The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: How is the Post-Conviction Polygraph

Examination Used in Adult Sex Offender

Management Activities?

Author(s): Diane Patrick ; Diane Pasini-Hill ; Linda Jones ;

Sydney Cooley-Towell ; Kim English

Document No.: 202734

Date Received: 11/21/2003

Award Number: 97-LB-VX-0034

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to

traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect

the official position or policies of the U.S.

Department of Justice.
HOW IS THE POST-CONVICTION 

POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION

USED IN ADULT SEX OFFENDER 

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES? 

THE SECOND NATIONAL TELEPHONE 

SURVEY OF PROBATION AND PAROLE 

SUPERVISORS

Report Prepared for the National Institute of Justice

By

Diane Patrick

Diane Pasini-Hill

Linda Jones

Sydney Cooley-Towell

Kim English

December 2000

Colorado Department of Public Safety

Division of Criminal Justice

Office of Research & Statistics

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80215

Tel 303-239-4442

Fax 303-239-4491

www.cdpsweb.state.co.us/dcj

The views presented in this report represent those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of 

the National Institute of Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Supported by NIJ Grant Number D97LBVX0034
2
3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people participated and supported the research reported here. First, we want to thank our 

colleagues at the Division of Criminal Justice. William R. Woodward, the director of the Division 

from 1980 to 1998, continues working in this area of public safety, training and facilitating 

jurisdictions in the implementation of the containment approach. We are grateful for his support over 

many years. We thank Bill’s successor, Raymond Slaughter, and the Division’s deputy director, Carol 

Poole, for supporting our work on challenging studies with national scope. Suzanne Gonzales 

Woodburn, Linda Swolfs and Erica Boyce assisted in the challenging file data collection process in 

multiple states, making sense out of many complicated documents and reading many stories of abuse. 

Telephone surveyors, Kell Straits, Justin Molis, and Patti Rochin worked hard to contact hundreds of 

respondents during the summer of 1998. John Patzman has edited and designed numerous reports 

and presentations, helping us communicate this information to many audiences. Barbara Krauth, our 

faithful editor in Boulder, has improved every piece of writing we have given her. Thanks to all of you.

A multitude of thanks goes to the more than 700 probation and parole supervisors who patiently 

answered our telephone survey questions and helped us understand the struggles and successes of 

agencies managing adult sex offenders in the community. Those who used the post-conviction 

polygraph spent between 45 and 75 minutes with us, and many told us that they hoped the 

information provided would assist other jurisdictions.

In particular, we thank the hundreds of probation and parole officers who, every day, personally carry 

the weight of these difficult cases. Our study of sex offender management by probation and parole 

agencies has taught us how essential and difficult your work is to community safety and sex abuse 

prevention. We are grateful for your good work.
4
5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

7 INTRODUCTION

9 1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY METHODS

11 1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY FINDINGS

11 A. AGENCY STRUCTURE AND SELECTED PRACTICES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS

16 B. BARRIERS TO POLYGRAPH IMPLEMENTATION

22 C. HOW THE POLYGRAPH IS USED, PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING THE USE OF THE 

POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS

23 Policies and Procedures

29 Time and Resource Issues

31 Implementation Issues

35 Polygraph Examiners

37 Communication

39 Consequences

41 Benefits of the Polygraph

44 Areas for Improvement with Polygraph Services

45 ATTACHMENT: TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
6
7

INTRODUCTION

As part of this research, we built on an earlier study funded by NIJ in 1992. That study focused 

specifically on presenting descriptions of (1) how sex offenders were being managed in community 

settings, and (2) how they could best be managed. Those findings were reported in English, Pullen, 

Jones and Colling-Chadwick (1995) and English, Pullen, and Jones (1996). Below we provide a brief 

overview of the methods undertaken in the earlier study because parts of that approach were replicated 

in the current study.

In 1994 we conducted the first national telephone survey of probation and parole supervisors inquiring 

about sex offender management. Probation and parole supervisors were selected because of their 

familiarity with day-to-day office operations. The survey represented a national sample, stratified by 

population and geography, of 732 probation and parole supervisors. The telephone survey was part of a 

two-year investigation that included an extensive literature review on victim trauma and sex offender 

treatment and a systematic document review of scores of material ranging from agency memoranda and 

protocols to legislation and administrative orders. The study included field research involving site visits 

to 13 jurisdictions in six states (Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Texas, Ohio, and Oregon). During the 

field research, interviews were conducted with probation and parole officers and administrators, victim 

advocates, polygraph examiners, parole board members, treatment providers, prosecuting and defense 

attorneys, social service workers, sex offenders, judges, law enforcement officers, and prison treatment 

staff and administrators. The current research built on this study and methodology.

The current research was also multi-faceted and included another national telephone survey of 

probation and parole supervisors, a literature review, a review of the legal and ethical issues associated 

with the use of the polygraph, a review of case law, and a review of agency documents and protocols. 

Also, we collected data out of 232 offender case files in four states. Field research involved visiting 14 

jurisdictions in 7 states (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Texas and 

Wisconsin), and face-to-face interviews were conducted with treatment providers, parole and probation 

officers, polygraph examiners, prosecuting attorneys, and sex offenders. The telephone survey and case 

file review methods are described below.
8
9

1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY METHODS

In 1998 a second national telephone survey was completed. The sampling frame consisted of 

the original 732 probation and parole supervisors who responded to the 1994 telephone 

survey (the response rate was over 95%). The sampling approach was not revised because of 

the complexity and resources that would be required for re-design. The survey covered 49 

states and the District of Columbia (South Dakota was not included due to a lack of 

information required for the sampling process). The 1994 sample was drawn to represent 

probation and parole agencies across the nation and was stratified based on geographic 

location and population density. Specifically, each state was divided into four (generally

equal) geographic quadrants and, using population figures from the 1990 Census, one 

respondent was selected for every 500,000 or fewer people in each quadrant. To obtain the 

names of supervisors, state administrators were telephoned and asked to provide a list of 

probation and parole offices within the corresponding jurisdiction.1

 Using this method, a 

sample of 873 probation and parole supervisors were randomly selected from the quadrant 

office lists. Of these, 83.3 percent (758) were contacted by interviewers. Of these, 732 

supervisors agreed to participate, resulting in an overall response rate in 1994 of 96.6 percent.

In 1998, our intent was to re-contact all 1994 telephone survey participants to focus on a 

number of questions related specifically to the use of the polygraph as a management and 

supervision tool for sex offenders. We recreated the list of respondents for the purpose of 

contacting them again. We sent a letter to each agency supervisor that described the project 

and the purpose of contacting individual supervisors. We asked them to fax back certain 

pieces of information, specifically, the name and phone number of a contact person. Trained 

telephone surveyors first called respondents to identify a convenient time when they could 

answer the survey questions. The time required ranged from five to 10 minutes (if they rarely 

or never used the post-conviction polygraph with adult sex offenders) to, on average, one hour 

if they sometimes, often, almost always or always used the post-conviction polygraph with sex 

offenders. Interviewers faxed reminders to the respondents regarding the agreed-upon time of 

the interview. Many of the respondents remembered the 1994 survey. Of the original sample 

of 732, 33 surveys were not completed (we were unable to contact18 potential respondents, 9 

supervisors refused, the office did not currently supervise sex offenders in 4 instances, and we 

obtained 2 incomplete questionnaires). A total of 699 surveys were completed, generating a 

response rate of 95.5 percent.

Responses were weighted to reflect agencies that had consolidated since the 1994 national 

telephone survey. All 1998 telephone survey respondents were questioned regarding their 

current use of the post-conviction polygraph for the treatment and supervision of sex 

offenders. A total of 699 (weighted) surveys were completed. Of these, 533 (weighted n=544) 

reflect responses to surveys where the polygraph was never or rarely used. Another 146 

(weighted n=155) reflect responses to surveys where the polygraph was used, at least sometimes. 

Those who responded that they never or rarely used the polygraph were asked to describe barriers to 

the use of the polygraph with sex offenders. Respondents who indicated that their agencies used the 

post-conviction polygraph for the treatment and supervision of sex offenders sometimes, often, almost 

 

1 Names of state probation and parole administrators were obtained from the American Correctional Association Probation and Parole 

Directory and the American Probation and Parole Association member list.
10

always or always were asked a different series of questions. These included when and how the 

polygraph was used, consequences for deceptive results or new information revealed, changes in the 

management of sex offenders attributed to the use of the polygraph, and perceived benefits of the postconviction polygraph as a tool for the management and supervision of sex offenders. 

Survey questions for these groups included those with both closed-ended and open-end responses. A 

team that included telephone interviewers, supervisors, and other project researchers coded open-end 

responses. Coding for open-ended responses was done in team meetings, and a consensus process was 

used to develop answer codes and to determine how to categorize responses. When possible, this 

telephone survey report presents many of these open-ended responses verbatim. Please remember that 

the open-ended responses, even after they were placed in categories for descriptive purposes, represent 

qualitative data.

This technical report contains findings from the 1998 national telephone survey and includes the 

following:

A. Comparisons of agency structure and special practices with sex offenders between agencies that 

used the polygraph (at least sometimes) and agencies that never or rarely used the post-conviction 

polygraph with sex offenders. 

B. For agencies contemplating use of the post-conviction polygraph with sex offender, descriptions of 

barriers to implementation.

C. Descriptions of how the polygraph is used, perceived benefits, and other issues surrounding use of 

the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders drawn from responses from agencies where the 

polygraph was used at least sometimes. 

Brief summaries in the form of bulleted comments accompany each table. A copy of the telephone 

questionnaire is attached to the end of this document.
11

1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY FINDINGS

A. Agency Structure and Selected Practices in the 

Management of Sex Offenders

Responses of all agencies participating in the 1998 telephone survey (those that used the postconviction polygraph with sex offenders and those that did not2

) are included in these findings. 

Comparisons of agency structure, population supervised, and other agency practices regarding the 

management of sex offenders are made between those that use the polygraph and those that do not.

SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS

Special practices for the management of sex offenders often occur together. Agencies that used the 

polygraph were also more likely to have employed specialized caseloads and special risk assessments 

with sex offenders. Agencies that reported the use of specialized caseloads were also more likely to use 

a special risk assessment for sex offenders, regardless of whether they also used the polygraph.

Agency structure or type of caseload was not related to use of the polygraph and is not consistently 

related to the use of specialized caseloads or risk assessments with sex offenders.

1. Did the way the agency is administered, i.e., whether probation and parole is administered separately or 

by a single agency, impact use of the polygraph?

ß The way the agency was administered did not affect the use of the polygraph. The majority of 

respondents reported that probation and parole were administered by different agencies.

TABLE 1. STRUCTURE OF PROBATION AND PAROLE AND USE OF THE POLYGRAPH

Use of the Polygraph Yes

(Sometimes, Often, 

Almost Always, Always)

Weighted n=155

No 

(Never, Rarely)

Weighted n=544

Probation and parole administered by the same agency 40.0% 39.2%

Probation and parole administered by different agencies 60.0% 60.8%

Total 100% 100%

 

2 Agencies using the polygraph report use as sometimes, often, almost always or always. Agencies not using the polygraph report use as never or 

rarely.
12

2. Did the population of sex offenders supervised by the agency, i.e., probationers, parolees or both, affect 

the use of the polygraph?

ß The percentages of agencies that reported supervising both probationers and parolees are similar 

for those that used and did not use the post-conviction polygraph (approximately 39%). Fewer 

agencies that used the polygraph supervised only parolees (15.7%) compared to agencies not using 

the polygraph (23%), but this difference was not statistically significant. 

TABLE 2. ARE SEX OFFENDERS (SUPERVISED BY YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE) PROBATIONERS OR 

PAROLEES?

Type of sex offender supervised by agency/office Use of the Polygraph

Yes

(Sometimes, Often, 

Almost Always, Always)

Weighted n=153

No 

(Never, Rarely)

Weighted n=544

Both Probationers and Parolees 39.2% 38.9%

Probation Only 45.1% 38.1%

Parolees Only 15.7% 23.0%

Total 100% 100%

3. Did agencies that used the polygraph also employ special practices relating to the management of sex 

offenders, such as specialized sex offender caseloads, use of a special risk assessment for sex offenders or a 

requirement for sex offenders to undergo mental health treatment?

ß Agencies that used the polygraph were much more likely to have specialized caseloads (78.6% 

compared to 46.1%).

ß Agencies that used the polygraph were more likely to also use a special risk assessment instrument 

for sex offenders (39.0% compared to 19.4%).

ß Although the requirement for mental health treatment for sex offenders was widely reported, 

agencies that used the polygraph were statistically more likely to also require mental health 

treatment.

3

 Every agency that used the polygraph also required sex offenders to undergo treatment, 

at least in some cases, compared to 93% of agencies that did not use the polygraph.

 

3 Since the practice of requiring sex offenders to undergo mental health treatment was reported by most of the respondents to the short 

survey, little variation exists in the data, and no relationship was found between this and other variables in the survey. Thus, results of crosstabulations of mental health treatment and other variables indicate distributions that are generally similar to the frequency reported in Table 

6. In an effort to simplify presentation of the data, these results will not be displayed elsewhere in the report.
13

TABLE 3. DOES YOUR AGENCY HAVE SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS OR 

SITUATIONS WHERE ONE OR MORE PEOPLE HANDLE ALL THE SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS?

Agency has specialized caseloads Use of the Polygraph (a)

Yes

(Sometimes, Often, Almost 

Always, Always)

Weighted n=154

No 

(Never, Rarely)

Weighted n=544

Yes 78.6% 46.1%

No 21.4% 53.9%

Total 100% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05

TABLE 4. DOES YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE USE A RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR SEX 

OFFENDERS?

Agency uses special risk assessment for sex Use of the Polygraph (a)

offenders 

Yes

(Sometimes, Often, Almost 

Always, Always)

Weighted n=154

No 

(Never, Rarely)

Weighted n=541

Yes 39.0% 19.4%

No 61.0% 80.6%

Total 100% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05

TABLE 5. ARE SEX OFFENDERS THAT YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE SUPERVISES REQUIRED TO 

UNDERGO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT?

Agency requires sex offender to undergo Use of the Polygraph (a)

mental health treatment

Yes

(Sometimes, Often, Almost 

Always, Always)

Weighted n=153

No 

(Never, Rarely)

Weighted n=543

Yes or Sometimes 100% 93.0%

No 0% 7.0%

Total 100% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05
14

4. Are agencies with specialized caseloads also more likely to use special risk assessments for sex offenders?

ß Agencies reporting specialized caseloads or situations where one or more people are assigned to 

handle sex offenders were also somewhat more likely to use a special risk assessment for sex 

offenders. This was true whether or not the agency used the polygraph. 

TABLE 6. SPECIALIZED CASELOADS COMPARED TO USE OF SPECIAL RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR 

SEX OFFENDERS

Specialized caseloads Agencies NOT using the polygraph Agencies using the polygraph 

Special risk assessments for sex 

offenders (a) Weighted n=541

Special risk assessments for sex 

offenders (a) Weighted n=153

% Yes % No Total %Yes % No Total

Yes 27.3% 72.7% 100% 44.6% 55.4% 100%

No 12.7% 87.3% 100% 18.8% 81.3% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05

5. Did agency structure impact the use of specialized caseloads or risk assessment with sex offenders?

ß Most often, agency structure did not appear to impact the practices of specialized caseloads or the 

use of special risk assessments for sex offenders. There is one exception. When probation and 

parole were administered by different agencies and not using the polygraph, they were somewhat 

more likely to have specialized caseloads (49.5%) than agencies not using the polygraph where 

probation and parole are administered together (40.8%). 

TABLE 7. AGENCY STRUCTURE AND OTHER AGENCY PRACTICES

Agencies NOT using the polygraph 

Specialized Caseloads for Sex 

Offenders (a) Weighted n=544

Special Risk Assessment for Sex 

Offenders Weighted n=541

Agency Structure

% Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Prob & Parole Administered 

by Same Agency

40.8% 59.2% 100% 19.2% 80.8% 100%

Prob & Parole Administered 

by Different Agencies

49.5% 50.5% 100% 19.5% 80.5% 100%

Agencies using the polygraph 

Specialized Caseloads for Sex 

Offenders Weighted n=154

Special Risk Assessment for Sex 

Offenders Weighted n=154

Prob & Parole Administered 

by Same Agency

71.0% 29.0% 100% 41.0% 59.0% 100%

Prob & Parole Administered 

by Different Agencies

83.7% 16.3% 100% 37.6% 62.4% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05
15

6. Did the type of client supervised (probationer, parolee, or both) impact other practices regarding the 

management of sex offenders?

ß Agencies that did not use the polygraph and that supervised only parolees were somewhat more 

likely to also report specialized caseloads for sex offenders than agencies that supervised only those 

on probation or that supervise both probation and parole clients (55.2% compared to 46.9% and 

39.8%, respectively). 

ß There was no statistical difference in the type of offender supervised (probationer, parolee or both) 

and the use of a special risk assessment instrument for sex offenders in agencies where the 

polygraph was not used.

ß Use of specialized caseloads was not statistically related to the type of caseload managed (probation, 

parole or both) for agencies currently using the polygraph.4

TABLE 8. PROBATION/PAROLE SEX OFFENDER CASELOAD BY AGENCY PRACTICES

Agencies NOT using the polygraph (short form)

Specialized Caseloads for Sex 

Offenders (*) Weighted n=544

Special Risk Assessment for Sex 

Offenders Weighted n=541

Sex offender caseload

% Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Both 40.1% 59.9% 100% 18.9% 81.1% 100%

Probation 46.9% 53.1% 100% 17.1% 82.9% 100%

Parole 55.2% 44.8% 100% 24.2% 75.8% 100%

Agencies using the polygraph (long form)

Specialized Caseloads for Sex 

Offenders Weighted n=152

Special Risk Assessment for Sex 

Offenders (*) Weighted n=154

Both 73.3% 26.7% 100% 41.7% 58.3% 100%

Probation 79.7% 20.3% 100% 44.9% 55.1% 100%

Parole 95.7% 4.3% (**) 100% 16.7%(**) 83.3% 100%

(*) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

(**) Significance may be impacted by <5 cases in this cell.

 

4 Although agencies that used the polygraph and managed only parolees appeared somewhat less likely to use a special risk assessment 

(16.7%) than agencies managing only those on probation (44.9%) or both (41.7%), this difference is not statistically significant, as sample 

sizes are not adequate within cells for valid statistical tests.
16

B. Barriers to Polygraph Implementation

These findings are based on responses from agencies that did not use the polygraph. Interviewers 

questioned these agencies about whether they had considered using the post-conviction polygraph with 

sex offenders and explored their reasons for not doing so. 

SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS

More than half (54.9%) of the agencies that did not use the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders 

had no plans for future implementation. Agencies with practices that included both specialized sex 

offender caseloads and special risk assessments for sex offenders were more likely to consider 

implementation.

The biggest barrier to implementation of the polygraph was a lack of resources (noted by 45% of all 

those not using the polygraph). Lack of resources refers to inadequate funds and/or personnel. 

However, perceived barriers to polygraph use varied by region. Respondents from the northeast and 

central regions were more likely to report a lack of polygraph examiners and ethical and legal 

considerations than were respondents from the southern and western regions.

Different barriers were emphasized, depending on whether the agency supervised parolees, 

probationers, or both. Agencies supervising parolees were the least likely to report a lack of polygraph 

examiners as a barrier to post-conviction polygraph implementation. Agencies that supervised only 

probationers were the most likely to report ethical and legal considerations as barriers.

A lack of resources and a lack of polygraph examiners were more frequently reported by agencies that 

considered use of the post-conviction polygraph compared to agencies that had not considered its use. 

Agencies considering use of the polygraph generally did not see ethical, legal or other considerations as 

primary barriers to implementation. Agencies that had implemented special practices for sex 

offenders such as special caseloads and risk assessments were somewhat less likely to view either 

ethical or other issues as barriers. It may be that implementing these practices have allowed agencies 

the opportunity to work through many legal and ethical issues.

These findings suggest that some agencies might be poised to implement the polygraph if adequate 

resources and professionals to administer the polygraph were available. Three out of five (60.6%) of 46 

agencies that considered use of the polygraph and also employed both specialized caseloads and risk 

assessments for sex offenders reported the lack of resources as the primary barrier to implementation 

of the polygraph. For this group, in particular, removal of the resource barrier might provide the 

impetus to implement the post-conviction polygraph for the management and supervision of sex 

offenders.

1. Were agencies that did not use polygraph with sex offenders considering implementation?

ß More than half (54.9%) of the agencies not using the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders 

also have not considered its use.5

 

5 There is no statistical difference in consideration of use of the polygraph and agency structure or type of client supervised.
17

TABLE 9. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION OF USING THIS TYPE (TREATMENT AND 

SUPERVISION) OF POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS IN YOUR AGENCY? Weighted n=544

No 54.9%

Yes 38.7%

Don’t Know 6.4%

Total 100%

2. Were agencies considering the use of the polygraph more likely to use other special practices for the 

supervision and management of sex offenders?

ß Agencies that considered using the polygraph in the management and supervision of sex offenders 

were also more likely to have agency practices that included specialized caseloads (61%) and special 

risk assessments for sex offenders (29.3%).

TABLE 10. CONSIDERATION OF THE POLYGRAPH BY SPECIALIZED CASELOAD AND RISK 

ASSESSMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS

Specialized Caseloads for Sex Offenders

(a) Weighted n=508

Special Risk Assessment for Sex 

Offenders (a) Weighted n=505

Considered using 

the polygraph with 

sex offenders

% Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Yes 61.0% 39.0% 100% 29.3% 70.7% 100%

No 37.6% 62.4% 100% 12.5% 87.5% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

3. What were the barriers to implementing the polygraph? Did these barriers differ by geographic region, 

type of offender supervised, and agency structure?

ß Agencies perceived a number of barriers to using the polygraph with sex offenders. The primary 

barrier to implementation, reported by almost half (45%) of the respondents from agencies not 

using the polygraph, was a lack of resources.

TABLE 11. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH AT THIS TIME?

Weighted n=544

Lack of resources 45.0%

No serious consideration 30.0%

Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding 

polygraph; no perceived need or utility; controversial and individual rights issues)

29.2%

No polygraph examiners 18.4%

Legal and/or ethical issues 18.2%

Note: respondents could provide more than one answer; thus, percentages do not total 100.
18

ß Regional6 differences were found in the types of barriers reported.

ß The northeast and central regions were more likely to report the lack of polygraph examiners as a 

barrier to implementation. 

ß The northeast and central regions were also more likely to report ethical and legal considerations as 

barriers to implementation. 

ß The northeast was somewhat less likely than other regions to report "other" considerations as a 

barrier to implementation. Other considerations include a lack of knowledge, information, or 

familiarity with the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders, a lack of confidence in the 

polygraph process, and a lack of polices or internal or external support for use of the polygraph in 

their organizations.

TABLE 12. BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION

Lack of Resources No Polygraph 

Examiners (a)

Ethical/Legal 

Considerations (a)

Other

Considerations (a) (c)

Region

(b)

% Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Northeast 46.0% 54.0% 100% 22.1% 77.9% 100% 24.5% 75.5% 100% 18.4% 81.6% 100%

South 41.1% 58.9% 100% 15.5% 84.5% 100% 10.1% 89.9% 100% 28.7% 71.3% 100%

Central 51.5% 48.5% 100% 27.2% 72.8% 100% 21.4% 78.6% 100% 35.9% 64.1% 100%

West 43.0% 57.0% 100% 10.7% 89.3% 100% 16.1% 83.9% 100% 36.9% 63.1% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

(b) Percentages for each region based on the following weighted n: Northeast 163, South 129, Central 103, West 149.

(c) Other Considerations (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or 

utility; controversial and individual rights issues)

ß Agencies that supervised parolees were less likely to report a lack of polygraph examiners as a 

barrier to implementation (11.2%) than agencies that supervised either probationers or both 

probationers and parolees (18.8% and 22.2%, respectively).

ß Ethical and legal considerations were more likely to be a barrier for agencies that supervised 

probationers (24.2%) than for agencies that supervised parolees or both probationers and parolees 

(14.4% and 14.6%, respectively).

 

6 Northeast (CT,DC,DE,MA,MD,ME,NH,NJ,NY,OH,PA,RI,VT); South (AL,AR,FL,GA,KY,LA,MS,NC,SC,TN,VA,WV); Central 

(IA,IL,IN,KS,MI,MN,MO,ND,NE,WI); West (AK,AZ,CA,CO,HI,MT,NM,NV,OK,TX,UT,WY)
19

TABLE 13. TYPE OF SEX OFFENDER SUPERVISED BY BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH

Lack of Resources No Polygraph 

Examiners (a)

Ethical/Legal 

Considerations (a)

Other Considerations

(c)

Client (b)

% Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Both 50.0% 50.0% 100% 22.2% 77.8% 100% 14.6% 85.4% 100% 26.4% 73.6% 100%

Probation 43.0% 57.0% 100% 18.8% 81.2% 100% 24.2% 75.8% 100% 30.9% 69.1% 100%

Parole 40.0% 60.0% 100% 11.2% 88.8% 100% 14.4% 85.6% 100% 31.2% 68.8% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

(b) Percentages for each type of supervised person are based on the following weighted n: Both 212, Probation Only 207, Parole Only 125.

(c) Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility; 

controversial and individual rights issues)

ß Agency structure bore some relation to the type of barrier reported. Respondents from agencies in 

which parole and probation were administered by the same agency (compared to administration by 

different agencies) were more likely to report a lack of resources and polygraph examiners as 

barriers to implementation.

TABLE 14. AGENCY STRUCTURE BY BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH

Lack of 

Resources (b)

No Polygraph 

Examiners (b)

Ethical/Legal 

Considerations

Other Considerations

(d)

 (a) (c)

% Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Same 50.7% 49.3% 100% 23.0% 77.0% 100% 14.6% 85.4% 100% 25.8% 74.2% 100%

Different 41.4% 58.6% 100% 15.4% 84.6% 100% 20.5% 79.5% 100% 31.4% 68.6% 100%

(a) Same means probation and parole administered by the same agency. Different means probation and parole administered by different 

agencies.

(b) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

(c) Percentages for each type of agency structure based on the following weighted n: Same 213, Different 331.

(d) Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility; 

controversial and individual rights issues)

4. What were barriers to implementation for those considering using the polygraph to manage and supervise 

sex offenders?

ß Agencies that reported considering use of the polygraph were more likely than those not 

considering its use to report lack of resources (57.1% to 38.9%) and no polygraph examiners 

(24.4% to 15.1%) as barriers.
20

TABLE 15. CONSIDERATION OF USE OF THE POLYGRAPH BY BARRIERS TO 

IMPLEMENTATION

Lack of Resources (a) No Polygraph 

Examiners (a)

Ethical/Legal 

Considerations

Other Considerations

(c)

Cons. 

Use of 

Poly (b)

% Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Yes 57.1% 42.9% 100% 24.3% 75.7% 100% 21.0% 79.0% 100% 29.0% 71.0% 100%

No 38.9% 61.1% 100% 15.1% 84.9% 100% 17.1% 82.9% 100% 31.2% 68.8% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05.

(b) Percentages for consideration of use of the polygraph or not are based on the following weighted n: No 298, Yes 210

(c) Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility; 

controversial and individual rights issues)

5. Did agencies with specialized sex offender caseloads report different barriers than agencies without 

specialized sex offender caseloads?

ß Agencies with specialized sex offender caseloads were less likely to report "other" considerations as a 

barrier to implementation of the polygraph (23.9% compared to 33.8%).

TABLE 16. SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS BY BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION

Lack of Resources No Polygraph 

Examiners

Ethical/Legal 

Considerations

Other Considerations

(a)(c)

Spec.

SO 

Caseloads

(b) % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Yes 49.4% 50.6% 100% 16.7% 83.3% 100% 19.1% 80.9% 100% 23.9% 76.1% 100%

No 41.3% 58.7% 100% 19.8% 80.2% 100% 17.4% 82.6% 100% 33.8% 66.2% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

(b) Percentages for specialized caseloads are based on the following weighted n: No 293, Yes 251

(c) Other (e.g., a lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility; 

controversial and individual rights issues)

6. Did agencies that used special risk assessments for sex offenders report different barriers than agencies that 

do not use special risk assessments?

ß Agencies that used a special risk assessment for sex offenders were less likely to report ethical 

considerations as barriers to use of the polygraph (9.5% compared to 20.4%).
21

TABLE 17. USE OF SPECIAL RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS BY BARRIERS TO 

IMPLEMENTATION

Lack of Resources No Polygraph 

Examiners

Ethical/Legal 

Considerations (a)

Other Considerations Special 

Risk 

Assess. 

for Sex 

Offenders

(b) % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Yes 49.5% 50.5% 100% 22.9% 77.1% 100% 9.5% 90.5% 100% 29.5% 70.5% 100%

No 43.8% 56.2% 100% 17.4% 82.6% 100% 20.4% 79.6% 100% 29.1% 70.9% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

(b) Percentages for special risk assessment are based on the following weighted n: No 436, Yes 105

(c) Other (e.g., a lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility; 

controversial and individual rights issues)

7. Agencies that employed specialized caseloads and used special risk assessments for sex offenders, which 

were also considering use of the polygraph, might be "poised" to implement the polygraph if barriers to 

implementation were removed. What were these barriers?

A small number of agencies (weighted n=46) that used both specialized caseloads and risk assessments 

for sex offenders also reported that they were considering using the post-conviction polygraph as a 

management and supervision tool for sex offenders. The barriers to implementation for this group, 

described as “ready,” were compared to other agencies that were not using the post-conviction 

polygraph.

ß Almost two-thirds (60.9%) of the group of 46 agencies described as “ready” to implement the 

polygraph reported a lack of resources as a barrier. 

ß Almost a third of this group (30.4%) reported the lack of polygraph examiners to be a barrier to 

implementation of the post-conviction polygraph.

TABLE 18. READINESS TO IMPLEMENT THE POLYGRAPH BY BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION

Lack of Resources (a) No Polygraph 

Examiners (a)

Ethical/Legal 

Considerations

Other Considerations

(c)

Readiness

For 

Poly (b) % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total % Yes % No Total

Ready 60.9% 39.1% 100% 30.4% 69.6% 100% 13.0% 87.0% 100% 26.1% 73.9% 100%

Other 43.6% 56.4% 100% 17.3% 82.7% 100% 18.7% 81.3% 100% 29.5% 70.5% 100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

(b) Percentages for ready for implementation are based on the following weighted n: Others 498, Ready 46

(c) Other (e.g., a lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility; 

controversial and individual rights issues)
22

C. How the Polygraph Is Used, Perceived Benefits and 

Other Issues Surrounding the Use of the PostConviction Polygraph with Sex Offenders

This section includes telephone survey responses from agencies that reported using the postconviction polygraph with convicted sex offenders, at least sometimes.

7

 The survey covered a 

number of topics such as policies and procedures, time and resources issues, implementation issues, 

perceived benefits and/or changes in management practices, and a number of other topics related to the 

use of the polygraph. 

SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES

One in three (35.5%) of the respondents representing agencies that used the post-conviction polygraph 

with sex offenders indicated that the idea of using the polygraph originated with treatment providers. 

Use of the post-conviction polygraph with convicted sex offenders is not new; nearly half (45.2%) of the 

respondents reported their agencies had used the polygraph for five or more years. 

Almost two-thirds (63.9%) of the respondents indicated their agencies used the polygraph regularly to 

determine compliance. The polygraph was frequently (52.2%) used to obtain sexual history and 

information on past offenses and also when an offender was in denial of the current conviction (45.8%). 

The polygraph was often (54.2%) used in "other" circumstances, such as to investigate suspicions or 

critical incidents or to address specific issues. 

Generally (in 83.2% of the agencies responding), the sex offender was aware that the polygraph was 

part of the supervision and treatment process, and most of the time (92.3%), the offender was required 

to waive confidentiality among the agent, treatment provider, and polygraph examiner. 

Many agencies experienced difficulties when implementing the polygraph. One in three respondents 

(34.8%) mentioned opposition from a variety of sources, such the criminal justice system, treatment 

providers, and offenders. Legal and immunity issues (17.4%) as well as a lack of polygraph examiners 

(12.3%) were also problematic. Most commonly these concerns were addressed by educating 

stakeholders (38.7%) and developing ways to locate and screen additional polygraph examiners (32.9%). 

The choice of a polygraph examiner appeared to be crucial in determining the success of program 

implementation. Respondents advised developing interviews, screening and background checks, and 

ensuring that the polygraph examiner was qualified and experienced with sex offenders. Most of the 

respondents (91%) indicated that they were satisfied with services provided by polygraph examiners. 

Factors such as excellent communication and polygraph skills, professionalism, and timeliness of 

reports and results were critical to satisfaction. 

Sanctions and consequences played an important role in the post-conviction polygraph process. Many 

agencies (61.9%) reported the ability to arrest and temporarily jail an offender without going to court. 

Agencies used a variety of consequences or actions depending on the polygraph result. The most 

common consequence reported for a deceptive polygraph was increased supervision (46.5%), including 

more surveillance, electronic monitoring, or home visits. When offenses before the current conviction 

were uncovered, often there were no consequences (44.5%). Investigations were common (52.6%) 

when offenses occurring after the current conviction were revealed. When violations of supervision 

were found, the agencies frequently responded with an increase in supervision (56.1%).

There is no question that most respondents perceived benefits to using the post-conviction polygraph 

with convicted sex offenders. The overarching theme that appeared was best conveyed in the words of 

 

7 Unless otherwise indicated, percentages for all tables are based on a weighted n of 155. There were 146 responses to the long survey that 

resulted in 155 weighted cases. Cases were weighted to reflect instances where the agencies surveyed in 1994 were consolidated at the time of 

the 1998 interview. (See Methods section in this report). 
23

a respondent who noted "You know more about what the issues are so you can provide better treatment 

and supervision to reduce risk." More than three out of four (76.1%) indicated that the polygraph 

enhanced disclosure and knowledge of the offender's behavior. Use of the polygraph led to better 

management and supervision of the offender, according to two-thirds (66.5%) of the respondents. More 

than half remarked that the polygraph helped prevent offenses (58.1%).

POLICES AND PROCEDURES

1. Where did the idea [to use the polygraph] originate?

ß The idea most often came from treatment providers or as a result of general exposure to the 

concept. 

TABLE 19. WHERE DID THE IDEA TO USE THE POLYGRAPH ORIGINATE? 8

Weighted n=155

Treatment Providers 35.5%

Exposed to Idea (exposed to training, information, other states' 

programs, or gathered information about the polygraph)

21.3%

Probation /parole office (including respondent or other 

personnel in the office)

10.3%

Criminal Justice 6.5%

PE, Board, Legislation 5.8%

Don't Know 31.0%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100. 

2. How long has the polygraph been used?

ß Use of the polygraph with convicted sex offenders is not a new idea. Nearly half (45.2%) of the 

agencies reported using the polygraph for five or more years, and 16.8% reported using it for 10 

years or more. 

TABLE 20. LENGTH OF TIME POLYGRAPH IN USE Weighted n=155

< 1year 9.0%

1-2 years 24.5%

3-4 years 18.7%

5-9 years 28.4%

10+ years 16.8%

Don’t Know 2.6%

Total 100%

 

8 Note that table headings in this section typically describe the question asked of the polygraph. In some cases the wording was changed 

somewhat or shortened to be more reflective of a table heading. 
24

3. Did state laws or local policies require use of the polygraph with sex offenders?

ß About half (51.6%) of the probation and parole officers participating in the long survey reported 

the existence of state or local policies that required polygraphs for sex offenders. 

ß Fewer than one in three reported using the polygraph before these laws or policies were effected.

TABLE 21. STATE LAW OR LOCAL POLICY REQUIRING POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155

No 43.2%

Yes 51.6%

Don't Know 5.2%

Total 100%

TABLE 22. WAS THE POLYGRAPH USED BEFORE STATE LAW OR LOCAL POLICY WENT INTO 

EFFECT? Weighted n=80

No 60.0%

Yes 33.8%

Don’t Know 6.3%

Total 100%

4. Did staff receive training specifically on the use of the polygraph with sex offenders?

ß Somewhat more than half (56.1%) of the respondents reported that staff had been specifically 

trained on the use of the polygraph with sex offenders. 

ß Training occurred on an ongoing basis for many (46.0%) of those who received training. 

ß Anecdotal comments regarding training described a variety of experiences, including formal 

conferences and special sex offender training programs. Training was often received from 

polygraph examiners, either by specific programs, or by talking with and observing the examiners 

at work. Regular networking with sex offender providers, obtaining information on how the 

polygraph was used in other states, and receiving polygraph-specific information, such as 

understanding interviewing techniques and skills required of the examiner, were also mentioned as 

training methods.
25

TABLE 23. HAS YOUR STAFF HAD TRAINING SPECIFICALLY ON THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH 

WITH SEX OFFENDERS? Weighted n=155

No 43.2%

Yes, staff or some staff 56.1%

Don't Know .6%

Total 100%

When was training received? Weighted n=88

Training is ongoing 46.0%

Training received less than two years ago 44.8%

Training received more than two years ago 6.9%

Other (e.g., at least quarterly) 2.3%

Total 100%

5. Who does and does not receive a polygraph?

ß Most of the time, polygraphs were not required for every sex offender supervised by the agency or 

office. Only one in four of probation and parole officers representing offices that used the 

polygraph reported that all sex offenders supervised by their agency received a polygraph. 

TABLE 24. WHAT PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS RECEIVE THE POLYGRAPH?

Weighted n=155

Everyone (100%) 25.8%

95% to 99% 15.5%

Less than 95% 56.1%

Don't Know 2.6%

Total 100%

Respondents representing the small number of agencies (15.5%) that use the polygraph with almost all sex 

offenders (between 95% and 99%) were asked to describe the unique circumstances in which a sex 

offender does not receive a polygraph.

ß Over one-half of this small group (weighted n=24) reported that sex offenders may not receive the 

polygraph for reasons such as "slipping through the cracks" or participation in another program 

that does not require the polygraph. 

ß Offenders with health or mental health issues or those who use psychotropic medications may not 

receive a polygraph.
26

Respondents representing agencies that polygraph less than 95% of sex offenders they supervise (56.1%, 

weighted n=87) were asked to describe the circumstances that determine who receives and who does 

not receive the polygraph. 

ß The decision to use the polygraph was often linked to either the therapist or treatment. The 

therapist may be the driving force in determining who receives the polygraph, or all those in 

treatment may receive a polygraph. Use of the polygraph may be related to decisions regarding 

treatment progress, failure or level, and receptivity to treatment.

ß The court, probation, or parole sometimes determined who received the polygraph.

ß Crime type and level of offender risk also played a role in the decision to use the polygraph, but 

less frequently than the above considerations. 

TABLE 25. WHO GETS THE POLYGRAPH AND WHO DOES NOT? 

Summary of respondents’ comments Fewer than 95% of 

sex offenders get the 

polygraph

Most sex offenders 

(95% to 99%) get the 

polygraph

Who Gets the Polygraph? % based on 

weighted n=87

% based on 

weighted n=24

Therapist involved in the decision, e.g., depends on the therapist, therapist requires or 

may mandate even for some misdemeanors. Discussion of case with therapist or 

recommendation of treatment agencies.

32.2%

Ordered by court, probation or parole. Court determines who does and does not get 

polygraph. Those on long-term parole. 26.4%

Severe or violent crimes, e.g., rape/sodomy, all felonies, predatory offenses, and crimes 

against children.

13.8%

Depends on the degree of risk, e.g., multiple offenses, high risk offender, criminal 

history, or level of deception

12.6%

All in treatment 12.6%

Depends on the treatment level or if no progress in treatment or fails treatment. Also, 

if receptive to treatment.

10.3%

Other, e.g., up to the polygraph examiner, random selection or legislation determines, 

or to terminate from treatment

8.0%

Denial group 8.0%

Who Does Not Get the Polygraph

May not receive a polygraph for a variety of reasons, e.g., some “slip through the 

cracks.” It is not court ordered or mandatory. Small percentage may be in another 

type of sex offender treatment program [that does not require it]. Offender is not yet 

in treatment or has not completed the evaluation required for the polygraph. Offender 

may not be complying [with program]. Offender is transferred from another 

jurisdiction. There may be legal issues, grandfathered, offender is not on probation or 

cannot be located. Offender is on lifetime probation and doing well.

3.4% 54.2%

Health reasons, e.g., heart condition, mental health condition or person is using 

psychotropic medications

4.6% 25.0%

“Short timers” or prison bound 8.3%

Language or cultural barrier 8.3%

Lack of resources or polygraph examiners 1.1% 4.2%

Low risk offenders 4.2%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.
27

6. How were polygraphs used?

ß Almost two-thirds of the respondents reported regular use (i.e., often, always, or almost always) of 

the polygraph to determine compliance. 

ß More than half (52.2%) of probation and parole officers reported that a polygraph was regularly 

used (i.e., often, always or almost always) to obtain sexual history and past offenses.

ß Somewhat less than half of the respondents (45.8%) reported that a polygraph was regularly used 

when a sex offender was in denial of the current conviction.

ß A polygraph was not typically administered as part of the pre-sentence investigation. Three of 

every four probation and parole officers completing the long survey noted that this practice never 

or rarely occurred.

ß A few respondents indicated that polygraphs sometimes served multiple purposes. 

TABLE 26. TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF POLYGRAPH ADMINISTERED Weighted n=155

Polygraph is administered Never Rarely Someti

mes

Often Always 

or

Almost 

always

Polygraph 

serves 

multiple 

purposes

Don't 

Know

Total

To determine compliance with the 

conditions of probation or parole 

(Weighted n=155)

3.9% 9.0% 19.4% 25.2% 38.7% 1.3% 2.6% 100%

To obtain sexual history and past 

offenses (Weighted n=155)

9.7% 9.0% 20.6% 13.5% 38.7% 3.9% 4.5% 100%

When offender denies the current 

conviction (Weighted n=155)

17.4% 11.6% 14.2% 14.2% 31.6% 3.9% 7.1% 100%

As part of pre-sentence investigation 

(Weighted n=155)

55.5% 19.4% 11.6% 1.3% 5.8% 1.9% 4.4% 100%

More than half the respondents (54.2%) reported use of the polygraph for situations in addition to 

those noted above.

ß Most commonly, polygraphs were used to investigate suspicions (52.4% of the group that reports 

using polygraphs for other situations).

ß Nearly one-third of this group used the polygraph after critical incidents or to address specific 

issues, for instance, if the offender had contact with children.

ß Polygraphs were sometimes used following a violation or to address an offender's progress in 

treatment or supervision.
28

TABLE 27. IS THE POLYGRAPH USED FOR OTHER SITUATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER

A CRITICAL INCIDENT OR IN PAROLE RELEASE DECISIONS?

 

Yes 54.2%

No 41.3%

Don't Know 4.5%

Total 100%

TABLE 28. OTHER SITUATIONS WHEN POLYGRAPH IS USED Weighted n=84 (those that use the

polygraph in other situations)

Summary of respondents' comments % of weighted 

n=84 

indicating 

response

When there is a suspicion, e.g., complaint from community, any red flag, suspect violation, 

suspicion that they are lying, suspect high-risk behavior, re-offending or bad behaviors, hunch 

from informant, noticeable change in behaviors.

52.4%

Critical incidents or specific issues, drug situations, any time we think an offender needs it, 

contact with children, sobriety verification, high profile cases.

29.8%

Following a violation, reason to believe they violated parole. 10.7%

To determine offender's progress, e.g., treatment types of questions, to terminate from 

treatment, to determine reduction in supervision.

9.5%

To determine release from probation/parole 8.3%

Other, i.e., for non-compliance with terms and conditions, following inconclusive or deceptive 

exams, if defense requests, for family reunification, for long-term monitoring after treatment

8.3%%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

7. Was the sex offender informed that the polygraph was part of the treatment/supervision process?

ß Most often, sex offenders were informed, at the beginning of their time on probation or parole, 

that a polygraph was part of the supervision or treatment process.

TABLE 29. IS THE SEX OFFENDER AWARE FROM THE BEGINNING OF PROBATION OR PAROLE 

THAT HE/SHE IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A POLYGRAPH AS PART OF THE SUPERVISION OR 

TREATMENT PROCESS?

Yes 83.2%

Sometimes 9.7%

No 7.1%

Total 100%
29

8. Were sex offenders required to sign confidentiality waivers?

ß Most of the time sex offenders were required to waive confidentiality among the agent, the 

treatment provider and the polygraph examiner.

TABLE 30. DO YOU REQUIRE THE SEX OFFENDER TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY BETWEEN 

THE AGENT/OFFICER, THE TREATMENT PROVIDER, AND THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER? 

Weighted n=155

Yes 92.3%

No 5.8%

Don't know or missing 1.9%

Total 100%

9. Were there written policies and procedures for the polygraph?

ß Over two-thirds of the respondents reported an absence of written policies or procedures relating 

to the polygraph process or results.

TABLE 31. DO YOU HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE 

POLYGRAPH OR USING THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155

No 67.1%

Yes 28.4%

Missing 4.5%

Total 100%

TIME AND RESOURCE ISSUES

1. How long did a polygraph take?

ß Two hours was the most commonly reported length of time for a polygraph exam. 

ß Over half of the respondents reported one to three hours as the typical length of time for a 

polygraph exam.
30

TABLE 32. HOW LONG DOES A FULL POLYGRAPH EXAM TYPICALLY LAST, INCLUDING THE

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST? Weighted n=102

Minimum time reported 1/2 hour

Maximum time report 5-1/2 hours

Most frequent time reported 2 hours

Average time overall 2 hours, 5 min.

Average times reported

30 minutes to 1 hour 12.7%

>1 to 1-1/2 hours 21.6%

>1-1/2 to 2 hours 29.4%

>2 to 3 hours 22.6%

More than 3 hours 13.7%

Total 100%

Based on a weighted n of 102 responses, the remaining responses were "don't know".

2. How much did a polygraph cost?

ß A typical polygraph exam was most often reported to cost $150.

ß Over two-thirds of the respondents reported that a typical polygraph exam cost between $100 and 

$250.

TABLE 33. HOW MUCH DOES A TYPICAL EXAM COST? Weighted n=128

Minimum cost reported $75

Maximum cost reported $625

Most frequent cost reported $150

Average cost overall $200

Average costs reported

$75 to $100 10.2%

>$100 to $150 28.9%

>$150 to $200 20.3%

>$200 to $250 21.9%

>$250 to $300 12.5%

>$300 6.2%

Total 100%

Based on weighted n of 128 responses, the remaining responses were "don't know".
31

3. Who paid for the polygraph?

ß The offender paid for the polygraph exam in approximately half (51.6%) of the offices represented 

by the probation and parole officers in the long survey. However, it was not uncommon to assist 

offenders with the cost of the polygraph, especially if the offender was indigent.

TABLE 34. WHO PAYS FOR THE EXAM? Weighted n=155

Offender 51.6%

State/County Agency 14.8%

Combination Offender and State/County Agency (including 

programs to subsidize costs for indigent offenders)

29.7%

Other (e. g., Federal grant, Sex Offender Assessment Fund, 

Community Punishment Program Act)

2.6%

Don't Know 1.3%

Total 100%

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

1. What problems were experienced when the polygraph was implemented?

ß Only 9% of survey respondents reported no problems when implementing the polygraph. The 

most common problem was opposition from a variety of stakeholders, such as public defenders and 

defense attorneys, courts, the parole board, treatment providers, and the offender. 

ß Somewhat less than one in five (17.4%) of the probation and parole officers responding noted that 

legal and immunity issues were areas of concern.

ß A wide variety of other issues were addressed as the polygraph process was implemented, including 

the lack of qualified and accessible polygraph examiners, concerns regarding the validity of the 

polygraph, resource issues, and availability of information and training regarding the polygraph 

process.
32

TABLE 35. WHAT WERE THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEMS YOUR AGENCY FACED WHEN THE

POLYGRAPH WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED? Weighted n=155

Summary of respondents’ comments % indicating 

response

No problems 9.0%

Opposition, e.g., public defenders, defense attorneys, courts, judges, parole board, administration, 

department of corrections, treatment providers, and offenders (e.g., getting the offender to cooperate, 

complaints about infringement of rights, misunderstanding regarding the polygraph procedure).

34.8%

Legal and immunity issues, i.e., results not admissible in court, wanted to use it for investigation, 

types of sanctions to impose, concern about information used against offender, possibility to subpoena 

files and historical information, sex predator laws, what to do with the information.

17.4%

Lack of polygraph examiners, i.e., no or not enough examiners, no funding for good examiners, 

unable to find quality examiners, educating the polygraph examiner about sex offenders, lack of Spanish 

speaking examiners, long distance to the examiner..

12.3%

Validity of polygraph, e.g., accepting the validity of test in court, no scientific verification of results, 

convincing prosecuting attorneys of polygraph results, accuracy, inconclusive tests.

11.0%

Offenders can't pay 10.3%

Resource issues, e.g., funding of program, trained probation officers, less time for caseload, costs, 

who will pay for the polygraph.

10.3%

Lack of information, education, and training. Also, learning how to ask the right questions for 

polygraph.

7.7%

Other e.g., learning how far back to go, scheduling, no shows, timeliness of reports, getting the truth 

from the offender, inconsistent PO referrals. 4.5%

Viewed as treatment provider problem 1.3%

Don't know or too new to know 10.9%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

ß In answer to a specific question regarding sources of opposition to the polygraph, almost half 

(47.7%) of the respondents noted that offenders and/or their families opposed use of the 

polygraph.

ß Defense attorneys were also a major source of opposition, according to a third of the respondents.

TABLE 36. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THE POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155

No 26.5%

Offenders and/or their families 47.7%

Public defenders, attorneys, legal opposition 33.5%

Judges 7.7%

Treatment providers 7.1%

Probation or parole officers or lack of administrative support 3.2%%

Don't Know 5.2%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.
33

2. How did agencies overcome these problems, and what was their advice to those considering 

implementation?

ß Education was important to address concerns surrounding the polygraph. Almost forty percent 

(38.7%) of respondents recommended education for all stakeholders, including the legal system, 

the offender and staff. Those involved in the actual polygraph process should receive specific 

training and skill development. Above all, it is important for those involved to understand that the 

polygraph is a "must for the treatment of sex offenders."

ß The importance of experienced, qualified, and certified polygraph examiners was emphasized by 

nearly one in three (32.9%) respondents. Interview and screening processes to select examiners can 

be developed. Polygraph examiners must be willing to follow sex offender guidelines. Training 

"in house" examiners about the use of the polygraph with sex offenders may be possible, if the 

examiner is willing to branch into this area of expertise. However the polygraph examiner was 

selected, it was clear that the s/he should be familiar with the sex offender thought process, the 

types of questions to ask, and the agency's sex offender program. 

ß We were reminded that implementing the polygraph is often an ongoing process, and the value of 

the program will evolve over time. 

ß Implementation may be accomplished through persistence and by insisting that the polygraph is an 

expectation, according to one in five respondents. Those interested in implementing the polygraph 

should "just do it." 

ß Establishing policies and procedures to be used in the polygraph process or for determining what 

happens with the information received through the process was useful. Recommendations 

included resolving issues through legal and legislative avenues, reporting new offenses to law 

enforcement, and developing other policies, procedures, and sanctions. Policies should also 

address offenders who avoid taking the polygraph. 

ß Formalizing the polygraph process by making it a condition of probation, parole, or treatment, 

with sanctions for non-participation, was helpful.

ß According to some respondents, it was important to understand the limitations of the polygraph, 

i.e., it is only one tool, but a valuable one, to monitor. Some exams may be inconclusive, and 

some offenders may be "untestable."

ß Once limitations are understood, however, the polygraph should be used within that context. 

Probation and parole officers advised that results could be used to help break down denial, to 

confront the offender, or even as leverage. Respondents also cautioned that you should be 

prepared for the information that is disclosed. 
34

TABLE 37. HOW TO OVERCOME IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS AND BEST ADVICE 

Weighted n=155

Summary of respondents' comments % indicating 

response

Educate courts, judges, attorneys, the legislature, probation officers, offenders, and provide specific training and 

skill development for staff. Be prepared [to address concerns], and provide good support and statistics [to help 

educate]. Use the internet to locate information. Other suggestions include providing the legal community with 

existing case law, and having attorneys sit in on the pre-test and receive copies of the report. Educate judges and 

attorneys regarding use of the polygraph only for treatment and supervision. Educate attorneys regarding use of 

polygraph before sentencing. Get feedback from other agencies using the polygraph and requirements. [Have those 

involved] "understand that the polygraph is a must in the treatment of sex offenders."

38.7%

Find excellent polygraph examiners, including developing an interview, screening process to select examiners. 

Search for a polygraph examiner (can be in house) willing to branch into this area and follow sex offender guidelines, 

and educate him/her about sex offenders (providing articles, books, etc.). Find examiners who ask good questions, 

check the background of the offender, do a good pre-test and understand the sex offender thought process. 

Examiners should be educated, certified, qualified, experienced, and competent. Use alternate polygraph examiners 

to avoid "habituation." Make sure the examiner understands your program. Schedule enough time, and focus on 

one or two basic questions that are predatory/victim related. Find examiners without bias. Develop a sex offender 

team to develop reporting requirements for the results.

32.9%

Recognize that it is a process that comes in time, and the value is proved in time. Some agencies are still in 

process of overcoming problems. Decide [on use] case-by-case.

22.6%

Find a way, and "Just do it!" Don't back down, persistence, make it an expectation that the department requires 

a polygraph, mandate that offenders must take it, make it client's responsibility. Find a way, "because it's the right 

thing to do." Develop payment strategies, e.g., "offenders can pay up-front"; some providers allow offenders to pay 

over time.

20.6%

Develop policies and procedures, including a "sanctions grid," having the offender admit to the facts of the case 

in court, resolving issues through legal or legislative avenues, and reporting new offenses to law enforcement. 

Develop good, accurate guidelines, and policies on how to use the information. Be consistent in application of the 

polygraph with offenders. Think through the frequency [how many polygraphs to administer]. Develop policies and 

procedures for those who avoid taking the polygraph. Videotape the test. 

15.5%

Use it for monitoring and supervision or make it a condition of probation, parole or treatment. 

Revoke probation if they don't do it.

14.8%

General, positive comment, e.g., Wonderful tool, encourage use, use it with an open mind, it's effective. Sex 

offenders need to have a part in treatment to keep honest, wipes out deception.

14.8%

Know the limitations, i.e., view it as valuable tool, but only one tool to monitor, can't use it to gather 

information--only for specific questions, some come up inclusive, some people will not be "testable".

10.3%

Use the results, e.g., improves treatment capability tremendously, confront offender with results, use it as 

leverage, make a determination on the information you receive, "be prepared for what you learn," and don't be 

surprised by what comes out. Understand and anticipate that it makes sex offenders disclose. Use it before 

sentencing. Do it [because] it helps break down denial.

9.7%

Develop resources, including gaining access to resources through the treatment provider and adding financial 

resources and personnel.

9.7%

Communicate and Coordinate, i.e., keep up communication with the polygraph examiner. Coordinate all three 

people/agencies in the triangle [treatment provider, supervising officer, and polygraph examiner]. 

7.7%

Gather support, and gather it early, from parole board, policy makers, attorneys, judges and other authorities. 

Get testimonials from treatment providers.

5.2%

Use the polygraph carefully and specifically, i.e., assure that it is used as a maintenance, supervision and/or 

treatment tool, and do not issue a violation for offender unless polygraph results are supported by further 

investigation. Use the polygraph as a compliance tool not to "fish for new information." Use as a treatment tool for 

finding past history, not to assess for treatment. 

4.5%

Test early and test often, i.e., test early, often, do it regularly, and get a baseline. 3.2%

Develop procedures for confidentiality, e.g., talk through the issues, institute Polygraph Oversight Committee 

to establish how to adhere to confidentiality.

1.9%

Don't Know 4.5%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.
35

POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS

1. How were polygraph examiners chosen?

ß Treatment providers influenced the choice of polygraph examiners, according to 38.1% of 

probation and parole officers representing agencies where the polygraph was used. The provider 

may have chosen the polygraph examiner or made recommendations. The provider and officer 

may have decided together on the choice of examiner.

ß One in four respondents selected examiners through some type of agency list or registry. Lists 

included licensed or certified examiners or those who contracted with the agency, met agency 

standards, or had experience with sex offenders.

ß Limited choice of examiners or no examiners was reported by 16.8% of the respondents 

representing agencies using the polygraph.

TABLE 38. HOW DO YOU CHOOSE THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER? Weighted n=155

Summary of respondents' comments % indicating 

response

Rely on the treatment provider, treatment provider chooses, recommends several to choose 

from, or the decision is made jointly with the treatment provider

38.1%

Agency contract list or registry. Agency may have a list of polygraph examiners who are 

certified or licensed. Polygraph examiners may apply [to be listed] or approved or must abide by 

the agency contract. Lowest bidder.

25.8%

No choice or choice is limited, perhaps to only one or two in the area. Polygraph examiner is 

department employee.

16.8%

Knowledge of, availability, convenience. Use well known firm or from word of mouth. The 

choice is based on whether the polygraph examiner will travel to area, is within driving distance, or 

is in proximity to parolee. 

11.0%

Skill level determines choice, i.e., "get the best you can," polygraph examiners must meet 

certain criteria, be licensed or certified, or have experience with sex offenders.

9.0%

Preference of officer, attorney, court, state police or offender. Rotate polygraph examiners. 6.6%

Don't Know 3.2%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

2. Were agencies satisfied with services received from polygraph examiners, and what did or did not 

contribute to satisfaction?

ß Most probation and parole officers were satisfied with the quality of services received from 

polygraph examiners.
36

TABLE 39. ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY OF SERVICES YOU ARE RECEIVING

FROM POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS? Weighted n=155

Yes 91.0%

No 3.2%

Don't Know 5.8%

Total 100%

The following were the major sources of satisfaction with polygraph services:

ß Good skills on part of the examiner, especially regarding experience with and knowledge of sex 

offenders. 

ß The examiner's ability to design relevant questions and to build a rapport with the offender.

ß The examiner's willingness to communicate with the officer on a regular basis. 

ß Professionalism, including factors such as honesty, reliability, and the ability to provide high 

quality services. 

ß Providing information to the agency that is understandable and accessible.

TABLE 40. REASONS FOR SATISFACTION OR DISSATISFACTION WITH SERVICES

FROM POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS Weighted n=155

% indicating 

response

% indicating 

response

Summary of respondents' comments

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction

Good communication, i.e., willing to discuss case with officer, talks to officer 

before and after exam, provides information we would not have known, stays in 

touch, forthright, explains so we can understand, easy to work with, willing to 

attend staff meetings. [We feel like we] have our hands on the polygraph 

process. Gives recommendations on what questions to ask and what to focus on 

with sex offenders. Able to develop a rapport with the sex offender.

37.4%

Good skills, especially related to sex offenders, i.e., knowledge about and 

well-educated in examining sex offenders, knows what to look for in dealing with 

sex offenders, good at designing questions, can break down denial, able to 

pinpoint information we couldn't get in evaluation. Licensed, certified, former 

police officer. Uses modern equipment.

34.2%

Professionalism, i.e., efficient, thorough, honest, reliable, good quality, good 

reports, experienced, reports easy to read and understand.

32.9%

Timeliness, i.e., polygraph, reports and results are done in a timely manner. 

Responsive, e.g., does "emergency" tests.

16.1%

General positive statement, e.g., no problems, they are helpful, really pleased, 

it is accurate, revealed new information, confirmed suspicions, [gives] better 

outlook, exposes offender patterns.

16.1%

Cost effective/convenient 2.6%
37

Don't Know or too new to know 5.8%

Would like more professionalism, communication, skills and timeliness 

from the polygraph examiner

6.5%

More resources, e.g., examiners and experienced examiners 3.9%

Problems with tests, e.g., too many inconclusive, too many false positive. 

Would like more control over the questions

2.6%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

COMMUNICATION

1. What information did the agency provide to the polygraph examiner?

ß Most commonly (50.3%), the agent/officer provided the polygraph examiner with information 

regarding specific issues and concerns about individual offenders.

ß The sex offender's criminal history, sex history, and information on the current offense were often 

provided.

ß It was not the agency, but the treatment provider, who provided information on the sex offender 

to the polygraph examiner, according to more than one in five respondents.

ß Some respondents reported that access to the entire file and/or the PSIR of the sex offender was 

available to the polygraph examiner.

TABLE 41. WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE AGENT/OFFICER PROVIDE TO THE POLYGRAPH

EXAMINER ON A SPECIFIC OFFENDER BEFORE A POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155

Summary of respondent comments % indicating 

response

Specific issues and concerns, thinking patterns, how they are doing on probation 50.3%

Information on current conviction, police report 35.5%

Criminal history 25.8%

Treatment provider gives the polygraph examiner information 21.9%

Sex history, psychological evaluation 18.7%

Entire file, any information we have, employment history 14.8%

PSIR 13.5%

Conditions of release 6.5%

Victim information, e.g., victim statement, report from victim investigation services, 

some details on victims

5.2%

Post sentence update 2.6%

Don't Know 9.0%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.
38

2. How often did agents/officers talk to the polygraph examiner about specific cases?

ß More than half of the respondents representing agencies that use the polygraph indicated that 

officers in their agencies spoke with polygraph examiners about specific cases at least once a month 

or more.

ß Close to one in five (18.1%) reported that officers never spoke with polygraph examiners. Others 

(22.6%) rarely spoke to the examiner. Sporadic communication may depend on the offender, or 

may occur when the polygraph is conducted, when there is deception, or on an "as needed" basis.

TABLE 42. HOW OFTEN DO YOUR AGENTS TALK TO THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER 

ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES? Weighted n=155

Between daily and weekly 15.4%

More than monthly but less than weekly 16.8%

Monthly 23.2%

Never 18.1%

Rarely, depends on the offender, more contact when 

offender is "high risk, when the polygraph is conducted, as 

needed, for deception, less than monthly

22.6%

Don't Know 3.9%

Total 100%

3. How did polygraph examiners provide the results of the polygraph to the agency?

ß More than three out of four of the respondents reported that the results of the polygraph were 

received from the polygraph examiner in written form or in both written and verbal reports.

TABLE 43. HOW DOES THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER LET THE AGENT OFFICER KNOW 

ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH TEST? Weighted n=155

Both written and verbal reports 40.0%

Written report 38.7%

Verbal report 2.6%

Other (officers attend polygraph, do not let officers know 

the results, video tape)

7.1%

Agents/officers receive results from treatment 

provider

11.6%

Total 100%
39

4. How did the treatment provider find out about the results of the polygraph?

ß Most commonly, the treatment provider received the polygraph results from the polygraph 

examiner.

ß Approximately one in five respondents reported that officers gave the treatment provider the 

results of the polygraph.

TABLE 44. WHO GAVE THE TREATMENT PROVIDER THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH?

Weighted n=155

The polygraph examiner 60.6%

The agent/officer 21.3%

Both the agent/officer and the polygraph 

examiner

8.4%

Other (treatment provider present at the exam, 

depends on the examiner, depends on whether 

treatment provider or agent requests the report, does 

not apply as those taking the polygraph do not need to 

be in treatment, depends on PE)

9.0%

Don't Know .6%

Total 100%

CONSEQUENCES

1. Did offenders receive consequences or sanctions based on the results of the polygraph?

Agencies reported the use of a number of consequences. The types of consequences enforced varied, 

depending on the type of polygraph result. As one respondent commented, "[the polygraph] cannot be 

used in court, but it will affect the way the offender is managed."

ß The most common consequence for a polygraph that indicated deception was increased 

supervision (46.5%), including more surveillance, electronic monitoring, or home visits. The 

offender's use of alcohol or drugs may have been monitored by urinalysis. The offender may have 

been required to take antabuse. Those with deceptive polygraphs may have faced a change in 

treatment or the issue may have been addressed in treatment through discussion or more 

homework. According to one in four respondents, a deceptive polygraph could result in 

revocation or termination from treatment or the program.

ß When offenses that occurred before the current conviction were uncovered during a polygraph, 

there were usually no consequences (44.5%). When a consequence was applied, it most likely 

involved some type of investigation, and it was often the district attorney who decided whether an 

investigation would be undertaken. 

ß Investigations were very common (52.9%) when offenses occurring after the current conviction 

were revealed during the polygraph process. If new offenses were found, an offender could be 

revoked or terminated from the treatment or program (34.2%). One in four respondents reported 

that the defendant could be required to return to court.
40

ß When violations of supervision were found, the most common agency response was an increase in 

supervision (56.1%). The violation could be addressed in treatment in some way, or the 

individual could return to court.

ß More than one in four respondents reported no consequences for inconclusive polygraphs. 

However, one in four also reported increased supervision. More than a third (36.1%) indicated 

that the offender had to retake the polygraph exam.

TABLE 45. CONSEQUENCES OR SANCTIONS BASED ON RESULTS OF POLYGRAPH 

Weighted n=155

CONSEQUENCES RESULTS OF POLYGRAPH

% Indicating Response

Summary of Respondents' Comments Deception Offenses 

Before 

Current 

Conviction

Offenses 

After 

Current

Conviction

Violation of

Supervision

Inconclusive

None 7.7% 44.5% 3.9% 1.3% 27.7%

Increase supervision, e.g., "tighten up," more surveillance, 

electronic monitoring, increase contacts, [offender] reports 

more often, ISP, more in home visits, and longer probation 

term, house arrest, and period of increased observation. 

Also, urinalysis, antabuse, drug testing.

46.5% 5.2% 9.0% 56.1% 25.8%

Investigation--own, District Attorney's, or law enforcement. 

Contact authority. Contact District Attorney who decides 

on investigation.

9.0% 38.1% 52.9% 2.6% 7.7%

Change or address in treatment, e.g., increase or longer 

treatment, talk about in treatment, more homework, start 

treatment over or suspend from group. Notify provider to 

re-evaluate.

37.4% 4.5% 5.2% 36.1% 14.2%

Revocation, terminate treatment or program or unsuccessful 

discharge.

25.8% 1.3% 34.2% 28.4% 2.6%

Retest or increase tests. Do test on a specific issue. 16.1% .06% .06% 1.3% 36.1%

Go back to court, including preliminary case hearing, 

administrative hearing, contempt of court, prosecute, new 

charges, and return to legal system.

15.5% 6.5% 25.8% 21.3% .06%

Jail or arrest, including 15-day temporary custody. 10.3% .06% 17.4% 18.7% 1.9%

Impose curfews, home confinement for longer hours, impose 

as intermediate sanctions.

14.2% .06% .06% 17.4% 0%

Change in conditions or privileges, appearance before parole 

board or return to prison. Also, loss of earned time, or 

change conditions, e.g., change in employment. Apply grid 

system.

3.9% 1.3% 8.4% 9.0% 0%

Discuss with offender and or others. Talk, question, 

interrogate, verbal admonishment or letter of warning to 

offender. Case conference, staffing or talk to provider.

9.0% 0% .06% 7.1% 5.8%

Violation report. 1.9% 0% 5.2% 6.5% .06%

Reduce contact with family, remove from home or living 1.3% 2.6% 0% 1.9% .06%
41

situation. Also, unable to move back with family.

Report to human services, report to social services if child is 

the victim.

0% 2.6% 2.6% 0% 0%

AA, education program. 0% 0% 0% 6.5% 0%

More public service hours, community service, fines. 0% 0% .06% 4.5% 0%

Notification of neighbors, community, victims, including public 

notification.

1.3% 1.2% 0% .06% 0%

Look for another polygraph examiner. 0% 0% 0% 0% 1.3%

Plethysmograph. 0% .06% 0% 0% 0%

Too new to know. .06% .06% 2.6% .06% 4.5%

2. Could the offender be arrested and temporarily jailed before going to court?

ß Nearly two-thirds of respondents reported that officers or agents had the authority to arrest and 

temporarily jail offenders without going to court.

TABLE 46. DO YOUR OFFICERS/AGENTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST AND

TEMPORARILY JAIL SOMEONE WITHOUT GOING BACK TO COURT FIRST?

Weighted n=155

Yes 61.9%

No 37.4%

Don't Know .6%

Total 100%

BENEFITS OF THE POLYGRAPH 

1. Were there benefits associated with using the polygraph?

Respondents were asked for their opinions on the usefulness of the polygraph in managing sex 

offenders. These opinions were solicited through three questions:

ß Has the use of the polygraph changed the way you manage sex offenders?

ß In your opinion, what is the most important use of the polygraph?

ß In your opinion, does the use of the polygraph with sex offenders increase public safety? Why or why not?

As there was considerable overlap in the responses to these questions, the answers are combined in the 

table below. It should be noted that themes conveyed in answers to questions were often intertwined, 

and it was sometimes difficult to determine the best category for a response. 

ß The overarching theme in the answers to these three questions is best conveyed in the words of a 

respondent, who noted, "You know more about what the issues are so you can provide better treatment 

and supervision to reduce risk."
42

ß Enhanced disclosure and knowledge of the offender were the most commonly cited benefits of the 

polygraph. More insight and depth regarding the offender's behaviors and history as well as 

knowledge regarding "cycles and stimuli" led to a more comprehensive picture of the offender that 

would not have been available otherwise. The polygraph was useful in alerting agents to potential 

violations, behaviors, and areas of concern that might not have otherwise been revealed. Some 

respondents noted that the polygraph had the capability to "keep the offender honest" or accountable 

and "forced a level of honesty" that would not otherwise be attainable.

ß The polygraph led to better management and supervision of the offender, according to two-thirds 

of the respondents. The agent could better monitor the offender's behavior, exercise more control 

in the supervision process, and have more confidence that the offender was being accurately 

assessed. Many respondents noted that anticipation of the polygraph had a positive influence on 

the offender's behavior. The polygraph provided information that allowed a quicker response to 

situations, and could lead to "stepped-up" supervision or additional restrictions, if necessary. 

Finally, the polygraph was seen as a useful tool to verify compliance with conditions of probation 

or parole.

ß More than half the respondents noted that the polygraph helped to prevent new offenses. It 

provided a way to determine recidivism patterns, whether the offender had committed new crimes, 

and helped identify and assess risk. Some respondents were of the opinion that the polygraph 

could reduce recidivism entirely. Others noted that it could be helpful in detecting behaviors 

likely to precede a crime, so the system could intervene with treatment and/or otherwise protect 

possible victims. Others noted that when a crime was committed, it could be detected earlier, 

perhaps to the benefit of additional victims. 

ß Use of the polygraph resulted in better and more appropriate treatment in a number of ways, 

according to slightly more than 40% of respondents. It could lead to better evaluation and 

assessment for treatment and provided more information for treatment. One respondent stated, 

"We would never know the appropriate treatment without it." The polygraph was useful in assessing 

treatment progress and compliance and could lead to the right intervention at the right time. 

Issues uncovered in the polygraph process could be addressed in treatment or the offender could be 

confronted in group therapy.

ß The polygraph was useful in helping break down defendant denial of behaviors and offenses, 

according to 17.4% of those respondents in agencies using the polygraph.

ß The polygraph could also be used to support the application of consequences for an offender's 

behavior. Revocations, presentation of information before the parole board, and immediate 

removal of the offender from the community were mentioned.
43

TABLE 47. WERE THERE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH USING THE POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155

Summary of Respondents' Comments % indicating 

response

Enhances disclosure and knowledge of the offender. Increased knowledge of offender's 

behavior, causes offender to be more truthful, more insight, more depth, "helps find out their 

true behaviors and not just what they tell us." [The offender does] more talking to the P.O. after 

the polygraph has "tripped them up." Can identify more serious issues, and there is more 

information for more areas of concern. Find out about possible deviant behaviors. Alerts us to 

potential violations/offending behavior. Before the polygraph, bad situations might not have been 

revealed. [Provides] more knowledge about cycles and stimuli. Provides more information, 

including sex history and a full picture of offender's history. Find out "who they are really dealing 

with." Keeps [offender] honest, accountable. There is less guessing. Forces a level of honesty 

that wouldn't be there. Get a comprehensive overview of the offender to better manage them.

76.1%

Leads to better management and supervision of the offender. Better, more or another 

way of monitoring the offender. Provides more security, more control, and more confidence [of 

the agents] in what they are doing. Influences the offender's behavior while in supervision, also 

intimidation factor or "scare" factor, or leverage. Keeps behavior in check. Allows quicker 

response for technical situations, and can "catch them in their deviant acts". More restrictions for 

those who need them, and a better picture [of offender] to step up supervision. Can increase 

supervision if there is a deceptive polygraph. Can verify that conditions are upheld, and ensure 

compliance with court orders, parole, and child safety zones. Useful for maintenance.

66.5%

Helps prevent offenses. "Chances of other victims under supervision is nil." Determine if 

offender is re-offending and detect recidivism patterns. Ensure the offender isn't re-offending. 

Can supervise them to a point where there will be no recidivism. Provides us with supervision 

techniques so the offender will not re-offend. Less likely to re-offend. Can catch those reoffending and catch them quicker. Can treat before recidivism. Prevention, can catch earlier, 

helps identify and assess risk. Can protect society, victims. "They know we are watching them."

58.1%

Helps provide better and more appropriate treatment. More information for treatment. 

Can design treatment more effectively. "We would never know the appropriate treatment 

without it." Provides another tool in treatment. Can step up treatment or assess treatment 

progress and compliance, affirm treatment, target areas of treatment. Provides better evaluation 

and assessment for treatment as well as amenability to treatment. Address behaviors in 

treatment or confront in group. Can "catch that inappropriate thought and get the proper 

treatment." 

40.6%

Helps break down denial. 17.4%

Better able to apply consequences for behaviors. When they fail, they can go back to 

court. Offenders can be revoked. Aggravating information is presented to parole board. Can 

lead to the immediate removal of a sex offender from the community. Exposes new crimes so 

we can tell if the offender should be in the community. One respondent remarked on a positive 

consequence, i.e., decrease restrictions if appropriate.

7.1%

Yes, polygraph is a benefit, but respondent did not provide specific information. 3.2%

Now developed specialized sex offender caseloads 1.3%

No changes to management of sex offenders or increase in public safety because the 

polygraph has been in place for some time, so operations remain the same over long time period, 

or respondent was too new to know about changes. One respondent notes reliance on the 

treatment provider [thus, did not know].

18.1%
44

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT WITH POLYGRAPH SERVICES

1. Can polygraph services be improved?

ß More resources, especially dollars to cover the costs of the program, would be helpful, according to 

one in five respondents.

ß Nearly one in five respondents (18.7%) would like more polygraph examiners, as well as access to 

examiners on short notice, such as an on-call position. Some officers would like to "test 

suspicions immediately." There was a need for more examiners in rural areas. Geographical 

accessibility and the ability to have more time to talk to the examiner were important for some 

respondents. 

ß More training and education about the polygraph process would be helpful for some. 

ß Policies and procedures that formalize the process, such as written standards and procedures for 

exams and how to manage sanctions, would help some agencies. Encouraging support of the 

process by judges, laws, court mandates, and or making the polygraph a condition of probation 

were also mentioned.

TABLE 48. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP YOU TO BETTER USE POLYGRAPH 

SERVICES? Weighted n=155

Summary of respondents' comments % indicating 

response

No 28.4%

More resources and more dollars to pay for exams or lower costs, some guarantee of future 

funding for the program, if the offender would pay for it. 19.4%

More polygraph examiners and immediate access to and availability of examiners. 

On call polygraph examiner to test suspicions immediately, a polygraph examiner in the office, 

more examiners in rural areas, ability to get the polygraph done at a closer location, more direct 

access to the examiner, and more time to talk to the examiner. Also, statewide association of 

polygraph examiners.

18.7%

More training and education. "I would like to sit in," find out what's happening in other 

jurisdictions.

11.6%

More policies, procedures, and having the process institutionalized. If judges were 

more receptive, if polygraph was court mandated or a condition of probation, or put into law. 

[Need] department policies regarding use, written standards and procedures for exams, also 

pinpoint sanctions issue.

7.6%

Expand the process. Expand to all caseloads, increase use of the polygraph. Use polygraph 

with therapy, instead of one or the other.

5.2%

More control over choice of the examiner and over the exam. 2.6%

General comments, e.g., if only they would tell the truth, a complete history of the offender, if 

they were 100% accurate, if admissible in court. 

6.5%

Don't know or too new to know. 11.6%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100. 
45

ATTACHMENT:

Telephone Survey Instrument
46
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey SHORT FORM P 1

INTERVIEWER #

PREVIOUS SURVEY - RESPONDENT NAME (Qa)

QUESTIONNAIRE #

INT. LENGTH (min) (Qk)

RESPONDENT NAME (Current Survey) (Qc) PHONE # (Qd)

SHORT/LONG SURVEY? (Ql)

1=Short Survey

2=Long Survey

RESPONDENT ADDRESS (Qe)

INTERVIEW DATE (mm/dd/yy) (Qi) INT. TIME (00:00) (Qj)

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT NAME (Qf) PHONE # (Qg)

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT ADDRESS (Qh)

RESPONDENT

WILL SEND US:

0=No

1=Yes

Risk

Assessment

Instrument

(Qm)

Polygraph

Examiners

Standards

(Qq)

Policies &

Procedures

for Use of

Polygraph

Results (Qp)

STRUCTURE OF PROBATION & PAROLE (from ACA directory)

1=Probation and parole administered by SAME agency

2=Probation and parole administered by DIFFERENT agencies

USING POLYGRAPH IN 1994? (Insert data from 1994 phone survey)

0=Never

1=Rarely

2=Sometimes

3=Often

4=Always (includes almost always)

NOTES ABOUT CONTACTS

I PHONE # (Qb)

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Terms &

Conditions

for Sex

Offenders

(Qn)

Risk

Assessment

Instrument

for Sex

Offenders (Qo)

Qr

Qs

Qt
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey SHORT FORM P 2

QUESTIONNAIRE #

(INTRODUCTION)

Hello. My name is ______, and Im calling from the Division of Criminal Justice in Colorado. Were conducting

a national research study on adult sex offenders on behalf of the National Institute of Justice, which is the

research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We sent you a letter (last week / a couple of weeks ago) requesting

your participation in a telephone survey. Do you recall getting that letter?

(If YES) Good. Is now a good time for us to talk about the project?

(If NO) Im sorry you didnt receive it. I can fax you a copy if you like. Is now a good time to talk so that I

may explain what were doing?

Thank you. Four years ago we conducted a national study of probation and parole officers to see how sex

offenders were managed. Your office was part of that research, and the results of this study were published

by the American Probation and Parole Association. This is a follow-up to that research. This study will also

focus on the use of the polygraph as a management tool for community-based sex offenders.

I have a couple of initial questions to confirm some information on your office. May I ask those now?

(If YES, proceed.)

(If NO, set new interview time.) Id like to set an appointment for the entire interview. If you DONT use the

polygraph the interview will take only about 5 minutes. If you DO use the polygraph, the questions will be

more detailed, and the interview will take about 30 minutes.

(IMPORTANT!!! Doublecheck time difference. Use CO time. Make sure agreed upon time works in both time zones.)

WE HAVE YOUR NAME AS THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY TO DAY MANAGEMENT OF

YOUR OFFICE LOCATION. IS THAT CORRECT?

0=No (If the answer is NO, find out who is in charge and end the interview. Send out a new letter and begin again.)

1=Yes

(If NO, new contact name) ___________________________________________________________________________________

AND DOES YOUR OFFICE SUPERVISE CONVICTED ADULT FELONY SEX OFFENDERS?

0=No (If NO, thank the person, and end the interview)

1=Yes

(If YES) ARE THE SEX OFFENDERS BOTH PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES?

1=Both

2=Probation only

3=Parole only

4=Other (Specify)

I

?

?

if NO

if NO

END

Qu END

Qv

Qw

(other)

?

INTERVIEW DATE (mm/dd/yy) INTERVIEW TIME (00:00)

Referred to ________________________________________________ by ________________________________________________
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey SHORT FORM P 3

QUESTIONNAIRE #

(SHORT INTERVIEW)

As I said earlier, the survey we are conducting is examining how probation and parole agencies are using

polygraph examinations to help manage sex offender caseloads. What I am interested in is the type of

polygraph that is used with CONVICTED FELONY SEX OFFENDERS as part of their TREATMENT and

SUPERVISION.

GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, WOULD YOU SAY YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE IS CURRENTLY USING THIS TYPE

OF POLYGRAPH...? K (Read responses)

1=Never 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Often 5=Always/Almost always

HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION OF USING THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS IN

YOUR AGENCY?

0=No

1=Yes

9=DK

WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH AT THIS TIME?

(List all that apply, and PROBE for any other barriers)

1=No serious consideration

2=Lack of resources

3=Legal issues

4=Ethical issues

5=No polygraph examiners

6=Other (specify)

8=NA

9=DK

I

go to

LONG

END

?

(If NEVER or RARELY, proceed with

questions this page.)

Since you dont use the

polygraph, I just have a few

more questions for you which

will only take a few minutes.

May I ask those now?

Q1

(If SOMETIMES, OFTEN, or ALWAYS, go directly to the LONG FORM.

Staple short and long interview together ASAP.)

Since your office is using the polygraph, we would like to

interview you for our study. As I mentioned before, the

survey will take about 30-45 minutes.

DO YOU STILL HAVE TIME TO PROCEED

WITH THE INTERVIEW NOW?

(If YES)

Great, lets get started.

(If NO)

May we set a future appointment?

Would morning or afternoon be better for you?

(IMPORTANT!!! Doublecheck time difference. Use CO time.

Make sure agreed upon time will work in both time zones.)

?

?

Q2

Q3

12 345 68 9

(other)

INTERVIEW DATE (mm/dd/yy) INTERVIEW TIME (00:00)
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey SHORT FORM P 4

QUESTIONNAIRE #

(SHORT INTERVIEW)

DOES YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE HAVE SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS OR SITUATIONS WHERE

ONE OR MORE PEOPLE HANDLE ALL THE SEX OFFENDER CASES?

0=No

1=Yes

8=NA

9=DK

DOES YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE USE A RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR SEX OFFENDERS THAT IS

DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE USED FOR OTHER OFFENDERS?

0=No

1=Yes (If YES, specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2=Sometimes (Specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8=NA

9=DK

(If YES) Would you be willing to send us a copy?

I will give you our address at the end of the interview.

ARE SEX OFFENDERS THAT YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE SUPERVISES REQUIRED TO UNDERGO MENTAL

HEALTH TREATMENT?

0=No

1=Yes (If YES, specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2=Sometimes (Specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8=NA

9=DK

These are all the questions I have.

(If person indicated that they would send a risk assessment instrument...)

Could you please send a copy of your sex offender risk assessment instrument to:

Diane Pasini-Hill

Division of Criminal Justice

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000

Denver CO 80215

fx (303) 239-4491 (Reference NIJ Survey)

WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY OF THE SURVEY RESULTS?

0=No

1=Yes

THANK YOU again for your help with this project.

Your opinions and the information you have provided are very important to us.

Also, my supervisor may be calling you to verify that the interview was completed.

I

?

?

Q5

Q6

(instrument)

(type of treatment)

I

SEND

INFO

4

COLLECT

INFO

.

?

Q4

?

END

I

Q7
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 1

QUESTIONNAIRE # INTERVIEWER #

(LONG INTERVIEW)

(If doing long interview immediately, go directly to Q8. If calling back, remind person on the purpose of the study.)

(Repeat only if necessary)

As I mentioned when I first spoke with you, this study is about the use of the polygraph as a tool for managing

convicted adult felony sex offenders as part of their supervision. So, all of the following questions about

polygraph refer only to this type of polygraph.

First, Id like to ask you...

HOW LONG HAS YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE BEEN USING THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH WITH ADULT FELONY

SEX OFFENDERS? (Round to the closest category)

1=< 1 year

2=1-2 years

3=3-4 years

4=5-9 years

5=10+ years

9=DK

IS THERE A STATE LAW OR LOCAL POLICY ALLOWING OR REQUIRING THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

0=No

1=Yes (>>>)

9=DK

(If YES) (Q9A)

DID YOUR AGENCY USE THE POLYGRAPH BEFORE THE LAW OR POLICY WAS PASSED?

0=No

1=Yes

9=DK

WHERE DID THE IDEA TO USE THE POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS ORIGINATE? (IF YOU DONT

KNOW, THATS OK.)

(Note response carefully, and clarify when necessary)

?

I

?

Q8

Q9

?

Q10
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 2

QUESTIONNAIRE #

WHAT PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS UNDER YOUR OFFICES SUPERVISION WOULD YOU SAY ARE

RECEIVING POLYGRAPHS?

(Enter actual % or insert 999 for DK)

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO GETS A

POLYGRAPH AND WHO DOESNT?

(PROBE. How is the decision made? What factors are

considered?)

ARE SEX OFFENDERS THAT YOUR OFFICE SUPERVISES REQUIRED TO UNDERGO TREATMENT?

0=No

1=Yes (Specify type of treatment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2=Sometimes (Specify type of treatment) . . . . . . . . . . .

3=Other (Specify)

9=DK

IS THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION OR PAROLE?

0=No, neither

1=Yes, both

2=Yes, probation only

3=Yes, parole only

9=DK

DOES YOUR OFFICE HAVE SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT SUPERVISION CONDITIONS FOR SEX OFFENDERS THAN

FOR OTHER OFFENDERS?

0=No

1=Yes

2=Sometimes

9=DK

Would you send us a copy? Ill remind you at the end of the interview.

DOES YOUR OFFICE HAVE SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS, OR SITUATIONS WHERE THE SAME

PERSON OR PEOPLE ARE ASSIGNED TO ALL THE SEX OFFENDERS?

0=No

1=Yes

9=DK

?

Q11

?

Q12

(LESS THAN 95%) (95% or HIGHER)

?

Q13

WHAT SEX OFFENDERS ACCOUNT FOR THE

% THAT DONT RECEIVE POLYGRAPHS?

(List answers)

?

Q14

(type of treatment/other)

?

Q15

?

Q16

?

Q17

SEND

INFO

4

(100%)
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 3

QUESTIONNAIRE #

?

Q18

DOES YOUR OFFICE USE A SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR SEX OFFENDERS

THAN THE ONE USED FOR OTHER OFFENDERS?

0=No

1=Yes (Obtain name of instrument if possible) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9=DK

Would you send us a copy? Ill remind you at the end of the interview.

ALSO, DO YOU HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE POLYGRAPH OR USING THE

RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH?

0=No

1=Yes (>>>)

9=DK

(If YES) Would you be willing to send us a copy?

HOW LONG DOES A FULL POLYGRAPH EXAM TYPICALLY LAST, INCLUDING THE PRETEST AND

POST-TEST?

(Enter time in minutes, or enter 999 for DK. If the respondent gives a range for different types of exams, enter both.)

 to minutes

HOW MUCH DOES A TYPICAL EXAM COST?

(Enter dollars, or enter 999 for DK. If the respondent gives a range for different types of exams, enter both.)

 to dollars

WHO PAYS FOR THE EXAM?

1=Offender

2=State/county agency

3=Combination of 1 & 2

4=Other (Specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9=DK

(instrument)

?

Q20

?

Q21

?

Q22

(other)

SEND

INFO

4

?

SEND

INFO

4

Q19
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 4

QUESTIONNAIRE #

Now, Im going to ask some questions about your experiences with implementing the polygraph in your area.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WAS THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEM YOUR AGENCY FACED WHEN THE

POLYGRAPH WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED?

HOW DID YOU OVERCOME THESE PROBLEMS?

WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF ADVICE YOU WOULD GIVE TO ANOTHER AGENCY THAT

WANTED TO BEGIN USING THE POLYGRAPH WITH ADULT FELONY SEX OFFENDERS?

Thank you. Id now like to ask some questions about the types of polygraph examinations and what happens

with the results.

IS THE SEX OFFENDER AWARE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TIME ON PROBATION OR PAROLE THAT

HE/SHE IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A POLYGRAPH AS PART OF THE TREATMENT OR SUPERVISION PROCESS?

(PROBE. If the respondent says YES, ask if that is always, almost always, or sometimes the case.)

0=No or rarely

1=Yes, always or most of the time

2=Yes, sometimes

9=DK

DO YOU REQUIRE THE SEX OFFENDER TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY BETWEEN THE AGENT/OFFICER, THE

TREATMENT PROVIDER, AND THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER?

0=No

1=Yes

9=DK

I

?

Q23

(1)

(Any other problems?)

?

Q24

?

Q25

I

?

Q26

?

Q27
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 5

QUESTIONNAIRE #

?

Q28

Next, Im going to ask you how often sex offenders receive polygraphs in certain situations. Ill read from a

list of responses and you can choose one.

FIRST, HOW OFTEN DO SEX OFFENDERS RECEIVE POLYGRAPHS AS PART OF THE PRESENTENCE

INVESTIGATION? K (Read responses)

0=Never

1=Rarely

2=Sometimes (>>>)

3=Often (>>>)

4=Almost always or always (>>>)

9=DK

(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

WHEN DENYING THEIR CURRENT CONVICTION? K (Read responses)

0=Never

1=Rarely

2=Sometimes (>>>)

3=Often (>>>)

4=Almost always or always (>>>)

9=DK

(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

TO OBTAIN SEXUAL HISTORY AND PAST OFFENSES? K (Read responses)

0=Never

1=Rarely

2=Sometimes (>>>)

3=Often (>>>)

4=Almost always or always (>>>)

9=DK

(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

(If sometimes, often, or always:) (Q30A)

HOW LONG AFTER TREATMENT BEGINS IS THIS TYPE (use the name) OF POLYGRAPH GIVEN?

1=Less than 3 months

2=Between 3 and 6 months

3=Between 6 months and a year

9=DK

?

Q29

?

Q30

I
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 6

QUESTIONNAIRE #

HOW OFTEN DO SEX OFFENDERS RECEIVE POLYGRAPHS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE

CONDITIONS OF PROBATION OR PAROLE? K (Read responses)

0=Never

1=Rarely

2=Sometimes (>>>)

3=Often (>>>)

4=Almost always or always (>>>)

9=DK

(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

IS THE POLYGRAPH USED FOR ANY OTHER SITUATIONS THAT I HAVENT MENTIONED, FOR EXAMPLE,

AFTER A CRITICAL INCIDENT OR IN PAROLE RELEASE DECISIONS?

0=No

1=Yes (>>>)

9=DK

(If YES) (Q32A)

WHAT ARE THEY?

The next few questions are about consequences that may be imposed when the polygraph OR ANTICIPATION

of taking the polygraph reveals new information. (Do not read list of choices.)

ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES IF AN OFFENDER IS CONSIDERED DECEPTIVE? (PROBE.)

(Q33A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)

(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)

0=Rarely

1=Sometimes

2=Always

9=DK

?

Q32

I

?

Q33

(1)

(2)

(3)

C1 C2 C3

?

Q31

(4)

C4

0= No consequences

1= Electronic monitoring

2= Increase supervision

3= Increase contacts

4= Increase treatment

5= Impose curfews

6= Go back to court

7= Revocation

9= DK

10= Other (Specify)

11= Other (Specify)
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 7

QUESTIONNAIRE #

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) IF SEX OFFENSES THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE CURRENT CONVICTION

ARE REVEALED? (PROBE. Any others?)

(Q34A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)

(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)

0=Rarely

1=Sometimes

2=Always

9=DK

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) IF SEX OFFENSES THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE CURRENT CONVICTION ARE

REVEALED? (PROBE. Any others?)

(Q35A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)

(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)

0=Rarely

1=Sometimes

2=Always

9=DK

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) WHEN A VIOLATION OF THE SUPERVISION CONDITIONS, OTHER THAN A

NEW CRIME, ARE EXPOSED? (PROBE. Any others?)

(Q36A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)

(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)

0=Rarely

1=Sometimes

2=Always

9=DK

?

Q35

(1)

(2)

(3)

C1 C2 C3

Q36

?

(1)

(2)

(3)

C1 C2 C3

Q34

?

(1)

(2)

(3)

C1 C2 C3

(4)

(4)

(4)

C4

C4

C4

0= No consequences

1= Contact law enforcement

for investigation

2= Investigate

3= Contact DA for

investigation

4= Go back to court

9= DK

10= Other (Specify)

11= Other (Specify)

0= No consequences

1= Contact law enforcement

for investigation

2= Investigate

3= Contact DA for

investigation

4= Go back to court

5= Revocation

9= DK

10= Other (Specify)

11= Other (Specify)

0= No consequences

1= Electronic monitoring

2= Increase supervision

3= Increase contacts

4= Increase treatment

5= Impose curfews

6= Go back to court

7= Revocation

9= DK

10= Other (Specify)

11= Other (Specify)
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 8

QUESTIONNAIRE #

?

Q37

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) WHEN THE RESULTS ARE INCONCLUSIVE? (PROBE. Any others?)

(Q37A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)

(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)

0=Rarely

1=Sometimes

2=Always

9=DK

DO YOUR OFFICERS/AGENTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST AND TEMPORARILY JAIL SOMEONE

WITHOUT GOING BACK TO COURT FIRST?

0=No

1=Yes

9=DK

This next section is about how information regarding the polygraph is shared and how the treatment provider,

polygraph examiner, and agent/officer work together.

HOW DOES THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER LET YOUR AGENTS/OFFICERS KNOW ABOUT THE RESULTS OF

THE POLYGRAPH TEST?

1=Written report

2=Verbal report

3=Both written and verbal reports

4=Other (Specify)

5=Find out results from treatment provider

9=DK

(Q39A)

HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY THAT HAPPENS? K (Read responses)

1=Sometimes

2=Often

3=Always

9=DK

?

Q38

I

?

Q39

(other)

(1)

(2)

(3)

C1 C2 C3

Written Verbal

(4)

C4

0= No consequences

1= Retake polygraph exam

2= Increase supervision

3= Increase contacts

4= Increase treatment

9= DK

10= Other (Specify)

11= Other (Specify)
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 9

QUESTIONNAIRE #

?

Q40

WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE AGENT/OFFICER PROVIDE TO THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER ON A SPECIFIC

SEX OFFENDER BEFORE A POLYGRAPH? (List all that apply.)

(Q40A)

HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED? K (Read)

1=Sometimes

2=Often

3=Always

9=DK

IN THE COURSE OF A MONTH, HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR AGENTS/OFFICERS TALK TO

THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER BY PHONE OR IN PERSON ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES?

1=Daily

2=Weekly

3=More than weekly but less than monthly

4=Monthly

5=Other (specify)

9=DK

DOES THE TREATMENT PROVIDER FIND OUT THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION FROM THE

POLYGRAPH EXAMINER OR YOUR AGENTS/OFFICERS?

1=Agent/officer

2=Polygraph examiner

3=Other (specify)

9=DK

(Q42A)

HOW DOES THE TREATMENT PROVIDER FIND OUT THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH

EXAMINATION?

1=Written report

2=Verbal report

3=Both written and verbal report

4=Other (specify)

9=DK

HAS YOUR STAFF HAD TRAINING SPECIFICALLY ON THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH

WITH SEX OFFENDERS?

0=No

1=Yes (>>>)

2=Some (>>>)

9=DK

(If YES) (Q43A)

WHEN WAS THAT?

1=Less than two years ago

2=More than two years ago

3=Ongoing

4=Other (Specify)

9=DK

?

Q41

?

Q42

(other)

(other)

(other)

?

Q43

(training comments)

0= No info provided

1= Entire acces to

individuals file

2= Sexual history

3= Criminal history

4= Specific issues &

concerns

5= Information on current

conviction

6= Treatment provider

provides information

9= DK

10= Other (Specify)

11= Other (Specify)
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 10

QUESTIONNAIRE #

?

Q44

HOW DO YOU CHOOSE THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS?

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY OF SERVICES YOU ARE RECEIVING FROM THE POLYGRAPH

EXAMINER?

0=No

1=Yes

9=DK

(Q45A)

WHY AND/OR WHY NOT?

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD HELP YOU BETTER USE POLYGRAPH SERVICES?

ARE THERE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE OR ANY CERTIFICATION/LICENSING FOR POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS

IN YOUR STATE?

0=No

1=Yes

9=DK

(If YES) Would you be willing to send us any written information you have on this?

In this last section, Im going to ask your opinions on how useful the polygraph is in managing sex offenders.

HAS THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH CHANGED THE WAY YOU MANAGE SEX OFFENDERS? (PROBE.)

Q45

?

Q46

?

?

Q47

I

SEND

INFO

4

Q48

?
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 11

QUESTIONNAIRE #

?

Q49

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE POLYGRAPH THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF?

IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT USE OF THE POLYGRAPH? (PROBE. Anything else?)

IN YOUR OPINION, DOES THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY?

WHY OR WHY NOT?

Those are all the questions I have for you about the polygraph.

We would also like to talk to some treatment providers and polygraph examiners in your area for this research.

?

Q50

?

Q51

I
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey LONG FORM P 12

QUESTIONNAIRE #

(CONTACT SHEET)

COULD YOU GIVE ME THE NAMES AND NUMBERS OF ONE OR TWO TREATMENT PROVIDERS?

COULD YOU GIVE ME THE NAMES AND NUMBERS OF ONE OR TWO POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS?

That is all the information that I need.

Could you please send us copies of...to:

(Look back through survey or your notes to recall the documents the respondent agreed to send to us.)

(Provide name/address/fax number to those sending us information.) (See check-off sheet.)

Diane Pasini-Hill

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000

Denver CO 80215

fx (303) 239-4491 (Reference NIJ Survey)

WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY OF THE SURVEY RESULTS?

0=No

1=Yes

THANK YOU for your help with this research.

Your opinions and the information you have provided are very important to us.

I may have questions as I review the survey later. Is it OK if I call you?

Also, my supervisor may call to verify that the interview was completed.

?

I

?

TREATMENT PROVIDER (1) (Qx) PHONE # (Qy)

TREATMENT PROVIDER (2) (Qz) PHONE # (Qaa)

POLYGRAPH EXAMINER (1) (Qbb) PHONE # (Qcc)

POLYGRAPH EXAMINER (2) (Qdd) PHONE # (Qee)

I

?

END

I

COLLECT

INFO

.

Q52
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS

APPENDIX B:

Differences Among Five Jurisdictions in Four 

States Where File Data Were Collected
File Data Collection Site Descriptions

Site A (n=62) Site B (n=57) Site C (n=31) and

Site D (n=30)

Site E (n=52)

Stage of polygraph 

implementation

Well implemented. The 

polygraph has been used for a 

number of years.

Well implemented. The 

polygraph has been used for 16 

years.

Newly implemented. Half of the 

cases (Site C) received at least 

one polygraph; the other half 

(Site D) had not received the 

polygraph but offenders knew 

the polygraph would be given in 

the future.

No polygraph.

Description of sex 

offender program

Each officer is assigned to one 

courtroom, allowing for a stable 

relationship to develop with 

that judge. Close relationship 

with the police and their sex 

offender-tracking unit. This unit 

checks for warrants everyday. 

Field officers (not Pos) conduct 

home visits. A ten year 

deferred judgement is the most 

common sentence given.

Had the ability to impose swift 

sanctions like jail. Victim 

oriented. Polygraph examiners 

were located in same building 

as POs so lots of 

communication. Thorough sex 

histories with frequent updates 

and addendums. Consistent 

sanctions. 

Utilized many supervision 

methods, including nontraditional officer work hours, 

home visits, and collateral 

interviews.

This was a treatment site. 

Before the offender enters 

treatment, a battery of tests is 

given (most importantly, the 

ABEL screen). It allows the 

therapist to begin learning 

about the offender’s behavior 

quickly. The offenders filled out 

sex histories for the 

researchers, but they were not 

implemented in the program 

yet.

Frequency of 

polygraphs

Time between polygraphs 

ranges from one month to a 

couple of years. 

Generally, polygraphs given at 

regular intervals between 3 and 

6 months.

Early implementation and thus 

regular schedules were not 

noted.

Not applicable.

The sample A random sample of 62 

offenders was drawn from the 

caseloads of 17 officers. All 

were in treatment at the same 

program for at least 6 months 

and had received at least one 

polygraph.

A random sample of 57 

offenders who began 

supervision between July 1995 

and October 1997, drawn more 

or less evenly across four 

officers' caseloads. All offenders 

had received at least one 

polygraph.

There were 61 cases drawn to 

represent those in treatment 

for at least six months. Cases 

drawn from two sites. All those 

who had received at least one 

polygraph were included. The 

remainder was drawn randomly 

across 10 officer's caseloads. All 

had been in treatment at least 6 

months.

A random sample of 52 cases in 

treatment at least 3 months, 

with priority on those in 

treatment at least 6 months.

Time frame during 

which an offender 

could be on 

community 

supervision. 

Between 8 months and years 5 

years

Between 9 months and 11 years Between 6 months and 7 years Between 3 months and 5 years

Types of cases/ 

felony-misdemeanor

Felony Felony Felony and Misdemeanor Felony and Misdemeanor

Types of offender/ 

parolee or 

probationer

Probationers Parolees and Probationers Parolees and

Probationers

Probationers

Data collection time 

frame

April 1999 and May 1999 July 1998 and November 1998 February 1999 March 1999

Data Sources 

Before the treatment/

polygraph process

Criminal justice file, including 

the PSIR.

Criminal justice file, including 

the PSIR.

Criminal justice file, including 

the PSIR.

Treatment file. Probation 

summary containing 

demographics, a description of 

the current crime, and past 

convictions. Some files 

contained police reports. Data 

collectors note that files may 

not reflect all that is known to 

the criminal justice system. No 

PSIR was available. 

Data Sources -

After the treatment/

polygraph process

Criminal justice file, including 

the PSIR, sex history form,

polygraph reports, and some 

treatment homework 

assignments.

Criminal justice file, including 

the PSIR, sex history form, and

polygraph reports.

Criminal justice file, including 

the PSIR, and sex history form.

Polygraph reports were 

sometimes available. Some 

results were communicated 

over the phone and noted in 

the file.

In order to examine the 

treatment process, ABEL 

screen assessments, written 

sexual history documents, and 

therapists’ notes were 

examined and documented.

Special caveats about 

data differences

Sex history forms filled out very 

close to data collection and may 

not have been integrated as 

part of treatment. Some 

polygraph files not available. 

Polygraph information noted in 

the file.

Sex history forms filled out very 

close to data collection and may 

not have been integrated as 

part of treatment. Incomplete 

criminal justice information. 

Most detail on current crime 

only.
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS

APPENDIX C:

File Data Collection Instrument
3) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491 POLYGRAPH STUDY P 1

ost Serious

Most Serious

ost Serious

# of Counts

# of Counts

# of Counts

Felony Class

Felony Class

Felony Class

Total Counts Convicted

NSES AT CONVICTION: For Those Convicted 1=Guilty as charged

2=Guilty to a lesser felony3=Guilty to a misdemeanor4=Incompetent to stand trial5=Not guilty (insanity)6=Charges reduced/drop due to plea in another case

PlacementProbation01= Probation only02= Probation concurrent w/

earlier sentence to prob

03= Probation w/jail sentence04= Adult diversion (DA office)05= ISP06= ISP w/jail07= Probation w/work release08=FOP (female offender prog)09=SDOP (specialized drug

offender program)

Community Corrections15= Comcor as condition of probation16= Direct sentence to comcorJail20= Jail only21= Jail and fine22= Jail with work release23= Other sentence to jailPrison30= Prison only31= Prison and probation (Rule 35B)32= YOSOther40= Suspended sentence only50= Fine only60= Restitution only70= UPS only80=Other: specify__________________

DOBSexDEMOGRAPHICS:1=Male2=Female

Ethnicity1=Anglo/white2=Black3=Hispanic4=Am Indian5=Asian6=Other

Marital Status1=Single2=Married3=Sep/Div4=Widowed5=Common law

Education Last Grade

(Last gradecompleted)

00-11=Actual grade12=High school13=Some college14=College degree15=Some graduate16=Graduate deg & higher17=GED# of Dependents

(Actuallysupported)

HISTORY:

ViolentNonviolentMisdemeanorFelonyPrior Sex Offenses

Age at 1st Arrest (juv or adult)

Employment at Arrest1=Full time2=Part time3=Employed/student4=Unemployed5=SporadicStabilityDuring the 2 years beforearrest for this case:1=Has continuously resided

at the same address

2=Has moved 1,2,3 times3=Moved >3 times4=Transient

0=01=12=23=3+

AdultArr Conv
3) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491 POLYGRAPH STUDY P 2

R 

NOWN GENDE PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN) PARA/RISK BEH NONSPEC VICTS

MS RELATIONSHIP 0=No/1=Yes T FGT FG T FGT FGT FG SRCE #VICT SELF

RPT

#VICT

POLY T F SRCE

T 

L EPEA R T E T R RUS STRNG

R 

NOWN GENDE PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN) PARA/RISK BEH NONSPEC VICTS

MS RELATIONSHIP 0=No/1=Yes T FGT FG T FGT FGT FG SRCE #VICT SELF

RPT

#VICT

POLY T F SRCE

T 

L EPEA R T E T R RUS STRNG

)
3) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491 POLYGRAPH STUDY P 3

POLYGRAPH PROCESS? (if YES, continue -- mark yes to all that apply) (O=No / 1=Yes)

SPECIFIC FREQUENCY NONSPECIFIC PARAPHILIAS NONSPECIFIC FREQUENCY

(victim known) (victim unknown) (victim unknown)

R 

NOWN GENDE PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN) PARA/RISK BEH NONSPEC VICTS

MS RELATIONSHIP 0=No/1=Yes T FGT FG T FGT FGT FG SRCE * #VICT SELF

RPT

#VICT

POLY TF E SRC

T 

L EPEA R T E T R RUS STRNG

M THE POLYGRAPH PROCESS

R 

NOWN GENDE PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN) PARA/RISK BEH NONSPEC VICTS

MS RELATIONSHIP 0=No/1=Yes T FGT FG T FGT FGT FG SRCE * #VICT SELF

RPT

#VICT

POLY TF E SRC

T 

L EPEA R T E T R RUS STRNG

THE POLYGRAPH PROCESS

seline / 02+=Polygraph #). Insert # of victims revealed in self report, then # of victims revealed in ANY polygraph (these should total victims for age group).

SPECIFIC FREQUENCY NONSPECIFIC PARAPHILIAS NONSPECIFIC FREQUENCY

(victim known) (victim unknown) (victim unknown)
3) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

NCE THE PERSON WAS SENTENCED? (0=No/1=Yes) (if YES, continue)

POLYGRAPH STUDY P 4

R 

NOWN GENDE PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN) PARA/RISK BEH NONSPEC VICTS

MS RELATIONSHIP 0=No/1=Yes T FGT FG T FGT FGT FG SRCE * #VICT SELF

RPT

#VICT

POLY TF E SRC

T 

L EPEA R T E T R RUS STRNG

MITTED SINCE PERSON WAS SENTENCED

y#)

E

CODE KEYPARAPHILIA -- (see code sheet)VICTIM AGE GROUP(S) (code up to two groups -- A1, A2)

1=0-52=6-93=10-134=14-175=18+6=Elderly/at risk7=Unknown

GENDER

1=Male2=Female3=Both

RELATIONSHIP -- (see code sheet)DATA SOURCE

11=File00=Self report (disclosures under threat of polygraph or disclosures between polygraphs)01=Baseline02+=Poly #

Termination from Treatment/Supervision0=Not terminated1=New non-sex crime2=New sex crime3=Non-compliance with treatment4=Violated supervision condition5=Sentence discharged6=Absconded7=Moved out of state8=Other ___________________________________9=UnknownDate of Termination
3) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

 if offender

ph beginning

and past convictions

 compliance with

ssault or high risk

nt problems, or

Length of time in treatment before 1st polygraph (months)

POLYGRAPH STUDY P 5

COMMENTSRecord any other information relating to the ability of the offender to:1) gain ACCESS to potential victims,2) gain the PRIVACY to potentially reoffend, and/or3) gain the AUTHORITY to potentially reoffend.If this is due to a deficit in the criminal justice system, please note.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SPONSE

2 

3 

SE RESPONSE
3) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491 POLYGRAPH STUDY P 6

ecorded.)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 TO VICTIMS

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DEFINITIONS(1) PERPETRATOR CHOOSES SPECIFIC KNOWN VICTIM.

Includes: relative, acquaintance, friend, position of trust,victim IDed by perpetrator before crime.

(2) PERPETRATOR CHOOSES VICTIM OPPORTUNISTICALLY.

Perpetrator intends to commit crime (cruising, fantasizing,even planning) but victim is chosen with little regard tospecific identity (victim in the wrong place at the wrongtime).

(3) OFFENDER GROOMS VICTIMS. Grooming means preparing

a person (usually a child) to become a victim by looking forvulnerabilities, gaining trust, and (often) graduallyintroducing sexual behaviors. Implies a relationshipbetween offender and victim, albeit an unequal one.

(4) PERPETRATOR SEEKS EMPLOYMENT, LIVING SITUATIONS,

OR POSITIONS OF TRUST TO GAIN ACCESS TO VICTIMS.Look for types of employment, hobbies (Boy Scouts, etc.),working in amusement parks, and participation in churchactivities involving children.

(5) PERPETRATOR DISPLAYS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR.

Includes: assaultive behavior and domestic violence.

(6) PERPETRATOR USES WEAPONS. Weapons include knives,

guns, etc.

(7) OTHER M.O. INFORMATION. Any other information on

how the perpetrator victimizes/gains access to victims notalready noted (use of cars, use of deception, anger controla special problem, impulse control a special problem).
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS

APPENDIX D:

File Data Collection Instrument Coding and 

Definitions
1

File Data Collection Coding and Definitions

RELATIONSHIP DEFINITIONS:

Relative Mother, father, spouse, stepfather, stepmother, uncle, aunt, 

grandparent, step relations, other extended family, live-in 

boyfriend, live-in girlfriend.

Trust Teacher, caregiver, babysitter, minister, boyfriend, girlfriend, date, 

friend, therapist, police officer, etc.

Stranger Stranger, acquaintance.

PARAPHILIAS/OFFENSES:

Vaginal Penetration Includes penile, digital, and cases where the perpetrator is a female 

against a male victim.

Anal Penetration Any type.

Attempted Penetration Attempted but not completed, any type.

Oral Sex By victim or offender.

Urination As part of or during sex act. With consent, without consent, or 

alone.

Coprophelia Feces as part of or during sex act. With consent, without consent, 

or alone.

Fondling, Frottage Without consent or may be without victim's knowledge.

Exhibitionism Usually involves a victim but also includes being undressed or 

exposed in a public place. Those situations were recorded in the 

nonspecific victims section of the form.

Voyeurism May have occurred without the victim's knowledge.

Ritualistic Behavior, Bestiality, 

Bondage

This code reflected bestiality 99% of the time. There were few 

incidents of ritualistic behavior or bondage. This was mostly coded 

in the nonspecific victims section of the form even though we 

would have liked to have considered the animals as specific victims.

Excessive aggression, Sadism, 

Weapon, Spanking

During the commission of the crime.

Assaultive Behavior, Including 

Domestic Violence

Could be up to, including, or after the offense. It is a high-risk 

behavior, so it did not necessarily have to be directed toward the 

victim.

Murder Code never used.

Stalking May or may not be directed toward victim of sexual crime.

Alcohol/Drugs to Victim 

without Consent

This includes minors under age 18 because, by definition, minors 

cannot consent -- even if the minor asked for the drugs or alcohol.

Offender Under Influence of 

Alcohol/Drugs During Act

Offender Abuses Alcohol/ 

Drugs During General Time 

Periods When Offenses Occur

Related to offense cycle.

More Than One Unwilling 

Participant in Incident

Pornography Adult/child, sale/distribution, or non-porn as porn. May or may not 

involve a victim.
2

Use of Internet or Obscene 

Phone Calls

Victims were often unknown since contacts were random, unless 

the perpetrator was targeting someone specific. If the offender was 

perusing the internet looking at pornography, this code and the 

pornography code was marked in the nonspecific victims section.

Masturbating to Deviant 

Fantasy/Theft of 

Undergarments

Since the masturbating part could have applied to almost everyone, 

we did not code unless specific mention was made of masturbating 

to the victim or clearly a deviant fantasy.

Excessive/Increased 

Masturbation

Again, we tried to be a little bit more conservative on this one 

since it could have applied to everyone. We did not code unless 

there was a clear indication of excessive or increased.

Specific Preparation Driving around with paraphernalia to use on victims, wearing tshirts to attract children, cruising video arcades or swimming 

pools. The behavior does not have to be targeted toward specific 

victims, only an indication that the offender is attempting to find 

victims or is preparing to assault victims is needed.

Other Behaviors Prostitution-visiting or being a prostitute, cruelty to animals, 

childhood firesetting, childhood long-term bedwetting, violations of 

probation conditions, visiting peep shows, strip clubs, or topless 

bars, unsupervised contact with children, group sex, fantasies, 

cross dressing, fetishism.

DEFINITIONS OF OTHER TERMS:

Victim A victim is someone who was assaulted without consent, or in 

some cases, knowledge. For minors, a victim exists if there is a 

four-year age or if the perpetrator is an adult and the minor is less 

than the age of consent. States have varying ages of consent. 

Incest Includes any relative listed in the relative category.

FREQUENCY CODES:

Whenever possible we tried to record as close to the actual number of offenses that occurred as listed 

in 1-5 below. When we could not get actual numbers, we tried to find the best fit from the choices 

listed 11-19. When there was a victim's statement and there was a difference between the victim's 

report and the perpetrator's, we used the victim's (this only applies to the file information section of 

the collection form, the rest of the form was based on the perpetrator's self-report).

1= Once a day of more to once a week (52-360 times per year or more)

2= Less than once a week to once a month (12-51 times per year)

3= Less than once a month to six times per year (6-11 times per year)

4= One time per year to five times per year (2-5 times per year)

5= Less than once a year to once in life (<1 time per year to 1 time in life)

11= Hardly ever/a little/once in a while

12= Some/sometimes

13= A fair amount/a lot/many/often/hundreds

15= Happened over a period of days

16= Happened over a period of weeks

17= Happened over a period of months

18= Happened over a period of years

19= Multiple times during the same offense