SpringerLink
Log in

We Are Not There Yet: Contemporary Challenges for Risk Assessment and Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Challenges in the Management of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society ((PSRCS))

Abstract

Over the last decades, risk assessment has gained a firm foothold in the criminal justice system of Western countries. This increased importance of risk assessment aligns with developments in research on mainly the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. Time has however come to shift the focus from arguments about the predictive value towards other factors that may improve the quality of risk assessment in clinical practice. This chapter focuses on solutions that enhance the field reliability of these instruments, strengthen the link between risk assessment and management, and ensure a thorough practical implementation of these tools; these factors play an important role in making risk assessment better. Key issues are analysed with respect to the current and future challenges they pose to risk assessment.

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 106.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 139.09
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 139.09
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Batastini, A. B., Vitacco, M. J., Coaker, L. C., & Lester, M. E. (2019). Communicating violence risk during testimony: Do different formats lead to different perceptions among jurors? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(2), 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belyh, A. (2020, July 28). Understanding the Kubler-Ross Change Curve. Cleverism. https://www.cleverism.com/understanding-kubler-ross-change-curve/

  • Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Mercado, C., Quesada, S., Hawes, S., Rice, A. K., & Jeglic, E. L. (2012). Implications of STATIC-99 field reliability findings for score use and reporting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811427131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouman, Y. H. A., Hutten, J., Uzieblo, K., van der Veeken, F. C. A., Verschuur, J., te Mebel, L., & van Horn, J. E. (2021). Risk assessment done: What’s next? The translation from risk assessment to risk management. Quality Forensic Care.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commons, M. L., Miller, P. M., & Gutheil, T. G. (2004). Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32(1), 70–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beuf, T. L. F., de Ruiter, C., & de Vogel, V. (2020). Staff perceptions on the implementation of Structured Risk Assessment with the START: AV: Identifying barriers and facilitators in a residential youth care setting. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2020.1756994

  • de Vogel, V., & de Ruiter, C. (2006). Structured professional judgment of violence risk in forensic clinical practice: A prospective study into the predictive validity of the Dutch HCR-20. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(3), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600569029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. S., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2003). Multiple facets of risk for violence: The impact of judgmental specificity on structured decisions about violence risk. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2003.10471176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, M., & Duffy, D. (2006). Assessing and managing risk to self and others. In National Forensic Nurses’ Research and Development Group (Ed.), Aspects of forensic mental health nursing: Interventions for people with personality disorder. Quay Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, Y. M., & Helmus, L. M. (2017). A field examination of the inter-rater reliability of the Static-99 and STABLE-2007 scored by Correctional Program Officers. Sexual Offender Treatment, 12(2). http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/181.html

  • Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Wallace, F. (2007). Implementation: The missing link between research and practice. APSAC Advisor, 19(1 & 2), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glik, D. C. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., Babchishin, K. M., Helmus, L. M., Thornton, D., & Phenix, A. (2017). Communicating the results of criterion referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Psychological Assessment, 29(5), 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L. M., & Harris, A. J. R. (2015). Assessing the risk and needs of supervised sexual offenders: A prospective study using STABLE-2007, Static-99R, and Static-2002R. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 1205–1224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815602094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmus, L. M. (2018). Sex offender risk assessment: Where are we and where are we going. Current Psychiatry Reports, 20(6), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-018-0909-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, N. Z., Ham, E., Nunes, K. L., Rodrigues, N. C., Frank, C., & Seto, M. C. (2017). Using graphs to improve violence risk communication. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), 678–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816668916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levenson, J. S. (2004). Reliability of sexually violent predator civil commitment criteria in Florida. Law and Human Behavior, 28(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000039330.22347.ad

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. K., Nilsen, P., Bendtsen, P., & Bulow, P. (2016). Structured risk assessment instruments: A systematic review of implementation determinants. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(4), 602–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1084661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, C. S., Kimonis, E. R., Otto, R. K., Kline, S. M., & Wasserman, A. L. (2012). Reliability of risk assessment measures used in sexually violent predator proceedings. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 944–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2015). Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(November 2015), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T., & Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1406–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2016). Forensic psychologists’ perceptions of bias and potential correction strategies in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., Griffey, R., & Hensley, M. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quesada, S. P., Calkins, C., & Jeglic, E. L. (2014). An examination of the interrater reliability between practitioners and researchers on the static-99. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(11), 1364–1375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13495504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smid, W. J., Kamphuis, J. H., Wever, E. C., & Van Beek, D. J. (2014). A comparison of the predictive properties of nine sex offender risk assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 691–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tully, R. J., Chou, S., & Browne, K. D. (2013). A systematic review on the effectiveness of sex offender risk assessment tools in predicting sexual recidivism of adult male sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(2), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, J. W., Smid, W., Schepers, K., Wever, E., van Beek, D., Janssen, E., & Gijs, L. (2018). The predictive properties of dynamic sex offender risk assessment instruments: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viljoen, J. L., Cochrane, D. M., & Jonnson, M. R. (2018). Do risk assessment tools help manage and reduce risk of reoffending? A systematic review. Law and Human Behavior, 42(3), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viljoen, J. L., & Vincent, G. M. (2020). Risk assessment for violence and reoffending: Implementation and impact on risk management. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12378

  • Vincent, G. M., Guy, L. S., & Grisso, T. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. http://modelsforchange.net/publications/346

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, G. M., Guy, L. S., Perrault, R. T., & Gershenson, B. (2016). Risk assessment matters, but only when implemented well: A multisite study in juvenile probation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000214

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Van der Hoeven Kliniek, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Kasia Uzieblo

  2. Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

    Kasia Uzieblo

  3. Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands

    Tamara de Beuf

  4. Stop it Now!, Flanders, Belgium

    Minne De Boeck

  5. University Forensic Centre, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium

    Minne De Boeck

  6. Collaborative Antwerp Psychiatric Research Institute (CAPRI), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Minne De Boeck

  7. The Forensic Care Specialists, Utrecht, Netherlands

    Wineke J. Smid

Authors
  1. Kasia Uzieblo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tamara de Beuf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minne De Boeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wineke J. Smid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kasia Uzieblo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Van der Hoeven Kliniek, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Kasia Uzieblo

  2. The Forensic Care Specialists, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Wineke J. Smid

  3. Department of Criminology, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Kieran McCartan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Uzieblo, K., de Beuf, T., De Boeck, M., Smid, W.J. (2022). We Are Not There Yet: Contemporary Challenges for Risk Assessment and Management. In: Uzieblo, K., Smid, W.J., McCartan, K. (eds) Challenges in the Management of People Convicted of a Sexual Offence. Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80212-7_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80212-7_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80211-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80212-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation