Reprints and permission:

The past 25 years have seen significant advances in risk assessment. From clinical judgment and a focus on danger-ousness, the risk assessment, field has developed into a well-researched enterprise with many risk assessment instruments, which have multiple applications. In addition, conceptual clarity has occurred outlining the purposes and types of assessments. Differences have been articulated between routine risk assessments and Tarasoff assessments (Borum & Reddy, 2001) and forseeability of harm versus prediction task (Quattrocchi & Schopp, 2005). Differentiat-ing between assessing and managing risk is now well estab-lished, with well-reasoned ties between conducting an assessment and recommending treatment (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Mossman, 2006). Heilbrun and colleagues have repeatedly outlined best practice principles in con-ducting risk assessments to ensure optimal procedures in the application of risk assessment knowledge (Heilbrun et al., 2003; Heilbrun, Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Mack-Allen, 2006). In addition to procedural issues, knowledge advances have occurred among specific groups (sex offenders