{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018596787827557058, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.923976608187134, '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}}
Critical considerations in the development and interpretation of common risk language

Existing risk communication procedures are marred by various well-documented problems and inconsistencies. The Council of State Governments’ Justice Center (United States) developed a five-level system for risk and needs communication, to standardize these procedures and to provide a common risk language. Introduction of a common language could constitute a dramatic shift in criminal justice processes, with wide-ranging impacts. This article provides a critical review of the system and its suitability for application to various risk assessment functions. Issues discussed include: applicability to specialist and generalist offending behavior, the characteristics of suitable instruments, statistical and conceptual priorities, barriers to precision in language, and conceptual issues related to changes in risk level. A thorough understanding of each of these issues is necessary to apply the system to new contexts and populations, and facilitate straightforward and precise risk communication. Absent further elaboration of the system, many problems with risk communication will persist.