RISK ASSESSMENTS

Why are risk assessments conducted?:

Predicting the likelihood of re-offending, and what type of offense might be committed.

Evaluating the risk of an individual causing harm to themselves or others.

Determining an individual's treatment needs and readiness.

Identifying conditions that might trigger violent or criminal behaviour.

Identifying risk factors that contributed to a past offense.

Informing strategies to manage risk and ensure safety.

Monitoring changes in risk over time.

Describe what clinical risk assessments are:

Clinicians gather background information, observe the offender, and conduct interviews, and the approach is seen as a diagnostic method of assessment from the medical field

Strengths and limitations of clinical risk assessments:

They consider unusual or acute factors specific to individual cases, and assess emotional state throughout interviews. Clinicians can pick up on emotional traits like lack of empathy and anger. They may also note physiological and behavioural traits such as chanting or clenching of the jaws.

Thornberry and Jacoby (1979) found that of those released after a clinical assessment, only 11% were re-arrested for violent offences.

Monahan (1984) claimed that two thirds of all clinical predictions of violence are incorrect.

Describe actuarial risk assessments:

They use uniform rules and strict decision-making criteria based on longitudinal studies. They assess associations between risk factors and measured outcomes, using algorithms or statistical equations, often based on static risk factors, to produce a risk score or levels.

Provide a strength and limitations of actuarial risk assessments:

They eliminate the subjective errors present in clinical judgement, are reliable, and have higher accuracy in reconviction rates than clinical judgement.

Webster and Hucker (2007) noted that statistically significant effects across large numbers of people may not capture the importance of particular factors seen in individuals. They also observed that researchers may fail to realise that their studies are based on what they can measure, and that crucial hard-to-index information may be missed.

Describe structured clinical judgement:

Empirically established risk factors with clinical judgement. It focuses on dynamic factors, dispositional factors, trait factors, and contextual factors. Structured clinical judgements aim to improve the accuracy of predictions, and assist in planning and delivery of treatment and management. They are often seen as a compromise, using both clinical and actuarial measures.

Highlight a strength and a limitation of sturctured clinical judgment:

These assessments are grounded in actuarial variables and have good validity. They combine static and dynamic factors, are useful in identifying specific factors that increase or decrease risk, and have a 'clinical override' component.

There is a need for more research and outcome studies. There may also be problems combining actuarial and clinical measures, particularly if they contradict each other. The HCR-20 is also good at predicting risk in ‘high scorers’ but less good in the ‘middle or low’ range scorers