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.