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).

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).