Evaluation of a Violence Risk (Threat) Assessment Training Program for Police and Other Criminal Justice Professionals

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 554-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer E. Storey ◽  
Andrea L. Gibas ◽  
Kim A. Reeves ◽  
Stephen D. Hart

Although a great deal of research has focused on the development and validation of violence risk (threat) assessment instruments, few studies have examined whether professionals can be trained to use these instruments. The present study evaluated the impact of a violence risk assessment training program on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of 73 criminal justice professionals, including police officers, civilian support staff, and prosecutors. The program covered principles of violence risk assessment, the nature of mental disorder and its association with violence risk, and the use of various structured professional judgment (SPJ) risk assessment instruments. Comparisons of pre- and post-training evaluations indicated significant improvements on measures of knowledge about risk assessment, skills in the analysis of risk in a case vignette, and perceived confidence in conducting violence risk assessments. Findings support the utility of risk assessment training for criminal justice professionals and the utility of SPJ violence risk assessment instruments generally.

Author(s):  
John Monahan

This chapter presents an historical account of the emergence of violence risk assessment as a central issue in what were portrayed as reforms of the mental health and criminal justice systems in the 1970s. The author traces his own involvement in the nascent field of psychology and law to his writing the first comprehensive review of research on the validity of violence risk assessment. The chapter then details the major theoretical, empirical, and policy strides that characterized violence risk assessment as it matured over the next several decades. The author concludes by reflecting on several issues whose resolution has proved elusive.


Author(s):  
Daniel C. Murrie ◽  
Sharon Kelley

Although concerns about violence risk emerge regularly in routine clinical practice, many clinicians feel underprepared to assess and manage violence risk. One problem is that the rich knowledge base underlying violence risk assessment has largely remained in the specialties of forensic psychology and psychiatry, where it has been less familiar to clinicians in general practice. In this chapter we review the legal and ethical parameters that guide clinician appraisals of violence risk, and then we summarize the foundational knowledge and techniques—from both the forensic psychology approach and the emerging field of threat assessment. By integrating basic knowledge and practices from these specialized disciplines, clinicians can more comfortably incorporate violence risk assessment and management into their routine care for patients, better infuse risk assessment into the start of treatment, monitor risk over the course of treatment, and respond appropriately to any threats of violence that emerge.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
N. Nedopil

A clear structured approach to violence risk assessment that is both, evidence-based and gender specific- is high on the political and mental health agendas. The individual risk of perpetrators depends on several parameters that are incorporated into assessment instruments. Most data about risk factors included in risk assessment instruments were derived only on male offenders.This study is part of Germany's biggest risk assessment study, -the Munich Prognosis project (MPP) - and focuses on factors included in risk assessment instruments associated with criminal and violent recidivism in a sample of male and female delinquents referred for forensic-psychiatric evaluation prior sentencing. The predictive validity of four instruments (HCR 20, ILRV, VRAG and PCL-R) for violent and general repeat offenses was analyzed.When comparing the predictive validity of the four instruments for male offenders, the results were in favor of the PCL-R, i.e. PCL-R Factor 2 when focusing on violent recidivism.For female offenders ROC analysis found superior results of the HCR 20-R items (AUC .793 p< .05), the ILRV D variables (AUC .814), p< .05) and the VRAG (AUC .864, p< .05) for violent recidivism. They were in favor of the PCL-R Factor 1 (AUC .666, p< .05) when focusing on general recidivism.The importance of gender specific violence risk assessment will be discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-47
Author(s):  
Stephane Shepherd

Violence risk assessment instruments are widely utilised in Australian medico-legal settings to help estimate an individual’s level of risk for future violence or offending. This introductory Brief discusses the extant cross-cultural research on risk instruments and the current applicability of the instruments to Australian Indigenous people.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
pp. 134-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Douglas ◽  
J. Pugh ◽  
I. Singh ◽  
J. Savulescu ◽  
S. Fazel

AbstractViolence risk assessment tools are increasingly used within criminal justice and forensic psychiatry, however there is little relevant, reliable and unbiased data regarding their predictive accuracy. We argue that such data are needed to (i) prevent excessive reliance on risk assessment scores, (ii) allow matching of different risk assessment tools to different contexts of application, (iii) protect against problematic forms of discrimination and stigmatisation, and (iv) ensure that contentious demographic variables are not prematurely removed from risk assessment tools.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document