Communicating recidivism risk is individualized to each assessment. Labels (e.g., high, low) have no standardized meaning. In 2017, the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSGJC) proposed a framework for standardized communication, but balancing the framework’s underlying principles of effective risk communication (and merging static and dynamic information) adds complexity. In this study, we incorporated dynamic risk scores that case managers rated among a routine sample of adults on parole in New Zealand ( N = 440) with static risk scores into the Five-Level Risk and Needs System. Compared with static risk only, merging tools (a) enhanced concordance with the recidivism rates proposed by CSGJC for average and lower-risk individuals, (b) diminished concordance for higher-risk individuals, yet (c) improved conceptual alignment with the criminogenic needs domain of the system. This example highlights the importance of attending to the underlying principles of effective risk communication that motivated the development of the system.

No abstract

Due to recent legal cases highlighting a lack of cross-ethnicity validity research using correctional risk assessment tools, we evaluated psychometric properties of Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR) scores across Māori ( n = 1,812) and New Zealand (NZ) European samples ( n = 1,211) in Aotearoa NZ. Using routine administrative data, our analyses suggested scoring properties were invariant across ethnicity for 15 of 19 items. Discrimination properties were also equivalent, but we observed a higher recidivism base rate among Māori participants, consistent with official statistics. Consequently, calibration analyses using a fixed follow-up ( N = 372) demonstrated higher predicted recidivism rates for Māori participants at each DRAOR score. This suggests that Māori participants with similar levels of DRAOR-assessed need factors as NZ European participants experienced relatively greater continued justice contact. DRAOR users should prioritize delivering quality case management to clients, recognizing that both case-specific and systemic factors may underlie differential base rates.

Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) provide important information about an individual’s background and circumstances to assist judicial officers in the sentencing process. The present study analyzed PSRs for 63 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people sentenced by either an Indigenous sentencing court or a mainstream court in the Australian State of Victoria. Using natural language processing techniques, our analyses revealed few differences between PSRs conducted for each court. However, PSRs were found to predominantly feature key words that are risk-based, with mainstream court PSRs more negatively worded than the Indigenous sentencing court’s PSRs. This may have been due to the inclusion of results from a risk and need assessment tool. Pro-social factors did comprise more than one third of extracted keywords, although the number of strength-based culture-related keywords, in particular, was low across PSRs in both courts. It is possible that courts may not be receiving all the information needed to promote individualized justice.

Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) provide information to courts on an individual’s background, circumstances, risks, needs and plans. Research has found that PSRs focus heavily on risk of recidivism, while identification of prosocial cultural and community factors is limited. This study sought to describe the language and sentiment in these reports. We studied PSRs written for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people sentenced by the mainstream County Court of Victoria and the Koori Court Division of the County Court of Victoria. Findings indicate that risk-related words are more prevalent than words associated with strengths and culture in PSRs submitted to both courts. While the frequency of positive and negative sentiment was low in PSRs for both courts, those for the Koori Court were more positive in sentiment.