A Principled Approach to the Construction of Risk Assessment Categories: The Council of State Governments Justice Center Five-Level System

Consistency and Construct Validity of the Five-Level System for Risk Communication Using Static and Dynamic Tools: An Investigation Using the Static-99R and VRS-SO

This study examined the Council of State Governments' five-level system for risk communication, as applied to the Static-99R and Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense Version (VRS-SO). Aims of the system include increasing consistency in risk communication and linking risk categories to psychologically meaningful constructs. We investigated concordance between risk levels assigned by the instruments, and distributions of VRS-SO dynamic needs associated with Static-99R risk levels, among a multisite sample (n = 1,404) of persons who have sexually offended. Concordant categorical risk ratings were assigned in just over a third of cases, suggesting that consistency remains a concern with the system, particularly when conceptually disparate tools are applied. Densities of criminogenic needs varied widely among persons assigned the same risk level by the Static-99R and diverged from the descriptions ascribed by the system. These findings can inform clinical assessments and further refinement of the system.

Improving Our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for Brief Assessment of Recidivism Risk-2002R

A Five-Level Risk and Needs system has been proposed as a common language for standardizing the meaning of risk levels across risk/need tools used in corrections. Study 1 examined whether the Five-Levels could be applied to BARR-2002R (N = 2,390), an actuarial tool for general recidivism. Study 2 examined the construct validity of BARR-2002R risk levels in two samples of individuals with a history of sexual offending (N = 1,081). Study 1 found reasonable correspondence between BARR-2002R scores and four of the five standardized risk levels (no Level V). Study 2 found that the profiles of individuals in Levels II, III, and IV were mostly consistent with expectations; however, individuals in the lowest risk level (Level I) had more criminogenic needs than expected based on the original descriptions of the Five-Levels. The Five-Level system was mostly successful when applied to BARR-2002R. Revisions to this system, or the inclusion of putatively dynamic risk factors and protective factors, may be required to improve alignment with the information provided by certain risk tools.

The Council of State Governments Justice Center Approach to Increasing Risk-Level Consistency in the Application of Risk Assessment Instruments

Correctional and forensic mental health settings potentially have multiple risk assessment instruments administered on a single client. Because of the various methods of determining risk categories, risk-level consistency can become an issue. The Council of State Governments Justice Center developed a Five-Level System that can be applied to most risk assessment instruments. Using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised and two created risk assessment instruments, the present study assessed if the Five-Level System (vs. normative percentile categories) demonstrated greater agreement between the two instruments, and, if so, the percentage of greater agreement. The Five-Level System demonstrated 4% to 5% greater agreement for both risk-level placement and recidivism rates. The implications of this greater consistency among risk assessment instruments is an increased fairness in making risk-level assignments.