James Ryan B.A.

History
Developed in the late 1990s by the North Pointe
Institute for Public Management, Inc.
Originally developed and normed in New York
Commercially Available
Computerized Tool
Evolved as the premier fourth generation correctional
assessment tool (Blomberg, Bales, Mann, Meldrum, &
Nedelec, 2010,p. 2-4).
Adopted by California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation in reception centers in fiscal year 2006-
07 (California Department of Corrections, n.d.).
Purchased and implemented by the Broward County
Jail System in May of 2008
Purpose
The COMPAS assesses risk and needs (of offenders) to
inform decisions regarding offender release, placement and
management (Skeem & Louden, n.d., p. 7).
It helps CDCR staff assign the right inmates to the right
programs at the right time based on individual risk and
needs assessments, reducing the likelihood of reoffending
(CDCR News, 2012).
In various CJ systems COMPAS is utilized for pretrial
decision-making regarding detention/release and bail
setting, determining the conditions of community
supervision for individuals on probation and parole, and
the proper placement of offenders in state and federal
prisons with appropriate levels of security (Blomberg,
Bales, Mann, Meldrum, & Nedelec, 2010,p. 1).



Principles of Evidenced-Based Rehabilitation
(according to the CDCR, n.d.)
Give the highest programming priority to those with high
and moderate risk to reoffend. Research shows that high
and moderate risk to reoffend prisoners and parolees
achieve the greatest gains in recidivism reduction.
Provide low risk offenders with rehabilitation programs
that focus on work, life skills and personal growth rather
than rehabilitation treatment programs. Research shows
that intensive rehabilitation treatment programs for low-
risk offenders have a minimal reduction or even an increase
in recidivism.
Provide short-term prisoners with reentry services and
reintegration skills training rather than rehabilitative
treatment programs. Most credible rehabilitation
treatment programs require the offender to participate for
at least six months to gain any measurable and sustainable
benefit.
Administrating COMPAS:
Where and When
Throughout the United States (NY, CA, FL)
Ideally utilized throughout the period of incarceration,
from intake to release (Skeem & Louden, n.d., p. 3).
Intake (classification), throughout incarceration (change
rates, treatment assignments), prior to release (community
placement)
Pretrial Decisions (Mann, Gulick, Blomberg, Bales, &
Piquero, 2012, p. 16)
First Appearance Judge (bail setting detention/release)
Sentencing Decisions (probation, incarceration)
Case Management (Mann, Gulick, Blomberg, Bales, &
Piquero, 2012, p. 16).
Treatment Assignment
Institution Assignment
Housing/Supervision Needs


Administration Styles and Information Gathering
Administration
Self-Reports
Filled out by the inmate individually
Scripted Interviews
Questions are asked verbatim
Guided Discussions
Useful for establishing rapport
Opportunity to motivate inmate to buy-in to the rehabilitation
process
Types of Information Gathered
Official Records
Factual/Objective Data
Standardized Interviews with Clients
Both structured and Semi-structured versions
Self-report Questionnaire Information provided by Clients
Information reported by inmates without correctional staff input

Assessment Scales
(Northpointe, 2010)
Include both static and dynamic factors
Content may be adjusted to fit various jurisdictional needs and
resources:
Can include 4 risk and 4 needs scales
Risk Scales: failure to appear, non-compliance (technical violations), general
recidivism, and violent recidivism
Criminogenic Needs: cognitive-behavorial, criminal associates/peers, criminal
involvement, criminal opportunity, criminal personality, criminal thinking (self-
report), current violence, family criminality, financial problems, history of non-
compliance, history of violence, leisure /boredom, residential instability, social
adjustment, social environment, social isolation, socialization failure, substance
abuse, vocation/education
Includes three response bias scales
Designed to detect random responses and lying
Defensive Test
Random Responding Test
Inconsistency Test
Several standard adaptations available through Northpointe:
Re-entry populations
Women
Juveniles
Assessment Categories
(Blomberg, Bales, Mann, Meldrum, & Nedelec, 2010,p. 14-15).
Criminal Involvement
Four Scales
Criminal Involvement, History of Non-compliance, History of Violence, Current Violence
Info obtained from official records (static factors)
Relationship/Lifestyle
Five Scales
Criminal Associates/Peers, Criminal Opportunity, Leisure and Recreation, Social Isolation,
and Substance Abuse
Info obtained from inmates via interviews with correctional staff and/or self-reports
(dynamic factors)
Personality/Attitudes
Six Scales
Criminal Personality, Negative Social Cognitions, Criminal Thinking Observation, Critical
Thinking Self-Report, Anger/Violence, Cognitive Behavior Scale
Info obtained via interviews with staff and/or self-reports (dynamic)
Family
Two Scales
Family Criminality, Socialization Failure
Info obtained via interviews with correctional staff and/or self-reports (dynamic)
Social Exclusion
Five Scales
Financial Problems, Vocational/Educational Profile, Social Environment, Residential
Instability, and Social Adjustment Problems
Info obtained via interviews with correctional staff and/or self-reports (dynamic)

Report Rankings/Outcomes
Risk Ranking Categories
(Blomberg, Bales, Mann, Meldrum, &
Nedelec, 2010,p. 14-15).
Need Ranking Categories
(CDCR Office of Research, 2012, p. 52)
Low Risk

Moderate Risk

High Risk

Influences placement from
pretrial to parole

3 Categories per level:
Predicted Recidivism
Predicted Violence
Predicted Failure to Appear


No Need

Probable Need

Highly Probably Need

Ideally includes alerts and
recommendations for
treatment placement
Strengths
Very Customizable (Blomberg, Bales, Mann, Meldrum, & Nedelec, 2010,p. 13).
Easy and Efficient to administer (Skeem & Louden, n.d., p. 28).
Prescreening (based on Violence and Recidivism Scales) can be used to determine if in-
depth assessment is necessary (Northpointe, 2012, p. 1).
Information recorded at any point rolls-over to subsequent assessments (Northpointe,
2012, p. 1).
Can be integrated with other Management Information Systems to reduce redundancy
and administration time (Northpointe, 2012, p. 2).
Northpointes R&D division will work with agencies to develop locally relevant norms
(Northpointe, 2012, p. 2).
Well-established Relative Efficacy (Northpointe, 2012, p. 2).
Normed for use with diverse ethnicites, juvenile and female populations (Northpointe,
2012, p. 2).
Recent studies support internal and predictive validity (Blomberg, Bales, Mann,
Meldrum, & Nedelec, 2010,p. 89).
Multilevel/Multidimensional predictability
Strongest in overall recidivism
Generally, AUC scores of .70 or higher (Brennan, Dieterich, & Ehret, 2007, p. 3).
Ranging from .71-.82
Scale Reliabilty, Internal Factor Valiidty, Criterion/Concurrent Validity, Predictive Validity, and
Construct Validity
Weaknesses
Lack of peer-reviewed and/or published articles on the
development and psychometric properties (Skeem &
Louden, n.d., p. 3).
Continual alteration of COMPAS scales could lead to
potential overfitting of the instrument (Skeem & Louden,
n.d., p. 3).
Limited in its use for mentally ill offenders (Northpointe,
2012, p. 3).
Designed to determine treatment assignments, but invalid
without collaboration with supplemental measures for use
in determining them due to high variability amongst
offenders (Northpointe, 2012, p. 3).
Overall lack of research on 4th Gen instruments
Skeem & Louden, p. 27 (chart)

Recommendations for further
Research and Improvement
Research should focus on Pretrial Risk Assessment
tools and measures (Blomberg, Bales, Mann,
Meldrum, & Nedelec, 2010,p. 7-8).
Training should be mandated and updated for
instrument administrators (specifically regarding
mentally ill offenders)
Utilize COMPAS in the revision of public policy,
particularly with substance abuse populations
COMPAS Assessment measures should include alerts
to ensure mental health evaluations are done when
needed
Continue to research and refine scales and criteria


References
Andino, N. (2013). The New York Association of Pretrial Service Agencies 2013 Conference
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved December 9, 2013, from
http://www.nyapsa.org/conference-2013---power-point-presentations.html
Blomberg, T., Bales, W., Mann, K., Meldrum, R., & Nedelec, J. (2010, September).
Validation of the COMPAS Risk Assessment Classification Instrument. Tallahassee,
FL: Center for Criminality and Public Policy, Research College of Criminality and
Criminal Justice, Florida State University website:
http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/pretrial/Broward%20Co.%20COMPAS
%20Validation%202010.pdf
Brennan, T., Dieterich, W., & Ehret, B. (2008). Evaluating the Predictive Validity of the
COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment System. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(21),
21-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854808326545
Brennan, T., Dieterich, B., & Ehret, B. (2007, September). Research synthesis reliability
and validity of COMPAS. Retrieved from Northpointe Institute for Public
Management, Inc. website:
http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/research_documents/reliability_validity.pdf
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, COMPAS Assessment Tool
Launched -- Evidenced-based Rehabilitation for Offender Success, at p. 1-4 (Cal. ).
Retrieved from http://www.CDCR.ca.gov/rehabilitation
CDCR News. (2012, October 29). News report shows recidivism rate continues to
decline. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation News. Retrieved
from: http://www.insidecdcr.ca.gov/2012/10/new-report-shows-recidivism-rate-
continues-to-decline/


References cont
CDCR Office of Research. (2012, October). 2012 Outcome Evaluation Report. Retrieved
from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation website:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/.../ARB_FY_0708_Recidivism_Report_10.23.12.pdf
Mann, K., Gulick, K., Blomberg, T., Bales, W., & Piquero, A. (2012). Broward County
Jail's Population Management. American Jails, (January/February), 14-19.
Retrieved from Northpointe Institute for Public Management, Inc. website:
http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/publications/Broward_County_Article.pdf
Northpointe. (2012). COMPAS Risk & Need Assessment System: Selected questions
posed by inquiring agencies. Retrieved from
http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/downloads/FAQ_Document.pdf
Skeem, J. L., & Louden, J. E. (n.d.). Assessment of evidence in the quality of the
Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS).
Irvine, CA: U.C. Irvine website:
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/Research_Documents/COMPAS_S
keem_EnoLouden_Dec_2007.pdf
Tape, T. G. (n.d.). The Area Under the ROC Curve [Fact sheet]. Retrieved December 9,
2013, from Interpreting Diagnostic Tests website:
http://gim.unmc.edu/dxtests/roc3.htm
Turner, S., Hess, J., & Janetta, J. (2009, November). Development of the California Static
Risk Assessment Instrument (CSRA). Irvine, CA: Center for Evidenced-Based
Corrections. Retrieved from:
http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/2009/11/CSRA-Working-Paper.pdf