Risk assessment and risk management are central to most decisions made about offenders, particularly when considering community release after a period of incarceration. Although the field of risk assessment has progressed considerably, there remain limitations within current practices. The present research uses a variety of sophisticated statistical techniques to examine the systematic assessment and reassessments of risk in a large sample (N = 3498) of New Zealand parolees. The validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR), a measure of dynamic risk and protective factors, was assessed across time in all offenders released on parole. The measure demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties, although future research should seek to refine the subscales as suggested by its factor structure. Beyond validating the DRAOR, this study showed that reconvictions and criminal reconvictions during a two-year follow-up period can be accurately predicted from dynamic risk factors and protective factors (as measured by the DRAOR). Stable and acute dynamic risk scores decreased over time while protective factor scores increased, suggesting that the DRAOR is sensitive to change. Recidivists differed from non-recidivists in stable dynamic risk and protective factors in the month prior to follow-up end and in acute dynamic risk in the second month prior to follow-up end. Reconvictions were accurately predicted from monthly average Stable Risk beginning at parole start and continuing for 12 months of assessments, while Protective Factors were predictive for the first 4 months only. These results indicate that the DRAOR has promise as a valid tool for risk assessment and risk management. The findings of this study highlight the mechanisms DYNAMIC RISK, PROTECTIVE FACTORS, AND RECIDIVISM iii by which risk changes over time and provides support for a transitional model of offender re-entry focusing on dynamic risk and protective factors. With the deepest gratitude I thank my supervisor, Dr. Ralph Serin. I truly appreciate the endless opportunities, support, and advice he has given me as my mentor. I am also very grateful to my committee members, Dr. Shelley Brown and Dr. Craig Bennell, for their insights and constructive feedback as I developed my research. A special thank you to Dr. Bill Marshall, my external examiner, and Dr. Katharine Kelly, my internal examiner, for contributing their knowledge and enthusiasm. This project would not have been possible without the cooperation of the New Zealand Department of Corrections, and the invaluable assistance of Dr. Nick Wilson in particular. A rich dataset with over 97,000 assessments on almost 3,500 offenders is a researcher's dream come true! A number of colleagues helped me out along the way, and without a doubt, raised the calibre of my work. Thank you to Caleb Lloyd and Leslie Helmus for their incredible expertise as I devised my statistical analyses, and to Rebecca Mugford, Kelly Babchishin, and Angela Smeth for taking the time out of their busy schedules t...

Notwithstanding diminishing crime rates in many countries, high rates of incarceration continue to engage political and public scrutiny in the management of (increasing) correctional populations. It appears such interest is driven by the competing concerns of fiscal pressures and ideological shifts: essentially lack of funds and, in many jurisdictions, a lean towards more conservative doctrines regarding offender care. Perhaps not completely surprisingly, these two themes can also actually work in harmony. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the United States, where spiralling costs of corrections appear to have seduced politicians to consider less punitive models which, ironically, are more effective at reducing crime and costs. At present, various states have embraced what has often been referred to as the Canadian model, that is, a less punitive and more empirically-grounded rehabilitative approach to addressing crime. Indeed, the number of U.S. citizens involved in the criminal justice system is staggering (7.3 million adults), with approximately 700,000 individuals returning home each year to their communities from prison. Encouragingly, recent legislation and funding such as the Second Chance Act have put a spotlight on offender re-entry. The purpose of this paper is to critically examine how well the field is positioned to meet proffered expectations for re-entry regarding risk reduction and public safety and to * Downloaded from 54 debate whether existing conceptualizations of offender change can adequately inform offender re-entry initiatives.

Advances in criminal risk assessment have increased sufficiently that inclusion of valid risk measures to anchor assessments is considered a best practice in release decision-making and community supervision by many paroling authorities and probation agencies. This article highlights how decision accuracy at several key stages of the offender's release and supervision process could be further enhanced by the inclusion of dynamic factors. In cases where the timing of release is discretionary and not legislated, the utilization of a validated decision framework can improve transparency and potentially reduce decision errors. In cases where release is by statute, there is still merit in using dynamic risk assessment and case analysis to inform the assignment of release conditions, thereby attending to re-entry and public safety considerations. Finally, preliminary results from a recent study are presented to highlight the fact that community supervision outcomes may be improved by incorporating changes in dynamic risk into case planning and risk management, although this work requires replication with larger populations reflecting diverse groups of offenders. Nonetheless, these decision strategies have implications for both resource allocation and client outcomes, as outlined here. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Despite the growing number of women involved in the criminal justice system, most risk assessment tools used with this population were developed on male offenders, fuelling debate about whether these tools should be used with women. This study investigated the predictive validity of one such dynamic tool À the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (DRAOR) À with a sample of female and male parolees. Unexpectedly, the DRAOR subscales predicted recidivism for women, but not for men, and the acute risk subscale independently contributed to recidivism prediction. Furthermore, the DRAOR incrementally predicted women's recidivism above Downloaded from static risk. These results support the use of the DRAOR with women offenders, and more generally, a 'gender-neutral' approach to risk assessment tools for women.

Coparticipants should be considered when researching and providing group programs to adult offenders, with specific attention toward how positive outcomes may be attenuated in the presence of criminogenic coparticipants.