Changes in Risk Assessment

1. Changes in Risk Assessment

2. Changes in Risk Assessment New Norms The Impact of Aging

3. Seduction to Child Porn Justin Berry $50 Sit bare-chested in front of Webcam for 3 minutes (Eichenwald, 2006)

4. Praise “They complimented me all the time . . . They told me I was smart, they told me I was handsome.” (Eichenwald

5. Escalating Requests $100 pose in underwear (Eichenwald, 2006)

6. Gifts Amazon wish list (Eichenwald, 2006)

7. Equipment Asante four-port hub (multiple cameras) Viking memory upgrade Color Webcam Intel Deluxe USB camera HP camera (Eichenwald, 2006)

8. Seduction Jason Berry Undressing Showering Masturbating Having Sex (Eichenwald, 2006)

9. Enticement Computer camp Invited to Michigan – sex with a girl (Eichenwald, 2006)

10. Facilitating Helped with Pornographic website Justinscam.com Yahoo, AOL, MSN Free instant message services w/ video Stream live video free – if president could watch Sites – paid ads from teens & vote for favorites

11. Seduction Audience 1500 Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars (Eichenwald, 2006)

12. Who? Analyzed 300 of 1500 Doctors Lawyers Business Teachers Etc.

13. Money $45/month $300 hour long private shows (Eichenwald, 2006) Gil Tunno Intel employee Thousands meet for sex Signed apartment lease

14. Escalation Father helped New web site Live sex with prostitutes $35 monthly Discounts for 3 months, 6 months and annual memberships Cocaine & marijuana

15. Soliciting Signed up other teens

16. Three Generations of Risk Assessment • Clinical Judgment • Actuarial Assessment • Actuarial Plus Dynamic

17. Approaches to Risk Assessment d Subjects Studies Unstructured clinical .43 1,723 9 Structured professional judgment .41 844 5 Actuarial (sex) .70 14,160 55 (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon 2007)

18. Decline in Violent Crime 2000 Lowest in 20 years (Butts & Travis, 2002)

19. Decline in Juvenile Crime Largest of any age group

20. Decline in Crime 2008 Property Crime 1999-2008 Decreased 32%

21. Decline in Crime 2008 Violent Crime 1999-2008 Decreased 41%

22. Decline in Crime 2008 Decline in Rape & Sexual Assault 1999-2008 53%

23. Multiple Norms Routine Sex Offenders (CSC) Treatment Samples Nonroutine Samples High Risk Samples

24. Base Rates Matter More Or Fewer Reoffenders for each score

25. Which Norms to Use Correctional Services of Canada Routine Cases N = 2406 No screening procedures No pre-selection for tx, or civil commitment

26. Which Norms To Use? Preselected for Treatment Referred for sex offender specific treatment during current or prior incarceration Selected but no beds still selected

27. Which Norms to Use High Risk Sample Preselected for risk Factors external to Static-99 SVP referral, mentally disordered, not guilty by reason of insanity, referred for intensive treatment

28. Non-routine Treatment sample High risk samples Preselected for other reasons, e.g., offense severi

29. Norms “Most cases will use routine correctional sample”

30. New Norms 10 Years

31. Scores Versus RecidivismOriginal Norms Score Risk Years 5 10 15 0,1 Low 6% 9% 10% 2,3 Med/Low 10% 14% 18% 4,5 Med/High 29% 33% 38% 6+ High 39% 45% 52%

32. High Risk Sample • Bengtson, 2008 Pre-trial psychiatric eval in Denmark Suspected of retardation or psychosis • Bonta & Yessine, 2005 Dangerous Offenders- Indeterminate sentences Potential Dangerous Offenders Violent Offense after MR

33. High Risk Sample Haag, 2005 All Canadian offenders released at MR Knight and Thornton, 2007 Massachusetts Treatment Center- Assessed or treated between 1959 - 1984 Sexually dangerous persons

34. High Risk Samples Nicholaichuk, 2001 Treated at Clearwater treatment program – maximum security forensic mental health facility Wilson & colleagues Detained in prison until MR

35. Relative Risk vsAbsolute Risk Relative risk consistent across 22 samples Absolute risk not consistent

36. Charges vs Convictions 13 samples used charges 15 used convictions

37. Reconviction Vs. Rearrest Rearrest = 1.4 x reconviction 10 Years Rearrest Reconviction Static 5 24.5% 21% Static 6 31.5% 27%

38. Child Molesters vs Rapists 53% child molesters 47% rapists

39. Treatment % Primarily treated samples Only one untreated sample

40. Samples N = 7878 21 samples Helmus N = 8412 23 samples

41. Sample Size Static99 = 8,893 Logistical regression 10 years 2,528

42. Sample Sizes High risk sample 722

43. Samples Sizes Routine 2,406 Non-Routine 1,642 Treatment 866 High Risk 722

44. Old Sample Size Static-99 1086

45. Aging and Risk of Sexual Offending

46. What Difference Does Age Make? Recidivism & aging -.10 (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998) Recidivism rates declined steadily with age Extrafamilial child molesters – maintained risk longer N =3751 (Hanson, 2002)

47. Child molesters Rapists Recidivism rate (%) Incest offenders Age-at-release from custody

48. Age & Recidivism Reanalysis of Hanson All groups declined steadily Own data – linear decrease with age N = 468 (Barbaree et al., 2003)

49. Fitted Sexual Recidivism Rates by Age Graphs

50. Each one unit increase in age was associated with 98% of the recidivism rate of the previous (younger) age Recidivism rate of 32-year-olds was 98% of recidivism rate of 31 year-olds