Search

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]

Violence risk assessment tools are used around the world with people who have committed crimes to determine the risk factors that may have contributed to their offending. These tools can carry great consequences for people's liberty. Violence risk assessment tools are also used with Indigenous people who are overrepresented in the Canadian justice system. A major issue with these risk assessment tools is that they do not use a colonial lens to understand the underlying mechanisms of violence. Using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) as an example, we examined how colonialism underlies risk and protective ratings. Colonialism increases the probability that Indigenous youth will be rated higher on some risk factors on the SAVRY. Novel interventions to reduce Indigenous overrepresentation include addressing the colonial factors behind violence risk and protective factors. Given that colonialism underlies scores on risk assessment tools, service providers need to link risk ratings to colonialism in their service formulations, carefully attend to culturally relevant factors, and provide interventions and support that specifically address colonialism. Suggestions for future research that include Indigenous community involvement are also provided. A short case analysis, cultural formulation and treatment suggestions are provided as an illustration. [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]

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]