Transcript Sex Offender Risk Assessment

Dynamic Risk Assessment of
Sexual Offenders for Treatment
Planning and Community
Management
Andrew Harris (613) 746-7411
Forensic Assessment Group
[email protected]
1
Please note:
Attendance at this presentation is NOT
sufficient preparation to allow you to score
the STABLE-2007 nor the ACUTE-2007
clinically
2
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
3
Why Assess Risk?
• Promoting public safety
• Routine interventions
• Targeting scarce resources
– Officer time
– Treatment
• Exceptional measures
4
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
5
Three Linked Research Projects
The First: Meta-analytic studies 1996, 1998, 2004
Work of Karl Hanson - SGC
• Literature review studies
• Hanson, SGC User Report 1996
• Hanson & Busierre - Published 1998
• Hanson & Morton-Bourgon 2004
6
Sex Offender Risk Assessment
Basis for the RRASOR, STATIC-99,
and Risk Matrix-2000
STATIC (unchangable) factors
- prior sex offences
– age
– any extrafamilial victims
– any male victims
7
Three Linked Research Projects
The Second: Dynamic Predictors 1998
Hanson & 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
8
Findings
Dynamic Predictor Project 1998
Stable Factors
–
–
–
–
–
Intimacy deficits
Negative social influences
Pro-sex-offending attitudes
Problems with sexual self-regulation
Problems with general self-regulation
9
Findings
Dynamic Predictors Project 1998
Acute Factors
–
–
–
–
Substance abuse
Negative mood
Anger/Hostility
Opportunities for victim access
10
Three Linked Research Projects
The Third: Dynamic Supervision Project 2001
Hanson & 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 11
•
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
12
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”
13
A Directed Program of Research
Hanson
&
Bussière
Meta-analysis
1996
Hanson & Harris
Dynamic
Predictors
1998
Hanson & Harris
Dynamic
Supervision
2001
STABLE- 2000
RRASOR, 1997
SONAR, 2000
&
ACUTE-2000
STATIC-99
Combined
Predictors 2007
STATIC-2002
14
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)
15
STABLE – 2007
5 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)
16
STABLE - 2007 Scoring
• All available information
• Historical and recent
• STABLE - typical or base line functioning past year and next year
17
Changes in Scoring
STABLE-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
18
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
19
Significant Social Influences
Person’s First
Name
1
Mom
Nature of Relationship and
comments
Provides $ --- Provides place to live
Watches out for him
Thinks we’re picking on him
Tells him he doesn’t need meds
Influence
Pos/Neut/Neg
Neutral ?
2
3
4
20
Significant Social Influences
Person’s First
Name
1
2
Mom
Willy
Nature of Relationship and
comments
Influence
Pos/Neut/Neg
Provides $ - Provides place to live
Watches out for him
Thinks we’re picking on him
Tells him he doesn’t need meds
Neutral ?
Old HS friend – No drink/drugs
Takes him to hockey
Gives him pro-social advice
Positive
3
4
21
Significant Social Influences
Person’s First
Name
1
2
3
Mom
Willy
Nature of Relationship and
comments
Influence
Pos/Neut/Neg
Provides $ - Provides place to live
Watches out for him
Thinks we’re picking on him
Tells him he doesn’t need meds
Neutral ?
Old HS friend – No drink/drugs
Takes him to hockey
Gives him pro-social advice
Positive
“Jokes around” at work
Jason W.
Wants him to go for beers at the strip club
Possible drug involvement???
Negative
4
22
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
23
Significant Social Influences
Things 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
24
Scoring Social Influences
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
2
0
3
0
3
1
4
0
4
1
4
2
5
0
5
1
5
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
FINAL SCORE
0
1
2
25
Intimacy Deficits
•
•
•
•
•
Capacity for Relationship Stability
Emotional identification with children
Hostility toward women
Social rejection/loneliness
Lack of concern for others
26
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.
27
“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
28
“A” Part: Capacity for Relationship Stability
Who 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”
29
“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
30
Scoring Capacity for Relationship Stability
“A” Part
“Ever Lived”
“B” Part
“Current”
No
No Current (2)
No
Poor/Stable dating (1)
No
Acceptable (0)
Yes
No Current (2)
Yes
Poor/Stable dating (1)
Yes
Acceptable (0)
Final Score
2
1
0
31
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
32
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”
33
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
34
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.
35
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)
36
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
37
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
38
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.
39
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
40
fairly unusual
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
41
General Self-Regulation
• Impulsive Acts
• Poor Cognitive Problem Solving Skills
• Negative Emotionality/Hostility
42
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
43
Impulsive Acts




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
44
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
45
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
46
Poor Cognitive Problem Solving
• Problem identification
• Generating alternatives
• Evaluating alternatives
47
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
48
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
49
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
50
Sexual Self-regulation
• Sex drive/Pre-occupations
• Sex as coping
• Deviant sexual interests
51
Sex Drive/Pre-occupations
• Recurrent sexual thoughts and behaviour
– ( not directed to a current romantic partner)
•
•
•
•
•
Casual or impersonal sexual activity
Interference with other pro-social goals
Perceived as intrusive or excessive by the offender
Or just plain excessive
This item includes those offenders with a pattern of
chronic or episodic loss of control (e.g., “off meds”,
ACUTE phase of mental illness, disinhibited by alcohol
or drugs) where this loss of control is related to the
history of sexual offending
52
Sex Drive/Pre-occupations












Masturbation most days (15+ times a month)
Regular use of prostitutes, strip bars, massage parlours, phone-sex
Sex-oriented internet use, such as sexually explicit sites, chat rooms
Pornography collection (videos, magazines) (or, parent/baby magazines)
Cruising for impersonal sex
Excessive sexual content in typical conversations
Pre-occupation with own/other’s sex crimes
Self-report of difficulty controlling sexual impulses
Any disturbing sexual thoughts
A history of multiple sexual partners (e.g., 30 or more)
Phone sex bills
Large amounts of time “surfing the web” for pornography sites
• This includes the offender who insists he doesn’t think about sex but you believe
he is expending considerable personal energy “not thinking about sex” – those
who insist its “dirty” or “sinful”
53
Sex Drive/Pre-occupations
0 No evidence of impersonal sex or sexual preoccupations
1 Some evidence of impersonal sex
Regular use of pornography for sexual
gratification
Some evidence of sexual pre-occupations
2 Clear evidence of any sexual pre-occupations
Some evidence of multiple pre-occupations
54
Sex as Coping
• Life stress and negative emotions trigger
sexual thoughts or behaviour
• Content may be normal or deviant
• This coping behaviour will be seen in
multiple life domains (in response to work
stress, family stress, interpersonal stress)
• Sexual expression to dissipate anger,
humiliation, frustration, or other “down”
mood
55
Sex as Coping
0 No history of using sex as a coping strategy, or, if a
history, during past year has repeatedly experienced
negative life events without resorting to sex as
coping.
1 Occasional lapse into sexual fantasy or behaviour
when stressed but not the typical reaction. Has other
coping strategies not including sexual expression
2 Negative emotions or life events typically invoke
sexual thoughts or behaviours.
56
Deviant Sexual Interests
• Sexual interested in people, objects, or activities
that are illegal, inappropriate or highly unusual.
– children, non-consenting adults, voyeurism,
exhibitionism, cross-dressing, coprophilia, and
fetishism
• Assessed by number of Sex Offence Victims,
number of deviant preference victims, self-report
of deviant history or preferences, or the results of
specialised testing (e.g., phallometric tests).
57
Deviant Sexual Interests
(Please see Table – page 35 Tab 08)
Domain
Number of Sex Offence
Victims
Count/Criteria
Score
0 = only one victim
1 = 2 to 7 victims
2 = 8+ victims
0 = No deviant victims
Number of Deviant
Preference Victims/Activities 1 = One deviant victim
•Pre-pubescent child victims etc.
2 = Two or more deviant victims
Self-report of deviant history
or preferences
0 = Endorses only normal fant/pref’s
1 = you suspect deviant fant/pref’s
2 = Describes or admits to dev. fant/pref’s
Results of specialized testing
Not Scored = No evidence testing ever offered
0 = Testing – results show no dev. Pref’s
1 = Mixed Results – Possible deviance
2 = Deviant preference shown in testing and
nothing done about it
58
Deviant Sexual Interests
“Behavioural History”
• You must consider both frequency and the
unusualness of the behaviour
• Sex with pre-pub boy (X1) = 1
• Masturbation in car: caught once = 1
caught more than once = 2
59
Deviant Sexual Interests
Scoring Notes:
In Canada the age of consent for sexual activity is
14 years old. People who have reached their 14th
birthday are not considered “child” victims.
Physically developed (mature) 12 and 13 year olds
are not considered “deviant” sexual victims (subsection two) – they are simply victims. If the
victims have a “mature”, “developed” or “adult”
body shape they are not considered “child”
victims.
60
Deviant Sexual Interests
Deviant Sexual Interests in Possible Remission
An offender who has scored a “2” based upon historical
facts can have their Deviant Sexual Interest score
reduced by one point if the following is present:
• The offender is involved in an age appropriate,
consensual, satisfying sexual relationship of at least one
years duration while “at risk” in the community with the
absence of behavioural indicators of Deviant Sexual
Interests for 2 years.
• Presence of this relationship requires credible,
independent, collateral confirmation of the relationship
61
Scoring Deviant Sexual Interests
• Of the four sections – the highest score in
any section is the score for the whole item
Domain
Count/Criteria
Number of Sex Offence Victims
0 = only one victim
1 = 2 to 7 victims
2 = 8+ victims
Number of Deviant Preference
Victims/Activities
•Pre-pubescent child victims etc.
0 = No deviant victims
1 = One deviant victim
2 = Two or more deviant victims
Self-report of deviant history or
preferences
0 = Endorses only normal fant/pref’s
1 = you suspect deviant fant/pref’s
2 = Describes or admits to dev. fant/pref’s
Results of specialized testing
Pass = No evidence testing ever offered
0 = Testing – results show no dev. Pref’s
1 = Mixed Results – Possible deviance
2 = Deviant preference shown in testing
and nothing done about it
Score
62
Cooperation with Supervision
• Do you feel that the offender is working
with you or working against you?
• Does he see himself as at no risk to reoffend
and place himself in high-risk situations?
• Does not take seriously the conditions of
supervision?
63
Non-cooperation
• Disengagement:
– just going through the motions, silent/non-disclosing,
keeping secrets, not invested in treatment
• Manipulation:
– trying to “play the system”, trying to be “buddy-buddy”
with you, trying to lie to you and deceive you, asking
for special favours, engaging in the manipulation of
helpers (e.g., playing one off against another)
• No Show:
– often shows up late or at the wrong times, fails to attend
scheduled appointments with you and others
64
Cooperation with Supervision
0 Offender appears to be working with you
Regular attendance, follows through with
instructions
1 Some problems, but generally cooperative
Occasional missed appointments
2 You perceive the offender to be uncooperative,
deceptive, manipulative or disengaged
Frequently late, missing appointments, no sense that
you know what is going on with him
65
Think of your normal interview
• Significant Social Influences*
• Who do you hang around with?
• What do you do with Joe?
• Intimacy Deficits*
•
•
•
•
Anybody special in your life?
How do you get along with women? Children?
Would you say you are a loner?
Who do you care most about in the world?
• General Self-regulation*
• Ever play sports? How often in Emerg? Money
problems? Housing problems? Quit jobs a lot?
• What sort of things cause you problems in your life?
What do you do about them?
• What do you think of (the guy who caused the problem)?
And do you meet people like that a lot?
66
Think of your normal interview
• Sexual Self-regulation
• Sexual outlets? Habits? How often? Pressure?
Relationship to self-esteem and self-perception
• Ever use sexual outlets to change your mood or make
yourself feel better?
• You mentioned a child in your list of friends. You seem to
have a history of people making allegations against you
• Co-operation with Supervision* (Your call)
(You can re-order the STABLE interview to suit yourself)
67
STABLE - 2007 Total Score
•
•
•
•
•
See STABLE-2007 Tally Sheet (Tab 08a)
12 items for non-child molesters
13 Items for child molesters
Each Item worth 2 points
Sum the 13 Items
68
STABLE - 2007 Total Score
• Interpretative Ranges
0-3
4 - 11
12 +
Low
Moderate
High
69
Combining STATIC and STABLE - Initial Rules
STATIC-99
Risk Category
STABLE-2000
Need Category
Overall
Supervision
Priority
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate-Low
Moderate-Low
Zero Risk Factors
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate-Low
Moderate-Low
Moderate-High
Moderate-High
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate-Low
Moderate-High
High
High
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate-High
Moderate-High
High
70
Combining STATIC and STABLE - Empirical Rules
STATIC-99
Risk Category
STABLE-2000R
or STABLE-2007
Need Category
Overall
Supervision
Priority
Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Low
Moderate-Low
Moderate-Low
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate-Low
Moderate-High
Moderate-High
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate-Low
Moderate-High
High
High
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
Very High
71
Treatment - What does all this mean?
• STABLE factors are your best treatment targets
• Use STABLE assessment to inform your
treatment and supervision efforts
• STABLE assessment represents the beginning of
“diagnostic” treatment assessment for sexual
offenders
• Does it make sense? - Is it a good use of money
to put everybody through everything?
72
"Child molesters are not a
homogeneous group, so forcing them to
address in detail all aspects of a
uniform program would be unwise."
Marshall, W. L. (2004). Cognitive-behavioural treatment of child
molesters. In R. Karl Hanson, Friedemann, Pfafflin, & Manfred
Lutz (Eds.). Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: Scientific and
Legal Perspectives: Proceedings of the conference "Abuse of
children and young people by Catholic Priests and Religious".
Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Pontificia Academia
Pro Vita. Page 98.
73
Acute Risk Factors
• Short term risk
• Timing of reoffence
• Represent current expression of risky
behaviour
• Note: Average rating over time (4 mths)
performs better than any individual
assessment
74
ACUTE PREDICTORS – Two Factors
Sex/Violence Score
General Recidivism Score
(Four Items)
(All seven items)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Victim Access
Hostility
Sexual pre-occupation
Rejection of Supervision
Victim Access
Hostility
Sexual pre-occupation
Rejection of Supervision
Emotional Collapse
Collapse of Social
Supports
• Substance Abuse
75
ACUTE PREDICTORS – Two Factors
Sex/Violence Score
Score
General Recidivism Score
(Sum of four factors)
Score
(Sum of all seven factors)
• Victim Access


Copy Score Over



• Hostility


Copy Score Over





Copy Score Over





Copy Score Over



• Sexual Pre-occupation
• Rejection of Supervision
• Emotional Collapse
• Collapse of Social Supports
• Substance Abuse
Sex/Violence Total
General Recidivism Total
76
Acute Rating System
•
•
•
•
0 - no problem
1 - maybe a problem, not sure
2 - yes, a concern
IN - intervene now
77
Victim Access
•
•
•
•
0 - no problem
1 - incidental contact, not repeated
2 - repeated opportunity, hints of planning
IN - clear planning, grooming, stalking,
hiding deliberate contact
78
Hostility
• 0 - no problems
• 1 - some resentment; harsh words
• 2 - heated confrontations; any physical
aggression, veiled threats, angry
rumination,
• IN - direct threats, open plans of retribution
79
Sexual Preoccupations
• 0 - no problem
• 1 - slight concerns, increased masturbation
• 2 - rumination on sexual issues, sexual
tension, deviant urges, porno/strip
clubs, sex urges when angry or upset
IN - out of control of sexual urges, lots of
impersonal sex
80
Rejection of Supervision
• 0 - regular reporting, appropriate responses
• 1 - reluctant, missed appointments with others,
you are unsure of what is going on
• 2 - breaching conditions, attends drunk, missed 2
consecutive appointments, manipulative lying,
treatment dropout
• IN - brings weapon, new offences, driving while
suspended, he disappears
81
Emotional Collapse
• 0 - common misery
• 1 - stressed, but coping (strained)
• 2 - hopeless, helpless, negative emotional
rumination, self-pity, not coping,
paranoia
• IN - suicide risk, acting on paranoid impulses
82
Collapse of Social Supports
• 0 - no major changes
• 1 - threats to important relationships, loss
of minor relationships
• 2 - loss of significant social relationship or
social group, gain negative peer group
• IN - loss of essential supports, complete
community rejection, pro-paedophilic
clubs
Note: In most cases, the loss of a paid therapist does not count - unless it was
a particularly close and important relationship for the offender.
83
Substance Abuse
• 0 - no use
• 1 - some drinking, but not problematic
and not prohibited
• 2 - problem use; any prohibited use
• IN - out of control, interference in daily
functioning
84
Sex & Violence Risk and General Recidivism Risk
Sex/Violence Score
Score
General Recidivism Score
(Sum of four factors)
Score
(Sum of all seven factors)
• Victim Access


Copy Score Over



• Hostility


Copy Score Over





Copy Score Over





Copy Score Over



• Sexual Pre-occupation
• Rejection of Supervision
• Emotional Collapse
• Collapse of Social Supports
• Substance Abuse
Sex/Violence Total
General Recidivism Total
85
Note: Sexual and Violence risk
calculated using Sex/Violence factors.
General recidivism risk calculated using
ALL ACUTE Factors
Sex/Violence Nominal
Categories
0 = Low
1 = Moderate
2+ = High
General Recidivism Risk
Nominal Categories
0 = Low
1 – 2 = Moderate
3+ = High
86
Combining STATIC/STABLE and
ACUTE Risk Factors
STATIC- STABLE-2007
Low
Moderate-low or
Moderate-high
High or Very-high
ACUTE
SCORE
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
CURRENT
RISK
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
High87
Relative Risk for Recidivism (Risk Ratios) within
45 Days based on Combined STATIC-99,
STABLE-2007 and ACUTE-2007 Scores
Sexual Crimes
Any Sexual (incl. breaches)
Violent or Sexual
Any Crime
Any Crime (incl. breaches)
Low
Moderate
High
(base rate)
(base rate)
(base rate)
1.0
2.4
14.9
( 0.576)
(1.370)
(8.609)
1.0
2.3
4.6
(2.102)
(4.828)
(9.615)
1.0
1.8
7.0
(2.115)
(3.846)
(14.765)
1.0
1.9
4.5
(3.690)
(6.962)
(16.456)
1.0
1.6
4.3
(8.364)
(13.423)
(35.821)
88
Relative Priority of ACUTE Ratings:
Implications for Supervision
• “Basically”, as a heuristic, men who score
“Moderate” on the ACUTE-2007 should
receive twice the supervisory priority as
those who score “Low” and those who
score “High” should receive four times (X4)
the supervisory priority as those who score
“Low”.
89
Inter-rater Reliability
Calculated amongst seven (7) raters
MEASURE
RELIABILITY
STATIC-99 (90 cases)
0.92
“First” STABLE-2000 (87 cases)
0.94
“Second” STABLE-2000 (45 cases)
0.93
“Last” ACUTE-2000 (75 cases)
0.92
“Earlier” ACUTE-2000 (63 cases)
0.88
90
This Project Shows
• It is possible for trained probation, parole
and police officers to predict sexual
recidivism risk with moderate accuracy (as
good as anybody else)
• Static, Stable and Acute factors are all
important when assessing risk
91
Recidivism Rates by Types of
Reoffending
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Sexual Charges & Convictions
Sexual Charges & Convictions & Sex Breaches
Violent Charges & Convictions
“Any” Criminal Charges & Convictions
“Any” Criminal Charges & Convictions &
Breaches
•
1-4 year rates for Static-Stable-2007
92
Recidivism Rates for STATIC/STABLE Risk Categories
Sexual Recidivism
Risk Category
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
Low
0.7
1.1
2.0
2.0
Moderate-Low
2.2
3.7
4.3
4.3
Moderate-High
3.8
6.6
9.2
9.2
High
13.2
17.1
22.0
22.0
Very High
14.3
20.8
23.2
26.0
Overall
4.0
5.9
7.6
7.8
93
Accuracy of Prediction
Combined Measures (STATIC & STABLE)
ROC - Sexual
ROC - Violence
Overall (n = 792)
0.76
0.72
Extra-fam CM (n = 202)
0.77
0.77
Rapists (n = 267)
0.73
0.66
Non-contact
0.80
0.72
Canada (n = 613)
0.79
0.75
“Conscientious”
(n = 36)
0.84
0.80
(n = 70)
94
Relative ACUTE Priority
Risk Ratios: Relative Risk for Recidivism within
45 days based upon combined STATIC-99,
STABLE-2007 & ACUTE-2007 Scores
Priority
Low
Moderate
High
Sexual Crimes
1.0
2.4
14.9
Any Sexual
1.0
2.3
4.6
Violent or Sexual
1.0
1.8
7.0
Any Crime
1.0
1.9
4.5
Any, Including
breaches
1.0
1.6
4.3 95
Prediction of Recidivism (ROC)
Recidivism
Type
Static-99 Static-99 +
alone
override
Sexual
.77
.75
Static-99 +
Stable-2007
.81
Sexual + sex
Breaches
.71
.69
.78
Any violent
.74
.71
.77
96
General Recommendations for Risk
Assessment
• Use an explicit list of empirically validated
risk factors determined in advance.
– Consider all relevant risk factors
– Ignore irrelevant factors
– Don’t over-ride risk assessments (exceptional
circumstances??)
• Build-in methods for quality control
• One year is needed before re-evaluating stable
factors (pending deliberate interventions)
97
Download the original papers at
www.ps-sp.gc.ca
•Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question?
(2004)
•STATIC-99 Improving Actuarial Risk Assessment
for Sexual Offenders (1999)
•Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on
community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision
Project (2007)
98