By mandating the use of a validated risk-assessment instrument to predict a person's risk to public safety in every release decision, policymakers can maximize the benefits of discretion while maintaining the sort of objectivity that mandatory sentencing guidelines provide. An objective, validated risk-assessment instrument is a far more effective way of measuring risk than a parole board officer's subjective evaluation, and it allows for more informed and appropriate clinical decision-making related to release and conditions of release.

While the significance of risk assessments and the importance of using validated instruments are detailed most extensively in Policy Statement 8, Development of Intake Procedure, there are important issues which distinguish risk assessments performed at this later juncture from those performed at intake. A risk assessment performed at intake may be designed to ascertain a person's risk of violence in a secure facility for the purpose of classification, for example, but it is not likely to be designed to ascertain the individual's risk of recidivism or committing new crimes, the questions generally at issue in a release decision. Accordingly, the same instrument should not automatically be used at both intake and the time of (or just preceding) release. Corrections administrators or other policymakers should select an instrument that reflects the goals of assessment at each juncture.

Although the instrument used at or near the time of release is likely to be different from that used at intake or at other points in the criminal justice system, it may well share some common data with other assessments. Most risk assessments will consider many of the same static factors, like age or criminal history, or dynamic factors (factors subject to change), like institutional behavior. (See Policy Statement 8, Development of Intake Procedure, for additional explanation of static and dynamic factors.) Yet, even where the same factors are measured, some factors that are measured as part of a risk assessment become more important to the risk calculus as a person spends more time in the criminal justice system, and others become less important.

Risk assessments must also be normed, or proven reliable, for different types of populations. Thus, if officials from one jurisdiction adopt an "off the shelf" instrument from another jurisdiction, the assessment may not appropriately measure the risk about which they are concerned. For example, an assessment instrument used to determine parole risk among a set of prisoners who had limited access to substance abuse treatment programs during incarceration will likely not appropriately measure the risk for those individuals who resided in therapeutic communities throughout their time in prison. (See Policy Statement 12, Substance Abuse Treatment, for more on therapeutic communities.)

As further explained in Policy Statement 8, only trained corrections or community-based partner staff (who may or may not be members of the transition team themselves) should administer any risk-assessment instrument. Each person should be assessed shortly before he or she appears before the release authority. The transition team should then analyze the results of the assessment and provide the releasing authority with information and recommendations relating to the release decision, as well as to conditions of release. (For more on using results to inform release decisions and/or conditions of release, see Policy Statement 18, Release Decision.)

Example: Parole Guidelines Score, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles

In Texas, Institutional Parole Officers (IPOs) calculate a Parole Guidelines Score for each inmate eligible for parole review. Risk and severity classification factors are scored separately and then merged into a single Parole Guidelines Score ranging from one to seven, with seven indicating the greatest probability for parole success. Each composite score includes a probable parole approval rate. For example, individuals in the highest risk and highest severity category are scored as one and the approval probability for this level is zero to five percent. The Board of Pardons and Paroles reviews the Parole Guidelines Score in making parole decisions.

In addition to considering the results of the risk assessment, the releasing authority should also consider information about each individual's criminal record (including how long the person will have served for the underlying offense at the time of the parole hearing) and his or her institutional behavior record. The criminal history and the institutional case file may contain information and analysis conducted by other criminal justice or partner agencies that offer insight beyond what an objective tool can provide, even one that considers these factors among others.

Example: Legal Investigation, Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles

Before the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles considers a person for parole, parole staff conduct investigations and provide detailed reports for inclusion in the Board's case file. A parole officer studies arrest and court records and may talk with arresting officers, court officials, victims, and witnesses in order to write a "Legal Investigation" on the details of the potential parolee's current offense and a summary of any prior offenses committed in the same county.

Information about a person's criminal record and institutional behavior may be especially relevant to release decisions made in the jail context. Due to the great volume of people flowing through jails, most of whom stay for relatively short periods, the risk assessments performed in most jails will often not be as thorough as those used in prison settings. Corrections officials, probation officers, or whoever advises a judge or other releasing authority regarding a person's release from jail should nonetheless employ validated assessments where possible.

Jail staff should also be charged with making appropriate referrals to support services for those individuals whose assessments indicate a high risk that they will re-offend upon their release to the community. This more limited approach may also be used for individuals who will be released from prison with no community supervision.

Finally, although there is evidence that risk-assessment instruments are accurate predictors of a person's propensity to re-offend, it is important to note that these tools may not be validated for individuals with certain special needs. For instance, most instruments cannot accurately predict risk among those with mental illness. ^[1]   Therefore, it would be a mistake to rely too heavily on an instrument in cases involving offenders with mental illness. In such cases, mental health professionals (or other appropriate specialists) should be engaged to assess the mental health or other special needs of the person, as well as his or her chances for success in the community.

Example: Contract for Risk Assessment Services, Missouri Parole Board

The Missouri Parole Board contracts for independent mental health assessment services to assist in identifying risk associated with the release of people with mental illness. The contract includes provisions for the board to consult in person with psychiatrists when seeking information on particular cases, should board members desire to do so.