Search

There has been an increasing interest in cross-cultural risk assessment over the past 5 years. Much of this has been driven by concerns that particular risk instruments may be biased against, or ill-suited to, non-White offending populations. A growing body of work has asserted that unique cultural-specific risk factors and experiences may not be adequately considered within current risk assessment frameworks which have led to calls to culturally alter/remodel risk instruments. While recognising the importance of generalizable risk instruments, this article outlines a number of realities that cross-cultural risk assessment researchers must contend with before embarking on projects to alter instruments. With specific regard to structured professional judgement risk instruments, the article notes that efforts to culturally amend instruments, could paradoxically reduce accuracy and increase bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Violence risk instruments are widely employed with at-risk minority clients in correctional and forensic mental health settings. However, the construction and subsequent validation of such instruments rarely, if at all, incorporate the perceptions, worldviews, life experiences, and belief systems of non-white communities. This study utilized a culturally informed qualitative approach to address the cross-cultural disparities in the forensic risk literature. Cultural perspectives on violence risk assessment were elicited from a sample of 30 American Indian and First Nations professionals from health, legal, and pedagogical sectors following an inspection of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth instrument. Generally, participants believed that the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth instrument was not culturally appropriate for use with American Indian and First Nations youth in its current form. Recurrent themes of concern included the instrument's negative labeling capacity, lack of cultural contextualization, individualized focus, and absence of cultural norms and practices. Recommendations to improve the cross-cultural applicability of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth are discussed within. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study sought to ascertain the prevalence of protective factors and association with client risk level and future offending in a sample of 177 Australian youth in detention. The Protective Domain on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) instrument was utilized to identify protective items in the cohort. The mean number of protective factors for the entire sample was low (under two) with higher risk clients averaging less than one current protective item. Although the number of protective factors engendered criminal desistance, this effect did not extend to the highest risk young offenders. Clients who re-offended were significantly less likely to present with five out of the six SAVRY protective items. In addition, pro-social involvement and school engagement had the strongest associations with non re-offense. Clinical implications for client risk management are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article outlines the current utility of Indigenous culturally specific risk factors for violence and the ramifications for cross-cultural risk prediction. The Indigenous culturally specific violence risk factor literature has provided a rich body of contextual information outlining Indigenous patterns of criminal behaviour. This information has the capacity to facilitate offender responsivity and treatment targets in addition to assisting clinicians identify the presence of risk markers among Indigenous clients. However, if intended for inclusion in risk prediction models, culturally specific risk items then require further quantitative analysis to establish robust associations and probability estimates for recidivistic outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Violence risk assessment assumes a critical medico-legal role addressing offender/patient needs and informing forensic mental health decision making. Yet questions remain over the cross-cultural applicability of such measures. In their current form, violence risk instruments may not reflect the unique life and cultural experiences of Indigenous Australians rendering them culturally unsafe.Conclusions: To realize equitable forensic assessment, it is necessary to ascertain whether there are cultural differences across risk factors for violence and that risk instruments are validated as culturally appropriate. Greater cross-cultural rigour in forensic mental health risk assessment, research and practice is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]