Search

There is emerging recognition that positive or pro-social characteristics may lessen criminal propensity. There are now several adult and youth forensic instruments that include protective or strength components. Yet evidence supporting the protective capacities of these instruments with youth offending populations is still developing. This study aimed to identity the prevalence of strength items on the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory tool, and their relationships with risk and re-offending for a cohort of 212 multi-cultural Australian juveniles in custody. The prevalence of strengths in the sample was low, and differed by cultural group. Young people who possessed a strength yielded lower instrument total and domain scores and were more likely to be afforded a lower level of risk compared to youth without a strength. Moreover, youth who possessed a strength were significantly more likely to desist from re-offending. This association remained after controlling for level of risk. Findings point to the importance of strengths when assessing a young person’s risk for re-offending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic mental health practitioners are frequently asked to estimate the risk of future violence. Legal decisions concerning the sentencing, management and disposition of offenders often rely on the advice of such testimony. The burgeoning use of violence risk instruments in these settings undoubtedly injects a level of scientific rigour into forensic evaluations for courts and tribunals. Yet scrutiny of the inherent limitations of both risk instruments and the inferences and formulations drawn from them are often veiled by the discipline's endorsement for such approaches. Misconceptions about the validity and dependability of present-day risk assessments and expert infallibility persist. The furtive influences that shape both the (mis)interpretation and miscommunication of risk instruments in legal settings necessitate discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

Few studies have explored the cross-cultural utility of youth violence risk instruments. Moreover both the discrimination and calibration performance indicators of such instruments are rarely investigated. This study aimed to address both gaps in the literature by exploring the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI instrument for an Australian multi-ethnic cohort of young offenders in custody. The YLS/CMI total score was able to discriminate between re-offenders and non-reoffenders for the overall sample; however, a breakdown across ethnicity showed only strong effects for Australian English Speaking Background youth. Despite an inability to distinguish re-offenders from non-reoffenders for both Culturally and Linguistically Diverse and Indigenous youth, the instrument was able to accurately predict recidivism for high-risk youth for all ethnic groups. Findings highlight the importance of adopting both calibration and discrimination indicators when assessing predictive validity. [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]