Gc counsel

RubricCriteriaWEEK6.docx

Rubric Criteria

Part 1: Scenario

18 points

Criteria Description

Create a scenario that involves a client that you believe requires a risk assessment. The risk should be related to either risk of harm to self or others.

5. Target

18 points

The paper expertly creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

15.66 points

The paper clearly creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

14.22 points

The paper adequately creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

13.32 points

The paper inadequately creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 2: Risk Assessment

13.5 points

Criteria Description

Describe specific behaviors that lead you to create a risk assessment. Identify specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment.

5. Target

13.5 points

The paper expertly describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

11.75 points

The paper clearly describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

10.67 points

The paper adequately describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

9.99 points

The paper inadequately describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 3: Evidence-Based Tools and Rationale

18 points

Criteria Description

Identify at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk. Describe the rationale behind the tools you chose.

5. Target

18 points

The paper expertly identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

15.66 points

The paper clearly identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

14.22 points

The paper adequately identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

13.32 points

The paper inadequately identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 3: Protocol

13.5 points

Criteria Description

Describe the protocol you would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation.

5. Target

13.5 points

The paper expertly describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

11.75 points

The paper clearly describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

10.67 points

The paper adequately describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

9.99 points

The paper inadequately describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

6.3 points

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Target

6.3 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

4. Acceptable

5.48 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

3. Approaching

4.98 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

2. Insufficient

4.66 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

6.3 points

Criteria Description

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

5. Target

6.3 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Acceptable

5.48 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

3. Approaching

4.98 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

2. Insufficient

4.66 points

Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

Evidence

5.4 points

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

5. Target

5.4 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.

4. Acceptable

4.7 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

3. Approaching

4.27 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

2. Insufficient

4 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

Mechanics of Writing

5.4 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Target

5.4 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable

4.7 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Approaching

4.27 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient

4 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

Format/Documentation

3.6 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target

3.6 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

4. Acceptable

3.13 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching

2.84 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Insufficient

2.66 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

ASACOUNSELWEEK6.docx

As a counselor, being competent and familiar with risk assessment is essential to the therapeutic process; both in giving a client’s context related to treatment of their psychological symptoms and in helping the clinician prioritize short- and long-term treatment outcomes. This assignment contains three parts, as identified, and described below. Please complete each part with a combined essay of 950-1,700 words.

Part 1: Create a (300-700-words) scenario that involves a client that you believe requires a risk assessment. The risk should be related to either risk of harm to self or others.

Part 2: Describe (150-250-words) specific behaviors that lead you to create a risk assessment. Identify specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment.

Part 3: Describe (500-750-words) how you would assess the client. Include the following in your discussion:

· Identify at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk. Describe the rationale behind the tools you chose.

· Describe the protocol you would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation.

Include at least three scholarly references in your paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

This assignment meets the following NASAC Standards:

24) Establish rapport, including management of crisis situations and determination of need for additional professional assistance.

26) Screen for alcohol and other drug toxicity, withdrawal symptoms, aggression or danger to others, and potential for self-inflicted harm or suicide.

70) Describe and document treatment process, progress, and outcome.

87) Apply crisis management skills.

94) Describe and summarize client behavior within the group for the purpose of documenting the client's progress and identifying needs/issues that may require modification of the treatment plan.

riskassessment.docx

Risk Assessment Essay

Part 1: Scenario

I am currently working with a 28yearold African American male client named Darius, who was referred to counseling by his primary care physician after reporting increased anxiety, irritability, and difficulty managing stress. During our first session, Darius presented as guarded but cooperative. He maintained minimal eye contact and appeared physically tense, frequently tapping his foot and clenching his jaw. He shared that he works fulltime as a warehouse supervisor and is the primary financial provider for his mother and younger sister. Over the past two months, he has been experiencing escalating work stress due to mandatory overtime, staff shortages, and pressure from upper management.

As the session progressed, Darius disclosed that he has been “on edge all the time” and feels like he is “carrying everything alone.” He described chronic sleep disturbances, including waking up multiple times throughout the night and experiencing nightmares related to past community violence he witnessed as a teenager. Although he denied a formal trauma diagnosis, he acknowledged that he has “never really dealt with” those experiences.

When discussing his coping strategies, Darius admitted that he has been drinking more heavily on weekends—up to a fifth of liquor between Friday and Sunday—to “numb out” and “get a break from everything.” He denied daily alcohol use but acknowledged that his drinking has increased significantly over the past month. He also reported withdrawing from friends, skipping church (which he previously attended weekly), and isolating in his room after work.

The turning point in the session occurred when Darius stated, “Sometimes I get so overwhelmed I just want to disappear.” When I gently asked him to elaborate, he hesitated before saying, “I don’t want to hurt myself, but I’ve been thinking that people would be better off without me.” He then shared that last week, after an argument with his supervisor, he drove home “recklessly fast” and thought, “If something happened to me right now, maybe it wouldn’t be the worst thing.”

Although he denied having a specific plan or intent to harm himself, he admitted that these thoughts have been occurring more frequently. He also reported feeling increasingly angry and irritable, stating, “I’m scared I might snap on somebody at work one day.” He clarified that he has not threatened anyone, but he worries that his temper is becoming harder to control.

Throughout the session, Darius’s affect was constricted, and he appeared emotionally exhausted. He expressed deep feelings of failure, guilt about not being able to “hold everything together,” and hopelessness about his future. He also described cultural pressures to appear strong and selfreliant, noting that “Black men don’t get to break down.”

Given the presence of passive suicidal ideation, increased alcohol use, emotional dysregulation, and concerns about potential aggression, a formal risk assessment is necessary. As the counselor, it is my responsibility to evaluate both selfharm and potential harm to others, determine the level of risk, and implement appropriate interventions to ensure Darius’s safety and wellbeing.

Part 2: Behaviors Warranting a Risk

Several specific behaviors and statements made by Darius clearly indicate the need for a comprehensive risk assessment. First, he expressed passive suicidal ideation through statements such as “I just want to disappear” and “People would be better off without me.” These comments reflect hopelessness and perceived burdensomeness, both of which are wellestablished predictors of suicide risk (Joiner, 2005). Additionally, his admission that he drove home “recklessly fast” while thinking that “maybe it wouldn’t be the worst thing” suggests a form of indirect selfharm or diminished concern for his own safety.

Darius also reported increased alcohol use as a coping mechanism, which can heighten impulsivity and lower inhibitions—factors associated with elevated suicide and aggression risk (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). His growing irritability and fear that he might “snap on somebody at work” indicate emotional dysregulation and potential risk of harm to others, even if he has not made explicit threats.

His physical presentation—tension, agitation, and withdrawal—combined with functional decline (social isolation, disrupted sleep, increased substance use) further supports the need for a structured risk assessment. These behaviors collectively signal that Darius is struggling to regulate his emotions and may be at risk for selfharm or impulsive aggression without appropriate intervention.

Part 3: Assessment Process

EvidenceBased Tools and Rationale

To assess Darius’s level of risk, I would use two evidencebased tools: the ColumbiaSuicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) and the HistoricalClinicalRisk Management20, Version 3 (HCR20 V3).

The CSSRS is a widely validated tool used to assess the severity of suicidal ideation, intent, planning, and past behaviors (Posner et al., 2011). It is appropriate for Darius because he has expressed passive suicidal thoughts, engaged in potentially risky behavior (reckless driving), and is experiencing significant psychosocial stressors. The CSSRS allows for a structured evaluation of whether his thoughts include intent, planning, or preparatory actions, which is essential for determining immediate safety needs.

The HCR20 V3 is an evidencebased structured professional judgment tool used to assess risk of violence toward others (Douglas et al., 2014). Given Darius’s increased irritability, emotional dysregulation, and fear that he may “snap,” this tool helps evaluate historical factors (e.g., past trauma), clinical factors (e.g., substance use, emotional instability), and risk management factors (e.g., stress, coping resources). The HCR20 V3 is particularly useful because it integrates clinical judgment with structured assessment, making it appropriate for clients with complex emotional and behavioral presentations.

Using both tools ensures a comprehensive evaluation of risk to self and others, aligning with NASAC Standards 24, 26, and 87.

Assessment Protocol and Documentation

1. Establish Immediate Safety I would begin by administering the CSSRS to determine the presence of suicidal ideation, intent, plan, and behaviors. If Darius endorses intent or a plan, I would classify him as high risk and follow emergency procedures, including contacting crisis services or arranging hospitalization.

2. Assess Risk of Harm to Others Using the HCR20 V3, I would evaluate his irritability, impulsivity, substance use, and situational stressors. Although he has not made threats, his fear of losing control warrants structured assessment.

3. Develop a Safety Plan If Darius is not at imminent risk, I would collaboratively create a StanleyBrown Safety Plan, which includes:

· Identifying warning signs

· Internal coping strategies

· Social supports

· Crisis resources

· Meansrestriction strategies (e.g., avoiding driving while distressed, limiting alcohol access)

Safety planning is an evidencebased intervention shown to reduce suicidal behavior (Stanley & Brown, 2012).

4. Address Cultural Considerations As an African American man, Darius may experience cultural stigma around mental health, pressure to appear strong, and mistrust of systems. I would validate these experiences and ensure the assessment process is culturally responsive and collaborative.

5. Documentation Documentation must be objective, detailed, and clinically defensible. I would record:

· Verbatim statements related to risk

· CSSRS and HCR20 V3 results

· My clinical judgment and rationale

· Safety planning steps

· Referrals and followup plan

· Any consultation with supervisors or crisis teams

This aligns with NASAC Standard 70 regarding documentation of treatment processes and outcomes.

6. FollowUp and Monitoring I would schedule weekly sessions and reassess risk regularly. Treatment would focus on emotional regulation, stress management, traumainformed care, and reducing alcohol use. If needed, I would refer him for psychiatric evaluation.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).

Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Belfrage, H. (2014). HCR20 V3: Assessing risk for violence. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.

Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press.

Posner, K., Brown, G. K., Stanley, B., et al. (2011). The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Initial validity and internal consistency findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(12), 1266–1277.

Stanley, B., & Brown, G. K. (2012). Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19(2), 256–264.

RubricCriteriaWEEK6.docx

Rubric Criteria

Part 1: Scenario

18 points

Criteria Description

Create a scenario that involves a client that you believe requires a risk assessment. The risk should be related to either risk of harm to self or others.

5. Target

18 points

The paper expertly creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

15.66 points

The paper clearly creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

14.22 points

The paper adequately creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

13.32 points

The paper inadequately creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 2: Risk Assessment

13.5 points

Criteria Description

Describe specific behaviors that lead you to create a risk assessment. Identify specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment.

5. Target

13.5 points

The paper expertly describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

11.75 points

The paper clearly describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

10.67 points

The paper adequately describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

9.99 points

The paper inadequately describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 3: Evidence-Based Tools and Rationale

18 points

Criteria Description

Identify at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk. Describe the rationale behind the tools you chose.

5. Target

18 points

The paper expertly identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

15.66 points

The paper clearly identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

14.22 points

The paper adequately identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

13.32 points

The paper inadequately identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 3: Protocol

13.5 points

Criteria Description

Describe the protocol you would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation.

5. Target

13.5 points

The paper expertly describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

11.75 points

The paper clearly describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

10.67 points

The paper adequately describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

9.99 points

The paper inadequately describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

6.3 points

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Target

6.3 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

4. Acceptable

5.48 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

3. Approaching

4.98 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

2. Insufficient

4.66 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

6.3 points

Criteria Description

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

5. Target

6.3 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Acceptable

5.48 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

3. Approaching

4.98 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

2. Insufficient

4.66 points

Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

Evidence

5.4 points

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

5. Target

5.4 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.

4. Acceptable

4.7 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

3. Approaching

4.27 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

2. Insufficient

4 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

Mechanics of Writing

5.4 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Target

5.4 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable

4.7 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Approaching

4.27 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient

4 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

Format/Documentation

3.6 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target

3.6 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

4. Acceptable

3.13 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching

2.84 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Insufficient

2.66 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

ASACOUNSELWEEK6.docx

As a counselor, being competent and familiar with risk assessment is essential to the therapeutic process; both in giving a client’s context related to treatment of their psychological symptoms and in helping the clinician prioritize short- and long-term treatment outcomes. This assignment contains three parts, as identified, and described below. Please complete each part with a combined essay of 950-1,700 words.

Part 1: Create a (300-700-words) scenario that involves a client that you believe requires a risk assessment. The risk should be related to either risk of harm to self or others.

Part 2: Describe (150-250-words) specific behaviors that lead you to create a risk assessment. Identify specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment.

Part 3: Describe (500-750-words) how you would assess the client. Include the following in your discussion:

· Identify at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk. Describe the rationale behind the tools you chose.

· Describe the protocol you would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation.

Include at least three scholarly references in your paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.

This assignment meets the following NASAC Standards:

24) Establish rapport, including management of crisis situations and determination of need for additional professional assistance.

26) Screen for alcohol and other drug toxicity, withdrawal symptoms, aggression or danger to others, and potential for self-inflicted harm or suicide.

70) Describe and document treatment process, progress, and outcome.

87) Apply crisis management skills.

94) Describe and summarize client behavior within the group for the purpose of documenting the client's progress and identifying needs/issues that may require modification of the treatment plan.

riskassessment.docx

Risk Assessment Essay

Part 1: Scenario

I am currently working with a 28yearold African American male client named Darius, who was referred to counseling by his primary care physician after reporting increased anxiety, irritability, and difficulty managing stress. During our first session, Darius presented as guarded but cooperative. He maintained minimal eye contact and appeared physically tense, frequently tapping his foot and clenching his jaw. He shared that he works fulltime as a warehouse supervisor and is the primary financial provider for his mother and younger sister. Over the past two months, he has been experiencing escalating work stress due to mandatory overtime, staff shortages, and pressure from upper management.

As the session progressed, Darius disclosed that he has been “on edge all the time” and feels like he is “carrying everything alone.” He described chronic sleep disturbances, including waking up multiple times throughout the night and experiencing nightmares related to past community violence he witnessed as a teenager. Although he denied a formal trauma diagnosis, he acknowledged that he has “never really dealt with” those experiences.

When discussing his coping strategies, Darius admitted that he has been drinking more heavily on weekends—up to a fifth of liquor between Friday and Sunday—to “numb out” and “get a break from everything.” He denied daily alcohol use but acknowledged that his drinking has increased significantly over the past month. He also reported withdrawing from friends, skipping church (which he previously attended weekly), and isolating in his room after work.

The turning point in the session occurred when Darius stated, “Sometimes I get so overwhelmed I just want to disappear.” When I gently asked him to elaborate, he hesitated before saying, “I don’t want to hurt myself, but I’ve been thinking that people would be better off without me.” He then shared that last week, after an argument with his supervisor, he drove home “recklessly fast” and thought, “If something happened to me right now, maybe it wouldn’t be the worst thing.”

Although he denied having a specific plan or intent to harm himself, he admitted that these thoughts have been occurring more frequently. He also reported feeling increasingly angry and irritable, stating, “I’m scared I might snap on somebody at work one day.” He clarified that he has not threatened anyone, but he worries that his temper is becoming harder to control.

Throughout the session, Darius’s affect was constricted, and he appeared emotionally exhausted. He expressed deep feelings of failure, guilt about not being able to “hold everything together,” and hopelessness about his future. He also described cultural pressures to appear strong and selfreliant, noting that “Black men don’t get to break down.”

Given the presence of passive suicidal ideation, increased alcohol use, emotional dysregulation, and concerns about potential aggression, a formal risk assessment is necessary. As the counselor, it is my responsibility to evaluate both selfharm and potential harm to others, determine the level of risk, and implement appropriate interventions to ensure Darius’s safety and wellbeing.

Part 2: Behaviors Warranting a Risk

Several specific behaviors and statements made by Darius clearly indicate the need for a comprehensive risk assessment. First, he expressed passive suicidal ideation through statements such as “I just want to disappear” and “People would be better off without me.” These comments reflect hopelessness and perceived burdensomeness, both of which are wellestablished predictors of suicide risk (Joiner, 2005). Additionally, his admission that he drove home “recklessly fast” while thinking that “maybe it wouldn’t be the worst thing” suggests a form of indirect selfharm or diminished concern for his own safety.

Darius also reported increased alcohol use as a coping mechanism, which can heighten impulsivity and lower inhibitions—factors associated with elevated suicide and aggression risk (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). His growing irritability and fear that he might “snap on somebody at work” indicate emotional dysregulation and potential risk of harm to others, even if he has not made explicit threats.

His physical presentation—tension, agitation, and withdrawal—combined with functional decline (social isolation, disrupted sleep, increased substance use) further supports the need for a structured risk assessment. These behaviors collectively signal that Darius is struggling to regulate his emotions and may be at risk for selfharm or impulsive aggression without appropriate intervention.

Part 3: Assessment Process

EvidenceBased Tools and Rationale

To assess Darius’s level of risk, I would use two evidencebased tools: the ColumbiaSuicide Severity Rating Scale (CSSRS) and the HistoricalClinicalRisk Management20, Version 3 (HCR20 V3).

The CSSRS is a widely validated tool used to assess the severity of suicidal ideation, intent, planning, and past behaviors (Posner et al., 2011). It is appropriate for Darius because he has expressed passive suicidal thoughts, engaged in potentially risky behavior (reckless driving), and is experiencing significant psychosocial stressors. The CSSRS allows for a structured evaluation of whether his thoughts include intent, planning, or preparatory actions, which is essential for determining immediate safety needs.

The HCR20 V3 is an evidencebased structured professional judgment tool used to assess risk of violence toward others (Douglas et al., 2014). Given Darius’s increased irritability, emotional dysregulation, and fear that he may “snap,” this tool helps evaluate historical factors (e.g., past trauma), clinical factors (e.g., substance use, emotional instability), and risk management factors (e.g., stress, coping resources). The HCR20 V3 is particularly useful because it integrates clinical judgment with structured assessment, making it appropriate for clients with complex emotional and behavioral presentations.

Using both tools ensures a comprehensive evaluation of risk to self and others, aligning with NASAC Standards 24, 26, and 87.

Assessment Protocol and Documentation

1. Establish Immediate Safety I would begin by administering the CSSRS to determine the presence of suicidal ideation, intent, plan, and behaviors. If Darius endorses intent or a plan, I would classify him as high risk and follow emergency procedures, including contacting crisis services or arranging hospitalization.

2. Assess Risk of Harm to Others Using the HCR20 V3, I would evaluate his irritability, impulsivity, substance use, and situational stressors. Although he has not made threats, his fear of losing control warrants structured assessment.

3. Develop a Safety Plan If Darius is not at imminent risk, I would collaboratively create a StanleyBrown Safety Plan, which includes:

· Identifying warning signs

· Internal coping strategies

· Social supports

· Crisis resources

· Meansrestriction strategies (e.g., avoiding driving while distressed, limiting alcohol access)

Safety planning is an evidencebased intervention shown to reduce suicidal behavior (Stanley & Brown, 2012).

4. Address Cultural Considerations As an African American man, Darius may experience cultural stigma around mental health, pressure to appear strong, and mistrust of systems. I would validate these experiences and ensure the assessment process is culturally responsive and collaborative.

5. Documentation Documentation must be objective, detailed, and clinically defensible. I would record:

· Verbatim statements related to risk

· CSSRS and HCR20 V3 results

· My clinical judgment and rationale

· Safety planning steps

· Referrals and followup plan

· Any consultation with supervisors or crisis teams

This aligns with NASAC Standard 70 regarding documentation of treatment processes and outcomes.

6. FollowUp and Monitoring I would schedule weekly sessions and reassess risk regularly. Treatment would focus on emotional regulation, stress management, traumainformed care, and reducing alcohol use. If needed, I would refer him for psychiatric evaluation.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.).

Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Belfrage, H. (2014). HCR20 V3: Assessing risk for violence. Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.

Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press.

Posner, K., Brown, G. K., Stanley, B., et al. (2011). The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale: Initial validity and internal consistency findings. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(12), 1266–1277.

Stanley, B., & Brown, G. K. (2012). Safety planning intervention: A brief intervention to mitigate suicide risk. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 19(2), 256–264.

RubricCriteriaWEEK6.docx

Rubric Criteria

Part 1: Scenario

18 points

Criteria Description

Create a scenario that involves a client that you believe requires a risk assessment. The risk should be related to either risk of harm to self or others.

5. Target

18 points

The paper expertly creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

15.66 points

The paper clearly creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

14.22 points

The paper adequately creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

13.32 points

The paper inadequately creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely creates a scenario that involves a client that the student believes requires a risk assessment related to a risk of harm to self of others. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 2: Risk Assessment

13.5 points

Criteria Description

Describe specific behaviors that lead you to create a risk assessment. Identify specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment.

5. Target

13.5 points

The paper expertly describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

11.75 points

The paper clearly describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

10.67 points

The paper adequately describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

9.99 points

The paper inadequately describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely describes specific behaviors that lead the student to create a risk assessment and identifies specifically what the client did say or exhibit to warrant a risk assessment. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 3: Evidence-Based Tools and Rationale

18 points

Criteria Description

Identify at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk. Describe the rationale behind the tools you chose.

5. Target

18 points

The paper expertly identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

15.66 points

The paper clearly identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

14.22 points

The paper adequately identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

13.32 points

The paper inadequately identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely identifies at least two evidence-based tools to help assess the client for risk and describes the rationale behind the tools the student chose. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Part 3: Protocol

13.5 points

Criteria Description

Describe the protocol you would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation.

5. Target

13.5 points

The paper expertly describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the topic.

4. Acceptable

11.75 points

The paper clearly describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates an understanding that extends beyond the surface of the topic.

3. Approaching

10.67 points

The paper adequately describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates a basic understanding of the topic.

2. Insufficient

9.99 points

The paper inadequately describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper demonstrates a poor understanding of the topic.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The paper omits or incompletely describes the protocol the student would follow based on the client's answers to the risk assessment, including documentation. The paper does not demonstrate understanding of the topic.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

6.3 points

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Target

6.3 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

4. Acceptable

5.48 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

3. Approaching

4.98 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

2. Insufficient

4.66 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

6.3 points

Criteria Description

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

5. Target

6.3 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Acceptable

5.48 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

3. Approaching

4.98 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

2. Insufficient

4.66 points

Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

Evidence

5.4 points

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

5. Target

5.4 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.

4. Acceptable

4.7 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

3. Approaching

4.27 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

2. Insufficient

4 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

Mechanics of Writing

5.4 points

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Target

5.4 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Acceptable

4.7 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Approaching

4.27 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Insufficient

4 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

Format/Documentation

3.6 points

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Target

3.6 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

4. Acceptable

3.13 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Approaching

2.84 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Insufficient

2.66 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

ASACOUNSELWEEK6.docx

riskassessment.docx

RubricCriteriaWEEK6.docx

ASACOUNSELWEEK6.docx

riskassessment.docx

RubricCriteriaWEEK6.docx

ASACOUNSELWEEK6.docx