Estimating Lifetime and Residual Risk for Individuals Who Remain Sexual Offense Free in the Community: Practical Applications

The Influence of Race on Detected and Undetected Sexual Offense Histories: A Comparison of White and Black Men Committed as Sexually Violent Persons

Understanding the difference between the proportion of sexual offenses that are officially detected versus the total number of sexual crimes that occur has been of interest to decision makers for some time. Previous studies have not considered possible racial differences. More aggressive responses by police and the criminal justice system as well as cultural differences in victim type/reporting rates may result in differences between detection rates of Black versus White men. In the current study (N = 190), we examined the difference between Black (n = 51) and White (n = 139) men committed to a forensic hospital as a Sexually Violent Person on factors that could impact the detected rate. Overall, we found that White men had significantly more total victims, undetected victims, undetected and detected child victims, total male victims, undetected male victims, undetected acquaintance victims, and total (detected and undetected) acquaintance victims than Black men. Black men had significantly more detected adult victims, but this difference did not remain when accounting for undetected victims. We explore reasons for these differences as well as provide recommendations for practice.

Long Term Recidivism Rates Among Individuals at High Risk to Sexually Reoffend

Preventive detention provisions in the US and Canada assume we can identify, in advance, individuals at high risk for sexual recidivism. To test this assumption, 377 adult males with a history of sexual offending were followed for 20 years using Canadian national criminal history records and Internet searches. Using previously collected information, a high risk/high need (HRHN) subgroup was identified based on an unusually high levels of criminogenic needs (n = 190, average age of 38 years; 83% White, 13% Indigenous, 4% other). A well above average subgroup of 99 individuals was then identified based on high Static-99R (6+) and Static-2002R (7+) scores. In the HRHN group, 40% reoffended sexually. STATIC HRHN norms overestimated sexual recidivism at 5 years (Static-99R, E/O = 1.44; Static-2002R, E/O = 1.72) but were well calibrated for longer follow-up periods (20 years: Static-99R, E/0 = 1.00; Static-2002R, E/O = 1.16). The overall sexual recidivism rate for the well above average subgroup was 52.1% after 20 years, and 74.3% for any violent recidivism. The highest risk individuals (top 1%) had rates in the 60%-70% range. We conclude that some individuals present a high risk for sexual recidivism, and can be identified using currently available methods.

General Criminal Dynamic Risk and Strength Factors Predict Short-Term General Recidivism Outcomes Among People Convicted of Sexual Crime During Community Supervision

There are clinical practice and operational reasons why it may be appropriate to primarily focus on general risk factors when supervising people convicted of sexual crime in the community. General risk domains may be particularly relevant when supervision officers engage in frequent reassessment of acute dynamic risk factors. We tested the ability of a case management tool, the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-entry, to discriminate community based, short-term general (all outcome) recidivism versus nonrecidivism among people convicted of sexual crime (n = 562). We tested the predictive discrimination validity of each DRAOR item and then subscale scores in univariate and multivariate models (also controlling for general static risk). DRAOR scores were associated with general recidivism outcomes and effect sizes were generally similar or stronger compared to models with people convicted of nonsexual crime (n = 2854). DRAOR Acute scores were consistently and incrementally related to general recidivism outcomes beyond other scores. In practice, case managers should remain aware that people convicted of sexual crime are at risk for nonsexual recidivism outcomes and assess problematic functioning broadly alongside problems in sexual domains. Clinically, interconnection among domains potentially provides multiple avenues for effective intervention.

Attending to the Positive: A Retrospective Validation of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors-Sexual Offence Version

Sexual recidivism risk assessment tools focus almost exclusively on risk factors associated with increased rates of recidivism and do not attend to protective factors that might mitigate reoffense risk. The present study investigated the predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors - Sexual Offence version (SAPROF-SO), developed to assess hypothesised protective factors against sexual recidivism in adult males. The SAPROF-SO pilot version contains 24 items across two domains: Personal and Professionally Provided Support. SAPROF-SO scores were rated retrospectively from a review of archived case files of 210 men with convictions for child sexual offenses, using the SAPROF-SO pilot manual and a supplementary retrospective scoring guide developed for the current study. SAPROF-SO Total and Personal domain scores were significantly predictive of sexual recidivism after an average follow-up period of 12.24 years (AUC = .81), and to a lesser extent, violent and general recidivism. SAPROF-SO Total and Personal scores additionally provided significant incremental validity over Static-99R scores in the prediction of sexual recidivism. Results support the predictive validity of protective factors for reduced sexual recidivism and invite future research examining how to integrate the SAPROF-SO alongside contemporary sexual recidivism risk assessment tools.

Do Sanctions Affect Undetected Sexual Offending?

Undetected sexual offending creates challenges for risk assessment since estimated sexual recidivism rates are based on documented charges or convictions. Courts and other stakeholders may be primarily interested in the true risk for sexual reoffense and not simply risk for detected sexual offenses. Attempts to study and quantify the rate of undetected sexual offending have resulted in a wide variety of estimates. In this study, we explore whether sanctions imposed for detected sexual offenses increase the detection rate of subsequent offenses, and thereby suppress undetected sexual offending in an exceptionally high-risk sample who were ultimately committed as Sexually Violent Persons. Results indicate the detection rate of sexual offenses increased following an initial sanction, subsequently decreasing the proportion of undetected to detected offending. This effect only occurred after the first sanction. Overall, the sample had a high detection rate and spent little time in the community before subsequent arrests. These results differ from other reports that high rates of sexual offenses go undetected.

Improving Our Risk Communication: Standardized Risk Levels for Brief Assessment of Recidivism Risk-2002R

A Five-Level Risk and Needs system has been proposed as a common language for standardizing the meaning of risk levels across risk/need tools used in corrections. Study 1 examined whether the Five-Levels could be applied to BARR-2002R (N = 2,390), an actuarial tool for general recidivism. Study 2 examined the construct validity of BARR-2002R risk levels in two samples of individuals with a history of sexual offending (N = 1,081). Study 1 found reasonable correspondence between BARR-2002R scores and four of the five standardized risk levels (no Level V). Study 2 found that the profiles of individuals in Levels II, III, and IV were mostly consistent with expectations; however, individuals in the lowest risk level (Level I) had more criminogenic needs than expected based on the original descriptions of the Five-Levels. The Five-Level system was mostly successful when applied to BARR-2002R. Revisions to this system, or the inclusion of putatively dynamic risk factors and protective factors, may be required to improve alignment with the information provided by certain risk tools.

Estimating the probability of sexual recidivism among men charged or convicted of sexual offences: Evidence-based guidance for applied evaluators

Risk assessment is routinely applied in forensic decision-making. Although relative risk information from risk scales is robust across diverse samples and settings, estimates of the absolute probability of sexual recidivism are not. Nonetheless, absolute recidivism estimates are still necessary in some evaluations. This paper summarizes research and offers guidance on evidence-based practices for assessing the probability of recidivism, organized largely around questions commonly asked in court. Overall, estimating the probability of sexual recidivism is difficult and should be undertaken with humility and circumspection. That being said, research favours empirical-actuarial risk tools for this task, more structured scales, and the use of multiple scales. Professional overrides of risk scale results should not be used under any circumstances. Paradoxically, however, professional judgement is still required in some circumstances. Risk scales do not consider all relevant risk factors, but the added value of external risk factors reaches a point of diminishing returns and may or may not be incremental (or worse, can degrade accuracy). There are reasons actuarial risk scales may both underestimate recidivism (e.g., undetected offending, short follow-ups) and overestimate recidivism (e.g., inclusion of sex offences not of interest in some referral questions, data on declining crime and recidivism rates, newer studies demonstrating overestimation of recidivism). Given all these considerations and the need for humility, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, I would not deviate too far from empirical estimates.