Dynamic Risk Factors

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into financial risk management has opened new avenues for enhancing the resilience of equity portfolios, particularly during extreme market events  such  as  pandemics  and  financial  crises.  This  paper  proposes  an  AI-based  model  for dynamic risk management in equity portfolios, aiming to address the limitations of traditional static risk models by incorporating advanced machine learning techniques and real-time data analysis.  The  model  leverages  diverse  data  sources,  including  market  indicators,  economic indicators,  and  alternative  data,  to  predict  and  manage  risks  effectively.  Through  a comprehensive  literature  review  and  methodological  framework,  this  study  highlights  the potential of AI in transforming risk management practices and improving portfolio performance during periods of heightened market volatility

Although Aboriginal offenders are overrepresented in Canadian prisons, there is limited research examining the extent to which commonly used risk factors and risk scales are applicable to Aboriginals. Aboriginal (n = 88) and non-Aboriginal (n = 509) sex offenders on community supervision were compared on the dynamic risk factors of STABLE-2007. Data on sexual, violent, any crime, and any recidivism (including breaches) were collected with an average follow-up of 3.4 years. Aboriginal offenders scored significantly higher than non-Aboriginal offenders on STABLE-2007 total scores and on several items measuring general criminality. STABLE-2007 did not significantly predict recidivism with Aboriginal offenders (although it did for non-Aboriginals). The general antisociality items were generally significantly less predictive for Aboriginals than non-Aboriginals, whereas items assessing sexual self-regulation and relationship stability predicted similarly for both groups. These explorator...

This is also a place to commemorate two persons I considered colleagues and friends but whom passed away prematurely: Martien Philipse and Carles Ferrer. I started this dissertation with Martien as co-promoter. We were colleagues in the TBS and I enjoyed our talks on the telephone and during our travels to conferences. It was Martien who suggested contacting Chijs to explore if she would be interested to be my promoter. We had a first meeting between the three of us but unfortunately his illness made it impossible for Martien to continue. Carles worked at the Catalan justice department and we worked together on el projecte de gestió del risc. He was the administrator of the SAVRY database and did an outstanding job. But more than his job performance I enjoyed his company. Moreover he was, as Martien, an artist. Carles, et penso encara sovint quan miro els teus quadres a les parets de casa meva a Barcelona i Eindhoven. I would like to thank my Dutch family for believing I could finish this adventure. Edith, Roberto, Annemarie and Gerard, and not to forget Dr. Joeri, thank you all for your support. I also want to thank my Catalan family. Dolors, gràcies pel teu interès! Rosa-Maria and Leo, and also Àngel, thank you for your support. Clàudia, thanks for the pieces of work you contributed. Marcel, you made the wonderful photos that appear in this dissertation. You did a great job in transforming the ideas we discussed into real images! Rodrigo amigo, although you are almost on the other side of the world, you continued to support and help me. Rosa, thank you for helping me when I was stuck with the general discussion and for the correction of the Catalan version of this part of my dissertation. Vincent and Jan, my paranimfen, you both stood behind me during the writing and defending of this thesis and I know you will continue to do so. Rik, our visits to the sauna gave this dissertation a whole different dimension. Michiel, chatting with you gives me plenty of new ideas and it is a pleasure to work, talk and drink beers with you. Ramón, thanks for introducing me into the world of running. It gave me space on times I needed it. Hombres, it is great to have you as friends. Lola, although my dissertation is finished I am afraid that I cannot promise that during dinner I will not think about the most recent paper I am working on, I'm sorry. But I would enjoy spending more time together and I hope I will have more time to cook so we can explore new frontiers of taste, good ones I hope. Muchas gracias por haberme ayudado todo este tiempo, fue un viaje largo pero hemos llegado juntos. Espero que ahora podamos abrir otras puertas. Thanks also for the translation of the general discussion into your own language, Catalan, and into Spanish. 1998). The efficacy of the RNR model has been demonstrated by more than twenty years of research (Andrews, 2012). According to the RNR model it would not be advisable to put together a strong package of interventions for a first time offender with low risk of reoffending and sufficient strengths. It would be more recommendable to apply no intervention, or an intervention with low intensity, preventing any negative outcomes unintended by over-intervening (Latessa, 2011). Whereas a potential LCP offender might Development of risk assessment In the '90s and early 2000s research on violence risk assessment was largely directed towards reliability between raters and predictive validity, mainly on male samples of juvenile offenders (Olver, Stockdale, & Wormith, 2009). During this century the focus of juvenile risk assessment increasingly shifted towards ethnic groups, female juvenile in juveniles' individual, family and/or contextual characteristics of the most widely used risk assessment tools for adolescents, such as SAVRY. But the first steps on this road towards more insights into the changeability of widely applied risk assessment tools for juvenile offenders have been set, through studies that explore these changes over time

A Canadian Federal court recently impugned the administering of 5 risk assessment instruments with Canadian Aboriginal prisoners. The ramifications of the ruling for the field are notable given the universal employment of risk instruments with Indigenous offenders and patients. Effectively, forensic clinicians and researchers can no longer overlook the role of culture in risk assessment-a robust academic dialogue on this subject matter is consequently warranted. This article explores how culture can shape the entire risk assessment process; from instrument construction and validation, to risk marker sensitivity, symptom articulation, and client-clinician interaction. Future directions for cross-cultural assessment are discussed.

Psychosocial maturation describes the process of the development of attributes that optimise personal growth and socialisation (Greenberger & Sorenson, 1974). Psychosocial immaturity is strongly related to youth and criminality, while psychosocial maturity is associated with desistance from crime. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a psychosocial maturity screening tool for young adult men (18+) convicted of crime, in order to better understand the needs of this group and to improve targeting and provision of services.

about Risk Assessment Instruments (RAIs) for detention for more information. 2 It should be noted that many of the concepts described in Chapter 2 are relevant to the creation of RAIs. Who Needs to Know about Risk Assessment? Many jurisdictions, juvenile justice agencies, and practitioners have adopted risk assessment as a part of their practice, while others have not yet done so. We have constructed this Guide to be useful to current risk assessment users and potential future users. In our experience working with jurisdictions and state agencies to implement risk assessment tools, we have discovered many may already have a tool in place, but they are not using it effectively. For example, the assessment gets completed for a youth but then it merely sits in the youth's file until it is dusted off because it has to be completed again. So whether you are part of a jurisdiction or agency that already has a tool in place, or a jurisdiction or agency that is trying to identify a risk assessment tool to adopt, you should find this Guide useful. The Guide covers everything from the basic concepts of risk assessment and how to select an evidence-based assessment tool, to training of staff and effective use of the assessment tool in court decision-making and case management practices. This Guide largely focuses on the use of risk assessment tools at one stage in the juvenile justice process-juvenile probation and probation intake. This is because most of the research around implementation of risk assessment has been conducted in probation settings (which includes disposition). Experts can say considerably less about best practices for risk assessment at other stages in the juvenile justice process. However, the Guide does offer suggestions for modifying the procedures for other decision points in juvenile justice, such as pre-trial detention or community re-entry. This Guide was constructed to be relevant for judges, district attorneys, and public defenders, as well as probation chiefs and agency administrators. Attorneys and judges may find the Attorneys' and Judges' Companion Guide to this manual to be more user-friendly. We strongly encourage administrators to obtain the Attorneys' and Judges' Companion Guide for their stakeholders and also offer to share this complete Guide if they would like more information. Guiding Principles Several guiding principles shaped the content of this Guide. Each of these principles is grounded by research in social science. 1. Simply selecting and adopting a risk assessment tool will not accomplish the desired objective unless it is implemented properly. Executive Summary 5. The mere fact that someone is high risk for reoffending does not mean that they must be incarcerated in order to protect public safety, but some youth will, indeed, require incarceration to protect public safety. 6. Services and case planning should be as individualized as possible, based on the youth's risk level, changeable risk factors and strengths. To best accomplish this, risk assessment tools should contain both static as well as dynamic risk factors (also known as criminogenic needs factors; see third "FAQ" in Chapter 2). 7. Risk assessment tools should inform legal decision-making and offer additional grounds for decisions but should not replace legal decision-making. Design of this Guide The chapters of this Guide detail the purpose and nature of risk assessment, provide definitions of risk assessment concepts, review research evidence, and give step-by-step guidance about how to implement a tool. The introduction elaborates on many of the concepts described in this executive summary, along with a description of some of the research evidence. Chapter II sets the stage by reviewing several concepts of risk assessment, such as the types of items found in the assessment tools, and how to select an evidence-based assessment tool. The chapter was included to be used as a reference. Chapter III is organized according to eight steps of implementation and the accompanying activities. Most steps are required for effective implementation; however, some may not apply to all juvenile justice communities. The Guide contains several example documents in the Appendices located on the accompanying CD. Users are welcome to modify and implement these documents. Exemplars provided include office policy templates, memoranda of agreements, templates for communicating risk assessment information in pre-dispositional reports, and presentation slides to educate stakeholders about the purpose and potential benefits of risk assessment. All of these documents have been used with success in a number of states. The steps of implementation are the following: Step 1: Getting Ready This step explains how to get the right team of people together and create an optimal system environment to allow the tool to operate effectively. Step 2: Establishing Stakeholder and Staff Buy-In This step describes how to obtain buy-in from the essential stakeholders (e.g., judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, service agencies) and staff members. Stakeholders should consider the multiple assessments many juvenile justice-involved youth receive from other agencies to discuss the overlap across tools and how to minimize over-assessing youth and families. Several strategies for training and dissemination of information about risk assessment are provided. Step 3: Select and Prepare the Risk Assessment Tool This step covers how to select the best risk assessment tool for your agency. This Guide does not provide recommendations for specific tools, because research continually advances and often creates better methods. The Guide instead provides case studies from states that implemented risk assessment tools statewide in their juvenile probation systems and points the reader to consultants and references where there is a listing of available risk assessment tools. Step 4: Preparing Policies and Essential Documents Implementation of a risk assessment tool does not stop once an agency has selected the tool and trained staff how to complete it. Instead, it involves implementing an assessment system, which includes a structured process regarding how the Executive Summary tool will be used in various decisions. Step 4 involves developing the appropriate office policies and essential documents to integrate risk assessment routinely into case management decisions, including designing a case plan format, a service matrix, and a protocol for how risk level will be used. Step 5: Training This step covers guidelines for training stakeholders and probation staff on the risk assessment tool and new policies and procedures, preferably using a train-the-trainer model. Probation staff and supervisors will receive additional training as they will be administering the risk assessment tool with youth.

We implement Smart Beta strategies in the global government bond markets and examine the performance of nine distinct factors. Our analysis provides strong support for the benefits of Smart Beta investing in fixed income markets. All our factor portfolios beat the market portfolio, while producing significant alphas. However, we find that – except for the Value, Momentum and Cochrane-Piazzesi predictor – the outperformance can be partially explained by the exposure to duration and currency carry trade risk.

Juvenile probation officers (JPOs; n D 71) in the United States were interviewed three and ten months after the SAVRY or YLS/CMI was implemented in their office. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were used to explore their experiences using the instruments and adherence to practice guidelines. JPOs typically perceived the instruments as being 'somewhat' or 'very' helpful for guiding their case planning decisions. A frequently cited barrier to using both instruments in practice related to the increased length of time it took to complete reports; yet, at the same time, some JPOs also acknowledged that use of the measures forced them to gather important information about the youth's background and current situation that proved useful. Most JPOs (77%, n D 33 of 43) using the SAVRY expressed preference for a risk assessment model that emphasized use of appropriate professional discretion rather than a score-based approach. "Buy-in" for the instruments and the reported difficulties varied across sites. The present findings may inform recommendations specifically for delivering training on the SAVRY and YLS/CMI and, more broadly, strategies to promote their effective implementation in juvenile justice settings.

Viljoen, J. L., Muir, N. M., Brodersen, E., Shaffer, C. S., & ARROW Advisory Board. (2016, June). The development and evaluation of the Adolescent Risk Reduction and Resilient Outcomes Work Plan risk management guide. Paper presented at the 16th Annual International Conference of Forensic Mental Health Services, New York, NY.

Abstract: Although risk assessment tools aim to inform intervention planning, they often fall short in their ability to do so. Indeed, professionals do not consistently utilize their risk assessments to guide risk reduction efforts. Thus, to help bridge risk assessment to risk management, we developed a tool called the Adolescent Risk Reduction and Resilience Outcomes Work-Plan (ARROW). The ARROW is designed to accompany the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, although it can also be adapted for other tools. The ARROW includes three components: (1) A Guide that compiles best practices to reduce risk factors and build protective factors (e.g., anger management difficulties, strong attachments); (2) An accompanying Invention Planning Template that provides a structured framework for developing intervention plans; and (3) A set of Worksheets for sessions with youth and their caregivers (e.g., My Triggers Worksheet). In this presentation, we will discuss results from the ARROW trainings, which were attended by 207 professionals (e.g., youth probation officers, service providers). Attendees completed an intervention plan, based on a practice case, prior to and following training. Following the training, professionals showed significant improvements in their case formulations and intervention plans, with large effect sizes. Specifically, intervention plans showed greater adherence to the risk-need-responsivity model of offender treatment, and increased use of best practice strategies (i.e., strategies with research support). In addition, professionals reported a high level of satisfaction for the ARROW; 98% indicated that the ARROW would be useful to youth probation officers. Next steps in this research will be discussed.

Literature on risk factors for recidivism among juveniles who have sexually offended (JSOs) is limited. In addition, there have been no studies published concerning protective factors among this population. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of risk and protective factors to sexual and nonsexual recidivism among a sample of 193 male JSOs (mean age = 15.26). Youths were followed for an average of 7.24 years following discharge from a residential sex offender treatment program. The risk factor o pportunities to reoffend, as coded based on the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism, was associated with sexual recidivism. Several risk factors (e.g., prior offending; peer delinquency) were associated with nonsexual recidivism. No protective factors examined were associated with sexual recidivism, although strong attachments and bonds as measured by the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth was negatively related to nonsexual recidivism. ...

Background: Structured risk/need assessment tools are increasingly used to orientate risk reduction strategies with juvenile offenders. The assumption is that the risk/need items on these tools are sufficiently sensitive to measure changes in the individual, family and/or contextual characteristics of juvenile offenders. However, there is very little research demonstrating the capacity of these tools to measure changes in juvenile offenders. Congruent with the developmental and life-course criminology theories (DLC) the objective of this study is to explore the existence of heterogeneous trajectories of juvenile offenders across the juvenile justice system as measured through five empirical risk/need areas based on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), one of the most widely applied risk assessment tools for juveniles. Methods: This longitudinal study included 5205 male juvenile offenders who transitioned through the Catalan juvenile justice system between 2006 and 2014. During intervention they received at least two, and a maximum of seven, consecutive SAVRY risk/need assessments over an 18-month period. The heterogeneity of latent class trajectories was explored through growth mixture modeling (GMM). The trajectory class membership was linked to covariates through multinomial logistic regression analyses. Results: Through GMM three to four heterogeneous trajectories, with high quality of separation, were identified in each of the risk/need areas. The trajectories with low risk/needs (45-77% of the sample) remained low and presented a very limited increase in risk/needs during the 18-month period. The high risk/need trajectories (20-37% of the sample) showed a limited decrease or no change. Between 5 and 13% of the sample had large reductions in their risk/ needs levels, and approximately 5% showed a large increase in risk/needs. Conclusions: In line with the DLC theories this study shows that trajectories on criminogenic risk/needs can be heterogeneous and indicate distinct rates of change over time. The results of this study also may suggest a limited sensibility to measure change over time of SAVRY's risk and protective items. Suggestions to improve the sensitivity of measuring change over time, such as shorter time frames or future-oriented time frames for the scoring of the items, are offered.

Our work aims to develop a stand-alone trading system to construct portfolios that show the benefits of value and momentum style integration and presents the effectiveness of alternative integration methods for long-only absolute return funds, which seeks absolute returns that are not highly correlated to traditional assets such as stocks and bonds. Our approach uses the CRoss Industry Standard Process for Data Mining (CRISP-DM) model to guide the necessary steps, processes, and workflows for executing our project. We believe that this approach will be instrumental to our completing the project within the set timeframe.

Shaffer, C. S., L., Cochrane, D., & Viljoen, J. L., Douglas, K. S. (2019, March). Dynamic risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence perpetration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology Law Society, Portland, Oregon, USA.

The identification of dynamic risk and protective factors is important for reducing intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration among adolescents and young adults.  However, little research has examined change over time in putatively dynamic factors or whether these changes are associated with changes in IPV.  Using data collected from 885 male offenders, we examined whether three factors (impulse control, substance use, romantic relationship quality) could be considered truly dynamic.  Results indicated that all three factors changed over a seven-year follow-up.  However, only fluctuations in substance use were predictive of changes in IPV.  Implications for IPV programming are discussed.

Fuller, E., Shaffer, C. S., Muir, N., Cochrane, D., & Viljoen, J. L (2018, March). The professional use of SAVRY case-specific risk and protective factors: A content analysis. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology - Law Society, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.

Although many risk assessment tools give professionals an opportunity to add case-specific factors, it is unclear if and how professionals use case-specific factors. Thus, we examined 292 SAVRY risk assessments conducted by Youth Probation Officers (YPOs). YPOs identified case-specific factors in 26.7% of cases. However, most case-specific factors (i.e., 60.4%) did not provide novel information. Instead, they repeated or underscored existing SAVRY items. Furthermore, some case-specific factors were illogical or unsupported. That said, in some cases, YPOs appeared able to capture relevant idiosyncratic factors. Overall, this suggests a need for further guidance on the use of case-specific factors.

Viljoen, J., Gray, A. L., Shaffer, C.S., Bhanwer, A., & Douglas, K. S. (2015, June). Dynamic change in Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth and the Youth Level Service Needs Case Management Inventory scores: Does reassessment improve predictions? Paper presented at the 3rd North American Correctional and Criminal Justice Psychology Conference, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Although violence risk is thought to be especially dynamic among adolescents, little research has tested this. As such, the present study examined changes in ratings on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2006) and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 2006) among 163 youth on probation (112 male, 51 female). Youth were reassessed on the SAVRY and YLS/CMI every three months over a one-year period. Then, follow-up records were collected an average of 3.94 years after the initial assessment. Over a one-year period, 18% of youth showed reliable change in risk on the SAVRY and 10% on the YLS/CMI. With respect to predictors of change, controlling for static risk level, older youth showed greater reductions in SAVRY and YLS/CMI Risk Total Scores from baseline to three months (r = .20 and r =.22, respectively, p < .05), whereas younger adolescents showed more gains in SAVRY Protective Total scores from baseline to three months (r = .18, p = .04). However, gender and psychopathy total scores were not significantly correlated with change. When the association between change scores and reoffending was examined, youth who showed decreases in risk on the SAVRY and YLS/CMI were less likely to reoffend (after controlling for static risk). Overall, these findings illustrate that risk is dynamic and support regular reassessment.

Viljoen, J. L., Shaffer, C. S., Gray, A. L., & Douglas, K. S. (2017). Are risk assessment tools sensitive to change? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.  Law and Human Behavior, 41, 244-257.

Although many adolescent risk assessment tools include an emphasis on dynamic factors, little research has examined the extent to which these tools are capable of measuring change. In this article, we outline a framework to evaluate a tool’s capacity to measure change. This framework includes the following: (a) measurement error and reliable change, and (b) sensitivity (i.e., internal, external, and relative sensitivity). We then used this framework to evaluate the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Research assistants conducted 509 risk assessments with 146 adolescents on probation (101 male, 45 female), who were assessed every 3 months over a 1-year period. Internal sensitivity (i.e., change over time) was partially supported in that a modest proportion of youth showed reliable changes over the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. External sensitivity (i.e., the association between change scores and reoffending) was also partially supported. In particular, 22% of the associations between change scores and any and violent reoffending were significant at a 6-month follow-up. However, only 1 change score (i.e., peer associations) remained significant after the Bonferroni correction was applied. Finally, relative sensitivity was not supported, as the SAVRY and YLS/CMI was not more dynamic than the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). Specifically, the 1-year rank-order stability coefficients for the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV Total Scores were .78, .75, and .76, respectively. Although the SAVRY and YLS/CMI hold promise, further efforts may help to enhance sensitivity to short-term changes in risk.

Viljoen, J. L., Gray A. L., Shaffer, C. S., Bhanwer, A., Tafreshi, D., & Douglas, K. S. (2016). Does reassessment of risk improve predictions? A framework and examination of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI.  Psychological Assessment, 29, 1096-1110.

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents’ risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, the authors tested 3 hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every 3 months over a 1-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. The authors then examined charges for violence and any offense over a 2-year follow-up period, and youths’ self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth’s risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs’ increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and, if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes.

Viljoen, J. L., Gray, A. L., Shaffer, C. S., Latzman, N. E., Scalora, M. J., & Ullman, D. (2015). Changes in J-SOAP II and SAVRY scores over the course of treatment for adolescent sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: Research and Treatment, 29, 342-374.

Although the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) include an emphasis on dynamic, or modifiable factors, there has been little research on dynamic changes on these tools.  To help address this gap, we compared admission and discharge scores of 163 adolescents who attended a residential, cognitive-behavioral treatment program for sexual offending.  Based on reliable change indices, one-half of youth showed a reliable decrease on the J-SOAP-II Dynamic Risk Total Score and one-third of youth showed a reliable decrease on the SAVRY Dynamic Risk Total Score.  Contrary to expectations, decreases in risk factors and increases in protective factors did not predict reduced sexual, violent nonsexual, or any reoffending.  In addition, no associations were found between scores on the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version and levels of change.  Overall, the J-SOAP-II and the SAVRY hold promise in measuring change, but further research is needed.