On Good Authority

              – 1 –
Supervising sex offenders
in Coles, Madison, and
Vermilion counties
On Good Authority
Vol. 4, No. 6
December 2000
On Good Authority is a periodic
briefing on trends and issues in
criminal justice program evaluation.
This report was written by staff
Research Analyst Sharyn Adams. It is a
summary of a program evaluation of
the specialized sex offender probation
programs implemented in Coles,
Madison, and Vermilion counties. The
evaluation was conducted by Barbara
Hayler, Ph.D., and Richard Schmitz of
the University of Illinois at Springfield.
Copies of the evaluation are available
from the Authority’s Research and
Analysis Unit.
The Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority is a state
agency dedicated to improving the
administration of criminal justice in
Illinois. The basic functions of the
Authority are criminal justice research,
federal and state grants administration,
and information systems development
and support.
For more information, or for copies of
this or other publications, contact the
Authority at (312) 793-8550, or visit
our Web site at www.icjia.state.il.us.
The evaluation was supported by grant
#97-DB-MU-0017 and #98-DB-MU-0017,
awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice. Points of view in this document do not
necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Printed by authority of the State of Illinois,
December 2000. Printing order #01-118;
3,000 copies.
George H. Ryan
Governor
Peter B. Bensinger
Chairman
Candice M. Kane
Executive Director
ILLINOIS
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
INFORMATION AUTHORITY
While most convicted sex
offenders are sentenced to
prison, sex offenders also
represent a significant portion of the non-incarcerated
correctional population. A
1993 study by the Administrative Office
of the Illinois Courts (AOIC) found that
there were at least 3,000 offenders
sentenced to probation for sex offense
charges, about 3 percent of the total
probation caseload. Most probation
departments at that time had not estab-lished
specialized supervision strategies
for sex offenders. Guidelines for inten-sive
supervision of adult and juvenile sex
offenders were developed by AOIC in
1996 to assist probation departments in
designing specialized programs for sex
offenders on probation. These guidelines
were used to implement intensive
supervision programs in several counties.
The Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority supported the
development of specialized sex offender
probation projects in Coles, Madison, and
Vermilion counties with federal Anti-
Drug Abuse Act funds. Evaluators with
the Center for Legal Studies at the
University of Illinois at Springfield
conducted a yearlong implementation
evaluation of the project beginning in
July 1998.
Coles County
The Coles County Intensive Specialized
Sex Offender Supervision (ISSOS)
Program added a part-time surveillance
officer to the county’s sex offender
probation department. The officer helps
increase supervision in the community
and works solely on sex offender cases.
Another specialized officer, or case
manager, monitors the offender’s
progress in treatment and maintains
daytime contact with the offender, while
the part-time surveillance officer pro-vides
evening supervision of the sex
offender caseload.
All juvenile and adult sex offenders
sentenced to probation in Coles County
—most often for criminal sexual abuse—
are targeted for ISSOS (Table 1). During
the evaluation period (August 1997 to
March 1999), the caseload for the Coles
County program increased from 29 to 40
cases. Adult offenders ranged in age from
17 to 71 years. Most were employed, and
all had completed high school. Juveniles
ranged in age from 11 to 15 years old.
Few ISSOS probationers had been
previously arrested or convicted for a
serious criminal offense (Table 2).
ISSOS established a three-phase
supervision regimen for offenders
admitted to the program. Phase I in-cludes,
but is not limited to, a minimum
of five contacts per week (two face-to-face
contacts), and a progress hearing in
court every month. The court progress
hearing serves as an institutional check
on non-compliance. Phase II reduces the
minimum contacts to two per week and
progress hearings continue. Phase III
reduces the number of contacts to six per
month with monthly progress hearings.
In addition to the supervision
requirements, offenders must comply
with probation conditions such as a