Examining dynamic risk and strength profiles for Indigenous and non-Indigenous young adults

ABSTRACT

Young adults are particularly at risk for involvement in the justice system relative to older adults. Little research specifically examines age-related differences in salience of dynamic risk and strength factor scores on recidivism (e.g. Spruit, A., van der Put, C., Gubbels, J., & Bindels, A. (2017). Age differences in the severity, impact and relative importance of dynamic risk factors for recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 69–77) and no research specifically examines this question in Indigenous Canadian adults. To address this gap, the current study examines the predictive accuracy and calibration of a risk-needs assessment tool, the Service Planning Instrument (SPIn), by age group and examines age-related differences in prevalence and salience of dynamic risk and strength scores on recidivism for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous male adults. The authors obtained SPIn assessment data completed over a 6-year period and recidivism data with a fixed 3-year follow-up for justice-involved male adults on community supervision in a single province in Canada (N = 16,596). Risk and strength profiles for Indigenous and non-Indigenous young adults were relatively similar. Age moderated the relationship between several dynamic risk and strength factor scores and recidivism for non-Indigenous individuals; no factors were moderated by age for Indigenous individuals.

KEYWORDS:

• Risk need responsivity
• dynamic risk
• strengths
• Indigenous

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Alberta Justice and Solicitor General. The views expressed are solely of the authors herein and do not necessarily represent any official views of the Correctional Services Division or Alberta Justice and Solicitor General.

Declaration of interests

Co-Author David Robinson, PhD, is the Chief Executive Officer of Orbis Partners, Inc., developer of the Service Planning Instrument.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The demographic input for this sample did not include ethnic or racial makeup beyond Indigenous status. Thus, examination of differences in distinct subgroups within the umbrella of Indigenous identity, such as specific tribal identification, could not be examined.