Risk Assessment in the SVP Context
-
Upload
winifred-whitley -
Category
Documents
-
view
13 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Risk Assessment in the SVP Context
![Page 1: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Risk Assessment in the SVP Context
Natalie Novick Brown, PhD, SOTP
12535 15th St. NE, Suite 201
Seattle, Washington 98121
425-275-1238
![Page 2: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Ethical responsibility of evaluators:
To be objective (i.e., not influenced by “yuck” factor)
To form opinions that are consistent with the science
To communicate those opinions clearly and understandably
To inform the jury about weaknesses in opinion or the science
![Page 3: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Forensic responsibility of evaluators:
1) diagnose
2) risk assessment
3) opinion regarding SVP criteria
![Page 4: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Diagnosis
Must be based on specific DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria and include more than just the offense behavior itself (which every sex offender has)
Symptoms must be current or at least recent
![Page 5: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Beyond the diagnosis:
There must be evidence of recent/current problems in sexual self-control beyond the date of the last sex offense (= ongoing symptoms) that predisposes the respondent to engage in sexual violence
There also must be evidence that the diagnosis causes the impairment in sexual self-control
![Page 6: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Risk assessment = determining if the offender currently has current traits that are scientifically linked to re-offending
1) Static risk traits = unchanging factors evident at the time of the index offense
2) Dynamic risk traits = factors that change with time
3) Maturational traits = factors that change with age
… predictably and without fail… cannot be reversed
![Page 7: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Risk assessment: 2 methods
1)Actuarials (e.g., Static-99): combine a few risk factors that correlate with increased risk of recidivism – ignores dynamic and maturational factors
2)Base rates: prevalence of sexual recidivism within a specific population for a given period of time
![Page 8: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Which to use?
Actuarials are only appropriate when the base rate is relatively high (i.e., 25-30% or more at a minimum), and the Respondent matches the actuarial development sample in key traits
Otherwise, base rates are the most accurate guideline for predicting re-offense because they take into account maturational factors
![Page 9: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
For an actuarial to be accurate, Respondent must “match”
actuarial sample in key traits:
In terms of offense characteristics– Rape vs. child molestation– Geographic location / jurisdictional sanctions– Time period
In terms of offender characteristics– Age– Ethnicity?
![Page 10: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Static-99 (and RRASOR) problems:
Normed on British and Canadian populations with very high risk offenders (i.e., high base rates), unlike U.S. prison populations
Sampling times are out-dated and do not reflect U.S. reality
Average offender age = 34.5 Not designed for SVP context
![Page 11: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
PROBLEM #2: Actuarials over-predict recidivism because they were developed prior
to recent restrictions in U.S. law
1990: First civil commitment law in WA State (now in 18 states)
1994: Wetterling Act requires sex offender registration
1996: Megan’s Law requires community notification
1996: Amber Alert involves emergency broadcasts re missing children
![Page 12: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
FBI Data on Violent Crime in the United States
![Page 13: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Jones & Finkelhor, 2001
![Page 14: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Finkelhor & Jones, 2004
![Page 15: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Comparison of Rape Offense Rates in Canada / U.S. 1998/99: Canada’s rates are 2.7 times
higher than U.S. rates
Rate per 100,000 residents1998 1999
Canada 84.61 78.23
U.S. 33.87 32.05
** 7th United Nations Survey of Crime Trends
![Page 16: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
PROBLEM #3: Actuarials over-predict if age exceeds 40
Hanson (2005) re Static-99:
“…offenders over age 41 started to show lower age related recidivism risk than 18 year olds,” and the “rates declined gradually thereafter with further increases in age.”
“Average recidivism rates steadily declined from 14.8% in offenders less than 40 to 8.8% for offenders in their 40s, 7.5% for offenders in their 50s, and 2.0% for offenders greater than 60.”
“When controlling for Static-99 scores, the influence of age was curvilinear between the ages of 18 and 40, with 30 years being the age at greatest risk.”
![Page 17: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Age-related Reduction in Male Sex Drive
Biological:
--- testosterone peaks in late teens and steadily declines thereafter
Behavioral:
--- reduction in sexual arousal / interest / fantasy
--- lower frequency in erections / orgasm / intercourse / masturbation
![Page 19: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Strength of Sexual Arousal As a Function of Age (PPG)
Blanchard, R. & Barbaree, H. (2005)
13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79
Age at Testing
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
Mean of Three Largest Responses (cc)
All Patients
Observed
Predicted
![Page 20: Risk Assessment in the SVP Context](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022070401/568136dc550346895d9e7682/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Barbaree (2006): Recidivism as a function of age-at- release from custody corrected to 5 years time-at-risk (from Hanson, 2002; 2006; Thornton, 2006; Barbaree et al., 2003; Fazel et
al., 2006) (Total N=8,879)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 20 40 60 80
Hanson (2002) (.96)(N=4,673)Thornton (2006) (.86)(N=752)Barbaree et al (2003)(.99) (N=468)Hanson (in press) (.98)(N=3,452)Fazel et al (2006) (.99)(N=1,303)
Recidivism
Age-at-release from custody