Critical considerations in the development and interpretation of common risk language

Abstract

Existing risk communication procedures are marred by various well-documented problems and inconsistencies. The Council of State Governments' Justice Center (United States) developed a five-level system for risk and needs communication, to standardize these procedures and to provide a common risk language. Introduction of a common language could constitute a dramatic shift in criminal justice processes, with wide-ranging impacts. This article provides a critical review of the system and its suitability for application to various risk assessment functions. Issues discussed include: applicability to specialist and generalist offending behavior, the characteristics of suitable instruments, statistical and conceptual priorities, barriers to precision in language, and conceptual issues related to changes in risk level. A thorough understanding of each of these issues is necessary to apply the system to new contexts and populations, and facilitate straightforward and precise risk communication. Absent further elaboration of the system, many problems with risk communication will persist.

An Examination of the Professional Override of the Level of Service Inventory–Ontario Revision

“…Recent efforts have been undertaken to standardize risk communication (Hanson et al, 2017) and to provide more precise definitions of risk categories. Although the implications of the common risk language are still being investigated (Hogan, 2020; Hogan & Sribney, 2019), greater precision in defining risk levels may carry over into improved decision making related to professional overrides.…”

Police are Influenced by Anchoring and Risk When Allocating Resources for Scenario-based Intimate Partner Violence Cases

“…Indeed, risk may mean different things to different people. For example, Scurich (2018) and Hogan (2020) both point out that people use categorical risk judgments (e.g., high, medium, etc.) inconsistently, interpreting the terms in different ways.…”

Testing a new non-arbitrary system for risk communication

“…While the Five-Levels have been applied to numerous risk assessment tools for various types of offending behaviour, there may be limitations of the Five-Level system itself, with adjustment needed going forward (Hogan, 2020). For example, while there has been substantial evidence of common risk factors among all individuals who offend (i.e., the Central Eight; Andrews et al, 2006) there are also certain risk factors that are more associated with different types of offending behaviour (e.g., sexual offences, violent offences, etc.).…”

“…The rates of recidivism may also differ for individuals who commit differing offences. Considering this, the Five-Levels may be unable to accommodate for specialized offending behaviour, especially given that differing risk instruments may assess different facets of a certain behaviour (Barbaree et al, 2006;Hogan, 2020). Further studies examining which information is being utilized to make relevant risk, treatment, and parole decisions could aid in efforts to ensure that the Five-Level system not only standardizes risk decisions but also leads to more consistent decisions concerning such risk.…”

“…TESTING A NEW NON-ARBITRARY SYSTEM FOR RISK COMMUNICATION 63Hogan (2020) suggests that the Five-Levels can be used for specialized offending if there is clear articulation of the meaning of the levels within each specialized context.For example, in the current study I assessed an individual who committed a violent offence (assault and robbery) with general recidivism tools. The Five-Levels here speak to Mr. Wilson's risk of general recidivism only, it cannot speak to his potential for violent recidivism.…”