SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD MINUTES – 8th Annual Conference, Breckenridge, CO Wednesday July 9, 2014 Board Members Alli Watt Allison Boyd Angel Weant Kandy Moore Carl Blake Jeff Geist Jeff Jenks Jessica Meza Marcelo Kopcow Mary Baydarian Mimi Scheuermann Missy Gursky Pam Bricker Richard Bednarski Rick May Tom Leversee Absent Board Members Bill Hildenbrand Doug Stephens Kim English Staff Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky Jesse Hansen Board Meeting Begins:

Visitors

Visitors

Amy Fitch Jessica Curtis Merve Davies

Erin Jemison John Odenheimer Nancy Jackson

Raechel Alderete

Cathy Rodriguez

9:05 a.m.

Introductions Future Agenda Items – Cathy Rodriguez suggested further exploration of possible Standards for the geriatric population. Announcements – Cathy Rodriguez announced a change in the residence restriction ordinance for Commerce City, based upon the Court of Appeals ruling on the city of Englewood’s ordinance. The city of Englewood is currently appealing this ruling. The SOMB is working with jurisdictions to modify or eliminate their ordinances. Commerce City has voluntarily modified their ordinance to allow for case-by-case discretion. Approve agenda – Agenda was unanimously approved.

1

VASOR-2 and SOTIPS – Angel Weant presented an overview of the implementation of the VASOR-2 and SOTIPS for all probation officers statewide. In response to the SMART Act initiative in 2010, the Division of Probation Services reviewed the sex offender assessment process, including the specific instruments being used. Assessments, reassessments of risk, and need determine the allocation of resources for offenders, and assist with implementing sanctions and incentives. The Division of Probation Services is committed to the Risk, Need, Responsivity Principles (RNR) and the 8 principles of effective intervention. This has been a collaboration between the Division of Parole, the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), the Department of Public Safety, the Office of Community Corrections, and State Judicial. Robert McGrath and Georgia Cumming, the developers of the VASOR-2 and SOTIPS, have provided training across the state. These tools are evidence based assessment tools. All members of the Community Supervision Team (CST) will be using these tools. While some question the necessity of each member of the CST doing this assessment, this will allow CST members to better communicate with each other and enhance the quality of the data that can be collected and used. The VASOR-2 is a 12 item risk assessment scale that assesses static items and also includes a 4-item severity checklist. The SOTIPS is the dynamic risk assessment tool that will be used in place of the Oregon. This instrument is a 16-item dynamic measure to assess risk, treatment, and supervision needs as well as client progress in treatment and supervision. The SOTIPS are designed to be used every 6 months, and should be used in conjunction with a static tool. Most of the VASOR-2 items are derived from the Static 99 and the SOTIPS can also be used in conjunction with the Static 99. To date, 50 parole officers, 20 community corrections case managers, 200 probation officers, 35 therapists in the DOC Sex Offender Treatment and Management Program (SOTMP), and 250 approved providers and evaluators have been trained on the use of the VASOR-2 and SOTIPS. Finally, a training for trainers is planned for August 2014 with the goals of sustainability and ensuring proper use of the tools. COMMENTS: It was noted that the VASOR-2 and SOTIPS will allow CST members to be consistent in their risk and need assessment. Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky noted that the Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) perspective is that providers are not mandated to use these tools despite the fact that it is mandated for probation officers, but it is strongly encouraged to aid in communication between CSTs. Jesse Hansen noted that a current research initiative to further validate the VASOR-2 and SOTIPS by Dr. Mike Miner utilizing data from New York and Arizona may include Colorado in the future. He noted that these tools (VASOR-2 and SOTIPS) when combined provide greater predictive validity over many of the other static and dynamic risk assessment tools. SOMB Strategic Action Plan in Response to Focus Group and External Evaluation Feedback – Cathy Rodriguez, Jesse Hansen, and Raechel Alderete The SOMB is currently commencing a plan to modify its Standards policies and practices to enhance effectiveness and efficiency. The SOMB has conducted focus groups and reviewed the external evaluation conducted in 2013 by Central Coast Clinical and Forensic Psychology Services to identify priorities. Jesse Hansen described the external evaluation and specific recommendations. The complete evaluation is available for review online. The most recent version of the Standards and Guidelines were published in 2011. Since the initial publication of the Standards and Guidelines in 1996, the SOMB has been making modifications based upon emerging research.

2

The primary recommendation of the external evaluation was to be more overt in referencing RNR in the Standards and Guidelines. The SOMB focus groups indicated potential problems with implementation of and fidelity to the Standards and Guidelines Beginning in January 2014, the SOMB started to review, has voted on and approved an action based plan on the following themes, 1) exploring how to better incorporate RNR into the Standards and Guidelines, 2) exploring how to better incorporate the victim voice into treatment, 3) identifying ways to enhance treatment continuity, 4) exploring whether to replace the SVP risk assessment instrument, 5) developing an implementation model and strategy, 6) exploring a possible formal conflict resolution process for CST and Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) disagreement, 7) addressing potential standards for informed supervision in the Juvenile Standards and Guidelines and, 8) exploring possible Juvenile Standards on safety planning. Cathy Rodriguez noted that the SOMB has had to narrow its focus based on available resources. As a result, the SOMB has identified the priorities identified above. Cathy Rodriguez noted that the SOMB will address a number of areas within the goal of modifying the Standards and Guidelines to enhance the emphasis on RNR, including Appendix D, the polygraph, and specialized populations, among other areas. The first Standards Revision Committee meeting is July 24, 2014. Given the response, the first meeting will be held at the Lakewood Police Department. This first meeting will review the recent literature on RNR. The second priority will be to address enhancing the victim’s voice in treatment. Cathy Rodriguez noted concern for this topic related to implementation, in that inclusion of the victim representative on MDTs and CSTs remains a challenge in many areas. Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky also added that the Victim Advocacy Committee is exploring other ways that the victim’s voice can be heard. Allison Boyd added that this is also a national focus considering that the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) just sent out a survey asking for input on the victim voice in supervision and treatment of offenders. Cathy Rodriguez noted that the 3rd priority is offender treatment continuity. A Continuity of Treatment Committee has been started with representation from stakeholder groups representing those most relevant to treatment for offenders. Two meetings have taken place thus far. Topics of discussion have included looking at the barriers, as well as differences in ethics, rules, and when to release information. Future goals will include looking at how best to communicate, and helping clients on how to retain information. Lastly, looking at Standards changes for clients who come from other treatment programs but do not have treatment records, and how best to assess and place them. The forth priority is the use of the Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) Risk Assessment Instrument. A Committee was formed to explore recent Colorado Supreme Court decisions related to the relationship criteria and making appropriate modifications. It was also noted that the Committee is also studying other state systems with riskbased classification systems, especially ones with additional categories besides for SVP. Chris LobanovRostovsky added that the Committee has also made a revision related to assessing women and developmentally disabled sex offenders. The revision will recognize this instrument was not developed for these particular populations. Currently there are no other instruments for these populations so the SVP Assessment Instrument will continue to be utilized with limitations. Finally, it was noted that the SVP label is no longer required based upon the passage of the Adam Walsh Act and the repeal of the Wetterling Act.

3

Cathy Rodriguez next identified the fifth priority as a need for an implementation model. The initial plan is for greater outreach to stakeholders via quarterly trainings and policy updates with further planning ongoing. Cathy Rodriguez identified conflict resolution strategies as the 6th priority. Given recent outreach from members of CSTs and MDTs regarding conflict, the SOMB will explore possible ways to assist the field in resolving conflict. Carl Blake added that the Application Review Committee (ARC) is also addressing this issue by offering assistance to teams when a complaint is filed. It was asked what some of the themes of disagreements are? It was noted that team members may not always respect the limits of their roles. Raechel Alderete noted that the Juvenile Standards were not under review from the external evaluation but were reviewed by the focus groups. The 7th priority is to address informed supervision and who is training informed supervisors. There is a lot of inconsistency here in terms of information provided and qualifying someone to be an informed supervisor. Lastly, the SOMB is addressing safety planning as priority 8. The goal is to provide further training on safety planning based upon inconsistency. Concerning the Juvenile Standards, it has been observed that on the eastern plains that not all juveniles who commit sexual offenses are being seen by listed treatment providers. Raechel Alderete responded that for juveniles who are not adjudicated they may not be seen by a listed provider but the Juvenile Standards recommends use of such a provider. It was next asked as to whether out-of-state evaluations must comply with the Standards. Raechel Alderete responded that evaluations for juveniles adjudicated for a sexual offense in Colorado must meet the Juvenile Standards.

Meeting adjourns:

4