0. R. Karl Hanson, Ph.D. rkarlhanson@gmail.com Karl.Hanson@canada.ca
When is an Individual with a History of Sexual Crime No Longer a “Sex Offender”
R. Karl Hanson, Ph.D.
NOTA Regional Conferences 2017
Sterling, Scotland, April 24
Cardiff, Wales, April 26
Newry, Co Down, Northern Ireland, April 28

1. Collaborators Elizabeth Letourneau Kelly Babchishin Andrew J.R. Harris
Maaike Helmus
Guy Bourgon
David Thornton

2. Partners

3. Public Protection Policies
Core Assumption: Individuals subject to restrictions and obligations because of risk of sexual offending should be more likely to commit sexual offences than individuals not subject to these public protection policies.

4. Desistance Threshold Points of Reference:
The same as anybody in the general population
The same as young males in the general population
The same as individuals with a history of non-sexual crime, but no history of sexual crime

6. Scope of Literature Review
Rate of Out-of-Blue Sexual Offending Among Individuals with a History of Non-Sexual Crime
Scope of Literature Review
Studies with 1,000+ individuals
Complete cohorts
Follow-up time of 3 years +

7. 11 Studies Identified Total sample size = 543,204
Range from 1,780 to 262,420
Median = 9,852
Adult (8); Juveniles (3)
Prison (9)
USA (6), Canada (3), UK (1), Netherlands (1)
Conviction (7)

8. 1.3%
Dashed line is the weighted average and median value

9. Desistance Threshold
Out of 100 individuals, 2 or less will be detected for a new sexual offence after 5 years in the community. Conversely, 98 out of 100 will not.

10. Risk Assessment
Can we identify individuals with a history of sexual crime whose risk is below the desistance threshold?
Can we detect when individuals drop below the desistance threshold?
What should we call this risk level?
Low risk?

11. Another Piece of the Puzzle: Standardized Risk/Need Levels
Many different tools used
Different number of risk levels
Low concordance of risk category labels across measures

12. The calibration of Florentine alcohol thermometers was so arbitrary that a comparison of, say, ten of them would have shown not one to agree with any of the others – Father Lutz (1781)
We are greatly at a loss for a standard whereby to measure cold. The common instruments show us no more than the relative coldness of the air, but leave us in the dark as to the positive degree thereof; whence cannot communicate the idea of any such degree to another person – Robert Boyle (1665)

13. Benefits of Standardized Categories
Increased precision of risk instruments, thereby supporting the reallocation of resources to support interventions for appropriate populations and better guide the decision-making activities of releasing authorities.
Increased public safety
Demonstrate cost effective approaches for agencies to consider as a result of improved risk communication strategies (e.g., reducing length of stays for low risk; decreasing staff overrides of risk results).
Decreased costs
Criminal justice agencies will be able to establish streamlined practices and polices for reconciling divergent risk results and determine the necessary and appropriate assessments for various offender groups.
Increase system efficiency
Criminal justice agencies will be better positioned to develop effective comprehensive reentry strategies, based on the results of multiple screening and assessment instruments and more discrete risk groups.
Enhanced continuity of care
Promote increased inter- and intra- communication. Practitioners will have more authority and empirical support to effectively translate risk results across agencies and/or jurisdictions.
Increased organizational communication

14. Standardized Categories Are Possible
Assumptions
Recidivism risk is dimensional
No true categories
Risk factors are stochastic and incremental
Measures agree for extreme cases
Risk for sexual recidivism
risk for general recidivism
sexual crime specific factors

15. The Challenges of Standardization

18. Risk Category Labels Sexual Offender Risk Tool Static-99
Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate-High, High
Static-99R
Static-2002
Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate, Moderate-High, High
Static-2002R
Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20, SPJ)
Low, Moderate, High
RM-2000 Sex
Low, Moderate, High, Very High
RM-2000 Sex +
STABLE-2007
Low, Moderate, Moderate-High, High, Very High
Static-99 +
Low, Moderate-Low, Moderate-High, High, Very High

19. The Way Forward Common language for risk communication
Standardize, evidence-based risk category labels
Construct validity
Interpretations supported by evidence
Relevant for policy and practice decisions

21. Justice Center’s 5-Levels for General Offender Risk/Need Assessments
Category I
Category II
Category III
Category IV
Category V

22. Category I Profile: Correctional Strategies: Outcomes:
Criminogenic needs: none or transitory
Non-Criminogenic needs: none or transitory
Resources: clearly identifiable personal and social resources
Reoffending Base Rate: same as non-offender community at large (e.g., <5%)
Correctional Strategies:
Human services: unnecessary/ direct to social services if desired
Community Supervision: minimal as not necessary for compliance
Custody: counterproductive
Outcomes:
Short-term: No change in probability of re-offending
Life Course: Desistance

23. Category II
Profile:
Criminogenic needs: Few, if any, more acute than chronic.
Non-Criminogenic needs: Few if any, transitory and quick to respond
Resources: Clearly identifiable personal and social resources
Reoffending Base Rate: Higher than individuals without a criminal record but lower than typical offender
Correctional Strategies:
Human services: Brief interventions: social problem solving aided through existing community services.
Community Supervision: simple case management with minimal supervision for compliance
Custody: may be productive for crisis management but unnecessary long-term
Outcomes:
Short-term: Probability of re-offending reduces quickly to non-offender levels (Category I)
Life Course: Desistance (i.e., one and done)

24. Category III Profile: Correctional Strategies: Outcomes
Criminogenic needs: Some; may be severe in one or two discrete needs or less chronic/severe across multiple needs
Non-Criminogenic needs: Some; typical to offenders
Resources: Some identifiable personal and social resources, sporadic use
Reoffending Base Rate: Same as the average rate for offenders as a group
Correctional Strategies:
Human services: Structured services target criminogenic needs over months; (e.g. ~ hours of service); assist with non-criminogenic needs/responsivity factors.
Community Supervision: Change focused supervision with supervision for enhance engagement and compliance
Custody: may support short-term risk management
Outcomes
Short-term: Probability of re-offending can significantly ↓ with appropriate strategies BUT still higher than community at large (Category II)
Life Course: Expected involvement in crime over time but desistance possible over years

25. Category IV Profile: Correctional Strategies: Outcomes:
Criminogenic needs: Multiple; may be chronic in one or two discrete needs and moderate in others
Non-Criminogenic needs: Multiple, moderate to severe.
Resources: Few identifiable personal and social resources, sporadic prosocial use
Reoffending Base Rate: Higher than the rate of “typical” offender
Correctional Strategies:
Human services: Structured comprehensive services target multiple criminogenic needs over lengthy period with community follow-ups and supports (e.g. ~ 300+ hours of service); assist with non-criminogenic needs/responsivity factors.
Community Supervision: Intensive and change focused supervision with supervision for enhance engagement and compliance as well as risk management
Custody: may be productive for short-term risk management and beginning treatment
Outcomes:
Short-term: Probability of re-offending can ↓ with appropriate strategies BUT still “average” for offender population at large.
Life Course: Chronic offending rate shows gradual decline with appropriate services and time (i.e., years/decades).

26. Category V
Profile:
Criminogenic needs: Multiple, chronic and entrenched
Non-Criminogenic needs: Multiple, moderate to severe
Resources: Few identifiable personal and social resources; use for procriminal pursuits
Reoffending Base Rate: 85% re-offending rate (Top 5% of offenders)
Correctional Strategies:
Human services: Structured comprehensive services target multiple criminogenic needs over years ideally prior to community release (e.g. ~ 300+ hours of service); assist with non-criminogenic needs/responsivity factors
Community Supervision: Long-term supervision begins with intensive/risk management focus and gradual change to change focus (Category IV) with success over time
Custody: incapacitation for community safety , long-term change strategy starts with behavioral management
Outcomes
Short-term: Probability of re-offending still significantly higher than offender population even with appropriate long-term correctional strategies
Life Course: Chronic offending rate gradually declines over decades or advanced age, cascade within custody envirnoments

27. New Risk Tools? Not Necessarily
Given a functional risk scale, no need to change items or total scores
Need to change THRESHOLDS
Heuristics for estimating standardize categories from quantitative information

28. Three Ways to Quantify Risk
Absolute recidivism rates
e.g., 35% reconvicted after 2 years
Percentile rank
e.g., top 12% of offenders currently in the system
Risk Ratios
e.g., 2.5 times more likely to reoffend than the typical American offender.

29. Calculating Risk Categories 1
Requirement: Risk Scores & Recidivism of Population
Recidivism
1.00
Risk Scores Distribution
Base Rate
~ .40
0.00
Median

30. Calculating Risk Categories 2
Category I: Upper Boundary
Category V: Lower Boundary
Upper Boundary
~5% Recidivism
Lower Boundary
~85% Recidivism
1.00
~0.85
Cat I
Cat V
~0.40
~0.05
0.00
Category I:
Risk Score Cutoff
Category V:
Risk Score Cutoff

31. Calculating Risk Categories 3
Category III: Boundaries
Boundaries = Appropriate Treatment Effect Size
Odds Ratio: ±1.44
1.00
~0.85
Cat III
Cat II
Cat IV
~0.40
Cat I
Cat V
~0.05
0.00
Category III:
Risk Score Cutoffs

32. New STATIC risk categories
Previously, Static-99R had 4 categories:
Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate-High, High
Static-2002R had five:
Low, Low-Moderate, Moderate, Moderate-High, High
Now Static-99R and Static-2002R have the same five categories

33. Name
Static-99R
Static-2002R
Scores   
Midpoint percentile
Predicted
5-year
Recidivism rate (%) 
Recidivism
rate (%) I
Very
Low Risk
-3, -2
2.8
0.9 – 1.3
-2, -1
1.0 – 1.5 II
 Below Average
-1, 0
14.8
1.9 – 2.8
0 , 1
13.9
2.2 – 3.2
III
Average Risk
1, 2, 3
49.1
3.9 – 7.9
2, 3, 4
46.7
4.6 – 9.7
IV-a
 Above Average
4, 5
83.4
11.0 – 15.2
5, 6
81.6
13.8 – 19.2
IV-b
Well
Above Average
6 or more
96.2
20.5 – 53.0
7 or more
96.0
26.0 – 53.5

34. Standardized STATIC categories
Increased concordance (more likely to be given the same label on both)
Increased construct validity
Categories have the same meaning for standardized measures
If you know the category label, what else should you expect about the offender?

35. Standardized Static-99R Categories
Age

36. Standardized Static-99R Categories
Sexual Criminality
(0)
(0)
Prior Sex Sentence
Stranger Victim
Sexual Preoccupation
Relationship
Instability

37. So what about Risk Matrix – 2000?
Risk Matrix – 2000/Sex has too few items/levels to assigned individuals to the standardized risk levels
We are exploring the utility of standardized levels for Risk Matrix – 2000/Sex + STABLE-2007

38. Assessing Transitions to Desistance
Can we identify when individuals drop down below the desistance threshold (Level I)?

39. Simple Marker Variables That Can Be Used To Revise Assessments
Current age (versus age at release)
Prison misconducts
Post-index violations of conditional release
Time since last known offence behaviour
No new offences given opportunity

40. Alfred Blumstein & Kiminori Nakamura
Blumstein, A. & Nakamura, K. (2009). Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology, 47, doi: /j x

44. Samples 21 samples from the Static-99 re-norming project
N ranged from 133 to 1,278 (N = 7,740)
Majority from Canada (k = 9) or the U.S. (k = 5)

45. Time to Sexual Recidivism by Risk Level
This is a survival curve
The separation of the traces tells us that STATIC-99 actually predicts risk as you can see that the guys that score in the High Nominal category on the STATIC-99 recidivate at basically 4 times the rate of those offenders who fall into the Low Nominal Category
Analysis based on N = 8,128 sexual offenders from 20 datasets

46. 5 Years - no recorded recidivism
One of the things we noticed in our earlier work was that the overall rate of recidivism seemed to decline the longer the guy was in the community and managed to not attract another sexual criminal charge or conviction

47. 10 Years - no recorded recidivism
A further reduction can be seen in the rate of recidivism after 10 years of not attracting any new sexual charges or convictions
Now, one of the problems with this methodology is that Survival Analysis over-estimates the decline because the higher-risk guys tend to recidivate early and the over-all risk profile of the sample changes as time passes
To correct for this we will use Logistic Regression a more sophisticated technique because it controls for the range of scores that are present in each new analysis.
It is a better measure of time free
Could there ever be a time when “people” would agree that the risk of recidivism was reduced sufficiently that we would not follow sexual offenders any more

50. Modeling Desistence
When do individuals cross the desistance threshold?
Hanson, RK, Harris, AJR, Letourneau, E, Helmus, LM, & Thornton, D. (2017, in press). Reductions in risk based on time offense free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law.

51. Sample & Method 7,225 adult males (791 sexual recidivists) 20 samples
Routine/Complete (8), Treatment (5), High Risk/High Need, Other (2)
Canada (10), US (4) and one each from UK, Austria, Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark and Germany
Variable follow-up: .5 to 25 years
Discrete-time survival analysis (logistic regression)

52. Annual Hazard Rates for Sexual Recidivism

53. Estimated Hazard Rates for Routine Samples by Static-99R Risk Levels

54. Years Sexual Offence Free in the Community
Decline in Risk Level Based on Initial Static-99R Score and Years Sexual Offence Free in the Community
Years Sexual Offence Free in the Community 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
STATIC-99R Scores -3 I -2 -1 II
III
IVa
IVb

55. So, what is happening? Frailty Real change
Selective attrition of high risk cases
Real change
Risk relevant propensities
Intentions

57. When you’ve finished changing, you’re finished.
– Benjamin Franklin

58. Why might individuals desist?
Effective psychological interventions
Regulating risk relevant propensities
Aging
Physical decline
Increased psychological maturity
Increasing rewards from prosocial life
Success in work
Rewarding leisure activities
Decent friends
Caring intimate partner
Increased dependence

59. Policy and Practice Implications
Speak a common language
Understanding the meaning of the risk category labels used in your setting.
Invest the most resources in the highest risk cases
Align interventions, service, and supervision with risk levels.
Sort individuals according to risk levels
Have structured methods for assigning individuals to risk levels.
Routinely revise risk levels
Have structured methods for revising risk level assignment.

60. rkarlhanson@gmail.com karl.hanson@canada.ca @RKARLHANSON