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

R H
[nij.gov – 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

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

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

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. 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 that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. 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.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. 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.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
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.  
 

4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.

0
Reply
View Replies (2)

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.

0
Reply