Does the Department rely on psychological risk assessments that are expressly conditional on allegations being true, and if so, how is the reliability of those underlying allegations assessed?

Answer

I am advised that psychological risk assessment reports prepared by Corrections’ psychologists relate to individuals who have been convicted. In forming their risk opinions, psychologists may consider a range of information beyond the Judge’s Sentencing Notes and Summary of Facts, including self-report, incidents and misconducts, and disclosures from whānau or health services (where consent is provided). The weight given to each source varies and must be defensible. Psychological risk opinions are supported by use of appropriate risk assessment tools, in a manner consistent with international best practice. For Extended Supervision Order (ESO) assessments, section 107F(3) of the Parole Act expressly permits assessors to consider any statements about the offender’s conduct, regardless of whether that conduct resulted in charges or convictions. In all cases, the assessing psychologist determines the weight of information by considering factors such as offending history, behavioral patterns, the credibility of self-report, and the reliability of the source (e.g. official documentation). Where access to verified information is limited, opinions are typically caveated.