculate, track, and report the recidivism risk 

level using an integrated automated process. 

Accordingly, BOP must make changes to the 

inmate management system and additional 

sofware applications to perform the risk 

level calculation, present the score in other 

system displays, and calculate an inmate’s 

time credits. BOP anticipates that it will take 

approximately eight months to make the 

required changes. While the scoring process 

is being enhanced through automation, BOP 

will manually score recidivism risk levels so 

there is no delay in fully implementing the 

System. Te BOP’s OIT will coordinate 

with the Ofce of Research and Evaluation 

(ORE) and the DSCC to determine how 

to integrate and automate the data points 

required to be included in the PATTERN 

risk calculus, as well as how to score and 

classify the inmate with the Risk and Needs 

Assessment tool. OIT staf will modify 

existing programs by frst, designing test 

programs based on the system requirements, 

validating their performance, seeking user 

input, verifying data inputs and outputs 

are as expected, and deploying the sofware 

changes to production. 

OIT estimates that approximately 30 

programs will need to be modifed to capture 

and display the required data for the risk tool 

and ongoing workfow management. For 

example, BOP’s discipline module tracks the 

incidents, sanctions, and history of inmate 

misconduct. With the addition of the FSA, 

the BOP will need to modify this module to 

account for sanctions related to time credits, 

as well as the FSA requirement to restore time 

credits. Discipline sanctions likewise impact 

an inmate’s projected release date and the 

new projected pre-release custody eligibility 

date; sanctions may also impact the inmate’s 

risk score. Tus, the BOP sofware programs 

that are afected by the FSA must be updated 

and integrated with each other. 

OIT will focus frst on implementing the 

programs associated with the inmates’ 

risk and needs classifcation, followed by 

implementation of the time credit system, 

and then application integration.24 OIT 

will require additional personnel and 

contractor resources to assist in this efort. 

Application integration is the practice of 

sharing processes and data among various 

information technology applications. It 

will take approximately 24 months to add 

appropriate sofware logic to each of these 

programs. Te frst eight months will focus 

on launching programs related to the risk 

tool PATTERN. Te other program updates 

81 
 

 

and changes will be addressed at the same 

time. Ultimately, these changes will allow 

BOP staf to more efciently and accurately 

compute, assign, and track the recidivism 

risk level for each inmate. 

E. Policy Implementation 

Te FSA also requires BOP to develop new 

policies to address a number of requirements 

in the Act. Specifcally, the Director of the 

Bureau of Prisons is required to “develop 

additional policies to provide appropriate 

incentives for successful participation and 

completion of evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programming.”25 Additionally, 

the BOP has a signifcant number of federal 

regulations and policies that require update 

or modifcation to implement the FSA and 

to provide clear and timely communication 

to all persons afected by the changes. 

Tere are many steps involved in the 

formulation of extensive and complete 

federal regulations and BOP policy. A highlevel outline of those steps follows. 

i. Regulations: Te issuance of federal 

regulations frst requires the development 

of draf language known as the “proposed 

rule.” Te proposed rule is reviewed for 

legal compliance by the component and 

the Department of Justice. It is then sent 

for review to the Ofce of Information 

and Regulatory Afairs (OIRA) within 

the Ofce of Management and Budget. 

Once the proposed rule is approved, it 

is published in the Federal Register for 

public comment for 30-60 days as a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking. Members of 

the public and stakeholders will be able 

to review the proposed rule in full and 

provide comments. Afer the comment 

period closes, the issuing agency reviews 

and considers the submitted comments 

on the proposed rule. Te next step 

in the process is to draf a fnal rule. If 

appropriate, the issuing agency may 

modify the proposed rule to address 

public feedback and comments in the fnal 

rule. Te fnal rule is prepared and once 

again reviewed by OIRA if it is deemed to 

have signifcant economic impact or is a 

signifcant policy matter. Te fnal rule 

is published a second time in the Federal 

Register and may go into efect no earlier 

than 30 days afer publication.26 

ii. Policies: To develop new policy or 

update existing policy, the applicable 

BOP program area reviews and modifes 

existing policy or develops new policy 

language. A program area is the specifc 

ofce or Division responsible for oversight 

and enforcement of the function, service, 

or program within the BOP. Te BOP’s 

National Policy and Information 

Management (NPIM) staf review, format, 

and distribute draf policies internally to 

all Divisions and feld sites, as well as to the 

BOP National Union, for comment. If the 

program area concurs with the comments, 

NPIM will incorporate the recommended 

changes and prepare a fnal draf. Te 

NPIM staf prepare a fnal version for 

the BOP Director’s signature and provide 

a copy of the signed policy to the BOP 

Labor Management Relation Ofce for 

review by the BOP National Union. If the 

National Union does not formally invoke 

negotiation27 on the policy, the policy 

is published both internally and, if not 

82 
law enforcement sensitive, on the BOP’s 

public website. Any applicable Program 

Review (BOP’s internal compliance and 

audit process) guidelines are updated 

to ensure staf are following the new 

or updated policy beginning 30 days 

afer publication. If the National Union 

formally invokes negotiation, the policy 

is put on hold until Management and the 

Union agree on the fnal policy. 

BOP estimates that approximately three 

regulations and 11 policies require revision 

to comply with the FSA’s risk and needs 

assessment system requirements. Tere 

also may be a need to develop new policies 

to address the FSA. In general, policy 

formation and implementation that afect 

bargaining unit staf working conditions take 

approximately six months, but the process 

may be longer on key issues. Bargaining 

unit staf are members of and represented 

by a labor organization (“union”), and 

coordination with the BOP’s National 

Union is required per the BOP’s collective 

bargaining agreement. Tis work has 

already begun and will continue until all of 

the appropriate policies and regulations are 

updated to refect the changes needed to 

implement the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System and to obtain the necessary approvals 

to publish these documents. 

II. Timeline for Initial Implementation 

of the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System 

Tere are many tasks that need to be 

accomplished before the new Risk and Needs 

Assessment System is fully operational. Te 

keys to implementing the FSA successfully 

are meshing both new and current work 

processes, automating the information 

technology systems used to track and report 

inmate data, establishing the regulations 

and policies needed to convey the updated 

organizational requirements and practices, 

and, fnally, training all BOP staf. 

BOP has already begun to implement 

the FSA. Many BOP policies and some 

regulations have been updated to include 

language referencing the Act.28 Information 

technology staf are mapping out a strategy 

that will incorporate the changes needed in 

SENTRY, Insight, and other BOP systems. In 

addition, BOP senior leadership are sharing 

information about the FSA and its impacts 

on BOP. 

However, crucial work remains to implement 

the Risk and Needs Assessment. Te image 

below tracks the major tasks that are to 

be accomplished with estimated dates for 

delivery of the product between July 19, 

2019 and January 2020.29 Importantly, the 

Department will meet the FSA’s requirement 

to assess all BOP prisoners by January 2020. 

83 
 

 

 

INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

RISK AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 

JULY 2019 - JANUARY 2020 

90 DAYS 

180 DAYS 

90 DAYS 

120 DAYS 

150 DAYS 

120 DAYS 

180 DAYS 

DEVELOP POLICIES 

POLICY NEGOTIATION 

DRAFT REGULATIONS 

FINAL RULE 

PUBLICATION 

AUTOMATION OF WORK 

FLOW 

DEVELOP AND BEGIN 

TRAINING 

INITIAL RISK 

ASSIGNMENT 

0 60 120 180 

III. Re-Validating the Risk and 

Needs Assessment System 

As mandated by the FSA, the RNA tool must 

be reviewed and re-validated on an annual 

basis.30 Re-validation will allow for any 

needed adjustment of the tool’s algorithm 

to ensure that the tool is still reliable given 

any changes in the prison population or 

other variables over time. An annual revalidation timeline, however, presents a 

potential research and theoretical challenge. 

PATTERN was developed using a seven-year 

dataset of BOP releases, and it was validated 

as an efective predictor of recidivism over 

the inmates’ subsequent three-year period 

in the community. In a research setting, a 

researcher would normally gather data to 

re-validate a risk and needs assessment tool 

three years afer a large group of inmates 

were released from custody. Following this 

schedule, PATTERN and any new items 

would not be formally re-validated until 

2024. To meet the annual FSA re-validation 

requirement, one-year recidivism data, 

instead of three-year, will be used to obtain 

results. Tis will cause an incongruence in the 

validation and re-validation processes, but 

84 
 

the results can serve as an interim estimate 

of PATTERN’s predictive performance. 

BOP’s ORE and the NIJ will work together 

to re-validate PATTERN on an annual basis. 

Until enough time passes that PATTERN 

can be validated on three years of postrelease data, ORE and NIJ will annually rerun the analyses that developed PATTERN, 

adding one additional year of recidivism 

data. Consistent with the FSA, the Attorney 

General will review and consider any 

modifcations. Over time, the researchers 

will continue to assess PATTERN, gather 

external advice and recommendations, and 

use the time to consider further adjustments 

to PATTERN. 

In addition to re-validating the System 

as described previously, the Department 

will look for opportunities to improve the 

System through an ongoing dialogue with 

key stakeholders, by working closely with the 

IRC, and by considering new research and 

potential sources of data. As the System is 

updated and improved, subsequent versions 

will be re-validated, as discussed previously. 

IV. Training to Implement the Risk 

and Needs Assessment System 

Following the publication of the System, 

all relevant BOP staf members in every 

institution, Regional Ofce, and Central 

Ofce will receive training on implementing 

the new System. Te training of BOP 

staf will be informed by careful review of 

implementation research and use of best 

practices in training and quality assurance. 

Te level and type of training will vary based 

on the role of the BOP staf member. 

Foundational training will be sufcient for 

many staf in the institutions, as well as in the 

Regional and Central Ofces. Tis training 

will provide an overview of the program, 

as well as how to score inmates in the new 

system and use the assessment results to 

identify appropriate programs, activities, 

and services for inmates. 

Advanced training will be required for 

the Unit Management Teams and other 

appropriate staf at institutions, as they will 

have primary responsibility for assessing 

inmates and entering information into BOP 

automated systems relevant to the System. 

Additionally, on-the-job training will be 

required to ensure that the information 

entered is accurate and consistent. Unit 

Management Teams and program staf 

will receive training on the administration 

and scoring of the needs assessment of the 

System. Education and Psychology staf will 

receive training on the needs assessment 

procedures that will be implemented. In 

addition, the DSCC staf and BOP case 

management staf will receive training on 

how to score the risk assessment. Finally, 

Regional and Central Ofce program stafs 

will be trained on how to oversee and review 

institutions’ implementation of the System 

and processes. Tis oversight and review is 

key to avoiding the misuse of the tools. 

To facilitate this required training, the 

BOP will utilize a team of subject matter 

experts from the Reentry Services 

Division; Correctional Programs Division; 

Information, Policy and Public Afairs 

Division; and Ofce of General Counsel. 

Tis team will be primarily responsible 

85 
BOP staf members at a correctional facility. 

for developing training and instructional 

materials for the System and processes. It will 

take approximately two months to develop 

the foundational initial orientation training 

and an additional two months to develop the 

more intensive, advanced training. Training 

will initially focus on staf conducting 

recidivism risk assessments and performing 

initial assessments for all inmates. BOP has 

already provided broad briefngs on the 

provisions of the FSA to staf who perform 

these tasks. And the additional training will 

focus on more detailed requirements of the 

Risk and Needs Assessment System. 

Education about the FSA for all staf will be 

delivered via a variety of platforms: online 

via the BOP’s Learning Management System; 

using collaboration tools such as Adobe 

Connect; using videoconferencing; via 

communication materials published on the 

agency intranet; and in-person instruction. 

Te training will be delivered by the end of 

2019. Te intensive training will be provided 

through in-person training and will include 

interaction in small group settings with 

computer access. Using a “train-the-trainer” 

model, BOP subject-matter experts will train 

selected employees about the System, who 

will in turn serve as local experts to train 

others to use the new system. It is anticipated 

the all impacted staf will receive training 

during calendar year 2020. 

As the System is improved, as discussed 

earlier, training will be adjusted to account 

for changes to the System. As capabilities 

and processes are enhanced and to ensure 

refresher training is consistent, the System 

training will become part of institution 

orientation for new staf. Additionally, BOP 

will incorporate Risk and Needs Assessment 

System training as a core module of Annual 

Refresher Training, which is required for all 

staf. Additionally, Central Ofce subject 

matter experts and Regional Ofce staf will 

maintain oversight of the implementation and 

can provide additional training as needed. 

In order to provide continuing support 

to these training eforts, BOP may need 

86 
 

 

 

additional resources to develop, coordinate, 

and provide the required training. 

V. Assessing the Implementation of 

the Risk and Needs Assessment 

System 

Te Director of the BOP has 180 days to 

1) “implement and complete the initial intake 

risk and needs assessment for each prisoner” 

and “begin to assign prisoners to appropriate 

evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs;” 2) “begin to expand the efective 

evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs and productive activities;” and 3) 

“begin to implement the other risk and needs 

assessment tools necessary to implement 

the risk and needs assessment system over 

time.”31 To ensure the implementation 

of the System is completed in an efcient 

and efective manner, the BOP will use 

established internal processes, described 

below, to provide appropriate checks on 

implementation. 

Te BOP’s Program Review Division 

provides oversight, guidance, and direction 

to BOP facilities and staf to ensure that 

policies are being followed and that 

programs are performing as intended. 

Tis is accomplished through monitoring 

of program areas, facilitating guideline 

assessments, and analyzing trends and 

statistical data. 

To test the competency and strength of 

its programs, the BOP subjects each one 

to a thorough examination by trained 

reviewers who are subject matter experts 

in the program area being reviewed. Tese 

independent reviews examine compliance 

with BOP policy, laws, rules, and regulations. 

In addition, they examine the area’s efciency 

of operations and efectiveness in achieving 

program results. Tis process helps ensure 

that BOP programs are operating within 

policy and are free of fraud, waste, abuse, 

mismanagement, and illegal activities. 

Te Inmate Classifcation Workgroup 

is responsible for assessing the overall 

efectiveness of the BOP’s inmate 

classifcation system. Te Workgroup 

reports its fndings to the Director and 

the agency’s senior leadership team when 

changes to the BOP’s system are warranted. 

Te Inmate Classifcation Workgroup will 

propose changes to the Inmate Security 

Designation and Custody Classifcation 

Policy to implement the changes to the 

System. In addition, the Workgroup will 

outline steps for a feld test of the policy draf. 

Following the feld test of the draf policy, 

the Workgroup will seek fnal approval 

from senior leadership for a revised policy, 

5100.08, the Inmate Security and Custody 

Classifcation Manual. Tis Workgroup will 

additionally take the lead in reviewing and 

assessing the implementation of the System. 

VI. Connecting the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System to Programming 

As described above, each inmate will 

be assessed under the Risk and Needs 

Assessment System. Tis assessment will 

be used to determine the type and amount 

of evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programming and productive activities that 

are appropriate for the inmate. Te outcome 

of the needs assessment component of the 

system will be an individualized “Needs 

Plan” for each inmate designed to reduce his 

or her risk of recidivism. Te Needs Plan 

87 
 

 

will identify areas the inmate must address 

and identify the evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs available to address 

those needs. As the inmate successfully 

addresses a need, or new needs are identifed, 

the inmate’s Needs Plan will be modifed, 

and the inmate’s risk score will be adjusted 

as appropriate. 

All evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs, including current BOP programs, 

will be vetted, approved, and cataloged. 

Indeed, BOP’s current programs have 

evolved and improved over the years and 

additional data is available for consideration. 

All programs will be assessed on the 

quality of their curriculum, data regarding 

improvement outcomes, and the ability 

of the BOP to ensure the programs can be 

provided as intended.32 

In accordance with the FSA, medium and 

high risk inmates will receive priority 

for evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs. Inmates at medium and high 

risk levels may volunteer to participate 

in productive activities. Inmates who are 

assigned minimum or low risk with no 

remaining needs on their Needs Plan will 

be assigned to participate in productive 

activities to remain productive. Assignment 

to evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs will receive priority over 

assignment to productive activities. 

No later than January 2020, a list of the approved evidence-based recidivism reduction 

programs and productive activities will be 

posted on the BOP’s website. 

88 
 

VII. Communication to Inmates and 

Stakeholders 

Engage Inmates 

• Town Halls 

• Electronic Bulletin Boards 

• Unit Management Team Meetings 

Engage Stakeholders 

• Risk and Needs Assessment System Listening Sessions 

• Request for Information 

• Publication of Policies and Regulations 

Engage Staff 

• Webinars and Intranet Articles 

• In-person and Web-based Training 

• Meetings with National Union 

Because the requirements of the FSA are 

varied and complex, it is important for 

inmates and staf to be fully briefed on 

the numerous changes required under 

the law and being implemented at BOP 

facilities. Accordingly, BOP will publish 

key announcements on the main page of 

its public website and provide information 

and updates on an ongoing basis on its new 

FSA resource page. Internally, in addition 

to the training described above, BOP staf 

will be briefed via video conferences, web 

collaboration, and the BOP’s intranet site to 

remain current on all FSA-related changes 

and improvements. 

Inmates’ Unit Management Teams will be 

available for inmates to ask questions and 

ofer feedback regarding the FSA. Inmates 

will be advised of changes and requirements 

via meetings with their Unit Management 

Teams; by the Warden and local leadership 

via institution Town Halls; and directly via 

announcements posted to inmate bulletin 

boards (including through TRULINCS, an 

application that provides inmates with the 

ability to view electronic notices). Members 

of the public may visit the BOP’s website33 to 

receive additional information. 

89 
Attorney General William P. Barr, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, and BOP Acting Director Hugh J. Hurwitz 

meet with an inmate at FCI Edgefeld. 

As mentioned previously, BOP will hold lis- vide BOP with direct input from interested 

tening sessions to gather additional feedback and impacted parties about the strengths 

from stakeholders and the public about the and challenges of the System as BOP fully 

implementation of the Risk and Needs As- implements the System in its facilities. 

sessment System. Tese sessions will pro90 
NOTES 

1

 18 U.S.C. § 3632(a). 

2

 18 U.S.C. § 3631(h)(1). 

3

 Te Statement of Reasons includes explanatory information about the sentence including any disagreements with the Presentence 

Investigation Report and information about 

how the sentence was determined (e.g. sentencing guideline departures). Some of this 

information, such as mental capacity, drug 

dependency, etc. informs the designation 

process. See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/ 

default/fles/ao245sor.pdf . 

4

 Te applicable United States Attorney’s Offce provides guidance to BOP if it believes 

security risks exist with housing defendants 

with specifc individuals (e.g. co-defendants 

or inmate witnesses). 

5

 Tis determination is separate and distinct 

from BOP’s security level classifcations, 

which also include Minimum, Low, Medium and High. An inmate may be classifed 

as Low security and designated to a commensurate facility because he or she poses 

little risk of fight or institutional misconduct, while at the same time have a high risk 

of recidivism. For example, an inmate with 

an extensive criminal history for defrauding 

senior citizens might have a high risk of recidivism, but a low security level because of 

a clear disciplinary record during prior periods of confnement. 

6

 One exception to voluntary programs is the 

General Educational Development (GED), 

which is required by statute to be provided 

to any inmate without a prior high school diploma or GED. See 18 USC § 3624(f). 

7

 Tis requirement confers several benefts to inmates and institutional operations, 

including development of vocational and 

pro-social skills, the earning of money to repay criminal fnes and victim restitution and 

purchase desired commissary items, and the 

reduction of inmate idleness. 

8

 18 U.S.C. § 3632(h)(1). 

9

 18 U.S.C. § 3632(h)(2). 

10 Such persons are usually designated to one 

of the nine facilities that ofer the BOP’s Sex 

Ofender Management Program. 

11 Note that failure to participate in a mandatory literacy program will result in an inmate failing to earn the maximum amount of 

good conduct time under 18 USC § 3624(b). 

12 See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D). 

13 If the exclusion process cannot be automated, rosters of inmates will need to be sent 

from the BOP Central Ofce to each feld 

site for case management staf to review and 

discuss at each inmate’s Unit Management 

Team meeting. 

14 18 U.S.C § 3621(h). 

15 Prior to sentencing, the probation ofcer 

will interview the defendant and conduct an 

investigation to provide the sentencing judge 

with pertinent information relevant for sentencing. Tis information is captured in a 

Presentence Investigation Report and includes details of the defendant’s family history, community ties, education background, 

employment history and physical and mental health. See https://www.txs.uscourts.gov/ 

presentence-investigation. 

91 
16 18 U.S.C. § 3621(h)(5). 

17 18 U.S.C. § 3635(3)(A). 

18 Tis includes any modifcations that might 

occur following the study period. 

19 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4). 

20 For example, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D) 

(li) excludes inmates convicted of “(li) An 

ofense described in section 3559(c)(2)(F), 

for which the ofender was sentenced to a 

term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, 

if the ofender has a previous conviction, for 

which the ofender served a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year, for a Federal or 

State ofense, by whatever designation and 

wherever committed, consisting of murder 

(as described in section 1111), voluntary 

manslaughter (as described in section 1112), 

assault with intent to commit murder (as described in section 113(a)), aggravated sexual 

abuse and sexual abuse (as described in sections 2241 and 2242), abusive sexual contact 

(as described in sections 2244(a)(1) and (a) 

(2)), kidnapping (as described in chapter 55), 

carjacking (as described in section 2119), arson (as described in section 844(f)(3), (h), 

or (i)), or terrorism (as described in chapter 

113B).” 

21 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(i). 

22 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(ii). 

23 BOP case managers use the Insight application to schedule, develop, and store inmate 

assessments. Te Insight application also 

integrates with SENTRY (the BOP’s inmate 

management system) and the Residential 

Reentry Referral Management (R3M) system, used by RRM staf to manage pre-release processing and case management. 

24 Te BOP’s case management application, 

Insight, is used at all BOP institutions. Te 

BOP uses a second case management application called the R3M system where Residential Reentry Management staf to communicate with Residential Reentry Center 

contract staf to manage inmates in pre-release custody. Insight currently includes a 

referral module that will be more tightly integrated into R3M. 

25 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(3). 

26 For a detailed discussion of the rulemaking process, see “A Guide to the Rulemaking 

Process,” https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process. 

pdf (last visited July 3, 2019). 

27 Master Agreement, Federal Bureau of Prisons and Council of Prison Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, 

July 21, 2014 – July 20, 2017, https://www. 

afgelocal1034.org/ewExternalFiles/2014%20 

New%20Master%20Agreement.pdf (last visited July 3, 2019). 

28 BOP has already updated policies or memoranda that address: Recidivism-Based Partnerships, Secure Firearms Storage, Location 

Within 500 Driving Miles of Inmate’s Residence, Compassionate Release/Reduction in 

Sentence, Home Confnement, Inmate Identifcation, De-Escalation Training, Juvenile 

Solitary Confnement, Dyslexia, and UnitBased Programs. Some of these documents 

are currently under review by the Union. See 

https://www.bop.gov/PublicInfo/execute/ 

policysearch. 

29 Te timeframes listed are estimates and 

may be afected by funding, resources, or legal requirements. 

92 
 

30 18 U.S.C. § 3631(b)(4). 

31 18 U.S.C. § 3621(h). 

32 Te BOP will use federal partner resources to screen external programs. For example, existing evaluation resources which can 

be leveraged include: MITRE (https://www. 

mitre.org/research/overview); NIJ’s Crimesolutions.gov (https://www.crimesolutions. 

gov/about_starttofnish.aspx); NIJ’s betagov (http://www.betagov.org/index.html); 

and GSA’s Ofce of Evaluation Sciences 

(https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/organization/office-of-governmentwide-policy/offce-of-evaluation-sciences). 

33 See www.bop.gov. 

93