Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

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 = 3
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 X? X? X? X? -2 What score would be unexpected? Scale 2 1 2 3 4 5 Scale 1 X

34 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 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

48


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google