Using the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) to Predict In-Prison Aggressive Behavior in a Swiss Offender Population

Abstract

The present study is a first-time evaluation of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide's (VRAG) predictive quality for institutional violence in a German-speaking country. The VRAG was assessed for 106 violent and sexual offenders based on their files. Violent infractions during imprisonment were evaluated using the files of the state penitentiary. Results show in accordance with previous studies only a moderate effect between VRAG scores and institutional misconduct. However, these findings were only significant for participants with a sex crime as index offense. In the study, the VRAG was unable to predict verbal and physical violence by violent offenders. The implications of these findings for institutional risk management and the future development of intramural detection of participants at risk in the German-speaking part of Europe are discussed.

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

“…Our results for the prevalence of misconduct are similar to those reported by several other studies of physically violent misconduct (Lahm, ; Wooldredge & Steiner, ), but the rates we found were much lower than those reported by previous studies carried out in Switzerland (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, et al, ; Endrass, Rossegger, Urbaniok, et al, ; Pont et al, ). This may be due to differences in situational factors, which have been shown to impact rates of physically violent misconduct by prisoners (Schenk & Fremouw, ; Welsh, Bader, & Evans, ) and/or to differences in methodology.…”

“…Studies in Spain (Arbach‐Lucioni, Martinez‐García, & Andrés‐Pueyo, ) and Taiwan (Kuo, Cuvelier, & Huang, ) reported similar US average rates of prisoner‐to‐prisoner physical violence (8%), but the Taiwan study showed a much higher rate of prisoner‐to‐prisoner psychological violence (21%). According to two studies based on records from a single Swiss prison, 28% of prisoners said they had been victims of prisoner‐to‐prisoner physical violence, 26% had been subject to verbal violence, and 15% had taken illegal drugs during their incarceration (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, Noll, & Urbaniok, ; Endrass, Rossegger, Urbaniok, Laubacher, & Vetter, ). More recently, a 1‐year survey of a Swiss pre‐sentencing prison found that 30% of inmates had reported being victims of prisoner‐to‐prisoner physical violence (Pont et al, ).…”

“…In contrast, according to a study conducted in a single Swiss prison, the only significant prediction produced by PCL‐R scores was between PCL‐R Factor 1 scores and verbal violence (Endrass, Rossegger, Urbaniok, et al, ), and a study in prisons in the southeastern United States found that PCL‐R scores did not predict any form of misconduct (Walters, Duncan, & Geyer, ). In the case of the VRAG, a study in a Swiss prison showed that VRAG scores moderately predicted both verbal and physical violence, but for sex offenders only (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, et al, ). Risk Assessment Scale for Prison (RASP) moderately predicted violent misconduct among a sample of almost 2,600 offenders serving prison sentences in Missouri (Cunningham et al, ) as well as in a larger sample of 24,514 close‐custody inmates in Florida but predicting all infractions or violent misconduct of various severity (Cunningham & Sorensen, ).…”

Current Obstacles in Replicating Risk Assessment Findings: A Systematic Review of Commonly Used Actuarial Instruments

“…Since the majority of the extracted investigations found a significant association with an outcome, the included studies are commonly interpreted as proof of the robustness of the VRAG, SORAG, and Static‐99 (e.g., Hastings, Krishnan, Tangney, & Stuewig, ; Kröner, Stadtland, Eidt, & Nedopil, ) though the purported replication investigations differed with respect to the follow‐up period (Quinsey, Book, & Skilling, ; Rettenberger, Matthes, Boer, & Eher, ), the composition of the study sample (Harris, Rice, & Cormier, ; Hastings et al, ; Snowden, Gray, & Taylor, ), and the definition of the outcome criterion (Endrass, Rossegger, Frischknecht, Noll, & Urbaniok, ; Harris & Rice, ; Harris et al, ; Hastings et al, ; Kroner & Mills, ; Lindsay et al, ; Loza, Villeneuve, & Loza‐Fanous, ; Storey, Watt, Jackson, & Hart, ). Deviations from the methodology used in the development study were interpreted as corroboration of model robustness (Harris & Rice, ; Harris et al, ).…”

Gewalt im Strafvollzug: Prävalenz, Erscheinungsformen und Risikofaktoren

“…Zwei aktuelle Untersuchungen aus der Schweiz konnten die Tendenz der Ergebnisse jedoch replizieren: Bei Gewalt-und Sexualstraftätern im Zürcher Strafvollzug (Strafanstalt Pöschwies) erwiesen sich die Psychopathie-Gheckliste und der VRAG als nicht oder nur sehr gering prädiktiv für physische Gewalt [5,19]. …”