Threat assessment has roots in clinical and forensic psychology, including the subfield of risk assessment. The robust body of research regarding culture and social justice in clinical psychology stands in stark comparison to that of forensic psychology, with little to none in threat assessment and management. One possible theory regarding this discrepancy is threat assessors’ reliance on objectivity, avoiding demographic and cultural factors that inform the analysis of risk. Yet, the constructs of implicit bias and colorblindness assert that avoiding culture may paradoxically increase the likelihood of bias. In this article, the authors provide a review of relevant literature regarding cultural considerations in general and forensic psychology focusing on risk and threat assessment. Pertinent case law is introduced to buttress the practices outlined in this article. The authors then assert that adopting the culturally competent pillar of self-awareness is a potent first step in mitigating the risk of racial bias in the practice of threat assessment. To establish the self-awareness pillar, an explanation and stepwise guide to determine social location are provided, as well as training recommendations for the field of threat assessment and management.

Objective: State of Washington v. Sisouvanh (2012) was the first case in which an appellate court asserted the need for cultural competence in competency-to-stand-trial evaluations. A court reiterated this need in State of Washington v. Ortiz-Abrego (2017). Research in forensic psychology seldom addressed cultural considerations in pretrial evaluations until this past decade, but the growing body of literature pales in comparison to the work found in clinical and counseling psychology. Most of the current literature acknowledges the lack of professionally sanctioned practice guidelines and makes valuable suggestions regarding how to address cultural factors that are relevant to the requisite capacities of legal competency. Yet, none of this research addresses potential risks incurred by the evaluators who attempt to incorporate these suggestions into practice or acknowledges the possible incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles. Hypotheses: The authors posit there may be areas of incompatability, or tension, between the tenets of forensic psychology and cultural competency. Method: To examine this potential incompatibility, we reviewed legal cases with cultural implications, addressed recent developments regarding cultural "incompetence," and conducted an overview of cultural competency in clinical and forensic psychology. Results: Comparing general principles of forensic psychology with those of cultural responsiveness and humility, we found that questions emerged regarding the potential philosophical conflicts as well as risks that may be incurred by individual evaluators in legal settings. Conclusions: The resultant dilemma sets the stage for pragmatic suggestions regarding communication, assessment, and diagnosis. Finally, we emphasize the need for sanctioned practice guidelines. Public Significance StatementThe field of forensic psychology must reconcile the potential incompatibility between forensic and cultural competency principles to better support forensic professionals in their practice. We encourage practitioners to utilize existing methods and tools to integrate cultural factors, and we call on professional organizations involved in forensic psychology to assist in clarifying how to operationalize social responsiveness within the field.