Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sexual Violence Risk Assessment With Indigenous Men: Context, Controversies, and Current Findings

  • Sexual Disorders (LE Marshall, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

We review the issues, controversies, and main findings from the sexual violence risk assessment literature with Indigenous men. An argument is presented for the incorporation of structured and validated risk assessment measures as part of a comprehensive assessment to inform risk management and the prevention of sexual violence.

Recent Findings

Extant research demonstrates that Canadian Indigenous men convicted for sexual offenses tend to score higher on sexual violence risk measures and to have higher rates of sexual and violent recidivism. Established static and dynamic tools, however, have moderate predictive accuracy for sexual and violent recidivism and changes in risk from treatment or other change agents are associated with decreases in recidivism. Static-99R and the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offense version demonstrate acceptable properties of calibration for indigenous men with respect to sexual recidivism, although Indigenous men continue to show higher rates of violent recidivism associated with risk scores.

Summary

The extant literature provides support for the discrimination and calibration properties of established static and dynamic sexual violence risk tools with Indigenous men; use of a dynamic tool is critical to inform risk management interventions and evaluate change. Risk measures are one component of a comprehensive and integrated assessment process that incorporates responsivity considerations, conducted in a culturally competent, ethical, and humane manner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. DO and LTO are designations assigned at the point of sentencing for individuals ruled by the court to be at exceptionally high risk to public safety for committing a new sexual or violent offense. Psychological risk assessments using risk tools frequently inform these determinations. A DO designation may result in an indeterminate sentence with no defined expiry date, while the LTO designation is a determinate sentence that entails a long-term period of community supervision of up to 10 years post sentence expiry.

  2. In this context, AUC can be used to compare Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons on risk scores and would represent the probability that a randomly selected Indigenous person convicted for a sexual offense has a higher score on a given measure (e.g., Static-99R) than a randomly selected non-Indigenous person also convicted for a sexual offense.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science. 1989;243:1668–74. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2648573.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grove WM, Zald DH, Lebow BS, Snitz BE, Nelson C. Clinical versus mechanical prediction: a meta-analysis. Psychol Assess. 2000;12:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon K. The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychol Assess. 2009;21:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harris AJR, Cousineau CA, Page CA, Sonnichsen P, Varrette S. Recidivism risk assessment for aboriginal males: a brief review of the scientific literature. Research report R-239. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada; 2011.

  5. •• Olvnoer ME, Sowden JN, Kingston DA, Nicholaichuk TP, Gordon A, Beggs Christofferson SM, et al. Predictive accuracy of VRS-SO risk and change scores in treated Canadian Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexual offenders. Sex Abus. 2018;30:254–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216649594Only study to examine dynamic sexual violence risk assessment with Indigenous men; it provides evidence for the changeability of risk with Indigenous men convicted for sexual offenses and the predictive properties of dynamic risk and change information for sexual and violent recidivism.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rugge T. Risk assessment of male aboriginal offenders. Corrections research report no. 2006–01. Ottawa: Public Safety Canada; 2006.

  7. Ewert v. Canada. FC 1093; 2015.

  8. Canada v. Ewert. FCA 203; 2015.

  9. Ewert v. Canada. SCC 30; 2018.

  10. Public Safety Canada Portfolio Corrections Statistics Committee. Corrections and conditional release statistical overview: 2018 annual report. 2019. Public safety Canada. Ottawa.

  11. Haskell L, Randall M. Disrupted attachments: a social context complex trauma framework and the lives of Indigenous peoples in Canada. J Aboriginal Health. 2009;5(3):48–99.

    Google Scholar 

  12. R. v. Gladue. 1 SCR 688; 1999.

  13. Krieg AS. Aboriginal incarceration: health and social impacts. Medical J Australia. 2006;184:534–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Anaya SJ. Report of the special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples in the situation of Maori peoples in New Zealand. Arizona J Int and Comparative Law. 2015;32:1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Travis J, Western B, Redburn FS. The growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences. Committee on law and justice, division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2014.

  16. Government of Canada. Indigenous peoples and communities. Retrieved at: https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303; 2017.

  17. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future. Retrieved from: http://nctr.ca/reports.php; 2015.

  18. Scrim K. Aboriginal victimization in Canada: a summary of the literature. Victims Crime Research Digest. 2010;3:15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Perreault, S. Violent victimization of Aboriginal people in the Canadian provinces, 2009 (Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85–002-X). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11415-eng.pdf; 2011

  20. National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. An overview of Aboriginal health in Canada. Retrieved at: https://www.nccah-ccnsa.ca; 2013.

  21. Wormith JS, Hogg SM, Guzzo L. The predictive validity of the LS/CMI with Aboriginal offenders in Canada. Crim Justice Behav. 2005;42:481–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814552843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stewart L, Wilton G. A comprehensive study of recidivism rates among Canadian federal offenders. Emerging research results report no. ERR-19-02. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada; 2019.

  23. Correctional Service Canada. Correctional programs for Indigenous offenders. 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/002/002-0004-en.shtml#pim

  24. Ewert v. Canada. Remedies Hearing; 2016.

  25. Rice ME, Harris GT. Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law Hum Behav. 2005;29:615–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilson HA, Gutierrez L. Does one size fit all? A meta-analysis examining the predictive ability of the level of service inventory (LSI) with Aboriginal offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2014;41:196–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813500958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge RD. Classification for rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Crim Justice Behav. 1990;17:19–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854890017001004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hanson RK, Thornton D. Static 99: improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders. (user report 99–02). Department of the Solicitor General of Canada: Ottawa; 1999.

  29. Helmus L, Thornton D, Hanson RK, Babchishin KM. Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: revised age weights. Sex Abus. 2012;24:64–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211409951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hanson RK, Thornton D. Notes on the development of Static-2002. (Corrections Research User Report No. 2003–01). Ottawa, ON: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/nts-dvlpmnt-sttc/ntsdvlpmnt-sttc-eng.pdf; 2003.

  31. Babchishin KM, Blais J, Helmus L. Do static risk factors predict differently for Aboriginal sex offenders? A multi-site comparison using the original and revised Static-99 and Static-2002 scales. Canadian J Criminology and Crim Justice. 2012;54:1–43. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2010.E.40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lee SC, Hanson RK, Blais J. Predictive accuracy of the Static-99R and Static-2002R risk tools for identifying Indigenous and White individuals at high risk for sexual recidivism in Canada. Canadian Psychol/Psychologie Canadienne. 2019;61:42–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000182Large scale study examining the discrimination and calibration properties of Static-99R and Static-2002R with Indigenous men.

  33. Fernandez Y, Harris AJR, Hanson RK, Sparks J. STABLE-2007 coding manual—revised 2014. Public Safety Canada, Ottawa, ON: Unpublished report; 2014.

  34. Hanson RK, Helmus LM, Harris AJR. Assessing the risk and needs of supervised sexual offenders: a prospective study using STABLE-2007, Static-99R, and Static-2002R. Crim Justice Behav. 2015;42:1205–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815602094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hanson RK, Harris AJR. A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders. Sex Abus. 2000;13:105–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027001002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Helmus L, Babchishin KM, Blais J. Predictive accuracy of dynamic risk factors for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sex offenders: an exploratory comparison using STABLE-2007. Int J Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2012;56:856–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X11414693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee SC, Helmus LM, Zabarauckas C. The utility of Static-99R and STABLE 2000/2007 for Indigenous sex offenders: a prospective field study. Presented at the 77th annual national convention of the Canada Psychological Association, Victoria, BC, Canada; 2016.

  38. Wong S, Olver M, Nicholaichuk T, Gordon A. Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offense version. 2003, 2017. University of Saskatchewan and Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

  39. Olver ME, Wong SCP, Nicholaichuk T, Gordon A. The validity and reliability of the violence risk scale-sexual offender version: assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychol Assess. 2007;19:318–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Olver ME, Eher R. Predictive properties and factor structure of the VRS-SO: Results from an Austrian sample. European J Psychol Assess. 2019. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000551

  41. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change: applications to the addictive behaviors. Am Psychol. 1992;47:1102–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.9.1102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Olver ME, Kingston DA, Sowden JN. An examination of latent constructs of dynamic sexual violence risk and need as a function of Indigenous and non-Indigenous ancestry. Psychol Services. 2020. Advance online publication https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000414This study identifies latent constructs of dynamic sexual violence risk and need for Indigenous men convicted for sexual offenses, providing evidence for common risk domains, and their risk-relevance for sexual offending.

  43. Olver ME, Stockdale KC, Wormith. A meta-analysis of predictors of offender treatment attrition and its relationship to recidivism. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2011;79:6–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Morgan RD, Flora DB, Kroner DG, Mills JF, Varghese F, Steffan JS. Treating offenders with mental illness: a research synthesis. Law Human Behav. 2012;36:37–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kennedy SM. Treatment responsivity: reducing recidivism by enhancing treatment effectiveness. Forum Correct Res. 2000;12(2):19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Levenson J. Incorporating trauma-informed care into evidence-based sex offender treatment. J Sex Aggress. 2014;20:9–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2013.861523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Corabian G. Working towards desistence: Canadian public’s attitudes toward sex offenders, sex offender treatment, and policy. Unpublished dissertation, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK; 2017.

  48. Perlin ML, McClain V. “Where souls are forgotten”: cultural competencies, forensic evaluations, and international human rights. Psychol, Public Policy, and Law. 2009;15:257–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Canadian Psychological Association. Psychology’s response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s report. 2018. Retrieved from: https://cpa.ca/docs/File/Task_Forces/TRC%20Task%20Force%20Report_FINAL.pdf

  50. Rioja VB, Rosenfeld B. Addressing linguistic and cultural differences in the forensic interview. Int J Forensic Mental Health. 2018;17:377–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2018.1495280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gutierrez L, Helmus LM, Hanson RK. 2016. What we know and don’t know about risk assessment with offenders of indigenous heritage. J Threat Assess and Management. 2016;3:97–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mills JF. Violence risk assessment: a brief review, current issues, and future directions. Canadian Psychol/Psychologie canadienne. 2017;58:40–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Phenix A, Helmus LM, Hanson RK. Static-99R Static-2002R evaluators’ workbook. Retrieved at: https://www.static99.org; 2016

  54. Hanson RK, Harris AJR, Letourneau E, Helmus LM, Thornton D. Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychol, Public Policy, and Law. 2018;24:48–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. de Vogel V, de Ruiter C, Bouman YHA, de Vries Robbe M. SAPROF: guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Forum Educatief; 2009.

  56. Willis G, Thornton D, Kelley S, de Vries Robbé M. Structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk – sexual offence version. Pilot manual; 2018.

  57. Marshall WL, Marshall LE, Olver ME. An evaluation of a strength-based approach to the treatment of sex offenders: a review. J Crim Psychol. 2017;7:221–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-04-2017-0021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Marshall WL, Marshall LE, Serran GA, O'Brien MD. Rehabilitating sex offenders: a strength-based approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2011.

  59. Olver ME, Marshall LE, Marshall WL, Nicholaichuk TP. A long-term outcome assessment of the effects on subsequent re-offense rates of a prison-based CBT/RNR sex offender treatment program with strength-based elements. Sexual Abuse. 2020;32:127–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218807486.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Olver ME, Neumann CS, Sewall LA, Lewis K, Hare RD, Wong SCP. A comprehensive examination of the psychometric properties of the Hare psychopathy checklist-revised in a Canadian multisite sample of indigenous and non-indigenous offenders. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:779–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Mark E. Olver

  2. Saskatoon Police Service and University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada

    Keira C. Stockdale

Authors
  1. Mark E. Olver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keira C. Stockdale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark E. Olver.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

The views, opinions, and assumptions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the University of Saskatchewan or Saskatoon Police Service.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olver, M.E., Stockdale, K.C. Sexual Violence Risk Assessment With Indigenous Men: Context, Controversies, and Current Findings. Curr Psychiatry Rep 23, 48 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01261-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-021-01261-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation