Impacting sex offender management policy through multi disciplinary collaboration
Download
1 / 89

Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 386 Views
  • Uploaded on

Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration. Sex Offender Risk Management. Presented at the 12 th Annual Tennessee Sex Offender Treatment Board Training Conference. Presented By:.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration' - maddox


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Impacting sex offender management policy through multi disciplinary collaboration

Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

©2008 DCJ


Sex offender risk management

Sex Offender Risk Management Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

Presented at the 12th Annual

Tennessee Sex Offender Treatment Board

Training Conference

©2008 DCJ


Presented by
Presented By: Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

  • Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, Program Director, Colorado Sex Offender Management Board

©2008 DCJ


Presentation outline
Presentation Outline Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

  • Statewide Sex Offender Management Policy Groups

  • Impact of a Statewide Sex Offender Management Board on Policy in Colorado

  • 2004 Colorado Sex Offender Management Board Response to Sex Offender Housing Restriction Policy Initiative

  • Juvenile Standards Implementation Project

©2008 DCJ


Sex offender management policy groups sompg key components
Sex Offender Management Policy Groups (SOMPG): Key Components

  • Mission: Sex Offender Management Public Policy Development

  • Process: Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

  • Goal: Standardization of Service Delivery

©2008 DCJ


Sompg survey
SOMPG Survey Components

  • ATSA Listserv Survey

  • ATSA Conference Participant Survey

  • State Website Search

ATSA Forum Article (Summer 2007 Issue) Sex Offender Treatment/ Management Policy Groups

©2008 DCJ


Sompg survey results
SOMPG Survey Results Components

  • 52% (26) of States Have a SOMPG

  • Types of SOMPG

    • Sex Offender Management/Treatment Board

    • Sex Offender Management Task Force/Policy Group

    • Sex Offender Management Network/Coalition

    • Sex Offender Management Committee of a Criminal Justice Commission (Not Included in Survey Results)

©2008 DCJ


Sex offender management treatment boards 7
Sex Offender Management/Treatment Boards (7) Components

  • California (2007)

  • Colorado (1992)

  • Delaware (2007)

  • Illinois (1997)

  • New Mexico (2003)

  • Oregon (2008)

  • Tennessee (1995)

  • Texas (1983) – Council on Sex Offender Treatment

©2008 DCJ


Sex offender management task force policy groups 15
Sex Offender Management Task Force/Policy Groups (15) Components

  • Alaska

  • Connecticut

  • Indiana

  • Iowa

  • Kansas

  • Maine

  • Minnesota

  • Nebraska

  • North Carolina

  • Ohio

  • Washington

  • Sexually Violent Predators/ Community Notification (4)

    • Arkansas

    • Georgia

    • Idaho

    • Pennsylvania

©2008 DCJ


Sex offender management coalitions networks 3
Sex Offender Management Coalitions/Networks (3) Components

  • Hawaii

  • Massachusetts

  • Rhode Island

©2008 DCJ


Differences between boards task forces and coalitions
Differences Between Boards, Task Forces, and Coalitions Components

  • Boards

    • Legislatively Created

    • Standardization of Treatment/Management

    • Provider Certification

    • Broad Sex Offender Management Policy Focus

  • Task Forces

    • Legislatively or Departmentally Created

    • Narrowed Focus on Single Management Policy

    • May Be Housed in One Stakeholder Agency

    • Time-Limited and Outcome Driven

  • Coalitions

    • Grassroots Creation with Less Formalization

    • Greater Flexibility and Less Bureaucracy

    • Lack of Enforceability

©2008 DCJ


Creation of the colorado sex offender management board csomb
Creation of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board (CSOMB)

  • Sex Offender Treatment Board

    • Legislatively Created in 1992

    • Changed to Management Board in 1998

  • Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders

    • First Published in 1996

  • Standards and Guidelines for the Evaluation, Assessment, Treatment and Supervision of Juveniles who Have Committed Sexual Offenses

    • First Published in 2002

©2008 DCJ


Representatives of the somb 25 members
Representatives of the SOMB: (CSOMB25 Members

  • Judicial

  • Corrections

  • Community Corrections

  • 2 Human Services/ Division of Youth Corrections

  • Law Enforcement

  • Division of Criminal Justice

  • District Attorney’s Office

  • Public Defender’s Office

  • Private Defense Bar

  • 3 Victim Rights Advocates

  • 4 Licensed Mental Health Professionals

  • Polygraph Examiner

  • 2 Judges/Juvenile Magistrates

  • Education

  • Residential Treatment

  • 2 County Commissioners

  • County Director of Human Services

©2008 DCJ


Colorado somb key components
Colorado SOMB: (CSOMBKey Components

  • Administered by a Neutral Agency

  • Membership Inclusive of All Key Stakeholders

  • Legislatively Required to Promulgate Standards

  • Legislatively Required to Approve Service Providers

  • Adult and Juvenile Purview

  • Research and Make Recommendations to the Legislature on Key Public Policy Issues

    • Residency Restrictions

    • Lifetime Supervision

    • Sexually Violent Predator/Community Notification

©2008 DCJ


Somb funding mechanism
SOMB Funding Mechanism (CSOMB

  • Sex Offender Surcharge Fund

    – Est. 1992

    • FY 2008 - $450K

  • Fund Supports

    • Board Administration

    • Presentence Sex

      Offense Specific Evaluations

    • Professional Training

  • Other Funding Mechanisms for SOMB

    • Federal Grants

    • Fiscal Notes for Legislative Tasks

©2008 DCJ


Colorado sex offender management board impact on policy
Colorado Sex Offender (CSOMBManagement Board Impact on Policy

  • Ideas are debated from the different perspectives of a multidisciplinary group

  • Relationships are formed that facilitate quick responses to new proposals

  • Responses are supported by multiple agencies with legislative liaisons

©2008 DCJ


Stronger voice
Stronger Voice (CSOMB

Proposals are stronger when the legislature hears supportive testimony from the following groups:

  • Victim groups

  • District Attorney’s Association

  • Agencies (DOC, Judicial)

  • Law enforcement

  • Private treatment providers

©2008 DCJ


Kansas v hendricks
Kansas v. Hendricks (CSOMB

  • SOMB routinely learned about unique sex offender management models – including Maricopa County’s lifetime supervision programs

  • After the 1997 Hendricks’ decision, the AG and several legislators announced that they would pass a civil commitment law in Colorado

  • A key legislator was contacted and told that experts in the field supported lifetime supervision over civil commitment as a public safety measure

©2008 DCJ


Lifetime supervision act of 1998
Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998 (CSOMB

  • Those that announced support for civil commitment were quietly and quickly informed that lifetime supervision was preferred

  • The legislative sponsor convened a group of experts and agency representatives to create the lifetime supervision model

  • Outcome = Lifetime supervision legislation was passed instead of civil commitment

©2008 DCJ


Lifetime supervision
Lifetime Supervision (CSOMB

  • Each offender is required to undergo treatment as part of their sentence

  • Maximum of sex offender’s natural life

  • Probationers can apply to discharge their sentence after 10 or 20 years:

    • Must be treatment and supervision compliant

  • Prisoners must serve a minimum sentence & progress in treatment to parole

  • Parole lasts a minimum of 10 or 20 years:

    • Must be treatment and supervision compliant

©2008 DCJ


Lifetime supervision statute
Lifetime Supervision Statute (CSOMB

  • Delays in judges using the sentence initially

  • Increased number sentenced each year

  • Increased number of revised sentences each year:

    • Resentenced to traditional prison sentence

    • Resentenced to probation

    • Court ordered discharge

Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Colorado Dept. of Public Safety, & State Judicial Dept. (2007). Lifetime Supervision of Sex Offenders Annual Report. Denver, CO: Author. http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2007%20Lifetime%20Report%20full.pdf

©2008 DCJ


Lifetime supervision outcomes fy 2006 2007
Lifetime Supervision Outcomes (CSOMBFY 2006-2007

  • 520 Offenders on Probation

    • 50 were Revoked to Prison

      • 5 New Felonies – 1 Sex Offense

      • 2 New Misdemeanors – No Sex Offenses

      • 43 Technical violations

    • 2 completed SOISP

  • 1133 Offenders in Prison

    • 212 Met the Parole Board

    • 5 Have Been Paroled

      • 4 Remain on Parole

      • 1 Revoked for Treatment Non-Compliance

©2008 DCJ


Preventing chemical castration legislation
Preventing Chemical Castration Legislation (CSOMB

  • Occasional legislator attempts to pass chemical castration legislation

  • Fact sheets and alternatives are quickly generated and distributed to let the potential sponsors know that the law will not be supported

  • The positive intent is supported and alternatives are always offered

  • Outcome = No chemical castration laws

©2008 DCJ


Preventing chemical castration legislation1
Preventing Chemical Castration Legislation (CSOMB

Alternative offered:

As one component of comprehensive sex offender management, medicine will be provided to sex offenders in the criminal justice system when it is determined through psychiatric evaluation and treatment that a specific medication may reduce the offender’s risk of reoffense. Offenders placed in the community will be responsible for the cost of these medications, unless it is determined that they are indigent.


Registration legislation
Registration Legislation (CSOMB

  • Agency representatives, law enforcement representatives and DA met to design a statewide form

  • Recommended changes to the legislation for the following year

    • Uniform database

    • Register on birthday, etc.

  • Outcome = Federal mandates influenced the law over time

©2008 DCJ


Registration legislation1
Registration Legislation (CSOMB

  • The AG convened a group to determine the state’s response to Adam Walsh

  • The SOMB has representatives in that group

  • The SOMB is considering writing an statement of concerns regarding Adam Walsh requirements for juveniles

©2008 DCJ


Internet posting of sex offenders
Internet (CSOMBPosting of Sex Offenders

  • Initially were able to convince legislators to only post SVP & those who did not register

  • For a couple of years there was only one SVP offender

  • Groups from outside the state pressured legislators to increase internet posting

  • Federal Legislation influenced postings

©2008 DCJ


Internet posting of sex offenders1
Internet Posting of Sex Offenders (CSOMB

Outcome = 6396 posted on the CBI website

  • 6396 Felony Conviction

  • 903 Failed to Register

  • 550 Multiple Convictions

  • 101 SVP

©2008 DCJ


Sexually violent predators
Sexually Violent Predators (CSOMB

SOMB legislation revised to:

The board shall consult on, approve, and revise as necessary the risk

assessment screening instrument developed by the division of criminal justice to assist the sentencing court in determining the likelihood that an offender would commit one or more of the offenses specified . . .”

©2008 DCJ


Sexual predator risk assessment screening instrument
Sexual Predator Risk Assessment Screening Instrument (CSOMB

  • Part I – Defining Sexual Assault Crimes

  • Part II – Nature of Relationship to Victim

    • Stranger

    • Established a Relationship

    • Promoted a Relationship

  • Part III – Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Sex Offender Risk Scale

  • Part IV – Mental Abnormality

  • To be designated a Sexually Violent Predator

    • Must Meet I, II, and III or IV

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (February 2007) Sexual Predator Risk Assessment Screening Instrument.

http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/Final%20SVP.pdf

©2008 DCJ


Dcj sex offender risk scale sor items
DCJ Sex Offender Risk Scale (CSOMB(SOR) Items

  • One or More Felony Juvenile Adjudications

  • One or More Prior Adult Felony Convictions

  • Employed Less Than Full-Time When Arrested

  • Failed 1st or 2nd Grade

  • Possessed a Weapon During Current Crime

  • Victim Ingested Drugs or Alcohol Prior to Current Crime

  • Offender Was Not Aroused During Sexual Assault

  • CO-SOMB Denial Scale

  • CO-SOMB Deviancy Scale

  • CO-SOMB Motivation Scale

©2008 DCJ


Dcj sor development
DCJ SOR Development (CSOMB

  • N = 494 sex offenders with an average follow-up period of 30 months

  • 54% (n=267) failed at 12 months while 40% (n=197) failed at 30 months

  • Those scoring 4 or more on the DCJ SOR were 372% more likely to be supervision/treatment failures than those scoring less than 4

English, K., Retzlaff, P., & Kleinsasser, D. (2002)

The Colorado Sex Offender Risk Scale. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11, 77-96.

©2008 DCJ


Dcj sor follow up study
DCJ SOR Follow-Up Study (CSOMB

  • Used original sample with available information (n = 405)

  • 64 of the 405 scored 4 or above

  • Outcome Data – New Violent Arrest

    • Those scoring 4 or above were 284% more likely to have a new violent arrest than those scoring below 4

©2008 DCJ


Community notification statute
Community Notification Statute (CSOMB

  • SOMB, with DOC, Judicial, & Parole Board, statutory duties:

    • Establish criteria for law enforcement to determine when to carry out a community notification

    • Develop protocols & procedure for carrying out community notification, including:

      • General information and education on sex offenders, including treatment and supervision

      • Procedures to minimize the risk of vigilantism

  • Establish a DCJ technical assistance team to assist local law enforcement to carry out community notification

©2008 DCJ


Svp outcomes
SVP Outcomes (CSOMB

  • Total Number of Identified SVPs in Colorado = 373 (2 Deceased/7 Deported/ 5 Moved out of state)

    • 359 SVPs currently living in Colorado

      • 315 in DOC

      • 44 in the Community

    • 74 SVPs have been in the community

      • 23 have been re-incarcerated (Approx. 1/3)

©2008 DCJ


Svp recidivism outcomes
SVP Recidivism Outcomes (CSOMB

  • N = 24 (2 Deceased)

  • Criminal Recidivism (N=12 – 16% of SVPs Released)

    • 2 Sexual (IE and Add. SAC Charge – 3%)

    • 2 Non-Sexual Violent (DV and Harass. – 3%)

    • 2 Driving Under Restraint (DUR)

    • 4 Failure to Register (FTR)

    • 1 Escape

    • 1 Unknown

  • Revocations (N=13 – 18% of SVPs Released)

  • Average Length of Time in the Community (N=19)

    • 97 Days

  • Out of State SVPs (N=3)

    • 2 FTRs and I DUR


Residence zoning restrictions
Residence/Zoning Restrictions (CSOMB

30 States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

Many More Local Jurisdictions

Meloy et al (2007)

2007 English & Lobanov-Rostovsky


Colorado somb public policy input
Colorado SOMB (CSOMBPublic Policy Input

  • Policy Issue – Local Municipalities Passing Zoning Ordinances Limiting 1 Sex Offender Per Household (Outlawing Residential Care for Juveniles) and Restricting Where They Can Live

  • Legislative Mandate to Research Sex Offender Safety Issues Related to Living Arrangements & Location - 2004

©2007 English & Lobanov-Rostovsky


Where will sex offenders live after their release from prison
Where will sex offenders live after their release from prison?

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB



Shared living arrangements slas
Shared Living Arrangements prison?(SLAs)

  • Multiple Sex Offenders Living Together in Their Own Residence

    • No Treatment/Supervision Staff on Premises

    • Residency Approved by CST to Insure Not in Proximity to Schools and Daycare Centers

    • “Treatment Community” Model

      • Offenders Hold Each Other Accountable

    • Adjunct Supervision Components

      • Home Visits

      • Tracking and Schedule Monitoring

      • Phone Call Check-Ins

    • No Other States Utilizing SLAs at the Time

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Sla research colorado
SLA Research (Colorado prison?)

  • N = 130 Sex Offenders

  • Measure: Sexual Recidivism

  • Follow-Up Period: 15 Months

    Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004)

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Sla research colorado1
SLA Research (Colorado) prison?

N = 130 Sex Offenders

Measures: Non-Sexual Criminal Recidivism, and Technical Violations

Follow-Up Period: 15 Months

Results: 52 New Non-Sexual Criminal Violations

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


© prison?2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Shared living arrangement public protection equates with jail work release
Shared Living Arrangement: prison?Public Protection equates with jail work release

Average Number of CRIMINAL Violations:

High Risk Offenders

1.4

Have support

Negative/no support

Cannot determine support

.3

SLA

Alone

Family

Friends Homeless/ Jail Work

Shelter Release

Report of Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, 2004

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-MB


Sla research colorado2
SLA Research (Colorado) prison?

  • N = 130 Sex Offenders

  • Measures: Sexual Recidivism, and Technical Violations

  • Follow-Up Period: 15 Months

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Positive support defined
Positive Support Defined prison?

•Awareness of the cycle, offense patterns and early abuse signs.

• Familiarity with the offender’s schedule and whereabouts.

• The ability to enhance and encourage application of the offender’s treatment tools outside of the therapy setting.

• A working relationship with the treatment provider and criminal justice supervisor.

• The ability to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending behavior.

• The ability, skills and tools to hold the offender accountable early in the onset of risky behaviors.

• Willingness to report non-compliance to the containment team.

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Sla research colorado3
SLA Research (Colorado) prison?

  • Offenders Living in SLAs Were Typically

    • Higher Risk Offenders Than Those Not Living in SLAs

    • Had Less Violations Than Those Living Alone, or with Family or Friends

    • Were Caught More Quickly for Their Violations (Roommates Told)

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Residence restrictions research colorado
Residence Restrictions prison?Research (Colorado)

Recidivist Offenders were

Randomly Distributed Across

Proximity and Non-Proximity

Locations

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Research recommendations
Research Recommendations prison?

  • Recommendations to the Legislature

    • SLAs are a Viable Containment Alternative for Sex Offenders, Particularly High Risk Offenders

    • Zoning Ordinances Limiting One Sex Offender Per Household Do Not Provide for Enhanced Community Safety

    • Residency Restrictions Do Not Provide for Enhanced Community Safety and Decisions about Living Situations Should be Left to the CSTs

©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB


Sex offender management guiding principles
Sex Offender Management prison?Guiding Principles

  • The primary mission of sex offender management is the prevention of future sexual victimization.

  • Sex offender management strategies should be based on available research and be continuously evaluated for effectiveness.

  • A continuum of sex offender management strategies should be available as no one strategy can effectively manage all sexual offenders.

©2008 DCJ


Sex offender management guiding principles1
Sex Offender Management prison?Guiding Principles

  • The level and intensity of sex offender management strategies should be commensurate with each sexual offender’s risk and offense characteristics, not on the charge for which a sexual offender has been convicted.

  • Necessary resources must be made available to effectively implement sex offender management strategies but should be used judiciously given the finite nature of resources.

©2008 DCJ


Sex offender management guiding principles2
Sex Offender Management prison?Guiding Principles

  • Juveniles who commit sexual offenses are fundamentally different from adult sex offenders and require sex offender management strategies that account for these differences.

  • Sex offender management strategies should include rehabilitative resources for sex offenders provided community safety and victim protection are not compromised.

©2008 DCJ



What is the juvenile standards implementation assessment project
What is the Juvenile Standards Implementation Assessment Project?

  • Grant Funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

  • Initiated to gather information regarding the implementation of the Standards

©2008 DCJ


Somb background
SOMB Background Project?

  • 2000 - Legislation Amended and Passed to develop Juvenile Standards

  • 2002 - First published

    • Revised in July 2003

    • Revised in 2008 – Provider Qualifications

  • “Do what you can within existing resources” Implementation Strategy In Place Until July 1, 2006

©2008 DCJ


Implementation project
Implementation Project Project?

  • Funded by BJA

  • Advisory Group

  • Mission of the project is to promote full implementation of the Standards as well as identifying strengths and challenges

©2008 DCJ


Methodology and sample
Methodology and Sample Project?

Letter of interest to participate

Assessment Tool developed

Eleven Judicial Districts responded

Various stakeholders in each district participated in the assessment process

©2008 DCJ


Project initiation
Project Initiation Project?

  • On-site Visits

  • Full Day Orientation Workshop

  • Assessment Tool Presented at Workshop

©2008 DCJ


Individualization
Individualization Project?

  • Coordinators met with each judicial district individually

  • Based on their needs

  • On their own time frames

©2008 DCJ


Assessment instrument
Assessment Instrument Project?

  • 98 question tool

  • Following Areas:

    • Pre Sentence Investigations

    • Evaluation and Assessment

    • Standards of Practice

    • Qualification of Providers

    • Evaluators and Programs

    • Establishment of MDT’s

    • Additional Conditions of Community Supervision

    • Polygraph

    • Victims

©2008 DCJ


Five point response set
Five Point Response Set Project?

  • 1= Always

  • 2= Typically

  • 3= Sometimes

  • 4= Generally Not

  • 5= Never

©2008 DCJ


Information gathering
Information Gathering Project?

  • If they indicated not always or typically, they were expected to answer the following:

    • What are the barriers preventing this from always or typically happening?

    • What does the community/agency/etc. need to allow this to always or typically happen?

    • What is the community’s agency’s/etc current practice regarding this issue?

©2008 DCJ


Findings
Findings Project?

  • Information is limited to only the 11 judicial districts that participated and only reflected the perspectives of those participating.

  • Information gathering purpose only

©2008 DCJ


Overall
Overall Project?

  • 80% of the standards were listed as Always-Typically being implemented

  • 11% were listed as Typically-Sometimes

  • 9% were listed as Sometimes-Generally Not

©2008 DCJ


Section one strengths
Section One Strengths Project?

  • Several are implemented including PSI are conducted routinely,

  • Those conducting the PSI have been trained, and

  • PSI’s contain appropriate recommendations regarding supervision, tx, etc.

©2008 DCJ


Section one barriers
Section One Barriers Project?

  • Placement recommendations not contained in PSI,

  • Role conflict over placement recommendations,

  • Appropriateness of PSI writer making recommendations when it should be an group process,

  • Little or no victim contact to include

©2008 DCJ


Section one implications
Section One Implications Project?

  • Accuracy and completeness of the PSI is essential for providing the court with the information necessary to make dispositions.

  • Importance of gathering victim information, including feedback from the victim.

  • Little or no information related to strengths of the juvenile and/or family

©2008 DCJ


Section two strengths
Section Two Strengths Project?

  • Offense Specific Evaluations are being conducted most of the time

  • Assessed overall risk

  • Recommendations made were based on risk level and not on resources available

©2008 DCJ


Section two gaps
Section Two Gaps Project?

  • Evaluations not being conducted prior to discharge

  • Cost of evaluations

  • Availability

©2008 DCJ


Section two implications
Section Two Implications Project?

  • Encouraging that offense-specific evaluations are being done.

  • Confusion around “assessment” vs. “evaluation” and the need to revise this language

  • Deficit based

©2008 DCJ


Section three strengths
Section Three Strengths Project?

  • Individualize treatment

  • Treatment plans being reviewed and revised

  • Measurable outcomes being utilized

  • Treatment contracts met the criteria as outlined in the Standards

©2008 DCJ


Section three gaps
Section Three Gaps Project?

  • Separation of treatment for low risk and high risk offenders

  • Use of PPG

    • Included in Standards but most referred to it as best practice not to utilize

©2008 DCJ


Section three implications
Section Three Implications Project?

  • SOMB approved providers are providing treatment.

  • However, resource issues related to underserved areas was mentioned quite often.

  • “Cookie Cutter” approach sometimes used

©2008 DCJ


Section four strengths
Section Four Strengths Project?

  • Referrals are only being sent to those listed with the SOMB

©2008 DCJ


Section four gaps
Section Four Gaps Project?

  • Trained staff due to turnover

  • Informed Supervision Training

©2008 DCJ


Section four implications
Section Four Implications Project?

  • Although this section was reported as being met, the issue of availability of approved providers in many areas of the state was consistent

©2008 DCJ


Section five strengths
Section Five Strengths Project?

  • MDT’s being convened

  • MDT’s acting as a team

  • School participation on the MDT

  • Training being given to MDT members

©2008 DCJ


Section five gaps
Section Five Gaps Project?

  • Victim Representation on the MDT

  • Caseworkers receiving formalized, specialized training

  • School personnel adequately trained

©2008 DCJ


Section five implications
Section Five Implications Project?

  • MDT is core element in treatment, supervision, and monitoring of JWHCSO’s

  • Levels and types of training varies

  • Need for specialized, formalized training for caseworkers, school personnel

  • Need for victim representation

  • Cultural needs

©2008 DCJ


Section six strengths
Section Six Strengths Project?

  • Implemented most of the time

  • No gaps or implications noted

©2008 DCJ


Section seven strengths
Section Seven Strengths Project?

  • Referrals being made only when appropriate

  • Documentation in regards to polygraphs being kept

  • Used as an adjunct tool

  • MDT prepares juvenile for poly as outlined in the Standards

©2008 DCJ


Section seven gaps
Section Seven Gaps Project?

  • Financial issues inhibit doing frequent polygraphs

  • Done according to need rather than time frames

©2008 DCJ


Section seven implications
Section Seven Implications Project?

  • Controversial topic

  • Individualized decisions based on need, resources, financial concerns

  • Few reports of misapplication of poly and using it to make decisions


Section eight strengths
Section Eight Strengths Project?

  • Procedures were followed in regards to clarification, reunification

  • Family reunification occurred only after clarification had occurred

©2008 DCJ


Section eight gaps
Section Eight Gaps Project?

  • Victims being left out of process

  • Victim Representation

  • Victim Therapists need training

©2008 DCJ


Section eight implications
Section Eight Implications Project?

  • Victim representation varies

  • Victim therapists need offense-specific training

  • Financial remuneration is typically not available to therapist to participate in the MDT meetings

  • What does victim representation look like?

©2008 DCJ


Macro level issues
Macro Level Issues Project?

  • Resource Constraints

  • Limited Specialized Treatment Capacities

  • Continuum of services barriers

  • Community information and awareness

  • Victim Representation

©2008 DCJ


Micro level issues
Micro Level Issues Project?

  • School involvement

  • Specialized training for caseworkers

  • Resource issues

©2008 DCJ


ad