Taking Chances: Risk assessment and management in a risk obsessed society

2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Herschel Prins

Two earlier contributions to this journal on the topic of `dangerous behaviour' are updated in the light of recent theoretical and practical developments in the assessment and management of risk in criminal justice and psychiatry. Such assessment and management need to be viewed against the background of current over-preoccupation with avoiding the hazards of daily living. `Never predict anything, particularly the future' (Statement attributed to Sam Goldwyn, Film Producer)

2019 ◽  
pp. 136248061988055
Author(s):  
Monica Barry

The aim of risk assessment and management in criminal justice is increasingly about minimizing opportunities to create harm to the public rather than maximizing opportunities to create change in offenders. This seems to be particularly the case in respect of parole, where the balance of public protection with rehabilitation has become increasingly unstable in prioritizing the former. This article examines parole decision making and management within the UK from the perspectives of both high risk offenders on licence and parole professionals. It discusses two key drivers to burgeoning recall rates: the stringency of licence conditions and the propensity of professionals to recall in the name of risk elimination rather than risk reduction. The article concludes that the effectiveness of parole is in question, not least in enabling re-entry and reintegration of high risk prisoners. In particular, the future sustainability of parole itself is deemed to be under threat.


Author(s):  
Paul E. Mullen ◽  
James R. P. Ogloff

Assessing and managing the risk of our patients being violent towards others now occupies a prominent position in virtually all forms of mental health practice, but it remains a contentious area. At the highest level researchers, psychometricians, and statisticians argue about almost every aspect, even whether anything useful can be said about individual outcomes rather than group indicators. At the next level an industry flourishes of selling training, and risk assessment tinstruments, to those who then appear as experts in a wide range of mental health and criminal justice contexts. On the ground, almost everyone in mental health is drawn into filling out purpose-designed forms and complying with protocols, most of little or no demonstrated validity. This chapter is intended to make clinicians aware of both the possibilities and limitations of existing approaches to the assessments of risk. Given that there is no reason for mental health professionals to evaluate risk without gaining information to manage it, this chapter will also address the management of risk for aggression and violence.


1997 ◽  
Vol 170 (S32) ◽  
pp. 4-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Reed

Recent inquiries show that there is a need for a better understanding of the relationship between mental disorder and risk, about what is involved in risk assessment and risk management, and for better training for all involved, whether in health and social care services or in the criminal justice system. This paper sets out the basis for this conclusion and describes some recent central initiatives to promote better understanding of risk and risk assessment and management.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 358-365
Author(s):  
John Baird ◽  
Ruth Stocks

SummaryRisk assessment and management is an integral part of modern clinical practice. In this article we discuss best practice in the assessment and management of risk of harm to others. Unstructured clinical judgement methods have been used for many years, but it is only more recently that actuarial and structured clinical judgement methods have been introduced. These methods are discussed and compared. We describe a process that could be followed by a clinical team and give an illustrative case example. Last, we reflect on aspects of current practice and consider the possible direction of developments in the field.


1998 ◽  
Vol 61 (10) ◽  
pp. 441-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen M Thom ◽  
Sheena E E Blair

Dementia affects a person's ability to undertake previously achievable tasks which can present risks. The assessment and management of risk can differ and inclusion of the person's view is not always apparent. This literature review aimed to explore current knowledge concerning key areas relevant to risk assessment and management. This included the contribution of occupational therapy functional assessment. It revealed that knowledge tended to be practice based, rather than research based, and that there was no specific research on functional assessment of risk. Issues of how risk was established by those involved and consideration of the person's view were raised.


Author(s):  
Stuart N. Lane ◽  
Catharina Landström ◽  
Sarah J. Whatmore

The mantra that policy and management should be ‘evidence-based’ is well established. Less so are the implications that follow from ‘evidence’ being predictions of the future (forecasts, scenarios, horizons) even though such futures define the actions taken today to make the future sustainable. Here, we consider the tension between ‘evidence’, reliable because it is observed, and predictions of the future, unobservable in conventional terms. For flood risk management in England and Wales, we show that futures are actively constituted, and so imagined, through ‘suites of practices’ entwining policy, management and scientific analysis. Management has to constrain analysis because of the many ways in which flood futures can be constructed, but also because of commitment to an accounting calculus, which requires risk to be expressed in monetary terms. It is grounded in numerical simulation, undertaken by scientific consultants who follow policy/management guidelines that define the futures to be considered. Historical evidence is needed to deal with process and parameter uncertainties and the futures imagined are tied to pasts experienced. Reliance on past events is a challenge for prediction, given changing probability (e.g. climate change) and consequence (e.g. development on floodplains). So, risk management allows some elements of risk analysis to become unstable (notably in relation to climate change) but forces others to remain stable (e.g. invoking regulation to prevent inappropriate floodplain development). We conclude that the assumed separation of risk assessment and management is false because the risk calculation has to be defined by management. Making this process accountable requires openness about the procedures that make flood risk analysis more (or less) reliable to those we entrust to produce and act upon them such that, unlike the ‘pseudosciences’, they can be put to the test of public interrogation by those who have to live with their consequences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document