How Do Forensic Psychologists Advance Violence Risk Assessments with the Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 (MLG-V2) to Assess Group Violence?

The Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 (MLG-V2) is a sophisticated framework designed to address the unique dynamics of group-based violence (GBV). Rather than asking only whether a person is “high” or “low” risk, MLG-V2 guides the forensic psychologist to examine how risk develops across multiple levels of influence and, just as importantly, where it can be mitigated. This shift reflects a broader transformation in the field. Violence risk assessment is no longer just about prediction; it is about understanding pathways to violence and identifying leverage points for prevention.

Group-based violence encompasses a wide spectrum of criminal and political activity, including gang violence, organized crime, hate crimes, and terrorism. These forms of violence are distinct because the intent is tied to a real or perceived group, and the individual’s decisions are heavily shaped by group identity, norms, and social dynamics. The familiar “us versus them” mentality, moral justifications for harm, and pressures of loyalty or belonging often play a central role.

Historically, many practitioners relied on generic violence risk assessment tools. Instruments such as the HCR-20 V3 provide a robust framework for evaluating individual-level risk factors like prior violence, substance misuse, or mental health concerns, and they remain invaluable in many forensic contexts. However, when applied to group-based violence, these tools can fall short. They are not designed to systematically account for ideological commitments, recruitment pathways, social network influence, or the ways groups normalize and organize violence.

The Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 (MLG-V2) was developed to fill this gap. It offers a nested ecological framework that views the individual as embedded within layers of social, organizational, and societal context. For the forensic psychologist, this means moving beyond a narrow focus on personal pathology and toward a more comprehensive, interactional understanding of risk—one that is better suited to the realities of gangs, organized crime, and extremism.

A forensic psychologist applying MLG-V2 must navigate a complex web of risk factors that operate at different levels of a person’s life. The framework is built on the assumption that GBV is best understood through an ecological lens: examining only individual-level factors is rarely sufficient for modern violence risk assessment.

MLG-V2 organizes risk into four interconnected domains:

• Individual Domain: Factors largely independent of group affiliation, often overlapping with traditional tools like the HCR-20 V3. These include history of violence, mental health symptoms, substance use, coping skills, and personal stressors or grievances.
• Individual–Group Domain: The person’s relationship to groups and ideologies, including identity, level of commitment, perceived status within the group, attitudes toward outgroups, and exposure to propaganda or grievance narratives.
• Group Domain: The norms, goals, structure, and influence of the group itself—such as leadership, cohesion, operational capacity, and whether violence is encouraged, instrumental, or celebrated.
• Group–Societal Domain: The broader social, political, and cultural context in which the group operates, including community polarization, media narratives, historical grievances, and situational opportunities or constraints for violence.

By using this multi-level approach, the forensic psychologist can identify not just who may be at risk, but how their environment and group memberships are  actively driving that risk. This approach is particularly important in cases where an individual may not show severe mental illness or a long history of personal violence, yet is highly radicalized or deeply embedded in a violent criminal organization.

In practice, this means asking questions like: How do personal vulnerabilities intersect with group pressures? How does the group amplify, channel, or restrain violent behavior? And how does the broader environment legitimize or accelerate movement toward harm?

When assessing risk related to gang violence or organized crime, the forensic psychologist must move beyond simple “risk banding” or purely score-based approaches. The Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 is grounded in Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ), which is widely regarded as best practice in high-stakes violence risk assessment.

SPJ combines the strengths of actuarial and clinical approaches. Actuarial tools rely on static, measurable predictors—such as age or criminal history—but these can be too inflexible for the dynamic, strategic nature of organized crime or extremist networks. Purely unstructured clinical judgment, on the other hand, risks bias and inconsistency. SPJ provides a structured yet flexible middle ground.

Within the MLG-V2 framework, SPJ typically involves three core steps:

1. Gathering Information: Drawing on multiple sources, including interviews, mental health records, criminal histories, institutional behavior, and—when available—security or intelligence reports.
2. Rating Presence and Relevance: Risk factors are not merely checked as “present” or “absent.” The forensic psychologist evaluates the relevance of each factor to the specific case and context.
3. Formulation: Developing a coherent narrative that explains how and why a person might engage in violence, and under what conditions that risk is likely to increase or decrease.

This flexibility is essential in gang and organized crime cases, where roles, alliances, and strategies can shift rapidly. A high-ranking enforcer, a peripheral associate, and a coerced recruit may share some surface-level risk markers, yet their actual pathways to violence and opportunities for intervention can look very different. A single numerical score cannot capture that nuance; SPJ within MLG-V2 is designed to.

The true strength of the Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 lies in its capacity to integrate individual, group, and societal factors into a single, coherent formulation. In many cases of group-based violence, risk does not reside in any one factor, but in the interaction between them.

For example, a forensic psychologist might identify:

• A history of social isolation or personal grievance (Individual Domain),
• Combined with a strong, identity-defining attachment to a group or cause (Individual–Group Domain),
• Within a group that endorses or normalizes violence (Group Domain),
• And situated in a broader context of political polarization or perceived injustice (Group–Societal Domain).

None of these factors individually guarantees violence. Together, they can create a powerful, self-reinforcing pathway toward harm. MLG-V2’s “nested” structure helps clinicians move beyond fragmented checklists and toward an integrated understanding of how risk is being generated and maintained.

This integration is also reflected in the collateral information that supports high-quality assessments:

Individual Domain: criminal records, mental health and medical files, educational and employment records, and prior forensic evaluations.

Individual–Group Domain: social media activity, chat logs, online aliases, personal writings or manifestos, and interviews with family or peers documenting ideological or behavioral shifts.

Group Domain: law enforcement or intelligence reports, group propaganda, documentation of affiliations, and analyses of communication or planning behavior.

Group–Societal Domain: media narratives, community responses, monitoring of extremist or gang activity, and relevant historical or political context.

Other Sources: institutional behavior records, probation or parole reports, and immigration or refugee files when identity and trauma are central to the case.

The goal is not to collect information indiscriminately, but to strategically gather data that clarifies how risk operates across levels and allows the forensic psychologist to test competing hypotheses about future behavior.

In terrorism and targeted violence prevention, generic violence risk assessments are often criticized as insufficient. Extremist violence is not driven solely by the same factors that underlie common criminal assault. Ideology, social networks, identity threats, and moral justifications for harm play a central role.

Research shows that while radicalized individuals may share some traditional criminogenic risk factors, they also exhibit features such as dehumanization of perceived outgroups, rigid moral narratives, and strong in-group identification. Simple demographic profiling has very limited predictive value. What matters more are experiential, attitudinal, and psychological processes—and the social environments that sustain them.

The Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 is uniquely suited to these cases because it:

• Accounts for Ideology: Not as a sole cause, but as a powerful lens through which grievances, identity, and moral reasoning are organized.
• Analyzes Network Influence: Recognizing that radicalization is often driven by social ties, online communities, and echo chambers rather than isolated belief.
• Recognizes “Lone Actors”: The framework remains applicable even when individuals are not formal group members but identify with a movement’s goals, such as some sovereign citizen or lone-actor terrorist cases.

By applying MLG-V2, the forensic psychologist can move beyond simplistic labels and toward a nuanced assessment of how belief, belonging, stressors, and opportunity converge to create risk and where disengagement or disruption might be possible.

One of the most innovative features of the Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 is its emphasis on scenario planning. Rather than offering a single, static risk judgment, the framework requires clinicians to consider multiple “possible futures.”

Scenario planning involves asking:

• What would lead this person to commit violence?
• In what context is that violence most likely to occur?
• Who or what are the most likely targets?
• Which factors would escalate or de-escalate risk?

This approach shifts violence risk assessment from a reactive exercise to a prevention-focused strategy. By identifying specific motivators, disinhibitors, and destabilizers, along with the conditions under which they are most potent, the forensic psychologist can help craft tailored risk management plans.

For instance, if scenario analysis suggests that risk peaks during periods of social isolation and online immersion in extremist content, interventions might focus on strengthening prosocial supports, increasing supervision during high-risk periods, or disrupting access to reinforcing networks. Protective factors such as stable employment, community engagement, or supportive family relationships can be deliberately leveraged as part of the management plan.

In this way, MLG-V2 reframes violence risk assessment from a question of “How dangerous is this person?” to “Under what conditions does risk rise or fall, and what can we do to influence those conditions?”

The Multi-Level-Guidelines-Version-2 represents a significant advancement in the field of forensic assessment. For the forensic psychologist, it provides a rigorous, evidence-informed framework for conducting a violence risk assessment that truly reflects the complexity of group-based violence.

By integrating individual vulnerabilities with group dynamics and societal context and by leveraging the strengths of Structured Professional Judgment and scenario planning MLG-V2 ensures that assessments are not only more accurate, but also more actionable. In an era where extremist threats, organized crime, and gang activity are increasingly interconnected, such multi-level, ecological approaches are no longer optional. They are fast becoming the benchmark for best practice.

Ultimately, MLG-V2 helps shift the field away from static labels and toward dynamic, prevention-oriented formulations. It equips forensic psychologists not just to assess risk, but to understand it, and, crucially, to help manage and reduce it in ways that serve both public safety and ethical professional practice.

Training

• Limited-Time Specially Priced Risk Assessment Training Bundle
• Violence Risk Assessment Certificate
• Legal Issues and Violence Risk
• Specialized Violence: Honor Based Violence
• PATRIARCH-V2
• One Size Does Not Fit All; Violent Extremism and Clinical Service Utilization
• Structured Professional Judgement
• Structured Professional Judgment and Racial Disparities in Risk Assessment
• Forensic Case Formulation and Treatment Planning

Blog Posts

• Cycle of violence: Exposure to nongun violence contributes to perpetration of gun violence
• Dr. Stephen Hart on the SPJ Approach to Risk Assessment (Video)
• A Case of Misdiagnosis? Gang Members’ Mental and Emotional Health Needs
• The Role of Callous-Unemotional Traits within Adolescent Group Offending
• Understanding Factors that Lead Individuals to Commit Crime