Many jurisdictions are using risk-need assessment tools to gauge recidivism, assess salient needs, and inform decision-making. While these tools can improve case outcomes and reduce unnecessary detention, there is growing concern about their limitations and racial fairness. In an effort to help practitioners consider the implications of applying Risk-Need-Responsivity principles and learn how to effectively administer risk-need tools, the Center developed The Criminal Court Assessment Tool Training Series.
Below, Center staff explain and discuss risk-need-responsivity theory and effective usage of the Criminal Court Assessment Tool (CCAT).
Module One: Rethinking Risk-Need-Responsivity
Modern criminal justice reforms have called for the use of risk-need-responsivity theory to help reduce the inherent subjectivity in case processing. Yet there is growing concern over racial bias and misclassification in risk assessment. This research-based module dives deep into the origins and core principles of risk-need-responsivity and its inherent limitations – Part I examines the practical application of risk-need-responsivity theory; Part II unpacks potential racial disparities and offers strategies to help mitigate bias and implement helpful policy and practice.
Part I: Risk-Need-Responsivity Overview
Jessica Kay, Senior Policy Advisor
Length: 94 mins
Part II: Rethinking Risk-Need-Responsivity
Fred Butcher, Senior Jail Reform Associate
Adelle Fontanet, Director, Tribal Justice Exchange
Length: 105 mins
Module Two: What is the CCAT and How is it Administered?
Recognizing the inherent limitations of risk-need tools, it is critical that practitioners use assessments appropriately to minimize potential harms and create positive case outcomes. This practical session examines the development of the Criminal Court Assessment Tool (CCAT), reviews all assessment domains and scoring, and provides tips for effective implementation.
Administering the CCAT
Lindsey Price Jackson, Senior Program Manager, Community Justice Initiatives
Length: 81 mins
Module Three: Implementing the Criminal Court Assessment
Before implementing the Criminal Court Assessment Tool, jurisdictions should consider how the tool will be used and enact policies to support these goals. This module will explore the national landscape of Criminal Court Assessment Tool implementation and offer tips for effectively implementing the Criminal Court Assessment Tool, including stakeholder collaboration, data mining, decision-making frameworks, and revalidation.
CCAT: How should it be implemented?
Brett Taylor, Director, Policy and Practice, Center for Justice Innovation
Length: 54 mins
Podcast Series: CCAT in Practice
Hosted by Danielle Malangone, a consultant for the Center for Justice Innovation, this podcast series offers a first-hand look at how the Criminal Court Assessment Tool is being used to identify needs and improve programming. You’ll hear strategies for implementing the Criminal Court Assessment Tool in a community court setting, engaging individuals during the assessment process, and collecting data to monitor outcomes.
Check out the three-part podcast series on Criminal Court Assessment Tool in Practice through the links below.
Guests
- Lessons from the Field: Sarah Thompson, Therapeutic Court Coordinator, Spokane Municipal Court
- Clinical Considerations: Arielle Friedman, Associate Director of Pretrial Clinical Practice, Center for Justice Innovation
- Collecting and Auditing Data: Lenore Lebron, Director of Data Analytics and Applied Research and Tia Pooler, Deputy Director of Data Analytics and Applied Research
This project was supported by Grant No. 15PBJA-23-AG-00232-DGCT awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.