Vermont Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Seminar Investigating and Defending Allegations of Child Molestation Wyndham Conference Center, Burlington, Vt. February 24, 2006 Psychological Assessment of Alleged Child Molesters: Contemporary Research and Practice Issues Thomas A. Powell, Ph.D. Licensed Psychologist – Doctorate Vermont Forensic Assessment, PLLC Shelburne, Vt.

Child Sex Offender Myths The Triumph of Media & Politics over Science Myth #1: The “Dirty Old Man” hypothesis - Child sex offenders are all cut from the same cloth. Reality: Child sex offenders have the largest age distribution in prisons (Vt. sample: 22 – 64 y.o.) They tend to be better educated and employed. Some have intact families; some don’t. They are less likely to have substance use disorders.

Child Sex Offender Myths The Triumph of Media & Politics over Science Myth #2: All child sex offenders are dangerous sexual recidivists. Reality: Child sex offenders have highly variable re-offense patterns. The average sexual re-offense rate is in the 10% - 15% range (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004). They are twice as likely to commit a non-sexual crime, if they recidivate. The vast majority are treated successfully in community programs with specialized probation conditions and supervision. There is a sub-set of persistent re-offenders who tend to have an antisocial orientation, more deviant and obsessive fantasies, cognitions favorable to offending, and lower self-regulation skills.

Child Sex Offender Myths The Triumph of Media & Politics over Science Myth #3: The criminal justice system lets child sex offenders off too easy. Reality: In June, 2005 there were 1,136 sex offenders under DOC custody, and 63% were being supervised in the community; 37% were incarcerated (source: DOC Fact Book). Child sex offenders are the inmate group most likely to max out their sentences, which tend to be high. The percentage of inmates serving time for a sex crime has increased steadily over the past 20 years. Supervision and treatment requirements for sex offenders in the community are rigorous and often onerous.

Child Sex Offender Myths The Triumph of Media & Politics over Science Myth #4: Child sex offenders can’t be cured or reformed. Reality: In a sample of 195 Vermont sex offenders (Source: McGrath et al., 2003) No treatment  30% new sex crime Treatment dropout  31% new sex crime Treatment completion  5% new sex crime Effective treatment components modify distorted thinking patterns control deviant sexual urges improve social competence develop relapse prevention skills develop community support systems adjunctive therapy such as medication

Child Sex Offender Myths The Triumph of Media & Politics over Science Myth #5: Providing treatment to sex offenders is too expensive. Reality: Sex offender treatment reduces risk and highly cost-effective. $8,500 per institutional (prison) treatment episode $1,600 per community (outpatient) treatment episode In FY 2002 the DOC spent $526,000 on sex offender treatment. Civil commitment cost estimates by the state Existing unit, Newport prison: $60,000 per year New unit, Southern State prison: $360,000 per year Physically secure community residential: $245,000 per year Staff secure community residential: $429,000 per year Community outpatient program: $34,000 per year

Assessment of Child Sex Offenders Static-99 Charged or convicted adult sex offenders Ten-item scale based entirely on historical information and factors predictive of sexual recidivism (e.g., victim characteristics, number of prior sex offenses.) Good screening tool, although it provides no information about dynamic (changeable) factors, such as access to potential victims and current relationships.

Assessment of Child Sex Offenders Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Risk (RRASOR) Charged or convicted adult sex offenders The RRASOR is an abbreviated form of the Static-99 that scores number of prior sex offenses, age at release, victim gender, and relationship to victim. Scores are associated with sex offending recidivism rates over five- and ten-year follow-up periods.

Assessment of Child Sex Offenders Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR) Convicted adult sex offenders In contrast to the RRASOR and Static-99, the SONAR weighs dynamic (changeable) factors in the individual’s life that are associated with increases or decreases in risk of sexual recidivism. These include intimacy deficits, social influences, attitudes, self-regulation, substance abuse, mood, and opportunities for victim access. These factors improve predictive accuracy.

Assessment of Child Sex Offenders Multiphasic Sex Inventory-II (MSI-II) Charged or convicted adult sex offenders A standardized self-report questionnaire that assesses a wide range of social characteristics, attitudes, and motivations. Detailed, extensive, provides a comprehensive examination of an individual’s psycho-sexual development and risk profile.

Assessment of Child Sex Offenders Vermont Assessment of Sex Offender Risk (VASOR) Charged or convicted adult sex offenders The VASOR assesses likelihood of sexual aggression. It integrates violence history and violence risk as a function of sexual aggression. It allows scoring along sexual re-offense and violence dimensions.

Assessment of Child Sex Offenders Penile Plythesmography Convicted adult sex offenders A specialized physiological assessment technique that measures arousal to a variety of stimuli, both normal and deviant. The arousal level is recorded and compared with known behavioral data and admissions/denials by the offender. Assists treatment as pre/post measure.

Assessment of Child Sex Offenders Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Recidivism (ERASOR) Adolescent (ages 12-18) sex offenders The ERASOR is an empirically-guided checklist that assists in the estimation of short-term risk of re-offending. Nine static and sixteen dynamic factors, useful in management and case planning. Preliminary standardization data indicate it is both reliable and valid.

Predictive Potency of Interesting Risk Factors High Potency Deviant sexual interests Deviant sexual attitudes Antisocial orientation General self-management deficits Adult relationships and social skills lacking Employment instability source: Hanson & Morton-Bourgon (2005)

Predictive Potency of Interesting Risk Factors Low Potency Childhood abuse or neglect Low self-esteem Lack of victim empathy Low motivation for treatment at intake Degree of force during crime Loneliness General psychological distress source: Hanson & Morton-Bourgon (2005)

Evidence-based Predictor Groupings of Recidivism Antisocial history, behavioral rehearsal, criminal skills (safe-cracking, hotwiring cars, experience grooming kids). Specific pro-criminal attitudes, expectations, beliefs, cognitions. Social support for crime, choice of peers, family influences, vulnerability to peer pressure. Source: Andrews & Bonta (2003)

Evidence-based Predictors of Recidivism (cont.) Features of personality: Remorseless, restlessly aggressive disposition, impulsive, pleasure-seeking, low empathy. Seriousness of the instant offense is not a predictor of recidivism risk. Source: Andrews & Bonta (2003)

Predictors and Case Assessment Each of the predicators groups should be assessed and weighed in terms of its contribution to an individual’s criminal propensity. The relationship and primacy of each predicator to the others should be identified. One or more are likely to emerge as the key case planning focus. This is the essence of case formulation and should drive recommendations for sentencing, supervision and treatment strategies, consistent with overall risk.

Crime as a product of the Psychological Moment

State v. Hulett a 34 year-old man received a sixty-day split sentence (plus many probation conditions) for sexually assaulting a young girl over a four year period. Department of Corrections used several valid sex offender screening measures to determine that Mr. Hulett was low risk to re-offend. The DOC informed the court that he was a good candidate for community treatment and recommended same. The DOC also recommended a three-year incarcerative term for punishment, but declared him ineligible for prison sex offender treatment program. Treatment to follow prison.

State v. Hulett Department of Corrections, under enormous pressure from all sides, rescinded its sensible, longstanding policy that the scarce beds and funds available for the incarcerative sex offender program be reserved for higher risk cases, while lower risk cases receive treatment in the community (largely at their own expense.) This policy change will increase both the numbers of incarcerated sex offenders and their associated costs with negligible increased benefits to either the perpetrators or society.

State v. Hulett This case illustrates one of the more important, if under-reported, factual subtleties of risk assessment. There is no statistical relationship between the magnitude (seriousness) of a particular crime and the likelihood that the offender will re-offend. The conventional wisdom that the seriousness of a given criminal act predicts the likelihood of repetition and recidivism is another myth.

State v. Hulett There may be important considerations related to retribution, victim needs, and public deterrence. These must be carefully delineated and distinguished from the dangerousness posed by a specific person at a given time and place in his/her life. Evaluators must sort through the difficult issues inherent in complex cases and clearly articulate how seemingly contradictory information (such as risk level and punishment expectations) fits together.