Standardized risk levels for violent recidivism risk assessed with the HCR-20: an exploration

Risk assessment plays an important role in forensic mental health care. The way the conclusions of those risk assessments are communicated varies considerably across instruments. In an effort to make them more comparable, Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R., Kroner, D. D., Amora, D. A., Thomas, S. S., & Tavarez, L. P. [2017. A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in corrections through the development of a common language. The Council of State Governments Justice Center. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/A-Five-Level-Risk-and-Needs-System_Report.pdf] developed the Five-Level Risk and Needs System, placing the conclusions of different instruments along five theoretically meaningful levels. The current study explores a Five-Level Risk and Needs system for violent recidivism to which the numerical codings of the HCR-20 Version 2 and its successor, the HCR-20(V3) are calibrated, using a combined sample from six previous studies for the HCR-20 Version 2 (n = 411 males with a violent index offence) and a pilot sample for the HCR-20(V3) (n = 66 males with a violent index offence). Baselines for the five levels were defined by a combination of theoretical (e.g. expert meetings) and empirical (e.g. literature review) considerations. The calibration of the HCR-20 Version 2 was able to detect four levels, from a combined level I/II to an adjusted level V. The provisional calibration of the HCR-20(V3) showed a substantial overlap with the HCR-20 Version 2, with each level boundary having a 2-point difference. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.