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

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: The Value of Polygraph Testing in Sex Offender

Management

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

Diane Patrick ; Sydney Cooley-Towell

Document No.: 199673

Date Received: March 16, 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.
THE VALUE OF POLYGRAPH TESTING 

IN SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT 

Research Report Submitted to the 

National Institute of Justice 

By 

Kim English 

Linda Jones 

Diane Pasini-Hill 

Diane Patrick 

Sydney Cooley-Towell 

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. 

Grant number D97LBVX0034 
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

2
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people participated and supported the research reported here. First, we 

want to thank our colleagues (and former colleagues) at the Colorado 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. We would also like to thank Jean McAllister and the 

members of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board for implementing 

empirically-based standards for managing sex offenders in Colorado and helping to 

inform our research over the years. 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. 

We thank the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. 

Department of Justice, for supporting this work in the area of sex offender 

management. Voncile Gowdy’s idea to study sex offenders—years before the 

population had the attention of the media and Congress—has allowed the field to 

have timely, relevant data to inform decisions about policy and practice. We also 

thank Dr. Gowdy for her support and patience as we compiled multiple reports to 

meet the needs of a variety of audiences. Jeremy Travis, former director of NIJ, Sally 

Hillsman, Director of Research and Evaluation, and Ed Zedleski, Assistant Director 

of NIJ have provided direction and advice over the years, and we are deeply grateful. 

We would like to give a special recognition of appreciation to former Assistant 

Attorney General Laurie Robinson whose interest and support in the topic of sex 

offender management will positively impact public safety for many years to come. 

Many thank-you’s go 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.

We thank the American Polygraph Association for being interested and supportive of

our work; we thank the professionals in the jurisdictions we visited, especially those

who allowed us to access their files and interrupt them with questions. 

Many polygraph examiners gave us their time and shared their knowledge, and 

we are grateful to each and every one. In particular, we must mention a few people to 

whom we are especially indebted, for the time they have spent with us patiently 

explaining concepts and practices, and for their peer review of our written materials: 

David Amich, Jack Consigli, Donnie Dutton, Jim Earle, Lawson Hagler, Susan 

Holmes, Eric Holden, Jeff Jenks, Rob Lundell, and Jim Matte. 

We have a profound appreciation for 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 your work is to community safety and sex abuse prevention. We are 

grateful for your good work. 

3
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

4
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

7 INTRODUCTION

9 THE POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH AS A CONTAINMENT TOOL

13 BACKGROUND

13 HOW IS THE POLYGRAPH USED IN A SEX OFFENDER CONTAINMENT

APPROACH? 

16 IS THE POLYGRAPH’S USE WITH CONVICTED SEX OFFENDERS LEGAL AND 

ETHICAL?

17 Self-Incrimination Concerns

20 Privacy Concerns

21 Accuracy and Reliability of the Polygraph 

22 Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court 

25 METHODS

25 THE SAMPLE

26 DATA COLLECTION

27 COMPARISON ANALYSIS: BEFORE AND AFTER 

29 FINDINGS FROM THE CASE FILE REVIEW 

29 WHAT DOES THE POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAM ADD TO THE RISK

MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS? 

30 FINDING: ADDITIONAL TYPES OF VICTIMS WERE AT RISK 

33 FINDING: OFFENDERS CROSSOVER BETWEEN ADULT AND CHILD VICTIMS 

34 FINDING: HIGH RISK BEHAVIORS INFORM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF ASSAULT 

PATTERNS 

35 FINDING: POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS IDENTIFIED NEW CRIMES AND PROBLEM 

BEHAVIORS 

35 FINDING: POLYGRAPH EXAMS DETECTED HIGH-RISK BEHAVIORS 

36 FINDING: INCEST OFFENDERS CROSSOVER BETWEEN TYPES OF VICTIMS 

40 SUMMARY

42 STUDY LIMITATIONS

43 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

45 BIBLIOGRAPHY

51 APPENDICES

A HOW IS THE POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION USED IN ADULT 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES?: THE SECOND NATIONAL 

TELEPHONE SURVEY OF PROBATION AND PAROLE SUPERVISORS 

B DIFFERENCES AMONG FIVE JURISDICTIONS IN FOUR STATES WHERE FILE DATA

WERE COLLECTED 

C FILE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT 

D FILE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT CODING AND DEFINITIONS 

5
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

6
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

INTRODUCTION 

According to a national telephone survey conducted by the Colorado Division of 

Criminal Justice,1 16 percent of probation and parole agencies nationwide used the 

post-conviction polygraph with adult sex offenders in 1998.2 Despite the polygraph’s 

relatively limited use, the value of applying polygraph technology to the risk 

management of adult sex offenders became clear during the course of the research 

reported here. 

This report builds on a previous 1996 study undertaken by the Colorado Division 

of Criminal Justice for the National Institute of Justice, which indicated that in 1994 

fewer than ten percent of probation and parole agencies used the post-conviction 

polygraph (English, Colling-Chadwick, Pullen, and Jones, 1995; English, Pullen, and

Jones, 1996; English, Pullen, and Jones, 1997). The 1996 study focused on describing 

the most promising case management practices of adult sex offenders on probation 

and parole nationwide. Findings included a description of policies and practices that

effectively contained the risk of sex offenders serving sentences in the community.3

This collection of selected policies and practices was labeled a “containment 

approach.”4

The containment approach is a five-part strategy. Each of the five parts 

represents a fundamental element in the effective management of adult sex 

offenders. In the current study, we again found these same elements must be present 

to maximize the effects of risk management efforts by criminal justice professionals. 

A comprehensive containment approach to the risk management of adult sex 

offenders must include the following components: 

1. A clearly articulated community safety/victim-oriented mission that 

requires case decisions, individual case practices, and cross-agency policies to be 

based on methods that prevent harm toward current and potential victims by 

known sex offenders. 

 

1 This research was supported by grant number D97LBVX0034 from the National Institute of Justice to the Colorado 

Division of Criminal Justice. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 

position of the National Institute of Justice. 

2 The 16.1 percent indicates those agencies that reported using the polygraph “often” or “always.” Appendix A contains 

the findings from the 1998 telephone survey.

3 Approximately 60% of convicted sex offenders receive sentences to probation and, of those that go to prison, 98% 

eventually return to the community (Greenfeld, 1997).

4 Researchers and policy analysts at the Division of Criminal Justice, in the Colorado Department of Public Safety, began 

studying the management and containment of adult sex offenders in1993. For the first study, we conducted a national 

telephone survey of a stratified (by population density and geography) sample 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 materials ranging from agency memoranda

and protocols to legislation and administrative orders. The study included field research in 13 jurisdictions in six states.

During the field research over one hundred interviews were conducted with professionals with expertise in sex crimes, 

including law enforcement officers, defense and prosecuting attorneys, judges, victim counselors and advocates, child

protective workers, probation and parole administrators, supervisors and officers, treatment providers, polygraph 

examiners, and sex offenders. The findings from the research resulted in a description of a promising approach for

managing adult sexual offenders. A description of this Containment Approach is available elsewhere (for example, see 

English, Pullen, & Jones, 1996; English, Pullen and Jones, 1997; and English, 1998).

7
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

2. The coordinated activity of many well-informed, multi-disciplinary, 

intra- and interagency collaborative teams, with participating agencies 

committed to developing specialized sex crime units where possible and 

appropriate. This teaming integrates expertise from the victim community, law 

enforcement, probation, parole, the treatment community (including prison 

treatment providers), the court, social services/child protective services, hospital 

emergency room staff, victim therapists, and the prosecution and defense bars. 

Various teams form and work together as cases proceed through the criminal 

justice system (and/or child protection system) and contribute to the 

development of consistent policies focusing on victim protection and offender 

accountability. Representatives from these organizations also train staff in other 

organizations to emphasize the need for an integrated approach. The 

containment team, highlighted in the next component, is a very specific 

collaborative grouping, and is at the heart of the containment approach. 

3. The use of a variety of containment strategies, especially a containment 

team consisting of the supervising officer, treatment provider and post-conviction 

polygraph examiner that works closely together to obtain the information needed

to manage the offender.5 Community containment strategies are usually 

implemented by this 3-member team and include a wide range of risk 

management tools such as intense surveillance, specialized treatment that 

incorporates regularly scheduled post-conviction polygraph examinations, law 

enforcement registration, urinanalysis testing, electronic monitoring, curfews, 

and DNA testing. Effective containment limits access to potential victims by 

monitoring and restricting work activities, leisure time and internet use, among

other things. Containment strategies require the consistent use of an ample 

array of sanctions for pre-assaultive (or precursor) behaviors and emotions that 

many sex offenders commonly carry out before committing a sexual assault (for 

example, Pithers, Kashima, Cumming, Beal, and Buell, 1988; Pithers, 1990; 

Laws, Hudson, and Ward, 2000; Ward and Hudson, 2000). 

4. Consistent, informed public policies (legislation, judicial, executive, 

administrative and program policies, for example) that are based on research 

and best practices. Policies address gaps in risk management activities and 

empower the supervising officer to respond quickly to offender behaviors that are 

out of compliance with treatment requirements and supervision conditions. 

5. Resources dedicated to state and local quality control efforts. Quality 

control is directed at 1) program monitoring and evaluation activities, and 2) 

professional standards of practice to ensure that efforts aimed at victim safety 

 

5 The containment team should expand as needed to include, for example, child protection services, or the victim’s 

therapist. Although the well-being of current and potential victims is paramount in guiding the decisions of the team, (see 

component #1), the victim is not expected to participate directly in a containment team. It is not the victim’s 

responsibility to manage the behavior of the offender.

8
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

and the humane treatment of offenders are not compromised. 

9
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

FIGURE 1. THE CONTAINMENT APPROACH HAS FIVE COMPONENTS 

 

1 Victim Orientation

Special Supervision Conditions

Employment Restriction

Community Notification

Leisure Restriction

Curfews

Surveillance Officers

Short-term Jail Terms

Restricted Access to Victims

Specialized Assessment Program

Obtaining Corroborative Information

CJS SUPERVISING OFFICER

Law Enforcement Registration

Small, Specialized Caseloads

Electronic Monitoring

DNA Testing

GIS Tracking

TREATMENT POLYGRAPH

2 Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

3 Containment Tools

4 Consistent, Informed Policy

5 Quality Control

Containment Team

The Post-Conviction Polygraph as a 

Containment Tool 

Our recommendation to use the post-conviction polygraph examination as a 

component of a containment approach was among the most controversial findings of

the 1996 study. After all, the polygraph has a controversial history in criminal 

justice. When criminal justice professionals hear discussions of the polygraph, we 

often think of its failure to hold up to evidentiary standards in court (Pullen, Olsen, 

Brown and Amich, 1996).6 Also, stories of its use on crime suspects who have “fooled” 

10

 

6 See the discussion on admissibility on page 22 of this report.
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

the machine have led the general public and many criminal justice professionals to 

distrust this tool. 

These concerns about the polygraph can distract criminal justice professionals 

from a fundamental issue in sex offender management: the need for complete and 

accurate information to (a) determine risk to the public and (b) develop a treatment 

plan that reflects the offender’s needs. The expectation that the sex offender will be 

honest and forthright, as a condition of community supervision, can often be lost in 

debates about the post-conviction polygraph. Complete information about the scope 

and frequency of a sex offender’s deviant activities is available only from the 

offender, yet most sex offenders have made secrecy and dishonesty a part of their 

lifestyle. 

In fact, most sex offenders have deceived many people, often for many years,7

and few containment professionals believe that sex offenders will suddenly begin 

telling the truth when they are placed under correctional supervision (Pullen et al., 

1996). The skill that has allowed these offenders to manipulate many victims allows 

them to manipulate criminal justice system officials as well (see Strate et al., 1996, 

for a discussion of criminal justice policies that reinforce this type of manipulation). 

This lack of disclosure by sex offenders led the international Association for the 

Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA, 1993) to state, in its Practitioner’s Handbook, 

that therapists should not rely solely on offenders’ self reports. Rather, to determine 

compliance with treatment requirements, ATSA made recommendations for the use

of the polygraph to validate the offender’s self-report. Using polygraphy—formally 

known as the psycho-physiological detection of deception (PDD)—with sex offenders 

is akin to using urinanalysis testing with drug offenders. It is a method of 

monitoring very specific behaviors. 

Indeed, the research literature reflects the inadequacy of official record data to 

describe an offender’s sexual assault activity. Ahlmeyer et al. (2000) used the postconviction polygraph to encourage disclosures for treatment and found that, for a 

sample of sex offenders in prison, fewer than one percent of victims were identified 

using official record data. In fact, some research on sex offenders reveals an 

astonishing level of secret sexual abuse activity. Abel and Rouleau (1990) studied 

561 sex offenders who responded to an ad in the paper or voluntarily sought 

treatment from two community-based clinics. According to the self-report data, the 

researchers found that half of the sample engaged in sexual abuse before the age of 

18. This “early onset” group had committed, on average, 380 sex crimes by age 18. 

Ahlmeyer et al. (2000) found in their sample of prisoners in treatment that each had

committed, on average, 528 sex offenses in their lifetime against 184 victims.8 With 

this high level of activity by sex offenders, it is easy to understand Kilpatrick et al.’s 

(1992) estimate, based on victimization surveys, that 13 percent of women will 

experience a forcible rape in their lifetime. 

 

7 Sex offenders report the time between their first sex crime and their first arrest to be, on average, 13 to 16 years 

(Abel et al., 1987 and Ahlmeyer et al., 2000, respectively).

8 Abel et al. (1990) and Ahlmeyer et al. (2000) include both hands-on and hands-off offenses. Ahlmeyer et al. report a 

median of 95 sex offenses against a median of 26 victims.

11
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

Given the need for accurate information on individual sex offenders and the 

growing use nationwide of the post-conviction polygraph exam, we undertook this 

study to address some basic questions regarding the use of the polygraph with sex 

offenders: How is the polygraph used in a sex offender containment 

approach? Is it reliable? Is its use with convicted sex offenders legal and 

ethical? Is the information admissible in court? Is its use really necessary? 

What does its use add to the management of sex offenders? 

To address the questions above, we conducted a national telephone survey of over 

700 probation and parole supervisors, observed post-conviction polygraph 

examinations, undertook literature reviews on sex offender treatment and victim 

trauma, reviewed unpublished documents, examined relevant case law, and engaged

in field research in 17 jurisdictions in seven states (New York, Massachusetts, Texas,

Wisconsin, Colorado, Oregon, and California).9 Sites were selected based on the 

length of time the post-conviction polygraph was in use (or not), the extent to which 

containment activities were integrated (or not), and the role of the polygraph 

examiner (most examiners were in private practice, and one was a member of the 

state police). We conducted unstructured interviews with treatment providers, 

prosecution and defense attorneys, sex offenders, criminal justice officials, probation 

and parole officers and their colleagues and supervisors, and specially trained postconviction polygraph examiners.10 We collected data directly from the case files of 

232 convicted sex offenders who were under community supervision in four states. 

We attended national meetings sponsored by the American Polygraph Association, 

the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, and interviewed more than two 

dozen examiners from across the nation, including those working for the Department

of Defense Polygraph Institute. Here is some of what we learned. 

 

9 In prior years we also traveled to Texas, Oregon, Louisiana, Colorado, Ohio, and Arizona to study sex offender

management practices in a variety of jurisdictions. Please see Appendix A for a complete description of the methods used 

to conduct this study. 

10 We asked professionals questions about risk assessment strategies, treatment and supervision tools, policies regarding

the use of information generated from the polygraph examination, their perception of gaps in the containment of these 

offenders in their jurisdictions, barriers to closing the gaps, and program implementation issues. We asked many 

questions about the extent to which they interacted with other professionals engaged in this work (especially other

containment team members), their expectations of offenders and team members, and how the additional information 

obtained from sex offenders via the polygraph exam affected them personally. We asked offenders about their experiences 

with the polygraph test and the examiner, the supervising officer, and their treatment provider. Interviewees in 

jurisdictions not using the post-conviction polygraph examination were asked about their perceptions of the use of the 

polygraph exam for this purpose, implementation issues, and other containment strategies. 

12
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

13
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

BACKGROUND 

How Is the Polygraph Used in a Sex Offender 

Containment Approach? 

The post-conviction polygraph examination is used to obtain information about 

the offender that he or she would otherwise likely keep secret. Preparation for the 

polygraph actually begins when the treatment provider and the supervising officer 

emphasize the need for complete truth as a first step toward offender responsibility, 

accountability, and community safety. Offenders are encouraged to disclose complete 

and accurate information so that a viable treatment plan can be developed. Age of 

onset of sexually abusive behaviors, scope and frequency of deviant activity, the 

offender’s thinking and assault planning strategies—all these pieces of information 

are necessary to assess each individual’s risk and treatment needs. Effective 

treatment and surveillance activities require interventions that are relevant to each

offender’s patterns of assaultive behavior, or modus operandi. 

Therapists evaluating and/or treating sexual assaulters need valid, reliable 

information from the sex offender. Without this, the therapist is less able to 

identify the precise treatment needs of the patient, to evaluate precisely the 

impact of treatment interventions, and to quantify treatment’s long-term 

effects. Since much valuable information is frequently unobservable by the 

therapist, steps must be taken to insure valid, reliable offender reports (Abel 

and Rouleau, 1990:10).

The polygraph exam is integrated into these treatment and supervision practices

to verify that the offender is being truthful about his or her past and present harmful 

behaviors. This research identified three types of polygraph examinations that are 

most commonly used to obtain information on offender behaviors and verification of 

offender truthfulness: 

1. Sexual history disclosure polygraph exams. Sexual history disclosure 

polygraph examinations are used to verify the accuracy and completeness of the 

sexual history information a sex offender provides during treatment. This 

information is obtained using a very specific treatment tool: sexual history 

documentation. This treatment task requires the offender to record the gender, 

age, and method of assault for every past victim. The sex history document—to 

be completed within six months of commencing treatment—is then provided to 

the polygraph examiner who, after reading it carefully along with other case file 

information, asks the offender very specific questions about the accuracy of parts 

of his or her sex history. In most cases, the completed sex history document is 

long, with disclosures of many prior assaults and attempted assaults, and many

different types of assaults as well. The clear expectation that the offender will be 

14
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

accurate and truthful on the sex history assignment, coupled with the ability to 

verify truthfulness through polygraph exams, increases the offender’s incentive 

to disclose this potentially embarrassing and illegal information to the treatment

provider.11

2. Denial and other specific-issue exams. Denial exams verify the details of the 

conviction offense. These tests are usually given when the offender’s version of 

the crime varies from the victim’s version, or the offender continues to deny 

committing the crime of conviction. Specific-issue exams are also used to address 

a single concern or suspicion that arises during an offender’s probation or parole, 

such as suspected contact with children. Specific-issue tests are also 

recommended as a follow-up to deceptive results on previous exams to clarify the 

nature of the deception. 

3. Maintenance or monitoring exams. Maintenance or monitoring exams are 

used to verify whether a probationer or parolee is complying with the terms and 

conditions of community supervision and cooperating with treatment 

expectations. These exams require the polygraph examiner, the treatment 

provider, and the supervising officer to work together to identify questions that 

target high-risk behavior related to the assault patterns described in the 

offender’s sexual history document. 

Table 1 presents the proportion of probation and parole supervisors who 

responded to the national telephone survey and indicated that their officers regularly 

used the post-conviction polygraph examination for each of the three purposes 

described above. Please see Appendix A for a summary of findings from the 

telephone survey. 

 

11 Because the information is usually incriminating, agreements regarding prosecution for past crimes, or instances of

limited immunity, are discussed. Most commonly, the prosecution makes the decision to prosecute past crimes on a caseby-case basis, and frequently there is insufficient information to prosecute. Victim’s organizations must make 

recommendations about the value of contacting past and recent victims, from whom there has been no outcry, and 

offering services, weighing privacy rights against the value of intervention. 

15
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

TABLE 1. HOW IS THE POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION REGULARLY 

USED? (n=155)12

OBTAIN SEXUAL HISTORY INFORMATION 52.2% 

OBTAIN SPECIFIC-ISSUE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CURRENT CRIME, AN ALLEGATION 

OF A NEW CRIME, OR TO ASSIST THE OFFENDER BREAK THROUGH DENIAL 

45.8% 

MONITOR THE OFFENDER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TREATMENT/SUPERVISION 63.9% 

The information gained from post-conviction polygraphs—whether sex history, 

denial, or maintenance exams—is then used to develop or modify treatment and 

supervision plans so that these are congruent with the offender’s risk and need 

areas. These examinations, however, do not stand alone in a sex offender 

management program. Rather, the use of the polygraph occurs in the context of a 

very important synergistic process that results from close, consistent collaboration 

among the polygraph examiner, the treatment provider and the supervising officer. 

The three professionals, and the activities they undertake, are interdependent in 

fully functioning containment teams, with each professional reinforcing the work of 

the other. When this interdependency does not occur, as we observed in some 

jurisdictions, the team suffers from diminished capacity.13

The telephone survey also confirmed that other containment strategies 

accompany the use of the post-conviction polygraph in most jurisdictions. Agencies 

that incorporated the post-conviction polygraph in the management of sex offenders, 

according to phone survey respondents, were significantly (p < .05) more likely to 

have specialized sex offender caseloads (79 percent14 compared to 46 percent). These 

agencies were also more likely (p<.05) to use a risk assessment instrument for sex 

offenders under supervision (39 percent compared to 19 percent). All agencies using 

the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders required offenders to undergo 

 

12 The sampling frame of 732 for the 1998 study represents the total number of probation and parole agencies 

participating in a telephone survey conducted by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice in 1994. The intent was to recontact all 1994 survey participants, focusing on a number of questions related specifically to the use of the polygraph 

with sex offenders. The 1994 sample was designed 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. In 1998, 146 parole and probation agencies responded that their office used the

post-conviction polygraph with convicted sex offenders “sometimes,” “often,” or “always.” These surveys were weighted to 

reflect offices that had consolidated resulting in a weighted n of 155.

13 Evidence of diminished capacity included the following: infrequent communication and sharing of information among

team members; significant delays in scheduling the polygraph examination; lack of adequate preparation ofthe offender

for the examination; insufficient contact and planning by team members before the examination; and team members who 

felt frustrated with each other or whose relationship with the offender was stronger than with each other. 

14 In the 1994 study, we found that 30 percent of probation agencies surveyed and 32 percent of parole agencies surveyed

had specialized caseloads. Agencies with specialized sex offender caseloads were significantly (p<.05) more likely to report

the use of policies, practices or procedures that included the use of polygraph data, special supervision conditions (i.e., no 

contact with victim or children was a condition in 81 percent of probation offices and 77 percent of parole offices), an 

approved list of treatment providers, emphasized after-hours monitoring of offenders and included the use of jail as an 

intermediate sanction. Agencies with specialized caseloads in 1994 were also more likely to have received officer training

on sex offender management within the last year (English, Colling-Chadwick, Pullen, Jones, 1995).

16
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

mental health treatment, compared to 93 percent of agencies that did not use the 

polygraph (this difference, while small proportionally, was statistically significant). 

Almost half (45 percent) of the respondents using the polygraph reported using it

for five or more years: 28 percent of respondents reported using the polygraph for 

five to nine years, and 17 percent of respondents had been using the polygraph for 

more than nine years. 

Is the Polygraph’s Use with Convicted Sex 

Offenders Legal and Ethical?15

Legal and ethical concerns about the polygraph center on issues of selfincrimination, invasion of privacy, questions about the accuracy and reliability of 

polygraphs, and the admissibility of polygraph evidence in court. Officials using sex 

offense-specific treatment and the post-conviction polygraph must formally address, 

in particular, how to handle evidence or confessions of prior sex offenses. These 

decisions are at the heart of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding use of 

the polygraph in community-based sex offender management. Legal and ethical 

issues varied by geographic region, according to telephone survey results (see 

Ethical/Legal Considerations section of Table 2 below). 

TABLE 2. BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION16

LACK OF RESOURCES NO POLYGRAPH 

EXAMINERS (a) 

ETHICAL/LEGAL

CONSIDERATIONS (a) 

OTHER 

CONSIDER

REGION 

(b) 

% YES % NO TOTAL % YES % NO TOTAL % YES % NO TOTAL % YES 

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

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

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

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

(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)

 

15 Almost one in five (18.2 percent) survey respondents replied that barriers to using the polygraph included legal and 

ethical issues. Significantly more respondents from the Northeast (24.5 percent) and Central (21.4 percent) sections of the 

country identified this concern as a barrier to implementing the post-conviction polygraph. According to survey 

respondents, a lack of resources was most frequently reported as a barrier to using the polygraph with sex offenders.

16 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)

17
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

The Northeast and Central regions were more likely to report ethical and legal 

considerations as barriers to implementation, according to telephone survey results. 

SELF-INCRIMINATION ISSUES 

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against 

compelled or forced self-incrimination. The issue is important in the context of postconviction polygraphs because of the expectation and requirement that the offender 

will waive confidentiality and make a full disclosure of his or her sexual history, 

including prior victims. The question about self-incrimination thus arises because an

offender who discloses prior (or current) victims may be at risk of further prosecution 

or revocation. 

Case law has established many of the conditions for claiming one’s Fifth 

Amendment rights. Generally, Fifth Amendment rights are automatic when a person 

is in custody and temporarily deprived of liberty (hence the Miranda warning). If a 

person is not in custody, courts have generally found that he or she must actively 

invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights. In Marcum v. State, 983 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 

App. 14th Dist., Sept. 17, 1998), the court found that a polygraph examination 

administered as part of a court-ordered condition of probation is not considered an 

in-custody interrogation for purposes of triggering the need to give a Miranda 

warning. The court ruled that a parolee’s confession to additional crimes during a 

polygraph post-examination interview was admissible in a parole revocation hearing. 

In Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1983), the court found no Fifth 

Amendment violation in questioning sex offenders on probation. However, 

statements made cannot be compelled. Compulsion pertains to the consequences to 

an offender for failure to admit responsibility for undetected sex crimes, and if these 

constitute substantial penalties that are too coercive. A complete review of court 

decisions reflects the need for local officials to include the polygraph examination as 

a documented supervision condition. Since the polygraph and sex offender treatment 

are intertwined, we recommend its use as a treatment tool be clearly stated. 

Obtaining additional information about past victims and about a sex offender’s 

pattern of offending is of significant value to many criminal justice officials we 

interviewed in the field, who believe that this knowledge protects victims by 

increasing the likelihood of managing sex offenders safely in the community. 

Therefore, policy makers in many jurisdictions have found a variety of ways to 

respond to this sensitive information. We documented the following three “solutions” 

in our field research: 

1. Limited Immunity for Prior Crimes

In some jurisdictions that use post-conviction polygraphs, prosecutors 

provide limited or even full immunity from prosecution for prior crimes 

uncovered as a result of the treatment/polygraph process.17 Usually, an offender 

 

17 When an offender reports or is suspected of a new crime while under probation or parole supervision, the issues are 

very different. In this case, the offender’s Fifth Amendment rights may be in effect, or may be invoked if a new case is

under investigation. When disclosure occurs as a result of the treatment/polygraph process, the supervising officer or 

18
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

is given immunity from prosecution for specific types of crimes, for example, only 

for crimes similar to the crime of conviction. Typically, limited immunity 

agreements stay in effect only as long as the offender complies with treatment 

and supervision conditions and does not reoffend. Of course, immunity 

agreements do not cover any new crimes committed while the offender is under 

probation or parole supervision. 

Officials who support granting limited immunity argue that learning about 

prior victims is more important for treatment and public safety than prosecuting 

individual offenders for prior crimes that, without this containment strategy, 

would never be known. According to many probation and parole officers we 

interviewed, when sex offenders have limited immunity, they are more likely to 

disclose prior victims and assault activity. Officials in some jurisdictions also 

believe that identifying prior victims allows these victims to be contacted and 

offered services. 

Understandably, many prosecutors are reluctant to go on record as 

supporting limited immunity agreements. Nonetheless, some prosecuting 

attorneys we interviewed supported the concept of immunity agreements 

because they believe that the information about additional victims that is gained 

through the treatment/polygraph process is, in effect, coerced and therefore could

not be used to prosecute the offender. Others said that, with or without 

immunity agreements, an offender’s disclosure of prior criminal sexual behavior 

does not mean there will be sufficient evidence to prosecute a case. In Jackson 

County, Oregon, the prosecutor agreed to grant immunity for prior crimes of a 

similar nature: “Although not all prosecutors would agree, our community has 

concluded that to prosecute all reported offenses would infringe on the offender’s 

Fifth Amendment rights and thus would prohibit the therapeutic use of the 

polygraph” (Knapp, 1996:13-9). 

2. Individual Case Review 

On the other hand, some prosecutors consider it professionally unpalatable 

and politically unwise to extend any immunity from prosecution for past crimes 

to sex offenders. These attorneys worry about uncovering a prior heinous sexual

crime that will elude prosecution as a result of limited immunity agreements. In

such jurisdictions, there may instead be a formal (or informal) agreement 

between the prosecutor’s office and the probation/parole agency to make 

decisions on a case-by-case basis. In these jurisdictions, the prosecutor exercises 

his or her broad statutory discretion about whether to initiate further 

investigation and file a criminal case on prior sexual crimes. Often, the offender’s 

compliance with treatment and supervision requirements is likely to have an 

effect on such decisions. 

If a prosecutor determines that enough evidence exists to prosecute a case, 

but the offender is complying with treatment and supervision requirements, the

 

local law enforcement officials must further investigate the suspicion or allegation. Coordination with local law

enforcement should precede any additional polygraph testing, so that a post-conviction polygraph does not inadvertently 

interfere with a law enforcement investigation of the alleged new crime.

19
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

attorney may request a sentence that allows the offender to remain in the 

community, perhaps extending the probation or parole period. This option may 

work best in jurisdictions that are small enough to maintain consistent informal 

agreements. 

3. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (Names, That Is) 

In the absence of formal or informal immunity agreements with the 

prosecutor’s office, the containment team at several sites noted that they manage

information on past victims by asking the sex offender to omit identifying names 

or other information when disclosing prior sexual victims. For example, instead 

of using a victim’s name, the offender might list Victim #1, Victim #2, etc., when 

he or she reports sexual history information. Using this approach minimizes or 

eliminates the risk for the offender of being prosecuted for past sexual crimes. 

If this technique of non-identification of the victim name is used, both 

treatment providers and criminal justice supervisors should take extra 

precautions to ensure that the unidentified victims are not relatives or 

acquaintances with whom the offender may currently be having contact. Because 

most victims know or are acquainted with their offender (Kilpatrick et al., 1992), 

care must be taken to be sure that a current or recent victim is not missed as a 

result of an offender's non-disclosure of names. 

Opinions are mixed on the "don't ask, don't tell" approach to handling 

criminal sexual history information. In some jurisdictions, the containment team 

believes that using this policy is the only way to ensure that sex offenders will 

provide information. To some professionals we interviewed, however, concealing 

specific victim information was seen as unacceptable, as it undermines the 

philosophy and the practice of full disclosure, reinforces the idea that certain 

secrets are required, and continues the offender’s objectification of victims. On 

the other hand, many jurisdictions that require full identification of prior victims 

have not found a clear way to approach identified victims, or their parents, from 

whom there has been no outcry.18

 

Whatever the policy regarding prosecution of new crimes, nothing eliminates the 

legal responsibility of treatment providers and others in most states to report child 

abuse when they learn of it. However, reports of prior victims made to child 

protection agencies often result in minimal consequences to the offender. The small 

amount of information generally available, the lack of knowledge about a victim’s 

current location, the lack of outcry by the victim or family, and the high caseloads 

common to most child protection agencies combine to make it unlikely that these 

cases will receive much priority in the system. Resolving these concerns in a manner 

that is congruent with local community values has generated useful discussions and

conversations among prosecutors, victim organizations, supervising agencies, 

18 One exception to this is Ontario, Oregon, where Jan Hindmann and her colleagues at It’s About Childhood work to 

ensure that victims identified by sex offenders in treatment receive services. 

20
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

treatment providers, and other stakeholders. In fact, it is a necessary activity in the 

planning phase of polygraph implementation. 

PRIVACY CONCERNS 

Privacy concerns surrounding the use of post-conviction polygraphs are an 

important part of a broader philosophical discussion about the role of government 

and the justice system in our lives. Some people are disturbed by the expectation 

that an offender will be coerced into sharing his or her entire sexual history as well 

as current deviant criminal and non-criminal behaviors and fantasies during the 

treatment/polygraph process. Indeed, sex offenders taking post-conviction polygraph

examinations are subject to practices that considerably reduce their privacy rights. 

Sex offenders are required to waive confidentiality, and treatment contracts and 

conditions of probation or parole set the expectation for an offender's full disclosure 

of his or her sexual history, at-risk behaviors, and new crime information. 

Further, current theories about the role secrecy plays in the lives of sex offenders 

and the power and control issues that appear to plague most offenders’ lives have led 

risk-focused professionals to believe that it is therapeutic—rather than unethical—to 

encourage sex offenders to give up all secrets related to sexual deviance. Some sex 

offenders display characteristics of antisocial personality disorder and/or 

psychopathy. According to Harris, Rice, and Quinsey, “Because pathological lying 

and use of deceit are among the distinguishing characteristics of antisocial 

personality disorder and psychopathy, great care will have to be taken by those 

charged with supervision to ensure that conditions of supervision are being followed” 

(Harris, Rice and Quinsey, 1998:104). When the offender does not disclose every 

sexual assault, then he or she remains in control of what the treatment provider and

other containment professionals know. Allowing this control impedes the therapeutic 

process. 

Most convicted sex offenders have organized their lives around deception, since 

their crimes are committed in secret. Past and present offenses are not easily 

detected, and sex offenders are certainly not forthcoming with shameful information 

about illegal acts (Carnes, 1983). Information about past and present deviant 

behavior—information that is essential to assessing risk and treatment needs—is 

extremely difficult to obtain.19 Offending patterns are thought to be ingrained, 

compulsive, and lifelong (Marshall, 1990; Prentky et al., 1997). According to 

practitioners, sex offenders are often highly functioning people who use their social 

skills to gain access to victims. Prentky et al. (1990:62) assert that, for many sex 

offenders, "the victims are their social and sexual companions; the offenses are their 

social and sexual life." 

 

19 Sex offenders rarely get caught because the likelihood of victims reporting this crime is quite low. Kilpatrick et al.

(1992) found only 16% of female victims reported the rape to law enforcement. Dupre et al. (1993) estimated that fewer

than 10% of rapes are reported. Finkelhor et al. (1990) studied rape victims and found 33% of women and 42% of men 

never disclosed the rape to anyone until the researcher asked about it. Russell (1984) found fewer than 5% of sex crimes 

were reported to the police. Not surprisingly, the American Medical Association (1995) called sexual abuse the “violent

silent epidemic.” Secrecy is essential to this level of sexual assault activity.

21
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

Another question related to the issue of privacy is whether the polygraph 

examination is more intrusive than other forms of community supervision of 

convicted offenders. For example, conditions of probation or parole commonly restrict 

associations (e.g., with other felons) and often require drug tests or prohibit the use 

of drugs and alcohol. Frequently, conditions of community supervision prohibit sex 

offenders from having unsupervised contact with children, even the offender’s own 

children. In addition, the supervision contract (conditions of probation or parole) 

presumes that the offender will honestly answer questions posed by the supervising 

officer. The focus on sex, arousal, and assault patterns in sex offender management 

seems consistent with the focus on drugs and alcohol for substance abusing 

offenders, or on lifestyle and medication management for mentally ill offenders. 

In sum, the post-conviction polygraph exam is to sex offenders what the 

urinanalysis test is to drug offenders: a verification of information the offender selfreports to the treatment provider and supervising officer. The post-conviction 

polygraph, like the UA, is a case management tool that targets the high-risk lifestyle 

associated with this crime type. The post-conviction polygraph emphasizes the need

for sex offenders to be honest about the parts of their lives that have been secretive 

and dangerous to others. The polygraph’s use should be combined with many other 

tools that encourage supervision compliance (such as urinanalysis, electronic 

monitoring, curfews, and employment and leisure time restrictions). 

ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF THE POLYGRAPH 

One of the ethical considerations in the use of the polygraph exam with convicted 

sex offenders is the degree to which it is accurate and reliable in its findings. The 

research team spent considerable effort understanding the strengths and 

weaknesses of the research on polygraph accuracy and reliability. Research after 

1980 is particularly valuable because it reflects advances in the technology, such as 

numerical scoring and development of more refined control question methods. 

The most recent published review of polygraph reliability and validity studies 

was conducted by Forensic Research, Inc., of Severna Park, Maryland for the 

American Polygraph Association in 1997.20 Reviews of field studies21 indicate that 

between 96 and 98 percent of exams correctly identified deception. The test-retest 

reliability of field examination charts has averaged 92 percent; reliability of lab 

studies22 has averaged 81 percent. Using studies of mock crimes conducted in 

laboratory settings, 82 percent of exams resulted in correctly identifying deception. 

Note a few cautions when considering accuracy rates: 1) for nearly all studies, 

inconclusive results—meaning insufficient information was available to score the 

 

20 Copies of this paper may be purchased from the American Polygraph Association National Office, 951 Eastgate Loop,

Suite 800, Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37411-5608.

21 Field studies involve determining accuracy by following up on real cases where the examination results were 

confirmed by confession. 

22 Lab studies are mock crime scenarios. Critics of mock crime research say that detecting deception is difficult because 

the polygraph client has nothing significant at stake, and physiological measures are less reactive because fear of 

detection is difficult to manufacture. Hence, the error rate will be higher in these studies compared to field studies.

22
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

exam—are excluded from the averages, and this may overstate accuracy rates; 

however, calculating these inconclusive findings as deceptive would understate 

accuracy rates; 2) studies that did not use numerical scoring (mostly before 1980) 

have somewhat subjective findings.23 

One of the challenges to polygraph research is that many variables can affect the 

accuracy of polygraph examinations. To conduct a valid examination, a polygraph 

examiner must use an accepted testing procedure and scoring system (Ansley, 1997). 

Examiners must also follow established practices to maximize accuracy and 

reliability. The American Polygraph Association has published standards of practice 

for examiners conducting post-conviction sex offender examinations, and these 

standards are intended to limit variation in practice across examiners (Dutton, 

2000). 

A valid exam also requires that the relevant test questions be clear to the 

examinee and narrow in scope. In addition, accuracy depends in part on the extent to 

which the examiner prepares for the examination. This means that the treatment 

provider and the supervising officer must work with the examiner prior to the exam. 

A thorough review of written case material is required to maximize accuracy. 

Without sufficient knowledge of the case, examiners might unknowingly develop 

questions that tap into outside issues, evoking a physiological response that is 

unrelated to the exam topic. Lack of preparation may result in the examiner letting 

the offender’s story dictate the examination questions. The problem is confounded if

a deceptive examinee gains confidence (and worries less) because he or she believes 

the examiner has insufficient knowledge about the case. On the other hand, a nondeceptive examinee will worry more if the examiner appears unprepared.24 

ADMISSIBILITY OF POLYGRAPH EVIDENCE IN COURT 

Often during the exam process—or during a treatment session prior to the 

exam—the offender will reveal that he or she has recently engaged in high-risk 

behavior. Such behavior reflects a lack of internal control on the offender’s part, and

so external controls (i.e., sanctions that restrict activity) must be applied. When 

polygraph exams reveal a prior crime, courts vary in their willingness to accept this 

information as sufficient for revocation—whether the offender has confessed to a new

crime or fails a question targeting a new crime. Since the standard of proof is “a 

preponderance of the evidence” in revocation hearings, rather than “beyond a 

reasonable doubt” required at a criminal trial, and since probation and parole are 

usually considered privileges, not rights, polygraph information is sometimes 

provided to the court or parole authorities. In general, it appears that written 

conditions of supervision that require a post-conviction polygraph examination offer 

criminal justice officials the greatest range of responses. 

 

23 For more information on concerns about polygraph accuracy and the quality of polygraph research, see Lykken’s

Tremor in the Blood (1998).

24 One study found that the accuracy of the test score may decrease by up to 8 to 10 percent if the examiner does not 

have a sufficient understanding of the case facts (Blackwell, 1994).

23
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

Concerns about the use of polygraph information in court typically pertain to 

explicit standards governing evidence presented in criminal or civil proceedings. 

State statutes vary regarding the admissibility of polygraph information as evidence 

in a court of law.25 These concerns tend to fall into the following categories: 

 

1. The lack of agreement about whether polygraphy is a scientifically valid 

technique; 

2. The lack of a known (certain) error rate; 

3. The lack of controlling standards of practice in the polygraph professions; and 

4. Questions about juries giving polygraph findings excessive weight in the 

decision- making process and weakening their role as determiners of truth. 

Most case law pertains to the admission of polygraph evidence for a 

determination of guilt or innocence. For 70 years, federal and state courts were 

uniform in ruling polygraph evidence to be inadmissible under the criteria for 

scientific evidence described in the 1923 case Frye v. United States (293 F. 1013, 

CDAC 1923). Frye held that scientific evidence, to be admissible in court, must be 

based on scientific methods that have the general acceptance of the relevant expert 

community. In 1993, the Supreme Court held that certain Federal Rules of Evidence 

should govern the admissibility of scientific evidence and required the judge to make 

a preliminary assessment of the relevance and reliability26 of the evidence (Daubert 

v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [509 U.S. 579, 1993]). 

 The Daubert case opened the door for the admissibility of polygraph data in 

post-conviction sex offender management in part because it gives district courts the 

authority to determine if evidence is relevant and reliable. In Kansas v. Lumley (WL 

218704, 1999), for example, the defendant appealed a prison sentence that resulted 

from his untruthful answer to a polygraph question regarding contact with a child. 

Upon appeal, the judge found that polygraph reliability was sufficiently robust to be

acceptable for a parole or probation revocation hearing that requires a lesser 

standard of proof than a finding of guilt. Further, the judge indicated that without 

the polygraph examinations and the admission of the results of the examination as a 

condition of probation,27 the sex offender community supervision program could not 

be maintained. 

In State v. Travis (125 Idaho 1, 867 P.2d 234, 1994), the court found that, while 

the defendant’s agreement to a probation condition requiring him to submit to a 

polygraph examination did not establish admissibility of the results, Travis was 

uncooperative and resisted supervision. His probation was revoked. But Patton v. 

 

25 Most commonly, states consider polygraph evidence per se inadmissible in courts of law. A few states admit polygraph 

evidence in some limited circumstances, by stipulation of both parties. A recent challenge to the per se inadmissibility

statutes of many states was not held up by the Supreme Court case United State v. Scheffer, WL141151, 1998.

26 In the context of the admissibility of evidence, reliability means scientific validity.

27 As a condition of the defendant=s 60 month probation sentence, the district judge stated, AMr. Lumley will submit to a 

polygraph examination not less often than every six months at his expense@ (Polygraph 29, 117: 2000).

24
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

State (580 NE.2d 693, Ind. App. 1992) found “...the rehabilitative benefits of the 

polygraph examination condition must be obtained without the examination results

being admissible in any subsequent court proceeding” (Polygraph 29, 121:2000). 

Additionally, our field research found that polygraph information is best used to 

inform treatment and enhance risk-focused supervision of offenders in the 

community. As one containment professional noted, “We never use the P-word in 

court.” From the telephone survey we learned from over half (56.1 percent) of the 

respondents28 that probation and parole officers increased surveillance when 

violations of supervision were disclosed during a polygraph exam. One in four 

respondents said that a deceptive finding on a polygraph test could result in 

treatment termination. 

Indeed, a deceptive polygraph exam should result in significantly increased 

surveillance along with other efforts to obtain additional information about the 

offender, including interviews with potential victims, the victim’s therapist, 

employers, and discussions with law enforcement officers. At a minimum, a deceptive 

finding on the examination reflects the offender’s lack of cooperation with the 

containment approach and his or her lack of commitment to the honesty necessary to 

make the life changes expected by the containment team. 

 

28 This is the percentage of the weighted (n=155) agencies that used the polygraph at least sometimes.

25
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

METHODS 

The Sample 

The following findings resulted from the analysis of the case file review of a 

sample of 232 adult sex offenders being supervised in the community at the time of 

the study. We collected data to compare the amount of information available to the 

containment team before and after polygraph testing (this is discussed in greater 

detail below). The sample was selected from four states to specifically include 

varying levels of post-conviction polygraph implementation. In two states (A and B) 

the post-conviction polygraph had been implemented for a number of years as part of 

the sex offender treatment program. In state C, polygraph testing was newly 

implemented. In this state, half of the sex offenders had received at least one postconviction polygraph examination, and half had not. The latter cases were considered 

to be "under the threat" of the polygraph test; these offenders knew that polygraph 

exams would eventually be administered to them as part of their treatment and 

supervision programs. Because the polygraph was eminent and offenders in the 

sample were in group therapy with those who had taken the polygraph test, these 

cases were also included in the analyses of the impact of the post-conviction 

polygraph. In state D, the post-conviction polygraph had not yet been introduced.29

(See Appendix B for a description of other state differences.) 

TABLE 3. SAMPLE SIZES FOR THE CASE FILE REVIEWS 

STATE AND STAGE OF POLYGRAPH IMPLEMENTATION n USED IN BEFORE AND AFTER

COMPARISONS 

State A - the post-conviction polygraph used for a number of 

years.

62 Yes

State B - the post-conviction polygraph used for a number of 

years.

57 Yes

State C - the post-conviction polygraph was new implemented

(31 cases received at least one polygraph; 30 cases were "under 

the threat" of the polygraph).

61 Yes

TOTAL CASES INCLUDED IN BEFORE AND AFTER ANALYSES 180 

State D - the post-conviction polygraph was not yet 

implemented. 

52 No

TOTAL CASES 232 

 

29 This state had not yet implemented the post-conviction polygraph. Data for this state included what was learned 

through the Abel Screen (questionnaire only) and self-reported, written sex histories. Data from the state were excluded

from analyses requiring polygraph data.

26
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

Data Collection 

A complex data collection instrument was designed to gather demographics, 

criminal history, current crime, placements and sentencing information, victim 

information (number, age group, gender, and relationship to offender), type and 

frequency of paraphilia and/or risk behavior, a profile of perpetrator early behaviors, 

and information regarding polygraph tests. The data collection tool is available in 

Appendix C, and definitions of behaviors and relationships are included in Appendix 

D. 

For this study, a “victim” was defined as someone who was sexually assaulted 

without their consent or knowledge (e.g., they were asleep). For minors, the 

definition of a victim required a four-year age difference between the age of the 

perpetrator and the victim, force, or the perpetrator was an adult and the minor 

victim had not reached the age of consent in that state.30 

The data collection instrument contained two major sections: 

1. The first section (pages 1 and 2) of the data collection instrument described 

offending information known to the criminal justice system before the 

treatment/polygraph process. It included all information regarding the offender's 

current crime, along with the sex offending history that was known to the 

criminal justice system from sources prior to the beginning of treatment. Data 

sources for the first section included pre-sentence investigation reports, police 

reports of the instant offense, and case notes of the supervising officer regarding 

information learned independent of the treatment/ polygraph process. 

Information about the offender's juvenile sexual offense history was recorded 

separately from the offender's adult sexual offense history. 

2. The second section (pages 3 and 4) of the data collection instrument contained all 

information about the offender resulting from elements of treatment relating to 

preparation for the polygraph examination, as well as admissions made during 

the exam itself. Second section data sources were the self-reported sex history 

document, homework assignments relating to polygraph exam information, 

polygraph examination reports, and case management notes pertaining to the 

treatment/polygraph process.31 The second section of the collection form 

separately gathered information for sexual offenses and paraphilias committed 

as a juvenile and as an adult. 

 

30 The age of consent varied across the states we visited. In fewer than five cases we found minimal age differences 

between the offender and the victim for the conviction crime, and the documentation included a victim statement 

reporting consent. Nevertheless, a decision had been made to prosecute the case, and these cases were coded as victims.

31 All files were extensively examined, and data were extracted to the collection form. Decisions on how to record data

were made with a data collection supervisor available to develop consistent protocols. Every effort was made to separate

data known to the criminal justice system without the post-conviction/treatment polygraph process from that known as a 

result of this process. For instance, if a risk behavior was detected after sentencing through the normal supervision

process, this information was not attributed the polygraph/treatment process. 

27
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

Comparison Analysis: Before and After 

We compared the information known before the treatment/polygraph process

(data gathered on pages 1 and 2 of the data collection instrument) to all that was 

known after the treatment/polygraph process (data gathered on pages 1 through 4 of

the data collection instrument). Although data were gathered separately for the 

juvenile and adult histories of offenders, these data were combined in the analyses 

presented here. Initially, we attempted to extract information from the self-report 

sex history and compare this to what was reported separately in the polygraph 

examinations. However, when we gained further understanding of how the selfreport disclosure was directly tied to the polygraph test, we determined that the two 

processes were synergistic. When we refer to the "treatment/polygraph process," we 

primarily describe the interdependence between the self-report disclosure that occurs 

in treatment and the use of the post-conviction polygraph to verify this information. A 

self-report sex history disclosure form or journal assignment, administered as part of

the treatment process, is validated (or not) during a sex history polygraph exam. The 

offender prepares the sex history assignment with the knowledge that it is 

inextricably tied to the post-conviction polygraph examination. It is through the selfreported sex history, and subsequent verification with a post-conviction sex history 

polygraph examination, that a lifetime of secrets can be uncovered and a more 

complete understanding of the offender's behavior and patterns of sexual abuse 

emerge, as reflected in the data presented below. Because these two processes—the 

self-report disclosure element oftreatment and the post-conviction polygraph exam—

are deeply intertwined, we use the phrases "post-conviction treatment/polygraph or 

treatment/polygraph process" to more accurately reflect the process through which 

information about the offender is learned. 

The use of the term “treatment,” however, does not imply that information from 

other aspects of treatment was included or identified for the analysis. For instance, 

information revealed through group treatment sessions was not included unless it 

was specifically related to information also revealed through the treatment element 

of self-disclosure or through a polygraph examination. For these analyses we were 

interested in information gathered as a result of implementing the post-conviction 

polygraph examination as a management tool. 

These analyses, of course, did not include victims whom the offender never 

admitted or those who were never documented in the file. Because of this, the 

findings probably underestimate both the number of victims and the range of deviant

behaviors for the sample, particularly since approximately one-third of the polygraph

examinations were scored as deceptive by the examiner. 

Because before and after comparisons included agencies at different stages of 

implementing the post-conviction treatment/polygraph process, the findings are 

unlikely to represent the information that would be obtained from any single agency. 

The aggregate data are presented to make the point that, in general, more 

information is gained about sex offenders when the post-conviction 

treatment/polygraph process is used as a management and supervision tool. The 

28
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

following findings provide quantitative evidence of the benefits of the post-conviction 

treatment/polygraph process.32

 

 

32 Also, Ahlmeyer et al. (2000) found polygraph disclosures to increase when the offender was engaged in intense 

treatment. 

29
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

FINDINGS FROM THE CASE FILE 

REVIEW 

The findings presented below focus on (1) risk management and criminal career 

research, (2) the disclosures of additional victims, (3) high risk behaviors and assault 

patterns, and (4) what we learned about incest offenders. 

What Does the Post-Conviction Polygraph 

Exam Add to the Risk Management of Sex 

Offenders? 

If one seeks to control crime behavior, one needs first to be able to predict it. 

Much of our behavior is guided by the principle that relations observed in the

past will hold in the future even though we believe there can be no guarantee 

of it. Change may be expected, but science requires that we assume that 

nature, subject to change, will change slowly. Thus we assume that some 

consistency will be found over time.... Any prediction method can merely 

provide a way to summarize previous experience to guide future decisions.

(Gottfredson, 1987:6) 

In criminology, we have known for nearly 30 years that frequency, seriousness, 

and variety of offending are highly correlated (Wolfgang, Figlio and Sellin, 1972; 

Farrington, 1973; Barnett and Lofaso, 1985; Barnett, Blumstein, and Farrington, 

1987; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; English and Mande, 1992). In Aggression and 

Violence through the Life Span, Quinsey and Walker (1992:246-247) review the 

literature and conclude “[e]nough work has been completed to establish a general 

consensus within the research community about the classes of variables that are 

valid predictors of recidivism.... Previous criminal history emerges as the single 

variable predictor of subsequent recidivism and violent recidivism.” 

Risk prediction research on sex offenders supports these criminal career factors.

Serin (1994) and Rice et al., (1991) and others (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988; Brown 

and Forth, 1997; Hart et al., 1998; English, 1999) found deviant arousal or versatility 

of sexual offending to predict poor case outcomes. Victim injury (Harris et al., 1993),

boy victims (Hanson and Bussiere, 1996; Hanson, 1998), diverse victim types (Hanson 

and Harris, 1998), young age of victims (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988; Quinsey et al., 

1995; Hanson, 1997), any stranger victim (Hanson 1998), past violence (Karson and 

Bigelow, 1987; McNeil, Bender and Greenfield, 1988; Palmstrierna and Wistedt, 

1989), and young age of offender (Harris et al., 1998; Quinsey et al., 1995; Hanson, 

1997) are linked to negative outcome. Deviant sexual arousal, identified by 

phallometric measures of sexual preference, was found to predict new sex crime 

convictions in both rapists (Rice, Harris, and Quinsey, 1990) and child molesters 

(Rice, Quinsey, and Harris, 1991). Prior sexual offending history (Hall, 1995; Hansen 

et al., 1992; Marshall and Barbaree, 1988; Rice et al., 1991; Rice and Harris, 1997) 

30
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

remains one of the strongest predictors of subsequent sex crime arrests and 

convictions. 

The need for complete information about the offender’s current and past sexual 

offending history becomes clear when the research is reviewed. Additionally, the 

purpose of sex offender treatment is to teach offenders how to live without abuse and

secrecy. Being truthful in treatment and supervision is key to this process. Obtaining

verified data from a sex offender’s sexual history polygraph exam is the first step in 

sex offender risk management. The aggregate data presented below reflect the extent 

of additional information that became available as a result of the 

treatment/polygraph process. The value of the polygraph examination, when 

appropriately integrated with sex offender treatment, lies in its ability to generate 

significantly more information on individual offenders. 

Crossover is the term used to describe the fact that many adult sex offenders 

have a history of victimizing across genders and age categories. Our study findings 

support other research (Abel and Rouleau, 1990; Ahlmeyer et al., 2000; Weinrott and 

Saylor, 1991; Faller, 1990; Becker and Coleman, 1988; Freund, 1990; Abel, 

Mittleman and Becker, 1985) by confirming that crossover is alarmingly common 

among sex offenders. 

At the case management level, accurate and complete case history information is 

necessary to intervene in meaningful ways. In the following data tables, we present 

additional findings derived from information about the group of offenders known 

before and after the treatment/polygraph process. 

Finding: Additional Types of Victims Were at 

Risk 

Table 4 below shows several fundamental differences in the sample description 

when group profiles of 180 sex offenders were compared before and after the postconviction polygraph/treatment process. 

TABLE 4. THE POLYGRAPH/TREATMENT PROCESS FINDS MORE SEX OFFENDERS HAVE 

PERPETRATED (a) AGAINST MORE VICTIM TYPES 

VICTIMIZATION PROFILE OF OFFENDERS 

FROM THREE STATES (n=180) 

BEFORE POSTCONVICTION 

POLYGRAPH/ 

TREATMENT 

PROCESS 

AFTER POSTCONVICTION 

POLYGRAPH/ 

TREATMENT 

PROCESS 

Had male victims

Had female victims

Had both male and female victims

20% 

90% 

10% 

36% 

94% 

29% 

Had juvenile victims

Had adult victims (b)

Had both juvenile and adult victims

91% 

19% 

10% 

95% 

44% 

33% 

Committed hands-on offenses (c) 

Committed more than one type of hands-on offense 

93% 

64% 

98% 

82% 

31
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

Committed hands-off offenses 

Committed more than one type of hand-off offense 

22% 

3% 

67% 

35% 

Have high risk behaviors 

Commit more than one type of high risk behavior 

58% 

27% 

93% 

80% 

(a) Does not necessarily mean sexual assault. Includes fondling, frottage, voyeurism, any 

hands-on offense, any hands-off offense, or high risk behavior. 

(b) Includes individuals 18 years and older and elderly or at-risk individuals. 

(c) Hands-on offenses include vaginal, anal, or attempted penetration, oral sex, fondling/frottage, excess aggression, and 

assault including domestic violence with deviant sex. Hands-off offenses include exhibitionism, voyeurism and stalking. 

Risk behaviors include urination with sexual act, bestiality, giving alcohol or drugs to victim, offender under the 

influence at the time of offense, abuse of alcohol and drugs during time periods when offenses occur, more than one 

unwilling participant, pornography, obscene internet or phone contact, masturbation to deviant fantasy, excessive

masturbation, preparation for assaults (e.g., driving around), and other. 

If these sex offenders were characterized on the basis of information in the files 

that did not include the post-conviction treatment/polygraph process, professionals 

might make several errors. For example, it would be quite easy to conclude that this 

group presents a relatively low risk to males and adults; only one in five offenders 

seemed to have victims in each of these categories. When information from the postconviction polygraph/treatment process was included, however, one in three 

offenders, rather than one in five, were identified as having male victims. Likewise, 

nearly half (44 percent) of the sample were found to have victimized adults, 

compared to the 19 percent of offenders identified from information obtained before 

the treatment/polygraph process. 

The more than ten-fold increase (from 3 percent to 35 percent) in the disclosures 

of hands-off offenses suggests that information about exhibitionism, voyeurism, and

obscene phone calls or internet use was rarely obtained without the 

treatment/polygraph process. Reviews of the sex history documents suggest that 

these offenses are sometimes part of an offender’s assault pattern, i.e., these 

behaviors often precede an assault. Obtaining this information is crucial for 

containment professionals who intend to interrupt the assault pattern and prevent 

new victimizations by sex offenders they treat and supervise. 

It is important to consider how crossover information from the post-conviction 

polygraph/treatment process might impact a specific supervision decision. For 

example, a parole board member might need to determine whether, after serving his 

prison sentence, an offender who victimized adult females should be allowed to live 

with young children. Likewise, in many jurisdictions nationwide, judges often allow 

sex offenders to live with children. Decisions of this nature are made regularly, and 

because of decision makers' lack of understanding of crossover behavior, offenders 

may be given sanctioned access to potential victims. As therapist Anna Salter points

out, “...the easiest way to get access to children is to live with one” (Salter, 1995:60). 

The analysis presented in Figure 2 below demonstrates why, based on information 

gained after the post-conviction polygraph process, criminal justice officials should 

exercise caution in allowing sex offenders to reside with children without ongoing 

polygraph verification. For this analysis, we identified offenders with male victims 

between the ages of six and nine before and after the post-conviction 

32
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

treatment/polygraph process, and the additional age and gender groups victimized by 

these offenders. 

FIGURE 2. OFFENDERS WITH IDENTIFIED MALE VICTIMS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 6 AND 9,

COMPARISON OF AGE AND GENDER VICTIM CROSSOVER BEFORE AND AFTER THE POSTCONVICTION POLYGRAPH/TREATMENT PROCESS 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

 M ales 

0-5

 Females

0-5

 Females

6-9 

 M ales 

10-13

 Females 

10-13

 M ales 

14-17

 Females

14-17

 M ales 

18+

Females

18+

M ales

Elderly/at

Risk

Females

Elderly/at

Risk

Before (n= 15) After (n= 28)

After the treatment/polygraph information was added to the analysis, the 

number of offenders with boy victims between the ages of six and nine nearly 

doubled from 15 to 28 of the 180 offenders studied (8 percent to 15 percent of the 

sample). The data before the post-conviction treatment/polygraph process suggest 

that both male and female adults were at relatively low risk of victimization by this 

particular sex offender group. When disclosures from the post-conviction 

treatment/polygraph process are added, a different picture of this offender group 

unfolds. The proportion of this subsample victimizing other gender and age 

categories climbs. For example, the proportion offending against adult women tripled

from 13 percent to 39 percent. The proportion of offenders with girl victims ages six 

to nine more than tripled, from 20 percent to 64 percent. Just over 42 percent of this 

group with boy victims aged six to nine reported abusing boys aged zero to five 5. 

Since these figures represent lifetime offending patterns, some offenders may have 

been young when these offenses occurred—indicating a longer deviant history than 

official records or self-report alone would reflect. 

33
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

Finding: Offenders Crossover between Adult 

and Child Victims 

RAPE VICTIMS SELDOM REPORT THE CRIME 

Recent research confirms what many clinicians long expected:

victims with close relationships with the perpetrators are least 

likely to report sexual abuse (Finkelhor et al., 1990; Springs and 

Friedrich, 1992; Russell, 1984). Smith et al. (2000) found rape 

victims were 3.7 times more likely to tell if the abuser was a 

stranger. Hanson et al. (1999) and Arata (1998) also found victims 

were significantly more likely to report abuse by strangers. Wyatt 

and Newcomb (1990) reported that “close proximity” was 

associated with fewer disclosures, as measured by the relationship

with the perpetrator, location of the abuse, and the effect of abuse 

on the family. This may explain why, in two studies, convicted

offenders reported 13 to 16 years of committing sex crimes before

they were caught (Freeman-Longo, 1985; Ahlmeyer et al., 2000). 

The risk that an offender with adult victims may also have child victims appears 

to be extremely high. In our community-based sample of 180 offenders in states 

where the polygraph was implemented, 28 offenders were identified with adult 

female victims (age 18 or over), according to information before the treatment/ 

polygraph process. Approximately half (15 of 28) of these offenders were also 

identified with either female 

or male victims under the 

age of 18. After the data 

obtained from the treatment/

polygraph process were 

analyzed, the size of the 

group of offenders with adult

female victims increased in 

size from 28 to 71 offenders. 

The risk to children posed by

these offenders was even 

more alarming when 

information from the postconviction 

polygraph/treatment process 

was added: nearly nine out of 10 offenders with adult female victims also had juvenile 

victims under the age of 18 (63 of the 71 offenders with adult female victims, or 88.7 

percent). 

This information is important because, at the individual level, it guides the 

treatment and the supervision plans. These interventions need to incorporate very 

specific information about ages and genders of past victims. The key to adequately 

managing the risk of sex offenders in the community is to understand the types of 

situations that offenders must avoid. Relapse plans must incorporate the new 

information gained from polygraph information.33 For example, given the crossover 

between adult and child victims described above and in previous studies, treatment 

providers and supervising officers cannot assume that an offender with a known 

history of assaulting adults will have no interest in children. 

It is not uncommon, as discussed above, for decision makers to allow convicted 

sex offenders to live with children because they have extremely limited information 

 

33 Relapse Prevention is a model of intervention first designed for substance abusers (Marlatt, 1982; Marlat and Gordon,

1985) and reinterpreted for application to sex offenders (Laws, 1989; Pithers, 1990; Laws, Hudson and Ward, 2000). It is

based on the theory that treatment focuses on teaching the offender internal controls, i.e., building a person’s sense of 

control over behavior related to his or her assaultive patterns and awareness concerning high-risk external situations to

avoid. The containment approach integrates these ideas, but presumes that public safety requires vigilance on the part of 

the criminal justice system to require the offender to proactively avoid high risk situations via no contact orders, 

employment restrictions, etc., and when inappropriate contact occurs, that this be immediately reported to a member of 

the containment team. 

34
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

about the offender’s past deviant behavior. Also, many professionals assume that if 

the crime of conviction involves molesting a child outside the home, then that 

offender will not be a threat to his or her own children. Criminal justice officials can 

use polygraph examination data to inform decisions regarding requests that involve

access to children (visitation, residential arrangements, family reunification). When 

polygraph data are not available on individual cases, aggregate data used in research 

studies about offender crossover, sex offender recidivism (Prentky et al., 1997), and 

the low probability that a victim who is close to the perpetrator will report the abuse 

(see sidebar previous page) can assist parole board members, judges, and other 

criminal justice officials in making decisions about allowing sex offenders contact 

with children. 

Finding: High Risk Behaviors Inform Our 

Understanding of Assault Patterns 

Figure 3, below, presents additional information that was obtained from three 

states regarding what we called “high risk behaviors.” More than one-third (150) of 

the 416 polygraph examinations administered to the offenders in this sample had 

deceptive results.34

FIGURE 3. COMPARISON OF PERCENT OF IDENTIFIED PARAPHILIAS AND HIGH RISK

BEHAVIORS BEFORE AND AFTER THE POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH/TREATMENT PROCESS 

(n=180)

S

E

O

>

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Urinat ion/w Sex A ct

Beast ilit y

A lc/Drugs t o Vict im

Under Inf luence

A lc/Drug A buse

1 Unw illing Part icipant

Pornogrpahy

bscene Int ernet /Phone

M ast urbat ion t o Deviant Fant asy

xcessive M ast urbat ion

pecif ic Preparat ion (b)

Ot her (a)

Before

After

 

34 Alhmeyer et al. (2000) found reports of deviant activity increased over time as sex offenders took additional polygraph

examinations. There may have been instances in this study where the offender was re-tested and no deception was found. 

It was not possible, however, to determine if the offender was re-tested on the same issues or questions. 

35
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

(a) Other include: 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. 

(b) Specific preparation includes certain types of activities that may indicate the offender is preparing for a sexual

assault, such as driving around looking for victims, wearing items of clothing that attract children, spending lots of time

in places that attract children such as parks and video arcades, etc. 

36
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

This information is gathered at the individual level to obtain modus operandi 

patterns and also to identify the variety of deviant behavior the offender has engaged

in. Overall, risk behaviors increase from the “before” information to the “after.” 

Finding: Polygraph Examinations Identified 

New Crimes and Problem Behaviors 

The treatment/polygraph process identified 20 sex offenders with a post-sentence 

victim. Of the 147 sex offenders who received polygraph examinations across the 

three states,35 14 percent (21 out of 147) reported sexually abusing victims while 

under community supervision through the treatment/polygraph process. Fourteen of

the offenders engaged in fondling or frottage; one offender had sex with a child, five 

disclosed voyeurism activity, and six engaged in exhibitionism (excluding the arrest 

noted above).36 No sanctions were noted in the file for seven of these offenders; two 

received electronic monitoring; one was sent to the Department of Corrections; five 

received short-term jail sentences; one was placed in a residential setting and two 

had a “residential adjustment”; and two received increased supervision and/or 

therapy group confrontation. 

Over 3-24 months of supervision,37 only one offender was arrested (for 

exhibitionism) because of information obtained outside the treatment/polygraph 

process. 

 

Finding: Polygraph Exams Detected High-Risk 

Behaviors 

Maintenance polygraph exams were useful in obtaining information about the 

offenders’ risk behaviors. Of the 147 offenders in the case study sample who received

polygraphs,38 122 received at least one maintenance polygraph. Of these 122 

offenders, 44 (36 percent) disclosed high-risk behavior through the maintenance 

polygraph examination.39 

A total of 111 high-risk behaviors were disclosed by the 44 offenders. Use of 

pornography, masturbating to deviant fantasies, and use of obscene phone calls or 

 

35 Of the 150 cases that had received a polygraph, three were missing data regarding the exam.

36 Some offenders reported more than one type of deviant behavior. 

37 The original study design required that we allow time for each offender in the sample to have been under supervision 

long enough to have multiple polygraph reports for us to examine. In the first site, we were able to pull approximately 60 

cases that had been under supervision for 24 months prior to our visit, and multiple polygraph examination reports were

available to us for each case. In subsequent sites, we had to pull cases that had only six months of community 

supervision. One of these sites was just starting to integrate the polygraph test with treatment, so reports were available

for only six months. In another site, the supervision time was six months because the sex history and/or the polygraph 

report had not been completed for many offenders. In the site that did not use the polygraph, the cases in the sample had 

been in treatment for at least three months and sex history questionnaire data were collected. 

38 Although three additional cases were in the polygraph group, data regarding the examinations was missing. 

39 Nearly one in four exams (62 of the 260 maintenance exams administered) resulted in detection of an offender’s highrisk behavior. 

37
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

internet activity were the most common at-risk behaviors. Two instances of stalking, 

one instance of bestiality, and two instances of giving alcohol/drugs to a potential 

victim were reported. Although data collectors had 22 choices for coding behaviors 

and paraphilias, these categories proved inadequate to describe the variety of 

behaviors in which offenders were involved. Half of the behaviors fell in the “other” 

category. 

Finding: Incest Offenders Crossover between 

Types of Victims 

A common myth is that incest offenders perpetrate their crimes only against 

family members. Abel and Rouleau (1990) found that 23 percent of their sample had

committed incest and also abused individuals outside the family. In Weinrott and 

Saylor’s (1991) study of 99 incarcerated offenders, 50 percent of the incest offenders 

admitted to assaulting children outside the home (none of these crimes was 

detected). Becker and Coleman’s (1988) study of incest reported that 44 percent of 

their sample who committed incest against female children also sexually abused 

females outside home; 11 percent of this group also assaulted males outside the 

home; and 18 percent raped adult females. Faller (1990) studied 65 biological fathers 

in intact families who committed incest. One-third of these incest offenders molested

children outside the home, and 80 percent molested more than one child. 

Incest victims are incredibly accessible to the perpetrator, and research shows 

that trauma to the victim increases with the frequency and duration of the 

victimization. Many incest victims report enduring rapes over periods of many years.

Lamb and Edgar-Smith (1994) studied 60 sexual assault victims; 42 percent had 

been assaulted by a parent or parent figure; and 17.5 percent had been assaulted by 

a sibling. Twenty percent of the sample had been abused for over five years, and half

of this group had been assaulted on a weekly basis. This group did not disclose the 

abuse for, on average, ten years after the assaults began. 

In this study, incest cases were identified in two ways: those where the current 

offense involved incest and those where incest was identified from past behaviors or 

offenses, or while the offender was under supervision. The following table

summarizes additional information learned about incest perpetrators defined both 

ways. Decision makers often assume that incest offenders exhibit less crossover and

so may be the least likely offenders to amass a significant number of victim types 

(though most professionals recognize that a single incest victim may be assaulted 

dozens or hundreds of times). The following table reflects crossover and other assault 

activity 1) by offenders identified as incest perpetrators by the crime of conviction, 

and 2) the larger incest group that also includes offenders who were convicted of nonincest crimes but reported committing incest in the past. The table below allows 

readers to review the results based on these two definitions of incest.

38
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

TABLE 5. SEXUAL ASSAULT HISTORIES OF INCEST OFFENDERS 

Comparison of two definitions of incest: 1) sex offenders with incest as the current offense and 2) incest 

identified through the current offense, past behavior, or while the offender was under supervision. 

INCEST CURRENT 

OFFENSE 

INCEST CURRENT 

OFFENSE, PAST 

BEHAVIOR OR 

OFFENSE, OR 

IDENTIFIED WHILE 

OFFENDER UNDER 

SUPERVISION 

PROFILE OF BEHAVIORS OF INCEST 

PERPETRATORS 

DATA FROM THREE STATES WHERE THE 

POLYGRAPH HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AT LEAST 

TO SOME DEGREE 

Before

polygraph 

Process 

(n=80) 

After 

polygraph 

process 

(n=80) 

Before

polygraph 

process 

(n=104) 

After 

polygraph 

process 

(n=104) (a) 

Had male victims

Had female victims

Had both male and female victims

16% 

94% 

10% 

35% 

96% 

31% 

20% 

89% 

9% 

39% 

95% 

35% 

Had child victims

Had adult victims (b)

Had both child and adult victims

98% 

9% 

6% 

99% 

36% 

29% 

95% 

14% 

10% 

99% 

44% 

38% 

Committed hands-on offenses (c) 

Committed more than one type of hands-on offense 

100% 

70% 

100% 

83% 

97% 

69% 

100% 

86% 

Committed hands-off offenses (d) 

Committed more than one type of hands-off offense 

19% 

3% 

71% 

39% 

21% 

2% 

76% 

45% 

Had high risk behaviors (e) 

Committed more than one type of high risk behavior 

61% 

29% 

93% 

85% 

64% 

31% 

94% 

88% 

Perpetrated against more than one age/gender group 

(f) 

50% 81% 52% 84%

(a) Of the 180 cases in states were the polygraph had been implemented at least to some degree, 104 cases were identified

as incest offenders, 60 were not identified as incest offenders, and in 16 cases this identification could not be made. 

(b) Includes individuals 18 years or older and elderly/at risk individuals.

(c) Hands-on offenses include vaginal, anal, or attempted penetration, oral sex, fondling/frottage, excess aggression, and 

assault including domestic violence with deviant sex. 

(d) Hands-off offenses include exhibitionism, voyeurism, stalking. 

(e) Risk behaviors include urination with sexual act, bestiality, giving alcohol or drugs to victim, offender under the 

influence at the time of offense, abuse of alcohol and drugs during time periods when offenses occur, more than one 

unwilling participant, pornography, obscene internet or phone, masturbation to deviant fantasy, excessive masturbation,

specific victim preparation, and other.

(f) This analysis includes 14 age and gender categories. Victims with unknown age or gender were not included.

Regardless of how incest offenders were identified, the treatment/polygraph 

process provides more information about their sexual assault histories. For example, 

the percent of incest perpetrators known to have both male and female victims 

triples after information from the treatment/polygraph process. Incest offenders 

identified with both child and adult victims increases by a factor of four with 

information from the treatment/polygraph process. 

Table 6 below shows the increase in the percent of incest perpetrators (as defined

in Table 5, definition two) identified with victims outside the family as a result of the 

treatment/polygraph process.

39
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

TABLE 6. INCEST PERPETRATORS AND RELATIONSHIPS TO VICTIMS OUTSIDE THE

FAMILY BEFORE AND AFTER THE TREATMENT/POLYGRAPH PROCESS 

Data from four jurisdictions in three states. (n=104) (a) 

Definition of incest: Incest identified through current offense, past behavior, or while the offender was

under supervision. 

POSITION OF TRUST STRANGER/ACQUAINTANCE EITHER OR BOTH 

BEFORE 32.1% 4.8% 25.0%

AFTER 56.7% 34.6% 64.4%

Note: Acquaintance means someone known to the victim for more than 24 hours or a person with whom the victim had 

regular, if not intensive, contact, e.g., a store clerk. 

(a) Of the 180 cases in states where the polygraph had been implemented at least to some degree, 104 cases were

identified as incest offenders, 60 were not identified as incest offenders, and in 16 cases, this identification could not be

made. 

Before the treatment/polygraph process, one in three (34.5 percent) of incest 

offenders also were found to have perpetrated crimes against victims with whom 

they were in a position of trust; this increased to more than one in two (56.6 percent)

after the treatment/polygraph process. Fewer than one in twenty (4.8 percent) incest

perpetrators were identified with strangers or acquaintances as victims before the 

polygraph/treatment process; this increased seven-fold afterwards (4.8 percent to 

34.5 percent). 

When available, we gathered information on the age of the offender at the time of

his or her first paraphilia. 

 

TABLE 7. AGE OF OFFENDER AT FIRST KNOWN PARAPHILIA40 

Case study data from all sites. (n=174) (a) 

Definition of incest: Incest identified through current offense, past behavior, or while the

offender was under supervision. 

INCEST 

PERPETRATOR (c) 

NON-INCEST 

PERPETRATOR 

AGE AT 1 TOTAL ST KNOWN 

PARAPHILIA (b) 

% n % n % n

AGE 8 OR LESS 32.6 31 17.7 14 25.9 45 

AGE 9 TO 11 25.3 24 20.3 16 23.0 40 

AGE 12 TO 13 23.2 22 25.3 20 24.1 42 

AGE 14 OR OLDER 18.9 18 36.7 29 27.0 47 

TOTAL 100% 95 100% 79 100% 174 (c)

(a) Data for this analysis were missing for 58 of the 232 offenders in the case study sample.

(b) Age categories were determined by first dividing, as nearly as possible, the distribution of age data into quadrants,

i.e., approximately 25% of the data fell into ages 8 or less, and so on.

(c) The offender was identified as an incest perpetrator by any of the information gathered, included past offenses and 

behaviors, current offense or behaviors after sentencing. 

 

40 Please see Appendix D for definitions of paraphilia and high-risk behavior.

40
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

In general, we found that sex offenders display paraphilic behaviors early in life. 

We found that nearly three out of four sex offenders in the case study were identified 

with a paraphilic behavior before age 14, and incest perpetrators engaged in 

paraphilic behaviors at an earlier age than non-incest offenders (p=.026). For 

example, nearly one in three (26.0 percent) incest offenders had disclosed paraphilic 

behavior before age nine, compared to fewer than one in five (17.7 percent) of nonincest offenders. 

Table 8 below shows that incest offenders were significantly more likely than 

non-incest offenders to be engaged in various offenses and high-risk behaviors. For 

instance, they are more likely to have attempted penetration, and engaged in 

exhibitionism and voyeurism. 

TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF HANDS ON OFFENSES, HANDS OFF OFFENSES, AND RISK BEHAVIORS FOR INCEST AND NONINCEST PERPETRATORS 

Case study data from all sites. (n=209) (a) 

Definition of incest: Incest identified through current offense, past behavior, or while the offender was under supervision. 

HANDS-ON OFFENSES 

INCEST 

PERPETRATORS 

(n=119) 

(% with behavior) 

NON-INCEST 

PERPETRATORS 

(n=90) 

(% with behavior) 

CHISQUARE 

SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS 

(levels <.05 

are highlighted)

Vaginal penetration 66.4% 62.2% .533

Attempted penetration 20.2% 4.4% .001

Anal penetration 21.0% 13.3% .150

Oral sex 64.7% 37.8% .000

Fondling/frottage 94.1% 71.1% .000

Excessive aggression 6.7% 10.0% .391 

Assault, including domestic violence 16.8% 15.6% .808

HANDS-OFF OFFENSES 

Exhibitionism 57.1% 35.6% .002

Voyeurism 64.7% 42.2% .001

Stalking 1.7% 4.4% (*).236

RISK BEHAVIORS 

Urination with sex act 9.2% 6.7% .500 

Bestiality/ritual behavior/bondage 44.5% 22.2% .001

Alcohol/drugs to victim 7.6% 20.0% .008

Offender under influence 21.0% 33.3% .045

Substance abuse in time periods when offenses occur 16.8% 13.3% .490 

>1 unwilling participant 8.4% 1.1% .019

Pornography 42.0% 45.6% .609

Obscene internet/phone 21.8% 28.9% .244

Masturbate to deviant fantasy 56.3% 42.2% .044

Excessive masturbation 16.8% 7.8% .054

Specific preparation (e.g., driving around) 26.1% 15.6% .068 

Other 69.7% 62.2% .254

(a) Of the 232 cases in four states, 119 were identified as incest offenders, 90 were not identified as incest offenders, and 

in 23 cases identification of incest could not be determined. 

41
T H E V A L U E OF POLY G R A P H TE STING IN SE X OFFE NDE R M A N A G E M E NT 

Additionally, in this sample of 180 sex offenders who underwent polygraph 

exams, 37 incest perpetrators (21 percent) had no known victims outside the family 

(data not presented). 

Although some proportion of incest offenders—like any sex offender—may be low

risk (that is, have no history of harming any other person and are unlikely to harm 

anyone again), without the proper use of the post-conviction polygraph, the ability to 

confidently identify who is lower risk among a group of offenders is significantly 

diminished. It is important that decision makers understand the offending patterns 

of groups of incest offenders and use the polygraph to discern the risk of individual

offenders. When individual polygraph data is unavailable, professionals should 

consider incorporating sex offender research that includes polygraph data into their 

knowledge of offending patterns. For example, in this research: one-third (36 

percent) of this sample of incest perpetrators had a history of assaulting adult 

victims and, as mentioned above, over half (58 percent) reported assaulting victims 

with whom the offender was in a position of trust. 

In sum, the data suggest that incest offenders, whether convicted of incest or not,

have been considerably more active than official records—or many of our 

assumptions—would indicate. This is the reason polygraph examiners, working 

together with supervising officers and treatment examiners, play an essential role in 

the containment and risk management of convicted sex offenders. Polygraphgenerated data supports the fundamental premise underlying the containment 

approach. That is, progressive sex offender management practices require that 

offenders not be defined by their conviction crime because potential victims may be 

overlooked and placed at risk. 

Summary 

A few years ago, anecdotal and qualitative field information led us to recommend 

the use of the post-conviction polygraph in the supervision of sex offenders within the 

larger context of the containment approach (English et al., 1996). During interviews 

with professionals, we were consistently told that the information necessary to 

manage the ongoing risk of sex offenders was available only from the combination of

treatment, supervision, and polygraph examinations. Because this finding was 

controversial, it warranted further investigation. 

In our telephone survey, three out of four (76 percent) of the phone survey 

respondents reported that the use of the post-conviction polygraph enhances 

knowledge of the offender, and two out of three (67 percent) said that its use leads to 

better case management and supervision. One respondent remarked, “It helps find 

out their true behaviors and not just what they tell us.” Another said that the use of 

the polygraph “provides more security, more control, more restrictions for those who

need them.” Over half of the respondents (58 percent) said they believe the polygraph

helps prevent new crimes: “They are less likely to reoffend because we catch them 

earlier” and “we can detect recidivism patterns.” And as one respondent noted, “They 

know we are watching them.” Just over 40 percent of the probation and parole 

42
O F F I CE OF RESEARCH & ST A T IST I CS 

supervisors we spoke with said the polygraph helped provide better and more 

appropriate treatment. 

For this study, one of our objectives was to determine if empirical data supported 

the anecdotal and telephone survey information. Based on the data presented here, 

we conclude that managing the risk of sex offenders in the community is greatly 

enhanced by the post-conviction polygraph/treatment process. Using the polygraph 

exam in sex offender management provides better information about each offender’s

frequency, seriousness, variety, and age of onset of deviant behavior. Knowledge of 

these dimensions of a criminal career is necessary to understand the risk posed by 

sex offenders. 

SO, HOW MUCH CAN WE BEAR TO KNOW? 

The information presented in this report may be shocking, but it is not new. Data about sex offender crossover and 

the frequency of deviant activity was first published by Abel et al. in 1985, and victim studies have confirmed this 

level of activity since the mid-1980s. Whether or not we can bear to know this information is irrelevant. Sexual 

abusers will continue to assault children and adults until policy makers, treatment providers, probation and parole

officers, and administrators grapple with what it means to have this information and how we can use it to make our 

communities safer. The five-part containment approach, including the polygraph examination, offers an important 

method for holding sex offenders accountable in the community while prioritizing victim safety. 

During our site visits, some criminal justice officials who do not endorse the use of the polygraph explained that its 

use increases liability of the government agency. In other words, as we were told during interviews, having this 

information requires officials to act on it. Options and resources are so limited that “not knowing” was a form of 

protection (for the government, not for potential victims). 

“Not knowing” protects the sex offender from taking responsibility for the totality of the harm he or she has 

caused, and it might give the sex offender free reign to continue his or her abusive lifestyle. “Not knowing” gives 

criminal justice officials the blindfolds they need to avoid the hard discussions about caseload size, intermediate 

sanctions, offender family services, the value of actuarial tools, and officer training. These things take time and 

resources, and these are finite commodities.

Whether we can bear to have this information or not, sex offenders will continue their activity. So...lock ‘em up?

This is not a realistic option. Most victims are not empowered or are too ashamed to report the crime, so we 

cannot prosecute the majority of sex abusers. For those we can lock up, 98 percent will return untreated to the 

community after they serve their sentences (Greenfeld, 1997). 

Known offenders are best managed by obtaining detailed information about their crime patterns through 

specialized treatment, polygraph examinations, criminal justice supervision, and close collaboration with law 

enforcement. Working as a community in multi-disciplinary teams to develop and implement risk management 

programs is a key component of sex offender management. We must educate the public, care for the families of 

sex offenders, prioritize the safety and well-being of children, educate high school and college age adolescents about 

date rape, and place the responsibility for sexual assault on the perpetrator and not the victim. These activities will 

promote lasting change. 

Integrating the polygraph into a containment approach can be difficult, and the 

use of the polygraph is sometimes considered controversial. But for those who seek 

the best practices for supervising and treating sex offenders, implementation 

challenges can be overcome. The polygraph must be implemented within the five43
THE VALUE OF POLYGRAPH TESTING IN SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT 

44

part containment approach we described in English, Pullen, and Jones (1996) and 

summarize here. The victim orientation, multi-disciplinary collaboration, 

containment tools (including the polygraph), informed and research-based policies, 

and quality control efforts will yield the best solutions to sex offender management 

in your jurisdiction. 

Study Limitations 

We intended to differentiate between the amount of information obtained by 

treatment providers and the additional information obtained from the polygraph, but 

the data in the files were not conducive to demarcation, particularly in jurisdictions 

where the treatment program and the polygraph program were highly integrated. 

(We support this strong integration from a program implementation point of view.) 

 There were significant variations across states (see Appendix B). Differences 

included criminal justice policies and supervision practices, treatment programs and 

providers, the experience of the containment professionals, and the level of 

integration among the containment team members. Two states had used the postconviction polygraph with sex offenders for a number of years. One state had 

recently implemented polygraph examinations with sex offenders. Half the offenders 

at this state had not yet received their first polygraph exam, so we considered them 

under the “threat” of the polygraph exam, as it was a known treatment component. 

Differences existed in the types of data collected at each site. In general, we 

attempted to obtain the same data elements across states, but the extent to which 

files and documents were complete varied by state. Programmatic differences across 

states affected data availability so, for example, when the sex history document was 

highly integrated in the program, more information was available in the file. 

Further, we were not permitted access to the criminal justice files at the state where 

the polygraph was not yet implemented. We did, however, have access to a document 

summarizing this information. 

Another limitation to this study is the fact that 36 percent of the polygraph 

examinations had deceptive results. Since Ahlmeyer et al. (2000) found disclosures to 

increase with subsequent exams, we can assume that the frequency and scope of 

deviant behavior presented here underestimates actual offending activity. Since 

disclosed information was not collected in a manner that allowed the analysis of data 

obtained only from non-deceptive exams, we cannot explore this issue empirically. 
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS 

45

CONCLUSIONS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The findings presented here have attempted to answer the common questions 

that surface during discussions about using the post-conviction polygraph in sex 

offender management. We have described the ways the tool is used and reviewed the 

research concerning its reliability and validity. We have presented an overview of the 

court admissibility issues and concluded that the issue will continue to be the subject 

of case law, primarily at the state level. The empirical analyses support our findings 

that use of the post-conviction polygraph is a vital component of the risk 

management of individual sex offenders for the following reasons: 

 

1. Additional victims—of different genders and different age groups, and with 

different relationships with the offender—were disclosed when offenders 

participated in the treatment/polygraph process. A complete and accurate 

picture of the offender’s lifestyle and sexual assault activity is necessary to 

effectively treat and safely manage the case. 

2. Additional high-risk behaviors, necessary for the ongoing assessment of danger 

to the public, were disclosed using the post-conviction polygraph. One-third of 

the offenders under supervision in this sample admitted engaging in problem 

behaviors while under supervision. One offender was arrested for a new crime 

during the 3 to 24 month study period, and another 20 disclosed new sex crimes 

to the polygraph examiner. 

3. The analysis of incest offenders underscores the value of the polygraph exam in 

obtaining additional information about individual offenders before making risk 

determinations, and reminds us that a sex offender’s conviction crime is a 

snapshot in time and does not necessarily reflect all the types of victims the 

offender is willing to harm. 

4. Our field research and telephone survey data indicate that many jurisdictions 

are addressing the challenges associated with the disclosure of additional crimes 

and victims, often through informal, interagency agreements. This barrier can be 

overcome using data (such as those presented in this report) and educating 

decision makers about the specific uses of post-conviction polygraph testing of 

sex offenders. 

 

Based on the information presented in this report, we make the following 

recommendations: 

 Stakeholders, including victim organization representatives, prosecuting 

attorneys, polygraph examiners, treatment providers, criminal justice and court 

personnel, and others must work together to develop policies and procedures for 

managing sex offenders who disclose new information. 
THE VALUE OF POLYGRAPH TESTING IN SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT 

46

 Information must flow freely and frequently among containment team members. 

Waivers of confidentiality must be obtained to ensure open communication. The 

free transfer of information prevents the sex offender from using communication 

gaps to his or her advantage and obtaining access to potential victims. 

 Polygraph testing required in the conditions of probation may offer the most 

options to the court in cases of noncompliance. 

 Judicial and parole authorities are important sources of support for containment 

professionals who manage day-to-day caseload activity. These authorities must 

understand the potential risk that sex offenders may pose to children with whom 

they are granted access. 

 The disclosure of additional information and the imposition of sanctions should 

be well documented in the file. Careful case and risk management 

documentation is a fundamental component of good program management. 

 Characterizing incest offenders as less dangerous than other sex offenders may 

create serious public safety risks.

 Agencies currently excluding the sex history post-conviction polygraph should 

consider the risk to public safety created by not obtaining and verifying 

information about each sex offender’s risk and offending patterns. 

 It is erroneous and dangerous to characterize sex offenders by their arrest crime 

or according to one type of victim or offense. Doing so ignores crossover data 

presented in multiple studies over the past decade. Crossover among sex 

offenders is common, and adequate sex offender management requires protecting 

potential victims rather than placing them in harm's way by minimizing the risk 

of contact with known sex offenders. 

 Officials who believe sex offenders exaggerate past deviance during the 

treatment/ polygraph process must recognize that such behavior, if it exists, is 

also lying, so these offenders are not cooperating with treatment and 

supervision.

 Understanding the criminal offending patterns of convicted sex offenders 

requires that we obtain significant amounts of information about each offender’s 

past crimes to assess risk and provide meaningful treatment and supervision. 

 Use of the post-conviction polygraph in sex offender management clearly 

emphasizes the expectation of honesty and cooperation on the part of the 

offender. 
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS 

47

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abel, G. G., Mittleman, M. S., and Becker, J. V. (1985). Sex offenders: Results of assessment and 

recommendations for treatment. In M. H. Ben-Aron, S. J. Hucker, and C. D. Webster (Eds.), 

Clinical criminology: The assessment and treatment of criminal behavior (pp. 207-220). Toronto, 

Ontario, Canada: MandM Graphics. 

Abel, G. and Rouleau, J. L. (1990). The nature and extent of sexual assault. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. 

Laws, and H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treatment 

of the Offender, New York: Plenum Press. 

Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., Mckee, B., and English, K. (2000). The impact on polygraphy on admissions of 

victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 12, (2), 123-138. 

American Medical Association (1995). Sexual Assault in America, American Medical Association 

position paper. 

Ansley, N. (1997). The validity and reliability of polygraph testing. Polygraph, 26, (4), 215-239. 

Arata, C. M. (1998). To tell or not to tell: Current functioning of child abuse survivors who disclosed 

their victimization. Child Maltreatment, 3, 63-71. 

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (1993). The ATSA practitioner’s handbook. Lake 

Oswego, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. 

Barbaree, H. E. and Marshall, W. L. (1988). Deviant sexual arousal, offense history, demographic 

variables predictors of reoffense among child molesters. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 267-

280. 

Barnett, A., Blumstein A., and Farrington, D. P. (1987). Probabilistic models of youthful criminal 

careers. Criminology, 25, (1), 83-107. 

Barnett, A. and Lofaso, A. (1985). Selective incapacitation and the Philadelphia cohort data. Journal 

of Quantitative Criminology, 1, 3-36. 

Becker, J. V., and Coleman, E. M. (1988). Incest. In V. B. Van Hasselt, R. L. Morrison, A. S. Bellack, 

and M. Herson (Eds.), Handbook of family violence (pp. 187-205). New York: Plenum. 

Blackwell, N.J. (1994). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the polygraph automated scoring system 

(PASS) in detecting deception in a mock crime study. Report Number DoDPI194-R-0003. Ft. 

McClellan, AL: Department of Defense Polygraph Institute. 

Brown, S. L. and Forth, A. E. (1997). Psychopathy and sexual assault: Static risk factors, emotional 

precursors, and rapist subtypes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, (5), 848-857. 

Carnes, P. (1983). Out of the shadows: Understanding sexual addiction. Minneapolis: Compcare. 

Chaiken, J. M. and Chaiken, M. R. (1982). Varieties of criminal behavior. Santa Monica: Rand. 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579, (1993). 

Dupre, A. R., Hampton, H. L., Morrison, H., and Meeks, G. R. (1993). Sexual assault. Obstetrics 

Gynecological Survey, 48. 

Dutton, D. W. (2000). Introduction to special edition. Polygraph, 29, (1), 1-5. 

English, K., Colling-Chadwick, S., Pullen, S., and Jones, L. (1996). How are sex offenders managed on 

probation and parole? A national study. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice, Washington, D. C. 

English, K. and Mande, M. J. (1992). Measuring crime rates of prisoners. U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Washington, D. C. 
THE VALUE OF POLYGRAPH TESTING IN SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT 

48

English, K., Pullen, S., and Jones, L. (Eds). (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment 

approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association. 

English, K., Pullen, S. and Jones, L. (1997). Managing adult sex offenders. Research in Brief,

National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. 

English, K. (1998). Integration of polygraph testing with adult sex offenders Colorado Department of 

Corrections: Evaluation report. Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Denver, Colorado. 

English, K. (1999). Progress Report: Adult sex offender risk assessment screening instrument. Colorado 

Division of Criminal Justice, Denver, Colorado. 

Faller, K. C. (1990). Sexual abuse by paternal caretakers: A comparison of abusers who are biological 

fathers in intact families, stepfathers, and noncustodial fathers. In A. L. Horton, B. L. Johnson, 

L. M. Roundy, and D. Willaims (Eds.), The incest perpetrator: A family member no one wants to 

treat (pp. 65-73). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Farrington, D. P. (1973). Self reports of deviant behavior: Predictive and Stable? Journal of Criminal 

Law and Criminology, 64, 99-110. 

Finkelhor, D., Hoteling, G.T., Lewis, I. A., and Smith, G. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of 

adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14,

19-28. 

Forensic Research Inc. (1997). The validity and reliability of polygraph testing. Polygraph, 26(4), 215. 

Freeman-Longo, R. E. (1985). Incidence of self-reported sex crimes among incarcerated rapists and 

child molesters. Unpublished manuscript, as cited in Salter, A. (1995). Transforming trauma: A 

guide to understanding and treating adult survivors of child sexual abuse. 

Freund, K. C. (1990). Sexual abuse by paternal caretakers: A comparison of abusers who are biological 

fathers in intact families, stepfathers, and noncustodial fathers. In A. L. Horton, B. L. Johnson, 

L. M. Roundy, and D. Williams (Eds.), The incest perpetrator: A family member no one wants to 

treat (pp. 65-73). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, CDAC, (1923). 

Gottfredson, D. M. (1987). Prediction and classification in criminal justice decision making. In D. M. 

Gottfredson and M. Tonry (Eds.) Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making 

(pp. 1-20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Hall, G.C.N. (1990). Prediction of sexual aggression. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 229-245. 

Hall, G.C.N. (1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. 

 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809. 

Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S., Sanders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., and Best, C. (1999). Factors related to 

the reporting of childhood rape. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(6), 556-569 

Hanson, R. F., Resnic, H. S., Sanders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., and Best, C. (1999). Factors related to 

the reporting of childhood rape. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, (6), 556-569. 

Hanson, R. K. and Bussiere, M. T. (1996). Predictions of sexual offender recidivism: A meta-analysis.

User Report No. 1996-04. Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. 

Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial risk scale for sexual offense recidivism (User 

report No. 1997-04). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. 

Hanson, R. K. (1998). What do we know about sex offender risk? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4,

218-235. 

Hanson, R. K. and Harris, A. J. R. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism (User Report No. 

98-01). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. 

Hanson, R. K. (2000). What is so special about relapse prevention? In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, and 

T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders. (pp. 27-38). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS 

49

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., and Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Violent recidivism of mentally disordered 

offenders: The development of a statistical prediction instrument. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 20, 315-335. 

Harris, G.T. and Rice, M.E. (1996). The science of phallometric measurement of male sexual interest. 

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 156-160. 

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., and Quinsey, V. L. (1998). Appraisal and management of risk in sexual 

aggressors: Implications for criminal justice policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, (1/2), 

77-115. 

Hart, S. and Hare, R. D., (1996). Psychopathy and risk assessment. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 9, 

380-383. 

Kansas v. Lumley, WL 218704, (1999). 

Karson, C. and Bigelow, L.B. (1987). Violent behavior in schizophrenic inpatients. The Journal of 

Nervous and Mental disease, 175, 161-164. 

Kilpatrick, D. G., Edmunds, C. N., and Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. 

Charleston: Medical University of South Carolina, National Victim Center and Crime Victims 

Research and Treatment Center. 

Knapp, M. (1996). Treatment of sex offenders. In English, K., Pullen, S. and Jones, L. (Eds.), 

Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and 

Parole Association. 

Koss, M. P., and Dinero, T.E. (1987). Predictors of sexual aggression among a national sample of male 

college students. Paper presented at the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Human 

Sexual Aggression: Current Perspectives, New York. 

Lamb, S., and Edgar-Smith, S. (1994). Aspects of disclosure: Mediators of outcome of childhood sexual 

abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, (3), 307-326. 

Laws, D. R. (1989). Relapse prevention with sex offenders. New York: Guilford Press. 

Laws, D. R., Hudson, S. M. and Ward, T. (2000). The original model of relapse prevention with sex 

offenders. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, and T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with 

sex offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 3-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Laws, D.R., Hudson, S.M. and Ward, T. (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A 

sourcebook (pp. 3-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Lykken, D. T., PhD (1998). A tremor in the blood: Uses and abuses of the lie detector. New York: 

Plenum Press. 

Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal or Personality and 

Social Psychology, 45, 432-442. 

Marcum v. State, 983 S. W.2d 762 Tex.App. 14th Dist., Sept. 17, (1998). 

Marlatt, G. A. (1982). Relapse prevention: A self-control program for the treatment of addictive 

behaviors. In R. B. Stuart (Ed.), Adherence, compliance and generalization in behavioral medicine

(pp. 329-378). New York: Brunner/Mazel. 

Marlatt, G. A. and Gordon, J. R. (Eds). (1985). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the 

treatment of addictive behaviors. New York: Guilford. 

Marshall, W. L., and Barbaree, H. E. (1988). The long-term evaluation of a behavioral treatment 

program for child molesters. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 26, 499-511. 

Marshall W. L., Laws D. R., and Barbaree, H. E. (1990). Issues in sexual assault. In W. L. Marshall, 

D. R. Laws, and H. E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and 

treatment of the offender (pp. 3-7). New York: Plenum Press. 
THE VALUE OF POLYGRAPH TESTING IN SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT 

50

McNeil, D.E., Binder, R.L. and Greenfield, T.K. (1988). Predictors of violence in civilly committed 

acute psychiatric patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(2), 965-970. 

Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, (1983). 

Murphy, W. D., Coleman, E. M., and Haynes, M. R. (1983). Treatment and evaluation issues with the 

mentally retarded sex offender, in J. G. Greer and I. R. Stuart (Eds.), The sexual aggressor: 

Current perspectives on treatment (pp. 22-41). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 

Palmstierna, T. and Wistedt, B. (1994). Risk factors for aggressive behaviour are of limited value in 

predicting the violent behaviour of acute involuntarily admitted patients. Acta Psychiatrica 

Scandinavica, 81, 152-155, as cited in Rasmussen, K. and Levander, S. (1996). Individual Rather 

than Situational Characteristics Predict Violence in a Maximum Security Hospital, Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 11(3), 376-389. 

Patton v. State, 580 NE.2d 693, Ind.App., (1992). 

Peters, R.D., McMahon, R.J. and Quinsey, V.L. (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan

(pp. 244-269). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Pithers, W. D. (1990). Relapse prevention with sexual aggressors: A method for maintaining 

therapeutic change and enhancing external supervision. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, and H. 

E. Barbaree (Eds.), The handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories and treatment of the offender

(pp. 363-385). New York: Plenum. 

Pithers, W.D., Kashima, K.M., Cumming, G.F., Beal, L.S., & Buell, N.M. (1988). Relapse prevention 

of sexual aggression. In R.A. Prentky, & V.L. Quinsey (Eds.), Human sexual aggression: Current 

perspectives. Annals of New York Academy of Science, 528, 244-260. 

Prentky, R. A., Knight, R., and Quinsey, V. (1990). Sexual violence. A review commissioned by the 

Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior, National Research Council, 

presented in symposium. Destin, FL. 

Prentky R. A., Lee, A. F. S., Knight, R. A., and Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child 

molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, (6), 635-658. 

Pullen, S. K., Olsen, S., Brown, G., and Amich, D. (1996). Using the polygraph. In K. English, S. 

Pullen, and L. Jones (Eds.), Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach. Lexington, 

Kentucky: American Probation and Parole Association. 

Quinsey, V.L. and Walker, W.D. (1992). Dealing with dangerousness: Community risk management 

strategies with violent offenders. In R.D. Peters, R.J. McMahon, and V.L. Quinsey (Eds.), 

Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan (pp. 244-269). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Quinsey, V.L., M.S., Rice, M.E., and Harris, G.T. (1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual recidivism. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 85-105. 

Rasmussen, K. and Levander, S. (1996). Individual Rather than Situational Characteristics Predict 

Violence in a Maximum Security Hospital, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(3), 376-389. 

Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., and Harris, G. T. (1991). Sexual recidivism among child molesters 

released from a maximum security psychiatric institution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 59, 381-386. 

Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T., and Quinsey, V.L. (1990). A follow-up of rapists assessed in a maximum 

security psychiatric facility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 435-448. 

Rice, M.E. and Harris, G.T. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk Appraisal 

Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 2231-241. 

Russell, D. E. H. (1984). Sexual exploitation: Rape, child sexual abuse, and workplace harassment. 

Beverly Hills: Sage. 

Salter, A. (1995). Transforming trauma: A guide to understanding and treating adult survivors of 

child sexual abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. 
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS 

51

Serin, R. C., Malcolm, P. B., Khanna, A. and Barbaree, H. E. (1994). Psychopathy and deviant sexual 

arousal in incarcerated sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 3-11. 

Smith, D. W., Letourneau, E. J., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., and Best, C. L. 

(2000). Delay in disclosure of childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse and 

Neglect, 24, (2), 273-287. 

State v. Lumley, 25.App.2d 366,963 P.2d 1238, (1998). 

State v. Travis, 125 Idaho 1, 867 P.2d 234, (1994). 

Strate, D. C., Jones, L., Pullen, S., and English, K. (1996). Criminal justice policies and sex offender 

denial. In K. English, S. Pullen, and L. Jones (Eds.), Managing adult sex offenders: A 

containment approach. Lexington, Kentucky: American Probation and Parole Association. 

United State v. Scheffler, WL 141151, (1998). 

Ward, S.M. and Ward, T. (2000). Relapse Prevention: Assessment and Treatment Implications. In 

D.R. Laws, S.M. Hudson, and T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A 

sourcebook (pp. 3-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Weinrott, M.R., and Saylor, M. (1991). Self-report of crimes committed by sex offenders. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 6(3), 286-300. 

Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., and Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press. 

Wyatt, G. E. and Newcomb, M. (1990). Internal and external mediators of women’s sexual abuse in 

childhood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 758-767. 
OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS 

53

APPENDIX A: 

How Is the Post-Conviction Polygraph 

Examination Used in Adult Sex Offender 

Management Activities?: The Second National 

Telephone Survey of Probation and Parole 

Supervisors 
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