Probation Management of Sex Offenders

• Author: Kim M. Marino
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016808328671
• Published date: 01 September 2009
• Date: 01 September 2009
• Subject Matter: Articles

382

Probation Management

of Sex Offenders

An Analysis of Co-Facilitators’ Perceptions

of Offender Progress in Treatment

Kim M. Marino

Iona College

This research examined how probation officers and clinicians assigned to co-facilitate sex

offender treatment groups assess treatment progress. Data for this study were collected from

the progress assessments of 144 sex offenders assigned to treatment as a condition of their

probation. Using a survey instrument, the probation officer–clinician teams assigned to

co-facilitate the treatment groups scored offenders on items associated with compliance to

probation conditions, self-labeling, and psychological insight. Consonant with the hypotheses,

clinicians had a greater tendency to indicate progress that was driven by their perceptions of

offenders of psychological insight. When probation officers perceived progress, it was driven

by their perception of self-labeling by offenders. Ironically, offenders who were perceived as

engaging in self-labeling were in fact more prone to violations. Findings are discussed in terms

of the implications for effective management and supervision of convicted sex offenders.

Keywords: probation; sex offenders; treatment

According to a recent report published by the NewYork State Division of Probation and

Correctional Alternatives, probation is the most common sentence for sex offenders in

New York State (Krueger, 2007). With the extensive use of community sanctions for con-

victed sex offenders, effective supervision and management of these offenders are critical

to public safety (English, Pullen, & Jones, 1997). Probation departments have been using a

“containment approach” (English et al., 1997), which integrates the use of field supervi-

sion, polygraph testing, and treatment to reduce the risk of reoffense. Although these are all

important elements of current management practices, this study focuses specifically on the

treatment component of probation management. In Westchester County, court-mandated

treatment groups for probationed sex offenders are co-facilitated by probation officers and

clinicians. Co-facilitation is similar to a team teaching approach where the curriculum and

structure of the group treatment are administered and monitored by one probation officer

and one clinician. As co-facilitators of these groups, both probation officers and clinicians

are responsible for making progress assessments used to estimate the probability of

reoffense (Marshall, 1996). The process of assessment currently involves an integration of

different assessment strategies, including actuarial-based clinical assessment, clinical

Criminal Justice Review

Volume34 Number 3

September 2009 382-403

© 2009 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

10.1177/0734016808328671

http://cjr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Marino / Probation Management of Sex Offenders 383

assessment or professional judgment, and clinical or professional opinion (Krueger, 2007).

Although clinical or professional opinion is generally noted as the least accurate assess-

ment method, it is the most common method used to aid in the management of sex offend-

ers on probation.

When probation departments use interagency management methods, probation officers

and treatment providers are required to work together. This collaboration includes the

assessment of individual cases in order to make more effective management decisions

(Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007). Such assessments are made in the area of

supervision intensity and management strategies throughout an offender’s probation sen-

tence (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2007). Although actuarial-based assessment

is the preferred method of risk assessment, professional opinion (based on experience and

training) plays a major role in the use of co-facilitated treatment groups.

The purpose of this study was to explore the nature and process of the progress assess-

ments made by probation officers and clinicians assigned to co-facilitate sex offender treat-

ment groups. The fact that group therapy is the most common method of treatment for

convicted sex offenders (Jennings & Sawyer, 2003), and measuring behaviors related to

reoffense has been identified as an important research endeavor (Levenson & Macgowan,

2004), it is important to investigate the actual progress assessment process. A Likert-type

scale survey was used to measure co-facilitators’ perceptions of offender progress in treat-

ment. In this study, it was hypothesized that there would be comparative differences in the

progress assessments made by probation officers and clinicians. Specific differences

included the following: (a) that clinicians would be more likely than probation officers to

perceive offenders as having made progress in treatment; (b) that clinicians would focus on

psychological insight as the best indicator of offender progress in treatment; and (c) that

probation officers would focus on compliance with probation conditions and self-labeling

as the best indicators of offender progress in treatment.

Literature Review

Co-Facilitated Treatment Groups

Treatment is an important component of sex offender management and the current

approach is the use of group therapy (Jennings & Sawyer, 2003). In Westchester County,

treatment groups for sex offenders sentenced to probation are co-facilitated by a team of

one probation officer and one clinician. The curriculum for the treatment groups is format-

ted on a relapse prevention model. This treatment model attempts to prevent reoffense by

instructing offenders on how to control their deviant impulses. The treatment groups meet

on a regular basis once a week as a condition of the probation sentence. Unlike other juris-

dictions that rely strictly on clinicians to facilitate the group therapy, Westchester County

is one of the few that use co-facilitated treatment groups. As mentioned previously, the co-

facilitated treatment groups are led by a team of one probation officer and one clinician. In

this capacity, co-facilitators share in the curriculum instruction and progress assessments of

the offenders in their respective groups. At the time of the study, there were 11 groups with

10 to 12 sex offenders in each group.