The HCR-20^V3 is a violence risk assessment tool that is widely used in forensic clinical practice for risk management planning. The predictive value of the tool, when used in court for legal decision-making, is not yet intensively been studied and questions about legal admissibility may arise. This article aims to provide legal and mental health practitioners with an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the HCR-20^V3 when applied in legal settings. The HCR-20^V3 is described and discussed with respect to its psychometric properties for different groups and settings. Issues involving legal admissibility and potential biases when conducting violence risk assessments with the HCR-20^V3 are outlined. To explore legal admissibility challenges with respect to the HCR-20^V3, we searched case law databases since 2013 from Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA. In total, we found 546 cases referring to the HCR-20/HCR-20^V3. In these cases, the tool was rarely challenged (4.03%), and when challenged, it never resulted in a court decision that the risk assessment was inadmissible. Finally, we provide recommendations for legal practitioners for the cross-examination of risk assessments and recommendations for mental health professionals who conduct risk assessments and report to the court. We conclude with suggestions for future research with the HCR-20^V3 to strengthen the evidence base for use of the instrument in legal contexts.

An effective implementation approach is crucial for successful integration of structured risk assessment instruments into practice. This qualitative study explored barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) in a Dutch residential youth care service. Perceptions of staff members from various disciplines were gathered through focus group interviews at three consecutive occasions. After inductive coding of the interview extracts using thematic analysis, the identified codes were linked to the consolidated framework for implementation research. Through this framework, factors that influence an implementation project can be organized into multiple domains and constructs. In the present study, staff members described implementation barriers related to characteristics of the risk assessment instrument, staff, and the implementation process. In addition, features of the setting were frequently mentioned as hindering the implementation, such as hierarchy, culture, communication, as well as implementation climate and readiness for change. Staff members also identified multiple facilitators, such as experienced advantages of the START:AV compared to the previous risk assessment practice and positive beliefs about the instrument. The article concludes with recommendations for successful implementation of structured risk assessment instruments in forensic-clinical practice.

The Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV) is a risk assessment instrument for adolescents that estimates the risk of multiple adverse outcomes. Prior research into its predictive validity is limited to a handful of studies conducted with the START:AV pilot version and often by the instrument’s developers. The present study examines the START:AV’s field validity in a secure youth care sample in the Netherlands. Using a prospective design, we investigated whether the total scores, lifetime history, and the final risk judgments of 106 START:AVs predicted inpatient incidents during a 4-month follow-up. Final risk judgments and lifetime history predicted multiple adverse outcomes, including physical aggression, institutional violations, substance use, self-injury, and victimization. The predictive validity of the total scores was significant only for physical aggression and institutional violations. Hence, the short-term predictive validity of the START:AV for inpatient incidents in a residential youth care setting was partially demonstrated and the START:AV final risk judgments can be used to guide treatment planning and decision-making regarding furlough or discharge in this setting.

There is emerging evidence that the performance of risk assessment instruments is weaker when used for clinical decision‐making than for research purposes. For instance, research has found lower agreement between evaluators when the risk assessments are conducted during routine practice. We examined the field interrater reliability of the Short‐Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV). Clinicians in a Dutch secure youth care facility completed START:AV assessments as part of the treatment routine. Consistent with previous literature, interrater reliability of the items and total scores was lower than previously reported in non‐field studies. Nevertheless, moderate to good interrater reliability was found for final risk judgments on most adverse outcomes. Field studies provide insights into the actual performance of structured risk assessment in real‐world settings, exposing factors that affect reliability. This information is relevant for those who wish to implement structured risk assessment with a level of reliability that is defensible considering the high stakes.

Risk assessment instruments are widely used to predict risk of adverse outcomes, such as violence or victimization, and to allocate resources for managing these risks among individuals involved in criminal justice and forensic mental health services. For risk assessment instruments to reach their full potential, they must be implemented with fidelity. A lack of information on administration fidelity hinders transparency about the implementation quality, as well as the interpretation of negative or inconclusive findings from predictive validity studies. The present study focuses on adherence, a dimension of fidelity. Adherence denotes the extent to which the risk assessment is completed according to the instrument’s guidelines. We developed an adherence measure, tailored to the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV), an evidence-based risk assessment instrument for adolescents. With the START:AV Adherence Rating Scale, we explored the degree to which 11 key features of the instrument were adhered to in 306 START:AVs forms, completed by 17 different evaluators in a Dutch residential youth care facility over a two-year period. Good to excellent interrater reliability was found for all adherence items. We identified differences in adherence scores on the various START:AV features, as well as significant improvement in adherence for those who attended a START:AV refresher workshop. Outcomes of risk assessment instruments potentially impact decision-making, for example, whether a youth’s secure placement should be extended. Therefore, we recommend fidelity monitoring to ensure the risk assessment practice was delivered as intended.