posted 10-28-2008 05:35 PM            

This is more complicated and convoluted than it needs to be.

While I have no argument with the face-validity of some separation between monitoring/reoffense and maintenance/non-compliance concerns, the artificial and unproven separation between compliance with treatment and compliance with probation is bothersome.

The committee members stated, at APA, there is overlapping content in the terms and conditions of probation and treatment contracts. Why then pretend some vector of separation that does not exist.

It is inconsistent to state these are distinct concerns and admit there is overlapping content in those contracts.

Why waste our time with silliness like this?

Why create problems for examiners in the field, with all kinds of unnecessary fears about not getting a good-housekeeping-seal-of-approval over a non-issue?

We really need an answer that is an answer, and not some chest-beating about validity or fear-mongering about a PCSOT-EPPA. We need an explanation based in data or sound theory, not so-many years of experience.

Sure there are risks and hazzards in PCSOT. One of the risks is that of looking stupid to our detractors when we decide to make a big deal out of something unimportant.

Here is a links to a sample treatment contract from the CSOM website.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/pcsot/CSOM_offender-treatment-contract.pdf

and a link to the addition terms for sex offender probation in Colorado.
http://www.raymondnelson.us/pcsot/CO_060207additionalsexoffendcond.pdf

Trying to keep these separate is a tail-chasing exercise.

What we really need is an opportunity to make recommendations about keeping the valuable parts of the proposed model policy, and setting aside the silly parts that lack both face-validity and data.

.012

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 10-28-2008 08:42 PM            

After reading what you have written, I wonder....are they trying to totally seperate treatment exams from probation exams?

I have been using the two part sexual history in Alaska and I like the way, especially the first part on victims is much more focused than asking about under age victims, child porn and then say use of force.

Just wondering from the outside looking in,

I really appreciate your insights and postings,

posted 10-28-2008 10:35 PM            

Particularly slide 266 out of 267, which states.

quote:

---

Committee Recommendations:
Other issues in ME

The same test may include:

• reatment issues that are also probation/parole violations
  
• sex law violations
  
• other probation/parole violations
  

The following conditions apply:

(1) if offenders are reported to be NDI to all RQs in the series further testing is not required

(2) if offenders are reported to be SR to one or more of the RQs in the series, a follow-up SOME is needed

---

So, while Monitoring exams (SOME) are thought of as distinct from Maintenance exams (ME), the proposed model policty, as taught by Holden, allow for the inclusion of re-offense qeustions in a ME.

It would make more sense to keep re-offense behaviors (SOME) more separate from non-compliance. Base-rates are different, and the anticipated consequences may be different (and may not be different).

However, we are told by the Colorado Attorney General's office that offenders have a 5th amendment right surrounding answering questions about new crimes. (I heard the same thing in AZ.) They do not have 5th amendment rights around violations of probation rules, which include compliance with the treatment contract/rules, that are not new crimes.

Which brings us to the last slide, #267

quote:

---

Committee Recommendations:
Other issues in ME (cont.)

Treatment infractions that are not violations of probation/parole are considered to have a separate Frame of Reference and are examined as a separate ME.

Examples:

• masturbation activities and reporting
  
• fantasy issues and reporting

---

So, masturbation and fantasies are the only examples provided, for what might represent a treatment issue that is not also a probation issue.

The real problem may be be with the masturbation and fantasy questions. It is normal, even for persons in sex offense treatment, to underreport masturbation actiivties. So it is a high base-rate behavior.

There is no good example of a fantasy question.

Everyone fantasizes. The signal value of the questions is not at all clear. Does it really represent deviance. There a lot of value system to navigate here, so the issues are very dicey.

In Colorado, we only ask about fantasies when connected with masturbation behaviors.

I'm OK with arguments of face-validity around the two-part sex history.

The only reason for this artificial separation of Maintenance-treatment and Maintenence-probation is that it fits some fanciful mental model. It does not seem to fit with pragmatic reality or good containment theory.

Here's another Pop-quiz: Probation or treatment?

R4: During the last 12 months, besides those two people, did you engage in sexual contact with anyone else?

R6: During the last 12 months, besides what you reported, have you been completely unsupervised with any other minors?

R8: During the last 12 months, did you masturbate while looking at any pornographic or sexually stimulating images?

In my view, one should be able to read the questions and understand what kind of a test it is. "Validity" is not some transitory etherial notion that comes from simple declaration, and it is not something that changes because of which piece of paper (probation or treatment contracts) on which a rule is written.

.012

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)