Advertisement

Assessment of Risk to Sexually Reoffend: What Do We Really Know?

  • Robin J. Wilson
  • Jeffrey C. Sandler
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)

Abstract

As recently as 30 years ago, assessments of sexual offender reoffense potential were offered by “experts” relying on clinical judgments fraught with subjectivity. In the wake of damning research showing that such ratings were often no better than chance in predicting outcome, mechanical processes were developed to increase objectivity, known as actuarial risk assessment instruments or ARAIs (e.g., Static-99, Risk Matrix-2000). In contemporary practice, ARAIs are used to anchor risk judgments; however, they continue to generate controversy, especially in the highly litigious realm of sexual offender civil commitment and other extraordinary measures of containment and restriction of offender liberties. Additionally, research is clear that use of ARAIs provides only moderate predictive accuracy and that other psychologically meaningful factors must also be considered. This chapter traces the history of sexual offender risk assessment techniques, ultimately focusing on contemporary approaches marrying ARAIs with structured approaches to appraising criminogenic need and instituting evidence-based case management practices. Successes achieved and suggestions for future research and practice are addressed.

Keywords

Sexual offender risk assessment Static-99R Criminogenic need Case management Actuarial risk assessment 

References

  1. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. (2006). 42 U.S. C. § 16911.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct (1st ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson.Google Scholar
  4. Blacker, J., Beech, A. R., Wilcox, D. T., & Boer, D. P. (2011). The assessment of dynamic risk and recidivism in a sample of special needs sex offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Mercado, C., Quesada, S., Hawes, S., Rice, A. K., & Jeglic, E. L. (2012). Implications of the Static-99 field reliability findings for score use and reporting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boer, D. P., Haaven, J. L., Lambick, F., Lindsay, W. R., McVilly, K., Sakdalan, J., & Frize, M. (2012). ARMIDILO-S manual: Web version 1.0. Available at www.armidilo.net
  7. Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18–32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Cincinnati: Anderson.Google Scholar
  9. Brandt, J., Wilson, R. J., & Prescott, D. S. (2015). Doubts about SVP programs: A critical review of sexual offender civil commitment in the US. In B. Schwartz (Ed.), The sex offender (Vol. 8). Kingston: Civic Research Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Burkhardt, B. C., & Connor, B. T. (2016). Durkheim, punishment, and prison privatization. Social Currents, 3, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cooke, D., & Michie, C. (2010). Limitations of diagnostic precision and predictive utility in the individual case: A challenge for forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cortoni, F., Babchishin, K. M., & Rat, C. (2017). The proportion of sexual offenders who are female is higher than thought: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 145–162.Google Scholar
  13. Cortoni, F., Hanson, R. K., & Coache, M. E. (2010). The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders are low: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cortoni, F., Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Kozlowski, K. (2015). Factors related to sexual recidivism among women. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Orlando.Google Scholar
  15. de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y., & de Vries Robbe, M. (2009). SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Utrecht: Forum Educatief.Google Scholar
  16. de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y., & de Vries Robbe, M. (2012). SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk (2nd ed.). Utrecht: Forum Educatief.Google Scholar
  17. Finkelhor, D., & Jones, L. M. (2006). Why have child maltreatment and child victimization declined? Journal of Social Issues, 62, 685–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2008). Female and male sex offenders: A comparison of recidivism patterns and risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1394–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2010). The Adam Walsh Act: A false sense of security or an effective public policy initiative? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Furby, L., Weinrott, M. R., & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gannon, T. A., Rose, M. R., & Ward, T. (2008). A descriptive model of the offense process for female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 20, 352–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snits, B. E., & Nelson, C. E. (2000). Clinical vs. mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grubin, D. (1998). Sex offending against children: Understanding the risk. Police Research Series Paper 99. London: Home office.Google Scholar
  26. Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism (User Report 1997-04). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  27. Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanson, R. K., & Howard, P. (2010). Individual confidence intervals do not inform decision-makers about the accuracy of risk assessment evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 275–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis (Research Rep. No. 2004–02). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.Google Scholar
  30. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 (User Report 2007-05). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
  34. Hanson, R. K., Sheahan, C. L., & VanZuylen, H. (2013). Static-99 and RRASOR predict recidivism among developmentally delayed sexual offenders: A cumulative meta-analysis. Sexual Offender Treatment, 8, 1–14.Google Scholar
  35. Hanson, R. K., Babchishin, K. M., Helmus, L. M., Thornton, D., & Phenix, A. (2016a). Communicating the results of criterion-referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  36. Hanson, R. K., Thornton, D., Helmus, L., & Babchishin, K. M. (2016b). What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 218–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hart, S. D., Michie, C., & Cooke, D. J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group versus individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(Suppl), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2016). The MATS-1 risk assessment scale: Summary of methodological concerns and an empirical validation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 160–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Helmus, L., Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., & Babchishin, K. M. (2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 64–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. James, N., Thomas, K. R., & Foley, C. (2007). CRS report for Congress: Civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services.Google Scholar
  41. Karsjens et al. v. Jesson et al. (2015). 11-3659.Google Scholar
  42. Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007). Megan’s law and its impact on community re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lofthouse, R. E., Lindsay, W. R., Totsika, V., Hastings, R. P., Boer, D. P., & Haaven, J. L. (2013). Prospective dynamic assessment of risk of sexual reoffending in individuals with an intellectual disability and a history of sexual offending behaviour. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 26, 394–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martinson, R. (1974). Nothing works: Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
  46. Martinson, R. (1979). New findings, new views: A note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Review, 7, 242–258.Google Scholar
  47. McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B. L., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American survey. Brandon: Safer Society Press.Google Scholar
  48. Meehl, P. E. (1954/1996). Clinical vs. statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  49. Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Originally published by National Institute of Mental Health. Reprinted as Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques by Sage Publications, also 1981.Google Scholar
  50. Monahan, J. (2008). Structured risk assessment of violence. In R. Simon & K. Tardiff (Eds.), Textbook of violence assessment and management (pp. 17–34). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., Roth, L. H., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mossman, D. (2006). Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Guarnera, L. A., & Rufino, K. A. (2013). Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychological Science, 24, 1889–1897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nitschke, J., Osterheider, M., & Mokros, A. (2009). A cumulative scale of severe sexual sadism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Phenix, A., Fernandez, Y., Harris, A. J. R., Helmus, M., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2016). Static-99R coding rules, revised 2016. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada.Google Scholar
  56. Quinsey, V. L., Lalumiere, M. L., Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Predicting sexual offenses. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 114–137). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2009). Female sex offender recidivism: A large-scale empirical analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (in press). Evaluation of New York State’s sex offender civil management assessment process: Recidivism outcomes. Criminology & Public Policy.Google Scholar
  60. Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil: A time-series analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 284–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Seto, M. C., Stephens, S., Lalumiere, M. L., & Cantor, J. M. (in press). The revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests (SSPI-2): Development and criterion-related validation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.Google Scholar
  62. Skeem, J. L., & Monahan, J. (2011). Current directions in violence risk assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, P., Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2002). The effects of prison sentences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects and individual differences (Research Report 2002-01). Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.Google Scholar
  64. Van Orden et al. v. Schafer et al. (2015). 4:09CV00971 AGF.Google Scholar
  65. Van Voorhis, P., Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E., & Bauman, A. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wijkman, M., & Bijleveld, C. (2015). Criminal career features of female sexual offenders. In A. J. Blokland & P. Lussier (Eds.), Sex offenders: A criminal career approach. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  67. Wilson, R. J. (2016). The use of phallometric testing in the diagnosis, treatment, and risk management of male adults who have sexually offended. In L. Craig & M. Rettenberger (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on the theories, assessment & treatment of sexual offending: Volume 2 (pp. 823–849). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson, R. J., & Miner, M. H. (2016). Measurement of male sexual arousal and interest using penile plethysmography and viewing time. In D. R. Laws & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Treatment of sex offenders: Strengths and weaknesses in assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F., Picheca, J. E., Stirpe, T. S., & Nunes, K. (2009). Community-based sexual offender maintenance treatment programming: An evaluation (Research Report R-188). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, R. J., Prescott, D. S., & Burns, M. (2014). People with special needs and sexual behaviour problems: Balancing community and client interests while ensuring effective risk management. In K. McCartan & H. Kemshall (Eds., Special issue), Sex offender (re)integration into the community: Realities and challenges. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21, 86–99.Google Scholar
  71. Wollert, R., Cramer, E., Waggoner, J., Skelton, A., & Vess, J. (2010). Recent research (N = 9,305) underscores the importance of using age-stratified actuarial tables in sex offender risk assessments. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zgoba, K., Veysey, B. M., & Dalessandro, M. (2010). An analysis of the effectiveness of community notification and registration: Do the best intentions predict the best practices? Justice Quarterly, 27, 667–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zgoba, K., Miner, M., Letourneau, E., Levenson, J., Knight, R., & Thornton, D. (2016). A multi-state recidivism study using Static-99 and Static-2002 risk scores and tier guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 722–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin J. Wilson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeffrey C. Sandler
    • 3
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Wilson Psychological Services LLCSarasotaUSA
  3. 3.Private PracticeAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations