Violence risk assessment of Sovereign Citizens: An exploratory examination of the HCR-20 Version 3 and the TRAP-18.

Sovereign Citizens comprise an understudied right-wing extremist movement in the United States who have grown in notoriety in recent years due to several high-profile instances of violence. Despite this, little empirical research has been conducted on Sovereign Citizens, including research on assessing their risk for violence. In this study, we sought to replicate and extend a prior study on Sovereign Citizen violence. Using open-source data, we added several new cases to a pre-existing dataset of violent and non-violent Sovereign Citizen incidents, yielding a total sample of 107 cases, 69 of which were scored using the HCR-20V3 , and 83 of which were scored using the TRAP-18. Our findings indicated that higher scores on both instruments were significantly associated with greater odds of cases being violent. We also observed that several risk factors occurred with significantly more frequency among violent cases than non-violent ones. Implications for future research and professional practice are discussed.

Interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity of the risk for sexual violence protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This study empirically evaluated risk judgments made using the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP; Hart et al., 2003), a widely used set of structured professional guidelines for assessing and managing sexual violence risk. HYPOTHESIS: Based on evaluations of other structured professional judgment guidelines, we hypothesized that judgments made using the RSVP would demonstrate good interrater reliability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity. METHOD: Based on file review, research assistants made ratings using the RSVP and two commonly used actuarial tools for sexual violence risk assessment in a sample of 100 adult male sexual offenders who successfully completed a community-based sex offender treatment program. Recidivism information was obtained from official records 10 years after treatment completion. RESULTS: With respect to interrater reliability, judgments of the presence and relevance of individual risk factors ranged from moderate to almost perfect, and those for composite scores reflecting the sum of these ratings were almost perfect. Interrater reliability for integrative summary risk ratings was substantial to almost perfect. Regarding concurrent validity, the findings indicated that judgments made using the RSVP had moderate to large and statistically significant correlations with scores on the actuarial tools. Finally, with respect to predictive validity, RSVP presence total scores and summary risk ratings were predictive of new sexual violence over the follow-up, and the magnitude of their predictive validity effect sizes was similar to that of scores on the actuarial tools. CONCLUSIONS: The findings supported the potential utility of the RSVP in practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Impact of risk assessment instruments on rates of pretrial detention, postconviction placements, and release: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Many agencies use risk assessment instruments to guide decisions about pretrial detention, postconviction incarceration, and release from custody. Although some policymakers believe that these tools might reduce overincarceration and recidivism rates, others are concerned that they may exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities in placements. The objective of this systematic review was to test these assertions. HYPOTHESES: It was hypothesized that the adoption of tools might slightly decrease incarceration rates, and that impact on disparities might vary by tool and context. METHOD: Published and unpublished studies were identified by searching 13 databases, reviewing reference lists, and contacting experts. In total, 22 studies met inclusion criteria; these studies included 1,444,499 adolescents and adults who were accused or convicted of a crime. Each study was coded by 2 independent raters using a data extraction form and a risk of bias tool. Results were aggregated using both a narrative approach and meta-analyses. RESULTS: The adoption of tools was associated with (a) small overall decreases in restrictive placements (aggregated odds ratio [OR] = 0.63, p < .001), particularly for individuals who were low risk and (b) small reductions in any recidivism (OR = 0.85, p = .020). However, after removing studies with a high risk of bias, the results were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk assessment tools might help to reduce restrictive placements, the strength of this evidence is low. Furthermore, because of a lack of research, it is unclear how tools impact racial and ethnic disparities in placements. As such, future research is needed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).