The 3 R’s of risk assessment for violent extremism
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-07-2016-0029 |
| Date | 08 May 2017 |
| Pages | 91-101 |
| Published date | 08 May 2017 |
| Author | Geoff Dean,Graeme Pettet |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Forensic practice,Sociology,Sociology of crime & law,Law enforcement/correctional,Public policy & environmental management,Policing,Criminal justice |
Invited paper
The 3 R’s of risk assessment for
violent extremism
Geoff Dean and Graeme Pettet
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore two distinct yet complimentary “structured professional
judgement (SPJ)”approaches to terrorist/extremist risk assessment on the vexing issue of how best to deal
with the subjectivity inherently involved in professional judgement.
Design/methodology/approach –An SPJ methodology is considered the best practice approach for
assessing terrorism risk. Currently there are four specific terrorism risk instruments that have been published
in the literature. Two of these SPJ tools are examined in detail, namely the Violent Extremist Risk Assessment
tool (Pressman, 2009; Pressman et al., 2012) and the Structured Assessment of Violent Extremism (SAVE)
tool (Dean, 2014). The paper critically unpacks the conceptual and methodological stumbling blocks of an
SPJ methodology for controlling human subjectivity.
Findings –The paper presents the case for adopting a “controlling in”approach rather than a “controlling
out”approach of an analyst’s subjective tacit (in-the-head) knowledge inherent in their professional
judgement. To have a quantifiable SPJ tool that triangulates the multi-dimensionality of terrorism risk which
can validate an analyst’s professional judgement is the next logical step in terrorist/extremist risk assessment
work. The paper includes a case example of this “controlling in”approach and the validation methodology
used by the SAVE software system.
Practical implications –The implications for practice range from incorporating the SAVE system in
operational policing/national security work with its quantitative nature, triangulated risk scores, visualisation
output of a prioritised case report with in-built alerts, to the required training for system calibration to enhance
user proficiency.
Originality/value –This is a highly original and innovative paper as this type of quantified SPJ tool (SAVE)
has up until now never been applied before in terrorist/extremist risk assessment work.
Keywords Terrorism, Risk assessment, Tacit knowledge, Neurocognition, Radicalization,
Structured professional judgement, Violent extremism
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The assessment of risk in terrorists and extremists is in its infancy. Monahan (2012) identified
several conceptual and methodological challenges to be overcome in the individual risk
assessment of terrorism in order to progress towards empirically rigorous and operationally
relevant research. Monahan (2012) considers a structured professional judgement (SPJ)
methodology as currently the best practice approach for terrorist/extremist risk assessments.
The key conceptual issue is “the optimal degree of structuring the risk assessment of terrorism”
(Monahan, 2012, p. 183). That is, the extent to which “professional judgement”should be
“structured”in a risk assessment. Monahan’s argument is that terrorism is a relatively rare event,
compared to other forms of more “common”criminal violence. Hence, its low-base rate “[…] will
never be large enough to allow the statistical power needed to determine the optimal quantitative
Received 5 July 2016
Revised 19 August 2016
2 September 2016
Accepted 2 September 2016
Geoff Dean is the Director of
International Programs at the
Griffith Criminology Institute,
Griffith University,
Brisbane, Australia.
Graeme Pettet is a Professor at
the School of Mathematical
Sciences, Queensland
University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia.
DOI 10.1108/JFP-07-2016-0029 VOL. 19 NO. 2 2017, pp. 91-101, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2050-8794
j
JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE
j
PAG E 91
To continue reading
Request your trial