1

C enter For S ex O ffender M anagement

The Collaborative Approach to Sex Offender Management

October 2000

Introduction

Most convicted sex offenders are

released from the custody of the criminal

justice system into the community at

some point following sentencing or after

a term of incarceration. Given time and

opportunity, many of these offenders will

continue to sexually reoffend. Therefore,

a comprehensive and cohesive network

of interventions must be in place to

control their manipulative and sexually

deviant behaviors. Only through

collaborative approaches can those

responsible for sex offender management

contain these offenders and minimize the

risk of future sexual victimization.

Collaboration in sex offender

management is not a new concept.

Practitioners and researchers have long

recognized that only by venturing beyond

traditional reactive, adversarial

approaches to criminal justice can we

address the complex nature of sex

offending and the impact that sexual

assault has on victims and society. In

numerous jurisdictions, criminal justice

agencies and community organizations

have successfully forged partnerships,

recognizing the enormous potential for

impacting crime and reducing costs when

agencies share information, develop

common goals, create compatible internal

policies to support those goals, and join

forces to analyze problems and create

responsive solutions.

Yet, collaboration in managing sex

offenders is far from universal. Many

localities, struggling to implement basic

policies and practices related to sex

offender management, may not consider

collaborative approaches attainable. Even

when agencies are committed to working

together, they may be entrenched in

organizational structures and

philosophical perspectives that threaten

collaborative thinking or activities.

This brief explores why collaboration is

essential in managing sex offenders in the

community and discusses the challenges

of such an approach. It also addresses

how jurisdictions can promote shared

responsibility among key policymakers

and practitioners for decision-making on

offender management issues.

Why is Collaboration Essential to

Managing Sex Offenders in the

Community?

In “Partnering in Response to Sexual

Violence,” David D’Amora and Gail BurnsSmith note:

“Professionals in the treatment, victim

advocacy, and criminal justice fields

have struggled with the enormous

scope of sexual violence for years.

Each of these systems has worked to

develop more effective approaches to

address the individual and societal

issues involved. A variety of

successes have been achieved in each

of these fields, including better

treatment outcomes, changing social

views, and more successful

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

prosecution and accountability. At

the same time, we have not been able

to eliminate the problem. Despite our

best efforts, sexual violence remains a

pervasive societal problem, and, when

the system responds inadequately to

offender behavior, victims can be

further hurt by system-induced

trauma.”

Collaboration among stakeholders

working with sexual assault victims and

sex offenders is vital to confront

continuously the secrecy, manipulation,

and deception that characterize sexual

offending behavior. However, justice

system and community agencies have

historically worked independently and

sometimes at odds with each other in

their efforts to manage offenders and

protect victims. A collaborative approach

requires that involved agencies operate

interdependently, working in concert to

minimize the ability of offenders to

circumvent the goals of community

management and maximize victim safety

and support.

The sex offender management field is

fairly united in the belief that the

responsible management of sex offenders

requires rigorous community supervision

and sex offender-specific treatment.

While collaboration among supervision

officers and treatment providers is

essential to managing this population, a

host of other justice system and

community agencies should be involved.

For instance, victim advocates and

service providers can speak to victim

safety needs at all stages of offender

management. Law enforcement officers

are critical in gathering and interpreting

evidence. Prosecutors make charging

decisions and can refuse to accept pleas

that downgrade charges to non-sexual

assault cases. Judges are empowered to

order offenders to receive the supervision

and treatment that is paramount to

reducing recidivism risk and enhancing

public safety. Defense attorneys counsel

offenders on probation and parole,

explaining the expectations of the court

(e.g., that their compliance with

community supervision restrictions may

reduce their risk of recidivism and

incarceration). Those conducting

physiological tests (e.g., polygraph or

plethysmograph examinations) assist the

courts, supervision officers, and

treatment providers in monitoring

offenders by encouraging them to

disclose sexually deviant and criminal

behavior committed while under

community supervision. Criminal justice

officials oversee registration and

community notification of sex offenders,

and may work with victim advocates to

educate residents about convicted

offenders living in their neighborhoods

and about preventing future victimization.

A network of others, including families

and significant others, and in juvenile

cases, school staff and social services

workers, may also assist in monitoring

offenders in the community.

Collaboration at the case management

and policy levels is the key to a

comprehensive and cohesive response to

victims and offenders. These entities

must not only share information about

each offender, but should also work

together continually to evaluate the

offender’s progress and discuss whether

modifications should be made in the

offender’s treatment contract and

supervision plan, based on information

they might learn from one another.

Community management of sex offenders

in some ways resembles a puzzle. Small

pieces of information taken alone have

little significance. However, when the

pieces are put together, the picture that
3

emerges often provides important

information regarding the offender’s

activities.

What is Collaboration?

In daily use, the word “collaboration” is

commonly interchanged with terms such

as “networking,” “cooperation,” and

“coordination.” Chris Huxham, in

Collaborative Advantage, provides

definitions of these terms in an effort to

distinguish collaboration.

• Networking is the exchange of

information for mutual benefit.

• Coordination is the exchange of

information and the altering of

activities for mutual benefit and to

achieve a common purpose.

• Cooperation is the exchange of

information, the altering of activities,

and the sharing of resources for

mutual benefit and to achieve a

common purpose.

• Collaboration is the exchange of

information, the altering of activities,

the sharing of resources, and the

enhancement of the capacity of

another for the mutual benefit of all

and to achieve a common purpose.

It is the effort to enhance the capacity of

another that makes collaboration

different. Blank et al. (1992)

differentiates among cooperation,

coordination, and collaboration (see Table

1). They emphasize that collaboration is

characterized by:

• mutual beneficial and well-defined

relationships;

• common goals decided by all those

involved;

• jointly developed structure, shared

responsibility, and many levels of

communication;

• comprehensive planning;

• mutual authority and accountability

for success; and

• sharing of resources and rewards.

Collaboration thrives on divergent

insights, offering a process through

which parties can see various aspects of

a problem, can explore their differences,

and search for solutions (Gray, 1989).

Collaborations involve formal and

sustained commitment and rely on the

conviction that, while retaining

uniqueness and autonomy, organizations

that share values and goals can often

accomplish more by working together

than on their own (Raley, 1993).

Jurisdictions and agencies should assess

whether they are truly collaborating in

their efforts to manage sex offenders.

While all kinds of partnerships can be

helpful in managing sex offenders,

collaboration is the only approach with

the highest potential to create

comprehensive and cohesive responses to

sex offenders that promotes public safety

and reduces victimization.

Forming Collaboratives in an

Adversarial System

The historically adversarial nature of

relationships among some practitioners

involved in sex offender management

complicates fostering and maintaining

collaboration. The “rules” of the criminal

justice system often position parties as

adversaries who seek to defend the

interests of their individual disciplines.

Criminal justice professionals also may

not be inclined to support efforts of those

working on sex offender issues outside
4

the legal system. Likewise, communitybased agencies sometimes do not want

to be involved in justice system

initiatives. Many at the collaboration

table also compete for shares of the same

limited funding—such competition makes

it hard for them to adopt an “all for one,

for the greater good” attitude. Similarly,

policymakers who face competitive

election may find it difficult to have an

“all for one” attitude with their nonelected colleagues, or colleagues who

may be potential competitors for their

positions.

Table 1: Distinguishing Features: Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration

Cooperation Coordination Collaboration

Based on individual

relationships that may be

mandated by a third party.

Individual relationships are

supported by the organizations

they represent.

Commitment of organizations and their

leaders is fully behind their

representatives.

Organizational missions and

goals are not taken into

account.

Mission and goals of the

individual organizations are

reviewed for compatibility.

Common mission and goals are

created.

Vision and

Relationships

Interactions occur as needed

and may last indefinitely.

Interaction is usually around one

specific project or task of

definable length.

One or more projects are undertaken

for longer-term results.

Relationships are informal;

each organization functions

separately.

Organizations involved take on

needed roles, but function

relatively independently of each

other.

New organizational structure and/or

clearly defined and interrelated roles

that constitute a formal division of

labor are created.

No joint planning is required. Some project-specific planning is

required.

Comprehensive planning is required

that includes developing joint

strategies and measuring success in

terms of impact on the needs of those

served.

Structure,

Responsibility,

and

Communication

Information is conveyed as

needed.

Communication roles are

established and definite channels

are created to facilitate

interaction.

Many levels of communication are

created beyond those needed to

merely promote interaction, as clear

information is a keystone of success.

Resources are separate,

serving the individual

organization’s needs.

Resources are acknowledged

and can be made available to

others for a specific project.

Resources are pooled or jointly secured

for a longer-term effort that is

managed by the collaborative

structure.

Resources and

Rewards

Rewards are mutually

acknowledged.

Rewards are mutually

acknowledged.

Organizations share in the products;

more is accomplished jointly than

could have been individually.

Authority rests solely with

individual organizations.

Authority rests with the

individual organizations, but

there is coordination among

participants.

Authority is determined by the need to

balance ownership by individual

organizations with expediency to

accomplish purpose.

Leadership is unilateral and

control is central.

Some sharing of leadership and

control.

Leadership is dispersed and control is

shared and mutual.

Authority and

Accountability

All authority and

accountability rests with the

individual organizations,

which act independently.

There is some shared risk, but

most of the authority and

accountability falls to the

individual organizations.

Equal risk is shared by all organizations

in the collaboration.
5

Collaboration requires players to step out

of adversarial roles in their pursuit of

common goals. Despite obstacles, many

agencies that are positioned as

adversaries have established

collaboratives to address specific issues

in sex offender management (see Table 2

for a comparison of adversarial versus

collaborative approaches (Gray, 1989)).

For example, in the past, supervision

agents and treatment providers restricted

their face-to-face contacts. Now, many

jurisdictions expect these practitioners to

have ongoing face-to-face interactions to

facilitate information sharing and case

related decisions. In the past, probation

administrators, treatment providers, and

directors of state advocacy organizations

typically sought support from their state

legislators solely for their own interests.

Now, in some states, these policymakers

jointly seek legislative support for

initiatives related to sex offender

management and victim recovery. In the

past, it was unheard of for private

defense attorneys or public defenders to

be part of collaborative solutions to sex

offender management. Now, a few

jurisdictions have successfully involved

these practitioners on collaborative

teams. In the past, judges and court

administrators were hesitant to get

involved in collaborative efforts because

they viewed them as a threat to their

judicial neutrality. Now, more judges and

court administrators have found ways to

preserve the decisional independence of

the judiciary while participating in

collaboratives.

Table 2: Comparison of Adversarial and Collaborative Approaches

Adversarial Collaborative

Rules position parties as adversaries. Parties positioned as joint problem solvers.

Third parties intervene before issues are mature. Issues identified before positions crystallize.

Characterized by positional bargaining. Characterized by interest-based bargaining.

Facts used to buttress positions. Joint search used to determine facts.

Characterized by polarization of parties and issues. Characterized by search for underlying interests.

Face-to-face contact restricted among contending parties. Face-to-face discussions encouraged among all.

Seeks winning arguments. Seek workable options.

Yields all-or-nothing resolution of issues. Yields resolution by integrating interests.

Narrows options quickly. Broadens field of options.

Authority for decision rests with chosen judge. Authority for decision rests with parties involved.

Characterized by suspicion and high emotion. Characterized by respect and application of reason.

Parties often dissatisfied with outcome. Outcome must be satisfactory to all parties.

Often fosters bitterness and long-term distrust. Promotes trust and positive relationships.

Nevertheless, moving beyond adversarial

roles with some agencies or individuals

may seem impossible. Rather than just

giving up, however, many jurisdictions

continue to struggle with how to involve

all relevant disciplines in collaborative

efforts, no matter how unwilling some

entities seem to shift from their

adversarial positions. Some jurisdictions

have made an effort to facilitate

communications with these agencies or

individuals and seek their pledge to not

subvert or undercut the collaborative

team’s work. In cases where an

individual on the team is undermining

collaborative efforts, several jurisdictions

have sought the involvement of more

supportive practitioners from the same

disciplines to counter or reconcile

disagreements.
6

The Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Unit of New

Haven, Connecticut, supervises high-risk adult sex

offenders (age 16 and older) identified through risk

assessment by probation and treatment staff. The

supervision team consists of probation officers, three

treatment providers, and a victim advocate. The

addition of the advocate in 1998 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 the Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis

Services, Inc. (CONNSACS). The advocate’s role is to

include systemically the victim’s perspective in

decision-making and to provide regular contact with

victims and their families.

Catalysts for Collaboration

Collaboration changes the way we work

and requires a profound shift in our

conception about how change is created.

What drives agencies and individuals

involved in the management of sex

offenders in the community to make such

monumental changes in the way they

work? Criminal justice agencies may

begin working together in order to carry

out mandated requirements of sex

offender legislation. Frustration with the

ineffectiveness of sex offender

management policies may result in a push

for more appropriate responses and

subsequent collaboration. Locality-wide

teams may form to deal with public

outrage about a particularly heinous

crime. Grant funding requirements may

serve as the impetus for agencies to

collaborate. These are but a few

examples of scenarios that could prompt

the establishment of collaboratives.

Different Approaches to Team

Work

To build a collaborative team,

jurisdictions must identify and include

those individuals and agencies that affect

or are affected by sex offender

management. The inclusion of these

agencies and individuals is essential to

developing sound policies, delivering

effective offender management, and

responding to the needs of victims and

the community. Collaboration in the

management of sex offenders is needed

on at least three levels, case

management, local policy, and statewide

policy.

Case management teams are the

essential first level of collaboration, with

the primary purpose of sharing

information about specific cases.

Information is shared among those most

closely involved with monitoring sex

offenders under community supervision—

supervision officers and treatment

providers. In some communities, the

case management team may also include

polygraph examiners, victim advocates

and other service providers, prosecutors,

and law enforcement officers. Teams

that manage juvenile sex offenders

commonly include school counselors,

staff, administrators, and child protection

workers.

Registration and Community Notification Laws Serve as

the Impetus for Collaboration

The emergence of registration and notification laws has

facilitated the formation of new partnerships, as these

laws have required certain agencies to forge working

relationships where none existed previously—

particularly among law enforcement and supervision

agencies. These agencies are often required to share

responsibility for notifying sex offenders of their duty

to register, carrying out registration, and informing the

community of the offender’s presence. Many agencies

quickly learned that conducting notification about the

presence of sex offenders in the community stirred

tremendous emotional responses among citizens. The

act of notification itself—the distribution of a letter, the

use of Internet websites, the hanging of a poster or

even door-to-door visits—brought forth a rush of public

fear, anxiety, and questions. Increasingly, collaboration

efforts among law enforcement, the victim advocacy

community, treatment providers, and supervision

officers have emerged to understand and deal with

these community fears and needs. These “community

notification teams” address the public’s broad needs—

to understand how to protect themselves and their

families; to understand the authority of the criminal

justice system and its limits; to understand the nature

of sexual offending behavior; and to understand the

resources available to respond to victimization.
7

The Fort Peck Tribes of Montana are working to

establish a more comprehensive sex offender case

management team. The tribes have collaborative

structures in place that are strengthened by a culturally

sensitive, victim-centered approach to services. For

example, the Child Protection Team (CPT) meets once

a week to discuss juvenile cases. It includes

representatives from Tribal Criminal Investigations,

courts, FBI, Social Services, Juvenile Services, 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 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 to best coordinate tribal, state, and

federal cases, but the community lacks adequate

resources to provide for basic supervision and

treatment of sex offenders, particularly juveniles. To

share responsibility for day-to-day coordination tasks,

they are hoping to expand the team to include broader

representation from federal, state, and tribal agencies

and the community.

In Oregon in 1990, participants at a conference for

probation and parole officers conceived the idea of a

statewide “sex offender supervision network” and

subsequently obtained support from the state

Department of Corrections. The network has since

expanded to include treatment professionals, prison

counselors, prosecutors, victim representatives, police,

and members of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison

Supervision. The network works on development of

consistent sex offender case supervision, evaluation

and treatment, and training and skill enhancement

opportunities for officers supervising sex offenders.

The network provides a forum for discussion of

departmental policies, interdepartmental collaboration,

legislative initiatives, and resources for public

education efforts. It also provides statewide training,

promotes research, and is working on the development

of statewide standards for community supervision of

sex offenders.

Local policy teams address policies and

practices that guide how the system

manages offenders—from the

investigation of a sexual assault to the

supervision of the offender postconviction. These teams benefit from

involving officials representing every

aspect of the system, including law

enforcement, prosecution, defense

attorneys, the judiciary, corrections,

supervision agencies, treatment

providers, victim advocates, child

protective services, and other service

providers. These teams sometimes form

as a component of an umbrella group

designed to improve community response

to sexual violence.

Statewide policy teams are generally

formed to address policies and

procedures at a state level, including the

establishment standards that apply to all

localities, setting standards for the

selection of contract treatment providers,

establishing protocols for the conduct of

community notification meetings, or

creating guidelines for the supervision of

sex offenders. These teams mirror local

policy teams, representing all components

of the criminal justice system and

including strong participation of the

community, and in particular, victim

advocacy organizations.

Issues to Consider in Developing

Collaborative Approaches

As agencies and individuals within a

jurisdiction begin working as a team to

create more effective sex offender

management strategies, they should

consider:

• Team composition—Agency

representatives with decision-making

authority are essential to the team’s

ability to collaborate on issues that

impact policy and practice. Team

membership should also extend to

those who carry out critical day-today activities, as they often provide

valuable and creative solutions to

problems.

• Stakeholder incentives—Successful

engagement of stakeholders requires

an assessment of what each person

brings to the effort and, in turn, what

they have to gain from it. Their
8

Jefferson County, Colorado, has established several

mechanisms through which system wide actors and

advocates can work together to ensure the most

effective management of juvenile sex offenders.

A sex offender working group, known as SAFE—Jeff Co.

(Sexual Abuse Free Environment—Jefferson County)

represents probation, law enforcement, schools, the

Division of Youth Corrections, victim advocates, the

county Juvenile Assessment Center (JAC), human

services, and treatment providers. The deputy district

attorney responsible for juvenile sex crimes chairs this

group. SAFE Jeff Co. addresses broad system issues

and capitalizes on the strength of the collaborative to

address identified problems and needs. It meets monthly

and has several active subcommittees that meet with

greater frequency.

The Sex Assault Review Team meets monthly for the

purpose of reviewing in depth each juvenile offender who

is under pretrial supervision at the JAC. The meetings

include issue identification and active problem solving on

a variety of treatment, school, and supervision issues.

Team members include JAC supervision staff, school

personnel, the supervisor of the specialized probation

unit, the director of the victim advocacy center, staff

from the county Probation Department’s Pretrial Services

Unit, the victim-witness coordinator from the county

District Attorney’s office, staff from the Division of

Youth Corrections, treatment providers, social services

personnel, and the juvenile sexual assault prosecutor.

The Jefferson County Probation Juvenile Supervision

Team, a specialized unit within the probation

department, meets regularly to coordinate their activities,

review cases under post-trial supervision, and provide

guidance and support in the management of cases.

continual involvement requires the

constant monitoring of goals and

outcomes to ensure that individual

and group needs are being met.

• Explicit mission and goals—One

essential first task is the definition of

team mission and goals. Because the

team is multi-disciplinary with

members who serve a variety of

interests, the mission is central to

identifying the common ground that

all perspectives can support. Once

the mission is clear, the team can

develop long- and short-term goals.

The work of defining a mission and

goals typically does not happen at one

meeting. Rather, it emerges over time

and through discussions among group

members.

• Vision—A vision statement guides

short- and long-term collaborative

work and goes hand-in-hand with the

creation of a mission and goals. A

vision statement asks team members

to consider what a more effective

system of sex offender management

would look like in their jurisdiction.

When a team gets bogged down in

their work and loses focus, a vision

statement can help remind team

members of what they are seeking to

accomplish.

• Operating norms—As with any group,

it is important at the outset to agree

upon a set of operating norms. These

can be as simple as how often, when,

and where the group will meet, and as

complex as how team discussions will

be managed to ensure that all

members have an equal opportunity

for input. Issues such as whether

designees can attend these meeting

should be discussed, as well as the

expectation that members have of one

another.

• Team structure—There are a variety

of structures that teams create to

accomplish their work. These can

take the form of an oversight group, a

subcommittee structure, or working

groups. As larger teams develop

more complicated substructures, they

must also develop methods to

communicate across groups.

• Communication—Constant and open

communication among team members

provides an opportunity for members

to understand the goals and activities

of others’ agencies. It also facilitates

the sharing of knowledge and can

serve as an avenue for creative

problem solving and support.

Communication often leads to cross-
9

training and greater integration of

activities among the personnel of the

involved agencies.

• Consensus—In collaborative

processes, decision making by

consensus of participants is essential.

Consensus builds both internal and

external support, maintains the

cohesion of the collaboration,

explicitly provides for conflict

resolution, and offers the greatest

promise for consistency in policy

development and program

implementation (Gray, 1989). Some

collaborative teams use the “thumbs”

process for coming to consensus. In

this process, team members first

share their opinions about a particular

issue. “Thumbs up” means they are

in favor of the proposal, “thumbs

down” indicates they are opposed,

and “thumbs sideways” means they

don’t feel strongly either way. Team

members then discuss the issue until

they come to a solution agreeable to

all.

• Strategic planning—Having defined

the mission and goals, collaborators

must develop a workplan made up of

activities with concrete deliverables

and timelines that assign individual

responsibility for carrying out those

activities. Workplans are vital

documents that change constantly as

work is accomplished, plans evolve,

and new issues emerge.

• Leadership and staffing—The

collaborative team needs a leader or a

“champion”—a person with the time,

resources, position, skills, and energy

to propel the progress of the team.

Without effective leadership, the best

of intentions will succumb to

competing demands and interests.

Collaborative teams also need staffing

support for activities such as planning

meeting agendas, reminding members

of meeting dates, and preparing

meeting records to serve as

institutional memory. Staffing can be

provided by a single person or shared

by several members of the team.

• Institutionalized collaboration—To

ensure the continued commitment by

the agencies represented within the

team, signed agreements which

highlight joint decision making,

articulate agreement of the team’s

mission, and outline specific roles and

contributed resources are

recommended.

• Evaluation—Successful collaborations

are evolutionary in nature and should

adapt to the changing environments

and cultures in which they operate.

Circumstances may change because

of unforeseeable events or by virtue

of the progress of the collaborative

effort itself. Process and outcome

measures should be instituted to

evaluate the effectiveness of the

effort, so teams can institute changes

to their approach as needed. Tracking

outcomes gives team members a

sense of their accomplishments along

the way.

The Colorado’s Sex Offender Management Board was

legislatively established in 1992. The board includes

representatives from the Judicial Department, the

Department of Corrections, Human Services, the

Department of Public Safety, as well as district

attorneys, public defenders, treatment providers,

police, polygraph examiners, community corrections

staff, and victim advocates. Its mission is to advance

the management of sex offenders in the state and

ensure the effectiveness of sex offender programs and

services. In 1998, the Board published statewide

standards for systematic management and treatment of

sex offenders. In 1999, it expanded its standards to

include lifetime supervision and the management of

developmentally disabled sex offenders.
10

Challenges to Overcome

The process of facilitating collaboration

rarely is without difficulties. The

recruitment and retention of stakeholders

presents challenges, especially

considering the time demands on

participants at the early stages of team

development. Maintaining commitment

can also be problematic when

deliverables are slow and sometimes go

without notice. Power disparities,

differing perceptions of risk, and

changing political and institutional

cultures present some of the most

challenging impediments to collaborative

efforts (Gray, 1989). D’Amora and

Burns-Smith (1999) point to several

additional factors which can impede

collaborative initiatives, including turf

fears and ideological differences,

uncertainty about how to effectively

utilize shared information, secondary

trauma among team members, system

conflicts, and insufficient resources to

support the effort.

Involved parties must recognize that

shifting from a fragmented response to a

more collaborative approach is a longterm process of building upon successes,

failures, and growing relationships among

collaborators. It is critical that

collaborators develop strategies to

address challenges. Some strategies may

include:

• promoting local and state level

discussions to explore how

collaboration can help improve

responses to both victims and

offenders;

• encouraging cross- and multidisciplinary training among involved

justice system and community

agencies;

• promoting the establishment of

information sharing and networking

forums for professionals across

disciplines;

• building an appreciation and respect

for the work of professionals from

other involved disciplines;

• supporting research and evaluation on

the impact of collaboration in this

field;

• helping agencies build their capacity

to collaborate in this area; and

• encouraging jurisdictions to access

available resources and technical

assistance to promote collaboration

on sex offender management.

Laboratories for Collaboration

A number of jurisdictions that have

developed innovative practices in the field

of collaborative sex offender management

have been identified by the Center for

Sex Offender Management (CSOM) as

resource sites. They represent a diverse

demographic mix of urban, rural, and

tribal communities. While each

jurisdiction approaches sex offender

management in a unique way, common

elements of the project’s resource sites

include:

• goals that are directed toward public

safety and offender accountability—

this involves a deliberate,

comprehensive approach to sex

offender management;

• progress on enhancing collaborative

efforts—the ideal sex offender

management team includes

representatives from probation and

parole, victim advocacy, treatment,

the judiciary, prosecution, law

enforcement, the defense bar,

polygraph examiners, and legislators
11

The Jackson County, Oregon, sex offender

management team includes probation and parole

officers, community-based treatment providers,

polygraph examiners, deputy district attorneys (who

prosecute all of the sex crimes), police representatives,

victim treatment providers, the juvenile offender

treatment team, and a representative from the state’s

Child Protective Service agency.

The team holds monthly meetings. Until recently,

these meetings had been facilitated by probation

officers. The team subsequently decided to elect a

moderator for a six-month term, and then rotate this

position. Network meetings focus on policy,

collaborative procedural issues, individual cases, and

strategies to meet local needs. Although judges are

not formal members of the team, they are kept

informed by team members. The judges’

understanding of issues and offender dynamics are

regarded as central to the team’s effectiveness.

The Jackson County team collaborates at the policy

level and in daily activities. Daily activities are carried

out by a “core team,” which consists of parole or

probation officers, private treatment providers and

private polygraph examiners (who have been formally

recognized as approved treatment providers and

polygraph examiners). The core team maintains

frequent telephone and memo contact with one

another. In addition, the treatment providers and

probation and parole staff hold monthly meetings to

review individual cases.

The specialized probation officers have also formed

their own informal “team within a team.” They meet

weekly to review problems, generate ideas, provide

emotional support, and offer informal peer supervision.

(juvenile focused teams should also

include representatives from schools

and social services);

• continual assessment and

improvement of their sex offender

management practices;

• a workplan that reflects an articulated

mission, as well as the team’s values,

and goals;

• a data collection effort that is

outcome based and directed toward

identifying policies and practices

which help prevent future

victimization; and

• plans to institutionalize efforts to

ensure that the work outlives current

team membership.

CSOM is assisting its resource sites in

advancing their collaborative practices

through the exploration of new initiatives,

information sharing, training, and

technical assistance. CSOM is also

inventorying, documenting, and analyzing

the accomplishments of the sites and

making available these lessons to others

in the field.

Conclusion

Developing a collaborative approach to

sex offender management is a daunting

but essential undertaking. Building

relationships among individuals

representing different agencies and

interests—many of whom have

traditionally played adversarial roles—is a

key challenge. However, agencies

charged with the management of sex

offenders are compelled today more than

ever to cross traditional lines in their

work toward a common mission—to end

further sexual victimization.

Contact CSOM for further information on

how the project can support state and

local collaborative efforts in your

jurisdiction to more effectively manage

sex offenders under criminal justice

supervision in the community.
12

Works Cited

Blank, Martin, et al. (1992).

Collaboration: What Makes it Work?

A Review of Research Literature on

Factors Influencing Successful

Collaboration. Minnesota: Amherst H.

Wilder Foundation. The citation and

table was drawn from audio-visual

material developed by David D’Amora

for trainings on collaboration in sex

offender management.

D’Amora, David and Burns-Smith, Gail

(1999). 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), 296-297.

Gray, Barbara (1989). Collaborating:

Finding Common Ground for MultiParty Problems. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass. The second citation and

table on “adversial versus

collaborative relationships” was drawn

from audio-visual material David

D’Amora developed for trainings on

collaboration in sex offender

management.

Huxham, Christopher (Ed.) (1996).

Creating Collaborative Advantage.

London: Sage.

Raley, Gordon (1993). The Community

Collaboration Manual. Washington,

DC: The National Assembly of

National Voluntary Health and Social

Welfare Organizations.

Acknowledgements

Madeline M. Carter, Project Director,

Center for Sex Offender Management,

was the principal author of this brief.

CSOM would like to thank Margaret

Griffin and Kristin Littel for their

contributions to this brief.

Contact

Center for Sex Offender Management

8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 589-9383

Fax: (301) 589-3505

E-mail: askcsom@csom.org

Internet: www.csom.org

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 author and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.