Most violence risk assessment tools have been validated predominantly in males. In this multicenter study, the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 (HCR-20), Historical, Clinical, Risk Management–20 Version 3 (HCR-20V3), Female Additional Manual (FAM), Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START), Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF), and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) were coded on file information of 78 female forensic psychiatric patients discharged between 1993 and 2012 with a mean follow-up period of 11.8 years from one of four Dutch forensic psychiatric hospitals. Notable was the high rate of mortality (17.9%) and readmission to psychiatric settings (11.5%) after discharge. Official reconviction data could be retrieved from the Ministry of Justice and Security for 71 women. Twenty-four women (33.8%) were reconvicted after discharge, including 13 for violent offenses (18.3%). Overall, predictive validity was moderate for all types of recidivism, but low for violence. The START Vulnerability scores, HCR-20V3, and FAM showed the highest predictive accuracy for all recidivism. With respect to violent recidivism, only the START Vulnerability scores and the Clinical scale of the HCR-20V3 demonstrated significant predictive accuracy.
MULTIFILE
Risk assessment plays an important role in forensic mental health care. The way the conclusions of those risk assessments are communicated varies considerably across instruments. In an effort to make them more comparable, Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R., Kroner, D. D., Amora, D. A., Thomas, S. S., & Tavarez, L. P. [2017. A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. The Council of State Governments Justice Center. https:// csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/A-Five-Level-Risk-and-Needs-system_Report.pdf] developed the Five-Level Risk and Needs System, placing the conclusions of different instruments along five theoretically meaningful levels. The current study explores a Five-Level Risk and Needs system for violent recidivism to which the numerical codings of the HCR-20 Version 2 and its successor, the HCR-20V3 are calibrated, using a combined sample from six previous studies for the HCR-20 Version 2 (n = 411 males with a violent index offence) and a pilot sample for the HCR-20V3 (n = 66 males with a violent index offence). Baselines for the five levels were defined by a combination of theoretical (e.g. expert meetings) and empirical (e.g. literature review) considerations. The calibration of the HCR-20 Version 2 was able to detect four levels, from a combined level I/II to an adjusted level V. The provisional calibration of the HCR-20V3 showed a substantial overlap with the HCR-20 Version 2, with each level boundary having a 2-point difference. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.
DOCUMENT
The increased use of instruments for assessing risks and needs in probation should lead to intervention plans that meet the criteria for effective practice. An analysis of 300 intervention plans from the Dutch probation service showed that the match between the assessed criminogenic needs and the goals and interventions in the intervention plan is fairly low. It was also found that the so-called risk principle is not fully applied by probation officers. In addition, personal goals that the offender values are often not taken fully into account. Finally, the intervention plans have a strong focus on improving human capital, while improving social capital and basic needs often is not part of the intervention plans, even if they were assessed as dynamic criminogenic needs.
DOCUMENT
