Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) Manual
Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) Manual
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.
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.
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.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
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
20
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.
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
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
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
28
Static/Historical Scales
1. Sexual Drive/Preoccupation Scale Score:
(Add Items 18 [range: 016])
________/16 = _______
________/16 = _______
Dynamic Scales
3. Intervention Scale Score:
(Add Items 1723 [range 014])
________/14 = ________
________/10 = _______
________/32 = ________
________/24 = ________
________/56 = ________
29