Policing Hate Crime: Exploring the Issue with a Cohort of Sworn Police Officers

Globally, there has been a trend in rising levels of hate crime that scholars have argued is reflective of significant social problems within society. Research into hate crime has typically focused on the police and their subsequent response to this crime type, with many findings reporting that the police are racist, homophobic and Islamophobic, to name but a few. However, existing research seldom captures the insights and experiences of sworn police officers, as much of the data is gathered from third parties. This paper presents the empirical findings from a Delphi study conducted with one police force in Australia, sampling sworn New South Wales (NSW) police officers between October 2020 and October 2021. The findings focus on four overarching areas: defining hate crime, perpetrators of hate crime, victims of hate crime, and responses to hate crime. These themes capture the perspectives of NSW police officers in relation to operational and organisational practice in respect of hate crime. Drawing on a Delphi method, the research outlines police perceptions of the nature of hate crime, as well as capturing how hate crime can be effectively reported, recorded, and responded to. Conclusions and implications are considered. These include the requirement for a clearer definition and targeted education strategies aimed at improving knowledge and understanding relating to hate crime. Future directions include the development of a standardised approach to reporting, recording, and responding to hate crime

First insights into post-pandemic distress in a high secure hospital: Correlates among staff and patients

This preliminary study is designed to gauge the enduring psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on both patients and staff in a high secure settings. The study involved 31 patients and 34 staff from a high secure setting, who completed assessments to discern the link between COVID-19-related distress and various factors. These evaluations focused on coping strategies, resilience, emotional reactivity, ward atmosphere, and work-related aspects. Results indicated that 31.2% of staff met the clinical cut-off for potential PTSD due to COVID-19-related distress. Emotional reactivity, staff shortages, secondary traumatic stress, and coping strategies were positively correlated with distress, while resilience showed a negative association, suggesting a mitigating role. Notably, distress among patients was comparatively lower, with only 3.2% experiencing significant levels. The authors postulate that increased staff burdens during the pandemic may have led to long-term distress, while their efforts to maintain minimal service disruption potentially shielded patients from psychological impacts, possibly lead to staff 'problem-focused coping burnout'. This highlights the need for in-depth research on the enduring impacts of pandemics, focusing on mechanisms that intensify or alleviate distress. Future studies should focus on identifying effective coping strategies for crisis situations, such as staff shortages, and strategies for post-crisis staff support. Building on evidence of negative impacts on frontline workers and forensic inpatients during the pandemic, this study delved into the longer-term psychological repercussions that persisted post-pandemic. It sheds light on lasting distress levels and their correlates. These insights are crucial for formulating effective responses and strategies for future pandemics or analogous crises, highlighting the need for sustained support for staff grappling with long-term distress arising from such events

The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A Meta-analysis of its reliability and predictive validity

Although the inclusion of protective factors in risk assessment is believed to improve prediction, most risk assessment tools emphasize risk factors. One tool that attempts to balance risk factors with protective factors is the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF). The SAPROF focuses exclusively on protective factors and is used in conjunction with a structured risk assessment tool. It has received increasing attention from both researchers and forensic mental health practitioners in recent years. To assess its psychometric performance, we conducted a meta-analysis of validation studies using random effects models. Our final sample included 22 studies with 3,216 subjects from 12 countries. Overall, the SAPROF showed good interrater reliability and moderate to good predictive performance for desistance from violence in terms of institutional misconduct and community recidivism. The instrument also exhibited incremental validity when used in conjunction with the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20). Despite these promising results, this meta-analysis also uncovered several shortcomings in current research on the SAPROF. Studies did not report data on calibration, thus failing to capture the full picture of the SAPROF’s predictive performance. Moreover, risk of bias across studies was high and findings are mostly restricted to male samples. Directions for future research and recommendations for the use of the SAPROF are offered

Risk and protective factors in risk assessment: Predicting inpatient aggression in adult males detained in a forensic mental health setting

Background: Structured clinical risk assessments represent a preferred means of assessing levels of aggression risk at different times and in different individuals. Increasing attention has been given to capturing protective factors, with sound risk assessment critical to high-secure forensic mental health care. Aim: To assess the predictive value of the HCR-20v3 for aggression risk and the long-term care version of the SAPROF (the SAPROF-LC-pilot) in a high-secure forensic mental health inpatient population. To determine the incremental value of protective over risk factors. Method: Participants were adult males detained in a high secure forensic mental health service, with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia and/or personality disorder. The focus was on examining hospital based aggression (self- and other-directed) at two time points; up to six months (T1) and between seven and 12 months (T2). Results: The HCR-20V3 and SAPROF-LC-pilot demonstrated good predictive validity but with variability across subscales and aggression types/periods. Historical factors of the HCR-20V3 and External factors of the SAPROF-LC-pilot failed to predict, aside from a medium effect at T1 for verbal aggression and self-harm, for Historical factors. There was evidence for protective factors adding to prediction over risk factors alone, with the integration of protective and risk factors into a risk judgement particularly helpful in improving prediction accuracy. Conclusions: Protective factors contribute to risk estimates and particularly if integrated with risk factors. Combining risk and protective factors has clear predictive advantages, ensuring that protective factors are not supplementary but important to the aggression assessment process