/ David Prescott, L.I.C.S.W.
Forum Editor
by Drs. Andrew Harris and Karl Hanson
Department of the Solicitor General Canada
Good community supervision of sexual offenders is an important protection against sexual offender recidivism. Supervision can only reduce recidivism risk, however, when it monitors and addresses factors related to recidivism. This Forum article will provide an overview of an international project to standardize and improve the community supervision of sexual offenders.
Risk Assessment
The foundation of actuarial risk assessment methodology involves the use of STATIC historical risk factors to estimate long-term recidivism potential and, today, a number of acceptable risk assessment instruments using STATIC predictors are available. These STATIC instruments produce reasonable long-term recidivism estimates but, due to their STATIC nature, they are not sensitive to changes in risk levels over time, nor can they guide when to intervene. To measure change, evaluators require knowledge of dynamic (changeable) risk factors. There are two types of dynamic factors: 1) STABLE Dynamic Factors, which are potentially changeable but endure for months or years (e.g., poor cognitive problem solving skills, intimacy deficits), and 2) ACUTE Dynamic Factors, which can change over a period of days or hours and signal the timing of new offences (e.g., drunkenness, sexual pre-occupations).
The Hanson and Bussière Meta-analysis (1998) summarized our knowledge of those risk factors most closely related to sexual recidivism. From this starting point, we began a retrospective file-review and interview study, the Dynamic Predictors Project, in 1997. Here, we completed extensive file reviews on 208 sexual recidivists and 201 offenders who had not recidivated with another sexual offence while on community supervision. In addition, we interviewed the officers who were supervising these offenders to determine what risk factors they had observed changing just before their sexual offender re-offended. This study produced the SONAR assessment (Hanson & Harris, 2001) that includes five STABLE dynamic items and four ACUTE dynamic items. This study was, however, retrospective, prompting the need for a truly prospective study.
The present study, the Dynamic Supervision Project, involves the repeated assessment of over a thousand sexual offenders on community supervision who have a sexual offence involving a child or non-consenting adult. A large number of offenders is required as new sexual offences are relatively rare (approximately 10% after 2 years; Hanson & Thornton, 2000). Presently there are 14 participating jurisdictions including nine Canadian provinces, three Canadian territories, and the States of Alaska and Iowa.
The Process
In each participating jurisdiction, probation and parole officers attend a two-day training on the STATIC, STABLE, and ACUTE assessment of sexual offenders. Standardized modules and slide presentations are used to ensure uniformity and consistency of training across jurisdictions. Upon completion of this training, officers are asked to enter each subsequent sex offender assigned to their caseload into the project. Consequently, the distribution of types of sexual offenders (e.g., rapist, child molesters, exhibitionists) should approximate the natural distribution in the respective settings.
In the first meeting or two with the offender, the officer completes the STATIC-99 assessment (Hanson & Thornton, 1999). In the following two or three meetings, the officer completes the STABLE dynamic assessment. This guided interview process takes about an hour for an experienced officer and allows the officer to assess six basic areas of STABLE risk in the offender: Intimacy Deficits, Social Influences, General Self Regulation, Co-operation with Supervision, Attitudes that Support Sexual Offending, and Problems with Sexual Self-regulation. The STABLE assessment is re-administered every six months throughout the supervision period.
At each subsequent supervisory meeting the officer assesses seven areas of ACUTE dynamic risk: Access to Victims, Emotional Collapse, Collapse of Social Supports, Hostility, Substance Abuse, Sexual Preoccupations, and Rejection of Supervision. These items take 5 - 10 minutes to complete (perhaps longer if the offender is presenting serious problems). This project uses "faxable" paper forms to collect data and ACUTE data may also be submitted through an Internet portal employing "point and shoot" technology. These methods reduce data entry errors and result in reduced personnel costs. To maintain confidentiality, a system of unique identifiers (known only to the principle investigators) is used to identify offenders and officers.
Data; To date
Presently we have 500 STATIC assessments entered into the computer with an average STATIC-99 risk score of 2.91 (SD 1.92). The STATIC-99 risk profile for the whole sample can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1
This analysis shows approximately 26% of offenders scoring in the Low STATIC risk category (9% projected recidivism over 10 years), 42 % of offenders scoring in the Low-moderate STATIC risk category (13.5% projected recidivism over 10 years), 22% of offenders scoring in the Moderate-high STATIC risk category (34.5% projected recidivism over 10 years) and, 10% of offenders scoring in the High STATIC risk category (45% projected recidivism over 10 years).
The scores of the 400 STABLE assessments in the computer so far appear to form a normal curve with about 39% of offenders falling into the Low STABLE risk category, about 49% of offenders falling into the Moderate STABLE risk category and, about 12% of offenders falling into the High STABLE risk category. At this time, STABLE risk profiles are not associated with specific recidivism percentages.
Figure 2
The STABLE analysis does, however, allow us to determine the most likely treatment objectives for the whole sample and for each jurisdiction. The three STABLE dynamic risk factors presenting the most difficulties for the offenders presently registered on the project are the following: Lovers and Intimate Partners, Poor Cognitive Problem Solving Skills, and General Social Rejection/Loneliness. These factors are the most important treatment targets for this group of offenders. Both STATIC and STABLE risk levels are reported to each participating jurisdiction every 6 months and provide the jurisdiction with the ability to aim its treatment and supervision resources where they will do the most good - at the highest risk offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2003).
Outcome criteria are the following: a) a new sexual offence, b) a new violent offence, c) any new offence, d) a sex-related breach of supervision (e.g., a child molester in a playground), and e) any breach of supervision. Information concerning new offences and breaches of conditions are generally reported by the supervising officers to the project office. To date, we have identified 10 sexual recidivists, eight non-sexual violent recidivists, six non-violent "other" recidivists, four sex-related breaches of supervision and, 24 offenders with non-sexual breaches of supervision. At project completion we will also search centralized criminal history records maintained by police and the courts. Analyses will compare the recidivists and non-recidivists on all STATIC, STABLE, and ACUTE risk factors assessed in this study. Once an efficient set of predictor variables has been identified, tables will be created that provide recidivism probabilities based on variable combinations of STATIC, STABLE and ACUTE factors. Such tables could help officers prioritize their cases and determine when interventions are most needed.
Our methodology includes two inherent problems. The first is that the low base-rate of sexual re-offending means that large numbers of offenders must be followed over extended follow-up periods. Secondly, we hope that there is an experimenter effect, such that officers using this assessment protocol should have improved ability to detect and respond to risky situations. By improving community supervision, the offenders in the project should recidivate at a lower rate than those being supervised using less structured procedures.
By Keith Kaufman, Ph.D.
ATSA President
Dear ATSA Colleagues:
Welcome to Spring! I hope that this Forum finds you beginning to enjoy the sunshine, flowers, and rich foliage that accompany longer days and warmer weather. However, my exuberance is only partially due to the weather. The ATSA Board has been busy and I'm excited about our progress. The ATSA Adult Offender Treatment Task Force is now a reality. They will be holding their first teleconference in the next couple of weeks and I expect great things from this exceptional group of professionals. This diverse group of experts are on a relatively short time schedule with a goal of providing us a report of their findings and recommendations by the 1st of next year. Dr. D. Richard Laws was kind enough to agree to Chair this task force whose members include: Drs. Jim Breiling, Pamela Yates, David Kolko, Jill Levenson, Janice Marques, Bob McGrath, Marnie Rice, and David Thornton. Carmen Gress, an ATSA student member, will be the Task Force's support person. I have provided a copy of the Task Force's charge below.
We have also made considerable progress developing the parameters for a Prevention Task Force that will be structured in a similar fashion. I hope to be able to share details with you in the next few weeks. Finally, I am pleased to announce that through a very generous donation from the Falconer Foundation, ATSA will also be able to create an Adolescent/Young Offender Task Force. The Falconer Foundation has been a wonderful collaborator over the past few years, first providing support for our student research grants and now encouraging our efforts to identify directions for research and clinical practice. We are indebted to them for their commitment to the field.
As always, I appreciate your untiring efforts to make our communities safer. Keep up the great work!
My Best,
Keith L. Kaufman, Ph.D.
ATSA President
ATSA Adult Sexual Offender Treatment Task Force Charge
Questions regarding the efficacy of sex offender treatment reflect an ongoing concern expressed by the public, legislators, allied professionals, as well as researchers and providers within our own field. Most often, questions are focused on the availability, quality, and findings of outcome studies intended to assess the overall efficacy of sexual offender treatment. Little attention, however, has been directed towards a comprehensive examination of treatment itself. It seems clear that the field would benefit from an analysis of key factors that may be associated with more effective treatment in general and better outcomes for specific groups of sexual offenders in particular. The ATSA Sexual Offender Treatment Task Force will work to advance the field by clarifying areas critical to enhancing adult sexual offender treatment efficacy.
Areas of Emphasis: The Task Force's efforts will focus on three particular domains related to adult sexual offender treatment. These areas have been identified by the ATSA Board as a critical starting point for identifying directions to enhance the quality of treatment in the field. These areas include:
(1) Assessment directed treatment The extent to and manner in which assessment findings should direct intervention efforts in the treatment of adult sexual offenders.
(2) Treatment component efficacy The efficacy of commonly used adult sexual offender treatment components, offender types (e.g., by age, type of offense, victim personality factors) that benefit most from particular components, and combinations of components that offer maximal benefit.
(3) Group vs. individual treatment The efficacy of group as opposed to individual treatment, when each approach is indicated, and what type of offender benefits most from each approach.
Products: The Task Force will be charged with producing a report intended to guide adult sexual offender treatment in the field. This document will define and clarifying critical factors within each of the three areas of emphasis. It will integrate a comprehensive review of primarily the sexual offender literature, but will draw from other related areas of knowledge as appropriate. The report will identify current practices, clinical barriers and limitations, as well as measurement and methodological issues in research. Recommendations will be offered regarding clinical practice, research directions, ATSA grant funding priorities, and areas for exploration by future working groups.
Structure: The Task Force will be composed primarily of ATSA members with clinical and research expertise related to the assessment and treatment of adult sexual offenders. One or two ATSA board members will serve on the Task Force as full members in a liaison capacity. A paid graduate student will be utilized to facilitate the completion of Task Force business (e.g., conduct literature review, enter and summarize member practices survey results). This time limited Task Force will submit their final report no later than December 15, 2003.
Audience: The Task Force's efforts should be directed toward the production of a report appropriate for a professional audience in the field of sexual offender assessment, treatment, and research. It is likely, however, that Task Force findings will be summarized, at a later date, for use with a variety of other audiences (e.g., policy makers, professionals in other fields, the public).
ATSA Financial Report
On behalf of the ATSA Board and the Finance Committee (Jim Haaven, Paul Stern), I am pleased to present financial data for 2002. Table 1 summarizes our financial position at December 31, 2002; all data are provided by our accountant and are based on an audit of our financial operation. Information for fiscal year 2001 is included for comparison purposes
TABLE 1: STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION
December 31, 2002 and 2001
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents / $ / 132,814 / $ / 141,340
Certificates of Deposit / 198,000 / 99,000
Prepaid conference and other expenses / 7,267 / 10,068
Total current assets / 338,081 / 250,408
Property and equipment, at cost
Office equipment / 16,249 / 15,148
Less: accumulated depreciation / 13,576 / 10,979
Net property and equipment / 2,673 / 4,169
$ / 340,754 / $ / 254,577
LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued expenses / $ / 29,168 / $ / 14,275
Accrued vacation / 23,565 / 16,698
Awards & grants payable / 30,000 / 20,000
Membership dues collected in advance / 8,731 / 1,995
Total current liabilities / 91,464 / 52,968
Net Assets:
Unrestricted net assets / 249,290 / 201,609
$ / 340,754 / $ / 254,577
You will note that our unrestricted net assets increased by almost $48,000 during 2002. As Table 2 summarizes, increased revenue from membership dues was offset by reduced revenue from our annual conference, the latter due to smaller than anticipated attendance. However, thanks to the work of Connie Isaac and her staff, conference expenses were reduced by $78,000 compared with 2001.
You will note that our unrestricted net assets increased by almost $48,000 during 2002. As Table 2 summarizes, increased revenue from membership dues was offset by reduced revenue from our annual conference, the latter due to smaller than anticipated attendance. However, thanks to the work of Connie Isaac and her staff, conference expenses were reduced by $78,000 compared with 2001.
TABLE 2: STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
For the Years Ended December 31, 2002 and 2001
Revenues and Support
Conference fees / $ / 520,613 / $ / 570,951
Journal income / 8,859 / 8,796
Application fees / 9,305 / 7,560
Audio tapes / - / 510
Logo items / - / 1,507
Investment income / 5,668 / 12,138
Standards / 6,570 / 3,356
Mailing list / 6,145 / 5,315
Membership dues / 282,114 / 237,745
Grant (for research) / 12,000 / -
Miscellaneous / 7,186 / 6,850
Total revenues and support / 858,460 / 854,728
Expenses
Program services / 281,354 / 314,217
Conference expenses / 380,097 / 458,844
Management and general / 149,328 / 144,144
Total expenses / 810,779 / 917,205
Change in Net Assets / 47,681 / (62,477)
Unrestricted Net Assets
Balance, beginning of period / 201,609 / 264,086
Balance, end of period / $ / 249,290 / $ / 201,609
Because of the financial uncertainty caused by a slowing economy, the Board has focused increasingly on cutting costs while continuing to increase services to our membership. For example, our investment in electronic and web technology has allowed us to offer four issues of the Forum each year (instead of the previous three) while saving almost $8,000 in printing and mailing costs. On-line conference abstract submissions and registration, and membership renewals are proving less costly while saving countless staff hours. By calling on the talents of our many members, Board committees have increased their productivity (e.g., increased conference training, development of a strategic plan, production of written training and educational materials) while cutting expenses by almost $25,000. The Board will continue to "do more with less" to earn the confidence of our members.
Despite our financial recovery in 2002, we remain concerned about the future impact of the economy, social uncertainty and reluctance by many people to travel. We believe that we must maintain a sizable reserve so that we could continue to operate even if faced with a year of disastrous conference attendance. To that end, the 2003 budget, published earlier on the ATSA web site, cut a further $39,000 in expenses while projecting a balanced budget. The key areas that influence our financial performance are membership and the conference. Membership dues account for approximately 30 percent of total revenue, and our renewal rate for 2003 encourages optimism. Conference revenue accounts for approximately 65 percent of total revenue. While it is much too early to anticipate conference attendance, we remain optimistic that the excellent program we will be offering and the outstanding facilities in St Louis will encourage a large registration.
Submitted by:
Arthur Gordon PhD
ATSA Treasurer