This on-demand professional training on Comparing two Primary Methods for Assessing and Managing Violence Risk: Actuarial v SPJ is presented by Stephen D. Hart, Ph.D., in partnership with Protect International Risk and Safety Services.
Largely in reaction to the problems with unstructured professional judgment when assessing and managing violence risk, two primary methods of structuring violence risk assessment have been developed over the last twenty-five years. Both approaches have been the focus of extensive research and have been implemented in diverse settings worldwide. In the first method, actuarial risk assessment, information is weighted and combined according to fixed and explicit rules. In the second method, structured professional judgment (SPJ), data are weighted and combined according to guidelines and professional discretion. On the surface, these methods differ concerning the degree of structure imposed on the assessment process. But in practice, there is a tremendous debate about the intended purpose of these methods, how they are implemented in practice and their effectiveness in preventing violence. This program provides an overview of the differences between these methods and the implications of these differences for both practice and the law.
Describe the two primary methods for assessing and managing violence risk
Describe the implications of using these two methods in practice and law