ACSOL’s Conference Calls

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

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings


Title: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) [paper on assessing risk]

[ – 5/2018]

This report that details findings from a study designed to follow sex offenders on probation over time in two geographically diverse settings to assess recidivism and the predictive accuracy of Evaluation of the Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS). Results indicate that SOTIPS is a promising instrument for assessing dynamic risk factors in sex offenders on probation.

Download the paper


Join the discussion

  1. Dave C. aka Pissed Off w/ the BS

    Refer to the paper’s “references” and see how many times Karl Hanson’s name shows up as a source. Amy Phenix is another Static 99R developer who just happens to be cited. Already pointed out by others, this is a conflict of interest. All the other reference sources are either outdated or write positively of the Static 99R, basing their “analysis” largely on Hanson or the other 99R developer’s claim (you have to read the other papers’ references to see the conflicts of interests). This paper is like watching those Erik Estrada “California Pines” infomercials and having trust in Estrada that they’re selling “valuable” property. Someone once posted a link of Hanson playing games because he didn’t want to release the top secret calculations behind the Static 99R. This paper is written and published by the government and government contractors. Since they insist on pushing these Static 99R “sciences,” let’s see them give up ALL of Karl Hanson’s data so the public can see the real truth, with 100% transparency.

    • Mike

      To Dave C –

      If you want to know one of the Static-99R’s many weakness (yes, there are too many), it is that R. Karl Hanson keeps his data secret. I agree that we must demand full transparency, especially since so many are pushing this ‘static’ scam. Can 10 questions really predict every RSO’s future? I doubt it. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

      I am also flabbergasted as to why nearly every expert in our movement supports the Static ‘tests’ without regard to the fact that many other experts—including ‘Bible of Psychology’ DSM Chair Allen Frances, USC Professors Shona Sreenivasan and Linda Weinberger, University of Washington Professor Sarah Cusworth-Walker, Dr. Richard Wollert, and Dr. Karen Franklin (just to name a few)—are also against it. Why deliberately ignore the opposition who have spoken out against the static scam?

      After watching the conference videos, I decided to do some Google searching to the very troubling Static-99R. Someone a while back posted a copy to a ruling, from Dr. Franklin’s blog, that excluded the Static-99R from evidence because Karl Hanson failed to be transparent in his data. Apparently, the Static failed the Daubert standard for the only reason that Hanson withheld his data. Before the judge’s ruling, David Thornton—who is Hanson’s Static-99R partner—played lots of ‘games’ to delay the data release… and he never did! Courtesy of Karen Franklin for posting this:

      ‘During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.’ George Orwell

      • Agreed

        “I am also flabbergasted as to why nearly every expert in our movement supports the Static ‘tests’[.]”


        This. I don’t understand the hype behind the Static-99R either. The Static-99R doesn’t say what offense a person will commit if he reoffends. The Static-99R punishes people for behavior they MIGHT commit in the future. This paper tries to tie the credibility of the government’s “SOTIPS” dynamic assessment by attaching SOTIPS to the “validated” Static-99R. Kind of ridiculous if you ask me. But nowadays, so many things (at least politically) seem so absurd that [insert random “expert’s” name] citing Hanson citing Hanson (or other Static-99R developer) shouldn’t shock anyone for that matter.

  2. Happy, joyous and free

    Having a number of years (about 6) of reviewing human subjects research, specifically Prisoner research, this particular study is a justification to extend the use of the Static-99 (in all forms) when it is a poor instrument. In other words, if the Static-99 is used within this larger framework, then it is a valid instrument. The purpose of this paper is to bolster the use of Hanson’s research. Also, what you don’t see are the amounts of money (Federally Funded) that go to pay the researchers. This is another form of job security for Hanson.

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 *