The document provides an overview of developing an offender risk assessment system in Kazakhstan. It discusses the importance and advantages of risk needs assessment for managing individual offenders, the criminal justice system, and crime at the social and community levels. It outlines key considerations for developing an effective risk assessment system, including ensuring it is predictive, theory-based, reliable, objective, relevant, and easy to use. The document also reviews examples of risk assessment tools and systems used in other jurisdictions.

1. Developing an Offender
Assessment System in
Kazakhstan
Overview and Discussion
July 2017

2. Risk Assessment is important:
 To identify the risk of reoffending in each case and categorise offenders by their
level of risk;
 To prevent the risk of serious harm to others
 To identify the criminogenic factors relevant to reducing the risk of reoffending;
 To maximise the use of resources by making the Service(s)’ response/case
management process proportionate to the risks and needs identified in each
case
 To support crime prevention and community safety partnerships, planning and
management at all levels (national, regional, municipal, local)

3. Advantages of Risk Needs Assessment:
For managing individual offenders
 Assessing the risk of Recidivism and risk of Serious harm for individual
offenders more accurately to inform Justice Chain Partners:
 Sentencing decisions
 Early Release (Parole) decisions
 Supervision decisions.
 Identifying individual needs and strengths so that can be worked with to
support rehabilitation and desistance
 To improve sentencing planning and allocation to suitable interventions
 Motivating and engaging offenders
 Measuring change in individual offenders level of risk of recidivism and
risk of harm
 Leading to a reduction in future offending.

4. Advantages of Risk Needs Assessment:
For managing the System
 Managing resources: Aggregated data will provide a better
understanding of the risk and need levels in the offender
population and the allocation of resources more effectively.
 Protecting the public through identifying and managing
offenders at risk of causing serious harm.
 Strategic planning: development of interventions and of
staff training to meet the identified needs of offenders.
 Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and case
management.
 Reducing the level and cost of crime

5. Advantages of Risk Needs Assessment:
For managing crime at the Social and
Community levels
 Planning and management of wider responses to crime
 At National, Regional, Municipal and local neighbourhood areas
 Priorities decided at each level on “Cascade” basis e.g. national (Ministerial,
Senior Prosecutorial), Regionally and by Municipalities with neighbourhood
input
 Crime Prevention and Community Safety is increasingly important
 Data may be linked with police, crime, victim and local intelligence
 Inter-agency Protocols support cooperation and joint work: Examples:
 Prolific Offenders / anti-social behaviour
 High Risk of Harm Offenders, including violent and sexual
 Special Groups – including gangs, drug related, organised crime
 Managing resources: Similarly to the Agency level, aggregated data will provide
a better understanding of the risk and need levels in the offender population
and the allocation of resources more effectively, so reducing the level and cost
of crime

6. Reconviction Vs Serious Harm
Risk of Reconviction
• The frequency and timing of re-
offending
• Amenable to statistical
prediction.
• Risk does not change quickly
• Offender at high risk are thieves,
drug users, young and
unemployed
Risk of Serious Harm
• The serious outcome of future
offending, in harming others
• Evaluted by assessor, because it is
an unusual event difficult to
predict.
• Risk can change quickly ‘acute
factors’
• Offenders at high risk, murderers,
rapists, older, less criminal history,

7. Definition of a criminogenic
need:
Any factor or trait related to an
individual for which a an decrease in
the factor or trait leads to a reduction
in the likelihood of recidivism,
(Andrews,D & Bonta J; 2001)

8. Needs and Dynamic Risk
Criminogenic Noncriminogenic
Pro-criminal attitudes Self-esteem
Criminal associates Vague feelings
Substance misuse Physical training
Antisocial personality Group cohesion
(self-control, anger)
Work training with job Increase ambition

9. Scope of Assessment
100
Mental health
Accommodation
74
40
31
0
Likelihood
of
Reconviction
Risk of
Serious
Harm
Employment
Attitudes
Substance Misuse
Sexual / Violent Precursors
Risk Factors
Needs
Low
Medium
Very high
High
Lifestyle

10. Characteristics of a good assessment tool:
• Predictive – IT MUST WORK, scores correctly discriminate between
people who are likely to reoffend and people who are not.
• Theory based - the assessment should follow a accepted theory of
criminality, and be evidence based.
• Reliable – so consistent results are produced by different assessors.
• Objective – so that there are rules about how to score it.
• Relevant – so that the things assessed are all related to reoffending.
• Face Validity – the process can understood by staff and offenders.
• Sensitive – so that if someone changes the assessment will be able to
recognise this change.
• Motivating – helps offenders recognise the need to change

11. Characteristics of a good assessment tool:
It must be easy to use and not
take too Long!

12. Development of Risk Assessment
• First generation: Professional judgement - practitioner interviews the
offender, consults previous records and then forms a judgement about the
offender’s risk by using their own knowledge
• Second generation: Actuarial approaches - recognised that the assessment
of risk needed should be standardised and evidence-based. Some actuarial
scales show that a small number of offender characteristics identify re-
offenders. As with most areas of human behaviour, past behaviour is found to
be the best predictor of future behaviour.
• Third generation: Evidence-based and dynamic - These instruments include
dynamic risk factors as well as statistic risk factors. In addition to items on
criminal history and other static items such as past substance abuse there
were dynamic items investigating the offender’s current and ever changing
situation. The offender is asked about present employment, criminal friends,
family relationships, etc. The third generation risk instruments were referred
to as “risk-need” instruments.

13. Development of Risk Assessment II
• Fourth generation: Systematic and comprehensive - Integrate systematic
intervention and monitoring with the assessment of a broader range of
offender risk factors than before. They including psychological and
personality traits important to treatment. They measure a range different
outcomes. For example, as well as risk of re-offending, and risk of serious
harm to other people. In order to do this the assessments need to pay
particular attention to the type of offences the offender has committed in
the past, the triggers and motivation for offending and the overall
pattern of offending. The also take account of ‘acute factors’ which can
lead to a sudden increase in risk, for example, an increase in alcohol
consumption or the failure to take prescribed medication. The fourth
generation assessments frequently pay attention to protective factors as
well as risk factors .

14. Adopting a dynamic approach
•Aim to move Risk Assessment → Risk
Management
•Static instruments to screen
•Assessment based on interactions between
static and dynamic measures
•Identify unique acute factors
•Assessment for future including protective
factors and desistence
•Incorporate interventions

15. Risk Assessment
Risk reductionRisk Management
There are three components interacting with each other,
as part of OM process

16. How do we do all this?
The process
It is iterative and dynamic
Offender management
Oasys and sentence plan
OM recognises need for
further specialist assessment /
review of risk
Specialist assessment conducted
AND / OR
Information reviewed
Risk reconceptualised
Information

17. Conclusions
• Risk assessment and risk management should not be
separated
• All assessment instruments have limitations and are
only as good as the people who use them.
• Static risk assessments main role in screening
• Incorporate dynamic risk assessment into the process –
prospective measures, actual not hypothesised variables
• Risk assessment should look to future
• Interventions taken into account but need to evaluate
the degree of change achieved

18. OASys in England and Wales
• Launched and piloted in 2000
• Implemented Nationally 2002 onwards – Prisons and probation
• Begins at Pre-sentence stage linked to sentence planning
• Includes Risk of Recidivism and Risk of Harm and needs assessment
• Screening version available for some offenders
• Dedicated research team have evaluated over numbers of years and
changes made to improve accuracy of predictions:
• For example predictor of General offending and Predictor for Violence

19. Probation - Areas of Responsibility
Pre-Trial and Pre-
Sentence:
Bail Information
Pre-Sentence Reports
Community Supervision:
Community Order
Suspended Prison Sentence with Supervision
Prison Sentence:
Community Stage –
Offender Management
Prison Sentence:
Prison Stage – Reports and
Offender Management
Approved Premises
(Hostels)

20. Analysis of
offences
Financial
management
Accommodation
Education,
training &
employment
Health
and other
Attitudes
Thinking &
behaviour
Emotional
wellbeing
Alcohol
misuse
Drug
misuse
Relationships
Lifestyle
OASys
sections
Offending
information
OASys…*
*Source: See next slide…

21. Other European and Regional
Jurisdictions - Georgia
• Probation Service has two instruments:
• Risk of Harm Screen applied to all offenders at beginning of
supervision used to decide level of supervision.
• Risk Needs tool for offenders High and medium risk of harm to
allocate to interventions and monitor progress
• Both system IT based
• Currently in the process of validation of scoring

22. Other European and Regional
Jurisdictions - Ukraine
• Probation Service:
• Introduced Risk and Needs Assessment system in 2015 based on
OASys
• Scored system for probability of recidivism and assessment for Risk of
harm guidelines
• Used to allocate offenders to level of supervision
• Current system is paper based – difficult to use for management
information

23. Other European and Regional
Jurisdictions
• Moldova
• Probation Service developing Risk Needs assessment screen
• Estonia
• Developed a Risk Assessment System based on early version of OASys
• Other European and Regional examples:
• Norway, Latvia, Croatia, Others…

24. North American Jurisdictions
• Canadian Federal System – Long history of using instrument based on
‘Level of Service inventory – Revised’, created by Andrews and Bonta.
Originally this instrument only measured Risk of recidivism and
defined areas of need. A number of other specialist instruments are
used to assess risk of serious harm for groups such as Sex offenders,
violent offenders and spousal abuser.
• A number of USA state systems also use variations of the Level of
Service inventory with prison and parole populations

25. Sources of Information
• Criminal History
• Offenders Case file
• One or more in depth interviews with Offender
• Confirmatory data from official records
• Behavioural evidence
• Conversations with those who know the offender
• Home visits
The Assessor always attempts to confirm information from
more than one source.

26. Criminal history factors are important
• Past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.
• Criminal history is usually well documented.
• Recorded criminal offences and the judicial sanctions provide a proxy
measure for other lifestyle factors. For example, criminal associates,
exposure to substance misuse, lack of gainful employment, breaks
in education.
• But, personal history cannot be changed only and the data capture
little of the individuals experience.

27. Role of the Assessor: Training and
Competencies
The role of the assessor is vitally important. Risk Assessment tools assist in
making reliable assessments, they ensure that all relevant areas are
considered and reduce unintentional bias, but they do not detract from the
skilled judgment of the assessor.
The assessor needs to be skilful in engaging the offender in the assessment
process, they need to be able to make sound judgements, and to be able to
seek and shift through information from many different sources to find
evidence to collaborate these judgments.
It is very important that assessors are properly trained and are very familiar
with the assessment tool scoring in order to use it effectively. They require
good interviewing skills. They also require some understanding of the RNA
model and processes of desistance, and they must be fully conversant with
purpose of assessment in work with the individual, and in partnership work.

28. Psychological Personality Risk factor are
important
• They are some of the key criminogenic factors
• Its the way that past adverse experiences affect current behaviour.
• Psychological and Personality risk factors remain with the individual
until corrected whereas social factors may change.
• These factors are the ones most open to change through contact with
probation staff (for example you cannot change offenders life
circumstance, but can help them think differently about it).

29. Offender Self Assessment
From research into what helps offenders stop offending (desistance
research), we have learned about the importance of engaging with
offenders, recognising their individuality and focusing upon the
development of positive offender/practitioner relationships.
The self-assessment provides offenders with the opportunity to
comment upon their lives. Their views can then be discussed and
incorporated within the Sentence plan. Offenders are also able to
comment upon their sentence plan and consider whether they agree
with its content.

30. Developing a Risk and
Needs Assessment System
The Development Process

31. Steps required to develop a RNA system.
1. Scoping the requirement for the Risk-Needs Assessment System.
2. Designing a RNA system based on the requirements, resources
available for assessment and data sources.
3. Investigating possible scoring methodologies and identifying the most
appropriate.
4. Piloting the RNA System on a small scale.
5. Analysis and feedback from pilots and making changes/improvement
based on the pilot.
6. Role out including developing training materials and guidance for staff.
7. A plan for validating the system on the offender population.

32. Risk needs Assessment System
Requirements
• Grounded in Psychological and Sociological theory
• Combine all the major criminogenic factors which research has identified,
to produce one score for risk of recidivism.
• The scoring of sections relates to the importance of these factors, (For
example; 60% on static and 40% dynamic factors in the UK).
• Assess risk of serious harm to self or others.
• Face Validity - easy to use and understand
• Predictive Validity - Successfully predicts outcomes for groups of
offenders
• Construct Validity - All items scored contribute and correlate with overall
score, and with other related measures.

33. General personality - social
psychological perspective
Immediate situation
Social support
for crime
Family-child relations
Antisocial attitudes
Antisocial personality
Criminal History
Conventional ambition & performance
Family of
origin
Temperament
Neighbourhood
Gender
Age
Ethnicity
Criminal
conduct

34. Balancing the contributions of risk
factors
Historical Factors
• Data is usually accessible and
accurate
• Does not require assessor
interpterion/judgement more
reliable
• Changes only slowly over time
• Often unamenable to
intervention
Dynamic Factors
• Difficult to obtain accurate
information and needs offender co-
operation
• Requires skilled assessment
• Can change very quickly
• Provides more personalised better
quality assessment
• Amenable to intervention

35. Balancing the contributions of risk factors
Historical Factors
• Criminal History: The frequency,
type and timing of past
offending and sanctions
• Age and Gender.
• Education and Employment
history
• Family background
Dynamic Factors
• Alcohol and Drug misuse
• Criminal peer group/lifestyle
• Current unemployment and lack
of pro-social activity
• Offender’s attitude and
motivation
• Pro-social skills and support

36. Weighting Risk Factor Scores
Score factors Differentially:
The maximum score available for a risk factor will vary depending on how important that factor is
in predicting re-offending (Ukrainian risk assessment system)
Vary number of scored items/questions:
Important risk factors have a greater number of questions to tally so can produce an higher
score if a risk exists.
(level of Service inventory – Canada)
Convert to Scaled scores:
A table at the end of the assessment converts the each risk factor ‘raw score’ to ‘ scaled
score’ by multiplying more important risks by a factor of 3 or 4. (Oasys assessment UK)
Algorithm:
Total risk score calculated using a mathematical formula which weights questions
individually. Only possible with access to suitable IT system. (OGRS system in UK)

37. Types of Scoring: Individual Items
• Binary Assessment:
YES or NO format
The risk factor is either present or not present. Clear and Simple
• Three options:
No problem, some problems or serious problems. Allows some
qualification
• Assessment scale:
On a scale of 1 to 5 how serious is the problem? Requires more
judgement

38. 3.1
3.2
Currently of no fixed abode/homeless/has no postal
address. No = 0 Yes = 2
(If YES Score: 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 as 2 each)
Suitability of accommodation
NO
0
0 1
YES
2
2
3.3 Permanence of accommodation 0 1 2
3.4 Suitability of location of accommodation 0 1 2
3.5 Who does offender usually live with
(current or proposed on release) - circle
Parent Relative Partner Friend Alone
TOTAL SCORE SECTION 3
Accomodation section 3.

39. Other Considerations for design of the
Risk Needs Assessment System
• Availability and Reliability of Information sources
• Level of Information technology available to staff
• Overall design of Assessment form
• Integration with other existing assessments
• Staff Interviewing and assessment skills
• Staff Numeracy levels and familiarity with statistics

40. Predictive Validation: Reconviction Study
• Assessment of a large number of offenders
• The options retrospective or prospective study
• Some means of Collating the data at the individual
offender level
• Identification of an appropriate outcome measure
• Comparison of Risk Assessment score with outcome
• Analysis using multivariate statistics (e.g. Discriminant
analysis, AUC, and predictive modelling).

41. Comparison of predictive models by AUC score
• Random Allocation 0.5
•
• OASys ‘static (model)’ 0.67
• OAsys ‘dynamic ’ 0.63
• OGRS 3 0.69
• Oasys total Score (revised) 0.71
• OGRS 3 + OASys Dynamic 0.78

42. Criminogenic need England and Wales 2010
34%
54%
22%
36%
38%
26%
41%
38%
57%
33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%

43. Offender needs by area
Section % with criminogenic need
Area A
(2139)
Area B
(1832)
Area C
(1284)
Area D
(1729)
All
(6984)
3: accommodation 34 35 35 35 35
4: education, training,
employability
63 60 62 59 61
5: financial management
and income
27 27 23 26 27
6: relationships 43 34 39 40 40
7: lifestyle and associates 48 43 44 40 44
8: drug misuse 32 40 30 35 34
9: alcohol misuse 41 30 42 30 35
10: emotional well-being 44 35 43 40 41
11: thinking and behaviour 56 56 60 54 56
12: attitudes 31 29 26 22 27
All sections (mean number
of needs)
4.7 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.6
Mean total weighted score 67 69 66 65 67

44. comparison lifers Vs non-lifers % with
problems/needs:
lifers Non-lifers
• Accommodation 75% 20%
• Education/training needs 18% 22%
• Employment needs 66% 27%
• Financial problems 66% 21%
• Lifestyle Issues 71% 31%
• Relationship problems 58% 23%

45. comparison lifers Vs non-lifers % with problems/
needs:
lifers non-lifers
• Alcohol misuse 73% 24%
• Drug misuse 33% 32%
• Emotional Problems 77% 20%
• Inter-personal behaviour 18% 15%
• Cognitive skills 71% 51%
• Pro-criminal attitudes 42% 40%

46. Thank you!
Questions and Discussion