Violence Risk Assessment: Current Status And Contemporary Issues

Despite the increased use of violence risk assessment instruments in the criminal justice system, they remain the topic of continued discussion and debate. This Article will discuss the state of science and practice as it relates to assessing risk for violent recidivism, highlighting current issues of concern and empirical investigation. We first provide an overview of violence risk assessment and describe the role of violence risk assessments instruments in this process. We then discuss their current status in science and practice, including the accuracy with which violence risk assessment instruments forecast violent recidivism, their impact on criminal justice decisions, and their effectiveness as a strategy to reduce violent recidivism. Finally, we turn our attention to contemporary issues in violence risk assessment, including the notion of fairness and the potential benefits, as well as concerns related to the application of technological and statistical advances in violence risk assessment—most notably, artificial intelligence. We conclude that the use of violence risk assessment instruments represents the state-of-the-art approach, but that there remain critical avenues for continued research and discussion

Recommendations To Reduce Frequent Jail Contact

Although most jail admissions represent the only contact a person will have with the criminal legal system, there is a small group of people who experience more frequent jail contact and who represent a disproportionate number of both jail admissions and expenditures. People with frequent jail contact experience complex, interconnected social, economic, and behavioral health needs that may exacerbate (or be exacerbated by) their frequent jail contact. This group also experiences frequent contact with other services in the community, such as emergency rooms, homeless shelters, and treatment facilities. Strategies to implement services that meet complex needs and address structural barriers are critical to meaningfully and sustainably reduce system involvement among the population of people who experience frequent jail contact.Effective change for people with frequent jail contact must proceed simultaneously on a systemic, policy level and on the individual services level. The population discussed in this policy brief typically has complicated behavioral and medical health needs, extensive criminal legal encounters, and significant social deficits such as poverty, isolation, and elevated risk of being unhoused. Many of their needs can be addressed with intensive, person-centered treatment in a coordinated continuum of care

Drug and alcohol trajectories among adults with schizophrenia: Data from the CATIE study

The primary aim is to describe drug and alcohol trajectories in adults with schizophrenia

Jail-to-community treatment continuum for adults with co-occurring substance use and mental disorders: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background Adults with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders (CODs) are overrepresented in jails. In-custody barriers to treatment, including a lack of evidence-based treatment options and the often short periods of incarceration, and limited communication between jails and community-based treatment agencies that can hinder immediate enrollment into community care once released have contributed to a cycle of limited treatment engagement, unaddressed criminogenic risks, and (re)arrest among this vulnerable and high-risk population. This paper describes a study that will develop research and communication protocols and adapt two evidence-based treatments, dual-diagnosis motivational interviewing (DDMI) and integrated group therapy (IGT), for delivery to adults with CODs across a jail-to-community treatment continuum. Methods/design Adaptations to DDMI and IGT were guided by the Risk-Need-Responsivity model and the National Institute of Corrections’ implementation competencies; the development of the implementation framework and communication protocols were guided by the Evidence-Based Interagency Implementation Model for community corrections and the Inter-organizational Relationship model, respectively. Implementation and evaluation of the protocols and adapted interventions will occur via an open trial and a pilot randomized trial. The clinical intervention consists of two in-jail DDMI sessions and 12 in-community IGT sessions. Twelve adults with CODs and four clinicians will participate in the open trial to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of, and fidelity to, the interventions and research and communication protocols. The pilot controlled trial will be conducted with 60 inmates who will be randomized to either DDMI-IGT or treatment as usual. A baseline assessment will be conducted in jail, and four community-based assessments will be conducted during a 6-month follow-up period. Implementation, clinical, public health, and treatment preference outcomes will be evaluated. Discussion Findings have the potential to improve both jail- and community-based treatment services for adults with CODs as well as inform methods for conducting rigorous pilot implementation and evaluation research in correctional settings and as inmates re-enter the community. Findings will contribute to a growing area of work focused on interrupting the cycle of limited treatment engagement, unaddressed criminogenic risks, and (re)arrest among adults with CODs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02214667 . Registered on 10 August 2014

The motivations for the adoption of management innovation by local governments and its performance effects

This article analyses the economic, political and institutional antecedents and performance effects of the adoption of shared Senior Management Teams (SMTs) – a management innovation (MI) that occurs when a team of senior managers oversees two or more public organizations. Findings from statistical analysis of 201 English local governments and interviews with organizational leaders reveal that shared SMTs are adopted to develop organisational capacity in resource‐challenged, politically risk‐averse governments, and in response to coercive and mimetic institutional pressures. Importantly, sharing SMTs may reduce rather than enhance efficiency and effectiveness due to redundancy costs and the political transaction costs associated with diverting resources away from a high‐performing partner to support their lower‐performing counterpart

Violence Risk Assessment: Current Status And Contemporary Issues

Despite the increased use of violence risk assessment instruments in the criminal justice system, they remain the topic of continued discussion and debate. This Article will discuss the state of science and practice as it relates to assessing risk for violent recidivism, highlighting current issues of concern and empirical investigation. We first provide an overview of violence risk assessment and describe the role of violence risk assessments instruments in this process. We then discuss their current status in science and practice, including the accuracy with which violence risk assessment instruments forecast violent recidivism, their impact on criminal justice decisions, and their effectiveness as a strategy to reduce violent recidivism. Finally, we turn our attention to contemporary issues in violence risk assessment, including the notion of fairness and the potential benefits, as well as concerns related to the application of technological and statistical advances in violence risk assessment—most notably, artificial intelligence. We conclude that the use of violence risk assessment instruments represents the state-of-the-art approach, but that there remain critical avenues for continued research and discussion