Using a multi-level risk assessment to inform case planning and risk management: Implications for officers

There is compelling evidence that the federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) has predictive accuracy such that clients with higher risk scores have poorer probation outcomes. Because the PCRA can predict client outcomes for both baseline and change scores, probation officers are better equipped to identify intervention strategies for individual clients. However, while the PCRA predicts client rearrests as well as informs case planning and risk management, this process is not completely intuitive for some officers. As such, the authors' purpose in this article is to make the process more explicit, especially regarding violent rearrest

Enhancing community supervision through the application of dynamic risk assessment

Increasingly experts in the risk assessment field have argued that accuracy regarding the timing of client outcome can be enhanced by considering changes in acute dynamic risk factors. The current research was undertaken to examine whether certain acute dynamic risks might better identify not only which clients are at risk but also when that risk might be most elevated for a particular client, allowing officers to consider risk at the case level and intervene accordingly to mitigate risk

Allocation to Offending Behavior Programs in the English and Welsh Probation Service

The Probation Service of England and Wales delivers three offending behavior programs designed for offenders who have committed any offense. One of the selection criteria for these programs states that offenders should have a medium-high risk of reoffending rather than low or very high risk. This article examines the appropriateness of offender allocation by risk level to these three programs in the Probation Service. There was significant variation in allocation performance by Probation Area and program. Appropriateness of allocation was associated with program completion. Very high—risk offenders were more likely to not start a program that they had been allocated to and more likely to not complete a program once they had started. Appropriateness of allocation also affected reconviction independently of program completion status