Dynamic risk factors and constructing explanations of offending: The Risk-Causality Method. (January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Heffernan, Roxanne; Ward, Tony; Vandevelde, Stijn; Van Damme, Lore
• Is Part Of: Aggression and violent behavior. Volume 44(2019)
• Page Start: 47
• Page End: 56
• Publication Date: 2019-01
• Subjects: Explanation of crime -- Dynamic risk factors -- Risk factors; Aggressiveness -- Periodicals; Violence -- Periodicals; Violent offenders -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 302.54
• DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.11.009
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1359-1789

Abstract

Abstract: The explanation of offending and reoffending currently relies upon the Risk-Need-Responsivity model's concept of "criminogenic need" (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Bonta & Andrews, 2017) or dynamic risk factors (DRF). This is problematic because the DRF construct is predictive rather than explanatory, and suffers from a number of conceptual problems. Relatedly, the identification and management of DRF in individuals who have committed crimes is an overriding concern for the criminal justice system. It drives the formation of correctional policy and the funding of treatment programs in prisons, forensic hospitals, and probation services. Significant theoretical work is required in order to transform DRF into explanatory tools which are useful for research and practice. In this paper we outline problems with DRF which obstruct this process and then sketch out a possible way forward; the Risk-Causality Method, with its three phases of deconstruction, analysis, and reintegration. Highlights: In this paper we outline a novel method for researchers to utilize dynamic risk factors in the explanation of offending. Our method integrates suggestions from recent literature throughout its phases: deconstruction, analysis, and reintegration. The analysis phase includes the psychological mechanisms underpinning factors as well as the contexts in which they manifest. This has the potential to encourage and guide research, and eventually influence the way practitioners formulate cases.