ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)

California

Sex Offender Rehab Center Moving To Former ‘Out Of The Closet’ Space

It’s been over a year since Out Of The Closet and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation moved out of the yellow building on the corner of Church and Duboce, and finally, a new tenant has emerged. Sharper Future, an outpatient clinic which helps rehabilitate individuals who have been convicted of sex crimes, will be moving into the 7,400 square foot space at the end of this month. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Lake County

    San Francisco Jan. 21, 2016: Sex Offender Rehab Center Moving To Former ‘Out Of The Closet’ Space

    Overall a good article.

    http://hoodline.com/2016/01/sex-offender-rehab-center-moving-to-former-out-of-the-closet

    Sharper Future, an outpatient clinic which helps rehabilitate individuals who have been convicted of sex crimes, will be moving into the 7,400 square foot space at the end of this month. Co-founder Dr. Tom Tobin states “some of them have committed their offense 30+ years ago. Research says that anyone who has lived offense-free in the community for 15 years has a risk of reoffending no different from any person on the streets.” Someone has also started a change.org petition to stop this move.

    • Finn

      Tom Tobin, in the article above, said: “Research says that anyone who has lived offense-free in the community for 15 years has a risk of reoffending no different from any person on the streets.” If this is so, why does Tom Tobin of the California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) want 20 year and lifetime registration terms under the “tiered” registration proposal? Using common sense, and Tobin’s very own stats, the max term ought to be a 15 year tier. Seems like Tobin wears many hats. And when Tobin wears his Sharper Future CEO hat, he will say anything to sell his brand of service. When Tobin wears his CASOMB vice chair hat, he will say anything to perpetuate the sex offender registry, the STATIC 99 scam and unethical “treatment” strategies. This is simply disingenuous. Why does government decide to align itself with these types of dishonest degenerates that seemingly assume the public is stupid?

  2. Friend of RSOL

    Supervisor Weiner put a halt on this until further community outreach is done.

    The neighborhood outreach hearing for this clinic might be a good opportunity for interested folks in the Bay Area (including counselors) to educate the public about sex offender issues.

    Supervisor Wiener Asks For Hold On Duboce Sex Offender Clinic
    http://sfist.com/2016/01/25/supervisor_wiener_seeks_pause_for_p.php

  3. stephen

    After reading all the complaints from the residents about needles and crime in that Area, I feel the people going to that Clinic should be the ones complaining and not the residents.

  4. NPS

    If it’s information the residents of Duboce Triangle want, then it’s information they’ll get. I posted a comment to the article to bust the myths supported by links of credible, documented sources. Here’s hoping they become a little more enlightened and a lot less of a NIMBY.

    • NPS

      Hmm. So the sheeple in Duboce Triangle want to maintain the irrational fears. One person actually refuted the facts with a 2008 report. Refuting a 2015 report with a 2008 report!!! I’m seriously considering going to their meeting on the 8th just to hand out information that debunk their myths.

      After reading everyone’s responses here, I must honestly say that I’m really torn. On the one hand, I would defend the opening of Sharper Future only to stand up for registered citizens’ rights. On the other, I would also say that Sharper Future is pure bunk if not a serious violation of ethics when it comes to their “treatment”.

  5. Tobin's Tools

    I feel badly Sharper Future (SF) and Tom Tobin are seen in favorable light. SF forced me to sign a dizzying amount of complicated paperwork that foreclosed me of many constitutional rights. SF requires so-called “clients” to foreclose the tenant of client-therapist confidentiality allegedly important in Psychology. Parole officers are entitled to everything told to a SF ‘clinician,’ many of whom are unpaid/unlicensed/inexperienced people (SF clinicians have not been clear on this). SF intimidated through use of unscientific polygraph exams administered by a jerk polygrapher. SF relies on the Static-99/R — which is far from accurate. I have seen people harmed, more than helped, by Tobin’s unfair business practices. As a Registered Citizen, I fear “Dr.” Tobin may be acting more to protect business interests. Mr. Tobin: Actions speak louder than words. When you run a ‘training site’ business, holding multi-million dollar CDCR contracts, whilst serving as Vice Chair of CASOMB, I don’t think I should feel shame!!

    • Gene

      My brother is in Sharper Future because of parole. I agree that they have used the polygraph to intimidate disclosures. It’s a pretty sick practice – the people of Sharper Future ought to be ashamed of themselves. Tom Tobin and his group of corrupt psychologists must be held accountable for doing the dirty work of state parole. God bless all the men that have to go through Tobin’s crap. Indeed very evil. Thx.

    • timothy z

      funny name, it took me a while to get it, it’s because he is using us as a tool to make big bucks lol.

    • Concerned Individual

      The Sharper Future program and its HRSO (High Risk Sex Offender) label is indeed pure bunk.

      The Sharper Future hucksters pretend to sell the Static 99R as scientific; but make no mistake about it: they are all too arrogantly enveloped in the inaccurate propaganda they have been indoctrinated to. Sharper Future fails to see the subliminal message they send to the individual when they label a person “high risk” based on a fake scientific “instrument.” Thus, the HRSO label is nothing but a cheap marketing tactic that ostensibly rationalizes irrational sex offender laws on HRSO labeled people, while ostensibly rationalizing less harsher sex offender laws on non-HRSO labeled people. (I read something produced by Sharper Future that ignorantly labels non-HRSO labeled people as “passive” offenders — which is contrary to common sense and the ‘risk factors’ of the Static tests itself, as non-violent offenders (i.e. ‘passive’ offenders) are perversely given more points… whereas violent offenders are given no points on the Static 99R scam.)

      It’s like a form of investment diversification; but instead of diversifying the allocation of money, Sharper Future sees fit to unfairly label and predetermine the destiny of people — whether they will reoffend — all for the selfish reason to rationalize more “treatment” services to HRSO labeled people, resulting in more CDCR contract money. In the event a court or superseding policy corrects current “treatment” policy as to reduce ‘treatment’ duration, Sharper Future will be able to fall back on the Static 99 fraud and say, “Hey, we can still rationalize more of our services for HRSO labeled people based on ‘science’.” The upshot: Sharper Future remains in business, relying on corrupt state contracts to stay afloat. All while demeaning/demonizing/patronizing HRSO labeled people, as well as giving more undeserved credence to the Static score.

      Suffice to say, the frauds at Sharper Future are bottom-feeding scum who flaunt the civil rights of the individual, mislead people into thinking the polygraph is scientific, and give people all types of bogus labels to give their company an air of credibility. They pretend to care about “public safety.” All while much of the questionable ‘treatment’ is doled-out by interns who lack experience. So people forced into Sharper Future are essentially human guinea pigs.

      So, just what kind of example do the employees of Sharper Future intend to set for their “clients?” Because as it is, Sharper Future seems to exemplify the normalization of unethical behavior — with reliance on fraud science.

      The sad truth is that Sharper Future deserves no more credibility than the snakeoil salesmen who created it.

      (By the way, I am very happy to see a well-informed and ripe discussion of what I consider to be as a terribly shady business.)

  6. Registered Citizen

    Tom Tobin’s CASOMB wants a “tiered” registry. But a tiered registry will require lifetime registration based on one’s Static-99/R score. See “A Better Path to Community Safety: Tiering Background Paper,” CASOMB (2014), at 7 [any person with a Static-99R score of “6” or above, regardless if crime is non-violent or violent, required to register for life]. Contrary to Tobin, the Static-99R is inaccurate. See Shoba Sreenivasan, “Alice in actuarial-land: through the looking glass self of changing Static-99 norms,” J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry L. (2010); also Peter Aldhous, “These 10 Questions Can Mean Life Behind Bars,” BuzzFeed News, Apr. 22, 2015. Tom Tobin is NOT a man of science. Tobin’s Sharper Future program intimidates disclosure through unscientific polygraph exams. Tobin’s Sharper Future has no confidentiality; it is waived under threat of parole revocation, as “clients” are forced to sign many confusing pages waiving one’s Rights. Tom Tobin masquerades as a so-called “Psychologist.” IMHO, he is anything but.

  7. Angry Registrant

    Sharper Future = Tom Tobin’s Corrupt Cash Cow = CDCR’s Clever Method To Circumvent Constitutional Rights = Scam. Sharper Future is nothing more than psychologists and therapists, who supervise UNLICENSED interns, used to carry out the oppression of CDCR. The Sharper Future psychologists and therapists are people who have sold out from the tenents of confidentiality and trust. CDCR — and its agents — is/are entitled to EVERYTHING said at Sharper Future. Thus, people who work at Sharper Future are frauds, most of whom too numb to comprehend the corrupt and dirty “treatment” they perform. They have sold out to corruption. My opinion: In a just world, Sharper Future psychologists and therapists should lose their licenses for intimidating through the unscientific polygraph, as well as non-confidentiality (alone). The upshot to this travesty is more profit and power for Tobin (who I consider a true villain, veiled in fake kindness). This is my opinion. Take it for what it’s worth (it seems many would agree).

  8. SF VICTIM

    The Containment Model propaganda (peddled by Tom Tobin) intends to make the Sharper Future scam seem legitimate than it is. The so-called “Containment Meetings” serve to boost egos of parole officers seeking to impress arrogant supervisors. The fake personalities of Sharper Future employees are showcased at said Containment Meetings. During the week, they play your advocate. At the Containment Meeting, Sharper Future scam artists are no longer on your side; they psychopathically play middlemen. Sharper Future fraud therapists are NOT your advocates (despite what they tell you). Then they expect “clients” to trust them? Sharper Future is a scam. And employees of Sharper Future are sell outs to CDCR corruption and oppression! Horrible people.

  9. Simon, Psy.D

    Sharper Future is a division of Pacific Forensic Psychology Associates. I am suspicious of any professional who has an employment history with Sharper Future. I consider history and/or association with Sharper Future and/or Tom Tobin a black mark, a red flag, if you will. This company and its owner has done much harm to Registered Citizens. They have no respect to the sanctity of evidence-based treatment. Like others say, polygraph, the Static-99 scam, and no confidentiality are crazy practices that Tom Tobin and his illegitimate company have no problem subjecting people to. It speaks volumes to the character, or lack there of, of Sharper Future workers and their Dear Leader, CASOMB Vice Chair: MR. Tom Tobin.

  10. Concerned Registered American

    I will NOT support Sharper Future opening its location not because of sex offenders, but because of what Tom Tobin & Sharper Future stand for: corruption, questionable profiteering, unscientific practices, and the prison industrial complex. Sadly, Sharper Future robots are peddling a CHANGE.ORG petition. (Not only has Tobin managed to pervert “treatment,” but Tobin has also managed to pervert change.org.) Of course, the true intent is not to educate the public of sex offenders — but to open more Sharper Future locations to inflate Tobin’s fat, corrupt, wallet filled with blood money. Tom Tobin is a phony; he does not represent the values of psychology. Sharper Future is a scam. I can’t believe that with the protections of the Constitution, and APA ethics, Sharper Future continues business. In a just society, free of corruption, Sharper Future would be shut down. And Tobin would be barred from clinical practice for his lifetime (i.e. revoke Tom Tobin’s license)! I agree: Tom Tobin reminds me of a villain.

  11. JOE

    no one talks about the lie detector examiner. why does sharper future contract big jerks to conduct polygraph exams? at the same time, i am guessing these big jerks are profiting from tom tobin’s scheme. it’s like a money tree where we are all free for picking. what made me uncomfortable was when the clinicians work closely with the fraud polygraph examiner. do the sharper future people ACTUALLY believe that stuff is real science?? it’s just sick to see alleged mental health experts at sharper future push the polygraph scam that the american psychological association considers psychological torture (look it up yourself), as well as inaccurate (a perspective shared with the more conservative american medical association). thus, sharper future therapists who use polygraphs to extract disclosures are venturing on a slippery slope in which “clients” are treated more like experiments labeled by an inaccurate static-99 score. good job tobin. /sarcasm

  12. Analyst

    My opinion: Sharper Future is built to maximize profit. Sharper Future is a “training site.” Thus, Tobin is able to use essentially free or low-cost labor of inexperienced interns. The intern is “supervised” by a staff clinician. Sharper Future staff clinicians/therapists are sell outs who have prostituted themselves from the basic tenets of psychology (i.e. no confidentiality, disingenuous trust, questionable evidence-based treatment). Between the intern, staff clinician, A-hole polygraph examiner scam artist (note: capital ‘A’), and parole officer, the “client” is placed in a twisted predicament, as he had signed a long and intimidating contract, under threat of parole revocation, giving up many Rights. Do you see what is wrong with Tom Tobin and his Sharper Future business model? Tom Tobin’s business, Sharper Future, holds CDCR sex offender “treatment” contracts worth millions of dollars. Tom Tobin is also Vice Chair of CASOMB. I wonder how Sharper Future got its contract$? Hmmm…

    • David Kennerly

      Tom Tobin is a War Profiteer in the war on “sex offenders”, there can be no doubt. But I know that’s not the only thing which animates him. He has a missionary’s zeal to neutralize those whom he sees as societal threats who enter into his program. A thirst for power is at least as motivating for him as any appetite he may also have for money.

      Having once, decades ago, been subjected to his ministrations at the long-since disappeared “Center For Special Problems” in San Francisco, I have no doubt as to his passionately felt religiosity. He kicked me out of his group setting after two meetings as he considered mine to be a contaminating influence, which it clearly was, from both our perspectives. His process could best be described, succinctly, as “Tear them down completely and remind them continuously of what a piece of shit I think them to be and then build them back up in my image.” Let’s just say I wasn’t going to be a willing subject for that process and that we didn’t get on, as a result.

      On the other hand, and watching him wearing his other hat, as Vice-Chair of CASOMB, he emerges from the miasmic darkness of witch-finding horror, which is the present zeitgeist, as a refreshingly, if relativistically, enlightened voice of protest against a brutal regimen of utter legal marginalization of Registrants. Here, he is actually helping to bring light and reform to the depredations of the state’s registration debacle. In this capacity, he is, in his own way, helping us.

      I say this as no friend or admirer of him nor of the treatment culture of which he is a part which remains as scary and degrading as it can possibly be. But an honest and clear appraisal demands a fuller view of his work and its decidedly mixed, seemingly contradictory, effects upon us.

      Looked at another way: things are so terrible now that even HIS voice seems reasonable in comparison and, in his position with CASOMB, he actually has a powerful influence on policy.

  13. jen

    my bfs been at sharper future for a few yrs now. they are so inconsiderate with his work schedule. they switched his group around so many times. he had to go twice instead of one time a week because he is “high risk?” he isn’t high risk!!!! he made a dumb mistake when he was 22. its been 10 yrs since! ive learned its cause of the static score mentioned above. so a score can predict my bf’s future? plus why does sharper future make my bf take the lie detector so many times? and why does sharper future have any business knowing what my bf and i do when we are intimate? months back my bf told his sharper future therapist that we watched a dirty movie together. well, his therapist told his parole officer and his p.o. harassed ME for it! then my bf who has not been in trouble for many years was threatened with jail time for a LEGAL dirty movie! i dont believe therapy should be a free for all for parole officers to use against some one. when i read about this tom tobin con man i get so upset.

  14. Just Sayin'

    How outrageous! This issue of opening another Sharper Future isn’t about sex offenders as Tobin and many seem to portray it as. This is about building Tobin’s business! There are so many Sharper Future locations opening than there are Amendments to the Constitution. Tobin seems the mastermind of Sharper Future. But a Mary-Perry Miller co-founded the Sharper Future deception. Miller got her “Ph.D” from a California School of Psychology. Miller seems as much to blame for Sharper Future’s government sanctioned corruption. “Dr.” Miller wrote her thesis on “The creative process of women poets.” Yet she started a “treatment” program that profiteers from CDCR contracts. I kid you not. See for yourself: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/35220872_A_pheonomenological_investigation_of_the_creative_process_of_women_poets_the_structure_nature_and_ontollogical_significance_of_the_creative_process

  15. instigator

    we could write sharper future reviews. yelp sharper future. if you have a negative review, write sharper future complaints. we need to stand together because we are brothers and sisters in this fight for true justice. veritas!

  16. Former Clinician

    As a former Sharper Future clinician myself, we were instructed not to hand out the complete set of polygraph consents until THE DAY OF the polygraph… even if a client demanded it beforehand. So clients (who really aren’t the clients: CDCR is the true client) are unfairly surprised with a barrage of new info on what I have seen as a stressful day for many. I learned in school the poly is not valid science. Like I said: it’s unfair. Which is why I moved on to a better paying job in a different clinical setting that doesn’t carry as much guilt (where I don’t deal with parole agents only clearly pretending to care). It’s a strange treatment culture at Sharper Future. They taught us to do a lot of dirty things rationalizing it for “public safety” or “state law requires it” (then dishonestly pretending to stress the utmost importance of ethics and boundaries). And most drank the Kool Aid. It took me a while to see the truth. Money can blind a person. Good luck in your challenge.

  17. thomas achor

    My relative is in the sharper future program. He told me about this bogus scheme a few months ago. He mentioned on one side they pretend to his side but they (sharper fut.) can turn on him at any time. At the same time, he said he’s prodded with quasi forms of science like the lie detector – a form of psychological intimidation. A program aimed to help people would not intimidate the people they want to help – but hey, what do I know. We went to one of the carsol meetings a few months ago. when i see him again, i will let him know of this topic…. very interesting subject. Those who have been mistreated should write sharper future reviews – as someone mentioned above. PEACE OUT!

  18. Ms. Wilson

    Looks like someone already wrote a Sharper Future review, 12/29/2015:

    “This place is about the BIGGEST SCAM on the people of California! Charging the CDCR MILLIONS in supposed ‘therapy’ You dont do treat a wound 5,10,20 years after it has happened with so called Therapist that INTERNS!” – Jim S. (http://m.yp.com/san-diego-ca/mip/sharper-future-460148846)

    We start writing Sharper Future reviews exposing the truth?

  19. McHenry

    I was in Sharper Future between 2011 & 2012 when it was still an 18 month long program to ONLY “high risk”. Now, based on what I’ve heard from a man in an anonymous 12 Step group I attend in San Fran (who is a 290), I hear Sharper Future’s duration lasts one’s entire parole? And parole lasts anywhere from 5, 10 and 20 yrs?!?! When I was in Sharper Future I couldn’t believe the low quality and demeaning clinicians and therapists they employ. To have to endure 5, 10 or 20 years of Sharper Future’s illogical abuse just seems like a waste of taxpayer resources and a violation of the cruel and unusual ban. I really got nothing out of Sharper Future except to see how “doctors” parade around pretending to be doctors and put us down for a mistake we made 5 plus years ago. So from Sharper Future, I learned psychologists can be frauds too. Just my opinion. Also, someone already wrote a negative review on Yelp for the Sharper Future Oakland location. We should all write Yelp reviews for each of Sharper Future’s sites.

    • J.R.

      Here is a link of the review that you reference to. It says a lot about Sharper Future when even former employees say negative things about its unethical business practices. I will include the link because I spent about 10 minutes looking for McHenry’s referenced review when my daughter simply said “Just Google ‘Yelp Sharper Future.'” (Forgive me but I am a 66 year old new to technology.)

      I have a close relative forced to attend Sharper Future and I don’t think what they do to him is fair or even legal if Sharper Future’s practices are ever reviewed by a fair tribunal. Anyway, here is a link to the review and I hope more people take the time and courage to write reviews on Sharper Future:

      http://m.yelp.com/biz/sharper-future-oakland

      • Retired Navy Veteran

        Here is an excerpt of the Sharper Future Yelp review: “Employee review: probably the most unethical, conniving and manipulative people I have ever met….and that’s the leadership (not the parolee sex offenders). I would never recommend working there. They make it seem like [God’s] work, but treat everyone in the most demeaning and controlling way. Stay away!” Pretty much describes other Sharper Future training sites. At least in my experience.

  20. Cousin of Registered Citizen

    My cousin is to attend Sharper Future lest he indefinitely return to prison. So a part of me has naturally taken interest in the subject. I have read articles and research, as well the user comments on several websites, and I must say there should be (at minimum) greater scrutiny of Tom Tobin and the California Sex Offender Management Board. When both endorse the polygraph, one under his private contracted company and one under a government agency in form of policy recommendation, there must be question to the underlying ethics. I speak from experience, once holding a Top Secret Security Clearance for 10 years. I was required to take the polygraph ONCE in that 10 years. My cousin tells me (confirmed with research from casomb literature) he is subject to polygraph twice a year. So it makes little sense that a U.S. citizen, who has paid with incarceration, be subject to the unscientific abuse of the polygraph when it relates nothing to national security.

    • Joseph S.

      Cousin of RSO, I completely agree with everything you say. Especially with regard to Tom Tobin of the California Sex Offender Management Board. When the media and newspapers quote Tobin, using his CASOMB and licensed clinical psychologist positions in effort to add credibility to his statements, they are all too remiss to mention Tom Tobin’s business interests as CEO of his “treatment” company. (I have to wonder if this omission is in part of Tobin or the many reporters who fail to disclose this fact.) Too bad, as Tobin’s dual relationship in the public/private sectors would make a great story on corruption in itself.

  21. Davide

    Just a heads up: Sharper Future beginning to go by the name Pacific Forensic Psychology Associates, Inc. Different name, but same dubious & unethical practices.

  22. Anon 2308420

    I cant say a lot as to NOT get intermingled,*More GOING-ON’s* but… SHARPER FUTURE SAN DIEGO located on Camino Del Rio South is being forced to MOVE now because of backlash by parolee’s plugging toilets and MANY MANY other things including TENANTS of the building going after SF Legally not to mention ALL tenants in the building know WHO SF’s clientele are (290’s), (about 50+ tenants) The management is KICKING SF out and BREAKING their lease. *THIS IS FACT* SF is NO LONGER allowed to have 290’s at that address and their lease is being terminated. Lets see, SF has to business register a new addy, all their interns have to notify the BBS.CA.GOV of their address updates, new leterheads, transfer of phones,new business cards, a new lease deposit and im sure the list goes on and on. Ironically I just came across this thread, and I posted a yelp review back last year (that is posted above).

    *Ive bookmarked this posting/thread and will follow up with more juicy details here and there later as I can.*

    • JV

      It makes me wonder how many neighbors are aware that a Sharper Future location is next to them. I also wonder whether each Sharper Future location went through all proper public notification channels prior to opening. As we saw in this Duboce Triangle mishap in San Francisco, Sharper Future’s m.o. is to quietly move into an office space with hopes no one will discover the nature of their business. Which would be fine with many IF they did honest, straightforward work. But from what I’ve seen, Sharper Future has been an inconsiderate, ignorant, dishonest, crooked and rude bunch.

  23. M.A.

    Always be skeptical of any “therapy” that incorporates the polygraph as part of what the “doctor” ordered. Real treatment does not include fake, below-the-belt psudo science that preys on ignorance perpetuated by the Jerry Springer Show. The “instruments” they use to label people, the Static 99R, is another fake form of science. Being labeled “high risk” [HRSO] because of the Static 99R was completely demeaning. The frauds at Sharper Future deserve zero mutual respect. From my experience, Sharper Future was indirect & void of transparency with their methods. They were rarely honest or even direct in their plans. I hated how they scared clients in selling the lie detector as accurate. The polygraph examiner was a complete con man (as is his alleged lie detector)! Again, Sharper Future must never be trusted. I’m just glad to be done with dealing with those crooks! The experience taught me that therapists & psychologists can be complete fakers. It’s all about who pays the bill (CDCR).

    • Telling It How It Is

      Fakers they are, no doubt, MA. But at the same time, some of them put on a convincing act in listening and pretending to care; it almost seems genuine. Then you are given a polygraph appointment by these same SF employees who listened and pretended to care. That’s when reality sets. What kind of person who wants to help you would set you up to take a polygraph (which is pretty much a scam)? Not someone who wants to help. Then at the containment model meetings, the same Sharper Future employees don’t advocate for you. Even when you’ve done everything asked of you. CDCR and their Sharper Future sellouts are simply corrupt, dishonest, frauds. Heavy emphasis on dishonest.

  24. anonymous

    What about the fact this company issues CASOMB certification to its interns and employees? The CEO of sharper future is also vice chair of CASOMB. You shouldn’t be able to give out certification, issued by your public agency, to people that work for your private company. Potentially a conflict of interest issue (in addition to the multi-million dollar state contracts).

  25. consider this...

    I never understood how Sharper Future’s “treatment” program could be rationalized when the Static 99 and Static 99R do not even take treatment into account. The pseudo-science Static scores that Sharper Future puts so much emphasis on do not take into account the very services they proclaim to offer. By default, Sharper Future’s support of the Static 99 tests render its ‘treatment’ program as utterly useless. A BIG scam on the taxpayers, if you will.

    Another way of looking at it: If the Static 99 and Static 99R scores do not change, and it assumes people do not change over time (even with many years offense-free in the community), then Sharper Future’s services are completely useless. It’s a big logical fallacy in the California Sex Offender Management Boards’ — CASOMB’s — policy.

    One more thing: I’ve seen many people labeled “low risk” who probably should have been high risk. I’ve also seen many people given the “high risk” — HRSO — designation who probably should have been low risk. The Static 99 and Static 99R are complete crapshoots. Sharper Future is not at all smart (in fact, it’s pretty stupid) in its reliance on this flawed instrument. It seems the psychologists at this company hide behind these pseudo-scientific measurements of future behavior to only make themselves seem smarter than they really are.

    • My two cents

      This argument forces Mr. CASOMB vice chair *AND* Sharper Future CEO, who has been a strong proponent for the Static-99R’s greater incorporation into policy and a potential tiered registry, to pick:

      1. Is the Static-99R accurate? Because IF it is, the static score does NOT account for treatment. Thus, programs like Sharper Future are pointless and a waste of taxpayer money. A “big scam,” as said above.

      – OR –

      2. Is it that the Static-99R should not be used because its “risk factors” are terribly flawed?

      Clearly, the two are mutually exclusive.

      At minimum, here are more factors the Static should incorporate, but doesn’t:

      1. CURRENT age (not simply “age at release”). It’s pretty stupid to assume that someone will remain the same risk as when they just get out of prison or jail. This should be common sense. The inherent flaw in the static test is in its name: “static.” People are not static. Life is not static. People and life are dynamic.

      2. Years of offense-free behavior since release. It’s proven than recidivism decreases with offense-free behavior while free in the community.

      3. Completion of a treatment program. It’s proven that treatment can be effective.

      4. Whether a person has awknowledged wrong-doing and has pledged to work on their behavior.

      It seems the Canadian “developers” of this farce — Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, and David Thornton — only stuck to apparent superficial risk factors in effort to quickly churn-out a product for their benefit and create numbers that may be exaggerated. Here is a link to the Static-99R “coding form. I don’t think you can predict the complexities of human behavior in 10 questions:

      http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

      As a Canadian may say, the Static tests are for “hosers” eh!

    • New Person

      The atatic 99 test – it doesn’t matter if you’re low risk. That won’t factor into whether you should be a registrant or not. But they do care about high risk levels for i dunno what reason, but to mete out more punishment.

      That’s how I see the static 99.

      • The Static-99R Is A Scam

        Only is the sex offender “treatment” industry do pseudo science such as the Static-99R and polygraph scams get a free pass. Pseudo psychologists such as Tom Tobin — as well as the Static 99 “developers” (R. Karl Hanson, Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, and David Thornton) — do not deserve to be called “doctors.” Because real doctors would never advocate the use of lie detector or labeling a person “high risk” based on a junk actuarial “instrument.” Rather than being praised for their pretended credibility, they should be DISCREDITED for their unethical practices… such as conflict-of-interest and condoning use of junk science that has the accuracy rate of less than chance. After all, a lot of people have been harmed by the polygraph scam. Further, Static-99R scam scores are advertised on Megan’s Law profile as if they are 100 percent accurate. Good for those who score low. But what happens to those who are UNFAIRLY scored “high risk?” In many cases, these are people’s lives being incorrectly predicted!!

        • Clark

          Exactly.
          Is the score being shown on the california megEnron site of registered ..?
          ????

        • The Static-99R Is A Scam

          YES… bunk junk Static-99R scores are open for all the world to see on California’s Megan’s Law website. The Static-99R is rigged! “Risk” is not “static” through one’s lifetime. It should be considered defamation, libel, or slander when a person is incorrectly labeled “high risk” by a “risk assessment actuarial instrument” that relies on data from the 1970s.

        • Clark

          Thank you. Your comments have merit that’s why I questioned if the site had that Enron-mode of operation deception misrepresentation .
          Majority of people are not on parole…..any level… score..tier puts people back in this mode of operation of parole conditions.
          Somethings very Wrong with this racket.

  26. Anti-Corruption Rebel

    The allegations of the comments of this submission are scandalous to be sure. But unfortunately — at least based on my experience in working with this crooked company — they are true. Rigged practices as polygraph and lie detector scams (with abusively arrogant polygraph examiners [“polygraphers”] who hypocritically lie themselves), as well as labeling people “High Risk Sex Offender” (HRSO) based on the STATIC-99R scam have no place in the “treatment” of helping people. These unethical practices just set people up to fail. If anything, it just proves how much of con artists the “clinicians” at Sharper Future are. Whether they be pseudo psychologists, therapists… or the unlicensed intern not qualified to practice. This program is a big joke designed to generate profit for CEO Tom Tobin and Mary Perry Miller. They sell the Containment Model and its Containment Meeting as a sort of snakeoil. The Containment Model throws client confidentiality right out the window. Shut them down!

  27. Tobin's Tools 2.0

    You’re right. If someone is “low risk,” then why have them register?

    The Static-99R is a fraudulent “actuarial instrument” that wrongfully labels “high-risk” people. Call me cynical; but I suspect there is a dark, underlying motive to why many support the static scores:

    Our leaders invest a lot of political capital into vilifying “sex offenders.” George and Sharon Runner, for example. Senator Chris Smith, who authored International Megan’s Law. Our country’s highest judge, John Roberts, who — on November 13, 2002 — argued Smith v. Doe as his last case before becoming chief justice. Even Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote Smith v. Doe, citing his faulty recidivism statistics in McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002). Just some of the many disingenuous power-players in government whose credibility rests on their vilification of the over 800,000 U.S. citizens labeled ‘sex offender.’ Even many offense-free years after one has paid with incarceration (and/or probation or parole), they do not want ‘sex offenders’ to move on. Most importantly, they cannot afford to be proved wrong.

    A lot of jobs rest on the backs of ‘sex offenders.’ Detectives and police officers who must spend time processing each ‘sex offender’ — whether one must register every month, 90 days, or annually — as well as conduct compliance checks. Prosecutors who defend Megan’s Law. From Kamala Harris’ California Department of “Justice” (not to mention the U.S. Attorney’s Office)… all they way down to district attorney’s offices — who prosecute failure to register type offenses. Probation and parole officers (and the GPS ankle bracelet companies their agencies pay millions to). The salaries and pension costs that fund all of this must cost taxpayers billions of dollars. It is no wonder CalPERS is going bankrupt!

    Then there are the government-backed pseudo-psychologists whose vested interests are in creating pseudo-science that support the very laws of the bureaucracy that fund the existence of their careers. “Treatment” programs like Sharper Future rely on pseudo-psychology. As mentioned above: questionable government contracts, CEOs of ‘treatment’ programs, psychiatrists/psychologists/therapists/clinicians/interns, polygraphers.

    Even the Abel Assessment of Sexual Interest (“AASI”), which cost taxpayers $2,500 for licensing and $99 to administer for EACH sex offender — despite being struck-down for having error rates of “poor” to “appalling” by the U.S. Courts of Appeals — is used by programs like Sharper Future. See United States v. Birdsbill, No. 03-30204 (9th Cir. May 4, 2004); also In Re CDK, 64 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App. 2002) [Abel’s “components could be mathematically based, founded upon indisputable empirical research, or simply the magic of young Harry Potters’ mixing potions at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.”].

    The creators of the Static-99R — Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix, R. Karl Hanson, and David Thornton — provide the air of pretended scientific credibility that those with vested interests need to rationalize the necessity of their services. But the Static-99R does a much more important thing: it hedges against future laws that may curtail the harshness of current laws. It provides a contingency, as well as diversifies against future loss.

    By labeling ‘sex offenders’ high risk or low risk, hard-liners can always rationalize future laws that burden so-called “high risk sex offenders” (HRSO). But the problem is that ‘high risk’ is determined by an arbitrary score that cuts off at “6.” More points are added for nonsensical factors, like whether one has lived with a “lover” for at least 2 years — and perversely adds more points for “non-contact” offenses. Logically, the Static-99R is at best flawed; but at worst a complete fraud.

    Look at the Static-99R “coding form” for yourself to see this scam:

    http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99rcodingform.pdf

    Based on 10 so-called “risk factors,” the Static-99R creators, Tom Tobin, CASOMB, Sharper Future, and our government claim the future — as well as human behavior — can be predicted. Personally, I think this is hogwash.

    – Firstly, as you can see in ‘risk factor’ number 1, only “age at release” is scored. A person’s CURRENT AGE is not at all factored into the static score. It’s very stupid for a so-called “instrument” to assume people will always remain the same risk as the moment they are released from prison or jail. The fact this outlandish assumption determines one’s lifetime score is even more troubling. People mature with age.

    – Secondly, as you can see in ‘risk factor’ number 7, more points are perversely added for a ‘non-contact’ offense. Violent offenses get no points. This is simply not logical.

    – Third, psychological treatment is not at all factored into the static score. Studies prove psychological treatment as helpful in reducing recidivism.

    – Finally, offense-free years in the community is *NOT AT ALL* factored into the static score. Studies show that this is the most important factor that determines whether one will recidivate. After 17 years of offense-free behavior while free in the community, even so-called ‘high risk sex offenders’ are not likely to recidivate than anyone else who has never committed a sex crime.

    The Static-99R creators — or “developers,” as they like to call themselves — Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton are NOT statisticians. They are Canadian psychologists with no undergraduate or graduate degrees in math or statistics. The Static-99R uses a sample of “particularly violent” offenders from the 1970s; it does not reflect the more diverse crimes now requiring registration in 2016. In California, for example, there are over 40 offenses requiring lifetime sex offender registration.

    Here is an article that highlights only some of the many flaws to the Static-99 and Static-99R:

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/these-10-questions-can-mean-life-behind-bars/

    One quote was particularly troubling from Aldhous’ article. The quote dealt with how all types of sex-crimes — both violent and non-contact — are lumped together, and how the Static tests do not differentiate between the SEVERITY of potential future offenses:

    “Static-99 scores do not predict the severity of potential future offenses, however. Rapes involving extreme violence and the abuse of young children are LUMPED TOGETHER with crimes like voyeurism and indecent exposure.” (capitalized for emphasis).

    Allen Frances, MD — along with two Clinical Professors of Psychiatry from the University of Southern California (USC), Keck School of Medicine — discredited the Static-99 and Static-99R. Dr. Francis is a real doctor, unlike the Tom Tobin and Karl Hanson types. Dr. Francis is Chairman and Professor Emeritus at Duke University School of Medicine. He is also Chair of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (aka “The Bible of Psychiatry”). Here are some excerpts from the Professors’ paper:

    “Several concerns are raised about this domination of the Static-99/Static-99R in sexual recidivism risk assessments, not the least of which is the applicability of group norms to individuals differing from the samples on which the risk values were derived. Apart from the dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications, the validity of the risk scores themselves is DUBIOUS, given different definitions of recidivism in the norming samples, lack of clarity in statistical methods, and an overreliance on UNPUBLISHED manuscripts and presentations to document methods.” (capitalized for emphasis).

    The Professors conclude:

    “Although they purport to be empirically based, the current Static-99 and its newer iteration, the Static-99R, VIOLATE THE BASIC TENETS OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual. Two core elements must be present to apply an actuarial risk model to a specific individual: sample representativeness and uniform measurement of outcome. Both of these elements are lacking in Static-99 and Static-99R research reviews. Thus, a call for caution must be sounded when using these tools to make weighty decisions involving an individual’s liberty and the protection of public safety.” (capitalized for emphasis).

    Dr. Frances’ paper was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law; it can be found here: http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/3/400.full

    So to make it clear: real doctors consider the Static-99R to be “dubious,” reliant on “unpublished manuscripts and presentations,” and the Static-99R “violate the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine.”

    That is not all. The Static-99 ‘developers’ — Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton — refuse to allow independent researchers to freely verify their data. The ‘developers’ claim the data behind the Static-99R is a “trade secret,” which violates the American Psychological Association Ethics Code, section 8.14. Here is a link:

    http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/12/judge-bars-static-99r-risk-tool-from.html

    So I must ask: what are the Canadian Static-99 ‘developers’ hiding? Considering the impact their Frankenstein shenanigan has on people, as well as its increased use in our laws, why are they not open to transparency? Certainly they must have confidence in their 1970s derived statistics, no?

    We should have a right to know.

    Here is another article that interviews a person who is indefinitely detained because of the static score:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/10/civil_commitment_laws_allow_authorities_to_keep_people_locked_up_indefinitely.html

    In response to scrutiny, Hanson, Harris, a Leslie Harris, and Thornton wrote a paper titled “High Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever.” They state the following:

    “Whereas the 5 year sexual recidivism rate for high risk sex offenders was 22% from the time of release, this rate decreased to 4.2% for the offenders in the same static risk category who remained offence-free in the community for 10 years. The recidivism rates of the low risk offenders were consistently low (1% to 5%) for all time periods.”

    (Note: Only 22 percent accuracy in flagging ‘high risk’ offenders within a 5-year period, not accounting for those incorrectly categorized as ‘low risk’ or periods exceeding 5-years. Thus, for one correctly flagged high risk individual, about three to four people are incorrectly flagged. The ‘high risk’ label is more inaccurate than not [i.e. less than chance], especially after 5-years.)

    Hanson et al.’s paper is an attempt to equivocate from the claims of the Static-99R. Why, after many people have been harmed by the Static, would Hanson suddenly claim that “high risk” offenders “may” not be high risk forever (as the data clearly shows they are not)? Perhaps the ‘developers” very own data would invalidate the very same test they have peddled for years? This just shows how disingenuous these people are.

    4.2 percent should not be considered high risk. Especially after 17 years, when even people given the ‘high risk’ label — who have remained offense-free since — are no more likely to recidivate than someone who has never been convicted of a sex crime. Yet the Static-99R continues to assume people and life are static. The fallacy to the Static-99R can be found in its very name: “static.”

    To the contrary: people and life are dynamic. People are not ‘static.’ No actuarial “instrument” can predict human behavior.

    Had ‘developers’ Harris, Phenix, Karl Hanson, and Thornton been statisticians, they would have been aware of Statistics’ most important tenet: Correlation does not imply causation. The Static-99 and Static-99R ignorantly flouts this very basic tenet.

    Aldhous, from the BuzzFeed News article I cite above, also cites a clear admission from one of the Static-99R’s developers saying, “‘It was very much about the triage of prison populations,’ [David] Thornton said. ‘It wasn’t really about the forensic assessment of individual offenders.'”

    The ‘developers’ also admit that their ‘instrument’ is “wildly unstable.”

    Yet the Static-99R will be incorporated into a tiered registry, used for the “forensic assessment of individual offenders.”

    Of final note, the claims of the Static-99R eerily resemble the faulty, fortune-telling Orwellian technology featured in the Minority Report:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nxy-cQld4kg

    • Finn

      Good points. I think you have managed to discredit the static test and the “treatment” schemes that use it. There was always something that felt wrong with the STATIC 99 scam, though admittedly it did have an intimidating name. Apparently, the intimidation is superficial and the STATIC 99R is simply a shallow scam. *** Another thing: it only takes less than a day to become a STATIC 99R evaluator. And the course can be taken online, lol. So much for being credible. The STATIC 99 and STATIC 99R is inaccurate! The accuracy (rather, inaccuracy) of the STATIC scam should be exposed. And the STATIC test developers (along with these “treatment” schemes that use their fake stats) ought to be discredited, shamed and shunned for all the harm and mislabeling they’ve done. What a bunch of fakers and great pretenders.

    • The Static-99R Is A Scam

      There is also something written by these so-called developers that claim the Static-99R is not for use for offenders who have been offense free in the community for 10 yrs or more. Can someone post the link and quote? Because if this is the case (and I remember reading so), why is the Static scores determining lifetime registration (over 10 yrs) in a tiered registry proposal? See the potential flaw in this? The “test” is being used for something it was never designed to do.

      • DavidH

        here’s the link to the full specifications ( http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99-coding-rules_e.pdf). I did not see your quote of 10+ years; I will say how outrageous this whole thing is. It’s based upon a sample of About 1039 UK and Canadian criminals, there is no control group i.e., a group of the general population as a whole to make validating inferences from! It uses one time subjects to develop a model at which they never go back to test if their model is correct. I see no standard deviation used! we dont know how different the general population performs based upon these predictors.

        Furthermore, it assumes no other variables other than the presence of charges and convictions, not taking into consideration, socioeconomic, education, or any of hundreds of considerations a behavioral scientist would measure to predict human behavior .

        Finally and not exhaustively, it assumes all deviations from charges filed are a result of plea bargains and offers no variable for proprietorial zealotness or misconduct or refuses to recognize both sides to the arrest, charges, and conviction process.

        This model is deeply flawed and very difficult to use and is subject to so many miscalculations and interpretations, You’d need very highly trained and experienced administrators to conduct such an evaluation using this model!

        This was the first time I ever examined this model and I’m sickened that I live inside of its world!

        • Finn

          1039 people is not a big sample. Especially when the Static test’s 1039 sample size consist of “particularly violent offenders.” What troubles me is that our great state, California, sees fit to apply a very dissimilar and outdatedly small sample, derived from the 1970s, to today’s population… many even required to register because of non-violent or non-contact offenses. Despite the Static’s misleading claims, its sample is not appropriate for many of today’s registrants. But yes, until we are able to scrutinize each participant in the Static sample (and the Canadian Static 99 developers have made this very difficult), we are not able to see for sure how “particularly violent” the 1970s sample are.

      • 72FLH

        99R junk voodoo , I am glad to see so many that don’t trust 99 ,

      • Tobin's Tools 2.0

        In regard to the person whose username is “The Static-99R Is A Scam,” the quote you might be seeking may actually be found in the “developers'” very own “Coding Rules,” cited by DavidH. (BTW, DavidH also makes some good arguments against this actuarial himself.)

        The link to the ‘Coding Rules’ can be found here:

        http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99-coding-rules_e.pdf

        Here are some quotes that you may find pertinent. I include the page numbers for your own reference:

        “In some cases, an evaluator may be faced with an offender who has had a substantial period at liberty in the community with opportunity to re-offend, but has not done so. In cases such as these, the risk of sexual re-offence probabilities produced by the STATIC-99 may not be reliable and adjustment should be considered (Please see Appendix #1).” p. 5

        Here is another quote that you may be looking for:

        “The STATIC-99 may be appropriate for offenders with a history of sexual offences but currently serving a sentence for a non-sexual offence. The STATIC-99 should be scored with the most recent sexual offence as the Index offence. The STATIC-99 is not applicable to offenders who have had more than 10 years at liberty in the community without a sexual offence before they were arrested for their current offence. STATIC-99 risk estimates would generally apply to offenders that had between two (2) and ten (10) years at liberty in the community without a new sexual offence but are currently serving a new sentence for a new technical (fail to comply) or other minor non-violent offence (shoplifting, Break and Enter). Where an offender did have a prolonged (two to ten years) sex-offence-free period in the community prior to their current non-sexual offence, the STATIC-99 estimates would be adjusted for time free using the chart in Appendix One – “Adjustments in risk based on time free”.” p. 7

        If this seems confusing, it was probably constructed to be so as to protect the disingenuous ‘developers’ from liability. Not unlike the manner an appellate judge may write his/her opinion with much convolution: with the intent to protect oneself from criticism. It is no wonder that, in the above academic journal (cited in my more lengthy post), the author to the DSM (aka. “The Bible of Psychiatry”) — along with two USC Professors — cite the Static-99R as having a “dizzying number of risk scores and qualifications” when labeling this bogus static “instrument” as “dubious.”

        But what strikes me most is the following sentence from page 7: “The STATIC-99 is not applicable to offenders who have had more than 10 years at liberty in the community without a sexual offence before they were arrested for their current offence.”

        If the Static-99R is not good enough for someone REARRESTED after 10 years offense-free in the community, then it is only a logical inference to conclude that the Static-99R is NOT applicable to a person NEVER rearrested after 10 years offense-free in the community. Do you follow what I’m saying?

        This claim seems in-line with the statistics of the Static-99R’s own ‘developers’ that even so-called “High Risk Sex Offenders” are no more likely to recidivate than anyone else when 17 years offense-free in the community.

        So it seems CASOMB is not even applying this bogus “actuarial instrument” in a manner intended by its pseudo psychologist “developers” when incorporating the Static into a tiered registry proposal.

        CASOMB should actually be embarrassed of this fallacy — as it discredits the very premise of having 20 year and LIFETIME tiers under their tiered registry proposal. Especially when the *lifetime* tier relies on the Static-99R. It truly IS a “scam.”

        • lewis

          wow. just wow. Personally I feel sickened at how govt will lie about how static 99R is being misused & then applied to mislabel our futures. Thanks for the fresh perspective.

        • Jonathan

          I have always felt my Static 99 scam score is grossly exaggerated. Over 6 yrs ago an imposter Ph.D contracted by CDCR “assessed” me w/ this bogus “instrument” before I was released from prison. Over 6 yrs later, the same “test” score sticks to me. I guess it sticks w/ me for the rest of my life?

          99R scam doesn’t take into account that I now have an AA & BA. No account of my crime-free life. No account of my current age (34 now). No account of my full time employment or volunteer work.

          CA Dept. of Justice and CDCR are abusing its power when it advertises the Static scam as “scientific” when it is complete junk.

          DOJ and CDCR are crooked bureaucrats just trying to make it seem like they can predict the future. No one… and not especially a dumb test… can predict the future.

          Lived with a “lover” for at least 2 years? Wtf! It’s 2016 when people marry later in life and live w/ family longer. Not the 1970s from which this Static 99 scam is based off of!!

        • Anon 23084e21

          I know right, I laughed at the lover/relationship of 2 yrs thing, I said YES knowing it would be a better score, Its like when the shrink asks you “how what your childhood…good abused..”,,, If you answer ANYTHING was NEGATIVE its a TICK Against you ! so EVEN IF you had a bad childhood you NEVER answer TRULY as someone will saw “He is this way cause when he was a child…….”

        • Canon

          Anon,

          CDCR brand psychology (which would definitely include the Sharper Future scheme) is a sheep dressed in wolves clothing. The “mental health experts” of CDCR are used as a tool by parole agents to connive their way into personal, normally client-therapist confidential, information. “Containment Model” is one example. I believe it was Sharper Future president Mary-Perry Miller who proudly boasted of “no secrets” “treatment,” in which nothing is kept from parole agents or CDCR.

          Why would someone boast about not keeping secrets in “treatment?” Seems like the client, as well as his or her Constitutional and medical rights, is violated when “no secrets” are retained between a client and therapist.

          Should be common sense. But apparently, not common sense to the scam artists of Sharper Future. Mary-Perry Miller should be ashamed of herself!!

          – C

        • pia

          The bedrock of therapy is client confidentiality. If Mary Perry-Miller’s company can’t even provide complete confidentiality to their clients — as Miller has told the media there are “no secrets” kept in the containment model fugazy — then by default (and Miller’s very own admission), her company is NOT providing therapy or treatment.

        • laura beth

          If not treatment (because, as you say, therapy has confidentiality from the state government) then the sharper future company is a scam?

        • joey

          So if a younger guy lives with a lover say 1 1/2 years… it doesn’t count at a lower score? That 2 year living with a “lover” risk factor is a complete joke.

          In fact I think the static 99r is a complete joke. Nice to know I’m not alone. Cause it was my first hunch many years back that I felt the static 99r is a huge scam.

        • Anon 230384e21

          Best way to beat the SCAM is on that ? ALWAYS answer YES even if not true, it is something that is UNPROVEABLE, The question was designed to be probably something like” you have had stability in your life if you have lived with a lover”

          Its the same as “How was your childhood” If you answer troubled you get flagged as “this may be your problem in life you had a bad childhood”

          These idiodic ?’s you always have to make up the answer if it isnt true especially since it can NOT be proven If you lived with a lover etc 🙂

          I had a ACCESSMENT at Sharper “Finger” and lied on all kinds of shit 🙂 ahha

          I always love the ? “How often do you masturbate” I always say NEVER… DONT NEED TO have someone to do that for me 🙂 haha

      • bill

        The risk estimates only go up to 10 years, so it’s only logical to assume the scores are only good for 10 years.

        I know many have pointed out the fallacy in CASOMB requiring lifetime registration for 6 or higher scored individuals. This is indeed a fallacy, as the risk estimates are only up to 10 years. CASOMB should have seen this fallacy before delivering its tier proposal. I suppose CASOMB was too wrapped up in the idea of delivering “science” that is ostensibly empirical. CASOMB probably did not expect too many people to go digging into the reality of what the Static 99 scam consists of: garbage statistics.

        The reality is the Static 99 is inaccurate. And the Static 99 inaccuracy is only good up to 10 years. If they included 15, 20, 25 year predictions… it would be a different story. But I think the so called developers would rather not show how much junk their so called instrument is… especially 10+ years into the future.

        But ya, I agree w/ most of you here. Static 99 is junk bunk statistics.

        • Anonymous (for clear reason)

          Good point. If the “norms” only go up to 10 years, then logically the Static-99R score is only good for 10 years. Under the assumption that the Static-99R is “good” to begin with of course (as the government wants us to believe it is).

          I am under the impression, as with most of you, that the Static tests are complete scams. So when you people call it “Static-99R scam,” I am with you 100% of the time.

          California Department of Justice, and its head honcho Kamala Harris, should really rethink its name. “California Department of Injustice.” Personally, I find it annoying to see Kamala Harris leading in the polls to become California’s next U.S. Senator. She has only fed the hysteria against sex offenders so that she can get elected into public office.

          And BTW, Kamala Harris’ “aide” was arrested for running a rogue police force:

          http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-aide-harris-accused-rogue-police-force-20150505-story.html

          If birds of the same feather flock together, how delusional are the people that work in the CA DOJ?

        • melissa

          The predictive models only go up to 10 years. What business does the STATIC have predicting 15, 20, and lifetime “risk?” The STATIC scam does not add up when the score sticks for a lifetime, considering the predictions only go up to 10 years. Thanks for pointing that out, bill.

    • bill

      Tobin’s Tools,

      Much appreciated for taking the time to put that Static 99 summary together. It was truly illuminating; but at the same time very concerning.

      A bit of a tangent; but I had the displeasure of meeting Amy Phenix (one of the Static’s so called developers) a few years back. In my opinion a very dodgy (as we say in England) person. My first-impressions telling me not to trust her were correct, as I later learned that she helped develop the Static 99 scam.

      Here is an article that describes Phenix as “a forensic psychologist who makes her living testifying at civil-commitment hearings.” Phenix: yet another pseudo psychology profiteer, no doubt. Here is the article:

      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/01/14/the-science-of-sex-abuse/

      Here is a good quote:

      “The expert for the defense, Robert Prentky, the director of the program in forensic psychology at Fairleigh Dickinson University […] spent much of his testimony commenting on his disillusionment with the field. Since the advent of civil-commitment laws, forensic psychology involving sex offenders has become insular and lucrative—the busiest expert witnesses make half a million dollars a year by testifying at hearings—and new research has focused largely on methods of predicting risk. Prentky said that when he began his career he assumed that it wouldn’t be long before scientists uncovered the origins of pedophilia and developed empirically based treatments. But the field had become increasingly politicized, and the disorder remained a ‘black box.’ He said, ‘It feels to me, sadly, that science at this point obfuscates more than it illuminates.'”

      It truly is sad that the “science” behind people being given the label “sex offender” has been “politicized.” Our government should not be relying on bogus science.

      • sex offender industrial complex veteran

        It’s really sad how the science behind the sex offender industrial complex “obfuscates” (according to the professor) more than helps. It’s really all about money and how much the leeches (i.e. “treatment” programs like Sharper Future) can suck from taxpayers.

        I just finished Sharper Future. I had to go for about 4 years. It was hard going to that program knowing my hard earned money was helping fund that place that lets all my confidential therapy information known to CDCR and the state. It was absolutely stupid that the clinicians pretend to want to help, then they stick us with unethical and bogus scams like the polygraph… and like the containment meetings. In the containment meetings, all of our treatment info and secrets were told to the state and CDCR.

        What kind of “treatment” becomes a free for all without confidentiality?

        • john doe

          Most importantly, who advocates for the containment model and containment meetings? They both seem like a scam designed to produce a circus performance complete with circus performers (i.e. the pseudo psychologists and wannabe cops).

        • Anon 230384e21

          The containment meetings are total harassment meetings 100000% they serve NO Purpose but for the fake wanna be INTERNS to voice their opinion and they arent even qualified to do so !

        • the good wife

          The containment model scheme gives a reason for Sharper Future to exist. Not incidentally, that’s why on Sharper Future’s website they emphasize that they “urge the adoption of the containment model.” All the more reason to rationalize their artificial “treatment” services. The level of corruption and conflict of interest behind Sharper Future is simply unbelievable. In any other industry, you’d see these pseudo psychologists put behind bars.

  28. Drew

    I have been following your comments for a few days and have found them most enlightening (but equal parts troubling, as our government, and its corrupt profiteers, appear intent in selling policy based off of deceptive science and statistics). I think the comments of this article are ****most valuable**** because it sheds light on complicated and insincere topics exploited by quasi-experts. But I am curious — what is everyone’s input to the California Department of Justice’s claim that the Static-99R is 70% to 75% accurate? This was brought up in a different ACSOL post, but it seems important enough to incorporate into this line of discussion. Personally, I think the CA DOJ must be compelled to release the data on which their claim relies. It just seems like DOJ dishonestly manipulated statistics to sell a dubious actuarial instrument. Here is a link to the California Department of Justice’s 70% to 75% claim: http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/riskfaq.aspx?lang=ENGLISH

  29. nomore

    So is it safe to say they’re sticking us in the same closet the other people came out of?

    I’m here all week folks! No, seriously, I have little else going on right now. 🙂

  30. enough is enough

    The discussions about the static 99 are moot. There are just too many problems with the static … even with the 99R version. In fact, the 99R version just gives a false sense of security as to its accuracy. Sure one of the 99R’s big change is it factors “age” into score. But only age at release from jail/prison … not current age. So the static scam fails to evolve with a person’s maturity. Static score stays the same throughout a person’s life. Again … discussion as to the static 99 tests is moot. Because the static 99 and 99R are pure garbage to begin with. Sick and tired of the phony shrinks, police and probation that believe static 99 “statistical” hogwash.

  31. anonymous

    This just came out a few days ago. It’s another good article that addresses bogus “risk” assessments (including the Static 99R):

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/37895-how-risk-assessment-tools-are-condemning-people-to-indefinite-imprisonment

    QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE:

    “Does the Static-99R predict whether someone with a sexual offense might harm again? Fundamentally, according to Dr. Brian Abbott, ‘social science research doesn’t have this ability,’ as ‘sexual recidivism risk science is too imprecise.’”

    In my opinion, there are just too many problems with the Static 99 tests. Yes, both the Static and Static 99R are garbage. The static tests are pretty much exemplary of the Silicon Valley adage: “Garbage in, garbage out” (“GIGO”).

    I know when CA RSOL was challenging the internet identifier bill in federal court, there were some suggestions that the state can use the Static 99R to narrowly tailor the restriction to so-called “high risk sex offenders” (HRSO). But the “HRSO” label is not always definitive to mean someone is high risk, as the Static 99R is too imprecise. The Static is a hit-or-miss predictor of human behavior.

    The Static 99R is sometimes right (merely by chance), but wrong most of the time. Even a flip of a coin gets it right 50% of a time. And the Static’s accuracy in correctly predicting HRSOs is much less than 50%. So the Static 99 is a farce (and I dare say straight fraud).

    It’s really unfortunate that California and Sharper Future type programs get away with using these unscientific “instruments.”

    • the good wife

      This new article poses some concerning problems with the Static 99R that others have already mentioned above. But I don’t get it. If the Static 99 is so controversial and riddled with problems, why is it still being used? The frauds compare the Static to the type of “math” used in determining insurance premiums and risk. But does the Static do just as good a job? It’s just hard for me to believe sex recidivism can be predicted based off of the 10 questions the Static 99R claims to be able to do. The 10 silly questions have little to do with a person’s current state in life. In fact, the Static doesn’t even properly measure severity of crime. For example, just how do non contact offenses score higher that violent offenses? Or why are male victims scored with more weight than female victims? If states and poorly managed fake “treatment” schemes use the Static 99 crap, then they should at least allow the public to see the sample behind this SCAM. We need to be calling for transparency. No more lies!!!!

      • Timmr

        I suppose the limited sample size gave them the results. The key to it’s validity lies in abilities to draw the same conclusions from larger and different samples, rather than whether it feels right or not. As many people have pointed out here, it has not been rigorously tested.
        Theories about the physical world are independently verified and reverified before accepted as possible truth in the scientific world. Apparently any reqirement for rigorous testing or public open scrutiny gets a pass when it deals with s*x offenders.
        Hate to bring this up again, (oh, not the Nazis again) but reminds of the research done by the Nazi doctors to show the inferiority of certain races.

      • Dylan Lash

        You bring up an interesting point. A lot of the deceivers who want to make us believe in the Static-99R (most of whom seem like they didn’t do any research into the “instrument” they proudly boast of themselves) bring up that the Static methodology is no different than what insurance companies use to determine risk and corresponding premium. But here lies the fallacy! Insurance actuarials and their form of risk assessment actually factor CURRENT age into determining insurance premiums. Whereas the Static-99R only factors age at release from incarceration. As someone already said above, it’s “stupid” to assume people remain the same risk as the moment they are released from jail or prison. To apply this same “risk” (the Static score that remains the same) to one’s lifetime is even more foolish. And to predicate a lifetime tier solely on the Static score just seems like the creation of a new problem to begin with. We aren’t dealing with cost of premiums here. We are dealing with a person’s life and liberty.

    • The Static 99R Is A Scam

      This was troubling:

      “Similarly, Daniel Coyne, a Chicago lawyer with clients in civil commitment facilities, states that actuarial data are ‘wonderful’ for bigger-picture data — projections, research and longitudinal studies — but most were never designed for individual predictions. Actuarial data, he says, ‘might say I am due for a heart attack, but does this mean I will have one?’ When applied to individuals, risk assessment instruments in the sex offender world only have a 58 percent accuracy rate, states Coyne. ‘Not much better than a coin toss.'”

      “Risk assessment” my a**!!

      • Timmr

        Sounds like the government coming in and giving all people who have a 58% chance of having a heart attack a preventive bypass operation.

        • franklin

          Statistics can easily be manipulated to misrepresent fact. Giving the static 99 even a 58% accuracy rate, I’m afraid, may be giving the static tests way too much credit. As Tobin’s Tools 2.0 cites above, the static 99R is only about 22% accurate in predicting alleged high risk sex offenders within a 5 yr period (way less than chance). Then after, at the 10 yr mark, the “high risk” HRSO static designation is less that 5% accurate. Then at 17 yrs, the HRSO designation is not at all accurate for a person who does not recidivate during that time. So the static 99R is indeed pretty much a scam designed to mislead and label (or rather mislabel) people. (What about the rate of recidivism for non HRSO people?) So I agree that the dishonest shrinks that use the static tests are clueless schmucks.

        • steven

          So what you’re saying is that the STATIC-99R is much worse than chance in labeling HRSO offenders (and that’s WITHIN a period of 5 years)? Then AFTER the 5 year period, at 10, the STATIC drops to about 5 percent accuracy in correctly predicting HRSO folks? Then at 17 years, the STATIC is pretty much worthless? The STATIC is a fraud LOL!

  32. Liz

    The phony baloney Static 99R scores have done one positive thing: it exposes the fraudsters who choose to use them. The Static 99 is no different than going to a fortune teller to read a crystal ball. The only difference is that the fortune tellers who use the Static 99 crap tend to hold doctorate degrees from low tier diploma mills. And the crystal ball upon which they rely is varnished with quack “math.”

  33. Dylan Lash

    The polygraph, aka “lie detector,” does not trouble me. If anything, we are able to discredit the “psychologists,” “therapists,” and Sharper Future type programs that subscribe to the poly. As many of you may already know: it is quackery. And its foolish use in “treatment” settings is unethical at best. But as many of you point out earlier, it is the Static-99R that is most troubling. One could argue that relying on a very limited “instrument,” an actuarial that determines one’s alleged risk-level based on 10 simple questions, is irresponsible at best. As many of you cite above, CURRENT age is not factored into the static score. Dementedly, only “age at release” from incarceration. So personally, I am troubled because the static score does not evolve with one’s age/maturity to determine a person’s ostensible “risk-level.” Equally troubling is that tiered registration legislation seems to propose that alleged “high risk” static scorers will be subject to lifetime registration, regardless of underlying offense.

  34. melissa

    I have a question: so the STATIC tests give non violent offenders a 1 point hit. But a violent offender gets 0 points? Seems like it should be the other way around.

    So it seems entirely possible that non contact, first-time offenders are more likely to be (incorrectly) flagged as a “high risk sex offender.” And the violent offender is spared the 1 point that may or may not correctly predict his future as being “high risk?”

    It’s already been mentioned by others above. But this is what seems most striking to me. That the STATIC gives non violent offenders the 1 point hit. A point not given to a violent offender.

    So just how can an exhibitionist or voyeur score higher than a violent child molester or rapist (with all else being equal)? Apparently, the STATIC is not only able to predict a labeled “sex offenders’ future,” but the STATIC scam is also able to defy common logic.

    As with everyone else, I don’t agree with the STATIC scam. Even if it’s the “best we have.” Maybe it’s better to do with something that will just pose many more legal dilemmas in the future (that may or may not be surmountable). At least in my opinion.

    • walter

      I agree that it might be better to do without the Static scams altogether. I have also heard some people in government (who will remain unnamed) also claim that the Static 99 scams are the most accurate instruments to predict sex offense. But I don’t think said self proclaimed experts have done their homework. How can an instrument with a max of 10 yr predictions in the sample norms be used to assess one’s LIFETIME “risk?” Just one of the many flaws to the Static scams that should be common sense proof that the Static 99 scams are just bunk junk sold by a bunch of careless Canadian quacks.

  35. walter

    Static 99 & Static 99R are products of self interested parties, mostly corrupt government & pseudo psychologists, looking to further their respective interest(s). These self interested parties are clearly not concerned w/ adverse collateral or unintended consequence(s) that using the Static scams may lead to. For those that actually believe in the slippery slope the Static scams will lead to, I call to your attention that the Static scams were never originally intended to be used for the individualized assessment of people; it was only intended as a tool for the “triage of prison populations.”

  36. ed

    Like Operation Boo, these Sharper Future type “treatment” programs are designed only to make the public feel that our government is doing something about the “problem” with sex offenders. In reality, escapades like Operation Boo and Sharper Future contracts only do one thing: they boost state funding for CDCR that burden taxpayers. Sure, it makes the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilition look good that they are doing something about the “problem” with sex offenders. But as time goes on — and people get smarter — the public will begin to realize that CDCR are a bunch of frauds for creating unneeded hysteria. Also, many will begin to realize that there is not even one instance of a sex offender harming a child on Halloween. Think about it: how is “rehabilitation” served when CDCR invites news and media along for their Operation Boo “raids?” The parole agents are just as much scam artists as the Sharper Future folks.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.