Peer Mentors as Prison Volunteers: Building Bridges Between Institutions and Communities.

One creative way that Departments of Corrections offset costs is by relying on volunteers. Prison volunteers are a heterogeneous group, who provide various programs to incarcerated populations. One unique subset of prison volunteers are peer mentors, who are individuals who have experienced criminal justice interventions and have desisted from criminal activities. These mentors provide unique guidance to individuals who are currently incarcerated or are preparing for release. The current study analyzed responses from peer mentors (N = 51) and explored their motivations and experiences. Thematic analysis was utilized to assess self-reported motivations and thoughts. Participants described internal, relational, and religious/community-based motivations for facing the barriers and challenges inherent in returning to prisons, in order to provide volunteer services. There is little known about prison volunteers and less about peer mentors. We encourage future research and policy to capitalize on the unique benefits peer mentors may provide incarcerated individuals.

Psychometric Properties of a Risk Tool Across Indigenous Maori and European Samples in Aotearoa New Zealand: Measurement Invariance, Discrimination, and Calibration for Predicting Criminal Recidivism.

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 Maori (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 Maori participants, consistent with official statistics. Consequently, calibration analyses using a fixed follow-up (N = 372) demonstrated higher predicted recidivism rates for Maori participants at each DRAOR score. This suggests that Maori 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.

General Criminal Dynamic Risk and Strength Factors Predict Short-Term General Recidivism Outcomes Among People Convicted of Sexual Crime During Community Supervision.

There are clinical practice and operational reasons why it may be appropriate to primarily focus on general risk factors when supervising people convicted of sexual crime in the community. General risk domains may be particularly relevant when supervision officers engage in frequent reassessment of acute dynamic risk factors. We tested the ability of a case management tool, the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry, to discriminate community based, short-term general (all outcome) recidivism versus nonrecidivism among people convicted of sexual crime (n = 562). We tested the predictive discrimination validity of each DRAOR item and then subscale scores in univariate and multivariate models (also controlling for general static risk). DRAOR scores were associated with general recidivism outcomes and effect sizes were generally similar or stronger compared to models with people convicted of nonsexual crime (n = 2854). DRAOR Acute scores were consistently and incrementally related to general recidivism outcomes beyond other scores. In practice, case managers should remain aware that people convicted of sexual crime are at risk for nonsexual recidivism outcomes and assess problematic functioning broadly alongside problems in sexual domains. Clinically, interconnection among domains potentially provides multiple avenues for effective intervention.

Clients' current presentation yields best prediction of criminal recidivism: Jointly modeling repeated assessments of risk and recidivism outcomes in a community sample of paroled New Zealanders.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians often rely on readily observable intermediate outcomes (e.g., symptoms) to assess the likelihood of events that occur outside of treatment (e.g., relapse). Similarly, those monitoring clients with histories of criminal involvement attempt to prevent adverse outcomes considered likely and intervene when symptoms/risk factors fluctuate. Our aim was to develop a stronger understanding of associations between evolving symptoms/risk factors and case outcomes, yielding clearer practice implications. METHOD: We used longitudinal, multiple reassessment risk data from 3,421 individuals paroled in New Zealand. We used joint modeling to test the association between individual trajectories of psychosocial risk factor scores, assessed using Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry, and recidivism (official records of parole violations or criminal charges resulting in reconviction). We examined whether recent clinically relevant features of risk presentation (e.g., current levels, recent rate of change) predicted recidivism better than the entirety of the risk assessment trajectory. RESULTS: Although each model demonstrated similar predictive validity, measures of model fit indicated that models using current trajectory features outperformed those using the entire assessment history to predict recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: Change in dynamic risk factors is consistently associated with recidivism outcomes. When using changeable factors to monitor clients' current risk for recidivism, practitioners should focus on current presentation rather than the entire assessment history, although differences in predictive discrimination are small. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Does Reassessment Enhance the Prediction of Imminent Criminal Recidivism? Replicating Lloyd et al. (2020) With High-Risk Parolees.

Lloyd et al. (2020) proposed and tested a novel three-step framework for examining the extent to which reassessment of dynamic risk and protective factors enhances the prediction of imminent criminal recidivism. We conducted a conceptual replication of Lloyd et al.'s study. We used the same dynamic risk assessment measure in the same jurisdiction but, unlike Lloyd et al., our sample comprised solely high-risk men on parole in New Zealand (N = 966), the individuals who are most frequently reassessed in the community and most likely to imminently reoffend. The results of the previous study were largely reproduced: reassessment consistently enhanced prediction, with the most pronounced effects observed for a scale derived from theoretically acute dynamic risk factors. These findings indicate reassessment effects are robust to sample selection based on a narrower range of risk levels and remain robust across years of practice in applied contexts, despite potential organizational drift from initial training and reassessment fatigue. The findings also provide further support for the practice of ongoing risk reassessment in community supervision and suggest that the method proposed by Lloyd et al. is a replicable approach for testing the essential criteria for defining dynamic risk and protective factors.

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

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Reassessment improves prediction of criminal recidivism: A prospective study of 3,421 individuals in New Zealand.

A dynamic risk factor is a variable that can change across time, and as it changes, there is a corresponding change in the likelihood of the outcome. In corrections, there is evidence for dynamic risk factors when relatively more proximal reassessments enhance predictive validity for recidivism. In this article, we tested the proximity hypothesis with longitudinal, multiple-reassessment data gathered from 3,421 individuals supervised on parole in New Zealand (N = 68,667 assessments of theoretically dynamic risk factors conducted by corrections case managers). In this sample, reassessments consistently improved prediction as demonstrated by (1) incremental prediction over initial baseline scores and (2) improved model fit of the most recent assessment compared with the average of earlier scores. These results contribute to a growing body of evidence that support community corrections agencies conducting repeated assessments of the risk for imminent recidivism using a dynamic risk instrument. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Age and motivation can be specific responsivity features that moderate the relationship between risk and rehabilitation outcome.

OBJECTIVE: Specific responsivity features are not directly targeted in offender rehabilitation programs but may impact a client's receptivity. We investigated if two features may explain why high-quality correctional programs do not uniformly impact all high-risk, high-needs clients. HYPOTHESES: The current study was exploratory. We hypothesized a relationship between higher static risk and poorer program outcomes and then explored if this relationship was attenuated by age and motivation. METHOD: Program providers rated the performance of incarcerated males (n = 2,417, Mean age = 33.6, SD = 9.9, Range = 18-81) who attended one of six types of programs during incarceration (for general, violent, and sexual offenders). Using risk scores calculated at prison entry, we predicted performance and official record recidivism. Preprogram motivation and age were moderators. RESULTS: Five of 24 exploratory multilevel models revealed an attenuated relationship between risk and program outcome among older offenders (percent variance explained = 17.9% within violence groups; 11.5% within living skills groups; and a 9% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high-risk attendees of family violence groups) and offenders with higher preprogram motivation (percent variance explained = 43.6% within violence groups, and a 7% difference in predicted recidivism rates among high risk attendees in living skills groups). CONCLUSIONS: Age and motivation can be specific responsivity features that may deserve attention in rehabilitation practice. However, observed effects may have been weakened by underdeveloped, single-indicator measurement strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Using Dynamic Risk to Enhance Conditional Release Decisions in Prisoners to Improve Their Outcomes.

Advances in criminal risk assessment have increased sufficiently that inclusion of valid risk measures to anchor assessments is considered a best practice in release decision-making and community supervision by many paroling authorities and probation agencies. This article highlights how decision accuracy at several key stages of the offender's release and supervision process could be further enhanced by the inclusion of dynamic factors. In cases where the timing of release is discretionary and not legislated, the utilization of a validated decision framework can improve transparency and potentially reduce decision errors. In cases where release is by statute, there is still merit in using dynamic risk assessment and case analysis to inform the assignment of release conditions, thereby attending to re-entry and public safety considerations. Finally, preliminary results from a recent study are presented to highlight the fact that community supervision outcomes may be improved by incorporating changes in dynamic risk into case planning and risk management, although this work requires replication with larger populations reflecting diverse groups of offenders. Nonetheless, these decision strategies have implications for both resource allocation and client outcomes, as outlined here. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Rehabilitation group coparticipants' risk levels are associated with offenders' treatment performance, treatment change, and recidivism.

OBJECTIVE: Exposure to antisocial others within treatment group sessions may have negative impact. We extend prior research with adolescents by examining rehabilitation group composition among adult male incarcerated offenders. METHOD: Data were gathered from institution files of rehabilitation completers (N = 1,832; M age = 33.5; 19% Aboriginal, 68% Caucasian), including general, substance, violent, and sex offenders. Capacities for treatment (including motivation, learning ability, and inhibitory control) were gathered from intake assessments. At the beginning and end of rehabilitation, providers rated program performance. Risk for recidivism and postrelease recidivism were gathered from official files, up to 3 years following release. RESULTS: Group effects accounted for up to 40% of variance in program outcomes. Group features (average group participant risk to reoffend and risk score diversity) significantly interacted with treatment capacities to explain program outcomes. Most models revealed a dampening effect whereby the positive association between capacities and outcome was reduced in groups of higher risk and more risk diverse coparticipants. Group composition typically accounted for 30-38% of variance between groups, but total variance in outcome explained was generally small. Higher average group risk predicted postrelease recidivism among family violence offenders. CONCLUSIONS: Coparticipants should be considered when researching and providing group programs to adult offenders, with specific attention toward how positive outcomes may be attenuated in the presence of criminogenic coparticipants.