Working with Sexual Offenders Assessing and Managing Risk

1. Working with Sexual OffendersAssessing and Managing Risk Robin J. Wilson, Ph.D., ABPP Clinical Director The GEO Group / Florida Civil Commitment Center dr.wilsonrj@verizon.net

2. Defining the Problem

3. Stakeholders • victims • citizens • law enforcement • legal and correctional personnel • mental health personnel • the media • offenders

4. Sexual Offending The past 10-15 years has been witness to a flurry of research into the nature and consequences of sexually offensive behavior. • Isn’t it odd that the focus has come so late in the game? • There is no doubt that there has been sexual offending since there were people to be offenders and others to be victims—thousands and thousands of years. • Why has the attention shifted only recently?

5. Victims • As many as 90% of reporting victims know their offender • 2/3 or more of known offenses occur in the victim’s own home • As many as 90% of victims fail to report their abuse to authorities or others in a position to help

6. Is Child Sexual Abuse Really That Big a Problem? Statistics show that child sexual abuse occurs at an alarming rate. As many as one in three girls and one in five boys will be sexually abused at some point in their childhood (<18), according to many reliable studies of child sexual abuse, although most suggest that these are underestimates. At a minimum, that means that if you attend a social event (like a concert, for instance) of 100 people, between 30 and 40 of those in attendance were sexually abused as a child.

7. Maladaptive sexuality (either hypersexuality or hyposexuality) Prostitution Promiscuity Inability to express one’s sexuality Genital disfigurement Sexual addiction Eating disorders Personality disorders (antisociality, borderline features) Dissociative disorders Suicidality and self-harming behaviours Interpersonal problems (e.g., trust, loneliness, inability to link with others) Loss of relationships with significant others (due to the abuse or secondary victimization) Substance abuse Violence and aggression Consequences for Victims

8. Offensive Sexual Behavior One of the greatest hurdles to defining sexual deviance is a lack of clarity as to what actually constitutes offensive sexual behavior. What do you consider to be sexually offensive?

9. Assessment

10. Dangerousness BAD: “This person is dangerous.” GOOD: “If the following risk factors are present, then there is a high/medium/ low probability that the person will engage in some specific behavior within specify period of time that may place specific victims at risk for a specific type and severity of harm.”

11. Assessment • assessment forms the foundation upon which all subsequent intervention is built poor assessment = trouble • comprehensive assessment should take demand characteristics into consideration • assessment is dynamic

12. Assessment • risk assessment includes consideration of static (historical) and dynamic (day-to-day) variables • risk assessment is facilitated by use of actuarial instruments

13. Tenets of Good Assessment • assess reliability and validity of information available • beware of the base-rate problem • look for corroboration between different sources of information • beware of malingering and deception--there is likely no such thing as a “true admitter” • use only standardized measures with documented utility for your particular purposes • avoid speculation unless the evidence is highly suggestive

14. Sources of Information • structured interview • self reports • collateral contact (family, friends) • Police reports, prior criminal justice reports • Court transcripts, Judge’s Reasons for Sentencing, Pre-Sentence Reports, Victim Impact Statements • prior mental health reports, psychological tests, actuarial measures, phallometrics

15. Risk Assessment Tools General and violent recidivism: • Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) • Level of Supervision Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) • Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) • HCR-20 • Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA)

16. Risk Assessment Tools Sexual recidivism: • Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) • Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20) • Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offender Recidivism (RRASOR) • STATIC-99 • STABLE / ACUTE

17. Strengths Valid risk factors Explicit rules for combining factors Explicit probability estimates Robust across settings & samples Easily scored

18. Weaknesses Only moderate predictive accuracy We always want to do better! Neglects important factors Sexual Deviance (Phallometrics) All Dynamic Factors

19. Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Offenders

20. Tab 3 DSP

21. Training Overview • 2-day agenda • Binder contents • Who to use this with • Questions & Discussions

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

23. Static, Stable, & Acute Risk FactorsDefinitions • Static – Non-changeable life factors that relate to risk for sexual recidivism, generally historical in nature • Stable – Personality characteristics, skill deficits, and learned behaviours that relate to risk for sexual recidivism that may be changed through intervention • Acute – Risk factors of short or unstable temporal duration that can change rapidly, generally as a result of environmental or intra-personal conditions

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

25. STABLE Intimacy Deficits Social Influences Attitudes Sexual Self-Regulation General Self-Regulation ACUTE Substance Abuse Negative Mood Anger/Hostility Victim Access SONAR Hanson & Harris

26. Three Generations of Risk AssessmentBonta (1996) • First Generation = “Clinical Judgment” • 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” • Based on factors empirically related to recidivism • Standardized assessment, Measures change • Actuarial measure with dynamic factors

27. Three Linked Research ProjectsThe First: Meta-analytic ReviewsR. Karl Hanson and ColleaguesPublic Safety Canada • Hanson & Bussière, 1996, 1998 • Static risk factors • Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004, 2005 • Promising stable risk factors • Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2007, in press • Risk assessments

28. Types of Risk Assessment

29. Prediction of sexual recidivism

30. Three Linked Research ProjectsThe Second: Dynamic Predictors 1998 • 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

31. STABLE Intimacy Deficits Social Influences Attitudes Sexual Self-Regulation General Self-Regulation ACUTE Substance Abuse Negative Mood Anger/Hostility Victim Access SONARHanson & Harris

32. Three Linked Research ProjectsThe Third: Dynamic Supervision 2000 • Follow 1000+ in-community sex offenders - for a 43 month period - prospective design • Multiple jurisdictions • Continuous intake - consecutive new cases • Trained officers submitting data • American participants = Alaska & Iowa

33. Dynamic Supervision Project 2000 Methodology • Static factors assessed once • Stable factors assessed every 6 months • Acute factors assessed every supervision

34. 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 18 - 24.99 STATIC-99

35. Comparison - Stable Factors

36. Comparison - Acute Factors

39. Who Can I Use This Stuff With?

40. DSP Outcomes –(1)– Sexual Offences“Overall” versus “Different Types – SOs”

41. DSP Outcomes –(1)– Sexual Offences“Overall” vs. “Different Types – SOs”Stuff to think about • Overall – both tests are moderately helpful • Not as good for Incest Offenders • but only “3” recidivists

42. DSP Outcomes –(2)– Sexual Offences“Overall” vs. “Exceptional”

43. DSP Outcomes –(2)– Sexual Offences“Overall” vs. “Exceptional”Stuff to think about • “Exceptional” = those guys with psychological/psychiatric problems and those who are diagnosed as “Developmentally Delayed” • Higher recidivism rate • “DD” guys appear to be higher risk than overall average and they were rated higher on STABLE measures • Are these guys just easier to catch? • STABLE needs – with these two groups there seems to be something of a ceiling effect as intellectual and psychological needs are confused with criminogenic needs

44. DSP Outcomes –(3)– Sexual OffencesAboriginal vs. Non-Aboriginal

45. DSP Outcomes –(3)– Sexual OffencesAboriginal vs. Non-AboriginalStuff to think about • Aboriginal data really “noisy” • With some of the Aboriginal data there were data control issues – some untrained or insufficiently trained officers collecting data • Suspect that there may well be some confounding of non-criminogenic needs with criminogenic needs (STABLE measures)

46. DSP Outcomes –(4)– Sexual Offences“Overall” vs. “Conscientious”

47. DSP Outcomes –(4)– Sexual Offences“Overall” vs. “Conscientious”Stuff to think about “Conscientious” officers – those who provided all requested data • Points out need for good training • Points out need for “management buy-in” • Findings say – “It works pretty well if you take it seriously” • Officers have to be careful and consistent

48. Analysis of Stable Change • Little change over the 6 month period • Amount of change unrelated to recidivism • Only weak evidence that most recent assessment more accurate the prior assessment • Few offenders would have received effective treatment • Recommend Stable re-assessment every year • Results of the STABLE-2000 were used to refine the measure to create STATIC-2007

49. Validity of STABLE-2000 Items • Most items predict most outcomes in linear progression • Exceptions: • Lovers/intimate partners (non-linear) • Emotional identification with children • Sexual entitlement • Rape attitudes • Child molester attitudes • Deviant sexual interests

50. STABLE-2007 • Dropped the three attitude items • Slight revision to three other items • Emotional identification with children only for child molesters • Lovers/intimate partners becomes “Capacity for Relationship Stability” • Prior sex victims considered in scoring of Deviant sexual preferences • Simple addition used for STABLE-2007 (See STABLE-2007 Tally Sheet)