Forensic psychological public safety risk assessment integrated with culturally responsive treatment for juvenile fire setters: DSM‐5 implications

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to present an overview of a variety of risk assessment issues that are of particular relevance for work with juvenile fire setters in clinical and forensic settings. The paper seeks to consider Juvenile Fire Setting (JFS)-Youthful Misuse of Fire (YMF) across a broad array of clinical domains, including developmental, prognostic, and the diagnostic utility anticipated by using the DSM-5. National standards and risk assessment levels are to be examined.Design/methodology/approach -The paper includes a comprehensive review of the research and practices related to juvenile fire setters. This review included assessment and intervention resources that are used in diverse practice environments. The authors reviewed the literature to establish a nexus between risk assessment and community-based interventions which were illustrated by a nationally recognized YMF mental health program (FATJAM).Findings -The paper provides empirically-based insights into key issues for working with these forensic cases. It offers discussion regarding diagnostic issues that are relevant to the DSM-5.Research limitations/implications -Because of the conceptual or theoretical approach used, the research basis for generalizations is restricted to the practice-based analyses provided by the authors. Therefore, practitioners and researchers are urged to further test the observations and conclusions presented.Originality/value -This paper is unique in that it increases the knowledge base related to the diagnostic applications with the DSM-5, as well as evidence-based interventions for JFS as it pertains to public safety.

Education and Training for Clinical Forensic Psychological Work with Juvenile Firesetting and Bomb Making

“…In this case, if the evaluated risk does not achieve the designated threshold, then the examiner has a basis for concluding that there is sufficient information to make a dispositional decision in the case. However, there is a caution to be weary of choosing a risk rating solely based on numbers alone because there is also a need to consider culturally responsive individual factors [24].…”

“…An empirically guided public safety risk assessment rating approach for JFSB Risk assessment has shown to be a useful gauge to examine the impact of risk-reducing interventions [26]. These threats do not only come from the act itself which is inherently dangerous, but also the threats to the future of the young person as a consequence of the information placed into the report [24]. The safety risks stemming from reoffending are distinguishable and represent a tipping point when compared against other clinical factors [26].…”

“…There is no universally recognized or strong guidance for making an informed public safety risk assessment for JFSB [24]. Risk assessment for JFSB behaviors encompasses more than the linear elements typically identified in traditional forensic psychological evaluations.…”

“…The risk assessment should be quantitatively data driven by the analyses of all the relevant information and concern, taking into consideration the qualitative importance of other factors from a public safety standpoint. The risk assessment method discussed here, while aimed at public safety, represents an early effort to highlight an empirically guided approach that is consistent with the theoretical framework of Forensic Assessment and Therapeutic Jurisprudence Assistance Model or FATJAM [24].…”

Towards a Forensic Psychological Evaluation of Juvenile Fire Setters: Parent Power

“…Consistent with the DSM-5, the JFS risk point to mental health factors as a major contributing variable probably best assessed across several disorders (APA, 2013). Nevertheless, most youth in the correctional system for fire setting do not collectively meet criteria for one most commonly represented DSM-5 mental disorder [10]. Although, forensically the rates for JFS compared to non-JFS are disproportionately higher for antisocial personality disorder [11].…”