Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment

Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II)
Manual
Robert Prentky, Ph.D.
Sue Righthand, Ph.D.

2003

NCJ 202316
Printed copies of this manual are available
from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Preventions Juvenile Justice
Clearinghouse. To order, call 8008513420
and ask for NCJ 202316.

Contact Information
The J-SOAP-II is an experimental scale and is the subject of ongoing research to improve reliability
and further enhance predictive validity. We appreciate feedback from users about areas of
ambiguity and ways to increase clarity. We are available to answer questions concerning the use of
the J-SOAP, updates on validity studies, and training opportunities.
Robert Prentky, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 162
Accord, MA 02018-0162
Office: (508) 6972744
Email: [email protected]
Sue Righthand, Ph.D.
P.O. Box 1047
Rockland, ME 04841
VM: (207) 5940105
Email: [email protected]

Table of Contents
Contact Information ......................................................................................................................... i
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
Caveat .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Development and Validation of J-SOAP-II.................................................................................... 2
Development................................................................................................................................ 2
Validation .................................................................................................................................... 2
J-SOAP-II .................................................................................................................................... 5
References ................................................................................................................................... 6
Frequently Asked Questions ........................................................................................................... 8
Scoring Guidelines........................................................................................................................ 11
Scoring Instructions ...................................................................................................................... 12
Section I. Static Risk Assessment.............................................................................................. 12
Scale 1. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation Items ........................................................................... 12
Scale 2. Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior Items ....................................................................... 16
Section II. Dynamic Risk Assessment....................................................................................... 21
Scale 3. Intervention Items..................................................................................................... 21
Scale 4. Community Stability/Adjustment Items................................................................... 25
Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II Scoring Form ..................................................... 28
Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II Summary Form .................................................. 29

ii

Introduction
The Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) is a checklist whose purpose is 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. It is designed to be used with boys in the age range of
12 to 18 who have been adjudicated for sexual offenses, as well as nonadjudicated youths with a
history of sexually coercive behavior.
Decisions about reoffense risk should not be based exclusively on the results from J-SOAP-II. JSOAP-II should always be used as part of a comprehensive risk assessment. Like any scale that is
intended to assess risk, J-SOAP-II requires ongoing validation and possible revision, as we learn
more about how J-SOAP-II works and about how best to assess the risk of youths who have sexually
offended. Because the revised J-SOAP is a new scale, and we are just beginning to collect predictive
validity data on it, we cannot provide users with cut-off scores for categories of risk at this point; this
is all the more reason why scores from J-SOAP-II should not be used in isolation when assessing
risk.
Caveat
When assessing risk with sex offenders in general, and with juveniles in particular, the stakes are
often very high. In assessing the risk posed by a juvenile, we have an enormous burden of
responsibility. Decisions based on our evaluations can have a profound impact: on the one hand,
protecting society from genuinely high-risk youths, while on the other hand, possibly resulting in
severe, life-altering consequences for low-risk youths.
It is imperative that clinicians who assess the risk of adolescent offending be very knowledgeable of
the challenges involved in assessing this population. Unlike adults, adolescents are still very much
in flux. No aspect of their development, including their cognitive development, is fixed or stable.
In addition, their life circumstances often are very unstable. In a very real sense, we are trying to
assess the risk of moving targets. Since risk status may change, sometimes dramatically, in a brief
period of time, we strongly recommend that youths be re-assessed for risk at a minimum of every 6
months. At the very least, Scales 3 and 4 should be rescored every 6 months. Re-assessments should
be done even more frequently if the examiner is aware of risk-relevant changes that have occurred in
the youths life.
Prior to using J-SOAP-II, users should have training and experience in assessing juveniles who
commit sexual offenses and risk assessment in general, particularly as it pertains to juvenile sex
offending. In addition, prior to using J-SOAP-II, users should read the manual and be familiar with
its contents. Before using the scale in any professional capacity, users should complete several
practice cases and compare their scores with others who have scored the same case to identify and
resolve any scoring difficulties. It is also recommended that J-SOAP-II users periodically consult
with each other about their scoring and stay current with the evolving literature relevant for
assessing juveniles who sexually offend.

Development and Validation of J-SOAP-II

Development
The original version of this risk assessment scale for juvenile sex offenders was developed at Joseph
J. Peters Institute (JJPI) in Philadelphia in 1994 (Prentky, Harris, Frizzell, & Righthand, 2000). The
risk assessment variables were developed after reviews of the literature that covered five areas: (1)
clinical studies of juvenile sex offenders, (2) risk assessment/outcome studies of juvenile sex
offenders, (3) risk assessment/outcome studies of adult sex offenders, (4) risk assessment/outcome
studies from the general juvenile delinquency literature, and (5) risk assessment studies on mixed
populations of adult offenders.
In all, 23 items representing 4 subscales were developed. These scales were intended to capture the
two major historical (static) domains that are of importance for risk assessment with this population
(Scale 1: Sexual Drive/Sexual Preoccupation and Scale 2: Impulsive, Antisocial Behavior), and the
two major dynamic areas that could potentially reflect behavior change (Scale 3: Clinical/Treatment
and Scale 4: Community Adjustment). The latter two subscales were of particular importance,
because the original risk assessment protocol was developed to assess not only risk at discharge but
change as a function of treatment.
No a priori item weighting was used. All items were trichotomized and assumed, for lack of
empirical data to suggest otherwise, to be of equal importance. Trichotomization was intended to be
a compromise, adding some increase in sensitivity over a simple rating of present/absent, while at
the same time preserving acceptable interrater reliability. The coding for each item provided, to
whatever extent possible, behavioral anchors to increase clarity and reliability.
Validation
The construction/validation sample consisted of 96 juvenile sexual offenders, ranging in age from 9
to 20 (average age was 14), who were referred to JJPI for assessment and treatment. The risk
assessment protocol was completed on all 96 juvenile sex offenders as part of a comprehensive
intake battery at JJPI. The protocol was completed again at time of discharge, on average 24 months
later. The protocol was coded independently by two clinicians entirely from archival documents and
data obtained from the intake battery. After the ratings were completed, the clinicians discussed
disagreements, and the agreed-upon ratings were used to examine outcome.
Twelve-month follow-up data were obtained on 75 of the 96 youths in the study. The short-term
[12-month] recidivism rate of 11% included three youths that committed another sexual offense,
four youths that committed a nonsexual victim-involved offense, and one youth who committed a
nonsexual, victimless offense.
The inter-rater reliability (IRR) for all items, except for Caregiver Instability, was good to excellent,
ranging from .75 to .91, with an average IRR of .83. The reliability for Caregiver Instability was
poor (.59), and that item has since been revised. Three of the subscales had moderate internal
consistency, with alphas ranging from .68 to .73. The Clinical/Treatment scale had a high degree of

internal consistency (.85). Three of the four subscales comprised items with high item-total
correlations (r > .30). Seven of the 9 items in Scale 2, 4 of the 5 items in Scale 3, and all items in
Scale 4 exceeded this benchmark. The exception was Scale 1. The only Scale 1 item with a
reasonably high item-total correlation was Prior Charged Sex Offenses.
Overall, there was an average total scale score of 21 for those juveniles who did not reoffend and an
average scale score of 30 for those 3 juveniles who committed another sexual offense. These results
were based on a very small sample of eight recidivists, only three of whom were sexual recidivists.
For that reason we applied no inferential statistics, and observed group differences were not
confirmed by statistical significance.
We looked at Treatment Outcome (assessed at time of discharge) in two ways, by correlating the
total score for the six treatment outcome variables with the four follow-up variables and with the
four subscales. The correlation between Treatment Outcome and the total scale score was .58. The
correlations between Treatment Outcome and the two dynamic subscales were .62 for Clinical/
Treatment and .43 for Community Adjustment. The correlations between Treatment Outcome and
Follow-Up were .35 for the juveniles who reoffended and .55 for the juveniles who were removed
from the community and placed.
This study was informative in pointing to areas that required revision and clarification. The scoring
criteria for every item were carefully examined for ambiguity and behavioral examples and anchors
were added. Two changes were made to Scale 1. First, the Scale 1 item that included offense
planning (History of Predatory Behavior) was replaced with a more clearly defined Offense
Planning item. The new Offense Planning item was behaviorally anchored and easier to code from
file data than the more inferential History of Predatory Behavior item that required difficult
judgments about behaviors such as grooming and exploitation. Second, a fifth variable was added to
Scale 1 that was intended to capture the degree to which the juvenile sexualized his victims (for
example, use of pornography in the offense, filming the victim, engaging in unusual or ritualized
sexual acts with the victim). Two changes were also made to Scale 2. A Juvenile Antisocial
Behavior item was added that was intended to assess general delinquency, and a History of
Expressed Anger item was added that was designed to assess disruptions due to poorly controlled
and poorly managed anger.
The revised scale, completed in 1998 and referred to as J-SOAP, was examined with a sample of
153 juveniles in Maine (Righthand, Prentky, Hecker, Carpenter, & Nangle, 2000). The juvenile
sexual offenders in this sample had an average age of 16, and had been adjudicated for a sex offense
or had been adjudicated for another offense, but had a documented sex offense in their records. The
victims ranged in age from 1 year to 36 years, with an average age of 8.6 years. Inter-rater
reliabilities for the four subscales ranged from .80 to .91. Internal consistency continued to be quite
high for Scale 2 (alpha = .88), Scale 3 (alpha = .95), and Scale 4 (alpha = .80), with Scale 1
evidencing moderate internal consistency (alpha = .64).
We looked at the factor structure of the 26 items comprising the J-SOAP using principal component
analysis (PCA) (Righthand et al., 2000). The four-factor solution provided strong empirical support
for the four J-SOAP scales. The first factor, accounting for slightly over 20% of the variance, was
the equivalent of Scale 2 (Impulsive, Antisocial Behavior) on J-SOAP. The first factor mapped

Scale 2 precisely, with all items on Scale 2 falling on it. The loadings for these 11 items ranged
from .44 to .77. The second factor, also accounting for 20% of the variance, was the equivalent of
Scale 3 (Clinical Intervention) on J-SOAP. All five Scale 3 items loaded on this factor along with
one item (Quality of Peer Relations) that was from Scale 4 of J-SOAP. The loadings for the five
Scale 3 items ranged from .83 to .88. The third factor, accounting for about 9% of the variance, was
the precise equivalent of Scale 1 (Sexual Drive & Preoccupation) on the J-SOAP. All five Scale 1
items loaded on this factor, with item loadings ranging from .51 to .72. The fourth factor,
accounting for about 8.5% of the variance, was the equivalent of Scale 4 (Community Adjustment)
on the J-SOAP. Four of the five Scale 2 items loaded on this component, with item loadings ranging
from .46 to .78.
The concurrent validity of the J-SOAP was explored by examining how well it correlated with the
Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LSI/CMI) (Righthand et al., 2000). In
addition, we examined the relationship between the J-SOAP static scales (Scales 1 & 2) and
criminal history variables coded from the juveniles files. The coded variables were: (1) Total
Offenses, the total number of offenses of any type committed by the youth, (2) Sexual Offenses, the
total number of sexual offenses committed by the youth, (3) Sex Offense Victims, the number of
victims of contact sexual offenses; and (4) Sexual Aggression, the degree of aggression displayed
by the youth during any and all sexual activities throughout his life.
The LSI/CMI was highly correlated with the total J-SOAP score [r = .91], as well as the individual
scales: Scale 1 [r = .37]; Scale 2 [r = .81]; Scale 3 [r = .88]; Scale 4 [r = .91]. Scale 1 was
uncorrelated with Total Offenses [r = .08] but significantly correlated with Number of Sex Offenses
[r = .36], Number of Sex Offense Victims [r = .64], and Degree of Sexual Aggression [r = .27].
Scale 2 was uncorrelated with Number of Sex Offenses (r = .03) but significantly correlated with
Total Offenses [r = .30], Number of Sex Offense Victims [r = .27], and Degree of Sexual
Aggression [r = .29].
Of the original sample of 153 youths, 134 could be reliably coded as to placement, either residential
(a treatment or correctional facility) or in the community. The validity of the J-SOAP was also
examined by comparing 45 residential and 89 community juveniles on J-SOAP scales (Righthand,
Carpenter, & Prentky, 2001). Since Scale 4 is not scored for youths who have been in secure care
for 6 months or longer, Scale 4 was not examined. The other three J-SOAP scales discriminated
between the two groups, with the residential juveniles being significantly higher in risk than the
community juveniles on all three scales.
In one of two recent predictive validity studies, Hecker, Scoular, Righthand, & Nangle (2002)
examined juvenile and adult arrest and conviction data for a period spanning 10 to 12 years on a
sample of 54 male adolescent sex offenders. Twenty of the juveniles committed a nonsexual offense
(37%) and 6 of the juveniles committed a sexual offense (11%) during the follow-up period.
Although the total J-SOAP score was not correlated with sexual recidivism, Scale 1 alone
significantly improved the prediction of sexual recidivism above chance (ROC, AUC = .79). A
serious caveat, however, is that there were only 6 sexual recidivists. The very low rate of sexual
recidivism has been a methodological impediment that has hindered our ability to examine in
greater depth the predictive validity of J-SOAP.

Waite, Pinkerton, Wieckowski, McGarvey, & Brown (2002) reported on a 9-year follow-up study
of 253 very high-risk juvenile sex offenders. Although the detected rate of sexual recidivism was,
once again, very low (4.3%, 11 youths were arrested for a new sexual offense), roughly 60% of the
sample was arrested for other offenses. Using a modified Scale 2 from the J-SOAP (8 of the 11
items were coded), the juveniles were split into two groups: Low Impulsive/Antisocial (n = 118)
and High Impulsive/Antisocial (n = 135). The proportion of the Low and High groups arrested for
any new offense was 52.6% and 74.8%, respectively (p < .001). Although the numbers were very
small, it is noteworthy that the High Scale 2 juveniles were three times more likely to be rearrested
for a new sexual offense (9.8%, compared with 2.9% for the Low Scale 2 juveniles).
Righthand, Knight, and Prentky (2002) tested four theoretical models using structural equation
modeling. This study explored (a) the relationship of antecedent adverse life experiences to J-SOAP
Scales 1, 2, and 3, and (b) the relationship of J-SOAP to sex offense outcome variables. The six key
findings from this study were: (1) there was a strong relationship between a history of sexual abuse
and J-SOAP Scale 1, (2) the severity of the sexual abuse was the most important facet of sexual
abuse for predicting outcome, (3) family violence/trauma and caregiver instability were both related
to J-SOAP Scale 2, (4) J-SOAP Scale 1 was strongly related to the number of victims (the higher
the score, the greater the number of victims) and victim gender (higher Scale 1 scores were
associated with male victims), (5) J-SOAP Scale 2 was related to victim age (higher Scale 2 scores
were associated with older victims (teenage or older)), and (6) J-SOAP Scales 1 and 2 both were
associated with the amount of force used in the sexual offenses.
J-SOAP-II
The J-SOAP was revised again based on the results of the studies just described. In addition, an
attempt was made to better anchor items in clear, behavioral terms. In this section, we will highlight
the most important changes that have been made to J-SOAP. Only substantial changes, such as item
additions and deletions, are described here. Because numerous, more subtle changes were made to
item wording and scoring criteria, it is important to read over the revised scale carefully.
Scale 1. Six substantial changes were made. These changes include the addition of four new items,
the deletion of one item, and an extensive revision of another. The decision to add several items was
based on weaknesses in Scale 1 and recent research suggesting the potential importance of these
items in assessing the risk of sexual reoffending. The four new items are: (1) Number of Sexual
Abuse Victims, which measures the number of victims the juvenile has ever sexually abused, (2)
Male Child Victim, which assesses the juveniles history of sexually abusing a substantially
younger male child, (3) Sexualized Aggression, which assesses the presence of gratuitous or
expressive aggression that goes beyond what was required to complete the sexual offense, and (4)
Sexual Victimization History, which assesses the juveniles own history of sexual victimization and
the complexity and severity of the abuse.
The deleted item is: High Degree of Sexualizing the Victim. This item had a very low frequency of
occurrence and appeared of limited utility. One item, Evidence of Sexual Preoccupation/
Obsessions, was replaced with a more clearly defined Sexual Drive and Preoccupation item. The
new Sexual Drive and Preoccupation item was behaviorally anchored with a range of examples
making it easier to code from file data. Scale 1 in the J-SOAP-II now has a total of eight items.

Scale 2. Six substantial changes were made. (1) Two items, History of Substance Abuse and History
of Parental Substance Abuse, were eliminated. Several studies consistently indicated that these were
weak items and were not contributing to the predictive ability of Scale 2. (2) The item School
Suspensions or Expulsions was combined with the item School Behavior Problems to reduce the
obvious overlap between those two items. (3) The item Impulsivity was dropped. As a risk
predictor, lifestyle impulsivity appears to be more effective with adults than juveniles. The J-SOAP
item, Juvenile Antisocial Behavior, provides a much better assessment of impulsivity in
adolescence. (4) An item, Physical Assault History/Exposure to Family Violence, was added based
on the empirical literature as well as our recent path analysis looking at the developmental
antecedents of J-SOAP scales, (5) The item Caregiver Consistency was revised. In order to provide
a more sensitive assessment of caregiver changes that might impact adversely affect the
development of attachments and relationships, the item was changed to assess caregivers prior to
age 10 rather than 16. J-SOAP-II Scale 2 now has a total of eight items.
Scale 3. Because J-SOAP-II may be useful for assessing nonsexual recidivism as well as sexual
recidivism, relevant Scale 3 Intervention items were revised to include changes in attitudes and
behaviors related to nonsexual offending as well as sexual offending. In addition, because empathy
and remorse are really distinct attitudes and feelings, J-SOAP item Evidence of Empathy, Remorse,
and Guilt was separated into two items, one simply entitled Empathy, and the other entitled
Remorse and Guilt. Finally, based on Principal Components Analyses findings, the item Quality of
Peer Relationships was moved from Scale 4 to Scale 3, where it appears to fit conceptually as an
important target of treatment interventions. These changes result in J-SOAP-II Scale 3, the
Intervention Scale, having a total of seven items.
Scale 4. Two substantial changes were made to Scale 4. One new item, Management of Sexual
Urges and Desire, was added to assess the extent to which the juvenile manages his sexual urges
and desires in socially appropriate and healthy ways. Also, as noted above, the item Quality of Peer
Relationships was moved from Scale 4 to Scale 3. These changes resulted in Scale 4 having a total
of five items.
In all, the revised scale has 28 items, 2 more than the original J-SOAP. J-SOAP-II replaces all
previous versions of the J-SOAP.
References
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1994). Psychopathy as a taxon: Evidence that
psychopaths are a discrete class. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62: 387397.
Hecker, J., Scoular, J., Righthand, S., & Nangle, D. (2002, October). Predictive validity of the JSOAP over 10-plus years: Implications for risk assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (1994). The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory
and Manual. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University, Department of Psychology.

Prentky, R. A., Harris, B., Frizzell, K., & Righthand, S. (2000). An actuarial procedure for assessing
risk with juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Rresearch and Treatment, 12(2): 71
93.
Righthand, S., Carpenter, E. M., Prentky, R. A. (2001, November). Risk assessment in a sample of
juveniles who have sexually offended: A comparative analysis. Poster presented at the Annual
Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Antonio, Texas.
Righthand, S., Knight, R., & Prentky, R. (2002, October). A path analytic investigation of proximal
antecedents of J-SOAP risk domains. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for
Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Righthand, S., Prentky, R. Hecker, J. E., Carpenter, E., & Nangle, D. (2000, November). JJPIMaine Juvenile Sex Offender Risk Assessment Schedule (J-SOAP). Poster session presented at the
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 19th Annual Research and Treatment Conference
in San Diego, CA.
Righthand, S., Prentky, R. A., Knight, R. A., Carpenter, E., Hecker, J. E., & Nangle, D. (Manuscript
in preparation). Factor structure and validation of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol
(J-SOAP).
Waite, D., Pinkerton, R., Wieckowski, E., McGarvey, E., & Brown, G. L. (2002, October).
Tracking treatment outcome among juvenile sexual offenders: A nine year follow-up study. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is actuarial risk assessment?
Actuarial refers to the work done by actuaries. Actuaries are individuals who are trained to
calculate risks using statistics, usually for insurance companies. Actuarial scales are developed
using statistical analyses of groups of individuals with known outcomes (such as men who have
been convicted of a new sex offense and men who apparently have not reoffended sexually). These
analyses tell us which items (predictor variables) do the best job of differentiating between those
who reoffended and those who did not reoffend. Because some items inevitably do a better job than
others, these analyses can also tell us how much each item should be weighted. The items are
combined to form a scale. The scales are then used on other samples to see how well they work (to
test their validity).
2. Is the J-SOAP an actuarial scale?
Although our goal is to provide the user with probabilistic estimates of risk for sexual recidivism,
we still do not have adequate data on a sufficiently large number of juvenile sexual reoffenders to
provide such estimates. Thus, at the present time, J-SOAP-II is not an actuarial scale. J-SOAP is an
empirically informed guide for the systematic review and assessment of a uniform set of items that
may reflect increased risk to reoffend.
3. Why are there no cut-off scores?
Cut-off scores are determined after many subjects have been scored and a large and diverse database
is available. Most importantly, this database must include excellent followup information on sexual
recidivism (those who have reoffended and those who have not). Rather than assigning cut-off
scores based on insufficient information, we decided that the most prudent and responsible approach
was to recommend the use of ratios. The score of each scale can be divided by the total possible
score for that scale. The total J-SOAP-II score can also be reported as a ratio. These ratios or
proportions reflect the observed amount of risk rated as present for each scale and for the total
score. When the data that are being gathered clearly point to reliable cut-off scores with diverse
samples of juveniles, we will recommend those cut-offs to users.
4. What about item weighting?
Actuarial scales may work better when items are properly weighted. Item weighting takes into
consideration that some items simply are more important than others when it comes to predicting
outcome. Proper item weighting is done with a statistical procedure called multiple linear
regression. The result is a weighted linear prediction. Item weighting, however, is not required.
Some argue that simple unit item weighting (the way the J-SOAP works) is just as effective.
This is, of course, an empirical question. In order to do proper item weighting, large samples of
offenders are needed to determine the item weights, and we have not as yet gathered enough
outcome data to examine the potential increase in accuracy using item weights.

At the present time, the J-SOAP is a simple unit weighted system. We add the scores for all of the
items and divide by the total possible score to derive the proportion rated as present. Although this
procedure may not be as effective as using item weights, it is superior to using clinically derived
weights (clinical notions about how the items should be weighted, unsupported by any data).
5. Can I adjust the J-SOAP score?
This question is most relevant for discussions of actuarial risk assessment instruments, and, as noted
above, the J-SOAP-II is not an actuarial instrument. Users might adjust a J-SOAP score by
changing the way they rated a particular item because the score was not consistent with their
impression of the juvenile. They would, in effect, be changing the criteria for scoring that item, and
that is not acceptable. The scores for individual items, as well as the overall scale scores, should
never be changed or adjusted. Adjustment is perfectly legitimate when writing up conclusions
about the juveniles risk. In that context, you would be adjusting your conclusions, presumably
based on risk-relevant information that the J-SOAP-II did not take into consideration, and not
adjusting the J-SOAP-II scores. We might think of such risk-relevant information in the dynamic
sense, as mitigating or aggravating factors that serve to increase or decrease risk. The clinician could
report, for example, Although the J-SOAP-II score is relatively low, there are clear aggravating
factors in the individuals life that may increase his risk . . .
6. What can I do to improve my scoring reliability?
The single most important factor contributing to unreliability is the lack of information or the
ambiguity of information being used to score the item. How incomplete or how ambiguous the
information is may vary enormously from one case to another, and there are no simple or easy
methods for dealing with this problem. In general, multiple sources of information are ideal. Not
only is there a greater likelihood of finding needed information, but multiple sources provide a
cross-check of the information.
To enhance reliability, we strongly recommend that examiners use as many sources of information
as possible when scoring J-SOAP-II. In addition, although it is often not feasible, we also
recommend that the J-SOAP-II be scored by two independent clinicians who then compare and
discuss their scores. The agreed-upon scores should be used. When the available information is very
limited, unclear, or incomplete, items should be scored conservatively (that is, in the direction of
lower risk), and it should be noted that the resulting score may underestimate the risk.
Clinicians should, of course, study the manual before using J-SOAP-II. Lastly, it is strongly
recommended that users of J-SOAP-II complete several training cases before using the J-SOAP on
a real case. The importance of adequate training on practice cases cannot be overstated.
7. How can I use J-SOAP scores in treatment planning?
As noted previously, the purpose of the J-SOAP-II is to facilitate risk assessment and risk
management. J-SOAP-II may be particularly useful for informing and guiding treatment and risk
management decisions. For example, if a youth has a relatively high score on Scale 1 but a

relatively low score on Scale 2, the youth may require more sex offense-specific treatment
interventions and less of a focus on delinquency interventions. In fact, mixing such a youth with
more hard-core delinquents may do more harm than good.
In contrast, a youth who has a relatively high score on Scale 2 but a relatively low score on Scale 1
may have sexually offended as part of a more general pattern of antisocial behavior. In cases such as
this, the sexual offense may not reflect serious issues involving management of sexually deviant or
sexually coercive behavior. This type of youth may require delinquency-focused treatment
interventions, perhaps with some limited psychoeducational interventions that address appropriate
sexual boundaries, nonabusive sexual behavior, impulse control, and healthy masculinity.
Juveniles who have high scores on Scale 1 and Scale 2 may well require more intensive supervision,
perhaps in a secure residential placement, and need sex-offense specific treatment as well as
delinquency-focused interventions. Low scores on Scales 1 and 2, on the other hand, may suggest
that the offending behavior was more situational and requires only limited interventions, such as
psychoeducational approaches that address human sexuality, appropriate sexual behavior, social
skills training and dating skills. Specific interventions, of course, depend on the overall picture of
risk and needs.

10

Scoring Guidelines
The J-SOAP-II items are scored using a 0 to 2 scale, with 0 always associated with the apparent
absence of the item and 2 always associated with the clear presence of the item. Thus, 0 implies
the apparent absence of the risk factor described by the item, and 2 implies the clear presence of
the risk factor as described by the item. A score of 1 implies the presence of some information
that suggests the presence of the item, but the information is insufficient, unclear, or too sketchy to
justify a score of 2.
As noted in FAQ 6, to enhance accuracy and reliability, assessments should be based on multiple
sources of information whenever possible. Unless otherwise noted in the item description, scores
should be based on all available evidence, including self-report, and documentation in the records. If
available information is limited, incomplete, or unclear, items should be scored in the direction of
lower risk (favoring the absence rather than the presence of the item), and it should be noted that the
resulting scores may be underestimates. As previously noted, J-SOAP-II is not an exhaustive list of
risk variables and is not a substitute for assessing other potentially risk-relevant variables on a caseby-case basis.
Scores are obtained by summing the items on each of the four scales and then adding the four scale
scores to derive the overall J-SOAP-II score. Each scale score is then divided by the total possible
score for that scale to determine the relative proportion of risk rated as present for each of the four
scales. For example, if the total for all eight items on Scale 2 was 8, the Scale 2 score would be
reported on the Summary Form as 50% (8/16). Similarly, the overall J-SOAP-II score is divided by
the total possible score (i.e., 28 items x 2 points each = 56).

11

Scoring Instructions
Section I. Static Risk Assessment
Scale 1. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation Items
Item 1: Prior Legally Charged Sex Offenses
Description: This item is simply the total number of prior charged sexual offenses that involved
physical contact. Conviction is not necessary. Do not count the current, governing, or index sexual
offense(s).
Scoring:
0 = None.
1 = 1 offense.
2 = More than 1 offense.

Item 2: Number of Sexual Abuse Victims

Description: This item looks at the number of victims the juvenile is known to have ever sexually
abused. In making this judgment, use any reliable source. A legal charge/conviction is not required.
Victim is defined as anyone who has been sexually abused in a manner involving physical
contact.
Scoring:
0 = Only 1 known victim.
1 = 2 known victims.
2 = 3 or more known victims.

12

Item 3: Male Child Victim

Description: This item assesses the juveniles history of sexually abusing a male child. A child
victim is defined here as someone who is 10 years old or younger and is at least 4 years younger
than the juvenile. If the juvenile was age 14 or older at the time of the offense, the victim was 10 or
younger. If the juvenile was 13, the victim was 9 or younger. If the juvenile was 12, the victim was
8 or younger. If the child victim was older than 10, this item may still be scored if there was clear
evidence of physical force or violence.
Scoring:
0 = No known male child victims.
1 = 1 male victim (only 1 known).
2 = 2 or more known male victims.

Item 4: Duration of Sex Offense History

Description: This item looks at the total amount of time the juvenile has been known to commit
sexual contact offenses (i.e., from the first known sexual contact offense to the current [governing or
index] sexual contact offense). In making this judgment, include all credible reports and self-report.
Do not limit scoring to legally charged offenses.
Scoring:
0 = Only 1 known sexual offense and no other history of sexual aggression (i.e., the governing or
index offense is the only known sexual offense).
1 = There are multiple sex offenses within a brief time period (6 months or less). The multiple sex
offenses may involve multiple assaults on the same victim or multiple victims.
2 = There are multiple sex offenses that extend over a period greater than 6 months and involve 1 or
more victims.

13

Item 5: Degree of Planning in Sexual Offense(s)

Description: This item looks at the degree of forethought, planning, and premeditation that took
place prior to the sexual assaults. It concerns the individuals modus operandi (MO): everything the
individual did to commit the offense. In general, the more detail and forethought involved in
planning an offense, the more complex the MO. With highly impulsive, opportunistic offenses, the
MO will be negligible. When there are multiple known sexual assaults, score for the assault that
reflects the greatest degree of planning. This item should also be scored when a high degree of
manipulation and deception has been used to gain access to the victims.
Scoring:
0 = No planning. All known sexual offenses appear to have been impulsive, opportunistic, sudden,
and without any apparent forethought prior to the encounter.
1 = Mild degree of planning. Some clear evidence that the individual thought about or fantasized
about the sexual offense before the encounter. Some degree of grooming or setting up the
victim may reflect mild planning.
2 = Moderate-Detailed planning. There must be a clear modus operandi. The offenses may appear
scripted, with a particular victim and crime location targeted. Planning also may be evident
when there is a high degree of manipulation and/or a significant amount of grooming to gain
access to the victim. The major difference between Mild and Moderate-Detailed planning is the
extent and degree of planning and the amount of time invested in planning. The distinction is
quantitative rather than qualitative.

Item 6: Sexualized Aggression

Description: This item captures the degree or level of gratuitous or expressive aggression in the
sexual offenses. Gratuitous or expressive aggression is aggressive behavior that clearly goes beyond
what was required to complete the sexual offense.
Scoring:
0 = No gratuitous or expressive aggression. No evidence that the individual intentionally physically
hurt the victim or demeaned or humiliated the victim; no evidence that the individual used force
or aggression beyond what was required to complete the sexual offense.
1 = Mild amount of expressive aggression. For example, as evidenced by swearing or cursing at the
victim, threatening the victim, squeezing, slapping, pushing, or pinching the victim.
2 = Moderate-High amount of expressive aggression. For example, as evidenced by punching,
kicking, cutting, burning, or stabbing the victim; causing physical injuries that require medical
attention; or intentionally humiliating or degrading the victim.

14

Item 7: Sexual Drive and Preoccupation

Description: This item measures hypersexuality (i.e., the strength of the sexual drive and
preoccupation). This is a behaviorally anchored item that focuses on evidence of an excessive
amount of sexual activity (exceeding what might be considered normative for youths of that age) or
excessive preoccupation with sexual urges or gratifying sexual needs. Evidence includes, but is not
limited to, paraphilias (exposing, peeping, cross-dressing, fetishes, etc.); compulsive masturbation;
chronic and compulsive use of pornography; frequent highly sexualized language and gestures; and
indiscriminant sexual activity with different partners out of the context of any relationship. Consider
all credible and reliable evidence, self-reported as well as documented in the records.
Scoring:
0 = Normative/Minimal. 1 or 2 instances of sexualized behavior.
1 = Moderate. Sexualized behaviors have been observed and noted on 3 to 5 separate occasions.
2 = High. Sexualized behaviors have been observed and noted on 6 or more separate occasions.

Item 8: Sexual Victimization History

Description: This item assesses the juveniles own history of sexual victimization. In this context,
excessive force refers to force that clearly exceeded what was necessary to gain compliance.
Scoring:
0 = None known.
1 = The juvenile was a victim of sexual abuse. There is no evidence of any form of sexual
penetration or excessive force or physical injury to the juvenile.
2 = The juvenile was a victim of sexual abuse. Score 2 if there is evidence of sexual penetration or
excessive force or physical injury.

15

Scale 2. Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior Items

Item 9: Caregiver Consistency
Description: This item measures the consistency and stability of caregivers in the life of the
juvenile before the age of 10. Multiple changes in caregivers or changes in living situations with
different caregivers and the number of different caregivers are critical. A change must last for at
least 6 months to be considered (for example, if the individual spends a month living with his aunt
and uncle, it would not be considered a change of caregivers).
Scoring:
0 = Lived with biological parents until his current age or until age 10.
1 = 1 or 2 changes in caregivers (e.g., from biological parents to step or foster parents).
2 = 3 or more changes in caregivers before age 10.

Item 10: Pervasive Anger

Description: This item includes (1) repeated instances of verbal aggression and angry outbursts, (2)
threatening and intimidating behavior, and (3) nonsexual physical assaults directed at multiple
targets across multiple settingsanger directed at parents, peers, police, teachers, animals, etc. The
essential point is that the behavior must reflect anger across persons and situations. Although
destroying property may be an expression of anger, the destruction of property does not necessarily
result from anger.
Scoring:
0 = No evidence.
1 = Mild. Occasional outbursts and inappropriate expressions of anger or a pattern of anger
expressed at an apparently narrow range of targets (e.g., anger only expressed at peers).
2 = Moderate-Strong. Long-standing pattern of repeated instances of poorly managed anger directed
at multiple targets.

16

Item 11: School Behavior Problems

Description: Score this item for kindergarten through eighth grade only. School behavior problems
include school failure not due to cognitive difficulties. Examples may include chronic truancy,
fighting with peers and/or teachers, or other evidence of serious behavioral problems at school that
require corrective intervention. Fighting should only be considered if there has been physical
contact (e.g., punching, kicking, shoving) and not if there has only been yelling or arguing.
Scoring:
0 = None (no clear evidence of school behavior problems).
1 = Mild (a few apparently isolated instances).
2 = Moderate-Severe (clear evidence of multiple instances of behavior problems that may include
behaviors resulting in suspensions or expulsion from school).

Item 12: History of Conduct Disorder Before Age 10

Description: Score this item for behavior before the age of 10. Score for a persistent pattern of
behavioral disturbance characterized by (1) repeated failure to obey rules, (2) violating the basic
rights of others, and (3) engaging in destructive and aggressive conduct at school, at home, and/or in
the community.
Scoring:
0 = No evidence.
1 = Mild-Moderate (1 or 2 different criteria present).
2 = Strong (all 3 criteria present).

17

Item 13: Juvenile Antisocial Behavior (Ages 1017)

Description: Score this item for behavior between the ages of 10 and 17. Score for nonsexual
delinquent behavior such as: (1) vandalism and destruction to property; (2) malicious mischief,
disorderly conduct, vagrancy, habitual truancy; (3) fighting and physical violence; (4) owning or
carrying a weapon (other than for sport and hunting); (5) theft, robbery, burglary; and (6) motor
vehicle-related (reckless driving, operating to endanger, operating under the influence). Scoring for
this item is not limited to legally charged offenses. Consider all credible and reliable evidence, selfreported as well as documented in the records.
Scoring:
0 = None/Minimal (no more than a single incident).
1 = Moderate (2 or 3 different criteria present. Moderate also may be scored if there is a single very
serious episode or multiple incidents involving one type of behavior).
2 = Strong (4 or more different criteria present or multiple incidents involving 2 or 3 types of
behavior).

Item 14: Ever Charged or Arrested Before the Age of 16

Description: Score current offenses as well as previous charges/arrests for sexual and nonsexual
offenses occurring before age 16. The juvenile must have been charged and/or arrested; conviction
is not necessary.
Scoring:
0 = No.
1 = Once.
2 = More than once.

18

Item 15: Multiple Types of Offenses

Description: Scoring for this item is limited to legally charged offenses. Check as many different
types of offense categories as apply and score according to the total number of categories checked.

a. Sexual Offenses (such as rape, indecent assault, gross sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact,
open and gross lewdness).

b. Person OffensesNonsexual (such as assault, assault and battery, assault causing bodily harm,
robbery, kidnapping, attempted murder, manslaughter, murder, terrorizing).

c. Property Offenses (such as theft, burglary, possessing burglary tools, larceny, breaking and
entering, criminal trespass, malicious destruction of property, arson, receiving/possessing
stolen property, embezzlement, extortion of property).

d. Fraudulent Offenses (such as fraud, forgery, passing bad checks, using stolen credit cards,
impersonation, identity fraud, counterfeiting).

e. Drug Offenses (drug trafficking and other clearly drug-related crimes not scored elsewhere;
score simple possession of drugs under Conduct Offenses).

f. Serious Motor Vehicle Offenses (such as operating to endanger, operating under the influence,
reckless driving, chronic speeding, leaving the scene of an accident, vehicular homicide).

g. Conduct Offenses (such as disorderly conduct, running away, vagrancy, malicious mischief,
possession of alcohol and/or drugs, resisting arrest, habitual truancy, habitual offending).

h. Other Rule Breaking Offenses (no clear victim but the law has been broken, such as escape
from legal custody, failure to appear, conspiracy, accessory before or after the fact, possession
of a firearm without a permit, obstruction of justice, violation of conditions of probation or
other release, violation of a protection/ restraining order, prostitution).
Scoring:
0 = 1 type.
1 = 2 types.
2 = 3 or more types.

19

Item 16: History of Physical Assault and/or Exposure to Family Violence

Description: This item assesses the juveniles own history of having been physically abused and/or
exposed to violence within the home by a caregiver (biological, adoptive, foster, or step family).
Exposure to family violence includes visual or auditory exposure to physical assaults on family
members. It is not necessary for both physical abuse and exposure to violence to be present to score
this item.
Scoring:
0 = No/Unknown.
1 = Yes. There is clear evidence that the juvenile was the victim of physical abuse by any caregiver.
The documented history must indicate that the physical injuries did not warrant medical
attention. Exposure to violence may include exposure to threats of violence and physical
altercations involving pushing, shoving, and slapping, but no injuries requiring medical
attention.
2 = Moderate/Severe. The physical abuse was frequent or very severe, resulting in serious injuries
ordinarily requiring medical attention, including black eyes, broken bones, and severe bruising.
Score for exposure to violence if the exposure was frequent or if the violence was very severe,
resulting in serious injuries ordinarily requiring medical attention. The term ordinarily reflects
the fact that the victims of violence may not receive medical attention but, in your estimation,
the severity of the injury deserved such attention.

20

Section II. Dynamic Risk Assessment

Scale 3. Intervention Items
WHEN RATING THE ITEMS IN SCALE 3, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL
DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR, NOT JUST SEX OFFENDING. IF THE JUVENILE HAS
ONLY COMMITTED SEX OFFENSES, SIMPLY RATE ITEMS BASED ON THOSE SEX
OFFENSES.
Item 17: Accepting Responsibility for Offense(s)
Description: Accepting full responsibility for ones offense(s) means no redirecting or assigning
some or all of the responsibility for the offenses to others (i.e., the individual does not attribute some
of the responsibility to the victim, to friends or other kids, to society, the police, the courts, or
others). Any statements suggesting other than full responsibility should be scored as 1 or 2.
Scoring:
0 = Accepts full responsibility for sexual and nonsexual offenses without any evidence of
minimizing.
1 = Accepts some (but not total) responsibility. Although occasional minimizing may be present,
individual does not deny offending.
2 = Accepts no responsibility, or there is full denial. Option 2 also is scored when there is partial
denial and/or significant or frequent minimizing.
Item 18: Internal Motivation for Change
Description: The focus of this item is the extent to which the individual truly experiences offending
as out of character and appears to have a genuine desire to change his behaviors to avoid any
recurrences.
Scoring:
0 = Appears distressed by his offenses and appears to have a genuine desire to change.
1 = There is some degree of internal conflict and distress, mixed with a clear desire to avoid the
consequences of reoffending.
2 = No internal motivation for change. The juvenile does not perceive a need to change. He may
feel hopeless and resigned about life in general, or he may deny ever committing offenses and
therefore maintains he does not need to change and/or does not need treatment. Also score 2 if
motivation for change is solely external (e.g., to avoid arrest, incarceration, or residential
placement).

21

Item 19: Understands Risk Factors and Applies Risk Management Strategies
Description: This item concerns the individuals knowledge and understanding of factors and
situations associated with his offending and the individuals awareness of risk management
strategies and utilization of such strategies.
Scoring:
0 = Good understanding and demonstration of knowledge of risk factors and risk management
strategies. Knows triggers, cognitive distortions (thinking errors), and high-risk situations.
Knows and uses risk management strategies.
1 = Incomplete or partial understanding of risk factors and risk management strategies.
Demonstration of knowledge may be present but inconsistent.
2 = Poor or inadequate understanding of risk factors and risk management strategies. Cannot
adequately identify triggers, cognitive distortions (thinking errors) and offense-justifying
attitudes, high-risk situations, or risk management strategies.

Item 20: Empathy

Description: This item assesses the youths capacity for empathy in multiple situations. An attempt
should be made to distinguish between statements that appear to reflect genuine feelings and
statements that are primarily cognitive and reflect attitudes (e.g., socially desirable responses or
genuinely held but strictly intellectual statements).
Scoring:
0 = Appears to have a genuine capacity for feeling empathy for his sexual abuse victims and can
generalize to others in a variety of situations.
1 = There is some degree of expressed empathy; however, these statements appear to be internalized
at a strictly intellectual level or are intended primarily to look good or respond in a socially
acceptable way.
2 = There is little or no evidence of empathy and clear evidence of callous disregard for the welfare
of others.

22

Item 21: Remorse and Guilt

Description: This item assesses the extent to which the juvenile expresses thoughts, feelings, and
sentiments that reflect remorse for offending and offense-related behavior. This item attempts to
assess feelings of regret, guilt, or self-reproach. An attempt should be made to distinguish between
statements that appear to reflect genuine feelings and statements that are primarily cognitive and
reflect attitudes (e.g., socially desirable responses or genuinely held but strictly intellectual
statements about feeling bad).
Scoring:
0 = Appears to have genuine remorse for his victims and can generalize to other victims.
Importantly, remorse appears to be internalized at an affective (emotional) level and is
expressed or demonstrated without prompting.
1 = There is some degree of remorse or guilt; however, there are possible egocentric motives (e.g.,
shame or embarrassment, to avoid incarceration). Score 1 when the remorse appears to be
internalized at a strictly cognitive (thinking) level.
2 = There is little or no evidence of remorse for victims.

Item 22: Cognitive Distortions

Description: This item assesses distorted ideas, beliefs, or attitudes that justify sexual offending and
delinquent behavior. Examples include She looked older than she was, He started it, and I
didnt hurt anyone. Rate this item only for the presence of distorted attitudes. This item should not
be influenced by ratings of item 17 (accepting responsibility) and 21 (remorse or guilt).
Scoring:
0 = Expresses no distorted thoughts, attitudes, or statements about sexual offending and delinquent
behaviors.
1 = Occasional comments, attitudes, or statements reflecting cognitive distortions.
2 = Frequent comments, attitudes, or statements reflecting cognitive distortions.

23

Item 23: Quality of Peer Relationships

Description: This item assesses the nature and quality of the juveniles peer relationships, the
extent to which his time is occupied by nondelinquent social activity, and the extent to which his
peer associations are age appropriate and nondelinquent.
Scoring:
0 = Socially active, peer-oriented, and rarely alone; often with friends in structured and unstructured
social and/or sports activities; friends are nondelinquent.
1 = A few casual (nondelinquent) friends, some involvement in structured or unstructured activities;
or a mix of social activity with delinquent as well as nondelinquent peers.
2 = Withdrawn from peer contact and socially isolated; or no friendships, just acquaintances; or
most peers are delinquent.

24

Scale 4. Community Stability/Adjustment Items

SCORE THE REMAINING FIVE ITEMS FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS. OMIT THIS
SECTION IF THE JUVENILE IS INCARCERATED IN A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
OR A SECURE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM.
If a juvenile has recently been discharged from a correctional facility or secure
residential treatment program where he has resided for more than 6 months and is now
being assessed in the community, he must have been in the community for at least 3
months in order to score these five items.
If the juvenile has been incarcerated or has been placed in a secure residential
treatment program, he must have been in the community for at least 2 months prior to
incarceration in order to score these five items.

Item 24: Management of Sexual Urges and Desire

Description: This item assesses the extent to which the juvenile manages his sexual urges and
desires in socially appropriate and healthy ways. This item does not assess strength of sexual drive
(as in item 7). This item assesses the appropriateness of the individuals sexual behavior. Consider
all credible and reliable evidence, self-reported as well as documented in the records. If the
governing or index offense occurred within the 6-month window that applies to all Scale 4 items, do
not include it when scoring this item.
Scoring:
0 = Well-managed expression of sexual urges and desires; all sexual intimate relationships are age
appropriate and noncoercive; no evidence of unwanted, sexualized touching or
hostile/demeaning sexualized remarks.
1 = Sexual urges and desires are managed appropriately most of the time, with no more than two
instances of inappropriate sexual behavior.
2 = Sexual urges and desires are poorly managed. Juvenile engages in inappropriate sexual
behavior, frequently gratifying sexual urges in deviant or paraphilic ways. This behavior has
been noted on three or more occasions. Examples might include chronic masturbation or
compulsive use of pornography. Score 2 for sexual promiscuity (numerous sexual partners out
of the context of a relationship). Any instance of coercive sexual behavior is automatically
scored 2 unless it is the governing or index offense.

25

Item 25: Management of Anger

Description: This item assesses the appropriateness of ones expression of angry feelings.
Appropriate expressions are defined here as verbal, nonabusive, and nonviolent expressions of
anger. This item does not assess the pervasiveness of ones anger (as in item 10). Rate how well
the individual manages and expresses feelings of anger in his relationships, at work and with his
friends and acquaintances.
Scoring:
0 = No evidence of inappropriate anger. Anger consistently is expressed in appropriate ways.
1 = Anger managed appropriately most of the time, with no more than four instances of
inappropriate anger
2 = Anger poorly and inappropriately managed, with five or more instances of inappropriate anger.

Item 26: Stability of Current Living Situation

Description: This item assesses the stability (or instability) of the living situation where the youth is
residing at the time of the assessment. If the juvenile is living with his family (birth, foster, or
adoptive), this item assesses family stability and is based on the overall adequacy and consistency of
the primary family environment. Consider such factors as size of family, number of relocations, and
number of changes in the family due to separations, divorce, death, unemployment, and other
losses, as well as additions of new members. Consider substance abuse, pornography use, child
abuse and neglect, frequent changes in sexual partners, poor or loose boundaries around sexuality,
serious illness, psychiatric difficulties, chronic fighting or angry outbursts, family violence, and/or
criminal behavior.
Instability may also be indicated by frequent changes in the juveniles living situation, or when the
juvenile is in a high-risk living situation (such as a shelter) or lives in a high-risk location (e.g., near
a bar or a playground). Scoring should reflect the stressfulness of the living situation. Score this
item, as appropriate, for youths living in group homes or nonsecure residential settings.
When scoring this item, consider the number of different sources of instability and the frequency of
the instability.
Scoring:
0 = Stable. No significant sources of disruption or instability.
1 = Moderate instability. Sources of instability are intermittent. Any very serious sources of
instability, even if intermittent, should be scored a 2 (e.g., presence of sexual abuse perpetrated
by others or violence in the living situation).
2 = Severe instability. Sources of instability are frequent and chronic occurring at least one or two
times a week.

26

Item 27: Stability in School

Description: This item assesses the stability (or instability) of the youths behavior in school. For
example, instability would be evidenced by truancy, repeatedly coming to school late, suspensions
or expulsions, and use of alcohol or drugs at school. If the youth is not in school, score this item for
the stability of his day, e.g., the stability of the youths behavior at work. For the most part, the
exemplars of instability are consistent across settings. For example, in the work setting, instability
may be evident in failing to come to work, coming to work late, or being fired. If the juvenile is not
in school or not in work, score 1.
Scoring:
0 = Stable/Minimal (no more than a single incident).
1 = Unstable (with no more than two or three incidents).
2 = Highly Unstable (with four or more incidents).

Item 28: Evidence of Positive Support Systems

Description: This item considers the relative presence or absence of support systems that the youth
has available to him in the community and that he uses for positive support. Support systems may
include (1) apparently supportive family members, extended families, foster families, (2) friends, or
(3) significant others, such as therapists, juvenile probation officers, and social service caseworkers.
Positive supports also may be indicated by participation in (4) organized after-school sports and
activities and (5) involvement in organized religious activities.
Scoring:
0 = Considerable support systems (three or more of the above apply).
1 = Some support systems (one or two of the above applies).
2 = No known support systems or only negative supports.

27

Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II

Scoring Form
1. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation Scale
1.
Prior Legally Charged Sex Offenses
2.
Number of Sexual Abuse Victims
3.
Male Child Victim
4.
Duration of Sex Offense History
5.
Degree of Planning in Sexual Offense(s)
6.
Sexualized Aggression
7.
Sexual Drive and Preoccupation
8.
Sexual Victimization History
Sexual Drive/Preoccupation Scale Total

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2. Impulsive/Antisocial Behavior Scale

9.
Caregiver Consistency
10. Pervasive Anger
11. School Behavior Problems
12. History of Conduct Disorder
13. Juvenile Antisocial Behavior
14. Ever Charged or Arrested Before Age 16
15. Multiple Types of Offenses
16. History of Physical Assault and/or Exposure to Family Violence
Antisocial Behavior Scale Total

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3. Intervention Scale
17. Accepting Responsibility for Offense(s)
18. Internal Motivation for Change
19. Understands Risk Factors
20. Empathy
21. Remorse and Guilt
22. Cognitive Distortions
23. Quality of Peer Relationships
Intervention Scale Total

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

4. Community Stability/Adjustment Scale

24. Management of Sexual Urges and Desire
25. Management of Anger
26. Stability of Current Living Situation
27. Stability in School
28. Evidence of Positive Support Systems
Community Stability Scale Total

0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2

28

Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II

Summary Form

Static/Historical Scales
1. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation Scale Score:
(Add Items 18 [range: 016])

________/16 = _______

2. Impulsive-Antisocial Behavior Scale Score:

(Add Items 916 [range: 016])

________/16 = _______

Dynamic Scales
3. Intervention Scale Score:
(Add Items 1723 [range 014])

________/14 = ________

4. Community Stability Scale Score:

(Add Items 2428 [range: 010])

________/10 = _______

Static Score (Add items 116)

________/32 = ________

Dynamic Score (Add items 1728)

________/24 = ________

Total J-SOAP Score (Add items 128)

________/56 = ________

29