DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37035.v1
title: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS), United States, 1978-2017
title: Version 1

description: The purpose of the project was to (1) determine whether the combined dynamic (SOTIPS) and static risk assessment (Static-99R) tools better predicted sexual recidivism than either alone, and (2) determine whether the tools could be implemented successfully in more representative populations. Previous research has established a "status quo" for risk assessments. This study was set within the context of the developing sexual offender risk prediction field, where investigators explored reliable and valid means to assess what have been termed "dynamic risk factors." Instruments that identify the specific psychological risk factors present in the individual offender ought to allow treatment for that individual to be tailored to these specific needs, thus increasing its effectiveness. Thus, instruments have been designed to: Assess psychological factors that are empirically related to sexual recidivism, thus creating a basis for selecting treatment targets ; Show robust incremental predictive validity relative to Static-99R or other measures of static risk factors ; Measure change in a way that is convincingly related to sexual recidivism ; Incorporate and point risk managers towards some of the factors identified in the desistance literature ; Improve the effectiveness of treatment in reducing sexual recidivism ; Enrollment of sex offenders in the evaluation study began in April 2013. To be included, offenders needed to be Static-99R eligible (an adult male convicted of a contact or non-contact sex offense with an identifiable victim), mentally cognizant, released to community supervision, and at least 18 years old in January 2013 in Maricopa County and April 2013 in New York City.
description: The purpose of the project was to (1) determine whether the combined dynamic (SOTIPS) and static risk assessment (Static-99R) tools better predict sexual recidivism than either alone, and (2) determine whether the tools can be implemented successfully in more representative populations. Previous research has established a "status quo" for risk assessments as the Static-99, Static-99R and Risk matrix that measure static factors for reoffender such as age, previous history of committing sexual and non-sexual offenses.
description: The SOTIPS implementation evaluation began in spring 2013 with an initial planning meeting of the project investigators, study staff, and consultants to review objectives, outline data collections needs and methods, and discuss analysis and possible outcomes. Site meetings were held with key personnel in the probation departments at the two sites: Maricopa County in March 2013 and New York City in April 2013. The focus of these meetings was to introduce the study team to each of the jurisdictions, to learn the characteristics and management systems at each site, and to outline the project goals and data collection requirements needed. In Maricopa County, both probation officers and treatment providers in contracted sex offender treatment programs were trained to score SOTIPS; in New York City, only probation officers were trained to score SOTIPS. Following the initial training, another "train the trainers" session was conducted to insure that as new staff was added, each site had sufficient numbers of trainers to train new staff to reliably score SOTIPS. Simultaneously, administrators from the nine sex offender treatment programs working with both probation sites were also contacted and asked to complete the North American Safer Society Foundation survey, describing their treatment models and programming. In addition, two focus groups were conducted at each site--one with treatment providers and one with probation officers. All probation officers and therapists were invited to participate. Focus group questions focused on how information is shared and tracked, length and proportion of treatment, and how determination is made of treatment progress. Focus groups were held again in 2017 to assess the effects of SOTIPS implementation on the exchange of information between probation officers and treatment providers and to identify any changes in the process of monitoring and decisions about treatment completion.
description: The Combined Baseline Data (DS1) includes variables on the respondent's criminal chart history. Coded are the number of sexual offenses, violent crimes, and non-violent crime that the probationer committed. The Probation Data (DS2) contains a description of the number and percentage of contact by the probation officer with the probationer. This includes phone calls, visits to home, and work. The Self-Perceptions Data (DS3) details the results of the sub-project designed to assess offender's perception of their risk for re-offending. Items included information regarding probationer experiences with their probation officer and therapist and monthly meetings with their probation officer, therapist, and both. Probationers were also asked to rate how important specific supervision/treatment areas were important to them. The Recidivism Data (DS4) features recidivism analysis data and contains SOTIPS and Static 99R scores. Each line represents a time period for a probationer. These time periods correspond with SOTIPS scores. If a probationer committed any type of recidivism, the time period adjust to account for the time the probationer is out of the community. The Static99R Scores Data (DS5) contains all of the Static 99R scores and SOTIPS scores that were completed by probation officers and therapists for the sample. All of the offenders have a Static 99R score and at least three SOTIPS scores. Some probation officers continued to record SOTIPS scores past three scores (SOTIPS 4 = 52 cases; SOTIPS 5 = 46) and were included in the final data set.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: North American Safer Society Foundation Survey (McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, Ellerby, 2010) ; Static99R (Hanson and Thornton, 2012) ; SOTIPS: Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (Cumming,Lasher, and Cumming, 2013);
description: Response Rates: Not available
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Combined Baseline Data DS2: Probation Data DS3: Self-Perceptions Data DS4: Recidivism Data DS5: Static99R Scores Data
description: face-to-face interview
description: mixed mode
description: on-site questionnaire
description: web-based survey
description: Adult males convicted of a contact sex offense and sentenced to community supervision. Smallest Geographic Unit: City
description: To be included, offenders needed to be Static-99R eligible (an adult male convicted of a contact or non-contact sex offense with an identifiable victim), mentally cognizant, released to community supervision, and at least 18 years old in January 2013 in Maricopa County and April 2013 in New York City.