Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-Cultural Validity of Sexual Recidivism Risk Assessments Using Static-99R, STABLE-2007, and the VRS-SO

  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The overrepresentation of certain racial/ethnic groups in criminal legal systems raises concerns about the cross-cultural application of risk assessment tools. We provide a framework for conceptualizing and measuring racial bias/fairness and review research for three tools assessing risk of sexual recidivism: Static-99R, STABLE-2007, and VRS-SO.

Recent Findings

Most cross-cultural research examines Static-99R and generally supports its use with Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian men. Preliminary research also supports STABLE-2007 with Asian men. Findings are most concerning for Indigenous men, where Static-99R and STABLE-2007 significantly predict sexual recidivism, but with significantly and meaningfully lower accuracy compared to White men. For the VRS-SO and the combined Static-99R/STABLE-2007 risk levels, predictive accuracy was not significantly lower for Indigenous men, for which we discuss several possible explanations.

Summary

We offer considerations for risk scale selection with Indigenous men and highlight recent guidance produced for cross-cultural risk assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Bonta J, Andrews DA. The psychology of criminal conduct. 6th ed. New York: Routledge; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. ATSA practice guidelines for assessment, treatment interventions, and management strategies for male adult sexual abusers. Professional Issues Committee; 2014.

  3. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment 2009:21:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421.

  4. Kelley SM, Ambroziak G, Thornton D, Barahal RM. How do professionals assess sexual recidivism risk? An updated survey of practices. Sexual Abuse. 2020;32:3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218800474.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neal TMS, Grisso T. Assessment practices and expert judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry. Crim Justice Behav. 2014;41:1406–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L. Machine bias: there’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica; 2016. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.

  7. Cardoso T. Bias behind bars: a Globe investigation finds a prison system stacked against Black and Indigenous inmates. The Globe and Mail; 2020. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-investigation-racial-bias-in-canadian-prison-risk-assessments/.

  8. Anderson C, Kukutai A. Sources and methods in Indigenous studies. In: Andersen C, O’Brien JM, editors. Sources and methods in Indigenous studies. New York: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315528854.

  9. McKenzie KJ, Crowcroft NS. Race, ethnicity, culture, and science. The BMJ. 1994;309:286–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6950.286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. American Psychological Association. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL, Bauchner H. The reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and science journals. J Am Med Assoc. 2021;325:1049–53. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.13304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. American Psychological Association. Apology to people of color for APA’s role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy in U.S. Author; 2021. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-racism-apology.pdf.

  13. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Corrective Services, Australia, June Quarter 2021; 2021. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/corrective-services-australia/latest-release.

  14. Nellis A. The color of justice: racial and ethnic disparity in state prisons. Washington: The Sentencing Project; 2016. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/.

  15. Public Safety Canada. 2019 Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview. Author; 2020. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2019/index-en.aspx#c2.

  16. Tamatea AJ. Culture is our business: issues and challenges for forensic and correctional psychologists. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2017;49:564–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2016.1237549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brankley AE, Lee SC, Hanson RK, Zabarauckas C. History matters: racial variation in the prevalence of sexual offence conviction; 2023. (Manuscript submitted for publication).

  18. Hu C, Esthappan S. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, a missing minority in criminal justice data. Urban Wire: Crime and Justice; 2017. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/asian-americans-and-pacific-islanders-missing-minority-criminal-justice-data.

  19. Shepherd SM, Ilalio T. Maori and Pacific Islander overrepresentation in the Australian criminal justice system—what are the determinants? J Offender Rehabil. 2016;55:113–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2015.1124959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Alexander M. The new Jim Crow: mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Monchalin L. The colonial problem: an Indigenous perspective on crime and injustice in Canada. Ontario: University of Toronto Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bolger CP. Just following orders: a meta-analysis of the correlates of American police officer use of force decisions. Am J Crim Justice. 2015;40:466–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9278-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ontario Human Rights Commission. A disparate impact: second interim report on the inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service. Author; 2020.

  24. Vincent GM, Viljoen JL. Racist algorithms or systemic problems? Risk assessments and racial disparities. Crim Justice Behav. 2020;47:1576–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820954501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Warne RT, Yoon M, Price CJ. Exploring the various interpretations of “test bias.” Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2014;20:570–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Helmus LM, Babchishin KM. Primer on risk assessment and the statistics used to evaluate its accuracy. Crim Justice Behav. 2017;44:8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816678898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanson RK. Prediction statistics for psychological assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2022.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Skeem JL, Lowenkamp CT. Risk, race, and recidivism: predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2016:54:680–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12123.

  29. Ashford LJ, Spivak BL, Shepherd SM. Racial fairness in violence risk instruments: a review of the literature. Psychology, Crime & Law 2021. (Advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1972108.

  30. •• Olver ME, Stockdale KC, Helmus LM, Woods P, Termeer J, Prince J. Too risky to use, or too risky not to? Lessons learned from over 30 years of research on forensic risk assessment with Indigenous persons; Psychological Bulletin. In press 2023. This is an extensive and comprehensive review and meta-analysis of research on risk factors and risk assessment tools with Indigenous people who have been charged or convicted of offences.

  31. Bourgon G, Mugford R, Hanson RK, Coligado M. Offender risk assessment practices vary across Canada. Can J Criminol Crim Justice. 2018;60:167–205. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2016-0024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Helmus LM, Kelley SM, Frazier A, Fernandez YM, Lee SC, Rettenberger M, et al. Static-99R: strengths, limitations, predictive accuracy meta-analysis, and legal admissibility review. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2022;2022(28):307–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hanson RK, Thornton D. Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales. Law Hum Behav. 2000;24:119–36. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005482921333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Helmus LM, Hanson RK, Murrie DC, Zabarauckas CL. Field validity of Static-99R and STABLE-2007 with 4,433 men serving sentences for sexual offences in British Columbia: new findings and meta-analysis. Psychol Assess. 2021;33:581–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Ahmed S, Lee SC, Helmus LM. Predictive accuracy of Static-99R across different racial/ethnic groups: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav. 2023:47:275–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000517. Provides a comprehensive aggregation and summary of cross-cultural validation research on Static-99R available as of November 2021.

  36. Helmus L, Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE. International comparisons of the validity of actuarial risk tools for sexual offenders, with a focus on Static-99. In: Boer DP, Eher R, Craig LA, Miner MH, Pfäfflin F, editors. International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders: theory, practice, and research. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.

  37. Lee SC, Restrepo A, Satariano A, Hanson RK. The predictive validity of Static-99R for sex offenders in California: 2016 update. State Authorized Risk Assessment Tools for Sex Offenders (SARATSO); 2016. http://saratso.org/pdf/ThePredictiveValidity_of_Static_99R_forSexualOffenders_inCalifornia_2016v1.pdf.

  38. Lee SC, Hanson R K, Fullmer N, Neeley J, Ramos K. The predictive validity of Static-99R over 10 years for sexual offenders in California: 2018 update. State Authorized Risk Assessment Tools for Sex Offenders (SARATSO); 2018. http://saratso.org/pdf/Lee_Hanson_Fullmer_Neeley_Ramos_2018_The_Predictive_Validity_of_S_.pdf.

  39. Varela JG, Boccaccini MT, Murrie DC, Caperton JD, Gonzalez E Jr. Do the Static-99 and Static-99R perform similarly for White, Black, and Latino sexual offenders? Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2013;12:231–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.846950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Howard VMA, Chong CS, Murphy K. Static-99R norms and cross-cultural validity for Australian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men convicted of sexual offences. Sexual Abuse 2023. (Advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632231219233.

  41. Babchishin KM, Blais J, Helmus L. 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. Can J Criminol Crim Justice. 2012;54:1–43. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2010.E.40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee SC, Hanson RK, Blais J. 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. Can Psychol. 2020;61:42–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Gutierrez L, Wilson HA, Rugge T, Bonta J. The prediction of recidivism with Aboriginal offenders: a theoretically informed meta-analysis. Can J Criminol Crim Justice. 2013;55:55–99. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson HA, Gutierrez L. Does one size fit all?: a meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) with Aboriginal offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2014;41:196–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813500958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. • Muir NM, Viljoen JL, Shepherd SM. Violence risk assessment tools and Indigenous peoples: colonialism as an underlying cause of risk ratings on the SAVRY, International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2023:22:289–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2023.2178554. This paper provides thoughtful context on how to understand and contextualize the impacts of colonialism when doing risk assessments with justice-involved Indigenous individuals.

  46. • Tsao IT, Chu CM. An exploratory study of recidivism risk assessment instruments for individuals convicted of sexual offenses in Singapore. Sexual Abuse 2021:33:157–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219884575. Although based on a small sample size, this study examines 5 different risk scales in a sample from Singapore, and overall provides a great template for cross-cultural validation research.

  47. Lee SC, Hanson RK, Zabarauckas CL. Sex offenders of East Asian heritage resemble other Canadian sex offenders. Asian Journal of Criminology. 2018;13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-017-9252-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. •• Lee SC, Hanson RK, Yoon JS. Predictive validity of Static-99R among 8,207 men convicted of sexual crimes in South Korea: a prospective field study. Sexual Abuse. 2023;35:687–715. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221139173. This is one of the largest field validation studies to date of Static-99R, exploring the cross-cultural applicability of the scale in Korea. In addition to examining predictive accuracy of the scale, it compares the profile of Static risk factors to Western development samples.

  49. • Ahmed S, Helmus LM. Comparing Indian and White men charged or convicted of sexual offences on the Static-99R and STABLE-2007. Psychology, Crime and Law 2023. (Advance online publication). https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2227313. Although the sample size is small, this is the first study we are aware of to examine risk and need profiles (and predictive accuracy) of risk factors and scales among men of Indian descent.

  50. Kube S, Banse R. Literaturübersicht zur prädiktiven Validität des Static-99 im deutschsprachigen Raum [Literature review on the predictive validity of Static-99 in German-speaking countries]. Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie. 2020;14:300–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Bengtson S. Is newer better? A cross-validation of the Static-2002 and the Risk Matrix 2000 in a Danish sample of sexual offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law. 2008;14:85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701483104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Toma RA, Kube S, Banse R. Predictive validity of the Static-99R in Romania. Crim Justice Behav. 2022;49:1276–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221107875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hanson RK, Harris AJR, Scott T, Helmus L. Assessing the risk of sex offenders on community supervision. Ontario: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Fernandez Y, Harris AJR, Hanson RK, Sparks J. STABLE-2007 coding manual – revised 2014. Ontario: Public Safety Canada; 2014 (Unpublished report).

  55. Brankley AE, Helmus LM, Hanson RK. STABLE-2007 evaluator workbook – revised 2017. Ontario: Public Safety Canada; 2017 (Unpublished report).

  56. Brankley AE, Babchishin KM, Hanson RK. STABLE-2007 demonstrates predictive and incremental validity in assessing risk-relevant propensities for sexual offending: a meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse. 2021;33:34–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219871572.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. • Helmus LM, Lee SC, Zabarauckas CL. Do Static-99R and STABLE-2007 work with Indigenous people charged or convicted of sexual offences? A prospective field validity study; 2021 (Unpublished manuscript). This exploration of Static-99R and STABLE-2007 (comparing risk profiles and predictive accuracy to White men) is one of the largest studies we have seen on risk assessment with Indigenous men.

  58. Wong S, Olver M, Nicholaichuk T, Gordon A. Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offense version. Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan and Regional Psychiatric Centre; 2003. p. 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change: applications to the addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992;47:1102–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Olver ME, Sowden JN, Kingston DA, Nicholaichuk TP, Gordon A, Beggs Christofferson SM, et al. Predictive accuracy of Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version risk and change scores in treated Canadian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse. 2018;30:254–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216649594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Fernandez Y, Gotch K, Hanson RK, Harris AJR. ACUTE-2007 coding manual – revised 2015. Ontario: Public Safety Canada; 2015 (Unpublished report).

  62. •• Society for the Advancement of Actuarial Risk Needs Assessment (SAARNA). Using Static-99R and STABLE-2007 with Indigenous men in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Author; 2023. www.saarna.org. This document summarizes current research on Static-99R and STABLE-2007 with Indigenous men and offers concrete recommendations for conducting assessments with Indigenous men.

  63. •• Fanniff AM, York T, Gutierrez R. Developing consensus for culturally informed forensic mental health assessment: experts’ opinions on best practices. Law Hum Behav. 2023;47:385–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000531. This paper offers excellent recommendations for providing culturally informed forensic assessments, including risk assessments.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminology Department, Simon Fraser University, Saywell Hall, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada

    L. Maaike Helmus & Simran Ahmed

  2. Society for the Advancement of Actuarial Risk Needs Assessment (SAARNA), Kingston, Canada

    L. Maaike Helmus & Seung C. Lee

  3. Psychology and Health Studies Department, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

    Mark E. Olver

Authors
  1. L. Maaike Helmus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simran Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seung C. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark E. Olver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Maaike Helmus.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

L. Maaike Helmus is a co-developer of the Static-99R and STABLE-2007, and Mark Olver is a co-developer of the VRS-SO. They receive renumeration for occasional trainings and consultations on these scales. The authors do not receive royalties for the use of the scales or user products, with the exception of the VRS-SO rating manual, for which Mark Olver receives some royalties.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work was completed on the traditional territories of the Coast Salish Peoples (where the city of Vancouver, BC is located), the Algonquin nation (where the city of Ottawa, ON is located), and on the Treaty 6 territory and the Homeland of the Métis (where the city of Saskatoon, SK is located).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helmus, L.M., Ahmed, S., Lee, S.C. et al. Cross-Cultural Validity of Sexual Recidivism Risk Assessments Using Static-99R, STABLE-2007, and the VRS-SO. Curr Psychiatry Rep 26, 27–36 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01480-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-023-01480-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation