Abstracts
Résumé
Objectifs Cet article propose un survol des méthodes et outils d’évaluation du risque de violence hétérodirigée et aborde la question de la formulation du risque de violence. Il se termine par un survol des différents enjeux relatifs au développement et à l’implantation de ces outils.
Méthode Une analyse critique de la littérature relative aux différentes méthodes et enjeux récents liés à l’évaluation du risque de violence hétérodirigée de clientèles judiciarisées est proposée.
Résultats L’évaluation du risque est au coeur des décisions relatives à la prise en charge des auteurs d’infractions qui ont des problèmes de santé mentale. Elle déterminera le niveau de surveillance et d’encadrement, le plan d’intervention, de même que l’accès aux mesures d’élargissement de la peine ou des conditions de détention en milieu hospitalier. Les méthodes et outils utilisés pour renseigner les professionnels de la santé et de la sécurité publiques sont nombreux. Ces outils ont beaucoup évolué, tant en ce qui concerne les thèmes considérés, que les méthodes d’évaluation, les stratégies combinatoires ayant une plus grande sensibilité aux enjeux liés aux victimes de violence et les moyens permettant une meilleure communication du risque de violence. Outre une meilleure compréhension de l’interface entre les facteurs de risque et de protection, des efforts devront être maintenant déployés afin de bonifier les connaissances à propos de l’exercice de formulation du risque. Cette étape invitera de plus en plus le professionnel à aller au-delà de la description de ce qui est déjà connu de l’individu et à dégager des énoncés concis sur la nature et l’étiologie de la violence. La formulation de risque devrait permettre d’améliorer la compréhension de la dynamique délictuelle de l’individu en permettant d’intégrer à la fois des facteurs de risque et facteurs de protection et planifier des scénarios de violence future qui faciliteraient, à leur tour, l’identification de stratégies de gestion du risque plus efficaces.
Conclusion Si l’évaluation structurée du risque et des besoins des auteurs d’infractions qui ont des problèmes de santé mentale est de plus en plus pratique courante chez les professionnels, plusieurs enjeux d’ordre méthodologique et d’implantation dans différents milieux de pratique demeurent. Malgré le fait que ces enjeux méritent une discussion plus approfondie basée sur plus des données empiriques, leur contribution au plan de la réduction du risque de violence et du travail menant à une réintégration sociale réussie des personnes évaluées est indéniable.
Mots-clés :
- évaluation du risque,
- jugement professionnel structuré,
- formulation du risque,
- violence hétérodirigée,
- problèmes de santé mentale
Abstract
Objectives This article provides an overview of the approaches and instruments used to assess the risk of other-directed violence, with particular focus on risk formulation. Issues pertaining to the development and implementation of these instruments are briefly reviewed.
Method A critical analysis of the literature pertaining to the methods and current issues related to risk assessment of other-directed violence is proposed.
Results Violence risk assessment instruments are used to manage offenders struggling with mental health issues. They help inform decisions regarding monitoring, supervision, treatment and sentencing in correctional and forensic mental health settings. There are different approaches to violence risk assessment and numerous instruments offered to professionals working in these settings. Considering the structured professional judgement (SPJ) tools, they have considerably evolved in the last years with regard to the types of violence and the methods used to assess and manage risk. Examples of these innovations include taking into consideration victim safety planning and strategies to facilitate risk communication such as scenario planning based on an explanatory framework informed by risk formulation. Risk formulation is a relatively new step in the administration SPJ tools, and invites users to go beyond documenting the presence and relevance of specific risk factors by allowing them to consider the nature and the etiology of violence in an individualized manner. Risk formulation integrates both relevant risk and protective factors that facilitate the process of scenario planning and the identification of successful risk management strategies.
Conclusion Although structured approaches to violence risk assessment of offenders struggling with mental health issues have become more and more frequent in many settings, some methodological and implementation issues still have to be tackled. In spite that these issues warrant further discussion based on new empirical data, their contribution to risk reduction and to the success of social rehabilitation of the individuals at the centre of these assessments is undeniable.
Keywords:
- risk assessment,
- structured professional judgement,
- risk formulation,
- other-directed violence,
- mental-health issues
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Aegisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., … et Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project : Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341-382.
- Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. et Wormith, S. J. (2000). Level of service/case management inventory : LS/CMI. Multi-Health Systems.
- Augimeri, L. K., Koegl, C. J., Levene, K. S. et Webster, C. D. (2005). Early Assessment Risk Lists for Boys and Girls. In T. Grisso, G. Vincent et D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 295-310). The Guilford Press.
- Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R. et Webster, C. D. (1997). Manual for the sexual violence risk-20 : Professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Mental Health, Law, & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
- Boer, D. P., Hart, S. D., Kropp, P. R. et Webster, C. D. (2017). Manual for version 2 of the sexual violence risk-20 : Structured professional judgment guidelines for assessing and managing risk of sexual violence. Protect International Risk and Safety Services Inc.
- Borum, R. et Verhaagen, D. (2006). Assessing and managing violence risk in juveniles. Guilford Press.
- Borum, R., Bartel, P. et Forth, A. (2006). Manual for the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Psychological Assessment Resources.
- Chu, C. M., Thomas, S. D., Ogloff, J. R. et Daffern, M. (2013). The short-to medium-term predictive accuracy of static and dynamic risk assessment measures in a secure forensic hospital. Assessment, 20(2), 230-241.
- Coupland R. (2015). An examination of dynamic risk, protective factors, and treatment-related change in violent offenders [unpublished dissertation]. Saskatoon (SK) : University of Saskatchewan.
- Desmarais, S. L., Nicholls, T. L., Wilson, C. M. et Brink, J. (2012). Using dynamic risk and protective factors to predict inpatient aggression : reliability and validity of START assessments. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 685.
- de Vogel, V., de Vries Robbé, M., van Kalmthout, W. et Place, C. (2014). FemaleAdditional Manual (FAM) : Additional Guidelines to the HCR-20v3 for assessing risk for violence in women. Van der Hoeven Kliniek.
- de Vries Robbé, M., de Vogel, V. et de Spa, E. (2011). Protective factors for violence risk in forensic psychiatric patients : A retrospective validation study of the SAPROF. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10(3), 178-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2011.600232
- de Vries Robbé, M., de Vogel, V. et Douglas, K. S. (2013). Risk factors and protective factors : A two-sided dynamic approach to violence risk assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24(4), 440-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2013.818162
- Dickens, G. L., O’Shea, L. E. et Christensen, M. (2020). Structured assessments for imminent aggression in mental health and correctional settings : Systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103526
- Douglas, K. S. et Reeves, K. A. (2010). Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) Violence Risk Assessment Scheme : Rationale, application, and empirical overview. In R. K. Otto & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), International perspectives on forensic mental health. Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 147-185). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
- Douglas, K. S., Hart, D. S., Webster, C. D., Belfrage, H., Guy, L. S., Wilson, M. W. (2014). Historical-clinical-risk management-20, version 3 (HCR-20V3) : development and overview. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13(2), 93-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2014.906519
- Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D. et Belgrage, H. (2013). HCR-20v3, Évaluation du risque de violence, Guide de l’utilisateur. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
- Ennis, B.J. & Litwack, T.R. (1974). Psychiatry and the presumption of expertise : flipping a coin in the courtyard. California Law Review,62,693-752.
- Farrell, C., Petersen, K. L., Nicholls, T. L. et Ronald Roesch (2020). Assessing the confidence-accuracy relationship in risk assessments using the START : Introducing calibration analysis. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 31(6), 982-1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2020.1814845
- Fazel, S., Hayes, A. J., Bartellas, K., Clerici, M. et Trestman, R. (2016). Mental health of prisoners : prevalence, adverse outcomes, and interventions. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(9), 871-881.
- Fortune, C. A. et Ward, T. (2017). Problems in protective factor research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.008
- Guay, J. P. (2016). L’évaluation du risque et des besoins criminogènes à la lumière des données probantes : Une étude de validation de la version française de l’inventaire de niveau de service et de gestion des cas–LS/CMI. European Review of Applied Psychology, 66(4), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2016.04.003
- Guay, J. P., Parent, G. et Benbouriche, M. (2020). Disentangling Promotive and Buffering Protection : Exploring the Interface Between Risk and Protective Factors in Recidivism of Adult Convicted Males. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(11), 1468-1486.
- Guy, L. S., Douglas, K. S. et Hart, S. D. (2015). Risk assessment and communication. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbooks in APA handbook of forensic psychology, Vol. 1. Individual and situational influences in criminal and civil contexts (pp. 35-86). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14461-003
- Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T. et Helmus, L. (2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision : The Dynamic Supervision Project (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-05). Ottawa, ON : Public Safety Canada. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/crp2007-05-en.pdf
- Hanson, R. K. et Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism : An updated meta-analysis 2004-02. Ottawa, Ontario : Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
- Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, 2nd edition. Multi-Health Systems.
- Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E. et Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent Recidivism of Mentally Disordered Offenders : The Development of a Statistical Prediction Instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(4), 315-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854893020004001
- Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L. et Cormier, C. A. (2015). Violent offenders : Appraising and managing risk, 3rd ed. American Psychological Association.
- Hart, S. D. et Logan, C. (2011). Formulation of violence risk using evidence-based assessments : The structured professional judgment approach. In P. Sturmey et M. McMurran (Eds.), Forensic case formulation (pp. 83-106). Wiley-Blackwell.
- Hart, S. D., Douglas, K. S. et Guy, L. S. (2016). The structured professional judgment approach to violence risk assessment : Origins, nature, and advances. In D. P. Boer (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook on the Theories, Assessment and Treatment of Sexual Offending (pp. 643-666). Wiley.
- Hart, S. D., Kropp P. R., Laws, D. R., Klaver, J., Logan, C. et Watt, K. A. (2003). The risk for sexual violence protocol (RSVP) : Structured professional guidelines for assessing risk of sexual violence. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University.
- Hart, S., Sturmey, P., Logan, C. et McMurran, M. (2011). Forensic case formulation. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10(2), 118-126.
- Heffernan, R. et Ward, T. (2020). Dynamic Risk Factors for Sexual Offending : Causal Considerations. Springer.
- Heffernan, R., Wegerhoff, D. et Ward, T. (2019). Dynamic risk factors : conceptualization, measurement, and evidence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 6-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.06.004
- Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T. et Rice, M. E. (2010). The law and public policy : Psychology and the social sciences. Risk assessment for domestically violent men : Tools for criminal justice, offender intervention, and victim services. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12066-000
- Hollis M. E., Downey S., del Carmen A. et Dobbs R. R. (2017) The relationship between media portrayals and crime : perceptions of fear of crime among citizens. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 19, 46-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30142-0.
- Johnstone, L. et Dallos, R. (2013). Introduction to formulation. In L. Johnstone et R. Dallos, Formulation in psychology and psychotherapy (pp. 21-37). Routledge.
- Judges, R., Egan, V. et Broad, G. (2016). A critique of the historical clinical risk—20, version 3, risk assessment instrument. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16(4), 304-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1196102
- Kropp, P. R. et Hart, S. D. (2015). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide Version 3 (SARA-V3). ProActive ReSolutions Inc.
- Logan, C. (2017a). Formulation for forensic practitioners. In R. Roesch & A. N. Cook (Eds.), Handbook of forensic mental health services (pp. 153-178). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627823-6
- Logan, C. (2017b). Forensic Case Formulation for Violence and Aggression. In P. Sturmey (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Violence and Aggression (pp. 1-12). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057574.whbva083
- McGinty, E. E., Kennedy-Hendricks, A., Choksy, S. et Barry, C. L. (2016). Trends In News Media Coverage Of Mental Illness In The United States : 1995-2014. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 35(6), 1121-1129. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0011
- Mooney, R. et Sebalo, I. (2019). Violence risk assessment. In J. L. Ireland, C. A. Ireland et P. Birch (Eds.), Violent and sexual offenders : Assessment, treatment and management (pp. 3-17). Routledge.
- Müller-Isberner, R., Born, P., Eucker, S. et Eusterschulte, B. (2017). Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in Forensic Mental Health Services. In R. Roesch et A. N. Cook (Eds.). Handbook of forensic mental health services (pp. 443-469). Routledge.
- Ogloff, J. R. et Daffern, M. (2006). The dynamic appraisal of situational aggression : An instrument to assess risk for imminent aggression in psychiatric inpatients. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(6), 799-813.
- Olver M. E., Stockdale K. C. et Wormith J. S. (2014) Thirty years of research on the level of service scales : a meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1),156-76. doi: 10.1037/a0035080. Epub 2013 Nov 25. PMID : 24274046.
- O’Shea, L. E. et Dickens, G. L. (2014). Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) : Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 990-1002.
- Polaschek, D. L. L. (2017). Protective factors, correctional treatment and desistance. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.005
- Prieto Curiel, R., Cresci, S., Muntean, C. I. et Bishop, S. R. (2020). Crime and its fear in social media. Palgrave Communications, 6, 57. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0430-7
- Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E. et Cormier, C. A. (1998). The Law and public policy : Psychology and the social sciences series. Violent offenders : Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10304-000
- Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E. et Cormier, C. A. (2006). The law and public policy. Violent offenders : Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11367-000
- Rice, M. E. et Harris, G. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies : ROC, Cohen’s d and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620.
- Singh, J. P., Desmarais, S., Hurducas, C., Arbach-Lucioni, K., Condemarin, C., Dean, K.,… Otto, R. K. (2014). International perspectives on the practical application of violence risk assessment : A global survey of 44 countries. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 13, 193-206.
- Tversky, A. et Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty : Heuristics and biases : Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
- Viljoen, J. L., Cochrane, D. M. et Jonnson, M. R. (2018). Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of violence and reoffending ? A systematic review. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 181-214. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000280
- Ward, T. (2016). Dynamic risk factors : Scientific kinds or predictive constructs. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(1-2), 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1109094
- Webster, C. D., Douglas, K. S., Eaves, D. et Hart, S. D. (1997). HCR-20 : Assessing risk for violence (version 2). Simon Fraser University.
- Webster, C. D., Eaves, D., Douglas, K. S. et Wintrup, A. (1995). The HCR-20 scheme : The assessment of dangerousness and risk. Simon Fraser University and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia.
- Webster, C. D., Hucker, S. J. et Bloom, H. (2002). Transcending the Actuarial Versus Clinical Polemic in Assessing Risk for Violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(5), 659-665. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385402236736
- Webster, C. D., Martin, M., Brink, J., Nicholls, T. L. et Desmarais, S. L. (2009). Manual for the Short Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) (Version 1.1). Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada : St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Ontario, and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission.
- Webster, C. D., Nicholls, T. L., Martin, M.-L., Desmarais, S. L. et Brink, J. H. (2006). Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START) : The case of a new structured professional judgment scheme. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 747-766.
- Weerasekera, P. (1996). Multiperspective case formulation : A step towards treatment integration. Krieger.