Search

Violence risk instruments are used in numerous countries to estimate an individual's risk of reoffending. The racial fairness of violence risk instruments has received increasing attention due to ostensible differences among Anglo populations and racial minorities (e.g. African Americans and Indigenous populations). Fairness, which has numerous definitions (sensitivity fairness, error rate balance, calibration, predictive parity, statistical parity), can affect a risk instrument's utility in varying ways. This literature review explored how notions of fairness are discussed in the risk instrument literature with a specific focus on racial fairness. It also examined and critiqued the varying proposed resolutions to increase fairness. Many of these forms of fairness were found to be rarely satisfied in the literature. Further, the complications in achieving multiple forms of fairness simultaneously and the challenges of optimising both fairness and accuracy are discussed. Last, proposed solutions to increase racial fairness were often found to encompass significant limitations. Future directions for racial fairness in risk instruments are discussed, with a focus on exploring the trade-offs among varying fairness definitions and among fairness and accuracy. [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]

Violence risk instruments are administered in medico-legal contexts to estimate an individual’s likelihood of future violence. However, their ostensible limitations; in particular their mono-cultural and risk-centric composition, has drawn academic attention. These concerns may facilitate erroneous risk evaluations for certain non-white populations. Yet it remains unaddressed how cultural differences will be appraised in a risk assessment framework and which specific cultural factors should be considered. Provisions under the Canadian Criminal Code allow forGladueReports, to be sought by judicial officers prior to sentencing Indigenous people.GladueReports provide insights into an Indigenous person’s unique circumstances that may have led to their offending as well as community-based options for rehabilitation. We proffer that there may be value in augmenting the risk evaluation with culturally relevantGladuestyle considerations identified by relevant Indigenous people to provide a more holistic account of an Indigenous individual’s circumstances. [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]