Date post: | 21-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Health & Medicine |
Upload: | nz-psychological-society |
View: | 3,226 times |
Download: | 6 times |
Applying Structured Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
(DRAOR) with Parolees
NZPS Queenstown2011
Nick J Wilson, PhD Psychological Research
Psychological Services, RRS
Previous research in the area
Bulk of literature indicates detecting fluctuations in individual risk using dynamic risk factors is vital to targeting and preventing failure.
Last decade a body of research has found moderate to high levels of accuracy for dynamic measures.
Unfortunately many involve single applications typically prior to release (treating them like static factors).
This does not assess coping attempts by the individual to stressors
Hanson et al (2007) an attempt to train PO’s to assess risk using dynamic risk factors (AUC = .70) but this was retrospective in design and PO’s highly trained, performance checked- not a naturalistic context!
How accurate are PO’s in predicting dynamic risk?
Natalie J. Jones, Shelley L. Brown and Edward Zamble (2010) Assessment of Dynamic Risk Predicting Criminal Recidivism in Adult Male Offenders : Researcher Versus Parole. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2010 37: 860
127 male offenders under community supervision Assessed by PO’s & researchers, three intervals- 1, 3, and 6 months Moderate to high levels of predictive accuracy in both research-based
and parole officer ratings AUC = .79 and .76, respectively Parole officers were limited to crude proxy measures of dynamic risk
constructs, no quality control measures yet moderate-high accuracy Time-dependent dynamic factors produced better results than time-
invariant models- multiple reassessments are better than single (AUC .70 vs .79).
The fact that both researchers and parole officers achieved similarly high levels of predictive accuracy suggests that the complex and exhaustive protocols adopted by the research team may not be necessary!
Manitoba Probation Study Do Probation Officers follow
RNR?
a) Is level of intervention proportional to risk?
b) Does supervision target criminogenic needs?
c) Are probation officers using the techniques associated with reduced recidivism (i.e., cognitive behavioural techniques?
d) Small study 62 PO’s and 154 offenders- 211 audiotapes
(Bonta et al., 2008)
Targeting Criminogenic Needs & Recidivism Discussing criminogenic needs were related to
reduced recidivism
More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism
Length of Discussion Recidivism (%)
Low (0-15 minutes) 59.8
Medium (20-30 minutes)
47.6
High (40+ minutes) 20.3
Manitoba Case Management Study: Major Findings
1) Modest adherence to Risk Principle
2) Identified criminogenic needs were not discussed in the majority of cases (Need Principle)
Little attention to issues of antisocial peers and antisocial beliefs
3) Relationship and cognitive-behavioural skills used inconsistently (Responsivity Principle)
More focus on superficial engagement little behaviour challenge
DRAOR-NZDynamic Risk Assessment for
Offender Re-entry (Serin, Mailloux & Wilson 2010)
A Balanced Approach
DRAOR Scale composition
3 specific domains: Stable risk indicators Acute risk indicators Protective factors
Consider: static risk estimates the likelihood of re-offending whereas dynamic risk estimates indicate whenwhen that person might re-offend.
Protective factors inform crime desistance
Factors considered in DRAOR
Stable Acute Protective
Peer associations Substance abuse Responsive to advice
Attitude to authority Anger/hostility Prosocial identity
Impulse Control Opportunity/access to victims
High expectations
Problem-solving Negative mood Cost/Benefit
Sense of entitlement Employment Social support
Attachment with others Interpersonal relationships
Living situation Social control
Protective factors
Protective factors are factors that may mitigatemitigate or reduce the probability of engaging in offending.
They consist of internal assetsinternal assets and external external strengthsstrengths.
These factors are not simply the inverse of the risk factor but rather positive attributes that shield the individual from the risks.
These factors are likely context-specificcontext-specific and quite dynamic in nature.
The more protective factors there are, the greater the likelihood that an offender will be resilient to presented risks.
Offender re-entry
An offender’s parole from prison to the community represents a crucial phase in the offence/ desistance process
Desistance, is considered to occur when: “internal and external variables align in such a way that an offender with a history of multiple offences ceases all criminal activity” (Serin & Lloyd, 2009)
Scoring of protocol
At the end of each face-to-face interview or supervision session the Probation Officer completes the protocol.
The initial session provides a baseline. Higher scores are indicative of concern and may
warrant an increase in community risk management strategies.
For each subsequent session, assess acute factors (revisit the others as new information emerges or you doubt reliability).
Rating system 3-point scoring format (0, 1, 2). Score of 1 indicates a slight or possible
problem/asset or you are unsure due to mixed evidence
Can omit in some cases- but no prorating of scores
For protective items high score switch with high scores being assets and greater ‘armour’ against future reoffending
STABLE RISK INDICATORSCharacteristics associated with risk and capable of changing over months or years.
INDICATOR SCORING CRITERIA SCORE (omit if unknown)
Peer Associations Has only prosocial peers (0) – Has only antisocial peers (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite problem
Attitudes Towards Authority Prosocial attitudes (0) –Antagonistic attitudes (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite problem
Self-Regulation Autonomous/self monitoring (0) –Highly impulsive (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite problem
Problem-Solving Ability to make good decisions (0) –No consideration of consequences (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite problem
Sense of Entitlement Recognition of their limitations (0) -Inflated sense of self worth (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite problem
Attachment with Others Connected/concerned about others (0)- Callous/indifferent towards others (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite problem
Total STABLE Risk / 12
ACUTE RISK INDICATORSCharacteristics associated with risk and capable of changing in the short term (<1 month).
INDICATOR SCORING CRITERIA SCORE (omit if unknown)
Substance Abuse Maintaining sobriety/social use (0) –Problematic substance abuse (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite
problem
Anger/Hostility Absence of anger/hostility (0) –Marked presence of anger/hostility (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite
problem
Opportunity/Access to Victims
Avoidance of preferred victims (0) – Access to preferred victims (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite
problem
Negative Mood No evidence of depression/anxiety (0) –Marked presence of depression/anxiety (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite
problem
Employment Maintaining a job (0) –Unemployed (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite
problem
Interpersonal Relationships In a stable healthy relationship (0) –Conflicted relationship (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite
problem
Living Situation Stable and positive living situation (0) – Instability/Lack of accommodations (2)
0Not a
problem
1Slight/Possible
problem
2Definite
problem
Total ACUTE Risk / 14
PROTECTIVE FACTORSCharacteristics that may buffer risk.
INDICATOR SCORING CRITERIA SCORE (omit if unknown)
Responsive to Advice
Follows direction from prosocial peers, partners, supervisor, etc..
0Not anasset
1Slight/Possible
asset
2Definite asset
Prosocial Identity Legitimately views self as no longer criminally oriented with behavioural examples.
0Not anasset
1Slight/Possible
asset
2Definite asset
High Expectations Individual, family, and/or community have high expectations of success.
0Not anasset
1Slight/Possible
asset
2Definite asset
Costs/Benefits Evidence that rewards of prosocial behaviour outweigh those of procriminal behaviour.
0Not anasset
1Slight/Possible
asset
2Definite asset
Social Support Evidence that meaningful and accessible prosocial supports exist.
0Not anasset
1Slight/Possible
asset
2Definite asset
Social Control Conformity and compliance with prosocial others; Strong internalized connection/bonds.
0Not anasset
1Slight/Possible
asset
2Definite asset
Total PROTECTIVE / 12
Risk Scenarios
Most likely scenario; this can also be considered a repeat or same offending scenario,
Worst case scenario; this can be considered as a serious harm scenarios, Nature: What kind of offending is most likely to occur?
Who will be the likely victim(s), motivation and offence antecedents
Severity: What would be the likely or potential harm to victim(s)
Imminence: How soon might the offending occur? Are there any warning signs that may indicate that the risk is increasing or is imminent?
Frequency and/or duration: How often might the offending occur (e.g., once, a few times, several times or more)
Likelihood: How frequent or common is this type of offending, what is the base rate?
What needs to be in a risk scenario- Six guide questions
Related to an offence which is described
Who would be the victim(s)- age, gender, relationship etc
What would be the impact on victim(s)Aggravating features identifiedSituational/Environment risk factorsProtective factors- current or future
Example Peter- Stable
Peer Associations 1 Slight/Possible problem
Attitudes Towards Authority 2 Definite Problem
Impulse Control 2 Definite Problem
Problem Solving 2 Definite Problem
Sense of Entitlement 2 Definite Problem
Attachment with Others 2 Definite Problem
Stable Risk Factor Total 11/12
Peter- Acute
Acute Risk Factor
Substance Abuse 1 Slight/Possible problem
Anger/Hostility 2 Definite problem
Opportunity/Access to Victims 2 Definite problem
Negative Mood 1 Slight/Possible problem
Employment 2 Definite problem
Interpersonal Relationships 2 Definite problem
Living Situation 1 Slight/Possible problem
Acute Risk Factor Total 11/14
Peter- Protective
Protective Factor
Responsive to Advice 0 Not an asset
Prosocial Identity 1 Slight/Possible asset
High Expectations 0 Not an asset
Costs/Benefits 0 Not an asset
Social Support 1 Slight/Possible asset
Social Control 0 Not an asset
Protective Factor Total 2/12
Peter’s Most Serious Risk Scenario Related to an offence which is described
Assault on Rachel, manual but could include weapon if so likely knife, could be aggravated wounding under select conditions (infidelity, abandonment)
Who would be the victim(s)- age, gender, relationship etcPartner-Rachel, 23yrs, isolated from family, female, intimate conflicted relationship
What would be the impact on victimsBruising, possible wounds, possible trauma to child if they see assault
Aggravating features identifiedPoor ability to manage anger, pattern of past use of anger/violence to control women, substance abuse, weapons, antisocial associates
Situational/Environment risk factorsBanned from living with partner, facing charges, uncertain about his future, partner possible losing her residence
Protective factorsPotential- Rachel has a safety planParents- Want to help but fearful of him,Wants to be in a relationship and to be a father
Concern over possible reoffending before next contact- rate 1-6
“Not concerned” – The Probation Officer believes that the parolee has no current acute risk, indicates current low risk
“Possible concern” – The Probation Officer believes that the parolee has a significant acute risk factor or number of acute risk factors that supports a moderate risk of reoffending
“Concerned” – The Probation Officer believes that there are a higher level of acute factors linked to previous offending
that supports a high or very risk of reoffending
Keep in mind the likely risk reoffending and most serious from risk scenario formulation- watch base rates
Harm Scale (Offence Impact)
In regards of higher harm ratings these would be based on risk scenarios that involve serious physical injury/trauma or death (this would include offending such as rape)
Mid range ratings on the likelihood of a risk scenarios causing moderate physical harm (bruising or injuries that would not require hospitalisation for 48 hours or more) or general harm to unspecified victims in the community (reckless behaviour offences)
Low range ratings on the likelihood of a risk scenarios causing loss of assets or property damage not associated with direct harm to others or scenarios involving crimes of disorder, failures to comply etc.
CHCH Pilot 2008-09 (N =58) The DRAOR initial pilot was found to have a
normal distribution for scores for all three subscales, Stable, Acute, and Protective.
DRAOR sub scale score range was also found to change over the course of probation contact.
The moderate correlations between the RoC*RoI and DRAOR scores were all a direction that supported the relationship between static risk of reoffending and higher Stable and Acute subscale scores.
It was confirmed in the study results that the protective factors were not positively correlated with either static or dynamic risk variables.
Predictive Validity
Comparison of those recalled or reconvicted (reoffending) and crime desistance groups (non-recidivist) revealed that Older offender age, Lower acute risk and Higher scores on the DRAOR Protective scale
were significant predictors of parole success. This significance was across probation contact
time, both at initial DRAOR ratings and at the last or most recent rating.
DRAOR Expansion Research-PRT’s Funding received to apply DRAOR with six Prison
Release Teams (PRTS) across NZ 35 Probation staff, trained in measure, applied
across parolees from beginning Nov 2009, data gathered until end June 2010. Reoffending data collected until mid August 2010.
Total of 283 offenders had at least one DRAOR administered, 181, two administered, 125, three admin, 99 four admin (max number 14 admin)
Gender Males- 257, Females- 26 Static risk- RoC*RoI M = .46, SD = .24, normal dist Age- M = 36; SD = 11.27 range 18-77 yrs Ethnicity: Maori 54.4%; European 26.6%; PI
13.9%; Other 5.1% (Asian/Indian)
DRAOR Reliability (N = 283)
Stable scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .78, Good inter-rater reliability, .87
Acute scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .73, Good inter-rater reliability, .81
Protective scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .79, Good inter-rater reliability, .87
Correlations between offender age, static risk, and initial scores on DRAOR dynamic risk and protective factors
Variables Age RoC*RoI Stable Acute Protective
Age 1.00 --- --- --- ---
RoC*RoI -0.37** 1.00 --- --- ---
Stable -0.085 0.27** 1.00 --- ---
Acute -0.046 0.24** 0.67** 1.00 ---
Protective -0.081 -0.24** -0.67** -0.56** 1.00
** p < .01
Detected reoffending by sample
Mean follow-up 170 days (SD = 101)
Any new offence, includes breach of conditions- 42% (n = 119)
Any violence offence, 9.5% (n = 27)Any reimprisonment, 11.7% (n =
33)
Discriminant Functional Analysis- Any Reoffending
Structure Matrix
Function
RoC*RoI .752
Stable .675
Age -.558
Protective -.537
Acute .526
Variables Entered/Removed
Step
Wilks' Lambda
Exact F
Entered Statistic Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1 RoC*RoI .882 37.46 1 280 .000
2 Stable .831 28.40 2 279 .000
3 Age .814 21.11 3 278 .000
Discriminant Functional Analysis- Any Reimprisonment
Structure Matrix
Function
1
Acute 1.000
Stable .661
Protective -.560
RoC*RoI .246
Age .028
Variables Entered/Removed
StepEntere
d
Wilks' Lambda
Statistic df1 df2 df3
Exact F
Statistic df1 df2 Sig.
1 Acute 0.937 1 1 176 11.91 1 176 0.001
Repeat DRAOR Stable scrs and any reoffending
Area Under the Curve
Test Result Variable(s) Area
Std. Error
Asymptotic Sig.b
Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Stable 1 .695 .062 .002 .574 .816
Stable 2 .755 .055 .000 .647 .863
Stable 3 .783 .055 .000 .676 .890
Stable 4 .787 .051 .000 .686 .887
Repeat DRAOR Acute scrs and reimprisonment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1stQtr
3rdQtr
EastWestNorth
Area Under the Curve
Test Result Variable(s) Area
Std. Error
Asymptotic Sig.b
Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Acute 1 .772 .071 .004 .634 .911
Acute 2 .756 .055 .007 .648 .864
Acute 3 .780 .053 .003 .677 .883
Repeat DRAOR Protective scrs and any reoffending
Area Under the Curve
Test Result Variable(s) Area
Std. Error
Asymptotic Sig.
Asymptotic 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Protective1
.656 .052 .003 .555 .757
Protective2
.643 .050 .007 .545 .741
Protective3
.625 .051 .019 .526 .725
Survival Analysis- Any Reoffending by DRAOR Stable Score Group
Future Focus- Evidence Directed Intervention
Keystone Model
Intervention/monitoring Target Selection Using DRAOR scenarios
Background
DRAOR provides information on 19 items, 13 relating to possible Stable and Acute risk and 6 to potential assets
The two scenario options, likely and serious provide information on the relevance in the ‘story’ of potential reoffending
Reality check for the checklist (DRAOR)! Keystone model provides reflective risk reasoning (the
three R’s) keystone issue is usually peripheral or antecedent to
reoffending
Creating a risk reasoning ‘web’ The risk scenario provides the risk context story You then need to create a conceptual map or web of
the relationships between the risk and individual factors to ID the priority offender problem
What risk issue has the most number of relevant connections
Use: Logic, functional link? Relevance to the offending ‘end game’ Understanding of criminal motivation and
pathways Cultural link?
Uncertain
about
future
Victim likely be partner
Will use knife if threatened
Substance
abuse-
binging?
Wants to be dad and have family
????
Poor ability manage anger
Pattern of bullying women
Concern over relationship ending
Connections for Peter’s keystone arch and assault on Rachel
Background to focus on values/goals
Part of developing a commitment for change Counter negative expectancies about the future Enhance self efficacy Provides suitable goals that direct behaviour that is
concrete and realistic Answers important change questions
1. What will it be like if I change? 2. How will I be better off if I change? 3. Can I change? 4. What will it cost to change
Motivational- Helps overcome barriers to change- makes small and simple demands, uses self generated goals, helps to record progress, provides freq positive reinforcers, requires prior committment
Assessment of valued directions- Use of worksheet
Family (other than marriage or parenting): How do you want to interact with your family members? What type of sister or brother do you want to be? What type of son or daughter do you want to be?
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?0 = no action 1 = once or twice 2 = three or four times 3 = more than four times
Intention:
Barriers:
“John Example”
Used Valued Directions Form The following example based on ‘John’ (not
his real name) a high risk (RoC*RoI .89) and high need violent offender recently released after serving a five year sentence of imprisonment.
He was assessed with the valued directions form when he had been back in the community for one month.
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 importantOverall, 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 satisfiedHow 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:?????
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 twice2 = 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: ????
LIFE COMPASS- ‘John’
2Just started new
relationship with ‘Mary’Excited about parenting partners 2 year old boy. Second chance
32
3
10
No/little contact immediate family, some contact extended whanau
One close friend prohibited contact, gang loyalty impt
10
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
Integrity challenges