Dynamic Risk Assessment of Sexual Offenders for Treatment Planning and Community Management

1. Dynamic Risk Assessment ofSexual Offenders for TreatmentPlanning and CommunityManagement Andrew Harris (613) 746-7411 Forensic Assessment Group fh763@ncf.ca

2. Please note: Attendance at this presentation is NOT sufficient preparation to allow you to score the STABLE-2007 nor the ACUTE-2007 clinically

3. What I would like to say Accurate risk assessment makes the best use of scarce resources and enhances public safety (Static) Accurate risk assessment gives the tax payer the best “bang for the buck” Accurate risk assessment is crucial to appropriate treatment planning (Stable) Accurate risk assessment allows officers to “more often” intervene before an incident of recidivism (Acute) Using “clinical over-rides” does not appear to be a sound practice Evidence-based practice is “defendable” and “transparent” when things go wrong Risk assessment provides a common vocabulary of risk that improves communication and knowledge transfer, reduces misunderstandings and mistakes

4. Why Assess Risk? • Promoting public safety • Routine interventions • Targeting scarce resources • Officer time • Treatment • Exceptional measures

5. Three Generations of Risk Assessment Don Andrews (1996) • First Generation = “Clinical Judgement” • Unstructured, Non-replicable, Personal Discretion • Based on experience and level of knowledge of the literature • Non-standard (even within same institution) • Level of prediction little better than chance • Second Generation = “Actuarial Assessment” • Static, Actuarial, Structured, Replicable, Less open to Interpretation • Based on factors empirically related to recidivism • Standardized assessment, “Static” - Can not measure change • “Moderate” Levels of prediction, ROC’s upper 60’s to lower 70’s • Third Generation = “Dynamic Assessment” • “Not Perfect” - Structured Clinical Judgement • Based on factors empirically related to recidivism • Standardized assessment, Measures change • Still working on predictive validity

6. Three Linked Research ProjectsThe First: Meta-analytic studies 1996, 1998, 2004Work of Karl Hanson - SGC • Literature review studies • Hanson, SGC User Report 1996 • Hanson & Busierre - Published 1998 • Hanson & Morton-Bourgon 2004

7. Sex Offender Risk AssessmentBasis for the RRASOR, STATIC-99, and Risk Matrix-2000 STATIC (unchangable) factors - prior sex offences • age • any extrafamilial victims • any male victims

8. Three Linked Research ProjectsThe Second: Dynamic Predictors 1998Hanson & Harris • File review study • Interviewed the supervising officer • n = 208 community sexual recidivists • n = 201 community sexual non-recidivists • Canada-wide study • Federal parole and Provincial probation

9. FindingsDynamic Predictor Project 1998 Stable Factors • Intimacy deficits • Negative social influences • Pro-sex-offending attitudes • Problems with sexual self-regulation • Problems with general self-regulation

10. FindingsDynamic Predictors Project 1998 Acute Factors • Substance abuse • Negative mood • Anger/Hostility • Opportunities for victim access

11. Three Linked Research ProjectsThe Third: Dynamic Supervision Project 2001Hanson & Harris • Follow 1000+ in-community sex offenders - for a 30 month period • Multiple jurisdictions • Continuous intake - consecutive new cases • As of June 2004 over 1000 sexual offenders being supervised by over 150 trained officers • American participants = Alaska & Iowa

12. The Dynamic Supervision Project 2001 Methodology • Static factors assessed once • Implied time line = “Now to forever” • Baseline measure of risk • Stable factors assessed every 6 months • Implied time line = “six months to a year either side of today” -- “What's he like around now?” • Provides indication of most promising treatment targets • Acute factors assessed every supervision • Implied time line = “Since I saw him last” • Provides warning of imminent relapse

13. What are we aiming at? • A validated, “three level” sex offender risk assessment scheme that is, • Easy to use • Wide applicability • Widely known and used • Gives reliable percentages of: • “What are the chances of trouble” • Gives the officer indications as to: • “When should I intervene” • “What should I target”

14. A Directed Program of Research Hanson & Bussière Meta-analysis 1996 Hanson & Harris Dynamic Supervision 2001 Hanson & Harris Dynamic Predictors 1998 STABLE- 2000 & ACUTE-2000 Combined Predictors 2007 RRASOR, 1997 SONAR, 2000 STATIC-99 STATIC-2002

15. STABLE - 2000 Developed from: • SONAR (Hanson & Harris, 2000) • STEP (Beech et al., 2002) • SRA (Thornton, 2002) • Explicit, structured risk assessment tool • 16 Items • Combined with STATIC-99 into overall risk • Empirically Informed, One good validation study (See Tab 20)

16. STABLE – 20075 sections for a total of 13 Items • Significant Social Influences* • Intimacy Deficits • General Self-regulation • Sexual Self-regulation • Co-operation with Supervision* [Attitudes Section Gone] (Please pull Tab 8a STABLE-2007 Tally Sheet)

17. STABLE - 2007 Scoring • All available information • Historical and recent • STABLE - typical or base line functioning - past year and next year

18. Changes in ScoringSTABLE-2000 to STABLE-2007 • “Attitudes” section gone Slight changes in three other items, • “Intimacy Deficits” becomes “Capacity for Relationship Stability” - (New two-part scoring) • “Emotional Identification with Children” - Now only scored for child molesters (Victims < 14 yrs) • “Deviant Sexual Interests” – Offence history must be taken into consideration Also, • Easier scoring for Significant Social Influences • Easier Tally Sheet – Easier to calculate final score • New Nominal Category cut-offs

19. Significant Social Influences • Scoring of Significant Social Influences remains the same - • Name all the people in the offender’s life who are not paid to be with him. For each one, is the influence positive, negative, or neutral? #positive - #negative = balance

20. Person’s First Name Nature of Relationship and comments Influence Pos/Neut/Neg 1 Mom Provides $ --- Provides place to live Watches out for him Thinks we’re picking on him Tells him he doesn’t need meds Neutral ? 2 3 4 Significant Social Influences

21. Person’s First Name Nature of Relationship and comments Influence Pos/Neut/Neg 1 Mom Provides $ - Provides place to live Watches out for him Thinks we’re picking on him Tells him he doesn’t need meds Neutral ? 2 Willy Old HS friend – No drink/drugs Takes him to hockey Gives him pro-social advice Positive 3 4 Significant Social Influences

22. Person’s First Name Nature of Relationship and comments Influence Pos/Neut/Neg 1 Mom Provides $ - Provides place to live Watches out for him Thinks we’re picking on him Tells him he doesn’t need meds Neutral ? 2 Willy Old HS friend – No drink/drugs Takes him to hockey Gives him pro-social advice Positive 3 Jason W. “Jokes around” at work Wants him to go for beers at the strip club Possible drug involvement??? Negative 4 Significant Social Influences

23. Significant Social Influences • Now – Ignore “Neutrals” • Total “Positive” and “Negative” influences separately • Find Item final score from scoring table (Page 9 of Tab 8) Master Coding Guide Note: All possible combinations not shown on following page – always use table (Page 9) in Master Coding Guide

24. Significant Social InfluencesThings to consider • Does this person provide material support? • Does this person undermine the offenders controls? • If the offender went to that person for advice would that person be likely to give pro-social or anti-social advice? • Circles of Support and Similar – if the formal structure dissolved would that (positive) person still go for coffee with the offender? • Children (generally) don’t count • He talks about his Dad as a positive support – Ask when was the last time he saw his Dad • The magic question: If you had a magic wand and could “zap” that person out of the offender’s life – would the offender be more or less likely to reoffend? • More likely to reoffend – they are a positive influence • Less likely to reoffend – they are a negative influence

25. Scoring Social Influences

26. Intimacy Deficits • Capacity for Relationship Stability • Emotional identification with children • Hostility toward women • Social rejection/loneliness • Lack of concern for others

27. Capacity for Relationship Stability Now a two-part question “A” Part: Has this offender ever had a two-year intimate (sexual & “live-in”) relationship with an appropriate adult partner “B” Part: Is the offender currently living with an intimate partner in a relationship without obvious problems? • This relationship can be short, but should be expected to be reasonably STABLE.

28. “A” Part:Capacity for Relationship Stability • Same question – taken from STATIC-99 • Ever lived with lover for 2 continuous years? • must be continuous • prison marriages/lovers don’t count • Scored as a “Yes” or “No” • For complete coding rules for “A” Part please see page 25 STATIC-99 Coding Rules – Revised 2003

29. “A” Part:Capacity for Relationship StabilityWho can you have lived with??? • Legal marriages of < 2 years do not count • Prison marriages (while guy incarcerated) do not count • If relationship still there > 2 years after he gets out - does count • Non-human species – do not count • Priests and other celibates – no exemption • Must be a relationship that is legal • Must be age to consent to relationship • Child “vics” do not count – even if “consensual”

30. “B” Part:Capacity for Relationship Stability 0 Current live-in lover/intimate partner - No obvious problems 1 Living with a lover/intimate partner - but the relationship is troublesome or problematic Offender does not believe that it will last There may be lots of fights Someone is having an affair Someone is routinely unfaithful STABLE dating relationship that does not involve living together 2 No current lover/intimate partner

31. Scoring Capacity for Relationship Stability

32. Emotional Identification with Children Note,Only score for those with child victims age 13 or less • Does the offender feel emotionally close to or intimate with children? • Relates more easily to children than to adults • Not parent-child relationship • May see children as peers or equals (grows child up) • Offender may ascribe adult qualities to children (regresses to childs level) • Consider not only attitudes and values, but also leisure and work activities suggestive of a child-oriented lifestyle

33. Emotional Identification with Children Note,Only score this item for child molesters with at least one victim age 13 or less • Clarification • Currently congruent with Canadian Law • Teen victims, those who have attained their 14th birthday at the time of the assault are not counted on this item • Incest victims and non-familial children aged 14 and above (age at the time of the assault) do not count on this item • Score a “0” or a “N/A”

34. Emotional Identification with Children 0 No obvious identification with children 1 Immature relationships with adults May see children as having special qualities of understanding or communication that adults do not 2 Obviously feels more comfortable with children than with adults Has children as friends

35. Scoring Example 1 - John Convicted of Invitation to Sexual Touching, John, age 35, lives alone and has no adult friends. He works as a janitor at the recreation facility. He generally keeps to himself, but he does talk with some of the regulars, including a couple of the pre-teens who come for the children’s programs. When asked, he says that he likes children, and that he would rather play ball with the kids than watch TV on his own. John has never been in a steady heterosexual relationship. He says that he would like to date more often, but fears rejection.

36. Hostility Toward Women • A prejudice, making women into a different class • Unable to form warm, constructive relationships with women • Sexist attitudes • Does not consider women as people worthy of trust and respect • May have sexual or personal relationships with women, but these relationships are adversarial and conflicted • (Do not score this item for female offenders)

37. Hostility Toward Women 0 Is comfortable with women and has female friends with whom he is not sexually involved at this time Has no female friends but has no conflicts with women 1 Has generally uneasy interactions with more than one woman in more than one environment 2 Frequently in conflict with women • Doesn’t believe that males and females can be “just friends” • Believes “Women only good for sex” • Believes women can not be trusted

38. Social Rejection/Loneliness • Is the offender able to make friends and feel close to others (secure adult attachment)? • Is he lonely, prone to feeling socially rejected? • Is he emotionally close to friends and family? • How does he feel over the intermediate term – his impression of the world

39. Social Rejection/Loneliness 0 Generally well integrated socially considering their level of social standing and the process of social upheaval inherent in having been convicted of a serious sexual criminal offence 1 There are some weak connections with others; some short-term casual relationships, but no long-term friends. Has no close relationships with others but does not feel lonely or rejected (“the loner”). 2 Frequently feels lonely and rejected No social supports - Poor skills in attracting and maintaining close personal relationships.

40. Lack of Concern for Others • This item applies to their treatment of everyone they interact with and does not reflect solely their treatment of their victims • Does he have anyone in his life he truly cares about – Who is a member of his “in-group”? • Little consideration for the feelings of others • Acts according to their own self-interest • Feigns shallow displays of regret, little or no remorse • Unfeeling, ruthless, or indifferent • Not just towards their victims or adversaries, but also towards people he should care about • Possibly have friends, associates and acquaintances, but no STABLE, caring relationships • Quite significant pathology must be present, this condition is fairly unusual

41. Lack of Concern for Others 0 May be callous/indifferent to some people (e.g., adversaries) in specific circumstances, but is generally emotionally responsive and caring 1 Significantly callous/indifferent in more than one context (not just sex offending), but shows warmth and concern in some close relationships (e.g., family, long-term friends) 2 Typically shows little remorse or concern for others Most interactions are utilitarian, with little warmth or attachment to others

42. General Self-Regulation • Impulsive Acts • Poor Cognitive Problem Solving Skills • Negative Emotionality/Hostility

43. Impulsive Acts • Behaviour that has a high likelihood of negative consequences • Easily bored, seeks thrills and has little regard for personal safety or the safety of others • Impulsive across several settings - not just represented by his history of sexual offending

44. reckless driving substance abuse “getting into” partying accepting bets and dares quitting jobs with no other job in sight changing residences unsafe work practices starting fights with men much bigger than himself Impulsive Acts

45. Impulsive Acts 0 No problems, or limited only to sexual misbehaviour 1 Occasional impulsive behaviour Repeated high risk behaviour in only one context (e.g., frequently gambles, but no other obvious impulsive acts) 2 Frequent impulsive behaviour in more than one setting beyond their sexual offending

46. Poor Cognitive Problem Solving • Difficulty accurately identifying and solving problems • Proposes unrealistic solutions • (or none at all) • Lacks long-term plans • Fails to recognize the consequences of their actions

47. Poor Cognitive Problem Solving • Problem identification • Generating alternatives • Evaluating alternatives

48. Poor Cognitive Problem Solving 0 Is able to appropriately identify and address typical life problems 1 Some poorly considered decisions, but open to correction when difficulties are pointed out 2 Frequently makes poor decisions Fails to identify obvious life problems Difficulty recognizing negative consequences of actions even when pointed out to them

49. Negative Emotionality • A feeling of almost constant grievance is key to this item • This is not the “blue” guy – this is the guy with “A chip on his shoulder” – a grudge against the world • Prone to feeling hostile, victimized, and resentful • Vulnerable to emotional collapse when stressed • Although possibly linked to real grievances, the offender’s emotional response is excessive • Rather than attempting to cope constructively, the offender ruminates on the negative events and feelings and may appear to be “getting into it” • Your helpful suggestions are dismissed or belittled • Explosive expressions of emotion

50. Negative Emotionality 0 Occasionally expressions of grievance but not beyond that which would be reasonably expected given the offender’s life situation 1 Frequent emotional/grievance upset, but offender appears to be trying to cope constructively 2 Rumination on negative emotions and negative life events, self-indulgent self-pity, expressions of continuing grievance. Complete hopelessness, giving up irrational feelings of persecution, chronic suspiciousness