LAUSR

Abstract The concept of “criminogenic need” is firmly entrenched within forensic research and practice. So much so that its status is rarely questioned, and its central role in risk reduction and management is accepted at face value. However, the analogue concept of dynamic risk factor (DRF) has recently come under scrutiny, with criticisms centering upon its composite nature and lack of coherence. These criticisms challenge the presumed causality of these factors, and thus their role in practice. In order to test this assumption this paper addresses three questions: 1) how are DRF conceptualized within the recent literature? 2) How are they measured? 3) What is the evidence that they a) change, b) that these changes predict outcomes (i.e., reduced recidivism), and c) that treatment targeting DRF influences this process? The answers can provide support for or cast doubt upon the status of DRF in the prediction and explanation of offending.