This symposium was promoted as the “10th Anniversary of the AWA”
Important points:
Much was discussed about efficacy etc. There were areas in which there were strong consensus of what we know works and how we can do better.
These include:
•    Residency Restrictions: They do not further public safety and the organizational view is there is no support for such.
•    Treatment individualized

•    RNR Model (Risk Needs Responsivity) (Individualized assessment) which require:
o    Training in Risk assessments for appropriate use (matching instruments with the offenses)
o    Availability of multiple tools with again the correct match to further identify needs
o    Use of actuarial tools
When asked: If they are promoting RNR, individualized assessment of offenders and understanding appropriate supervision based on the individual factors, how can they support the “AWA” which classifies offenders based on offense and not individual risk factors?” the response from the SMART office was “Any state is free to add in the risk assessment for these determinations”
When SMART representative asked, “What it is we want/need from this office?”
The audience response then focused on getting this information to the policy makers.
“What is being done now furthers homelessness, joblessness, no opportunity to reintegrate into society to be a productive citizen?”
SMART response: “While it is important to be able to get this information in statements, documents, etc., the SMART office cannot go out and solicit legislators at state level.  However, they CAN discuss their work if INVITED.  (So let’s get them invited!)
The SMART group is seeking programs that can be certified by providing documented strategies for Sex Offender treatment programs.
The group is also looking for reentry and prevention programs for which grant money can be available..
An abbreviated form of the SSAIF program was provided and further follow up will determine if interest exists to fund for a pilot.
Note: The grant possibilities are separate than those being provided by the reentry task force.
SMART is already promoting rape crisis and prevention programs for universities.
A possibility would be to start with a focus on juvenile offenders that will lead to programs for adult offenders since this would be both a preventative and rehabilitative measure.

Notable comments by presenters include:
“A responsibility of the SMART office is to help jurisdictions implement and adopt policies and practices which are effective”.
“A large % of adults seem to have had some kind of abuse in their history, physical, sexual psychological, neglect, so why do some offend and others do not”?
“GPS is NOT a preventive measure, but rather a tracking measure and should only be resorted to for the high risk offender in the community.”

What to expect from SMART going forward:
An update to the SOMAPI report is expected September 2016
SOMAPI Overview and Future

Grants September 2016
“Underreporting – Limitations impact research”
“Study Prevention-Sexual Assault”
“Study Proactive factors and how they interact with risk factors, as well as strength based approaches such as Good Lives Model”
Recommendations of areas to review:
Huge need for talking about recidivism and community management and longer periods of follow up.
Need more information on characteristics of the sample of interventions provided for rapists, women, child molesters and non-contact offenders.
Continued validation of juvenile risk assessment tools.
Current research priorities include:
Specific types of treatment, for which type of offenders and in which situations are most effective?
In-depth research of current policies and efficacy. Build in mechanisms to get rid of policies which do not meet the goal of purpose.
SMART office funding initiatives:
Collaborative funding of supported projects with states
Promoting evidence based practices:
Based on SOMAPI recommendations
Fellowships
Indian Country initiatives
A personal observation:
Those presenters from a law enforcement background had a much different spin and tone to their messaging than those from the research, treatment and academic communities. It was refreshing to me that the presenters from the SMART office, which include individuals from backgrounds of both law enforcement and treatment, as well as academics, had a much more even messaging, more in line with supporting the empirical evidence and its implementation.

The most disturbing thing from the entire symposium was a comment made by a presenter very early in the presentation from Captain Larry Plunket Missouri State Highway Patrol. He is the individual who has oversight for SORNA in Missouri. He was presenting on how well this all works and making a number of points based on his “experience”, but the moment he shocked me was when he made a point by stating a warning “There are organizations out there fighting to overturn AWA/SORNA and we need to STOP THEM!” I may not have gotten the quote exactly but it’s not a stretch from his actual words…
He should be ashamed of himself. This is still the USA and I know as a citizen I have the right to voice my opinions as does he but to use his position and office to promote that message is unconscionable. Especially considering the overall message of this symposium.
The tone of the rest of the symposium was much more balanced as we learned about sex trafficking and the environments in which it thrives, what we can do about prevention of future trafficking as well as, how to prevent future abuse, reintegration of former offenders and treatment for more successful outcomes. I wish I were able to attend all of the presentations but I was only one attendee for our group.