Working with clients who pose a real risk of violence brings up questions most therapy training doesn’t cover directly. How do you assess risk without reducing a person to a checklist, manage your own fear and countertransference, and keep working constructively with someone the rest of the system may have already written off?
The four books here split roughly into two approaches. Jones’s edited collection makes the case for understanding dangerous people rather than simply containing them; the other three are squarely about risk assessment. Read together, they cover both the how and the what-it’s-actually-like of this specialty.
This page contains Amazon affiliate links — if you buy a book through one, I earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.
Working with Dangerous People: The Psychotherapy of Violence
Edited by David Jones, Routledge, 2004
This collection argues for a specific stance toward violent clients: understanding and working with them constructively rather than treating danger as something to be simply contained or repressed. Contributors draw on direct clinical experience inside prisons and secure settings, covering topics from the ethics of psychodynamic work with dangerous people to running therapeutic communities inside prison walls and using psychodrama with young offenders.
It doesn’t offer a single treatment model so much as a range of clinical accounts from people who have actually done this work in some of the most difficult settings available. Two decades on, some of the institutional detail has dated. What still holds up is the core claim about how dangerous people need to be understood, not just managed.
Textbook of Violence Assessment and Management
Edited by Robert I. Simon and Kenneth Tardiff, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2008
This is the most comprehensive reference on the page. 28 chapters combe evidence-based research with expert clinical opinion, covering violence risk across the full range of diagnoses, settings, and patient demographics. They also take on practical ground like expert testimony, the duty to warn, and the use of seclusion and restraint. Chapters cover violence across the specific presentations clinicians actually encounter. These range from psychotic and personality-disordered patients to domestic violence, school and workplace violence, and violence in emergency and inpatient settings.
At 600-plus pages, this is a reference to keep on a shelf and dip into by topic, not something you’d sit down and read start to finish.
Clinician’s Guide to Violence Risk Assessment
Jeremy F. Mills, Daryl G. Kroner, Robert D. Morgan, Guilford Press, 2010
Where the Simon and Tardiff textbook covers the whole landscape, this one is a practical field manual. It explosres how to actually choose and administer risk appraisal instruments for general violence, sexual violence, and spousal violence, interpret the results, and write them up for a court or another legal decision-maker. It includes a full sample risk assessment report in the appendix, a genuinely useful addition most books in this space skip.
All three authors work directly in forensic and correctional psychology rather than purely academic settings, and they’re notably candid about their own methodological biases rather than presenting their approach as the neutral or only option. It’s the book to reach for when you need to actually conduct an assessment, not just understand the research behind one.
Treating Violence: A Guide to Risk Management in Mental Health
Tony Maden, Oxford University Press, 2007
Maden takes a more skeptical position than most books in this space. He’s critical of standardized risk-assessment tools even while making the case for structured clinical assessment over pure clinical judgment, and he’s blunt about the limits of anyone’s ability to predict violence. He covers the research on mental disorder and violence, the ethics of risk assessment, and a review of UK homicide inquiries, including the Christopher Clunis case that reshaped British mental health policy.
Maden is Professor of Forensic Psychiatry at Imperial College London and has given expert evidence to multiple UK homicide inquiries himself, which shows in how unsentimental he is about what happens when risk assessment gets it wrong. It’s a useful counterweight to the more instrument-driven titles on this page. It’s the same clinical territory, argued from a more critical angle.