Risk Assessment and Threat Assessment

1. Risk Assessment and Threat Assessment Professor Andrew Harris Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology

2. A few opening questions….

3. Applying risk assessment For what specific purposes should we conduct individualized assessments of offender risk? What kinds of risks should we be concerned about? What kinds of people (offenders) should we be concerned about?

4. Methods and standards How should we go about evaluating risk? What criteria should we use? How dangerous is “too dangerous”? How certain do we need to be? What happens when we guess wrong?

5. Individualized Risk Assessment in Criminal Justice Settings Arrest Decisions Should this person be taken into custody? Detention/Incapacitation Decisions Should this person be locked up? Should he/she be released? Community Supervision Decisions How closely do we need to watch this person? What kinds of services does he/she need? Are there emergent factors suggesting elevated re-offense risk?

6. Context Matters • What’s the main goal? • Prediction vs. Management • What’s at stake? • Consequences of false positives? • Consequences of false negatives?

7. Main questions in risk assessment • Is this person more or less likely than others to offend/re-offend? (a priori risk) • Matter of prediction • STATIC Factors often prove most salient • Under what conditions is the person more or less likely to offend/re-offend? • Matter of management • Requires attention to DYNAMIC Factors

8. General methods of assessing risk • Clinical (subjective) assessment • Actuarial assessment • Empirically guided clinical judgment

9. Darryl • 41-years old – married for many years, but now divorced • Repeatedly molested his daughter over a period of several years beginning from the time she was 7 years old. • Recently released from prison after serving 5 years for sexual abuse of a child • No other criminal history.

10. Craig • 19-year-old single college student • Chatted online with a 15 year old boy and made a date to meet up with him. • Arrested & convicted of soliciting a minor, and sentenced to 2 years in jail • No prior criminal history.

11. Ted • 28-year-old male who owns a tattoo parlor. • Seduced and had sex with a 16 year old girl who had come to his parlor to get a tattoo from him. • Three prior arrests for drunk/disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, and domestic assault.

12. Static-99 • Most widely used sex offender risk assessment tool • Series of 10 factors empirically linked to risk of sexual re-offense

14. Darryl • -1 for age • 0 for ever married • 0 for no priors (factors 3-7) • 0 for no unrelated victims • 0 for no stranger victims • 0 for no male victims • NET SCORE= -1 (Low Risk)

15. Craig • 1 for age • 1 for never married • 0 for no priors (factors 3-7) • 1 for unrelated victim • 1 for stranger victim • 1 for male victim • NET SCORE=5 (Moderate to High Risk)

16. Ted • 1 for age • 1 for never married • 1 for prior non-sex offenses • 0 for no prior sex offenses • 1 for unrelated victim • 1 for stranger victim • 0 for no male victim • NET SCORE=5 (Moderate to High Risk)

17. Who’s the bigger risk? Craig • 19-year-old single college student • Chatted online with a 15 year old boy and made a date to meet up with him. • Arrested and convicted of soliciting a minor • No prior criminal history. Ted • 28-year-old male who owns a tattoo parlor. • Seduced and had sex with a 16 year old girl who had come to his parlor to get a tattoo from him. • Three prior arrests for drunk/disorderly conduct, driving under the influence, and domestic assault.

18. Trade-offs and Limitations • Simplicity vs. precision • Interactions/combinations of risk factors may be more important than cumulative effects or # of risk factors • Static factors may help with general prediction, but less useful for ongoing management

19. Static vs. Dynamic • Static factors may help assess the probability of re-offense, but do not tell us: • Conditions under which a person might re-offend • When and how to intervene • Supervision and treatment professionals more concerned with dynamic factors

20. STABLE 2007 • Actuarial tool designed for supervision and treatment professionals to evaluate dynamic risk factors • Developed by Andrew J. Harris, Correctional Services of Canada

21. Who is the real Andrew J. Harris?

22. Continuum of Risk Factors

23. STABLE 2007: Stable Factors • Significant social influences • Capacity for relationship stability • Hostility toward children • Emotional identification with children • General social rejection • Lack of concern for others • Poor problem-solving skills • Negative emotionality • Sex preoccupation • Sex as coping • Deviant sexual preferences • Cooperation with supervision

25. STABLE 2007: Acute Factors Sex/Violence Factors General Criminal Factors Emotional collapse Collapse of social supports Substance-abuse • Victim access • Hostility • Sexual preoccupation • Rejection of supervision or treatment

27. Assessing Violence Risk Among People with Serious Mental Illness

28. Some Questions • Are people with mental illness at greater risk of committing acts of violence? • If so, under what conditions? • What is the nature of the interaction? • Do symptoms of mental illness cause violence? • Or are there other factors at work?

29. Context of Mental Illness & Violence Risk Assessment • Involuntary civil commitment of people with mental illness • Common Standard – Danger to self or others • Release Decisions • Community management

30. An Evolution of Thinking…… • Baxstrom case/early research on effects of de-institutionalization • Flipping Coins in the Courtroom (Ennis & Litwack,1975) – “Expert” predictions no better than chance • Rise of actuarial models (e.g. VRAG) • MacArthur Risk Assessment Project • Iterative Classification Tree (ICT) Model – designed to mirror clinical decision making • Criminologically-informed risk assessment

31. PSMI Violence Risk • Most elevated when accompanied by: • High measures of psychopathy • Co-occurring substance abuse disorders • SIMILAR FACTORS LINKED TO VIOLENCE IN THE GENERAL CRIMINAL POPULATION

32. ASSESSING PSYCHOPATHY (PCL-R) Factor 1: Personality Factor 2: Case History Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom Parasitic lifestyle Poor behavioral controls Early behavior problems Lack of realistic, long-term plans Impulsivity Irresponsibility Juvenile delinquency Revocation of conditional release • Glibness/superficial charm • Grandiose sense of self-worth • Pathological lying • Cunning/manipulative • Lack of remorse or guilt • Shallow affect • Callous/lack of empathy • Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

33. Threat Assessment and the Prevention of Targeted Violence

34. Examples of Targeted Violence • Stalking violence • Assassinations • School and workplace shootings • Terrorism

35. Assessing Risk of Targeted Violence • Lack of uniform profiles that are sufficiently discriminating • Requires shifting focus from risk assessment to threat assessment

36. The Exceptional Case Study Project • Study commissioned in mid-1990s by the United States Secret Service • Examined cases of 83 individuals known to have attacked or approached with the intent of attacking, a prominent public official or public figure. • Findings: • No useful profile of potential assassins • Common characteristic: discernible patterns of behaviors in the period leading up to the assassination or assassination attempt • Debunked idea of benign person who “just snaps”

37. Principles of Threat Assessment • Distinction between making a threat and posing a threat. • Most threats never carried out • Many events do not involve explicit articulated threat • Communicated threat neither necessary nor sufficient for the presence of an actual threat. • Not spontaneous events • Planned activities that permeate the thoughts of potential perpetrators in the period leading up to the violence. • Virtually all acts of targeted violence preceded by a chain of behaviors • Behavioral warning signs that are amenable to identification and interdiction • Dynamic view of targeted violence • Risk affected by interactions between person and target, situational factors, and circumstances (that may aggravate or mitigate threat)