Thinking About A Risk-Based Registry

Sex offender risk assessments are most often employed in applied forensic settings for purposes of decision-making. The typical venues for sex offender risk assessment include— Sentencing and criminal adjudications, during which the results of the assessment are used to ascertain appropriate levels and periods of confinement and/or community supervision. Determinations of treatment needs, settings, and modalities. Sex Offender Registration and Notification (SORN) proceedings, during which the results of the assessment are used to classify ("level") offenders based on their assessed risk. Civil commitment proceedings, during which the results of the assessment are used to argue for and against indefinite confinement based on the assessed risk for sexual recidivism. Common Uses of Risk Assessment Nationally

Level 1 Sex Offenders Where the Sex Offender Registry Board determines that the risk of reoffense by an offender is low and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public by that offender is not such that a public safety interest is served by public availability, the Board shall give that offender a Level 1 designation. Information on Level 1 offenders will not be available to the public. Neither the police nor the Board have authority to disseminate information to the general public identifying a Level 1 offender. Information identifying Level 1 offenders may only be given to the Department of Correction, any county correctional facility, the Department of Youth Services, the Department of Social Services, the Parole Board, the Department of Probation and the Department of Mental Health, all city and town police departments and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for law enforcement purposes. Massachusetts Registry Levels as determined by risk assessment

Level 2 Sex Offenders Where the Board determines that the risk of reoffense is moderate and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a public safety interest is served by public availability of registration information, it shall give a level 2 designation to the sex offender. The public shall have access to the information regarding a level 2 offender through the Local Police Department and through the Sex Offender Registry Board for LevelSex Offender Registry Board for Level 2 offenders classified after July 12,2013. Massachusetts Registry Levels as determined by risk assessment

Level 3 Sex Offenders Where the Board determines that the risk of reoffense is high and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public is such that a substantial public safety interest is served by active dissemination, it shall give a level 3 designation to the sex offender. The public shall have access to the information regarding a level 3 offender through the Local Police Departments and through the Sex Offender Registry Board.Sex Offender Registry Board. Massachusetts Registry Levels as determined by risk assessment

Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2009) also found that for assessing the likelihood of sexual recidivism, the best-supported instruments were the— Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000). Static-2002 (Hanson, Helmus, & Thornton, 2010). MnSOST-R (Epperson et al., 2000). Risk Matrix-2000 Sex (Kingston et al., 2008). SVR-20, specifically using the mechanical approach of adding up the item scores (Boer et al., 1997). Best Supported Instruments

From the SMART Office website: The need for tailored rather than uniform interventions, and the need to match sex offender treatment and management efforts to the risk levels and criminogenic needs of sex offenders, were acknowledged by the experts—both researchers and practitioners—who participated in the SOMAPI forum. SMART Office Sex Offender Management, Assessment, and Planning Initiative

What needs to be Assessed  Sex Offender Risk  Static 99r, VASOR, or Static 2002r  General Recidivism Risk  LSI-R or ORAS

Determine Cut-offs  For example:  5 or 6 or above on Static 99r  9 or 12 or above on VASOR II  32 or above on the LSI-R  24 or above on the ORAS

Determine when to conduct assessments  At PSI- stage  At prison intake  Prior to a Parole hearing  3 months prior to prison release is EOD to Probation (most accurate if individual receives a prison sentence 3 years or longer or if between 18 and 24 a sentence of 6 months or longer)

All of these assessments are currently completed at some point in the system  There should be no increased costs IF the system is reconfigured to do the assessments at the times described rather than the manner they may be done currently.

POSSIBLE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Should One Determine Overrides or additional factors that need to be considered?  For example,  Physical violence (dangerousness) even if scores are low  Multiple victims in one court incident  Intra AND Extra familial victims  Male AND female victims  Generally criminal lifestyle with multiple non-sexual arrests /convictions

How to Determine 10 years or Life?  What would the “overrides be that would indicate longer than 10 years is necessary, when the data clearly shows virtually all offenders remain offense free one they have ”survived” 7 years in the without a new offense?  Extreme violence?  At least one prior sexual offense arrest or conviction in addition to the instant offense?  Multiple victims in the instant offense?

Issues to further explore include:  Current CT laws on public information.  What changes to current statutes would be required  Whether using a risk assessment process brings up any issues of Due Process. Possible Future Area to Consider:  For those on the registry for 10 years rather than life, what role, if any, should some type of limited ecerificate or the board of pardons play at least as relates to:  Housing  Employment