Objective: There is increasing recognition in the justice system that transition-age youth (TAY) are in a unique developmental period that may require tailored policies and practices. This study ...investigated the differential predictive validity and potential for disparate impact of both juvenile (the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory) and adult risk assessment instruments (the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 HCR-20 and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide VRAG) with this age group (ages 16-24), relative to adolescents (ages 12-15) or older adults (ages 25-40). Method: The authors obtained secondary data sets for the 4 instruments totaling 3,353 cases. The final samples for each instrument after exclusions ranged from 1,181 cases for the VRAG to 290 cases for the HCR-20. Results: Age group generally did not moderate the prediction of any recidivism or of violent recidivism. The only exception was on the HCR-20, which significantly predicted recidivism regardless of age but operated better for TAY than adults. The VRAG was the only instrument with significant mean age-related differences in risk scores. Conclusions: The potential for an unfair impact of risk assessments on TAY is minimal regardless of whether they are processed in the juvenile or adult justice systems. This preliminary evidence suggests well-validated instruments used in either system should accurately quantify the likelihood of recidivism for TAY; however, this does not necessarily translate into effective risk management for this developmental period. More research using study designs developed specifically for examining age-related differences is needed.
What is the public health significance of this article?
Justice policy decision-makers and individuals tasked with conducting risk assessments can use either juvenile or adult instruments to accurately quantify the risk of recidivism among transition-age youth. However, more research is needed to explore the utility of these instruments for identification of their intervention targets.
Risk assessment instruments for violence and reoffending are widely used throughout the world. According to researchers, there are many different reasons to use these instruments; for instance, they ...are thought to reduce violence, save money, and improve treatment planning. In this article, we create a taxonomy to classify these risk management outcomes into agency, professional practice, and evaluee domains. Through a review of research, we show that instruments do not always achieve their goals. First, agencies encounter problems in successfully implementing instruments. Second, a lack of follow through can occur between risk assessments and the subsequent phases of risk management, such as case planning and intervention delivery. By drawing from the field of implementation science, we create an agenda for research.
Public Health Significance Statement
Many mental health and justice agencies use risk assessment instruments to guide decisions about how to treat and manage people who may be violent or commit crimes. However, agencies often have difficulty implementing these instruments successfully and using them to generate real-world benefits. As such, to help understand and overcome these problems, we apply lessons from the field of implementation science.
As recent and historical events attest, racial and ethnic disparities are widely engrained into the justice system. Recently, scholars and policymakers have raised concerns that risk assessment ...instruments may exacerbate these disparities. While it is critical that risk instruments be scrutinized for racial bias, some concerns, though well-meaning, have gone beyond the evidence. This article explains what it means for an instrument to be “biased” and why instruments should not all be painted with the same brush (some will be more susceptible to bias than others). If some groups get apprehended more, those groups will score higher on non-biased, well-validated instruments derived to maximize prediction of recidivism because of mathematics. Thus, risk instruments shine a light on long-standing systemic problems of racial disparities. This article concludes with suggestions for research and for minimizing disparities by ensuring that systems use risk assessments to avoid unnecessary incarceration while allowing for structured discretion.
Neuroprediction of future rearrest Aharoni, Eyal; Vincent, Gina M.; Harenski, Carla L. ...
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS,
04/2013, Letnik:
110, Številka:
15
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Identification of factors that predict recurrent antisocial behavior is integral to the social sciences, criminal justice procedures, and the effective treatment of high-risk individuals. Here we ...show that error-related brain activity elicited during performance of an inhibitory task prospectively predicted subsequent rearrest among adult offenders within 4 y of release (N = 96). The odds that an offender with relatively low anterior cingulate activity would be rearrested were approximately double that of an offender with high activity in this region, holding constant other observed risk factors. These results suggest a potential neurocognitive biomarker for persistent antisocial behavior.
Risk assessment instruments are widely used by juvenile probation officers (JPOs) to make case management decisions; however, few studies have investigated whether these instruments maintain their ...predictive validity when completed by JPOs in the field. Moreover, the validity of these instruments for use with minority groups has been called into question. This field study examined the predictive validity of both the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY; n = 383) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; n = 359) for reoffending when completed by JPOs. The study also compared Black and White youth to examine the presence of test bias. The SAVRY and YLS/CMI significantly predicted reoffending at the test level, with most of the variance in reoffending accounted for by dynamic risk scales not static scales. The instruments did not differentially predict reoffending as a function of race but Black youth scored higher than White youth on the YLS/CMI scale related to official juvenile history. The implications for use of risk assessments in the field are discussed.
Public Significance Statement
The present study found that two of the most widely used youth risk assessment instruments (SAVRY and YLS/CMI) significantly predicted reoffending when completed by trained juvenile probation officers in the field. While the instruments did not differentially predict reoffending as a function of race there were some significant differences by race on a few items (e.g., community disorganization, substance abuse, history of maltreatment, etc.).
Objective: This survey study reports the substantial impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on the use and perceived advantages and disadvantages of telepsychology among forensic ...practitioners. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that telepsychology use among forensic practitioners would substantially increase during the pandemic. Additional exploratory research questions examined (a) changes in the frequency, type, nature, and motivation for use of telepsychology; (b) changes in impressions of advantages and disadvantages; and (c) barriers specific to the remote administration of assessment instruments in forensic evaluations. Method: We disseminated an online survey to one group of forensic practitioners (N = 128; 52% female, 89% White, M
age = 48 years) via various listservs approximately 4 months before COVID-19 shutdowns in the United States and to a second group of forensic practitioners (N = 156; 63% female, 90% White, M
age = 48 years) 1 year later (approximately 8 months after COVID-19 shutdowns began). Results: Respondents used telepsychology at a significantly higher rate after the onset of COVID-19 (92%, n = 143) than before its onset (55%, n = 71). Nonusers of telepsychology before COVID-19 identified a number of perceived barriers to its use that were unsubstantiated by telepsychology users both before and during COVID-19 (e.g., rapport issues, confidentiality, and privacy issues). Conclusion: Self-reported use of telepsychology in forensic practice has nearly doubled since the pandemic began. Forensic practitioners will likely continue to use telepsychology, requiring research to address some of their remaining concerns. This includes research on the validity of forensic assessment instruments administered via telepsychology and research informing best practice guidelines.
Public Significance Statement
Self-reported telepsychology use by forensic practitioners increased exponentially during COVID-19. Given the likely longevity of telepsychology in forensic practice, there is a need for the development of best practice guidelines from a regulatory body. In addition, there is a need for further research to address forensic practitioners' concerns about the accuracy of forensic evaluations using telepsychology methods and to establish whether practitioners and court actors can have confidence in the use of these methods.
Objectives: Many agencies use risk assessment instruments to guide decisions about pretrial detention, postconviction incarceration, and release from custody. Although some policymakers believe that ...these tools might reduce overincarceration and recidivism rates, others are concerned that they may exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in placements. The objective of this systematic review was to test these assertions. Hypotheses: It was hypothesized that the adoption of tools might slightly decrease incarceration rates, and that impact on disparities might vary by tool and context. Method: Published and unpublished studies were identified by searching 13 databases, reviewing reference lists, and contacting experts. In total, 22 studies met inclusion criteria; these studies included 1,444,499 adolescents and adults who were accused or convicted of a crime. Each study was coded by 2 independent raters using a data extraction form and a risk of bias tool. Results were aggregated using both a narrative approach and meta-analyses. Results: The adoption of tools was associated with (a) small overall decreases in restrictive placements (aggregated odds ratio OR = 0.63, p < .001), particularly for individuals who were low risk and (b) small reductions in any recidivism (OR = 0.85, p = .020). However, after removing studies with a high risk of bias, the results were no longer significant. Conclusions: Although risk assessment tools might help to reduce restrictive placements, the strength of this evidence is low. Furthermore, because of a lack of research, it is unclear how tools impact racial and ethnic disparities in placements. As such, future research is needed.
Public Significance Statement
Use of a risk assessment tool for pre or post-trial decisions may help reduce rates of incarceration while still protecting public safety. However, much of the available research is poor in quality. In addition, findings are inconsistent, and few studies have tested for racial and ethnic disparities. As such, there is a strong need for more rigorous research before clear conclusions can be drawn.
One emphasis of juvenile justice reform has been implementation of risk assessment instruments to improve case planning. This study examined the ability of juvenile probation departments to apply the ...risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) framework into case planning following a comprehensive implementation protocol. Data were collected on 385 adolescent offenders across three probation departments following implementation of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk for Youth (SAVRY) and an RNR-related case planning policy. As expected, as risk levels of youth increased, probation departments assigned more services and addressed more criminogenic need areas in their case plans. Most case plans (86%) adhered to the policy to limit the number of needs addressed at one time. The quality of service-to-need matching varied by criminogenic need area, risk level, and site. Implications to juvenile courts’ and probation officers’ case planning and the challenges of research on service-to-need matching are discussed.
In recent years, demand has outpaced capacity to provide timely competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations and subsequent restoration services. This outpacing of resources has been coined the ..."competency crisis" and led to class action lawsuits across the country aimed at improving the timeliness of jail-based competence evaluations and inpatient restoration services. This study examined rates of CST evaluation delays in Washington State and evaluator-cited barriers to timely report submission for jail-based CST evaluations. The study used data from N = 17,874 court-ordered jail-based CST evaluations and N = 1,739 Good Cause Exception (e.g., extension) requests submitted by forensic evaluators to local courts from June 2018 to November 2022. Results indicated the number of jail-based CST evaluations increased annually, as did the percentage of evaluations with an accompanying extension request. Although Washington evaluators could have asked for a Good Cause Exception in any case that appeared to be at risk for noncompliance, they did not always do so, with only one request submitted for every 2.36 noncompliant evaluations. When evaluators did submit an extension request, the most common reason cited for requesting extensions was "attorney" (42.5%) followed by "other" (34.2%) and "more information needed" (17.1%). Although the most frequently cited reason for delays may be unique to Washington (i.e., attorney presence for evaluations), it highlights the importance of jurisdiction-specific field studies to identify and reduce barriers to the timely completion of competence valuations.
PDF
