Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

N Wilson, Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment

2,966

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,966
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • 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.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Applying Structured Dynamic Risk and Protective Assessment (DRAOR) with Parolees NZPS Queenstown 2011 Nick J Wilson, PhD Psychological Research Psychological Services, RRS
    • 2. Previous research in the area <ul><li>Bulk of literature indicates detecting fluctuations in individual risk using dynamic risk factors is vital to targeting and preventing failure. </li></ul><ul><li>Last decade a body of research has found moderate to high levels of accuracy for dynamic measures. </li></ul><ul><li>Unfortunately many involve single applications typically prior to release (treating them like static factors). </li></ul><ul><li>This does not assess coping attempts by the individual to stressors </li></ul><ul><li>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! </li></ul>
    • 3. How accurate are PO’s in predicting dynamic risk? <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>127 male offenders under community supervision </li></ul><ul><li>Assessed by PO’s &amp; researchers, three intervals- 1, 3, and 6 months </li></ul><ul><li>Moderate to high levels of predictive accuracy in both research-based and parole officer ratings AUC = .79 and .76, respectively </li></ul><ul><li>Parole officers were limited to crude proxy measures of dynamic risk constructs, no quality control measures yet moderate-high accuracy </li></ul><ul><li>Time-dependent dynamic factors produced better results than time-invariant models- multiple reassessments are better than single (AUC .70 vs .79). </li></ul><ul><li>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! </li></ul>
    • 4. &nbsp;
    • 5. <ul><li>Manitoba Probation Study </li></ul><ul><li>Do Probation Officers follow RNR? </li></ul><ul><li>Is level of intervention proportional to risk? </li></ul><ul><li>Does supervision target criminogenic needs? </li></ul><ul><li>Are probation officers using the techniques associated with reduced recidivism (i.e., cognitive behavioural techniques? </li></ul><ul><li>Small study 62 PO’s and 154 offenders- 211 audiotapes </li></ul>(Bonta et al., 2008)
    • 6. Targeting Criminogenic Needs &amp; Recidivism <ul><li>Discussing criminogenic needs were related to reduced recidivism </li></ul><ul><li>More focus on criminogenic needs, lower the recidivism </li></ul>47.6 Medium (20-30 minutes) 20.3 High (40+ minutes) 59.8 Low (0-15 minutes) Recidivism (%) Length of Discussion
    • 7. Manitoba Case Management Study: Major Findings <ul><li>Modest adherence to Risk Principle </li></ul><ul><li>Identified criminogenic needs were not discussed in the majority of cases (Need Principle) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Little attention to issues of antisocial peers and antisocial beliefs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Relationship and cognitive-behavioural skills used inconsistently (Responsivity Principle) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More focus on superficial engagement little behaviour challenge </li></ul></ul>
    • 8. DRAOR-NZ Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry (Serin, Mailloux &amp; Wilson 2010)
    • 9. A Balanced Approach
    • 10. DRAOR Scale composition <ul><li>3 specific domains: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Stable risk indicators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acute risk indicators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protective factors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consider: static risk estimates the likelihood of re-offending whereas dynamic risk estimates indicate when that person might re-offend. </li></ul><ul><li>Protective factors inform crime desistance </li></ul>
    • 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. Protective factors <ul><li>Protective factors are factors that may mitigate or reduce the probability of engaging in offending. </li></ul><ul><li>They consist of internal assets and external strengths . </li></ul><ul><li>These factors are not simply the inverse of the risk factor but rather positive attributes that shield the individual from the risks. </li></ul><ul><li>These factors are likely context-specific and quite dynamic in nature. </li></ul><ul><li>The more protective factors there are, the greater the likelihood that an offender will be resilient to presented risks. </li></ul>
    • 13. Offender re-entry <ul><li>An offender’s parole from prison to the community represents a crucial phase in the offence/ desistance process </li></ul><ul><li>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 &amp; Lloyd, 2009) </li></ul>
    • 14. Scoring of protocol <ul><li>At the end of each face-to-face interview or supervision session the Probation Officer completes the protocol. </li></ul><ul><li>The initial session provides a baseline. </li></ul><ul><li>Higher scores are indicative of concern and may warrant an increase in community risk management strategies. </li></ul><ul><li>For each subsequent session, assess acute factors (revisit the others as new information emerges or you doubt reliability). </li></ul>
    • 15. Rating system <ul><li>3-point scoring format (0, 1, 2). </li></ul><ul><li>Score of 1 indicates a slight or possible problem/asset or you are unsure due to mixed evidence </li></ul><ul><li>Can omit in some cases- but no prorating of scores </li></ul><ul><li>For protective items high score switch with high scores being assets and greater ‘armour’ against future reoffending </li></ul>
    • 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 (&lt;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. Risk Scenarios <ul><li>Most likely scenario ; this can also be considered a repeat or same offending scenario, </li></ul><ul><li>Worst case scenario ; this can be considered as a serious harm scenarios, </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nature : What kind of offending is most likely to occur? Who will be the likely victim(s), motivation and offence antecedents </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Severity : What would be the likely or potential harm to victim(s) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Imminence : How soon might the offending occur? Are there any warning signs that may indicate that the risk is increasing or is imminent? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequency and/or duration : How often might the offending occur (e.g., once, a few times, several times or more) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Likelihood : How frequent or common is this type of offending, what is the base rate? </li></ul></ul>
    • 20. What needs to be in a risk scenario- Six guide questions <ul><li>Related to an offence which is described </li></ul><ul><li>Who would be the victim(s)- age, gender, relationship etc </li></ul><ul><li>What would be the impact on victim(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Aggravating features identified </li></ul><ul><li>Situational/Environment risk factors </li></ul><ul><li>Protective factors- current or future </li></ul>
    • 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. Peter’s Most Serious Risk Scenario <ul><li>Related to an offence which is described </li></ul><ul><li>Assault on Rachel, manual but could include weapon if so likely knife, could be aggravated wounding under select conditions (infidelity, abandonment) </li></ul><ul><li>Who would be the victim(s)- age, gender, relationship etc </li></ul><ul><li>Partner-Rachel, 23yrs, isolated from family, female, intimate conflicted relationship </li></ul><ul><li>What would be the impact on victims </li></ul><ul><li>Bruising, possible wounds, possible trauma to child if they see assault </li></ul><ul><li>Aggravating features identified </li></ul><ul><li>Poor ability to manage anger, pattern of past use of anger/violence to control women, substance abuse, weapons, antisocial associates </li></ul><ul><li>Situational/Environment risk factors </li></ul><ul><li>Banned from living with partner, facing charges, uncertain about his future, partner possible losing her residence </li></ul><ul><li>Protective factors </li></ul><ul><li>Potential- Rachel has a safety plan </li></ul><ul><li>Parents- Want to help but fearful of him, </li></ul><ul><li>Wants to be in a relationship and to be a father </li></ul>
    • 25. Concern over possible reoffending before next contact- rate 1-6 <ul><li>“ Not concerned ” – The Probation Officer believes that the parolee has no current acute risk, indicates current l ow risk </li></ul><ul><li>“ 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 </li></ul><ul><li>“ 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 </li></ul><ul><li>Keep in mind the likely risk reoffending and most serious from risk scenario formulation- watch base rates </li></ul>
    • 26. Harm Scale (Offence Impact) <ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
    • 27. CHCH Pilot 2008-09 (N =58) <ul><li>The DRAOR initial pilot was found to have a normal distribution for scores for all three subscales, Stable, Acute, and Protective. </li></ul><ul><li>DRAOR sub scale score range was also found to change over the course of probation contact. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>It was confirmed in the study results that the protective factors were not positively correlated with either static or dynamic risk variables. </li></ul>
    • 28. Predictive Validity <ul><li>Comparison of those recalled or reconvicted (reoffending) and crime desistance groups (non-recidivist) revealed that </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Older offender age, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower acute risk and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Higher scores on the DRAOR Protective scale were significant predictors of parole success. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This significance was across probation contact time, both at initial DRAOR ratings and at the last or most recent rating. </li></ul></ul>
    • 29. DRAOR Expansion Research-PRT’s <ul><li>Funding received to apply DRAOR with six Prison Release Teams (PRTS) across NZ </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>Total of 283 offenders had at least one DRAOR administered, 181, two administered, 125, three admin, 99 four admin (max number 14 admin) </li></ul><ul><li>Gender Males- 257, Females- 26 </li></ul><ul><li>Static risk- RoC*RoI M = .46, SD = .24, normal dist </li></ul><ul><li>Age- M = 36; SD = 11.27 range 18-77 yrs </li></ul><ul><li>Ethnicity: Maori 54.4%; European 26.6%; PI 13.9%; Other 5.1% (Asian/Indian) </li></ul>
    • 30. DRAOR Reliability ( N = 283) <ul><li>Stable scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .78, Good inter-rater reliability, .87 </li></ul><ul><li>Acute scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .73, Good inter-rater reliability, .81 </li></ul><ul><li>Protective scale- acceptable Cronbach Alpha .79, Good inter-rater reliability, .87 </li></ul>
    • 31. Correlations between offender age, static risk, and initial scores on DRAOR dynamic risk and protective factors ** p &lt; .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. Detected reoffending by sample <ul><li>Mean follow-up 170 days ( SD = 101) </li></ul><ul><li>Any new offence, includes breach of conditions- 42% ( n = 119) </li></ul><ul><li>Any violence offence, 9.5% ( n = 27) </li></ul><ul><li>Any reimprisonment, 11.7% ( n = 33) </li></ul>
    • 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&apos; 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&apos; 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
    • 38. Survival Analysis- Any Reoffending by DRAOR Stable Score Group
    • 39. Future Focus- Evidence Directed Intervention
    • 40. Keystone Model Intervention/monitoring Target Selection Using DRAOR scenarios
    • 41. Background <ul><li>DRAOR provides information on 19 items, 13 relating to possible Stable and Acute risk and 6 to potential assets </li></ul><ul><li>The two scenario options, likely and serious provide information on the relevance in the ‘story’ of potential reoffending </li></ul><ul><li>Reality check for the checklist (DRAOR)! </li></ul><ul><li>Keystone model provides reflective risk reasoning (the three R’s) </li></ul><ul><li>keystone issue is usually peripheral or antecedent to reoffending </li></ul>
    • 42. Creating a risk reasoning ‘web’ <ul><li>The risk scenario provides the risk context story </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>What risk issue has the most number of relevant connections </li></ul><ul><li>Use: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Logic, functional link? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relevance to the offending ‘end game’ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding of criminal motivation and pathways </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cultural link? </li></ul></ul>
    • 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. Background to focus on values/goals <ul><li>Part of developing a commitment for change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Counter negative expectancies about the future </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhance self efficacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides suitable goals that direct behaviour that is concrete and realistic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Answers important change questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1. What will it be like if I change? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2. How will I be better off if I change? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3. Can I change? </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>4. What will it cost to change </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul></ul>
    • 45. Assessment of valued directions- Use of worksheet <ul><li>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? </li></ul><ul><li>How important is this area to you? </li></ul><ul><li>0 = not at all important 1 = moderately important 2 = very important </li></ul><ul><li>Overall, how satisfied are you with the quality and depth of your experience in this area of life? </li></ul><ul><li>0 = not at all satisfied 1 = moderately satisfied 2 = very satisfied </li></ul><ul><li>How often have you done something to move you forward in this area during the last week? </li></ul><ul><li>0 = no action 1 = once or twice 2 = three or four times 3 = more than four times </li></ul><ul><li>Intention: </li></ul><ul><li>Barriers: </li></ul>
    • 46. “ John Example” <ul><li>Used Valued Directions Form </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>He was assessed with the valued directions form when he had been back in the community for one month. </li></ul>
    • 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
    • 50. Integrity challenges

    ×