SOMB Quarterly Minute
August 2022
|
|
Hello SOMB! I hope you all are managing to stay cool in what feels like the hottest summer on record! I know many of us are still coming down from the high of the DVOMB/SOMB Conference. I don’t know about you all, but being able to be back together and in person was really the medicine I needed after a long two years of dealing with a touch of COVID burnout. It was quite the occasion to see folks meeting in person for the first time, but speaking as if they had known each other for years. And what a great conference it was! Excellent keynote speakers, informative sessions and to top it off a celebration of the 30 Year Anniversary of the SOMB. I am always amazed and humbled by the work of my colleagues when we get together to talk about our challenges and successes. And I am reminded what special humans you all are to continue this work every day.
Speaking of special humans, please take a few minutes to send a note of thanks to our SOMB staff and the Training Committee for all their work to make our conference happen. It is a huge lift, and they should be congratulated for its success.
Lastly, I would not be doing my duty as a therapist if I didn’t remind you all to take care of yourselves, as you take care of others. Eat the ice cream, take that hike (with lots of water), buy the shoes! You all deserve it.
Thank you,
Kimberly Kline, MA, LPC, ACS
SOMB Chair
|
|
Dr. Hannah Pilla is a clinical psychologist with the Colorado Department of Corrections. She is a SOMB approved provider, evaluator, and clinical supervisor. She is also co-chair of the SOMB Best Practices Committee, participates in several SOMB sub-committees, and is a co-author of the Sex Offending Needs Integrated Classification System (SONICS). Her hopes as a Board Member is to further promote best practices in the evaluation of individuals who have committed sexual offenses in sex offense specific evaluations.
|
|
Jason Lamprecht is originally from Laguna Niguel, CA but comes to Colorado from The George Washington University Law School, where he graduated in 2016. Since then, he has been a public defender in the 17th Judicial District, representing clients primarily in Broomfield since January 2019.
Hopes and expectations: I hope first and foremost to effectively give a voice to my colleagues in the public defender system and the perspectives we gain from our clients. I’m looking forward to learning from the diverse experiences of the rest of the board so that I can better contribute as a board member and improve the way I prepare my clients to be successful in treatment and on supervision.
|
|
2022 DVOMB & SOMB Annual Conference
"Working Together to Build Hope and Celebrate Resilience."
|
|
|
|
30th Anniversary
of the SOMB
|
This year was the 30th anniversary of the Sex Offender Management Board. We want to thank everyone that attended the 30th Anniversary event at the conference!! |
|
|
We are very thankful for everyone who attended our Annual Conference in person this year! We had over 400 attendees, more than 60 presenters, and over 40 breakout sessions.
We would also like to thank everyone who has signed up to watch the conference virtually. We appreciate your support and hope to see you at next year's conference!
|
|
|
Please join us for our monthly SOMB meeting In-Person or Virtually.
When: August 19, 2022
Time: 9:00am-4:00pm
Where: Denver Police Protective Association Event Center
2105 Decatur St., Denver, Colorado 80211
Agenda & Registration Coming Soon!
|
|
Research Corner
Dr. Rachael Collie, Staff Researcher/Statistical Analyst, ODVSOM
Research continues to emerge that is shaping the way practitioners approach evaluating sexual recidivism risk. I highlight two recent articles in this issue of the SOMB quarterly newsletter as they empirically demonstrate the effect of time sex offense free in the community and protective factors. Thornton et al. (2021) report actuarial (statistical) tables for estimating lifetime risk and adjusting that based on time sex offense free in the community and whether or not there is non-sex offending. Nolan et al. (2022) report the first empirical demonstration of how structured assessment of protective factors can predict sexual recidivism and increase predictive validity beyond other risk assessment measures.
Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., Kelley, S. M., & Mundt, J. C. (2021). Estimating lifetime and residual risk for individuals who remain sexual offense free in the community: Practical applications. Sexual Abuse, 33(1), 3-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219871573
Thornton et al. developed a series of actuarial tables to inform risk assessment using a large sample (> 7,000) of aggregated data of adult men convicted of sexual offending. Three pieces of information were central to the calculations: risk of sexual recidivism at the time of release, time free in the community without sexual reoffending, and nonsexual recidivism during the follow-up period. All three variables had independent effects on sexual recidivism rate; the initial risk level in the community acted as the starting point or anchor of risk, while time sex offense free had a consistent risk-reducing effect and new nonsexual recidivism had a risk-increasing effect.
A series of tables are provided that allow for empirically-based estimation of: individuals’ projected lifetime sexual recidivism rates at the time of release/community sentencing; individuals’ estimated sexual recidivism rate when there is a conviction for a new non-sex crime sometime after the most recent sex offense; and individuals’ decline in sexual recidivism risk as a result of time sex offense free in the community. Individuals in each risk level is shown to reach the desistance threshold if they remain offense free in the community for long enough (up to 20 years). To enable the use of this actuarial approach with multiple actuarial instruments, the risk categories used in the tables align with the common language five-level risk-need classification system, and an Excel-based risk calculator (and an accompanying manual) is free to download from https://saarna.org.
Nolan, T., Willis, G. W., Thornton, D., Kelley, S. M., Beggs Christofferson, S. (2022). Attending to the positive: A retrospective validation of the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors-Sexual Offense Version. Sexual Abuse, 0(0), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221098354.
Existing empirically validated risk assessment instruments focus almost exclusively on factors associated with increased sexual recidivism. In contrast, protective factors are those aspects of the individual or situation that signal the presence of a strength (not merely the absence of risk) that are associated with reduced rates of sexual or violent recidivism. The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors - Sexual Offense version (SAPROF-SO; Willis et al., 2017) is a promising approach to incorporating the assessment of protective factors within risk evaluations. The SAPROF-SO is a 24-item, clinician-rated, measure canvassing internal capacity, prosocial identity, prosocial connection, stability, and professional support. Items load onto two domains, reflecting Personal and Professionally Provided Support factors.
In the current study, Nolan et al. showed the SAPROF-SO Total and Personal domain scores were significantly predictive of sexual recidivism and, to a lesser extent, violent and general recidivism over an average 12-year follow-up. The SAPROF-SO Total and Personal scores also demonstrated incremental predictive validity above the Static-99R. The authors contend the SAPROF-SO can be used at this stage as a structured professional judgment measure to guide the assessment and conceptualization of protective factors within an overall evaluation of risk.
Concluding Comments
Although these articles represent relatively early stage research on their respective issues, both provide an opportunity for incorporating empirically-informed methods into risk evaluations and support the addition of a “strength-based lens” when considering risk. Both also reflect an emerging trend within research on understanding and quantifying important aspects of the desistance process for individuals who have sexually offended.
|
|
Child Contact:
Currently, Section 5.7 of the Standards and Guidelines for the Assessments, Evaluation, Treatment, and
Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders outlines 5 Pathways for contact with minors. Here are some important reminders regarding each pathway.
A. A Court or Parole Board has not prohibited contact with an offender’s own non-victim minor
child(ren).
a. ONLY Applies to ones OWN minor child – not “other” children regardless of family
relationship
b. The Court has already determined the parental role
c. Supervised Contact or an Approved Supervisor Required
d. Providers have the following options
i. Require Supervised contact
ii. Require an Approved Supervisor
iii. Request the Client forgo contact
iv. Require a CCS prior to allowing contact
v. Refuse to treat/discharge administratively
B. The offender completes a Child Contact Screening, the conclusions support contact between
the offender and an own non-victim minor child(ren) and the CST approves such contact;
a. Shall be done in conjunction or after an OSE
b. Shall be done by an SOMB Evaluator
c. Polygraph should not be the SOLE determining factor for exclusion from Screen or
Contact
|
|
C. The CST determines that the offender has made sufficient progress and has achieved the criteria
established in Section 5.735 in order to be approved for contact with an offender’s own non-
victim minor child(ren) or any other non-victim minor child(ren);
a. Applies when contact is restricted or client forgoes
b. NOT a checklist – Teams have discretion based on the individual client
c. May be assessed at anytime
d. Can be allowed with the consensus of the team even if the client has some things to
work on.
e. Can be done in DOC – all facility contact is supervised
f. Requires an approved supervisor
D. The offender has successfully completed the clarification process with the victim and the CST
has approved contact; or
a. SHALL be driven by the victim, not the client
b. May only be for 1 time contact or ongoing depending on the victim
c. SHALL involve a victim rep or therapist
E. When Young Adult Modification Protocol (See Appendix C) is in place for an offender, the CST
may approve contact with non-victim minor child(ren).
a. For Juveniles charged as adults and those between the ages of 18-25
b. Allows discretion regarding contact with Minor Aged Siblings and peers
c. Should NOT be used to allow contact with other family members who are minors
d. Caution should be used when allowing contact with minor siblings during incest cases or
when victim is the same age as siblings or peers
e. The Goal is to maintain stability and protective factors for these individuals.
|
|
REMINDERS:
Decisions should be made by ALL members of the team, and include a victim rep and polygraph
examiner. All members of the team have valuable perspectives and information that should be
considered prior to allowing or restricting contact with minors.
|
|
Lunch & Learn Trainings are for SOMB Approved Providers ONLY |
|
Lunch & Learn: Juvenile Sex Offender Registration
With the changes made last year to HB 21-1064, Juvenile Sex Offender Registration, providers may want to know what the law says about which juveniles should be required to register. What are the laws on registration and deregistration for juveniles? As an SOMB provider, what can I do to help get a juvenile client deregistered when they are finished with treatment? This presentation will review the current law and address these questions for SOMB Evaluators and Treatment Providers.
Presenters:
- Jessica Meza
- Holly Gummerson
WHEN: August 11, 2022
TIME: 12:00 PM - 1:30 PM
WHERE: Virtual
CEU: 1.5 Hours
COST: Free
|
|
SOMB Juvenile Standards Revision Committee
The Juvenile Standards Revision Committee has been meeting since the Fall of 2021. Dr. Carl
Blake remains as the Chair, with Raechel Alderete as the primary staff of this committee. This
committee continues to meet virtually on a monthly basis and has been working hard on
proposed revisions related to Equity, Diversity and Inclusivity, clarifying purview, sex offender
registration, victim clarification and the clarification letter, along with appeal matters, just to
name a few. The SOMB Best Practices Committee will begin reviewing the proposed revisions
before going to the full SOMB for review and approval. If interested in joining this committee or
if you wish to review the proposed revisions, please contact Raechel.Alderete@state.co.us
|
|
Policy Update - Telemental Health |
|
On March 18, 2022, the Board ratified a new Standard in the Adult and Juvenile Standards and
Guidelines by adding the appropriate use of telehealth as a modality of treatment with a set
criteria. The Standard states “In-person therapy is the preferred and expected modality in which
sex offense specific treatment should occur. In some cases, teletherapy may be an appropriate
modality to meet the individual needs of the client. If using teletherapy, providers shall follow
the criteria outlined in appendix XXX.” This Standard can be found in Section 3.140, I,
Appendix P of the Juvenile Standards and Section 3.160, B, 6, Appendix U of the Adult
Standards.
The SOMB has sent out notices to the field via email blasts, monthly bulletins, newsletters,
announcement at committee and Board Meetings, Booster training, and most recently sent out a
survey to collect feedback from approved providers about the use of this new Standard and
criteria. On July 13th , the Board discussed 61 providers completed the survey indicating that 69%
are using teletherapy. 37 providers answered the following, stating 92% of them have
transitioned to the new Standard and criteria. There were 31 providers that stated the benefits
for clients using teletherapy were based on convenience and flexibility when a client is ill or
has to travel long distances. Teletherapy can also accommodate difficult work schedules or bad weather, which helps with clients potentially missing sessions due to these factors. Additional comments were “it allows for sessions when the client can't make it in person and is a good alternative to in-person, but still not quite as effective as in-person” and “some of the clients love it and have done very well with it, others not so much. They get too distracted and have difficulty staying on task.” The Board will continue to discuss this new Standard and criteria with its implementation period as the implementation
deadline was July 31, 2022. For any technical assistance regarding these revisions, please contact
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
