Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

have posttreatment violent recidivism rates that are

lower than those who serve their dispositions in juvenile

correctional facilities. Young offenders are more mal-

leable than adult offenders, and early interventions are

more likely to be effective than those directed at adults.

To date, much of the research has been conducted

on older male adolescents who have been in contact

with the juvenile justice system. Additional data are

needed on female adolescents, younger adolescents,

nonadjudicated community youths, and ethnically and

culturally diverse groups.

Adelle E. Forth and David Kosson

See also Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd edition)

(PCL–R); Juvenile Psychopathy; Psychopathy;

Psychopathy, Treatment of

Further Readings

Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare

Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. North Tonawanda,

NY: Multi-Health Systems.

Patrick, C. P. (2006). Handbook of psychopathy.New York:

Guilford.

HATE CRIME

See BIASCRIME

HCR–20 FORVIOLENCE

RISKASSESSMENT

The HCR–20 Violence Risk Assessment Scheme is a

20-item violence risk assessment tool, accompanied by

a 97-page user’s manual. It is intended to structure

clinical decisions about the risk for violence posed by

adult forensic psychiatric patients, civil psychiatric

patients, and criminal offenders (whether mentally dis-

ordered or not). The HCR–20 is relevant to the field of

law and psychology because violence risk assessment

is a psychological decision-making task that routinely

transpires within legal and forensic settings. This entry

describes the development, content, and conceptual

basis of the HCR–20, its intended application, user

qualifications, and a summary of evaluation research.

Description and Use

The 20 HCR–20 risk factors are dispersed across three

scales: Historical (10 risk factors), Clinical (5 risk fac-

tors), and Risk Management (5 risk factors). The

Historical scale focuses on past events, experiences,

and psychiatric conditions (e.g., past violence, young

age at first violence, major mental illness, psychopa-

thy, personality disorder, childhood maladjustment),

while the Clinical scale addresses recent functioning

(e.g., negative attitudes, psychiatric symptoms, non-

compliance, impulsivity). The Risk Management

scale deals with factors such as feasibility of plans,

stress, and support.

The HCR–20 can be used on a person’s entry to a

facility such as a forensic hospital, during the course of

institutional tenure, on consideration for release to the

community, and while a person is being supervised in

the community. In all applications and settings, users are

encouraged to consider risk management strategies that

align with identified HCR–20 risk factors and to incor-

porate such strategies into their risk reduction efforts.

The HCR–20 was developed as one of the first

instruments belonging to the Structured Professional

Judgment (SPJ) model of violence risk assessment.

Therefore, the HCR–20 structures clinical decisions

through (a) specification of a minimum set of risk fac-

tors that should be considered in each case, (b) opera-

tional definitions of risk factors, (c) explicit coding

instructions for risk factors, and (d) recommendations

for making final risk judgments about the nature and

likelihood of violence and its mitigation. Instruments

developed using the SPJ approach share common ele-

ments, such as the method of development. Risk factors

are selected using the logical item selection approach

(sometimes called rational, or analytic, item selection)

to instrument derivation. This method entails wide con-

sultation of the scientific and professional literatures to

select risk factors with broad support. Items are not

selected on the basis of empirical associations within

single samples because of the threat to generalizability

and the risk of selecting sample-specific variables that

a purely empirical item selection approach entails.

Logical item selection is intended to promote both gen-

eralizable applicability and comprehensiveness in risk

factor domain coverage.

In considering the individual manifestation of each

risk factor for an evaluee, the user rates each item as

absent(score of 0),possibly/partially present(score

of 1), or definitely present(score of 2). The evaluator

HCR–20 for Violence Risk Assessment——— 353

H-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 353