Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Forensic Psychology›Static-99R: Static-99 Revised Sex Offender Risk Scale
Process / pipelinesex-offender-risk-assessment

Static-99R: Static-99 Revised Sex Offender Risk Scale

Static-99 Revised Sex Offender Risk Scale · Also known as: Static-99R, Static-99, Sex Offender Risk Assessment

The Static-99R is an actuarial risk assessment instrument designed to estimate the likelihood of sexual recidivism among adult male sex offenders. Originally developed as the Static-99 by Hanson and Thornton (2000) and revised in 2009 as the Static-99R by Hanson, Helmus, and Thornton, it remains one of the most widely used sexual offender risk assessment tools in correctional, forensic psychiatric, and civil commitment settings across North America, Europe, and Australasia.

ScholarGate
  1. Process / pipeline
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Static-99R
HCR-20v3LSI-RSAPROFVRAG

When to use it

Static-99R is indicated for risk assessment of adult male sexual offenders in correctional release decisions, sex offender management planning, civil commitment hearings, and policy-driven registration/notification determinations. It is most appropriate for offenders with a documented sexual crime conviction; its validity for individuals accused but not convicted, or for assessment of adolescent sexual offenders, is not established. Static-99R may be used across jurisdictions (North American, European, Australian correctional systems have validation studies). It is particularly suited to standardized, high-volume risk assessment because scoring is objective and does not require clinical judgment or dynamic interview data.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Actuarial methodology and meta-analytic derivation provide empirically grounded recidivism probability estimates; scoring is objective and replicable across raters.
  • Extensive research validation across multiple independent samples and jurisdictions; peer-reviewed studies demonstrate predictive validity with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.65–0.75 for sexual recidivism prediction.
  • Brief administration (15–30 minutes) makes it feasible in high-volume correctional settings.
  • Static items are stable and not affected by temporary situational factors, reducing the need for frequent reassessment.
  • Widely recognized and legally acceptable in most jurisdictions; results are generally admissible in parole, civil commitment, and registration hearings.
  • Clear risk level categories facilitate communication with policy-makers, judges, and the public.
Limitations
  • Based exclusively on adult male sexual offender samples; does not apply to females, adolescents, or non-sexual offenders.
  • Excludes dynamic factors (mental health, treatment engagement, employment, family support); score does not account for post-conviction behavioral change or life improvements.
  • Provides group-level probabilities, not individual predictions; considerable overlap exists between risk levels, and many individuals in low-risk categories will not reoffend while some in high categories will.
  • Dependent on accuracy and completeness of criminal history records; missing convictions or miscoded victim information compromises validity.
  • Limited applicability in non-English-speaking or non-Western criminal justice systems; international generalizability is not well established.
  • Does not incorporate protective factors (stable relationships, employment, treatment response); balanced risk assessment requires supplementary tools such as SAPROF or dynamic risk measures.

Frequently asked

What is the difference between Static-99 and Static-99R?

Static-99R (2009) is a revision of Static-99 (2000) reflecting updated recidivism research. The revised version adjusted age cutoffs, victim characteristics coding, and recidivism probability estimates. Static-99R should be used instead of Static-99; the older version is considered outdated by contemporary standards.

If a person scores Very Low on Static-99R, does that mean he won't reoffend?

No. A Very Low score indicates an approximately 1–3% 10-year recidivism rate in the group—meaning most will not reoffend, but some will. Static-99R provides group-level probability, not a guarantee about an individual. Additionally, any score must be considered alongside dynamic risk factors, treatment response, and protective factors.

Can Static-99R scores change?

No. Static-99R is based entirely on static (unchanging) criminal history items—age at conviction, number of prior convictions, victim characteristics. The score does not change over time. New convictions or discovery of additional victims would require scoring revision, but routine life changes (employment, relationships, treatment engagement) do not alter the Static-99R score. Dynamic factors should be tracked separately.

Should Static-99R be used for adolescent sexual offenders?

No. Static-99R was developed and validated on adult male sexual offenders only. Adolescent sexual offender risk is influenced by different factors (developmental stage, protective capacity, etc.), and Static-99R predictive validity is unknown in that population. Specialized adolescent risk assessment tools should be used instead.

Does Static-99R assessment require an interview with the offender?

No. Static-99R is scored entirely from file review and criminal history records. Direct interview is not required and may not provide relevant information because all Static-99R items are historical, objective facts. However, complementary dynamic risk assessment tools (e.g., Stable-2007) involve interview and clinical judgment.

Sources

  1. Hanson, R. K., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2010). Predicting recidivism among sexual offenders: A multi-site study. Sexual Abuse, 22(1), 133–153. link ↗
  2. Phenix, A., Helmus, L., & Hanson, R. K. (2016). Static-99R evaluation guide. Public Safety Canada. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Static-99 Revised Sex Offender Risk Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/forensic-psychology/static-99

Related methods

HCR-20v3LSI-RSAPROFVRAG

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • HCR-20v3Forensic Psychology↔ compare
  • LSI-RForensic Psychology↔ compare
  • SAPROFForensic Psychology↔ compare
  • VRAGForensic Psychology↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

HCR-20v3VRAG

Similar methods

Static-99 AssessmentVRAGLSI-RLevel of Service Inventory-RevisedHCR-20v3SPJ FrameworkSAPROFPsychopathy Checklist (PCL-R)

Related reference concepts

Violence Risk Assessment and ManagementSuicide Risk AssessmentSuicide and Self-Harm Risk AssessmentSuicide Risk AssessmentCrime PreventionSuicidal Ideation and Self-Harm Risk Assessment

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Static-99R (Static-99 Revised Sex Offender Risk Scale). Retrieved 2026-07-20 from https://scholargate.app/en/forensic-psychology/static-99 · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
R. Karl Hanson, David Thornton, Lea Helmus
Subfamily
sex-offender-risk-assessment
Year
2009
Type
File-based / Clinician-rated
Related methods
HCR-20v3LSI-RSAPROFVRAG
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account