Forensic use of the Static-99R: Part 4. Risk communication.

Abstract

The Static-99R is 1 of the most widely used tools for assessing sexual-recidivism risk. We draw on recent research and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists to provide succinct answers to 6 basic questions regarding the use of the Static-99R in forensic cases. We suggest that evaluators focus on detected sexual recidivism at the group level, using concepts from the field of public health and safety, expressed in everyday terms. In the absence of local norms, we recommend that evaluators refer to the comparison group that is considered to represent the full population of convicted sex offenders. We encourage evaluators to affirmatively state that there is no evidence that clinical adjustments or overrides enhance the accuracy of actuarial-based risk predictions. We advise evaluators to affirmatively state that there is no objective procedure that can allow an evaluator to reliably and validly predict that someone is more likely than not to sexually recidivate if he is not confined. We present some cross-examination questions that forensic evaluators should be prepared to answer.

Professional Discretion and the Predictive Validity of a Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument

“…In fact, it can be argued that the very existence of the override process is an obvious recognition that these instruments are not completely exhaustive in regard to the information collected about the subject. Recent commentators, however, have cautioned against the likelihood that clinical decisions designed to supplement an actuarial instrument would improve predictive accuracy (DeClue & Zavodny, 2014; Harris et al, 2015; Wormith, 2014). Utilizing a sample of male and female youth from Ohio who were assessed with the Ohio Youth Assessment System–Disposition Instrument (OYAS-DIS), the current study contributes to the existing body of research on professional discretion by exploring the impact of overrides on the predictive validity of the risk assessment tool.…”

The 2015 Static-99R: Alternative Recidivism Tables for High-Risk Offenders

“…Abbott (2013), DeClue andZavodny (2013), and Phenix et al (2012) recommended that evaluators without local recidivism data use the routine Static-99R group, which they claim most closely represents typical adjudicated sex offenders. However, these authors allowed for exceptions.…”

“…Choosing which Static-99R risk group best applies to an individual offender has been controversial since the Static-99R was released in 2009. Abbott (2013), DeClue and Zavodny (2013), and Phenix et al (2012) recommended that evaluators without local recidivism data use the routine Static-99R group, which they claim most closely represents typical adjudicated sex offenders. However, these authors allowed for exceptions.…”

Automated Offender Risk Assessment

“…The same concern has led to a call for the development and use of local norms for the “generic” instruments that are used widely by the criminal justice system on a national or international scale in an effort to accommodate differing legal contexts, offender populations, and cultures. This call has led to several responses, interesting enough, primarily in the realm of sexual offender risk assessment (DeClue and Zavodny, ; Hanson, Lunetta, Phenix, Neeley, and Epperson, ; McGrath, Hoke, and Lasher, ; Phenix, Helmus, and Hanson, ; Wormith, ), but it also includes the MnSTARR (Duwe and Rocque, ).…”

“…As a variation of SPJ, some risk assessment protocols attempt to accommodate specific or unique circumstances of a particular offender by means of “professional discretion,” which was invoked by Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge () as part of their development of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model. This is typically accomplished by the use of an “override” (e.g., Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, LS/CMI; Andrews, Bonta, and Wormith, ) after the quantitative assessment has been completed, to deal with what has been referred to as the “broken leg” phenomenon (Meehl, ), whereby some feature of the offender renders him or her incapable of committing a crime, either literally or figuratively (DeClue and Zavodny, ; Grove, ). The same issue applies, as noted by Guszcza and Lucker (), to the integration of algorithmic indications and human professional judgment.…”