0. Part II: Risk Assessment Instruments
June 2-4, 2015
Assessment of Juvenile Sexual Risk
Part II: Risk Assessment Instruments
Phil Rich, Ed.D., LICSW
Specialized Consultation and Training
Notes 1

1. Assessment Instruments
Juvenile Sexual Risk
Assessment Instruments

2. Sexual Risk Assessment Instruments for Adolescents
There are a number of juvenile risk assessment instruments in use.
However, the three currently most commonly used instruments in North America are:
The J-SOAP-II (Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II)
The ERASOR (Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism)
-These are both structured and empirically-based instruments designed for clinical assessment.
The JSORRAT-II, (Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II), currently the only available actuarial assessment for juvenile sexual offenders

3. Sexual Risk Assessment Instruments for Adolescents
Recently added is the MEGA (Multiplex Empirically Guided Inventory of Ecological Aggregates for Assessing Sexually Abusive Adolescents), also a clinical risk assessment instrument.
We will also discuss the J-RAT, as it will be used in the training.
However, even though there are differences between each instrument, they are more similar than they are different.
The main exception is the JSORRAT-II, with respect to its inclusion of static items only.

4. Remaining Well-Informed: Weak Empirical Support for Sexual Risk Instruments
Of these instruments, the J-SOAP has received the most attention and been subject to the most empirical scrutiny in terms of validation studies.
Nevertheless, among the studies of each instrument completed thus far, overall the literature is scattered and inconsistent and does not offer a great deal of statistical support for any of the risk assessment instruments.

5. Remaining Well-Informed: Weak Empirical Support for Sexual Risk Instruments
Research has yielded mixed and inconsistent, and hence, contradictory, results.
The literature instead largely describes risk assessment instruments as failing to show high, consistent, or universal levels of reliability or predictive validity.

6. The Juvenile Sexual Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II)

7. The Juvenile Sexual Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II)
The J-SOAP-II is an empirically-guided checklist used to aid in the systematic review of risk factors that have been identified in the professional literature as being associated with sexual and criminal offending.
The J-SOAP-II is designed to be used with year old males who have been adjudicated for sexual offenses, as well as non-adjudicated youths with a history of sexually coercive behavior.
Decisions about re-offense risk should not be based exclusively on the results from J-SOAP-II.
The J-SOAP-II should always be used as part of a comprehensive risk assessment.

8. The Juvenile Sexual Offender Assessment Protocol (J-SOAP-II)
The J-SOAP-II is composed of four scales that include 28 Risk Factors:
Scale One. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation (Static)
Scale Two. Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior (Static)
Scale Three. Intervention (Dynamic)
Scale Four. Community Stability/Adjustment (Dynamic)
The J-SOAP-II does not assign risk ratings.

9. J-SOAP II Static Risk Assessment Scale One. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation
Points assigned based on scoring rules
Static Risk Assessment
Scale One. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation
Risk Factor 1. Prior Charged Sexual Offenses
Risk Factor 2. Number of Sexual Abuse Victims
Risk Factor 3. Male Child Victim
Risk Factor 4. Duration of Sexual Offense History
Risk Factor 5. Degree of Planning in Sexual Offenses
Risk Factor 6. Sexualized Aggression
Risk Factor 7. Sexual Drive and Preoccupation
Risk Factor 8. Sexual Victimization History

10. J-SOAP II Static Risk Assessment
Points assigned based on scoring rules
Static Risk Assessment
Scale Two. Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior
Risk Factor 9. Caregiver Consistency
Risk Factor 10. Pervasive Anger
Risk Factor 11. School Behavior Problems
Risk Factor 12. Conduct Disorder Before Age 10
Risk Factor 13. Juvenile Antisocial Behavior (10-17)
Risk Factor 14. Charged or Arrested Before age 16
Risk Factor 15. Multiple Types of Offenses
Risk Factor 16. History of Physical Assault/Exposure to
Family Violence

11. J-SOAP II Dynamic Risk Assessment Scale Three. Intervention
Points assigned based on scoring rules
Dynamic Risk Assessment
Scale Three. Intervention
Risk Factor 17. Accepting Responsibility for Offenses
Risk Factor 18. Internal Motivation for Change
Risk Factor 19. Understands Risk Factors/ Applies Risk Management
Risk Factor 20. Empathy
Risk Factor 21. Remorse and Guilt
Risk Factor 22. Cognitive Distortions
Risk Factor 23. Quality of Peer Relations

12. J-SOAP II Dynamic Risk Assessment
Points assigned based on scoring rules
Dynamic Risk Assessment
Scale Four. Community Stability/Adjustment
Risk Factor Management of Sexual Urges and Desires
Risk Factor Management of Anger
Risk Factor Stability of Current Living Situation
Risk Factor Stability in School
Risk Factor Evidence of Positive Support System

13. The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR)

14. The Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR)
The ERASOR is a structured professional judgment instrument used for the assessment of sexual re-offense in juvenile sexual offenders, ages
The ERASOR is composed of 25 risk factors falling into five categories:
Sexual Interests, Attitudes, and Behaviors
Historical Sexual Assaults
Psychosocial Functioning
Family/Environmental Functioning
Treatment
The ERASOR provides an overall risk assessment rating of Low, Moderate, or High.

15. Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
ERASOR
Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
1. Sexual Interests, Attitudes, and Behaviors
Risk Factor 1. Deviant Sexual Interests
Risk Factor 2. Obsessive Sexual Interests
Risk Factor 3. Attitudes Support Sexual Offending
Risk Factor 4. Unwilling to Alter Deviant Sexual Interests

16. Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
ERASOR
Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
2. Historical Sexual Assaults
Risk Factor Assaulted 2 or More Victims
Risk Factor Sexually Assaulted Same Victim 2+ times
Risk Factor Prior Adult Sanctions for Sexual Assaults
Risk Factor Threats or Use of Violence/Weapons
Risk Factor Sexually Assaulted Child
Risk Factor 10. Sexually Assaulted Stranger
Risk Factor 11. Indiscriminate Choice of Victim
Risk Factor 12. Sexually Assaulted Male Victim
Risk Factor 13. Diverse Sexually Assault Behaviors

17. Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
ERASOR
Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
3. Psychosocial Functioning
Risk Factor 14. Antisocial Interpersonal Orientation
Risk Factor 15. Lack of Intimate Peer Relationships
Risk Factor 16. Negative Peer Associations
Risk Factor 17. Interpersonal Aggression
Risk Factor 18. Recent Escalation in Negative Affect
Risk Factor 19. Poor Self-Regulation/Impulsive

18. Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
ERASOR
Scored as Not Present, Partially/Possibly Present, Present, Unknown
4. Family/Environmental Functioning
Risk Factor 20. High Stress Family Environment
Risk Factor 21. Problematic Parent-Offender Relationship
Risk Factor 22. Parents Don’t Support SOS Treatment
Risk Factor 23. Re-Offense Opportunities in Environment
5. Treatment
Risk Factor 24. No Development of Relapse Prevention Plan
Risk Factor 25. Incomplete Sex Offense Specific Treatment
6. Other
Risk Factor 26. Other

19. The Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool J-RAT

20. The Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool J-RAT
The J-RAT is a structured, empirically-guided clinical instrument designed to assess the risk for a sexual re-offense in adolescent males, ages (19th birthday).
It is not an empirically validated instrument.
It corresponds closely to the ERASOR and J-SOAP.
It is comprised of 12 risk domains, each of which represents an overarching risk factor.
Each risk domain represents an area of behavior, capacity or skill, psychosocial functioning, cognition, relationships, or environmental conditions, and each domain contains individual risk elements.
There are a total of 97 individual risk elements, each of which is assessed independently of one another.

21. The Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool J-RAT
Risk elements are assessed by the evaluator in terms of the significance of each element as a concern.
Each level of significance is assigned a numerical value.
The assessed value given to each risk element yields an overall numerical score, which leads to an assessed level of risk for each domain in terms of its possible contribution to a sexual re-offense.
The J-RAT has three risk scales:
Sexual Risk
Non-Sexual Risk
Non-Abusive Sexual Risk

22. The Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool J-RAT
Each domain within the J-RAT contains a protective factors screen, allowing the evaluator to note the presence of an identified protective factor.
The final/global assessment of risk for sexual recidivism is the outcome of a series of assessments in each individual risk domain, combined into a final numerical score that translates into a global level of risk.
Risk is assessed as high, moderate-high, moderate, low- moderate, or low.
Risk may also be assessed as no risk, not applicable, or cannot assess in the event that there is no known history of sexually abusive behavior or there is insufficient evidence or applicability.

23. J-RAT Domains
Domain 1. History of Sexually Abusive Behavior……… elements
Domain 2. History of Non-Sexual Antisocial Behaviors elements
Domain 3. Responsibility……………………………… elements
Domain 4. Relationships…………………………………… elements
Domain 5. Cognitive Capacity and Ability……………… elements
Domain 6. Social Skills elements
Domain 7. Developmental Adversity/Trauma…………...… 6 elements
Domain 8. Personal Characteristics and Qualities… elements
Domain 9. Psychiatric Comorbidity and Treatment……… 5 elements
Domain 10. Substance Abuse………………………………….. 4 elements
Domain11. Family Factors………………………………… elements
Domain 12. Environmental Conditions………………………. 4 elements
Total elements………….……………………………………. 97 elements

24. Interim Re-Assessment J-RAT/IR
The J-RAT can be used for re-assessment over time.
However, the J-RAT/IR (Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool/Interim Re-Assessment ) is designed for that purpose.

25. J-RAT Variants CI/J-RAT
Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool (Cognitively Impaired)
LA-SAAT
Latency Age-Sexual Adjustment and Assessment Tool
Both instruments have interim assessment counterparts

26. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II )

27. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II )
The JSORRAT-II is the first actuarial assessment in which risk factors are truly founded in empirical evidence, and thus statistically derived.
It is an actuarial assessment instrument, designed to statistically assess the likelihood of a sexual re-offense prior to age 18 in male adolescents aged 12-18, with a history of at least one prior adjudicated sexual offense committed between the ages of

28. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II )
In most locales, the JSORRAT-II is presently a research tool and is continuing to undergoing development and further validation with other independent samples, and may change in construction and content.
It is currently available for use only in Utah, Iowa, California, and Georgia.
In other locales, the JSORRAT-II may be used only a research instrument.

29. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II )
In California, although not yet validated, the JSORRAT has been selected by the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders Committee (SARATSO) as the required instrument to be used in the assessment of male juvenile sexual offenders (California Penal Code, §§ ).

30. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II )
The JSORRAT-II assesses 12 items, or risk factors, each of which can be evaluated from record review alone.
Each item, or risk factor, scores between 0-3 points depending on the item, in which a total score of 8 or more is considered moderate-high risk in Utah and California, and 7 or more is considered “risk level 3" (the highest risk level) in Iowa.

31. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II )
Number of actual adjudications for sex offenses
Number of different victims in charged sex offenses
Length of sex offending history
Under supervision when any sex offenses occurred
Felony level sex offense committed in public
Use of deception/grooming in sex offenses.

32. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II )
Prior sex offender treatment status
Number of incidents of hands-on sexual offenses in which the offender was the victim
Number of incidents of physical abuse in which the offender was the victim
Any placement in special education
Number of educational time periods with discipline problems (elementary through high school)
Number of adjudications for non-sexual offenses

33. The Limitations of Actuarial Assessment
However, a major difficulty with any actuarial assessment is that it overlooks dynamic risk factors…
… and is a static instrument that fails to recognize or take into consideration situational, relational, or environmental risks.
Actuarial assessments necessarily see the individual as a member of a class, rather than as an individual.

34. The Limitations of Actuarial Assessment
Despite all we have learned about the developmental fluidity of the adolescent experience, the need to include a focus on protective factors as well as risk, and the short-term nature of risk estimates…
… actuarial assessments are unable to recognize or respond to change in clients.
Additionally, actuarial assessments are not able to tell us anything about the individual being assessed…
… or help set priorities for case management and treatment planning.

35. Protective Factors

36. Desistence for Adolescents Who Sexually Harm
Protective Factors
DASH-13
Desistence for Adolescents Who Sexually Harm
Prosocial sexual interests
Prosocial sexual attitudes
Prosocial sexual environment
Awareness of the consequences of sexual reoffending
Compassion for others
Positive problem-solving skills
Positive affect-regulation skills
Emotional intimacy with peers
Close relationship with a positive and supportive adult
Adequate environmental controls
Active involvement in prosocial structured activity with peers
Hope
Successful treatment completion

37. Protective Factors J-RAT Protective Factors Scale
Recognizes sexually abusive behavior as harmful to others
Accepts responsibility for sexually abusive behavior
No significant history of non-sexual behavioral problems
Accepts personal responsibility
Expresses remorse for personal behavior
Motivated for treatment
Expresses concern for victims of personal behavior
Prosocial peer relationships
Meaningful and satisfying peer relationships
Average or higher IQ
Communicates well
Manages conflict well

38. Protective Factors J-RAT Protective Factors Scale
Effective self-regulation
No history of significant developmental trauma or loss
No significantly problematic personality traits
No extensive treatment history
Responded well to prior general treatment
No history of substance abuse
Stable family environment
Family support for juvenile
Positive/strong family relationships
Strong community support system
Strong community monitoring/supervision
Stable community living environment

39. The Choice of Risk Assessment Instrument
In the choice of assessment tools, the evaluator should be aware of different orientations and approaches in the underlying model, and even in the design, focus, and scope of the assessment instrument.
However, the differences between instruments within the same class (that is, actuarial or clinical) can be difficult to fully discern.
Differences often seem more a matter of degree than substance with respect to selected risk factors, scope, design, and wording.

40. The Evaluation Process Overall
Hart el al. (2003) suggest that 10 points are important in the selection of a risk assessment instrument.
These 10 points reflect the role of the risk assessment instrument as part of a larger process.
Does the evaluation gather information concerning multiple domains of the individual’s functioning?
Does the evaluation use multiple methods to gather information?
Does the evaluation gather information from multiple sources?
Does the evaluation allow users to evaluate the accuracy of relevant information?
Does the evaluation involve both static and dynamic risk factors?

41. The Evaluation Process Overall
Does the evaluation allow re-assessment, to evaluate change in risk over time?
Is the evaluation comprehensive?
Is the evaluation comprehensible and acceptable to those who will use its results?
Can evaluators be trained to use the evaluation in a consistent manner?
Does the evaluation process result in information, ideas, and recommendations that can reduce sexual risk?