DOI: 10.3886/icpsr06627
title: Management of Sex Offenders by Probation and Parole Agencies in the United States, 1994
title: Archival Version

description: This study examined various ways states approach and
 sanction sex crimes (i.e., child sexual abuse, incest, and sexual
 assault) and sex offenders. The aim of the study was to obtain basic
 information about policies and procedures of probation and parole
 agencies with respect to adult sex offender case management. State
 corrections administrators in 49 states and the District of Columbia
 were contacted to supply information on their states' probation and
 parole offices and the corresponding jurisdictions. From these
 offices, probation and parole supervisors at the office-management
 level were selected as survey respondents because of their familiarity
 with the day-to-day office operations. Respondents were asked about
 the usage of various supervision methods, such as electronic
 monitoring, requiring offenders on probation or parole to register
 with law enforcement agencies, and polygraph testing. Sanctions such
 as requiring the offenders to seek treatment and forbidding contact
 with the victim were discussed, as were various queries about the
 handling of the victim in the case (whether a written statement by the
 victim was routinely included in the offender's file, whether officers
 usually had contact with the victim, and whether there was a system
 for advising victims of status changes for the offender). Other
 questions focused on whether the office used specialized assessments,
 caseloads, programs, and policies for sex offenders that differed from
 those used for other offenders. Various issues regarding treatment for
 offenders were also examined: who chooses and pays the treatment
 provider, whether the agency or the court approves treatment
 providers, what criteria are involved in approval, and whether the
office had an in-house sex offender treatment program.
description: This study was designed to examine various ways
 states approach and sanction sex crimes (i.e., child sexual abuse,
 incest, and sexual assault). The aim of the study was to obtain basic
 information about policies and procedures of probation and parole
agencies with respect to adult sex offender case management.
description: A 16-page questionnaire was developed by
 researchers from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and
 reviewed by members of the project's Advisory Board. A telephone
 survey was selected as the method most likely to ensure data quality
 and target the correct respondent. The survey instrument, a mixture of
 Likert scale questions, dichotomous (yes/no) questions, and open-ended
 questions, was pre-tested at several sites in April 1994.
 Subsequently, modifications were made to improve the instrument. Then
 a team of three interviewers who had experience working in the
 criminal justice system was selected to conduct the telephone survey,
 which was conducted from offices at the Colorado Division of Criminal
 Justice in Denver. The interviewers underwent extensive in-house
 training in a week-long program that included in-depth coverage of the
 content of the questionnaire and mock telephone interviews. Names of
 state correctional administrators were obtained from the 1992-1994
 AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION PROBATION AND PAROLE DIRECTORY and
 the American Probation and Parole Association member list. The state
 correctional administrators were telephoned and asked to provide a
 list of probation and parole offices in their state and the
 corresponding jurisdictions. Based on these lists, offices were
 assigned, according to county(s), to one of four quadrants within each
 state. Probation and parole supervisors at the office-management level
 were randomly selected to be interviewed from the quadrant-office
 lists (per population density). The office supervisors were selected
 as survey respondents because of their familiarity with the day-to-day
office operations.
description: Respondents were asked about the usage of various
 supervision methods, such as electronic monitoring, requiring
 offenders on probation or parole to register with law enforcement
 agencies, and polygraph testing. Sanctions such as requiring the
 offenders to seek treatment and forbidding contact with the victim
 were discussed, as were various queries about the handling of the
 victim in the case (whether a written statement by the victim was
 routinely included in the offender's file, whether officers usually
 had contact with the victim, and whether there was a system for
 advising victims of status changes for the offender). Other questions
 focused on whether the office used specialized assessments, caseloads,
 programs, and policies for sex offenders that differed from those used
 for other offenders. Various issues regarding treatment for offenders
 were also examined: who chooses and pays the treatment provider,
 whether the agency or the court approves treatment providers, what
 criteria are involved in approval, and whether the office had an
 in-house sex offender treatment program. The names for offenses with
 the same elements sometimes varied between states. Due to the
 variation in the number and types of sex offense categories across
 states, as well as differences in their elements, offenses were
identified by their elements to ensure consistency across all states.
description: Response Rates: Of the original 873 probation and parole offices
 identified, 758 (86.8 percent) were contacted by interviewers. Of
 these, 732 supervisors agreed to participate in the hour-long
 interview, resulting in an overall response rate of 96.6 percent.
 Nearly all of the 3.4 percent who refused to participate in the study
mentioned time constraints as the reason for refusal.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: The sample for the telephone survey covered 49 states and
 the District of Columbia. South Dakota was not included in the study
 because information about sampling units was not furnished upon
 request. The sample was stratified based on geography and population
 density. Each state was divided into four (generally equal) geographic
 quadrants and, using population figures from the 1990 Census, one
 respondent was selected per every 500,000 or fewer people in each
 quadrant. Due to administrative variations, the Arizona parole system,
 Nebraska probation and parole systems, New York State parole system,
 and Virginia probation and parole systems were only partially
represented in the survey.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Data File
DS2: SAS Data Definition Statements
description: Probation and parole agencies throughout the United
States.