Nij How Post Conviction Polygraph Examination Used in Adult Sex Offender Management Activities 2000

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Nij How Post Conviction Polygraph Examination Used in Adult Sex Offender Management Activities 2000

• Topics: Discrimination, Sex Offenders (Discrimination)

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:
Document Title:

How is the Post-Conviction Polygraph
Examination Used in Adult Sex Offender
Management Activities?

Author(s):

Diane Patrick ; Diane Pasini-Hill ; Linda Jones ;
Sydney Cooley-Towell ; Kim English

Document No.:

202734

Date Received:

11/21/2003

Award Number:

97-LB-VX-0034

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to
traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

HOW IS THE POST-CONVICTION
POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION
USED IN ADULT SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES?
THE SECOND NATIONAL TELEPHONE
SURVEY OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
SUPERVISORS
Report Prepared for the National Institute of Justice
By
Diane Patrick
Diane Pasini-Hill
Linda Jones
Sydney Cooley-Towell
Kim English

December 2000
Colorado Department of Public Safety
Division of Criminal Justice
Office of Research & Statistics

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000
Denver, CO 80215
Tel 303-239-4442
Fax 303-239-4491
www.cdpsweb.state.co.us/dcj
The views presented in this report represent those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of
the National Institute of Justice or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Supported by NIJ Grant Number D97LBVX0034

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or
points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people participated and supported the research reported here. First, we want to thank our
colleagues at the Division of Criminal Justice. William R. Woodward, the director of the Division
from 1980 to 1998, continues working in this area of public safety, training and facilitating
jurisdictions in the implementation of the containment approach. We are grateful for his support over
many years. We thank Bill’s successor, Raymond Slaughter, and the Division’s deputy director, Carol
Poole, for supporting our work on challenging studies with national scope. Suzanne Gonzales
Woodburn, Linda Swolfs and Erica Boyce assisted in the challenging file data collection process in
multiple states, making sense out of many complicated documents and reading many stories of abuse.
Telephone surveyors, Kell Straits, Justin Molis, and Patti Rochin worked hard to contact hundreds of
respondents during the summer of 1998. John Patzman has edited and designed numerous reports
and presentations, helping us communicate this information to many audiences. Barbara Krauth, our
faithful editor in Boulder, has improved every piece of writing we have given her. Thanks to all of you.
A multitude of thanks goes to the more than 700 probation and parole supervisors who patiently
answered our telephone survey questions and helped us understand the struggles and successes of
agencies managing adult sex offenders in the community. Those who used the post-conviction
polygraph spent between 45 and 75 minutes with us, and many told us that they hoped the
information provided would assist other jurisdictions.
In particular, we thank the hundreds of probation and parole officers who, every day, personally carry
the weight of these difficult cases. Our study of sex offender management by probation and parole
agencies has taught us how essential and difficult your work is to community safety and sex abuse
prevention. We are grateful for your good work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
7

INTRODUCTION

1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY METHODS

1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY FINDINGS

A. AGENCY STRUCTURE AND SELECTED PRACTICES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS

B. BARRIERS TO POLYGRAPH IMPLEMENTATION

C. HOW THE POLYGRAPH IS USED, PERCEIVED BENEFITS AND OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING THE USE OF THE
POST-CONVICTION POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS
23

Policies and Procedures

Time and Resource Issues

Implementation Issues

Polygraph Examiners

Communication

Consequences

Benefits of the Polygraph

Areas for Improvement with Polygraph Services

ATTACHMENT: TELEPHONE SURVEY INSTRUMENT

INTRODUCTION
As part of this research, we built on an earlier study funded by NIJ in 1992. That study focused
specifically on presenting descriptions of (1) how sex offenders were being managed in community
settings, and (2) how they could best be managed. Those findings were reported in English, Pullen,
Jones and Colling-Chadwick (1995) and English, Pullen, and Jones (1996). Below we provide a brief
overview of the methods undertaken in the earlier study because parts of that approach were replicated
in the current study.
In 1994 we conducted the first national telephone survey of probation and parole supervisors inquiring
about sex offender management. Probation and parole supervisors were selected because of their
familiarity with day-to-day office operations. The survey represented a national sample, stratified by
population and geography, of 732 probation and parole supervisors. The telephone survey was part of a
two-year investigation that included an extensive literature review on victim trauma and sex offender
treatment and a systematic document review of scores of material ranging from agency memoranda and
protocols to legislation and administrative orders. The study included field research involving site visits
to 13 jurisdictions in six states (Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Texas, Ohio, and Oregon). During the
field research, interviews were conducted with probation and parole officers and administrators, victim
advocates, polygraph examiners, parole board members, treatment providers, prosecuting and defense
attorneys, social service workers, sex offenders, judges, law enforcement officers, and prison treatment
staff and administrators. The current research built on this study and methodology.
The current research was also multi-faceted and included another national telephone survey of
probation and parole supervisors, a literature review, a review of the legal and ethical issues associated
with the use of the polygraph, a review of case law, and a review of agency documents and protocols.
Also, we collected data out of 232 offender case files in four states. Field research involved visiting 14
jurisdictions in 7 states (California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Texas and
Wisconsin), and face-to-face interviews were conducted with treatment providers, parole and probation
officers, polygraph examiners, prosecuting attorneys, and sex offenders. The telephone survey and case
file review methods are described below.

1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY METHODS
In 1998 a second national telephone survey was completed. The sampling frame consisted of
the original 732 probation and parole supervisors who responded to the 1994 telephone
survey (the response rate was over 95%). The sampling approach was not revised because of
the complexity and resources that would be required for re-design. The survey covered 49
states and the District of Columbia (South Dakota was not included due to a lack of
information required for the sampling process). The 1994 sample was drawn to represent
probation and parole agencies across the nation and was stratified based on geographic
location and population density. Specifically, each state was divided into four (generally
equal) geographic quadrants and, using population figures from the 1990 Census, one
respondent was selected for every 500,000 or fewer people in each quadrant. To obtain the
names of supervisors, state administrators were telephoned and asked to provide a list of
probation and parole offices within the corresponding jurisdiction.1 Using this method, a
sample of 873 probation and parole supervisors were randomly selected from the quadrant
office lists. Of these, 83.3 percent (758) were contacted by interviewers. Of these, 732
supervisors agreed to participate, resulting in an overall response rate in 1994 of 96.6 percent.
In 1998, our intent was to re-contact all 1994 telephone survey participants to focus on a
number of questions related specifically to the use of the polygraph as a management and
supervision tool for sex offenders. We recreated the list of respondents for the purpose of
contacting them again. We sent a letter to each agency supervisor that described the project
and the purpose of contacting individual supervisors. We asked them to fax back certain
pieces of information, specifically, the name and phone number of a contact person. Trained
telephone surveyors first called respondents to identify a convenient time when they could
answer the survey questions. The time required ranged from five to 10 minutes (if they rarely
or never used the post-conviction polygraph with adult sex offenders) to, on average, one hour
if they sometimes, often, almost always or always used the post-conviction polygraph with sex
offenders. Interviewers faxed reminders to the respondents regarding the agreed-upon time of
the interview. Many of the respondents remembered the 1994 survey. Of the original sample
of 732, 33 surveys were not completed (we were unable to contact18 potential respondents, 9
supervisors refused, the office did not currently supervise sex offenders in 4 instances, and we
obtained 2 incomplete questionnaires). A total of 699 surveys were completed, generating a
response rate of 95.5 percent.
Responses were weighted to reflect agencies that had consolidated since the 1994 national
telephone survey. All 1998 telephone survey respondents were questioned regarding their
current use of the post-conviction polygraph for the treatment and supervision of sex
offenders. A total of 699 (weighted) surveys were completed. Of these, 533 (weighted n=544)
reflect responses to surveys where the polygraph was never or rarely used. Another 146
(weighted n=155) reflect responses to surveys where the polygraph was used, at least sometimes.
Those who responded that they never or rarely used the polygraph were asked to describe barriers to
the use of the polygraph with sex offenders. Respondents who indicated that their agencies used the
post-conviction polygraph for the treatment and supervision of sex offenders sometimes, often, almost
1 Names of state probation and parole administrators were obtained from the American Correctional Association Probation and Parole
Directory and the American Probation and Parole Association member list.

always or always were asked a different series of questions. These included when and how the
polygraph was used, consequences for deceptive results or new information revealed, changes in the
management of sex offenders attributed to the use of the polygraph, and perceived benefits of the postconviction polygraph as a tool for the management and supervision of sex offenders.
Survey questions for these groups included those with both closed-ended and open-end responses. A
team that included telephone interviewers, supervisors, and other project researchers coded open-end
responses. Coding for open-ended responses was done in team meetings, and a consensus process was
used to develop answer codes and to determine how to categorize responses. When possible, this
telephone survey report presents many of these open-ended responses verbatim. Please remember that
the open-ended responses, even after they were placed in categories for descriptive purposes, represent
qualitative data.
This technical report contains findings from the 1998 national telephone survey and includes the
following:
A. Comparisons of agency structure and special practices with sex offenders between agencies that
used the polygraph (at least sometimes) and agencies that never or rarely used the post-conviction
polygraph with sex offenders.
B. For agencies contemplating use of the post-conviction polygraph with sex offender, descriptions of
barriers to implementation.
C. Descriptions of how the polygraph is used, perceived benefits, and other issues surrounding use of
the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders drawn from responses from agencies where the
polygraph was used at least sometimes.
Brief summaries in the form of bulleted comments accompany each table. A copy of the telephone
questionnaire is attached to the end of this document.

1998 TELEPHONE SURVEY FINDINGS
A. Agency Structure and Selected Practices in the
Management of Sex Offenders
Responses of all agencies participating in the 1998 telephone survey (those that used the post2
conviction polygraph with sex offenders and those that did not ) are included in these findings.
Comparisons of agency structure, population supervised, and other agency practices regarding the
management of sex offenders are made between those that use the polygraph and those that do not.

SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
Special practices for the management of sex offenders often occur together. Agencies that used the
polygraph were also more likely to have employed specialized caseloads and special risk assessments
with sex offenders. Agencies that reported the use of specialized caseloads were also more likely to use
a special risk assessment for sex offenders, regardless of whether they also used the polygraph.
Agency structure or type of caseload was not related to use of the polygraph and is not consistently
related to the use of specialized caseloads or risk assessments with sex offenders.

1. Did the way the agency is administered, i.e., whether probation and parole is administered separately or
by a single agency, impact use of the polygraph?
§

The way the agency was administered did not affect the use of the polygraph. The majority of
respondents reported that probation and parole were administered by different agencies.

TABLE 1. STRUCTURE OF PROBATION AND PAROLE AND USE OF THE POLYGRAPH
Use of the Polygraph

Yes
(Sometimes, Often,
Almost Always, Always)
Weighted n=155

No
(Never, Rarely)

Probation and parole administered by the same agency

40.0%

39.2%

Probation and parole administered by different agencies

60.0%

60.8%

Total

100%

Weighted n=544

2 Agencies using the polygraph report use as sometimes, often, almost always or always. Agencies not using the polygraph report use as never or
rarely.

2. Did the population of sex offenders supervised by the agency, i.e., probationers, parolees or both, affect
the use of the polygraph?
§

The percentages of agencies that reported supervising both probationers and parolees are similar
for those that used and did not use the post-conviction polygraph (approximately 39%). Fewer
agencies that used the polygraph supervised only parolees (15.7%) compared to agencies not using
the polygraph (23%), but this difference was not statistically significant.

TABLE 2. ARE SEX OFFENDERS (SUPERVISED BY YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE) PROBATIONERS OR
PAROLEES?
Use of the Polygraph

Type of sex offender supervised by agency/office

Yes
(Sometimes, Often,
Almost Always, Always)
Weighted n=153

No
(Never, Rarely)

Both Probationers and Parolees

39.2%

38.9%

Probation Only

45.1%

38.1%

Parolees Only

15.7%

23.0%

Total

100%

Weighted n=544

3. Did agencies that used the polygraph also employ special practices relating to the management of sex
offenders, such as specialized sex offender caseloads, use of a special risk assessment for sex offenders or a
requirement for sex offenders to undergo mental health treatment?
§

Agencies that used the polygraph were much more likely to have specialized caseloads (78.6%
compared to 46.1%).

Agencies that used the polygraph were more likely to also use a special risk assessment instrument
for sex offenders (39.0% compared to 19.4%).

Although the requirement for mental health treatment for sex offenders was widely reported,
agencies that used the polygraph were statistically more likely to also require mental health
treatment.3 Every agency that used the polygraph also required sex offenders to undergo treatment,
at least in some cases, compared to 93% of agencies that did not use the polygraph.

3 Since the practice of requiring sex offenders to undergo mental health treatment was reported by most of the respondents to the short
survey, little variation exists in the data, and no relationship was found between this and other variables in the survey. Thus, results of crosstabulations of mental health treatment and other variables indicate distributions that are generally similar to the frequency reported in Table
6. In an effort to simplify presentation of the data, these results will not be displayed elsewhere in the report.

TABLE 3. DOES YOUR AGENCY HAVE SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS OR
SITUATIONS WHERE ONE OR MORE PEOPLE HANDLE ALL THE SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS?
Agency has specialized caseloads

Use of the Polygraph (a)
Yes
(Sometimes, Often, Almost
Always, Always)
Weighted n=154

No
(Never, Rarely)

Yes

78.6%

46.1%

21.4%

53.9%

Total

100%

Weighted n=544

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05

TABLE 4. DOES YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE USE A RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR SEX
OFFENDERS?
Agency uses special risk assessment for sex
offenders

Use of the Polygraph (a)
Yes
(Sometimes, Often, Almost
Always, Always)
Weighted n=154

No
(Never, Rarely)

Yes

39.0%

19.4%

61.0%

80.6%

Total

100%

Weighted n=541

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05

TABLE 5. ARE SEX OFFENDERS THAT YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE SUPERVISES REQUIRED TO
UNDERGO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT?
Agency requires sex offender to undergo
mental health treatment

Use of the Polygraph (a)
Yes
(Sometimes, Often, Almost
Always, Always)
Weighted n=153

No
(Never, Rarely)

Yes or Sometimes

100%

93.0%

7.0%

Total

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05

Weighted n=543

4. Are agencies with specialized caseloads also more likely to use special risk assessments for sex offenders?
§

Agencies reporting specialized caseloads or situations where one or more people are assigned to
handle sex offenders were also somewhat more likely to use a special risk assessment for sex
offenders. This was true whether or not the agency used the polygraph.

TABLE 6. SPECIALIZED CASELOADS COMPARED TO USE OF SPECIAL RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR
SEX OFFENDERS
Agencies NOT using the polygraph

Agencies using the polygraph

Special risk assessments for sex
offenders (a) Weighted n=541

Special risk assessments for sex
offenders (a) Weighted n=153

% Yes

% No

Total

%Yes

% No

Total

Yes

27.3%

72.7%

100%

44.6%

55.4%

100%

12.7%

87.3%

100%

18.8%

81.3%

100%

Specialized caseloads

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05

5. Did agency structure impact the use of specialized caseloads or risk assessment with sex offenders?
§

Most often, agency structure did not appear to impact the practices of specialized caseloads or the
use of special risk assessments for sex offenders. There is one exception. When probation and
parole were administered by different agencies and not using the polygraph, they were somewhat
more likely to have specialized caseloads (49.5%) than agencies not using the polygraph where
probation and parole are administered together (40.8%).

TABLE 7. AGENCY STRUCTURE AND OTHER AGENCY PRACTICES
Agency Structure

Agencies NOT using the polygraph
Specialized Caseloads for Sex
Offenders (a) Weighted n=544

Special Risk Assessment for Sex
Offenders Weighted n=541

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Prob & Parole Administered
by Same Agency

40.8%

59.2%

100%

19.2%

80.8%

100%

Prob & Parole Administered
by Different Agencies

49.5%

50.5%

100%

19.5%

80.5%

100%

Agencies using the polygraph
Specialized Caseloads for Sex
Offenders Weighted n=154

Special Risk Assessment for Sex
Offenders Weighted n=154

Prob & Parole Administered
by Same Agency

71.0%

29.0%

100%

41.0%

59.0%

100%

Prob & Parole Administered
by Different Agencies

83.7%

16.3%

100%

37.6%

62.4%

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05

6. Did the type of client supervised (probationer, parolee, or both) impact other practices regarding the
management of sex offenders?
§

Agencies that did not use the polygraph and that supervised only parolees were somewhat more
likely to also report specialized caseloads for sex offenders than agencies that supervised only those
on probation or that supervise both probation and parole clients (55.2% compared to 46.9% and
39.8%, respectively).

There was no statistical difference in the type of offender supervised (probationer, parolee or both)
and the use of a special risk assessment instrument for sex offenders in agencies where the
polygraph was not used.

Use of specialized caseloads was not statistically related to the type of caseload managed (probation,
parole or both) for agencies currently using the polygraph.4

TABLE 8. PROBATION/PAROLE SEX OFFENDER CASELOAD BY AGENCY PRACTICES
Sex offender caseload

Agencies NOT using the polygraph (short form)
Specialized Caseloads for Sex
Offenders (*) Weighted n=544

Special Risk Assessment for Sex
Offenders Weighted n=541

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Both

40.1%

59.9%

100%

18.9%

81.1%

100%

Probation

46.9%

53.1%

100%

17.1%

82.9%

100%

Parole

55.2%

44.8%

100%

24.2%

75.8%

100%

Agencies using the polygraph (long form)
Specialized Caseloads for Sex
Offenders Weighted n=152

Special Risk Assessment for Sex
Offenders (*) Weighted n=154

Both

73.3%

26.7%

100%

41.7%

58.3%

100%

Probation

79.7%

20.3%

100%

44.9%

55.1%

100%

Parole

95.7%

4.3% (**)

100%

16.7%(**)

83.3%

100%

(*) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.
(**) Significance may be impacted by <5 cases in this cell.

4 Although agencies that used the polygraph and managed only parolees appeared somewhat less likely to use a special risk assessment
(16.7%) than agencies managing only those on probation (44.9%) or both (41.7%), this difference is not statistically significant, as sample
sizes are not adequate within cells for valid statistical tests.

B. Barriers to Polygraph Implementation
These findings are based on responses from agencies that did not use the polygraph. Interviewers
questioned these agencies about whether they had considered using the post-conviction polygraph with
sex offenders and explored their reasons for not doing so.
SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS
More than half (54.9%) of the agencies that did not use the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders
had no plans for future implementation. Agencies with practices that included both specialized sex
offender caseloads and special risk assessments for sex offenders were more likely to consider
implementation.
The biggest barrier to implementation of the polygraph was a lack of resources (noted by 45% of all
those not using the polygraph). Lack of resources refers to inadequate funds and/or personnel.
However, perceived barriers to polygraph use varied by region. Respondents from the northeast and
central regions were more likely to report a lack of polygraph examiners and ethical and legal
considerations than were respondents from the southern and western regions.
Different barriers were emphasized, depending on whether the agency supervised parolees,
probationers, or both. Agencies supervising parolees were the least likely to report a lack of polygraph
examiners as a barrier to post-conviction polygraph implementation. Agencies that supervised only
probationers were the most likely to report ethical and legal considerations as barriers.
A lack of resources and a lack of polygraph examiners were more frequently reported by agencies that
considered use of the post-conviction polygraph compared to agencies that had not considered its use.
Agencies considering use of the polygraph generally did not see ethical, legal or other considerations as
primary barriers to implementation. Agencies that had implemented special practices for sex
offenders such as special caseloads and risk assessments were somewhat less likely to view either
ethical or other issues as barriers. It may be that implementing these practices have allowed agencies
the opportunity to work through many legal and ethical issues.
These findings suggest that some agencies might be poised to implement the polygraph if adequate
resources and professionals to administer the polygraph were available. Three out of five (60.6%) of 46
agencies that considered use of the polygraph and also employed both specialized caseloads and risk
assessments for sex offenders reported the lack of resources as the primary barrier to implementation
of the polygraph. For this group, in particular, removal of the resource barrier might provide the
impetus to implement the post-conviction polygraph for the management and supervision of sex
offenders.

1. Were agencies that did not use polygraph with sex offenders considering implementation?
§

More than half (54.9%) of the agencies not using the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders
5
also have not considered its use.

5 There is no statistical difference in consideration of use of the polygraph and agency structure or type of client supervised.

TABLE 9. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION OF USING THIS TYPE (TREATMENT AND
SUPERVISION) OF POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS IN YOUR AGENCY? Weighted n=544
No

54.9%

Yes

38.7%

Don’t Know

6.4%

Total

100%

2. Were agencies considering the use of the polygraph more likely to use other special practices for the
supervision and management of sex offenders?
§

Agencies that considered using the polygraph in the management and supervision of sex offenders
were also more likely to have agency practices that included specialized caseloads (61%) and special
risk assessments for sex offenders (29.3%).

TABLE 10. CONSIDERATION OF THE POLYGRAPH BY SPECIALIZED CASELOAD AND RISK
ASSESSMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS
Considered using
Specialized Caseloads for Sex Offenders
the polygraph with (a) Weighted n=508
sex offenders

Special Risk Assessment for Sex
Offenders (a) Weighted n=505

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Yes

61.0%

39.0%

100%

29.3%

70.7%

100%

37.6%

62.4%

100%

12.5%

87.5%

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.

3. What were the barriers to implementing the polygraph? Did these barriers differ by geographic region,
type of offender supervised, and agency structure?
§

Agencies perceived a number of barriers to using the polygraph with sex offenders. The primary
barrier to implementation, reported by almost half (45%) of the respondents from agencies not
using the polygraph, was a lack of resources.

TABLE 11. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH AT THIS TIME?
Weighted n=544
Lack of resources

45.0%

No serious consideration

30.0%

Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding
polygraph; no perceived need or utility; controversial and individual rights issues)

29.2%

No polygraph examiners

18.4%

Legal and/or ethical issues

18.2%

Note: respondents could provide more than one answer; thus, percentages do not total 100.

Regional6 differences were found in the types of barriers reported.

The northeast and central regions were more likely to report the lack of polygraph examiners as a
barrier to implementation.

The northeast and central regions were also more likely to report ethical and legal considerations as
barriers to implementation.

The northeast was somewhat less likely than other regions to report "other" considerations as a
barrier to implementation. Other considerations include a lack of knowledge, information, or
familiarity with the post-conviction polygraph with sex offenders, a lack of confidence in the
polygraph process, and a lack of polices or internal or external support for use of the polygraph in
their organizations.

TABLE 12. BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION
Region
(b)

Lack of Resources

No Polygraph
Examiners (a)

Ethical/Legal
Considerations (a)

Other
Considerations (a) (c)

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Northeast 46.0%

54.0%

100%

22.1%

77.9%

100%

24.5%

75.5%

100%

18.4%

81.6%

100%

South

41.1%

58.9%

100%

15.5%

84.5%

100%

10.1%

89.9%

100%

28.7%

71.3%

100%

Central

51.5%

48.5%

100%

27.2%

72.8%

100%

21.4%

78.6%

100%

35.9%

64.1%

100%

West

43.0%

57.0%

100%

10.7%

89.3%

100%

16.1%

83.9%

100%

36.9%

63.1%

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.
(b) Percentages for each region based on the following weighted n: Northeast 163, South 129, Central 103, West 149.
(c) Other Considerations (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or
utility; controversial and individual rights issues)

Agencies that supervised parolees were less likely to report a lack of polygraph examiners as a
barrier to implementation (11.2%) than agencies that supervised either probationers or both
probationers and parolees (18.8% and 22.2%, respectively).

Ethical and legal considerations were more likely to be a barrier for agencies that supervised
probationers (24.2%) than for agencies that supervised parolees or both probationers and parolees
(14.4% and 14.6%, respectively).

6 Northeast (CT,DC,DE,MA,MD,ME,NH,NJ,NY,OH,PA,RI,VT); South (AL,AR,FL,GA,KY,LA,MS,NC,SC,TN,VA,WV); Central
(IA,IL,IN,KS,MI,MN,MO,ND,NE,WI); West (AK,AZ,CA,CO,HI,MT,NM,NV,OK,TX,UT,WY)

TABLE 13. TYPE OF SEX OFFENDER SUPERVISED BY BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH
Client (b) Lack of Resources

No Polygraph
Examiners (a)

Ethical/Legal
Considerations (a)

Other Considerations
(c)

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Both

50.0%

100%

22.2%

77.8%

100%

14.6%

85.4%

100%

26.4%

73.6%

100%

Probation

43.0%

57.0%

100%

18.8%

81.2%

100%

24.2%

75.8%

100%

30.9%

69.1%

100%

Parole

40.0%

60.0%

100%

11.2%

88.8%

100%

14.4%

85.6%

100%

31.2%

68.8%

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.
(b) Percentages for each type of supervised person are based on the following weighted n: Both 212, Probation Only 207, Parole Only 125.
(c) Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility;
controversial and individual rights issues)

Agency structure bore some relation to the type of barrier reported. Respondents from agencies in
which parole and probation were administered by the same agency (compared to administration by
different agencies) were more likely to report a lack of resources and polygraph examiners as
barriers to implementation.

TABLE 14. AGENCY STRUCTURE BY BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH
(a) (c)

Lack of
Resources (b)

No Polygraph
Examiners (b)

Ethical/Legal
Considerations

Other Considerations
(d)

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Same

50.7%

49.3%

100%

23.0%

77.0%

100%

14.6%

85.4%

100%

25.8%

74.2%

100%

Different

41.4%

58.6%

100%

15.4%

84.6%

100%

20.5%

79.5%

100%

31.4%

68.6%

100%

(a) Same means probation and parole administered by the same agency. Different means probation and parole administered by different
agencies.
(b) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.
(c) Percentages for each type of agency structure based on the following weighted n: Same 213, Different 331.
(d) Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility;
controversial and individual rights issues)

4. What were barriers to implementation for those considering using the polygraph to manage and supervise
sex offenders?
§

Agencies that reported considering use of the polygraph were more likely than those not
considering its use to report lack of resources (57.1% to 38.9%) and no polygraph examiners
(24.4% to 15.1%) as barriers.

TABLE 15. CONSIDERATION OF USE OF THE POLYGRAPH BY BARRIERS TO
IMPLEMENTATION
Lack of Resources (a)

No Polygraph
Examiners (a)

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Yes

57.1%

42.9%

100%

24.3%

75.7%

100%

21.0%

79.0%

100%

29.0%

71.0%

100%

38.9%

61.1%

100%

15.1%

84.9%

100%

17.1%

82.9%

100%

31.2%

68.8%

100%

Cons.
Use of
Poly (b)

Ethical/Legal
Considerations

Other Considerations
(c)

(a) Chi-Square table significant at <.05.
(b) Percentages for consideration of use of the polygraph or not are based on the following weighted n: No 298, Yes 210
(c) Other (e.g., lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility;
controversial and individual rights issues)

5. Did agencies with specialized sex offender caseloads report different barriers than agencies without
specialized sex offender caseloads?
§

Agencies with specialized sex offender caseloads were less likely to report "other" considerations as a
barrier to implementation of the polygraph (23.9% compared to 33.8%).

TABLE 16. SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS BY BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION
Spec.
SO
Caseloads
(b)

Lack of Resources

No Polygraph
Examiners

Ethical/Legal
Considerations

Other Considerations
(a)(c)

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Yes

49.4%

50.6%

100%

16.7%

83.3%

100%

19.1%

80.9%

100%

23.9%

76.1%

100%

41.3%

58.7%

100%

19.8%

80.2%

100%

17.4%

82.6%

100%

33.8%

66.2%

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.
(b) Percentages for specialized caseloads are based on the following weighted n: No 293, Yes 251
(c) Other (e.g., a lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility;
controversial and individual rights issues)

6. Did agencies that used special risk assessments for sex offenders report different barriers than agencies that
do not use special risk assessments?
§

Agencies that used a special risk assessment for sex offenders were less likely to report ethical
considerations as barriers to use of the polygraph (9.5% compared to 20.4%).

TABLE 17. USE OF SPECIAL RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS BY BARRIERS TO
IMPLEMENTATION
Lack of Resources

No Polygraph
Examiners

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Yes

49.5%

50.5%

100%

22.9%

43.8%

56.2%

100%

17.4%

Special
Risk
Assess.
for Sex
Offenders

(b)

Ethical/Legal
Considerations (a)

Other Considerations

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

77.1%

100%

9.5%

90.5%

100%

29.5%

70.5%

100%

82.6%

100%

20.4%

79.6%

100%

29.1%

70.9%

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.
(b) Percentages for special risk assessment are based on the following weighted n: No 436, Yes 105
(c) Other (e.g., a lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility;
controversial and individual rights issues)

7. Agencies that employed specialized caseloads and used special risk assessments for sex offenders, which
were also considering use of the polygraph, might be "poised" to implement the polygraph if barriers to
implementation were removed. What were these barriers?
A small number of agencies (weighted n=46) that used both specialized caseloads and risk assessments
for sex offenders also reported that they were considering using the post-conviction polygraph as a
management and supervision tool for sex offenders. The barriers to implementation for this group,
described as “ready,” were compared to other agencies that were not using the post-conviction
polygraph.
§

Almost two-thirds (60.9%) of the group of 46 agencies described as “ready” to implement the
polygraph reported a lack of resources as a barrier.

Almost a third of this group (30.4%) reported the lack of polygraph examiners to be a barrier to
implementation of the post-conviction polygraph.

TABLE 18. READINESS TO IMPLEMENT THE POLYGRAPH BY BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION
Readiness
For
Poly (b)

Lack of Resources (a)

No Polygraph
Examiners (a)

Ethical/Legal
Considerations

Other Considerations
(c)

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

% Yes

% No

Total

Ready

60.9%

39.1%

100%

30.4%

69.6%

100%

13.0%

87.0%

100%

26.1%

73.9%

100%

Other

43.6%

56.4%

100%

17.3%

82.7%

100%

18.7%

81.3%

100%

29.5%

70.5%

100%

(a) Chi-Square table significant at < .05.
(b) Percentages for ready for implementation are based on the following weighted n: Others 498, Ready 46
(c) Other (e.g., a lack of knowledge, confidence, familiarity, accessibility, policies, support regarding polygraph; no perceived need or utility;
controversial and individual rights issues)

C. How the Polygraph Is Used, Perceived Benefits and
Other Issues Surrounding the Use of the PostConviction Polygraph with Sex Offenders
This section includes telephone survey responses from agencies that reported using the post7
conviction polygraph with convicted sex offenders, at least sometimes. The survey covered a
number of topics such as policies and procedures, time and resources issues, implementation issues,
perceived benefits and/or changes in management practices, and a number of other topics related to the
use of the polygraph.

SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES
One in three (35.5%) of the respondents representing agencies that used the post-conviction polygraph
with sex offenders indicated that the idea of using the polygraph originated with treatment providers.
Use of the post-conviction polygraph with convicted sex offenders is not new; nearly half (45.2%) of the
respondents reported their agencies had used the polygraph for five or more years.
Almost two-thirds (63.9%) of the respondents indicated their agencies used the polygraph regularly to
determine compliance. The polygraph was frequently (52.2%) used to obtain sexual history and
information on past offenses and also when an offender was in denial of the current conviction (45.8%).
The polygraph was often (54.2%) used in "other" circumstances, such as to investigate suspicions or
critical incidents or to address specific issues.
Generally (in 83.2% of the agencies responding), the sex offender was aware that the polygraph was
part of the supervision and treatment process, and most of the time (92.3%), the offender was required
to waive confidentiality among the agent, treatment provider, and polygraph examiner.
Many agencies experienced difficulties when implementing the polygraph. One in three respondents
(34.8%) mentioned opposition from a variety of sources, such the criminal justice system, treatment
providers, and offenders. Legal and immunity issues (17.4%) as well as a lack of polygraph examiners
(12.3%) were also problematic. Most commonly these concerns were addressed by educating
stakeholders (38.7%) and developing ways to locate and screen additional polygraph examiners (32.9%).
The choice of a polygraph examiner appeared to be crucial in determining the success of program
implementation. Respondents advised developing interviews, screening and background checks, and
ensuring that the polygraph examiner was qualified and experienced with sex offenders. Most of the
respondents (91%) indicated that they were satisfied with services provided by polygraph examiners.
Factors such as excellent communication and polygraph skills, professionalism, and timeliness of
reports and results were critical to satisfaction.
Sanctions and consequences played an important role in the post-conviction polygraph process. Many
agencies (61.9%) reported the ability to arrest and temporarily jail an offender without going to court.
Agencies used a variety of consequences or actions depending on the polygraph result. The most
common consequence reported for a deceptive polygraph was increased supervision (46.5%), including
more surveillance, electronic monitoring, or home visits. When offenses before the current conviction
were uncovered, often there were no consequences (44.5%). Investigations were common (52.6%)
when offenses occurring after the current conviction were revealed. When violations of supervision
were found, the agencies frequently responded with an increase in supervision (56.1%).
There is no question that most respondents perceived benefits to using the post-conviction polygraph
with convicted sex offenders. The overarching theme that appeared was best conveyed in the words of
7 Unless otherwise indicated, percentages for all tables are based on a weighted n of 155. There were 146 responses to the long survey that
resulted in 155 weighted cases. Cases were weighted to reflect instances where the agencies surveyed in 1994 were consolidated at the time of
the 1998 interview. (See Methods section in this report).

a respondent who noted "You know more about what the issues are so you can provide better treatment
and supervision to reduce risk." More than three out of four (76.1%) indicated that the polygraph
enhanced disclosure and knowledge of the offender's behavior. Use of the polygraph led to better
management and supervision of the offender, according to two-thirds (66.5%) of the respondents. More
than half remarked that the polygraph helped prevent offenses (58.1%).

POLICES AND PROCEDURES
1. Where did the idea [to use the polygraph] originate?
§

The idea most often came from treatment providers or as a result of general exposure to the
concept.

TABLE 19. WHERE DID THE IDEA TO USE THE POLYGRAPH ORIGINATE? 8
Weighted n=155
Treatment Providers

35.5%

Exposed to Idea (exposed to training, information, other states'
programs, or gathered information about the polygraph)

21.3%

Probation /parole office (including respondent or other
personnel in the office)

10.3%

Criminal Justice

6.5%

PE, Board, Legislation

5.8%

Don't Know

31.0%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

2. How long has the polygraph been used?
§

Use of the polygraph with convicted sex offenders is not a new idea. Nearly half (45.2%) of the
agencies reported using the polygraph for five or more years, and 16.8% reported using it for 10
years or more.

TABLE 20. LENGTH OF TIME POLYGRAPH IN USE Weighted n=155
< 1year
1-2 years
3-4 years
5-9 years
10+ years
Don’t Know
Total

9.0%
24.5%
18.7%
28.4%
16.8%
2.6%
100%

8 Note that table headings in this section typically describe the question asked of the polygraph. In some cases the wording was changed
somewhat or shortened to be more reflective of a table heading.

3. Did state laws or local policies require use of the polygraph with sex offenders?
§

About half (51.6%) of the probation and parole officers participating in the long survey reported
the existence of state or local policies that required polygraphs for sex offenders.

Fewer than one in three reported using the polygraph before these laws or policies were effected.

TABLE 21. STATE LAW OR LOCAL POLICY REQUIRING POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155
No

43.2%

Yes

51.6%

Don't Know

5.2%

Total

100%

TABLE 22. WAS THE POLYGRAPH USED BEFORE STATE LAW OR LOCAL POLICY WENT INTO
EFFECT? Weighted n=80
No

60.0%

Yes

33.8%

Don’t Know

6.3%

Total

100%

4. Did staff receive training specifically on the use of the polygraph with sex offenders?
§

Somewhat more than half (56.1%) of the respondents reported that staff had been specifically
trained on the use of the polygraph with sex offenders.

Training occurred on an ongoing basis for many (46.0%) of those who received training.

Anecdotal comments regarding training described a variety of experiences, including formal
conferences and special sex offender training programs. Training was often received from
polygraph examiners, either by specific programs, or by talking with and observing the examiners
at work. Regular networking with sex offender providers, obtaining information on how the
polygraph was used in other states, and receiving polygraph-specific information, such as
understanding interviewing techniques and skills required of the examiner, were also mentioned as
training methods.

TABLE 23. HAS YOUR STAFF HAD TRAINING SPECIFICALLY ON THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH
WITH SEX OFFENDERS? Weighted n=155
No

43.2%

Yes, staff or some staff

56.1%

Don't Know

.6%

Total

100%

When was training received? Weighted n=88
Training is ongoing

46.0%

Training received less than two years ago

44.8%

Training received more than two years ago

6.9%

Other (e.g., at least quarterly)

2.3%

Total

100%

5. Who does and does not receive a polygraph?

Most of the time, polygraphs were not required for every sex offender supervised by the agency or
office. Only one in four of probation and parole officers representing offices that used the
polygraph reported that all sex offenders supervised by their agency received a polygraph.

TABLE 24. WHAT PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS RECEIVE THE POLYGRAPH?
Weighted n=155
Everyone (100%)

25.8%

95% to 99%

15.5%

Less than 95%

56.1%

Don't Know

2.6%

Total

100%

Respondents representing the small number of agencies (15.5%) that use the polygraph with almost all sex
offenders (between 95% and 99%) were asked to describe the unique circumstances in which a sex
offender does not receive a polygraph.
§

Over one-half of this small group (weighted n=24) reported that sex offenders may not receive the
polygraph for reasons such as "slipping through the cracks" or participation in another program
that does not require the polygraph.

Offenders with health or mental health issues or those who use psychotropic medications may not
receive a polygraph.

Respondents representing agencies that polygraph less than 95% of sex offenders they supervise (56.1%,
weighted n=87) were asked to describe the circumstances that determine who receives and who does
not receive the polygraph.
§

The decision to use the polygraph was often linked to either the therapist or treatment. The
therapist may be the driving force in determining who receives the polygraph, or all those in
treatment may receive a polygraph. Use of the polygraph may be related to decisions regarding
treatment progress, failure or level, and receptivity to treatment.

The court, probation, or parole sometimes determined who received the polygraph.

Crime type and level of offender risk also played a role in the decision to use the polygraph, but
less frequently than the above considerations.

TABLE 25. WHO GETS THE POLYGRAPH AND WHO DOES NOT?
Summary of respondents’ comments
Who Gets the Polygraph?
Therapist involved in the decision, e.g., depends on the therapist, therapist requires or
may mandate even for some misdemeanors. Discussion of case with therapist or
recommendation of treatment agencies.
Ordered by court, probation or parole. Court determines who does and does not get
polygraph. Those on long-term parole.

Fewer than 95% of
sex offenders get the
polygraph

Most sex offenders
(95% to 99%) get the
polygraph

% based on
weighted n=87

% based on
weighted n=24

32.2%

26.4%

Severe or violent crimes, e.g., rape/sodomy, all felonies, predatory offenses, and crimes
against children.

13.8%

Depends on the degree of risk, e.g., multiple offenses, high risk offender, criminal
history, or level of deception

12.6%

All in treatment

12.6%

Depends on the treatment level or if no progress in treatment or fails treatment. Also,
if receptive to treatment.

10.3%

Other, e.g., up to the polygraph examiner, random selection or legislation determines,
or to terminate from treatment

8.0%

Denial group
Who Does Not Get the Polygraph

8.0%

May not receive a polygraph for a variety of reasons, e.g., some “slip through the
cracks.” It is not court ordered or mandatory. Small percentage may be in another
type of sex offender treatment program [that does not require it]. Offender is not yet
in treatment or has not completed the evaluation required for the polygraph. Offender
may not be complying [with program]. Offender is transferred from another
jurisdiction. There may be legal issues, grandfathered, offender is not on probation or
cannot be located. Offender is on lifetime probation and doing well.

3.4%

54.2%

Health reasons, e.g., heart condition, mental health condition or person is using
psychotropic medications

4.6%

25.0%

“Short timers” or prison bound
Language or cultural barrier

8.3%
8.3%

Lack of resources or polygraph examiners

1.1%

Low risk offenders

4.2%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

4.2%

6. How were polygraphs used?
§

Almost two-thirds of the respondents reported regular use (i.e., often, always, or almost always) of
the polygraph to determine compliance.

More than half (52.2%) of probation and parole officers reported that a polygraph was regularly
used (i.e., often, always or almost always) to obtain sexual history and past offenses.

Somewhat less than half of the respondents (45.8%) reported that a polygraph was regularly used
when a sex offender was in denial of the current conviction.

A polygraph was not typically administered as part of the pre-sentence investigation. Three of
every four probation and parole officers completing the long survey noted that this practice never
or rarely occurred.

A few respondents indicated that polygraphs sometimes served multiple purposes.

TABLE 26. TYPE AND FREQUENCY OF POLYGRAPH ADMINISTERED Weighted n=155
Polygraph is administered

Never

Rarely

Someti
mes

Often

Always
or
Almost
always

Polygraph
serves
multiple
purposes

Don't
Know

Total

To determine compliance with the
conditions of probation or parole
(Weighted n=155)

3.9%

9.0%

19.4%

25.2%

38.7%

1.3%

2.6%

100%

To obtain sexual history and past
offenses (Weighted n=155)

9.7%

9.0%

20.6%

13.5%

38.7%

3.9%

4.5%

100%

When offender denies the current
conviction (Weighted n=155)

17.4%

11.6%

14.2%

31.6%

3.9%

7.1%

100%

As part of pre-sentence investigation
(Weighted n=155)

55.5%

19.4%

11.6%

1.3%

5.8%

1.9%

4.4%

100%

More than half the respondents (54.2%) reported use of the polygraph for situations in addition to
those noted above.
§

Most commonly, polygraphs were used to investigate suspicions (52.4% of the group that reports
using polygraphs for other situations).

Nearly one-third of this group used the polygraph after critical incidents or to address specific
issues, for instance, if the offender had contact with children.

Polygraphs were sometimes used following a violation or to address an offender's progress in
treatment or supervision.

TABLE 27. IS THE POLYGRAPH USED FOR OTHER SITUATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER
A CRITICAL INCIDENT OR IN PAROLE RELEASE DECISIONS?
Yes

54.2%

41.3%

Don't Know

4.5%

Total

100%

TABLE 28. OTHER SITUATIONS WHEN POLYGRAPH IS USED Weighted n=84 (those that use the
polygraph in other situations)
Summary of respondents' comments

% of weighted
n=84
indicating
response

When there is a suspicion, e.g., complaint from community, any red flag, suspect violation,
suspicion that they are lying, suspect high-risk behavior, re-offending or bad behaviors, hunch
from informant, noticeable change in behaviors.

52.4%

Critical incidents or specific issues, drug situations, any time we think an offender needs it,
contact with children, sobriety verification, high profile cases.

29.8%

Following a violation, reason to believe they violated parole.

10.7%

To determine offender's progress, e.g., treatment types of questions, to terminate from
treatment, to determine reduction in supervision.

9.5%

To determine release from probation/parole

8.3%

Other, i.e., for non-compliance with terms and conditions, following inconclusive or deceptive
exams, if defense requests, for family reunification, for long-term monitoring after treatment

8.3%%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

7. Was the sex offender informed that the polygraph was part of the treatment/supervision process?
§

Most often, sex offenders were informed, at the beginning of their time on probation or parole,
that a polygraph was part of the supervision or treatment process.

TABLE 29. IS THE SEX OFFENDER AWARE FROM THE BEGINNING OF PROBATION OR PAROLE
THAT HE/SHE IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A POLYGRAPH AS PART OF THE SUPERVISION OR
TREATMENT PROCESS?
Yes

83.2%

Sometimes

9.7%

7.1%

Total

100%

8. Were sex offenders required to sign confidentiality waivers?
§

Most of the time sex offenders were required to waive confidentiality among the agent, the
treatment provider and the polygraph examiner.

TABLE 30. DO YOU REQUIRE THE SEX OFFENDER TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY BETWEEN
THE AGENT/OFFICER, THE TREATMENT PROVIDER, AND THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER?
Weighted n=155
Yes

92.3%

5.8%

Don't know or missing

1.9%

Total

100%

9.
§

Were there written policies and procedures for the polygraph?
Over two-thirds of the respondents reported an absence of written policies or procedures relating
to the polygraph process or results.

TABLE 31. DO YOU HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE
POLYGRAPH OR USING THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155
No

67.1%

Yes

28.4%

Missing

4.5%

Total

100%

TIME AND RESOURCE ISSUES
1. How long did a polygraph take?
§

Two hours was the most commonly reported length of time for a polygraph exam.

Over half of the respondents reported one to three hours as the typical length of time for a
polygraph exam.

TABLE 32. HOW LONG DOES A FULL POLYGRAPH EXAM TYPICALLY LAST, INCLUDING THE
PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST? Weighted n=102
Minimum time reported

1/2 hour

Maximum time report

5-1/2 hours

Most frequent time reported

2 hours

Average time overall

2 hours, 5 min.

Average times reported
30 minutes to 1 hour

12.7%

>1 to 1-1/2 hours

21.6%

>1-1/2 to 2 hours

29.4%

>2 to 3 hours

22.6%

More than 3 hours

13.7%

Total

100%

Based on a weighted n of 102 responses, the remaining responses were "don't know".

2. How much did a polygraph cost?
§

A typical polygraph exam was most often reported to cost $150.

Over two-thirds of the respondents reported that a typical polygraph exam cost between $100 and
$250.

TABLE 33. HOW MUCH DOES A TYPICAL EXAM COST? Weighted n=128
Minimum cost reported

$75

Maximum cost reported

$625

Most frequent cost reported

$150

Average cost overall

$200

Average costs reported
$75 to $100

10.2%

>$100 to $150

28.9%

>$150 to $200

20.3%

>$200 to $250

21.9%

>$250 to $300

12.5%

>$300

6.2%

Total

100%

Based on weighted n of 128 responses, the remaining responses were "don't know".

3. Who paid for the polygraph?
§

The offender paid for the polygraph exam in approximately half (51.6%) of the offices represented
by the probation and parole officers in the long survey. However, it was not uncommon to assist
offenders with the cost of the polygraph, especially if the offender was indigent.

TABLE 34. WHO PAYS FOR THE EXAM? Weighted n=155
Offender

51.6%

State/County Agency

14.8%

Combination Offender and State/County Agency (including
programs to subsidize costs for indigent offenders)

29.7%

Other (e. g., Federal grant, Sex Offender Assessment Fund,
Community Punishment Program Act)

2.6%

Don't Know

1.3%

Total

100%

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
1. What problems were experienced when the polygraph was implemented?
§

Only 9% of survey respondents reported no problems when implementing the polygraph. The
most common problem was opposition from a variety of stakeholders, such as public defenders and
defense attorneys, courts, the parole board, treatment providers, and the offender.

Somewhat less than one in five (17.4%) of the probation and parole officers responding noted that
legal and immunity issues were areas of concern.

A wide variety of other issues were addressed as the polygraph process was implemented, including
the lack of qualified and accessible polygraph examiners, concerns regarding the validity of the
polygraph, resource issues, and availability of information and training regarding the polygraph
process.

TABLE 35. WHAT WERE THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEMS YOUR AGENCY FACED WHEN THE
POLYGRAPH WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED? Weighted n=155
Summary of respondents’ comments

% indicating
response

No problems

9.0%

Opposition, e.g., public defenders, defense attorneys, courts, judges, parole board, administration,
department of corrections, treatment providers, and offenders (e.g., getting the offender to cooperate,
complaints about infringement of rights, misunderstanding regarding the polygraph procedure).

34.8%

Legal and immunity issues, i.e., results not admissible in court, wanted to use it for investigation,
types of sanctions to impose, concern about information used against offender, possibility to subpoena
files and historical information, sex predator laws, what to do with the information.

17.4%

Lack of polygraph examiners, i.e., no or not enough examiners, no funding for good examiners,
unable to find quality examiners, educating the polygraph examiner about sex offenders, lack of Spanish
speaking examiners, long distance to the examiner..

12.3%

Validity of polygraph, e.g., accepting the validity of test in court, no scientific verification of results,
convincing prosecuting attorneys of polygraph results, accuracy, inconclusive tests.

11.0%

Offenders can't pay

10.3%

Resource issues, e.g., funding of program, trained probation officers, less time for caseload, costs,
who will pay for the polygraph.

10.3%

Lack of information, education, and training. Also, learning how to ask the right questions for
polygraph.

7.7%

Other e.g., learning how far back to go, scheduling, no shows, timeliness of reports, getting the truth
from the offender, inconsistent PO referrals.

4.5%

Viewed as treatment provider problem

1.3%

Don't know or too new to know

10.9%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

In answer to a specific question regarding sources of opposition to the polygraph, almost half
(47.7%) of the respondents noted that offenders and/or their families opposed use of the
polygraph.

Defense attorneys were also a major source of opposition, according to a third of the respondents.

TABLE 36. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THE POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155
No

26.5%

Offenders and/or their families

47.7%

Public defenders, attorneys, legal opposition

33.5%

Judges

7.7%

Treatment providers

7.1%

Probation or parole officers or lack of administrative support
Don't Know

5.2%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

3.2%%

2. How did agencies overcome these problems, and what was their advice to those considering
implementation?
§

Education was important to address concerns surrounding the polygraph. Almost forty percent
(38.7%) of respondents recommended education for all stakeholders, including the legal system,
the offender and staff. Those involved in the actual polygraph process should receive specific
training and skill development. Above all, it is important for those involved to understand that the
polygraph is a "must for the treatment of sex offenders."

The importance of experienced, qualified, and certified polygraph examiners was emphasized by
nearly one in three (32.9%) respondents. Interview and screening processes to select examiners can
be developed. Polygraph examiners must be willing to follow sex offender guidelines. Training
"in house" examiners about the use of the polygraph with sex offenders may be possible, if the
examiner is willing to branch into this area of expertise. However the polygraph examiner was
selected, it was clear that the s/he should be familiar with the sex offender thought process, the
types of questions to ask, and the agency's sex offender program.

We were reminded that implementing the polygraph is often an ongoing process, and the value of
the program will evolve over time.

Implementation may be accomplished through persistence and by insisting that the polygraph is an
expectation, according to one in five respondents. Those interested in implementing the polygraph
should "just do it."

Establishing policies and procedures to be used in the polygraph process or for determining what
happens with the information received through the process was useful. Recommendations
included resolving issues through legal and legislative avenues, reporting new offenses to law
enforcement, and developing other policies, procedures, and sanctions. Policies should also
address offenders who avoid taking the polygraph.

Formalizing the polygraph process by making it a condition of probation, parole, or treatment,
with sanctions for non-participation, was helpful.

According to some respondents, it was important to understand the limitations of the polygraph,
i.e., it is only one tool, but a valuable one, to monitor. Some exams may be inconclusive, and
some offenders may be "untestable."

Once limitations are understood, however, the polygraph should be used within that context.
Probation and parole officers advised that results could be used to help break down denial, to
confront the offender, or even as leverage. Respondents also cautioned that you should be
prepared for the information that is disclosed.

TABLE 37. HOW TO OVERCOME IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS AND BEST ADVICE
Weighted n=155
Summary of respondents' comments

% indicating
response

Educate courts, judges, attorneys, the legislature, probation officers, offenders, and provide specific training and
skill development for staff. Be prepared [to address concerns], and provide good support and statistics [to help
educate]. Use the internet to locate information. Other suggestions include providing the legal community with
existing case law, and having attorneys sit in on the pre-test and receive copies of the report. Educate judges and
attorneys regarding use of the polygraph only for treatment and supervision. Educate attorneys regarding use of
polygraph before sentencing. Get feedback from other agencies using the polygraph and requirements. [Have those
involved] "understand that the polygraph is a must in the treatment of sex offenders."

38.7%

Find excellent polygraph examiners, including developing an interview, screening process to select examiners.
Search for a polygraph examiner (can be in house) willing to branch into this area and follow sex offender guidelines,
and educate him/her about sex offenders (providing articles, books, etc.). Find examiners who ask good questions,
check the background of the offender, do a good pre-test and understand the sex offender thought process.
Examiners should be educated, certified, qualified, experienced, and competent. Use alternate polygraph examiners
to avoid "habituation." Make sure the examiner understands your program. Schedule enough time, and focus on
one or two basic questions that are predatory/victim related. Find examiners without bias. Develop a sex offender
team to develop reporting requirements for the results.

32.9%

Recognize that it is a process that comes in time, and the value is proved in time. Some agencies are still in
process of overcoming problems. Decide [on use] case-by-case.

22.6%

Find a way, and "Just do it!" Don't back down, persistence, make it an expectation that the department requires
a polygraph, mandate that offenders must take it, make it client's responsibility. Find a way, "because it's the right
thing to do." Develop payment strategies, e.g., "offenders can pay up-front"; some providers allow offenders to pay
over time.

20.6%

Develop policies and procedures, including a "sanctions grid," having the offender admit to the facts of the case
in court, resolving issues through legal or legislative avenues, and reporting new offenses to law enforcement.
Develop good, accurate guidelines, and policies on how to use the information. Be consistent in application of the
polygraph with offenders. Think through the frequency [how many polygraphs to administer]. Develop policies and
procedures for those who avoid taking the polygraph. Videotape the test.

15.5%

Use it for monitoring and supervision or make it a condition of probation, parole or treatment.
Revoke probation if they don't do it.

14.8%

General, positive comment, e.g., Wonderful tool, encourage use, use it with an open mind, it's effective. Sex
offenders need to have a part in treatment to keep honest, wipes out deception.

14.8%

Know the limitations, i.e., view it as valuable tool, but only one tool to monitor, can't use it to gather
information--only for specific questions, some come up inclusive, some people will not be "testable".

10.3%

Use the results, e.g., improves treatment capability tremendously, confront offender with results, use it as
leverage, make a determination on the information you receive, "be prepared for what you learn," and don't be
surprised by what comes out. Understand and anticipate that it makes sex offenders disclose. Use it before
sentencing. Do it [because] it helps break down denial.

9.7%

Develop resources, including gaining access to resources through the treatment provider and adding financial
resources and personnel.

9.7%

Communicate and Coordinate, i.e., keep up communication with the polygraph examiner. Coordinate all three
people/agencies in the triangle [treatment provider, supervising officer, and polygraph examiner].

7.7%

Gather support, and gather it early, from parole board, policy makers, attorneys, judges and other authorities.
Get testimonials from treatment providers.

5.2%

Use the polygraph carefully and specifically, i.e., assure that it is used as a maintenance, supervision and/or
treatment tool, and do not issue a violation for offender unless polygraph results are supported by further
investigation. Use the polygraph as a compliance tool not to "fish for new information." Use as a treatment tool for
finding past history, not to assess for treatment.

4.5%

Test early and test often, i.e., test early, often, do it regularly, and get a baseline.

3.2%

Develop procedures for confidentiality, e.g., talk through the issues, institute Polygraph Oversight Committee
to establish how to adhere to confidentiality.

1.9%

Don't Know

4.5%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS
1. How were polygraph examiners chosen?
§

Treatment providers influenced the choice of polygraph examiners, according to 38.1% of
probation and parole officers representing agencies where the polygraph was used. The provider
may have chosen the polygraph examiner or made recommendations. The provider and officer
may have decided together on the choice of examiner.

One in four respondents selected examiners through some type of agency list or registry. Lists
included licensed or certified examiners or those who contracted with the agency, met agency
standards, or had experience with sex offenders.

Limited choice of examiners or no examiners was reported by 16.8% of the respondents
representing agencies using the polygraph.

TABLE 38. HOW DO YOU CHOOSE THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER? Weighted n=155
Summary of respondents' comments

% indicating
response

Rely on the treatment provider, treatment provider chooses, recommends several to choose
from, or the decision is made jointly with the treatment provider

38.1%

Agency contract list or registry. Agency may have a list of polygraph examiners who are
certified or licensed. Polygraph examiners may apply [to be listed] or approved or must abide by
the agency contract. Lowest bidder.

25.8%

No choice or choice is limited, perhaps to only one or two in the area. Polygraph examiner is
department employee.

16.8%

Knowledge of, availability, convenience. Use well known firm or from word of mouth. The
choice is based on whether the polygraph examiner will travel to area, is within driving distance, or
is in proximity to parolee.

11.0%

Skill level determines choice, i.e., "get the best you can," polygraph examiners must meet
certain criteria, be licensed or certified, or have experience with sex offenders.

9.0%

Preference of officer, attorney, court, state police or offender. Rotate polygraph examiners.

6.6%

Don't Know

3.2%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

2. Were agencies satisfied with services received from polygraph examiners, and what did or did not
contribute to satisfaction?
§

Most probation and parole officers were satisfied with the quality of services received from
polygraph examiners.

TABLE 39. ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY OF SERVICES YOU ARE RECEIVING
FROM POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS? Weighted n=155
Yes

91.0%

3.2%

Don't Know

5.8%

Total

100%

The following were the major sources of satisfaction with polygraph services:
§

Good skills on part of the examiner, especially regarding experience with and knowledge of sex
offenders.

The examiner's ability to design relevant questions and to build a rapport with the offender.

The examiner's willingness to communicate with the officer on a regular basis.

Professionalism, including factors such as honesty, reliability, and the ability to provide high
quality services.

Providing information to the agency that is understandable and accessible.

TABLE 40. REASONS FOR SATISFACTION OR DISSATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
FROM POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS Weighted n=155
% indicating
response

Summary of respondents' comments

% indicating
response

Satisfaction Dissatisfaction
Good communication, i.e., willing to discuss case with officer, talks to officer
before and after exam, provides information we would not have known, stays in
touch, forthright, explains so we can understand, easy to work with, willing to
attend staff meetings. [We feel like we] have our hands on the polygraph
process. Gives recommendations on what questions to ask and what to focus on
with sex offenders. Able to develop a rapport with the sex offender.

37.4%

Good skills, especially related to sex offenders, i.e., knowledge about and
well-educated in examining sex offenders, knows what to look for in dealing with
sex offenders, good at designing questions, can break down denial, able to
pinpoint information we couldn't get in evaluation. Licensed, certified, former
police officer. Uses modern equipment.

34.2%

Professionalism, i.e., efficient, thorough, honest, reliable, good quality, good
reports, experienced, reports easy to read and understand.

32.9%

Timeliness, i.e., polygraph, reports and results are done in a timely manner.
Responsive, e.g., does "emergency" tests.

16.1%

General positive statement, e.g., no problems, they are helpful, really pleased,
it is accurate, revealed new information, confirmed suspicions, [gives] better
outlook, exposes offender patterns.

16.1%

Cost effective/convenient

2.6%

Don't Know or too new to know

5.8%

Would like more professionalism, communication, skills and timeliness
from the polygraph examiner

6.5%

More resources, e.g., examiners and experienced examiners

3.9%

Problems with tests, e.g., too many inconclusive, too many false positive.
Would like more control over the questions

2.6%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

COMMUNICATION
1. What information did the agency provide to the polygraph examiner?
§

Most commonly (50.3%), the agent/officer provided the polygraph examiner with information
regarding specific issues and concerns about individual offenders.

The sex offender's criminal history, sex history, and information on the current offense were often
provided.

It was not the agency, but the treatment provider, who provided information on the sex offender
to the polygraph examiner, according to more than one in five respondents.

Some respondents reported that access to the entire file and/or the PSIR of the sex offender was
available to the polygraph examiner.

TABLE 41. WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE AGENT/OFFICER PROVIDE TO THE POLYGRAPH
EXAMINER ON A SPECIFIC OFFENDER BEFORE A POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155
Summary of respondent comments

% indicating
response

Specific issues and concerns, thinking patterns, how they are doing on probation

50.3%

Information on current conviction, police report

35.5%

Criminal history

25.8%

Treatment provider gives the polygraph examiner information

21.9%

Sex history, psychological evaluation

18.7%

Entire file, any information we have, employment history

14.8%

PSIR

13.5%

Conditions of release

6.5%

Victim information, e.g., victim statement, report from victim investigation services,
some details on victims

5.2%

Post sentence update

2.6%

Don't Know

9.0%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

2. How often did agents/officers talk to the polygraph examiner about specific cases?
§

More than half of the respondents representing agencies that use the polygraph indicated that
officers in their agencies spoke with polygraph examiners about specific cases at least once a month
or more.

Close to one in five (18.1%) reported that officers never spoke with polygraph examiners. Others
(22.6%) rarely spoke to the examiner. Sporadic communication may depend on the offender, or
may occur when the polygraph is conducted, when there is deception, or on an "as needed" basis.

TABLE 42. HOW OFTEN DO YOUR AGENTS TALK TO THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER
ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES? Weighted n=155
Between daily and weekly

15.4%

More than monthly but less than weekly

16.8%

Monthly

23.2%

Never

18.1%

Rarely, depends on the offender, more contact when
offender is "high risk, when the polygraph is conducted, as
needed, for deception, less than monthly

22.6%

Don't Know

3.9%

Total

100%

3. How did polygraph examiners provide the results of the polygraph to the agency?
§

More than three out of four of the respondents reported that the results of the polygraph were
received from the polygraph examiner in written form or in both written and verbal reports.

TABLE 43. HOW DOES THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER LET THE AGENT OFFICER KNOW
ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH TEST? Weighted n=155
Both written and verbal reports

40.0%

Written report

38.7%

Verbal report

2.6%

Other (officers attend polygraph, do not let officers know
the results, video tape)

7.1%

Agents/officers receive results from treatment
provider

11.6%

Total

100%

4. How did the treatment provider find out about the results of the polygraph?
§

Most commonly, the treatment provider received the polygraph results from the polygraph
examiner.

Approximately one in five respondents reported that officers gave the treatment provider the
results of the polygraph.

TABLE 44. WHO GAVE THE TREATMENT PROVIDER THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH?
Weighted n=155
The polygraph examiner

60.6%

The agent/officer

21.3%

Both the agent/officer and the polygraph
examiner

8.4%

Other (treatment provider present at the exam,
depends on the examiner, depends on whether
treatment provider or agent requests the report, does
not apply as those taking the polygraph do not need to
be in treatment, depends on PE)

9.0%

Don't Know

.6%

Total

100%

CONSEQUENCES
1. Did offenders receive consequences or sanctions based on the results of the polygraph?
Agencies reported the use of a number of consequences. The types of consequences enforced varied,
depending on the type of polygraph result. As one respondent commented, "[the polygraph] cannot be
used in court, but it will affect the way the offender is managed."
§

The most common consequence for a polygraph that indicated deception was increased
supervision (46.5%), including more surveillance, electronic monitoring, or home visits. The
offender's use of alcohol or drugs may have been monitored by urinalysis. The offender may have
been required to take antabuse. Those with deceptive polygraphs may have faced a change in
treatment or the issue may have been addressed in treatment through discussion or more
homework. According to one in four respondents, a deceptive polygraph could result in
revocation or termination from treatment or the program.

When offenses that occurred before the current conviction were uncovered during a polygraph,
there were usually no consequences (44.5%). When a consequence was applied, it most likely
involved some type of investigation, and it was often the district attorney who decided whether an
investigation would be undertaken.

Investigations were very common (52.9%) when offenses occurring after the current conviction
were revealed during the polygraph process. If new offenses were found, an offender could be
revoked or terminated from the treatment or program (34.2%). One in four respondents reported
that the defendant could be required to return to court.

When violations of supervision were found, the most common agency response was an increase in
supervision (56.1%). The violation could be addressed in treatment in some way, or the
individual could return to court.

More than one in four respondents reported no consequences for inconclusive polygraphs.
However, one in four also reported increased supervision. More than a third (36.1%) indicated
that the offender had to retake the polygraph exam.

TABLE 45. CONSEQUENCES OR SANCTIONS BASED ON RESULTS OF POLYGRAPH
Weighted n=155
RESULTS OF POLYGRAPH

CONSEQUENCES

% Indicating Response
Summary of Respondents' Comments

Deception

Offenses
Before
Current
Conviction

Offenses
After
Current
Conviction

Violation of
Supervision

Inconclusive

7.7%

44.5%

3.9%

1.3%

27.7%

Increase supervision, e.g., "tighten up," more surveillance,
electronic monitoring, increase contacts, [offender] reports
more often, ISP, more in home visits, and longer probation
term, house arrest, and period of increased observation.
Also, urinalysis, antabuse, drug testing.

46.5%

5.2%

9.0%

56.1%

25.8%

Investigation--own, District Attorney's, or law enforcement.
Contact authority. Contact District Attorney who decides
on investigation.

9.0%

38.1%

52.9%

2.6%

7.7%

Change or address in treatment, e.g., increase or longer
treatment, talk about in treatment, more homework, start
treatment over or suspend from group. Notify provider to
re-evaluate.

37.4%

4.5%

5.2%

36.1%

14.2%

Revocation, terminate treatment or program or unsuccessful
discharge.

25.8%

1.3%

34.2%

28.4%

2.6%

Retest or increase tests. Do test on a specific issue.

16.1%

.06%

1.3%

36.1%

Go back to court, including preliminary case hearing,
administrative hearing, contempt of court, prosecute, new
charges, and return to legal system.

15.5%

6.5%

25.8%

21.3%

.06%

Jail or arrest, including 15-day temporary custody.

10.3%

.06%

17.4%

18.7%

1.9%

Impose curfews, home confinement for longer hours, impose
as intermediate sanctions.

14.2%

.06%

17.4%

Change in conditions or privileges, appearance before parole
board or return to prison. Also, loss of earned time, or
change conditions, e.g., change in employment. Apply grid
system.

3.9%

1.3%

8.4%

9.0%

Discuss with offender and or others. Talk, question,
interrogate, verbal admonishment or letter of warning to
offender. Case conference, staffing or talk to provider.

9.0%

.06%

7.1%

5.8%

Violation report.

1.9%

5.2%

6.5%

.06%

Reduce contact with family, remove from home or living

1.3%

2.6%

1.9%

.06%

None

situation. Also, unable to move back with family.
Report to human services, report to social services if child is
the victim.

2.6%

AA, education program.

6.5%

More public service hours, community service, fines.

.06%

4.5%

1.3%

1.2%

.06%

Look for another polygraph examiner.

1.3%

Plethysmograph.

.06%

2.6%

.06%

4.5%

Notification of neighbors, community, victims, including public
notification.

Too new to know.

2. Could the offender be arrested and temporarily jailed before going to court?
§

Nearly two-thirds of respondents reported that officers or agents had the authority to arrest and
temporarily jail offenders without going to court.

TABLE 46. DO YOUR OFFICERS/AGENTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST AND
TEMPORARILY JAIL SOMEONE WITHOUT GOING BACK TO COURT FIRST?
Weighted n=155
Yes

61.9%

37.4%

Don't Know

.6%

Total

100%

BENEFITS OF THE POLYGRAPH
1. Were there benefits associated with using the polygraph?
Respondents were asked for their opinions on the usefulness of the polygraph in managing sex
offenders. These opinions were solicited through three questions:
§
§
§

Has the use of the polygraph changed the way you manage sex offenders?
In your opinion, what is the most important use of the polygraph?
In your opinion, does the use of the polygraph with sex offenders increase public safety? Why or why not?

As there was considerable overlap in the responses to these questions, the answers are combined in the
table below. It should be noted that themes conveyed in answers to questions were often intertwined,
and it was sometimes difficult to determine the best category for a response.
§

The overarching theme in the answers to these three questions is best conveyed in the words of a
respondent, who noted, "You know more about what the issues are so you can provide better treatment
and supervision to reduce risk."

Enhanced disclosure and knowledge of the offender were the most commonly cited benefits of the
polygraph. More insight and depth regarding the offender's behaviors and history as well as
knowledge regarding "cycles and stimuli" led to a more comprehensive picture of the offender that
would not have been available otherwise. The polygraph was useful in alerting agents to potential
violations, behaviors, and areas of concern that might not have otherwise been revealed. Some
respondents noted that the polygraph had the capability to "keep the offender honest" or accountable
and "forced a level of honesty" that would not otherwise be attainable.

The polygraph led to better management and supervision of the offender, according to two-thirds
of the respondents. The agent could better monitor the offender's behavior, exercise more control
in the supervision process, and have more confidence that the offender was being accurately
assessed. Many respondents noted that anticipation of the polygraph had a positive influence on
the offender's behavior. The polygraph provided information that allowed a quicker response to
situations, and could lead to "stepped-up" supervision or additional restrictions, if necessary.
Finally, the polygraph was seen as a useful tool to verify compliance with conditions of probation
or parole.

More than half the respondents noted that the polygraph helped to prevent new offenses. It
provided a way to determine recidivism patterns, whether the offender had committed new crimes,
and helped identify and assess risk. Some respondents were of the opinion that the polygraph
could reduce recidivism entirely. Others noted that it could be helpful in detecting behaviors
likely to precede a crime, so the system could intervene with treatment and/or otherwise protect
possible victims. Others noted that when a crime was committed, it could be detected earlier,
perhaps to the benefit of additional victims.

Use of the polygraph resulted in better and more appropriate treatment in a number of ways,
according to slightly more than 40% of respondents. It could lead to better evaluation and
assessment for treatment and provided more information for treatment. One respondent stated,
"We would never know the appropriate treatment without it." The polygraph was useful in assessing
treatment progress and compliance and could lead to the right intervention at the right time.
Issues uncovered in the polygraph process could be addressed in treatment or the offender could be
confronted in group therapy.

The polygraph was useful in helping break down defendant denial of behaviors and offenses,
according to 17.4% of those respondents in agencies using the polygraph.

The polygraph could also be used to support the application of consequences for an offender's
behavior. Revocations, presentation of information before the parole board, and immediate
removal of the offender from the community were mentioned.

TABLE 47. WERE THERE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH USING THE POLYGRAPH? Weighted n=155
Summary of Respondents' Comments

% indicating
response

Enhances disclosure and knowledge of the offender. Increased knowledge of offender's
behavior, causes offender to be more truthful, more insight, more depth, "helps find out their
true behaviors and not just what they tell us." [The offender does] more talking to the P.O. after
the polygraph has "tripped them up." Can identify more serious issues, and there is more
information for more areas of concern. Find out about possible deviant behaviors. Alerts us to
potential violations/offending behavior. Before the polygraph, bad situations might not have been
revealed. [Provides] more knowledge about cycles and stimuli. Provides more information,
including sex history and a full picture of offender's history. Find out "who they are really dealing
with." Keeps [offender] honest, accountable. There is less guessing. Forces a level of honesty
that wouldn't be there. Get a comprehensive overview of the offender to better manage them.

76.1%

Leads to better management and supervision of the offender. Better, more or another
way of monitoring the offender. Provides more security, more control, and more confidence [of
the agents] in what they are doing. Influences the offender's behavior while in supervision, also
intimidation factor or "scare" factor, or leverage. Keeps behavior in check. Allows quicker
response for technical situations, and can "catch them in their deviant acts". More restrictions for
those who need them, and a better picture [of offender] to step up supervision. Can increase
supervision if there is a deceptive polygraph. Can verify that conditions are upheld, and ensure
compliance with court orders, parole, and child safety zones. Useful for maintenance.

66.5%

Helps prevent offenses. "Chances of other victims under supervision is nil." Determine if
offender is re-offending and detect recidivism patterns. Ensure the offender isn't re-offending.
Can supervise them to a point where there will be no recidivism. Provides us with supervision
techniques so the offender will not re-offend. Less likely to re-offend. Can catch those reoffending and catch them quicker. Can treat before recidivism. Prevention, can catch earlier,
helps identify and assess risk. Can protect society, victims. "They know we are watching them."

58.1%

Helps provide better and more appropriate treatment. More information for treatment.
Can design treatment more effectively. "We would never know the appropriate treatment
without it." Provides another tool in treatment. Can step up treatment or assess treatment
progress and compliance, affirm treatment, target areas of treatment. Provides better evaluation
and assessment for treatment as well as amenability to treatment. Address behaviors in
treatment or confront in group. Can "catch that inappropriate thought and get the proper
treatment."

40.6%

Helps break down denial.

17.4%

Better able to apply consequences for behaviors. When they fail, they can go back to
court. Offenders can be revoked. Aggravating information is presented to parole board. Can
lead to the immediate removal of a sex offender from the community. Exposes new crimes so
we can tell if the offender should be in the community. One respondent remarked on a positive
consequence, i.e., decrease restrictions if appropriate.

7.1%

Yes, polygraph is a benefit, but respondent did not provide specific information.

3.2%

Now developed specialized sex offender caseloads

1.3%

No changes to management of sex offenders or increase in public safety because the
polygraph has been in place for some time, so operations remain the same over long time period,
or respondent was too new to know about changes. One respondent notes reliance on the
treatment provider [thus, did not know].

18.1%

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT WITH POLYGRAPH SERVICES
1. Can polygraph services be improved?
§

More resources, especially dollars to cover the costs of the program, would be helpful, according to
one in five respondents.

Nearly one in five respondents (18.7%) would like more polygraph examiners, as well as access to
examiners on short notice, such as an on-call position. Some officers would like to "test
suspicions immediately." There was a need for more examiners in rural areas. Geographical
accessibility and the ability to have more time to talk to the examiner were important for some
respondents.

More training and education about the polygraph process would be helpful for some.

Policies and procedures that formalize the process, such as written standards and procedures for
exams and how to manage sanctions, would help some agencies. Encouraging support of the
process by judges, laws, court mandates, and or making the polygraph a condition of probation
were also mentioned.

TABLE 48. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP YOU TO BETTER USE POLYGRAPH
SERVICES? Weighted n=155
Summary of respondents' comments

% indicating
response

28.4%

More resources and more dollars to pay for exams or lower costs, some guarantee of future
funding for the program, if the offender would pay for it.

19.4%

More polygraph examiners and immediate access to and availability of examiners.
On call polygraph examiner to test suspicions immediately, a polygraph examiner in the office,
more examiners in rural areas, ability to get the polygraph done at a closer location, more direct
access to the examiner, and more time to talk to the examiner. Also, statewide association of
polygraph examiners.

18.7%

More training and education. "I would like to sit in," find out what's happening in other
jurisdictions.

11.6%

More policies, procedures, and having the process institutionalized. If judges were
more receptive, if polygraph was court mandated or a condition of probation, or put into law.
[Need] department policies regarding use, written standards and procedures for exams, also
pinpoint sanctions issue.

7.6%

Expand the process. Expand to all caseloads, increase use of the polygraph. Use polygraph
with therapy, instead of one or the other.

5.2%

More control over choice of the examiner and over the exam.

2.6%

General comments, e.g., if only they would tell the truth, a complete history of the offender, if
they were 100% accurate, if admissible in court.

6.5%

Don't know or too new to know.

11.6%

Respondent may have more than one response. Thus, percentages do not add to 100.

ATTACHMENT:
Telephone Survey Instrument

QUESTIONNAIRE #

INTERVIEWER #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

PREVIOUS SURVEY - RESPONDENT NAME (Qa)

PHONE # (Qb)

RESPONDENT NAME (Current Survey) (Qc)

PHONE # (Qd)

SHORT FORM

RESPONDENT ADDRESS (Qe)

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT NAME (Qf)

PHONE # (Qg)

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACT ADDRESS (Qh)

I
I
Qr

INTERVIEW DATE (mm/dd/yy) (Qi)

INT. TIME (00:00) (Qj)

RESPONDENT
WILL SEND US:
0=No
1=Yes

Risk
Assessment
Instrument
(Qm)

Terms &
Conditions
for Sex
Offenders
(Qn)

STRUCTURE OF PROBATION & PAROLE (from ACA directory)
1=Probation and parole administered by SAME agency
2=Probation and parole administered by DIFFERENT agencies

USING POLYGRAPH IN 1994? (Insert data from 1994 phone survey)
0=Never
1=Rarely
2=Sometimes
3=Often
4=Always (includes almost always)

SHORT/LONG SURVEY? (Ql)
1=Short Survey
2=Long Survey

INT. LENGTH (min) (Qk)

NOTES ABOUT CONTACTS

Risk
Assessment
Instrument
for Sex
Offenders (Qo)

Policies &
Procedures
for Use of
Polygraph
Results (Qp)

Polygraph
Examiners
Standards
(Qq)

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

SHORT FORM

(INTRODUCTION)

Hello. My name is ______, and Im calling from the Division of Criminal Justice in Colorado. Were conducting
a national research study on adult sex offenders on behalf of the National Institute of Justice, which is the
research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. We sent you a letter (last week / a couple of weeks ago) requesting
your participation in a telephone survey. Do you recall getting that letter?
(If YES)

Good. Is now a good time for us to talk about the project?

Im sorry you didnt receive it. I can fax you a copy if you like. Is now a good time to talk so that I
may explain what were doing?

(If NO)

Thank you. Four years ago we conducted a national study of probation and parole officers to see how sex
offenders were managed. Your office was part of that research, and the results of this study were published
by the American Probation and Parole Association. This is a follow-up to that research. This study will also
focus on the use of the polygraph as a management tool for community-based sex offenders.
I have a couple of initial questions to confirm some information on your office. May I ask those now?
(If YES, proceed.)

Id like to set an appointment for the entire interview. If you DONT use the
polygraph the interview will take only about 5 minutes. If you DO use the polygraph, the questions will be
more detailed, and the interview will take about 30 minutes.

(If NO, set new interview time.)

INTERVIEW DATE (mm/dd/yy)

INTERVIEW TIME (00:00)

(IMPORTANT!!! Doublecheck time difference. Use CO time. Make sure agreed upon time works in both time zones.)

END

WE HAVE YOUR NAME AS THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAY TO DAY MANAGEMENT OF
YOUR OFFICE LOCATION. IS THAT CORRECT?

if NO

0=No (If the answer is NO, find out who is in charge and end the interview. Send out a new letter and begin again.)
1=Yes
(If NO, new contact name) ___________________________________________________________________________________
Qv

Referred to ________________________________________________ by ________________________________________________

AND DOES YOUR OFFICE SUPERVISE CONVICTED ADULT FELONY SEX OFFENDERS?
0=No (If NO, thank the person, and end the interview)
1=Yes

(If YES)

ARE THE SEX OFFENDERS BOTH PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES?
1=Both
2=Probation only
3=Parole only
4=Other (Specify)

(other)

END

if NO

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

SHORT FORM

(SHORT INTERVIEW)

As I said earlier, the survey we are conducting is examining how probation and parole agencies are using
polygraph examinations to help manage sex offender caseloads. What I am interested in is the type of
polygraph that is used with CONVICTED FELONY SEX OFFENDERS as part of their TREATMENT and
SUPERVISION.
Q1

GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, WOULD YOU SAY YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE IS CURRENTLY USING THIS TYPE
OF POLYGRAPH...? K (Read responses)
1=Never

2=Rarely

3=Sometimes

4=Often

5=Always/Almost always

(If NEVER or RARELY, proceed with
questions this page.)

(If SOMETIMES, OFTEN, or ALWAYS, go directly to the LONG FORM.
Staple short and long interview together ASAP.)

Since you dont use the
polygraph, I just have a few
more questions for you which
will only take a few minutes.
May I ask those now?

Since your office is using the polygraph, we would like to
interview you for our study. As I mentioned before, the
survey will take about 30-45 minutes.
DO YOU STILL HAVE TIME TO PROCEED
WITH THE INTERVIEW NOW?
(If YES)

Great, lets get started.

END

(If NO)

May we set a future appointment?
Would morning or afternoon be better for you?
INTERVIEW DATE (mm/dd/yy)

INTERVIEW TIME (00:00)

(IMPORTANT!!! Doublecheck time difference. Use CO time.
Make sure agreed upon time will work in both time zones.)

HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONSIDERATION OF USING THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS IN
YOUR AGENCY?
0=No
1=Yes
9=DK

WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO USING THE POLYGRAPH AT THIS TIME?
(List all that apply, and PROBE for any other barriers)

1=No serious consideration
2=Lack of resources
3=Legal issues
4=Ethical issues
5=No polygraph examiners
6=Other (specify)
8=NA
9=DK

(other)

go to
LONG

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

SHORT FORM

(SHORT INTERVIEW)

DOES YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE HAVE SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS OR SITUATIONS WHERE
ONE OR MORE PEOPLE HANDLE ALL THE SEX OFFENDER CASES?
0=No
1=Yes
8=NA
9=DK

SEND

DOES YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE USE A RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR SEX OFFENDERS THAT IS
DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE USED FOR OTHER OFFENDERS?
0=No
1=Yes (If YES, specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2=Sometimes (Specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8=NA
9=DK

INFO

(instrument)

Would you be willing to send us a copy?
I will give you our address at the end of the interview.

(If YES)

ARE SEX OFFENDERS THAT YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE SUPERVISES REQUIRED TO UNDERGO MENTAL
HEALTH TREATMENT?
0=No
1=Yes (If YES, specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (type of treatment)
2=Sometimes (Specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8=NA
9=DK

COLLECT

These are all the questions I have.

.
INFO

(If person indicated that they would send a risk assessment instrument...)

Could you please send a copy of your sex offender risk assessment instrument to:
Diane Pasini-Hill
Division of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000
Denver CO 80215
fx (303) 239-4491 (Reference NIJ Survey)
Q7

END

WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY OF THE SURVEY RESULTS?
0=No
1=Yes

THANK YOU again for your help with this project.
Your opinions and the information you have provided are very important to us.
Also, my supervisor may be calling you to verify that the interview was completed.

QUESTIONNAIRE #

INTERVIEWER #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

(LONG INTERVIEW)
(If doing long interview immediately, go directly to Q8. If calling back, remind person on the purpose of the study.)
(Repeat only if necessary)

As I mentioned when I first spoke with you, this study is about the use of the polygraph as a tool for managing
convicted adult felony sex offenders as part of their supervision. So, all of the following questions about
polygraph refer only to this type of polygraph.
First, Id like to ask you...
Q8

HOW LONG HAS YOUR AGENCY/OFFICE BEEN USING THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH WITH ADULT FELONY
SEX OFFENDERS? (Round to the closest category)
1=< 1 year
2=1-2 years
3=3-4 years
4=5-9 years
5=10+ years
9=DK

IS THERE A STATE LAW OR LOCAL POLICY ALLOWING OR REQUIRING THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?
0=No
1=Yes (>>>)
9=DK

(If YES) (Q9A)

DID YOUR AGENCY USE THE POLYGRAPH BEFORE THE LAW OR POLICY WAS PASSED?
0=No
1=Yes
9=DK

Q10

WHERE DID THE IDEA TO USE THE POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS ORIGINATE? (IF YOU DONT
KNOW, THATS OK.)
(Note response carefully, and clarify when necessary)

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

Q11

WHAT PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS UNDER YOUR OFFICES SUPERVISION WOULD YOU SAY ARE
RECEIVING POLYGRAPHS?
(Enter actual % or insert 999 for DK)

(100%)

(95% or HIGHER)

(LESS THAN 95%)
Q12

Q13

HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO GETS A
POLYGRAPH AND WHO DOESNT?

(PROBE. How is the decision made? What factors are
considered?)

WHAT SEX OFFENDERS ACCOUNT FOR THE
% THAT DONT RECEIVE POLYGRAPHS?
(List answers)

Q14

ARE SEX OFFENDERS THAT YOUR OFFICE SUPERVISES REQUIRED TO UNDERGO TREATMENT?
0=No
1=Yes (Specify type of treatment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (type of treatment/other)
2=Sometimes (Specify type of treatment) . . . . . . . . . . .
3=Other (Specify)
9=DK

Q15

IS THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION OR PAROLE?
0=No, neither
1=Yes, both
2=Yes, probation only
3=Yes, parole only
9=DK

SEND

Q16

DOES YOUR OFFICE HAVE SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT SUPERVISION CONDITIONS FOR SEX OFFENDERS THAN
FOR OTHER OFFENDERS?
0=No
1=Yes
2=Sometimes
9=DK

Would you send us a copy? Ill remind you at the end of the interview.
Q17

DOES YOUR OFFICE HAVE SPECIALIZED SEX OFFENDER CASELOADS, OR SITUATIONS WHERE THE SAME
PERSON OR PEOPLE ARE ASSIGNED TO ALL THE SEX OFFENDERS?
0=No
1=Yes
9=DK

INFO

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

P3
SEND

Q18

DOES YOUR OFFICE USE A SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT FOR SEX OFFENDERS
THAN THE ONE USED FOR OTHER OFFENDERS?
0=No
1=Yes (Obtain name of instrument if possible) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9=DK

INFO

(instrument)

Would you send us a copy? Ill remind you at the end of the interview.
SEND

Q19

ALSO, DO YOU HAVE WRITTEN POLICIES OR PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE POLYGRAPH OR USING THE
RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH?
0=No
1=Yes (>>>)
9=DK

(If YES)

Would you be willing to send us a copy?

Q20

HOW LONG DOES A FULL POLYGRAPH EXAM TYPICALLY LAST, INCLUDING THE PRETEST AND
POST-TEST?
(Enter time in minutes, or enter 999 for DK. If the respondent gives a range for different types of exams, enter both.)
to

minutes

Q21

HOW MUCH DOES A TYPICAL EXAM COST?

(Enter dollars, or enter 999 for DK. If the respondent gives a range for different types of exams, enter both.)
to

dollars

Q22

WHO PAYS FOR THE EXAM?

1=Offender
2=State/county agency
3=Combination of 1 & 2
4=Other (Specify) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9=DK

(other)

INFO

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

Now, Im going to ask some questions about your experiences with implementing the polygraph in your area.

Q23

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WAS THE MOST DIFFICULT PROBLEM YOUR AGENCY FACED WHEN THE
POLYGRAPH WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED?
(1)

(Any other problems?)

Q24

HOW DID YOU OVERCOME THESE PROBLEMS?

Q25

WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF ADVICE YOU WOULD GIVE TO ANOTHER AGENCY THAT
WANTED TO BEGIN USING THE POLYGRAPH WITH ADULT FELONY SEX OFFENDERS?

Thank you. Id now like to ask some questions about the types of polygraph examinations and what happens
with the results.

Q26

IS THE SEX OFFENDER AWARE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TIME ON PROBATION OR PAROLE THAT
HE/SHE IS LIKELY TO RECEIVE A POLYGRAPH AS PART OF THE TREATMENT OR SUPERVISION PROCESS?
(PROBE. If the respondent says YES, ask if that is always, almost always, or sometimes the case.)
0=No or rarely
1=Yes, always or most of the time
2=Yes, sometimes
9=DK

Q27

DO YOU REQUIRE THE SEX OFFENDER TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY BETWEEN THE AGENT/OFFICER, THE
TREATMENT PROVIDER, AND THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER?
0=No
1=Yes
9=DK

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

Next, Im going to ask you how often sex offenders receive polygraphs in certain situations. Ill read from a
list of responses and you can choose one.

Q28

FIRST, HOW OFTEN DO SEX OFFENDERS RECEIVE POLYGRAPHS AS PART OF THE PRESENTENCE
INVESTIGATION? K (Read responses)
0=Never
1=Rarely
2=Sometimes (>>>)
3=Often (>>>)
4=Almost always or always (>>>)
9=DK
(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

Q29

WHEN DENYING THEIR CURRENT CONVICTION? K

(Read responses)

0=Never
1=Rarely
2=Sometimes (>>>)
3=Often (>>>)
4=Almost always or always (>>>)
9=DK
(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

Q30

TO OBTAIN SEXUAL HISTORY AND PAST OFFENSES? K

(Read responses)

0=Never
1=Rarely
2=Sometimes (>>>)
3=Often (>>>)
4=Almost always or always (>>>)
9=DK
(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

(If sometimes, often, or always:) (Q30A)

HOW LONG AFTER TREATMENT BEGINS IS THIS TYPE (use the name) OF POLYGRAPH GIVEN?
1=Less than 3 months
2=Between 3 and 6 months
3=Between 6 months and a year
9=DK

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

Q31

HOW OFTEN DO SEX OFFENDERS RECEIVE POLYGRAPHS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CONDITIONS OF PROBATION OR PAROLE? K (Read responses)
0=Never
1=Rarely
2=Sometimes (>>>)
3=Often (>>>)
4=Almost always or always (>>>)
9=DK
(If sometimes, often, or always:)

IS THERE A PARTICULAR NAME THAT YOU USE FOR THIS TYPE OF POLYGRAPH?

Q32

IS THE POLYGRAPH USED FOR ANY OTHER SITUATIONS THAT I HAVENT MENTIONED, FOR EXAMPLE,
AFTER A CRITICAL INCIDENT OR IN PAROLE RELEASE DECISIONS?
0=No
1=Yes (>>>)
9=DK

(If YES) (Q32A)

WHAT ARE THEY?

The next few questions are about consequences that may be imposed when the polygraph OR ANTICIPATION
of taking the polygraph reveals new information. (Do not read list of choices.)

Q33

ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES IF AN OFFENDER IS CONSIDERED DECEPTIVE?

(PROBE.)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(Q33A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K

(Read responses)
(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)
0=Rarely
1=Sometimes
2=Always
9=DK
C4
C1
C2
C3

0= No consequences
1= Electronic monitoring
2= Increase supervision
3= Increase contacts
4= Increase treatment
5= Impose curfews
6= Go back to court
7= Revocation
9= DK
10= Other (Specify)
11= Other (Specify)

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

Q34

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) IF SEX OFFENSES THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE CURRENT CONVICTION
ARE REVEALED? (PROBE. Any others?)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(Q34A)

0= No consequences
1= Contact law enforcement
for investigation
2= Investigate
3= Contact DA for
investigation
4= Go back to court
9= DK
10= Other (Specify)
11= Other (Specify)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K

(Read responses)
(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)
0=Rarely
1=Sometimes
2=Always
9=DK
C1
C2
C3
C4
Q35

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) IF SEX OFFENSES THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE CURRENT CONVICTION ARE
REVEALED? (PROBE. Any others?)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(Q35A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)
(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)
0=Rarely
1=Sometimes
2=Always
9=DK
C1
C2
C3
C4

0= No consequences
1= Contact law enforcement
for investigation
2= Investigate
3= Contact DA for
investigation
4= Go back to court
5= Revocation
9= DK
10= Other (Specify)
11= Other (Specify)

Q36

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) WHEN A VIOLATION OF THE SUPERVISION CONDITIONS, OTHER THAN A
NEW CRIME, ARE EXPOSED? (PROBE. Any others?)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(Q36A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)
(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)
0=Rarely
1=Sometimes
2=Always
9=DK
C1
C2
C3
C4

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

Q37

(ARE THERE CONSEQUENCES) WHEN THE RESULTS ARE INCONCLUSIVE?

(PROBE. Any others?)
0= No consequences
1= Retake polygraph exam
2= Increase supervision
3= Increase contacts
4= Increase treatment
9= DK
10= Other (Specify)
11= Other (Specify)

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(Q37A)

HOW OFTEN ARE THESE CONSEQUENCES IMPLEMENTED? K (Read responses)
(If more than one consequence, address implementation of each consequence separately)
0=Rarely
1=Sometimes
2=Always
9=DK
C1
C2
C3
C4
Q38

DO YOUR OFFICERS/AGENTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ARREST AND TEMPORARILY JAIL SOMEONE
WITHOUT GOING BACK TO COURT FIRST?
0=No
1=Yes
9=DK

This next section is about how information regarding the polygraph is shared and how the treatment provider,
polygraph examiner, and agent/officer work together.

Q39

HOW DOES THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER LET YOUR AGENTS/OFFICERS KNOW ABOUT THE RESULTS OF
THE POLYGRAPH TEST?
1=Written report
2=Verbal report
3=Both written and verbal reports
4=Other (Specify)
5=Find out results from treatment provider
9=DK

(other)

(Q39A)

HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY THAT HAPPENS? K

Written

1=Sometimes
2=Often
3=Always
Verbal 9=DK

(Read responses)

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

Q40

WHAT INFORMATION DOES THE AGENT/OFFICER PROVIDE TO THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER ON A SPECIFIC
SEX OFFENDER BEFORE A POLYGRAPH? (List all that apply.)

(Q40A)

HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY THIS INFORMATION IS PROVIDED? K

(Read)

1=Sometimes
2=Often
3=Always
9=DK

0= No info provided
1= Entire acces to
individuals file
2= Sexual history
3= Criminal history
4= Specific issues &
concerns
5= Information on current
conviction
6= Treatment provider
provides information
9= DK
10= Other (Specify)
11= Other (Specify)

Q41

IN THE COURSE OF A MONTH, HOW OFTEN WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOUR AGENTS/OFFICERS TALK TO
THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINER BY PHONE OR IN PERSON ABOUT SPECIFIC CASES?
1=Daily
2=Weekly
3=More than weekly but less than monthly
4=Monthly
5=Other (specify)
9=DK

(other)

Q42

DOES THE TREATMENT PROVIDER FIND OUT THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION FROM THE
POLYGRAPH EXAMINER OR YOUR AGENTS/OFFICERS?
1=Agent/officer
2=Polygraph examiner
3=Other (specify)
9=DK

(other)

(Q42A)

HOW DOES THE TREATMENT PROVIDER FIND OUT THE RESULTS OF THE POLYGRAPH
EXAMINATION?
1=Written report
2=Verbal report
3=Both written and verbal report
4=Other (specify)
9=DK

(other)

Q43

HAS YOUR STAFF HAD TRAINING SPECIFICALLY ON THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH
WITH SEX OFFENDERS?
0=No
1=Yes (>>>)
2=Some (>>>)
9=DK

(If YES) (Q43A)

WHEN WAS THAT?

1=Less than two years ago
2=More than two years ago
3=Ongoing
4=Other (Specify)
9=DK

(training comments)

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

P 10

Q44

HOW DO YOU CHOOSE THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS?

Q45

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE QUALITY OF SERVICES YOU ARE RECEIVING FROM THE POLYGRAPH
EXAMINER?
0=No
1=Yes
9=DK
(Q45A)

WHY AND/OR WHY NOT?

Q46

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD HELP YOU BETTER USE POLYGRAPH SERVICES?

SEND

Q47

ARE THERE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE OR ANY CERTIFICATION/LICENSING FOR POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS
IN YOUR STATE?
0=No
1=Yes
9=DK

(If YES)

Would you be willing to send us any written information you have on this?

In this last section, Im going to ask your opinions on how useful the polygraph is in managing sex offenders.

Q48

HAS THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH CHANGED THE WAY YOU MANAGE SEX OFFENDERS? (PROBE.)

INFO

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

LONG FORM

P 11

Q49

IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION TO THE POLYGRAPH THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF?

Q50

IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT USE OF THE POLYGRAPH? (PROBE.

Anything else?)

Q51

IN YOUR OPINION, DOES THE USE OF THE POLYGRAPH WITH SEX OFFENDERS INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY?
WHY OR WHY NOT?

Those are all the questions I have for you about the polygraph.
We would also like to talk to some treatment providers and polygraph examiners in your area for this research.

QUESTIONNAIRE #
1998 Sex Offender/Polygraph Survey

I
?

LONG FORM

P 12

(CONTACT SHEET)

COULD YOU GIVE ME THE NAMES AND NUMBERS OF ONE OR TWO TREATMENT PROVIDERS?
TREATMENT PROVIDER (1) (Qx)

PHONE # (Qy)

TREATMENT PROVIDER (2) (Qz)

PHONE # (Qaa)

COULD YOU GIVE ME THE NAMES AND NUMBERS OF ONE OR TWO POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS?
POLYGRAPH EXAMINER (1) (Qbb)

PHONE # (Qcc)

POLYGRAPH EXAMINER (2) (Qdd)

PHONE # (Qee)

COLLECT

That is all the information that I need.

.
INFO

Could you please send us copies of...to:

(Look back through survey or your notes to recall the documents the respondent agreed to send to us.)
(Provide name/address/fax number to those sending us information.) (See check-off sheet.)

Diane Pasini-Hill
Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000
Denver CO 80215
fx (303) 239-4491 (Reference NIJ Survey)
Q52

END

WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY OF THE SURVEY RESULTS?
0=No
1=Yes

THANK YOU for your help with this research.
Your opinions and the information you have provided are very important to us.
I may have questions as I review the survey later. Is it OK if I call you?
Also, my supervisor may call to verify that the interview was completed.

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS

APPENDIX B:
Differences Among Five Jurisdictions in Four
States Where File Data Were Collected

File Data Collection Site Descriptions
Site A (n=62)

Site B (n=57)

Site C (n=31) and
Site D (n=30)

Site E (n=52)

Stage of polygraph
implementation

Well implemented. The
polygraph has been used for a
number of years.

Well implemented. The
polygraph has been used for 16
years.

Newly implemented. Half of the
cases (Site C) received at least
one polygraph; the other half
(Site D) had not received the
polygraph but offenders knew
the polygraph would be given in
the future.

No polygraph.

Description of sex
offender program

Each officer is assigned to one
courtroom, allowing for a stable
relationship to develop with
that judge. Close relationship
with the police and their sex
offender-tracking unit. This unit
checks for warrants everyday.
Field officers (not Pos) conduct
home visits. A ten year
deferred judgement is the most
common sentence given.

Had the ability to impose swift
sanctions like jail. Victim
oriented. Polygraph examiners
were located in same building
as POs so lots of
communication. Thorough sex
histories with frequent updates
and addendums. Consistent
sanctions.

Utilized many supervision
methods, including nontraditional officer work hours,
home visits, and collateral
interviews.

This was a treatment site.
Before the offender enters
treatment, a battery of tests is
given (most importantly, the
ABEL screen). It allows the
therapist to begin learning
about the offender’s behavior
quickly. The offenders filled out
sex histories for the
researchers, but they were not
implemented in the program
yet.

Frequency of
polygraphs

Time between polygraphs
ranges from one month to a
couple of years.

Generally, polygraphs given at
regular intervals between 3 and
6 months.

Early implementation and thus
regular schedules were not
noted.

Not applicable.

The sample

A random sample of 62
offenders was drawn from the
caseloads of 17 officers. All
were in treatment at the same
program for at least 6 months
and had received at least one
polygraph.

A random sample of 57
offenders who began
supervision between July 1995
and October 1997, drawn more
or less evenly across four
officers' caseloads. All offenders
had received at least one
polygraph.

There were 61 cases drawn to
represent those in treatment
for at least six months. Cases
drawn from two sites. All those
who had received at least one
polygraph were included. The
remainder was drawn randomly
across 10 officer's caseloads. All
had been in treatment at least 6
months.

A random sample of 52 cases in
treatment at least 3 months,
with priority on those in
treatment at least 6 months.

Time frame during
which an offender
could be on
community
supervision.

Between 8 months and years 5
years

Between 9 months and 11 years

Between 6 months and 7 years

Between 3 months and 5 years

Types of cases/
felony-misdemeanor

Felony

Felony and Misdemeanor

Types of offender/
parolee or
probationer

Probationers

Parolees and Probationers

Parolees and
Probationers

Probationers

Data collection time
frame

April 1999 and May 1999

July 1998 and November 1998

February 1999

March 1999

Data Sources –
Before the treatment/
polygraph process

Criminal justice file, including
the PSIR.

Treatment file. Probation
summary containing
demographics, a description of
the current crime, and past
convictions. Some files
contained police reports. Data
collectors note that files may
not reflect all that is known to
the criminal justice system. No
PSIR was available.

Data Sources After the treatment/
polygraph process

Criminal justice file, including
the PSIR, sex history form,
polygraph reports, and some
treatment homework
assignments.

Criminal justice file, including
the PSIR, sex history form, and
polygraph reports.

Criminal justice file, including
the PSIR, and sex history form.
Polygraph reports were
sometimes available. Some
results were communicated
over the phone and noted in
the file.

In order to examine the
treatment process, ABEL
screen assessments, written
sexual history documents, and
therapists’ notes were
examined and documented.

Sex history forms filled out very
close to data collection and may
not have been integrated as
part of treatment. Some
polygraph files not available.
Polygraph information noted in
the file.

Sex history forms filled out very
close to data collection and may
not have been integrated as
part of treatment. Incomplete
criminal justice information.
Most detail on current crime
only.

Special caveats about
data differences

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS

APPENDIX C:
File Data Collection Instrument

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

POLYGRAPH STUDY

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado 80215 -- ph (303) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

DCJ ID#

OFFENSES CHARGED:

OFFENSES AT CONVICTION:

For Those Convicted

1st Most Serious

# of Counts

Felony Class

1st Most Serious

# of Counts

Felony Class

2nd Most Serious

# of Counts

Felony Class

2nd Most Serious

# of Counts

Felony Class

3rd Most Serious

# of Counts

Felony Class

3rd Most Serious

# of Counts

Felony Class

Total Counts Charged

Total Counts Convicted

CRIMINAL HISTORY:
Juvenile

SENTENCE (for current conviction):
Prison Sentence (mos)

Arr

Conv

0=0
1=1
2=2
3=3+

Adult
Arr

Conv

Violent

Jail Sentence (days)

Placement

Probation
01= Probation only
02= Probation concurrent w/
earlier sentence to prob
03= Probation w/jail sentence
04= Adult diversion (DA office)
05= ISP
06= ISP w/jail
07= Probation w/work release
08=FOP (female offender prog)
09=SDOP (specialized drug
offender program)

DEMOGRAPHICS:

Jail Credit (days)

Sex

Ethnicity

Marital Status

Felony
Prior Sex Offenses
Probation Supervision................Months
1=Supervised
2=Unsupervised

Age at 1st Arrest (juv or adult)

1=Male
2=Female

1=Anglo/white
2=Black
3=Hispanic
4=Am Indian
5=Asian
6=Other

Employment at Arrest

(Last grade
completed)

DOB

Misdemeanor

Community Corrections
15= Comcor as condition of probation
16= Direct sentence to comcor
Jail
20= Jail only
21= Jail and fine
22= Jail with work release
23= Other sentence to jail
Prison
30= Prison only
31= Prison and probation (Rule 35B)
32= YOS
Other
40= Suspended sentence only
50= Fine only
60= Restitution only
70= UPS only
80=Other: specify__________________

Education Last Grade

Nonviolent

Comcor (mos)

1=Guilty as charged
2=Guilty to a lesser felony
3=Guilty to a misdemeanor
4=Incompetent to stand trial
5=Not guilty (insanity)
6=Charges reduced/drop due to plea in another case

1=Single
2=Married
3=Sep/Div
4=Widowed
5=Common law

00-11=Actual grade
12=High school
13=Some college
14=College degree
15=Some graduate
16=Graduate deg & higher
17=GED

1=Full time
2=Part time
3=Employed/student
4=Unemployed
5=Sporadic

Stability

# of Dependents
(Actually
supported)

During the 2 years before
arrest for this case:
1=Has continuously resided
at the same address
2=Has moved 1,2,3 times
3=Moved >3 times
4=Transient

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

POLYGRAPH STUDY

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado 80215 -- ph (303) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

JUVENILE HISTORY (including current offense) (information from file -- PSIR, police report, etc.)
MALES
AG E
GROUP

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

FEMALES
RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS
T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN)

UNKNOWN GENDER

TRUST

STRNGR

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

SRCE

STRNGR

PARA/RISK BEH
NONSPEC VICTS
#VICT
SELF
RPT

#VICT
POLY

SRCE

0-5
6-9
10-13
14-17
18+
ELD/
RISK
UNK

ADULT HISTORY

(up to and including the current offense) (information from file -- PSIR, police report, etc.)
MALES

AG E
GROUP

0-5
6-9
10-13
14-17
18+
ELD/
RISK
UNK

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

FEMALES
RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS
T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN)

UNKNOWN GENDER

TRUST

STRNGR

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

SRCE

PARA/RISK BEH
NONSPEC VICTS
#VICT
SELF
RPT

#VICT
POLY

SRCE

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

POLYGRAPH STUDY

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado 80215 -- ph (303) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

Was any new information learned about the HISTORY (including current offense) from the POLYGRAPH PROCESS? (if YES, continue -- mark yes to all that apply) (O=No / 1=Yes)
New info on SPECIFIC VICTIMS

SPECIFIC PARAPHILIAS

(victim known)

NEW INFORMATION LEARNED ABOUT JUVENILE HISTORY
MALES
AG E
GROUP

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

SPECIFIC FREQUENCY

(victim known)

(including current offense)

FEMALES
RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

NEW

REPEAT

REL

TRUST

STRNGR

(victim unknown)

FROM THE POLYGRAPH PROCESS

# of VICTIMS
NEW

NONSPECIFIC FREQUENCY

(victim unknown)

PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS
T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN)

UNKNOWN GENDER

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes

# of VICTIMS

NONSPECIFIC PARAPHILIAS

(victim known)

REPEAT

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

SRCE
*

PARA/RISK BEH
NONSPEC VICTS
#VICT
SELF
RPT

#VICT
POLY

SRCE

0-5
6-9
10-13
14-17
18+
ELD/
RISK
UNK

New info on SPECIFIC VICTIMS

SPECIFIC PARAPHILIAS

(victim known)

NEW INFORMATION LEARNED ABOUT ADULT HISTORY
MALES
AG E
GROUP

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

SPECIFIC FREQUENCY

(victim known)

(including current offense)

REL

TRUST

STRNGR

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

REL

TRUST

STRNGR

(victim unknown)

PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS
T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN)

UNKNOWN GENDER

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes

NONSPECIFIC FREQUENCY

(victim unknown)

FROM THE POLYGRAPH PROCESS

FEMALES
RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes

NONSPECIFIC PARAPHILIAS

(victim known)

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

SRCE
*

PARA/RISK BEH
NONSPEC VICTS
#VICT
SELF
RPT

0-5
6-9
10-13
14-17
18+
ELD/
RISK
UNK

* NOTE: The SOURCE where this information was FIRST revealed about this victim group (11=File / 00=Self Report / 01=Baseline / 02+=Polygraph #). Insert # of victims revealed in self report, then # of victims revealed in ANY polygraph (these should total victims for age group).

#VICT
POLY

SRCE

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

POLYGRAPH STUDY

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado 80215 -- ph (303) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

Was any new information revealed in the polygraph process about ACTS COMMITTED SINCE THE PERSON WAS SENTENCED?

(0=No/1=Yes) (if YES, continue)

NEW INFORMATION REVEALED IN THE POLYGRAPH PROCESS ABOUT ACTS COMMITTED SINCE PERSON WAS SENTENCED
MALES
AG E
GROUP

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

FEMALES
RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

# of VICTIMS

STRNGR

NEW

REPEAT

PARAPHILIAS PERPETRATED UPON/TARGETED TOWARD IDENTIFIABLE VICTIMS
T=TYPE (SEE CODES) F=FREQUENCY (IF KNOWN) G=GENDER (IF KNOWN)

UNKNOWN GENDER

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

# of VICTIMS
NEW

REPEAT

RELATIONSHIP
0=No/1=Yes
REL

TRUST

STRNGR

SRCE
*

PARA/RISK BEH
NONSPEC VICTS
#VICT
SELF
RPT

0-5
6-9
10-13
14-17
18+
ELD/
RISK
UNK

PERPETRATOR PROFILE OF EARLY BEHAVIORS (first three paraphilias committed by perp)
PARAPHILIA

PERP AGE
AT ONSET

VICTIM
AG E
GROUP(S)
A1

CODE KEY
PARAPHILIA -- (see code sheet)

GENDER

RELATIONSHIP
(0=No/1=Yes)

REL

TRUST

DATA
SOURCE

STRNGR

VICTIM AGE GROUP(S) (code up to two groups -- A1, A2)
1=0-5
2=6-9
3=10-13
4=14-17
5=18+
6=Elderly/at risk
7=Unknown
GENDER
1=Male
2=Female
3=Both

2
3

RELATIONSHIP -- (see code sheet)

Perpetrator of incest?
(0=No/1=Yes)

Source of incest info

(11=File / 00=Self report / 01=Baseline / 02+=Poly#)

DATA SOURCE
11=File
00=Self report (disclosures under threat of polygraph or
disclosures between polygraphs)
01=Baseline
02+=Poly #

Termination from Treatment/Supervision
0=Not terminated
1=New non-sex crime
2=New sex crime
3=Non-compliance with treatment
4=Violated supervision condition
5=Sentence discharged
6=Absconded
7=Moved out of state
8=Other ___________________________________
9=Unknown

Date of Termination

#VICT
POLY

SRCE

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice
POLYGRAPH RESULTS

DAY

Length of time in treatment before 1st polygraph (months)

POLYGRAPH DATE
POLY

POLYGRAPH STUDY

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado 80215 -- ph (303) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

POLY
TYPE

TEST
RESULTS

WHEN
WERE
ADMISSIONS

MADE?

SYSTEM RESPONSE
RESPONSE 1

RESPONSE 2

RESPONSE 3

COMMENTS
Record any other information relating to the ability of the offender to:
1) gain ACCESS to potential victims,
2) gain the PRIVACY to potentially reoffend, and/or
3) gain the AUTHORITY to potentially reoffend.
If this is due to a deficit in the criminal justice system, please note.

#2
#3
#4
#5

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CODE KEY

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SYSTEM RESPONSE
01=Antabuse required
02=New people informed of behavior
03=Re-tested
04=Increased supervision/ISP
05=Jail time (short term)
06=Residential adjustment/comcor
(residential adjustment=leaving home)
07=Revoked to DOC/court
08=Arrested for new non-sex crime
09=Arrested for new sex crime
10=Initiated investigation of disclosure
11=Electronic monitoring
12=Limited immunity
13=Confronted in group
14=Additions to relapse plan by therapist
15=Management plan modification
16=Expelled from treatment
17=Behavior is restricted (travel, visitation, curfew)
18=Other __________________________________
19=Other __________________________________

POLYGRAPH TYPE
1= DENIAL -- To determine guilt on current offense if offender
maintains denial after conviction
2= BASELINE/SEX HISTORY -- Usually first polygraph beginning
treatment; to obtain information on sex history and past convictions
3= MAINTENANCE -- Usually ongoing to determine compliance with
terms and conditions
4= SITUATIONAL -- Reason to suspect new sex assault or high risk
behavior
5= RE-TEST -- Previous test inconclusive, equipment problems, or
sanction

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OFFICIAL TEST RESULTS
1=Deception indicated
2=No deception indicated
3=No opinion/inconclusive
WHEN WERE ADMISSIONS FIRST MADE?
1=Pre-test
2=Test
3=Post-test
4=None of the above (no admissions)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Colorado Division of Criminal Justice

POLYGRAPH STUDY

700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, Colorado 80215 -- ph (303) 239-4442 / fx (303) 239-4491

ANECDOTAL INFORMATION: (Note case information relating to any of the following topics not already recorded.)

DEFINITIONS

(1)

(1) PERPETRATOR CHOOSES SPECIFIC KNOWN VICTIM.
Includes: relative, acquaintance, friend, position of trust,
victim IDed by perpetrator before crime.

PERPETRATOR CHOOSES SPECIFIC KNOWN VICTIM

PERPETRATOR CHOOSES VICTIM OPPORTUNISTICALLY

OFFENDER GROOMS VICTIMS

PERPETRATOR SEEKS EMPLOYMENT, LIVING SITUATIONS, OR POSITIONS OF TRUST TO HAVE ACCESS TO VICTIMS

(2) PERPETRATOR CHOOSES VICTIM OPPORTUNISTICALLY.
Perpetrator intends to commit crime (cruising, fantasizing,
even planning) but victim is chosen with little regard to
specific identity (victim in the wrong place at the wrong
time).
(3) OFFENDER GROOMS VICTIMS. Grooming means preparing
a person (usually a child) to become a victim by looking for
vulnerabilities, gaining trust, and (often) gradually
introducing sexual behaviors. Implies a relationship
between offender and victim, albeit an unequal one.
(4) PERPETRATOR SEEKS EMPLOYMENT, LIVING SITUATIONS,
OR POSITIONS OF TRUST TO GAIN ACCESS TO VICTIMS.
Look for types of employment, hobbies (Boy Scouts, etc.),
working in amusement parks, and participation in church
activities involving children.
(5) PERPETRATOR DISPLAYS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR.
Includes: assaultive behavior and domestic violence.

(6) PERPETRATOR USES WEAPONS. Weapons include knives,
guns, etc.

(5)

(7) OTHER M.O. INFORMATION. Any other information on
how the perpetrator victimizes/gains access to victims not
already noted (use of cars, use of deception, anger control
a special problem, impulse control a special problem).

PERPETRATOR DISPLAYS VIOLENT BEHAVIOR OTHER THAN SEX OFFENSES

PERPETRATOR USES WEAPONS TO GAIN ACCESS TO VICTIMS

OTHER M.O. INFORMATION

HOW WERE DISCLOSURES OF ADDITIONAL VICTIMS HANDLED IN THIS CASE?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS

APPENDIX D:
File Data Collection Instrument Coding and
Definitions

File Data Collection Coding and Definitions
RELATIONSHIP DEFINITIONS:
Relative

Mother, father, spouse, stepfather, stepmother, uncle, aunt,
grandparent, step relations, other extended family, live-in
boyfriend, live-in girlfriend.

Trust

Teacher, caregiver, babysitter, minister, boyfriend, girlfriend, date,
friend, therapist, police officer, etc.

Stranger

Stranger, acquaintance.

PARAPHILIAS/OFFENSES:
Vaginal Penetration

Includes penile, digital, and cases where the perpetrator is a female
against a male victim.

Anal Penetration

Any type.

Attempted Penetration

Attempted but not completed, any type.

Oral Sex

By victim or offender.

Urination

As part of or during sex act. With consent, without consent, or
alone.

Coprophelia

Feces as part of or during sex act. With consent, without consent,
or alone.

Fondling, Frottage

Without consent or may be without victim's knowledge.

Exhibitionism

Usually involves a victim but also includes being undressed or
exposed in a public place. Those situations were recorded in the
nonspecific victims section of the form.

Voyeurism

May have occurred without the victim's knowledge.

Ritualistic Behavior, Bestiality,
Bondage

This code reflected bestiality 99% of the time. There were few
incidents of ritualistic behavior or bondage. This was mostly coded
in the nonspecific victims section of the form even though we
would have liked to have considered the animals as specific victims.

Excessive aggression, Sadism,
Weapon, Spanking

During the commission of the crime.

Assaultive Behavior, Including
Domestic Violence

Could be up to, including, or after the offense. It is a high-risk
behavior, so it did not necessarily have to be directed toward the
victim.

Murder

Code never used.

Stalking

May or may not be directed toward victim of sexual crime.

Alcohol/Drugs to Victim
without Consent

This includes minors under age 18 because, by definition, minors
cannot consent -- even if the minor asked for the drugs or alcohol.

Offender Under Influence of
Alcohol/Drugs During Act
Offender Abuses Alcohol/
Drugs During General Time
Periods When Offenses Occur

Related to offense cycle.

More Than One Unwilling
Participant in Incident
Pornography

Adult/child, sale/distribution, or non-porn as porn. May or may not
involve a victim.

Use of Internet or Obscene
Phone Calls

Victims were often unknown since contacts were random, unless
the perpetrator was targeting someone specific. If the offender was
perusing the internet looking at pornography, this code and the
pornography code was marked in the nonspecific victims section.

Masturbating to Deviant
Fantasy/Theft of
Undergarments

Since the masturbating part could have applied to almost everyone,
we did not code unless specific mention was made of masturbating
to the victim or clearly a deviant fantasy.

Excessive/Increased
Masturbation

Again, we tried to be a little bit more conservative on this one
since it could have applied to everyone. We did not code unless
there was a clear indication of excessive or increased.

Specific Preparation

Driving around with paraphernalia to use on victims, wearing tshirts to attract children, cruising video arcades or swimming
pools. The behavior does not have to be targeted toward specific
victims, only an indication that the offender is attempting to find
victims or is preparing to assault victims is needed.

Other Behaviors

Prostitution-visiting or being a prostitute, cruelty to animals,
childhood firesetting, childhood long-term bedwetting, violations of
probation conditions, visiting peep shows, strip clubs, or topless
bars, unsupervised contact with children, group sex, fantasies,
cross dressing, fetishism.

DEFINITIONS OF OTHER TERMS:
Victim

A victim is someone who was assaulted without consent, or in
some cases, knowledge. For minors, a victim exists if there is a
four-year age or if the perpetrator is an adult and the minor is less
than the age of consent. States have varying ages of consent.

Incest

Includes any relative listed in the relative category.

FREQUENCY CODES:
Whenever possible we tried to record as close to the actual number of offenses that occurred as listed
in 1-5 below. When we could not get actual numbers, we tried to find the best fit from the choices
listed 11-19. When there was a victim's statement and there was a difference between the victim's
report and the perpetrator's, we used the victim's (this only applies to the file information section of
the collection form, the rest of the form was based on the perpetrator's self-report).
1= Once a day of more to once a week

(52-360 times per year or more)

2= Less than once a week to once a month

(12-51 times per year)

3= Less than once a month to six times per year

(6-11 times per year)

4= One time per year to five times per year

(2-5 times per year)

5= Less than once a year to once in life

(<1 time per year to 1 time in life)

11= Hardly ever/a little/once in a while
12= Some/sometimes
13= A fair amount/a lot/many/often/hundreds
15= Happened over a period of days
16= Happened over a period of weeks
17= Happened over a period of months
18= Happened over a period of years
19= Multiple times during the same offense

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side