Search

Bausmių vykdymo sistemoje nusikalstamo elgesio rizikos vertinimas padeda individualizuoti resocializacijos procesą, priimti sprendimus dėl kalinimo sąlygų ir nuteistojo lygtinio paleidimo į laisvę. Rizikos vertinimo instrumentai, tokie kaip START:AV, leidžia ne tik nustatyti rizikos lygį, bet ir efektyviai planuoti korekcines intervencijas. Rizikos ir apsauginiai veiksniai, kurių analize yra paremti rizikos vertinimo instrumentai, skiriasi – priklauso nuo amžiaus, todėl yra atskiri instrumentai, skirti paaugliams ir suaugusiesiems. Perėjimas iš paauglystės į suaugusiojo amžių neįvyksta sulig 18-uoju gimtadieniu, todėl vis labiau akcentuojama, kad bausmių vykdymo ypatumai, taikomi nepilnamečiams, turėtų būti pratęsti iki 24 metų amžiaus. Tyrimo tikslas – įvertinti paaugliams skirto START:AV psichometrines charakteristikas ir konvergentinį validumą 18–23 metų amžiaus nuteistųjų vyrų, atliekančių laisvės atėmimo bausmę, imtyje. Tyrime dalyvavo 99 jaunuoliai, bausmę atliekantys keturiuose Lietuvos kalėjimuose. Neigiamos tarpusavio koreliacijos tarp START:AV stiprybių ir sunkumų atitinka kitų tyrimų rezultatus ir patvirtina prielaidą, kad jie yra susiję, tačiau ne tapatūs konstruktai. START:AV konvergentiniam validumui patikrinti buvo naudojamas Achenbacho empiriškai pagrįsto vertinimo sistemos ASEBA paties suaugusiojo pildomas klausimynas (ASR). Nustatytos reikšmingos koreliacijos tarp START:AV vertinimų ir ASR adaptyvaus funkcionavimo, internalių ir eksternalių sunkumų. Gauti rezultatai rodo, kad START:AV gali būti tinkamas laisvės atėmimo bausmę atliekančių 18–23 metų vyrų neigiamų pasekmių rizikai vertinti. Siekiant pagrįsti START:AV praktinį naudingumą, būtų reikalingi prognostinio validumo tyrimai jaunų suaugusiųjų imtyje.

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a risk assessment instrument for adolescents that estimates the risk of multiple adverse outcomes. Prior research into its predictive validity is limited to a handful of studies conducted with the START:AV pilot version and often by the instrument's developers. The present study examines the START:AV's field validity in a secure youth care sample in the Netherlands. Using a prospective design, we investigated whether the total scores, lifetime history, and the final risk judgments of 106 START:AVs predicted inpatient incidents during a 4-month follow-up. Final risk judgments and lifetime history predicted multiple adverse outcomes, including physical aggression, institutional violations, substance use, self-injury, and victimization. The predictive validity of the total scores was significant only for physical aggression and institutional violations. Hence, the short-term predictive validity of the START:AV for inpatient incidents in a residential youth care setting was partially demonstrated and the START:AV final risk judgments can be used to guide treatment planning and decision-making regarding furlough or discharge in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk assessment instruments are widely used to predict risk of adverse outcomes, such as violence or victimization, and to allocate resources for managing these risks among individuals involved in criminal justice and forensic mental health services. For risk assessment instruments to reach their full potential, they must be implemented with fidelity. A lack of information on administration fidelity hinders transparency about the implementation quality, as well as the interpretation of negative or inconclusive findings from predictive validity studies. The present study focuses on adherence, a dimension of fidelity. Adherence denotes the extent to which the risk assessment is completed according to the instrument's guidelines. We developed an adherence measure, tailored to the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV), an evidence-based risk assessment instrument for adolescents. With the START:AV Adherence Rating Scale, we explored the degree to which 11 key features of the instrument were adhered to in 306 START:AVs forms, completed by 17 different evaluators in a Dutch residential youth care facility over a two-year period. Good to excellent interrater reliability was found for all adherence items. We identified differences in adherence scores on the various START:AV features, as well as significant improvement in adherence for those who attended a START:AV refresher workshop. Outcomes of risk assessment instruments potentially impact decision-making, for example, whether a youth's secure placement should be extended. Therefore, we recommend fidelity monitoring to ensure the risk assessment practice was delivered as intended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An effective implementation approach is crucial for successful integration of structured risk assessment instruments into practice. This qualitative study explored barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) in a Dutch residential youth care service. Perceptions of staff members from various disciplines were gathered through focus group interviews at three consecutive occasions. After inductive coding of the interview extracts using thematic analysis, the identified codes were linked to the consolidated framework for implementation research. Through this framework, factors that influence an implementation project can be organized into multiple domains and constructs. In the present study, staff members described implementation barriers related to characteristics of the risk assessment instrument, staff, and the implementation process. In addition, features of the setting were frequently mentioned as hindering the implementation, such as hierarchy, culture, communication, as well as implementation climate and readiness for change. Staff members also identified multiple facilitators, such as experienced advantages of the START:AV compared to the previous risk assessment practice and positive beliefs about the instrument. The article concludes with recommendations for successful implementation of structured risk assessment instruments in forensic-clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historical approaches to violence risk assessment emphasized prediction of future violence and focused on static or historical risk factors. Consideration of dynamic factors as part of a comprehensive violence risk assessment approach may allow practitioners to better tailor treatment and risk management strategies. Limited research exists on whether risk assessment instruments can detect change in dynamic factors over time. The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a relatively new risk assessment instrument that considers both Vulnerabilities and Strengths on factors that are purportedly dynamic in nature. This study examined changes in START:AV factors between initial and follow-up assessments conducted approximately three months later as part of a pilot implementation at three juvenile justice residential facilities in a Southern state. Overall, findings revealed significant item-level changes on several factors, as well as reliable changes in total scores for 28% (reliable change index; 95% confidence interval) of adolescents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though considerable research has examined the validity of risk assessment tools in predicting adverse outcomes in justice-involved adolescents, the extent to which risk assessments are translated into risk management strategies and, importantly, the association between this link and adverse outcomes has gone largely unexamined. To address these shortcomings, the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model was used to examine associations between identified strengths and vulnerabilities, interventions, and institutional outcomes for justice-involved youth. Data were collected from risk assessments completed using the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) for 120 adolescent offenders (96 boys and 24 girls). Interventions and outcomes were extracted from institutional records. Mixed evidence of adherence to RNR principles was found. Accordant to the risk principle, adolescent offenders judged to have more strengths had more strength-based interventions in their service plans, though adolescent offenders with more vulnerabilities did not have more interventions targeting their vulnerabilities. With respect to the need and responsivity principles, vulnerabilities and strengths identified as particularly relevant to the individual youth's risk of adverse outcomes were addressed in the service plans about half and a quarter of the time, respectively. Greater adherence to the risk and need principles was found to predict significantly the likelihood of externalizing outcomes. Findings suggest some gaps between risk assessment and risk management and highlight the potential usefulness of strength-based approaches to intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to establish gaps in training, involve staff in the implementation process by incorporating their views on what is helpful and what can be improved, as well as provide information that might be helpful to other sites who are considering implementing the START:AV. Design/methodology/approach – The current study is the first to examine a START:AV implementation and survey a multi-disciplinary team on their views about implementation in a medium secure service for adolescents in the UK. The survey was adapted from the one used by Collins et al. (2008). Once surveys were received the qualitative information was collated to explore themes, and frequency analysis was undertaken on the quantitative information. Findings – The staff survey on the implementation of the START:AV highlighted a number of strengths and challenges. There was significant support for the START:AV in relation to it being a dynamic assessment to measure change, that focuses equally on strengths and vulnerabilities, making the process individualised. Users of the START:AV reported that the process of rating the START:AV as a team improved communication, teamwork, generated discussion and improved the detailed understanding of the patient being rated. Staff felt it was generally straightforward to use in terms of strengths and vulnerability ratings, but some difficulties emerged regarding making finer distinctions in ratings as well as completing risk formulations, highlighting further training needs. There was also some confusion about differentiating between certain strengths and vulnerabilities, leading to “double ratings”. Other difficulties highlighted centred on time and increasing workload. Research limitations/implications – The main limitation of the study relates to the low response rate to the survey (31 per cent). Practical implications – Recommendations for implementation and evaluation of new risk assessment procedures are made. Originality/value – The current study is the first to examine a START:AV implementation and survey a multi-disciplinary team on their views about implementation in a medium secure service for adolescents in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a new structured professional judgment guide for assessing short-term risks in adolescents. The scheme may be distinguished from other youth risk assessment and treatment planning instruments by its inclusion of 23 dynamic factors that are each rated for both vulnerability and strength. In addition, START:AV is also unique in that it focuses on multiple adverse outcomes—namely, violence, self-harm, suicide, unauthorized leave, substance abuse, self-neglect, victimization, and general offending—over the short-term (i.e., weeks to months) rather than long-term (i.e., years). This article describes a pilot implementation and preliminary evaluation of START:AV in three secure juvenile correctional facilities in the southern United States. Specifically, we examined the descriptive characteristics and psychometric properties of START:AV assessments completed by 21 case managers on 291 adolescent offenders (250 boys and 41 girls) at the time of admission. Results provide preliminary support for the feasibility of completing START:AV assessments as part of routine practice. Findings also highlight differences in the characteristics of START:AV assessments for boys and girls and differential associations between the eight START:AV risk domains. Though results are promising, further research is needed to establish the reliability and validity of START:AV assessments completed in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]