1 / 89

Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration. Sex Offender Risk Management. Presented at the 12 th Annual Tennessee Sex Offender Treatment Board Training Conference. Presented By:.

maddox
Download Presentation

Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impacting Sex Offender Management Policy Through Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration ©2008 DCJ

  2. Sex Offender Risk Management Presented at the 12th Annual Tennessee Sex Offender Treatment Board Training Conference ©2008 DCJ

  3. Presented By: • Chris Lobanov-Rostovsky, Program Director, Colorado Sex Offender Management Board • 303-239-4447 • Chris.Lobanov-Rostovsky@cdps.state.co.us ©2008 DCJ

  4. Presentation Outline • Statewide Sex Offender Management Policy Groups • Impact of a Statewide Sex Offender Management Board on Policy in Colorado • 2004 Colorado Sex Offender Management Board Response to Sex Offender Housing Restriction Policy Initiative • Juvenile Standards Implementation Project ©2008 DCJ

  5. Sex Offender Management Policy Groups (SOMPG): Key Components • Mission: Sex Offender Management Public Policy Development • Process: Multi-Disciplinary Collaboration • Goal: Standardization of Service Delivery ©2008 DCJ

  6. SOMPG Survey • ATSA Listserv Survey • ATSA Conference Participant Survey • State Website Search ATSA Forum Article (Summer 2007 Issue) Sex Offender Treatment/ Management Policy Groups ©2008 DCJ

  7. SOMPG Survey Results • 52% (26) of States Have a SOMPG • Types of SOMPG • Sex Offender Management/Treatment Board • Sex Offender Management Task Force/Policy Group • Sex Offender Management Network/Coalition • Sex Offender Management Committee of a Criminal Justice Commission (Not Included in Survey Results) ©2008 DCJ

  8. Sex Offender Management/Treatment Boards (7) • California (2007) • Colorado (1992) • Delaware (2007) • Illinois (1997) • New Mexico (2003) • Oregon (2008) • Tennessee (1995) • Texas (1983) – Council on Sex Offender Treatment ©2008 DCJ

  9. Sex Offender Management Task Force/Policy Groups (15) • Alaska • Connecticut • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Maine • Minnesota • Nebraska • North Carolina • Ohio • Washington • Sexually Violent Predators/ Community Notification (4) • Arkansas • Georgia • Idaho • Pennsylvania ©2008 DCJ

  10. Sex Offender Management Coalitions/Networks (3) • Hawaii • Massachusetts • Rhode Island ©2008 DCJ

  11. Differences Between Boards, Task Forces, and Coalitions • Boards • Legislatively Created • Standardization of Treatment/Management • Provider Certification • Broad Sex Offender Management Policy Focus • Task Forces • Legislatively or Departmentally Created • Narrowed Focus on Single Management Policy • May Be Housed in One Stakeholder Agency • Time-Limited and Outcome Driven • Coalitions • Grassroots Creation with Less Formalization • Greater Flexibility and Less Bureaucracy • Lack of Enforceability ©2008 DCJ

  12. Creation of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board (CSOMB) • Sex Offender Treatment Board • Legislatively Created in 1992 • Changed to Management Board in 1998 • Standards and Guidelines for the Assessment, Evaluation, Treatment and Behavioral Monitoring of Adult Sex Offenders • First Published in 1996 • Standards and Guidelines for the Evaluation, Assessment, Treatment and Supervision of Juveniles who Have Committed Sexual Offenses • First Published in 2002 ©2008 DCJ

  13. Representatives of the SOMB:25 Members • Judicial • Corrections • Community Corrections • 2 Human Services/ Division of Youth Corrections • Law Enforcement • Division of Criminal Justice • District Attorney’s Office • Public Defender’s Office • Private Defense Bar • 3 Victim Rights Advocates • 4 Licensed Mental Health Professionals • Polygraph Examiner • 2 Judges/Juvenile Magistrates • Education • Residential Treatment • 2 County Commissioners • County Director of Human Services ©2008 DCJ

  14. Colorado SOMB:Key Components • Administered by a Neutral Agency • Membership Inclusive of All Key Stakeholders • Legislatively Required to Promulgate Standards • Legislatively Required to Approve Service Providers • Adult and Juvenile Purview • Research and Make Recommendations to the Legislature on Key Public Policy Issues • Residency Restrictions • Lifetime Supervision • Sexually Violent Predator/Community Notification ©2008 DCJ

  15. SOMB Funding Mechanism • Sex Offender Surcharge Fund – Est. 1992 • FY 2008 - $450K • Fund Supports • Board Administration • Presentence Sex Offense Specific Evaluations • Professional Training • Other Funding Mechanisms for SOMB • Federal Grants • Fiscal Notes for Legislative Tasks ©2008 DCJ

  16. Colorado Sex Offender Management Board Impact on Policy • Ideas are debated from the different perspectives of a multidisciplinary group • Relationships are formed that facilitate quick responses to new proposals • Responses are supported by multiple agencies with legislative liaisons ©2008 DCJ

  17. Stronger Voice Proposals are stronger when the legislature hears supportive testimony from the following groups: • Victim groups • District Attorney’s Association • Agencies (DOC, Judicial) • Law enforcement • Private treatment providers ©2008 DCJ

  18. Kansas v. Hendricks • SOMB routinely learned about unique sex offender management models – including Maricopa County’s lifetime supervision programs • After the 1997 Hendricks’ decision, the AG and several legislators announced that they would pass a civil commitment law in Colorado • A key legislator was contacted and told that experts in the field supported lifetime supervision over civil commitment as a public safety measure ©2008 DCJ

  19. Lifetime Supervision Act of 1998 • Those that announced support for civil commitment were quietly and quickly informed that lifetime supervision was preferred • The legislative sponsor convened a group of experts and agency representatives to create the lifetime supervision model • Outcome = Lifetime supervision legislation was passed instead of civil commitment ©2008 DCJ

  20. Lifetime Supervision • Each offender is required to undergo treatment as part of their sentence • Maximum of sex offender’s natural life • Probationers can apply to discharge their sentence after 10 or 20 years: • Must be treatment and supervision compliant • Prisoners must serve a minimum sentence & progress in treatment to parole • Parole lasts a minimum of 10 or 20 years: • Must be treatment and supervision compliant ©2008 DCJ

  21. Lifetime Supervision Statute • Delays in judges using the sentence initially • Increased number sentenced each year • Increased number of revised sentences each year: • Resentenced to traditional prison sentence • Resentenced to probation • Court ordered discharge Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Colorado Dept. of Public Safety, & State Judicial Dept. (2007). Lifetime Supervision of Sex Offenders Annual Report. Denver, CO: Author. http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2007%20Lifetime%20Report%20full.pdf ©2008 DCJ

  22. Lifetime Supervision OutcomesFY 2006-2007 • 520 Offenders on Probation • 50 were Revoked to Prison • 5 New Felonies – 1 Sex Offense • 2 New Misdemeanors – No Sex Offenses • 43 Technical violations • 2 completed SOISP • 1133 Offenders in Prison • 212 Met the Parole Board • 5 Have Been Paroled • 4 Remain on Parole • 1 Revoked for Treatment Non-Compliance ©2008 DCJ

  23. Preventing Chemical Castration Legislation • Occasional legislator attempts to pass chemical castration legislation • Fact sheets and alternatives are quickly generated and distributed to let the potential sponsors know that the law will not be supported • The positive intent is supported and alternatives are always offered • Outcome = No chemical castration laws ©2008 DCJ

  24. Preventing Chemical Castration Legislation Alternative offered: As one component of comprehensive sex offender management, medicine will be provided to sex offenders in the criminal justice system when it is determined through psychiatric evaluation and treatment that a specific medication may reduce the offender’s risk of reoffense. Offenders placed in the community will be responsible for the cost of these medications, unless it is determined that they are indigent.

  25. Registration Legislation • Agency representatives, law enforcement representatives and DA met to design a statewide form • Recommended changes to the legislation for the following year • Uniform database • Register on birthday, etc. • Outcome = Federal mandates influenced the law over time ©2008 DCJ

  26. Registration Legislation • The AG convened a group to determine the state’s response to Adam Walsh • The SOMB has representatives in that group • The SOMB is considering writing an statement of concerns regarding Adam Walsh requirements for juveniles ©2008 DCJ

  27. InternetPosting of Sex Offenders • Initially were able to convince legislators to only post SVP & those who did not register • For a couple of years there was only one SVP offender • Groups from outside the state pressured legislators to increase internet posting • Federal Legislation influenced postings ©2008 DCJ

  28. Internet Posting of Sex Offenders Outcome = 6396 posted on the CBI website • 6396 Felony Conviction • 903 Failed to Register • 550 Multiple Convictions • 101 SVP ©2008 DCJ

  29. Sexually Violent Predators SOMB legislation revised to: The board shall consult on, approve, and revise as necessary the risk assessment screening instrument developed by the division of criminal justice to assist the sentencing court in determining the likelihood that an offender would commit one or more of the offenses specified . . .” ©2008 DCJ

  30. Sexual Predator Risk Assessment Screening Instrument • Part I – Defining Sexual Assault Crimes • Part II – Nature of Relationship to Victim • Stranger • Established a Relationship • Promoted a Relationship • Part III – Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ) Sex Offender Risk Scale • Part IV – Mental Abnormality • To be designated a Sexually Violent Predator • Must Meet I, II, and III or IV Colorado Division of Criminal Justice (February 2007) Sexual Predator Risk Assessment Screening Instrument. http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/Final%20SVP.pdf ©2008 DCJ

  31. DCJ Sex Offender Risk Scale (SOR) Items • One or More Felony Juvenile Adjudications • One or More Prior Adult Felony Convictions • Employed Less Than Full-Time When Arrested • Failed 1st or 2nd Grade • Possessed a Weapon During Current Crime • Victim Ingested Drugs or Alcohol Prior to Current Crime • Offender Was Not Aroused During Sexual Assault • CO-SOMB Denial Scale • CO-SOMB Deviancy Scale • CO-SOMB Motivation Scale ©2008 DCJ

  32. DCJ SOR Development • N = 494 sex offenders with an average follow-up period of 30 months • 54% (n=267) failed at 12 months while 40% (n=197) failed at 30 months • Those scoring 4 or more on the DCJ SOR were 372% more likely to be supervision/treatment failures than those scoring less than 4 English, K., Retzlaff, P., & Kleinsasser, D. (2002) The Colorado Sex Offender Risk Scale. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11, 77-96. ©2008 DCJ

  33. DCJ SOR Follow-Up Study • Used original sample with available information (n = 405) • 64 of the 405 scored 4 or above • Outcome Data – New Violent Arrest • Those scoring 4 or above were 284% more likely to have a new violent arrest than those scoring below 4 ©2008 DCJ

  34. Community Notification Statute • SOMB, with DOC, Judicial, & Parole Board, statutory duties: • Establish criteria for law enforcement to determine when to carry out a community notification • Develop protocols & procedure for carrying out community notification, including: • General information and education on sex offenders, including treatment and supervision • Procedures to minimize the risk of vigilantism • Establish a DCJ technical assistance team to assist local law enforcement to carry out community notification ©2008 DCJ

  35. SVP Outcomes • Total Number of Identified SVPs in Colorado = 373 (2 Deceased/7 Deported/ 5 Moved out of state) • 359 SVPs currently living in Colorado • 315 in DOC • 44 in the Community • 74 SVPs have been in the community • 23 have been re-incarcerated (Approx. 1/3) ©2008 DCJ

  36. SVP Recidivism Outcomes • N = 24 (2 Deceased) • Criminal Recidivism (N=12 – 16% of SVPs Released) • 2 Sexual (IE and Add. SAC Charge – 3%) • 2 Non-Sexual Violent (DV and Harass. – 3%) • 2 Driving Under Restraint (DUR) • 4 Failure to Register (FTR) • 1 Escape • 1 Unknown • Revocations (N=13 – 18% of SVPs Released) • Average Length of Time in the Community (N=19) • 97 Days • Out of State SVPs (N=3) • 2 FTRs and I DUR

  37. Residence/Zoning Restrictions 30 States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin Many More Local Jurisdictions Meloy et al (2007) 2007 English & Lobanov-Rostovsky

  38. Colorado SOMB Public Policy Input • Policy Issue – Local Municipalities Passing Zoning Ordinances Limiting 1 Sex Offender Per Household (Outlawing Residential Care for Juveniles) and Restricting Where They Can Live • Legislative Mandate to Research Sex Offender Safety Issues Related to Living Arrangements & Location - 2004 ©2007 English & Lobanov-Rostovsky

  39. Where will sex offenders live after their release from prison? ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  40. ©2007 English & Lobanov-Rostovsky

  41. Shared Living Arrangements (SLAs) • Multiple Sex Offenders Living Together in Their Own Residence • No Treatment/Supervision Staff on Premises • Residency Approved by CST to Insure Not in Proximity to Schools and Daycare Centers • “Treatment Community” Model • Offenders Hold Each Other Accountable • Adjunct Supervision Components • Home Visits • Tracking and Schedule Monitoring • Phone Call Check-Ins • No Other States Utilizing SLAs at the Time ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  42. SLA Research (Colorado) • N = 130 Sex Offenders • Measure: Sexual Recidivism • Follow-Up Period: 15 Months Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004) ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  43. SLA Research (Colorado) N = 130 Sex Offenders Measures: Non-Sexual Criminal Recidivism, and Technical Violations Follow-Up Period: 15 Months Results: 52 New Non-Sexual Criminal Violations ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  44. ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  45. Shared Living Arrangement:Public Protection equates with jail work release Average Number of CRIMINAL Violations: High Risk Offenders 1.4 Have support Negative/no support Cannot determine support .3 SLA Alone Family Friends Homeless/ Jail Work Shelter Release Report of Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, 2004 ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-MB

  46. SLA Research (Colorado) • N = 130 Sex Offenders • Measures: Sexual Recidivism, and Technical Violations • Follow-Up Period: 15 Months ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  47. Positive Support Defined •Awareness of the cycle, offense patterns and early abuse signs. • Familiarity with the offender’s schedule and whereabouts. • The ability to enhance and encourage application of the offender’s treatment tools outside of the therapy setting. • A working relationship with the treatment provider and criminal justice supervisor. • The ability to acknowledge the seriousness of the offending behavior. • The ability, skills and tools to hold the offender accountable early in the onset of risky behaviors. • Willingness to report non-compliance to the containment team. ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  48. SLA Research (Colorado) • Offenders Living in SLAs Were Typically • Higher Risk Offenders Than Those Not Living in SLAs • Had Less Violations Than Those Living Alone, or with Family or Friends • Were Caught More Quickly for Their Violations (Roommates Told) ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  49. Residence Restrictions Research (Colorado) Recidivist Offenders were Randomly Distributed Across Proximity and Non-Proximity Locations ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

  50. Research Recommendations • Recommendations to the Legislature • SLAs are a Viable Containment Alternative for Sex Offenders, Particularly High Risk Offenders • Zoning Ordinances Limiting One Sex Offender Per Household Do Not Provide for Enhanced Community Safety • Residency Restrictions Do Not Provide for Enhanced Community Safety and Decisions about Living Situations Should be Left to the CSTs ©2007 Dethlefsen, English, & Lobanov-Rostovsky, CO-SOMB

More Related