6800 APPENDIX 2 WI DOC SOT Service Standards (Revised).pdf

Department of Corrections

Program

Treatment

Standards

Original Effective Date:

Adopted: 10/30/2015

Published: 10/12/2016

New Effective Date:

Supersedes:

Units Affected:

DAI Institutions DJC Facilities DCC Facilities

WCCS Facilities Contracted Providers WRC

Program: Sex Offender Service Standards

I. References

See attached reference list

II. Definitions and Acronyms

Actuarial risk assessment: Classification of the recidivism risk of sexual offenders by A.

the use of assessment protocols established by scientific research. The following tools are required by these standards:

ARMIDILO-S: Assessment of Risk and Manageability of Intellectually Disabled 1.

Individuals who Offend Sexually (Boer, et al., 2013)

J-SOAP-II: Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol, 2 nd edition (Prentky & 2.

Righthand, 2003)

Stable-2007: (Hanson & Harris, 2000) (Hanson R. K., 2007) 3.

Acute-2007: (Hanson & Harris, 2000) (Hanson R. K., 2007) 4.

Static-99R: (Harris, Phenix, Hanson, & Thornton, 2003/2012) 5.

Deviant Interest Assessment: B.

Abel Assessment of Sexual Interest-3: (Abel Assessment systems, 2013) 1.

Penile Plethysmograph: (McGrath, Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, & Ellerby, 2010) 2.

Risk Level Designation: Classification of an overall risk level of likelihood of a C.

sexual offender committing new offenses upon release, as determined by actuarial instruments and review of clinical factors associated with risk.

Protective Factors Assessment: Protective factors can help mitigate risk and guide D.

treatment recommendations. The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors

[SAPROF; (de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de vries Robbe, 2012)] and SAPROF-

Youth Version (de Vries Robbé, Geers, Stapel, & de Vogel, 2015) are the approved protective factor assessments.

III. Purpose and Scope of Service

Sex offender services protect the community from criminal sexual behavior by evaluating, treating, and reducing the offender’s risk of sexual and sexually-related reoffending.

IV. Purpose of the Standards

RFB # CJO-6800 APPENDIX 2

Standards for sex offender assessment and treatment are necessary to achieve the following objectives:

Increase the effectiveness and consistency of service delivery throughout WIDOC A.

Carefully consider fiscal and human resources B.

Identify subordinate goals, objectives, and outcomes to form the basis of a policy and C.

procedure guide

Guide curriculum development and implementation D.

Identify offender risk, needs, and responsivity factors and incorporate them in all E.

aspects of treatment and treatment design

Maximize service benefit by ensuring continuum of care F.

Utilize evidence-based practices to continually improve program quality and G.

effectiveness

V. Service Standards

Assessment and evaluation: Identification of offender risk, needs, and responsivity A.

factors.

Evidence based practices shall be utilized for assessing and evaluating sex 1.

offenders.

Initial Evaluation: 2.

a. Criminogenic needs: (Andrews, 2007)

i. Assessed by qualified and trained DOC staff using COMPAS.

ii. Primary criminogenic needs include:

a) Antisocial cognition

b) Anti-social companions

c) Anti-social characteristics or temperament

d) Family and/or marital problems

iii. Consideration will be given to the additional needs of substance abuse, employment, school, and leisure/recreation

b. Level of risk:

i. Adult Male: The Static-99R (Harris, Phenix, Hanson, & Thornton, 2003/2012) (Hanson R. K., Babchishin, Helmus, Thornton, & Phenix, 2016) is the approved tool for sex offender risk assessment

ii. Juvenile: The J-SOAP-II (Prentky & Righthand, 2003), in combination with professional judgment, is the approved tool for determining sex offender risk for juvenile males. The Static-99R may also be used for youth over the age of 18 who are supervised by DJC. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis and in adherence with the Static-

99R coding manual

iii. Females: There is currently no available tool validated for use in conducting sex offender assessment of females. Assessment of risk for sexual recidivism should incorporate risk factors for general recidivism in females. Best practices related to gender-informed assessment and treatment should further guide the assessment process. Static risk factors include (Vandiver, 2007, March) (Sandler & Freeman, 2009)

(Pflugradt & Allen, 2013):

a) Prior criminal history

b) Prior child abuse offenses (any type)

c) Prior history of prostituting children

c. Treatment needs

i. Adult Males: The Stable-2007 and the Acute-2007 are the approved methods to determine long-term vulnerability and service needs with adult male sexual offenders (Fernandez, Harris, Hanson, & Sparks, 2007/2014) (Helmus, Hanson, Babchishin, & Mann, 2013).

ii. Juvenile males: J-SOAP-II (Prentky & Righthand, 2003) is the approved method for determining level of service need in juvenile male sexual offenders (Tharp, et al., 2012). The Stable/Acute-2007 may also be used for youth who committed their most recent sexual offense between the ages of 17 and 18, will be released from the institution on or after their 18 th birthday, and who are supervised by DJC. This will be determined on a case-by-case basis and in adherence with the

Stable- and Acute-2007 manuals (Fernandez, Harris, Hanson, &

Sparks, 2007/2014).

iii. Females:

a) There is currently no available tool validated for use with a female sex offender population.

b) Identification of needs based on best practices uses gender-informed assessment and treatment data to identify dynamic risk factors (Gannon & Alleyne, 2013) (Gannon, Rose, & Ward, 2008)

(Pflugradt & Cortoni, 2014) (Cortoni, 2010) (Tsopelas, Tsetsou, Ntounas, & Douzenis, 2012) (DeCou, Cole, Rowland, Kaplan, &

Lynch, 2014) (Tharp, et al., 2012):

1) Offense supportive cognitions

2) Emotional dysregulation/use of sex to regulate emotional state

3) Dysfunctional relationships

4) Intimacy deficits

5) Anti-social behavior/attitudes

6) Substance use

7) Deviant sexual interests

8) Socio-cultural factors such as low educational attainment, lack of employment skills, etc.

d. Protective factors:

i. Adult Males: The SAPROF (de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de vries

Robbe, 2012) is the approved method to determine protective factors with adult male sexual offenders (Boer, et al., 2013) (Thornton, 2013).

ii. Juvenile Males and Females: The SAPROF-Youth Version (de Vries

Robbé, Geers, Stapel, & de Vogel, 2015) is the approved method to determine protective factors with juvenile male sexual offenders.

Sex offender specific treatment needs are also known as criminogenic needs for sex offenders (Mann, Hanson, &

Thornton, 2010).

iii. Adult Females: The SAPROF (de Vogel, de Ruiter, Bouman, & de vries Robbe, 2012) may be used with female sexual offenders, though empirical evidence is not as strong as with the use for male offenders.

If the SAPROF is not utilized, strong evidence for use of an alternative method of assessment must be provided.

e. Responsivity Factors: A thorough assessment of all population groups considers factors that may impede or enhance an offender’s response to treatment (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). This includes but is not limited to the following additional characteristics:

i. Specific criminal characteristics

ii. Reading level

iii. Mental health

iv. Developmental or Intellectual disability

v. Physical disability

vi. Motivational level

Assessment of treatment response and progress toward treatment completion: 3.

a. Adult males: The Stable-2007 and the Acute-2007 (Hanson R. K., 2007) are the approved tools to measure treatment progress.

b. Juveniles: J-SOAP-II is the approved tool to measure treatment progress

(Prentky & Righthand, 2003) (Fernandez, Harris, Hanson, & Sparks, 2007/2014).

c. Adult females: Evaluation of treatment need and progress is based on research of best practices related to gender-informed assessment and treatment and includes the following clinical domains (Wijkman, Bijleveld, & Hendriks, 2010) (Gannon & Alleyne, 2013) (Pflugradt & Cortoni, 2014) (Cortoni &

Gannon, 2011) (Gannon, Rose, & Ward, 2008) (Grayston & De Luca, 1999)

(Nathan & Ward, 2002):

i. Intimacy and Relationship issues:

a) Desire for intimacy

b) Dysfunctional relationships

ii. Cognitive processes:

a) Pro-offending attitudes/cognitions

b) Antisocial attitudes

c) Distortions of self

iii. Emotional processes:

a) Use of sex to regulate emotional states

b) Emotional dysregulation

c) Revenge or humiliation as instrumental goal

d) Substance use/misuse

iv. Sexual dynamics:

a) Sexual gratification

b) Sexual abuse

c) Sexuality and sexual beliefs

d) Deviant sexual interests

v. Social functioning and background:

a) Antisocial associates

b) Education

c) Employment

d) Parenting

d. Special populations

i. Special populations require use of population specific tools when available.

ii. Progress for offenders with cognitive and adaptive disabilities will be evaluated using ARMIDILO-S as appropriate (McGrath, Cumming, &

Lasher, 2012) (Boer, et al., 2013).

e. Measures of sexual interest (Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010) (Babchishin, Nunes, & Hermann, 2013).

i. Tools such as polygraph, Abel Assessment of Sexual Interest-3, and the

Penile Plethysmograph shall only be used to further the goals of assessment and treatment.

ii. Use of these measures for full-disclosure of offender history is contraindicated as a requirement for treatment completion.

Reassessment: 4.

a. May be conducted using the current standards for assessment when new information emerges that that may result in a change of risk level or treatment need.

b. When a reevaluation results in recommendation for a change in treatment need or level, the evaluator shall collaborate with the original evaluator, if they are available.

c. If collaboration does not result in agreement, relevant information shall be forwarded to the DAI Sex Offender Specialist or a designated representative of the Sex Offender Cross-Divisional Team for review.

Sex offender treatment : B.

Treatment shall utilize evidence based treatment methods and use qualified and 1.

trained staff, with dosage aligned with need. Offenders who are not identified as needing established sex offender treatment options may still be appropriate for treatment based on ancillary factors. An individualized approach may be needed to identify ongoing treatment needs with specific populations (e.g., juveniles)

(Rempel, 2014).

Juvenile Programs to be offered: Juvenile Sexual Offenders Treatment Program: 2.

a. Cognitive (JCIP 1 and 2):

i. Objective: Identify thinking patterns and beliefs influencing behavior, develop and practice interventions for past thinking, goal setting, and problem solving

ii. Population: Juvenile males

iii. Program location: Institution based

iv. Group type: Closed

v. Group size: 8-12 participants

vi. Providers: One JCIP-trained facilitator

Numerous variables affect the course of treatment. See (Hanson & Yates, 2013) and (Marshall & Burton, 2010) for a discussion of factors identified in this section.

vii. Duration: Two phases completed with 12 lessons per phase, two hours per lesson

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Complete all lessons and homework, Cycle of Offending, and Plan for Change with facilitator’s approval

b. Education (CORE A):

i. Objective: Provide education related to healthy human sexuality, statutory expectations, and cultural norms

ii. Population: Juvenile males

iii. Program location: Institution based

iv. Group type: Open, with ongoing assessment

v. Group size: Maximum group size of 12

vi. Providers: Co-facilitation is required

vii. Duration: 24 treatment hours over 8 weeks

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Knowledge acquisition as identified through a pre- and post-test focusing on general sexual and legal knowledge such as healthy and appropriate sexuality, laws, and cultural expectations, etc. Completion of a re-offense completion plan and completion of all required tasks identified in the approved curriculum.

Reduction of risk measured by a J-SOAP-II post-test (or Stable/Acute-

2007 treatment progress evaluation, as appropriate) and a multi-disciplinary team review. These criteria must be fulfilled at completion of programming (whether after Core A for those youth who participate in only that program; after Core B for youth who participate only in that program OR who participate in Core A and Core B consecutively).

c. Short-term institutional (CORE B):

i. Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce individual risk factors identified through the assessment process identified in section V.A.

ii. Population: Juvenile males

iii. Program location: Institution based

iv. Group type: Closed, with ongoing assessment

v. Group size: Maximum group size of 12

vi. Providers: Co-facilitation is required

vii. Duration: 32 treatment hours over 8 weeks

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Knowledge acquisition as identified through a pre- and post-test. Completion of a re-offense prevention plan and completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

Reduction of risk measured by a J-SOAP-II post-test (or Stable/Acute-

2007 treatment progress evaluation, as appropriate) and a multi-disciplinary team review. These criteria must be fulfilled at completion of programming (whether after Core A for those youth who participate in only that program; after Core B for youth who participate only in that program OR who participate in Core A and Core B consecutively).

d. Aftercare/maintenance:

i. Objective: Develop, utilize, maintain, or transfer the skills and knowledge acquired in other sex offender programming in a community setting

ii. Population: Juvenile males; single gender groups

iii. Program location: Community

iv. Program type: Group programming coupled with individual counseling, dependent on population size

v. Group type: Open

vi. Group size: Depends on population

vii. Providers: Co-facilitation is recommended

viii. Duration: Unlimited and ongoing throughout supervision. Approach allows for individual goals

ix. Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of risk factors identified on the J-SOAP-II or the Stable/Acute-2007, as appropriate; completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum; and completion of a re-offense prevention plan. J-SOAP-II or the Stable/Acute-2007 is re-administered regularly throughout programming.

e. Due to historically low numbers, the Juvenile Sexual Offenders Treatment

Program at the institution and programming in the community are provided individually for females.

f. Juveniles with cognitive and adaptive deficits will be considered for transfer to Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center for treatment or treated individually.

Adult Programs to be offered: 3.

a. Education (SOT-1 Education):

i. Objective: Provide education related to healthy human sexuality, statutory expectations, and cultural norms

ii. Population: Adult males and females; offenders lacking in general sexual knowledge; offenders who lack understanding of laws, statutes, or cultural norms; offenders identified as low risk with low identified treatment needs who are identified as capable of benefiting from treatment (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004) (Lovins, Lowenkamp, & J., 2009)

iii. Program location: Community and institution

iv. Group Type: Open or closed, psychoeducational lecture setting, with ongoing assessment

v. Group/Classroom size: Group size depends on population and focus.

Maximum group size for adults is 15 if open-ended or 18 if closed-ended

vi. Providers: Single provider well versed in sex offender assessment and needs

vii. Duration: Minimum 18-hour core curricula provided in weekly, 90-minute sessions for adults. Additional components related to special population needs will be added as necessary

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Knowledge acquisition as identified through pre- and post-test focusing on general sexual and legal knowledge such as healthy and appropriate sexuality, laws and cultural expectations, etc.

b. Aftercare/maintenance (SOT-Aftercare Institution or SOT Aftercare

Community):

i. Objective: Transfer or maintain skills developed in other sex offender programming or in other treatment contexts

ii. Population: Adult males and females who have successfully completed prior treatment in the institution or community setting

iii. Program location: Institution or community

iv. Group type: Open or closed, with ongoing assessment

v. Group size: Maximum 15 for adults

vi. Providers: Co-facilitation is strongly recommended. Groups of 10 or more individuals require co-facilitation

vii. Duration: Core expectation is 18-hours provided in weekly 90-minute sessions

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Ability to successfully apply skills using real-life situations as identified in the re-offense prevention plan created in prior treatment. Maintenance/reduction of risk-factors identified via treatment progress evaluation using the Stable/Acute-

2007 or factors appropriate for female offenders.

c. Community based or short term institutional (SOT-2):

i. Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce individual risk factors identified through the assessment process identified in section V.A.

ii. Population: Adult sex offenders identified in the assessment process as average risk with average or greater needs

iii. Program location: Institution and community

iv. Group Type: Open or closed, with ongoing assessment

v. Group Size: Maximum group size of 12

vi. Providers: Co-facilitation is required

vii. Duration: Minimum duration of 100 hours provided over a minimum of 6 months

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of risk factors identified via the Stable/Acute-2007 treatment progress evaluation. Completion of re-offense prevention plan and completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

d. Short-term alternative to revocation (SOT-2 ATR):

i. Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce behaviors that interfere with community supervision and reinforce application of skills learned in prior treatment

ii. Population: Adult males identified in the assessment process as average risk with average or greater needs who are facing possible revocation of supervision

iii. Program location: Institution based

iv. Group type: Open or closed, with ongoing assessment

v. Group size: Maximum group size of 10

vi. Providers: Co-facilitation is strongly recommended

vii. Duration: Minimum of 80 hours of face-to-face group treatment supplemented by learning activities provided over a period of two months

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of supervision-interfering behaviors. Completion of re-offense prevention plan and completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

e. Intensive alternative to revocation (SOT-4 ATR):

i. Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce behaviors that interfere with community supervision and reinforce application of skills learned in prior treatment

ii. Population: Adult male sex offenders identified in the assessment process as above average risk with above average needs who are facing possible revocation of supervision

iii. Program location: Institution based

iv. Group type: Open or closed, with ongoing assessment

v. Group size: Maximum group size of 10

vi. Providers: Co-facilitation is strongly recommended

vii. Duration: Minimum of 150 hours of face-to-face group treatment supplemented by learning activities provided over a period of three months

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of supervision-interfering behaviors. Completion of re-offense prevention plan and completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

f. Intensive (SOT-4):

i. Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce individual risk factors identified through the assessment process identified in section V.A.

ii. Population: Adult sex offenders identified in the assessment process as above average risk with above average needs

iii. Program location: Institution based

iv. Group type: Closed, with ongoing assessment

v. Group size: Maximum group size of 14

vi. Providers: Co-facilitation is required

vii. Duration: Minimum of 400 hours of face-to-face group treatment supplemented by learning activities provided over 2 years

viii. Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of risk factors identified via the Stable/Acute-2007 treatment progress evaluation. Completion of re-offense prevention plan and completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

g. Specialized programs/populations:

i. Special needs short term (SOT-2 Adaptive):

a) Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce individual risk factors identified through the assessment process identified in section V.A.

b) Population: Adult males who have cognitive and adaptive deficits or who have been identified with a serious mental illness that would make it difficult for them to complete a standard SOT-2 group, and who have been identified as average risk with average needs identified via the approved assessment measures

c) Program location: Institution and community

d) Group type: Closed, with ongoing assessment

e) Group size: Maximum group size of 12

f) Providers: Co-facilitation is required

g) Duration: Minimum duration of 100 hours provided over a minimum of 6 months

h) Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of risk factors identified via the ARMIDILO-S treatment progress evaluation. Completion of re-offense prevention plan and completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

ii. Special needs intensive (SOT-4 Adaptive):

a) Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce individual risk factors identified through the assessment process identified in section V.A.

b) Population: Adult males who have cognitive and adaptive deficits that would make it difficult for them to complete a standard SOT-4 group, and who have been classified with above average risk with above average needs as identified via the approved assessment measure

c) Program location: Institution based

d) Group type: Closed, with ongoing assessment

e) Group size: Maximum group size of 12

f) Providers: Co-facilitation is required

g) Duration: Minimum of 400 hours of face-to-face group treatment supplemented by learning activities provided over 2 years

h) Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of risk factors identified via the ARMIDILO-S (Boer, et al., 2013) treatment progress evaluation. Completion of re-offense prevention plan and completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

iii. Limited English Proficiency short term (SOT-2 LEP):

a) Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce individual risk factors identified through the assessment process identified in section V.A.

b) Population: Adult males whose primary language is Spanish or other language and who have been identified through the assessment process as average risk with average or greater needs

c) Program location: Institution and community

d) Group type: Closed, with ongoing assessment.

e) Group size: Maximum group size of 8 with single facilitator, maximum of 12 with co-facilitator who is conversant

f) Providers: Primary facilitator must be fluent in Spanish or other language or have interpreter present

g) Duration: Minimum duration of 100 hours provided over a minimum of 6 months

h) Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of risk factors identified via the Stable/Acute-2007 treatment progress evaluation.

Completion of re-offense prevention plan; completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

iv. Limited English Proficiency Intensive (SOT-4 LEP):

a) Objective: Develop knowledge and skills needed to reduce individual risk factors identified through the assessment process identified in section V.A.

b) Population: Adult males whose primary language is Spanish or other language and who have been identified through the assessment process as above average risk with above average needs

c) Program location: Institution based

d) Group type: Closed, with ongoing assessment

e) Group size: Maximum group size of 14

f) Providers: Primary facilitator must be fluent in Spanish or other language or have interpreter present, co-facilitation is required

g) Duration: Minimum of 400 hours of face-to-face group treatment supplemented by learning activities provided over 2 years

h) Treatment outcome criteria: Reduction of risk factors identified via the Stable/Acute-2007 treatment progress evaluation.

Completion of re-offense prevention plan; completion of all required tasks identified in approved curriculum.

v. Programs for additional special populations shall be developed as research and need emerges.

Documentation: All aspects of sex offender programming participation must be C.

documented regularly and systematically, with distribution per instructions on the form.

Required documentation: 1.

a. Informed Consent for Sex Offender Treatment

b. Limits of Confidentiality Regarding Information Rendered to Treatment Staff

c. Sex Offender Treatment Contract

d. Initial service plan (prior to or within the first 30 calendar days of an offender’s placement in a sex offender service)

e. Treatment Progress Notes/Documentation of Program Participation after every group or individual session

f. Sex Offender Program Report/Summary of Progress in Program/Discharge

Report Initial, every 6 months or at the midpoint of the program, whichever comes first, and discharge (completion, withdrawal, or termination)

g. Re-offense Prevention Plan completed prior to service completion.

Offender-generated documents: 2.

a. Documents deemed clinically significant by treatment providers shall be retained

b. Retained information shall be attached to either a DOC-3658 (Mental Health

Group Progress Note), a DOC-3473 (Psychological Services Clinical

Contact), or the equivalent forms for DJC or DCC, which shall contain a description of the document and the reason(s) for retention.

File retention: Sex offender records should be retained based upon DOC records 3.

retention policy (RDAs 160 and 228).

VI. Staff standards

Staff involved in delivery of sex offender services shall have appropriate education, experience, and supervision. To ensure the quality and effectiveness of services, staff shall have education, supervision, and practice commensurate with their responsibility. No staff will practice outside the scope of their competence. Programs will have adequate staff to deliver the program. Programs will also ensure that staff participates in appropriate ongoing training and education.

Credentials: A.

Treatment staff—minimum expectations: 1.

a. Primary providers of sex offender services must hold a Wisconsin license in a mental health related field (Wis. Stat. Chs. 455 and 457 ). A training license is not considered sufficient. Her or his qualifications meet or exceed Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and Wisconsin licensure standards for a:

i. Licensed Psychologist

ii. Licensed Clinical Social Worker

iii. Licensed Professional Counselor

iv. Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist

b. The clinical supervisor shall meet the qualifications of a primary provider plus:

i. Have training in clinical supervision

ii. Be responsible for the delivery of services at each site

iii. Be competent to practice independently in the areas they supervise

c. Co-facilitators:

i. Co-facilitators shall have a minimum of a high school diploma and appropriate skills, training, and experience prior to beginning service delivery, including specific formal training that meets standards established by the Department of Corrections or mental health professions in the following areas:

a) Confidentiality

b) Ethics as they apply to working with a forensic population

c) Group processes

Wisconsin Statute 457.035 indicates that individuals licensed as a clinical social worker, marriage and family therapist, or professional counselor may conduct psychotherapy independently. Individuals certified as advanced practice or independent social workers may engage in psychotherapy only under the supervision of a licensed individual specified in s. 457.08 (4) (c) 1., 2., 3., or 4. Wisconsin Statute 457.01(8m) reads: “Psychotherapy” means the diagnosis and treatment of mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders, conditions, or addictions through the application of methods derived from established psychological or systemic principles for the purpose of assisting people and modifying their behaviors, cognitions, emotions, and other personal characteristics, which may include the purpose of understanding the unconscious processes or intrapersonal, interpersonal, or psychosocial dynamics.

RFB # CJO-6800 APPENDIX 2

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/457.08(4)(c)1.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/457.08(4)(c)2.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/457.08(4)(c)3.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/457.08(4)(c)4.

d) Motivational interviewing

e) Experience working with a correctional clientele

f) Cultural diversity

ii. During the first year of experience, the co-facilitator must participate in formal training that meets standards established by the Department of

Corrections and/or mental health professions on the following topics:

a) Human sexual development

b) Cognitive-behavioral therapy

c) Risk, need, or responsivity principles

d) Other training applicable to the specific population

iii. Documentation of training completion shall be maintained by the program supervisor. For contracted providers, documentation of training shall be made available to DOC personnel upon request.

Sex offender treatment evaluators: Staff members who provide sex offender risk 2.

assessment or evaluation of treatment needs shall meet all educational and training qualifications specified by the instrument’s authors.

Continuing education and consultation: B.

All individuals providing sex offender treatment and/or evaluation services shall 1.

obtain and document a minimum of 18 hours of continuing education training in the field of sex offender treatment and assessment every biennium. Continuing education includes courses, seminars, conferences, workshops, and other training experiences approved by the DOC or an accrediting body.

Providers shall continue to supplement their educational and professional 2.

experience through consultation with other professionals who have relevant expertise in the field.

VII. Quality assurance standards:

Sex offender treatment programs shall maintain a program/curriculum manual that A.

shall be updated a minimum of once every two years, or whenever these standards are amended or revised.

Program supervisors shall document and ensure that staff meet and maintain B.

educational and consultation requirements.

Program supervisor shall regularly observe and document the quality of service C.

delivery using appropriate sections of the Evidence-Based Corrections Program

Checklist.

Participant satisfaction surveys shall be gathered periodically throughout treatment and D.

used to inform program delivery practices.

Pre- and post-testing shall be conducted to measure knowledge acquisition, behavioral E.

and attitudinal changes.

Program supervisors shall regularly review documentation for quality and timeliness. F.

Results of quality assurance efforts shall be maintained by the institution or region and G.

made available to the designated DOC body upon request.

The formal sex offender service standards shall be reviewed by the appropriate H.

oversight body at a minimum of every five years.

References

Abel Assessment systems. (2013). Use & Acceptance. Retrieved from http://abelscreening.com/use-acceptance/

Andrews, D. A. (2007). Principles of effective correctional programs. In L. L. Motiuk, & R. C.

Serin (Eds.), Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming. Correctional

Service Canada. Retrieved from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/index-eng.shtml

ATSA . (2001). Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Professional Code of Ethics.

Retrieved from http://www.atsa.com/atsa-code-ethics

ATSA. (2004). ATSA Practice Standards and Guidelines for the evaluation, treatment and management of adult male sexual abusers. Retrieved from http://www.atsa.com/atsa-practice-standards-and-guidelines-evaluation-treatment-and-management-adult-male-sexual-abusers

Babchishin, K., Nunes, K., & Hermann, C. (2013). The validity of implicit association test (IAT) measures of sexual attraction to children: a meta-analysis. Archives of the Sexual

Behavior, 42, 487-499.

Boer, D. P., Haaven, J. L., Lambrick, F., Lindsay, W. R., McVilly, K. R., Sakdalan, J., & Frize, M. (2013). ARMIDILO-S Manual Revised, Web Version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.armidilo.net/files/Web-Version-1-1-2013-Intro-Manual.pdf

Boer, D. P., Haaven, J. L., Lambrick, F., Lindsay, W. R., McVilly, K. R., Sakdalan, J., & Frize, M. (2013). ARMIDILO-S Manual Revised. Web Version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.armidilo.net/files/Web-Version-1-1-2013-Intro-Manual.pdf

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Retrieved from Public Safety of Canada:

www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/rsk-nd-rspnsvty-eng.pdf

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2006). Understanding Treatment for Adults and

Juveniles Who Have Committed Sex Offenses. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex

Offender Management.

Cortoni, F. (2010). The assessment of female sexual offenders. In T. E. Cortoni (Ed.), Female sexual offenders: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 87-98). West Sussex, UK: Wiley

& Sons.

Cortoni, F., & Gannon, T. A. (2011). Female sexual offenders. In R. E. D.P. Boer (Ed.), International perspectives on the assessment and treatment of sex offenders: theory, practice and research (pp. 35-54). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cortoni, F., Hanson, K. H., & Coache, M. (2010). The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders are low: in meta-analysis. Sexual abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(4), 387-401.

de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y., & de vries Robbe, M. (2012). SAPROF: Structured

Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk (English Version, 2nd Ed.) (2 ed.).

Utrecht, The Netherlands: Forum Educatief.

de Vries Robbé, M., Geers, M., Stapel, M. H., & de Vogel, V. (2015). SAPROF - Youth Version

English. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk in juveniles.

Utrecht: De Forensische .

de Vries Robbe, M., Mann, R., Maruna, S., & Thornton, D. (2014, August). An exploration of protective factors supporting desistance from sexual offending. Sexual Abuse, 1-18.

DeCou, C., Cole, T., Rowland, S., Kaplan, S., & Lynch, S. (2014, Nov.). An ecological process model of female sex offending: the role of victimization, psychological distress, and life stressors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 34(4), 305-310.

Delmonico, D. L., & Griffin, E. J. (2005). Sex offenders online-what clinicians need to know. In

B. K. Schwartz, THE SEX OFFENDER (Vol. V, pp. 4-2 to 4-24). Kingston, NJ, USA:

Civic Research Institute.

Di Fazio, R., Abracen, J., & Looman, J. (2001). Group vs. individual treatment of sex offenders:

a comparison. Forum on correctional research, 13(1), 56-59. Retrieved from www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/forum/e131/e/3/ind-eng.shtml

Fernandez, Y., Harris, A. J., Hanson, R. K., & Sparks, J. (2007/2014). Stable-2007 Coding

Manual (Rev. 2014). Ottawa, Canada: Public Safety Canada.

Gannon, T. A., & Alleyne, E. K. (2013). Female sexual abusers’ cognition: A systematic review of the clinical and empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(1), 67-79.

Gannon, T. A., Rose, M. R., & Ward, T. (2008). A descriptive model of the offense process for female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse:A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 352-

374.

Grayston, A. D., & De Luca, R. V. (1999). Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: A review of the clinical and empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 93-106.

Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial scale for sex offense recidivism.

Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.

Hanson, R. K. (2000). Risk Assessment. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Hanson, R. K. (2007). Assessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The

Dynamic Supervision Project. Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ssssn

Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1996). Predictors of sexual offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Ottawa, Ontario: Solicitor General of Canada.

Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior 27, 6-35.

Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sexual offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human behavior, 119-135.

Hanson, R. K., & Yates, P. M. (2013). Psychological treatment of sex offenders. Current psychiatry reports, 15(348), 1-8.

Hanson, R. K., Babchishin, K. M., Helmus, L. M., Thornton, D., & Phenix, A. (2016).

Communicating the results of criterion referenced prediction measures: Risk categories for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk assessment tools. Psychological

Assessment. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/pas0000371

Hanson, R., Babchishin, K., Helmus, L., & Thornton, D. (2012). Quantifying the relative risk of sex offenders: Risk ratios for Static-99R. Sex Abuse, 1-34.

doi:10.1177/1079063212469060

Harris, A., Phenix, A., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003/2012). STATIC-99 Coding Rules, Revised. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.static99.org

Helmus, L., Hanson, R., Babchishin, K., & Mann, R. (2013). Attitudes supportive of sexual offending predict recidivism: a meta-analysis. Trauma, violence, and abuse, 14(1), 34-53.

Henson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2003). Notes on the development of Static-2002. Ottawa:

Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Latessa, E. J. (Unknown). Evaluating Correctional Programs. Retrieved from http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No88/No88_11VE_Latessa_Evaluating.pdf

Lovins, B., Lowenkamp, C. T., & J., L. E. (2009). Applying the Risk Principle to Sex Offenders:

Can Treatment Make Some Sex Offenders Worse? The Prison Journal, 344-357.

Lowenkamp, C., & Latessa, E. (2004). Understanding the Risk Principle: How and Why

Correctional Interventions Can Harm Low-Risk Offenders. Topics in Community

Corrections, 3-8.

Mann, R., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: some proposals and the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual abuse, 22(2), 191-217.

Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. L. (2010). The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggression and violent behavior, 15, 141-149.

McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., & Lasher, M. P. (2012). SOTIPS: Sex Offender Treatment

Intervention and Progress Scale. Retrieved from http://www.nij.gov/funding/Documents/fy12-sotips-manual.pdf

McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B. L., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009

North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. Retrieved from http://www.safersociety.org/u

McGrath, R. J., Lasher, M. P., & Cumming, G. F. (2011). A model of Static and Dynamic Sex

Offender Risk Assessment. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf

McNaughton Nicholls, C., & Webster, S. (2014). Sex Offender Management and Dynamic Risk:

Pilot Evaluation of the Active Risk Management System (ARMS). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sex-offender-management-and-dynamic-risk

Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex offenders: Clinical and demographic features. The journal of sexual aggression, 8, 5-21.

National Institute of Corrections. (2011). Special Challenges Facing Parole. US. Department of

Justice, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/Library/024200.pdf

Norcross, J., Krebs, P., & Prochaska, J. (2011). Stages of change. Journal of Clinical

Psychology: In Session, 67(2), 143-154.

Pflugradt, D. M., & Allen, B. P. (2012). A grounded theory analysis of sexual sadism in females.

Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 325-337.

Pflugradt, D. M., & Allen, B. P. (2013). Static factors predict sexual misconduct among the incarcerated female sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression: an International

Interdisciplinary Forum for Research, Theory and Practice.

doi:10.1080/13552600.2012.758786

Pflugradt, D., & Cortoni, F. (2014). Women who sexually offend: A case study. In T. G. Daniel

Wilcox (Ed.), Sex Offender Treatment: A Case Study Approach to Issues and

Interventions. Wiley Publications.

Prentky, R., & Righthand, S. (2003). Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol – II (J-Soap-II)

Manual. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/2

Prentky, R., & Righthand, S. (2003). Juvenile sex offender Assessment Protocol-II Manual.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.psicologiagiuridica.eu/files/didattica/jsoap2.pdf

Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & DiClemente, C. (2013). Applying the stages of change.

Psychotherapy in Australia, 19(2), 10-15.

Rempel, R. (2014). Evidence-based strategies for working with offenders. Center for Court

Innovations, Bureau of Justice Assistnce, US Department of Justice.

Sandler, J. C., & Freeman. (2009). Female sex offender recidivism: A large-scale empirical analysis. Sexual Abuse: The Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 455-473.

Tharp, A., DeGue, S., Valle, L., Brookmeyer, K., Massetti, G., & Matjasko, J. (2012). A systematic qualitative review of risk and protective factors for sexual violence perpetration. Trauma, violence, and abuse, 14(2), 133-167.

Thornton, D. (2013). The implications of our developing understanding of risk and protective factors in the treatment of adult male sexual offenders. International Journal of

Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8(3-4), 62-65.

Tsopelas, C., Tsetsou, S., Ntounas, P., & Douzenis, A. (2012). Female perpetrators of sexual abuse of minors: What are the consequences for the victims? International Journal of

Law and Psychiatry, 35(4), 305–310. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.04.003

Vandiver, D. (2007, March). An examination of re-arrest rates of 942 male and 471 female registered sex offenders. Featured panel on sex offenders. Seattle, WA: Academy of the

Criminal Justice Sciences.

Ware, J., Mann, R. E., & Wakeling, H. C. (2009). Group vs. individual treatment: what is the best modality for treating sexual offenders? Sexual abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 2(1), 2-13.

Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2010). Women don't do such things! Characteristics of female sex offenders and offender types. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and

Treatment, 22(2), 135-156.