Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:44:08.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex Offender Risk Assessments in the Child Protection Context. Helpful or Not?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2012

Karen Broadley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When a convicted or alleged child sex offender is living, or having contact, with his own children or stepchildren, the obvious worry is that these children are victims or will become victims of sexual abuse. One way of determining the risk of this occurring is for the convicted or alleged offender to undergo a forensic sex offender risk assessment. In this article I raise questions regarding the usefulness of sex offender risk assessments within the statutory child protection context. Most importantly, I ask whether static and dynamic risk assessment instruments can accurately predict the risk an alleged or convicted sex offender poses to his own children. I conclude that ‘high’, ‘moderate’, and ‘low’ risk outcomes of forensic sex offender risk assessments in the child protection context are unreliable and can result in error, and explain that these errors have consequences that, within the child protection context, have consequences that can be dangerous to children.

Keywords

sex offenderrisk assessmentchild protectionsexual abuse
Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 40 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allan, M., Grace, R.C., Rutherford, B., & Hudson, S.M. (2007). Psychometric assessment of dynamic risk factors for child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacon, H. (2008). Cleveland 20 years on: What have we learned about intervening in child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Review, 17, 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbaree, H.E., Langton, C.M., & Peacock, E.J. (2006). Different actuarial risk measures produce different risk rankings for sexual offenders. Sex Abuse, 18, 423–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlin, F.S., Galbreath, N.W., Geary, B., & McGlone, G. (2003). The use of actuarial at civil commitment hearings to predict the likelihood of future sexual violence. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 377–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beyer, L.R., Higgins, D.J., & Bromfield, L.M. (2005). Understanding organisational risk factors for child maltreatment: A review of literature. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
Davies, J. (2010a). Victoria Police sorry for child-sex bungle, Australian, 27 August.Google Scholar
Davies, J. (2010b). Psychologists publish sex offender information, Australian, 7 September.Google Scholar
Doyle, D.J., & Ogloff, J.P.R. (2009). Calling the tune without music: A psycho-legal analysis of Australia's post-sentence legislation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edens, J.J., Hart, S.D., Johnson, D.W., Johnson, J.K., & Oliver, M.E. (2000). Use of the personality assessment inventory to assess psychopathy in offender populations. Psychological Assessment, 12 (2), 132–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, C., Saunders, B.J., Stanley, J.R., & Tucci, J. (1999). Structured risk assessment procedures: Instruments of abuse? Child Abuse Review, 8, 251–263.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, H., & Grubin, D. (2004). Psychiatric aspects of the assessment and treatment of sex offenders. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R.K. (2000, January). Risk assessment. Beaverton, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.Google Scholar
Harcourt, B.E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing and punishing in an actuarial age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harris, A.J. (2006). Risk assessment and sex offender community supervision: A context specific framework. Federal Probation, 70 (2).Google Scholar
Harris, A., Phenix, A., Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Static-99 coding rules revised 2003. Retrieved from www.static99.orgGoogle Scholar
Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (2007). Characterizing the value of actuarial violence risk assessments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 (12), 1638–1658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itzin, C. (2001). Incest, pedophilia, pornography and prostitution: Making familial males more visible as the abusers. Child Abuse Review, 10, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S.A. (2007). Physical abusers and sexual offenders forensic and clinical strategies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Kemshall, H., & McIvor, G. (Eds.). (2004). Sex offenders: Managing the risk-research highlights in social work. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Lamont, A. (2010). Effects of child abuse and neglect for adult survivors [Resource sheet]. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
Langton, C.M., Barbaree, H.E., Seto, M.C., Peacock, E.J., Harkins, L., & Hansen, K.T. (2007). Actuarial assessment of risk for reoffence among adult sex offenders: Evaluating the predictive accuracy of the Static 2002 and five other instruments. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 34, 37–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, W.A. (2000). A study in ‘actuarial justice’: Sex offender classification practice and procedure. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 3, 593–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossman, D. (2006). Another look at interpreting risk categories. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29 (1), 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palk, G.R., Freeman, J.E., & Davey, J.D. (2008). Australian forensic psychologists perspective on the utility of actuarial versus clinical assessment for predicting recidivism among sex offenders. In Proceedings 18th Conference of the European Association of Psychology and the Law, Maastricht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Proeve, M. (2009). A preliminary examination of specific risk assessment for sexual offenders against children. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18:583–593.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruiz, M.A., Drake, E.B., Glass, A., Marcotte, D., & van Gorp, W.G. (2002). Trying to beat the system: Misuse of the internet to assist in avoiding the detection of psychological symptom dissimulation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (3), 294–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, T., & Beech, A.R. (2004). The etiology of risk: a preliminary model. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16 (4), 271–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (2003). Managing unacceptable risk: The risk assessment and management of child sexual offenders. Paper presented at the Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Resolution Conference, convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in Adelaide, South Australia.Google Scholar