Static-99R Norms and Cross-Cultural Validity for Australian Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Men Convicted of Sexual Offences

Abstract

This study examined Static-99R normative data and cross-cultural validity in a sample of 811 Aboriginal and 3257 non-Aboriginal Australian men (N = 4068) serving custodial orders for sexual offences in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Aboriginal men scored significantly higher on the Static-99R than non-Aboriginal men (M = 4.39 vs. 2.61) and were more likely to be represented in higher categories of risk. The Static-99R showed good discrimination performance for the total sample (AUC = .76; 95% CI = [.73–.80]) and acceptable calibration to expected reoffending rates for routine samples, with slight tendencies towards overestimation. Discrimination accuracy was lower for Aboriginal men (AUC = .68; 95% CI = [.60–77]) than non-Aboriginal men (AUC = .78; 95% CI = [.74–83]) although was significantly better than chance for both groups. Additional analyses indicated that cross-cultural differences in discrimination were partly associated with variance in sample composition between groups. This is the first Australian study to find evidence for significant predictive validity of the Static-99R with Aboriginal men, and while further research is needed, the results provide initial support for cross-cultural applications of the measure in local criminal justice settings.

Keywords

Static-99R risk assessment sexual recidivism cross-cultural validity Australian Aboriginal peoples Indigenous peoples

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

Lee

S. C.

Helmus

L. M.

(2023). Predictive accuracy of Static-99R across different racial/ethnic groups: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 47(1), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000517

Allan

Dawson

Allan

M. M.

(2006). Prediction of the risk of male sexual reoffending in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 41(1), 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060500391886

Allan

Parry

C. L.

Ferrante

Gillies

Griffiths

C. S.

Morgan

Spiranovic

Smallbone

Tubex

Wong

S. C. P.

(2018). Assessing the risk of Australian indigenous sexual offenders reoffending: A review of the research literature and court decisions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(2), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1504242

Allan

Parry

C. L.

Tubex

Spiranovic

Morgan

(2020). Forensic experts’ Perspectives on Australian indigenous sexual offenders and factors important in evaluating the risk of recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(15), 1653–1675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20967941

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(1995). Level of Supervision Revised (LSI-R): An offender assessment system. User’s guide. Multi-Health Systems.

Anthony

(2017). FactCheck: Are first Australians the most imprisoned people on earth? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-first-australians-the-most-imprisoned-peopleon-earth-78528

Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2021). Indigenous status (INGP) by age (AGEP) [census tablebuilder], accessed 4/7/2023.

Babchishin

K. M.

Blais

Helmus

(2012). Do static risk factors predict differently for aboriginal sex offenders? A multi-site comparison using the original and revised Static-99 and Static-2002 scales. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 54(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2010.E.40

Bell

Howard

M. V. A.

(2020). Automated assessment of sexual recidivism risk for custody-based sex offenders. Corrective Services NSW.

10.

Bonta

Andrews

D. A.

(2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.

11.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.

12.

Crimes [High Risk Offenders] Act [NSW] (2006). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/croa2006246/

13.

Day

Tamatea

A. J.

Casey

Geia

(2018). Assessing violence risk with aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders: Considerations for forensic practice. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(3), 452–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1467804

14.

Gutierrez

L. L.

(2018). Walls of Red Wing: An examination of culturally informed sentencing, risk/need factors, and treatment for peoples of Indigenous heritage in Canada’s criminal justice system [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Carleton University.

15.

Hanson

R. K.

(2017). Assessing the calibration of actuarial risk scales: A primer on the E/O index. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816683956

16.

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

(2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005482921333

17.

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

Helmus

L. M.

Babchishin

K. M.

(2016). What sexual recidivism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(3), 218–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574710

18.

Harper

C. A.

Hogue

T. E.

Bartels

R. M.

(2017). Attitudes towards sexual offenders: What do we know, and why are they important? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34(1), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.011

19.

Helmus

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

K. E.

(2011). International comparisons of the validity of actuarial risk tools for sexual offenders, with a focus on Static-99. In Boer

D. P.

Eher

Craig

L. A.

Miner

M. H.

Pfäfflin

(Eds), International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 57–84). John Wiley and Sons.

20.

Helmus

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

Babchishin

K. M.

Harris

A. J. R.

(2012a). Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1148–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812443648

21.

Helmus

Thornton

Hanson

R. K.

Babchishin

K. M.

(2012b). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse. A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(1), 64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951

22.

Helmus

L. M.

Kelley

S. M.

Frazier

Fernandez

Y. M.

Lee

S. C.

Rettenberger

Boccaccini

M. T.

(2022). Static-99R: Strengths, limitations, predictive accuracy meta-analysis, and legal admissibility review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 28(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000351

23.

Helmus

L. M.

Lee

S. C.

Phenix

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

(2021). Static-99R and Static-2002R evaluators’ workbook. Society for the advancement of actuarial risk and needs assessment (SAARNA). www.saarna.org

24.

Howard

M. V. A.

(2016). Process evaluation of the custody based intensive treatment (CUBIT) program for sex offenders. Corrective Services NSW.

25.

Howard

Mark

Lobo

Jude

(2020). Access to programs and services among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) offenders: The case of EQUIPS. Corrective Services NSW.

26.

Howard

M. V. A.

Wei

(2022). Effects of closed versus open groups on attrition and recidivism outcomes for sex offenders in custody-based treatment programmes. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 28(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2021.1905894

27.

Howard

M. V. A.

Zhang

(2020). The predictive validity of general risk assessment tools for offence-specific recidivism among domestic violence offenders. Corrective Services NSW.

28.

Howard

P. D.

(2017). The effect of sample heterogeneity and risk categorization on area under the curve predictive validity metrics. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816678899

29.

Lee

S. C.

Hanson

R. K.

(2021). Updated 5-year and new 10-year sexual recidivism rate norms for Static-99R with routine/complete samples. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000436

30.

Lee

S. C.

Hanson

R. K.

Blais

(2020). 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. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 61(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000182

31.

Olver

M. E.

Stockdale

K. C.

Wormith

J. S.

(2014). Thirty years of research on the Level of Service scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 156–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035080

32.

Raymond

B. C.

McEwan

T. E.

Davis

M. R.

Reeves

S. G.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

(2021). Investigating the predictive validity of Static-99/99R scores in a sample of older sexual offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767714

33.

Reeves

S. G.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

Simmons

(2018). The predictive validity of the Static-99, Static-99R, and Static-2002/R: Which one to use? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 30(8), 887–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217712216

34.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7

35.

Rosenbaum

P. R.

Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

36.

Shepherd

S. M.

Lewis-Fernandez

(2016). Forensic risk assessment and cultural diversity: Contemporary challenges and future directions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000102

37.

Skeem

J. L.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

(2016). Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 54(4)680–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12123

38.

Smallbone

Rallings

(2013). Short-term predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99R for indigenous and nonindigenous Australian sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(3), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212472937

39.

Spiranovic

(2012). The Static-99 and Static-99R norms project: Developing norms based on western Australian sex offenders. University of Western Australia.

40.

Spiranovic

Ferrante

Buscot

Griffiths

Allan

Wong

Tubex

Morgan

(2020). The promises and perils of developing a national sex offender recidivism database in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(3), 359–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1807701

41.

Warne

R. T.

Yoon

Price

C. J.

(2014). Exploring the various interpretations of “test bias.”. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 570–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036503

42.

Wilson

H. A.

Gutierrez

(2014). Does one size fit all? A meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the Level of Service inventory (LSI) with aboriginal offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(2), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813500958