Challenging the Concept of Dynamic Risk Factors

1. Challenging the Concept of Dynamic Risk Factors Deirdre D’Orazio, Ph.D. & David Thornton, Ph.D. CCOSO 2011

2. Overview • The Classic Model distinguishes between fixed “static” factors and changeable “dynamic” factors • Thesis 1: Static Factors aren’t as fixed as the Classic Model implies • Thesis 2: “Dynamic Factors” aren’t as changeable as the Classic Model implies • Conclusion: The Change Process warrants further examination

3. The Classic Model • Static • Fixed facts from the offender’s history • I.e. previous convictions, victim characteristics • The unchangeable part of risk • Stable (Dynamic) • How the offender usually functions (over the last year and the next year) • I.e. sexual interests, attitudes, relational style, self-management • The changeable part of risk • Acute (Dynamic) • Daily or Hourly fluctuations • I.e. victim access, intoxication, hostility, rejection of supervision • The variable part of risk

4. Thesis #1: Static Factors aren’t as fixed as the Classic Model implies • If you follow an offender over time you see his static score rising (as he commits more offenses) or falling (as he gets older) • What is really going on here? • To find out we need to look more closely at what static instruments measure

5. Male victims Ever Lived With Non-contact sex offences Unrelated victims Stranger victims Prior sex offences (3 points) Current non-sex violence Prior non-sex violence 4+ sentencing dates Age (4 points) 18 – 34.9 = 1 35 – 39.9 = 0; 40 - 59.9 = -1 60 + = -3 STATIC-99R

6. Three underlying factors With the exception of one item (Single), these items seem to express three underlying factors 1. Youth 2. Sexual Criminality • Amount of repetition; More repetitive kinds of sex offenses (Sex Priors; Stranger; Non-Relative; Male; Non-Contact) 2. General Criminality • Amount of repetition; Repetition of more serious non-sexual offenses (Sentencing occasions; Current & Prior NSV

7. Youth (age) Static Risk Sexual Criminality (male victim, unrelated victim, stranger victim, non-contact s.o., prior s.o.s) General Criminality (current nsv, prior nsv, 4+ sentencing dates)

8. Shifting perspective • Another way to look at the three factors that comprise Static risk is that they are influenced by rate of sexual and non-sexual reoffending • Rate=density and persistence of sexual offending • I.e. Youth plus items from the Sexual Criminality factor provide an index of Rate of Sexual Offending • I.e. Youth plus items from the General Criminality factor provide an index of Rate of General Offending

9. Rate Matters & Recent Rate Really Matters • Change in risk is often reflected in a change in the rate of offending • The Rate of Recent Offending in desisting offenders is different from the Rate Averaged over the Lifetime • Evidence that Recent Rate matters • Static-2002 item: Years Free Prior to Index • Effect of Time Free after Release

10. Looking Back versus Looking Forward • When we look back at the history of a high risk offender their criminal behavior seems to have incredible momentum • Again and again they have persisted in re-offending despite society’s best efforts to restrain them • When look forward we find a remarkable phenomenon • A significant proportion of them simply stop offending • And if they avoid offending for a significant period the chance of offending resuming decreases substantially

11. Non-reoffense over time across risk category

12. After Five Years Desistance: Non-reoffense over time across risk category

13. After Ten Years Desistance: Non-reoffense over time across risk category

14. It is as if… They had been steadfastly marching downhill for the whole of their adult lives and then suddenly turn round and march up hill just as persistently

15. Thesis #1: Main Points Static Factors are not very fixed Rate of re-offense strongly influences the changeable dimension of “Static” risk Regardless of Static Risk score, the longer a sexual offender is re-offense free, the longer he will remain re-offense free Closer examination of what drives the desistance process in sex offenders is necessary to make risk estimates and create meaningful treatment plans

16. Thesis #2:“Dynamic” Factors aren’t as Changeable as the Classic Model implies • So what are the supposed “Dynamic” Risk Factors? • Classically DRF are defined as relatively changeable aspects of risk to sexually re-offend wherein change over the past year predicts change over the subsequent year. • Another perspective is the DRF are psychological risk factors that represent Long-Term-Vulnerabilities • The best established psychological risk factors (organized into SRA domains) are listed on the next slide • Question: Does a Classic Dynamic Risk Factor Model or a LTV Risk Factor Model better predict future offending?

17. SRA Provides a conceptual framework for these psychological risk factors

18. Embedding Hope • The Classic DRF framework deliberately builds in a ‘hopeful’ perspective • Dynamic risk factors are seen as changing relatively easily and rapidly • This was a fairly conscious expression of the values of some of those involved (notably Harris & Hanson) • It also reflects the ongoing conflict in Canada between • psychologists who orient to the RNR model who see human beings as dynamic and changeable • psychologists who have oriented to the PCL-R who emphasize enduring traits and are skeptical about change

19. Classic DRF versus LTV Conceptualizations • Structured Risk Assessment formula: Instruments that assess at least 3 of the domains • Classic DRF implementation • LTV implementation • These two implementations differ 1. In the timeframe over which the same content is assessed 2. How the pattern of the factors’ life over time is understood • Classic DRF: doesn’t matter how you got there, it is how your are now that counts • LTV: once the factor is present the person is always presents a vulnerability

20. Long Term Vulnerability ? Stable Dynamic ?

21. Classic Implementations of Dynamic Factors • STABLE (Hanson et al) • And to a lesser extent STABLE-2007 • Therapist Rating Scale (Marshall & Marshall, 2010)

22. Source

23. AUCs for Sexual Recidivism predicted from Need (Validation Samples only)

24. To repeat … • STABLE-DYNAMIC (Classic) • Average AUC = 0.64 • LTV • Average AUC = 0.74 • Markedly better prediction from LTV

25. Thesis #2: Main Points “Dynamic” Factors are not completely changeable Comparison of the predictive accuracy of the DRF model and the LTV model suggests the LTV better predicts risk of sexual reoffense and provides more unique contribution to risk prediction over that of the Static actuarial It appears that the predictive part of the psychological factors is the enduring aspect of them, not their more recent manifestation Closer examination of what drives the management of LTV in sex offenders is necessary to make risk estimates and create meaningful treatment plans

26. So we arrive at a paradox • What we have traditionally thought of as the changeable element in risk, the kind of psychological factors we target in treatment, turn out to behave more like enduring traits • On the other hand, the rate of offending itself seems to show substantial and meaningful changes • So the classical picture is falling pieces • This leaves us with the question of how we can put the pieces back together again and in particular how we might understand change in the context of long-term vulnerabilities

27. Toward a New Conceptual Model of Risk

28. How might these kinds of risk factor interact? • Active LTVs and situations/events pose a motivational problem for the individual – how do I get my needs met in this situation? • Offending is one way of “solving” this problem • More frequent offending will lead to • Increased salience of offending as a possibility • Increased skill and confidence in offending • Consequences of offending may activate and/or strengthen LTVs

29. Offending Active LTVs Settings, Situations & Events Salience of, Skill at & Confidence in Offending Further Offending

30. We have some hints about this Behavioral Intentions Sustained Strivings Building Resources Internal Resources Identity Self-Management Competing Schema External Resources Social Networks Opportunities

31. Competing Intentions • Intentional processes play a key role in this kind of model • We know that intentions tend to be specific to behavior and context, and strongly influenced by what is salient • This means that anything that is dependent on intentional processes is intrinsically somewhat fluid