Predictive accuracy of the Static-99R and Static-2002R risk tools for identifying Indigenous and White individuals at high risk for sexual recidivism in Canada.

Abstract

In Canada, the issue of cultural bias in risk assessment tools is an ongoing concern, particularly for Indigenous peoples who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. To date, there has been relatively little research on structured risk assessment tools for Indigenous peoples. This study examined the predictive accuracy of two sexual recidivism risk tools (Static-99R, Static-2002R) for White individuals (n = 1,560) and persons of Indigenous heritage (n = 653) from five independent Canadian samples. The results indicated that Static-99R predicted sexual recidivism with similar accuracy for both Indigenous and White individuals. Static-2002R predicted sexual recidivism only for White individuals. Indicators of general criminality (e.g., total prior offences) predicted sexual recidivism for both racial groups. In contrast, many of the sex crime–specific risk factors that have demonstrated validity in previous, predominantly White samples (e.g., male victim, noncontact sexual offence), only predicted sexual recidivism for the White study group and did not predict sexual recidivism for the Indigenous study group. Consistent with other studies, White individuals showed more indicators of paraphilic interests whereas Indigenous individuals in these samples displayed higher general criminality. The findings suggest that the treatment for individuals at risk for sexual offending may benefit from an increased focus on the distinctive risk-relevant characteristics of White and Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system.

Spanish Validation of the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool

“…Conversely, there are also reasons to expect similar risk factors across countries, when the same type of criminal behavior is considered. In this sense, risk assessment tools, such as Static-99R (Hanson & Thornton, 2000), have shown consistent discrimination across intercultural samples (e.g., Static-99R predicted sexual recidivism among US-born Latinos; Leguízamo et al, 2017; American individuals with Black heritage; Lee & Hanson, 2017; and Indigenous peoples in Canada; Lee et al, 2019), which suggest CPORT could also evidence cross-cultural validity.…”

Why are individuals over age 60 still committed as sexually violent persons?

“…Combining the discharged and still committed samples, average Static-99R scores for other racial/ethnic categories (M = 3.76; SD = 1.37) was higher compared to Non-Hispanic White participants (M = 3.28; SD = 1.99), although this difference was not statistically significant and the effect size was small in magnitude (p = 0.31, d = 0.28). Black participants have scored higher than White participants on the Static-99R in several other studies (Hanson et al, 2014;Lee & Hanson, 2017;Lee, Hanson, & Blais, 2020;Varela et al, 2013). Racial differences in risk factors and static risk scores could be explained by a variety of factors, including social inequities, disadvantaged environments, cultural factors, and systemic bias within the criminal justice system (Hart, 2016;Lee, Hanson, & Blais, 2020).…”

Forensic Experts’ Perspectives on Australian Indigenous Sexual Offenders and Factors Important in Evaluating the Risk of Recidivism

“…Modern evaluators have a variety of instruments to choose from (see Kelley et al, 2020; Neal & Grisso, 2014) and Allan et al (2018) identified 11 instruments Australian evaluators use, including actuarial (e.g., the STATIC-99; Hanson & Thornton, 1999) and structured professional judgment assessment (e.g., The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol [(RSVP]; Hart et al, 2003) instruments. Researchers nevertheless consistently find that ancestry (i.e., line of descent) and/or culture influence the predictive accuracy of these instruments (e.g., Allan et al, 2006; Babchishin et al, 2012; Gutierrez et al, 2013, 2016; Långström, 2004; Lee et al, 2020; McCuish et al, 2018; Perley-Robertson et al, 2018; Smallbone & Rallings, 2013; Spiranovic, 2012; Wormith et al, 2015). These findings have significant practical, ethical and legal implications for evaluators who work in countries with notable Indigenous populations (e.g., Allan, 2018, 2020; Allan et al, 2006; Hart, 2016; Olver, 2016; Shepherd, 2016; Shepherd et al, 2014, 2017; Shepherd & Lewis-Fernandez, 2016).…”