Twenty years of operational use of a risk prediction instrument: The United States parole commission's salient factor score

By P. Hoffman. 1994

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction (2015, methodology): “Applications of these tools can be seen in evidence-based sentencing (Hoffman 1994), correction / prison administration (Belfrage et al. 2000), informing release on parole (Pew Center of the States, Public Safety Performance Project 2011), determining the level of supervision during parole (Barnes…”
The Risk Principle in Action: What Have We Learned From 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs? (2006, methodology): “Each offender in the treatment group was matched to an offender in the comparison group based on the county of supervision, sex, and risk level using a modified version of the Salient Factor Score (SFS; Hoffman, 1983, 1994; Hoffman & Beck, 1974, 1985).”
Achieving Accurate Pictures of Risk and Identifying Gender Responsive Needs: Two New Assessments for Women Offenders 1 (2008, methodology): “Even so, such models are commonly used as custody classification tools or in parole risk assessments (Bonta, 1996; Hoffman 1994); b) the second row reports results for a gender-neutral dynamic risk/needs score.”
DOES CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM QUALITY REALLY MATTER? THE IMPACT OF ADHERING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE INTERVENTION* (2006, methodology): “The comparison cases (N = 3,237) were drawn from a larger sampling frame (N = 6,781) and were matched with the treatment cases on county of conviction, sex, and risk level as determined by a modified version of the Salient Factor Score (Hoffman, 1994).4 When multiple cases were available, the first ”
Evaluating the Predictive Validity of the Compas Risk and Needs Assessment System (2009, unknown): “Second-generation (2G) assessments adopted an empirical approach that mainly relied on simple additive point scales, often with only a few standardized factors (e.g., Austin, 1983; S. D. Gottfredson, 1987; Hoffman, 1994).”
The Predictive Validity of a Gender-Responsive Needs Assessment (2009, background): “As noted above, such models are common to institutional corrections and were used for some time in community corrections, parole in particular (see Hoffman, 1994), but have been gradually replaced by the dynamic risk or needs models.”
Use of Dynamic Risk/Need Assessment Instruments Among Long-Term Incarcerated Offenders (2004, background): “The SFS consists of seven items measuring sociodemographic (e.g., age at first commitment, employment and drug history) and criminal (e.g., number of convictions, type of offenses, number of incarcerations, and parole history) type variables.”
Offender Risk Assessment (2002, methodology): “…15 items on the Statistical Information on Recidivism (used in Canada) (Nuffield, 1982), six of seven items on the Salient Factor Score (used in the United States) (Hoffman, 1994), and four of six items on the Offender Group Reconviction Scale (used in the United Kingdom) (Copas & Marshall, 1998).”
Ex-Offenders Need Not Apply (2005, methodology): “Examples of risk prediction tools that use multiple measures of criminal history include the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1993), the Level of Service Inventory—Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 2001), the Salient Factor Score (Hoffman, 1994), and the Wisconsin Model (Baird, Heinz,”
The psychological assessment of risk for crime and violence. (2009, methodology): “Both the SFS and SIR scales predict general and violent recidivism with respectable levels of accuracy (Bonta, Harman, Hann, & Cormier, 1996; Hoffman, 1994; Mills, Kroner, & Hemmati, 2004).”
Exploring the validity of the Level of Service Inventory-Revised with Native American offenders (2006, background): “Most of these tools provide a summary score that dictates a certain level of supervision or intervention (see for example the salient factors score, or the Wisconsin risk/need-CMC) (Baird, Heinz, & Bemus, 1979; Hoffman, 1994).”
Development of the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA): Recidivism Risk Prediction in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2013, methodology): “The SFS was first utilized in the early 1970s to predict recidivism of parolees, and was essentially the first tool for recidivism prediction that was used “in a way that had a visible and measurable” effect on parole (Hoffman, 1994).”
The Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment (2006, background): “Second-generation (2G) assessments were empirically based risk instruments but atheoretical and consisting mostly of static items (e.g., the Salient Factor Score or SFS; Hoffman, 1994).”
Adhering to the Risk and Need Principles: Does It Matter for Supervision-Based Programs? (2006, background): “Parole was based on the premise that rehabilitation of offenders is a primary goal of corrections and that decisions affecting inmates should be tailored to them on a case-by-case basis (Tonry 1999a; Bernat, et al. 1994; Turpin-Petrosino 1999; Hoffman 1994).”