Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:10 am
Time: 2:10 am
Results for sex offender supervision
3 results foundAuthor: Gies, Stephen V. Title: Monitoring High-Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program Summary: Despite the increasing number of high-risk sex offenders (HRSOs) who are being placed on electronic monitoring programs, little is known about how effective these programs are in increasing offender compliance and in reducing recidivism. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of the global positioning system (GPS) monitoring of HRSOs who are released onto parole. This study integrates outcome, cost, and process evaluation components. The outcome component assesses the impact of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s GPS supervision program by employing a nonequivalent-group quasi-experimental design with a multilevel survival model. We also use a propensity score matching procedure to account for the differences between the treatment and comparison groups. The study population is drawn from all HRSOs who were released from prison between January 2006 and March 2009 and residing in the state of California. The final sample includes 516 subjects equally divided between the treatment and control groups. The treatment group consists of HRSOs who were placed on GPS monitoring. The control group is made up of similar offenders who were not placed on the GPS system during the study period. The resulting sample shows no significant differences between the groups on any of the propensity score matching variables. The effectiveness of the program is assessed using an intent-to-treat (known as ITT) approach. The two main outcomes of interest are compliance and recidivism. Compliance is measured through violations of parole. Recidivism is assessed in a variety of ways, including 1) rearrest, 2) reconviction, and 3) return to prison custody. Each outcome is assessed with a survival analysis of time-to-event recidivism data, using a Cox proportional hazards model. In addition, we use frailty modeling to account for the clustering of parole agents within parole districts. The findings indicate, despite the baseline similarities, a clear pattern of divergence in outcomes during the 1-year study period. The subjects in the GPS group demonstrate significantly better outcomes for both compliance and recidivism. In terms of compliance, the multivariate model shows that the hazard ratio of a sex-related violation is nearly three times as great for the subjects who received traditional parole supervision as for the subjects who received the GPS supervision. In terms of recidivism, compared with the subjects who received the GPS monitoring supervision, the hazard ratio for any arrest is more than twice as high among the subjects who received traditional parole supervision. Similarly, for both a parole revocation and any return-to-custody event, the hazard ratio suggests that these events are about 38 percent higher among the subjects who received traditional parole supervision. The cost analysis indicates that the GPS program costs roughly $35.96 per day per parolee, while the cost of traditional supervision is $27.45 per day per parolee—a difference of $8.51. However, the results favor the GPS group in terms of both noncompliance and recidivism. In other words, the GPS monitoring program is more expensive but more effective. Finally, the process evaluation reveals that the GPS program was implemented with a high degree of fidelity across the four dimensions examined: adherence, exposure, quality of program delivery, and program differentiation. Details: Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group, Inc., 2012. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed May 15, 2012 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf Shelf Number: 125277 Keywords: Electronic MonitoringGlobal Positioning Systems (GPS)Parole SupervisionParoleesRecidivismSex Offender SupervisionSsex Offenders (California) |
Author: Minnesota. Department of Corrections Title: Minnesota Sex Offender Management: Final Report Summary: From 1988 through 2005, there were 12,038 convictions for felony-level sex offenses. Of these, 4,016 offenders were sent to prison and the remaining 8,022 were managed in the community. Throughout this period there have also been numerous policy changes, such as increased sentences and supervision requirements, which bring to the forefront a need for continued discussion on how best to manage this sex offender population. This is not the first time that Minnesota has studied and worked on the issue of enhancing management of the sex offender population. Studies since the mid-eighties have covered topics such as recommendations on increased sentencing, risk assessment and release procedures, creation of a civil commitment process for the highest-risk offenders, and enhancements to supervision, to name a few. With each effort, the criminal justice community gains knowledge and implements better management practices. While the Legislature was dealing with civil commitment of sex offenders in the mid-nineties, the issue of sex offender management through enhancements to supervision and treatment really started coming to the forefront in the late-nineties. One example of this was the passage of a pilot program in Dodge/Fillmore/Olmsted Community Corrections to increase supervision of sex offenders by reducing agent caseloads. At this same time, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) was directed to study sex offender supervision issues focusing on ways to improve supervision, increase public safety, reduce recidivism and report back to the Legislature by February of 2000. When Katie’s law passed in 2000, specific funding was allocated to enhance sex offender supervision statewide. Since then, public concern over sex offender issues has increased due to several high-profile sex offender cases. In 2004, Governor Pawlenty appointed a cabinet-level position responsible for heading up the coordination of sex offender management activities across agencies. At the same time, the DOC enhanced the process used for referring sex offenders for civil commitment and reviewed all management policies and procedures, making significant revisions. To help guide these efforts, the department partnered with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM); receiving both technical assistance and information on national best practices for sex offender management. In January of 2005, the Legislative Auditor completed a report reviewing the current state of sex offender management in Minnesota and made recommendations for change. At the time the re-port came out, the Legislature was already in the process of passing significant changes to sex offender sentencing and supervision laws. When the final bill passed in May of 2005, it included the directive to form a work group to study and report on many of the issues raised by the auditor (2005 Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 136, Article 3, Section 28). The Legislature directed the commissioner of corrections to establish a Working Group on Sex Offender Management to develop statewide sex offender management standards and best practices. The commissioner was directed to: Given the breadth of the 12 legislative directives, the commissioner decided early on to create four separate work groups that would address the following areas: • Adult supervision practices; • Juvenile supervision practices; • Assessment and treatment practices; and • Polygraph practices. By routing the 12 legislative directives through four groups, the commissioner was able to have work progress simultaneously on several different sets of standards and was also able to recruit a broader range of participation and expertise. Overall, there were more than 60 professionals with extensive experience in the field of sex offender management who participated in the work groups. The full membership convened periodically in general sessions to coordinate the efforts of the four smaller groups. At these all-day general sessions, the members reviewed the work of their peers and submitted recommendations and requests for further study. In this final report to the Legislature, the work groups have created two documents. The first includes a detailed history of sex offender initiatives, information on supervision, treatment, polygraph efforts, and resources for sex offender management in Minnesota. The second, Appendix H, highlights the efforts to establish standards and guidelines for providing the best services available to manage sex offenders. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2007. 189p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2012 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/legislativereports/documents/SOreport02-07_000.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/legislativereports/documents/SOreport02-07_000.pdf Shelf Number: 127192 Keywords: PrisonersSex Offender SupervisionSex Offenders (Minnesota, U.S.) |
Author: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management Title: Lifetime Supervision of Sex Offenders: Annual Report Summary: The Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS) and the State Judicial Department has collaborated to write this Annual Report on lifetime supervision of sex offenders. The report is submitted pursuant to Section 18-1.3-1011, C.R.S.: “On or before November 1, 2000, and on or before each November 1 thereafter, the department of corrections, the department of public safety, and the judicial department shall submit a report to the judiciary committees of the house of representatives and the senate, or any successor committees, and to the joint budget committee of the general assembly specifying, at a minimum: (a) The impact on the prison population, the parole population, and the probation population in the state due to the extended length of incarceration and supervision provided for in sections 18-1.3-1004, 18-1.3-1006, and 18-1.3-1008; (b) The number of offenders placed in the intensive supervision parole program and the intensive supervision probation program and the length of supervision of offenders in said programs; (c) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who received parole release hearings and the number released on parole during the preceding twelve months, if any; (d) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who received parole or probation discharge hearings and the number discharged from parole or probation during the preceding twelve months, if any; (e) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who received parole or probation revocation hearings and the number whose parole or probation was revoked during the preceding twelve months, if any; (f) A summary of the evaluation instruments developed by the management board and use of the evaluation instruments in evaluating sex offenders pursuant to this part 10; (g) The availability of sex offender treatment providers throughout the state, including location of the treatment providers, the services provided, and the amount paid by offenders and by the state for the services provided, and the manner of regulation and review of the services provided by sex offender treatment providers; (h) The average number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 that participated in Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program during each month of the preceding twelve months; (i) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were denied admission to treatment in Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program for reasons other than length of remaining sentence during each month of the preceding twelve months; (j) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were terminated from Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program during the preceding twelve months and the reason for termination in each case; (k) The average length of participation by sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 in Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program during the preceding twelve months; (l) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were denied readmission to Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program after having previously been terminated from the program during the preceding twelve months; (m) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were recommended by the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program to the parole board for release on parole during the preceding twelve months and whether the recommendation was followed in each case; and (n) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were recommended by the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program for placement in community corrections during the preceding twelve months and whether the recommendation was followed in each case.” This report is intended to provide the Colorado General Assembly with information on the thirteenth year of implementation of the Lifetime Supervision Act in Colorado. The report is organized into three sections, one for each of the required reporting departments. Each department individually addresses the information for which it is responsible in implementing lifetime supervision and associated programs. Details: Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2012%20Lifetime%20Supervision%20Annual%20Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2012%20Lifetime%20Supervision%20Annual%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 128506 Keywords: Sex Offender SupervisionSex Offender Treatment ProgramsSex Offenders (Colorado, U.S.) |