Established in June 1997, CSOM’s goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the

management of adult and juvenile sex offenders who are in the community. A collaborative effort of the Office of Justice Programs,

the National Institute of Corrections, and the State Justice Institute, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy

and the American Probation and Parole Association.

C enter For S ex O ffender M anagement

Community Supervision of the Sex Offender:

An Overview of Current and Promising Practices

January 2000

Introduction

Despite recent legislative changes and sentencing

practices that increase the likelihood and length of

incarceration for convicted sex offenders, many of

these offenders are supervised in the community.

A U.S. Department of Justice study (Bureau of

Justice Statistics, 1997) reports that

approximately 265,000 adult sex offenders are

under the care, custody, or control of correctional

agencies in the United States. Of these, almost 60

percent are under some form of community

supervision. Most offenders who are convicted of

one or more sex crimes will be supervised in the

community at some point—either immediately

following sentencing or after a period of

incarceration in jail or prison. These offenders

present unique challenges to probation and parole

departments that are primarily responsible for

supervising them. Because of the potentially

volatile community responses to sex offenders,

and the irrefutable harm that re-offenses would

cause potential victims, the community supervision

of sex offenders is of critical importance to

criminal justice agencies and the public.

Overview

The primary objective of this brief is to provide an

overview and discussion of emerging practices and

lessons in communities across the country in the

management of sex offenders under community

supervision. A core assumption appears to

underlie these emerging practices: the primary goal

of managing sex offenders in the community is the

prevention of future victimization. To that end, a

comprehensive approach to sex offender

management includes several key elements:

Collaboration. Collaboration among those agencies

and individuals charged with initiating and

implementing effective supervision and treatment

practices is essential to managing sex offenders

safely in the community. Given the secrecy,

manipulation, and deception that characterizes sex

offending behavior, there also must be a clear set

of operating norms for all involved to minimize the

ability of offenders to circumvent the goals of

supervision.

Victim-Centered Approach. Since a primary goal

of supervision is the protection of victims and the

prevention of future victimization, supervision

agencies should work closely with victim advocacy

organizations to ensure that their policies do not

re-traumatize victims of sexual assault, or

inadvertently jeopardize the safety of others.

While supervision agencies have traditionally been

offender-focused in their work, the most

comprehensive and responsible approaches to the

community management of sex offenders are

those which focus on the needs and safety of both

past and potential victims of sexual assault. In

this regard, concern for the protection of the

victim and the community guide policy

development, program implementation, and the

actions and approaches of supervision agents and

other practitioners who are either working with

victims of sexual assault or supervising

perpetrators.

Sex Offender Specific Treatment. Mandated

specialized treatment as part of probation or parole

conditions is an integral component of effective

community supervision. The notion that sex

offenders should be involved in treatment in no

way suggests that they be allowed to escape

responsibility for their own actions—or that they

should be “coddled.”1 The offense-specific

treatment that research has shown to be most

effective holds offenders accountable, is victimcentered, and is limited in its confidentiality. It is

based on the notion that if an offender can be

 

1 Cumming, G., and Buell, M. (1997). Supervision of the Sex

Offender. Safer Society Press, Brandon, VT., p. 2.
2

taught to manage successfully his propensity to

sexually abuse, he becomes less of a risk to past

and potential victims.

Clear and Consistent Polices. Clear and consistent

polices at all levels (state, local, and agency) are

crucial components of community supervision.

Clear policy defines how cases will be

investigated, prosecuted, and adjudicated. It also

defines the method of community supervision, the

roles various agencies play in the supervision

process, and the response to indications of risk of

relapse. Consensus-built policy establishes the

goals of the system and helps jurisdictions to

identify clearly what role each agency will play in

managing these cases.

Building on these key elements, this paper

describes community supervision; emphasizes

offender accountability; and underscores the need

for those who work with this population to

understand the unique supervision, treatment, and

public safety challenges that these offenders pose.

This document also provides examples of

promising approaches to adult sex offender

supervision in the country today.2

Sex Offenders: Who Are

We Supervising?

Sex offenders have a wide variety of racial, ethnic,

and socioeconomic backgrounds, and vary

significantly in age. While some sex offenders

may display behavior and characteristics that are

similar to other types of criminal offenders (e.g., a

lack of education; unstable employment and

residence; drug and alcohol problems that interfere

with daily life; frequent altercations with families,

friends, and strangers; and an overall resistance to

authority figures), the majority of them do not

have extensive criminal histories or “traditional”

criminal lifestyles.

A study of sex offenders conducted in 1994 in the

state of Oregon found that the “typical” sex

offender is male, a high school graduate, and more

likely than other criminal offenders to be employed.

In addition, the majority of sex offenders have

probably not been under correctional supervision

previously and most have an established social

 

2

 This publication refers exclusively to adult male sex offenders.

Juvenile and female sex offenders pose somewhat different

management challenges. For more information regarding juvenile

sex offenders, see: Center for Sex Offender Management (1999).

Understanding Juvenile Sex Offenders: Emerging Research,

Treatment Approaches and Management Practices. Silver Spring,

MD.

support group in the community. The Oregon

study also confirmed that unlike other offenders

who tend to “age out” of their criminal behavior as

they grow older, many sex offenders continue to

abuse throughout their lifetimes. Finally, the study

revealed that sex offenders frequently score in the

low range on traditional correctional risk

assessment instruments, as these instruments do

not address many of the areas that are indicators

of risk for sex offenders.3

A Shift in Perspective:

A Victim-Centered

Approach to Sex

Offender Management

Since the primary goals of supervision should

always include the protection of past victims and

the prevention of future victimization, it is critically

important for supervision agents, treatment

providers, and other stakeholders to understand

the nature and scope of sexual victimization in this

country today. Sexual assault and abuse research

reveals clearly that the problem is one of

substantial proportions4 and reinforces the

recognition that all sex offenders must be

supervised as effectively as possible.

Although supervision agencies have traditionally

focused on criminal offenders, a shift from this

focus to recognizing and addressing the needs of

victims has evolved in some jurisdictions. One

jurisdiction that has successfully integrated a

victim perspective into both the policy

development and case management levels is New

Haven, Connecticut, one of the Center for Sex

Offender Management’s (CSOM) National Resource

Sites.5 In New Haven, a unique relationship has

evolved between the Court Support Services

Division (which manages probation), local sex

offender treatment providers, and a statewide

victim advocacy organization. The victim

advocate, hired with Court Support Services funds

and supervised by the Connecticut Sexual Assault

 

3

Law and Policy Associates (1994). Adult Sex Offenders in

Oregon:Trends and Characteristics. Oregon Criminal Justice

Council, Aloha, OR., pp. 26-28.

4

Freeman-Longo, R. and Blanchard, G. (1998). Sexual Abuse in

America: Epidemic of the 21st Century. Safer Society Press,

Brandon, VT., p. 13.

5

 The Center for Sex Offender Management Resource Sites are

sixteen jurisdictions that have shown innovation in their

management of sex offenders. For more information about these

sites, see Center for Sex Offender Management (1999). Case

Studies on the Center for Sex Offender Management’s National

Resource Sites. Silver Spring, MD.
3

The victim advocate in New Haven,

Connecticut has a number of roles. The

advocate supports supervision activities by

accompanying probation officers on home and

field visits, attending multi-disciplinary case

review meetings, and leading the victim

empathy component of treatment groups. She

also initiates contact with the victim and/or

victim’s family, provides referrals for

counseling and other victim services, and

maintains contact with victims for as long as it

is necessary. The advocate furnishes

information to and raises concerns with

probation officers and treatment providers

throughout the supervision process, and

reviews background information from the

probation files of each sex offender being

supervised by the unit. She also gathers

feedback from victims and the offender’s

significant others and family members

regarding a sex offender’s behavior while they

are being supervised.

The following are key factors identified in

implementing and maintaining successful

collaborative efforts:

ß effective communication and cooperation

among the criminal justice system and

other professionals;

ß assessment of collaborative needs;

ß clear definition and delineation of roles;

ß efficient and streamlined coordination of

agency tasks;

ß routine and regular flow of information and

data; and

ß participation and accountability by all

parties involved in the process.

Crisis Services, Inc. (CONNSACS), serves as a fulltime member of New Haven’s sex offender

supervision team.

At the policy level, CONNSACS is also extremely

supportive of the work of the New Haven unit.

Representatives from CONNSACS have testified

before the Connecticut Legislature regarding the

efficacy of the New Haven program. The Executive

Director of CONNSACS states that: “It is very

powerful when a victim advocate testifies before

the Connecticut State Legislature regarding the

effective work of the probation department with

sex offenders. Conversely, it is also very powerful

when a probation officer testifies regarding the

multiple benefits of including a victim advocate on

a sex offender supervision team.”6

 

6

 For more information about partnerships with the victim

advocacy community, contact CSOM to obtain a copy of

Engaging Advocates and Other Victim Service Providers in

Managing Sex Offenders in the Community (In Press).

The Central Role of

Collaboration in

Managing Sex Offenders

in the Community

Because of the multifaceted and complex nature of

sex offending and its irrefutable impact on victims

and society, it is imperative that collaborative

efforts to manage sex offenders venture beyond

the traditional, cooperative relationships associated

with case management. This requires that the

supervision agency work closely with the

treatment agency, the victim advocacy

community, polygraph examiners, and, if possible,

others involved with the management of sex

offenders in the community (e.g., law enforcement

officers, defense attorneys, judges, prosecutors,

school and social services officials, offenders’

families, and others).7

These entities must not only share information

about each offender, but should also work together

to evaluate continually the offender’s progress and

discuss whether modifications should be made in

the offender’s treatment and supervision plan

based on information they might learn from one

another. Supervision of sex offenders in some

ways resembles “...putting a puzzle together.

Small pieces of information taken alone have little

significance. However, when the pieces are put

together, the picture that emerges often provides

important information regarding the offender’s

 

7

English, K., Pullen, S., and Jones, L. (1996). Managing Adult

Sex Offenders on Probation and Parole: A Containment

Approach. American Probation and Parole Association,

Lexington, KY., p. 2-14.
4

activities.”8 True collaborative relationships foster

a new and enhanced sense of awareness among

agencies and individuals regarding who the other

parties are, what motivates them, and the benefits

that they will derive from working together.9

Establishing a Framework

for Effective Supervision

THE PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION

An examination of the needs and risks of sex

offenders and a careful review of the capacity of

the existing management system to supervise this

population effectively is a vital function of the

supervision agency. The ideal time to begin this

evaluation process is during the development of

pre-sentence investigation (PSI) reports. The

primary purpose of these reports, which should be

completed for all sex offenders prior to sentencing,

is to provide information about a sex offender to

the court to assist in the disposition of the case.

The PSI presents an opportunity for a probation

officer to make a recommendation for or against

community supervision; assess amenability to

treatment; and to recommend specialized

conditions of supervision based on the offender’s

criminal and sexual history and their risk to

reoffend.10

CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF PRE-SENTENCE

INVESTIGATION REPORTS

Ideally, PSI reports should be generated by

specialized probation officers who have an

extensive working knowledge of sex offenders and

their patterns of behavior. These reports should

include:11

ß The police record which details the instant

offense: PSI writers should review thoroughly

all charging documents that provide details

about the crime. Whenever possible and if

applicable, writers should also attempt to gain

access to any police records detailing prior

allegations of sexual abuse.

 

8 Cumming and Buell, p. 43.

9 Seymour, A. (1999). Collaboration for Victims’ Rights and

Services. National Victim Assistance Academy Text. U.S.

Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, Victim

Assistance Legal Organization, Washington, D.C., p. 18-3.

10 Cumming and Buell, pp. 3-4.

11 Ibid., pp. 3-31.

ß The offender’s personal history: Obtaining the

sex offender’s family and personal history

should occur during the initial interview with

the offender. Information gathered from the

offender should include their marital status,

employment history, financial history, medical

background, military experience, and

substance abuse history. Securing this type of

information allows the probation officer to

discuss areas that are typically non-threatening

to the offender and provides an opportunity to

establish rapport before broaching the sexual

aspects of the report. Other areas that should

be explored in greater depth when interviewing

a sex offender include the offender’s

relationship history, past physical and sexual

abuse the offender has experienced, and the

ages and genders of offender’s children or

stepchildren.

ß The offender’s sexual history: It is critical for

probation officers to ask probing questions

about an offender’s deviant and non-deviant

sexual history. Interviewers should ask only

open-ended questions with positive

assumptions, as this technique may evoke

responses that provide the detailed information

that is needed to assess accurately the

offender’s patterns of sexually abusive

behavior. For example, interviewers should

ask: “When did you begin touching your

daughter inappropriately?” Rather than “Did

you ever touch your daughter

inappropriately?”12

ß Sex offender specific evaluations: These

evaluations, conducted by psychologists or

other trained clinicians, often contain an

evaluation of mental disorders, a history of

drug and alcohol use, the results of a medical

screening, a comprehensive sexual evaluation

(including a sexual history, a summary of

arousal patterns, and diagnosis of sexual

deviancy), and an evaluation of the offender’s

levels of denial.

ß Collateral interviews: Probation officers should

also interview the offender’s family members,

employer, friends, and any other individuals

with whom the offender interacts or has

interacted with on a regular basis. These

individuals can often provide important

information about the offender that otherwise

would not be known.

 

12 For a more detailed description of the types of questions that

are useful in obtaining an accurate picture of an offender’s sexual

history, see “Questions Related to Sexual History” in Cumming

and Buell, pp. 4-5.
5

ß An evaluation of the offender’s amenability to

specialized treatment: In jurisdictions where

sex offender specific evaluations are not

conducted and the probation officer must

make a preliminary determination about the

offender’s amenability to treatment,

supervising officers should seek answers to

the following kinds of questions: Does the

offender admit to the offense and accept

responsibility for his actions? Does the

offender identify his sex offending behavior

and express a desire to change? Since sex

offenders rarely take total responsibility for

their actions at the time of the pre-sentence

report, the probation officer will be attempting

to evaluate where offenders are in the process

of accepting responsibility and their

willingness to participate in specialized

treatment.

ß Victim access: The offender’s access and

threat to potential victims is perhaps the most

critical factor to consider when recommending

for or against community supervision. (It is

not uncommon for child molesters to be

prohibited from having any contact with

children of any age at the beginning of their

community supervision term, for example.

Consideration should be given to this issue

with offenders convicted of other sexual

offenses.)

ß A victim impact statement: All jurisdictions

should encourage the inclusion of a victim

impact statement in the PSI, if the victim

wants to provide such a statement. This

statement should reflect the effects (e.g.,

emotional, financial, or physical) that the

assault has had on the victim’s life.

Supervision agents should work with a victim

advocate whenever possible to obtain

information from a victim. If this is not

possible, PSI writers must take care not to

challenge the validity of victims’ statements,

as most victims have already been interviewed

about the details of their assault several times

prior to the PSI report.

ß The level of risk that the offender poses to the

community: The PSI’s summary

recommendation regarding a sex offender’s

level of risk to the community should be based

upon all of the information that the officer has

gathered and analyzed during the course of the

investigation. Research indicates that

reoffense risk is most accurately measured by

sex offender specific actuarial risk assessment

instruments. These instruments should be

utilized rather than solely relying on the

judgment or impressions of the pre-sentence

investigator.

ß Corresponding recommendations regarding

incarceration or community supervision with

special conditions: The recommendation

section of the report should include a brief

synthesis of the following factors:

° the probability of reoffense;

° recommendations regarding risk that were

identified during the sex offender specific

evaluation;

° factors gleaned from the investigation that

tend to exacerbate risk (e.g., propensity

for violence, easy access to victims, lack

of treatment resources in the jurisdiction

where the offender may be released, and

enabling attitudes of family members

and/or friends);

° resources that are available which support

the criminal justice system management of

the offender’s risk in the community (e.g.,

supportive family/friends, specialized

treatment, access to polygraph

evaluations, sufficient supervision

resources, and ability to limit access to

victims);

° the degree of harm that might be

expected if the offender were to commit

another crime (both sexual and nonsexual); and

° a list of special conditions needed to

monitor risk if probation is recommended;

probation officers must recommend

conditions of probation that specifically

address the offender’s sexually abusive

behaviors.

The PSI, therefore, should inform the sentencing

decision and help set the framework for

community supervision, when community

supervision is deemed appropriate.

SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION

Probation and parole agencies have been using

classification tools to differentiate sub-populations

of criminal offenders who need different levels or

types of supervision for many years. In general,

classification tools strive to distinguish offenders

who pose differing levels of risk and who have

different treatment needs. As such, these tools

are critically important to agencies in order to

prioritize their limited resources. There is,

however, no research or analysis that

demonstrates the validity of classification tools

(unlike empirically validated tools that assess the
6

probability of re-offense in sex offenders).

Therefore, it is not known if classification tools

accomplish precisely what they were created to

do.

Optimally, classification for risk and need should

be based upon the results of empirically-based

instruments that have been statistically validated

on a jurisdiction’s own criminal population. To do

so assures that the tools are valid in distinguishing

varying levels of risk and need among the

offenders in a specific jurisdiction. Empiricallybased instruments that have been statistically

validated provide jurisdictions with reasonable and

reliable sex offense risk prediction.

Unfortunately, most agencies do not have access

to instruments that have been both empirically

tested and locally validated that can identify those

subsets of sex offenders on an officer’s caseload

that present the highest levels of risk and

dangerousness. In the absence of these tools, and

in an environment in which decisions must be

made regarding which offenders should be

supervised more intensively, many agencies must

use their collective experience to develop tools to

help them make these classification decisions.

DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF

A CASE PLAN

Case plans that guide the supervision of sex

offenders are a key component of a comprehensive

approach to sex offender supervision.

The case planning process forms the basis for

sex offender supervision... It reflects all the

available and relevant information regarding

the offender, including the special conditions

of probation or parole... During the life of

supervision, the case plan will reflect

information that either supports the direction

of the initial case plan or requires the use of a

different approach or strategy... The case plan

is meant to be a useful document, updated

when changes occur and created in a format

that any staff person involved in the offender’s

supervision can use.13

Case plans should explain the sex offender’s

responsibilities while under community supervision

and eliminate confusion regarding the expectations

that probation/parole officers, treatment providers,

and other stakeholders have developed for the

offender.

 

13 Ibid., pp. 44 and 49.

The development and maintenance of a

comprehensive and up-to-date case plan is a multifaceted process that requires input and feedback

from the offender, the probation/parole agent, and

other professionals who share responsibility for sex

offender management. In sex offense cases, it is

extremely important to involve the offender in the

case planning process in order to ensure that he is

fully aware of, and accepts responsibility for, the

terms of his supervision. The supervision agent

should also discuss with the offender any changes

or adjustments that are made to the case plan. All

plans should require the offender to sign and date

the document, thereby indicating his

acknowledgement of having reviewed and

understood it, and indicate his willingness and

commitment to abide by the conditions outlined in

the plan.

At a minimum, the case plan should include:

ß biographical data (e.g., name, date of birth,

address, and/or employment);

ß the type of sex offense;

ß the level of risk (as determined by the results

of an actuarial risk assessment tool);

ß risk factors with an emphasis on dynamic—or

changeable—risk factors and acute dynamic

factors (e.g., those that suggest imminent

danger to reoffend, such as intoxication);

ß special conditions of supervision;

ß how and when the offender is to fulfill specific

responsibilities (e.g., completion of community

service work and payment of fines or court

costs); and

ß information regarding the role of the

supervision agency and how supervision will

be structured (e.g., with the use of electronic

monitoring, drug/alcohol testing, curfews,

motor vehicle restrictions, and other

restrictions on movement).14

All aspects of the case plan must be updated as

changes occur in the offender’s behavior, and as

his compliance with his supervision conditions

improves or deteriorates. Using relevant

documents (e.g., treatment progress reports or job

evaluations), information that is gleaned from their

work in the field (e.g., home visits or office visits

in the community), and feedback received from

collaterals, supervision agents should continually

monitor the offender’s compliance with supervision

conditions and the risks his environment may

present. Case plans should consider whether the

current supervision conditions adequately address

the offender’s risks and needs or allow the

offender access to past or potential victims.

 

14 Ibid., p. 44.
7

In the event of staff reassignment, a new

supervision agent should be able to use the case

plan to understand an offender’s needs, issues,

and current supervision conditions. It is vital for

supervising officers to maintain clear chronological

case notes that detail an offender’s progress-or

lack thereof-in supervision and treatment. Current

and complete information also fosters

communication among other members of the

supervision team and can serve as a foundation for

the formal and informal case management

discussions.

Key Elements of

Community Supervision

The experiences of probation and parole agencies

across the nation indicate that sole reliance on

commonly used supervision practices (e.g.,

scheduled office visits, periodic phone contact, and

community service requirements) does not

adequately address the unique challenges and risks

that sex offenders pose to the community. In

order to address these challenges, it is imperative

that convicted sex offenders receive, in addition to

incarcerative sanctions where appropriate, a period

of community supervision. During this period of

supervision, the supervising agency is able to

assess an offender’s place of residence and

employment, restrict contact with minors or other

potential victims, select appropriate treatment for

the offender, and establish, if necessary, other

restrictions that diminish the likelihood of reoffense.

Sex offenders must be monitored intensively

during community supervision in order to evaluate

their level of commitment to and compliance with

all imposed special conditions. This supervision

typically should include:

ß ensuring that the offender is actively engaged

in and consistently attending an approved

community-based treatment program;

ß verifying the suitability of the offender’s

residence and place of employment;

ß monitoring the offender’s activities by

conducting frequent, unannounced field visits

at the offender’s home, at his place of

employment, and during his leisure time (e.g.,

is he engaging in inappropriate, high risk

behavior such as collecting items that depict

or are attractive to children?); and

ß helping the offender to develop a community

support system—including friends, family

members, and employers who are aware of

the offender’s criminal history, are supportive

of the community supervision plan, and can

recognize the sex offender’s risk factors.

Probation officers can further enhance their ability

to monitor an offender’s compliance with probation

conditions by maintaining regular contact with the

offender’s family, friends, and other community

members. This contact also can provide an

opportunity for community members to express

concerns they may have about an offender’s

behavior.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Special conditions of supervision have been used

to add restrictions to the general terms and

conditions of supervision. Although many

traditional methods of supervision (such as field

visits, collateral contacts, surveillance, drug and

alcohol testing, and electronic monitoring) are

appropriate to utilize when supervising sex

offenders, probation and parole conditions should

also address their sex offense histories and

individual patterns of offending. Thus, sex

offender specific conditions have emerged as one

of the key tools in managing this particular

population of offenders.

More intensive community supervision practices

ensure that external controls are imposed upon sex

offenders and can, in some instances, interrupt an

offender’s sex offense cycle.15 There are a

number of supervision conditions that are generally

accepted and widely used with sex offenders.

While these special conditions provide a foundation

for the development of a comprehensive case

management plan, probation and parole officers

should tailor the specific supervision conditions in

each sex offender’s case plan to address individual

risks and needs. Specialized conditions for the

supervision of sex offenders usually address:16

ß Disclosure: Signature on a waiver allowing

shared communication among treatment,

probation/parole, district attorney’s office, and

the court; and disclosure to others (e.g.,

schools and employer) as deemed appropriate.

ß Treatment: Participation in and payment for

evaluation and approved sex offender specific

treatment covered by a signed contract.

 

15 The sexual offense cycle is defined as the pattern of specific

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that often lead up to and

immediately follow the acting out of sexual deviance.

16 These conditions have been adapted from the Maricopa

County, Arizona; Westchester County, New York; and the

Jackson County, Oregon, Probation Departments.
8

The State of Vermont has developed offensespecific conditions which address directly the

offender’s cycle of abuse:

ß Offenders may not use videotapes or film;

or watch television programs that act as a

stimulus for their abusive cycle, or act as a

stimulus to arouse them in an abusive

fashion. In other words, a pedophile may

not view programs whose primary

character is a child.

ß Offenders may not use pornography or

erotica, and may not patronize adult

bookstores, sex shops, topless bars, or

massage parlors.

ß Offenders may not go where children

congregate, such as parks, playgrounds,

and schools.

ß Offenders may not possess a camera or

videorecorder if they have photographed

their victim(s) in the past.

ß Victim Contact and Restitution: No contact of

any kind with the victim(s) or their families

(including contact through third parties) and

payment for victims’ counseling. Some

jurisdictions (including the CSOM Resource

Sites in Jackson County, Oregon, and

Maricopa County, Arizona) have defined

specifically the meaning of “no contact.”

ß No Contact with Children: Restriction from

any intentional or prolonged contact with

children, regardless of the age and gender of

the offender’s prior victims.

ß Driving and Travel: No unapproved driving

after dark or when children are going to and

from school except for employment; no

connection with hitchhiking; and travel to

another jurisdiction only with authorization and

a letter signed by local authorities.

ß Daily Living: Residence only in the supervising

jurisdiction; no unapproved visits with family;

and maintenance of established curfew hours.

ß Social/Sexual Behavior: No sexual contact or

unchaperoned contact with anyone under the

age of 18; full appropriate dress when public

view is possible; may not spend time in

locations where individuals under the age of

18 are likely to be; no non-therapeutic contact

with convicted sex offenders; and no view,

purchase, or possession of adult-oriented

materials.

ß Work (paid or volunteer): No such activity

where contact with those under the age of 18

is likely.

ß Alcohol/Drugs: No purchase, possession, or

consumption; testing as requested.

ß Polygraph, Plethysmograph, and Other Tests:

Offender must agree to submit to polygraph,

plethysmograph,17 and other physiological

tests as directed by the supervising officer.

In addition, some jurisdictions have imposed

additional special conditions of supervision that

address:18

ß Computer/Internet Restrictions: Offenders

must not use the Internet without permission

of their supervising officer and offenders must

submit to an examination and search of their

computer to verify that it is not utilized in

violation of their supervision and/or treatment

conditions.

ß Other Technology Restrictions: Offenders will

not possess a camera, camcorder, or

videocassette recorder/player without the

approval of their supervising officer.

ß Other Employment Restrictions: Offenders

cannot hold a position that allows them to

supervise women or children.

Developing a supervision strategy to protect

potential victims may also involve random home

checks after curfew; review of the offender’s

driving log; restriction of the offender’s access to

vehicles; frequent contact with the offender’s

family members, roommates, friends, and

employer; and the administration of unscheduled

polygraph examinations.

Special supervision conditions, when ordered by

the court or the supervision agent, are perhaps the

most effective method of imposing external

controls on sex offenders. In order to reduce the

likelihood of a sexual reoffense, these restrictions

must be designed to address the offender’s risk

factors, and supervision agents must consistently

monitor the offender’s adherence to all of the

conditions of probation. Supervision agents should

continually assess whether the conditions assigned

to sex offenders appropriately address their current

patterns of behavior (including social interactions)

and living conditions. For example, a supervision

agent may discover during a conversation with a

family member that a child molester who has

abused strangers is routinely riding a bus to and

from work that is also transporting children. The

agent might then develop and impose an additional

condition that forbids the offender from riding

public transportation that is likely to have children

as passengers (e.g., during the mornings and in the

afternoons and evenings before 9:00 p.m.) This

 

17 For a description of both the polygraph and plethysmograph

and their application, see pages 11-12 of this document.

18 These conditions have been adapted from Dane County,

Wisconsin, and the State of Connecticut.
9

ongoing and intensive evaluation of an offender’s

behavior will also reinforce that his actions are

being constantly scrutinized.

SPECIALIZED VS. NON-SPECIALIZED

CASELOADS

A survey of sex offender supervision practices

nationwide concluded that “policies which promote

the specialization of job duties for (probation and

parole) officers who manage sex offenders were

found to accompany practices associated with the

effective management of sex offenders.”19 The

survey also revealed that specialized caseloads

allow supervision staff to:

ß gain expertise and training related to sex

offender management;

ß ensure that sex offenders, who might have

become “lost” on non-specialized caseloads

because of their seemingly compliant nature,

are supervised intensively;

ß establish rapport with sex offenders in order to

encourage them to talk openly about their

thoughts and activities;

ß promote feelings of camaraderie and support

among officers who maintain these caseloads

in order to reduce secondary trauma;20 and

ß increase agency-wide consistency in sex

offender supervision practices.

Specialized officers should have extensive

supervision experience; be trained in sex offender

issues such as treatment, assessment and the

polygraph; be knowledgeable about victimization;

and have interest in and a commitment to working

with this population.

Specialized officers must, therefore, be willing to

play a different role in supervising sex offenders

than other officers who are responsible for nonspecialized caseloads. They must be more

involved in the offender’s daily life and habits and

be in contact with others knowledgeable about the

offender’s current attitudes and behaviors. Sex

offender supervision officers have found that the

 

19 English, K., Colling-Chadwick, S., Pullen, S., and Jones, L.

(1996). How are Adult Felony Sex Offenders Managed on

Probation and Parole? A National Survey. Colorado Division of

Criminal Justice, Department of Public Safety and the National

Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C., p. 15.

20 Described as the “disruptive psychological effects of working

with perpetrators of sexual abuse.” Pullen, C. and Pullen, S.

(1996). Secondary Trauma Associated with Managing Sex

Offenders. In English, K. Pullen, S., and Jones, L. (eds.)

Managing Adult Sex Offenders: A Containment Approach.

American Probation and Parole Association, Lexington, KY.,

p. 10-3.

following practices enhance their ability to monitor

an offender’s behavior and state of mind:

ß open discussions with the offender regarding

his progress in identifying and avoiding preoffense planning and behaviors and his

understanding and use of relapse prevention

strategies;

ß detailed discussions of any contact the

offender may have had with past or potential

victims followed by verification of that

information with the offender’s family or

others in his support network;

ß close monitoring of the offender’s

employment; and

ß recognition of treatment progress or other

positive achievements.21

At a minimum, the specialized supervision of sex

offenders requires a probation officer to be able to

talk openly about sexuality and sexual deviancy; to

be knowledgeable about offender and victim

issues; and to work collaboratively with treatment

providers and other stakeholders to ensure

compliance with community supervision and

treatment requirements. “Specialization means

that no longer will a sex offender slip in the door

just before 5 p.m., spend five minutes in the

probation office talking about his job and last

night’s basketball game, pay his fees, and leave.”22

The nationwide survey concluded that mixed

probation and parole caseloads can also be an

effective way to manage sex offenders, as long as

sex offenders are assigned only to probation

officers who receive ongoing, specialized

training.23 Regardless of whether the caseloads

are mixed or sex offender specific, supervision

agencies are urged to minimize the number of sex

offenders on an officer’s caseload to the extent

possible.24

 

21 Scott, L.K. (1997). Community Management of Sex

Offenders. In Schwartz, B. and Cellini, H. (eds.) The Sex

Offender (2), p. 16-4.

22 Ibid.

23 English, Colling-Chadwick, Pullen, and Jones, p.15.

24 An analysis of the caseload size of eight of CSOM’s National

Resource Sites (Maricopa County, Arizona; Jefferson County,

Colorado; New Haven, Connecticut; the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts; Westchester County, New York; Jackson

County, Oregon; the State of Vermont; and Spokane,

Washington) reflects an average sex offender caseload size of

approximately 47 sex offenders per officer.
10

The following are examples of how some

jurisdictions have expanded supervision

networks to include family members and

volunteers.

In Vermont, in addition to creating support

networks of family, friends, AA sponsors, and

others, the Department of Corrections trains

volunteers to work with sex offenders in the

community. Volunteers serve as support to

their assigned offenders as they attempt to

reintegrate themselves into the community,

and provide community corrections staff with

information about the offender’s daily life and

progress. A positive support system has been

found to be an important factor in reducing

recidivism in Vermont.

Spokane, Washington is well known for

community policing efforts, and has

established a network of community volunteer

sites across the city. Trained volunteers serve

as sources of information about sex offender

movement, changes in residence and behavior,

or any other factors that might suggest a

heightened risk to the community. These

volunteer sites, known as “COPS Shops,”

serve as a significant adjunct in the

surveillance of sex offenders.

Tarrant County, Texas operates a “chaperone”

program in which significant others and family

members of sex offenders are taught about the

dynamics of sex offending behavior and

victimization, are informed about the offender’s

sex crimes, and trained to recognize and

identify when an offender is engaging in

sexually abusive thoughts and behavior.

Equipped with this knowledge, the

chaperones—often those most intimately

involved in a sex offender’s life—are able to

intervene if they believe the offender is in

danger of committing a new sexual offense or

has lapsed into sex offending tendencies.

MINIMUM STANDARDS OF

SUPERVISION

Throughout the course of the offender’s

supervision, supervising agents must, at a

minimum, be able to:

ß check an offender’s residence and place of

employment;

ß maintain contact with the offender’s therapist,

employers, family members, friends, and other

community members, including victims;

ß establish and maintain contact with an

offender’s associates, significant others,

employers, Alcoholics Anonymous sponsors,

and others to ensure that they are aware of

the offender’s history and risk factors; and

ß continue to monitor the offender’s adherence

to the conditions of supervision–which likely

will include ensuring that the offender has no

access to potential victims, is not in

possession of pornography or using the

Internet, drugs, or alcohol, and that he is

employed and living at an approved residence.

The level of supervision should never be so low as

to exclude routine field visits to monitor an

offender’s behavior in the community.

SURVEILLANCE

Some jurisdictions also employ surveillance officers

who work closely with probation and parole

officers to assist with monitoring an offender’s

compliance with supervision conditions.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, the Adult Probation

Department has teamed probation officers with sex

offender surveillance officers. The surveillance

officers work full-time in the community and are

assigned flexible and rotating shifts, allowing

officers to be in the community seven days a week

and 24 hours a day. Surveillance officers monitor

sex offenders’ whereabouts and activities in the

community; verify addresses; assure that

residences are in compliance with program

standards and regulations; and communicate often

with probation and parole officers and treatment

providers. They have access to considerable

technology to maintain close contact with their

colleagues and the department’s dispatcher, and to

assure their own safety while in the field.

ENGAGING OTHERS TO ASSIST IN THE

SUPERVISION OF SEX OFFENDERS IN

THE COMMUNITY

Another method that has proven to be especially

promising in managing sex offenders is the use of

a case management team, or groups of individuals

who can augment the management provided by a

supervision officer. Meetings between a sex

offender and his supervision officer only can

provide a snapshot of the offender’s life. In the

limited amount of time associated with such
11

meetings, sex offenders may attempt to portray

themselves, their behavior, and their compliance

with supervision conditions in the best light

possible. The use of the case management team

allows the probation officer to communicate

routinely with others who are more familiar with

the offender’s day-to-day activities.25

Where utilized, the case management team

typically consists of a supervision agent, treatment

provider, and polygraph examiner. However,

variations of these teams exist in communities

around the nation.

While there is no method of supervision that

guarantees a sex offender will not re-offend,

jurisdictions that employ the case management

team approach have demonstrated that many sex

offenders can be monitored safely in the

community. Open information sharing and

consultation among the various agencies charged

with the management of sex offenders, proactive

and intensive community monitoring, and ongoing,

offense-specific treatment can equip some sex

offenders with the necessary skills to interrupt

their sex offense cycle and control their sexually

abusive behaviors.

Sex Offender Specific

Treatment

Sex offender specific treatment is another critical

component of a comprehensive approach to sex

offender management. Appropriate treatment can

assist sex offenders to learn control over their

sexually abusive behavior.

The most effective sex offender treatment

programs assist in preventing victimization because

they require offenders to acknowledge their crimes

and the harm that they have caused their victims,

and to participate actively in the treatment

process. Successful participation in and

completion of sex offense specific treatment is a

very common condition of probation and parole

supervision.

Effective sex offender treatment is markedly

different from traditional mental health counseling

or psychotherapy. Notable differences between

traditional psychotherapy and sex offender specific

treatment include:

ß the primary focus is the protection of the

community;

 

25 Cumming and Buell, pp. 38-44.

ß considerable attention is directed toward

understanding the harm the offender has

caused the victim;

ß sex offenders’ thinking errors that contribute

to their offending patterns are revealed,

examined, and challenged;

ß offenders participate in professionally

facilitated group sessions; these sessions

provide an opportunity for offenders to

challenge one another regarding their denial,

distortions, and manipulation; and

ß information discussed in group is shared with

supervision agents, polygraph examiners, and

other stakeholders as deemed necessary.

Sex offender treatment providers must, therefore,

be willing to work beyond the confines of the

traditional psychotherapy model, understand the

unique treatment needs of sex offenders, and

develop therapy programs accordingly.

In many jurisdictions, supervision agents are

encouraged to attend treatment groups periodically

to learn more about the offender and to reinforce

the close working relationship between supervision

staff and sex offender treatment providers. In

some jurisdictions, supervision agents co-facilitate

treatment groups with therapists.

The Use of Physiological

and Monitoring Tools in

Sex Offender

Management

THE POLYGRAPH

The polygraph, a technology that is effective in

detecting deception, is being used increasingly as a

mechanism to assist in managing sex offenders.

“The value of the post-conviction polygraph seems

undisputed among those who use it”26 and those

jurisdictions that now use it report that they could

not get along without it.27

The polygraph has become an important asset in

treatment and supervision, providing independent

information about compliance and progress.

Where an offender is engaging in non-compliant

behavior, the polygraph provides information that

informs the case plan and/or the need to take other

 

26 English, K. (1999). The Containment Approach: An

Aggressive Strategy for the Community Management of Adult

Sex Offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and Law (4), p. 228.

27 Scott, p. 16-6.
12

action to prevent relapse and encourage success.

In many jurisdictions, the polygraph examiner is a

key part of the case management team.

In the early 1980’s, Oregon became the first state

to begin the systematic use of the polygraph as a

treatment and supervision tool for sex offenders.

Results of a 1994 national survey of probation and

parole agencies on sex offender management

indicated that 11 percent of probation and parole

offices surveyed used the polygraph as a

monitoring tool.28 In 1995, the Tennessee

legislature passed a law that made polygraph

testing mandatory for sex offenders on probation.

Since January 1996, Colorado has required the use

of the polygraph in treatment and monitoring of all

sex offenders who are serving community

sentences. On July 1, 1998, Wisconsin removed

statutory barriers to the use of the polygraph with

sex offenders.29

As is the case with sex offender treatment

providers, polygraph examiners who administer

tests to sex offenders should be specially trained

to work with this population.30

Three types of post-conviction polygraphs are

commonly administered to sex offenders under

probation or parole supervision:

ß Full Disclosure or Sexual History Examination:

The primary purpose of this examination is to

ensure complete disclosure by the offender of

his sexual history. This examination is

typically administered after an offender has

been in treatment from three to six months.

ß Specific Issue Examination: This examination

evaluates a specific behavior or allegation

during supervision. It is also used when an

offender is either in complete denial or

maintains that he did not commit the crime of

conviction (in particular, offenders who were

sentenced under an Alford Plea31 or offenders

who continue to minimize their responsibility

for the abuse despite their conviction).32

 

28 English, Pullen, and Jones (eds.), p. 15-3.

29 English, pp. 228-229.

30 See Ethical Standards and Principles for the Management of

Sexual Abusers, The Association for the Treatment of Sexual

Abusers, 1997, p. 52, for a more detailed discussion of

suggested standards for the use and administration of the

polygraph.

31 An Alford Plea is defined as a “plea that allows the offender to

admit that there is enough evidence to convict him at trial

without admitting the offense of record.” This type of plea often

subverts treatment since it is difficult to treat a sex offender who

has not admitted responsibility for the offense.

32 Morris, J. (1997). Defining Clinical Polygraph Examinations.

National Association of Polygraph Specialists in Sex Offender

Testing/Monitoring Manual, (150), pp. 7-8.

ß Maintenance or Monitoring Examination: The

primary function of this examination is to

verify the offender’s compliance with

treatment and supervision conditions.

Maintenance or monitoring examinations are

administered on a periodic basis, usually every

six months. In most cases, offenders are not

tested more than three times per year.33

One of the most significant challenges associated

with using the polygraph as a sex offender

supervision tool is that not all states have licensing

laws or procedures for post-conviction sex

offender testing. When a supervising agent or a

treatment provider identifies a polygraph examiner

with whom to work, he or she should inquire about

the training that the examiner has received and,

more specifically, if the training has been endorsed

by the American Polygraph Association (APA).34

PENILE PLETHYSMOGRAPH

The penile plethysmograph is a physiological

instrument that measures an offender’s erectile

response to various stimuli. It typically is used in

two ways: to measure the offender’s sexually

deviant interests, so that a behavioral program to

decrease the deviant arousal can be developed,

and as an evaluation tool to measure the success

or failure of the treatment interventions.

The penile plethysmograph is considered to be one

of the more invasive techniques used in the field of

sex offender management. None the less, deviant

sexual arousal is a significant contributing factor in

sex offending (research indicates that deviant

sexual arousal is positively correlated with reoffense35), and the self-report of offenders

regarding their sexual arousal often is not reliable.

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual

Abusers (ATSA) has developed guidelines for the

use of the plethysmograph with sex offenders.36

 

33 The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (1997).

Ethical Standards and Principles for the Management of Sexual

Abusers. Beaverton, OR., p. 54.

34 The APA has developed standards for post-conviction

polygraph testing of sex offenders and offers a 40-hour block of

instruction for polygraph examiners who are interested in working

with sex offenders. For more information about the APA, contact

their national office at (800) APA-8037 or visit their website at

www.polygraph.org.

35 Hanson, R.K. and Bussiere, M.T. (1998). Predicting Relapse: A

Meta-Analysis of Sex Offender Recidivism Studies. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology (66), p. 351.

36 The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, pp. 52-

57.
13

DRUG AND ALCOHOL TESTING, AND

ELECTRONIC MONITORING

While many jurisdictions use drug/alcohol testing

and/or electronic monitoring for their obvious

benefits in reducing chemical abuse and providing

information about offenders’ whereabouts, neither

should substitute for a more specialized approach

to sex offender management that includes interdisciplinary and agency collaboration and sex

offender specific treatment.

The jurisdictions that have found these

technologies to be most helpful use them in a

manner that addresses specific sex offender risk

factors. For example, it may not be appropriate to

drug and/or alcohol test an offender who, because

of a serious medical condition, cannot and does

not consume these substances. In addition, it may

not be the best use of limited resources to

electronically monitor an offender who is

surrounded and supervised closely by a group of

supportive adults (e.g., an employer, a mother and

father, neighbors, or other relatives). In such

instances, the resources associated with using

these technologies should be applied to offenders

who have past histories of substance abuse or

have not shown the ability or willingness to abide

by court-imposed curfews and other restrictions on

movement.

Family Reunification

Family reunification, the process by which a

convicted sex offender is allowed to return to live

in his home with his victims or alleged victims, is

an especially controversial issue. Although the

stakes involved in returning a known sex offender

to a home in which he could again offend are

extremely high, many sex offenders, including

incest offenders, will seek to be reunified with

their families. The most prudent family

reunification policies ensure that a known child

molester, in particular, is initially separated from all

children and is required to engage in ongoing and

specialized sex offender treatment before any

efforts to reunify the offender with his family are

initiated.

Family reunification policies also should require

that the non-offending parent and other members

of the family be aware of the offender’s sexually

abusive behavior, participate as needed in the

offender’s supervision and treatment, recognize

the impact that the abuse has had on the victim,

and ensure that they are unequivocally willing to

monitor the safety and well-being of the victim.

Community supervision agents are essential to the

family reunification process:

Officers are empowered to enforce what the

therapist recommends, but at the same time

probation officers who are trained to ask the

right questions can demand accountability

from those family therapists who want to

reunify prematurely. The teamwork between

therapist and probation in a reunification case

can make the difference between mere

survival for victims or emotional health,

recovery, and growth. Well-designed

guidelines for family reunification should be a

part of sex offender supervision.37

Probation staff also must work with the victim, the

victim’s family, and, when possible, the victim’s

therapist and a victim advocate, to ensure that the

victim is willing and prepared for the offender’s

return. Since the offender is generally a person

who is a parent, family member, or friend of the

victim, it is imperative to realize that some victims

may not oppose reunification. This can happen for

many reasons, including that the victim may care

for the offender, or might be frightened that they

may alienate a non-offending parent or other family

member by objecting to reunification.

Some jurisdictions, including Maricopa County,

Arizona, have established family reunification

policies in an attempt to ensure the safety and well

being of the family members with whom the

offender will be residing. Reunification should be a

gradual process that is planned and monitored

carefully-by community supervision staff,

treatment providers, victim advocates and

therapists, polygraphers, and the families of the

offenders and victims-in order to avoid further

traumatization of the victim and other family

members.

Sex Offender Supervision

Legislation

LIFETIME SUPERVISION

Lifetime supervision is another form of sex

offender supervision that has been implemented in

a number of states. Lifetime supervision provides

for ongoing community supervision of offenders

convicted of certain sex crimes throughout the

course of their life. The rationale for lifetime

 

37 Scott, p. 16-9.
14

supervision is based on several assumptions,

including:

ß sex offending can be a life-long, chronic

pattern of abusive behavior;

ß sex offenders often can control sex offending

behavior, but do not always voluntarily choose

to;

ß lengthy probation or parole terms allow

supervising officers to respond diligently to

offender risks and needs; and

ß it is wiser to decrease probation terms as

offenders progress than to lack the ability to

increase them when more supervision and

surveillance is necessary.

Proponents of lifetime supervision assert that sex

offending is multi-generational in nature and that

future victimization may be avoided through

ongoing and extended surveillance and treatment.

Such close supervision and surveillance may also

improve supervision officers' ability to prevent or

detect changes in offenders' behavior patterns,

crossover to other types of sex offending, lifestyle

changes, or a shift to a new victim group.38

According to representatives from Maricopa

County, Arizona, “the lifetime nature of the

probation sentence, combined with its special

conditions and the use of the polygraph, makes

this sentence acceptable to many victims of sex

offenses.”39 Given the relatively recent emergence

of lifetime supervision practices, data regarding the

effectiveness of this approach is not yet available.

COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION

Community notification legislation enacted around

the nation mandates that law enforcement and

other officials notify various community members

(the scope of community members who are

notified typically varies based on sex offenders’

perceived levels of risk to reoffend) when a

convicted offender is living in their neighborhood.40

Community notification can be implemented as a

component of a successful approach to community

supervision.

While methods vary among jurisdictions, one

innovation in community notification involves

assigning probation or parole agents—the very

 

38 Center for Sex Offender Management (In Press). Lifetime

Supervision for Sex Offenders: Emerging Practices and Their

Implications. Silver Spring, MD.

39 English, Jones, and Pullen (eds.), p. 6-5.

40 See the Center for Sex Offender Management’s publication An

Overview of Sex Offender Community Notification Practices for a

more thorough discussion of community notification laws and

practices.

individuals who will be responsible for supervising

sex offenders in the community—to conduct

community notification. This approach can

guarantee that a knowledgeable community

corrections agent will be given a forum in which he

or she can dispense sound information about

offenders, their patterns of sex offending behavior,

and how community members can best protect

themselves against victimization. It also can

empower the supervision agency to intervene in

any potential conflicts between the community and

the offender, which would likely be detrimental to

the offender’s successful community reintegration.

This approach, in place in Jackson County,

Oregon, leaves “discretion to the parole or

probation officer so a notification plan can be

developed according to the offender’s specific

offending patterns.”41 Supervision agents can also

encourage community members to contact them

should any suspicious behavior or other questions

or concerns surface.

Some jurisdictions are also using community

notification as an opportunity to involve victim

advocates in the process of community education

about sex offenders. While probation or law

enforcement officers can dispense information to

community members about notification laws,

known offenders living in their neighborhood,

patterns of sex offending behavior, and whom to

contact if they notice suspicious behavior,

advocates offer the community a wealth of

experience in prevention education. They can

increase residents’ understanding of this crime;

provide them with facts concerning who is at risk

for victimization and by whom (since convicted

offenders represent only a subgroup of the actual

population of sex offenders); and discuss practical

strategies to reduce the risk of being sexually

assaulted. They can also assist justice system

officials in addressing resident concerns, while

helping to allay fears and reduce the possibility of

vigilantism against offenders.42

ADULT SEX OFFENDERS WITH

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

Many jurisdictions around the country struggle

with the issue of supervising adult sex offenders

with developmental disabilities. Developmentally

disabled sex offenders pose many of the same

challenges to supervision agencies as other adult

sex offenders.

 

41 English, Pullen, and Jones (eds.), p. 5-9.

42 Center for Sex Offender Management (In Press). Engaging

Advocates and Other Victim Service Providers in Managing Sex

Offenders in the Community. Silver Spring, MD.
15

The Navajo Nation in Tuba City, Arizona has

developed a subcommittee comprised of

representatives from the Tribal Court, Tribal

Probation, the Tribal Council, the Tribal

Prosecutor’s office, law enforcement, mental

health providers, local schools, child

advocates, community members, and others to

examine what resources are available to treat

and supervise sex offenders and to provide

restoration to victims of sexual assault. These

entities work together on an ongoing basis in

order to ensure that they are capitalizing on

their resources in the most effective way

possible and avoiding duplication of their

efforts.

The Yankton-Sioux Tribe in South Dakota

convenes a monthly multi-disciplinary team

meeting, during which individuals from Tribal

Probation, Tribal Schools, the Tribal Council,

local child advocacy organizations, the U.S.

Attorney’s office, and others join together to

address the problems they all face in the

management of sex offenders in their

community.

The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes at Fort Peck,

Montana hold monthly Child Protection Team

meetings at the local rape crisis center.

Representatives from the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, the Tribal Court, Indian Health

Services, the FBI, the Criminal Investigators,

and others participate in these meetings, used

mainly as a venue to discuss their sex offender

cases and explore solutions to their common

problems.

In addition, supervising this population entails:

ß evaluating the offender’s level of cognitive

impairment in order to gauge his suitability for

community supervision;

ß contracting with treatment providers who are

well versed in sex offending behavior and

developmentally disabled individuals; and

ß working intensively with departments of

mental health, social services, group home

staff, and others that may be involved closely

in the offender’s daily life.

As an example of how one jurisdiction has

addressed this area, the Colorado Sex Offender

Management Board has expanded the state’s

guidelines for supervising adult sex offenders to

include specific guiding principles for working with

sex offenders who have developmental disabilities.

These principles are:

ß Sex offenders with developmental disabilities

pose as clear a threat to public safety as sex

offenders without developmental disabilities.

ß There is nothing inherent in the presence of

developmental disabilities that causes sexual

offending.

ß Sex offenders with developmental disabilities

shall be offered treatment that is appropriate

to their developmental capacity, their level of

comprehension, and their ability to integrate

treatment material and progress.

Given the emerging research in this highly

specialized field, Colorado’s principles are intended

to “add to existing standards by better addressing

the specific needs and risks of sex offenders with

developmental disabilities... they are based in best

practices known today for managing and treating

sex offenders with developmental disabilities.”43

The Tribal Response to

Sex Offending

The Navajo Nation, the Assiniboine and Sioux

Tribes at Fort Peck, Montana, and the YanktonSioux Tribe in South Dakota are among the tribal

jurisdictions working to address the issue of

supervising sex offenders on tribal lands. In all of

these sites, probation officers must grapple with

jurisdictional issues among tribal, state, and federal

entities.

 

43 Colorado Sex Offender Management Board (1999). Standards

for Community Entities that Provide Supervision to the

Management of Sex Offenders who have Developmental

Disabilities. Denver, CO.

Many offenders are sentenced by federal courts

and are supervised by federal—or federal and

tribal—probation officers. In addition, tribal codes

may call for relatively short periods of supervision.

These factors, coupled with the lack of staff and

financial resources necessary to supervise sex

offenders adequately, present unique challenges to

tribal jurisdictions.

Tribal jurisdictions around the country have sought

to mitigate these problems by maintaining ongoing

collaboration with the various disciplines involved

in the management of sex offenders in their

communities. This communication serves not only

to advise members about specific case

management issues, but also to refocus the teams’

energy and commitment to victims of sexual

assault and to enhance their ability to share

resources and to develop solutions to problems

that have a negative impact on more than one

agency.
16

Conclusion

Many jurisdictions around the nation have

embraced the concept that supervising sex

offenders in the community effectively requires a

highly specialized approach to community

supervision. Although there are individual

variations in each community, the most promising

approaches share several key elements, including:

ß thorough pre-sentence investigation reports

(PSI);

ß complete offender assessments;

ß the use of empirically validated risk tools

where possible;

ß the establishment of case management teams;

ß highly trained and specialized officers;

ß the use of sex offender specific conditions of

supervision;

ß mandated sex offender specific treatment;

ß the use of the polygraph; and

ß individualized case plans.

Such approaches also focus primarily on the safety

and needs of victims and the community and

require that a wide array of individuals and

agencies work together to solve the problem of

preventing further victimization.

A Note to Readers

The Center for Sex Offender Management is

interested in learning more about sex offender

supervision and treatment programs in jurisdictions

around the country. We would be pleased to hear

from your community.

For further information about the practices of any

of the jurisdictions contained within this document,

please contact CSOM.

Acknowledgements

This document was authored by Leilah Gilligan and

Tom Talbot, Program Associates, Center for Sex

Offender Management. Edited by Madeline M.

Carter, Project Director, Center for Sex Offender

Management. The Center for Sex Offender

Management would like to thank Georgia Cumming

for her significant contributions to this document.

Contact Information

Center for Sex Offender Management

8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 589-9383

Fax: (301) 589-3505

askcsom@csom.org

www.csom.org

This project was supported by Grant No.

97-WT-VX-K007, awarded by the Violence

Against Women Office, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points

of view in this document are those of the

authors and do not necessarily represent the

official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.