Probation and Parole Supervision of Child Sexual Offenders

The United States currently has over 5 million persons under the supervision of the criminal justice system. More than 1.6 million of them are incarcerated in local, state and federal institutions. The remainder are on probation and parole, which are considered to be community-based corrections.

The most recent available FY99 Annual Report of the Department of Corrections in Georgia, (http://www.dcor.state.ga.us), provides information regarding the numbers and characteristics of persons in the state who are the under the supervision of the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC).

Currently, there are 5 categories of probationary status: Standard (77%), High (10%), Max (3%), Intensive (5%), and Specialized (5%). Specialized Probation Supervision (SPS) caseloads are reserved for those probationers who have committed sexual crimes, crimes against children, and crimes of family violence. In June of 1999, there were a total of 4,369 probationers in the SPS program out of the total of 139,527 persons on probation. Probationers outnumber offenders in the prison system by about 300%, and outnumber parolees by about 6 to 1. Some sexual offenders (about 300+ more) may be in other probationary categories besides SPS, but are generally not in the Standard population so that monitoring can be more closely accomplished. After 2 years on active probationary status, Georgia law mandates that probationers serving longer probationary sentences move to a less closely monitored "Administrative supervision" if all probationary goals have been reached. However, of the total population of probationers, 81% were convicted of felonies. Thus, balancing costs, housing, personnel issues, etc. with the safety of the community is a very complex process.

Sex offenders are the only crime group in which there are more persons incarcerated than on probation. Yet, the population of sex offenders on probation is projected to continue to rise for the next several years. Although tougher laws on sex offenders have resulted in longer prison sentences, the projected increase in the prison population may start to surpass the available prison space soon. This will place even greater pressure on the probationary system to become more and more refined about predicting risk factors to the community when sentencing convicted offenders.

The Georgia Parole Board has become increasingly conservative in its release policies. The top 27 most violent crimes require those convicted to serve 90% or more of their total sentence in prison before becoming eligible for parole. Thus, the percentage of persons on parole continues to decline as the average length of time served in prison continues to grow. Sex offenders are part of that population which is being given longer mandatory incarceration. This is one of the reasons that the percentage of sex offenders in the total inmate population has increased slightly over several years to about 12 % of the total.

In general, probation involves sentencing in the community instead of incarceration. Parole involves sentencing in the community after incarceration is completed.

These are sanctions imposed on offenders that allow them to remain in the community while participating in one or more programs aimed at controlling criminal behavior and reintegrating them into the community. Probation and Parole officers are responsible for helping offenders conform to behavioral expectations and monitoring their progress toward that goal.

Control may be accomplished in a variety of ways:

• First, offenders should be assessed to determine the degree of risk posed by their participation in community programs. Community-based programs are not generally appropriate for high-risk violent offenders or those with extensive criminal records.
• Second, those who supervise offenders in community-based programs must accept their responsibility to protect the public by monitoring compliance with court orders and conditions of release.
• Finally, violations of supervised conditions must be taken seriously. If the programs are to become credible sanctions, courts and paroling authorities must be willing to revoke probation and parole for those who cannot or will not comply with the conditions of release. Revocation generally results in further periods of incarceration.

Offenders sentenced to probation are supervised by a probation officer who enforces the conditions of release, reports violations of those conditions to the sentencing authority, and uses community resources to let the offender participate in self-improvement programs including drug and alcohol treatment, job training, parenting and educational opportunities, etc.

Parole is the release of an offender before the expiration of his or her sentence under conditions established by the paroling authority. Parole is like probation in that it involves the supervised release of the offender into the community, as well as the possibility of revocation should the parolee violate the conditions of release. The primary difference is that probation is supervision in the community and the court sentences the offender and parole is the supervised release after a portion of the sentence in prison has been served.

The offenders who are sentenced for crimes against children should be placed on specialized supervision with more officer contact mandatory. The officers who oversee specialized caseloads should have more specific training to deal with those offenders who have committed offenses of family violence, child cruelty, child molestation, and any other crime that deals with inappropriate behavior toward a child.

It is suggested that the requirements for specialized case management should include:

• Criminal records check at intake and thereafter at least once a year.
• Incident report or prosecutor's indictment.
• Home investigation within the first ten days of supervision.
• Signed receipt by primary resident of written notification of offender's offense (crime, conviction?), and agreement that the offender can live in the house if the court allows.
• Contact with the victim or the victim's guardian within 30 days of the initial intake by the officer.
• Photograph of the offender should be taken at intake and every time thereafter that his appearance changes.
• Employment verification.
• Residence verification.
• Report to the local child welfare agency and awareness of duty to warn from the Child Protection Agreement as well as the Child Abuse Reporting Law.
• Treatment referrals as needed.
• Alcohol and drug screening.
• Curfews
• Monitored treatment attendance and compliance.
• All offender movement should be through interstate compact so that continuity of supervision can be maintained.

These are suggested guidelines for the supervision of offenders by probation and parole officers. The officers should have a working relationship with the child welfare organization in the area in which they work. They should also participate in specialized training, which is held in collaboration with other agencies that are responsible for the care and well-being of children.

Ideal use of incarceration, parole, and supervision of offenders of child sexual abuse should include such factors as:

• A pre-sentencing assessment of risk to the community.
• Consideration of severity of punishment being related to severity of the crime(s).
• Possibility of input from the victim and victim's family.
• Providing access to settings with availability of sex offense-specific intervention programs wherever available.
• Monitoring the qualifications of the intervention providers.

It is suggested that the issue of sex offender treatment NOT be viewed along a continuum of severity of sentencing. That is, effective intervention of sexual offense patterns needs to be addressed regardless of whether the offender is sentenced to prison, probation, or parole status. In addition, the offender must be educated to understand that the maintenance of successful intervention plans needs to become a lifelong commitment in order to effectively prevent recidivism once released from DOC supervision.

Currently, there are no laws monitoring the quality of sex offense-specific treatment services. However, the practice of allowing parolees and probationers to choose their own counselors, regardless of qualifications, must be changed. There is little similarity between effective sex offense treatment and traditional counseling. Likewise, the training involved is also very different and requires a completely different set of skills.

Accomplishing the goal of a continuity of services can be approached from a number of directions. First and foremost, probation and parole officers need to become acquainted with what constitutes appropriate qualification of sexual offender service providers. In general, these providers are found in the fields of psychotherapy and polygraph examination. Specific details of appropriate qualifications can be reviewed through the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (www.atsa.com) and the American Polygraph Association (www.polygraph.org).

Beyond the level of individual understanding of qualifications, other broad-based approaches may be considered in the future. Such efforts could include the following considerations:

• Passage of new laws which establish state credentials for sexual offender treatment providers (comprehensively in place in Washington State).
• Passage of laws which establish state credentials for polygraph examiners with specialization in examining sex offenders.
• Continuation of specialized training for probation/parole officers with sex offender caseloads.
• Establishment of new programs within probation/parole to establish their own database of qualified therapists and qualified polygraph examiners.
• Other innovative efforts to increase compliance with recommendations made by ATSA and the American Polygraph Association.