The importance of staff training for the application of recidivism risk assessments of the convicted

Abstract

Uvod: Procena rizika recidivizma utiče na koncipiranje programa penalne rehabilitacije, bezbednost osoblja, drugih osuđenih, osoba koje posećuju zatvor, kao i društvene zajednice u koju se prestupnik najčešće vraća. Iako su razvojem instrumenata procene rizika recidivizma napravljeni veliki pomaci u odnosu na kliničku procenu, oni imaju određene manjkavosti, a primenom najboljih instrumenata, pod uslovom da procenu vrši obučen službenik, može se očekivati tačnost od oko 70%. Cilj: Cilj ovog rada je analiza dostupnih istraživanja, te isticanje značaja obuke osoblja za primenu instrumenata procene rizika recidivizma koji su u upotrebi sa zatvorskom populacijom. Metode: Za potrebe uvida u relevantne naučne izvore, korišćena je pretraga elektronskih bibliografskih baza: KOBSON, Google Scholar, ResearchGate. Rezultati: Analizom dostupnih radova utvrđeno je da je obuka ključna za uspešnu primenu dinamičkih instrumenata, te da je u direktnoj vezi sa pitanjem pouzdanosti procene. Pored početne, periodično treba vršiti i dodatne obuke osoblja, jer kontinuirana obuka smanjuje mogućnost da subjektivni stavovi imaju uticaj na procenu. Takođe, kontinuirana obuka omogućava da svi zaposleni na isti način razumeju kriterijume za procenu i da poseduju veštine za dosledno korišćenje instrumenta. Međutim, u praksi se neretko dešava da obuka osoblja izostane, te se sprovodi samo kada se u korektivnu praksu uvodi novi instrument. Posledica ovakve prakse je da pouzdanost opada, što doprinosi manjem poverenju u procenu. Rezultati istraživanja ukazuju da određen broj praktičara izražava sumnju u pouzdanost instrumenata. Razlog za to je činjenica da praktičari različito koriste instrument, jer nisu završili početnu ili dodatnu obuku i ne proverava se da li se instrument koristi na odgovarajući način. Tako se greške u proceni samo multiplikuju.Zaključak: Sve navedeno ukazuje na značaj početne i periodične dodatne obuke osoblja. Takođe, na osnovu rezultata istraživanja zaključuje se da, ukoliko izostane adekvatna obuka osoblja, upotreba dinamičkih instrumenata se ne preporučuje.ntroduction: Recidivism risk assessment affects the design of penal rehabilitation programs, staff safety, other convicts, persons visiting the prison, as well as the social community to which the offender most often returns. Although the development of recidivism risk assessment instruments has made great progress compared to clinical assessment, they have certain shortcomings, and by applying the best instruments, provided that the assessment is performed by a trained officer, an accuracy of around 70% can be expected. Aim: The aim of this paper is to analyze the available research, and highlight the importance of staff training for the application of recidivism risk assessment instruments which are used on prison population. Methods: For the purpose of gaining an insight into relevant scientific sources, the following electronic bibliographical data bases were searched: KOBSON, Google Scholar, ResearchGate. Results: The analysis of the available papers found that training is key to the successful application of dynamic instruments, and that it is directly related to the issue of assessment reliability. In addition to the initial training, additional staff training should be carried out periodically, because continuous training reduces the possibility that subjective attitudes have an impact on the assessment. Also, continuous training allows all employees to understand the assessment criteria in the same way and to have the skills to use the instrument consistently. However, in practice, it often happens that staff training is missing, and it is carried out only when a new instrument is introduced into the corrective practice. The consequence of this practice is that reliability decreases, which contributes to less confidence in the assessment. The research results indicate that a certain number of practitioners express doubts about the reliability of the instruments. The reason for this is the fact that practitioners use the instrument differently, because they have not completed initial or additional training and it is not checked whether the instrument is used in an appropriate way. Thus, errors in assessment only multiply. Conclusion: All of the above points to the importance of initial and periodic additional training of staff. Also, based on the results of the research, it is concluded that if there is no adequate training of the staff, the use of dynamic instruments is not recommended