Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Ansbro, Maria (2010)
Publisher: Howard Journal of Criminal Justice
Languages: English
Types: Article
The aim of this research was to examine the thought processes that practitioners follow when they are conducting risk assessments. Weighing up the probability that an individual will inflict harm requires the practitioner to apply clinical and actuarial approaches, and integrate static and dynamic information. This is a complex and inexact task, and one that has been found lacking in reviews of serious further offences. This research focused on a small, atypical subgroup of risk assessments; those where the actuarial information is at odds with the clinical judgment. The results indicated that practitioners are more likely to override actuarial information that indicates a low risk of harm rather than a high one, confirming the existence of the ‘precautionary principle’. The research also produced some important messages for practice, particularly a reluctance to reduce sexual offenders’ risk of harm even when evidence of all types was compelling, and conversely, a willingness to reduce non-sexual offenders’ risk on the basis of only flimsy dynamic evidence, and counter to actuarial pointers. The research concludes that a more sophisticated understanding of the evidence around dynamic factors would enhance assessments.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ansbro, M. (2006) 'What can we learn from serious incident reports?', Probation Journal, 53(1), 57-70.
    • Beech, A., Friendship, C., Erikson, M. and Hanson, R.K. (2002) 'The relationship between static and dynamic risk factors and reconviction in a sample of UK child abusers', Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 155-7.
    • Craissati, J. and Beech, A. (2003) 'A review of dynamic variables and their relationship to reconviction', Journal of Sexual Aggression, 9(1), 41-55.
    • Craissati, J. and Sindall, O. (2009) 'Serious further offences: an exploration of risk and typologies', Probation Journal, 56(1), 9-27.
    • Crawford, A. (2007) 'What impacts on quality assessment using OASys?', Probation Journal, 54(2), 157-70.
    • Grove, W.M., Zald, D.H., Hallberg, A.M., Lebow, B., Snitz, E. and Nelson, C. (2000) 'Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis', Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19-30.
    • Hanson, R.K. and Harris, A.J.R. (2001) 'A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders', Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(2), 105-22.
    • HM Inspectorate of Probation (2005) Realising the Potential: A Short Focused Inspection on the Offender Assessment System (OASys), London: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
    • HM Inspectorate of Probation (2006a) An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence Case: Damien Hanson and Elliot White, London: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
    • HM Inspectorate of Probation (2006b) An Independent Review of a Serious Further Offence Case: Anthony Rice, London: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
    • HM Inspectorate of Probation (2009) Risk of Harm Inspection Report: A Stalled Journey, London: HM Inspectorate of Probation.
    • Home Office (2007) OASys Handbook, London: Home Office.
    • Hudson, B. (2002) 'Human rights, public safety and the probation service: defending justice in the risk society', Howard Journal, 40. 103-13.
    • Kemshall, H. (1998) 'Defensible decisions for risk: or “it's the doers wot get the blame”', Probation Journal, 45(2), 67-72.
    • Kemshall, H. (2008) Understanding the Community Management of High Risk Offenders, Maidenhead: Open University Press.
    • King, M. (2009) Press interview on the UK quarterly inflation figures, 13 May.
    • Lidz, C., Mulvey, E. and Gardner, W. (1993) 'The accuracy of predictions of violence to others', Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 1007-11.
    • Maden, A., Rogers, P., Watt, A., Lewis, G., Amos, T., Gournay, K. and Skapinakis, P. (2006) Assessing the Utility of the Offenders Group Reconviction Scale-2 in Predicting the Risk of Reconviction within 2 and 4 Years of Discharge in English and Welsh Medium and Secure Units, National Forensic Mental Health Research and Development Programme report. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.
    • Ministry of Justice/Hill, L. (2009) Investigation into the Issues Arising from the Serious Further Offence Review: Dano Sonnex, London: Home Office.
    • Monahan, J. (2000) 'Violence risk assessment: scientific validity and evidentiary admissibility', Washington and Lee Law Review, 57, 901-18.
    • Seto, M.C. and Eke, A.W. (2005) 'The future offending of child pornography offenders', Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 201-10.
    • Prins, H. (1999) Will They Do It Again? Risk Assessment and Management in Criminal Justice and Psychiatry, London: Routledge.
    • Taleb, N.N. (2004) Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets, London: Thomson.
    • Thornton, D. (2002) 'Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment', Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 139-53.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article