Communicating recidivism risk is individualized to each assessment. Labels (e.g., high, low) have no standardized meaning. In 2017, the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSGJC) proposed a framework for standardized communication, but balancing the framework’s underlying principles of effective risk communication (and merging static and dynamic information) adds complexity. In this study, we incorporated dynamic risk scores that case managers rated among a routine sample of adults on parole in New Zealand (N = 440) with static risk scores into the Five-Level Risk and Needs System. Compared with static risk only, merging tools (a) enhanced concordance with the recidivism rates proposed by CSGJC for average and lower-risk individuals, (b) diminished concordance for higher-risk individuals, yet (c) improved conceptual alignment with the criminogenic needs domain of the system. This example highlights the importance of attending to the underlying principles of effective risk communication that motivated the development of the system.

每个评估都针对重复犯罪风险进行个性化沟通。标签（例如，高、低）没有标准化的含义。2017 年，州政府司法中心 (CSGJC) 提出了标准化沟通框架，但平衡框架的有效风险沟通（并合并静态和动态信息）的基本原则增加了复杂性。在这项研究中，我们纳入了案例管理人员在新西兰假释成人的常规样本中评定的动态风险评分（N= 440) 将静态风险评分纳入五级风险和需求系统。与仅静态风险相比，合并工具 (a) 增强了 CSGJC 为平均和低风险个人提出的累犯率的一致性，(b) 降低了高风险个人的一致性，但 (c) 改进了与犯罪需求的概念一致性系统域。这个例子强调了关注推动系统开发的有效风险沟通的基本原则的重要性。