scholarly journals Addressing excess risk of overdose among recently incarcerated people in the USA: harm reduction interventions in correctional settings

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein ◽  
David H. Cloud ◽  
Chelsea Davis ◽  
Nickolas Zaller ◽  
Ayesha Delany-Brumsey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Medication Assisted Treatment ◽  
Reduction Strategies ◽  
Correctional Settings ◽  
State And Local

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss overdose among those with criminal justice experience and recommend harm reduction strategies to lessen overdose risk among this vulnerable population. Design/methodology/approach Strategies are needed to reduce overdose deaths among those with recent incarceration. Jails and prisons are at the epicenter of the opioid epidemic but are a largely untapped setting for implementing overdose education, risk assessment, medication assisted treatment, and naloxone distribution programs. Federal, state, and local plans commonly lack corrections as an ingredient in combating overdose. Harm reduction strategies are vital for reducing the risk of overdose in the post-release community. Findings Therefore, the authors recommend that the following be implemented in correctional settings: expansion of overdose education and naloxone programs; establishment of comprehensive medication assisted treatment programs as standard of care; development of corrections-specific overdose risk assessment tools; and increased collaboration between corrections entities and community-based organizations. Originality/value In this policy brief the authors provide recommendations for implementing harm reduction approaches in criminal justice settings. Adoption of these strategies could reduce the number of overdoses among those with recent criminal justice involvement.

RISK ASSESSMENT: TOOLS FOR REDUCING LIABILITY FROM UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS

1989 ◽  
Vol 1989 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12
Author(s):  
William A. Tucker ◽  
Frank L. Hearne
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Contaminated Sites ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Underground Storage ◽  
Storage Tanks ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Underground Storage Tanks ◽  
Risk Estimates ◽  
State And Local

ABSTRACT Although regulations are being implemented at federal, state, and local levels, many major oil companies have decided to do even more than is required by law to prevent leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs). On the other hand, regulatory agencies directing cleanup of contaminated sites may demand restoration that goes beyond reasonable concerns for protection of public health and the environment. These cross-currents indicate that simply complying with applicable codes and regulations may not be an adequate strategy for cost-effectively reducing the risks of handling light refined products. To control risks, it is important first to understand them. Risk assessment is useful before a leak occurs as well as after. Before the leak occurs, risk assessment requires estimates of the probability of release as well as the likely consequences (damages). Techniques are presented that can be useful to managers of a large number of tanks or insurance underwriters to assess risks and prioritize risk reduction measures. Ultimately, these procedures could be used to determine an appropriate budget for tank upgrade programs. After a leak, and armed with detailed site assessment data, relatively precise estimates of toxic risks are possible. More realistic risk estimates are possible for refined petroleum product losses than are possible at many hazardous waste sites because of the relatively homogeneous and predictable properties of refined products. Field-verified predictive techniques that can be used to support defensible risk estimates are reviewed. Cost-effective strategies for collecting data required to support risk assessment and remediation of contaminated sites are stressed. Risks can be mitigated to generally acceptable levels at some sites even if contamination substantially exceeds federal maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). At other sites, remediation to lower levels would be advisable.

Automated Risk Assessment in the Criminal Justice Process

Prejudice ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 135-154
Author(s):  
Endre Begby
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Institutionalized Racism ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
History Of ◽  
Justice Process ◽  
Criminal Justice Process ◽  
Algorithmic Bias

This chapter addresses recent concerns about “algorithmic bias,” specifically in the context of the criminal justice process. Starting from a recent controversy about the use of “automated risk assessment tools” in criminal sentencing and parole hearings, where evidence suggests that such tools effectively discriminate against minority defendants, this chapter argues that the problem here has nothing in particular to do with algorithm-assisted reasoning, nor is it in any clear sense a case of epistemic bias. Rather, given the data set that we are given to work with, there is reason to think that no improvement to our epistemic routines would deliver significantly better results. Instead, the bias is effectively encoded into the data set itself, via a long history of institutionalized racism. This suggests a different diagnosis of the problem: in deeply divided societies, there may just be no way to simultaneously satisfy our moral ideals and our epistemic ideals.

Principles and practices of risk assessment in mental health jail diversion programs

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-603
Author(s):  
Sarah L. Desmarais ◽  
Evan M. Lowder
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Public Safety ◽  
The Body ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Diversion Programs ◽  
Jail Diversion ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
The Impact

Eligibility criteria for participation in mental health jail diversion programs often specify that, to be diverted, a candidate must not pose a level of threat to public safety that cannot be managed in the community. Risk assessment tools were developed to increase consistency and accuracy in estimates of threat to public safety. Consequently, risk assessment tools are being used in many jurisdictions to inform decisions regarding an individual’s appropriateness and eligibility for mental health jail diversion and the strategies that may be successful in mitigating risk in this context. However, their use is not without controversy. Questions have been raised regarding the validity and equity of their estimates, as well as the impact of their use on criminal justice outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the science and practice of risk assessment to inform decisions and case planning in the context of mental health jail diversion programs. Our specific aims include: (1) to describe the process and components of risk assessment, including differentiating between different approaches to risk assessment, and (2) to consider the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs. We anchor this review in relevant theory and extant research, noting current controversies or debates and areas for future research. Overall, there is strong theoretical justification and empirical evidence from other criminal justice contexts; however, the body of research on the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs, although promising, is relatively nascent.

scholarly journals Opioid Use Among Those Who Have Criminal Justice Experience: Harm Reduction Strategies to Lessen HIV Risk

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein ◽  
David Cloud ◽  
Ernest Drucker ◽  
Nickolas Zaller
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Hiv Risk ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Reduction Strategies

Foodservice employee substance abuse: is anyone getting the message?

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 810-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda Kitterlin ◽  
Lisa Moll ◽  
Gabriela Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Harm Reduction ◽  
Substance Abuse Prevention ◽  
Abuse Prevention ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
Prevention Measures ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Reduction Strategies ◽  
Workplace Substance Abuse ◽  
Foodservice Employees

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate foodservice industry employees’ experiences and perceptions related to substance abuse prevention measures in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative approach was used for this foundational study, and data collection occurred by conducting in-depth interviews with 30 foodservice employees. Findings – Participants reported that, in their perceptions, substance abuse prevention measures were virtually non-existent at their places of employment. The few participants that were aware of such policies indicated that they had never seen the policy actually enforced. Practical implications – The results of this exploratory study suggest that foodservice employees may not be receiving adequate messages about workplace substance abuse prevention policies nor are they developing an adequate awareness of such policies. Further, where such policies are in place, they may not being adequately enforced, implying negligent business practices. Failure to display a presence and communication of workplace substance abuse policies and prevention efforts for this potentially high-risk population is both organizationally and socially irresponsible. Suggestions for the implementation of such harm reduction strategies are also provided, as is a call for further research conducted in a quantifiable method to offer more generalizable results. Originality/value – No previous study has investigated employee awareness of substance abuse policies and prevention measures or harm reduction strategies in the foodservice workplace. This study provides a step toward understanding foodservice employee substance abuse and prevention that was previously lacking in the literature.

Are we good and are we safe? Measuring quality and assessing risk in an adult autism diagnostic service

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Jane Stansfield ◽  
Alwyn Kam ◽  
Tara Baddams ◽  
Bethany Woodrow ◽  
Emma Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Service User ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Service Development ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Diagnostic Service ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Adult Autism

Purpose Leeds autism diagnostic service is an adult autism diagnostic service for people of any intellectual ability which also offers consultancy to service users/carers or professionals, as well as a wide range of autism training. The service was set up as a pilot in 2011 and a paper describing the service development was published in this journal in November 2015. The purpose of this paper is to describe the approach taken to measure the quality of the service the authors provide and accurately assess risk in adults with autism. Design/methodology/approach The process of evaluating appropriate outcome measures is described, along with considering appropriate risk assessment tools for use in the community. Over 200 people each year complete the autism diagnostic pathway, and 164 patients were invited to respond to service evaluation questionnaires in 2014. Findings To date, the most useful outcome measures for this group include a prospective service user questionnaire which enables service user opinion to influence service development. In the absence of any appropriate autism-specific risk assessment tools, the service has developed one which it is currently piloting. This has proved particularly useful in the consultancy setting Originality/value This paper is a follow-up paper looking at the day-to-day issues that the team have had to grapple with – how do you assess whether what you are doing is providing the best possible service for the people that you serve and how do you accurately assess risk in this population?

scholarly journals Risk, Actuarialism, and Punishment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazel Kemshall
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Insurance Industry ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Risk Practices ◽  
High Crime

Risk is a pervasive feature of contemporary life, and has become a key feature of penal policy, systems of punishment, and criminal justice services across a number of the Anglophone jurisdictions. Risk as an approach to calculating the probability of “danger” or “hazard” has its roots in the mercantile trade of the 16th century, growing in significance over the intervening centuries until it pervades both the social and economic spheres of everyday life. Actuarialism, that is the method of statistically calculating and aggregating risk data, has similar roots, steeped in the probability calculations of the insurance industry with 20th-century extension into the arenas of social welfare and penality. Within criminal justice one of the first risk assessment tools was the parole predictor designed by Burgess in 1928. Since then we have seen a burgeoning of risk assessment tools and actuarial risk practices across the penal realm, although the extent to which penality is totally risk based is disputed. Claims for a New Penology centered on risk have been much debated, and empirical evidence would tend toward more cautious claims for such a significant paradigm shift. Prevention and responsibilization are often seen as core themes within risk-focused penality. Risk assessment is used not only to assess and predict future offending of current criminals, but also to enable early identification of future criminals, “high crime” areas, and those in need of early interventions. The ethics, accuracy, and moral justification for such preventive strategies have been extensively debated, with concerns expressed about negative and discriminatory profiling; net-widening; over targeting of minority groups especially for selective incarceration; and more recently criticisms of risk-based pre-emption or “pre-crime” targeting, particularly of ethnic minorities. Responsibilization refers to the techniques of actuarial practices used to make persons responsible for their own risk management, and for their own risk decisions throughout the life course. In respect of offenders this is best expressed through corrective programs focused on “right thinking” and re-moralizing offenders toward more desirable social ends. Those offenders who are “ripe for re-moralization” and who present a level of risk that can be managed within the community can avoid custody or extended sentencing. Those who are not, and who present the highest levels of risk, are justifiably selected for risk-based custodial sentences. Such decision-making not only requires high levels of predictive accuracy, but is also fraught with severe ethical challenges and moral choices, not least about the desired balance between risks, rights, and freedoms.

Comparison of two fall-risk assessment tools used in a long-term care facility

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-246
Author(s):  
Anat Glass ◽  
Gad Mendelson ◽  
Merav Ben Natan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Older Adult ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Fall Risk Assessment ◽  
Content Type

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to compare the ability of the Morse Fall Scale (MFS) and Farmer's fall-risk assessment tool (FFAT) to identify correlations between risk factors and falls among older adult long-term care (LTC) facility residents.Design/methodology/approachThis was a correlational retrospective study. 200 medical records of older adults hospitalized in a LTC facility in central Israel, from January 2017 to January 2018, were examined.FindingsOf all the residents, 75% and 99.5% of the residents were identified as having a high fall risk according to the MFS and FFAT, respectively. Only 12.5% of residents actually fell. MFS score was weakly correlated with actual falls (odds ratio = 1.035). It was also found that all fallers fell during their first week at the facility.Research limitations/implicationsFuture research should explore the ability of the tools to capture changes in the fall risk by repeat assessments, as this has not been examined in the present study.Practical implicationsThe MFS and FFAT tool may have little value in assessing fall risk in older adult LTC facility residents. Therefore, nurses should perform a clinical evaluation of each individual patient. In addition, nurses should place a particular emphasis on fall risk and prevention during the first week following admission.Originality/valueThe findings of the present study raise doubts regarding the utility of the common practice of assessing fall risk in older adult LTC facility residents using the tools MFS and the FFAT, thus emphasizing the need to adopt a different approach.

Risk assessment of online child abuse material (CAM) offenders: a review of existing tools

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Garrington ◽  
Peter Chamberlain ◽  
Debra Rickwood ◽  
Douglas P. Boer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
Sexual Offenders ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Dynamic Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Online Searches ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Child Abuse Material

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to summarise the available risk and assessment tools for child abuse material (CAM) offenders. Noting the rise of internet-based offences surrounding CAM, it has been proposed that there may be substantial differences between internet only (IO) offenders, contact only and mixed profile sexual offenders. Design/methodology/approach Through online searches, risk assessment tools for sexual offenders were identified. Scoring manuals were consulted for applicability to IO offenders. Findings Nine risk assessment tools for sexual offenders were included. Risk assessment tools for sexual offenders use cautionary language regarding the application of sexual offence risk assessment tools to IO offenders. An additional five tools were identified specifically addressing IO offenders. Three of these tools address risk assessment and two assess cognitions and behaviours. Research limitations/implications Limitations include the identification of static and dynamic risk factors and the application of structured professional judgement. Practical implications By drawing together existing tools and recommendations for use with the IO offender population, a gap is identified for CAM specific risk assessment tools. Originality/value Appropriate risk assessment, case planning and treatment will contribute to the appropriate management and treatment of the IO offender population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document