Rick Scott, Governor
Esther Jacobo, Interim Secretary
The following document presents preliminary data concerning recidivism rates of
sex offenders civilly committed or reviewed for civil commitment under chapter 394,
part V, Florida Statutes, and later released. The document also presents
conclusions and interpretations of the preliminary data and purports to apply those
conclusions and interpretations to risk assessments conducted by the Sexually
Violent Predator Program.
No part of this study has been published, submitted for publication, or in any way
peer reviewed by qualified clinicians or researchers as to its methodology,
conclusions, or interpretations. The conclusions and interpretations expressed in
the following document are solely those of Daniel Montaldi, Ph.D., and not the
Department of Children and Families, the Sexually Violent Predator Program, or any
other Department staff who may be identified with the research as a result of their
participation in compiling and processing data or collecting research literature as
part of their responsibilities under section 394.931, Florida Statutes.
The Department does not consider the statistical data or the conclusions and
interpretations presented in this document to provide a basis for guiding clinical
judgment in sex offender risk assessments, and expressly rejects any suggestion in
this document that this research be applied in such manner.
Mission: Protect the Vulnerable, Promote Strong and Economically Self- Sufficient Families,
and Advance Personal and Family Recovery and Resiliency.
Rick Scott, Governor
David Wilkins, Secretary
Sexually Violent Predator Program
Recidivism Study
Preliminary Results
Daniel F. Montaldi, Ph.D., Administrator
Sandi Lewis, Ph.D., Senior Psychologist
Janis Heffron, Ed.D., Senior Psychologist
Sexually Violent Predator Program
Florida Department of Children and Families
Mission: Protect the Vulnerable, Promote Strong and Economically Self- Sufficient Families,
and Advance Personal and Family Recovery and Resiliency.
Slides 3 – 61 relate to
legal/conceptual issues that give
background to research data and
explain how the SVP Program
interpreted the research and
became more selective in making
recommendation decisions over
the past year.
3
Involuntary Civil Commitment of Sexually
Violent Predator Act
Sexually Violent Predator (statutory
definition):
•
Convicted of at least one sexually
violent offense
•
Suffers from a mental abnormality or
personality disorder
•
The abnormality makes the person
likely to engage in sexual violence.
•
The person is likely if not confined.
4
Kansas v. Crane 2002
U.S. Supreme Court set out the following principles governing
sex offender specific civil commitment:
Applies to only a “narrow category” of dangerous criminal.
Dangerousness alone is not enough. Lots of criminals are
dangerously violent.
Involuntary hospitalization is only for a relatively small number of
persons who are “made” dangerous “beyond control” by virtue of
impaired capacity for volitional self-control (“serious difficulty
controlling behavior”).*
*The Court allows for the possibility of emotional or other impairments qualifying as “serious
difficulty” but does not state a definitive opinion on this. This is because the relevant
impairment in the cases of Hendricks and Crane was considered to be volitional.
5
Crane and Hendricks
• In Crane (2002) the U.S. Supreme Court
clarified issues discussed in Kansas v.
Hendricks (1997).
• The Florida statute (1998) was crafted after
Hendricks.
• But it is basically consistent with Crane, as
will be shown.
6
More Crane
SVP eligible persons don’t have to be as impaired as
ordinary commitment eligible patients; however, they
must possess less capacity for self-restraint than the
typical dangerous criminal.
It is not enough that someone is simply unwilling to
restrain himself, or is motivated to be violent (thoughts,
urges). Both are true of any dangerous recidivist.
Ordinary criminal volition and refusal to be deterred
(by threat of legal sanction) does not distinguish a
“narrow” category of dangerous criminal offender.
7
More Crane (2)
Lots of criminals are unlikely to be deterred. Only a
narrow category of impaired offender are lacking in
ability (vs. lacking in willingness) to respond to
deterrence incentives.
Legally, mental disorder is any mental condition that
does not fit the basic assumptions of deterrence logic.
Deterrence policy assumes people can, if they choose,
appreciate threat of sanction and use this as a reason
to resist urges to do what would break the law.
Thus, “mental abnormality” in an SVP context is not
about attraction to doing harmful acts and the
predictable tendency to do what one feels like doing.
8
More Crane (3)
• Mental abnormality is about inability to use
decision-making and “willpower” to resist
attractions and consistently conform one’s
behavior to law.
• In sum, mental abnormality is about not being
about to stop crime (relevant to a narrow group
of offenders).
• It is not about the attraction and tendency to do
crimes (common among offenders).
9
Crane (4)
• Taken in isolation, clinical diagnostic criteria for
paraphilia and Antisocial Personality Disorder relate
to attraction to a kind of criminal act and the
tendency to act accordingly.
• Clinical criteria for these disorders say nothing about
inability or limited ability to resist attraction and not
act accordingly (impaired control capacity).
• There are clinical parallels for this, however. Criteria
for OCD, Substance Dependence, and Pathological
Gambling are examples. Multiple criteria for these
disorders note symptoms related to impaired
capacity for resisting urges and stopping.
10
Compare to Florida statute
• Florida statute (394.912) is consistent with
Hendricks (1997) and (later) Crane (2002):
“Mental abnormality” means a mental condition
affecting a person’s emotional or volitional
capacity which predisposes the person to
commit sexually violent offenses (emphasis
added).
• A mental condition affecting capacity is one that
affects (adversely) a person’s power to control
emotions and willful acts (to avoid crime). It
does not simply influence emotions and choices
(i.e. motivate crime).
11
Florida Statute
• If the latter (feeling states, choices) were
emphasized then any recidivist or
dangerous person would have mental
abnormality automatically.
• This is because all dangerous recidivists
feel inclined toward violence. Otherwise
they would not repeat their crimes and
they would not be dangerous.
12
Florida Statute (2)
• A condition affecting capacity not only disposes the
commitment eligible offender to act when an
opportunity arises (true of a large number of
opportunistic typical sex offenders)…
• …it predisposes him ahead of time, such that he is
highly prone to look for opportunities.
• This is consistent with the emphasis lawmakers
place on sexual predation (legislative findings and
intent; 394.910).
• Such proneness distinguishes a “small but
extremely dangerous number” of predators from the
average sex offender (394.910).
13
Florida Statute (3)
• The connection between mental
abnormality and dangerousness is
therefore inherent or intrinsic.
• The latter is logically implicit in the
meaning of the former.
• This is seen in the definition of “likely” in
Florida statute (394.912):
14
Florida Statute (4)
• “Likely to engage in acts of sexual violence”
means the person’s propensity to commit acts of
sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a
menace to the health and safety of others.
• Any predisposition toward violence caused by
impaired capacity to contain urges (“serious
difficulty” – Crane) necessarily creates a highly
dangerous propensity to act on those urges (and
to search for victims to act against).
15
Florida Statute (5)
• As statutory constructs, whenever “mental
abnormality” is established, “likely” is
automatically established.
• This is because “likely” or “makes likely”
(to be more accurate) is a conceptual
feature of mental abnormality as a legal
construct.
16
Florida Statute (6)
• All of this is brought together in the
definition of a sexually violent predator:
• The SVP commitment eligible offender is
someone suffering from a mental
abnormality that makes the person likely to
engage in acts of sexual violence (if not
confined…).
17
Florida Statute (7)
• “Makes” is the key term. Mental
abnormality “makes” someone likely
(dangerous) by virtue of impairing his
ability not to be violent.
• By definition, mental abnormality is any
mental condition “making” unlawful
(harmful) behavior likely, i.e. making
someone dangerous “beyond control.”
18
Florida Statute (8)
• According to the Supreme Court, only
persons made likely to harm others may
be involuntarily hospitalized to protect the
public.
• Only they have the requisite “mental
abnormality.”
• This renders “mental abnormality” the
crucial element of SVP commitment
eligibility.
19
Florida Statute (9)
• In fact the definition of a sexually violent
predator is formal statement of the
importance of establishing the fact of mental
abnormality (with its relevant feature for
public safety – making sexual violence likely)
to legitimate state action.
• Florida’s definitions of “mental abnormality”
and “likely” seem consistent with Supreme
Court opinions.
20
Legislative Findings & Intent
• What kind of offender did Florida lawmakers have in
mind when they established the statute (394.910)?
• Commitment eligible offenders are described as:
• a “small…number”
• “extremely dangerous”
• “high” likelihood of sexual violence
• “repeat acts” are highly likely
• “predatory” and violent
21
Legislative Intent and SVP
Definition
How do legislative findings for purposes of
targeting a population with a law relate to the
definitions contained in that law?
One view is that the definition of a sexually violent
predator is a formal statement of criteria the
state must establish to take a kind of action
affecting a designated population.
Legislative findings is where we find description of
that population.
22
Legislative Intent (2)
• On this view statements made in legislative findings are
descriptive.
• In contrast, definitions are prescriptive (criterial). They
set standards.
• So one does not look to the definition of a sexually
violent predator (or the separate definitions of mental
abnormality or likely) for an empirical description of a
kind of sex offender.
• On this view statutory definitions are not literal
descriptions of clinical or statistical characteristics.
23
Legislative Intent (3)
• In other words, on this view, we don’t use
the definition of a sexually violent predator
as a literal guide for identifying offenders
who meet DSM criteria for paraphilia
(clinically descriptive) and fall into a high
risk actuarial category (statistically
descriptive of a sample of offenders
approximately similar to the offender).
24
Legislative Intent (3)
• Instead, the expert looks for someone who fits the
kind of sex offender lawmakers describe in their
findings. This is the kind of person they intend the
law to apply to.
• Clinical and statistical concepts can assist, but
they are not exhaustive.
• For example, there is no clinical test or diagnosis
for sexual predation (i.e. premeditated hunting for
victims vs. opportunistic/impulsive offending).
• There is no measure of “extreme”
dangerousness in an individual case.
25
Legislative Intent (4)
• Similarly, no statistical device exists for
assessing “high” likelihood of continued “repeat
acts” of sexual violence (in contrast to likelihood
being equated with the percentage of offenders
in a sample having at least one more sex
charge/conviction after release).
• This is especially true about assessing high
likelihood even if the person is placed on
supervised release (SVPs in Florida are likely if
not confined).
26
Legislative Intent (5)
• Finally, no test exists for what constitutes
offending of such severity that anyone likely to
continue such offending falls within a small but
extremely dangerous number of exceptional sex
offenders.
• “Sexually violent offense” is defined very broadly
in Florida.
• Any sexually motivated criminal offense can
potentially qualify, thus meeting the first element of
the SVP definition.
27
Legislative Intent (6)
• But this is to ensure that no offender is excluded
from at least initial consideration simply by virtue
of lacking a particular statutory criminal offense
designation.
• When discussed as a legislative finding,
however, “violent” and “violence” are descriptive.
• There is no clinical measure of degree of
violence in sexual crime.
• Integrating legislative description with statutory
definitions requires judgment.
28
The More Common View
• A different and more commonly accepted
view interprets the SVP definition itself as
a description.
• In this (customary or traditional) view,
legislative findings and purpose play no
role in interpreting definitions. Those
remarks only act as introduction to the
SVP law).
29
Common View
• The SVP definition gives the empirical features of
a person we can identify (observe) with clinical &
empirical methods. Legal context (findings/intent)
is not needed to do this.
• Some clinical judgment is needed but the
emphasis is on minimizing it. Determinations
should be (almost) objective. They should be
scientific.
• On this latter interpretation “mental abnormality”
and “likely” are viewed as straightforwardly
empirical despite the fact that statutory language
(“predisposition”; “propensity”; “menace”) have no
literal clinical or empirical (or statistical) parallel.
30
Common View (2)
• The customary approach requires a kind of
literalism in which the mental health professional
simply substitutes clinical / empirical / statistical
constructs for legal/normative concepts.
• Mental abnormality becomes DSM clinical
paraphilia and “likely” becomes a numerical
likelihood based on an actuarial reconviction
rate.
31
Common View (3)
• The challenge with this approach is how literalism
accounts for statutory language in the separate
definitions of mental abnormality and likely.
• Clinical criteria make no mention of capacity,
predisposition, propensity, or menace.
• And actuarial rates come from groups of offenders
with different diagnoses and offense types, with no
direct connection to any one offender’s control
capacity, predisposition, or propensity.
32
Customary SVP Practice
• During the years the offenders in the
OPPAGA and SVPP study were
recommended for commitment the
common view was basically accepted.
• Understandably the Static-99 (for most
years, then the 99R) would have carried
great weight in “likely” determinations.
33
Customary Practice (2)
• It was also customary to interpret clinical criteria
as sufficient conditions. If criteria were satisfied,
even if minimally, a diagnosis was (often)
assigned.
• Paraphilia diagnoses could have been given
from as few as two sex offenses 6 months apart.
• These would usually be similar offenses, but if
dissimilar, Paraphilia NOS was available.
34
Customary Practice (3)
• Given that a high score on the Static will
usually require at least two sex offenses,
most offenders earning a high score would
have automatically earned a paraphilia
diagnosis (using mostly the same
information).
• Ditto for Antisocial Personality Disorder,
which often functioned as simply a label for
an extensive criminal record.
35
Customary Practice (4)
• This means that the actuarial score and
associated reconviction rate would have carried
most if not quite all the weight in making an SVP
determination.
• The OPPAGA and SVPP studies are therefore
(roughly) studies of how well the Static line of
instruments isolates a group of offenders who
would show a high sexual recidivism rate if
released.
36
Risk
• Actuarial assessment typically involves
treating recidivism rates for groups of
released offenders as risk indicators
(absolute risk).
• The idea is that a rate is an absolute
probability or likelihood.
• So the rate at which offenders become
recidivists in observed samples indicates the
probability of recidivism for offenders who are
similar to those in the samples.
37
Risk (2)
• The relevant rate is the percentage of
released offenders in a group who are
observed to have at least one more sex
offense within some follow-up period.
• More precisely, the relevant rate is a recidivist
(not recidivism) rate, or rate at which
offenders are observed to be post-release
recidivists (with at least one offense).
38
Risk (3)
• This shouldn’t be confused with how much sexual
crime occurs overall.
• It is true that many crimes occur that are not
detected. But many are committed by first time
offenders (yet to be detected).
• The issue for recidivism research is detecting the
people who are already known to have offended in
the past (known sex offenders) who go on to
reoffend at least once more after release (making
them post-release reoffenders).
• If a reoffender is detected for one new offense
then that is enough to indicate he is a reoffender
even if other new offenses are not yet detected.
39
Risk (4)
• Suppose the rate at which released offenders become
reoffenders (i.e. percentage of reoffenders in a sample) does
indicate the probability of becoming a reoffender (i.e. absolute
risk for becoming a post-release recidivist). (Let’s suppose
this for now.)
• For commitment purposes we would then want to isolate that
group of offenders with a high rate so that we could use the
characteristics of those offenders to identify other offenders at
“high risk” if released.
• But what counts as a “high” rate?
• Do actuarial instruments (Static in particular) succeed in
narrowing down a statistical category where samples are
showing “high” reoffender percentages?
40
Risk (5)
• But what counts as a “high” rate?
• Do actuarial instruments (Static in particular) succeed
(statistically) in narrowing down a category where
samples are showing “high” percentages of their
members becoming post-release sexual reoffenders?
• In other words, are there actuarial tables available
listing rates from samples where a sizable portion
(majority?) of the members of those samples have
been observed to have new sex offenses?
• Or if the follow-up time periods are 5-10 years (as
opposed to 15-25 years or a lifetime), are the rates
less but still representing a significant minority of the
offenders in the sample?
41
What counts as “high”?
• For the Static-99 “high” would have meant 52%
for 15 years of release time; 45% for 10 yrs.;
39% for 5 yrs. (These are reconviction rates,
not charges. They are also observed rates
rather than estimated rates, which came later
with the 99R and logistic regression analysis.)
• This figure tips above 50%. If the customary
interpretation of “likely” is used (i.e. likely =
>50%) then the Static-99 provides a rate (for
score 6+) that meets the “likely” standard, even
without assumptions about the tool
underestimating risk.
42
Some Issues
• Some issues come up here that will
also be relevant later concerning
recidivism data…
• Let’s look at them here first.
43
High (2)
• In past years it was not uncommon for
even offenders with moderate-high scores
(lower sometimes) to be recommended for
commitment based on clinical “adjustment”
of actuarial findings or caveats about the
Static underestimating risk.
• When adjustment is done, the assumption
is that the offender’s likelihood for
becoming a reoffender is “really” higher
than the actuarial rate listed for his score
category.
44
High (3)
• Statistically, “adjustment” logic implies that the
offender belongs to a not yet formally identified
category where if a normative sample of
offenders like him were released, the
percentage of reoffenders would be significantly
higher than the listed rate for his Static score.
• Critics of adjustment say this makes the process
speculative, defeating the purpose of actuarials.
45
High (4)
• Adjusting actuarial findings is not the same thing as
simply distinguishing dangerousness in an individual
case from group-wise reoffender percentages. (Few
critics take this approach but they could.)
• There is nothing contradictory in saying that even in
groups with low percentages of reoffenders (low
statistical risk group-wise) some group members
may be dangerous (as individuals).
• Doing so does not require any adjustment, only the
understanding that statistical group rates are not the
same thing as reoffense potential in an individual
case (or individualized likelihood).
46
High (5)
• Doing so does not require any adjustment,
only the understanding that statistical
group rates are not the same thing as
reoffense potential in an individual case
(or individualized likelihood).
• However doing this would require reconceptualizing what actuarials do (and
cannot do).
47
High (6)
• Adjusting actuarials implies that group
rates do indicate likelihoods of reoffending
relevant in individual cases.
• However, the adjuster thinks that the
particular group rate is not accurate as a
final risk figure for the offender whose
relevant actuarial rate is being adjusted.
48
High (7)
• The adjuster uses the actuarial group rate as a “baseline” likelihood estimate which is then moved up or
down (usually up) by bringing in other risk factors.
• This is in lieu of just saying the offender is not similar
(or not similar enough) to the groups being
distinguished by the actuarial tool.
• In other words, the adjuster wants to use the actuarial
instrument as a measure of absolute risk relevant to
individual cases, but not admit that its findings fail to fit
the case at hand.
49
High (8)
• A different kind of speculation is implied by
claims about “underestimating” risk.
• The idea is (in part) that if the same group
of offenders in the Static-99 sample had
been followed more than 15 years
(lifetime?) a higher percentage would have
been observed to have a new conviction.
50
High (9)
• No doubt a few offenders hold off for 15 years and then
reoffend.
• But especially in “high risk” categories, offenders often
have histories of being caught (and convicted) multiple
times, often within time periods of less than 15 years. If
they have 15 year periods in between offenses it is
usually because they were in prison. Perhaps some will
go to prison for non-sexual offenses, stay there a long
time, and then sexually reoffend (at a senior age).
• Given the age many offenders currently are by the time
they are recommended for commitment, going more than
10-15 more years into the future and then reoffending
would not be something we’d expect of many of them.
51
High (10)
• Another part of the underestimation caveat is the
fact there are undetected sex offenses.
• As suggested earlier the issue for recidivism
research (which grounds actuarial tables) is not
whether there are offenses that have escaped
charges or convictions, or even if a particular
offender has such offenses.
• It is whether there are offenders reoffending (once
or several times) who are not detected at all, even
just once, so that we can observe that they are
post-release reoffenders.
• To say that the Static underestimates risk is to say
there are a significant number of unknown
reoffenders in normative samples.
52
High (11)
• While this is possible, it seems unlikely. As
noted, by the time offenders in the high-risk
category got their high scores they had
typically been caught multiple times for sex
offending. This is not to say they didn’t have
undetected offenses. It is only to say that
their histories don’t indicate high skill in
escaping (eventual) detection.
• It seems a stretch to assume a significant
number of them went through a long release
period (15 years for the Static) continuing to
reoffend but never getting caught.
53
High (12)
• Ironically, there may be more undetected reoffenders
in groups with lower actuarial scores.
• The reason is that these offenders reoffend less
frequently (even infrequently) which makes it more
likely they can have an isolated new offense that
escapes detection. This would enable them to more
easily escape detection as a reoffender.
• However, offenders offending (or reoffending) with
greater frequency (more typical of higher score men,
and especially those recommended for commitment)
would seem more likely to get caught (eventually)
because they are risking sanction more often. They
would seem less likely to remain undetected
reoffenders for long periods.
54
High (13)
• The bottom line is that reasons exist to think that
groups of high score offenders (and especially
groups of offenders recommended for
commitment) do not have significant numbers of
undetected reoffenders when follow-up periods
are lengthy (e.g. 10 or more years).
• Nor is there reason to think there are significant
numbers of offenders who will become reoffenders
only after many years have passed (e.g.
reoffending at the 20 year mark instead of the 10
or 15 year mark).
• Even if these reoffenders were included,
recidivism rates would probably not be much
higher than observed rates.
55
High (14)
• This suggests that actuarial rates are not likely to
be (significant) underestimates.
• If anything, as we shall see, rates on actuarial
tables are more likely to be overestimates
because they come from samples of offenders
released decades ago under different societal
conditions (e.g. shorter sentences, less use of
probation, less use of treatment, less public
awareness, less sophisticated investigation
techniques, and so forth).
• Base-rates were much higher in past decades
(e.g. before 1990) than what is true now. More
recently released samples are showing lower
rates.
56
Back to Rates
• Now back to the issue of what constitutes
a “high” reoffender percentage for a group
of released offenders.
57
“High” for the 99R
• For the 99R (High Risk/Need) “high” would mean
41.9% (estimated rate) for 10 years and 31.2% for
5 years (score 6). 48.6; 37.9 (score 7). These are
essentially percentages of offenders with a new
conviction for sexual offending (see next slide).
• Moderate high: 27.7%; 19.6% (10; 5 y): score 5
• 22.6%; 15.4% (10,5 y): score 4
• Routine (score 6): 14.7% for 5 years release
58
99R proxy indicators of reoffending
• “…In about half the samples the criteria was conviction, and
the other half used charges.”
• “…However, few of the samples using charges had access to
data bases in which charges were reliably recorded in our
analyses, we have found only slight differences in the overall
recidivism rates for the samples using charges and those
using convictions (with slightly higher in the charges).”
• “…Although our official criteria was charges (we coded them if
they were available), the actual rates are closer to
convictions, as convictions is what we had available for most
samples.”
• Dr. Yolanda Fernandez, DSP Master Trainer, reporting
response from Dr. R. Karl Hanson to question about proxies.
Email: 1-28-13
59
When are rates “low”?
• For the Static-99, “low” score range (0-1)
has 5% and 11% (5, 10 years), with 13%
as the highest rate (15 years).
• “Moderate low” has rates as high as 12%,
14% and 19% (5,10,15 yrs.).
60
Low rates
• The “low” risk category (scores -3 to 1) for the
Static-99R has estimated rates up to 9.4%
and 15.7% (High Risk/Need reference
group).
• “Moderate low” (scores 2-3) has estimated
rates up to 15.8% and 24.3% (5,10 yrs.).
• For the Routine Sample, low rates go up to
3.8% (5 yrs.). Moderate-low rates go up to
6.6%.
61
SVPP Study: Why Now?
• 394.931 specifies: “…the Department of Children and
Family Services shall implement a long-term study to
determine the overall efficacy of the provisions of this
part.” (This is the last sentence of the statute.)
• OPPAGA Study: An October 2011 OPPAGA study looked
at individuals with SVP related settlement agreements.
These are offenders recommended for commitment by
SVPP but later released by the courts on conditions
specified in these agreements. These agreements
usually require the offender to stipulate to meeting
commitment criteria so that a commitment order can be
entered but then “held in abeyance”.
• Out of 140 who were in the community at least one year
(up to 10 years) a total of 5 offenders had a new
conviction for a felony sex offense after release (3.6%).
62
OPPAGA Findings
• 5 out of 140 offenders had felony sex offense
convictions.
• 3 other offenders had non-sexual violence related
felony convictions (2 robbery; 1 aggravated
assault).
• 23 other offenders had various non-sexual, nonviolence related misdemeanors or felonies.
• 18 total offenders had contracts revoked (11 for
picking up charges; 7 for material violations of
agreement terms, e.g. not going to treatment;
having unauthorized proximity contact with a
child).
• 46% had probation of some sort at release, at
least for a time.
63
Why are these data significant?
• OPPAGA focused concern on whether stipulated
agreements should even exist for SVPs.
• SVPP saw something else, however:
• Each one of the offenders in the OPPAGA study had
been determined by the program to be likely to
continue sexual violence if not confined.
• SVPP had recommended all of these men for civil
confinement, not conditional release.
• Yet the vast majority show no sign of continued
sexual offending when not confined!!!
64
Data Significance (2)
• The rate found by OPPAGA cannot be directly
compared to actuarial rates because the sample
includes offenders released for differing time
periods ( 1-10 yrs.) and about half of the
offenders in the sample had some form of
probation, at least for a while. However…
• The average Static-99 score for offenders with
settlement agreements likely to have been
included in the OPPAGA sample is 5.91.
65
Date Significance (3)
• On the (generous) assumption that the average
score would be 4.91 on the Static-99R…
• Most of these offenders would have had a score
of at least 5 on the 99R.
• Using the High Risk/Need reference group, the
5-yr. estimated rate for the 99R is 25.2% (10 yr.
– 35.5%).
• A 5 yr. follow-up on the 99R seems the closest
approximate time period to what would be
typical of offenders in the OPPAGA sample.
66
Data Significance (4)
• Although they cannot be compared directly,
< 4% (OPPAGA sample) and 25% (99R 5-yr.
High Risk/Need) are not even close.
• The 5-yr. estimated rate for the Routine Sample
is 11%. This is closer to the OPPAGA rate.
• However, a group of offenders recommended for
commitment would not ordinarily be considered
similar to average sex offenders (which made up
the Routine Sample for the 99R).
67
Data Significance (5)
• SVPP interpreted the OPPAGA findings as
suggesting inflation in the risk figures for the
Static line of instruments (risk overestimation).
• This suggested the need for greater selectivity
(more specificity) in commitment
recommendations (after 2011) compared to what
had been done during the years when Static
rates were given more weight and interpreted as
absolute risk (absolute likelihood) indicators.
68
Data Significance (6)
• Risk inflation means that many offenders
determined to be likely (high risk) on the
basis of the Static line of instruments –
and therefore commitment eligible – would
not in fact be likely statistically (as a
group).
69
Data Significance (7)
• We would not expect a group of offenders
genuinely fitting the description given by
lawmakers and the Supreme Court (i.e.
extremely dangerous predators, suffering
from disorders undermining their capacity for
self-restraint) to have so few observed
reoffenders when released.
• The low recidivist rate cannot be attributed to
most offenders being reincarcerated for nonsexual crimes (and staying confined):
• Only a fifth obtained any charge at all after
release, even misdemeanor non-sexual.
70
Data Significance (8)
• Nor can a low rate be attributed to most
offenders with settlement agreements having
intensive probation. Only half of the
OPPAGA sample had any kind of probation at
all, even for a time.
• Nor did most have their conditional release
rescinded (sending them back to civil
confinement): Only 18 (total) had their
agreements rescinded (11 for picking up a
new charge of any kind).
71
Data Significance (9)
• The OPPAGA findings strongly suggest
that many offenders recommended for
commitment over the years using the
customary approach (heavy reliance on
the Static) were not in fact dangerous.
72
The SVPP recidivism study
The OPPAGA findings indicated the need for more
research:
Would suggestion of risk inflation in the Static be
borne out by looking at other groups of offenders
SVPP had recommended for commitment who have
been released for longer periods?
SVPP looked at the following groups of offenders
recommended for commitment but later released:
73
Groups of recommended offenders
later released
• Offenders released from prison (most without a
petition filed or with petition dropped before a probable
cause finding by the court).
• Offenders released from FCCC while still detainees
(never committed). Petitions dropped after probable
cause finding but before trial, or a win at trial.
• Offenders released as no longer meeting commitment
criteria (including those reaching Phase IV and
determined to have achieved Maximum Therapeutic
Benefit).
• Offenders released as detainees on Settlement (or
stipulation) Agreements (conditional release).
74
Release Times
• Offenders released from commitment (NLM) have not been
released nearly as long as other groups. They are also the
oldest at release and have the lowest average Static score.
• Proportionally, prison releases have been out the longest, were
the youngest at release, and have the highest average score.
• 27% NLM have been released over 5 years (51% for 3 or less
yrs.) Average Age = 49.7. Average 99R score = 4.5
• 45% settlement agreements out 5+ yrs. (21% for 3 or less years)
Average Age = 46.3. Avg. 99R score = 5.0
• 66% detainees out 5+ yrs. (17% for 3 or less years)
Average Age = 45.4. Avg. 99R score = 5.1
• 86% prison releases out 5+ yrs. (7% for 3 or less years)
Average Age = 42. Avg. 99R score = 5.3
75
Summary (short presentation)
If we compare to actuarial rates associated with “low risk,”
the sexual recidivism rates found by SVPP are low for all
groups of offenders SVPP recommended for
commitment who were later released. The overall sexual
recidivism rate was 10% (any sex related charge); 4.5%
for any felony sex offense conviction (the proxy most
similar to that used for the 99R.
Beyond this overall finding, the results are unexpected.
We would expect that groups with most members falling
into different actuarial categories to display significantly
different rates.
76
Summary (2)
• Yet there appears to be no meaningful
difference between the sexual recidivism
rate for offenders released from prison
who were recommended for commitment
in Florida and the rate for randomly
selected sex offenders released from
prison. (Data from the latter comes from a
2012 Adam Walsh study of several states.)
• Consider the following:
77
Summary (3)
• Percentage of reoffenders among prison releases
who were recommended: 15.7% (felony charge); 5+
to 14 years since release (average Static-99R
score = 5.1). Avg. Age = 42.
• Average sex offenders sampled randomly: 13.7%
(felony charge); 10 years since release (average
99R score = 1.97). Avg. Age for all offenders, multistate 2012 Adam Walsh study = 37.
• Note the small difference in rates (may not be
clinically meaningful) despite significant difference in
average 99R score. First group older (by 5 years
avg.; specific age for FL is unknown) but 99R is
supposed to take the risk effect of age into account.78
Summary (4)
• Also unexpected is the data from detainees released
from FCCC.
• Static-99R scores come from time of recommendation.
Usually detainees were confined at FCCC several
more years before release.
• We will be doing a re-calculation of scores for time of
FCCC release but until then, we can make an
assumption.
• The average score for released detainees at time of
recommendation is 5.1.
• At least some detainees would have reached a
different age threshold by time of FCCC release,
which reduces the score.
• On a very liberal assumption (probably excessive) let’s
assume at time of release from FCCC the average
score would decrease a full point, to 4.1.
79
Summary (5)
Static-99R estimated rates still appear to be
significantly higher than what is being observed.
For released detainees in the SVPP sample, the observed
sexual recidivism rate (any sex charge; 10+ to 14 years
since release) is 11.8%.
[Overall sex offense conviction rate for all detainees is
5.3%; 302 released 3+ - 14 yrs.; 64 released 0-3 yrs.).
Although we don’t yet have a conviction rate for
detainees released at least 10 yrs., it will be at least
somewhat less than the 11.8% rate for just charges.
The estimated rate for a score of 4 on the Static-99R (10
year group of High Risk/Need offenders) is 29.6%. And
this is for (essentially) sex offense convictions.
80
Summary (6)
• The estimated rate for a score of 4 on the Static-99R
(10 year group of High Risk/Need offenders) is 29.6%.
And this is for (essentially) sex offense convictions.
• The 5-year (sex conviction) estimated rate for a score
of 4 using the Routine sample is 8.7 (no 10 yr. rate).
• But again, detainees were recommended for
commitment. It can be argued that they are a specially
selected group for high-risk, thus dissimilar to routine
sex offenders.
• Even accounting for the fact some detainees have not
been released for 5 years yet (most released 5+ to 14
yrs.) the detainee sex conviction rate (5.3%) is less
than the 99R estimated rate for routine sex offenders
(8.7%).
81
Summary (7)
• We can now compare released detainees to
formerly committed residents released after a
court found they no longer met commitment
criteria.
• Detainees would not have had inpatient sex
offender treatment at FCCC.
• Formerly committed residents (for the most part)
would have participated in treatment, whether or
not they made it to an advanced phase.
• So comparing released detainees to formerly
committed residents is essentially a way to look at
inpatient treatment effect.
• We would expect the formerly committed
offenders to have a significantly lower sexual
recidivism rate than released detainees (if there is
a significant inpatient treatment effect).
82
Summary (8)
• However, little if any meaningful difference appears to
exist between the sexual recidivism rate for released
detainees (no treatment) and the rate for formerly
committed residents released as no longer meeting
criteria (with treatment).
• Detainees (no treatment) = 10.7%, any sex charge.
• Formerly committed (with treatment) = 7% sex charge
• There is a small difference but unlikely to meaningful
after we take into account the fact that detainees have
been released for significantly longer period, were
released at a younger age, and have somewhat higher
actuarial scores. The detainee sample is also larger.
83
Summary (9)
• These data do not give clear indication of a
treatment effect from commitment based sex
offender specific programming in a full
confinement facility.
• This does not necessarily indicate flawed
programming. It is more likely the result of
rates approaching a “floor” effect across the
board.
• It would be difficult if not impossible for
treatment to significantly lower a rate that
would be low anyway.
84
Summary (10)
• We can also compare inpatient treatment (in a
secure facility) to outpatient treatment (community
based) for offenders SVPP determined over the
years to be high risk predators suffering from
sexual disorders.
• Offenders released pursuant settlement
agreements are supposed to get outpatient
treatment.
• So this would be a comparison of sexual
recidivism rates for conditionally released
offenders (most from detainee status at release)
vs. former committed offenders released as no
longer meeting criteria.
85
Summary (11)
• No meaningful difference appears to exist
between the recidivism rate for recommended
offenders who were conditionally released on
settlement agreements (S/A) and the rate for
formerly committed residents released as no longer
meeting commitment criteria.
• Settlement Agreement (treatment in community) =
3% felony sex conviction; 6.8% felony charge.
• Formerly committed (FCCC inpatient treatment) =
3% felony sex conviction; 4% felony charge.*
*It is important to note that S/A offenders also have
been released longer, are somewhat younger, and
have a somewhat higher average actuarial score.
86
What about those SVPP did not
recommend?
• One way to look at how well SVPP did in past
years in distinguishing dangerous predators from
average sex offenders is to look at the group of
offenders SVPP did not recommend for
commitment (but did evaluate) and compare to
those the program did recommend.
• The non-recommended group is much larger:
1200+ persons (compared to 710 recommended
persons).
• SVPP is still in the process of studying the nonrecommended group.
87
Not Recommended Group
• For the non-recommended group, the
percentages of offenders with new felony sex
offense convictions was found to be 3% for
offenders released 5+ to 10 years and 4% for
offenders released 10+ (up to 14) years.
• Percentages for recommended offenders with
the same follow-up periods were found to be
6.8% and 6.5% respectively (groups are
separate and do not share any members in
common).
88
Not Recommended (2)
• Non-recommended offenders would tend to
have lower actuarial scores or (less
commonly) not meet even minimal clinical
criteria for a paraphilia diagnosis. (We
haven’t computed average Static scores yet).
• Yet despite this, recommended and nonrecommended groups differ by less than 2%
in percentage of offenders obtaining a new
felony sex offense conviction after release.
(Such a small difference is not likely to be
meaningful risk-wise even if it reaches
statistical significance.)
89
Not Recommended (3)
• These preliminary data on non-recommended offenders
suggest that overall base-rates for sexual offending have
decreased to the point where actuarial and other
statistical methods of distinguishing high risk from low
risk offenders (e.g. actuarial categorization + risk factors
identified from meta-analyses) are no longer functioning
as intended.
• All groups as yet differentiated by score or diagnosis (or
SVP determination using an older approach) are
showing low rates with only minor differences in how low.
• These data suggest that the customary approach to
determining SVP status has not been successful.
90
Not Recommended (4)
• Specificity appears to be poor. Over the years there
have been too many false positives. An SVP false
positive is someone determined to fit the SVP definition
when he really does not fit.
• SVP false positive is not the same thing a false positive
sexual recidivist, which is someone predicted to reoffend
who does not reoffend.
• Evaluations do not make specific or definite predictions
and even statistical low risk groups will contain some
reoffenders.
• An SVP false positive is someone determined to be likely
to reoffend (because mental disorder makes him that
way) but in fact is not likely.
91
Not Recommended (5)
• On the other hand, we would expect that a group
containing only extremely dangerous sexual
predators would, if released, display a high
percentage of sexual reoffenders (and before long).
• SVPP has not been successful in identifying
offenders who do not fall into this highly dangerous
predator group.
• But even on the view that an SVP is anyone falling
into a group likely to reoffend (with any kind of
offense, even isolated opportunistic offenses) the
program has not be able to identify those offenders
who are not likely, such that only those who are in
fact likely are recommended for commitment.
92
Not Recommended (6)
• Data on charges only (etc.) are not yet
available for the not recommended group.
• No data has been yet collected on
offenders who were not selected for full
evaluation (these would also be persons
not recommended for commitment).
• However, the Adam Walsh study provides
insight into average sex offenders.
93
More Summary
• SVPP data do not lend support to the idea that
civil confinement with intensive inpatient
treatment has produced a significantly better
public safety result than conditional release (and
outpatient treatment in the community).
• …at least, not with respect to the kind of offenders
recommended for commitment during most years
of the SVP program (a group that ended up being
low risk collectively).
• Sexual recidivism rates are little different for
formerly committed persons with years of inpatient
treatment, compared to conditionally released
detainees supposed to enter outpatient treatment
in the community (who have been released longer)94
More Summary (2)
• So far no evidence exists supporting the belief that
commitment based sex offender treatment
significantly increases public safety (compared to
no treatment at all) …at least not for the kind of
offenders Florida SVPP recommended for
commitment in previous years, largely based on
the Static.
• Sexual recidivism rates for detainees fully
discharged (no treatment) are not meaningfully
different from rates for formerly committed
offenders (inpatient treatment) or conditionally
released offenders (outpatient treatment).
95
Comparison of released offenders
Felony Sex Offense Conviction: FSC
Felony Charge, sexually motivated offense: FC
Any Sex Charge (w / victim): ASC
Age = Average Age at Release (e.g. for detainees: release from FCCC)
Static-99R scores computed from original Static-99 scores
NLM = 100; IV = 39; S/A = 161; Detainee = 366; Prison = 83
FSC:
FC:
ASC:
99R:
Age:
NLM IV
S/A
3%
0%
3%
4% 5.1% 6.8%
7%
5.1% 6.8%
4.5
4.9
5.0
49.7 48.4 46.3
Detainee
5.3%
8.7%
10.7%
5.1
45.4
Prison
10.8%
15.7%
16.9%
5.3
42.0
Max Benefit: Avg. 99R = 4.4; Avg. Age = 48.2; FC/ASC = 5.1%
NLM: 27% released 5+ yrs. IV: 28% S/A: 45% Det.: 66% Pris.: 86%
96
Recommended but released vs.
Recommended & still committed?
• But what about this?
• Maybe the truly dangerous guys were the
ones committed, not the ones detained but
later released without commitment.
• On this assumption, the “no longer meets”
released offenders would have been
dangerous at time of recommendation but
became less dangerous with inpatient
treatment. At release they were low risk.
97
Committed = Dangerous
• On this assumption, the released detainees
(including conditional releases) were not that
dangerous to begin with (low risk all along).
• …So (given this assumption) it is not surprising
released detainees (no treatment), conditionally
released detainees (S/A; outpatient treatment) and
formerly committed residents (inpatient treatment)
end up similar at time of release.
• On this assumption, the still dangerous offenders
are those still committed (not released).
98
Committed = Dangerous (2)
• This assumption is possible. However, it must be
considered speculative given the lack of empirical
support.
• We cannot know how dangerous someone “really”
was at recommendation. We can only know how he
does after a period of release time.
• We cannot know (usually) how dangerous someone is
who is still committed, given that he is confined and
does not have access to potential victims (or victims of
choice).
• We cannot know whether offenders still committed
would have reoffended if they had been released
instead of committed.
99
Committed = Dangerous (3)
The assumption also implies that although the same
methods were used throughout to make
commitment eligibility determinations, these
methods managed to produced two groups
significantly different in risk, namely:
(1) Offenders recommended for commitment but
later released without commitment (low risk all
along).
(2) Offenders recommended and later committed
(high risk at time of commitment, but low risk by
the time they are found by the court to no longer
meet criteria).
100
Committed = Dangerous (4)
• It is true that after SVPP made
recommendations for commitment, Assistant
State Attorneys (ASAs) further narrowed down
the number by choosing to take only a subset
(about half) to trial. (Over the years juries have
usually committed if cases went to trial.)
• However, ASAs are not using a different, higher
order risk assessment method. For cases not
taken to trial, ASAs very rarely disagree with
SVPP recommendations.
101
Committed = Dangerousness (5)
• The issue is more whether witnesses are available,
whether the evidence is strong enough, and other
considerations related to likelihood of success with a
jury, not likelihood of reoffending (per se).
• We have no research indicating that the kinds of
considerations ASAs take into account in deciding to
take a case all the way to trial (considerations over
and above the SVPP recommendation and the
Multidisciplinary Team used to assess risk) are
correlated with higher risk. Some indirect
relationship may exist but the correlation may be
weak.
102
Committed = Dangerousness (6)
• So while it is possible that still committed
offenders are significantly higher risk than
recommended offenders who were released, the
same methods were used by SVPP to recommend
both groups for commitment.
• No empirical data as yet are known to support the
claim that these groups are significantly different in
risk.
• Even if the two groups are different, SVPP cannot
use foreknowledge of who will end up committed
in order to know who to recommend for
commitment ahead of time.
103
Why are rates low…?
• As noted with the OPPAGA study, we could ask whether
sexual recidivism rates are low simply because most released
offenders recommended for commitment end up going back
to prison for long periods for non-sexual crimes. The
assumption here is that recommended offenders might really
be high risk but don’t end up not having much time free in the
community to do new sex offenses.
• The OPPAGA sample suggests this is not the reason. Only a
fifth of the sample had any kind of new charge, even nonsexual misdemeanors.
• The SVPP sample is similar. Some offenders do go back to
prison for long periods for non-sexual offenses. But out of
710 offenders in the sample, 466 did not go back to prison (or
FCCC) for any reason for more than one month. Among
those others who did, prison terms were often not so long
they didn’t have opportunities for sexual offending if they were
so inclined. This is still being researched.
104
Another explanation (in part)
• Overall base-rates for sexual and violent
offending have decreased since the early
1990s.
• In Florida, for example, the 1993 total forcible
sex offense rate (rape + forcible sodomy +
forcible fondling) was 101.1 offenses per
100,000 population.
• In 2012 the rate was 53.2 per 100,000.*
*(Florida Statistical Analysis Center; Florida Department of Law
Enforcement – FDLE)
105
Explanation
• Over the past 20 years sentences for sex offenses
have become longer.
• There is more public awareness about sex offense
issues.
• There is more use of sex offender specific
probation and surveillance / monitoring technology
has improved.
• There is more use of sex offender treatment and
more developed treatment methods.
• More use of registration and other sex offender
specific regulations.
• It is not known which of these has had a significant
rate lowering effect; some might have no effect.
• But cumulatively there appears to be an effect.
106
Explanation (2)
• Decreasing base-rates have decreased
accuracy in actuarial technology.
• Even for the revised Static, offenders in the
developmental samples would have had to
be released 10 or more years prior to
development, which means their release
dates, while more recent than samples for the
original Static (many released long ago),
would still come in the early part of the
decline in base-rates.
107
Explanation (3)
• So even Static-99R (estimated) rates may be
out of date (and too high).
• Another factor is the age effect: As a group
older offenders have lower percentages of
sexual reoffenders than younger offenders,
all else equal.
• The 99R was intended in part to incorporate
more recent research on the age effect, done
since the 99.
• But what if the age effect is still very much
underestimated? What if rates are much
lower, not just lower, for older offenders, and
begin to decline even earlier (by age 50, at
least, rather than 60)?
108
Explanation (5)
• As will be shown in a more detailed look at the SVPP data,
very few recommended offenders had indication of a new sex
offense past age 50.
• Only 8 out of 149 offenders age 50-59 (5.4%) had any kind of
new sex offense charge (even dropped).
• Only 4 had a new charge for a sexual contact offense (2.7%).
• Past age 60, only 1 out of 94 (1.1%) had a new sex offense
charge of any kind (the one had a dropped charge for lifting
the shirt of his 60+ yr. old girlfriend and touching her breast.
His offense history was child molestation).
• For offenders ages 40-49, only 13% had a new sex charge.
• For offenders ages 30-39, only 17% had a new sex charge
(even at the misdemeanor level).
109
Explanation (6)
• We may be reaching a point where the
contemporary sex offender evaluation faces a
paradox of which actuarial problems is just one
effect.
• The modern sex offender evaluation is heavily
history based. The evaluation is mostly based
on documented criminal history, given that the
clinical interview is not typically treated as a
reliable source of information unless (rarely) the
offender says something that makes him
consistent with what the record already suggests
(e.g., reports fantasies even now) or even worse
(admits he is still dangerous).
110
Explanation (7)
• The paradox comes from the following:
• To accumulate enough sexual criminal history to look
“bad” on paper, most offenders will have to be age 50 or
older. This is one result of sentences getting longer.
• This was not so true many years ago when it was not
uncommon to find offenders with three prior sex offense
related prison terms and still be in their 30s. Three
convictions would increase probability of being
recommended for commitment.
• Multiple recidivists this young (minus those with mostly
juvenile offenses and isolated young adult offenses) are
not seen that much anymore!
111
Explanation (8)
• So what is the paradox? It is this:
• The likelihood of someone being found to meet
commitment criteria increases the more criminal
history he has.
• Being age 50 or more increases likelihood of having
this extensive a sexual offense history.
• But reaching age 50 makes it less likely someone
will sexually reoffend (even accounting for history).
• So the very thing that makes it more likely to be
recommended for commitment (extensive history)
depends on a factor (age) that makes past history
an increasingly unreliable indicator of current
dangerousness.
112
Explanation (9)
• This is the paradox of any history-dependent risk
assessment of criminals.
• Actuarial assessment is just one kind of history
dependent risk assessment.
• DSM paraphilia and personality disorder criteria (e.g.
Antisocial PD) are also heavily history-dependent.
• The paradox of diagnosis is that history-dependent
deviance diagnoses have no clear way of incorporating
the fact that even if fantasies continue to be present,
they may be less frequent and less powerful.
• The older offender typically has less sex drive in general,
more health problems, and less energy (particularly
affecting rapists). The older offender might also have
more reason to think he would lose everything if he acts
of any urges. He is less impulsive; more future oriented.
• All this might explain why reoffender percentages are so
low for men past 50.
113
Explanation (10)
• It may be that the (relatively) more dangerous
offenders are the younger offenders with less
criminal sexual history.
• This would make be consistent with the
age/recidivism relationship.
• The dilemma would be how to distinguish
dangerous (younger) offenders with not much
history (yet) from non-dangerous (younger)
offenders whose limited history comes from lack of
sexual disorder and is probably at an end.
• This would require a good set of non-history based
risk factors, or new history-related factors beyond
what has been apparent so far to researchers in
criminal records.
114
Does other research suggest
similar things?
• Other studies on SVP related populations
are showing low rates.
• Other research is showing problems with
interpreting the high range scores on
actuarials as indicating absolute high risk
(but supportive of interpreting low scores
as indicative of low risk).
115
Adam Walsh Study
• This study provides base-rate data for typical sex
offenders (randomly selected):
• Florida: 500 offenders (250 released in FY 99-00 and
250 released in FY 04-05; randomly selected).
• Average Static-99R score: 1.97
• Average age at release for entire multi-state sample: 37
• 5-year rate: 5.2% (based on charges or convictions;
sexually motivated offenses)
• 10-year sexual recidivism rate: 13.7%
• A Multi-state recidivism study using Static-99R and Static-2002 risk
scores and tier guidelines from the Adam Walsh Act (Nov. 2012).
Zgoba, K.; Miner, M.; Knight, R.; Letourneau, E.; Levenson, J.; and
Thornton, D. Dept. of Justice.
116
Meta-analyses
• In a recent meta-analysis of studies utilizing many
samples and a variety of instruments (including the
Static-99) Fazel, Singh, Doll, & Grann (2012) found
the following:
• Actuarial categorization demonstrated high accuracy
in identifying low-risk offenders (i.e. low scores
reliably indicated low risk).
• However, accuracy was poor for high risk offenders
(i.e. high scores did not reliably indicate high risk).
• Fazel, S.; Singh, J.; Doll, H.; Grann, M. (2012) Use of
risk assessment instruments to predict violence and
antisocial behavior in 73 samples involving 24,827
people: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British
Medical Journal (BMJ), July.
117
Meta (2)
• In a second meta-analysis, Singh, Fazel,
Gueorguieva, & Buchanan (2012) examined both
actuarial instruments and instruments that give
structure to professional judgment (the Static-99
was included).
• Across many samples, groups of sex offenders
classified as “high risk” by these instruments
exhibited widely varying percentages of reoffenders. The variation was so great that no
empirical basis could be given for associating “high
risk” with any particular probability of post-release
sexual offending.
• Singh, J.P.; Fazel, S.; Gueorguieva, R.; Buchanan, A.
(2012) Rates of sexual recidivism in high risk sex
offenders: A meta-analysis of 10,422 participants. Sex
Offender Treatment, Volume 7 (2012), Issue 2.
118
Other SVP relevant research
General sex offenders:
• Connecticut: 3.6% of a sample of 746 (5 years release)
had at least a new charge related to a sex offense.
• Texas: 5.5% of a sample of unsupervised offenders had
a new sex offense charge/conviction (5 year release).
•
2% of supervised offenders (3.4% of whole sample).
• Washington: 2.7% sexual recidivism rate (5 years).
• Minnesota: 12% sex offense related arrest rate; 10%
convicted (avg. 8.4 years of release).
_________
• New Jersey: 3.5%; 8.3% (5 & 10 yrs.) (Adam Walsh)
• Minnesota: 7%;12.9%.
• South Carolina: 4.1%; 7.0%.
119
References for these data
• Recidivism Among Sex Offenders in Connecticut, State of
Connecticut Office of Policy and Management, 2/15/12.
• Boccaccini, M.T.; Murrie, D.C.; Caperton, J.D.; and Hawes,
S.W. (2009). Field validity of the Static-99 and MnSOST-R
among sex offenders evaluated for civil commitment as
sexually violent predators. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 2009, 15, 278-314.
• Barnoski, R. (2005). Sex offender sentencing in Washington
State: Recidivism rates. Olympia: Washington State Institute
for Public Policy, Document No. 05-08-1203.
• Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota, April 2007. Minnesota
Department of Corrections.
120
More SVP data from other states
• Screened by SVP/SDP program and referred for evaluation;
evaluator recommended commitment:
• Texas: 0.8% sexual recidivism rate for offenders with supervision;
7.5% rate for unsupervised offenders. Release time: 2.25 – 7.5 yrs.;
M = 4.77; SD = 1.52. (Boccaccini et al.).
• Washington: 25.2% (34/135) 6 years release time.
•
Milloy, C. (2007) Six-year follow-up of 135 released sex offenders recommended for
commitment under Washington’s sexually violent predator law, where no petition was
filed. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Document No. 07-061101.
• California: Found to meet SVP criteria – or – probable cause found
– or – two evaluators found person to meet criteria; then released
without treatment: sexual recidivism rate = 6.5% (6 / 93 offenders).
4.7 years release time.
•
11/23/09 Deposition of Jesus Padilla, Ph.D. in State of California v. Robert Tighe,
Case No. MH100903; and 10/10/06 Memorandum from Jesus Padilla, Ph.D., to
Public Defender Jim McEntee.
121
Washington State
• The outlier is Washington State where
25% of offenders thought by at least one
evaluator to be SVP, had a new sex
offense within 6 years of release.
• Rates from California and Texas are more
similar to what is being found in Florida.
122
A closer look at SVPP data
• What follows is further elaboration of data
presented so far, and some subtopics of
interest.
• Of particular interest is a look at types of
reoffenses. Very few reoffenders had new
offenses similar to what lawmakers
attribute to violent predators (i.e. sex
offenses with physical violence against
adults; penetration of children; weapons;
stranger victims).
123
A closer look…
• Also of interest is a look at reoffenders with a
previous Paraphilia NOS Nonconsent
diagnosis who have a new rape related sex
offense.
• Also examined were reoffenders with a
previous Pedophilia diagnosis who have a
new child molestation related offense.
• Unexpectedly, the latter group shows the
lowest percentage of reoffenders with a new
crime related to diagnosis (but both are low).
124
The SVPP Sample
Since the inception of the program, the
Multidisciplinary Team has recommended
1498 individuals for civil commitment up to
February 28, 2013.
The sample for the current study consists of
710 individuals (47% of total number of
individuals recommended).**
125
Sample (included)
• Individuals who were recommended for
commitment by SVPP and were released.
• Individuals were released:
– Following commitment
– Following detention without commitment
– Or without ever going to FCCC (i.e., petition not filed,
petition dropped, won at trial prior to end of
sentence).
126
Sample (excluded)
• Individuals never released by the referring agency (e.g. NGI,
PPRD, Florida DC due to loss of gain time or new offense)
• Individuals who upon release were confined elsewhere
–
–
–
–
DJJ to DC
DC to jail and back to DC (e.g., pseudo-recidivism)
DC/DJJ/NGI to FCCC
DC/FCCC to federal prison/ out of the country or out of state prison
and unable to determine release date
• Deported or Deceased at time of release from DC or FCCC
• One female
127
Sample
• All males (The one female was excluded)
• 710 individuals
– Average Age at time of release=45.8 years
• Range 18-93
• Median age= 45.6
Age Distribution
13%
19%
13%
55%
18-34
35-39
40-59
60+
128
Sample
• Other demographics:
– Race
•
•
•
•
60% White
39% Black
1% Hispanic*
.1% Asian/Pacific Islander
Race Distribution
1% 0%
White
Black
39%
*Might be an underestimate based on the coding of race
60%
Hispanic
Asian/P.I
.
129
Source Information
To determine if an individual was released or had a new sex offense,
information was gathered from the following sources:
• Florida Department of Corrections website
• Department of Corrections in other states, as appropriate
• Clerk of Courts Information System
• Sex Offender Registries - federal and state
• Internet
• SVPP records
130
Overall Results
• 71 of the 710 individuals in the sample give
indication (obtaining at least a charge) of
having done at least one new sexually
motivated offense against a victim.
10% recidivism rate
4.5 % (felony sex offense conviction)
**NOTE:
Originally, the sample consisted of 74 individuals, but three of the reoffenders were excluded because
they were limited to convictions/charges of Soliciting to Commit Prostitution
131
Results
71 reoffenses consisted of:
• 32 Felony Sex Offense Convictions
• 9 Felony Sexually Motivated Convictions
• 5 Misdemeanor Convictions
• 19 Felony Charges (i.e., pending, acquitted,
nolle prossed)
• 6 Misdemeanor Charges
132
Groups
The sample was divided into four groups:
10+ years (release dates more than 10 years prior to date of review)
n=170
5+ to 10 years (release dates from over 5 up to 10 years prior to review)
n=251
3+ to 5 years (release dates from over 3 up to 5 years prior to review)
n=134
0 to 3 years (release dates from 2/28/13 and up to 3 years prior to review)
n=155
133
Sexual Reoffenses by Group
ALL REOFFENSES (charges and convictions)
Group
n=
0-3
155
3-5
F
SO
CN
F SM
CN
MM
CN
F
Charge
MM
Charge
Total
Recidivism Rate
2
0
1
3
0
6
4%
134
2
0
1
8
3
14
10%
5-10
251
17
4
2
5
2
30
12%
10+
170
11
5
1
3
1
21
12%
TOTAL
710
32
9
5
19
6
71
10%
134
Reoffenses by Group
CONVICTIONS ONLY
Group
n=
0-3
155
3-5
F SO CN
F SM CN
MM
CN
Total
Recidivism Rate
2
0
1
3
2%
134
2
0
1
3
2%
5-10
251
17
4
2
23
9%
10+
170
11
5
1
17
10%
TOTAL
710
32
9
5
46
7%
135
Reoffenses by Group
FELONY CONVICTIONS ONLY
Group
n=
F SO CN
F SM CN
Total
Recidivism Rate
0-3
155
2
0
2
1%
3-5
134
2
0
2
2%
5-10
251
17
4
21
8%
10+
170
11
5
16
9%
TOTAL
710
32
9
41
6%
136
Comparison to Static 99/99R rates
• Static-99:
• Scores 6+ (n = 129): 39%; 45%; 52% (5,10,15 yrs.).
• Score 5 (n = 100): 33%; 38%; 40% (5,10,15 yrs.).
• Static-99R (High Risk/Need):
• Score 6: 31.2%; 41.9% (estimated rates; 5, 10 yrs.).
• Score 5: 25.2%; 35.5% (estimated rates; 5, 10 yrs.).
• Score 4: 20.1%; 29.6% (estimated rates; 5, 10 yrs.).
137
Static-99R
• Routine Group:
• Score 6: 14.7% (estimated rate for 5 years follow-up
• Score 5: 11.4%
• Preselected for Treatment Group:
• Score 6: 20.2%; 27.6% (5, 10 yrs.).
• Score 5: 15.9%; 22.6%
• Non-Routine Group:
• Score 6: 24.7%; 33.4%
• Score 5: 19.6%; 27.7%
138
Comparison of Recidivism Rates by Group
Group
0-3
n=155
3-5
5-10
10+
n=134 n=251 n=170
Total Sample
N=710
All
Offenses
4%
10%
12%
12%
10%
All
2%
Convictions
2%
9%
10%
7%
Felony
1%
Convictions
2%
8%
9%
6%
139
Reoffenses by Age at Release
(Total and Convictions)
Age
(at
release)
MM
CN
F
Charge
MM
Charge
3 0
0
1
0
4
30-39
147 13 4
1
7
0
40-49
245 11 5
4
6
50-59
149
5 0
0
94
0 0
710 32 9
18-29
60+
TOTAL
n=
75
F
SO
CN
F
SM
CN
Total
Recidivism
Rate
Total
CN
Recidivism
Rate
CN Only
5%
3
4%
25
17%
18
12%
6
32
13%
20
8%
4
0
9
6%
5
3%
0
1
0
1
1%
0
0%
5
19
6
71
10%
46
6%
140
Age at Release and
Type of Reoffense
(mean=45.8 years)
30
25
20
Contact
Non-Contact
Unknown
15
10
5
0
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
141
Main Categories of Offenses
Contact
Child
Molestation
Rape
Known
Victim
Stranger
Victim
Known
Victim
Compliant
Victim
Stranger
Victim
142
Main Categories of Offenses
Non-Contact
Exposure
Child
Pornography
143
Categories of Offenses
Contact Offense
Rape or Attempt
(stranger) n=16
Rape or Attempt (known
victim) n=10
Child Molestation (no
penetration) n=12
Child Molestation
(penetration) n=8
Child Molestation
(compliant) n= 3
144
Categories of Offenses
Non-Contact Offense
Exposure, Child n=5
Exposure, Adult n=6
Child Pornography n=2
Other n=2
145
Offenses with Child Victims
– 26 Individuals reoffended with children (37%
of all reoffenses)
• 18 were convicted (16 F CN and 2 MM CN)
• 5 were not convicted (Nolle Prossed, Acquitted,
Dropped, No Info Filed)
• 3 of the reoffenses are Pending
146
Offenses with Child Victims, cont..
– Average Age (at time of offense) of individuals
who reoffended with children = 44.6
• Range = 22 to 63
• Median = 45
# of Recidivists
10
8
6
4
2
0
# of Recidivists
147
Offenses with Child Victims, cont..
– Release Date:
•
•
•
•
0-3 = 2 (8%)
3-5 = 3 (16%)
5-10 = 13 (50%)
10+ = 8 (31%)
– Contact Offenses:
• n=20 (77% of all offenses with child victims)
– 14 were Convicted
– Non-Contact Offenses:
• n=6 (23% of all offenses with child victims)
– 4 were Convicted
148
Offenses with Child Victims, cont..
– Contact Offenses:
• 8 Offenses included penetration (11% of all
reoffenses)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
0 Stranger Victims
0 Offenses with physical violence
3 Offenses with threat of physical violence
4 Offenses with coercion/intimidation
5 Offenses were convicted (1 NP, 1 Acquitted, 1 Pending)
Average Age of offender = 44.9
Youngest victims were 6 year old male and 7 year old
female
149
Offenses with Child Victims, cont..
– Contact Offenses:
• 12 Offenses included contact without penetration
[i.e., fondling] (17% of all reoffenses)
– 4 Stranger Victims
– 1 Offense included possible physical violence (this
charge was No Info Filed)
– 0 Offenses with threat of physical violence
– 2 Offenses with restraint of victim
– 2 Offenses with coercion/intimidation
– 9 Offenses were convicted (1 Dropped, 1 No Info Filed, 1
Pending)
– Average Age of offender = 47.5
– Youngest victim was 3 year old male
150
Offenses with Child Victims, cont..
– Non-Contact Offenses:
• 6 Offenses included no contact or intent for contact
(8% of all reoffenses)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
5 offenses were exposures
1 offense was stalking
4 Stranger Victims
0 Offenses included physical violence/threat of physical
violence/restraint
1 Offense included coercion/intimidation
4 Offenses were convicted (1 NP, 1 Pending)
Average Age of offender = 35.8 (median 37)
Youngest victim was 5 year old female
151
Offenses with Adult Victims
– 40 Individuals reoffended with adults (56% of
all reoffenses)
• 24 were convicted (22 F CN and 2 MM CN)
• 11 were not convicted (Nolle Prossed, Acquitted,
Dropped, No Info Filed)
• 5 of the reoffenses are Pending
152
Offenses with Adult Victims, cont..
– Average Age (at time of offense) of individuals
who reoffended with adults = 43.2
• Range = 30 to 66
• Median = 43
# of Recidivists
20
15
10
5
0
# of Recidivists
153
Offenses with Adult Victims, cont..
– Release Date:
•
•
•
•
0-3 = 4 (10%)
3-5 = 11 (28%)
5-10 = 12 (30%)
10+ = 13 (33%)
– Contact Offenses:
• n=33 (83% of all offenses with adult victims)
– 22 were Convicted
– Non-Contact Offenses:
• n=7 (17% of all offenses with child victims)
– 2 were Convicted
154
Offenses with Adult Victims, cont..
– Contact Offenses:
• 16 Offenses included rape or attempted rape of a
stranger victim (23% of total reoffenses)
–
–
–
–
–
12 Offenses with physical violence*
4 Offenses with threat of physical violence
13 Offenses were convicted (3 Pending)
Average Age of offender = 42 (median 41)
5 Offenses with teenage victims (age 15-17)
*One offense included murder of victim
155
Offenses with Adult Victims, cont..
– Contact Offenses, cont..:
• 10 Offenses included rape or attempted rape of a
known victim (14% of total reoffenses)
– 4 Offenses were Domestic Violence (1 convicted)
– 9 Offenses with physical violence*
– 1 Offense with possible threat of physical violence and
restraint
– 6 Offenses were convicted (2 Dropped, 1 NP, 1 Pending)
– Average Age of offender = 42.2 (median 40)
– 2 Offenses with teenage victims (age 14 and 17)
*One offense included murder of victim
156
Offenses with Adult Victims, cont..
– Contact Offenses, cont..:
• 7 Offenses were contact offenses without
penetration(10% of total reoffenses)
–
–
–
–
–
3 Offenses involved stranger victims
2 Offenses with physical violence
3 Offenses were convicted (2 NP, 1 Dropped, 1 Pending)
Average Age of offender = 47 (median 48)
3 Offenses with teenage victims (age 15-16)
157
Offenses with Adult Victims, cont..
– Non-Contact Offenses:
• 7 Offenses included no contact or intent for contact
(10% of all reoffenses)
–
–
–
–
6 offenses were exposures
1 offense was stalking
2 Stranger victims, 2 possible stranger victims
0 Offenses included physical violence/threat of physical
violence/restraint/coercion/intimidation
– 2 Offenses were convicted (2 NP, 2 Acquitted, 1 Not
Filed)
– Average Age of offender = 42.8 (median 44)
– 1 Offense with teenage victim (age 14), and 3 offenses
with possible teenage or adult victims (ages unknown)
158
Reoffenses by Type of Offense and
Age at Release
(charges and convictions)
Age
(at release)
n=
CONTACT
OFFENSE
Rate
RAPE
Rate
CONTACT
OFFENSE
AGAINST
CHILD
Rate
18-29
75
2
3%
2
3%
0
0%
30-39
147
20
14%
12
8%
5
3%
40-49
245
22
9%
11
4%
10
4%
50-59
149
8
5%
1
1%
4
3%
94
1
1%
0
0%
0
0%
710
53
7%
26
4%
19
3%
60+
TOTAL
159
Reoffenses by Type of Offense and
Age at Release
(convictions only)
Age
(at release)
n=
CONTACT
OFFENSE
Rate
RAPE
Rate
CONTACT
OFFENSE
AGAINST
CHILD
Rate
18-29
75
1
1%
1
1%
0
0%
30-39
147
15
10%
10
7%
3
2%
40-49
245
16
7%
8
3%
7
3%
50-59
149
4
3%
0
0%
4
3%
94
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
710
36
5%
19
3%
14
2%
60+
TOTAL
160
Rates for Contact Offenses and
Non-Contact Offenses by
Offender Age
Age
n=
C.O.
(all)
Rate
C.O.
(cn)
Rate
N.C. (all)
Rate
N.C. (cn)
Rate
18-29
75
2
3%
1
1%
1
1%
1
1%
30-39
147
20
14%
15
10%
4
3%
3
2%
40-49
245
22
9%
16
7%
9
4%
3
1%
50-59
149
8
5%
4
3%
1
1%
1
1%
94
1
1%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
710
53
7%
36
5%
15
2%
8
1%
60+
TOTAL
C.O. = Contact Offense
N.C. = Non-Contact Offense
161
Rates for Rapes and Contact
Offenses against Children by
Offender Age
Age
n=
Rape
(all)
Rate
Rape
(cn)
Rate
C.O.
Child
(all)
Rate
C.O.
Child
(cn)
Rate
18-29
75
2
3%
1
1%
0
0%
0
0%
30-39
147
12
8%
10
7%
5
3%
3
2%
40-49
245
11
4%
8
3%
10
4%
7
3%
50-59
149
1
1%
0
0%
4
3%
4
3%
94
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
710
26
4%
19
3%
19
3%
14
2%
60+
TOTAL
C.O. Child = Contact Offense against Child
162
Paraphilia NOS
Paraphilia NOS (qualifiers not recorded; whole sample):
0-3 year group: 3/75 (4%) have a new rape charge
3+ - 5 year group: 2/73 (2.7%) have a new rape charge
5+ -10 year group: 7/122 (5.7%) have a new rape charge
10+ year group: 6/45 (13.3%) have a new rape charge
Paraphilia NOS:
0-3 yr.: 5 / 75 (6.7%) have any new sex charge (sex motivation)
3+ - 5 yr.: 7 / 73 (9.6%) have any new charge (sex mot.)
5+ - 10 yr.: 18 / 122 (14.8%) have any new charge (sex mot.)
10+ yr.: 9 / 45 (20%) have any new charge (sex motivation)
10+ group: 2 offenders 50-59 with new rape charge
1 offender age 40-49 with new rape charge
0 offenders age 60 or more. [Others (3) in their 30s.]
163
Pedophilia
Pedophilia (or Pedophilia + Paraphilia NOS) (whole sample):
0-3 year: 2/61 (3.3%) with new child contact charge
3+ - 5 year: 0/46 (0%) with new child contact charge
5+ - 10 year: 3/56 (5.4%) with new child contact charge
10+ year: 1/37 (2.7%) with new child contact charge
Pedophilia:
0-3 yr.: 2/61 (3.3%) any new sex charge (sexual motivation)
3+ - 5 yr.: 3/46 (6.5%) any new charge (sex mot.)
5+ - 10 yr.: 5/56 (8.9%) any new charge (sex mot.)
10+ yr.: 3/37 (8.1%) any new charge (sex mot.)
164
Breakdown into Categories of
Recommended Offenders Later Released
• Offenders Recommended but Released as FCCC detainees
without commitment (no Settlement Agreement): N = 366
• Offenders Recommended but Released from Prison: N = 83
(no commitment; never went to FCCC) 4 had Settlement
Agreements but were included here.
• Offenders Recommended and Committed but later released
as no longer meeting criteria: N = 100
• Offenders Recommended but released per Settlement
Agreements (from FCCC): N = 161
(Two S/A offenders are also No Longer Meets and included in
that category only.)
165
Recommended Offenders Released Without
Commitment
7.3% (total) obtained a new conviction related to a sexually motivated
felony offense (33 / 449)
10% obtained a new charge for anything sexual
(45 / 449)
5.3% of released FCCC detainees obtained a new conviction (24 / 366).
8.7% of detainees obtained a new felony charge
(32 / 366)
10.7% of detainees obtained any new sex charge (39 / 366)
[10+: 110; 5-10: 130; 3-5: 62; 0-3: 64.]
10.8% of recommended offenders released from prison obtained a new
conviction for a sexually motivated felony (9 / 83)
15.7% have a new felony charge (13 / 83)
16.9% have any new sex charge (14 / 83)
[10+: 37; 5-10: 34; 3-5: 6; 0-3: 6. Only 12 have been out 5 years or less
166
Paraphilia NOS vs. Pedophilia in Never
Committed Offenders
• Paraphilia NOS (with or without Sexual Sadism)
• 202 Never Committed offenders with Paraphilia NOS
and/or Sexual Sadism (196 NOS; 6 Sexual Sadism only.)
• Rates of New Charges for Rape related offenses:
• 10+ year group: 3.4% with at least a new charge for a
rape related offense (5 / 147) 4.8% any sex charge.
• 5+ - 10 year group: 3.0% (5 / 164) 9.8% any sex charge.
• 3+ - 5 year group: 2.9% (2 / 68) 5.9% any sex charge.
• 0 – 3 year group: 0% 2.9% any charge (2 / 70)
167
Pedophilia in Never Committed
Offenders
• 119 never committed offenders have a Pedophilia
diagnosis (with or without Paraphilia NOS too).
• 10+ year group: 2.9% have a new charge related to child
molestation (1 / 34). 8.8% have any charge (3 / 34)
• 5+ - 10 group: 2.6% new child molestation charge (1/38)
5.3% have any sex charge (2 / 38)
• 3+ - 5 group: 0% with new molestation charge
11% have any new sex charge (2 / 18)
• 0 – 3 group: 6.9% with new molestation charge or any
new sex charge (2 / 29)
168
Committed Offenders Released as No
Longer Meeting Criteria
• 100 offenders released from commitment status
as no longer meeting criteria. (Two have
Settlement Agreements.)
• 3% have a new felony conviction related to a
sexually motivated offense (3/100)
• 4% have at least a new felony charge related to
a sexually motivated felony (4/100)
• 7% have any new sex charge (w / victim)
(7/100)
169
However…
• Offenders released from commitment (NLM) have not been released
as long as offenders with settlement agreements, released
detainees, or offenders released from prison. Their percentages
might rise somewhat by the time they match the release periods of
the other groups.
• Proportionally, prison releases have been out the longest
•
•
•
•
27% NLM have been released over 5 years (51% for 3 or less yrs.)
45% settlement agreements (21% for 3 or less years)
66% detainees (17% for 3 or less years)
86% prison releases (7% for 3 or less years)
10+:
5-10:
3-5:
0-3:
NLM
7
20
22
51
Settlement Agree.
16
67
44
34
Detainees
110
130
62
64
Prison
37
34
6
6
170
No Longer Meets Releases
• 10+ group: 0% felony sex convictions
(0 / 0)
• 5+ - 10 group: 5% felony sex convictions
(1 / 20)
• 3+ - 5 group: 4.5% felony sex convictions
(1 / 22)
• 0 – 3 group: 2% felony sex convictions
(1 / 51)
171
Phase IV releases
• Phase IV releases: 5.1% with new felony charges (2 / 39)
• Phase IV (no max benefit): 0% (0 / 23)
• Phase IV Maximum Benefit: 12.5% (2 / 16)
One misdemeanor battery charge pending (child contact)
Felony charge related to an alleged rape of known victim,
domestic violence, nolle prossed
Phase IV group breakdown:
• 10+ group: 0
• 5+ - 10 group: 11 (Max. Benefit = 4)
• 3+ - 5 group: 19 (Max. Benefit = 13)
• 0 – 3 group: 9 (in our study) 4 on FCCC release list that we
have yet to examine. (Max. Benefit = 6)
• 22.8% released more than 5 years
172
Settlement Agreements
• 3.1% of S/A offenders have a new felony sex offense
conviction (5 / 161) [8 more were just found; no felony sex
offense convictions. 3.0% if these are included. One of these
was for child pornography possession.
• 6.8% have a new felony charge related to a sexually
motivated offense (11 / 161) [We don’t know yet if the 8 have
any new charges without a new conviction.]
• 6.8% have any new sex charge (w / victim) (11 / 161)
• S/A offenders with Paraphilia NOS:
• 5.3% have a new charge for a rape related offense (4 / 75)
• 9.3% have any new sex charge (7 / 75)
• S/A offenders with Pedophilia:
• 2.2% have a new child molestation charge (1 / 45)
• 2.2% have any new sex charge (1 / 45)
173
Comparison of released offenders
Felony Sex Offense Conviction: FSC
Felony Charge, sexually motivated offense: FC
Any Sex Charge (w / victim): ASC
Age = Average Age at Release (e.g. for detainees: release from FCCC)
Static-99R scores computed from original Static-99 scores
NLM = 100; IV = 39; S/A = 161; Detainee = 366; Prison = 83
FSC:
FC:
ASC:
99R:
Age:
NLM IV
S/A
3%
0%
3%
4% 5.1% 6.8%
7%
5.1% 6.8%
4.5
4.9
5.0
49.7 48.4 46.3
Detainee
5.3%
8.7%
10.7%
5.1
45.4
Prison
10.8%
15.7%
16.9%
5.3
42.0
Max Benefit: Avg. 99R = 4.4; Avg. Age = 48.2; FC/ASC = 5.1%
NLM: 27% released 5+ yrs. IV: 28% S/A: 45% Det.: 66% Pris.: 86%
174
Static-99R & Age
• Entire sample:
• Average Age (710) = 45.8 (Median: 45.6) Range: 18-93
• Avg. Age for Reoffenders (71) = 41.6 (Median: 42.1)
• Avg. Age for the others (396) = 46.3 (Median: 46.2)
• Average Static-99R (415) = 5.1 (Median: 5.0)
• Avg. 99R for Reoffenders (51) = 5.7 (Median: 6.0)
• Avg. 99R for others (364) = 5.0 (Median: 5.0)
175
So what does SVPP make of all of
its findings?
• We find our data basically consistent with
OPPAGA findings and other research.
• SVPP believes there is an empirical basis for
making the recommendation process more
selective than in past years when less was known
about the accuracy of the Static line of
instruments.
• This adds to a legal and ethical basis which
balances public safety with the mental health
professional’s obligation to do no harm.
176
What SVPP makes of it all
• Using methods to recommend commitment after it
is known that these methods result in many no
longer dangerous persons (not charged with new
crimes) losing their liberty indefinitely in civil
confinement, is a harm done to those individuals.
• The importance of public safety as a very worthy
end does not justify doing harm as a means.
• It is the moral responsibility of SVPP to strive to
minimize the number of genuinely dangerous
predators being missed, while simultaneously
minimizing the number of no longer dangerous
offenders being recommended unnecessarily.
177
The SVPP Interpretation
• This has meant during the past fiscal
years clinical judgment played a larger role
in selecting cases for full evaluation and
also for commitment recommendation.
• This was clinical judgment that was
increasingly selective about who is likely to
reoffend than actuarial “high risk” sex
offense reconviction rates.
178
Possible objection…and response
• But hasn’t clinical judgment been found to be less
accurate than actuarial methods in the overall
sorting of reconvicted from non-reconvicted
offenders in research samples?
• Yes. But statistical methods were compared to
judgment not guided by empirical
considerations. Such judgment tends to label
too many offenders as reoffenders, a greater
number than would be labeled such if only
actuarial scores were utilized.
• In other words, compared to judgment alone,
actuarial low scores more accurately identified
offenders who did not reoffend.
179
Objection
• Empirically unguided judgment tends to
result in relatively more false positives
than an actuarial method of sorting.
• This is false positive in the sense of
someone labeled as an observed
reoffender who is not an observed
reoffender.
180
Interpretation (2)
• However…
• SVPP data and other research now seem to
indicate that actuarial methods (specifically,
the Static) also result in a large number of
false positives…
• …although probably not as many as would
result from using empirically unguided
judgment to simply predict sex offense
reconviction (something SVP determinations
don’t do anyway).
181
Interpretation (3)
• In other words, even with risk inflation,
actuarial methods would still probably be
more accurate than unguided judgment.
• The kind of expert judgment used by
SVPP over the past fiscal year is different
in several respects:
182
Interpretation (4)
• First, it is empirically guided (not unguided).
Judgment is applied with the awareness of
risk inflation in statistical methods.
• Judgment guided with this knowledge is
therefore more selective of which offenders
are determined to be dangerous than
determinations based on actuarial category
(“high risk”).
183
Interpretation (5)
• This means that guided judgment will at least not
result in more false positives. Greater selectivity
can only result in fewer.
• This does not mean necessarily that guided
judgment is better at catching all true positives (in
the sense of offenders who reoffend). It might. Or
it might not.
• There is no way to know until many years have
passed that recidivism research can be done on
offenders released despite more selective
recommendation.
184
Interpretation (6)
• However, no research is known to have yet been
conducted comparing actuarial methods to a more
selective, empirically guided judgment.
• No known research has yet been conducted
comparing the accuracy of guided expert judgment
to the accuracy of actuarial methods in identifying
SVP true positives, i.e. someone made likely to
reoffend by mental disorder (as opposed to the
concept of a true positive in other research: an
offender predicted to be a sexual reoffender who
turns out to be one).
185
Interpretation (7)
• But whereas research can act as a negative
guide (i.e. fewer offenders are likely than
previously thought using actuarials) judgment
in an SVP context requires a positive guide
as well.
• For this guidance SVPP looked to the statute
itself, specifically the description of a sexually
violent predator contained in the legislative
findings and intent section (394.910).
186
Interpretation (8)
• SVPP did not exclude actuarial findings in
recommendation decision-making.
• But less weight was given to those findings than was
given in the years when the problems with the Static
line of instruments were not known.
• SVPP always gave consideration to a host of clinical
factors as well as actuarial findings. But the latter
carried much weight in determining the “likely” element
of SVP status.
• This changed since the OPPAGA study (and especially
since the SVPP study) to where less weight was given
to the Static and more weight to clinical factors
interpreted against the context of legislative findings. 187
Interpretation (9)
• SVPP had always given consideration to a host of clinical
factors in addition to actuarial findings. But the latter carried
much weight in determining the “likely” element of SVP status.
• This made sense in light of what the research indicated at the
time. Risk assessment was made as objective and scientific
as possible, based on what was known.
• More is now known. Since the OPPAGA study (and especially
since the SVPP study) SVPP saw an empirical basis to giving
less weight to the Static and more weight to clinical factors
interpreted against the context of legislative findings. The
research does not yet provide a fully scientific basis for
distinguishing extremely dangerous predators from typical sex
offenders.
188
Interpretation (10)
• More is now known. Since the OPPAGA
study (and especially since the SVPP
study) SVPP saw an empirical basis to
giving less weight to the Static and more
weight to clinical factors interpreted
against the context of legislative findings.
• The research does not yet provide a fully
scientific (statistical) basis for
distinguishing extremely dangerous
predators from typical sex offenders.
189
Interpretation (11)
• The issue is not whether judgment or
expert opinion is subjective. Any opinion
is subjective by definition, even if based on
evidence and scientific findings.
• The issue is whether judgment is arbitrary,
biased, not supported on evidence or good
logic, or obviously inaccurate.
190
Interpretation (12)
But expert judgment can be made as objective
as possible (i.e. non-arbitrary) if:
• research-identified risk factors (e.g. metaanalyses) are considered…
• …and actuarial ranking (at least for relative
category risk)
• …and judgment is more selective (rather than
less) than actuarials (when treated as
measures of absolute risk in individuals)
• …and judgment is anchored in stated
findings in statute.
191
End of data so far…
Research is ongoing…
These data, and the interpretation of them
offered here, explain why SVPP became
more selective in making commitment
recommendations over Fiscal Year 20122013.
192