The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Final Report: Development and 

Implementation Project for the Youth 

Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS) 

Author(s): Robert Prentky, Sue Righthand, James 

Worling, Tamara Kang 

Document Number: 254814 

Date Received: 6/2020 

Award Number: 2016-AW-BX-K004 

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
Final Report 

Development and Implementation Project for the 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale 

(YNPS) 

Robert Prentky, Ph.D., Fairleigh Dickinson University (Project P.I.) 

Sue Righthand, Ph.D., University of Maine (Project co-P.I.) 

James Worling, Ph.D., Private Practice (Project Senior Consultant) 

Tamara Kang, Ph.D., Southern Illinois University (Project Manager) 

This document represents the full Final Report for the project funded by the United States 

Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs [Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking; SMART Office] 

through grant # 2016-AW-BX-K004. The recommendations included in the report are 

entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the SMART Office or 

the DOJ. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table of Contents 

2

Table of Contents..................................................................................................................... 2 

Core Project Staff / Contact......................................................................................................... 5 

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Statement of the Problem............................................................................................................. 8 

Risk-Need-Responsivity Model ................................................................................................ 11 

Extant Measures of Risk for Juveniles with Sex Offenses........................................................ 12 

Risk and Interventions: Good Assessments Guide Effective Interventions.............................. 14 

Project Goals ............................................................................................................................... 16 

Goal 1: Scale Development and Methods ................................................................................. 17 

Test Version of YNPS Rating Scale ......................................................................................... 28 

The Final Test Version.............................................................................................................. 29 

Goal 2: Implementation.............................................................................................................. 35 

On-Site Trainings ...................................................................................................................... 37 

Sustainability and Implementation Challenges ......................................................................... 38 

Goal 3: Data Analyses................................................................................................................. 40 

Missing Data ............................................................................................................................. 40 

Participants................................................................................................................................ 42 

Demographics........................................................................................................................ 42 

Level of Security. .................................................................................................................. 43 

Intervention Status................................................................................................................. 44 

Sex Offense Related. ............................................................................................................. 44 

Conduct Disorder and Delinquency Related. ........................................................................ 44 

History of Abuse and/or Placement Instability...................................................................... 45 

Descriptive Statistics on Repeated Assessments. .................................................................. 45 

Principal Component Analysis.................................................................................................. 46 

Detailed Process of Item Reduction.......................................................................................... 48 

Final, Revised YNPS Item Selection ........................................................................................ 52 

Trend Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 53 

Cluster Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 54 

Canonical Analysis with J-SOAP-II ......................................................................................... 55 

Significant Findings .................................................................................................................... 60 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3

Lessons Learns ............................................................................................................................ 64 

Final Version of the Youth Needs and Progress Scale............................................................. 65 

Significant Policy Implications .................................................................................................. 67 

References.................................................................................................................................... 71 

Appendix A: Training Materials ............................................................................................... 77 

Appendix B: Program to Track Progress Over Time .............................................................103

Appendix C: User Manual & Scale ...........................................................................................110

Appendix D: Data Codebook .....................................................................................................153

Appendix E: The Natural Development of Adolescents ..........................................................163

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Tables and Figures 

4

Table 1. Examples of assessment scales reviewed for the development of the YNPS test version. . 18 

Table 2. List of factors considered......................................................................................................... 20 

Table 3. Scoring/Rating Scales............................................................................................................... 24 

Table 4. Potential Test Items.................................................................................................................. 27 

Table 5. Description of intervention programs among 5 participating sites. .................................... 36 

Table 6. Examples of Feedback from Sites........................................................................................... 38 

Table 7. Potential Implementation Challenges .................................................................................... 39 

Table 8. Race/Ethnicity .......................................................................................................................... 43 

Table 9. Number of reassessments ........................................................................................................ 46 

Table 10. Cronbach Alpha for YNPS Scales ........................................................................................ 47 

Table 11. Item-Scale Correlations for YNPS Scales ............................................................................ 47 

Table 12. Between-scale Correlations for YNPS Scales ...................................................................... 47 

Table 13. PCA I, II, and III.................................................................................................................... 50 

Table 14. Factor Analysis on YNPS Items: Varimax Factor Loading and Communality............... 51 

Table 15. Assessments over time............................................................................................................ 53 

Table 16. Summary of characteristics of each cluster from the 4-cluster solution........................... 55 

Table 17. Canonical correlation analysis.............................................................................................. 56 

Table 18. % of variability that the YNPS explains in each item of J-SOAP scales 1, 2, and 3........ 58 

Table 19. YNPS & Risk-Need-Responsivity Framework.................................................................... 61 

Figure 1. Reduction of redundancy....................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 2. Example #1 of the survey created for the Advisory Board................................................. 25 

Figure 3. Example #2 of the survey created for the Advisory Board................................................. 26 

Figure 4. List of Youth Needs & Progress Scale items tested in the 12-month pilot period. ........... 30 

Figure 5. Example #1 of the test version programmed into REDCap. .............................................. 32 

Figure 6. Example #2 of the test version programmed into REDCap. .............................................. 33 

Figure 7. Example of how REDCap visually depicts progress over time. ......................................... 34 

Figure 8. Trend of YNPS subscales over assessment time. ................................................................. 53 

Figure 9. Relationship between each J-SOAP item and the YNPS. ................................................... 59 

Figure 10. Cluster analysis: Heterogeneous groups............................................................................. 63 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Core Project Staff / Contact 

5

Robert Prentky, Ph.D., Project P.I., rprentky@fdu.edu 

Sue Righthand, Ph.D., Project co-P.I., sue.righthand@gmail.com 

James Worling, Ph.D., Project Senior Consultant, jamesworling@gmail.com 

Tamara Kang, Ph.D., Project Manager, tamara.kang@siu.edu 

Austin Lee, Ph.D., Project Mathematical Statistician, fong@bu.edu 

Acknowledgements 

We wish to express our sincere appreciation to the staff at each pilot site involved in the 

Youth Needs and Progress Development and Implementation Project. We recognize how 

busy everyone is and know the Project training, consults, scale administration, and 

related tasks added to already hectic schedules. The contributions of all site participants 

were invaluable in assisting with the development and pilot testing of the resulting scale. 

In particular, the contributions of the site “Team Leaders” and the “site volunteers” were 

critical. We trust that this scale will more efficiently provide risk-targeted interventions 

and management strategies that further reduce harm and promote safety. 

Participating Sites 

➢ Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice 

➢ Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

➢ Oregon Youth Authority 

➢ The Village Network 

➢ Texas Juvenile Justice Department 

➢ Clackamas County Juvenile Department 

➢ Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

6

The core project staff, Dr. Sue Righthand, Dr. Tamara Kang, Dr. Jim Worling, Dr. Austin Lee, and Dr. 

Robert Prentky, are deeply indebted to the scholars and renown experts comprising our Advisory Board 

who provided advice, consultation, invaluable recommendations and inspiration at various stages of the 

project. 

Advisory Board Members: 

➢ Judith Becker, Ph.D., Professor (Emeritus), University of Arizona 

➢ Anthony Beech, DPhil., Professor (Emeritus), University of Birmingham, UK 

➢ Barbara Bonner, Ph.D., Professor (Ret.), University of Oklahoma 

➢ Keith Kaufman, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology, Portland State University 

➢ Robert McGrath, Ph.D., McGrath Psychological Services, Vermont 

➢ William Murphy, Ph.D., Professor, University of Tennessee 

➢ Jane Silovsky, Ph.D., Professor, University of Oklahoma 

Three supremely competent graduate student research assistants who, often quietly in the background, 

committed untold hours to the execution of this project. Amanda and Megan were the Lead Graduate 

Research Assistants. 

➢ Amanda Beltrani, M.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Clinical Doctoral Student 

➢ Megan Manheim, B.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Clinical Doctoral Student 

➢ Melissa Jankowski, M.A., University of Maine, Clinical Doctoral Student 

In addition, seven additional graduate students also made significant contributions: 

Sara Fruchter, B.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Data coding 

Katelyn Johnston, B.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Data coding 

Bridget Nishimura, B.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Phase II 

Elise Pate, B.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Phase II 

Shantel Sinclair, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Phase I 

Sharron Spriggs, M.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Phase II & III, Data coding 

Marta Stachniuk, B.A., Fairleigh Dickinson University, Phase II 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7

We wish to thank the administrative staff and faculty of Fairleigh Dickinson University for their 

support with this project. 

University President Christopher A. Capuano, Ph.D. 

Dr. Robert McGrath, Chair of the Psychology Department 

Dr. Ronald Dumont, Professor Emeritus, Former Chair of the Psychology Department 

Mrs. Kim R. Diccianni, CIP Human Research Compliance Manager 

Ms. Jane Tsambis, MBA, Director of Grants Management 

Ms. Angela Lugo, MBA, Sponsored Programs Associate, Grants Management Office 

Mr. Christopher Bland, Systems Manager, Information Systems & Technology, REDCap 

A very special thanks to our SMART Office Project Managers, Amy Staubs, Kisha Green, and 

Kashan Arnold, and the individuals at the SMART Office that have been supportive throughout 

this project. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Statement of the Problem 

8

“Age-specific” legal structures began to appear in the U.S. around 1900, including compulsory 

education, child labor laws, and the juvenile court. In the earliest juvenile courts, the State assumed the 

duty to protect adolescents, acting on their behalf, providing them with care and intervention so that they 

could reform themselves and become civilized members of society. The process was not adversarial. 

The juvenile courts were acting for the children, not against them. Viewed as an exemplar of social 

virtue, the juvenile court’s honeymoon was relatively brief. A multitude of weak assumptions led to a 

fall from grace (e.g., that clinicians knew how to properly evaluate the needs of troubled youth, that the 

prevailing science of the day knew how best to intervene with troubled youth, that the clinicians were 

properly educated, trained, and supervised, and that the Court could make informed decisions about how 

best to manage troubled youth). The “last straw” was the landmark case of In re Gault. Justice Fortas 

referred to Juvenile Courts as “kangaroo courts,” characterized by “arbitrariness,” “ineffectiveness,” and 

an “appearance of injustice” (In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967)). Post-Gault reforms led to a “just desserts 

model of punishment,” the same as existed in the adult courts (Reppucci, 1999, p. 314).

Within roughly twenty-years after Gault, disillusionment once again set in. Orlando and Crippen 

(1992) referred to “A Dangerous System,” where “the problems Justice Fortas pointed to in 1966 

continue today. Neither care nor due process is consistently given,” (p. 95). In 1999, Reppucci observed, 

“The current “get tough” reforms that treat youths as adults are not consistent with the assumptions 

about age of maturity that are made in other regulatory domains,” (p. 323). A second force at play, 

directed from the U.S. Supreme Court, sought to 

rectify the denial of rights to juveniles waived to adult court that were guaranteed by the Bill of Rights 

and the Constitution to adults. Between these two powerful social forces, the light between juveniles and 

adults was ever dimming. Today, fifteen years after Reppucci’s observation, while still paying homage 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

9

to the legacy of Gault, we routinely implement management strategies (e.g., mandatory registration on 

public registries, in some cases lifetime registration, residency restrictions, in some cases for a lifetime, 

civil commitment in at least ten states) that are far more deleterious in their potential influence on the 

outcomes of the youth they impact than anything in the pre-Gault era. 

During the past decade, however, the pendulum has once again begun to move slowly back in the 

opposite direction, principally in response to declining juvenile crime rates, the heterogeneity of 

delinquent populations, recognition that incarcerating juveniles may be yielding suboptimal results, and, 

most importantly, the impact of developmental neuroscience, and research on the juvenile brain (Bonnie 

& Scott, 2013; Dahl & Spear, 2004; Association for Psychological Science, 2013). These advances, 

however, have often not found receptivity in the juvenile courtroom. 

Further, courts today are often provided evaluations that are not based on objective scientific 

evidence, with conclusions based on results that misinterpret – and occasionally flagrantly distort - the 

research, fail to address the limitations of the evaluation, and generally ignore practice guidelines 

(Zimring, 2004). Assessment of juveniles has, overwhelmingly, adopted a nomothetic focus on the 

presumptive risk of dangerousness rather than a comprehensive, idiographic assessment of the needs of 

the youth. Risk assessment, moreover, has become a mechanism for justifying denial of liberty and 

removal from caregivers and the community (Vitacco and colleagues, 2009). This is especially the case 

with adolescents who have committed sex offenses. 

Assessing risk in the presence of developmental change introduces extraordinary uncertainty. 

Risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, poor decision-making, illegal behaviors, and intense, 

unstable emotions are all normative in adolescence, not something idiosyncratic to delinquent youth. 

Although indisputably challenging, we must distinguish between what is normative and what constitutes 

a pattern of maladaptive, problematic behavior that is idiosyncratic to the youngster. Change must be 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

10

controlled for with: (a) repeated, short-term assessments and (b) change-sensitive markers that are built 

into the assessment. Assessing risk of adolescents is akin to hitting a moving target. Unlike adults, who 

typically present with decades of stable behavior patterns, adolescents and even young adults have very 

limited life experience and may offer little reliable evidence of a stable pattern that is useful for gauging 

risk. What adolescents do exhibit reliably is unreliability. 

What happens to all adolescents in the normal course of development is further complicated by 

varying degrees of inappropriate, inadequate or even harmful interventions that many, if not most, 

juveniles with sex offenses have been subjected to. Abuse and neglect is often, moreover, real time (i.e., 

occurring within roughly the same time-frame as the risk assessment. Indeed, childhood abuse is wellknown to be a robust, and some would argue universal, risk factor in antisocial behavior (Moffitt, Caspi, 

Rutter, & Silva, 2001). Further, home environment, multiple placements, caregivers, school, peers and 

other life situations of adolescents may change within a short timeframe. In sum, adverse early life 

experiences are “destabilizing” from the standpoint of assessing risk. Hence, the social ecology of youth 

may increase risk or be protective (Henggeler and his colleagues, 2009). 

An interesting and important study in this regard examined age-related differences and dynamic risk 

factors in a large sample (n = 674) of adjudicated youthful offenders (Vincent, Perrault, Guy, & 

Gershenson, 2012). Vincent and her colleagues looked at SAVRY scores in three groups: <12, 13 – 15, 

16 – 18). At follow-up (14.5 months average), group assignment by age did not moderate the association 

between SAVRY scores and re-offense. Dynamic risk factors, however, did increment predictive 

validity. Importantly, Vincent et al. (2012) found no evidence that age affected the zero-order 

correlation between SAVRY scores and the criterion (re-offense). Although the sample was not of 

juveniles with sex offenses, the findings are certainly noteworthy. Perhaps the most interesting question 

raised is the relation of dynamic risk factors, which did contribute to the explanatory variance, and age. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
11

Presumably, there are some dynamic risk factors that are indeed highly age sensitive (e.g., placement / 

caregiver instability, substance abuse, social skills, social isolation versus social / peer involvement). 

Lastly, one might hypothesize that certain discrete subgroups of juveniles with sex offenses (i.e., the 

ones characterized by marked psychosocial immaturity that opportunistically target younger victims) 

would be more likely to evidence a moderating effect of age. 

In sum, the risk “temperature” of adolescents is arguably far more variable and unstable than that 

of adults. The younger the child, the briefer the window of life experience from which to sample 

behavior (i.e., assess static risk) and the less stable and less reliable the fixed behavior that is sampled. 

Thus, the most important paradigm shift from risk assessment with adults (>25) to juveniles is a shift to 

a primary focus on capturing differing facets of dynamic risk (i.e., both acute and stable dynamic 

factors). Optimal assessment of this population must take into account the normative, pervasive 

developmental flux that defines this transitional period of juvenile’s lives. Although capturing this flux 

is a significant methodological challenge, it is essential for improving the accuracy of our assessments, 

as well as improving our management decisions. 

Risk-Need-Responsivity Model 

A major theoretical advance that ties together an assessment of risk to the needs of the youngster 

and then ties those needs to the optimal (most responsive) interventions is the Risk-Need-Responsivity 

(RNR) model (cf. Andrews & Bonta, 2010). RNR has been implemented worldwide and reported on in 

the literature for decades. As stated, RNR is an integrative, unifying model that underscores the 

criticality of all phases: comprehensive assessment of needs as well as risk, evaluation-driven 

intervention plans and all other client-specific interventions, and the “responsivity interface” between 

“needs” and interventions. Programs that apply RNR principles of effective intervention have greater 

reductions in criminal recidivism among both adults (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) and juveniles (e.g., 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
12

Pealer & Latessa, 2004), including adults and juveniles who have committed sexual offenses (Hanson et 

al., 2009). To be most useful, and consistent with the RNR Model, assessments of adolescents who have 

sexually offended consider factors associated with sexual and non-sexual reoffending by either 

increasing the likelihood of reoffending (risk factors) or mitigating the risk (protective factors). This 

consideration does not focus only on individual (ontogenic) factors; but extends to family 

(microsystemic), community (exosystemic), and cultural (macrosystemic) factors as well. Although 

historical factors that are associated with recidivism or desistence (i.e., static risk factors) may be useful 

for assessing risk, identifying dynamic risk and protective factors (i.e. criminogenic needs) are essential, 

as they alone are primary targets for intervention. 

Additionally, depending on the youth, there are special issues that may require assessment, 

because they either are related to the offending, intervention priorities or facilitating intervention 

responsiveness. Such factors may include substance abuse, trauma symptoms, cognitive functioning and 

serious mental health issues. Similarly, socio-ecological factors that can affect service delivery and 

intervention responsiveness must be considered, e.g., caregivers’ willingness to actively supervise the

youth or be involved in his or her intervention, school and community sentiment and response, cultural 

practices and beliefs. By considering these varied factors, the Risk–Need–Responsivity model can 

provide a road map for effective interventions. 

Extant Measures of Risk for Juveniles with Sex Offenses 

This Statement of the Problem will not delve into a review of the extant literature on risk 

assessment of juvenile with sex offenses. The literature has been reviewed numerous times (e.g., 

Prentky, Righthand, & Lamade, 2015; Rich, 2014; Viljoen, Mordell, & Beneteau, 2012; Vitacco, 

Caldwell, Ryba, Malesky, & Kurus, 2009; Worling and Langstrom, 2003). In brief, development and 

testing of risk scales for these juveniles began in some earnest in the mid-1990s, with the first scale 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

13

reaching publication in 2000 (Prentky, Harris, Frizzell, & Righthand, 2000). A 2010 survey reported that 

two risk assessment scales, the ERASOR (Worling & Curwen, 2001) and the J-SOAP-II (Prentky & 

Righthand, 2003) were currently used by more than half of all outpatient and residential intervention 

providers in the U.S. (McGrath, Cummings, Burchard, Zeoli & Ellerby, 2010). Dr. Worling (2017) has 

recently developed the Protective + Risk Observations for Eliminating Sexual Offense Recidivism 

(PROFESOR, www.profesor.ca) in lieu of the ERASOR. The PROFESOR includes 20 “bipolar” items, 

each rated as “Protective,” “Neutral” or “Risk.” There are, however, numerous other similar measures 

that are presently in use (e.g., J-SORRAT-II, Epperson, Ralston, Fowers, DeWitt, & Gore, 2006; JRAS, 

Hiscox, Witt, & Haran, 2007). 

In contrast to previous risk assessment research, this project addresses the critical need to (1) 

develop a dynamic intervention needs and progress scale to assist service providers in identifying risk 

relevant intervention needs, (2) develop individualized, responsive intervention plans, and (3) monitor 

progress in response to effective interventions. To this end, we began this project with a literature review 

of factors associated with the onset, persistence, and desistance from sexual and nonsexual offending 

among male and female adolescent and adult populations. We also reviewed items included in some of 

the juvenile risk assessment scales that have been most subjected to empirical scrutiny, and considered 

dynamic items that appeared promising. For example, we reviewed the Assessment, Intervention, and 

Moving-on Project (AIM-2) (Griffin, Beech, Print, Bradshaw & Quayle, 2008) and Griffin et al. 

(2008)’s study. This study provided support for Bremer’s (2006) assessment model of integrating risk 

and protective factors to identify relevant intervention targets and guide effective interventions. In this 

study the authors describe the development of the “draft” AIM-2, a holistic research-based structured 

assessment guide designed for males, ages 12 through 18 years, who have sexually abused others. The 

AIM-2 included 75 static and dynamic individual, family or caregiver and environmental factors and are 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
14

scored as “concerns” (risk factors) or “strengths” (protective factors) and categorized as low, medium or 

high on each domain. The predictive validity of the AIM-2 was tested with a randomly selected 

subsample of 70 adolescents who were followed for a minimum of two years (average follow-up of 6 

years). Findings indicated 10% or 7 adolescents committed a new sexual offense. All of the sexual 

recidivists had high “concern ratings” (i.e., risk factors) and low “strengths” (i.e., protective factors). 

Further, subjects with high concern ratings, but who had high protective ratings were less likely to 

reoffend than those with similar concern ratings but little strengths, suggesting that a cumulative effect 

of multiple protective factors may reduce the likelihood of repeat offending. 

Risk and Interventions: Good Assessments Guide Effective Interventions 

There is a frequent “disconnect” between assessment and interventions in RNR programs 

(DeMatteo, Hunt, Batastini, & LaDuke, 2010). As DeMatteo et al. noted, “there is often a weak link 

between the assessment of risk and the selection of needs-appropriate intervention strategies for specific 

offender populations. This disconnect can reduce the likelihood of achieving optimal or even minimal 

reductions in re-offense rates,” (p. 62). There is, moreover, a tendency for clinicians conducting 

assessments to identify needs that are unrelated to risk and fail to identify needs that are related to risk 

(Borum, 2003; DeMatteo et al., 2010). The principle reason for targeting non-criminogenic needs is that, 

clinically, they appear very compelling. Enhancing self-esteem, as DeMatteo et al. (2010) pointed out, 

may be laudable, but it is unlikely to mitigate risk of re-offense. 

Although little is known about protective factors that are unique to juveniles who have committed sex 

offenses, ATSA (2012) pointed out possible candidates from the delinquency literature, including 

positive family functioning (e.g., adequate supervision, consistent and fair discipline), positive peer 

social group, supportive adults, commitment to school, pro-social / non-criminogenic attitudes, and 

emotional maturity. Many of these, as Stattin and Magnusson (1996) suggested, are simply the inverse 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

15

of risk factors (e.g., positive peer social group, pro-social / non-criminogenic attitudes). Overall, 

research on protective factors and sexual reoffending has been minimal. Yet, extant research regarding 

general offending and resilience following adversity, such as child abuse and neglect, (e.g., Cicchetti & 

Toth, 2009) suggests that the presence of protective factors, especially multiple ones, may have a 

moderating or buffering effects on risk factors associated with sexual and nonsexual recidivism. Thus, 

identifying individualized empirically-supported risk-relevant targets for intervention optimizes risk 

mitigation, thereby reducing the likelihood of recidivism of any kind and promoting prosocial lifestyles. 

In sum, good assessments guide effective interventions are those that provide the most intensive 

interventions to those with the greatest needs and fewest protective factors, are assessment driven, match 

interventions to relevant criminogenic and responsivity needs, are based on the best available evidence, 

and are applied with fidelity to the intervention model. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Project Goals 

16

The project had five goals: 

(1) Develop and test an evidence-informed Youth Needs and Progress Scale (hereafter referred 

to as YNPS) for assessing – primarily - dynamic risk and protective factors and limited ‘experimental’ 

historical items empirically associated with sexual and nonsexual reoffending by juveniles with sex 

offenses (JSOs) and identifying related intervention needs associated with those factors; 

(2) Develop a user-friendly data entry software program that enables evaluators to rate riskrelevant factors in their initial assessments and reassessments so they can design intervention or case 

management plans accordingly, monitor progress, and assess readiness for discharge via periodic 

reassessments; 

(3) Test the scale with 300-500 youth at multiple sites across the U.S. and examine reliability and 

validity of the YNPS items, for example, by analyzing comparisons of scores on the YNPS with 

deidentified, electronic, routinely collected data reflecting the juveniles’ overall functioning prior to and 

during the course of intervention; 

(4) Revise the scale accordingly to produce a final version of the YNPS and revise the data entry 

program; and 

(5) Provide sites with training on the final version of the YNPS, including a train-the-trainers 

component that can promote sustainability. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Goal 1: Scale Development and Methods 

17

Goal #1: Develop a rationally derived list of dynamic risk and protective factors that could 

potentially correspond to intervention needs and goals for juveniles with sexual offenses. 

The first goal of the project was to develop an empirically derived list of dynamic risk 

and protective factors associated with sexual and nonsexual offending. 

Step 1, We conducted an exhaustive review of the empirical literature (e.g., Heilbrun (Ed.), 

2017; Righthand, Baird, Way, & Seto, 2014; Righthand & Murphy, 2017), and nonsexual offending 

(e.g., Bonta & Andrews, 2017, Hoge, 2016) and reviewed the items, factors, and domains included on 

multiple assessment scales developed for juveniles with sexual offenses (e.g., AIM-2, ERASOR 2.0, JRAT, J-SOAP-II, J-SORRAT-II, VRS:YSO) and scales developed for youth with nonsexual offenses 

(e.g., YLS-CMI, SAVRY, START:AV, PSL:YV, OYAS). 

Although we primarily focused on dynamic risk and protective factor items associated with 

youth who have sexually offended, we also considered items and measures relevant to general 

delinquency and violence because most juveniles with sex offenses are likely to reoffend with a 

nonsexual offense, if they re-offend at all (i.e., the known sexual recidivism rates are consistently low, 

ranging from 5%-15%; e.g., Caldwell, 2010; Heilbrun, et al., 2005; McCann & Lussier, 2008; Reitzel & 

Carbonell, 2006; Viljoen, Mordell, & Beneteau, 2012). We also reviewed historical items and explored 

how they may be redesigned and included dynamically, if appropriate. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Table 1. Examples of assessment scales reviewed for the development of the YNPS test version. 

18

Juvenile Sex Offender 

Assessment Protocol-II 

(J-SOAP II; Prentky & 

Righthand, 2005) 

Estimated Risk of 

Adolescent Sex Offense 

Recidivism 2.0 

(ERASOR 2.0; Worling & 

Curwen, 2002) 

Intervention Needs & 

Progress Report 

(TNPR; Righthand, 2005) 

AIM2 

(Griffin, Beech, Print, 

Bradshaw, & Quayle, 2008) 

(Dis-criminating items) 

Desistence for Adolescents 

who Sexually Harm 

(DASH; Worling, 2013) 

Protective Factors Scale 

(PFS; Bremer, 2005) 

Protective + Risk 

Observations for 

Eliminating Sexual Offense 

Recidivism 

(PROFESOR; Worling, 

2017) 

Juvenile Risk Assessment 

Tool 

(J-RAT; Rich, 2000-2017) 

(only dynamic protective 

factors listed) 

Violence Risk Scale: Youth 

Sexual Offender Version 

(VRS:YSO; Wong, Olver, 

Nicholaichuk, & Gordon, 

2003) 

Violence Risk Scale-Youth 

Version 

(VRS-YV; Wong, Lewis, 

Stockdale, & Gordon, 2004-

2011) 

Structured Assessment of 

Protective Factors for 

Violence Risk 

(SAPROF; de Vogel, de 

Ruiter, Bouman, & de Vries 

Robbe, 2009, 2012) 

Risk & Needs Inventory-TV 

(RNI; Prentky & Righthand, 

2017) 

Short-Term Assessment of 

Risk & Treatability: 

Adolescent Version 

(START:AV; Viljoen, 

Nicholls, Cruise, Desmarais, 

& Webster) 

The Youth Level of 

Service/Case Management 

Inventory 

(YLS-CMI; Hoge & 

Andrews, 1996) 

Structured Assessment of 

Violence Risk in Youth 

(SAVRY; Borum, Bartel, & 

Forth, 2002) 

Psychopathy Check ListYouth Version 

(PCL-YV; Forth, Kosson, & 

Hare, 2003) 

Ohio Youth Assessment 

(OYAS; Latessa, Lovins, & 

Ostrowski, 2009) 

Also reviewed the literature pertaining to protective factors, examples include: 

• Robbe, Mann, Maruna, & Thorton, 2015: 8 protective factors 

• Losel & Farrington, 2012: Protective factors in the development of youth violence 

• Woldgabreal, Day, & Ward, 2016: Linking positive psychology to offender 

supervision outcomes 

• Epstein, 2004: Behavior & Emotional Rating Scale (BERS-2) 

Step 2, Using the Microsoft Excel application, potential risk and protective factors were 

translated into a series of detailed Excel tables. The Excel tables were independently reviewed by 

members of the project’s ‘core team’ (Prentky, Righthand, Worling, and Kang). Each member of the 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
19

core team used empirical evidence, theory, and/or clinical experience to create independent lists of 50-

60 dynamic risk and protective factors deemed important to consider during interventions to promote 

better management of youth who have sexually offended and reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The 

Project Manager and the Co-Principle Investigator reduced redundancy among the lists and documented 

overlap among the four independently created lists. See Figure 1 for an example of the excel spreadsheet 

created to help the core team reduce redundancy and select promising intervention needs. 

Figure 1. Reduction of redundancy 

Excel spreadsheet used to reduce redundancy and select items for the test version. 

We next developed criteria for reducing the number of risk and protective factors. If 4 of the 4 

members of the core team listed the factor as important, the factor was added to the list. If 3 core team 

members listed the factor as important, the core team met to discuss the relevant empirical, theoretical, 

or clinical significance of the item in order to come to a final consensus on whether including the factor 

was necessary. Using this procedure, we finalized a list of 54 dynamic factors and 27 historical factors. 

See Table 2 for one of the many iterations of lists of factors considered. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
20

Table 2. List of factors considered 

**Items the Core Team agreed upon highlighted in yellow 

**Majority in agreement on item 

Individual Factors 

Sexuality 

1. Sexual attitudes, beliefs & values regarding sexual misconduct/abuse 

2. Sexual interests (e.g., young children, violence, healthy) 

a. Interests in age appropriate sexual objects 

3. Sexual knowledge OR Lack of knowledge of laws and procedures regarding consenting 

sexual behavior (e.g., personal boundaries, physical space, relational norms, etc.) 

a. Classification groups-developmentally immature kids 

b. Consent 

4. Sex drive/sexual preoccupation/balanced degree of sexual interest/frequency 

5. Sexual regulation/management/sexual urge management (skills) 

6. Sexual responsibility (locus of control, assumes responsibility for all sexual behavior) 

Personal response to sexual offending 

7. Shame connected to past sexual offending 

8. Guilt/remorse connected to past sexual offending 

9. Fear of personal consequences 

10. Awareness OR Lack of awareness of victim impact/victim empathy 

Peers 

11. Peer influences/affiliation w/ antisocial peer group (prosocial-antisocial spectrum; 

delinquent) 

12. Friends or acquaintances who endorse abuse-supportive attitudes 

Attitudes/beliefs/cognitions 

13. Social orientation (anti—pro) (overall: attitudes [prosocial OR criminogenic], values, 

emotions, attachments, behavior; delinquent) 

14. Attitudes, beliefs, & values regarding criminal behavior (delinquent) 

15. Criminal thinking 

Conduct 

16. Rule adherence/conduct (general) 

17. Relationship with authority 

18. Delinquency/criminality-law abiding (general) 

19. Good OR poor emotional self-regulation (expression & skills for management) 

20. Good OR poor behavioral/general self-regulation (what is expressed & skills—ability to 

focus, manage impulses, passivity, activation; delinquent) 

21. Behavioral impulsivity (e.g., impulse control/self-control; delinquent) 

22. Risk taking/sensation seeking (range) 

23. Pathological lying/manipulative/conning/parasitic 

Skills/strategies to prevent reoffending 

24. Knowledge/awareness & use of risk management/sexual-prevention strategies 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
21

25. Substance abuse 

26. Stress management skills/coping with stress/adverse life events 

27. Conflict management skills 

Caring/compassion 

28. Callous/uncaring towards others OR Compassion and caring/General empathy/perspective 

taking 

Free time constructive use of time 

30. Engagement OR Lack of involvement in structured leisure activities 

31. Use of free (leisure) time 

32. Positive talents/interests 

Quality of peer relationships 

33. Intimate peer relationships/close friendships 

34. Age appropriate friendships & emotional intimacy skills 

35. Peer rejection 

Social skills/Competence 

36. Basic social skills/social competence (e.g., eye contact, physical boundaries; social 

ineptness) Dating skills (as appropriate, expressing interest, ensuring consent, managing 

rejection), Communication skills (developing/maintaining friendships, active listening) 

37. Social immaturity 

38. Good OR Poor problem-solving & decision-making skills 

39. Ability to learn from mistakes and feedback 

40. Commitment to/engagement in school or work 

41. Self-worth: Believing in yourself—Self-image/self-esteem (poor, inflated—

positive/healthy)/ Self-efficacy, agency 

Malintervention 

42. Current impact of inappropriate or harmful interventions for sexual victimization 

43. Nature and extent of morbidity associated with abuse 

Personal attachments 

44. Attachments to others/support systems (impersonal, little concern, “weak ties,” asocial, 

social life social isolation—strong connections, at least one emotional confidant, evidence 

of positive support systems, strong attachments and bonds, strong social support; social 

ineptness) 

45. Emotional identification with young children 

46. Child—Quality of parent relationship (mother/father) (child perspective) 

47. Relationship w/ family members (positive-negative/prosocial-antisocial/quality) 

48. Strong commitment to a prosocial organization (e.g., church, school, team, etc.) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22

Sexual outlets 

49. Age appropriate, healthy, legal relationships/interests with same age peers 

50. Rewarding, consenting relationship(s) with a peer 

Future Orientation 

51. Future orientation (plans, goals, hope) 

52. Hopefulness regarding healthy sexual future 

53. Motivation to change 

Interventions 

54. Responsive to OR Actively resists interventions/Intervention engagement 

55. Intervention progress/completion/maintenance of gains 

56. Sibling abuse interventions (clarifications, reunification, reintegration) 

57. Evaluations from staff 

Environmental Factors 

Family/Parent(s)/Caregiver relationship (family/caregiver perspective) 

58. Child—parent relationship (father/mother; e.g., caring, supportive, rejecting, antagonistic) 

59. Caregiver response to sexual misconduct (parent rejection—supports child) 

60. Parental involvement/support in interventions 

61. Caregiver personal challenges (e.g., substance abuse, personal trauma, sequel; abuse 

reactive) 

62. Parent management skills 

63. Parents/caregivers who endorse abuse-supportive attitudes 

64. Caregiver/family social orientation (prosocial—antisocial) 

65. Social “ecological”/environment/child rearing: protracted/invasive abuse (abuse reactive) 

Living situation 

73. Return home/victim in home/neighborhood situation (risky/supportive) 

74. Stable and secure living environment (separate from family/steps toward integration) 

75. Abuse-supportive attitudes in living environment/Sexualized living situation 

76. Placement instability (abuse reactive) 

77. Stable/High stress family environment (abuse reactive) 

Community 

78. Environmental influences (extended family, neighborhood, community) 

79. Significant community violence/crime 

80. Community support network (gangs—positive) 

81. Severe legal/social policy consequences (e.g., public registration) 

82. Rehabilitation services available/uses services (e.g., recommended intervention [may 

include med management and adherence], education, vocation) 

83. Environmental controls/supports (supervision, transportation & other needed resources) 

84. Adequate external monitoring 

85. Available emotional supports 

86. Supportive relationship with positive/supportive/caring adult support, mentors, role models 

(negative—positive)/positive attitudes from significant adults) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
23

Step 3, Next, we developed the rating scale to ‘operationalize / measure’ each risk or protective 

factor or intervention response need item. We reviewed rating scales from assessment scales used with 

juveniles who have sexually offended and the extant literature on reliable rating scales in order to 

balance reliability of ratings, without truncating the rating system into the commonly used 3-point scale 

used for most assessment scales. Our goal was to create a rating scale that was reliable but also was able 

to better capture subtler changes along the continuum of risk and protective factors. Table 3 provides 

examples of the rating scales we reviewed and considered. 

After adopting a 4-point ordinal rating scheme, each member of the core team was assigned 

items to operationalize into the 4-point scale. We experimented with a variety of different “templates,”

reviewing the strengths and limitations of each approach and their likely impact on the validity and 

reliability of the ratings and finally decided upon a template for the rating scale. With the agreed upon 

template in hand, the four members of the core team divided up the 54 dynamic items and applied the 

rating template to each. 

Step 4, To further reduce the number of items on the test version of the scale, we requested 

feedback from a 7-member Advisory Board that consisted of researchers and clinical psychologists with 

expertise in assessment of juveniles who have sexually offended. To standardize the feedback received 

from the Advisory Board, we developed a fillable PDF to guide our Advisory Board members in rating 

each potential factor on: 

(a) the importance of the item (drop, maybe, keep), 

(b) level of empirical support in predicting sexual recidivism (none, some, strong), 

(c) relevance by age and gender, 

(d) relevance for noncontact vs. contact offenses, and 

(e) a space for qualitative comments was provided. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24

Table 3. Scoring/Rating Scales 

Scale 1: 0 1 2 

(Static & Dynamic: JRAS, J-SOAP-II, AIM-2, 

All dynamic: JSO Progress Scale [TNPR], RNI [no/minimal need, moderate need, significant 

need]) 

Scale 2: -1 0 +1 

Scale 3: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 

Scale 4: Yes/No (0/1) (J-SORRAT, ODYS, DASH) 

Scale 5: 0 1 2 3 

(VRS-YSO, PFS, SOTIPS, TPI-ASA [no evidence, 1 time, 2 times, 3 or more 

times]) 

Scale 6: Strengths Vulnerabilities Critical Item 

High Moderate Low Low Moderate High (START-AV) 

Scale 7: Protective Neutral Risk (PROFESOR) 

Scale 8: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

None Some Full responsibility 

(ODYS) 

Scale 9: 0 Highly 1 Somewhat 2 Somewhat 3 Highly likely 4 Not applicable 

unlikely unlikely likely 

(ODYS) 

Scale 10: 0 1 2 3 

A lot of Some Slight No 

Problems Problems Problems Problems 

(ODYS) 

Scale 11: All Most Some None (ODYS) 

Scale 12: Low Moderate High (SAVRY) 

Scale 13: Present/Absent (SAVRY) 

Scale 14: Present Partially/Possibly Present Not Present Unknown (ERASOR) 

Scale 15: Concerns score OR strength score 

High concerns Concerns Low concerns 

High strengths Strengths Low Strengths (AIMS-2) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
25

Step 5, Seven Advisory Board members and four core team members filled out the PDF 

(total N = 11), and the PDFs included independent ratings on: 

(a) importance in assessing risk-related intervention needs (drop, maybe, keep), 

(b) level of empirical support (none, some, strong), 

(c) relevance by age (10-14, 15-17, 18-25), gender (males, females, cannot say), and contact vs. 

noncontact offending. 

See Figures 2 and 3 for examples of the survey created for the Advisory Board. 

Figure 2. Example #1 of the survey created for the Advisory Board. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
26

Figure 3. Example #2 of the survey created for the Advisory Board. 

Feedback from all 11 raters was analyzed using SPSS. There was not 100% agreement among all 

11 raters to ‘keep’ any single item, requiring the use of cut offs for percent of agreement: (a) >8 (73% of 

11) agreed to ‘keep’ the item (Criterion #1), or (b) all 11 rated the item ‘keep’ or ‘maybe’ and no one

rated ‘drop’ (Criterion #2). See Table 4 for examples of the items that met each Criterion. This 

procedure reduced the number of dynamic items by 50% (from 54 to 27) and the number of historical 

items by one third (from 27 to 18) and served as the foundation for the test version of the scale. 

In addition to feedback on the factors to include on the test version of the scale, the Advisory 

Board members suggested utilizing a standardized 4-point rating scale for all items. At the outset, we 

had specific numerical anchors for every item, such as: 

• (+2) Regularly involved with prosocial peers (peers with prosocial attitudes, beliefs, and 

behaviors) 

• (-2) Regularly involved with antisocial peers (peers with antisocial attitudes, beliefs, and 

behaviors) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
27

OR 

• (+2) Successfully manages sexual arousal/urges appropriately 

• (-2) Significant problems managing sexual arousal/urges 

Our Advisory Board suggested standardizing the ratings such as: 

• 0 = No concern 

• 1 = Minimal concern 

• 2 = Moderate concern 

• 3 = Strong concern 

Table 4. Potential Test Items 

Advisory Board & Core Team Feedback on Potential Test Items 

ITEMS THAT MET 

CRITERION #1: Items that 

above 70% of participants 

wanted to "keep" (n = 6 items) 

ITEMS THAT MET 

CRITERION #2: Items that 0% 

of participants wanted to "drop" 

(n = 11 items) 

MET BOTH 

CRITERIA #1 AND #2 

(n = 4 items) 

12. Peer involvement 

associations 5. Sexual regulation 

1. Attitudes & beliefs 

regarding problematic 

sexual behavior 

14. Attitudes & beliefs regarding 

criminal behavior (nonsexual) 

7. Concern about consequences of 

further problematic sexual behavior 2. Sexual interests 

17. Behavioral self-regulation 

18. Behavioral impulsivity 

9. Sexual outlets 4. Sexual thoughts and 

16. Emotional self-regulation urges 

41. Quality of peer relationships 

24. Coping with stress and adverse 

life events 15. Rule adherence 

48. Caregiver 

involvement/support in 

interventions 

28. Social skills/social competence 

Problem-solving skills and 

strategies 

45. Engagement in or commitment 

to structured, prosocial, organized 

activities 

49. Caregiver 

management/supervision skills 

50. Caregiver/family social 

orientation 

52. Current or discharge 

community environment 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

28

Test Version of YNPS Rating Scale 

In addition to receiving Advisory Board feedback on the test version of the scale, we received 

further feedback when met with our sites in person to provide the initial training on the scale. This 

feedback increased reliability as well as efficiency of implementation. Recommendations included 

terminology for item definitions that would be better understood by users, as well as language that 

described degrees of ‘need’ rather words such as ”concern.”

After integration feedback from the sites, the finalized test version of the scale incorporated a 4-

point rating scale (0, 1, 2, 3) in which all 4 points had discrete, independent meaning and followed a 

gradient of ‘need.’ By utilizing a 4-point rating scale, each point of which is independent, eliminated the 

gray area and monitor changes in risk to reoffend, in a reliable way. The 4-point ordinal scale provided a 

measure that is designed to capture risk to reoffend as it potentially changes (increases or decreases) 

over time through the tracking of ‘intervention needs.’ This paradigm shift away from an exclusive 

focus on risk to a primary focus on intervention needs allows juvenile justice agencies to better allocate 

resources (‘needs’) in order to mitigate risk to reoffend, rather than expending valuable resources 

managing past behavior (static risk factors) without affecting factors related to the offending behavior. 

This approach, if successful, can substantially reduce the financial burden of housing incarcerated youth 

and redirect resources to targeted interventions that can hopefully lead to healthier long term outcomes. 

This paradigm shift is essentially the well-known triage procedure. 

The degree of ‘need’ is captured using the following ordinal rating scale: 

• 0 = No need 

• 1 = Minimal need 

• 2 = Moderate need 

• 3 = Strong need 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
29

This approach adheres to RNR’s Risk Principle (i.e., allocating resources to those who will benefit most 

from intervention) and is consistent with RNR’s Need Principle (identifying risk relevant intervention 

targets) and the Responsivity Principle (identifying factors that may influence an individual’s ability to 

benefit from the intervention). 

The Final Test Version 

The final test version of the scale included: 27 items designed to assess dynamic risk and 

protective factors and intervention response needs that covered multiple domains: 

(1) attitudes and beliefs (e.g., criminogenic or positive social attitudes and beliefs), 

(2) interpersonal relations (e.g., interpersonal and social skills strengths and deficits, 

involvement with criminogenic and/or positive peers or social isolation), 

(3) behavior (e.g., excessive risk-taking, impulsivity, delinquency, substance use, effective 

behavior regulation, school stability, work stability), emotional regulation (e.g., anger 

management), 

(4) familial / situational (e.g., caregiver support or disengagement), 

(5) community (positive or negative supports or influences), and 

(6) psychological functioning (e.g., problem solving, co-occurring mental health challenges). 

See Figure 4 for a full list of all test items. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Figure 4. List of Youth Needs & Progress Scale items tested in the 12-month pilot period. 

30

Possible Concern 

No 

Intervention 

Need 

Possible/Minimal 

Intervention 

Need 

Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

1. Frequency of Sexual Thoughts 0 1 2 3 

2. Sexual Interests 0 1 2 3 

3. Self-Sexual Regulation 0 1 2 3 

4. Understanding Appropriate Sexual 

Behavior 

0 1 2 3 

5. Understanding the Consequences 

of Problematic Sexual Behavior 

0 1 2 3 

6. Sexual Attitudes and Beliefs 0 1 2 3 

7. Behavioral Self-Regulation 0 1 2 3 

8. School and/or Work 0 1 2 3 

9. Free time 0 1 2 3 

10. Law abiding behavior 0 1 2 3 

11. Attitude and Beliefs regarding 

Non-sexual Rule Violating and 

Illegal Behavior 

0 1 2 3 

12. Peer-Aged Friendships 0 1 2 3 

13. Peer-Associations 0 1 2 3 

14. Relationship with Primary 

Caregiver (Client’s Perspective)

0 1 2 3 

15. Adult Mentors (Client’s 

Perspective) 

0 1 2 3 

16. Social Skills 0 1 2 3 

17. Problem Solving 0 1 2 3 

18. Emotion Management 0 1 2 3 

19. Self-efficacy 0 1 2 3 

20. Compassion 0 1 2 3 

21. Coping with Sexual Abuse 0 1 2 3 

22. Coping with Non-sexual Negative 

Life Experiences 

0 1 2 3 

23. Attitudes Toward Interventions 0 1 2 3 

24. Management of Co-occurring 

Psychological and Behavioral 

Health Challenges 

0 1 2 3 

25. Supportive Caregiver or 

Significant Other 

0 1 2 3 

26. Stability in Living Situation 0 1 2 3 

27. Community Support 0 1 2 3 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
31

Because the intent of the scale was to capture change, for Step 6, the YNPS items and 

instructions on how to rate each item were programmed into Research Electronic Data Capture software 

(REDCap), a browser-based, secure web application developed at Vanderbilt University granted for 

temporary research use to institutional partners. See Figure 5 and 6 for examples of how the test version 

of the scale was programmed into REDCap for the 12-month pilot period. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
32

Figure 5. Example #1 of the test version programmed into REDCap. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
33

Figure 6. Example #2 of the test version programmed into REDCap. 

Among many other features, REDCap provides a table that clearly displays each factor across 

the top of the page and prior results from each reassessment in consecutive rows to help users visually 

gauge progress (or lack thereof) and tailor interventions accordingly. See Figure 7 for an example of 

how REDCap visually captures change overtime. REDCap was not a sustainable option as it can only be 

used for data capture in research projects. Thus, after the pilot period, we explored proprietary software 

development options. The purpose of exploring development of software options was primarily to 

facilitate sustainability, and provide a visual aid to assist stakeholders in monitoring each youth’s 

progress (or lack thereof) while under juvenile justice custody. After exhaustive research, contacting 

multiple software development companies, having numerous discussions with both software engineers 

and our participating sites, and obtaining three detailed quotes from different software companies, it was 

clear that developing proprietary software was not a viable option as long term follow-up assistance and 

debugging was unavailable. Importantly, after initial software is developed and the grant concludes, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
34

software companies are unable to provide users residual support. Thus, a simple alternative was 

programming the scale in Microsoft Excel. Excel was used to automate the scoring of the scale and the 

visual depiction of progress over time. The screenshot below is of REDCap. Appendix B provides 

screenshot illustrations of the Microsoft Excel application. 

Figure 7. Example of how REDCap visually depicts progress over time. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Goal 2: Implementation 

35

Goal #2: Integrate the test version of the scale from Goal #1 into cognitive behavioral intervention 

programs and facilitate the staff implementation of the scale for initial assessment, intervention 

planning, and evaluating readiness for discharge 

In order to successfully integrate the test version of the scale (YNPS) into each site’s cognitive 

behavioral sex-offense specific intervention program, prior to implementation, information regarding 

our sites’ intervention programs and intervention providers were gathered. There was much diversity in 

assessment procedures and intervention program components among our participating sites. Please see 

Table 5 for a brief breakdown of the characteristics of each site’s intervention program and assessment 

procedure. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
36

Table 5. Description of intervention programs among 5 participating sites. 

SITE 1 SITE 2 SITE SITE SITE 5 

Type of 

intervention 

program(s)—if 

specialized 

-High risk to reoffend 

-Youth transition to 

community program 

-GED, College, 

Technical focused 

-Aggression / high-risk 

-Mental Health 

-Developmental 

Disability 

-Younger youth 

-Low, moderate, & 

high-risk 

-Girls facility 

-Group home 

-Independent living 

-High-risk -Younger youth 

-High-risk 

-Girls facility 

-Mental health 

Clinician 

qualification 

MA BA, MA BA, MA, Ph.D. LCSW, LPCA, BSW, MA BA, MA 

Intervention 

modalities 

Individual, group Individual, group, 

family 

Individual, group, 

family 

Individual, family, group, 

and nontraditional (e.g., 

art, equine) 

Family, individual, 

group 

Therapeutic -Cognitive behavior Psychoeducation, Psychoeducation, Cognitive behavior Psychoeducation, 

interventions therapy, ”Pathways”

workbook 

Cognitive behavior 

therapy 

cognitive behavior 

therapy 

therapy, Neuro-sequential 

model of multisystemic 

intervention, trauma, 

Pathways Workbook 

Cognitive behavior 

therapy, Dialectical 

Behavior Therapy 

Adjunct Aggression Trauma, substance Trauma, substance Model of therapeutics, Aggression 

intervention Replacement Training, 

trauma, substance 

abuse, social skill 

development 

abuse abuse collaborative problem 

solving, Aggression 

Replacement Training 

Replacement 

Training, trauma 

Reassessment 

schedule 

Annual or as requested 

basis 

Quarterly 60 days At a minimum, every 6 

months 

Quarterly 

Security level Correctional residential Correctional residential -Correctional 

residential 

-Day intervention 

-Outpatient 

Foster care 

Day intervention 

Non-correctional 

residential 

Outpatient 

Correctional 

residential 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
37

On-Site Trainings 

Training materials (e.g., PPT, handouts, post-training surveys) were developed and used 

for the 3-day on-site initial trainings (Spring, 2018). Project involved intervention providers from 

5 states were trained on administration and interpretation of the test version of the YNPS. The 

training objectives for each day of training are included below: 

Day 1 Training Objectives: 

• Review important characteristics of youth who commit sexual offenses 

o Adolescent development and maturation 

o Normative and problematic sexual behavior 

o Relevant risk and protective factors 

• Discuss evidence-informed effective interventions 

o Assessment approaches 

o Considering and integrating the normative, pervasive developmental flux that 

defines this transitional period of juvenile’s lives. 

o Interventions: What works? 

Day 2 Training Objectives: (An incentive training day developed in accordance with the pilot 

sites expressed interest. 

• Identify challenges in conducting risk and needs assessments and some corrective 

strategies. 

• Score and interpret the J-SOAP-II reliably. 

• Use the J-SOAP-II to guide decision-making and responsible, effective case and 

intervention plans. 

Day 3 Training Objectives: 

• Learn to use the YNPS-TV to facilitate focused and effective intervention planning, 

progress assessments, and evaluate readiness for discharge 

• Score and interpret the YNPS-TV reliably and use it effectively 

• Troubleshoot potential implementation barriers and prepare to use the YNPS-TV 

101 hours of training were provided to 268 providers, and 100% of the providers reported 

an increase in knowledge, skills, and/or abilities. During the on-site trainings, the core team 

received feedback on the YNPS-TV from those intervention providers who would be filling 

out the scale and assessing the juveniles (see Table 6 for examples of some feedback from 

our sites). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
38

Table 6. Examples of Feedback from Sites 

• Define subjective words such as ‘periodically,’ ‘frequent,’ ‘several,’ ‘many,’ 

‘minor,’ ‘often,’ etc. 

• Consistent qualifiers across all items. 

• Items should capture frequency, severity, and urgency, as all factors affect 

intervention planning. 

• For socio-ecological test items: 

o What if parent is supportive in general, but not supportive of the youth’s 

participation in the interventions? 

Sustainability and Implementation Challenges 

During the training, we also explored potential sustainability and implementation 

challenges, managing workloads, staff departures, and training new staff at each of our sites 

(see Table 7 for an overview of predicted implementation challenges). These challenges 

were, for the most part, site-specific and time-limited. Thus, after the on-site trainings, we 

incorporated some of our site’s feedback.1 The 12-month pilot period began in April, 2018 

and ended in April, 2019. 

To ensure fidelity of use, we conducted monthly consultations with pilot site intervention 

providers who rated the scale. Consultations focused on how to use the YNPS item ratings to 

inform intervention planning and decision-making and troubleshoot rating issues. Raters and site 

directors were provided one-on one assistance as requested, participated in refresher webinars, 

and had the opportunity to provide feedback during consultations and provide feedback 

anonymously through REDCap. To further increase uniformity of administration at the sites, we 

1 Due to time constraints, we were unable to incorporate all of our sites’ feedback into the test 

version for the pilot period, but all feedback was integrated into the final scale revisions. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

39

developed an FAQ sheet to address additional questions during monthly consultations, however, 

consistent and inter-rater rating difficulties were apparent. 

Table 7. Potential Implementation Challenges 

(i.e., summary of the qualitative feedback received from our sites) 

1. Overburdening staff 

1. Many staff are already conducting multiple assessment tools and have a difficult 

time collecting information on the youth from multiple sources (especially during 

the intake process). 

2. Time it takes to assign to a program 

2. Sometimes the youth can be detained for months before getting placed so the 

assessments, psychosexual evaluations, IQ testing, information from schools, etc. 

could be over 6 months old when they finally get placed into a program, or may 

not have been done at all. 

3. Different services are offered at different programs 

3. Facilities even within one state differ in terms of resources and services offered. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Goal 3: Data Analyses 

40

Goal #3: Examine the relationship between individual YNPS, combinations of said items, 

and incremental addition of said items to a revised Juvenile Sex Offense Specific 

Intervention Needs and Progress Scale 

To accomplish Goal #3, we retrieved two sources of data for statistical analyses: 

1) The REDCap YNPS assessment/reassessment data 

2) Site’s Routinely Collected Data (RCD)

The REDCap data includes historical information and the YNPS data. Routinely 

collected data is defined as ‘data the site already routinely collects for their management 

information system.’ The routinely collected data (RCD) we requested included the youth’s 

demographics, incident reports, criminal history, J-SOAP and/or ERASOR subscale scores, and 

recidivism data for youth who were released into the community during the 12-month pilot 

period. 

The original request for data included the following variables: 

Requested data included: 

➢ Incident report data 

➢ Demographics (gender, ethnicity, race) 

➢ Criminal history 

➢ Risk measures related to sexual adjustment/regulation (e.g., ERASOR & J-SOAP) 

➢ Risk measures related to nonsexual risk 

➢ Post intervention data (recidivism data) 

Missing Data 

We faced many challenges in successfully acquiring our sites’ RCD (e.g., turnovers of 

staff in higher administration delayed requests). We were able to successfully collect RCD from 

four of the five sites. Unfortunately, of the four sites that provided us with the requested RCD, 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
41

there was high variability in the number of missing cases, contributing to missing data on gender 

and ethnicity for 211 (34.9%) of the sample (n = 211). Fortunately, the rest of these data (other 

than gender and ethnicity) were collected via REDCap, so both historical items and dynamic 

YNPS data were successfully collected and reported below. 

Once these RCD were de-identified and securely transferred to the project team (in 

accordance with IRB requirements), we discovered that our sites did not collect the same type of 

data and/or had differing definitions and coding for the information entered into their 

management information system. The differences between sites posed unsurmountable 

challenges for aggregating data across sites. Further, each variable collected posed operational 

obstacles that precluded any standardization. Examples of such obstacles associated with each 

type of data requested are discussed below: 

Requested data included: 

➢ “Incident” report data (disciplinary reports, observation of behavior reports, etc.) 

o Sites coded different behaviors as “incidents”

o Even when the behaviors appeared to be the same, they were not coded the same 

way 

o For some sites, incidents reflected the initial report that triggered further 

investigation. Once investigated, the youth may or may not have been found 

guilty of the incident. 

o Incidents such as youth on youth assault, gang violence, youth on staff physical 

assault, etc. did not indicate who instigated the incident. 

o No two sites collected / tracked the same “types” of incidents in the same way. 

o Some of our sites reported multiple incidents for the same day, but it was unclear 

as to whether these incidents were part of the same event or occurred throughout 

the day. 

➢ Demographics (gender and ethnicity) 

o We used REDCap to collect the majority of these data, but in order to ensure no 

identifying information was collected using REDCap, we did not collect gender or 

ethnicity. Thus, we had to request these data as part of our RCD request. As 

discussed above, we were only able to collect RCD from four of the five sites, and 

thus, we are missing data from 211 (34.9%) of juveniles. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
42

➢ Criminal history 

o Sites only collected qualitative data, not “official” quantitative documentation of 

criminal offenses. 

o Sites used different language for what appeared to be similar or the same 

problematic, criminal behavior and “defined” these “offenses” differently. 

o At times, dates for when the offense occurred were not tracked or entered in the 

site’s management information system. 

➢ Risk measures related to sexual behavior (e.g., ERASOR & J-SOAP) 

o We were able to collect these data, but some of our sites used the J-SOAP, but did 

not use the ERASOR and some sites only used the ERASOR and not the J-SOAP. 

➢ Risk measures related to nonsexual risk 

o Our sites each had their own unique (non-standardized) in-house nonsexual risk 

assessment scales that were not similar to other sites’ nonsexual risk assessment 

procedure. 

➢ Post intervention data (recidivism data) 

o By the end of the 12-month pilot period, relatively few youths had been released 

into the community. 

o Some youth could have been rearrested and charged in the adult system, and our 

juvenile justice agencies do not have access to this information. 

o Some sites had different jurisdictions where they tracked their cases. Therefore, if 

the youth was rearrested in a different jurisdiction, the sites did not have these 

data. 

(See Appendix D: Codebook for the data set that outlines all variables collected). We 

retrieved RCD from 4 of our 5 sites. One of our sites had major turnovers in staff, and paperwork 

was significantly delayed. 

Participants 

Demographics. Initial (base-rate) data were collected from 608 youth (well above the 

300-500 estimated in our proposal), with an average age of 16 years (M = 16.38; SD = 2.03). The 

youngest youth was 10 years old and the oldest was 24 years old. Two-thirds of the sample 

(65.1%) was between the ages of 14-17 (n = 396), slightly under one-quarter of the sample 

(23.4%) was 18 or older (n = 142) at the time of the initial assessment, and 28 youth were under 

the age of 14, and there were missing data for 42 cases. Consistent with past research, there were 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

43

not many female JSOs in our sample (n = 5). We were missing gender data on 35.5% (n = 216) 

of the sample (see explanation above) and 64.1% (n = 390) of the 608 juveniles in the sample 

were male. Although the sample was overwhelmingly Caucasian and African American, these 

demographics are based on two-thirds of the sample (i.e., we were unable to retrieve ethnicity or 

race for 35.5% of the sample, see Table 8). 

Table 8. Race/Ethnicity Frequency 

American Indian/Alaskan 1 

Asian/Pacific Islander 3 

African American 99 

Biracial 12 

Caucasian 248 

Hispanic 24 

Unknown/Other 5 

Missing 216 

Total 608 

Level of Security. Most of the sample were in a secure facility at the time of the initial 

assessment (70.9%; n = 431), and the majority (76.9%; n = 465) were in a state-run facility, with 

only 17% of JSOs receiving intervention through a private facility. When considering all 

assessments completed, 1,108 (69.2%) of assessments were completed in a secure facility and 

27.7% (n = 444) were completed when the juvenile was supervised in the community. It should 

be noted that “number of assessments” is intake (or baseline) assessment for each youth plus all 

re-assessments for that youth. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
44

Intervention Status. Approximately half of the sample were already in intervention 

prior to participating in this project (58.1%; n = 353). Almost all of the sample were compliant 

with intervention (98.6%) and only 1% refused intervention at the time of the initial assessment. 

Sex Offense Related. Approximately half of the sample had only one known victim 

(50.2%; n = 305); 21.8% reported or there was documentation that provided evidence of 2 

known victims, 21.7% had evidence suggesting 3 or more known victims, and there were 

missing data for 6.9% of the sample (n = 42). About half of the youth did not have evidence of a 

history of non-contact offending (n = 335; 55.1%), 19.7% had 1-2 instances of non-contact 

offending, only 10.9% of the youth had evidence to support a history of three or more noncontact offenses (n = 66; 10.9%), and there were missing data for 14.3% of cases (n = 87). 

Two-thirds of the sample (67.6%) had a charged sex offense. One-third of the sample 

(31.7%) did not have a formally charged sex offense (e.g., parent brought the child in for 

community intervention) or had a charged offense that did not involve sexually abusive behavior 

but was referred for sex offense-specific treatment, and there were missing data for 4 cases 

(0.7%). The majority of youth who did not have a charged sex offense had a charged conduct 

offense (disorderly conduct, probation violation, substance abuse (n = 113; 18.6%), a violent 

offense (n = 106; 17.4%; assault, fighting), a property offense (n = 82; 13.5%; theft, larceny, 

robbery, shoplifting), or a status offense (n = 76; 12.5%; runaway, truancy, curfew violations, 

underage drinking). 

Conduct Disorder and Delinquency Related. About half of the sample (n = 290; 

47.7%) had no indications (evidence) of conduct problems prior to the age of 10, 41.9% (n = 

255) had evidence of major or severe conduct problems prior to the age of 10, and there were 

missing data for 63 cases (10.4%). A little less than half of the sample had no evidence of 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
45

juvenile delinquent behavior after the age of 14 (45.2%; n = 275), 47.2% (n = 287) had evidence 

of major or severe juvenile delinquent behavior after the age of 14, and there were missing data 

46 cases (7.6%). 

History of Abuse and/or Placement Instability. Although placements are common 

in this population, there was minimal evidence of a high degree of placement instability. Only 

14.4% (n = 88) of JSOs had 4 or more placement changes and 20.4% (n = 124) had 2 to 3 

placement changes. Slightly less than one-quarter (23.4%) had 1 placement change, 32.7% (n = 

199) had no known placement changes, and there was insufficient information for 22 cases 

(3.6%). In other words, roughly 55% of these youth had either no placement changes or only 1 

such change (n = 341; 56.1%). Half the youth in this sample (50.7%; n = 308) reported no 

history of sexual abuse. Roughly a quarter of the sample (27.3%; n = 166) reported or had 

documentation that suggested evidence of a sexual abuse history, and there were missing data for 

22% of cases (n = 134). 

Descriptive Statistics on Repeated Assessments. At the end of the 12-month pilot 

period, intervention providers at the participating agencies had conducted 604 initial assessments 

of the YNPS, 422 conducted one follow-up YNPS reassessment after 90-days, 239 conducted 

two follow-up YNPS reassessments, 152 conducted three follow-up YNPS reassessments, 91 

conducted four follow-up YNPS reassessments, and 54 conducted five follow-up YNPS 

reassessments. Although most sites re-assess every 90 days, some sites re-assess after 60 days. 

The 340 youth with three or more re-assessments provided an opportunity for repeated measures 

analysis and figural depiction (cf. Trend Analysis). See Table 9 for a summary of the number of 

assessments at various time points. Overall, 1609 assessments (baseline + reassessments) were 

completed. Approximately one third of the assessments were initial assessments (34.9%; n = 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
559), approximately half were reassessments (48.4%; n = 781), 14.6% were discharge 

assessments2 (n = 234), and there were missing data for 52 cases (3.2%). 

46

Table 9. Number of reassessments 

Assessments Frequency Percent 

Initial intake assessment 608 37.7 

1st reassessment 422 26.2 

2nd reassessment 239 14.9 

3rd reassessment 152 9.5 

4th reassessment 91 5.7 

5th reassessment 54 3.4 

6th reassessment 28 1.7 

7th reassessment 13 .8 

8th reassessment 2 .1 

Total 1609 100 

Principal Component Analysis 

A series of three Principal Component Analyses (PCA) were conducted with the goal of 

reducing the initial 27 YNPS items and creating component scales. All three solutions, for 

comparison sake, are illustrated in Table 13. The final solution, with rotation to Varimax and 

loading cut-offs > .45 is illustrated in Table 1. 

Component 1: 10 items, loading range - .49 -.78; 24.44% variance explained; Scale α = .92

Component 2: 6 items, loading range - .76 - .83; 24.29% variance explained; Scale α = .94

2 A discharge assessment could have been a step down in level of care, transfers to another 

secure facility, or release into the community 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Component 3: 5 items, loading range - .54 - .83; 15.10% variance explained; Total Var. 

Explained: 63.84%; Scale α = .81

47

Table 10. Cronbach Alpha for YNPS Scales 

Scale name Number 

of items Alpha Item deletion alpha 

Min Max 

scale1 10 0.92 0.91 0.92 

scale2 6 0.94 0.92 0.93 

scale3 5 0.81 0.73 0.81 

Table 11. Item-Scale Correlations for YNPS Scales 

Scale name 

With items in the 

scale 

With items not in 

the scale 

min max min max 

scale1 0.71 0.82 0.37 0.70 

scale2 0.84 0.90 0.29 0.66 

scale3 0.62 0.82 0.31 0.55 

Table 12. Between-scale Correlations for 

YNPS Scales 

scale1 scale2 scale3 

scale1 1 0.73 0.55 

scale2 1 0.41 

scale3 1 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
48

Detailed Process of Item Reduction 

First, we conducted a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation, 

suppressing loadings below 0.10. As shown in Table 13, the PCA revealed a four component 

solution. After reviewing the rotated solution factor loadings, it was clear that this was not a 

clear, nor practically useful solution. The only component that both the factor loadings and 

theoretical support aligned was for the sexual items d1 to d6. Thus, after much discussion, we 

decided to apply the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) framework. Per the RNR framework, four 

of the 27 items represented ‘specific responsivity needs’ targeting individualistic needs. Because 

a PCA is designed to find commonalities rather than identify individualized needs, we decided to 

remove all specific responsivity needs from the PCA. Items d21, d22, d23, and d24 describe such 

responsivity needs, such as: (a) having difficulties due to traumatic events, (b) attitudes toward 

interventions, and (c) mental health management. Following RNR, these constructs are not 

likely to be related to recidivism reduction. Rather, these individual needs may be associated 

with difficulties that benefit from some modification that will improve response to interventions 

designed to reduce reoffending. For our next PCA, d21, d22, d23, and d24, the four items 

referring to mental health, trauma, and attitudes toward interventions, were removed. 

The second PCA included 23 items, and as before, used Varimax rotation and suppressed 

factor loadings below 0.10. As shown in ‘Analysis II’ in Table 13, a similar 4 component 

solution emerged. Component 1 had high loadings on six items (> 0.75) referring to sexual 

behavior (loadings ranged from 0.76-0.82). Component 2 included 8 items that described general 

behavior (e.g., school & work commitment, behavior management; loadings ranged from 0.52-

0.75), and Component 3 captured socioecological influences, such as family relationships and 

stability in the individual’s living situation (loadings ranged from 0.54-0.82). Component 4 was 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

49

less clear as it included more general behavior criminogenic needs and appeared to have needs 

that overlapped with Component 2. Two items, d10 (lawful behavior) and d17 (problemsolving) were dropped from the third PCA. Lawful Behavior is not dynamic and was conflated 

with two other “management” items (sexual behavior management and nonsexual behavior 

management). Problem-Solving proved too difficult to assess and rate reliably. 

The third (and final) PCA included 21 items again used a Varimax rotation and 

suppressed factor loadings below 0.10. The PCA found a 3 component solution. Component 1 

included needs related to general behavior (most align with RNR’s Need Principle, with a few 

other items related to general behavior, such as social skills and self-confidence). As before, 

Component 2 included sexual items. Last, similar to the last PCA, Component 3 included 

socioecological intervention needs. One item, general compassion loaded comparably on both 

Component 1 and Component 2 (0.02 loading difference). Theoretically, the compassion item 

captured intervention needs related to general compassion and was not specific to sexual 

intervention needs. Thus, d20, Compassion, was included in Component 1. See Table 13 for a 

comparison of the three PCAs. Red font indicates that the item was dropped and factor loadings 

higher than 0.50 are highlighted. See Table 14 for the final PCA solution and communalities. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
50

Table 13. PCA I, II, and III Analysis I Analysis II Analysis III 

YNPS Items 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 

d1. Sexual Thoughts—Frequency 0.22 0.81 0.16 0.17 d1 0.79 0.21 0.14 0.22 d1 0.27 0.81 0.14 

d2. Sexual Interests—Age & Consent 0.23 0.80 0.22 0.11 d2 0.80 0.23 0.19 0.15 d2 0.24 0.80 0.19 

d3. Sexual Behavior Management 0.29 0.82 0.14 0.20 d3 0.82 0.24 0.14 0.24 d3 0.30 0.83 0.14 

d4. Understands Appropriate Sexual Behavior 0.33 0.81 0.16 0.14 d4 0.81 0.32 0.16 0.12 d4 0.31 0.81 0.16 

d5. Understand Consequences- Sexual Abuse 0.23 0.79 0.10 0.21 d5 0.76 0.29 0.11 0.13 d5 0.29 0.76 0.12 

d6. Sexual Attitudes and Beliefs 0.26 0.81 0.12 0.25 d6 0.81 0.23 0.14 0.27 d6 0.30 0.83 0.15 

d7. Nonsexual Behavioral Management 0.54 0.29 0.17 0.51 d7 0.32 0.52 0.18 0.50 d7 0.68 0.36 0.19 

d8. School & Work Commitment 0.68 0.18 0.40 d8 0.10 0.68 0.17 0.37 d8 0.78 0.13 0.17 

d9. Use of Unstructured Time 0.59 0.27 0.11 0.39 d9 0.28 0.57 0.19 0.43 d9 0.70 0.31 0.20 

d10. Lawful Behavior 0.22 0.30 0.19 0.76 d10 0.36 0.20 0.17 0.80 d10 

d11. Nonsexual Attitudes and Beliefs 0.27 0.30 0.22 0.77 d11 0.32 0.26 0.21 0.78 d11 0.57 0.39 0.22 

d12. Peer-Aged Friendships 0.72 0.25 0.13 d12 0.25 0.71 0.13 d12 0.67 0.24 0.13 

d13. Peer Associations 0.61 0.19 0.23 0.51 d13 0.22 0.59 0.27 0.50 d13 0.74 0.26 0.27 

d14. Client View of Caregiver Relationship 0.23 0.15 0.76 d14 0.16 0.20 0.78 d14 0.21 0.16 0.78 

d15. Adult Mentors: (Clients Perspective) 0.30 0.10 0.69 0.13 d15 0.10 0.27 0.62 0.11 d15 0.29 0.11 0.61 

d16. Social Skills 0.69 0.43 0.23 d16 0.39 0.73 0.22 d16 0.61 0.38 0.23 

d17. Problem Solving 0.75 0.35 0.22 0.19 d17 0.36 0.75 0.24 0.16 d17 

d18. Emotion Management 0.67 0.21 0.27 0.33 d18 0.22 0.63 0.27 0.32 d18 0.71 0.25 0.27 

d19. Self-Efficacy 0.69 0.30 0.27 0.19 d19 0.30 0.69 0.25 0.13 d19 0.67 0.31 0.25 

d20. Compassion 0.41 0.54 0.32 0.28 d20 0.49 0.40 0.26 0.33 d20 0.50 0.52 0.27 

d21. Difficulties Due to Sexual Abuse 0.59 0.31 0.38 -0.14 d21 

d22. Negative Nonsexual Life Experiences 0.41 0.30 0.57 d22 

d23. Attitudes Toward Interventions 0.29 0.43 0.26 0.43 d23 

d24. Mental Health Management 0.64 0.31 0.28 0.26 d24 

d25. Family Functioning 0.12 0.82 0.13 d25 0.12 0.15 0.82 0.22 d25 0.16 0.12 0.83 

d26. Stability in Living Situation 0.14 0.74 0.18 d26 0.16 0.12 0.76 0.12 d26 0.16 0.16 0.76 

d27. Community Support 0.12 0.17 0.51 0.18 d27 0.10 0.13 0.54 0.15 d27 0.18 0.12 0.54 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

Table 14. Factor Analysis on YNPS Items: Varimax Factor Loading and Communality 

YNPS Item Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Communality 

7. Behavioral Self-Management 0.68 0.36 0.19 0.63 

8. School and/or Work 0.78 0.13 0.17 0.65 

9. Free Time 

11. Attitudes and Beliefs Supporting Nonsexual Illegal 

0.70 0.31 0.20 0.62 

Behavior 0.57 0.39 0.22 0.53 

12. Peer-Aged Friendships 0.67 0.24 0.13 0.52 

13. Peer Associations 0.74 0.26 0.27 0.69 

16. Social Skills 0.61 0.38 0.23 0.57 

18. Emotion Management 0.70 0.25 0.27 0.63 

19. Self-Efficacy 0.67 0.31 0.25 0.60 

20. Compassion 0.49 0.52 0.27 0.59 

1. Frequency of Sexual Thoughts 0.26 0.81 0.14 0.74 

2. Sexual Interests 0.24 0.80 0.19 0.74 

3. Sexual Self-Management 0.30 0.83 0.14 0.80 

4. Understanding Appropriate Sexual Behavior 

5. Understanding of the Consequences of Abusive 

0.30 0.81 0.16 0.78 

Sexual Behavior 0.29 0.76 0.12 0.68 

6. Sexual Attitudes and Beliefs 

14. Relationship with Primary Caregiver (Clients 

0.30 0.83 0.14 0.80 

Perspective) 0.21 0.16 0.78 0.67 

15. Adult Mentors: (Clients Perspective) 0.29 0.11 0.61 0.47 

25. Supportive Primary Caregiver or Significant Other 0.16 0.12 0.83 0.72 

26. Stability in Living Situation 0.16 0.16 0.76 0.63 

27. Community Support 0.18 0.12 0.54 0.34 

% variance Explained 

Cumulative % variance explained 

24.44 

24.44 

24.29 

48.74 

15.10 

63.84 

. 

. 

. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

52

Final, Revised YNPS Item Selection 

The final, revised, YNPS included all items from the third PCA. Two of the 21 items 

were ‘peer associations’ and ‘peer-aged friendships.’ Originally, these were piloted as two 

separate items, because theoretically they are two different intervention needs. Peer-aged 

Friendships was designed to assess whether the juvenile was capable of forming and retaining 

friendships with peer-aged individuals. In contrast, Peer Association was designed to assess 

whether those peer-aged friendships and casual associations were with individuals who were 

supportive of antisocial behavior, thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. We combined the two items 

into a single item as the distinction was minimal (Relationships with Peers) that included both 

aspects of these intervention needs. Thus, the PCA contributed to 20 items on the revised YNPS. 

Originally, specific responsivity intervention needs were included on the scale. Thus, to 

still capture these important, individualized needs, we added ‘Scale 4,’ which was not derived 

from the PCA, but included two specific responsivity items (i.e., mental health management and 

participation in interventions). The final, revised YNPS included 22 items. 

Although the 20 items were derived from the PCA, we considered many sources of 

information when tailoring the content and language choices used in the revised scale. Thus, the 

YNPS was revised based on: 

➢ Results of the statistical analyses presented above 

➢ Theoretical support for the items 

➢ Feedback provided by our sites and Advisory Board. 

See the section below entitled The Youth Needs and Progress Scale-Final Version for 

further discussion of the final scale revisions. Also see Appendix C for the scale and User 

Guide. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
53

Trend Analysis 

The YNPS was designed to be sensitive to developmental changes over time. We 

conducted a repeated measures trend analysis of the reassessments using the three subscales that 

emerged from the PCA. The trend analysis captures the change of level of intervention need (no 

need, minimal need, moderate need, severe need) over the course of intervention. As Figure 8 

and Table 15 shows, the YNPS is able to capture change in intervention needs across four 

reassessments. These results do not pertain to efficacy of intervention programs, as it is unclear 

from these data whether the change captured by the YNPS was a function of growth / adolescent 

development or intervention. 

Figure 8. Trend of YNPS subscales over assessment time. 

1.4 

0.4 

0.6 

0.8 

1.0 

1.2 

Scale Score 

0.2 

0.0 

Baseline 1 2 

Assessment 

3 4 

scale1 scale2 scale3 

Table 15. Assessments over time. Baseline 1 2 3 4 

scale1 1.272 1.017 0.845 0.715 0.704 

scale2 1.288 0.887 0.651 0.481 0.468 

scale3 0.909 0.796 0.697 0.553 0.501 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

54

Cluster Analysis 

Juvenile who have sexually offended are understood to be a markedly heterogeneous 

population (e.g., Knight & Prentky, 1993). We conducted a cluster analysis to determine if, 

within our sample, there are subgroups of youth that are homogenous with respect to their riskrelated needs, as well as other distinctive facets, such as prior history of adverse life experiences 

and subsequent history of offense-related and disciplinary problems. The four-cluster solution 

explained the most cumulative variance (61%) when compared to the three-cluster and twocluster solutions. 

➢ Cluster 1 included juveniles who had many more intervention needs and a more extensive 

history of problematic sexual behavior. Cluster 1 also appeared to have a more extensive 

history of delinquent behavior when compared to the other clusters. This group may benefit 

from intensive interventions. 

➢ Cluster 2 included juveniles who did not have many intervention needs and did not have an 

extensive history of sexual or delinquent behavior. These juveniles may require little to no 

intervention. Agencies may want to reserve more intensive interventions for different 

juveniles who may benefit much more. 

➢ Cluster 3 appears to have many intervention needs, much like Cluster 1, but did not have an 

extensive history of problematic sexual behavior or delinquency. 

➢ Cluster 4, like Cluster 1, had a more extensive history of problematic sexual behavior (and 

no delinquency) and did not appear to have many intervention needs. A summary of the 

characteristics of each cluster are in Table 16. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

55

Table 16. Summary of characteristics of each cluster from the 4-cluster solution 

Commonalities Mean 

Cluster 1 

(n = 109) 

•  on current general behavior, sexual behavior, & socio-ecological 

intervention needs 

1.89 

• Moderate on history of prior delinquency problems 0.91 

•  # of prior problematic sexual behavior incidents & # of sexual abuse 

victims 

1.42 

Cluster 2 

(n = 217) 

•  on current general behavior, sexual behavior, & socio-ecological intervention 

needs 

0.61 

•  on history of prior delinquency problems 0.45 

•  # of prior problematic sexual behavior incidents & # of sexual abuse victims 0.34 

Cluster 3 

(n = 147) 

•  on current general behavior, sexual behavior, & socio-ecological 

intervention needs 

1.68 

•  on history of prior delinquency problems 0.69 

•  # of prior problematic sexual behavior incidents & # of sexual abuse victims 0.40 

Cluster 4 

(n = 122) 

• Moderate current general behavior, sexual behavior, & socio-ecological 

intervention needs 

0.81 

•  on history of prior delinquency problems 0.64 

•  # of prior problematic sexual behavior incidents & # of sexual abuse 

victims 

1.31 

Canonical Analysis with J-SOAP-II 

A canonical correlation analysis was conducted to examine how much information is 

shared between the J-SOAP-II and YNPS. Specifically, the analyses described below examined 

how much variation in each J-SOAP scale item can be explained by the YNPS total score. 

J-SOAP-II scales 1, 2, 3 have 23 items total. Scale 4 was not examined as the majority of our 

youth were incarcerated and J-SOAP-II scale 4 can only be used with juveniles supervised in the 

community. We derived 21 pairs of canonical variates between the two scales (J-SOAP-II and 

YNPS). Each canonical variate is a weighted average of scale items. The first pair of variates has 

the highest correlation between scales, the second pair the second highest, and so forth. 

Furthermore, canonical variates from the same scale are orthogonal, meaning uncorrelated. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

56

Among 21 pairs of canonical variates, the first 3 variates have a squared canonical correlation of > = 0.33 (Table 17). 

Table 17. Canonical correlation analysis 

Canonical Analysis Based on 198 Observations 

Canonical correlation analysis for items from J-SOAP scales 1 and 3 and items from YNPS scales 1 to 3 

Pair 

number 

of 

canonical 

variates 

Canonical 

correlation 

Squared 

canonical 

correlation 

p value for 

Test of H0: The canonical correlations in the current row and all that follow are zero 

1 0.7465 0.5573 < .0001 

2 0.6740 0.4543 0.0009 

3 0.5786 0.3347 0.11 

More specifically, Table 18 shows how much variability the YNPS explains of each J-SOAP-II item. Table 18 organizes the 

variability explained from most variability to least for each of the three J-SOAP-II scales. Red font indicates that the YNPS explains 

much variability in that specific item, when compared to the other J-SOAP-II items. Figure 9 shows that, item by item, how much (or 

how little) of information contained in each item of J-SOAP-II is shared by the YNPS. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

The top 5 J-SOAP items which have the least in common (R2 < 4.0%) with the YNPS are 

J-SOAP-II items: 

• Internal motivation for change (R2 = 2.1% variance explained), (J-SOAP Scale 3) 

• Male child victim (R2 = 2.7%), (J-SOAP Scale 1) 

• Accepting responsibility for offense(s) (R2 = 2.8%), (J-SOAP Scale 3) 

• Understands risk factors (R2 = 3.3%), (J-SOAP Scale 3) 

• Remorse and guilt (R2 = 3.7%). (J-SOAP Scale 3) 

The next items (R2 < 7%) are: 

• Empathy (R2 = 4.1%), (J-SOAP Scale 3) 

• Duration of sex offense history (R2 = 5.1%), (J-SOAP Scale 1) 

• Degree of planning in sexual offense(s) (R2 = 5.8%), (J-SOAP Scale 1) 

• Sexual drive & preoccupation (R2 = 6.1%) (J-SOAP Scale 1) 

• Cognitive distortions (R2 = 6.5%) (J-SOAP Scale 3) 

The top 5 J-SOAP-II items which have the most in common (R2 = 14.3% to 25.1%) with the 

YNPS include: 

• Multiple offense types (R2 = 25.1%) (J-SOAP Scale 2) 

• Juvenile antisocial behavior (R2 = 21.9%) (J-SOAP Scale 2) 

• Prior legally charged sex offenses (R2 = 16.5%) (J-SOAP Scale 1) 

• Ever charged or arrested before the age 16 (R2 = 15.7%) (J-SOAP Scale 2) 

• Sexualized aggression (R2 = 14.3%) (J-SOAP Scale 1) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 18. % of variability that the YNPS explains in each item of J-SOAP scales 1, 2, and 3. 

58

J-SOAP SCALE 2: 

Impulsive /antisocial behavior 

J-SOAP SCALE 1: 

Sexual drive/ preoccupation 

J-SOAP SCALE 3: 

Intervention 

Item 

# Item name 

% of 

variability 

explained 

by INPS 

Item 

# Item name 

% of 

variability 

explained 

by INPS 

Item 

# Item name 

% of 

variability 

explained 

by INPS 

7 Multiple offense 

types 25.1 1 Prior legally charged sex offenses 16.5 7 Quality of peer relationships 10.0 

5 Juvenile antisocial 

behavior 21.9 6 Sexualized aggression 14.3 6 Cognitive distortions 6.5 

6 Ever charged or 

arrested before age 16 15.7 2 # of sexual abuse victims 12.4 4 Empathy 4.1 

4 History of conduct 

disorder 11.6 8 Sexual victimization history 7.1 5 Remorse & guilt 3.7 

8 

History of physical 

assault and/or 

exposure to family 

violence 

11.5 7 Sexual drive & 

preoccupation 6.1 3 Understands risk factors 3.3 

3 School behavior 

problems 10.0 5 Degree of planning in sexual offense(s) 5.8 1 

Accepting 

responsibility for 

offense(s) 

2.8 

2 Pervasive anger 8.8 4 Duration of sex 

offense history 5.1 2 Internal motivation for change 2.1 

1 Caregiver consistency 3.0 3 Male child victim 2.7 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
59

Figure 9. Relationship between each J-SOAP item and the YNPS. 

Pictorial diagram of the Max R-squares for items from J-SOAP scales 1 to 3 explained by canonical variates composed of items from 

YNPS scales 1 to 3. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Significant Findings 

60

The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed 3 distinct areas of intervention that 

included: 

1) General behavior 

2) Sexual behavior 

3) Socio-ecological supports and stability 

4) & Specific Responsivity needs (not derived from the PCA) 

The 4th subscale was not derived from the PCA but contains intervention relevant factors that 

may be presenting barriers to the juvenile’s ability to respond effectively to the intervention. 

Each subscale is comprised of dynamic risk-relevant and related intervention needs. The 4 scales 

presented above are consistent with the well-researched Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model 

of offender rehabilitation (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). See Table 19 on how the three areas of 

intervention relate to the RNR Framework 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
61

Table 19. YNPS & Risk-Need-Responsivity Framework 

Table 19 represents how the YNPS used the Risk-Need-Responsivity Framework as the building 

blocks for the creation and revision of the YNPS 

YNPS Subscales Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Framework 

Scale 1: General Behavior Need Principle 

• d7. Nonsexual Behavioral Management • Antisocial attitudes and beliefs 

• d8. School & Work Commitment • Antisocial personality characteristics (e.g., 

• d9. Use of Unstructured Time impulsivity) 

• d11. Nonsexual Attitudes and Beliefs • Antisocial peers / Social supports for crime 

• d12, d13. Peer-Aged Relationships • School / Work 

• d16. Social Skills • Leisure activities 

• d18. Emotion Management 

• d19. Self-Efficacy / Self-Confidence Responsivity Principle: Specific 

• d20. Compassion Responsivity Needs 

• Self-efficacy 

• Social skills 

Scale 2: Sexual Behavior Need Principle 

• d1. Sexual Thoughts—Frequency (but focused on sexual behavior –rather 

• d2. Sexual Interests—Age & Consent than “general antisocial behavior”)

• d3. Sexual Behavior Management • Attitudes & beliefs 

• d4. Understands Appropriate Sexual • Impulsivity, behavior management 

Behavior • Cognitive distortions 

• d5. Understands Consequences of Sexual 

Abuse 

• d6. Sexual Attitudes and Beliefs 

Scale 3: Socioecological Supports & 

Stability 

• d14. Client View of Caregiver Relationship 

• d15. Adult Mentors: (Clients Perspective) 

• d25. Family Functioning 

• d26. Living Situation –Safety & Stability 

• d27. Involvement in Community 

Resources 

Need Principle 

• Family / Martial 

• Social supports for crime 

Scale 4: Specific Responsivity Needs Responsivity Principle: Specific 

(not empirically derived from PCA): Responsivity Needs 

• d23. Participation in Interventions • Motivation to participate in interventions 

• d24. Mental Health Management • Mental health 

References: 

• Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 6th edition, Bonta & Andrews (2017) 

• https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rsk-nd-rspnsvty/index-en.aspx#a4 

• Bonta & Andrews (2007) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

62

The cluster analysis affirms what has long been known that juveniles who have sexually 

offended are a markedly heterogeneous population, underscoring that any ‘one size fits all’

intervention plan will not be optimal; optimal interventions must be tailored to individual’s 

needs (i.e., individualizing intervention / management plans is critical for reducing reoffending). 

Further, although it appears that all juveniles who have sexually offended are often considered to 

be one univocal category of youth, the cluster analysis confirms otherwise, that there are at least 

(in our samples) four quite unique groups of juveniles who have sexually offended with different 

intervention needs and different histories. Indeed, there was a group of juveniles that did not 

appear to need any intensive interventions, potentially benefitting from no more than minimal 

psychoeducation. Providing intensive intervention for these youth may well be 

counterproductive and increase the likelihood of re-offense. As Lowenkamp & Latessa (2004) 

found, individuals with a small amount of risk relevant needs may get worse if they are subjected 

to intensive interventions. Thus, allocating agency resources to individuals with more risk 

relevant needs with help agencies derive the greatest benefit out of limited resources. This 

advantage we simply note as triaging. 

Lastly, Scales 1–3 of the J-SOAP-II a risk assessment scale, includes both historical and 

dynamic items and appears to provide unique information from the YNPS, as the YNPS total 

score explained at most only 25% of the variability in a single J-SOAP item (Multiple Offense 

Types). On the other end of the spectrum, there were some items on the J-SOAP-II that the 

YNPS total score explained a mere 2% of the variability (Internal Motivation for Change). 

Internal Motivation for Change is an extraordinarily difficult item to rate reliability and will be 

dropped from Scale 3 in the revision of the J-SOAP-II. These analyses were, and will continue 

to be, critical in enhancing the efficacy of the dynamic items on the J-SOAP. Further exploration 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

63

is needed to identify how much unique information is provided by each of these assessment 

tools. Although more research is needed, it is clear that the YNPS does not “overlap” with the JSOAP. The J-SOAP was designed as a risk assessment scale, while the YNPS was designed to 

optimize interventions for mitigating re-offense: Tracking progress (or lack thereof) overtime 

and individualizing interventions will be most successful at reducing reoffending. 

Figure 10. Cluster analysis: Heterogeneous groups 

Juveniles who have sexually offended are different although they have committed a seemingly, 

similar class of offense (i.e., a sex offense). 

High needs 

Extensive history of 

BOTH delinquency & 

sexual behavior 

problems 

Low needs 

Minimal history of 

BOTH sexual and 

delinquent behavior 

problems 

High needs 

Minimal history of 

BOTH sexual and 

delinquent behavior 

problems 

Moderate needs 

Minimal history of 

delinquency 

Extensive history of 

sexual behavior 

problems 

Juveniles who have 

sexually offended 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Lessons Learns 

64

Feedback reported by project participants was very helpful in discerning both distinct advantages 

as well as distinct challenges associated with using the scale. 

Strengths and positive findings included: 

➢ The scale was generally easy to use. 

➢ It gave focus and direction to treatment. 

➢ The scale was useful for treatment planning and identifying treatment goals, needed 

interventions, and progress. 

➢ It was useful for team meetings. 

➢ The scale helped the conversation regarding where treatment should go and how to help youth 

that are struggling. 

➢ Reassessments over time, depicted linearly in graphs provided very helpful visual feedback 

for treatment planning as well as communicating with clients and stakeholders, including 

those within the juvenile justice system. Instead of focusing on a youth’s past conduct, 

changes as a function of interventions helped to re-focus on the youth’s present emotional, 

behavioral, and attitudinal state. 

Limitations and challenges included: 

➢ Items could be difficult to rate, particularly when available information was limited, such as 

at intake. 

➢ Obtaining necessary information, especially detailed historical information, could be 

difficult. 

➢ Fine distinctions were occasionally required. Needed more specific distinctions to 

differentiate between 0/1, 2/3, and 2/3 in terms of “need”.

➢ The inevitable heuristics that bias rater’s “interpretations” (or “meanings”) of items, hence

the rating of items need clear and specific item definitions. 

➢ Community settings differ from locked facilities; items must be geared for both. 

➢ Need to ensure ongoing inter-rater reliability. 

➢ Need help on using the scale to identity and guide optimal interventions. 

➢ Need a format to view progress quickly and easily (addressed in Excel program); 

➢ Need to integrate the scale into agencies’ management information systems. (Excel 

program provided to project sites). 

Other reported difficulties included specific implementation challenges, such as 

managing workloads, particularly with staff departures and vacancies, as well as training new 

staff. These challenges, to some extent, were situational and time limited and sites planned to 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

65

develop ways to support scale implementation, such as by periodic case consultations and 

training new staff. Whenever possible, the concerns addressed by the pilot sites were addressed 

in the revised version of the scale. For example, site staff reported considerable variability 

regarding the availability and quality of historical information, and we were concerned about the 

reliability of the collected information. 

Final Version of the Youth Needs and Progress 

Scale 

In addition to the empirical findings reported above, the pilot site feedback was 

instrumental for improving and refining the pilot version of the scale and developing this final 

version of the scale. Site feedback was obtained in multiple ways, such as at monthly 

consultations, email communications, and the confidential REDCap ratings used during the pilot 

phase. Also, a focus group of “team leaders” from each site, and some of their staff, helped 

summarize their experiences implementing the test version of the scale and its strengths, 

limitations, and challenges. The Advisory Board read a draft version of this final YNPS and 

provided detailed feedback as well. 

Although it was our goal to develop a scale of predominantly dynamic items that would 

be responsive to intervention, ignoring history is folly as history itself can be a clear signal for 

needed interventions (e.g., a history of child abuse). The difficulty of obtaining reliable 

historical information for intake ratings, however, prompted removal of historical items; the role 

of historical information was addressed statistically using “routinely collected data” available at 

some, but not all, sites. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

66

Clearly, rater reliability is indispensable. Formal testing of interrater reliability, however, 

was not conducted during the pilot for the practical, but unfortunate, reason of staff workload. 

Feedback from participants indicated that asking them to take the time to double rate additional 

cases would be unduly burdensome. In some locations, there was only one clinician was on site, 

and arranging for someone else to rate the same case would have been impossible. Although no 

adequate substitute for formal examination of reliability, pilot site staff comments and observations 

during monthly consults indicated that several items were often difficult to rate. This feedback was 

used to clarify the intent of those items and the descriptive language for rating them. 

We began finalizing the scale by conducting a critical review of all of the items, the rating 

procedures, and the apparent overlap between items. Item reduction was described above and four 

of the dropped items were clearly conflated with other items; the two items regarding peer 

relationships were combined into one, reducing the number of items from 27 to 22. We edited 

other items to further reduce redundancy between items and increased item clarity, simplicity and 

succinctness. Item labels were improved. We enhanced our rating instructions to help users better 

distinguish the extent to which each rating in the 4-point ordinal scale (0 – 3) indicated different 

degrees of intervention need or whether intervention is needed at all (c.f., Youth Needs and 

Progress Scale and User Guide). 

The final stage again sought Advisory Board input. Their reviews and detailed comments 

further improved the scale. We also invited volunteers from the sites to provide feedback, and 

their comments were helpful as well. As a result of these multiple collaborations and revisions, 

the final scale version has fewer items (22-item) and is easier to rate, a conclusion reported by 

the volunteer reviewers, Advisory Board members, and site participants during the final on-site 

training workshops. The final version is accompanied by a User Guide provided in Appendix 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

67

C). After scale revisions were completed, training materials were developed on how to use the 

revised scale (see Appendix A). Dr. Righthand held two-day, on-site post-pilot trainings on the 

revised scale, as well as training/consultation designed to promote sustainability beyond the end 

date of the project. All training materials for the revised scale are in Appendix A. 

In summary, the YNPS is an empirically-informed, dynamic needs and progress scale. Its 

development benefited from being piloted for nearly a year at varied sites across the U.S., and 

detailed feedback and recommendations from the those involved in the pilot project and our 

Advisory Board members. Project findings suggest that the YNPS can help identify specific 

intervention needs that can be included in individualized management and case plans, and that 

reassessments using the YNPS can help assess behavior change, thereby guiding case and 

intervention planning. Ongoing empirical validation of the YNPS will be an important next step. 

Significant Policy Implications 

This entire project was focused on one mission: improving the efficiency and the 

effectiveness of our management strategies for youth who have sexually offended. The 

overwhelming empirical literature addressing developmental change in youth suggests, at the 

very least, that errant behavior is not fixed or hard-wired and thus cannot easily be predicted 

given the flux of developmental change and the inherent unknowability, and thus 

unpredictability, of adolescent lives. That does not mean of course that such behavior should be 

ignored. On the contrary, it is our responsibility to respond. The fundamental question is how to 

respond in a way that maximizes effectiveness and minimizes cost. 

Effectiveness was operationalized in this project in terms of capacity to mitigate all 

aspects of risky behavior, not just the referral or index offense/s, as well as improving the quality 

of interpersonal relationships, especially those relationships that involve intimate partners. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

68

Minimization of cost is an issue that is transparently obvious. All future criminal behavior poses 

a significant cost, not just to its victims but to society at large. The “cost” of such behavior is 

measured not only in identified future criminal acts but in numerous other burdens placed on 

society, such as drug and alcohol abuse, depression and other mental health issues, domestic 

violence and financial irresponsibility. There is no single, uniformly applied algorithm for the 

problems giving rise to sexual assault. The same patchwork quilt of problems that may lead to 

sexual assault may also lead to a host of other societal challenges. They must all be addressed if 

the youngsters we deal with are to live more productive, salutary lives, particularly with respect 

to their interpersonal relationships. Simply stated, that is what they project was all about – a 

laser focus on the individual remedial needs of youth that might mitigate risk and restore 

sufficient self-esteem to pursue productive lives. 

We fully recognize that resources, financial and otherwise, are limited. What we are 

suggesting is consistent with that limitation: optimizing outcomes while minimizing costs. 

Simply stated, targeting critical risk-related needs and addressing them can help all decision 

makers, not just clinicians, identify needs more reliably and address those needs more efficiently. 

What we are advocating is nothing more than triaging by adjusting allocation of resources, a 

strategy routinely employed in clinical / psychiatric / ER settings as well as the military for 

earmarking intensiveness of service provision based on degree of urgent need. It is markedly 

inefficient, if not counterproductive to be allocating resources evenly across markedly uneven 

needs. We end up over-managing some while under-managing others, leaving both at potentially 

higher risk (in the former case, excessive intense management of lower risk youth may have the 

paradoxical effect of increasing risk). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

69

Although the triage task is no less important for youth, it is different; youth are not fully 

developed adults. Given that all youth, up until roughly the age of 25, are in a period of rapid 

developmental change, we simply cannot assume stability of any core set of embedded “risk 

factors” that will increase the likelihood of re-offense years into the future. Hence, it is 

indefensible to manage youth the same way that we manage adults, where past behavior is often 

considered prologue to future behavior. 

Although the YNPS is designed to help manage juveniles with a sex offense, the YNPS 

alone can never mitigate risk, and its assistance with guidance, intervention, and management 

can be no better than the fidelity with which it is used (Viljoen et al., 2018). Thus, it is important 

to note that the YNPS was not designed or tested as a risk assessment scale. The intervention 

needs measured by the scale are not all directly causally related to re-offense risk. They were 

selected and tested for a different purpose: guiding and optimizing interventions that promote 

improved long term psychological health. Thus, deriving some form of ‘risk score’ by simply 

adding up all of the risk-related needs, however, may be quite misleading as it inevitably misses 

critical, empirically-validated risk-related factors that might only emerge from a comprehensive 

idiographic evaluation. In the same vain, the YNPS was not intended to replace scales 

specifically designed and validated to assess re-offense risk in juveniles that have committed sex 

offenses. The explicit purpose of the YNPS was to identify risk-relevant dynamic factors 

subject to modification through intervention thereby potentially reducing harmful behavior. 

In summary, the YNPS can facilitate communication among stakeholders, both clinicians 

as well as those within the juvenile justice system, and guide intervention and management 

planning to assist all stakeholders in rendering more effective and efficient management 

decisions of juveniles with sex offenses. In summary, the YNPS scale may improve decision 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
70

making regarding the management of juveniles with sex offenses, reduce the financial burden of 

incarceration, inform public policy and law, and ultimately facilitate better outcomes. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

References 

71

Albert, D., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Judgment and decision making in adolescence. Journal of 

Research on Adolescence, 21, 211-224. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00724.x 

Arnsten, A. T., & Shansky, R. M. (2004). Adolescence: Vulnerable period for stress-induced 

prefrontal cortical function? Introduction to part IV. In R. E. Dahl, L. P. Spear (Eds.), 

Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities (pp. 143-147). New 

York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences. 

Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2005). Biosocial development and delinquent involvement. 

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 168-192. doi:10.1177/1541204004273318 

Bonnie, R. J., & Scott, E. S. (2013). The teenage brain: Adolescent brain research and the law. 

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(2), 158-161. 

doi:10.1177/0963721412471678 

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and 

rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6, 1-22. Retrieved from 

http://205.172.12.54/corrections/resources/Risk_Need_Responsivity/Risk_Need_200706. 

Pdf 

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Anderson. 

Bostic, J. Q., Thurau, L., Potter, M., & Drury, S. S. (2014). Policing the teen brain. Journal of 

the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(2), 127-129. 

doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2013.09.021 

Brennan, T., Breitenbach, M., & Dieterich, W. (2008). Towards an explanatory taxonomy of 

adolescent delinquents: Identifying several social-psychological profiles. Journal of 

Quantitative Criminology, 24, 179-203. doi:10.1007/s10940-008-9045-7 

Caldwell, M. F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender 

recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 

54, 197 – 212. 

Casey, B. J. (2013). The teenage brain: An overview. Current Directions in Psychological 

Science, 22 (2), 80 – 81. 

Casey, B. J., Getz, S., & Galvan, A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28, 

62-77. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.003 

Cauffman, E. & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents 

may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18(6), 741-760. 

doi:10.1002/bsl.416 

Cauffman, E., Kimonis, E. R., Dmitrieva, J., & Monahan, K. C. (2009). A multimethod 

assessment of juvenile psychopathy: Comparing the predictive utility of the PCL:YV, 

YPI, and NEO PRI. Psychological Assessment, 21(4), 528-542. doi:10.1037/a0017367 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

72

Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S. L. (2009). The past achievements and future promises of 

developmental psychopathology: The coming of age of a discipline. Journal of Child 

Psychology and Psychiatry, 16–25. 

Cohen, A. O., Breiner, K., Steinberg, L., Bonnie, R. J., Scott, E. S., Taylor-Thompson, K. A., 

Rudolph, M. D., Chein, J., Richeson, J. A., Heller, A. S., Silverman, M. R., Dellarco, D. 

V., Fair, D. A., Galvan, A., & Casey, B. J. (2016). When is an adolescent an adult? 

Assessing cognitive control in emotional and nonemotional contexts. Psychological 

Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0956797615627625 

Dahl, R. E. (2001). Affect regulation, brain development, and behavioral / emotional health in 

adolescence. CNS Spectrum, 6, 1-12. doi:10.1017/S1092852900022884 

Dahl, R. E. (2003). Beyond raging hormones: The tinderbox in the teenage brain. Cerebrum: The 

Dana Forum on Brain Science, 5(3), 7-22. Retrieved from 

http://www.dana.org/Cerebrum/2003/Beyond_Raging_Hormones__The_Tinderbox_in_the 

_Teenage_Brain/ 

Dahl, R. E. (2004). Adolescent brain development: A period of vulnerabilities and opportunities. 

In R. E. Dahl, L. P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and 

opportunities (pp. 1-22). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences. 

Dahl, R.E. & Spear, L.P. (2004). Adolescent brain development. Annals of the New York 

Academy of Sciences, 1021, 1–22. 

De Bellis, M. D., Baum, A., Birmaher, B., Keshavan, M., Eccard, C. H., Boring, A. M., Jenkins, 

F. J., & Ryan, N. D. (1999). Developmental traumatology part I: Biological stress 

systems. Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1259 – 1270. 

DeBellis, M. D., Keshavan, M. S., Clark, D. B., Casey, B. J., Giedd, J. N., Boring, A. M., Frustaci, 

K., & Ryan, N. D. (1999). Developmental traumatology, Part 2: Brain development. 

Biological Psychiatry, 45 (10), 1271 – 1284. 

Ferris, C. (1996, March-April). The rage of innocents. Childhood trauma may string the 

biochemical trip wires that can set off later explosions of violence. The Sciences, 22 – 26. 

Giedd, J. N. (2004). Structural magnetic resonance imaging of the adolescent brain. In R. E. 

Dahl, L. P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and 

opportunities (pp. 77-85). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences. 

Graham v. Florida, 560 U. S. ___, No. 08-7412, (2010). 

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci, 

N. D., & Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of

adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4). 

doi:10.1023/A:1024065015717 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

Heilbrun, K., Lee, R. J., & Cottle, C. C (2005). Risk factors and intervention outcomes: Metaanalyses of juvenile offending. In K. Heilbrun, N.E.S. Goldstein, & R.E. Redding, 

Juvenile delinquency: Prevention, assessment, & intervention, (pp. 111-133). New York: 

Oxford University Press, Inc. 

Henggeler, S. W., Letourneau, E. J., Chapman, J. E., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A., & McCart, 

M. R. (2009). Mediators of change for multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual 

offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), 451–462. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013971 

Hoge, R. (2016). Risk, need, and responsivity in juveniles. In K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, & N. 

Goldstein (Eds), (pp.), in Handbook of psychology and juvenile justice. Washington, 

D.C.: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000135 

Iselin, A-M. R., DeCoster, J., & Salekin, R. T. (2009). Maturity in adolescent and young adult 

offenders: The role of cognitive control. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 455 – 469. 

Ito, Y., Teicher, M. H., Glod, C. A., Harper, D., Magnus, E., & Gelbard, H. A. (1993). Increased 

prevalence of electrophysiological abnormalities in children with psychological, physical, 

and sexual abuse. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 5, 401 – 408. 

Ito, Y., Teicher, M. H., Glod, C. A., & Ackerman, E. (1998). Preliminary evidence for aberrant 

cortical development in abused children: A quantitative EEG study. Journal of 

Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 10, 298 – 307. 

J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011). 

Kelley, A. E., Schochet, T., & Landry, C. F. (2004). Risk taking and novelty seeking in 

adolescence: Introduction to part I. In R. E. Dahl, L. P. Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain 

development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities (pp. 27-32). New York, NY: New York 

Academy of Sciences. 

Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why 

correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders. Topics in Community 

Corrections, 2004, 3-8. 

Luna, B., & Sweeney, J. A. (2004). The emergence of collaborative brain function: fMRI studies 

of the development of response inhibition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 

1021, 296-309. doi: 10.1196/annals.1308.035 

Luna, B., & Wright, C. (2016). Adolescent brain development: Implications for the juvenile 

criminal justice system. In K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, N. E. S. Goldstein (Eds.), APA 

Handbook of psychology and juvenile justice (pp. 91-116). Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14643-005 

MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice 

(2006, September 9.). Assessing Juvenile Psychopathy: Developmental and Legal 

Implications. Retrieved from 

https://www.macfound.org/media/files/ADJJPSYCHOPATHY.PDF 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

74

McCann, K., & Lussier, P. (2008). Antisociality, sexual deviance, and sexual reoffending in 

juvenile sex offenders: A meta-analytical investigation. Youth Violence and Juvenile 

Justice, 6, 363-385. 

Medoff, D. (2004). Developmental considerations in the forensic assessment of adolescent 

sexual offenders: Victim selection, intervention, and offender recidivism rates. The 

Forensic Examiner, 13(2), 26-30. Retrieved from http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/ 

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ___ (2012). 

Modecki, K. L. (2008). Addressing gaps in the maturity of judgment literature: Age differences 

and delinquency. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 78-91. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9087-7 

Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1993). Exploring characteristics classifying juvenile sexual 

offenders. In H. E. Barbaree, W. L. Marshall & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), The juvenile sexual 

offender (pp. 45-83). New York: Guilford. 

Perry, B. D. (1994). Neurobiological sequelae of childhood trauma: PTSD in children (pp. 233 

– 255). In M. Murburg (Ed.), Catecholamine function in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: 

Emerging concepts. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press. 

Perry, B. D., Pollard, R. A., Blakley, T. L., Baker, W. L., & Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood 

trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and “use-dependent” development of the brain:

How “states become “traits”. Infant Mental Health Journal, 16 (4), 271 – 291. 

Reitzel, L. R., & Carbonell, J. L. (2006). The effectiveness of sexual offender intervention for 

juveniles as measured by recidivism: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: Journal of 

Research and Intervention, 18, 401-421. 

Reppucci, N. D. (1999). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. American journal of 

Community Psychology, 27 (3), 307 – 326). 

Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision-making: 

Implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public 

Interest, 7, 1-44. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x 

Righthand, S., & Welch, C. (2001). Youths who have sexually offended. A review of the 

professional literature. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, No. 03–633 (2005). 

Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on 

juvenile justice reform. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 137-189. 

doi:10.2307/1144076 

Scott, E., & Grisso, T. (2005). Developmental incompetence, due process, and juvenile justice 

policy. North Carolina Law Review, 83, 101-147. Retrieved from 

http://www.nclawreview.org/ 

Scott, E. S., Reppucci, N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (1995). Evaluating adolescent decision making in 

legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 19(3), 221-244. doi:10.1007/BF01501658 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

Spear, L. P. (2000). Neurobehavioral changes in adolescence. Current Directions in 

Psychological Science, 9(4), 111-114. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00072 

Stein, M. B. (1997). Hippocampal volume in women victimized by childhood sexual abuse. 

Psychology Medicine, 27, 851 – 959. 

Stien, P. T., & Kendall, J. (2004). Psychological trauma and the developing brain. 

Neurologically based interventions for troubled children. N.Y.: The Haworth Press, Inc. 

Steinberg, L. (2004). Risk taking in adolescence: What changes, and why?. In R. E. Dahl, L. P. 

Spear (Eds.), Adolescent brain development: Vulnerabilities and opportunities (pp. 51-

58). New York, NY: New York Academy of Sciences. 

Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk-taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral 

science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 55-59. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8721.2007.00475.x 

Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual review of clinical 

psychology, 5, 459-485. doi:10.1146/annurev.clYNPSy.032408.153603 

Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1996). Maturity of judgment in adolescence: Psychosocial factors 

in adolescent decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3), 249-272. 

doi:10.1007/BF01499023 

Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental 

immaturity, diminished responsibility and the juvenile death penalty. American 

Psychologist, 58(12), 1009–1018. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009 

Teicher, M. H. (2000). Wounds that time won’t heal: The neurobiology of child abuse. Cerebrum, 

2 (4), 50 – 67. 

Teicher, M. H. (2002, March). Scars that won’t heal: The neurobiology of child abuse. Scientific 

American, 68 – 75. 

Teicher, M. H., Glod, C. A., Surrey, J., & Swett, C. (1993). Early childhood abuse and limbic 

system ratings in adult psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical 

Neurosciences, 5, 301 – 306. 

Teicher, M. H., Ito, Y., Glod, C. A., Andersen, S. L., Dumont, N., & Ackerman, E. (1997). 

Preliminary evidence for abnormal cortical development in physically and sexually 

abused children using EEG coherence and MRI (pp. 160-175). In R. M. Yehuda (Ed.), 

Psychobiology of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Vol. 821. New York: Annals of the 

New York Academy of Sciences. 

Teicher, M. H., Glod, C. A., Surrey, J., & Swett, C. (1993). Early childhood abuse and limbic 

system ratings in adult psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical 

Neurosciences, 5, 301 – 306. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

Teicher, M. H., Ito, Y., Glod, C. A., Andersen, S. L., Dumont, N., & Ackerman, E. (1997). 

Preliminary evidence for abnormal cortical development in physically and sexually 

abused children using EEG coherence and MRI (pp. 160-175). In R. M. Yehuda (Ed.), 

Psychobiology of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Vol. 821. New York: Annals of the 

New York Academy of Sciences. 

Thomas, M. S. C., & Johnson, M. H. (2008). New advances in understanding sensitive periods in 

brain development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17 (1), 1 – 5. 

van den Bos, W., van Dijk, E., Westenberg, M., Rombouts, S. A. R. B., & Crone, E. A. (2011). 

Changing brains, changing perspectives: The neurocognitive development of reciprocity. 

Psychological Science, 22, 60-70. doi:10.1177/0956797610391102 

Viljoen, J. L., Mordell, S., & Beneteau, J. L. (2012). Prediction of adolescent sexual reoffending: 

A meta-analysis of the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II, and Static-99. Law and 

Human Behavior. 36(5):423-38. doi: 10.1037/h0093938 

Worling, J. R., Litteljohn, A., & Bookalam, D. (2010). 20-year prospective follow-up study of 

specialized intervention for adolescents who offended sexually. Behavioral Sciences and the 

Law, 28, 46 – 57. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
77

Appendix A: Training Materials 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

2 

78

10/22/19 

THE INTERVENTION NEEDS 

AND PROGRESS SCALE 

(AKA: INPS) Part 1 

Product of DOJ Grant # 2016-AW-BX-K004: Assessing, Treating And Managing Juveniles With Illegal Sexual Behavior: The Juvenile Treatment Progress Scale Development And Implementation Project Awarded To Fairleigh Dickinson University. 

Presentation by: Sue Righthand, Ph.D., Fall 2019 

sue.righthand @gmail.com 

•

•

•

•

•

TRAINING GOALS 

Explore the need for an empirically-informed 

intervention needs and progress scale. 

Increase knowledge of the development, testing and 

implementation of this revised version of the INPS. 

Understand the rationale for each item, what the item 

assesses; rate INPS item examples reliably. 

Use the INPS to identify appropriate treatment targets,

facilitate treatment planning, assess progress, and

evaluate readiness for treatment completion. 

Recognize some of the challenges involved in

implementing the INPS and discuss possible ways to 

resolve obstacles. 

DO WE NEED ANOTHER SCALE? 

• There are problems with risk assessment 

scales. 

• Clients change. 

• It was time to build on knowledge gained 

& develop a measure to: 

• Objectively identify intervention needs & 

• Progress toward resolving those needs. 

1 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

5 

79

10/22/19 

•

PROBLEMS WITH 

RISK ASSESSMENT? 

“Research concerning the factors that place 

juveniles at risk for sexual offending behavior 

and sexual recidivism is still in its infancy as is 

research on the capacity of risk assessment 

instruments to accurately predict risk for sexual 

recidivism.” 

(https://smart.gov/SOMAPI/sec2/ch4_risk.html#riskjuv, also see 

Worling, http://www.profesor.ca/history--rationale.html) 

•

•

THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS 

“Risk assessment” is frequently used 

interchangeably with risk prediction. 

Prediction assumes we will be able to 

accurately forecast human behavior. 

•Human behavior involves an interplay 

of biopsychosocial individual & socioecological factors. (c.f., Belsky, 1980; Bronfenbrenner,1977; Cicchetti & Toth, 2009; Lussier, 2015) 

THERE IS A DEMAND FOR 

RISK ASSESSMENT & 

PREDICTIONS 

• Willingness to go beyond research evidence, 

◦ For example, by providing risk labels, levels, and 

predictions not scientifically grounded. (c.f., ATSA, 2017; Lehmann, Thornton, Helmus, and Hanson, 2016) 

• Disregarding practice guidelines, e.g., 

◦ Not emphasizing the rapidity of adolescent

development and the need for frequent reassessment. 

◦ Not describing the strengths and limitations of 

assessment methods and findings (c.f., ATSA, 2017). 

• Not emphasizing risk usually doesn’t = reoffending. 

2 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

8 

80

10/22/19 

•

•

MOST STOP! 

Sexual recidivism rates are low 

◦Generally 3-15% (Caldwell, 2017; Finkelhor, et al., 

2009) 

Non-sexual recidivism typically is much greater! 

•It is difficult to predict infrequent events! 

•More predictions of risk & violence are 

wrong than right! 

•

•

•

ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS WITH 

RISK ASSESSMENT 

Viljoen, Cochrane, & Jonnson, 2018 systematic 

review of 73 violence risk assessment studies. 

“Despite some promising findings, professionals do 

not consistently adhere to tools or apply them to 

guide their risk management efforts” (p. 181). 

When tools are used, those with greater risks may 

receive more intensive services, but risk 

management needs are often not addressed. 

•

RATHER THAN PREDICTION•

Assess risk-relevant needs: 

•Identify factors that may increase risk, 

•Identify those that may protect & mitigate risk, 

•Assess how they interact currently & in the 

foreseeable future. 

& Recommend / provide interventions that: 

•Address dynamic risk & protective factors to 

reduce risk, 

•Develop pathways that promote desistance from

antisocial & abusive behaviors. 

3 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 

11 

81

10/22/19 

ASSESSMENT IS A PROCESS, 

NOT AN EVENT 

• Assessments & timely reassessments are 

important for: 

•Developing & revising intervention plans, 

•Guiding case management decisions, 

•Evaluating individual progress & outcomes, 

•Program evaluation. 

• Yet, there are few risk-relevant needs and 

progress scales, & limited research. 

FUNDING OPPORTUNITY! 

Department of Justice 

Office of Sex Offender Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking 

Assessing, Treating, & Managing 

Juveniles with Illegal Sexual Behavior: 

The Juvenile Treatment Progress Scale 

Development and Implementation 

Project 

(2016-AW-BX-K004)

A PARADIGM SHIFT 

4 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

i

i

-

i

13 

14 

82

10/22/19 

Project

Core Team Robert Prentky 

Principle 

Investigator 

Sue Righthand 

Co Principal 

Investigator 

Tamara Kang 

Project Manager 

Jim Worling 

Consultant 

Judith Becker William Murphy 

Professor, University of Professor, University of 

Ar zona Tennessee 

Ke th Kaufman Barbara Bonner 

Professor, Portland J.G. Endowed Professor 

State University of Pediatrics, University 

of Oklahoma 8 Member 

Advisory Robert McGrath Kurt Bumby 

Developer of VASOR 2 Board Consulting 

and SOTIPS Psychologist 

Anthony Beech Jane Silovsky Emeritus Professor, Professor of Pediatrics, Un versity of University of Oklahoma Birmingham 

PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

1. Design a developmentally sensitive, empirically 

informed, intervention needs & progress scale 

• For Youth 

• & Young Adults, 

with histories of sexually abusive or otherwise 

illegal sexual behavior. 

5 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 

17 

83

10/22/19 

PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

2. Develop a scale that: 

◦ Builds on what we have learned, 

◦ Objectively describes potential risk and protective 

factors. 

◦ Includes individual & socioecological factors. 

◦ Is responsive to developmental changes & 

improvements. 

• Complements a well-integrated assessment that 

guides individualized and effective interventions. 

PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

3. Train providers at five demographically and 

culturally diverse sites across the country on 

using the scale and incorporating it into their 

practices. Provide consultation support. 

4. Test & evaluate the scale: 

• With 300-500 individuals, 

• Explore the utility of the scale in informing 

ongoing interventions, 

• Evaluate implementation successes & 

challenges. 

PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

4. Revise the test version of the scale in 

accordance with pilot feedback & 

experiences. 

5. Facilitate implementation of a sustainable 

the revised version of the scale. 

6 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

18 
20 

84

10/22/19 

THANK YOU! 

You helped us accomplish many 

of our goals! 

19 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

SCALE STRENGTHS 

(Feedback from all sites) 

Generally easy to use. 

Gave focus and direction to treatment. 

Useful for treatment planning, identifying treatment

goals, needed interventions, & progress. 

Helps the conversation regarding where treatment

should go and how to help the youth who struggles. 

Useful for team meetings. 

Graphs provide nice visuals for treatment planning as

well as communicating with clients/youth/families. 

Instead of just looking at the kid individually, the

scale’s focus can help encourage environment change

that supports the youth’s global needs. 

CHALLENGES WITH THE SCALE 

(Feedback from all sites) 

Rating challenges: 

• Items could be difficult to rate: 

◦ Fine distinctions required. 

◦ Difficulties obtaining necessary information, especially

detailed historical information. 

◦ Community settings differ from facilities. 

• Need clear & specific definitions to distinguish

differences in treatment need. 

◦ People viewed ratings differently. Easy to differentiate

a 0 and a 3, but hard to sort out the in between. 

• Need to ensure consistency among raters. 

7 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 

23 

85

10/22/19 

CHALLENGES WITH THE SCALE 

(Feedback from all sites) 

Challenges communicating findings: 

• How do we communicate the scale to the 

community?

◦ How does it differs from a risk-assessment 

scale? 

◦ Need to know research support for items and

rationale. 

• Need a way to view progress easily.

◦ Tables were pages and pages, and paper and

pencil option took time. 

• Need to integrate the scale into agency current 

software system. 

CHALLENGES WITH THE SCALE 

(Feedback from all sites) 

Challenges using findings to guide

interventions: 

• Need help on using the scale to guide 

treatment. 

◦ What do we do with the information once we 

see the treatment needs? 

◦ How can we use the scale to facilitate 

treatment in the milieu to help kids be

successful? 

◦ How do we use the scale to refocus treatment 

with a youth who struggles? 

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES 

(Feedback from all sites) 

Challenges going forward 

◦ How to manage work demands and time challenges? 

• One site monitored and corrected implementation 

lapses. 

◦ Vacancies, leave of absences, & staff turnover. 

• Increased usual workloads. 

• Need for new staff training. 

◦ How to ensure ongoing consistency among raters? 

◦ How to address treatment needs, what concepts 

should be covered in treatment for specific needs? 

◦ “The FAQ document was helpful.” 

8 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 

26 

86

10/22/19 

•

THANK YOU AGAIN 

• Your feedback helped guide scale 

development, refinements, & 

improvement! 

The Intervention Needs and Progress Scale 

(INPS) is the revised version of the TNPS. 

SCALE OBJECTIVES 

• Like the TNPS, the INPS is designed to 

assist clinicians, other service providers, 

and legal professionals reduce risk & stop 

offending by helping them: 

1. Identify risk-relevant intervention needs, 

2. Provide relevant & responsive interventions, 

3. Match intervention intensity to meet client 

need, 

4. Evaluate progress, revising treatment plans 

accordingly, & facilitating timely discharges. 

SCALE DEVELOPMENT: 

BUILDING BLOCKS 

• Developmental immaturity & flux. 

• Socio-ecological factors & context. 

• Heterogeneity and individual differences. 

• Recognizing strengths, not just challenges. 

• The RNR Model of Assessment & Crime 

Prevention Through Human Services 

(c.f., Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Hoge, 2016; Hanson, Bourgon, 

Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009). 

9 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 

29 

87

10/22/19 

ITEM SELECTION 

• Reviews of the empirical literature re:

◦ Onset of abusive sexual behavior 

◦ Risk and protective factors that may increase or

decrease the likelihood of repeat offending. 

◦ Nonsexual recidivism 

• Selected items that are: 

◦ Empirically based – related to offending ◦ Theoretically grounded – relevant to those “at risk” 

and/or resilience following adversity. 

• Consultations with Advisory Board 

• Implemented the TNPS Test Version 

(See Kang, et al., 2019 for a full discussion) 

TEST VERSION 

• 18 Historical items, e.g., ◦ Criminal history, maltreatment experiences, placement 

instability. 

• 27 Dynamic items: ◦ Risk & Protective factors, 

◦ Intervention “responsivity” factors. 

• Assessments conducted at intake and updated 

quarterly (or per policy), 

• To guide interventions or discharge planning. 

27 Dynamic Treatment Targets (Test Version) 

1. Frequency of Sexual Thoughts 10. Law Abiding Behavior 19. Self-Efficacy 

2. Sexual Interests 11. Attitudes & Beliefs 20. Compassion 

(non-sexual rule violating 

& illegal behavior) 

3. Sexual Self-regulation 12. Peer Aged Friends 21. Coping with Sexual Abuse 

4. Understanding Appropriate 13. Peer Associations 22. Coping with Nonsexual Negative 

Sexual Behavior Life Experiences 

5. Understanding Consequences 14. Relationship With 23. Attitudes Towards Interventions 

of Abusive Sexual Behavior Primary Caregiver (Client 

Perspective) 

6. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs 15. Adult Mentors 24. Management Of Mental / Behavior 

(Client Perspective) Health Challenges 

7. Behavior Self-Regulation 16. Social Skills 25. Supportive Caregiver or Significant 

Other 

8. School / Work 17. Problem-solving 26. Stability in Living Situation 

9. Free time 18. Emotion Regulation 27. Community Support 

10 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

30 
31 

32 

88

10/22/19 

ASSESSMENTS OVER TIME 

(All sites combined) 

ALL SITES COMBINED Frequency 

INITIAL INTAKE 604 

1st Reassessment 419 

2nd Reassessment 239 

3rd Reassessment 152 

4th Reassessment 91 

5th Reassessment 54 

6th Reassessment 28 

7th Reassessment 13 

8th Reassessment 2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IMPROVEMENT OVER TIME 

F1 - Sexual selfmanagement 

F2 - General 

behavior selfmanagement 

F3 - Environmental 

factors and 

supports 

PHASE 2: 

INPS DEVELOPMENT 

• Reviewed site feedback. 

• Performed a critical analysis of each item & the 

entire scale. 

• Shifted our focus exclusively to dynamic items: 

◦ That reflect recent and current intervention needs & 

◦ That can change as a function of intervention and/or 

maturation. 

11 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34 

35 

89

10/22/19 

•

•

•

•

INPS DEVELOPMENT 

Rewrote items to be more clear and succinct. 

Revised item labels to better describe content. 

Streamlined the scale to reduce duplication. 

Improved scoring guidelines to provide better 

direction. 

• Positive feedback from site volunteers and 

Advisory Board reviews. 

27 Dynamic Treatment Targets (Test Version) 

1. Frequency of Sexual Thoughts 10. Law Abiding Behavior 19. Self-Efficacy 

2. Sexual Interests 11. Attitudes & Beliefs 20. Compassion 

(non-sexual rule violating 

& illegal behavior) 

3. Sexual Self-regulation 12. Peer Aged Friends 21. Coping with Sexual Abuse 

4. Understanding Appropriate 13. Peer Associations 

Sexual Behavior 

22. Coping with Nonsexual Negative 

Life Experiences 

5. Understanding Consequences 14. Relationship With 23. Attitudes Towards Interventions 

of Abusive Sexual Behavior Primary Caregiver (Client 

Perspective) 

6. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs 15. Adult Mentors 24. Management Of Mental / Behavior 

(Client Perspective) Health Challenges 

7. Behavior Self-Regulation 16. Social Skills 25. Supportive Caregiver or Significant 

Other 

8. School / Work 26. Stability in Living Situation 

9. Free time 27. Community Support 

17. Problem-solving 

18. Emotion Regulation 

•

•

INPS DEVELOPMENT 

Factor Analyses of test version ratings. Findings 

indicated three empirically derived subscales. 

F1 - Sexual self-management 

F2 - General behavior self-management 

F3 - Environmental factors and supports 

Two additional items related to treatment response are 

included in the revised 22-item scale. 

◦ Mental Health Management 

◦ Participation in Interventions (formerly Attitudes toward 

Intervention) 

12 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 

38 

90

10/22/19 

•

•

INPS: 

INTENDED POPULATIONS 

Youth and young adults (12 to 25). 

• If used with pubescent 10 or 11 year olds, those using 

the scale are responsible for justifying its use

(e.g., maturation). 

Research regarding females guided scale 

development but, 

• Only of 5 of 605 individuals assessed with the INPS were

female! 

INPS: 

INTENDED USE 

• The INPS is designed to complement a 

well-integrated initial and reassessments. 

◦ Varied sources of information typically inform

clinical and forensic assessments and 

intervention plans. 

•It should not be necessary to

collect information for the sole 

purposes of rating this scale. 

INPS RATING TIMEFRAMES 

• All INPS assessments focus on the Past 3 

months to address current intervention needs. 

• The initial INPS occurs as part of an intake 

assessment, ideally, once sufficient information 

is available. 

• Reassessments are conducted every 3-months 

(more frequently if appropriate or required). 

• Discharge INPS assessments are recommended. 

13 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

39 
40 

41 

91

10/22/19 

4 – POINT ORDINAL RATING 

SCALE 

The INPS ranges from “0” or 

“no intervention need” 

apparent during the

assessment period to “3” or 

strong “need”. 

The focus on intervention 

shifts the primary emphasis 

from risk to the central focus 

on the “needs” that must be 

addressed to mitigate risk

and stop offending.. 

0 No 

Intervention Need. 

1 Possible/Limited 

Intervention Need. 

2 Moderate 

Intervention Need. 

3 Strong 

Intervention Need. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

= 

= 

= 

= 

•

•

KEY RATING DIFFERENCES 

0 and 1 ratings indicate that positive features of the 

item are regularly or usually present. 

•Some relatively minor problematic behaviors 

may be developmentally normative. 

2 and 3 ratings reflect challenges, difficulties, 

problems, and sometimes failures that may 

contribute to further negative outcomes. 

•Intervention is clearly indicated! 

UPDATED FREQUENCY TERMS 

RATING FREQUENCY TERM DEFINITION 

0 Regularly positive. No problems noted during 

this period. 

1 Usually positive, with no Problems rarely noted during 

more than a few minor this period, except for a small 

exceptions. number of minor instances. 

2 Occasionally concerning. Problems noted periodically 

during this period. 

3 Often concerning. Problems noted frequently 

during this period. Problems 

appear typical for the client. 

14 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

43 

44 

92

10/22/19 

FREQUENCY & SEVERITY 

RATING CONSIDERATIONS 

• Frequency may indicate the magnitude of 

a difficulty and the extent to which an 

intervention is needed. 

• Sometimes the severity of a problem, (e.g., 

harm to self or others, destruction of property), 

may be more important than how often 

the problem occurs and may override a 

frequency rating. 

•

•

WHAT IF? 

What if the domain was positive most of the 

assessment period, but then deteriorated? 

•Rate for current treatment need. 

What if the domain was concerning early in 

the quarter, but now is improved? 

•Consider the full 3 months; may select a rating 

reflects this improvement but also the recent 

concern. 

? 

15 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

2 

93

10/22/19 

THE INTERVENTION NEEDS 

AND PROGRESS SCALE 

(AKA: INPS) Part 2 

Product of DOJ Grant # 2016-AW-BX-K004: Assessing, Treating And Managing Juveniles With Illegal Sexual Behavior: The Juvenile Treatment Progress Scale Development And Implementation Project Awarded To Fairleigh Dickinson University. 

Presentation by: Sue Righthand, Ph.D., Fall 2019 

sue.righthand @gmail.com 

CONDUCTING ASSESSMENTS 

• Confidence in assessment findings is increased 

when information is expressed: 

◦ In multiple ways (e.g., statements, actions). 

◦ Is observed by multiple sources, and 

◦ In multiple contexts. 

• Consider multiple sources of information! 

• Use multiple methods of assessment! 

RELEVANT INFORMATION 

INCLUDES: 

• Pertinent records and assessments, 

• Prior INPS findings, 

• Current service provider case notes, family 

and/or milieu and adjunct program staff 

reports, treatment progress notes or 

summaries, 

• Focused client interviews, 

• Treatment participation & observations. 

1 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

3 
4 

5 

94

10/22/19 

• 

• 

• 

• 

KEY RATING GUIDELINES 

All items must be considered in a developmental context. 

Consider individual strengths and challenges in view of 

what is socially, emotionally, and cognitively typical of 

individuals of a similar age and developmental stage. 

Ratings are based on all relevant and credible 

information for the appropriate time period. 

Rate conservatively. When the information appears 

incomplete, but enough to rate, go with the “lower” 

rating. 

Opt not to rate and gather more information. If available 

information is clearly insufficient for a reliable rating, 

check “unable to rate” on the Rating Form. 

USE RATING GUIDE 

Intervention Needs and Progress Scale 

(INPS) 

Product of DOJ Grant # 2016-AW-BX-K004: Assessing, Treating And Managing Juveniles With Illegal Sexual Behavior: The Juvenile Treatment Progress Scale Development And Implementation Project Awarded To 

Fairleigh Dickinson University. 

Intervention Needs and Progress Scale Rating Form 

Name: _______________________ ID # ______________ DOB: _________________________ 

Initial ____ Reassessment ____ Discharge ____ Number of sessions this period: ___ 

Completed by: ______________________________________ Date: _________________________ 

Item 

No 

Intervent on 

Need 

Poss b e / 

Lim ed 

Intervent on 

Need 

Moderate 

Interven on 

Need 

Strong 

Intervent on 

Need 

Un 

ab e to 

rate 

1. Understand ng Approp a e Sexua Behav or 0 1 2 3 

2. Understand ng the Consequences o Sexua 

Abuse 

0 1 2 3 

3. Sexua Thoughts Frequency 0 1 2 3 

4. Sexua nterests Age & Consent 0 1 2 3 

5 Sexua Att tudes & Be efs 0 1 2 3 

6. Sexua Behav or Management 0 1 2 3 

7. Compass on or Others 0 1 2 3 

8. Re at onsh ps w th Peers 0 1 2 3 

9. Emot on Management 0 1 2 3 

10. Soc a Sk s 0 1 2 3 

11. Se con dence 0 1 2 3 

12. Comm tment to Schoo / Work 0 1 2 3 

13. Use of Unstructured T me 0 1 2 3 

14. Nonsexua Behav or Att tudes and Be efs 0 1 2 3 

15. Nonsexua Behav or Management 0 1 2 3 

16. C ent V ew o Pr mary Careg ver Re at onsh p 0 1 2 3 

17. C ent V ew o Support ve Adu t Re at onsh ps 0 1 2 3 

18. Fam y Funct on ng 0 1 2 3 

19.L v ng S tuat on Sa ety & Stab ty 0 1 2 3 

20. nvo vement n Commun ty Resources 0 1 2 3 

21. Menta Hea th Management 0 1 2 3 

22. Part c pat on n ntervent ons 0 1 2 3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

i l

it

i

ti i

-

l

i ri t l i

i f l

l -

l I -

l i li

l i

i f

l i i i

i

i l ill

lf- fi

i l

i

l i i li

l i

li i f i i l i i

li i f i l l i i

il i i

i i i i - f ili

I l i i

l l

i i i i I i

2 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

95

10/22/19 

E 

Item 

No Possible/ Moderate Strong 

Intervention Limited Intervention Intervention Unable to rate Response 

Need Intervention 

Need Need Need 

X 1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual 

Behavior x 2 

C 2. Understanding the Consequences 

of Sexual Abuse x 3 

E 3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency x -1 

L 4. Sexual Interests - Age and Consent x -1 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs x 3 

6. Sexual Behavior Management x 1 

7. Compassion for Others x 2 

8. Relationships with Peers x 3 

9. Emotion Management x 2 

10. Social Skills x 2 

11. Self-confidence x 3 

12. Commitment to School / work x 3 

13. Use of Unstructured Time x 3 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes & 

Beliefs x 3 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management x 3 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver 

Relationship x 0 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult 

Relationships x 0 

18. Family Functioning x 3 

19. Living Situation - Safety & Stability x 3 

20. Involvement in Community 

Resources x 3 

21. Mental Health Management x 2 

22. Participation in Interventions x 3 

HOW DO WE USE THE 

RATINGS? 

8 

R-N-R MODEL of Assessment & Crime 

Prevention Through Human Services 

CORE PRINCIPLES: 

•Risk Principle 

◦ Focus: Those with most risks, fewest protective factors 

(i.e., greatest risk-relevant needs). 

•Need Principle 

◦ Focus: Dynamic criminogenic factors (needs). 

•Responsivity Principle 

◦ Focus: Factors that enhance treatment response; 

consider relevant, individual/family characteristics. 

3 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 

11 

96

10/22/19 

R-N-R MODEL 

RESEARCH SUPPORT 

• Support with general criminal behavior,

(e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 

1990; Bonta & Andrews, 2016; Smith, Gendreau, & 

Swartz, 2009). 

• Support for juveniles,

(e.g., Hawkins et al., 1998; Hoge, 2016, Lipsey, 1995; 

Lipsey, 1999, Pealer & Latessa, 2004). 

• Support for sex offense specific 

treatment, (e.g., Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & 

Hodgson, 2009). 

R-N-R MODEL -

AN ASSESSMENT GUIDE 

• Risk: Identify static & dynamic risk and 

protective factors. 

• Need: Evaluate risk-relevant dynamic factors 

(criminogenic needs). 

• Responsivity: Assess factors that may 

impede / facilitate treatment engagement & 

participation, learning & positive change. 

. 

R-N-R MODEL -

AN ASSESSMENT GUIDE 

• Assess R-N-R using structured and

validated instruments. 

• Assess personal strengths: 

◦ Integrate them into interventions. 

• Assess noncriminogenic needs that may be

barriers to prosocial change while

maintaining a focus on RNR factors. 

• Use professional discretion for specified 

reasons. 

(Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011) 

4 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i

i l

it

i

i i

-

l

i ri t l i r

i f l

l -

l I - t

l i li

l i

i f

l i i i

i

i l ill

lf- fi

i l

f i

l i i li

l i

li i i i l i i

li i i l l i i

il i i

i i i i - f ili

I l i i

l l

i i i i I i

ll i l : ( f

, , , l )

13 

14 

97

10/22/19 

R-N-R MODEL -

AN INTERVENTION GUIDE 

•Who? Engage those with the most risk 

factors and fewest protective ones. 

•What? Criminogenic Needs. 

• Reduce risk factors, 

• Enhance protective ones. 

•How? Responsive interventions. Matched 

to individual & family learning styles / 

characteristics. 

Item 

No 

Intervent on 

Need 

Poss b e / 

Lim ed 

Intervent on 

Need 

Moderate 

Intervent on 

Need 

Strong 

Intervent on 

Need 

Un 

ab e to 

rate 

1. Understand ng Approp a e Sexua Behav o 0 1 2 3 

2. Understand ng the Consequences o Sexua 

Abuse 

0 1 2 3 

3. Sexua Thoughts Frequency 0 1 2 3 

4. Sexua nterests Age & Consen 0 1 2 3 

5 Sexua Att tudes & Be efs 0 1 2 3 

6. Sexua Behav or Management 0 1 2 3 

7. Compass on or Others 0 1 2 3 

8. Re at onsh ps w th Peers 0 1 2 3 

9. Emot on Management 0 1 2 3 

10. Soc a Sk s 0 1 2 3 

11. Se con dence 0 1 2 3 

12. Comm tment to Schoo / Work 0 1 2 3 

13. Use o Unstructured T me 0 1 2 3 

14. Nonsexua Behav or Att tudes and Be efs 0 1 2 3 

15. Nonsexua Behav or Management 0 1 2 3 

16. C ent V ew of Pr mary Careg ver Re at onsh p 0 1 2 3 

17. C ent V ew of Support ve Adu t Re at onsh ps 0 1 2 3 

18. Fam y Funct on ng 0 1 2 3 

19.L v ng S tuat on Sa ety & Stab ty 0 1 2 3 

20. nvo vement n Commun ty Resources 0 1 2 3 

21. Menta Hea th Management 0 1 2 3 

22. Part c pat on n ntervent ons 0 1 2 3 

Ta y of rat ngs endorsed by co umn Number o 

0’s 1’s 2’s 3’s & unab e to rate 

Intervention Needs and Progress Scale Rating Form 

Name: _______________________ ID # ______________ DOB: _____________ 

Initial ____ Reassessment ____ Discharge ____ Number of sessions this period: ___ 

Completed by: ______________________________________ Date: _________________________ 

Proportion of Intervention Need 

By Strength: Summary Form 

Proportion of ratings of 0; 

No Intervention Needs _______% 

[Number of items rated 0 / Total number of items rated] 

Proportion of ratings of 1; 

Possible/Limited Intervention Needs _______% 

[Number of items rated 1 / Total number of items rated] 

Proportion of ratings of 2; 

Moderate Intervention Needs _______% 

[Number of items rated 2 / Total number of items rated] 

Proportion of ratings of 3; 

Strong Intervention Needs ________% 

[Number of items rated 0 / Total number of items rated] 

5 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 

17 

98

10/22/19 

Proportion of Intervention Need

By Strength: Summary Form 

(Cont.) 

Proportion of No or Possible/ 

Limited Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 0 or 1 / 

Total number of items rated] 

Proportion of Moderate or 

Strong Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 2 or 3 / 

Total number of items rated] 

• 

PLEASE DON’T FORGET 

Proportion of items 

checked “unable to rate” _______% 

INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTION NEEDS Possible/ No Moderate Strong 

Item Intervention Limited Intervention Intervention Unable to rate 

E Intervention 

Need Need Need Need 

X 1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual 

Behavior x 

C 2. Understanding the Consequences 

of Sexual Abuse x 

E 3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency x 

L 4. Sexual Interests - Age and Consent x 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs x 

6. Sexual Behavior Management x 

7. Compassion for Others x 

8. Relationships with Peers x 

9. Emotion Management x 

10. Social Skills x 

11. Self-confidence x 

12. Commitment to School / work x 

13. Use of Unstructured Time x 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes & 

Beliefs x 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management x 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver 

Relationship x 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult 

Relationships x 

18. Family Functioning x 

19. Living Situation - Safety & Stability x 

20. Involvement in Community 

Resources x 

21. Mental Health Management x 

22. Participation in Interventions x 

Response 

2 

3 

-1 

-1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

0 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

6 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

18 
19 

20 

99

10/22/19 

LINKING RATINGS TO 

INTERVENTIONS 

RATING INTERVENTION NEED 

0 No intervention needed. 

1 No intervention may be needed, or a brief 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

3 Requires intensive intervention 

intervention may help correct a minor 

problem and/or facilitate, reinforce or 

strengths and protective factors. . 

Requires appropriate intervention. 

Item Initial 

Assessment 

Reassessment 

T1 

Reassessment 

T2 

Reassessment 

T3 

Reassessment 

T4 

1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual Behavior 2 2 1 0 0 

2. Understanding the Consequences of Sexual 

Abuse 3 2 2 0 0 

3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency -1 0 0 0 0 

4. Sexual Interests - Age & Consent -1 0 0 0 0 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs 3 2 2 1 0 

6. Sexual Behavior Management 1 1 0 0 0 

7. Compassion for Others 2 2 2 1 1 

8. Relationships with Peers 3 3 2 1 1 

9. Emotion Management 2 2 2 1 0 

10. Social Skills 2 2 1 1 0 

11. Self-confidence 3 2 2 1 1 

12. School & Work Commitment 3 2 2 0 0 

13. Use of Unstructured Time 3 2 2 0 0 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes & Beliefs 3 3 2 1 1 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management 3 3 2 1 0 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver Relationship 0 2 2 1 1 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult Relationships 0 1 2 1 0 

18. Family Functioning 3 2 2 1 1 

19. Living Situation - Safety & Stability 3 2 2 2 2 

20. Involvement in Community Resources 3 2 2 1 0 

21. Mental Health Management 2 2 1 1 1 

22. Participation in Interventions 3 2 1 0 0 

REASSESSMENT OVER TIME 

E 

X 

C 

E 

L 

21 

7 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
22 

23 

100

10/22/19 

REASSESSMENT OVER TIME 

EXAMPLES: TRENDS OVER TIME 

-1 

0 

1 

2 

3 

1 2 3 4 5 

Assessment 

INPS Trend 

Score 

SO HOW AM I 

SUPPOSED TO DO ALL 

THIS? 

 

 

 

8 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 

26 

101

10/22/19 

IMPLEMENTATION 

• There are challenges. 

• Require ongoing discussions. 

• An assessment (FAQ) manual will follow. 

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS ARE 

UP TO US! 

• INPS assessments can help us objectively identify:

◦ Relevant treatment targets, 

◦ Intervention intensity, 

◦ Appropriate service delivery. 

• By assessing progress, we can revise intervention

and treatment plans as needed. 

• We can also evaluate and demonstrate positive

client & program outcomes. 

• But, we often don’t do works!

(Viljoen, Cochrane, & Jonnson, 2018) 

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS ARE 

UP TO US! 

• The use of risk & needs assessment scales is 

variable (Viljoen et al., 2018). 

• When used: 

◦ Match to the Risk Principle was moderate, 

◦ Match to the Need Principle was limited. 

• When findings were used, they general informed

early decisions, and were not used to match needs

over time. 

• Risk and needs assessment scales are likely to be

of value only if we use them appropriately! 

9 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28 

102

10/22/19 

RESOURCES 

• National Center on Sexual Behavior of Youth: 

www.ncsby.org 

• Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers: 

www.atsa.com 

• Washington State Institute for Public Policy: 

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost 

• California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare: 

www.cebc4cw.org/ 

• Blueprints for Healthy programs - Formerly Blueprints for 

Violence Prevention -

http://www.blueprintsprograms.com/ 

• Center for Sex Offender Management: www.csom.org 

10 
103

Appendix B: Program to Track Progress Over Time 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104

E

X

C

E

L 

Item 

1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual 

Behavior 

2. Understanding the Consequences 

of Sexual Abuse 

3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency 

4. Sexual Interests - Age and Consent 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs 

6. Sexual Behavior Management 

7. Compassion for Others 

8. Relationships with Peers 

9. Emotion Management 

10. Social Skills 

11. Self-confidence 

12. Commitment to School / work 

13. Use of Unstructured Time 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes & 

Beliefs 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver 

Relationship 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult 

Relationships 

18. Family Functioning 

19. Living Situation - Safety & Stability 

20. Involvement in Community 

Resources 

21. Mental Health Management 

22. Participation in Interventions 

Possible/ No Moderate Strong Limited Intervention Intervention Intervention Unable to rate Response Intervention Need Need Need Need 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTION NEEDS 

105

Possible/ No Moderate Strong Limited Item Intervention Intervention Intervention Unable to rate Intervention Need Need Need Need 

1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual x Behavior 

2. Understanding the Consequences x of Sexual Abuse 

3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency x 

4. Sexual Interests - Age and Consent x 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs x 

6. Sexual Behavior Management x 

7. Compassion for Others x 

8. Relationships with Peers x 

9. Emotion Management x 

10. Social Skills x 

11. Self-confidence x 

12. Commitment to School / work x 

13. Use of Unstructured Time x 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes & 

x Beliefs 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management x 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver x Relationship 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult x Relationships 

18. Family Functioning x 

19. Living Situation - Safety & Stability x 

20. Involvement in Community x Resources 

21. Mental Health Management 

22. Participation in Interventions 

x 

x 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Response 

2 

3 

-1 

-1 

3 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

0 

0 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 
106 This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REASSESSMENT OVER TIME 107

Initial Reassessment Reassessment Reassessment Reassessment Item Assessment T1 T2 T3 T4 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs 

7. Compassion for Others 

9. Emotion Management 

11. Self-confidence 

13. Use of Unstructured Time 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult Relationships 

19. Living Situation - Safety & Stability 

21. Mental Health Management 

22. Participation in Interventions 3 2 1 0 0 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

20. Involvement in Community Resources 3 

18. Family Functioning 3 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver Relationship 0 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes & Beliefs 3 

12. School & Work Commitment 3 

10. Social Skills 2 

8. Relationships with Peers 3 

6. Sexual Behavior Management 1 

1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual Behavior 

2. Understanding the Consequences of Sexual 

Abuse 3 

3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency 

4. Sexual Interests - Age & Consent -1 

2 2 1 0 0 

2 2 0 0 

-1 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

3 2 2 1 0 

1 0 0 0 

2 2 2 1 1 

3 2 1 1 

2 2 2 1 0 

2 1 1 0 

3 2 2 1 1 

2 2 0 0 

3 2 2 0 0 

3 2 1 1 

3 3 2 1 0 

2 2 1 1 

0 1 2 1 0 

2 2 1 1 

3 2 2 2 2 

2 2 1 0 

2 2 1 1 1 
REASSESSMENT OVER TIME 

108 This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
EXAMPLES: TRENDS OVER TIME 109

-1 

1 

3 

1 2 3 4 5 

Score 

Assessment 

INPS TREND 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
110

Appendix C: User Manual & Scale 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Youth Needs and Progress Scale 

& 

User Guide 

Sue Righthand Ph.D. 

James R. Worling, Ph.D. 

Robert A. Prentky, Ph.D. 

Tamara Kang, Ph.D. 

2020 

This Youth Needs and Progress Scale and User Guide is a work product for the project funded 

by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs [Office of Sex 

Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking; SMART Office] 

through grant # 2016-AW-BX-K004 and does not necessarily reflect the views of the SMART 

Office or the DOJ. 

[Grantee: Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, N.J. Principal Investigator: R. A. Prentky] 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS) 

Table of Contents 

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3 

Development of the Youth Needs and Progress Scale ............................................................... 3 

Training and Qualifications......................................................................................................... 4 

Intended Population...................................................................................................................... 4 

Applications................................................................................................................................... 4 

Rating Procedures......................................................................................................................... 5 

Relevant Information: ............................................................................................................. 5 

Developmental Consideration: ............................................................................................... 5 

Rating Timeframes:................................................................................................................. 5 

Definitions: ............................................................................................................................. 6 

Rating Guidelines: .................................................................................................................. 7 

Charting Progress ......................................................................................................................... 9 

Linking Ratings to Interventions................................................................................................. 9 

Individualizing Case & Treatment Plans ................................................................................... 9 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale ............................................................................................... 12 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Rating Form ................................................................... 34 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Progress Over Time - Rating Form................................ 35 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Proportion of Needs - Summary..................................... 36 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Proportion of Needs Over Time -Summary.................... 37 

References.................................................................................................................................... 38 

Core Project Staff ....................................................................................................................... 42 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 2 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS) 

Introduction 

The Youth Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS) is a 22-item rating scale designed to help identify 

risk-relevant intervention needs, and track progress toward resolving those needs, among 

individuals aged 12 to 25 who have engaged in abusive sexual behavior. Abusive sexual behavior 

includes contact or noncontact nonconsenting, coercive, and/or assaultive sexual activities and 

sexual behavior involving significantly younger persons (generally defined as someone who is at 

least 4 years younger). Any underage sexual activity that has been or could be charged as a sexual 

offense is included in this definition as well. 

Because nonsexual reoffending typically exceeds rates of sexual reoffending among individuals 

with abusive sexual behavior, factors associated with sexual and nonsexual offending are included 

in the YNPS. More specifically, empirically-informed individual, social, and environmental risk 

and protective factors associated with offending and circumstances and influences that may 

facilitate or interfere with treatment engagement and response are included in this scale. 

In view of the developmental flux in youth and emerging adults, and fluctuations in life 

circumstances, the YNPS focuses specifically on dynamic items to capture these changes. For this 

reason, it is recommended that reassessments be conducted at least every three months to identify 

possible changes and adjust interventions accordingly. 

Although the YNPS may be useful as a measure of intervention needs as part of a risk and needs 

evaluation, it is not a “risk assessment” scale, per se. Its purpose is not to predict re-offense risk. 

As with other assessment scales, this scale cannot include every potential risk-relevant factor and 

consideration. It is intended to be used as component of a comprehensive assessment that considers 

an array of risk-relevant individual, social, and environmental factors. Given its focus on dynamic 

factors, assessments and resulting clinical, case, and legal decisions must not be based on the 

YNPS alone. 

Development of the Youth Needs and Progress Scale 

The Youth Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS) was developed as the primary work product of the 

Assessing, Treating and Managing Juveniles with Illegal Sexual Behavior: The Juvenile Treatment 

Progress Scale Development and Implementation grant (DOJ Grant # 2016-AW-BX-K004) 

awarded to Fairleigh Dickinson University. The goals and objectives of this three-year project 

included creating an empirically informed risk-relevant needs and progress scale and integrating 

it at diverse juvenile sexual offense-specific treatment programs around the United States to 

examine its utility. Feedback and findings from this implementation phase of the project were 

instrumental for improving and refining the pilot version of the scale and developing this Youth 

Needs and Progress Scale (YNPS). Details of the project are presented and discussed in Kang, et 

al., (2019) and in the Final Report (DOJ Grant # 2016-AW-BX-K004) to the U. S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering and Tracking. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 3 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training and Qualifications 

User qualifications have more to do with relevant training and experience than a particular degree. 

Those who use this scale should: 

• Be aware that adolescents and young adults who engage in abusive sexual behavior are a 

heterogeneous group. 

• Be conversant with adolescent and young adult development. 

• Be knowledgeable about factors that contribute to and/or may mitigate abusive sexual 

behavior and other types of offending. 

• Understand that sexual re-offense rates are typically low, while rates of nonsexual 

reoffending are generally higher. 

• Be familiar with relevant evidenced-based interventions. 

User guidelines include the following: 

• Read and use this User Guide. 

• Complete several practice cases and compare ratings with others who have rated the same 

case to identify and then discuss and resolve any differences. 

• Confer with others periodically to assist with rating items reliably. 

As with any scale, those who use this scale should be well versed in the strengths and limitations 

of the measure and ensure constraints are clearly articulated. 

Intended Population 

This scale was developed following a literature review of factors associated with the onset, 

continuation, and cessation of abusive sexual behavior and nonsexual offending among male and 

female adolescent and adult populations. Research indicates that changes in youth development 

typically stabilize in the mid-twenties; therefore, the YNPS is considered suitable for individuals 

aged 12 to 25. Further, this scale was developed to be flexible enough to be used with males and 

females. The question of using this scale with non-cisgender clients is fundamentally an empirical 

one; however, there is no research to suggest this scale would not be appropriate for a full spectrum 

of gender identities. 

Applications 

This scale is designed to assist clinicians, probation officers, forensic evaluators, the courts, and 

other service providers and decision makers in: 

• Identifying risk-relevant intervention needs, 

• Prioritizing appropriate intervention strategies, 

• Monitoring progress toward resolving identified needs, 

• Facilitating case and/or treatment plan revisions according to current needs, and 

• Evaluating the completion of interventions and readiness for discharge. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 4 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the scale’s utility with individual clients, it may be useful for program evaluations. 

For example, client data can be aggregated and compared at different points in time (e.g., intake 

and discharge), and ratings may be examined in terms of their association with various outcomes, 

such as positive life achievements and accomplishments and, of course, remaining crime free. 

Rating Procedures 

Relevant Information: 

Because the YNPS is intended to be used as part of a comprehensive assessment, information that 

is typically collected to inform assessments of youth and emerging adults with histories of abusive 

sexual behavior may be useful for rating scale items. In addition to interviews and documents that 

provide information across multiple settings, psychological measures can also add important 

information. It should not be necessary to collect information for the sole purposes of completing 

the scale. 

Developmental Consideration: 

When rating the frequency and/or severity of an item, it is critical to consider what is socially, 

emotionally, and cognitively typical of individuals of a similar age and developmental stage. For 

example, compared to a 17-year-old client, a 12-year-old client would usually have less detailed 

knowledge of laws regarding sexual behavior and consent. Similarly, social skills generally look 

very different for an 18-year-old compared to a 13-year-old. Although developmentally different 

skill sets are expected, if problems are present, they should be rated as intervention needs. 

Rating Timeframes: 

Initial YNPS ratings and reassessments are based upon client functioning during the past three (3) 

months. Clients can be re-assessed at shorter intervals per agency policy and/or client need. To be 

most time-efficient, YNPS assessments and reassessments can be timed to coincide with other 

routine reassessments and client reviews, such as treatment planning updates and/or 

multidisciplinary team meetings. 

Completing the scale may facilitate discharge summaries by helping to document progress and any 

areas requiring further intervention. If a client is transferred to a new provider within an agency, a 

new assessment upon arrival may not be necessary; the client may simply be reassessed consistent 

with the agency’s policies. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 5 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definitions: 

Language and scaling: 

YNPS ratings are based on the relative presence or absence of risk and protective factors. Instead 

of relying on conventional binary (present, absent) or 3-level (0, 1, 2) ratings, in which the “1” is

an ambiguous rating for “unclear” or not fully present or absent, that are used in most risk 

assessment scales, the YNPS uses a 4-level ordinal scale (0, 1, 2, 3). All four ratings are designed 

to be unique and independent in terms of the information conveyed about the client and the degree 

of intervention need. The word “need” in this scale shifts the primary focus of risk and needs 

assessment from risk “prediction” to risk mitigation by identifying intervention needs that, when 

effectively addressed, may eliminate, reduce, or modify risks and promote protective factors. 

Frequency Ratings: 

Ratings generally rely on frequency to indicate the magnitude of a problem. Ratings and frequency 

terms are defined as follows. 

RATING FREQUENCY TERM DEFINITION 

0 Regularly positive. No problems noted during this 

period. 

1 Usually positive, with no 

more than a few minor 

exceptions. 

Problems rarely noted during this 

period, except for a small 

number of minor instances. 

2 Occasionally concerning. Problems noted periodically 

during this period. 

3 Often concerning. Problems noted frequently during 

this period. Problems appear 

typical for the client. 

Severity overrides: 

For some items, the severity of a problem (e.g., harm to self or others and/or costly destruction of 

property) may be more important than how often it occurs and may override a frequency rating. 

For example, aggression resulting in physical injury, or even a credible threat to harm, may result 

in an item being rated a two (2) or three (3), even if it has occurred only once during the rating 

period. Behaviors that cause physical injury to self or others are usually rated a 3, unless the 

behavior occurred early in the rating period and the client’s behavior is improved, in which case a

rating of 2 may be indicated. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 6 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Guidelines 

Rate items reliably: 

Rating “reliably” means that you are reasonably confident in your rating. To rate reliably, it is 

critical to understand the differences between 0 & 1, 1 & 2, and 2 & 3. 

• A rating of zero (0) indicates that the client regularly demonstrates the positive 

characteristics described in the item and/or no problems were evident during the rating 

period. 

• A rating of one (1) indicates that the client usually demonstrates the positive 

characteristics of the item, allowing for up to “a few relatively minor exceptions” and

excluding severe behavior problems or moderate or strong concerns. 

• A rating of a two (2) indicates that the client sometimes demonstrates positive features 

of the item, but problems occur occasionally, or one or more severe problems have 

occurred, but not so severe as to warrant a rating of three (3). 

• A rating of three (3) indicates that problems are often noted. This rating may also be 

warranted when there have been one or more severe problems that were particularly 

egregious (e.g., significant injury to others, a serious suicide attempt, or substantial 

property damage). 

➢ Key differences between a 0 and a 1 compared with a 2 and a 3: 

• 0 and 1 ratings are generally positive. They reflect an absence of significant 

concerns and may indicate protective factors that help mitigate risk. 

• 2 and 3 ratings are concerning in that they reflect challenges, difficulties, and 

problems that may contribute to further negative outcomes. 

➢ Key differences between a 0 and a 1: 

• 0: A rating of 0 applies when all aspects of the rated item regularly reflect the 

presence of positive characteristics as described in the item. A rating of 0 suggests 

that a treatment need does not currently apply. 

• 1: A rating of 1 applies when aspects of the rated item usually reflect the presence 

of positive characteristics as described in the item. 

In sum: 

• Some concerning behaviors occur in ratings of 1, but they are not frequent or 

severe, and they are not developmentally unexpected. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 7 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Positive characteristics of the item are not consistently present in ratings of 1 

compared to ratings of 0. 

• With ratings of 1, brief or limited interventions may be beneficial to reduce the 

likelihood of reoccurrences that could lead to further trouble, but they may not be 

necessary. 

➢ Key differences between a 1 and a 2: 

• 1: A rating of 1 only applies when there are no moderate or strong problems or 

concerns. 

• 2: A rating of 2 implies some moderate problems or concerns that exceed 

developmental expectations due to the nature, the frequency, or the severity of those 

problems. Problems occur occasionally, although even one or two serious 

indicators may warrant a 2. 

In sum: 

• Compared with a rating of 1, a rating of 2 reflects more significant challenges and 

difficulties that clearly require intervention. 

➢ Key differences between a 2 and a 3: 

• 2: Concerns are noted occasionally but do not reflect a pattern that appears 

characteristic of the client. 

• 3: Concerns are noted often and reflect a pattern that appears typical of the client. 

Concerns may also be due to how severe or chronic the problem or behavior is. 

In sum: 

• Compared with a rating of 2, a rating of 3 reflects more significant challenges and 

difficulties, and these issues generally occur more frequently and/or result in 

physical injury and/or costly property destruction. Such ratings reflect the need for 

well-targeted case plans, with ratings of 3 typically requiring more intensive 

interventions. 

Rating reminders: 

➢ Rate each item based on all relevant and credible information for the appropriate time 

period (past 3 months). 

➢ Rate conservatively. When the information appears to be incomplete or insufficient, but a 

rating is possible, rate conservatively. As a rule, a conservative rating would be the “lower”

rating for that item (e.g., if unsure between a two (2) and three (3), go with a two (2)). 

➢ Opt not to rate. Ratings should be completed only when there is sufficient information. If 

information is insufficient for a reliable rating, check “unable to rate” on the Rating Form.

Additional information may be obtained over time enabling a more compete assessment. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 8 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charting Progress 

A strength of the YNPS is that it can be used to monitor progress during interventions over time. 

Several rating forms are provided in this User Guide following the scale items. These forms can 

be used for rating scale items during each assessment and for comparing findings. 

In addition, automated software programs, such as Excel, can be programmed so assessment and 

reassessment ratings can be entered and also displayed in tables and graphs that can illustrate 

changes in ratings over time. Visual illustrations of treatment needs and progress may assist 

treatment and other service providers in identifying and addressing needed areas of intervention. 

Tables and graphics may also help clients and families recognize accomplishments and areas for 

improvement, and assist multi-disciplinary team members, the courts, and other legal decision 

makers develop case plans that promote desistance from offending. 

Linking Ratings to Interventions 

Scale ratings can be helpful for developing case and treatment plans that address identified needs. 

Following the initial assessment, reassessments may point to areas of progress or, conversely, 

continued or increased difficulties. Such information may suggest whether interventions should be 

continued, changed or, when appropriate, concluded. 

As noted in the table below, item ratings suggest the extent to which intervention may currently 

be needed. 

RATING INTERVENTION NEED 

0 No intervention needed. 

1 No further intervention needed, or a brief intervention to help correct a 

minor problem and/or facilitate and/or reinforce strengths and protective 

factors. 

2 Requires appropriate intervention. 

3 Requires intensive intervention 

Individualizing Case & Treatment Plans 

Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model: 

Consistent with the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010), clients 

who have many intervention needs, (i.e., many 2’s and 3’s), may require more intensive 

interventions that provide good support and supervision (e.g., frequent appointments and treatment 

sessions throughout the week and a longer duration of services). Clients who have few intervention 

needs, (i.e., a large proportion of 0’s and 1’s) may need limited interventions (e.g., possibly shortYouth Need and Progress Scale, p. 9 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

term treatment and weekly sessions) or, perhaps, no interventions beyond what they have already 

experienced. Reviews of the rating scale summary forms may help make such determinations. 

Individual Scale Item Ratings: 

When designing treatment and case plans, specific item ratings may help identify current 

intervention needs. Identified needs may indicate appropriate intervention strategies that can help 

address the client’s needs. For example, interventions that have been shown to be effective for 

helping clients address emotion management problems may be recommended or provided when 

Emotion Management has been identified as a moderate or strong need. 

There may be instances when a 0 (No Need) or a 1 (Possible or Limited Intervention Need) is rated 

and interventions appear warranted. For example, although a rating of “0” indicates that no need

for intervention was noted during the rating period, the domain may have previously been rated as 

a concern. In such cases, a longer period of support and monitoring may be justified to ensure 

continued positive functioning. In such an instance, the rating of 0 should not be changed if it 

accurately reflects what was observed during the most recent rating period, but the possible need 

for further support and monitoring can be added to the client’s case or treatment plan.

By definition, up to a few minor problems may be indicated by a rating of a 1. These difficulties 

may be developmentally normative (e.g., inappropriate sexual comments, underage drinking), but 

if such behaviors continue, they may result in the client getting into further trouble. Thus, 

interventions may be recommended or provided when a 1 is rated to address minor behavior 

problems, to maintain or increase strengths, and promote possible protective factors (e.g., enhance 

available supports and supervision). 

Patterns indicated by item ratings: 

In addition to using specific items to identify intervention needs, patterns and groupings of items 

may indicate a need for a specific type of intervention. For example, some clients may have 

moderate and strong intervention needs on general behavior management items, but not on items 

specific to abusive sexual behavior. These individuals may benefit most from interventions that 

specifically address antisocial thinking and behavior management. Conversely, some clients may 

have limited general behavior problems, but evidence moderate to strong intervention needs with 

respect to their current sexual thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. These individuals may benefit 

from interventions more focused on healthy sexual attitudes and behavior. Further, when caregiver 

support and family functioning are moderate or strong treatment needs, those areas will warrant 

intervention. 

Considering other factors: 

When developing case and treatment plans, an array of risk-relevant historical factors and dynamic 

influences not included in the scale require consideration. For example, it is possible that various 

sources of information may suggest that a client with a history of violent offending that precedes 

the 3-month YNPS rating timeframe may benefit from more intensive services, in spite of 

appropriate self-management in recent months. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 10 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

There may also be individual or family characteristics that suggest particular treatment approaches 

or styles may be best. For example, clients with cognitive challenges and/or developmental 

disabilities may benefit most from interventions that are tailored to their individual learning styles. 

In general, interventions that consider age and development, religious and cultural preferences, 

gender, and other individual and/or family characteristics may be more effective than those that 

do not take these factors into consideration. 

Importantly, case and treatment plans must be realistic, and the availability of appropriate services 

must be considered. Interventions should be prioritized to adequately address client needs and 

maximize safety, yet not overwhelm the client and family members with too many appointments, 

commitments, and expenses. To the extent possible, case and treatment plans should be 

individualized to appropriately meet client needs and maximize the likelihood of success. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 11 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale 

1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual Behavior 

Definition: Good understanding of appropriate sexual behavior involves awareness of society’s 

sexual behavior expectations and laws. Poor understanding of appropriate sexual behavior may 

be reflected in a lack of knowledge of what is considered consensual and legal sexual behavior. 

NOTE: 

➢ Understanding what is appropriate sexual behavior does not always translate into 

engaging in proper and legal behavior. For example, understanding but 

disregarding rules for appropriate sexual behavior should be rated in Item 6 

(Sexual Behavior Management). This item is only concerned with how well the 

client understands what is appropriate sexual behavior. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of appropriate sexual behavior is regularly 

good. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of appropriate sexual behavior is usually good 

with no more than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of appropriate sexual behavior is occasionally 

poor. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of appropriate sexual behavior is often poor. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 12 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Understanding the Consequences of Sexual Abuse 

Definition: Good understanding of the consequences of abusive sexual behavior consists of 

knowing how all people involved may be affected (e.g., emotionally, physically, legally). Those 

affected may include the persons who were the focus of the abusive sexual behavior, their family 

and friends, the client, the client’s family and friends, and the larger community. Poor 

understanding of the consequences of abusive sexual behavior may be reflected by a lack of 

knowledge of the effects of such behavior. 

NOTE: 

➢ Understanding the consequences of abusive sexual behavior does not always 

translate into engaging in proper and legal behavior. Nonetheless, this item is only 

concerned with how well the client understands the consequences. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of the consequences of abusive sexual behavior 

is regularly good. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of the consequences of abusive sexual behavior 

is usually good with no more than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of the consequences of abusive sexual behavior 

is occasionally poor. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s understanding of the consequences of abusive sexual behavior 

is often poor. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 13 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency 

Definition: This item concerns the extent to which the frequency of sexual thoughts is suitable 

for the person and situation. The frequency of sexual thoughts may be suitable when clients do 

not experience them as excessively distracting and when they are fitting for a given situation 

(e.g., when seeing a person whom the client finds sexually attractive). In contrast, the frequency 

of sexual thoughts is unsuitable when the sexual thoughts preoccupy clients and interfere with 

important areas of functioning, such as being able to concentrate on a task or assignment. 

NOTE: 

➢ When rating this item, it is important to remember that adolescence is a period of 

heightened sexual interest and arousal. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

The frequency of the client’s sexual thoughts is regularly suitable. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

The frequency of the client’s sexual thoughts is usually suitable with 

no more than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

The frequency of the client’s sexual thoughts is occasionally 

unsuitable and the thoughts preoccupy the client. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

The frequency of the client’s sexual thoughts is often unsuitable and 

the thoughts preoccupy the client. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 14 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

4. Sexual Interests – Age and Consent 

Definition: This item concerns the extent to which clients are sexually interested in consenting 

sexual activity with age-appropriate partner(s) rather than abusive sexual behavior. 

NOTE: 

➢ Prior sexual offenses do not necessarily reflect current or persisting sexual 

interests in abusive sexual activity. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s sexual interests regularly involve consenting sexual activity 

with age-appropriate partner(s). 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s sexual interests usually involve consenting sexual activity 

with age-appropriate partner(s) with no more than a few minor 

exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s sexual interests occasionally involve abusive sexual activities. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s sexual interests often involve abusive sexual activities. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 15 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

5. Sexual Attitudes and Beliefs 

Definition: Prosocial attitudes and beliefs regarding sexual behavior support consenting sexual 

activity with age-appropriate partner(s). Problematic attitudes and beliefs regarding sexual 

behavior support abusive sexual behavior. 

NOTE: 

➢ This item concerns attitudes and beliefs and cannot be inferred simply from prior 

offenses or behavior. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs regularly support consenting sexual 

behavior with age-appropriate partner(s). 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs usually support consenting sexual 

behavior with age-appropriate partner(s) with no more than a few 

minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs occasionally support abusive sexual 

behavior. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs often support abusive sexual behavior. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 16 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. Sexual Behavior Management 

Definition: Appropriate management of sexual behavior involves the extent to which clients 

behave in safe, legal, and socially appropriate ways. Inappropriately managed sexual behavior 

may include contact or noncontact offensive, coercive, assaultive and/or otherwise illegal sexual 

behavior, or sexual behavior that interferes with important areas of functioning (e.g., family or 

peer relationships, school, or work). 

NOTE: 

➢ Incidents involving actual or attempted abusive sexual behavior reflect a moderate 

(2) or strong (3) intervention need regardless of frequency. The specific rating will 

depend on factors such as when the incident(s) occurred during the rating period 

(e.g., early on or recently) and what has happened since (e.g., continued problems 

or improved behavior management). 

➢ Sexual behavior in a treatment facility that violates agency rules, but would be legal 

in the community, may be rated as an intervention need if it could lead to further 

problems for the client (e.g., disciplinary sanctions). 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client regularly manages sexual behavior appropriately. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client usually manages sexual behavior appropriately with no more 

than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client occasionally manages sexual behavior inappropriately. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client often manages sexual behavior inappropriately. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 17 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

7. Compassion for Others 

Definition: Compassion concerns the extent to which clients care about and are kind to others, 

and is demonstrated by supporting and helping others in need. A lack of compassion is 

evidenced by not caring about others, not supporting or helping others when needed and, at an 

extreme, by insensitive or callous indifference and/or cruelty to others. 

NOTE: 

➢ Minimizing, denying, or rationalizing past offenses does not automatically imply a 

lack of compassion. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client regularly evidences compassion for others. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client usually evidences compassion for others with no more than a 

few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client occasionally evidences a lack of compassion for others. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client often evidences a lack of compassion for others. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 18 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Relationships with Peers 

Definition: For individuals 17 years or younger, peers are defined as nonfamilial age-mates 

generally within three years of the client’s age. For individuals 18 years and older, peers may 

include a wider age range. This item concerns the presence, nature, and quality of the client’s

peer relationships. 

Good peer relationships involve mutually supportive, casual, or close friendships with one or 

more age-mates whose attitudes and beliefs generally support socially responsible and lawabiding behavior. Poor peer relationships may involve casual or close friendships with one or 

more age-mates whose attitudes and beliefs generally support irresponsible, rule-violating, or 

illegal behavior and who may engage in such behavior, and who negatively influence the client. 

Poor peer relationships also may be indicated by an absence of peer relationships, friendships 

with individuals who are not peer-aged, and/or by social isolation. 

NOTE: 

➢ If the client is currently in a treatment or a correctional facility, positive peer 

relationships may be observed when clients typically associate with others peers 

who are engaged in constructive activities (e.g., school, treatment, and prosocial 

endeavors). 

➢ If peer relationships are primarily limited to online activities, consider the quality 

and frequency of these contacts. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s peer relationships are regularly good. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s peer relationships are usually good with no more than a few 

minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s peer relationships are occasionally poor and/or involve social 

isolation. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s peer relationships are often poor and/or client is socially 

isolated. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 19 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. Emotion Management 

Definition: Appropriate emotion management is evidenced by clients recognizing their 

emotions, expressing them properly, and regulating them in ways that are not harmful to self or 

others (e.g., using stress-management strategies when upset, such as taking time out or seeking 

support). Inappropriate emotion management may include ignoring feelings, keeping feelings 

pent up, lashing out at others, or unhealthy attempts to cope with strong emotions (e.g., using 

alcohol or drugs, having temper outbursts, engaging in destruction of property, or injury to self 

or others). 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client regularly manages emotions appropriately. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client usually manages emotions appropriately with no more than a 

few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client occasionally manages emotions inappropriately. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client often manages emotions inappropriately. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 20 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Social Skills 

Definition: Good social skills include such things as listening to others, understanding 

nonverbal social cues, taking turns when talking, maintaining proper personal space, and 

responding appropriately. Poor social skills include such things as not listening, difficulties 

understanding nonverbal social cues, interrupting or talking over others, violating personal 

space, and not responding appropriately. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s social skills are regularly good. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s social skills are usually good with no more than a few minor 

exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s social skills are occasionally poor. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s social skills are often poor. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 21 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

11. Self-Confidence 

Definition: Good self-confidence is indicated by the extent to which clients believe in their ability 

to effect and maintain positive life changes for themselves. Poor self-confidence may be 

indicated by the extent to which clients doubt their ability to be successful or to effect and 

maintain positive changes. Importantly, poor self-confidence can also be indicated by clients 

having excessive confidence in their abilities to make and maintain positive life changes in spite 

of the absence of skills or other supporting evidence congruent with their unwarranted belief. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client regularly evidences good self-confidence. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client usually evidences good self-confidence with no more than a few 

minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client occasionally evidences poor self-confidence. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client often evidences poor self-confidence. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 22 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

12. School and Work Commitment 

Definition: Commitment to school and/or work is indicated by clients generally doing the best 

that they can in school and/or in the workplace. Commitment may be exampled by appropriate 

effort, sincere attempts to complete assignments, and regular attendance. Lack of commitment 

may be indicated by clients generally demonstrating poor effort and motivation, truancy, 

absenteeism, and/or behavior problems. 

NOTE: 

➢ If the client is presently on a school break and is not of employment age, use the 

last 3-month period when attending school. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s commitment to school and/or work is regularly apparent. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s commitment to school and/or work is usually apparent with no 

more than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s lack of commitment to school and/or work is occasionally 

apparent. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s lack of commitment to school and/or work is often apparent. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 23 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

13. Use of Unstructured Time 

Definition: Unstructured time occurs when clients are not required to engage in prescribed 

activities, such as school, work, household chores, family gatherings, or during unscheduled 

time in residential facilities. 

Unstructured time that is used well involves engaging in activities that promote positive 

relationships and/or provide opportunities for healthy outlets. Unstructured time that is used 

poorly includes spending an inordinate amount of time engaged in solitary activities and/or 

engaging in rule-breaking or otherwise illegal behavior. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client regularly uses unstructured time well. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client usually uses unstructured time well with no more than a few 

minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client occasionally uses unstructured time poorly. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client often uses unstructured time poorly. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 24 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes and Beliefs 

Definition: Prosocial attitudes and beliefs regarding nonsexual behavior support socially 

appropriate, rule-abiding, and/or legal, nonsexual behavior. Problematic attitudes and beliefs 

regarding nonsexual behavior support socially inappropriate, rule-violating, and/or illegal 

nonsexual behavior. 

NOTE: 

➢ This item concerns attitudes and beliefs and cannot be inferred simply from prior 

offenses or behavior. 

➢ Attitudes and beliefs regarding sexual behavior are rated on Item 5 (Sexual 

Attitudes and Beliefs). 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs regularly support socially appropriate and 

law-abiding nonsexual behavior. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs usually support socially appropriate and 

law-abiding nonsexual behavior with no more than a few minor 

exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs occasionally support socially 

inappropriate, rule-violating, and/or illegal nonsexual behavior. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s attitudes and beliefs often support socially inappropriate, ruleviolating, and/or illegal nonsexual behavior. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 25 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management 

Definition: Appropriate management of nonsexual behavior involves the extent to which clients 

behave in safe, legal, and socially appropriate ways. Inappropriately managed nonsexual 

behavior may include contact or noncontact offensive, coercive, aggressive, and otherwise 

illegal behaviors that interfere with important areas of functioning (e.g., family or peer 

relationships, school or work). 

NOTE: 

➢ Violent or assaultive incidents that risked or caused injury to self, others, or 

property reflect a moderate (2) or strong (3) intervention need regardless of 

frequency. The specific rating will depend on factors such as when the incident(s) 

occurred during the rating period (e.g., early on or recently) and what has 

happened since (e.g., continued problems or improved behavior management). 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client regularly manages nonsexual behavior appropriately. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client usually manages nonsexual behavior appropriately with no 

more than a few minor exceptions not involving violent or assaultive 

behavior. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client occasionally manages nonsexual behavior inappropriately. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client often manages nonsexual behavior inappropriately. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 26 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver Relationship 

Definition: A Primary Caregiver is a person in a parenting role who is viewed by clients as most 

influential in their life during the current rating period. Clients experiencing a positive 

relationship with a Primary Caregiver typically describe the relationship as caring, helpful, and 

supportive. Clients experiencing a negative relationship with a Primary Caregiver usually 

describe the relationship as uncaring, unhelpful, and unsupportive; possibly rejecting, 

neglectful, and/or abusive. 

NOTE: 

➢ This item assesses the client’s view of the relationship. 

➢ When there are multiple caregivers involved in the client’s life, rate this item based

on the caregiver the client identifies as currently most influential. 

➢ If the client is living independently as an adult and no longer has a Primary 

Caregiver, rate as No Intervention Need (0). 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates regularly having a positive relationship with a Primary 

Caregiver. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates usually having a positive relationship with a Primary 

Caregiver with no more than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates occasionally having a negative relationship with a 

Primary Caregiver. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates often having a negative relationship with a Primary 

Caregiver. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 27 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult Relationships 

Definition: This item concerns how clients view their relationships with one or more supportive 

adults during the current rating period. It does not include the Primary Caregiver relationship 

rated in Item 16. Supportive adults with whom clients have positive relationships are 

experienced as providing genuine interest, guidance, and positive encouragement. In contrast, 

clients may lack even one such supportive, positive relationship, or they may only experience 

relationships with adults who provide little interest, guidance, or positive encouragement. 

NOTE: 

➢ For clients 18 years and older, this item does not include peer relationships rated 

on Item 8, but adults who may serve more as a guide, support, or mentor rather 

than as a peer. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates regularly having a positive relationship with one or 

more supportive adults. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates usually having a positive relationship with one or more 

supportive adults with no more than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates occasionally lacking a positive relationship with any 

supportive adult. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client indicates often lacking a positive relationship with any 

supportive adults. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 28 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18. Family Functioning 

Definition: Families include persons considered to be members of a client’s primary social unit

either by birth, adoption, fostering, or marriage. As such, family members may include parents 

or substitute caregivers, siblings or other children cared for by the client’s caregivers, and/or

extended family members living in the home. In cases involving young adult clients, family units 

may include adult partners or spouses. 

Good family functioning may involve family members providing clients with emotional support, 

encouragement, guidance, and participation in suggested interventions. By contrast, poor 

family functioning may involve a lack of such support and, at an extreme, rejecting, hostile, or 

otherwise abusive behavior toward clients. In addition, troublesome family relationships that 

contribute to poor family functioning may involve situations when a family member has been 

abused by a client and relationships remain strained. 

NOTE: 

➢ Although relationships with individual family members may vary, ratings of this item 

are based on overall family functioning. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Family functioning is regularly good. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Family functioning is usually good with no more than a few minor 

exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Family functioning is occasionally poor. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Family functioning is often poor. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 29 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. Living Situation - Safety and Stability 

Definition: Safety and stability in the living situation concerns the extent to which the family 

home or alternative residence provides a safe, consistent, and stable environment that is 

generally free from severe and chronic stressors. Unsafe and unstable living situations include 

the presence of significant stressors such as exposure to or experiencing violence, neglect of 

basic needs, frequent changes in household members, living with people engaging in substance 

abuse or with uncontrolled mental health problems, and/or not providing the client with 

adequate supervision when expected to do so. 

NOTE: 

➢ When the client has changed residences during the past 3 months, consider the 

safety and stability of the current living situation. 

➢ If a change in the client’s living situation is imminent, consider the safety and

stability of the planned residence. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Safe and stable living conditions are regularly experienced. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Safe and stable living conditions are usually experienced with no more 

than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Unsafe and/or unstable living conditions are occasionally experienced. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Unsafe and/or unstable living conditions are often experienced. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 30 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. Involvement in Community Resources 

Definition: Involvement in community resources concerns clients’ (and sometimes their

families’) engagement in available community services and supports that may promote the

health and safety of clients returning to and/or living in the community (e.g., housing assistance, 

job training programs, tutoring, after school activities). A lack of involvement may be indicated 

by minimal or no engagement in available supports that may promote healthy and safe living. 

NOTE: 

➢ Rate as a No Intervention Need (0) if community resources are not needed at this 

time. 

➢ If the client is currently in a residential facility, rate based on the client’s access to

community and/or community resources that are available while in residence (e.g., 

community-based mentors who visit in the facility). 

➢ If the client, or client and family, would benefit from community resources that are 

unavailable, rate this item to reflect client need and seek or refer for services that 

may help meet this need. 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client is regularly involved with community resources or community 

resources are not needed at this time. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client is usually involved with community resources with no more 

than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client occasionally lacks involvement with community resources. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client often lacks involvement with community resources. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 31 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Mental Health Management 

Definition: Mental health concerns may interfere with engagement and participation in 

interventions. Good management may be indicated by no symptoms, or relatively few symptoms, 

of mental health concerns and/or active participation in recommended mental health services. 

Poor management may be indicated by symptoms of mental health concerns interfering with 

active participation in interventions. 

NOTE: 

➢ When clients do not have mental health concerns that interfere with interventions, 

rate as No Intervention Need (0). 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client’s mental health concerns are regularly well-managed or client 

does not have mental health concerns. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s mental health concerns are usually well-managed with no more 

than a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s mental health concerns are occasionally managed poorly. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client’s mental health concerns are often managed poorly. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 32 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

22. Participation in Interventions 

Definition: Good participation in relevant, offense-related interventions (e.g., sex offense and/or 

delinquency treatments, juvenile or adult probation, community service) is demonstrated by 

such things as regular attendance, active involvement in sessions, completing assignments, and 

generalizing new learning (e.g., using what is learned in various situations). Poor participation 

may be demonstrated by such things as lateness, irregular attendance, a lack of involvement in 

sessions, not completing assignments, and/or a lack of generalization of new learning. 

NOTE: 

➢ When offense-related interventions are not needed, rate as No Intervention Need 

(0). 

Current Rating (past 3 months): 

0 = No Intervention 

Need 

Client participation in interventions is regularly good or offense-related 

interventions are not needed. 

1 = Possible/Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Client participation in interventions is usually good with no more than 

a few minor exceptions. 

2 = Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Client participation in interventions is occasionally poor. 

3 = Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Client participation in interventions is often poor. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 33 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Rating Form 

Name: _______________________ ID # __________________ DOB: ____________ 

1st Assess. ____ Re- Assess. ____ Discharge Assess. ____ No. of sessions this period: ____ 

Completed by: ______________________________________ Date: __________________ 

Item 

No 

Intervention 

Need 

Possible / 

Limited 

Intervention 

Need 

Moderate 

Intervention 

Need 

Strong 

Intervention 

Need 

Unable 

to rate 

1. Understanding Appropriate Sexual 

Behavior 

0 1 2 3 

2. Understanding the Consequences of 

Sexual Abuse 

0 1 2 3 

3. Sexual Thoughts – Frequency 0 1 2 3 

4. Sexual Interests - Age & Consent 0 1 2 3 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs 0 1 2 3 

6. Sexual Behavior Management 0 1 2 3 

7. Compassion for Others 0 1 2 3 

8. Relationships with Peers 0 1 2 3 

9. Emotion Management 0 1 2 3 

10. Social Skills 0 1 2 3 

11. Self-confidence 0 1 2 3 

12. School & Work Commitment 0 1 2 3 

13. Use of Unstructured Time 0 1 2 3 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes and 

Beliefs 

0 1 2 3 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management 0 1 2 3 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver 

Relationship 

0 1 2 3 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult 

Relationships 

0 1 2 3 

18. Family Functioning 0 1 2 3 

19. Living Situation - Safety & Stability 0 1 2 3 

20. Involvement in Community Resources 0 1 2 3 

21. Mental Health Management 0 1 2 3 

22. Participation in Interventions 0 1 2 3 

Tally ratings endorsed per column: 

(Number of 0’s, 1’s, 2’s, 3’s & unable to rate)

Total Need Score: (Sum of all 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s): _________ 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 34 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Progress Over Time - Rating Form 

Name: __________________________ ID # _________ Age: ______ 

Type of assessment: 

Initial 

assessment 

Reassessment 

T1 

Reassessment 

T2 

Reassessment 

T3 

Reassessment 

T4 

Assessment Date: 

1. Understanding Appropriate 

Sexual Behavior 

2. Understanding the Consequences 

of Sexual Abuse 

3. Sexual Thoughts - Frequency 

4. Sexual Interests - Age & Consent 

5. Sexual Attitudes & Beliefs 

6. Sexual Behavior Management 

7. Compassion for Others 

8. Relationships with Peers 

9. Emotion Management 

10. Social Skills 

11. Self-confidence 

12. School & Work Commitment 

13. Use of Unstructured Time 

14. Nonsexual Behavior Attitudes and 

Beliefs 

15. Nonsexual Behavior Management 

16. Client View of Primary Caregiver 

Relationship 

17. Client View of Supportive Adult 

Relationships 

18. Family Functioning 

19. Living Situation - Safety & 

Stability 

20. Involvement in Community 

Resources 

21. Mental Health Management 

22. Participation in Interventions 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 35 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Proportion of Needs - Summary 

➢ Proportion of no or possible/limited needs versus clear intervention needs: 

To calculate the extent to which the client has no or limited intervention needs, add the number 

of ratings endorsed in the categories No and Possible/Limited Intervention Need [0, 1] and 

divide the total by the number of scale items rated as a 0, 1, 2, or 3, i.e., all 22 items if every 

scale item is rated and no items had insufficient information for a rating (endorsed as “unable

to rate” on the Rating Form). Similarly, to calculate the extent to which Moderate and Strong 

Intervention Needs [2, 3] are present, divide the total number of items tallied in these two 

categories by the total number. 

• Proportion of No or Possible/Limited Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 0 or 1 / Total number of items rated] 

• Proportion of Moderate or Strong Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 2 or 3 / Total number of items rated] 

➢ Proportion of items unable to rate (insufficient information) 

To determine the extent to which further information is needed to adequately rate this scale, 

tally the number of items endorsed as “unable to rate” and divide by the total number of items

in the scale (22). 

• Proportion of items checked “unable to rate” ________% 

[Number of items rated “unable to rate” / 22 Scale Items]

➢ Proportion of intervention need by strength: 

To calculate the extent to which possible or actual intervention needs are present add the 

number of ratings endorsed [possible range: 0-22] per category [0, 1, 2, 3]. Divide the total 

number of items tallied in each category by the total number of scale items rated in each 

category, i.e., all 22 items if every scale item is rated and no items had insufficient 

information for a rating (endorsed as “unable to rate” on the Rating Form). 

• Proportion of ratings of 0; No Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 0 / Total number of items rated] 

• Proportion of ratings of 1; Possible/Limited Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 1 / Total number of items rated] 

• Proportion of ratings of 2; Moderate Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 2 / Total number of items rated] 

• Proportion of ratings of 3; Strong Intervention Needs _________% 

[Number of items rated 3 / Total number of items rated] 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 36 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Youth Needs and Progress Scale: Proportion of Needs Over Time - Summary 

Name: __________________________ ID # _________ Age: ______ 

Assessment type: Initial 

Assessment 

ReAssessment 

T1 

ReAssessment 

T2 

ReAssessment 

T3 

ReAssessment 

T4 

Assessment Date: 

Proportion No or Possible/Limited 

Intervention Needs 

Proportion Moderate or Strong 

Intervention Needs 

Proportion of items checked “unable 

to rate”

Proportion of ratings of 0; No 

Intervention Needs 

Proportion of ratings of 1; 

Possible/Limited Intervention Needs 

Proportion of ratings of 2; Moderate 

Intervention Needs 

Proportion of ratings of 3; Strong 

Intervention Needs 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 37 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

References 

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Matthew Benmder & 

Company. Inc., Lexis Nexis Group. 

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Anderson Publishing 

Co. 

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: 

Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 38(7), 735-755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811406356 

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (2017). Practice guidelines for assessment, 

treatment, and intervention with adolescents who have engaged in sexually abusive behavior. 

Author. 

Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 35, 

320-335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.4.320 

Bonnie, R. J., & Scott, E. S. (2013). The teenage brain: Adolescent brain research and the law. 

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 158-161. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412471678 

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Anderson. 

Caldwell, M. F. (2016). Quantifying the decline in juvenile sexual recidivism rates. Psychology, 

Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 414-426. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000094 

Cauffman, E. & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents 

may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 741-760. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.416 

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2019, February). Youth violence: Risk and protective 

factors. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html 

Cicchetti, D. (2010). Resilience under conditions of extreme stress: a multilevel perspective. 

World Psychiatry, 9(3), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2051-5545.2010.tb00297.x 

Development Services Group, Inc. 2015a. Risk factors for delinquency. Literature review. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Risk%20Factors.pdf Prepared by Development Services 

Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 38 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Development Services Group, Inc. 2015b. Protective factors for delinquency. Literature review. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Protective%20Factors.pdfPrepared by Development 

Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. 

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D.A., (1999, May). What works in young offender treatment: A metaanalysis. Forum on Corrections Research, 11(2), 21-24. https://www.cscscc.gc.ca/research/forum/e112/112e_e.pdf. 

Frey, L. (2010). The juvenile female sexual offenders: Characteristics, treatment and research. 

In: T.A. Gannon, & F. Cortoni, Eds. (2010). Female sexual offenders: Theory, assessment and 

treatment (pp. 53-72), John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470666715 . 

Frey, L. (2017). Adolescent females who have sexually abused. In S. Righthand and W. Murphy 

(Eds). The Safer Society handbook of assessment and treatment with adolescents who have 

sexually offended (pp. 397-428). Safer Society Press. 

Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective 

correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 36, 865-891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809338545 

Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of 

sexual assault recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(1), 6-35. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027001002 

Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Letourneau, E., Helmus, L. M., & Thornton, D. (2018). 

Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not 

always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 48-63. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000135 

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: 

A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 

1154-1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154 

Helmus, L., Hanson, R. K., Babchishin, K. M., & Mann, R. E. (2013). Attitudes supportive of 

sexual offending predict recidivism: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14(1) 34-53. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012462244 

Hoge, R. (2016). Risk, need, and responsivity in juveniles. In K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, & N. 

Goldstein (Eds), (pp.), in Handbook of psychology and juvenile justice. Washington, D.C.: 

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000135 

Kang, T., Beltrani, A., Manheim, M. Spriggs, S. Sinclair, S., Stachniuk, M., Righthand, S., 

Worling, J., & Prentky, R. (2019). Development of a risk / treatment needs & progress protocol 

for juveniles with sex offenses. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 5(2), 154-169. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000191. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 39 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violence and serious delinquency in 

adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber, & D.P., 

Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful 

interventions (pp. 86-105). Sage Publications. 

Lussier, P. & Chouinard Thivierge, S.C., (2017). A developmental life course view of juvenile 

sexual offending: Key issues and assumptions. In S. Righthand and W. Murphy (Eds). The Safer 

Society handbook of assessment and treatment with adolescents who have sexually abused. (pp. 

77-108). Safer Society Press. 

Nunes, K. L., Hanson, R. K., Firestone, P., Moulden, H. M., Greenberg, D. M., & Bradford, J. 

M. (2007). Denial predicts recidivism for some sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse 19, 91-105. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900202 

Powell, K.M., (2017). Engaging Adolescents and Families. In S. Righthand and W. Murphy 

(Eds). The Safer Society handbook of assessment and treatment with adolescents who have 

sexually offended (pp. 215-251). Safer Society Press. 

Prentky, R. A., Righthand, S., & Lamade, R. (2015). Juvenile Sexual Offending: Assessment and 

Intervention. Eds., K. Heilbrun, D. DeMatteo, & N. Goldstein (pp. 641-672), in Handbook of 

psychology and juvenile justice. American Psychological Association. 

Righthand, S., Baird, B., Way, I & Seto, M. (2014). Effective intervention with adolescents who 

have offended sexually: Translating research into practice. Safer Society Press. 

Righthand, S., Vincent, G., & Huff, R. (2017). Assessing risks and needs with adolescents who 

have sexually offended: Research-based guidelines. In: Sue Righthand & William Murphy 

(Eds.), The Safer Society handbook of assessment and treatment with adolescents who have 

sexually offended (pp. 175-214). Safer Society Press. 

Serin, R.C., & Lloyd, C.D., (2017). Understanding the Risk Need, Responsivity (RNR) model 

and crime desistance perspective and integrating them into correctional practice. 

https://carleton.ca/cjdml/wp-content/uploads/Crime-desistance-and-RNR-final.pdf 

Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: 

A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims & 

Offenders, 4(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612581 

Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical 

Psychology, 5, 459-485. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clJ-SPINy.032408.153603 

Viljoen, J. L., Mordell, S., & Beneteau, J. L. (2012). Prediction of adolescent sexual reoffending: 

A meta-analysis of the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II, and Static-99. Law and Human 

Behavior, 36, 423-438. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093938 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 40 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Vincent, G.M., Guy, L.S. & Grisso, T. (2012, November). Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A 

guidebook for implementation. Models for Change: System Reform in Juvenile Justice: John D. 

and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/346 

Vitacco M. J., Caldwell M., Ryba N. L., Malesky A., & Kurus S. J. (2009). Assessing risk in 

adolescent sexual offenders: Recommendations for clinical practice. Behavioral Sciences and the 

Law, 27, 929-40. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.909 

Worling, J. R., & Langton, C. M. (2015). A prospective investigation of factors that predict 

desistance from recidivism for adolescents who have sexually offended. Sexual Abuse, 27, 127-

142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214549260 

Worling, J. R., & Långström, N. (2003). Assessment of criminal recidivism risk with adolescents 

who have offended sexually: A review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(4), 341-362. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003256562 

Worling, J. R., & Långström, N. (2006). Risk of sexual recidivism in adolescents who offend 

sexually: Correlates and assessment. In H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The juvenile sex 

offender (pp. 219–247). Guilford Press. 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 41 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

Core Project Staff 

Principal Investigator Co-Principal Investigator 

Robert A. Prentky, Ph.D. Sue Righthand, Ph.D. 

Fairleigh Dickinson University University of Maine 

201-692-2649 207-594-7880 

rprentky@fdu.edu sue.righthand@gmail.com 

Chief Consultant Project Manager 

James Worling, Ph.D. Tamara Kang, Ph.D. 

Private Practice Southern Illinois University 

jamesworling@gmail.com 618-727-3700 

tamara.kang@siu.edu 

Youth Need and Progress Scale, p. 42 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
153

Appendix D: Data Codebook 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

154

Codebook REDCap Data Set—DOJ TNPS Project 

Updated 31 December 2019 

Table of Contents 

▪ Part I: p. 1-2 General Information: Intro to historical items 

▪ Part II: p. 3-7 Historical items 

▪ Part III: p. 8 General Information: Intro Treatment Needs & Progress Scale 

▪ Part IV: p. 9 Dynamic items on Treatment Needs & Progress Scale –Test Version 

**“R” after variable name = recoded variable 

dIDdup = De-identifier with duplicates for the repeated assessments 

dIDu = Unique numeric de-ID 

PART I: General Information: Intro to Historical Items 

1) Assessmt (Order of TNPS assessments) 

0 0. Initial TNPS assessment & historical items 

1 1. 1st TNPS reassessment 

2 2. 2nd TNPS reassessment 

3 3. 3rd TNPS reassessment 

4 4. 4th TNPS reassessment 

5 5. 5th TNPS reassessment 

6 6. 6th TNPS reassessment 

7 7. 7th TNPS reassessment 

8 8. 8th TNPS assessment 

2) I1Carelevel (I1. Level of care at the time of the intake assessment) 

0 0. Community 

1 1. Secure facility 

3) I2evaldatei (I2. Date of historical items assessment) 

Actual date xx/xx/xxx 

4) I3ageyri (Age in years at initial historical items assessment) 

Actual age xx 

5) I3ageyriR (Age categorized into 2 groups) 

(original version is a continuous variable) 

0 0. age 14-17 

1 1. age >18 

6) I4newjso (Was the youth in treatment prior to TNPS assessment) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

155

7) Sex 

0 

1 

0. Male 

1. Female 

8) Race / Ethnicity 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

5 

1. African American / Black 

2. Asian 

3. Hispanic / Latino 

4. Native American 

5. Other 

6. European American / White 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

156

PART II: Historical Items 

1) h1npsb (h1 ORIGINAL: Number of problematic sexual behavior (PSB) incidents) 

0 0. 1 instance 

1 1. 2-3 instances 

2 2. 3-5 instances 

3 3. 6 or more instances 

2) h1npsbR (h1 RECODED: Number of instances of abusive sexual behavior with condensed categorization) 

0 0. None 

1 1. One to two 

2 2. 3 or more 

3) h2nsav (h2 ORIGINAL: Number of sexual abuse victims) 

0 0. 1 known victim 

1 1. 2 known victims 

2 2. 3-5 known victims 

3 3. 6 or more known victims 

4) h2nsavR (h2 RECODED: Number of sexual abuse victims with condensed categorization) 

0 0. 1 known victim 

1 1. 2-3 known victims 

2 2. 2 or more known victims 

5) h6nncon (h6 ORIGINAL: Number of non-contact offenses) 

Actual number xx 

6) h6nnconR (h6 RECODED: Number of non-contact offenses—original version is a continuous variable) 

0 0. None 

1 1. 1-2 

2 2. 3 or more 

7) h7naiicon (h7 ORIGINAL: Continuous variable) 

Actual number xx 

8) h7naiiconR (h7 RECODED: Number of credible contact (hands-on) abusive sexual behavior) 

0 0. None 

1 1. 1-2 

2 2. 3 or more 

9) h8nchcon (h8 ORIGINAL: Number of charged contact (hands on) offenses—continuous variable) 

Actual number xx 

10) h8nchconR (h8 RECODED: Number of charged contact (hands on) offenses) 

(original version is a continuous variable) 

0 0. None 

1 1. 1-2 

2 2. 3 or more 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
157

11) h9peerv (h9: All victims are peers and/or adults) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

12) h10mixagev (h10: Mixed aged victims) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

13) h12anchildv (h12a. # of boy victims under age 12) 

Actual number xx 

14) h12bnumgirls (h12b. # of girl victims under age 12) 

Actual number xx 

15) h12childmixR (RECODED items 9, 10, 11, and 12 a & b into categorical ‘Type of victims’) 

1 1. Only under age 12 victims (counts if age 14 or >) 

2 2. Mixed aged victims 

3 3. Only peer & adult victims 

16) h13cd (h13 ORIGINAL: Conduct problems prior to age 10) 

0 No evidence of any conduct or behavioral problems routinely. Evidence of sharing, helping or 

cooperating...

1 No evidence of any conduct or behavioral problems most of the time. Evidence of sharing, 

helping or...

2 Evidence of disruptive and / or aggressive behaviors that exceed what would be considered 

acceptable...

3 Evidence of varied disruptive behavior problems often, such as bullying, hitting, biting, kicking, 

lying...

4 Not enough information to rate. (* recoded 4 = missing) 

17) h13cdR (h13 RECODED: Conduct problems prior to age 10 dichotomized) 

0 0. None to minor 

1 1. Major to severe 

18) h14jd (h14 ORIGINAL: Juvenile delinquent behavioral problems) 

0 No evidence of any delinquent or antisocial behavioral problems routinely. All friends and 

activities...

1 No evidence of any delinquent, aggressive, or intentionally hurtful or disruptive behaviors most 

of the time...

2 Evidence of disruptive, antisocial behaviors occasionally. If in a group, delinquent behaviors are 

started...

3 Evidence of a pattern of disruptive and antisocial behaviors characterized by both overt and 

covert hostility...

4 Not enough information to rate. (* recoded 4 = missing) 

19) h14jdR (h14 RECODED: Juvenile delinquent behavior problems dichotomized) 

0 0. None to minor 

1 1. Major to severe 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
158

Item #15: Check all that apply—Charged Delinquent / Criminal Behavior 

Same rating system for all items below 

20) h15chdeliq1 (Sex offense only) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

21) h15chdeliq2 (Violent: persons involved, assault, fighting) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

22) h15chdeliq3 (Property: theft, larceny, robbery, burglary) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

23) h15chdeliq4 (Property: destruction) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

24) h15chdeliq5 (Fraud) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

25) h15chdeliq6 (Serious drug offense) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

26) h15chdeliq7 (Serious motor vehicle) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

27) h15chdeliq8 (Conduct offenses: disorderly conduct, probation violation) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

28) h15chdeliq9 (Cyber / Internet) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

29) h15chdeliq10 (Status offenses: runaway, truancy) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
159

Item #16 (h16) 

Same rating system for all items below 

30) h16agesa (h16a ORIGINAL: Age of 1st sexual abuse; ORIGINAL) 

1 1. N/A No Abuse 

2 2. Insufficient information / unclear 

3 3. Witnessed abuse only (saw or heard) 

4 4. Age < 6 

5 5. Age 6-11 

6 6. Age 12-14 

7 7. Age 15-18 

31) h16agepa (h16b ORIGINAL: Age of 1st physical abuse) 

1 1. N/A No Abuse 

2 2. Insufficient information / unclear 

3 3. Witnessed abuse only (saw or heard) 

4 4. Age < 6 

5 5. Age 6-11 

6 6. Age 12-14 

7 7. Age 15-18 

32) h16ageea (h16c ORIGINAL: Age of 1st psychological abuse) 

1 1. N/A No Abuse 

2 2. Insufficient information / unclear 

3 3. Witnessed abuse only (saw or heard) 

4 4. Age < 6 

5 5. Age 6-11 

6 6. Age 12-14 

7 7. Age 15-18 

33) h16ageneg (h16d ORIGINAL: Age of 1st neglect) 

1 1. N/A No Abuse 

2 2. Insufficient information / unclear 

3 3. Witnessed abuse only (saw or heard) 

4 4. Age < 6 

5 5. Age 6-11 

6 6. Age 12-14 

7 7. Age 15-18 

34) h16agesaR (h16a RECODED: Sexual abuse dichotomized yes / no) 

0 0. No abuse 

1 1. Abused 

35) h17sevsa (h17a ORIGINAL: Severity of sexual abuse) 

1 1. Insufficient information / unclear 

2 2. Minimal 

3 3. Moderate 

4 4. Severe 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
160

36) h17sevpa (h17b ORIGINAL: Severity of physical abuse) 

1 1. Insufficient information / unclear 

2 2. Minimal 

3 3. Moderate 

4 4. Severe 

37) h17sevea (h17c ORIGINAL: Severity of psychological abuse) 

1 1. Insufficient information / unclear 

2 2. Minimal 

3 3. Moderate 

4 4. Severe 

38) h17sevneg (h17d ORIGINAL: Severity of neglect) 

1 1. Insufficient information / unclear 

2 2. Minimal 

3 3. Moderate 

4 4. Severe 

39) h17sevsaR (h17a RECODED: Severity of sexual abuse dichotomized) 

0 0. Minimal 

1 1. Moderate or severe 

40) h18pi (h18 ORIGINAL: Placement instability) 

1 1. N/A No Changes 

2 2. Insufficient information / unclear 

3 1. Minimal 1 

4 4. Moderate 2-3 

5 5. Considerable 4-5 

6 6. Extensive >5 

41) h18piR (h18 RECODED INTO 2 CATEGORIES: Placement instability with condensed categorization) 

0 0. No changes or minimal 

1 1. Moderate, considerable, OR extensive 

42) h18piR (h18 RECODED INTO 4 CATEGORIES: Placement instability with condensed categorization) 

0 0. No changes 

1 1. Minimal 

2 2. Moderate 

3 3. Considerable & extensive 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
161

General Information: 

Treatment Needs & Progress Scale Intro Items 

1) A1carelevel2 (A1. Level of care at assessment) 

0 0. Supervised in community 

1 1. In a secure facility 

2) A2evaldater 

Actual date xx/xx/xxx 

3) A3ageyr 

Actual age xx 

4) A4intakecomplete2 (Was the assessment the initial intake assessment, a reassessment, or a discharge 

assessment?) 

1 1. Initial Treatment Needs & Progress Scale Assessment 

2 2. Reassessment of Treatment Needs & Progress 

3 3. Discharge assessment of Treatment Needs & Progress 

5) A5Txstatus (ORIGINAL A5: Treatment status) 

1 1. Active 

2 2. Refused 

3 3. Removed 

4 4. Dropped out 

5 5. Completed 

6 6. N/A, not applicable 

6) A5txstatusR (A5 RECODED: Treatment status dichotomized) 

0 0. Completed or active 

1 1. Refused, dropped out, kicked out, etc. 

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY 

Same rating system for all items below 

1) A6Indivdtherapy (Individual therapy) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

2) A7Familytherapy (Family therapy) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

3) A8Grouptherapy (Group therapy) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

4) A9Othertherapy (Other therapy) 

0 0. No 

1 1. Yes 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
162

Treatment Needs & Progress Scale (TNPS; 27 Dynamic Items) 

(all N/A & not enough info is coded as missing for the 27 items below) 

Same rating system for all TNPS dynamic items below 

0 0. No Treatment Need 

1 1. Possible/Limited Treatment Need 

2 2. Moderate Treatment Need 

3 3. Strong Treatment Need 

1) d1 (Frequency of sexual thoughts) 

2) d2 (Sexual interests) 

3) d3 (Sexual self-management) 

4) d4 (Understanding appropriate sexual behavior) 

5) d5 (Understanding the consequences of abuse sexual behavior) 

6) d6 (Sexual attitudes & beliefs) 

7) d7 (Behavioral self-management) 

8) d8 (School / Work) 

9) d9 (Free time) 

10) d10 (Lawful behavior) 

11) d11 (Attitudes & beliefs supporting nonsexual illegal behavior) 

12) d12 (Peer-aged friendships) 

13) d13 (Peer associations) 

14) d14 (Relationship with primary caregiver (client’s perspective)

15) d15 (Adult mentors) 

16) d16 (Social skills) 

17) d17 (Problem-solving) 

18) d18 (Emotional management) 

19) d19 (Self-efficacy) 

20) d20 (Compassion) 

21) d21 (Difficulties due to sexual abuse 

22) d22 (Difficulties due to negative nonsexual life experiences) 

23) d23 (Attitudes toward interventions) 

24) d24 (Management of co-occurring psychological & behavioral health symptoms) 

25) d25 (Supportive primary caregiver or significant other) 

26) d26 (Stability in living situation) 

27) d27 (Community Support) 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
163

Appendix E: The Natural Development of Adolescents 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
164

The Natural Development of Adolescents 

Research on Bio-physical & Cognitive Development in Adolescence 

Aristotle quipped, over 2,300 years ago, that “Youth are heated by nature as drunken men 

by wine.” And Shakespeare added, almost 400 years ago in The Winter’s Tale (Act III), “I 

would that there were no age between 10 and 23, for there’s nothing in between but getting 

wenches with child, wrongdoing the ancientry, stealing, fighting ...” Only recently, however, 

have these sage observations been supported by a wealth of empirical data demonstrating that 

adolescence is indeed a time of extraordinary maturational change in virtually all domains of 

development, from physical and biological to emotional, cognitive, neuro-cognitive, social, 

sexual, and behavioral (e.g., Albert & Steinberg, 2011; Bonnie & Scott, 2013; Borum & 

Verhaagen, 2006; Casey, Getz, & Galvan, 2008; Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Cohen et al., 

2016; Cohen & Casey, 2014; Dahl, 2001, 2003, 2004; Iselin, DeCoster, & Salekin, 2009; Luna & 

Wright, 2016; Modecki, 2008; Owen-Kostelnik, Reppucci, & Meyer, 2006; Reyna & Farley, 

2006; Spear, 2000; Steinberg, 2004, 2007, 2009; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996; Steinberg & 

Scott, 2003; van den Bos, van Dijk, Westenberg, Rombouts, & Crone, 2011). The New York 

Academy of Sciences devoted a 2003 conference entirely to the topic of Adolescent Brain 

Development (Dahl & Spear, 2004). An entire Special Issue of Current Directions in 

Psychological Science (2013) was devoted to the “teenage brain,” featuring fourteen articles. 

Risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, poor decision-making, illegal behaviors, and intense, 

unstable emotions are all normative in adolescence, not something idiosyncratic to delinquent 

youth. It is clear that even the adolescent central nervous system is developing (e.g., Giedd, 

2004; Luna & Sweeney, 2004), and that structural development corresponds with psychological 

growth. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

 

165

A particular relevance to a focus on “the teenage brain” is the timeframe for maturity of 

the prefrontal cortex (PFC), extending into the mid-twenties, in some cases age 25 (Dahl & 

Spear, 2004). The PFC is critically important in controlling impulsive decision-making. For 

example, Cohen and her colleagues (2016) found “a developmental shift in cognitive control in 

negative emotional situations during young adulthood that is paralleled by dynamic 

developmental changes in prefrontal circuitry” (p. 11). Bostic, Thurau, Potter, and Drury (2014) 

similarly noted that adolescents tend to process information less through the prefrontal cortex 

than adults, and more through the amygdala, particularly during highly emotional situations, and 

that this can lead to more erratic behaviors. 

In addition to structurally-based neurological developments, neurobehavioral changes in 

adolescence have been linked to puberty (Dahl, 2004). For example, marked changes have been 

observed in both the reproductive and stress hormones associated with maturational changes in 

several domains, including: sexual arousal, emotional intensity and lability, sleep, appetite, and 

risk taking behaviors. As Steinberg (2004) pointed out, the hedonic motive during this period of 

development “overshadows rational recognition of adverse outcomes” and “is normative, 

biologically driven and inevitable,” (pg. 57). Steinberg (2007) subsequently remarked that 

adolescence is a period of increased vulnerability for high-risk behaviors and impulsivity, due in 

part to the difference in timing of puberty onset (i.e., which leads to sensation seeking) and the 

development of the cognitive-control system (i.e., which aids in impulse control). These 

problems are only magnified by the hormonal paroxysm brought on by puberty (Beaver & 

Wright, 2005). 

The science of juvenile developmental immaturity and flux now serves as the empirical 

foundation for three important Supreme Court decisions. In the Brief submitted by the American 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

 

166

Psychological Association and the Missouri Psychological Association (Brief, 2004) in Roper v. 

Simmons (2005), the authors remarked that juveniles are “moving targets” with regard to

dangerousness risk and character assessment, as “the transitory nature of adolescence also means 

that an adolescent defendant is much more likely to change in relevant respects between the time 

of the offense and the time of assessment by courts and experts” (p. 3). In a landmark decision, 

SCOTUS held in Roper that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes 

committed while under the age of 18. In Graham v. Florida (2010), SCOTUS held that juvenile 

offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses. 

Miller v. Alabama (2012) held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole 

(LWOP) are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. In applying to those persons who had 

committed murder as a juvenile, Miller extended Graham, which had ruled LWOP sentences 

were unconstitutional for crimes excluding murder. Writing for the majority in Miller, Justice 

Elena Kagan wrote "that mandatory life without parole for those under age of 18 at the time of 

their crime violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments", noting 

"Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age 

and its hallmark features – among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks 

and consequences." 

Overall, adolescence is characterized, even under the best of conditions, by markedly 

impaired decision-making, as rational decisions give way to intense emotions and a notable 

incidence of risk-taking. In addition, however, there is a complex social chemistry in which peers 

become powerful influences on behavior, again hormonally augmented with the onset of puberty. 

In other words, adolescence is a developmental twilight zone between childhood and adulthood 

that is often characterized by radical emotional changes in response to hormonal shifts, highThis resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
 

167

intensity feelings, emotionally-charged, impulsive, risky behaviors, and poor decision-making 

(Kelley, Schochet & Landry, 2004). What occurs under “normal” conditions may be further 

complicated by exposure to distinctly suboptimal conditions of neglect, abuse and patently 

inadequate, inappropriate or, worse, harmful interventions. These “suboptimal” conditions often 

occur real time (roughly the same time-frame as the assessment). Family circumstances, home 

environment, placements, caregivers, school, peers and other life situations of adolescents may 

change rapidly or within a short time-frame. Hence, the social ecology of youth may increase 

risk or be protective (Henggeler, Letourneau, Chapman, Borduin, Schewe, & McCart, 2009). In 

sum, the risk “temperature” of adolescents is arguably much more variable and unstable than that 

of adults. Although capturing this variability is a significant methodological challenge, it is 

essential for improving the accuracy of our assessments, as well as improving our management 

decisions. These “suboptimal” conditions are potentially highly “destabilizing” from the 

standpoint of assessment, precipitating reactive but otherwise short-lived behavioral responses to 

situational or environmental catalysts. Moreover, when these “conditions” include severe, 

protracted abuse, the abuse may lead to invisible, hard-wired brain damage that contribute to 

longer-term deficits and behavioral challenges (e.g., DeBellis, Baum, Birmaher et al. 1999; 

DeBellis, Keshavan, Clark, Casey, Giedd, Boring, Frustaci, & Ryan, 1999; Ferris, 1996; Ito, 

Teicher, Glod, Harper, Magnus, & Gelbard, 1993; Ito, Teicher, Glod, & Ackerman, 1998; Perry, 

1994; Perry, Pollard, Blakley, Baker, & Vigilante, 1995; Stein, 1997; Stien & Kendall, 2004; 

Teicher, 2000, 2002; Teicher, Glod, Andersen, Dumont, & Ackerman, 1997; Teicher, Glod, 

Surrey, & Swett, 1993; Thomas & Johnson, 2008). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.