The accuracy of risk assessment instruments in the prediction of impulsive versus predatory aggression

BackgroundRates of violence in persons identified as high risk by structured risk assessment instruments (SRAIs) are uncertain and frequently unreported by validation studies.AimsTo analyse the variation in rates of violence in individuals identified as high risk by SRAIs.MethodA systematic search of databases (1995–2011) was conducted for studies on nine widely used assessment tools. Where violence rates in high-risk groups were not published, these were requested from study authors. Rate information was extracted, and binomial logistic regression was used to study heterogeneity.ResultsInformation was collected on 13 045 participants in 57 samples from 47 independent studies. Annualised rates of violence in individuals classified as high risk varied both across and within instruments. Rates were elevated when population rates of violence were higher, when a structured professional judgement instrument was used and when there was a lower proportion of men in a study.ConclusionsAfter controlling for time at risk, the rate of violence in individuals classified as high risk by SRAIs shows substantial variation. In the absence of information on local base rates, assigning predetermined probabilities to future violence risk on the basis of a structured risk assessment is not supported by the current evidence base. This underscores the need for caution when such risk estimates are used to influence decisions related to individual liberty and public safety.

Download Full-text

Evidence-Based Sentencing

Criminology ◽

10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0296 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

James C. Oleson

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Decision Making ◽

Risk Measures ◽

Criminal History ◽

Community Safety ◽

Assessment Instruments ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Criminogenic Needs ◽

Actuarial Risk ◽

Using Data

The evidence-based practice (EBP) movement can be traced to a 1992 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, although decision-making with empirical evidence (rather than tradition, anecdote, or intuition) is obviously much older. Neverthless, for the last twenty-five years, EBP has played a pivotal role in criminal justice, particularly within community corrections. While the prediction of recidivism in parole or probation decisions has attracted relatively little attention, the use of risk measures by sentencing judges is controversial. This might be because sentencing typically involves both backward-looking decisions, related to the blameworthiness of the crime, as well as forward-looking decisions, about the offender’s prospective risk of recidivism. Evidence-based sentencing quantifies the predictive aspects of decision-making by incorporating an assessment of risk factors (which increase recidivism risk), protective factors (which reduce recidivism risk), criminogenic needs (impairments that, if addressed, will reduce recidivism risk), the measurement of recidivism risk, and the identification of optimal recidivism-reducing sentencing interventions. Proponents for evidence-based sentencing claim that it can allow judges to “sentence smarter” by using data to distinguish high-risk offenders (who might be imprisoned to mitigate their recidivism risk) from low-risk offenders (who might be released into the community with relatively little danger). This, proponents suggest, can reduce unnecessary incarceration, decrease costs, and enhance community safety. Critics, however, note that risk assessment typically looks beyond criminal conduct, incorporating demographic and socioeconomic variables. Even if a risk factor is facially neutral (e.g., criminal history), it might operate as a proxy for a constitutionally protected category (e.g., race). The same objectionable variables are used widely in presentence reports, but their incorporation into an actuarial risk score has greater potential to obfuscate facts and reify underlying disparities. The evidence-based sentencing literature is dynamic and rapidly evolving, but this bibliography identifies sources that might prove useful. It first outlines the theoretical foundations of traditional (non-evidence-based) sentencing, identifying resources and overviews. It then identifies sources related to decision-making and prediction, risk assessment logic, criminogenic needs, and responsivity. The bibliography then describes and defends evidence-based sentencing, and identifies works on sentencing variables and risk assessment instruments. It then relates evidence-based sentencing to big data and identifies data issues. Several works on constitutional problems are listed, the proxies problem is described, and sources on philosophical issues are described. The bibliography concludes with a description of validation research, the politics of evidence-based sentencing, and the identification of several current initiatives.

Download Full-text

Measuring the equity of risk assessment instruments used in child protection

Children and Youth Services Review ◽

10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106266 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 106266

Author(s):

Brian Q. Jenkins

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Child Protection ◽

Assessment Instruments

Download Full-text

Record of the circumstances of falls in the community: perspective in the Iberian Peninsula

Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem ◽

10.1590/1518-8345.2373.2977 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 26 (0) ◽

Author(s):

Maria de Fátima Araújo ◽

Nilza Nogueira Caldevilla ◽

Candida Maciel ◽

Felicidade Malheiro ◽

María Aurora Rodríguez-Borrego ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Assessment Instruments ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Basic Health ◽

Risk Of Falls ◽

Quantitative Descriptive ◽

One Year ◽

Two Stages ◽

Basic Health Units

ABSTRACT Objective: to determine the diagnosis of the situation regarding documentation of falls and risk of falls in people older than 75 years in basic health units in Spain and Portugal. Method: mixed exploratory study in two stages: (i) quantitative descriptive of randomly selected fall records produced in one year (597 records; 197 Spanish and 400 Portuguese); and (ii) qualitative, with the purpose of knowing the perception of health professionals employing semi-structured interviews (72 professionals, 16 Spanish and 56 Portuguese). The study areas were two basic health units in southern Spain and northern Portugal. Results: in the fall records, the number of women was higher. The presence of fall was associated with the variables age, presence of dementia, osteoarticular disease, previous falls and consumption of antivertiginous medication. Health professionals perceived an absence of risk assessment instruments, as well as lack of prevention programs and lack of awareness of this event. Conclusion: falls are perceived as an area of priority attention for health professionals. Nonetheless, there is a lack of adherence to the registration of falls and risk assessment, due to organizational, logistical and motivational problems.

Download Full-text

Comment on “The Influence of Risk Assessment Instrument Scores on Evaluators’ Risk Opinions and Sexual Offender Containment Recommendations”

Criminal Justice and Behavior ◽

10.1177/0093854817725526 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 44 (9) ◽

pp. 1236-1241

Author(s):

Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky

Keyword(s):

Risk Assessment ◽

Sex Offender ◽

Sexual Offender ◽

Assessment Instrument ◽

Assessment Instruments ◽

Management Board ◽

Risk Assessment Instrument ◽

Potential Confounding Variable ◽

Standards And Guidelines ◽

And Behavior

The work of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) has been called into question as a result of the manuscript “The Influence of Risk Assessment Instrument Scores on the Evaluators’ Risk Opinions and Sexual Offender Containment Recommendations” published in Criminal Justice and Behavior (2017). This response covers the following areas: significant nomenclature problems used to describe the Adult Standards and Guidelines, the dated nature of the SOMB citations in the manuscript, the flaws in the interpretation of the use of the 17 SOMB risk factors and the SOMB policy related to risk assessment, a potential confounding variable that may explain the results obtained, and finally the work of the SOMB to foster the use of validated risk assessment instruments and evidence-based policies and practices. The SOMB takes pride in providing up-to-date, research-supported practices for its providers and would never intentionally do otherwise, as suggested by the article.

Download Full-text