Compas Guide

User Manual:

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

Introduction
- COMPAS History and Development
- Overview for Practitioners
Case Interpretation
COMPAS Validity and Reliability
Treatment Implications for Scales
- Risk Scales
- Criminogenic Need Scales
Typology
Bibliography

Practitioners Guide to COMPAS

August 17, 2012

Contents

Table of Contents i

1 Introduction 1

1.1 COMPAS History and Development ...................... 2

1.2 Overview for Practitioners ........................... 2

2 Case Interpretation 4

2.1 Introduction ................................... 4

2.2 Understanding the COMPAS Score ...................... 5

2.3 Levels of Interpretation ............................. 5

2.4 Criminological Theories ............................. 6

2.4.1 Social Learning Theory: ......................... 6

2.4.2 Sub-Culture Theory: ........................... 7

2.4.3 Control/Restraint Theory: ........................ 7

2.4.4 Sociopathic/Socialization Breakdown Theory: ............. 7

2.4.5 Criminal Opportunity Theory (including Routine Activity): ..... 8

2.5 Basic Descriptive Information for the Scales ................. 9

2.6 Conversion of Raw Scale Scores to Decile Scores ............... 9

2.7 Interpreting Decile Scores ........................... 12

2.8 Norm Groups and Scale Distributions ..................... 13

3 COMPAS Validity and Reliability 14

3.1 Predictive Validity ............................... 14

3.2 Validity of COMPAS Needs Scales ....................... 17

3.3 Construct Validity ............................... 18

3.4 Content Validity ................................. 20

3.5 Internal Consistency Reliability ........................ 21

3.6 Test-Retest Reliability ............................. 22

4 Treatment Implications for Scales 23

4.1 Risk Scales .................................... 23

4.1.1 Pretrial Release Risk ........................... 24

4.1.2 General Recidivism ............................ 24

4.1.3 Violent Recidivism ............................ 25

4.1.4 On Counter-Intuitive Predictions .................... 25

4.2 Criminogenic Need Scales ............................ 29

4.2.1 Cognitive Behavioral ........................... 29

4.2.2 Criminal Associates/Peers ........................ 29

4.2.3 Criminal Involvement ........................... 30

4.2.4 Criminal Opportunity .......................... 31

4.2.5 Criminal Personality ........................... 32

4.2.6 Criminal Thinking Self-Report ...................... 32

4.2.7 Current Violence ............................. 33

4.2.8 Family Criminality ............................ 34

4.2.9 Financial Problems ............................ 35

4.2.10 History of Non-Compliance ....................... 35

4.2.11 History of Violence ............................ 36

4.2.12 Leisure/Boredom ............................. 37

4.2.13 Residential Instability .......................... 37

4.2.14 Social Adjustment ............................ 38

4.2.15 Social Environment ............................ 39

4.2.16 Social Isolation .............................. 39

4.2.17 Socialization Failure ........................... 40

4.2.18 Substance Abuse ............................. 41

4.2.19 Vocation/Education ........................... 42

4.2.20 The Lie Scale and Random Responding Test .............. 42

5 Typology 44

5.1 Interpretation .................................. 45

5.2 Male Typology ................................. 47

5.2.1 Type Descriptions ............................. 47

5.3 Female Typology ................................ 52

5.3.1 Type Descriptions ............................. 52

Bibliography 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 jus-

tice 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 stud-

ies 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 con-

siderations 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 de-

velopment/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

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 rec-

ommendations 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

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, iden-

tiﬁed three areas of commonality: environmental issues, skill deﬁciencies, and cogni-

tive/mental health/psychological areas. This level of interpretation allows practitioners

to begin developing interventions that might address clusters of needs, rather than in-

dividual 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 under-

standing 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 indi-

vidual’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 val-

ues, 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 sub-

culture

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 (emo-

tional 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 mo-

tivated 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 dis-

tributed 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 informa-

tion 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 N Min Max Mean SD Alpha

CrimInv 4 7381 0.00 19.00 8.69 5.07 0.87

HistNonC 5 7381 0.00 21.00 2.74 3.32 0.67

HistViol 9 7381 1.00 20.00 2.63 2.66 0.71

CurrViol 8 7381 8.00 14.00 8.60 1.13 0.66

CassPeer 7 7381 7.00 22.00 10.21 3.00 0.76

SubAbuse 10 7381 10.00 20.00 12.98 2.46 0.74

Financ 5 7381 5.00 15.00 8.67 2.37 0.72

VocEd 11 7381 11.00 30.00 18.52 3.74 0.69

FamCrim 6 7381 6.00 12.00 7.61 1.56 0.64

SocEnv 6 7381 6.00 12.00 7.13 1.64 0.81

Leisure 5 7381 5.00 17.00 8.76 3.46 0.82

ResInst 10 7381 9.00 30.00 14.21 3.97 0.68

SocAdj 15 7381 12.00 35.00 20.58 3.68 0.59

EJuvSoc 13 7381 9.00 30.00 13.93 3.48 0.70

CrimOpp 14 7381 13.00 40.00 21.26 4.62 0.66

Soc.Isolation 8 7381 8.00 40.00 18.19 5.93 0.82

CrimAttC 10 7381 10.00 50.00 20.68 5.78 0.81

CrimPers 13 7381 13.00 59.00 30.90 6.82 0.75

ViolRecidRisk 28 7381 −4.06 1.85 −1.73 0.89 0.00

GenRecidRisk 25 7381 −2.84 1.87 −0.29 0.77 0.00

Alpha not available because this scale is a linear equation.

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 COM-

PAS 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 1 Low (1-4) Medium (5-7) High (8-10)

Type 2 Unlikely (1-2) Probable (3-4) Highly Probable (5-10)

Type 3 Unlikely (1-5) Probable (6-7) Highly Probable (8-10)

Type 4 Unlikely (1-4) Probable (5-7) Highly Probable (8-10)

Table 2.3: COMPAS Scales and Types.

Scale Scale Type

Violent Recidivism Risk 1

General Recidivism Risk 1

Pretrial Release Risk 1

Criminal Involvement 1

History of Non Compliance 1

History of Violence 1

Current Violence 1

Criminal Associates/Peers 4

Substance Abuse 2

Financial Problems/Poverty 3

Vocational/Education Problems 3

Criminal Thinking 3

Family Criminality 3

Social Environment Problems 3

Leisure and Recreation 3

Residential Instability 3

Social Adjustment Problems 3

Socialization Failure 3

Criminal Opportunity 3

Criminal Personality 3

Social Isolation 3

Table 2.4: Decile Cut-Points for COMPAS Scales in the Composite Norm Group.

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10

CrimInv 1.0 3.0 6.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 15.0 19.0

HistNonC 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 21.0

HistViol 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 6.0 20.0

CurrViol 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 11.0 14.0

CassPeer 7.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 15.0 22.0

SubAbuse 10.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 20.0

Financ 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 15.0

VocEd 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 21.0 22.0 24.0 30.0

FamCrim 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 12.0

SocEnv 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

Leisure 5.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 17.0

ResInst 9.0 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 30.0

SocAdj 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 24.0 25.0 35.0

EJuvSoc 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 17.0 19.0 30.0

CrimOpp 15.0 17.0 18.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 24.0 25.0 28.0 40.0

Soc.Isol 11.0 13.0 15.0 16.0 18.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 26.0 40.0

CrimAttC 13.0 15.0 18.0 20.0 21.0 22.0 23.0 25.0 28.0 50.0

CrimPers 23.0 25.0 27.0 29.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 40.0 59.0

PretrialRisk 2.89 3.08 3.24 3.39 3.54 3.69 3.86 4.08 4.38 8.01

ViolRecidRisk −2.90 −2.50 −2.20 −2.00 −1.70 −1.50 −1.20 −1.00 −0.60 1.90

GenRecidRisk −1.30 −0.90 −0.70 −0.40 −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 pre-

diction 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 COM-

PAS 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 ap-

proach 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 Re-

cidivism Risk and Violent Recidivism Risk scales have subsequently been validated with

prospective outcomes in new samples in several diﬀerent studies since they were ﬁrst devel-

oped.

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.

Any

Study N Year Arrest Felony Person NonComp. Return

MDOC Pilot (n=561) 2008 .693 .652 .723

NY Parole Pilot (n=553) 2008 .679 .728 .652

NY Prob. Pilot (n=987) 2009 .730

NY Probation (n=2,328) 2009 .707 .717 .742

MDOC Reentrya(n=25,347) 2011 .710 .700 .690 .720

MDOC Probationa(n=21,101) 2011 .670 .740 .710

CDCR Reentry (n=25,009) 2010 .700 .650

aStudy 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 [PCL-

R] (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 re-

oﬀending 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 inter-

ventions. 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 Vo-

cational/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 In-

stability, 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 Prison (Technical Violation)

Scale Decile Score Coeﬀ Hazard Ratio Se (Coeﬀ) t-value

Vocational/Education 0.101 1.11 0.007 15.47

Criminal Personality 0.081 1.08 0.006 12.66

Social Adjustment 0.076 1.08 0.006 12.45

Residential Instability 0.074 1.08 0.006 12.58

Criminal Thinking 0.057 1.06 0.007 8.59

Leisure and Recreation 0.057 1.06 0.006 9.46

Substance Abuse 0.051 1.05 0.006 7.87

Financial Problems/Poverty 0.048 1.05 0.006 7.87

Social Environment 0.044 1.05 0.006 7.92

Family Criminality 0.043 1.04 0.006 7.12

Social Isolation 0.036 1.04 0.006 5.57

3.3 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 ex-

ample, 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 de-

velopmental 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)

Age-

at-

First

Prior

Ar-

rests

Returns to

Custody

Commit-

ments

Assaultive

Miscon-

duct

CassPeer -0.28 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.18

SubAbuse -0.05 0.23 0.19 0.16 -0.07

Financ -0.07 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.02

VocEd -0.22 0.11 0.14 0.06 0.17

FamCrim -0.19 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.11

SocEnv -0.18 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.14

Leisure -0.09 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.08

ResInst -0.03 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.10

SocAdj -0.20 0.18 0.19 0.12 0.14

Soc.Isolation 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.06

CrimAttC -0.12 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.13

CrimPers -0.15 0.09 0.13 0.06 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 Educa-

tional 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 stabil-

ity, 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 indi-

cators 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 trajec-

tories observed in developmental criminological research (Herrenkohl et al.,2000;Tolan &

Gorman-Smith,1998).The signiﬁcant correlations we have pointed out are somewhat atten-

uated 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 corre-

lated (internally consistent), then the summated scale will be reliable. Internal consistency

reliability - typically assessed by Cronbach’s Alpha Coeﬃcient - is a widely used and pop-

ular 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 for each COMPAS scale

Items N Min Max Mean SD Alpha

Criminal Peers 7 47679 7.00 22.00 10.81 3.55 0.81

Crim. Attitudes 10 47679 10.00 50.00 22.12 5.55 0.80

Crim. Involvement 4 47679 0.00 19.00 8.25 4.61 0.75

Crim. Opportunity 14 47679 13.00 40.00 21.37 4.71 0.67

Crim. Personality 13 47679 13.00 61.00 30.80 6.45 0.73

Current Violence 7 47679 7.00 13.00 8.18 1.27 0.53

Early Juv. Soc. Fail. 13 47679 7.00 32.00 12.53 4.03 0.69

Family Criminality 6 47679 6.00 12.00 7.39 1.49 0.65

Finance 5 47679 5.00 15.00 8.48 2.51 0.75

History Non-Compl. 5 47679 0.00 21.00 5.98 5.37 0.75

History Violence 9 47679 0.00 22.00 2.68 2.86 0.59

Leisure 5 47679 5.00 17.00 8.22 3.66 0.86

Residential Inst. 10 47679 9.00 31.00 13.72 4.07 0.72

Soc. Isolation 8 47679 8.00 40.00 17.72 5.24 0.81

Soc. Adjustment 15 47679 12.00 38.00 20.48 3.66 0.56

Soc. Environment 6 47679 6.00 12.00 7.86 2.00 0.83

Substance Abuse 10 47679 10.00 20.00 13.10 2.47 0.75

Vocation/Education 11 47679 11.00 30.00 18.85 3.82 0.69

3.6 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 cor-

relation 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 inter-

ventions 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 agen-

cies 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 Associ-

ation 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.1These 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 misde-

meanor 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.

1For 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 sam-

ple 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, voca-

tional/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 pre-

vious 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 charac-

teristics 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 consider-

ably 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 mis-

demeanor 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 domes-

tic 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 oﬀend-

ers) - 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 en-

couraged 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 Crim-

inal 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. Con-

current drug/alcohol treatment or other interventions that address immediate needs are

recommended, a balanced approach is necessary to avoid overwhelming the person with in-

terventions. 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 Build new and increase healthy coping skills

Task Immediate Needs: Identify sources/triggers of my anger, frustra-

tion, and feelings of being overwhelmed. Make separate lists for

each feeling, include what was going on in my immediate surround-

ings at that moment, who else was there, stressful incidents, and

any other information I think is signiﬁcant.

Task 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 Increase my association with pro-social, healthy friends

Task Immediate Needs: Identify traits and behavior of positive, healthy

friends and family members

Goal Reduce interactions with anti-social, potentially harmful friends

Task Identify friends and family who I tend to get into trouble with,

include any co-defendants or criminally involved associates

Task 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 be-

havioral 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 com-

bination 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 rest-

lessness 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 Increase positive activities

Task 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.

Task Ongoing Needs: Develop career aspirations, goals, and identify po-

tential 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 dy-

namic factor in predicting recidivism. Bandura (1996) also reports validating similar person-

ality 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 pro-

posed 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 re-

search 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 ˝

U 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 Build new and increase positive coping and communication skills.

Task Immediate Needs: Journal my behavior in the areas of thoughts,

feelings, attitudes and resultant behavior when I feel stressed, an-

gry, or that something unfair has happened to me. Do my journal

entries daily for 5 days and bring to my next probation appoint-

ment.

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 predic-

tive 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 ratio-

nalizations for the person’s criminal behavior. These dimensions include moral justiﬁcation,

refusal to accept responsibility, blaming the victim, and rationalizations (excuses) that min-

imize the seriousness and consequences of their criminal activity. These include rationaliza-

tions 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 pri-

marily on cognitive behavioral approaches tend work best with those who evidence signiﬁcant

criminal thinking.

Goal Modify criminal thinking, develop a positive attitude toward vari-

ous life areas (see speciﬁc goals).

Task 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 theoretical-

substantive 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.

Goal Build new and increase healthy coping skills.

Task Enroll in and successfully complete an Anger Management Pro-

gram. Bring my homework and updates from the class to each

probation appointment.

Task 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 facili-

tated 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 con-

text 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 fam-

ily 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 Eliminate criminal involvement with family members.

Task Immediate Needs: List/identify family members (those who I have a

relationship with and spend time with) who are criminally involved.

Task 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 Gain ﬁnancial stability/independence.

Task Immediate Needs: Apply for ﬁnancial assistance/emergency shelter

and/or food stamps (use other resources as referred by PO).

Task Immediate Needs: Inform my supervisor at work about my proba-

tion 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 suspen-

sion/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. Be-

haviorally stated goals and a high degree of structure with room for individual diﬀerences

and learning curves could enhance a person’s success rate.

Goal Attend all probation meetings as scheduled.

Task 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.

Note 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) cre-

ates 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 super-

vision 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.

Goal Increase my healthy responses to events that trigger an angry reac-

tion for me.

Task Immediate Needs: List the way I have shown my thoughts and

feelings in the past.

Task Immediate Needs: Describe what happens when I lose self-control.

Task Immediate Needs: Describe what happens when I use positive, self-

control 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, restless-

ness, 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 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.

Task 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 indi-

viduals 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 Seek and obtain sustainable living situation.

Task 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 or-

der 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 prevent-

ing 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 the-

ory (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 con-

ﬂicted 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 foun-

dational element of many cognitive behavioral approaches. Structuring communication ex-

pectations 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 Increase positive social supports with family, friends, and commu-

nity.

Task 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 disorganiza-

tion, 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 ﬁnd-

ing 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 back-

ground 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 delin-

quency, 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 associ-

ated 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.

Goal Build new and increase my positive coping skills and responses.

Task Attend and successfully complete cognitive behavioral program.

Activ-

ity

Complete ﬁrst exercise in workbook by 3-20-10 and bring the com-

pleted exercise to the next probation appointment. Participate in

the cog group by engaging the exercise on My Thoughts, and par-

ticipating in the role play discussion.

Note 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 treat-

ment 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 Maintain Sobriety

Task Attend AA meetings 3 times per week and show my attendance

card to my PO at each meeting.

Task 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 Develop vocational skills

Task 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.

Task 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.

Task 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 ¸Sfaking goodˇ

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 respon-

sivity 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 care-

ful 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 in-

terventions 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 stan-

dard component of the COMPAS software. These typologies use advanced pattern recogni-

tion, cross-validation procedures and multiple methods to verify the stability of the typolo-

gies. 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 As-

sociates, Substance Abuse, Financial Problems, Vocation/Education, Family Criminality,

Social Environment, Leisure/Boredom, Residential Instability, Social Isolation, Criminal At-

titudes, 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 pre-

dictions, 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 over-

or 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 com-

plex. 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 Male Typology

5.2.1 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. Prob-

lems 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 place-

ments 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

Category 3 - Typical Pattern: Chronic Alcohol Problems (DUI, domestic vio-

lence 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 con-

victions. 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 adjust-

ment 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 at-

titudes, 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 disintegra-

tion, 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 marginaliza-

tion is shown by social isolation, poverty, unstable residence, poor social adjustment, bore-

dom 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 con-

ﬁrmed 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 av-

erage 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 per-

sonal disposition to crime is shown by anti-social personality, antisocial attitudes/thinking,

early onset of crime, parental criminality and versatile criminal oﬀences. 2) Social marginal-

ization 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 neighbor-

hood, 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 pro-

social 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. Specif-

ically, 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 out-

of-home placements suggests inadequate parenting. Their high juvenile socialization score

also suggests early onset of problems. Their adult life challenges include residential insta-

bility 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 sug-

gests 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 non-

compliance. 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 voca-

tional 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 in-

volving felony and weapons charges. Their criminogenic factors include: early onset of delin-

quency, 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 prob-

lems in social relations characterize this high risk category. The recidivism risk computation

identiﬁes this group as high risk. Multiple criminogenic factors co-occur, including: antiso-

cial 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 prob-

lems 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, cur-

rent violence and juvenile delinquency indicators. The multiple criminogenic factors include:

residential instability, family crime, vocational-educational failures, antisocial attitudes, an-

tisocial 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 vio-

lence, 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 pro-

social 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 Delin-

quency.

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). Washingtonˇ

Ss Oﬀender Accountability Act: Depart-

ment of Correctionsˇ

S 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.

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 De-

partment 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 experi-

ences 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 oﬀender-

victim 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.

Compas Guide

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation