{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02799160251924423, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01119664100769769, 'mean_word_length': 5.589861751152074, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The HCR-20 Version 3: A Case Study in Risk Formulation

The third edition of the HCR-20 (HCR-20V3, Douglas, Hart, Webster, et al., 2013) consolidates essential recent thinking about risk assessment and management using the structured professional judgement approach. As with the preceding Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (Hart, Kropp, Laws et al., 2003), risk factors for violence are now assessed for their relevance as well as presence, scenario planning has a central place in anticipating the nature, severity, imminence and likelihood of future harm, and risk management strategies must incorporate a combination of treatment, supervision, monitoring and victim safety planning interventions and recommendations. However, the key process now proposed for linking the assessment and overall management of risk is risk formulation—the act of understanding the underlying mechanism of an individual's harm potential in order to develop sensitive and proportionate hypotheses to facilitate change (embodied within the risk management plan). In this paper, the process of risk formulation is described and illustrated with a case study—Paul. A brief report of the risk assessment, formulation and management recommendations for Paul illustrate the key features of what is recommended in the new version of this internationally renowned violence risk guide. However, empirical research into risk formulation remains outstanding.