Zgoba, K. M., Miner, M., Levenson,
J. Knight, R., Letourneau, E., &
Thornton, D. (2015). The Adam Walsh Act: An Examination of Sex Offender Risk
Classification Systems. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Ifirst
http://sax.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/02/04/1079063215569543.abstract
Abstract
This study was designed to
compare the Adam Walsh Act (AWA) classification tiers with actuarial risk
assessment instruments and existing state classification schemes in their
respective abilities to identify sex offenders at high risk to re-offend. Data
from 1,789 adult sex offenders released from prison in four states were
collected (Minnesota, New Jersey, Florida, and South Carolina). On average, the
sexual recidivism rate was approximately 5% at 5 years and 10% at 10 years. AWA
Tier 2 offenders had higher Static-99R scores and higher recidivism rates than
Tier 3 offenders, and in Florida, these inverse correlations were statistically
significant. Actuarial measures and existing state tier systems, in contrast,
did a better job of identifying high-risk offenders and recidivists. As well,
we examined the distribution of risk assessment scores within and across tier
categories, finding that a majority of sex offenders fall into AWA Tier 3, but
more than half score low or moderately low on the Static-99R. The results indicate
that the AWA sex offender classification scheme is a poor indicator of relative
risk and is likely to result in a system that is less effective in protecting
the public than those currently implemented in the states studied.
Could you talk us through where
the idea for the research came from?
I’d like to say that we had a
great story for coming up with the research idea but it was truthfully born out
of necessity. I was in the process of
finalizing a National Institute of Justice grant on Megan’s Law and my
co-authors and I believed it was necessary and responsible to evaluate the new
federal law that became known as the Adam Walsh Act. The bill was signed into law without an
empirical foundation and sought to strengthen many of the stipulations of
Megan’s Law. My co-authors and I were
thankful that the National Institute of Justice approved the funding and
allowed the empirical research process and findings to speak for themselves. The
idea of who would take the lead unfolded in a more comical way with everyone
stepping back and claiming they were too busy to be lead! Having pulled the shortest straw and having
the shortest academic career resulted in me becoming the PI.
What kinds of challenges did you
face throughout the process?
I think my co-authors would agree
that much of the process was a challenge! Our project included five busy
researchers, from five different states, with five different IRB approvals and
state agency regulations. I would say
the process of data coding and collection probably posed the greatest challenges
to my co-authors and I. First, we recognized that in order to code the Static
risk assessments, the researchers and the assistants needed to be trained by
David Thornton. Since we hailed from five different states (New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Florida and South Carolina) we quickly determined
that video conferencing was the most fiscally responsible (although a few of us
did make our way to warmer climates for group coding!). This three day training increased the
validity of our data coding and our understanding of the instrument. A second challenge that was particularly
burdensome was the unavailability of consistent data collection across the
states. Some of the data points were more readily available in some of the
states and my co-authors and I had to be creative with our requests for
additional data and/or the statistical methods that would take the missing data
into consideration. The states involved
with the study were sometimes hindered by an inability to provide information
that was beyond their control. You learn
through the process that items that might be intuitive for research purposes,
do not necessarily have an operational purpose for state correctional agencies.
What kinds of things did you
learn about co-authorship as a result of producing this article?
I quickly learned that I was
co-authoring a grant and paper with very busy people! I think everybody on this grant had
experience as a co-author, so we became skilled at establishing schedules and
responsibilities upfront. We used an
internet tool to schedule mutually agreeable conference call times and our
responsibilities functioned in chronological order. We then passed each manuscript version on to
the next person in line. There were definitely points when we hit periods of
natural slowdowns- exams, holidays, summer break, etc. I can’t say we didn’t
experience some ‘topic fatigue’, but we understood this would be the case,
given the length of our project and our very busy schedules. I think we also learned that our writing
styles varied, as is sometimes the case with larger groups, and our final
products needed some verbal ‘smoothing’ and refining. One difficulty when working with larger
groups is having a final product that does not appear as though five people
joined together five different papers.
What do you believe to be to be
the main things that you have learnt about the impact of sex offenders
registration, as well as the related legislation?
The results of
our analysis were in line with findings from other studies seeking to determine
best practices in the field of sexual offending legislation. We confirmed that sexual recidivism rates
were low, as most of us had reported in our previous research. The sexual
recidivism rate was approximately 5% at 5 years and 10% at 10 years. This of course should lead many to question
the ‘one size fits all’ basis of the Adam Walsh Act and many other types of sex
offender policies. Furthermore, we
discovered that actuarial measures and existing state tier systems did a better
job of identifying high-risk offenders and recidivists than did the AWA. After
multiple analyses, the results indicated that the AWA sex offender
classification scheme was a poor indicator of relative risk and was likely to
result in a system that was less effective in protecting the public than those
currently implemented in the states studied.
Now that you’ve published the
article, what are some implications for practitioners?
I think the
main implication for practice is really that the manner by which states were
handling sex offender registration, classification and subsequent notification
was working. At least, relative to the current implementation of the AWA, it
was working. Unfortunately, the hands of
many practitioners now may be tied to a system that is less reliable than what
they were previously using. This
presents a disservice to all involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment