Advancing Fairness and Transparency: National Guidelines for Post-Conviction Risk and Needs Assessment

By Sarah L. Desmarais, David A. D’Amora, Lahiz P. Tavárez

These guidelines were developed to promote accuracy, fairness, transparency, and effective communication and use of risk and needs assessment instruments to inform decision making following conviction. Whatever the setting, the guidelines presume that the intended use of post-conviction risk and needs assessment instruments is to support accurate, fair, and transparent decisions regarding a person’s risk of recidivism. These guidelines also presume that the purpose of post-conviction risk and needs assessment instruments is, ultimately, to promote public safety and positive outcomes for people in the criminal justice system through the least restrictive means possible.

This project was accomplished through the collaborative efforts of researchers, risk and needs assessment instrument developers, practitioners, and leaders in the field who gave generously of their time and expertise over the course of 2.5 years. It draws on an extensive review of literature and related research, observations from the field, feedback from national experts, several multidisciplinary forums and advisory group discussions, and a rigorous review process.

Advancing Fairness and Transparency: National Guidelines for Post-Conviction Risk and Needs Assessment is a resource for making decisions that help people succeed after a conviction. The guidelines were developed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and The Council of State Governments Justice Center. They promote fairness, transparency, and accuracy in the use of risk and needs assessment instruments.

The guidelines are intended to be used by policymakers, researchers, practitioners, and agency administrators. They can help inform decisions and case planning after a conviction and sentencing, or in alternative forms of criminal justice processing.

The guidelines include recommendations for promoting accuracy, such as: Conducting a local evaluation of the assessment instrument, Meeting minimum performance thresholds, and Using a continuous quality improvement process.

New York: Council of State Governments, Justice Center, 2022. 54p.