California Re-Offense Rates Revealed

The overall re-offense rate for registrants in California is 4.8 percent, according to a recent report issued by Dr. Karl Hanson and colleagues. Of that total, the highest re-offense rate is for transients who lack stable housing.

The report also compared re-offense rates for registrants on parole and probation. The report found that registrants on parole have a higher rate of re-offense (6.1 percent) as compared to those on probation (4.3 percent).

Additional findings in the report include: Hispanics have the lowest rate of re-offense (3.06 percent) as compared to Whites (5.8 percent) and Blacks (6.44 percent). Finally, the report stated that registrants with higher Static-99R scores have a lower rate of re-offense than registrants with lower Static-99 R scores.

The overall purpose of the study which resulted in this report was to “update the predictive validity of Static-99R in California.” According to the report, the Static-99R works well in discriminating between those who re-offend and those who do not and therefore the results “support the continued use of Static-99R in California”.

Recidivism Report June 2016

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. 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.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. 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. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
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.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So if I’m understanding this correctly, all those folks thinking a low static-99 is good have it backwards which answers why a non contact offence gives a higher score.
Funny how they have it setup?

except if you score low on the Static 99, you’re still subjected to the registry. So it’s really a scam.

Maybe a dumb question, but does re-offend mean another sex charge? Or is, say, a registrant who gets a conviction for petty theft considered a reoffender?

Looks like a hack study, designed to prep us for a fictitious “tiered” registry that relies on this junk, phony baloney pseudo science.

Firstly the study only looks at a 5-year period. Is the Static-99R score not applied for one’s lifetime? This scam study does not look further than a 5-year period.

Secondly, look who the study is by. TWO of the four authors are with the California Department of Justice. Of course the California Department of Justice is going to manipulate a study as to support the Static-99R scam! The California DOJ is very much supportive of the Static-99R scam — and it’s not surprising that they would not say otherwise.

Third, the lead author — Seung C. Lee — is with Carleton University. “Carleton was ranked 276–300 in the Times Higher Education Supplement rankings, and 401–500th in the Academic Ranking of World Universities.” So we are talking about a study authored by a person from a fourth-tiered university (i.e. not very reputable).

Finally, it’s not surprising that R. Karl Hanson would support the Static-99R. After all, he — along with Andrew Harris, Amy Phenix and David Thornton — created the Static-99 scam. This study seems like another CONFLICT OF INTEREST in itself, lol.

After all, it was David Thornton himself that said the following: “'[The Static-99R] was very much about the triage of prison populations,’ Thornton said. ‘It wasn’t really about the forensic assessment of individual offenders.’”

“Of that total, the highest re-offense rate is for transients who lack stable housing.”

Hope it’s hot enough for you down there in hell, Sharon Runner!

I know a lot of you have been saying that R. Karl Hanson is allegedly credible. But personally, I have to wonder whether these are one of those studies in which they manipulated statistics in a way to fit a certain conclusion (i.e. that the Static-99R is a valuable tool, when it’s not). What business does the Static’s own developer, Mr. R. Karl Hanson, have in conducting a study on his OWN “instrument” when the study is intended to be ostensibly unbiased. Does not seem like an unbiased study to me. Two of the four authors are with Kamala Harris’ CA DOJ. One author is with a university I have never heard of. And Hanson is doing an unbiased study on his own Frankenstein creation? I smell a 100 percent B.S. study.

I’m stuck on this part:

Overall, 45.1% (734/1,626) of offenders were arrested with any offense

WTF? If only 4.8% are re-arrested for crimes of a sexual nature, than what are 45% getting arrested for?

Is it violations of laws that are only against registrants?

If so, this goes to show how much different the laws are against sex offenders than the rest of the criminal population and should be against Due Process and Equal Protection.

Also, they claim they are thrilled with the accuracy of Static-99 yet many times the projected results have the Static-99 claiming double the number of recidivists than actually occur. I wouldn’t say Static-99 is accurate when it claims twice as many will re-offend than actually happens!

This makes sense if you look at it from their side. They already have serious offenders long term due to the legal parameters of their case. A low static-99 doesn’t affect how they are handled by the legal system. But a low level offender has a legal possibility of getting removed from bondage, therefore this report as defined can put them in a “high risk” category, thereby keeping them in the system and justifying all the laws already in place or proposed in the future. It’s a “trap door”, and as shown over and over, they know they hold the better hand, either by manipulating statistics for public misdirection, or just collusion among the different departments to help funding and job security. They are well aware of the hypocrisy of every action they take, but it is time we all accept this one little fact, THEY DON’T CARE!

my take overall:

1) in most categories the observed results showed a lower than expected recidivism rate.

2. The sample size is wholly inadequate, as the report mentions.

3. We’re talking about life -time sentences on a registry and they use only the most probable time in which someone would re-offend–if someone is a re-offender then a 1 to 5 year period is the most probable time in which they would do so. What about all those who are crime free well beyond 5 years??

4. While it appears the entire purpose of the study was to evaluate the static- 99R no study is being conducted to demonstrate whether a need for such a system to exists! The question is what are we protecting ourselves from?? Do you really send Angel watch notices on a group of people given this data??? And do you really need to destroy people’s lives given this type data??

5. The biggest take away from the report is in fact the low recidivism rate! Which therefore invalidates the need for such a tool!!
6. i wasn’t clear on whether going from -99 to -99R is significant and should age be factor. They didn’t conclude on that

I never realized how educationally defunct California was until reading these posts. Where did your politicians get their educations from, the Acme university. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be comical. When will they realize a registry doesn’t prevent sex crimes, forensics like DNA does. It nearly guarantees detection and conviction. Only those with serious mental issues would risk losing their freedom again.

As for the rest any conviction results in isolation and limited opportunities for anything, including reoffenses. Again, a registry does nothing, a simple conviction website achieves this result.

Now if your limited intelligence elite in Cali can’t understand this, they can use these facts, they seem unable to determine on their own. You shouldn’t need a static 99 of any kind to make these facts known. Static=stupid things analysts theorize improve nothing, lol.

Carleton University? Is that Canada’s version of University of Phoenix, Devry, ITT named after the Fresh Prince of Bell Air character? LOL! Why is it when the government has to create “sex offender” recidivism studies based on “science,” they have to rely on the most unreputable academic institutions? There is a study by professors from the University of Southern California (USC), Keck School of Medicine, Duke School of Medicine, and the University of Washington that says the Static 99R “violates the basic tenets of evidence-based medicine that require reasoned, not mechanical, application of group findings to the individual.” See Alice in actuarial-land: through the looking glass self of changing Static-99 norms, J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry L. (2010). I trust professors from USC, Duke, and UW — which are first-rate research institutions with Division One football — over some hacks from the corrupt California Department of Justice and “Carleton University.”

Karl Hanson developed the static-99 and now issues a report concluding that data evaluated by Hanson et al validate Hanson’s instrument. Uninterested researchers should be evaluating the static-99’s validity instead of Hanson.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

What I can’t comprehend how the Static 99 can even be considered for determining Tier Levels if California ever went to a tiered registry. As the name says, the “test” remains static and the answers don’t change, even if the person has been crime free for 80 years. THe number of convictions, type of victim, prior offenses, ever lived with a lover, age of release will not change. So hypothetically, a 90 year old who is paralyzed now, in a wheelchair, living in an old folk’s home, will still be deemed high risk for re-offense based on a score that will never really change? Really? Where is the logic?

More voodoo science. I think Dr. Hanson’s greatest research is self-promotion and fleecing taxpayer money to perpetuate his flawed conclusions. He is a blind man in a dark basement looking for a black cat that was never there.

My guess is the reason Latino’s have the lowest reoffense rates is their relatively large familial support structure. This seems to support the notion that isolation is a bad thing for registrants.

There is a group that comes to the Washington DC mall and they measure the Electricity in your body, then they try to sell you a book about stress. The static 99 should come with a swami hat and crystal ball.

This is a bogus study if I’ve ever seen one!

Static-99R is 99% pseudo science for sure.

The pretty looking charts make up for the predetermined agenda and statistical manipulation needed to “prove” the Static 99R scam is allegedly accurate. On the contrary: this study should be filed as “Exhibit 1,” showing how Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, and the California Sex Offender Management Board will go to far lengths as to create phony “scientific” evidence that suggests we should trust the Static 99/99R in all its fortune telling powers. BTW, these are the same jerks who also make us believe the polygraph is REALLY a “lie detector,” no?