Effective Sex Offender

Assessment
The Key to Informed
Decision-Making
David A. D’Amora, M.S.,LPC, CFC
Senior Advisor
CSG Justice Center
 Assessment Defined
To estimate or determine the
significance or importance of
something; or
To evaluate; or
To observe or monitor
 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
Key Decision Points:
Implications for Assessment

Institutional/ Transition
Sentencing/ Residential Community
and
Disposition Placement Reentry
 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.
 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
 Why Assess?
To inform clinical decisions
– Institutional treatment
– Community-based aftercare
Treatment planning
– Treatment progress, completion, discharge
– Family reunification
Assessment Is The
Key To Informed
Decision-making
What Should Be Assessed?
Protective and risk factors
– Criminogenic needs
– Non-criminogenic needs
Risk for recidivism
– Sexual
– Non-sexual
Victim impact and safety issues
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)
 Risk Principle:
“Who” Should Receive the
Most Services?

Identify the offender’s risk level.

Match the level of services to this risk level.

 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.
 Responsivity Principle:
“How” responses should be provided
Intelligence
Mental Health
Substance Use
Learning Style
Culture
Age
Gender
Housing
Employment
 Approaches To
Risk Assessment
Unstructured clinical judgment
Empirically guided risk assessment
Actuarial risk assessment
 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
 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
 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.
 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

 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

Factors that predict sexual
recidivism are different than
those that predict general
recidivism.

(Gendreau et al., 1996; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998;

Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004)
 Recidivism Risk Predictors:
“General” Adult Offenders
Age Interpersonal conflict
– Family discord
Never married
– Conflicts with intimates
Prior criminal history
Substance abuse
– Adult
– Juvenile Negative associates
Employment instability Low educational attainment
Antisocial Family factors
personality/psychopathy – Criminality

Values and attitudes that – Rearing practices

support criminal lifestyle – Structure

(Gendreau, Goggin, & Little, 1996)

 Recidivism Risk Predictors:
Adult Sex Offenders
Age Prior sex offenses
Never married Diverse sex crimes
Conflicts in intimate relationships Deviant sexual interests

General self-regulation problems Emotional identification w/ children

– Lifestyle instability Sexual preoccupation

– Impulsivity Victim characteristics (male, stranger,

unrelated)
– Employment instability
Intimacy deficits
Antisocial
Hostility
orientation/psychopathy
Violation of conditional release
Pro-offending attitudes
Failure to complete treatment
Supervision non-compliance

(Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004)

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

Behavioral health needs – Family

– Environmental
Dangerousness to self or others
Suggested level of care
 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
 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.
 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.
 Shameless Plug!

https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/A-Five-
Level-Risk-and-Needs-
System_Report.pdf
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
 Email Address

ddamora@csg.org