MyData:What Is MyData? | Login/Account Info | Download Saved Files | Logout
Description & Citation--Study No. 6627 | |
Bibliographic Description | |
| ICPSR Study No.: | 6627 |
|---|---|
| Persistent URL: | http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06627 |
| Title: | Management of Sex Offenders by Probation and Parole Agencies in the United States, 1994 |
| Principal Investigator(s): | Kim English, Colorado Department of Public Safety |
| Funding Agency: | United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. |
| Grant Number: | 92-IJ-CX-K021 |
| Bibliographic Citation: | English, Kim. MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS BY PROBATION AND PAROLE AGENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1994 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Safety [producer], 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1996. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06627 |
Scope of Study | |
| Summary: | This study examined various ways states approach and sanction sex crimes (i.e., child sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault) and sex offenders. The aim of the study was to obtain basic information about policies and procedures of probation and parole agencies with respect to adult sex offender case management. State corrections administrators in 49 states and the District of Columbia were contacted to supply information on their states' probation and parole offices and the corresponding jurisdictions. From these offices, probation and parole supervisors at the office-management level were selected as survey respondents because of their familiarity with the day-to-day office operations. Respondents were asked about the usage of various supervision methods, such as electronic monitoring, requiring offenders on probation or parole to register with law enforcement agencies, and polygraph testing. Sanctions such as requiring the offenders to seek treatment and forbidding contact with the victim were discussed, as were various queries about the handling of the victim in the case (whether a written statement by the victim was routinely included in the offender's file, whether officers usually had contact with the victim, and whether there was a system for advising victims of status changes for the offender). Other questions focused on whether the office used specialized assessments, caseloads, programs, and policies for sex offenders that differed from those used for other offenders. Various issues regarding treatment for offenders were also examined: who chooses and pays the treatment provider, whether the agency or the court approves treatment providers, what criteria are involved in approval, and whether the office had an in-house sex offender treatment program. |
| Subject Term(s): | parole, policies and procedures, probation, sex offender registration, sex offenders, sex offenses, treatment |
| Geographic Coverage: | United States |
| Time Period: | 1994 |
| Date(s) of Collection: | June 1994 - October 1994 |
| Unit of Observation: | Probation and parole agencies. |
| Universe: | Probation and parole agencies throughout the United States. |
| Data Type: | survey data |
Methodology | |
| Purpose of the Study: | This study was designed to examine various ways states approach and sanction sex crimes (i.e., child sexual abuse, incest, and sexual assault). The aim of the study was to obtain basic information about policies and procedures of probation and parole agencies with respect to adult sex offender case management. |
| Study Design: | A 16-page questionnaire was developed by researchers from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice and reviewed by members of the project's Advisory Board. A telephone survey was selected as the method most likely to ensure data quality and target the correct respondent. The survey instrument, a mixture of Likert scale questions, dichotomous (yes/no) questions, and open-ended questions, was pre-tested at several sites in April 1994. Subsequently, modifications were made to improve the instrument. Then a team of three interviewers who had experience working in the criminal justice system was selected to conduct the telephone survey, which was conducted from offices at the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice in Denver. The interviewers underwent extensive in-house training in a week-long program that included in-depth coverage of the content of the questionnaire and mock telephone interviews. Names of state correctional administrators were obtained from the 1992-1994 AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION PROBATION AND PAROLE DIRECTORY and the American Probation and Parole Association member list. The state correctional administrators were telephoned and asked to provide a list of probation and parole offices in their state and the corresponding jurisdictions. Based on these lists, offices were assigned, according to county(s), to one of four quadrants within each state. Probation and parole supervisors at the office-management level were randomly selected to be interviewed from the quadrant-office lists (per population density). The office supervisors were selected as survey respondents because of their familiarity with the day-to-day office operations. |
| Sample: | The sample for the telephone survey covered 49 states and the District of Columbia. South Dakota was not included in the study because information about sampling units was not furnished upon request. The sample was stratified based on geography and population density. Each state was divided into four (generally equal) geographic quadrants and, using population figures from the 1990 Census, one respondent was selected per every 500,000 or fewer people in each quadrant. Due to administrative variations, the Arizona parole system, Nebraska probation and parole systems, New York State parole system, and Virginia probation and parole systems were only partially represented in the survey. |
| Data Source: | telephone survey |
| Description of Variables: | Respondents were asked about the usage of various supervision methods, such as electronic monitoring, requiring offenders on probation or parole to register with law enforcement agencies, and polygraph testing. Sanctions such as requiring the offenders to seek treatment and forbidding contact with the victim were discussed, as were various queries about the handling of the victim in the case (whether a written statement by the victim was routinely included in the offender's file, whether officers usually had contact with the victim, and whether there was a system for advising victims of status changes for the offender). Other questions focused on whether the office used specialized assessments, caseloads, programs, and policies for sex offenders that differed from those used for other offenders. Various issues regarding treatment for offenders were also examined: who chooses and pays the treatment provider, whether the agency or the court approves treatment providers, what criteria are involved in approval, and whether the office had an in-house sex offender treatment program. The names for offenses with the same elements sometimes varied between states. Due to the variation in the number and types of sex offense categories across states, as well as differences in their elements, offenses were identified by their elements to ensure consistency across all states. |
| Response Rates: | Of the original 873 probation and parole offices identified, 758 (86.8 percent) were contacted by interviewers. Of these, 732 supervisors agreed to participate in the hour-long interview, resulting in an overall response rate of 96.6 percent. Nearly all of the 3.4 percent who refused to participate in the study mentioned time constraints as the reason for refusal. |
| Presence of Common Scales: | Several Likert-type scales were used. |
Access and Availability | |
| Note: | A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest. |
| Original ICPSR Release: | 1996-10-01 |
| Version History: | The last update of this study occurred on 2005-11-04. |
| 2005-11-04 - On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. | |
| Dataset(s): |
|
