Forecasting Recidivism in Mentally Ill Offenders Released From Prison.

Abstract

Little research has focused on assessing the risk of mentally ill offenders (MIOs) released from state prisons. Here we report findings for 333 mentally ill offenders released from Washington State prisons. Logistic regression identified sets of variables that forecasted felony and violent reconviction as accurately as state-of-the-art risk assessment instruments. Sums of simple recoded versions of these variables predicted reoffense as well as complex logistic regression equations. Five of these 9 variables were found to be relative protective factors. Findings are discussed in terms of the value of stock correctional variables in forecasting risk, the need to base actuarial risk assessments on local data, the importance of protective factors in assessing MIO risk, and the need for dynamic, situational, and clinical variables that can further sharpen predictive accuracy of emergent risk in the community.

The Predictive Validity of Clinical Ratings of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START)

“…However, the extant literature still lacks a conceptual framework explaining why and how protective factors interact with or affect risk. Studies that have included protective factors have noted that determining whether a factor is considered a risk or strength depends largely on the researcher's intuition (e.g., Gagliardi, Lovell, Peterson, & Jemelka, 2004). How protective factors are defined and operationalized has not been standardized, leading researchers to define these variables in different ways.…”

Short‐Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): the case for a new structured professional judgment scheme

“…As Hanson and Harris (2000) explained, ''Dynamic risk factors are characteristics that can change, and when changed, result in a corresponding increase or decrease in recidivism risk'' (p. 7). While some scientific research suggests that dynamic factors can predict recidivism as well as or better than static factors (Gagliardi, Lovell, Peterson, & Jemelka, 2004;Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996;Gilgun, Klein, & Pranis, 2000), further research is required. Clearly, dynamic variables are particularly relevant in the immediate and short term and are expected to be good proximal indicators of future violence (McNiel et al, 2003).…”

“…The methodologies of existing studies have been unable to inform this issue. Gagliardi et al (2004) put it well in saying ''Unhappily, when clinical or dynamic factors have been compared with static factors in risk forecasting studies they have generally been assessed only once, which necessarily forces them to function like static variables in prediction equations'' (p. 150; also see Douglas & Skeem, 2005). Similarly, Gagliardi et al (2004), in discussing mentally ill offenders (MIOs), noted that no tool is yet available that ''truly satisfies the needs of clinical providers charged with treating MIOs in the community; namely the need to assess risk on a continuing basis over months or even years'' (p. 151).…”

“…Theoretical advances (Seligman & Steen, 2005), conceptual debates in forensic psychology and criminology (Andrews & Bonta, 2003;Ward & Stewart, 2003), critiques of current practice (see, e.g., Rogers, 2000), and growing empirical evidence (Gagliardi et al, 2004;Haggård et al, 2001;Hanson & Harris, 2000) demonstrate that state-of-the art risk assessment and management should include an examination of clients' strengths. Belfrage, Fransson, and Strand (2004) found no difference in risk scores despite a significant decrease in institutional violence, citing the need to consider protective factors.…”

Protective Factors for Violence Risk: The Value for Clinical Practice

“…Many researchers now agree that by focusing solely on risk factors, important information concerning the other side of the violence risk equation, the possible risk reducing effect of protective factors, is wrongfully ignored and that a balanced risk assessments including both risk-and protective factors is vital for an accurate appraisal of the risk of relapse into violence (e.g., DeMatteo, Heilbrun, & Marczyk, 2005;Gagliardi, Lovell, Peterson, & Jemelka, 2004;Haggård-Grann, 2005;Salekin & Lochman, 2008). However, as of yet the specific assessment of protective factors remains understudied and the concept of protective factors is still ambiguous (Braithwaite, Charrette, Crocker, & Reyes, 2010;De Vogel, De Ruiter, Bouman, & De Vries Robbé, 2011).…”