ORAS Ohio Risk Assessment System Purpose and Benefits

ORAS: (Ohio Risk Assessment System) Purpose and Benefits Kelly Pitocco, LISW-S, LICDC University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute kelly. pitocco@uc. edu

Objectives • Why use a risk assessment? • What are the specific strengths of the Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS)? • How does the ORAS improves community safety?

Objectives • How does the ORAS determine needed services for the offender? • How can the system evaluation client progress throughout the system using the ORAS?

What is Risk? High Risk of Recidivism Low

Ohio HWH Study Parolees Halfway House/ CBCF Recidivism

Treatment Effects for LOW Risk Offenders Average Across all Programs These Low Risk Offenders More Likely to Commit Another Crime Compared To Similar Offenders Without Residential Program

Treatment Effects for LOW Risk Offenders Average Across all Programs Look at Program KK 29% Increase in Recidivism

Treatment Effects for HIGH Risk Offenders Programs LOWERED Recidivism with These High Risk Offenders

Treatment Effects for HIGH Risk Offenders How Did Program KK do? 32% Decrease in Recidivism

Why Did This Happen? • Why did the programs work for high-risk offenders? • Why didn’t the programs have the intended and expected outcomes with low risk offenders? • Could this have been avoided? How?

Principles of Effective Classification

Principles of Effective Classification • • Risk Need Responsivity Professional Discretion

Risk Principle • Interventions should be matched by risk – Most intensive treatment should be reserved for higher risk offenders – Must survey important risk factors to produce an accurate measure of risk • How do we know which factors to assess?

Major Risk Factors • Primary – Antisocial attitudes – Antisocial peers – Antisocial personality – History of antisocial behavior • Secondary – Family – Prosocial Leisure Activities – Education/employ ment – Substance abuse

Need Principle • Assess and target criminogenic needs to reduce the likelihood of recidivism • Interventions must be very focused and target the needs related to risk

Criminogenic Needs (Dynamic Risk Factors) • • Antisocial attitudes Antisocial peers Antisocial personality Family Education/employment Prosocial activities Substance abuse

Responsivity = Barriers to Treatment General Type of Program (e. g. , CBT) Core Correctional Practices Consistency Specific Staff and Offender Characteristics Motivation Mental Health Literacy/IQ Culture

Review Risk = WHO Need = WHAT Responsivity = HOW

Professional Discretion (AKA Override) • An assessor may override the FINAL risk level identified – Consider risk, need, and responsivity – Limited to 10% of the time – Only override the final determination of risk • Do not override individual items on the assessment – Level of risk can be raised or lowered

Special Considerations with Override • May increase if you have a specialized caseload with court requirements – Sex offenders – Severe mental health problems • Consider using additional assessments for specialized populations

Reasons for Override 1. Were there any gaps in information provided/collected? 2. Were there any significant barriers in completing the assessment? 3. Are there specialized areas that need additional assessment? 4. Once the assessment is completed, does the risk of the offender to re-offend match your professional judgment?

The Ohio Risk Assessment System

Project Overview The Ohio Risk Assessment System (ORAS) consists of 5 instruments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Pretrial (ORAS-PAT) Community Supervision (ORAS-CST) Screener (ORAS-CSST) Prison Intake (ORAS-PIT) Reentry (ORAS-RT)

Primary Purpose of Risk Assessment System Pretrial Tool Bail or Detention Level of Supervision Case Management Community Supervision Tool Level of Supervision Case Management Prison Intake and Reentry Tools Case Management

Concurrent Validity Comparative Recidivism Rates Across Three Instruments (N=672)

Comparative Measures of Association

Benefits of ORAS • Provides accurate view of risk and targets to reduce risk • Follows throughout CJ System • Consistent tool across Ohio • Based on Ohio offenders • Public Domain tool • Automated with Case Planning capability • Reassessment to track progress

Conducting an ORAS Assessment

Four Components • • Self-report Interview guide File review Collateral information

Self-Report • Have offender complete and staff review their answers before interview • Optional - if not used must ask questions as directed in the interview guide • If responses appear reliable - do not need to ask self-report questions in interview

Interview guide • Use as a structure for the interview • Use follow-up questions when appropriate • Interview guide may be modified as needed

File Review • All interviews should include a thorough file review • Criminal record should be reviewed prior to interview • Review file post-interview if collateral info is needed and available

Collateral Information • Collateral information used to support information gathered in the interview • Sources of collateral info include spouse, previous supervising officers, employers, etc • If identified as a risk factor-collateral information is not typically needed • Unless official record directly refutes, information gathered thru interview should be used

Scoring Guide • The scoring guide should be consulted when scoring items • Follow the scoring guide as directed • Do not override the scoring guide • The scoring guide may not be modified

Overall Scoring Rules • Arrest versus Conviction – Arrest - Offender taken in to custody for misdemeanor or felony regardless of disposition – Conviction - Finding of guilt resulting in criminal record • Prior – Events occurring prior to most recent offense • Current – Last 6 months unless otherwise stated • Incarceration – Consider only custodial sentences as result of conviction

Increasing Accuracy • Gather information • Follow-up questions • Allow offender to talk • More time now = less time later • Collateral information when needed • Score accurately – Double check scoring – Follow scoring guide – When in doubtcheck with supervisor

Pretrial Assessment Tool ORAS-PAT

Pretrial Assessment Tool (ORAS-PAT) • Seven Items Failure To Appear • Classifies based on Risk of Reoffending

Pretrial Tool • Assess at time of arrest/jail • Aids in bail, release, formal supervision decisions • Sources of information – Face-to-face interview – File review – Collateral info • 5 -10 minutes • Re-assessment – No re-assessment

Revised Cutoffs: Any Violation Differences in Recidivism Rates for each Risk Level (r =. 223, n=452)

Revised Cutoffs: Predictive Validity Failure to Appear r =. 128 New Arrest r =. 206

ORAS-CST Community Supervision Risk Assessment Tool

CST Assess at Time of Disposition Aids in Disposition Decisions Aids in Case Management Information Gathered through Face to Face Interview Self-Report Questionnaire 30 – 45 minutes File Review Re-Assess Collateral Information Every 6 months Serious Offense or Event

Final Domains for the Community Supervision Assessment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Criminal History (6 items) Education, Employment and Finances (6 items) Family and Social Support (5 items) Neighborhood Problems (2 items) Substance Use (5 items) Peer Associations (4 items) Criminal Attitudes and Behavioral Problems (7 items)

Percent with New Arrest MALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample Low 0 -14 Medium = 15 -23 High = 24 -33 Very High 34+ ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r =. 373

Percent with New Arrest FEMALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Sample Low 0 -14 Medium 15 -21 Med/High 22 -28 High 29+ ORAS-CST Risk Level Correlation with Recidivism: r =. 300

Video Practice • Observe video interview – Take notes while watching on the Interview Guide – Record Self-Report responses – Note File Review and Collateral Results • Score instrument after viewing the interview – Use scoring guide – Score independently • Small Groups – Review scoring on each item – Use scoring guide – Create a single group score through consensus • Review scoring with entire group

Community Supervision Screen ORAS-CSST

The Community Supervision Screen • ORAS-CSST – Abbreviated version of the ORAS-CST – 4 items taken from the ORAS-CST – Scores range from 0 - 7 – Overall Correlation with New Arrest - r =. 381

CSST Assess at Time of Disposition Determines if Need full CST Information Gathered through Face to Face Interview Self-Report Questionnaire File Review Collateral Information 5 - 10 minutes No Re-assessment

Percent with New Arrest MALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Community Supervision Screen Low 0 -2 Med – High Risk (3 -7) ORAS-CSST Score Correlation with Recidivism: r =. 372

FEMALES: Risk Level by Recidivism for the Percent with New Arrest ORAS-CSST Low 0 -3 Med – High Risk (4 -7) ORAS-CSST Score Correlation with Recidivism: r =. 365

Case Management

Case Planning Overview • Case plan and interventions should be linked to assessment • Where a problem is identified – provide intervention activities • If there is no problem; no action is required

Case Plan Development • NEEDS/PROBLEMS – Based on Assessment • GOALS – Longer term outcomes (where offender should be after your interventions) • OBJECTIVES – Offender’s short-term measurable and verifiable steps to reach goal • TECHNIQUES – Your actions to help offender reach longer term goal

Techniques 1. Supervision techniques 2. Referrals 3. Face to face contact

Priorities in Case Management • Each domain provides cut points that indicate the priority the domain should take in service provision • Individuals who score high have high deficits in these categories and are more likely to re-offend • Remember to Consider if the area is a Primary or Secondary Risk Factor

Priorities in Case Management Education and Finances HIGH MED Percent Arrested Criminal History HIGH MED LOW Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0 -3) Med (4 -6) High (7 -8) Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0 -1) Med (2 -4) High (5 -6)

Priorities in Case Management HIGH Neighborhood Problems Percent Arrested Family and Social Support HIGH MED LOW Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0 -1) Med (2 -3) High (4 -5) LOW Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0) Med (1) High (2 -3)

Priorities in Case Management Peers HIGH MED Percent Arrested Substance Abuse HIGH MED LOW Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0 -2) Med (3 -4) High (5 -6) Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0 -1) Med (2 -4) High (5 -8)

Priorities in Case Management Percent Arrested Criminal Attitudes and Behavior Patterns HIGH MED LOW Percent Arrested by Priority Level Low (0 -3) Med (4 -8) High (9 -13)