Assessing Risk: Supervision of Lower Level Sex Offenders

• NCJ Number: 233834
• Journal: Corrections Compendium Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Dated: Summer 2010 Pages: 6-9
• Author(s): Matthew DeMichele; Brian Payne
• Date Published: 2010
• Length: 4 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Instructional Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article addresses the use of risk assessments and considerations for supervising lower level sex offenders as described in the first module of a training curriculum developed by the National Institute of Corrections and the American Probation and Parole Association.

Abstract

Risk assessment is a process in which offender profiles are developed based on what is known about a particular group's past behavioral patterns. It is based in the belief that future behavior can be somewhat reliably predicted by looking at a combination of stable (constant) and dynamic (changeable) factors. For sex offenders, risk assessments are used to determine sentencing and institutional placement, aid in treatment planning, develop release conditions, and decide on restrictive conditions. Some common stable risk factors specific to sex offenders include prior sex crime conviction, prior nonsex crime conviction, and early age of onset and history of mistreatment. Dynamic risk factors are the elements of an offender's life that can be changed to decrease the chances of a new sex crime. Corrections staff must focus on the aspects of an offender's life that can be changed so as to decrease the chances of future crimes. This article identifies and discusses various types of dynamic risk factors and how they may be influenced for positive change. It notes that high-risk and low-risk offenders have different dynamic risk factors and must receive different correctional interventions. The article then discusses the difference between "risk" and "seriousness," arguing that the seriousness of an offense is not a predictor of risk of reoffending in the community, nor does it lead to specific conclusions about flight risk or institutional adjustment. Implications of the principles discussed are drawn for jails and community corrections, as well as collaboration among different criminal justice entities. 16 references