Treatment of Sex Offenders

48
R.J.B. Lehmann et al.
Certain past and present behaviors, such as substance abuse, job instability, getting
into fights, and poor problem-solving, may all be indicators of this propensity. In this
model, the distinction between static and dynamic risk factors is simply a heuristic
to describe indicators, rather than a fundamental difference between the risk-relevant
constructs. For example, a history of car accidents (a static variable) and current
substance abuse (a dynamic variable) may both be indicators of the same underlying
propensity (poor self-regulation). In other words, psychologically meaningful risk
factors can be measured using either static or dynamic risk factors.
Nonetheless, even though static and dynamic risk factors may measure the same
constructs, there are practical advantages to distinguishing between them in risk
assessment. Conceptually, it is easy to divide risk factors into those that the offender
cannot change or manage (static) versus those he/she can (dynamic), with the latter
being easier to incorporate into treatment planning (though this does not mean that
static risk assessment cannot also inform risk management). Also, the types of
information used to assess these risk factors are different. Static risk factors are
often easy and reliably coded based on fairly straightforward criminal history information,
as well as offender and victim demographics. Interviews with the offender
may not be required, which makes these items practical for correctional systems
that need to assess and manage large populations with limited resources. In comparison,
dynamic risk factors are often more time-intensive to assess. Credible
assessments should minimally include detailed reviews of file information (criminal
history and personal/social history) and ideally an interview with the offender (e.g.,
Fernandez, Harris, Hanson, & Sparks, 2014 ). Other sources of information (e.g.,
specialized testing, collateral interviews) can also enhance dynamic assessment.
Complicating this distinction further is recent research and theoretical work that
suggests the existence of protective factors (e.g., Farrington & Ttofi, 2011 ; Lösel &
Farrington, 2012 ), which may reduce the risk of recidivism or interact with a risk
factor to decrease its association with recidivism. Although the attempt to focus on
offender strengths in assessment is admirable and would likely increase the comprehensiveness
of the assessment and improve the therapeutic climate, Harris and Rice
( 2015 ) have argued that current descriptions of supposedly protective risk factors
are mostly just the opposite end of risk factors and do not reflect new constructs.
Consequently, the idea of risk-relevant propensities (Mann et al., 2010 ) implies that
static, dynamic, and/or protective factors can be used to assess the same risk- relevant
contructs, thereby informing risk management practices. Certainly, however, assessing
changes in risk would require some consideration of dynamic risk factors.
Crime Scene Behaviors as Indicators of Risk-Relevant
Propensities
One neglected area of research has been to use crime scene behaviors as indicators
of risk-relevant constructs. Enduring risk-related individual offender propensities
(e.g., hostility) may manifest themselves in concrete offense behavior