Dissecting Psychological Risk Assessments: A Guide for Lawyers (and Psychologists)

Understanding the strengths and limits of actuarial and SPJ tools in forensic psychology

If you're a lawyer or professional working in criminal, parole, or civil jurisdictions, you’ve likely come across forensic psychological reports with phrases like “Static-99R score: moderate-high risk” or “Formulated using the HCR-20V3 framework.” But what do these tools really tell us—and how should you interpret them in a legal context?

Forensic risk assessments are central to decisions about sentencing, parole, extended supervision, and even immigration outcomes. Yet not all risk tools are created equal. Understanding the difference between actuarial instruments and structured professional judgement (SPJ) frameworks can help you better evaluate reports, question expert conclusions, and present your case effectively in court.

First, What Are We Talking About?

Risk assessments in forensic psychology are used to estimate the likelihood that a person will engage in harmful behaviour in the future—often violence, sexual offending, or terrorism-related activity.

Most tools fall into two broad categories:

• Actuarial tools: These use statistical algorithms based on large datasets to assign a risk level (e.g. Static-99R, VRAG-R, LS/CMI).

• Structured Professional Judgement (SPJ): These use evidence-based checklists combined with clinical judgement to formulate a risk opinion (e.g. HCR-20V3, VERA-2R, SAPROF).

  
  

Each approach has its own logic—and legal implications.

The Actuarial Approach: Data-Driven, But Context-Blind

Actuarial tools work like a credit score. They generate risk estimates based on fixed factors like age at first offence, criminal history, and victim characteristics. They're designed to be consistent across raters, and often backed by strong research (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009).

What Lawyers Should Know

• They’re predictive, not explanatory: A Static-99R score doesn’t explain why someone offended, just how often people like them reoffend.

• Look for calibration to local norms: Was the tool validated in an Australian context? Static-99R norms differ between North America and Australia (Australian Parole Board, 2020).

• Scores don’t equal certainty: “High risk” doesn’t mean will reoffend. It means higher statistical likelihood compared to others in the norm group.

  
  

Questions to Ask

• Was the tool appropriate for this offender population (e.g. youth, culturally diverse, neurodivergent)?

• Were the scores interpreted correctly by the expert—or just plugged in and repeated?

• Was the tool used in isolation, or integrated with broader case information?

  
  

SPJ Tools: Contextual and Narrative-Based

SPJ instruments rely on structured lists of empirically supported risk and protective factors. These tools help the assessor form an opinion by considering not just what’s happened, but why, how, and what’s changed.

The HCR-20V3, for example, prompts assessors to look at historical issues (e.g. past violence), current circumstances (e.g. insight, mental state), and future risks (e.g. plans, supports).

What Lawyers Should Know

• SPJ is more flexible—but also more subjective. The clinician’s judgement is key. That’s a strength, but also a potential weakness in adversarial settings.

• Narrative is everything: SPJ tools allow the expert to explain the person’s risk trajectory—what’s increased, what’s decreased, and why.

• Protective factors are part of the picture: Tools like the SAPROF and VERA-2R also look at what reduces risk—engagement in treatment, positive relationships, cultural identity, etc.

  
  

Questions to Ask

• Was the assessment clearly structured using the SPJ framework (e.g. HCR-20V3)? Ask for the checklist or ratings if not included.

• Are the conclusions supported by evidence from file review, collateral sources, and observed behaviour—or is it speculative?

  
  

So… How Should You Approach a Risk Report?

Whether you're a defence lawyer, prosecutor, or tribunal member, here’s a quick checklist:

Identify the tool used. Is it actuarial or SPJ? Or both?

Clarify its relevance. Was the tool designed for this type of offence, this population, and this purpose (e.g. recidivism vs general violence vs terrorism)?

Check for balance. Does the report only focus on risk, or are strengths and rehabilitation efforts considered?

Interrogate the interpretation. Does the clinician explain how the risk factors relate to this specific individual—or are they quoting the manual?

Request transparency. Ask for raw scores, completed checklists, or supporting documents if the basis for the risk opinion isn’t clear.

Bottom Line: It’s Not Just About Risk Levels

Forensic risk assessments are powerful tools, but they are only as strong as the expertise and transparency behind them. Actuarial tools can add clarity and structure, but lack personal nuance. SPJ tools offer rich, individualised formulation, but require careful scrutiny to avoid overreach or bias.

As a legal professional, knowing how to dissect these tools—understanding both their capabilities and their limitations—can significantly enhance your case strategy. And for psychologists, it’s a reminder to remain rigorous, clear, and balanced in both method and communication.

References

Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Belfrage, H. (2013). HCR-20V3: Assessing risk for violence – User guide. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute, SFU.Douglas, K. S., & Reeves, K. A. (2010). HCR-20: Application and empirical overview. Int J Forensic Ment Health, 9(1), 19–31.Douglas, K. S., & Skeem, J. L. (2005). Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychol Public Policy Law, 11(3), 347–383.Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). Recidivism risk for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 1–21.Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical vs Statistical Prediction. University of Minnesota Press.Singh, J. P. (2011). Predictive validity in violence risk assessment. Behav Sci Law, 29(4), 431–454.Viljoen, J. L., McLachlan, K., & Vincent, G. M. (2010). Risk assessment in youth. In Otto & Douglas (Eds.), Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment.