11. Factors considered in DRAOR Social support Interpersonal relationships Attachment with others Living situation Social control Employment Sense of entitlement Cost/Benefit Negative mood Problem-solving High expectations Opportunity/access to victims Impulse Control Prosocial identity Anger/hostility Attitude to authority Responsive to advice Substance abuse Peer associations Protective Acute Stable
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. Total STABLE Risk / 12 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Connected/concerned about others (0)- Callous/indifferent towards others (2) Attachment with Others 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Recognition of their limitations (0) -Inflated sense of self worth (2) Sense of Entitlement 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Ability to make good decisions (0) – No consideration of consequences (2) Problem-Solving 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Autonomous/self monitoring (0) – Highly impulsive (2) Self-Regulation 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Prosocial attitudes (0) – Antagonistic attitudes (2) Attitudes Towards Authority 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Has only prosocial peers (0) – Has only antisocial peers (2) Peer Associations SCORE (omit if unknown) SCORING CRITERIA INDICATOR STABLE RISK INDICATORS Characteristics associated with risk and capable of changing over months or years.
17. Total ACUTE Risk / 14 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Stable and positive living situation (0) – Instability/Lack of accommodations (2) Living Situation 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem In a stable healthy relationship (0) – Conflicted relationship (2) Interpersonal Relationships 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Maintaining a job (0) – Unemployed (2) Employment 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem No evidence of depression/anxiety (0) – Marked presence of depression/anxiety (2) Negative Mood 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Avoidance of preferred victims (0) – Access to preferred victims (2) Opportunity/Access to Victims 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Absence of anger/hostility (0) – Marked presence of anger/hostility (2) Anger/Hostility 2 Definite problem 1 Slight/Possible problem 0 Not a problem Maintaining sobriety/social use (0) – Problematic substance abuse (2) Substance Abuse SCORE (omit if unknown) SCORING CRITERIA INDICATOR ACUTE RISK INDICATORS Characteristics associated with risk and capable of changing in the short term (<1 month).
18. Total PROTECTIVE / 12 2 Definite asset 1 Slight/Possible asset 0 Not an asset Conformity and compliance with prosocial others; Strong internalized connection/bonds. Social Control 2 Definite asset 1 Slight/Possible asset 0 Not an asset Evidence that meaningful and accessible prosocial supports exist. Social Support 2 Definite asset 1 Slight/Possible asset 0 Not an asset Evidence that rewards of prosocial behaviour outweigh those of procriminal behaviour. Costs/Benefits 2 Definite asset 1 Slight/Possible asset 0 Not an asset Individual, family, and/or community have high expectations of success. High Expectations 2 Definite asset 1 Slight/Possible asset 0 Not an asset Legitimately views self as no longer criminally oriented with behavioural examples. Prosocial Identity 2 Definite asset 1 Slight/Possible asset 0 Not an asset Follows direction from prosocial peers, partners, supervisor, etc.. Responsive to Advice SCORE (omit if unknown) SCORING CRITERIA INDICATOR PROTECTIVE FACTORS Characteristics that may buffer risk.
19.
20.
21. Example Peter- Stable 11/12 Stable Risk Factor Total 2 Definite Problem Attachment with Others 2 Definite Problem Sense of Entitlement 2 Definite Problem Problem Solving 2 Definite Problem Impulse Control 2 Definite Problem Attitudes Towards Authority 1 Slight/Possible problem Peer Associations
22. Peter- Acute 11/14 Acute Risk Factor Total 1 Slight/Possible problem Living Situation 2 Definite problem Interpersonal Relationships 2 Definite problem Employment 1 Slight/Possible problem Negative Mood 2 Definite problem Opportunity/Access to Victims 2 Definite problem Anger/Hostility 1 Slight/Possible problem Substance Abuse Acute Risk Factor
23. Peter- Protective 2/12 Protective Factor Total 0 Not an asset Social Control 1 Slight/Possible asset Social Support 0 Not an asset Costs/Benefits 0 Not an asset High Expectations 1 Slight/Possible asset Prosocial Identity 0 Not an asset Responsive to Advice Protective Factor
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31. Correlations between offender age, static risk, and initial scores on DRAOR dynamic risk and protective factors ** p < .01 1.00 -0.56** -0.67** -0.24** -0.081 Protective --- 1.00 0.67** 0.24** -0.046 Acute --- --- 1.00 0.27** -0.085 Stable --- --- --- 1.00 -0.37** RoC*RoI --- --- --- --- 1.00 Age Protective Acute Stable RoC*RoI Age Variables
32.
33. Discriminant Functional Analysis- Any Reoffending .526 Acute -.537 Protective -.558 Age .675 Stable .752 RoC*RoI Function Structure Matrix .000 278 3 21.11 .814 Age 3 .000 279 2 28.40 .831 Stable 2 .000 280 1 37.46 .882 RoC*RoI 1 Sig. df2 df1 Statistic Statistic Entered Exact F Wilks' Lambda Step Variables Entered/Removed
34. Discriminant Functional Analysis- Any Reimprisonment .028 Age .246 RoC*RoI -.560 Protective .661 Stable 1.000 Acute 1 Function Structure Matrix 0.001 176 1 11.91 176 1 1 0.937 Acute 1 Sig. df2 df1 Statistic Exact F df3 df2 df1 Statistic Wilks' Lambda Entered Step Variables Entered/Removed
35. Repeat DRAOR Stable scrs and any reoffending .887 .686 .000 .051 .787 Stable 4 .890 .676 .000 .055 .783 Stable 3 .863 .647 .000 .055 .755 Stable 2 .816 .574 .002 .062 .695 Stable 1 Upper Bound Lower Bound Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval Asymptotic Sig. b Std. Error Area Test Result Variable(s) Area Under the Curve
36. Repeat DRAOR Acute scrs and reimprisonment .883 .677 .003 .053 .780 Acute 3 .864 .648 .007 .055 .756 Acute 2 .911 .634 .004 .071 .772 Acute 1 Upper Bound Lower Bound Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval Asymptotic Sig. b Std. Error Area Test Result Variable(s) Area Under the Curve
37. Repeat DRAOR Protective scrs and any reoffending .725 .526 .019 .051 .625 Protective3 .741 .545 .007 .050 .643 Protective2 .757 .555 .003 .052 .656 Protective1 Upper Bound Lower Bound Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval Asymptotic Sig. Std. Error Area Test Result Variable(s) Area Under the Curve
40. Keystone Model Intervention/monitoring Target Selection Using DRAOR scenarios
41.
42.
43. Connections for Peter’s keystone arch and assault on Rachel ???? Poor ability manage anger Pattern of bullying women Concern over relationship ending Uncertain about future Victim likely be partner Will use knife if threatened Substance abuse- binging? Wants to be dad and have family
44.
45.
46.
47. Family (other than marriage or parenting): How do you want to interact with your family or whanau members? What type of sister or brother do you want to be? What type of son or daughter do you want to be? John reported that he has a younger brother and sister but had little contact with most of his family for some years. His parents who he said were violent and abusive died some years ago, John said that prior to their death he was able to reconcile with them both. However, he does have contact with his aunt and uncle who live near his home marae and he had intended to live near them after release but the address was not approved. John has also retained links to his home marae and has a history of effective engagement with interventions delivered from Maori organisations. How important is this area to you? 0 = not at all important 1 = moderately important 2 = very important Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality and depth of your experience in this area of life? 0 = not at all satisfied 1 = moderately satisfied 2 = very satisfied How often have you done something to move you forward in this area during the last week or since last reporting? 0 = no action 1 = once or twice 2 = three or four times 3 = more than four times Intention : To keep in touch with my Aunt and Uncle by phone and to re-engage with my younger brother and sister Barriers :?????
48. Parenting: What type of parent do you want to be? How do you want to interact with your children? John has a 7 year old son with whom he has not had contact since the boy was 2. He has consistently wanted contact and grieves for not being in his son’s life but says his son would not know him now but hopes that in the future he can build a relationship. John is excited about a possible parenting role with his new partners 2 year old son, sees this as a another chance to be a dad. He is determined to not be like his father was to him and for children he parents to feel safe and supported. Importance : 0 = not at all important 1 = moderately important 2 = very important Satisfaction : 0 = not at all satisfied 1 = moderately satisfied 2 = very satisfied Actions (last week/reporting): 0 = no action 1 = once or twice 2 = three or four times 3 = more than four times Intention : To have frequent contact with his partners boy and to play with him and help with his care Barriers : ????
49. LIFE COMPASS- ‘John’ 2 Just started new relationship with ‘Mary ’ Excited about parenting partners 2 year old boy. Second chance 3 2 3 1 0 No/little contact immediate family, some contact extended whanau One close friend prohibited contact, gang loyalty impt 1 0 2 3 Aging, watching weight wants to weight train, needs training partner Past affiliation with Pentecostal Church, sees self as Christian 0 0 Volunteered for his local Marae in past Ngati Whatua 1 0 2 1 Physical, immediate reward, own business 0 0 Doesn’t like classroom learning, hands on Limited, likes league /gang connections 1 1
In recent years, it has been recognised that many of the current risk assessment tools are not designed to detect changes in risk necessary for managing ongoing offending and to respond to imminent harm. The primary roles of probation officers includes sentence compliance, risk management, and risk reduction. The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR; Serin & Mailloux, 2008) is a preliminary 19 item dynamic risk (and protective) assessment instrument developed to assist probation officers to systematically review changes in an offender’s community situation with reference to a number of viable risk scenarios. The three domains reflected in the scale are empirically related to risk of re-offending (Stable and Acute) and desistance (Protective). The New Zealand DRAOR research had three aims. First to establish the validity and reliability of the DRAOR with a large sample of paroled offenders in a New Zealand community, second to determine how the DRAOR may (or may not) inform probation officers’ on parole failure, and third, to establish whether the use of the DRAOR contributes to improved parole management decision-making with offenders. Six specialist probation prison release teams located around New Zealand applied the DRAOR at each contact in their management of parolees over a six month period (N = 200). Analysis of the reliability of DRAOR scale scores will be presented as well as the relationship of these scores across time. The predictive validity using parole failure (prison recall, reoffending) will also be presented. The implications of the use of DRAOR in improving probation management and risk reduction in paroled offenders will be discussed.
Examining adherence to RNR in Manitoba probation 62 probation officers and up to 154 offenders 65% adult; 35% young offenders 74% men; 26% women 211 audiotapes What did we find? First question – follow the risk principle?
Targeting criminogenic needs works!
In relation to RNR principles: This (Manitoba) study… POs spent too much time with low risk cases Average interview length = 22 minutes. Didn’t discuss criminogenic needs often enough
There is a negative relationship between dynamic and static risk factors and those deemed protective. There is a positive relationship between acute and stable risk factors, the acute factors are the children of the stable factors , too much focus on the children ignores the influence of the parents and visa versa!
The scale is organized into 3 specific domains: stable risk indicators, acute risk indicators, and protective factors. It is important to note that the terms stable and acute indicators have been successfully used in the area of sex offenders (Hanson, Harris, Scott & Helmus, 2007). These dynamic indicators augment static risk estimates. Some authors have suggested static risk estimates the likelihood of re-offending whereas dynamic risk estimates indicate when that person might re-offend. Further, this scale incorporates protective factors, which are clearly important in understanding crime desistance and risk management, but have rarely been used in risk assessment research to date.
Overall summary slide for DRAOR sub scales Draw attention to how the items or factors interact, for example, a high score for entitlement could also see high scores for anger and hostility and low scores for being responsive to advice
However, the ‘alignment’ of significant variables indicates that the process of desistance is complex and not well understood. Internal variables = things like attitudes to advice External variables = things like social support
Keep in mind that this is new research; as such the actual score has not been empirically related to likelihood or imminence of re-offending. Repeat the process: not more often than every 2 weeks but at least monthly Maintain the protocols until instructed on how to send them to the researchers.
Start with a score of 1 and then seek evidence to raise or lower this initial score . This helps to reduce the ‘nice bad person’ bias. If you cannot go down or up then stay with a score of 1. Continue in other contacts to move the scores based on reliable evidence
In some case the most likely and the worst case or more serious risk scenario could be the same
Staff may express anxiety over rating their concern, emphasis that this is a concern/level of risk at that time based on available information . It is important in supported decision making that the probation officer weigh the DRAOR information in relation to the offenders risk scenarios and decide on a level of concern/risk and this decision leads to actions to manage and reduce risk. Stops one size fits all approaches and allows the probation officer to respond in an evidence informed manner
Normal distributions that scores vary across offenders DRAOR scores responded to changes by offenders DRAOR items were easily understood and easy to apply with minimal practice Importantly DRAOR added value to the probation officer role
Predictive validity means is there a relevance between the DRAOR scores and reoffending and there is, higher scores on Stable and Acute scales indicate higher risk and higher protective scales do reduce risk.