logging in or signing up NASC1 Lucken Tarzen Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Let's Connect Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Copy embed code: Embed: Flash iPad Dynamic Copy Does not support media & animations Automatically changes to Flash or non-Flash embed WordPress Embed Customize Embed URL: Copy Thumbnail: Copy The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 46 Category: News & Reports.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: August 07, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript FLORIDA’S SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR PROGRAM:: FLORIDA’S SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR PROGRAM: Findings on the Civil Commitment Referral Process PROGRAM BACKGROUND: PROGRAM BACKGROUND Authorized by Jimmy Ryce Act - October 1998 Administered by Department of Children andamp; Families (DCF) Statutory Intent: target the 'small but extremely dangerous number of sexually violent predators' SVP is defined as: 'any person who has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, and suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in acts of sexual violence if not confined in a secure facility for long-term control, care, and treatment' PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY: PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY Over the Age of 18 1st Time Offenders w/No Known History of Sexual Violence Offense Categories Murder while engaging in a sexual battery Kidnapping/false imprisonment of a child andlt;13 that involves any sex act upon or in their presence L andamp; L or indecent assault upon or in the presence of a child Any attempt, criminal solicitation, or conspiracy to commit a sexually violent offense Conviction of a sexual battery any time before Oct. 1, 1998 CIVIL COMMITMENT ASSESSMENT PROCESS(See Figure 1) : CIVIL COMMITMENT ASSESSMENT PROCESS (See Figure 1) Total Cases Referred to DCF for Consideration of Commitment Between 1/99 – 12/99 4,377 Released After Initial Assessment/Did Not Meet Criteria 2,404 Met Criteria/Referred for Evaluation 404 Clinical Evaluation Yes/Referred 176 Clinical Evaluation No/Released 221 Evaluation Pending 7 OPPAGA PROGRAM FINDINGS JAN. 1999 – DEC. 1999 (See Figure 2): OPPAGA PROGRAM FINDINGS JAN. 1999 – DEC. 1999 (See Figure 2) Delays in the Assessment Process Referral to DCF → Initial Assessment Completion: 93 days Referral to Clinical Evaluator → Evaluation Completion: 27 days Completion of Clinical Evaluation → State Attorney: 12 days Total Processing Time: 133 days Total Processing Time Required by Law: 45 days OPPAGA PROGRAM FINDINGS JAN. 1999 – DEC. 1999 : OPPAGA PROGRAM FINDINGS JAN. 1999 – DEC. 1999 Reasons for Delays in the Assessment Process Program Start up Issues Limited Availability of Contracted Clinical Evaluators Program Understaffed Shifting Prison Release Dates for Eligible Inmates 76% released 1-6 months prior to expected release date 12% released on expected release date 17% released after expected release date OPPAGA PROGRAM FINDINGSJune 2004 : OPPAGA PROGRAM FINDINGS June 2004 Delays in the Assessment Process Previous Total Assessment Processing Time: 133 days (45 days) Current Total Assessment Processing Time: 213 days (180 days) Implications of Assessment Delays Commitment Process Not Completed Before Inmate Release Date Of 445 inmates detained at Civil Commitment Center, 293 are Pre-Commitment Status. Average Detention Time Awaiting Proceedings: 916 Days* $15 million to detain 240 offenders not committed as SVPs* *Includes delays associated with legal proceedings as well as assessment process. OPPAGA RECOMMENDATIONS : OPPAGA RECOMMENDATIONS Number of DCF Staff and Contracted Clinical Evaluators Has Increased. Lead Time for Start of the Review Process Has Increased from 365 days to 545 days Refine/Evaluate Initial Assessment Process: 85% of Sex Offenders Referred to DCF are Released After the Initial Assessment LUCKEN & BALES STUDYRESEARCH QUESTIONS: LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS Is there a significant difference between sex offenders referred for clinical evaluation and sex offenders released after the initial assessment? Are the risk factors accounting for this difference consistent with statutory requirements? Are the risk factors accounting for this difference consistent with research and actuarials? LUCKEN & BALES STUDYDATA COLLECTION : LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY DATA COLLECTION Data Sources DCF Data Base/Standard Legal and Non-Legal Offender Information (age, race, gender, prior and current record, use of weapon, # of prison disciplinary reports) DCF Data Base/Coded Case Narratives (criminal event information, victim information, P andamp; P violation history, mental health history, treatment program history) LUCKEN & BALES STUDY SAMPLING STRATEGY : LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY SAMPLING STRATEGY All Adult Referrals from Department of Corrections July 2000 - August 2003. Excluded Cases Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity Parole Cases Women Total Number of Referrals: 6,346 Released/No’s 5,931 (n=546) Referred for Clinical Eval/Yes’s 415 (n=246) LUCKEN & BALES STUDY VARIABLES USED IN ANALYSIS (See Table 1): LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY VARIABLES USED IN ANALYSIS (See Table 1) Dependant Variable Yes/No Decision to Refer Sex Offender for 2nd Stage Clinical Evaluation Independent Variables Offender Demographic (2) Offender Legal (9) Victim (3) Offender Clinical (2) LUCKEN & BALES STUDY FINDINGS: LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY FINDINGS Difference in Means Test (Table 2) Regression Results (Table 3) Significant Demographic Variable Race (White)* Significant Legal Variables Weapon Used in Sex Crime*** Number of Disciplinary Reports in Prison*** Number of Prior Convictions: Sex Crime on Adult, Sex Crime on Minor*** Number of Prior Convictions: Violent Crimes/Non-Sex*** Number of Prior Convictions: Non-Violent/Non-Sex* Number of Current Convictions: Sex Crime on Adult, Sex Crime on Minor*** Harm to Victim*** Significant Victim Variables Male Victim* Number of Victims*** LUCKEN & BALES STUDY FINDINGS: LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY FINDINGS Clinical Opinion Use of threats, violence, weapons Severe victim injury Pattern of Sexual vs Non-Sex charges # of victims, age, known Sexually Motivated No prior treatment or treatment completion Offender age at offense and time of release Lack of insight on offense* Unusual belief system* *Information typically not available at initial assessment Study Model Weapon Used in Sex Crime Harm to Victim # of Prior Sexual Offense Convictions: Adult vs Minor # of Prior Violent/Non-Sex Convictions # of Prior Non-Violent/Non-Sex Convictions # of Current Convictions: Sex Crime on Adult, Sex Crime on Minor # of Victims Disciplinary Reports in Prison Male Victim Race (White) LUCKEN & BALES STUDYFINDINGS: LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY FINDINGS Actuarial Model Disciplinary Reports in Prison # of Prior Sex Offense Arrests/ Convictions # of Prior Non-Sex Violence Arrests/Convictions Current Convictions Use of Force Male Victim Age at Release Victim Unrelated/Stranger Victim Age Relationship Status/History Multiple Acts* Substance Abuse History* Treatment History* Study Model Disciplinary Reports in Prison # of Prior Convictions: Sex Crime on Adult, Sex Crime on Minor # of Prior Convictions: Violent Crimes/Non-Sex # of Prior Convictions: Non-Violent/Non-Sex # of Current Convictions: Sex Crime on Adult, Sex Crime on Minor Harm to Victim Male Victim # of Victims Race (White) Weapon Used in Sex Crime LUCKEN & BALES STUDY CONCLUSIONS: LUCKEN andamp; BALES STUDY CONCLUSIONS Risk Assessments at the 1st Stage are Consistent with Statutory Requirements (Means Difference Test) Florida’s SVPP Risk Assessments at the 1st Stage of Evaluation are Fairly Consistent with Clinical Opinion Florida’s SVPP Risk Assessments at the 1st Stage of Evaluation are Largely Consistent with Actuarial Instruments/Research Literature No evidence of over-prediction You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.