The Static-99 is the most widely used instrument for assessing sex offenders’ future risk to the public. Indeed, some state governments and other agencies even mandate its use. But bureaucratic faith may be misplaced. Conventional psychological tests go through a standard process of development, beginning with the generation and refinement of items and proceeding through set stages that include pilot testing and replication, leading finally to peer review and formal publication. The trajectory of the Static-99 has been more haphazard: Since its debut 15 years ago, the tool has been in a near-constant state of flux. Myriad changes in items, instructions, norms and real-world patterns of use have cast a shadow over its scientific validity. Here, we chart the unorthodox developmental course of this tremendously popular tool.
Static-99
and 99R Developmental Timeline
|
Date
|
Event
|
|
1990
|
The first Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) law passes in the
United States, in Washington. A wave of similar laws begins to sweep the
nation.
|
|
1997
|
The US Supreme Court upholds the Constitutionality of
preventive detention of sex offenders.
|
|
1997
|
R. Karl Hanson, a psychologist working for the Canadian prison
system, releases a four-item tool to assess sex offender risk. The Rapid Risk
Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (RRASOR) uses data from six settings in
Canada and one in California.[1]
|
|
1998
|
Psychologists David Thornton and Don Grubin of the UK prison
system release a similar instrument, the Structured Anchored Clinical
Judgment (SACJ- Min) scale.[2]
|
|
1999
|
Hanson and Thornton combine the RRASOR and SACJ-Min to produce
the Static-99, which is accompanied by a three-page list of coding rules.[3] The
instrument's original validity data derive from four groups of sex offenders,
including three from Canada and one from the UK (and none from the United
States). The new instrument is atheoretical, with scores interpreted based on
the recidivism patterns among these 1,208 offenders, most of them released
from prison in the 1970s.
|
|
2000
|
Hanson and Thornton publish a peer-reviewed article on the new
instrument.[4]
|
|
2003
|
New coding rules are released for the Static-99, in an
84-page, unpublished booklet that is not peer reviewed.[5] The
complex and sometimes counterintuitive rules may lead to problems with scoring
consistency, although research generally shows the instrument can be scored
reliably.
|
|
2003
|
The developers release a new instrument, the Static-2002,
intended to "address some of the weaknesses of Static-99."[6] The
new instrument is designed to be more logical and easier to score; one item
from the Static-99 – pertaining to whether the subject had lived with a lover
for at least two years – was dropped due to issues with its reliability and
validity. Despite its advantages, Static-2002 never caught on, and did not
achieve the popularity of the Static-99 in forensic settings.
|
|
2007
|
Leslie Helmus, A graduate student working with Karl Hanson, reports
that contemporary samples of sex offenders have much lower offense rates than
did the antiquated, non-US samples upon which the Static-99 was originally
developed, both in terms of base rates of offending and rates of recidivism after
release from custody.[7]
|
|
September 2008
|
|
|
October 2008
|
At an annual convention of the Association for the Treatment
of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), Andrew Harris, a Canadian colleague of Hanson's,
releases a new version of the Static-99 with three separate "reference
groups" (Complete, CSC and High Risk) to which subjects can be compared.
Evaluators are instructed to report a range of risks for recidivism, with the
lower bound coming from a set of Canadian prison cases (the so-called CSC, or
Correctional Service of Canada group), and the upper bound derived from a
so-called "high-risk" group of offenders. The risk of the third, or
"Complete," group was hypothesized as falling somewhere between those
of the other two groups.[10]
|
|
November 2008
|
At a workshop sponsored by a civil
commitment center in Minnesota, Thornton and a government evaluator named
Dennis Doren propose yet another new method of selecting among the new
reference groups. In a procedure called "cohort matching,” they suggest
comparing an offender with either the CSC or High-Risk reference group based
on how well the subject matched a list of external characteristics they had created
but never empirically tested or validated.[11]
|
|
December 2008
|
Phenix and California psychologist
Dale Arnold put forth yet a new idea for improving the accuracy of the
Static-99: After reporting the range of risk based on a combination of the
CSC and High-Risk reference groups, evaluators are encouraged to consider a
set of external factors, such as whether the offender had dropped out of
treatment and the offender's score on Robert Hare's controversial Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). This new method does not seem to catch on.[12] [13]
|
|
2009
|
|
|
Winter 2009
|
The Static-99 developers admit that
norms they developed in 2000 are not being replicated: The same score on the
Static-99 equates with wide variations in recidivism rates depending on the
sample to which it is compared. They theorize that the problem is due to
large reductions in Canadian and U.S. recidivism rates since the 1970s-1980s.
They call for the development of new norms.[15]
|
|
September 2009
|
Hanson and colleagues roll out a new version of the Static-99,
the Static-99R.[16]
The new instrument addresses a major criticism by more precisely considering an
offender's age at release, an essential factor in reoffense risk. The old
Static-99 norms are deemed obsolete. They are replaced by data from 23
samples collected by Helmus for her unpublished Master's thesis. The samples vary
widely in regard to risk. For estimating risk, the developers now recommend
use of the cohort matching procedure to select among four new reference group
options. They also introduce the concepts of percentile ranks and relative
risk ratios, along with a new Evaluators’ Workbook for Static-99R and
Static-2002R. Instructions for selecting reference groups other than routine
corrections are confusing and speculative. Research is lacking to demonstrate
that selecting other than routine corrections reference group produces more
accurate risk estimates.[17]
|
|
November 2009
|
Just two months after their introduction, the Evaluators’ Workbook
for Static-99R and Static-2002R is withdrawn due to errors in its actuarial tables.[18] The
replacement workbook provides the same confusing and speculative method for
selecting a nonroutine reference group, a method that lacks scientific
validation and reliability.
|
|
2010
|
An international team of researchers presents large-scale data
from the United States, New Zealand and Australia indicating that the
Static-99 would be more accurate if it took better account of an offender's
age.[19]
The Static-99 developers do not immediately embrace these researchers'
suggestions.
|
|
January 2012
|
Amy Phenix and colleagues introduce a revised Evaluators’
Workbook for Static-99R and Static-2002R.[20]
The new manual makes a number of revisions both to the underlying data
(including percentile rank and relative risk ratio data) and to the recommended
procedure for selecting a reference group. Now, in an increasingly complex
procedure, offenders are to be compared to one of three reference groups,
based on how many external risk factors they had. The groups included Routine
Corrections (low risk), Preselected Treatment Need (moderate risk), and
Preselected High Risk Need (high risk). Subsequent research shows that using
density of external risk factors to select among the three reference group
options is not valid and has no proven reliability.[21]A
fourth reference group, Nonroutine Corrections, may be selected using a
separate cohort-matching procedure. New research indicates that evaluators
who are retained most often by the prosecution are more likely than others to
select the high-risk reference group, [22] which has base rates much higher than
in contemporary sexual recidivism studies and will thus produce exaggerated
risk estimates.[23]
|
|
July 2012
|
Six months later, the percentile ranks and relative risk
ratios are once again modified, with the issuance of the third edition of the
Static-99R and Static-2002R Evaluators’ Handbook.[24] No
additional data is provided to justify that the selection of nonroutine
reference groups produces more accurate risk estimates than choosing the
routine corrections reference group.
|
|
October 2012
|
In an article published in Criminal Justice & Behavior, the developers concede that risk
estimates for the 23 offender samples undergirding the Static-99 vary widely.
Further, absolute risk levels for typical sex offenders are far lower than
previously reported, with the typical sex offender having about a 7% chance
of committing a new sex offense within five years. They theorize that the
Static-99 might be inflating risk of reoffense due to the fact that the
offenders in its underlying samples tended to be higher risk than average.[25]
|
|
2012
|
The repeated refusal of the Static-99 developers to share
their underlying data with other researchers, so that its accuracy can be
verified, leads to a court order excluding use of the instrument in a
Wisconsin case.[26]
|
|
October 2013
|
At an annual ATSA convention, Hanson and Phenix report that an
entirely new reference group selection system will be released in a peer-reviewed
article in Spring 2014.[27]
The new system will include only two reference groups: Routine Corrections
and Preselected High Risk High Need. An atypical sample of offenders from a
state hospital in Bridgewater, Massachusetts dating back to 1958 is to be
removed altogether, along with some other samples, while some new data sets are
to be added.
|
|
October 2014
|
At the annual ATSA convention, the developers once again announce
that the anticipated rollout of the new system has been pushed back pending
acceptance of the manuscript for publication. Helmus nonetheless presents an overview.[28] She
reports that the new system will abandon two out of the current four reference
groups, retaining only Routine Corrections and Preselected High Risk Need. Evaluators
should now use the Routine Corrections norms as the default unless local
norms (with a minimum of 100 recidivists) are available. Evaluators will be
permitted to choose the Preselected High Risk Need norms based on “strong,
case-specific justification.” No specific guidance nor empirical evidence to
support such a procedure is proffered. A number of other new options for
reporting risk information are also presented, including the idea of combining
Static-99 data with that from newly developed, so-called "dynamic risk
instruments."
|
|
January 2015
|
At an ATSA convention
presentation followed by an article in the journal Sexual Abuse,[29]
the developers announce further changes in their data sets and how Static-99R
scores should be interpreted. Only two of the original four "reference
groups" are still standing. Of these, the Routine group has grown by 80%
(to 4,325 subjects), while the High-Risk group has shrunk by 35%, to a paltry
860 individuals. Absent from the article is any actuarial table on the
High-Risk group, meaning the controversial practice by some government
evaluators of inflating risk estimates by comparing sex offenders' Static-99R
scores with the High-Risk group data has still not passed any formal peer
review process. The developers also correct a previous statistical method as
recommended by Ted Donaldson and colleagues back in 2012,[30]
the effect of which is to further lower risk estimates in the high-risk group. Only sex offenders in the Routine group with Static-99R scores of
10 are now statistically more likely than not to reoffend. It is unknown how many sex offenders were civilly committed in part due to reliance
on the now-obsolete data.
|
References
[1] Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief
actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism. (Unpublished report 97-04).
Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.
[2] Grubin, D. (1998). Sex offending against children:
Understanding the risk. Unpublished report, Police Research Series Paper 99.
London: Home Office.
[3] Hanson, R.K. & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99:
Improving Actuarial Risk Assessments for Sex Offenders. Unpublished paper
[4] Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving
risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law
and Human Behavior, 24(1), 119-136.
[5] Harris, A. J. R., Phenix, A., Hanson, R. K., &
Thornton, D. (2003). Static-99 coding rules: Revised 2003. Ottawa, ON:
Solicitor General Canada.
[6] Hanson, R.K., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D (2010). Predicting
recidivism amongst sexual offenders: A multi-site study of Static-2002. Law
& Human Behavior 34, 198-211.
[7] Helmus, L. (2007). A multi-site comparison of the
validity and utility of the Static-99 and Static-2002 for risk assessment with
sexual offenders. Unpublished Honour’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON,
Canada.
[8] Helmus, L. (2008, September). Static-99 Recidivism
Percentages by Risk Level. Last Updated September 25, 2008. Unpublished paper.
[9] Phenix, A., Helmus, L., & Hanson, R.K. (2008,
September). Evaluators’ Workbook. Unpublished, September 28, 2008
[10] Harris, A. J. R., Hanson, K., & Helmus, L.
(2008). Are new norms needed for Static-99? Workshop presented at the ATSA 27th
Annual Research and Treatment Conference on October 23, 2008, Atlanta: GA.
Available at www.static99.org.
[11] Doren, D., & Thornton, D. (2008). New Norms for
Static-99: A Briefing. A workshop sponsored by Sand Ridge Secure Treatment
Center on November 10, 2008. Madison, WI.
[12] Phenix, A. & Arnold, D. (2008, December).
Proposed Considerations for Conducting Sex Offender Risk Assessment Draft
12-14-08. Unpublished paper.
[13] Abbott, B. (2009). Applicability of the new Static-99
experience tables in sexually violent predator risk assessments. Sexual
Offender Treatment, 1, 1-24.
[14] Helmus, L., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2009).
Reporting Static-99 in light of new research on recidivism norms. The Forum,
21(1), Winter 2009, 38-45.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Hanson, R. K., Phenix, A., & Helmus, L. (2009,
September). Static-99(R) and Static-2002(R): How to Interpret and Report in
Light of Recent Research. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Research and
Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers,
Dallas, TX, September 28, 2009.
[17] DeClue, G. & Zavodny, D. (2014). Forensic use of the Static-99R: Part 4. Risk
Communication. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 1(3), 145-161.
[18] Phenix, A., Helmus, L., & Hanson, R.K. (2009,
November). Evaluators’ Workbook. Unpublished, November 3, 2009.
[19] Wollert, R., Cramer, E., Waggoner, J., Skelton, A.,
& Vess, J. (2010). Recent Research (N = 9,305) Underscores the Importance
of Using Age-Stratified Actuarial Tables in Sex Offender Risk Assessments. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22 (4), 471-490. See
also: "Age tables improve sex offender risk estimates," In the News blog, Dec. 1, 2010.
[20] Phenix, A., Helmus, L., & Hanson, R.K. (2012,
January). Evaluators’ Workbook. Unpublished, January 9, 2012.
[21] Abbott, B.R.
(2013). The Utility of Assessing “External Risk Factors” When Selecting
Static-99R Reference Groups. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology,
5, 89-118.
[23] Abbott (2013) op. cit.
[24] Phenix, A., Helmus, L., & Hanson, R.K. (2012,
July). Evaluators’ Workbook. Unpublished, July 26, 2012.
[25] Helmus, Hanson, Thornton, Babchishin, & Harris
(2012), Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex
offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: A meta-analysis, Criminal
Justice & Behavior. See also: "Static-99R risk estimates wildly unstable, developers
admit," In the News blog, Oct.
18, 2012.
[26] State of Wisconsin v. Homer L. Perren Jr., La Crosse County 2010-CI000003. See Franklin, K.
"Judge bars Static-99R risk tool from SVP trial:
Developers staunchly refused requests to turn over data" (2012, Dec. 14), In the News blog.
[27] Hanson, R.K. & Phenix, A. (2013, October). Report
writing for the Static-99R and Static-2002R. Preconference seminar presented at
the 32nd Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the
Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Chicago, IL, October 30, 2013. See also: "Static-99 'norms du jour' get yet another makeover," In the News blog, Nov. 17, 2013.
[28] Helmus, L.M. (2014, October). Absolute recidivism
estimates for Static-99R and Static-2002R: Current research and
recommendations. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Research and Treatment
Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego,
CA, October 30, 2014.
1-23.
* * * * *
* * * * *
.png)
