1. Sex Offender Risk Assessment
Assessment of Static and Dynamic Risk of Adult Sexual Offenders
NJATSA 4/13/12
Rev 1/2013

2. Presenters:
Jackson Tay Bosley, Psy.D. Clinician/Administrator Community/Parole Supervision for Life Program University of Medicine and Dentistry of NJ Merrill Main, Ph.D. Clinical Director Special Treatment Unit Department of Human Services, State of NJ

3. Disk Contents This presentation (early version)
STATIC-99 materials (scoring sheet)
STABLE and ACUTE 2007 materials
Dynamic Risk Factors – various articles
Risk Information – various articles
Adult, Polygraph, Porn, Megan’s Law, Parole, MIDSA, MnSOST-R, SIR
CSL/PSL Program, Treatment Targets

4. Is he (or she) going to do it again? Yes or No (too simple)
The Question
Is he (or she) going to do it again? Yes or No
(too simple)

5. Defining Risk Probability of reoffending Actuarial
Trauma associated with reoffense
Probability of recovery
Distaste factor
Ability to manage risk
Nature of offending
Legal and situational realities
Living conditions

6. Risk Assessment Techniques
Clinical Intuition-Professional Judgment (guess)
Empirically-Informed Clinical Judgment (educated guess)
Purely Actuarial (pure science)
Clinically Adjusted Actuarial (science and
a little common sense)

7. How do they rate? (chance = 0.0, perfect = 1.0)
Clinical judgment r= .10
Prior sex offense
Empirically-informed clinical
judgment above .10 (?)
Purely actuarial to .45
(depends on instrument and sample)
Clinically adjusted actuarial (?)
using structured instruments
measuring dynamic factors

8. Suggestion
We have an ethical and moral responsibility to use the best the science has to offer.
In court, adjusted actuarial estimates, (with proper caveats) seem to work best.
Know the literature and the underlying arguments.
Even the best actuarials are only “moderately” predictive.

9. History of SO Risk Assessment
Early Period (till late 70’s / early 80’s)
Clinical Judgment
Presentation (remorse, denial, defensiveness)
Plethysmography
Early Research/Theories
Nick Groth – Men Who Rape (1979)
David Finkelhor – 4 Factors (1984)
Gene Able – Large sample data (1987)
Actuarial Period (mid 90s till now)
RRASOR/STATIC-99 and VRAG/SORAG

10. History of SO Risk Assessment (cont.)
Men who rape: The psychology of the offender (1979) Nicholas Groth
Power rapist (55% of his sample)
Anger rapist (40% of his sample)
Sadistic rapist (5% of his sample)
Re: offenders against children
Fixated Child Molesters
Regressed Child Molesters

11. History of SO Risk Assessment (cont)
4 Factors- Child sexual abuse: New theory and research (1984) David Finkelhor
Emotional congruence – Does SO behavior ‘make sense’ to the offender?
Sexual arousal – Arousal to children
Blockages – Problems in meeting sexual needs in an adult manner
Disinhibition – How does the offender give himself permission to offend?

12. History of SO Risk Assessment (cont.)
Large sample study of offenders in treatment (1987) Gene G Abel
N = 561 offenders in TN and NY
Obtained “certificate of confidentiality”
Asked for self-report of other offense behaviors without fearing legal consequence
Findings:
Crossover behavior
Small portion of the sample offended a lot

13. History of SO Risk Assessment (cont.)
Science in the field
Plethysmograph studies
Primacy of Canadian researchers
Hanson & Bussiere – Predictors of SO recidivism: A meta-analysis RRASOR
Quinsey, Harris, Rice & Courmier – VRAG 1998
Meta-analysis
What do the numbers say and where have they led us?

14. Factor Analysis of SO Recidivism Risk
Sexual Deviance
Sexual preference for pre-pubertal sexual partners (pedophilia)
Sexual preference for cues of pain/fear
Strength of sexual urges (hypersexuality)
Antisociality
Enjoyment of illegal activity
Impulsivity
Criminal value system

15. Actuarials/Risk Assessment Instruments
Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism - RRASOR (1997)
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool – Revised - MnSOST-R (1998)
STATIC-99R (STATIC-2002R is in development)
Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating - SONAR (Stable and Acute-2007)
Others
Sexual Reoffense CARAT, SORAG, JSORRAT-II, VASOR, Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP), Risk Matrix-2000
Violent Reoffense VRAG, LSI-R, PCL-R, SAVRY, SIR

16. Static-99R Age Lived with a lover for at least 2 years
Index or prior non-sexual violence
Prior sex offenses (charges or convictions)
Prior sentencing dates
Non-contact sexual offenses
Unrelated/stranger or male victims

17. Other Instruments (with some brief overviews)
MnSOST-R (now, MnSOST-3)
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)
Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP)
Sex Offender Treatment Rating Scale
Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating
Risk Matrix-2000
Treatment Progress Scale

18. MnSOST-R Number of sex/sex-related convictions
Length of sexual offending history
Was the offender under any form of supervision during sex offense
Was any sex offense in public
Was force or the threat of force ever used
Multiple acts on a single victim
Number of different age groups victimized (<6, 7-12, 13-15, 16+)
Offended against a 13 to 15 year old and offender >5 years older
Victim a stranger in any sex offense
Evidence of adolescent antisocial behavior
Substantial history of drug or alcohol abuse
Employment history
Discipline history while incarcerated
Chemical dependency treatment while incarcerated
Sex offender treatment history while incarcerated
Age of offender at time of release

19. VRAG items Psychopathy Checklist Score Elementary school maladjustment
Age at index offense
DSM III personality disorder
Separation from parents before age 16
Failure on prior conditional release
History of nonviolent offenses
Never married
DSM III schizophrenia
Victim injury in index offense
History of alcohol abuse
Male victim in index offense

20. RSVP 5 SECTIONS, 22 ITEMS Sexual Violence History (5 items)
Psychological Adjustment (5 items)
Mental Disorder (5 items)
Social Adjustment (4 items)
Manageability (3 items)

21. SOTRS Sex Offender Treatment Rating Scale
Insight
Deviant thoughts
Awareness of situational risks
Motivation
Victim empathy
Offense disclosure

22. SONAR Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating
STABLE FACTORS
Intimacy deficits
Negative social influences
Attitudes tolerant of sexual offending
Sexual self-regulation
General self-regulation
ACUTE FACTORS
Substance abuse
Negative mood
Anger
Victim access

23. Risk Matrix-2000 Three scales: Sexual, Violent, Combined
Age = 2 points; = 1 point; Older = 0 points
Sexual Appearances (Convictions)
Criminal Appearances
Male Victim of Sex Offense
Stranger Victim of Sex Offense
Single (Never in Marital Type Relationship)
Non- Contact Sex Offence
Burglary Convictions

24. TREATMENT PROGRESS SCALE
-Offense behavior admission -Responsibility Acceptance
-Sexual interests -Sexual attitudes
-Sexual behavior -Sexual risk management
-Criminal attitudes -Criminal behavior
-Substance abuse -Emotion management
-Mental health stability -Problem solving
-Impulsivity -Stage of change
-Cooperation with treatment -Supervision Cooperation
-Employment -Residence
-Finances -Adult love relationship
-Social influences -Social involvement

25. Actuarial Item Analysis
Actuarial items are chosen based on their empirical link to recidivism (atheoretical)
Static Factors - Fixed, easy to code, most researched - priors, age/gender of victim
Dynamic Factors – Changeable, harder to code (constructs: empathy, stability, psychopathy), what we target in treatment – indicators of imminent sexual recidivism

26. Static vs Dynamic (?) Psychologically-meaningful risk factors
Vulnerabilities
Psychological Predispositions
Propensities
Static factors (events) are proxies for underlying risk-relevant propensities
Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010

27. Static Risk Items Age (youth vs old age) Prior criminal behavior
Non-sexual crimes
Sexual crimes
Number of sentencing occasions
Supervision violations
Sexual offense victim choice
Unrelated, Stranger, Male

28. Static Risk Items (cont.)
Relationship history
Treatment history
Completion
Failure/termination
Substance abuse history
Adverse childhood environment
Psychological factors/Dx
ASPD, psychosis, DD/MR, pedophilia, psychopathy (arguably dynamic factors)

29. Factors associated with recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004):
Specific interest in boys
measured by ppg r = .30
Deviant sexual preference
dx of any paraphilia
Sexual Preoccupations
Emotional identification with
children

30. Problems with Research on Static Factors
They do not change in response to treatment
They are proxies for underlying psychological propensities
The data might be clear, but the interpretation might vary
Not suitable as targets for intervention

31. Why We Use Static Factors to Predict Recidivism
Most research evidence
Data gathered as part of background or Intake information
Easy to code from data
Clear(er) – usually yes or no (or a number)
Easier to locate
No other factors are as predictively powerful (yet)

32. What are Dynamic Risk Factors
Dynamic = changeable
Psychological propensities
Traits
Habits (??)
Amenable to treatment intervention
Observable, but more difficult to measure
Important for supervision purposes

33. Dynamic Risk Items (from Stable-2007)
Significant social influences
Capacity for relationship stability
Emotional identification with children (<13)
Hostility toward women
General social rejection
Lack of concern for others
Poor problem-solving skills

34. Dynamic Risk Items (from Stable-2007)
Stable (cont.)
Negative emotionality
Sex Drive/Preoccupation
Sex as coping
Impulsive
Deviant sexual preference
Cooperation with supervision

35. Dynamic Risk Items (from Acute-2007)
Victim access
Hostility
Sexual preoccupation
Rejection of supervision
Emotional collapse
Collapse of social supports
Substance abuse

36. How predictive validity of the STATIC-99R is affected by the addition of dynamic risk information
from Hanson and Helmus, 2009

37. STATIC and Stable-2007 from Hanson and Helmus, 2009
Static Score year recidivism %
Stable =5 (Mean) =14 (90%)
% %
% %
% %

38. STATIC and Sample Choice from Hanson and Helmus, 2009
Static Score 5 year recidivism % Sample: Routine Risk/Need 2 5% 12% 5 11% 25% 7 19% 38%

39. (Witt & Conroy, 2008)

40. Importance of Static and Dynamic Risk Factors (Hanson, 2002)
Context
Long term
sanctions
Imposition
Release
Static ++ +
Dynamic – Stable
Dynamic – Acute -

41. Importance of Static and Dynamic Risk Factors (Hanson, 2002)
Context
Community
supervision
Placement
Revocation/change
Static ++ +
Dynamic – Stable
Dynamic – Acute

42. Other Potential Risk Indicators
Plethysmograph results
Polygraph results
Negative treatment response
Inability to manage adult relationships
Hostility towards women
Callousness/lack of empathy
Denial

43. Denial as a Risk Factor Early thinking – Denial means much higher risk
Hanson & Bussiere (1997) no effect
Nunes et al (2007) higher risk for low-risk offenders
Looman (2011) higher risk for higher-risk offenders

44. Denial as a Risk Factor (cont.)
Denial is predictive of reoffense for some offenders.
Denial at the beginning of treatment is not indicative of higher risk.
Denial should not preclude anyone from treatment.
Denial is a legitimate treatment target.
Denial at the end of treatment might indicate higher risk.

45. Percentage rates of sex offender recidivism (Harris & Hanson, 2004):
Type 5yr 10yr yr
All
Rapists
Incest
Female target CM
Male target CM
w/out prior offense
w/ prior offense
Offender over 50yrs
k= n=31000

46. Criminal Recidivism Rates
US Dept. of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002) 3 year follow-up
Burglary %
Larceny %
Auto Theft %
DUI %
Sexual Offenses %
n=9691

47. Supported Risk Factors Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010
Sexual preoccupation
Deviant sexual interest (children or violence)
Offense-supportive attitudes
Emotional congruence with children
Lack of emotionally intimate relationships with adults

48. Supported Risk Factors Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010
Lifestyle impulsivity
General self-regulation problems
Poor cognitive problem-solving
Resistance to rules and supervision
Grievance/hostility
Negative social influences

49. Promising Risk Factors Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010
Hostility towards women
Machiavellianism
Callousness/lack of concern for others
Dysfunctional coping
Sexualized coping
Externalizing

50. Unsupported Risk Factors (But with some interesting exceptions) Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010
Denial
Except for low risk offenders, high risk offenders, incest offenders, rapists (??)
Poor self-esteem
Major mental illness
Increases risk of general & violent recid.
Loneliness

51. Not Risk Factors Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010
Depression
Depressed offenders less likely to reoffend
Still worthy of treatment
Poor social skills
I.e., poor dating skills
Poor victim empathy
Lack of motivation for treatment
Assessed pre-treatment

52. Treatment Effect on Recidivism Risk
Treatment has a positive effect for reducing recidivism (40% reduction).
Failing treatment is a very poor prognosticator (200% increase in recid.).
Treatment “works” for those who are invested in the process and “work the program”.
Treatment has less effect for those who attend, but are not invested.

54. Juvenile Sexual Offender Risk Assessment Instruments
J-SOAP II (Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol)
JSORRAT-II (Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II)
ERASOR (Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offender Recidivism)
PFS (Protective Factors Scale)

55. Juvenile Sexual Offender Risk Assessment Instruments (cont.)
J-RAT (Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool)
SAVRY (Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth)
CANS-SD (Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Sexual Development)
YLS/CMI (Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory)

56. Megan’s Law Tiering Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (adults)
Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale (juveniles)
These are not purely risk (recidivism) scales, but factor in seriousness of the offense if reoffense occurs.
Information is based on all credible information (not just adjudicated offenses).
These scales have shown moderate concurrent validity with actuarials.

57. Take Home Message:
Baseline risk is best determined by an analysis of the static factors using a structured actuarial assessment tool.
Additional analysis of the dynamic factors will determine ongoing risk of reoffense, imminence of reoffense and targets of treatment interventions.
Dynamic factors will dictate appropriate legal supervision conditions.

58. Take Home Message: (Cont.)
Sexual offender risk assessment is complicated, but there is building scientific consensus on the major issues of interest.
Deviant sexual interest is vital to assess.
Antisociality (willingness to break society’s rules) is also vital to assess.
Keeping up with the science is interesting.

59. Contact Info
Jackson Tay Bosley, Psy.D.
Clinician Administrator
UMDNJ CSL/PSL Program
Whittlesey Road, P.O. Box 863
Trenton, NJ
(609)

60. DHS Special Treatment Unit
Contact Info
Merrill Main, Ph.D.
Clinical Director
DHS Special Treatment Unit
PO Box 905
Avenel, NJ
x8601