top of page

Use and Acceptance

 

 

Use and acceptance of the Abel Assessment systems has grown dramatically over the past decade with over 800 clinical practices in all 50 states using our assessment systems more than 170,000 times. Today, many government agencies, as well as professional organizations have made these comprehensive assessments part of their standards for the evaluation and treatment of people with sexual behavior problems.

 

Alaska: The Alaska Department of Corrections’ Standards of Sex Offender Management apply to all approved providers, contractors and agencies that provide services to sex offenders. The purpose is to provide minimum requirements for provision of services by any approved provider to sex offenders who are in the custody of, or under supervision by, the Alaska Department of Corrections. The Standards recommend the use of the AASI or PPG in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders. The Alaska Department of Corrections uses the AASI as part of its evaluation and treatment services to sex offenders.

Arizona:  The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections uses the AASI as part of its evaluation and treatment of juveniles with sexual behavior problems.

California: The AASI is an allowable assessment tool to be used in assessing California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation parolees as part of outpatient sex offender treatment and is widely used by therapists contracting with the Department of Corrections to provide evaluation and treatment services to High Risk Sex Offenders.

Colorado: The Colorado Sex Offender Management Board’s Standard and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders (revised 2011) requires use of the PPG, AASI, or other VRT instrument as part of any sex offense specific evaluation. The Colorado Department of Corrections uses the AASI as part of its evaluation and treatment program for sex offenders.

Delaware: The Delaware Sex Offender Management Board’s Standards for Sex Offense Specific Evaluations includes the AASI as one of the tools which may be used by approved providers for the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders.

Florida: The Final Report by the Task Force on Juvenile Sex Offenders and their Victims submitted to the Governor and Florida Legislature in 2006 recommended the need to use new treatment technologies critical for successful treatment. The Final Report included the AASI as an assessment tool available for evaluation and for developing accurate safety plans for youth being discharged from residential care.

Idaho: The Idaho Sex Offender Management Board’s Sex Offender Management Standards includes the AASI as an optional measure for use by approved providers conducting psychosexual evaluations. The Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections uses the AASI.

Illinois: The Illinois Sex Offender Management Board includes the AASI as an evaluation tool therapists may use as part of any comprehensive sex offense specific evaluation.

 

Iowa: The Second Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, which provides community-based correctional services to 22 counties in north central Iowa, uses the AASI in the evaluation of sex offenders.

Maryland: The Baltimore County Maryland Department of Social Services uses the AASI as part of its evaluation and treatment of youth with sexual behavior problems.

Minnesota: The Minnesota Department of Corrections and the Minnesota Department of Human Services Sex Offender Program use the AASI as part of their evaluation and treatment of sex offenders.

Missouri: The U.S. Probation Office for the Eastern District of Missouri uses the AASI in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders.

Montana: The Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge uses the AASI in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders.

New Hampshire: The New Hampshire Department of Corrections uses the AASI in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders.

New Mexico: The New Mexico Department of Corrections requires approved providers to use an objective measure of sexual interest, such as the AASI (if needed), as part of the assessment phase for sex offenders as well as for developing individual treatment goals.

Ohio: The Court Psychiatric Clinic, which provides the Cleveland Municipal Court with impartial forensic evaluations and clinic screening assessments, uses the AASI as part of its sex offense specific evaluations. The Court Psychiatric Clinic strives to enhance public safety by promoting treatment, recovery and reducing recidivism.

Oregon: The Oregon Sex Offender Treatment Board has adopted the 2004 Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), Practice Standards and Guidelines, effective March 15, 2010. The Oregon State Hospital Sex Offender Treatment Program uses the AASI in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders.

Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Sex Offenders Assessment Board states under its treatment standards that the AASI and any other objective measure of sexual interest, when used, shall be administered under the current guidelines established by their originators.

South Carolina: The Medical University of South Carolina uses the AASI as part of its evaluation and treatment of people with sexual behavior problems.

South Dakota: The South Dakota Department of Corrections uses the AASI in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders and those with an identified sexual behavior problem.

Texas: The Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment has adopted treatment standards (revised 2011) which may include Visual Reaction Time™ for evaluation and treatment of juveniles and developmentally delayed clients with sexual behavior problems and for after-care treatment for adults and juveniles.

Virginia: The Virginia Department of Corrections uses the AASI in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders and those with an identified sexual behavior problem.

West Virginia: River Park Hospital uses the AASI as part of its evaluation and treatment of people with sexual behavior problems.

 

Wisconsin: The Oshkosh Correctional Institution uses the AASI in the evaluation and treatment of sex offenders and those with an identified sexual behavior problem.

 

AASI in Court


FEDERAL CASES:
United States vs. Anthony Graves
2005 D.C. Super. LEXUS 14 (SUPER D.C. 2005)
Passed Daubert standard.

U.S. v. Joseph Stoterau
(No. 07-50124)
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Central District of California
Judge Andrew J. Guilford, April 29, 2008
Court determined that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Abel testing.”

U.S. v. Lamont Robinson
(No. 99-20063-01)
U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division, Judge Tucker Melancon, April 17, 2000. The Judge ruled the AASI met the Federal Daubert Standard.

United States v. Staff Sergeant James L. Parker, Jr. United States Air Force
David Walker, M.D., was allowed to present the results of an AASI in the sentencing phase of an incest case in Federal Court on October 15, 2001. (Unpublished)
US Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals – Denied (Unpublished ACM 35673),
October 18, 2005

STATE CASES:
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida
(No. 3:07-CR-80-J-25TEM)
Hon. Henry Lee Adams.
AASI results were admissible during sentencing.

State of California v. Jose Flores
San Francisco County Superior Court, October 20, 2003
AASI results submitted as evidence
Appeal denied (Unpublished 2046662), April 14, 2005

 

State of Louisiana v. Robert James Lege
(Docket Nos. 34746 and 34747)
15th Judicial District Court, Judge Durwood Conque, April 26, 2001.

 

State of New Mexico, Children, Youth and Families Department
(D-132-JQ-01-00009)
In the matter of M-S, Judge Barbara Vigil ruled that the AASI met the Daubert Standard for admission as evidence, August 9, 2001.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Kruger
Superior Court, Middlesex County, May, 2002.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Robert Anderson
(WOCV2001-01348)
Worcester Superior Court, May 14, 2002.

 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Aron Lyons, a.k.a. Roy Swimm
Superior Court, Plymouth County, June, 2002.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Leonard Hewson
Superior Court, Middlesex County, June, 2002.

Children Youth and Families Dept. (CYFD) IMO EM and AC, children, and concerning RM and Mike Crespin, Respondents, 4th District, Las Vegas, NM)

Opposing counsel used the Birdsbill case, with objections such as “no control group,” “abysmal stats” and “lack of peer review.” Each complaint was addressed in light of & over the past several years. The judge ruled that the entire AASI test does meet Daubert criteria.

V. Daniel Gonzales, Second District, NM, CR-2007-05166.

NM Supreme Court ruled on the VRT portion of the Abel, that the VRT portion in isolation does meet the Daubert standard of evidence.

 

Department of Energy Office of Hearings and Appeals: Personal Security Hearing
(TSO-0235)
Personal Security Hearing, April 25, 2005
Individual’s security access authorization was suspended due to several issues including multiple allegations of child sexual abuse. AASI admitted as evidence.

Illinois case involving heavy equipment operator convicted of touching his stepdaughter.
He was placed on probation with treatment.

Illinois case involved an inmate who had been released into an outpatient treatment program

 but the group leader wanted to send him back to prison because he had been to mall with girlfriend who had a child. The AASI was used to help document his current status, and he was placed with another group leader for the duration of his treatment.

 

Juvenile Cases in St. Louis County and City, Missouri
Children were alleged to be perpetrators of sexual abuse. By using the AASI, it was determined that one charge was a mistake, one claim was valid, and the other was found not guilty by judicial decision. The AASI assisted in the recommendations for treatment for the juvenile that was convicted.

bottom of page