No description available.

No description available.

Adolescent offenders commit a significant number of physical and sexual assaults every year. A critical task for researchers and clinicians is to understand the distinct pathways that lead to these serious types of offending. The current study attempts to test the importance of these different pathways by comparing violent, violent sex, non-violent sex, and non-violent offenders based on SAVRY risk items, reoffending, and effects of treatment. A sample of 517 adolescents on probation was assessed for several risk factors (i.e., anger management, ADHD, low empathy/remorse) by probation officers. Recidivism over 12 months was assessed from official records. Results indicated that after controlling for race, groups differed on several risk factors, with significant differences noted between violent and non-violent sex offenders for anger management and attention deficit/hyperactivity problems, as well as violent sex offenders and all other offenders for low empathy/remorse. In comparison to non-violent offenders, violent offenders had more any re-offense and violent re-offense. While risk factors partially predicted the relationship between offender and recidivism, treatment did not moderate this relationship.

Att göra bedömningar av risk för våld hos frihetsberövade personer på fängelser och i olika former av tvångsvård är en viktig del av arbetet med att reducera antalet våldsincidenter, vilket är till nytta både för frihetsberövade personer och för personalens arbetsmiljö. Syftet med denna studie är att göra en kunskapsöversikt över vad forskningen säger om att bedöma risk för våld hos frihetsberövade personer, beskriva aktuell forskning om riskbedömningar, hur strukturerade instrument för riskbedömningar definierar våld, vilka teoretiska utgångspunkter till uppkomst av våld som används och i vilken utsträckning riskbedömningsinstrument tar hänsyn till interaktion mellan personal och frihetsberövade personer. Studien genomförs igenom en litteraturstudie med en innehållsanalys av forskning på området utifrån frågeställningarna i syftet. Sökorden är ”inmate”, ”inpatient”, ”violence”, ”risk”, ”assessment”, ”juvenile” och ”youth”. Reslutatet av studien visar att det finns ett flertal instrument som som forskningen visar har god validitet och även inter-bedömarreliabilitet för att bedöma risk för våld, nämligen Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC), Historical-Clinical-Risk management-20(HCR-20), Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Agression (DASA) och Structured Assessment of Violencerisk in Youth(SAVRY). Utöver detta finns även några bedömningsinstrument som använder enbart statiska variabler för att bedöma risk för våld hos frihetsberövade, även kallade aktuariska modeller. Forskning visar generellt att föränderliga, dynamiska variabler som snabbare förändras har starkare prediktiv validitet för att bedöma risk för våld hos frihetsberövade på kort sikt, än historiska och statiska data. BVC och DASA tar större hänsyn till interaktionen mellan frihetsberövad och personal för att bedöma risk än HCR-20 och SAVRY, som inte är primärt konstruerade för att bedöma risk för våld i ett omedelbart kort perspektiv. Resultatet diskuteras utifrån studiens styrkor och svagheter och etiska problem med att bedöma risk för våld hos frihetsberövade. Syftet med olika typer av frihetsberövande och olika kategorier frihetsberövade personer som har olika behov, gör att resultaten inte utan reflektion kan överföras från en grupp till en annan. Etiska överväganden blir aktuella utifrån att informationen som framkommer vid en riskbedömning kan leda till repressiva interventioner, och att detta långt ifrån alltid är något önskvärt. / Assessing risk for violence among incarcerated people in prisons, in inpatient settings and otherwise, is an important part of the work aimed at reducing the number of violent encounters in these settings. Reducing violence is beneficial for both incarcerated persons and for the staffs work environment. The purpose of this thesis is to make a review of research of how to assess risk for violence among incarcerated people in different settings, describe research about the assessment methods, how these methods define ‘violence’ and what theoretical explanations to violence that are used. Furthermore, what level of consideration for the interaction between staff and incarcerated people is taken when assessing risk for violence. The thesis is performed by searching for, and analyzing written material with the questions asked in the purpose of the study. The following words are used for search in databases: “inmate”, “inpatient”, “violence”, “risk”, “assessment”, “juvenile” and “youth”. The findings in the study gives that there are models for assessing violence, with research-proven validity and mostly also interrater-reliability, namely: Brøset Violence Checklist (BVC), Historical-Clinical-Risk management-20(HCR-20), Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression (DASA) and Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Aside from these findings there are also some models using only static variables to assess risk for violence among incarcerated, also known as “actuarial” models. Generally, the research shows that more dynamic variables that are prone to change, has stronger validity in predicting violence among incarcerated than historical, static data. The BVC and the DASA takes greater consideration to interaction between staff and incarcerated than the HCR-20 and the SAVRY, that is not primarily constructed to assess risk for violence in forensic/caregiving settings in the immediate short term. The result is discussed on basis of the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis, as well as ethical problems with assessing risk for violence among people that have been deprived of their freedom. The purpose of different kinds of incarcerations and different categories of incarcerated people that have different needs, may cause need for the results to be carefully considered- What does apply in one setting may not be true in another. From an ethical point of view, it is to be taken into consideration how the information from violence risk assessments is used, since punitive and repressing interventions often is far from desired.

Research supports interventions for high-risk juvenile offenders to reduce recidivism. Methods for assessing delinquent risk vary, however. Aggregate risk scores (i.e. number of risk factors) and specific risk profiles (i.e. types of risk factors) are both empirically supported techniques. This study compared aggregate scores versus profiles for predicting measures of criminal severity among detained adolescents (n=292). Twenty-four risk factors from the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) were summed to calculate aggregate scores. Using latent class analysis (LCA), profiles were identified based on scores from the following theoretically important SAVRY risk factors: Risk Taking/Impulsivity, Anger Management Problems, Low Empathy/Remorse (CU traits), and Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Difficulties. LCA identified one low-risk profile, plus two high-risk profiles differentiated by levels of CU traits. Aggregate scores significantly predicted four out of six criminal severity indicators, while profiles failed to predict any measures. Results support aggregate scores over profiles for assessing delinquent severity.