Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Abusers

1
Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Abusers

• Robin J. Wilson, PhD, ABPP
• Clinical Director
• The GEO Group / Florida Civil Commitment Center
• dr.wilsonrj_at_verizon.net

2
Part 1 Defining the ProblemAssessmentDynamic
SupervisionSTATIC
3
Defining the Problem

4
Risk Management Philosophy

• Sex offending results from a complex interaction
  of offender specific and environmental factors
  which require competent assessment and,
  ultimately, long-term treatment and follow-up.

5
Stakeholders

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

6
Sexual Offending

• The past 15-20 years has been witness to a flurry
  of research into the nature and consequences of
  sexually offensive behavior.
• Isnt 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 victimsthousands and thousands
  of years.
• Why has the attention shifted only recently?

7
Victims

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

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
Why Assess Risk?

• Promoting public safety
• Routine interventions
• Targeting scarce resources
• Officer time
• Treatment
• Exceptional measures

13
Risk Assessment Tools

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

14
Risk Assessment Tools

• Sexual recidivism
• Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG)
• Sexual Violence Risk-20 (SVR-20)
• MnSOST-R
• Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offender Recidivism
  (RRASOR)
• STATIC-99
• STABLE-2007 / ACUTE-2007

15
Strengths

• Valid risk factors
• Explicit rules for combining factors
• Explicit probability estimates
• Robust across settings samples
• Easily scored

16
Weaknesses

• Only moderate predictive accuracy
• We always want to do better!
• Tend to neglect important factors
• Sexual Deviance (Phallometrics)
• Dynamic Factors

17
Dynamic Supervision of Sexual Offenders
18
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

19
Three Generations of Risk Assessment Bonta (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, ROCs upper
  60s to lower 70s
• Third Generation Dynamic Assessment
• Based on factors empirically related to
  recidivism
• Standardized assessment, Measures change
• Actuarial measure with dynamic factors

20
Prediction of sexual recidivism
21
General Recommendations for Risk Assessment

• Use an explicit list of empirically validated
  risk factors determined in advance
• Use an empirically validated method of combining
  the risk factors into an overall evaluation
• Estimate the risk for an individual offender
  based on the group he or she most closely
  resembles

22
General Recommendations for Risk Assessment

• Build-in methods for quality control
• At least one year is needed before re-evaluating
  stable factors (pending deliberate interventions)
• Use offence history, enduring psychological
  characteristics, and current behaviour to
  evaluate risk

23
STATIC
24
Static Risk Factors

• Dont change (on the whole)
• Allow you to gauge the long-term level of risk
  for sexual recidivism
• Allows you to determine an appropriate level of
  supervision and treatment for the individual
  (Andrews Bonta, 2006)

25
JÄSENTYNYT RISKIARVIO 99.02JRA/STAATTINEN 99
26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
New Norms 10-year SexualSurvival Analysis,
initial n 6,406
29
New Norms 10 year Violent Survival Analysis,
initial n 6,096
30
10 Year Sexual Recidivism Rates (from logistic
regression estimates)
31
Presenting STATIC-99 Scores

• STATIC-99 as part of a complete assessment
• Consideration of factors external to STATIC-99
• Advanced age/ill health
• Criminogenic needs/stable dynamic risk factors
• Completion of credible treatment program
• Stated intentions to reoffend

32
Years offence-free in the community

• If offenders are able to remain in the community
  two to ten years without another serious offence,
  their chances of sexual recidivism decrease
  substantially
• Offence free
• no new sexual or non-sexual violent offences
• no offences that result in long periods of
  incarceration

33
Part 2STABLE
34
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, but needed validation

35
SONAR Hanson Harris

• ACUTE
• Substance Abuse
• Negative Mood
• Anger/Hostility
• Victim Access

• STABLE
• Intimacy Deficits
• Social Influences
• Attitudes
• Sexual Self-Regulation
• General Self-Regulation

36
STABLE 20075 sections for a total of 13 Items

• Significant Social Influences
• Intimacy Deficits
• General Self-regulation
• Sexual Self-regulation
• Co-operation with Supervision
• Refer to tally sheet provided.

37
STABLE - 2007 Scoring

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

38
Will the change endure?

• Exceptional circumstances?
• Major life change?
• Opportunity?
• External pressure?
• Quality of evidence
• New base line?

39
Return to Base Line
40
New Base Line
41
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?
• The magic question If you had a magic wand and
  could zap that person out of the offenders
  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

42
Intimacy Deficits

• Capacity for relationship stability
• Emotional identification with children
• Hostility toward women
• Social rejection/loneliness
• Lack of concern for others

43
Capacity for Relationship Stability

• A two-part question
• A Part Has this offender ever had a two-year
  intimate (sexual live-in) relationship with
  an appropriate adult partner (STATIC-99, Q2)
• 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.

44
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?
• Sees children as peers or equals
• Relates more easily to children than to adults
• Not parent-child relationship
• Consider not only attitudes and values, but also
  leisure and work activities suggestive of a
  child-oriented lifestyle
• Involved in childrens activities
• Boy-victim child molesters tend to be childlike
  themselves
• Offender ascribes adult qualities to children
  (Incest)

45
Scoring Example 1 - John

• Convicted of Demand Sexual Touch Child, 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 childrens
  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 (he is not physically
  attractive).

46
Scoring Example 2 - Fred

• Fred was a school principle and was caught
  surreptitiously masturbating in the school
  library. has been convicted of exhibitionism. He
  is married and has two children, ages 8 and 10.
  His relationship with his wife is distant, and he
  has no close friends outside his family. Fred
  appears to live through his children. All of his
  free time is spent supporting his sons hockey
  and his daughters competitive country dancing.
  Most of his conversation centres on the special
  talents of his children. His emotional highs and
  lows follow their successes or failures.

47
Hostility Toward Women

• A prejudice, making women into a different class
  unworthy of trust or respect
• Unable to form warm, constructive relationships
  with women
• Believes or endorses 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

48
Scoring Example 3 - Richard

• Richard has been convicted of Forcible
  Confinement. He is 28 years old and works on and
  off as a night-club bouncer. He likes to party,
  dance, drink, and socialise with his male friends
  from high school. He is out on a date almost
  every week, although rarely does he see the same
  women for more than a month. He divides women
  into those that are fun and those that are
  boring. Fun women drink, flirt and are open to
  casual sex. Boring women either dont pay
  attention to him, or want a long-term commitment.
  He does not get into conflicts with women. When
  problems arise, he simply ignores them or ends
  the relationship.

49
Social Rejection/Loneliness

• Is the offender able to make friends and feel
  close to others (demonstrating 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

50
Lack of Concern for Others

• This item does not reflect solely their treatment
  of their victims
• 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 their in-group
• Possibly has friends, associates and
  acquaintances, but no stable, caring
  relationships
• Quite significant pathology must be present, this
  condition is fairly unusual

51
Scoring Example 5 - Jim

• Jim, age 33, works as a construction labourer.
  He says he has a few friends, but has not known
  any for more than 6 months. He was living with
  his mother, but she recently evicted him after
  she caught him pawning small household articles.
  He says it was all a big misunderstanding he was
  going to pay her back but now that she kicked
  him out he isnt going to bother. He has had a
  number of short-term sexual relationships,
  including living with a women for almost a year.
  Once she became pregnant, he left and he has had
  no further contact with her or the child.

52
Scoring Example 6 - Ian

• Ian lives with his brother. They work together
  and they often socialise with other men from the
  factory. Ian is generally well liked by his
  friends and family, but they describe him as
  having a mean streak. All of his intimate female
  partners have left following beatings. He says
  he is glad they are gone. On at least two
  occasions, he has been in bar fights in which
  strangers were left badly beaten. He shows no
  remorse for the victims of these or other crimes,
  and typically implies that the victims deserved
  what they got.

53
General Self-Regulation

• Impulsive Acts
• Poor Cognitive Problem Solving Skills
• Negative Emotionality/Hostility

54
Impulsive Acts

• Easily swayed by opportunistic circumstances
• Behavior 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

55
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

56
Poor Cognitive Problem Solving

• Difficulty accurately identifying and solving
  problems
• Proposes unrealistic solutions (or none at all)
• Unable to choose appropriately between competing
  possible options (Always takes the easiest or the
  one with the most immediate pay-off
• Lacks long-term plans
• Fails to recognize the consequences of their
  actions

57
Poor Cognitive Problem Solving

• Problem identification
• Generating alternatives
• Evaluating alternatives

58
Negative Emotionality/Hostility

• 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
  offenders 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, quickly over

59
Sexual Self-regulation

• Sex drive/Pre-occupations
• Sex as coping
• Deviant sexual interests

60
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

61
Sex Drive/Pre-occupations

• Masturbation most days (15 times a month)
• Regular use of prostitutes, strip bars, massage
  parlours, phone-sex and phone sex bills
• Sex-oriented internet use, such as sexually
  explicit sites, chat rooms - Large amounts of
  time surfing the web for pornography sites
• Pornography collection (videos, magazines) (or,
  parent/baby magazines)
• Cruising for impersonal sex
• A history of multiple sexual partners (e.g., 30
  or more)
• Excessive sexual content in typical conversations
• Pre-occupation with own/others sex crimes
• Self-report of difficulty controlling sexual
  impulses
• Any disturbing sexual thoughts

62
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, or frustration

63
Deviant Sexual Interests

• Sexual interest 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., phallometrics)

64
Deviant Sexual InterestsBehavioural History

• You must consider both frequency and the
  unusualness of the behavior
• Sex with pre-pub boy (X1) 1
• Masturbation in car
• caught once 1
  
• caught more than once 2

65
Deviant Sexual Interests(Please see Table page
35 Tab 08)
66
Deviant Sexual Interests

• Scoring Notes
• At the time of Static-99 construction, the age of
  consent in Canada for sexual activity was 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
  (sub-section two) they are simply victims. If
  the victims have a mature, developed or
  adult body shape they are not considered
  child victims.

67
Scoring Deviant Sexual Interests

• Of the four sections the highest score in any
  section is the score for the whole item

68
Deviant Sexual Interests

• Deviant Sexual Interests in Possible Remission
• An offender who has scored a 1 or 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

69
Scoring Example 7 - Bob

• Bob, now age 43, had 15-20 sex partners before
  marrying when he was age 24. Bob wanted her to
  do the things Susan he saw in porno videos, but
  she lost interest and left three years later. By
  that time, Bob was already involved with another
  women. He never remarried, but has almost
  continuously pursued casual encounters. He says
  that he likes the chase and that he can pull
  himself out of a funk by thinking about his past
  or future conquests. He describes his current
  offence of sex with a 15 year old neighbour as a
  novelty that he does not want to repeat. When in
  prison, he masturbates three times a week.

70
Scoring Example 8 - Mike

• Mike, age 22, has had 4 female and 3 male sexual
  partners. He considers himself bisexual. He
  masturbates 1-2 week, usually thinking about anal
  sex with consenting partners of vague (and
  changing) genders. His current offence involved
  tying up a female acquaintance, forcibly removing
  her clothes, sexually assaulting her for several
  hours, then falling asleep. In the morning he
  released her, drove her home and asked what she
  was doing next weekend. Once free, she went
  directly to the police. He denies any interest in
  sado-masochistic sex, claims it was all her idea
  and that it was the only time he tried it.

71
Scoring Example 9 - Norman

• Born in 1976, Norman was found guilty of sexual
  assault of a minor child (boy) in 1997 he
  served 30 months incarceration and was then
  released to a 10-year intensive supervision
  order. Phallometric testing done pre-trial
  indicated preference for pre-pubescent boys over
  adult males and females. During the course of
  treatment he admitted to sexual involvement with
  another male child (never charged) and stated
  that at the time of the crimes he had no idea why
  he was interested is sex with young boys. He now
  believes that this was part of his personal
  struggle with being homosexual. While in prison
  he met a male church volunteer. Upon release
  this quickly developed into a relationship and
  the men have been living together for five years
  now. Both indicate considerable commitment to
  and satisfaction with the relationship.
  Phallometric assessment done in 2008 showed
  significant arousal to adult males, no other
  categories were significant.

72
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?

73
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

74
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?

75
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)

76
Combining STATIC and STABLEEmpirical Rules
77
TreatmentWhat 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

78
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

79
STABLE-2007 adds predictive power
80
Part 3ACUTE Treatment Risk Management
81
Acute Risk Factors

• Short term risk
• Timing of reoffense
• These factors represent current expressions of
  problematic (risky) of risky behaviours
• Note Research data shows that an average rating
  over time (4 mos) performs better than any
  individual assessment
• Hence, do ACUTES often and regularly for best
  prediction

82
ACUTE PREDICTORS Two Factors

• Sex/Violence Score
• (Four Items)
• Victim Access
• Hostility
• Sexual pre-occupation
• Rejection of Supervision

• General Recidivism Score
• (All seven items)
• Victim Access
• Hostility
• Sexual pre-occupation
• Rejection of Supervision
• Emotional Collapse
• Collapse of Social Supports
• Substance Abuse
• predicts all types of relapse

83
Same Behavior Different Scoring

• In the community the same behaviour can result in
  scoring differences depending on the
  characteristics of the offender.
• Rapist riding a city bus to work with school
  children
• most likely a manageable risk
• Child Molester riding a city bus to work with
  school children
• may or may not be a manageable risk
• Frotteur riding a city bus to work with school
  children
• most likely an unassumable risk
• Rapist working the late shift at a courier
  company where they hire an evening shift of
  university students
• possibly a manageable risk, if he is part of the
  crew
• most likely an unassumable risk if hes made the
  shift chief

84
Scoring Chronic Conditions

• Is it serious enough to be a supervision target?
• To score a 2 there has to be some evidence of a
  problem and this problem has to be a supervision
  target
• If you have suspicion of a problem you can score
  a 1 as a place-holder for one supervision.
• You can score 1 repeatedly if there is some
  documented evidence that the problem remains and
  it is a topic of supervision.

85
ACUTE PREDICTORS Two Factors
86
Acute Rating System

• 0 - No problem
• 1 - Maybe a problem, not sure
• 2 - Yes, a concern
• IN - Intervene now

87
Victim Access

• 0 - no problem
• 1 - incidental contact, not repeated/regular
  incidental contact that can not be avoided but no
  indications of victim approach
• 2 - repeated opportunity, hints of planning
  several different paths, he mostly/always chooses
  the most risky one
• IN - clear planning, grooming, stalking,
  hiding deliberate contact

88
Hostility

• 0 - no problems
• 1 - some resentment harsh words
• 2 - heated confrontations any physical
  aggression, veiled threats, angry
  rumination, something is bugging him and you
  are aware there is a problem
• IN - direct threats, open plans of retribution

89
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

90
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, missed 2 consecutive
  appointments, manipulative lying, treatment
  dropout
• IN - brings weapon, attends drunk, new offences,
  driving while suspended, he disappears

91
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,
• not caring what happens to them

92
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, initiates
  or re-joins a dysfunctional relationship
• 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.

93
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

94
Are Acute Factors Acute?

• Most recent acute ratings predicted recidivism
• Average of acute ratings predicted better than
  most recent acute rating
• Average of acute ratings over the 4th to 6th
  month prior predicted as well as average for
  first to 3rd month
• Average of last 6 months predicted slightly
  better than average of months 7-12

95
Relative Priority of ACUTE Ratings Implications
for Supervision

• Basically, as a heuristic, men who score
  Moderate on this three level assessment
  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.

96
Combining STATIC and STABLE - Empirical Rules
97
Combining STATIC/STABLE and ACUTE Factors
98
Dynamic Supervision ProjectSuggested Methods

• Static factors are typically assessed once at
  the beginning of the risk assessment process
• Stable factors can be assessed every six to nine
  months, with changes over a year likely being
  most useful
• Acute factors can be assessed at every
  supervision opportunity, but changes are most
  likely to be pertinent over three to four months

99
Treatment

100
Nothing Works?

• Martinson (1974)
• Large-scale study of correctional treatment
  outcomes
• Could find no clear evidence that efforts to
  rehabilitate offenders were working
• Led to considerable research into aspects of
  treatment/counseling/interventions that would
  lead to lower recidivism

101
Effective Programs

• Based on meta-analytic research, Don Andrews and
  his colleagues have suggested principles of
  effective correctional interventions.
• Known as RNR model

102
Effective Programs

• RISK principle
• effective programs match the level of treatment
  intensity to the level of risk posed by the
  offender
• high risk high intensity
• mismatching can result in increased risk

103
Effective Programs

• NEED principle
• effective programs target identified criminogenic
  needs
• sex offenders require sex offender specific
  treatment programming
• other programs may result in some ancillary gain,
  but risk for sexual recidivism likely will not be
  reduced

104
Effective Programs

• RESPONSIVITY principle
• effective programs are those which are responsive
  to offender characteristics
• cognitive abilities
• maturity
• motivation
• mode of intervention
• scheduling concerns

105
Is Treatment Effective?

• In the USA, costs of sexual assault are enormous.
  This situation is certainly paralleled in other
  western nations. The cost associated with each
  sexual offender has been estimated as being in
  excess of 1.5 million.
• Therefore, a reduction in recidivism of merely
  1, which may or may not be statistically
  significant, may be viewed as socially
  significant in terms of cost and harm reduction.

106
Nothing Works?

• One review of studies relating to the
  effectiveness of treatment found that far more
  studies reported positive results (treated group
  with significantly lower recidivist rates than
  untreated) than inconclusive results.
• Another more recent review found that 19 of the
  treated offenders re-offended during an average
  follow-up period of 6.85 years compared with 27
  of the untreated group.

107
California Sex Offender Treatment Evaluation
Project

• The results of the SOTEP study showed no
  differences in sexual reoffending between
  treatment participants, volunteer controls, and
  non-volunteer controls. Follow-up was just over
  eight years and rates of sexual reoffending were
  in the 20 range for all groups.

108
Effective Programs

• The consistency of the outcome studies
  accentuates the need to move beyond simple
  questions as to whether treatment works (Abracen
  Looman, 2004).
• There are a number of significant questions which
  have yet to be answered with reference to sex
  offender treatment.
• For example, do higher risk clients receive more
  treatment programs than lower risk clients?

109
Assessment of In-Treatment Change with Sexual
Offenders

• We need to ...
• Make sure that the treatment targets are actually
  related to recidivism
• Need to make sure that targets are actually being
  addressed

110
RiskManagement

111
Todays Situation

• Upon release, many sex offenders are subject to
  public notification, vilification and, sometimes,
  vigilantism.
• As a result, some are eventually driven out of
  one community into another and, often, go
  underground.
• This does not help.

112
Sexual Assault is a Community Issue

• The community lives in fear of sex offenders and
  responses to dealing with this fear are varied
  throughout history.
• At the end of the day, reduced recidivism is
  everyones businessoffender, victim, and
  community.

113
Stakeholders

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

114
Risk Management

• team work is critical
• effective risk management involves the
  collaboration of many different service providers
• offenders must be apprised of the limits of
  confidentiality
• varying the mode of contact allows for greater
  monitoring of activities and attitudes
• greater contact and monitoring increases the
  reliability of information leading to case
  management and treatment decisions and initiatives

115
Closing Thoughts

• Research has clearly shown that a collaborative
  approach which includes representation from all
  stakeholders can assist considerably in enhancing
  public safety and offender accountability.
  Working together, we can manage the risk.
• Teamwork is the key!!

116
Contact Information

• Robin J. Wilson, PhD, ABPP
• Clinical Director
• The GEO Group, Inc.
• Florida Civil Commitment Center
• 13619 SE Highway 70
• Arcadia, FL 34266
• 863 491 4805
• dr.wilsonrj_at_verizon.net