Questions: Adult Sex Offenders

Assessments to Develop Initial Supervision Plans

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do agency policies or procedures provide specific guidance about how to develop initial supervision plans (e.g., timeframes, what information must be included, format)?
  2. Do agency policies or procedures require that validated, sex offender–specific 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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 plans?
  7. In practice, are empirically–supported tools (e.g., STABLE- and ACUTE2000, Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale) used to identify sex offender–specific monitoring targets when developing initial supervision plans?
  8. Are policies or procedures in place that allow for critical information–sharing (e.g., PSI, psychosexual evaluation, risk assessment, progress summaries) between agencies, so that initial supervision plans can be informed by this information?
  9. If PSI reports were completed, are these reports available in sex offenders’ records when cases are assigned to supervision officers?
  10. Is the information from PSI reports used to inform the development of initial supervision plans with sex offenders?
  11. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations available in sex offenders’ records when cases are assigned to supervision officers?
  12. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations used to inform the development of initial supervision plans?
  13. 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 plans?
  14. Are responsivity factors considered to ensure that initial supervision plans can be effectively implemented?
  15. Do supervision officers seek input from other involved professionals (e.g., treatment providers) to inform the development of initial supervision plans?
  16. Do supervision officers seek input from collaterals (e.g., partners, family members) to inform the development of initial supervision plans?
  17. Are sex offenders themselves involved in the development of initial supervision plans?
  18. 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?

Questions: Juvenile Sex Offenders

Assessments to Develop Initial Supervision or Case Management Plans

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do agency policies or procedures provide specific guidance about how to develop initial supervision or case management plans (e.g., time–frames, what information must be included, format)?
  2. Do agency policies or procedures require that empirically–supported, juvenile sex offender–specific risk assessment tools (e.g., ERASOR, JSOAP–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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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 plans?
  7. 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 plans?
  8. Are policies or procedures in place that allow for critical information–sharing (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?
  9. If pre–disposition reports were completed, are these reports available in youths’ records when cases are assigned to supervision officers or case managers?
  10. Is the information from pre–disposition reports used to inform the development of initial supervision or case management plans with juvenile sex offenders?
  11. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations available in youths’ records when cases are assigned to supervision officers or case managers?
  12. If psychosexual evaluations were conducted, are these evaluations used to inform the development of initial supervision or case management plans?
  13. 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 plans?
  14. Are responsivity factors considered to ensure that initial supervision or case management plans can be effectively implemented?
  15. 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 plans?
  16. Do supervision officers or case managers involve parents, guardians, or other family members when developing initial supervision or case management plans?
  17. Are the youth themselves involved in the development of initial supervision plans?
  18. Do supervision officers use specialized interviewing strategies (e.g., Motivational Interviewing) as a means of engaging youth in the assessment and supervision planning process?