Static99-R What Does It Measure

The Impact of Differential Reporting

Why New Norms?
1960 – 1990 Increase in Crime

The Great Decline
1991 – 2000 Crime decreased

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

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

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

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

Decrease in Violent Crime
(Crime in the United States, FBI, 2009)
Year Population Violent Crime
1,820,127 1,425,044 1,316,398

1990 2000 2009

249,464,396 281,421,906 307,006,550

Decrease in Rape
(Crime in the United States, FBI, 2009)
Year Forcible Rape/ 100,000
41.1 32 28.7

1990 2000 2009

Base Rates Matter
Lower base rates Fewer Reoffenders for each score

Problems with Renorming
Appeared Unstable Impact of Constant Change On Legal Arena

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

Which Subnorms to Use?
Correctional Services of Canada Routine Cases N = 2406 No screening procedures

No pre-selection for tx, or civil commitment

High Risk CSC
700 to 1000 hours of treatment 200-250 hours of cognitive skills & AODA After release, ongoing maintenance

Which To Use?
Preselected for Treatment Referred for sex offender specific treatment during current or prior incarceration Selected but on waiting list still selected

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

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

Norms
“Most cases will use routine correctional sample”

New Norms 10 Years
Score -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Routine CSC 1.8 2.4 3.3 4.4 5.7 7.6 10 Treatment Need 3.2 4.2 5.4 7 9 11.5 14.5 9.8 12.5 15.7 19.7 24.3 High Risk

4 5
6 7 8 9 10

13 16.9
21.7 27.8 35 43.3

18.2 22.6
27.6 33.3 39.6 46.2

29.6 35.5
41.9 48.6 55.3 61.9 68

“More Likely Than Not”
(a) 5 yr rates are about 50% of long-term (21+ yr rates)

(b) 10 yr rates are about 70% of long-term (21+ yr) rates

Recidivism Rates
FU in Years Rates % 4-5 13.4 Hanson & Bussiere (1998) 5 10 15 14 20 24 Harrison & Hanson, 2004

Recidivism Rates
Years 5 10 Rapists 14 21 Incest 6 9 Girl Victim CM 9 13 Boy Victim CM 23 28 (Harrison & Hanson, 2004)

15 24 13 16 35

Recidivism Rates
Years 5 10 No priors 10 15 Any priors 25 32 (Harrison & Hanson, 2004)

15 19 37

New Norms 10 Years
Score -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Routine CSC 1.8 2.4 3.3 4.4 5.7 7.6 10 Treatment Need 3.2 4.2 5.4 7 9 11.5 14.5 9.8 12.5 15.7 19.7 24.3 High Risk

4 5
6 7 8 9 10

13 16.9
21.7 27.8 35 43.3

18.2 22.6
27.6 33.3 39.6 46.2

29.6 35.5
41.9 48.6 55.3 61.9 68

Which norms?
2008? 2009? Static 99 or Static99-R
Combined norms? Low-risk norms? Treatment norms? Non-routine?

2002?
High risk norms?

2002-R?

Increasing Importance of Dynamic Factors
Growing distrust of Static99 Not sensitive to treatment
Same Static99 score; different dynamic = different recidivism rates

Static + Dynamic
Static99R 3 year Recidivism
Stable 5 14

5 year Recidivism
Routine High Risk

2 5 7

3%
7% 14%

7%
18% 32%

5%
11% 19%

12%
25% 38%

Increased Dynamic Factors
Even with a high static score, the examiner must still find evidence of negative dynamic factors outside Static 99 to infer high risk. (Thornton et al., 2010)

Opposite?
Opposite is also true Those with lower static scores May be high risk If dynamic factors outside Static99 Are high

SRA
Sexual Interests Relational Style Lack of Emotionally Intimate Relationships with Adults (LEIRA) Emotional Identification with children Self-Management

(Not Distorted Attitudes)

Oddities
Man with 6 convictions for sex with 13-year-olds

Sexual interest in children
Sexual preoccupation

0 – 12 females 0 – 14 boys 16 and up

Sex with 13-year-olds neither abnormal or normal Free ride on 13-year-ols

Bigger Samples?
High Risk Norms N = 9,261 70% lost to FU at 10 years Leaving 2,766 High Risk Norms 1, 120 Original Sample = 1086 (Merrick, 2010)

More Recent Samples?
High Risk Norms 1, 120 10 years 68% released before 1990 (Merrick, 2010)

Elephant in the Room
Static99, Static99-R, Static 2002 & Static 2002R Do not measure reoffending Measure getting caught

Proxy for Reoffending
Convictions 1 Offenses 3?

1
1

50?
150?

Higher Convictions Should = Higher Number of Offenses If Underlying Assumptions are Met

Underlying Assumptions
Everybody gets caught who keeps offending (eventually) Everybody has an equal chance of getting caught

10 Retrospective Studies
Revealed abuse to anyone as children 1/3 Cases reported to authorities 10% - 18% (London et al., 2005)

Delayed Disclosure of Childhood Rape
N = 388 W/in 24 hours 18%

> 5 years
Never before survey

47%
28%

(Smith et al., 2000)

Bring in the “But” . . .
What If . . . Victims Disclose Different Types of Offenders Differentially

When Did Child Rarely Disclose
Natural Parent Immediately Later Never 17% 30% 55%

Short Vs. Long Delays
Short Strangers Related to Victim 22% 24% (Smith et al., 2000) Long 5% 48%

Family Members as Perps
Lower rates or Longer delays

(Goodman-Brown, et al., 2003; Hershkowitz et al., 2005; Sjoberg & Lindblad, 2002; Smith et al., 2000)

Who Did Child Disclose To?
Parent or Parent Figure 55% Other Adult Relative/Friend 10% Sibling 8% Other Child 8% School 8% Mental Health/Medical 6% (Sauzier, 1989)

Whom They Told
Best Friend
Mother No one

23%
21% 28% (Smith et al., 2000)

Recantation
217 substantiated cases Los Angeles Dependency Court 1999-2000 Ages 2 – 17 90% female

Recantations
Recantations 23% Minimizing severity Additional 11%

Recantation
Predictors Lack of maternal support Abuse by male caretaker

Recantation

Cases where offender confessed

24.5% recanted fully or partially (Malloy, Lyon, Quas, & Forman, 2005)

Differential Disclosure
Incest

Age
Adolescents abused for the first time as adolescents more likely to disclose than younger children Disclose first to another adolescent (Olafson & Lederman, 2006)

Age of Victims
Men with adolescent victims More likely to get caught?

Instructions Not to Tell
Powerful effect on 5 and 6-year-olds
(Bottoms, et al., 2002; Pipe & Wilson, 1994)

Abused and Neglected Children
Mother beat preschooler children Unconscious multiple times “I gave you life; I can damn well take it away.” Amphetamine addict Molested by other siblings and mother’s boyfriends

Skillful Offenders
Fool parents – disclosures ignored Make children love them

Children Who Deny
Less likely to disclose the closer the relationship (DiPetro et al., 1997; Smith et al., 2000)

John
1250 molestations Over 20 years

Multiple disclosures to parents Over the years
One referral to police

Protection by Environment
Convictions Joe Church Protection 200 victims Jim No Church Protection 200 victims Prior Sex Convic

0

0

5

3

Joe
Church Protected 1. Age (39) 0 2. Lived/lover 1 3. Prior assault 0 4. Prior sex conv. 0 5. Index assault 0 6. Sentencing 0 7. Noncontact 0 8. Unrelated 1 9. Stranger 0 10. Boy 1 Score 3

Jim
Not Protected 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 7

Offending
Fewer consequences Less likely to offend?

Is Static9-R Correct?
Yes The non-church protected offender Is More likely to get caught.

Age

Aging and Psychopaths

Psychopathy and Age
14 12

Mean Factor Score

10

N = 800+ Harpur & Hare 1994

8
6 4 2 0

PCL-R

Factor 1
Factor 2
1620 2125 2630 3135 3640 4145 4650 5155 5670

Age Period

Before & After Age 40
Male Offenders & Forensic Psychiatric Patients
File Info + Interview File Info Alone

Total Decrease .5 Decrease 4 Factor 1 Increase .5 Decrease .5 Factor 2 Decrease 1 Decrease 4 (Hare, 2003)

Reduction in Criminality with Age
1/2 Reduce Criminal Activity About 35 to 40

Not for Violent Crime
(Hare, McPherson & Forth, 1988; Harris, Rice & Cormier, 1991)

Ages 46 - 50
% Any Conviction % Violent Conviction

Psychopaths
Nonpsychopaths

42.9%
40.4%

30%
8.8%

(Hare et. Al, 1992)

Psychopathy & Aging
Almost ½ of psychopaths convicted of crimes after 40
Percentage of violent crimes increased

(Hare et al., 1992)

“It appears that the psychopath’s propensity for violence and aggression may be relatively persistent across much of the life span.” (Hare, 1992, p.295)

Days Free on Conditional Release as a Function of PCL-R & Age
3000

Mean # Successful Days

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Non-psychopaths Psychopaths

N = 224

N = 93
18-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49

Porter et al., 2001

Age

Older Psychopaths & Time in Community
Age 40 – 44 45 – 49 < 30 1000 days >30 200 days

2500 days 100 days (Porter et al., 2001)

“We found no evidence that older offenders scoring high on the PCL-R were more successful than their younger counterparts.” (Porter et al., 2001)

“Clearly, older psychopaths had far less opportunity to offend . . . This suggests that the age-related decline in criminal charges and convictions for psychopaths was, in part, an artifact, and that the criminal (and violent) propensities of the aging psychopaths may have been greatly underestimated.” (Hare, 2003, p. 62)

New Age Item
Age 18 – 34.9 35 – 39.9 40 – 59.9 60 + Score 1 0 -1 -3

Score Range
-3 to 12

Risk Categories
Score -3 through 1 Low Risk Category

2,3
4,5 6+

Low-Moderate
Moderate-High High

Static99 Vs Static99-R N = 2392
ROC 10 years

Static99

.706

Static99-R

.710

No High Risk Aging Sex Offenders?

Age 61 Attacked 73-year-old woman Giving him a church tour Stranger assault

Mr. Johnson
Age
29 46

Offense History
“Has a history of sexual assault” Attempted molestation of 11-year-old

Mr. Johnson
Age 48 Offense History Violent rape of 17-year-old boy – beat with chain Molestation 6 yr old boy Exposure to officer

58 59.5

When to Over-ride?
Recent Offense – within 5 years History of continuous offending No evidence of impact of aging

New Norms 10 Years
Score Routine 5 yr Observed Routine Adjusted Treatment Need High Risk

-3 -2 -1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1.4 1.8 2.3
3 3.9 5.1 6.6 8.4 10.8 13.7 17.2 21.4 26.3

1.8 2.4 3.3
4.4 5.7 7.6 10 13 16.9 21.7 27.8 35 43.3

3.2 4.2 5.4
7 9 11.5 14.5 18.2 22.6 27.6 33.3 39.6 46.2

9.8
12.5 15.7 19.7 24.3 29.6 35.5 41.9 48.6 55.3 61.9 68

Do Over-rides Help? Prediction of Recidivism (ROC)
Recidivism Type Static-99 Static-99 + Over-ride .75 Static-99 + Stable- 2007 .81

Sexual

.77

Any violent

.74

.71

.77

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful