risk of violent extremism, although it may indicate a higher likelihood of further violent behaviour. 180 The Extremism Risk Guidelines (ERG22+), developed and used in England and Wales, assess 22 factors in three main domains (engagement, capacity and capability), 181 including potential changes and the impact of interventions in these three areas. “The Violent Extremist Risk Assessment (VERA-2)” and its revised version (VERA-2R) used 182 in some countries in Europe, as well as in Australia, Canada, the United States the South Asian region, looks into 34 risk factors in five domains: “attitudes, beliefs and ideology”; “social context and intention”, “history, action and capacity”; “commitment and 183 motivation”; “protective/risk-mitigating indicators”. Some jurisdictions have decided to use assessment tools about general violence, rather than ones specific to VERLT or, instead, to rely on individual assessments using a variety of different screening tools and/ 184 or multidisciplinary direct observations. It is important to understand that while risk and needs assessments are useful tools, they are not infallible. They cannot predict who will reoffend or identify who will turn to VERLT 185 in prison with statistical accuracy. A dynamic security approach, staff observations, professional judgement and experience should complement information obtained through 186 risk and needs assessments. Risk and needs assessments for specific categories of prisoners Specific risk and needs assessment tools for children and women involved in or deemed “at risk” of VERLT are lacking, and the need has been highlighted to carefully review the 187 relevance of VERA-2R and ERG+22 to these categories of detainees. The different drivers of radicalization leading to terrorism or violence for women and children, together 180 Van der Heide, van der Zwan & van Leyenhorst, “The Practitioner’s Guide to the Galaxy - A Comparison of Risk Assessment Tools for Violent Extremism”, op. cit., note 176, p. 5. 181 For more details on these specialized risk assessment tools, see: UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, op. cit., note 2, p. 56. 182 For example: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, see: EuroPris Knowledge Management System, 220719: Radicalisation Risk Assessment; EU-RAN, “Approaches to Countering Radicalization and Dealing with Violent Extremist and Terrorist Offenders in Prisons and Probation”, op. cit., note 80, p. 19. 183 European Commission, “Violent Extremism Risk Assessment, Version 2-revised Pressman, Rinne, Duits, Flockton”, 2016. 184 Latvia, Lithuania, Switzerland; see: https://www.europris.org/epis/kms/?detail=348. 185 For a discussion on the low rates of terrorist recidivism, see: Renard, “Overblown: Exploring the Gap Between the Fear of Terrorist Recidivism and the Evidence”, op. cit., note 52. 186 UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, op. cit., note 2, p. 57; Council of Europe, “Council of Europe Handbook”, op. cit., note 2, paras. 62-63. 187 Global Center on Cooperative Security and ICCT, “Correcting the Course: Advancing Juvenile Justice Principles for Children Convicted of Violent Extremism Offenses”, September 2017, p. 11; Global Center on Cooperative Security & ICCT, “Rehabilitating Juvenile Violent Extremist Offenders in Detention”, op. cit., note 47, p. 3; PRI, “Children and Violent Extremism: , op. cit., note 84, p. 11. 42