Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Abusers

1. Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Abusers Robin J. Wilson, PhD, ABPP Clinical Director The GEO Group / Florida Civil Commitment Center dr.wilsonrj@verizon.net

2. Part 1Defining the ProblemAssessmentDynamic SupervisionSTATIC

3. Defining the Problem

4. Risk Management Philosophy Sex offending results from a complex interaction of offender specific and environmental factors which require competent assessment and, ultimately, long-term treatment and follow-up.

5. Stakeholders • victims • citizens • law enforcement • legal and correctional personnel • mental health personnel • the media • offenders

6. Sexual Offending The past 15-20 years has been witness to a flurry of research into the nature and consequences of sexually offensive behavior. • Isn’t it odd that the focus has come so late in the game? • There is no doubt that there has been sexual offending since there were people to be offenders and others to be victims—thousands and thousands of years. • Why has the attention shifted only recently?

7. Victims • As many as 90% of reporting victims know their offender • 2/3 or more of known offenses occur in the victim’s own home • As many as 90% of victims fail to report their abuse to authorities or others in a position to help

8. Offensive Sexual Behavior One of the greatest hurdles to defining sexual deviance is a lack of clarity as to what actually constitutes offensive sexual behavior. What do you consider to be sexually offensive?

9. Assessment

10. Dangerousness BAD: “This person is dangerous.” GOOD: “If the following risk factors are present, then there is a high/medium/ low probability that the person will engage in some specific behavior within specify period of time that may place specific victims at risk for a specific type and severity of harm.”

11. Assessment • assessment forms the foundation upon which all subsequent intervention is built poor assessment = trouble • comprehensive assessment should take demand characteristics into consideration • assessment is dynamic

12. Why Assess Risk? • Promoting public safety • Routine interventions • Targeting scarce resources • Officer time • Treatment • Exceptional measures

13. Risk Assessment Tools General and violent recidivism: • Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) • Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) • Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) • HCR-20 • Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA)

14. Risk Assessment Tools Sexual recidivism: • Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) • Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) • MnSOST-R • Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offender Recidivism (RRASOR) • STATIC-99 • STABLE-2007 / ACUTE-2007

15. Strengths Valid risk factors Explicit rules for combining factors Explicit probability estimates Robust across settings & samples Easily scored

16. Weaknesses Only moderate predictive accuracy We always want to do better! Tend to neglect important factors Sexual Deviance (Phallometrics) Dynamic Factors

17. Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Offenders

18. Static, Stable, & Acute Risk FactorsDefinitions • Static – Non-changeable life factors that relate to risk for sexual recidivism, generally historical in nature • Stable – Personality characteristics, skill deficits, and learned behaviours that relate to risk for sexual recidivism that may be changed through intervention • Acute – Risk factors of short or unstable temporal duration that can change rapidly, generally as a result of environmental or intra-personal conditions

19. Three Generations of Risk AssessmentBonta (1996) • First Generation = “Clinical Judgment” • Unstructured, Non-replicable, Personal Discretion • Based on experience and level of knowledge of the literature • Non-standard (even within same institution) • Level of prediction little better than chance • Second Generation = “Actuarial Assessment” • Static, Actuarial, Structured, Replicable, Less open to Interpretation • Based on factors empirically related to recidivism • Standardized assessment, “Static” - Can not measure change • “Moderate” Levels of prediction, ROC’s upper 60s to lower 70s • Third Generation = “Dynamic Assessment” • Based on factors empirically related to recidivism • Standardized assessment, Measures change • Actuarial measure with dynamic factors

20. Prediction of sexual recidivism

21. General Recommendations for Risk Assessment • Use an explicit list of empirically validated risk factors determined in advance • Use an empirically validated method of combining the risk factors into an overall evaluation • Estimate the risk for an individual offender based on the group he or she most closely resembles

22. General Recommendations for Risk Assessment • Build-in methods for quality control • At least one year is needed before re-evaluating stable factors (pending deliberate interventions) • Use offence history, enduring psychological characteristics, and current behaviour to evaluate risk

23. STATIC

24. Static Risk Factors • Don’t change (on the whole) • Allow you to gauge the long-term level of risk for sexual recidivism • Allows you to determine an appropriate level of supervision and treatment for the individual (Andrews & Bonta, 2006)

25. JÄSENTYNYT RISKIARVIO – 99.02JRA/STAATTINEN 99

28. New Norms: 10-year SexualSurvival Analysis, initial n = 6,406

29. New Norms: 10 year Violent Survival Analysis, initial n = 6,096

30. 10 Year Sexual Recidivism Rates (from logistic regression estimates)

31. Presenting STATIC-99 Scores • STATIC-99 as part of a complete assessment • Consideration of factors external to STATIC-99 • Advanced age/ill health • Criminogenic needs/stable dynamic risk factors • Completion of credible treatment program • Stated intentions to reoffend

32. Years offence-free in the community • If offenders are able to remain in the community two to ten years without another serious offence, their chances of sexual recidivism decrease substantially • Offence free: • no new sexual or non-sexual violent offences • no offences that result in long periods of incarceration

33. Part 2STABLE

34. STABLE - 2000 Developed from: • SONAR (Hanson & Harris, 2000) • STEP (Beech et al., 2002) • SRA (Thornton, 2002) • Explicit, structured risk assessment tool • 16 Items • Combined with STATIC-99 into overall risk • Empirically Informed, but needed validation

35. STABLE Intimacy Deficits Social Influences Attitudes Sexual Self-Regulation General Self-Regulation ACUTE Substance Abuse Negative Mood Anger/Hostility Victim Access SONAR Hanson & Harris

36. STABLE – 20075 sections for a total of 13 Items • Significant Social Influences • Intimacy Deficits • General Self-regulation • Sexual Self-regulation • Co-operation with Supervision Refer to tally sheet provided.

37. STABLE - 2007 Scoring • All available information • Historical and recent • STABLE - typical or base line functioning - past year and next year

38. Will the change endure? • Exceptional circumstances? • Major life change? • Opportunity? • External pressure? • Quality of evidence • New base line?

39. Return to Base Line

40. New Base Line

41. Significant Social InfluencesThings to consider • Does this person provide material support? • Does this person undermine the offenders controls? • If the offender went to that person for advice would that person be likely to give pro-social or anti-social advice? • Circles of Support and Similar – if the formal structure dissolved would that (positive) person still go for coffee with the offender? • The magic question: If you had a magic wand and could “zap” that person out of the offender’s life – would the offender be more or less likely to reoffend? • More likely to reoffend – they are a positive influence • Less likely to reoffend – they are a negative influence

42. Intimacy Deficits • Capacity for relationship stability • Emotional identification with children • Hostility toward women • Social rejection/loneliness • Lack of concern for others

43. Capacity for Relationship Stability A two-part question “A” Part: Has this offender ever had a two-year intimate (sexual & “live-in”) relationship with an appropriate adult partner (STATIC-99, Q#2) “B” Part: Is the offender currently living with an intimate partner in a relationship without obvious problems? • This relationship can be short, but should be expected to be reasonably STABLE.

44. Emotional Identification with Children Note: Only score for those with child victims age 13 or less • Does the offender feel emotionally close to or intimate with children? • Sees children as peers or equals • Relates more easily to children than to adults • Not parent-child relationship • Consider not only attitudes and values, but also leisure and work activities suggestive of a child-oriented lifestyle • Involved in children’s activities • Boy-victim child molesters tend to be childlike themselves • Offender ascribes adult qualities to children(Incest)

45. Scoring Example 1 - John Convicted of “Demand Sexual Touch – Child”, John, age 35, lives alone and has no adult friends. He works as a janitor at the recreation facility. He generally keeps to himself, but he does talk with some of the regulars, including a couple of the pre-teens who come for the children’s programs. When asked, he says that he likes children, and that he would rather play ball with the kids than watch TV on his own. John has never been in a steady heterosexual relationship. He says that he would like to date more often, but fears rejection (he is not physically attractive).

46. Scoring Example 2 - Fred Fred was a school principle and was caught surreptitiously masturbating in the school library. has been convicted of exhibitionism. He is married and has two children, ages 8 and 10. His relationship with his wife is distant, and he has no close friends outside his family. Fred appears to live through his children. All of his free time is spent supporting his son’s hockey and his daughter’s competitive country dancing. Most of his conversation centres on the special talents of his children. His emotional highs and lows follow their successes or failures.

47. Hostility Toward Women • A prejudice, making women into a different class unworthy of trust or respect • Unable to form warm, constructive relationships with women • Believes or endorses sexist attitudes • Does not consider women as people worthy of trust and respect • May have sexual or personal relationships with women, but these relationships are adversarial and conflicted

48. Scoring Example 3 - Richard Richard has been convicted of Forcible Confinement. He is 28 years old and works on and off as a night-club bouncer. He likes to party, dance, drink, and socialise with his male friends from high school. He is out on a date almost every week, although rarely does he see the same women for more than a month. He divides women into those that are “fun” and those that are “boring”. Fun women drink, flirt and are open to casual sex. Boring women either don’t pay attention to him, or want a long-term commitment. He does not get into conflicts with women. When problems arise, he simply ignores them or ends the relationship.

49. Social Rejection/Loneliness • Is the offender able to make friends and feel close to others (demonstrating secure adult attachment)? • Is he lonely, prone to feeling socially rejected? • Is he emotionally close to friends and family? • How does he feel over the intermediate term – his impression of the world

50. Lack of Concern for Others • This item does not reflect solely their treatment of their victims • Little consideration for the feelings of others • Acts according to their own self-interest • Feigns shallow displays of regret, little or no remorse • Unfeeling, ruthless, or indifferent • Not just towards their victims or adversaries, but also towards their in-group • Possibly has friends, associates and acquaintances, but no stable, caring relationships • Quite significant pathology must be present, this condition is fairly unusual