CENTER FOR SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
The Effective Management of Juvenile Sex Offenders in the Community
A Training Curriculum

 A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

 

Search:  

Section 3: Assessment
2 Hours

TOPIC: ASSESSMENT

Approaches to Assessing Risk

Now that we have reviewed some of the potential risk factors for sexually abusive youth, let’s talk about some of the processes by which risk assessments are conducted. Broadly speaking, there are three primary approaches.⁸⁵

Unstructured Clinical Judgment

The first approach is sometimes referred to as “unstructured clinical judgment.” Essentially, with this approach, the assessor relies on his or her experience and clinical intuition when assigning a level of risk—such as low, moderate, or high—to a specific youth. Some might consider this approach to making risk determinations to be similar to using one’s “gut instinct.”

You won’t be surprised to hear that research reveals that the predictive accuracy of unstructured clinical judgment is not nearly as good as a risk assessment that carefully considers factors consistently found to be related to recidivism⁸⁶ —and in some instances, it may be no better than the flip of a coin.

Empirically–Guided

Another approach to risk assessment is commonly known as an “empirically guided” strategy. In this instance, the assessor considers a range of risk factors that are found in the empirical literature to be related to recidivism. It is believed that if more risk factors are present in the youth being assessed, the risk for recidivism is greater. The empirically–guided approach often includes the use of a structured assessment tool to review the same set of variables from case to case, although some assessors may consider a combination of other factors from the professional literature in addition to—or sometimes in lieu of—an assessment instrument. Regardless, the judgment about level of risk is generally left to the evaluator.

The predictive accuracy of empirically–guided assessments tends to be better than that of an unstructured clinical judgment⁸⁷ —perhaps because this method is more grounded in research. However, there remains room for improvement.

Actuarial

Currently, the favored approach to risk assessment—at least for adult sex offenders—is the “actuarial” method, because it is found to be better at predicting recidivism than either the unstructured or empirically–guided approaches.⁸⁸ The actuarial approach is a statistical calculation about an expectancy for a certain outcome, such as sexual recidivism. Car, health, and life insurance premiums are typically established by actuarial approaches—whereby individuals are rated on a fixed set of factors known to be related to certain outcomes (either better outcomes or poorer outcomes), and are subsequently assigned to a specific risk category. Evaluator discretion is not part of the decision.

With the actuarial method, a person’s score on the risk assessment tool is associated with specific recidivism rates of a large sample of offenders who were tracked for a specified period of time. It is presumed that an individual who has the same score as the reference group of offenders may have a similar level of risk as that group of offenders.

Keep in mind that actuarial risk assessment tools are far from perfect, and should not be considered to be a “magic bullet,” so to speak. Several issues should be considered when using them:⁸⁹

• For example, even though actuarial tools appear to do a better job of predicting recidivism than other methods, it is important for you to know that the predictive accuracy of most of the actuarial risk assessment tools for adult sex offenders is still only moderate; not high.
• And when thinking about these risk assessments, it is also critical to be aware that simply because an individual is presumed to be in a “high risk” category does not mean that the individual will in fact reoffend. Some offenders who are labeled as “high risk” will reoffend, and some will not. Similarly, simply because an individual’s score places him in a “low risk” category, it does not mean that the person will not reoffend. Some “low risk” offenders do not reoffend, and some do.
• Finally, no risk assessment can determine if an individual person will or will not reoffend.

Nonetheless, actuarial tools can be very helpful as one important source of information—but again, multiple sources are better when conducting assessments. Relying on a single tool limits the quantity and quality of the data that you will have and, as a result, will limit your ability to make the most informed decisions.

Risk Assessment Tools for Juvenile Sex Offenders

As we’ve discussed, a considerable challenge for professionals who work with juvenile sex offenders has been the absence of a validated tool for assessing recidivism risk specifically for these youth. This is in sharp contrast to where we are with adult sex offenders. In fact, there are several empirically–validated actuarial and empirically–guided tools designed to assess recidivism risk with adult sex offenders, but these tools are not designed for use with sexually abusive youth.⁹⁰

At present, there are no true actuarial risk assessment tools for juvenile sex offenders, but there are two very promising risk assessment measures that are empirically–guided: The Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol–II (J–SOAP–II)⁹¹ and the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR).⁹²

J–SOAP–II

The J–SOAP–II is used to assess by both non–clinicians and clinicians, provided that they have had adequate training. It is designed to assess short term risk of juvenile males between 12 and 18 years of age. The items explore static, or unchangeable, factors as well as dynamic, or changeable, factors.

There are 28 items on the J–SOAP–II, falling into one of four subscales:

• Sexual Drive/Preoccupation—which primarily examines variables related to the problem sexual behaviors, such as the number and types of victims, length of offending history, and degree of planning;
• Impulsive/Antisocial—which looks at the youth’s history of conduct problems, such as delinquency, aggression, and school behavior difficulties, as well as exposure to family violence;
• Intervention—which includes clinical or treatment–related variables such as responsibility–taking, empathy, remorse, cognitive distortions, and motivation to change; and
• Community Stability/Adjustment—which assesses the youth’s general and sexual self–management, stability in school and at home, and the presence of community supports.

Recognizing that circumstances can change over time, and that these changes may impact risk or intervention needs, the tool’s developers recommend that users re–assess youth at least every six months, or more often if there are known changes in the youth or his circumstances.

ERASOR

Similar to the J–SOAP–II, the ERASOR is a relatively short–term (less than one year) risk assessment tool for juveniles between the ages of 12 and 18, and which includes both static and dynamic risk factors.

The ERASOR has 25 items across 5 relatively self–explanatory domains:

• Sexual interests, attitudes, and behaviors;
• Historical sexual assaults;
• Psychosocial functioning;
• Family/environmental functioning; and
• Treatment.

The ERASOR, too, is recommended to be used as a repeated risk assessment in order to capture changes that occur over time.

Again, both of these measures are considered to be empirically–guided approaches to risk assessment. The items in these tools are based on the factors that research seems to suggest are related to sexual recidivism among juveniles who commit sex offenses.

Many people have asked whether or not the J–SOAP–II or the ERASOR have official scores that place a youth into either a low, moderate, or high risk category, similar to the way that adult actuarial risk assessment tools have these “cut off” scores. Right now, the answer is “no.” Remember, they are considered “empirically guided” assessments, not true actuarial tools. But, even though neither of the tools have these “cut–off” scores yet, and even though there aren’t any “scores” for these tools that are linked with recidivism rates of reference groups of youth, research suggests that these tools do have considerable promise. And there is a growing body of research supporting the reliability and validity of these measures. That’s better than the alternative—using a tool with no research support at all, right?

Remember, a significant strength of these tools is that they include dynamic, or changeable, risk factors, which makes them very useful for intervention planning and to make adjustments to case management plans over time based on reassessments.

The J–SOAP–II and the ERASOR are relatively easy to use, but of course, specialized training is important. Our training today is by no means designed to make you an expert on these tools! Our goal is simply to let you know that these tools are very promising, and through the references that are included in your materials, you can learn more about them.

And as you can see, a substantial number of juvenile sex offender programs across the country have begun to incorporate one or both of these tools into their practices.

Conclusion

We’ve now highlighted some of the key issues related to assessing risk with youthful sex offenders. And in fact, we’ve discussed quite a bit about assessing these youth overall. So before we move into the next topic, let’s take just a moment to review what we’ve covered about assessment.

• First, we discussed the notion of assessment as an ongoing and multidisciplinary process. Anyone who works or interacts routinely with these youth has a unique and important role in collecting and sharing information about them, whether as a teacher, an evaluator, a juvenile probation officer, or a treatment provider. Different professionals have different opportunities to observe and monitor different pieces of the puzzle, and can contribute to a more comprehensive picture of the youth over time.
• Our assessments are likely to be better when informed by multiple sources of data. This is true not only in terms of multiple parties but also with respect to different methods, such as records, psychometric testing, or physiological tools. We can increase the reliability and validity of our assessments when we collect and synthesize as much information as possible.
• In this section we have also learned that how we assess is just as important as what we assess. Our style and approach can influence whether we get more and better information. And I briefly highlighted some specific strategies and techniques.
• We discussed two key types of formal “point in time” assessments. These are the pre–sentence/pre–disposition report and the psychosexual evaluation, and how those types of evaluations, if done well, can be very helpful for developing case management plans for youthful sex offenders. As part of that discussion, I emphasized that all of our assessment tools have their own strengths and limitations, which is a good reminder that we should never rely on any one instrument or tool to make our decisions.
• Similarly, we must always keep in mind that there are no specific assessments that can determine absolutes. This includes whether a youth is guilty or innocent, whether a youth is or is not a “sex offender,” or whether a youth will or will not commit additional offenses in the future.
• Assessments can, however, provide critical information. Assessments can provide important information about juveniles, their families, their peers and environments, and their individual circumstances, such that individually tailored interventions can be developed and modified on an ongoing basis. These youth are a heterogeneous and diverse population, and one size does not fit all! Therefore, assessments are our key to making more informed decisions.

Before we conclude this section, does anyone have any questions about the material we covered?