Improving Risk Communication: Developing Risk Ratios for the VRAG-R

Consistency and Construct Validity of the Five-Level System for Risk Communication Using Static and Dynamic Tools: An Investigation Using the Static-99R and VRS-SO

This study examined the Council of State Governments' five-level system for risk communication, as applied to the Static-99R and Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense Version (VRS-SO). Aims of the system include increasing consistency in risk communication and linking risk categories to psychologically meaningful constructs. We investigated concordance between risk levels assigned by the instruments, and distributions of VRS-SO dynamic needs associated with Static-99R risk levels, among a multisite sample (n = 1,404) of persons who have sexually offended. Concordant categorical risk ratings were assigned in just over a third of cases, suggesting that consistency remains a concern with the system, particularly when conceptually disparate tools are applied. Densities of criminogenic needs varied widely among persons assigned the same risk level by the Static-99R and diverged from the descriptions ascribed by the system. These findings can inform clinical assessments and further refinement of the system.

Improving Our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for Brief Assessment of Recidivism Risk-2002R

A Five-Level Risk and Needs system has been proposed as a common language for standardizing the meaning of risk levels across risk/need tools used in corrections. Study 1 examined whether the Five-Levels could be applied to BARR-2002R (N = 2,390), an actuarial tool for general recidivism. Study 2 examined the construct validity of BARR-2002R risk levels in two samples of individuals with a history of sexual offending (N = 1,081). Study 1 found reasonable correspondence between BARR-2002R scores and four of the five standardized risk levels (no Level V). Study 2 found that the profiles of individuals in Levels II, III, and IV were mostly consistent with expectations; however, individuals in the lowest risk level (Level I) had more criminogenic needs than expected based on the original descriptions of the Five-Levels. The Five-Level system was mostly successful when applied to BARR-2002R. Revisions to this system, or the inclusion of putatively dynamic risk factors and protective factors, may be required to improve alignment with the information provided by certain risk tools.

Does Reassessment Enhance the Prediction of Imminent Criminal Recidivism? Replicating Lloyd et al. (2020) With High-Risk Parolees

Lloyd et al. (2020) proposed and tested a novel three-step framework for examining the extent to which reassessment of dynamic risk and protective factors enhances the prediction of imminent criminal recidivism. We conducted a conceptual replication of Lloyd et al.'s study. We used the same dynamic risk assessment measure in the same jurisdiction but, unlike Lloyd et al., our sample comprised solely high-risk men on parole in New Zealand (N = 966), the individuals who are most frequently reassessed in the community and most likely to imminently reoffend. The results of the previous study were largely reproduced: reassessment consistently enhanced prediction, with the most pronounced effects observed for a scale derived from theoretically acute dynamic risk factors. These findings indicate reassessment effects are robust to sample selection based on a narrower range of risk levels and remain robust across years of practice in applied contexts, despite potential organizational drift from initial training and reassessment fatigue. The findings also provide further support for the practice of ongoing risk reassessment in community supervision and suggest that the method proposed by Lloyd et al. is a replicable approach for testing the essential criteria for defining dynamic risk and protective factors.