Implementation Evaluation of the Specialized Sex Offender Projects in DuPage, Lake and Winnebago Counties

• NCJ Number: 204986
• Date Published: June 2000
• Length: 292 pages
• Grant Number(s): 96-DB-MU-0017; 97-DB-MU-0017
• Sponsoring Agency: Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA); Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
• Corporate Author: Loyola University of Chicago
• Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services; Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Description
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This document discusses program evaluations of three sex offender probation programs in Illinois.

Abstract

These three programs had been operating for about a year prior to the start of the evaluation. The evaluation had two basic elements: a process evaluation of each program; and a short-term impact evaluation of each program. The process evaluation examined program development, program implementation, and program operation. The assessment of impact was limited to the assessment of intermediate probation and treatment outcomes. The programs evaluated were the DuPage County Sex Offender Probation Program, the Lake County Sex Offender Program, and the Winnebago County Sex Offender Probation Program. The conclusion from both an analysis of individual programs and a cross-program analysis was that each of these programs successfully implemented their sex offender program that was designed to fit within the particular configuration of individual departments and environments. All three met basic requirements of the containment model in that they increased sex offender supervision/surveillance beyond that provided prior to receipt of grant funds. Each program provided more sex offender supervision but not as much as expected. Each program implemented a well functioning system of sex offender treatment characterized by a team approach of mutual respect and trust. Short-term probation outcomes and short-term treatment outcomes indicate that the majority of sex offenders in all three programs are complying with probation and treatment conditions that are part of their probation order. No one program excelled at all three elements of the containment model but some programs did better than others at various elements. All three programs were unable to meet their individual home/field visit standards and to some extent, their face-to-face contact standards. Treatment evaluations from treatment providers were of mixed quality in all three programs. 27 tables, 8 figures, 30 references