Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ORAS:(Ohio Risk Assessment System)
Purpose and Benefits
Kelly Pitocco, LISW-S, LICDC
University of Cincinnati
Corrections Institute
Objectives
• Why use a risk assessment?
• What are the specific strengths of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)?
• How does the ORAS improves community safety?
Objectives
• How does the ORAS determine needed services for the offender?
• How can the system evaluation client progress throughout the system using the ORAS?
What is Risk?
Risk ofRecidivism
Low
High
Ohio HWH Study
Parolees
ParoleesHalfwayHouse/CBCF
Recidivism
Recidivism
Treatment Effects for LOW Risk Offenders
-36
-32
-29 -29
-21 -21 -21 -21
-16-15
-11 -11 -11
-7 -7-6
-5-4 -4 -4
-2 -2 -2-1
01 1 1
23 3
4 45
6
89
0
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f R
e in
c ar c
e ra t
i on
These Low Risk Offenders More Likely to Commit
Another Crime Compared To Similar Offenders
Without Residential Program
Average Across all Programs
Treatment Effects for LOW Risk Offenders
-36
-32
-29 -29
-21 -21 -21 -21
-16-15
-11 -11 -11
-7 -7-6
-5-4 -4 -4
-2 -2 -2-1
01 1 1
23 3
4 45
6
89
0
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
Pro
bab
ilit
y o
f R
e in
c ar c
e ra t
i on
Average Across all Programs
Look at Program KK
29%Increase in Recidivism
-34
-18-17-15 -14
-10-8
-6 -5
-2 -2
2 3 3 35
7 8 8 810 10
12 12 12 13 1315
1921 22
24 25 2527
3032 33 34
0
10
20
30
40
-10
-20
-30
-40
P ro b
abil i
t y o
f R
e in c
arce
rati o
n
Treatment Effects for HIGH Risk Offenders
Programs LOWEREDRecidivism with TheseHigh Risk Offenders
-34
-18-17-15 -14
-10-8
-6 -5
-2 -2
2 3 3 35
7 8 8 810 10
12 12 12 13 1315
1921 22
24 25 2527
3032 33 34
0
10
20
30
40
-10
-20
-30
-40
P ro b
abil i
t y o
f R
e in c
arce
rati o
n
Treatment Effects for HIGH Risk Offenders
How Did Program KK do?
32%Decrease in Recidivism
Why Did This Happen?
• Why did the programs work for high-risk offenders?
• Why didn’t the programs have the intended and expected outcomes with low risk offenders?
• Could this have been avoided? How?
Principles of Effective Classification
Principles of Effective Classification
• Risk
• Need
• Responsivity
• Professional Discretion
Risk Principle
• Interventions should be matched by risk
– Most intensive treatment should be reserved for higher risk offenders
– Must survey important risk factors to produce an accurate measure of risk
• How do we know which factors to assess?
Major Risk Factors
• Primary– Antisocial attitudes– Antisocial peers– Antisocial
personality– History of antisocial
behavior
• Secondary– Family– Prosocial Leisure
Activities– Education/
employment– Substance abuse
Need Principle
• Assess and target criminogenic needs to reduce the likelihood of recidivism
• Interventions must be very focused and target the needs related to risk
Criminogenic Needs(Dynamic Risk Factors)
• Antisocial attitudes• Antisocial peers• Antisocial personality• Family• Education/employment• Prosocial activities• Substance abuse
Responsivity = Barriers to Treatment
GeneralType of Program (e.g., CBT)Core Correctional PracticesConsistency
Specific
Staff and Offender CharacteristicsMotivationMental HealthLiteracy/IQCulture
Review
Risk =
Need =
Responsivity =
WHO
WHAT
HOW
Professional Discretion(AKA Override)
• An assessor may override the FINAL risk level identified – Consider risk, need, and responsivity– Limited to 10% of the time– Only override the final determination of risk
• Do not override individual items on the assessment
– Level of risk can be raised or lowered
Special Considerations with Override
• May increase if you have a specialized caseload with court requirements– Sex offenders– Severe mental health problems
• Consider using additional assessments for specialized populations
Reasons for Override1. Were there any gaps in information
provided/collected?2. Were there any significant barriers in
completing the assessment?3. Are there specialized areas that need
additional assessment?4. Once the assessment is completed, does
the risk of the offender to re-offend match your professional judgment?
The Ohio Risk Assessment System
Project Overview
The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) consists of 5 instruments:
1. Pretrial (ORAS-PAT)
2. Community Supervision (ORAS-CST)
3. Screener (ORAS-CSST)
4. Prison Intake (ORAS-PIT)
5. Reentry (ORAS-RT)
Primary Purpose of Risk Assessment System
Pretrial ToolBail or Detention
Level of SupervisionCase Management
CommunitySupervision ToolLevel of SupervisionCase Management
Prison Intake andReentry Tools
Case Management
Concurrent Validity
19.7 22 19.5
41.3 41.548.751.3 52
66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LSI WI ORN
Failur
e Rate
of Sam
ple LOW
MED
HIGH
Comparative Recidivism Rates Across Three Instruments (N=672)
Comparative Measures of Association
Measure New offense
Wisconsin Risk-Need .212 Level of Service - Revised .156 Ohio Risk/Need-CS .362 *Pearson’s r presented ** all correlations were significant
Benefits of ORAS• Provides accurate view of risk and targets
to reduce risk
• Follows throughout CJ System
• Consistent tool across Ohio
• Based on Ohio offenders
• Public Domain tool
• Automated with Case Planning capability
• Reassessment to track progress
Conducting an ORAS Assessment
Four Components
• Self-report
• Interview guide
• File review
• Collateral information
Self-Report
• Have offender complete and staff review their answers before interview
• Optional - if not used must ask questions as directed in the interview guide
• If responses appear reliable - do not need to ask self-report questions in interview
Interview guide
• Use as a structure for the interview
• Use follow-up questions when appropriate
• Interview guide may be modified as needed
File Review
• All interviews should include a thorough file review
• Criminal record should be reviewed prior to interview
• Review file post-interview if collateral info is needed and available
Collateral Information
• Collateral information used to support information gathered in the interview
• Sources of collateral info include spouse, previous supervising officers, employers, etc
• If identified as a risk factor-collateral information is not typically needed
• Unless official record directly refutes, information gathered thru interview should be used
Scoring Guide
• The scoring guide should be consulted when scoring items
• Follow the scoring guide as directed
• Do not override the scoring guide
• The scoring guide may not be modified
Overall Scoring Rules
• Arrest versus Conviction– Arrest - Offender taken in to custody for
misdemeanor or felony regardless of disposition– Conviction - Finding of guilt resulting in criminal
record• Prior – Events occurring prior to most recent
offense• Current – Last 6 months unless otherwise
stated• Incarceration – Consider only custodial
sentences as result of conviction
Increasing Accuracy
• Gather information
• Follow-up questions
• Allow offender to talk
• More time now = less time later
• Collateral information when needed
• Score accurately– Double check
scoring– Follow scoring
guide– When in doubt-
check with supervisor
Pretrial Assessment Tool
ORAS-PAT
Pretrial Assessment Tool (ORAS-PAT)
• Seven Items
• Classifies based onFailure To Appear
Risk of Reoffending
Pretrial Tool
• Assess at time of arrest/jail• Aids in bail, release, formal supervision
decisions• Sources of information
– Face-to-face interview– File review– Collateral info
• 5-10 minutes• Re-assessment
– No re-assessment
Revised Cutoffs: Any Violation
4.8
17.6
28.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35Fa
ilure
Rat
e of
Sam
ple
LOW
MED
HIGH
Differences in Recidivism Rates for each Risk Level (r = .223, n=452)
Revised Cutoffs: Predictive Validity
Failure to Appear New Arrest
r = .128 r = .206
ORAS-CSTCommunity Supervision Risk
Assessment Tool
CST Assess at Time of Disposition
Aids in Disposition Decisions
Aids in Case Management
Information Gathered throughFace to Face InterviewSelf-Report QuestionnaireFile ReviewCollateral Information
30 – 45 minutes
Re-AssessEvery 6 monthsSerious Offense or Event
Final Domains for the Community Supervision Assessment
1. Criminal History (6 items)2. Education, Employment and Finances (6 items)3. Family and Social Support (5 items)4. Neighborhood Problems (2 items)5. Substance Use (5 items)6. Peer Associations (4 items)7. Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Problems (7
items)
MALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample
9.1
34.3
58.969.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Very High Risk
Low 0-14 Medium = 15-23 High = 24-33 Very High 34+
ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r = .373
FEMALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample
9.3
21.5
40.450
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk Very High Risk
Low 0-14 Medium 15-21 Med/High 22-28 High 29+
ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r = .300
Video Practice• Observe video interview
– Take notes while watching on the Interview Guide– Record Self-Report responses– Note File Review and Collateral Results
• Score instrument after viewing the interview– Use scoring guide– Score independently
• Small Groups– Review scoring on each item– Use scoring guide– Create a single group score through consensus
• Review scoring with entire group
Community Supervision Screen
ORAS-CSST
The Community Supervision Screen
• ORAS-CSST– Abbreviated version of the ORAS-CST– 4 items taken from the ORAS-CST– Scores range from 0 - 7– Overall Correlation with New Arrest - r =.381
CSST Assess at Time of Disposition
Determines if Need full CST
Information Gathered throughFace to Face InterviewSelf-Report QuestionnaireFile ReviewCollateral Information
5 - 10 minutes
No Re-assessment
MALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Screen
16
50.3
0
20
40
60Low Risk Med-High Risk
Low 0-2 Med – High Risk (3-7)
ORAS-CSST Score Correlation with Recidivism: r = .372
FEMALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the ORAS-CSST
12.5
40.3
01020304050
Low Risk Med-High Risk
Low 0-3 Med – High Risk (4-7)
ORAS-CSST Score Correlation with Recidivism: r = .365
Case Management
Case Planning Overview
• Case plan and interventions should be linked to assessment
• Where a problem is identified – provide intervention activities
• If there is no problem; no action is required
Case Plan Development• NEEDS/PROBLEMS – Based on Assessment
• GOALS – Longer term outcomes (where offender should be after your interventions)
• OBJECTIVES – Offender’s short-term measurable and verifiable steps to reach goal
• TECHNIQUES – Your actions to help offender reach longer term goal
Techniques
1. Supervision techniques
2. Referrals
3. Face to face contact
Priorities in Case Management
• Each domain provides cut points that indicate the priority the domain should take in service provision
• Individuals who score high have high deficits in these categories and are more likely to re-offend
• Remember to Consider if the area is a Primary or Secondary Risk Factor
Priorities in Case Management
Criminal History Education and Finances
Percent Arrested by Priority LevelLow (0-3)Med (4-6)High (7-8)
Percent Arrested by Priority LevelLow (0-1)Med (2-4)High (5-6)
27
4653
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
21
37
55
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LOW
MEDHIGH
LOW
MED
HIGH
Priorities in Case Management
Family and Social Support Neighborhood Problems
Percent Arrested by Priority LevelLow (0-1)Med (2-3)High (4-5)
Percent Arrested by Priority LevelLow (0)Med (1)
High (2-3)
3241
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
17
35
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
LOW
MED
HIGH
LOW
MED
HIGH
Priorities in Case Management
Substance Abuse Peers
Percent Arrested by Priority LevelLow (0-2)Med (3-4)High (5-6)
Percent Arrested by Priority LevelLow (0-1)Med (2-4)High (5-8)
21
43
64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
27
4045
05
10152025
3035404550
LOW
HIGHMED
LOW
MED
HIGH
Priorities in Case Management
Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns
Percent Arrested by Priority LevelLow (0-3)Med (4-8)
High (9-13)
24
44
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LOW
HIGH
MED
