STATIC ACTUARIAL ASSESSMENT

Static-99R certified training

Learn when Static-99R applies, what information is required, how to use the Revised-2016 coding rules, and how to interpret and communicate the result responsibly.

Register nowSee dates and prices

Course at a glance

This live, case-based workshop is designed for professionals who score, interpret, review, or work alongside Static-99R assessments, and for students who need a rigorous introduction to structured sexual-recidivism risk assessment.

Live, practical learning

Join every listed Zoom session for case practice, discussion, and questions. Dates, Eastern Time hours, and Canadian-dollar prices are shown above.

Before you attend

Complete the pre-training videos and have the current scoring manual and case materials ready.

What you will practise

Practise eligibility decisions, coding, interpretation, and communicating uncertainty.

Your certificate

Full attendance, at least 7/10 on the multiple-choice assessment, and completion of the case exercise for a completion certificate. A certificate does not establish independent professional competence.

What is Static-99R?

Static-99R is a ten-item actuarial risk-assessment instrument designed to estimate relative sexual-recidivism risk among adult men in its intended population. It uses commonly available demographic, criminal-history, and victim information; an interview is not required to score it. (SAARNA, Static-99R)

The word static refers to the information used. Historical and demographic information may remain relevant to a baseline estimate, but it is not sensitive to change through intervention or management. Static-99R therefore does not measure treatment progress, current protective factors, recent destabilization, or every circumstance relevant to an assessment.

What can a Static-99R result support?

When the instrument is appropriate and competently scored, the result can help position a person relative to other people in relevant reference data. Current evaluator resources may express results using standardized risk levels, percentile standing, relative risk, and group-based recidivism estimates over specified follow-up periods. These forms of communication answer different questions and should not be collapsed into one number. (Hanson et al., 2017)

An absolute estimate is not “the probability that this person will reoffend.” It describes observed or modelled outcomes for a group defined by a score, reference sample, outcome definition, and follow-up period. Absolute rates have varied meaningfully across samples even where relative rank-ordering remained useful. (Hanson et al., 2016; Lee & Hanson, 2021)

Static-99R is one source of information. It does not establish guilt, diagnose a condition, explain why offending occurred, determine what one person will do, or replace a comprehensive assessment and case formulation.

Who is the workshop for?

The course is appropriate for psychologists, psychiatrists, parole and probation professionals, treatment providers, law-enforcement personnel, researchers, and other professionals who need to understand or use Static-99R within their role. Students may attend to develop foundational knowledge, but training does not itself authorize independent practice.

Whether Static-99R is suitable for a particular person depends on the instrument’s current population and eligibility rules. Edge cases should be resolved with the current official manual and supplementary FAQ—not a public webpage. (SAARNA, Static-99R)

What does the evidence show?

An updated review synthesized 56 predictive-accuracy studies and found moderate discrimination for sexual recidivism, with average area-under-the-curve values of approximately .68 to .69. This means that higher scores tended to be associated with higher observed recidivism, not that the instrument predicted outcomes with certainty or was equally calibrated in every setting. (Helmus et al., 2022)

Cross-cultural applicability requires separate attention. A 2023 meta-analysis found statistically significant predictive discrimination across the racial and ethnic groups studied, but lower accuracy for Indigenous people than for non-Indigenous or White comparison groups and mixed calibration findings for Indigenous people. The authors emphasized the limited number of studies and the need for cautious interpretation. (Ahmed et al., 2023)

For Canadian Indigenous people, evaluators should not equate evidence of prediction with cultural neutrality. They should consider local validity, calibration, colonial and systemic context, information quality, and the consequences of the decision, and should document limitations explicitly.

What you will practise

  • Determine when Static-99R can and cannot be used and identify the information needed before scoring.
  • Build a defensible chronology from demographic, offence, criminal-history, and victim information.
  • Apply the Revised-2016 coding rules to all ten items.
  • Work through routine, unusual, and ambiguous cases without silently converting missing information into facts.
  • Interpret and communicate results using the current standardized framework while distinguishing categories, relative risk, percentile standing, and absolute estimates.
  • Identify limitations, unresolved coding questions, and circumstances requiring consultation or independent review.

What the training does not provide publicly

The public page does not contain item-level rules, score-to-category mappings, operational thresholds, complete cases, worked answers, examination content, Smart Forms, or the case-formulation sheet. These materials belong in the current official resources and protected training environment.

Training format

Before training

Complete the pre-training videos and download the virtual binder, coding materials, and participant cases. Have the current scoring manual available.

During training

Attend every listed Zoom session. Participants work through cases in small groups, compare coding decisions, ask questions, and return repeatedly to the manual. The emphasis is application and reasoning, not passive slide review.

After training

Complete the published certification assessments and use the additional practice exercises to consolidate the coding rules. Ongoing competence may also require supervision, consultation, periodic double-scoring, and organizational quality assurance.

Certificate requirements

A completion certificate requires full attendance, a score of at least 7 out of 10 on the multiple-choice assessment, and completion of the case exercise. An attendance certificate records full attendance only.

The completion certificate documents the course standard; it is not a licence, independent competency determination, or substitute for professional scope-of-practice requirements.

Preparation

Complete the pre-training videos and have the scoring manual and case materials available throughout the workshop. Participants who expect to use Static-99R in practice should read the full coding manual in depth rather than rely on slides or memory.

What participants say

Feedback from Static-99R workshop participants.

“Loved the pre-training videos. Very informative. Materials were readily available and clear.”

“The videos, Kahoot! quiz, and examples increased in difficulty.”

“I loved the interaction and practice cases.”

Quotations are included only where the participant gave written consent to publication; identifying information is not displayed.

Frequently asked questions

Is Static-99R a clinical diagnosis?

No. It is an actuarial instrument that organizes specified historical and demographic information associated with sexual recidivism. It does not diagnose a mental disorder or explain the causes of a person’s behaviour.

Does Static-99R measure change after treatment?

No. Its information is not sensitive to change through intervention or management. Treatment progress, current conditions, strengths, and recent change require other evidence and, where appropriate, other structured methods.

Is the score a prediction about one person?

It is a probabilistic, group-based estimate. It can inform an individualized assessment, but it does not determine whether a particular person will or will not reoffend.

Why can absolute estimates differ across reports?

Estimates can differ because evaluators used different reference samples, follow-up periods, outcome definitions, workbook versions, or assumptions. A defensible report should identify the source and version used and explain the comparison group.

Can Static-99R be used with everyone who has a sexual-offence history?

No. The instrument has specific population and eligibility rules. Public summaries are not sufficient for edge cases; use the current official manual and supplementary FAQ or seek qualified consultation.

Is an interview required?

Not to score Static-99R. Reliable records are still essential, and a broader assessment may require an interview and other information.

Does the course make me independently competent?

Not by itself. Competence depends on relevant professional knowledge, careful study of the current manual, accurate records, supervised or quality-assured practice, and the requirements of your role and jurisdiction.

Where should I look for current official materials?

Use the SAARNA Static-99R instrument page for the current coding manual, supplementary guidance, tally sheet, evaluator resources, and research links. Confirm version dates before use.

Key references

Annotated bibliography

  • Helmus et al. (2022): The best single overview of Static-99R’s development, reliability, updated predictive-accuracy evidence, limitations, and legal-use considerations. Readers should consult it before making broad claims that the instrument is either “proven” or “invalid.”
  • Hanson et al. (2017): Explains why risk categories should have evidence-based meanings and why categories, percentiles, relative risk, and absolute estimates are not interchangeable. Especially useful for report writers and decision-makers.
  • Hanson et al. (2016): Demonstrates that absolute sexual-recidivism rates vary across samples even when relative predictive accuracy is more stable. Consult it when choosing or explaining reference groups.
  • Lee and Hanson (2021): Updates five-year norms and develops ten-year estimates for routine/complete samples. It is useful for understanding follow-up-period effects and why current evaluator resources matter.
  • Ahmed et al. (2023): Synthesizes racial and ethnic subgroup evidence. It supports neither blanket invariance nor blanket invalidity; it is most useful for identifying where evidence is limited or differential.
  • Lee, Hanson, and Blais (2020): Canadian study focused on Indigenous and White people in high-risk/high-needs samples. It is essential background for culturally and legally consequential Canadian applications, but its samples and event counts limit generalization.