1 / 60

Sex Offender Risk Assessment

Sex Offender Risk Assessment. Assessment of Static and Dynamic Risk of Adult Sexual Offenders NJATSA 4/13/12 Rev 1/2013. Presenters:. Jackson Tay Bosley , Psy.D . Clinician/Administrator

flynn
Download Presentation

Sex Offender Risk Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sex Offender Risk Assessment Assessment of Static and Dynamic Risk of Adult Sexual Offenders NJATSA4/13/12 Rev 1/2013

  2. Presenters: Jackson TayBosley, Psy.D. Clinician/Administrator Community/Parole Supervision for Life Program University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ Merrill Main, Ph.D. Clinical Director Special Treatment Unit Department of Human Services, State of NJ

  3. Disk Contents • This presentation (early version) • STATIC-99 materials (scoring sheet) • STABLE and ACUTE 2007 materials • Dynamic Risk Factors – various articles • Risk Information – various articles • Adult, Polygraph, Porn, Megan’s Law, Parole, MIDSA, MnSOST-R, SIR • CSL/PSL Program, Treatment Targets

  4. The Question Is he (or she) going to do it again? Yes or No (too simple)

  5. Defining Risk • Probability of reoffending • Actuarial • Trauma associated with reoffense • Probability of recovery • Distaste factor • Ability to manage risk • Nature of offending • Legal and situational realities • Living conditions

  6. Risk Assessment Techniques • Clinical Intuition-Professional Judgment (guess) • Empirically-Informed Clinical Judgment (educated guess) • Purely Actuarial (pure science) • Clinically Adjusted Actuarial (science and a little common sense)

  7. How do they rate? (chance = 0.0, perfect = 1.0) • Clinical judgment r= .10 • Prior sex offense .19 • Empirically-informed clinical judgment above .10 (?) • Purely actuarial .33 to .45 • (depends on instrument and sample) • Clinically adjusted actuarial (?) using structured instruments measuring dynamic factors

  8. Suggestion • We have an ethical and moral responsibility to use the best the science has to offer. • In court, adjusted actuarial estimates, (with proper caveats) seem to work best. • Know the literature and the underlying arguments. • Even the best actuarials are only “moderately” predictive.

  9. History of SO Risk Assessment • Early Period (till late 70’s / early 80’s) • Clinical Judgment • Presentation (remorse, denial, defensiveness) • Plethysmography • Early Research/Theories • Nick Groth – Men Who Rape (1979) • David Finkelhor – 4 Factors (1984) • Gene Able – Large sample data (1987) • Actuarial Period (mid 90s till now) • RRASOR/STATIC-99 and VRAG/SORAG

  10. History of SO Risk Assessment (cont.) • Men who rape: The psychology of the offender (1979) Nicholas Groth • Power rapist (55% of his sample) • Anger rapist (40% of his sample) • Sadistic rapist (5% of his sample) Re: offenders against children • Fixated Child Molesters • Regressed Child Molesters

  11. History of SO Risk Assessment (cont) • 4 Factors- Child sexual abuse: New theory and research (1984) David Finkelhor • Emotional congruence – Does SO behavior ‘make sense’ to the offender? • Sexual arousal – Arousal to children • Blockages – Problems in meeting sexual needs in an adult manner • Disinhibition – How does the offender give himself permission to offend?

  12. History of SO Risk Assessment(cont.) • Large sample study of offenders in treatment (1987) Gene G Abel • N = 561 offenders in TN and NY • Obtained “certificate of confidentiality” • Asked for self-report of other offense behaviors without fearing legal consequence Findings: • Crossover behavior • Small portion of the sample offended a lot

  13. History of SO Risk Assessment (cont.) • Science in the field • Plethysmograph studies • Primacy of Canadian researchers • Hanson & Bussiere – Predictors of SO recidivism: A meta-analysis 1994 RRASOR - 1997 • Quinsey, Harris, Rice & Courmier – VRAG 1998 • Meta-analysis • What do the numbers say and where have they led us?

  14. Factor Analysis of SO Recidivism Risk • Sexual Deviance • Sexual preference for pre-pubertal sexual partners (pedophilia) • Sexual preference for cues of pain/fear • Strength of sexual urges (hypersexuality) • Antisociality • Enjoyment of illegal activity • Impulsivity • Criminal value system

  15. Actuarials/Risk Assessment Instruments • Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism - RRASOR (1997) • Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool – Revised - MnSOST-R (1998) • STATIC-99R (STATIC-2002R is in development) • Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating - SONAR (Stable and Acute-2007) • Others • Sexual Reoffense CARAT, SORAG, JSORRAT-II, VASOR, Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP), Risk Matrix-2000 • Violent Reoffense VRAG, LSI-R, PCL-R, SAVRY, SIR

  16. Static-99R • Age • Lived with a lover for at least 2 years • Index or prior non-sexual violence • Prior sex offenses (charges or convictions) • Prior sentencing dates • Non-contact sexual offenses • Unrelated/stranger or male victims

  17. Other Instruments(with some brief overviews) • MnSOST-R (now, MnSOST-3) • Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) • Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) • Sex Offender Treatment Rating Scale • Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating • Risk Matrix-2000 • Treatment Progress Scale

  18. MnSOST-R • Number of sex/sex-related convictions • Length of sexual offending history • Was the offender under any form of supervision during sex offense • Was any sex offense in public • Was force or the threat of force ever used • Multiple acts on a single victim • Number of different age groups victimized (<6, 7-12, 13-15, 16+) • Offended against a 13 to 15 year old and offender >5 years older • Victim a stranger in any sex offense • Evidence of adolescent antisocial behavior • Substantial history of drug or alcohol abuse • Employment history • Discipline history while incarcerated • Chemical dependency treatment while incarcerated • Sex offender treatment history while incarcerated • Age of offender at time of release

  19. VRAG items • Psychopathy Checklist Score • Elementary school maladjustment • Age at index offense • DSM III personality disorder • Separation from parents before age 16 • Failure on prior conditional release • History of nonviolent offenses • Never married • DSM III schizophrenia • Victim injury in index offense • History of alcohol abuse • Male victim in index offense

  20. RSVP5 SECTIONS, 22 ITEMS Sexual Violence History (5 items) Psychological Adjustment (5 items) Mental Disorder (5 items) Social Adjustment (4 items) Manageability (3 items)

  21. SOTRSSex Offender Treatment Rating Scale • Insight • Deviant thoughts • Awareness of situational risks • Motivation • Victim empathy • Offense disclosure

  22. SONARSex Offender Need Assessment Rating STABLE FACTORS • Intimacy deficits • Negative social influences • Attitudes tolerant of sexual offending • Sexual self-regulation • General self-regulation ACUTE FACTORS • Substance abuse • Negative mood • Anger • Victim access

  23. Risk Matrix-2000Three scales: Sexual, Violent, Combined • Age 18-24 = 2 points; 25-34 = 1 point; Older = 0 points • Sexual Appearances (Convictions) • Criminal Appearances • Male Victim of Sex Offense • Stranger Victim of Sex Offense • Single (Never in Marital Type Relationship) • Non- Contact Sex Offence • Burglary Convictions

  24. TREATMENT PROGRESS SCALE -Offense behavior admission -Responsibility Acceptance -Sexual interests -Sexual attitudes -Sexual behavior -Sexual risk management -Criminal attitudes -Criminal behavior -Substance abuse -Emotion management -Mental health stability -Problem solving -Impulsivity -Stage of change -Cooperation with treatment -Supervision Cooperation -Employment -Residence -Finances -Adult love relationship -Social influences -Social involvement

  25. Actuarial Item Analysis • Actuarial items are chosen based on their empirical link to recidivism (atheoretical) • Static Factors - Fixed, easy to code, most researched - priors, age/gender of victim • Dynamic Factors – Changeable, harder to code (constructs: empathy, stability, psychopathy), what we target in treatment – indicators of imminent sexual recidivism

  26. Static vs Dynamic (?) • Psychologically-meaningful risk factors • Vulnerabilities • Psychological Predispositions • Propensities Static factors (events) are proxies for underlying risk-relevant propensities Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010

  27. Static Risk Items • Age (youth vs old age) • Prior criminal behavior • Non-sexual crimes • Sexual crimes • Number of sentencing occasions • Supervision violations • Sexual offense victim choice • Unrelated, Stranger, Male

  28. Static Risk Items (cont.) • Relationship history • Treatment history • Completion • Failure/termination • Substance abuse history • Adverse childhood environment • Psychological factors/Dx • ASPD, psychosis, DD/MR, pedophilia, psychopathy (arguably dynamic factors)

  29. Factors associated with recidivism(Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004): Specific interest in boys measured by ppg r = .30 Deviant sexual preference dx of any paraphilia .40 Sexual Preoccupations .51 Emotional identification with children .63

  30. Problems with Research on Static Factors • They do not change in response to treatment • They are proxies for underlying psychological propensities • The data might be clear, but the interpretation might vary • Not suitable as targets for intervention

  31. Why We Use Static Factors to Predict Recidivism • Most research evidence • Data gathered as part of background or Intake information • Easy to code from data • Clear(er) – usually yes or no (or a number) • Easier to locate • No other factors are as predictively powerful (yet)

  32. What are Dynamic Risk Factors • Dynamic = changeable • Psychological propensities • Traits • Habits (??) • Amenable to treatment intervention • Observable, but more difficult to measure • Important for supervision purposes

  33. Dynamic Risk Items (from Stable-2007) • Stable • Significant social influences • Capacity for relationship stability • Emotional identification with children (<13) • Hostility toward women • General social rejection • Lack of concern for others • Poor problem-solving skills

  34. Dynamic Risk Items (from Stable-2007) • Stable (cont.) • Negative emotionality • Sex Drive/Preoccupation • Sex as coping • Impulsive • Deviant sexual preference • Cooperation with supervision

  35. Dynamic Risk Items (from Acute-2007) • Acute • Victim access • Hostility • Sexual preoccupation • Rejection of supervision • Emotional collapse • Collapse of social supports • Substance abuse

  36. How predictive validity of the STATIC-99R is affected by the addition of dynamic risk information from Hanson and Helmus, 2009

  37. STATIC and Stable-2007from Hanson and Helmus, 2009 • Static Score 3 year recidivism % Stable-2007 =5 (Mean) =14 (90%) 2 3% 7% 5 7% 18% 7 14% 32%

  38. STATIC and Sample Choicefrom Hanson and Helmus, 2009 Static Score 5 year recidivism % Sample: Routine Risk/Need 2 5% 12% 5 11% 25% 7 19% 38%

  39. (Witt & Conroy, 2008)

  40. Importance of Static and Dynamic Risk Factors (Hanson, 2002)

  41. Importance of Static and Dynamic Risk Factors (Hanson, 2002)

  42. Other Potential Risk Indicators • Plethysmograph results • Polygraph results • Negative treatment response • Inability to manage adult relationships • Hostility towards women • Callousness/lack of empathy • Denial

  43. Denial as a Risk Factor • Early thinking – Denial means much higher risk • Hanson & Bussiere (1997) no effect • Nunes et al (2007) higher risk for low-risk offenders • Looman (2011) higher risk for higher-risk offenders

  44. Denial as a Risk Factor (cont.) • Denial is predictive of reoffense for some offenders. • Denial at the beginning of treatment is not indicative of higher risk. • Denial should not preclude anyone from treatment. • Denial is a legitimate treatment target. • Denial at the end of treatment might indicate higher risk.

  45. Percentage rates of sex offender recidivism (Harris & Hanson, 2004): Type 5yr10yr15yr All 14 20 24 Rapists 14 21 24 Incest 6 9 13 Female target CM 9 13 16 Male target CM 23 28 35 w/out prior offense 10 15 19 w/ prior offense 25 32 37 Offender over 50yrs 7 11 13 k=95 n=31000

  46. Criminal Recidivism Rates • US Dept. of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002) 3 year follow-up • Burglary 74% • Larceny 75% • Auto Theft 70% • DUI 51% • Sexual Offenses 5.3% n=9691

  47. Supported Risk Factors Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010 • Sexual preoccupation • Deviant sexual interest (children or violence) • Offense-supportive attitudes • Emotional congruence with children • Lack of emotionally intimate relationships with adults

  48. Supported Risk Factors Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010 • Lifestyle impulsivity • General self-regulation problems • Poor cognitive problem-solving • Resistance to rules and supervision • Grievance/hostility • Negative social influences

  49. Promising Risk Factors Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010 • Hostility towards women • Machiavellianism • Callousness/lack of concern for others • Dysfunctional coping • Sexualized coping • Externalizing

  50. Unsupported Risk Factors(But with some interesting exceptions) Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010 • Denial • Except for low risk offenders, high risk offenders, incest offenders, rapists (??) • Poor self-esteem • Major mental illness • Increases risk of general & violent recid. • Loneliness

More Related