We provide thorough, objective violence risk assessments in Utah for attorneys, courts, agencies, and individuals. Our evaluations examine factors associated with potential violence and provide clear findings to inform treatment, supervision, and risk management.
A violence risk assessment examines factors that may increase or reduce an individual’s likelihood of engaging in violent behavior. It considers relevant history, current functioning, and the circumstances in which violence could occur.
The evaluation identifies risk factors, protective factors, and opportunities to manage risk. It provides a reasoned opinion about potential violence while explaining the uncertainty and limitations of the assessment.
Questions about violence risk can arise following threats, aggressive behavior, criminal charges, or concerns about safety. A meaningful assessment considers the individual’s behavior, circumstances, and available supports to understand what may increase risk and what may help reduce it.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, we integrate clinical interviews, relevant records, collateral information, and structured assessment methods appropriate to the referral. Our violence risk evaluations provide clearly reasoned findings and individualized recommendations to support informed decisions about treatment, supervision, and risk management.
Violence risk evaluations are commonly requested in situations involving:
These assessments are used to inform decision-making and risk management, not to determine guilt or predict behavior with certainty.
A violence risk assessment examines multiple factors to develop a structured understanding of an individual’s potential for future violent behavior.
This typically includes:
These evaluations focus on patterns across multiple domains, rather than relying on any single factor or test, to provide a balanced and evidence-based understanding of risk.
We discuss the referral concerns, the type of violence being assessed, and how the findings will be used. We clarify the scope, relevant time frame, and information needed to answer the referral questions.
We conduct clinical interviews and use structured tools as appropriate to examine relevant behavior, current functioning, and risk and protective factors. We consider circumstances in which risk may increase or decrease.
We review relevant legal, medical, and treatment records and speak with collateral sources when appropriate. These sources help clarify behavioral history, recent concerns, and differences between reported experiences and documented events.
We integrate findings using structured violence risk assessment methods appropriate to the referral. We identify risk and protective factors, consider situations in which violence may occur, and develop recommendations to manage and reduce risk.
We prepare a report explaining our risk formulation, supporting evidence, and relevant limitations. The report answers the referral questions and provides individualized recommendations to inform treatment, supervision, and risk management.
Violence risk depends on the interaction between the person and their circumstances. We examine relevant patterns, current concerns, and protective factors to understand how risk may change and identify practical ways to manage it.
We examine relevant behavioral, mental health, substance use, and legal history alongside current circumstances. We consider prior violence, reported threats, stressors, and available supports to understand patterns and factors relevant to the referral.
We use structured assessment methods appropriate to the individual and referral question. We weigh risk and protective factors, consider conflicting information, and explain how changing circumstances may affect our conclusions.
Our reports explain the identified concerns, circumstances that may increase risk, and factors that may reduce it. Recommendations address treatment, supervision, and risk management needs, with clear discussion of the assessment’s limitations.
Professional resource: Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology from the American Psychological Association.
Violence risk assessments require the integration of psychological assessment, empirical research, behavioral history, and the legal standards governing decisions involving public safety and individual liberty. Unlike traditional clinical evaluations, these assessments examine factors associated with future violent behavior, the circumstances under which violence may occur, and interventions that may reduce or manage identified risks. At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists integrate structured assessment methods, clinical findings, collateral records, and relevant scientific research to develop individualized, evidence-based opinions. The following sections explore key scientific and legal considerations in violence risk assessment, including structured professional judgment, historical and dynamic risk factors, mental illness, risk formulation, and the limitations of predicting future violence.
Violence risk assessment is a specialized area of forensic psychology concerned with evaluating the likelihood, nature, and circumstances of future violent behavior. Unlike traditional clinical evaluations, which primarily focus on diagnosis and treatment, violence risk assessments examine empirically established risk factors, behavioral history, psychological functioning, and environmental circumstances that may contribute to future violence.
Importantly, violence risk assessment is not an exact science. No psychological instrument or clinical method can determine with certainty whether an individual will engage in future violence. Rather, contemporary approaches emphasize structured, evidence-based methods that improve the consistency and transparency of risk assessment while recognizing the limitations of individual prediction.
A central distinction in forensic violence risk assessment is the difference between estimating the likelihood of future violence and understanding the circumstances under which violence might occur. A comprehensive evaluation should address not only an individual’s level of risk, but also the factors contributing to that risk and the interventions that may help reduce or manage it.
Historically, assessments of future violence relied heavily on unstructured clinical judgment, in which mental health professionals formed opinions based on interviews, clinical experience, and general impressions of an individual’s psychological functioning.
However, research has demonstrated important limitations in relying exclusively on unstructured clinical judgment, including inconsistency among evaluators and vulnerability to subjective bias.
In a meta-analysis published in Behavioral Sciences & the Law, Viljoen and colleagues examined 31 studies involving more than 45,000 risk judgments. The researchers found that structured risk assessment tools demonstrated significantly greater predictive validity than unstructured judgments across violent, general, and sexual offending outcomes.
These findings support the use of structured assessment methods, although they do not establish that any particular instrument is appropriate for every individual or referral context.
Contemporary violence risk assessment generally involves two major approaches: actuarial risk assessment and structured professional judgment.
Actuarial risk assessment instruments use predetermined scoring procedures to estimate risk based on characteristics statistically associated with future violence in relevant research populations.
These instruments typically combine empirically established risk factors using standardized scoring rules. Depending on the instrument, the resulting score may provide information about relative risk, risk categories, or estimated probabilities of violent recidivism over specified periods.
One example is the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide–Revised (VRAG-R), an actuarial instrument designed to estimate violent recidivism risk among specified populations of individuals with violent offense histories.
The VRAG-R incorporates historical and relatively stable characteristics associated with violent recidivism. Its standardized scoring procedures are intended to reduce the influence of subjective clinical impressions when estimating risk.
However, actuarial instruments have important limitations.
Their estimates are derived from group-level research and do not establish whether a particular individual will engage in future violence. The accuracy and applicability of an estimate also depend on the similarity between the individual being evaluated and the populations used to develop and validate the instrument.
Furthermore, actuarial instruments that emphasize historical risk factors may provide limited information about how changes in treatment, supervision, or environmental circumstances could affect risk over time.
Structured professional judgment (SPJ) represents a different approach to violence risk assessment. Rather than relying exclusively on a numerical score or predetermined actuarial formula, SPJ methods guide evaluators through a systematic consideration of empirically supported risk factors and their relevance to the individual.
One of the most widely used SPJ instruments is the Historical Clinical Risk Management–20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3), developed by Douglas, Hart, Webster, and Belfrage.
The HCR-20 V3 organizes risk-relevant information into three broad domains:
Historical factors: Relatively stable characteristics, including previous violence, other antisocial behavior, relationship difficulties, and relevant historical clinical concerns.
Clinical factors: Current or potentially changeable characteristics, including problems with insight, symptoms of major mental disorder, instability, and treatment or supervision responsiveness.
Risk management factors: Circumstances that may influence future violence risk, including professional services, living arrangements, personal support, and exposure to destabilizing conditions.
Unlike purely actuarial approaches, the HCR-20 V3 emphasizes the relevance of individual risk factors, the development of plausible future violence scenarios, and the identification of interventions that may reduce or manage risk.
Importantly, the HCR-20 V3 does not generate an actuarial probability of future violence through a simple summed score. Its structured professional judgment framework requires the evaluator to integrate available evidence and explain how specific risk factors contribute to the overall formulation.
This approach is particularly useful when referral questions concern not only the likelihood of violence, but also the circumstances in which violence may occur and the strategies that could reduce identified risks.
One of the most important scientific considerations in violence risk assessment is the distinction between an instrument’s ability to distinguish higher-risk from lower-risk individuals and its ability to accurately predict whether a particular person will engage in future violence.
An instrument may demonstrate meaningful predictive validity across a research population while still producing substantial uncertainty when applied to an individual case.
A comprehensive interpretation of violence risk should consider:
Base rates: The frequency of the relevant violent outcome in the population being assessed.
Predictive validity: The degree to which assessment findings distinguish individuals who subsequently engage in violence from those who do not.
Reference populations: Whether the instrument’s development and validation samples are relevant to the individual being evaluated.
Outcome definitions: Whether the research examines physical violence, violent arrests, violent convictions, institutional aggression, or other outcomes.
Follow-up periods: Whether risk estimates concern violence over months, years, or longer periods.
Assessment setting: Whether findings are being applied in correctional, forensic psychiatric, community, or other settings.
Uncertainty: The limitations affecting confidence in the risk estimate or classification.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in The BMJ examined violence risk assessment instruments across 73 samples involving approximately 24,800 individuals. The researchers found that these instruments demonstrated useful predictive properties but also substantial limitations, particularly when identifying individuals who would subsequently engage in violence.
The findings highlight why violence risk instruments should not be used as the sole basis for consequential decisions involving detention, sentencing, or release.
A classification of elevated risk does not establish that violence is inevitable. Similarly, a low-risk classification does not guarantee that an individual will not engage in future violence.
Although violence risk assessment has historically emphasized characteristics associated with increased risk, contemporary approaches increasingly recognize the importance of protective factors.
Protective factors may include supportive relationships, stable living circumstances, engagement with treatment, effective coping strategies, prosocial goals, and other characteristics that may help reduce or manage risk.
The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) was developed to systematically evaluate protective factors alongside risk-focused assessment methods.
A 2023 meta-analysis found evidence supporting the predictive relevance of SAPROF protective factors, including their incremental contribution when considered with established risk assessment instruments.
However, protective factors should not be interpreted as automatically canceling out risk factors. Their relevance depends on the individual’s circumstances, the stability of the protective conditions, and the extent to which they meaningfully influence potential pathways to violence.
For example, stable housing may support risk management in one case, while effective psychiatric treatment or reduced access to a particular conflict situation may be more relevant in another.
The goal is to identify protective circumstances that can be meaningfully incorporated into individualized risk management planning.
A critical distinction in contemporary violence risk assessment is the difference between assigning a risk classification and developing an individualized risk formulation.
A risk classification summarizes the evaluator’s judgment concerning the level of risk. A risk formulation explains how relevant factors may interact to contribute to potential future violence.
A comprehensive formulation may consider:
The nature and circumstances of previous violent behavior.
Psychological, behavioral, and situational factors associated with prior violence.
The potential role of psychiatric symptoms, substance use, or interpersonal conflict.
Circumstances that may increase or decrease the likelihood of future violence.
Plausible scenarios in which violence might occur.
Potential targets, severity, or patterns of future violence when supported by the evidence.
Protective factors and available risk management interventions.
The conditions under which reassessment may be warranted.
Importantly, risk formulations are hypotheses grounded in available evidence rather than definitive predictions about future behavior.
A formulation should identify plausible pathways to violence without assuming that the individual will necessarily follow those pathways.
This distinction is particularly important when assessments are used to inform treatment planning, supervision, release decisions, or other interventions intended to reduce the likelihood of harm.
Forensic psychologists conducting violence risk assessments must select methods appropriate to the referral questions, individual characteristics, and legal or clinical context.
This requires consideration of the scientific support for available instruments, the applicability of relevant validation research, and the limitations of the information obtained.
A scientifically defensible assessment should distinguish between historical risk factors, potentially changeable characteristics, protective circumstances, and the specific conditions under which violence may become more or less likely.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize structured assessment methods, individualized risk formulation, and careful interpretation of empirical research. Our objective is to provide attorneys, courts, and other referring professionals with scientifically grounded opinions that clarify violence risk, identify relevant risk management considerations, and acknowledge the inherent limitations of predicting future behavior.
A comprehensive violence risk assessment requires careful consideration of the factors associated with future violent behavior and the extent to which those factors are relevant to the individual being evaluated. Although research has identified numerous characteristics associated with violence across different populations, the presence of a risk factor does not necessarily establish that it contributed to an individual’s past behavior or will cause future violence.
Contemporary forensic violence risk assessment distinguishes among historical, clinical, and dynamic risk factors. This distinction is important because some characteristics provide information about an individual’s longstanding behavioral patterns, while others may change over time or in response to treatment, supervision, or environmental circumstances.
A scientifically defensible evaluation examines not only whether risk factors are present, but also how they may interact, the circumstances in which they become relevant, and whether they can be addressed through appropriate risk management strategies.
Historical risk factors are characteristics or experiences that generally cannot be changed through intervention. They provide information about an individual’s past behavior and circumstances that may be associated with future violence.
Among the most consistently supported historical risk factors is prior violent behavior. However, the significance of a violence history depends on more than the number of documented incidents.
A comprehensive assessment may consider:
Prior violent behavior: The frequency, severity, and nature of previous acts of violence, including documented incidents that did not result in criminal convictions.
Age at onset: Whether violent or antisocial behavior began during childhood, adolescence, or adulthood.
Patterns of escalation: Whether incidents have increased in frequency, severity, or seriousness over time.
Situational circumstances: The environments, interpersonal conflicts, or other conditions associated with previous violence.
Victim characteristics: Whether violence has involved intimate partners, acquaintances, strangers, or particular individuals.
Criminal and antisocial behavior: Patterns of rule violations, nonviolent offending, or other behavior associated with broader antisocial functioning.
Treatment and supervision history: Previous responses to interventions, supervision requirements, or attempts to manage behavioral difficulties.
Developmental and psychosocial history: Relevant experiences involving family instability, exposure to violence, disrupted relationships, or other longstanding circumstances.
The Historical Clinical Risk Management–20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) incorporates historical risk factors into a structured professional judgment framework. However, the presence of a historical factor does not necessarily mean it is equally relevant to every individual’s future risk.
For example, an isolated violent incident occurring decades earlier under circumstances that are unlikely to recur may have different implications than a recent pattern of escalating violence involving repeated interpersonal conflicts.
The evaluator must therefore consider the relevance, severity, and contextual significance of historical findings rather than simply counting risk factors.
The relationship between mental illness and violence is complex and frequently misunderstood.
Although certain psychiatric symptoms may be associated with elevated violence risk under particular circumstances, the presence of a psychiatric diagnosis alone is not a reliable indicator that an individual will engage in violent behavior.
Research has demonstrated that violence risk among individuals with mental illness is influenced by multiple interacting factors, including substance use, prior violence, antisocial behavior, environmental stressors, and the nature of specific psychiatric symptoms.
In a large epidemiological study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Elbogen and Johnson (2009) examined the relationship between severe mental illness and violent behavior. Their findings highlighted the importance of considering co-occurring substance use, historical violence, and other contextual factors rather than relying on psychiatric diagnosis alone.
These findings have important implications for forensic assessment. For example, a diagnosis of schizophrenia does not automatically establish elevated violence risk, and many individuals with serious mental illness have no history of violent behavior.
At the same time, particular symptoms—such as persecutory delusions, severe disorganization, or acute agitation—may be relevant when they are connected to an individual’s documented behavioral history and potential pathways to violence.
A comprehensive evaluation should therefore distinguish between the presence of a mental disorder and the specific mechanisms through which symptoms may influence behavior.
Substance use is an important consideration in violence risk assessment because intoxication, withdrawal, and substance-related behavioral patterns may influence judgment, inhibition, emotional regulation, and interpersonal conflict.
However, the relationship between substance use and violence is not uniform. The relevance of substance use depends on the substances involved, the individual’s behavioral history, patterns of use, and the circumstances surrounding previous violent incidents.
For example, alcohol intoxication may be associated with aggressive behavior in some individuals, particularly when combined with interpersonal conflict, impulsivity, or longstanding antisocial characteristics.
A comprehensive assessment may examine:
The frequency, severity, and duration of substance use.
Whether previous violent incidents occurred during intoxication or withdrawal.
The relationship between substance use and psychiatric symptoms.
Patterns of impulsivity or behavioral dysregulation associated with use.
Treatment history and response to substance-related interventions.
The availability of relapse prevention supports.
Whether changes in substance use are associated with meaningful changes in violent behavior.
Importantly, a diagnosis of substance use disorder does not independently establish that an individual will engage in future violence. The evaluator must examine whether substance-related factors are relevant to the person’s specific risk formulation.
Personality characteristics and longstanding behavioral patterns may also be relevant to violence risk assessment.
Research has identified associations between certain antisocial characteristics, impulsivity, hostility, and future violent behavior. However, personality diagnoses or elevated test scores should not be treated as direct predictions of violence.
A comprehensive assessment may consider difficulties involving:
Behavioral inhibition and impulse control.
Hostility, anger, and responses to perceived provocation.
Antisocial attitudes or disregard for social rules.
Interpersonal instability and conflict.
Emotional regulation and tolerance of frustration.
Problem-solving and decision-making under stress.
Willingness to engage in treatment or supervision.
These characteristics should be evaluated in relation to documented behavior and the circumstances in which difficulties have occurred.
For example, elevated hostility may have different implications for an individual with a history of assaultive behavior than for someone who reports frequent anger but has no documented history of aggression.
The presence of personality pathology does not establish that future violence is inevitable, and the absence of a personality disorder does not establish that an individual presents no risk.
Dynamic risk factors are characteristics or circumstances that may change over time and influence the likelihood of future violence.
Some dynamic factors change gradually, such as patterns of interpersonal functioning, treatment engagement, or longstanding difficulties with behavioral regulation. Others may fluctuate more rapidly, including acute psychiatric symptoms, substance intoxication, escalating interpersonal conflict, or access to potential victims.
This distinction is particularly important because violence risk is not necessarily constant across settings or periods of time.
For example, an individual’s risk may increase during periods of substance use, psychiatric destabilization, or escalating conflict. Risk may decrease when effective treatment, stable living circumstances, supervision, or other protective conditions are present.
A comprehensive evaluation should therefore consider both relatively stable vulnerabilities and circumstances that may produce short-term changes in risk.
The HCR-20 V3 incorporates clinical and risk management factors that help evaluators identify potentially changeable characteristics and develop individualized risk management strategies.
However, not every dynamic characteristic is necessarily an empirically established causal factor. Evaluators should distinguish between characteristics associated with violence in research populations and factors that are meaningfully connected to the individual’s documented behavioral history.
A comprehensive violence risk assessment should examine protective factors in addition to characteristics associated with elevated risk.
Protective factors may include stable relationships, effective coping strategies, treatment engagement, prosocial activities, supportive living arrangements, and other circumstances that may reduce opportunities for violence or improve behavioral regulation.
The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (SAPROF) provides a structured framework for evaluating protective characteristics alongside established violence risk factors.
However, protective factors should not be interpreted as automatically canceling out historical or clinical risk factors.
For example, stable employment may support behavioral stability but may not adequately address a specific pattern of intimate partner violence. Similarly, treatment engagement may be protective when it produces meaningful improvements in relevant symptoms or behaviors, but attendance alone does not establish that risk has decreased.
The relevance of protective factors depends on their relationship to the individual’s particular risk formulation.
The ultimate purpose of identifying historical, clinical, and dynamic risk factors is not simply to generate a list of characteristics associated with violence.
A comprehensive forensic evaluation should examine how these factors may interact and whether they help explain the individual’s previous violent behavior or potential future risk.
For example, an individual may have a history of violence occurring primarily during periods of heavy alcohol use and escalating interpersonal conflict. In such a case, substance use and conflict management may be particularly important considerations for risk management.
Another individual may have a history of violence associated with acute persecutory delusions, suggesting a different set of risk-relevant mechanisms and intervention needs.
These examples illustrate why individuals with similar risk classifications may require substantially different management strategies.
A scientifically defensible risk formulation should identify which factors are most relevant, explain the evidence supporting their significance, and acknowledge uncertainty when the relationship between risk factors and violent behavior is unclear.
Forensic psychologists conducting violence risk assessments must integrate behavioral history, psychiatric findings, psychological testing, collateral records, and relevant research to identify risk factors that are meaningful to the individual being evaluated.
This process requires distinguishing between historical characteristics that cannot be changed, dynamic factors that may respond to intervention, and protective circumstances that may reduce or manage risk.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize individualized risk formulation, careful consideration of empirical research, and objective interpretation of the available evidence. Our goal is to provide attorneys, courts, and other referring professionals with scientifically grounded opinions that clarify the factors contributing to violence risk and identify relevant considerations for treatment, supervision, and risk management.
One of the most important developments in contemporary violence risk assessment is the shift from simply estimating an individual’s likelihood of future violence toward developing an individualized understanding of how, why, and under what circumstances violence might occur. This approach, commonly referred to as violence risk formulation, is central to structured professional judgment (SPJ) methods.
Unlike unstructured clinical judgment, which relies primarily on an evaluator’s general impressions and experience, structured professional judgment uses empirically informed assessment frameworks to guide the identification, evaluation, and integration of risk-relevant information.
However, structured professional judgment is also distinct from purely actuarial assessment. Rather than relying exclusively on a numerical score or statistical prediction, SPJ methods require the evaluator to consider the relevance of identified risk factors, their potential interactions, and the circumstances that may increase or decrease the likelihood of future violence.
The objective is not merely to assign a risk classification, but to develop a scientifically informed formulation that can guide meaningful risk management decisions.
The Historical Clinical Risk Management–20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) is one of the most widely recognized structured professional judgment instruments for assessing risk of interpersonal violence.
The HCR-20 V3 provides a systematic framework for evaluating historical, clinical, and risk management factors associated with violence. However, its application involves more than determining whether individual risk factors are present.
Evaluators must also consider the relevance of each factor to the individual’s particular circumstances, the relationship between identified factors and previous violent behavior, and the potential influence of future environmental conditions.
For example, a history of substance use may be particularly relevant when previous violent incidents consistently occurred during intoxication. In contrast, the same historical characteristic may have less explanatory significance for an individual whose violence occurred under unrelated circumstances.
Similarly, psychiatric symptoms may be relevant when there is evidence that specific symptoms contributed to previous aggression, but a diagnosis alone does not establish a causal relationship with violence.
Structured professional judgment therefore requires the evaluator to distinguish between the general empirical association of a risk factor with violence and its individualized relevance to the person being assessed.
A violence risk formulation integrates assessment findings into a coherent explanation of the factors that may contribute to future violent behavior.
Rather than treating risk factors as independent characteristics, the evaluator considers how historical vulnerabilities, current psychological functioning, situational stressors, and protective circumstances may interact.
A comprehensive violence risk formulation may address:
Nature of previous violence: The frequency, severity, circumstances, and patterns of documented violent behavior.
Relevant psychological mechanisms: Whether psychiatric symptoms, impulsivity, hostility, perceived threats, or other psychological processes have contributed to previous incidents.
Situational triggers: Interpersonal conflicts, environmental stressors, substance use, or other circumstances associated with increased risk.
Potential targets: Whether available evidence identifies particular individuals, groups, or categories of people who may be at increased risk.
Behavioral patterns: Whether previous incidents reveal recurring sequences of escalation, threats, confrontation, or aggression.
Dynamic risk factors: Potentially changeable characteristics that may influence future violence.
Protective factors: Relationships, treatment, environmental stability, or other circumstances that may reduce or manage risk.
Risk management opportunities: Interventions that may interrupt identified pathways to violence.
The formulation should be grounded in available evidence rather than constructed solely from theoretical assumptions.
For example, an individual with a history of violence associated with persecutory delusions may require a different risk management approach than someone whose aggression primarily occurs during interpersonal conflict and alcohol intoxication.
Although both individuals may receive similar overall risk classifications, the factors contributing to their risk—and the interventions most likely to address those factors—may differ substantially.
An important component of structured professional judgment is the development of plausible future violence scenarios.
Risk scenarios describe circumstances under which violence might occur, based on the individual’s history, current functioning, and anticipated environmental conditions.
These scenarios are not predictions that a particular event will occur. Rather, they are evidence-informed hypotheses intended to clarify how risk could emerge and which interventions might reduce its likelihood or consequences.
A comprehensive risk scenario may consider:
Nature of potential violence: Whether future violence might involve threats, physical assault, intimate partner violence, or other forms of interpersonal aggression.
Potential targets: Whether the individual’s history or current circumstances suggest risk involving particular people or relationships.
Severity: The potential seriousness of harm, including whether previous behavior supports concern about escalating violence.
Likelihood: The evaluator’s judgment concerning the relative plausibility of the scenario, given the available evidence.
Imminence: Whether the relevant circumstances suggest near-term concerns or risks that may emerge over a longer period.
Frequency or persistence: Whether violence might involve isolated incidents or recurring patterns.
Precipitating circumstances: Events or conditions that could contribute to escalation.
Preventive interventions: Actions or supports that may reduce the likelihood or severity of the identified scenario.
Importantly, not every evaluation permits reliable conclusions about potential targets, imminence, or the precise nature of future violence.
When the available evidence does not support a specific scenario, the evaluator should acknowledge those limitations rather than imply a degree of predictive precision that cannot be scientifically justified.
A particularly important distinction in violence risk assessment is that the likelihood, potential severity, and imminence of violence are related but separate considerations.
An individual may present a relatively low likelihood of violence while having a history of behavior associated with potentially severe consequences. Conversely, another individual may have a pattern of relatively frequent but less severe aggression.
Similarly, an elevated longer-term risk classification does not necessarily establish that violence is imminent.
These distinctions matter because different risk characteristics may warrant different management strategies.
For example, concerns about imminent violence may require prompt assessment and intervention, while longer-term risk associated with chronic behavioral patterns may be addressed through sustained treatment, supervision, and environmental supports.
The evaluator must therefore clarify what type of risk is being assessed, over what anticipated period, and under which circumstances.
A violence risk opinion that simply labels an individual as “high risk” without explaining the nature, context, or timeframe of that risk may provide limited practical value to attorneys, courts, or treatment professionals.
One of the principal advantages of structured professional judgment is its emphasis on connecting assessment findings to practical risk management strategies.
A comprehensive violence risk assessment should consider whether identified risks may be reduced through interventions targeting relevant psychological, behavioral, or environmental factors.
Depending on the individual and referral context, recommendations may address:
Psychiatric treatment and stabilization when specific symptoms contribute to risk.
Substance use treatment when intoxication or substance-related difficulties are associated with aggression.
Behavioral interventions targeting impulsivity, hostility, or difficulties with emotional regulation.
Strategies for recognizing and responding to escalating interpersonal conflict.
Appropriate supervision, monitoring, or environmental safeguards.
Strengthening protective relationships and prosocial supports.
Addressing housing instability or other circumstances that may undermine effective risk management.
Reassessment when meaningful changes occur in symptoms, behavior, treatment engagement, or environmental conditions.
Importantly, the presence of a dynamic risk factor does not automatically establish that a particular intervention will reduce violence risk.
Recommendations should be based on the individual’s circumstances, the available evidence, and the extent to which the proposed intervention addresses a plausible pathway to violence.
For example, psychiatric treatment may be particularly relevant when violence has been associated with acute psychotic symptoms. However, psychiatric stabilization alone may not adequately address risk associated with longstanding antisocial behavior or recurrent interpersonal aggression.
A defensible risk management plan should therefore be individualized rather than based exclusively on diagnostic labels or overall risk classifications.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology provide an important professional framework for the development of scientifically defensible forensic opinions.
Guideline 9.01 emphasizes examining forensic questions from reasonable perspectives and seeking information that can distinguish among plausible competing hypotheses. Guideline 9.02 emphasizes the use of multiple sources of information and corroboration of important findings whenever feasible.
These principles are particularly relevant to violence risk formulation.
For example, an evaluator examining a history of aggression should consider whether the behavior is more strongly associated with psychiatric symptoms, substance use, interpersonal conflict, longstanding antisocial characteristics, or a combination of factors.
Similarly, the evaluator should examine information that may contradict an initial formulation rather than selectively emphasizing evidence that supports a predetermined conclusion.
A scientifically defensible risk formulation should therefore integrate available records, behavioral history, clinical findings, and relevant collateral information while clearly acknowledging uncertainties and limitations.
The APA guidelines do not prescribe a particular violence risk assessment instrument or establish that any single method is appropriate for every referral. Instead, they reinforce the importance of appropriate methodology, impartiality, and transparent reasoning in forensic practice.
Violence risk is not necessarily constant over time.
Although historical risk factors remain unchanged, dynamic characteristics and environmental circumstances may change substantially. Psychiatric stabilization, treatment engagement, changes in substance use, improved social supports, or changes in supervision may alter the circumstances relevant to future violence.
Conversely, worsening psychiatric symptoms, escalating conflict, renewed substance use, or the loss of protective supports may increase concern.
Accordingly, violence risk formulations should be understood as reflecting the information and circumstances available at the time of the evaluation.
A risk assessment conducted during an acute psychiatric hospitalization may not adequately characterize the individual’s functioning after sustained stabilization. Similarly, an evaluation completed before a significant change in living arrangements or supervision may require reconsideration when those circumstances change.
Reassessment may be appropriate when new information materially affects the individual’s risk factors, protective circumstances, or anticipated pathways to violence.
Forensic psychologists conducting structured violence risk assessments must integrate empirical research with individualized clinical and behavioral evidence.
This requires more than identifying risk factors or assigning a categorical risk level. The evaluator must consider how relevant factors may interact, develop plausible formulations of potential future violence, and identify interventions that may reduce or manage risk.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize structured assessment methods, individualized violence risk formulation, and careful consideration of the relationship between assessment findings and risk management recommendations. Our objective is to provide attorneys, courts, and other referring professionals with scientifically grounded opinions that clarify not only the level of violence risk, but also the circumstances under which violence may occur and the factors that may influence its management.
Violence risk assessments may provide important information in criminal proceedings when courts and attorneys must consider public safety, the likelihood of future violent behavior, and the potential effectiveness of treatment or supervision. Depending on the referral questions, these evaluations may be requested in connection with pretrial release, sentencing, probation, parole, or other decisions involving an individual’s potential risk to others.
However, violence risk assessment is not synonymous with general criminal recidivism assessment. Although these approaches share certain risk factors and assessment methods, they address different outcomes and may rely on instruments developed for different populations and purposes.
A comprehensive forensic violence risk assessment focuses specifically on the nature, likelihood, and circumstances of potential future violence, including the factors that may contribute to violent behavior and the interventions that could help manage identified risks.
Importantly, a violence risk assessment does not independently determine whether an individual should be detained, incarcerated, released, or placed under particular supervision conditions. These decisions require consideration of applicable law, the circumstances of the offense, public safety, and other factors beyond the scope of psychological assessment.
Pretrial release decisions involve balancing public safety considerations with the constitutional and statutory protections afforded to individuals who have not been convicted of an offense.
In Utah, pretrial decision-making may incorporate structured risk assessment tools intended to estimate the likelihood of new criminal activity, failure to appear in court, or new violent criminal activity during the pretrial period.
The Utah Courts’ Public Safety Assessment (PSA) uses a standardized set of historical and criminal justice-related factors to estimate specified pretrial outcomes. The instrument produces risk scores concerning new criminal activity and failure to appear, along with an indicator associated with elevated risk of new violent criminal activity.
However, the PSA is not equivalent to a comprehensive forensic violence risk assessment.
The PSA primarily relies on predefined historical and criminal justice variables. It does not involve the same individualized examination of psychiatric symptoms, psychological functioning, dynamic risk factors, violence scenarios, and risk management considerations that may be addressed through a specialized forensic evaluation.
A comprehensive violence risk assessment may be particularly relevant when pretrial concerns involve complex psychiatric presentations, a history of targeted violence, escalating threats, or circumstances that require a more individualized understanding of potential violence.
Under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 9, magistrates consider available validated pretrial risk assessment information when making specified initial release decisions. The rule also addresses the imposition of release conditions reasonably necessary to protect public safety, witnesses, and victims while ensuring the defendant’s appearance.
A forensic violence risk assessment may provide additional information relevant to these concerns, but it does not replace the court’s statutory responsibilities or determine whether pretrial detention is legally justified.
Following a criminal conviction, violence risk assessment findings may inform sentencing considerations involving public protection, rehabilitation, and the potential for future offending.
Under Utah Code § 76-3-201, sentencing courts consider multiple factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the seriousness of the conduct, deterrence, protection of the public, rehabilitation, and relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
For certain violent felonies and sexual offenses, the statute directs courts to prioritize specified considerations involving offense seriousness, punishment, deterrence, and public protection over the defendant’s interests.
These statutory requirements provide important context for understanding how forensic violence risk assessment findings may be used at sentencing.
A comprehensive evaluation may address:
History of violent behavior: The nature, frequency, severity, and circumstances of previous violent incidents.
Risk-relevant psychological characteristics: Psychiatric symptoms, personality characteristics, cognitive limitations, or behavioral patterns associated with violence.
Dynamic risk factors: Potentially changeable characteristics that may influence future violence risk.
Violence risk formulation: The circumstances and mechanisms through which future violence might occur.
Protective factors: Treatment engagement, prosocial relationships, environmental stability, and other circumstances that may support risk management.
Treatment needs: Psychological or behavioral difficulties that may be appropriate targets for intervention.
Supervision considerations: Environmental conditions, monitoring needs, or other circumstances relevant to managing identified risks.
Assessment limitations: The extent to which available evidence and assessment methods support conclusions about future violence.
Importantly, the presence of an elevated violence risk classification does not automatically establish that incarceration is legally required or that community supervision would be inappropriate.
Similarly, a relatively low risk classification does not establish that a particular sentence is warranted or that public safety concerns are absent.
The evaluator’s responsibility is to provide scientifically grounded information about risk-relevant factors and potential management strategies rather than recommend a legal disposition solely on the basis of a risk score.
Utah’s 2026 Adult Sentencing, Release, and Supervision Guidelines provide a structured framework for sentencing and correctional decision-making. The guidelines address offense severity, criminal history, sentencing recommendations, supervision, and considerations relevant to risk reduction.
However, the use of standardized sentencing and risk assessment tools must be distinguished from a comprehensive forensic violence risk evaluation.
An actuarial or administrative risk assessment may estimate general criminal recidivism or another specified outcome, while a specialized violence risk assessment may examine particular patterns of aggression, psychological mechanisms, and circumstances relevant to future violent behavior.
This distinction is expressly relevant to Utah sentencing law.
Under Utah Code § 77-18-103(10), a sentencing court may not rely solely on an algorithm or risk assessment tool score when determining the appropriate sentence.
This statutory limitation reinforces an important principle: risk assessment findings are one source of information within a broader legal decision-making process.
A comprehensive forensic evaluation may provide additional context by explaining the factors contributing to an individual’s risk, identifying limitations in the available data, and clarifying whether particular interventions may be relevant to risk management.
However, even a detailed forensic assessment does not replace the court’s responsibility to weigh the full evidentiary record and apply the governing sentencing law.
Violence risk assessments may also inform decisions involving probation, parole, and community supervision.
In these contexts, the central questions may involve not only the likelihood of future violence, but also the conditions under which risk may increase or decrease and the interventions that may support safe community functioning.
For example, an individual whose prior violence occurred primarily during periods of substance intoxication and escalating interpersonal conflict may require a different risk management approach than an individual whose violence was associated with acute psychiatric symptoms or longstanding antisocial behavior.
A comprehensive assessment may consider:
The individual’s response to prior treatment or supervision.
Whether identified dynamic risk factors have meaningfully changed.
The stability of psychiatric symptoms and behavioral functioning.
Substance use patterns and relevant treatment needs.
Access to potential victims or circumstances associated with prior violence.
The availability of appropriate housing, employment, and prosocial supports.
The feasibility of proposed supervision or risk management strategies.
Whether reassessment is warranted following significant changes in functioning or circumstances.
These findings may help inform treatment intensity, supervision planning, and individualized risk management.
However, the evaluator must distinguish between clinically relevant recommendations and conditions that are legally authorized or required.
For example, a psychologist may identify concerns involving contact with a particular individual or exposure to certain environments without independently determining whether a no-contact order, electronic monitoring, or another restriction should be imposed.
Similarly, treatment recommendations should be based on identified psychological or behavioral needs rather than assuming that all individuals convicted of violent offenses require the same interventions.
One of the most important distinctions in criminal forensic assessment is the difference between predicting general criminal recidivism and assessing the risk of future violence.
General recidivism instruments may incorporate factors associated with subsequent criminal behavior broadly, including nonviolent offenses.
Violence-specific instruments focus on factors associated with interpersonal aggression or violent offending.
These outcomes overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
For example, an individual may have an extensive history of nonviolent criminal behavior and present elevated general recidivism risk without necessarily demonstrating the same level of risk for serious interpersonal violence.
Conversely, an individual with relatively limited criminal history may present significant violence-related concerns due to documented threats, escalating interpersonal conflict, or other case-specific circumstances.
The selection of assessment methods must therefore reflect the actual referral questions.
A comprehensive violence risk evaluation should identify the type of violence being assessed, the relevant timeframe, the population for which the selected instruments are appropriate, and the limitations of the resulting conclusions.
Forensic psychologists conducting violence risk assessments must distinguish between scientific opinions concerning future violence and the legal decisions those opinions may inform.
A psychologist may provide opinions regarding violence risk factors, individualized risk formulations, treatment needs, protective circumstances, and risk management considerations. However, determining whether detention, incarceration, probation, parole, or particular supervision conditions are appropriate remains the responsibility of the relevant legal authorities.
The evaluator must also recognize that violence risk is contextual and may change over time. An assessment conducted during acute psychiatric instability, for example, may not adequately characterize risk following sustained treatment or a substantial change in environmental circumstances.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize structured assessment methods, individualized violence risk formulation, and careful consideration of the legal context in which findings will be used. Our objective is to provide attorneys, courts, and correctional professionals with scientifically grounded opinions that clarify violence-related concerns and potential management strategies while recognizing the limitations of risk prediction and the responsibilities of the legal system.
Violence risk assessments may play an important role in legal and clinical proceedings involving involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, civil commitment, conditional release, and other decisions concerning public safety. In these contexts, forensic psychologists may be asked to evaluate whether an individual’s psychological functioning, behavioral history, and current circumstances support concerns about future violence.
However, the relationship between clinical risk assessment and legal decision-making is particularly complex when the potential consequences include involuntary treatment or restrictions on personal liberty.
Importantly, an elevated violence risk assessment finding does not automatically establish that an individual meets the legal criteria for involuntary commitment. Similarly, the presence of a serious mental illness does not independently establish that a person poses a substantial danger to others.
A comprehensive forensic evaluation must distinguish between empirically supported violence risk factors, the individual’s current psychological functioning, and the specific legal requirements governing the decision at issue.
In Utah, involuntary civil commitment proceedings involving adults are governed primarily by Utah Code § 26B-5-332.
The statute establishes procedures for court-ordered examinations, hearings, and findings necessary for involuntary commitment.
Under the ordinary commitment pathway in § 26B-5-332(16)(a)(i), the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that:
The individual has a mental illness.
Because of the mental illness, the individual poses a substantial danger to themselves or others.
The individual lacks the ability to engage in rational decision-making regarding acceptance of mental health treatment, as demonstrated by an inability to weigh the risks of accepting or rejecting treatment.
No appropriate less-restrictive alternative to commitment is available.
The local mental health authority can provide adequate and appropriate treatment.
The statute also establishes a separate commitment pathway for certain defendants found incompetent to proceed because of mental illness, with its own requirements.
These distinctions are important because a violence risk assessment may identify concerning behavioral patterns without establishing that the individual satisfies every element necessary for civil commitment.
For example, a person may present an elevated risk of interpersonal violence associated with longstanding antisocial behavior or substance use without necessarily meeting the statutory requirements for commitment based on mental illness.
Conversely, an individual experiencing severe psychiatric symptoms may satisfy civil commitment criteria even without an extensive history of interpersonal violence.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that involuntary psychiatric commitment involves a substantial deprivation of liberty and therefore requires important constitutional safeguards.
In O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Court held that a state cannot constitutionally confine a nondangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom, either independently or with the assistance of willing and responsible family members or friends, merely because the individual has a mental illness.
The decision illustrates the importance of distinguishing psychiatric diagnosis from the legal justification for involuntary confinement.
Similarly, in Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause requires proof by clear and convincing evidence for indefinite involuntary civil commitment under state law.
The Court recognized both the significant liberty interests involved and the inherent uncertainty associated with psychiatric assessment.
These decisions provide important constitutional context for violence risk evaluations used in civil commitment proceedings. They reinforce the need for careful assessment and appropriately qualified opinions rather than treating clinical risk classifications as dispositive legal findings.
Violence risk assessment may also be relevant when an individual presents with acute psychiatric symptoms or circumstances suggesting a near-term risk of serious harm.
Under Utah Code § 26B-5-331, Utah law establishes procedures for temporary involuntary commitment when specified requirements concerning mental illness and substantial danger are satisfied.
These evaluations differ from comprehensive forensic violence risk assessments in several important respects.
An acute clinical assessment may focus on immediate concerns, including current threats, severe psychiatric symptoms, recent violent behavior, access to potential victims, and the availability of less-restrictive interventions.
A comprehensive forensic violence risk assessment, by contrast, may involve a more extensive examination of historical risk factors, psychological testing, collateral records, structured assessment instruments, and longer-term risk management considerations.
Although these approaches may overlap, they are not interchangeable.
An individual’s longer-term violence risk classification does not necessarily establish that violence is imminent. Similarly, an acute episode of psychiatric instability may warrant immediate clinical intervention without establishing a persistent pattern of elevated violence risk.
Violence risk assessments may also inform decisions involving discharge from psychiatric hospitalization, conditional release, or transition from highly structured settings to community environments.
In these contexts, the central question may involve whether identified risk factors can be adequately managed under anticipated living, treatment, and supervision conditions.
A comprehensive assessment may consider:
History of violence: The nature, severity, and circumstances of previous violent incidents.
Current psychiatric functioning: Whether symptoms associated with previous aggression remain active or have meaningfully improved.
Treatment response: Whether interventions have produced sustained improvements in relevant symptoms or behavior.
Substance use: Whether substance-related difficulties remain relevant to the individual’s violence risk.
Insight and behavioral regulation: The individual’s recognition of relevant difficulties and ability to respond appropriately to emerging problems.
Environmental circumstances: Housing, access to treatment, interpersonal relationships, and other factors that may affect risk.
Protective supports: The availability of reliable assistance, monitoring, and prosocial relationships.
Risk management feasibility: Whether proposed interventions are practical, available, and responsive to the individual’s identified risk factors.
Changes over time: Whether meaningful changes in functioning warrant reassessment of previous risk conclusions.
Importantly, risk may differ substantially depending on the environment in which an individual is functioning.
For example, a person may demonstrate behavioral stability in a highly structured psychiatric setting while continuing to experience vulnerabilities that could become relevant in a less-supervised environment.
Conversely, an individual with a history of serious psychiatric symptoms may demonstrate sustained improvement through effective treatment and stable community supports.
A scientifically defensible evaluation should therefore distinguish between observed functioning in the current setting and anticipated functioning under proposed release conditions.
Violence risk assessment principles may also be relevant outside traditional criminal and psychiatric proceedings, including workplace violence, threats against identifiable individuals, and institutional safety concerns.
However, threat assessment and general violence risk assessment are related but distinct processes.
Traditional forensic violence risk assessment frequently examines an individual’s historical, clinical, and behavioral characteristics to develop an estimate or formulation of future violence risk.
Behavioral threat assessment may place greater emphasis on the individual’s current behavior, communications, grievances, planning, access to potential targets, and movement toward potentially violent action.
The U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center publishes research and guidance concerning behavioral threat assessment and the prevention of targeted violence.
This body of work emphasizes examining observable behaviors and circumstances rather than relying on a presumed psychological profile of individuals who may commit violence.
In cases involving threats or targeted violence concerns, a comprehensive assessment may consider:
The nature, specificity, and context of communicated threats.
Documented grievances or escalating interpersonal conflicts.
Evidence of planning, preparation, or other behavior suggesting movement toward violence.
Access to potential targets and relevant environmental circumstances.
Prior behavior involving intimidation, stalking, aggression, or boundary violations.
Psychiatric symptoms or substance use when relevant to the individual’s behavior.
Protective factors and opportunities for intervention.
The availability of organizational, clinical, or legal risk management responses.
Importantly, not every threatening statement indicates that violence will occur, and individuals may engage in concerning preparatory behavior without making an explicit threat.
A defensible assessment must therefore examine the broader behavioral context rather than relying exclusively on the presence or absence of verbal threats.
Violence risk assessment findings may be relevant to civil commitment, release planning, institutional safety, or other legal decisions. However, the scientific conclusions supported by an assessment must be distinguished from the legal standards governing those decisions.
A forensic psychologist may identify elevated risk factors, describe plausible pathways to violence, evaluate treatment response, or offer opinions concerning the feasibility of particular risk management strategies.
However, these findings do not independently determine whether involuntary hospitalization, continued confinement, conditional release, or another restriction on liberty is legally justified.
The legal significance of violence risk findings depends on the governing statute, the purpose of the proceeding, the applicable burden of proof, and the full evidentiary record.
For example, a risk assessment may support concern about future aggression without establishing that the risk arises from mental illness, as required under particular civil commitment provisions.
Similarly, a history of violence may inform discharge planning without establishing that continued confinement is legally permissible.
The evaluator must therefore communicate the nature of the risk being assessed, the timeframe and circumstances relevant to the opinion, and the limitations affecting its interpretation.
Forensic psychologists conducting violence risk assessments in civil commitment and other legal contexts must integrate empirical research, behavioral history, current psychological functioning, and relevant environmental information.
This requires distinguishing between longer-term risk factors and acute concerns, considering the relationship between psychiatric symptoms and violent behavior, and identifying interventions that may reduce or manage risk.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize individualized assessment, structured risk formulation, and careful recognition of the legal context in which findings may be used. Our objective is to provide attorneys, courts, and other referring professionals with scientifically grounded opinions that clarify violence-related concerns while respecting the distinction between clinical assessment and legal determinations concerning liberty, treatment, and public safety.
A comprehensive violence risk assessment requires the integration of multiple sources of information to develop an accurate understanding of an individual’s behavioral history, psychological functioning, and circumstances relevant to future violence. Because these evaluations frequently inform consequential legal, clinical, or correctional decisions, the reliability of the information obtained is particularly important.
Unlike traditional clinical evaluations, which primarily focus on diagnosis and treatment, forensic violence risk assessments examine empirically established risk factors, patterns of previous behavior, and the circumstances under which future violence might occur. These questions require careful consideration of historical records, current clinical findings, collateral information, and the limitations of available assessment methods.
Importantly, no single psychological test, clinical interview, or risk assessment instrument can independently determine whether an individual will engage in future violence.
A comprehensive violence risk assessment may incorporate several complementary assessment methods, depending on the referral questions, available records, and legal or clinical context.
These may include:
Clinical and forensic interviews: Assessment of psychiatric symptoms, psychological functioning, behavioral history, interpersonal relationships, and circumstances relevant to violence risk.
Structured violence risk assessment: Use of empirically informed instruments, such as the HCR-20 V3, to systematically examine historical, clinical, and risk management factors.
Psychological testing: Standardized measures of personality, psychopathology, cognitive functioning, and response style when relevant to the referral questions.
Behavioral history: Examination of documented violence, threats, aggression, criminal behavior, and other risk-relevant conduct.
Records review: Evaluation of available medical, psychiatric, correctional, legal, treatment, and prior assessment records.
Collateral interviews: Information from treatment providers, correctional personnel, family members, or other individuals familiar with the person’s functioning when appropriate and authorized.
Behavioral observations: Consideration of the individual’s communication, emotional regulation, reasoning, and behavior during the evaluation.
Response validity assessment: Evaluation of whether reported symptoms, test responses, and other assessment findings provide a sufficiently reliable basis for interpretation.
The relative importance of each method depends on the specific referral questions.
For example, an evaluation involving a history of violence associated with acute psychiatric symptoms may require detailed examination of treatment records and symptom progression. In contrast, an assessment involving targeted threats may place greater emphasis on documented communications, behavioral escalation, and situational risk factors.
Response validity assessment is particularly important in forensic violence risk evaluations because individuals may have significant motivations to minimize or exaggerate psychological symptoms, behavioral difficulties, or previous violent conduct.
Some individuals may underreport aggression, substance use, psychiatric symptoms, or other characteristics perceived as unfavorable. Others may exaggerate symptoms or provide inconsistent information for reasons related to the evaluation context.
However, unusual response patterns do not automatically establish intentional deception.
Standardized psychological instruments may include validity indicators designed to identify inconsistent responding, potential overreporting, underreporting, or atypical symptom presentation.
These findings must be interpreted in relation to the individual’s clinical history, behavioral evidence, and the limitations of the assessment instrument.
For example, elevated defensiveness indicators may suggest that self-reported information should be interpreted cautiously, but they do not independently establish that an individual is concealing violent behavior.
Similarly, unusual symptom endorsement may reflect severe psychiatric illness, misunderstanding, cognitive limitations, cultural or linguistic differences, or other factors.
A scientifically defensible evaluation should explain how response validity findings affect confidence in the interpretation of psychological data without treating any single indicator as definitive evidence of malingering or deception.
Collateral information is particularly valuable in violence risk assessment because self-reported histories of aggression, threats, and other relevant behavior may be incomplete or inconsistent with documented evidence.
Relevant sources may include criminal records, police reports, correctional documentation, psychiatric hospitalization records, treatment notes, prior risk assessments, and reports from individuals familiar with the person’s behavior.
However, the presence of information in a record does not necessarily establish its accuracy.
For example, an arrest record documents law enforcement involvement but does not independently establish that the alleged conduct occurred. Similarly, clinical records may contain unverified statements or interpretations based on incomplete information.
The evaluator must distinguish among:
Documented behavior: Incidents supported by reliable records or other corroborating evidence.
Reported allegations: Claims concerning violence or threats that have not necessarily been independently established.
Clinical observations: Behavior directly observed by treatment providers or evaluators.
Self-reported information: Statements provided by the individual being evaluated.
Collateral accounts: Information obtained from third parties with varying levels of knowledge or potential bias.
Conflicting evidence: Discrepancies that require additional examination or qualification.
Missing information: Records or collateral sources that may materially affect the assessment but were unavailable.
The objective is not to resolve every factual dispute, but to determine which conclusions are reasonably supported by the available evidence and how uncertainty affects the resulting risk formulation.
Structured violence risk assessment instruments can improve the consistency and transparency of forensic evaluations by guiding consideration of empirically supported risk factors.
The Historical Clinical Risk Management–20, Version 3 (HCR-20 V3) provides a structured professional judgment framework for evaluating historical, clinical, and risk management factors.
However, the use of a structured instrument does not eliminate the need for clinical reasoning or individualized interpretation.
Evaluators must consider whether the instrument is appropriate for the individual, whether sufficient information is available to evaluate relevant factors, and whether the resulting conclusions are consistent with the instrument’s intended use.
Similarly, instruments developed for particular populations or settings should not automatically be applied to individuals for whom their reliability or predictive validity has not been established.
A scientifically defensible assessment should clearly identify the instruments used, explain their relevance to the referral questions, and acknowledge limitations affecting the interpretation of findings.
In some cases, attorneys or courts may request a violence risk assessment based exclusively on available records rather than a direct examination.
A records-only assessment may be appropriate when direct examination is unavailable, impractical, or unnecessary for the specific questions presented.
For example, a forensic psychologist may be asked to review a previous violence risk assessment, examine the scientific basis for another evaluator’s conclusions, or assess documented behavioral patterns relevant to violence risk.
However, records-only assessments have important limitations.
Without directly examining the individual, the evaluator may be unable to assess current psychiatric symptoms, administer psychological testing, evaluate response validity through direct assessment, or observe present behavioral functioning.
The significance of these limitations depends on the referral questions and the quality of available records.
A records-only evaluation may provide meaningful information about historical risk factors, documented violence patterns, or methodological weaknesses in an existing assessment. However, it may not provide a sufficient foundation for definitive conclusions about current clinical functioning or rapidly changing dynamic risk factors.
The American Psychological Association’s Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology recognize that forensic opinions may sometimes be formed without a direct examination, provided the evaluator considers whether the available information is sufficient and clearly communicates the limitations of the methods employed.
These principles are particularly relevant when attorneys seek independent reviews of violence risk opinions or when direct access to the individual is restricted.
When violence risk assessment findings are presented as expert evidence, the scientific reliability of the methods employed and the reasoning supporting the conclusions is particularly important.
Under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must satisfy requirements concerning the expert’s qualifications, the reliability of the underlying principles and methods, and their application to the facts of the case.
These considerations are relevant to the selection of violence risk instruments, interpretation of psychological testing, evaluation of collateral evidence, and development of individualized risk formulations.
A scientifically defensible report should distinguish between established findings, empirically supported risk factors, reasonable clinical inferences, and conclusions that exceed the available evidence.
For example, an evaluator should not infer that an individual presents imminent danger solely because of an elevated score on a general violence risk assessment instrument.
Similarly, the absence of significant psychiatric symptoms does not necessarily establish that an individual presents no violence risk.
The evaluator must explain how the available information supports the particular conclusions offered, including any uncertainty concerning the likelihood, severity, or circumstances of potential future violence.
Forensic violence risk assessments require careful integration of behavioral history, clinical findings, structured assessment methods, and collateral information.
The evaluator must distinguish between established behavior, disputed allegations, psychological characteristics, and empirically supported risk factors while recognizing the limitations of each information source.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize comprehensive assessment, objective interpretation, and transparent communication of findings and limitations. Our goal is to provide attorneys, courts, and other referring professionals with scientifically grounded violence risk opinions that clarify relevant concerns and inform individualized risk management decisions without overstating the predictive capabilities of psychological assessment.
Violence risk assessments can provide valuable information to attorneys, courts, and other referring professionals regarding an individual’s potential for future violent behavior, the factors contributing to that risk, and interventions that may help reduce or manage identified concerns. However, the scientific conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from these evaluations depend on the assessment methods employed, the quality of the available evidence, and the specific legal or clinical questions being addressed.
One of the most important responsibilities of the forensic psychologist is to distinguish between empirically supported risk estimates, individualized clinical formulations, and conclusions that exceed the predictive capabilities of psychological assessment.
Although structured violence risk assessment methods can improve the consistency and transparency of forensic opinions, no psychological instrument or assessment procedure can predict with certainty whether a particular individual will engage in future violence.
When violence risk assessment findings are presented as expert evidence, the scientific reliability of the methods and reasoning underlying the opinions is particularly important.
Under Utah Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony must satisfy requirements concerning the expert’s qualifications, the reliability of the underlying principles and methods, the sufficiency of supporting facts or data, and the reliable application of those methods to the circumstances of the case.
Similarly, Utah Rule of Evidence 703 addresses the types of facts or data upon which experts may reasonably rely in forming their opinions.
In violence risk assessments, these sources may include psychological testing, structured risk assessment instruments, criminal and behavioral history, psychiatric records, collateral interviews, and other relevant information.
However, the use of a particular assessment instrument does not automatically establish that an expert’s conclusions are scientifically reliable or legally admissible.
A defensible forensic opinion requires appropriate instrument selection, accurate application of assessment procedures, and a transparent explanation of how the available evidence supports the conclusions offered.
For example, an evaluator should not interpret an actuarial risk estimate as a precise prediction of an individual’s future behavior or treat a structured professional judgment classification as an actuarial probability when the instrument does not support that interpretation.
Violence risk assessment findings are inherently probabilistic and subject to uncertainty.
Actuarial instruments estimate risk based on observed outcomes in relevant research populations. Structured professional judgment methods organize risk-relevant information and support individualized formulations concerning potential future violence.
Although these approaches differ in methodology, neither can eliminate the possibility of inaccurate conclusions.
A comprehensive interpretation of violence risk evidence should consider:
Predictive validity: Whether the assessment method demonstrates an empirically supported relationship with the violent outcome being evaluated.
Reference populations: Whether the instrument was developed and validated using populations sufficiently comparable to the individual being assessed.
Base rates: The frequency of the relevant violent outcome within the applicable population.
Outcome definitions: Whether the assessment concerns physical assault, violent criminal recidivism, institutional aggression, targeted violence, or another specified outcome.
Timeframe: Whether the conclusions concern short-term, medium-term, or longer-term risk.
Risk classification: Whether categorical terms such as low, moderate, or high risk are supported by the instrument and appropriately explained.
Contextual factors: Whether treatment, supervision, environmental circumstances, or other conditions may influence future risk.
Uncertainty and limitations: The extent to which incomplete information, methodological limitations, or individual circumstances restrict confidence in the conclusions.
A systematic review and meta-analysis published in The BMJ examined the predictive performance of violence risk assessment instruments across multiple forensic and clinical populations. The researchers found that these instruments demonstrated meaningful predictive utility but also substantial limitations, particularly in identifying individuals who would subsequently engage in violence.
These findings underscore why risk estimates should be interpreted as one component of a broader assessment rather than treated as definitive predictions.
An elevated risk classification does not establish that future violence is inevitable. Similarly, a low-risk classification does not guarantee that an individual will not engage in violent behavior.
The distinction between forensic psychological opinions and legal determinations is fundamental to the appropriate use of violence risk evidence.
Under Utah Rule of Evidence 704, an otherwise admissible opinion is not automatically objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue. However, expert testimony remains subject to the requirements of Rules 702 and 703 and other applicable evidentiary limitations.
A forensic psychologist may provide scientifically supported opinions concerning:
The presence and relevance of empirically established violence risk factors.
Historical patterns of violent or aggressive behavior.
Psychological and behavioral characteristics potentially associated with violence.
The likelihood or relative level of future violence risk, when supported by appropriate methods.
Plausible circumstances under which future violence might occur.
Dynamic risk factors and protective circumstances.
Treatment needs and individualized risk management recommendations.
Limitations affecting the interpretation of risk assessment findings.
However, these opinions do not independently determine whether an individual should be detained, incarcerated, civilly committed, released, or subjected to particular legal restrictions.
Such decisions require application of statutory requirements, evidentiary standards, constitutional protections, and other considerations that extend beyond psychological assessment.
For example, a violence risk assessment may identify significant concerns about future aggression without establishing that the individual satisfies the statutory criteria for involuntary civil commitment.
Similarly, a finding of elevated violence risk does not independently establish that a particular criminal sentence is legally warranted.
Violence risk assessments may produce differing conclusions, particularly when evaluators use different instruments, have access to different information, or interpret risk-relevant findings differently.
A disagreement between qualified forensic psychologists does not necessarily establish that either evaluation is scientifically inadequate.
However, meaningful differences in assessment methodology, instrument applicability, interpretation of behavioral history, or risk formulation may warrant careful examination.
A review of competing violence risk opinions may consider whether:
The assessment instruments were appropriate for the individual and referral questions.
Risk factors were accurately identified and interpreted.
Historical and dynamic characteristics were appropriately distinguished.
Disputed allegations were separated from established behavioral evidence.
The evaluator considered relevant protective factors and alternative explanations.
Risk classifications were interpreted consistently with the instrument’s intended use.
Conclusions concerning imminence, severity, or potential targets were adequately supported.
Proposed risk management strategies were connected to the identified risk factors.
Important uncertainties and methodological limitations were clearly acknowledged.
The objective of such a review is not simply to identify differences between experts, but to evaluate whether the scientific reasoning supporting each opinion is defensible.
One of the most important distinctions in contemporary violence risk assessment is the difference between estimating risk and identifying strategies to manage that risk.
A categorical risk classification may communicate the evaluator’s overall judgment, but it does not necessarily explain the circumstances under which violence might occur or which interventions could reduce identified concerns.
A comprehensive violence risk formulation should therefore consider the interaction of historical vulnerabilities, current psychological functioning, environmental circumstances, and protective factors.
For example, an individual whose violence has been associated with acute psychiatric symptoms may require a different risk management approach than someone whose aggression primarily occurs during interpersonal conflict and substance intoxication.
Although both individuals may receive similar overall risk classifications, the interventions most relevant to their circumstances may differ substantially.
Importantly, risk management recommendations should be grounded in the individual’s documented history and the available evidence rather than relying on generalized assumptions about psychiatric diagnoses or criminal behavior.
The evaluator should also recognize that risk may change over time. Improvements in treatment engagement, psychiatric functioning, environmental stability, or other protective circumstances may alter the individual’s risk formulation.
Conversely, significant changes in symptoms, substance use, interpersonal conflict, or access to potential victims may warrant reassessment.
Violence risk assessments frequently occur in adversarial settings where the findings may influence significant decisions involving public safety and individual liberty.
These circumstances make impartiality, methodological rigor, and clear communication of limitations particularly important.
Whether retained by defense counsel, prosecutors, correctional authorities, or other referring parties, the forensic psychologist’s responsibility is to provide an objective assessment grounded in the available evidence.
This includes acknowledging information that may contradict an initial risk formulation, considering alternative explanations, and recognizing when the evidence is insufficient to support a definitive conclusion.
For example, an evaluator may identify significant historical risk factors while also recognizing meaningful protective circumstances that reduce concern under particular conditions.
Conversely, an individual may demonstrate relatively few traditional risk factors while presenting specific behavioral or situational concerns that warrant careful consideration.
A scientifically defensible opinion should explain these distinctions rather than relying exclusively on a categorical risk label.
At Utah Center for Psychological Services, our forensic psychologists emphasize structured assessment methods, individualized violence risk formulation, and transparent communication of findings and limitations. Our objective is to provide attorneys, courts, and other referring professionals with independent psychological opinions that clarify violence risk, identify relevant risk management considerations, and support informed decision-making without overstating the predictive capabilities of forensic assessment.
Violence risk evaluations are private pay. Insurance does not cover the cost of these evaluations.
For additional payment information, visit our Fees & Insurance page.
Flat fee
Comprehensive assessment and written report.
Contact us to discuss your referral, clarify the questions the assessment needs to address, and learn about scheduling, fees, and next steps.
A violence risk assessment is a structured psychological evaluation used to assess the likelihood of future violent behavior and identify factors that may increase or reduce risk.
These evaluations are commonly requested by courts, attorneys, probation or parole officers, treatment providers, or institutions when there are concerns about safety or risk.
Most assessments involve multiple components and may take several hours, depending on the complexity of the case and the amount of information that needs to be reviewed. Typically, these evaluations take 4 to 6 weeks.
No. These evaluations do not predict behavior with certainty. They assess patterns, risk factors, and protective factors to provide an evidence-based estimate of risk.
No. The evaluation provides information to the court or referring party, but legal decisions are made by the judge or other authorities.
REVIEWED BY
Licensed Psychologist │ Utah License: 12377684-2501
View Professional Credentials →
