Corrections Community

In my readings of pretrial risk assessments, I have come across a debate as to whether to include criminogenic needs in pretrial assessment instruments. Some argue inclusion of criminogenic needs is a good idea since criminogenic needs may be linked to the likelihood of FTA and rearrests pending trial and they would help with treatment referrals. Others argue the assessment of criminogenic needs should be limited to institutional/community corrections as the outcomes are different for post-conviction offenders than pretrial offenders. I am unaware of any research that has looked at empirical links between criminogenic needs and pretrial outcomes, but there is plenty of research that has linked criminogenic needs to long-term recidivism. I am curious to know your thoughts on the matter--should pretrial assessments be limited to determining risk only, or should there be other needs included in the assessment instrument? Thanks!

We assess both risk and needs for pretrial release candidates.  We do not, however, use the needs assessment as a predictor of successful completion of PTR, although we are reviewing that issue now and may change our policy. 

 We do use it for the supervising officers' use in later contacts with the defendants, since the officer should be aware of significant problems that could interfere with successful completion, and may require the officer to attempt to intercede with service providers or justice system officials to reduce or eliminate conflicts that could arise.  Medical appointments (either due to physiological or psychological issues), social worker appointments, child care, etc., all have to be managed by someone to avoid conflicts with justice system appointments, and often the defendants we deal with have proven not to be particularly good managers of those issues.

 It seems to me that the pragmatic view of the issue would nudge us toward using the needs assessment in scoring a case, since we don't use the PTR Risk/Needs just for prediction of success, but also as a measure of workload.  If the defendants are not particularly risky as measured by the usual risk scoring instruments, but have a great many unmet needs, we have frequently found our officers spend as much, or more time with the very needy as they do with the very risky. 

What are your thoughts concerning using the needs assessment as a predictor of successful completion of PTR? Wouldn't focusing on the needs through referrals to programs reduce the likelihood of pretrial failure? I am of the mindset that Institutions and other community corrections agencies are using risk/needs assessments to predict institutional misconducts or recidivism, so personally, I think it is an area that should be looked into in the pretrial field. High risk individuals tend to be high need individuals. There is also the potential for an individual who presents as low risk (using a static scale) to have medium levels of needs. What sort of needs do you assess? Do you find that they are similar for men and women?

I am both an offender, currently in the drug court system being treated with stimulant medication for ADHD which only recently has become recognized as a neuro-biological disorder and a legitimized Learning Disorder. Now regularly seeing a psychiatrist, I am nearly symptom free and strangely have no further desire for illegal methamphetamines which was my drug of choice. I am a licensed, CA Realtor and used methamphetamine to focus and organize my work processes. At 52, I have become further handicapped after going through menopause. Short term memory function, long term planning, time perception are but a few of the handicaps experienced by myself what the "National Institute for Drug Addiction" claims represent nearly 75% of their non violent , incarcerated, drug offender population. Medication and formal diagnosis has changed my life. I could not control impulse, interrupted and mentally moved on in conversation and struggled to be on time, remember dates, papers, instructions and other "executive functions" proven now to be physiologically controlled by the brain. Knowing that, logically apply the "diversionary methods" which deny the very treatment that created the addiction issue and therefor the incarceration . Combine that to the very high rate of "Co-Morbidity" present in ADHD sufferers and you have your natural reason why diversion has such a high recidivism rate. There is no Psychiatric screening for ADHD (75% convicted drug offenders) non violent. Under the above cited stats, this is inexcusable. There is now plenty of proof that 90% of ADHD diagnosed and treated , with diversion program illegal stimulant catagory medicine, combined with therapy for behavior re-learning sans the disability, results in little or no recidivism and little or no side effects to those without pre-existing heart or diabetic issues. I feel the need to conclude that their must be other issues I am unaware of that warrant the destruction of the lives of those incarcerated and untreated and their familys often left parent and providorless. Do you know if there could be a profit motive? Respectfully