SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD MINUTES Friday, November 21st, 2014

Transcription

1 SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD MINUTES Friday, November 21st, 2014 Board Members Visitors Visitors Alli Watt Alan Marschke Genie Connaghan Allison Boyd Beverly Casey Lou Griffith Swanson Amy Fitch DeAnn Major Valerie Estrada Angel Weant Dr. Chris Renda Ann Renard Bill Hildenbrand Jason Guidry Carl Blake Katy Campbell Doug Stephens Laura Saurini Jeff Jenks Laurie Kepros Jeff Geist Lenny Woodson Jessica Curtis Mike Dunlap Jessica Meza Pat Harris John Odenheimer Pat Martin Kandy Moore Roberta Ponis Kim English Roger Kincade Mary Baydarian Steven Parker Merve Davies Susan Walker Mimi Scheuermann Taralyn Clark Missy Gursky Toni Hazlip Nancy Jackson Jerry Frye Pam Bricker Kevin Douglas Richard Bednarski Bryan Jameson Rick May Debbie Baty Tom Leversee Gary Reser Absent Board Members Staff Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky Harmony Fox Lucy Klos Cathy Rodriguez Jesse Hansen Raechel Alderete Board Meeting Begins: INTRODUCTIONS - FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - No future agenda items. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky asked for volunteers for the Victim Representative Nomination Committee. He also noted that the Law Enforcement board position nomination form has been 1

2 disseminated and the Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) is currently accepting nominations for this position. In addition the Family Engagement survey has gone out as well and will be open at least until the end of December. Raechel Alderete announced that Dec. 3 rd is the first training committee meeting. Lastly, the SOMB will soon be soliciting proposals to be submitted for next year s conference. Jesse Hansen noted that the Lifetime Supervision report is now available on the SOMB website. Also the Legislative report is underway and a draft will be sent out asking for feedback within the week. Cathy Rodriguez noted that through the work of the new Human Trafficking Council a need has been identified for training of evaluators and providers in human trafficking as many of the people charged with sex offenses have also been victims of human trafficking. Mary Baydarian offered assistance in the training that would be required for Evaluators. Bryan Jameson explained that he is the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) Sunset Analyst assigned to review the SOMB, and briefly described the process. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER MINUTES: motion to approve Bill Hildenbrand, 2 nd by Carl Blake. 18 Approve 0 Oppose 1 Abstain Motion passes APPROVE AGENDA Agenda approved. Carl Blake requested to add the Continuity of Care committee draft intake assessment form to the agenda. APPOINTMENT OF SOMB VICE-CHAIR JEFF GEIST APPROVAL OF SOMB VICE-CHAIR: motion to approve Jeff Geist, 2 nd by Carl Blake. 19 Approve 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Motion passes CONSULTATION WITH DAVID PRESCOTT REGARDING RNR David Prescott noted that Colorado was a forerunner in the sex offender field, and that many people present on the SOMB Board and those that work with the SOMB have been critical in the field s growth. If the goal is to help sex offenders not to reoffend, for their own well-being and for the good of society, then there are some crucial questions for a body such as the SOMB and all personnel that work with sex offenders to answer. The safest sex offender is someone who is stable, occupied with something such as employment or education and has everything to lose by reoffending. David noted that the research is currently evolving, but the best information the field has had indicates that punishment and punitive methods are not shown to be productive means in lessening recidivism in sex offenders. This has led to the Risk, Need, Responsivity (RNR) theory. Tom Leversee asked for recommendations for large scale programs, such as the one in Colorado, when it comes to Responsivity. David Prescott noted that asking questions of one another and communicating directly and often with each other is a large part of this. Being consistent is crucial, but also not creating statutes that take away the professional discretion, which research shows is necessary, will be the task for Colorado. 2

3 Allison Boyd commented on the accuracy of risk assessment and using victim information to enhance the victim input. David Prescott recognized that risk assessment tools, such as the Static 99 and VASOR/SOTIPS, are well researched in this area. But, as part of the Responsivity principle, responding to each case while using these tools brings about a better result. Lastly, needs and concerns from both victims and offenders may change overtime. Allison Boyd asked how much RNR has been researched with sex offenders specifically. David Prescott offered a meta-analysis research study done in 2009 by Karl Hanson and associates. Gary Reiser asked about resources. Colorado is in large part a self-pay system for offenders and this struggle conflicts with the desire to implement RNR. David Prescott acknowledged that this has been a hurdle in many places and not just Colorado, and certainly deserves further exploration. Bryan Jameson asked about the overall cost of RNR versus other interventions. David Prescott responded that he sees RNR as much more responsive to individual needs and thus not overtreating, or under-treating people and therefor RNR is more cost effective. Bryan Jameson asked how polygraph is used throughout the nation. David Prescott noted that he has seen it both as a formal part of the process and also based more on clinical discretion. Susan Walker asked for some thoughts about the Lifetime Supervision Act and how it interacts with RNR. David Prescott responded with some of available research on sexual abuse desistance and aging. Bill Hildenbrand asked about polygraph being required for all juveniles. David Prescott described this as a concern. This is something that needs to be looked at on an individual level. Some juveniles can be very serious offenders while others can be less serious. The question that needs to be asked is if this information is critical for treatment or can treatment exist productively without the polygraph. Carl Blake explained the SOMB Juvenile Standards are designed to refer juveniles to polygraph evaluators, but administering a polygraph is not a requirement. Separately, another factor in any system designed to treat sex offenders is when families of offenders do not participate or even actively reject the intervention. David Prescott noted that family engagement is an absolutely critical factor for assisting sex offenders in becoming stable. Despite all the efforts that have been made to engage family further exploration is required to encourage more willingness of the family to engage. John Odenheimer asked about offender denial and its relationship to RNR. David Prescott noted that denial is more of a Responsivity factor than a risk factor. The overarching goal remains of how to help reduce reoffending. 3

4 Angel Weant asked about the separation between personal morals/values and the professional duty to follow an empirically researched path on how to treat and supervise. Further, recognizing that professionals are also people and the skills required in RNR seems more an evolution than a single training. David Prescott acknowledged the balance between being overly empathetic and coarse. RNR will take time to truly embody but with continued training and conversation this evolution can begin. Jeff Jenks noted he finds low-risk juveniles are often not polygraphed and recognized the potential trauma involved as a factor prior to implementing any test. DeAnn Major asked for more details about the benefits and hurdles innate in rules designed for consistency, specifically in relation to the DD/ID population. David Prescott noted that this is an area of focus in the general population but even more so for the DD/ID population. Laura Saurini asked about the terminology currently use, specifically the use of the term sex offender. David Prescott noted that in different situations it may be appropriate to use different terminology. But that People should not be defined by their worst behavior and so referring to clients as a sex offender or victim may not be the most beneficial way of communicating when speaking with the offender and/or victim. Language is the primary tool of communication and as such it is critical that we are constantly considering how it is being used and its effect on others. Laura Saurini asked if there is research about sex offenders reoffending before and after engagement with the system and treatment. David Prescott responded that at this time the research in this matter is not present. The SOMB expressed its appreciation to David Prescott for attending the meeting. BREAK COMPETENCEY BASED TREATMENT PROVIDER APPROVAL MODEL BEST PRACTICES COMMITTEE Tom Leversee Tom Leversee presented the competency based treatment provider approval model. Handout provided. Cathy Rodriguez noted that under this model Intent to Apply status would no longer continue, and instead all providers would start out at Associate Level and then the process would continue as it is now. Another change is in co-facilitation hours as it has been identified as a struggle for many providers. This will now be up the discretion of the supervisor. Finally, she noted that the SOMB has conditionally offered a consultant a temporary position to assist with this implementation. Mimi Scheuermann asked if there is a minimum point scale to be referred to Full Operating Level. Tom Leversee noted that there is no quantitative minimum but all of the scores cumulatively are looked at by the clinical supervisor, as well as the Application Review Committee (ARC). In addition, a narrative must be provided with the scores to assist in a full understanding of the individual provider. Merve Davies asked if there is an ability to show a difference between someone who has years of experience and someone who has become a therapist very recently. 4

5 Carl Blake recognized that this is a theme across all aspects of mental health credentialing. A licensed worker for 40 years is licensed the same as someone who obtained their license yesterday. The main focus is to not create more ranks or confusion but to make sure the SOMB has the ability to oversee all providers. Allison Boyd asked what the minimum score has to be in order to get approved and how ARC will deal with not having a minimum number of clinical hours. Carl Blake commented that the clinical supervisor will be responsible for clinical supervision hours and education. Licensing is required and these items together are better evaluators than an arbitrarily set number of minimum hours. Mimi Scheuermann commented that child welfare is moving to a competency based system as well. Roberta Ponis asked about how RNR is reflected in this evaluation. Missy Gursky noted that RNR is reflected in the narrative portion of the competency assessment. APPROVAL OF THE BEST PRACTICES MODEL: motion to approve Bill Hildenbrand, 2 nd by Missy Gursky. 22 Approve 0 Oppose 0 Abstain Motion passed LUNCH VOTING ON APPEALS ARC - Carl Blake explained what ARC 1 and ARC 2 s duties are. In reference to DORA s Report of Investigation, they are reviewed by ARC 2. Amy Flinch questioned whether the reason the process has been created is because there are times ARC might have information and time to discuss issues to which the Board has not been privy. Carl Blake noted that all the same information is provided to the full SOMB. Allison Boyd suggested that because ARC has had additional time or longer discussions, they should be able to vote as they have had more time to assimilate the information. Tom Leversee asked if there was a model on which the Board is basing their actions. Jeanne Smith commented that the subcommittees are allotted more time outside of the board meeting and this does allow more information to be explained and discussed, which is simply not reasonable inside the board meeting. In the matter of being fair to all parties in the appeal it is important that all information is disbursed equally and each party has an equal chance to speak as a decision is being made. Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky commented that one of the outcomes from the SOMB appeal can be to refer the case back to ARC for further discussion if they are not comfortable moving forward at that time. If new information comes forward then the appeal does go back to ARC for new discussion. Mimi Scheuermann commented that when ARC presents their decision at an appeal, all other ARC members are also able to speak, including if anyone from ARC had concerns, but noted that ARC typically works towards consensus in decisions. If ARC was able to vote this would mean the person appealing is already facing those who voted against them instead of coming into the appeal with a clean slate. The SOMB determined to take no additional action on changing the appeal process as this time. 5

6 STAFF RESOURCE ALLOCATION SOMB STAFF Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky noted that since the SOMB staff is staff for the Board, it is important for the SOMB to understand what the staff does on a daily basis. The SOMB staff would like to make sure all staff resources are being utilized most effectively. Handout provided. Carl Blake asked for this to be returned to a future agenda item for additional feedback. TES VARIANCE ARC Carl Blake explained that this specific variance differs from most as this is an agency asking for a variance that would target various clients and not one specific case or client. Rick May noted there has been a desire within his company to create a group that would include the persons identified, as it is known a group environment is very helpful. Amy Fitch raised a concern about the variance being so open-ended. The idea of a group is not in contention, but that an individual variance should be developed for each person. Allison Boyd commented on what the impact this message might convey to victims. Missy Gursky noted that appeals can often take up to 2 years and not having those offenders under appeal in treatment is a concern to her. Jeanne Smith noted that a discussion will need to happen about the criteria for admission to the group. Must the person meet every single criteria in the variance form or is there some minimum they must meet in order to be in the group. Angel Weant commented that this plan allows the Community Supervision Teams (CSTs) to individualize per each case. Missy Gursky suggested that ARC could possibly oversee the admission to the group of individual offenders. Nancy Jackson recommended approving this variance with the recommendation of revisiting it in one year to review the data collected and with ARC approving the individuals approved for group. APPROVAL OF THE TES VARIANCE: motion to approve Nancy Jackson, 2 nd by Rick May. 18 Approve 1 Oppose 1 Abstain Motion passes CONTINUITY OF CARE Carl Blake outlined the development of this document to aiding continuity of care. Cathy Rodriguez commented that some of the suggestions so far have been to place it on the SOMB website and that it will not be mandated at this point, with the understanding that in time it will become part of both Standards. Jessica Curtis noted that there have been many cases where youth have had to restart treatment over and over, and each new treatment provider is not recognizing the previous treatment and this is hugely detrimental to the juvenile. Tom Leversee suggested that this stay a dynamic document while in pilot. The SOMB supported the piloting of the Continuity of Care intake form. MEETING ADJORNS at 3:02pm 6

7 Turning Participant Results Session Name: New Session PM Created: 12/1/ :20 AM 1) Motion: Approve the October minutes 2) Motion: Approve vicechair nomination of Judge Kopcow 3) Motion to approve the competency based provider approval model Device ID Remote No. First Name Last Name 2B201 1 Pam Bricker B212 2 Mary Baydarian B213 3 Richard Bednarski B216 4 Carl Blake III B226 5 Allison Boyd B22D 6 Jessica Curtis B237 7 Merve Davies B23B 8 Kim English B246 9 Amy Fitch B25B 10 Jeff Geist B Missy Gursky EE64 12 Rick May B26A 13 Bill Hildenbrand B26E 14 Nancy Jackson B Jeff Jenks B Marcelo Kopcow B Allison Watt B2A8 18 Tom Leversee B2D6 19 Jessica Meza B2F5 20 Kandy Moore B2FF 21 John Odenheimer B Mimi Scheuermann B32A 23 Doug Stephens B32C 24 Angel Weant ) Motion to approve the TES variance for 1 year with ARC review of candidates 7