# The Use of Structured Professional Judgement: A New Way to Understand and Assess Bite Risk from Dogs

## TL;DR

This paper proposes using structured professional judgment to better assess and manage dog bite risks, moving away from breed-focused and subjective methods.

## Contribution

The paper introduces the application of structured professional judgment (SPJ) as a new framework for assessing dog bite risk.

## Key findings

- Breed-focused interventions are ineffective in reducing dog bite risk.
- Current dog bite risk assessments are unstructured and subject to bias.
- An SPJ framework could improve risk assessment by incorporating environmental and caregiver factors.

## Abstract

Dog bite incidents constitute a significant public health, animal welfare, and economic concern, with rising incidence in the United Kingdom and substantial physical and psychological consequences for victims. Despite legislative responses, the evidence indicates that breed-focused interventions are ineffective in reducing national dog bite risk. The current methods of assessing human-directed dog aggression (HDDA) are not sufficiently comprehensive and fail to include sufficient breadth of environmental, contextual and owner factors. Assessments need to be more evidence-based in their understanding and management of risk. Clinical and forensic psychology uses structured professional judgement (SPJ) as an effective conceptual framework to assess and predict complex risk decisions related to violence and suicide. Specialist structured professional judgement (SPJ) models, specific to dog bite risk, should be developed to more accurately and effectively assess and manage risks associated with dog bites to humans.

Dog bite incidents constitute significant public health, animal welfare, and economic concerns with substantial physical and psychological consequences for victims. Despite legislative responses, research indicates that breed-focused interventions are ineffective in reducing dog bite risk. Human behaviour, caregiving practices, and environmental context all play central roles in the expression of human-directed canine aggression. Current methods of assessing dog bite risk remain largely unstructured, dog-centred, and reliant on subjective judgement and provocative behavioural testing. These approaches exhibit limited predictive validity and poor reliability, and are vulnerable to bias, raising serious concerns for public safety, judicial fairness, and animal welfare. Comparable challenges in human violence risk assessment led to the development of an evidence-based structured professional judgement (SPJ) assessment framework, which combines empirical risk factors with individualised case formulation and dynamic risk management. An SPJ framework for dog bite risk would ensure the systematic consideration of empirically supported static and dynamic risk factors relating to the dog, caregivers, and related environmental conditions, while supporting the development of targeted risk reduction strategies. Conclusion: Developing an SPJ approach offers a more scientifically grounded, ethically defensible, and prevention-focused method for managing dog bite risk, with potential benefits for public safety, animal welfare, and professional practice.