Risk Assessment for Future Violence in Individuals from an Ethnic Minority Group

Abstract

Across several countries (including the UK and U.S.) people of black (African-Caribbean) origin are overrepresented in secure psychiatric services. Risk assessment instruments for predicting violence are often used, but their accuracy is not known for ethnic minority patients. We therefore aimed: 1) to test the accuracy of two leading instruments (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and HCR20 Risk Management Scheme) in patients from a black ethnic minority, and (2) to compare the levels of risk as defined by these instruments. Risk assessments were completed using only file information available at the time of discharge. Offending behavior postdischarge was obtained from official records with each patient being followed for at least 2 years. Both VRAG and HCR-20 were significant predictors of future violence for black patients, and had similar accuracy as when used on white patients. Risk assessment scores were slightly lower for black patients, but there were no significant differences in reconviction rates for either violent or general offences post discharge. The results provide an evidence base for the use of HCR-20 and VRAG as an accurate risk assessment instruments for black ethnic minority patients in the UK.

Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment in Community Health Facilities: A Multisite Longitudinal Study

“…Clearly, further research is needed to secure a sound evidence base for any specific female population (e.g., adolescent or young, disabled or mentally disordered). However, these results support the converging evidence indicating that the combination of a few out of several possible risk factors can be used to produce an effective prediction instrument and that these factors appear to cross most cultural boundaries (Snowden et al, 2010). Hence, while direct evidence is still needed, it would seem likely that this instrument will be effective in other Latin American countries.…”

“…Thus, an IPV risk assessment instrument, such as the RVD, could be utilised in safety planning, advocacy and counselling (Campbell, 2002b). As was pointed out in a previous validation study, this does not necessarily mean that these instruments will also be effective in any female population or that other instruments will also be effective in this group (Snowden, Gray, & Taylor, 2010). Clearly, further research is needed to secure a sound evidence base for any specific female population (e.g., adolescent or young, disabled or mentally disordered).…”

Assessing Risk in North Dakota Juvenile Probation: A Preliminary Examination of the Predictive Validity of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument

“…In addition to females, there remains a question of risk assessments’ predictive validity when applied to different racial and ethnic groups (Singh et al, 2011; Skeem et al, 2004; Snowden et al, 2010). However, for YASI specifically results have been similar across groups to whites for Aboriginals in Canada (Jones et al, 2016), as well as African American and Hispanic youth in New York (Orbis Partners, 2007).…”

“…Despite disproportionate representation of minority populations involved in the criminal justice system, little research has attempted to compare the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments across racial and ethnic populations. From the research that does exist, results are often mixed or contradictory (Singh et al, 2011; Skeem et al, 2004; Snowden et al, 2010).…”

Current Obstacles in Replicating Risk Assessment Findings: A Systematic Review of Commonly Used Actuarial Instruments

“…Since the majority of the extracted investigations found a significant association with an outcome, the included studies are commonly interpreted as proof of the robustness of the VRAG, SORAG, and Static‐99 (e.g., Hastings, Krishnan, Tangney, & Stuewig, ; Kröner, Stadtland, Eidt, & Nedopil, ) though the purported replication investigations differed with respect to the follow‐up period (Quinsey, Book, & Skilling, ; Rettenberger, Matthes, Boer, & Eher, ), the composition of the study sample (Harris, Rice, & Cormier, ; Hastings et al, ; Snowden, Gray, & Taylor, ), and the definition of the outcome criterion (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, Noll, & Urbaniok, ; Harris & Rice, ; Harris et al, ; Hastings et al, ; Kroner & Mills, ; Lindsay et al, ; Loza, Villeneuve, & Loza‐Fanous, ; Storey, Watt, Jackson, & Hart, ). Deviations from the methodology used in the development study were interpreted as corroboration of model robustness (Harris & Rice, ; Harris et al, ).…”