Questions: Adult Sex Offenders

Assessment–Driven Case Planning

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do policies or procedures outline a process for developing individualized supervision case plans for sex offenders?
  2. Do policies or procedures require completing individualized supervision case plans within a specified time frame following sex offenders’ placement under community supervision?
  3. In practice, are initial case plans developed immediately after placement under supervision?
  4. Do policies or procedures require supervision case plans for sex offenders to be individualized based on their assessed level of risk and their identified needs (e.g., higher risk of offenders are supervised more intensively than low risk youth)?
  5. In practice, are supervision case plans for sex offenders individualized based upon their assessed level of risk and their identified needs?
  6. Do policies or procedures require the use of one or more empirically–validated sex offense–specific risk assessment tools (e.g., RRASOR, STATIC99) in the development of supervision case plans for sex offenders?
  7. In practice, is one or more empirically–validated sex offense–specific assessment tool (e.g., RRASOR, STATIC–99) utilized in the development of supervision case plans for sex offenders?
  8. Do policies or procedures require the results of the formal risk assessment to be utilized to determine the level of supervision?
  9. In practice, are the results of the formal risk assessment utilized to determine the level of supervision?
  10. Do policies or procedures mandate that other written sources of data (e.g., pre–sentence investigations, psychosexual evaluations) are used to inform the development of supervision case plans?
  11. In practice, are other written sources of data (e.g., pre–sentence investigations, psychosexual evaluations) used to inform the development of supervision case plans?
  12. Is information from sex offenders’ collaterals (e.g., family members, mentors, members of the faith community, etc.) included in the development of supervision case plans?
  13. Are the following issues addressed in supervision case plans for sex offenders:
    • Daily activities?
    • Educational and vocational needs?
    • Employment difficulties?
    • Concerns with peers and associates?
    • Family problems?
    • Transportation and travel needs?
    • Others?
  14. Do policies or procedures require that supervision case plans are generated with active and explicit consideration of victim safety needs?
  15. In practice, are victim–impact statements and input from victim advocates utilized in supervision case planning?
  16. Are sex offenders actively involved in the development of their supervision case plans?

Assessment–Driven Case Management

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do policies or procedures require dynamic risk factors to be identified in supervision case plans for sex offenders?
  2. Do policies or procedures require officers to use promising, empirically- validated risk assessment tools that include dynamic risk factors for determining “general” recidivism risk (e.g., LS/CMI)?
  3. In practice, do officers use promising, empirically–validated risk assess ment tools that include dynamic risk factors for determining “general” recidivism risk (e.g., LS/CMI)?
  4. Are acute dynamic risk factors identified in supervision case plans?
  5. Do policies or procedures mandate the use of a research–supported sex offense–specific tool (e.g., STABLE–2000 and ACUTE–2000, Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale) that includes dynamic risk factors?
  6. In practice, is a research–supported sex offense–specific tool (e.g., STA BLE–2000 and ACUTE–2000, Sex Offender Treatment Needs and Progress Scale) that includes dynamic risk factors?
  7. Are ongoing supervision efforts informed by information from other key stakeholders who are involved in sex offender management, including:
    • Treatment providers?
    • Victim advocates?
    • Law enforcement officers?
    • Polygraph examiners (if applicable)?
    • Others?
  8. Are ongoing supervision efforts informed by information from members of community support networks, including:
    • Partners and family members?
    • Mentors?
    • Members of the faith community?
    • Employers?
    • Landlords?
    • Others?

Specialized Conditions of Supervision

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do policies or procedures require specialized conditions to be used with sex offenders?
  2. In practice, are specialized conditions used with sex offenders?
  3. Are the following specialized conditions utilized with sex offenders:
    • Prohibiting contact with victims?
    • Participating in sex offender–specific treatment?
    • Close monitoring of and limiting access to the Internet?
    • Establishing employment and residence restrictions that limit access to potential victims?
    • Restricting movement within and outside of the community?
    • Submitting to polygraph examinations (if applicable)?
    • Others?
  4. Do policies or procedures allow supervision conditions to be applied selectively, commensurate with risk, needs, and circumstances?
  5. In practice, are supervision conditions applied selectively, commensu rate with risk, needs, and circumstances?
  6. Do supervision officers monitor sex offenders’ compliance with condi tions of supervision?
  7. Are specialized conditions adjusted based upon changes in sex offend ers’ level of risk, their needs, and their circumstances?
  8. Consistent with the rehabilitation–orientation of supervision, do policies or procedures mandate that supervision officers include positive goals and activities in supervision plans (e.g., participating in pro–social leisure activities, gaining and maintaining appropriate employment)?
  9. In practice, do supervision officers include positive goals and activities in supervision plans that (e.g., participating in pro–social leisure activities, gaining and maintaining appropriate employment)?

Questions: Juvenile Sex Offenders

Assessment–Driven Case Planning

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do policies or procedures outline a process for developing supervision case plans for juvenile sex offenders?
  2. Do policies or procedures require the completion of individualized supervision case plans within a specified time frame following juvenile sex offenders’ placement under community supervision?
  3. In practice, are initial case plans developed immediately following juvenile sex offenders’ placement under supervision?
  4. Do policies or procedures require supervision case plans for juvenile sex offenders to be individualized based on their assessed level of risk and their identified needs (e.g., higher risk youth are supervised more intensively than low risk youth)?
  5. In practice, are supervision case plans for juvenile sex offenders individualized based upon their assessed level of risk and their identified needs?
  6. Do policies or procedures require the use of an empirically–validated juvenile sex offense–specific risk assessment tool (e.g., J–SOAP–II) in the development of supervision case plans for juvenile sex offenders?
  7. In practice, is an empirically–validated juvenile sex offense–specific assessment tool (e.g., J–SOAP–II) utilized in the development of supervision case plans for juvenile sex offenders?
  8. Do policies or procedures require the results of the formal risk assessment to be utilized to determine the level of supervision?
  9. In practice, are the results of the formal risk assessment utilized to determine the level of supervision?
  10. Do policies or procedures mandate that other written sources of data (e.g., pre–disposition reports, psychosexual evaluations) are used to inform the development of supervision case plans?
  11. In practice, are other written sources of data (e.g., pre–disposition reports, psychosexual evaluations) are used to inform the development of supervision case plans?
  12. Is information from juvenile sex offenders’ collaterals (e.g., parents or caregivers, other family members, etc.) included in the development of supervision case plans?
  13. Do case plans for juvenile sex offenders include a strong emphasis on parent/family, peer, school, and environmental factors?
  14. Are the following issues addressed in supervision case plans for juvenile sex offenders:
    • Daily activities?
    • Educational needs and challenges?
    • Vocational needs?
    • Concerns with peers and associates?
    • Family stability and problems?
    • Transportation and travel needs?
    • Others?
  15. Do polices or procedures mandate that case plans for juvenile sex offenders identify strengths of these youth and their families?
  16. In practice, do supervision officers or case managers include strengths of juvenile sex offenders and their families in case plans?
  17. Do policies or procedures require that supervision case plans are gener ated with active and explicit consideration of victim safety needs?
  18. In practice, are victim–impact statements and input from victim advo cates utilized in supervision case planning?
  19. Are juvenile sex offenders actively involved in the development of their supervision case plans?
  20. Are the parents, caregivers, and other family members of juvenile sex offenders viewed as “experts” in their families involved in the develop ment of supervision case plans?
  21. Do policies or procedures require dynamic risk factors to be identified in supervision case plans for juvenile sex offenders?

Assessment–Driven Case Management

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do policies or procedures require officers or case managers to use promising, research–based risk assessment tools that include dynamic factors that are helpful in determining “general” recidivism risk (e.g., YLS/CMI)?
  2. In practice, do officers or case managers use promising, research–based risk assessment tools that include dynamic risk factors that are helpful in determining “general” recidivism risk (e.g., YLS/CMI)?
  3. Do policies or procedures mandate the use of a research–supported juvenile sex offense–specific assessment tool (e.g., J–SOAP–II) that includes dynamic risk factors and/or relevant needs to provide structure and a focus over time for supervision efforts?
  4. In practice, is a research–supported juvenile sex offense–specific assessment tool (e.g., J–SOAP–II) that includes dynamic risk factors and/or relevant needs used to provide structure and focus over time for supervision efforts?
  5. Are ongoing supervision efforts informed by information from other stake holders who are involved in juvenile sex offender management, including:
    • Treatment providers?
    • Victim advocates?
    • Law enforcement officers?
    • Polygraph examiners (if applicable)?
    • Others?
  6. In practice, are ongoing supervision efforts informed by the perspectives of— and information from—members of community support networks, including:
    • Parents, caregivers, and other family members?
    • Mentors?
    • Members of the faith community?
    • Volunteers?
    • School personnel (e.g., counselors, coaches, teachers)?
    • Others?

Specialized Conditions of Supervision

Always/ Yes Typically Generally Not Never/ No
  1. Do policies or procedures require specialized conditions to be used with juvenile sex offenders?
  2. In practice, are specialized conditions used with juvenile sex offenders?
  3. Are the following specialized conditions utilized with juvenile sex offenders:
    • Prohibiting contact with victims?
    • Participating in treatment?
    • Close monitoring of and limiting access to the Internet?
    • Restricting movement within and outside of the community?
    • Limiting extracurricular activities depending on appropriateness?
    • Restricting television programming and video games with violent or sexual themes?
    • Participating in family therapy?
    • Submitting to polygraph examinations (if applicable)?
    • Others?
  4. Do policies or procedures require supervision conditions to be applied selectively, commensurate with risk, needs, and circumstances?
  5. In practice, are supervision conditions applied selectively, commensurate with risk, needs, and circumstances?
  6. Do supervision officers or case managers monitor juvenile sex offenders’ compliance with conditions of supervision?
  7. Are specialized conditions adjusted based upon changes in juvenile sex offenders’ level of risk, their needs, and their circumstances?
  8. Consistent with the rehabilitation–orientation of supervision, do policies and procedures mandate that supervision officers or case managers include positive goals and activities in supervision plans (e.g., achieving and maintaining positive school adjustment, identifying and spending time with pro–social peers)?
  9. In practice, do supervision officers include positive goals and activities in supervision plans (e.g., achieving and maintaining positive school adjustment, identifying and spending time with pro–social peers)?