Risk Assessment
Literature lecture 1
Brown and Singh
Forensic risk assessment – attempt to predict the likelihood of future offending in order to
identify individuals in need of intervention, the likelihood of future antisocial behavior
Dangerousness – a high probability of inflicting imminent physical harm
Risk vs Protective factors (increase VS decrease the likelihood of antisocial behavior)
- Static factors – historical or unchanging
- Acutely dynamic – modifiable and likely to change
- Stably dynamic factors – modifiable but unlikely to change
Identifying risk and protective factors – Grann and Langstrom – the empirical method
(factors identified through experiments), the theoretical method (some theory used), the
clinical method (individual characteristics)
Contemporary approaches to forensic risk assessment
- Unstructured clinical judgment (UCJ) – subjective evaluation, it is flexible,
inexpensive, but poor reliability and validity – seminal monograph by Monahan
(Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior)
- Actuarial assessment – structured instruments, composed of risk and protective
factors, which are either static or dynamic and related to the adverse event – each
item is weighted in – we get a total score, we cannot apply group-based recidivism to
individual clients
o VRAG-R – 12 item instrument, static factors, 7 domains
o Static-99R – 10 item, static risk, four domains
o LS/CMI – 43 item, static and dynamic factors
- Structured professional judgment (SPJ) – due to the inflexibility of actuarial
schemes, factors associated according to theory, more accurate
o HCR-20 – 20 item, static and dynamic, three domains
o SVR-2- same, sexually violent predator hearings
o START – 20 item, dynamic risk, protective factors
Tarasoff v Regents of the UC – obligation to use protective care against the victim of a client
- mental health professionals have a duty to protect those individuals whom their patients
threaten with bodily harm
No single risk assessment tool is more accurate than others
,Lecture 1
➢Probability calculation that a harmful behavior or event will occur, and involves an
assessment about the frequency of the behavior (or event), its likely impact and who it will
affect” (Kemshall, 1996)
➢“The attempt to predict the likelihood of future offending in order to identify individuals
in need of intervention” (Brown & Singh, 2014)
Risk management – interventions to manage the risk or to reduce the risk
Why is risk management important – safety, public interest, ethical importance,
therapeutical importance (RNR model), communication
History
- 1876 – Lombroso – criminals have certain physical characteristics
- Burgess – 1928 – first risk assessment tool – risk of re-offense of offenders being
released from the Illinois prison system, actuarial
o Marital status, criminal and employment history, institutional misconduct
o Calculations based on analyses of data for 3k individuals paroled in Chicago,
76% high risk status recidivated within 5 years
- Baxstrom v Herold – 1966 – dangerous patients vs those released into society,
followed up by Steadman Cocozza (1978) – after 4 years of follow-up 2.7% sent back
to psychiatric hospital
- In the 70s 80s it is NOT proved that professionals can predict future violence
- Expertise of the expert – similar between teachers and psychiatrists, more info –
more conservative judgment – only accurate in 1 out of 3 cases – 80s
- 90s - Martien Philipse – TBS – innovative – no predictors suggested by the clinicians
were predictive, also no link between the clinical assessment of relapse risk and
actual recidivism
RNR
- Evidence based practice – based on scientific research into effectiveness of those
interventions
- Risk principle – higher risk benefit from
more intensive treatment, who to
treat, matching level of risk with level of
treatment – risk of recidivism is central,
increased risk of recidivism if wrong
level of intensity
- Need – only factors associated with a
reduction should be addressed in
treatment, what to treat – criminogenic
needs – factors that lead to crime
, - Responsivity – tailored to offenders characteristics, motivation, circumstances,
learning style
Criminogenic needs
1. History of antisocial behavior (static) – risk – early and ongoing involvement in
antisocial acts, work on alternative behavior
2. Antisocial personality pattern – thrill seeking, aggression,- problem solving skills,
self-management skills, anger management, coping
3. Antisocial cognitions – attitudes, values, beliefs – reducing them, recognizing them
4. Antisocial peers – close contacts with criminal others – reducing them, building
contacts with non-criminals
5. Family/marital relationships – education, care, control, supervision – reduce
conflict, improve control, build positive relationships
6. School/job – low achievement, low satisfaction – improving performance, rewards,
satisfaction
7. Prosocial recreational activities – low engagement and satisfaction in non-criminal
leisure activities, improving engagement, rewards and satisfaction
8. Substance abuse – reduction of it, having support
Non-criminogenic needs
- Less research done, not proven
- Self-esteem, emotional problems, psych. Disorder, health
Literature lecture 2
De Vries Robbe, Willis
Positive psychology – optimism and achieving happiness
Protective factors – internal resilience factors, community integration factors, treatment
related factors, social factors, environmental factors
Important for youth violence, sexual offending
GLM – protective factors as prosocial means or strategies t achieve one or more primary
human goods – common life goals
- Offending less desirable when addressing causal factors and finding prosocial
alternatives
Implementing GLM in clinical practice
Structured methods of risk assessment>>>>>unstructured
Unipolar factors -opposing ends to a risk continuum
, SAPROF – Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk
- Unipolar
- 17 protective factors
- Three scales
- Sexual violence risk, or medium-term risk-focused tools for violence risk
SAPROF-YV
- For juveniles and young adults
- 16 factors in four scales (resilience, motivational, relational and external).
Desistence for Adolescents who Sexually Harm
Balanced approach to risk assessment
- Over-prediction of risk – can create pessimism among therapists
Personal guidelines to building skills and resources
Treatment motivation and treatment-alliance
Evaluation of treatment progress
Assessment results and risk management: the importance of context
Lecture 2
Predictive validity
- Area Under the Curve (AUC) – receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, to
classify future recidivist vs non-recidivist, 1 is perfect discrimination .56 small, .64
moderate, .71 strong – risk scores and outcome – retrospective measure – chance
that a random recidivist gets a higher score than a random non-recidivist – sensitivity
and specificity, no cut-off needed
non
- NPV – negative predictive value – the proportion of offenders who were assessed as
low risk, and later did not reoffend
