Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
JENNIFER L. FERGUSON
Maricopa County Adult Probation Department
Significant advances have been made in correctional research over the past decade. The research
has highlighted the key elements of effective correctional assessment and treatment. However,
organizations that wish to engage in effective correctional services by implementing the findings
of correctional research have been given minimal practical guidance. This article discusses the
experience of one probation department and its implementation of a risk and needs assessment
tool as part of the daily practice of the organization. The implementation steps are identified as
well as the challenges faced and the lessons learned.
O ver the past decade, significant advances have been made in cor-
rectional research. This research has resulted in an increased
sense of optimism that correctional assessment and treatment can be
effective. What works has emerged as a popular theme to describe
effective correctional services. Some attempt has been made to
describe how organizations can take this research and implement it
into daily practice (Bonta, 1997). However, the focus has been on
what should be done and the steps that need to be taken without giving
AUTHORS NOTE: This article was written while the author was employed as a
research analyst with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department. The article
would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the Maricopa
County Adult Probation Department staff members and our forensic consultant,
David Simourd, who were responsible for developing and implementing the Offender
Screening Tool. Thanks are extended to those who provided feedback on earlier drafts
of the article. Address correspondence to Jennifer Ferguson, 111 S. 3rd Ave., 3rd
Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 29 No. 4, August 2002 472-492
2002 American Association for Correctional Psychology
472
Ferguson / RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE 473
WHAT WORKS
In the 1970s, the phrase nothing works took hold with the publi-
cation of Martinsons (1974) article titled What Works? Questions
and Answers About Prison Reform. This phrase was used to describe
the apparent lack of effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation and
helped steer correctional practice in a more punitive direction, with an
increased reliance on sanctions as a means of crime control. Since that
time, the research has been reviewed again and new research has been
conducted, resulting in a recognition that criminal sanctions alone
have a minimal effect on recidivism (Andrews et al., 1990). This
research has also found that treatment can be effective and can reduce
recidivism. The key ideas of correctional research have changed and the
focus is now on what works.
What has emerged as key principles of effective correctional inter-
vention are the principles of risk, need, and responsivity (Andrews &
Bonta, 1994; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). These principles help
define the appropriate targets for treatment and how treatment should
be delivered. They also help link assessment to treatment and high-
light the importance of assessment to the delivery of effective treat-
ment programs (Gendreau, 1996).
The risk principle states that treatment services should be matched
to the risk level of the offender (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Andrews,
Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). Individuals who are high risk should receive
the most intensive services, whereas those who are low risk should
receive minimal intervention and services. This principle is supported
by research that has found that low-risk individuals who have received
intensive services have had no change or increases in their level of
recidivism, whereas high-risk individuals who receive intensive ser-
474 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT
TO RESEARCH-BASED PRACTICE
and The department will use (a risk/needs assessment tool) and indi-
vidual screening tools to assess client needs.
The organizational commitment to research and to implementing
research-based practice was maintained and strengthened when the
strategic plan was revisited at the end of 1999. One of the strategies
identified for accomplishing the mission of the department was
working in partnership with the community to provide research-
based prevention and intervention services. Although providing pre-
vention and intervention services was part of the 1996 strategic plan,
the words research-based were added, demonstrating the commit-
ment to putting research into practice.
New goals were also developed that highlighted the commitment to
research. One goal was to utilize proven and effective methodology
to assess and change behavior of offenders through effective case
management. A goal specific to research was also added that stated
that the department wanted to increase our use of internal research-
based information to make quality decisions.
The MCAPD made the decision to develop its own tool, called the
OST. One reason for the decision was the cost required to use an exist-
ing tool given the large number of assessments the department con-
ducts each year, along with the departments desire to engage in reas-
sessment. Another key factor was a concern about resistance of staff to
a change in the way assessment was being conducted. Because there
was a desire to conduct assessment that was meaningful to staff, the
decision was made to involve staff in the development of the OST.
At the same time that a decision was made to develop the OST, the
decision was also made to reengineer the presentence division. The
reengineering decision was made because the presentence process
had become complex and labor intensive. There were also a number of
areas where work was being duplicated. The redesigned process
would eliminate the duplication of effort and also introduce the OST
as the risk and needs assessment tool of the department.
The current version of the OST was developed and implemented in
1998. The OST is administered at the presentence level, and informa-
tion used to score the OST is gathered as part of a larger presentence
interview. The presentence interview is automated, so interviewers
enter the information directly into the computer. At the end of the
interview, the OST is automatically scored.
Ferguson / RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE 481
port. It was in the meetings of the QAC that many of the challenges
faced during the implementation of the OST were discussed.
CHALLENGES
culty understanding and whether there were any questions where the
interviewers were uncertain about the questions intent. Clarifying
item intent was important to ensure that everyone was interpreting and
answering the questions the same way. The feedback provided during
the focus group was used to develop a refresher training.
Another step taken to verify consistency across interviewers was to
have an independent observer attend a number of interviews and
record responses to the questions. The similarity between the inter-
viewers OST scores and the observers OST scores were then com-
pared. The close relationship that was found between the two scores
gave the department confidence that when properly trained, the OST
could be administered consistently.
Mechanisms were also built into the automated system to help
ensure quality. One feature was to make each question that contributed
to the OST score a required question. If the question was not asked and
answered, a drop-down menu box would appear on the computer
screen informing the interviewer that he or she had missed a question.
The interviewer was prevented from continuing until the question had
been answered. This was important because the OST was designed as
a structured assessment, and it helped ensure that each person was
assessed using the same questions.
It was also important to ensure that all staff members were using the
same version of the automated system because enhancements or cor-
rections were occasionally made. To do this, whenever a change had
been made, staff members were prompted to update their version of
the program. They could not access the system until it had been
updated.
MANAGING WORKLOAD
It has been noted that the OST was implemented as one part of a
reengineered presentence process. One of the reasons for undertaking
the reengineering project was to minimize the duplication of effort
that previously existed. One description of the presentence process
called it a a complex process that is difficult to describe and labor
intensive. The example that was often used to highlight the duplica-
tion of effort that occurred was that an individual name had to be
entered into the system 20 different times. Although an exaggeration,
it highlighted the problem. As a result, there was a concern with man-
aging workload. This was also a concern of staff who were trained in
the OST. They expressed concerns about the amount of time it would
take to complete and that it would add more paperwork.
It was difficult to address concerns about workload. Trainers tried
to emphasize that this was a new and different way to look at risk and
needs rather than something additional that needed to be done. How-
ever, trainers also had to acknowledge that it might require more time.
What trainers tried to emphasize was how the OST could benefit staff
and help them do their job. Based on responses to a training assess-
ment item, it appears that trainers were effective in conveying this
message. Staff members were asked to state in their own words why
the department was using the OST. One of the top responses was to
Ferguson / RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE 489
help officers do their job. Other responses also identified ways the
OST could help, such as by identifying levels of treatment supervi-
sion, prioritizing treatment needs, and developing case management
plans. They also stated it could help supervise clients better and help
officers make better decisions.
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
LESSONS LEARNED
REFERENCES
American Probation and Parole Association. (1987). Probation. Retrieved July 26, 2001, from
the American Probation and Parole Association Web site: http://www.appa-net.org
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service InventoryRevised. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation:
Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19-52.
Andrews, D. A., Kiessling, J. J., Mickus, S., & Robinson, D. (1986). The construct validity of
interview-based risk assessment in corrections. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,
17, 19-52.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does cor-
rectional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis.
Criminology, 28, 369-404.
Baird, C. (1981). Probation and parole classification: The Wisconsin model. Corrections Today,
43, 36-41.
Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs: Assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing cor-
rectional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18-32).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bonta, J. (1997). Offender rehabilitation: From research to practice. Retrieved October 21,
1998, from the Solicitor General Canada Web site: http://www.sgc.gc.ca/epub/corr/
e199701/e199701.htm
Bonta, J., & Motiuk, L. L. (1987). The diversion of incarcerated offenders to correctional half-
way houses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 302-323.
Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality without tears: The art of hassle-free management. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Gendreau, P. (1996). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Crimi-
nal Justice and Behavior, 23, 144-161.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender
recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
General Accounting Office. (1993). An audit quality control system: Essential elements. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
Glaser, D. (1987). Classification for risk. In D. M. Gottfredson & M. H. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction
and classification: Criminal justice decision making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grobe, B., Simourd, D. J., Lessard, S., & Ferguson, J. (2000, July). The offender screening tool:
One departments answer to risk assessment. Paper presentation at the annual convention of
the American Probation and Parole Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Hunt, V. D. (1993). Quality management for government: A guide to federal, state and local
implementation. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
492 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
Loza, W., & Simourd, D. J. (1994). Psychometric evaluation of the Level of Supervision Inven-
tory (LSI) among male Canadian federal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21,
468-480.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public
Interest, 35, 22-54.
Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of
the literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Simourd, D. J., & Malcolm, P. B. (1998). Reliability and validity of the Level of Service
InventoryRevised among federally incarcerated sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 13, 261-274.
Simourd, L., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences.
Forum on Correctional Research, 6, 26-31.