The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) was one of the earliest validated, actuarial risk assessment tool for sexual offenders. This article describes the development and validation of the MnSOST-R in the context of evolving risk assessment strategies and methods, which are essential for effective decisions in the criminal justice system. Risk Assessment With Sexual Offenders Determinations of risk occur across the criminal justice system. From decisions for setting bail, to sentencing, to establishing custody level, to determining conditions of release—implicit or explicit judgments about risk must be made. This has been true throughout modern correctional history. Sexual offenders present even more challenges to the legal system because of additional risk assessment to inform additional high-stakes decisions unique to them. These include registration, community notification, and civil commitment. In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children’s Act, which required states to set up sexual offender registries in order to better track sexual offenders. Megan’s Law, which took just 2 days to pass through the U.S. Congress in 1996 as an amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act, authorized law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living, working, or visiting in their communities. It also required all states to develop a procedure for notifying the public when a convicted sex offender is released into their community. To address these statutes, many states incorporated a three-tier system of risk (low, medium, or high) rather than identifying the specific types of offenders that are to be subject to notification. In Minnesota, for example, the Community Notification Act of 1996 called for a risk assessment scale to be implemented by January 1, 1997, and identified a series of factors to be used in assessing risk and assigning risk levels. As in many other states, those sex offenders determined to present the greatest risk received the highest level of community notification as well as supervision. Also in the 1990s, states began to implement existing, or passed new, civil commitment statutes, often referred to as sexually violent predator laws. These statutes enabled states to commit the most dangerous sexual offenders to forensic hospitals rather than release them back into the community. The policy justification for registration, community notification, and civil commitment statutes was protection of the public from the most dangerous sexual offenders. Clearly, then, the assessment and prediction of dangerousness is essential for the constitutional and effective implementation of these statutes. While accurate assessment has always been important, the high-stakes decisions regarding sexual offenders helped focus attention on the objectivity, consistency, and accuracy of existing methods of risk assessment. The practice of sexual offender assessments in the 1980s and early 1990s was largely clinical and subjective in nature because of the standards of practice at that time and the absence of research on empirically validated risk indicators. However, a compendium of studies, particularly in the 1980s, demonstrated that the clinical prediction of any type of longer term violence, including sexual violence, was essentially no better than chance. Consequently, […]
Criminal Justice Research Papers
Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI)
The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) is one of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) instruments. It is an example of a fourth generation offender risk/need assessment scale and is distinguished from previous generation instruments by the fact that it was not only designed to predict offender recidivism but also includes a built-in case management component that translates the need portion of the assessment to an active intervention plan for offender supervision, treatment, and programming. Like the LSI-Revised (LSI-R), the LS/CMI was pilot-tested on a large scale for almost a decade prior to its general release. This article describes the origins of the LS/ CMI, places it historically in the sequence of LSI instruments, itemizes the differences between it and its predecessors, and summarizes the research that it has generated. History and Evolution While the LSI-R was enjoying widespread success and was being implemented in Canada, the United States, and numerous European and Asian countries in the mid-1990s, it became evident to the authors, researchers, administrators, and end users that it could be expanded. Specifically, there was a growing sense that the scope of the assessment should be broadened and its linkage to offender supervision and intervention should be strengthened. Consequently, Donald Andrews, along with James Bonta and Stephen Wormith, began a systematic review of the research and practical experience that had accumulated by that time. There was already extensive, system-wide experience with the LSI-VI (later known as the LSI-R) in Ontario, where correctional authorities were considering extending its use into its provincial prisons. They analyzed LSI assessment and recidivism data provided by the Ontario government. They also reviewed the early and rather crude, by today’s standards, meta-analyses on offender’s risk factors and recidivism. This review coincided with the emergence of the Central Eight domains of offender’s risk/need factors and helped to reorganize and reformat the next version of the LSI. The authors also consulted with LSI assessors, primarily probation officers and psychologists, about their clinical experiences with the offenders they had assessed. They asked what more should the LSI provide to users in the field. They met with various levels of correctional officials, from senior administrators responsible for corporate policy to staff supervisors in the field, professional associations, and the provincial parole board. Routinely, they asked, what more would the various stakeholder groups like to see in the instrument to improve it, to ease its use, and to increase its value to the organization. In 1995, the LSI: Ontario Revision (LSI-OR) was introduced into Ontario’s provincial correctional services, in both its probation offices and its correctional institutions. Then, in 2004, the LS/ CMI was released for more general use by correctional agencies around the world. It included organizational and stylistic modifications from the original LSI-OR, but none of the actual items in the core risk/need assessment portion were changed. In other words, as was the case with the LSI-VI and the LSI-R, the LSI-OR served as a thoroughly monitored and researched precursor to the LS/CMI. Structure and Organization […]
Level of Service Inventory-Self-Report (LSI-SR)
The Level of Service Inventory-Self-Report (LSISR) is a pencil-and-paper, self-report version of the LSI (i.e., a risk assessment instrument that was designed to identify adult offenders’ likelihood of reoffending) and its subsequently published version, the LSI-R. Originally known simply as the Self-Report Inventory and sometimes referred to as the LSI-R:SR, the LSI-SR was developed by Michelle Motiuk in 1988. The instrument adhered to the principles and content of the original LSI, but it allowed for its completion by the offender, as opposed to a correctional professional, such as a probation officer or psychologist. The LSI-SR was developed in part because of the time and resources that correctional agencies had to commit in order to conduct a single LSI. Since it was common to ask offenders to complete other psychological assessment instruments, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, in a self-report, but supervised, manner, it was reasoned that the same format could work with an offender risk/need assessment. This article describes the items on the LSI-SR, the empirical evidence for its concurrent and predictive validity, and its place among offender management tools. Items The LSI-SR consists of 78 items in a questionnaire format. Most of the items are answered in a yes–no manner, although some questions ask for a specific number, and there is one 4-point, Likert-type scale item. Items are grouped in the same 10 domains found in the original LSI and the LSIR. They include the following: 9 criminal history items (e.g., “Have you ever been arrested as a juvenile?”); 7 education/employment items (e.g., “Have you ever been fired from a job?”); 4 financial items (e.g., “I have been on welfare or unemployment insurance.”); 9 family/marital items (e.g., “Both parents are deceased.”); 5 accommodation items (e.g., “I have no fixed address.”); 5 leisure/recreation items (e.g., “During my spare time, I spend a lot of time in criminal activity or planning a job.”); 5 companion-related items (e.g., “Not counting relatives, how many people do you know have a criminal record or have been involved in crime?”); 22 alcohol/drug-related items (e.g., “When I drink I tend to get in trouble with the law.”); 6 emotional/personal items (e.g., “Have you ever attempted suicide?”); and 6 attitude/ orientation items (e.g., “All laws should be strictly obeyed.”). Another self-report offender risk assessment instrument that includes many of the same domains as the LSI-SR is the Self-Appraisal Questionnaire. Validity Motiuk’s original research yielded encouraging results for the validity of the LSI-SR. The measure was highly correlated with a traditionally conducted, interview-based LSI assessment (r = .78) on a sample of incarcerated adult, male offenders. The 10 domains of the LSI-SR were highly correlated with the corresponding interview-based domains of the LSI, with the exception of the financial and attitude/orientation sections. Moreover, six of the individual sections of the LSI-SR were highly correlated with independent self-report measures of constructs that the LSI-SR sections were designed to capture (r = .33 to .60). These included scholastic maladjustment, family dissention, urge to use alcohol/drugs, identification with criminal […]
Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R)
The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) is a risk assessment instrument designed to identify adult offenders’ likelihood of reoffending and is widely used in corrections. The instrument has been built on extensive empirical evidence about offender risk factors and pilot-tested extensively prior to its formal release. The LSI-R is part of a new, third generation of offender risk instruments known as risk/need assessments, because its items include a balance of historical and demographic static risk factors and an array of dynamic criminogenic need factors. This article describes the LSI-R, its place among LSI instruments, its content and widespread use, its training protocol, and its validity. Background of the LSI-R The LSI-R is an adaptation of Donald Andrews’s original LSI Level of Supervision Inventory, (LSI-VI). In fact, the LSI was administered and researched for more than a decade before its release as the LSI-R. By the time the LSI-R was published in 1995, there were at least 25 research papers on the LSI-VI that established its psychometric properties, including its inter-rater and test–retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity (i.e., the extent that it correlated with other measures of constructs such as propensity for rule violation), and its predictive validity (i.e., its correlation with subsequent recidivism and other antisocial behavior such as rule violation). However, with the exception of a few studies, mostly with Canadian federal offenders, this research was conducted on offenders who were on probation or in provincial facilities in Ontario, Canada. Regardless, the LSI-VI served, in essence, as a pilot instrument affording many opportunities for risk/need assessment research prior to the formal release of the LSI-R by Andrews and his colleague, James Bonta, in 1995. Content and Organization of the LSI-R The LSI-R is very similar to the LSI-VI in content. It includes the same 54 items grouped into the same 10 domains or sections: Criminal History (10), Education/Employment (10), Financial (2), Family/Marital (3), Accommodation (3), Leisure/Recreation (2), Companions (5), Alcohol/Drug Problems (9), Emotional/Personal (5), and Attitudes/Orientation (4). (The LSI-VI test option to include write-in items listing specific conditions for probation or parole has been eliminated.) The LSI-R is available in a paper-and-pencil format on a carbon paper Quick-Score Form that allows for expedient manual scoring. The publisher, Multi-Health Systems, also offers a Windows-based computer program that generates a profile report, a comparative report, and a group report. Norms were developed for male and female offenders, listing the percentile ranking of offenders throughout the range of possible scores on the instrument. In addition, five risk levels were created for male inmates with labels and 1-year recidivism rates (return to custody) as follows: high (72%), medium/high (57.3%), moderate (48.1%), low/moderate (31.1%), and low (11.7%). The authors also suggested guidelines for the classification of offenders in various contexts including guidelines for the amount of supervision of probationers (minimum, medium, and maximum); placement to a halfway house (appropriate, appropriate with close supervision, and inappropriate); and inmate classification to security level, with separate cutoff scores for recommendations for male and female prisoners. An […]
Level of Service Inventory (LSI)
The Level of Service Inventory (LSI) is a risk assessment instrument that was designed to identify adult offenders’ likelihood of reoffending. As such, it is one of a number of offender risk assessment tools that are now used by a wide range of correctional, forensic, and mental health professionals who are given the difficult task of predicting offender recidivism. Various versions of the LSI are now used extensively in Canada, the United States, and various countries in Europe, Asia, and Oceana, in large part because they have demonstrated their capacity to predict offender recidivism among a wide range of offenders and they shed light on areas that correctional officials should target with the offender to reduce his or her likelihood of recidivating. Consequently, the LSI is described as a risk/need scale in that it assesses both the overall risk that an offender presents in terms of likelihood to recidivate and the criminogenic needs that might be addressed to reduce that risk. This article describes the origins and history of the LSI, its theoretical and empirical basis, its design and content, and its research support. Origins and History The original LSI was developed in the early 1980s by Donald Andrews, in Ottawa, Canada, with the cooperation of the Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services. Andrews was originally interested in assisting the Ministry to establish supervision standards for probation officers. He was intrigued by the work of Sally Rogers, a Ministry researcher, who came up with a simplified instrument that effectively identified offenders who recidivated at both above average and below average rates of recidivism. Rogers’s 6-item scale asked yes–no questions about offenders’ demographics and criminal history (i.e., male, under 24 years of age, have criminal record, have delinquent associates, aimless use of leisure time, have family on social assistance). But Andrews was aware of more complex tools that had been developed in the United States, including the Salient Factor Score. He also believed that an instrument that was grounded in a sound theory of criminal behavior could do a better job of prediction. This led to his first effort, known originally as the Level of Supervision Inventory, an offender risk assessment tool that was guided by various theories about criminal behavior and empirical evidence. The Theoretical and Empirical Foundations Andrews was strongly influenced by the differential association theory of Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey and its more behavioral reformulations and by Albert Bandura’s more general social learning theory. Differential association purported that criminal behavior was a learned behavior and that such learning took place primarily among intimate personal groups. Donald Akers then applied more Skinnerian terminology emphasizing the rewards and punishments that occurred as consequences of antisocial behavior, while Bandura introduced the concept of modeling (i.e., behavior, including antisocial behavior, can be learned by simply observing others and is strengthened when the model is rewarded). This led to Andrews considering not only delinquent and criminal history as factors in a risk assessment tool but also an offender’s history of support and punishment […]
Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment
According to the most recent estimates by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there were a total of 1.32 million juvenile arrests in 2012. Of these juveniles, 12,400 were arrested for sex offenses. The largest proportion of perpetrators of juvenile sex offenses reported each year are male (90%) and White (72%) adolescents. Although sex offenders represent a small proportion of offender populations, protecting individuals from sex crimes and providing early interventions for sex offenders have been an ongoing concern among the general public and policy makers. A growing area of interests within the field of corrections is risk assessment. The goal of risk assessment is to provide correctional practitioners (e.g., probation officers, juvenile court officers) and judges with information concerning an offender’s potential risk of committing future crimes. The adoption and use of proper risk assessments for juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) means that correctional practitioners will be informed about rehabilitation needs of JSOs, which in turn may reduce risk of reoffending through adulthood. Research suggests that JSOs are distinct from adult sex offenders. For example, JSOs have fewer victims, engage in less aggressive acts of violence, are less likely to have victims that are strangers, and are more likely to be involved in illegal sexual behavior as the result of curiosity and experimentation. Given that there are potentially different factors that predict sex crimes for adults, it is critical for juvenile courts to use risk assessments that address the unique needs of juveniles who engage in illegal sexual activity. The Use of Risk Assessments for Juvenile Offenders The use of risk assessments has a long history in justice system practice that started with the adult justice system. Risk assessments for juvenile offenders are one-way juvenile practitioners who systematically identify the presence and severity of key static (stable over time) and dynamic (changing) criminogenic risk factors that may lead to ongoing delinquent behavior. Examples of static criminogenic risk factors include criminal history, family criminality, and age at first offense, whereas examples of dynamic criminogenic risk factors include peer relationships, education, and involvement in antisocial activities. By examining static and dynamic risk factors using standardized measurements, juvenile courts can not only determine a juvenile’s probability of reoffending but also identify specific programs that may reduce criminogenic risk. Further, these tools also provide courts with a system to track a youth’s progress based on the services and treatment received. Static and dynamic risk factors typically fall within one of eight central areas that predict general delinquency (i.e., assault, shoplifting, theft, breaking and entering). These central eight criminogenic risk areas measured by general risk assessments include antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression), antisocial personality (e.g., impulsive/ lacks self-control), cognition (e.g., antisocial beliefs), antisocial peers (e.g., delinquent peers), family (e.g., lack of supervision or poor quality relationships with parents), school/work (e.g., problems at school), leisure/recreation (e.g., use of free time), and substance abuse (e.g., alcohol and drug use). While these eight areas have been useful for estimating a juvenile’s risk of involvement in general delinquency, […]
Juvenile Sex Offender Risk Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II)
The Juvenile Sex Offender Risk Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) is a structured risk assessment tool designed to evaluate risk of sexual violence and general offending in adolescent males (12–18 years) with a history of coercive sexual behavior. The J-SOAP-II is relevant to the field of criminal psychology given that it is one of the most commonly administered risk assessment tools designed for adolescent sexual offenders in the United States and Canada. Moreover, the J-SOAP-II was specifically designed to aid in treatment planning and in monitoring treatment-related change. After a description of the J-SOAP-II, this article discusses its purpose and development and provides a brief overview of empirical findings regarding its reliability and validity. Description and Purpose of the J-SOAP-II The J-SOAP-II comprises a 28-item checklist designed to assess and manage risk of sexual violence and general delinquency and can be administered as part of a comprehensive assessment. The 28 items form four distinct scales, two of which are viewed as static or historical (i.e., Sexual Drive/Preoccupation Scale and Impulsive/ Antisocial Scale) while the remaining two are modifiable or dynamic (i.e., Intervention Scale and Community Stability/Adjustment Scale). All items are operationally defined with behavioral anchors and scored using a three-level rating system (i.e., 0, 1, and 2) with all items weighted equally. Table 1 displays the J-SOAP-II items by scale. Although initially intended to be an actuarial assessment tool (i.e., a risk assessment tool that provides probabilistic estimates of sexual reoffending based on total scores or predetermined cutoffs), the J-SOAP-II does not provide cutoff scores or probability of risk. Rather, total scores may be calculated by summing the items for the J-SOAP-II and its individual scales. In addition, static and dynamic scores can be calculated by summing Items 1–16 and 17–28, respectively. To further aid in interpretation, the level of risk may be calculated for each score by dividing the summed value by the total possible score for the scale. Adjustments to the scoring criteria or total scores are not recommended; nevertheless, incorporating risk-relevant factors not otherwise reflected in the tool (i.e., case-specific risk/ protective factors), and adjusting the adolescent’s overall risk accordingly, is permitted on the basis of the clinical opinion of the assessor. Therefore, it is possible that an adolescent may be deemed high risk by an assessor despite scoring low on the J-SOAP-II (and vice versa). Moreover, should insufficient information be available for scoring items, assessors are encouraged to rate items favoring lower risk; however, the potential for the underestimation of risk in such instances should be acknowledged. Because of rapid developmental changes occurring during adolescence, the authors of the J-SOAP-II recommend that regular reassessments occur during the course of treatment and prior to release from custody to monitor change in risk. Such reassessments should occur at a minimum of every 6 months, particularly if any risk-relevant changes occur (e.g., expulsion from school). However, if an adolescent is currently incarcerated in a correctional facility or residential treatment program, it is recommended that the Community Stability/Adjustment Scale not be rated […]
Juvenile Sex Offender Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II)
The Juvenile Sex Offender Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II) was originally developed by Douglas Epperson in collaboration with the Utah Juvenile Justice Services as an actuarial assessment of risk. Actuarial assessments aim to make risk assessments based on well-established statistical relationships (e.g., weather forecasting relies on statistical models to predict storms but cannot predict with 100% accuracy), as opposed to clinical assessments (e.g., making a judgment of risk based on information gained from the psychosocial interview). The JSORRAT-II was designed to evaluate the risk of sexual recidivism for male sex offenders whose sexual offenses occurred between the ages of 12 and 18 years. The tool provides an overall score (ranging from 0 to 21) that is comprised of scores on 12 static, or unchanging, variables: number of adjudications for sexual offenses, number of victims, the time span of the documented sexual offending, presence of court-ordered supervision while offense occurred, offense occurred in a public place, presence of grooming or deception, treatment history, physical abuse history, sexual abuse history, special education placement, discipline problems during education time periods, and adjudications for nonsexual offenses. The tool, if used properly, can provide a fairly reliable measure of sexual recidivism risk, although it is currently only validated for use in Utah, Iowa, California, and Georgia. Scoring A number of items on the assessment are scored as either 0 or 1, signifying the absence or presence of risk factors, respectively (e.g., presence of court-ordered supervision while offense was committed, offense committed in a public place). Other items indicate a range of scores from 0 to 2 or 0 to 3 to denote a level of severity for specific risk factors (e.g., number of different victims is scored as 0 for one victim, 1 for two victims, or 2 for three or more victims). Individuals who receive an overall score of 8 of 21 or higher are placed at a moderate-to-high risk of recidivism, those who receive a score of 4–7 are deemed at moderate risk, scores of 1–3 classify an individual at a low-to-moderate risk, and those with a score of 0 are viewed as low risk. Prior to completing the assessment, it is crucial that evaluators review the entire file and only include information contained within the file. The assessment requires data from the offender’s officially adjudicated offense case file; uncharged offense information should not be included in the scoring of items. This is due to the fact that the items that were found to contribute to the predictive validity of the assessment were developed by using only officially adjudicated offense information, and thus, predictive validity is maintained when users follow the same standard. When information provided in the case file is insufficient, evaluators are instructed to make an estimate when possible. If the information in the file is deemed insufficient to make an estimate, the item should be coded as U (unable to score). Further, if the item is not relevant to the individual, it should be coded as NA. The unambiguous and […]
Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20)
The Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) is a commonly used violence risk assessment measure belonging to the Structured Professional Judgment model of violence risk assessment that sets out 20 risk factors across three scales: Historical, Clinical, and Risk Management. Violence risk assessment plays a pivotal role within criminal and forensic psychology, in that it is used to determine the level of violence risk posed by persons typically under some form of legal supervision or incapacitation. For instance, it is commonly used at admission to, within, and discharge from prisons, forensic hospitals, and psychiatric facilities. This article provides an overview of the HCR-20, including a brief description and history, its purpose, its applications, its core assumptions, its contents, how it was developed, how it is used in practice, and the nature of its research support. Brief Description and History of the HCR-20 The HCR-20 is a violence risk assessment measure intended to be used by professionals who are responsible for making decisions about risk of violence posed by people typically under some form of legal supervision. The 20 risk factors are broken down across the scales as follows: Historical (10 risk factors), Clinical (5 risk factors), and Risk Management (5 risk factors). The HCR20 User Manual details instructions for administering the measure, coding each risk factor, and making decisions about level of risk and necessary risk management strategies. The first version of the HCR-20 was published in 1995, replaced shortly thereafter with a slightly revised Version 2 in 1997. In 2013, a more substantially revised Version 3 was published. There have been 20 translations of Version 2, with 12 translations completed or underway for Version 3 as of late 2016. The Purpose of the HCR-20 First, the HCR-20 is intended to comprehensively structure the violence risk assessment procedure from the gathering of information to the final estimate of risk level. Second, it is intended to yield summary judgments regarding a person’s level of risk posed. Third, it facilitates a formulation of violence risk (an integrative, coherent explanation of a person’s violence), which allows evaluators to answer the question of why a person has acted violently. Fourth, it leads evaluators through a systematic consideration of necessary risk management strategies required to mitigate violence risk. Ultimately, its purpose is to prevent violence. Intended Target for HCR-20 The HCR-20 is commonly used for persons under legal supervision for whom violence risk is of some concern or must be determined as a matter of law or ethics. Some of the traditional contexts in which it is used include corrections, forensic mental health, and civil psychiatry. When a person enters any of these settings, determinations of risks posed and management needs often must be addressed. For persons residing within correctional facilities, or forensic or civil hospitals, it is used to estimate risk level, to form risk reduction plans, and to monitor risk and adjust management plans over time. It is also frequently used to inform release decisions in terms of degree of risk posed and management […]
Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism
The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR) is a risk assessment tool using a structured professional judgment approach. Instruments like the ERASOR attempt to help evaluators make a decision about sex offense risk (low, moderate, or high). All good tests and instruments attempting to measure human behavior must be valid and reliable. Risk assessment tools must measure what evaluators want to measure (validity), and they must allow evaluators to generate a measure that can be repeated over time, with others coming to the same conclusion (reliability). However, risk assessment with adolescents is more dynamic and changing, so risk assessment may be best looked at as a process that can guide efforts at intervention, treatment, and management. The ERASOR seeks to allow a trained evaluator to meaningfully combine psychosocial, statistical, factual, and environmental information in a way that allows for responsible and defensible decisions about risk management as well as treatment and placement, if applicable. The ERASOR permits an evaluator to come to a decision about an assessment of risk for reoffense. It also can assist an evaluator to create and develop a plan for treatment and can identify areas where the adolescent might require some motivation to accept and engage in treatment. This article discusses several general considerations in sex offense risk with adolescents. Risk must be measured so that professionals can determine how best to intervene, treat, and manage risk and associated factors. With an adolescent, a professional trying to measure risk— because risk factors are often more fluid—is encouraged to measure risk at different points. The adolescent can be assessed after being charged with a criminal offense, once detained and provided counseling or other treatment measures, and again after treatment and adjudication have occurred. Adolescent sex offense risk assessment is a process that can be used to determine the type and intensity of treatment needed and to help define goals and objectives (targets) of treatment and case management. With adolescents, however, there are issues complicating sex offense risk assessment. The first are base rates. A base rate is the rate at which a behavior (e.g., sexual assault) occurs in the general population of adolescents. These base rates for juveniles are relatively low. So, when trying to measure or assess the likelihood of another sex offense occurring, evaluators can be prone to inflating their assessments because the base rate of the behavior is so low to begin with. This can lead to the perception of a higher probability of risk than is actual, a serious error. Another factor complicating risk assessment is that nearly all of the existing research is based on experience with adolescent males. The data on female sex offense risk are emerging. The ERASOR is a relatively short-term (less than 1 year) risk assessment tool to be used with adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18. It allows for a consideration of both static (fixed and historical) and dynamic (changeable, amenable to treatment) risk factors. The second version, ERASOR 2.0, has 25 […]