Evaluating selection for sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment: A comparison of those committed, not committed, and nearly committed.

Abstract

We examined statewide data of persons evaluated for sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment and compared risk-relevant data of three groups: those committed as SVPs (n = 374), those not recommended for commitment (n = 2,707), and those nearly committed (recommended for commitment but ultimately not committed; n = 117). Consistent with legal language for SVP commitment, binary and multinomial regression analyses revealed that risk scores predicted SVP commitment recommendations in addition to some historical factors (e.g., psychiatric history, never being married, prior sex offenses). For those recommended for commitment, prior sexual offenses predicted ultimate commitment. Those nearly committed had significantly higher sexual recidivism rates than did others who were not committed; however, these recidivism rates were still low (11.5%). Findings suggest that evaluators’ SVP decisions incorporate risk data and follow empirically supported trends; however, the observed recidivism rates of a subset of people that SVP commitment appears to target suggests that the potential for reducing sexual recidivism effectively and efficiently through commitment appears to be quite limited.

California Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Evaluations in the Field: Static-99R and Diagnostic Field Reliability

“…Therefore, it may not be generalizable to other states or jurisdictions. Studies which have examined characteristics of civilly committed sex offenders (e.g., McLawsen et al, 2012; Perillo et al, 2021) have found relatively large variations in Static-99R (and Static-99) scores, and in the prevalence of paraphilic versus ASPD and other diagnoses. To some extent, this variation is not surprising; each state passes its own specific civil commitment legislation, which may evolve over time according to state case law.…”

“…Common mental disorders associated with SVP evaluations include paraphilic, substance use, and personality disorders (Becker et al, 2003; McLawsen et al, 2012; Packard & Levenson, 2006). Pedophilic disorder and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) were among the more commonly found diagnoses in studies of SVP cases across several states (McLawsen et al, 2012; Perillo et al, 2021). Thus, reviewing the reliability of these diagnoses is especially salient in the SVP context.…”

The influence of polygraphs on evaluators' decisions regarding sexually violent persons.

“…A substantial body of research has examined a myriad of influences impacting SVP evaluations, including actuarial risk assessment measures, mental health diagnoses, and the role of clinical judgment (DeMatteo et al, 2015; Miller et al, 2005). Compared with individuals not recommended for SVP commitment, individuals who are recommended generally have higher actuarial risk scores, which are associated with increased rates of sexual recidivism (Levenson, 2004; Lucken & Bales, 2008; Perillo et al, 2021). Higher risk ratings are observed when converging evidence is found across instruments (McCallum et al, 2017).…”

“…Higher risk ratings are observed when converging evidence is found across instruments (McCallum et al, 2017). Furthermore, Perillo et al (2021) noted that some static risk factors associated with sexual recidivism (e.g., marriage history and prior sexual offenses) predicted SVP commitment. Although some studies have cautioned against overreliance on actuarial data in predicting an individual’s likelihood of sexual recidivism (e.g., DeClue & Zavodny, 2014; Donaldson & Abbott, 2011), actuarial measures have generally been better predictors of risk at a group level than clinical judgments (see Bengtson & Långström, 2007).…”