Combining Static and Dynamic Recidivism Risk Information Into the Five-Level Risk and Needs System: A New Zealand Example

Coulter, Darcy J.; Lloyd, Caleb D.; Serin, Ralph C.

doi:10.1177/00938548211033319

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lloyd, Perley-Robertson, et al (2020) demonstrated that the relationship between DRAOR Protect scores measured at release and violent recidivism was stronger among older individuals. Coulter et al (2021) used these data to discuss the merits of a standardized structure for communicating risk derived from static and dynamic factors.…”

Section: Methods Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Stone¹,

Lloyd²,

Serin³

2021

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In community-based corrections, reassessment of dynamic risk factors improves the prediction of recidivism relative to initial risk assessment at the time of release. However, there is less evidence for predictions of violent recidivism. We examined whether reassessment proximity or aggregation of reassessments improved the prediction of imminent violence in a sample of paroled individuals on community supervision. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that reassessment of dynamic risk would better predict violent recidivism than initial risk assessment at the time of release. Examination of aggregation and individual risk-factor domains was exploratory. Method: In a prospective study of violent recidivism in a sample of individuals on community supervision in New Zealand (75,917 assessments from 3,421 participants; 92.8% men), we used supervision officers’ ratings of dynamic risk (assessed using Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry [DRAOR]) and static risk scores (using the Risk of ReConviction × Risk of Imprisonment) to predict imminent violence (within 2 weeks). Results: Individuals who recidivated violently had higher initial risk ratings (DRAOR Stable d = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17, 0.55]; DRAOR Acute d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.26, 0.64]) and showed more week-to-week fluctuations in risk ratings (DRAOR Stable d = 0.21, 95% CI [0.04, 0.41]; DRAOR Acute d = 0.26, 95% CI [0.06,0.46]). Total averages of faster-changing acute risk factors best predicted violence (c-index = 0.68), with changes in these factors incrementally predicting violence over well-established predictors (criminal history) and initial scores (Δχ2 = 15.54, df = 3). The constructs that best discriminated violence were consistent with social cognition explanations of violence. Conclusions: Because client consistency as determined through score aggregation was more important than current presentation, supervision officers should consider overall patterns of interpersonal hostility and reactivity rather than assuming the emerging presence of these factors will signal imminent violence among previously violent individuals.

show abstract

Section: Methods Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Stone¹,

Lloyd²,

Serin³

2021

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kroner et al (2020) did not find Level V in their two large samples. Coulter et al (2019), however, did identify a Level V group in a community sample in New Zealand. Further research is needed to determine the frequency with which risk tools can identify Level V in diverse samples and for different offending outcomes.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The distinction between Level IV and Level V is at the very high end of risk, and would most likely be useful in samples preselected to already be above average risk (e.g., high security settings), and over longer follow-up times. Nevertheless, Coulter et al (2019) did identify 4.1% of a New Zealand community sample ( N = 440) as Level V for the Roc*RoI (Bakker et al, 1999) based on expected recidivism rates of over 85% within 2 years. In contrast, Kroner et al (2020) did not identify any individuals as Level V in two large, US community samples ( N = 24,936 and N = 36,303).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other studies applying the Five-Levels to general offending samples (rather than sexual offending samples) found a higher risk distribution, with most of their nonsexual offending sample scoring in Level III and IV on general risk tools. The New Zealand community corrections study found that most individuals fell into Level III (21%) and IV (54.5%) when using their tool, the Roc*RoI (Coulter et al, 2019). The two US community samples also found most individuals fell into Level III (40% in Sample 1, 19% in Sample 2) and Level IV (32% in Sample 1, 71% in Sample 2; Kroner et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving Our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for Brief Assessment of Recidivism Risk-2002R

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Five-Level Risk and Needs system has been proposed as a common language for standardizing the meaning of risk levels across risk/need tools used in corrections. Study 1 examined whether the Five-Levels could be applied to BARR-2002R ( N = 2,390), an actuarial tool for general recidivism. Study 2 examined the construct validity of BARR-2002R risk levels in two samples of individuals with a history of sexual offending ( N = 1,081). Study 1 found reasonable correspondence between BARR-2002R scores and four of the five standardized risk levels (no Level V). Study 2 found that the profiles of individuals in Levels II, III, and IV were mostly consistent with expectations; however, individuals in the lowest risk level (Level I) had more criminogenic needs than expected based on the original descriptions of the Five-Levels. The Five-Level system was mostly successful when applied to BARR-2002R. Revisions to this system, or the inclusion of putatively dynamic risk factors and protective factors, may be required to improve alignment with the information provided by certain risk tools.

show abstract

“…Perfection, however, is not a prerequisite for clinical utility. Applications of the common language system have been made to specialized risk assessment measures such as the Static-99R and Static-2002R (Hanson et al, 2017), and the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version (VRS-SO; Olver, Mundt, et al, 2018) to characterize sexual violence risk, and there have been attempts with measures such as the dynamic risk assessment of offender reentry (DRAOR; Coulter et al, 2021) for general recidivism risk. Kroner et al (2020) also applied the CSG guidelines to inform new evidence-based five-level risk categories with the LSI-R and found that these had stronger concordance with CSG recidivism base rates than the original LSI-R five risk level system.…”

Section: The Violence Risk Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing dynamic violence risk: Common language risk levels and recidivism rates for the Violence Risk Scale.

Olver¹,

Mundt²,

Hogan³

et al. 2022

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study features the development of new risk categories and recidivism estimates for the Violence Risk Scale (VRS), a violence risk assessment and treatment planning tool. We employed a combined North American multisite sample (k = 6, N = 1,338) of adult mostly male offenders, many with violent criminal histories, from correctional or forensic mental health settings that had complete VRS scores from archival or field ratings and outcome data from police records (N = 1,100). There were two key objectives: (a) to identify the rates of violent recidivism associated with VRS scores and (b) to generate updated evidence-based VRS violence risk categories with external validation. To achieve the first objective, logistic regression was applied using VRS pretreatment and change scores on treated samples with a minimum 5-year follow-up (k = 5, N = 472) to model 2-, 3-, and 5-year violent and general recidivism estimates, with the resulting logistic regression algorithms retained to generate a VRS recidivism rates calculator. To achieve the second objective, the Council of State Governments’ guidelines were applied to generate five risk levels using the common language framework using percentiles, risk ratios (from Cox regression), and absolute violent and general recidivism estimates (from logistic regression). Construct validity of the five risk levels was examined through group comparisons on measures of risk, need, protection, and psychopathy obtained from the constituent samples. VRS applications to enhance risk communication, treatment planning, and violence prevention in light of the updated recidivism estimates and risk categories are discussed.

show abstract

Combining Static and Dynamic Recidivism Risk Information Into the Five-Level Risk and Needs System: A New Zealand Example

Cited by 8 publications

References 41 publications

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Dynamic risk factors reassessed regularly after release from incarceration predict imminent violent recidivism.

Improving Our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for Brief Assessment of Recidivism Risk-2002R

Assessing dynamic violence risk: Common language risk levels and recidivism rates for the Violence Risk Scale.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About