![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Recently, there has been a growing interest in advancing the state of offender risk assessment: particularly through the development of risk instruments to assist with parole management and the incorporation of protective factors specific to re-entry. The current study's aim was to validate a measure of stable and acute dynamic risk factors and protective factors used by probation officers managing offenders in the community: the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR). Empirical examination of the structure of DRAOR scores soon after release from prison suggested four components, rather than the theoretically proposed three-subscale structure. Both the original three subscales and the four new subscales showed good convergent validity with other dynamic risk instruments, and reliably predicted new convictions; however, only the new stable component added significant incremental predictive power over existing static and dynamic risk instruments. These findings provide initial support for the validity of the DRAOR; suggestions for future research are discussed.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the New Zealand Department of Corrections for funding and practical support with accessing these data. We would also like to thank Dr Nick J. Wilson from the Department of Corrections for his support, and Professor Garth Fletcher and Associate Professor Ralph Serin for feedback on drafts of this article.
Notes
1. These recidivism rates are based on the New Zealand Department of Corrections static risk instrument (the RoC*RoI). Offenders with a 70–79% likelihood of returning to prison in the five years following release had a 20% rate of reimprisonment within three months; offenders with a 80–89% likelihood had a 30% rate of reimprisonment; and offenders with a 90–100% likelihood had a 60% rate of reimprisonment.
2. If offenders sentenced to two or more years in prison are released at their sentence end date, only standard conditions are imposed (e.g., report in person to a probation officer, reside at an approved address, take part in a rehabilitative and reintegrative needs assessment). However, if they are granted parole (i.e., release before their sentence end date) the Parole Board may impose a number of additional special conditions (e.g., attend a post-release Board hearing to monitor compliance, remain at a specified residence at all times or at times specified by the Board, submit to electronic monitoring). In the present study, all forms of post-release community supervision where offenders report to a probation officer are referred to as ‘parole’, whether they were released early or not.
3. In New Zealand, life sentences are automatic for murder, but also can be imposed for manslaughter or Class A drug dealing. Before they can be considered for parole, life-sentenced prisoners must serve a minimum period of 10 years, 17 years in more severe cases, or even longer if the sentencing judge imposes an individualized non-parole period. In the community life-sentenced offenders remain on parole for life and can be recalled to prison at any time.
4. Some men were reimprisoned within six months of release. Based only on those who remained in the community for six months without recidivating, the mean increases to 23.21 (SD = 7.15).
5. Similar results were found when using the third DRAOR score following release.
6. Note, all men in the sample had a RoC*RoI score available but only 75.3% had a pre-release VRS score and 89.3% had an RPFA score. All men had recidivism data available for at least six months following release.
7. Oblique (oblimin) rotation was first performed due to expected correlations between the components. The solutions were the same as for the orthogonal rotation; therefore, only the orthogonal solution was presented here for ease of interpretability.