Assessments to Develop Initial Supervision/Case Management Plans

Transcription

1 Assessments to Develop Initial Supervision/Case Management Plans A final example of criminal or juvenile justicebased assessments involves the development of initial community supervision or case management plans. As a first step in the process, a formal risk assessment allows supervision officers to make an informed determination about the intensity of initial supervision efforts, such as the level of supervision and the use of specific monitoring strategies (e.g., electronic monitoring). As noted previously, interventions are most effective when delivered or applied according to level of risk (i.e., intensive supervision for higher risk sex offenders). For adult sex offenders, some jurisdictions use an empirically-validated sex offender-specific risk assessment tool (e.g., RRASOR, STATIC-99) for this purpose. And with youthful offenders, supervision officers can use the ERASOR or the J-SOAP-II as a means of identifying those youth who may require more intensive supervision based on presumed level of risk. Beyond establishing risk levels, assessments at this phase are important for identifying the specific supervision targets and the types of risk factors that need to be addressed in the initial supervision or case management plan. A number of empirically-supported or promising assessment measures can by used by supervision officers for this purpose. For example, the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI; Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004) is useful with adult offenders for determining general recidivism risk and identifying criminogenic needs or dynamic risk factors to be targeted through intervention. The parallel version for juveniles is the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/ CMI; Hoge & Andrews, 1997), which is widely used for assessing general risk and developing individualized intervention plans among justice-involved youth. It should be noted that neither the LS/CMI nor the YLS/CMI are sex offender-specific instruments. These tools are valuable nonetheless for providing the broad foundation of initial supervision and case management plans, particularly in light of the research that demonstrates that when adult and juvenile sex offenders recidivate, it is more likely to be with non-sexual offenses (see, e.g., Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003; Nisbet, Wilson, & Smallbone, 2004). To assess the dynamic risk factors specifically relevant for supervision planning with adult sex offenders, the Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR) subsequently separated into the STABLE-2000 and ACUTE-2000 is perhaps the most promising tool (Hanson & Harris, 2001). It was designed for supervision officers as a means of providing structure and focus for their monitoring efforts (Hanson & Harris, 2000b, 2001). In addition, the Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale (McGrath & Cumming, 2003) can assist supervision officers with identifying dynamic risk factors that will need to be addressed in initial supervision plans, and establishing baseline levels of risk and needs against which changes can be gauged over time. Similarly, for sexually abusive youth, the J- SOAP-II can be used by supervision officers or other case managers to develop individuallytailored supervision plans (the ERASOR is recommended for use by clinicians). Another assessment tool that can assist supervision officers with crafting case management plans for juvenile sex offenders is the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Sexual Development Scale (CANS-SD; Lyons, 2001). This needs assessment tool guides supervision officers through the exploration of a wide range of variables across a number of important 96 The Comprehensive Assessment Protocol Assessment

2 domains (e.g., risk behaviors, school functioning, supervision and monitoring needs, caregiver capacity, and family functioning) all of which are important considerations when crafting comprehensive case management plans. When conducting interviews as part of the assessment process for supervision planning purposes, the style and approach used by the interviewer are important to consider, as they can have an impact on the offender s engagement in the overall intervention process (Cumming & McGrath, 2005). A specific approach that has become increasingly popular for justice-involved clients and with sex offenders specifically is Motivational Interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Ginsburg, Mann, Rotgers, & Weekes, 2002). It is designed to help practitioners strategically tailor their approaches based on the client s level of motivation to change, which can reduce resistance and promote investment. what one practitioner sees with a given offender, and the type of assessment information that is accessible to that practitioner, may only provide part of the picture. assessment information from the range of agencies or professionals involved in the management process. In summary, through the use of general and offense-specific assessment tools and through multidisciplinary collaboration, supervision officers can ensure that initial case management plans are individually tailored, comprehensive, and focused around the specific targets that are most likely to be effective for reducing recidivism. To facilitate the development of fully informed supervision plans, collaboration with the courts, treatment providers, and other members of case management teams is essential. For example, information-sharing policies should allow supervision officers to have access to the pre-sentence/pre-disposition assessment conducted by court personnel and the psychosexual evaluation conducted by a specialized mental health professional. This is important not only for ensuring that any previously identified needs and any unique sex offense-specific risk factors are taken into account in the case management plan, but also for eliminating the unnecessary duplication of assessment efforts. Furthermore, collaboration is important when creating supervision plans because what one practitioner sees with a given offender, and the type of assessment information that is accessible to that practitioner, may only provide part of the picture. Supervision plans should, therefore, include The Comprehensive Assessment Protocol Assessment 97

3 Questions: Adult Sex Offenders Assessments to Develop Initial Supervision Plans always/ typically generally never/ 72. Do agency policies or procedures provide specific guidance about how to develop initial supervision plans (e.g., timeframes, what information must be included, format)? 73. Do agency policies or procedures require that validated, sex offenderspecific risk assessment tools (e.g., RRASOR, STATIC-99) are used to inform the development of initial supervision plans (e.g., to guide level of supervision, specific monitoring strategies) for sex offenders? 74. In practice, are the results of validated, sex offender-specific risk assessment tools used to inform the development of initial supervision plans (e.g., to guide level of supervision, specific monitoring strategies) with sex offenders? 75. Do agency policies or procedures require that validated tools (e.g., LS/CMI) are used to assess general criminogenic needs for targets of intervention when developing initial supervision plans with sex offenders? 76. In practice, are validated tools (e.g., LS/CMI) used to assess general criminogenic needs for targets of intervention when developing initial supervision plans with sex offenders? 77. Do policies or procedures require that empirically-supported tools (e.g., SONAR/STABLE- and ACUTE-2000; Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale) are used to identify sex offender-specific monitoring targets when developing initial supervision 78. In practice, are empirically-supported tools (e.g., STABLE- and ACUTE- 2000, Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale) used to identify sex offender-specific monitoring targets when developing initial supervision 79. Are policies or procedures in place that allow for critical informationsharing (e.g., PSI, psychosexual evaluation, risk assessment, progress summaries) between agencies, so that initial supervision plans can be informed by this information? 98 The Comprehensive Assessment Protocol Assessment

4 always/ typically generally never/ 80. If PSI reports were completed, are these reports available in sex offenders records when cases are assigned to supervision officers? 81. Is the information from PSI reports used to inform the development of initial supervision plans with sex offenders? 82. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations available in sex offenders records when cases are assigned to supervision officers? 83. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations used to inform the development of initial supervision 84. If psychosexual evaluations were not conducted previously (or are not current) do agency policies or procedures require that supervision officers have such an evaluation conducted by a specialized evaluator in order to inform the development of initial supervision 85. Are responsivity factors considered to ensure that initial supervision plans can be effectively implemented? 86. Do supervision officers seek input from other involved professionals (e.g., treatment providers) to inform the development of initial supervision 87. Do supervision officers seek input from collaterals (e.g., partners, family members) to inform the development of initial supervision 88. Are sex offenders themselves involved in the development of initial supervision 89. Do supervision officers use specialized interviewing strategies (e.g., Motivational Interviewing) as a means of engaging sex offenders in the assessment and supervision planning process? The Comprehensive Assessment Protocol Assessment 99

5 Questions: Juvenile Sex Offenders Assessments to Develop Initial Supervision or Case Management Plans always/ typically generally never/ 90. Do agency policies or procedures provide specific guidance about how to develop initial supervision or case management plans (e.g., timeframes, what information must be included, format)? 91. Do agency policies or procedures require that empirically-supported, juvenile sex offender-specific risk assessment tools (e.g., ERASOR, J- SOAP-II) are used to inform the development of initial supervision or case management plans (e.g., to guide level of supervision, specific monitoring strategies) for juvenile sex offenders? 92. In practice, are the results of empirically-supported, juvenile sex offender-specific risk assessment tools used to inform the development of initial supervision or case management plans (e.g., to guide level of supervision, specific monitoring strategies) with juvenile sex offenders? 93. Do agency policies or procedures require that validated tools (e.g., YLS/CMI) are used to assess general criminogenic needs for targets of intervention when developing initial supervision or case management plans with juvenile sex offenders? 94. In practice, are validated tools (e.g., YLS/CMI) used to assess general criminogenic needs for targets of intervention when developing initial supervision or case management plans with juvenile sex offenders? 95. Do policies or procedures require that empirically-supported tools (e.g., ERASOR, J-SOAP-II) or other relevant tools (e.g., CANS-SD) are used to identify juvenile sex offender-specific monitoring targets when developing initial supervision or case management 96. In practice, are empirically-supported tools (e.g., ERASOR, J-SOAP-II) or other relevant tools (e.g., CANS-SD) used to identify sex offender-specific monitoring targets when developing initial supervision or case management 97. Are policies or procedures in place that allow for critical informationsharing (e.g., pre-disposition reports, psychosexual evaluations, progress summaries) between youth-serving agencies, so that initial supervision or case management plans can be informed by this information? 100 The Comprehensive Assessment Protocol Assessment

6 always/ typically generally never/ 98. If pre-disposition reports were completed, are these reports available in youths records when cases are assigned to supervision officers or case managers? 99. Is the information from pre-disposition reports used to inform the development of initial supervision or case management plans with juvenile sex offenders? 100. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations available in youths records when cases are assigned to supervision officers or case managers? 101. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations used to inform the development of initial supervision or case management 102. If psychosexual evaluations were not conducted previously, (or are not current), do agency policies or procedures require that supervision officers or case managers have such an evaluation conducted by a specialized evaluator in order to inform the development of initial supervision or case management 103. Are responsivity factors considered to ensure that initial supervision or case management plans can be effectively implemented? 104. Do supervision officers or case managers seek input from other involved professionals (e.g., treatment providers, school officials) to inform the development of initial supervision or case management 105. Do supervision officers or case managers involve parents, guardians, or other family members when developing initial supervision or case management 106. Are the youth themselves involved in the development of initial supervision 107. Do supervision officers use specialized interviewing strategies (e.g., Motivational Interviewing) as a means of engaging youth in the assessment and supervision planning process? The Comprehensive Assessment Protocol Assessment 101