How Do I, as a Forensic Psychologist, Prepare Violence Risk Assessments that Support Expert Testimony in Institutional Settings?

In institutional forensic contexts, violence risk assessments operate at the intersection of law, clinical care, and public safety. Courts may rely on these evaluations to inform decisions related to commitment, continued detention, conditional release, or civil confinement. At the same time, institutions rely on these assessments to guide treatment planning, supervision intensity, privilege decisions, and environmental controls.

Because these evaluations are often relied upon for multiple purposes, forensic psychologists must prepare reports that are clinically rigorous and legally defensible. Importantly, defensibility does not require adopting a legalistic writing style or advocating for a particular outcome. Instead, it requires grounding opinions in empirical literature, clearly articulating reasoning, and avoiding conclusions that exceed the available data.

When violence risk assessments are transparent in their logic and restrained in their conclusions, they are less likely to be misunderstood, misused, or inappropriately challenged. The report's consumer, whether it is reviewed internally within the institution or introduced in legal proceedings, can clearly trace how the evaluator moved from data to formulation to opinion. This transparency will thereby increase the assessment’s credibility, utility, and durability across settings.

As forensic psychologists working in correctional facilities, forensic hospitals, and SVP programs, we are frequently asked to assess the likelihood, nature, and conditions under which violence may occur. These evaluations may initially be conducted for institutional purposes, such as treatment planning or level-of-care determinations, but, as they become part of the medical record, they may later be relied upon in court.

This dual role places unique demands on the evaluator, not only to reach clinically sound conclusions but also to document the reasoning process in a way that is understandable to non-clinical audiences. Courts and review panels may be primarily interested in conclusory statements, but they are also interested in understanding how opinions were formed and why particular factors were emphasized. As a result, the forensic psychologist’s responsibility extends beyond selecting appropriate instruments and providing a conclusive opinion. Careful data integration, explicit risk formulation, and disciplined communication are required, each of which contributes to the credibility of expert testimony long before testimony is ever requested.

Expert testimony does not start and end on the witness stand. It is constructed incrementally through the decisions we make as forensic psychologists throughout the assessment process. For example, how data are gathered, how inconsistencies are addressed, how risk is conceptualized, and how conclusions are framed all impact our future testimony.

In correctional and forensic hospital environments, violence risk assessments commonly inform:

• Level-of-care and placement decisions
• Treatment planning and progression
• Privilege determinations and supervision intensity
• Conditional release and community transition planning

Because these decisions carry significant legal and public safety implications, assessments must demonstrate disciplined reasoning and internal consistency. Violence risk assessments are commonly conducted using either actuarial models, which apply fixed statistical algorithms, or structured professional judgment approaches, which integrate empirically supported risk factors with guided clinical reasoning. Notably, judicial commentary does not consistently favor actuarial over structured professional judgment approaches. Instead, courts tend to value assessments that show thoughtful integration of data, explicit reasoning, and restraint in conclusions. SPJ frameworks align closely with these expectations by requiring evaluators to explain why particular factors matter, how they interact, and under what conditions risk changes.

Structured professional judgment (SPJ) tools are particularly well-suited to producing violence risk assessments that support expert testimony. Unlike purely actuarial approaches that emphasize numerical classification, SPJ frameworks guide forensic psychologists to integrate empirical research with case-specific information in a transparent and structured manner.

A core strength of SPJ-based assessment is its focus on risk formulation rather than categorical labels. Rather than concluding that an individual is simply “high risk,” evaluators are encouraged to articulate:

• The forms of violence most likely to occur
• The conditions under which risk escalates
• The likely targets of violence
• The mechanisms driving risk

As forensic psychologists, this approach allows us to conceptualize violence risk as dynamic and context-dependent rather than static. For one individual, risk may escalate during periods of perceived rejection or substance use, while remaining relatively contained in other circumstances. For another, a single, highly salient factor may independently elevate risk, without requiring interaction with additional variables, such that the presence of that factor alone justifies a higher level of supervision or control.

When assessments clearly articulate these contingencies, they are more useful to institutional decision-makers and better withstand legal scrutiny later. Courts are better able to evaluate the logic of an opinion when they can see how conclusions flow from identifiable data and established risk mechanisms.

One of the most common vulnerabilities in violence risk assessment is not the quality of the evaluation itself, but the way findings are communicated. Courts, review panels, and supervision agencies rarely need exhaustive item-by-item summaries of assessment instruments. What they require are clear explanations of how risk manifests, when it increases, and what, if any, factors are likely to mitigate it.

SPJ frameworks support this translation by encouraging evaluators to organize conclusions around risk scenarios. Rather than listing risk factors in isolation, forensic psychologists should explain how combinations of factors interact over time to increase or decrease the likelihood of violence.

From a forensic writing perspective, this approach allows evaluators to distinguish between empirically informed reasoning and unsupported opinion. It also reduces the likelihood that conclusions will be mischaracterized as speculative or conclusory when reviewed in adversarial contexts.

Violence risk assessment is incomplete without risk management. SPJ tools explicitly require us as forensic psychologists to link identified risk factors to concrete mitigation strategies. This requirement includes specifying how recommendations for treatment, supervision, environmental controls, or behavioral monitoring address specific risk pathways.

Assessments that demonstrate a logical chain from:

1. Identified risk factors
2. Formulated risk scenarios
3. Targeted management strategies

are far more likely to be comfortably relied upon by courts and oversight bodies. These explicit details and formulation signal that recommendations are not arbitrary, but are grounded in structured reasoning and available evidence.

In institutional settings, this linkage also enhances the clinical utility of the assessment by providing actionable guidance that aligns with operational realities. When risk management strategies are clearly tied to formulated risk, they are more likely to be implemented consistently and effectively.

Protective factors are frequently misunderstood or overstated in violence risk assessment. Within an SPJ framework, their role is not to negate risk, but to modify it under specific conditions. The protective value of any factor must be evaluated at the individual level rather than assumed to be universally applicable.

Protective factors are best conceptualized as mechanisms that:

• Reduce opportunities for violence
• Increase monitoring or detection of risky behavior
• Support engagement in treatment or supervision

Equally important is identifying the conditions under which protective factors may fail. For example, a supportive relationship may reduce risk during structured contact, but offer little protection during periods of acute stress, substance use, or noncompliance.

Articulating both the strengths and limitations of protective factors enhances the credibility of the assessment. Courts and review bodies are often skeptical of evaluations that rely heavily on protective factors without acknowledging their contextual fragility.

Forensic psychologists working in correctional facilities, forensic hospitals, and SVP programs do not need to shift their focus to the courtroom to prepare assessments that support expert testimony. Instead, they must maintain disciplined adherence to SPJ principles, careful risk formulation, and clear forensic communication.
 
When violence risk assessments are grounded in observable data, structured reasoning, and explicit links between risk and management, they serve their primary institutional purpose while remaining legally robust. In this way, expert testimony becomes an extension of sound forensic practice rather than a separate competency activated only in litigation.

Training

• Violence Risk Assessment Certificate
• Foundations of Violence Risk Assessment and Management
• Advanced Issues in the Assessment of Risk for Violence: Formulation
• AAFP: Ethical and Effective Expert Testimony
• AAFP: The Art and Science of Expert Witness Testimony
• AAFP: Ethics in Forensic Psychology
• MDLPA: Ethical Dilemmas: Best Practices for Forensic Witnesses Working with an Attorney
• AAFP: Evidence for Mental Health Professionals 

Blog Posts

• Violence Risk Assessment - From Certificate to Career
• An Introduction to Violence Risk Assessments
• What are the Roles and Responsibilities of a Forensic Psychologist?
• When Assessing Sexual Violence, Guided Clinical Decision Making Can Outperform Algorithms
• Evaluators' Unprocessed Emotions as a Form of Bias
• Risk assessment tools: Harmful or Helpful?
• The role of risk assessment instruments and algorithms in criminal justice decision making.