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.
AndrewsD. A. (1980). Some experimental investigations of the principles of differential association through deliberate manipulations of the structure of service systems. American Sociological Review, 45(3), 448–462. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095177
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Anderson Publishing.
3.
BabchishinK. M.HansonR. K. (2020). Monitoring changes in risk of reoffending: A prospective study of 632 men on community supervision. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(10), 886–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000601
4.
BakkerL.O’MalleyJ.RileyD. (1999). Risk of reconviction: Statistical models which predict four types of re-offending. New Zealand Department of Corrections Psychological Service.
5.
BeggsS. M. (2010). Within-treatment outcome among sexual offenders: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.005
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
8.
BourgonG.MugfordR.HansonR. K.ColigadoM. (2018). Offender risk assessment practices vary across Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 60(2), 167–205. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2016-0024
9.
BrankleyA. E.HelmusL. M.HansonR. K. (2017). STABLE—2007 evaluator workbook—revised 2017 [Unpublished user manual]. Public Safety Canada.
10.
Brouillette-AlarieS.HansonR. K. (2015). Comparaison de deux mesures d’évaluation du risque de récidive des délinquants sexuels [Comparison of two measures of recidivism risk assessment of sexual offenders]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47(4), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000019
11.
BushwayS. D.NieuwbeertaP.BloklandA. (2011). The predictive value of criminal background checks: Do age and criminal history affect time to redemption?Criminology, 49(1), 27–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00217.x
12.
CouplandR. B. A.OlverM. E. (2020). Assessing dynamic violence risk in a high-risk treated sample of violent offenders. Assessment, 27(8), 1886–1900. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118797440
13.
DaviesS. T.HelmusL. M.QuinseyV. L. (2020). Improving risk communication: Developing risk ratios for the VRAG-R. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520914555
14.
DouglasK. S.SkeemJ. L. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(3), 347–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.347
15.
EtzlerS.EherR.RettenbergerM. (2020). Dynamic risk assessment of sexual offenders: Validity and dimensional structure of the Stable-2007. Assessment, 27(4), 822–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118754705
16.
EvansS. A.SalekinK. L. (2014). Involuntary civil commitment: Communicating with the court regarding “danger to other.”Law and Human Behavior, 38(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000068
17.
GonçalvesL. C.GerthJ.RosseggerA.NollT.EndrassJ. (2020). Predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99R in Switzerland. Sexual Abuse, 32(2), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218821117
18.
HansonR. K. (2017). Assessing the calibration of actuarial risk scales: A primer on the E/O index. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816683956
19.
HansonR. K. (2018). Long-term recidivism studies show that desistance is the norm. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(9), 1340–1346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818793382
20.
HansonR. K.BabchishinK. M.HelmusL. M.ThorntonD.PhenixA. (2017). Communicating the results of criterion referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Psychological Assessment, 29(5), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000371
21.
HansonR. K.BourgonG.McGrathR. J.KronerD.D’AmoraD. A.ThomasS. S.TavarezL. P. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. The Council of State Governments Justice Center. http://saratso.org/pdf/A_Five_Level_Risk_and_Needs_System_Report.pdf
22.
HansonR. K.HarrisA. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(1), 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027001002
23.
HansonR. K.ThorntonD.HelmusL. M.BabchishinK. M. (2016). What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores?Sexual Abuse, 28(3), 218–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574710
24.
HeilbrunK.O’NeillM. L.StrohmanL. K.BowmanQ.PhilipsonJ. (2000). Expert approaches to communicating violence risk. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005435005404
25.
HelmusL.HansonR. K.ThorntonD.BabchishinK. M.HarrisA. J. R. (2012). Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1148–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812443648
26.
HiltonN. Z.CarterA. M.HarrisG. T.SharpeA. J. B. (2008). Does using nonnumerical terms to describe risk aid violence risk communication? Clinician agreement and decision making. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507309337
27.
HoganN. R. (2020). Critical considerations in the development and interpretation of common risk language. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767719
28.
HoganN. R.SribneyC. L. (2019). Combining Static-99R and STABLE-2007 risk categories: An evaluation of the five-level system for risk communication. Sexual Offender Treatment, 14(1), 1–14. http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/187.html
29.
KraemerH. C.KazdinA. E.OffordD. R.KesslerR. C.JensenP. S.KupferD. J. (1997). Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54(4), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1997.01830160065009
30.
KronerD. G.MorrisonM. M.LowderE. M. (2020). A principled approach to the construction of risk assessment categories: The Council of State Governments Justice Center five-level system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(10–11), 1074–1090. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19870374
31.
LloydC. D. (2015). Can a dynamic risk instrument make short-term predictions in “real time”? Developing a framework for testing proximal assessment of offender recidivism risk during re-entry [Doctoral dissertation]. Carleton University Research Virtual Environment, Carleton University. https://curve.carleton.ca/f1e8439b-482f-4b20-b2f6-e5816b5c371b
32.
LloydC. D.HansonR. K.RichardsD. K.SerinR. C. (2020). Reassessment improves prediction of criminal recidivism: A prospective study of 3,421 individuals in New Zealand. Psychological Assessment, 32(6), 568–581. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/10.1037/pas0000813
33.
LloydC. D.Perley-RobertsonB.SerinR. C. (2020). Age and strengths in a community corrections sample. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 19(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2019.1684404
34.
MannR. E.HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(2), 191–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063210366039
35.
MillsJ. F.KronerD. G. (2006). The effect of base-rate information on the perception of risk for reoffense. The American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 24(3), 45–56.
NealT. M. S.GrissoT. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449
OlverM. E.KelleyS. M.KingstonD. A.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M.ThorntonD.WongS. C. P. (2021). Incremental contributions of static and dynamic sexual violence risk assessment: Integrating Static-99R and VRS-SO common language risk levels. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48, 1091–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820974400
41.
OlverM. E.MundtJ. C.ThorntonD.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M.KingstonD. A.SowdenJ. N.NicholaichukT. P.GordonA.WongS. C. P. (2018). Using the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version in sexual violence risk assessments: Updated risk categories and recidivism estimates from a multisite sample of treated sexual offenders. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), 941–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000538
42.
ScanlanJ. M.YesbergJ. A.FortuneC.PolaschekD. L. L. (2020). Predicting women’s recidivism using the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry: Preliminary evidence of predictive validity with community-sentenced women using a “gender-neutral” risk measure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(3), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819896387
43.
SerinR. C. (2007). The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR) [Unpublished user manual]. Carleton University.
44.
SerinR. C.LloydC. D.HelmusL.DerkzenD. M.LuongD. (2013). Does intra-individual change predict offender recidivism? Search for the Holy Grail in assessing offender change. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.09.002
ThorntonD.HansonR. K.KelleyS. M.MundtJ. C. (2021). Estimating lifetime and residual risk for individuals who remain sexual offense free in the community: Practical applications. Sexual Abuse, 33(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219871573
WardT.FortuneC.-A. (2016). From dynamic risk factors to causal processes: A methodological framework. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 22(1–2), 190–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1117080
49.
YangM.WongS. C. P.CoidJ. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 740–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020473
50.
YesbergJ. A.PolaschekD. L. L. (2015). Assessing dynamic risk and protective factors in the community: Examining the validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(1), 80–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.935775
