Supplemental Report on Risk Assessment Instruments for Sex Offenders

SUMMARY

The Sex Offense Working Group and Corrections and Community Reentry Committee issued a report in support of A.8930-A / S.3201-A. It supplements prior City Bar reports on legislation to replace the Risk Assessment Instrument (“RAI”) in determining risk levels for people subject to sex offender registration under the New York State Correction Law. The City Bar reiterates its support for the core requirement that any risk assessment methods be empirically validated using data collected by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and re-evaluated every five years. The Board’s process itself must be grounded in open, expert-driven, and transparent scientific practice. Extensive research is published every year assessing the validity of specific instruments. The new system must correct—not replicate—the structural flaws of the current RAI. “Further, we wish to caution, as the City Bar has in past reports and briefs, that while a validated risk instrument would be better than the current system, comparative risk research increasingly shows that registries do not reduce recidivism and may do more harm than good, undermining rehabilitation and community reintegration for people whose lives are deeply impacted by both the stigma and the practical effects of being on a registry. The harms inflicted by New York’s registry should inform how risk categories are used: not as permanent labels, but as administrative tools subject to ongoing review.”

Originally issued in January 2026; Reissued March 2026

BILL INFORMATION

A.8930-A (AM Hunter) / S.3201-A (Sen. Krueger)- An act to amend the correction law, in relation to risk assessment instruments for sex offenders (NYS 2025-26)

REPORT

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY
THE SEX OFFENSE WORKING GROUP AND
THE COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY REENTRY

A.8930-A (M. of A. Hunter)
S.3201-A (Sen. Krueger)

AN ACT to amend the Correction Law, in relation to risk assessment instruments for sex offenders

THIS BILL IS APPROVED, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared on behalf of the New York City Bar Association’s (City Bar) Sex Offense Working Group and the Corrections and Community Reentry Committee as a supplement to the City Bar’s prior reports on legislation to replace the Risk Assessment Instrument (“RAI”) in determining risk levels for people subject to sex offender registration under the New York State Correction Law.[1]

Since 2013, the City Bar has supported legislation which would replace New York’s current RAI with empirically validated tools for determining risk levels under the Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”). We reiterated our support in an updated 2022 report which pointed out that the existing RAI—developed by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (“the Board”)—has never been validated, rests on outdated research, and relies on an unreliable methodology. Its continued use perpetuates inaccurate, inconsistent, and often unjust results.

We submit the following observations and recommendations in an effort to ensure that any new instrument or method of assessing risk is scientifically sound, transparently developed, and ethically applied.

The City Bar again reiterates its support for the core requirement that any risk assessment methods be empirically validated using data collected by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (“DCJS”) and re-evaluated every five years. However, because this bill leaves the task of selecting or developing the new instrument to the Board, the Board’s process itself must be grounded in open, expert-driven, and transparent scientific practice. The scientific study of risk assessment of criminal behavior, and criminal sexual behavior in particular, is a rapidly growing field. Extensive research is published every year assessing the validity of specific instruments. The new system must correct—not replicate—the structural flaws of the current RAI.

Further, we wish to caution, as the City Bar has in past reports and briefs, that while a validated risk instrument would be better than the current system, comparative risk research increasingly shows that registries do not reduce recidivism and may do more harm than good, undermining rehabilitation and community reintegration for people whose lives are deeply impacted by both the stigma and the practical effects of being on a registry.[2] The harms inflicted by New York’s registry should inform how risk categories are used: not as permanent labels, but as administrative tools subject to ongoing review.

II. PRINCIPLES FOR A NEW RISK ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

a. Validation and Transparency

The new method must be validated through peer-reviewed empirical research and periodically revalidated using DCJS data. Validation must assess predictive accuracy and applicability across diverse subpopulations and with respect to various offenses covered by SORA. While there are a number of published, validated risk assessment instruments, such as the Static-99R, the STABLE, the ACUTE, the Risk Matrix 2000, and the CPORT, these demonstrate only moderate, variable predictive accuracy and therefore should be employed with caution.

b. Recognition of Low Base Rates and Limited Predictive Power

It is important to recognize that, contrary to popular belief, the best empirical evidence shows that sexual recidivism rates are low relative to almost all other offense categories. Any actuarial system should be calibrated to the low base rates of reoffense to avoid inflating perceived risk.

c. End to Untested Overrides

Under the current RAI, the Board and courts apply automatic “overrides” that raise a person’s presumptive risk level based on either subjective or immutable factors (prior sex offense felony, inflicting serious injury or death, making a recent threat, or “mental abnormality”) that have not been shown to be correlated with risk. If overrides continue to be applied, they would undermine the empirical basis supporting the new instrument and introduce bias. A new instrument should not contain automatic overrides based on factors that are not empirically validated through a clearly defined, evidence-based process.

d. Differentiation Among Populations

No single instrument can accurately assess every person convicted of a sexual offense. In formulating the new process, the Board should adopt a multi-instrument approach, applying validated tools based on offense type, age, and gender. The City Bar does not endorse a particular instrument, but examples suitable for study include:

• Static-99R – for adult males convicted of contact sexual offenses;
• Stable and Acute – for dynamic, changeable risk factors during supervision;
• CPORT – for non-contact child sexual exploitation (Penal Law Article 263) offenses;
• J-SOAP-II – for juveniles aged 12–18; and
• Risk Matrix 2000 – for long-term actuarial estimation of recidivism risk in adult males.

Different criteria should apply to females, juveniles, and people convicted of non-contact offenses, each of whom presents a distinct risk profile. Several states already use multiple instruments in assessing risk. California, for example, uses four separate instruments to assess risk.[3] We also note that several established instruments are subject to criticism, either because they discriminate against certain populations or they have not been validated in the United States. The field of risk assessment of criminal recidivism, including for sexual offenses, is developing and being subjected to ongoing research and validation. Many instruments have been criticized for methodological reasons, or because they result in biases based on race, sexual orientation, or criminal background. Nonetheless, such instruments and the studies on which they are based can provide an evidence-based and accurate approach to assessing the risk of recidivism and to developing data which will serve to guide sentencing and treatment.

e. Open and Expert-Driven Development Process

The Board should conduct an open, consultative process to develop the new RAI, with structured input from statisticians, clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, criminologists, and community representatives. Transparency will ensure scientific integrity and bolster public confidence. We urge the State Legislature to provide adequate funding to ensure that the process identifies and validates reliable instruments. The Legislature should allocate sufficient money for the Board to engage qualified experts, conduct empirical validation, and maintain the DCJS data infrastructure for the five-year revalidation cycles. Without resources, the process risks being dominated by unqualified actors or politically motivated, vigilante interests, rather than scientific experts.

III. CONCLUSION

The City Bar urges adoption of this bill and strongly recommends that:

1. The Board’s development process be transparent, adequately funded, and guided by experts in empirical risk assessment;
2. overrides be eliminated;
3. different validated instruments be used for different populations; and
4. risk determinations be used to guide management and treatment, not to perpetuate stigma or lifelong punishment.

The City Bar continues to believe that sex offender registries cause unnecessary harm without any appreciable benefit. Nevertheless, replacing the current RAI is an essential first step towards making SORA less harmful to both the people on the registry and the public. Meaningful reform requires, at a minimum, that any new risk assessment system embody transparency, fairness, and scientific rigor.

This bill is approved, subject to the concerns and recommendations noted above.

Sex Offense Working Group
Alex Lesman, Chair
Zachary Margulis-Ohnuma, Member

Corrections and Community Reentry Committee
Karen Adelman, Co-Chair
Paul Montuori, Co-Chair

Reissued March 2026