There is a widely held belief that the use of administrative segregation (AS) produces debilitating psychological effects; however, there are also those who assert that AS is an effective strategy for reducing prison antisocial behavior and prison violence. Given these conflicting opinions it is not surprising that the use of segregation in corrections has become a hotly debated and litigated issue. To clarify the competing perspectives, two independent meta-analytic reviews, in an unplanned systematic replication, were undertaken to determine what effect AS has on inmate's physical and mental health functioning, as well as behavioral outcomes (e.g., recidivism). Collectively, the findings from these two meta-analytic reviews indicated that the adverse effects resulting from AS on overlapping outcomes ranged from d ϭ 0.06 -0.55 (i.e., small to moderate) for the time periods observed by the included studies. Moderator analyses from both investigations further reveal considerably smaller effect sizes among studies with stronger research designs compared to those with weaker designs. These results do not support the popular contention that AS is responsible for producing lasting emotional damage, nor do they indicate that AS is an effective suppressor of unwanted antisocial or criminal behavior. Rather, these findings tentatively suggest that AS may not produce any more of an iatrogenic effect than routine incarceration. Coding for these meta-analyses also revealed serious methodological gaps in the current literature. Recommendations for future research that will provide a much better understanding of the effects of AS are offered.

Jerome Singh and colleagues present the ethical and legal challenges surrounding the enrollment of adolescents in HIV observational studies and other types of sensitive research.

The following study is an evaluation of the Moderate Intensity Family Violence Prevention Program (MIFVPP). The sample consisted of 298 male federal offenders who participated in the MIFVPP while incarcerated or on release within the community. Participants were assessed pre-, mid-, and postprogram using an assessment battery consisting of self-report questionnaires and facilitator-rated evaluation scales. Results of the study found uniform and significant (p < .001) improvement for pre and post program change in the self-report questionnaires and in the facilitator ratings. A positive improvement in motivation, whether assessed by the participant or facilitator, was associated with improvement in program outcomes and significant within, between, and interaction effects were found when participant program performance over time was compared among grouped postprogram ratings of motivation. The implication for the efficacy of addressing offender motivation to change in intimate partner violence (IPV) interventions is discussed.

Although experts recommend regularly reassessing adolescents' risk for violence, it is unclear whether reassessment improves predictions. Thus, in this prospective study, the authors tested 3 hypotheses as to why reassessment might improve predictions, namely the shelf-life, dynamic change, and familiarity hypotheses. Research assistants (RAs) rated youth on the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) every 3 months over a 1-year period, conducting 624 risk assessments with 156 youth on probation. The authors then examined charges for violence and any offense over a 2-year follow-up period, and youths' self-reports of reoffending. Contrary to the shelf-life hypothesis, predictions did not decline or expire over time. Instead, time-dependent area under the curve scores remained consistent across the follow-up period. Contrary to the dynamic change hypothesis, changes in youth's risk total scores, compared to what is average for that youth, did not predict changes in reoffending. Finally, contrary to the familiarity hypothesis, reassessments were no more predictive than initial assessments, despite RAs' increased familiarity with youth. Before drawing conclusions, researchers should evaluate the extent to which youth receiving the usual probation services show meaningful short-term changes in risk and, if so, whether risk assessment tools are sensitive to these changes. Public Significance StatementIn this study, two adolescent risk assessment tools predicted reoffending among adolescent offenders. However, despite recommendations to reassess risk regularly, short-term reassessments did not improve predictions, suggesting a need for further research.

Although many adolescent risk assessment tools include an emphasis on dynamic factors, little research has examined the extent to which these tools are capable of measuring change. In this article, we outline a framework to evaluate a tool’s capacity to measure change. This framework includes the following: (a) measurement error and reliable change, and (b) sensitivity (i.e., internal, external, and relative sensitivity). We then used this framework to evaluate the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Research assistants conducted 509 risk assessments with 146 adolescents on probation (101 male, 45 female), who were assessed every 3 months over a 1-year period. Internal sensitivity (i.e., change over time) was partially supported in that a modest proportion of youth showed reliable changes over the 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. External sensitivity (i.e., the association between change scores and reoffending) was also partially supported. In particular, 22% of the associations between change scores and any and violent reoffending were significant at a 6-month follow-up. However, only 1 change score (i.e., peer associations) remained significant after the Bonferroni correction was applied. Finally, relative sensitivity was not supported, as the SAVRY and YLS/CMI was not more dynamic than the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). Specifically, the 1-year rank-order stability coefficients for the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, and PCL:YV Total Scores were .78, .75, and .76, respectively. Although the SAVRY and YLS/CMI hold promise, further efforts may help to enhance sensitivity to short-term changes in risk.

This study is an evaluation of pre-postprogram change associated with the High Intensity Family Violence Prevention Program (HIFVPP) for incarcerated male offenders who are perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). The sample consists of 159 male offenders who participated in the HIFVPP while incarcerated. Participants were assessed pre-, mid-, and postprogram using an assessment battery consisting of self-report questionnaires and facilitator-rated evaluation scales. Results found uniform and significant (p < .001) improvement for pre- and postprogram change in the self-report questionnaires and in the facilitator ratings. A positive improvement in motivation, whether assessed by the participant or facilitator, was associated with improvement in program outcomes and significant within, between, and interaction effects were found when participant program performance over time was compared among grouped postprogram ratings of motivation. The implication for the efficacy of addressing offender motivation to change in IPV interventions is discussed.

Although the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J-SOAP-II) and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) include an emphasis on dynamic, or modifiable factors, there has been little research on dynamic changes on these tools. To help address this gap, we compared admission and discharge scores of 163 adolescents who attended a residential, cognitive-behavioral treatment program for sexual offending. Based on reliable change indices, one half of youth showed a reliable decrease on the J-SOAP-II Dynamic Risk Total Score and one third of youth showed a reliable decrease on the SAVRY Dynamic Risk Total Score. Contrary to expectations, decreases in risk factors and increases in protective factors did not predict reduced sexual, violent nonsexual, or any reoffending. In addition, no associations were found between scores on the Psychopathy Checklist:Youth Version and levels of change. Overall, the J-SOAP-II and the SAVRY hold promise in measuring change, but further research is needed.

The Violence Risk Appraisal Guide-Revised (VRAG-R) was developed to replace the original VRAG based on an updated and larger sample with an extended follow-up period. Using a sample of 120 adult male correctional offenders, the current study examined the interrater reliability and predictive and comparative validity of the VRAG-R to the VRAG, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, the Statistical Information on Recidivism-Revised, and the Two-Tiered Violence Risk Estimate over a follow-up period of up to 22 years postrelease. The VRAG-R achieved moderate levels of predictive validity for both general and violent recidivism that was sustained over time as evidenced by time-dependent area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Further, moderate predictive validity was evident when the Antisociality item was both removed and then subsequently replaced with a substitute measure of antisociality. Results of the individual item analyses for the VRAG and VRAG-R revealed that only a small number of items are significant predictors of violent recidivism. The results of this study have implications for the application of the VRAG-R to the assessment of violent recidivism among correctional offenders. (PsycINFO Database Record