Actuarial risk assessment

Category: Mathematics, Measurement, Mapping, Logic, Government, Politics, International Relations

Secondary Category: Mathematics, Measurement, Mapping, Logic, Statistics, Modeling, Projection, Trials, Court Decisions, Mediations, Adjudications, Violence and Warfare

DEFINITION: Formation of judgments and predictions regarding dangerous behavior through the application of formulas to particular variables and statistics in preparation for the adoption of necessary preventive measures.

SIGNIFICANCE: Forensic psychologists use numerous factors to evaluate the likelihood that a particular person will be involved in violent and dangerous behavior. Predictions based on actuarial risk assessment influence many decisions made in the criminal justice system.

Actuarial risk assessment is one of the many tools that forensic psychologists use to evaluate the likelihood of future violent and dangerous behavior on the part of certain individuals. Other methods include clinical predictions, which are based on evidence derived from counseling and experience, and anamnestic predictions, in which psychologists analyze the behavior of specific people in the past in similar situations. The scientific community has demanded greater reliability in predictions than either clinical or anamnestic methods can provide, and an outcome of this demand has been the use of mathematical formulas to make predictions of risk. Actuarial risk assessment, thus, employs many of the tools of statistical analysis.

Uses of Risk Assessment

Many people and organizations rely on forensic mental health professionals and similar experts to make predictions about human behavior. For example, officials in the US criminal justice system rely on risk assessment in making decisions concerning sentencing—in deciding whether to impose probation as a sentence instead of incarceration. Actuarial risk assessment is also one of the tools used in certain jurisdictions to predict future dangerousness while determining whether to sentence a violent offender to death rather than life in prison. Many jurisdictions use actuarial instruments specifically for pre-trial decisions (failure to appear [FTA]/new arrest risk), not just for sentencing/parole. A psychologist’s prediction concerning a given individual’s risk of violent or inappropriate behavior could support the issuance of a restraining order in a domestic dispute or abuse case. Risk assessment may also be used in child-custody decision-making and in decisions concerning whether child visitation by a parent should be supervised. Some companies use risk assessment to evaluate the potential for violent behavior in the workplace by terminated employees, and some educational institutions use risk assessment to predict the likelihood of school violence.

Experts also use actuarial risk assessment to predict the potential for recidivism in determining whether to parole prisoners from correctional facilities and in considering the release of offenders who have been confined to mental health facilities. One area of risk assessment that has seen substantial growth concerns the prediction of sexual offenses. As per the process, persons convicted of sex offences must register as sex offenders with their local communities. When they are released, an actuarial risk assessment may influence whether specific conditions of release must be applied, including the intensity of supervision, to certain released prisoners.

Forensic psychologists may also be called upon to predict the likelihood that certain people will attempt suicide. In addition, mental health professionals may have a legal obligation to warn or protect others from a credible threat posed by a person they are treating, depending on jurisdiction (called the Tarasoff Rule). In some cases, the goal of risk assessment is to determine whether to commit people to mental health facilities involuntarily because of the likelihood that they may cause serious harm to themselves or others. Risk assessment is also used to decide whether people who have been involuntarily confined to mental health facilities have become stable enough in their behavior that they are no longer dangerous and can be released.

Risk Assessment Factors

Actuarial risk assessment involves looking at statistical relationships between variables to make judgments and predictions about future behavior. Risk assessment involves a delicate balance between protecting society from physical harm and ensuring that the rights and liberties of the persons subjected to risk assessment are not unduly restricted. Forensic mental health professionals look at various behavioral characteristics and other factors to increase the accuracy of their scientific approaches to risk assessment. These factors are derived from research involving large groups of people who have exhibited risky or violent behavior in the past and from data gathered by professional clinicians. Some of the factors or variables considered in risk assessment are specifically associated with one behavior, whereas others are predictive across the entire array of potentially risky or dangerous behaviors.

One of the most significant factors considered in risk assessment is the presence or absence of a history of violent behavior. Other risk factors include static predictors such as the psychological and physiological characteristics of the person and the person’s personal and family history. Higher risk is associated with relationship and employment instability, education maladjustment, a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and younger age. Dynamic characteristics—that is, characteristics that change over time—that are associated with higher risk include a lack of insight about personal behavior, the inability to control hostile and impulsive behavior, negative emotions in response to treatment, and ongoing psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations. Finally, in assessing risk, the person’s potential living environments and social networks must be considered, as well as the person’s ability to harm others in the future.

Research has found that actuarial risk assessment is generally more reliable than unstructured clinical assessment. Jurors, however, tend to believe the testimony of clinicians over that of actuarial experts, as jurors perceive that clinicians have stronger relationships with and thus more knowledge of the person being assessed. Despite the scientific basis of actuarial risk assessment by forensic experts being generally more reliable than unstructured assessments, the prediction of human behavior is very difficult, and significant criticism has been directed toward actuarial risk assessment. Research has shown that a person’s behavior changes over time and that actuarial prediction has an accuracy that varies depending on the instrument, population, and outcome measured.

Actuarial risk assessment continues to gain acceptance among members of the scientific and legal communities; however, ongoing research seeks to refine risk factors and improve predictive performance.

Bibliography

Freeman, Naomi J. “Predictors of Rearrest for Rapists and Child Molesters on Probation.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 34, no. 6, 2007, pp. 752–68.

Gran, Martin, and Niklas Långström. “Actuarial Assessment of Violence Risk: To Weigh or Not to Weigh?” Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 34, no. 1, 2007, pp. 22–36.

“History of Risk Assessment.” Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2024, bja.ojp.gov/program/psrac/basics/history-risk-assessment. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.

Prins, Her. Will They Do It Again? Risk Assessment and Management in Criminal Justice and Psychiatry. Routledge, 1999.

Sorensen, Jonathan R., and Rocky L. Pilgrim. “Actuarial Risk Assessment of Violence Posed by Capital Murder Defendants.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 90, no. 4, 2000, pp. 1251–70, www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/actuarial-risk-assessment-violence-posed-capital-murder-defendants. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.

“State v. Loomis. 2016 WI 68.” Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 13 July 2016, law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2016/2015ap000157-cr.html. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.

United States Courts. “Pretrial Risk Assessment.” U.S. Courts, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/probation-and-pretrial-services/evidence-based-practices/pretrial-risk-assessment. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.

Webster, Christopher D., and Stephen J. Hucker. Violence Risk: Assessment and Management. John Wiley, 2007.

“What Is Risk Assessment?” Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2024, bja.ojp.gov/program/psrac/basics/what-is-risk-assessment. Accessed 23 Feb. 2026.