Using Dynamic Risk to Enhance Conditional Release Decisions in Prisoners to Improve Their Outcomes

Abstract

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.

Drug Testing and Community Supervision Outcomes

“…In addition, recent efforts on risk assessment have explored more sophisticated analyses of dynamic risk factors to include acute factors (Lowenkamp et al, 2016; Serin et al, 2016). The premise for acute factors is that they may change significantly in small increments of time (i.e., between monthly contacts with a probation officer) and may place the individual at greater risk of imminent failure.…”

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

“…Serin and Chadiwick's (2017) The DRAOR has been administered to over 6000 male and female communitysupervised offenders in New Zealand and Iowa. It has been utilized to predict recidivism among high-risk offenders , sex offenders (Averill, 2016;Smeth, 2013), and samples representing diverse offender-types, including violent, nonviolent, and sex offenders (Chadwick, 2014;Hanby, 2013;Serin et al, 2016;Tamatea & Wilson, 2009;Yesberg, Scanlan, Hanby, Serin, & Polaschek, 2015). Validation results from these studies are summarized below.…”

“…i Adult male and female general offenders in Iowa (Serin et al, 2016). j Adolescent male and female general offenders in New Zealand; AUCs reported in this summary table are based on proximal DRAOR scores (Muirhead, 2016 (Hanby, 2013).…”

Developing a Competency Model for Parole Board Members

“…Furthermore, at least within the context of correctional research, options exist that recognize the importance of blending the nomothetic and ideographic approaches to using the information (Mulvey & Lidz, 1995;Douglas et al, 1999;Hart, 1998;Mills, Kroner, & Morgan, 2011). For instance, previous research examining structured parole decisionmaking has led to the development of the Risk Assessment Framework (RAF: Serin, Gobeil, & Sutton, 2009;Serin, Gobeil, Lloyd, Chadwick, Wardrop, & Hanby, 2016). The RAF offers a method of blending statistically derived information predicting the offender's likelihood for success with a structured framework that allows the decision maker to consider the information from a case-specific standpoint.…”