Acerca de las Redes Submarinas de Fibra Óptica

The manner by which standard sex offender probation (control) and specialized sex offender probation (grant) cases were handled were compared on eight factors: Target populatio n, specialization, caseload, contact standards, special conditions, administrative sanctions, communication with treatment providers, and treatment procedures. Findings indicate that the essential difference between the control and grant cases in DuPage County centered on specialization, caseload, and contact standards. Prior to the grant program, DuPage County had a special unit for sex offender cases but probation officers in this unit serviced a mixed caseload of sex offender and regular probation cases.

1997, two officers were designated to carry only sex offender cases and caseloads averaged 43 for each of these officers. Also, prior to the grant program, the contact standard maintained for sex offenders in DuPage County was the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts' (AOIC) standard for maximum supervision cases of two face-to- face contacts per month and one field visit every other month. The grant program's contact standards were much more stringent based on a three- level supervision system that required four face-to-face contacts per month in level I, two of which were to be home or field visits. Contact standards in level II were reduced to three face-to- face contacts per month and level III consisted of the AOIC standard. While the DuPage County program experienced considerable difficulty in meeting its field visit standards, overall face-to- face contacts averaged close to three per month, one visit above the AOIC standard.

The control and grant cases did not differ in target population…both served sex offenders convicted of a misdemeanor or felony crime and sentenced to probation. Beginning in 1996, a set of 15 special conditions for sex offender probatione rs was in use. Also, approved sex offender treatment providers plus requirements for an initial and maintenance polygraph have been a part of the program since 1995. However, the research team could find only polygraph reports for three of the 105 control cases whereas most of the grant cases had at least one polygraph report. This finding suggests that polygraph tests were a more consistent and frequent part of the specialized probation program than the standard probation program. Treatment providers and program staff have maintained a regular bi- monthly meeting schedule since the inception of the sex offender team, a practice that was continued throughout the period of the grant program.

1. Comparison of Grant and Control Samples on Probation Conditions

DuPage County utilized a set of 15 special conditions for sex offenders for both the standard sex offender probation (control) and the specialized sex offender probation (grant) cases. Key conditions required the offender to actively participate in treatment, to avoid contact with minors including a prohibition against residing with any child under 18, loitering near where the victim resides or near areas primarily used by children, or accepting employment that would involve direct contact with children. Offenders were also required to register as sex offenders, to not possess pornographic material in any form, not use 900 phone numbers or use computers and other devices in violation of Illinois Statutes related to sexual offenses. In addition, the cour t can impose additional requirements. The research team compared the control and grant samples on court- imposed requirements. Our analyses indicate that the grant cases compared to the control cases had more restrictions placed upon them, especially cond itions prohibiting contact with victims or minors. Findings are presented in Table IV.1.

While 70.5% of the grant sample had conditions restricting contact with the victim (12.7% only unsupervised contact; 57.8% no contact allowed), only 40.7% of the control sample had such conditions (4.6% only unsupervised contacts; 36.1% no contact allowed) X2 (2) = 19.78, p <. 001. Similarly, 49.5% of the grant sample had conditions restricting contact with minors (10.9% only unsupervised contacts; 38.6% no contacts allowed), while only 7.6% of the control sample had such conditions (5.7% only unsupervised contacts; 1.9% no contacts allowed), X2 (2) = 49.59 p < .001. An additional contact-related condition is restriction on contacts with the victim’s family especially when the offender had a relationship with the victim’s mother. A higher

percentage of the grant offenders (20.0%) were prohibited from contact with the victim’s family than was the case for control offenders (9.3%), though this difference is not statistically significant.

There were also sharp differences in the use of conditions requiring polygraph or plethsymograph testing, random urine testing, community service, time in jail, and work release assignment. In general, the specialized sex offender program imposed a greater number of restrictions on sex offenders, with the exception that a higher percentage of sex offenders on standard probation were required to perform community service.

None of the sex offenders on standard probation had a condition requiring either a polygraph or plethsymograph test whereas 15 grant cases (14.6%) had such a condition. Random urine testing was a condition in 33% of the grant sample, but in only 2.8% of the control sample, X2 (1) = 33.74 p< .001. It should be noted that the absence of a specific condition for such testing does not mean that such tests, especially polygraph

examinations and urine testing, were not done. Probation officers may order offenders to undergo such testing when they suspect that other probation conditions, such as no contact with the victim, have been violated.

A higher proportion of the control cases (21.5%) than the grant cases (7.1%) were required to perform some hours of community service, X2 (1) = 8.60, p < .004. Also, a higher proportion of grant offenders (45.1%) than control offenders (26.7%) were required to spend some time in jail as an initial condition of their probation, X2 (1) = 7.01, p < .009. Similar findings occurred with work release: 33.3% of the grant offenders and 15.0% of the control offenders were required to participate in a work release

Table IV.1. Comparison of Probation Conditions in the Standard and Specialized Sex Offender Programs of DuPage County

Special Conditions

DuPage County Control Sample

DuPage County Grant Sample

No unsupervised contact with victim 5 (4.6%) 13 (12.7%) Ordered to stay away from victim 39 (36.1)% 59 (57.8%)

Curfew imposed 2 (1.9%) 0 (0.0%)

No unsupervised contact with minors 6 (5.7%) 11 (10.9%)

Ordered to stay away from minors 2 (1.9%) 39 (38.6%)

Ordered to serve some jail time 27 (26.7%) 41. (45.1%)

Sex offender counseling ordered 99 (90.0%) 104 (99.0%)

Ordered to pay victim restitution 19 (87.6%) 7 (7.0%)

Substance abuse treatment ordered 19 (7.5%) 9 (8.9%)

Ordered to perform community service 23 (21.5%) 7 (7.1%) Ordered to stay away from victim’s family 10 (9.3%) 20 (20.0%)

Ordered to take polygraph 0 (0%) 14 (13.6%)

Ordered to take plethysmograph 0 (0%) 1 (1.0%)

Work release ordered 16 (15.0%) 34 (33.3%)

Random urine testing ordered 3 (2.8%) 34 (33.3%)

Mental health assessment ordered 11 (10.2%) 13 (12.7%)

Mental health treatment ordered 4 (3.7%) 6 (5.9%)

Ordered to stay away from forest preserves 2 (1.9%) 7 (7.0%) Ordered to stay away from other locations 2 (1.9%) 0 (0%) Other special conditions ordered 28 (25.9%) 22 (21.4%)

There were no real differences between the two sample groups in conditions requiring curfew, sex offender counseling, victim restitution, substance abuse or mental health treatment, or “other” conditions. Virtually all offenders in both groups (control, 98.1%; grant, 100%) did not have a curfew condition. Almost all offenders in both groups (control 90.0%; grant, 99.0%) were required to participate in sex offender counseling. Almost all of the grant offenders (93.0%) and most of the control offenders (82.4%) were not required to pay victim restitution. Also, the most offenders in both samples (control, 92.5%; grant, 91.1%) were not required to participate in substance abuse treatment and most (control, 86.1%; grant, 81.4%) were also not required to participate in a mental health assessment or treatment.

About 22% of each group had other conditions as part of their probation. Finally, most control (96.3%) and grant (93.0%) offenders were not required to stay away from the location where the sex offense occurred.

As expected, the specialized sex offender probation program imposed more requirements, including jail time, than did the standard probation program. Thus, the specialized program had additional surveillance and contract standards as well as additional sanctions such as work release, and jail time imposed on the sex offenders. These additional requirements are meant to assist in keeping offenders from committing additional crimes while in the community.