By Paul S. Brennan, M.P.A. Edited by Cedric Hendricks and Leonard Sipes.

See http://media.csosa.gov for our social media site or http://csosa.gov for the website of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

When he was arrested on the bench warrant in February of 1999 and brought to court to answer for his non-compliance, it seemed reasonable at the time to give Michael the benefit of the doubt to his claim that he did not know he was on probation.  This time he would be supervised by the newly formed Sex Offender Unit at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. 

In the wake of federal legislation passed in the mid 1990’s to address the growing public concern about sex offenders in the community, community corrections officials in Washington, D.C. followed a growing trend around the country to develop a specialized supervision team of community supervision officers to manage its sex offenders.

His probation officer decided to stop by his home, unannounced, one random weekday evening in 1999.  Michael was not home at the time of the visit; however there was an answer at the door.  The probation officer was stunned to find alone in Michael’s one bedroom apartment, a small, frightened, eight-year-old girl. The probation officer knew instantly that the child was in imminent danger. 

Michael’s deviant behavior ended the day his probation officer found the child in his home and, ultimately, when the Judge sentenced him to eighteen to fifty-four years in prison for molesting the eight-year-old and two other children; this was in addition to the ten years he received when his probation was subsequently revoked. 

It did not take long for SOU to conclude that sex offenders presented unique challenges that demanded more from those of us responsible for managing them in the criminal justice system and in the community. Over the past decade the Sex Offender Unit has been directly involved in many cases that highlight the need for a specialized supervision program.

The program has become one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive in the country. 

The Sex Offender Unit is a special program of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (CSOSA).  CSOSA is an independent executive branch agency of the federal government responsible for the supervision of nearly 16,000 offenders on probation, parole and supervised release, sentenced in D.C.  Superior Court or transferred to D.C. from other jurisdictions. 

Approximately 700 of CSOSA’s offender population are considered to be sex offenders.

Defining Sex Offenders

The Sex Offender Unit generally defines a sex offender as anyone who has been convicted of a crime that is sexual in nature.  This means that SOU seeks to supervise the behavior as opposed to the conviction. 

Under this definition it occurs with some frequency that offenders being supervised by SOU may be serving a sentence for a non-sex related offense, such as Simple Assault or Burglary, but elements of the crime suggest that it was sexually motivated. 

An example of such a case would be an offender who breaks into a home and is found to be standing over a victim in bed masturbating.  This definition is also designed to identify for assignment to Sex Offender Unit the offenders who may have incurred a sexually motivated conviction in the past but may not currently be on supervision for a sex offense.  For example, a case in which an offender is on probation for Driving Under the Influence, but was convicted of Rape ten years earlier. 

SOU’s rationale for including offenders who are on supervision for an offense other than one that is by statute a sex offense is to ensure that:

• offenders with potential issues of sexual deviancy are being monitored appropriately;
• offenders with potential issues of sexual deviancy receive appropriate evaluation and therapy if needed.

 Approximately 40% of SOU’s current offender population is on supervision for an offense that is not one of sexual abuse by statute. 

 Sex offenders on community supervision represent a small fraction of the offenders who commit sex offenses. Many crimes of sexual abuse are never reported to law enforcement.  Even fewer of the crimes result in an arrest or conviction.  Issues that impact this often include, but are not exclusive to: 

• The victim is influenced by the offender, family or other external factors to recant;
• The victim decides not to cooperate out of fear of embarrassment or physical harm;
• The victim or other critical witnesses are not available for court proceedings;
• A lack of corroborative evidence (i.e., witness or forensic evidence);
• The victim is too emotionally fragile or mentally ill to endure a trial;
• The victim is too young or impaired to describe the crime to a jury or judge;
• The crime was reported years after it happened therefore evidence is lost or the statute of limitations has expired; 
• The prosecutor determines that the evidence otherwise is not sufficient to win a conviction. 

 Likely to Have Committed Other Crimes

 One of the unique aspects of crimes involving sexual abuse is that they tend to be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  Sex offenses often are committed in secret; the offender is usually someone known and trusted by the victim, victim’s family and community.

The Sex Offender Unit is aware that many of the sex offenders placed on supervision are likely to have committed other sex offenses for which they were never held accountable.  SOU is also imminently concerned that convicted sex offenders have the potential to commit new sex offenses while on supervision (or beyond) that may go undetected. 

We understand that there are sex offenders who are not likely to commit new sex offenses and, therefore, require minimal services and monitoring.  In fact, over-supervising a low risk sex offender can potentially increase their risk to reoffend.

The bottom-line is what’s in the best interest of community safety.  For example: in D.C.  a misdemeanor sex offense allows for a maximum incarceration period of 180 days, whereas the maximum period of community supervision could be up to five years.

Provisions in the sentencing guidelines also allow for registered sex offenders to be placed on ‘supervised release’ for periods from 10 years to life depending on their registration classification.  Community supervision can offer the community a better option for long term monitoring and intervention in many cases than incarceration alone.

Close supervision/accountability

To maintain a successful sex offender management program there must be a comprehensive effort to monitor the offenders and hold them accountable for their behavior.  The Sex Offender Unit achieves this through a myriad of techniques designed to minimize a sex offender’s opportunity to offend.

Close supervision and accountability is predicated on the ability of SOU to take swift and meaningful action once the risky behavior becomes evident.  CSOSA uses a system of graduated intermediate sanctions in order to maintain community safety while fostering successful supervision completion.  The Sex Offender Unit incorporates these sanctions into the Containment Model. 

The following are some of the mechanisms SOU uses to address a variety of compliance issues that arise:

• Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring;
• Search and Seizure;
• Reentry and Sanctions Center (RSC);
• Polygraph testing;
• Offender surveillance;
• Drug treatment;
• Joint CSOSA/Police accountability tours;
• Interagency crime initiatives; and
• Computer searches/monitoring.

None of these mechanisms to address offender behavior existed a decade ago.  The introduction of these countermeasures has allowed SOU to reduce revocations by at least 30%.  Furthermore, they provide the means to prevent crime and hold offender’s accountable for behavior that may have otherwise gone undetected in the past. For example, the SOU has:

• helped police solve a number of crimes by correlating crime scene data to offender GPS tracking data,
• uncovered evidence of crimes and violations of release conditions through search and seizures of offenders’ property,
• used the polygraph to help reveal the existence of victims not previously known,
• found child pornography on the computers of sex offenders that has lead to criminal convictions and revocations, and
• used evidence provided by our law enforcement partners in order to establish violations of supervision conditions that have lead to revocations.

 Support services and treatment

 The primary treatment intervention strategy revolves around the sex offender treatment program.  SOU invests nearly 1.2 million dollars a year into providing sex offender evaluation and treatment services.  All sex offenders assigned to the SOU undergo a comprehensive psychosexual evaluation.  This evaluation is critical in assisting us with assessing offender risk to commit another sex offense and identifying supplemental needs. Sex offender treatment is conducted by an outside vendor hired for their qualifications and expertise in this field.  Sex offender treatment is marked by the following characteristics:

• Victim/community safety;
• Targets accountability and thinking errors;
• Primarily delivered in a group setting;
• Often mandated;
• Waivers of confidentiality;
• Provider is part of the  management team;
• Specialized training/experience is essential.

A sex offender typically will be engaged in sex offender treatment from 18-24 months.  This is followed by an indefinite period of aftercare.

CSOSA also created the Re-entry and Sanctions Center (RSC) which is designed to be a 28-day residential assessment facility.  The RSC is a facility where offenders can report directly from prison for a comprehensive assessment of needs.  Or, it is used as a constructive means of sanctioning offenders exhibiting acute drug abuse issues where removal form the community is needed while avoiding revocation and incarceration.   Programs to address anger, domestic violence, substance abuse, employment, and housing, among others are offered as well.  In short, CSOSA has demonstrated its commitment to providing opportunities for its offender population to make positive changes.

Partnerships

There is value in developing and maintaining strong partnerships with other stakeholders.  Successful outcomes in sex offender management can not occur without all stakeholders coming together around a common goal: of public safety. Existing partnerships include the Metropolitan Police Department, the United States Attorney’s Office, D.C. Superior Court, the F.B.I. Innocent Images Unit, Metro Transit Police, Prince George’s County Sex Offender Registry, Montgomery County Sex Offender Registry, State of Virginia Sex Offender Registry, D.C. Rape Crisis Center, D.C. Housing Authority, D.C. Child and Protective Services, the D.C. Victims Advocacy Center, U.S. Probation, U.S. District Court for D.C., Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Northern Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (NOVAICAC) and the U.S. Marshal’s Service. 

Conclusion

Over the past decade CSOSA’s Sex Offender Unit has come a long way toward achieving the right balance between enhancing community safety and offender rehabilitation.  SOU consistently maintains one of the highest success rate among the CSOSA offender population; less than one percent of the sex offenders we supervise have been arrested or convicted for new sex offenses.  In the rare instances where new sex offenses were committed by those we supervise, we and our interagency partners have worked closely to see that there was justice for the victims.

If Michael was on supervision with SOU today we believe the likelihood that his sexually deviant behavior would have been prevented or detected much sooner.  It is impossible to predict how Michael’s case may have turned out if he were subjected to the program requirements we have in place today.  The Sex Offender Unit is certain that he would have found it substantially more difficult to hide his behavior between polygraphs, accountability tours with police, GPS monitoring, computer searches, intensive therapy and the investigative eye of a well-trained community supervision officer. 

SOU FACTS:

• CSOSA invests nearly one million dollars on sex offender treatment services per year;
• SOU supervises nearly 700 sex offenders ;
• Average SOU caseload size is 25:1;
• Approximately 25% of sex offenders actively under supervision are on GPS monitoring at a given time;
• All sex offenders submit to polygraph exams.

United States v. John Anthony:

In 2007, the offender was given a polygraph exam.  The polygrapher determined that the results were inconclusive. After further questioning, the offender admitted to his Community Supervision Officer (CSO) that he had viewed pornography.  His CSO determined that a search of the computer was needed.  Consent was obtained to allow officers to conduct a “scan” of the computer in question using special software. 

The scan revealed one image of a nude male, some MySpace activity, and password protected files. Officers asked the owner of the computer if she would allow them to take the computer back to the office in order to conduct a more extensive examination of the computer since the software they were using is not powerful enough to view protected files.  She refused. 

SOU consulted with the US Attorney’s Office who agreed to assist by securing a search warrant in order to seize the computer and conduct a forensic examination with more powerful software. 

Child pornography was found on the computer in question.

Anthony entered his guilty plea in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before The Honorable Ellen S. Huvelle.  Anthony was subject to enhanced penalties because some of the images of child pornography he possessed involved prepubescent minors or minors who had not attained the age of 12 years, and some of the images and videos he possessed portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence.  Most of the evidence was pornographic videos depicting graphic sexual acts by young boys.  The evidence was sent to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which was able to verify that at least 4 of the images were known (previously identified) children.  The offender was sentenced in US District Court to 121 months in prison to run concurrent to his other sentence.  His probation was subsequently revoked.

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

The name sounds like the essence of bureaucracy-the Transitional Intervention for Parole Supervision unit, or TIPS. The TIPS teams of Community Supervision Officers evaluate and assist the vast majority of offenders returning from prison to Washington, D.C. They are part of the federal, executive branch agency that provides parole and probation supervision in the nation’s capital, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).

CSOSA supervises approximately 15,500 parolees, supervised releasees and probationers on any given day. Each year, approximately 2,300 men and women return to Washington, D.C. from any one of the federal Bureau of Prison (BOP) facilities throughout the United States. For most of them, the first CSOSA staff member they meet is a TIPS officer.

The TIPS unit was a core requirement when CSOSA was initially established as a new federal agency in August of 2000. Recognizing that the District of Columbia’s Lorton prison would soon close, and that D.C. offenders would be housed in any one of the Bureau of Prison facilities, CSOSA knew it would be difficult for D.C. offenders to successfully reintegrate and reestablish ties with their families and the community. To address this need, the TIPS unit was established to work solely with returning offenders.

TIPS is truly unique. Through a collaborative, working relationship with the BOP, TIPS staff begin to work with offenders long before the offenders are released to the community or a BOP Residential Reentry Center (RRC, also known as halfway house). TIPS staff begin working on an offender’s case once they receive notice from the BOP of the offender’s pending release. TIPS staff begin to identify the offender’s needs and investigate the offender’s proposed home and employment release plans. One TIPS team is located in an RRC, working closely with offenders living there, but still under BOP’s supervision. In addition, CSOSA established a relationship with the faith-based community that links offenders to mentors who serve as a positive role model and community resource for the returning offender. TIP staff serve a vital role in this function by determining offenders suitable for participation in the program and linking them to mentors.

“TIPS staff perform a key, critical function in the reentry planning process,” says Thomas H. Williams, Associate Director of Community Supervision Services. “TIPS staff not only address offenders’ needs upon release so they can have the opportunity to successfully reintegrate in the community, but also help ensure public safety by approving or denying offender home and employment plans.”

TIPS officers can be compared to air traffic controllers: They take a look at thousands of incoming “flights” and organize their “arrival.” They act as persuaders and negotiators with offenders, families and service providers. They “set the stage” for the offender’s future supervision. Their first priority is public safety while being an offender’s advocate for needed services.

“I was doing a home plan for a returning offender with sex offenses in his background,” stated Sharon Jackson. Sharon has over 20 years of experience supervising juvenile and adult offenders. “His living arrangements would have put him in contact with children. There was no way I was going to approve him living in that house. He had to make other living arrangements,” she said.

There are 22 Community Supervision Officers (known as parole and probation agents elsewhere) and three supervisors dedicated to the TIPS function. Their job is to assess returning inmates for risk of re-offending and need for services. They work principally with offenders residing in six halfway houses operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. (Since December 2001, D.C. offenders serve their time in federal prisons.)

Federal Bureau of Prison case managers submit a release plan to CSOSA; TIPS officers investigate these plans, which address a proposed place to live (or lack of one) and potential employment. Using the plan as a baseline, TIPS staff analyze the incoming offender’s needs and arrange for the offender to access services at the time of release. This can include medical, mental health, and substance abuse treatment, as well as any requirements imposed by the US Parole Commission as conditions of release. Sometimes, TIPS officers have months to do their jobs-sometimes days.

“We had an offender who weighed 600 pounds coming out of prison in a couple days,” stated Sharon Jackson. “The federal halfway houses were not equipped to deal with him. He had a challenging medical need, and I was able to help him find housing with a private transitional center. That’s just one example of what we do and the unique challenges that confront us every day.”

To understand TIPS is to acknowledge that returning offenders bring with them very little luggage but a lot of baggage-the complex issues that need to be addressed to give them the highest likelihood of staying out of prison. TIPS officers prepare the way for the offender and those in CSOSA who will supervise him directly upon release from prison or the federal halfway houses.

Approximately 50 percent of all offenders returning to D.C. transition through a halfway houses. Another 30 percent enter post-release supervision without a halfway house stay. The remaining 20 percent are released with no supervision obligation. TIPS officers assist everyone having a term of community supervision.

Once the offender is released to the community, the offender’s supervision is transferred from TIPS staff to a general or special supervision team. Although TIPS work is short-term and intensive, it is critical to ensuring the smooth transition of the offender from incarceration to the community.

Every offender has issues; approximately 70 percent have substance abuse histories. Approximately 30 percent of DC offenders have temporary housing arrangements. Many have complex issues, like mental illness or medical problems. Most need services to find education or jobs.

“The issue is public safety, and will always be public safety,” states Edmond Pears, Branch Chief the Investigations, Diagnostics and Evaluations Branch that encompasses TIPS. “We fully understand, for example, that unmet mental health needs and homelessness greatly increase the possibility that the offender will commit another crime. We can intervene. We can stabilize. We can help this guy and lessen the chance of someone getting hurt.”

The Initial Process

TIPS receives information on most inmates from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) approximately six months before the scheduled release date. In addition, TIPS staff can access the BOP’s information system for the inmate’s criminal history, institutional behavior records, medical conditions, mental health and social needs, prior community supervision adjustment and programs and services received during incarceration. The TIPS staff create a plan of action that is ready when the offender enters the federal halfway houses and/or the community. (The offender is still in BOP custody while in the halfway house.)

The halfway houses provide an array of services, such as intake, orientation, screening, assessment, case staffing, referrals, crisis intervention, counseling, home and employment investigations and discharge planning. But the offender’s stay is limited and most cases does not exceed 30 days.

“Thirty days is not a lot of time to analyze a person and his risk and social history and to arrange for needed services,” said Trevola Singletary-Mohamed, a TIPS Community Supervision Officer (CSO). CSO Singletary-Mohamed started community supervision with the adult probation division of D.C. Superior Court before CSOSA assumed the function in 1997. “You may have the file months ahead, and that’s vital to the process, but nothing beats having the person sitting in front of you answering your questions. The file and evaluation may state that he has a history of cocaine use and received treatment while in prison, but you find out through an interview that a ‘history’ meant daily use for several years. Sometimes, it’s the quality of the information that you gain through personal interviews that tells you what you need to know.”

Housing

Finding housing for returning offenders is one of the most difficult parts of the job. The hyper-heated housing market in Washington, D.C. makes this especially difficult. If the average offender who comes back through a halfway house only stays there for a month, then that’s just a temporary solution.

Some do not come back through halfway houses because of limited bed space or previous medical or mental health issues that the halfway houses are not equipped to manage. Halfway house staffs also evaluate offenders based on criminal history and prior problems while in a previous halfway house.

Approximately 25 percent go home or to another residence upon release. TIPS staff investigate all proposed living arrangements to ensure that they are viable and safe for all concerned. The home environment is reviewed and evaluated. Issues include the occupants’ legal right to the residence, adequate living space, and evidence of illegal substances or criminal activity. The bottom line is whether placement will lead to future crimes.

Many offenders have burned their bridges with the family. Community corrections professionals have heard many stories of mothers who state that they will allow a returning son to live with them in public housing, but she never places his name on the lease. Other family members promise the use of their homes but back out when the home plan is investigated.

Some families have moved outside of D.C. US Probation or state agencies will assist with placement in the family’s new state of residence if the US Parole Commission approves. If the offender has a detainer on other criminal charges, he must resolve those legal matters before pursuing supervision in another jurisdiction.

Offenders also cannot be a hardship to their family members (for example, a one bedroom apartment with one adult and three children). For the returnee to live in public housing, his name must be on the lease. TIPS staff do not take the family’s word for it; they must see a copy of the lease.

TIPS staff will not automatically approve a plan if another offender is living there; it’s up to the discretion of the CSO. Each case is individually assessed and investigated for suitability of the residence and peer support within the residence.

There are faith-based, charitable and private institutions that will provide services for returning offenders. Some deal with unique needs, like medical or mental health issues. Some are merely shelters offering a legal place to stay at night and something to eat. Staff would rather not use shelters. They also strive for housing that promotes the offender’s transitional process.

With only 25 percent living in private residences (and some of these placements are temporary) then it is easy to see why housing can take so much staff time.

“It takes a dedicated person to make these arrangements,” states CSO Daynelle Allison, a D.C. resident who has worked for CSOSA for three years. “I’ve had months, but sometimes just days to find a place to live for people with special medical or mental health needs. We do not compromise the quality of our supervision or housing investigation based on how much time we have. We do what we need to get the job done.”

“We need to be sure that arrangements are made to the point that an ambulance will meet the returning offender’s plane or bus and transport the offender to the residence, a hospital, or mental health clinic. Part of all this is a commitment to meeting simple human needs, and part of it is a commitment to protecting the public,” Sharon Jackson said.

Finally, when other options have been exhausted, the TIPS officer can recommend public law placement to avoid homelessness. Under this option, TIPS staff request that the U.S. Parole Commission add a special condition of release for the offender that will require the offender to reside up to 120 days in a halfway house until suitable housing is available. This type of placement is utilized only as a last resort.

Services

Beyond housing, the placement of returning offenders into the right services is a challenging task. CSOSA provides direct services to a variety of offenders on special supervision caseloads, which include sex offenders, mental health, domestic violence, anger management, drinking and driving, and high-risk drug cases. CSOSA also provides educational and employment assessment and placement.

The bulk of support services are provided by the D.C. government and non-profit agencies; in recent years, CSOSA has instituted a partnership with the city’s faith community to augment these services. CSOSA is leading a movement in the nation’s capital to galvanize churches, mosques, and synagogues to provide direct mentoring services. Hundreds of offenders have taken advantage of this initiative.

Service organizations throughout the country often express reluctance to work with offenders. With limited budgets, some organizations prefer “easier” clients. TIPS staff have expressed that providers in the District of Columbia are more likely to assist offenders because of close supervision imposed by Community Supervision Officers.

“CSOSA has worked extensively with service providers throughout the city to make sure they understand that helping a returning offender means fewer crimes and a safer community,” states Elizabeth Powell, Supervisory Community Supervision Officer (SCSO). “CSOSA has some of the toughest contact and drug testing standards in the country. Service providers know they have allies when it comes to addressing non-compliant offenders. The Community Supervision Officers are there to help if the offender creates a problem or does not take their interventions seriously. Close supervision works.”

“We also help offenders readjust to life in D.C.” states CSO Singletary-Mohamed. “Some of them have never ridden the Metro [D.C.'s subway system] before. Some of them just want to talk, to express their hopes and fears. And some offenders refuse services and require motivation from TIP to understand how they can benefit from participating in services. But we care, and they seem to understand that and comply.”

Conclusion

All of us in community corrections understand the challenges. President George W. Bush clearly laid out the issues for reentry in his State of the Union speech in 2004. He announced a new plan to bring local and faith-based groups together with federal agencies to help recently released prisoners make a successful transition back to society – reducing the chance that they will be arrested again. This 4-year, $300 million initiative seeks to provide transitional housing, basic job training, and mentoring services. Reentry is now a popular topic within criminological circles. More has been written about reentry in the last three or four years than the last ten.

Reentry may be the buzzword in the criminal justice system right now, but it is not just a buzzword at CSOSA. TIPS staff do the real work of reintegration. With one eye on public safety, and the other on the offender’s needs, TIPS staff guide returning offenders through their first steps beyond the prison gates and give them a real opportunity to successfully reintegrate into the community.

Numbers on Satellite Tracking Will Grow to 500 Per Day

By Paul Brennan and Leonard Sipes. Edited by Cedric Hendricks and Joyce McGinnis

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) is a federal executive branch agency responsible for supervising over 15, 000 parolees, supervised releases and probationers in the District of Columbia. The agency prides itself on high levels of contact with offenders through office and community contacts, extensive drug testing and joint patrols with the Metropolitan Police Department (“Accountability Tours”). The agency also is aggressively involved in supervision programs and treatment for substance abuse, domestic violence, mental health, drinking-driver, faith-based reentry issues, and sex offenders. CSOSA is a new agency, independent as of August 2000.

From April of 2003 to February of 2005, CSOSA conducted a satellite tracking pilot program. The Sex Offender Unit (SOU) placed 200 sex offenders on satellite tracking and determined that the technology has utility. Examples include:

In November of 2005, CSOSA was contacted by the US Park Police who were investigating an assault that occurred at Logan Circle in the District of Columbia the previous month. The investigating detective informed us that witnesses observed the suspect wearing an ankle bracelet and a device attached to his hip. Recognizing that the witnesses’ description of the device matched those worn by offenders on GPS tracking, we proceeded to review all of our GPS records for the timeframe in which the crime was committed. After our analysis was completed, we were able to put one offender at the scene of the crime at precisely the timeframe identified by the detective. In fact, GPS showed that he left he crime scene at a rate of speed that suggested that he was running from the area. Our office forwarded a photo of the offende. He was eventually picked from a photo spread by one of the witnesses. An arrest warrant was prepared and he was arrested by the US Park Police at the parole office. The offender, when confronted with the GPS evidence, confessed to the assault.

An offender was mandatorily released from prison earlier this year. Case records revealed that the offender had been diagnosed as being a pedophile with a preference for underage boys. In fact, for several years the offender had been hospitalized after the court found grounds to commit him as a sexual psychopath. The offender was prohibited from having contact with children and using a computer. He was ordered into a half way house for up to 120 days, and had to participate in sex offender treatment. The offender presented the highest risk to community safety and was immediately placed on satellite or Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking so that we could monitor his movements throughout the community. GPS records showed the offender traveling to the Martin Luther King Library in the NW section of Washington, DC. When confronted about his purpose there, the offender admitted that he was using the computer to access the Internet. GPS records also showed the offender taking a route from his Community Supervision Officer’s (CSO) office to the halfway house that was considered to be out of the way, consequently causing him to be late for check-in. Further investigation by the CSO of the GPS records showed that the offender had traveled to a subway station at a time when children get off from a school. When confronted, the offender had no plausible explanation for being in that area and missing his curfew. Based on this evidence the CSO sought a warrant for the sex offender’s arrest and his parole was subsequently revoked.

Because of examples like the above, CSOSA’s Director, Paul A. Quander, Jr. decided that the number of sex and high risk offenders under satellite tracking (sometimes referred to as Global Positioning System, or GPS tracking) should be increased to hundreds offenders each day. ” Public safety is the primary goal of our operations, and strict enforcement of the rules regarding sex offenders and others posing a risk to citizens is essential to safe communities,” Quander said. Those eligible for tracking include sex offenders, violent criminals and those adjudicated for domestic violence offences.

Satellite (or GPS) tracking of offenders gives law enforcement and community supervision authorities the ability to monitor an offender’s movements anywhere in the country, enforce curfews, and impose and monitor exclusion zones. GPS systems for tracking people vary in their design. The system that CSOSA currently uses consists of a miniature tracking device (MTD), an ankle bracelet, and a charging stand. The MTD is tracked by a series of satellites constantly orbiting the Earth. The ankle bracelet essentially “tethers” the offender to the MTD and the system alerts law enforcement when the offender strays away from the MTD. The charging stand, or docking station, charges the MTD’s battery and downloads the data collected by the MTD through the phone line from the offender’s home to a data center. The data is then made available to enforcement authorities through their PCs or laptops, and violations can be received by text messaging on the officer’s cell phone. CSOSA currently uses a passive tracking system. This means that the information collected by the tracking system is not real time. Active, or real time, tracking is available if needed, however, manpower constraints prohibit real-time response. Per the first example, another attractive feature is the link between the GPS data and police crime reports to help identify offenders on GSP who were in the vicinity of a known crime.

CSOSA has recently begun working toward linking the GPS records we maintain with the DC Police Department’s crime reports. The intention is to get an agreement with the police department that will allow CSOSA to share its GPS data with the police so that we may work together to solve or prevent crime. CSOSA is investing time and resources in the testing a number of other GPS systems to meet our growing needs, to include active (real time) tracking. CSOSA’s vision is to significantly expand the number of high-risk offenders placed on GPS to an average of 100 per day, to give access of this data to the police who then will be able to identify offenders in the vicinity of crime scenes, conduct crime analysis, and dispatch officers to locate offenders who break curfew or enter prohibited areas.

UNIT OVERVIEW

The Sex Offender Unit’s mission is predicated on comprehensive case planning in order to enhance community safety. The unit is proactive when managing the risk that sex offenders pose to community safety by sanctioning offender misconduct through a series of graduated sanctions, intensive monitoring and reincarceration if necessary. The SOU attempts to minimize the chances a sex offender will commit another sex offense or other criminal conduct by identifying and addressing an offender’s known “risk factors” that correlate to recidivism. The SOU also offers mental health services through a qualified therapist who assesses every sex offender for treatment, their risk to reoffend, and to place them in long-term treatment if appropriate. SOU’s mantra is “No New Victims.” An example of this philosophy includes:

A recent prison releasee was on parole for a series of sexual assaults against female children was discovered viewing pornographic websites while at work. His employer notified his CSO, who later determined that the sites depicted youthful looking males. His parole conditions were promptly modified to prohibit him from viewing or possessing pornography, accessing the Internet, having contact with children, and working or volunteering in an environment where children are present. The CSO was also given the authority to conduct unannounced searches of his residence and computer. A subsequent search was conducted of his residence and computer, which revealed notebooks filled with screen names, phone numbers and websites. A closer examination of the material seized showed ages next to most of the screen names and phone numbers, many of which were under the age of 18, some as young as 14. Also discovered was a phone number and contact person for the Red Cross. Follow up with the Red Cross revealed that the offender had contacted them and inquired about volunteering with one of their programs that catered to youth. With this information, the offender’s parole was revoked.

The policies and procedures of the Sex Offender Unit provide consistency, thoroughness, and fairness in routine case management responsibilities.

TREATMENT:

Sex offenders must undergo an initial assessment by sex offender treatment providers. This assessment is essential in determining the offenders’ risk to reoffend and need for treatment. If treatment is deemed appropriate, the offender will be required to attend outpatient treatment consisting of a minimum of weekly group sessions, plus individual sessions as determined by the therapist. The SOU requires those who treat our sex offender population to use a cognitive/behavioral modality. The offender also will be required to submit to a series of polygraph examinations. The purposes of polygraph exams are to break the offenders’ denial of their responsibility in the sex crime(s) that brought them in to the criminal justice system, obtain a sexual history focusing on prior deviant sexual behavior, and a maintenance exam to determine if they are complying with the treatment objectives and conditions of release. The penile plethysmograph (to measure inappropriate stimuli) is used in select cases.

Sex offender treatment may last anywhere from 12-24 months, followed by aftercare or booster sessions for up to six months. The therapists work collaboratively with the Community Supervision Officers to ensure that the offenders’ are meeting their treatment and supervision obligations. Communication between the therapist and CSOs is frequent and essential.

Substance abuse, domestic violence, anger management, mental health treatment and other forms of assistance are provided. Drug testing is frequent and, not surprisingly, detected drug use is the most common violation reported. Two examples of successful treatment and polygraph use include:

An offender on probation for molesting a child was placed into sex offender treatment as a condition of release. For 6 months the offender denied vigorously that he committed the offense. As consequence of his denial he was not progressing in treatment and the therapist felt there was no chance he would admit the offense. The offender was subjected to a polygraph exam, which he failed. A meeting was conducted with the offender, his therapist, his CSO and the CSO’s supervisor. At that time the offender was advised that he failed the polygraph and will be terminated from treatment. It was made clear to him that if he were terminated unsuccessfully from treatment his CSO would be required to report this to the judge as a violation of probation. In an effort to increase the pressure on him to acknowledge his involvement in the crime, he was offered one last opportunity to pass the polygraph. Within a few days of the meeting, the offender admitted to his role in the crime and is now progressing well in treatment.

A probationer convicted of a crime that involved him exposing himself to children as they played outside their school was assigned to the SOU with the conditions that he not step foot on any school property, that he not view pornography, comply with GPS tracking and complete sex offender treatment. Case records revealed that he was arrested for a similar offense several years ago. The offender, in strong denial about his sexual offending behavior, convincingly presented explanations to the court as to why he did not commit this or any sex crimes and that he need not be supervised by the SOU and should be allowed to take his children to school and coach little league football. The judge did not accept his argument. The offender was promptly placed into sex offender treatment where he continued to deny his problem of exposing himself in public. A routine polygraph examination was provided, and he confessed to not only intentionally exposing himself to children in the current case, but to having engaged in this behavior for over 20 years. He further acknowledged to at least 100 incidents where he masturbated in public and exposed himself to unwitting members of the community. Since this disclosure, his progress in treatment has greatly improved and he stands a much greater chance of controlling this deviant behavior.

CLOSE SUPERVISION:

Sex offenders initially are placed on Intensive or Maximum supervision, depending on their known criminal history, mental health status and past adjustments to community supervision. This means that the Community Supervision Officers are required to meet with the offender face-to-face no less than once or twice per week. They are also required to maintain regular contact with others associated with the offender (i.e., family, counselors, employers). Their supervision level and the amount of contacts the Community Supervision Officers have with the offender are subject to change depending on the offenders’ adjustment. A poor adjustment will automatically result in more frequent contacts and imposed sanctions (GPS, curfew, supervisor conference, written reprimand, drug treatment placement or half-way house placement). A positive adjustment could result in decreased contacts with the CSO, but only with the approval of a Unit Supervisor.

This year DC Superior Court has begun to use an addendum to the Judgment and Commitment Order developed by the Sex Offender Unit that lists a host of special release conditions specifically for sex offenders. The addendum serves to simplify the process for judges to order the types of special conditions we know are needed to effectively manage this population in the community.

Face to face contacts between the CSO and offenders are an essential part of close supervision. They allow the CSOs to assess the offenders’ current state of mind, obtain pertinent information, and, most importantly, keep the offenders’ focused on their supervision obligations. When an offender misses an appointment with their CSO, this usually suggests that problems exist and action is needed.

Fieldwork and collateral contacts are also essential components of close supervision. Community Supervision Officers need to be in the community visiting the offender, family, and friends where they live, work and recreate. By doing so, officers can determine if the offenders have contact or access to potential victims. For example, CSOs conducting home verifications on a convicted child molester will be looking for signs that a child has been to the home or where children are situated within the immediate environment. Meeting with collateral contacts (family, employers, friends) allows CSOs to determine if offenders are complying with supervision obligations and verify information previously provided by the offenders. CSOs work hard to convince the various collateral contacts to become involved in the offenders’ success. It is often the case that family, employers, and friends will contact the CSOs when they feel the offender is headed down the wrong path.

COMPUTER MONITORING

Computer monitoring is another component of the program. The SOU is now equipped and trained to conduct searches of sex offenders’ computers to determine whether a sex offender is accessing pornography or other prohibited material over the Internet. The unit installs monitoring software that will allow CSOs to see exactly how the offender is using his/her computer at work or home in order to determine if they are communicating with minors or downloading child pornography.

OFFENDER SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance is another tool that is available to The Sex Offender Unit. The SOU has the option of placing high-risk offenders under 24-hour surveillance through the use of a private contractor. This was felt to be a necessary function since sex offenders tend to be highly secretive about their sexually deviant behavior and CSOs are not able to perform such work routinely due to time constraints. By placing certain high-risk offenders under surveillance, we expect to discover behavior in our offender population that present community safety concerns or are contrary to their treatment objectives and supervision obligations.

TRAINING:

SOU’s success is largely dependent on the training of the staff. Great effort is made to see that all staff assigned to SOU are specially trained in the areas such as sex offender typologies, sex offender community management and sex offender specific treatment. We realize that staff must have knowledge that will give them the ability to recognize precursors to criminal activity, assess treatment progress, and develop comprehensive supervision strategies and how to respond to some of the unique problems this population presents.

A final example of the success of the sex offender unit includes:

An offender on probation for sexually abusing a minor had been in abscondance for several years. After police apprehended the offender, the court immediately reinstated his probation. A review of the case file revealed that he had a prior conviction for a similar offense in another state. The offender was prohibited from having contact with children. Shortly after his reinstatement on probation, his assigned Community Supervision Officer conducted a routine home verification. When the CSO arrived at the residence, he was greeted by a female child who was determined to be of no relation to the offender. The offender was not home at the time and the child’s mother was nowhere to be found. The CSO immediately pulled the child out of the home and contacted the Metropolitan Police Department to investigate. The offender was located by the CSO and instructed to report to the supervision office immediately. Investigators interviewed the child and determined that the offender had sexually assaulted her and others in the neighborhood. The offender confessed to the crime of molesting the child that evening and was subsequently sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence.

Illustrated by these examples is Unit’s belief that the most effective way to manage sex offenders safely in the community is through close supervision and holding them accountable for their behavior. The use of satellite monitoring, surveillance and treatment services plus partnerships with allied law enforcement agencies provide the best chance for success in the supervision of dangerous offenders.

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

The church basement in southwest Washington, D.C. overflows with criminal offenders. Approximately 200 people relatively new to a sentence of probation from the courts or released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons fill the room. Others are here as a sanction for violating the rules of their release. It is a cold and dreary night in one of the highest crime and drug areas in the nation’s capital.

Staff members from the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the federal, executive branch entity responsible for providing parole and probation services in the District of Columbia preside over this assembly. Also present are a prosecutor from the United States Attorney’s Office and contingents from the Metropolitan Police Department and D.C. Housing Authority Police. All of these agencies deliver a unified message to the offenders: There are consequences for failure. There are also programs and services to increase the chances for success.

Much of the audience, however, does not seem pleased with the prospect of spending the next hour and a half with us. Some are curious, some look like their attention is focused many miles away, and some seem downright hostile. This should be an interesting evening.

Chain of Events

Mass Orientations of criminal offenders new to supervision are not isolated events; they are not programs unto themselves. They are part of the continuous and ongoing chain of events that define the essence of CSOSA’s partnership with the rest of the criminal justice system in Washington, D.C.

Mass Orientations began in 1999 when CSOSA was emerging as a new federal agency, created out of existing parole and court related probation agencies in D.C. CSOSA started as an effort to relieve D.C. government of the fiscal burdens of services ordinarily provided by state agencies. Pretrial, parole and probation, the public defender, the courts, and incarceration of long-term prisoners were all “federalized” or provided with federal funding. CSOSA became an independent federal agency in August of 2000.

The opportunity to create a new agency devoted to state-of-the-art parole and probation services was exciting. Liaisons with law enforcement were thought crucial. Assistant Chief Winston Robinson of the Metropolitan Police Department was a District Commander at the time. Robinson worked with Jay Carver, the leader of CSOSA under the initial three-year trusteeship, and Jasper Ormond, now CSOSA’s Associate Director for Community Justice Programs, to create a community supervision system founded on three essential principals: frequent information and intelligence sharing, thousands of joint patrols (Accountability Tours) to offenders’ homes, and Mass Orientations.

These core activities are the individual plays in CSOSA’s overall strategy to win the high-stakes game of community supervision. They are part of an integrated package deemed necessary for success. Each effort supports the others: Without the cooperation and involvement of police and prosecutors, CSOSA’s activities resemble a defense with no offense. . Both are necessary.

Research from the National Institute of Justice on Boot Camps and intensive supervision programs suggests that both supervision and social services are necessary for success. CSOSA offers an array of employment, education, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, anger management and other services. CSOSA partners with D.C. city government (which provides the bulk of services), private non-profit organizations and places of worship throughout the city.

The combined energies and capabilities of law enforcement and social service organizations are brought to bear on the issue of criminal offenders and their obligations to themselves, their children and families. Mass Orientations are simply part of the overall strategy. Mass Orientations are but one product in an array of services and partnerships designed to reduce recidivism and crime.

Back to the Meeting

Greg Thomas is a Community Relations Specialist with CSOSA’s Office of Community Justice Programs. His job is to attend police and community meetings in his district dealing with crime. He also organizes crime related meetings with leaders within the communities he serves. He is a former member of the Metropolitan Police Department. His office brims with the awards of a lifetime in law enforcement. Tonight, however, he stands among 200 criminal offenders mandated to attend the Mass Orientation. He and five other Community Relations Specialists organize these events on a quarterly basis throughout the city.

“Welcome ladies and gentlemen to tonight’s orientation.” Greg cheerfully begins. “We are here to make sure you know the rules of supervision and understand the many programs that exist to help you become productive and law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia.”

The faces of the offenders in the crowd seem to predict who will succeed and who will struggle. The ones paying attention are the safer bets. The ones lost to the world will struggle.

Greg reaches out to the ones on the fence. You can tell that he has years of experience talking to offenders.

“Supervision is just not about drug tests and us showing up at your door with the police,” he says. “A lot of you in this room are sick and tired of being sick and tired. You know you want a better life. You know your kids are depending on you. You know that drugs will eventually kill you. You know that dealers live terrible lives. You know you want something different. You know that!”

More faces look up. Heads nod in agreement. To some in this room, drugs and hustling and beefing are all they know. Escape seems distant or impossible. Yet they know they want something better. They are not quite sure, however, what “better” means.

The evening starts off with the rules of supervision. Community Supervision Officers clearly state what is expected. CSOSA has some of the most stringent contact standards in the nation. Twice a week drug testing is mandatory for the first eight weeks, twice a month testing follows for the next 12 weeks, and monthly drug tests occur throughout supervision. Fail one and you go back to the beginning of the cycle.

Close to half the population is either under high levels of supervision (four to eight office and community contacts each month) or they are part of a special supervision caseload (i.e., sex offenders, satellite tracking, mental health, domestic violence, day reporting, etc.).

It’s important to note that there are others in the room beyond rank and file Community Supervision Officers. Management at various levels within CSOSA attends these events and meets the audience.

All of this reinforces one message: You will be held accountable for your behaviors. While all of us are aware that there are no guarantees regarding community supervision, there is some optimism that we are bringing accountability to the table.

The police are next. Various officers go to the front of the packed room and tell those assembled that they will be looking for them as they patrol. If they are on the corner causing the community grief, their Community Supervision Officers will be informed, and action will be taken.

The stories of police officers recognizing offenders during Mass Orientations as troublemakers and instantly holding decision meetings with Community Supervision Officers are many. But treatment needs are also discussed, and the officers often encourage offenders to attend. Everybody understands that both approaches are necessary.

The Assistant United States Attorney makes the next appearance. She has the demeanor of a docent at one of Washington’s many historical monuments: Just the facts, delivered politely. She is direct, polite, and matter-of-fact. Her voice is not raised. She simply tells those assembled that those holding a gun or ammunition will go away to a federal prison in another state for a minimum of five years. If they engage in acts of violence or criminal conspiracies, they will be aggressively prosecuted.

During her presentation, no offenders stare at the floor or nod off to sleep.

For the moment, everybody’s listening.

Services

CSOSA’s partnership philosophy also applies to services. For example, the agency works with faith institutions to provide mentors to offenders returning from prison and link offenders with faith-based support services. CSOSA has put significant effort into cataloging the programs offered by Washington’s churches and mosques. Some provide clothing. Others offer job placement and training. Housing, childcare, drug treatment, food and fellowship are additional services.

But identifying services can be an academic exercise. Getting offenders to use them and embrace their benefit is another issue.

Offenders, for a wide variety of reasons, have difficulty dealing with the vast and impersonal bureaucracies that often administer social services. If the services are constructed with offenders in mind, then participation rates increase.

Back at the Mass Orientation, Greg Thomas introduces members of CSOSA’s VOTEE Unit (Vocational Opportunities, Training, Education and Employment) who stand up to address the crowd.

“We have services designed just for you,” they state. We can provide you with a job or provide job training through the city.”

They point out that many former offenders have trained as commercial truck drivers who go on to make very good money. If fact, they say, some former offenders have hired people released from prison who completed the training. “There are many other opportunities,” they state. The unit will do a comprehensive vocational and educational assessment of any offender and provide direct services.

They continue with an overview of additional services offered directly by CSOSA or other agencies: drug and alcohol treatment, anger management, mental health counseling, and others.

Offer of Services is Always There

It’s important to note that there is no “expiration date” on CSOSA’s offer to match offenders with helpful services. There is a formal intake process, during which the Community Supervision Officer does a complete assessment of the new offender’s risk and social needs, and a contract is signed. Beginning in 2006, CSOSA implemented an enhanced, expanded, and fully automated assessment instrument, the Auto Screener.

CSOSA’s Transitional Interventions for Parole Supervision (TIPS) Unit have staff placed in every Bureau of Prisons halfway house in the city. These officers provide the same assessment for the 50 percent of prison returnees who come back to the District through halfway house placement.

At every contact with their Community Supervision Officers, offenders can say that they are ready to accept the help that is offered. CSOs will then initiate referrals to the various service units. They do not have to rely on the courts or Parole Commission to get someone into drug treatment, mental health programming or job training.

An End, or a Beginning

Ninety minutes can seem like a lifetime. After the program, many audience members rush out into the cold night air. Many others, however, stay and learn more about programs they know they need.

“It’s a system philosophy,” states Paul Quander, the Director of CSOSA. “We apply pressure, especially to high-risk offenders. We show them a unified system, but we also show them that we care about their well being, their future and their child’s future.”

Bryan Young, a CSOSA Senior Management Analyst and organization historian offers, “We learn stuff through Mass Orientations and other partnership activities that you will not learn through day-to-day office and community contacts. We find key data to protect society and help offenders and their families. That’s what makes our partnership work. That’s what makes the District of Columbia safer.”

By Leonard A. Sipes, Jr. and Beverly Hill. Edited by Cedric Hendricks and Joyce McGinnis

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

Walk down the streets of any major American city and you will likely encounter more than a few mentally ill individuals. Sometimes friendly, sometimes demanding and often scary, mentally ill people pose both a serious public health problem and a moral dilemma for our society. Both victimizer and victim, the mentally ill present especially unique challenges for those of us within the criminal justice system.

According to a Washington Post story filed by Rick Weiss on June 7, 2005, a recent National Institute of Mental Health study found that “One quarter of all Americans met the criteria for having a mental illness within the past year, and fully a quarter of those had a serious disorder that significantly disrupted their ability to function day to day.” Many criminologists suggest that rates of mental illness are even higher among the criminal offender population.

The vast majority of criminological concern for the mentally ill seems directed towards incarceration. Anyone working in our jails or prisons knows of the unique challenges mentally ill offenders offer to institutions attempting to balance security and treatment needs with the realities of budget. It’s difficult to operate within a purely medical model when a mentally ill offender becomes violent or disruptive and threatens the safety and security of the institution. Most correctional professionals have witnessed nurses and psychologists attempting to “talk down” an inmate after a verbal and near-physical encounter with staff or fellow inmates. Seething with emotion and ready to burst, the mentally ill inmate may sometimes stay in that agitated condition for hours at a time while the realities of prison continue to surround them.

Society justifiably calls for humane treatment. Correctional staff just try to keep the peace. But sooner or later, the mentally ill inmate is released back to the community, usually with the same mental health issues they went in with. What happens then?

In the Community

In the District of Columbia, they come to a unique federal, executive branch organization, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). CSOSA supervises 15,500 offenders on parole, supervised release or probation every day. CSOSA assigns almost 50 percent of its caseload to its highest levels of supervision or to specialized caseloads, where each Community Supervision Officer (CSO – known elsewhere as a parole or probation officer) is responsible for only 25 or 30 offenders. Backed up by extensive drug testing, cooperative endeavors with police and prosecutors, a state-of-the-art information technology system, satellite tracking and 50 to 1 general supervision caseload ratios, CSOSA is well positioned to implement its community-based model of offender supervision. This research-based model combines the traditional elements of supervision with an equal emphasis on treatment, social services, and community involvement.

CSOSA’s specialized units offers counseling and special supervision techniques to offenders who are hard core substance abusers, involved in acts of violence, domestic violence, sex offenses and traffic-alcohol issues. Offenders with mental health issues may interact with any of these categories and are assigned to the Metal Health Unit. CSOSA currently supervises almost 800 offenders with confirmed mental health diagnoses Eighty-five percent are male. Some are assigned to mental health institutions and are monitored through regular correspondence with the facility.

CSOSA’s mental health teams have among the lowest caseload ratios in the country. At 30 offenders to each Community Supervision Officers, CSOs and their supervisors have contact with the offender an average of three to four times per week. All CSOs come to the job with a minimum of a bachelor’s degree and many hold master’s degrees as well. Most have a background in law or the criminological or social sciences. Most CSOs on the mental health teams volunteered for the assignment.

Thirty CSOs and supervisors staff the mental health teams. Mental health offenders are assigned to this specialized unit via a D.C. Superior Court or U.S. Parole Commission order; offenders assigned to another unit may also be referred by the CSO for evaluation. CSOSA contracts with psychologists who conduct an assessment of every referred offender. If the psychologist establishes a diagnosis of mental illness, retardation or a personality disorder, “gatekeepers” (licensed professional counselors with master’s degrees) then see the offender. It’s their job to represent the offender as he or she navigates through the District of Columbia’s mental health system to obtain counseling, therapy and medication services.

CSOSA’s gatekeepers have expert knowledge of the public and private resources available. In addition to the standard D.C. agencies, CSOSA explores alternative strategies, such as accessing services through Medicaid or the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The focus is on developing a precise diagnosis and an appropriate intervention plan, so that psychologists and social workers can act as advocates to get each offender the best possible treatment.

Once the offender’s mental health condition is controlled, he or she can benefit from other CSOSA services, such as job training, drug treatment, anger management or a faith-based mentor.

Community Supervision Officers

But CSOSA contends that a vital ingredient in the success of the program is the dedication of the Community Supervision Officers who see the offenders on a regular basis. “We care about the public’s safety and the offender’s progress,” states 30-year veteran and supervisor Verna Young. “We are determined to achieve both.”

Ms. Young suggests that the CSOs who volunteer for the mental health team are some of the best in CSOSA, if not some of the best in the nation. “Think about it for a moment,” she urges. “These are highly educated individuals who deal with the toughest clients possible. These offenders bring an immense array of problems that would challenge the most dedicated professional. We are the lifeline between the mental health profession, their families and friends, their employers and everyone who interacts with them. We talk them down from negative encounters. We act as intermediaries with frustrated family members. They grow to depend on us for structure and guidance in a world that offers fear and resistance. We help them survive on their own without returning to the criminal justice or social services system. More importantly, we help them exist without doing harm to anyone else.”

DeAndro Baker, Verna’s supervisor and another seasoned veteran of the criminal justice system, explains that offenders with mental health, retardation issues and personality disorders offer an amazing array of problems.

Research for all criminal offenders (examples: Bureau of Justice Statistics-Prior Abuse Reported by Inmates and Probationers and the National Institute of Justice-Early Childhood Victimization Among Incarcerated Adult Male Felons) indicates that substantial social problems result from child abuse and neglect, sexual and physical violence, early age onset of alcohol and drug use and criminal activity. Couple all of this with poor school performance and limited employment histories and involvement in the criminal justice system, and the challenges seem insurmountable. To state that the average offender is a trial is an understatement. Add mental health or retardation or personality disorders, and the challenges are immense.

“But we do not shy from the task at hand,” states Mr. Baker. “The bottom line is protecting the public. We will not hesitate to go back to the courts or the U.S. Parole Commission and state that the individual cannot be safely supervised in the community. We will reincarcerate. But we do everything in our power, including day reporting, to make sure that offenders live a productive life without harm to themselves or others. We are the front line in the effort to serve the offender’s needs and protect society, and we do it every day.”

“The New Asylums”

All of this takes on greater importance as society grapples with the need for safety, balanced with a desire for humane treatment. This dilemma was explored in a “Frontline” episode entitled “The New Asylums” (www.pbs.org/wbgh/frontline) produced by WGBH in Boston and co-produced by Mead Street Films. The episode aired on PBS stations on May 10, 2005. The implications of the program are profound. There are no easy answers.

The New York Times reported on the episode: “An enormously disturbing Frontline report profiles the enormously disturbed.” Times reporter Ned Martin wrote that the documentary …. “explains that the mentally ill, in the decade after a mass release from mental hospitals, have often wound up in less forgiving confines.”

“The New Asylums asserts that 500,000 mentally ill patients, who in earlier decades would’ve been treated in hospitals, are now mistreated in prisons. The mental hospitals now house only a tenth of that number, the narrator says.”

Ultimately, after they leave the hospitals, or the prisons, the mentally ill return to the community.

According to the “Frontline” web site, “In 2004, some 630,000 prisoners were released back into their communities, many with mental illnesses and co-occurring disorders such as substance abuse. Studies have shown that 60 percent of released offenders are likely to be rearrested within 18 months, and that mentally ill offenders are likely to be rearrested at an even higher rate. Experts claim that a major cause for recidivism among the mentally ill is the “epidemic” shortfall in community-based mental health services (emphasis added). While offenders have a constitutional right to receive mental health treatment when they are incarcerated, they do not enjoy a similar right to treatment in the community…”

“I do not understand how everything began to unravel,” said a 52-year-old woman from northwest DC. She is on probation for drug distribution. Her years of cocaine abuse produced severe depression and an array of medical problems. She just got out of drug treatment, but recently tested positive for marijuana. She understands that CSOSA will mandate twice a week drug testing as a sanction for drug use. She believes that this level of scrutiny (and the possibility of returning to jail) will keep her from doing drugs.

“I need structure in my life, and my CSO provides that structure. My CSO comes to my home to check on me. It’s nice that I can talk to people who insist that I take care of myself.”

A 48-year-old parolee from southeast DC presents similar problems. He was incarcerated for assault and gun charges. He is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. His drug use (cocaine) was a social event with friends until it became a demon that made his illness much worse. Structure is an essential element in his rehabilitation, and the requirements of supervision help him cope with life’s problems. “As long as I keep my job, I can stay away from drugs and take care of my family. CSOSA helps me cope with problems and keeps me on track.” He admits that drug testing is an essential element. “It’s nice that they care,” he states, “but I know that they will put me back in prison if I do not improve, so I know that I must stay on my medication and do what they want me to do.”

“Public safety is combined with a sincere desire to assist…”

It was because of concern for the community that CSOSA started its innovative mental health caseload. “Public safety is combined with a sincere desire to assist these offenders in meaningful ways,” states CSOSA’s director, Paul A Quander, Jr. “We can manage this caseload in a way that services both goals.”

Thomas H. Williams, CSOSA’s Associate Director of Community Supervision Services, states, “The Frontline report only confirms our experience with mentally ill offenders. Many of the recommendations of the report are already in place within the District of Columbia. The challenges are immense, but we are attempting to meet them with vigor and dedication.”

Tiffany Robinson is ready. “We fix the complexities of life,” she states. A CSO on the Mental Health Unit, she is ready to bring her education and enthusiasm to the challenges offered by this population. Ms. Robinson understands her caseload. “They often say, “˜Please help me,” she reflects. “They do not understand the world they inhabit. It’s my job to help them cope, to reassure, to make the world a less frightening place. That requires structure, and that’s what we and the mental health professionals offer. If that need for structure leads to incarceration or commitment to a mental health facility, then so be it. We will protect society.”

Ms. Robinson understands that CSOSA embraces both sides of the challenges posed by the mentally ill offender. “But we will also offer a humane and compassionate hand to those who need it,” she says. “Thousands have become productive citizens because of it.”

###

By Leonard A. Sipes, Jr. Edited by Cedric Hendricks and Joyce McGinnis

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

“Religious organizations are long-standing and powerful community institutions. They often have histories with the families and the returning offender. That link often makes it easier for the individual to have new contacts that can move them to do well. Faith succeeds where other things often fail.” Rev. Donald L. Isaac, Executive Director of the East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership in Washington, D.C. and Chair of the CSOSA Faith Advisory Council.

Many offenders are truly ready for change. Those of us in the profession have often heard offenders state that they “are sick and tired of being sick and tired.” We typically read that 50 percent of releases return to prison within three years. But 50 percent do not. Many professionals and policymakers, including President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union speech, believe we can do better.

Successful offenders tell us that the stabilizing influence of family and caring community members made the difference. Job training, substance abuse counseling and other forms of help are important. But nothing is as powerful as the mother, father, wife, children or friend who provide the structure and support necessary to succeed. Many of us have struggled in our own lives and contemplated the lure of alcohol or other destructive behaviors as relief. When confronted with an angry and insistent mother, spouse or friend, we often find the courage to mend our ways. It’s no different with offenders.

But who can repair the broken link between a returning offender and his or her family?

The Role of Faith Communities

It’s often the church, mosque or synagogue that provides the bridge between the returning offender and family. Religious leaders and their congregations can act as intermediaries, coaches and sources of services. They can also influence the broader community’s attitudes toward ex-offenders.

In many neighborhoods, few institutions are as powerful than the church, synagogue or mosque. These institutions speak for the community in ways that other organizations cannot. They often set moral standards. Their leaders become spokespersons for local issues. More important, these institutions provide structure, fellowship and a frame of reference for both identity and possibility. On the day-to-day level, they also provide necessary social assistance.

Law enforcement organizations have embraced “faith-based” solutions to problems for as long as cops have walked local beats. Officers dealing with verbally abusive husbands go to local ministers (as well as clinics) for intervention. They ask priests to arrange for drug counseling or Imams to mentor straying probationers. Many of us have asked religious leaders for assistance at one time or another. We do it because they have the resources. We do it because they have the moral authority, and they know how to use it. They know when to speak softly and encouragingly. They also know when to challenge a “knucklehead” because he desperately needs a wake-up call.

But the question is how to take the moral and practical authority of “faith” and apply it to meeting the needs of returning offenders. In Washington, D.C., we are taking the power of faith and moving it to a larger (and hopefully) more productive level.

The Provision of Resources

In Washington, D.C., there are approximately 140 trained faith-based volunteers operating under the umbrella of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA-D.C.’s federally funded parole and probation agency) who provide an array of services.

Returning offenders often have at least loose ties to a congregation. Volunteers within the church, mosque or synagogue can act as mentors or coaches. They can repair damaged relationships within families. They can provide housing (which is increasingly challenging as real estate costs go up in D.C.). Drug treatment can be offered. Clothing can be provided for job interviews. Meals are offered. People are willing to listen, care and provide fellowship.

But the most important thing may be acceptance by someone beyond another addict or gang member. The power of faith-based volunteers is that they bring credibility and the potential for a long-term, positive source of support and influence that government cannot provide during the time that a person may be on parole or supervised release.

Rev. Donald Isaac understands the unique power of faith to reach returning offenders. “Everyone returning home after years away has a need to feel connected with family, friends and community,” he says. “It’s the same for offenders. The faith community can be that connection when there are no others. We can be the family the offender is looking for.”

Religious bodies have resources at their immediate disposal, or they can refer offenders to other locations or services that are part of the larger denomination. As important as spirituality is, and it may be the key for many of us, the availability of the right resources at the right time can be crucial.

“The sacred, spiritual mission must be there to change. You have to have it. It may not mean a reliance on a religion, but faith is a necessary component of change. To make progress on the path to peace, belief in yourself is a crucial first step. Offenders see it work with others. They begin to believe. Spirituality gives hope beyond human needs.” Muhammad Karim, a founder of Path to Peace, Inc.

Well over 600,000 offenders are released from prison every year in the United States. Thousands more are released from jails. According to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over two thirds are rearrested for felonies and serious misdemeanors within three years. These statistics have prompted many policymakers to see reentry and faith-based programs as necessary.

This is new ground. Members of the criminal justice community are increasingly seeking alliances with the faith community. We see the possibility of tapping into new support structures with rewarding possibilities.

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency and Faith-Based Efforts

CSOSA is a federal, executive branch entity providing parole and probation services for Washington, D.C. CSOSA is a research-based, technologically oriented community corrections agency with a growing national reputation. CSOSA is a new federal agency, independent as of August of 2000.

The CSOSA/Faith Community Partnership was initiated in FY 2002 as an innovative and pragmatic collaboration to expand the range of support services available to offenders returning from incarceration. The program bridges the gap between prison and community by helping them get started with a new life.

But more important, we recognize that spirituality and the moral authority of religious organizations motivates some returnees in ways that conventional programs cannot. Combine this with supportive people and resources and one realizes that faith-based efforts can be a very important indegredieant for crime prevention and stable comminities.

Why do faith-based efforts work?

Rev. Stephen Tucker, pastor of New Commandant Baptist Church in northwest Washington and recipient of a grant from the Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing (COPS) office, recently hosted a two-day conference on how offenders relate to police and community. The sessions were designed to get offenders to understand law enforcement and police to understand offenders and their struggles to successfully reintegrate after prison. People from around the country participated.

A primary lesson? The deep distrust of police (or other government agencies) towards ex-offenders opens a door for faith-based efforts. The church can be a bridge to bring people together.

Rev. Tucker cites another reason why faith-based programs can be effective. “African-Americans are wedded to God and spirituality,” he says. We have to return to our history. Spirituality is part of our experience and our survival. It is the key to our future success.”

Evolution

During the early stages of the CSOSA/Faith Community Partnership, mentoring has been the primary focus. The mentoring initiative links offenders with concerned members of the faith community who offer support, friendship, and assistance during the difficult period of re-entry. During the transition from prison to neighborhood, returning offenders can be overwhelmed by large and small problems. Participating offenders are matched with a volunteer mentor from one of the participating faith-based institutions.

The philosophy of mentoring is to build strong moral values and provide positive role models for ex-offenders returning to our communities through coaching and spiritual guidance. Mentors also help identify linkages to faith-based resources that assist in the growth and development of mentees.

According to an in-house evaluation conducted from March, 2002 to March, 2005, CSOSA referred 212 offenders to the program and 411 individuals from the faith community participated in training designed to help them to help the offenders.

Where most mentoring programs offer one-on-one mentoring, the CSOSA/faith community mentoring program provides a group of supportive, positive mentors for each of the offenders. The group mentoring strategy allows the program to not only address what are often multiple needs of the offender, but the group also serves as a n alternative for offenders who either lack a strong family support system or face negative-anti-social peer groups.

The evaluation found that the group mentoring approach has provided the alternative positive and supportive assistance that contribute to offenders’ successful transition from prison to the community.

The mentoring initiative is a first step toward a citywide network of faith-based services, including job training, substance abuse aftercare and support, transitional housing, family counseling, and other services.

Structure of the Partnership

Early in the initiative, an Advisory Council was selected by the participating clergy to maximize the participation of the faith community. Much of the Advisory Council’s activity has centered on helping CSOSA achieve its goal of denominational inclusiveness

Three geographically based clusters were created using the District’s ward boundaries. These divisions were based upon the distribution of offenders’ residences, the location of participating faith organizations and the location of CSOSA field offices.

The faith community nominated a “lead institution” in each cluster. CSOSA prepared a formal contractual solicitation and made official selections in May of 2002. Approximately $100,000 was provided to each cluster to cover administrative costs.

Each Lead Institution hired a cluster coordinator to function as the clergy’s staff leader/liaison with CSOSA. Each cluster convenes meetings (at least monthly) to discuss experiences, opportunities and issues that need to be addressed to optimize the quality and synergy of this effort. The cluster coordinators meet with CSOSA staff on a monthly basis to review accomplishments and impediments.

Part of the faith strategy involves a successful video mentoring program with a federal prison in North Carolina in which over one thousand DC inmates are housed. In addition, CSOSA has used video conferencing at this facility to introduce re-entrants to their prospective mentors while they are still incarcerated. This has proven to be a workable vehicle to address the needs of re-entrants as they transition into release status. Many have had little or no contact with their families or the community during their period of confinement.

Involvement in this initiative has contributed to additional resources becoming available to two of the lead institutions. As noted above, New Commandment has received a COPS grant. Another lead institution, East of the River Clergy-Police-Community Partnership, has received funding from the Department of Labor to implement a job readiness and placement program

What Do Mentors Do?

During the transition from prison to community, returning offenders can be overwhelmed by both large and small problems-everything from getting a job to maintaining a residence to negotiating public transportation. Mentors work with CSOSA’s Community Supervision Officers to address some of these problems. Most importantly, mentors provide individual support and guidance. They let the offender know that the community is invested in their success.

Mentors help in a variety of ways, such as:

• § Coaching in job interview skills.
• § Locating a clothing bank to obtain appropriate clothes for work.
• § Introducing the offender to a faith institution’s support services and leisure activities.
• § Helping the offender to develop independent living skills, such as budgeting or shopping.
• § Helping the offender negotiate changes in his or her relationships with family and loved ones.

How Are Mentors Selected?

In order to become a mentor, volunteers must meet certain criteria. They:

• § Must be affiliated with a participating faith institution. This does not have to be the house of worship to which the mentor belongs. If an individual wants to become a mentor but his or her church is not a partnership participant, another institution will sponsor the mentor.
• § Must complete an application and a personal interview with the Cluster Coordinator.
• § Must complete 12 hours of initial training.
• § Must be willing to commit at least two hours per week, and must be willing to stay with the program for six months.

Conclusion

The CSOSA Faith Community Partnership is an exciting endeavor that will hopefully result in reduced recidivism and safer communities. With large numbers of offenders in need, the task of coordination and cooperation has been challenging. The program is continuously evolving.

Churches, mosques and synagogues can provide leadership, resources and strategies in a coordinated and focused way that we in government find difficult to offer. They bring credibility, long-term support, family, community connections and faith.

Community supervision can provide a structure of accountability, drug treatment, job placement assistance, and more. The faith community can provide the essence of what it means to be a complete human being. Both are necessary.

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

Since the increase in crime during the mid 1960′s, the primary challenge within the criminal justice system has been the substance-abusing offender. Society in general, and the justice system in particular, has revised their thoughts on crime and what we should do about criminals. However, the concern regarding the drug addicted offender remains constant.

We have learned a lot in the last four decades. For instance, we have experienced epidemics of heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, and endless other illicit substances along the way. Proposed remedies have ranged from therapeutic communities (sometimes involving whole prison wings devoted to drug treatment) to “tough-love” environments to today’s focus on assessment (placing the offender in the most effective modality) and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Both state and federal governments have tried mandatory incarceration and alternative community-based approaches.

Although the rate of crime in the U.S. has been at record lows for the last ten years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that populations within the prison and community corrections systems have increased. Most of the increase is driven by substance abusing offenders and changes in sentencing.

In the 1994 report “Controlling Cocaine: Supply vs. Demand Programs,” the Rand Corporation projected that for every dollar spent on drug treatment society reaps seven dollars in benefit (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Cocaine-Supply-Demand1994.htm). There are many studies (The Washington State Institute for Public Policy provides a summation) that supply the good news that drug and alcohol treatment works to reduce criminal activity, as well as a range of other positive results (http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-06-3901.pdf).

But the bottom line of 40 years of effort is that 80 percent of offenders coming into this country’s correctional institutions have histories of substance abuse, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the vast majority do not receive treatment in prison (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/dt.htm). These same individuals will enter community supervision, where the lack of treatment will influence whether, and how quickly, they relapse into using drugs and committing crimes.

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) attempts to deal not just with criminal offenders with histories of drug use, but with individuals that some describe as the most difficult people in the criminal justice system.

CSOSA (http://www.csosa.gov/ and http://media.csosa.gov/ ) is the federal agency that provides parole and probation supervision for D.C. Code offenders in Washington, D.C. CSOSA is responsible for approximately 15,000 offenders each day. Approximately 2,000 offenders return from prison to the nation’s capital each year.

CSOSA has adopted notably stringent contact and drug testing standards. The agency is equally committed to providing the services necessary to assist offenders on supervision. Special supervision units involve high-risk drug offenders, sex and mental health offenders, and those with drinking and driving, or domestic violence issues. The agency also provides educational and vocational assistance. CSOSA has developed an innovative network of partnerships to bring as many resources as possible to the task of community supervision.

The Drug Unit Teams

Two special supervision teams provide interventions for approximately 500 high-risk offenders with extensive criminal and substance abuse histories. They are:

• Substance Abuse and Intervention Team (SAINT) provides supervision for high-risk parole offenders;
• Sanctions Team for Addition and Recovery (STAR) supervises probationers using the drug court model.

“The drug units deal with the toughest substance abuse offenders within the CSOSA system,” states DeAndro Baker, Branch Chief for substance abuse, mental health and traffic-alcohol teams for CSOSA. He is a Licensed Professional Counselor, Certified Cognitive Behavioral Therapist, Master Addiction Counselor, and certified train the trainer in “What Works” by the National Institute of Corrections.

“We go where few dare to tread,” Baker states. “We know that offenders in the specialized drug units have co-occurring disorders [concurrent mental health and substance abuse diagnoses], are more likely to re-offend, and are at a higher risk to commit anti-social acts. We utilize a range of graduated sanctions to reinforce positive behavior and to swiftly address antisocial attitudes and belief systems. Appropriate sanctions are then followed by proper interventions, including a variety of community-based treatment and programming options. We take public safety and the conditions of release very seriously. The overall effort is to change criminal thinking and behaviors.”

Fifteen Community Supervision Officers (CSO’s–known as parole and probation agents elsewhere) in SAINT and STAR, along with three supervisors, provide a combination of supervision and services. The caseload ratio of 35 offenders per CSO enables close supervision of these high-risk offenders. The normal ratio of supervision in CSOSA is 50 to 1. Lowering caseloads to a level that permits substantial, meaningful contact between the offender and the CSO has been a priority within CSOSA since the agency was established in 1997.

A combination of veteran officers and new CSO’s fresh from the agency’s training academy staff the unit. Mr. Baker indicates that officers “are grounded in clinical evaluation, treatment planning, and establishing and maintaining a continuum of care.” CSO’s provide individual and group counseling. They use a combination of strict accountability and motivational counseling to try to reorient offenders into a new way of thinking and gaining control over their lives. Working with this tough offender population is not only challenging but also critical to public safety. Mr. Baker indicates, “The key to effective supervision is the Community Supervision Officers.”

The Offenders

With the right mix of treatment services and accountability, many offenders go on to lead productive and crime free lives. CSOSA is dedicated to offering the right combination of case management and treatment. The Washington State Public Policy Institute’s 2006 study of adult corrections programs concluded that the combination of supervision and treatment holds one of the more promising approaches to community supervision and reducing recidivism (http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=06-01-1201).

CSOSA has been successful in using special units and partnerships (especially with the faith-based community) to achieve promising results. Close to half our daily population is in a specialized treatment unit or is undergoing intensive supervision, vocational assessments, coordinated treatment activities, and drug testing. The drug units, however, deal with offenders who pose challenges beyond those presented by other offenders.

“In supervision, we provide in-depth case management that includes: screening; assessments; treatment planning; referrals; staffing; counseling and documenting the offenders’ efforts. A performance plan is constructed that provides instructions to assist the offender in making lifestyle changes towards desired pro-social activities,” states Mr. Baker.

To understand the kind of offender and modalities we are talking about, you need to get to the root of the problem-the underlying psychological problems and issues that drive substance abuse and criminality.

According to staff, it’s that “root understanding” that causes some observers to have difficulty in understanding what the units do. “We’re not about business as usual,” Baker states. “We are about restructuring a person who desperately needs help with problem solving, self efficacy, internal accountability, employment readiness, and simple life skills.”

“Working with substance abusers is challenging,” states Cassandra N. Brown, a 15-year veteran in community supervision who has been with CSOSA since its inception. “There are always other issues in the background.”

Brown works with probationers in the drug court. She finds the drug court effective and supportive because of the swift impositions of sanctions and the attention of caring judges. An increasing body of national research on drug courts, such as that cited in the National Institute of Justice report Drug Courts: the Second Decade, points to their efficacy and impact on recidivism (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/211081.pdf).

The Program

“We tell them that it’s going to be different,” states Ms. Brown. “They don’t believe us, but that’s how the process begins.”

Every offender brings an array of issues. Housing, health care, jobs and substance abuse are just the tip of the iceberg. Significant numbers of offenders, according to Department of Justice research, claim histories of child abuse and neglect (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/parip.pdf) or mental health problems (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf).

While most of us can be compared to a glass that is 70 or 80 percent full, many criminal offenders are people whose glass is perpetually 30 percent full. Addressing the needs of housing and providing job opportunities or drug counseling increases the fullness of the glass. The question that continues to confound criminologists is defining the point at which a combination of supervision and services tips the scales and the offender begins to overcome his or her difficulties. “To overcome those problems, you have to screen, assess, and plan to restructure the person,” states Mr. Baker.

The process begins with comprehensive evaluation of the offender’s background. Within CSOSA, there are teams of specialists who perform evaluations of substance abuse, mental, educational or criminal histories. Offenders in need are placed in specialized programs as appropriate.

According to Mr. Baker, the foundation for effective supervision of these offenders is identifying the crisis points in their lives. The unit does not simply focus on substance abuse but also on the many issues that offenders face. Relapse and problems are expected. A variety of sanctions and interventions are in place to deal with anticipated problems.

“We teach them how to deal with the endless triggers of negative behavior in their lives,” Ms. Brown says. “Through individual and group counseling, we role play these triggers for violence and drugs and teach them that there are better ways to conduct their lives. They need to understand the triggers and how to govern themselves.”

A psychologist, a licensed counselor, supervisors and Mr. Baker run the group counseling sessions and provide individual assistance. They assist with the “heavy duty co-occurring” cases. Community Supervision Officers can also run groups to constantly reinforce the lessons of role-play and “trigger” management.

Modalities used in groups can include cognitive therapy under a variety of guises, including psycho educational classes with names like “Thinking for a Change” or “Reality Therapy.” Strategies are chosen that fit the lifestyle and background of the offender. Baker insists that there is nothing “cookie-cutter” in their approach. “The assessments tell us what the person needs, and we build a case management strategy that evokes change,” he states. “Basically, it all comes down to understanding stages of change, criminological identifiers, anti-social thinking, environmental triggers, pro-social modeling, interventions, structure, and what the offender can do about them.”

Strict supervision is crucial. The units constantly interact with the offender within the office and out in the community. The drug units, drug testing professionals and sanctions teams within CSOSA can come into contact with the offender as many as six times each week. The Drug Court side of the program (for probationers) insures that offenders are before the judge as needed.

It’s the combination of strict supervision and treatment that works to reduce recidivism, according to staff members. “They need the structure. They require the contacts and drug testing. Anything less is setting them up for failure,” according to staff.

Staff insists that they will not hesitate to start the process that may return or place a person in prison. But they are equally adamant that offenders can be taught to successfully deal with the addictions and other challenges their lives.

The Reentry and Sanctions Center–Reductions in Re-arrests are Possible

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 67 percent of all those released from prison commit felonies and serious misdemeanors within three years of release. Many commit multiple serious crimes. The lesson of this and other research is that future criminality is probable (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf).

CSOSA has a new and important tool to help interrupt the cycle of substance abuse and crime. The agency’s Reentry and Sanctions Center (RSC), which opened in the spring of 2006, is a 100-bed residential facility that provides 28 days of intensive assessment, pre-treatment programming, and case planning for offenders with long histories of drug abuse and crime. The RSC expands the strategies available to CSOSA-and increases the probability that at least some of these offenders will escape the revolving door for good. More information on the RSC is available at (http://www.csosa.gov/) or (http://www.csosa.gov/reentry/rsc_leadership.pdf). The latter provides specifics as to components for the SAINT program.

The SAINT parole team supervises offenders who graduate from the Reentry and Sanctions Center. Prior to the RSC’s opening, CSOSA operated a smaller program, the Assessment and Orientation Center, which was partially funded by the Washington-Baltimore HIDTA. Studies by the University of Maryland’s Institute for Behavior and Health found that offenders who completed the program at the Assessment and Orientation Center were significantly less likely to be arrested after the program.

A 2001 study indicated that all HIDTA program participants (from programs in other locations) experienced a 47 percent decrease in arrest rate. The Reentry and Sanction Center graduates supervised by the drug units experienced a 35 percent decrease. Considering their drug, criminal and social histories, this type of success seems nothing short of remarkable.

“If we can achieve these results with a very difficult population, it’s clear that, given the resources, parole and probation agencies throughout the country can do a better job of supervision,” states Thomas Williams, Associate Director of Community Supervision Services. “We can protect the public and reduce future criminality. Our experience can help.”

By Leonard A. Sipes, Jr. Edited by Cedric Hendricks and Joyce McGinnis

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

“To experience domestic violence is to walk into hell over and over again,”she said. She was a victim of constant beatings by her former husband. She decided to bring charges. I was a young police officer, assigned to check on her (and her children’s) safety while she navigated the criminal justice system. She explained that the beatings were severe and frequent. Her self-esteem had reached rock bottom. Her children, ages five and nine, wanted their father. She had hinted at suicide.

To many, the phrase “domestic violence” does not do justice to the far-reaching impact of this crime on the lives of the perpetrator, victim, children, extended family, friends and larger society. One victim said that anything less than the phrase “vicious beatings by someone who knows you” does an injustice to the issue. Another suggested that “constant assaults that screw up the lives of everybody” comes closer to reality. The trauma of domestic violence is almost endless: mental health issues, school dropouts, workplace problems, drug and alcohol abuse and the general deterioration of families all correlate to the presence of violence in the home. There are criminologists who believe that solving the domestic violence crisis in America is central to reducing crime and restoring neighborhoods.

For example, studies suggest that 3-10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually. A 1998 study by found that slightly more than half of female victims of intimate violence live in households with children under age 12. Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to exhibit health and behavioral problems including depression, anxiety and violence toward peers. They are also more likely to attempt suicide, abuse drugs and alcohol, run away from home, engage in teenage prostitution and commit sexual assault crimes (Source: http://www.usps.com–/ domestic violence stamp media release).

In the nation’s capital, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) is addressing domestic violence in an aggressive and comprehensive way. “Domestic violence is a pervasive problem with far-reaching consequences. Solving the problem requires a comprehensive approach that holds people strictly accountable for their actions while providing them the tools to avoid the behavior in the future,” states Paul A. Quander, Jr., CSOSA’s Director. ” Domestic violence is a community problem that cannot be ignored.”

Legislative Remedies

The mission of CSOSA’s Domestic Violence Branch is to increase public safety and prevent future victimization by providing close supervision and treatment for individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses. CSOSA also provides a range of services for victims. The Domestic Violence Branch also partners with stakeholders to facilitate awareness of domestic violence in the community. The US Attorney’s Office, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), DC Superior Court, the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, victim advocates and others are intimately involved in the process.

Domestic violence has been a high-profile issue in the nation’s capitol for more than a decade. In 1991, the D.C. Council enacted the Prevention of Domestic Violence Amendment Act. In 1992, the D.C. Superior Court established the Domestic Violence Intervention Program to address the increase in domestic violence arrests and the number of offenders sentenced to probation for those crimes. The initial thrust of the program was to provide batterers with counseling in an effort to reduce repeat offenses.

When the U.S. Congress created CSOSA in 1997, through the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act, the new agency assumed responsibility for the community supervision of domestic violence offenders. The transition to a federally-funded probation and parole agency has dramatically improved domestic violence supervision. Since its inception, CSOSA has established four specialized supervision teams focusing exclusively on domestic violence offenders and two domestic violence treatment teams to provide needed counseling and treatment services and referrals. Reduced caseloads on these specialized supervision teams has allowed for increased monitoring of these offenders and improved support services.

Ground Zero: The Community Supervision Officer

CSOSA’s Community Supervision Officers (CSO) are at “Ground Zero” in the agency’s efforts to provide effective supervision of domestic violence cases. The agency ratio of CSOs to offenders is approximately 52 to 1. In specialized units, such as the Domestic Violence Unit, the ratio is 33 to 1. CSOSA’s four supervision and two treatment teams manage 1,300 domestic violence offenders. Domestic violence offenders are subject to the same drug testing regimen, periodic police contacts through joint patrols (Accountability Tours) and strict accountability requirements of other offenders. They have the same opportunities for drug treatment, vocational and educational placement and training, and faith-based mentoring offered to any other offender. Domestic Violence offenders can be on both probation and parole.

CSO Rodney Carter, a five-year CSOSA veteran, is a member of Team 40, which is devoted exclusively to domestic violence supervision work. Rodney was a treatment provider during his first year, and has been a supervision officer for the other four. He holds a masters degree in social work from Howard University and moved to the District of Columbia from Charlottesville, VA to pursue his goal of being a probation officer. “This is where the need is,” he explains. Working with disadvantaged populations and providing a positive role model is important to me. It’s important to provide an example and keep the community safe.”

“When I ran treatment groups for domestic violence, the focus was on offenders accepting responsibility for their actions and challenging their belief systems. Many offenders believe that violence is okay. They think it is an appropriate way to treat a person, whether they were strangers or intimate others,” he states.

Carter explains how domestic violence treatment works. “In treatment, we challenge the notion that violence is acceptable. Many offenders witnessed the abuse of their mothers or other women. The popular culture promotes violence-it suggests that violence is OK. Substance abuse is often connected to, but not necessarily caused by, domestic violence. It removes inhabitations. Offenders would say that it happened because “˜I was drunk.’”

“My job to break through these myths. In a group setting, members of the group would challenge and learn from each other. Not everyone can be helped. But I’ve learned that I can affect people and help them change. I can provide a safer environment for the participants and their children. The vast majority of those involved in domestic violence have children, so the implications are considerable for all involved. I provide offenders with the skills they can apply during difficult situations.”

Carter says that this work has changed him, too. “The experience has taught me to be a better person,” he says. “It’s taught me that domestic violence is an ongoing challenge that must be dealt with to create a better society. I love this work, and I love the challenge.”

Domestic violence CSOs meet regularly with offenders to monitor compliance with all supervision conditions. They are required to establish and maintain communication with victims to verify compliance with all “Stay Away” orders. CSOs are responsible for consultation with others associated with the offender (known as collateral contacts). These include family members and friends, employers, counselors and others to determine the offender’s overall adjustment to supervision.

Meeting with collateral contacts allows the CSO to determine if offenders are complying with their supervision obligations and to verify information provided by the offenders. The supervision level and frequency of contacts by the CSO is based on a risk and needs assessment conducted at the beginning of supervision and at regular intervals during the term of supervision. Poor adjustment and non-compliance automatically results in increased contacts and sanctions imposed by the CSO in an effort to correct negative behavior.

Field visits are a critical component of the supervision process. They provide insight into the offender’s environment, associations, belief systems, and other factors. Incorporated into the field visits are accountability tours conducted with District of Columbia Metropolitan Police officers. These joint home visits provide police officers with critical information about offenders residing within the Police Service Area the officer patrols. Information sharing between the CSO and MPD officer is a vital component of supervision, especially if there is police contact with the offender in the absence of the CSO.

“We provide them with the chance to save their lives.”

Mark Collins is one of eight CSOs on Team 38. Mark has a BS in communications from Bowie State University. He began his career with CSOSA in 2001, serving as a drug-testing technician for 10 months until a CSO position opened up. He’s been a CSO for two years.

“I love it,” he states. “Every offender is different; every set of circumstances is a challenge. We take threats to victims very seriously. We act on their information immediately. Domestic violence is a real problem in DC. We try to work with the offenders; we try to help them, provide them with domestic violence and drug treatment, and we do whatever it takes to keep them from engaging in further acts of violence. But if offenders violate the terms of their court orders, and do it constantly, then they go back to the judge or the Parole Commission, and often jail.”

“We are in constant contact with the victims to protect them, and to learn from them. Many offenders feel that violence was justified because they claim that they were assaulted first. It’s the role of the 22-week treatment program to help offenders understand the dynamics of interactions with others. In many instances, offenders feel that aggression directed to them justifies violence in return. Counselors and supervision officers get them to understand violence and alternatives, or how to deal with a situation without busting a window or slashing a tire. We help them change the way they deal with anger. We help them see the world differently. We provide them with the chance to save their lives.”

“It’s very important for folks to succeed, and to get on with their lives. We will take an offender to treatment, we will take an offender to a job, and we will do whatever it takes.

It’s my goal to keep the community safe.”

Intervention

The DC court and community supervision system has used the Duluth Model since the early 1990s, which focuses on how the concept of power and control adversely affects intimate relationships. As mandated by court order and based on the offense, offenders are placed in either an 18-week Family Violence Intervention Program or a 22-week Domestic Violence Intervention Program.

The Duluth Model views power and control as the primary factors in battering behavior within intimate relationships. It advances the idea that males have internalized a set of socialization values that predisposes them, in intimate relationships, to be the dominant violence initiators and perpetrators of domestic violence, which the model considers a learned behavior that can be changed through counseling.

The Domestic Violence Intervention Program also offers a special counseling component dedicated to treating the Latino offender, under the counseling guidance of a Latino CSO.

The program has about a 60 percent completion rate. In the groups, counselors focus on persuading the offender to see the futility of violence in relationships, to accept responsibility for his/her role in the incident and to explore alternative ways to avoid violence using a safety plan. The program CSOs are specially trained, certified and licensed in the area of domestic violence counseling.

The program receives about 2,000 domestic violence referrals each year from the DC Superior Court. These referrals are usually the result of Civil Protection Orders, Deferred Sentence Agreements, Adult Probation, Parole or Supervised Release. Occasionally, pre-trial defendants are referred to the program by the Pretrial Services Agency.

The Domestic Violence Intervention Program also has a vendor component, which employs well-qualified private treatment providers to provide domestic violence counseling to employed offenders or offenders who have income, as opposed to unemployed offenders who receive the counseling at no cost from CSOSA domestic violence CSOs. The vendor and the non-fee programs are mutually complementary; offenders can transfer from one to the other if their employment status changes. The program currently has 14 vendors and 8 CSOSA CSOs providing treatment to domestic violence offenders.

The CSOSA domestic violence initiative, although very young, has achieved some positive results. Within two years of release from CSOSA supervision, 29.3 percent of all offenders are rearrested (for all crimes), versus 26.2 percent of those offenders going through the domestic violence program.

With an emphasis on public safety, examples of CSOSA’s efforts to improve offender lifestyles and modify behavior include:

• An individual on probation for assault was being uncooperative with the supervision officer, evasive in providing information on employment, residence, and activities and was on occasion missing appointments without notice. Information was presented to the CSO that the offender was communicating with and intimidating the victim, in violation of the court order. It was also reported that the individual had come to the attention of local law enforcement authorities for possible involvement in other illegal activity in a designated police “hot-spot.” Based on this information and the officer’s contact with individuals familiar with the offender, the officer requested a court hearing to address the offender’s overall non-compliance. The court ordered the offender placed on intensive surveillance through the use of our Global Positioning System (GPS)-based electronic monitoring. The offender’s daily activity and location are now constantly monitored and community safety has been greatly enhanced. Restrictive areas have been imposed and we are now able to verify where the offender has been at all times.

• A probationer on supervision for destruction of personal property within a domestic abuse setting, reported for supervision with numerous problems beyond her need for domestic violence treatment. A mother of two young children and a regular user of PCP, she displayed a negative attitude and unwillingness to comply with her conditions of supervision. The offender was returned to Court to address these issues and the Court’s intent was to revoke her probation. However, the supervision officer recognized redeeming qualities in the offender and presented options to the Court including residential treatment that would accommodate the offender’s two young children. The court agreed with the CSO and the offender was immediately placed in a residential treatment facility that allowed her to keep her children with her. She worked closely with the program staff and the CSO and successfully completed program. During her stay in the program, she was diagnosed with mental health problems. After participating in a transitional housing program, the offender and her two young children are now living in their own apartment. She continues to address her addiction issues with no evidence of relapse, and is participating in mental health counseling on a regular basis. The Court has extended her supervision period to allow continued monitoring of the offender’s progress.

CSOSA’s domestic violence initiatives will continue to include aggressive supervision and appropriate treatment for offenders. In an effort to promote community awareness and offer additional assistance to victims, Domestic Violence staff is conducting an ongoing cell phone collection drive to in collaboration with non-profit agencies that assist domestic violence victims. In 2004, CSOSA conducted its first annual conference on domestic violence. The conference focused on prevention and intervention techniques from government, advocates and nonprofit organizations and drew participants throughout the city and metropolitan area.

“Programs to deal with domestic violence can make our communities safer,” said Thomas Williams, CSOSA’s Associate Director for Community Supervision Services. “These efforts mean justice for victims and their children, which is essential to any caring society.”

By Leonard A. Sipes, Jr. Edited by Cedric Hendricks and Joyce McGinnis

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

It is a cold and misty morning in Southwest Washington D.C., and rain falls intermittently as we travel from house to house checking on adult criminal offenders in an area known for crime, drug use, poverty and despair. Joseph C. Alston moves through the community with intimate knowledge of its citizens and its problems. He is a Supervisory Community Supervision Officer, and is in charge of ten Community Supervision Officers-known as Parole and Probation Officers in most parts of the country. He knocks on the doors of people recently released from prison. Some expect his visit, some do not. Our arrival is greeted with a mix of friendly greetings and mild consternation.

Joe enters their apartments with confidence and a smile as he quickly scans the rooms for signs of danger, drugs or weapons, as well as any indicator that the offender is doing well. “Let me see your pay stub,” he politely asks the recipient of our latest visit. The offender is well known to Joe and the other Community Supervision Officers (CSOs) who observe offenders in this part of the District of Columbia. He greets Joe’s request with a smile and produces the document. They discuss drug treatment and the problems, hopes and aspirations of an individual who has seen the inside of many prisons and many programs.

“This job is about public safety and assisting offenders,” Joe says. “Our first priority is to protect the citizens of the District of Columbia. But it’s essential to make sure that offenders have the services they need to transform their lives.”

A New Agency

Joe belongs to a unique federal executive branch agency that Congress established as part of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency of the District of Columbia (CSOSA) combined the D.C. Board of Parole and the probation function of D.C. Superior Court into a new federal agency. The D.C. Pretrial Services Agency is also included within CSOSA. After an initial three-year trusteeship, this new independent agency came into existence on August 4, 2000. The designers of the new agency were determined to make CSOSA a research and numbers driven organization that would incorporate the state-of-the-art in community supervision. The principals in CSOSA were determined to get it right and set the benchmark for the country.

There were problems before the establishment CSOSA. Large caseloads hampered effective supervision of offenders. There was little drug testing. Offenders with social needs were referred to agencies within the District of Columbia government for services. Experience teaches us that in many cases, effective community supervision depends on the direct provision of services or professionals who assist offenders in finding their way through complex and overwhelming bureaucracies.

Research from the National Institute of Justice in the mid 1990′s told us that intensive supervision alone would not reduce recidivism. Agencies had to provide tough regulation and social services that addressed the seemingly endless array of problems that offenders bring to supervision. That combination of accountability and services was lacking. Also lacking was computerization, research and a “management by objectives” style of operation. There was a need for partnerships with law enforcement, prosecutors and community organizations. These items have been addressed.

CSOSA has some of the lowest supervision caseloads in the country. The ratio for regular supervision is approximately 50 offenders to each CSO. The ratio for special supervision teams is approximately 30 offenders per CSO. There are specialized treatment and supervision teams for sex offenders, mental health, high-risk substance abuse, domestic violence, day reporting and violators of drinking and driving laws. The frequency of contact with these offenders is high. Classified at the upper end of the risk scale, they are seen a minimum of eight times a month, excluding time spent with treatment providers and drug testing professionals.

Unemployed offenders in some parts of the city are required to report to an extensive Day Reporting Program, which focuses on the educational and occupational needs of the clientele. Some offenders are tracked by satellite or other types of electronic monitoring.

Offenders are drug tested twice a week for the first eight weeks of supervision; the frequency of testing declines as the offender demonstrates continued compliance. However, one positive drug test mandates that you go back to the original testing schedule.

CSOSA conducts joint patrols with the Metropolitan Police Department, and conducts Mass Orientations for new offenders with police, staff of the US Attorneys Office, and treatment providers.

The agency has also developed and deployed one of the best automated case management tools in the country. The Supervision Management Automated Records Tracking (SMART) system is one of the most innovative record keeping systems available. Information is electronically shared with all personnel within CSOSA and allied agencies. “SMART” Lite is CSOSA’s next generation information management system, operating on small portable computers to accompany personnel wherever they go.

The agency has also developed the “Auto Screener,” which will comprehensively assess the offender’s risk to the community as well as determine their social needs and prescribe a specific supervision plan for each offender.

CSOSA has established a research and evaluation unit that tracks information collected by the agency through the SMART system. Early indicators of rearrests for probationers, reincarcerations, drug use and revocations back to prison indicate progress. Possibly the most important measurement is the fact that 94 percent of all violations in the last half of 2004 received an immediate response (called an intermediate sanction) from the CSO’s. A basic tenet of good community supervision is the ability and capacity to respond quickly and appropriately to violations. That is being accomplished within CSOSA.

CSOSA does far more than just monitor offenders under its supervision. CSOSA provides a wide array of services throughout the city that assist offenders with the transformation from a criminal lifestyle to that of a law-abiding taxpayer. Learning Labs are staffed with employment and educational specialists who assist offenders with basic educational and occupational needs. Each year, thousands are provided with services ranging from GED programs to apprenticeship opportunities and placement in jobs. With CSOSA’s assistance, offenders find opportunities for personal and job-related success, many for the first time in their lives.

With agency-funded drug treatment for high-risk offenders, mental health assessments, anger management, domestic violence treatment, and many other initiatives, one can understand that this agency and its personnel are in a unique position to make a difference.

But all of these resources and services are meaningless unless there is a caring individual to make sure offenders are doing what they’re supposed to do as well as taking advantage of unique opportunities for success. That’s why Joe Alston is making his way through trash filled streets and walking into apartment buildings surrounded by needles and graffiti. He is making sure that offenders are living up to the terms of their probation or parole and are hopefully taking advantage of services.

“You need to get yourself down to the learning lab,” he tells one reluctant offender. “You need to get a job to take care of your children. You need to get a future.” Joe continues with a list of apprenticeships and job opportunities that are available. He assures the offender that CSOSA has people dedicated to his success. The offender has been through a variety of social service agencies in the past. The complexity and difficulty of dealing with these agencies leads many offenders to despair and failure. Joe assures him that the CSOSA personnel at the learning lab are there solely for him and his success. “They know exactly what you are going through, and they are there to help you. This is something you have to do. You’ve got to get on your feet, you’ve got to get moving, and we can help.”

With Joe’s guidance, the offender begins the process of examining his future with professionals who are trained for that purpose. Without this kind of help and persistence, too many offenders give up on themselves and sink deeper into a life of violence and drugs.

Tough But Fair

“You tested positive for cocaine again,” Liasia S. Fenwick tells the offender sitting in her cubicle on South Capitol Street in Southeast D.C. Liasia has been with CSOSA for a little under 3 years. She was a housing counselor with DC social services and a drug counselor for Maryland parole and probation. New friends are surprised when the young looking Liasia tells them that she works with offenders and makes home visits in high crime areas.

“I told you what the ramifications would be if you tested positive,” she tells the frustrated parolee. The offender offers excuses. He provides explanations, rationalizations, justifications and enough twists and turns to describe a backcountry road. Liasia will have none of it. “Do you think you’re the first offender who’s told me all this?” she asks. “Do you think this is the first time I heard the story?”

Liasia informs the offender that she will apply the sanctions she warned him about when he first started testing positive for cocaine. CSOSA can only fund treatment for high-risk drug offenders, which means those at the middle or bottom of the spectrum must take advantage of in-house drug education or services provided by the District of Columbia government or charitable providers. With his return to drug use, Liasia sees the potential for the individual to blow any progress he has made in rearranging his life. She immediately arranges for a three-way conversation with her supervisor, Joe Alston, and begins making arrangements for the offender to be evaluated for treatment placement.

Liasia sums up her role this way: “Offenders need to understand that you care about their needs and well-being. They also need to understand that you are not going to tolerate illegal behavior. I’m tough but fair. I’m here to listen and I’m here to assist, but I’m not going to allow them to place themselves, their children and the community at risk. If he cannot get with the program, I’ll send him back to prison. I’ll do everything in my power to make sure that he gets the services and assistance he needs to come to grips with a law-abiding life, but I’ll also do everything in my power to make sure that he doesn’t harm individuals or society.”

The Balance

“Maintaining the balance. That’s the challenge of community supervision,” states John W. Milam, Branch Chief in an area spanning Southeast and Southwest D.C. John is responsible for the supervision of approximately 3,500 parolees and probationers residing east of the Anacostia river.

John, who was born in the District of Columbia (like Joe Austin) reinforces the fact that community supervision of criminal offenders only succeeds if that “magical” balance of supervision and services is in place. John has 17 years of experience supervising offenders. He remembers working with offenders who were employed by his father in the moving business. He remembers that those with a positive outlook and support tended to do well, and those who had poor problem solving skills often failed. “I was curious as to what made some succeed and some fail,” he said. “That’s what got me into this business, my curiosity as to what makes people succeed.”

“I just went to a Mass Orientation of offenders where we assemble those starting their term of parole or probation. We provide an overview of community supervision requirements and available resources and services to make sure that everyone understands what is expected of them and what is available to assist them. I saw an offender that I supervised when I started 17 years ago. Part of the difficulty of this work is experiencing firsthand how difficult it is to assist human beings who struggle with the basics of life. We have to teach offenders how to change their thinking patterns. Some have been so ravaged by drugs and alcohol and a troubled upbringing that they have difficulty deciding what’s right for themselves and their children.”

“That is the challenge-making sure that we have the right balance of supervision and services,” Milam continues. The people who work for me must understand that they have to provide 100 percent effort every day to meet the challenges of the people we supervise. They look to me for leadership, but I look to them for ideas, innovations and strategies. I cannot imagine anything as important for society than what I do for living.”

You Have to Have Plan “B”

Anthony L. Taylor has been in the criminal justice system for a long time. He claims that he “knows when to hold ‘em, and when to fold ‘em.” Tony came from the military and used the GI bill to pay for the rest of his college education. After leaving the Army, he went to Montana and became a residential life counselor for a college. He also coached the wrestling team.

“As a coach, you’ve got to see things through the eyes of other people,” he said. “You need to have the ability to evaluate potential and talent. A big part of what we do is to evaluate offenders. I’m happy to assist anyone. It’s very rare that I give up. But the challenge of this job is to recognize that somebody is ready to make a change. You have to be ready when they are ready.”

From his college wrestling and coaching job, Tony drifted to the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area where he became a youth counselor at a juvenile facility in Maryland and an assistant teacher at an alternative school for troubled youth. He’s even spent time as an aviation security specialist. He’s been with CSOSA since September of 2000.

Tony believes that a big part of being successful as a CSO is to have what he calls “Plan B.” “You have to be creative everyday,” he states. When he discovers an offender is ready to make a change, he is relentless in discovering untapped resources. That opportunity for creativity, combined with learning to gauge the offender’s attitude and motivation, he says, makes his job interesting. “We have to make sure that the offender is ready and we have to make sure that we are ready to assist him. But equally important is making sure he doesn’t do something crazy or become a hazard to the community. If we’re really going to serve society, we have to look out for the offender’s best interest while insisting upon public safety. It can’t happen any other way.”

350 CSOs

There are 350 CSOs who work for CSOSA. They supervise approximately 15,500 offenders. On any given day, CSOSA employees are walking the streets of the District of Columbia talking to offenders, their families, friends and employers. Each day hundreds of offenders report to field offices located throughout the city to receive that “magical” balance of supervision and services. Hundreds more are reporting for drug testing and a wide array of treatment and educational programs.

To recognize that Community Supervision Officers are the backbone of the agency is an obvious observation. Working with offenders can be one of the most challenging and rewarding jobs any of us have experienced. To ride with police officers or walk through tough neighborhoods and to deal with people with troubling backgrounds could cause most of us to pause. Community Supervision Officers meet these challenges every day.

Through the efforts of its CSOs, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency is making a positive difference in the District of Columbia. Recidivism for probationers (who constitute 70 percent of intakes) is down from 21 percent arrested in 2002 to 13 percent arrested in 2004. Please note that the combined rate for probationers and parolees remains flat at 18 percent during the same time period. Reincarcerations, revocations and drug use have all decreased. Homicides and violence have significantly declined in the city since 2002. While the lion’s share of the credit must go to the employees of the Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and engaged citizen based organizations, the women and men of CCOSA feel that they have made significant contributions to public safety

CSOs are the hub of a wheel in which law enforcement, community organizations and social service agencies collaborate to provide both supervision of, and opportunity for, the individuals placed under CSOSA’s jurisdiction. The citizens of the District of Columbia benefit from their dedication.

See http://media.csosa.gov for “DC Public Safety” radio and television shows.

See www.csosa.gov for the web site of the federal Court Services and Offender Services Agency.

It’s 5:30 a.m. at the Fifth District station of Washington, DC’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Jody Tracy, a Branch Chief with the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), is here at this early hour to meet with her staff and police officers regarding warrant service. Community complaints about violence prompted the initiative.

Associate Director Tom Williams is also there. “We’re doing more warrant service throughout the city,” explains Williams. “Our objective is to take non-compliant offenders off the street. For example, close to 300 offenders with outstanding warrants were arrested by D.C. Police and CSOSA security staff at our offices during the first six months of the year.

But we cannot pick-up everyone when they make office visits. You’ve got to go out to their homes.” As they serve warrants in the Edgewood Terrace apartment complex in northeast D.C., they encounter enthusiastic residents who welcome the joint presence of MPD officers and CSOSA’s Community Supervision Officers (CSOs). CSOSA is the federal agency that provides probation and parole supervision in the District of Columbia.

“Thank God you’re here,” one resident says as he watches the officers go to work. A mother holding a child nods approvingly when told that officers were searching for errant parolees and probationers. “The quicker you can get the bad ones out, the safer we will be,” she states. “Help the good ones, but take the troublemakers,” she added.

Edgewood Terrace, like several other neighborhoods in D.C., is improving economically but still struggling with crime. The day before the warrant service, there was a shooting. Citizens asked for help. Five police cars responded; three CSOSA officers accompanied the police.

“We responded with the police because community supervision is a partnership,” Associate Director Tom Williams explained. “We have to be out there with the police, responding to serious incidents, in order to earn the community’s trust and support.” Central to this collaborative concept of community supervision is CSOSA’s relationships with its partners. CSOSA’s community relations staff attends most of the community meetings in the city where crime is an issue. They also schedule monthly meetings with community leaders in every police district to discuss whatever issues are most pressing to citizens of that area.

CSOSA supervision staff attends monthly intelligence-sharing meetings at every police district. Weekly exchanges of information occur in district subdivisions, or Police Service Areas. Specialized CSOSA teams, such as the Sex Offender Unit, routinely share information with MPD detectives that result in the incarceration of child sex offenders.

Jody Tracy emphasizes that the key to successful collaboration is “information, information and more information.” She sums up the benefits: “The more we can exchange information and take action based on what the community and our law enforcement partners want, the more successful we will be.”

From Community Policing to Community Parole and Probation

Most practitioners agree that community policing has been an effective strategy. The same is proving true for community-based parole and probation efforts. Throughout the country, parole and probation is emerging from its “central office” orientation, putting officers on the street to work side-by-side with police and community members.

From its inception, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency has embraced this philosophy. Created in 1997 as part of a federal effort to relieve the District of Columbia of some state-level criminal justice operations, CSOSA became an independent federal agency in August of 2000. The agency dedicated itself to implementing state-of-the-art community supervision system with high levels of offender contact and drug testing. Caseload ratios are among the lowest in the nation. Almost 50 percent of the population of 15,500 probationers and parolees are assigned to specialized caseloads or are classified as “intensive” supervision, both of which results in more frequent face-to-face contact.

A special unit and treatment services exist for sex offenders (including GPS monitoring), high-risk substance abusers, and traffic-alcohol, mental health and domestic violence cases. Information technology systems may be the best in the country.

What CSOSA Brings to the Table

Effective crime control depends upon the ability to collaborate with the community. CSOSA maintains field offices and learning labs throughout the city in neighborhoods where the offender population is concentrated. At each location, agency operations focus on assessing offender’s risks, closely supervising offenders based on risk, arranging treatment and support services to address offender’s needs, and working in partnership with law enforcement and community-based organizations to provide offenders the opportunities necessary to contribute to family, the workforce, and the community.

Several community leaders insist that the placement of new field offices have stabilized communities. It also allows them direct access to managers about troublesome offenders. CSOSA’s partnerships to promote public safety include the following:

Community Justice Partnerships – Strategic Cooperation among Community Supervision and Law Enforcement Since 1999, CSOSA has worked with the Metropolitan Police Department to establish a citywide partnership designed to help Community Supervision Officers and police be effective resources for each other. The partnership is built on three basic activities:

Intelligence and Information Sharing: Community Supervision Officers and police officers form teams responsible for defined geographic areas to share photographs, addresses, and background information on high-risk offenders. Behind the scenes, CSOSA electronically shares offender data – photographs, names, aliases, associates’ names, criminal histories, employment history, and housing data-with partnering police agencies. A recent article in the Washington Post (“Electronic Trail Leads to Arrest in D.C. Hotel Holdups,” October 1, 2005) documents the sharing of satellite tracking-GPS data that prompted the arrest of an offender implicated in 24 robberies.·

Accountability Tours: Community Supervision Officers and uniformed police officers in marked police vehicles conduct Accountability Tours (joint visits with offenders in the community). These activities have led to multiple arrests for weapons and narcotics violations in the Columbia Heights neighborhood and elsewhere throughout the city. They also reinforce the need for offenders to comply with community supervision requirements, such as drug testing.

Mass Orientations: Community Supervision Officers and law enforcement partners further seek to prevent repeat crime by hosting Mass Orientations, in which police and Community Supervision Officers meet with offenders recently ordered or released to community supervision. Prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia also attend Mass Orientations to warn offenders about the significant consequences of possessing or using a firearm while on probation, parole, or supervised release. The orientation sessions emphasize the collaboration between CSOSA and other law enforcement entities and offer opportunities for job training or other vital services for offenders. Police officers assigned to the meetings have discovered an array of offenders who are suspected in criminal and questionable activities being on CSOSA caseloads. They immediately create joint supervision strategies with Community Supervision Officers that result in offenders being placed on increased supervision or returning to incarceration. In many cases, added supervision and services have lead to increased compliance with the rules of supervision and successful outcomes.

From these activities, police on the street learn who’s on probation or parole, where they reside, and with whom they live. Community Supervision Officers gain the eyes and ears of police who have a presence in the community 24-hours a day, seven days a week.

This structure also provides numerous benefits for additional law enforcement officials. Investigators benefit from having immediate access to current information on offenders. At a recent training session for Metropolitan Police Department investigators, a narcotics unit detective reported that because of her access to CSOSA data, she was able to obtain a search warrant for an offender’s residence and his girl friend’s residence because the Community Supervision Officer had recorded that the offender split his time between two addresses. When she later obtained an arrest warrant in this case, the Community Supervision Officer was able to supply police with complete information about the layout of the house, how many people lived there, and the presence of threatening dog.

The fundamental features of this partnership also make possible key elements of the Project Safe Neighborhoods strategy to reduce gun-related crime in Washington, DC. CSOSA, police and the United States Attorney’s Office collaborate to identify individuals who are aware of or possibly involved in gang-related activity in violent “hot spots” throughout the city. Community Supervision Officers order offenders to attend call-in sessions in which police, prosecutors, CSOSA officials, and community leaders urge the offenders to “clean up their act” or face joint enforcement and prosecution by everyone in the Washington D.C. criminal justice system. These efforts are currently being evaluated.

Faith-based PartnershipsTo assist offenders returning from prison, CSOSA has established a Faith Community Partnership to provide mentors for returning offenders and establish a network of faith-based institutions that offer resources and support programs that can benefit returning offenders. Offenders who maintain family contact during and after incarceration have a stronger likelihood of avoiding arrests, technical violations, and a return to prison after release.

Since March 2002, CSOSA referred 212 offenders for participation in the faith-based mentoring program. 168 (79 percent) of offenders were matched to volunteer mentors who had completed 12 hours of training on mentoring skills and communication.

51 active faith organizations offer more than 90 programs in the areas of addiction, housing, psychological/life skills, vocational development, education/literacy, and community support.

These efforts have resulted in many offenders successfully reintegrating into the community. One offender returning to the city after serving a prison sentence for second-degree murder described it as “The essential ingredient in my ability not to re-offend.” He is gainfully employed, married, and a deacon in his church. “Without the help of the church, God knows where I would have ended up,” he stated.

Community Involvement

CSOSA also maintains a team of five Community Relations Specialists who organize Community Justice Advisory Networks (CJAN’s) in each police district of the city. These networks consist of community members, faith-based organizations, business leaders, and other stakeholders who work together to identify solutions to public safety issues and to promote opportunities for offenders to become productive, law-abiding members of their communities. Highlights of CSOSA’s community outreach activities include:

Hispanic Outreach: The Community Relations Specialist assigned to function as a liaison with the Hispanic community organized a Latino public safety forum in June 2005 and conducts Spanish-language mass orientation sessions among offenders and police on a quarterly basis. Cooperation from the community led to an Accountability Tour with CSO’s and police that produced arrests for guns and drugs.

Community Service: Community Relations Specialists routinely develop agreements with not-for-profit agencies to provide activities for offenders to fulfill court-ordered community service requirements. The team frequently sets up community clean-ups in association with civic groups and arranges for offenders with community service requirements to work at the events. A fall cleanup involving CSOSA offenders over three weekends in the Shepard Park community resulted in tons of trash being removed. “Clean alleys means a safer community,” wrote a community leader in the “Sheppard Park News.”

Community Capacity Building: In addition, Community Relations Specialists coordinated thirty-five events to create opportunities and resources in offenders’ neighborhoods, such as the Anacostia Museum development activities, the Fourth District Mount Pleasant Festival, and the Alfarero Church and North Capitol Collaborative Community Job Fair. In southeast D.C., community leaders and offenders assigned to community service distribute flyers on community meetings. These efforts have lead to increased participation in the meetings.

Education and Trainin CSOSA’s Office of Vocational Opportunities for Training, Education, and Employment (VOTEE) maintains a number of partnerships to address the individual service needs of offenders, such as math and reading skills development, General Equivalency Degree preparation, and job training and placement support. Much of this work occurs through partnerships with other government agencies or community-based organizations, such as the Department of Employment Services (DOES), Jobs Coalition (a faith-community organized network of employers with a commitment to hiring offenders in the community), the Rehabilitation Services Administration, and the Washington Literacy Council. Intergovernmental, business and community cooperation have lead to hundreds of hundreds of offenders finding training and good paying jobs. Some former offenders receiving commercial drivers licensees are now managers who hire others under CSOSA’s supervision. It is not unusual for ex-offenders to make in excess of 50 to 60 thousand dollars each year.

The Overall Impact on Rearrests and Crime

The partnership strategy is making a positive difference in the District of Columbia. According to CSOSA’s information management system, recidivism for probationers (who constitute 70 percent of intakes) is down from 21 percent arrested in 2002 to 13 percent arrested in 2004. The combined rate for probationers and parolees remains flat at 18 percent during the same time period. Baseline data on rearrests for parolees collected before 2002 show larger decreases. Obviously, the degree of CSOSA’s interactions with law enforcement affects the percentage of arrests. Reincarcerations, revocations and drug use have also decreased.

According to the Metropolitan Police Department, crime and violence in D.C.decreased since 2002, although the decrease is attributable to a variety of factors. CSOSA is dedicated to establishing effective community and criminal justice partnerships. These activities are essential to achieving the agency’s public safety mission, which results in a safer city.