Robin J. Wilson, PhD, ABPP dr.wilsonrj@verizon

1. What We Know About Assessment of Risk of Recidivism and Criminogenic Needs of Offenders: Why and How to Do Assessments? Robin J. Wilson, PhD, ABPP dr.wilsonrj@verizon.net

2. Risk Assessment • Risk assessment is the process of identifying the probability or likelihood of future dangerousness or harm, such as a sexual offense or domestic assault. • In our general practice, Risk Assessment is concerned with predicting the degree of possibility of a re-offense for someone with a known history of offending.

3. Why Assess Risk? • Promoting public safety • Guiding routine interventions • Targeting scarce resources • Staff time • Treatment • Exceptional measures

4. Risk & Dangerousness BAD: “This person is dangerous.” GOOD: “If specific risk factorsarepresent, then there is a high/medium/lowprobability that the person will engage in specificbehaviourwithin a specific period of time that may place specific personsat risk for a specific type and severity of harm.”

5. Static, Stable, & Acute Risk FactorsDefinitions • Static – Non-changeable life factors that relate to risk for sexual recidivism, generally historical in nature • Stable – Personality characteristics, skill deficits, and learned behaviours that relate to risk for recidivism that may be changed through intervention • Acute – Risk factors of short or unstable temporal duration that can change rapidly, generally as a result of environmental or intra-personal conditions

6. Risk Assessment • It is practically and scientifically impossible to predict any future event with 100% certainty. Consequently, a risk assessment will always involve some degree of uncertainty about the “truth” of the actual prediction. • The task of risk assessment is to strike a scientific and ethical balance in the identification and management of potential offenders, while optimizing public safety.

7. Three Generations of Risk AssessmentBonta (1996) First Generation = “Clinical Judgment” • Unstructured, Non-replicable, Personal Discretion • Based on experience and level of knowledge of the literature • Non-standard (even within same institution) • Level of prediction little better than chance Second Generation = “Actuarial Assessment” • Static, Actuarial, Structured, Replicable, Less open to interpretation • Based on factors empirically related to recidivism • Standardized assessment, “Static” – Cannot measure change • “Moderate” levels of prediction Third Generation = “Dynamic Assessment” • Based on factors empirically related to recidivism • Standardized assessment, measures changeable • Actuarial measure with dynamic factors

8. Principles of Risk Management • Analysis • Communication • Collaboration • Monitoring • Intervention • Re-Analysis

9. Contact Information Robin J. Wilson, PhD, ABPP Wilson & Associates Clinical and Forensic Psychology 941 806 9788 dr.wilsonrj@verizon.net