Opinion ID: 2084503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: NSP's Decision and Risk Assessment Instrument

Text: After being notified of his classification as a Level 3 offender, Slansky requested a hearing to challenge his classification level. The hearing officer rejected Slansky's challenge and upheld Slansky's classification as a Level 3 offender. The NSP adopted the hearing officer's decision. On appeal to the district court, Slansky made a number of arguments concerning the NSP's decision and the risk assessment instrument. In upholding Slansky's classification as a Level 3 offender, the district court determined, inter alia, that the NSP's decision was based upon sufficient evidence and that Slansky's challenges to the risk assessment instrument were without merit. On appeal to this court, Slansky's first through fourth and eighth assignments of error challenge the district court's decision to uphold the NSP's classification and the court's approval of the risk assessment instrument. These assignments of error, however, can be consolidated into three main arguments: (1) Slansky's score was unsupported by the evidence because it did not account for a number of mitigating factors; (2) to the extent the risk assessment instrument does not account for certain mitigating factors, it fails to accurately reflect an offender's true risk of recidivism; and (3) the risk assessment instrument is invalid, flawed, or inaccurate because it has a rate of error of 12%. Brief for appellant at 44. Because the district court's decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, we reject Slansky's arguments. First, Slansky contends that his classification as a Level 3 offender is not supported by the evidence because it fails to account for a number of mitigating factors that he presented. We disagree. As an initial matter, we note that Slansky did not contest his risk assessment score in regard to items 1 through 9, 11, 13, and 14. Therefore, the district court was presented with undisputed evidence establishing that Slansky had a risk assessment score of 150 points, or 20 points more than was needed to classify him as a Level 3 offender. Slansky did contest his score in regard to items 10 and 12; however, the record contains competent evidence to support the district court's decision to uphold the NSP's score for these two items. In regard to item 10 (release environment), Slansky was assessed 10 points because he was not under supervision at the time of the assessment. The evidence adduced at the hearing established that Slansky had been released from supervision more than 4 years prior to the hearing, and the district court's decision to affirm the assessment of 10 points is supported by competent evidence. With respect to item 12 (treatment), Slansky was assessed 20 points because he did not participate in court-ordered or professionally recommended treatment. At the hearing, Slansky admitted to refusing to undergo sex offender treatment while incarcerated in Kansas. Upon his release from prison, Slansky attended counseling sessions with Buettner, who had been recommended to him by his parole officer. At his prenotification hearing, Slansky argued that these counseling sessions were tantamount to professionally recommended treatment. However, his own expert witness, Sandra Hale Kroeker, a clinical social worker who specializes in sex offender treatment, testified that the counseling sessions with Buettner did not meet the requirements of sex offender specific treatment. Therefore, the effectiveness of the counseling sessions with Buettner were put into question and the district court's affirmance of the NSP's decision not to deviate from the instrument is supported by competent evidence and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Slansky contends, however, that the hearing officer should have deviated from the presumptive classification because he presented a number of mitigating factors. For example, Slansky testified that since his release, he has been an emotionally stable, married man, with a small child and a good job. In addition, he notes that after his release, he completed counseling with Buettner, as required by his parole agreement, and that he had been unsupervised, without incident, for over 4 years. Moreover, Slansky contends that expert testimony established that certain life experiences, such as a number of those he experienced, reduce an offender's risk of recidivism. As the district court noted, however, the record is not as conclusive as Slansky asserts. In fact, the clinical director of the NSP Sex Offender Registry, Shannon Black, Ph.D., testified that a number of these alleged mitigators have either unknown or unquantifiable effects, or bear adversely on an offender's risk of recidivism. For example, Slansky argues that the fact that he has been unsupervised for over 4 years without incident shows that he is at a low risk to reoffend. Black testified, however, that offenders who are not under supervision, even if they have successfully completed a period of unsupervised release, are at a high risk to reoffend. Black's testimony was echoed by Kroeker, who stated that the risk of recidivism is higher for offenders who are unsupervised, including those who have successfully completed a period of supervision. Moreover, Black's and Kroeker's testimonies are supported by appendix C of the risk assessment manual, which notes that [m]ultiple studies on recidivism and treatment using long-term follow-ups indicate that sexual offenders may continue to be at risk for recidivism for many years after release or supervision, possibly up to 20 . . . . Similarly, Slansky contends that numerous life experiences, such as marriage and child-rearing, decrease an offender's risk to reoffend. However, Black testified that for some offenders, marriage does not decrease their risk of reoffending. In addition, Black testified that these life experiences were not included in the instrument because they are too dynamic and affect individuals differently. Thus, although Slansky presented evidence of a number of positive life experiences, additional evidence concerning the unknown effect of such experiences leads us to conclude that the district court's affirmance of the NSP's decision not to depart from Slansky's presumptive classification is supported by the evidence and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Second, Slansky contends that to the extent that the risk assessment instrument does not account for a number of life experiences and alleged mitigators, it does not accurately reflect a registrant's true risk of recidivism and, therefore, is contrary to the mandate of SORA. Again, Slansky focuses his challenge on items 10 and 12 of the instrument. With regard to item 10 (release environment), Slansky argues that the instrument is invalid because item 10 does not account for the fact that he had not reoffended in the 4 years since his release from supervision. However, we again note that item 10 assigns 10 points for offenders who are no longer under supervision because they remain at a high risk to reoffend. Therefore, although Slansky's behavior during the 4 years after his release from supervision is commendable, it does not provide a basis from which a downward departure in score must be made. In regard to item 12 (treatment), Slansky argues that the instrument is invalid because it does not account for the fact that he received counseling while on parole. At his prenotification hearing, Slansky presented two witnesses who discussed the adequacy of his counseling sessions with Buettner. Buettner testified that her sessions with Slansky were the equivalent of a specific sex offender treatment program. Kroeker, however, questioned the utility of Slansky's sessions with Buettner and stated that Slansky still needed to undergo sex offender specific treatment. Therefore, Slansky's failure to receive a downward departure for attending counseling did not stem from the instrument's inability to grant such a departure, but, rather, from questions concerning the effectiveness of the counseling sessions. Slansky also argues that the Legislature intended the instrument to contain more than two mitigating factorsdebilitating illness and advanced agewhich justify a downward departure in score. As Slansky notes, § 29-4013(2)(b)(i) and (ii) instructs the NSP to incorporate, as relevant factors, conditions of release that minimize the risk of recidivism, including probation, parole, counseling, therapy, or treatment, as well as advanced age and debilitating illness. See, also, § 012.03. Contrary to Slansky's suggestion, however, nothing in SORA mandates that points should be deducted from the score of an offender who has successfully completed treatment or is released on parole. Instead, SORA merely instructs the NSP to take these factors into account when determining an offender's risk of recidivism. Although Slansky may not be satisfied with the way the instrument accounts for these factors, it undoubtedly considers them in determining an offender's risk of recidivism. Next, Slansky argues that the instrument should include a number of specific mitigating factors, in addition to those referenced above. This argument is without merit. As an initial matter, we note that the instrument allows an investigator to depart from the presumptive risk category so long as such departure is warranted by the facts and the investigator explains the basis for such departure. Moreover, in regard to including additional mitigating factors within the instrument itself, the Legislature clearly delegated decisionmaking power concerning which additional factors, if any, should be included in the risk assessment instrument. See § 29-4013(2). Third, Slansky contends that the risk assessment instrument is invalid, flawed, or inaccurate because it has a statistical error rate of 12 percent. The record indicates that the researchers who developed the risk assessment instrument tracked approximately 1,300 sexual offenders who had been either released from incarceration or placed on community-based probation. In order to determine what factors correlated with recidivism, the researchers compared a sample of 190 sex offenders who reoffended after release with a randomly selected sample of 315 offenders who were released during the same time period and did not reoffend. Black testified that the researchers ultimately narrowed the items to those that make up the current risk assessment instrument and that these 14 items correctly classified the statistical samples 88 percent of the time. Relying on the instrument's statistical error rate, Slansky argues that the NSP's determination that he is at a high risk to reoffend is no better than a speculative guess. Slansky's contention is incorrect. As an initial matter, we note that the instrument's 88-percent validation rate is not tantamount to an admission that 12 percent of the offenders in the registry have been misclassified. Instead, 12 percent simply represents the rate at which the instrument erred in classifying the sample groups. Moreover, the 12-percent statistical error rate represents both over- and under-classifications. Thus, to the extent the instrument erred in classifying the sample offenders, it occasionally did so in favor of the offender. Furthermore, it is important that we recognize that no instrument will perfectly predict future conduct. As stated elsewhere: [T]he non-existence of a perfect predictor of recidivism should not preclude legislative resort to a rationally based instrument of risk assessment, developed and validated by mental health professionals. E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1098 (3d Cir. 1997). In this regard, Black's testimony concerning the instrument establishes that it was carefully and rationally crafted. While acknowledging some of the instrument's shortcomings, Black testified that the instrument (1) is based on a significant amount of empirical data, (2) utilizes factors that correlate with a registrant's risk of recidivism, (3) is valid and appropriate for its purpose, and (4) is consistent with other instruments that have been developed. Consequently, we conclude that the instrument is a rationally based risk assessment tool and that the grounds Slansky asserted to challenge the instrument are without merit.