Commentary: Risk Assessment in the Age of Evidence-Based Practice and Policy

Using the VERA-2R, professional and organisational aspects

Introduction

Violent extremism risk assessments of individuals suspected or convicted of terrorism are relevant for legal decisions, in prison and probation settings, and in inter-professional risk collaboration. These risk assessment reports by professionals should be applicable to and usable for the different judicial contexts. Informal and formal clinical practice evaluations, in the form of practitioners feedback and standardised evaluation of professional violent extremism risk reports are needed to gain insight in the use and quality of violent extremism risk assessments.

Methods

In this study we examined how forensic professionals from three different countries (Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands) use the VERA-2R in different judicial contexts. We also investigated which organizational aspects are important for the use of the VERA-2R. We focused on the perspective of the forensic professionals and their judicial organisations. We did a standardised survey among 86 VERA-2R trained professionals and a standardised interview with 20 executives and managers of organizations working with the VERA-2R.

Results

This study showed that professionals find the VERA-2R useful for structuring information and speaking a common risk language. However, using the VERA-2R comes with a variety of challenges, both on the professional and organisational level. VERA-2R trained professionals had few opportunities to use the instrument and when they did, they were not always offered regular supervision, intervision and booster training. Also, organisational issues in collaboration between judicial partner organisations and the lack of risk transfer information to professionals came to light.

Discussion

More research on the topic of risk transfer is needed. Policy implications are advised, for example the development of booster trainings, more organizational support, regulations on re-assessments, providing expertise and knowledge to indirect stakeholders and clear writing guidelines.

Principles and practices of risk assessment in mental health jail diversion programs

Eligibility criteria for participation in mental health jail diversion programs often specify that, to be diverted, a candidate must not pose a level of threat to public safety that cannot be managed in the community. Risk assessment tools were developed to increase consistency and accuracy in estimates of threat to public safety. Consequently, risk assessment tools are being used in many jurisdictions to inform decisions regarding an individual's appropriateness and eligibility for mental health jail diversion and the strategies that may be successful in mitigating risk in this context. However, their use is not without controversy. Questions have been raised regarding the validity and equity of their estimates, as well as the impact of their use on criminal justice outcomes. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the science and practice of risk assessment to inform decisions and case planning in the context of mental health jail diversion programs. Our specific aims include: (1) to describe the process and components of risk assessment, including differentiating between different approaches to risk assessment, and (2) to consider the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs. We anchor this review in relevant theory and extant research, noting current controversies or debates and areas for future research. Overall, there is strong theoretical justification and empirical evidence from other criminal justice contexts; however, the body of research on the use of risk assessment tools in mental health jail diversion programs, although promising, is relatively nascent.

Methodological limitations in the measurement and statistical modeling of violence among adults with mental illness

OBJECTIVES

Methodological limitations of extant research hinder the development of effective violence risk screening, assessment, and management strategies for adults with mental illness. This study quantifies the effects of three common limitations: (a) insensitive measurement of violence that results in violence classification with high levels of information bias, (b) use of cross-sectional data, and (c) use of data lacking spatiotemporal contiguity.

METHODS

We utilize secondary data (N = 3,000 participants; N = 10,017 observations) and parametric and nonparametric bootstrap simulation methodologies.

RESULTS

Not utilizing self-reported violence data increases information bias. Furthermore, cross-sectional data that exclude self-reported violence produce biased associations between substance use and psychiatric symptoms and violence. Associations between baseline variables and subsequent violence attenuate over longer time lags and, when paired with high levels of violence information bias, result in fewer significant effects than should be present. Moreover, the true direction of the simulated relationship of some significant effects is reversed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the validity of conclusions from some extant research on violence among adults with mental illness should be questioned. Efforts are needed to improve both the measurement of violence, through inclusion of self-report, and the statistical modeling of violence, using lagged rather than nonlagged models with improved spatiotemporal contiguity.