Recent Research (N = 9,305) Underscores the Importance of Using Age-Stratified Actuarial Tables in Sex Offender Risk Assessments

Sexual Abuse ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 471-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Wollert ◽  
Elliot Cramer ◽  
Jacqueline Waggoner ◽  
Alex Skelton ◽  
James Vess
2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 129-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reena Khiroya ◽  
Tim Weaver ◽  
Tony Maden

Aims and MethodWe surveyed the usage and perceived utility of standardised risk measures in 29 forensic medium secure units (a 62% response rate).ResultsThe most common instruments were Historical Clinical Risk–20 (HCR–20) and Psychopathy Checklist – revised (PCL–R); both were rated highly for utility. the Risk Matrix 2000 (RM2000), Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) and Static-99 were the most common sex offender assessments, but the Sexual Violence Risks–20 (SVR–20) was rated more positively for its use of dynamic factors and relevance to treatment.Clinical ImplicationsMost medium secure units use structured risk assessments and staff view them positively. As HCR–20 and PCL–R/PCL–SV (Psychopathy Checklist – Screening Version) are so widely used they should be the first choices considered by other services.


2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Broadley

When a convicted or alleged child sex offender is living, or having contact, with his own children or stepchildren, the obvious worry is that these children are victims or will become victims of sexual abuse. One way of determining the risk of this occurring is for the convicted or alleged offender to undergo a forensic sex offender risk assessment. In this article I raise questions regarding the usefulness of sex offender risk assessments within the statutory child protection context. Most importantly, I ask whether static and dynamic risk assessment instruments can accurately predict the risk an alleged or convicted sex offender poses to his own children. I conclude that ‘high’, ‘moderate’, and ‘low’ risk outcomes of forensic sex offender risk assessments in the child protection context are unreliable and can result in error, and explain that these errors have consequences that, within the child protection context, have consequences that can be dangerous to children.


Author(s):  
Shoba Sreenivasan ◽  
Patricia Kirkish ◽  
Thomas Garrick ◽  
Linda Weinberger

Assessment ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Weaver ◽  
Robert G. Meyer ◽  
James J. Van Nort ◽  
Luciano Tristan

Polymer News ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (7) ◽  
pp. 220-223
Author(s):  
Charles Carraher, Jr.
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document