Comparing two Primary Methods for Assessing and Managing Violence Risk: Actuarial Risk Assessment versus Structured Professional Judgment

Largely in reaction to the problems with unstructured professional judgement when assessing and managing violence risk, two primary methods of structuring violence risk assessment have been developed over the last twenty-five years. Both methods have been the focus of extensive research and have been implemented in diverse settings around the world. In the first method, actuarial risk assessment, information is weighted and combined according to fixed and explicit rules. In the second method, structured professional judgment (SPJ), information is weighted and combined according to both guidelines and professional discretion. On the surface, these methods differ with respect to the degree of structure imposed on the assessment process. But in practice, there is tremendous debate about the intended purpose of these methods, how they are implemented in practice, and their effectiveness in preventing violence. This webinar will provide an overview of the differences between these methods and the implications of these difference for both practice and the law.

“On the surface, these methods differ with respect to the degree of structure imposed on the assessment process,” explains Dr. Hart. “But in practice, there is tremendous debate about the intended purpose of these methods, how they are implemented in practice, and their effectiveness in preventing violence.”

This informative webinar will specifically cover:

* The two primary methods for assessing and managing violence risk
* The implications of using these two methods in practice and law