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

Part IV: Psychosexual Evaluations

General Issues

The psychosexual evaluation, sometimes referred to as a juvenile sex offense–specific evaluation, is another influential assessment that can inform and enhance juvenile sex offender management efforts.

Its name signifies a very important point. That is, a psychosexual evaluation is not the same as a psychological evaluation. Although there are some areas of overlap—which we will talk about in just a moment—the psychosexual evaluation is geared toward providing a very detailed focus on sexual development, sexual attitudes, sexual interests, and sexual behaviors that are both “normal” and “deviant” in nature. Because of the specialized nature of this type of assessment, a well–trained evaluator with specialized expertise is essential—and specialization can take multiple forms in this instance.³³

Note to Trainers: There are a number of sources that discuss specialized training and educational expectations for practitioners who conduct juvenile sex offender assessments, including the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and the National Adolescent Perpetrator Network (NAPN). Additionally, some states have legislatively promulgated standards for evaluators in these cases. Trainers should be sure to familiarize themselves with any such issues or resources in their own state.

• First, since these youth are almost always involved in court proceedings, the evaluator should ideally be someone with specialized training and experience in forensic clinical practice (i.e., the application of psychology to legal practices) and the ethical principles, standards of practice, and guidelines associated with forensic clinical work.³⁴
• Second, because of the age of the youth and the important developmental hallmarks that characterize the period of adolescence, it is important that the evaluator is well–trained and experienced in the field of adolescent mental health, juvenile justice, or both.
• Third, as the field of sex offender management is highly specialized, individuals who conduct psychosexual evaluations should have specialized training, experience, and expertise in this area of practice.
• But as we discussed early in this training, there is a growing body of literature that highlights the differences (and similarities) between adult and juvenile sex offenders. The ideal evaluator, therefore, is well–versed with this research and has experience and training specific to juvenile sex offender management.

Filling these criteria is a tall order, isn’t it? But think about the implications of an evaluator doing this work without specialization in these domains. What might happen then?

(ALLOW FOR AUDIENCE RESPONSES.)

That’s right. Uninformed evaluators create poor quality evaluations, which lead to ineffective and inappropriate recommendations and interventions. The end result, though unintentional, may be compromised victim and community safety, or even harm to the youth or family.

Another issue that warrants careful consideration when conducting psychosexual evaluations of juvenile sex offenders involves the timing of the assessment. Specifically, forensic evaluators may be called upon to conduct these assessments prior to the adjudication phase to assist juvenile and family court judges and other system actors with decisionmaking. However, conducting an evaluation at this phase of the court process has the potential to raise some very important ethical and legal concerns.³⁵

• Obviously, to be thorough, the evaluator needs to question the youth about the current allegations, as well as a number of details about other types of sexual interests and behaviors. In so doing, there may be an implicit presumption of guilt on the part of the evaluator and the system actors who are requesting the evaluation. In addition, this type of evaluation, and the requisite lines of inquiry, may place the youth in a position of self–incrimination, which may run counter to Fifth Amendment protections.
• Furthermore, in the event that the youth does in fact acknowledge the behaviors in question, the evaluator may be inadvertently addressing the guilt or innocence question—or the “ultimate issue”—for the courts, rather than allowing the juvenile or family court judge or other trier–of–fact to make that determination. There are, of course, no assessment tools that can determine affirmatively whether a youth has or has not committed a sex offense (absent an admission by the youth), and it is beyond the scope of duties and outside the bounds of ethical practice for the evaluator to offer a statement of guilt or innocence.³⁶
• Lastly, conducting the evaluation prior to the adjudication increases the potential for the evaluator to elicit additional disclosures from the youth that, because of mandated reporting requirements, may need to be reported to the authorities, and may be subsequently used for further charges or prosecution of the youth.

Therefore, to avoid these controversies, it may be best to conduct the psychosexual evaluation following adjudication and prior to the disposition.³⁷ That way, the key goals of the psychosexual evaluation—to assist key stakeholders with making informed decisions at the point of disposition, and to provide guidance for the development of effective treatment and supervision plans—remain clear.

Sometimes, however, defense attorneys and prosecutors reach agreements prior to disposition that may allow the evaluation to be conducted pre–adjudication. For example, when the youth admits the allegations are true, both parties may be willing to stipulate to a guilty plea and agree to support the recommendations offered in the psychosexual evaluation. In addition, to accelerate the resolution of some cases, the prosecutor may agree to waive any additional charges that would have been considered if additional disclosures are made during the course of the evaluation process, provided that the youth and his or her family agree to participate in offense–specific treatment or other services as recommended. Under these kinds of circumstances, the ethical and legal questions may be less of a concern, and it may be less controversial to conduct the evaluation prior to the formal adjudication. Be aware, though, that even in these instances, some youth may still be hesitant to open up—at least initially—because they had been previously told by their attorneys not to talk to anyone about what they had done. When that happens, it might even be helpful for a youth’s attorney to give the youth “permission” to participate fully in the assessment process.

As is always the case, even when the evaluations are court–ordered, it is important that the evaluator carefully explain their role in the process, the specific approaches and procedures that will be used, any potential risks and benefits associated with participating (or refusing to participate) in the evaluation process, the limits of confidentiality, and the way in which the assessment findings may be used throughout the court process.³⁸ Put simply, informed consent of the youth and the parent/guardian is a critical first step in the evaluation process.