775970

research-article2018
SAXXXX10.1177/1079063218775970Sexual AbuseNewstrom et al.

Article
Sexual Abuse
2019, Vol. 31(5) 607­–631
Sex Offender Supervision: © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Communication, Training, and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1079063218775970
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218775970
Mutual Respect Are Necessary journals.sagepub.com/home/sax

for Effective Collaboration

Between Probation Officers
and Therapists

Nicholas P. Newstrom1, Michael Miner2, Chris Hoefer2,

R. Karl Hanson3, and Beatrice “Bean” E. Robinson2

Abstract
Developed with the goal of preventing recidivism, contemporary sex offender
supervision models focus on collaboration between probation officers and therapists.
This exploratory study used focus groups to examine the working relationships
between probation officers and therapists from two large U.S. urban probation
departments. Overall, both probation officers and therapists were quite positive about
their working relationships; they valued each others’ roles and agreed that regular,
accurate, and timely communication occurred frequently. Not all relationships,
however, were effective. Several probation officers and therapists expressed
dissatisfaction with poor communication, conflicts between the goals of therapy and
probation, a lack of resources, and deficits in the policies they needed to adequately
implement components of their supervision model (the containment model). Our
findings suggest ways to structure sexual offender supervision that integrate the
distinct orientations of probation officers and therapists into a collaboration that
promotes public safety and work well for all.

Keywords
sex offender, probation, supervision, collaboration, sex offender treatment

1Universityof Minnesota, St. Paul, USA

2Universityof Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
3Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Nicholas P. Newstrom, University of Minnesota, 290 McNeal Hall, 1985 Buford Avenue, St. Paul,
MN 55108, USA.
Email: newst038@umn.edu
608 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

Few individuals who have committed sexual crimes seek treatment without criminal
justice involvement. Intensive supervision is effective in directing individuals into
services, but surveillance and threats of punishment cannot, on their own, be expected
to change individuals’ risk relevant propensities responsible for the persistence in sex-
ual crime. Prosocial change is most likely to occur in a relationship of trust, with pro-
fessionals skilled in providing hope, challenging dysfunctional thoughts, and
promoting effective self-regulation (English, Pullen, & Jones, 1996; McGrath, Hoke,
& Vojtisek, 1998). Consequently, many correctional systems consider treatment ser-
vices an integral part of their response to individuals with a history of sexual crime.
Given that the culture and training of probation officers in the United States is often
quite different from that of therapists, constructive relationships between these profes-
sions cannot be taken for granted (McGrath, Cumming, & Holt, 2002). There are good
reasons, however, for making these relationships as strong as possible. Some research
has suggested that the combination of intensive/enhanced supervision and therapeutic
treatment is more effective in reducing sexual offender recidivism and enhanced func-
tioning than a surveillance-only approach (McGrath et al., 1998; Stalans, 2004; Turner,
Bingham, & Andrasik, 2000; R. J. Wilson, Stewart, Stirpe, Barrett, & Cripps, 2000),
although the case is not yet closed on the increased effectiveness of supervision over
treatment-only (Morrissey, Fagan, & Cocozza, 2009).

The Containment Model as an Alternative to Standard

Probation
As an alternative to standard probation, many jurisdictions across the United States
have developed specialized sex offender probation programs, often based on versions
of the containment model. The containment model of supervision is a well-known,
victim-centered, intensive community-based probation and parole model developed
specifically for supervising sex offenders. A major goal of this approach is to enable
sex offenders to be in the community—yet prevent them from committing new sex
offenses. Containment model advocates argue that meeting these goals requires effec-
tive collaboration between probation officers, therapists/providers, police, victim
advocates, and polygraphers. Collaboration has been defined as a mutually beneficial
and well-defined relationship entered into by two or more organizations to achieve
common goals (D’Amora & Burns-Smith, 1999).
The containment model comprised five components: (a) victim- and public safety-
centered philosophy, (b) multidisciplinary collaboration in the form of intra- and inter-
agency and interdisciplinary teams made up of probation officers and therapists (who
communicate frequently and share important information), as well as polygraph profes-
sionals, and victim rights advocates, (c) the use of a variety of containment strategies
such as intensive community supervision (e.g., frequent office/home visits, low casel-
oad numbers, use of GPS technology), sex offender-specific treatment emphasizing
cognitive behavioral and relapse-prevention group therapy, and post-conviction and
maintenance polygraphs, (d) informed and consistent public policies and agency proto-
cols regarding sex offender management, including consistent funding for treatment,
the use of actuarial risk-assessment tools for the assessment of dangerousness and
Newstrom et al. 609

recidivism potential, and (e) quality control mechanisms such as regular, multiagency
case review meetings, sophisticated collection of data tracking offenders who fail in
treatment or commit new crimes, dropout-revocation rates and staff training, to name a
few (D’Amora & Burns-Smith, 1999; English, 1998; English, Heil, & Veeder, 2016;
English et al., 1996). Both probation sites involved in this study used the containment
model of sex offender supervision.

Description of Project and Sites Involved

The current study was part of a larger study examining the effectiveness of a specific
risk-assessment tool (the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale
[SOTIPS]; McGrath, Lasher, & Cumming, 2012). One of the goals of risk assessment
in corrections is to help professionals form a common understanding of individuals in
their care, and to help such individuals understand the common goals of treatment and
community supervision (Lasher, McGrath, Wilson, & Cumming, 2015). To examine
whether the introduction of the SOTIPS improved communication and collaboration
between probation officers and therapists, we examined the nature of their existing
relationships prior to introduction of the SOTIPS measure.
Two probation locations were examined: (a) Arizona: Maricopa County Adult
Probation Department (including Phoenix) and (b) New York City (NYC): NYC
Department of Probation (composed of the five boroughs of NYC—Manhattan,
Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island). The probation department sites were
responsible for implementing the dynamic risk-assessment tool, SOTIPS, at baseline,
6- and 12-month follow-up, and collecting additional data from adult men on proba-
tion for sexual offenses. As a part of the SOTIPS’ evaluation, focus groups were con-
ducted with probation officers and treatment providers from both sites. This study
presents the results of the qualitative baseline focus groups, not the larger quantitative
study, which is still in process.

Description of the Two Probation Department Sites

The two probation department data collection sites were selected for study because
they provided uniform, specialized, jurisdiction-wide sex offender supervision and
treatment services for 300 to 500 probationers, serviced socioeconomic and racially
diverse populations, and had a probation department that collaborated with sex
offender treatment agencies.

Maricopa County (Including Phoenix)

In 2012, when we collected our focus group data, the Maricopa County Adult Probation
Department employed 80 probation officers with different specialties (e.g., field offi-
cer, GPS monitoring) who supervised 2,132 individuals on probation for sexual
crimes, 1,518 (71%) of whom were in treatment. The average officer had a caseload of
53 individuals. Probation officers averaged 10.7 years with the department (Broderick,
2012). Maricopa County is a mostly urban jurisdiction, with more than 2.5 million
610 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

people living in the Phoenix metropolitan area; approximately, two thirds of the state’s
population resides within the county.
In 1987, the state legislature passed a law mandating lifetime probation for individu-
als convicted of crimes against children. The county adult probation department’s
response included intensive supervision, subsidized treatment and assessment, and ser-
vices for victims and their families as part of a “dynamic” containment model. Probation
officers supervised offender’s progress with behavioral and life issues and their compli-
ance with probation conditions. In 1997, the probation department formally adopted the
containment model for probationers. These probationers were required to participate in
sex offender treatment provided by providers who met specified competency require-
ments selected by the Maricopa County Adult Probation Department via a Requests for
Proposals (RFPs) process (Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, 2012,
Program Narrative, grant submitted to Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring,
Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking [SMART]).

NYC
In 2012, the NYC Department of Probation was one of the largest in the United States,
employing approximately 500 probation officers who supervised 1,068 people on pro-
bation for sex crimes. Probation officers had worked for the probation department an
average of 15 years (New York City Department of Probation, 2012, Promoting
Evidence Integration in Sex Offender Management: Project Narrative). NYC had a
population of 8.3 million people residing in five boroughs and comprised 43% of the
state’s population.
Unlike Maricopa County, there was no lifetime probation mandate, but, similar to
Maricopa County, the NYC Department of Probation adopted the containment model.
After conducting a review process to identify the best supervision model for sexual
offender probationers (New York City Department of Probation, 2012, Program
Narrative, grant submitted to Office of SMART) and relying heavily on a Department
of Justice study (English, Pullen, & Jones, 1997), NYC probation selected the contain-
ment model as their approach for supervising sex offenders in the community in 2007
(Cumming & McGrath, 2005). To meet these requirements, specialized officers super-
vised probationers through in-person office and community meetings. The NYC
Department of Probation selected providers with the Professional Code of Ethics and
the Practices Standards and Guidelines (Association for the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers, 2014) in mind. Sex offender treatment providers were selected based on their
certification as sex offender treatment providers and their ability and willingness to
operate within the containment model.

Description of Maricopa County, Arizona, and NYC

Treatment Agencies
There were four Maricopa County and five NYC treatment agencies that provided sex
offender treatment to probationers within the containment model approach. Between
Newstrom et al. 611

April and August 2013, program directors from each of the nine treatment agencies
completed a 60-item survey designed by the Safer Societies Foundation (McGrath,
Cumming, Burchard, Zeoli, & Ellerby, 2010), which provided information on their
practices in sex offender assessment, treatment, and management during the 2012 cal-
endar year.
The nine treatment agency program directors reported treating a total of 4,092 adult
male offenders who committed stranger and statutory sexual assaults, intrafamilial and
extrafamilial childhood sexual abuse, non-contact offenses, and viewed child pornog-
raphy; Maricopa County treated 2,172 offenders and NYC 1,920. Offenders partici-
pated in cognitive behavioral group treatment an average of 24.3 months (SD = 12.8
months) ranging from 4 to 40 months; M = 21.5 and 25.3 months for Maricopa County
and NYC, respectively. All nine agencies offered aftercare programs and provided an
average of 24 months (SD = 18.7 months) of aftercare (“step-down”) treatment rang-
ing from 6 to 60 months per offender (M = 25.5 and 22.0 months for Maricopa County
and NYC, respectively). All nine treatment agencies also used psychological testing,
plethysmography, and polygraphy to secure a complete sexual history and to periodi-
cally monitor compliance with probation regulations. Every treatment agency had
considerable experience providing sex offender treatment (M = 14.4 years, SD = 8.7
years), especially in Maricopa County where the agencies reported treating probation-
ers for over two decades (M = 21.5 years SD = 7.1 years); in NYC, the average was 8.8
years (SD = 4.8 years).
All agency program directors reported that they collaborated with their respective
probation departments by allowing probation officers to observe treatment groups; no
agency reported that probation officers co-led group with therapists. Due to Maricopa
County’s contractual relationship with their four therapy agencies, they more tightly
controlled the referral process than NYC, which, on occasion, allowed probationers to
select their own private therapist/psychiatrist outside of the approved network of agen-
cies. Collaboration with other treatment stakeholders was common as five agencies
utilized risk management teams (composed of mental health, law enforcement, and
corrections professionals) and collaborated with victim advocates. The majority of
agencies involved family members in their treatment process.
There has been some research investigating the importance, value, and frequency
of the probation–therapist relationships, and even speculation that close communica-
tion between probation officers and treatment staff contributes to lower rates of sexual
reoffense (McGrath et al., 2002). In this qualitative study, we examined how probation
officers and therapists from two probation departments in two large metropolitan areas
of the United States described their collaboration, communication, and experiences
while working together to supervise and treat sexual offenders using the containment
model of supervision. They each identified the characteristics of high and low quality
working relationships, as well as deficits in resources and policies needed to ade-
quately implement a variety of containment components. Utilizing focus groups, we
examined relationships within these systems to highlight significant themes that
emerged from the experiences of probation officers and therapists as they engaged in
the supervision of probationers who have committed sexual offenses.
612 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

Method
This study was part of a multisite project funded by the United States National Institute
of Justice (NIJ) in collaboration with the Office of SMART (2012-AW-BX-0153) to
investigate the validity and reliability of the SOTIPS (McGrath et al., 2012) when
compared with the Static-99R/Static-2002R risk-assessment tools (Helmus, Thornton,
Hanson, & Babchishin, 2012). The study was approved by the Human Subjects Review
Committee, Social and Behavior Science Research at the University of Minnesota,
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Study 1301S26422.

Recruitment and Sample

Maricopa County and NYC probation supervisors and program directors provided a list
of all probation officers and therapists who supervised and treated probationers in their
departments. All probation officers and therapists were contacted by email asking them
to participate in a 2-hr focus group; we were aiming to recruit 10 to 12 participants per
focus group. Two focus groups of 2 hr were held at each site: one for probation officers
and one for treatment providers (both groups contained both frontline staff and supervi-
sors). The numbers in each focus group were as follows: probation officer focus groups
(n = 18, Maricopa County; n = 12, NYC) and therapist focus groups (n = 13, Maricopa
County; n = 10, NYC). No monetary incentives were provided to participants but super-
visors encouraged their attendance during their regular workday. Focus groups were
held at the Maricopa County and NYC probation offices in April and August 2013.

Focus Group Procedures

In total, 13 semi-structured questions were developed for probation officers and thera-
pists. Questions focused on how offenders were supervised and treated, how treatment
and probation progress were monitored and assessed, and how termination decisions
were made. Parallel questions for probation officers and therapists were developed to
assess similar concepts. For example, probation officers were asked the following
questions: What is your relationship with your client’s treatment providers/therapists?
How involved are you in treatment? Therapists were asked as follows: What is your
relationship with your client’s probation officers/supervising agents? How do you
work with them? How involved are they in treatment? Additional clarifying probes
were used to encourage participants to elaborate on their responses (see the appendix).
Participants sat around tables and were digitally audio-recorded using Olympus DS-2
and DS-20 digital audio recorders with two external microphones. The moderators
ended the focus groups on time after 2 hr. The third author transcribed the recordings
from Maricopa County; transcripts from NYC were prepared by Verbal Ink—a profes-
sional transcription service specializing in complex terminology and sensitive audio
material. All focus group participants gave first names to introduce themselves,
enabling us to track their comments throughout the focus groups. Identifiable informa-
tion was removed upon transcription.
Newstrom et al. 613

Data Analysis
Qualitative analysis of the focus groups was conducted by coding transcripts for
themes in NVivo10. Coders used line-by-line open coding for all transcripts (Glaser,
1998). The coding strategy was based on social constructionism, a theory used to inter-
pret reality out of the lived experiences of subjects. To achieve reliability and validity,
coders identified terms and concepts and clarified thematic meanings throughout the
writing process (Charmaz, 1990). The first and third authors read the transcripts mul-
tiple times and independently developed broad categories/nodes based on participant
responses. Then, both raters met to review, merge, and agree on the broad categories/
nodes. After these categories were agreed upon and defined, both coders indepen-
dently coded all parts of the transcript again and met together to identify subthemes
emerging out of the combined themes. Finally, the first three authors met and coded
the transcripts using the final categories/nodes and subthemes—creating a final
description of the characteristics that facilitated or impeded collaboration between
probation officers and treatment providers.

Results
Qualitative analysis of the focus groups revealed several important themes: (a) proba-
tion officer perspectives on working relationships with therapists, (b) treatment pro-
vider perspectives on working relationships with probation officers, and (c) difficulties/
frustrations with important factors in containment model implementation. We edited
all quotes for brevity, clarity, and readability.

Probation Officer Perspectives on Therapy, Therapists, and

Collaboration
Probation officers were asked to describe their relationship with treatment providers,
as well as to give their opinions about the effectiveness of treatment. They identified
the characteristics of high and low quality working relationships with therapists.

Characteristics of high quality relationships—Regular, timely, accurate, face-to-face communi-

cation. Regular, timely communication was identified by probation officers as an
important characteristic that contributed to a high quality relationship with therapists.
This was reflected in comments about the frequency of contact among probation
professionals:

. . . the more contact you have with them, the more you’re gonna find. The supervision
and treatment together works better than an assessment. That’s my belief, because I’m
actually having a physical contact, I’m seeing them in their environment, when they
come to the office its basically they’re blowing smoke up your tail tellin’ you what you
wanna hear . . . (Probation officer)
614 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

In addition to the frequency of communication, probation officers reported on inter-

actions they believed improved communication. Face-to-face interactions were espe-
cially valued:

A lot of the times the treatment providers are in our building, so all we have to do is walk
downstairs, you know, they come right to the office . . . They’ll have the counselor in the
office with the probationer there so they can discuss what’s going on, so it’s a really,
really, really, really close relationship. (Probation officer)

Noting the importance of in-person communication, many probation officers

identified the benefits of structured containment meetings designed to facilitate
collaboration:

I feel is very vital to the probation officer to maintain contact with the clinician. The
containment meeting is vital. Whether they’re in treatment, whether they’re making
progress or they’re not making progress, we have containment meetings to show positive
as well as negative. But it’s a good idea that that’s the approach that we take. And I think
it does work for monitoring progress. (Probation officer)

Valuing treatment.  Probation officers who valued treatment and recognized the impor-
tance of the therapeutic process reported having higher quality relationships with ther-
apists; they spoke passionately about the importance of treatment to the rehabilitation
process:

I think treatment is very, very important! Unfortunately, it took violating the law to get
into treatment, but I wish everybody could be in treatment, cuz . . . these guys . . . they
have really helped their lives and relationships that have all been possible because they’re
in treatment. And as a probation officer I feel like I’m kind of—I’m just a facilitator, like,
making sure I’m the eyes and the ears of the court, making sure that they’re following
their conditions of probation, but if you were to take out the treatment component, to me
it would just be a waste of time. (Probation officer)

Probation officer opinions about treatment were rooted in experiences with specific
probationers who made significant strides while benefiting from therapy. One officer
mentioned the dramatic changes probationers make during treatment:

. . . and I can’t count the number of guys that have told me that treatment has saved their
life. Uh, those who dig in and really worked hard that it’s made an enormous difference
in every aspect of their life. Some of them would say the same thing about us, some
wouldn’t. I think treatment is priceless if it’s done right and you can get the buy-in from
the client. (Probation officer)

Positive changes in probationers while in therapy were often considered signifi-

cant. This probation officer credited participation in therapy for this change:
Newstrom et al. 615

I agree with everyone else that the treatment is very, very important. Sometimes it
surprising to see the insight that they get once they’re in there, when they come to us and
they’re saying “I didn’t commit this crime at all” and they’re in complete denial and then
to see them change, um, through treatment. (Probation officer)

Role adherence.  Probation officers discussed the importance of knowing and adhering
to their respective roles within the supervision system:

. . . from the probation standpoint, we have a certain job, . . . we have certain things that
we are supposed to do as officer, we are not therapists, even those who have specialized
degrees, that is a separate entity, . . . I think it’s important that you have both the
community supervision side and the therapeutic side looking at their risk, cuz I don’t
think one side can do it accurately. Because unfortunately, we in probation may be a little
more jaded to certain things than the therapeutic side . . . so I think it’s really gonna be a
50/50 to get an accurate profile. (Probation officer)

One probation officer opined that when probation officers and therapists do their
respective jobs, probationers are better able to concentrate on treatment:

I think when they’re invested in [treatment] . . . their role is a lot more important . . . [our
role is to] motivate them and get them to that level where then treatment can focus on
getting them on track. (Probation officer)

Characteristics of low quality relationships.  In the focus groups, probation officers were
questioned about the challenging aspects of their relationships with treating therapists.
Poor communication, not valuing treatment, and working with ineffective therapists
were characteristics noted by probation officers as contributing to low quality relation-
ships with therapists.

Poor communication.  Infrequent, late, poor quality, and inaccurate information from
therapists about their work with probationers led to poor quality relationships between
probation officers and therapists.
One probation officer contrasted therapists who were good communicators with
others who were not:

. . . some of them will communicate really well, and quite well and they’ll call and they’ll
email, they’ll let you know, they’ll keep you in the loop. Others you’ll forget that they
work for that agency until your defendant comes in with complaints . . . (Probation officer)

Another probation officer identified poor timing and generic quarterly reports as
detracting from good communication with therapists:

. . . the quarterly report as I’ve experienced them, are the ones that tend to arrive a year
late are often the very best, but they are of no use because they’re too old. The one’s we
616 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

get instantaneously are the cut and paste, . . . there is no thought in em so they’re timely
but they’re of no use . . . we often get after the fact, so if there was something we were
going to miss, we wouldn’t know about it for 9 months. (Probation officer)

Not valuing treatment.  Several probation officers stated their belief that therapy does
not work and questioned its effectiveness:

I think it [supervision] is very important. We’re doing a wonderful job through supervision,
and I think it is more helpful. It is better. We get compliance better than through treatment.
I’m not a fan of therapy. I think we get more done through supervision and putting the
fear into them. (Probation officer)

Another probation officer criticized treatment for not motivating probationers to

take responsibility for their sex offenses and questioned therapist motivations:

I’m not gonna knock the whole program. I’m gonna say maybe there’s one person or two
in there that you do have a group of individuals that come back and say, “I enjoyed it, I
acknowledge what I did. I am deeply sorry.” You get good reports, but on the whole, the
majority of the times—we have people [therapists] that just want the money. I’m sorry.
(Probation officer)

Characteristics of ineffective therapists.  Probation officers identified inexperience as an

important characteristic of ineffective therapists. One probation officer described a
visit to a treatment group, citing the therapist’s passivity and unwillingness to confront
offenders as problematic:

. . . you will be able to decide and determine how good the therapist is, because there
been times when I’ve gone into group to address certain problems and the therapist will
just sit there and I’ll just take over. (laughter) It’s true! And then you ask the other
group members to their response is to his behaviors and they’ll look at each other like,
what’s he talkin about? You know, he’s been doing great, well obviously he’s not
because I’m sitting in group and I’m calling him out and the therapist just sits there.
(Probation officer)

Another probation officer cited a frustration with private therapists who don’t have
specific sex offender treatment training:

Because if you’re a private therapist and I need him to go to sex offender treatment and
therapy and you don’t know what you’re doing, then you’re not addressing the need,
you’re not addressing the need, you’re not addressing the offense, you’re not addressing
the issue . . . (Probation officer)

Most had experience with both high and low quality therapists. A probation officer
summarized this point by stating, “Some of our treatment providers are bordering on
brilliant, some are truly imbeciles.”
Newstrom et al. 617

Therapist Perspectives on Probation, Supervision, and Collaboration

Therapists were also asked to discuss their relationship with probation officers. They
identified the characteristics of high and low quality working relationships.

Characteristics of high quality relationships—Regular, timely, face-to-face communication. 

Similar to probation officers, therapists described the importance of regular, timely,
face-to-face interaction. One therapist described the personal relationship he tried to
have with probation officers:

I make it my business to know who every PO is if it’s on my list of clients. That way if I
do have concerns and if I see a downward spiral going on in somebody’s behavior, I go
to that PO and I make them aware of it. And I don’t wait until the end of the month for
that progress note. Because, given 30 days, you never know what could happen . . . if you
have that communication established, then that’s very valuable . . . (Therapist)

Another therapist appreciated the fact that the probation office and therapy office
were in the same building:

Same building, same office. So we’re able to maintain that type of communication, and that’s
excellent. I mean, we find things out. The clinician will go over to the probation officer or
what have you and say, “Look, this is what I know.” Or, as a former probation officer, I may
go into someone’s house and I may see things in that house, like magazines or what have
you, and then I’ll go back to the clinician and say, “You know what? You know there’s
photos and stuff. Let’s put together a containment meeting. We’ll address the issue before it
actually becomes a bigger issue.” So being an on-site provider has that communication that
we can go back and forth between the probation officer and so forth. (Therapist)

Similar to probation officers, therapists saw the containment meeting as a valued

mechanism for increasing face-to-face communication:

. . . we also have the same meetings [containment meeting] for positive behaviors to
reinforce what’s going on in group, how they’re doing, complying, whether they merit a
step down for relapse aftercare, once a month, twice a month. All this is addressed in
containment. The SPO may come back with other issues that the clinician may not be
aware of, and vice versa. And it’s a meeting of the minds. We’re all at the same table at
the same time. (Therapist)

Valuing supervision.  Like probation officers, therapists who valued supervision and rec-
ognized the importance of the supervision process reported having higher quality rela-
tionships with probation officers:

. . . it would occur to me that the skill set that those people possess [probation officers] is
the kind of skill set that we need to be engendering and fostering in the folks that are
618 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

supervising the guys on the primary caseload . . . we’re clearly in this together, and the
exchange of information back and forth is free flowing and spontaneous and dynamic and
the kind of stuff that really lends itself to wanting to do this stuff. (Therapist)

Therapists appreciated the safety that supervision provides:

I came into this line of work and ended up staying in Arizona instead of moving back
to California because of the opportunity to work closely with probation . . . I feel I get
to go to sleep comfortably at night because I made a phone call to a PO . . . who’s
gonna watch the person I’m worried about, . . . ah, those are all priceless to me.
(Therapist)

. . . the safety of all the kids and families that are out there trying to live productive lives.
And it’s vital to have a PO doing an intense monitoring as a part of the community
monitoring and therapeutic approach. And without the POs or the Department of
Probation, the populations that we treat would be dropped down to maybe one percent of
what we have now. (Therapist)

Some saw their role as teaching clients how to work with and value the probation:

. . . I listen to what probation’s saying whether or not I agree with it or not, and I try to
take it and make something productive out of it, I go back to the client and say “Ok,
your probation team is really, really worried about this.” . . . and then the client says,
“well, I haven’t done that in 2 years” and I say, “ok, well, what can we do to relieve
probation?” And if that means you save up and take a specific polygraph around X so
that your probation team can relax around that, then that’s what we need to do.
(Therapist)

Characteristics of low quality relationships.  In describing their relationships with proba-

tion officers, therapists identified harsh probation officers and conflict around roles
and treatment goals as descriptive of low quality relationships.

Tough, unrealistic probation officers.  Probation officers with unrealistic expectations for
probationers made working relationships with therapists difficult:

. . . there’s some POs that are more stringent and a client will miss a group and they never
miss a group so maybe I won’t tell the PO cuz I’m—I don’t want them to call. I feel like
they’re always looking for . . . something wrong or to arrest em on, kinda like what you
talked about before, um, with some type of—allowing them to make mistakes, sometimes
they’re gonna make mistakes and obviously it’s all from reoffending to, like, a friend
showed them porn on their phone, sometimes they [probation officers] overreact and then
some it’s like they’re not involved at all. (Therapist)

Another therapist expressed frustration with a probation officer who refused to be

flexible with a low-risk offender and stated, “They [offender] have to be on house
arrest for 3 years and, you know, they are [a] very low-risk client, so I think that’s
really hard to work with.”
Newstrom et al. 619

Conflict between therapy and probation goals.  The quality of the working relationship
between probation officers and therapists often deteriorated when treatment and super-
vision goals competed:

. . . I think, ah, for me personally, the early part of treatment seems to be the most
important . . . learning about their . . . sex offence cycle, learning about the, uh, early
events of life that created some of this movement, trauma, . . . the education social,
intimate part of how they’re developed and how they maybe aren’t developed . . . they
[probation officers] wanna focus on one thing but we’re trying to do something else so,
you know, it kinda ties our hands to how we wanna move with a client . . . (Therapist)

Additional Probation Officer and Therapist Struggles

Implementing the Containment Model
Probation officers and therapists discussed the resources they needed to adequately
implement a variety of containment components—components discussed earlier as
major components of the model. They identified problems in five areas: caseloads, use
of GPS technology, informed and consistent public policies and agency protocols,
consistent funding for therapy, and actuarial risk assessment.

High Caseloads
Implementation of the containment model requires that probation officers work inten-
sively with probationers and collaborate with the multidisciplinary team. Probation
officers complained that high caseloads made it difficult to devote sufficient time to
intensive community supervision and collaboration:

But the problem happens . . . when the caseloads go so high you don’t have time to sit and
say let me take a look at your cell phone or let me search that computer or let me go
through, let me do a thorough walk-through of the house because you don’t have time to
do that. You gotta meet your compliance standards, it’s on to the next case. So once the
caseloads go above 25 or 30, I think sometimes things get lost in the crack because you
don’t have that time. (Probation officer)

Technology
Probation officers identified problems with GPS monitoring in terms of the amount of
time necessary to monitor probationers, as well as which probationers were sentenced
to electronic surveillance. Two probation officers discussed their frustration with GPS
monitoring or implementation:

. . . I’m spending at least an 8-hour day just doing GPS, which is just running the GPS
because they don’t have the money. They have GPS on these clients but they haven’t
added enough personnel to actually monitor the GPS and watch where they’re going.
Watching the computer, which I think is crazy; I’d rather have real eyes on the problem
in the field . . . (Probation officer)
620 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

One of my issues is just that the way the law divides or separates the GPS. We have guys
that are on probation for a computer crime that happened at their home and yet they’re
sentenced to GPS. And to me it’s just, almost a waste for probation to supervise that
person when the crime was committed at their home . . . (Probation officer)

Informed and Consistent Agency Protocols and Public Policies

Probation officers and therapists identified frustrations with inconsistencies, changes
in policy, and the politics involved in the supervision of offenders. One therapist
expressed frustration with the frequent reorganization of probation caseloads:

. . . about every few months, they reorganize the probation caseloads based on where
people are relocating and they do it by zip code, so one day a guy will be with a PO,
mister A . . . and the next day he goes to probation officer B . . . (Therapist)

Another therapist expressed frustration with the variability between probation offi-
cers in their interpretation and enforcement of supervision rules and suggested the
need for investment in the development of consistent policies and procedures:

. . . “oh, I just spent two weeks in Vegas.” “good for you, how’d you do that?” “Oh, my
PO let me go.” So you get just crazy variations. I think the biggest problem for the
department . . . they need to invest some dollars in some policy and procedure, um, they
say they have it, I’ve never seen it. Cuz the problem is the variability is really tremendous
from PO to PO. Just depends on their own personal style . . . (Therapist)

A probation officer noted their frustration with criteria for classifying high and low-
risk offenders for community notification:

I would definitely like to just, revamp that [community notification], if that could be
changed where they were really notifying on people that are the true deviant sex offenders
. . . the 19 year old guy that’s on the caseload for having sex with a 16 year old, they’re
notified their whole life, they can’t find housing, and then, the person . . . who’s 40 years
old and has 200 victims, he’s not notified on. His neighbors have no idea. (Probation
officer)

Finally, a probation officer expressed frustration with an administrative decision to

modify the containment model, “The containment model went away as far as we were
concerned when the [new] administration came in.”

Consistent Funding for Treatment

Probation officers and therapists expressed frustration with the lack of dedicated fund-
ing for sex offender treatment. One officer expressed frustration for mandating offend-
ers who cannot afford to pay for their treatment:
Newstrom et al. 621

Some of my initial observation is being in treatment, the state should have mandated that
the treatment be free. I got a problem where cases that can’t pay, they’re dropping out of
the treatment. What do I do, what is the next step? (Probation officer)

Another therapist complained that it was easier to get treatment for a chemical
dependency problem than for sexual offending risk:

. . . it’s easier for us to get a person into a program who has no money if he also smokes
marijuana . . . the city then will pay for their sex offender counseling because we’re putting
them in one program that’s gonna do both [sex offender and drug treatment]. (Therapist)

Helpful Actuarial Assessments

Probation officers and therapists expressed general dissatisfaction with the assessment
instruments and process used to measure and track risk, progress, and recidivism
potential. One probation officer reflected on the variability of assessments:

. . . an assessment’s only as good as the person doing it, so, I’ve seen, we go off the Static-
99R. Two of them in one file that are different from each other, and that’s very concerning
. . . (Probation officer)

One therapist expressed frustration with the imperfect science of assessments:

I’m not satisfied, because it’s not, it’s not a real science . . . it’s not black and white,
nothing is, and there’s a lot of risk pressure on them, on us, to be “successful.” . . . you
learn how to do the best you can and be as satisfied as you can . . . (Therapist)

Another therapist would like to see a more rigorous process developed for deter-
mining graduation criteria:

Is the guy being terminated for problematic behaviors? That one I’m pretty ok with the
process and the methods that I think we employ to make those kinda decisions. I struggle
with the other decision, though, about releasing the guys from treatment because they’re
doing well, but they’re still gonna be on probation. And I struggle with that for this
reason—because I don’t think we collectively have ever sat around and really come up
with, by and large a consensus, of what they should look like and what that should consist
of and how we go about making that decision so that we’re collectively making that
decision in a way that’s fairly consistent. (Therapist)

Discussion
Our study examined the collaborative working relationships between probation offi-
cers and therapists who supervise and treat adult sexual offenders in two large metro-
politan areas in the United States: Maricopa County, Arizona and the NYC Department
of Probation. Probation officers and therapists in our study identified important
622 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

characteristics that they believed promoted effective collaborative relationships, as

well as high quality supervision and treatment within the containment model frame-
work implemented in their respective sites. The containment model of supervision is
anchored in the ability of probation and treatment professionals to work effectively in
collaboration and in partnership with each other (English, 2003; English et al., 2016).

Summary of Study Findings

Positive collaborative relationships.  Overall, both probation officers and therapists were
quite positive about their collaborative partnership. The majority of probation officers
and therapists agreed that regular, accurate, and timely communication between the
probation officer and the treating therapist—preferably face-to-face—frequently
occurred and was essential for providing good supervision and treatment to probation-
ers. These findings confirm previous research on the importance of “frequent and sub-
stantive two-way communication between treatment providers and POs about
information that will assist in reducing an offender’s risk to the community” (McGrath
et al., 2002, p. 62) and communication “as a pivotal concept and tool in developing
positive inter-organizational relationships between community corrections and com-
munity treatment providers” (Monico et al., 2016, p. 497). Probation officers and
therapists also emphasized how much they valued each other’s roles—including
appreciation for the fact that they believed that both probation officers and therapists
usually operated within the established parameters of their professional responsibili-
ties. The fact that probation officers and therapists were so positive about their rela-
tionships in spite of well-established differences between probation officer and
therapist professional orientations cannot be taken for granted; probation officers and
therapists have different professional perspectives that unless well-coordinated could
present challenges to implementing collaborative approaches such as the containment
model. When working together collaboratively, probation officers and therapists often
need to set aside their preconceived ways of operating and integrate their different
professional perspectives into their practices and relationships with their sex offender
clients (D’Amora & Burns-Smith, 1999). Our findings suggest that the majority of the
probation officers and therapists successfully navigated these differing professional
perspectives and developed healthy collaborations.

Barriers to collaboration.  Not all probation officers and therapists who took part in our
focus groups perceived their working relationships across discipline as fully success-
ful. These participants perceived barriers to collaboration due to infrequent, late, poor
quality, and inaccurate communication; conflicts between the goals of therapy and
probation; probation officers who did not value treatment or who were too tough,
unrealistic, and confrontational; and therapists who were inexperienced, lacked sex
offender-specific training, did not value probation, or were not confrontational enough.
Day (2014) found that law enforcement officers held more negative attitudes about sex
offenders than did therapists. D’Amora and Burns-Smith (1999) noted that probation
officers were more likely to be focused on maintaining order and control over offender
Newstrom et al. 623

behaviors; in contrast, therapists were likely to be working to engage sexual offenders

in increasing their autonomy in the change process. These differences in professional
focus may still exist even though the attitudes of probation officers involved in the
rehabilitation of sex offenders tended to be more positive than those not involved in
rehabilitation (police and correctional officers; Day, 2014; Ware, Galouzis, Hart, &
Allen, 2012). Clear and Latessa (1993) noted that probation officers sometimes strug-
gled with competing “enforcer” and “social worker” roles within themselves. Some of
the probation officers and therapists in our study described troubled collaborative rela-
tionships partially due, we believe, to these differing professional perspectives. Such
problems are not unique to the sexual offender field and reflect the common tension
between the contrasting professional perspectives of law enforcement and treatment
professionals in corrections and forensic mental health (Day, 2014; Hogue, 1993).
Clear and Latessa (1993) described how conflict can exist between the probation offi-
cer’s “law enforcer” role, which places emphasis on enforcing the legal requirements
of supervision, and the therapist’s “social worker” role, which places emphasis on
assisting the offender with community adjustment and reintegration. Interestingly, A.
B. Wilson and Draine (2006) observed greater collaboration between corrections and
mental health when mental health services for offenders were led by corrections.
As the present results indicate, however, it is quite possible for these roles to be
mutually enhancing. Many productive relationships, such as boss, coach, and parent,
work best when they effectively combine support and control. The potential problems
we observed arose when the enforcement and support roles were poorly coordinated,
or when one partner was not playing their expected role.

Additional Struggles Implementing Aspects of the

Containment Model
Probation officers and therapists discussed five deficits in resources and policies that
interfered with adequate implementation of the containment model: (a) high probation
officer caseload size, (b) complexity and time intensiveness of GPS technology and
monitoring, (c) inconsistent probation agency protocols/policies characterized by fre-
quent changes in policy and the destabilizing effects of politics and politicians, (d)
lack of a consistent funding source to pay for mandated sex offender treatment, and (e)
inconsistent and absent actuarial risk assessment. Political influences are a major fac-
tor that affects these deficits. Sex offender management policies are guided by emo-
tion and not informed by empirical data (Miner, 2007). Empirically driven sex offender
management policies would adhere to Risk-Needs-Responsivity principles (Andrews
& Bonta, 2006) and would involve interventions that have demonstrated impact on
public safety. Adhering to the risk principle would mean directing intensive interven-
tions for high risk offenders and providing less intensive interventions to those at low
risk—this would allow the limited resources available for sex offender management to
be more effectively targeted. Containment approaches and long-term mandated sex
offender treatment would be limited to the few sexual offenders whose actuarially
624 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

measured risk is highest; few resources would be directed toward serving the majority
of sexual offenders—whose risk of reoffense is quite low (Hanson, Thornton, Helmus,
& Babchishin, 2016). Resource-intensive interventions, such as GPS monitoring,
would only be used if they have been shown to be effective in maximizing public
safety. To date, there is little evidence that GPS monitoring affects rates of reoffending
in sexual offenders (Payne & DeMichele, 2011)—thus, the staff resources allocated to
such monitoring might be better spent in other activities.

Strategies for Reinforcing the Positive and Addressing the Negative

Factors
Although our research showed that collaborative relationships between probation offi-
cers and treatment providers generally seemed strong, these good working relation-
ships should not be taken for granted. Systems or protocols requiring regular
communication and collaboration, as well as practices that help probation officers and
therapists gain a better understanding and appreciation of each other’s roles, are essen-
tial to maintain and build strong relationships. Research examining “linkages” through
both formal and informal means was an evidence-based method used to foster collabo-
ration between probation officers and chemical dependency treatment providers; one
successful “linkage” was the use of regular cross-trainings where probation officers
and treatment providers attended drug court-related trainings together (Welsh et al.,
2016). Additional “linkages” that could be borrowed from the drug court system and
applied to the supervision of sex offenders include the following: using case manage-
ment services, resource sharing, joint assessment of clients, joint planning of client
service goals, mutual sensitivity to concerns of the other agency or program, sharing
of information about clients, and staff meetings (Wenzel, Turner, & Ridgely, 2004).
These linkages would require a system-wide commitment from probation depart-
ments, including allocating necessary resources, and require identifying barriers to
collaboration, and a commitment to resolving them. To address inter-agency collabo-
ration, systemic changes in how probation and treatment agencies communicate, coor-
dinate treatment, and make supervision decisions may be needed.
Other suggested linkages arising more directly from our research include provid-
ing additional opportunities for probation officers and therapists to meet and run into
each other—perhaps by housing probation officers and therapists closer together—
even in the same building or in buildings near each other. Probation officers could
regularly participate in quarterly or yearly reviews and regularly scheduled contain-
ment sessions. When conflicts arise, protocols could be in place to resolve conflicts
and monitor collaboration. Finally, using common, dynamic assessment instrument(s)
that require probation officers and therapists to jointly rate or score together may
provide a regular structure and reason for probation officers and treatment providers
to meet together regularly and collaborate. The Sex Offender Intervention and
Treatment Protocol (SOTIPS) is an example of one such tool developed to track
supervision and treatment progress over time; the recommended scoring protocol
Newstrom et al. 625

suggests that probation officers and treatment providers score SOTIPS together
(Lasher et al., 2015; McGrath et al., 2012).

Limitations
Krueger and Casey (2015) described the optimal size of noncommercial focus groups
as five to eight participants and 10 to 12 participants for marketing focus groups. The
Maricopa County probation officer (n = 18) focus group was considerably larger than
optimal, which may have made it more difficult for Maricopa County participants to
express their thoughts. To manage the higher numbers, we cut back on some of our
questions and probes to give participants more time to answer questions and attempted
to direct our questions to quieter probation officers. The space provided for the NYC
focus groups had distracting environmental conditions (e.g., fan noise and a lack of air
ventilation/air conditioning) that may have interfered with participants’ responses,
including making it more difficult for participants and facilitators to hear each other,
as well as affecting transcription quality.
As with any study involving a small sample of volunteers, it is unlikely that the
participants were a random sample of any predefined population. Although we were
fairly confident of the themes identified, it is possible that there were voices who did
not find expression, either because they were systematically excluded (by themselves
or others) or simply by chance. Consequently, it is unlikely that our results reflect the
opinions and experiences of all therapists who treat sex offenders in either location.
Another limitation is that some lines of questioning did not yield any interpretable
findings. Specifically, respondents were unable to answer questions concerning the
specific criteria they used to determine when offenders were ready to graduate treat-
ment or to have reduced supervision requirements. This should not be entirely surpris-
ing because the scientific evidence on these topics is relatively weak and local policy
is rarely specific about what constitutes an acceptable risk (see Hanson et al., 2017).

Implications for Research

A central tenet of the containment model is the importance of good communication
between the various team members working with sexual offenders, especially proba-
tion officers and treatment providers. It is clear from our research that the probation
officers and therapists working in Maricopa County and NYC valued high quality
and frequent communication and interaction, as well as the importance of respecting
and valuing each others’ role. One obvious question is whether these findings would
be replicated in other probation jurisdictions. Another question is whether the qual-
ity and quantity of communication and interaction between probation officers and
therapists affects important supervision and treatment outcomes, such as reduced
offending and enhanced functioning. Does the quality of their working relationships
influence their sex offender clients’ adjustment in the community? Residential and
employment stability? Social relationships? Successful completion of probation?
626 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

Conversely, are these working relationships related to offender motivation for treat-
ment and their degree of preexisting prosocial orientation? It is quite likely, for
example, that certain probationers are experts at splitting teams, and that dysfunc-
tional teams do little to promote effective rehabilitation. Research could focus on
finding the optimal level, type, and quality of probation officer and therapist com-
munication and contact, as well as on the best methods for helping probation officers
and therapists gain a better understanding and appreciation of each other’s roles.
Such research would help substantiate the theorized importance of these key compo-
nents of the containment model.

Conclusion
Our research informs the supervision and therapy system conditions necessary for
effective collaboration between probation officers and therapists. In particular, rules
and procedures should seem reasonable, not arbitrary and rigid, and should fit into a
coherent, coordinated vision. Effective collaboration between therapists and probation
officers is possible, but it is fragile and should not be taken for granted. Those involved
in these collaborations, and their administrators, need to invest in building, monitor-
ing, and maintaining these professional relationships. These collaborations work best
when there are few barriers to informal communication, competent practitioners, and
respect for, and understanding of, each other’s roles.

Appendix
Probation officer questions Therapist questions

  1. Do you supervise all sexual   1. Do you have one standard treatment

offenders in the same way, or do
you do different things with different
offenders? How do you decide what
to do with different offenders?
program for each sex offender you
treat or are there variations? On what
basis do you make a determination as
to what treatment program each sex
offender client gets?

  2. What do you focus on in sex offender  
supervision? What factors do you
feel are most important to focus on
in supervising sex offenders? What
factors do you feel are of secondary
importance in supervising sex
offenders?
2. What do you focus on in sex offender
treatment? What factors do you feel
are most important to focus on in
treating sex offenders? What factors do
you feel are of secondary importance
in treating sex offenders?

  3. Do you have a method for deciding   3. Do you have a method for deciding
what to focus on in sex offender what to focus on in sex offender
supervision for each client? treatment for each client?

(continued)
Newstrom et al. 627
Appendix (continued)
Probation officer questions
  4. Do you create individualized or
general supervision plans to reflect
what the sex offender client needs to
change?
  5. How satisfied are you with the
method you use to determine the
focus of supervision/supervision plan
for each sex offender client?
  6. How do you track an offender’s
progress? How can you tell when and
if they are getting better during the
course of supervision?
  7. How do you generally feel about your
method for tracking an offender’s
progress? What are its strengths and
weaknesses? What would you change?
Similar to what you said earlier?
  8. Most sex offenders have difficulties
complying with all conditions of
probation/parole. How do you
determine when supervision is
over—that it is time to revoke them
or that they are doing well enough to
relax the conditions of supervision?
For example, when they violate their
condition(s) by missing appointments
with you, miss curfew, take a drink,
become unreliable due to the chaos in
their life, how do you decide they’ve
crossed the line or not?
  9. How do you generally feel about your
method for determining readiness for
progress, revocation, or relaxing the
conditions of probation? What are its
strengths and weaknesses? Similar to
what you said earlier?
10. I know this is hard to do, but could
you make your best guess/estimate as
to the percentage of offenders who
complete supervision?
Therapist questions
  4. Do you create individualized or general
treatment plans to reflect what the
sex offender client needs to change/
treatment targets/identified needs?
  5. How satisfied are you with the
methods you use to determine the
focus of treatment/treatment plan for
each sex offender client?
  6. How do you track a sex offender
client’s progress? How can you tell
when and if they are getting better?
Getting worse? What do you look for
to determine their progress?
  7. How do you generally feel about your
method for tracking a sex offender
client’s progress? What are its
strengths and weaknesses? Similar to
what you said earlier?
  8. How do you determine when sex
offender treatment is over? For a
successful completion? How can
you tell/how do you decide that sex
offender treatment has accomplished
what it needs to? How do you decide
that you’ve done enough?
  9. How do you generally feel about your
method for determining successful
completion of probation from sex
offender treatment? What are its
strengths and weaknesses? Similar to
what you said earlier?
10. I know this is hard to do, but could
you make your best guess/estimate
as to percentage of offenders who
successfully complete treatment?
(continued)
628 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

Appendix (continued)
Probation officer questions Therapist questions

11. What is your relationship with 11. What is your relationship with your
your client’s treatment providers/ client’s probation officers/supervising
therapists? agents? How do you work with them?
How involved are they in treatment?

12. How helpful is community 12. How helpful is sex offender treatment/
supervision/your job in preventing sex your job in preventing sex offenders
offenders from reoffending? from reoffending?

13. Have you heard or know about the 13. Have you heard or know about the
“Sex Offender Treatment Intervention “Sex Offender Treatment Intervention
Progress Scale,” commonly known as Progress Scale,” commonly known as
SOTIPS? SOTIPS?
Note. SOTIPS = Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the New York City and Maricopa County probation departments, particularly
the probation officers and therapists who participated in the focus groups. They also thank Donna
Vittori, Jennifer Ferguson, Regan Daly of the Maricopa County Probation Department, and John
Corrigan and Mike Caputo of New York City Department of Probation who assisted with the
coordination of the data collection. Much appreciation to David Thornton for his assistance with
focus group questions and guidance throughout the process. Thanks to the University of
Minnesota Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, especially Heidi Fall for her
editing and formatting, Rebekah Pratt for her assistance with qualitative analysis and NVivo
training, Sarah Loeschke for coding and organization, and Cathy Strobel-Ayers for coordination.
Finally, thanks to the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering,
and Tracking (SMART) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) for funding and support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Award No. 2013-AW-BX-
0153, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusion or recommendations expressed in this publi-
cation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

References
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ:
LexisNexis/Anderson.
Newstrom et al. 629

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. (2014). ATSA practice guidelines and pro-
fessional code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.atsa.com/ATSAmemberDocs/2014_
ATSA_Practice_Guidelines.pdf
Broderick, B. A. (2012). Maricopa county adult probation FY2012 annual report. Retrieved
from https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/adultprobation/docs/2012AnnualReport.pdf
Charmaz, K. (1990). “Discovering” chronic illness: Using grounded theory. Social Science &
Medicine, 30, 1161-1172. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(90)90256-R
Clear, T. R., & Latessa, E. J. (1993). Probation officers’ roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance
versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441-462. doi:10.1080/07418829300091921
Cumming, G., & McGrath, R. J. (2005). Supervision of the sex offender: Community manage-
ment, risk assessment, and treatment. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
D’Amora, D. A., & Burns-Smith, G. (1999). Partnering in response to sexual violence:
How offender treatment and victim advocacy can work together in response to sex-
ual violence. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 293-304.
doi:10.1023/A:1021315030967
Day, A. (2014). Professional attitudes to sex offenders: Implications for multiagency and col-
laborative working. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 6(1), 12-19.
English, K. (1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy for the community
management of adult sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 218-235.
doi:10.1037/1076-8971.4.1-2.218
English, K. (2003). The containment approach to managing sex offenders. Seton Hall Law
Review, 34, 1255-1272. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.jour-
nals/shlr34&div=41&g_sent=1&collection=journals
English, K., Heil, P., & Veeder, G. (2016). The containment approach: A strategy for the com-
munity management of sex offenders. In A. Phenix & H. M. Hoberman (Eds.), Sexual
offending: Predisposing antecedents, assessments and management (pp. 713-744). New
York, NY: Springer Science.
English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (Eds.). (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment
approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
English, K., Pullen, S. K., & Jones, L. (1997). Managing adult sex offenders in the community:
A containment approach. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Glaser, B. G. (1998). Doing grounded theory: Issues and discussions. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., McGrath, R., Kroner, D., D’Amora, D. A., Thomas, S. S., &
Tavarez, L. P. (2017). A five-level risk and needs system: Maximizing assessment results in
corrections through the development of a common language. New York, NY: The Council
of State Governments Justice Center.
Hanson, R. K., Thornton, D., Helmus, L. M., & Babchishin, K. M. (2016). What sexual recidi-
vism rates are associated with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores. Sexual Abuse: A Journal
of Research and Treatment, 28, 218-252. doi:10.1177/1079063215574710
Helmus, L., Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., & Babchishin, K. M. (2012). Improving the predictive
accuracy of Static-99 and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 64-101. doi:10.1177/1079063211409951
Hogue, T. E. (1993). Attitudes towards prisoners and sexual offenders. In N. C. Clark & G.
Stephenson (Eds.), DCLP occasional papers: Sexual offenders (pp. 27-32). Leicester, UK:
British Psychological Society.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
630 Sexual Abuse 31(5)

Lasher, M. P., McGrath, R. J., Wilson, D., & Cumming, G. F. (2015). Collaborative treatment
planning using the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS):
Concordance of therapist evaluation and client self-evaluation. International Journal of
Forensic Mental Health, 14, 1-9. doi:10.1080/14999013.2014.974087
Maricopa County Adult Probation Department. (2012). Promoting evidence integration in sex
offender management: Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and
Progress Scale (SOTIPS) (CFDA # 16-.750). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking (SMART).
McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current prac-
tices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North
American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., & Holt, J. (2002). Collaboration among sex offender treatment
providers and probation and parole officers: The beliefs and behaviors of treatment
providers. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 49-65. doi:10.1177/
107906320201400104
McGrath, R. J., Hoke, S. E., & Vojtisek, J. E. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of sex
offenders: A treatment comparison and long-term follow-up study. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 25, 203-225. doi:10.1177/0093854898025002004
McGrath, R. J., Lasher, M. P., & Cumming, G. F. (2012). The Sex Offender Treatment
Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS): Psychometric properties and incremental pre-
dictive validity with Static-99R. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24,
431-458. doi:10.1177/1079063211432475
Miner, M. (2007). Is this any way to develop policy? Sex Offender Treatment, 2(1). Retrieved
from http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/index.php?id=54&typ
Monico, L. B., Mitchell, S. G., Welsh, W., Link, N., Hamilton, L., Redden, S. M., . . . Friedman,
P. D. (2016). Developing effective interorganizational relationships between community
corrections and community treatment providers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55,
484-501. doi:10.1080/10509674.2016.1218401
Morrissey, J. P., Fagan, J. A., & Cocozza, J. J. (2009). New models of collaboration between
criminal justice and mental health systems. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 1211-
1214. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09050670
New York City Department of Probation. (2012). Promoting evidence integration in sex
offender management: Implementation of the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and
Progress Scale (SOTIPS) (CFDA # 16-.750). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending,
Registering, and Tracking (SMART).
Payne, B. K., & DeMichele, M. (2011). Sex offender policies: Considering unanticipated con-
sequences of GPS sex offender monitoring. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 177-187.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.002
Stalans, L. J. (2004). Adult sex offenders on community supervision: A review of recent assess-
ment strategies and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 564-608. doi:10.1177/
0093854804267093
Turner, B. W., Bingham, J. E., & Andrasik, F. (2000). Short-term community-based treatment
for sexual offenders: Enhancing effectiveness. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7, 211-
223. doi:10.1080/10720160008400219
Ware, J., Galouzis, J. U., Hart, R., & Allen, R. (2012). Training correctional staff in the man-
agement of sex offenders: Increasing knowledge and positive attitudes. Sexual Abuse in
Australia and New Zealand, 4(2), 22-29.
Newstrom et al. 631

Welsh, W., Prendergast, M., Knight, K., Knudsen, H., Monico, L., Gray, J., . . . Friedmann, P.
(2016). Correlates of interorganizational service coordination in community corrections.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 483-505. doi:10.1177/0093854815607306
Wenzel, S. L., Turner, S. F., & Ridgely, M. S. (2004). Collaborations between drug courts and
service providers: Characteristics and challenges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 253-263.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.02.005
Wilson, A. B., & Draine, J. (2006). Collaborations between criminal justice and mental
health systems for prisoner reentry. Psychiatric Services, 57, 875-878. doi:10.1176/appi.
ps.57.6.875
Wilson, R. J., Stewart, L., Stirpe, T., Barrett, M., & Cripps, J. E. (2000). Community-based sex
offender management: Combining parole, supervision, and treatment to reduce recidivism.
Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 177-188.