ABSTRACT
Risk assessments serve multiple functions in corrections and forensic mental health. They inform decisions concerning the severity of sanctions, community services, supervision, the need for special public protection measures (e.g., sexual offender registries), and intensity and nature of treatment. For policy makers, risk assessments can assist with resource allocation. Many risk tools for crime and violence are used, most of which are highly correlated with each other and none have shown overall superiority. The typical reporting of risk involves a small set of ordered levels (e.g., low/moderate/high), for which there is little concordance among risk tools. Recognising the need to improve risk classification and communication, the Justice Department of the US Council of State Governments, in collaboration with Public Safety Canada, advanced a 5-Level System of standardised risk levels (Hanson et al., 2017). Each of the five levels has an associated set of characteristics concerning the likelihood of criminal recidivism, the density of criminogenic needs, recommended correctional response, and prognosis (expected response to treatment). By giving explicit meaning to risk levels, the 5-Level System aims to increase the likelihood that risk level placements are useful, efficient, and just.
