Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Prior studies indicate risk for recidivism declines with time spent in the community post-incarceration. The current study tested whether declines in risk scores occurred uniformly for all individuals in a community corrections sample or whether distinct groups could be identified on the basis of similar trajectories of change in acute risk and time to recidivism. We additionally tested whether accounting for group heterogeneity improved prospective prediction of recidivism.
Methods
This study used longitudinal, multiple-reassessment data gathered from 3,421 individuals supervised on parole in New Zealand (N = 92,104 assessments of theoretically dynamic risk factors conducted by community corrections supervision officers). We applied joint latent class modelling (JLCM) to model group trajectories of change in acute risk following re-entry while accounting for data missing due to recidivism (i.e., missing not at random). We compared accuracy of dynamic predictions based on the selected joint latent class model to an equivalent joint model with no latent class structure.
Results
We identified four trajectory groups of acute dynamic risk. Groups were consistently estimated across a split sample. Trajectories differed in direction and degree of change but using the latent class structure did not improve discrimination when predicting recidivism.
Conclusions
There may be significant heterogeneity in how individuals’ assessed level of acute risk changes following re-entry, but determining risk for recidivism should not be based on probable group membership. JLCM revealed heterogeneity in early re-entry unlikely to be observed using traditional analytic approaches.
Funder
Swinburne University of Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference94 articles.
1. Andrews DA, Bonta J (2010) The psychology of criminal conduct, Anderson, Cincinnati
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Corrective services, Australia, September Quarter 2018. www.abs.gov.au
3. Babchishin KM, Hanson RK (2020) Monitoring changes in risk of reoffending: a prospective study of 632 men on community supervision. J Consult Clin Psychol 88:886–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000601
4. Baglivio MT, Wolff KT, Piquero AR, Howell JC, Greenwald MA (2017) Risk assessment trajectories of youth during juvenile justice residential placement. Crim Justice Behav 44:360–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816668918
5. Bakker L, Riley D, O’Malley J (1999) Risk of reconviction: statistical models predicting four types of re‐offending. Wellington, NZ: Department of Corrections Psychological Service. https://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/10667/roc.pdf
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献