Section Cor 406.03 - Institutional Risk Assessment(a) The institutional risk score, shall be determined by the highest rating assigned to any of the 5 factors listed (b) below. For example, if a resident receives a combination of ratings ranging from "1" to "4", the highest rating in this example the "4", shall dictate the institutional risk score, which would be I-4.(b) The institutional risk categories shall be: (1) Prior institutional adjustment;(4) Probation and parole adjustment; and(5) Security threat group affiliation or membership.(c) The factors for (b)(1) above shall be assessed independently on a scale of 1 to 5 in the following manner: (1) A rating of 5 for poor with 1 or more major rule violations related to violence, escape, contraband possession, or serious offenses which disrupts institutional operations and jeopardizes public or resident safety;(2) A rating of 4 for unsatisfactory with 1 or more major rule violations not related to violence, escape, contraband possession and did not cause a disruption in institutional operations, or a series of multiple minor rule violations that interrupt the orderly operation of the institution and jeopardize the safety of staff and residents;(3) A rating of 3 for satisfactory with minimal minor rule violations without pattern or disruption to the institution, or no prior adjustment record available but known prior incarcerations;(4) A rating of 2 for good with few minor rule violations rule violations; or(5) A rating of 1 for exemplary with no disciplinary record or prior incarceration.(d) The factors for (b)(2) above shall be assessed independently on a scale of 1 to 4 in the following manner: (1) A rating of 4 for poor with serious adjustment problems while in the community;(2) A rating of 3 for satisfactory when the resident's overall adjustment in the community is satisfactory;(3) A rating of 2 for excellent when the resident is able to adjust extremely well to community life; or(4) A rating of 1 for no prior community supervision or incarceration.(e) The factors for (b)(3) above shall be assessed independently on a scale of 1 to 3 in the following manner: (1) A rating of 3 for poor when the resident either refuses or limits cooperation;(2) A rating of 2 for satisfactory when the resident provides basic information but does not go beyond in providing assistance; or(3) A rating of 1 for excellent when the resident not only provides basic information but also assists staff in identifying possible program and service needs.(f) The factors for (b)(4) above shall be assessed independently on a scale of 1 to 3 in the following manner: (1) A rating of 3 for poor when the overall probationer or parolee adjustment on probation or parole is deemed to be unsatisfactory based on documented records generated through any negative contact with law enforcement officials outside of routine contact with a PPO;(2) A rating of 2 for satisfactory when the probationer or parolee on probation or parole is perfunctory, with no noted violations related to the conditions of release as described within the parole plan set forth by the parole board or exemplary actions demonstrating forward progression toward rehabilitation or assimilation to the community; or(3) A rating of 1 for excellent when the probationer or parolee adjustment to probation or parole is exceeding the terms and conditions of his or her parole plan as documented by the PPO.(g) The factors for (b)(5) above shall be assessed independently on a scale of 1 to 4 in the following manner: (1) A rating of 4 for a known leader or high ranking member of a security threat group member;(2) A rating of 3 for a known security threat group member;(3) A rating of 2 for a known affiliation with security threat group or groups; or(4) A rating of 1 for no connection to any security threat group.(h) Only one rating is shall be entered for each of (c) through (g) above.N.H. Admin. Code § Cor 406.03
Derived from Volume XXXIX Number 24, Filed June 13, 2019, Proposed by #12777, Effective 5/11/2019, Expires 5/11/2029.