Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 198–211 | Cite as

Predicting Recidivism Amongst Sexual Offenders: A Multi-site Study of Static-2002

  • R. Karl Hanson
  • Leslie Helmus
  • David Thornton
Original Article

Abstract

The predictive accuracy of Static-2002 (Hanson & Thornton, Notes on the development of Static-2002 (Corrections Research User Report No. 2003-01), 2003) was examined in eight samples of sexual offenders (five Canadian, one U.S., one U.K., one Danish; total sample of 3,034). Static-2002 showed moderate ability to rank order the risk for sexual, violent and general (any) recidivism (AUCs of .68, .71, and .70, respectively), and was more accurate than Static-99. These findings support the use of Static-2002 in applied assessments. There were substantial differences across samples, however, in the observed sexual recidivism rates. These differences present new challenges to evaluators wishing to use actuarial risk scores to estimate absolute recidivism rates.

Keywords

Sex offenders Recidivism Prediction Static-2002 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Public Safety Canada or the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. We would like to thank Howard Barbaree, Tony Beech, Susanne Bengtson, Jacques Bigras, Sasha Boer, Andy Haag, Leigh Harkins, Ray Knight, Calvin Langton and Jean Proulx for permission to use their data, and being patient with our ongoing questions.

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1984). Event history analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: NexisLexis.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84–94. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbaree, H. E., & Blanchard, R. (2008). Sexual deviance over the lifespan: Reductions in deviant sexual behaviour in the aging sex offender. In D. R. Laws & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  5. Barbaree, H. E., Langton, C., & Peacock, E. J. (2006). Different actuarial risk measures produce different risk rankings for sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 423–440. doi: 10.1177/107906320601800408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengtson, S. (2008). Is newer better? A cross-validation of the Static-2002 and the Risk Matrix 2000 in a Danish sample of sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 85–106. doi: 10.1080/10683160701483104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bigras, J. (2007). La prédiction de la récidive chez les délinquants sexuels [Prediction of recidivism among sex offenders]. Dissertations Abstracts International, 68(09). (UMI No. NR30941).Google Scholar
  8. Boer, A. (2003). Evaluating the Static-99 and Static-2002 risk scales using Canadian sexual offenders. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  9. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007–06). Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
  10. Bonta, J., Bogue, B., Crowley, M., & Motiuk, L. (2001). Implementing offender classification systems: Lessons learned. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington, & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice (pp. 227–245). Chichester, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674. doi: 10.1126/science.2648573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Doren, D. M. (2004a). Stability of the interpretative risk percentages for the RRASOR and Static-99. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 25–36. doi: 10.1177/107906320401600102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doren, D. M. (2004b). Toward a multidimensional model for sexual recidivism risk. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 835–856. doi: 10.1177/0886260504266882.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Flores, A. W., Lowenkamp, C. T., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). Predicting outcome with the Level of Service Inventory-Revised: The importance of quality assurance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 523–529. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haag, A. M. (2005). Do psychological interventions impact on actuarial measures: An analysis of the predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-2002 on a re-conviction measure of sexual recidivism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(08), 4531B. (UMI No. NR05662).Google Scholar
  17. Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839–843.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hanson, R. K. (2008). What statistics should we use to report predictive accuracy? Crime Scene, 14(1), 15–17. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from http://www.cpa.ca/sections/criminaljustice/publications/.
  19. Hanson, R. K. (in press). The psychological assessment of risk for crime and violence. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. Google Scholar
  20. Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T.-L., & Helmus, L. (2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-05). Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Hanson, R. K., Lloyd, C. D., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2008). Using multiple samples to estimate percentile ranks and relative risk ratios for actuarial risk tools: A Canadian example using Static-99 and Static-2002. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  22. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (in press). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment.Google Scholar
  23. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136. doi: 10.1023/A:1005482921333.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of Static-2002. (Corrections Research User Report No. 2003-01). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  25. Harkins, L., & Beech, A. R. (2007). Examining the effectiveness of sexual offender treatment using risk band analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  26. Harris, A. J. R., Helmus, L., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2008, October). Are new norms needed for Static-99? Paper presented at the 27th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  27. Harris, A. J. R., Phenix, A., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Static-99 coding rules: Revised 2003. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Boer, D., & Lang, C. (2003). A multi-site comparison of actuarial risk instruments for sex offenders. Psychological Assessment, 15, 413–425. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 285–299). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Helmus, L. (2007). A multisite comparison of the validity and utility of the Static-99 and Static-2002 for risk assessment with sexual offenders. Unpublished B.A. (Honours) thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  32. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Humphreys, L. G., & Swets, J. A. (1991). Comparison of predictive validities measured with biserial correlations and ROCs of signal detection theory. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 316–321. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision. (2007). Sex offender assessment information survey (ICAOS Documents No. 4-2007). Lexington, KY: Author.Google Scholar
  35. Jackson, R. L., & Hess, D. T. (2007). Evaluation for civil commitment of sex offenders: A survey of experts. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 409–448.Google Scholar
  36. Knight, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2007). Evaluating and improving risk assessment schemes for sexual recidivism: A long-term follow-up of convicted sexual offenders (Document No. 217618). U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  37. Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451–476. doi: 10.1007/s11292-005-3541-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Langton, C. M., Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Peacock, E. J., Harkins, L., & Hansen, K. T. (2007). Actuarial assessment of risk for reoffense among adult sex offenders: Evaluating the predictive accuracy of the Static-2002 and five other instruments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 37–59. doi: 10.1177/0093854806291157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., & Burchard, B. L. (2003a). Current practices and trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2002 Nationwide Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Foundation, Inc.Google Scholar
  40. McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G., Livingston, J. A., & Hoke, S. E. (2003b). Outcome of a treatment program for adult sex offenders: From prison to community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 3–17. doi: 10.1177/0886260502238537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mossman, D. (2006). Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 41–63. doi: 10.1177/107906320601800104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Olver, M. E., Wong, S. C. P., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale—Sexual Offender Version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychological Assessment, 19(3), 318–329. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Phenix, A., Doren, D., Helmus, L., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2008). Coding rules for Static-2002. Retrieved November 16, 2008 from http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static2002codingrules.pdf.
  44. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737–748. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.737.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Soothill, K. L., & Gibbens, T. C. N. (1978). Recidivism of sexual offenders: A re-appraisal. The British Journal of Criminology, 18, 267–276.Google Scholar
  46. Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 139–153. doi: 10.1177/107906320201400205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams, S. (1996). Standards and guidelines for the provision of services to sex offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada. Retrieved September 16, 2008 from http://198.103.98.138/text/pblct/so/standards/stande-eng.shtml.
  48. Wilson, D. B., Bouffard, L. A., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172–204. doi: 10.1177/0093854804272889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Public Safety Canada 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Karl Hanson
    • 1
  • Leslie Helmus
    • 1
  • David Thornton
    • 2
  1. 1.Corrections ResearchPublic Safety CanadaWest, OttawaCanada
  2. 2.Sand Ridge Secure Treatment CentreMaustonUSA

Personalised recommendations