Compas Guide

User Manual:

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 62

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

Practitioners Guide to COMPAS

August 17, 2012

Contents
Table of Contents

1 Introduction
1.1
COMPAS History and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2
Overview for Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1
2
2

2 Case Interpretation
2.1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2
Understanding the COMPAS Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3
Levels of Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4
Criminological Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.1 Social Learning Theory: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.2 Sub-Culture Theory: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.3 Control/Restraint Theory: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4.4 Sociopathic/Socialization Breakdown Theory: . . . . . . . .
2.4.5 Criminal Opportunity Theory (including Routine Activity):
2.5
Basic Descriptive Information for the Scales . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.6
Conversion of Raw Scale Scores to Decile Scores . . . . . . . . . .
2.7
Interpreting Decile Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.8
Norm Groups and Scale Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 COMPAS Validity and Reliability
3.1
Predictive Validity . . . . . . . .
3.2
Validity of COMPAS Needs Scales
3.3
Construct Validity . . . . . . . .
3.4
Content Validity . . . . . . . . . .
3.5
Internal Consistency Reliability .
3.6
Test-Retest Reliability . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
9
9
12
13

.
.
.
.
.
.

14
14
17
18
20
21
22

4 Treatment Implications for Scales
4.1
Risk Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.1 Pretrial Release Risk . . . . . . .
4.1.2 General Recidivism . . . . . . . .
4.1.3 Violent Recidivism . . . . . . . .
4.1.4 On Counter-Intuitive Predictions
4.2
Criminogenic Need Scales . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.

23
23
24
24
25
25
29

.
.
.
.
.
.

ii
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.2.10
4.2.11
4.2.12
4.2.13
4.2.14
4.2.15
4.2.16
4.2.17
4.2.18
4.2.19
4.2.20

Cognitive Behavioral . . . . . . . . . .
Criminal Associates/Peers . . . . . . .
Criminal Involvement . . . . . . . . . .
Criminal Opportunity . . . . . . . . .
Criminal Personality . . . . . . . . . .
Criminal Thinking Self-Report . . . . .
Current Violence . . . . . . . . . . . .
Family Criminality . . . . . . . . . . .
Financial Problems . . . . . . . . . . .
History of Non-Compliance . . . . . .
History of Violence . . . . . . . . . . .
Leisure/Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . .
Residential Instability . . . . . . . . .
Social Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . .
Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . .
Social Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Socialization Failure . . . . . . . . . .
Substance Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . .
Vocation/Education . . . . . . . . . .
The Lie Scale and Random Responding

5 Typology
5.1
Interpretation . . . . . .
5.2
Male Typology . . . . .
5.2.1 Type Descriptions .
5.3
Female Typology . . . .
5.3.1 Type Descriptions .

.
.
.
.
.

. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Test

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

Bibliography

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

29
29
30
31
32
32
33
34
35
35
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
41
42
42

.
.
.
.
.

44
45
47
47
52
52
55

Chapter 1
Introduction
COMPAS is a fourth generation risk and needs assessment instrument. It is a web-based
tool designed to assess offenders’ criminogenic needs and risk of recidivism. Criminal justice agencies across the nation use COMPAS to inform decisions regarding the placement,
supervision and case management of offenders. Empirically developed, COMPAS focuses on
predictors known to affect recidivism. It includes dynamic risk factors in its prediction of
recidivism, and it provides information on a variety of well validated risk and needs factors
designed to aid in correctional intervention to decrease the likelihood that offenders will
re-offend.
COMPAS has two primary risk models: General Recidivism Risk and Violent Recidivism
Risk. COMPAS has scales that measure both dynamic risk (criminogenic factors) and static
risk (historical factors).
Statistically based risk/needs assessments have become accepted as established and valid
methods for organizing much of the critical information relevant for managing offenders
in correctional settings (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998). Many research studies have concluded that objective statistical assessments are, in fact, superior to human
judgment (Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000; Swets, Dawes, & Monahan, 2000).
COMPAS is a statistically based risk assessment specifically developed to assess many of the
key risk and needs factors in adult correctional populations and to provide decision-support
information regarding placement of offenders in the community. It aims to achieve these
goals by providing valid measurement and succinct organization of many of the salient and
relevant risk/need dimensions. Northpointe recognizes the reality of case management considerations and supports the use of professional judgment in concert with actuarial risk/needs
assessment. Following assessment, a further goal is to help practitioners with case plan development/implementation and overall case management support.
In overloaded and crowded criminal justice systems, brevity, efficiency, ease of administration
and clear organization of key risk/needs data are critical. COMPAS was designed to optimize
these practical factors. We acknowledge the trade-off between comprehensive coverage of key
risk and criminogenic factors on the one hand, and brevity and practicality on the other.
COMPAS deals with this trade-off in several was; it provides a comprehensive set of key
risk factors that have emerged from the last decade of criminological literature, and it allows
1

for customization inside the software. Therefore, ease of use, efficient and effective time
management, and case management considerations that are critical to best practice in the
criminal justice field can be achieved through COMPAS.

1.1

COMPAS History and Development

COMPAS was first developed in 1998 and has been revised over the years as new information
in the criminal justice field has emerged toward best practice use and intervention. The
updated normative data were sampled from over 30,000 COMPAS assessments conducted
between January 2004 and November 2005 at prison, parole, jail and probation sites across
the United States. The latest revision used the same groups, but in actual proportion to
the numbers of offenders found in each group in the criminal justice system (no groups
were overrepresented). COMPAS allows for selection of reference groups for the agency,
e.g. prison norm set, however, there is also a composite norm set based on the continuum
described above.

1.2

Overview for Practitioners

This section is intended to provide users of COMPAS Core with a meaningful and practical
understanding of each scale incorporated into the assessment. COMPAS Core is comprised
of a total of forty-one scales, including four higher order scales (i.e., scales that use items
from other scales that crosscut several domains) and sixteen women specific need scales.
Each scale included in the COMPAS Core assessment is listed below with an explanation of
the themes and constructs measured, the treatment implications for high scores on the scale,
and a listing of the items or questions in the assessment that are used to score the scale.
The COMPAS Core assessment is designed to be configurable for the user at various decision
points within the local criminal justice system and with various populations (i.e., women,
men, institutional, community). Users may choose scale sets (or groups of scales) relevant
to their needs for assessing a person at various stages of the criminal justice process. For
example, Pre-trial Services may choose to use only the Failure-to-Appear scales to make recommendations to the court regarding pre-trial release. Probation may then use the Violence
and Recidivism scales to ”triage” their caseloads by risk of re-offense and violence, and choose
to only complete the full assessment (i.e., all scales) on those individuals scoring moderate or
high risk to gain a holistic view of the person in order to appropriately address supervision
and treatment needs for rehabilitation. In addition, there are need scales available that are
validated specifically for women, so scale sets can be configured for men or women.
Configuration options make cross-referencing by item number difficult because each time a
scale set is altered the item number for each question changes. For this reason, item numbers
are not used to identify items from the questionnaire for each scale in the following tables.
If the user creates a scale set with only select scales for an assessment, the same items will
be used to compute the score for the scale, but the item numbers for each item might vary.

The COMPAS software has undergone periodic updates and changes, and will continue to
grow with emerging and best practice discoveries, as well as technological improvements.
References to specific functions or questionnaire numbers are not made in this document due
to the ongoing changes and customizations that exist in the applications. Software manuals
exist on the Help tab on every Northpointe client’s site.
COMPAS Core was developed to be used with criminal justice clients at any point during
their supervision and can be used as a reassessment tool. The Case Supervision Review
screening (23 items) has been built into all COMPAS sites as an optional method for periodic
review of the person’s status and progress.

Chapter 2
Case Interpretation
This chapter gives an introduction to the interpretation of a Core COMPAS assessment.
After computing an assessment in the COMPAS software the practitioner will generally
interpret the bar-chart displaying decile scores (explained in detail below) and the type
assigned by the typology (if enabled by the site). The bar-chart indicates in what areas
the person scores higher or lower, i.e., which risks or criminogenic needs may exist. The
implications for treatment and intervention are discussed in chapter 4. In this chapter we
will first explain how the scoring and deciles work.

2.1

Introduction

Interpretation of the COMPAS results can be made at differing levels by practitioners.
Collecting assessment information is important, yet the information is only helpful when we
can make sense of it and understand how it can inform our case planning and interaction
with the offender. Interpretation skills and activities include accessing and using:
1. The assessment results as they are reported on the various documents
2. The criminological theories used in COMPAS
3. The Typologies
A model that everyone can relate to is the medical model for interpretation of information
gathered on a person. Think about the different steps taken in the medical field to find a
solution to an illness or a problem. When you don’t feel well and you go to the doctor, what
is the first thing that the doctor does – Asks about symptoms, when did they start, how
severe are they? He asks about your medical history, are you taking any medications, have
you had this or a similar problem before? And, he runs tests, takes your temperature, takes
your blood pressure, blood tests, MRIs, etc. What does he do with all of this information?
He makes a diagnosis, determines the best available explanation for your symptoms with the
4

hope that the intervention he provides will be most effective. Searching for the diagnosis is
looking for the underlying causes and reasons for the symptoms.
Interpretation is using the information gathered to create a logical explanation for, or at
least an understanding of, the relationship between a person’s criminal behavior and their
history, beliefs, and skills. Using a holistic approach is useful when the goal is to have a
comprehensive assessment and interpretation of the data gathered.
Starting from a strengths-based view of the person is useful when beginning case planning.
The information gleaned in the assessment provides a road map, along with input from the
person, about their strengths and areas for growth/change.

2.2

Understanding the COMPAS Score

COMPAS scores are based on comparative or norm groups of offenders across the criminal
justice continuum.
COMPAS risk scores are determined through the same science (actuarial science) used to
determine your car accident risk, and ultimately your premiums as a result of that risk.
The insurance industry has gathered data on drivers, including age, gender, driving record,
amount of time you spend on the road, marital status, etc. and watched drivers to determine
which drivers with which characteristics have the most accidents resulting in claims. Just
like the insurance industry, a COMPAS score is determined by comparing your offender’s
characteristics to a representative criminal population (a norm group). The result is that a
COMPAS score tells you, relative to other offenders across the United States, the predicted
risk of your person. COMPAS is reported in deciles, or increments of ten points. If he scores
a 4 on a scale, then 60% of the population looks more risky in that area than he does, and
30% looks less risky.
The norming population includes subpopulations of people from prison, jail, or probation.
This allows clients to compare to a population that is most like the population that you are
working with. Each agency client selects the norming population to use in their scores, that
is, leadership for your agency has selected the group that mostly closely fits the offenders that
you assess. Typically a decile score of 1-4 is low (below average), 5-7 is moderate (average),
and 8-10 is high (above average).

2.3

Levels of Interpretation

Skills involved and issues to consider when interpreting assessment information:
1. Interpretation is a skill, it will be and needs to be honed over time.
2. People are complex and multi-faceted. Interpretation isn’t easy, yet is necessary for
understanding why someone behaves the way they do, and for determining the best
strategies for intervention.

3. From research in the field we have several criminological theories to help us understand
the path people take to criminal behavior. These theories help us understand more
about why people make their behavioral choices.
Using the the concept of levels, it’s easy to see that interpretation can be accomplished in
varying degrees.
1. Level 1: “Big bars, bad – little bars, good.” Crime-producing issues are viewed largely
in isolation, thus disregarding the influence high-scoring needs have on one another.
This is a simplistic interpretation that fails to consider a chain of possible precursors
and antecedents, It is, however, a good place to start, by identifying the areas of need
for further consideration.
2. Level 2: Helps strengthen the interpretation process beyond Level 1 by identifying
criminogenic factors that are interrelated. In particular, level 2 begins the process
of looking at areas of need that influence one another. A researcher, Palmer, identified three areas of commonality: environmental issues, skill deficiencies, and cognitive/mental health/psychological areas. This level of interpretation allows practitioners
to begin developing interventions that might address clusters of needs, rather than individual needs in isolation of others.
3. Level 3: This is a fully integrated interpretation, using widely-accepted criminological
theories to explain patterns of criminal behavior and help practitioners begin understanding possible underlying causes or contributors to the person’s behavior. This
approach enables the practitioner to consider a mix of explanatory theories that help
“connect the dots” of need and other influencing factors to paint a picture of the individual’s pathway to crime.
Green bars usually do not occur in isolation. The needs they measure are often interwoven
and co-occurring. Accurately interpreting a COMPAS graph requires the screener to look
at the elements all of the high scoring needs to develop a better understanding of how they
developed, how they inter-relate, and what can be done to break the chain.

2.4

Criminological Theories

People are complex creatures with lots of experiences and conditions that influence their values, beliefs and behaviors. If attempting to understand the holistic picture of an individual,
events and influences must be considered. By understanding more of the possible underlying
factors, we are better able to identify effective interventions and resources to achieve success.

2.4.1

Social Learning Theory:

1. Traditional way we think about learning occurring, through modeling of behavior

2. Basic principles include behavior is modeled, imitated, and if reinforced, then likely to
occur again

2.4.2

Sub-Culture Theory:

1. Developed from the Chicago School on Gangs
2. Theory developed to explain delinquency and gang behavior
3. Suggests that norms are transmitted through social interactions
4. Norms in subcultures are different than those in the main culture
5. Certain behaviors (crime, substance abuse) become the cultural norm within the subculture
6. All individuals in society are driven toward economic success. Some subcultures aim
to achieve that success through illegitimate means.
7. Fischer defines subculture as: . . . “a large set of people who share a defining trait,
associate with one another, are members of institutions associated with their defining
trait, adhere to a distinct set of values, share a set of cultural tools and take part in a
common way of life.”

2.4.3

Control/Restraint Theory:

1. Suggests there are different types of control. Internal (bonding to values, beliefs, etc.),
external (bonds to family, friends, social networks, co-workers), and psychological (emotional attachments, cognitions, etc.)
2. The lower an individual’s level of social bonding (or less pro-social) and self control,
the more crime-prone they will become (less to lose)
3. Or, they may be bonded to antisocial social norms values and associations, and their
level of status depends on adherence to the restraints of that norming group.

2.4.4

Sociopathic/Socialization Breakdown Theory:

1. Within this theory lies the concept of the sociopathic offender, which has more layers
than the commonly stated “criminal personality.”
2. Sociopathic: A specific personality disorder – personality disorders can be described
as a person’s world view. A person with a personality disorder does not usually see
themselves as needing help to remedy their behavior and typically blames consequences
on other people and events.

3. Characterized by selfishness, ruthlessness, and the inability to feel guilt or empathy.
4. A cluster of deviant personality traits and behaviors that do not necessarily include
criminal behavior.

2.4.5

Criminal Opportunity Theory (including Routine Activity):

1. Economic theory of markets to describe and predict criminal behavior
2. Suggests that if you alter the quality of opportunity for crime you will reduce criminal
behavior
3. Both individual and environmental factors across time affect criminal acts
4. The convergence in time and place of a motivated offender, suitable target, and absence
of guardianship are strong predictors of criminal behavior
5. Crime is most likely to occur in the presence of a suitable target (victim) and a motivated offender, and in the absence of inhibiting factors (law enforcement, neighbor,
witnesses)
Social Strain Theory:
1. The “means–end” theory of deviance
2. Crime breeds in the gap between culturally induced aspirations and structurally distributed possibilities for success
3. It is the combination of cultural emphasis and social structure which produces intense
pressure for deviation-criminal behavior.
4. This is an economic explanation for crime. Crime occurs largely in poverty-stricken
areas where opportunities to attain the “American Dream” by legitimate means is
blocked, producing frustration and a desire to pursue monetary success by any means
necessary.
Interpretation and the related events around case management can be a complex set of
activities for professionals. One model that helps to explain the procedures of using an
evidence-based practice is known as AIPIE. The AIPIE model is sequenced so that information triggers decisions which trigger actions.
A = Assessment (COMPAS or other tool)
I = Interpretation of the results
P = Plan, create an action plan based on the information gathered

I = Implement the plan
E = Evaluate the results of the actions and outcomes
The AIPIE model is linear and cyclic, that is, the steps are sequential and inform ongoing
practice.
Risk and need scales have been discussed at length in this document, the other element
to consider in supervision is responsivity. An offender’s responsivity, or any person who is
considering making some kind of change, can be understood as their level of readiness and
their skill set to make the changes. Responsivity to intervention then, includes the person’s
motivation for change and the type of intervention offered. If the intervention does not fit
the need, then responsivity factors are lost. If there is good fit, then there is better chance
for success.

2.5

Basic Descriptive Information for the Scales

The scales are divided into two categories:
1. Basic scales, which, for the most part, provide measures of relatively simple constructs
(e.g., financial problems) or measures of the basic risk factors. These are not meant to
be predictive but aim simply and accurately to describe the offender.
2. Risk Scales, which integrate and build upon the basic risk scales to provide predictive
measures of more complex constructs that are extremely important to correctional
personnel (e.g., risk of violence, risk of recidivism).

2.6

Conversion of Raw Scale Scores to Decile Scores

The COMPAS scale scores are transformed into deciles. Deciles are obtained by ranking the
scale scores of a normative group in ascending order and then dividing these scores into ten
equal sized groups. Deciles range from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest). These scores thus proceed
in roughly 10% steps from lowest to highest (1 through 10). A decile rank of 1 indicates that
the scale score is in the lowest 10% of all scores in the normative group. A decile rank of 2
places the scale score above 10% and below 20% of the scores, and so on, up to a decile of
10, which places the scale score in the top 10% of all scores in the normative group.
The decile rank is used to locate a particular offender’s scale score in relation to the scale
scores of offenders in the normative group. In the current version of COMPAS, scale scores
can be referenced to the scale distributions of eight normative groups: (1) male prison/parole,
(2) male jail, (3) male probation, (4) male composite, (5) female prison/parole, (6) female
jail, (7) female probation and (8) female composite.
In general the decile rank has the following interpretation:

Table 2.1: Summary of COMPAS Scales in the COMPAS Normative
Data.
Items
CrimInv
HistNonC
HistViol
CurrViol
CassPeer
SubAbuse
Financ
VocEd
FamCrim
SocEnv
Leisure
ResInst
SocAdj
EJuvSoc
CrimOpp
Soc.Isolation
CrimAttC
CrimPers
ViolRecidRisk
GenRecidRisk

4
5
9
8
7
10
5
11
6
6
5
10
15
13
14
8
10
13
28
25

Min

7381
0.00
7381
0.00
7381
1.00
7381
8.00
7381
7.00
7381 10.00
7381
5.00
7381 11.00
7381
6.00
7381
6.00
7381
5.00
7381
9.00
7381 12.00
7381
9.00
7381 13.00
7381
8.00
7381 10.00
7381 13.00
7381 −4.06
7381 −2.84

Max

Mean

Alpha

19.00
8.69
21.00
2.74
20.00
2.63
14.00
8.60
22.00 10.21
20.00 12.98
15.00
8.67
30.00 18.52
12.00
7.61
12.00
7.13
17.00
8.76
30.00 14.21
35.00 20.58
30.00 13.93
40.00 21.26
40.00 18.19
50.00 20.68
59.00 30.90
1.85 −1.73
1.87 −0.29

5.07
3.32
2.66
1.13
3.00
2.46
2.37
3.74
1.56
1.64
3.46
3.97
3.68
3.48
4.62
5.93
5.78
6.82
0.89
0.77

0.87
0.67
0.71
0.66
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.69
0.64
0.81
0.82
0.68
0.59
0.70
0.66
0.82
0.81
0.75
0.00
0.00

Alpha not available because this scale is a linear equation.

11
1 – 4: scale score is low relative to other offenders in norm group.
5 – 7: scale score is medium relative to other offenders in norm group.
8 – 10: scale score is high relative to other offenders in norm group.

Note however that the location of the decile cut-points vary depending on the type of COMPAS scale. Table 2.2 shows the cutting points for each type of COMPAS scale. Table 2.3
lists each COMPAS scale and its type.
Table 2.2: Cutting Points for COMPAS Scale Types.
Type
Type
Type
Type

1
2
3
4

Low (1-4)
Unlikely (1-2)
Unlikely (1-5)
Unlikely (1-4)

Medium (5-7)
Probable (3-4)
Probable (6-7)
Probable (5-7)

High (8-10)
Highly Probable (5-10)
Highly Probable (8-10)
Highly Probable (8-10)

Table 2.3: COMPAS Scales and Types.
Scale

Scale Type

Violent Recidivism Risk
General Recidivism Risk
Pretrial Release Risk
Criminal Involvement
History of Non Compliance
History of Violence
Current Violence
Criminal Associates/Peers
Substance Abuse
Financial Problems/Poverty
Vocational/Education Problems
Criminal Thinking
Family Criminality
Social Environment Problems
Leisure and Recreation
Residential Instability
Social Adjustment Problems
Socialization Failure
Criminal Opportunity
Criminal Personality
Social Isolation

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Table 2.4: Decile Cut-Points for COMPAS Scales in the Composite Norm Group.
D1
CrimInv
1.0
HistNonC
0.0
HistViol
1.0
CurrViol
8.0
CassPeer
7.0
SubAbuse
10.0
Financ
5.0
VocEd
14.0
FamCrim
6.0
SocEnv
6.0
Leisure
5.0
ResInst
9.0
SocAdj
16.0
EJuvSoc
10.0
CrimOpp
15.0
Soc.Isol
11.0
CrimAttC
13.0
CrimPers
23.0
PretrialRisk
2.89
ViolRecidRisk −2.90
GenRecidRisk −1.30

3.0
6.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
17.0
18.0
20.0
13.0
15.0
16.0
15.0
18.0
20.0
25.0
27.0
29.0
3.08
3.24
3.39
−2.50 −2.20 −2.00
−0.90 −0.70 −0.40

D10

9.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
15.0 19.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
5.0
7.0 21.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0 20.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
11.0 14.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
15.0 22.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
16.0 20.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0 15.0
18.0
19.0
21.0
22.0
24.0 30.0
7.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
10.0 12.0
6.0
7.0
7.0
8.0
10.0 12.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
14.0 17.0
14.0
15.0
16.0
18.0
20.0 30.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
24.0
25.0 35.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
17.0
19.0 30.0
21.0
22.0
24.0
25.0
28.0 40.0
18.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
26.0 40.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
25.0
28.0 50.0
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
40.0 59.0
3.54
3.69
3.86
4.08
4.38 8.01
−1.70 −1.50 −1.20 −1.00 −0.60 1.90
−0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60 1.90

The decile cutting points for the scale scores in the COMPAS composite norm group (n=7381)
are shown in Table 2.4. The column labeled D1 contains the cut-off for the first decile, D2
the cut-off for the second decile, and so on. Thus, for the CrimPers scale, roughly one-tenth
of the offenders scored 23 and lower, another one-tenth scored 24 through 25, and so forth. If
a score covers more than one decile, we use the convention of assigning it to the lower decile
category. For instance, 30% of the composite sample have a score of 0 on the HistNonc scale,
covering D1 through D3 in the table, but this score is assigned to the lower decile (D1).
This characteristic is associated with the granularity of certain COMPAS scales, which is
discussed in the next section.

2.7

Interpreting Decile Scores

It is important to note that decile scores can only be interpreted in a relative sense, and
are always linked to the norm group. If, for example, the norm group on which the Violent
Recidivism Risk Scale cuts are based happens to consist of highly violent offenders, then low
decile scores would not necessarily indicate low risk of violence. Similarly, if the norm group
happens to consist mainly of offenders with lower violent recidivism risk, the decile scores

for Violent Recidivism Risk would be biased in the other direction – high scores could be
associated with individuals who actually don’t have high violent recidivism risk.
It is also important to note that for some scales, it is not always possible to break the sample
into ten groups of exactly equal size. Hence, for some scales it was necessary to skip over
some decile scores.
When it was not possible to divide the sample into ten groups, an algorithm was used to
identify cutting points that divided the offenders into as many roughly equal-sized groups as
possible and that used the full range of decile values (i.e., 1-10).
The issue of clumping affects a limited number of scales. In addition to the HistViol scale,
other COMPAS scales that exhibit clumping of decile ranks include Risk-Viol, CurrViol,
FamCrim, and SocEnv. Overall, the use of decile ranks has clear advantages over the use of
raw scale scores in terms of interpretability. Low scores (e.g., 1 thru 4) directly reflect the
lowest ends of the distribution, and high scores (e.g., 8 thru 10) reflect the highest ends of
the distribution.

2.8

Norm Groups and Scale Distributions

In the current release of the COMPAS the default reference group will be a gender-specific
composite norm group. In other words a female’s scale score will be converted to a decile
score by comparing it with the deciles of females in a composite norm group. The user will
also have the option of selecting a gender-specific subgroup within the composite norm as
a reference group. For example, in a probation setting the user could compare a female
offender’s COMPAS scale score to either the female composite norm group or to the female
probation subgroup of the composite norm group. The COMPAS provides these optional
norm groups to place some control over the relative meaning of the scale decile scores. Recall
that decile scores are based on the distributions in a normative group and that the relative
meaning of a particular decile score is dependent on the norm group that is referenced.
A norm-study conducted by Northpointe might be available for your site that shows how
the scales are distributed and how the distributions compare to the national norm-group.
The composite norm group is described in more detail in these reports or in the COMPAS
Technical Manual.

Chapter 3
COMPAS Validity and Reliability
The COMPAS is a validated fourth generation risk and needs assessment instrument. It is
a computerized tool designed to assess offenders’ needs and risk of recidivism and is used
by criminal justice agencies across the nation to inform decisions regarding the placement,
supervision, and case management of offenders. The instrument was empirically developed
and focuses on factors known to affect recidivism. It includes dynamic risk factors in its prediction of recidivism, and provides information on a variety of well-validated risk and needs
factors designed to aid in correctional treatment to decrease the likelihood that offenders will
re-offend.
In this section we summarize research findings from multiple studies that demonstrate COMPAS is reliable (test-retest and internal consistency), that its scales measuring needs have
construct validity and behave consistently and that its risk scales have predictive validity.
An overall conclusion is that COMPAS was found to be reliable and has good predictive and
construct validity.
Northpointe has an established history of working in partnership with our clients to advance
knowledge and practice. From our early work in jail classification to our recent partnership
with CDCR and the University of Cincinnati, Northpointe leverages the opportunity of
public and private partnership to test and advance knowledge. The results are shared both
in peer-reviewed publications, presentations at professional conferences, and with detailed
technical reports to clients. Thus, our research and evaluation findings are publicly shared
through conference papers, technical reports, peer-reviewed articles and book chapters to
advance the availability of current information for use in practice.

3.1

Predictive Validity

COMPAS distinguishes between risk scales (designed to predict recidivism) and needs scales
(designed to measure needs, inform case plans and identify intervention targets). This approach of separating risk and needs aligns with current best practices in risk assessment
(C. Baird, 2009; S. D. Gottfredson & Moriarty, 2006).

COMPAS has two main risk models: General Recidivism Risk and Violent Recidivism Risk.
Again, following best practices, we believe risk scales designed to predict risk should be
dynamic (composed of dynamic, criminogenic needs) so that one can measure changes in
risk of recidivism over time. Others have argued that risk models should be composed of
static criminal history factors available in criminal justice information management systems,
arguing that these models are more objective, reliable, and efficient (Barnoski & Drake,
2007). Our methods for developing and validating these scales were strongly influenced by
the research of John Copas and colleagues who have developed an outcomes-based recidivism
scale for England and Wales (Copas & Marshall, 1998). Some of these methods are described
in recent books by Hosmer and Lemeshow (2000) and Harrell (2001).
Northpointe is committed to testing, evaluating, and improving our risk models. During
initial phases of scale development we rely on alternative methods to test the early stage
criterion validity of the risk models, and we also include well known criterion factors such
as age-at-first-arrest to ensure that fundamental associations are present. The General Recidivism Risk and Violent Recidivism Risk scales have subsequently been validated with
prospective outcomes in new samples in several different studies since they were first developed.
We typically include an outcomes study in most pilot tests of COMPAS to evaluate the
predictive validity of the risk scales in each new jurisdiction. In 2006 we conducted pilot
tests in the New York Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (DPCA), the
New York State Division of Parole (NYSDP), and the Michigan Department of Corrections
(MDOC). These three pilot studies all had outcomes studies built into them. In 2008 we
conducted outcomes studies at all three sites using their pilot data. We also conducted
separate studies in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
and the DPCA. This latter study was recently published in the Journal of Criminal Justice
and Behavior (Brennan, Dieterich, & Ehret, 2009).
Table 3.1 below shows the results of tests of the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk scales
from outcomes studies conducted in the Michigan Department of Corrections (Brennan &
Dieterich, 2008; Dieterich, Oliver, & Brennan, 2011; Dieterich, Brennan, & Oliver, 2011);
the New York State Division of Parole (Brennan, Dieterich, & Breitenbach, 2008); the New
York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives (Brennan & Dieterich, 2009;
Brennan et al., 2009); and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(Farabee, Zhang, Roberts, & Yang, 2010).
The table shows the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for the General Recidivism Risk and
Violent Recidivism Risk scales. The AUC is the most widely used measure of predictive
accuracy in criminal justice, psychology, medicine, and related fields. AUCs of .65 to .69
indicate modest to moderate predictive accuracy. AUC’s of .70 to .75 indicate moderate to
strong predictive accuracy. Note that for arrest, felony arrest, noncompliance and return to
prison outcomes, the General Recidivism Risk Scale is tested. For person offense arrests the
Violent Recidivism Risk Scale is tested.
The results of these studies indicate that the COMPAS risk scales generally fall into the
moderate to strong range of predictive accuracy. They also indicate that COMPAS generally
meets or exceeds the AUC values produced by competitive instruments such as the LSI.

Table 3.1: Summary of AUC results for Recidivism Risk and Violent Recidivism Risk Scales
in several outcomes studies.
Study
MDOC Pilot
NY Parole Pilot
NY Prob. Pilot
NY Probation
MDOC Reentrya
MDOC Probationa
CDCR Reentry
a

N
(n=561)
(n=553)
(n=987)
(n=2,328)
(n=25,347)
(n=21,101)
(n=25,009)

Any
Year Arrest Felony Person NonComp. Return
2008
2008
2009
2009
2011
2011
2010

.693
.679
.730
.707

.700

.717
.710
.670

.652
.728

.723
.652

.742
.700
.740
.650

.690
.710

.720

Study used conviction outcomes.

An independent but flawed study of Predictive Accuracy: A recent independent study by
Fass, Heilbrun, DeMatteo, and Fretz (2008) purporting to examine the predictive validity
of the COMPAS risk scales concluded that it’s effectiveness varies widely by ethnicity. This
conclusion was subsequently disputed in a peer-reviewed paper (Brennan et al., 2009). The
latter noted that the Fass study only had outcome data available on a relatively small sample
of 276 subjects (not their full sample) and that this sampling issue was a serious flaw that
undermines their conclusions. This sampling issue appears to have been missed by the
journal reviewers. The glaring problem is that when Fass broke down their small sample by
ethnicity the resulting ethnic specific sub-samples essentially became too small to properly
or reliably measure a predictive effect. For example, there was a grand total of only 1 failure
(recidivism) in the subsample of Caucasian subjects – thus the effective sample size for the
analysis of Caucasians was 1. To base any serious conclusion on such a sample can hardly be
seen as conclusive or reliable evidence. In our own studies for MDOC we found no significant
differences in the predictive validity for different ethnic groups (Brennan et al., 2009).
Comparing COMPAS predictive accuracies against other established instruments: The AUCs
of the other main instruments often used for offender risk prediction may help to contextualize
the findings of our studies. Perhaps the best known instruments are the Violence Risk
Appraisal Guide [VRAG] (Quinsey et al., 1998); the Level of Services Inventory-Revised
[LSI-R] (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006); and the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [PCLR] (Hare, 1991). The AUC values for these instruments in recent studies are quite varied
depending on the populations, outcome periods, and dependent variables used in specific
studies.
Regarding the VRAG, Quinsey et al. (1998) found an AUC of 0.76 in a large scale, multiyear
recidivism study. Barbaree, Seto, Langton, and Peacock (2001) reported AUCs of 0.69 in
predicting serious re-offending and 0.77 when predicting any re-offense for sex offenders.
Kroner, Stadtland, Eidt, and Nedopil (2007) obtained an AUC of 0.703 in a study of reoffending among mentally ill offenders.
Regarding the LSI-R, the recent review by Andrews et al. (2006) did not provide AUCs.
However, Barnoski and Aos (2003) found AUCs of 0.64 - 0.66 for the LSI-R in predicting

felony and violent recidivism among Washington State prisoners. Flores, Lowenkamp, Smith,
and Latessa (2006) reported an AUC of 0.689 using the LSI-R to predict re-incarceration
among federal probationers. Dahle (2006) reported an AUC of 0.65 using the LSI-R to
predict violent recidivism. Barnoski and Drake (2007) reported an AUC of 0.65 using the
LSI-R to predict felony sex recidivism.
For the PCL-R predictive accuracy again varied across studies. For example, a Swedish study
of mentally ill violent offenders (Grann, Belfrage, & Tengstrom, 2000) found AUC levels of
0.64 - 0.75 based on various follow-up time frames. Barbaree et al. (2001) reported AUCs
of 0.61, 0.65, and 0.71 for the PCL-R in predicting various recidivism outcomes among sex
offenders.

3.2

Validity of COMPAS Needs Scales

How relevant are our specific needs scales for understanding and predicting criminality? Our
specific need scales were selected to measure factors determined through prior research to
have an impact on outcomes in criminal justice. The needs scales also are used to guide
individualized decisions for case planning, including identifying targets and choosing interventions. Although we view risk scales separately from need scales in terms of function and
purpose, both the need scales and the risks scales should be relevant for probation, prison,
reentry, and parole work. In other words, while we do not use the need scales to directly
predict recidivism, we do want the need scales to measure individual factors such as criminal
thinking, education, employment, substance abuse, residential stability and other aspects of
the person-in-environment that represent potential relevant targets for interventions.
In our psychometric studies we have demonstrated that the need scales measure factors that
are relevant for case planning by fitting univariable regression models in which each need
scale predicts future recidivism. Table 3.2 shows the results of fitting a survival model to
each need scale for predicting a return to prison for a technical violation in the CDCR sample
– all are statistically significant. Note that we have similar results/evidence from the other
outcomes studies that we have conducted.
The row for Vocational/Education shows the coefficient, hazard ratio, standard error, and
t-value from a survival model in which Vocational/Education predicts return to prison for
a technical violation. The hazard ratio indicates that for every one-unit increase in the Vocational/Educational decile score, the hazard for return to prison for a technical violation
increases by 11%. The contents of the table are sorted by the hazard ratio. Scales with the
largest hazard ratio are ranked higher. The top five scales on the basis of hazard ratio are
Vocational Educational Problems, Criminal Personality, Social Adjustment, Residential Instability, and Criminal Thinking. If the t-value is greater than 1.96, the effect is significantly
different than zero. All these estimates are significant, but also fairly modest in size. The
significance level is a function of sample size; the sample consists of 6,485 soon-to-be-released
inmates (first release to parole). However, these results demonstrate that the COMPAS need
scales measure factors that have clear and predictive relationships to recidivism, and hence,
they are useful measures of potential intervention targets.

Table 3.2: Uni-variable Survival Model: Hazard for Return to
Scale Decile Score
Coeff Hazard Ratio
Vocational/Education
0.101 1.11
Criminal Personality
0.081 1.08
Social Adjustment
0.076 1.08
Residential Instability
0.074 1.08
Criminal Thinking
0.057 1.06
Leisure and Recreation
0.057 1.06
Substance Abuse
0.051 1.05
Financial Problems/Poverty 0.048 1.05
Social Environment
0.044 1.05
Family Criminality
0.043 1.04
Social Isolation
0.036 1.04

3.3

Prison (Technical Violation)
Se (Coeff) t-value
0.007
15.47
0.006
12.66
0.006
12.45
0.006
12.58
0.007
8.59
0.006
9.46
0.006
7.87
0.006
7.87
0.006
7.92
0.006
7.12
0.006
5.57

Construct Validity

Construct validity refers to observed correlations between measures of the same or divergent
constructs. Construct validity is relevant only for the COMPAS needs scales and refers in
part to unidimensionality of the scale and to its factor structure. It additionally is based
on establishing evidence that it correlates in an expected manner with similar scales, and
to other relevant scales in theoretically expected ways. A direct approach to construct
validity is to measure the correlation between matched scales of the LSI and COMPAS. The
LSI-R is considered a gold standard because it is the current industry leader. This would
be a good indication for how well the COMPAS scales are measuring the same concept.
Results from a study conducted in the California Department of Corrections (Farabee et al.,
2010) show a direct and high level of correlation between matching LSI-R and COMPAS
scales. The findings shown in Table 3.3 offer very strong evidence of the construct validity
of the COMPAS scales. However, it should be noted that COMPAS contains a number of
additional scales that are omitted from the LSI-R, and also that in general, the reliabilities
of the COMPAS scales are, in almost all cases, superior to those of the LSI-R. Farabee et
al. (2010) found high Pearson correlations between the LSI-R and COMPAS measures of
Criminal Involvement (.64); Vocation/Education (.51); Criminal Associates (.48); Substance
Abuse (.53); Financial (.49); and Residential Stability (.57).
Shifting to more general issues of construct validity, we continue to accumulate a variety of
additional evidence to support the construct validity of the COMPAS need scales. For example, the COMPAS substance abuse measure correlates positively (.44) with the Substance
Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) in the Michigan Department of Corrections pilot
data.
Construct validity is also demonstrated if a measure correlates in the predicted manner with
other variables with which it theoretically should correlate. For example, research in developmental delinquency (longitudinal research in which anti-social behaviors and attitudes
are studied over the life course) consistently finds that youth with early onset of delinquent
behavior tend to have more serious delinquency trajectories and more negative emotional-

Table 3.3: Correlations between COMPAS and LSI-R scales
COMPAS
LSI-R
Correlation
Criminal Involvement
Criminal History
.64 (p < .0001)
Criminal Associates/Peers Companions
.48 (p < .0001)
Substance Abuse
Alcohol/Drug Problem .53 (p < .0001)
Financial
Financial
.49 (p < .0001)
Vocation/Education
Education/Employment .51 (p < .0001)
Family Criminality
Family/Marital
.16 (p > .10)
Leisure
Leisure/Recreation
.05 (p > .10)
Residential Instability
Accommodation
.57 (p < .0001)
Criminal Attitudes
Attitudes/Orientation
.20 (p = .08)

CassPeer
SubAbuse
Financ
VocEd
FamCrim
SocEnv
Leisure
ResInst
SocAdj
Soc.Isolation
CrimAttC
CrimPers

AgeatFirst
-0.28
-0.05
-0.07
-0.22
-0.19
-0.18
-0.09
-0.03
-0.20
0.04
-0.12
-0.15

Prior
Arrests
0.13
0.23
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.12
0.18
0.11
0.03
0.09

Returns to
Custody

Commitments

0.17
0.19
0.11
0.14
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.15
0.19
0.13
0.05
0.13

0.09
0.16
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.10
0.00
0.06

Assaultive
Misconduct
0.18
-0.07
0.02
0.17
0.11
0.14
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.06
0.13
0.17

Table 3.4: Correlations of COMPAS Scales with Criminal History Indicators in the CDCR
Sample.
ity, lower achievement, and problems in social adjustment (Moffitt, 1993). Thus, when we
consistently find, over multiple studies, that our Criminal Personality, Criminal Attitudes,
Social Adjustment and Vocational Educational scales correlate with age-at-first-arrest, just
as developmental delinquency research predicts, we take this as evidence of construct validity.
Furthermore, age-at-first-arrest is a good external variable to demonstrate construct validity
of the COMPAS needs scales. Although age-at-first is collected inside COMPAS, it comes
from official records, while the needs scales are scored using a different method (interview
and self-report).
We have evidence of construct validity of this type from psychometric studies in the Michigan
Department of Corrections, New York Probation, New York Parole, Georgia Department of
Corrections and many other sites. To illustrate our approach to demonstrating construct
validity, we present results in Table 3.4 from a current sample in the CDCR. The CDCR
sample consists of 6,485 Core COMPAS assessments conducted between September 26, 2008

and January 27, 2009. Men comprise 91% of the sample.
There are many other notable correlation patterns in Table 3.4 that provide evidence of
construct validity for the COMPAS scales. For example, we see that age-at-first arrest
correlates negatively with the higher-order personality scales Criminal Attitudes (p= -.12)
and Criminal Personality (p = -.15). This comports with findings in developmental research
that indicate offenders with early onset are more likely to have high scores on similar types of
personality measures and more serious and persistent criminal involvement (Moffitt, 1993).
Similarly, we see that offenders with earlier age-at-first arrest are more likely to have higher
scores on scales measuring factors that have been identified as criminogenic in longitudinal
developmental studies. These scales include Criminal Associates and Peers (p = -.28), Family
Crime (p= -.19), Vocational/Educational Problems (p= -.22), and Social Environment (p =
- .18) (Farrington, Jolliffe, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Kalb, 2001).
Another pattern in Table 3.4 is defined by the correlations between previous arrests and
the scales Substance Use (p = .23), Financial Problems (p = 0.1), Residential Instability
(p = .12) and Social Isolation (p = .11) (Stouthamer-Loeber, Loeber, Wei, Farrington, &
Wikstrom, 2002).
There are moderate, significant correlations between the assaultive misconduct item from
the COMPAS and the scales Criminal Associates and Peers (p = .18), Vocational Educational Problems (p = .17), Social Environment (p = .14), Social Adjustment (p = .14), and
Criminal Personality (p = .17). In their meta-analysis, Gendreau, Goggin, and Law (1997)
found that antisocial attitudes and criminal peers were important individual level predictors
of prison misconduct. There are notable, significant correlations between the number of
returns to custody for a parole violation and the scales Criminal Associates and Peers (p
= .17), Substance Abuse (p = .19), Vocational Educational Problems (p =.14), Residential
Instability (p = .15), and Social Adjustment (p = .19). Substance abuse, residential stability, and employment and education have been identified in past research as some the most
important risk and needs factors associated with reentry success (Nelson, Deess, & Allen,
1999).
Overall, the observed relationships between the COMPAS scales and criminal history indicators in the CDCR sample provide evidence of the construct validity of the scales. These
correlations comport with relationships between risk factors and serious and violent trajectories observed in developmental criminological research (Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Tolan &
Gorman-Smith, 1998).The significant correlations we have pointed out are somewhat attenuated by variability in the base rates of the paired variables. These modest associations are
typical of correlations between risk factors and criminal involvement variables observed in
many criminal justice research contexts.

3.4

Content Validity

Content validity refers to the coverage of key factors that are relevant in the criminogenic
domain. It is clear that COMPAS has a more comprehensive coverage of relevant scales
than the LSI-R. Content validity has a major role in any assessment field. It refers to the

extent to which an assessment comprehensively includes and assesses the key factors in a
domain of interest. The LSI includes 10 important criminogenic factors that assess constructs
well supported in the literature and that have emerged from over 15 years of meta-analytic
research.
A study conducted by Farabee et al. (2010) found that 9 out of these 10 LSI scales are clearly
matched to a similar scale in COMPAS. Thus, in terms criminogenic scale coverage (content
validity), COMPAS matches virtually all scales contained in the LSI. However, the COMPAS
system additionally includes another 14 scales that can be utilized or turned on/off by an
agency depending on its information needs.
These additional scales are themselves well supported empirically and include such factors
as anger/hostility, history of non-compliance, low social supports, socialization failure, and
so on. In those paired scales between COMPAS and the LSI showing weaker correlations it
is also clear that the two instruments are assessing different facets of these constructs. For
example, Family Criminality in COMPAS specifically assesses the actual criminality of the
family; while Family/Marital in LSI-R focuses on family relationships. We also note that in
a study conducted by Farabee et al. (2010) the LSI-R scale for family issues has far lower
test-retest reliability than the COMPAS scale (.55 versus .94).

3.5

Internal Consistency Reliability

For a scale to be useful it must be reliable. That is, if one were to carry out repeated testing
of a given respondent with different questions or tests, approximately the same scale value
should be obtained on each re-test. Generally, if the items entering a scale are highly correlated (internally consistent), then the summated scale will be reliable. Internal consistency
reliability - typically assessed by Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient - is a widely used and popular reliability approach. It is often used as a counterpart to test-retest reliability. Several
prior published studies provide data for both the LSI and COMPAS thus allowing direct
comparisons of the two instruments. In our own prior reports to CDCR we have provided
the internal consistency reliability of all the relevant COMPAS scales as assessed on CDCR
prisoners.
The LSI results for internal consistency reliability, for a variety of correctional samples are
published in various reports. A comparison of these results (mostly using Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient) also indicates that the COMPAS scales outperformed the LSI scales. Specifically,
in a study of N = 1,077 CDCR prisoners the average Cronbach Alpha across the COMPAS
scales was 0.70 (Brennan, Dieterich, & Oliver, 2005). An additional COMPAS study of 1,534
San Bernardino probationers had an average Alpha of 0.73 (Brennan, Dieterich, & Oliver,
2006). In contrast an LSI reliability study in a Canadian prison sample had an average Alpha
of 0.39 (Simourd, 2004).
We show in Table 3.5 a listing of the Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient for each scale on a large
sample consisting of males from CDCR and MDOC.

Table 3.5: Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient
Items N
Min
Criminal Peers
7
47679 7.00
Crim. Attitudes
10
47679 10.00
Crim. Involvement
4
47679 0.00
Crim. Opportunity
14
47679 13.00
Crim. Personality
13
47679 13.00
Current Violence
7
47679 7.00
Early Juv. Soc. Fail. 13
47679 7.00
Family Criminality
6
47679 6.00
Finance
5
47679 5.00
History Non-Compl. 5
47679 0.00
History Violence
9
47679 0.00
Leisure
5
47679 5.00
Residential Inst.
10
47679 9.00
Soc. Isolation
8
47679 8.00
Soc. Adjustment
15
47679 12.00
Soc. Environment
6
47679 6.00
Substance Abuse
10
47679 10.00
Vocation/Education 11
47679 11.00

3.6

for each
Max
22.00
50.00
19.00
40.00
61.00
13.00
32.00
12.00
15.00
21.00
22.00
17.00
31.00
40.00
38.00
12.00
20.00
30.00

COMPAS scale
Mean SD Alpha
10.81 3.55 0.81
22.12 5.55 0.80
8.25
4.61 0.75
21.37 4.71 0.67
30.80 6.45 0.73
8.18
1.27 0.53
12.53 4.03 0.69
7.39
1.49 0.65
8.48
2.51 0.75
5.98
5.37 0.75
2.68
2.86 0.59
8.22
3.66 0.86
13.72 4.07 0.72
17.72 5.24 0.81
20.48 3.66 0.56
7.86
2.00 0.83
13.10 2.47 0.75
18.85 3.82 0.69

Test-Retest Reliability

In a recent independent study by Farabee et al. (2010) the COMPAS scales showed very high
test-retest reliability, with correlations ranging from .70 to 1.00, and with an average correlation above 0.80. Thus, the various COMPAS sub-scales demonstrated good to excellent
reliability over time. An important aspect of the Farabee study was a comparison against
the well-known LSI. Overall, the average test-retest correlation coefficient for the COMPAS
scales was .88; for LSI-R, the mean as measured in the same study was .64. These results
indicated a distinct superiority of COMPAS compared to the LSI scales.

Chapter 4
Treatment Implications for Scales
Each COMPAS scale has been constructed based on a variety of behavioral and psychological
constructs that are of very high relevance to recidivism and criminal careers. Included in
this section is a brief description of the area of research/literature that supports the scale
content and context.
Interpretation of the scale scores and how they relate to case planning and intervention is
a key concept for COMPAS users. The information contained in this section is intended to
assist you in your interpretation of the COMPAS scores as you plan for meaningful interventions and plot the course of behavioral change with the individual. Some brief examples
of language for case planning are also offered with each needs scale description as a means
to generate thoughtful, individualized goals and tasks for a person under supervision. The
language (not considered a full treatment plan or goal/task statement) in the case planning
examples is action oriented in the goals and tasks. The concept of ”how” is defined through
behavioral statements. For example, how will the person find emergency housing, or how
will the person find new, healthy friends.

4.1

Risk Scales

In this section we describe the Risk Scales in COMPAS. We have developed risks scales for
general recidivism, violent recidivism, and pretrial misconduct. There are additional risk
scales under development.

4.1.1

Pretrial Release Risk

The Pretrial Release Risk Scale was developed through a pretrial release outcomes study
conducted in a large sample of felony defendants assessed with COMPAS in Kent County,
Michigan Pretrial Services (Dieterich, 2010). The Pretrial Release Risk Scale was constructed
to predict failure to appear (FTA) and new felony arrest among defendants on pretrial release.
Prior pretrial risk assessment research has consistently identified a set of factors that are
predictive of pretrial failure. The most common risk factors include current charges, pending
charges, prior arrest history, previous pretrial failure, residential stability, employment status,
community ties, and substance abuse (VanNostrand, 2003). We selected items from the
COMPAS assessment and included them as candidates for risk model development on the
basis of this prior research.
One purpose of pretrial release risk assessment is to sort a pretrial caseload into low-,
moderate-, and high-risk groups based on the likelihood of failure to appear in court or
commit a new crime pending trial. Use of the risk assessment tool by pretrial services agencies should result in consistent and equitable decisions regarding release and conditions of
release. The use of objective risk assessment tools is recommended by the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (2004). The risk assessment tool should be empirically
derived and have demonstrated predictive validity in the jurisdiction in which it is deployed.
The factors that enter into the risk assessment score should be consistent with applicable
state statutes.1 These and other guiding principles for pretrial risk assessment are outlined
in Pretrial Services Legal and Evidence-based Practices (VanNostrand, 2007).

4.1.2

General Recidivism

The recidivism risk scale was developed to predict new offenses subsequent to the COMPAS
assessment date. The outcome used for the original scale construction was a new misdemeanor or felony offense within two years of the COMPAS administration date.
The primary factors making up this scale involve prior criminal history, criminal associates,
drug involvement, and early indicators of juvenile delinquency problems. All of these risk
factors are well known predictors of recidivism.
Scores in the medium and high range garner more interest from supervision agencies than low
scores, as a low score would suggest there is little risk of general recidivism. It is important
to note that the risk scores are generally taken from static information and that current level
of needs, e.g. substance abuse or other issues can very much influence a person’s likelihood
of acting out or recidivating. In a later discussion the concept of Low risk/High needs will
be covered.
General recidivism refers to a broad range of potential acts, therefore, versatility is an element
for consideration. The COMPAS Typologies document delineates the typologies that have
been discovered through research at Northpointe. One trait that lends itself to recidivism is
versatility.
1

For example in New York a pretrial risk assessment instrument cannot be based on age, gender, or
marital status (Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, 2007).

4.1.3

Violent Recidivism

This scale was originally developed in Core COMPAS assessment data on a large sample of probation and presentence investigation (PSI) cases. The scale was later adapted
for reentry. The scale inputs include history of violence, history of non-compliance, vocational/educational problems, the person’s age-at-intake and the person’s age-at-first-arrest.
The strong association of these factors with future violence has been established in previous research and holds true for people who are considered “non-disordered” (Gendreau,
Goggin, & Little, 1996). Additionally, meta-analytic results from studies with disordered
persons show that a history of violent crime is one of the more potent predictors of violent
recidivism (Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998).
Similar to the General Recidivism Risk Score, attention to the medium and high scores on
this scale warrants careful planning for officer, institutional, and community safety. Some
offenders, based on their past history of violent acts may score in the high and medium range,
yet, show low or medium needs areas. Consideration for the current status of the offender
and the support network in place is, as always, recommended, yet in the case of a person
who scores high on this scale, special supervision conditions may be deemed necessary.

4.1.4

On Counter-Intuitive Predictions

Sometimes the COMPAS risk score for a particular person does not match the probation
officer’s expectations or clinical judgment regarding the level of risk posed by that person.
A case in point is when an offender with no prior violence history scores medium or high
on the Violent Recidivism Risk Scale. Or, conversely, an offender with some violent history
scores low on the Violent Recidivism Risk Scale. This section explains how this occurs and
why it is not an indication that the risk scale has failed to work properly.
The COMPAS risk scales were developed using statistical models to identify offender characteristics that are predictive of recidivism (new offenses). The Violent Recidivism Risk Scale
is constructed from the following characteristics that we found to be predictive of new person
offenses (misdemeanor and/or felony):
History of Noncompliance Scale
Vocational Education Scale
Current age
Age-at-first-arrest
History of Violence Scale

Each item is multiplied by a weight (w). The size of the weight is determined by the strength
of the item’s relationship to person offense recidivism that we observed in our study data.

The weighted items are then added together to calculate the risk score:

Violent Recidivism Risk Score = (age∗−w)+(age-at-first-arrest∗−w)+(history of violence∗
w) + (vocation education ∗ w) + (history of noncompliance ∗ w)

The strong association of each of these components with person offense recidivism that we
observed in our studies has been established by many other researchers in criminal justice.
Meta-analytic results show that violent criminal history, education and vocational problems,
current age, and age-at-first-arrest are consistent predictors of violent recidivism. The Violent
Recidivism Risk Scale has items in common with many risk assessment instruments in use in
corrections, including the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R); the General Statistical
Information on Recidivism (GSIR); the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and the Sex
Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG); and the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ).
Your auto insurance company uses a similar risk prediction approach to estimate your risk
of having an accident. Besides your age and accident history, the equation includes other
characteristics such as credit rating and gender. If you are under 25, male, and have poor
credit, you may be classified as high risk even though you have never had an accident.
In the context of Violent Recidivism Risk, if you are young, unemployed and have an early
age-at-first-arrest and a history of supervision failure, you could score medium or high on
the Violence Risk Scale even though you never had a violent offense arrest.
It is possible for a person’s score on the Violent Recidivism Risk Scale to deviate considerably from what one would expect given the person’s score on the History of Violence Scale.
Consider a hypothetical person who scores high (D10) on History of Violence (2 prior misdemeanor assault offense arrests, 1 prior domestic violence offense arrest, 1 violent property
offense arrest, and 1 prior weapons offense arrest); medium (D6) on vocation / education
problems, and low on noncompliance history (D1). This person has a late age at onset (age
at first arrest = 33 yrs) and he is 51 years old. He has no history of noncompliance (D1)
and no vocation or education problems. All of these factors subtract substantially from his
Violent Recidivism Risk score, which falls into decile 3 (D3). Note that age is one of the
best predictors of violent recidivism, and it carries a lot of weight in the Violent Recidivism
Risk Scale calculation. If our hypothetical person were 25 years old and his age at first were
16 years old, his Violent Recidivism Risk score would jump to D8 (High).
Why Is the Current Offense Not Included in the Risk Score?
The Recidivism Risk Scale does not include current violent offense in its calculation. When
an offender with a current violent offense scores low on the Violent Recidivism Risk Scale this
may appear counterintuitive and be a source of confusion. The current offense is excluded
from the calculation because our research has demonstrated that it is not important for
predicting general violent recidivism. Although a prior history of violent crime is highly
predictive of future violent crime, current violent offense is not. However, current crime

type might be a foundation for a supervision level recommendation override based on policy
and professional knowledge and experience. This is why it is critical to understand how the
Violent Recidivism Risk score is determined and its relationship to current offense.
What About Domestic Assault or Sex Assault Offenses?
For some crime categories the current offense is very predictive of recidivism. For both domestic assault and sex assault, details about the index offense are important for understanding
the risk of recidivism. If the current offense is domestic assault or sex assault, then it is
recommended to use an index-offense-specific risk tool to assess risk of recidivism. COMPAS
includes secondary assessments for this purpose including the STATIC 99 designed for use
with adult male sex assault offenders and the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment
(ODARA) for use with adult male domestic assault offenders.
What Percent of the Assessments will have a Counterintuitive Pattern?
There are two counterintuitive patterns: (1) An offender with no prior violence history scores
high on the Violent Recidivism Risk Scale and (2) An offender with high violent history scores
low on the Violent Recidivism Risk Scale. The relative frequency of these patterns depends
on the relative frequency of violent history in the agency population. If a large percent of
the agency population has low violent history then pattern 1 is more likely. If a large percent
of the agency population has high violent history then pattern 2 is more likely.
Cases that have a counterintuitive pattern of History of Violence and Violent Recidivism Risk
should be examined closely and considered for an override. Persons who exhibit pattern 1 are
more likely to have early age at onset and younger age at assessment, and possibly a history
of noncompliance and vocational/educational problems. Persons who exhibit pattern 2 are
more likely to have late age at onset and older age at assessment, with minimal history of
noncompliance and few vocational/educational problems. In all cases a holistic framework to
case formulation should be applied that takes into account the varied aspects of the offender
as measured by the COMPAS risk and needs scales.
General Comments on Risk Prediction
Risk assessment is about predicting group behavior (identifying groups of higher risk offenders) - it is not about prediction at the individual level. Your risk score is estimated based on
known outcomes of groups of offenders who have similar characteristics.
The Violent Recidivism Risk Scale could be constructed in such a way that a high (low) score
can only be obtained for someone who has (doesn’t have) a history of violent offense arrests.
This could be accomplished for example by constructing the Violent Recidivism Risk Scale
entirely (or almost entirely) of violent history items. However, based on our own research
and that of many other researchers, a scale that depends too heavily on violent history items
will not have good predictive power.

Our risk scales are able to identify groups of high-risk offenders - not a particular high-risk
individual. We identify groups of offenders who score high, medium or low-risk. We expect
that the high-risk group will have higher recidivism rates for violent offenses relative to the
low-risk group - this, in fact, has been demonstrated in our outcomes studies.
It is also important to note that we would expect staff to disagree with an actuarial risk
assessment (e.g. COMPAS) in about 10% of the cases due to mitigating or aggravating
circumstances which the computer is not sensitive to. In those cases staff should be encouraged to use their professional judgment and override the computed risk as appropriate documenting it in COMPAS with the Override Reason - for monitoring by supervisory staff.

4.2

Criminogenic Need Scales

Need scales measure a criminogenic need and help with case-planing. In the following section
we briefly describe each the Core COMPAS’s need scales and give examples for what goals
and tasks might be put into a case-plan.

4.2.1

Cognitive Behavioral

This is a higher order scale that incorporates the concepts and items included in the Criminal Associates, Criminal Opportunity, Criminal Thinking, Early Socialization, and Social
Adjustment scales.
This scale, as mentioned above, includes grouped items which represent areas of need that
can best be addressed in settings that include cognitive restructuring approaches. Concurrent drug/alcohol treatment or other interventions that address immediate needs are
recommended, a balanced approach is necessary to avoid overwhelming the person with interventions. For some people, implementing interventions before they are on community
supervision is the best approach as they will have the opportunity to focus on change their
thoughts, feelings and behavior in a controlled setting without the challenges of a community
setting. When a person scores in the medium and high ranges of this scale, considerations
for their world view must be made, beginning with the question, “does this person see a need
for change?”.
Goal
Task

Task

Build new and increase healthy coping skills
Immediate Needs: Identify sources/triggers of my anger, frustration, and feelings of being overwhelmed. Make separate lists for
each feeling, include what was going on in my immediate surroundings at that moment, who else was there, stressful incidents, and
any other information I think is significant.
Ongoing Needs: Use my healthy coping skills (from my skills
list/optional actions) to problem-solve in situations where I feel
stressed, angry, overwhelmed or when I recognize my triggers to
use old behavior to get through a situation.
Table 4.1: Case Planning example for Cognitive Behavior

4.2.2

Criminal Associates/Peers

An involvement with anti-social friends and associates is one of the “big five” risk factors
for criminality to emerge in meta-analytic research (Gendreau et al., 1996). Affiliating with
aggressive and criminal others is a significant risk factor for further violence and crime. This
is consistent with both social learning theory and sub-cultural theories of crime (Andrews et
al., 1990; Elliot, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985).

This scale assesses the degree to which a person associates with other persons who are
involved in drugs, criminal offenses or gangs, and determines whether they have a history of
arrests and incarceration. A high score would identify persons who are involved in a network
of highly delinquent friends and associates.
This domain is considered a strong area of influence for people in the criminal justice system.
Interventions in this area can be difficult for the person as their identity with a group as well
as a support system, albeit criminally involved, will be altered. Gang influence is particularly
difficult as a real level of threat could exist for the person who, by leaving/taking a break
from gang life, may be viewed as disrespecting those who have brought him/her to this point
in life. Compliance, rather than change is likely for some people, yet, it is a step forward
with respect to safety and recidivism.
Goal
Task
Goal
Task
Task

Increase my association with pro-social, healthy friends
Immediate Needs: Identify traits and behavior of positive, healthy
friends and family members
Reduce interactions with anti-social, potentially harmful friends
Identify friends and family who I tend to get into trouble with,
include any co-defendants or criminally involved associates
Create a plan to avoid interaction with criminally oriented
friends/family, include statements regarding what my actions will
be if I come into contact with the friends/family I have listed as
“trouble” for me.
Table 4.2: Case Planning example for Criminal Associates/Peers

4.2.3

Criminal Involvement

The degree of criminal involvement has consistently emerged as a major risk factor for
predicting ongoing criminal behavior. It is the most important of the major risk factors that
have emerged in various meta-analysis studies (Gendreau et al., 1996; Andrews & Bonta,
1994). Early juvenile delinquency involvement has also been linked to ongoing criminal
behavior (Moffitt, 1993).
This scale is defined by the extent of the person’s involvement in the criminal justice system.
A high score indicates a person who has had multiple arrests, multiple convictions, and prior
incarcerations. The items centrally defining this scale are the number of arrests and number
of convictions. A low score identifies the person who is either a first-time arrest or has
minimal criminal history. Thus, the central meaning of this scale is the extensiveness of the
criminal history.
Arrest history is useful here to see patterns (persons, places, things, time of year) and
other related elements that could be antecedents to recidivism and perhaps causal factors
(thoughts, feelings, beliefs, attitudes) that can be impacted by intervention. Cognitive behavioral approaches seem to work best in this life area to re-set a person’s response to triggers
and patterned responses.

Case planning will be similar to criminal associates/peers, criminal personality and criminal
opportunity and some cognitive behavioral goals. See the goals listed in Table 4.2, 4.4 and
4.3.

4.2.4

Criminal Opportunity

We have developed a higher order scale to assess the concept of criminal opportunity. This
scale emerges from those criminological theories that stress the importance of routine daily
activities and the importance of occupying certain social roles (marriage, parenting, being an
employee). These roles tend to structure a person’s daily activities in a pro-social manner,
fostering social bonds and associated local social controls. The theoretical background to
this scale includes routine activities theory that emphasizes the importance of immediate
local daily activities that place a person in high risk or high opportunity situations (Cohen
& Felson, 1979). The second theoretical theme contributing to this scale is early social
control theory (Hirschi, 1969) which emphasizes the importance of social bonds as inhibitors
or constraints to crime. The third theoretical strand in which the concept of opportunity is
important is the “life cycle” theory of Sampson et.al. (1994). This asserts that age related
desistance from crime is linked to life cycle changes that increase both social bonds (wives,
children, jobs) and the immediate social controls of associated roles.
This higher order scale assesses criminal opportunity by using items that represent a combination of the following: time in high crime situations, affiliation with high risk persons
who often engage in illegal activities, an absence of pro-social or constructive activities (e.g.
working, spending time with family, etc.), an absence of social ties, high boredom, high restlessness and being in a high risk age group. The central items include: being unemployed,
living in a high crime area, having friends who engage in drug use, and having no constructive
activities.
A variety of life areas are represented within this scale. Interventions can be put in place in
concurrent waves, e.g. seeking out new friends and activities that are pro-social and have
positive elements such as learning new skills, helping others, gaining awareness and acting
on the awareness at the same time. Structure is a key ingredient in reworking previously idle
or non-constructive time. Performance measures as a means of accountability and tracking
behavior are also useful tools in this area.
Goal
Task

Task

Increase positive activities
Immediate Needs: Set a date and time for any new activities to
help me follow through with the plans I make for new, positive
activities.
Ongoing Needs: Develop career aspirations, goals, and identify potential role models as a way to connect with others outside of my
family as a means to move forward. Create a plan with each item
listed, including dates, for behavioral actions on my part.
Table 4.3: Case Planning example for Criminal Opportunity

4.2.5

Criminal Personality

Several personality dimensions have emerged from recent research as significantly related
to persistent criminality. These dimensions involve impulsivity, risk-taking, restlessness and
boredom, absence of guilt (callousness), selfishness and narcissism, interpersonal dominance,
anger and hostility, and a tendency to exploit others (Hare, 1991; Cooke, Forth, & Hare,
1998). Bonta (1996) reports that criminal personality was the second most important dynamic factor in predicting recidivism. Bandura (1996) also reports validating similar personality dimensions. Criminal personality was one of the ”big five” risk factors for criminality
in the meta-analysis of Gendreau (1996). The well known General Theory of Crime proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) similarly invokes the personality concept of “low
self-control,” which is very similar the various dimensions of criminal personality. Prior research has demonstrated a modest but significant relationship between psychopathy, low
self-control (variously defined) and both violence and general criminal behavior (Quinsey et
al., 1998). Quinsey el al. (1998) include the PCL (Hare, 1991) within their violence risk
predictive system – the VRAG.
The items in this scale cover the main dimensions identified as components of the criminal
personality (e.g. impulsivity, no guilt, selfishness/narcissism, a tendency to dominate others,
risk-taking, and a violent temper or aggression.)
Personality is a complex concept and many social scientists believe personality is “set” in
childhood/adolescence. Given that many factors come together to create personality, the
idea of criminal personality is no less complicated. There are patterns seen in persons
who exhibit criminal personality traits. Intervention then, is based on cognitive behavioral
approaches that examine and offer alternatives to thoughts, feelings, beliefs and resultant
criminal behavior. A specific diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder is not necessary
when considering intervention, the area of focus is as listed above Ű what is the process the
person undergoes while deciding to engage in criminal behavior, what is his/her rationale,
and what are they willing to do about making changes?
Goal
Task

Build new and increase positive coping and communication skills.
Immediate Needs: Journal my behavior in the areas of thoughts,
feelings, attitudes and resultant behavior when I feel stressed, angry, or that something unfair has happened to me. Do my journal
entries daily for 5 days and bring to my next probation appointment.
Table 4.4: Case Planning example for Criminal Personality

4.2.6

Criminal Thinking Self-Report

Antisocial attitudes and beliefs are identified among the“big five”risk factors in meta-analysis
studies of factors that predict crime (Gendreau et al., 1996). However, there is no agreement
on the particular attitudinal dimensions or cognitions that are the most useful for predictive purposes. Various studies focus on aspects of thinking style, attitudes toward criminal

justice, neutralization and excuses, tolerance for law violation, cognitive justifications, etc.
Clearly, this area could require a highly extensive inventory to map the full range of cognitive
dimensions relative to crime. In the absence of such consensus, we adapted the approach of
Bandura (1996). Bandura’s approach assesses several key cognitive dimensions that justify,
excuse, and minimize any damage caused by the person’s behavior/crime.
This scale brings together several cognitions that serve to justify, support, or provide rationalizations for the person’s criminal behavior. These dimensions include moral justification,
refusal to accept responsibility, blaming the victim, and rationalizations (excuses) that minimize the seriousness and consequences of their criminal activity. These include rationalizations such as: drug use is harmless because it doesn’t hurt anybody else, criminal behavior
can be justified by social pressures, theft is harmless if those stolen from don’t notice or
don’t need what was taken, etc.
The concepts discussed above as they relate to the Criminal Personality scale are also present
in this scale, and have been identified in further detail through the person’s own self-report.
A distinct pattern of rationalizations for criminal and/or harmful behavior is present for
those who score in the probable and highly probable categories. Interventions that focus primarily on cognitive behavioral approaches tend work best with those who evidence significant
criminal thinking.
Goal
Task

Modify criminal thinking, develop a positive attitude toward various life areas (see specific goals).
Immediate Needs: Create a list of what works for me (positive
thoughts and activities) and what doesn’t (negative thoughts and
activities) that keep me in the same cycle of getting into trouble.

Table 4.5: Case Planning example for Criminal Thinking Self-Report

4.2.7

Current Violence

This scale forms part of the general criminal history and remarks regarding theoreticalsubstantive validity are subsumed under the earlier statement on criminal violence.
This short scale measures the degree of violence in the present offense. The central item that
defines the scale is the presence of an assaultive felony. Other key items involve whether or
not a weapon was used, if there was injury to a person, etc.
Research has shown that the level of violence in the instant offense is NOT a good predictor
of future crime. Keeping in mind the degree and type of violence in the instant offense as
compared to the person’s history of violence and current level of functioning/needs scores is
good practice. One area for clear consideration is that of family violence and how this will
effect any kind of living arrangement for community-based supervision.

34
Goal
Task

Task

Build new and increase healthy coping skills.
Enroll in and successfully complete an Anger Management Program. Bring my homework and updates from the class to each
probation appointment.
Create a list of my healthy and unhealthy coping skills, then list
next to each one the usual outcome when I use that reaction or
response.
Table 4.6: Case Planning example for Current Violence

4.2.8

Family Criminality

From a social learning theory perspective, participation in criminal behavior may be facilitated by significant others who model such behavior. Research has consistently demonstrated
that delinquency and adult crime are both associated with parent criminality (West, 1973;
Lykken, 1995). Children may learn that violent and deviant behavior “work” in the context of their family. Aside from the social learning and role modeling perspective, other
intergenerational mechanisms may operate to transmit values and behaviors from parent
to child. Genetic influences, for example, may operate to transmit anti-social personality
disorder and criminality (Lykken, 1995). COMPAS therefore includes a measure of family criminality focusing on the criminality and drug use history of the mother, father, and
siblings.
This scale assesses the degree to which the person’s family members (mother, father, and
siblings) have been involved in criminal activity, drugs, or alcohol abuse. The items cover:
arrests of each family member, whether they have been in jail or prison, and whether the
parent or parental figure has a history of alcohol or drug problems.
Families can be significant positive resources for any person in the criminal justice system.
The presence of family criminality, however, can create a dichotomous situation in that, on
the one hand the family is a source of support, comfort, and hope, and on the other hand,
they may also be criminally involved and their support revolves around their criminal activity
and belief systems.
Goal
Task
Task

Eliminate criminal involvement with family members.
Immediate Needs: List/identify family members (those who I have a
relationship with and spend time with) who are criminally involved.
Ongoing Needs: Create a time line of my involvement with these
family members and the consequences/benefits of spending time
with them, e.g. when did it happen and what happened while we
were together.
Table 4.7: Case Planning example for Family Criminality

4.2.9

Financial Problems

This concept appears as one of the more modest risk factors in the Gendreau et al. (1996)
meta-analysis. It is linked to lower social class, poor housing, community disorganization,
and other factors. Homicides, for example, are disproportionately found in high poverty
areas. Numerous social dimensions related to poverty are linked to high crime, including
residential mobility, family disruption, single parent families, crowded housing conditions,
and higher opportunity for violence (Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994). The measure of poverty
and financial problems in COMPAS focuses on the struggle to survive financially, problems
paying bills and other issues related to a shortage of money.
This scale assesses the degree to which a person experiences poverty and financial problems.
It assesses whether the person worries about financial survival, has trouble paying bills, and
has conflicts with friends or family over money.
Unpredictable economic times may play a role in this area, however, a person’s pattern
of earning (or not) and spending money is an important element. Education on money
management and fulfilling court ordered financial commitments is part of the necessary
approach when considering interventions. Assuming someone knows how to manage their
finances is an erroneous starting place, vocational training may also play a role in creating a
successful change plan.
Goal
Task
Task

Gain financial stability/independence.
Immediate Needs: Apply for financial assistance/emergency shelter
and/or food stamps (use other resources as referred by PO).
Immediate Needs: Inform my supervisor at work about my probation appointments and any terms and conditions that might impact
my ability to do my job.
Table 4.8: Case Planning example for Financial Problem Scale

4.2.10

History of Non-Compliance

This scale focuses on the number of times a person has failed when he or she has been
supervised in the community (probation or parole). The central defining items are the
number of times that probation or parole has been violated or revoked. Related items
include the number of times a new charge or arrest has occurred while the person was on
probation and the number of returns to custody for parole violations.
This scale focuses on the number of times the person has failed when he or she has been placed
on a community-based status. The central defining item is the number of times probation
or parole has been suspended or revoked. Related items include the number of times the
person has failed to appear for a court hearing, the number of times a new charge/arrest
or technical rules violation has occurred while on probation, parole and prior community
corrections program placement failures (i.e. electronic monitoring, community service work,

day reporting, etc.) Thus, the scale involves the risk of technical rules violation failure leading
to revocation of probation, pretrial release, or community corrections placement status.
Different states/agencies have different thresholds for supervision violation and suspension/revocation. While policy decisions do effect the person’s history ”on paper” it is
also important to understand the person’s willingness and ability to successfully complete
community-based supervision. Clearly articulated expectations with terms and conditions
of supervision and case planning are key factors in laying the groundwork for success. Behaviorally stated goals and a high degree of structure with room for individual differences
and learning curves could enhance a person’s success rate.
Goal
Task

Note

Attend all probation meetings as scheduled.
Immediate Needs: Client and PO agree upon appointments for two
week intervals including attendance at Cog/Behavioral group 1x
week. Client to use pocket calendar for personal reminder of all
appointments, during this two week period (March 10-24, 2010)
client is to attend 2 scheduled appointments at this office (2/12
and 2/19 at 3pm) and the cog group on 2/15 and 2/22 at 6pm.
All case planning activities should include tangible sanctions should
the person fail to comply or engage in change behavior, and in the
cases when a very high degree of structure is put in place, those
sanctions may be stated on the case plan.

Table 4.9: Case Planning example for History of Non-Compliance

4.2.11

History of Violence

A history of violent behavior has been demonstrated to be one of the most powerful predictors
of future violence (Farrington, 1991; Parker & Asher, 1987). The likelihood of future violence
appears to increase steadily with each instance of a prior violent incident. Each prior arrest
for violent behavior increases the likelihood of further violence. Similarly, a history of juvenile
violence has been found to be a predictor of adult violence (Farrington, 1991).
The aim of this scale is to reflect the seriousness and extent of violence in an individual’s
criminal history. It focuses on the frequency with which violent felony offenses have occurred,
the use of weapons, and the frequency of injuries to victims. The frequency of several specific
violent offenses are also included in the scale,e.g., robbery, homicide, and assaultive offenses.
Multiple episodes of violence may suggest the need for further psychological evaluation. The
accumulation of multiples (events, victims, types of crimes against persons/animals) creates a pattern of serious concern. Interventions may be targeted at cognitive behavioral
constructs to manage behavior on the part of the individual, and a highly structured supervision modality may be preferred by the supervising agency.
While we are not going to change the past, we can teach people to intervene in old thought
processes and put in place, new, healthier thoughts that lead to pro-social responses rather
than old, patterned reactions.

37
Goal
Task
Task
Task

Increase my healthy responses to events that trigger an angry reaction for me.
Immediate Needs: List the way I have shown my thoughts and
feelings in the past.
Immediate Needs: Describe what happens when I lose self-control.
Immediate Needs: Describe what happens when I use positive, selfcontrol responses.
Table 4.10: Case Planning example for History of Violence

4.2.12

Leisure/Boredom

Aimlessness in the use of leisure time is linked to several theories of crime. For example, it is
a component of Hirschi’s early Social Control theory representing an aspect of weak external
social bonding (Hirschi, 1969). Aimless use of leisure time is also included as a risk factor
in the LSI (Andrews & Bonta, 1994). The General Theory of Crime (M. R. Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990) includes aimlessness and the related concept of boredom proneness within the
dimension of low self-control or criminal personality. It is also linked to routine activities
theory by the maxim of “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” (Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley,
Bachman, & Johnston, 1996).
This scale assesses the degree to which the person experiences feelings of boredom, restlessness, or an inability to maintain interest in a single activity for any length of time. Thus,
this scale may be regarded as reflecting a psychological dimension rather than representing
the amount of constructive opportunities in the person’s community environment.
As noted above, the issue is not necessarily time management, but the person’s value of
experiences and relationships. Creating an understanding of these elements may be a first
step toward making changes for the individual. Some social or information processing issues
may be identified through further assessment, these issues can then be addressed accordingly.
Goal

Task

Learn about the relationship between my level of participation
with other people/events/interests and my ability to be involved
in things outside of work or other required activities.
Immediate Needs: Create a plan for getting involved with my
friends who participate in the basketball league at the rec center.
List the night and time of the league and the person who I can talk
to get on a team. Ask my friend to go with me if I feel like I need
support in joining the team.
Table 4.11: Case Planning example for Leisure/Boredom

4.2.13

Residential Instability

An unstable lifestyle is one aspect of the second factor of Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist and
this is an obvious risk factor for crime and violence (Hare, 1991). Additionally, low social ties

and an unstable residential address are often used in pre-trial risk assessment instruments to
predict risk of flight. The absence of social ties, and the presence of social isolation are also
seen in Social Control theory as the absence of restraints on deviant behavior that result
from weak social bonding. In addition, since change and stress are correlated, an unstable
lifestyle may be stressful. Finally, personal stress/distress appears as a risk factor with
modest predictive validity in meta-analysis studies (Gendreau et al., 1996).
The items in this scale measure the degree to which the individual has long term ties to
the community. A low score on this scale indicates a person who has a stable and verifiable
address, local telephone and long term local ties. A high score would indicate a person who
has no regular living situation, has lived at the present address for a short time, is isolated
from family, has no telephone, and frequently changes residences.
Community-based supervision requires a verifiable address. The reality is that some individuals end up in shelters right after release, or, they don’t have the financial means to
secure acceptable living quarters for months after sentencing/release. The historical nature
of the person’s residential stability is good information while the person is incarcerated in
that planning can be put into place to avoid the pitfalls aforementioned. Renewing and/or
creating family contacts and other potential support resources can be used as realistic goals
in establishing residential stability.
Goal
Task

Seek and obtain sustainable living situation.
Ongoing Needs: Develop a workable budget that includes housing
costs that I did not list under my immediate needs such as pets,
additional furnishings, any agreements that I can lawfully enter into
to help reduce the cost of my rent.
Table 4.12: Case Planning example for Residential Instability

4.2.14

Social Adjustment

Interpersonal problems may exist in each main social institution (family, school, work, etc.)
A pattern of interpersonal problems may indicate poor social skills. The present higher order scale was constructed to assess the recurrence of interpersonal problems across various
social contexts. Social skills training is often advocated as a treatment approach in preventing further violence and crime. Social adjustment problems are also implicated in several
theoretical perspectives of criminal behavior, e.g., weak social bonding in social control theory (Hirschi, 1969), stress (Gendreau et al., 1996) social cognitive models of crime (Dodge,
Pettit, McClaskey, & Brown, 1986; Dodge, 1998) and the erosion of social capital (Hagan,
1998).
This scale is higher order in the sense that it uses items from other scales that crosscut
several domains. It aims to capture the degree to which a person is unsuccessful and conflicted in his/her social adjustment in several of the main social institutions (school, work,
family, marriage, relationships, financial.) A high score indicates a person who has been fired
from jobs, had conflict at school, failed at school or work, has conflict with family, exhibits

family violence, cannot pay bills, has conflicts over money, etc. Thus, the common theme is
problematic social relationships across several key social institutions.
Areas for intervention will depend on the most pressing issue and need for support in that
area. Creating a sense of connectedness and responsibility for self and to others is a foundational element of many cognitive behavioral approaches. Structuring communication expectations and methodologies for the individual may be a starting place, many programs
provide sequenced awareness and practice options. The supervision professional may work
with the individual in identifying other community-based pro-social activities, as well.
Goal
Task

Increase positive social supports with family, friends, and community.
Immediate Needs: Create a plan for increasing my time spent with
positive, pro-social friends and family members.
Table 4.13: Case Planning example for Social Adjustment

4.2.15

Social Environment

Living in a high crime neighborhood is a well-established correlate of both delinquency and
adult crime (Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 1995; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994). This risk
factor fits into several theoretical models of crime and delinquency, e.g., social disorganization, social learning, and sub-cultural theories. Disorganized and high crime communities
are characterized by perceived high crime rates, gangs, easy access to drugs, and inadequate
housing.
This scale focuses on the amount of crime, disorder, and victimization potential in the
neighborhood in which a person lives. High crime is indicated by the presence of gangs, ease
of obtaining drugs, the likelihood of being victimized, a belief that a weapon is needed for
protection, and so on.
Few scales reflect areas where the person has no direct control over the identified issues,
however, this scale is based on environmental factors that the individual has to cope with
on a daily basis. Problem-solving around the possibility of relocating or finding a safer
living arrangement may be paramount. Other risk factors come into play when considering
the person’s social environment (criminal opportunity, criminal peers, family criminality,
residential instability, etc.) and these factors may become more of a primary focus should
they be identified as active in the person’s life.
The Social Environment and Social Isolation scales will typically use case planning language
similarly. Increasing positive family and peer relationships, as we have seen in other scales
is a primary focus, as well as involvement in specific activities.

4.2.16

Social Isolation

Positive social supports appear to serve several functions that may reduce crime and violence.
Social support may act as a protective factor or mediator of stress, since stress and anxiety

may predispose a person towards anger and violence. Positive social support has been shown
in research to act as a protective factor against risk of violence even in high risk environments
(Estroff & Zimmer, 1994). As described below, the COMPAS social isolation scale is bipolar
in that it serves to identify social isolation/loner behavior on one pole and strong social
supports at the other pole.
This scale assesses the degree to which the person has a supportive social network and is
both accepted and well integrated into this network. The scale is scored such that a high
score represents an absence of support, and the presence of feelings of social isolation and
loneliness. The defining items include: feeling close to friends, feeling left out of things, the
presence of companionship, having a close best friend, feeling lonely, etc.
As mentioned in other social support areas, intervention can be across many dimensions and
impact the person on both the awareness and practice levels. Strategies might include finding a mentor, joining known pro-social or support groups, learning new skills/hobbies, and
creating new social connections where the person’s new, healthy behavior will be expected
by those involved in the activities.

4.2.17

Socialization Failure

Socialization failure during childhood and adolescence has been consistently linked to crime
and delinquency. Problems in the family and inadequate parenting are the critical background issues (Lykken, 1995). We have constructed a higher order factor in COMPAS that
builds on the early onset of delinquency, problem behavior in school (dropout, suspensions,
fighting, etc.), inadequate parental socialization, and early drug use. These are all well
known risk factors for later criminality (Chaiken, Chaiken, & Rhodes, 1994; Lykken, 1995)
and all represent early socialization problems. Lykken (1995) in particular, explores the link
between socialization failure and criminal behavior in his concept of the sociopath.
This scale combines items reflecting family problems, early school problems, and early delinquency, all of which suggest socialization failure, (how the person was socialized growing
up). The intent is to examine socialization breakdown through its early indicators in school,
delinquency, and family problems. A high score would represent a person whose parents
were jailed or convicted or had alcohol or drug problems. In addition, a high score is associated with early behavior problems in school (being expelled, failing grades, skipping classes,
fighting) and would also manifest serious delinquency problems.
This scale looks at the history or pathway that was involved in the person’s upbringing
that may have significantly affected his/her view of the world in terms of trust, respect
for reasonable authority, value of others, and the development of beliefs and attitudes that
are active and present today. High scoring individuals may need cognitive restructuring
programs to assist in an awareness of, and change plan for, some of the beliefs and attitudes
that lead to troublesome behavior for the person.

41
Goal
Task
Activity

Note

Build new and increase my positive coping skills and responses.
Attend and successfully complete cognitive behavioral program.
Complete first exercise in workbook by 3-20-10 and bring the completed exercise to the next probation appointment. Participate in
the cog group by engaging the exercise on My Thoughts, and participating in the role play discussion.
In the case of a structured, sequenced program, case planning will
often be stated as in the example above.

Table 4.14: Case Planning example for Early Socialization Failure

4.2.18

Substance Abuse

Numerous published research studies have established that substance abuse is a significant
risk factor for both general criminal behavior and violent behavior. Substance abuse emerged
as one of the major risk factors in the meta-analysis studies of Gendreau et al. (1996).
The present scale is a general indicator of substance abuse problems. A high score suggests
a person has drug or alcohol problems and may need substance abuse intervention. The
items in this scale cover prior treatment for alcohol or drug problems, drunk driving arrests,
blaming drugs or alcohol for present problems, drug use as a juvenile, and so on.
Of note, the cut points on this scale are lower than the other needs scales due to the design
of the scale. A person who scores in the Probable range (3-4) is considered a person who is
in need of further evaluation (i.e. ASI, SASSI, etc.) and a person who scores in the Highly
Probable range (5-10) may have a serious alcohol or drug problem requiring a structured
treatment approach. Keeping in mind the high incidence of drug/alcohol abuse within the
criminal justice population, a primary intervention for many individuals to impact recidivism
is assisting the person to attain and maintain sobriety.
Substance abuse typically intersects every life area for a person, therefore, following treatment and in some cases concurrent with treatment, may be the implementation of cognitive
behavioral restructuring and life skills planning.
Case planning language varies in this area between the example shown under the Socialization
Failure (Table 4.14) scale regarding structured, sequenced steps, and, the use of supervision
focused goals and tasks as listed in Table 4.15.
Goal
Task
Task

Maintain Sobriety
Attend AA meetings 3 times per week and show my attendance
card to my PO at each meeting.
Call in for UA/BAC testing daily and report by 5pm on the day I
am to do my testing.
Table 4.15: Case Planning example for Substance Abuse

4.2.19

Vocation/Education

Another of the “big five” risk factors for crime and recidivism prediction in the Gendreau
et al. (1996) meta-analysis is labeled “social achievement.” This concept is an amalgam of
educational attainment, vocational skills, job opportunities, a record of stable employment,
good income, and, more generally, the level of legitimate economic opportunity. Basically,
persons with more social capital have higher “life chances” than other persons who may have
very restricted success opportunities (Hagan, 1998; Coleman, 1990). The family is of critical
importance in building social capital. Parents either transmit positive and substantial social
capital to their child or fail in the socialization process. This scale is a higher order factor
in COMPAS, using items from both educational and vocational domains. Individuals differ
greatly in access to social capital or other resources. Social capital is somewhat dynamic.
It can be built or destroyed. For example, a record of serious criminal behavior or high
school dropout will clearly diminish life chances and social resources, whereas completing a
job skills training course or obtaining a GED may increase these chances.
This higher order scale assesses the degree of success or failure in the areas of work and
education. A high score represents a lack of resources. Those who score high will present
a combination of failure to complete high school, suspension or expulsion from school, poor
grades, no job skills, no current job, poor employment history, access only to minimum wage
jobs, etc. Thus, the scale represents a lack of educational and/or vocational resources.
A score in the Probable range is significant in that a person may be struggling to seek and
maintain employment that meets his/her skill set, ability, and interests. Vocational stability
plays a significant role in success on community supervision. Intervention can therefore be
initiated during incarceration or upon release. Education, or additional training may be the
reasonable answer to assisting the person to maintain employment, therefore, looking at the
whole picture in this domain is important when assessing paths and barriers to success.
Goal
Task

Task

Develop vocational skills
Immediate Needs: Ask myself what it will take to meet the goals I
am setting, identify barriers that come from others/situations, and
those that I have put in place.
Immediate Needs: Identify methods to break down the barriers that
I have put in place, use my resources (supervisor, PO, instructor)
to move forward with my plan.
Enroll in vocational training program using the funding source I
found when I contacted the instructor at the school.
Table 4.16: Case Planning example for Vocation/Eduation

4.2.20

The Lie Scale and Random Responding Test

Both of these items are validity tests that provide an alert to the potential Şfaking goodŤ
or random response of the person being assessed by COMPAS.

Items in the Lie Scale include questions about feeling unhappy or angry with the options
across a Likert scale that include “never.” Since it is highly unlikely that a person has never
felt unhappy or angry, the selection of “never” would suggest they are not telling the truth,
or perhaps they are being careless with their responses. Extreme answers and a pattern of
extreme answers trigger the Lie Scale to alert the criminal justice professional to questionable
responses.
The Random Responding scale is based on 37 highly correlated pairs of COMPAS scale
items. Some items appear more than once in the pairs as they relate to more than one
construct. The cutting score is internally set up to detect the highest 5% of respondents
who may be randomly providing answers to the questionnaire. This allows for a reliable true
positive rate.

Chapter 5
Typology
The fact that people respond differently to different treatments has been labeled as responsivity and repeats the conventional wisdom that “one man’s meat is another man’s poison.”
It indicates that the wrong treatment may make things worse and creates a need for careful matching of people to specific treatments. This is central to both “What Works” and
to the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model. It also underlies Evidence-Based Practice
(EBP), since incorrect matching of a person to treatment may sabotage the effectiveness
of virtually any intervention. Thus, a challenge for treatment providers is to match intake
assessments to service plans in order to achieve good outcomes. In (Andrews et al., 2006)
recently acknowledge that specific responsivity or differential matching is the least explored
of all the RNR principles. The traditional strategy for ”matching” has been to develop
treatment-relevant classifications to guide differential matching (Warren, 1971; Megargee &
Bohn, 1979; S. Baird, Heinz, & Bemus, 1979). Most of these classification efforts failed
because of a variety of technical problems (Harris & Jones, 1999).
However, recent technical breakthroughs have allowed the development of risk and need
typologies to facilitate the goals of specific responsivity and to guide the “matching” of interventions to client needs in the context of the COMPAS system. We have developed
treatment-relevant typologies for both males and females. These are now included as a standard component of the COMPAS software. These typologies use advanced pattern recognition, cross-validation procedures and multiple methods to verify the stability of the typologies. Each person is now automatically classified on the basis of “best fit” to one of several
standard and replicated needs profiles. The class profile of each person is automatically
produced as part of the standard report to help treatment staff conceptualize the “kind” of
client they are dealing with, and to develop a service plan to meet the specific responsivity
needs of that unique individual. It is important to realize that no person is a perfect match
to his/her class; and will be unique in his/her overall pattern of risks and needs. However,
his/her assigned prototype membership will suggest a beginning “framework” for a case plan
that may then be customized according to the unique risk and need patterns of each person.
Thus the default treatment plans for each prototype will provide treatment staff a useful
initial guide to the most likely kind of service plan for each individual.
The scales required to determine a type in the COMPAS Core typology are: Criminal As44

sociates, Substance Abuse, Financial Problems, Vocation/Education, Family Criminality,
Social Environment, Leisure/Boredom, Residential Instability, Social Isolation, Criminal Attitudes, Criminal Personality, and Age at Assessment.

5.1

Interpretation

Questions may arise as to how to interpret the typology assignments of the COMPAS and
how it may help in designing a management plan for each person. Overall, we suggest that
the typology results should be interpreted in the context of the other three key classification
elements that are provided in the overall COMPAS Risk Assessment. These are as follows:
1. Risk Potential Scales (Predictive levels): These three (red) scales represent overall risk
potential scales. They include separate risk scales for Violence, Recidivism, and Failure
to Appear.
2. Risk and Need Profiles (Prior history): Next, the profile chart provides the person’s
decile scores on all background scales (e.g., criminal history, drugs, peers, family,
work/education, etc.). These provide the basic data elements that drive risk predictions, needs assessment and treatment plans.
3. Explanatory Typology: This provides the “closest fit” of each person to one of eight
prototypical categories. The eight types represent different kinds of people. It is
important to remember that the profile chart of any individual person will NEVER be
an exact match to his closest prototype. Many people are “hybrids” that may not fit
well into any typology.
These three elements may be used collectively to guide case formulation and to understand
what is ”going on” with a case, and to select supervision levels and treatment interventions.
Other important elements that may influence case formulation are as follows:
Recommended Level of Supervision: The recommended level of supervision is found in
the Assessment Summary section. The Violence and Recidivism risk potential factors are
the main drivers of this recommendation.
Overrides of the supervision level: Overrides of the calculated recommended supervision
level are clearly appropriate when it is felt that the computerized procedure is either overor under-estimating the risk level. This is especially true when the screener can identify the
presence of mitigating or aggravating factors. Examples of mitigating factors are such things
as: your own street knowledge of the person, age and any extended periods of crime free
behavior, etc. Aggravating factors are such things as severity of offense, gang membership,
your knowledge of their street behavior, of non-apprehended crimes, or concerns on the Lie
Scale or Random Response Score (as applicable).
Common Prototypes versus Anomalous cases: There are several things to understand
about the typology label:

1. The typologies represent “Common Types” of people: We have found that there are
eight common categories or prototypical offending and behavior patterns that often
re-appear in criminal justice populations. These eight prototypes are described in the
software and the software assigns each client to their nearest prototype. However,
please remember that no individual is ever an exact match to his/her typology. In
most cases there will be a good match to the closest fitting category, but will always
have some differences to the ideal prototype. However, some cases will NOT be a
good match to any prototype, or may straddle the boundaries between two prototypes.
These boundary or hybrid cases are not given a prototype assignment and must be
interpreted as unique cases.
2. What to do with the “poor fitting/boundary cases”: With boundary or hybrid cases,
the typology should be ignored, or used as a starting point for a more individualized
interpretation. Such boundary types are often harder to interpret and are more complex. If the screener’s judgment clearly disagrees with the computer-assigned prototype
then an override is appropriate. The anomaly should be reported and the counselor
will interpret the case using the individual’s case chart and other relevant information
to determine processing and treatment plans.
3. Typology Purposes are explanatory and for treatment planning: A main purpose of
the typology is to give an alert if a case belongs to one of major case types (e.g., a
young streetwise gang member; an older repeat drinking driver, etc). If a case is a
“good fit” this may help in understanding the case and it’s treatment needs since such
“kinds” of cases will have been seen before.
4. The Typology is not a risk classification! The typology emphasizes explanatory and
need profiles and treatment: The typology prototypes represent diverse profiles of need
factors, and are not designed as a predictive risk classification. Thus, the typology alone
should not be used to determine risk levels but it may often help in risk and placement
decisions if used in conjunction with the risk assessment scales.

5.2
5.2.1

Male Typology
Type Descriptions

Category 1 - Typical Pattern: Chronic Drug Abusers (Most Non-violent)
The central theme of this prototype is long-term substance abuse and non-violent offences.
For example, serious substance abuse and use of alcohol/drugs at the current arrest. Problems often begin in adolescence e.g. first arrests (around 16 or 17). Factors underlying this
type may include mixtures of family criminality, family disorganization, out-of-home placements and some juvenile socialization problems. The profile appears in all ethnic groups,
but especially young Anglos. The social context does not suggest total social exclusion.
For example, some members have relatively few social risk factors and some strengths, e.g.,
low poverty, educational-vocational resources, stable residence in good neighborhoods and
are not isolated, bored or socially rejected. Anti-social personality and extreme criminal
attitudes are mostly absent.
Official criminal histories support this profile. This type averages of 3 to 4 prior arrests mostly
for drug use or trafficking. This category is mostly non-violent with relatively low current
violence, low weapon offences and low victim injuries – although in some cases the current
charge includes assault. There is little evidence of domestic violence and sex offences.
Category 2 - Typical Pattern: Low risk “situational” (fighting/domestic violence?
caution!)
This type has several economic and educational “strengths” suggesting an apparently normal
citizen. They mostly avoid criminal associates and follow a low risk lifestyle. However, some
members of this group are involved in serious violence, thus caution is warranted. These
persons generally are not raised in high crime families, avoid drugs, have stable addresses
in safe areas and few financial problems. Personality and criminal attitudes appear average.
The profile offers no clear social or criminogenic explanation for offending or for violence.
This pattern may reflect the well known accidental or situational event that unexpectedly
occurs to create serious violence and an arrest situation.
The official criminal history reflects a low risk profile. The group, as a whole, has fewer
official arrests, convictions or prior violence than other types. The official data shows lower
violence history, lower weapons use, lower non-compliance, fewer probation episodes and
almost no burglaries, robberies, The current offense often is for DUI, substance abuse or
an assault (fight/no weapons). Many are incarcerated for the first time. However, as noted
above, some members of this group have been charged with a serious assault and/or domestic
violence. This category occurs in all ethnic or racial groups – a variant is found in Category
8.

Category 3 - Typical Pattern: Chronic Alcohol Problems (DUI, domestic violence etc.)
The dominant pattern of this category consists of older (40+), mostly relatively well-educated
who function fairly well with stable jobs, finances and residences, but with recurrent alcohol
problems and a history of DUI and/or domestic violence. They show the oldest age at first
arrest (27) and are thus “late starters”. A generally low risk lifestyle is reflected by: few
criminal peers, educational-vocational and financial success, low crime families, stable and
safe addresses and pro-social structured leisure. They mostly avoid high-risk situations and
do not appear to hold anti-social attitudes or personalities. Thus, the explanation for their
offending would appear to relate to alcohol proneness perhaps in a context of family stress,
rather than social exclusion or environmental explanations.
The official data corroborates this pattern showing that this group has the highest score for
current DUI arrest and using alcohol (but not drugs) at the current arrest. Overall, they
have average criminal involvement and few violent offences. However, domestic violence also
occurs for some of these people. DUI and alcohol abuse are the major problems since the
category has lower clusters arrest rates than other clusters for: current violence, weapon
arrests, assaults, juvenile felony arrests, fraud, property, burglary and robbery offences.
COMPAS risk scales assign this category to “low risk”, although this is influenced by their
older age (since age lowers risk scores in the risk equations). Thus, they may be expected
to have a moderate recidivism risk mainly for drug/alcohol related offences or domestic
violence.
Category 4 - Typical Pattern: Socially Marginalized - Poor, Uneducated, Stressed
(Habitual offenders)
The central problem in this type is socio-economic marginalization e.g. educational-vocational
failure, poor job skills, poverty, unstable residence, poor social supports and social isolation.
This category is older (average age 37) and occurs in all ethnic groups. Their social resources
appear reasonable since they mostly do not have high crime families or antisocial peers, do
not reside in high crime areas and do not hold extreme criminal attitudes – all of which argue
against a social learning explanation and do not suggest a high-risk lifestyle. There is also
little evidence of criminal personality.
Many of these cases are chronic repeaters with multiple arrests, probation terms and convictions. Their official criminal history coheres with the above profile in two main ways.
First, they are mostly late starters with a late age at first arrest (21), few juvenile felonies
and a relative absence of juvenile socialization problems. Second, their offence pattern of
fraud larceny (and some drug trafficking) and low robbery, suggests instrumental crime for
financial gain, or perhaps coping with poverty and unemployment. Finally, some of these
women exhibit prior domestic violence that coheres with prior weapons use and victim injury.
Substance abuse and criminal opportunity scores are about average.
Note: Mental health (MH) problems are often linked to social isolation and social adjustment problems. Thus, cases with MH and social withdrawal problems may enter this lonely
marginalized category. A mental health assessment is recommended to clarify MH issues.

Category 5 - Typical Pattern: Criminally Versatile – Young Marginalized persons
(often gang affiliated)
This pattern exhibits multiple risk factors and several co-occurring causal processes linked
to criminality. First, is extreme social exclusion/marginalization, eg. educational-vocational
failure, joblessness and poverty. Second is a lack of social control bonds, withdrawal from
education and work, boredom and little constructive use of leisure. Third, their high-risk
criminal opportunity lifestyle is reflected in weak pro-social bonds, boredom and higher than
average gang affiliation. Fourth, social learning is suggested by a pattern of anti-social attitudes, gang membership (for some), early school failure and out-of-home placements, all
implying affiliation with other rejected and weakly socialized peers. Finally, many of these
cases reflect an anti-social personality that has been empirically linked to family disintegration, family crime, juvenile felonies and early onset shown by many of these cases. These
themes reflect the sociopathic type of (Lykken, 1995; Mealey, 1995), and others.
The criminal history of this category coheres with the above high risk profile. This young
group (22-23 average age) generally has an early age at first arrest (around 16), higher scores
than other types for juvenile felonies, weapons arrests, current violence, current property
and sex offense charges. However, there are two anomalies. First, they show relatively low
substance abuse. Second they score only average for prior arrests and convictions, perhaps
resulting from their youth i.e. their early stage of a criminal career.
Category 6 - Typical Pattern: Socially Isolated Long term Substance Abuse
(Multiple Minor and (mostly) Non-violent offences)
This group (avg. 35) reflects four major criminogenic problems. First, many members exhibit
serious long-term substance abuse suggesting addiction. Second, their extreme marginalization is shown by social isolation, poverty, unstable residence, poor social adjustment, boredom and a lack of pro-social leisure activities. Third, they appear embedded in a criminal
drug culture and exhibit high criminal opportunity. Finally, a disposition for criminality
is shown by high crime personality and antisocial attitudes. This type occurs in all ethnic
groups.
The official criminal history matches this profile in several ways. Chronic criminality is
shown by multiple arrests, convictions and probations. Chronic substance abuse is confirmed by alcohol and drug offences, using hard drugs (heroin, cocaine) as juveniles, being
high/intoxicated at current arrest and (in some cases) current drunk driving and/or drug
possession charges (but rarely trafficking). This category is “difficult to treat” as shown
by non-compliance, probation/parole revocations and FTA’s. They also exhibit above average scores for current fraud, prior domestic violence and burglary/larceny (but, rarely
robbery). Criminal violence (except for domestic violence) is rare as shown by relatively
low arrests/convictions for weapons offenses and lower scores for assaultive felonies. The
COMPAS risk scales, not surprisingly, classify these cases as high risk for FTA, community
failure and recidivism, but not for violence.

Category 7 - Typical Pattern: Serious Versatile High Risk Individuals
This type has the most serious and violent profile. It may warrant referral for a test such
as the Psychopathy Check List (PCL). This profile reflects a chronic, violent and versatile
criminal career as well as multiple criminogenic risk factors.
This profile reflects four major causal processes linked to high criminality. 1) A strong personal disposition to crime is shown by anti-social personality, antisocial attitudes/thinking,
early onset of crime, parental criminality and versatile criminal offences. 2) Social marginalization is shown by educational/vocational failure, unstable residence, poverty, boredom and
weak pro-social ties. 3) Social learning as reflected by anti-social peers, anti-social neighborhood, parent criminal behavior and anti-social thinking. 4) Poor socialization is suggested
by parental crime and family disorganization, early juvenile onset, early failure in school,
criminal attitudes.
The official criminal history matches this extreme criminogenic profile. It has the most
chronic and dangerous criminal career with the highest scores for criminal involvement,
juvenile onset, non-compliance and violent and versatile offending. These people have the
highest scores for: arrests and convictions for robbery, burglary, weapon offences, assaults,
injury to victims, violent felonies, fraud, drug possession and domestic violence arrests. Not
surprisingly the COMPAS risk assessments assigns these types to high risk levels for all main
risk outcomes: violence, recidivism, FTA and community failure.
Category 8 - Typical Pattern: Low risk situational-accidental category - Caution
is advised for Some “Faking Good”
Like Category 2, this category reflects lower criminogenic risks and more pro-social strengths
than most other categories. Thus, this profile offers no clear explanation for their engagement
in the criminal justice system. Like Category 2, these persons reflect perhaps “normal” folks
who became embroiled in a situational-accidental event that led to entry into the criminal
justice system. Many members of this category will have less poverty, more adequate jobs
and education, more stable residence in safer areas than most persons in this population.
They appear mostly to avoid anti-social peers and criminal opportunities and may have prosocial ties. Their attitudes and personalities are not clearly anti-social. They report low
drug use (compared to other groups), fewer criminal peers, lower family crime and positive
use of leisure.
The criminal history of this category confirms it’s low risk, non-violent status. Most have
few prior arrests and for many this may be their first incarceration. They generally have
fewer felonies or weapons offences, and less history of probation or probation failure. Most
are assigned to the lowest risk category by all four major COMPAS risk models.
The current arrest pattern perhaps explains the “situational” nature of this category. Specifically, they have the lowest (mostly zero) scores for: felony charges, assaultive felonies,
weapons offences, victim injury, family violence, burglary/larceny, robbery and drug offenses.
In many cases their arrests are “alcohol related”, simple assault, drunk driving, non-felony

“fraud” or minor property offences, or a “sex offense”. Thus, it is prudent to check the details
(if available) of the current offences of persons in this category.
An important caution is that a small % of this type may be “faking good” as indicated by
the Lie Test score. Thus, while many are truly low risk (as confirmed by official history) a
small percentage may be lying. Thus, it is still prudent to show caution with these persons.

5.3

Female Typology

5.3.1

Type Descriptions

Category 1 - Drug problems and anti-social sub-cultural influences ? some with
relationship conflicts
This group (average age 35) appears locked into a high-risk sub-culture e.g. anti-social peers,
anti-social family and residence in a high-risk crime environment. Some reflect early onset
of teenage delinquency and cocaine use as a juvenile. Chronic drug problems are suggested
by above average scores for previous drug treatments and drug possession charges. Many of
these women hold anti-social attitudes. This profile suggests a social learning process where
these women are socialized within an anti-social drug sub-culture. However, some strengths
are still present for some of these women, e.g., stable housing, adequate use of leisure time
and apparently good social support. The group criminal history is about average and not
noticeably violent – although the group is above average for jail and probation terms, prior
convictions and non-compliance history. For some of these women their current domestic
violence charges suggest relationship conflict.
Category 2 - Family Disorganization and Inadequate Parenting – Residential
instability and minor non-violent offences
This younger group averages an age of 25 years. Early family disorganization, abuse and
inadequate parents appear central. Their high scores for family criminality and juvenile outof-home placements suggests inadequate parenting. Their high juvenile socialization score
also suggests early onset of problems. Their adult life challenges include residential instability and social adjustment problems. However, several positive features emerge for some
of these women, i.e., lower than average scores for criminal peers, below average scores for
criminal attitudes and criminal personality. Many of these women appear to avoid drugs,
with relatively few reporting drug treatment or use of drugs as juveniles. The profile suggests some positive social supports and fairly constructive use of leisure time. The criminal
history is consistent with the above profile and is mostly non-violent and fairly low for noncompliance. The most common current charge is minor fraud. Mental health issues may be
explored given the possibility of early family abuse and/or neglect.
Category 3 - Chronic Substance Abusers - women with higher social resources
than other groups
This older (average age 38) category shows less poverty, more positive education and vocational skills and residence in an apparently safe low crime areas, than other categories. These
positive features are consistent with lower than average scores for criminal associates, lower
anti-social attitudes and a fairly positive use of leisure time. The group appears to have
relatively fewer social adjustment problems, better social supports and a lifestyle that avoids
high risks and criminal opportunity. They do not have high scores for criminal personality.

The official data matches this profile with a relatively “late onset”, mostly minor offenses and
few juvenile problems.
DUI is the most frequent current offence among these mostly non-violent women – although
some also have domestic a violence record. However, the presence of prior convictions, prior
drug offences and frequency of prior treatments for drugs and/or alcohol underscores a clearly
chronic substance abuse problem.
Category 4 - Marginalized poor and isolated older women ? Economic survival
crimes
This group averages 40 year and is characterized by poverty, social isolation and a lower
than average constructive leisure activities. This group has a “late onset” with an average
age at first arrest of 27 years. Their criminal history mainly involves minor fraud. Aside from
poverty they show few other criminogenic factors. For example, they fall below average for
criminal peers, antisocial attitudes, living in high crime areas or following high opportunity
lifestyles. Their family of origin appears relatively law abiding. Their history exhibits few
juvenile problems. It appears that their problems mostly emerge in adulthood from poverty
and poor social support. Their instrumental crimes such as minor fraud and sex offences may
be for economic survival. Their poor social adjustment and social isolation suggest screening
for mental health problems. The risk assessment assigns most of these women to a low risk
non-violent category.
Category 5 - Young antisocial poorly educated women with some violent offences
and early delinquency onset.
This younger category (average age = 25) has a limited adult criminal history - with relatively
few adult arrests or convictions - but the highest score for a current violent offence, some involving felony and weapons charges. Their criminogenic factors include: early onset of delinquency, above average antisocial personality, antisocial attitudes, poor education/vocational
resources, bored/unproductive use of leisure hours and pessimism about finding a good job.
Early delinquency is reflected in higher than average juvenile marijuana and alcohol use (but
fewer hard drugs), high school dropout and the earliest first arrest. Surprisingly, the group
has relatively low affiliation with antisocial peers or gangs; no clear tendency to live in high
crime areas, abuse drugs, or to have extreme poverty or a high crime family background.
Their relatively low formal adult criminal histories, appear consistent with their average
scores on COMPAS risk assessment scales. However, the presence of early onset delinquency
and, in some cases, serious current violence suggests caution with this group.
Category 6 - Chronic long term criminal history A - Multiple co-occurring social
and psychological risk factors
Drugs, extreme socio-economic marginalization, teen onset of problems and extreme problems in social relations characterize this high risk category. The recidivism risk computation

identifies this group as high risk. Multiple criminogenic factors co-occur, including: antisocial peers, antisocial attitudes, antisocial personality, extreme substance abuse, high crime
family, poverty, extreme vocational and educational deficits, inability to use leisure time
constructively and a tendency to live a high risk life style. Problems started early and these
women report the highest levels for out-of-home placements as juveniles, the worst school
grades, the highest use of cocaine as a juvenile, the earliest first arrest and the highest
number of juvenile felony arrests. This is a non-compliant group with multiple failures and
extreme drug problems. Social isolation and social adjustment problems are high. This
group commits a variety of offences, including: domestic violence, drug possession, assaults,
and so on.
Category 7 - Chronic long term criminal history B: Multiple co-occurring problems and high risk
This rare and infrequent group is a more serious version of type 6. While both categories have
multiple co-occurring risk and need factors group 7 is systematically higher than group 6.
This category has the highest scores for: violence risk, recidivism risk, FTA risk and technical
violation risk. They are highest for: overall criminal history, history of non-compliance, current violence and juvenile delinquency indicators. The multiple criminogenic factors include:
residential instability, family crime, vocational-educational failures, antisocial attitudes, antisocial personality, social adjustment problems, social isolation/withdrawal, extreme drug
use and so on. Compared to Category 6, this group has the highest scores for current violence, injuries to victims, current felony arrests and current robberies. They exhibit extreme
poverty, live in higher risk areas and report more gang affiliations.
Category 8 - Late starters with multiple strengths and fewer risk factors: Minor
non-violent offence history
These women (like pattern 3) reflect higher resources than other groups for educational and
vocational scores, jobs, completing high school, living in safer areas, stable housing, better
social supports and fewer leisure problems. Their family background appears more prosocial and they report less poverty, antisocial attitudes or personality issues. This group
appears to adopt “safer” lifestyles by avoiding anti-social persons, fewer drug problems and
more pro-social leisure activities. While, we may be suspicious of this positive profile, their
official criminal history is consistent with this low risk profile showing the lowest criminal
involvement and incarcerations, the fewest arrests and convictions, the lowest arrest rate,
the lowest felony charges, the lowest pending charges, less non-compliance and the oldest age
at first arrest (average 27). Current charges reflect minor fraud and DUI. This official data
therefore coheres with this low need/risk profile. However, some women in this category may
be “faking good”. This was detected using the built-in COMPAS validity test for defensive
faking-good responses and notice should be taken of this warning.

Bibliography
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati:
Anderson Press.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk
and/or needs assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7-27.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990).
Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed
meta-analysis. Criminology, 28(3), 369-403.
Baird, C. (2009). A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in
the justice system. (Tech. Rep.). Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Baird, S., Heinz, R., & Bemus, B. (1979). Project report 14: Two-year follow-up (Tech.
Rep.). Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Case Classification/Staff
Deployment Project. Bureau of Community Corrections.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of
moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71(2), 364-374.
Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive
accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 28(4), 490-521.
Barnoski, R., & Aos, S. (2003). Washington’s offender accountability act: An analysis of the
Department of Corrections’ risk assessment (document no. 03-12-1202) (Tech. Rep.).
Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Barnoski, R., & Drake, E. K. (2007). WashingtonŠs Offender Accountability Act: Department of CorrectionsŠ static risk assessment (Tech. Rep.). Olympia, WA: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism
among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2),
123–142.
Brennan, T., & Dieterich, W. (2008). Michigan Department of Corrections Core COMPAS
pilot study: One-year follow-up (Tech. Rep.). Traverse City, MI: Northpointe Institute
for Public Management.
Brennan, T., & Dieterich, W. (2009). Testing the predictive validity of the DPCA COMPAS
risk scales: Phase I (Tech. Rep.). Traverse City, MI: Northpointe Institute for Public
Management.
55

Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Breitenbach, M. (2008). New York State Division of Parole
COMPAS Reentry pilot study: Two-year follow-up:Updated predictive models. (Tech.
Rep.). Traverse City, MI: Northpointe Institute for Public Management.
Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Ehret, B. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the
COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 21-40.
Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Oliver, B. (2005). The COMPAS scales: Normative data
for males and females in community and incarcerated samples [Computer software
manual]. Northpoint Institute for Public Management. (Version 4.5)
Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Oliver, W. (2006). San Bernardino County Probation Department COMPAS psychometric report (Tech. Rep.). Traverse City, MI: Northpointe
Institute for Public Management.
Chaiken, J., Chaiken, M., & Rhodes, W. (1994). Predicting violent behavior and classifying
violent offenders. In A. Reiss & J. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence,
vol. 4: Consequences and control (pp. 217–295). Washington, D.C: National Academy
Press.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University
Press.
Cooke, D. J., Forth, A. E., & Hare, R. D. (Eds.). (1998). Psychopathy: Theory, research
and implications for society. Dordecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Copas, J., & Marshall, P. (1998). The offender group reconviction scale: A statistical
reconviction score for use by probation officers. Applied Statistics, 47, 159 - 171.
Dahle, K. P. (2006). Strengths and limitations of actuarial prediction of criminal re-offence
in a German prison sample: A comparative study of LSI-R, HCR-20 and PCL-R.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29(5), 431-442.
Dieterich, W. (2010). Kent County Pretrial Services outcomes study: Developing and testing
the COMPAS pretrial release risk scale. (Tech. Rep.). Traverse City, MI: Northpointe.
Dieterich, W., Brennan, T., & Oliver, W. (2011). Predictive validity of the COMPAS Core
risk scales: A probation outcomes study conducted for the Michigan Department of
Corrections (Tech. Rep.). Northpointe Inc.
Dieterich, W., Oliver, W., & Brennan, T. (2011). Predictive validity of the Reentry COMPAS
Risk scales: An outcomes study with extended follow-up conducted for the Michigan
Department of Corrections. (Tech. Rep.). Northpointe Inc.
Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. (2007). New York State pretrial release
services standards.
Dodge, K. A. (1998). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression.
In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood
aggression (pp. 201–218). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., McClaskey, C. L., & Brown, M. M. (1986). Social competence in
children. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(2), 1–85.
Elliot, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Estroff, S. E., & Zimmer, C. (1994). Social networks, social support, and violence among
persons with severe, persistent mental illness. In J. Monahan & H. J. Steadman (Eds.),

Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment (pp. 259–295). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Farabee, D., Zhang, S., Roberts, R. E., & Yang, J. (2010). COMPAS validation study: Final
report (Tech. Rep.). UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.
Farrington, D. P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and
later life outcomes. In D. J. Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and
treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 5–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Kalb, L. M. (2001).
The concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of
boys’ delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 579–596.
Fass, T., Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., & Fretz, R. (2008). The LSI-R and the COMPAS.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1095–1108.
Flores, A. W., Lowenkamp, C. T., Smith, P., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Validating the Level
of Service Inventory-Revised on a sample of federal probationers. Federal Probation,
70(2), 44-78.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Little, T. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult
offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
Gendreau, P., Goggin, C. E., & Law, M. A. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 24(4), p414 - 431.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: CA: Stanford
University Press.
Gottfredson, S. D., & Moriarty, L. J. (2006). Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and
new applications. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 178-200.
Grann, M., Belfrage, H., & Tengstrom, A. (2000). Actuarial assessment of risk for violence:
Predictive validity of the VRAG and the historical part of the HCR-20. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 27, 97-114.
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus
mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30.
Hagan, J. (1998). Life course capitalization and adolescent development. In R. Jessor (Ed.),
New perspectives on adolescent risk behavior (pp. 499–517). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Harrell, F. E., Jr. (2001). Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer.
Harris, P., & Jones, P. R. (1999). Differentiating delinquent youths for program planning
and evaluation. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 26(4), 403-434.
Herrenkohl, T. I., Maguin, E., Hill, K. G., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F.
(2000). Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health,
26, 176–186.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hosmer, D. W., Jr., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley.
Kroner, C., Stadtland, C., Eidt, M., & Nedopil, N. (2007). The validity of the violence risk
appraisal guide (VRAG) in predicting criminal recidivism. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health, 17(2), 89 - 100.

Lykken, D. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(3), 523-599.
Megargee, E., & Bohn, M. (1979). Classifying criminal offenders: A new system based on
the MMPI. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies. (2004). National Association of Pretrial
Services Agencies standards on pretrial release (3rd edition) (Tech. Rep.). National
Association of Pretrial Services Agencies.
Nelson, M., Deess, P., & Allen, C. (1999). The first month out: Post-incarceration experiences in New York City [Unpublished monograph]. New York.
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996).
Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review,
61(4), 635-655.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are
low-accepted children at risk. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357–389.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offenders:
Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sampson, R., & Lauritsen, J. (1994). Deviant lifestyles proximity to crime and the offendervictim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27,
7–40.
Simourd, D. J. (2004). Use of dynamic risk/need assessment instruments among long-term
incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 306 - 323.
Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Wei, E., Farrington, D. P., & Wikstrom, P. H. (2002).
Risk and promotive effects in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency in boys.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(1), 111–123.
Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve
diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26.
Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D., & Loeber, R. (1995). The prevention of serious delinquency
and violence: Implications from the program of research on the causes and correlates
of delinquency. In J. C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, & J. J. Wilson (Eds.),
Sourcebook on serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 213–237). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (1998). Development of serious and violent offending
careers. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders:
Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 68–85). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
VanNostrand, M. (2003). Assessing risk among pretrial defendants in Virginia: The Virginia
pretrial risk assessment instrument (Tech. Rep.). Virginia Department of Criminal
Justice Services.
VanNostrand, M. (2007). Legal and evidence-based practices: Application of legal principles,
laws, and research to the field of pretrial services (Tech. Rep.). National Institute of
Corrections and Crime and Justice Institute.
Warren, M. Q. (1971). Classification of offenders as an aid to efficient management and

effective treatment. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 62,
239–258.
West, D. J. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann.

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.5
Linearized                      : No
Author                          : 
Create Date                     : 2012:08:17 13:28:28-06:00
Modify Date                     : 2012:08:17 13:29:36-06:00
PTEX Fullbanner                 : This is MiKTeX-pdfTeX 2.9.4307 (1.40.12)
Subject                         : 
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26
Format                          : application/pdf
Creator                         : 
Description                     : 
Title                           : 
Creator Tool                    : LaTeX with hyperref package
Metadata Date                   : 2012:08:17 13:29:36-06:00
Keywords                        : 
Producer                        : pdfTeX-1.40.12
Trapped                         : False
PTEX Fullbanner                 : This is MiKTeX-pdfTeX 2.9.4307 (1.40.12)
Document ID                     : uuid:784a5aa6-4f24-492e-83c7-62cca70f57ab
Instance ID                     : uuid:a49890af-9a16-4eb0-a963-b451c7346ec2
Page Mode                       : UseOutlines
Page Count                      : 62

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools

Compas Guide

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation