Let's Work Together - Occupational Factors and Their Correlates to Prison Climate and Inmates' Attitudes Towards Treatment.

The role of psychosocial and structural occupational factors in mental health service provision has broadly been researched. However, less is known about the influence of employees' occupational factors on inmates in correctional treatment settings that mostly seek to apply a milieu-therapeutic approach. Therefore, the present study investigated the relationships between occupational factors (job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the functionality of the organizational structure) and prison climate, the number of staff members' sick days as well as inmates' treatment motivation. Employees (n = 76) of three different correctional treatment units in Berlin, Germany, rated several occupational factors as well as prison climate. At the same time, treatment motivation of n = 232 inmates was assessed. Results showed that higher ratings of prison climate were associated with higher levels of team climate, job satisfaction and the functionality of the organizational structure, but not with self-efficacy and sick days. There was no significant relationship between occupational factors and the perceived safety on the treatment unit. Inmates' treatment motivation was correlated with all aggregated occupational factors and with average sick days of staff members. Outcomes of this study strongly emphasize the importance of a positive social climate in correctional treatment units for occupational factors of prison staff but also positive treatment outcomes for inmates. Also, in the light of these results, consequences for daily work routine and organizational structure of prisons are discussed.

Implementation of a Suicide Risk Screening Instrument in a Remand Prison Service in Berlin.

In the present study, we examined the effects of implementing the suicide risk screening instrument SIRAS in a pre-trial detention facility for men in Berlin. Within a period of 3 months, all newly arriving prisoners were screened (n = 611) by social workers or prison officers. Cases of elevated suicide risk were immediately referred to a psychologist or medical staff the same day. Follow-up over a 6-month period showed that 14% of all incoming prisoners were classified as high-risk individuals. These individuals received significantly more psychological and psychiatric treatment and were significantly more likely to be accommodated in crisis intervention rooms and emergency community accommodation (shared prison cells). In addition, it was found that despite the increased amount of treatment in the high-risk group, the number of specific measures did not increase significantly compared to the pre-implementation phase (N = 1,510).

La práctica de la evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España / The practice of violence risk assessment in Spain

Antecedentes. La valoración del riesgo de violencia es un requisito fundamental en la toma de decisiones profesionales que implican prevenir, intervenir o informar sobre la conducta de las personas. El uso de herramientas estructuradas de evaluación del riesgo de violencia ha mostrado mejoría en la precisión de las evaluaciones basadas exclusivamente en el juicio clínico o en la pericia de un experto en contextos psiquiátricos, penitenciarios y jurídicos. Objetivo. Este estudio presenta los resultados de la primera encuesta sobre las prácticas profesionales asociadas al uso de herramientas de evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España. Materiales y métodos. La información fue recogida mediante la administración de una encuesta en internet que fue distribuida por correo electrónico a los miembros de organizaciones profesionales. Resultados. De manera similar a los contextos profesionales del resto del mundo, las escalas de psicopatía de Robert Hare (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised y Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version) y el Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 encabezaron la lista de las herramientas más usadas tanto por elección personal como por requisito institucional. Conclusiones. Se ofrecen datos novedosos sobre la prevalencia de uso y la utilidad percibida de las herramientas estructuradas, así como sobre otras cuestiones relacionadas a las prácticas profesionales de evaluación del riesgo de violencia en España que pueden orientar tanto a los profesionales de contextos sanitarios, correccionales y forenses, como a los responsables de las instituciones en la elección de las herramientas a implementar para asistirlos en la toma de decisiones.

Background. Violence risk assessment is a key requirement in professional decision making involving prevention, intervention or reporting on human behavior. The use of structured tools for violence risk assessment has shown to improve the accuracy of assessments based exclusively on clinical judgment or expertise in psychiatric, correctional and legal settings. Objectives. This study presents results of the first survey about professional practices associated with tools for violence risk assessment in Spain. Materials and methods. The information was collected by administering an online-based survey that was distributed by e-mail to members of professional organizations around the country. Results. As in professional contexts worldwide, the Robert Hare's psychopathy scales (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version) and the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 topped the list of the most used tools both by professional choice and institutional requirement. Conclusions. We provide novel data on the prevalence of use and the perceived utility of specific tools, as well as on other issues related to the professional practice of violence risk assessment in Spain, which can guide professional in the health care, correctional and forensic settings, as well as those responsible for decisions in institutions about choosing which tool to implement.

Current obstacles in replicating risk assessment findings: a systematic review of commonly used actuarial instruments.

An actuarial risk assessment instrument can be considered valid if independent investigations using novel samples can replicate the findings of the instrument's development study. In order for a study to qualify as a replication, it has to adhere to the methodological protocol of the development study with respect to key design characteristics, as well as ensuring that manual-recommended guidelines of test administration have been followed. A systematic search was conducted to identify predictive validity studies (N = 84) on three commonly used actuarial instruments: the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG), the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG), and the Static-99. Sample (sex, age, criminal history) and design (follow-up, attrition, recidivism) characteristics, as well as markers of assessment integrity (scoring reliability, item omissions, prorating procedure), were extracted from 84 studies comprising 108 samples. None of the replications matched the development study of the instrument they were attempting to cross-validate with respect to key sample and design characteristics. Furthermore none of the replications strictly followed the manual-recommended guidelines for the instruments' administration. Additional replication studies that follow the methodological protocols outlined in actuarial instruments' development studies are needed before claims of generalizability can be made.

Severe mental illness in 33,588 prisoners worldwide: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: High levels of psychiatric morbidity in prisoners have been documented in many countries, but it is not known whether rates of mental illness have been increasing over time or whether the prevalence differs between low-middle-income countries compared with high-income ones. AIMS: To systematically review prevalence studies for psychotic illness and major depression in prisoners, provide summary estimates and investigate sources of heterogeneity between studies using meta-regression. METHOD: Studies from 1966 to 2010 were identified using ten bibliographic indexes and reference lists. Inclusion criteria were unselected prison samples and that clinical examination or semi-structured instruments were used to make DSM or ICD diagnoses of the relevant disorders. RESULTS: We identified 109 samples including 33 588 prisoners in 24 countries. Data were meta-analysed using random-effects models, and we found a pooled prevalence of psychosis of 3.6% (95% CI 3.1-4.2) in male prisoners and 3.9% (95% CI 2.7-5.0) in female prisoners. There were high levels of heterogeneity, some of which was explained by studies in low-middle-income countries reporting higher prevalences of psychosis (5.5%, 95% CI 4.2-6.8; P = 0.035 on meta-regression). The pooled prevalence of major depression was 10.2% (95% CI 8.8-11.7) in male prisoners and 14.1% (95% CI 10.2-18.1) in female prisoners. The prevalence of these disorders did not appear to be increasing over time, apart from depression in the USA (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: High levels of psychiatric morbidity are consistently reported in prisoners from many countries over four decades. Further research is needed to confirm whether higher rates of mental illness are found in low- and middle-income nations, and examine trends over time within nations with large prison populations.