Effective Sex Offender Assessment

1. Effective Sex Offender Assessment The Key to Informed Decision-Making David A. D’Amora, M.S.,LPC, CFC Senior Advisor CSG Justice Center

2. Assessment Defined • To estimate or determine the significance or importance of something; or • To evaluate; or • To observe or monitor

3. Why Assess?Key decision points with sex offenders require careful consideration, and many myths have developed in the public, among treatment providers, judicial actors, and supervisors

4. Key Decision Points: Implications for Assessment Institutional/ Residential Placement Transition and Reentry Sentencing/ Disposition Community

5. Why Assess? • Adults who commit sex offenses are a diverse and heterogeneous population. • Some are very dangerous, some are not. • Some are deviant, some are not. • Some require long-term treatment, some short-term, some other, and some none, • Some require specialized supervision, and some do not • Some require intense supervision, and some do not.

6. Why Assess? • To explore critical variables on a case-by-case basis and develop management strategies accordingly • One size does not fit all! • Interventions should be tailored to meet individual levels of risk and criminogenic needs

7. Why Assess? • To inform clinical decisions • Institutional treatment • Community-based aftercare • Treatment planning • Treatment progress, completion, discharge • Family reunification

8. Assessment Is The Key To Informed Decision-making

9. What Should Be Assessed? • Protective and risk factors • Criminogenic needs • Non-criminogenic needs • Risk for recidivism • Sexual • Non-sexual • Victim impact and safety issues

10. Overarching Considerations • Core Principles of Effective Correctional Intervention • Risk • Needs • Responsivity (see, e.g., Andrews, 1994, Andrews & Bonta, 1998, 2003; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Gendreau, 1996)

11. Risk Principle: “Who” Should Receive the Most Services? Identify the offender’s risk level. Match the level of services to this risk level.

12. Need Principle: “What” Problems Should be Targeted in the Initial Response? Identify those changeable risk factors that are directly linked to the offender’s offending behavior. Target these risk factors, referred to “criminogenic” needs, in initial treatment and supervision. BUT, also assess other needs that may impact outcome.

13. Responsivity Principle: “How” responses should be provided • Intelligence • Mental Health • Substance Use • Learning Style • Culture • Age • Gender • Housing • Employment

14. Approaches ToRisk Assessment • Unstructured clinical judgment • Empirically guided risk assessment • Actuarial risk assessment

15. Assessing General and Sexual Risk and Criminogenic Needs: Examples of Empirically-Supported and Promising Tools Adult Offenders • Level of Service Inventory (LSI-R, LS-CMI) • Ohio Risk Assessment Suite (ORAS) • Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) • Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) • Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) • Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool – II (MnSOST-2) • Static-99, Static 99R, Static 2002 • STABLE/ACUTE-2007 • THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH ASSESSMENT TOOLS IS HUMAN ERROR

16. Three Broad Assessment Categories • Criminal justice assessments, including: • PSI • Intake/classification • Risk assessment – sexual, violence, general criminality • Clinical assessment, including: • Sexual deviancy • Mental health • Substance use

17. Risk assessments should consider BOTH variables that have been found to be associated with the initiation or continuation of sex offending behaviors AND general criminality. Both static and dynamic risk should be assessed.

18. Acute Risk Factors • Change rapidly • Negative mood • Anger • Substance abuse • Victim access • Sexual preoccupation • Poor hygiene • Sees self as no risk • Non-compliance with treatment or supervision • Signal “when” to intervene

19. Stable Risk Factors • Are relatively enduring, and are slow to change • Intimacy deficits • Deviant sexual arousal • Poor self-regulation • Pro-offending attitudes • Negative social supports • Non-compliance with treatment and supervision • Indicate “what” to address

20. Factors that predict sexual recidivism are different than those that predict general recidivism. (Gendreau et al., 1996; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004)

21. Age Never married Prior criminal history Adult Juvenile Employment instability Antisocial personality/psychopathy Values and attitudes that support criminal lifestyle Interpersonal conflict Family discord Conflicts with intimates Substance abuse Negative associates Low educational attainment Family factors Criminality Rearing practices Structure Recidivism Risk Predictors:“General” Adult Offenders (Gendreau, Goggin, & Little, 1996)

22. Prior sex offenses Diverse sex crimes Deviant sexual interests Emotional identification w/ children Sexual preoccupation Victim characteristics (male, stranger, unrelated) Intimacy deficits Hostility Violation of conditional release Failure to complete treatment Supervision non-compliance Age Never married Conflicts in intimate relationships General self-regulation problems Lifestyle instability Impulsivity Employment instability Antisocial orientation/psychopathy Pro-offending attitudes Recidivism Risk Predictors:Adult Sex Offenders (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004)

23. Attitude toward treatment; amenability Level of accountability History of non-sexual delinquent or criminal behavior Type and chronicity of sexual behavior Degree of paraphilic interest and arousal Behavioral health needs Dangerousness to self or others Level of risk Treatment needs/targets Responsivity considerations or special needs Environmental suitability Family functioning/needs Strengths and assets Individual Family Environmental Suggested level of care Information to be Gleaned from a Sex Offender Specific Evaluation

24. Summary • Actuarials can place a sex offender into a certain risk “group” • The risk estimate of a group may not reflect the actual likelihood or probability for each individual in the group • Persons within that group could have a higher or lower risk • Cannot affirmatively determine who will or will not reoffend

25. Summary • Because sex offenders are a diverse group, specialized assessments are critical for individualized, singular case management planning. • Interventions are more effective. • Resources are maximized.

26. Summary • But these individuals are not just “sex offenders”. • Assessments must be comprehensive and holistic. • Data from multiple sources and disciplines must inform assessments, which inform the development of a singular case management plan.

27. Shameless Plug! • https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/A-Five-Level-Risk-and-Needs-System_Report.pdf

28. The Council of State Governments Justice Center A Five-Level Risk and Needs System: Maximizing Assessment Results in Corrections through the Development of a Common Language R. Karl Hanson, PhD Public Safety Canada Guy Bourgon, PhD Public Safety Canada Robert J. McGrath, MA Vermont Department of Corrections; McGrath Psychological Services, PC Daryl Kroner, PhD Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Southern Illinois University David A. D’Amora, MS, LPC, CFC The Council of State Governments Justice Center Shenique S. Thomas, PhD The Council of State Governments Justice Center Lahiz P. Tavarez, BA The Council of State Governments Justice Center

29. Email Address ddamora@csg.org