Although we may assess an offender for a multitude of specific reasons, there are, generally speaking, three broad areas: (1) Clinical [or Needs Assessment], (2) Management, and (3) Risk Assessment. Although there clearly are overlapping purposes (e.g., assessing treatment outcome and dispositional planning might occur in both Clinical and Management categories; assessing risk factors might occur in both Management and Risk categories), these three assessment domains seem to make practical and theoretical sense. Data gathered in the course of a forensic assessment will invariably include archival and self-report information, and may also include psychometric and psychophysiological information. There is no single, uniformly accepted, standardized protocol for the assessment of sex offenders. Protocols typically are tailored to the needs of a particular case. Thus, although many domains of information -- actuarial, clinical, psychometric, physiological -- may be useful in accomplishing a comprehensive clinical assessment, the problems posed by a risk assessment require us to telescope in on those variables determined empirically to be most efficacious.

  In addition to the many decision points within the system that may require assessments, the purposes of the assessments vary. With adult sex offenders, the stages or junctures within the system most frequently requiring assessments are:

(A) Apprehension
(B) Pre-Trial Investigation
(C) Trial
(D) Sentencing
(E) Prison
(F) Release
(G) Probation / Parole

The purpose of the assessment at each stage may be for:

A.	Investigative Profiling / Crime Scene Analysis
B.,C.,D.	Determination of Motive / Criminal Responsibility
C.,D.,F.,G.	Dangerousness & Reoffense Risk
E.	Institutional Dangerousness / Security Risk / Escape Risk
D.,E.,F.,G.	Discretionary Decisions
D.,E.,F.,G.	Treatment Amenability
E.,F.	Treatment Planning
G.	Discharge from Treatment

  Although, for-the-most-part, the above mentioned assessment needs are not unique to sexual offenders, the demand for these assessments, as noted, appears to be greatest with sex offenders. In addition, the questions posed for those examining sex offenders may be more esoteric than the relatively straightforward question of whether someone is likely to commit another sexual offense. In the course of doing forensic evaluations, for instance, we have been asked on different occasions to assess: (a) the likelihood that a client will escalate, (b) the likelihood that a client will abduct, (c) the likelihood that a client will progress from a paraphilia to a criminal sexual offense, (d) the likelihood that a client is a "serial" offender, (e) the "signature" of a serial offender, (f) the M.O.'s from two different crime scenes, and so forth.

  A point that cannot be overemphasized is that our procedures as well as our reports must be absolutely defensible. The "ecology" of the assessment (where, when, and how it is conducted) and the components of the assessment (type of interview, psychological tests administered, sexual preference assessments, review of archival documents) must be defensible (i.e., appropriate and adequate). It is too late, once one is on the stand, to admit that a particular test has no relevant validity or that critical documents were mistakenly overlooked. Similarly, when a report is to be introduced as evidence, we recommend re-reading the completed report with an adversarial eye prior to submitting it (i.e., try to discredit your own report). Although there are practical reasons for presenting an unassailable case (e.g., to avoid embarrassment), there are much more important ethical reasons. In the legal arena, the stakes typically are very high, often involving liberty interests (for the defendant) and safety interests (for victims or potential victims). Although error and miscalculation are inevitable, our search for the closest approximation of the "truth" should be uncompromising.