The assessment of the risk of sexual and violent reoffending is one of the pillars of the Risk-Needs- Responsivity model of offender assessment and rehabilitation (Andrews, Bonta & Hoge, 1990). The principle of “risk” states that the level of service provided to an individual should match their risk of reoffending. In addition, as services are always limited, the offenders at the highest risk of reoffending should be prioritised for treatment.
A few points on risk:
Although risk cannot be eliminated altogether, it can be assessed, predicted and managed.
Risk is dynamic – even a “high risk” offender is not “high risk” all of the time. Their level of risk increases and decreases based on various internal and external factors.
Risk assessment is one part of the picture – we must also consider the individual’s motivation and capacity for change.
Risk assessment researchers talk about the “four generations” of risk assessment. These can be summarised as follows:
First generation- First generation risk assessment involved professionals - usually correctional staff or clinical practitioners - assessing the “dangerousness” of an offender based on their clinical or professional judgement. It was the “In my opinion” assessment. Although it was flexible and inexpensive, it did not predict risk of reoffending better than chance. It also lacked transparency and consistency and was highly subjective.
Second generation – Second generation risk assessment developed out of data looking at factors that were associated with reoffending. The factors assessed were historical, for example, age and number of prior offences, and were therefore static, that is, not amenable to change. Nonetheless, the predictive accuracy of second generation risk assessment tools was superior to professional judgement assessments. This type of risk assessment is termed actuarial, as it gives us an estimate of likelihood that an individual with a given risk level will or will not be charged or convicted of a new offence. Arguably the best-known and most widely-validated actuarial risk assessment measure is the Static-99R (Hanson & Thornton, 2000,2012), used to predict the risk of sexual reoffending in adult males.
As second generation risk assessment is limited to historical, unchangeable factors, it does not reflect changes to an individual’s risk due to treatment or environmental factors.
Third generation – third generation risk assessment, referred to as “risk-needs” assessment, addresses the limitation of second generation assessment tools by incorporating empirically-validated “dynamic” factors- that is, factors related to an individual’s offending (for example, substance use), but amenable to change (an individual can address their substance use through treatment).
Assessing risk of reoffending by taking into account both static and dynamic factors enables correctional and clinical professionals to target certain factors in an individual’s rehabilitation. This type of risk assessment therefore informs treatment needs.
Some well-validated third generation tools include the HCR-20 and the VRS to assess risk of violent reoffending and the STABLE and RSVP to assess sexual reoffending.
Fourth generation – fourth generation risk assessment tools integrate all of the available best-practice approaches by considering static and dynamic factors, reoffending scenarios to be used for case management purposes, and general and individual responsivity factors. Responsivity factors are factors that can enhance or detract from how an individual responds to treatment.
For more information:
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspx#a4
©Sydney Forensic Clinic 2018