Criminal risk assessment refers to the process of predicting an individual’s risk of future criminal activity. The purposes of criminal risk assessment are to identify those individuals at higher risk of future offending and inform interventions designed to reduce an individual’s risk of future offending. Risk assessment is utilized in a variety of contexts, both criminal and noncriminal. In criminal contexts, criminal risk assessment is used to inform legal and correctional decisions across the criminal justice spectrum, including during pretrial detention/bail, juvenile transfer, and sentencing (state, federal, and capital); determining security levels for prisoners; determining appropriate probation/parole supervision conditions; and reentry planning. In noncriminal (civil) settings, risk assessments are used to predict an individual’s potential for violence in the workplace, determine whether a sex offender is a sexually violent predator, and determine whether someone should be civilly committed. This entry provides a history of risk assessment and a detailed examination of its four major approaches developed across time: unstructured clinical judgment, anamnestic assessment, actuarial assessment, and structured professional judgment (SPJ).
The process of criminal risk assessment involves identifying and weighing both factors that increase the likelihood that someone will commit future criminal activity (risk factors) and factors that reduce the likelihood that someone will commit future criminal activity (protective factors). Both risk and protective factors can be either static (unchangeable) or dynamic (can be modified through targeted interventions). For example, criminal history is a static risk factor because it cannot be changed, while substance use and making poor use of leisure time are dynamic risk factors because they can be addressed through appropriate interventions. Intelligence is an example of a static protective factor; conceivably, barring some type of brain injury or neurodegeneration, an individual’s level of intelligence is stable across the life span. By contrast, social support is a dynamic protective factor because individuals can increase their levels of social support.
Risk and protective factors can be biological, psychological, or sociological in nature. Examples of biological risk factors include chemical deficiencies in enzymes such as monoamine oxidase, which is associated with increased aggression, or dysfunction in neurochemicals such as serotonin, which is linked to aggression and impulsivity.
Examples of psychological risk factors include the presence of certain personality disorders or constructs associated with antisocial behavior, such as psychopathy, conduct disorder, or antisocial personality disorder. Examples of sociological risk factors include poverty or exposure to negative peers. In contrast, examples of biological protective factors include strong executive functioning capabilities, psychological protective factors include high self-esteem or interpersonal warmth, and sociological protective factors include participation in prosocial activities, such as community-based sports or religious services.
Approaches to Risk Assessment
Across the history of criminal risk assessment, four approaches to risk assessment have predominated: unstructured clinical judgment, anamnestic assessment, actuarial assessment, and SPJ. Understanding these various methods provides an informative mapping of the evidence-based evolution of risk assessment and the benefits and challenges of each approach. Current trends advocate for a blend of these approaches, along with choosing a risk assessment tool based on the goals of the assessment (e.g., risk prediction vs. risk reduction) and the individual being assessed. The various methods of conducting risk assessments have been debated, scrutinized, and studied, so there is a large body of scholarly and empirical literature on risk assessment. Moreover, the legal field is paying increased attention to risk assessment in both criminal and civil contexts.
Unstructured Clinical Judgment
The unstructured clinical judgment approach consists of a mental health professional’s use of clinical judgment without the assistance of risk assessment tools or measures. Using clinical judgment that has been developed through experience, practitioners reach an opinion regarding an individual’s risk of committing future criminal activity. Of the four approaches to risk assessment, the unstructured clinical judgment approach has the least amount of empirical support in terms of accurately predicting future offending behavior. Specifically, unstructured clinical judgment tends to lead to Type I errors (false positives). Thus, when utilizing their discretion, clinicians will tend to inaccurately conclude that an individual has a higher risk of committing a criminal act in the future than is actually warranted. Unstructured clinical judgment is significantly less effective at predicting risk-relevant outcomes than the other approaches to risk assessment. As such, best practices suggest avoiding this type of criminal risk assessment.
Actuarial Assessment
Actuarial risk assessment involves using equations, formulas, or other actuarial methods to arrive at a probability that an individual will engage in future criminal activity. As it pertains to offending generally, the risk assessment literature has highlighted certain factors that are empirically associated with specific outcomes. For example, factors such as history of violence, certain personality traits or disorders, and substance abuse are robustly related to future offending. In actuarial risk assessment, combinations of risk factors are used to determine an individual’s risk level (e.g., low, medium, high, very high). One such instrument is the Level of Service Inventory–Revised, which measures the presence of risk factors across 10 domains to derive a risk estimate. By comparing the risk scores in each domain and the total risk score to those of the Level of Service Inventory– Revised normative sample, individuals can be categorized into a risk level that is associated with a percentage likelihood of offending. Although substantially more reliable than risk assessment using unstructured clinical judgment, actuarial risk assessment has been subject to criticism for its lack of attention to individual considerations when drawing risk conclusions. In addition, evidence suggests that all actuarial measures are roughly equivalent in predicting future criminal behavior as long as the measure is empirically supported and provides guidance on score differentiation and risk-level categorization.
Anamnestic Assessment
Whereas actuarial assessment provides key domains as risk factors in predicting the probability of future offending behavior, the anamnestic approach to risk assessment provides risk factor domains using an individual’s history. Under the anamnestic approach, forensic mental health professionals review the individual’s history of previous antisocial behavior to derive risk factors specific to that individual. Due to its individualized nature, the predictive accuracy of the anamnestic approach is difficult to examine empirically. The anamnestic approach allows forensic mental health professionals to navigate potential legal concerns over basing risk assessment on predominantly nomothetic date (group-based) as opposed to idiographic date (individual-specific), and it can be a powerful tool when developing treatment plans.
SPJ
SPJ tools use risk-relevant domains similar to the ones included in actuarial assessment tools, but they require the professional using the tool to consider all available information when reaching a decision about an individual’s risk level. Rather than relying exclusively on statistics and algorithms, as is done with actuarial risk assessment approaches, SPJ tools permit the clinician to exercise some discretion or judgment in deriving a risk estimate. Studies suggest that this additional component—allowing the professional to use some clinical judgment when estimating risk—provides greater flexibility and allows for the consideration of situational factors relevant to risk prediction. While actuarial assessment tools have been criticized for not allowing individualized consideration, SPJ tools allow for individual consideration; research suggests this is a necessary component in risk assessment. An example of an SPJ tool is the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, which is a 20-item checklist of relevant historical risk factors (e.g., history of unemployment), clinical risk factors (e.g., current symptoms of serious mental illness), and risk management risk factors (e.g., noncompliance with intervention) that are associated with future criminal offending.
Risk Assessment and Risk Management: The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Framework
The advent of the RNR framework was a significant development for risk prediction and management. The RNR framework focuses not only on the identification of an individual’s risk factors for future criminal behavior but also on identifying and implementing targeted interventions to help mitigate this risk. The RNR framework is predicated on three principles. The risk principle states that the level of service provided to an individual should be commensurate with that of individual’s risk level—the higher the risk level, the greater the intensity and duration of the interventions. The need principle focuses on identifying an individual’s dynamic risk factors for antisocial behavior, which are referred to as criminogenic needs, and then tailoring risk-reducing interventions to address those needs. The responsivity principle focuses on maximizing the benefits an individual derives from an intervention by matching the intervention to a particular offender’s characteristics, including learning style, ability level, and motivation.
The RNR framework posits the existence of eight major risk domains: criminal history, education/employment, family/marital, leisure/ recreation, companions, drug/alcohol, pro-criminal attitudes, and antisocial pattern. All of these risk domains have considerable empirical support in terms of being associated with and predictive of future offending behavior. The RNR framework designates individuals as being at higher risk of criminal activity when they have committed previous criminal offenses or exhibited antisocial behavior while under court supervision, have poor employment prospects and a poor employment history, do not enjoy strong support from family members, make poor use of leisure time, associate with antisocial individuals or do not associate with prosocial individuals, exhibit significant past or current problems with substance use, hold attitudes supportive of criminal or antisocial behavior, and have exhibited a pattern of antisocial behavior across their lifetime. An individual’s risk level can be reduced by targeting criminogenic needs through appropriate interventions (with the exception of criminal history, which is a static risk factor). Such interventions may include educational and vocational training, strengthening family relationships, engaging in organized and prosocial activities, discontinuing association with negative peers and expansion of a prosocial peer network, desisting from substance use, deconstructing criminal attitudes and encouraging prosocial thinking, and the development of anger management and problem-solving skills.
Concluding Thoughts
Criminal risk assessment is concerned with predicting and managing an individual’s risk of future criminal behavior. This is accomplished by identifying and weighing risk and protective factors related to antisocial behavior. Despite being a relatively new field of study, criminal risk assessment has evolved substantially over the years. At its inception, criminal risk assessment was based almost exclusively on clinical judgment, which often resulted in inaccurate risk predictions. However, the creation and utilization of the actuarial and SPJ approaches to risk assessment have substantially improved the ability of forensic mental health professionals to accurately predict an individual’s risk of future criminal behavior. Also, criminal risk assessment is no longer exclusively focused on predicting the likelihood that an individual will engage in future criminal behavior; the current focus is 2-fold and includes assessing the likelihood of future criminal behavior and informing interventions that can be used to reduce an individual’s risk level. This dual focus is exemplified by the RNR framework, which has considerable empirical support. The RNR model yields an estimate of an individual’s risk level based on the identification of risk factors, and it also can be used to inform interventions that may reduce an offender’s risk by addressing criminogenic needs (dynamic risk factors) and promoting protective factors.
References:
- Brown, J., & Singh, J. (2014). Forensic risk assessment: A beginner’s guide. Archives of Forensic Psychology, 1, 49–59.
- Heilbrun, K. (2009). Evaluation for risk of violence in adults. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Heilbrun, K., Yasuhara, K., & Shah, S. (2010). Approaches to violence risk assessment: Overview and critical analysis. In R. K. Otto & K. Douglas (Eds.), Handbook of violence risk assessment (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Skeem, J. L., & Monahan, J. (2011). Current directions in violence risk assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 38–42. doi:10.1177/0963721410397271
More About Criminal Risk Assessment: