C enter For S ex O ffender M anagement

Engaging Advocates and Other Victim Service Providers

in the Community Management of Sex Offenders

March 2000

Introduction

Supervision agencies, treatment providers, and others

who manage sex offenders in the community

traditionally have been offender-focused in their work.

They utilize a variety of methods, which include

monitoring, use of sanctions, and treatment, to

minimize the possibility of reoffense by offenders.

Yet, they must also work to ensure that these

methods do not re-traumatize victims of sexual assault

or inadvertently jeopardize the safety of others. The

most comprehensive and responsible approaches to

community management of sex offenders are those

which place paramount importance on addressing the

needs and safety of past and potential victims of

sexual assault.

1

 With this in mind, justice system

agencies and sex offender treatment providers in

several jurisdictions have begun to join with victim

advocacy programs and other victim service

organizations to ensure that victim safety and support

are the primary goals of their interventions with sex

offenders.

Victim advocates are eminently qualified to assist in

managing sex offenders from a victim-focused

perspective, due to their history of working with and

on behalf of sexual assault survivors. Their

knowledge of the needs of victims can enhance sex

offender management policy development,

professional training initiatives, day-to-day practices,

and community notification and education efforts. In

addition, advocates and other victim service providers

offer services to survivors to respond to issues that

may arise when their perpetrators are released on

probation or parole.

 

1

 Center for Sex Offender Management, The Community Management

of the Sex Offender: An Overview of Current and Promising Practice

(Silver Spring, MD, 2000) p. 1.

Anecdotal data (as cited throughout this paper)

suggest that involving advocates and other victim

service providers in the community management of

sex offenders can facilitate more informed case

supervision and treatment decisions, a greater degree

of protection for victims and the public, and aid for

victims in recovery.2 Yet, this practice is far from

mainstream. Many jurisdictions are struggling to

implement basic policies and practices related to sex

offender management and have not considered how

to, or why they should, incorporate victim advocacy

and support into this work. Conversely, advocates

and other victim service providers often do not view

collaboration with sex offender management programs

as a priority. Despite the limited implementation of

this practice, however, it is worthy of consideration

by practitioners because of the promise it offers in

enhancing the effectiveness of sex offender

management in order to increase victim and public

safety.

The purpose of this paper is to provide information,

ideas, and resources that will encourage agencies

managing sex offenders in the community to consider

the benefits and feasibility of involving victim

advocates and other victim service providers in their

work. It is also meant to encourage advocates and

other victim service providers to assess whether gaps

in victim safety and support exist in their local sex

offender management programs and to consider ways

to address these gaps.

 

2

 The majority of practitioners who contributed information for this

paper are members of the Center for Sex Offender Management’s

(CSOM) Resources Site teams. Currently, 16 jurisdictions are CSOM

Resource Sites. They were selected because they have shown

innovation in their management of sex offenders. For more

information about these sites, contact CSOM to obtain a copy of Case

Studies on the Center for Sex Offender Management’s National

Resource Sites. Beyond those jurisdictions mentioned in this brief,

there may be other communities that involve advocates and other

victim service providers in sex offender management. These

communities are invited to contact CSOM to share information about

their collaborative practices.

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.
2

Promoting Responses that

Protect and Support Survivors

Sexual assault victim advocacy represents a

philosophy of working with individuals and institutions

to ensure that victims receive appropriate services

based on their articulated needs. This philosophy also

assures that community and governmental bodies are

responsive to victims’ needs and establish policies

that condemn and prevent sexual assault.3 Advocates

help ensure that interventions that affect victims

focus on promoting victim safety and well-being. In

conjunction with other victim service providers, they

give individual survivors access to and provide a wide

range of services. On a systemic level, advocates

encourage the justice system and community agencies

to improve effectiveness of coordinated responses to

sexual assault. They challenge practices that could

harm victims and work to institutionalize change that

supports survivors in making their own decisions

about their protection and recovery.4

PROVISION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM

ADVOCACY AND SERVICES

Community-based sexual assault victim advocacy

programs (often called sexual assault or rape crisis

centers) typically are the primary local providers of

advocacy services for victims of sexual assault. They

generally are nonprofit, non-governmental

organizations5 that work to combat sexual

victimization through provision of services, advocacy

on behalf of victims, and training, education, and

public awareness initiatives.

These programs usually offer free, confidential6

services to victims and others who have been affected

by sexual assault. Victims can utilize these services

from the time of disclosure of the assault to the time

they decide they no longer need assistance. They can

access services regardless of whether they report their

assault to the justice system. Services may include,

but are not limited to:

ß 24-hour crisis intervention, support, and safety

planning, including phone hotline counseling and

accompaniment through emergency medical and

legal processes;

 

3

 Kristin Littel, Mary Malefyt, and Alexandra Walker, Promising

Practices: Improving the Criminal Justice System’s Response to

Violence Against Women (Washington, D.C.: STOP Violence Against

Women Grants Technical Assistance Project, 1998) p. 9.

4

Littel, Malefyt, and Walker, p. 9.

5

 There are exceptions—a few sexual assault victim advocacy

programs are branches of local government agencies.

6

 Some typical exceptions to confidentiality include cases that involve

victims who are children or dependent adults, and clients who

indicate that they are in imminent danger of serious harm to

themselves or others.

ß provision of information and community referrals;

ß advocacy on behalf of victims with various

systems (e.g., criminal and civil justice systems,

healthcare, social services, child protection,

employers, and schools), including

accompaniment (e.g., to investigative interviews,

court, and other justice proceedings), and

coordination and collaboration with system

personnel;

ß support groups and education programs;

ß ongoing contact and assistance as needed to

promote recovery; and

ß mental health counseling.7

To improve community response or a particular

institution’s response to victims of sexual assault,

these programs may coordinate or participate in

activities such as the following:

ß specialized professional training and technical

assistance;

ß prevention education and outreach targeted at

specific groups;

ß partnering with local organizations;

ß community organizing and public awareness

initiatives; and

ß public policy development.8

There is usually one community-based sexual assault

victim advocacy program in a particular jurisdiction or

region. However, some areas do not have such a

program or have a program that provides limited

services. In larger jurisdictions or regions, there may

be more than one community-based sexual assault

advocacy program. These organizations often (but

not always) work collaboratively to ensure adequate

service delivery to all local geographic areas and

victim populations.

State coalitions of local sexual assault advocacy

programs currently exist in 48 states.9 Coalition staff

members usually advocate for public policy changes

that benefit victims, promote public awareness about

victimization, and provide training and technical

assistance to member programs and other

organizations. They also may seek and administer

state and federal funding for their member programs.

A number of other groups may offer services that can

supplement the work of community-based sexual

assault advocacy programs. These entities include,

 

7

 Some sexual assault advocacy programs offer victims and their

significant others professional mental health counseling services on a

free or sliding scale fee basis. However, many programs refer victims

to local mental health providers for these services.

8

 For a further discussion of advocacy services for victims of violence

against women, see Littel, Malefyt, and Walker, Ch. 5.

9

 Nevada and Rhode Island do not have state sexual assault coalitions

as of this writing. Due to its small size, Rhode Island has only one

sexual assault advocacy program. Similarly, the District of Columbia

also has just one sexual assault advocacy program.
3

but are not limited to, government-based victimwitness offices, child advocacy centers, sexual assault

nurse examiner programs, and sexual assault response

teams and other multi-disciplinary groups. Victim

service delivery can be optimized if these entities and

advocacy programs coordinate their efforts.

Criminal justice system victim-witness specialists10

can help ease victims’ entry into and journey through

the criminal justice system, due to their ready access

to case information, their relationships with other

criminal justice personnel, and their in-depth

knowledge of the system. While their roles vary from

one jurisdiction to the next, they are often responsible

for tasks such as orienting victims to the criminal

court process; informing victims of their rights, court

dates, case status, and disposition; making

community referrals; assisting victims with filing

victim compensation applications; accompanying

victims to court proceedings; and providing assistance

with preparation of victim impact statements.

Because they offer assistance to all crime victims

during their involvement in the criminal justice

system,11 victim-witness specialists often are

extremely busy and can spend only limited time on

individual cases. They also may lack expertise on

sexual victimization issues.

An important distinction between the support offered

by victim-witness specialists and community-based

sexual assault victim advocates is the degree of

confidentiality afforded to communications with

victims.12 Victim-witness specialists are usually

obligated to provide information about victims to

criminal justice personnel that may facilitate the

investigation and prosecution of their cases. In

contrast, community-based sexual assault advocates

are obligated to focus solely on the needs of victims.

To this end, most community-based sexual assault

advocacy programs have confidentiality policies that

prohibit advocates from disclosing information about

victims to a third party without their consent (a

protection that may be based on state statute).13

 

10 “Victim-witness specialist” is a generic term used by the author to

refer to staff from victim-witness programs based in criminal and

juvenile justice systems. Terminology describing victim-witness staff

varies across jurisdictions (e.g., some localities refer to their victimwitness specialists as victim advocates).

11 In a few cases, victim-witness specialists may work solely with

sexual assault, domestic violence and/or stalking victims.

12 Littel, Malefyt, and Walker, p. 156.

13 Littel, Malefyt, and Walker, p. 156. If victims are opposed to

sharing requested information, advocates typically will contest

attempts to obtain their records. If a subpoena is upheld despite

challenges, however, an advocate must disclose the requested

information or risk being held in contempt of court.

Child advocacy centers typically provide services to

assist abused and neglected children and their

families. The establishment of these centers in over

300 localities has helped improve the investigative

process in child sexual abuse cases. Agencies

responsible for the protection of children can

coordinate their efforts through these centers, in order

to prevent further trauma to victims. While services

vary across jurisdictions, the centers usually provide a

child-friendly atmosphere to conduct investigative

interviews; medically examine children suspected of

being abused or neglected; provide support,

education, and community referrals; and prepare

children and their families for court. They also may

provide counseling, community education, and

professional training on child abuse issues.

Hundreds of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)

programs have emerged over the last decade to

improve the emergency medical-legal response to

sexual assault victims. SANEs are registered nurses

who have education and clinical preparation in the

forensic examination of these victims. SANEs strive

to collect forensic evidence from victims in a timely,

compassionate, and respectful manner and ensure that

proper emergency medical care is provided.14 They

also collect forensic evidence from suspects in sex

crime cases.

Sexual Assault Response or Resource Teams (SARTs)

or similar multi-disciplinary teams have been

developed in many communities to coordinate

immediate medical, legal, and victim service responses

to sexual assaults. SARTs can work to ensure that

each aspect of coordinated response protects and

supports victims, facilitates optimal evidence

collection, and streamlines the service delivery

process.15 As SARTs evolve, they could expand to

address more comprehensive responses to both

victims and offenders.

Some communities have established multi-disciplinary

and multi-jurisdictional investigative initiatives. These

initiatives typically are grounded in a belief that law

enforcement’s response to sexual assault cases can

be enhanced by coordination and collaboration among

advocates, health care providers, prosecutors, judges,

child protection workers, probation and parole

officers, and others.

 

14 Kristin Littel, “Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) Programs:

Improving Community Response to Sexual Assault Victims,” OVC

Bulletin (Washington, D.C.: Office for Victims of Crime, U.S.

Department of Justice, forthcoming).

15 For further information on SARTs, see Littel, Malefyt, and Walker,

pp. 246-250.
4

Benefits of Advocate and

Victim Service Provider

Involvement

Engaging advocates and other victim service providers

in managing sex offenders in the community can

support the missions of agencies that supervise and

treat these offenders, as well as those that provide

assistance to sexual assault survivors. Potential

benefits for these agencies may include:

ß the needs of victims (whose offenders are

supervised in the community) could be addressed

more consistently and thoroughly;

ß new victims identified in the course of offender

supervision, as well as family and friends of sex

offenders who disclose victimization, routinely

could be offered assistance;

ß gaps in services to sexual assault victims can be

readily identified and remedied;

ß case management and policy decisions related to

managing sex offenders in the community could

be enhanced by sharing information and expertise

among advocates, other victim service providers,

supervision officers, and sex offender treatment

providers;

ß more comprehensive and streamlined responses to

sexual assault could be facilitated;

ß collaboration among agencies on education

initiatives could help increase public perception

that community supervision of sex offenders is an

appropriate and effective vehicle to prevent future

victimization;

ß agency staff may feel more professionally

satisfied because they believe their collaborative

efforts are truly helping to reduce sexual violence;

and

ß more systematic evaluations of the effectiveness

of sex offender management and victim services

could be facilitated.

When advocates and other victim service providers are

involved in developing policies related to the

community management of sex offenders, protecting

victims and the public more readily can become major

goals of sentencing, supervision and treatment plans,

conditions of supervision, and the ongoing process of

offender monitoring in the community. On a day-today management level, they can collaborate with the

courts, supervision officers, sex treatment providers,

and others to implement victim-sensitive practices and

enhance the capacity of community supervision

programs to hold perpetrators accountable for their

actions and deter future victimization.

Possible Roles for Advocates

and Other Victim Service

Providers

A 1997 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.

Department of Justice, reported that approximately

265,000 sex offenders were under the care, custody,

or control of correctional agencies in the United

States. Of these, almost 60 percent were under some

form of community supervision. Most offenders who

are convicted of sex crimes will be released into the

community at some point—either immediately

following sentencing or after a period of incarceration

in jail or prison. Effective community management of

these offenders is critical in reducing the possibility

that sex offenders will repeat their crimes; protecting

past and potential victims; and educating the public

about prevention strategies. Although there are

variations in each locality, basic components of

community management of sex offenders include

rigorous supervision16 and sex offender-specific

treatment.17 (See “Resource List” for selected

publications related to sex offender management.)

At a minimum, advocates from community-based

sexual assault advocacy programs should be familiar

with sex offender management initiatives in their

jurisdictions, in order to advocate on behalf of victims.

 

16 Standard conditions and methods of supervision are not sufficient

to manage sex offender cases and protect the public. Instead,

supervision officers must be educated about sexual offending

behavior, sexual victimization issues, and the history and patterns of

offenders they supervise. They must be especially observant and

vigilant in enforcing supervision conditions and acting upon violations.

The following is a sampling of special conditions for sex offenders

that may be routinely added to standard conditions of supervision:

active participation in treatment; no contact with victims or their

families; payment for victim treatment; no contact with children; no

sexual contact or unchaperoned contact with anyone under 18 years

of age; restrictions on driving and travel; disclosure of offender history

to landlords, employers, police departments and school authorities, as

applicable; residences must be approved by the supervision agency;

no unapproved visits with family; curfew may be imposed; no

purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol or drugs, and testing

as required; must agree to submit to physiological tests as directed by

supervising officers; and computer/Internet/technology restrictions.

17 Because sex offenders are unlike other types of criminals, standard

mental health treatment practices are not adequate. Therapists who

are not trained to work with this population are ill prepared to deal

with the complexity of these cases, the offender’s seemingly

paradoxical behavior, their highly manipulative personalities, and their

secretive lifestyles. Current research indicates that only with sex

offender-specific treatment, provided by professionals offering

services that conform to the most recent literature about effective

therapeutic interventions with this population, can patterns of

behavior that lead to reoffense be disrupted. Therapists must let go

of traditional codes of confidentiality and be willing to work as a team

with supervision officers and others to reduce the likelihood of

reoffense, while acting in the best interests of victims and the

community. The most effective sex offender treatment approaches

play a pivotal role in preventing victimization because offenders are

held accountable for their actions; are required to confront their

thinking errors, acknowledging their crimes and the harm that they

have caused; and are required to develop specific skills and adopt

new behavior patterns.
5

The passing of community notification in Connecticut

was the impetus for collaboration between the

Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc.

(CONNSACS) and the State Office of Adult Probation

(OAP). OAP invited CONNSACS to sit on the board that

developed the state standards for sex offender

registration and community notification. Because

CONNSACS was involved in the implementation of the

law, its staff were able to advocate for legislative

amendments when they began hearing about unintended

consequences on victims and others (e.g., a child being

harassed at school because it was public knowledge that

his father was a sex offender).

The director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

is a member of the state Board for the Treatment of Sex

Offenders. (In addition, there are representatives from

local victim services and intra-familial victim services,

and a survivor of sexual abuse). The board has

developed treatment standards and a provider

accreditation process. It is currently conducting

accreditation visits. The coalition director finds it useful

to participate in visits to treatment programs—it allows

her to recommend how providers can maintain a focus

on victim safety. She also sits on a state board that is

developing a civil commitment process for sex offenders

and is working with the Corrections Department to

develop policies and practices related to community

notification.

In Jefferson County, Colorado, a policy-oriented group

that addresses management of juvenile sex offenders

includes the victim-witness specialist from the District

Attorney’s Office and a representative of the state

Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

The program administrator for the Colorado Sex Offender

Management Board volunteers her time as co-chair of the

board of directors for the state Coalition Against Sexual

Assault.

In Connecticut, the director of the Center for the

Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior, with whom the

state contracts to provide sex offender treatment

services, is a member of the board of directors for the

state Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. (CONNSACS).

In turn, the director of CONNSACS is a member of the

state Association for the Treatment of Sex Offenders

(CATSO). A trusting relationship between the two

directors led to joint presentations to the media and state

Legislature in which they supported each other’s work

and the priority of developing laws and services that

address victim safety. Together, they serve as a

powerful voice for victims.

Beyond that, there are a variety of ways that

advocates and other victim service providers can

address victim and community needs in sex offender

management, as discussed below.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Jurisdictions should develop community-wide and

agency-specific policies to facilitate effective and

consistent management of sex offenders. Advocates

and other victim service providers can collaborate with

criminal justice system professionals, sex offender

treatment providers, and other stakeholders to assess

whether the policies and practices of the sex offender

management system adequately address victim issues,

and assist in exploring and implementing strategies

that improve systemic responses to victims. They can

evaluate proposed policy additions or revisions to

ensure that changes do not compromise the safety

and interests of victims.18 They can promote

legislation that protects victims and communities and

holds offenders more accountable (e.g., when

necessary, advocate for changes in state registry and

notification laws). They can help craft policies that

broaden coordination among agencies and the

 

18 Littel, Malefyt, and Walker, p. 251.

continuum of streamlined, coordinated services related

to sexual assault.

Advocates and other victim service providers also can

involve practitioners from the sex offender

management field in developing policies and practices

related to victim services. They can help validate the

need for services for victims with whom they interact;

consider how best to promote use of these services;

encourage coordination among various community

victim service providers; and explore innovative ways

to work towards ending sexual violence.

COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION AND

EDUCATION ABOUT PREVENTION

Community notification legislation enacted around the

nation mandates that law enforcement and other

officials notify various community members when a

convicted offender is living in their neighborhood.19 A

few states invited advocacy groups to help plan and

implement this legislation, and several jurisdictions are

involving advocates in the process of door-to-door

notification and community education on the issue.

Probation or law enforcement officers can dispense

information to community members about

registration20 and notification laws, convicted

offenders living in their neighborhood, patterns of sex

offending behavior, and whom to contact if they

notice suspicious behavior. Advocates can offer the

community a wealth of experience in prevention

education. They can increase residents’

 

19 The scope of community members who are notified typically varies

based on sex offenders’ perceived levels of risk to reoffend. See

CSOM’s An Overview of Sex Offender Community Notification

Practices for a more thorough discussion of this topic.

20 Registration laws require convicted sex offenders, upon their

release, to provide local law enforcement agencies in the community

with their names, descriptions of their conviction crimes, new

addresses, and other information specified by state law. (Information

drawn from Kim English, Suzanne Pullen, and Linda Jones, eds.,

Managing Adult Sex Offenders on Probation and Parole: A

Containment Approach, Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole

Association, 1996) pp. 5-3.)
6

The Probation Department of Tarrant County, Texas, in

conjunction with the Sexual Assault Advisory Council

and the County Junior College, Northwest Child Abuse

Training Project, developed a videotape featuring a group

interview with several sex offenders under community

supervision. The local Women’s Center and other

agencies utilized the videotape in their training programs.

The interviewing officers used questions developed by

Women’s Center staff and other members of the

advisory council.

In Fredericksburg, Virginia, a sex offender treatment

provider, a victim therapist, and the Rappahannock

Council Against Sexual Assault collaborated to offer

regional professional training on sexual victimization and

sex offender treatment. The training was well attended

and provided an opportunity for networking among

participants from various disciplines.

Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc.

(CONNSACS) works with the state Adult Probation

Office to present community notification forums.

Advocates help shift the focus of notification laws from

merely informing the public about known offenders in

their neighborhoods to preventing future sexual

victimization. Such forums offer new captive audiences

for advocates to educate about sexual assault and offer

help to victims.

Advocates in Maricopa County, Arizona, and New

Haven, Connecticut, have assisted justice agencies with

door-to-door community notification.

understanding of this crime; provide them with facts

concerning who is at risk for victimization and by

whom (given that convicted perpetrators represent

only a portion of the actual population of sex

offenders); and discuss practical strategies to reduce

their risk of being sexually assaulted. They also can

assist justice system officials in addressing resident

concerns while helping to allay fears and reduce the

possibility of vigilantism against offenders.

PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, INFORMATION

SHARING, AND NETWORKING

Victim advocates, along with other victim service

providers, can be valuable resources on sexual

victimization issues to those involved in sex offender

management. They can provide training and

information that enhances the ability of justice system

agencies and treatment providers to create effective

policies; identify victim concerns or potential problems

in individual cases; and assist victims in addressing

their needs. Training topics can include:

ß introduction of local sexual assault advocacy

program (role and services);

ß local and state resources for victims;

ß the nature and scope of sexual victimization;

ß the impact of sexual violence on victims, their

family and friends, and the community;

ß the range of victim reactions to sexual assault,

including post-traumatic stress disorder;

ß the needs of specific victim populations, including

secondary victims;

ß intra-familial sexual abuse dynamics and family

reunification issues;

ß prevention of sexual re-victimization in individual

offender cases;

ß facilitation of victim involvement/cooperation in

the offender management process (e.g., offering

victims access to information and encouraging

their input about the offender’s incarceration,

release, supervision, and treatment); and

ß restorative versus retributive justice for victims

and the community.21

In addition, state coalitions, local advocacy programs,

and other victim service agencies can involve sex

offender supervision and treatment professionals in

educating their respective staff on topics such as

basic sex offender issues, the components of sex

offender management, and the latest research in the

field. Such information can provide advocates and

other victim service providers with a clearer picture of

how the criminal justice system handles convicted sex

offenders and areas where victims of these offenders

and the public could benefit from their assistance. It

also can support or oppose specific legislation related

to sex crimes.

Advocates and other victim service providers can also

collaborate with supervision officers and treatment

providers to educate other professionals (e.g., law

enforcement, prosecutors, judges, child protection

workers, legislators, and the news media) about

sexual assault victim and offender issues, so that they

are better equipped to make well-informed decisions

about these cases.

VICTIM INPUT ON IMPROVING SEX

OFFENDER MANAGEMENT

Community-based sexual assault advocacy programs

typically rely on their experiences working with

victims and victim feedback about programs and

services to guide their agency policies and practices.

Victim feedback obtained by advocates and other

victim service providers also is an invaluable tool to

assess the needs of victims and tailor to sex offender

management strategies.

 

21 Drawn from Beverly Brakeman-Colbath and Grace Yeh, The Central

Role of Victims in Managing Sex Offenders. This document is one of

a number of curriculum materials under development by the Center for

Sex Offender Management.
7

Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. created

adult and teen victim advisory groups to help ensure that

their policies and practices are victim-centered. The

adult victim advisory group has provided the advocate in

the New Haven Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Unit

(see description in next section) with feedback on

developing correspondence to victims and ideas for

connecting victims with services. Also, one member of

the adult advisory group agreed to be interviewed by a

sex offender treatment provider about the impact of

victimization on his life. A videotape of the interview is

used in the empathy component of sex offender

treatment around the state.

DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT

By involving advocates and other victim service

providers in the day-to-day management of sex

offenders, victims whose offenders have been

convicted of sex crimes can receive more

comprehensive assistance and advocacy than they

currently are offered in most jurisdictions. If offenders

disclose crimes with new victims during supervision or

treatment, advocates and other victim service

providers can work with supervision officers and

treatment providers to consider ways to offer

assistance to these victims.

Advocates also can help acknowledge and address

victimization issues of family and friends of offenders.

Since most sexual assault victims do not report their

victimization or seek victim services, it makes sense

to take advantage of the opportunity to offer help to

this underserved victim population. This assistance

can be instrumental in halting intergenerational

violence and other dysfunctional behavior.

Advocates can help victims achieve their personal

goals with the criminal justice system, instead of goals

defined by prosecutors, judges, probation and parole

officers, and sex offender treatment providers.22 The

advocate’s role is to provide support and information,

work to ensure that victims’ wishes are heard, and act

as a liaison for victims with criminal justice system

professionals and other service providers. For

example, advocates can encourage prosecutors to

incorporate victim concerns in plea-bargaining. They

can work with victim-witness specialists to assist

victims in developing victim impact statements for

pre-sentence investigation reports and in obtaining

state victims’ compensation.

Advocate and victim service provider involvement in

the criminal justice component of sexual assault cases

traditionally has tapered off after sentencing.

However, victim safety and well-being must continue

to be a priority when convicted offenders are released

on probation or parole. Advocates and other victim

 

22 Drawn from Littel, Malefyt, and Walker, p. 167.

service providers can assist victims in many ways at

this point, including:

ß explaining the community supervision and

treatment program to victims and clarifying that it

is designed to protect them, rather than coddle

offenders;

ß making sure that victims are informed of changes

in offenders’ status in the criminal justice system

and conditions of supervision;

ß helping victims address their concerns and plan

for safety;

ß providing victims with ongoing support,

information, and referrals;

ß communicating with justice system agencies,

treatment providers, and other stakeholders (e.g.,

those conducting physiological tests, schools,

social services, and employers) on behalf of

victims;

ß facilitating victim input regarding supervision and

treatment plans (e.g., assisting them in sharing

concerns with supervision officers and making

recommendations about probation conditions,

victim empathy education, and restitution);

ß ensuring that offender assessment is routinely

repeated to identify risks and that appropriate

changes are made to supervision and treatment

plans;

ß accompanying supervision officers on field visits

to assess the danger offenders may pose to

victims or potential victims;

ß ensuring that treatment providers view their

responsibility to the victim as equal to their

responsibility to the offender with whom they are

working—interventions they utilize must be in the

best interest of the victim and the community

(recognizing that what is in the best interest of

victims and the community is also in the best

interests of offenders);

ß helping treatment providers develop victim

empathy programs;

ß participating in case review meetings and sharing

information (with victims’ consent) to promote

informed case decisions that promote victim

protection; and

ß assisting victims in intra-familial sexual abuse

cases to assess the risks involved in family

reunification and, if reunification is to occur,

monitoring the process to ensure safety.

A few jurisdictions (New Haven, Connecticut, and

Maricopa County, Arizona) are utilizing a full-time

victim advocate as part of a team that manages sex

offenders in their community. Several other

jurisdictions are considering creating similar positions.

It is important to note that community-based

advocacy programs typically supervise these

advocates. A community-based advocate can be fully

responsive to victims’ needs, instead of being

influenced or limited by the goals of the justice

system. For example, the advocate in the Intensive
8

Full-Time Advocate Position Within a Sex Offender Unit

In 1998, a full-time advocate position was added to the Intensive Sex Offender Supervision Unit in New Haven, Connecticut, to

systemically include the victim’s perspective in decision-making and to provide regular contact with victims and their families. The

addition of the advocate was the result of collaboration among the state Court Support Services Division (which houses probation),

treatment providers from the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior, and Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services,

Inc. (CONNSACS). The advocate was hired with Court Support Services funds, but is an employee of and supervised by

CONNSACS. While she is based in the probation office, she works one day a week in the CONNSACS office.

Other unit staff include two therapists (average caseloads of 50 to 60 offenders each); three probation officers who do intensive

supervision (average caseload of 25 offenders each); and one relapse prevention probation officer (average caseload of 50

offenders). The advocate has an average caseload of 100 cases, with about 25 being active at any one time.

The advocate’s primary role is to initiate and maintain contact with victims and their families. She makes initial contact with victims

by letter to provide information about their offenders’ release. Each letter is followed up with a phone call, at which time the

advocate: explains the work of the supervision unit, its emphasis on victim safety, her role as liaison and advocate for victims and

their families, and her status as a CONNSACS employee; offers ongoing direct services; discusses victim concerns and ways to

address these issues; and provides referrals to community resources. She estimated that she reaches about 35 percent of victims

she attempts to contact by phone—they are willing to talk with her and want to utilize the ongoing services she offers. If she is not

able to contact victims by phone, she sends additional letters as needed (e.g., to inform a victim that her offender has requested the

state to shorten his probation/parole). The advocate also serves in several other functions, including those listed below.

ß She works with offenders’ families to help them understand the dynamics of sex offending and offenders’ manipulative

behavior. Through these interactions, the advocate has found that many offenders’ partners have themselves been victims of

physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse, either by the convicted offender or other perpetrators. The advocate offers these

individuals assistance in their healing and in dealing with the offenders’ re-entry in their lives.

ß She accompanies probation officers and treatment providers on unannounced field visits at offenders’ homes. Each team

member typically notices different potential problems or offender violations. The visits may also provide the advocate with an

additional opportunity to meet family members of offenders.

ß She assists treatment providers on the empathy portion of treatment groups, helping them to present information in a more

comprehensive and effective way.

ß Probation officers, treatment providers, and the advocate participate in weekly case review meetings. Team members share

information, discuss concerns and potential problems, and make decisions in each case. The advocate works to maintain the

team’s focus on victim and community safety and support. Team members frequently are able to make more informed

decisions because victims and/or the offenders’ family and friends disclose useful information (e.g., about offenders’ violations

of special conditions). The director of the Center for the Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior credits this increase in

information to the advocate’s efforts to establish trusting relationships with victims and family and friends of the offenders.

ß On occasion, the advocate assists law enforcement officers with door-to-door community notification and education forums.

She has found that by being involved in door-to-door notification, she is better able to assess the possible impact of the

offenders’ presence in the neighborhood on victims and potential victims, and subsequently make more informed case

recommendations.

The advocate indicated it took about a year and a half to incorporate her role into the unit’s work of managing sex offenders in the

community. While it took time to build trust and respect among team members and shift to a more victim-centered perspective,

probation officers and treatment providers now are more often posing the question, “How would this team decision impact victims?”

The team has started to meet routinely to discuss how to optimize their collaborative efforts. Due to the success of the New Haven

team approach, two new advocate positions are being developed for sex offender supervision units in Hartford and New London,

Connecticut.

Sex Offender Supervision Unit of New Haven,

Connecticut (see description above), indicates that

victims react better to her once they know that she

does not work for the justice system and that her

parent organization’s goals are supporting victims in

recovery and preventing future victimization.

Advocates may be concerned that getting involved in

the operational aspects of sex offender management

could impede their ability to provide victims with

confidential services. In order to deal with this issue

in Connecticut, Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis

Services, Inc. (CONNSACS) oversees the advocate

who works in the New Haven Sex Offender Intensive

Supervision Unit. CONNSACS developed procedures

to request that victims whose offenders are being

supervised by the unit allow this advocate to share

information with supervision officers and treatment

providers, as appropriate. By supervising the

advocate through the state coalition and developing

clear protocols that apply to these limited cases, local

sexual assault crisis centers avoid problems related to

what the courts may require to be revealed about

victims in other cases.

Other localities involve advocates and other victim

service providers in day-to-day operations in more

limited capacities.
9

A sexual abuse advisory council has been in place in

Tarrant County, Texas, for 17 years. It has addressed

victim and offender issues and involves the advocacy

program as well as agencies that manage sex offenders.

The participation of these agencies in the council has

helped ease the way for advocate involvement in sex

offender management practices.

The Iowa Corrections Department saw a need to improve

the quality and consistency of sex offender treatment

and invited the state Coalition Against Sexual Assault,

among others, to participate in a board formed in the

early 1990s to develop treatment standards and an

accreditation process.

In Colorado, early efforts to develop legislation, policies,

and practices that standardized sex offender

management were spearheaded by the state Division of

Criminal Justice, in conjunction with the Department of

Corrections, the Department of Health and Human

Services, Division of Youth Corrections, the Division of

Alcohol and Drug Abuse, and the Judicial Department.

Input for the standards was sought from the state

Coalition Against Sexual Assault and victim service

programs, as well as many other agencies, individuals,

and the public. The first standards were published in

1996 and revisions to the standards were made in 1998

and 1999.

In Jefferson County, Colorado, the victim-witness

specialist from the District Attorney’s Office is part of a

team that works with county school officials to deal with

problems posed by the presence of juvenile sex

offenders in schools and address victim safety issues.

The victim-witness specialist and child advocacy center

staff (who interview victims for child abuse and neglect

investigations) also participate in monthly meetings to

review juvenile offender cases.

The Women’s Center in Tarrant County, Texas,

collaborates with the Sex Offender Unit of the county

Probation Department, through the department’s

Chaperone Education Program. The Probation

Department requires an approved chaperone when an

offender may come into contact with children or in other

high-risk situations. Chaperones are usually the

offenders’ family members or friends. In addition to

other requirements, chaperones must attend classes to

prepare for their role. The Women’s Center works with

program staff to educate chaperones on victim issues

and resources, and offers counseling and support for

chaperones who identify themselves as victims. The

Women’s Center works with the county Parole Office on

a similar initiative, mainly focusing on education on

victim issues rather than counseling.

The director of the Women’s Center, a therapist by

background, also collaborates with a local sex offender

treatment program to conduct several individual victim

empathy sessions a year for offenders who are close to

completing treatment. The offender pays a fee to the

center for each session. The director views this activity

as a way to attempt to reduce sexual violence in

individual cases. While she continually evaluates how

these sessions affect offender progress, as well as the

comfort level for victims and staff in holding sessions at

the center, treatment providers indicated that the

sessions have made a positive impact on offenders’

progress in treatment.

Strategies to Engage

Advocates and Other Victim

Service Providers in Sex

Offender Management

ESTABLISH DIALOGUE AMONG AGENCIES

The first step in exploring the feasibility of involving

advocates and other victim service providers in sex

offender management is facilitating discussion among

relevant stakeholders. The difficulty of this task will

depend on whether there is a history of collaboration

to build upon. If partnering activities are already

underway, agencies may be more amenable to talking

about how to better address victim and community

needs in sex offender management.

Initiating discussions about collaboration usually is the

work of a small group of agencies or individuals who

have identified a need for change, determined how to

interest others, and encouraged action. The agencies

or individuals driving change will vary across

communities. Those initiating contact should

articulate the benefits of involving advocates and

other victim service providers in managing sex

offenders; identify their potential roles; work with

each agency to identify problems or conflicts of

interest that would impede progress in this area; and

develop strategies to adequately resolve these issues.

Examples of roadblocks to establishing dialogue may

include those listed below.

ß Functional working relationships may not exist

among agencies of various disciplines. They may

hold misperceptions or assumptions about each

other that create barriers to partnerships.

ß If there are multiple community-based advocacy

agencies, supervision officers and treatment

providers may be confused about which agencies

to involve or believe that it is too overwhelming to

involve all of them. They may assume all victim

services are the same and believe it is sufficient

to coordinate with just one agency to assist

victims.

ß Differences in language that each field uses to

talk about sexual assault issues may hamper

practitioners’ ability to communicate.

It may be helpful for individuals initiating contact to

first informally interact with staff from supervision

agencies, treatment programs, advocacy programs,

and other victim services to gauge interest and

concerns, assess agency power dynamics, and

determine the formality required to facilitate dialogue.
10

In Jackson County, Oregon, the Community Corrections

Office is planning to hold a meeting of victim service

providers to identify gaps in services for victims of

offenders they supervise and to better coordinate

resources. The office wants to clarify roles of each

victim service provider and reduce duplication in order to

make more appropriate referrals.

Since the formation of the Colorado Sex Offender

Management Board in 1993, two member positions have

been filled by victim service representatives from the

state coalition and a rural sexual assault crisis center.

The board also includes representatives from other victim

service agencies. The board administrator indicated that

one of the board’s first tasks was to educate members

about victim issues, so they all operated from the

premise that the primary function of sex offender

management is victim safety.

Meetings between staff from these agencies can be

encouraged so they can become familiar with one

another’s work, be comfortable making referrals, and

begin talking about collaboration.

Individuals initiating contact also should facilitate

communication among sexual assault victim advocacy

programs and other victim service providers to discuss

how best to coordinate victim support in sex offender

management. If identification of community-based

sexual assault victim advocacy agencies is

problematic, state coalitions may help identify

programs that are members of their associations,

follow standards for service provision (if standards

exist), and identify potential sources of government

funding.

If a community is just starting to develop or revamp

its sex offender management program, it serves the

interest of victims to involve advocates and other

victim service providers right from the beginning.

OVERCOME RESISTANCE23

Dialogue among agencies also may be impeded by

resistance to the idea of involving advocates and other

victim service providers in the community

management of sex offenders. Reasons for resistance

may include those listed below.

ß Many current mainstream approaches to sex

offender management do not promote

collaboration with victim advocates.

ß Agencies may be reluctant to collaborate due to

concerns such as protecting their funding or

 

23 For further discussion on overcoming resistance to collaboration in

this area, see David D’Amora and Gail Burns-Smith, “Partnering in

Response to Sexual Violence: How Offender Treatment and Victim

Advocacy Can Work Together in Response to Sexual Violence,”

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, The Official

Journal of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 11

(October 1999): pp. 295-306.

maintaining their reputations in the community.

Individual professionals may think that

collaboration will only make their jobs more

difficult.

ß Supervision officers and treatment providers may

lack accurate information and training on victim

issues and roles of local advocacy and victim

assistance programs. Similarly, advocates may

lack accurate information and training on sex

offending behavior, adjudication and recidivism

rates of arrested offenders in their jurisdiction,

and how convicted offenders are managed by the

local criminal justice system.

ß Supervision officers and treatment providers may

believe that involvement of advocates will not

increase the effectiveness of their work. They

may point to the void of research in this area.

ß Advocates may be cynical about the efficacy of

community management of sex offenders and

lack information on promising trends in the field.

For example, they may perceive that the main

focus of offender supervision and treatment is

offender rehabilitation rather than managing risks

posed by offenders. Advocates may believe it is

preferable (and feasible) to “lock sex offenders up

and throw away the key.”

ß Advocates may not see working on sex offender

management issues as part of their mission or a

priority. Advocates who do this work may face

disapproval and even hostility from other

advocates who think they have crossed

boundaries and are “sympathetic” to offenders.

And while some may find it useful to be involved

in making policy decisions on the issue, they may

be more reluctant about working on offender

issues on the day-to-day case management level.

ß Supervision officers and treatment providers may

find it difficult to deal with victims or may hold

misperceptions about victims or offenders that

prevent them from viewing their work from a

victim-centered perspective. For example, they

may think that they need not be concerned about

the safety of adult victims who were not

physically injured by their perpetrators.

ß Treatment providers may worry that they are

crossing boundaries when they address victim

issues or fear that a victim-centered perspective

will hinder their ability to effectively treat

offenders.

Much opposition can be overcome by stressing that:

1) rigorous community management of convicted sex

offenders is vital to victim and public safety; and 2)

involving advocates and other victim service providers

in the process of establishing these community

management strategies potentially can improve the

quality of responses to victims, offenders, and the

public. Useful tactics for reducing resistance can

include identifying common interests, frustrations and

shared goals, and clarifying roles of each agency and

ways they can contribute to the prevention of future
11

Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc.

partnered with the Center for the Treatment of Problem

Sexual Behavior to present trainings for staff from their

agencies and sexual assault crisis centers in the state.

Orange County, California, a CSOM Resource Site, is

beginning to involve advocates and other victim service

providers in sex offender management. While the

Resource Site team eventually would like to place an

advocate within the Probation Department, they are

currently focusing on three smaller-scale initiatives:

ß to develop procedures within the Community

Service Program, Victim Assistance Program (which

houses both the victim-witness program and the

rape crisis center) to ensure that staff help sexual

assault victims file the proper paperwork to be

notified of their offender release into the

community;

ß to develop procedures that facilitate advocate

collaboration with probation officers to encourage

victims to provide information for the pre-sentence

investigation report; and

ß to develop procedures for the police to inform the

Victim Assistance Program when they will be

distributing flyers on notification of sex offenders

living in neighborhoods and involve advocates in

community education efforts.

In Iowa, some sexual assault crisis centers were invited

to monitor their local sex offender treatment programs.

This activity led treatment providers to make more victim

referrals to the crisis centers.

victimization. Agencies and individuals should be

encouraged to share their concerns and deal with

misconceptions and unrealistic expectations. In order

to promote exploration of new approaches responding

to victims and offenders, agency staff should be

provided with up-to-date research findings related to

sex offender management and victim assistance. It is

also critical to build agency capacity to do this work,

which may entail ensuring that each involved agency

is financially able to collaborate.

Identifying common interests and frustrations may

help advocates, other victim service providers, and

those already involved in sex offender management to

overcome tendencies to merely complain about what

is wrong with community responses to victims and

offenders, rather than take action. Commonalties may

include:

ß a desire to make case decisions based on the

most comprehensive information available;

ß an interest in obtaining additional funding,

resources, and personnel;

ß frustration with the lack of appropriate responses

to sexual assault cases by some agencies or

professionals within the criminal justice system or

treatment community;

ß frustration that the range of victim services

offered when victims enter the criminal justice

system are not available or easily accessible after

offenders are sentenced;

ß an interest in more consistent and appropriate

referrals to local victim services;

ß an interest in more streamlined and collaborative

approaches to victim services;

ß an interest in addressing victimization issues of

the family and friends of sex offenders;

ß an interest in ensuring that victims are notified of

their offenders’ status in the criminal justice

system;

ß a desire to address problems related to offender

registration and community notification laws; and

ß an interest in educating the public about sexual

victimization, offending behavior, and prevention.

While agencies do not need to agree on every issue,

they usually can agree on numerous interests and

frustrations and, in the process, identify shared visions

and goals. Subsequently, agencies can make priorities

among areas where improvements are needed and

work jointly toward positive change.

A variety of networking and training forums (e.g.

cross- and multi-disciplinary training, routine meetings,

and discussions via the Internet) can prepare

practitioners from various disciplines to work together

on this issue. Such forums can help to establish a

foundation of trust and respect among agencies;

clarify each agency’s roles in responding to sexual

assault; build competence in addressing victim and

public safety and support issues; encourage openness

to new ways of working with offenders; provide

information on emerging issues, trends, and research

in each field; and explore partnering possibilities and

resources.

TAKE ACTION

Moving from a theoretical discussion to planning and

implementing strategies to involve advocates and

other victim service providers in sex offender

management is the next challenge. Decisions about

what approaches to utilize will depend on the

strengths and gaps of the sex offender management

program, advocacy agencies, and other victim

services; available resources; the level of existing

collaboration among agencies; and the level of

readiness for change. Strategies could range from

relatively simple tasks such as inviting input about sex

offender management from advocates, to more

complicated endeavors such as developing a team

approach that involves advocates in the day-to-day

management of sex offenders. While it is critical that

collaborators acknowledge the validity of all

stakeholder concerns about specific approaches and

work to resolve problems, they should also avoid

becoming immobilized details of implementation and

impeding action.
12

The director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault

views addressing victim issues in sex offender

management as part of her job. She pursues

collaboration in this area because she has the support of

her board, which realizes the importance of having

someone with a victim-centered perspective at policy

meetings concerning sex offender management.

The advocate in the Sex Offender Intensive Supervision

Unit in New Haven, Connecticut, identified support of

leadership from all involved agencies as one of the main

reasons she is able to be effective in her position.

Paving the Way for the Creation of an Advocate Position

Several factors played a role in the establishment of an advocate position to work on sex offender management issues in Maricopa

County, Arizona. The county’s status as a Center for Sex Offender Management Resource Site was critical to building interest and

commitment to engaging advocates in sex offender management. The Maricopa County Resource Site team includes probation

officers, sex offender treatment providers, judges, prosecutors, police, and representatives from the Center Against Sexual Assault

(CASA). In the process of considering areas for improvement in the supervision of offenders, the team identified the need for better

support for victims of offenders on probation. The team looked to the Intensive Sex Offender Unit in New Haven, CT, as a model of

collaboration among probation officers, treatment providers, and advocates in managing sex offenders in the community.

Another factor that supported the creation of an advocate position was the history of successful collaboration between CASA and

the criminal justice system. For example, the Mesa Center Against Family Violence, established in 1996 by the Mesa Police

Department as a multi-disciplinary investigative initiative, is built upon partnerships. The center strives to provide comprehensive

immediate responses to sexually assaulted and battered women and children. From the start, a CASA counselor has been a member

of the team housed at the center that works collaboratively as needed on each case. Other team members include detectives, two

child protection workers, a sexual assault nurse examiner, a county attorney, and government-based victim service staff.

With the support of the county Probation Department and the Mesa Police Department, CASA received a grant for this position.

The advocate, who is employed and supervised by CASA, is currently housed in the Center Against Family Violence. CASA plans to

move her position to the Probation Department in the future. Involved stakeholders still face the challenges of clarifying the

advocate’s role, identifying priorities among her tasks, and overcoming operational barriers to incorporating the advocate into the

sex offender management team. However, practitioners are beginning to see that the advocate is meeting victim needs that have

very seldom been met in the past. The overall consensus is that the advocate can help create a more comprehensive system to

manage sex offenders in the community. The commitment of those involved to serve victims and their willingness to discuss their

concerns likely will contribute to the jurisdiction’s success in dealing with these challenges.

Agencies may be more inclined to continue

collaborating if they start with tasks that are relatively

easy to accomplish and subsequently find their efforts

successful. For example, a planning group could

begin by identifying policies needed to facilitate

consistent referrals by supervision officers and

treatment providers to advocacy programs and other

victim services. Then they can work to develop

interagency agreements and seek endorsement from

involved agency leadership.

Shifting the focus of sex offender management

programs from offender rehabilitation and risk

management to a more comprehensive victim-centered

approach will not happen overnight, nor will it

necessarily be easy. Those involved must recognize

that collaboration is a long-term process of building

upon successes, failures, and growing relationships

among collaborators.

Seeking Resources

Seeking resources to involve advocates and other

victim service providers in the community

management of sex offenders may seem like a

daunting task, particularly to agencies that receive

their funding through one or two primary sources.

Like many sexual assault crisis centers, those

interested in collaboration in this area most likely will

need to seek out a variety of resources. However, the

jurisdictions that already involve advocates and other

victim service providers in sex offender management

demonstrate that it is possible to obtain needed

resources with a sufficient commitment of time,

research, and creativity. Resources are available in

both the public and private sectors and can include

volunteers, donations of in-kind support and supplies,

technical assistance, training, peer support, access to

information, and grant support.24

SUPPORT OF AGENCY LEADERSHIP

Gaining the support of agency leadership to do this

work is critical to long-term success. Those interested

in initiating more victim-centered approaches to sex

offender management can explain to agency leaders

the benefits of involving advocates and other victim

service providers in this work. Endorsement by

leadership can allow funding, staff time, and other

resources to be sought and allotted to this initiative.

 

24 Center for Sex Offender Management, Identifying Resources for

Managing Sex Offenders (Silver Spring: MD, 1999) p. 1. This

publication provides descriptions/contact information for CSOM’s

partnership organizations, U.S. Department of Justice offices, national

associations and organizations, and public and private organizations,

as well as resource development tips. Contact CSOM for a copy of

this document.
13

In Tarrant County, Texas, the Probation Department

applied for funding through the Sexual Assault

Prevention and Crisis Services Division of the State

Attorney General’s Office to expand its Chaperone

Education Program. Recognizing that chaperones may

have their own victimization issues, the State Attorney

General’s Office recommended that the Probation

Department collaborate with the local sexual assault

crisis center, the Women’s Center, to enhance their

project. The Probation Department subsequently

negotiated a contract with the Women’s Center to

involve them in several aspects of the program.

The Connecticut Court Support Services Division

provided the state Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc.

(CONNSACS) with funding to hire an advocate to work

in the New Haven Sex Offender Intensive Supervision

Unit.

The Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault is working

with the state Corrections Department to identify

funding for an advocate position which would assist with

statewide community notification education.

Sex Offender Management in Tribal Communities

The Fort Peck Tribes of Montana, recently selected as a CSOM Resource Site, are working to establish a more comprehensive sex

offender management team. The tribes have collaborative structures in place that are strengthened by a culturally sensitive, victimcentered approach to services. For example, the Child Protection Team (CPT) meets once a week to discuss juvenile cases. The

director of the Crisis Center, which provides tribal victim services, coordinates team activities. It includes representatives from

Tribal Criminal Investigations, the courts, the FBI, Social Services, Juvenile Services, the Crisis Center, Indian Heath Services, Tribal

Mental Health, schools, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Seven CPT members, along with a judge, form the CSOM Resource Site team. While the Resource Site team is committed to

improving community and justice system responses to sexual assault, they recognize there is a substantial amount of difficult work

ahead of them. Not only do they have to determine how best to coordinate tribal, state, and federal cases, but the community lacks

adequate resources to provide for basic supervision and treatment of sex offenders, particularly juvenile offenders. Given the

enormity of the tasks at hand, there is some reluctance among individual team members to take responsibility for day-to-day

coordination tasks. To better share the work, they are hoping to expand the team to include broader representation from federal,

state, and tribal agencies and the community. While it will take time and creativity on the part of those involved, the tribes’ history

of victim-centered collaboration are assets in the process of developing an improved sex offender management system.

COMMITMENT OF AGENCY PERSONNEL

Many professionals who work with sexual assault

victims and sex offenders contribute significant time

to collaborative initiatives because they believe their

efforts contribute to a safer community, more rapid

victim healing, and more successful offender

reintegration into the community. They also may view

collaboration as a vehicle to be more effective in

carrying out their agencies’ goals. Much can be

achieved through professional commitment to the

issue. For example, the majority of advocates, victim

service providers, justice system personnel, and

treatment providers who participate on policy-making

entities that address sex offender management do not

receive compensation for their involvement beyond

travel, food, and accommodation reimbursements.

However, their presence can have a profound impact

on the sex offender management system to make

decisions that protect and support victims.

AGENCY CAPACITY BUILDING

While agency personnel may be committed to

advancing a victim-centered approach to sex offender

management, it is important to recognize that there

are limits to individual and agency ability to devote

existing resources to new tasks. Efforts to better

address victim issues in sex offender management and

prevent future victimization should include strategizing

about how to build the capacity of supervision

agencies, treatment programs, and advocacy and

other victim service programs to do this work. Rather

than competing for funds, agencies can assist one

another in building overall jurisdictional capacity to do

this work (e.g., by jointly applying for grants to

support positions and projects). It is particularly

important that involved stakeholders understand that

community-based advocacy programs in many

localities are significantly under-funded and thus

challenged to devote existing resources to this work.

These programs can benefit from the support of

justice system agencies in maintaining and increasing

resources to serve victims.

FUNDING

Those interested in obtaining funding to involve victim

advocates and other victim service providers in sex

offender management should take advantage of one

another’s expertise and access to resources. For

example, directors of community-based sexual assault

advocacy programs typically have considerable grant

writing and fundraising experience because their

agencies’ survival depends on funding from multiple

private and public sources. Directors and supervisors

of probation, corrections, law enforcement, and

prosecution offices may be aware of state and federal

resources and how to go about obtaining them. They

also may be able to access justice system statistical

information and utilize departmental equipment,

supplies, and support staff to develop grant proposals

and fundraising materials.
14

By working collaboratively, jurisdictions are best

positioned to access the many grants designated for

victim outreach and services, management of sex

offenders, sexual assault education and prevention, as

well as undesignated public and private funding. As a

result, agencies may obtain funding from what they

perceive to be an unlikely source.

Funding may be available through U.S. Department of

Justice grant projects. A few examples include:

ß state victim assistance grants of the Victims of

Crime Act (VOCA)—many sexual assault crisis

centers receive VOCA funding for direct victim

service provision (visit the website of the Office

of Victims of Crime, at www.ojp.usdoj/ovc/ or call

(800) 627-6872);

ß the STOP grant of the Violence Against Women

Act (VAWA), which promotes a coordinated,

multi-disciplinary approach to improving the

criminal justice system’s response to violence

against women (visit the website of the Violence

Against Women Office, at www.usdoj.gov/vawo

or call (202) 616-8894); and

ß the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law

Enforcement Assistance Program, which works to

improve criminal justice system functioning, with

emphasis on drug-related crime, violent crime and

serious offenders (visit the website of the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja

or call (800) 688-4252).

Beyond the U.S. Department of Justice, there is

potential funding from other federal and state

agencies, local governments, private and community

foundations, grant making public charities, individual

donors, and fundraising campaigns. Information about

foundations can be obtained in The Foundation

Directory, available as a book or CD-ROM through

libraries (visit the Foundation Center at their website

at www.fdncenter.org). The Nonprofit Resource

Catalogue is a website that provides links to resources

for and about nonprofit resources

(www.clark.net/pub/pwalker/home.html).

INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE

Several national and state organizations (e.g., CSOM,

the National Alliance of Sexual Assault Coalitions,

state sexual assault coalitions, and state sex offender

management boards) may be able to provide

information and technical assistance to jurisdictions

interested in involving advocates and other victim

service providers in sex offender management. And

while there is little literature on this specific topic,

resources are available to help readers build their

understanding of sexual victimization, advocacy and

other victim services, community and justice system

responses to sexual assault, the dynamics of sex

offending, and the sex offender management process.

(See “Resource List.”) In addition, jurisdictions and

programs highlighted in this document may be willing

to share their experiences with others. (Call CSOM

for further information about these jurisdictions.)

Conclusion and Future

Implications

The concept and practice of involving advocates and

other victim service providers in sex offender

management is in its infancy. The practice may

become more widely accepted and implemented as

sex offender management programs shift the focus of

their work to better address the needs and safety of

victims and the community through interventions with

offenders. However, there is general lack of

awareness of the benefits of involving advocates and

other victim service providers in this work on the part

of supervision agencies, sex offender treatment

providers, as well as advocacy programs and other

victim service organizations. Strategies that may

promote a more comprehensive victim-centered

approach to this work and help overcome roadblocks

to further developing this concept and practice

include:

ß educating stakeholders about the benefits of this

approach;

ß developing partnerships among organizations

working to advance the field of sex offender

management and state sexual assault coalitions

and other policy-making organizations that

address sexual assault victim issues, in order to

mobilize advocate support;

ß continuously identifying promising practices in this

area and sharing this information with

professionals in the field;

ß promoting national, state, and local discussions

about collaboration among supervision officers,

treatment providers, advocates, victim service

providers and other stakeholders;

ß encouraging sexual assault crisis centers to take a

leadership role in advocating for the needs of

victims of sex offenders supervised in the

community and new victims identified in the

process of sex offender management;

ß encouraging jurisdictions to access technical

assistance to address victim issues in sex

offender management;

ß promoting the inclusion of advocates and other

victim service providers on policy-making bodies

that deal with sex offender management;

ß encouraging cross- and multi-disciplinary training

among supervision agencies, sex offender

treatment programs, advocacy agencies, and

other victim services;
15

ß encouraging supervision agencies and sex

offender treatment providers to involve advocates

and other victim service providers in the day-today management of sex offenders;

ß promoting the implementation of sex offender

registration and notification laws, in conjunction

with community education sessions presented by

advocates;

ß encouraging collaboration among agencies and

legislators to improve laws that address sex

offenders and victim safety issues;

ß supporting research on the impact of collaboration

among supervision officers, treatment providers,

advocates, and other victim service providers; and

ß helping agencies build their capacity to collaborate

in this area (e.g., by supporting the development

of sexual assault crisis centers where they do not

exist; promoting coordination among advocacy

programs and victim service agencies; and

supporting the establishment of specialized sex

offender supervision units that utilize a

community supervision model and include a role

for advocates).

Acknowledgements

Kristin Littel authored this brief. CSOM would like to

thank the individuals listed below for contributing

information to this document.

Elizabeth Barnhill, Executive Director, Iowa Coalition

Against Sexual Assault, Des Moines, IA

Gail Burns Smith, Executive Director, Connecticut

Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. (CONNSACS),

East Hartford, CT

Deborah Caddy, Director, Rape Crisis and Victim

Services Program of the Women’s Center, Fort

Worth, TX

Cindy Carroll, Adult Parole and Probation Officer,

Jackson County Community Corrections,

Medford, OR

David D’Amora, Center Director, Center for the

Treatment of Problem Sexual Behavior,

Middletown, CT

Christine Edes Kling, Director of Advocacy, Center

Against Sexual Abuse, Phoenix, AZ

Jean McAllister, Program Administrator, State of

Colorado Sex Offender Management Board,

Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department

of Public Safety, Denver, CO

Patty McGeshick, Program Director, Crisis Center,

Wolf Point, MT

Susan Perdue, Assistant Director, Community Service

Program, Victim Assistance Program, Irvine, CA

Leah Wicks, Probation Supervisor, Jefferson County

Probation Department, Golden, CO

Joe Yanes, Director of Field Services, Tarrant County

Probation Department, Fort Worth, TX

Carrie Zimmerman, Victim Advocate, CONNSACS,

East Hartford, CT

Resource List

ORGANIZATIONS

Center for Sex Offender Management

8403 Colesville Rd., Suite 720

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 589-9383

Fax: (301) 589-3505

E-mail: askcsom@csom.org

Internet: www.csom.org

Corrections Program Office

Office of Justice Programs

810 7th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20531

Phone: (202) 353-8123

Fax: (202) 307-2019

Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cpo/

National Alliance of Sexual Assault Coalitions

c/o CONNSACS

110 Connecticut Blvd.

East Hartford, CT 06108

Phone: (860) 282-9881

Internet: www.connsacs.org/alliance.htm

National Center for Victims of Crime

2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300

Arlington, VA 22201

Phone: (703) 276-2880

Fax: (703) 276-2889

Internet: www.ncvc.org

National Coalition Against Sexual Assault

125 N. Enola Dr.

Enola, PA 17025

Phone: (717) 728-9764

Internet: www.ncasa.org

National Resource Center on Sexual Assault

c/o Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape

125 N. Enola Dr.

Enola, PA 17025

Phone: (717) 728-9740

Fax: (717) 728-9781

Services offered by this new center are estimated to be available in

mid-2000.

Office for Victims of Crime Resource Center

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849-6000

Phone: (800) 627-6872

E-mail: askovc@ojp.usdoj.gov

Internet: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc

State Sexual Assault Coalitions

Virginians Aligned Against Sexual Assault (508 Dale Ave., Suite B,

Charlottesville, VA 22903-4547, Phone: (804) 979-9004) annually

updates and publishes a listing of state sexual assault coalitions and

local sexual assault crisis centers.

Violence Against Women Office

810 Seventh St., NW

Washington, DC 20531

Phone: (202) 616-8894

Fax: (202) 307-3911

Internet: www.usdoj.gov/vawo
16

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AND INTERNET

LINKS

Sex Offender Management

English, Kim, Susan Pullen, and Linda Jones, eds. Managing Adult

Sex Offenders on Probation and Parole: A Containment

Approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole

Association (APPA), 1996. Copies (cost $30) can be ordered by

calling the APPA at (606) 244-8207.

The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) produces

publications on sex offender management, including:

ß An Overview of Sex Offender Community Notification Practices:

Policy implications and Promising Approaches;

ß Case Studies on the Center for Sex Offender Management

National Resource Sites;

ß Compendium of OJP-Sponsored Projects Relating to Sex

Offenders;

ß Glossary of Terms Used in the Management and Treatment of

Sexual Offenders;

ß Identifying Resources for Managing Sex Offenders;

ß Sex Offender Registration: Policy Overview and Comprehensive

Practices;

ß The Community Management of the Sex Offender: An Overview

of Current and Promising Practice; and

ß Understanding Juvenile Sexual Offending Behavior: Emerging

Research, Treatment Approaches and Management Practices.

Through its website at www.csom.org, CSOM offers many of these

publications as well as a reference library on related organizations and

documents.

Sexual Victimization

Bachman, Ronet, and Linda Saltzman. “Violence Against Women:

Estimates from the Redesigned Survey,” Bureau of Justice

Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 1995. This

document can be obtained at no cost through the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service (P.O. Box 6000, Rockville,

MD 20849, Phone: (800) 851-3420, Fax: (301) 519-5212, Email: askncjrs@ncjrs.org, Internet: www.ncjrs.org). It is also

available on BJS’s website at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm.

Kilpatrick, D.G., C.N. Edmunds, and A. Seymour. Rape in America:

A Report to the Nation. Washington, D.C.: National Center for

Victims of Crime and Crime Victims Research and Treatment

Center, 1992. To obtain a copy (cost $10), call the National

Center for Victims of Crime at (703) 276-2880.

Rjaden, Patricia and Nancy Thoennes. “Prevalence, Incidence, and

Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the

National Violence Against Women Survey.” Research in Brief.

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice (NIJ), 1998.

This document can be obtained at no cost through the National

Criminal Justice Reference Service (see above contact

information). It is also available on NIJ’s website at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/victdoc.htm.

The National Coalition Against Sexual Assault, through its website at

www.ncasa.org, offers information, articles, and fact sheets on

sexual assault. The National Center for Victims of Crime also offers

fact sheets on sexual assault topics through the Infolink section of its

website at www.ncvc.org.

Responses to Sexual Assault Victims

Brakeman-Colbath, Beverly, and Grace Yeh (Connecticut Sexual

Assault Crisis Services, Inc). “The Central Role of Victims in

Managing Sex Offenders.” This document is one of a number of

curriculum materials under development by the Center for Sex

Offender Management.

D’Amora, David, and Gail Burns-Smith. “Partnering in Response to

Sexual Violence: How Offender Treatment and Victim Advocacy

Can Work Together in Response to Sexual Violence,” Sexual

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, The Official

Journal of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers

11 (October 1999): 295-306.

Littel, Kristin, Mary Malefyt, and Alexandra Walker. Promising

Practices: Improving the Criminal Justice System’s Response to

Violence Against Women. Washington, D.C.: STOP Violence

Against Women Grants Technical Assistance Project, 1998.

Copies (cost $29) can be purchased from the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (see above contact information).

Internet: www.ncjrs.org.

Looking Back, Moving Forward: A Guidebook for Communities

Responding to Sexual Assault. Arlington, VA: National Center

for Victims of Crime, 1993. To obtain a copy (cost $40), call

the center at (703) 276-2880.

This project was supported by Grant No. 97-WT-VX-K007, awarded by the 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.