1. Revising Risk Assessments for Sexual Recidivism: STABLE-2007 Change and the Effects of Remaining Offence-Free in the Community
R. Karl Hanson, Ph.D., C.Psych
NOTA Regional Conferences, 2017
Stirling, Scotland, April 24
Cardiff, Wales, April 26
Newry, Co Down, Northern Ireland, April 28

2. Justice Center’s 5-Levels for General Offender Risk/Need Assessments
Prosocial, made mistake II
Minor concerns
III
Typical problems for individuals in trouble with the law IV
Chronic rule violation,
few strengths V
Virtually certain to reoffend

3. STATIC Levels for Sexual Recidivism Risk
Very Low Risk
Prosocial, made mistake II
Below Average
Minor concerns
III
Average
Typical problems for individuals with a sexual offence history
IVa
Above Average
History of rule violation,
Problems with sexual self-regulation,
few strengths
Chronic problems
IVb
Well Above Average
More and more severe

4. A Method for Assigning Risk Level Membership
Initial Assessment: Static Risk Factors
Static-99R, Static-2002R
Risk Matrix – 2000 [have patience, it is not yet ready]
Short term reassessment
Quality of Psychological and Community adjustment (STABLE-2007)
Long term reassessment:
Years Sexual Offence Free
New Non-Sexual Offending

5. Standardized Static-99R Risk Levels
Communication-----S99R-----Model1-----Options-----Model2-----Selection-----Estimates

6. Standardized Static-99R Categories
General Criminality
Prior Involvement
Separated From Parents, <16
Problems with Supervision
Impulsivity

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

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

9. 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

10. Example: Mr. Smith Static-99R score of 4
Risk Level IVa at time of release.
3 years offence free - Level III.
11 years - Level II
16 years – Level I

11. 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

12. What to do when the index offence is not a sexual offence?
Non-sexual recidivism increases sexual recidivism risk by 55%
This is independent and incremental to time free effect
Need to consider time free AND new non-sexual offences
A new non-sexual offence is equivalent to
subtracting 3.3 years from time free, or
Adding 1.5 Static-99R points

13. Example: Mr. Smith, after 5 years is convicted of Theft
Static-99R score of 4 (at sexual index – this does not change)
Risk Level IVa at time of release.
Now, spent 5 years sexual offence free in the community – Level III (if no new offending)
Subtract 3.3 years based on new non-sexual offence (5 – 3.3 = 1.7 years)
Risk at 1.7 years – back to Level IVa

14. 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

15. What Else Can We Use to Reassess Risk?
The quality of psychological and community adjustment matters
Release Planning (Willis & Grace, 2008, 2009)
Reassessment improves prediction
for VRS-SO (Olver et al. 2016)
for STABLE-2007 (Babchishin, 2016)

16. Static-99R STABLE-2007 Young Social Influences Lived with Lower
Relationship Stability
Index NonSex Violence
Emotional Identification with Children
Prior NonSex Violence
Hostility Towards Women
Prior Sex Offence
General Social Rejection
Prior Sentencing Dates
Lack of Concern
Non-Contact Sex
Impulsive
Unrelated
Poor Problem Solving
Stranger
Negative Emotionality
Male
Sex Drive, Sex Preoccupation
Sex as Coping
Deviant Sexual Interests
Co-Operation with Supervision

17. New STABLE-2007 Field Validity Study
N= 4,511 Adult Males
Assessed between 2004 to 2013
An average follow-up is 4.5 years
An average age of release: 41 year-old (18 to 91 year-old)
34% completed Grade 12
British Columbia, Canada
Communication-----S99R-----Model1-----Options-----Model2-----Selection-----Estimates

18. Ethnicity of Sample Total N = 4,511 Caucasian = 2,705 Aboriginal = 954
Black = 64
Hispanic = 60
East Indian = 157
East Asian = 117
Other = 229
Unknown = 225

19. Static-99R Discrimination
Number of
Recidivists/total
AUC
95% C.I.
Lower
95%C.I.
Upper
Overall
202/4,268
.701*
.664
.739
Caucasian
118/2,705
.704*
.653
.755
Aboriginal
60/954
.691*
.620
.762
Black
1/64
.913*
.830
.995
Hispanic
2/60
.719
.473
.965
East Indian
3/157
.780
.001
.999
East Asian
2/117
.728
.346
Other
11/229
.590
.435
.746

20. STABLE-2007 by Ethnicity STABLE-2007 Number of Recidivists/total AUC
Lower
95%C.I.
Upper
Overall
202/4,268
.669*
.632
.707
Caucasian
118/2,705
.694*
.646
.741
Aboriginal
60/954
.593*
.520
.666
Black
1/64
.915*
.824
.986
Hispanic
2/60
.579
.388
.770
East Indian
3/157
.750
.001
.999
East Asian
2/117
.788
Other
11/229
.614
.431
.797

21. Does STABLE-2007 Reassessment Improve Prediction?
Reassessment did not improve prediction in original DSP study.
New and better BC study: It does!

22. 1,947 Participants
Routine assessment from the Province of British Columbia, Canada
41.1 years of age (SD=14.1 ; range= 18-91)
2.3 on Static-99R (SD= 2.6, range= -3 to 11)
22% Indigenous, 65% Caucasian
1,947 adult males with at least three STABLE-2007 Scores
The date of STABLE assessment ranged from 0 to 97 months after at-risk date
Median = 11 months, Mean = 13.7, SD = 15.1

23. Sexual Recidivism 1947 cases; 130 recidivists (6. 7% rec
Sexual Recidivism cases; 130 recidivists (6.7% rec. rate); 7964 assessments
Most Recent
First Assessment
Rolling average
BIC
difference 
62.09
54.92
Harrell’s c
0.746
0.659
0.671
BIC difference > 10 = “very strong”

24. Violent (Including Sexual) Recidivism 1,947 cases; 411 recidivists (21
Violent (Including Sexual) Recidivism 1,947 cases; 411 recidivists (21.1% rec. rate); 7,964 assessments
Most Recent
First Assessment
Rolling average
BIC
5773.2
5821.4
5808.0
difference 
48.2
34.8
Harrell’s c
0.694
0.655
0.665
BIC difference > 10 = “very strong”

25. How Do the BC Results Compare to Other Settings?

26. Does STABLE-2007 Predict Sexual Recidivism? Yes!
(Brankley, Babchishin, & Hanson, 2017)
Study N
Meta-Analytic Mean
6901
Craissati & Blundell (2013) 76
Eher et al. (2015)
638
Eher et al., (2013) 92
Hanson et al. (2015)
576
Hanson et al. (2017)
4291
Looman & Abracen (2012)
163
Looman & Goldstein (2015)
317 41
Saum (2006)
175
Smeth (2013)
167
Snowden (2013)
180
Webb et al. (2007)
185 NS
Sample Type
High Risk
Treatment
Routine
Other

27. Do STABLE-2007 Items Predict Sexual Recidivism? Yes!
(Brankley, Babchishin, & Hanson, 2017)
Items B
95%CI
R/N Q I2 k
1) Significant Social Influences
.302
[.179, .425]
444/5974
8.43
5.1% 9
2) Capacity for Relationship Stability
.516
[.331, .702]
277/3941
6.09
1.4% 7
3) Emotional Identification with Children
.424
[.187, .661]
168/2744
3.26
0.0% 6
4) Hostility Towards Women
.348
[.203, .492]
444/6005
9.57
16.4%
5) General Social Rejection/Loneliness
.292
[.155, .430]
444/5979
22.88**a
65.0%
6) Lack of Concern for Others
.528
[.385, .671]
441/5978
3.98
7) Impulsive Acts
.589
[.436, .743]
443/5971
8.22
2.6%
8) Poor Cognitive Problem Solving
.522
[.362, .683]
19.68*a
59.4%
9) Negative Emotionality/Hostility
.278
[.115, .442]
442/5972
12.57
36.4%
10) Sex Drive/Preoccupation
.514
[.363, .664]
444/5977
9.47
15.5%
11) Sex as Coping
.457
[.317, .597]
444/5975
7.58
12) Deviant Sexual Interests
.345
[.199, .492]
277/3945
4.93
13) Cooperation with Supervision
.463
[.333, .593]
443/5977
14.35
44.2%
Note: *p<.05, **p<.01; aQ = 20.63, p < .01, no sig outliers; bQ = 10.05, p = .26, no sig outliers NS

28. Is STABLE-2007 is Incremental to Static-99R? Yes!
(Brankley, Babchishin, & Hanson, 2017) B
95%CI
R/N Q I2 k
Sexual Recidivism
Direct
 .113
[.093, .133]
567/6901
12.73
13.6 12
Incremental to Static-99R
.066
[.042, .089]
560/6825
11.86
7.2
Violent, Non-Sexual
.087
[.068, .106]
1056/6749
15.19
34.2 11
.045
[.023, .067]
1043/6679
11.97
16.5
Violent + Sexual
.098
[.082, .114]
1347/6766
16.73
40.2
.054
[.035, .072]
1331/6696
14.06
28.9
Any Conviction
.094
[.081, .106]
1731/6314
28.88**a
35.5
.046
[.032, .061]
1937/6876
17.39
36.8
Note: **p <.01. aQ = 15.50, p < .01. No statistical outlier identified. NS

29. How to Combine Static and STABLE?
Various mechanical methods considered
One method selected based on model fit (low BIC), ease of use, and clinical utility

30. Expected  vs Unexpected Scores X
If Scale 2 adds incrementally to the predictive power of Scale 1, then unique information from Scale 2 is important!
Scale 2 1 2 3 4 5
Scale 1  X

31. Static-99R Risk Level I x STABLE-2007 (N=4,236)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I -3 -2 II -1 44 43 41 42 62 60 57 50 38 29
III 39 54 64 59 48 49 35 74 52 79 63 58 32 46 77 67 76 75 31 28
IVa 27 47
What STABLE-2007 score is expected from individuals at Static-99R Risk Level I?

32. 3 is an expected STABLE-2007 score
Static-99R Risk Level I x STABLE-2007 (N=4,236) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I -3 -2 II -1 44 43 41 42 62 60 57 50 38 29
III 39 54 64 59 48 49 35 74 52 79 63 58 32 46 77 67 76 75 31 28
IVa 27 47
3 is an expected STABLE-2007 score
Scale 2 1 2 3 4 5
Scale 1 

33. Static-99R Risk Level 1, STABLE-2007 = 31 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I -3 X? 
X? X? X? -2
What score would be unexpected?
Scale 2 1 2 3 4 5
Scale 1  X

34. Defining Abnormal Scores1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I -3 4 5 -2
𝑆 STABLE−2007 =4.5
Create Boundaries at +1 and +2 SEE

35. Defining abnormal scores...1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I -3 -2  X
... can help make decision rules 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 I -3 II
III -2

36. STABLE-2007 Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20+
Static-99R Scores -3 I II
III -2 -1
IVa
IVb
12+

37. Example: Mr. Smith Static-99R score of 4 (Level IVa)
STABLE-2007 score of 8 (stays at IVa)

38. STABLE-2007 Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20+
Static-99R Scores -3 I II
III -2 -1
IVa
IVb
12+

39. Example: Mr. Smith after 2 years
Static-99R score of 4 (this doesn’t change, stays Level IVa)
2 years time free
New STABLE-2007 score of 3 (down from 8)

40. STABLE-2007 Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20+
Static-99R Scores -3 I II
III -2 -1
IVa
IVb
12+

41. Time Free and STABLE Change
STABLE change examined only for first few years after release
Time Free effects start in Year 3
Most individuals would not change risk levels until Year 6 based

42. 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

43. Recommendations
Use STABLE-2007 reassessments to measure change during the first 2-4 years after release
Use Time Free to adjust
after 3+ years in the community offence free
new non-sexual offence

44. Outstanding Questions
Are STABLE change and time free effects independent?
What about the guy who continues to look bad (high STABLE score), but has remained offence free for 5 years? 10 years?

45. Conclusions Strong evidence that STABLE-2007
predicts sexual recidivism
Incremental to Static-99R
Research and Field Studies

46. Reassessment Conclusions
The longer individuals remain offence free in the community, the lower their risk for recidivism.
The quality of psychological and community adjustment matters.
Most recent assessment more accurate than previous assessments.
Eventually most individuals with a history of sexual offending drop below the desistance threshold (Level I)

47. Generic Conclusion
“We realise that we have not succeeded in answering all of your questions. Indeed, we feel that we have not answered any of them completely. The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole new set of questions, which only lead to more problems, some of which we weren't even aware were problems. To sum up ... in some ways we feel we are as confused as ever, but we believe we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.”
This is meant as a joke