Skip navigation

Colorado Sex Offender Management Board Audit, Central Coast Clinical & Forensic Psychology Services, 2014

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
An	
  External	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  
The	
  Colorado	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Central	
  Coast	
  Clinical	
  &	
  Forensic	
  Psychology	
  Services,	
  Inc.	
  
	
  
Deirdre	
  M.	
  D’Orazio,	
  PhD	
  
David	
  Thornton,	
  PhD	
  
Anthony	
  Beech,	
  DPhil	
  
	
  
	
  
3	
  January	
  2014	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
In	
  Response	
  to	
  Solicitation	
  #:	
  	
  DQ-­‐14-­‐DCJ-­‐SO	
  Board	
  Study	
  
Submitted	
  to:	
  	
  Maggie	
  Leiman,	
  Purchasing	
  Director,	
  CO	
  Dept.	
  of	
  Public	
  Safety	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  

Table	
  of	
  Contents	
  
Executive	
  Summary	
  ................................................................................................................	
  4	
  
Introduction	
  ..............................................................................................................................	
  8	
  
Review	
  of	
  Guiding	
  Principles	
  .............................................................................................	
  12	
  
Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
  Analysis	
  of	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  .....................	
  18	
  
The	
  Risk	
  Principle	
  ..........................................................................................................................	
  18	
  
The	
  Need	
  Principle	
  ........................................................................................................................	
  21	
  
The	
  Responsivity	
  Principle	
  .........................................................................................................	
  26	
  
The	
  Integrity	
  Principle	
  .................................................................................................................	
  28	
  

Special	
  Issues	
  in	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  ..........................................................	
  31	
  
Continuity	
  of	
  Information	
  and	
  Services	
  ..................................................................................	
  31	
  
SVP	
  Assessment	
  ..............................................................................................................................	
  32	
  
Low	
  Risk	
  Protocol	
  ..........................................................................................................................	
  36	
  
Criteria	
  for	
  Release,	
  Supervision	
  Reduction	
  and	
  Treatment	
  Progress	
  ........................	
  37	
  
Guidance	
  Regarding	
  Developmentally	
  Disabled	
  Offenders	
  .............................................	
  40	
  
Guidance	
  Regarding	
  Contact	
  with	
  Children	
  ..........................................................................	
  40	
  
Provider/Evaluator	
  Approval,	
  Continuing	
  Education	
  and	
  Complaints	
  .......................	
  41	
  
Victim	
  Perspectives	
  .......................................................................................................................	
  41	
  

Discussion	
  ................................................................................................................................	
  43	
  
Appendices	
  ..............................................................................................................................	
  46	
  
A	
  	
  Review	
  of	
  General	
  Principles	
  ................................................................................................	
  46	
  
B	
  	
  Sexual	
  Recidivism	
  Risk	
  ............................................................................................................	
  60	
  
C	
  	
  Official	
  versus	
  Actual	
  Recidivism	
  Rates	
  .............................................................................	
  70	
  
D	
  	
  Working	
  with	
  Developmentally	
  Disabled	
  Offenders	
  ....................................................	
  71	
  
E	
  	
  Limitations	
  of	
  Research	
  Regarding	
  Contact	
  with	
  Children	
  .........................................	
  76	
  
F	
  	
  Child	
  Contact	
  Assessment	
  .......................................................................................................	
  77	
  
G	
  	
  The	
  Containment	
  Model	
  ..........................................................................................................	
  80	
  

	
  

2	
  

H	
  	
  Criteria	
  for	
  Release	
  from	
  Prison	
  to	
  Parole	
  .......................................................................	
  85	
  
I	
  	
  Criteria	
  for	
  Reduction	
  in	
  Supervision	
  and	
  Discharge	
  from	
  Parole	
  ............................	
  91	
  
J	
  	
  Criteria	
  for	
  Reduction	
  in	
  Supervision	
  and	
  Discharge	
  from	
  Probation	
  ...................	
  100	
  
K	
  	
  Criteria	
  for	
  Progress	
  in	
  Treatment	
  in	
  Community	
  .......................................................	
  109	
  
L	
  	
  Criteria	
  for	
  Progress	
  in	
  Treatment	
  in	
  Prison	
  .................................................................	
  117	
  
M	
  	
  Provider	
  and	
  Evaluator	
  Qualifications,	
  Approval,	
  Complaints,	
  etc.	
  	
  .....................	
  122	
  
N	
  	
  Victim	
  Perspectives	
  ................................................................................................................	
  135	
  
O	
  	
  Stakeholder	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  Survey	
  .....................................................................................	
  140	
  
P	
  	
  SOMBs	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  ..................................................................................................	
  163	
  

References	
  ............................................................................................................................	
  165	
  
	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

3	
  

Executive	
  Summary	
  
	
  
The	
   present	
   evaluation	
   is	
   in	
   response	
   to	
   a	
   request	
   by	
   the	
  Colorado	
   State	
   Legislature	
  
to	
  the	
  Colorado	
  Department	
  of	
  Public	
  Safety	
  to	
  engage	
  external	
  experts	
  to	
  conduct	
  a	
  
thorough	
   review,	
   based	
   on	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   principles	
   and	
   the	
   relevant	
  
literature,	
   with	
   recommendations	
   for	
   improvement	
   as	
   warranted,	
   of	
   the	
   efficacy,	
  
cost-­‐effectiveness	
  and	
  public	
  safety	
  implications	
  of	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  
programs	
  and	
  policies	
  with	
  particular	
  attention	
  to:	
  
	
  
(1)	
  	
  

The	
  Guidelines	
  and	
  Standards	
  to	
  treat	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders	
  

(2)	
  	
  

The	
  criteria	
  for	
  release	
  for	
  incarceration,	
  reduction	
  in	
  supervision,	
  discharge	
  
and	
  progress	
  in	
  treatment	
  

(3)	
  	
  

The	
   application	
   and	
   review	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers,	
   evaluators	
   and	
  
polygraph	
  examiners	
  who	
  provide	
  services	
  for	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders.	
  

	
  
Our	
  evaluation	
  provides	
  many	
  detailed	
  findings	
  and	
  recommendations.	
  Overall,	
  we	
  
conclude	
  that	
  the	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  congratulated	
  for	
  making	
  
a	
   significant	
   contribution	
   to	
   the	
   public	
   safety	
   of	
   the	
   citizens	
   of	
   the	
   state	
   of	
   Colorado.	
  
However,	
   the	
   SOMB	
   can	
   maintain,	
   and	
   arguably	
   even	
   increase,	
   public	
   safety	
   at	
  
significantly	
   less	
   cost	
   by	
   refining	
   its	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   to	
   better	
   reflect	
  
recent	
  research	
  and	
  more	
  closely	
  conform	
  to	
  the	
  Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
  principles.	
  
These	
  principles	
  and	
  the	
  associated	
  research	
  are	
  well	
  described	
  in	
  the	
  2013	
  report	
  
that	
   this	
   collaborative	
   conducted	
   upon	
   the	
   Colorado	
   Department	
   of	
   Corrections	
  
(DOC),	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Treatment	
   and	
   Monitoring	
   Program	
   (D’Orazio,	
   Thornton	
   and	
  
Beech,	
  2013).	
  Readers	
  are	
  referred	
  to	
  this	
  report	
  to	
  better	
  understand	
  the	
  relevance	
  
of	
   these	
   principles	
   to	
   Colorado’s	
   response	
   to	
   the	
   problem	
   of	
   sexual	
   offending.	
  	
  
Further,	
  several	
  areas	
  of	
  opportunity	
  for	
  improvement	
  are	
  shared	
  by	
  both	
  the	
  DOC	
  
in	
  prison	
  treatment	
  program	
  and	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

4	
  

The	
  main	
  opportunity	
  for	
  improvement	
  is	
  in	
  more	
  systematically	
  taking	
  account	
  of	
  
how	
  risk	
  varies	
  between	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  varies	
  within	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  
across	
   time.	
   Initial	
   assessment	
   should	
   allow	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   to	
   be	
   triaged	
   into	
   at	
  
least	
   three	
   broad	
   levels	
   of	
   risk:	
   lower	
   risk;	
   moderate	
   risk;	
   higher	
   risk.	
   Resources	
  
allocated	
   for	
   treatment	
   and	
   management	
   should	
   be	
   proportionate	
   to	
   risk	
   level.	
  
Modern	
  risk	
  assessment	
  instruments	
  can	
  identify	
  a	
  significant	
  category	
  of	
  lower	
  risk	
  
sexual	
   offenders	
   that	
   present	
   a	
   risk	
   for	
   future	
   sexual	
   offending	
   not	
   significantly	
  
different	
   from	
   that	
   presented	
   by	
   non-­‐sexual	
   criminals	
   released	
   from	
   prison.	
   These	
  
individuals	
   do	
   not	
   require	
   intensive	
   supervision	
   and	
   treatment	
   over	
   an	
   extended	
  
period.	
   Instead	
   the	
   risk	
   they	
   present	
   can	
   more	
   efficiently	
   be	
   managed	
   with	
   the	
   level	
  
of	
  resources	
  used	
  to	
  manage	
  non-­‐sexual	
  offenders.	
  The	
  risk	
  presented	
  by	
  moderate	
  
risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   effectively	
   reduces	
   if	
   they	
   complete	
   treatment,	
   manage	
   their	
  
criminogenic,	
  needs	
  and	
  remain	
  offense-­‐free	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  for	
  five	
  years.	
  Higher	
  
risk	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  require	
  more	
  intensive	
  and	
  longer-­‐term	
  management.	
  
	
  
	
  Specific	
   recommendations	
   are	
   made	
   with	
   regard	
   to	
   existing	
   procedures	
   for	
  
identifying	
  low	
  risk	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  and	
  Sexually	
  Violent	
  Predators.	
  In	
  both	
  cases	
  it	
  
is	
  advised	
  better	
  empirically-­‐validated	
  methods	
  be	
  introduced	
  than	
  those	
  currently	
  
utilized.	
  
	
  
The	
   model	
   of	
   treatment	
   progress	
   in	
   use	
   will	
   benefit	
   from	
   updating	
   to	
   focus	
   more	
  
closely	
   on	
   factors	
   that	
   have	
   been	
   empirically	
   demonstrated	
   to	
   relate	
   to	
   sexual	
  
recidivism	
   and	
   to	
   apply	
   these	
   in	
   a	
   more	
   individualized	
   way	
   so	
   that	
   offenders	
   are	
  
treated	
  and	
  assessed	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  empirically-­‐supported	
  risk	
  factors	
  that	
  most	
  
clearly	
  contributed	
  to	
  their	
  past	
  problems,	
  thus	
  better	
  following	
  the	
  Need	
  principle.	
  
This	
  would	
  also	
  allow	
  treatment	
  to	
  facilitate	
  significant	
  reduction	
  in	
  risk	
  in	
  a	
  more	
  
time	
   efficient	
   manner.	
   Research	
   in	
   other	
   jurisdictions	
   has	
   demonstrated	
   that	
   for	
  

	
  

5	
  

some	
   offenders	
   risk	
   can	
   be	
   significantly	
   reduced	
   after	
   just	
   12	
   to	
   18	
   months	
  
treatment.1	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   has	
   an	
   abundant	
   opportunity	
   to	
   improve	
   conformity	
   with	
   the	
  
Responsivity	
  principle.	
  This	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  placing	
  greater	
  emphasis	
  on	
  building	
  up	
  
protective	
   factors	
   rather	
   than	
   attending	
   so	
   singularly	
   to	
   external	
   control.	
  
Additionally,	
   offenders’	
   engagement	
   in	
   treatment	
   and	
   response	
   to	
   supervision	
  
would	
   be	
   greatly	
   enhanced	
   by	
   stronger	
   use	
   of	
   a	
   motivational	
   approach;	
   careful	
  
attention	
   to	
   the	
   interactions	
   between	
   offenders	
   and	
   members	
   of	
   the	
   Community	
  
Supervision	
   Team,	
   and	
   alterations	
   in	
   wording	
   and	
   tone	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines.	
   	
   As	
   a	
   medium	
   for	
   outreach	
   to	
   the	
   various	
   stakeholders	
   involved	
   in	
   the	
  
problem	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending	
  in	
  Colorado,	
  the	
  SOMB	
  will	
  benefit	
  from	
  enhancing	
  its	
  
dispatch	
   and	
   reception	
   of	
   communications;	
   likewise	
   solicitation	
   of	
   consumer	
  
satisfaction	
  feedback	
  from	
  its	
  offender	
  participants	
  and	
  their	
  loved	
  ones	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
the	
   professionals	
   and	
   agencies	
   that	
   come	
   under	
   its	
   purview	
   will	
   go	
   far	
   in	
   both	
  
improving	
  treatment	
  outcome	
  and	
  enhancing	
  the	
  credibility	
  of	
  the	
  board	
  .	
  
	
  
Criteria	
   for	
   release,	
   reduction	
   in	
   supervision,	
   and	
   discharge	
   will	
   benefit	
   from	
  
revision	
  in	
  light	
  of	
  a	
  shift	
  in	
  understanding	
  about	
  what	
  is	
  involved	
  when	
  offenders’	
  
make	
   progress	
   in	
   their	
   treatment.	
   This	
   will	
   be	
   facilitated	
   by	
   taking	
   account	
   of	
   the	
  
lesser	
  degree	
  of	
  treatment	
  progress	
  required	
  for	
  offenders	
  who	
  present	
  less	
  risk	
  at	
  
the	
  outset	
  of	
  treatment.	
  	
  Similarly,	
  the	
  current	
  requirements	
  regarding	
  contact	
   with	
  
children	
   as	
   written	
   seem	
   to	
   under	
   value	
   protective	
   factors	
   and	
   over	
   estimate	
   risk	
  
and	
  as	
  such,	
  will	
  benefit	
  from	
  revision	
  by	
  the	
  SOMB.	
  
	
  
Criteria	
   for	
   application	
   and	
   review	
   of	
   treatment	
   providers,	
   evaluators	
   and	
  
polygraph	
   examiners	
   are,	
   overall,	
   in	
   accord	
   with	
   generally	
   accepted	
   practice	
  
although	
   it	
   was	
   difficult	
   to	
   ascertain	
   whether	
   the	
   density	
   and	
   detail	
   of	
   the	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1	
  The	
  SOMB	
  has	
  shown	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  introduce	
  more	
  structured	
  and	
  empirically	
  
validated	
  measures	
  and	
  has	
  recently	
  secured	
  federal	
  funding	
  from	
  the	
  SMART	
  office	
  to	
  have	
  training	
  

	
  

6	
  

requirements	
   dissuade	
   potential	
   quality	
   providers	
   from	
   applying/maintaining	
  
applicant	
   status.	
   However,	
   the	
   SOMB	
   presently	
   has	
   no	
   effective	
   mechanism	
   for	
  
quality	
  assuring	
  how	
  well	
  its	
  practitioners	
  routinely	
  perform.	
  
	
  
This	
   review	
   additionally	
   identified	
   significant	
   barriers	
   in	
   the	
   effective	
  
implementation	
   of	
   new	
   knowledge	
   and	
   standards.	
   This	
   is	
   an	
   area	
   warranting	
  
serious	
  attention,	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  is	
  already	
  aware.	
  
	
  
Finally,	
  for	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  to	
  be	
  made	
  effective	
  the	
  SOMB	
  
will	
   need	
   to	
   embark	
   on	
   an	
   effective	
   education	
   program	
   aimed	
   not	
   only	
   at	
   the	
  
professionals	
   for	
   whom	
   it	
   sets	
   standards	
   but	
   also	
   critically	
   at	
   the	
   supervising	
  
officers	
   for	
   whom	
   it	
   provides	
   guidelines.	
   	
   Likewise,	
   SOMB	
   board	
   members,	
   judges	
  
and	
   the	
   parole	
   board	
   will	
   benefit	
   from	
   enhanced	
   education	
   about	
   effective	
   sexual	
  
offender	
  treatment	
  and	
  management.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

7	
  

Introduction	
  
	
  
In	
   2013	
   the	
   Colorado	
   Department	
   of	
   Public	
   Safety	
   commissioned	
   a	
   review,	
   to	
   be	
  
based	
   on	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   Principles	
   and	
   the	
   relevant	
   literature,	
   and	
   include	
  
recommendations	
   for	
   improvement	
   as	
   warranted,	
   of	
   the	
   efficacy,	
   cost-­‐effectiveness,	
  
and	
   public	
   safety	
   implications	
   of	
   the	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Management	
   Board	
   (SOMB)	
  
programs	
  and	
  policies	
  with	
  particular	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  following:	
  
	
  
1.	
  

The	
   Guidelines	
   and	
   Standards	
   to	
   treat	
   adult	
   sex	
   offenders	
   issued	
   by	
   the	
  
SOMB	
  

	
  
2.	
  

The	
   Criteria	
   for	
   Release	
   from	
   Incarceration,	
   Reduction	
   in	
   Supervision,	
  
Discharge	
   for	
   Certain	
   Adult	
   Offenders,	
   and	
   Measurement	
   of	
   an	
   Adult	
   Sex	
  
Offender’s	
  Progress	
  in	
  treatment	
  issued	
  by	
  the	
  SOMB	
  

	
  
3.	
  

The	
   application	
   and	
   review	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers,	
   evaluators	
   and	
  
polygraph	
   examiners	
   who	
   provide	
   services	
   to	
   adult	
   sex	
   offenders	
   as	
  
developed	
  by	
  SOMB.	
  

	
  
This	
   report	
   describes	
   the	
   results	
   of	
   the	
   review	
   so	
   commissioned	
   by	
   the	
   Colorado	
  
Department	
  of	
  Public	
  Safety.	
  
	
  
The	
   Colorado	
   Sexual	
   Offender	
   Management	
   Board	
   was	
   created	
   by	
   the	
   Colorado	
  
legislature	
   in	
   1992.	
   In	
   1996	
   it	
   first	
   produced	
   a	
   document	
   prescribing	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
   for	
   the	
   management	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders.	
   These	
   have	
   been	
   repeatedly	
  
revised,	
  the	
  most	
  recent	
  revision	
  being	
  in	
  2011,	
  although	
  there	
  have	
  been	
  piecemeal	
  
changes	
   to	
   specific	
   elements	
   of	
   it	
   approved	
   since	
   that	
   time.	
   	
   Because	
   of	
   its	
   early	
  
formation,	
   the	
   Colorado	
   SOMB,	
   commendably,	
   has	
   been	
   a	
   model	
   for	
   SOMBs	
   of	
   other	
  
states.	
  Its	
  front-­‐runner	
  position	
  among	
  SOMBs	
  has	
  meant	
  that	
  CO	
  SOMB	
  shoulders	
  

	
  

8	
  

the	
   responsibility	
   of	
   keeping	
   current	
   with	
   developments	
   in	
   research	
   into	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
  and	
  their	
  management	
  in	
  evolving	
  its	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   Colorado	
   Standards	
   promulgated	
   in	
   1996	
   were,	
   unavoidably,	
   based	
   on	
   the	
  
rather	
  limited	
  research	
  knowledge	
  about	
  sexual	
  offending	
  available	
  at	
  that	
  time.	
  As	
  
well,	
   the	
   1980s	
   and	
   1990s	
   were	
   a	
   period	
   when	
   many	
   felt	
   that	
   the	
   problem	
   of	
   sexual	
  
abuse	
   was	
   taken	
   too	
   lightly	
   by	
   the	
   general	
   public	
   and	
   legislatures.	
   The	
   rights	
   of	
  
women	
   and	
   children	
   and	
   victimization	
   statistics	
   brought	
   further	
   attention	
   to	
   the	
  
societal	
  problem	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending	
  during	
  this	
  period.	
  As	
  a	
  consequence	
  of	
  these	
  
factors,	
   there	
   was	
   a	
   tendency	
   to	
   frame	
   available	
   information	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
  
highlighted	
  the	
  threat	
  posed	
  by	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  Central	
  to	
  the	
   Colorado	
  Standards	
  
and	
   Guidelines	
   which	
   emerged	
   out	
   of	
   that	
   socio-­‐historical	
   context	
   was	
   a	
   vision	
   of	
  
sexual	
   offenders	
   as	
   chronically	
   dangerous	
   individuals	
   from	
   whom	
   the	
   community	
  
can	
   only	
   be	
   protected	
   by	
   constant	
   vigilance.	
   In	
   response	
   to	
   this	
   a	
   containment	
  
approach	
  was	
  proposed	
  (e.g.	
  English,	
  1998;	
  2004),	
  which	
  has	
  the	
  following	
  central	
  
principles:	
  
	
  
1.	
  	
  

The	
   primary	
   objectives	
   of	
   sex	
   offender	
   management	
   are	
   victim	
   protection,	
  

public	
  safety,	
  and	
  reparation	
  for	
  victims.	
  
	
  
2.	
  	
  

Implementation	
   strategies	
   should	
   involve	
   agency	
   coordination	
   and	
  

multidisciplinary	
   partnerships,	
   supported	
   by	
   multi-­‐agency	
   policies	
   and	
   protocols	
  
allowing	
   collaborative	
   teams	
   that	
   enable	
   better	
   communication,	
   sharing	
   of	
  
information,	
  expertise	
  and	
  coordination.	
  
	
  
3.	
  	
  

Case	
  management	
  should	
  be	
  is	
  containment	
  focused	
  but	
  individualized	
  based	
  

on	
   the	
   individual	
   offender’s	
   characteristics.	
   Multiple	
   technologies,	
   including	
  
specifically	
   polygraph	
   examinations	
   are	
   used	
   to	
   obtain	
   a	
   more	
   complete	
   and	
  
accurate	
   picture	
   of	
   the	
   offender’s	
   deviancies	
   and	
   modus	
   operandi.	
   This	
   in	
   turn	
  
allows	
   case	
   managers	
   to	
   reduce	
   the	
   offender’s	
   access	
   to	
   the	
   people	
   they	
   are	
   most	
  
likely	
  to	
  try	
  to	
  victimize.	
  
	
  

9	
  

	
  
4.	
  

Program	
   monitoring	
   and	
   evaluation	
   should	
   be	
   employed	
   to	
   sustain	
   and	
  

improve	
  quality	
  
	
  
A	
   central	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   containment	
   approach	
   is	
   the	
   integration	
   of	
   case	
   managers,	
  
treatment	
  providers	
  and	
  polygraph	
  examiners	
  into	
  a	
  single	
  team.	
  
	
  
The	
  current	
  Colorado	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  intended	
  to	
  enable	
  sexual	
  
offender	
   management	
   in	
   Colorado	
   to	
   intelligently	
   implement	
   this	
   overall	
  
containment	
  approach.	
  
	
  
During	
   the	
   course	
   of	
   the	
   present	
   evaluation	
   members	
   of	
   the	
   Colorado	
   SOMB	
   and	
  
staff	
   communicated	
   to	
   the	
   evaluation	
   team	
   awareness	
   that	
   the	
   original	
   vision	
   of	
  
offenders	
   on	
   which	
   the	
   containment	
   model	
   was	
   based	
   warrants	
   revision.	
   In	
  
particular,	
   they	
   articulated	
   a	
   desire	
   to	
   incorporate	
   the	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
  
principles	
  into	
  a	
  more	
  modern	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  containment	
  model.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  
time,	
  and	
  by	
  default,	
  the	
  Colorado	
  SOMB	
  inherits	
  the	
  legacy	
  of	
  previous	
  formulations	
  
of	
  its	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines,	
  a	
  wider	
  sex	
  offender	
  management	
  culture	
  that	
  has	
  
been	
  informed	
  by	
  these	
  earlier	
  versions,	
  and	
  no	
  doubt	
  some	
  organizational	
  need	
  to	
  
maintain	
  coherence	
  by	
  only	
  making	
  changes	
  when	
  they	
  are	
  inevitably	
  required.	
  
	
  
It	
   is	
   hoped	
   that	
   the	
   present	
   report	
   will	
   assist	
   the	
   CO	
   SOMB	
   in	
   their	
   diligent	
  
continuing	
   efforts	
   to	
   develop	
   and	
   adapt	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   so	
   that	
   they	
  
are	
   grounded	
   in	
   contemporary	
   understandings	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   and	
   sexual	
  
offender	
  management.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   main	
   findings	
   of	
   the	
   current	
   evaluation	
   are	
   presented	
   in	
   response	
   to	
   the	
  
following	
  topic	
  areas:	
  
	
  

	
  

10	
  

1)	
  	
  

The	
   Guiding	
   Principles	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
   reviewed	
   in	
  
relation	
   to	
   current	
   research	
   regarding	
   the	
   treatment	
   and	
   management	
   of	
  
sexual	
  offenders	
  

2)	
  

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
   reviewed	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   the	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐
Responsivity	
  Principles	
  of	
  effective	
  correctional	
  programming	
  

3)	
  

The	
  current	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  is	
  reviewed	
  in	
  
relation	
  to	
  a	
  fourth	
  principle	
  which	
  we	
  call	
  Integrity,	
  meaning	
  the	
  how	
  well	
  
are	
  they	
  implemented	
  in	
  practice	
  

4)	
  

Empirical	
   Support	
   for	
   the	
   Containment	
   Model	
   and	
   other	
   assumptions	
  
underlying	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  

5)	
  

Specific	
  Issues	
  within	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  considered	
  

	
  
The	
  main	
  body	
  of	
  the	
  report	
  concludes	
  with	
  a	
  general	
  Discussion.	
  Detailed	
  findings	
  
underlying	
  the	
  main	
  body	
  of	
  the	
  report	
  are	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  subsequent	
  Appendices	
  
followed	
  by	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  References.	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

11	
  

Review	
  of	
  the	
  Colorado	
  SOMB	
  Guiding	
  Principles	
  
	
  
Central	
  to	
  the	
  2011	
  Revision	
  of	
  the	
  CO	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  thirteen	
  
Guiding	
  Principles.	
  These	
  Principles	
  are	
  reviewed	
  in	
  detail	
  in	
  Appendix	
  A	
  which	
  also	
  
provides	
  examples	
  of	
  how	
  those	
  warranting	
  improvement	
  might	
  be	
  rephrased.	
  The	
  
conclusions	
  of	
  the	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  Guiding	
  Principles	
  are	
  summarized	
  thematically	
  in	
  
the	
   current	
   section.	
   Research	
   findings	
   in	
   support	
   of	
   this	
   review	
   are	
   described	
   in	
  
Appendix	
  B.	
  	
  
	
  
Most	
   of	
   the	
   Guiding	
   Principles	
   are	
   commendable	
   statements	
   of	
   good	
   practice	
  
that	
   are	
   consistent	
   with	
   available	
   research.	
   They	
   are	
   consistent	
   with	
   those	
  
aspects	
  of	
  the	
  Containment	
  Approach	
  that	
  are	
  more	
  broadly	
  regarded	
  as	
  good	
  
practice	
  in	
  the	
  management	
  and	
  treatment	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
This	
  applies	
  to	
  Guiding	
  Principles	
  6,	
  7,	
  8,	
  9,	
  10,	
  11	
  and	
  12.	
  
	
  
Three	
   of	
   the	
   Guiding	
   Principles	
   communicate	
   a	
   view	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders’	
   risk	
  
which	
   is	
   unsupported	
   by	
   current	
   research	
   and	
   which	
   impedes	
   the	
  
implementation	
   of	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   principles	
   and	
   cost-­‐effective	
   risk	
  
management.	
  	
  
	
  
These	
  are	
  principles	
  1,	
  2,	
  and	
  4.	
  	
  
	
  
Between	
   them	
   they	
   convey	
   that	
   sexual	
   offending	
   is	
   invariably	
   a	
   disorder	
   which	
  
cannot	
  be	
  “cured”;	
  that	
  all	
  sex	
  offenders	
  continue	
  to	
  present	
  a	
  dangerously	
  high	
  risk	
  
even	
  when	
  they	
  successfully	
  complete	
  treatment;	
  that	
  this	
  danger	
  can	
  only	
  managed	
  
by	
   constant	
   vigilance,	
   active	
   control,	
   restriction	
   and	
   treatment;	
   that	
   without	
   this	
  
ongoing	
   high	
   level	
   of	
   containment	
   persons	
   with	
   a	
   history	
   of	
   sexual	
   offending	
   may	
   at	
  
any	
  time	
  revert	
  into	
  being	
  highly	
  dangerous.	
  
	
  

	
  

12	
  

A	
   revision	
   of	
   Guiding	
   Principle	
   1	
   has	
   been	
   approved	
   by	
   the	
   SOMB	
   that	
   deletes	
   the	
  
“disorder”	
   and	
   “no	
   cure”	
   language,	
   however,	
   it	
   continues	
   to	
   convey	
   a	
   similar	
  
underlying	
  message.	
  Sexual	
  offenders	
  are	
  purported	
  to	
  pose	
  a	
  continuing	
  high	
  risk	
  
of	
  re-­‐offending	
  that	
  can	
  only	
  be	
  managed	
  by	
  treatment,	
  supervision	
  and	
  active	
  self-­‐
management.	
  
	
  
There	
   are	
   three	
   difficulties	
   with	
   this.	
   First,	
   it	
   paints	
   all	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   as	
   being	
   the	
  
same	
  when	
  in	
  fact	
  they	
  differ	
  markedly	
  in	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  risk	
  they	
  present.	
  Second,	
  it	
  
takes	
   no	
   account	
   of	
   the	
   systematic	
   and	
   substantial	
   decline	
   in	
   risk	
   that	
   occurs	
   as	
  
sexual	
   offenders	
   succeed	
   in	
   achieving	
   time	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   without	
   sexual	
  
offending.	
   Third,	
   it	
   implies	
   a	
   wasteful	
   allocation	
   of	
   resources	
   to	
   monitoring,	
  
controlling	
   and	
   treating	
   offenders	
   whose	
   risk	
   could	
   be	
   managed	
   much	
   more	
  
efficiently.	
  
	
  
Allocating	
   resources	
   to	
   the	
   management	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   that	
   are	
   substantially	
  
more	
   expensive	
   and	
   specialized	
   than	
   those	
   allocated	
   to	
   manage	
   of	
   other	
   (non-­‐
sexual)	
  offenders	
  only	
  makes	
  sense	
  if	
  the	
  identified	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  in	
  reality	
  pose	
  
a	
   substantially	
   greater	
   risk	
   for	
   committing	
   new	
   sexual	
   offenses	
   than	
   non	
   sexual	
  
offenders.	
   However,	
   available	
   data	
   does	
   not	
   support	
   this	
   disparate	
   resource	
  
allocation	
   for	
   all	
   sexual	
   offender	
   risk	
   levels.	
   Sexual	
   offenses	
   are	
   committed	
   by	
   about	
  
2%	
  of	
  non-­‐sexual	
  offenders2	
  over	
  a	
  medium	
  term	
  (4	
  to	
  5	
  year)	
  follow	
  up.	
  This	
  rate	
  is	
  
comparable	
  to	
  that	
  of	
  “lower	
  risk”	
  sexual	
  offenders..	
  Consequently	
  expending	
  special	
  
and	
   expensive	
   resources	
   on	
   managing	
   low	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   wastes	
   public	
  
money.	
  	
  
	
  
Similarly,	
  the	
  re-­‐offense	
  likelihood	
  of	
  many	
  moderate	
  risk	
  offenders	
  who	
  complete	
  
treatment	
   declines	
   over	
   a	
   period	
   of	
   five	
   years	
   when	
   they	
   are	
   in	
   the	
   community	
  
without	
   further	
   offending.	
   This	
   declines	
   to	
   a	
   level	
   of	
   sexual	
   offending	
   similar	
   to	
   that	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2	
  The	
  phrase	
  “non-­‐sex	
  offender”	
  is	
  here	
  used	
  to	
  refer	
  to	
  males	
  who	
  have	
  been	
  
convicted	
  and	
  sentenced	
  for	
  the	
  wide	
  range	
  of	
  criminal	
  offenses	
  that	
  are	
  non-­‐sexual	
  
in	
  nature.	
  
	
  

13	
  

of	
   non-­‐sexual	
   offenders.	
   Accordingly,	
   cost-­‐effective	
   risk	
   management	
   requires	
   that	
  
the	
   management	
   of	
   moderate	
   risk	
   offenders	
   who	
   have	
   completed	
   treatment	
   and	
  
achieved	
   five	
   years	
   community	
   time	
   offense	
   free	
   should	
   be	
   reduced	
   to	
   a	
   level	
  
comparable	
  to	
  that	
  for	
  non-­‐sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
From	
   a	
   perspective	
   that	
   balances	
   community	
   safety	
   with	
   cost-­‐effectiveness	
  
Principles	
   1,	
   2	
   and	
   4,	
   especially	
   in	
   the	
   light	
   of	
   widely	
   communicated	
   “no	
   cure”	
  
language,	
   are	
   naturally	
   interpreted	
   as	
   precluding	
   either	
   of	
   the	
   above	
   described	
  
efficiencies.	
  
	
  
As	
  an	
  example	
  of	
  a	
  Guiding	
  Principle	
  that	
  would	
  avoid	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  difficulties,	
  in	
  
the	
   box	
   below	
   is	
   the	
   version	
   of	
   the	
   first	
   Guiding	
   Principle	
   recently	
   approved	
   by	
  
SOMB	
  and	
  also	
  an	
  alternate	
  version	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  more	
  accurate	
  and	
  helpful.	
  
	
  
COSOMB	
  Proposed	
  New	
  First	
  Guiding	
  Principle	
  
	
  
Sexual	
  offending	
  behavior	
  is	
  often	
  repetitive	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  continuing	
  risk	
  that	
  adult	
  	
  
sex	
  offenders	
  will	
  reoffend.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  (SOMB)	
  has	
  reviewed	
  the	
  considerable	
  body	
  of	
  
research	
  concerning	
  the	
  treatment	
  of	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders.	
  This	
  guiding	
  principle	
  establishes	
  
a	
  treatment	
  and	
  management	
  philosophy	
  which	
  recognizes	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  currently	
  no	
  way	
  to	
  
ensure	
  that	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders	
  will	
  not	
  re-­‐offend.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
  does	
  not	
  mean	
  that	
  all	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders	
  will	
  re-­‐offend.	
  With	
  effective	
  treatment,	
  	
  
supervision	
  and	
  self-­‐management,	
  sex	
  offenders	
  can	
  internalize	
  changes	
  that	
  may	
  decrease	
  
their	
  likelihood	
  of	
  re-­‐offense.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  offender	
  must	
  take	
  responsibility	
  for	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  behavior	
  and	
  commit	
  to	
  continually	
  	
  
manage	
  the	
  behaviors	
  that	
  led	
  to	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  offense(s)	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  prevent	
  future	
  offenses,	
  
future	
  victims	
  and	
  to	
  enhance	
  public	
  safety.	
  

	
  

14	
  

A	
  More	
  Research	
  Supported	
  Version	
  
	
  
Risk	
  for	
  future	
  sexual	
  offending	
  varies	
  enormously.	
  The	
  intensity	
  and	
  duration	
  of	
  
supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  should	
  respond	
  in	
  a	
  flexible	
  and	
  cost-­‐effective	
  way	
  to	
  these	
  
differences	
  in	
  risk.	
  	
  
	
  
Sexual	
  offending	
  is	
  a	
  behavior,	
  not	
  a	
  disorder.	
  Some	
  men	
  with	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending	
  
present	
  a	
  risk	
  for	
  future	
  sexual	
  offending	
  that	
  is	
  relatively	
  similar	
  to	
  that	
  of	
  criminals	
  with	
  no	
  
known	
  history	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending.	
  These	
  lower	
  risk	
  offenders	
  can	
  be	
  effectively	
  managed	
  in	
  the	
  
community	
  through	
  ordinary	
  supervision	
  processes	
  of	
  limited	
  duration.	
  Others	
  present	
  a	
  
markedly	
  elevated	
  risk	
  and	
  may	
  require	
  supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  that	
  is	
  more	
  intensive,	
  
more	
  specialized	
  and	
  of	
  greater	
  duration.	
  In	
  Colorado,	
  criminal	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  are	
  first	
  
assessed	
  and	
  referred	
  for	
  a	
  sex	
  offense-­‐specific	
  evaluation	
  during	
  the	
  pre-­‐sentence	
  
investigation	
  conducted	
  by	
  the	
  Probation	
  Department.	
  This	
  initial	
  assessment	
  should	
  at	
  least	
  
triage	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  into	
  lower,	
  medium	
  and	
  higher	
  risk	
  groups	
  with	
  this	
  categorization	
  
informing	
  subsequent	
  decisions	
  about	
  the	
  intensity	
  and	
  duration	
  of	
  supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  
that	
  is	
  appropriate	
  for	
  cost-­‐effective	
  risk	
  management.	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
Three	
  of	
  the	
  Guiding	
  Principles	
  are	
  incomplete	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  make	
  them	
  
unbalanced.	
  
	
  
These	
  are	
  principles	
  3,	
  5	
  and	
  13.	
  
	
  
The	
   third	
   Guiding	
   Principle	
   states	
   “community	
   safety	
   is	
   paramount”.	
   It	
   perhaps	
  
would	
  be	
  more	
  apropos	
  if	
  this	
  were	
  the	
  first	
  Guiding	
  Principle	
  but,	
  apart	
  from	
  that,	
  
the	
   principle,	
   as	
   written,	
   is	
   unbalanced.	
   No	
   social	
   policy	
   objective	
   can	
   be	
   pursued	
  
without	
   regard	
   for	
   cost.	
   After	
   all,	
   money	
   spent	
   on	
   managing	
   and	
   treating	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
  could	
  alternatively	
  be	
  spent	
  on	
  providing	
  treatment	
  services	
  for	
  victims,	
  
on	
   other	
   means	
   of	
   preventing	
   future	
   victimization,	
   on	
   quite	
   different	
   social	
  
priorities,	
   or	
   savings	
   in	
   this	
   area	
   could	
   go	
   to	
   balance	
   over-­‐stretched	
   budgets	
   so	
   that	
  

	
  

15	
  

the	
  state	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  to	
  raise	
  taxes.	
  By	
  stating	
  this	
  principle	
  without	
  reference	
  to	
  
other	
  priorities	
  the	
  reader	
  is	
  given	
  the	
  notion	
  that	
  anything	
  that	
  might	
  contribute	
  to	
  
public	
  safety	
  without	
  regard	
  to	
  cost	
  or	
  effectiveness.	
  
	
  
The	
   current	
   version	
   of	
   Principle	
   3	
   and	
   a	
   more	
   balanced	
   alternate	
   version	
   are	
  
provided	
  in	
  the	
  box	
  below.	
  
	
  
Existing	
  Principle	
  3	
  	
  
	
  
Community	
  safety	
  is	
  paramount.	
  
	
  
The	
  highest	
  priority	
  of	
  these	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  is	
  community	
  safety.	
  
A	
  More	
  Balanced	
  Version	
  	
  
	
  
Community	
  safety	
  is	
  paramount.	
  
	
  
The	
  highest	
  priority	
  of	
  these	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  is	
  to	
  maximize	
  community	
  safety	
  in	
  the	
  
most	
  cost	
  effective	
  manner	
  possible.	
  

	
  
The	
  other	
  two	
  unbalanced	
  Guiding	
  Principles	
  are	
  principles	
  5	
  and	
  13.	
  
	
  
Guiding	
  Principle	
  5	
  states	
  that	
  community	
  supervision	
  is	
  a	
  privilege	
  and	
  emphasizes	
  
the	
  need	
  for	
  offenders	
  to	
  be	
  held	
  strictly	
  accountable.	
  Keeping	
  in	
  mind	
  that	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  
communication	
   to	
   professionals	
   working	
   with	
   sexual	
   offenders,	
   not	
   to	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   themselves,	
   the	
   current	
   phrasing	
   of	
   the	
   principle	
   neglects	
   to	
   emphasize	
  
the	
  responsibility	
  that	
  the	
  professionals	
  working	
  with	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  shoulder	
  to	
  
behave	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  facilitate	
  the	
  required	
  degree	
  of	
  cooperation	
  with	
  supervision	
  
from	
   sex	
   offenders.	
   It	
   also	
   neglects	
   to	
   emphasize	
   the	
   findings	
   from	
   the	
   wider	
  
supervision	
   literature	
   that	
   supervision	
   is	
   less	
   effective	
   when	
   focused	
   purely	
   on	
  
external	
   controls	
   and	
   the	
   offenders’	
   accountability	
   for	
   complying	
   with	
   conditions	
  of	
  
supervision	
   and	
   more	
   effective	
   when	
   it	
   employs	
   a	
   motivational	
   approach	
   that	
  

	
  

16	
  

attends	
   to	
   offender	
   responsivity,	
   and	
   the	
   criminogenic	
   needs	
   that	
   contributed	
   to	
  
past	
  offending.	
  
	
  
Guiding	
   Principle	
   13	
   similarly	
   is	
   unbalanced	
   as	
   written.	
   It	
   properly	
   highlights	
   the	
  
value	
  of	
  involving	
  family	
  and	
  friends	
  in	
  the	
  management	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  but	
  it	
  
emphasizes	
   solely	
   their	
   role	
   in	
   helping	
   hold	
   the	
   offender	
   accountable.	
   It	
   fails	
   to	
  
mention	
   equally	
   important	
   positive	
   contributions	
   like	
   the	
   way	
   pro-­‐social	
   law-­‐
abiding	
   people	
   in	
   the	
   offender’s	
   life	
   can	
   model	
   prosocial	
   attitudes	
   and	
   decision-­‐
making,	
  provide	
  non-­‐collusive	
  social	
  support,	
  healthy	
  attachment	
  experiences,	
  and	
  
facilitate	
   opportunities	
   for	
   the	
   offender	
   to	
   start	
   living	
   a	
   more	
   “normal”	
   life. For	
  
example,	
   church	
   leaders	
   who	
   participated	
   in	
   the	
   focus	
   groups	
   opined	
   that	
   in	
  
preventing	
  offenders	
  access	
  to	
  religious	
  congregational	
  services,	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  
Guidelines	
  facilitated	
  isolation,	
  shaming,	
  and	
  inability	
  to	
  counsel	
  offender	
  members	
  
during	
   their	
   journey	
   toward	
   rehabilitation.	
   	
   The	
   SOMB	
   itself	
   is	
   aware	
   that	
   a	
   more	
  
balanced	
   approach	
   is	
   desirable	
   and	
   has	
   begun	
   to	
   take	
   steps	
   to	
   facilitate	
   prosocial	
  
support	
   of	
   offenders.	
   	
   For	
   example,	
   they	
   have	
   recently	
   taken	
   efforts	
   to	
   collaborate	
  
with	
   Circles	
   of	
   Support	
   and	
   Accountability,	
   an	
   organization	
   that	
   seeks	
   to	
   provide	
  
support	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  accountability.	
  	
  Nonetheless,	
  the	
  verbiage	
  of	
  the	
  Principle	
  seems	
  
to	
  require	
  revision	
  such	
  to	
  reflect	
  the	
  value	
  for	
  varied	
  prosocial	
  supports.	
  
	
  
In	
   conclusion,	
   the	
   SOMB	
   Guiding	
   Principles	
   would	
   benefit	
   from	
   a	
   more	
   thorough	
  
revision	
  than	
  the	
  SOMB	
  has	
  so	
  far	
  attempted.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

17	
  

Analysis	
  of	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  in	
  Relation	
  to	
  the	
  
Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
  Principles	
  
The	
   best-­‐established	
   ways	
   of	
   distinguishing	
   more	
   effective	
   forms	
   of	
   correctional	
  
programming	
  are	
  undoubtedly	
  the	
  Risk,	
  Need	
  and	
  Responsivity	
  (RNR)	
  principles	
  first	
  
articulated	
   by	
   Andrews	
   et	
   al.	
   (1990).	
   Subsequent	
   meta-­‐analytic	
   results	
   support	
   that	
  
program	
   efficacy	
   is	
   indeed	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   degree	
   of	
   adherence	
   to	
   these	
   three	
  
principles	
   (Andrews	
   &	
   Bonta,	
   2006).	
   More	
   recently,	
   Hanson	
   et	
   al.	
   (2009),	
   in	
   a	
   meta-­‐
analysis	
   of	
   the	
   better	
   quality	
   studies	
   of	
   sexual	
   offender	
   treatment,	
   notes	
   that	
   the	
  
same	
  trend	
  was	
  apparent	
  in	
  the	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment	
  arena,	
  that	
  is,	
  the	
  more	
  
sexual	
  offender	
  programs	
  conformed	
  to	
  the	
  Risk,	
  Need	
  and	
  Responsivity	
  Principles	
  
the	
  more	
  effective	
  they	
  were	
  in	
  reducing	
  sexual	
  recidivism.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Andrews	
   and	
   Bonta	
   also	
   found	
   that	
   when	
   the	
   three	
   RNR	
   principles	
   are	
   held	
  
constant,	
   demonstration	
   projects	
   had	
   substantially	
   better	
   results	
   than	
   routine	
  
treatment	
  practice.	
  This	
  reflects	
  that	
  in	
  demonstration	
  projects	
  greater	
  care	
  is	
  taken	
  
to	
   implement	
   treatment	
   the	
   way	
   it	
   was	
   as	
   intended	
   to	
   be	
   run	
   while	
   in	
   routine	
  
practice	
   there	
   tends	
   to	
   be	
   corner	
   cutting	
   and	
   drift	
   away	
   from	
   therapeutic	
   models.	
  
Similarly	
  Lösel	
  and	
  Schmucker’s	
  (2005)	
  meta-­‐analysis	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  programs	
  
found	
  that	
  well-­‐specified	
  programs	
  that	
  were	
  run	
  by	
  researchers,	
  and	
  operated	
  on	
  a	
  
small	
  scale	
  (all	
  factors	
  expected	
  to	
  lead	
  to	
  more	
  careful	
  implementation)	
  had	
  greater	
  
efficacy.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   developing	
   standards	
   consistent	
   with	
   RNR	
  
principles,	
  maintaining	
  a	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  integrity	
  to	
  the	
  principles	
  within	
  programs	
  is	
  
essential.	
  
	
  

The	
  Risk	
  Principle	
  
	
  
The	
   Risk	
   principle	
   means	
   that	
   correctional	
   services	
   are	
   most	
   effective	
   when	
   the	
  
degree	
   of	
   resources	
   assigned	
   to	
   treating	
   and	
   managing	
   offenders	
   is	
   made	
  

	
  

18	
  

proportionate	
  to	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  risk	
  they	
  present.	
  Applied	
  to	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  the	
  risk	
  
principle	
  is	
  articulated	
  as	
  follows:	
  
	
  
Low	
  risk	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  represent	
  a	
  risk	
  for	
  sexual	
  offending	
  that	
  is	
  about	
  the	
  same	
  
as	
  that	
  presented	
  by	
  non-­‐sexual	
  offenders	
  under	
  supervision.	
  Accordingly	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  
require	
   exceptional	
   resources	
   allocated	
   to	
   their	
   management.	
   When	
   offending	
   was	
  
against	
   members	
   of	
   their	
   own	
   family	
   particular	
   precautions	
   may	
   be	
   required	
  
regarding	
  the	
  terms	
  of	
  contact	
  and	
  reunification	
  they	
  with	
  prior	
  victims.	
  In	
  most	
  cases,	
  
this	
  should	
  be	
  manageable	
  with	
  normal	
  supervision	
  resources.	
  
	
  
Moderate	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   represent	
   a	
   risk	
   for	
   sexual	
   offending	
   that	
   is	
  
significantly	
   higher	
   than	
   that	
   presented	
   by	
   non-­‐sexual	
   offenders	
   under	
   supervision.	
  
Accordingly,	
  allocation	
  of	
  specialized	
  and	
  more	
  costly	
  resources	
  than	
  those	
  for	
  low	
  risk	
  
sexual	
  offenders	
  is	
  reasonable.	
  
	
  
High	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   represent	
   a	
   risk	
   for	
   sexual	
   offending	
   that	
   is	
   significantly	
  
higher	
   than	
   that	
   presented	
   by	
   moderate	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders.	
   Accordingly,	
   the	
  
allocation	
  of	
  exceptional	
  resources	
  for	
  the	
  management	
  of	
  this	
  group	
  is	
  warranted.	
  
	
  
As	
   currently	
   written,	
   the	
   Guiding	
   Principles	
   do	
   not	
   encourage	
   managing	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
  in	
  accord	
  with	
  the	
  Risk	
  Principle.	
  As	
  noted	
  in	
  the	
  previous	
  section,	
  several	
  
of	
   the	
   Guiding	
   Principles	
   suggest	
   the	
   idea	
   that	
   all	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   should	
   be	
  
regarded	
  as	
  presenting	
  a	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  risk.	
  In	
  effect	
  they	
  encourage	
  over-­‐allocation	
  
of	
  treatment	
  and	
  supervisory	
  resources	
  to	
  lower	
  risk	
  offenders	
  and	
  fail	
  to	
  encourage	
  
an	
  appropriate	
  prioritization	
  of	
  resources	
  for	
  higher	
  risk	
  offenders.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   has	
   developed	
   detailed	
   guidance	
   on	
   the	
   classification	
   of	
   some	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   as	
   Sexually	
   Violent	
   Predators	
   (SVPs).	
   This	
   is	
   a	
   classification	
   required	
  
pursuant	
   to	
   Colorado	
   law.	
   Persons	
   so	
   classified	
   by	
   a	
   court	
   must	
   register	
   their	
  
address	
  and	
  are	
  subject	
  to	
   kinds	
  of	
  community	
  notification	
  beyond	
  what	
  is	
  required	
  
for	
   other	
   felony	
   sexual	
   offenders.	
   The	
   basic	
   procedure	
   for	
   classification	
   includes	
  
	
  

19	
  

determination	
   that	
   the	
   offender	
   is	
   someone	
   for	
   whom	
   the	
   classification	
   is	
   legally	
  
required	
   and	
   applying	
   a	
   locally	
   created	
   statistical	
   risk	
   assessment	
   instrument.	
  
However,	
  unlike	
  SVP	
  determination	
  in	
  other	
  states,	
  nothing	
  in	
  this	
  process	
  seems	
  to	
  
automatically	
  assign	
  more	
  intensive	
  supervision	
  or	
  treatment	
  for	
  persons	
  classified	
  
as	
   SVPs.	
   This	
   is	
   probably	
   because	
   the	
   SVP	
   classification	
   process	
   was	
   instituted	
   in	
  
response	
  to	
  a	
  federal	
  initiative	
  and	
  not	
  as	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  apply	
  the	
  Risk	
  principle.	
  In	
  
principle	
  the	
  SVP	
  classification	
  could	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  a	
  springboard	
  to	
  an	
  implementation	
  
of	
  the	
  Risk	
  principle	
  by	
  creating	
  policy	
  and	
  procedures	
  that	
  systematically	
  assigned	
  
more	
   resources	
   to	
   the	
   management	
   and	
   treatment	
   of	
   this	
   group.	
   Unfortunately	
  
there	
   are	
   significant	
   flaws	
   with	
   the	
   current	
   SVP	
   classification	
   methodology	
   that	
  
requires	
  amending	
  before	
  it	
  can	
  sensibly	
  be	
  used	
  in	
  such	
  a	
  way.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   has	
   also	
   developed	
   and	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   a	
  
protocol	
  to	
  allow	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  under	
  community	
  supervision	
  to	
  be	
  classified	
  as	
  
Low	
  Risk.	
  This	
  protocol	
  does	
  not,	
  however,	
  represent	
  an	
  accurate	
  attempt	
  to	
  apply	
  
the	
   Risk	
   Principle.	
   Rather,	
   it	
   appears	
   to	
   be	
   	
   an	
   effort	
   to	
   identify	
   extremely	
  
exceptional	
   cases.	
   The	
   description	
   implies	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   belief	
   in	
   the	
   concept	
   of	
   a	
   Low	
  
Risk	
   offender.	
   Although	
   the	
   protocol	
   includes	
   some	
   items	
   that	
   are	
   potentially	
  
relevant	
   to	
   risk,	
   only	
   someone	
   who	
   had	
   only	
   ever	
   committed	
   one	
   sex	
   offense	
   –	
   as	
  
identified	
   not	
   only	
   through	
   their	
   official	
   record	
   but	
   also	
   through	
   polygraph	
  
supported	
   self-­‐report	
   potentially	
   qualifies.	
   Additionally,	
   any	
   use	
   of	
   coercion	
   or	
  
threats	
  of	
  violence	
  excludes	
  someone	
  from	
  being	
  so	
  classified.	
  While	
  it	
  is	
  intuitively	
  
plausible	
  that	
  offenders	
  who	
  meet	
  these	
  criteria	
  will	
  indeed	
  represent	
  a	
  Low	
  Risk,	
  
many	
  offenders	
  who	
  do	
  not	
  these	
  criteria	
  will	
  also	
  in	
  fact	
  represent	
  a	
  Low	
  Risk	
  for	
  
sexual	
  recidivism.	
  More	
  generally,	
  this	
  protocol	
  does	
  not	
  provide	
  a	
  meaningful	
  basis	
  
for	
   triaging	
   offenders	
   to	
   different	
   levels	
   of	
   intervention	
   and	
   management	
   on	
   the	
  
basis	
  of	
  level	
  of	
  risk.	
  
	
  
In	
  sum,	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  do	
  not	
  mandate	
  or	
  suggest	
  following	
  the	
  Risk	
  
Principle,	
  nor	
  do	
  they	
  support	
  professionals	
  in	
  following	
  the	
  Risk	
  Principle.	
  Indeed	
  
several	
  of	
  the	
  guiding	
  principles	
  are	
  liable	
  to	
  deter	
  professionals	
  from	
  attempting	
  to	
  
	
  

20	
  

follow	
   the	
   Risk	
   Principle.	
   	
   As	
   a	
   consequence,	
   the	
   pattern	
   of	
   practice	
   that	
   is	
   naturally	
  
suggested	
  by	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  is	
  insufficiently	
  cost-­‐effective.	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  Need	
  Principle	
  
	
  
The	
   Need	
   Principle	
   means	
   that	
   correctional	
   services	
   are	
   more	
   effective	
   when	
  
interventions	
   target	
   the	
   social	
   and	
   psychological	
   factors	
   empirically	
   associated	
   with	
  
(and	
  predispose	
  to)	
  future	
  offending.	
  	
  
	
  
While	
   future	
   research	
   will	
   refine	
   our	
   knowledge	
   of	
   these	
   factors,	
   there	
   is	
   now	
   a	
  
sound	
  empirical	
  basis	
  for	
  identifying	
  a	
  fairly	
  comprehensive	
  set	
  of	
  psychological	
  risk	
  
factors.	
   This	
   is	
   research	
   is	
   summarized	
   in	
   the	
   meta-­‐analytic	
   review	
   described	
   by	
  
Mann	
   et	
   al	
   (2010).	
   Broadly	
   the	
   same	
   set	
   of	
   psychological	
   factors	
   have	
   been	
  
incorporated	
   into	
   available	
   instruments	
   such	
   as	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Treatment	
  
Intervention	
   and	
   Progress	
   Scale,	
   SOTIPS	
   (McGrath	
   et	
   al,	
   2012),	
   the	
   Violence	
   Risk	
  
Scale:	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Version,	
  VRS-­‐SO	
  (Olver	
  et	
  al,	
  2007),	
  STABLE-­‐2007	
  (Hanson	
  et	
  al,	
  
2007),	
   or	
   the	
   forensic	
   version	
   of	
   Structured	
   Risk	
   Assessment,	
   SRA-­‐FV	
   (Knight	
   &	
  
Thornton,	
  2007;	
  Thornton	
  &	
  Knight,	
  2013).	
  	
  
	
  
Applied	
  to	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  the	
  Need	
  principle	
  involves	
  (a)	
  systematically	
  assessing	
  
this	
   group	
   of	
   psychological	
   factors	
   and	
   (b)	
   utilizing	
   treatment	
   curricula	
   that	
  
systematically	
   prioritizes	
   addressing	
   the	
   psychological	
   risk	
   factors	
   that	
   are	
   relevant	
  
for	
   the	
   individual.	
   In	
   the	
   box	
   below	
   is	
   a	
   summary	
   of	
   the	
   most	
   established	
  
psychological	
  risk	
  factors.	
  
	
  
Sexual	
  Preoccupation	
  
Sexual	
  Preference	
  for	
  Children	
  
Sexual	
  Interest	
  in	
  Coercion/Violence	
  
Multiple	
  Paraphilias	
  
Offense-­‐supportive	
  attitudes	
  

	
  

21	
  

Emotional	
  Congruence	
  with	
  Children	
  
Difficulty	
  with	
  emotionally	
  close	
  romantic	
  relationships	
  with	
  adults	
  
Grievance	
  Thinking/Hostility	
  
General	
  self-­‐regulation	
  problems	
  
Poor	
  problem-­‐solving	
  
Resistance	
  to	
  Rules	
  and	
  Supervision	
  
Negative	
  Social	
  Influences	
  (associates	
  include	
  more	
  negative	
  than	
  prosocial	
  persons)	
  
	
  
As	
   currently	
   written	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   do	
   not	
   explicitly	
   identify	
   a	
  
comprehensive	
   set	
   of	
   relevant	
   psychological	
   risk	
   factors,	
   nor	
   do	
   they	
   explicitly	
  
mandate	
  or	
  even	
  support	
  that	
  treatment	
  services	
  programs	
  should	
  apply	
  the	
  Need	
  
principle	
  they	
  do	
  provide	
  some	
  good	
  indirect	
  support	
  for	
  the	
  Need	
  principle.	
  First,	
  
there	
   are	
   the	
   wide-­‐range	
   of	
   areas	
   required	
   to	
   be	
   assessed	
   in	
   Sex	
   Offense	
   Specific	
  
Evaluations,	
  including	
  recommending	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  need	
  assessment	
  instrument,	
  the	
  
STABLE-­‐2007.	
   Second,	
   there	
   are	
   specific	
   requirements	
   for	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offense	
   specific	
   treatment	
   (see	
   box	
   below);	
   these	
   are	
   consistent	
   with	
   empirically	
  
supported	
   psychological	
   risk	
   factors.	
   Further,	
   some	
   parts	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
  draw	
  particular	
  attention	
  to	
  specific	
  empirically	
  supported	
  psychological	
  
risk	
   factors,	
   for	
   example	
   relevant	
   kinds	
   of	
   sexual	
   deviance,	
   non-­‐compliance	
   with	
  
supervision,	
  and	
  pro-­‐offending	
  attitudes.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Additionally,	
   the	
   Need	
   Principle	
   is	
   somewhat	
   supported	
   in	
   the	
   requirements	
   for	
   the	
  
treatment	
  plan	
  required	
  by	
  treatment	
  providers	
  to	
  formulate.	
  
	
  	
  
The	
  treatment	
  plan	
  shall:	
  
	
  
•

Provide	
   for	
   the	
   protection	
   of	
   victims	
   and	
   potential	
   victims	
   and	
   not	
   cause	
   the	
  
victim(s)	
  to	
  have	
  unsafe	
  and	
  unwanted	
  contact	
  with	
  the	
  offender	
  

•

Address	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  ongoing	
  victim	
  input	
  (will	
  the	
  victim	
  be	
  involved,	
  in	
  what	
  
manner,	
  at	
  what	
  stage	
  of	
  treatment,	
  etc.)	
  

	
  

22	
  

•

Be	
  individualized	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  unique	
  needs	
  and	
  risks	
  of	
  the	
  offender	
  

•

Identify	
   the	
   issues	
   to	
   be	
   addressed,	
   the	
   planned	
   intervention	
   strategies,	
   and	
   the	
  
goals	
  of	
  treatment	
  

•

Define	
  expectations	
  of	
  the	
  offender,	
  his/her	
  family	
  (when	
  possible),	
  and	
  support	
  
systems	
  

	
  
The	
  third	
  bullet	
  above	
  could	
  be	
  interpreted	
  as	
  encouraging	
  treatment	
  providers	
  to	
  
adhere	
  to	
  the	
  Need	
  principle.	
  However,	
  it	
  doesn’t	
  mandate	
  it,	
  and	
  the	
  reader	
  will	
  not	
  
necessarily	
  interpret	
  “risks	
  of	
  the	
  individual”	
  as	
  “empirically	
  supported	
  risk	
  factors”.	
  
	
  
Mandated	
  Content	
  of	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Specific	
  Treatment	
  
	
  
1.	
  Hold	
  offenders	
  accountable	
  for	
  their	
  behavior	
  and	
  assist	
  them	
  in	
  maintaining	
  
their	
  accountability;	
  
2.	
  Require	
  offenders	
  to	
  complete	
  a	
  full	
  sex	
  history	
  disclosure	
  and	
  to	
  disclose	
  all	
  
current	
  sex	
  offending	
  behaviors;	
  
3.	
  Reduce	
  offenders’	
  denial	
  and	
  defensiveness;	
  
4.	
  Decrease	
  and/or	
  manage	
  offenders’	
  deviant	
  sexual	
  urges	
  and	
  recurrent	
  
deviant	
  fantasies;	
  
5.	
  Educate	
  offenders	
  and	
  individuals	
  who	
  are	
  identified	
  as	
  the	
  offenders’	
  
support	
  systems	
  about	
  the	
  potential	
  for	
  re-­‐offending	
  and	
  an	
  offender’s	
  
specific	
  risk	
  factors,	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  requiring	
  an	
  offender	
  to	
  disclose	
  critical	
  
issues	
  and	
  current	
  risk	
  factors;	
  
6.	
  Teach	
  offenders	
  self-­‐management	
  methods	
  to	
  avoid	
  a	
  sexual	
  re-­‐offense;	
  
7.	
  Identify	
  and	
  treat	
  the	
  offenders’	
  thoughts,	
  emotions,	
  and	
  behaviors	
  that	
  
facilitate	
  sexual	
  re-­‐offenses	
  or	
  other	
  victimizing	
  or	
  assaultive	
  behaviors;	
  
8.	
  Identify	
  and	
  treat	
  offenders’	
  cognitive	
  distortions;	
  
9.	
  Educate	
  offenders	
  about	
  non-­‐abusive,	
  adaptive,	
  legal,	
  and	
  pro-­‐social	
  sexual	
  
functioning;	
  
10.	
  Educate	
  offenders	
  about	
  the	
  impact	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending	
  upon	
  victims,	
  their	
  

	
  

23	
  

families,	
  and	
  the	
  community;	
  
11.	
  Provide	
  offenders	
  with	
  training	
  in	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  skills	
  needed	
  to	
  
achieve	
  sensitivity	
  and	
  empathy	
  with	
  victims;	
  
12.	
  Provide	
  offenders	
  with	
  guidance	
  to	
  prepare,	
  when	
  applicable,	
  written	
  
explanation	
  or	
  clarification	
  for	
  the	
  victim(s)	
  that	
  meets	
  the	
  goals	
  of:	
  
establishing	
  full	
  perpetrator	
  responsibility,	
  empowering	
  the	
  victim,	
  and	
  
promoting	
  emotional	
  and	
  financial	
  restitution	
  for	
  the	
  victim(s);	
  
13.	
  Identify	
  and	
  treat	
  offenders’	
  personality	
  traits	
  and	
  deficits	
  that	
  are	
  related	
  to	
  
their	
  potential	
  for	
  re-­‐offending;	
  
14.	
  Identify	
  and	
  treat	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  trauma	
  and	
  past	
  victimization	
  of	
  offenders	
  as	
  
factors	
  in	
  their	
  potential	
  for	
  re-­‐offending	
  (It	
  is	
  essential	
  that	
  offenders	
  be	
  
prevented	
  from	
  assuming	
  a	
  victim	
  stance	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  diminish	
  responsibility	
  
for	
  their	
  actions);	
  
15.	
  Identify	
  deficits	
  and	
  strengthen	
  offenders’	
  social	
  and	
  relationship	
  skills,	
  
where	
  applicable;	
  
16.	
  Require	
  offenders	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  written	
  plan	
  for	
  preventing	
  a	
  re-­‐offense;	
  the	
  
plan	
  should	
  identify	
  antecedent	
  thoughts,	
  feelings,	
  circumstances,	
  and	
  
behaviors	
  associated	
  with	
  sexual	
  offenses;	
  
17.	
  Provide	
  treatment	
  or	
  referrals	
  for	
  offenders	
  with	
  co-­‐existing	
  treatment	
  needs	
  
such	
  as	
  medical,	
  pharmacological,	
  psychiatric	
  needs,	
  substance	
  abuse,	
  
domestic	
  violence	
  issues,	
  or	
  disabilities;	
  
18.	
  Maintain	
  communication	
  with	
  other	
  significant	
  persons	
  in	
  offenders’	
  support	
  
systems	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  possible	
  to	
  assist	
  in	
  meeting	
  treatment	
  goals;	
  
19.	
  Evaluate	
  existing	
  treatment	
  needs	
  based	
  on	
  developmental	
  or	
  physical	
  
disabilities,	
  cultural,	
  language,	
  sexual	
  orientation,	
  and	
  gender	
  identity	
  that	
  
may	
  require	
  different	
  treatment	
  arrangements;	
  
20.	
  If	
  clinically	
  indicated,	
  every	
  effort	
  should	
  be	
  made	
  to	
  provide	
  services	
  in	
  the	
  
client’s	
  primary	
  language	
  using	
  professional	
  interpretive	
  and	
  translation	
  
resources	
  as	
  needed;	
  
21.	
  Identify	
  and	
  address	
  issues	
  of	
  gender	
  role	
  socialization;	
  and,	
  

	
  

24	
  

22.	
  Identify	
  and	
  treat	
  issues	
  of	
  anger,	
  power,	
  and	
  control.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
In	
   relation	
   to	
   the	
   mandated	
   content	
   of	
   treatment,	
   of	
   concern	
   is	
   the	
   emphasis	
   on	
  
factors	
   that	
   are	
   not	
   empirically	
   supported	
   as	
   related	
   to	
   sexual	
   recidivism.	
   This	
  
includes	
   the	
   strong	
   emphasis	
   on	
   targeting	
   denial	
   and	
   minimization	
   and	
   on	
  
developing	
  empathy	
  for	
  past	
  victims.	
  Targeting	
  the	
  former	
  (denial)	
  is	
  often	
  useful	
  in	
  
enabling	
  a	
  better	
  identification	
  of	
  risk	
  factors	
  and	
  treatment	
  compliance.	
  However,	
  
full	
   disclosure	
   is	
   not	
   necessary	
   for	
   the	
   identification	
   of	
   risk	
   factors	
   and	
   excessive	
  
time	
   allocated	
   to	
   seeking	
   it	
   can	
   unbalance	
   a	
   treatment	
   program,	
   leaving	
   too	
   little	
  
attention	
   on	
   treating	
   psychological	
   risk	
   factors.	
   Helping	
   the	
   offender	
   to	
   develop	
  
empathy	
  for	
  past	
  victims	
  could	
  be	
  a	
  worthwhile	
  activity	
  in	
  its	
  own	
  right.	
  However,	
  
the	
   degree	
   to	
   which	
   offenders	
   appear	
   to	
   express	
   empathy	
   for	
   past	
   victims	
   is	
  
generally	
  unrelated	
  to	
  how	
  likely	
  they	
  are	
  to	
  re-­‐offend	
  so	
  working	
  on	
  empathy	
  for	
  
past	
   victims	
   does	
   not	
   contribute	
   to	
   following	
   the	
   Need	
   principle	
   whereas	
   working	
  
on	
   being	
   more	
   empathic	
   and	
   less	
   callous	
   in	
   general	
   is	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   Need	
  
principle.	
  
	
  
A	
  particular	
  hazard	
  with	
  how	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  written	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  
may	
   inadvertently	
   encourage	
   treatment	
   providers	
   to	
   run	
   groups	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
  
routinely	
   treks	
   through	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   required	
   content	
   areas	
   without	
   regard	
   to	
   how	
  
applicable	
   they	
   are	
   to	
   the	
   individual	
   offender.	
   	
   They	
   do	
   not	
   adequately	
   foster	
   an	
  
individualized	
  approach	
  to	
  treatment	
  and	
  management.	
  
	
  
Thus,	
  as	
  currently	
  written,	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  provide	
  some	
  good	
  support	
  
for	
  the	
  Need	
  principle	
  but	
  also	
  present	
  some	
  barriers	
  to	
  applying	
  the	
  Need	
  principle	
  
in	
  an	
  individualized	
  way.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

25	
  

The	
  Responsivity	
  Principle	
  
	
  
The	
   Responsivity	
   principle	
   means	
   that	
   correctional	
   services	
   are	
   more	
   effective	
  
when	
   treatment	
   and	
   management	
   services	
   use	
   methods	
   which	
   are	
   generally	
   more	
  
effective	
   with	
   offenders	
   and	
   when	
   these	
   services	
   are	
   individualized	
   in	
   response	
   to	
  
the	
  culture,	
  learning	
  style,	
  cognitive	
  abilities,	
  etc.	
  of	
  the	
  individual.	
  
	
  
The	
  Responsivity	
  Principle	
  is	
  succinctly	
  summarized,	
  by	
  Andrews	
  and	
  Bonta	
  (2006)	
  
as	
   follows:	
   “Treatment	
   should	
   use	
   methods	
   and	
   be	
   delivered	
   in	
   such	
   a	
   way	
   as	
   to	
  
maximize	
  participants’	
  ability	
  to	
  learn.	
  To	
  achieve	
  this,	
  treatment	
  programs	
  should	
  
selectively	
   employ	
   methods	
   that	
   have	
   generally	
   been	
   shown	
   to	
   work.	
   Further,	
  
participants’	
  response	
  to	
  treatment	
  will	
  be	
  enhanced	
  by	
  effortful	
  attendance	
  to	
  their	
  
individual	
  learning	
  style,	
  abilities,	
  and	
  culture”	
  
	
  
The	
  idea	
  of	
  effective	
  methods	
  and	
  delivery	
  is	
  multi-­‐faceted.	
  Research	
  has	
  identified	
  
two	
   kinds	
   of	
   methods	
   that	
   are	
   generally	
   effective:	
   cognitive-­‐behavioral	
   methods	
  
such	
   as	
   cognitive	
   restructuring,	
   prosocial	
   modeling,	
   and	
   structured	
   skill	
  
development	
   (McGuire,	
   2002;	
   Lipton	
   et	
   al,	
   2002)	
   coupled	
   with	
   hierarchical	
  
therapeutic	
  communities	
  (Lipton	
  et	
  al.,	
  2002).	
  	
  
	
  
Regardless	
   of	
   the	
   general	
   therapeutic	
   method,	
   therapist	
   micro-­‐behaviors,	
  
sometimes	
   called	
   ‘therapist	
   style’	
   significantly	
   affect	
   how	
   well	
   treatment	
  
participants	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  learn	
  from	
  any	
  method.	
  	
  These	
  include	
  nurturing	
  behaviors	
  
like	
  therapists	
  communicating	
  warmth	
  and	
  accurate	
  empathy,	
  stimulating	
  behaviors	
  
such	
   as	
   using	
   reflections	
   and	
   Socratic	
   questions	
   to	
   encourage	
   cognitive	
   and	
  
emotional	
  processing	
  of	
  material,	
  and	
  shaping	
  behaviors	
  such	
  as	
  systematic	
  use	
  of	
  
praise	
   to	
   encourage	
   small	
   changes	
   towards	
   healthier	
   functioning.	
   These	
   general	
  
factors	
   are	
   known	
   to	
   be	
   influential	
   in	
   general	
   psychotherapy	
   and	
   have	
   been	
  
demonstrated	
  to	
  be	
  equally	
  important	
  in	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment	
  (Marshall,	
  2005;	
  
Serran	
  &	
  Marshall,	
  2010).	
  	
  

	
  

26	
  

	
  
Where	
   group	
   psychotherapy	
   is	
   the	
   predominant	
   modality,	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   therapist	
  
style,	
  the	
  overall	
  quality	
  of	
  the	
  group	
  environment	
  becomes	
  profoundly	
  important.	
  
The	
   effectiveness	
   of	
   group	
   therapy	
   and	
   the	
   degree	
   to	
   which	
   it	
   inculcates	
   change	
  
depends	
   on	
   groups	
   being	
   run	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
   produces	
   cohesiveness,	
   appropriate	
  
group	
   norms	
   and	
   the	
   instillation	
   of	
   hope	
   for	
   the	
   future	
   (Belfer	
   &	
   Levendusky,	
   1985;	
  
Yalom,	
  1975).	
  Development	
  of	
  a	
  cohesive	
  group	
  leads	
  to	
  higher	
  engagement	
  (Yalom,	
  
1975).	
   A	
   program	
   of	
   research	
   by	
   Beech	
   and	
   colleagues	
   (e.g.,	
   Beech	
   &	
   Fordham,	
  
1997;	
   Beech	
   &	
   Hamilton-­‐Giachritsis	
   (2005)	
   has	
   demonstrated	
   that	
   the	
   speed	
   of	
  
change	
   in	
   individual	
   treatment	
   participants	
   was	
   greater	
   when	
   they	
   experienced	
  
their	
  treatment	
  group	
  as	
  cohesive,	
  well-­‐organized	
  and	
  well-­‐led;	
  the	
  open	
  expression	
  
of	
   feelings	
   was	
   encouraged,	
   and	
   a	
   sense	
   of	
   group	
   responsibility	
   and	
   hope	
   was	
  
instilled	
  in	
  members.	
  In	
  contrast,	
  over-­‐controlling	
  group	
  leaders	
  had	
  a	
  detrimental	
  
effect	
  upon	
  group	
  climate.	
  
	
  
A	
  thread	
  running	
  through	
  many	
  of	
  these	
  research	
  findings	
  is	
  that	
  effective	
  programs	
  
need	
  to	
  be	
  respectful	
  of	
  treatment	
  participants’	
  sense	
  of	
  autonomy.	
  While	
  staff	
  that	
  
work	
  with	
  offenders	
  have	
  to	
  exercise	
  authority	
  to	
  interrupt	
  antisocial	
  behavior	
  and	
  
create	
   a	
   safe	
   environment,	
   little	
   internal	
   motivation	
   for	
   change	
   will	
   be	
   created	
   if	
  
participants	
  feel	
  they	
  are	
  being	
  brutally	
  coerced	
  into	
  compliance	
  (Miller	
  &	
  Rollnick,	
  
2012).	
   Treatment	
   needs	
   to	
   feel	
   like	
   respectful	
   help	
   rather	
   than	
   bullying.	
  
Unsurprisingly	
  then,	
  voluntary	
  programs	
  are	
  more	
  effective	
  at	
  reducing	
  recidivism,	
  
and	
   the	
   more	
   treatment	
   participation	
   is	
   coerced	
   the	
   less	
   it	
   has	
   an	
   effect	
   upon	
  
recidivism	
  (Parhar	
  et	
  al.,	
  2008).	
  
	
  
It	
  is	
  always	
  challenging	
  for	
  therapists	
  and	
  supervising	
  officers	
  working	
  with	
  sexual	
  
offenders	
   to	
   avoid	
   falling	
   into	
   a	
   hostile	
   and	
   punitive	
   attitude	
   towards	
   sexual	
  
offenders.	
   Like	
   members	
   of	
   the	
   general	
   public,	
   therapists	
   and	
   supervising	
   officers	
  
naturally	
  react	
  to	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  with	
  some	
  mixture	
  of	
  fear,	
  anger	
  and	
  repugnance	
  
and	
   easily	
   apply	
   these	
   feelings	
   to	
   the	
   people	
   who	
   commit	
   these	
   offenses.	
   To	
   treat	
  
sexual	
  offenders	
  effectively,	
  however,	
  therapists	
  need	
  to	
  learn	
  how	
  to	
  suspend	
  these	
  
	
  

27	
  

natural	
   feelings,	
   and	
   to	
   behave	
   towards	
   offenders	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
   is	
   experienced	
   by	
  
the	
   offenders	
   as	
   warm,	
   empathic	
   and	
   respectful.	
   If	
   they	
   fail	
   to	
   do	
   this	
   they	
   are	
   liable	
  
to	
  seriously	
  impair	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  effectively	
  elicit	
  change	
  and	
  reduce	
  risk.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  partially	
  support	
  the	
  Responsivity	
  principle.	
  The	
  third	
  
bullet	
  from	
  the	
  requirements	
  for	
  the	
  treatment	
  plan	
  –	
  “Be	
  individualized	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  
unique	
  needs	
  and	
  risks	
  of	
  the	
  offender”	
  may	
  be	
  interpreted	
  as	
  supporting	
  the	
  notion	
  
of	
  individualizing	
  the	
  delivery	
  of	
  treatment	
  in	
  accord	
  with	
  the	
  learning	
  style,	
  culture	
  
etc.	
  of	
  the	
  offender.	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  indicate	
  that	
  offenders	
  
should	
   be	
   treated	
   with	
   dignity	
   and	
   respect.	
   Further,	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
  
have	
   specific	
   prescriptions	
   for	
   lower	
   functioning	
   offenders.	
   However,	
   the	
   Standards	
  
and	
   Guidelines	
   would	
   probably	
   be	
   interpreted	
   as	
   supporting	
   the	
   Responsivity	
  
principle	
  only	
  by	
  someone	
  who	
  was	
  already	
  familiar	
  with	
  this	
  principle.	
  In	
  effect,	
  the	
  
quoted	
   passage	
   gives	
   therapists	
   permission	
   to	
   follow	
   the	
   principle	
   but	
   does	
   not	
  
affirmatively	
  encourage	
  or	
  require	
  it.	
  
	
  
Additionally,	
   some	
   parts	
   of	
   the	
   Guiding	
   Principles	
   seem	
   liable	
   to	
   undermine	
  
following	
   the	
   Responsivity	
   principle.	
   There	
   is	
   a	
   recurrent	
   and	
   strong	
   emphasis	
   on	
  
the	
   negative	
   and	
   controlling	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   supervision	
   and	
   treatment	
   process,	
   a	
  
deliberate	
   emphasis	
   on	
   accountability	
   and	
   compliance	
   without	
   a	
   corresponding	
  
emphasis	
   on	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   protective	
   factors	
   or	
   strengths	
   or	
   therapeutic	
  
engagement.	
   These	
   features	
   are	
   likely	
   to	
   produce	
   a	
   climate	
   of	
   managing	
   offenders	
  
through	
   fear	
   and	
   demands	
   for	
   absolute	
   submission	
   and	
   compliance.	
   This	
   is	
   likely	
   to	
  
impede	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  internal	
  controls	
  and	
  internal	
  motivation.	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  Integrity	
  Principle	
  
	
  
The	
  Integrity	
  principle	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  degree	
  to	
  which	
  practice	
  follows	
  principle.	
  The	
  
authors	
   of	
   the	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   principles	
   have	
   shown	
   that	
   the	
   practical	
  
value	
  of	
  following	
  these	
  principles	
  depends	
  on	
  the	
  care	
  and	
  conscientiousness	
  with	
  

	
  

28	
  

which	
   they	
   are	
   applied	
   in	
   practice.	
   Essentially	
   then,	
   the	
   Integrity	
   principle	
   is	
   a	
  
matter	
  of	
  the	
  degree	
  to	
  which	
  routine	
  practice	
  under	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  
implements	
   the	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   principles.	
   We	
   investigated	
   this	
   by	
  
attempting	
   to	
   understand	
   the	
   experience	
   of	
   different	
   interest	
   groups	
   impacted	
   by	
  
the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   through	
   a	
   series	
   of	
   focus	
   groups.	
   Specifically,	
   we	
  
obtained	
   input	
   from	
   groups	
   who	
   are	
   more	
   directly	
   subject	
   to	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
   such	
   as	
   Supervising	
   Officers,	
   Treatment	
   Providers,	
   Evaluators,	
   and	
  
Polygraph	
  Examiners,	
  and	
  also	
  from	
  interested	
  parties	
  who	
  may	
  be	
  highly	
  affected	
  
by	
   the	
   operation	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   such	
   as	
   Prosecutors,	
   Victim	
  
advocates	
   and	
   Victim	
   therapists,	
   Defense	
   Attorneys	
   and	
   Offender	
   Advocates.	
   We	
  
also	
   spoke	
   with	
   SOMB	
   staff.	
   Detailed	
   findings	
   are	
   presented	
   in	
   Appendix	
   O.	
  
Commendably,	
   the	
   Integrity	
   principle	
   is	
   an	
   area	
   that	
   the	
   Colorado	
   SOMB	
   has	
  
recently	
   invested	
   itself	
   	
   in.	
   They	
   have	
   carried	
   out	
   their	
   own	
   focus	
   groups,	
   and	
  
demonstrated	
   an	
   interest	
   in	
   working	
   out	
   better	
   ways	
   to	
   see	
   that	
   the	
   intent	
   of	
   the	
  
Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  is	
  implemented	
  in	
  practice.	
  
	
  
A	
   recurrent	
   theme	
   from	
   the	
   focus	
   groups	
   was	
   that	
   the	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
  do	
  not	
  adequately	
  support	
  treatment	
  and	
  management	
  anchored	
  in	
   the	
  
Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   Principles.	
   The	
   different	
   groups	
   we	
   obtained	
   input	
   from	
  
consistently	
  expressed	
  this	
  idea.	
  In	
  particular,	
  they	
  reported	
  that	
  the	
  Risk	
  principle	
  
wasn’t	
  followed:	
  supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  decisions	
  are	
  often	
  not	
  risk-­‐based,	
  and	
  
the	
   intensity	
   of	
   treatment	
   and	
   management	
   is	
   not	
   responsive	
   to	
   the	
   level	
   of	
   risk.	
  
They	
  reported	
  that	
  the	
  Need	
  principle	
  is	
  in	
  part	
  not	
  being	
  followed	
  in	
  that	
  treatment	
  
is	
   not	
   effectively	
   individualized	
   to	
   target	
   the	
   offender’s	
   criminogenic	
   needs.	
   They	
  
report	
   that	
   the	
   Responsivity	
   principle	
   is	
   not	
   being	
   followed	
   in	
   that	
   suspiciousness	
  
and	
   negative	
   attitudes	
   toward	
   the	
   offenders	
   under	
   supervision	
   undermines	
   the	
  
ability	
   of	
   therapists	
   to	
   engage	
   offenders	
   in	
   the	
   treatment	
   process	
   and	
   undermines	
  
the	
  ability	
  of	
  supervising	
  officers	
  and	
  therapists	
  to	
  motivate	
  offenders.	
  	
  Indeed	
  we	
  
were	
  advised	
  that	
  the	
  supervision	
  process	
  is	
  experienced	
  as	
  so	
  oppressive	
  that	
  some	
  
offenders	
  prefer	
  to	
  spend	
  the	
  whole	
  of	
  their	
  sentence	
  in	
  prison	
  so	
  as	
  to	
  avoid	
  what	
  
they	
  saw	
  as	
  impossible	
  behavioral	
  and	
  financial	
  demands.	
  Relatedly,	
  the	
  SOMB	
  was	
  
	
  

29	
  

seen	
   as	
   over-­‐emphasizing	
   external	
   control	
   of	
   offenders	
   while	
   giving	
   insufficient	
  
attention	
   to	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   internal	
   protective	
   factors,	
   strengths	
   and	
   healthy	
  
functioning.	
  	
  
	
  
A	
  recurrent	
  meta-­‐comment	
  was	
  that	
  in	
  failing	
  to	
  follow	
  the	
  Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
  
principles	
   in	
   practice	
   the	
   SOMB	
   supported	
   system	
   was	
   inefficient	
   and	
   unnecessarily	
  
costly.	
  
	
  
It	
  should	
  be	
  noted	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  complete	
  control	
  over	
  how	
  sexual	
  
offenders	
  are	
  managed	
  in	
  Colorado.	
  Judges	
  or	
  the	
  parole	
  board,	
  neither	
  of	
  whom	
  are	
  
subject	
  to	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines,	
  may	
  make	
  decisions	
  that	
  constrain	
  practice.	
  
On	
   the	
   other	
   hand,	
   the	
   problems	
   observed	
   in	
   practice	
   were	
   often	
   seen	
   by	
   our	
  
respondents	
   as	
   manifesting	
   from	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   and	
   they	
   are	
  
consistent	
   with	
   our	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   limitations	
   of	
   the	
   current	
   version	
   of	
   this	
  
document.	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

30	
  

	
  

Special	
  Issues	
  in	
  the	
  Standards	
  &	
  Guidelines	
  	
  
	
  
Continuity	
  of	
  Information	
  and	
  Services	
  
	
  
The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   clearly	
   require	
   sharing	
   of	
   information	
   within	
   a	
  
collaborative	
  multi-­‐disciplinary	
  team.	
  In	
  our	
  earlier	
  evaluation	
  of	
  Colorado’s	
  prison	
  
treatment	
   program	
   we	
   noted	
   that	
   men	
   placed	
   in	
   prison	
   following	
   some	
   technical	
  
revocation	
   were	
   required	
   to	
   complete	
   the	
   full	
   sexual	
   offender	
   treatment	
   program	
  
without	
   regard	
   to	
   the	
   work	
   they	
   had	
   done	
   in	
   the	
   community.	
   Earlier	
   polygraph	
  
assisted	
   sexual	
   histories	
   completed	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   would	
   be	
   discounted	
   for	
  
example,	
   and	
   much	
   of	
   the	
   basic	
   curriculum	
   they	
   had	
   already	
   worked	
   on	
   it	
   the	
  
community	
   would	
   then	
   be	
   repeated.	
   Somewhat	
   similarly	
   we	
   now	
   were	
   told	
   that	
  
offenders	
   who	
   had	
   completed	
   the	
   treatment	
   program	
   in	
   prison	
   were	
   required	
   to	
  
again	
  complete	
  essentially	
  the	
  same	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  community.	
  
	
  
This	
   clearly	
   represents	
   a	
   failure	
   to	
   provide	
   effective	
   continuity	
   of	
   services	
   and	
  
involves	
  a	
  significant	
  waste	
  of	
  public	
  money.	
  In	
  part	
  the	
  underlying	
  problem	
  seemed	
  
to	
  be	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  trust	
  in	
  and	
  respect	
  for	
  work	
  done	
  by	
  other	
  providers.	
  
	
  
Relatedly,	
   there	
   is	
   often	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   effective	
   collaboration	
   between	
   supervising	
  
officers	
   and	
   treatment	
   providers.	
   Treatment	
   providers	
   describe	
   themselves	
   as	
  
feeling	
  compelled	
  to	
  accede	
  to	
  what	
  supervising	
  officers	
  wanted,	
  largely	
  for	
  fear	
  of	
  
not	
   receiving	
   future	
   work	
   from	
   these	
   supervisors.	
   As	
   a	
   consequence	
   they	
   would	
  
deliver	
  treatment	
  that	
  they	
  knew	
  to	
  be	
  unnecessary,	
  thus	
  wasting	
  public	
  money.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
   appears	
   to	
   reflect	
   supervising	
   officers	
   having	
   bought	
   into	
   the	
   “no	
   cure,	
  
perpetually	
   dangerous	
   offender”	
   image	
   conveyed	
   in	
   the	
   Guiding	
   Principles.	
   If	
  
supervising	
  officers	
  are	
  to	
  permit	
  treatment	
  providers	
  to	
  follow	
  the	
  risk	
  principle	
  in	
  

	
  

31	
  

practice	
   they	
   will	
   need	
   to	
   be	
   re-­‐educated	
   by	
   the	
   SOMB	
   into	
   a	
   more	
   nuanced	
   view	
   of	
  
sexual	
  offender	
  risk.	
  
	
  

Sexually	
  Violent	
  Predator	
  (SVP)	
  Assessment	
  
	
  
The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   prescribe	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   a	
   specific	
   protocol	
   for	
  
determining	
   whether	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   should	
   be	
   categorized	
   as	
   SVPs.	
   The	
  
consequences	
  of	
  this	
  categorization	
  is	
  to	
  require	
  the	
  offender	
  to	
  notify	
  the	
  police	
  of	
  
his	
  address	
  and	
  for	
  information	
  about	
  the	
  offender	
  to	
  be	
  placed	
  on	
  a	
  public	
  website.	
  
The	
   designation	
   does	
   not	
   necessarily	
   bring	
   with	
   it	
   additional	
   resources	
   to	
   manage	
  
the	
  offender.	
  
	
  
The	
   final	
   determination	
   of	
   whether	
   someone	
   is	
   an	
   SVP	
   is	
   made	
   by	
   the	
   court	
   or	
   by	
  
the	
   parole	
   board.	
   This	
   decision	
   is	
   informed	
   by	
   a	
   package	
   of	
   information	
   that	
  
includes	
   the	
   mental	
   health	
   sex	
   offense	
   specific	
   evaluation,	
   the	
   PSIR	
   and	
   a	
   Sexually	
  
Violent	
   Predator	
   Assessment	
   Screening	
   Instrument	
   (SVPASI).	
   This	
   package	
   is	
  
assembled	
   by	
   	
   probation	
   officers	
   and	
   SOMB-­‐approved	
   evaluators	
   or	
   	
   SVP-­‐trained	
  
DOC	
   staff	
   or	
   contractors	
   	
   on	
   contractors	
   on	
   men	
   and	
   women	
   who	
   qualify	
   for	
  
screening.	
   The	
   SVPASI	
   involves	
   determining	
   whether	
   the	
   offender	
   has	
   committed	
  
qualifying	
  offenses	
  and	
  completion	
  of	
  a	
  locally	
  developed	
  actuarial	
  instrument	
  (the	
  
Sex	
  Offender	
  Risk	
  Scale	
  –	
  SORS).	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  overall	
  protocol	
  appears	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  set	
  of	
  information.	
  There	
  
are,	
  however,	
  some	
  problematic	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  SORS.	
  In	
  its	
  current,	
  revised,	
  version	
  
the	
  SORS	
  has	
  five	
  items	
  	
  
	
  
SORS	
  Items	
  
Item	
  1:	
  Age	
  of	
  offender	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  index	
  offense.	
  
Score	
  2	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  was	
  age	
  25	
  or	
  under,	
  score	
  1	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  was	
  between	
  the	
  ages	
  of	
  
26	
  and	
  35,	
  or	
  score	
  0	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  was	
  over	
  the	
  age	
  of	
  35.	
  

	
  

32	
  

	
  

Item	
  2:	
  The	
  offender	
  was	
  known	
  to	
  the	
  victim.	
  	
  
Two	
  points	
  are	
  scored	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  was	
  known	
  to	
  any	
  victim	
  

Item	
  3:	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  been	
  revoked	
  from	
  community	
  supervision	
  as	
  an	
  
adult	
  2	
  or	
  more	
  times	
  in	
  the	
  past.	
  
One	
  point	
  is	
  scored	
  if	
  this	
  applies;	
  zero	
  is	
  scored	
  otherwise	
  

	
  
Item	
  4:	
  The	
  offender	
  had	
  NOT	
  graduated	
  from	
  high	
  school	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  
arrest.	
  
Score	
  1	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  did	
  not	
  graduate,	
  and	
  score	
  0	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  did	
  graduate	
  from	
  high	
  
school	
  OR	
  did	
  attend	
  a	
  post	
  secondary	
  program	
  after	
  receiving	
  their	
  GED.	
  
	
  

Item	
  5:	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  prior	
  adult	
  convictions	
  
This	
  includes	
  adult	
  felony	
  and	
  misdemeanor	
  convictions	
  and	
  deferred	
  judgments	
  and	
  
sentences	
  that	
  occurred	
  prior	
  to	
  the	
  index	
  sex	
  offense.	
  Misdemeanor	
  traffic	
  convictions	
  
such	
  as	
  DUI	
  are	
  also	
  included,	
  but	
  lesser	
  traffic	
  citations	
  and	
  adjudications	
  as	
  a	
  juvenile	
  are	
  
not.	
  	
  
	
  
Item	
  6:	
  The	
  offender	
  moved	
  2	
  or	
  more	
  times	
  in	
  the	
  2	
  years	
  prior	
  to	
  arrest	
  for	
  the	
  
actual	
  index/current	
  offense.	
  
If	
  the	
  offender	
  has	
  resided	
  at	
  3	
  or	
  more	
  different	
  addresses	
  during	
  the	
  two	
  years	
  prior	
  to	
  
arrest	
  for	
  the	
  current	
  offense	
  2	
  points	
  are	
  scored;	
  otherwise	
  score	
  0.	
  
	
  
A	
  score	
  of	
  8	
  is	
  taken	
  as	
  designating	
  High	
  Risk	
  and	
  qualifies	
  the	
  person	
  for	
  designation	
  as	
  an	
  
SVP	
  

	
  
According	
   to	
   the	
   2010	
   SVPASI	
   handbook	
   the	
   current	
   revision	
   of	
   the	
   scale	
   was	
  
developed	
  by	
  a	
  statistical	
  analysis	
  of	
  data	
  relating	
  to	
  a	
  sample	
  originally	
  composed	
  
from	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   under	
   community	
   supervision	
   and	
   offenders	
   in	
   prison	
   from	
  
December	
  1996	
  to	
  November	
  1997.	
  The	
  sample	
  was	
  non-­‐random	
  in	
  that	
  particular	
  
community	
  areas	
  were	
  involved	
  while	
  the	
  prison	
  sample	
  were	
  participating	
  in	
  the	
  

	
  

33	
  

prison	
   sex	
   offender	
   treatment	
   program.	
   Of	
   the	
   494	
   original	
   subjects,	
   218	
   were	
   on	
  
probation,	
   47	
   on	
   parole	
   and	
   229	
   were	
   in	
   prison.	
   For	
   the	
   new	
   analysis	
   the	
   sample	
  
was	
   comprised	
   of	
   the	
   offenders	
   who	
   were	
   located	
   and	
   at	
   risk	
   in	
   the	
   community.	
  
Those	
   who	
   were	
   not	
   located	
   in	
   the	
   State	
   of	
   Colorado	
   and	
   those	
   who	
   had	
   been	
  
incarcerated	
   continuously	
   since	
   the	
   time	
   of	
   the	
   original	
   1998	
   data	
   collection	
   were	
  
excluded	
  from	
  the	
  original	
  sample.	
  Additionally,	
  those	
  who	
  had	
  less	
  than	
  five	
  years	
  
at	
   risk	
   were	
   excluded,	
   leaving	
   a	
   sample	
   of	
   371.	
   Of	
   these	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   analysis	
  
almost	
  one	
  quarter	
  (24.3%)	
  of	
  the	
  sample	
  was	
  rearrested	
  for	
  a	
  sexual	
  crime	
  within	
  
five	
   years.	
   Preliminary	
   statistical	
   analysis	
   of	
   an	
   unspecified	
   pool	
   of	
   200	
   potential	
  
risk	
   factors	
   identified	
   those	
   associated	
   with	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   and	
   then	
   logistic	
  
regression	
  was	
  applied	
  to	
  reduce	
  the	
  pool	
  to	
  those	
  that	
  held	
  the	
  greatest	
  predictive	
  
power	
   when	
   used	
   in	
   combination	
   with	
   one	
   another	
   and	
   to	
   develop	
   weights	
   for	
   each	
  
factor.	
   Six	
   items	
   were	
   identified	
   for	
   inclusion	
   in	
   the	
   final	
   scale.	
   The	
   handbook	
  
reports	
  the	
  scale	
  as	
  having	
  an	
  AUC	
  of	
  0.67.	
  	
  Table	
  3	
  then	
  reports	
  the	
  minimum	
  score	
  
on	
   the	
   scale	
   as	
   being	
   associated	
   with	
   a	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   rate	
   of	
   24.3%	
   with	
   risk	
  
then	
   risking	
   slightly	
   as	
   scores	
   increase	
   until	
   it	
   rises	
   increasingly	
   sharply	
   from	
   a	
  
score	
   of	
   6	
   (34.7%	
   recidivism),	
   and	
   score	
   of	
   7	
   (50.0%	
   recidivism),	
   a	
   score	
   of	
   8	
  
(60.0%	
  recidivism)	
  and	
  a	
  score	
  of	
  9	
  (66.7%	
  recidivism).	
  
	
  
There	
   are	
   several	
   significant	
   problems	
   with	
   this	
   process	
   that	
   raise	
   real	
   questions	
   as	
  
to	
  whether	
  this	
  instrument	
  should	
  be	
  used	
  in	
  making	
  decisions	
  about	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
1)	
   The	
   original	
   sample	
   is	
   unrepresentative.	
   It	
   is	
   a	
   combination	
   of	
   ill-­‐defined	
  
convenience	
   samples.	
   It	
   is	
   not	
   clear	
   what	
   population	
   they	
   could	
   be	
   expected	
   to	
  
generalize	
  to.	
  
	
  
2)	
  The	
  way	
  in	
  which	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  are	
  managed	
  in	
  Colorado	
  is	
  now	
  very	
  different	
  
from	
  how	
  they	
  were	
  managed	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  the	
  data	
  was	
  collected.	
  It	
  is	
  therefore	
  not	
  
clear	
   that	
   the	
   results	
   of	
   the	
   study	
   would	
   be	
   expected	
   to	
   generalize	
   to	
   the	
   present	
  
day.	
  
	
  
	
  

34	
  

3)	
   The	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   rate	
   in	
   this	
   Colorado	
   sample,	
   reported	
   as	
   24.3%,	
   is	
  
remarkably	
   high	
   as	
   compared	
   to	
   that	
   involved	
   in	
   other	
   DOC	
   samples	
   from	
   the	
   same	
  
era.	
   For	
   example,	
   in	
   a	
   study	
   of	
   9,691	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   released	
   in	
   1994	
   from	
  
representative	
  samples	
  from	
  the	
  prisons	
  of	
  15	
  States	
  in	
  the	
  USA,	
  Langan	
  et	
  al	
  (2003)	
  
found	
   that	
   95%	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   were	
   free	
   of	
   arrests	
   for	
   sexual	
   offenses	
   during	
   a	
  
three	
  year	
  follow	
  up	
  (or	
  to	
  put	
  this	
  another	
  way,	
  just	
  5.3%	
  recidivated	
  for	
  a	
  sexual	
  
offense).	
  	
  
	
  
4)	
  The	
  recidivism	
  rates	
  reported	
  in	
  the	
  handbook’s	
  table	
  3	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  inconsistent	
  
with	
   the	
   recidivism	
   rate	
   reported	
   in	
   the	
   handbook	
   for	
   the	
   whole	
   sample.	
   A	
  
recidivism	
   rate	
   of	
   24.3%	
   is	
   reported	
   for	
   those	
   making	
   the	
   minimum	
   score	
  
(supposedly,	
  less	
  than	
  2%	
  of	
  the	
  sample).	
  All	
  other	
  risk	
  scores	
  are	
  associated	
  with	
  
higher	
   recidivism	
   rates.	
   It	
   is	
   difficult	
   to	
   see	
   how	
   this	
   is	
   logically	
   possible.	
   It	
   would	
  
appear	
   some	
   errors	
   were	
   made	
   in	
   preparation	
   of	
   the	
   table	
   or	
   in	
   the	
   underlying	
   data	
  
analysis.	
  
	
  
5)	
  The	
  handbook	
  describes	
  an	
  analysis	
  used	
  to	
  construct	
  the	
  prediction	
  scale.	
  Scales	
  
normally	
   do	
   better	
   in	
   construction	
   samples	
   than	
   they	
   do	
   in	
   other	
   samples,	
   a	
  
phenomenon	
   known	
   as	
   shrinkage.	
   For	
   this	
   reason,	
   you	
   only	
   learn	
   about	
   the	
   true	
  
predictive	
  properties	
  of	
  a	
  scale	
  when	
  it	
  is	
  tested	
  with	
  offenders	
  who	
  were	
  not	
  used	
  
in	
  its	
  construction.	
  Since	
  no	
  cross-­‐validation	
  has	
  been	
  carried	
  out,	
  the	
  properties	
  of	
  
the	
  scale	
  are	
  presently	
  unknown.	
  
	
  
These	
   represent	
   serious	
   flaws	
   with	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   the	
   current	
   version	
   of	
   the	
  
SORS.	
   The	
   first	
   two	
   flaws	
   suggest	
   that	
   one	
   cannot	
   safely	
   assume	
   results	
   with	
   the	
  
present	
   sample	
   are	
   generalizable	
   to	
   the	
   general	
   run	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   currently	
  
being	
   managed	
   in	
   Colorado.	
   The	
   third	
   and	
   fourth	
   points	
   suggest	
   that	
   there	
   were	
  
flaws	
   in	
   how	
   recidivism	
   data	
   was	
   collected,	
   in	
   the	
   data	
   analysis,	
   or	
   in	
   how	
   the	
  
research	
   was	
   written	
   up.	
   The	
   fifth	
   point	
   means	
   that	
   there	
   is	
   currently	
   no	
   credible	
  
data	
  on	
  how	
  predictive	
  the	
  SORS	
  is.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

35	
  

In	
  the	
  light	
  of	
  this	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  urgent	
  need	
  to	
  replace	
  the	
  SORS	
  with	
  an	
  instrument	
  
that	
  is	
  soundly	
  developed	
  and	
  cross-­‐validated.	
  
	
  

Low	
  Risk	
  Protocol	
  
	
  
The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  indicate	
  that	
  the	
  community	
  supervision	
  team	
  should	
  
use	
  the	
  Low	
  Risk	
  Protocol	
  during	
  the	
  initial	
  phase	
  of	
  treatment.	
  For	
  offenders	
  who	
  
meet	
   the	
   designation	
   of	
   low	
   risk	
   per	
   the	
   Low	
   Risk	
   Protocol	
   (LRP)	
   by	
   unanimous	
  
decision	
   of	
   the	
   Community	
   Supervision	
   Team,	
   the	
   provider	
   shall	
   make	
   a	
  
recommendation	
   for	
   discharge	
   from	
   sex	
   offense	
   specific	
   treatment.	
   The	
   Low	
   Risk	
  
protocol	
  was	
  not	
  empirically	
  devised	
  and	
  appears	
  to	
  represent	
  a	
  consensus	
  formed	
  
among	
  professionals	
  who	
  believe	
  that	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  are	
  invariable	
  dangerous	
  as	
  
to	
   who	
   might	
   be	
   the	
   rare	
   exception	
   to	
   such	
   a	
   rule.	
   To	
   be	
   categorized	
   as	
   low	
   risk	
   the	
  
person	
   must	
   have	
   committed	
   no	
   more	
   than	
   one	
   sexual	
   offense	
   (defined	
   through	
  
both	
   official	
   records	
   and	
   through	
   polygraph-­‐supported	
   self-­‐report)	
   and	
   not	
   have	
  
used	
   or	
   threatened	
   physical	
   violence.	
   They	
   have	
   also	
   to	
   meet	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   other	
  
criteria	
  relating	
  to	
  sexual	
  deviancy,	
  personality	
  disorders,	
  substance	
  abuse	
  etc.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   problem	
   with	
   this	
   approach	
   is	
   that	
   it	
   is	
   far	
   too	
   conservative.	
   It	
   is	
   liable	
   to	
   fail	
   to	
  
identify	
   many	
   offenders	
   who	
   in	
   fact	
   present	
   no	
   greater	
   risk	
   for	
   future	
   sexual	
  
offending	
  than	
  is	
  presented	
  by	
  the	
  routine	
  non-­‐sexual	
  criminal	
  released	
  from	
  prison.	
  
	
  
It	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
   current	
   protocol	
   be	
   replaced	
   with	
   some	
   empirically-­‐
derived	
   risk	
   assessment	
   protocol	
   with	
   the	
   category	
   calibrated	
   to	
   have	
   an	
   average	
  
five-­‐year	
   official	
   recidivism	
   within	
   2%	
   of	
   the	
   five	
   year	
   rate	
   of	
   arrests	
   for	
   sexual	
  
offenses	
  for	
  routine	
  non-­‐sexual	
  criminal	
  released	
  from	
  Colorado	
  prisons.	
  Until	
  such	
  
locally	
  developed	
  categorization	
  can	
  be	
  developed	
  and	
  cross-­‐validated	
  the	
  Low	
  Risk	
  
category	
  from	
  Static-­‐99R	
  or	
  a	
  similar	
  instrument	
  might	
  be	
  used.	
  
	
  

	
  

36	
  

The	
   Criteria	
   for	
   Release	
   from	
   Incarceration,	
   Reduction	
   in	
  
Supervision,	
   Discharge	
   for	
   Certain	
   Adult	
   Sex	
   Offenders,	
   and	
  
Measurement	
   of	
   an	
   Adult	
   Sex	
   Offender’s	
   Progress	
   in	
   Treatment	
  
issued	
  by	
  the	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  
	
  
These	
   topics	
   are	
   considered	
   together	
   as	
   much	
   the	
   same	
   issues	
   apply.	
   Detailed	
  
consideration	
  of	
  them	
  is	
  provided	
  in	
  Appendices	
  A	
  through	
  O.	
  
	
  
Many	
   elements	
   in	
   these	
   criteria	
   are	
   justifiable	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   contemporary	
  
good	
  practice	
  and	
  they	
  clearly	
  represent	
  the	
  result	
  of	
  careful	
  thoguht.	
  Nevertheless	
  
there	
  are	
  number	
  of	
  concerns	
  that	
  should	
  be	
  addressed	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  time	
  for	
  them	
  to	
  be	
  
updated.	
  
	
  
1)	
   Elements	
   of	
   the	
   criteria	
   are	
   dated	
   and	
   in	
   need	
   of	
   being	
   refreshed	
   based	
   on	
  
research	
  carried	
  out	
  over	
  the	
  last	
  decade.	
  
	
  
In	
  general	
  the	
  way	
  the	
  criteria	
  are	
  defined	
  at	
  the	
  moment	
  is	
  too	
  dependent	
  on	
  very	
  
dated	
   research	
   and	
   takes	
   too	
   little	
   account	
   of	
   how	
   knowledge	
   has	
   developed	
   over	
  
the	
   last	
   15	
   years.	
   A	
   number	
   of	
   concepts	
   used	
   repeatedly	
   in	
   the	
   criteria,	
   and	
  
especially	
   in	
   talking	
   about	
   treatment,	
   were	
   current	
   but	
   subject	
   to	
   significant	
  
criticism	
   in	
   2000,	
   and	
   now	
   are	
   definitely	
   outdated.	
   These	
   include	
   concepts	
   like	
  
Offense	
  Cycles	
  and	
  Relapse	
  Prevention	
  plans.	
  
	
  
2)	
   Accountability,	
   Denial,	
   Victim	
   Empathy	
   and	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraph	
  
examinations	
  are	
  given	
  too	
  much	
  emphasis	
  
	
  
Central	
   to	
   these	
   therapeutic	
   concepts	
   is	
   the	
   notion	
   that	
   risk	
   is	
   reduced	
   if	
   the	
   person	
  
fully	
  discloses	
  all	
  their	
  offending,	
  blames	
  themselves	
  for	
  it	
  rather	
  than	
  blaming	
  other	
  
people	
   or	
   circumstances,	
   and	
   fully	
   recognizes	
   the	
   harm	
   they	
   did	
   to	
   others	
   and	
  
empathizes	
   with	
   those	
   affected	
   by	
   their	
   antisocial	
   behavior.	
   	
   This	
   idea	
   was	
   accepted	
  
	
  

37	
  

uncritically	
   in	
   the	
   early	
   1990s.	
   Subsequent	
   research	
   has	
   called	
   it	
   into	
   question.	
  
Denial	
   is	
   not	
   consistently	
   related	
   to	
   sexual	
   recidivism.	
   Indeed	
   sometimes	
   denial	
   and	
  
evasion	
   of	
   responsibility	
   is	
   associated	
   with	
   lower	
   recidivism.	
   Incest	
   offenders	
   are	
  
the	
   only	
   group	
   for	
   which	
   there	
   are	
   consistent	
   findings	
   associating	
   denial	
   with	
  
increased	
  recidivism.	
  The	
  most	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  supported	
  regarding	
  denial	
  from	
  a	
  risk	
  
point	
   of	
   view	
   is	
   that	
   it	
   can	
   impede	
   some	
   kinds	
   of	
   risk	
   reduction	
   procedures	
   (i.e.	
  
some	
  kinds	
  of	
  treatment).	
  	
  
	
  
Relatedly,	
  these	
  criteria	
  give	
  too	
  critical	
  a	
  role	
  to	
  polygraph	
  examinations.	
  Like	
  other	
  
assessment	
   tools	
   the	
   polygraph	
   is	
   fallible.	
   The	
   relevant	
   research	
   literature	
   indicates	
  
that	
   the	
   polygraph	
   can	
   attain	
   accuracy	
   of	
   close	
   to	
   90%	
   when	
   testing	
   well-­‐defined	
  
single	
   issues.	
   Unfortunately	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraphs	
   are	
   not	
   well-­‐defined	
   single	
  
issues	
  and	
  the	
  accuracy	
  level	
  is	
  likely	
  significantly	
  lower.	
  This	
  means	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  
liable	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  significant	
  number	
  of	
  false	
  findings	
  of	
  Deception	
  and	
  false	
  findings	
  of	
  
Non-­‐Deception	
  in	
  Sexual	
  History	
  polygraphs.	
  	
  
	
  
Public	
   protection	
   is	
   not	
   entirely	
   dependent	
   on	
   a	
   complete	
   disclosure	
   of	
   all	
   past	
  
sexual	
   crimes.	
   Indeed,	
   jurisdictions	
   that	
   don’t	
   use	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraph	
  
examinations	
   in	
   this	
   way	
   have	
   nevertheless	
   achieved	
   low	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   rates.	
  
More	
  critical	
  than	
  full	
  disclosure	
  to	
  preventing	
  future	
  offending	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  treatment	
  
team	
   is	
   able	
   to	
   determine	
   (a)	
   the	
   main	
   patterns	
   of	
   past	
   offending	
   (b)	
   the	
   main	
  
psychological	
   risk	
   factors	
   that	
   contributed	
   to	
   past	
   offending.	
   These	
   achievements	
  
would	
  more	
  appropriately	
  replace	
  the	
  requirement	
  for	
  Sexual	
  History	
  polygraphs	
  in	
  
these	
   criteria,	
   with	
   participation	
   in	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraphs	
   being	
   one	
   way	
   of	
  
generating	
   information	
   about	
   patterns	
   of	
   past	
   offending	
   and	
   psychological	
   risk	
  
factors	
  but	
  not	
  the	
  only	
  way.	
  
	
  
3)	
  These	
  criteria	
  do	
  not	
  embody	
  the	
  Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
  Principles	
  
	
  
Specifically	
   they	
   make	
   it	
   harder	
   to	
   follow	
   the	
   Risk	
   principle.	
   They	
   are	
   liable	
   to	
   be	
  
interpreted	
  in	
  ways	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  support	
  individualizing	
  treatment	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  
	
  

38	
  

specific	
   risk	
   factors	
   that	
   apply	
   to	
   the	
   individual.	
   And	
   they	
   too	
   easily	
   generate	
  
patterns	
  of	
  practice	
  that	
  are	
  demotivating	
  for	
  treatment	
  participants.	
  
	
  
4)	
  Conservative	
  Bias	
  in	
  Administrative	
  Process	
  
	
  
The	
  Standard	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  often	
  require	
  all	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  team	
  to	
  agree	
  to	
  any	
  	
  
decisions	
  that	
  reduce	
  the	
  intensity	
  of	
  treatment	
  or	
  supervision.	
  Any	
  overly	
  cautious	
  
member	
  of	
  the	
  team	
  can	
  block	
  reasonable	
  decisions	
  to	
  reduce	
  supervision	
  or	
  move	
  
towards	
  discharge.	
  The	
  effect	
  of	
  this	
  is	
  to	
  fail	
  to	
  identify	
  when	
  reduced	
  supervision	
  
is	
   indeed	
   warranted	
   and	
   potentially	
   make	
   the	
   system	
   function	
   in	
   an	
   unduly	
   costly	
  
way	
   for	
   little	
   gain	
   in	
   community	
   safety.	
   Further,	
   as	
   described	
   by	
   stakeholders	
   in	
   the	
  
Focus	
   Groups,	
   in	
   actuality	
   the	
   supervision	
   officer	
   essentially	
   makes	
   all	
   case	
  
decisions	
  and	
  treatment	
  providers	
  are	
  pressured	
  to	
  comply.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   should	
   consider	
   creating	
   a	
   mechanism	
   for	
   independent	
   review	
   in	
   cases	
  
where	
   the	
   team	
   cannot	
   come	
   to	
   a	
   consensus.	
   It	
   is	
   further	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
  
SOMB	
   conduct	
   a	
   thorough	
   internal	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   stakeholder	
   reported	
   problem	
  
that	
  concerns	
  about	
  getting	
  referrals	
  and	
  other	
  pressures	
  undermine	
  the	
  CST	
  from	
  
functioning	
  as	
  intended.	
  Lastly,	
  regarding	
  the	
  discussion	
  point,	
  failure	
  to	
  progress	
  in	
  
treatment	
  or	
  in	
  meeting	
  a	
  lower	
  supervision	
  requirement	
  does	
  not	
  necessarily	
  mean	
  
more	
  supervision	
  in	
  required	
  but	
  often	
  rather,	
  is	
  a	
  cue	
  that	
  treatment	
  efforts	
  must	
  
be	
  adjusted.	
  Unless	
  failure	
  to	
  progress	
  is	
  associated	
  with	
  increased	
  risk	
  factors	
  for	
  
re-­‐offense,	
   it	
   should	
   not	
   trigger	
   concern	
   that	
   more	
   intensive	
   supervision	
   is	
  
warranted.	
  	
  
	
  
5)	
  Insufficient	
  influence	
  of	
  the	
  Offender’s	
  Initial	
  Level	
  of	
  Risk	
  
	
  
What	
   is	
   required	
   of	
   offenders	
   for	
   release	
   or	
   reduction	
   of	
   supervision	
   or	
   discharge	
  
should	
   depend	
   on	
   the	
   initial	
   level	
   of	
   risk	
   they	
   present.	
   Much	
   more	
   should	
   be	
  
expected	
  from	
  person’s	
  who	
  initially	
  present	
  a	
  greater	
  risk.	
  Presently	
  the	
  criteria	
  do	
  
not	
  prescribe	
  such	
  a	
  practice.	
  
	
  

39	
  

	
  
6)	
   These	
   criteria	
   do	
   not	
   use	
   soundly	
   developed,	
   empirically-­‐validated	
   tools	
   to	
  
anchor	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  process	
  
	
  
Decisions	
  could	
  be	
  made	
  in	
  a	
  more	
  cost-­‐effective	
  way	
  if	
  such	
  tools	
  are	
  used.	
  Without	
  
them	
   professionals	
   either	
   run	
   inappropriate	
   risks	
   or	
   default	
   to	
   unnecessarily	
  
excessive,	
  and	
  expensive,	
  caution.	
  
	
  

Guidance	
  Regarding	
  Developmentally	
  Disabled	
  Offenders	
  
	
  
Having	
   separate	
   guidance	
   for	
   assessing	
   and	
   treating	
   this	
   sub	
   group	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
  is	
  necessary	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  clear	
  that	
  CO	
  SOMB	
  has	
  begun	
  to	
  seriously	
  consider	
  
the	
  marked	
  differences	
  between	
  developmentally	
  disabled	
  and	
  non	
  disabled	
  sexual	
  
offenders.	
   This	
   feedback	
   of	
   the	
   current	
   evaluation	
   on	
   this	
   topic	
   is	
   discussed	
   in	
   more	
  
detail	
  in	
  Appendix	
  D.	
  We	
  recommend	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  assessment	
  instruments	
  that	
  have	
  
been	
   specifically	
   validated	
   for	
   this	
   population	
   and	
   suggest	
   a	
   particular	
   instrument	
  
that	
  could	
  appropriately	
  provide	
  a	
  foundation	
  for	
  both	
  treatment	
  planning	
  and	
  risk	
  
management.	
   We	
   recommend	
   particular	
   caution	
   in	
   using	
   polygraph	
   examinations	
  
with	
   this	
   group	
   as	
   problems	
   with	
   comprehension	
   and	
   memory	
   mean	
   that	
   both	
  
Deceptive	
  and	
  Non-­‐Deceptive	
  results	
  may	
  be	
  hard	
  to	
  interpret.	
  
	
  

Guidance	
  on	
  Contact	
  with	
  Children	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   research	
   basis	
   for	
   the	
   practice	
   indicated	
   by	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   is	
  
dated	
  and	
  subject	
  to	
  methodological	
  limitations	
  that	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  sufficiently	
  taken	
  
into	
   account.	
   The	
   Child	
   Contact	
   Assessment	
   has	
   not	
   been	
   empirically	
   validated.	
  
While	
   it	
   appeals	
   to	
   common	
   sense	
   it	
   appears	
   to	
   be	
   unduly	
   cumbersome.	
   We	
  
recommend	
   a	
   streamlined	
   process	
   be	
   developed.	
   In	
   particular	
   the	
   SOMB	
   should	
  
reconsider	
   the	
   grounds	
   for	
   prohibiting	
   contact	
   between	
   children	
   and	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   who	
   only	
   have	
   adult	
   victims	
   taking	
   into	
   account	
   that	
   the	
   disruption	
   of	
   a	
  
	
  

40	
  

child’s	
  relationship	
  with	
  his	
  father	
  is	
  in	
  itself	
  potentially	
  harmful	
  to	
  the	
  child.	
  In	
  such	
  
cases	
  an	
  expeditious	
  balancing	
  of	
  risks	
  is	
  necessary.	
  We	
  noted	
  that	
  victim	
  advocates	
  
in	
   our	
   focus	
   groups	
   were	
   among	
   those	
   who	
   saw	
   the	
   present	
   guidance	
   as	
   over	
  
restrictive.	
  
	
  

Provider	
   &	
   Evaluator	
   Qualifications	
   /	
   Approval	
   to	
   Practice	
   /	
  
Continuing	
  Education	
  /	
  Complaints	
  
	
  
We	
  reviewed	
  the	
  SOMBs	
  policies	
  and	
  obtained	
  feedback	
  during	
  the	
  focus	
  groups.	
  In	
  
general	
  these	
  were	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  commonly	
  accepted	
  practice.	
  We	
  would	
  encourage	
  
the	
  SOMB	
  to	
  attend	
  to	
  feedback	
  obtained	
  in	
  our	
  focus	
  groups.	
  
	
  
More	
   generally,	
   we	
   would	
   encourage	
   the	
   SOMB	
   to	
   attend	
   to	
   feedback	
   from	
   the	
  
offenders	
  who	
  are	
  subject	
  to	
  the	
  supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  processes.	
  Clearly	
  any	
  
such	
  feedback	
  would	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  sifted	
  judiciously.	
  Nevertheless,	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  better	
  
to	
  develop	
  a	
  relationship	
  with	
  these	
  offenders	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  felt	
  their	
  feedback	
  was	
  
listened	
  to	
  since	
  this	
  will	
  encourage	
  treatment	
  engagement	
  and	
  potentially	
  allow	
  the	
  
SOMB	
   access	
   to	
   information	
   that	
   they	
   would	
   not	
   otherwise	
   have	
   about	
   how	
   the	
  
Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  work	
  out	
  in	
  practice.	
  
	
  

Victim	
  Perspectives	
  	
  
	
  
One	
  of	
  the	
  strengths	
  of	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  is	
  their	
  wholehearted	
  attempt	
  
to	
  be	
  responsive	
  to	
  the	
  perspective	
  of	
  victims.	
  Appendix	
  N	
  details	
  our	
  review	
  of	
  how	
  
this	
  works	
  out	
  in	
  practice.	
  One	
  comment	
  from	
  some	
  victim	
  advocates	
  was	
  that	
  the	
  
very	
   expensive	
   system	
   for	
   managing	
   offenders	
   contrasted	
   with	
   the	
   difficulty	
  
obtaining	
   therapeutic	
   services	
   for	
   victims.	
   In	
   this	
   regard,	
   developing	
   a	
   more	
   cost-­‐
effective	
   treatment	
   and	
   supervision	
   system	
   for	
   offenders	
   might	
   allow	
   more	
  
resources	
  for	
  victims.	
  
	
  
	
  

41	
  

Our	
   main	
   feedback	
   in	
   this	
   area	
   though	
   was	
   that	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
  
not	
   always	
   consistently	
   followed,	
   that	
   the	
   restrictions	
   on	
   offenders	
   sometimes	
  
interfere	
   with	
   victims	
   being	
   able	
   to	
   be	
   treated	
   as	
   they	
   would	
   like	
   to	
   be,	
   and	
   that	
  
victims	
   who	
   choose	
   not	
   to	
   enter	
   therapy	
   have	
   difficulty	
   having	
   a	
   voice	
   inside	
   the	
  
present	
  system.	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

42	
  

	
  

Discussion	
  
	
  
It	
   is	
   not	
   possible	
   to	
   review	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   without	
   being	
   impressed	
  
by	
   the	
   thought	
   and	
   dedication	
   that	
   has	
   been	
   invested	
   into	
   their	
   development.	
   The	
  
Colorado	
   SOMB	
   is	
   to	
   be	
   congratulated	
   on	
   the	
   contribution	
   it	
   has	
   made	
   to	
   public	
  
safety.	
  
	
  
Nevertheless,	
   as	
   with	
   any	
   enterprise	
   that	
   has	
   operated	
   for	
   an	
   extended	
   period	
   of	
  
time,	
   there	
   are	
   strains	
   and	
   limitations	
   on	
   the	
   current	
   system	
   and	
   significant	
   scope	
  
for	
   improvement.	
   The	
   SOMB	
   articulated	
   to	
   us	
   their	
   desire	
   to	
   improve	
   the	
   Standards	
  
and	
  Guidelines	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  implementing	
  their	
  own	
  initiatives	
  to	
  achieve	
  this.	
  We	
  
hope	
   the	
   findings	
   and	
   recommendations	
   in	
   this	
   report	
   contribute	
   this	
   ongoing	
  
process	
  for	
  self-­‐improvement.	
  
	
  
We	
   conclude	
   that	
   significant	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   warrant	
  
revision	
  in	
  the	
  light	
  of	
  the	
  research	
  on	
  sexual	
  offending	
  that	
  has	
  burgeoned	
  over	
  the	
  
past	
  fifteen	
  years.	
  	
  In	
  reading	
   the	
  SOMB	
  documents	
  one	
   gleans	
  the	
  impression	
   of	
   an	
  
organization	
  that	
  has	
  at	
  times	
  drifted	
  into	
  reading	
  or	
  reviewing	
  research	
  selectively,	
  
or	
   dismissing	
   research	
   conducted	
   outside	
   of	
   Colorado,	
   in	
   the	
   service	
   of	
   guarding	
  
positions	
  that	
  were	
  formed	
  many	
  years	
  ago.	
  Where	
  this	
  might	
  be	
  the	
  case	
  we	
  hope	
  
this	
  document	
  will	
  stimulate	
  a	
  more	
  profound	
  examination	
  of	
  present	
  assumptions.	
  
	
  
The	
  image	
  of	
  all	
  men	
  with	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  having	
  committed	
  a	
  sex	
  offense	
  as	
  perpetually	
  
highly	
   dangerous,	
   barely	
   contained	
   by	
   never	
   ending	
   treatment	
   and	
   intensive	
  
supervision	
  was	
  formed	
  in	
  Colorado	
  many	
  years	
  ago	
  based	
  on	
  very	
  limited	
  research	
  
available	
   at	
   that	
   time.	
   Even	
   though	
   key	
   members	
   of	
   the	
   SOMB	
   are	
   aware	
   that	
   this	
   is	
  
not	
  an	
  accurate,	
  the	
  image	
  still	
  appears	
  to	
  pervade	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

43	
  

This	
   image	
   combines	
   with	
   key	
   features	
   of	
   how	
   decisions	
   are	
   made	
   in	
   practice	
   to	
  
create	
   a	
   systematic	
   bias	
   towards	
   decisions	
   that	
   make	
   the	
   system	
   operate	
   in	
   an	
  
inefficient	
   manner.	
   There	
   is	
   no	
   doubt	
   that	
   public	
   safety	
   could	
   continue	
   to	
   be	
  
maintained	
   at	
   a	
   great	
   deal	
   less	
   cost	
   if	
   modern	
   research	
   and	
   principles	
   of	
   effective	
  
correctional	
  practice	
  were	
  made	
  more	
  central	
  to	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  
	
  
With	
   regard	
   to	
   the	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   principles	
   which	
   have	
   been	
   a	
   primary	
  
focus	
  of	
  this	
  review:	
  
	
  
(1)	
  There	
  is	
  substantial	
  scope	
  for	
  better	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  Risk	
  Principle.	
  Initial	
  
assessment	
   should	
   at	
   least	
   triage	
   offenders	
   into	
   Lower,	
   Medium	
   and	
   Higher	
   Risk	
  
groups	
   with	
   expectations	
   being	
   different	
   for	
   these	
   groups	
   and	
   resources	
   for	
  
supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  paralleling	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  risk.	
  	
  Treatment	
  and	
  supervision	
  
intensity	
   should	
   be	
   reduced	
   in	
   response	
   to	
   demonstrated	
   management	
   of	
   relevant	
  
risks	
   and	
   needs.	
   For	
   example,	
   the	
   risk	
   presented	
   by	
   some	
   offenders	
   in	
   prison	
  
treatment	
  is	
  such	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  ready	
  to	
  titrate	
  to	
  community	
  based	
  treatment	
  and	
  
supervision.	
   	
   Further,	
   some	
   offenders	
   do	
   not	
   need	
   lifetime	
   treatment	
   and	
  
supervision	
  to	
  prevent	
  re-­‐offense.	
  	
  
	
  
(2)	
  The	
  Need	
  principle	
  is	
  at	
  least	
  partly	
  being	
  followed.	
  However,	
  there	
  is	
  scope	
  for	
  
applying	
   the	
   Need	
   principle	
   more	
   systematically,	
   in	
   particular	
   for	
   treatment	
   being	
  
more	
  individualized	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  particular	
  criminogenic	
  needs	
  that	
  are	
  most	
  
relevant	
   in	
   individual	
   cases.	
   	
   There	
   appears	
   to	
   be	
   too	
   much	
   resource	
   allocation	
   to	
  
treatment	
  targets	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  closely	
  related	
  to	
  risk.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
(3)	
   The	
   Responsivity	
   principle	
   is	
   supported	
   by	
   some	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
  but	
  the	
  practice	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  sometimes	
  
undermines	
   it.	
   The	
   principle	
   could	
   be	
   better	
   followed	
   by	
   a	
   greater	
   emphasis	
   on	
  
developing	
  offenders’	
  strengths	
  and	
  protective	
  factors,	
  community	
  integration,	
  and	
  
by	
   greater	
   use	
   of	
   the	
   spirit	
   of	
   motivational	
   interviewing	
   in	
   both	
   treatment	
   and	
  
supervision.	
   	
   	
   Further,	
   reexamination	
   of	
   the	
   role	
   of	
   the	
   polygraph	
   as	
   a	
   tool	
   to	
  
	
  

44	
  

facilitate	
   treatment	
   and	
   treatment	
   engagement,	
   rather	
   than	
   primarily	
   to	
   coerce	
  
accountability,	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  opportunity	
  for	
  growth.	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  
Further,	
  the	
  SOMB	
  will	
  benefit	
  from	
  explicit	
  incorporation	
  of	
  the	
  RNR	
  principles	
  into	
  
both	
   the	
   words	
   and	
   spirit	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines.	
   In	
   their	
   outreach	
   and	
  
training	
   efforts,	
   they	
   will	
   benefic	
   from	
   including	
   specific	
   modules	
   on	
   these	
  
principles.	
   In	
   developing	
   such	
   training	
   materials,	
   they	
   may	
   want	
   to	
   consider	
   the	
  
materials	
  created	
  by	
  this	
  collaborative	
  for	
  the	
  CO	
  DOC:	
  	
  The	
  Principles	
  of	
  Program	
  
Design,	
   Criminogenic	
   Needs	
   Relevant	
   to	
   Sexual	
   Recidivism,	
   and	
   Treatment	
   Style	
  
when	
   Working	
   with	
   Sexual	
   Offenders.	
   It	
   is	
   important	
   that	
   SOMB	
   Board	
   Members	
  
and	
   all	
   relevant	
   stakeholders,	
   including	
   offender	
   participants,	
   be	
   appropriately	
  
educated	
  about	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  and	
  have	
  viable	
  opportunities	
  to	
  ask	
  
questions	
  and	
  communicate	
  concerns.	
  	
  
	
  
Lastly,	
  it	
  is	
  recommended	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  thoughtfully	
  consider	
  the	
  suggestions	
  and	
  
recommendations	
   of	
   this	
   evaluation	
   in	
   guiding	
   their	
   ongoing	
   efforts	
   for	
  
improvement.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  recommended	
  that	
  an	
  external	
  audit	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  
Guidelines	
   be	
   commissioned	
   in	
   approximately	
   24	
   months	
   to	
   determine	
   the	
   degree	
  
of	
   progress	
   has	
   been	
   made	
   regarding	
   the	
   recommendations	
   and	
   provisions	
   of	
   this	
  
report.	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

45	
  

Appendix	
  A:	
   Review	
  of	
  the	
  Guiding	
  Principles	
  
	
  
Central	
  to	
  the	
  2011	
  Version	
  of	
  the	
  CO	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  thirteen	
  
Guiding	
   Principles	
   preceding	
   the	
   text	
   of	
   the	
   individual	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines.	
  
This	
   appendix	
   provides	
   a	
   research	
   and	
   best	
   practice	
   informed	
   analysis	
   of	
   these	
  
principles	
   as	
   they	
   are	
   written.	
   Each	
   guiding	
   principle	
   and	
   its	
   accompanying	
   text	
   is	
  
excerpted	
  from	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  and	
  presented	
  in	
  italics	
  followed	
  by	
  a	
  
discussion	
   of	
   its	
   merits	
   and	
   limitations.	
   Where	
   appropriate,	
   specific	
   ways	
   to	
   re-­‐
phrase	
  the	
  principle	
  are	
  suggested.	
  
	
  
1. Sexual offending is a behavioral disorder which cannot be “cured.”
Sexual offenses are defined by law and may or may not be associated with or accompanied by
the characteristics of sexual deviance which are described as paraphilias. Some sex offenders
also have co-existing conditions such as mental disorders, organic disorders, or substance
abuse problems. Many offenders can learn through treatment to manage their sexual offending
behaviors and decrease their risk of re-offense. Such behavioral management should not,
however, be considered a "cure," and successful treatment cannot permanently eliminate the
risk that sex offenders may repeat their offenses.	
  

	
  
The	
   phrasing	
   of	
   the	
   first	
   principle	
   is	
   misleading.	
   	
   The	
   accompanying	
   text	
   is	
  
technically	
  accurate	
  although	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  include	
  important	
  facts.	
  As	
  a	
  consequence,	
  
it	
  is	
  partially	
  misleading.	
  
	
  
The	
   term	
   “behavioral	
   disorder”	
   is	
   not	
   defined	
   in	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines.	
  	
  
Perhaps	
   some	
   of	
   those	
   who	
   signed	
   off	
   on	
   this	
   verbiage	
   understood	
   it	
   as	
   meaning	
   no	
  
more	
   than	
   that	
   sexual	
   offending	
   is	
   a	
   behavior	
   liable	
   to	
   cause	
   harm,	
   however	
   this	
  
would	
   not	
   be	
   the	
   common	
   interpretation.	
   Characterizing	
   sexual	
   offending	
   as	
   a	
  
disorder	
   suggests	
   to	
   the	
   reader	
   that	
   there	
   is	
   some	
   enduring	
   entity,	
   “the	
   disorder”	
  
that	
   exists	
   separately	
   from	
   the	
   act	
   of	
   sexual	
   offending	
   itself	
   but	
   which	
   invariably	
  

	
  

46	
  

accompanies	
  and	
  drives	
  it.	
  It	
  also	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  person	
  with	
  this	
  “disorder”	
  will	
  
continue	
  to	
  commit	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  unless	
  managed	
  or	
  treated.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  accompanying	
  text	
  acknowledges	
  that	
  only	
  some	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  have	
  known	
  
disorders	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  defined	
  distinct	
  from	
  the	
  commission	
  of	
  a	
  sexual	
  offense	
  which	
  
is	
   correct	
   but	
   the	
   last	
   sentence	
   continues	
   the	
   idea	
   that	
   all	
   sex	
   offenders	
   present	
   a	
  
continuing	
  substantial	
  risk	
  of	
  offending	
  which	
  at	
  best	
  can	
  be	
  managed	
  by	
  continuing	
  
supervision	
   and	
   treatment	
   but	
   which	
   may	
   well	
   resurge	
   as	
   soon	
   as	
   containment	
   is	
  
relaxed.	
  	
  
	
  
This	
   language	
   therefore	
   contains	
   a	
   number	
   of	
   implicit	
   assumptions.	
   These	
  
assumptions	
   are	
   either	
   unsupported	
   by	
   available	
   research	
   evidence	
   or	
   represent	
   an	
  
over-­‐simplification	
  of	
  available	
  evidence.	
  	
  
	
  
An	
  important	
  fact	
  that	
  is	
  missing	
  from	
  the	
  accompanying	
  text	
  is	
  that,	
  as	
  far	
  as	
  can	
  be	
  
determined	
   from	
   available	
   research,	
   for	
   many	
   men	
   who	
   have	
   committed	
   sexual	
  
offenses,	
  the	
  experience	
  of	
  arrest,	
  conviction	
  and	
  punishment	
  appears	
  sufficient	
  for	
  
them	
  to	
  desist	
  from	
  further	
  sexual	
  offending	
  without	
  requiring	
  sustained	
  treatment	
  
and	
  management.	
  Approximately	
  95%	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  statistically	
  identified	
  as	
  
“lower	
  risk”	
  stay	
  free	
  of	
  further	
  charges	
  for	
  sexual	
  offending	
  even	
  when	
  followed	
  up	
  
for	
   fifteen	
   years.	
   This	
   very	
   low	
   rate	
   of	
   known	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   is	
   found	
   even	
   in	
  
jurisdictions	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  provide	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
  extended	
  and	
  intensive	
  supervision	
  and	
  
treatment	
   that	
   is	
   currently	
   provided	
   in	
   Colorado.	
   It	
   is,	
   of	
   course,	
   possible	
   to	
  
speculate	
   that	
   any	
   proportion	
   of	
   these	
   “lower	
   risk”	
   offenders	
   commit	
   further	
   sexual	
  
offenses	
   without	
   getting	
   caught.	
   However,	
   speculation	
   unsupported	
   by	
   evidence	
   is	
  
not	
  a	
  sound	
  basis	
  for	
  criminal	
  justice	
  policy.	
  The	
  question	
  of	
  how	
  much	
  higher	
  actual	
  
recidivism	
  rates	
  are	
  than	
  rates	
  of	
  re-­‐arrest	
  is	
  discussed	
  in	
  Appendix	
  C.	
  
	
  
A	
   version	
   of	
   the	
   first	
   principle	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   more	
   consistent	
   with	
   available	
  
research	
  would	
  read	
  something	
  like	
  the	
  following.	
  
	
  
	
  

47	
  

Risk for future sexual offending varies enormously. The intensity and duration of supervision
and treatment should respond in a flexible and cost-effective way to these differences in risk.
Sexual offending is a behavior, not a disorder. Some men with a history of sexual offending
present a risk for future sexual offending that is relatively similar to that of criminals with no
known history of sexual offending. These lower risk offenders can be effectively managed in the
community through ordinary supervision processes of limited duration. Others present a
markedly elevated risk and may require supervision and treatment that is more intensive, more
specialized and of greater duration. In Colorado, criminal sexual offenders are first assessed and
referred for a sex offense-specific evaluation during the pre-sentence investigation conducted by
the Probation Department. This initial assessment should minimally triage sexual offenders into
lower, medium and higher risk groups with this categorization informing decisions about the
intensity and duration of supervision and treatment that is appropriate for cost-effective risk
management.

	
  
Since	
   the	
   publication	
   of	
   the	
   2011	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines,	
   the	
   CO	
   SOMB	
   has	
  
decided	
   a	
   change	
   in	
   the	
   first	
   principle	
   is	
   warranted.	
   The	
   SOMB	
   agreed	
   to	
   the	
  
following	
  alternate	
  first	
  guiding	
  principle.	
  
	
  
COSOMB	
  Proposed	
  New	
  First	
  Guiding	
  Principle	
  
	
  
Sexual offending behavior is often repetitive and there is a continuing risk that adult
sex offenders will reoffend.
The Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) has reviewed the considerable body of research
concerning the treatment of adult sex offenders. This guiding principle establishes a treatment
and management philosophy which recognizes that there is currently no way to ensure that adult
sex offenders will not re-offend.
This does not mean that all adult sex offenders will re-offend. With effective treatment,
supervision and self-management, sex offenders can internalize changes that may decrease their
likelihood of re-offense.

	
  

48	
  

The offender must take responsibility for his or her behavior and commit to continually
manage the behaviors that led to his or her offense(s) in order to prevent future offenses, future
victims and to enhance public safety.	
  

	
  
This	
   revision	
   is	
   a	
   modest	
   but	
   insufficient	
   improvement.	
   It	
   does	
   not	
   bring	
   the	
   first	
  
principle	
  in	
  line	
  with	
  research.	
  Although	
  it	
  is	
  true	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  way	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  
a	
   sexual	
   offender	
   will	
   not	
   re-­‐offend,	
   it	
   leaves	
   the	
   reader	
   with	
   the	
   impression	
   that	
   all	
  
sexual	
  offenders	
  will	
  reoffend	
  unless	
  prevented	
  by	
  treatment	
  and	
  supervision.	
  The	
  
recidivism	
   literature	
   does	
   not	
   support	
   this	
   idea.	
   To	
   the	
   contrary,	
   many	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   seem	
   to	
   desist	
   after	
   being	
   caught	
   and	
   punished	
   for	
   prior	
   offenses	
   without	
  
either	
   extended	
   supervision	
   or	
   treatment.	
   	
   Yet,	
   for	
   other	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   sexual	
  
offending	
   is	
   repetitive.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
   any	
   revision	
   to	
   the	
   first	
   principle	
  
highlight	
   the	
   need	
   to	
   respond	
   to	
   the	
   great	
   variation	
   in	
   risk	
   presented	
   by	
   sexual	
  
offenders.	
  	
  
	
  
2. Sex offenders are dangerous.
When a sexual assault occurs there is always a victim. Both the literature and clinical
experience suggest that sexual assault can have devastating effects on the lives of victims and
their families. There are many forms of sexual offending. Offenders may have more than one
pattern of sexual offending behavior and often have multiple victims. The propensity for such
behavior is often present long before it is detected. It is the nature of the disorder that sex
offenders' behaviors are inherently covert, deceptive, and secretive. Untreated sex offenders
alsocommonly exhibit varying degrees of denial about the facts, severity and/or frequency of
their offenses. Prediction of the risk of re-offense for sex offenders is in the early stages of
development. Therefore, it is difficult to predict the likelihood of re-offense or future victim
selection. Some offenders may be too dangerous to be placed in the community and other
offenders may pose enough risk to the community to require lifetime monitoring to minimize the
risk.

The	
   second	
  guiding	
   principle	
   is	
   an	
   over-­‐simplification	
  that	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  the	
  rest	
  
is	
   misleading.	
   “Dangerous”	
   means	
   liable	
   to	
   do	
   serious	
   harm.	
   “Dangerous”	
   suggests	
  

	
  

49	
  

both	
   that	
   there	
   is	
   a	
   high	
   probability	
   of	
   each	
   known	
   sexual	
   offender	
   committing	
  
further	
   sex	
   offenses	
   and	
   that	
   there	
   is	
   an	
   equally	
   high	
   probability	
   that	
   these	
   offenses	
  
when	
  they	
  occur	
  will	
  invariably	
  traumatize	
  the	
  persons	
  victimized.	
  	
  In	
  fact,	
  however,	
  
there	
   are	
   many	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   for	
   whom	
   there	
   is	
   no	
   credible	
   empirical	
   basis	
   for	
  
asserting	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  “likely”	
  to	
  commit	
  further	
  sex	
  offenses.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   text	
   then	
   expands	
   an	
   argument	
   that	
   implicitly	
   assumes	
   that	
   we	
   know	
   that	
  
sexual	
   offenders	
   in	
   general	
   are	
   likely	
   to	
   reoffend	
   and	
   that	
   limitations	
   on	
   our	
   risk	
  
assessment	
  technology	
  mean	
  that	
  we	
  can’t	
  accurately	
  identify	
  the	
  exceptional	
  sexual	
  
offender	
   who	
   is	
   at	
   low	
   risk	
   of	
   sexual	
   offending.	
   This	
   has	
   the	
   real	
   situation	
   exactly	
  
backwards,	
  we	
  know	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  large	
  group	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  (the	
  lower	
  risk	
  
offenders	
   referred	
   to	
   above)	
   who	
   seem	
   very	
   unlikely	
   to	
   commit	
   further	
   sexual	
  
offenses	
   (a	
   long-­‐term	
   recidivism	
   rate	
   of	
   just	
   5%).	
   Limitations	
   on	
   our	
   risk	
  
assessment	
   technology	
   mean	
   that	
   while	
   we	
   can	
   reliably	
   identify	
   a	
   substantial	
   group	
  
who	
  present	
  an	
  elevated	
  but	
  still	
  relatively	
  low	
  rate	
  of	
  sexual	
  recidivism,	
  it	
  is	
  only	
  
exceptional	
  individuals	
  who	
  can	
  be	
  identified	
  as	
  truly	
  likely	
  to	
  re-­‐offend.	
  
A	
   version	
   of	
   the	
   second	
   principle	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   more	
   consistent	
   with	
   available	
  
research	
  would	
  read	
  something	
  like	
  the	
  following.	
  
	
  
Sexual Offenses should always be taken seriously as they can have devastating effects on the
lives of victims and their families.
When a sexual assault occurs there is always a victim. Both the literature and clinical
experience suggest that sexual assault can have devastating effects on the lives of victims and
their families. There are many forms of sexual offending. Convicted sexual offenders may
sometimes have more than one pattern of sexual offending behavior and often have multiple
victims. The propensity for such behavior is often present long before it is detected. It is the
nature of sexual offending that is carried out covertly with the intention of avoiding detection,
Untreated sex offenders also commonly exhibit varying degrees of denial about the facts, severity
and/or frequency of their offenses. In addition to the direct negative effect of the sexual offense,
victims may be traumatized again by their experiences during the legal process. Especially where

	
  

50	
  

the perpetrator is a family member the victim may have mixed feelings about the perpetrator’s
legal punishment, other family members may wish the victim had not disclosed and blame the
victim for the family’s troubles, and even after a man has been convicted of a sexual crime he
may persist in denying or minimizing the offense and in trying to sell a victim-blaming version of
events to other family members. Professionals working with sexual offenders should be alert to
how such behaviors may inflict further harm on persons they have previously victimized.

	
  
3. Community safety is paramount.
The highest priority of these Standards and Guidelines is community safety.	
  

	
  
Most	
   people	
   would	
   surely	
   agree	
   that	
   community	
   safety	
   should	
   be	
   the	
   highest	
  
priority	
   and	
   some	
   would	
   agree	
   that	
   this	
   should	
   be	
   the	
   first	
   guiding	
   principle.	
   It	
   is	
  
appropriate	
   to	
   simultaneously	
   articulate	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   other	
   priorities	
   in	
   managing	
  
and	
  treating	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  that	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  taken	
  into	
  account.	
  	
  
	
  
One	
   of	
   these	
   is	
   cost-­‐effectiveness.	
   The	
   most	
   effective	
   way	
   to	
   assure	
   community	
  
safety	
   is	
   to	
   keep	
   all	
   known	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   in	
   prison	
   for	
   the	
   rest	
   of	
   their	
   lives.	
   This,	
  
however,	
   would	
   be	
   prohibitively	
   costly.	
   The	
   annual	
   cost	
   per	
   prison	
   inmate	
   for	
  
Colorado	
   was	
   estimated	
   in	
   2012	
   by	
   the	
   Vera	
   Institute	
   for	
   Justice	
   as	
   $30,	
   374.	
   A	
   man	
  
imprisoned	
  at	
  the	
  age	
  of	
  40	
  who	
  lived	
  until	
  he	
  was	
  75	
  would	
  therefore	
  cost	
  the	
  state	
  
about	
  a	
  million	
  dollars	
  (35	
  x	
  $30,	
  374).	
  Remembering	
  that	
  for	
  lower	
  risk	
  offenders	
  
the	
   long	
   term	
   rate	
   of	
   new	
   sexual	
   charges	
   is	
   just	
   5%,	
   this	
   means	
   that	
   on	
   average	
   you	
  
have	
   to	
   apply	
   lifetime	
   imprisonment	
   to	
   20	
   lower	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   in	
   order	
   to	
  
avoid	
  one	
  charge	
  for	
  a	
  new	
  sexual	
  offense.	
  The	
  cost	
  of	
  this	
  strategy	
  is	
  therefore	
  $20	
  
million	
  per	
  charge	
  prevented.	
  In	
  the	
  present	
  era	
  no	
  policy	
  objective	
  can	
  be	
  pursued	
  
without	
   regard	
   to	
   cost.	
   Surely	
   there	
   are	
   ways	
   of	
   spending	
   $20	
   million	
   that	
   will	
  
prevent	
  more	
  than	
  one	
  charge	
  for	
  a	
  sexual	
  offense,	
  for	
  example	
  primary	
  prevention	
  
strategies	
  and	
  victim	
  services.	
  
	
  

	
  

51	
  

One	
   way	
   of	
   restating	
   this	
   guiding	
   principle	
   in	
   a	
   more	
   balanced	
   manner	
   is	
   the	
  
following.	
  	
  
	
  
Community safety is paramount.
The highest priority of these Standards and Guidelines is to maximize community safety in the
most cost efficient manner possible.

	
  
4. Assessment and evaluation of sex offenders is an ongoing process. Progress in treatment
and level of risk are not constant over time.
The effective assessment and evaluation of sexual offenders is best seen as a process. In
Colorado, criminal sexual offenders are first assessed and referred for a sex offense-specific
evaluation during the pre-sentence investigation conducted by the Probation Department.
Assessment of sex offenders' risk and amenability to treatment should not, however, end at
this point. Subsequent assessments must occur at both the entry and exit points of all
sentencing options, i.e. probation, parole, community corrections and prison. In addition,
assessment and evaluation should be an ongoing practice in any program providing treatment
for sex offenders. In the management and treatment of sex offenders there will be measurable
degrees of progress or lack of progress. Because of the cyclical nature of offense patterns and
fluctuating life stresses, sex offenders' levels of risk are constantly in flux. Success in the
management and treatment of sex offenders cannot be assumed to be permanent. For these
reasons, monitoring of risk must be a continuing process as long as sex offenders are under
criminal justice supervision. Moreover, the end of the period of court supervision should not
necessarily be seen as the end of dangerousness.	
  

	
  
	
  
While	
  the	
  principle	
  is	
  accurate,	
  the	
  subsequent	
  elaboration	
  is	
  somewhat	
  misleading.	
  
The	
   text	
   implies	
   a	
   state	
   of	
   maximum	
   vigilance	
   should	
   be	
   employed	
   for	
   all	
   sex	
  
offenders	
  at	
  all	
  times.	
  Regardless	
  of	
  how	
  someone’s	
  risk	
  may	
  seem	
  to	
  have	
  declined,	
  
according	
   to	
   this	
   principle,	
   they	
   may	
   at	
   any	
   moment	
   “flux”	
   into	
   a	
   state	
   of	
   higher	
  
dangerousness.	
   Whereas	
   it	
   is	
   true	
   that	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   may	
   relapse	
   to	
   re-­‐offense	
  
rapidly	
   or	
   gradually,	
   perpetuating	
   a	
   view	
   that	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   are	
   all	
   chronically	
  
	
  

52	
  

and	
   persistently	
   at	
   high	
   risk	
   for	
   re-­‐offense	
   is	
   misleading.	
   Such	
   a	
   view	
   is	
   factually	
  
inaccurate	
  and	
  mitigates	
  against	
  cost-­‐efficient	
  strategies	
  for	
  managing	
  sex	
  offenders.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Available	
   research	
   indicates	
   that	
   the	
   strong	
   general	
   pattern	
   is	
   that	
   risk	
   of	
   future	
  
charges	
   for	
   sexual	
   offenses	
   halves	
   for	
   every	
   five	
   years	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   are	
   in	
   the	
  
community	
   without	
   offending.	
   While	
   it	
   is	
   undoubtedly	
   true	
   that,	
   there	
   are	
   always	
  
individual	
   exceptions,	
   overall	
   there	
   is	
   a	
   steady	
   decline	
   in	
   risk	
   over	
   time,	
   with	
   the	
  
first	
   five	
   years	
   being	
   the	
   period	
   when	
   most	
   of	
   the	
   re-­‐arrests	
   for	
   sexual	
   offenses	
  
happen.	
   Somewhat	
   similarly,	
   where	
   progress	
   in	
   treatment	
   is	
   assessed	
   using	
  
structured	
   empirically-­‐developed	
   instruments	
   like	
   SOTIPS	
   (McGrath	
   et	
   al,	
   2012)	
  
those	
  rated	
  as	
  progressing	
  over	
  the	
  first	
  12	
  months	
  of	
  treatment	
  show	
  significantly	
  
reduced	
   risk	
   of	
   longer	
   term	
   recidivism	
   compared	
   to	
   those	
   who	
   do	
   not	
   progress	
   in	
  
treatment.	
   Indeed,	
   the	
   SOMB	
   has	
   reported	
   a	
   plan	
   for	
   training	
   and	
   use	
   of	
   this	
  
instrument.	
  	
  If	
  utilized	
  in	
  a	
  manner	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  findings	
  of	
  this	
  report,	
  this	
  
will	
  be	
  a	
  marked	
  improvement	
  over	
  current	
  practice.	
  
	
  
A	
   version	
   of	
   the	
   fourth	
   guiding	
   principle	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
   available	
  
research	
  might	
  read	
  as	
  follows.	
  
	
  
4. Assessment and evaluation of sex offenders’ risk is an ongoing process. The intensity of
external controls should be responsive to changes in risk.
The effective assessment and evaluation of sexual offenders is a process. Effective management
of risk balances the use of external controls and the development of internal protective factors
and controls. Treatment and supervision should aim to gradually build up internal protective
factors and controls and gradually reduce the intensity of external controls so that professionals
can determine how well improved behavior is sustained when the individual has more freedom.
This will better prepare for the end of court supervision and also allow for more cost effective
low intensity supervision when internal protective factors and controls are stronger. At the same
time systems need to be alert for indications that risk has temporarily increased (for example: the
individual’s life has become acutely more chaotic or stressful; the individual has acutely become
less cooperative with supervision or treatment; the individual appears to be seeking access to

	
  

53	
  

potential victims) and quickly be able to increase the intensity of management in response.
The assessment of sex offenders' risk, internal protective factors and external controls, and
amenability to both treatment and supervision that takes place as part of the initial sex offensespecific evaluation during the pre-sentence investigation should be supplemented by further
assessments at both the entry and exit points of all sentencing options, i.e. probation, parole,
community corrections and prison. In addition, assessment and evaluation should be an ongoing
practice in any program providing treatment for sex offenders. Risk decreases typically become
evident when offenders show meaningful progress as measured with structured evidence-based
instruments after 12 to 18 months specialized community treatment. It also decreases very
substantially when the offender spends five years in the community without further sexual
offending. It should be exceptional for an offender who has met either of these criteria to continue
to receive intensive supervision and treatment. A rational strategy would be to reduce the
intensity of supervision and treatment once meaningful progress has been identified and to
consider it no longer required if progress is sustained and the offender succeeds in spending five
years in the community without further sexual offending.
5. Assignment to community supervision is a privilege, and sex offenders must be
completely accountable for their behaviors.
Sex offenders on community supervision must agree to intensive and sometimes intrusive
accountability measures which enable them to remain in the community rather than in prison.
Offenders carry the responsibility to learn and demonstrate the importance of accountability,
and to earn the right to remain under community supervision.	
  

	
  
	
  
While	
   it	
   is	
   correct	
   that	
   community	
   supervision	
   is	
   a	
   privilege,	
   it	
   is	
   arguably	
   more	
  
helpful	
   to	
   emphasize	
   that	
   from	
   the	
   perspective	
   of	
   the	
   taxpayer,	
   community	
  
supervision	
   is	
   a	
   more	
   cost-­‐effective	
   form	
   of	
   risk	
   management	
   than	
   incarceration.	
  
The	
   purpose	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   is	
   to	
   influence	
   the	
   behavior	
   of	
  
treatment	
   providers,	
   probation	
   and	
   parole	
   supervisors,	
   and	
   other	
   professionals	
  
working	
   with	
   convicted	
   sexual	
   offenders.	
   Viewed	
   from	
   this	
   perspective	
   the	
  
emphasis	
  in	
  this	
  guiding	
  principle	
  as	
  written	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  unhelpful.	
  It	
  suggests	
  a	
  

	
  

54	
  

punitive	
   and	
   unyieldingly	
   demanding	
   attitude	
   towards	
   persons	
   being	
   supervised	
  
with	
   nothing	
   less	
   than	
   total	
   compliance	
   being	
   acceptable.	
   This	
   is	
   likely	
   to	
   encourage	
  
revocations	
  that	
  could	
  and	
  should	
  have	
  been	
  avoided.	
  The	
  phrasing	
  of	
  this	
  guiding	
  
principle	
   discourages	
   professionals	
   from	
   attending	
   to	
   how	
   their	
   own	
   behavior	
  
affects	
  the	
  conduct	
  of	
  offenders	
  they	
  supervise.	
  	
  
	
  
With	
  these	
  considerations	
  in	
  mind	
  the	
  fifth	
  guiding	
  principle	
  could	
  be	
  re-­‐vised	
  in	
  a	
  
manner	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  following.	
  
	
  
Community Supervision is a more cost-effective form of risk management than imprisonment
but it depends on sexual offenders adequately cooperating with supervision processes.
Accordingly, those that work or interact with sexual offenders should do so in such a manner
so as to maximize offender cooperation and accountability.
Community supervision generally works better when supervisors, evaluators, and treatment
providers employ a motivational approach to eliciting cooperation and focus their attention on
discussion of risk and protective factors rather than being excessively and solely attentive to
compliance with conditions. The greater cost-effectiveness of community supervision means that
revocation of supervision should be a last resort, only pursued when it is essential for public
safety or when treatment compliance cannot be otherwise obtained.

	
  
6. Sex offenders must waive confidentiality for evaluation, treatment, supervision and case
management purposes.
All members of the team managing and treating each offender must have access to the same
relevant information. Sex offenses are committed in secret, and all forms of secrecy
potentially undermine the rehabilitation of sex offenders and threaten public safety.	
  

	
  
	
  
This	
   guiding	
   principle	
   is	
   well	
   founded	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   current	
   available	
  
literature	
  and	
  best	
  practices	
  in	
  treating	
  and	
  managing	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

55	
  

7. Victims have a right to safety and self-determination.
Victims have the right to determine the extent to which they will be informed of an offender's
status in the criminal justice system and the extent to which they will provide input through
appropriate channels to the offender management and treatment process. In the case of
adolescent or child victims, custodial adults and/or guardians ad litem act on behalf of the
child to exercise this right, in the best interest of the victim.

	
  
	
  
This	
   guiding	
   principle	
   is	
   well	
   founded	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   current	
   available	
  
literature	
  and	
  best	
  practices	
  in	
  treating	
  and	
  managing	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
8. When a child is sexually abused within the family, the child’s individual need for safety,
protection, developmental growth and psychological well-being outweighs any parental
or family interests.
All aspects of the community response and intervention system to child sexual abuse should
be designed to promote the best interests of children rather than focusing primarily on the
interests of adults. This includes the child’s right not to live with a sex offender, even if that
offender is a parent. In most cases, the offender should be moved or inconvenienced to
achieve the lack of contact, rather than further disrupting the life of the child victim.

	
  
	
  
This	
   guiding	
   principle	
   is	
   well	
   founded	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   current	
   available	
  
literature	
  and	
  best	
  practices	
  in	
  treating	
  and	
  managing	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
9. A continuum of sex offender management and treatment options should be available in
each community in the state.
Many sex offenders can be managed in the community on probation, community corrections,
and parole. It is in the best interest of public safety for each community to have a continuum of
sex offender management and treatment options. Such a continuum should provide for an

	
  

56	
  

increase or decrease in the intensity of treatment and monitoring based on offenders' changing
risk factors, treatment needs and compliance with supervision conditions.

	
  
	
  
This	
   guiding	
   principle	
   is	
   well	
   founded	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   current	
   available	
  
literature	
  and	
  best	
  practices	
  in	
  treating	
  and	
  managing	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
10. Standards and guidelines for assessment, evaluation, treatment and behavioral
monitoring of sex offenders will be most effective if the entirety of the criminal justice and
social services systems, not just sex offender treatment providers, apply the same principles
and work together.
It is the philosophy of the Sex Offender Management Board that setting standards for sex
offender treatment providers alone will not significantly improve public safety. In addition, the
process by which sex offenders are assessed, treated, and managed by the criminal justice and
social services systems should be coordinated and improved.

	
  
	
  
This	
   guiding	
   principle	
   is	
   well	
   founded	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   current	
   available	
  
literature	
  and	
  best	
  practices	
  in	
  treating	
  and	
  managing	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
11. The management of sex offenders requires a coordinated team response.
All relevant agencies must cooperate in planning treatment and containment strategies of sex
offenders for the following reasons:
•

Sex offenders should not be in the community without comprehensive treatment,
supervision, and behavioral monitoring;

•

Each discipline brings to the team specialized knowledge and expertise;

•

Open professional communication confronts sex offenders' tendencies to exhibit
secretive, manipulative and denying behaviors;

•

Information provided by each member of an offender case management team
contributes to a more thorough understanding of the offender's risk factors and needs,

	
  

57	
  

and to the development of a comprehensive approach to treating and managing the sex
offender.

	
  
	
  
This	
   guiding	
   principle	
   is	
   well	
   founded	
   with	
   exception	
   the	
   first	
   bullet.	
   It	
   is	
   not	
  
necessary	
   for	
   most	
   low	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   to	
   have	
   lifelong	
   comprehensive	
  
treatment,	
  supervision	
  and	
  behavioral	
  monitoring.	
  
	
  
12. Sex offender assessment, evaluation, treatment and behavioral monitoring should be
non-discriminatory and humane, and bound by the rules of ethics and law.
Individuals and agencies carrying out the assessment, evaluation, treatment and behavioral
monitoring of sex offenders should not discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, disability or socioeconomic status. Sex offenders must be treated with dignity and
respect by all members of the team who are managing and treating the offender regardless of
the nature of the offender's crimes or conduct

	
  
This	
  guiding	
  principle	
  is	
  well	
  founded	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards.	
  	
  
It	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
   list	
   in	
   the	
   first	
   sentence	
   include	
   a	
   prohibition	
   against	
  
discriminating	
  due	
  to	
  offender	
  status.	
  	
  
	
  
13. Successful treatment and management of sex offenders is enhanced by the positive
cooperation of family, friends, employers and members of the community who have
influence in sex offenders' lives.
Sexual issues are often not talked about freely in families, communities and other settings. In
fact, there is often a tendency to avoid and deny that sex offenses have occurred. Successful
management and treatment of sex offenders involves an open dialogue about this subject and a
willingness to hold sex offenders accountable for their behavior.

	
  
	
  

	
  

58	
  

This	
   principle	
   captures	
   one	
   aspect	
   of	
   the	
   way	
   pro-­‐social	
   law-­‐abiding	
   people	
   in	
   the	
  
offender’s	
   life	
   may	
   be	
   a	
   good	
   influence.	
   It	
   might	
   profitably	
   also	
   emphasize	
   other	
  
protective	
  aspect	
  of	
  prosocial	
  support.	
  These	
  would	
  include	
  these	
  figures	
  modeling	
  
prosocial	
  attitudes	
  and	
  decision-­‐making,	
  providing	
  non-­‐collusive	
  social	
  support,	
  and	
  
facilitating	
  opportunities	
  for	
  the	
  offender	
  to	
  start	
  living	
  a	
  more	
  “normal”	
  life.	
  
	
  
With	
  these	
  considerations	
  for	
  improvement	
  in	
  mind	
  this	
  guiding	
  principle	
  could	
  be	
  
revised	
  in	
  a	
  manner	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  following.	
  
	
  
Families, friends, employers and members of the community who have influence in sexual
offenders' lives can meaningfully contribute to their safe re-integration into society.
Sexual issues are often not talked about freely in families, communities and other settings. In fact,
there is often a tendency to avoid and deny that sex offenses have occurred. Successful
management and treatment of sex offenders involves an open dialogue about this subject.
Prosocial individuals in the offender's environment can model prosocial attitudes and decisionmaking and can challenge antisocial / risky attitudes and decision-making. They can also create
opportunities for the individual to live a more normal life and so encourage the individual in the
sense that living in a prosocial way can be worthwhile.

	
  

	
  

	
  

59	
  

Appendix	
  B:	
   Sexual	
  Recidivism	
  Risk	
  
	
  
Early	
  Research	
  
	
  
Early	
   research	
   into	
   sexual	
   offending	
   concentrated	
   on	
   the	
   past	
   behavior	
   of	
   convicted	
  
sexual	
   offenders.	
   These	
   studies	
   commonly	
   reveal	
   that	
   under	
   some	
   conditions	
  
convicted	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   will	
   report	
   having	
   committed	
   large	
   numbers	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offenses.	
  For	
  example,	
  Groth,	
  Longo	
  and	
  McFadin	
  (1982)	
  surveyed	
  83	
  rapists	
  and	
  54	
  
child-­‐molesters	
   using	
   an	
   anonymous	
   questionnaire.	
   They	
   found	
   that	
   the	
   rapists	
  
admitted	
   to	
   an	
   average	
   of	
   5.2	
   rapes	
   each	
   while	
   the	
   child-­‐molesters	
   admitted	
   to	
   an	
  
average	
  of	
  4.7	
  sexual	
  assaults.	
  Freeman-­‐Longo	
  (1985)	
  using	
  the	
  same	
  procedure	
  to	
  
study	
   23	
   rapists	
   and	
   30	
   child-­‐molesters	
   in	
   an	
   institutional	
   forensic	
   mental	
   health	
  
program	
   found	
   that	
   these	
   rapists	
   self-­‐reported	
   an	
   average	
   of	
   221	
   sexual	
   offenses	
  
while	
  the	
  child-­‐molesters	
  reported	
  nearly	
  six	
  thousand	
  sexual	
  assaults	
  on	
  children.	
  
Abel	
   et	
   al	
   (1987)	
   reported	
   that	
   under	
   research	
   conditions	
   561	
   mixed	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   who	
   had	
   sought	
   evaluation	
   or	
   treatment	
   at	
   a	
   specialized	
   clinic	
   reported	
  
having	
   committed	
   nearly	
   a	
   quarter	
   of	
   a	
   million	
   sexual	
   offenses.	
   Weinrott	
   and	
   Saylor	
  
(1991)	
  reported	
  that	
  the	
  37	
  identified	
  rapists	
  in	
  a	
  treatment	
  program	
  run	
  in	
  a	
  state	
  
hospital	
  admitted	
  to	
  433	
  rapes	
  against	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  11.7	
  victims	
  while	
  the	
  67	
  child-­‐
molesters	
   reported	
   over	
   8,000	
   offenses	
   against	
   children.	
   Lisak	
   and	
   Miller	
   (2002)	
  
found	
  that,	
  under	
  research	
  conditions,	
  6.4%	
  of	
  a	
  sample	
  of	
  1,882	
  students	
  reported	
  
having	
  engaged	
  in	
  sexual	
  behaviors	
  that	
  met	
  the	
  legal	
  definition	
  of	
  rape.	
  Almost	
  two-­‐
thirds	
   reported	
   having	
   carried	
   out	
   more	
   than	
   one	
   rape,	
   and	
   these	
   repeat-­‐rapists	
  
reported	
   an	
   average	
   of	
   5.8	
   rapes	
   each;	
   none	
   had	
   been	
   arrested	
   for	
   these	
   offenses.	
  
Ahlmeyer	
   et	
   al	
   (2000)	
   used	
   polygraph	
   examinations	
   to	
   encourage	
   admissions	
   of	
  
past	
   sexual	
   offenses	
   among	
   imprisoned	
   and	
   paroled	
   sexual	
   offenders.	
   This	
   had	
   little	
  
effect	
   for	
   the	
   parolees	
   but	
   for	
   inmates	
   who	
   had	
   a	
   mean	
   number	
   of	
   victims	
   of	
   2	
  
according	
  to	
  their	
  PSIR,	
  by	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  second	
  polygraph	
  examination	
  a	
  mean	
  of	
  
184	
   victims	
   had	
   been	
   reported.	
   The	
   lack	
   of	
   effect	
   on	
   the	
   parolees	
   is	
   thought	
   to	
   have	
  
been	
   because	
   at	
   the	
   time	
   there	
   were	
   no	
   consequences	
   for	
   them	
   of	
   failing	
   the	
  

	
  

60	
  

polygraph.	
   	
   A	
   subsequent,	
   much	
   larger	
   study	
   using	
   the	
   same	
   combination	
   of	
  
polygraph	
   and	
   treatment	
   was	
   reported	
   by	
   Heil	
   et	
   al	
   (2003).	
   Again	
   the	
   procedure	
  
made	
   little	
   difference	
   for	
   those	
   on	
   parole	
   but	
   for	
   the	
   223	
   prisoners	
   who	
   had	
   a	
   mean	
  
of	
  2	
  victims	
  described	
  in	
  their	
  PSIR,	
  a	
  mean	
  of	
  18	
  had	
  been	
  reported	
  by	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  
the	
  polygraph	
  process.	
  
	
  
These	
  early	
  research	
  findings	
  seem	
  to	
  paint	
  a	
  picture	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  as	
  highly	
  
prone	
   to	
   recidivate.	
   Careful	
   examination	
   of	
   the	
   studies’	
   methodology	
   reveals,	
  
however,	
   that	
   it	
   is	
   not	
   fully	
   accurate	
   to	
   interpret	
   them	
   in	
   that	
   manner.	
   As	
  
enumerated	
  below,	
  there	
  are	
  several	
  difficulties	
  with	
  these	
  studies.	
  
	
  
1. These	
  studies	
  relate	
  to	
  what	
  offenders	
  say	
  they	
  have	
  done,	
  not	
  to	
  what	
  
we	
   know	
   they	
   have	
   actually	
   done.	
   	
   This	
   concern	
   is	
   most	
   obvious	
   in	
  
relation	
   to	
   the	
   polygraph	
   studies.	
   Here	
   substantial	
   disclosure	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offending	
  only	
  occurs	
  when	
  offenders	
  are	
  put	
  under	
  strong	
  pressure	
  to	
  say	
  
that	
   they	
   have	
   committed	
   additional	
   offenses.	
   In	
   an	
   evaluation	
   by	
   the	
  
current	
   team	
   of	
   the	
   Colorado	
   prison	
   treatment	
   program	
   several	
   offenders	
  
reported	
  that	
  program	
  participants	
  invent	
  offenses	
  they	
  hadn’t	
  committed	
  in	
  
order	
  to	
  appease	
  the	
  program.	
  Kokish	
  et	
  al	
  (2005)	
  similarly	
  found	
  that	
  some	
  
offenders	
   participating	
   in	
   polygraph	
   assisted	
   disclosure	
   in	
   California	
  
reported	
   fabricating	
   offenses	
   to	
   appease	
   those	
   working	
   with	
   them.	
  
Disclosures	
   under	
   research	
   conditions	
   are	
   less	
   subject	
   to	
   this	
   problem	
  
though	
  there	
  is	
  still	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  offenders	
  telling	
  researchers	
  what	
  they	
  
think	
  the	
  researchers	
  want	
  to	
  hear.	
  This	
  means	
  great	
  caution	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  
in	
  interpreting	
  numbers	
  from	
  studies	
  combining	
  the	
  polygraph	
  and	
  intense	
  
pressure	
  to	
  elicit	
  reports.	
  	
  
	
  
2. There	
  is	
  a	
  problem	
  with	
  how	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  are	
  defined.	
  For	
  example,	
  
Lisak	
   and	
   Miller	
   included	
   having	
   “sexual	
   intercourse	
   with	
   someone,	
   even	
  
though	
  they	
  did	
  not	
  want	
  to,	
  because	
  they	
  were	
  too	
  intoxicated	
  (on	
  alcohol	
  
or	
  drugs)	
  to	
  resist	
  your	
  sexual	
  advances	
  (e.g.	
  removing	
  their	
  clothes).”	
  Now	
  
	
  

61	
  

clearly	
  this	
  is	
  describing	
  a	
  situation	
  in	
  which	
  someone	
  was	
  likely	
  unable	
  to	
  
effectively	
  express	
  their	
  consent	
  or	
  dissent	
  to	
  sexual	
  activity.	
  Nevertheless,	
  it	
  
does	
   not	
   correspond	
   to	
   the	
   common	
   prototype	
   of	
   rape	
   in	
   which	
   clearly	
  
expressed	
   dissent	
   and	
   resistance	
   is	
   overcome	
   by	
   physical	
   force	
   or	
   threats.	
  
Moreover,	
   consent	
   and	
   dissent	
   is	
   a	
   fluid	
   thing	
   in	
   sexual	
   interactions,	
  
someone	
   may	
   dissent	
   from	
   sexual	
   activity	
   at	
   one	
   point	
   but	
   then	
   acquiesce	
   to	
  
it	
   (or	
   even	
   enthusiastically	
   participate)	
   later.	
   Cowley	
   (2013)	
   provides	
   a	
  
qualitative	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  alcohol,	
  beliefs	
  about	
  the	
  effect	
  of	
  alcohol,	
  
and	
  sex	
  role	
  expectations	
  can	
  interact	
  to	
  lead	
  to	
  unwanted	
  sexual	
  behavior.	
  
These	
  kind	
  of	
  complexities	
  mean	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  clear	
  that	
  the	
  events	
  Lisak	
  and	
  
Miller	
  defined	
  as	
  rape	
  would	
  necessarily	
  have	
  been	
  defined	
  that	
  way	
  by	
  the	
  
participants	
   (indeed	
   in	
   widely	
   quoted	
   college	
   rape	
   surveys	
   nearly	
   three-­‐
quarters	
   of	
   persons	
   the	
   researchers	
   defined	
   as	
   having	
   been	
   raped	
   did	
   not	
  
themselves	
  see	
  what	
  had	
  happened	
  as	
  rape	
  –	
  Koss	
  et	
  al,	
  1987).	
  Further	
  this	
  
finding	
   in	
   particular	
   fails	
   to	
   capture	
   legally	
   relevant	
   aspects	
   of	
   rape	
   as	
   a	
  
criminal	
  offense	
  and	
  so	
  is	
  liable	
  to	
  subsume	
  many	
  behaviors	
  which	
  are	
  not	
  in	
  
fact	
  crimes	
  (Gylys	
  &	
  McNamara,	
  1996).	
  Similarly	
  where	
  offenders	
  participate	
  
in	
  treatment	
  they	
  are	
  often	
  taught	
  a	
  refined	
  sexual	
  sensibility	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  
now	
   come	
   to	
   see	
   as	
   abusive	
   sexual	
   behaviors	
   those	
   that	
   they	
   did	
   not	
  
previously	
   see	
   as	
   abusive.	
   These	
   abusive	
   behaviors	
   that	
   are	
   in	
   a	
   gray	
   zone	
  
(commonly	
   not	
   socially	
   recognized	
   as	
   criminal)	
   may	
   make	
   up	
   a	
   significant	
  
proportion	
   of	
   disclosures	
   in	
   these	
   studies.	
   For	
   example,	
   in	
   the	
   Lisak	
   and	
  
Miller	
   study	
   sexual	
   intercourse	
   with	
   an	
   intoxicated	
   person	
   was	
   by	
   far	
   the	
  
most	
   common	
   form	
   of	
   sexual	
   aggression	
   reported	
   in	
   this	
   sample.	
   By	
  
contrast,	
  it	
  appears	
  that	
  0.6%	
  (6	
  in	
  a	
  1,000)	
  reported	
  using	
  threats	
  or	
  force	
  
to	
  coerce	
  sexual	
  intercourse.	
  	
  
	
  
3. The	
   distribution	
   of	
   self-­‐reported	
   offenses	
   tends	
   to	
   be	
   skewed	
   so	
   that	
  
means	
  misrepresent	
  what	
  is	
  typical.	
  This	
   means	
   that	
   many	
   people	
   report	
  
a	
   smaller	
   number	
   of	
   offenses	
   while	
   a	
   small	
   number	
   report	
   a	
   very	
   large	
  
number	
  of	
  offenses.	
  Thus	
  the	
  average	
  and	
  total	
  number	
  of	
  victims	
  reported	
  
	
  

62	
  

will	
  be	
  highly	
  misleading.	
  For	
  example,	
  in	
  Ahlmeyer	
  et	
  al	
  (2000)’s	
  study,	
  for	
  
inmates	
   the	
   mean	
   number	
   of	
   reported	
   victims	
   was	
   more	
   than	
   seven	
   times	
  
the	
   median	
   (midpoint	
   in	
   the	
   distribution)	
   number.	
   In	
   Heil	
   et	
   al’s	
   study	
   the	
  
mean	
   number	
   of	
   victims	
   report	
   by	
   inmates	
   was	
   twice	
   the	
   median.	
   In	
   Lisak	
  
and	
  Miller’s	
  study,	
  even	
  though	
  the	
  mean	
  number	
  of	
  self-­‐reported	
  rapes	
  was	
  
5.8,	
  in	
  fact	
  a	
  majority	
  of	
  those	
  reporting	
  any	
  rapes	
  reported	
  no	
  more	
  than	
  2.	
  	
  
	
  
4. The	
   samples	
   tend	
   to	
   be	
   unrepresentative,	
   probably	
   over-­‐representing	
  	
  
those	
   who	
   are	
   more	
   deviant.	
   	
   Many	
   of	
   the	
   samples	
   are	
   from	
   treatment	
  
programs	
  or	
  forensic	
  populations	
  where	
  offenders	
  were	
  sent	
  specifically	
  due	
  
to	
  having	
  serious	
  sexually	
  deviant	
  behavior.	
  	
  
	
  
5. These	
   studies	
   primarily	
   relate	
   to	
   sexual	
   offending	
   prior	
   to	
   arrest	
   and	
  
punishment.	
   In	
   other	
   words,	
   they	
   don’t	
   provide	
   information	
   about	
   how	
  
sexual	
   offenders	
   continue	
   to	
   behave	
   after	
   their	
   offending	
   has	
   been	
  
interrupted	
  by	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  
	
  
These	
   methodological	
   problems,	
   taken	
   together	
   mean	
   that	
   these	
   studies	
  
significantly	
   over-­‐represent	
   how	
   repetitive	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   were	
   prior	
   to	
   arrest,	
  
and	
  more	
  critically,	
  provide	
  no	
  information	
  about	
  how	
  they	
  behave	
  after	
  they	
  have	
  
been	
  arrested	
  and	
  punished.	
  In	
  short,	
  they	
  bias	
  our	
  perception	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  
without	
  providing	
  real	
  information	
  about	
  recidivism	
  after	
  punishment.	
  
	
  
Modern	
  Studies	
  of	
  Sexual	
  Recidivism	
  Rates	
  
	
  
To	
  find	
  out	
  about	
  sexual	
  recidivism	
  after	
  punishment	
  we	
  must	
  turn	
  to	
  studies	
  that	
  
follow	
   convicted	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   over	
   time	
   and	
   determine	
   which	
   are	
   charged	
   for	
  
further	
  offending.	
  These	
  are	
  sometimes	
  referred	
  to	
  as	
  studies	
  of	
  official	
  recidivism	
  
rates.	
  
	
  

	
  

63	
  

Official	
   recidivism	
   rates	
   for	
   modern	
   American	
   DOC	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   are	
   low.	
   In	
   a	
  
monumental	
  study	
  of	
  9,691	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  released	
  in	
  1994	
  from	
  the	
  prisons	
  of	
  15	
  
States	
   in	
   the	
   USA,	
   Langan	
   et	
   al	
   (2003)	
   found	
   that	
   95%	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   were	
   free	
  
of	
  arrests	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  during	
  a	
  three	
  year	
  follow	
  up	
  (or	
  to	
  put	
  this	
  another	
  
way,	
  just	
  5.3%	
  recidivated	
  for	
  a	
  sexual	
  offenses).	
  In	
  a	
  more	
  recent	
  study,	
  Zgoba	
  et	
  al	
  
(2012)	
   found	
   that	
   rates	
   have	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   released	
   from	
   four	
   States	
   DOCs	
   had	
  
an	
   average	
   sexual	
   re-­‐arrest	
   rate	
   of	
   5%	
   over	
   a	
   five-­‐year	
   follow	
   up.	
   A	
   limitation	
   of	
  
these	
   studies	
   is	
   that	
   the	
   real	
   follow	
   up	
   period	
   may	
   have	
   been	
   shorter	
   than	
   it	
  
appeared	
   as	
   offenders	
   may	
   have	
   been	
   revoked	
   for	
   technical	
   reasons	
   or	
   for	
   non-­‐
sexual	
   offenses.	
   In	
   fact,	
   in	
   the	
   Langan	
   et	
   al	
   study	
   nearly	
   4	
   in	
   10	
   were	
   returned	
   to	
  
prison	
   within	
   three	
   years	
   of	
   release	
   –	
   almost	
   always	
   for	
   a	
   technical	
   violation	
   or	
   a	
  
non-­‐sexual	
  offense.	
  
	
  
The	
  box	
  below	
  reproduces	
  table	
  2	
  from	
  a	
  Minnesota	
  DOC	
  report	
  on	
  the	
  three-­‐year	
  
sexual	
  recidivism	
  rates	
  on	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  released	
  from	
  their	
  prisons	
  from	
  1990	
  
to	
   2002.	
   The	
   Minnesota	
   statistical	
   studies	
   are	
   important	
   because	
   they	
   carefully	
  
allowed	
  for	
  non-­‐sexual	
  reasons	
  for	
  an	
  offender	
  being	
  removed	
  from	
  the	
  community,	
  
so	
   their	
   three-­‐year	
   recidivism	
   rates	
   correspond	
   to	
   a	
   full	
   three	
   years	
   in	
   the	
  
community	
  with	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  commit	
  new	
  sexual	
  offenses.	
  
	
  
As	
   their	
   table	
   2	
   shows,	
   the	
   three-­‐year	
   rate	
   started	
   high	
   (10	
   to	
   15	
   percent	
   sexual	
  
recidivism	
   being	
   typical	
   for	
   those	
   released	
   between	
   1990	
   and	
   1994)	
   but	
   then	
  
steadily	
   declined	
   so	
   that	
   from	
   2000	
   to	
   2002	
   it	
   has	
   been	
   under	
   4	
   percent.	
   This	
  
decline	
  has	
  been	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  selective	
  use	
  of	
  more	
  intense	
  supervision	
  and	
  
with	
  apparently	
  effective	
  prison	
  treatment.	
  However,	
  another	
  possible	
  factor	
  is	
  the	
  
general	
  decline	
  in	
  violent	
  offending	
  in	
  general	
  and	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  against	
  children	
  
in	
   particular	
   that	
   has	
   taken	
   place	
   from	
   the	
   early	
   1990s	
   onwards.	
   Finkelhor	
   and	
  
Jones	
  (2006)	
  document	
  declines	
  of	
  40%	
  to	
  70%	
  in	
  rates	
  of	
  child-­‐maltreatment	
  and	
  
victimization,	
  including	
  sexual	
  offending,	
  from	
  1993	
  to	
  2004.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

64	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
Variation	
  in	
  Sexual	
  Offender	
  Risk	
  
	
  
Official	
   recidivism	
   rates	
   are	
   importantly	
   affected	
   by	
   the	
   offender’s	
   prior	
   history.	
  
Items	
   that	
   index	
   youth	
   and	
   the	
   degree	
   to	
   which	
   the	
   offender	
   has	
   previously	
  
persisted	
   in	
   committing	
   sexual	
   and	
   non-­‐sexual	
   crimes	
   after	
   punishment	
   can	
   be	
  
combined	
   to	
   produce	
   risk	
   scores	
   and	
   then	
   recidivism	
   rates	
   can	
   be	
   examined	
   for	
  
offenders	
  grouped	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  their	
  risk	
  score.	
  Table	
  1	
  below	
  summarizes	
  data	
  
from	
  a	
  large	
  multi-­‐national	
  study	
  of	
  this	
  kind	
  in	
  which	
  results	
  from	
  smaller	
  studies	
  
are	
  averaged	
  to	
  give	
  more	
  reliable	
  patterns.	
  This	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  comprehensive	
  study	
  
available	
  using	
  Static-­‐99R	
  to	
  classify	
  offenders’	
  criminal	
  history.	
  
	
  
In	
   table	
   1	
   “lower	
   risk”	
   offenders	
   are	
   those	
   scoring	
   from	
   -­‐3	
   to	
   -­‐1	
   on	
   Static-­‐99R;	
  
“higher	
  risk”	
  offenders	
  are	
  those	
  scoring	
  5	
  and	
  above;	
  “moderate	
  risk”	
  offenders	
  are	
  
those	
   with	
   intermediate	
   scores.	
   For	
   each	
   of	
   these	
   groups	
   table	
   1	
   shows	
   their	
   rate	
   of	
  
official	
  recidivism	
  after	
  five	
  years	
  follow	
  up.	
  The	
  last	
  row	
  shows	
  rates	
  of	
  “out	
  of	
  the	
  
blue”	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  committed	
  by	
  non-­‐sexual	
  criminals	
  released	
  from	
  prison.	
  
	
  
	
  

65	
  

Several	
  important	
  points	
  arise	
  from	
  this	
  table.	
  
	
  
1)	
  

Men	
   convicted	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenses	
   who	
   fall	
   in	
   the	
   lower	
   risk	
   category	
   have	
   a	
  

rate	
  of	
  new	
  charges	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  (2%)	
  which	
  is	
  similar	
   to	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  “out	
  of	
  
the	
  blue”	
  sex	
  offenses	
  committed	
  by	
  men	
  discharged	
  from	
  prison	
  who	
  had	
  no	
  prior	
  
history	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending.	
  	
  
	
  
2)	
  

Men	
   convicted	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenses	
   who	
   fall	
   in	
   the	
   moderate	
   risk	
   category	
   have	
  

a	
  rate	
  of	
  new	
  charges	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  that	
  is	
  about	
  3	
  or	
  4	
  times	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  “out	
  
of	
  the	
  blue	
  offenses”	
  and	
  equally	
  about	
  3	
  or	
  4	
  times	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  new	
  charges	
  incurred	
  
by	
  lower	
  risk	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
3)	
  

Men	
  convicted	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  who	
  fall	
  in	
  the	
  higher	
  risk	
  category	
  have	
  a	
  

rate	
  of	
  new	
  charges	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  that	
  is	
  about	
  10	
  times	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  “out	
  of	
  the	
  
blue	
  offenses”	
  and	
  equally	
  about	
  10	
  times	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  new	
  charges	
  incurred	
  by	
  lower	
  
risk	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  
	
  
	
  Table	
  1:	
  Sexual	
  Recidivism	
  Rates	
  by	
  Risk	
  Categories	
  based	
  on	
  Static-­‐99R	
  	
  
Risk	
  Category	
  

Point	
  follow	
  up	
  starts	
  

N	
  

5-­‐Year	
  Sexual	
  
Recidivism	
  
Rate	
  

Lower	
  Risk	
  Sex	
  

From	
  Release	
  

890	
  

Offender	
  

	
  

	
  

Moderate	
  Risk	
  

From	
  Release	
  

4,858	
  

7%	
  

Sex	
  Offender	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Higher	
  Risk	
  Sex	
  

From	
  Release	
  

1,992	
  

22%	
  

Offender	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Non-­‐Sex	
  Offender	
  

From	
  Release	
  

Averaged	
  

1	
  –	
  3%	
  over	
  

across	
  studies	
  

about	
  4-­‐years	
  

Criminals	
  

	
  

66	
  

2%	
  

	
  
In	
   light	
   of	
   these	
   statistics	
   it	
   is	
   grossly	
   unjustified	
   to	
   assign	
   the	
   same	
   level	
   of	
  
resources,	
  intensity	
  of	
  treatment	
  and/or	
  supervision	
  to	
  all	
  three	
  groups.	
  	
  
	
  
Lower	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   seem	
   to	
   warrant	
   no	
   more	
   than	
   routine	
   supervision	
  
practice,	
  with	
  one	
  caution	
  that	
  care	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  taken	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  their	
  potential	
  
contact	
  with	
  persons	
  they	
  have	
  previously	
  victimized.	
  In	
  addition,	
  even	
  an	
  offender	
  
that	
   scores	
   very	
   low	
   on	
   a	
   risk	
   assessment	
   instrument	
   may	
   indeed	
   present	
   an	
  
atpyically	
   high	
   level	
   of	
   external	
   risk	
   factors	
   or	
   offense	
   characteristics	
   such	
   as	
   to	
  
warrant	
   atypical	
   elevation	
   in	
   supervision	
   and	
   treatment	
   intensity.	
   In	
   contrast,	
  
moderate	
   and	
   higher	
   risk	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   genuinely	
   present	
   a	
   risk	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offending	
   that	
   is	
   significantly	
   above	
   that	
   presented	
   by	
   non-­‐sexual	
   offenders	
   and	
  
extra	
  resources	
  are	
  warranted	
  to	
  manage	
  this	
  extra	
  risk.	
  
	
  
Table	
  2	
  repeats	
  the	
  information	
  from	
  Table	
  1	
  but	
  adds	
  information	
  about	
  how	
  risk	
  
changes	
  if	
  a	
  man	
  previously	
  convicted	
  for	
  sexual	
  offending	
  spends	
  five	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  
community	
   without	
   further	
   known	
   sexual	
   offending.	
   It	
   turns	
   out	
   that	
   five	
   years	
   in	
  
the	
  community	
  without	
  known	
  sexual	
  offending	
  signals	
  approximately	
  a	
  halving	
  of	
  
the	
   risk	
   for	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   in	
   the	
   following	
   five	
   years.	
   So,	
   for	
   example,	
   the	
  
Moderate	
   risk	
   categories	
   recidivism	
   rate	
   reduces	
   from	
   7%	
   to	
   4%	
   while	
   the	
   higher	
  
risk	
  categories	
  recidivism	
  rate	
  reduces	
  from	
  22%	
  to	
  9%.	
  	
  
	
  
These	
   results	
   indicate	
   that	
   being	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   for	
   five	
   years	
   without	
   further	
  
known	
  sexual	
  offending	
  is	
  a	
  strong	
  sign	
  of	
  reduction	
  in	
  risk.	
  Accordingly,	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  
rational	
  for	
  the	
  intensity	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  management	
  to	
  normally	
  be	
  materially	
  
reduced	
   at	
   this	
   point,	
   though	
   with	
   an	
   assessment	
   to	
   check	
   for	
   exceptional	
   factors	
  
that	
  might	
  indicate	
  that	
  this	
  normal	
  practice	
  should	
  not	
  be	
  followed	
  in	
  the	
  individual	
  
case.	
   And	
   it	
   is	
   important	
   to	
   note	
   that	
   “higher	
   risk”	
   offenders	
   continue	
   to	
   show	
   some	
  
elevation	
  of	
  risk	
  even	
  after	
  five	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  (presenting	
  a	
  risk	
  more	
  or	
  
less	
  equivalent	
  to	
  the	
  risk	
  presented	
  by	
  “moderate	
  risk”	
  offenders	
  immediately	
  after	
  
release).	
  	
  
	
  

67	
  

	
  
Table	
  2:	
  Sexual	
  Recidivism	
  Rates	
  by	
  Risk	
  Category	
  and	
  Time	
  Offense-­‐Free	
  
	
  
Risk	
  Category	
  

Point	
  follow	
  up	
  starts	
  

N	
  

5-­‐Year	
  Sexual	
  
Recidivism	
  Rate	
  

Lower	
  Risk	
  Sex	
  

From	
  Release	
  

890	
  

2%	
  

Offender	
  

After	
  5	
  years	
  offense-­‐free	
  

601	
  

1%	
  

Moderate	
  Risk	
  

From	
  Release	
  

4,858	
  

7%	
  

Sex	
  Offender	
  

After	
  5	
  years	
  offense-­‐free	
  

3,081	
  

4%	
  

Higher	
  Risk	
  Sex	
  

From	
  Release	
  

1,992	
  

22%	
  

Offender	
  

After	
  5	
  years	
  offense-­‐free	
  

1,053	
  

9%	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

Non-­‐Sex	
  Offender	
  

From	
  Release	
  

Averaged	
  

1	
  –	
  3%	
  over	
  

Criminals	
  

across	
  studies	
   about	
  4-­‐years	
  

	
  
Another	
   factor	
   that	
   is	
   relevant	
   for	
   those	
   who	
   enter	
   treatment	
   programs	
   is	
   the	
  
severity	
   of	
   the	
   problems	
   they	
   start	
   with	
   and	
   how	
   these	
   problems	
   respond	
   to	
  
treatment	
   (McGrath	
   et	
   al,	
   2012).	
   The	
   SOTIPS	
   is	
   a	
   rating	
   scale	
   developed	
   in	
   Vermont	
  
that	
   allows	
   treatment	
   needs	
   relevant	
   to	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   to	
   be	
   rated	
   according	
   to	
  
severity.	
   These	
   needs	
   fall	
   into	
   three	
   broad	
   areas:	
   (i)	
   deviant	
   sexual	
   interests,	
  
attitudes	
   and	
   behaviors;	
   (ii)	
   oppositional,	
   antisocial	
   criminal	
   attitudes	
   and	
  
behaviors;	
   (iii)	
   and	
   (lack	
   of)	
   social	
   stability	
   and	
   support.	
   Non-­‐recidivists	
   and	
  
recidivists	
   show	
   quite	
   different	
   patterns	
   of	
   rating	
   over	
   time.	
   Non-­‐recidivists	
   show	
  
Need	
  scores	
  that	
  steadily	
  decline	
  during	
  treatment	
  while	
  recidivists	
  typically	
  show	
  
no	
  improvement.	
  	
  
	
  
One	
   final	
   set	
   of	
   findings	
   should	
   be	
   noted.	
   Denial	
   and	
   minimization	
   of	
   past	
   sexual	
  
offending	
  is	
  pervasive	
  among	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  but	
  it	
  appears	
  that	
  this	
  problem	
  has	
  
not	
   been	
   shown	
   to	
   be	
   generally	
   related	
   to	
   risk	
   for	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   (Mann	
   et	
   al,	
  
2010).	
   There	
   is,	
   however,	
   an	
   important	
   exception.	
   Among	
   statistically	
   lower	
   risk	
  

	
  

68	
  

sexual	
   offenders,	
   notably	
   those	
   who	
   have	
   offended	
   against	
   their	
   own	
   children,	
  
denial	
  does	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  related	
  to	
  sexual	
  recidivism	
  (e.g.	
  Thornton	
  &	
  Knight,	
  2007;	
  
Nunes	
   et	
   al,	
   2007;	
   Harkins	
   et	
   al,	
   2010).	
   In	
   contrast,	
   among	
   higher	
   risk	
   extra-­‐familial	
  
child-­‐molesters	
  denial	
  is	
  actually	
  associated	
  with	
  lower	
  recidivism	
  rates.	
  
	
  
These	
   results	
   suggest	
   another	
   rational	
   basis	
   for	
   reducing	
   intensity	
   of	
   treatment	
   and	
  
supervision	
   although	
   again	
   this	
   is	
   relative	
   to	
   how	
   risky	
   the	
   individual	
   was	
   to	
   start	
  
with.	
   An	
   illustration	
   of	
   a	
   rational	
   risk-­‐based	
   guide	
   to	
   decision-­‐making	
   is	
   provided	
   in	
  
the	
  box	
  below.	
  
	
  
Lower	
  risk	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  generally	
  do	
  not	
  need	
  supervision	
  or	
  treatment	
  that	
  is	
  
specialized	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  Instead	
  the	
  routine	
  kind	
  of	
  supervision	
  that	
  is	
  used	
  
with	
  non-­‐sexual	
  offenders	
  would	
  likely	
  be	
  sufficient.	
  An	
  exception	
  to	
  this	
  is	
  where	
  
these	
  offenders	
  continue	
  to	
  deny	
  offenses	
  for	
  which	
  they	
  have	
  been	
  convicted	
  or	
  
seek	
  to	
  make	
  contact	
  with	
  past	
  victims.	
  Another	
  exception	
  is	
  when	
  the	
  offender	
  
present	
  a	
  markedly	
  high	
  level	
  of	
  external	
  risk	
  factors	
  or	
  has	
  severe	
  offense	
  
characteristics	
  (i.e.	
  sexual	
  homicide).	
  
	
  
“Moderate	
  risk”	
  offenders	
  require	
  moderate	
  intensity	
  treatment	
  and	
  supervision	
  
specialized	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  but	
  those	
  who	
  have	
  both	
  shown	
  a	
  reduction	
  in	
  
Need	
  according	
  to	
  SOTIPS	
  and	
  five	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  without	
  known	
  
offending	
  might	
  appropriately	
  have	
  this	
  reduced	
  to	
  routine	
  levels	
  of	
  supervision.	
  
	
  
“Higher	
  risk”	
  offenders	
  require	
  high	
  intensity	
  treatment	
  and	
  supervision	
  
specialized	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  and	
  while	
  this	
  can	
  be	
  reduced	
  in	
  intensity	
  if	
  they	
  
respond	
  well	
  to	
  treatment	
  and	
  spend	
  five	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  without	
  known	
  
offending,	
  even	
  achievement	
  they	
  will	
  continue	
  to	
  require	
  specialized	
  supervision.	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

69	
  

Appendix	
  C:	
  

Official	
  versus	
  Actual	
  Recidivism	
  Rates	
  

	
  
A	
   challenge	
   shared	
   by	
   all	
   current	
   instruments	
   for	
   assessing	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   risk	
   is	
  
that	
  they	
  were	
  validated	
  using	
  indicators	
  of	
  official,	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  actual,	
  recidivism.	
  
Further,	
   the	
   official	
   detection	
   rate	
   for	
   sexual	
   offenses	
   is	
   hard	
   to	
   determine	
   precisely	
  
and	
   likely	
   varies	
   significantly	
   between	
   types	
   of	
   offenders	
   and	
   types	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offense.	
  Hanson,	
  Thornton	
  and	
  Price	
  (2003)	
  reviewed	
  data	
  from	
  multiple	
  different	
  
sources	
   and	
   methodologies	
   examining	
   detection	
   rates	
   for	
   sexual	
   offending.	
   They	
  
found	
  that	
  for	
  contact	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  against	
  adults,	
  or	
  children,	
  the	
  detection	
  rate	
  
per	
   victim	
   was	
   on	
   average	
   between	
   5%	
   and	
   20%	
   (see	
   their	
   Table	
   1).	
   This	
   means	
  
that	
   for	
   only	
   5	
   to	
   20	
   of	
   every	
   100	
   victims	
   is	
   the	
   offender	
   officially	
   detected.	
   Since,	
  
however,	
   recidivists	
   normally	
   re-­‐offend	
   against	
   multiple	
   victims,	
   their	
   individual	
  
chances	
  of	
  eventually	
  getting	
  caught	
  are	
  much	
  higher	
  than	
  this.	
  
	
  Hanson	
  et	
  al.	
  (2003)	
  used	
  multiple	
  sources	
  of	
  data	
  to	
  estimate	
  the	
  frequency	
  of	
  new	
  
victims	
  among	
  those	
  who	
  go	
  on	
  to	
  re-­‐offend.	
  They	
  found	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  rates	
  at	
  which	
  
recidivists	
   re-­‐offend.	
  	
   Grouping	
   all	
   recidivists	
   together,	
   the	
   average	
   yearly	
   rate	
   of	
  
new	
   victims	
   was	
   about	
   one	
   in	
   every	
   18	
   months.	
  	
   When	
   combined	
   with	
   the	
   detection	
  
rate	
   per	
   victim	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   preceding	
   paragraph,	
   this	
   means	
   that	
   the	
   true	
  
recidivism	
   rate	
   over	
   15	
   years	
   is	
   about	
   150%	
   of	
   the	
   officially	
   detected	
   rate.	
   The	
  
impact	
   of	
   detection	
   versus	
   the	
   true	
   rate	
   of	
   recidivism	
   for	
   individual	
   offenders	
  
depends	
   on	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   new	
   victims	
   that	
   sexual	
   recidivists	
   offend	
  
against.	
  	
   Logically,	
   the	
   sexual	
   recidivists	
   who	
   re-­‐offend	
   against	
   no	
   more	
   than	
   one	
  
victim	
   over	
   the	
   rest	
   of	
   their	
   lives	
   will	
   be	
   much	
   less	
   likely	
   to	
   be	
   caught	
   than	
   those	
  
sexual	
   recidivists	
   who	
   re-­‐offend	
   against	
   multiple	
   victims.	
   Considering	
   this	
   empirical	
  
information	
   on	
   detection	
   versus	
   actual	
   re-­‐offense	
   rates,	
   a	
   reasonable	
   conclusion	
   is	
  
to	
   conceptualize	
   risk	
   assessment	
   instruments	
   as	
   a	
   gauge	
   of	
   density	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offending.	
  They	
  distinguish	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  go	
  on	
  to	
  have	
  many	
  future	
  
victims	
  from	
  those	
  who	
  will	
  go	
  on	
  to	
  have	
  few	
  or	
  no	
  future	
  victims.	
  	
  

	
  

70	
  

Appendix	
  D:	
   Working	
  with	
  Developmentally	
  Disabled	
  
Sexual	
  Offenders	
  	
  
1.	
  Assessment	
  
	
  
The	
  standards	
  and	
  guidelines	
  for	
  an	
  accurate	
  risk	
  assessment	
  (Adult	
  Standards	
  2.00,	
  
2.050	
   DD)	
   suggest	
   that	
   an	
   accurate	
   risk	
   assessment	
   includes	
   an	
   assessment	
   of:	
  
cognitive	
   functioning,	
   mental	
   health,	
   medical/psychiatric	
   health,	
   substance	
   use,	
  
stability	
   of	
   functioning,	
   developmental	
   history,	
   sexual	
   evaluation,	
   risk,	
  
motivation/amenability	
  to	
  treatment,	
  and	
  impact	
  on	
  victims.	
  
	
  
Further,	
  it	
  is	
  noted	
  that	
  ‘due	
  to	
  the	
  complex	
  issues	
  of	
  evaluating	
  sex	
  offenders	
  with	
  
developmental	
   disabilities,	
   methodologies	
   shall	
   be	
   applied	
   individually	
   and	
   their	
  
administration	
   shall	
   be	
   guided	
   by’	
   instruments	
   that	
   have	
   relevance	
   and	
   have	
  
demonstrable	
  reliability	
  and	
  validity,	
  and	
  which	
  are	
  supported	
  by	
  research	
  as	
  they	
  
relate	
   to	
   persons	
   with	
   developmental	
   disabilities.	
   It	
   is	
   also	
   noted	
   that	
   evaluators	
  
shall	
   carefully	
   consider	
   the	
   appropriateness	
   and	
   utility	
   of	
   using	
   the	
   PPG,	
   or	
   VRT	
  
assessment,	
  with	
  this	
  group.	
  
	
  
Considerable	
   guidance	
   is	
   given	
   in	
   Sections	
   2.060/2.061	
   regarding:	
   cognitive	
  
functioning	
   (i.e.,	
   intellectual	
   functioning,	
   neuropsychological	
   functioning,	
   and	
  
academic	
   achievement);	
   mental	
   health	
   (i.e.,	
   character/personality	
   pathology,	
  
sadism,	
   mental	
   illness,	
   self	
   concept/self	
   esteem),	
   medical/psychiatric	
   health,	
  
substance	
   abuse,	
   stability	
   of	
   functioning,	
   developmental	
   history,	
   sexual	
   evaluation	
  
(i.e.,	
   sexual	
   history,	
   reinforcement	
   structure	
   for	
   deviant	
   behavior,	
   arousal/interest	
  
pattern,	
   sexual	
   crimes	
   details,	
   sexual	
   deviance,	
   medical	
   dysfunction,	
   sexual	
  
preferences,	
   attitudes	
   cognitions;	
   risk	
   motivation	
   and	
   amenability	
   to	
   treatment,	
  
impact	
   on	
   victim.	
   Additional	
   information	
   related	
   to	
   2.061	
   includes	
   the	
   following:	
  
level	
  of	
  planning	
  in	
  the	
  crimes,	
  ‘street	
  smarts’,	
  expressive/receptive	
  languages	
  skills,	
  

	
  

71	
  

social	
  judgment/ability	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  group	
  settings,	
  adaptive	
  behavior,	
  support	
  
systems,	
  executive	
  functioning.	
  
	
  
As	
   regards	
   a	
   specific	
   risk	
   assessment	
   tool	
   2.070DD	
   suggests	
   that	
   ‘if	
   the	
   sex	
   offender	
  
with	
  developmental	
  disabilities	
  meets	
  the	
  statutory	
  requirements	
  for	
  completion	
  of	
  
the	
   Sexually	
   Violent	
   Predator	
   Risk	
   Assessment,	
   the	
   instrument	
   shall	
   be	
   completed	
  
using	
   the	
   existing	
   instruments	
   as	
   required.	
   The	
   evaluator	
   shall	
   document	
   any	
  
concerns	
   regarding	
   this	
   instrument’s	
   validity	
   for	
   the	
   client.’	
   This	
   is	
   an	
   interesting	
  
comment	
  given	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  also	
  noted	
  in	
  2.061,	
  that	
  ‘many	
  widely	
  used	
  risk	
  assessment	
  
tools	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  created	
  specifically	
  for	
  adults	
  sex	
  offenders	
  with	
  developmental	
  
disabilities	
   [therefore]	
   the	
   evaluator	
   shall	
   use	
   caution	
   when	
   choosing	
   to	
   use	
   such	
  
instruments	
  and	
  when	
  interpreting	
  the	
  resulting	
  data’.	
  We	
  have	
  noted	
  elsewhere	
  in	
  
this	
   report	
   that	
   there	
   are	
   significant	
   problems	
   with	
   the	
   SVP	
   risk	
   assessment	
   so	
   it	
  
should	
  not	
  be	
  mandated	
  for	
  use	
  with	
  this	
  population	
  either.	
  
	
  
Recommendation	
  
Therefore,	
  given	
  the	
  potential	
  unwieldy	
  nature	
  of	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  material	
  that	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  
completed	
   and	
   collated	
   for	
   DD	
   offenders;	
   and	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
   it	
   is	
   noted	
   that	
   the	
  
instruments	
   being	
   recommended	
   by	
   the	
   SOMB	
   for	
   use	
   have	
   not	
   been	
   specifically	
  
validated	
  with	
  DD	
  populations,	
  we	
  would	
  suggest	
  utilization	
  of	
  a	
  valid	
  and	
  reliable	
  
tool	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   Assessment	
   of	
   Risk	
   and	
   Manageability	
   of	
   Individuals	
   with	
  
Developmental	
   and	
   Intellectual	
   Limitations	
   who	
   Offend	
   -­‐	
   Sexually	
   (ARMIDILO	
   -­‐S).	
  
This	
   is	
   an	
   instrument	
   designed	
   specifically	
   for	
   use	
   with	
   individuals	
   with	
   a	
  
borderline	
   or	
   mild	
   intellectual	
   impairment,	
   who	
   have	
   offended	
   sexually	
   or	
   have	
  
displayed	
   sexually	
   offensive	
   behavior.	
   The	
   ARMIDILO-­‐S	
   has	
   been	
   shown	
   to	
   have	
  
good	
   predictive	
   validity	
   with	
   different	
   samples	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   and	
   has	
   been	
  
positively	
   evaluated	
   in	
   qualitative	
   studies	
   as	
   a	
   case	
   management	
   instrument.	
  
Research	
   involving	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   authors	
   of	
   this	
   reports	
   (Blacker,	
   Beech.	
   Wilcox,	
   &	
  
Boer,	
  2011,	
  -­‐	
  The	
  assessment	
  of	
  dynamic	
  risk	
  and	
  recidivism	
  in	
  a	
  sample	
  of	
  special	
  
needs	
   sexual	
   offenders.	
   Psychology,	
   Crime	
   and	
   Law,	
   17,	
   75-­‐92)	
   has	
   found	
   that	
   the	
  
ARMIDILO	
   instrument	
   was	
   a	
   moderate	
   predictor	
   for	
   sexual	
   reconviction	
   among	
  
	
  

72	
  

offenders	
   with	
   special	
   needs	
   (ARMIDILO-­‐Stable,	
   AUC	
   =	
   .60;	
   ARMIDILO-­‐Acute,	
   AUC	
   =	
  
.73),	
   compared	
   to	
   the	
   RRASOR	
   (AUC	
   =	
   .53)	
   and	
   the	
   RM2000-­‐V	
   (AUC	
   =	
   .50).	
   US	
  
training	
  can	
  be	
  provided	
  by:	
  James	
  L.	
  Haaven,	
  MA,	
  Portland,	
  Oregon,	
  USA	
  Telephone:	
  
(503)	
  490-­‐7394	
  Email:	
  jhaaven@comcast.net	
  
	
  
The	
   ARMIDILO	
   assessment	
   would	
   be	
   an	
   appropriate	
   foundation	
   for	
   individualized	
  
treatment	
  planning	
  and	
  decisions	
  about	
  progress	
  with	
  this	
  population.
The	
  SOMB	
  has	
  communicated	
  to	
  the	
  evaluation	
  team	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  concerns	
  
regarding	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  Sexually	
  Violent	
  Predator	
  Risk	
  Assessment	
  Instrument	
  with	
  
adult	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   who	
   persons	
   with	
   intellectual	
   disabilities.	
   	
  A	
   SOMB	
  
Committee	
   reviewing	
   concerns	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   SVP	
   assessment	
   process	
   considered	
  
whether	
  to	
  recommend	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  ARMIDILO-­‐S	
  as	
  a	
  tool	
  for	
  SVP	
  determination,	
  but	
  
decided	
  against	
  it	
  based	
  upon	
  the	
  inclusion	
  of	
  dynamic	
  risk	
  factors	
  in	
  the	
  instrument	
  
since	
   there	
   is	
   no	
   statutory	
   provision	
   for	
   SVP	
   designation	
   to	
   be	
   changed.	
   	
  Whereas	
  
current	
   legislative	
   mandates	
   seem	
   to	
   preclude	
   use	
   of	
   this	
   tool,	
   nonetheless,	
   it	
   is	
  
appropriately	
  suited	
  for	
  assessment	
  of	
  this	
  population.	
  
	
  
Polygraph	
  examinations	
  should	
  be	
  used	
  with	
  particular	
  caution	
  with	
  this	
  population	
  
as	
   difficulties	
   with	
   memory	
   and	
   cognitive	
   understanding	
   may	
   mean	
   that	
   both	
  
Deceptive	
  and	
  Non-­‐Deceptive	
  findings	
  can	
  be	
  misleading.	
  
	
  
PPG	
   assessment	
   is	
   reasonably	
   valid	
   with	
   this	
   population	
   so	
   long	
   as	
   they	
   can	
  
understand	
   the	
   instructions	
   and	
   sustain	
   attention.	
   PPG	
   materials	
   and	
   protocols	
  
adapted	
   for	
   DD	
   or	
   MR	
   offenders	
   are	
   available	
   from	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   standard	
   PPG	
  
suppliers	
  (MONARCH).	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

73	
  

2.	
  Treatment	
  of	
  DD	
  offenders	
  
	
  
As	
  regards	
  treatment	
  for	
  DD	
  offenders,	
  it	
  is	
  most	
  pertinent	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  following	
  
standards	
   of	
   practice	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers	
   –	
   3.110DD,	
   3.120DD,	
   3.160D.DD,	
  
3.160F.DD,	
  3.16G.DD,	
  3.16H.DD,	
  and	
  3.16I.DD,	
  3.16M.DD,	
  3.310DD,	
  3.550DD.	
  
	
  
A	
  summary	
  of	
  these	
  standards	
  and	
  guidelines	
  would	
  suggest	
  that	
  modifications	
  can	
  
be	
   carried	
   out	
   to	
   the	
   ‘standards	
   for	
   practice	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers’	
   and	
   the	
  
guidelines	
   can	
   be	
   used	
   for	
   those	
   who	
   exhibit	
   inappropriate	
   behaviors	
   (but	
   not	
  
convicted	
  of	
  a	
  sexual	
  offense).	
  	
  That	
  treatment	
  should	
  be	
  carried	
  out	
  with	
  a	
  smaller	
  
number	
  of	
  clients	
  in	
  a	
  group	
  than	
  would	
  be	
  typical	
  for	
  non-­‐DD	
  offenders,	
  with	
  the	
  
size	
  of	
  the	
  group	
  being	
  dependent	
  on	
  the	
  ‘needs	
  of	
  the	
  group’.	
  Treatment	
  planning	
  
should	
   take	
   into	
   account	
   the	
   problems	
   that	
   DD	
   offenders	
   will	
   have	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
  
concrete	
   thinking/	
   the	
   inability	
   to	
   engage	
   in	
   abstract	
   thinking,	
   reduce	
   denial,	
  
decrease/manage	
  offenders’’	
  deviant	
  fantasies.	
  
	
  
Recommendation	
  
	
  
It	
  is	
  worth	
  noting,	
  as	
  to	
  whether	
  DD	
  individuals	
  can	
  really	
  properly	
  participate	
  in	
  all	
  
of	
   the	
   phases	
   of	
   the	
   program,	
   as	
   for	
   example,	
   in	
   Phase	
   1	
   of	
   the	
   program	
   there	
   are	
  
requirements	
   for	
   sex	
   offense	
   admittance,	
   and	
   discussion	
   of	
   their	
   problems	
   in	
  
treatment,	
  and	
  for	
  example	
  the	
  punitive	
  recommendation	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  
full	
   sex	
   history	
   disclosure	
   (see	
   3.16H.DD,	
   points	
   1,	
   2).	
   Hence,	
   we	
   would	
   suggest	
   that	
  
rather	
   than	
   adapting	
   the	
   mainstream	
   program	
   for	
   DD	
   offenders,	
   that	
   a	
   treatment	
  
program	
  should	
  be	
  developed	
  that	
  is	
  more	
  specific	
  to	
  the	
  treatment	
  needs	
  of	
  DD	
  sex	
  
offenders.	
   Of	
   course	
   this	
   would	
   be	
   designed,	
   as	
   the	
   current	
   program	
   outlines,	
   to	
  
increase	
   sexual	
   knowledge,	
   modify	
   offence-­‐justifying	
   thinking,	
   develop	
   ability	
   to	
  
recognize	
   feelings	
   in	
   themselves	
   and	
   others,	
   to	
   gain	
   an	
   understanding	
   of	
   victim	
  
harm,	
   and	
   develop	
   relapse	
   prevention	
   skills,	
   but	
   perhaps	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
   is	
   more	
  
specifically	
   targeted	
   towards	
   DD	
   sex	
   offenders.	
   This	
   recommendation	
   would	
   also	
  
sidestep	
   the	
   problem	
   and	
   the	
   potential	
   heavy	
   use	
   of	
   resources	
   that	
   is	
   implied	
   in	
  
	
  

74	
  

3.550DD	
   for	
   individuals	
   who	
   are	
   in	
   ‘Level	
   3’	
   denial	
   which	
   is	
   especially	
   not	
   a	
   good	
   fit	
  
for	
  a	
  DD	
  offender	
  population.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

75	
  

Appendix	
  E:	
  

Limitations	
  of	
  the	
  Research	
  Relevant	
  to	
  

Limits	
  Imposed	
  upon	
  Sexual	
  Offender	
  Contact	
  with	
  
Children	
  
In	
   Section	
   5.700	
   of	
   the	
   ‘Standards	
   And	
   Guidelines’	
   that	
   contact	
   is	
   restricted	
   until	
  
more	
  is	
  known	
  about	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  offender’s	
  risk.	
  Although	
  this	
  seems	
  very	
  sensible	
  
the	
   statements	
   provided	
   here	
   are	
   referenced	
   from	
   rather	
   old	
   research	
   (footnote	
   20,	
  
for	
  example	
  contains	
  references	
  from	
  1984,	
  1987,	
  1989,	
  1990,1998,	
  2000,	
  with	
  the	
  
latest	
   reference	
   being	
   10	
   years	
   old	
   at	
   2003)	
   and	
   the	
   guidelines	
   do	
   not	
   take	
   into	
  
account	
  either	
  later	
  research	
  or	
  methodological	
  limitations	
  of	
  the	
  studies	
  on	
  which	
  
it	
  relies.	
  For	
  example,	
  studies	
  need	
  to	
  take	
  into	
  account	
  of	
  the	
  age	
  of	
  the	
  perpetrator	
  
as	
   well	
   as	
   the	
   age	
   of	
   the	
   victim,	
   to	
   distinguish	
   cross-­‐over	
   between	
   adult	
   and	
  
teenager	
   victims	
   from	
   cross-­‐over	
   between	
   adult	
   and	
   younger	
   child	
   victims,	
   and	
   to	
  
establish	
  rates	
  of	
  cross-­‐over	
  in	
  reoffenses,	
  not	
  solely	
  in	
  past	
  offending.	
  
	
  
Recommendations	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   should	
   re-­‐examine	
   the	
   research	
   foundation	
   for	
   prohibiting	
   contact	
  
between	
  children	
  and	
  offenders	
  who	
  have	
  only	
  victimized	
  adults.	
  In	
  the	
  light	
  of	
  the	
  
methodological	
   issues	
   noted	
   it	
   is	
   possible	
   that	
   the	
   present	
   restrictions	
   are	
   over-­‐
cautious.	
  	
  

	
  

76	
  

Appendix	
  F:	
  

Offenders	
  Requesting	
  Access	
  to	
  Their	
  Own	
  

Children:	
  The	
  Colorado	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  
Child	
  Contact	
  Assessment	
  (CCA)	
  
If	
   an	
   offender	
   is	
   attempting	
   to	
   have	
   contact	
   with	
   their	
   own	
   children,	
   the	
   Colorado	
  
Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  Child	
  Contact	
  Assessment	
  (previously	
  the	
  parental	
  
assessment)	
   is	
   used	
   to	
   assesses	
   the	
   appropriateness	
   of	
   an	
   offender’s	
   contact	
   with	
  
his/her	
   own	
   children,	
   and	
   is	
   intended	
   to	
   estimate	
   the	
   potential	
   risk	
   a	
   convicted	
  
adult	
  sex	
  offender	
  may	
  pose	
  to	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  children.	
  However,	
  in	
  the	
  standards	
  
the	
  following	
  exclusion	
  criteria,	
  before	
  the	
  CCA	
  is	
  conducted,	
  are	
  noted:	
  
	
  
•

The	
   offender	
   does	
   not	
   meet	
   any	
   of	
   the	
   exclusionary	
   criteria	
   in	
   5.725	
   (i.e.,	
   has	
  
a	
   diagnosis	
   of	
   Pedophilia	
   (DSM-­‐IV),	
   has	
   a	
   score	
   on	
   the	
   MCMI	
   of	
   	
   >	
   85	
   for	
  
Antisocial	
  Personality	
  Disorder,	
  Narcissistic,	
  Paranoid,	
  on	
  the	
  DSM-­‐IV),	
  or	
  has	
  
been	
   identified	
   as	
   having	
   a	
   mental	
   abnormality	
   on	
   the	
   Psychopathy	
  
Checklist-­‐Revised	
  (Hare,	
  1991,	
  2002),	
  and	
  a	
  diagnosis	
  of	
  sexual	
  sadism,	
  and	
  
has	
  ever	
  committed	
  an	
  offenses	
  against	
  their	
  own	
  child/children;	
  	
  

•

The	
  offender	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  two	
  or	
  more	
  pre-­‐screen	
  factors;	
  	
  

•

The	
  offender	
  wants	
  contact	
  with	
  his/her	
  own	
  minor	
  child	
  as	
  defined	
  in	
  under	
  
the	
  age	
  of	
  eighteen	
  (18);	
  	
  

•

The	
  offender	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  victimizing	
  any	
  of	
  his/her	
  own	
  minor	
  
child(ren),	
  regardless	
  of	
  the	
  victim’s	
  age,	
  as	
  substantiated	
  by	
  criminal	
  or	
  civil	
  
court	
  history	
  or	
  by	
  self-­‐report.	
  	
  

The	
  CCA	
  itself	
  consists	
  of	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  protocols	
  employed	
  in	
  post-­‐conviction	
  
sex-­‐offense-­‐specific	
   evaluations,	
   but	
   also	
   involves	
   additional	
   assessment	
  
instruments	
  and	
  interviews	
  designed	
  to	
  explore	
  more	
  fully	
  a	
  client’s	
  sexual	
  history,	
  
personality	
   style,	
   empathy	
   and	
   capacity	
   for	
   attachment.	
  	
   The	
   assessment	
   also	
  
addresses	
   family	
   functioning.	
   From	
   Appendix	
   I,	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   a	
   flow	
   diagram	
   is	
  
provided	
   as	
   regards	
   determining	
   sexual	
   contact	
   of	
   the	
   offenders	
   with	
   their	
   own	
  
	
  

77	
  

child(ren).	
   Experts	
   such	
   as	
   Dr.	
   Stephen	
   Brake	
   and	
   his	
   associates	
   (see	
  
http://stephenbrakeassociates.com/html/child_contact_assessments.html)	
   provide	
  
child	
  contact	
  assessments	
  for	
  the	
  Colorado	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  which	
  
an	
   individual	
   has	
   to	
   pay	
   for.	
   Costs	
   for	
   evaluations	
   (from	
   the	
   website)	
   range	
   from	
  
$800-­‐1800	
  depending	
  on	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  evaluation	
  needed.	
  	
  
	
  
From	
   the	
   Brake	
   and	
   associates	
   website,	
   assessments	
   are	
   described	
   as	
   involving	
  
‘extensive	
   psychological	
   testing	
   with	
   the	
   offender	
   (personality	
   testing,	
   sexual	
  
interest	
   testing	
   employing	
   the	
   Abel	
   Assessment,	
   tests	
   measuring	
   empathy	
   and	
  
attachment	
   capacities)	
   and	
   interviews	
   with	
   the	
   client.	
  	
   A	
   sexual	
   history	
   polygraph	
  
test	
  is	
  also	
  carried	
  out,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  interviews	
  with	
  the	
  client's	
  wife	
  or	
  partner	
  (or	
  the	
  
client’s	
   children’s	
   mother	
   are	
   also	
   conducted,	
   when	
   feasible.	
  	
   The	
   family’s	
   children	
  
are	
  also	
  interviewed.	
  Such	
  a	
  report	
  also	
  includes	
  recommendations	
  about	
  whether	
  
contact	
   between	
   a	
   client	
   and	
   his	
   children	
   should	
   proceed	
   and	
   how	
   that	
   contact	
  
should	
  be	
  structured.	
  	
  It	
  would	
  also	
  appear	
  from	
  their	
  website	
  that	
  Stephen	
  Brake	
  
and	
   partners	
   have	
   been	
   involved	
   in	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   the	
   CCA,	
   and	
   previously	
   the	
  
original	
  Parental	
  Risk	
  Assessment.	
  	
  
	
  
Recommendations	
  
	
  
•

It	
   might	
   be	
   considered	
   overly	
   punitive	
   that	
   an	
   offender	
   who	
   has	
   ever	
  
victimized	
  any	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  own	
  children	
  (regardless	
  of	
  their	
  age	
  and	
  when	
  
the	
   abuse	
   occurred)	
   is	
   ineligible	
   for	
   the	
   Child	
   Contact	
   Assessment	
   process.	
  	
  
We	
  noted	
  that	
  in	
  our	
  focus	
  groups	
  victim	
  advocates	
  thought	
  that	
  this	
  was	
  too	
  
restrictive.	
  We	
  suggest	
  that	
  more	
  flexibility	
  could	
  be	
  built	
  into	
  the	
  system.	
  	
  

•

The	
   documentation	
   is	
   very	
   comprehensive	
   as	
   regards	
   the	
   CCA,	
   but	
   the	
  
process	
   seems	
   excessively	
   burdensome	
   and	
   costly.	
   In	
   prison	
   it	
   also	
   seemed	
  
impossible	
  for	
  the	
  process	
  to	
  be	
  completed	
  in	
  a	
  timely	
  way.	
  We	
  recommend	
  
that	
  a	
  streamlined	
  process	
  be	
  developed.	
  	
  

	
  

78	
  

•

From	
   the	
   documentation,	
   in	
   the	
   Standards,	
   there	
   would	
   appear	
   to	
   be	
   no	
  
credible	
   research	
   evidence	
   to	
   support	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   the	
   Child	
   Contact	
  
Assessment	
   tool.	
   We	
   would	
   recommend	
   an	
   empirical	
   validation	
   of	
   this	
   tool	
  
should	
   be	
   carried	
   out	
   on	
   a	
   reasonable	
   timescale	
   and	
   that	
   it	
   should	
   be	
  
modified	
  or	
  replaced	
  if	
  necessary.	
  	
  

•

In	
   considering	
   revisions	
   of	
   this	
   process	
   the	
   SOMB	
   should	
   be	
   mindful	
   that	
  
managing	
  the	
  risk	
  for	
  child-­‐molestation	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  only	
  issue	
  at	
  stake.	
  Hope	
  of	
  
seeing	
   their	
   children	
   again	
   can	
   be	
   a	
   powerful	
   motive	
   for	
   offenders	
   to	
   reform.	
  
And	
   disruption	
   of	
   a	
   non-­‐abusive	
   attachment	
   to	
   a	
   father	
   is	
   harmful	
   to	
   the	
  
child.	
  The	
  present	
  process	
  does	
  not	
  seem	
  to	
  properly	
  balance	
  these	
  issues.	
  	
  

•

It	
  would	
  appear	
  that	
  only	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  ‘approved’	
  providers	
  could	
  be	
  an	
  approved	
  
evaluator.	
  	
  As	
  it	
  would	
  appear	
  that	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  provider	
  has	
  been	
  involved	
  in	
  
the	
   evolution	
   of	
   the	
   CCA,	
   there	
   is	
   at	
   least	
   the	
   appearance	
   of	
   a	
   conflict	
   of	
  
interests	
  here.	
  	
  This	
  again	
  is	
  something	
  that	
  the	
  Board	
  may	
  wish	
  to	
  consider.	
  

•

The	
   SOMB	
   has	
   communicated	
   to	
   the	
   evaluation	
   team	
   that	
   they	
   seeking	
   to	
  
collect	
   data	
   and	
   receive	
   feedback	
   on	
   the	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   CCA	
   for	
  
possible	
   future	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   assessment.	
   	
  It	
   is	
   hoped	
   the	
   outcome	
   of	
   these	
  
effort	
   by	
   the	
   SOMB	
   will	
   result	
   in	
   CCA	
   guidelines	
   that	
   reflect	
   the	
  
recommendations	
  of	
  this	
  report.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

	
  

79	
  

Appendix	
  G:	
   The	
  Containment	
  Model	
  
	
  

Description	
  
	
  
Kim	
  English	
  (2004)	
  notes	
  that	
  through	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  studies	
  the	
  Colorado	
  Division	
  of	
  
Criminal	
   Justice	
   have	
   identified	
   a	
   promising	
   approach	
   for	
   protecting	
   victims	
   by	
  
“making	
   it	
   difficult	
   for	
   sex	
   offenders	
   to	
   reoffend”.	
   This	
   is	
   called	
   the	
   containment	
  
approach.	
  The	
  five	
  components	
  consists	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  aspects:	
  
	
  
1. A	
  philosophy	
  that	
  values	
  victim	
  protection,	
  public	
  safety,	
  and	
  reparation	
  for	
  
victims	
  as	
  the	
  paramount	
  objectives	
  of	
  sex	
  offender	
  management;	
  	
  
2. Implementation	
   strategies	
   that	
   depend	
   on	
   agency	
   coordination	
   and	
  
multidisciplinary	
  partnerships;	
  	
  
3. A	
   containment-­‐focused	
   case	
   management	
   and	
   risk	
   control	
   approach	
   that	
   is	
  
individualized	
  based	
  on	
  each	
  offender’s	
  characteristics;	
  	
  
4. Consistent	
  multi-­‐agency	
  policies	
  and	
  protocols;	
  	
  
5. Quality	
  control	
  mechanisms,	
  including	
  program	
  monitoring	
  and	
  evaluation.	
  
	
  
Further,	
   it	
   is	
   noted	
   from	
   the	
   Outcome	
   Evaluation	
   of	
   the	
   Colorado	
   Sex	
   Offender	
  
Management	
   Board	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   that	
   ‘the	
   Containment	
   model	
   is	
   a	
  
method	
  of	
  case	
  management	
  and	
  treatment	
  that	
  seeks	
  to	
  hold	
  offenders	
  accountable	
  
through	
   the	
   combined	
   use	
   of	
   offenders’	
   internal	
   and	
   external	
   control	
   measures	
  
(such	
  as	
  polygraph	
  testing	
  and	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  plans.	
  	
  A	
  containment	
  approach	
  
requires	
   the	
   integration	
   of	
   a	
   collection	
   of	
   attitudes,	
   expectations,	
   laws,	
   policies,	
  
procedures,	
   and	
   practices	
   that	
   have	
   been	
   designed	
   to	
   work	
   together.	
   	
   The	
  
containment	
  approach	
  operates	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  multi-­‐agency	
  collaboration,	
  explicit	
  
policies,	
   and	
   consistent	
   practices	
   that	
   combine	
   case	
   evaluation	
   and	
   risk	
   assessment,	
  
sex	
   offender	
   treatment,	
   and	
   intense	
   community	
   surveillance,	
   all	
   designed	
  
specifically	
  to	
  maximize	
  public	
  safety.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

80	
  

This	
   approach	
   is	
   ‘victim	
   centered’,	
   in	
   that	
   victim	
   protection	
   and	
   community	
   safety	
  
are	
   the	
   primary	
   objectives	
   of	
   sex	
   offender	
   management.	
   English	
   notes	
   that	
   the	
  
containment	
   model	
   for	
   managing	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   requires	
   the	
  
creation	
   of	
   intra-­‐agency/inter-­‐agency/inter-­‐disciplinary	
   teams.	
   The	
   success	
   of	
   the	
  
containment	
  approach	
  is	
  that	
  such	
  Community	
  Supervision	
  Teams	
  provide	
  a	
  unified	
  
and	
   comprehensive	
   approach	
   to	
   the	
   management	
   of	
   sex	
   offenders’,	
   and	
   allow	
   for	
  
improved	
   communication	
   among	
   agencies,	
   quicker,	
   less	
   intrusive	
   responses	
   to	
  
victims,	
   promote	
   the	
   exchange	
   of	
   views,	
   expertise	
   etc.	
   and	
   share	
   important	
  
information	
  between	
  agencies.	
  
	
  
Currently	
  in	
  Colorado	
  the	
  containment	
  approach	
  can	
  be	
  summarized	
  as	
  having	
  five	
  
basic	
  components:	
  
	
  
1. [a]	
  victim	
  centered	
  philosophy	
  
2. multidisciplinary	
  collaboration	
  
3. containment	
  focussed	
  risk	
  management	
  
4. informed	
  and	
  consistent	
  public	
  policies	
  
5. [good]	
  quality	
  control	
  mechanisms.	
  
	
  
Such	
   an	
   approach	
   can	
   also	
   be	
   seen	
   as	
   attending	
   to	
   both	
   the	
   internal	
   controls	
  
developed	
   through	
   treatment	
   treatments	
   and	
   the	
   external	
   control	
   provided	
   by	
  
supervision.	
   In	
   their	
   report	
   entitled	
   ‘Outcome	
   Evaluation	
   of	
   the	
   Colorado	
   Sex	
  
Offenders	
   Management	
   Boards	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines:	
   A	
   Report	
   of	
   Findings	
  
Regarding	
   Program	
   Effectiveness’	
   Dethlefsen	
   and	
   Hansen	
   (2011)	
   note	
   that	
   the	
  
Community	
   Supervision	
   Teams	
   use	
   a	
   variety	
   of	
   external	
   controls	
   such	
   as	
  
unanticipated	
   home	
   visits,	
   urinalysis	
   testing	
   for	
   substance	
   usage,	
   detailed	
  
presentence	
   investigations,	
   employment	
   restrictions,	
   clear	
   and	
   consistent	
  
sanctioning	
   practice,	
   and	
   the	
   employment	
   of	
   a	
   post-­‐conviction	
   polygraph.	
   In	
   fact,	
  
great	
   reliance	
   is	
   placed	
   on	
   the	
   post-­‐conviction	
   polygraph	
   to	
   give	
   an	
   idea	
   to	
   the	
  
Community	
   Supervision	
   Team	
   of	
   what	
   the	
   offenders	
   actually	
   think	
   and	
   how	
   they	
  
actually	
  behave.	
  Dethlefsen	
  and	
  Hansen	
  note	
  that	
  through	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  these	
  measures	
  
	
  

81	
  

the	
   Community	
   Supervision	
   Team	
   “holds	
   convicted	
   abusers	
   accountable	
   despite	
  
being	
  in	
  an	
  environment	
  that	
  is	
  embedded	
  in	
  the	
  community.’”	
  
	
  
As	
   for	
   evidence	
   for	
   the	
   Containment	
   approach	
   success	
   Dethlefsen	
   and	
   Hansen	
  
(2011)	
   report	
   a	
   table	
   (Table	
   3,	
   p	
   13)	
   that	
   they	
   suggest	
   indicates	
   that	
   the	
  
containment	
   model	
   reduces	
   the	
   likelihood	
   that	
   individuals	
   will	
   engage	
   in	
   new	
  
crimes	
   by	
   a	
   combination	
   of	
   deterrence	
   (increased	
   supervision)	
   and	
   treatment.	
  	
  
However,	
   no	
   details	
   are	
   given	
   here	
   of	
   how	
   this	
   has	
   been	
   concluded,	
   or	
   for	
   that	
  
matter	
  what	
  the	
  control	
  groups	
  would	
  be,	
  and	
  their	
  relative	
  rates	
  of	
  recidivism.	
  	
  In	
  
fact,	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  very	
  unusual	
  	
  for	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  to	
  be	
  released	
  with	
  absolutely	
  no	
  
supervision	
   restrictions	
   in	
   place.	
   	
   Hence,	
   it	
   is	
   hard	
   to	
   see	
   what	
   the	
   reductions	
   are	
  
being	
   measured	
   against.	
   Consequently	
   this	
   evaluation	
   does	
   not	
   in	
   fact	
   provide	
  
evidence	
   that	
   this	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   Containment	
   Approach	
   produced	
   better	
  
outcomes	
  than	
  could	
  have	
  been	
  produced	
  with	
  far	
  fewer	
  resources.	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   also	
   referred	
   us	
   to	
   a	
   number	
   of	
   other	
   papers	
   purporting	
   to	
   provide	
  
empirical	
   support	
   for	
   the	
   Containment	
   Approach.	
   A	
   difficulty	
   common	
   to	
   these	
  
papers	
  is	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  what	
  it	
  is	
  to	
  be	
  compared	
  to.	
  Supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  are	
  
common	
   features	
   of	
   many	
   jurisdictions	
   management	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders.	
   All	
  
jurisdictions	
   the	
   writers	
   are	
   familiar	
   with	
   would	
   claim	
   that	
   their	
   supervision	
  
processes	
   prioritize	
   public	
   safety.	
   What	
   seems	
   to	
   distinguish	
   the	
   Containment	
  
Approach	
   is	
   the	
   emphasis	
   on	
   the	
   polygraph,	
   very	
   long	
   supervision	
   and	
   treatment,	
  
greater	
   reliance	
   on	
   external	
   control,	
   and	
   scepticism	
   about	
   the	
   possibility	
   of	
   men	
  
with	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending	
  changing	
  their	
  behaviour	
  without	
  intense	
  external	
  
coercion,	
   seeking	
   to	
   make	
   an	
   alliance	
   with	
   organizations	
   advocating	
   for	
   or	
  
supporting	
  victims,	
  and	
  giving	
  negligible	
  priority	
  to	
  the	
  rights	
  or	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  of	
  the	
  
offenders	
   being	
   managed.	
   The	
   popular	
   detestation	
   of	
   sexual	
   offending	
   and	
   sexual	
  
offenders,	
   has	
   produced	
   tendencies	
   in	
   this	
   direction	
   in	
   most	
   jurisdictions	
   but	
   in	
  
some	
  (the	
  European	
  Union	
  for	
  example)	
  there	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  stronger	
  legal	
  protections	
  
for	
   the	
   rights	
   of	
   unpopular	
   groups	
   and	
   a	
   generally	
   less	
   punitive	
   approach	
   to	
  
offenders	
  than	
  is	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  USA.	
  Both	
  prison	
  sentences	
  and	
  periods	
  of	
  community	
  
	
  

82	
  

supervision	
   tend	
   to	
   be	
   much	
   longer	
   in	
   the	
   USA	
   than	
   in	
   most	
   other	
   Western	
  
countries.	
   Advocates	
   of	
   the	
   Containment	
   Approach	
   would	
   doubtless	
   argue	
   that	
   its	
  
particular	
   strength	
   is	
   the	
   encouragement	
   of	
   multi-­‐agency	
   and	
   multi-­‐disciplinary	
  
cooperation	
   into	
   teams	
   that	
   manage	
   offenders	
   in	
   a	
   cohesive	
   way.	
   However,	
  
systematic	
  coordination	
  of	
  multiple	
  agencies	
  in	
  the	
  management	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  
is	
   by	
   no	
   means	
   the	
   exclusive	
   preserve	
   of	
   the	
   Containment	
   Approach.	
   For	
   example,	
  
multi-­‐Agency	
  Public	
  Protection	
  Arrangement	
  (MAPPA)	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  Kingdom	
  
on	
   a	
   national	
   scale	
   provide	
   wide-­‐ranging	
   and	
   even	
   more	
   comprehensive	
  
coordination	
   of	
   agencies,	
   including	
   the	
   systematic	
   involvement	
   of	
   the	
   police	
   in	
   the	
  
prevention	
   of	
   future	
   offenses	
   by	
   known	
   offenders.	
   The	
   merit	
   of	
   the	
   Containment	
  
Approach	
   in	
   Colorado	
   then	
   is	
   perhaps	
   that	
   includes	
   some	
   elements	
   that	
   are	
  
generally	
   regarded	
   as	
   good	
   practice	
   and	
   does	
   so	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
   is	
   particularly	
  
congruent	
  with	
  local	
  values.	
  
	
  
Given	
   this	
   perspective	
   it	
   is	
   perhaps	
   better	
   to	
   ask,	
   “How	
   can	
   the	
   Containment	
  
Approach	
  be	
  improved?”	
  rather	
  than	
  asking	
  “Is	
  the	
  Containment	
  Approach	
  better	
  or	
  
worse	
  than	
  other	
  approaches?”	
  
	
  	
  

Analysis	
  regarding	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  Containment	
  Model	
  
	
  
In	
   their	
   report	
   Dethlefsen	
   and	
   Hansen	
   note	
   that	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   five	
   containment	
  
components	
   is	
   seen	
   as	
   adding	
   to	
   the	
   “overall	
   restorative	
   justice	
   framework”	
   to	
  
“administer	
   a	
   holistic	
   intervention	
   and	
   treatment	
   strategy”.	
   	
   However,	
   it	
   is	
  
somewhat	
  hard	
  to	
  see	
  where	
  the	
  offender	
  fits	
  into	
  this	
  strategy	
  and	
  what	
  the	
  holistic	
  
approach	
   really	
   is.	
   Other	
   points	
   that	
   are	
   touched	
   upon	
   by	
   Dethlefsen	
   and	
   Hansen	
  
(2011)	
  is	
  the	
  ‘no	
  known	
  cure’	
  concept	
  employed	
  by	
  the	
  SOMB	
  suggesting	
  that	
  all	
  sex	
  
offenders	
   will	
   carry	
   on	
   being	
   inherently	
   dangerous.’	
   This	
   coupled	
   with	
   the	
   risk	
  
management	
   emphasis	
   where	
   there	
   is	
   an	
   over-­‐reliance	
   on	
   avoidance-­‐goals	
   (e.g.,	
  
recognising	
  where	
  not	
  to	
  go,	
  what	
  not	
  to	
  do	
  etc.)	
  and	
  less	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  overall	
  well-­‐

	
  

83	
  

being	
   of	
   the	
   offender,	
   likely	
   means	
   that	
   the	
   approach	
   is	
   liable	
   to	
   have	
   difficulties	
  
engaging	
  offenders’	
  internal	
  motivation	
  for	
  change.	
  	
  
	
  
An	
   approach	
   that	
   has	
   a	
   more	
   positive	
   focus	
   is	
   the	
   Good	
   Lives	
   Model	
   (GLM)	
  
rehabilitation	
   framework	
   (Ward,	
   Mann,	
   &	
   Gannon	
   2007).	
   To	
   examine	
   the	
   Good	
  
Lives	
  approach	
  in	
  detail,	
  Ward	
  and	
  colleagues	
  (Willis,	
  Yates,	
  Gannon,	
  &	
  Ward,	
  2013)	
  
note	
  that	
  human	
  beings	
  are	
  naturally	
  inclined	
  to	
  seek	
  certain	
  types	
  of	
  experiences	
  or	
  
‘human	
  goods’	
  and	
  experience	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  well-­‐being	
  if	
  these	
  goods	
  are	
  obtained.	
  	
  
Ward	
   et	
   al.	
   (2007)	
   note	
   that	
   primary	
   goods	
   are	
   defined	
   as	
   ‘states	
   of	
   affairs,	
   states	
   of	
  
mind,	
   personal	
   characteristics,	
   activities,	
   or	
   experiences	
   that	
   are	
   sought	
   for	
   their	
  
own	
  sake	
  and	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  achieve	
  psychological	
  well-­‐being	
  if	
  achieved’	
  (p.	
  4).	
  Ward	
  
and	
   others	
   suggest	
   that	
   harmful	
   sexual	
   behaviour	
   arises	
   as	
   a	
   result	
   of	
   an	
   attempt	
   to	
  
obtain	
  these	
  goods	
  in	
  an	
  inappropriate	
  manner,	
  out	
  of	
  frustration	
  at	
  being	
  unable	
  to	
  
achieve	
   these	
   goods	
   in	
   a	
   ‘normal’	
   manner,	
   or	
   out	
   of	
   an	
   imbalance	
   between	
   goods	
  
acquisition,	
  so	
  that	
  some	
  goods	
  are	
  prioritised	
  over	
  others	
  (e.g.,	
  sexual	
  gratification	
  
taking	
  precedence	
  over	
  emotional	
  intimacy).	
  Therefore,	
  harmful	
  sexual	
  behaviours	
  
are	
   seen	
   as	
   ways	
   of	
   achieving	
   goods	
   either	
   through:	
   (i)	
   a	
   direct	
   route	
   where	
   an	
  
individual	
   does	
   not	
   have	
   the	
   skills	
   or	
   competencies	
   to	
   achieve	
   these	
   in	
   an	
  
appropriate	
   manner;	
   or	
   (ii)	
   through	
   an	
   indirect	
   route	
   where	
   the	
   behaviour	
   takes	
  
place	
   to	
   relieve	
   the	
   negative	
   thoughts	
   and	
   feelings	
   individuals	
   have	
   about	
   their	
  
inabilities	
  of	
  achieving	
  the	
  goods	
  they	
  are	
  striving	
  for.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
We	
   would	
   recommend	
   consideration	
   of	
   incorporating	
   into	
   the	
   Containment	
  
Approach	
   more	
   positively	
   oriented	
   intervention	
   strategies	
   stemming	
   from	
   Wards’	
  
work	
  as	
  a	
  better	
  way	
  of	
  motivating	
  offenders	
  to	
  build	
  up	
  internal	
  protective	
  factors.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

84	
  

Appendix	
  H:	
   Criteria	
  for	
  Release	
  from	
  Prison	
  to	
  Parole	
  
	
  
The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   contain	
   criteria	
   for	
   Release	
   from	
   Prison	
   to	
   Parole.	
  
Criteria	
  for	
  Determinate-­‐Sentenced	
  Sex	
  Offenders	
  are	
  as	
  follows:	
  
	
  
Parole Guidelines for Discretionary Release on Determinate-Sentenced Sex Offenders
Approved September 16, 2011
These guidelines are designed to inform the Parole Board of information regarding progress in
treatment, or criteria information for those not currently in treatment, for determinate-sentenced
sexual offenders. Those offenders who have demonstrated treatment progress or meet certain
criteria may be better suited for consideration of discretionary parole. These guidelines may be
considered as a component in the decision-making process of the Parole Board among other
components considered (e.g. lack of mandatory parole, Code of Penal Discipline/institutional
behavior, risk assessment, victim input, etc.).
I. In treatment at the Department of Corrections
A. Use the same treatment criteria as the indeterminate sentence offenders based on the
standard format
1. Meets the criteria for successful progress in treatment in prison, or
2. Does not meet the criteria for successful progress in treatment in prison
II. Not in treatment at the Department of Corrections
A. Not on wait list for treatment (Signified by a “D” designation)
1. Lack of recommendation for discretionary parole
B. On wait list for treatment (Signified by a “R” designation)
1. Not designated Sexually Violent Predator (SVP), and
2. No history of prior sex crime conviction or adjudication (1 sex crime conviction), and
3. No history of parole or community corrections revocation during the current sentence to the
Department of Corrections, and
4. Does not have a “P” designation signifying a treatment placement refusal or failure.
1. No objection to recommendation for discretionary parole

	
  

85	
  

C. On wait list for treatment
1. Designated a SVP, or
2. Have 2 or more sex crime convictions or adjudications, including factual basis, or
3. History of parole or community corrections revocation during the current sentence to the
Department of Corrections, or
4. On the waitlist with a “P” designation signifying a treatment placement refusal or failure
1. Objection to recommendation for discretionary parole	
  
	
  

Overall	
   these	
   criteria	
   are	
   in	
   general	
   reasonable	
   however	
   they	
   are	
   somewhat	
  
overcautious	
   in	
   that	
   they	
   give	
   no	
   basis	
   for	
   making	
   a	
   recommendation	
   for	
   parole,	
  
even	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  where	
  successful	
  progress	
  in	
  treatment	
  is	
  made.	
  	
  
	
  

There	
  are	
  two	
  potential	
  concerns.	
  First,	
  they	
  rely	
  on	
  the	
  validity	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  for	
  
designating	
   someone	
   as	
   an	
   SVP.	
   Unfortunately	
   that	
   process	
   is	
   problematic	
   at	
  
present.	
   Second,	
   they	
   rely	
   on	
   the	
   criteria	
   for	
   “successful	
   progress	
   in	
   treatment”	
  
which	
   is	
   discussed	
   as	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   more	
   general	
   discussion	
   of	
   the	
   criteria	
   for	
   Lifetime	
  
Supervision	
  offenders.	
  	
  
	
  
In	
   addition	
   to	
   addressing	
   those	
   two	
   concerns	
   it	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
   SOMB	
  
develop	
  criteria	
  that	
  would	
  support	
  a	
  positive	
  recommendation	
  for	
  parole.	
  
	
  
The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   contain	
   criteria	
   for	
   Release	
   from	
   Prison	
   to	
   Parole	
   for	
  
Lifetime	
  Supervision	
  Sexual	
  Offenders.	
  
	
  
The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   indicate	
   “in	
   order	
   to	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   the	
   sex	
  
offender	
  would	
  not	
  pose	
  an	
  undue	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  community	
  if	
  released	
  from	
  prison	
  
to	
  parole,	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  must	
  meet	
  the	
  criteria	
  in	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  areas	
  of	
  focus:”	
  (A	
  
to	
   J).	
   Since	
   the	
   criteria	
   are	
   numerous	
   and	
   each	
   is	
   held	
   to	
   indicate	
   that	
   someone	
   is	
  
unsuitable	
  for	
  parole	
  they	
  are	
  commented	
  on	
  separately.	
  
	
  

	
  

86	
  

A.	
  Criminal	
  Behavior	
  Past	
  and	
  Present	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  acknowledges	
  and	
  takes	
  full	
  responsibility	
  for	
  the	
  crime	
  of	
  conviction.	
  
2.	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  adequate	
  plans	
  to	
  address	
  components	
  of	
  the	
  crime(s)	
  that	
  pose	
  
current	
  risk	
  as	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  mental	
  health	
  sex	
  offense-­‐specific	
  evaluation,	
  treatment	
  
plan	
  or	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  plan.	
  Such	
  components	
  may	
  be,	
  but	
  are	
  not	
  limited	
  to:	
  
·	
  Initial	
  charge	
  versus	
  the	
  conviction	
  or	
  plea	
  
·	
  Facts	
  and	
  circumstances	
  of	
  the	
  crime	
  
·	
  Premeditation,	
  grooming	
  or	
  predatory	
  behavior	
  
·	
  Nature	
  of	
  the	
  crime	
  was	
  incidental	
  to	
  another	
  crime	
  or	
  was	
  spontaneous	
  
·	
  The	
  use	
  of	
  threats,	
  violence	
  or	
  weapons	
  
·	
  Age	
  of	
  victim(s)	
  or	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  any	
  mental	
  or	
  physical	
  disability	
  in	
  the	
  victim(s)	
  
·	
  Any	
  conviction	
  other	
  than	
  the	
  instant	
  offense	
  for	
  a	
  violent	
  crime	
  per	
  CRS	
  16-­‐11-­‐309	
  
	
  

These	
  criteria	
  seem	
  reasonable	
  and	
  are	
  generally	
  common	
  considerations	
  of	
  parole	
  
boards.	
  
	
  
B.	
  Sentence	
  Failures	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  acknowledges	
  reasons	
  for	
  sentence	
  failures	
  (which	
  could	
  include,	
  but	
  are	
  
not	
  limited	
  to	
  deferred	
  prosecutions	
  or	
  judgments,	
  probation,	
  community	
  correction,	
  or	
  
parole),	
  as	
  verified	
  by	
  official	
  record,	
  and	
  has	
  made	
  progress	
  in	
  addressing	
  those	
  reasons	
  
or	
  demonstrates	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  a	
  plan	
  that	
  addresses	
  those	
  issues.

	
  
Although	
  this	
  criterion	
  is	
  generally	
  reasonable	
  some	
  account	
  should	
  be	
  taken	
  of	
  the	
  
seriousness	
   of	
   the	
   sentence	
   failure	
   and	
   the	
   likelihood	
   that	
   the	
   problem	
   would	
  
reoccur.	
  Revocations	
  for	
  technical	
  violations	
  unrelated	
  to	
  risk	
  for	
  violent	
  or	
  sexual	
  
offending	
  should	
  be	
  weighted	
  less.	
  
	
  
C.	
  Participation	
  in	
  Programs	
  
1.	
  Required	
  participation	
  in	
  the	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Treatment	
  and	
  Management	
  Program	
  
(SOTMP).	
  SOTMP	
  program	
  staff	
  report	
  offender	
  compliance	
  with	
  recommended	
  program	
  
plan	
  and	
  sufficient	
  progress	
  in	
  treatment.	
  
2.	
  Demonstrated	
  participation	
  in	
  all	
  recommended	
  programs.	
  Positive	
  participation	
  and	
  

	
  

87	
  

recommendations	
  from	
  staff	
  of	
  each	
  program	
  (based	
  on	
  program	
  compliance)	
  or	
  a	
  clearly	
  
established	
  plan	
  to	
  obtain	
  recommended	
  programming	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  where	
  
placement	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  does	
  not	
  pose	
  an	
  undue	
  risk.	
  
3.	
  If	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  placed	
  in	
  community	
  corrections,	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  positive	
  
participation	
  and	
  progress	
  as	
  indicated	
  by	
  recommendation	
  from	
  Community	
  Corrections	
  
staff	
  and	
  SOMB	
  approved	
  sex	
  offense-­‐specific	
  treatment	
  provider.	
  

	
  
This	
  criterion	
  is	
  generally	
  reasonable	
  so	
  long	
  as	
  the	
  SOTMP	
  itself	
  follows	
  the	
  Risk-­‐
Need-­‐Responsivity	
  principles	
  and	
  offenders	
  can	
  access	
  treatment	
  timely.	
  Our	
  earlier	
  
evaluation	
   of	
   that	
   program	
   indicated	
   that	
   some	
   improvements	
   were	
   advised.	
   We	
  
believe	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  have	
  commenced	
  efforts	
  to	
  implement	
  them.	
  	
  
	
  
D.	
  Code	
  Of	
  Penal	
  Discipline	
  Rules	
  Convictions,	
  Escapes	
  or	
  Absconds	
  
Discussion:	
  Non	
  compliance	
  with	
  rules	
  in	
  a	
  highly	
  structured	
  environment	
  like	
  DOC	
  is	
  
highly	
  related	
  to	
  risk	
  of	
  re-­‐offense.	
  
1.	
  No	
  COPD	
  rules	
  convictions	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  12	
  months.	
  
2.	
  No	
  drug	
  violations	
  and	
  demonstrates	
  all	
  clean	
  UAs	
  for	
  the	
  last	
  12	
  months.	
  
3.	
  No	
  sexual	
  violations	
  in	
  DOC	
  for	
  a	
  minimum	
  period	
  of	
  the	
  last	
  2	
  years.	
  
E.	
  Classification	
  Level	
  Changes	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  had	
  no	
  increase	
  in	
  classification	
  level	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  12	
  months.

	
  
This	
  criterion	
  is	
  reasonable	
  though	
  the	
  discussion	
  gives	
  the	
  misleading	
  impression	
  
that	
   non-­‐compliance	
   with	
   prison	
   rules	
   is	
   highly	
   related	
   to	
   rates	
   of	
   future	
   sexual	
  
recidivism.	
  The	
  discussion	
  overstates	
  the	
  strength	
  of	
  this	
  relationship.	
  
	
  
F.	
  Risk	
  Assessment	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  completed	
  the	
  SOTMP	
  evaluation	
  (in	
  adherence	
  to	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  
and	
  including	
  the	
  administration	
  of	
  the	
  DCJ	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Risk	
  Scale)	
  and	
  has	
  a	
  
recommendation	
  from	
  the	
  SOTMP	
  program	
  staff,	
  which	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  evaluation,	
  for	
  
release	
  to	
  parole.	
  

	
  

	
  

88	
  

As	
   noted	
   elsewhere,	
   there	
   are	
   important	
   problems	
   with	
   the	
   SORS.	
   The	
   guidelines	
  
would	
   benefit	
   from	
   not	
   referencing	
   it	
   until	
   these	
   issues	
   have	
   been	
   addressed.	
   Use	
   of	
  
an	
  established	
  actuarial	
  instrument	
  would	
  be	
  desirable.	
  
	
  
	
  
G.	
  Victim	
  Input	
  (Pursuant	
  to	
  17-­‐22.5-­‐404	
  (2)	
  (a)	
  (I)	
  this	
  may	
  include	
  the	
  victim	
  or	
  a	
  
relative	
  of	
  the	
  victim)	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  had	
  no	
  contact	
  with	
  the	
  victim,	
  other	
  than	
  therapeutically	
  approved	
  
contact.	
  (Contact	
  means	
  any	
  kind	
  of	
  communication	
  either	
  direct	
  or	
  indirect	
  by	
  the	
  
offender	
  with	
  the	
  victim	
  and	
  includes	
  but	
  is	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  physical	
  proximity,	
  written	
  
correspondence,	
  electronic,	
  telephone	
  or	
  through	
  third	
  parties.)	
  
2.	
  The	
  offender	
  is	
  not	
  engaging	
  in	
  victim	
  blaming.	
  
3.	
  The	
  offender	
  is	
  not	
  engaging	
  in	
  harassment,	
  manipulation	
  or	
  coercion	
  of	
  the	
  victim.	
  
4.	
  Offender	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  support	
  for	
  the	
  victim’s	
  recovery,	
  minimally	
  at	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  
no	
  contact,	
  as	
  verified	
  by	
  SOTMP	
  staff.	
  

	
  
These	
  guidelines	
  are	
  reasonable	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards.	
  
	
  
H.	
  Age	
  of	
  Offender	
  at	
  Offense	
  vs	
  Date	
  of	
  Parole	
  Hearing	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  the	
  emotional	
  maturity	
  necessary	
  to	
  predict	
  a	
  successful	
  
release	
  to	
  parole.	
  

	
  
The	
   term	
   “emotional	
   maturity”	
   is	
   undefined	
   and	
   capable	
   of	
   many	
   interpretations.	
  
However,	
   older	
   offenders	
   are	
   generally	
   more	
   compliant,	
   less	
   impulsive	
   and	
   better	
  
able	
  to	
  tolerate	
  frustration.	
  
	
  
I.	
  Parole	
  Plan	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender’s	
  Parole	
  plan	
  minimally	
  includes	
  the	
  following:	
  
·	
  No	
  undue	
  level	
  of	
  risk	
  is	
  indicated	
  in	
  any	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  parole	
  plan	
  or	
  recommendations	
  
from	
  any	
  DOC	
  staff.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  an	
  appropriate	
  plan	
  to	
  safely	
  transition	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  community.	
  
·	
  The	
  home	
  living	
  situation	
  is	
  free	
  from	
  former	
  and	
  potential	
  victims.	
  

	
  

89	
  

·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  appropriate	
  employment	
  plans	
  with	
  lack	
  of	
  access	
  to	
  potential	
  victims.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  access	
  to	
  and	
  demonstrates	
  willingness	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  sex	
  offense	
  
specific	
  treatment	
  and	
  other	
  recommended	
  treatment	
  if	
  released	
  on	
  Parole.	
  
·	
  The	
  appropriate	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  and	
  containment	
  is	
  available	
  where	
  the	
  offender	
  
plans	
  to	
  live.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  a	
  realistic	
  plan	
  to	
  pay	
  restitution	
  based	
  on	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  ability	
  to	
  pay.	
  

	
  
This	
   criterion	
   is	
   reasonable	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   generally	
   accepted	
   practice	
  
standards.	
  
	
  
J.	
  Honesty	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  truthful,	
  complete	
  and	
  non-­‐evasive	
  answers	
  to	
  all	
  questions	
  
posed	
  by	
  the	
  parole	
  board	
  members.	
  

	
  
This	
   criterion	
   is	
   reasonable	
   and	
   consistent	
   with	
   generally	
   accepted	
   practice	
  
standards.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

90	
  

Appendix	
  I:	
  

Criteria	
  for	
  Reduction	
  in	
  Supervision	
  or	
  

Discharge	
  from	
  Parole	
  
	
  
The	
  Lifetime	
  Supervision	
  Criteria	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  indicate:	
  
In order to demonstrate that the sex offender would not pose an undue threat to the community if
placed on a lower level of supervision while on parole, he or she must meet the reduction in
supervision criteria in each of the following areas of focus; in order to demonstrate that he or she
would not pose an undue threat to the community if discharged from parole, he or she must meet
the discharge criteria in each of the following areas of focus:	
  

	
  
Each	
  area	
  of	
  focus	
  is	
  commented	
  on	
  in	
  this	
  report	
  separately	
  and	
  as	
  follows.	
  
	
  
A.	
  Community	
  Supervision	
  Team	
  Staffing	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  team	
  considers	
  all	
  information	
  below	
  and	
  other	
  appropriate	
  
information	
  to	
  make	
  any	
  determination	
  regarding	
  movement	
  to	
  lower	
  levels	
  of	
  
supervision.	
  All	
  team	
  members	
  must	
  agree	
  to	
  the	
  reduction	
  in	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  supervision.	
  No	
  
exceptions	
  will	
  be	
  made	
  for	
  reduction	
  in	
  supervision	
  from	
  level	
  1	
  (maximum).	
  Any	
  
exception	
  made	
  to	
  the	
  requirements	
  for	
  movement	
  from	
  levels	
  other	
  than	
  level	
  1	
  must	
  be	
  
made	
  by	
  a	
  consensus	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  supervision	
  team	
  and	
  the	
  parole	
  board.	
  In	
  such	
  a	
  
case,	
  reasons	
  for	
  movement	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  when	
  criteria	
  are	
  not	
  met	
  must	
  
be	
  documented	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  any	
  resulting	
  potential	
  risk	
  to	
  the	
  community.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  In	
  any	
  case	
  when	
  an	
  offender	
  is	
  being	
  considered	
  for	
  recommendation	
  of	
  
discharge	
  from	
  lifetime	
  supervision,	
  the	
  offender	
  must	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  would	
  
not	
  pose	
  an	
  undue	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  community	
  if	
  allowed	
  to	
  live	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  without	
  
supervision.	
  The	
  team	
  considers	
  all	
  information	
  below	
  and	
  other	
  appropriate	
  information	
  
to	
  make	
  any	
  determination	
  regarding	
  discharge	
  from	
  lifetime	
  supervision.	
  
	
  
All	
  team	
  members	
  must	
  agree	
  to	
  the	
  discharge	
  from	
  supervision.	
  The	
  supervising	
  officer	
  
will	
  document	
  what	
  criteria	
  are	
  met	
  or	
  not	
  met	
  at	
  any	
  consideration	
  of	
  reduction	
  in	
  level	
  of	
  

	
  

91	
  

supervision	
  or	
  discharge	
  and	
  the	
  decision	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  supervision	
  team.	
  
	
  
Discussion:	
  If	
  an	
  offender	
  is	
  consistently	
  failing	
  to	
  meet	
  criteria	
  for	
  progression,	
  the	
  team	
  
should	
  evaluate	
  whether	
  the	
  current	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  is	
  intensive	
  enough	
  to	
  adequately	
  
contain	
  the	
  offender.	
  In	
  such	
  cases,	
  regression	
  to	
  a	
  higher	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  should	
  be	
  
considered.	
  

	
  
This	
   approach	
   is	
   generally	
   reasonable.	
   The	
   agreement	
   requirements	
   are,	
   however,	
  
skewed	
  in	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  increased	
  cost	
  and	
  caution.	
  Any	
  overly	
  cautious	
  member	
  
of	
  the	
  team	
  can	
  block	
  reasonable	
  decisions	
  to	
  reduce	
  supervision	
  or	
  move	
  towards	
  
discharge.	
   Since	
   complete	
   agreement	
   is	
   required	
   for	
   key	
   decisions	
   an	
   overly	
  
cautious	
  person	
  can	
  block	
  progress	
  for	
   reasons	
  that	
  are	
  irrational.	
  The	
  effect	
  of	
  this	
  
is	
  to	
  fail	
  to	
  identify	
  when	
  reduced	
  supervision	
  is	
  indeed	
  warranted	
  and	
  potentially	
  
make	
   the	
   system	
   function	
   in	
   an	
   unduly	
   costly	
   way	
   for	
   little	
   gain	
   in	
   community	
  
safety.	
   Further,	
   as	
   described	
   by	
   stakeholders	
   in	
   the	
   Focus	
   Groups,	
   in	
   actuality	
   the	
  
supervision	
   officer	
   essentially	
   makes	
   all	
   case	
   decisions	
   and	
   treatment	
   providers	
   are	
  
pressured	
  to	
  comply.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   should	
   consider	
   creating	
   a	
   mechanism	
   for	
   independent	
   review	
   in	
   cases	
  
where	
   the	
   team	
   cannot	
   come	
   to	
   a	
   consensus.	
   It	
   is	
   further	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
  
SOMB	
   conduct	
   a	
   thorough	
   internal	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   stakeholder	
   reported	
   problem	
  
that	
  concerns	
  about	
  getting	
  referrals	
  and	
  other	
  pressures	
  undermine	
  the	
  CST	
  from	
  
functioning	
  as	
  intended.	
  Lastly,	
  regarding	
  the	
  discussion	
  point,	
  failure	
  to	
  progress	
  in	
  
treatment	
  or	
  in	
  meeting	
  a	
  lower	
  supervision	
  requirement	
  does	
  not	
  necessarily	
  mean	
  
more	
  supervision	
  in	
  required	
  but	
  often	
  rather,	
  is	
  a	
  cue	
  that	
  treatment	
  efforts	
  should	
  
be	
  adjusted.	
  Unless	
  failure	
  to	
  progress	
  is	
  associated	
  with	
  increased	
  risk	
  factors	
  for	
  
re-­‐offense,	
   it	
   should	
   not	
   trigger	
   concern	
   that	
   more	
   intensive	
   supervision	
   is	
  
warranted.	
  	
  
	
  
B.	
  Polygraphs	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  complete	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  consecutive	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  

	
  

92	
  

polygraph	
  examinations	
  before	
  moving	
  to	
  the	
  next	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision.	
  The	
  
examinations	
  must	
  be	
  the	
  two	
  most	
  recent	
  exams	
  each	
  time.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  completed	
  a	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  baseline	
  (sex	
  history)	
  
polygraph	
  examination	
  and	
  complete	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  consecutive	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  polygraph	
  
examinations	
  for	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  three	
  levels	
  of	
  supervision	
  before	
  discharge.	
  
	
  
Any	
  exception	
  made	
  to	
  the	
  requirements	
  for	
  movement	
  from	
  level	
  to	
  level	
  or	
  for	
  discharge	
  
must	
  be	
  made	
  by	
  a	
  consensus	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  supervision	
  team.	
  In	
  such	
  a	
  case,	
  reasons	
  
for	
  movement	
  when	
  criteria	
  are	
  not	
  met	
  must	
  be	
  documented	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  any	
  resulting	
  
potential	
  risk	
  to	
  the	
  community.	
  

	
  
This	
   criterion	
   gives	
   too	
   critical	
   a	
   role	
   to	
   polygraph	
   examinations.	
   Like	
   other	
  
assessment	
   tools	
   the	
   polygraph	
   is	
   fallible.	
   The	
   relevant	
   research	
   literature	
   indicates	
  
that	
   the	
   polygraph	
   can	
   attain	
   accuracy	
   of	
   close	
   to	
   90%	
   when	
   testing	
   well-­‐defined	
  
single	
   issues.	
   Unfortunately	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraphs	
   are	
   not	
   well-­‐defined	
   single	
  
issues	
  and	
  the	
  accuracy	
  level	
  is	
  likely	
  significantly	
  lower.	
  This	
  means	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  
liable	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  significant	
  number	
  of	
  false	
  findings	
  of	
  Deception	
  and	
  false	
  findings	
  of	
  
Non-­‐Deception	
  in	
  Sexual	
  History	
  polygraphs.	
  	
  
	
  
Additionally,	
  public	
  protection	
  is	
  not	
  entirely	
  dependent	
  on	
  a	
  complete	
  disclosure	
  of	
  
all	
  past	
  sexual	
  crimes.	
  Indeed,	
  jurisdictions	
  that	
  don’t	
  use	
  Sexual	
  History	
  polygraph	
  
examinations	
   in	
   this	
   way	
   have	
   nevertheless	
   achieved	
   low	
   sexual	
   recidivism	
   rates.	
  
More	
  critical	
  than	
  full	
  disclosure	
  to	
  preventing	
  future	
  offending	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  treatment	
  
team	
   is	
   able	
   to	
   determine	
   (a)	
   the	
   main	
   patterns	
   of	
   past	
   offending	
   (b)	
   the	
   main	
  
psychological	
   risk	
   factors	
   that	
   contributed	
   to	
   past	
   offending.	
   These	
   achievements	
  
would	
  more	
  appropriately	
  replace	
  the	
  requirement	
  for	
  Sexual	
  History	
  polygraphs	
  in	
  
the	
   above	
   criteria,	
   with	
   participation	
   in	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraphs	
   one	
   key	
   way	
   of	
  
generating	
   information	
   about	
   patterns	
   of	
   past	
   offending	
   and	
   psychological	
   risk	
  
factors	
  but	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  only	
  way.	
  
	
  

	
  

93	
  

Maintenance	
   polygraph	
   examinations	
   (checking	
   compliance	
   with	
   supervision	
  
conditions	
   etc.)	
   on	
   the	
   other	
   hand	
   are	
   both	
   more	
   likely	
   to	
   be	
   accurate	
   and	
   more	
  
directly	
   relevant	
   to	
   the	
   ability	
   of	
   supervision	
   processes	
   to	
   provide	
   effective	
   external	
  
control	
   of	
   offenders’	
   behavior.	
   Accordingly	
   we	
   suggest	
   that	
   the	
   role	
   of	
   these	
  
examinations	
   be	
   retained	
   in	
   the	
   criteria.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   further	
   our	
   opinion	
   that	
   polygraph	
  
requirements	
   must	
   be	
   sufficiently	
   flexible	
   to	
   allow	
   for	
   cases	
   where	
   such	
   assessment	
  
is	
   determined	
   contra-­‐indicated	
   as	
   can	
   sometimes	
   occur	
   with	
   assessing	
  
developmentally	
   disabled,	
   cognitively	
   impaired	
   (i.e.	
   dementia,	
   organic	
   brain	
  
impairment,	
   etc),	
   acute	
   co-­‐morbid	
   diagnoses	
   (i.e.	
   Schizophrenia,	
   PTSD).	
   Some	
  
further	
   concerns	
   with	
   polygraph	
   implementation	
   in	
   Colorado	
   is	
   the	
   report	
   by	
  
stakeholders	
  that	
  inconclusive	
  results	
  are	
  treated	
  akin	
  as	
  deceptive,	
  that	
  the	
  cost	
  to	
  
offenders	
   is	
   often	
   prohibitive	
   and	
   that	
   wait	
   lists	
   for	
   assessment,	
   particularly	
   in	
  
prison,	
   delay	
   treatment	
   progress.	
   We	
   recommend	
   the	
   CO	
   SOMB	
   conduct	
   a	
   thorough	
  
internal	
  analysis	
  of	
  these	
  stakeholder	
  reported	
  potential	
  barriers.	
  	
  
	
  
C.	
  Progress	
  in	
  Treatment	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  monthly	
  reports	
  are	
  consistently	
  indicating	
  the	
  
following	
  (consistency	
  is	
  defined	
  as	
  6	
  months	
  or	
  longer):	
  
·	
  Regular	
  attendance	
  with	
  no	
  un-­‐excused	
  absences	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  6	
  months.	
  
·	
  Active	
  participation.	
  
·	
  Progression	
  with	
  the	
  established	
  treatment	
  guidelines.	
  
·	
  Payment.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  acknowledges	
  and	
  takes	
  full	
  responsibility	
  for	
  crime	
  of	
  conviction.	
  
·	
  Completion	
  of	
  a	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  polygraph	
  regarding	
  the	
  offender’s	
  sex	
  history.	
  
·	
  The	
  treatment	
  provider	
  reports	
  that	
  any	
  other	
  denial	
  issues	
  are	
  being	
  consistently	
  and	
  
adequately	
  addressed	
  in	
  treatment.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  understands	
  the	
  offense	
  cycle.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  and	
  is	
  utilizing	
  an	
  appropriate	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  plan.	
  
·	
  No	
  unsuccessful	
  terminations.	
  
·	
  Full	
  compliance	
  with	
  established	
  treatment	
  guidelines.	
  
·	
  Full	
  compliance	
  with	
  recommended	
  medications.	
  
	
  

	
  

94	
  

Discharge:	
  For	
  discharge	
  from	
  parole,	
  the	
  treatment	
  provider	
  must	
  be	
  reporting	
  successful	
  
termination	
  of	
  treatment	
  or	
  successful	
  progress	
  in	
  treatment	
  to	
  date	
  and	
  actively	
  
recommending	
  discharge	
  from	
  parole.	
  (Successful	
  completion	
  indicates	
  active,	
  consistent	
  
practice	
  of	
  a	
  treatment	
  aftercare	
  program.	
  Successful	
  progress	
  indicates	
  an	
  active	
  plan	
  to	
  
continue	
  in	
  treatment.)	
  

	
  
Overall,	
   these	
   requirements	
   for	
   treatment	
   progress	
   are	
   reasonable	
   and	
   consistent	
  
with	
   best	
   practice	
   standards	
   with	
   exception	
   a	
   few	
   concerns.	
   The	
   same	
   comments	
  
apply	
  here	
  regarding	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  the	
  Sexual	
  History	
  polygraph	
  examination	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
the	
   concerns	
   that	
   the	
   professional	
   judgment	
   of	
   treatment	
   providers	
   may	
   be	
  
undermined	
   in	
   the	
   way	
   the	
   CST	
   is	
   being	
   implemented.	
   We	
   also	
   suggest	
   that	
  
treatment	
   staff	
   should	
   be	
   taught	
   to	
   administer	
   the	
   SOTIPS	
   or	
   some	
   similar,	
  
evidence-­‐based	
   measure	
   for	
   which	
   change	
   scores	
   have	
   been	
   shown	
   to	
   relate	
   to	
  
reduced	
   recidivism.	
   Reduction	
   in	
   risk	
   as	
   indicated	
   by	
   this	
   (or	
   similar	
   instrument)	
  
may	
   usefully	
   replace	
   references	
   to	
   denial,	
   offense	
   cycle	
   and	
   relapse	
   prevention	
  
issues.	
   The	
   SOMB	
   might	
   review	
   the	
   SOTIPS	
   with	
   its	
   authors	
   to	
   agree	
   how	
   large	
   a	
  
change	
  score	
  would	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  to	
  be	
  relevant.	
  The	
  SOMB	
  staff	
  have	
  communicated	
  
to	
   the	
   evaluation	
   team	
   an	
   intention	
   to	
   promote	
   use	
   of	
   the	
   SOTIPS	
   instrument	
   and	
  
have	
  taken	
  steps	
  to	
  implement	
  some	
  training.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
D.	
  Employment	
  
	
  
Immediately	
  upon	
  release,	
  providing	
  there	
  are	
  no	
  medical,	
  mental	
  or	
  physical	
  problems,	
  
the	
  sex	
  offender	
  shall	
  actively	
  seek	
  appropriate	
  full	
  time	
  employment	
  or	
  enroll	
  in	
  an	
  
appropriate	
  vocational	
  training	
  program,	
  with	
  consent	
  of	
  supervising	
  officer.	
  Appropriate	
  
employment	
  limits	
  contact	
  with	
  victims	
  and	
  potential	
  victims	
  and	
  allows	
  the	
  supervising	
  
officer	
  to	
  consistently	
  locate	
  the	
  offender.	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  demonstrate	
  of	
  job	
  stability,	
  longevity	
  and	
  
appropriate	
  usage.	
  In	
  addition,	
  a	
  positive	
  evaluation	
  or	
  progress	
  report	
  (written	
  or	
  verbal)	
  

	
  

95	
  

is	
  required	
  from	
  the	
  immediate	
  work	
  supervisor.	
  
	
  
An	
  exception	
  may	
  be	
  made	
  if	
  the	
  sex	
  offender	
  becomes	
  unemployed	
  for	
  reasons	
  beyond	
  his	
  
or	
  her	
  control.	
  Any	
  exception	
  must	
  be	
  agreed	
  to	
  by	
  a	
  consensus	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  
supervision	
  team.	
  In	
  such	
  a	
  case,	
  reasons	
  for	
  movement	
  when	
  criteria	
  are	
  not	
  met	
  must	
  be	
  
documented	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  any	
  resulting	
  potential	
  risk	
  to	
  the	
  community.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  employment	
  record	
  shall	
  reflect	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  seek	
  and	
  
maintain	
  appropriate	
  long-­‐term	
  employment	
  with	
  no	
  periods	
  of	
  willful	
  unemployment	
  
during	
  the	
  past	
  5	
  years.	
  

	
  
These	
  are	
  reasonable	
  criteria	
  that	
  are	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards	
  with	
  
possible	
   exception	
   limiting	
   contact	
   with	
   potential	
   victims,	
   depending	
   on	
   how	
  
potential	
  victims	
  is	
  defined.	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  whereas	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  contraindicated	
  for	
  a	
  
child	
  molester	
  to	
  be	
  employed	
  in	
  an	
  industry	
  that	
  includes	
  a	
  high	
  degree	
  of	
  contact	
  
with	
  minors	
  (i.e.	
  children’s	
  clothing	
  stores,	
  toy	
  stores,	
  coach,	
  school	
  teacher)	
  it	
  may	
  
not	
  be	
  contraindicated	
  for	
  employment	
  in	
  an	
  industry	
  that	
  involves	
  limited	
  contact	
  
with	
  children	
  especially	
  when	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  unlikely	
  to	
  be	
  alone	
  with	
  a	
  child	
  (i.e.	
  
grocery	
   store,	
   barber	
   shop,	
   farm	
   stand,	
   janitorial).	
   	
   Further,	
   any	
   employment	
  
condition	
   that	
   excludes	
   any	
   contact	
   with	
   children	
   for	
   a	
   sexual	
   offender	
   with	
   no	
  
known	
   child	
   victims	
   or	
   sexual	
   interest	
   in	
   children	
   is	
   also	
   regarding	
   as	
   unnecessarily	
  
prohibitive.	
  	
  
	
  
E.	
  Relationships	
  
Relationships	
  developed	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  shall	
  be	
  appropriate	
  and	
  of	
  positive	
  benefit	
  to	
  
the	
  sex	
  offender.	
  The	
  safety	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  shall	
  be	
  considered	
  a	
  priority	
  in	
  all	
  
relationships.	
  Appropriate	
  relationships	
  limit	
  contact	
  with	
  all	
  victims	
  and	
  potential	
  victims	
  
and	
  include	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  offender’s	
  criminal	
  history.	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  Consideration	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  will	
  be	
  
based	
  on	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  ability	
  to	
  articulate	
  the	
  status	
  and	
  benefits	
  of	
  any	
  relationships.	
  
The	
  offender	
  shall	
  have	
  had	
  no	
  unauthorized	
  contact	
  with	
  victims	
  or	
  minors	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  6	
  

	
  

96	
  

months.	
  
Consideration	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  level	
  2	
  (medium)	
  will	
  be	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  offender	
  
identifying	
  an	
  appropriate	
  community	
  support	
  person	
  who	
  is	
  willing	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  
offense	
  specific	
  education.	
  
	
  
In	
  a	
  situation	
  where	
  the	
  offender	
  cohabits	
  with	
  or	
  is	
  in	
  an	
  intimate	
  relationship,	
  the	
  co-­‐
habitor	
  or	
  significant	
  other	
  must	
  be	
  supportive	
  of	
  treatment,	
  not	
  supportive	
  of	
  the	
  
offenders’	
  denial,	
  and	
  be	
  willing	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  sex	
  offense	
  specific	
  
education	
  as	
  needed.	
  Significant	
  other(s)	
  and	
  cohabitors,	
  should	
  also	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  articulate	
  
the	
  status	
  and	
  benefits	
  of	
  relationship,	
  demonstrate	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  
criminal	
  history	
  including	
  the	
  current	
  offense	
  and	
  have	
  knowledge	
  and	
  awareness	
  
	
  of	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  risk	
  to	
  children	
  and	
  potential	
  victims.	
  
	
  
Exceptions	
  may	
  be	
  made	
  and	
  documented	
  when	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  residing	
  in	
  a	
  residential	
  
facility	
  or	
  hospital	
  and	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  inappropriate	
  to	
  disclose	
  the	
  offender’s	
  history	
  to	
  all	
  
other	
  residents.	
  In	
  such	
  cases,	
  the	
  safety	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  residents	
  shall	
  be	
  the	
  determining	
  
factor	
  regarding	
  disclosure,	
  not	
  the	
  offender’s	
  desire	
  for	
  confidentiality.	
  In	
  no	
  case	
  is	
  it	
  
appropriate	
  to	
  keep	
  any	
  information	
  regarding	
  the	
  offender	
  and	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  history	
  from	
  
staff	
  of	
  any	
  facility	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  being	
  treated	
  or	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  reside.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  sex	
  offender	
  shall	
  have	
  demonstrated,	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  supervision,	
  the	
  
ability	
  to	
  maintain	
  age	
  appropriate,	
  professional	
  and	
  personal	
  relationships	
  that	
  are	
  non-­‐
criminal.	
  The	
  sex	
  offender	
  shall	
  demonstrate	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  how	
  positive	
  
relationships	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  have	
  influenced	
  non-­‐criminal	
  behavior	
  and	
  thinking.	
  

	
  
As	
   written,	
   these	
   criteria	
   are	
   reasonable	
   and	
   within	
   best	
   practice	
   standards	
   with	
  
possible	
   exception	
   regarding	
   how	
   “limited	
   contact	
   with	
   all	
   victims	
   and	
   potential	
  
victims”	
   is	
   defined.	
   	
   	
   This	
   is	
   discussed	
   in	
   the	
   preceding	
   section.	
   	
   Limiting	
   contact	
  
with	
   potential	
   victims	
   could	
   be	
   interpreted	
   as	
   disallowing	
   any	
   contact	
   with	
   any	
  
person,	
  or	
  disallowing	
  any	
  contact	
  with	
  a	
  minor	
  for	
  an	
  offender	
  who	
  has	
  no	
  history	
  
of	
   or	
   indication	
   of	
   sexual	
   interest	
   in	
   minors.	
   Lastly,	
   it	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
   some	
  

	
  

97	
  

consideration	
  be	
  given	
  to	
  developing	
  resources	
  for	
  those	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  who	
  are	
  
too	
  socially	
  isolated	
  to	
  meet	
  these	
  criteria.	
  
	
  
F.	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Registration	
  
Each	
  sex	
  offender,	
  domestic	
  or	
  interstate,	
  if	
  required	
  by	
  statute	
  to	
  register,	
  shall	
  upon	
  
becoming	
  a	
  temporary	
  or	
  permanent	
  resident,	
  register	
  with	
  the	
  law	
  enforcement	
  agency	
  
within	
  the	
  jurisdiction	
  where	
  the	
  offender’s	
  residence	
  is	
  located.	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  Consideration	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  will	
  be	
  
based	
  on	
  consistent	
  compliance	
  with	
  re-­‐registration	
  requirements,	
  advising	
  law	
  
enforcement	
  of	
  current	
  residence,	
  appropriately	
  notifying	
  original	
  jurisdiction	
  and	
  timely	
  
filing	
  of	
  a	
  change	
  of	
  residency	
  card	
  with	
  law	
  enforcement	
  when	
  moving	
  to	
  a	
  new	
  
jurisdiction.	
  
Progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  considered	
  if	
  sex	
  offender	
  is	
  not	
  in	
  
compliance	
  with	
  state	
  registration	
  laws.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  sex	
  offender	
  must	
  currently	
  be	
  registered	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  in	
  compliance	
  
with	
  sex	
  offender	
  registration	
  laws	
  for	
  the	
  (5)	
  five	
  consecutive	
  years	
  immediately	
  
preceding	
  consideration	
  for	
  discharge.	
  

	
  
These	
   criteria	
   are	
   reasonable	
   and	
   generally	
   consistent	
   with	
   accepted	
   practice	
  
standards.	
   We	
   are	
   not	
   commenting	
   on	
   the	
   efficacy	
   of	
   registration	
   as	
   a	
   community	
  
protection	
  policy	
  but	
  if	
  this	
  is	
  the	
  policy	
  of	
  the	
  state	
  then	
  it	
  is	
  reasonable	
  to	
  expect	
  
sexual	
  offenders	
  to	
  comply	
  with	
  it.	
  	
  
	
  
G.	
  Leisure	
  Activities:	
  
Immediately	
  upon	
  release,	
  leisure	
  activities	
  engaged	
  in	
  or	
  developed	
  within	
  the	
  
community	
  shall	
  be	
  appropriate,	
  legitimate,	
  legal	
  and	
  of	
  benefit	
  to	
  the	
  sex	
  offender.	
  
Appropriate	
  leisure	
  activities	
  limit	
  contact	
  with	
  victims	
  and	
  potential	
  victims	
  and	
  allow	
  the	
  
supervising	
  officer	
  to	
  consistently	
  locate	
  the	
  offender.	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  Consideration	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  will	
  be	
  

	
  

98	
  

based	
  on	
  sex	
  offenders'	
  ability	
  to	
  identify	
  appropriate	
  leisure	
  activities	
  and	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  
each	
  activity.	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  articulate	
  how	
  the	
  relapse	
  
prevention	
  
plan	
  is	
  used	
  when	
  engaging	
  in	
  leisure	
  activities.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  To	
  be	
  considered	
  for	
  discharge,	
  the	
  sex	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  demonstrated	
  the	
  
ability	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  appropriate,	
  legitimate	
  and	
  legal	
  leisure	
  activities	
  from	
  which	
  
he/she	
  has	
  benefited.	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  demonstrated	
  consistent	
  use	
  of	
  
a	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  plan	
  as	
  needed	
  during	
  leisure	
  activities.

	
  
These	
  criteria	
  as	
  written	
  are	
  reasonable	
  and	
  generally	
  consistent	
  with	
  accepted	
  
practice	
  standards.	
  	
  The	
  previously	
  described	
  caution	
  about	
  how	
  limiting	
  contact	
  
with	
  potential	
  victims	
  is	
  interpreted	
  also	
  applies	
  here.	
  	
  
	
  
H.	
  Compliance	
  with	
  Conditions	
  of	
  Supervision	
  
On	
  a	
  regular	
  basis,	
  the	
  sex	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  compliance	
  with	
  all	
  conditions	
  of	
  
supervision.	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  Consideration	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  will	
  be	
  
based	
  on	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  attitude,	
  progress,	
  participation	
  and	
  consistent	
  compliance	
  
with	
  all	
  conditions	
  of	
  supervision.	
  
	
  
The	
  sex	
  offender	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  considered	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  if	
  
not	
  actively	
  in	
  compliance	
  with	
  all	
  offense	
  specific	
  conditions	
  of	
  supervision,	
  or	
  if	
  the	
  
offender	
  has	
  a	
  pending	
  summons	
  or	
  complaint	
  for	
  any	
  parole	
  violation(s).	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  To	
  be	
  considered	
  for	
  discharge	
  sex	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  in	
  compliance	
  with	
  all	
  
conditions	
  of	
  supervision	
  including	
  successful	
  discharge	
  from	
  treatment	
  and	
  active	
  
participation	
  in	
  an	
  aftercare	
  program.	
  

	
  
These	
  criteria	
  as	
  written	
  are	
  reasonable	
  and	
  generally	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  
standards.	
  

	
  

99	
  

	
  

Appendix	
  J:	
  

Criteria	
  for	
  Reduction	
  in	
  Supervision	
  or	
  

Discharge	
  from	
  Probation	
  
	
  
The	
   Lifetime	
   Supervision	
   Criteria	
   of	
   the	
   Colorado	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
  
indicate:	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  order	
  to	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  the	
  sex	
  offender	
  would	
  not	
  pose	
  an	
  undue	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  
community	
  if	
  placed	
  on	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  while	
  on	
  probation,	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  must	
  
meet	
  the	
  reduction	
  in	
  supervision	
  criteria	
  in	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  areas	
  of	
  focus	
  (For	
  
the	
   purpose	
   of	
   these	
   Criteria,	
   reduction	
   in	
   level	
   of	
   supervision	
   while	
   on	
   probation	
  
means	
   movement	
   from	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Intensive	
   Supervision	
   Probation	
   to	
   Regular	
  
Probation).	
   For	
   criteria	
   that	
   refer	
   to	
   reduction	
   in	
   levels	
   of	
   supervision	
   while	
   on	
   Sex	
  
Offender	
   Intensive	
   Supervision	
   Probation,	
   please	
   refer	
   to	
   the	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Intensive	
  
Supervision	
  (SOISP)	
  Guidelines	
  and	
  Standards	
  published	
  by	
  the	
  Colorado	
  
Judicial	
   Branch,	
   Office	
   of	
   Probation	
   Services.	
   In	
   order	
   to	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   the	
   sex	
  
offender	
   would	
   not	
   pose	
   an	
   undue	
   threat	
   to	
   the	
   community	
   if	
   discharged	
   from	
  
probation,	
   he	
   or	
   she	
   must	
   meet	
   the	
   discharge	
   criteria	
   in	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   following	
   areas	
   of	
  
focus:	
  [A	
  to	
  I]	
  	
  
	
  
Each	
  set	
  of	
  criteria	
  is	
  reproduced	
  below	
  followed	
  by	
  comments	
  from	
  the	
  evaluation	
  
team.	
  Where	
  the	
  criterion	
  is	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  that	
  for	
  the	
  reduction	
  in	
  parole	
  supervision	
  
standard,	
  readers	
  should	
  apply	
  the	
  same	
  commentary.	
  
	
  
A.	
  Compliance	
  with	
  the	
  Treatment	
  Contract	
  to	
  the	
  Treatment	
  Provider’s	
  Satisfaction	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  treatment	
  provider	
  is	
  indicating	
  a	
  recommendation	
  for	
  reduced	
  
supervision	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  following	
  indicators	
  of	
  progress	
  in	
  treatment:	
  
·	
  Regular	
  attendance	
  and	
  active	
  participation	
  in	
  sex	
  offense	
  specific	
  treatment.	
  
·	
  Demonstrates	
  increased	
  internal	
  motivation	
  for	
  treatment.	
  

	
  

100	
  

·	
  The	
  offender	
  admits	
  to	
  committing	
  the	
  offense	
  and	
  acknowledges	
  sexual	
  assault	
  intent.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  understanding	
  and	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  written	
  offense	
  cycle.	
  
·	
  Completion	
  of	
  a	
  written	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  plan	
  and	
  demonstrated	
  ability	
  to	
  use	
  it.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  appropriately	
  confronts	
  others	
  in	
  group	
  treatment.	
  
·	
  Completion	
  of	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  maintenance	
  polygraph	
  examinations	
  at	
  least	
  every	
  6	
  
months.	
  
·	
  Completion	
  of	
  all	
  homework	
  assignments	
  and	
  evidence	
  of	
  an	
  attempt	
  to	
  do	
  a	
  quality	
  job.	
  
·	
  No	
  violations	
  of	
  the	
  treatment	
  contract.	
  
·	
  A	
  reduction	
  in	
  attempts	
  to	
  split	
  team	
  members.	
  
·	
  Demonstrates	
  increased	
  awareness	
  of	
  victim	
  impact	
  and	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  victim	
  
empathy.	
  
·	
  Verification	
  that	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  using	
  techniques,	
  such	
  as	
  covert	
  sensitization,	
  to	
  
interrupt	
  
deviant	
  arousal.	
  
·	
  Non-­‐deceptive	
  disclosure	
  polygraph.	
  (Any	
  exception	
  to	
  this	
  criteria	
  must	
  be	
  consistent	
  
with	
  the	
  requirements	
  in	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  located	
  in	
  the	
  front	
  section	
  of	
  this	
  
publication.)	
  
·	
  Demonstrates	
  ability	
  to	
  recognize	
  and	
  correct	
  thinking	
  errors.	
  
·	
  Demonstrated	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  express	
  anger	
  appropriately	
  and	
  without	
  aggression.	
  
·	
  Full	
  and	
  consistent	
  compliance	
  with	
  any	
  medication	
  requirements.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  For	
  discharge	
  from	
  probation,	
  the	
  treatment	
  provider	
  must	
  be	
  reporting	
  
successful	
  termination	
  of	
  treatment	
  or	
  successful	
  progress	
  in	
  treatment	
  to	
  date	
  and	
  
actively	
  recommending	
  discharge	
  from	
  probation.	
  (Successful	
  completion	
  indicates	
  active,	
  
consistent	
  practice	
  of	
  a	
  treatment	
  aftercare	
  program.	
  Successful	
  progress	
  indicates	
  an	
  
active	
  plan	
  to	
  continue	
  in	
  treatment.)	
  

	
  
It	
  is	
  unclear	
  why	
  the	
  SOMB	
  lists	
  criteria	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  consistent	
  with	
  those	
  listed	
  in	
  
the	
   analogous	
   standard	
   regarding	
   reductions	
   in	
   parole	
   supervision	
   and	
   may	
  
consider	
  doing	
  so	
  for	
  not	
  the	
  least	
  reader	
  friendliness.	
  The	
  basic	
  notion	
  that	
  persons	
  
on	
   probation	
   should	
   be	
   expected	
   to	
   comply	
   with	
   treatment	
   expectations	
   is	
   fairly	
  
standard	
  in	
  such	
  settings.	
  The	
  clinical	
  achievements	
  required	
  fall	
  into	
  3	
  categories.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

101	
  

1)	
  	
  

Treatment	
   Engagement	
   (attendance,	
   homework	
   completion,	
   internal	
  

motivation,	
  reduction	
  in	
  attempts	
  to	
  split	
  the	
  team,	
  etc.)	
  
	
  
These	
  are	
  reasonable	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards.	
  
	
  
2)	
  	
  

Disclosure	
  and	
  Taking	
  Responsibility	
  	
  

	
  
It	
  is	
  recommended	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  consider	
  developing	
  a	
  more	
  nuanced	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  
value	
   of	
   disclosure	
   and	
   taking	
   responsibility.	
   Full	
   disclosure	
   of	
   every	
   offense	
   the	
  
person	
  has	
  committed	
  is	
  at	
  times	
  not	
  possible	
  and	
  at	
  times	
  not	
  necessary	
  for	
  their	
  
risk	
  to	
  be	
  effectively	
  managed.	
  Disclosure	
  is	
  required	
  to	
  identify	
  the	
  main	
  patterns	
  
of	
   offending,	
   factors	
   which	
   contributed	
   to	
   these	
   patterns,,	
   and	
   for	
   the	
   offender	
   to	
  
acknowledge	
   that	
   he	
   has	
   problems	
   that	
   need	
   to	
   be	
   worked	
   on.	
   Additionally,	
   in	
  
relation	
  to	
  incest	
  offenders	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  particular	
  need	
  for	
  offenders	
  to	
  acknowledge	
  
the	
   full	
   extent	
   of	
   their	
   offending	
   against	
   family	
   members	
   as	
   the	
   available	
   research	
  
suggests	
  that	
  denial	
  is	
  related	
  to	
  recidivism	
  for	
  this	
  group.	
  	
  
	
  
3)	
  	
  

Change	
  in	
  Psychological	
  Risk	
  Factors	
  (deviant	
  arousal,	
  etc.)	
  

It	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
   an	
   empirically-­‐based	
   measure	
   of	
   change,	
   for	
   example	
   the	
  
SOTIPS,	
   be	
   adopted	
   instead	
   of	
   the	
   current	
   piecemeal	
   and	
   incomplete	
   listing	
   of	
  
empirically-­‐supported	
   risk	
   factors.	
   	
   The	
   SOMB	
   has	
   reported	
   a	
   plan	
   to	
   train	
   some	
  
supervision	
   officers	
   and	
   treatment	
   providers	
   on	
   this	
   tool,	
   however,	
   to	
   date	
   there	
  
does	
  not	
  yet	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  plan	
  on	
  how	
  the	
  instrument	
  and	
  scores	
  will	
  be	
  utilized.	
  	
  
	
  
Overall	
   it	
   is	
   further	
   recommended	
   that	
   existing	
   criteria	
   be	
   supplemented	
   by	
   criteria	
  
related	
   to	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   internal	
   strengths	
   and	
   protective	
   factors,	
   that	
   less	
  
reliance	
  be	
  placed	
  on	
  offenders	
  constructing	
  elaborate	
  written	
  documents	
  (Relapse	
  
Prevention	
  plans	
  etc.)	
  and	
  more	
  reliance	
  based	
  on	
  actual	
  behavioral	
  change.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

102	
  

B.	
  Consistency	
  Between	
  Words	
  and	
  Behavior	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  can	
  identify	
  inconsistencies	
  in	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  words	
  and	
  behavior	
  and	
  makes	
  
attempts	
  to	
  correct	
  them.	
  
·	
  Evidence	
  of	
  consistency	
  in	
  what	
  is	
  said	
  to	
  the	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  supervision	
  
team.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  offender	
  consistently	
  displays	
  consistency	
  between	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  words	
  and	
  
behavior	
  in	
  all	
  areas	
  of	
  his	
  life.	
  

This	
  is	
  a	
  reasonable	
  expectation	
  that	
  is	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards.	
  
C.	
  Appropriate	
  Relationships	
  and	
  Community	
  Support	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  offender	
  recognizes	
  and	
  terminates	
  inappropriate	
  relationships.	
  
The	
  offender	
  has	
  establishment	
  of	
  some	
  appropriate	
  social	
  relationships	
  and	
  community	
  
support.	
  This	
  may	
  include	
  a	
  community	
  chaperone	
  if	
  deemed	
  necessary	
  by	
  the	
  community	
  
supervision	
  team.	
  In	
  a	
  situation	
  where	
  the	
  offender	
  cohabits	
  with	
  or	
  is	
  in	
  an	
  intimate	
  
relationship,	
  the	
  cohabitor	
  or	
  significant	
  other	
  must	
  be	
  supportive	
  of	
  treatment,	
  not	
  
supportive	
  of	
  the	
  offenders’	
  denial,	
  and	
  be	
  willing	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  sex	
  
offense	
  specific	
  education	
  as	
  needed.	
  Significant	
  other(s)	
  and	
  cohabitors,	
  should	
  also	
  be	
  
able	
  to	
  articulate	
  the	
  status	
  and	
  benefits	
  of	
  relationship,	
  demonstrate	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  
sex	
  offender’s	
  criminal	
  history	
  including	
  the	
  current	
  offense	
  and	
  have	
  knowledge	
  and	
  
awareness	
  of	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  risk	
  to	
  children	
  and	
  potential	
  victims.	
  
	
  
Exceptions	
  may	
  be	
  made	
  and	
  documented	
  when	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  residing	
  in	
  a	
  residential	
  
facility	
  or	
  hospital	
  and	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  inappropriate	
  to	
  disclose	
  the	
  offender’s	
  history	
  to	
  all	
  
other	
  residents.	
  In	
  such	
  cases,	
  the	
  safety	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  residents	
  shall	
  be	
  the	
  determining	
  
factor	
  regarding	
  disclosure,	
  not	
  the	
  offender’s	
  desire	
  for	
  confidentiality.	
  In	
  no	
  case	
  is	
  it	
  
appropriate	
  to	
  keep	
  any	
  information	
  regarding	
  the	
  offender	
  and	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  history	
  from	
  
staff	
  of	
  any	
  facility	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  being	
  treated	
  or	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  reside.	
  

	
  

103	
  

	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  sex	
  offender	
  shall	
  have	
  demonstrated,	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  supervision,	
  the	
  
ability	
  to	
  maintain	
  age	
  appropriate,	
  professional	
  and	
  personal	
  relationships	
  that	
  are	
  non-­‐
criminal.	
  The	
  sex	
  offender	
  shall	
  demonstrate	
  an	
  understanding	
  of	
  how	
  positive	
  
relationships	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  have	
  influenced	
  non-­‐criminal	
  behavior	
  and	
  thinking.	
  
	
  

These	
  are	
  reasonable	
  expectations	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards.	
  Further	
  
consideration	
   should	
   be	
   given	
   to	
   developing	
   resources	
   for	
   offenders	
   who	
   are	
   so	
  
socially	
   isolated	
   that	
   this	
   criterion	
   cannot	
   reasonably	
   be	
   met	
   and	
   flexibility	
   in	
  
application	
  to	
  this	
  subgroup.	
  
D.	
  Stable	
  and	
  Safe	
  Residence	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  offender	
  shall	
  maintain	
  a	
  stable	
  and	
  safe	
  residence.	
  A	
  safe	
  
residence	
  is	
  one	
  that	
  limits	
  the	
  offender’s	
  contact	
  with	
  victims,	
  potential	
  victims	
  and	
  
minors	
  and	
  where	
  any	
  co-­‐habitors	
  are	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  offender’s	
  criminal	
  history	
  including	
  
the	
  current	
  offense	
  and	
  have	
  knowledge	
  and	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  risk	
  to	
  
children	
  and	
  potential	
  victims.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  offender	
  shall	
  have	
  demonstrated,	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  supervision	
  the	
  
ability	
  to	
  maintain	
  a	
  stable	
  and	
  safe	
  residence.	
  
	
  
E.	
  Stable	
  and	
  Safe	
  Employment	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  offender	
  shall	
  demonstrate	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  maintain	
  stable	
  and	
  
safe	
  
employment.	
  Safe	
  employment	
  limits	
  contact	
  with	
  victims	
  and	
  potential	
  victims	
  and	
  allows	
  
the	
  supervising	
  officer	
  to	
  consistently	
  locate	
  the	
  offender.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  offender’s	
  employment	
  record	
  shall	
  reflect	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  maintain	
  stable	
  
and	
  safe	
  employment	
  with	
  no	
  periods	
  of	
  willful	
  unemployment	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  5	
  years.	
  

These	
  are	
  reasonable	
  expectations.	
  SOMB	
  should,	
  however,	
  consider	
  how	
  resources	
  
can	
  be	
  deployed	
  to	
  assist	
  homeless	
  offenders.	
  

	
  

104	
  

	
  
F.	
  Substance	
  Abuse	
  Treatment	
  
This	
  criteria	
  applies	
  only	
  to	
  those	
  offenders	
  who	
  are	
  recommended	
  for	
  substance	
  abuse	
  
treatment.	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  entered	
  a	
  recommended	
  substance	
  abuse	
  
treatment	
  
program	
  and	
  is	
  making	
  and	
  maintaining	
  consistent	
  progress	
  in	
  the	
  program.	
  
The	
  offender	
  has	
  not	
  used	
  drugs	
  or	
  alcohol	
  for	
  at	
  least	
  6	
  months	
  prior	
  to	
  any	
  reduction	
  in	
  
level	
  of	
  supervision.	
  
Discharge:	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  completed	
  any	
  recommended	
  substance	
  abuse	
  program	
  and	
  is	
  
actively	
  and	
  consistently	
  involved	
  in	
  any	
  recommended	
  aftercare	
  or	
  maintenance	
  
programs.	
  

These	
  are	
  reasonable	
  expectations	
  that	
  are	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards.	
  	
  
G.	
  Leisure	
  Activities	
  
	
  
Leisure	
  activities	
  engaged	
  in	
  or	
  developed	
  within	
  the	
  community	
  shall	
  be	
  appropriate,	
  
legitimate,	
  legal	
  and	
  of	
  benefit	
  to	
  the	
  sex	
  offender.	
  Appropriate	
  leisure	
  activities	
  limit	
  
contact	
  with	
  victims	
  and	
  potential	
  victims	
  and	
  allow	
  the	
  supervising	
  officer	
  to	
  consistently	
  
locate	
  the	
  offender.	
  	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  Consideration	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  will	
  be	
  
based	
  on	
  sex	
  offenders'	
  ability	
  to	
  identify	
  appropriate	
  leisure	
  activities	
  and	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  
each	
  activity.	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  articulate	
  how	
  the	
  relapse	
  
prevention	
  plan	
  is	
  used	
  when	
  engaging	
  in	
  leisure	
  activities.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  To	
  be	
  considered	
  for	
  discharge,	
  the	
  sex	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  demonstrated	
  the	
  
ability	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  appropriate,	
  legitimate	
  and	
  legal	
  leisure	
  activities	
  from	
  which	
  he	
  
has	
  benefited.	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  demonstrated	
  consistent	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  relapse	
  
prevention	
  plan	
  as	
  needed	
  during	
  leisure	
  activities	
  

	
  

105	
  

These	
  are	
  reasonable	
  expectations	
  consistent	
  with	
  accepted	
  practice	
  standards	
  with	
  
notation	
  prior	
  comment	
  about	
  limiting	
  contact	
  with	
  potential	
  victims.	
  	
  
	
  
H.	
  Compliance	
  with	
  Conditions	
  of	
  Supervision	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  Consideration	
  for	
  progression	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  will	
  be	
  
based	
  on	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  attitude,	
  progress,	
  participation	
  and	
  consistent	
  compliance	
  
with	
  all	
  conditions	
  of	
  supervision	
  including	
  but	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  the	
  following:	
  
·	
  Keeps	
  probation	
  and	
  other	
  related	
  appointments	
  and	
  is	
  generally	
  on	
  time.	
  
·	
  Is	
  open	
  to	
  discussing	
  the	
  offense	
  and	
  treatment	
  progress.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  does	
  not	
  try	
  to	
  control	
  the	
  probation	
  officer	
  or	
  content	
  of	
  visits.	
  
·	
  No	
  technical	
  violations	
  within	
  the	
  last	
  6	
  months	
  of	
  probation	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  offense	
  cycle.	
  
·	
  No	
  alcohol	
  or	
  drug	
  use	
  at	
  least	
  6	
  months	
  preceding	
  a	
  supervision	
  reduction.	
  
·	
  No	
  unauthorized	
  contact	
  with	
  the	
  victim(s)	
  or	
  with	
  minors.	
  
·	
  Full	
  compliance	
  with	
  requirements	
  for	
  registration	
  and	
  DNA	
  Genetic	
  Marker	
  collection.	
  
·	
  Consistent	
  payment	
  of	
  restitution	
  and	
  fines	
  imposed	
  by	
  the	
  court.	
  
·	
  Any	
  community	
  complaints	
  regarding	
  the	
  offender	
  have	
  been	
  adequately	
  addressed	
  to	
  
the	
  treatment	
  team’s	
  satisfaction.	
  

These	
  are	
  reasonable	
  expectations	
  consistent	
  with	
  best	
  practice	
  standards.	
  
I.	
  Community	
  Supervision	
  Team	
  Staffing	
  
	
  
Reduced	
  Supervision:	
  The	
  team	
  considers	
  all	
  information	
  above	
  and	
  other	
  appropriate	
  
information	
  to	
  make	
  any	
  determination	
  regarding	
  movement	
  to	
  a	
  lower	
  level	
  of	
  
supervision.	
  All	
  team	
  members	
  must	
  agree	
  to	
  the	
  reduction	
  in	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  supervision.	
  
	
  
Discharge:	
  In	
  any	
  case	
  when	
  an	
  offender	
  is	
  being	
  considered	
  for	
  recommendation	
  of	
  
discharge	
  from	
  lifetime	
  supervision,	
  the	
  offender	
  must	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  would	
  
not	
  pose	
  an	
  undue	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  community	
  if	
  allowed	
  to	
  live	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  without	
  
supervision.	
  The	
  team	
  considers	
  all	
  information	
  below	
  and	
  other	
  appropriate	
  information	
  
to	
  make	
  any	
  determination	
  regarding	
  discharge	
  from	
  lifetime	
  supervision.	
  All	
  team	
  

	
  

106	
  

members	
  must	
  agree	
  to	
  the	
  discharge	
  from	
  supervision.	
  
	
  
The	
  supervising	
  officer	
  will	
  document	
  what	
  criteria	
  are	
  met	
  or	
  not	
  met	
  at	
  any	
  
consideration	
  of	
  reduction	
  in	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  or	
  discharge	
  and	
  the	
  decision	
  of	
  the	
  
community	
  supervision	
  team.	
  
	
  
Discussion:	
  If	
  an	
  offender	
  is	
  consistently	
  failing	
  to	
  meet	
  criteria	
  for	
  progression,	
  the	
  team	
  
should	
  evaluate	
  whether	
  the	
  current	
  level	
  of	
  supervision	
  is	
  intensive	
  enough	
  to	
  adequately	
  
contain	
  the	
  offender.	
  In	
  such	
  cases,	
  regression	
  to	
  a	
  higher	
  level	
  of	
  supervision,	
  or	
  
revocation,	
  should	
  be	
  considered.	
  

This	
   approach	
   seems	
   generally	
   reasonable.	
   The	
   agreement	
   requirements	
   are,	
  
however,	
  skewed	
  in	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  increased	
  cost	
  and	
  caution.	
  Any	
  overly	
  cautious	
  
member	
  of	
  the	
  team	
  can	
  block	
  reasonable	
  decisions	
  to	
  reduce	
  supervision	
  or	
  move	
  
towards	
   discharge.	
   Since	
   complete	
   agreement	
   is	
   required	
   for	
   key	
   decisions	
   an	
  
overly	
  cautious	
  person	
  can	
  block	
  progress	
  for	
  reasons	
  that	
  are	
  irrational.	
  The	
  effect	
  
of	
   this	
   is	
   to	
   fail	
   to	
   identify	
   when	
   reduced	
   supervision	
   is	
   indeed	
   warranted	
   and	
  
potentially	
   make	
   the	
   system	
   function	
   in	
   an	
   unduly	
   costly	
   way	
   for	
   little	
   gain	
   in	
  
community	
   safety.	
   Further,	
   as	
   described	
   by	
   stakeholders	
   in	
   the	
   Focus	
   Groups,	
   in	
  
actuality	
  the	
  supervision	
  officer	
  essentially	
  makes	
  all	
  case	
  decisions	
  and	
  treatment	
  
providers	
  are	
  pressured	
  to	
  comply.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   should	
   consider	
   creating	
   a	
   mechanism	
   for	
   independent	
   review	
   in	
   cases	
  
where	
   the	
   team	
   cannot	
   come	
   to	
   a	
   consensus.	
   It	
   is	
   further	
   recommended	
   that	
   the	
  
SOMB	
   conduct	
   a	
   thorough	
   internal	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   stakeholder	
   reported	
   problem	
  
that	
  concerns	
  about	
  getting	
  referrals	
  and	
  other	
  pressures	
  undermine	
  the	
  CST	
  from	
  
functioning	
  as	
  intended.	
  Lastly,	
  regarding	
  the	
  discussion	
  point,	
  failure	
  to	
  progress	
  in	
  
treatment	
  or	
  in	
  meeting	
  a	
  lower	
  supervision	
  requirement	
  does	
  not	
  necessarily	
  mean	
  
more	
  supervision	
  in	
  required	
  but	
  often	
  rather,	
  is	
  a	
  cue	
  that	
  treatment	
  efforts	
  must	
  
be	
  adjusted.	
  Unless	
  failure	
  to	
  progress	
  is	
  associated	
  with	
  increased	
  risk	
  factors	
  for	
  

	
  

107	
  

re-­‐offense,	
   it	
   should	
   not	
   trigger	
   concern	
   that	
   more	
   intensive	
   supervision	
   is	
  
warranted.	
  	
  

	
  

108	
  

Appendix	
  K:	
   Criteria	
  for	
  Successful	
  Progress	
  in	
  
Treatment	
  in	
  the	
  Community	
  

The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  describe	
  the	
  following	
  general	
  criteria	
  for	
  progress	
  in	
  
treatment.	
  Modified	
  criteria	
  for	
  treatment	
  in	
  prison	
  are	
  described	
  and	
  discussed	
  in	
  
the	
  next	
  appendix.	
  	
  
In	
   order	
   to	
   demonstrate	
   successful	
   progress	
   in	
   treatment,	
   the	
   offender	
   must	
   meet	
  
the	
   progress	
   criteria	
   in	
   each	
   of	
   the	
   following	
   areas	
   of	
   focus;	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
  
criteria	
   for	
   successful	
   completion	
   of	
   treatment,	
   the	
   offender	
   must	
   meet	
   all	
   of	
   the	
  
progress	
  and	
  completion	
  criteria	
  in	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  areas	
  of	
  focus.	
  
For	
   the	
   purposes	
   of	
   these	
   criteria,	
   successful	
   progress	
   in	
   treatment	
   indicates	
   an	
  
active	
   plan	
   to	
   continue	
   treatment	
   and	
   supervision;	
   successful	
   completion	
   of	
  
treatment	
   indicates	
   active,	
   consistent	
   participation	
   in	
   a	
   treatment	
   aftercare	
  
program,	
  containment	
  and	
  monitoring	
  to	
  manage	
  lifelong	
  risk.	
  
The	
   above	
   quote	
   that	
   this	
   seems	
   to	
   imply	
   that	
   to	
   “complete”	
   treatment	
   offenders	
  
have	
   to	
   volunteer	
   for	
   additional	
   treatment	
   to	
   manage	
   “lifelong	
   risk”.	
   It	
   is	
   worth	
  
noting	
  that	
  the	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  empirical	
  justification	
  for	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  
need	
  endless	
  treatment.	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   lists	
   five	
   criteria	
   (A	
   to	
   E).	
   They	
   are	
   somewhat	
   overlapping	
   and	
   as	
   such	
  
they	
  are	
  presented	
  complete	
  as	
  follows	
  then	
  discussed	
  as	
  a	
  group.	
  
A.	
  Relapse	
  Prevention	
  Criteria	
  
1.	
  Reduction	
  in	
  Denial	
  
Progress:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  discloses	
  all	
  victim(s)	
  and	
  sexual	
  offending	
  behavior	
  in	
  detail.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender’s	
  account	
  must	
  reasonably	
  match	
  or	
  surpass	
  the	
  victim(s)	
  accounts.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  recognizes	
  and	
  admits	
  the	
  purposes	
  of	
  their	
  sexually	
  assaultive/offending	
  
behavior	
  including	
  sexual	
  gratification,	
  deviant	
  sexual	
  arousal	
  and	
  power	
  and	
  control.	
  

	
  

109	
  

·	
  The	
  offender	
  completes	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  polygraph	
  examination(s)	
  regarding	
  sexual	
  
history.	
  
Completion:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  met	
  all	
  progress	
  criteria	
  and	
  continues	
  to	
  complete	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  
polygraph	
  examinations.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  no	
  longer	
  uses	
  denial	
  of	
  responsibility	
  in	
  any	
  arena	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  life	
  as	
  a	
  
primary	
  coping	
  mechanism.	
  
	
  
2.	
  Decreased	
  deviant	
  sexual	
  urges,	
  arousal,	
  and	
  fantasies:	
  
Progress:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  knowledge	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  historical	
  offense	
  and	
  relapse	
  cycles	
  
including	
  awareness	
  of	
  thoughts,	
  emotions	
  and	
  behaviors	
  that	
  could	
  facilitate	
  sexual	
  re-­‐
offenses	
  or	
  other	
  assaultive	
  behaviors.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  knowledge	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  cognitive	
  distortions	
  and	
  is	
  working	
  
to	
  correct	
  them.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  developed	
  and	
  implemented	
  a	
  plan	
  to	
  alter	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  lifestyle	
  to	
  limit	
  
their	
  ability	
  to	
  plan	
  or	
  groom	
  potential	
  victims	
  and	
  has	
  developed	
  skills	
  to	
  interrupt	
  
fantasies	
  and	
  inappropriate	
  masturbatory	
  behaviors	
  and	
  utilizes	
  them.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  developed	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  plan.	
  
·	
  Is,	
  and	
  consistently	
  has	
  been,	
  in	
  compliance	
  with	
  all	
  recommended	
  prescribed	
  psychiatric	
  
medications	
  used	
  to	
  reduce	
  arousal	
  or	
  manage	
  behaviors	
  related	
  to	
  risk.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  can	
  identify	
  objectification	
  and	
  inappropriate	
  sexual	
  gratification	
  in	
  
relationships	
  and	
  is	
  developing	
  skills	
  to	
  address	
  them.	
  
	
  
Completion:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  control	
  over	
  arousal	
  or	
  interest	
  through	
  Plethysmograph	
  or	
  
Abel	
  Screen	
  	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  consistently	
  completes	
  non-­‐deceptive	
  polygraphs	
  regarding	
  planning	
  
behavior	
  or	
  masturbation	
  to	
  arousal	
  and	
  fantasies.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  consistently	
  demonstrates	
  self	
  motivated	
  use	
  of	
  the	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  plan	
  
and	
  has	
  distributed	
  written	
  copies	
  of	
  the	
  plan	
  to	
  any	
  cohabitors	
  or	
  significant	
  others.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  consistently	
  demonstrates	
  self	
  motivated	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  plan	
  for	
  identifying	
  and	
  
correcting	
  cognitive	
  distortions.	
  

	
  

110	
  

·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  the	
  development	
  and	
  maintenance	
  of	
  appropriate	
  adult	
  
relationships.	
  Appropriate	
  relationships	
  value	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  the	
  relationship	
  over	
  sexual	
  
gratification.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  an	
  ongoing	
  commitment	
  to	
  and	
  active	
  engagement	
  in	
  
treatment	
  or	
  an	
  aftercare	
  treatment	
  program,	
  containment	
  and	
  monitoring	
  to	
  manage	
  
lifelong	
  risk.	
  
	
  
Discussion:	
  Demonstrating	
  improvement	
  on	
  these	
  measures	
  does	
  not	
  
necessarily	
  indicate	
  reduced	
  risk	
  or	
  that	
  the	
  offender	
  will	
  utilize	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  
ability	
  to	
  control	
  arousal	
  or	
  interest	
  appropriately.	
  

B.	
  Environment	
  Management	
  Criteria	
  
Progress:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  willing,	
  active	
  and	
  knowledgeable	
  participation	
  in	
  the	
  
treatment	
  process	
  and/or	
  a	
  milieu	
  or	
  residential	
  treatment	
  setting.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  identify	
  anti-­‐social	
  behaviors	
  and	
  is	
  working	
  
toward	
  pro-­‐social	
  skills	
  to	
  replace	
  them.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  disengaged	
  from	
  relationships	
  that	
  support	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  denial,	
  
minimization,	
  and	
  resistance	
  to	
  treatment.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  is	
  engaged	
  in	
  relationships	
  which	
  are	
  supportive	
  of	
  treatment,	
  and	
  the	
  
people	
  engaged	
  in	
  relationships	
  with	
  the	
  offender	
  demonstrate	
  an	
  awareness	
  of	
  the	
  sex	
  
offender’s	
  criminal	
  history	
  including	
  the	
  current	
  offense	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  sex	
  offender’s	
  risk	
  to	
  
children	
  and	
  potential	
  victims.	
  These	
  people	
  actively	
  assist	
  in	
  limiting	
  the	
  offender’s	
  
contact	
  with	
  children	
  and	
  potential	
  victims.	
  Additionally,	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  in	
  either	
  in	
  
intimate	
  relationships	
  with	
  the	
  offender	
  or	
  are	
  co-­‐habiting	
  with	
  the	
  offender	
  are	
  willing	
  to	
  
participate	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  sex	
  offense	
  specific	
  education	
  as	
  needed.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender’s	
  support	
  system	
  has	
  been	
  given	
  permission	
  by	
  the	
  offender	
  to	
  question	
  and	
  
confront	
  the	
  offender	
  about	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  behavior	
  and	
  to	
  report	
  their	
  concerns	
  to	
  the	
  
community	
  supervision	
  team	
  and	
  law	
  enforcement	
  authorities	
  when	
  
appropriate.	
  

	
  

111	
  

·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  consistent	
  and	
  full	
  compliance	
  with	
  all	
  conditions	
  of	
  
supervision	
  and	
  the	
  treatment	
  contract.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  consistent	
  ability	
  to	
  avoid	
  high	
  risk	
  environments.	
  
Completion:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  willing	
  and	
  active	
  participation	
  in	
  only	
  pro-­‐social	
  behaviors.	
  

C.	
  Community	
  &	
  Victim	
  Responsiveness	
  Criteria	
  
Progress:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  acknowledges	
  the	
  full	
  impact	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  sexually	
  assaultive	
  and	
  offending	
  
behavior.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  understands	
  that	
  the	
  protection	
  of	
  victims	
  and	
  potential	
  victims	
  from	
  unsafe	
  
and	
  or	
  unwanted	
  contact	
  with	
  the	
  offender	
  outweighs	
  the	
  needs	
  or	
  desires	
  of	
  the	
  offender.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  changes	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  behavior	
  to	
  prevent	
  unsafe	
  or	
  unwanted	
  contact	
  with	
  
victims	
  or	
  potential	
  victims.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  started	
  to	
  pay	
  restitution	
  and	
  has	
  a	
  realistic	
  plan	
  to	
  continue.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  consistent	
  compliance	
  with	
  all	
  registration,	
  notification,	
  
HIV	
  testing	
  and	
  DNA	
  testing	
  requirements	
  and	
  has	
  an	
  active	
  plan	
  to	
  continue.	
  
	
  
Completion:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  successfully	
  completed	
  victim	
  clarification	
  with	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  victims	
  and	
  
secondary	
  victims	
  or	
  victim	
  surrogates	
  when	
  victim	
  needs	
  or	
  desires	
  indicate	
  
nonparticipation.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  the	
  capacity,	
  knowledge,	
  willingness	
  and	
  ability	
  to	
  empathize.	
  
	
  
Discussion:	
  It	
  should	
  be	
  noted	
  that	
  it	
  can	
  be	
  dangerous	
  to	
  attempt	
  empathy	
  work	
  with	
  those	
  
offenders	
  who	
  may	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  capacity	
  to	
  develop	
  real	
  empathy	
  (such	
  as	
  psychopaths	
  and	
  
sadists).	
  These	
  offenders	
  may	
  utilize	
  information	
  about	
  others=	
  pain	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  learn	
  how	
  
to	
  harm	
  victims	
  more	
  effectively.	
  

D.	
  Offender	
  Criteria	
  
Progress:	
  

	
  

112	
  

·	
  The	
  offender	
  recognizes	
  and	
  acknowledges	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  lifelong	
  risk.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  does	
  not	
  project	
  blame	
  for	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  offending	
  behavior.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  does	
  not	
  present	
  himself	
  or	
  herself	
  as	
  entitled	
  or	
  as	
  a	
  victim.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  identified	
  cognitive	
  distortions	
  and	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  a	
  consistent	
  
ability	
  to	
  change	
  them.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  been	
  able	
  to	
  demonstrate	
  a	
  primarily	
  positive	
  attitude	
  toward	
  
supervision	
  and	
  treatment.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  identified	
  problems	
  with	
  stress	
  management,	
  social	
  skills	
  and	
  anger	
  
management	
  and	
  is	
  developing	
  pro	
  social	
  skills	
  to	
  address	
  them.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  can	
  identify	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  unhealthy	
  attitudes	
  and	
  behavior	
  regarding	
  sex	
  roles	
  
and	
  sexuality	
  and	
  is	
  working	
  to	
  change	
  them.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  can	
  identify	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  misuse	
  of	
  power	
  and	
  control	
  and	
  is	
  working	
  to	
  
eliminate	
  it.	
  
Completion:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  consistently	
  maintains	
  a	
  positive	
  attitude	
  toward	
  supervision	
  and	
  
treatment.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  is	
  committed	
  to	
  permanently	
  altering	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  lifestyle	
  to	
  reduce	
  and	
  
control	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  lifelong	
  risk.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  does	
  not	
  project	
  blame	
  or	
  minimize	
  personal	
  responsibility.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  assumes	
  full	
  and	
  appropriate	
  responsibility	
  for	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  actions.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  primarily	
  non-­‐distorted	
  thinking.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  accepted	
  and	
  is	
  actively	
  and	
  consistently	
  working	
  to	
  address	
  any	
  
diagnosed	
  personality	
  disorders.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  addressed	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  demonstrated	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  practice	
  
ongoing	
  self	
  care	
  regarding:	
  1)	
  previous	
  trauma,	
  2)	
  social	
  skills,	
  3)	
  stress	
  management,	
  4)	
  
anger	
  management,	
  and	
  5)	
  independent	
  living	
  skills.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  consistently	
  demonstrated	
  realistic	
  and	
  healthy	
  attitudes	
  and	
  behavior	
  
about	
  sexuality	
  and	
  sex	
  roles.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  addressed	
  power	
  and	
  control	
  issues	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  has	
  consistently	
  
demonstrated	
  an	
  ability	
  to	
  engage	
  with	
  others	
  without	
  abusing	
  power	
  and	
  control.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  willingly	
  engaged	
  in	
  risk	
  assessment	
  and	
  physiological	
  monitoring	
  and	
  
has	
  an	
  active	
  plan	
  to	
  continue.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  developed	
  a	
  positive	
  life	
  purpose	
  which	
  is	
  internally	
  oriented,	
  value	
  

	
  

113	
  

driven	
  and	
  not	
  outcome	
  dependent.	
  
	
  
E.	
  Co-­‐morbidity	
  and	
  Adjunctive	
  Issues	
  
Progress:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  is	
  addressing	
  any	
  domestic	
  violence	
  history	
  with	
  appropriate	
  domestic	
  
violence	
  treatment	
  and	
  has	
  not	
  engaged	
  in	
  domestic	
  violence.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  is	
  addressing	
  drug	
  and	
  alcohol	
  problems	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  is	
  maintaining	
  
abstinence	
  of	
  recommended.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  is	
  addressing	
  any	
  psychiatric	
  conditions	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  is	
  in	
  compliance	
  
with	
  all	
  recommended	
  medications.	
  
Completion:	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  not	
  committed	
  any	
  new	
  incidents	
  of	
  domestic	
  violence,	
  has	
  addressed	
  
domestic	
  violence	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  demonstrates	
  a	
  commitment	
  to	
  continue	
  domestic	
  
violence	
  treatment	
  as	
  needed.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  demonstrates	
  an	
  ongoing	
  commitment	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  recommended	
  
substance	
  abuse	
  treatment	
  and	
  maintenance	
  programs.	
  
·	
  The	
  offender	
  has	
  addressed	
  any	
  psychiatric	
  conditions	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  demonstrates	
  an	
  
ongoing	
  commitment	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  recommended	
  treatment,	
  maintenance	
  and	
  
medication	
  programs.	
  

There	
   are	
   good	
   elements	
   to	
   these	
   criteria	
   though	
   parts	
   of	
   them	
   are	
   very	
   dated	
   in	
  
relation	
   to	
   contemporary	
   research	
   and	
   best	
   practice	
   standards.	
   They	
   show	
   little	
  
awareness	
   of	
   the	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
   principles	
   and	
   seem	
   likely	
   to	
   encourage	
  
treatment	
  that	
  is	
  not	
  sufficiently	
  individualized.	
  Not	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  areas	
  covered	
  by	
  the	
  
criteria	
  will	
  be	
  equally	
  relevant	
  to	
  every	
  offender.	
  
It	
  is	
  recommended	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  consider	
  developing	
  a	
  more	
  nuanced	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  
value	
   of	
   disclosure	
   and	
   taking	
   responsibility.	
   Additionally,	
   public	
   protection	
   is	
   not	
  
entirely	
   dependent	
   on	
   a	
   complete	
   disclosure	
   of	
   all	
   past	
   sexual	
   crimes.	
   Indeed,	
  
jurisdictions	
  that	
  don’t	
  use	
  Sexual	
  History	
  polygraph	
  examinations	
  in	
  this	
  way	
  have	
  
nevertheless	
  achieved	
  low	
  sexual	
  recidivism	
  rates.	
  More	
  critical	
  than	
  full	
  disclosure	
  
to	
   preventing	
   future	
   offending	
   is	
   that	
   the	
   treatment	
   team	
   is	
   able	
   to	
   determine	
   (a)	
  
	
  

114	
  

the	
   main	
   patterns	
   of	
   past	
   offending	
   (b)	
   the	
   main	
   psychological	
   risk	
   factors	
   that	
  
contributed	
   to	
   past	
   offending.	
   These	
   achievements	
   would	
   more	
   appropriately	
  
replace	
   the	
   requirement	
   for	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraphs	
   in	
   the	
   above	
   criteria,	
   with	
  
participation	
   in	
   Sexual	
   History	
   polygraphs	
   one	
   key	
   way	
   of	
   generating	
   information	
  
about	
  patterns	
  of	
  past	
  offending	
  and	
  psychological	
  risk	
  factors	
  but	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  only	
  
way.	
   Additionally	
   however,	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   incest	
   offenders,	
   there	
   is	
   a	
   particular	
   need	
  
for	
   offenders	
   to	
   acknowledge	
   the	
   full	
   extent	
   of	
   their	
   offending	
   against	
   family	
  
members	
  as	
  denial	
  does	
  seem	
  to	
  be	
  related	
  to	
  recidivism	
  for	
  this	
  group.	
  
	
  
Although	
  requiring	
  the	
  offender	
  to	
  equal	
  or	
  surpass	
  victims’	
  accounts	
  of	
  the	
  offenses	
  
may	
  seem	
  respectful	
  of	
  the	
  victims	
  (a	
  core	
  value	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB)	
  it	
  shows	
  insufficient	
  
understanding	
   of	
   the	
   fallibility	
   of	
   victim	
   accounts.	
   Like	
   other	
   eye-­‐witnesses	
   to	
  
crimes,	
   victims	
   may	
   not	
   accurately	
   recall	
   all	
   that	
   happen.	
   Additionally,	
   what	
   victims	
  
say	
   to	
   investigators	
   may	
   have	
   been	
   complicated	
   by	
   feelings	
   of	
   shame,	
  
embarrassment,	
   fear	
   of	
   the	
   consequences,	
   pressure	
   from	
   family	
   members,	
   anger,	
  
trauma	
  reactions	
  etc.	
  Young	
  children	
  do	
  not	
  necessarily	
  make	
  good	
  witnesses,	
  and	
  
may	
  have	
  been	
  asked	
  leading	
  questions	
  etc.	
  Indeed	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  large	
  literature	
  on	
  how	
  
inappropriate	
   questioning	
   can	
   implant	
   false	
   memories.	
   As	
   a	
   consequence,	
  
sometimes	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  elements	
  of	
  the	
  “official”	
  victim	
  account	
  that	
  may	
  not	
  fully	
  
correspond	
   with	
   what	
   actually	
   happened.	
   Consequently,	
   requiring	
   offenders	
   to	
  
equal	
   or	
   surpass	
   victim	
   accounts	
   may	
   sometimes	
   amount	
   to	
   requiring	
   them	
   to	
  
convincingly	
  lie	
  to	
  the	
  treatment	
  team.	
  
Similarly,	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  false	
  findings	
  of	
  Deception	
  from	
  polygraph	
  examinations	
  means	
  
that	
   sometimes	
   offenders	
   will	
   actually	
   have	
   been	
   being	
   honest	
   but	
   to	
   meet	
   these	
  
requirements	
   they	
   will	
   have	
   been	
   coerced	
   by	
   the	
   treatment	
   team	
   into	
   making	
   up	
  
fictitious	
  disclosures.	
  	
  
Police	
   accounts,	
   evidence	
   tested	
   in	
   court,	
   victim	
   accounts,	
   and	
   the	
   findings	
   from	
  
polygraph	
   examinations	
   can	
   contribute	
   in	
   a	
   useful	
   way	
   to	
   developing	
   enough	
  
disclosure	
   to	
   serve	
   treatment	
   purposes.	
   No	
   one	
   source	
   should	
   be	
   treated	
   as	
  
	
  

115	
  

infallible.	
  
Other	
   outdated	
   elements	
   include	
   an	
   over-­‐emphasis	
   on	
   written	
   relapse	
   prevention	
  
plans	
  and	
  conceptualizing	
  recurrent	
  patterns	
  in	
  offenders’	
  behavior	
  as	
  cycles.	
  
More	
   generally,	
   it	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
   these	
   criteria	
   should	
   be	
   rewritten	
   starting	
  
from	
   the	
   factors	
   listed	
   in	
   an	
   instrument	
   that	
   assesses	
   empirically	
   supported	
   risk	
  
factors,	
  or	
  from	
  the	
  Mann	
  et	
  al	
  meta-­‐analysis	
  described	
  in	
  this	
  report,	
  so	
  that	
  they	
  
are	
  focused	
  on	
  empirically	
  supported	
  risk	
  factors.	
  They	
  should	
  also	
  be	
  attentive	
  to	
  
building	
  up	
  internal	
  protective	
  factors	
  and	
  to	
  gradual	
  reduction	
  of	
  external	
  control	
  
so	
  that	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  tested	
  in	
  circumstances	
  where	
  they	
  have	
  increasing	
  degrees	
  
of	
  freedom.	
  Finally,	
  and	
  most	
  critically,	
  there	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  some	
  triaging	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
initial	
  static	
  risk	
  levels.	
  The	
  kind	
  and	
  intensity	
  of	
  supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  that	
  is	
  
appropriate	
   depends	
   critically	
   on	
   the	
   level	
   of	
   prior	
   risk	
   and	
   the	
   supervision	
  
progress	
  criteria	
  should	
  be	
  differentiated	
  accordingly.	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

116	
  

Appendix	
  L:	
  

Criteria	
  for	
  Successful	
  Progress	
  in	
  

Treatment	
  in	
  Prison	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  conceptualizes	
  treatment	
  completion	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  makes	
  it	
  impossible	
  to	
  
achieve	
   while	
   someone	
   is	
   still	
   in	
   prison.	
   It	
   is	
   necessary	
   to	
   have	
   criteria	
   to	
   enable	
  
recognition	
  of	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
  progress	
  that	
  is	
  relevant	
  in	
  the	
  prison	
  setting.	
  The	
  SOMB	
  
have	
   developed	
   criteria	
   for	
   use	
   by	
   the	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Treatment	
   and	
   Management	
  
Program	
  (SOTMP)	
  run	
  by	
  the	
  Colorado	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections.	
  
The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  state:	
  	
  
Sex	
   offender	
   treatment	
   in	
   the	
   prison	
   setting	
   is	
   always	
   preliminary	
   to	
   continued	
  
treatment	
   and	
   supervision	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   post	
   release	
   from	
   prison.	
   Since	
   sex	
  
offenders	
   who	
   participate	
   in	
   treatment	
   in	
   the	
   prison	
   setting	
   cannot	
   complete	
  
treatment	
   in	
   prison,	
   the	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Treatment	
   and	
   Management	
   Program	
   has	
  
developed	
  three	
  formats	
  for	
  sex	
  offender	
  participation	
  in	
  prison	
  treatment	
  based	
  on	
  
differing	
  minimum	
  sentences	
  and	
  time	
  to	
  parole	
  eligibility.	
  It	
  should	
  be	
  understood	
  
that	
   the	
   availability	
   of	
   these	
   specialized	
   formats	
   does	
   not	
   ensure	
   sex	
   offender	
  
cooperation	
   with	
   or	
   success	
   in	
   treatment.	
   The	
   eligibility	
   requirements	
   for	
   SOTMP	
  
apply	
   for	
   all	
   of	
   these	
   formats.	
   Sex	
   offenders	
   must	
   meet	
   all	
   of	
   the	
   criteria	
   for	
   their	
  
assigned	
   format	
   to	
   receive	
   a	
   recommendation	
   for	
   release	
   to	
   parole	
   from	
   the	
   Sex	
  
Offender	
  Treatment	
  and	
  Monitoring	
  Program	
  staff.	
  
Criteria	
  for	
  the	
  Standard	
  Format	
  are	
  given	
  as	
  follows.	
  
Criteria	
  for	
  the	
  Standard	
  Format	
  
Offenders	
   with	
   6	
   years	
   or	
   more	
   minimum	
   sentence	
   will	
   be	
   assigned	
   to	
   the	
   Standard	
  
Format.	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  actively	
  participating	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  applying	
  what	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  is	
  

	
  

117	
  

learning.	
  
2.	
   The	
  offender	
   must	
  have	
   a	
   complete	
  full	
   disclosure	
   of	
   their	
   sexual	
   history	
  as	
   verified	
   by	
  a	
  
non-­‐deceptive	
  polygraph	
  assessment	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  deviant	
  sexual	
  history.	
  
3.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  completed	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  Personal	
  Change	
  Contract	
  (relapse	
  
prevention	
  plan)	
  which	
  is	
  approved	
  by	
  the	
  SOTMP	
  team.	
  
4.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   have,	
   at	
   a	
   minimum,	
   one	
   approved	
   support	
   person	
   who	
   has	
  
participated	
  in	
  SOTMP	
  family/support	
  education.	
  They	
  also	
  must	
  have	
  and	
  has	
  received	
  an	
  
approved	
   copy	
   of	
   the	
   Offender’s	
   Personal	
   Change	
   Contract	
   through	
   their	
   participation	
   in	
   a	
  
SOTMP	
  therapist	
  facilitated	
  disclosure	
  session	
  with	
  the	
  offender.	
  
5.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  practicing	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  as	
  verified	
  by	
  any	
  recent	
  monitoring	
  
polygraphs	
  and	
  no	
  institutional	
  acting	
  out	
  behaviors	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  year	
  (e.g.	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  
engaging	
  in	
  high	
  risk	
  behavior	
  or	
  committing	
  violations	
  of	
  institutional	
  rules	
  reflective	
  of	
  
ongoing	
  criminal	
  behavior).	
  
6.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   be	
   compliant	
   with	
   any	
   DOC	
   psychiatric	
   recommendations	
   for	
  
medication	
  which	
  may	
  enhance	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  ability	
  to	
  benefit	
  from	
  treatment	
  and	
  or	
  reduce	
  
his	
  or	
  her	
  risk	
  of	
  re-­‐offense.	
  
7.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   be	
   able	
   to	
   be	
   supervised	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   without	
   presenting	
   an	
  
undue	
  threat	
  (e.g.,	
  indications	
  of	
  undue	
  threat	
  may	
  include	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  sadistic	
  behavior	
  or	
  
fantasy,	
  a	
  diagnosis	
  of	
  psychopathy	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  PCL-­‐R,	
  or	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  lethality	
  in	
  offense	
  
behavior	
  or	
  fantasy).	
  	
  
	
  
B.	
  Criteria	
  for	
  the	
  Modified	
  Format	
  
Offenders	
   with	
   2	
   years	
   to	
   5	
   years	
   minimum	
   sentence	
   will	
   be	
   assigned	
   to	
   the	
   Modified	
  
Format.	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  actively	
  participating	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  applying	
  what	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  is	
  
learning.	
  

	
  

118	
  

2.	
   The	
  offender	
   must	
  have	
   a	
   complete	
  full	
   disclosure	
   of	
   their	
   sexual	
   history	
  as	
   verified	
   by	
   a	
  
non-­‐deceptive	
  polygraph	
  assessment	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  deviant	
  sexual	
  history.	
  
3.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  defined	
  and	
  documented	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  sexual	
  offense	
  cycle.	
  
4.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   have,	
   at	
   a	
   minimum,	
   one	
   approved	
   support	
   person	
   who	
   has	
  
participated	
   in	
   SOTMP	
   family/support	
   education.	
   They	
   also	
   must	
   have	
   received	
   an	
  
approved	
   copy	
   of	
   the	
   offender’s	
   sexual	
   offense	
   cycle	
   through	
   their	
   participation	
   in	
   a	
  
SOTMP	
  therapist	
  facilitated	
  disclosure	
  session	
  with	
  the	
  offender.	
  
5.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  practicing	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  as	
  verified	
  by	
  any	
  recent	
  monitoring	
  
polygraphs	
  and	
  no	
  institutional	
  acting	
  out	
  behaviors	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  year	
  (e.g.	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  
engaging	
  in	
  high	
  risk	
  behavior	
  or	
  committing	
  violations	
  of	
  institutional	
  rules	
  reflective	
  of	
  
ongoing	
  criminal	
  behavior).	
  
6.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   be	
   compliant	
   with	
   any	
   DOC	
   psychiatric	
   recommendations	
   for	
  
medication	
  which	
  may	
  enhance	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  ability	
  to	
  benefit	
  from	
  treatment	
  and	
  or	
  reduce	
  
his	
  or	
  her	
  risk	
  of	
  re-­‐offense.	
  
7.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   be	
   able	
   to	
   be	
   supervised	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   without	
   presenting	
   an	
  
undue	
  threat	
  (e.g.,	
  indications	
  of	
  undue	
  threat	
  may	
  include	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  sadistic	
  behavior	
  or	
  
fantasy,	
  a	
  diagnosis	
  of	
  psychopathy	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  PCL-­‐R,	
  and	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  lethality	
  in	
  offense	
  
behavior	
  or	
  fantasy).	
  
	
  

	
  

119	
  

C.	
  Criteria	
  for	
  the	
  Foundation	
  Format	
  
Sex	
  Offenders	
  with	
  less	
  than	
  2	
  years	
  minimum	
  sentence	
  will	
  be	
  assigned	
  to	
  the	
  Foundation	
  
Format.	
  
1.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  actively	
  participating	
  in	
  treatment	
  and	
  applying	
  what	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  is	
  
learning.	
  
2.	
   The	
  offender	
   must	
  have	
   a	
   complete	
  full	
  disclosure	
  of	
  their	
  sexual	
  history	
  as	
  verified	
  by	
  a	
  
non-­‐deceptive	
  polygraph	
  assessment	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  deviant	
  sexual	
  history.	
  
3.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   participate	
   in	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   sex	
   offense-­‐specific	
   evaluation	
   and	
  
have	
  a	
  SOTMP	
  approved	
  individual	
  treatment	
  plan.	
  
4.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  have	
  a	
  plan	
  to	
  establish	
  at	
  least	
  one	
  approved	
  support	
  person.	
  
5.	
  The	
  offender	
  must	
  be	
  practicing	
  relapse	
  prevention	
  as	
  verified	
  by	
  any	
  recent	
  monitoring	
  
polygraphs	
  and	
  no	
  institutional	
  acting	
  out	
  behaviors	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  year	
  (e.g.	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  
engaging	
  in	
  high	
  risk	
  behavior	
  or	
  committing	
  violations	
  of	
  institutional	
  rules	
  reflective	
  of	
  
ongoing	
  criminal	
  behavior).	
  
6.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   be	
   compliant	
   with	
   any	
   DOC	
   psychiatric	
   recommendations	
   for	
  
medication	
  which	
  may	
  enhance	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  ability	
  to	
  benefit	
  from	
  treatment	
  and	
  or	
  reduce	
  
his	
  or	
  her	
  risk	
  of	
  re-­‐offense.	
  
7.	
   The	
   offender	
   must	
   be	
   able	
   to	
   be	
   supervised	
   in	
   the	
   community	
   without	
   presenting	
   an	
  
undue	
   threat	
   (e.g.	
   a	
   history	
   of	
   sadistic	
   behavior	
   or	
   fantasy,	
   a	
   diagnosis	
   of	
   psychopathy	
  
based	
  on	
  the	
  PCL-­‐R,	
  and	
  a	
  history	
  of	
  lethality	
  in	
  offense	
  behavior	
  or	
  fantasy).	
  

We	
   previously	
   carried	
   out	
   an	
   evaluation	
   of	
   the	
   prison	
   SOTMP	
   that	
   identified	
   a	
  
number	
  of	
  areas	
  in	
  which	
  improvement	
  was	
  desirable.	
  Since	
  our	
  report	
  is	
  publically	
  
available	
   and	
   Colorado	
   DOC	
   is	
   acting	
   to	
   make	
   some	
   improvements	
   we	
   will	
   not	
  
repeat	
   that	
   detailed	
   analysis	
   here.	
   Readers	
   are	
   referred	
   to	
   that	
   report	
   entitled	
   “A	
  
Program	
   Evaluation	
   of	
   In-­‐Prison	
   Components:	
   	
   The	
   Colorado	
   Department	
   of	
  

	
  

120	
  

Corrections	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Treatment	
   and	
   Monitoring	
   Program”	
   dated	
   20	
   January	
  
2013	
   for	
   a	
   complete	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   DOC	
   sexual	
   offender	
   treatment	
   program	
   and	
  
related	
  policies.	
  
Further,	
  the	
  comments	
  made	
  previously	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  report	
  on	
  the	
  general	
  criteria	
  
for	
  progress	
  in	
  treatment	
  apply	
  here	
  as	
  well.	
  Until	
  the	
  SOMB	
  has	
  revised	
  its	
  general	
  
criteria	
  it	
  may	
  be	
  reasonable	
  to	
  allow	
  the	
  DOC	
  SOTMP	
  freedom	
  to	
  develop	
  criteria	
  
for	
   the	
   prison	
   program	
   that	
   are	
   more	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   Risk-­‐Need-­‐Responsivity	
  
principles,	
  and	
  which,	
  as	
  suggested	
  more	
  generally,	
  reduce	
  the	
  emphasis	
  on	
  sexual	
  
history	
   polygraph	
   examinations	
   and	
   increase	
   the	
   emphasis	
   on	
   empirically-­‐
supported	
  risk	
  factors,	
  as	
  included	
  in	
  instruments	
  like	
  the	
  SOTIPS.	
  
	
  

	
  

121	
  

Appendix	
  M:	
   Provider	
  and	
  Evaluator	
  Qualifications,	
  
Complaints,	
  etc.	
  
Standard	
   4.000	
   Qualifications	
   of	
   Treatment	
   Providers,	
   Evaluators,	
   and	
  
Polygraph	
  Examiners	
  Working	
  with	
  Adult	
  Sex	
  Offenders	
  
	
  
This	
   standard	
   describes	
   the	
   application	
   requirements	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers,	
  
evaluators	
  and	
  polygraphers	
  who	
  work	
  with	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  in	
  Colorado.	
  To	
  follow	
  
is	
   an	
   examination	
   of	
   the	
   appropriateness	
   of	
   this	
   standard	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers	
  
and	
  evaluators	
  who	
  work	
  with	
  adult,	
  non-­‐developmentally	
  delayed	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  	
  
The	
   requirements	
   of	
   this	
   standard	
   mandate	
   that	
   only	
   evaluators	
   and	
   treatment	
  
providers	
   who	
   conform	
   with	
   the	
   Standards	
   may	
   provide	
   such	
   services	
   to	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   in	
   Colorado.	
   	
   The	
   preamble	
   notes	
   that	
   it	
   is	
   incumbent	
   upon	
   the	
  
evaluator/treatment	
   provider	
   to	
   practice	
   ethically	
   and	
   responsibly	
   within	
   the	
   scope	
  
of	
  their	
  qualifications	
  and	
  expertise	
  	
  
	
  
This	
   standard	
   defines	
   three	
   levels	
   of	
   applicants	
   which	
   are	
   described	
   then	
  
commented	
  upon	
  in	
  italics	
  as	
  follows:	
  
	
  
1.	
  

Intent	
  to	
  Apply	
  	
  	
  

Requires	
  a	
  fingerprint	
  card	
  (background	
  investigation);	
  a	
  supervision	
  agreement	
  co-­‐	
  
signed	
   by	
   a	
   Full	
   Operating	
   Level	
   provider	
   requiring	
   2	
   to	
   4	
   hours	
   face	
   to	
   face	
  
supervision	
   monthly	
   depending	
   upon	
   how	
   many	
   direct	
   clinical	
   contact	
   hours	
   are	
  
provided;	
   100	
   hours	
   of	
   co-­‐facilitation	
   of	
   offender	
   services	
   with	
   the/a	
   Full	
   Operating	
  
Level	
  or	
  Associate	
  Level	
  provider;	
  the	
  Full	
  Operating	
  Level	
  provider	
  must	
  sign	
  off	
  on	
  
the	
  work	
  of	
  the	
  supervisee.	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
A	
   criminal	
   background	
   investigation	
   that	
   is	
   thorough	
   and	
   reasonably	
   flexible	
   in	
   terms	
  
of	
  what	
  disqualifies	
  a	
  provider	
  is	
  a	
  necessary	
  feature	
  of	
  assuring	
  therapist	
  competency	
  
	
  

122	
  

and	
  reducing	
  potential	
  harm	
  to	
  offender	
  clients.	
  	
  Face	
  to	
  face	
  supervision,	
  co-­‐therapy	
  
with	
   senior	
   colleagues	
   and	
   working	
   under	
   the	
   license	
   of	
   a	
   supervisor	
   are	
   common	
  
requirements	
   for	
   professional	
   disciplines	
   for	
   pre-­‐licensed	
   providers.	
   	
   There	
   is	
   an	
  
absence	
   of	
   professional	
   education	
   requirement	
   beyond	
   the	
   admonishment	
   “to	
   practice	
  
within	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  qualifications	
  and	
  experience”	
  and	
  “practice	
  responsibly	
  
and	
   ethically”	
   and	
   these	
   junior	
   level	
   providers/evaluators	
   are	
   not	
   fully	
   qualified	
   to	
  
provide	
   sexual	
   offender	
   services.	
   This	
   results	
   in	
   services	
   that	
   are	
   provided	
   to	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
  by	
  professionals	
  in	
  training.	
  It	
  is	
  recommended	
  this	
  be	
  clearly	
  communicated	
  
to	
  offender	
  clients	
  and	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  CST	
  and	
  the	
  name	
  of	
  the	
  provider’s	
  supervisor	
  
be	
  provided	
  a	
  route	
  to	
  field	
  concerns	
  about	
  the	
  provider.	
  
	
  
2.	
  

Associate	
  	
  	
  

All	
   applicants	
   begin	
   at	
   this	
   level.	
   Requires	
   the	
   same	
   supervision	
   requirements	
   as	
  
Intent	
   to	
   Apply	
   level;	
   services	
   can	
   be	
   provided	
   only	
   under	
   supervision	
   of	
   a	
   Full	
  
Operating	
   Level	
   provider.	
   	
   All	
   providers	
   in	
   Colorado	
   (Intent	
   to	
   Apply,	
   Associate	
  
Level,	
  and	
  Full	
  Operating	
  Level)	
  must	
  be	
  listed	
  with	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Regulatory	
  
Agencies	
   as	
   either	
   an	
   unlicensed,	
   registered	
   psychotherapist	
   or	
   a	
   licensed	
  
psychologist,	
   social	
   worker,	
   professional	
   counselor,	
   marriage	
   and	
   family	
   therapist,	
  
or	
  addictions	
  counselor.	
  	
  Providers	
  under	
  Intent	
  to	
  Apply	
  status	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  Associate	
  
Level	
   providers	
   are	
   not	
   required	
   to	
   be	
   licensed	
   mental	
   health	
   professionals,	
  
however,	
   all	
   Full	
   Operating	
   Level	
   providers	
   are	
   required	
   to	
   be	
   licensed	
   mental	
  
health	
  professionals.	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
Like	
  the	
  Intent	
  to	
  Apply	
  applicants	
  those	
  applying	
  to	
  the	
  Associate	
  Level	
  may	
  also	
  be	
  
unlicensed	
  professionals.	
  	
  Typically	
  licensed	
  professionals	
  are	
  not	
  required	
  to	
  undergo	
  
such	
   high	
   levels	
   of	
   supervision	
   as	
   they	
   have	
   incurred	
   large	
   amounts	
   pre-­‐licensure.	
  	
  
While	
   in	
   a	
   sense	
   there	
   can	
   never	
   be	
   too	
   much	
   supervision	
   as	
   this	
   further	
   increases	
  
competency,	
  a	
  potential	
  downside	
  of	
  this	
  requirement	
  is	
  difficulty	
  and	
  arduousness	
  of	
  
soliciting	
  and	
  obtaining	
  supervision.	
  This	
  would	
  be	
  more	
  challenging	
  for	
  independent	
  

	
  

123	
  

private	
  practitioners	
  than	
  those	
  who	
  work	
  for	
  a	
  company	
  with	
  numerous	
  professional	
  
staff	
  available	
  to	
  supervise.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   Adult	
   Associate	
   Level	
   requires:	
   	
   1.	
   A	
   baccalaureate	
   degree	
   or	
   above	
   in	
   a	
  
behavioral	
  science	
  with	
  training	
  or	
  experience	
  in	
  counseling/	
  therapy.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   a	
   common	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirement	
   for	
   providers	
   of	
   sexual	
   offender	
  
treatment/evaluation.	
  	
  
	
  
2.	
   A	
   professional	
   mental	
   health	
   license	
   or	
   registered	
   psychotherapist	
   and	
   not	
  
currently	
  under	
  disciplinary	
  action.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   a	
   common	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirement	
   for	
   providers	
   of	
   sexual	
   offender	
  
treatment/evaluation.	
  	
  
	
  
3.	
  	
  A	
  minimum	
  of	
  one	
  hundred	
  direct	
  face	
  to	
  face	
  co	
  therapy	
  hours	
  with	
  adult	
  sexual	
  
offenders	
  co	
  provided	
  with	
  a	
  Full	
  Operating	
  or	
  Associate	
  Level	
  treatment	
  provider.	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
  is	
  considered	
  within	
  the	
  common	
  range	
  and	
  recommended	
  requirements	
  for	
  new	
  
providers	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment/evaluation.	
  	
  
	
  
4.	
  	
  Within	
  the	
  past	
  five	
  years	
  must	
  have	
  a	
  minimum	
  of	
  50	
  hours	
  training	
  including	
  
28	
  hours	
  of	
  sex	
  offense	
  specific	
  training;	
  8	
  hours	
  of	
  victim	
  issues	
  training;	
  10	
  hours	
  
specific	
   to	
   the	
   treatment	
   of	
   adult	
   sexual	
   offenders;	
   and	
   four	
   hours	
   specific	
   to	
   female	
  
sex	
  offenders.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

124	
  

Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirements	
   for	
  
providers	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment/evaluation.	
  The	
  availability	
  and	
  affordability	
  of	
  
such	
   training	
   is	
   an	
   important	
   factor	
   that	
   should	
   be	
   maximally	
   facilitated.	
   Providers	
   in	
  
Focus	
  Groups	
  report	
  training	
  is	
  too	
  costly	
  and	
  often	
  inaccessible	
  (i.e.	
  if	
  one	
  misses	
  the	
  
yearly	
  conference	
  they	
  need	
  to	
  go	
  out	
  of	
  state	
  for	
  training;	
  geographically	
  prohibitive	
  
for	
  rural	
  providers;	
  can’t	
  get/afford	
  the	
  time	
  off).	
  	
  On	
  line	
  and	
  other	
  forms	
  of	
  distance	
  
training	
  should	
  be	
  considered.	
  	
  
	
  
5.	
   Demonstrated	
   competency	
   according	
   to	
   the	
   respective	
   professional	
   ethics	
   and	
  
standards	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   accepted	
   standards	
   of	
   sexual	
   offense	
   specific	
  
treatment	
  practice.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   a	
   common	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirement	
   for	
   providers	
   of	
   sexual	
   offender	
  
treatment/evaluation.	
  
	
  
	
  It	
   is	
   noted	
   that	
   listing	
   this	
   requirement	
   is	
   duplicative	
   to	
   the	
   preamble	
   of	
   this	
   standard	
  
and	
  that	
  the	
  requirement	
  is	
  not	
  so	
  specified	
  in	
  the	
  requirements	
  for	
  subsequent	
  levels.	
  
It	
  is	
  unclear	
  whether	
  this	
  is	
  an	
  error.	
  It	
  is	
  recommended	
  the	
  SOMB	
  either	
  remove	
  this	
  
from	
  this	
  section	
  or	
  add	
  it	
  to	
  the	
  other	
  application	
  level	
  requirements.	
  	
  
	
  
6.	
  	
  Professional	
  references	
  from	
  current	
  work.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   a	
   common	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirement	
   for	
   providers	
   of	
   sexual	
   offender	
  
treatment/evaluation.	
  
	
  
7.	
   	
   Never	
   been	
   convicted	
   of	
   a	
   crime	
   that	
   is	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   applicant’s	
   ability	
   to	
  
practice	
   under	
   the	
   standards;	
   background	
   investigation;	
   statement	
   of	
   any	
   conflicts	
  
of	
  interest.	
  	
  
	
  

125	
  

	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
A	
   criminal	
   background	
   investigation	
   that	
   is	
   thorough	
   and	
   reasonably	
   flexible	
   in	
   terms	
  
of	
  what	
  disqualifies	
  a	
  provider	
  is	
  a	
  necessary	
  feature	
  of	
  assuring	
  therapist	
  competency	
  
and	
  reducing	
  potential	
  harm	
  to	
  offender	
  clients.	
  	
  Face	
  to	
  face	
  supervision,	
  co-­‐therapy	
  
with	
   senior	
   colleagues	
   and	
   working	
   under	
   the	
   license	
   of	
   a	
   supervisor	
   are	
   common	
  
requirements	
  for	
  professional	
  disciplines	
  for	
  pre-­‐licensed	
  providers.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
8.	
  	
  Demonstrate	
  compliance	
  with	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  other	
  SOMB	
  requirements.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirements	
   for	
  
providers	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment/evaluation.	
  
	
  
Reapplication	
  to	
  the	
  Associate	
  Level:	
  
	
  
Must	
   be	
   submitted	
   every	
   three	
   years	
   and	
   include	
   having	
   completed	
   at	
   least	
   600	
  
hours	
   of	
   clinical	
   experience	
   every	
   three	
   years,	
   300	
   of	
   which	
   must	
   be	
   direct	
   with	
  
sexual	
  offenders;	
  along	
  with	
  the	
  same	
  supervision	
  requirement;	
  40	
  hours	
  continuing	
  
education	
  every	
  3	
  years	
  including	
  8	
  in	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  victimology	
  and	
  10	
  in	
  adult	
  sexual	
  
offender	
  treatment;	
  and	
  numbers	
  6,	
  7	
  and	
  8	
  from	
  above	
  list.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
   re-­‐application	
   period,	
   three	
   years,	
   is	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
  
recommended	
  

requirements	
  

for	
  

certified	
  

providers	
  

of	
  

sexual	
  

offender	
  

treatment/evaluation.	
   Regarding	
   the	
   number	
   of	
   clinical	
   service	
   hours	
   required,	
   the	
  
minimum	
   is	
   an	
   average	
   of	
   about	
   17	
   general/8	
   sexual	
   offender	
   specific	
   hours	
   yearly,	
  
some	
   have	
   reported	
   this	
   is	
   excessive	
   for	
   some	
   whose	
   treatment/evaluation	
   of	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   is	
   a	
   small	
   component	
   of	
   their	
   practice.	
   Regarding	
   the	
   remaining	
   criteria,	
   the	
  
same	
  comments	
  rendered	
  in	
  the	
  preceding	
  section	
  apply.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

126	
  

3.	
  	
  	
  

Full	
  Operating	
  Level	
  	
  

	
  
Applying	
   to	
   advance	
   from	
   the	
   Associate	
   to	
   the	
   Full	
   Operating	
   Level	
   Treatment	
  
Provider:	
  
	
  
Requires	
   a	
   letter	
   from	
   the	
   supervisor	
   substantiating	
   readiness	
   to	
   advance	
  
completion	
  and	
  submission	
  of	
  all	
  the	
  following	
  requirements:	
  	
  	
  
	
  
1.	
   	
   Approved	
   and	
   in	
   good	
   standing	
   or	
   meeting	
   the	
   requirements	
   of	
   the	
   Associate	
  
Level.	
  	
  
	
  
2.	
  	
  Must	
  be	
  licensed	
  or	
  certified	
  as	
  a	
  psychiatrist,	
  psychologist,	
  clinical	
  social	
  worker,	
  
marriage	
   and	
   family	
   therapist,	
   clinical	
   psychiatric	
   nurse	
   specialist,	
   or	
   licensed	
  
addiction	
  counselor	
  and	
  not	
  currently	
  under	
  disciplinary	
  action.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirements	
   for	
  
providers	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment/evaluation.	
  
	
  
3.	
   	
   Within	
   the	
   past	
   5	
   years,	
   a	
   minimum	
   of	
   1000	
   hours	
   of	
   adult	
   sexual	
   offender	
  
clinical	
  experience	
  including	
  at	
  least	
  500	
  hours	
  direct	
  face	
  to	
  face	
  clinical	
  contact.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
A	
   significant	
   number	
   of	
   treatment	
   providers/evaluators	
   report	
   this	
   minimum	
  
requirement	
   of	
   sexual	
   offender	
   treatment/evaluation,	
   an	
   average	
   of	
   17	
   hours	
   per	
  
month,	
   exceeds	
   what	
   can	
   be	
   reasonably	
   expected	
   in	
   some	
   practices	
   and	
   it	
   is	
  
prohibitive.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
4.	
  	
  At	
  least	
  60	
  hours	
  co	
  therapy	
  with	
  a	
  Full	
  Operating	
  Level	
  provider	
  (in	
  addition	
  to	
  
the	
  100	
  required	
  for	
  the	
  Associate	
  level).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

127	
  

5.	
  	
  Face	
  to	
  face	
  supervision	
  of	
  2	
  to	
  4	
  hours	
  per	
  month	
  depending	
  on	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  
clinical	
  contact	
  hours.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
Regarding	
  5	
  and	
  6,	
  co-­‐therapy	
  and	
  supervision,	
  in	
  most	
  settings	
  licensed	
  professionals	
  
are	
  not	
  required	
  to	
  undergo	
  such	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  supervision	
  as	
  they	
  have	
  incurred	
  large	
  
amounts	
  pre-­‐licensure.	
  	
  While	
  there	
  can	
  never	
  be	
  too	
  much	
  supervision	
  as	
  this	
  further	
  
increases	
   competency,	
   a	
   potential	
   downside	
   of	
   this	
   requirement	
   is	
   difficulty	
   and	
  
arduousness	
   of	
   soliciting	
   and	
   obtaining	
   supervision.	
   This	
   would	
   be	
   more	
   challenging	
  
for	
   independent	
   private	
   practitioners	
   than	
   those	
   who	
   work	
   for	
   a	
   company	
   with	
  
numerous	
   professional	
   staff	
   available	
   to	
   supervise.	
   Focus	
   group	
   results	
   indicate	
   a	
  
significant	
   number	
   of	
   providers/evaluators	
   perceive	
   these	
   requirements	
   as	
   excessive	
  
and	
  too	
  difficult	
  to	
  achieve.	
  	
  
	
  
6.	
   	
   Within	
   the	
   past	
   5	
   years	
   at	
   least	
   100	
   hours	
   training	
   with	
   a	
   minimum	
   65	
   sex	
  
offense	
  specific;	
  15	
  victim	
  issues;	
  20	
  specific	
  to	
  treatment	
  of	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders	
  and	
  
meet	
  requirements	
  numbers	
  5,	
  6,	
  7,	
  8	
  as	
  listed	
  in	
  the	
  Associate	
  level.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
These	
   are	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirements	
   for	
  
providers	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment/evaluation.	
  
	
  
Those	
   who	
   are	
   Full	
   Operating	
   Level	
   for	
   juveniles	
   who	
   want	
   to	
   provide	
   services	
   to	
  
adults	
  must	
  apply	
  at	
  the	
  Associate’s	
  Level.	
  
	
  
Reapplication	
  to	
  the	
  Full	
  Operating	
  Level:	
  
	
  
Re-­‐application	
  for	
  Full	
  Operating	
  must	
  be	
  completed	
  every	
  three	
  years.	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  

	
  

128	
  

The	
   re-­‐application	
   period,	
   three	
   years,	
   is	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
  
recommended	
  

requirements	
  

for	
  

certified	
  

providers	
  

of	
  

sexual	
  

offender	
  

treatment/evaluation.	
  	
  
	
  
First	
  Re-­‐Application	
  of	
  Full	
  Operating	
  Level:	
  
	
  
Requirements	
   are	
   the	
   same	
   licensure	
   requirement	
   as	
   the	
   initial	
   for	
   Full	
   Operating	
  
Level	
   (number	
   2	
   above);	
   a	
   minimum	
   of	
   600	
   hours	
   of	
   clinical	
   experience	
   including	
  
300	
   direct	
   clinical	
   contact	
   per	
   three	
   year	
   application	
   cycle;	
   a	
   minimum	
   of	
   40	
  
continuing	
  education	
  hours	
  years	
  per	
  three	
  year	
  cycle	
  including	
  at	
  least	
  8	
  hours	
  in	
  
victimology	
  and	
  10	
  in	
  adult	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment	
  and	
  numbers	
  6,7,8	
  as	
  listed	
  in	
  
the	
  Associate	
  level.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
  same	
  comments	
  as	
  the	
  preceding	
  section	
  apply	
  to	
  all	
  requirements	
  listed	
  above	
  for	
  
First	
  Re-­‐Application	
  of	
  Full	
  Operating	
  Level.	
  	
  
	
  
Second	
  and	
  subsequent	
  Re-­‐Applications	
  of	
  Full	
  Operating	
  Level:	
  
	
  
Requirements	
   are	
   the	
   same	
   licensure	
   requirement	
   as	
   the	
   initial	
   for	
   Full	
   Operating	
  
Level	
   (number	
   2);	
   stay	
   active	
   in	
   the	
   field	
   through	
   clinical	
   experience,	
   supervision,	
  
administration,	
   research,	
   training,	
   teaching,	
   consultation,	
   and/or	
   policy	
  
development;	
  the	
  same	
  continuing	
  education	
  hours	
  years	
  per	
  three	
  year	
  cycle	
  as	
  the	
  
initial	
   reapplication	
   to	
   Full	
   Operating	
   Level	
   and	
   numbers	
   6,7,8	
   as	
   listed	
   in	
   the	
  
Associate	
  level.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
These	
   are	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirements	
   for	
  
providers	
   of	
   sexual	
   offender	
   treatment/evaluation.	
   	
   They	
   appropriately	
   simplify	
   the	
  
reapplication	
  process.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

129	
  

A	
   listed	
   provider/evaluator	
   re-­‐applicant	
   is	
   afforded	
   up	
   to	
   1-­‐yr	
   to	
   achieve	
  
compliance	
   with	
   any	
   Standards	
   revisions.	
   	
   New	
   applicants	
   must	
   be	
   in	
   compliance	
  
with	
  the	
  Standards	
  when	
  they	
  apply.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  sub-­‐specify	
  further	
  mandates	
  for	
  providers	
  and	
  
evaluators	
  from	
  out	
  of	
  state	
  and	
  for	
  developmentally	
  disabled	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Standard	
  8.000	
  Denial	
  of	
  Placement	
  on	
  Provider	
  List	
  
	
  
This	
  standard	
  indicates	
  the	
  SOMB	
  reserves	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  deny	
  any	
  provider/evaluator	
  
placement	
   on	
   the	
   Provider	
   List.	
   	
   As	
   summarized	
   below,	
   the	
   reasons	
   for	
   denial	
  
include,	
  but	
  are	
  not	
  limited	
  to,	
  the	
  following:	
  
	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   determines	
   the	
   applicant	
   does	
   not	
   meet	
   the	
   qualifications	
   or	
   is	
   not	
   in	
  
compliance	
   with	
   the	
   specified	
   Standards;	
   the	
   applicant	
   does	
   not	
   provide	
   the	
  
necessary	
   application	
   materials;	
   the	
   applicant	
   has	
   been	
   convicted	
   of	
   a	
   crime;	
   the	
  
applicant	
   has	
   been	
   found	
   to	
   engage	
   in	
   unethical	
   behavior	
   by	
   a	
   licensing/certifying	
  
body	
   or	
   has	
   had	
   an	
   adverse	
   action	
   by	
   a	
   professional	
   oversight	
   body;	
   the	
   applicant	
  
has	
   a	
   serious	
   substance	
   abuse	
   problem;	
   the	
   applicant	
   has	
   a	
   physical	
   or	
   mental	
  
disability	
   that	
   renders	
   them	
   unable	
   to	
   treat	
   clients	
   skillfully	
   and	
   safely;	
   the	
   SOMB	
  
determines	
   the	
   results	
   of	
   the	
   background	
   investigation	
   or	
   other	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
  
application	
  are	
  unsatisfactory.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
These	
   are	
   considered	
   within	
   the	
   common	
   range	
   and	
   recommended	
   requirements	
   for	
  
providers	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment/evaluation.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

130	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  Procedures	
  for	
  handling	
  complaints	
  and	
  grievances.	
  
	
  
A	
   salient	
   result	
   of	
   the	
   Focus	
   Groups	
   Survey	
   was	
   uniform	
   agreement	
   across	
  
stakeholder	
  groups	
  that	
  treatment	
  providers	
  incur	
  unfair	
  and	
  prohibitive	
  amounts	
  
of	
   grievances	
   and	
   liability	
   for	
   adhering	
   to	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines.	
   Provider	
  
liability	
   appears	
   to	
   be	
   compounded	
   by	
   the	
   fact	
   that	
   the	
   supervision	
   officer	
   holds	
  
decision-­‐making	
   power	
   in	
   individual	
   cases	
   and	
   that	
   treatment	
   providers	
   and	
  
evaluators	
   are	
   the	
   only	
   CST	
   members	
   mandated	
   under	
   purview	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
  
and	
  Guidelines.	
  	
  It	
  appears	
  that	
  providers	
  incur	
  complaints	
  due	
  to	
  following	
  through	
  
with	
  the	
  decisions	
  of	
  the	
  supervision	
  officers	
  and	
  that	
  in	
  so	
  following	
  through,	
  they	
  
are	
  positioned	
  to	
  compromise	
  professional	
  ethics.	
  Offender	
  clients	
  are	
  prone	
  to	
  file	
  
complaints	
  against	
  therapists	
  when	
  they	
  are	
  dissatisfied	
  with	
  any	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  
Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   as	
   no	
   other	
   members	
   of	
   the	
   CST	
   are	
   managed	
   by	
   state	
  
licenses.	
   As	
   one	
   offender	
   advocate	
   described	
   it,	
   “There	
   is	
   no	
   other	
   member	
   of	
   the	
  
CST	
  to	
  hang	
  a	
  grievance	
  on.”	
  	
  	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
Indeed,	
   since	
   Offender	
   advocacates	
   are	
   the	
   most	
   common	
   complainants,	
   SOMB	
   will	
  
benefit	
  from	
  taking	
  specific	
  measures	
  to	
  interact,	
  educate	
  and	
  respond	
  to	
  this	
  group.	
  	
  
Further,	
  the	
  SOMB	
  staff	
  have	
  reported	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Regulatory	
  Agencies	
  appears	
  
to	
  have	
  somewhat	
  helped	
  to	
  slow	
  down	
  the	
  complaint	
  process	
  but	
  stronger	
  efforts	
  and	
  
direct	
  actions	
  by	
  the	
  SOMB	
  are	
  necessary.	
  
Because	
  providers	
  are	
  state	
  licensed	
  professionals	
  (supervision	
  officers	
  do	
  not	
  operate	
  
under	
   licenses)	
   held	
   by	
   both	
   professional	
   ethical	
   standards	
   and	
   the	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
  
and	
  Guidelines,	
  it	
  is	
  necessary	
  that	
  they	
  can	
  maintain	
  a	
  commitment	
  to	
  both	
  and	
  that	
  
they	
  are	
  offered	
  clear	
  advisement	
  on	
  how	
  to	
  proceed	
  when	
  this	
  is	
  not	
  possible.	
  	
  
If	
   it	
   is	
   the	
   case	
   that	
   Supervision	
   Officers	
   dictate	
   treatment	
   plans,	
   when	
   this	
   is	
  
inconsistent	
   with	
   the	
   professional	
   judgment	
   of	
   therapists	
   this	
   would	
   present	
   a	
  
serious	
   challenge	
   to	
   therapists’	
   professional	
   ethical	
   mandate	
   to	
   utilize	
   their	
  
professional	
  judgment.	
  	
  

	
  

131	
  

Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
  results	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  review	
  suggest	
  that	
  therapist	
  liability	
  is	
  a	
  significant	
  barrier	
  
the	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  
inadequately	
  supports	
  its	
  therapists	
  against	
  grievances	
  and	
  lawsuits	
  and	
  in	
  their	
  duty	
  
to	
  maintain	
  professional	
  ethics.	
  
The	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   do	
   allow	
   for	
   a	
   complaint	
   process	
   against	
  
Treatment	
   Providers,	
   Evaluators	
   and	
   Polygraphers.	
   This	
   is	
   described	
   in	
   Appendix	
   F,	
  
Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  Administrative	
  Policies.	
  There	
  is	
  also	
  a	
  link	
  on	
  the	
  
CO	
  SOMB	
  website	
  that	
  describes	
  Information	
  and	
  Instructions	
  about	
  the	
  Complaint	
  
Process	
   and	
   provides	
   the	
   Complaint	
   Form.	
   The	
   SOMB	
   offers	
   no	
   method	
   of	
   filing	
   a	
  
complaint	
  against	
  a	
  CST	
  member	
  other	
  than	
  those	
  listed	
  above.	
  	
  
In	
   the	
   Instructions	
   and	
   Information	
   about	
   the	
   Complaint	
   Process	
   is	
   stated,	
   “…the	
  
SOMB	
   also	
   ensures	
   that	
   the	
   services	
   being	
   provided	
   comply	
   with	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
   that	
   the	
   SOMB	
   was	
   statutorily	
   required	
   to	
   create.”	
   However,	
   the	
  
instructions	
   allow	
   that	
   a	
   complaint	
   can	
   only	
   be	
   levied	
   when	
   a	
   Standard	
   is	
   alleged	
   to	
  
have	
  not	
  been	
  met.	
  	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  means	
  of	
  filing	
  a	
  complaint	
  when	
  a	
  guiding	
  principle	
  
is	
  alleged	
  to	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  met.	
  	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
There	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  barrier	
  to	
  efficacy	
  of	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  created	
  by	
  
the	
  narrow	
  complaint	
  opportunity.	
  A	
  significant	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  Survey	
  was	
  
that	
  the	
  stakeholders	
  involved	
  in	
  individual	
  cases,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  offender	
  participant,	
  the	
  
offender’s	
   family	
   members,	
   the	
   defense	
   attorney,	
   the	
   treatment	
   provider,	
   and	
   the	
  
victim	
  advocate,	
  or	
  the	
  supervision	
  officer	
  identify	
  that	
  a	
  guiding	
  principle	
  is	
  not	
  met	
  
by	
   the	
   individual	
   application	
   of	
   the	
   standard	
   in	
   the	
   particular	
   case,	
   or	
   that	
   an	
  
implementation	
   problem	
   has	
   occurred	
   that	
   is	
   not	
   the	
   direct	
   result	
   of	
   the	
   provider	
   or	
  
evaluator.	
   Examples	
   of	
   this	
   are	
   when	
   the	
   supervision	
   officer	
   appears	
   to	
   be	
   dictating	
  
treatment	
   conditions	
   that	
   do	
   not	
   support	
   the	
   rehabilitation	
   of	
   the	
   offender,	
   when	
  
polygraph	
   is	
   utilized	
   in	
   a	
   manner	
   that	
   does	
   not	
   facilitate	
   treatment,	
   or	
   when	
   the	
  
application	
   of	
   the	
   no	
   contact	
   with	
   minors	
   policies	
   are	
   contraindicated.	
   The	
   SOMB	
  

	
  

132	
  

system	
   of	
   standardizing	
   and	
   guiding	
   services	
   for	
   offenders	
   could	
   be	
   improved	
   by	
  
allowing	
   a	
   legitimate	
   avenue	
   for	
   stakeholders	
   to	
   submit	
   complaints	
   regarding	
   the	
  
application	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   that	
   are	
   more	
   broad	
   then	
   what	
   is	
  
currently	
   permitted	
   by	
   the	
   Complaint	
   Process.	
   	
   A	
   portion	
   of	
   this	
   barrier	
   could	
   be	
  
alleviated	
   allowing	
   variances	
   from	
   the	
   Standards	
   in	
   well-­‐supported	
   cases	
   and	
  
addressing	
   the	
   power	
   differential	
   between	
   supervision	
   officers	
   and	
   treatment	
  
providers	
  in	
  regard	
  to	
  decisions	
  about	
  treatment	
  and	
  external	
  controls.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   Instructions	
   in	
   the	
   current	
   SOMB	
   complaint	
   process	
   require	
   the	
   complainant	
   to	
  
complete	
   the	
   Complaint	
   Form	
   which	
   includes	
   providing	
   their	
   name,	
   address,	
   and	
  
phone	
  number;	
  describing	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  complain;	
  citing	
  the	
  specific	
  Standard(s)	
  
alleged	
   to	
   have	
   been	
   violate,	
   and	
   a	
   proposed	
   solution.	
   	
   There	
   is	
   no	
   assurance	
   of	
  
confidentiality.	
  	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
Given	
   complainants	
   are	
   likely	
   to	
   be	
   offenders	
   and	
   their	
   advocates	
   and	
   the	
   power	
  
differential	
  between	
  offenders	
  and	
  therapists	
  there	
  could	
  be	
  reasonable	
  concern	
  that	
  
filing	
  a	
  complaint	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  adverse	
  consequences	
  to	
  the	
  offender.	
  	
  
	
  
After	
   the	
   SOMB	
   receives	
   the	
   Complaint	
   Form,	
   the	
   forward	
   it	
   to	
   the	
   Department	
   of	
  
Regulatory	
   Agencies	
   if	
   it	
   is	
   against	
   a	
   treatment	
   provider	
   or	
   evaluator.	
   Complaints	
  
against	
   polygraphers	
   are	
   not	
   forwarded	
   to	
   any	
   external	
   regulatory	
   body	
   and	
   are	
  
handled	
   entirely	
   internally	
   by	
   the	
   SOMB,	
   Application	
   Review	
   Committee	
   (ARC).	
  
SOMB	
   staff	
   report	
   that	
   utilization	
   of	
   DORA	
   has	
   partially	
   alleviated	
   a	
   heavy	
   burden	
  
upon	
  SOMB	
  of	
  handling	
  large	
  numbers	
  of	
  complaints.	
  	
  
The	
   Vice	
   Chair	
   of	
   SOMB	
   and	
   the	
   ARC	
   review	
   all	
   complaints,	
   the	
   outcome	
   of	
   which	
   is	
  
either	
  that	
  further	
  action	
  is	
  required	
  resulting	
  in	
  requiring	
  a	
  written	
  response	
  from	
  
the	
   provider/evaluator	
   within	
   20	
   days	
   or	
   no	
   further	
   action.	
   The	
   complainant	
   and	
  

	
  

133	
  

the	
   provider/evaluator	
   are	
   informed	
   of	
   the	
   results	
   and	
   have	
   a	
   30-­‐day	
   right	
   to	
  
appeal.	
  	
  	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
It	
  is	
  recommended	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  maintain	
  detailed	
  data	
  on	
  complaints	
  received	
  and	
  
conduct	
   regular,	
   at	
   minimum	
   yearly,	
   analyses.	
   Even	
   when	
   complaints	
   are	
   not	
  
substantiated	
  thematic	
  trends	
  will	
  allow	
  systemic	
  improvements.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

134	
  

Appendix	
  	
  N:	
   Victim	
  Perspectives,	
  including	
  contact	
  with	
  
past	
  victims	
  and	
  family	
  reunification	
  
The	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  include	
  two	
  sections	
  where	
  victim	
  perspectives	
  
are	
  specifically	
  addressed.	
  	
  These	
  are	
  the	
  sections:	
  	
  The	
  Role	
  of	
  Victims/Survivors	
  in	
  
Sex	
  Offender	
  Treatment	
  (p.8)	
  and	
  Appendix	
  E:	
  	
  Guidance	
  Regarding	
  Victim/Family	
  
Member	
  Readiness	
  for	
  Contact,	
  Clarification,	
  or	
  Reunification	
  (p.	
  176-­‐178).	
  
	
  
In	
   the	
   Role	
   of	
   Victims/Survivors	
   in	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Treatment	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
   recognize	
   the	
   damage	
   to	
   victims	
   caused	
   by	
   sexual	
   offenders’	
   behavior	
  
then	
  goes	
  on	
  to	
  make	
  three	
  bulleted	
  points.	
  	
  
	
  
First,	
   it	
   describes	
   a	
   premise	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   that	
   victims	
   should	
   determine	
   their	
  
level	
   of	
   involvement	
   in	
   the	
   offender’s	
   criminal	
   justice	
   process	
   after	
   he	
   has	
   been	
  
convicted	
  and	
  sentenced.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
This	
   is	
   a	
   reasonable	
   premise	
   that	
   is	
   consistent	
   with	
   victim	
   oriented	
   sexual	
   offender	
  
treatment	
  and	
  the	
  opinion	
  of	
  victim	
  advocates	
  who	
  participated	
  in	
  the	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  
Survey.	
   However,	
   it	
   was	
   noted	
   by	
   these	
   stakeholders	
   that	
   this	
   premise	
   is	
   reported	
   to	
  
not	
  achieve	
  uniform	
  full	
  implementation.	
  It	
  has	
  been	
  reported	
  that	
  some	
  victims	
  desire	
  
contact	
  or	
  reunification	
  with	
  the	
  offender	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  when	
  the	
  offender	
  and	
  victim	
  
are	
   in	
   the	
   same	
   family,	
   however,	
   they	
   are	
   prevented	
   from	
   such	
   contact	
   by	
   the	
  
offender’s	
  prohibitions.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   next	
   bullet	
   discusses	
   Colorado’s	
   Constitutional	
   Amendment	
   for	
   Crime	
   Victims	
  
that	
   indicates	
   victims	
   have	
   a	
   right	
   to	
   be	
   notified	
   about	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   offender’s	
  
status	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  It	
  notes	
  that	
  the	
  Standards	
  allow	
  that	
  victims	
  
may	
  request	
  notification	
  about	
  compliance	
  with	
  treatment	
  and	
  changes	
  that	
  might	
  
pose	
   a	
   risk	
   to	
   the	
   victim.	
   In	
   certain	
   situations	
   there	
   may	
   be	
   communication	
   with	
   the	
  
	
  

135	
  

victim’s	
   therapist/advocate.	
   	
   Further,	
   if	
   willing	
   a	
   victim	
   may	
   provide	
   information	
  
during	
  the	
  presentencing	
  investigation.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
  victim	
  rights	
  described	
  in	
  this	
  bullet	
  are	
  reasonable	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  a	
  victim-­‐	
  
oriented	
  model	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment	
  and	
  the	
  opinion	
  of	
  victim	
  advocates	
  who	
  
participated	
  in	
  the	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  Survey.	
  However,	
  it	
  was	
  noted	
  by	
  these	
  stakeholders	
  
that	
  this	
  premise	
  is	
  reported	
  inconsistently	
  implemented.	
  In	
  some	
  cases	
  victims	
  desired	
  
to	
  never	
  have	
  contact	
  with	
  the	
  perpetrator	
  and	
  felt	
  they	
  were	
  not	
  adequately	
  provided	
  
information	
   about	
   the	
   offender’s	
   whereabouts	
   and	
   supervision	
   conditions.	
   This	
  
problem	
   was	
   described	
   as	
   more	
   prevalent	
   after	
   the	
   offender	
   is	
   released	
   from	
  
community	
  supervision.	
  In	
  addition,	
  a	
  barrier	
  was	
  described	
  to	
  occur	
  when	
  the	
  victim	
  
chooses	
   not	
   to	
   undergo	
   personal	
   therapy	
   and	
   desires	
   direct	
   contact	
   to	
   learn	
   about	
   the	
  
offender.	
  It	
  has	
  been	
  reported	
  that	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  CST	
  are	
  not	
  permitted	
  to	
  discuss	
  the	
  
issues	
  delineated	
  in	
  the	
  above	
  bullet	
  directly	
  with	
  victims	
  but	
  only	
  through	
  the	
  victim’s	
  
therapist/advocate.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
The	
   third	
   bullet	
   instructs	
   that	
   professionals	
   involved	
   in	
   offender	
   cases	
   should	
  
contact	
  victims	
  through	
  appropriate	
  channels.	
  It	
  describes	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  risk	
  related	
  
offender	
  information	
  provided	
  by	
  victims.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
  victim	
  rights	
  described	
  in	
  this	
  bullet	
  are	
  reasonable	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  a	
  victim-­‐	
  
oriented	
  model	
  of	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment	
  and	
  the	
  opinion	
  of	
  victim	
  advocates	
  who	
  
participated	
  in	
  the	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  Survey.	
  
	
  
Appendix	
   E:	
   	
   Guidance	
   Regarding	
   Victim/Family	
   Member	
   Readiness	
   for	
   Contact,	
  
Clarification,	
   or	
   Reunification	
   is	
   the	
   second	
   document	
   within	
   the	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
  
and	
  Guidelines	
  that	
  directly	
  addresses	
  victims’	
  perspectives.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

136	
  

This	
   document	
   provides	
   guidelines	
   for	
   the	
   CST	
   when	
   the	
   victim	
   desires	
   contact,	
  
clarification	
   or	
   reunification	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   readiness	
   for	
   other	
   parents/children	
   in	
   the	
  
home.	
  It	
  is	
  divided	
  into	
  three	
  sections:	
  
	
  
1.	
  

Victim	
  Readiness	
  

	
  
For	
   contact	
   and	
   clarification	
   the	
   victim	
   should	
   be	
   able,	
   based	
   on	
   age	
   and	
  
development,	
   to	
   acknowledge	
   and	
   talk	
   about	
   the	
   abuse	
   and	
   its	
   impact	
   without	
  
minimizing	
   the	
   scope;	
   accurately	
   identify	
   the	
   offender’s	
   responsibility	
   for	
   the	
   abuse	
  
and	
   not	
   blame	
   self;	
   place	
   responsibility	
   on	
   the	
   offender	
   and	
   not	
   minimize	
  
responsibility	
   based	
   on	
   fear	
   of	
   repercussions;	
   avoid	
   perceiving	
   as	
   destroyer	
   or	
  
protector	
   of	
   the	
   family;	
   demonstrate	
   assertiveness	
   skills	
   and	
   will	
   disclose	
   further	
  
abuse/violations	
   of	
   the	
   safety	
   plan;	
   demonstrate	
   reduction	
   of	
   symptoms	
   and	
   no	
  
active	
   PTSD;	
   express	
   feeling	
   safe,	
   supported	
   and	
   protected	
   and	
   in	
   control	
   but	
   not	
  
controlling;	
   positive	
   supportive	
   relationships	
   with	
   supports;	
   demonstrate	
   healthy	
  
boundaries,	
  self-­‐respect	
  and	
  empowerment.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
   victim	
   readiness	
   features	
   described	
   in	
   this	
   section	
   are	
   generally	
   reasonable	
   and	
  
consistent	
   with	
   best	
   practices	
   involving	
   contact	
   and	
   clarification	
   between	
   offenders	
  
and	
  victims.	
  They	
  are	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  opinion	
  of	
  victim	
  advocates	
  who	
  participated	
  
in	
   the	
   Focus	
   Groups	
   Survey	
   with	
   exception	
   of	
   a	
   complaint	
   that	
   they	
   are	
   applied	
   too	
  
rigidly	
  in	
  cases	
  where	
  early	
  contact	
  and	
  contact	
  prior	
  to	
  affirmative	
  evidence	
  that	
  all	
  
above	
  are	
  met	
  is	
  therapeutically	
  indicated	
  for	
  the	
  victim.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  recommended	
  that	
  these	
  
features	
   be	
   expected	
   to	
   a	
   reasonable	
   and	
   flexible	
   degree.	
   There	
   are	
   circumstances	
  
when	
  contact	
  between	
  the	
  offender	
  and	
  the	
  victim	
  is	
  therapeutically	
  indicated	
  at	
  early	
  
stages	
   of	
   intervention	
   for	
   both	
   the	
   offender	
   and	
   the	
   victim.	
   Application	
   of	
   guidelines	
  
regarding	
   contact	
   should	
   consider	
   the	
   attachment	
   needs	
   of	
   the	
   victim.	
   For	
   example,	
   in	
  
some	
  cases	
  early	
  contact	
  between	
  offenders	
  who	
  had	
  pre-­‐offense	
  positive	
  relationships	
  
with	
  the	
  victim	
  and	
  the	
  victim	
  can	
  prevent	
  victim	
  feelings	
  of	
  abandonment	
  and	
  shame.	
  
	
  
	
  

137	
  

For	
  reunification,	
  which	
  is	
  distinguished	
  from	
  contact	
  and	
  clarification	
  as	
  occurring	
  
without	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  external	
  structure,	
  the	
  SOMB	
  offers	
  the	
  following	
  guidelines	
  to	
  
be	
   considered	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   the	
   prior.	
   	
   The	
   person	
   is	
   able	
   to	
   demonstrate	
   and	
  
awareness	
   of	
   the	
   grooming	
   tactics	
   of	
   the	
   offender;	
   recognize	
   ongoing	
   grooming	
  
patterns;	
  exercise	
  assertiveness	
  skills	
  and	
  confront	
  the	
  offender	
  as	
  needed;	
  identify	
  
and	
  seek	
  out	
  external	
  support	
  when	
  needed.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
   reunification	
   features	
   described	
   in	
   this	
   section	
   are	
   generally	
   reasonable	
   and	
  
consistent	
   with	
   best	
   practices	
   involving	
   contact	
   and	
   clarification	
   between	
   offenders	
  
and	
  victims.	
  	
  They	
  are	
  generally	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  opinion	
  of	
  victim	
  advocates	
  who	
  
participated	
   in	
   the	
   Focus	
   Groups	
   Survey	
   with	
   exception	
   that	
   they	
   are	
   applied	
   too	
  
rigidly	
  in	
  cases	
  where	
  early	
  contact	
  and	
  contact	
  prior	
  to	
  affirmative	
  evidence	
  that	
  all	
  
guidelines	
   are	
   met	
   is	
   therapeutically	
   indicated	
   for	
   the	
   victim.	
   	
   	
   It	
   is	
   recommended	
   that	
  
these	
  features	
  be	
  expected	
  to	
  a	
  reasonable	
  and	
  flexible	
  degree.	
  	
  
	
  
2.	
  	
  Non-­‐Offending	
  Parent/Guardian	
  Readiness	
  
	
  
The	
   guideline	
   describes	
   the	
   conditions	
   that	
   should	
   be	
   met	
   by	
   the	
   non-­‐offending	
  
parent/guardian	
   but	
   it	
   does	
   not	
   describe	
   for	
   what	
   kind	
   of	
   contact,	
   -­‐contact,	
  
clarification	
   and/or	
   reunification:	
   	
   believes	
   the	
   victim’s	
   report	
   of	
   the	
   abuse;	
  
recognizes	
   without	
   minimizing	
   the	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   abuse	
   upon	
   the	
   victim;	
   holds	
   the	
  
offender	
   solely	
   without	
   blaming	
   the	
   victim	
   in	
   any	
   way;	
   has	
   received	
   appropriate	
  
education	
   regarding	
   their	
   role	
   as	
   a	
   non-­‐offending	
   parent;	
   supportive	
   and	
   protective	
  
of	
   the	
   victim;	
   more	
   concerned	
   with	
   victim	
   impact	
   than	
   consequences	
   to	
   the	
  
offender;	
   has	
   received	
   appropriate	
   education	
   regarding	
   sexual	
   offender	
   behavior;	
  
has	
  received	
  full	
  disclosure	
  of	
  the	
  offender’s	
  sexual	
  abusive	
  behavior;	
  is	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  
grooming	
   tactics	
   used	
   by	
   the	
   offender	
   against	
   the	
   victim	
   and	
   other	
   family	
   members;	
  
supports	
   and	
   implements	
   the	
   family	
   safety	
   plan;	
   demonstrates	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
  
recognize	
   and	
   react	
   properly	
   to	
   signs	
   of	
   high	
   risk	
   or	
   offending	
   behavior;	
  

	
  

138	
  

demonstrate	
  assertiveness	
  skills	
  that	
  would	
  confront	
  the	
  offender	
  and	
  is	
  willing	
  to	
  
disclose	
  high	
  risk	
  or	
  offending	
  behavior.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
  guideline	
  should	
  be	
  clarified	
  to	
  indicate	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  contact	
  it	
  guides.	
  Further,	
  if	
  the	
  
guidance	
   is	
   intended	
   to	
   apply	
   to	
   all	
   contact	
   between	
   offenders	
   and	
   non-­‐offending	
  
parent	
   of	
   victim,	
   rather	
   than	
   reunification	
   it	
   may	
   be	
   overly	
   rigid.	
   There	
   are	
  
circumstances	
   when	
   contact	
   between	
   the	
   offender	
   and	
   the	
   parent/guardian	
   of	
   the	
  
victim	
   is	
   therapeutically	
   indicated	
   at	
   early	
   stages	
   of	
   intervention	
   for	
   both	
   the	
   offender	
  
and	
  the	
  victim.	
  	
  
	
  
3.	
  	
  Secondary	
  Victim,	
  Sibling	
  or	
  Other	
  Children	
  in	
  the	
  Home	
  Readiness	
  
	
  
The	
  guideline	
  describes	
  the	
  conditions	
  that	
  should	
  be	
  met	
  by	
  the	
  secondary	
  victim	
  
but	
   it	
   does	
   not	
   describe	
   for	
   what	
   kind	
   of	
   contact,	
   -­‐contact,	
   clarification	
   and/or	
  
reunification.	
   	
   It	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   individual:	
   has	
   an	
   understanding	
   of	
   the	
   nature	
   of	
  
abuse	
  and	
  the	
  victim	
  impact;	
  does	
  not	
  blame	
  the	
  victim	
  or	
  minimize	
  the	
  abuse;	
  has	
  
received	
   information	
   about	
   offender	
   treatment,	
   and	
   high	
   risk	
   and	
   grooming	
  
behaviors;	
   can	
   express	
   the	
   ways	
   the	
   abuse	
   has	
   affected	
   and	
   impacted	
   his/her	
   life;	
  
demonstrates	
   healthy	
   boundaries,	
   including	
   ability	
   to	
   identify	
   and	
   set	
   limits	
  
regarding	
  personal	
  space	
  and	
  privacy;	
  is	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  safety	
  plan.	
  	
  
	
  
Evaluation	
  Team	
  Comment	
  
The	
  guideline	
  should	
  be	
  clarified	
  to	
  indicate	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  contact	
  it	
  guides.	
  Further,	
  if	
  the	
  
guidance	
   is	
   intended	
   to	
   apply	
   to	
   all	
   contact	
   between	
   offenders	
   and	
   non-­‐offending	
  
parent	
   of	
   victim,	
   rather	
   than	
   reunification	
   it	
   may	
   be	
   overly	
   rigid.	
   There	
   are	
  
circumstances	
  when	
  contact	
  between	
  the	
  offender	
  and	
  siblings	
  of	
  the	
  victim,	
  secondary	
  
victim,	
   or	
   other	
   children	
   in	
   the	
   home	
   is	
   therapeutically	
   indicated	
   at	
   early	
   stages	
   of	
  
intervention	
  for	
  both	
  these	
  individuals	
  and	
  the	
  offender.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

139	
  

Appendix	
  O:	
   Results	
  of	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  Surveys	
  of	
  the	
  
SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  Stakeholders	
  	
  
	
  
Introduction	
  
	
  
An	
   important	
   feature	
   of	
   any	
   codification	
   of	
   rules	
   and	
   aspirations	
   is	
   how	
   they	
   impact	
  
the	
   functioning	
   of	
   those	
   targeted.	
   Therefore,	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   identifying	
   how	
   the	
  
SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   as	
   written	
   comport	
   with	
   RNR	
   Principles,	
   the	
  
evaluation	
  team	
  assessed	
  the	
  experience	
  and	
  opinions	
  of	
  members	
  from	
  the	
  various	
  
stakeholder	
   groups	
   impacted.	
   	
   These	
   groups	
   were	
   identified	
   with	
   assistance	
   from	
  
the	
   SOMB	
   staff.	
   The	
   purpose	
   of	
   soliciting	
   stakeholder	
   feedback	
   was	
   to	
   acquire	
  
current	
   representative	
   information	
   on	
   how	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   as	
  
implemented	
   comport	
   with	
   RNR	
   on	
   the	
   ground	
   level	
   of	
   experience	
   of	
   those	
  
individuals	
  whose	
  work	
  or	
  personal	
  life	
  they	
  most	
  deeply	
  affect.	
  	
  In	
  this	
  sense,	
  the	
  
focus	
  group	
  data	
  speaks	
  to	
  the	
  Risk,	
  Need,	
  Responsivity	
  and	
  Integrity	
  Principles	
  of	
  
effective	
  correctional	
  programming.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
It	
   is	
   important	
   to	
   note	
   that	
   the	
   intention	
   of	
   a	
   Focus	
   Group	
   driven	
   analysis	
   is	
   to	
  
provide	
  a	
  summary	
  of	
  the	
  perceptions	
  of	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  focus	
  rather	
  than	
  to	
  investigate	
  
the	
   accuracy	
   of	
   the	
   perceptions.	
   	
   Even	
   inaccurate	
   perceptions,	
   if	
   widely	
   shared,	
  
become	
  significant	
  barriers	
  to	
  effective	
  treatment.	
  
	
  
The	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  were	
  asked	
  to	
  reply	
  to	
  the	
  following	
  primary	
  questions:	
  
	
  
1.	
  

How	
  do	
  the	
  CO	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  impact	
  you?	
  

2.	
  

What	
   are	
   the	
   ways	
   that	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   work	
   well,	
   enhance	
  

you/your	
  work,	
  its	
  strengths?	
  

	
  

140	
  

3.	
  

What	
   are	
   the	
   ways	
   that	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   do	
   not	
   work	
   well,	
  

negatively	
   impact	
   you/your	
   ability	
   to	
   do	
   your	
   work	
   well,	
   the	
   ways	
   it	
   can	
   be	
  
improved?	
  
4.	
  

How	
  well	
  does	
  the	
  SOMB	
  solicit	
  and	
  respond	
  to	
  your	
  feedback?	
  	
  

	
  
Method	
  
	
  
With	
   assistance	
   from	
   the	
   SOMB	
   staff,	
   the	
   following	
   stakeholder	
   groups	
   were	
  
identified	
   and	
   solicited	
   to	
   participate	
   in	
   face-­‐to-­‐face,	
   or	
   telephonic	
   focus	
   groups:	
  
Supervision	
   Officers	
   (Probation,	
   Parole	
   and	
   Community	
   Corrections),	
   Listed	
  
Treatment	
   Providers	
   and	
   Evaluators,	
   Victim	
   Advocates	
   and	
   Victim	
   Therapists;	
  
Offender	
   Advocates	
   and	
   Defense	
   Attorneys,	
   and	
   Stakeholders	
   not	
   Mentioned	
   in	
  
Other	
   Categories	
   (aka	
   “Other	
   Stakeholders”).	
   	
   After	
   the	
   initial	
   invitation	
   for	
   focus	
  
groups	
   was	
   distributed,	
   it	
   was	
   identified	
   that	
   the	
   initial	
   categories	
   did	
   not	
   include	
  
prosecutors,	
   judges	
   and	
   polygraphers	
   who	
   are	
   also	
   relevant	
   stakeholders	
   and	
  
efforts	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  include	
  these	
  specific	
  groups	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  the	
  “Stakeholders	
  
Not	
   Mentioned”	
   group.	
   Three	
   SOMB	
   staff	
   members	
   were	
   also	
   invited	
   and	
  
participated.	
   For	
   the	
   purpose	
   of	
   summarizing	
   results,	
   prosecutor	
   data	
   is	
   included	
   in	
  
the	
   Victim	
   Advocates	
   and	
   Victim	
   Therapists	
   group.	
   Polygraphers	
   are	
   included	
   in	
   the	
  
“Other	
  Stakeholders”	
  category.	
  No	
  judges	
  participated.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Stakeholders	
   were	
   solicited	
   via	
   email	
   notification	
   distributed	
   by	
   the	
   SOMB	
   staff.	
  
Face-­‐to-­‐face	
   focus	
   groups	
   were	
   prescheduled	
   and	
   occurred	
   on	
   November	
   14	
   and	
  
15th,	
   2013	
   in	
   Denver.	
   Telephonic	
   Focus	
   Groups	
   were	
   held	
   from	
   November	
   18	
  
through	
   November	
   29.	
   The	
   size	
   of	
   focus	
   groups	
   ranged	
   from	
   21	
   people	
   in	
  
attendance	
   to	
   1.	
   	
   Efforts	
   were	
   made	
   to	
   provide	
   a	
   focus	
   group	
   for	
   every	
   interested	
  
party.	
   We	
   know	
   of	
   no	
   specific	
   individuals	
   who	
   desired	
   but	
   were	
   unable	
   to	
  
participate	
  in	
  either	
  a	
  written,	
  telephonic	
  or	
  face-­‐to-­‐face	
  focus	
  group.	
  	
  In	
  total,	
  over	
  
32	
   hours	
   of	
   face-­‐to-­‐face	
   or	
   telephonic	
   focus	
   groups	
   were	
   conducted.	
   All	
   in	
   focus	
  
group	
  attendance	
  were	
  invited	
  to	
  provide	
  further	
  written	
  or	
  telephonic	
  feedback	
  in	
  

	
  

141	
  

the	
   case	
   that	
   they	
   had	
   further	
   feedback	
   that	
   could	
   not	
   be	
   presented	
   in	
   the	
   time	
  
allowed	
  for	
  the	
  group.	
  	
  
	
  
Participants	
   were	
   briefly	
   explained	
   the	
   nature	
   and	
   purpose	
   of	
   the	
   SOMB	
   evaluation,	
  
the	
  evaluation	
  team	
  and	
  the	
  Focus	
  Group.	
  The	
  Participant	
  Information	
  and	
  Consent	
  
Form	
   was	
   read	
   by	
   each	
   participant	
   and	
   each	
   consenting	
   participant	
   was	
   asked	
   to	
  
sign	
   the	
   form	
   accordingly	
   and	
   submit	
   it	
   to	
   a	
   member	
   of	
   the	
   evaluation	
   team.	
  
Regarding	
  the	
  format	
  of	
  the	
  focus	
  group,	
  an	
  evaluator	
  from	
  the	
  research	
  team	
  asked	
  
pre-­‐set	
  questions	
  to	
  the	
  group	
  as	
  listed	
  on	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Focus	
  Group	
  Survey	
  (aka	
  SOMB	
  
Survey),	
   facilitating	
   a	
   semi-­‐structured	
   group	
   discussion	
   while	
   the	
   evaluator	
   took	
  
notes.	
   Some	
   focus	
   groups	
   were	
   audio-­‐recorded	
   to	
   assist	
   the	
   evaluator	
   with	
   accurate	
  
write-­‐up.	
   These	
   audio	
   recordings	
   were	
   not	
   available	
   to	
   any	
   party	
   outside	
   the	
  
evaluation	
   team	
   and	
   were	
   subsequently	
   destroyed.	
   Participants	
   were	
   also	
  
encouraged	
   to	
   complete	
   the	
   written	
   SOMB	
   Survey;	
   approximately	
   70%	
   of	
  
participants	
   completed	
   the	
   survey	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   providing	
   verbal	
   responses.	
   In	
   a	
  
small	
   number	
   of	
   cases,	
   9,	
   participants	
   chose	
   to	
   provide	
   information	
   solely	
   via	
  
written	
  completion	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Survey	
  Form.	
  
	
  
Table	
  1:	
  Participation	
  in	
  Focus	
  Groups	
  	
  
Stakeholder	
  Group	
  

Number	
  of	
  

Percent	
  of	
  Total	
  

Participants	
  
Supervision	
  Officers	
  

52	
  

29%	
  

Treatment	
  Providers	
   	
  

	
  

and	
  Evaluators	
  

29	
  

16%	
  

Victim	
  Advocates	
  &	
  

	
  

	
  

Victim	
  Therapists	
  

33	
  

18%	
  

Offender	
  Advocates	
  

	
  

	
  

(incl.	
  Def.	
  Attys)	
  

36	
  

20%	
  

Polygraphers	
  

2	
  

1%	
  

(incl.	
  Pros)	
  

	
  

142	
  

SOMB	
  Staff	
  

3	
  

2%	
  

Other	
  or	
  Unspecified	
   27	
  

15%	
  

TOTAL	
  

100%	
  

182	
  

*	
  percentages	
  are	
  rounded	
  to	
  the	
  nearest	
  whole	
  unit	
  
	
  
Results	
  
	
  
The	
   analysis	
   of	
   focus	
   group	
   data	
   from	
   the	
   current	
   study	
   is	
   summarized	
   in	
   this	
  
section.	
   	
   These	
   results	
   were	
   supplemented	
   by	
   the	
   Statewide	
   Outreach	
   Focus	
   Groups	
  
data	
  of	
  136	
  surveyed	
  by	
  SOMB	
  staff,	
  and	
  presented	
  by	
  staff	
  members	
  Jesse	
  Hansen,	
  
Cathy	
  Rodriguez,	
  and	
  Raechel	
  Alderete	
  at	
  the	
  SOMB	
  board	
  meeting	
  on	
  November	
  15,	
  
2013	
   resulting	
   from	
   a	
   SOMB	
   staff	
   conducted	
   statewide	
   outreach	
   project	
   involving	
  
eight	
   focus	
   groups	
   that	
   were	
   held	
   from	
   August	
   to	
   October,	
   2013.	
   	
   These	
   staff	
  
conducted	
   SOMB	
   focus	
   groups	
   included	
   all	
   the	
   stakeholder	
   groups	
   of	
   the	
   current	
  
external	
  evaluation	
  and	
  additionally	
  included	
  judges.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Below	
   are	
   a	
   ranking	
   of	
   the	
   most	
   recurrent	
   themes	
   in	
   the	
   responses	
   to	
   the	
   questions	
  
asked	
   to	
   participants	
   in	
   the	
   Focus	
   Groups.	
   The	
   format	
   below	
   includes	
   the	
  
enumerated	
   topics	
   of	
   questions	
   asked	
   to	
   Focus	
   Group	
   participants	
   followed	
   by	
  
alphabetized	
  lists	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  endorsed	
  response	
  themes	
  followed	
  by	
  the	
  names(s)	
  
of	
   the	
   group(s)	
   most	
   strongly	
   endorsing.	
   	
   Alphabetized	
   lists	
   are	
   not	
   rank	
   ordered.	
   A	
  
group	
   listed	
   as	
   endorsing	
   means	
   that	
   numerous,	
   but	
   not	
   necessarily	
   all,	
   endorse.	
  
Subsequent	
   bullet	
   points	
   provide	
   further	
   details	
   and	
   examples.	
   When	
   the	
   themes	
  
found	
  in	
  the	
  current	
  study	
  matched	
  those	
  found	
  by	
  the	
  SOMB	
  staff	
  in	
  their	
  Statewide	
  
Outreach	
  Focus	
  Groups,	
  they	
  are	
  considered	
  highly	
  significant	
  and	
  this	
  is	
  considered	
  
in	
  summarizing	
  results.	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  unlike	
  the	
  current	
  evaluation,	
  the	
  
SOMB	
  staff	
  conducted	
  focus	
  groups	
  did	
  not	
  survey	
  for	
  positive	
  feedback	
  but	
  rather	
  
areas	
  of	
  concern.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

143	
  

1.	
   Describe	
   ways	
   that	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   work	
   well,	
   enhance	
  
you/your	
  work,	
  its	
  strengths.	
  
	
  
A.	
  

Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  indispensible;	
  the	
  quality	
  of	
  our	
  work	
  would	
  be	
  
reduced	
   if	
   they	
   were	
   altogether	
   eliminated	
   (supervision	
   officers,	
   victim	
  
advocates,	
   polygraphers,	
   treatment	
   providers	
   and	
   evaluators,	
   SOMB	
   Board	
  
Members	
  and	
  Staff).	
  	
  
•

The	
   majority	
   of	
   stakeholders	
   surveyed	
   in	
   all	
   groups	
   except	
   the	
   offender	
  
advocates	
  generally	
  reported	
  this.	
  

•

The	
   groups	
   endorsing	
   this	
   were	
   each	
   able	
   to	
   identify	
   specific	
   standards	
  
and	
   guidelines	
   or	
   broad	
   areas	
   warranting	
   improvement	
   but	
   generally	
  
agreed	
   that	
   Colorado’s	
   response	
   to	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   is	
   improved	
   by	
   the	
  
presence	
  of	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  	
  

B.	
  

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   provide	
   a	
   map	
   for	
   working	
   with	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
   that	
   eases	
   decision-­‐making	
   (supervision	
   officers,	
   SOMB	
   Board	
  
Members	
  and	
  Staff).	
  
•

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   provide	
   a	
   continuum	
   of	
   care	
   for	
  
intervening	
  with	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  in	
  CO.	
  

•

The	
   supervision	
   officers	
   in	
   particular	
   generally	
   perceive	
   that	
   the	
  
Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   define	
   rules	
   for	
   working	
   with	
   sexual	
  
offenders	
  that	
  makes	
  their	
  job	
  much	
  easier	
  by	
  reducing	
  discretionary	
  
decision-­‐making	
  by	
  themselves	
  and	
  treatment	
  providers.	
  	
  

•

Responding	
   to	
   challenges	
   about	
   decision-­‐making	
   is	
   made	
   easier	
   by	
  
citing	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  

•

There	
   are	
   two	
   widely	
   opposite	
   opinions	
   on	
   how	
   specific	
   and	
   rule	
  
based	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   should	
   be	
   versus	
   more	
   flexible	
  
and	
  discretionary;	
  allowing	
  for	
  clinical	
  judgment.	
  

	
  

144	
  

C.	
  

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
   research	
   based	
   and	
   therefore	
   provide	
  
confidence	
  in	
  decision-­‐making	
  (supervising	
  officers,	
  victim	
  advocates,	
  SOMB	
  
Board	
  Members	
  and	
  Staff).	
  
•

Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   create	
   a	
   consistent	
   and	
   clear	
   language	
   for	
  
communication	
   among	
   stakeholders	
   however	
   the	
   desired	
   degree	
   of	
  
standardization	
   strongly	
   varies.	
   	
   Most	
   appreciate	
   that	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
  “reigns	
  in”	
  problematic	
  idiosyncratic	
  decision-­‐making.	
  	
  	
  

•

Many	
   perceive	
   the	
   Board	
   as	
   highly	
   motivated	
   to	
   have	
   research	
  
supported	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  

•

The	
   groups	
   surveyed	
   vary	
   widely	
   in	
   opinion	
   of	
   how	
   well	
   the	
  
Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   have	
   “kept	
   up”	
   with	
   contemporary	
   research	
  
on	
  sexual	
  offender	
  treatment	
  efficacy.	
  

•

Several	
   noted	
   a	
   concern	
   that	
   many	
   voting	
   Board	
   members	
   are	
   not	
  
experts	
   in	
   subject	
   matter	
   content	
   and	
   may	
   be	
   misinformed	
   or	
  
politically	
   biased	
   in	
   their	
   voting	
   which	
   lead	
   to	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
   that	
   reflect	
   political	
   value	
   systems	
   rather	
   then	
   treatment	
  
efficiency	
  and	
  community	
  safety.	
  

•

Some	
  also	
  note	
  that	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  over	
  focus	
  on	
  group	
  
sample	
  research,	
  problematically	
  disregarding	
  learning	
  and	
  decision-­‐
making	
  informed	
  by	
  the	
  individual	
  case	
  at	
  hand.	
  	
  

D.	
  	
  	
  

Having	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   assures	
   the	
   community	
   that	
  
offenders	
   are	
   made	
   accountable	
   (supervision	
   officers,	
   victim	
   advocates,	
  
polygraphers,	
  SOMB	
  Board	
  Members	
  and	
  Staff).	
  

	
  
•

Victims	
  deserve	
  to	
  know	
  that	
  those	
  who	
  offended	
  against	
  them	
  do	
  not	
  
“get	
  off	
  easy”	
  and	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  tolerated	
  by	
  the	
  community	
  unless	
  they	
  
take	
   accountability	
   and	
   get	
   treatment	
   so	
   that	
   they	
   never	
   create	
  
another	
  victim.	
  

	
  

145	
  

•

Assuring	
   that	
   offender	
   treatment	
   is	
   conducted	
   by	
   high	
   quality	
   and	
  
specialized	
   providers	
   makes	
   victim’s	
   feel	
   that	
   the	
   state	
   deeply	
   cares	
  
about	
   their	
   victimization,	
   -­‐“Victims	
   want	
   to	
   know	
   the	
   perpetrator	
   is	
  
being	
  treated	
  and	
  won’t	
  do	
  it	
  again.”	
  

•

A	
  significant	
  portion	
  of	
  those	
  surveyed	
  communicated	
  a	
  belief	
  that	
  the	
  
Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   could	
   never	
   be	
   “too	
   harsh”	
   upon	
   sexual	
  
offenders.	
  

•

The	
   polygraph	
   helps	
   make	
   sure	
   offenders	
   take	
   accountability.	
   I.e.,	
  
“Victims	
   must	
   know	
   that	
   the	
   offender	
   admits	
   it	
   in	
   order	
   for	
   them	
   to	
  
heal.”	
  	
  

E.	
  

The	
   SOMB	
   provides	
   free	
   (or	
   greatly	
   discounted)	
   training	
   (supervision	
  
officers,	
   treatment	
   providers	
   and	
   evaluators,	
   victim	
   advocates,	
   offender	
  
advocates,	
  polygraphers,	
  SOMB	
  Board	
  Members	
  and	
  Staff).	
  

	
  
•

This	
  assists	
  therapists	
  in	
  developing/maintaining	
  expertise.	
  

2.	
   Describe	
   ways	
   that	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   do	
   not	
   work	
   well,	
  
negatively	
  affect	
  you/your	
  work,	
  the	
  ways	
  they	
  can	
  be	
  improved.	
  
A.	
  

The	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   do	
   not	
   adequately	
   adhere	
   to	
   the	
   Risk,	
  
Need,	
  Responsivity	
  Principles	
  (all	
  groups).	
  

	
  
•

Supervision	
   and	
   treatment	
   decision-­‐making	
   are	
   often	
   not	
   risk	
   based	
   i.e.	
  
Lifetime	
  Supervision,	
  SVP,	
  contact	
  with	
  minors.	
  

•

In	
  practice,	
  the	
  parole	
  board	
  determines	
  when	
  an	
  inmate	
  has	
  sufficiently	
  
completed	
   inpatient	
   treatment;	
   the	
   parole	
   board’s	
   decisions	
   about	
  
readiness	
  for	
  release	
  are	
  not	
  adequately	
  influenced	
  by	
  the	
  offender’s	
  risk	
  
and	
   needs	
   and	
   are	
   often	
   inconsistent	
   with	
   the	
   treatment	
   program’s	
  
opinions.	
  	
  This	
  further	
  causes	
  lack	
  of	
  clarity	
  about	
  program	
  expectations	
  
and	
  undermines	
  the	
  motivation	
  of	
  inmates.	
  	
  	
  

	
  

146	
  

•

Treatment	
   and	
   supervision	
   are	
   not	
   adequately	
   titrated	
   in	
   response	
   to	
  
proven	
   management	
   of	
   risk	
   factors/treatment	
   needs.	
   I.e.	
   For	
   some	
  
offenders	
  it	
  is	
  therapeutically	
  indicated	
  for	
  them	
  to	
  transfer	
  from	
  prison	
  
to	
   community	
   treatment	
   settings;	
   difficulty	
   gaining	
   permission	
   to	
   work,	
  
have	
   an	
   intimate	
   relationship,	
   reduced	
   polygraph	
   testing,	
   treatment	
  
requirements,	
   etc.	
   The	
   time	
   it	
   takes	
   to	
   complete	
   treatment	
   and	
   get	
   off	
  
parole	
  is	
  too	
  long.	
  	
  

•

Need	
   better	
   clarification,	
   communication,	
   transparency	
   of	
   treatment	
  
program	
  requirements.	
  Program	
  should	
  offer	
  written	
  completion	
  criteria	
  
and	
   provide	
   regular	
   reviews	
   and	
   feedback	
   so	
   that	
   participants	
   know	
  
clearly	
  what	
  is	
  needed	
  to	
  complete	
  treatment	
  and	
  get	
  off	
  parole.	
  

•

The	
   treatment	
   does	
   not	
   adequately	
   target	
   relevant	
   criminogenic	
   needs;	
  
treatment	
  is	
  not	
  adequately	
  individualized.	
  	
  

•

The	
  treatment	
  environment,	
  therapist	
  and	
  supervision	
  officer	
  style	
  do	
  not	
  
strive	
   to	
   maximize	
   offender	
   participants’	
   responsivity.	
   	
   There	
   is	
   a	
  
significant	
   negative	
   attitude	
   toward	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   in	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
  tone	
  and	
  practice.	
  The	
  SOMB	
  supported	
  system	
  replicates	
  the	
  
offender	
   victim	
   abuse	
   dynamics,	
   with	
   the	
   “system”	
   tending	
   toward	
  
“abusiveness”	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   (i.e.	
   power,	
   shaming,	
   humiliation,	
  
retaliatory).	
  

•

The	
   verbiage	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   does	
   not	
   promote	
  
responsivity	
   of	
   participants	
   nor	
   that	
   treatment	
   can	
   be	
   effective;	
   it	
   does	
  
not	
  anchor	
  in	
  RNR	
  principles.	
  	
  Many	
  offenders	
  regress	
  back	
  to	
  prison	
  in	
  
response	
  

to	
  

unwelcoming	
  

attitudes	
  

and	
  

behaviors	
  

by	
  

treatment/supervision.	
  
•

Financial	
   motivated	
   decision-­‐making	
   often	
   trumps	
   RNR	
   influenced	
  
decisions.	
  	
  I.e.	
  Sometimes	
  the	
  victim	
  is	
  removed	
  from	
  the	
  home	
  because	
  
the	
  offender	
  cannot	
  afford	
  alternate	
  housing.	
  	
  

•

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   do	
   not	
   provide	
   a	
   realistic	
   procedure	
   for	
  
offender	
  participants	
  to	
  submit	
  grievances.	
  

	
  

147	
  

•

Putting	
   a	
   90-­‐day	
   limit	
   on	
   how	
   long	
   an	
   offender	
   can	
   be	
   in	
   “denial”	
   is	
   not	
  
appropriate	
  for	
  every	
  case.	
  

•

Resource	
  efficiencies	
  can	
  made	
  through	
  a	
  more	
  flexible	
  and	
  RNR	
  focused	
  
implementation	
   of	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines.	
   i.e.	
   Some	
   offenders	
   are	
  
over-­‐treated	
   or	
   over-­‐evaluated	
   (e.g.	
   historical	
   offenders;	
   excessive	
  
polygraph).	
  	
  

•

Some	
  offenders	
  intentionally	
  violate	
  the	
  conditions	
  of	
  parole	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  
serve	
   the	
   remainder	
   of	
   their	
   sentence	
   in	
   prison	
   as	
   a	
   means	
   of	
   avoiding	
  
what	
   they	
   perceive	
   as	
   unachievable	
   expectations,	
   impossible	
   financial	
  
costs,	
  and	
  mishandling	
  by	
  the	
  CST.	
  

•

The	
   next	
   less	
   restrictive	
   alternative	
   to	
   prison	
   treatment	
   in	
   CO	
   is	
  
community	
   corrections	
   housing,	
   however	
   this	
   is	
   not	
   viable	
   for	
   most	
  
sexual	
  offender	
  inmates.	
  

•

Those	
   who	
   do	
   not	
   have	
   life	
   sentences	
   are	
   placed	
   after	
   those	
   with	
   life	
  
sentences	
   on	
   prison	
   treatment	
   waitlists	
   and	
   often	
   cannot	
   get	
   into	
   the	
  
treatment	
   program;	
   this	
   not	
   completing	
   inpatient	
   treatment	
   then	
  
prevents	
  their	
  parole.	
  	
  

•

Parole	
  revocations	
  often	
  occur	
  for	
  minor,	
  non-­‐sexual	
  related	
  violations.	
  
The	
  duration	
  of	
  time	
  revoked	
  to	
  prison	
  is	
  excessive	
  (greater	
  than	
  120	
  
days).	
  Paroled	
  inpatient	
  treatment	
  completers	
  are	
  required	
  to	
  “re-­‐
complete”	
  treatment	
  upon	
  release	
  to	
  the	
  community.	
  This	
  is	
  seen	
  as	
  
redundant,	
  unnecessary	
  and	
  intentionally	
  prolonging	
  sentences;	
  
participants	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  receive	
  reciprocal	
  credit	
  for	
  treatment	
  
completed	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  and	
  inpatient	
  when	
  they	
  have	
  not	
  lapsed	
  to	
  
sexual	
  abuse.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

B.	
  

Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   result	
   in	
   therapists	
   having	
   inadequate	
   influence	
  
over	
   treatment	
   related	
   decisions	
   (treatment	
   providers	
   and	
   evaluators,	
  
offender	
  advocates,	
  SOMB	
  Board	
  Members).	
  	
  
•

Treatment	
   providers	
   describe	
   often	
   having	
   to	
   deliver	
   treatment	
   when	
  
they	
  believe	
  it	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  needed	
  or	
  needed	
  with	
  less	
  intensity.	
  i.e.	
  “We	
  

	
  

148	
  

are	
   afraid	
   to	
   advocate	
   for	
   low	
   risk	
   offenders	
   deserving	
   reduced	
  
restrictions	
  and	
  treatment	
  intensity.”	
  	
  
•

Providers	
  are	
  reluctant	
  to	
  share	
  their	
  opinions	
  on	
  cases	
  with	
  supervision	
  
officers.	
  	
  

•

Treatment	
   providers	
   often	
   sacrifice	
   their	
   clinical	
   judgment	
   in	
   order	
   to	
  
carry	
  out	
  the	
  decisions	
  of	
  supervision	
  officers,	
  “The	
  PO	
  directs	
  the	
  work	
  
of	
  the	
  provider	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  real	
  way	
  for	
  the	
  provider	
  to	
  disagree”.	
  	
  

•

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
   overly	
   rigid	
   and	
   do	
   not	
   sufficiently	
  
allow	
   for	
   the	
   CST	
   to	
   make	
   exceptions.	
   	
   The	
   variance	
   process	
   is	
   not	
  
adequate.	
  

C.	
  

There	
   is	
   significant	
   disagreement	
   and	
   tension	
   between	
   supervision	
   officers	
  
and	
  treatment	
  providers;	
  this	
  undermines	
  the	
  efficacy	
  of	
  treatment	
  delivery	
  
(all	
  groups).	
  

	
  
•

Of	
   those	
   who	
   intervene	
   with	
   sexual	
   offenders,	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
  only	
  mandate	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  therapists	
  and	
  polygraphers.	
  Within	
  
court-­‐imposed	
   limits,	
   supervision	
   officers	
   have	
   discretionary	
   and	
  
ultimate	
   authoritative	
   influence	
   over	
   the	
   treatment	
   intensity,	
   duration,	
  
restrictions	
   and	
   permissions	
   in	
   individual	
   cases,	
   which	
   can	
   usurp	
   best	
  
treatment	
   practices	
   and	
   cause	
   power	
   issues	
   between	
   the	
   stakeholders.	
  
The	
   disagreement	
   between	
   the	
   provider	
   and	
   the	
   supervision	
   officer	
   is	
  
often	
  perceived	
  by	
  offender	
  participants.	
  

•

There	
   are	
   economic	
   sanctions	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers	
   exercising	
   their	
  
clinical	
   judgment	
   when	
   it	
   is	
   inconsistent	
   with	
   that	
   of	
   the	
   supervision	
  
officers.	
  	
  Therapists	
  are	
  penalized	
  by	
  being	
  “black-­‐balled”	
  from	
  referrals	
  
by	
  supervision	
  officers.	
  	
  These	
  issues	
  appear	
  in	
  large	
  part	
  caused	
  by	
  the	
  
fact	
  that	
  supervision	
  officers	
  control	
  treatment	
  referrals.	
  	
  	
  	
  

D.	
  

Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  do	
  not	
  adequately	
  promote	
  the	
  strengths,	
  healthy	
  
functioning,	
  and	
  protective	
  factors	
  of	
  offender	
  participants	
  (All	
  groups).	
  	
  

	
  

149	
  

•

Primary	
   utilization	
   of	
   the	
   containment	
   model	
   as	
   applied	
   seems	
   to	
  
conceptualizes	
  all	
  offenders	
  as	
  equally,	
  highly	
  and	
  perpetually	
  dangerous	
  
and	
  fails	
  to	
  acknowledge	
  improvement	
  and	
  protective	
  factors.	
  

•

The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  experienced	
  as	
  failing	
  to	
  instill	
  hope	
  in	
  
offender	
  participants	
  and	
  their	
  families.	
  

•

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   over-­‐focus	
   on	
   external	
   control	
   over	
  
internal	
  change	
  of	
  offender	
  participants.	
  	
  

•

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   and	
   their	
   implementation	
   do	
   not	
   include	
  
appropriate	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  motivation	
  of	
  offender	
  participants.	
  	
  

•

The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  do	
  not	
  adequately	
  incentivize	
  and	
  reinforce	
  
offender	
  client	
  progress.	
  

•

The	
   verbiage,	
   content	
   and	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
   fails	
   to	
   define	
   and	
   acknowledge	
   healthy	
   functioning,	
   healthy	
  
sexuality.	
  They	
  over-­‐focus	
  on	
  deviancy	
  over	
  healthy	
  functioning.	
  

•

The	
   SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   do	
   not	
   value	
   the	
   family	
   unit.	
   	
   They	
  
are	
   particularly	
   insensitive	
   to	
   the	
   importance	
   of	
   offender	
   clients	
   living	
  
with	
  their	
  children	
  and	
  minor	
  siblings.	
  	
  There	
  are	
  many	
  cases	
  where	
  the	
  
offender’s	
  return	
  to	
  the	
  home	
  (with	
  minor	
  children)	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  best	
  interest	
  
for	
   the	
   entire	
   family	
   but	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   prohibit	
   this.	
   Child	
  
contact	
  assessments	
  should	
  be	
  made	
  a	
  regular	
  part	
  of	
  assessment	
  prior	
  to	
  
community	
  release	
  but	
  are	
  delayed	
  and	
  put	
  on	
  the	
  onus	
  of	
  the	
  offender	
  to	
  
acquire	
   and	
   pay	
   for	
   them.	
   	
   Offenders	
   are	
   often	
   prevented	
   from	
  
developing/maintaining	
   intimate	
   relationships	
   with	
   adults.	
   The	
  
wife/family	
   members	
   are	
   inadequately	
   involved	
   in	
   the	
   offender’s	
  
supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  plan.	
  

•

Offenders	
   with	
   no	
   history	
   of	
   victimizing	
   a	
   child	
   are	
   prohibited	
   from	
   any	
  
contact	
  with	
  minors	
  including	
  working	
  anywhere	
  where	
  it	
  is	
  possible	
  to	
  
have	
  contact	
  with	
  minors.	
  	
  

•

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
   overly	
   stringent	
   and	
   inflexible	
   in	
  
defining	
  what	
  constitutes	
  a	
  support	
  person.	
  

	
  

150	
  

•

Treatment	
   is	
   at	
   times	
   terminated	
   when	
   the	
   offender	
   can’t	
   afford	
   to	
   pay	
  
for	
  it	
  and	
  the	
  state	
  cannot/will	
  not	
  provide	
  funding.	
  	
  

•

Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   disallow	
   use	
   of	
   pornography	
   while	
   on	
   parole	
  
but	
  in	
  some	
  cases	
  non-­‐deviant	
  pornography	
  may	
  be	
  treatment	
  indicated.	
  

E.	
  	
  

The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  require	
  or	
  promote	
  a	
  one-­‐size-­‐fits	
  all	
  approach	
  
to	
   intervening	
   with	
   sexual	
   offenders	
   that	
   is	
   in	
   many	
   instances	
  
problematically	
  insensitive	
  to	
  important	
  individual	
  case	
  factors	
  (all	
  groups).	
  

	
  
•

Lack	
   of	
   individualization.	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   require	
   or	
   compel	
  
regimented	
   decision-­‐	
   making	
   that	
   is	
   contraindicated	
   to	
   treatment	
   needs	
  
and	
  reduces	
  offender	
  response	
  to	
  treatment	
  delivery.	
  	
  

•

All	
   sex	
   offenders	
   are	
   treated	
   the	
   same;	
   participants	
   and	
   their	
   support	
  
systems	
   feel	
   the	
   treatment	
   program	
   does	
   not	
   really	
   know,	
   acknowledge	
  
or	
  value	
  their	
  unique	
  features.	
  	
  

•

There	
   is	
   no	
   quality	
   control	
   of	
   treatment	
   material,	
   treatment	
   delivery,	
   or	
  
treatment	
  planning.	
  	
  Treatment	
  is	
  not	
  adequately	
  specific	
  to	
  participant’s	
  
unique	
  crimes,	
  culture,	
  religious	
  values,	
  family	
  circumstance	
  or	
  lifestyle.	
  

•

There	
   is	
   a	
   lack	
   of	
   flexibility	
   in	
   adjusting	
   intensity	
   and	
   duration	
   of	
  
treatment.	
  I.e.	
  “They	
  are	
  cumbersome	
  and	
  impractical	
  to	
  implement	
  and	
  
do	
  not	
  facilitate	
  treatment.	
  They	
  would	
  be	
  perfect	
  if	
  all	
  the	
  “shalls”	
  were	
  
replaced	
  with	
  “shoulds.””	
  

	
  
F.	
  

Therapists	
  incur	
  unfair	
  and	
  prohibitive	
  amounts	
  of	
  liability	
  for	
  adhering	
  to	
  
SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  (all	
  groups).	
  
•

The	
  SOMB	
  inadequately	
  supports	
  its	
  therapists	
  against	
  grievances	
  and	
  
lawsuits.	
  

•

It	
  is	
  perceived	
  that	
  because	
  supervision	
  officers	
  do	
  not	
  operate	
  under	
  a	
  
professional	
  license	
  offender	
  clients	
  are	
  prone	
  to	
  file	
  complaints	
  against	
  

	
  

151	
  

therapists	
  when	
  they	
  are	
  dissatisfied	
  with	
  any	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  
Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  	
  	
  
•

The	
  SOMB’s	
  “DORA”	
  committee	
  has	
  somewhat	
  helped	
  to	
  slow	
  down	
  the	
  
complaint	
  process	
  but	
  stronger	
  efforts	
  are	
  necessary.	
  

•

Offender	
  advocacy	
  groups	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  common	
  complainants;	
  SOMB	
  
needs	
  to	
  take	
  specific	
  measures	
  to	
  interact,	
  educate	
  and	
  respond	
  to	
  this	
  
group.	
  	
  	
  

G.	
  

There	
  is	
  an	
  absence	
  of	
  much	
  needed	
  quality	
  control	
  among	
  the	
  various	
  
stakeholder	
  groups	
  (all	
  groups).	
  
•

The	
  large	
  number	
  of	
  treatment	
  providers/programs	
  are	
  not	
  required	
  to	
  
undergo	
  any	
  kind	
  of	
  quality	
  assessment	
  by	
  SOMB.	
  

•

The	
  SOMB	
  does	
  not	
  but	
  should	
  assess	
  treatment	
  outcome.	
  	
  

•

The	
  quality	
  of	
  polygraph,	
  penile	
  plethysmograph	
  and	
  offender	
  
evaluations	
  (i.e.	
  reunification)	
  are	
  widely	
  variable	
  and	
  in	
  need	
  of	
  quality	
  
assurances.	
  

•

The	
  SOMB	
  should	
  provide	
  examples	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  considered	
  good	
  quality,	
  
i.e.	
  therapy,	
  treatment	
  plan,	
  child	
  contact	
  assessment	
  look	
  like.	
  	
  

H.	
  

The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  are	
  implemented	
  with	
  problematic	
  variability	
  
in	
  consistency	
  (all	
  groups).	
  
•

Given	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  not	
  under	
  the	
  mandated	
  purview	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB,	
  there	
  
is	
  marked	
  inconsistency	
  in	
  the	
  degree	
  to	
  which	
  supervision	
  officers	
  are	
  
guided	
  by	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  

•

There	
  is	
  marked	
  implementation	
  inconsistency	
  among	
  treatment	
  
providers	
  in	
  their	
  adherence	
  to	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  

•
I.	
  

Polygraphers	
  vary	
  widely	
  in	
  style	
  and	
  conclusion	
  rates.	
  

Two	
   important	
   stakeholder	
   groups,	
   Judges	
   and	
   the	
   Parole	
   Board	
   are	
   not	
  
adequately	
   educated	
   about	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   and	
   they	
   are	
  
variably	
  supportive	
  (all	
  groups).	
  

	
  

152	
  

	
  
•

Judges	
  are	
  not	
  considered	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  CST	
  and	
  operate	
  independent	
  of	
  the	
  
Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines.	
   	
   This	
   often	
   frustrates	
   the	
   other	
   stakeholders	
  
who	
  are	
  all	
  at	
  least	
  guided	
  by	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  	
  

•

Because	
  the	
  judges	
  make	
  the	
  ultimate	
  decisions	
  in	
  a	
  case	
  and	
  to	
  a	
  lesser	
  
but	
   significant	
   degree	
   so	
   also	
   does	
   the	
   parole	
   board,	
   judges	
   and	
   parole	
  
board	
   members	
   who	
   are	
   uneducated,	
   ambivalent	
   or	
   hostile	
   toward	
   the	
  
SOMB	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   often	
   make	
   decisions	
   inconsistent	
   with	
  
the	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines;	
   when	
   this	
   happens	
   it	
   devalues	
   the	
  
Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  and	
  leads	
  to	
  treatment	
  of	
  sexual	
  offenders	
  that	
  
is	
  contraindicated	
  by	
  the	
  RNR	
  principles.	
  

	
  
J.	
  	
  

	
  Victim	
   advocates	
   and	
   victims	
   are	
   not	
   adequately	
   solicited	
   to	
   be	
   part	
   of	
   the	
  
CST’s	
  decision-­‐making	
  (victim	
  advocates,	
  offender	
  advocates).	
  

	
  
•

Victims	
  of	
  offender	
  participants	
  report	
  they	
  have	
  no	
  idea	
  of	
  the	
  case	
  
status;	
  they	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  be	
  considered	
  a	
  necessary	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  CST.	
  

•

Victims	
  of	
  offender	
  participants	
  who	
  have/had	
  a	
  relationship	
  with	
  the	
  
offender	
  at	
  times	
  feel	
  reunification/reparation	
  is	
  unnecessarily	
  
prohibited.	
  

•

Particularly	
  when	
  a	
  victim	
  chooses	
  not	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  their	
  own	
  therapy,	
  it	
  
is	
  perceived	
  contact	
  with	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  unnecessarily	
  prohibited.	
  

K.	
  

The	
   manner	
   of	
   utilization	
   of	
   the	
   polygraph	
   undermines	
   treatment	
   efficacy	
  
(treatment	
  providers	
  and	
  evaluators,	
  offender	
  advocates).	
  

	
  
•

Polygraph	
  use	
  is	
  perceived	
  as	
  excessive	
  and	
  implemented	
  coercively,	
  
punitively	
  and	
  rigidly	
  rather	
  than	
  as	
  a	
  treatment	
  tool.	
  	
  

•

The	
  polygraph	
  takes	
  up	
  too	
  large	
  a	
  space	
  in	
  offenders’	
  treatment,	
  it	
  has	
  
become	
  the	
  center	
  of	
  the	
  treatment	
  instead	
  of	
  a	
  useful	
  tool	
  to	
  facilitate	
  
treatment.	
  

	
  

153	
  

•

Inconclusive	
  polygraph	
  results	
  influence	
  decision	
  making	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  
manner	
  as	
  deceptive	
  results.	
  

•

Treatment	
  is	
  often	
  terminated	
  by	
  the	
  officer	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  failed	
  polygraph,	
  
which	
  is	
  viewed	
  as	
  indicative	
  of	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  progress.	
  i.e.	
  Cases	
  where	
  after	
  
many	
  years	
  of	
  passing	
  polygraphs,	
  one	
  failure	
  leads	
  to	
  revocation	
  back	
  to	
  
prison	
  where	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  long	
  wait	
  list	
  to	
  enter	
  the	
  prison	
  treatment	
  
program	
  which	
  does	
  not	
  acknowledge	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  progress	
  made	
  in	
  prior	
  
treatment	
  

•

There	
  are	
  not	
  enough	
  polygraphers;	
  only	
  a	
  few	
  are	
  used	
  and	
  they	
  tend	
  to	
  
over-­‐fail	
  participants;	
  those	
  who	
  pass	
  too	
  many	
  get	
  “blackballed”	
  from	
  
the	
  referral	
  list.	
  

•

There	
  is	
  no	
  flexibility	
  to	
  amend	
  polygraph	
  requirements	
  for	
  offenders	
  
with	
  comorbid	
  issues	
  rendering	
  them	
  unable	
  to	
  reliably	
  participate	
  (i.e.	
  
PTSD,	
  psychotic,	
  cultural	
  paranoia,	
  medications/serious	
  health	
  
problems).	
  

•
L.	
  

The	
  quality	
  control	
  of	
  polygraphers	
  is	
  inadequate.	
  	
  

Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  do	
  not	
  adequately	
  address	
  certain	
  offender	
  groups	
  
(all	
  groups).	
  	
  
•

Developmentally	
   Delayed	
   and	
   Significantly	
   Cognitively	
   Impaired	
  
Offenders	
  	
  

•

Geriatric	
  offenders	
  

•

Offenders	
  with	
  severe	
  psychiatric	
  or	
  medical	
  disorders	
  

•

Offenders	
  with	
  significant	
  personal	
  trauma	
  histories	
  

•

Offenders	
   transferring	
   from	
   the	
   DOC	
   to	
   community	
   supervision	
   and	
  
treatment	
  

	
  

•

Offenders	
  with	
  an	
  absence	
  of	
  social	
  supports	
  and/or	
  a	
  place	
  to	
  live	
  

•

Adults	
  whose	
  only	
  sex	
  offense(s)	
  was	
  as	
  a	
  juvenile	
  

•

Offenders	
  with	
  very	
  high	
  levels	
  of	
  psychopathy.	
  	
  

154	
  

•

Low	
  risk	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  i.e.	
  Concerns	
  about	
  iatrogenic	
  effects	
  resulting	
  
from	
  excessive	
  supervision	
  and	
  treatment	
  requirements.	
  	
  

•

The	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
   designed	
   more	
   for	
   non-­‐familial	
  
offenders	
   and	
   fail	
   to	
   adequately	
   address	
   the	
   treatment	
   needs	
   of	
   familial	
  
offenders.	
  	
  
	
  

3.	
  	
  

Briefly	
   describe	
   how	
   well	
   the	
   SOMB	
   solicits	
   and	
   responds	
   to	
   your	
  

feedback.	
  
A.	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  does	
  not	
  solicit	
  or	
  respond	
  to	
  feedback/questions	
  from	
  individual	
  
stakeholders	
  at	
  an	
  ideal	
  level	
  (all	
  groups	
  generally	
  shared	
  this	
  opinion,	
  with	
  
SOMB	
  Board	
  Members	
  and	
  Staff	
  least	
  likely	
  to	
  endorse).	
  	
  
•

Stakeholders	
  did	
  not	
  know	
  to	
  whom	
  to	
  submit	
  questions.	
  

•

Questions	
  submitted	
  are	
  not	
  answered	
  or	
  not	
  adequately/timely	
  
answered.	
  

•

There	
  is	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  much	
  desired	
  consumer	
  satisfaction	
  survey	
  (of	
  all	
  
stakeholder	
  groups).	
  	
  

B.	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  appears	
  committed	
  to	
  improving	
  (all	
  groups).	
  
•

There	
  are	
  many	
  committees	
  examining	
  how	
  specific	
  Standards	
  and	
  
Guidelines	
  can	
  be	
  improved.	
  

•
C.	
  

Many	
  are	
  unclear	
  how	
  they	
  can	
  be	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  committees.	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  does	
  not	
  adequately	
  educate	
  its	
  various	
  stakeholders	
  or	
  the	
  
community	
  at	
  large	
  about	
  its	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  (all	
  groups).	
  
•

There	
  is	
  wide	
  variably	
  in	
  how	
  much	
  people	
  know	
  about	
  the	
  Standards	
  
and	
  Guidelines.	
  

•

Some	
  victim	
  groups	
  did	
  not	
  even	
  know	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  
existed	
  and	
  reported	
  “a	
  desperate	
  desire”	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  SOMB.	
  

	
  

155	
  

•

Rural	
  stakeholders	
  in	
  particular	
  feel	
  the	
  SOMB	
  does	
  not	
  adequately	
  reach	
  
out	
  to	
  them.	
  

•

The	
  details	
  of	
  specific	
  Standards	
  are	
  not	
  adequately	
  understood	
  nor	
  is	
  
how	
  individual	
  stakeholders	
  can	
  involve	
  themselves	
  in	
  influencing	
  
updates.	
  

•

There	
  is	
  a	
  particular	
  distinction	
  in	
  knowledge	
  of	
  and	
  motivation	
  to	
  adhere	
  
to	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  between	
  parole	
  versus	
  probation	
  
officers.	
  

•
D.	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  email	
  distribution	
  list	
  does	
  not	
  adequately	
  reach	
  stakeholders.	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  does	
  not	
  adequately	
  solicit	
  treatment	
  providers	
  (all	
  groups).	
  
•

The	
  certification	
  process	
  is	
  too	
  arduous.	
  

•

The	
  certification	
  process	
  fails	
  to	
  select	
  for	
  therapist	
  style	
  and	
  quality.	
  

•

There	
  are	
  not	
  enough	
  treatment	
  providers	
  to	
  do	
  the	
  work.	
  

•

The	
  SOMB	
  does	
  not	
  adequately	
  consider	
  the	
  impact	
  and	
  opinions	
  of	
  
treatment	
  providers	
  in	
  its	
  decision-­‐making,	
  -­‐too	
  many	
  decisions	
  about	
  
what	
  providers	
  must	
  do	
  are	
  being	
  made	
  by	
  non-­‐treatment	
  providers.	
  

•

The	
  number	
  of	
  treatment	
  provider	
  representatives	
  on	
  the	
  SOMB	
  and	
  on	
  
its	
  committee	
  is	
  insufficient.	
  

•

Whereas	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  SOMB	
  members	
  are	
  from	
  state	
  agencies	
  and	
  get	
  
paid	
  for	
  their	
  SOMB	
  involvement,	
  treatment	
  providers	
  are	
  mostly	
  private	
  
practitioners	
  and	
  lose	
  billable	
  hours	
  to	
  participate	
  or	
  attend.	
  This	
  is	
  
perceived	
  as	
  intentionally	
  dissuading	
  provider	
  involvement.	
  	
  

E.	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  is	
  not	
  appropriately	
  resourced/board	
  composition	
  concerns	
  (all	
  

groups).	
  
•

More	
  funding	
  is	
  needed	
  for	
  SOMB	
  staff	
  to	
  conduct	
  research,	
  outreach,	
  
education,	
  quality	
  review.	
  

•

	
  

The	
  number	
  on	
  the	
  SOMB	
  has	
  become	
  too	
  great.	
  

156	
  

•

The	
  SOMB	
  voting	
  members	
  are	
  not	
  appropriately	
  influenced	
  by	
  research	
  
and	
  best	
  practice	
  standards	
  and	
  over	
  influenced	
  by	
  political	
  motivations.	
  

•

Many	
  opined	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  treatment	
  providers	
  on	
  the	
  board	
  
and	
  to	
  add	
  a	
  DOC	
  seat	
  to	
  the	
  board.	
  	
  

•

The	
  number	
  of	
  SOMB	
  seats	
  should	
  be	
  balanced	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  
representative	
  proportion	
  of	
  the	
  vote	
  desired.	
  	
  	
  

F.	
  

The	
  SOMB	
  should	
  expand	
  its	
  purview	
  to	
  include	
  victim	
  services	
  (victim	
  

advocates).	
  
•

Victim	
  advocacy	
  groups	
  believe	
  too	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  state’s	
  resources	
  go	
  
toward	
  offender	
  services	
  and	
  not	
  enough	
  toward	
  victim	
  services.	
  

•

The	
  state	
  should	
  prioritize	
  its	
  victims	
  getting	
  treatment	
  over	
  its	
  offenders	
  
getting	
  treatment.	
  	
  
	
  

Discussion	
  
	
  
The	
  various	
  stakeholders	
  of	
  the	
  CO	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  were	
  surveyed	
  
via	
  focus	
  groups	
  for	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  this	
  external	
  evaluation.	
  The	
  aim	
  was	
  to	
  solicit	
  
candid	
   feedback	
   on	
   what	
   works	
   and	
   does	
   not	
   work	
   from	
   the	
   various	
   stakeholder	
  
groups’	
  perspectives.	
  Semi-­‐structured	
  group	
  and	
  individual	
  format	
  interviews	
  were	
  
administered	
   to	
   obtain	
   a	
   clear	
   picture	
   of	
   the	
   psychological	
   reality	
   of	
   the	
   SOMB’s	
  
stakeholders.	
  	
  The	
  purpose	
  was	
  not	
  to	
  investigate	
  whether	
  stakeholder	
  experience	
  
represents	
   objective	
   truth.	
   Perceptions	
   strongly	
   endorsed	
   by	
   the	
   groups	
   surveyed	
  
are	
  detailed	
  above	
  along	
  with	
  bulleted	
  examples.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  results	
  of	
  the	
  focus	
  group	
  surveys	
  provide	
  valuable	
  information	
  about	
  how	
  the	
  
CO	
   SOMB	
   and	
   its	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   are	
   perceived	
   to	
   adhere	
   to	
   the	
   Risk,	
  
Need,	
   Responsivity	
   and	
   Integrity	
   Principles	
   of	
   effective	
   correctional	
   programming.	
  	
  
Several	
   perceived	
   strengths	
   and	
   weaknesses	
   were	
   identified.	
   	
   The	
   strengths	
   include	
  
their	
  being	
  considered	
  indispensible;	
  providing	
  a	
  pragmatic	
  road	
  map	
  and	
  common	
  
	
  

157	
  

language	
   that	
   eases	
   decision	
   making	
   in	
   working	
   with	
   sexual	
   offenders;	
   providing	
  
research	
   informed	
   recommendations;	
   assuring	
   accountability	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders	
  
and	
   accessible	
   and	
   quality	
   training	
   for	
   treatment	
   providers	
   and	
   evaluators.	
   	
   It	
   is	
  
recommended	
  that	
  the	
  SOMB	
  undergo	
  serious	
  efforts	
  to	
  understand	
  and	
  amplify	
  the	
  
aspects	
  of	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  perceived	
  as	
  strengths.	
  Acknowledging	
  the	
  
salience	
   of	
   these	
   facts	
   and	
   striving	
   to	
   consistently	
   implement	
   them	
   across	
   the	
  
jurisdictions	
   in	
   Colorado	
   will	
   facilitate	
   treatment	
   engagement	
   and	
   outcome.	
   	
   The	
  
implementation	
   of	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   that	
   have	
   positive	
   and	
   engaging	
  
features	
   that	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   provision	
   of	
   services	
   and	
   mandates	
   that	
   offender	
  
participants	
  experience	
  as	
  therapeutic	
  and	
  responsive	
  to	
  their	
  needs	
  will	
  lead	
  to	
  a	
  
greater	
   willingness	
   to	
   meaningfully	
   engage	
   with	
   treatment	
   and	
   supervision	
  
activities	
  and	
  mandates.	
  
	
  
From	
   this	
   analysis	
   also	
   emerged	
   several	
   perceived	
   barriers	
   to	
   the	
   efficacy	
   of	
   the	
  
SOMB	
  and	
  its	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  	
  These	
  largely	
  fall	
  into	
  areas	
  of	
  inadequate	
  
adherence	
  to	
  the	
  Risk,	
  Need,	
  Responsivity	
  Principles.	
  	
  There	
  appears	
  a	
  specific	
  and	
  
significant	
   barrier	
   to	
   effective	
   treatment	
   involving	
   treatment	
   providers’	
   ability	
   to	
  
adequately	
   influence	
   treatment	
   related	
   decisions	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   the	
   relationship	
  
between	
   treatment	
   providers	
   and	
   supervision	
   officers	
   and	
   the	
   amount	
   of	
   liability	
  
incurred	
   by	
   treatment	
   providers.	
   	
   Further,	
   it	
   is	
   perceived	
   that	
   the	
   Standards	
   and	
  
Guidelines	
   are	
   applied	
   too	
   rigidly	
   and	
   in	
   a	
   one	
   size	
   fits	
   all	
   approach	
   that	
   does	
   not	
  
adequately	
   promote	
   strengths,	
   protective	
   factors	
   and	
   healthy	
   functioning	
   of	
  
offender	
   participants.	
   	
   Barriers	
   to	
   efficacy	
   due	
   to	
   an	
   absence	
   of	
   quality	
   control,	
  
variable	
   consistency	
   in	
   implementation,	
   variable	
   support	
   by	
   judges	
   and	
   the	
   parole	
  
board,	
   under	
   involvement	
   by	
   victim	
   advocates,	
   and	
   lack	
   of	
   good	
   fit	
   to	
   certain	
  
offender	
   subgroups	
   are	
   also	
   perceived.	
   Finally,	
   similar	
   to	
   the	
   CO	
   DOC	
   external	
  
evaluation,	
   the	
   polygraph	
   emerged	
   in	
   the	
   current	
   evaluation	
   as	
   utilized	
  
problematically.	
  	
  
	
  
In	
   response	
   to	
   how	
   well	
   the	
   SOMB	
   solicits	
   and	
   responds	
   to	
   stakeholder	
   feedback,	
  
several	
   areas	
   of	
   strength	
   and	
   opportunities	
   to	
   improve	
   emerged.	
   	
   The	
   SOMB	
   is	
  
	
  

158	
  

perceived	
  as	
  committed	
  to	
  improving	
  and	
  providing	
  research	
  supported	
  Standards	
  
and	
  Guidelines	
  but	
  in	
  need	
  of	
  more	
  resources	
  to	
  do	
  so.	
  It	
  has	
  much	
  opportunity	
  to	
  
improve	
  its	
  communication,	
  education	
  and	
  outreach	
  efforts	
  and	
  its	
  responsiveness	
  
to	
   individual	
   questions.	
   In	
   particular,	
   the	
   SOMB	
   is	
   perceived	
   as	
   inadequately	
  
soliciting	
  the	
  involvement	
  of	
  treatment	
  providers.	
  	
  Lastly,	
  many	
  perceive	
  the	
  scope	
  
of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  should	
  be	
  widened	
  to	
  include	
  victim	
  services.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  SOMB	
  will	
  benefit	
  from	
  careful	
  consideration	
  and	
  action	
  to	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  primary	
  
focus	
   group	
   themes	
   as	
   summarized	
   in	
   the	
   above	
   paragraphs	
   and	
   detailed	
   in	
   the	
  
Results	
  section.	
  It	
  is	
  recommended	
  the	
  SOMB	
  invest	
  itself	
  in	
  learning	
  the	
  perception	
  
of	
   the	
   SOMB	
   and	
   its	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines	
   from	
   the	
   vantage	
   of	
   its	
   stakeholder	
  
groups	
   through	
   this	
   analysis	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   ongoing	
   periodic	
   review.	
   When	
   the	
   SOMB	
  
determines	
   a	
   main	
   theme	
   is	
   based	
   on	
   inaccurate	
   information,	
   it	
   is	
   advised	
   to	
  
proactively	
  adapt	
  the	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  or	
  communication	
  thereof	
  to	
  include	
  
credible	
   clarifying	
   relevant	
   information.	
   In	
   cases	
   where	
   negative	
   perceptions	
   are	
  
credible,	
  the	
  SOMB	
  should	
  seek	
  to	
  improve,	
  maximally	
  removing	
  to	
  as	
  much	
  degree	
  
as	
  possible,	
  these	
  barriers.	
  
	
  

Limitations	
  
	
  
Three	
  shortcomings	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  focus	
  group	
  participant	
  demographics	
  are	
  noted:	
  no	
  
judges	
   participated;	
   treatment	
   providers	
   were	
   underrepresented;	
   and	
   rural	
  
providers	
   were	
   under-­‐represented	
   (many	
   from	
   distances	
   remote	
   from	
   Denver	
   were	
  
geographically	
   prohibited	
   from	
   attending	
   the	
   face-­‐to-­‐face	
   focus	
   group).	
   These	
  
barriers	
   were	
   partially	
   resolved	
   by	
   supplementing	
   results	
   with	
   the	
   data	
   from	
   the	
  
Statewide	
   Outreach	
   Focus	
   Groups	
   project	
   of	
   the	
   SOMB,	
   through	
   telephonic	
   focus	
  
groups	
   and	
   the	
   solicitation	
   of	
   written	
   surveys.	
   	
   Further,	
   a	
   small	
   number	
   of	
  
participants	
  complained	
  about	
  SOMB	
  members	
  or	
  SOMB	
  staff	
  being	
  in	
  attendance	
  at	
  
the	
   focus	
   groups,	
   which	
   may	
   have	
   led	
   to	
   disinclination	
   of	
   candid	
   responding	
   by	
  
some	
  focus	
  group	
  attendees.	
  In	
  addition,	
  some	
  victim	
  advocates	
  complained	
  that	
  the	
  

	
  

159	
  

“open	
   to	
   all	
   (Other/Unspecified)”	
   focus	
   group	
   was	
   compromised	
   due	
   to	
   the	
   mixed	
  
attendance	
  of	
  offenders	
  and	
  offender	
  advocates	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  shortened	
  duration	
  of	
  the	
  
focus	
  group.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  

160	
  

Participant	
  Information	
  and	
  Consent	
  Form	
  
	
  
INFORMATION	
  
Evaluation	
  of	
  the	
  Colorado	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  
	
  
The	
  State	
  of	
  Colorado	
  has	
  commissioned	
  an	
  independent	
  evaluation	
  of	
  the	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  which	
  is	
  
being	
   conducted	
   by	
   Central	
   Coast	
   Clinical	
   and	
   Forensic	
   Psychology	
   Services.	
   The	
   purpose	
   of	
   the	
   evaluation	
   is	
   to	
  
determine	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  SOMB	
  adheres	
  to	
  best	
  practice	
  standards	
  and	
  can	
  be	
  improved.	
  Recommendations	
  from	
  
the	
   evaluation	
   might	
   speak	
   to	
   ways	
   the	
   SOMB	
   can	
   accomplish	
   its	
   goals	
   more	
   quickly	
   at	
   less	
   cost	
   or	
   ways	
   it	
   can	
   better	
  
meet	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  those	
  under	
  its	
  purview.	
  
	
  
The	
   evaluation	
   team	
   are	
   Drs.	
   D’Orazio,	
   Thornton,	
   and	
   Beech	
   from	
   who	
   come	
   from	
   California,	
   England	
   and	
   Wisconsin.	
  
It	
   is	
   completely	
   independent	
   of	
   Colorado.	
   The	
   evaluators	
   are	
   experienced	
   doctors	
   who	
   are	
   very	
   familiar	
   with	
   the	
  
subject	
  of	
  sexual	
  offending.	
  Questions	
  may	
  be	
  directed	
  to	
  Dr.	
  D’Orazio	
  at	
  drdorazio@cccfpsych.com.	
  
	
  
If	
  you	
  agree	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  a	
  focus	
  group	
  you	
  will	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  verbally	
  and/or	
  in	
  writing	
  provide	
  your	
  opinions	
  on	
  
the	
  SOMB	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines.	
  The	
  verbal	
  focus	
  groups	
  will	
  occur	
  in	
  person	
  or	
  telephonically	
  and	
  take	
  up	
  to	
  1.5	
  
hrs.	
  You	
  will	
  also	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  fill	
  in	
  a	
  brief	
  questionnaire	
  that	
  asks	
  you	
  to	
  identify	
  your	
  role	
  with	
  the	
  SOMB	
  and	
  you	
  
opinions	
  about	
  how	
  it	
  works	
  well	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  can	
  be	
  improved.	
  This	
  questionnaire	
  should	
  take	
  about	
  15	
  minutes	
  to	
  
complete.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
All	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  that	
  you	
  provide	
  at	
  interview	
  or	
  on	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  questionnaires	
  will	
  be	
  kept	
  confidential	
  within	
  
the	
  evaluator	
  team.	
  No	
  names	
  or	
  specific	
  identifying	
  information	
  will	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  final	
  report.	
  	
  
	
  
We	
  hope	
  you	
  will	
  take	
  advantage	
  of	
  this	
  opportunity	
  to	
  contribute	
  to	
  improving	
  Colorado’s	
  SOMB.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  
CONSENT	
  	
  
By	
  signing	
  below	
  I	
  agree	
  to	
  the	
  following	
  statements:	
  
	
  
• I	
  confirm	
  that	
  I	
  have	
  read	
  and	
  understood	
  the	
  information	
  provided	
  above	
  for	
  the	
  
current	
  evaluation.	
  
• I	
  have	
  had	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  consider	
  the	
  information,	
  ask	
  questions	
  and	
  have	
  had	
  
these	
  answered	
  satisfactorily.	
  
• I	
  understand	
  participation	
  is	
  voluntary,	
  and	
  that	
  I	
  am	
  free	
  to	
  withdraw	
  at	
  any	
  time,	
  
without	
  giving	
  any	
  reason,	
  without	
  my	
  rights	
  to	
  treatment	
  being	
  affected.	
  
• I	
  agree	
  to	
  take	
  part	
  in	
  the	
  evaluation	
  
	
  
	
  
____________________________________________	
   ________	
  	
  
	
  
________________________	
  
	
  
Name	
  of	
  participant	
  	
   &	
  agency/role	
  
date	
   	
  
	
  
signature	
  

	
  
	
  
_______________________	
   	
  
	
  
Researcher	
  name	
  	
   	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

________	
  	
  

	
  

________________________	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  

date	
   	
  

	
  

signature	
  

161	
  

FOCUS GROUP SURVEY
1.

POSITION TITLE/RELATIONSHIP TO SOMB:

2.

NAME (OPTIONAL):

3.

BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW THE SOMB STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IMPACT YOU, I.E. WHICH
STANDARDS INFLUENCE YOUR WORK OR PERSONAL LIFE:

4.

BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE WAYS THAT SOMB STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES WORK WELL,
ENHANCE YOU/YOUR WORK, ITS STRENGTHS (CONTINUE ANSWER ON BACK IF NECESSARY).

5.

BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE WAYS THAT THE SOMB STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DO NOT WORK
WELL, NEGATIVELY AFFECT YOU/YOUR WORK, THE WAYS IT CAN BE IMPROVED (CONTINUE ON BACK IF
NECESSARY).

6.

BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOW WELL THE SOMB SOLICITS AND RESPONDS TO YOUR FEEDBACK.

	
  

	
  

162	
  

Appendix	
  P:	
   Sexual	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Boards	
  in	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  
	
  
State	
  
Alabama	
  
Alaska	
  
Arizona	
  
Arkansas	
  
California	
  
Connecticut	
  
Delaware	
  
Florida	
  
Georgia	
  
Hawaii	
  
Idaho	
  
Illinois	
  
Indiana	
  
Iowa	
  
Kansas	
  
Kentucky	
  
Louisiana	
  
Maine	
  
Maryland	
  

Massachusetts	
  
Michigan	
  
Minnesota	
  
Mississippi	
  
Missouri	
  
Montana	
  
Nebraska	
  
Nevada	
  
New	
  Hampshire	
  
New	
  Jersey	
  
New	
  Mexico	
  
New	
  York	
  
North	
  Carolina	
  

	
  

SOMB?	
  
No	
  	
  
Sex	
  Offender	
  Treatment	
  Committee	
  with	
  Approved	
  Provider	
  
process	
  and	
  Standards	
  of	
  Care	
  
No	
  
Board	
  for	
  Purposes	
  of	
  Notification	
  only	
  
Yes	
  
No	
  
Yes	
  –	
  developed	
  standards	
  similar	
  in	
  scope	
  to	
  CO	
  and	
  appears	
  
to	
  be	
  closely	
  modeled	
  on	
  them	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  
Yes	
  
Yes	
  –	
  moderately	
  developed	
  standards	
  which	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  
significantly	
  modeled	
  on	
  CO	
  
No	
  
No	
  SOMB	
  but	
  do	
  have	
  treatment	
  provider	
  certification	
  
standards	
  and	
  a	
  board	
  to	
  administer	
  them	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  
Yes	
  –	
  Developed	
  standards;	
  marriage	
  of	
  statistical	
  instruments	
  
and	
  Comprehensive	
  approach	
  including	
  multiple	
  technologies	
  
e.g	
  GPS;	
  in	
  some	
  parts	
  clearly	
  reflecting	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  the	
  CO	
  
SOMB	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  (but	
  are	
  proposed	
  standards)	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  
Yes	
  
No	
  
Yes	
  but	
  we	
  were	
  unable	
  to	
  locate	
  their	
  Standards	
  
No	
  but	
  do	
  have	
  Treatment	
  Provider	
  Standards	
  
No	
  

163	
  

North	
  Dakota	
  
Ohio	
  
Oklahoma	
  
Oregon	
  
Pennsylvania	
  
Rhode	
  Island	
  
South	
  Carolina	
  
South	
  Dakota	
  
Tennessee	
  
Texas	
  
Utah	
  
Vermont	
  
Virginia	
  
Washington	
  
West	
  Virginia	
  
Wisconsin	
  
Wyoming	
  

No	
  
No	
  
No	
  
Yes	
  –	
  adopted	
  ATSA	
  national	
  standards	
  
Sex	
  Offenders	
  Assessment	
  Board	
  which	
  sets	
  treatment	
  
standards	
  for	
  SVPs	
  
SO	
  Management	
  Task	
  Force	
  which	
  recommends	
  standards	
  and	
  
guidelines	
  for	
  treatment	
  of	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders	
  –	
  strongly	
  
modeled	
  after	
  CO	
  SOMB	
  
No	
  
No	
  
Yes	
  –	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Treatment	
  Board	
  –	
  less	
  elaborate	
  standards	
  
Council	
  on	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Treatment	
  -­‐	
  ad	
  
No	
  SOMB	
  but	
  standards	
  for	
  sex	
  offender	
  treatment	
  
No	
  
No	
  but	
  have	
  certification	
  standards	
  
SO	
  Policy	
  Board	
  but	
  no	
  standards	
  for	
  programs	
  or	
  for	
  providers	
  
No	
  
No	
  
No	
  

	
  

Commentary	
  
	
  
Of	
   necessity	
   our	
   examination	
   of	
   approximations	
   to	
   Sex	
   Offender	
   Management	
  
Boards	
   in	
   other	
   states	
   was	
   limited	
   to	
   information	
   easily	
   available	
   on	
   relevant	
  
websites.	
  As	
  indicated	
  in	
  the	
  above	
  table,	
  few	
  states	
  have	
  SOMBs	
  comparable	
  to	
  the	
  
Colorado	
   SOMB.	
   A	
   number	
   of	
   states	
   have	
   standards	
   or	
   guidelines	
   of	
   more	
   limited	
  
scope,	
   for	
   example	
   a	
   standards	
   and	
   process	
   to	
   become	
   an	
   approved	
   sex	
   offender	
  
treatment	
   provider.	
   The	
   states	
   that	
   have	
   SOMBs	
   more	
   closely	
   resembling	
   the	
  
Colorado	
   SOMB	
   either	
   had	
   deliberately	
   largely	
   replicated	
   Colorado	
   (including	
  
verbatim	
   sharing	
   of	
   language	
   from	
   the	
   CO	
   Standards	
   and	
   Guidelines)	
   or	
   opted	
   to	
  
employ	
   the	
   Association	
   for	
   the	
   Treatment	
   of	
   Sexual	
   Abuser’s	
   national	
   guidelines.	
  
The	
  Standards	
  and	
  Guidelines	
  of	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  states	
  seem	
  to	
  notably	
  languish	
  behind	
  
contemporary	
   research.	
   For	
   example,	
   there	
   is	
   a	
   dated	
   quality	
   to	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   state	
  
sponsored	
   prescriptions	
   for	
   the	
   assessment	
   of	
   sexual	
   offenders,	
   i.e.	
   use	
   of	
   the	
  
SONAR	
  instrument	
  was	
  recommended	
  in	
  several	
  places	
  despite	
  it	
  becoming	
  out	
  of	
  
date	
   in	
   2000	
   when	
   it	
   was	
   replaced	
   by	
   what	
   is	
   now	
   called	
   STABLE-­‐2000,	
   an	
  
instrument	
   which	
   has	
   since	
   been	
   replaced	
   by	
   STABLE-­‐2007.	
   	
   Although	
   a	
   thorough	
  
analysis	
  was	
  not	
  possible	
  given	
  the	
  scope	
  and	
  duration	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  project,	
  none	
  
of	
   the	
   SOMBs	
   of	
   the	
   other	
   states	
   reviewed	
   appear	
   more	
   developed	
   than	
   the	
  
Colorado	
  SOMB.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

164	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
References	
  
	
  
	
  
Abel,	
  G.	
  G.,	
  Becker,	
  J.	
  V.,	
  Mittelman,	
  M.,	
  Cunningham-­‐Rathner,	
  J.,	
  Rouleau,	
  J.	
  L.,	
  &	
  
Murphy,	
  W.	
  D.	
  (1987).	
  Self-­‐reported	
  sex	
  crimes	
  of	
  nonincarcerated	
  paraphiliacs.	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Interpersonal	
  Violence,	
  2,	
  3-­‐25.	
  
	
  
Ahlmeyer,	
  S.,	
  Heil,	
  P.,	
  McKee,	
  B.,	
  &	
  English,	
  K.	
  (2000).	
  The	
  impact	
  of	
  polygraphy	
  on	
  
admissions	
  of	
  victims	
  and	
  offenses	
  in	
  adult	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  Sexual	
  Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  
of	
  Research	
  and	
  Treatment,	
  12,123-­‐138.	
  
	
  
Colorado	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Management	
  Board	
  (CSOMB).	
  (2011).	
  Standards	
  and	
  
Guidelines	
  for	
  the	
  Evaluation,	
  Assessment,	
  Treatment,	
  and	
  Supervision	
  of	
  Juveniles	
  who	
  
have	
  Committed	
  Sexual	
  Offenses.	
  Colorado	
  Department	
  of	
  Public	
  Safety,	
  Division	
  of	
  
Criminal	
  Justice.	
  Available	
  at	
  
http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2012%20ADULT%20STANDARD
S%20FINAL%20C.pdf	
  
	
  
Cowley	
  (2013).	
  “Let’s	
  get	
  drunk	
  and	
  have	
  sex”:	
  the	
  complex	
  relationship	
  of	
  alcohol,	
  
gender	
  and	
  sexual	
  victimization.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Interpersonal	
  Violence,	
  Online-­‐First,	
  
downloaded	
  December	
  26th	
  2013.	
  
	
  
D’Orazio,	
  D.,	
  Thornton,	
  D,	
  &	
  Beech,	
  A.	
  (2013).	
  A	
  Program	
  Evaluation	
  of	
  In	
  Prison	
  
Components:	
  The	
  Colorado	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Treatment	
  and	
  
Monitoring	
  Program.	
  Colorado	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections.	
  Available	
  at	
  
http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/CO_SOTMPProgramEvaluationJan20
.pdf	
  
	
  
English,	
  K.	
  (1998).	
  The	
  containment	
  approach:	
  an	
  aggressive	
  strategy	
  for	
  the	
  
community	
  management	
  of	
  adult	
  sex	
  offenders.	
  Public,	
  Policy	
  and	
  Law,	
  14,	
  218-­‐235.	
  	
  

	
  

165	
  

English,	
  K.	
  (2004).	
  The	
  containment	
  approach	
  to	
  managing	
  sex	
  offenders.	
  Seton	
  Hall	
  
Law	
  Review,	
  989,	
  1255-­‐1272.	
  
	
  
Gylys,	
  J.	
  A.,	
  &	
  McNamara,	
  J.	
  R.	
  (1996).	
  A	
  further	
  examination	
  of	
  the	
  sexual	
  
experiences	
  survey.	
  Behavioral	
  Sciences	
  and	
  the	
  Law,	
  14,	
  245−260.	
  	
  
	
  
Groth,	
  A.N.,	
  Longo,	
  R.E.,	
  	
  &	
  McFadin,	
  J.B.	
  (1982).	
  Undetected	
  recidivism	
  in	
  rapists	
  and	
  
child-­‐molesters.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  in	
  Crime	
  and	
  Delinquency,	
  28,	
  450-­‐458.	
  
Freeman-­‐Longo,	
  R.E.	
  (1985).	
  Incidence	
  of	
  self-­‐reported	
  sex	
  crimes	
  among	
  
incarcerated	
  	
  rapists	
  and	
  child-­‐molesters.	
  Unpublished	
  manuscript.	
  Correcxtional	
  
Treatment	
  Program,	
  Oregan	
  State	
  Hospital.	
  
	
  
Finkelhor,	
  D.	
  &	
  Jones,	
  L.	
  (2006).	
  Why	
  have	
  child	
  maltreatment	
  and	
  child	
  
victimization	
  declined.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Social	
  Issues,	
  62,	
  685-­‐716.	
  
	
  
Hanson,	
  R.K.,	
  Harris,	
  A.J.R.,	
  Helmus,	
  L.	
  &	
  Thornton	
  ,	
  D.	
  (in	
  press).	
  High	
  Risk	
  Sex	
  
Offenders	
  May	
  Not	
  Be	
  High	
  Risk	
  Forever.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Interpersonal	
  Violence.	
  
	
  
Harkins,	
  L.,	
  Beech,	
  A.R.	
  &	
  Goodwill,	
  A.M.	
  (2010).	
  Examining	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  denial,	
  
motivation,	
  and	
  risk	
  on	
  sexual	
  recidivism.	
  Sexual	
  Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  
Treatment,	
  22,	
  78-­‐94.	
  
	
  
Heil,	
  P.,	
  Ahlmeyer,	
  S.,	
  &	
  Simons,	
  D.	
  (2003)Crossover	
  sexual	
  offenses.	
  Sexual	
  Abuse:	
  A	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  Treatment,	
  15,	
  221	
  –	
  236.	
  
	
  
Kokish,	
  R.,	
  Levenson,	
  J.S.,	
  &	
  Blasingame,	
  G.D.	
  (2005).	
  Post-­‐conviction	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  
Polygraph	
  Examination:	
  Client-­‐Reported	
  Perceptions	
  of	
  Utility	
  and	
  Accuracy.	
  Sexual	
  
Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  Treatment,	
  17,	
  211-­‐221.	
  
	
  

	
  

166	
  

Koss,	
  M.	
  P.,	
  Gidycz,	
  C.	
  A.,	
  &	
  Wisniewski,	
  N.	
  (1987).	
  The	
  Scope	
  of	
  rape:	
  Incidence	
  and	
  
prevalence	
  of	
  sexual	
  aggression	
  and	
  victimization	
  in	
  a	
  national	
  sample	
  of	
  higher	
  
education	
  students.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Consulting	
  and	
  Clinical	
  Psychology,	
  55,	
  162−170.	
  
	
  
Langan,	
  P.	
  A.,	
  Schmitt,	
  E.	
  L.,	
  &	
  Durose,	
  M.	
  R.	
  (2003).	
  Recidivism	
  of	
  sex	
  offenders	
  
released	
  from	
  prison	
  in	
  1994.	
  Washington,	
  DC:	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Justice,	
  Bureau	
  of	
  
Justice	
  Statistics.	
  
	
  
Lisak,	
  D.	
  &	
  Miller,	
  P.M.	
  (2002).	
  Repeat	
  rape	
  and	
  multiple	
  offending	
  among	
  
undetected	
  rapists.	
  Violence	
  and	
  Victims,	
  17,	
  73-­‐84.	
  
	
  
Mann,	
  R.	
  E.,	
  Hanson,	
  R.	
  K.,	
  &	
  Thornton,	
  D.	
  (2010).	
  Assessing	
  risk	
  for	
  sexual	
  
recidivism:	
  Some	
  proposals	
  on	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  psychologically	
  meaningful	
  risk	
  factors.	
  	
  
Sexual	
  Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  Treatment,	
  22,	
  191-­‐217.	
  	
  
	
  
McGrath,	
  R.	
  J.,	
  Lasher,	
  M.	
  P.,	
  &	
  Cumming,	
  G.	
  F.	
  (2012).	
  The	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Treatment	
  
Intervention	
  and	
  Progress	
  Scale	
  (SOTIPS):	
  Psychometric	
  properties	
  and	
  incremental	
  
predictive	
  validity	
  with	
  Static-­‐99R.	
  Sexual	
  Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  
Treatment,	
  24,	
  431-­‐458.	
  doi:10.1177/1079063211432475	
  	
  
	
  
Minnesota	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  (2007).	
  Sexual	
  offender	
  recidivism	
  in	
  
Minnesota.	
  
	
  
Nunes,	
  K.	
  L.,	
  Hanson,	
  R.	
  K.,	
  Firestone,	
  P.,	
  Moulden,	
  H.	
  M.,	
  Greenberg,	
  D.	
  M.,	
  &	
  
Bradford,	
  J.	
  M.	
  (2007).	
  Denial	
  predicts	
  recidivism	
  for	
  some	
  sexual	
  offenders.	
  Sexual	
  
Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  Treatment,	
  19,	
  91-­‐105.	
  
	
  
Thornton,	
  D.,	
  &	
  Knight,	
  R.	
  (2007,	
  November).	
  Is	
  denial	
  always	
  bad?	
  Paper	
  presented	
  
at	
  the	
  26th	
  annual	
  conference	
  of	
  the	
  Association	
  for	
  the	
  Treatment	
  of	
  Sexual	
  Abusers,	
  
San	
  Diego,	
  CA.	
  
	
  
	
  

167	
  

Ward,	
   T.,	
   Gannon,	
   T.A.,	
   &	
   Birgden,	
   A.	
   (2007).	
   Human	
   rights	
   and	
   the	
   treatment	
   of	
   sex	
  
offenders.	
  Sexual	
  Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  Treatment,	
  19,	
  195-­‐216.	
  
	
  
Ward,	
   T.,	
   Mann,	
   R.,	
   &	
   Gannon,	
   T.A.	
   (2007).	
   The	
   good	
   lives	
   model	
   of	
   rehabilitation:	
  
Clinical	
  implications.	
  Aggression	
  and	
  Violent	
  Behavior.	
  12,	
  87-­‐107.	
  
	
  
Weinrott,	
  M.	
  R.,	
  &	
  Saylor,	
  M.	
  (1991).	
  Self-­‐report	
  of	
  crimes	
  committed	
  by	
  sex	
  
offenders.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Interpersonal	
  Violence,	
  6,	
  286-­‐300.	
  
	
  
Willis,	
   G.	
   M.,	
   Yates,	
   P.	
   M.,	
   Gannon,	
   T.	
   A.,	
   	
   &	
   Ward,	
   T.	
   (2013).	
   How	
   to	
   integrate	
   the	
  
Good	
   Lives	
   Model	
   into	
   treatment	
   programs	
   for	
   sexual	
   offending:	
   An	
   introduction	
  
and	
  overview.	
  Sexual	
  Abuse:	
  A	
  Journal	
  of	
  Research	
  and	
  Treatment,	
  25,	
  123-­‐142.	
  
	
  
Zgoba,	
  K.	
  M.,	
  Miner,	
  M.,	
  Knight,	
  R.,	
  Letourneau,	
  E.,	
  Levenson,	
  J.,	
  &	
  Thornton,	
  D.	
  
(2012).	
  A	
  multi-­‐site	
  recidivism	
  study	
  using	
  Static-­‐99R	
  and	
  Static-­‐2002	
  risk	
  scores	
  and	
  
tier	
  guidelines	
  from	
  the	
  Adam	
  Walsh	
  Act.	
  Report	
  submitted	
  to	
  the	
  US	
  National	
  
Institute	
  of	
  Justice.	
  https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/240099.pdf	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

168