Transcript Document

The Development of a Regional Model for Sex
Offender Management
Capital District Coalition for Sex Offender Management
Thursday, May 5, 2005
Presenters:
Richard Hamill, Ph.D. Project Manager
Noel C. Thomas, M.A. Project Coordinator
Dawne Amsler-Nunziato, M.A. Research Coordinator
CDCSOM Evolution
CDCSOM Project
• History:
– 1986 New York State Alliance of Sex
Offender Service Providers established
– 1988 Alliance (NYSASOSP) incorporated
– 1995 Established New York State chapter of
ATSA
1999 Established Capital District Coalition
for Sex Offender Management
– 2000 Awarded Planning Grant from CSOM
– 2002 Awarded CSOM Implementation Grant
– 2002 Awarded OCFS grant to study juveniles
and children who act out sexually
Problems Identified by Alliance /
NYSATSA Members
1. Law enforcement resources inconsistent; some
investigations ineffective
2. Prosecutions inconsistent, sometimes ineffective
3. Courts sentencing without benefit of risk assessment
4. Treatment resources sometimes not available
5. Some treatment not being provided according to ATSA
Practice Standards and Guidelines
6. Some sex offenders not being referred for treatment
7. Community supervision of sex offenders inconsistent, not
adhering to best practice
8. Some interventions not in keeping with best interests of
the victims
Our Goal
• To enhance the investigation,
prosecution, treatment and community
supervision of sex offenders, using a
victim – centered approach
Capital District Coalition for
Sex Offender Management
Underlying beliefs:
Benefits of Regional Model
1. Counties often lack adequate resources to make
county-by-county approach viable
2. States often too big to deliver services
effectively to all counties
3. By clustering counties and sharing resources, we
can improve quality and quantity of services
Capital District Coalition for
Sex Offender Management
Beliefs about the
Multidisciplinary Approach
To be effective, team must involve:
Law enforcement
Prosecutors
Defense attorneys
Law guardians
Community Supervision/Corrections
Mental health professionals
Victim advocates
Capital District Coalition for
Sex Offender Management
Underlying Beliefs
• An effective team should also include:
Child Protective Services investigators
Judiciary, in an advisory role
School personnel (if project includes juveniles)
Representatives of the County Executives
State offices:
Office of Mental Health
Office of Children and Family Services
Office of Mental Retardation
Office of Court Administration
Division of Criminal Justice Services
State Police
The Five County CDCSOM Catchment Area
Population in 2003 (U.S. Census)
New York State
19,190,115
Albany County
Columbia County
Rensselaer County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
CDCSOM Catchment
297,845
63,405
154,007
209,818
147,289
872,364
The Five County CDCSOM Catchment Area
Median Household Income
New York State
$43,393
Albany County
Columbia County
Rensselaer County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
$42,939
$41,915
$42,905
$49,460
$41,739
(U.S. Census Bureau Figures 1999)
The Five County CDCSOM Catchment Area
Population Density
Sq. Miles
New York State
Albany County
Columbia County
Rensselaer County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
CDCSOM Catchment
47,214
523
636
654
812
206
2,831
Persons
per Sq. mile
401.9
562.7
99.2
233.3
247.1
711.1
Research to Determine the Nature and
Scope of Problems
THREE STUDIES
1.System Mapping – Interviews of key personnel
to gather impressions about what works, and
nature of problems
2.Pipeline analysis – Collection of data on all
sex offense cases in one year, from
investigation, prosecution, sentencing,
supervision and treatment
3.Snapshot analysis – Census of status of all sex
offenders on a given day
Findings from System Mapping Interviews
1. Created flow charts for each county
2. Gathered anecdotal data regarding problems in
the various phases of case management
3. Generated hypotheses about problems to be
tested in pipeline and snapshot analyses
4.
Started compilation of list of resources
5. Gathered suggestions for improvements
Examples of Findings from Pipeline Analysis
•
Sample of 74 “registerable” sex offense cases which were
opened in 1999. Data gathered from District Attorney
files.
•
Findings:
Charged offenses and convictions
71% charged with only one offense
Most commonly charged offenses:
1. Sexual Abuse I (forcible, or victim < 11)
2. Rape III (non-forced, victim 14-16)
3. Sodomy III (non-forced, victim 14-16)
4. Rape I (forcible, or victim < 11)
5. Endangering the Welfare of a Child
28%
10%
10%
09%
21%
Examples of Findings from Pipeline Analysis
– Distribution of sentences:
County Jail (1 year or less)
State prison – short (1-3 years)
State prison – medium (3-10 years)
State prison – long (11-82 years)
Community supervision (probation)
– Latency between arrest and conviction:
0 to 6 months
6 to12 months
Longer than 12 months
– Pre-Sentence Report completed
– Specialized sex offender eval
– Viewing time measures
– Polygraph examination
28%
26%
20%
10%
35%
49%
39%
12%
72%
23%
00%
00%
Examples of Findings from Pipeline Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sex Offender treatment prior to offense
12.3%
Sex offender treatment for principal offense 13.5%
Diagnosis of mental retardation
02.7%
Diagnosis of major mental illness
09.5%
Psychopathy assessment performed
00.0%
History of substance abuse
29.7%
Treatment for substance abuse
10.8%
History of alcohol abuse/ dependence
25.7%
Treatment for alcohol abuse / dependence 12.2%
Examples of Findings from Snapshot Analysis
Sample:
144 adult sex offenders (96 Prob / 48 Parole)
Ages:
60% of probationers were < 35 years old
60% of parolees were between 36 – 45
Education: More than one third (36%) did not complete HS
Vocational: 57.3% considered “unskilled laborers”
23.0% considered “semi-skilled workers”
Current job: 20.8% on parole were unemployed
31.3% on probation were unemployed
Criminal Hx 19% had prior sex offense conviction
19% had min. one prior violent conviction
52% had prior nonviolent conviction
CDCSOM Implementation
CDCSOM Project Goals
(2003 - 2005)
• Promote client-centered approaches & victim
advocacy
• Increase the use of pre-sentence specialized sex
offender evaluations
• Increase the use of polygraph evaluations
• Design a jail-based offender treatment program
• Provide opportunities for professional training
through clinical and technical consultation
CDCSOM Project Goals
(2003 - 2005)
Continued
•Provide the judiciary with an understanding of
the comprehensive approach to sex offender
management
•Inform and educate the community about the
comprehensive approach to sex offender
management
•Promote adherence to ATSA Standards and
Guidelines
Committees
Jail-Based Treatment Committee
Goal 3.
Design a jail-based treatment program.
Evaluation Committee
Goal 1.
Pre-sentence specialized sex offender
evaluations.
Goal 5.
Increase use of viewing time measures.
Vocational Committee
Goal 7.
Vocational counseling.
Committees (continued)
Supervision and Treatment Committee
Goal 4.
Increase the use of polygraph evaluations.
Goal 6.
Treatment.
Goal 8.
Professional training; clinical and technical
consultation.
Continuation Committee
Goal 12.
A plan for continuation of CDCSOM
beyond the grant period.
Goal 13.
Disseminate information about the project
beyond the five county areas.
Committees (continued)
Training and Community Education Committee
Goal 2.
Judicial training.
Goal 11.
Community education.
Victim Advocacy Committee
Goal 9.
Meetings with case review
Goal 10.
Promote victim-centered approaches and
victim advocacy.
For Example:
Training and Community Education Committee
Inform and educate the community about the
comprehensive approach to sex offender management.
April 2004 - (Training) A Comprehensive Approach
to Managing Adult and Juvenile Sex Offenders in the
Community: A Workshop for Practitioners and
Policymakers (attendance over 400 participants)
May 2004 - (Training)
Judicial Training
Spring 2005 - (Training) Town and Village Justices in
our 5 county catchment area
Victim Advocacy Committee
• Promotes sensitivity to the victims’ concerns
• Ensures no further harm to the victims
• Addresses the needs and safety of past, present and
potential victims
• Includes victim advocates and service providers in the
collaborative process
CDCSOM Research
Research Plan
•Designed to help committee meet its goals
•Feedback and input from each committee
member incorporated into plan
•Committees kept on target via tasks on
planning calendar
Calendar
CDCSOM’s April 2004 Conference Survey
Results
•283 Completed questionnaires
•Designed to learn about what each county’s
thoughts and current practices with regards to
sex offender management and treatment
Jail Snapshot Survey
•January 15th Snapshot Census of each of the Jails in the
5 County Catchment Area
•Examined age, race, gender, sentenced or un-sentenced
status, length of stay, criminal charges
Jail Snapshot Survey Results
Jail Snapshot Survey Results
Sex Offenses Committed
(6) Failure to Register
(1) Sodomy 2nd
(5) Rape 1st
(2) Sexual Misconduct
(2) Rape 2nd
(2) Criminal Sexual Act
(5) Rape 3rd
(3) Criminal Sexual Act 1st
(9) Sexual Abuse 1st
(1) Sexual Conduct Against a Child, 1st
(2) Sexual Abuse 2nd
(1) Sexual Conduct Against a Child, 2nd
(1) Sexual Abuse 3rd
(1) Course of Sexual Contact Against a Child
(1) Sexual Abuse: Forcible Contact
(2) Attempted Sexual Misconduct against Child
(1) Aggravated Sexual Abuse 1st
(1) Promoting Sexual Performance
(1) Aggravated Sexual Abuse 2nd
(1) Possession of a Sexual Performance by a Child
(2) Attempted Sodomy 1st
(7) Sodomy 1st
Survey of Conference Participants
Q: Do we need to institute (with necessary funding)
an option for lifetime probation or parole for high
risk sex offenders?
A: 80% of responders said “Yes”
Results of Conference Survey
Q: Would it be beneficial for there to be a
multidisciplinary team in your county to review sex
offense cases?
A: 93% of those responding said “Yes”
Results of Conference Survey
Q: To what extent do the relevant agencies in your
county coordinate their services with respect to sex
offenses/offenders?
A: 20% little to not at all
49% Somewhat
31% A fair amount to extensively
Results of Conference Survey
The majority of respondents would like to
see the polygraph used at the time of
initial evaluation (74%), during the course
of treatment (77%) and to check the
compliance with safety plan and/or
conditions of parole and probation (80%).
Results of Conference Survey
Q: To what degree do the relevant agencies in your
county collaborate to improve the level of services
and policies related to sex offenses?
A: 27% Little to Not At All
46% Somewhat
28% A Fair Amount to Extensively
Results of Conference Survey
Q: What three things would you like to see done differently?
Most Common Responses:
Communication, Collaboration, Coordination, Cooperation
For More Information,
Please Visit our Website at
www.cdcsom.com
Computer Surveillance of Offenders
Conditions Of Probation and Parole
“ Submit to a search of your person, premise, residence, vehicle
and area under his/her immediate control without prior notification
as deemed appropriate by the Probation Department”
GOOD- but not enough to search a computer
“Submit to unannounced examination by the Probation Officer or
designees of any all computer(s) and/or other electronic
devices(s) to which he/she has access. This includes all data
and/or images stored on hard disk drives, floppy diskettes, CD
ROMS, optical disks, magnetic tape and/or any other storage
media whether installed within a device or removable”
BEST- needed to conduct computer search
REQUIREMENTS TO
CONDUCT FIELD SEARCH
•
Good condition of Probation/Parole
•
Consent of Owner
•
Search order granted by Court
United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002)
“Is a Ban On Internet Access Fair Punishment?”
If you were to ask Probation and Parole Officers they thought
so. Prior to this decision offenders were given no computer
access
“Refrain from the use, possession, control of any/all
computers or computer related materials unless approved by
the Probation Department”
The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in the case United States
v. Sofsky, reversed part of child pornography conviction that
prohibited computer and internet use without Probation
Officer approval. The 2nd Circuit held that such a prohibition
would unfairly encroach on the convict’s liberties.
APPELLATE DECISION
"We appreciate the Government's point that permitting Sofsky
access to a computer and the Internet after serving his ten-year
sentence can facilitate the continuation of his electronic receipt
of child pornography, but we are more persuaded by the
observation [in another case] that '[a]lthough a defendant might
use the telephone to commit fraud, this would not justify a
condition of probation that includes an absolute bar on the use of
telephones.'" The court observed that "the same could be said of
a prohibition on the use of the mails imposed on a defendant
convicted of mail fraud." Thus, "a total ban on Internet access
prevents use of e-mail, an increasingly widely used form of
communication," and prevents other computer uses, such as
conducting research, obtaining weather forecasts, or reading
newspapers online.
THE PENGUIN SLEUTH KIT (PSK)
PSK is software used to search offender’s computers
PSK is Linux. Linux is a free computer operating
system for a large variety of architectures. Linux is
said to be the future of data forensics.
http://www.linux-forensics.com/forensics/pensleuth.html
SUBGROUP OF SUPERVISON AND
TREATMENT COMMITTEE FORMED
Recognized need for the use of PSK. Probation and Parole
officers needed this ability to search offenders computers.
Looked to the NEW YORK STATE POLICE where this tool
was used by a few Investigators in the field where a
complete forensic examination was not practical or possible.
Assistance was rendered and monthly meetings began in late
2003 to develop practical use for field investigations by
Probation/Parole Officers. The committee is looking at best
practice in multiple jurisdictions. A 2-day training was held
in January 2005.
CHALLENGES TO PENGUIN SLEUTH
• Not all jurisdictions have resources.
Financial, computers, hardware, time, etc.
• Policy will cover multiple jurisdictions.
Arrest, search, confiscation may be different
• Illegal vs. Prohibited. What to do? Not all
counties prohibit pornographic material.
%
Probation
Caseload
SORA
%
SORA
Per
County
Probation
67
2%
18%
552
15
3%
18%
226
1,705
46
2%
20%
133,768
230
1,073
44
4%
19%
88,126
205
1,378
41
3%
20%
547,132
1,122
8,630
213
2%
19%
14,544,281
20,015
139,173
3494
2%
17%
COUNTY
2002
Population
18+
SORA
per
County
ALBANY
189,549
376
3,922
COLUMBIA
38,518
85
RENSSELAER
97,171
SARATOGA
SCHENECTADY
5 COUNTY
NEW YORK STATE
Sources DCJS and Probation CDS 11/04
Probation SORA
Cases
Probation
per
per
County
County
DATA ON SORA PAROLE
SEX OFFENDERS
AREA
Unclassified Level Level
1
2
Level Pending
3
ALBANY
0
14
34
40
5
93
NORTHEAST
3
16
55
72
7
150
NEW YORK
STATE
16
235
740
812
129
1932
Source NYS Division of Parole 11/04
COMBINED
PROBATION/PAROLE SORA
AGENCY
SORA
PERSONS
PER
AGENCY
TOTAL
SUPERVISIO
N
%
NYS PAROLE
1,932
44,300
4%
NYS
PROBATION
COMBINED
3,494
*139,173
3%
5,426
184,473
3%
*includes all cases
NEW YORK STATE SORA
TOTAL NYS
SORA
PROBATION AND
PAROLE
COMBINED
20,015
5,426
MUST COMPLY WITH
REGISTRATION
NO
PROBATION/PAROLE
14,5889