Suicide risk assessment is one of the most consequential clinical tasks a social worker will ever perform. Unlike many areas of practice where an imperfect response can be corrected over time, the stakes here are immediate. What you ask, how you ask it, and what you do with the information can determine whether a client gets the right level of care at the right moment.
Despite that weight — or maybe because of it — suicide risk assessment is an area where a lot of practitioners develop habits rather than frameworks. You learn to do it a certain way in your first placement, you carry that approach into the next job, and over time it feels like clinical intuition. But there's a meaningful difference between intuition built on a solid foundation and intuition that's filling in gaps you may not know exist.
This post walks through the major approaches to suicide risk assessment used in social work and mental health practice: what each one emphasizes, how they're structured, and what makes them useful in different clinical contexts.
Whatever framework a social worker uses, any thorough suicide risk assessment covers a common set of clinical dimensions. Understanding these building blocks is essential before looking at how different approaches organize them.
Ideation refers to thoughts about suicide — but not all ideation is the same. There's a significant difference between passive ideation ("I wish I weren't here") and active ideation ("I'm thinking about how I would do it"). The nature, frequency, intensity, and duration of suicidal thinking all matter, and a complete assessment explores each of them.
Plan and intent represent the next layer of risk. A client who has a specific, detailed plan is at significantly higher risk than one with vague ideation and no sense of how they might act. Intent refers to how much the person has actually committed, in their own mind, to following through. These are separate questions worth asking separately.
Means and lethality address what method the client is considering and whether they have access to it. Lethality refers to how likely that method would be fatal. A client describing a plan that involves a highly lethal method they have immediate access to is in a different risk category than a client who names a method they don't have access to and hasn't thought through concretely.
History is one of the strongest predictors of future risk. A previous suicide attempt significantly elevates current risk, and the details matter — method used, level of medical seriousness, circumstances, and how the person reflects on it now. History of self-harm, psychiatric hospitalizations, and substance use are all relevant.
Protective factors round out the picture. These include reasons for living, social support, religious or cultural beliefs, connection to children or other dependents, and access to care. A thorough assessment doesn't just inventory what's dangerous — it actively explores what's keeping the person alive.
The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale is among the most widely used structured tools for assessing suicide risk in clinical and research settings. Developed at Columbia University, it organizes suicidal ideation along a five-point spectrum — from passive ideation ("I wish I were dead") to active ideation with plan, intent, and identified means — and tracks suicidal behavior separately, including past attempts and any preparatory actions.
What makes the C-SSRS particularly useful is that it operationalizes severity in a consistent, replicable way. Rather than asking clinicians to make an unstructured judgment call about how serious a client's ideation is, the scale provides shared language and defined categories. Two clinicians using the C-SSRS with the same client are more likely to arrive at comparable conclusions than two clinicians relying purely on their own clinical judgment. It's worth noting that the C-SSRS is a screening and assessment tool — it identifies and quantifies risk, but doesn't prescribe a treatment approach. That distinction matters when comparing it to more treatment-integrated models like CAMS.
The tool is designed to be administered conversationally, not read aloud like a checklist. The questions are written in accessible language so that clients can engage with them directly rather than feel processed by them. This is part of what makes the C-SSRS both clinically valid and practically usable in real sessions.
One important element the C-SSRS brings into focus is the weight of behavioral history. The scale treats past attempts as a separate category from current ideation, recognizing that someone can present as relatively calm or low-ideation in the current moment while still carrying meaningful risk based on what they've done before. This matters clinically — a client who says they're "doing better" but has made multiple serious attempts requires a different level of attention than their current presentation alone would suggest.
CAMS, developed by clinical psychologist David Jobes, represents a different orientation to suicide risk assessment. Rather than positioning the clinician as the expert conducting an assessment of the client, CAMS is structured as a collaborative process — clinician and client working together to understand the client's suicidality, side by side.
The central tool in CAMS is the Suicide Status Form (SSF), which client and clinician complete together, often literally sitting side by side. The client rates the intensity of their psychological pain, stress, agitation, hopelessness, and self-hate, and identifies their primary reason for wanting to die. The clinician contributes clinical observations. Both perspectives become part of the record.
The collaborative structure isn't incidental — it's the intervention. Jobes and colleagues argue that engaging the client as an active participant in understanding their own suicidality is both more likely to surface accurate information and more therapeutically useful than a traditional assessment conducted on them. Clients who feel seen and involved are more likely to be honest about what's actually happening and more likely to stay engaged in the safety planning that follows.
CAMS also distinguishes itself by focusing on the drivers of suicidality — the specific psychological pain or circumstances that are making the client want to die — rather than stopping at symptom identification. The treatment planning within CAMS is organized around addressing those drivers directly, not just stabilizing the person and monitoring risk. This makes CAMS particularly relevant for ongoing outpatient work with clients for whom suicidality is a recurring concern.
SAD PERSONS is a mnemonic-based tool that was widely taught for several decades as a quick screening approach. Each letter stands for a risk factor: Sex (male), Age (adolescent or elderly), Depression, Previous attempt, Ethanol (alcohol) use, Rational thinking loss (psychosis), Social support lacking, Organized plan, No spouse (lack of social connection), and Sickness (chronic illness).
The tool assigns points to each factor and produces a numerical risk score that corresponds to recommendations ranging from outpatient follow-up to hospitalization.
It's worth understanding both what SAD PERSONS contributes and where its limitations lie. As a teaching tool, it was effective at introducing clinicians to the major categories of risk. The mnemonic made a complex clinical area more accessible during training. But research has raised significant concerns about the scale's predictive validity — it performs poorly as a standalone clinical decision-making tool compared to more thorough structured assessments. It's also been criticized for weighting static demographic factors (like sex and marital status) heavily while underweighting dynamic clinical indicators like current ideation and access to means.
Most professional organizations and clinical training programs have moved away from recommending SAD PERSONS as a primary assessment tool, though it continues to appear in some educational contexts and older resources. Knowing it remains clinically relevant — both because you may encounter it in practice settings and because understanding its limitations reflects the kind of critical thinking about assessment tools that advanced practice requires.
Not all risk assessment happens through a named tool. Structured professional judgment (SPJ) refers to an approach that combines systematic review of empirically supported risk factors with clinical discretion, rather than relying on an actuarial formula or checklist to produce a score.
Under an SPJ model, a clinician works through a defined set of relevant risk and protective factors — ideation, plan, history, social support, access to means, and others — and then synthesizes that information into a clinical risk level (typically low, moderate, or high) based on their judgment of how the factors interact in this particular client's situation. The structure ensures that important variables aren't overlooked; the clinical judgment accounts for context, relationship, and nuance that a scoring formula can't capture.
SPJ is widely used in violence risk assessment and is increasingly common in suicide risk assessment as well. Many clinical settings don't use a specific named tool but do use a structured intake or assessment protocol that effectively functions as an SPJ process. For social workers who practice in settings without a standardized tool, understanding this model is important — it describes what you're actually doing when you conduct a thoughtful, comprehensive risk assessment and document it with clinical reasoning.
Assessment and safety planning are distinct processes, but they're closely enough linked that it's worth addressing safety planning here. The Stanley-Brown Safety Planning Intervention — developed by Barbara Stanley and Gregory Brown — is the most evidence-supported approach and has largely replaced no-suicide contracts as the standard of care.
A safety plan is a written, prioritized set of coping strategies and resources that a client agrees to work through before acting on suicidal urges. It's developed collaboratively, in the client's own language, and is meant to be personally meaningful rather than generic. A good safety plan identifies the client's personal warning signs, specific coping strategies they've found effective, people they can contact for support, and professional resources — ordered so that the most independent strategies come first and the most intensive (calling 911 or going to an emergency room) come last.
The shift from no-suicide contracts to safety planning reflects a broader evidence base. No-suicide contracts have no demonstrated efficacy and can create a false sense of security for clinicians. Safety planning, by contrast, actively builds the client's capacity to navigate a crisis — and the process of developing one is itself therapeutic, helping the client identify their own reasons for living and the specific steps they can take to stay safe.
Means restriction counseling is a related component of safety planning that merits its own attention. Reducing access to lethal means — particularly firearms — during a period of elevated risk is one of the most effective suicide prevention interventions available. Social workers in any setting may need to have direct, specific conversations with clients and their families about removing or securing access to firearms, medications, and other means, and doing so sensitively but clearly is part of competent suicide risk work.
No discussion of suicide risk assessment is complete without addressing how culture shapes both the presentation of suicidal ideation and the clinical relationship in which assessment takes place.
Expressions of suicidality vary across cultures. Some clients will use indirect language — talking about being a burden, wanting to sleep and not wake up, or joining deceased family members — that a clinician unfamiliar with their cultural context might not immediately recognize as suicidal ideation. Others may be reluctant to disclose directly because of stigma around mental health, concerns about family shame, or distrust of systems that have historically harmed their communities.
Culturally responsive suicide risk assessment means being willing to ask clearly and directly while also listening for indirect expression, taking time to understand the client's cultural context before interpreting their words, and recognizing that protective factors are culturally embedded as well. Spiritual and religious beliefs, family interdependence, and community connection can serve as powerful reasons for living in ways that a standardized tool alone may not fully capture.
The ASWB isn't asking you to recite the dimensions of the C-SSRS. What it's testing is whether you understand the reasoning behind suicide risk assessment — what you're trying to determine, in what order, and what the appropriate clinical response looks like at each level of risk.
A few patterns show up consistently in exam questions on this topic. Questions about FIRST steps in a crisis scenario almost always point toward assessment before intervention. If a client discloses suicidal ideation and four answer choices include things like "call a psychiatrist," "develop a safety plan," "ask the client directly about intent and plan," and "contact the client's family," the right first step is gathering more information. You can't make a safe clinical decision without knowing what you're actually dealing with.
Questions that distinguish passive ideation from active ideation with plan and means are testing whether you understand lethality. A client who says "sometimes I think about not being here anymore" and a client who says "I've been thinking about taking all my pills — I have a full bottle at home" are not in the same risk category, and your response shouldn't look the same.
Questions about safety planning versus no-suicide contracts are asking you to know the current standard of care. Safety planning is supported by evidence. No-suicide contracts are not. And questions that include a client's history of previous attempts as a clinical detail are usually doing so for a reason — prior behavior is one of the most significant predictors of future risk, and the exam expects you to factor it in.
If you're finding that suicide risk questions feel harder than they should given your clinical experience, practice tests are your best diagnostic tool. They'll show you exactly where your reasoning is breaking down — whether it's a knowledge gap or a test-taking pattern — so you can address it directly before exam day.
Right now, get SWTP's online practice exams at a reduced price. Just $39. Get additional savings when buying more than one exam at a time-- less than $30 per exam!
Keep going till you pass. Extensions are free.
To receive our free study guide and get started!