There are several “risk assessment “tools” used in the CJ system by community correctional offices/agencies (a popular one is COMPAS used by NY and several other states.) Begin by giving an overview of PCRA and identify the merits of using PCRA for “risk” assessment. Then, do a compare/contrast of the PCRA to another risk assessment tool being utilized today (you can use COMPAS or pick any another.)

QUESTION

There are several “risk assessment “tools” used in the CJ system by community correctional offices/agencies (a popular one is COMPAS used by NY and several other states.) Begin by giving an overview of PCRA and identify the merits of using PCRA for “risk” assessment. Then, do a compare/contrast of the PCRA to another risk assessment tool being utilized today (you can use COMPAS or pick any another.) Critique the pro/cons of using these assessments (shortcomings, biases etc.) as well identifying what additional assessments “tools” can/should be used to assist officers in supervising offenders.  Finally, provide feedback as to what other measures/strategies the community correctional field can/should use to satisfy the mission statements of “rehabilitation of the offender” and “protection of the community.”

3-5 pages (double spaced.) Include a minimum of 5 outside sources properly cited with bibliography.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
There are several “risk assessment “tools” used in the CJ system by community correctional offices/agencies (a popular one is COMPAS used by NY and several other states.) Begin by giving an overview of PCRA and identify the merits of using PCRA for “risk” assessment. Then, do a compare/contrast of the PCRA to another risk assessment tool being utilized today (you can use COMPAS or pick any another.)
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

ANSWER

Risk Assessment Tools in Community Correctional Offices: A Comparative Analysis of PCRA and COMPAS

Introduction

Risk assessment tools play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, particularly in community correctional offices/agencies, where the effective supervision of offenders is paramount. One widely used risk assessment tool is the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA). This essay provides an overview of PCRA, discusses its merits, and compares it to another popular tool, COMPAS. The critique includes an examination of the strengths, shortcomings, and biases of these assessments. Additionally, suggestions for additional assessment tools and strategies are provided to aid officers in supervising offenders, while satisfying the mission statements of “rehabilitation of the offender” and “protection of the community.”

Overview of PCRA

The Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) is a widely employed tool in community correctional offices/agencies (Cohen et al., 2017). It aims to evaluate the risk level posed by an offender by considering various factors, such as criminal history, age, employment status, and substance abuse history. PCRA utilizes a structured questionnaire or interview format to gather information and assign a risk level score to the individual.

Merits of PCRA for Risk Assessment

PCRA offers several merits that contribute to its popularity among community correctional offices. Firstly, it provides a standardized and systematic approach to risk assessment, ensuring consistency and fairness. By considering a range of relevant factors, PCRA allows for a comprehensive evaluation of an offender’s risk level. Moreover, it helps inform decision-making, such as determining appropriate supervision levels, treatment programs, and intervention strategies. PCRA’s ability to identify risk factors aids in developing tailored supervision plans, promoting individualized rehabilitation efforts.

Comparison of PCRA and COMPAS

In comparison to PCRA, the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) tool is another widely used risk assessment tool. While both tools aim to assess risk levels, they differ in several aspects. COMPAS employs a proprietary algorithm that utilizes a combination of static and dynamic factors to generate risk scores. Unlike PCRA, COMPAS also incorporates the assessment of an offender’s criminogenic needs, such as antisocial attitudes and associates, into its risk assessment process.

Critique of PCRA and COMPAS

Despite their merits, both PCRA and COMPAS have shortcomings and biases. PCRA’s reliance on historical data, such as criminal records, may perpetuate disparities in the justice system by reflecting biased law enforcement practices. It may disproportionately label individuals from marginalized communities as higher risk, leading to over-supervision and hindering rehabilitation efforts (Weisburd & Majimundar, 2018). On the other hand, COMPAS has faced criticism for potential racial biases. Some studies have indicated that COMPAS scores have shown higher false positive rates for certain racial groups, thereby impacting decision-making and perpetuating inequalities.

Additional Assessment Tools and Strategies

To enhance the supervision of offenders, additional assessment tools can be utilized in conjunction with PCRA or COMPAS. One such tool is the use of validated risk-need-responsivity (RNR) assessments. RNR assessments consider dynamic factors like cognitive skills, social support, and substance abuse, aiding in tailoring interventions to address specific criminogenic needs. Furthermore, implementation of structured professional judgment (SPJ) tools can help mitigate biases by involving expert judgment alongside objective risk factors, increasing accuracy and fairness.

Measures and Strategies for Rehabilitation and Community Protection

In addition to assessment tools, the community correctional field should focus on implementing measures and strategies to satisfy the mission statements of rehabilitation and community protection. Firstly, evidence-based treatment programs that address criminogenic needs should be offered to offenders (Andrews, 2011). These programs should incorporate cognitive-behavioral interventions, substance abuse treatment, and skill-building activities. Secondly, establishing collaborative partnerships with community organizations, such as education and employment agencies, can assist in providing meaningful opportunities for offender reintegration. Finally, ongoing training and professional development for correctional officers, specifically addressing biases and cultural competence, can help ensure fair and effective supervision.

Conclusion

Risk assessment tools like PCRA and COMPAS have become integral in community correctional offices/agencies. While they offer valuable insights into an offender’s risk level, it is crucial to recognize their limitations, biases, and potential for perpetuating inequalities. By incorporating additional assessment tools, addressing biases, and implementing holistic strategies for rehabilitation and community protection, the field of community corrections can strive towards a more equitable and effective approach in supervising offenders.

References

Andrews, D. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model of Correctional Assessment and Treatment. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 127–156). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195384642.003.0039 

Cohen, T. D., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Robinson, C. J. (2017). The Federal Post-Conviction Risk Assessment Instrument. In John Wiley & Sons, Ltd eBooks (pp. 77–100). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119184256.ch4 

Weisburd, D., & Majimundar, M. K. (2018). Proactive Policing. In National Academies Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.17226/24928 

Homework Writing Bay
Calculator

Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26
Our features

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service

Need a better grade?
We've got you covered.

Order your paper