Predictive Accuracy of Static-99R Across Different Racial/Ethnic Groups: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: The overrepresentation of numerous racial/ethnic groups in the criminal legal system warrants examination of the cross-cultural applicability of risk assessment tools. Static-99R is a tool used in diverse countries to assess sexual recidivism risk. We conducted a meta-analysis on the predictive accuracy of Static-99R across different racial/ethnic groups. Hypotheses: No hypotheses were made regarding discrimination, given that past research could support hypotheses of differential or equivalent accuracy. We hypothesized that Indigenous individuals would score higher on Static-99R than non-Indigenous or White individuals. Method: Our search identified 18 eligible documents (from 17 distinct studies) with 41 nonoverlapping effect sizes. These 17 studies examined the predictive accuracy of Static-99R with racially/ethnically diverse men charged with or convicted of sexually motivated offenses. We report analyses using both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Indigenous and Black individuals scored significantly higher on Static-99R than their non-Indigenous or White counterparts, with small effect sizes. For discrimination, area under the curve (AUC) values were generally moderate-to-large and statistically significant for all groups in both fixed-effect and random-effects analyses. Within-study subgroup analyses indicated significantly lower accuracy for Indigenous and Hispanic individuals compared with White/non-Indigenous samples (though for Hispanic individuals, this finding was significant only in the fixed-effect analyses). No statistically significant differences in accuracy were found between White and Black individuals. Static-99R significantly predicted recidivism with large effect sizes across two samples of Asian individuals. Two studies supported calibration across Black, White, and Hispanic individuals. Two studies examining calibration of Static-99R for Indigenous individuals had mixed findings. Conclusions: Given a small number of studies and limitations with both the fixed- and random-effects analyses, readers should interpret findings regarding Hispanic individuals with caution. The analyses clearly found significant but lower accuracy for Static-99R with Indigenous individuals. Potential reasons for this differential accuracy are discussed, along with limitations of the meta-analysis and suggestions for research and practice.