CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
INSPECTION COMMITTEE REPORT:

SEX OFFENDER
CLASSIFICATION AND TREATMENT
IN
OHIO PRISONS

PREPARED AND SUBMITTED
BY CIIC STAFF
January 5, 2006

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I.

Introduction………………………………………………………………….……..…………4
A. Relevance of Sex Offender Treatment to CIIC Statutory Duties …………………………..4
B. In Prison Treatment ………………………………………………………………………...4
C. Voluntary/Mandatory Participation…………………………………………………………5
D. Revised Policy………………………………………………………………………………5
E. Access to Sex Offender Treatment Programs…………………………………….…………6
F. Eligibility Criteria…………………………………………………………………………...7
G. Sex Offender Placement………………………………………………………….. ………..8

II.

Profile Of Sex Offenders In Ohio Prisons…………….……………………………………..8
A. Definition
1. Offense Categories……………………………………………………………………...9
2. Age of Victim…………………………………………………………………………10
Table 1. Sex offenders grouped by victim age………………………………………… 10
B. Approximate Number of Sex Offenders Currently Incarcerated and on
Parole Supervision……………………………………………………………………….11
Table 2. Sex offenders under APA supervision in September 2003
and September 2004 with percent increase………………………………….11
Table 3. Number of sex offenders on supervision by region in
September 2004…………………………………………………………….. 12
C. Institutions and Number Of Sex Offenders Incarcerated………………………………. 12
Table 4. Number of sex offenders by security level as of January 2005………………...13
Table 5. Number and percentage of sex offenders at each institution,
with security level and total population………………………………………14
Table 6. Number and percentage of sex offenders by institution with
Security level……………………………………………………….………..15
D. Reported Recidivism Rates for Sex Offenders in Ohio…………………………………..16
Table 7. General and Sexual Recidivism By Victim Typology…………………………17
Table 8. General Recidivism by Number of Prior Prison Incarcerations………………..18

III.

Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center…………………………………...………….………18
Table 9. Reason for admission to SORRC and amount of time
spent in SORRC………………………………………………………………..19

IV.

SORRC Risk Level Assessment…………………………………………………………….20
A. Assessment Tool: STATIC-99…………………………………………………………..21
B. Risk Levels…………………………………………………………………….………...23
Table 10. STATIC-99 risk score and label for risk category………………. …………...24
C. Recidivism by Risk Level……………………………………………………………….25
Table 11. STATIC-99 sexual recidivism percentages by risk level……………………..26
Table 12. STATIC-99 violent recidivism percentages by risk level……….……………26
D. Assessment Tool: Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised………………….27

V.

Sex Offender Treatment Programs and Treatment Issues: What Currently
Exists in Ohio’s Prisons……………..………………………….………………………….. 28
A. SORRC Basic Sex Offender Education……………………………………….………...29
B. Comprehensive Treatment Programming Availability………………………………….31
C. Comprehensive Sex Offender Programming…………………………………………....32
D. Denier's Program…………………………………………………….…….…..………...33
Table 13. Denial of most recent sex offense by offender type……………… ………….36
E. Programs for High Security Inmates…………………………………………………….36
F. Ohio Reformatory for Women…………………………………………………………..38
G. Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders……………………………………….………………..39

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

PAGE
H.

Table 14. Seriously mentally ill inmates by security level………………………………40
Staffing Levels and Credentials……………………………………………….………...40

VI.

Findings of ODRC Sex Offender Risk Reduction Reentry Task Force…………….…...41

VII.

ODRC Implementation of Sexual Misconduct Policy……………………………………49

VIII.

Summary of Programs Provided by Other States ………………………………………..51
A. Sex Offender Populations by State……………………………………………………...51
Table 15. States ranked by total number of incarcerated sex offenders….……………...52
Table 16. States ranked by percentage that sex offenders comprise
out of total incarcerated offenders………………………………..………….53
B. Types of Sex Offender Treatment Programs………………………………….………...54
Table 17. States' methods of sex offender treatment……………………….……………55
C. Mandatory vs. Non-Mandatory Programming………………………………………….56
Table 18. States who have mandatory vs. non-mandatory
treatment programs…………………...……………………………………...57
D. Offender Risk Assessment…………………………………………………….………..58
E. Program Assessment……………………………………………………………………59
F. Staff Qualifications and Staffing Level Ratios………………………………………….60
Table 19. Number of staff assigned to sex offender programs…………….. …………...60
Table 20. States ranked by staff to inmate ratios for sex offender
treatment program……………………………..…………………. …………61
Table 21. Sex offender treatment program staff in 2000 in Ohio and
other states with breakdown of type of staff…………………..…. …………62
G. Inmate Enrollment Capacity…………………………………………………………….63
Table 22. Sex offender treatment programs in 2000 in Ohio and other
states by inmate enrollment capacity………………………………...…..…. 63
Table 23. States ranked by percentage of total incarcerated sex
offenders capable of enrolling in sex offender programs……………………64
H. Duration of Sex Offender Treatment Program………………………………………….65
I.
Aftercare…………………………………………………………………………………65
J. Advisory and Standards Boards/Entities………………………………………………..66
K. Program Costs…………………………………………………………………………...67

IX.

Summary of Recidivism Studies Conducted by Other States…………………………….67

X.

Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………...69

XI.

Resources………………………………………………………………………….………....72
Appendix A: STATIC-99 Assessment Questions…………………………………………….74
Appendix B: STATIC-99 Scoring Sheet…………………………………………………..…79
Appendix C: Sex Offender Basic Education Post-Test………………………………………80

4
I. INTRODUCTION
A. RELEVANCE OF SEX
STATUTORY DUTIES

OFFENDER

TREATMENT

TO

CIIC

The CIIC is statutorily required to inspect and evaluate Ohio prison operations and
conditions, and to report on findings, as well as any programs proposed or developed to
assist in bringing about needed improvements. Sex offender issues have been and
continue to be at the forefront of news media coverage of crimes against victims, as well
as community opposition to the presence of sex offenders. Clearly the management of sex
offenders poses serious and critically important issues, which affect victims, offenders,
and the communities to which offenders eventually return after incarceration. Sex
offender management impacts the entire criminal justice system and each of its
components: law enforcement, courts and corrections.
Throughout CIIC history, cumulative knowledge of evolving needs and issues related to
sex offenders has been gained by listening to countless ODRC staff on and off site,
including Wardens, Psychologists, other Mental Health Staff, and Sex Offender Program
Staff. Communication has also been received from countless sex offenders in prison and
after their release. Early in CIIC history, CIIC staff conducted an extensive review of
research studies on sex offender treatment nationwide. Preparation of this report provided
a welcomed opportunity to gather and review current information from ODRC and from
other national resources on sex offender treatment in adult correctional institutions.
B. IN PRISON TREATMENT
The provision of sex offender treatment in the prison system can be viewed as a public
safety issue. Ohio recidivism studies have demonstrated that sex offender treatment can
positively impact the recidivism rate of sex offenders. Therefore, provision of sex
offender treatment in prison can prevent further victimization in the community after the
offender’s release.
The first sex offender treatment program in the Ohio prison system was developed at the
Chillicothe Correctional Institution (CCI). For many years it was the only program in
existence in the Ohio prisons. Because CCI is a medium security (level two) institution,
sex offenders classified as close (level three) and maximum security (level four) wrote to
the CIIC about the need for expanded sex offender programs accessible to inmates in all
classifications. At one point, a petition was even sent to the CIIC from minimum and
medium security sex offenders who were unable to be transferred to CCI, expressing the
need for more sex offender programs at the other medium security prisons. Such pleas for
assistance in gaining access to sex offender programs totally contradicted many experts’
assertions that sex offenders are not motivated to receive treatment.
Subsequent to the CIIC staff recommendation of DRC expansion of sex offender
treatment programs within the prison system to enable access to inmates of all
classifications, then ODRC Director, George Wilson, established the first written ODRC

5
Policy on Sex Offender Treatment Programs in Ohio prisons. The policy did not require
expansion, but served as an excellent step toward progress by authorizing institutions to
develop such programs. Subsequent policy revisions established standardized program
requirements to incorporate in applications from institutions to ODRC Central Office
staff for the development and operation of a sex offender treatment program.
Unfortunately, built- in evaluation components have been absent in sex offender treatment
programs in the Ohio prison system. It is hoped that with the renewed commitment to the
standardization of sex offender program curriculum, record keeping methods have been
included to determine program effectiveness. Reportedly, the current new program has
been determined to be the “most effective”, though the basis of that determination is not
known.
C. VOLUNTARY/MANDATORY PARTICIPATION
Legislative Members of the CIIC expressed interest in sex offender treatment during
CIIC meetings in 2005 that included discussion of the sex offender section of the CIIC
Biennial Report of January 2005. The CIIC report includes a section on Sex Offender
Programs, which up to that time have been voluntary, not mandatory. ODRC has since
developed a mandatory program referred to as the “Denier’s Program.”
Since the first sex offender treatment program was established at the Chillicothe
Correctional Institution, the voluntary aspect of enrollment has been explained primarily
from the treatment point of view. That is, willingness of the offender to admit guilt to
his/her offense of conviction, and willingness to write a truthful, detailed autobiography
were cited as necessary components of the treatment process. It is not unlike the more
widely known belief that alcoholics and drug addicts must admit that they have a problem
and want help before recovery can occur. It was also relayed that since resources were
insufficient to provide programming for all, programming slots were reserved for those
who were fully motivated to participate.
D. REVISED POLICY
ODRC is in the final stages of implementing a revised policy for sex offender
programming and management. Reportedly, the new policy will increase continuity in
programming provided to inmates in the institutions and to those released from prison to
the community. Reportedly, due to the lack of standardized curriculum, staff at different
institutions provided sex offender treatment models that reportedly competed in
philosophy with one another. This reportedly made it difficult to determine the quality
and effectiveness of the programming being provided. Reportedly, the new program
policy will address these issues, which caused shortfalls in the previous programs’
effectiveness.
The new policy also makes the program mandatory for all inmates classified as sex
offenders assessed as medium- high and high risk to sexually re-offend. The standardized
programming format reportedly eliminates the need for licensed mental health

6
professionals who formerly administered or directly supervised the sex offender
programs. Reportedly, this will enable the Department to maximize the program’s
potential for expansion to additional institutions so that programs will be more accessible
to sex offenders in the future.
E. ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM
According to ODRC staff, there was a time when the ODRC Bureau of Classification
routinely transferred inmates to other institutions based on their request to enroll in a
specific vocational or rehabilitative program, including a sex offender treatment program,
which existed first at CCI, then expanded to several institutions. Existing programs had
limited capacities and long waiting lists of two years or more. During prior CIIC
inspections at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, it was repeatedly relayed that there
were over 300 sex offenders at CCI on the waiting list to get into the program. As the
prison population in Ohio increased, the reportedly routine transfers for rehabilitative
purposes ended due to the sheer number of security level changes, hardship requests,
institutional separations, and protective control requests.
In subsequent years, the CIIC received extensive communication from sex offenders who
were unable to be transferred to a prison with a sex offender treatment program. The
communication indicated that there were insufficient programs in the system to
accommodate the need. While such programs slowly expanded in the years following the
first ODRC policy on Sex Offender Programs, scarce resources were reportedly being
shifted to the seriously mentally ill as the result of the class action in Dunn. Sex offender
program staff urged the CIIC staff to continue to monitor the availability of sex offender
programs in the prisons. Where new programs had been developed, such as at Mansfield
Correctional Institution and the Orient Correctional Institution, the programs were being
closed. In some cases, the closures were reported to be due to failure to abide by the
standardized requirements of the sex offender treatment program policy, or alleged lack
of qualified staff running the program.
As recently as 2001, inmates contacted the CIIC seeking assistance in having a sex
offender treatment program established or re-opened at their institution. In some cases,
there were legitimate reasons as to why the inmates could not be transferred elsewhere to
enable participation in a sex offender treatment program. For example, inmates assigned
to the Frazier Health Center or 10 E Limited Duty Unit at the Orient Correctional
Institution (now Pickaway Correctional Institution), explained that they could not transfer
elsewhere due to their medical status and needs, yet needed sex offender treatment.
Though unwritten, a policy developed in which no inmate classified as a sex offender
was paroled unless he/she completed a sex offender treatment program. Because there
were not enough programs available to meet the need, many offenders were unable to be
transferred to prisons with a sex offender program, and many were on waiting lists to
enroll in such a program at their current facility. There were reported deficiencies in
meeting the need to ensure that sex offenders were provided with the opportunity to
receive the required programming prior to their Parole Board hearing.

7

F. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
The criteria established by the Department in policy 67-MNH-12, Sex Offender Services
states that eligibility for programming requires that the inmate:
•
•
•

Is within three years of release or within three years of their next Full Parole
Board Hearing
Classified as Moderate-High or High Risk to re-offend, and
Admits to the offense.

Just as alcohol and drug addicted offenders are directed to immediately accessible
substance abuse treatment programs including but not limited to Alcoholics Anonymous
and Narcotics Anonymous in every Ohio prison, some have questioned why sex offender
treatment is not similarly accessible, and on-going throughout the period of incarceration.
The wisdom of limiting program eligibility to sex offenders classified in the above risk
categories has also been questioned. If the program has been proven to be effective, it is
reasonable to assume that it would be effective in treating all sex offenders.
The decision in Ankrom v Hageman was the result of a class action suit in which
Plaintiffs of the class contended that their conviction, or guilty pleas involved lesser and
fewer crimes than those in the indictments. However, their offense category assigned by
the Parole Board did not correspond with the offense of conviction. The Parole Board
decisions were determined by considering the total offense behavior, rather than the
offense of conviction when categorizing an offender’s offense category. Therefore, more
time was assessed for crimes that the Plaintiffs were not found guilty of under APA
guidelines, which were established independently of the sentences imposed by the court.
When an offender reached the expiration of the minimum sentence imposed by the court,
many did not come near the lower end of the guideline range assigned by the Parole
Board, and were extended to or above the minimum of that guideline range, reportedly
without a meaningful consideration being given to them for parole.
Reportedly, in the case of sex offenders, their continuance was often much longer than
three years, making him/her ineligible to participate in sex offender programming. When
the offender came within the three years to their next Parole Board hearing, they were
then supposed to become eligible for programming. However, due to constraints on
transfers, the waiting lists to get to institutions with sex offender programming, and the
waiting lists at the institutions due to the limited number of spots available in the sex
offender programs, many offenders were continued again for lack of program
participation.
In February 2004, at an executive staff conference, the ODRC Director requested
executive staff to identify issues of concern within the Department. The treatment and
management of sex offenders was identified as such an issue, including the following
subcategories:

8

•
•
•
•

Sex offender registration
Expanded institution based sex offender programming
Housing for sex offenders
Reentry of sex offenders into the community.

The ODRC Sex Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry Task Force was established to
address each of these issues, and to determine a course of action to remedy the identified
areas of concern. The Task Force developed 15 recommendations listed in Section V. of
this report.
Progress is being made by ODRC in the management of inmates who commit sexual
offenses while incarcerated, through the development and implementation of policies and
procedures stemming from the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. ODRC policy
number 79-ISA-01, Inmate Sexual Assault and Misconduct, provides guidelines for the
prevention, detection, response, investigation, and tracking of inmate sexual assaults, and
sexual misconduct. All inmates, volunteers, independent contractors, and staff employed
by the ODRC are subject to the provisions of the policy.
G. SEX OFFENDER PLACEMENT
In the interests of public safety, there is a need for secure, structured, supervised housing
for released sex offenders, who are for the most part excluded from halfway house
placements due to legitimate community concerns. Other violent offenders and arsonists
are also excluded from such placements. Yet, these “hard to place” offenders have the
greatest need for such secure, struc tured, supervised placements on return to the
community.
Although the ODRC staff have communicated with halfway house staff to urge their
cooperation in accepting their high risk offenders, the halfway house staff know that their
existence depends on the support of the community in which they live. While some
halfway house staff would be willing to assist, they are not able to do so without
jeopardizing the very existence of the halfway house in the community. This has been a
long-term issue of concern that remains current.
II. PROFILE OF SEX OFENDERS IN OHIO PRISONS
A. DEFINITION
ODRC policy 67-MNH-12, Sex Offender Services, classifies an inmate as a sex offender
if the inmate is sentenced to the Department for a sexually related offense, or has been
convicted of a prior adult sexually oriented offense or a substantially equivalent former
state law, within 15 years from his/her current date of commitment to the Department.
The STATIC-99, an instrument used by the ODRC to estimate the likelihood of a sexual
offender to recidivate, defines a sexual offense to include:

9

•
•
•

An offense that can be officially recorded sexual misbehavior or criminal
behavior with sexual intent
The behavior resulted in some form of criminal justice intervention or official
sanction
The charge is serious enough that individuals would have been charged with a
sexual offense were they not already under legal sanctions. (Harris, Phenix,
Hanson, & Thornton, 2003)

1. OFFENSE CATEGORIES
According to the Department's Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender
Releases, published in April of 2001, the four most common categories of sexual offenses
committed by offenders sentenced to the Department, in order of frequency from highest
to lowest, are:
1. Gross Sexual Imposition (40%). A person may be convicted of GSI
if (1) he or she purposely compels the other person to submit by force
or threat of force; (2) he or she substantially impairs the judgment of
the other person by administering a drug, intoxicant, or other
controlled substance, whether surreptitiously or by force or by threat
of force, for the purpose of preventing resistance; (3) he or she knows
that the judgment of the other person is substantially impaired due to a
drug, intoxicant, or other substance, or due to medical or dental
examination, treatment, or surgery; (4) the victim is under thirteen
years of age, whether or not the offender is aware of that; (5) the
victim's ability to consent or resist is substantially impaired due to a
mental or physical condition, or to advanced age. (ORC 2907.02.)
2. Rape (28%). A person may be convicted of rape for sexual conduct
with another person who is not a spouse if (1) he or she purposely
compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force; (2) he
or she substantially impairs the judgment of the other person by
administering a drug, intoxicant, or other controlled substance,
whether surreptitiously or by force or by threat of force, for the
purpose of preventing resistance; (3) the victim is under thirteen years
of age, whether or not the offender is aware of that; (4) the victim's
ability to consent or resist is substantially impaired due to a mental or
physical condition, or to advanced age. (ORC 2907.05.)
3. Sexual Battery (23%). A person may be convicted of sexual battery
if he or she engages in sexual conduct and (1) knowingly coerces the
other person by any means that would prevent resistance; (2) knows
that the other person's ability to appraise his or her own conduct is
substantially impaired; (3) knows that the other person submits
because the other person is unaware that the act is being committed;

10
(4) knows that the other person submits because he or she mistakenly
identifies the offender as the other person's spouse; (5) is the parent or
guardian of the other person; (6) the other person is in custody of law
or hospital or other institution and the offender has supervisory or
disciplinary control over that person; (7) the other person is a minor
and the offender is a teacher or has similar role in the minor's life; (8)
is a mental health professional and induces the other person to submit
by falsely representing that sexual conduct is necessary for mental
health purposes. (ORC 2907.03.)
4. Corruption of Minor (8%). A person may be convicted of
corruption of a minor he or she is eighteen years or older and engages
in sexual conduct with a person who is between 13-16 years of age, or
is reckless in that regard. (ORC 2907.04.)
As can be seen above, the definitions of the sexual offenses provide for a broad range of
possibilities under each offense title. For example, a person can be convicted of sexual
battery as a product of assault, incest, or professional misconduct. Although useful in
terms of gaining an overall perspective of sex offenders, the ODRC study on Ten Year
Recidivism notes that the offender's conviction is often the product of a plea bargain and
does little to further understanding of the nature of the sex offense or anything about the
victims.
2. AGE OF VICTIM
To obtain a different view of offender characteristics, the ODRC study, "Profile of
ODRC Sex Offenders Assessed at the Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center," grouped sex
offenders by age of victim and produced the following table:
Table 1. Sex Offenders Grouped by Victim Age*
Offender Type
Child Molester (Victims under 13)
Teen Molester (Victims 13 through 17)
Rapists (Victims 18 and over)
Multiple (Victims in 2 or more age categories)
Child / Teen Molester (N = 33)
Child Molester / Rapist (N = 6)
Teen Molester / Rapist (N = 2)
Total
Missing (Victim age unknown)

Frequency
196
99
91
41

Percent
46%
23
21
10

427
10

100%

* Data based upon the 437 sex offenders who were assessed at SORCC during the first five months of
calender 1999.

Clearly, as determined by the study, the vast majority of convicted sex offenders within
the state of Ohio are incarcerated due to offenses against persons under 18 years of age.

11
The study also notes that, in comparison with a study published in 1992, offender
frequencies have remained the same over time, with a slight increase in the number of
teen molesters .
B. APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF SEX OFFENDERS
INCARCERATED AND ON PAROLE SUPERVISION

CURRENTLY

Per information provided by ODRC, as of July 1, 2005, there were approximately 9,282
inmates identified as sex offenders currently incarcerated in the State of Ohio. The inmate
population includes inmates convicted under the “old law,” who were sentenced to
indeterminate periods of incarceration; and inmates convicted under the “new law,” who
were sentenced to determinate periods of incarceration under Senate Bill Two. As of
January 2005, there were approximately 4,930 Senate Bill Two inmates incarcerated for a
felony sex offense.
The Adult Parole Aut hority reported an increase of 27.5 percent in the number of
supervised sex offenders in September 2004 compared with September 2003. There were
5,674 sex offenders on some degree of community supervision in September 2004,
compared to 4,450 sex offenders in September 2003 on community supervision. All
regions of the APA reported increases in the number of sex offenders under community
supervision from 2003 to 2004. (ODRC Report of the Sex Offender Risk Reduction
Reentry Task Force. February, 2005)
Table 2. Sex Offenders Under APA Supervision
In September 2003 and September 2004 with Percentage Increase
Region
Other
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Chillicothe
Lima
Mansfield
Akron
Columbus
TOTAL

September
2003
76
706
782
485
599
572
752
478
4,450

September
2004
205
975
987
608
750
710
906
533
5,674

Percentage
Increase
+169.7
+38.1
+26.2
+ 25.4
+25.2
+24.1
+20.5
+11.5
+27.5

12
Table 3. Number of Sex Offenders on Supervision by Region in September 2004
REGION

SEPTEMBER 2004

Cincinnati
Cleveland
Akron
Lima
Mansfield
Chillicothe
Columbus
Other

987
975
906
750
710
608
533
205

TOTAL

5,674

C. INSTITUTIONS AND NUMBER OF SEX OFFENDERS INCARCERATED
As shown below in Table 4. Number of Sex Offenders by Security Level as of January
2005, the majority of sex offenders are classified as level two (medium) security,
comprising nearly 57 percent of the sex offenders in Ohio prisons. There are 5,211 sex
offenders classified as level two (medium).
The second largest classification level of the sex offender population is level three
(Close) Security, with 2,612 sex offenders, comprising nearly 29 percent of the sex
offenders in Ohio prisons.
Sex offenders classified as level four or five (maximum/high maximum) total 231
comprising 2.52 percent of the sex offender population. Level four inmates are housed at
either the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility or Ohio State Penitentiary. Level five
inmates are housed exclusively at the Ohio State Penitentiary. No sex offender treatment
programs exist at either facility.

13
Table 4. Number of Sex Offenders by Security Level as of January 2005
Security Level Listed from
Level One through Level
Five

Number of Sex Offenders
in Each Security Level

Percent of Sex
Offenders in Each
Security Level

Level One (Minimum)
Level Two (Medium)
Level Three (Close)
Level Four (Maximum)
Level Five (High Maximum)
TOTAL

1,112
5,211
2,612
189
42
9,166

12.13%
56.85
28.50
2.06
.46
100%

Security Level Listed by
Number of Sex Offenders

Number of Sex Offenders

Percent

Level Two (Medium)
Level Three (Close)
Level One (Minimum)
Level Four (Maximum)
Level Five (High Maximum)
TOTAL

5,211
2,612
1,112
189
42
9,166

56.85%
28.50
12.13
2.06
.46
100%

In Table 5, Number and Percentage of Sex Offenders at Each Institution, with Security
Level and Total Population as of January 2005, the highlighted institutions currently have
some type of program oriented towards sexual offenders. When the new programming is
established, there will be additional programs implemented at the Richland Correctional
Institution and the Belmont Correctional Institution. (ODRC Report of the Sex Offender
Risk Reduction Reentry Task Force. February, 2005)

14
Table 5. Number and Percentage of Sex Offenders at Each Institution, with Security Level
and Total Population as of January 2005
Institution

Security
Level

No. of Sex
Offenders
On 12/6/2004

Institution
Population
January 1,
2005

Chillicothe Corr Inst
North Central Corr
Inst
Madison Corr Inst
Mansfield Corr Inst
Lebanon Corr Inst
Richland Corr Inst*
Belmont Corr Inst*
Ross Corr Inst
Grafton Corr Inst
Marion Corr Inst
Allen Corr Inst*
London Corr Inst
Warren Corr Inst
Southeastern CI *
Hocking Corr Fac
Trumbull Corr Inst
Pickaway Corr Inst
Noble Corr Inst
Corr Reception Center
Southern Ohio Corr Fac
Lorain Corr Inst
Lake Erie CI
Toledo Corr Inst
Ohio Ref for Women
Ohio State Pen
Corr Medical Center
Oakwood Corr Fac
North East Pre- Release
Center
Franklin Pre-Release
Center
Dayton Corr Inst
Montgomery Education
Pre-Release Center
North Coast Corr
Treatment Facility
TOTAL

1,2
1,2

1,022
912

2,695
2,281

Percentage of
Institution
Population
That are Sex
Offenders
38%
40

1,2,3
3
3
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
3
1,2
1.2
1,3
1,2
1,2
3
4
3
1,2
1,3
1-5
1,4,5
All
All
1,2

905
547
453
446
440
431
424
405
330
321
273
265
259
241
233
229
192
189
164
138
126
97
42
21
19
18

1,945
2,374
1,938
2,316
2,160
2,269
1,416
1,846
1,301
2,078
1,042
1,534
465
1,098
2,084
2,095
1,649
959
1,454
1,382
792
1,954
455
123
130
531

47
23
23
19
20
19
30
22
25
15
26
17
55
22
11
11
12
11
11
10
16
5
1
17
15
3

1,2

12

472

3

1,2
1,2

9
0

418
339

2
0

1

NR

547

0

9163

44,142

100%

*According to information received on September 26, 2005, one of the revisions proposed in the draft of the revised Sex Offender
Program policy, is that the program at Southeastern Correctional Institution is removed and BECI, RICI and ACI are added. The
program at ACI is only for the Sugarcreek Developmental Unit for MR sex offenders. It does not provide programming for the general
population .

15
Table 6. Number and Percentage of Sex Offenders
by Institution with Security Level
INSTITUTION

SECURITY LEVEL

NUMBER OF
SEX
OFFENDERS ON
12/6/04

Chillicothe CI
North Central CI
Madison CI
Mansfield CI
Lebanon CI
Richland CI
Belmont CI
Ross CI
Grafton CI
Marion CI
Allen CI
London CI
Warren CI
Southeastern CI
Hocking CF
Trumbull CI
Pickaway CI
Noble CI
Corr Reception C
Southern Ohio CF
Lorain CI
Lake Erie CI
Toledo CI
Ohio Ref for Women
Ohio State Pen
Corr Medical C
Oakwood CF
Northeast Pre Rel C
Franklin Pre Rel C
Dayton CI
Montgo mery EPRC
North Coast CTF
TOTAL

1,2
1,2
1,2,3
3
3
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
3
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
1,2
3
4
3
1,2
1,3
1-5
1,4,5
1-5
1-5
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,2
1

1,022
912
905
547
453
446
440
431
424
405
330
321
273
265
259
241
233
229
192
189
164
138
126
97
42
21
19
18
12
9
0
NR
9,163

PERCENTAGE
OF SEX
OFFENDERS OF
TOTAL IN
SYSTEM
11.15%
9.95
9.88
5.97
4.94
4.87
4.80
4.70
4.63
4.42
3.60
3.50
2.98
2.89
2.83
2.63
2.54
2.50
2.95
2.06
1.79
1.51
1.38
1.06
.46
.23
.21
.20
.13
.10
0
100%

16
D. REPORTED RECIDIVISM RATES FOR SEX OFFENDERS IN OHIO
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction examined data from 14,261
offenders released from custody in 1989. There were 879 sex offenders released from
Ohio prisons in 1989, or six percent of those released. Results of the study are contained
in the Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up Of 1989 Sex Offender Releases, prepared by the
ODRC Bureau of Planning and Research.
The 879 sex offenders included in the study were convicted of the following:
OFFENSE
Gross Sexual Imposition
Rape
Sexual Battery
Corruption of Minor
Other Sex Offense*
TOTAL

FREQUENCY
352
247
202
71
7
879

PERCENT
40.0%
28.1
23.0
8.1
.8
100%

* Other Sex Offenses include: disseminating material harmful to juveniles, sexual imposition, sodomy,
pandering, illegal use of minor in nudity oriented material, and pandering sexual material to a minor.

The study defined the recidivism of sex offenders as the rate at which offenders return to
prison for any new offense including technical parole violations. The researchers note
that it would be unlikely for an offender with a prior sexual offense not to be reincarcerated for a new offense. (Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up, 2001.)
According to the Executive Summary, the baseline recidivism rate of sex offenders
followed-up for ten years after release from prison was 34 percent. The rate was
comprised of the following:
Recommitment for a New Crime
Sex Offense
Non-Sex Offense

23%
8.0%
14.3%

Recommitment for a Technical Violation 11.7%
Sex Offense
Sex Lapse
Non-sex Related

1.3%
1.7%
8.7%

The total sex-related recidivism rate, including technical violation of supervision
conditions, was 11.0 percent.
Sex Offenders who returned for a new sex related offense did so within a few years of
release. Of all the sex offenders who came back to an Ohio prison for a new sex offense,
one half did so within two years, and two-thirds did so within three years.

17

For comparison purposes, a U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics
report, published in 2002, examined the recidivism rates of various offenders who were
released in 1994 over the subsequent three years. The study examined the data from 15
states: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. From this
data, the study concluded that of all the released prisoners from those states in 1994,
those for whom Rape was the most serious conviction offense recidivated at a rate of
43.5 percent based on a return to prison with or without a new sentence (including
technical violations), and 12.6 percent were re- incarcerated with a new sentence (not
necessarily a sex offense).
Offenders whose most serious sexual conviction was a sexual assault other than Rape
recidivated at a rate of 36.0 percent, with or without a new sentence, and 10.5 percent
with a new sentence. (Langan and Levin, 2002.)
According to the ODRC Ten-Year Recidivism study, the recidivism rates of Ohio
offenders differed considerably based on a victim typology:
Table 7. General and Sexual Recidivism By Victim Typology

Sex Offender Type
Rapist (adult victims)
Child Molester-extra familial
Child Molester-incest

General Recidivism
N
Percent
129
56.6
138
29.2
18
13.2

Sexual Recidivism
N
Percent
40
17.5
41
8.7
10
7.4

Offender/Victim Relationship
Stranger
Acquaintance
Relative

91
164
20

59.9%
31.1
13.9

30
51
10

19.7%
9.7
6.9

Victim Age
Child (under age 18)
Adult
Both child and adult victims

155
129
7

25.7%
56.6
38.9

51
40
5

8.5%
17.5
16.1

Victim Gender/Age
Adult Female
Adult Male*
Female child—extrafamilial
Male child—extrafamilial
Female child—incest
Male child—incest *

121
5
121
14
18
0

57.1%
71.4
30.8
22.2
13.4
0

40
0
33
7
8
0

18.9%
0
8.4
11.1
6.0
0

*Of the sample studied in the report, no released offenders whose prior victim had been an adult
male were reincarcerated for a new sex offense, or whose prior conviction had been incest of a male child
for any offense, within the ten years of study. However, the sample sizes were extremely small—only
seven released offenders had a prior conviction of an offense against an adult male; only four had a prior
conviction of incest of a male child.

18
According to the study, recidivism also depended on the number of prior prison
incarcerations. Although the sample is smaller for offenders with two or more prior
incarcerations, the study validates the stereotype of "churners," or those persons who
continue to commit offenses in society and spend their life moving in and out of the
corrections system.
Table 8. General Recidivism by Number of Prior Prison Incarcerations
Number of prior prison
incarcerations (Ohio)
None
One
Two
Three

NO RECIDIVISM
514
53
11
2

69.2%
49.5
45.8
40.0

RECIDIVISM
229
54
13
3

30.8%
50.5
54.2
60.0

Paroled Sex offenders completing basic sex offender programming (Level 1) while
incarcerated appeared to have a somewhat lower recidivism rate than those who did not
have programming. This was true both for recidivism of any type (33.9 percent with
programming recidivated compared to 55.3 percent without programming) and sexrelated recidivism (7.1 percent with programming recidivated compared with 16.5
percent without programming).
III. SEX OFFENDER RISK REDUCTION CENTER (SORRC)
DRC policy 67-MNH-12 states that, upon commitment to the Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction, all inmates are given a Reception Center Sex Offender
Screening, which is the process by which inmates are identified as sex offenders at
reception. Males receive this screening at either the Corrections Reception Center, or the
Lorain Correctional Institution, and female offenders receive the screening at the Ohio
Reformatory for Women (ORW). Per the definition of a sex offender, an inmate is
classified as a sex offender if he/she is sentenced to the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction for a sexually oriented offense or has been convicted of a
prior adult sexually oriented offense in the past 15 years, or falls under Megan’s law.
Male sex offenders are transferred to the Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center at the
Madison Correctional Institution, and females remain at ORW as part of the reception
process.
The 2001 DRC study of sex offenders assessed at SORRC profiled the reason for
admission to SORRC—whether due to past or present conviction—as well as the amount
of time the offender spent in SORRC. A sex offender may be sent to SORRC for a prior
felony conviction of a sexual offense within 15 years from the date of his commitment.

19
Table 9. Reason for Admission to SORRC and Amount of Time Spent in SORRC.

Reason for Admission to SORRC
Current Sexual Conviction
Prior Sexual Conviction
Amount of Time Spent in SORRC
1 month or less
2-3 months
3 months or more

Frequency

Percent

390
47

89%
11

19
180
238

4
41
55*

*According to ODRC staff, when the 2000 study was done, 55% of the inmates spent three months or more
in SORRC. Since that time, the ODRC took steps to change that, so that inmates are there for a maximum
of three months.

As determined by the study, the majority of those assessed were admitted to SORRC
based on a current sexual conviction (89 percent). The average length of time spent in
SORRC was 2.4 months. There was no apparent difference in the amount of time spent
in SORRC between sex offender types.
According to information provided by ODRC staff, the SORRC mission statement is to
“provide assessment and basic sex offender education services to all inmates who are
designated as sex offenders for the purpose of risk assessment, education and the harm of
their actions on their victims, and program prioritization.” Each inmate classified as a sex
offender is evaluated by SORRC staff and is given basic sex offender education.
A risk assessment is completed by the SORRC Director on all sex offenders at SORRC
and at ORW by the Sex Offender Program Director, to determine their level of risk to reoffend (High, Moderate-High, Moderate- Low, Low). The assessment by a Psychology
Assistant can be conducted without the offender present.
Departmental policy states that inmates assigned a risk level of Low are placed in Basic
Education, which is completed prior to their transfer to their parent institution. Inmates
who are assigned a risk level of Moderate-Low are reviewed by the program’s Clinical
Director to determine whether they are placed in and complete Basic Education and then
are transferred to their parent institution, or whether they are given a Comprehensive
Assessment, complete Basic Education, and then are transferred to their parent
institution.
Per 67-MNH-12, a Comprehensive Assessment is a sex offender-specific assessment that
involves a detailed examination of patterns of offending and personality functioning and
includes recommended treatment goals and objectives. The Comprehensive Assessment
involves a review of the Risk Assessment, Pre-Sentence Investigation and collateral
background information; sex offender-specific testing; a structured interview with the
inmate; and completion of written assessment report and Personal Accountability Goal
Summary.

20
Inmates assigned a risk level of High or Moderate-High are referred by the SORRC
Director, are scheduled for Comprehensive Programming, and the development of
Personal Accountability Goal Summaries. They are given a Comprehensive Assessment,
placed in and complete Basic Education, and then are transferred to the ir parent
institution.
IV. SORRC RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT
According to DRC policy 67-MNH-12, a risk assessment is defined as, “A process that
examines specific factors in an offender’s life for the purpose of determining the
offenders risk to sexually re-offend. A risk assessment is completed on all sex offenders
at SORRC to identify low, moderate, or high- risk to re-offend.” The assessment and the
tool used to make the assessment, is extremely important because it determines what
level of sex offender treatment an inmate receives.
In a DRC research study entitled, "Development of a Sex Offender Risk Assessment
Instrument," DRC analysts studied 5,045 sex offenders who were released from Ohio
institutions between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 1993. Based on the findings, the
DRC report concluded that the following eight variables were significantly related with
Ohio sex offenders' return to prison:
1. Prior adult sex-related arrests. The total number of arrests the offender has
ever had as an adult for sexually oriented crimes prior to the most recent sex
conviction. Arrests were counted even if the charge was later dismissed or nolled
or if the disposition was unknown.
2. Prior sex-related felony convictions . The total number of felony convictions
received as an adult prior to the most recent sex offense.
3. Any evidence of sexual offending without arrest. This was measured as any
indication the offender had been accused by family or friends of sexually acting
out, but no formal charges were ever filed.
4. Was offender on drugs or alcohol at time of most recent sex offense?
Considering the most recent sexual conviction only, any indication the offender
was on drugs or alcohol at the time the offending behavior occurred was
measured.
5. Victim sex of all adult sex crime convictions. Coded the sex of all victims
including adult felony/misdemeanor sex-related convictions.
6. Was there any victim under the age of 13? Recorded the age of the victim(s) at
the onset of victimization, including adult felony/misdemeanor sex-related
convictions.

21
7. Total number of victims of all adult sex crime convictions. This is the total
number of all adult felony and misdemeanor convictions received by the offender.
8. Was any weapon used or implied during a sex crime? Recorded whether a
weapon was used or implied during any sexual assault for which the offender was
convicted. Implied means the victim said the offender had a weapon or the
offender indicated that he had a weapon, but a weapon was not seen by the victim.
The above questions aid in the development of an ODRC assessment tool using
calculated recidivism rates specific to Ohio offenders. A tool specific to Ohio offenders,
or that includes data from surrounding states, may be more accurate than a tool developed
based on data from other countries. The current tool used, the STATIC-99, is based on
data from Canada and the United Kingdom. (Data from Washington, Wisconsin and
California was reportedly included, according to follow-up communication from ODRC
staff.)
In the ODRC study of Ten Year Recidivism, ODRC researchers plugged known data into
the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) tool and
compared the predicted recidivism rate against the known recidivism rate. The RRASOR
was developed by the same individual as the STATIC-99 and uses four factors to
determine risk. Ohio offenders’ known recidivism rates did not correspond to two of the
four factors. Overall, the study concluded that the predictive accuracy of the RRASOR
on the particular sample of released offenders studied was "slightly better than chance."
Although ODRC does not use the RRASOR in its assessments, the STATIC-99 is based
on similar data. Given the vast amount of data at the ODRC's disposal from its own
records as well as surrounding states, it is not understood why ODRC does not produce
its own risk assessment tool that may provide greater accuracy.
A. ASSESSMENT TOOL: STATIC-99
STATIC-99 is the primary tool utilized by the SORRC program staff to develop a clearer
picture of the offender, and the level of risk they pose to the community. According to
the STATIC-99 Coding Rules:
The STATIC-99 is a tool to assess the approximate risk level a sex
offender has to re-offend once released to the community. It uses only
static (unchangeable) factors that have been seen in literature to correlate
with sexual reconviction in adult males. The estimates of sexual and
violent recidivism produced by the STATIC-99 can be thought of as a
baseline of risk for violent and sexual reconviction. From this baseline,
long-term risk assessment, treatment, and supervision strategies can be put
into place to reduce the risk of sexual recidivism.
This risk assessment instrument was developed by Hanson and Thornton
(1999) based on follow- up studies from Canada and the United Kingdom

22
with a total sample size of 1,301 sexual offenders. (According to followup communication from ODRC staff, the original article that produced the
STATIC 99 was published in 1998 by Hanson and Bussiere and was a
meta-analysis of 69 studies that included over 20,000 offenders, and that
the STATIC 99 is reportedly based on a study of approximately 24,000
sex offenders.) The STATIC-99 consists of 10 items and produces
estimates of future risk based upon the number of risk factors present in
any one individual.
The strengths of the STATIC-99 are that it uses risk factors that have been
empirically shown to be associated with sexual recidivism and the
STATIC-99 gives explicit rules for combining these factors into a total
risk score. This instrument provides explicit probability estimates of
sexual reconviction, is easily scored, and has been shown to be robustly
predictive across several settings using a variety of samples. The
weaknesses of the STATIC-99 are that it demonstrates only moderate
predictive accuracy and that it does not include all the factors that might
be included in a wide-ranging risk assessment. (Harris, Phenix, Hanson, &
Thornton. p. 3.)
Three basic types of information are gathered for the STATIC-99 to make an
assessment 1 :
•

Demographic Information includes the age of the offender, and whether or not
the offender has lived with an intimate partner for more than two years.

•

Official Criminal Record includes any convictions of the following: Index nonsexual violence, prior non-sexual violence, prior sex offenses, prior sentencing
dates, and non-contact sex offenses.

•

Victim information includes unrelated victims, stranger victims, and male
victims. The evaluator must have information on the pre-offense relationship
between the victim and offender.

The STATIC-99 Coding Rules Manual states that the instrument is designed for use with
adult males. The instrument is NOT recommended for females, young offenders (those
having an age of less than 18 years at the time of release) or for offenders who have only
been convicted of prostitution-related offenses, pimping, sex in public locations, or
possession of pornography/indecent materials.
Despite the manual’s clear language stating the unreliability of the instrument in certain
circumstances, STATIC-99 is the primary instrument used by DRC for all sex offenders,
which may include the above offenses. Clearly, either a different instrument is needed
for those offenses that the manual states will not provide accuracy, or greater research is
1

For an annotated list of STATIC-99 questions, see Appendix A.

23
needed to ensure that the STATIC-99 instrument is a valid risk assessment for those
offenders. A new risk assessment should be done for any offenders who were assessed by
the STATIC-99 and have only been convicted of prostitution-related offenses, pimping,
sex in public locations, or possession of pornography/indecent materials.
DRC classifies anyone as a sex offender if he/she is sentenced for a sexually oriented
offense or has been convicted of a prior adult sexually oriented offense in the past 15
years. This length of time exceeds what is recommended by the STATIC-99, which states
that it is best applied to those offenders who have had between two to 10 years in the
community without a new sexually related offense. It is not applicable to offenders with
more than 10 years in the community without a sexually related offense, currently serving
a new sentence for a new technical, or other minor non-violent offense.
It is not currently known how the STATIC-99 came to be the preferred actuarial test for
the DRC. In a meta-analysis of 95 sex offender recidivism studies, prepared by Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada and published in 2004, it was reported that
all actuarial risk scales used were far better predictors of sexual recidivism than
unstructured clinical assessments. DRC's move toward a stable, research-based risk
assessment model is thus positive and encouraged.
According to the study, the average predictive accuracy of all individual risk scales
ranged from moderate to high. According to ODRC staff, the STATIC-99 is considered
to be the “gold standard in the field.” It was further relayed that as all risk assessments,
the STATIC-99 has its weaknesses, but it is reportedly considered to be on the upper end
of predictive capability. Currently, as the STATIC-99 is not an accurate predictor for
females, the Minnesota Sex Offender Assessment Tool is used for women. However,
there is no data available regarding the differences in accuracy for Ohio offenders, or
why the Minnesota test is not used for all offenders. According to ODRC staff, the
Minnesota Sex Offender Assessment Tool is not used to produce a risk level, but to serve
as a framework for organizing information and data on female sex offenders.
In fact, the study notes that there was significant variability in the predictive accuracy of
the STATIC-99 across studies, which could not be attributed to any single exceptional
study. Specific reasons were not given for the variability in the test. Considering the
heavy weight that is given to the risk assessment determined by STATIC-99, including
whether or not the inmate is even provided treatment within the institution, an intraDepartmental study should be conducted to determine the accuracy of the STATIC-99 in
predicting sexual recidivism.
B. RISK LEVELS
Coding on the STATIC-99 is based on a scoring system on a scale of zero to 12 2 . The
scores are grouped together with corresponding risk categories that label the level of risk
the offender poses to re-offend upon release. Research has shown that the higher the

2

A replication of the STATIC-99 scoring sheet may be found under Appendix B

24
offender scores on the STATIC-99, the more the offender poses a potential risk to reoffend.
Table 10. STATIC-99 Risk Score and Label for Risk Category
Risk Score
0-1
2-3
4-5
6 plus

Label for Risk Category
Low
Moderate-Low
Moderate-High
High

It is extremely important to recognize that certain factors may influence the Risk Level
beyond the initial evaluation and/or the static variables. The STATIC-99 manual states
that institutional conduct reports for sexual misbehaviors that would likely result in a
charge were the offender not already in custody would count as charges on the STATIC99 scoring sheet. However, extreme caution in judgment is needed on the part of the
evaluator. For example, as stated in the manual:
In a prison environment it is important to distinguish between targeted
activity and non-targeted activity. Institutional disciplinary reports that
result from an offender who specifically chooses a female officer and
masturbates in front of her, where she is the obvious and intended target of
the act, would count as a “charge” and hence, could stand as an Index
offense. The alternative situation is where an offender who is masturbating
in his cell is discovered by a female officer and she is not an obvious and
intended target. In some jurisdictions, this would lead to a Disciplinary
Report…[but does] not count as a “charge” and could not stand as an
Index offense.
This factor is crucial to the use and evaluation of the STATIC-99 assessment because it
implies that numerous offenders within the corrections system could exist who, due to
their actions within the institution, should be assigned higher Risk Levels. As the
differences in the consequences of being labeled a Low Risk versus a High Risk offender
are quite substantial, staff must be vigilant in documenting sexual misconduct. A DRC
inmate writes regarding masturbation in front of female officers,
It's a game to these inmates. Some women will let you keep doing it by
standing there watching. Some will just keep walking by…Inmates take
showers while the women [officers] sit there watching. The men would
come out of the shower stall and stand there, jacking off. I asked [an
officer] don't it bother her. She said, "Boys will be boys."
The potential discrepancy between an erroneous Risk Level assessment and later reoffense behavior may also skew the findings of any evaluation performed on the accuracy
of the STATIC-99.

25
There have been at least two studies conducted within the ODRC to determine the
approximate number of inmates categorized as sex offenders, and their assigned
categories. A breakdown of all sex offenders per risk category is currently being
developed by ODRC. Prior to the development of SORRC, the risk assessment tool was
not used. The Sex Offender Risk Reduction Task Force reported a study of 430 randomly
sampled incarcerated sex offenders that showed 59.5% were determined to fall within the
Low to Moderate-Low risk to re-offend category. The remaining 40.5% of the
incarcerated sex offenders were identified as Moderate-High to High Risk to re-offend.
According to the report, these offenders are eligible, based on meeting the criteria, to
participate in the ODRC sex offender treatment programs.
A study of another group of 2,200-2,300 incarcerated sex offenders had also been
conducted by the ODRC, the findings of which were presented in the Sex Offender Risk
Reduction Task Force Report. This study tracked the inmates from their movement from
SORCC to their parent institutions over a time period of 21 months, and revealed that
43% fell into the Moderate-High to High-risk categories. Of those inmates tracked in the
study, 218 sex offenders were transferred to Belmont Correctional Institution, and 247
sex offenders were transferred to the Richland Correctional Institution. Of the 218
transferred to BeCI, 87 or 40% were categorized as High Risk. Of the 247 sex offenders
transferred to RiCI, 120 or 49% were categorized as High Risk. Neither of these
institutions have a sex offender program. However, per the implementation of the new
standardized sex offender treatment programs, both the Comprehensive and Denier's
programs will be established at these two facilities.
C. RECIDIVISM BY RISK LEVEL
The STATIC-99 Coding Rules manual provides information regarding the recidivism risk
estimates for both sexual and violent recidivism. The following tables, STATIC-99
Sexual Recidivism Percentages by Risk Level and STATIC-99 Violent Recidivism
Percentages by Risk Level predict the percentage of released sex offenders who will
recidivate over 5, 10, or 15 years.
As stated in the Coding Rules manual, the recidivism estimates provided by the STATIC99 are group estimates based upon reconvictions and were derived from groups of
individuals with these characteristics. As such, these estimates do not directly correspond
to the recidivism risk of an individual offender. The offender’s risk may be higher or
lower than the probabilities estimated in the STATIC-99 depending on other risk factors
not measured by this instrument.
The following data is based on a total sample size of 1,086 sex offenders. The Tables
state the number of offenders, out of the total sample size, who were assessed a STATIC99 Risk Level and the corresponding percentage who were reconvicted of a sexual
offense. For example, if an offender scored a “4” on the STATIC-99 we would read
across the table and find that this estimate is based upon a sample size of 190 offenders,
which comprised 18% of the original sample. Reading further, an offender with a score
of “4” on the STATIC-99 is estimated as having a 26% chance of sexual reconviction in

26
the first 5 years of liberty, a 31% chance of sexual reconviction over 10 years, and a 36%
chance of sexual reconviction over 15 years.
Table 11. STATIC-99 Sexual Recidivism Percentages by Risk Level
STATIC-99

0
1
2
3
4
5
6+
Average
3.2

Sample size

Sexual recidivism
5 years

10 years

15 years

107 (10%)
150 (14%)
204 (19%)
206 (19%)
190 (18%)
100 (9%)
129 (12%)

.05
.06
.09
.12
.26
.33
.39

.11
.07
.13
.14
.31
.38
.45

.13
.07
.16
.19
.36
.40
.52

1086 (100%)

.18

.22

.26

Table 12. STATIC-99 Violent Recidivism Percentages by Risk Level
STATIC-99

0
1
2
3
4
5
6+
Average
3.2

Sample size

Violent recidivism
5 years

10 years

15 years

107 (10%)
150 (14%)
204 (19%)
206 (19%)
190 (18%)
100 (9%)
129 (12%)

.06
.11
.17
.22
.36
.42
.44

.12
.17
.25
.27
.44
.48
.51

.15
.18
.30
.34
.52
.52
.59

1086 (100%)

.25

.32

.37

According to the Coding Rules manual, there were insufficient cases to provide reliable
estimates for offenders with higher scores than 6 and, thus, insufficient evidence to
conclude that offenders with scores greater than 6 are higher risk to re-offend than those
who have a score of 6. However, as an offender’s score increases, there is increased
confidence that he is indeed a member of the high-risk group.

27
D. ASSESSMENT TOOL: MINNESOTA SEX OFFENDER SCREENING TOOL-REVISED
The sex offender risk assessment tool for women in the Ohio corrections system, the
Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool (MnSOST-R), was developed to specifically
predict sexual recidivism. However, according to ODRC staff, it is not used to produce a
risk level, but rather to serve as a framework for organizing information and data on
female sex offenders. According to a paper published by Epperson, et. al, the developer
of the MnSOST-R, the assessment tool is based on the following 16 variables:
•

Dynamic Variables
o Discipline history while incarcerated
o Sex offender treatment history while incarcerated
o Chemical dependency treatment history while incarcerated
o Age at release

•

Criminality/Chronicity Variables
o Adolescent antisocial behavior
o Number of sex offense convictions
o Number of different age groups victimized
o Length of sex offending history

•

Offense-Related Variables
o Use of threat or force to achieve compliance in any sex offense
o Any victim 13 to 15 years of age and 5- year age difference
o Any sex offense committed in a public place
o Any victim who was a stranger to the offender
o Any offense involving multiple sex acts in a single event contact
o Any sex offense committed while on supervision

•

Unstable Lifestyle Variables
o Substance abuse
o Unstable employment history

As there is a much smaller pool of female sex offenders within the Ohio corrections
system, this tool is utilized far less frequently. However, accuracy is just as important.
Unfortunately, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the MnSOST-R. According
to one study:
The MnSOST-R failed to meet conventional levels of statistical
significance in the prediction of serious and sexual recidivism…Scoring
the MnSOST-R requires reading of extensive manual material, a relatively
large amount of training of the coders, and a high degree of diligence
among the coders…we found the MnSOST-R to be the most difficult of
the actuarial measures to code…

28
This study found that the MnSOST-R had fewer advantages than the other
four actuarial measures. First, it was not successful in predicting
important recidivism outcomes. Second, it was difficult and more
expensive to code and score. Finally, it did not allow for the assessment
of intrafamilial child molesters. (Barbaree, Seto, Langton, and Peacock,
2001.)
Another study states:
To date, few replication studies have been conducted regarding the
MnSOST-R…Follow-up studies with the MnSOST-R have found less
robust findings [than the MnSOST-R developers].
Epperson and
colleagues used only rapists and extrafamilial child molesters in the
development of the test. In addition, the recidivism base rate reported in
the Epperson, Kaul, et.al. (1999) study was considerably higher than what
is typically found in sex offender samples, therefore possibly lessening the
instrument’s generalizability.
Unlike the other instruments included in the study, the MnSOST-R failed
to reach significant levels of validity when the whole sample of offenders
was considered…Even when the sample was confined to [a group similar
to that upon which the tool was developed], the MnSOST-R failed to
establish predictive validity in terms of sexual or violent recidivism.
(Bartosh, Garby, Lewis, Gray, 2003.)
As with the STATIC-99, research needs to be conducted and presented demonstrating the
MnSOST-R's accuracy with Ohio sex offenders.
V. SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS AND TREATMENT
ISSUES: WHAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN OHIO PRISONS
All offenders determined to be sex offenders based on their conviction participate in
Basic Education while at the SORRC centers. After completing Basic Education,
offenders labeled Low risk to re-offend are not offered further treatment. Offenders
labeled Moderate-Low reportedly may be offered treatment at the discretion of the
Clinical Director. Offenders labeled High or High-Moderate continue to Comprehensive
Education, unless they refuse further treatment.
Comprehensive Sex Offender Programs and Denier’s Programs (for inmates who deny
their crimes) will be expanded to additional institutions pending the implementation of
the new sex offender program policy.
Previously, ODRC hoped that it would have a Denier’s Program in late spring 2005 at
each institution where a comprehensive program exists. Staff training must be completed
before any such programming is implemented, which is expected to occur in October or
November 2005.

29
A. SORRC BASIC SEX OFFENDER EDUCATION
According to SORRC program literature, Basic Education is described as follows:
Basic Education is a regimen of psycho-education for all inmates
classified as sex offenders. It is an educational intervention
designed to provide information to the offender on victim
awareness, the dynamics of sexual assault, and deviant behavior
cycles. Twenty hours of basic Sex Offender Education will be
provided to all sex offenders being assessed at SORRC.
Approximately 1,300 offenders per year will receive Sex Offender
Education. The major purpose of sex offender services is to
ensure that all sex offenders committed to DR&C are
confronted with the effects of their offenses on their victims.
The education curriculum consists of developing an understanding
of: the wrongfulness of sexual assault; victim awareness;
compulsive or addictive behaviors; and, how systems of denial
work. The SORRC seeks to decrease the risk of an offender to reoffend in an effort to enhance public safety, by encouraging the
offender to take responsibility for their actions.
The twenty hours of SORRC Basic Education are divided into ten classes involving the
following topics:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Introduction and Pre-Test
HIV/STDs
Changing the Way You Think
Thinking Errors
Sexual Assault Awareness
Child Sexual Abuse
Behavior Chains/Cycles
Introduction to Treatment
Community Supervision
Post-Test

The class facilitator is given a binder with the lectures written verbatim, as well as
specific instructions to the facilitator, including when to pause and what questions to ask
the class. Class lectures include: statistical information, basic explanations of
psychological theories, opportunities for class discussion, group work, and videos. The
main portion of the program as it relates to understanding offense behavior and making
an individual, positive change is included in the following classes:

30
•

Changing The Way You Think introduces the "Stages of Change Model." The
Stages of Change Model states that there are four stages in any change:
o Pre-contemplation Stage, or the stage before an offender realizes or
admits that he has a problem;
o Contemplation Stage, or the point at which an offender realizes that he
has a problem, but has not yet committed to change;
o Action Stage, wherein the offender sets goals and takes action to begin
change; and
o Maintenance Stage, in which the change has happened and now needs to
be maintained in daily living.

•

Thinking Errors are ways or patterns of thinking that determine what a person
will do. Thinking Errors are based on Power and Control, which are the basic
building blocks of criminal and sexually abusive behavior. The eight Thinking
Errors are:
o Pride;
o Fear of a putdown;
o Anger;
o Victim stance thinking;
o Ownership thinking
o Failure to put oneself in another's position
o Failure to consider injury to others
o I CAN'T
The class also instructs how to maintain an "open channel of communication,"
including disclosure, receptivity, and self-criticism, as well as how to effectively
deal with the Thinking Errors.

•

Sexual Assault Awareness covers all aspects of sexual assaults, including:
o Offender characteristics, such as denial, secrecy, blaming, and
manipulation;
o Definitions of sexual assault and sexual conduct offenses;
o An in-depth examination of rape, coercion, and consent, including the
Six Point Redefinition of Rape and marital rape; and,
o Precipitating factors , such as alcohol, drugs, and violent pornography.

•

Child Sexual Abuse provides general information regarding child sexual abuse,
including different types of sexual abuse toward children and the methodology of
a child molester, which includes:
o Setup, or the pattern of all behaviors that the child molester uses to create
opportunities to molest children; and
o Grooming behaviors, which make the victim less likely to resist or to
make others unaware of what he is doing.
The class also addresses sex offenses on the Internet.

31
•

Destructive Behavior Cycles requires an offender to examine the behavior
patterns that lead to sex offenses. The behavior cycle is composed of the
following chain:
o Perception à Feelings à Thought à Behavior

The Basic Education class, outlined above, is the only exposure that offenders labeled
Low and the majority of offenders labeled Moderate-Low have to “treatment.” The class
requires only that the offender sit through it, not that he or she passes the Post-Test (see
Appendix C). If the offender is motivated to change his or her own behavior, the class
has useful data and some thought-provoking topics.
Howeve r, as the class consists mostly of lectures and handouts and could conceivably be
conducted by someone with no psychological experience, reportedly, an offender who is
not motivated to change or who has no previous success in a classroom setting may feel
alienated by the class and may leave the Basic Education unaffected.
Some studies have purported that intensive programming for low-risk offenders may do
more harm than good. However, no current research available has shown that this class
has decreased recidivism. A comprehensive evaluation of the Basic Education class and
its effects on recidivism are needed, either to justify it or to provide impetus for
improvement.
B. COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMMING AVAILABILITY
Comprehensive Programming is for inmates assigned a risk level of Moderate-High,
High risk to re-offend, and Low-Moderate as designated by the SORRC Program
Director. Comprehensive Programs and Denier’s Programs (for inmates who deny their
crimes) are or will be provided at the following institutions pending the implementation
of the new sex offender program policy:
Chillicothe Correctional Institution
North Central Correctional Institution
Hocking Correctional Facility*
Belmont Correctional Institution

Lebanon Correctional Institution
Madison Correctional Institution
Richland Correctional Institution
Ohio Reformatory for Women

*In follow-up communication from ODRC staff, it was relayed that under the new draft policy, ODRC
does not have a sex offender program at Hocking Correctional Facility.

Specialized sex offender programming is provided for sex offenders with mental
retardation at the Sugar Creek Developmental Center at the Allen Correctional Institution
and geriatric sex offenders at the Hocking Correctional Facility. The Sugar Creek
Developmental Center is in the process of being revamped with the direction and
assistance of the Department of MRDD. Comparable specialized sex offender
programming is provided for female sex offenders at the Ohio Reformatory for Women
The standard length of comprehensive programming is 18 to 24 months. Reportedly, the
programs had a total capacity to treat 525 sex offenders at a time. The current number of

32
sex offenders enrolled, as of January 2005, was 450. The number of enrollees was not at
capacity due to terminations from the programs and the restructuring of the programs.
Waiting lists exist for entrance into the programs, i.e. North Central Correctional
Institut ion had a waiting list of approximately 75 to 80 inmates. Reportedly, the average
time to wait to enter a program is 12 to 18 months, due to the “class” format that is used
in the programming. A class completes the segment of programming, and no one is
added, even if inmates are terminated from the class. DRC plans to reduce the waiting
time to enter a program by modifying the “class” format and integrating the processing of
inmates needing Comprehensive Programming with the Department’s Reentry
Manageme nt Process. No research is available regarding how this will affect treatment,
or whether the addition of new inmates to a group may decrease the group members'
openness to treatment.
According to a recent seminar designed to instruct law enforcement and correctional
professionals on the recent changes in Ohio's sex offender programming, Ohio had 9,297
sex offenders in its institutions as of August 31, 2004. Of that number, reportedly 43%
were assessed as High Risk to sexually re-offend, or 3998 inmates. Creating a best-case
scenario for the DRC by using only the High Risk offenders (excluding the ModerateHigh or Moderate-Low offenders who are also eligible for treatment), at maximum
program capacity (525 inmates) for the minimum length of time (18 mont hs), it would
take approximately 137 months, or 11 ½ years, for those inmates currently within Ohio's
institutions to complete treatment.
According to a study published in the Ohio Corrections Research Compendium of 2004,
the median expected length of stay for all offenders of sex-related crime entering the
system during the study period was only 710 days (1.9 years). Those convicted of rape,
the majority of whom could be expected to fall within the High Risk category, had a
median expected length of stay that was the longest, six years (Shoaf 189).
Thus, it may be concluded that the majority of Ohio's sex offenders within its institutions
will not have 11 years to wait for a program to become available. The total inmate
capacity of the sex offender treatment programs needs to be increased.
C. COMPREHENSIVE SEX OFFENDER PROGRAMMING
Comprehensive Programming addresses all sex offender treatment goals and objectives,
is long-term, and focuses on relapse prevention strategies. According to the Department’s
policy, relapse prevention is a self- management model that equips sex offenders with
coping strategies and interventions to stop and manage the internal process of personality
functions, which lead to a sex offense. ODRC operates sex offender programs based on
the premise that effective programming can reduce the risk of sexual re-offending when
incarcerated sex offenders are released into the community. The Department’s
programming philosophy views sexual offending as a behavioral disorder that cannot be
“cured”. The programming is victim centered, and operates on the premise that sex
offenders can choose to commit sexually aggressive acts or can choose to manage their
thoughts, fantasies, and behaviors to the point that they do not commit more sex offenses.

33
The Comprehensive Program syllabus was not provided to CIIC staff, nor was research
data regarding the effectiveness of the above program in reducing sex offender
recidivism. ODRC staff have indicated that the finalized program manuals for the
Deniers and Comprehensive Programs will be made available to CIIC staff. Based on
available information, the following issues of concern have been identified:
•

Lack of psychological treatment. The Comprehensive Program has no
psychological treatment component. ODRC staff have relayed that the
Comprehensive Program is nothing like Basic Education, and that the
Comprehensive Program is a cognitive-behavioral program.

•

Lack of addressing precipitating factors that increase an offender’s risk to
re-offend, such as substance abuse. According to one study, “research has
demonstrated that substance abuse is one of the most salient issues associated
with sexual offending…sexual offenders evidenced a distinct pattern of substance
abuse in comparison to violent nonsexual offenders.” (Abracen, et. al., 2004.) In
addition, the ODRC profile of Ohio sex offenders identified substance abuse as a
correlating factor to sexual offending. A sex offender’s ability to utilize skills
learned through programming to cognitively recognize, evaluate, and resist his
own sexual proclivities may be significantly impaired if he is habitually under the
influence once released to general society.

•

Lack of aftercare aspect. Reportedly, once an offender has completed treatment,
no follow-up treatment is provided within the institution.

D. DENIER’S PROGRAM
According to information provided to CIIC, the program agenda for the Denier’s
Program consists of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Orientation and Pre-Test;
Introduction to Victim Empathy;
Understanding Empathy;
Effects of Sexual Victimization;
Domestic Violence and Its Victims;
Violence and Its Effect on the Community;
Cognitive Distortions that Support Sexual Assault;
Levels of Denial of Responsibility;
Myths and Realities About Rape;
Understanding Male Rape;
Sexual Abuse Victims and Re-victimization;
Long-Term Effects of Child Sexual Abuse;
Hate Crimes and Sexual Assault;
Pornography and Sexual Deviance;
Sex Offender Risk Management;

34
•
•

Sex Offender Risk Management Plan; and
Stages of Change.

In follow- up communication with ODRC staff, it was relayed that the above list of topics
has changed. The specific changes are not known at this writing.
Previously, there was no mandatory requirement for sexual offenders to participate in sex
offender programs, and therefore there were no sanctions applied to offenders who
refused to participate in programming. At most, the offenders would repeatedly be issued
continuances by the Parole Board for failure to avail themselves of programming that
addressed their offense behavior.
According to information provided by ODRC staff, with the implementation of the new
program curriculum, a disciplinary policy that existed previously to deal with inmates
who refused to participate in an alcohol and drug Intensive Outpatient Program at the
North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility, will be applied to sex offender programs. In
follow-up communication with ODRC staff, it was relayed that they are still meeting on
how to deal with sanctions for inmates refusing the Deniers Program. Although they
started with the procedure from the North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility, they are
revising the procedure.
DRC policy 52-RCP-09, North Coast Correctional Treatment Facility Admission Policy,
states that those inmates who refuse to participate in the IOP shall be dealt with through
the inmate disciplinary process for failure to accept their program assignment, as follows:
•

First Offense – The inmate may be issued a reprimand and be counseled
on the requirement to complete programming, unless aggravating
circumstances exist to warrant additional sanctions.

•

Second Offense – The Rules Infraction Board may impose appropriate
dispositions, to include disciplinary control placement.

•

Third Offense – The Rules Infraction Board may impose appropriate
dispositions; including referral to the reclassification committee for a
security level review and request for an institutional transfer.

In regard to why inmates would not want to participate in the programs, it was reported
that the most common reasons inmates have offered for refusal are that:
•
•
•

They believe that they do not have a problem;
They have pending appeals of the conviction for their offense; and
Concern regarding additional legal sanctions that they may incur if they disclose
unreported criminal activity in their autobiographical statement of their criminal
history per the comprehensive treatment program requirements.

35
Reportedly, offenders’ concerns regarding any further punitive legal sanctions can be
addressed by the new Deniers Program, which allows the offenders to circumvent further
prosecution with one exception.
According to DRC staff, the inmates do not have to admit to anything regarding past
offenses in the Denier’s Program. Per the requirements, to complete the Denier’s
Program, they must only attend the program sessions. At the conclusion of the Denier’s
Program, staff interviews the offender, and if the offender wants to admit to having a
problem and take full responsibility for their actions, then they can participate in the
comprehensive treatment programming. According to the Department, if in the offender’s
autobiographical statement, which is considered an ancillary item to the program, the
offender reports a crime, they reportedly cannot be prosecuted for it because the staff are
not requesting specific details about the crime.
The key element to the programming is to teach the offender relapse prevention strategies
that identify and negate the impulses that lead to criminal behavior. Staff do not want to
probe the offender for the specific details regarding any past offense behavior. However,
the exception to this rule is if the offender reports child sexual abuse, then they are
legally obligated to report the admission of the offender to the appropriate authorities.
Considering that the majority of sex offenders are convicted of sexual misconduct with a
person under the age of 18, it is possible that this "exception" will in fact affect the
treatment program and inhibit inmates from admitting the full measure of their criminal
activity.
The mandatory Sex Offender Denier’s Program is for sex offenders who have been
labeled High to Moderate-High risk to re-offend. It is a 17-week pretreatment program
that meets once a week for 90 minutes that is designed to address denial and
minimization, with victim empathy at its core. Offenders are reportedly taught Cognitive
Distortions, the Sexual Abuse Cycle, and Relapse Prevention, with an emphasis on Risk
Prevention.
According to the ODRC program literature, denial occurs in a continuum, where some
offenders completely deny they committed the offense. The dimensions of denial include
denial of the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Intent and premeditation;
Deviant arousal and fantasies;
Frequency of the deviant acts;
Intrusiveness of the offense behavior;
Injury to the victims;
Various types of grooming behavior.

Some offenders admit they committed the offenses, but minimize the harm to victims, the
extent of previous offenses, and their individual responsibility for the offense.

36
The 2001 "Profile of ODRC Sex Offenders Assessed at the Sexual Offender Risk
Reduction Center" measures offender denial at the time of the SORRC clinical
evaluation. To clarify the categories used, the study notes that when an offender
minimizes or blames the victim, he essentially denies part of the offense or that any
wrongdoing took place. For example, many times a sex offender will say that he only
touched the victim, when there may have been actual penetration, or the offender
contends that the victim "came on" to him or "asked for it." As determined by the study
in regard to the cohort of sex offenders analyzed, 61 percent of the child molesters, 71
percent of the teen molesters, 73 percent of the rapists, and 82 percent of the
offende rs with multiple age victims denied or minimized their role in the most
recent sex offense.
Table 13. Denial of Most Recent Sex Offense by Offender Type.
Child
Molesters
Offender Denial
No denial/
admits crime
Minimizes/
blames victim
Denies guilt

Teen
Molesters

Rapists

N
73

%
39

N
27

%
30

N
22

%
27

Multiple
Age
Victims
N
%
7
18

Total

55

30

48

53

40

48

15

40

158

40

58

31

15

17

21

25

16

42

110

28

N
129

%
33

Currently, only the Chillicothe Correctional Institution operates a functioning Denier’s
Program. As noted above, Mandatory Denier’s Programming reportedly will be
established at the Lebanon Correctional Institution, Madison Correctional Institution,
North Central Correctional Institution, Hocking Correctional Facility, Belmont
Correctional Institution, Richland Correctional Institution, and the Ohio Reformatory for
Women to correspond with comprehensive programming.
E. PROGRAMS FOR HIGH SECURITY INMATES
Sex offender programming in prison should be available to all sex offenders, regardless
of their institutional assignment or security level. It is recommended that sex offender
programs be expanded to ensure access of sex offenders at higher security populations.
With the implementation of the new standardized programming, this should not be a
difficult task to accomplish.
Currently there is only one facility that operates programs for inmates assigned to level
three (close security) facilities. The program at the Lebanon Correctional Institution
(LECI) consists of the standard Comprehensive Treatment Program, and a Denier’s
Program. It was reported as of January 2005, LECI had the fifth largest population of sex
offenders in all of Ohio’s prisons with 453 or 23 percent of the total LECI population.
Reportedly, ODRC staff believe that they can process all sex offenders assigned to

37
security Level three through LeCI. This is reportedly based on a calculation of several
factors including an inmate’s risk level, and the length of time to release.
The Mansfield Correctional Institution ranked fourth in number of identified sex
offenders with 547, or 23 percent of their population. Despite the lack of any type of
programming at that facility, between January 1, 2003 and September 23, 2004, 140 sex
offenders were transferred to MANCI from SORRC. Of that number, 84 inmates or 60
percent were classified as Moderate-High to High risk to re-offend.
There reportedly has never been an effort to establish sex offender programs at Ohio’s
only maximum- security institution. According to DRC staff, if an inmate who is
presently incarcerated at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility wants to receive
programming, and requests it, then he will receive individual counseling on Relapse
Prevention, and Fantasy Management. However, this reportedly does not happen
frequently.
One SOCF staff person relayed that their goal is to teach the inmate by providing the
tools needed to positively adjust to institutional life, and earn reduction in security to an
institution where the needed programming can be provided. Reportedly, if an inmate is
going to be released directly from SOCF into the community, during the reentry
programming provided by the inmate’s Case Manager, if there are indicators that such
counseling is needed, then the institution’s Unit Management Administrator will refer the
inmate to the Mental Health Department and one of the Psychologists will provide the
counseling. Reportedly, the inmate’s Case Manager will also provide the inmate with
resources that he can use in the community once released.
As noted in the CIIC Inspection and Evaluation Report of the SOCF, there were 189 sex
offenders incarcerated at SOCF as of December 6, 2004. As of July 1, 2005, the number
of sex offenders reportedly incarcerated at SOCF was 251, an increase of 32.8 percent.
SOCF has never had a sex offender program for inmates convicted of sexually related
offenses, or those who display sexually inappropriate behavior while housed in the
facility. Experience has shown that inmates may be ticketed for sex offenses while in
level three prisons and be increased to Level four security classification, resulting in a
transfer to SOCF and a corresponding absence of sex offender treatment to those who
appear to be most in need of it. Some inmates continue to receive conduct reports for
sexually inappropriate behavior while at SOCF. Some inmates and staff have cited the
behavior as a major issue.
Based on communication with SOCF staff, they are extremely receptive to
implementation of the standardized sex offender programming format. ODRC is urged to
promote the development of programming for sex offenders at SOCF. There is reason to
believe that these inmates pose the greatest risk to the community. Just because the
Parole Board will not parole inmates from SOCF, does not mean that inmates are not
released from SOCF. Offenders who have served their maximum sentence or their
definite sentence are in fact released from SOCF to the community.

38
F. OHIO REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN
The Director of Sex Offender Services at the Ohio Reformatory for Women (ORW)
shared the following information about their sex offender program. There are
approximately 114 female sex offenders at ORW. These women are either primary
perpetrator or codefendants in sexually related offenses, and their convictions range from
Rape to Solicitation after HIV positive diagnosis.
The programming that is currently offered at ORW includes a Comprehensive Risk
Assessment that gathers information regarding the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

Official account of instant sex offense;
Inmate’s account of the instant sex offense;
Psychosexual history;
Psychological testing to include cognitive behavioral testing;
Behavioral observations to include a mental status examination;
Clinical formulation that includes information on family history,
marital/relationship history, educational and vocational history, occupational
history, military history, health history, mental health history, substance abuse
history, and legal history;
Assessment of risk utilizing the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool; and
Summary of recommendations.

All participants must watch a Sex Offender Risk Management Video, which is a 90minute video that provides incarcerated sex offenders with the opportunity to begin
reflecting upon the long-standing detrimental effects of sexual abuse on victims. The
video emphasizes that sex offenders have the responsibility to confront the harm that they
have inflicted, and that sex offenders choose to commit sexual assaults. Further, the video
emphasizes that offenders identify the on–going risk factors that maintain maladaptive
behavior, other behaviors and situations that increase the potential risk to re-offend, and
the identification of thoughts and feeling that increase risk. The video program ends
providing sample strategies for offenders to manage risk to re-offend.
In addition to individual psychotherapy, comprehensive treatment programming exists at
ORW. The comprehensive sex offender programming lasts for two years, wherein the
offender must accept full responsibility for the crime, and must be three years from their
parole hearing or prison release.

39
The program is divided into three phases:
•

Phase One is psycho-educational and exposes offenders to basic information
including the following:

Legal Definitions of Various Sexual Crimes
Six Point Definition of Rape
What Is Consent
How Rape Happens
Domestic Violence
Victim Empathy

Myths Regarding Sexual Assault
What Is Sex
What Is Coercion
Facts About Marital Rape
Childhood Sexual Abuse
Introduction to the Cognitive Model.

•

Phase Two of the treatment program has the offenders disclose their crime, learn
about their destructive behavior cycles, identify cognitive distortions, and explore
how thinking, feeling, and acting become a behavior chain. Offenders also
prepare an autobiographical statement and address the sex offense from their
victim’s perspective.

•

Phase Three of the treatment program requires the offender to demonstrate what
they have learned about themselves by developing a risk management plan.

G. SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS
According to information provided by ODRC, as of July 2005, there were 9,282 inmates
classified as sex offenders in the custody of the Department, and of those, 1,689 were
diagnosed as seriously mentally ill (SMI), comprising 18.2 percent of the sex offenders.
It was also reported that there were:
•
•
•
•
•
•

3

6 SMI offenders on Death Row,
424 SMI offenders assigned to security level one;
651 SMI offenders assigned to security level two;
519 SMI offenders assigned to security level three;
89 SMI offenders assigned to security level four; and
No SMI sex offenders assigned to security level five.3

Due to a Supreme Court ruling, no seriously mentally ill inmates may be housed at the Ohio State
Penitentiary, the only Level 5 security facility in the state.

40
Table 14. Number of Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders by Security Level
as of July 2005

SMI
Offenders

Death Row
6

SECURITY LEVEL
1
2
424
651

3
519

4
89

5
0

TOTAL 1,689

Classification/Security Level of Seriously Mentally Ill Offenders as of July 2005
NUMBER
Level Two
(Medium)
Level Three
(Close)
Level One
(Minimum)
Level Four
(Maximum)
Death Row
Level Five
(High Max
Total

PERCENT
651
519
424

6
0
1,689

Mentally ill sex offenders housed in Residential Treatment Units for extended lengths of
time have a legitimate need to participate in some sort of sex offender programming in
addition to their other mental health needs. The licensing and expertise of the RTU staff
to treat the mentally ill more than qualifies them to facilitate the new treatment
curriculum. However, some ODRC mental health staff reportedly do not want
involvement in sex offender treatment programs.
H. STAFFING LEVELS AND CREDENTIALING
Staffing is the most integral piece to ensuring that the new sex offender treatment
programming is effective. There are reportedly 25 staff slotted to operate the programs,
and they are drawn from a variety of mental health disciplines. The programs at the
Madison Correctional Institution, and the Ohio Reformatory for Women will be
supervised under the direction of one licensed Psychologist each. The programs at the
Richland Correctional Institution, North Central Correctional Institution, Chillicothe
Correctional Institution, and Lebanon Correctional Institution will be supervised and
directed by Human Services Administrators, who are considered experts in the field of
sex offenders due to their combination of significant work experience, subject
knowledge, and capacity to manage human services programs. The remaining staff will

41
be comprised of Licensed Social Workers, Psychology Assistants, and one clerical
position at the SORRC program.
The staff-training curriculum is reportedly still being developed. Training for the staff
was scheduled to occur over three and a half days near the end of November 2005. No
further information was available on the curriculum, or the training program for staff.
There are a limited number of Psychologists supervising these programs, reportedly
because more Psychologists would not necessarily enhance the program. According to
the Department, sex offending is not technically a mental health issue, and the
conventional mental health approaches to treating sex offenders reportedly do not work
well with regard to treating sex offenders. The principal goal that the Department hopes
to achieve with the program is getting the offender to focus on wanting to change,
accountability for their behavior, and therefore teaching the offender to change their
thought process. Reportedly this does not require a licensed Psychologist, and can be
done with Social Workers, and Psychology Assistants.
It was also reported that there are a limited number of professionally trained
Psychologists available who want to work in this particular field. It was also relayed that
it is somewhat difficult to recruit Psychologists who agree with and will use the treatment
model developed by the Department.
VI. FINDINGS OF ODRC SEX OFFENDER RISK REDUCTION REENTRY
TASK FORCE
The ODRC Sex Offender Risk Reduction Reentry Task Force was established in
response to issues identified by executive staff that reportedly “could pose serious
concerns for the Department.” According to the Task Force Report, the following
recommendations were made regarding important areas of concern for the Department
including:
•
•
•
•

Sex offender registration
Need to expand institution-based sex offender programming
Housing for sex offenders
Reentry of sex offenders into the community

The following 15 Task Force recommendations were developed to address five critical
areas regarded as the most important in the management and treatment of sex offenders:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Institution-based programs
Community management and supervision
Transfer and sharing of information
Community management
Continuing training and education.

42
Recommendation 1: A standardized statewide sex offender program curriculum
should be developed and implemented for use by all DRC sex offender progra ms.
The curriculum should ensure that all programs are providing the same information and
utilizing the same interventions. The curriculum should incorporate the principles that
drive effective correctional programming in targeting criminogenic needs. This
curriculum should also incorporate specialized programming for sex offenders in denial.
According to the Task Force report, the major goals of the programs are to help
offenders:
•
•
•
•
•

Accept responsibility for sexual offending;
Correct/change distorted thinking patterns;
Develop and maintain victim empathy;
Manage and control deviant sexual urges; and
Develop/internalize risk management strategies and skills.

No information on the basis of or research regarding the development of the curriculum
program was provided. No indication is made that post-programming or aftercare
opportunities for ongoing treatment and reinforcement will be provided to an inmate who
has completed the program, but who has not yet been released to society. In addition, the
"standardized" aspect of the program does not appear to allow for differentiation among
sex offenders, who may require different forms of treatment. According to an ODRC
report on Sex Offenders Assessed at SORRC published in 2001, "programming strategies
for child molesters should be different than those used with rapists."
Recommendation 2: A Sex Offender Program Quality Assurance Standard Operating
Procedure should be developed and implemented to monitor compliance with the
standardized curriculum and the Sex Offender Services policy, 67-MNH-12.
The Task Force report states that a Mental Health Standard Operating Procedure for
quality assurance should be written and approved. The procedure should include the
following activities:
• Monitoring and Evaluation;
• Record Review;
• Credentialing;
• Peer Review; and
• Utilization Review.
Recommendation 3: Institution-based Sex Offender Program staffing allocations should
be reviewed and assessed to ensure appropriate levels of staffing for Deniers and
Comprehensive Programs.
The Task Force report states that the review of staffing allocations should address the
following issues:

43
•
•
•

The addition of the Deniers Program;
The consistent allocation of staff, based on a staff to program participant ratio of
one staff to twenty-five program participants;
The start- up of another sex offender program in the Northern Region.

The Task Force also states that any changes in staffing allocations, including the start-up
of a new program, must be made within the existing sex offender program staffing level.
No consideration is reported regarding how to ensure appropriate staffing allocations,
given the addition of potentially two new programs and a drastically rising number of sex
offenders within the state. According to the same report, ODRC experienced a 27.5
percent increase in the total number of sex offenders incarcerated within one year.
Although sex offenders remain a small percentage of the overall inmate population, the
number of staff persons would have to substantially rise each year in order to maintain
current staffing levels.
In addition, no information is provided in the report regarding who or what determines
the definition of an "appropriate" staffing level. No research is provided regarding the
current staff- to-inmate ratio or the effect that a higher or lower ratio would have upon
treatment success.
Recommendation 4: All appropriate policies related to sex offender services should be
reviewed and revised, whenever necessary, to ensure continuity of service delivery. There
should be continuity between Bureau of Mental Health policies and Division of Parole
and Community Services policies addressing sex offender programming and
management.
The Task Force states that Policy 67-MNH-12, Sex Offender Services, should be
reviewed and revised to incorporate the new statewide curriculum and procedures to
standardize the implementation of sex offender programs statewide.
Recommendation 5: Programs and services provided by community-based providers
working with offenders under supervision should utilize the standardized sex offender
curriculum as guidelines for service delivery. There should be continuity between
institution-based and community-based sex offender programs.
The Task Force states that an inconsistency factor exists between the institutional
treatment programs. At the time, there was no standard curriculum for the six institutions
in which sex offender treatment is conducted. Reportedly, the community providers were
noticing a difference between offenders who had attended one program and offenders
who had attended a different program.
Further, each institutional treatment program should follow a standardized curriculum
that focuses on risk management. Similarly, the Task Force implies a desire to ensure
that the community treatment is also focused on risk management. The Task Force
states,

44
Not only will this encourage community treatment providers to offer a
curriculum essentially equivalent to the institutional programs, but it will
also make community providers aware of the standard curriculum offered
in the prisons.
However, the Task Force makes no mention of whether "risk management" is an
effective way to deal with sex offenders, nor is any research provided to support the idea
that the institution curriculum is of such a high standard that it should be employed by all
correctional entities, including post-release. In addition, the Task Force report does not
speak to the differences between the institutional programs, nor to whether one program
could be identified as superior. If one program has been shown to be successful with
Ohio sex offenders, it would be beneficial to study the reasons for the program's success
and to build upon it. However, no further information is provided and it appears that all
previous programming will be dropped in favor of the new programming.
Recommendation 6: The role and job description of the Adult Parole Authority Sex
Offender Specialist (SOS) should be reviewed and consistently defined. There should be
continuity between institution-based, community-based and APA service delivery; in
order for this to occur all SOS’s should be delivering services in consistent manner
throughout the state.
The Task Force report states that there has been inconsistency throughout the regions in
the delivery of sex offender services in the community. To address this issue, the role of
the Sex Offender Specialist should be well defined and consistently implemented
throughout the state.
Recommendation 7: The APA Sex Offender Treatment Grid should be reviewed to
ensure high-risk sex offenders are prioritized for sex offender services in the community.
The Task Force report states that the APA Sex Offender Specialists in conjunction with
selected institutional sex offender treatment providers created the Sex Offender
Treatment Grid. The goal of the grid was to more uniformly refer sex offenders to
treatment and to best utilize ancillary funds for the most appropriate offenders based
upon the STATIC-99 risk score and the type of sex offense committed.
Recommendation 8: Guidelines should be developed for the utilization of polygraphs
with sex offenders.
The Task Force report states that the polygraph is being utilized inconsistently throughout
the state. The use of polygraphs is based upon the requirements of individual treatment
providers. Some treatment providers use the polygraph to help break down denial or to
monitor compliance with treatment and conditions of supervision. The polygraph, given
its current role in sex offender management, is considered a "treatment tool."
The extent of the use of the polygraph, particularly within the context of supervision,
needs to be examined with a critical eye. Without examining this aspect of the program

45
in depth, a basic search for research revealed multiple studies that raise questions
regarding the accuracy of the polygraph. In general, the accuracy appears to be high;
thus, using the polygraph as one of many tools is regarded as entirely appropriate.
However, some states are proposing to use a failed polygraph test as sufficient reason to
revoke an ex-offender's parole. In this case, questions raised regarding the test’s accuracy
become problematic.
Recommendation 9: There should be an assessment of the current utilization of state-ofthe-art supervision technologies and practices, e.g., Global Positioning Satellite (GPS),
electronic monitoring. Statewide protocols should be developed to ensure that these
technologies are utilized with high-risk offenders.
The Task Force report states that Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) monitoring is
available in some areas of the state for use by APA Officers. This technology is not
currently used on a consistent basis. Reportedly, some areas/officers use all of the GPS
units available to them, while other areas/officers rarely utilize this technology.
Electronic monitoring is also being utilized in some parts of the state. This tool allows
the parole officer to know if/when an offender is in his home (to assist in curfew checks)
or the officer can drive by a particular place to determine if the offender is inside.
According to the Task Force, the utilization of advanced technologies in the management
of sex offenders should be part of a comprehensive approach to supervision. Guidelines
should be developed that ensure they are used with high-risk sex offenders, who present
the greatest danger to the public's safety.
Am. Sub. House Bill 66 of the 126th General Assembly, effective June 30, 2005, requires
the Adult Parole Authority to monitor sexually violent predators who have been released
from prison with an active global positioning system device for the offender's entire life,
unless the court removes the sexually violent predator classification. The bill requires the
Director of Budget and Management to transfer $100,000 from the Reparations Fund to
the Sex Offender Supervision Fund at the beginning of fiscal year 2005, and an additional
$75,000 at the beginning of fiscal year 2006. The total of $175,000 is due to the
approximately 79 sexually violent predators in the state of Ohio, though not all are
expected to be released within the biennium. Thus, it seems reasonable to desire not only
an assessment of the utilization of the state-of-the-art technologies but also an assessment
of the effectiveness of the technologies in the supervision in relation to the costs incurred.
Recommendation 10: A utilization review of halfway house resources should be
conducted. Guidelines for placement in halfway houses should ensure that only high- risk
offenders are placed.
According to the Task Force report, only 133 halfway house beds are available to the
over 5,700 sex offenders currently under APA supervision. The Task Force uses this
data to emphasize that appropriate placement in these beds is necessary and that halfway

46
house placement should be reserved for the highest risk and highest needs offenders. The
Task Force states that:
Unfortunately, sometimes low risk and/or previously treated sex offenders
are being placed in these facilities due to placement/housing issues.
Offenders may not have family members who are willing to house them or
they do not have a placement that is appropriate (i.e., children in the home
or home within 1,000 feet of a school). Other offenders may have been in
prison for a number of years and have no family members living.
However, the Task Force report does not do enough to emphasize its final statement that
additional sex offender specific halfway house beds should be added to
accommodate the increase in sex offenders under community supervision. The fact
that a sex offender is "low risk" or "previously treated" means, respectively, that the
offender is a risk or does not preclude him from being one. If an offender is released
from prison with little more than the $75 ODRC provides upon release, and is included in
the above description of having no family members living or willing to house him, his
tendency toward being "low risk" will only be helped through the assistance of halfway
house placement. Conversely, the offender's likelihood to re-offend will only increase if
he is shunted to a homeless shelter with little in the way of support.
Recommendation 11: Additional independent housing contracts should be
developed.
The Task Force report states that over the last year, the Bureau of Community Sanctions
has increased their independent housing contracts to add additional sex offender beds at
the following locations:
Mason Ministries (Cleveland)
Beulah's House
Build the Bridge (Columbus)
Cincinnati VOA

14
14
6
15

The Task Force also reports that there are other independent housing contracts that will
accept sex offenders throughout the state; however, there are none that are exclusively
designated for sex offenders. Independent housing is designated for use for low risk/low
needs sex offenders with non-community notification.
According to the report, the Adult Parole Authority does not specifically count homeless
sex offenders. However, as of 9/30/04, there were 169 offenders living in home less
shelters, and it is presumed that many of these would be sex offenders. Without a
doubt, treatment provided post-release will be enhanced by a more secure and stable
environment than a homeless shelter.
The director of an urban halfway house recently relayed her concern that the
majority of halfway houses and homeless shelters are located in extremely poor,

47
crime-ridden areas that place the released offender in the worst possible position to
make a true effort to "go straight." According to a 2003 publication of the Urban
Institute, 62% of inmates released in Ohio in 2001 returned to an urban area located in
Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Lucas, Summit, Montgomery, or Lorain County. 22% of
the inmates released returned specifically to Cuyahoga County. Using Cuyahoga County
as indicative of the other six urban areas, the majority of the inmates returned to the
five most economically-depressed areas within the county.
Sex offenders bear a tougher burden than most other released inmates, as legislative
action has increasingly restricted the areas in which they may live. A DRC Warden
recommended that sex offenders be separated not only into different risk levels, but
also into different categories. A community may be more accepting of certain offenses
rather than others, irrelative to potential risk of re-offense.
Recommendation 12: Regional Administrators and Regional Service Coordinators
should work with landlord associations, realtor associations, coalitions for the homeless,
and sexual assault coalitions to expand housing options at the local level.
The Task Force report states that the housing and placement issue is so profound
that the Department must develop partnerships in the community in its efforts to
address the problems in placing sex offenders when released from prison. This issue
is being experienced by states throughout the country. Innovative approaches are
required to make inroads into this problem. The Department must reach out to
entities and organizations in the community in the same manner that it reaches out
in the development of Citizens Circles.
Recommendation 13: A training curriculum should be developed for the
implementation of the standardized curriculum and to ensure that all staff working with
sex offenders in institutions and the community are knowledgeable about all policies
and procedure pertaining to sex offenders.
The Task Force report states that personnel throughout the Department who are involved
in the provision of services to sex offenders will be provided comprehensive training in
the standardized statewide curriculum and any revised policies and procedures that
impact sex offender services. Reportedly, an initial training regimen will be provided to
ensure that staff have a consistent understanding of policy, practice, and programming.
Ongoing training will be provided to maintain consistency in implementation.
According to DRC staff, the personnel who provide the sex offender services are not
required to be mental health professionals. In conjunction with the above education
on the policies and procedures, it is hoped that training and information regarding the
mental health needs of the sex offenders are provided to any staff involved in sex
offender programming.
Recommendation 14: Educational presentations, brochures and videotapes should be
developed for training and outreach with extra -departmental audiences, e.g.,

48
placement partners, the faith community, legislators, county commissioners, crime
victims, the media, schools, law enforcement, and the judiciary.
The Task Force report states that efforts must be made to educate and inform the
community about sex offenders. Entities in the community are not necessarily aware of
the issues that arise as sex offenders are released into their communities. According to
the Task Force, legislators and local government officials need to have a better
understanding of what the real issues are with sex offenders. The Task Force
recommends a document—"Myths and Realities About Sex Offenders"—produced by
the Center for Sex Offender Management, which it believes would be important to share
with decision- makers.
In light of the increasing excommunication of sexual offenders from communities, it is
particularly important that DRC emphasize that repeated studies show that most sexual
offenders do not re -offend sexually over time . According to a Canadian metaanalysis—"Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question"—which compiled the data of
ten follow-up studies of adult male sexual offenders, 73% of sexual offenders had not
been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offense after 15 years . As stated
by the study, this may be the most important finding as it is contrary to some strongly
held beliefs. The meta-analysis stated that a recent U.S. study of 9,691 sex offenders
found that the sexual recidivism rate was only 5.3% after three years. Such data may
increase the public's willingness to accept sex offenders back into its communities.
Recommendation 15: Funding sources should be sought to develop an electronic file
for the transfer of information on sex offenders that would be accessible to institutionbased staff, Division of Parole and Community Services personnel, and community-based
treatment providers.
The Task Force report states that an electronic sex offender file would enhance sex
offender management by ensuring that all relevant information is accessible to all entities
involved in the supervision, management, and treatment of sex offenders from the
institutions and into the community. An electronic file would be important in efficient
and effective reentry planning.
As part of the Task Force's vision, the electronic file would, at a minimum, contain the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Assessment from the Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center
STATIC-99 Risk Form
Institutional Treatment Summaries and Progress Notes
Clinical Risk Assessment
Relapse Prevention Plan
Case Notes from Parole Field Staff
Community Provider Treatment Summaries and Progress Notes.

49
In addition to the 15 recommendations, the Task Force also provides a number of long
term goals in areas that it believes need ongoing development, including:
•
•
•

Community placement and housing for sex offender;
Utilization of technologies, such as the GPS; and
Electronic sex offender files.

VII. ODRC IMPLEMENTATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT MISCONDUCT
POLICY
ODRC has implemented a new policy to meet the standards of the Prison Rape
Elimination Act of 2003. The policy 79-ISA-01, Inmate Sexual Assault and Misconduct,
was made effective July 1, 2005. It is the first policy of its kind, and draws together the
Department’s resources to ensure that staff is properly trained to identify, report, and
investigate instances of sexual assault. The policy also provides resources to educate
inmates upon intake at the three reception centers, as well as when they are transferred to
their parent institutions on issues regarding prevention, protection, reporting, treatment
and counseling.
The new policy establishes guidelines for the investigation of sexual assaults, and or
threats of sexual assaults. If the Investigator determines that a crime of sexual assault has
occurred, the State Highway Patrol will handle the criminal investigation. If the
investigation results in a Rules Infraction Board conviction of attempted or completed
sexual assault, the inmate will be considered for Disciplinary Control, and any or all
of the following:
•
•
•
•
•

Local Control,
Security increase,
Institutional separations,
Restitution, and
Sex Offender Basic Education Program.

All offenders that are found guilty of sexual assault, or attempted sexual assault while
incarcerated will have to complete Sex Offender Basic Education. After the offender has
completed their period in Disciplinary Control, and if recommended Local Control, they
are required to complete the Sex Offender Basic Education, and then are transferred to an
institution appropriate to their increase in security classification. Offenders increased to
security level 4B or 5, will complete the Basic Education at an institution designated
to house inmates assigned to those security levels. Any inmate that is not increased
in security to level 4B or 5 will be transferred to the Madison Correctional
Institution to complete SORRC. The offender will not have the STATIC-99
administered to them upon the completion of SORRC, unless the offender received
another commitment from an outside Court for the sexual misconduct.
However, it remains true that for a policy to be more than words on paper, people must
put its directives to use. In response to a question regarding the prevalence of inmate

50
rape within the institution, a DRC correctional officer responded, "You can't rape
the willing." Two other correctional officers concurred with this opinion. As
correctional officers are the persons responsible for identifying and stopping inmate
sexual assaults, the above attitude implies that a sexual assault never occurs, because the
action is always consensual. Another DRC staff person stated his belief that trading
sex for protection (sex by coercion) was not a sexual assault.
Under current DRC Administrative Rule 5120-9-06, Inmate Rules of Conduct, sexual
relations of any sort—whether consensual or otherwise—are considered a violation of
institutional rules. However, this has not stopped the sexual activity that takes place in
prison. A DRC inmate in SOCF writes,
They have sex in these prisons. I know, this is max, you can't do anything
in this place—wrong. You can even have sex on the yard. When I was
in 4B going out to Rec, inmate J. had sex with his boy. [The inmate] has
been here for years. Every CO and staff knows him…Anyway, you go out
to Rec, they put you in a single man cell or cage. Through the fence, you
have sex…The Rec COs [said] they bust people once a week having
sex out there.
Sexual activity within the system is not only a hindrance to rehabilitation and the
treatment programs put in place, but it may also threaten the security of the
institution. A DRC inmate writes,
When I first came into prison, first time and new, I was what they
called, "Open Game," from booty bandits. A bandit is one who preys
on new inmates, turn them out. They favor young white boys—they are
easy to turn gay. You have to earn your respect by busting someone's
head open, stab him, or kick his ass.
The inmate recounts his experience of another inmate coming onto him three weeks after
he arrived at CRC. Reportedly, when the other man made a move, the inmate used a
homemade weapon of razors and a toothbrush to slash the other man's throat. The threat
of sexual activity can result in increased violence within the institution. Staff need
to be vigilant in reporting all incidents of sexual activity. So long as attitudes such
as quoted above by DRC staff are in place, the number of incidents reported will be
far fewer than the actual number of occurrences.
DRC policy 79-ISA-01 also refers to sanctions for inmate/staff relations . According to
the policy,
Any employee determined to have engaged in sexual misconduct with an
inmate shall be subject to discipline consistent with the employee
standards of conduct, which may include termination of employment. The
employee may also be subject to criminal prosecution.

51
However, a DRC correctional officer alleged that staff/inmate relationships are not
uncommon within the correctional system, reportedly most frequently between
female officers and male inmates
VIII. SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS PROVIDED BY OTHER STATES
The following information was extracted from literature provided by the U.S. Department
of Justice-National Institute of Corrections, and the Colorado Department of Corrections,
who in cooperation with one another, conducted a survey of all 50 states in an effort to
compile information regarding sex offender treatment programs, titled Survey of State
Sex Offender Treatment Programs, which was published in August 2000. The survey
produced a profile of each state’s population of sex offenders, type of programs, capacity,
and duration of programs operated in each of the states that responded. The tables that
follow use data contained in the narrative section of the above report. In some cases,
conflicting figures were contained in either the narrative or cumulative tables.
A. SEX OFFENDER POPULATIONS BY STATE
The following tables give a sense of Ohio’s population of sex offenders as compared to
other states. According to the information provided by the survey, Ohio ranked 4th in
total number of incarcerated sex offenders , following Texas, California, and
Michigan.
However, the data should not be interpreted as Ohio’s population having a greater
number of sex offenders per capita in general than other states; the high number of
incarcerated sex offenders is the result of numerous factors, including sentencing laws,
levels of policing, victim advocacy, and community pressure, among others.

52
Table 15. States Ranked by Total Number of Incarcerated Sex Offenders
State
Texas
California
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Illinois
New York
Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
Wisconsin
Missouri
Colorado
Arizona
Washington
Tennessee
Massachusetts
Indiana
South Carolina
Connecticut
Oklahoma
New Jersey
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Arkansas
Iowa
Minnesota
Nevada
New Mexico
Hawaii
New Hampshire
Nebraska
South Dakota
West Virginia
Delaware
Alaska
Montana
District of Columbia
Rhode Island
Vermont
Wyoming
North Dakota

Total Number of Incarcerated Sex
Offenders
25,398
22,720
9756
9100
6931
6496
6272
5400
5101
4839
4000
3500
3391
3299
3117
3036
2769
2701
2300
2295
2200
2052
2002
2000
1912
1653
1228
1164
1000
910
634
633
562
550
518
504
496
465
429
405
362
257
161

53
Table 16. States Ranked by Percentage that Sex Offenders Comprise out of Total
Incarcerated Offenders
State
Montana
Vermont
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Alaska
Kansas
Colorado
Washington
South Dakota
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Virginia
Tennessee
New Mexico
Hawaii
Wyoming
North Dakota
Texas
West Virginia
Iowa
North Carolina
California
Missouri
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Nebraska
Arkansas
Arizona
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Georgia
Nevada
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Maryland
New York
Delaware
New Jersey
District of Columbia

Total Number of
Incarcerated Sex Offenders
465
362
633
2769
496
2002
3391
3117
550
9756
1164
9100
6931
4000
5400
3036
910
634
257
161
25398
518
1228
5101
22,720
3500
6496
2701
2000
562
1653
3299
2295
405
4839
1000
2300
2200
1912
6272
504
2052
429

Percentage of Total
Incarcerated Population
33%
29
27
26
24
23
22
22
22
21
20
19
19
19
18
18
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
16
15
14
14
14
14
14
13.8
13
13
13
11
11
10
10
8
8
8
7
7

54
B. TYPES OF SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMS
A review of the programs in the survey indicated that nearly every state reported using a
variety of cognitive behavioral-based treatment programming, which focuses on
relapse prevention, group counseling and therapy. A select number of other states
reported that they also operated Therapeutic/Residential Communities, or similar
programs, in addition to the aforementioned programming. Some states also reported
providing individual counseling.
According to the states that responded to the survey, most states reported that their
programs include components such as assessment for treatment, an orientation for
treatment program, education/psycho-education, cognitive-behavioral group
therapy, intensive treatment, transition into the community, and after care .

55

Table 17. States’ Methods of Sex Offender Treatment
State

Cognitive
BehavioralBased System
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

Relapse
Prevention

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana**
Maine
X
Massachusetts
X
Michigan
X
Minnesota
X
Missouri
X
Montana
X
Nebraska
X
Nevada
X
New Hampshire
X
New Jersey
X
New York
X
North Carolina
X
North Dakota
X
Ohio
X
Oklahoma
X
Pennsylvania
X
Rhode Island
X
South Carolina
X
South Dakota
X
Tennessee
X
Texas
X
Utah**
Vermont
X
Virginia
X
Washington
X
West Virginia
X
Wisconsin
X
Wyoming
X
* Projected for the fall of 2001
** Has program, but did not respond to survey.

Group Therapy/
Counseling

Therapeutic
Community

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X*

X
X
X
In preparation
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
Residential
X
X

56

As shown above, Ohio’s reported program shares multiple similarities with the other
states’ programs. However, Ohio does not currently use the Therapeutic Community
method of treatment, which 50% of the states use. The term “Therapeutic Community”
as used in the survey, describes a range of residential programming. Some states reported
a modified therapeutic community or a residential program with certain features of a
therapeutic community, such as a segregated unit for participants, specially trained
staff, intensive group therapy, and a reinforced atmosphere of mutual support.
C. MANDATORY VS. NON-MANDATORY PROGRAMMING
Table 18 describes in general, the states that responded to the 50 State Survey that have
mandatory program participation requirements for sex offenders while
incarcerated. The table also displays those who do not have mandatory programming,
and those states that require programming only if it is court ordered. Furthermore, some
states have parole stipulations only requiring that the offender must participate in sex
offender programming under community supervision.
At the time of the 50 State Survey:
•
•
•

22 states that responded to the survey did not mandate participation in sex
offender treatment programs while the offender is incarcerated;
Six states that did respond indicated that there are mandatory requirements;
Two states that responded to the survey reported that such programming would be
administered if ordered to do so by the court.

Several other states reported that they would either not parole a sex offender until
he completed programs, or that they would extend the offender’s sentence if he
refused to participate.

57
Table 18. Table of States Who Have Mandatory/Non-Mandatory Treatment
Programs
STATE
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New York
N. Carolina
N. Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
S. Carolina
S. Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

REQUIRED

NOT
REQUIRED

COURT
ORDERED
X

PAROLE OTHER

X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

58
Survey respondents reported the following consequences for an offender who denies a
sex offending problem or refuses treatment:
Consequence

Number of States

Restricted from a lower security or custody
Placement

12

Denied privileges

11

Subject to a reduction of time credits

11

Subject to consequences in consideration
for parole

9

Offered a denial phase of treatment

7

Given a certain classification

5

Subject to disciplinary action

2

D. OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT
According to the survey, states use a number of offender risk assessment tools covering a
spectrum of aptitudes, thought patterns, and behaviors. The variety of tools used among
the states is notable. With the exception of the Multiphasic Sexual Inventory, which is
used by 22 states, no one assessment tool among almost 50 listed by survey respondents
is used by more than six states.
The approach to this stage of assessment also varies widely. New York uses the crime of
commitment, the pre-sentence report, and a signed statement that the inmate is willing to
participate in treatment. Washington uses a battery of up to 25 instruments focused on
attitudes as well as areas such as relapse prevention knowledge and skills. Most states
employ between two and eight instruments, including the plethysmograph.

59
States Grouped by Number of Assessment Tools Used
1 to 3:

Arkansas
Georgia
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
Ohio
Washington

1
1
3
3
3
3
1
34
3

4 to 6:

Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
North Carolina
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont

4 to 5
4
5
6
4
5
5
5
5 or 6
4
4
5
6

More than 6:

Colorado
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia

14
7
12
8
9
7
8+
8

E. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
According to the survey, to measure offender progress in the program, 27 states use
clinical interviews and 18 states use psychological tests; most states use a combination of
both.

4

In the compiled information presented at the beginning of the survey, Ohio is stated as having four
assessment tests. However, the individual state summary provides only three: Multi-Phasic Sexual
Inventory, STATIC-99, and MMPI-2. Regardless, Ohio primarily uses only two, depending on the gender
of the offender: the STATIC-99 and the MnSOST-R.

60
In 17 states, the program has developed its own tools for assessing offender progress. At
the time of the survey, assessment tools for this purpose were being developed in fo ur
states.
Use of the polygraph, a recommendation of the DRC Sex Offender Risk Reduction
Reentry Task Force, was reported in 13 states. In some states, a polygraph is required or
provided through state sex offender treatment standards and/or legislation. For some
states, a polygraph is a standard component of the institutional program; for other states,
polygraphs for individual sex offenders are used at the discretion of treatment staff. A
number of states also use, or only use, polygraph examination as a tool for postrelease monitoring and aftercare.
F. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND STAFFING LEVEL RATIOS
According to the survey, only 29 states responded with information regarding the
required qualifications needed to operate programs. Reportedly, of the 29 states, 21 states
require state licensing or certification, and three reportedly require staff to possess
a masters degree or higher. In five states, such as is the case in Ohio, the only
requirement is training specific to sex offenders.
Per the survey, states reported the number of staff assigned to administer sex offender
programs. According to the report, the states that reported the highest number of staff
were Pennsylvania with 125, Michigan with 86, Texas with 65, and Massachusetts
with 54.
Table 19. Number of Staff Assigned to Sex Offender Programs in 2000
Staff
1-5
6-15
16-25
26-35
36-45

Number of States
5
10
2
3
3

According to the survey, Counselor/Participant ratio for group work is one counselor to
10-12 participants in most states. In two states, one counselor facilitates groups of up
to 20 participants. Seven states prefer one to two counselors for eight to 12 participants
in four states, as few as six participants in one state, and as many as 25 to 30 participants
in two states. (Program descriptions suggest that the larger groups are for classes rather
than interactive therapy.) Nine states use two counselors for groups of eight to 12 in
seven states, up to 20 in one state, and as low as six in one state.

61
Table 20. States Ranked by Staff/Inmate Ratios for Sex Offender Treatment
Programs in 2000
State

Staff to
Inmate Ratio
for Program

Total Staff

Therapeutic
Staff

Administrative
Staff

Total Inmate
Capacity

Colorado
Washington
Vermont
Nebraska
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Texas*
New Hampshire
Alaska
Massachusetts
Michigan
Kentucky
New York
South Carolina
Tennessee
Arizona
Ohio**
Oklahoma
Iowa
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Dakota
Montana
Missouri
Virginia
Wisconsin*

1:6
1:7
1:9
1:9
1:9
1:10
1:10
1:11
1:11
1:13
1:13
1:13
1:14
1:14
1:15
1:17
1:17
1:18
1:18
1:19
1:20
1:20
1:25
1:34
1:43
1:51

39
27
8
5
32
125
65
11
9
54
86
25
39
7
7
6
31
9
17
4
3
5
10
8
7
8

29
20
7
5
26
100
43
9
8
42
72
18
39
5
7
5
23
5
16
4
3
5

10
7
1
0
6
25
22
2
1
12
14
7
0
2
0
1
8
4
1
0
0
0

7
5
5

1
2
3

230
200
70
44
300
1200
624
120
102
690
1100
325
530
100
105
100
525
160
304
75
60
100
250
275
300
407

* Projected as of July 2000
** In regard to the eight administrative staff for Ohio Sex Offender Programs, according to ODRC staff,
these include the six Program Directors whose jobs include providing programming. The other two
positions are clerical.

62

Table 21. Sex Offender Treatment Program Staff in 2000 in Ohio and Other States
with Breakdown of Type of Staff
State

Therapeutic Staff

Pennsylvania
Michigan
Texas*
Massachusetts
Colorado
New York
Minnesota
Ohio
Washington
Kentucky
Iowa
New Hampshire
Montana
Oklahoma
Alaska
Vermont
Missouri
Wisconsin
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Arizona
Nebraska
South Dakota
North Carolina
North Dakota

100
72
43
42
29
39
26
23
20
18
16
9
?
5
8
7
7
5
5
7
5
5
5
5
4
3

*Projected as of July 2000.

Administrative
Staff
25
14
22
12
10
0
6
8
7
7
1
2
?
4
1
1
1
3
2
0
2
1
0
0
0
0

Total Staff
125
86
65
54
39
39
32
31
27
25
17
11
10
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
5
5
4
3

63
G. INMATE ENROLLMENT CAPACITY
According to the information provided by the 50 State Survey, Ohio had the sixth
highest inmate enrollment capacity (of the states that responded to the survey).
Table 22. Sex Offender Treatment Programs in 2000 in Ohio and Other States by
Inmate Enrollment Capacity
State
Pennsylvania
Michigan
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Texas*
New York
Ohio
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Kansas
Utah
Iowa
Minnesota
Virginia
Missouri
Montana
Georgia
Colorado
Washington
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Arkansas
New Hampshire
Hawaii
Tennessee
Alaska
Arizona
Rhode Island
South Dakota
South Carolina
North Carolina
Vermont
North Dakota
Nebraska
*Projected as of July 2000.

Inmate Capacity of Programs
1200
1100
800
690
624
530
525
407
325
316
307
304
300
300
275
250
240
230
200
176
160
120
120
110
105
102
100
100
100
100
75
70
60
44

64

According to the data presented in the following table, Ohio has an enrollment capacity
of only 5.8% of its sex offender population in its treatment programs at any given time
(using the total enrollment capacity of 525. As noted previously, Ohio actually averages
450, generally due to early termination of the program. Thus, Ohio has less than 5.8% of
its sex offenders actually enrolled.)
The survey reports that 30 programs report a wait list. Among those states, the number of
offenders on the wait list ranges from 10 in Vermont (out of 362 sex offenders) to more
than 1200 in Washington (out of 3,117 sex offenders). At the time of the survey, Ohio
reported 200 inmates on the wait list.
Table 23. States Ranked by Percentage of Total Incarcerated Sex Offenders Capable of Enrolling in Sex
Offender Programs
State

Inmate Enrollment
Capacity in Sex Offender
Programs

Total Number of
Incarcerated Sex
Offenders

Montana
New Jersey
North Dakota
West Virginia
Minnesota
Massachusetts
Iowa
Rhode Island
Alaska
Vermont
New Hampshire
South Dakota
Hawaii
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Kansas
Michigan
Wisconsin
New York
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Colorado
Washington
Ohio
Virginia
Georgia
South Carolina
Tennessee
Arizona
Texas*
North Carolina

250
800
60
176
300
690
304
100
102
70
120
100
110
1200
325
316
1100
407
530
275
44
160
120
230
200
525
300
240
100
105
100
624
75

465
2052
161
518
1164
2769
1228
405
496
362
633
550
634
6931
2000
2002
9756
4000
6272
3500
562
2200
1653
3391
3117
9100
5400
4839
2300
3036
3299
25398
5101

*Projected as of July 2005.

Percent of Total
Incarcerated Sex
Offenders Capable of
Enrollment in Treatment
Program
53.8%
40.0
37.3
34.0
25.8
24.9
24.8
24.7
20.6
19.3
19.0
18.2
17.4
17.3
16.3
15.8
11.3
10.2
8.5
7.9
7.8
7.3
7.3
6.8
6.4
5.8
5.6
5.0
4.3
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.2

65
H. DURATION OF SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM
States Grouped by Duration of Treatment Program
1 to 9 months :

Connecticut
Georgia
New York
North Carolina

6 months
9 months
6 months
5 months

1 to 2 years :

Arkansas
Kansas
Michigan
Missouri
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
South Carolina
Texas

1 year
18 months
1 year
12 to 15 mo nths
12 to 16 months
1 year to 18 months
Up to 2 years
1 to 2 years
Up to 18 months

Up to 3 years :

Alaska
Colorado
Iowa
Minnesota
Ohio
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

20 to 36 months
2+ years, until release
Up to 2+ years
18 months to 3 years
Up to 3 years
1 to 3 years
2+ years
Up to 3 years
Up to 3 years

Over 3 years :

Arizona
Kentucky
Maine (projected)
Massachusetts
Montana
New Jersey
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee

3 to 5 years
Minimum 2 years
3 years
6 to 6+ years
3+ years
3 to 4 years
2 to 5 years
3+ years
3 to 4 years

I. AFTERCARE
According to the information provided by the survey, 26 of the states that responded
reported an aftercare aspect to their program, including Ohio. The Sex Offender Risk
Reduction Reentry Task Force’s recommendations, described earlier in this evaluation,
focused on the aftercare and re -entry needs of Ohio sex offenders , indicating that
more work needs to be done.

66

In nine states, aftercare takes place in a community residential center or setting. In 25
states, aftercare takes place on parole. In Massachusetts, a network of statewide
community sex offender therapists provides services to offenders released on probation,
parole, or discharge from sentence.
At the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center (ADTC) in New Jersey, weekly aftercare
is provided for ADTC parolees, those under lifetime supervision, those released from
involuntary civil commitments, sex offenders mandated by registration, and ex- inmates
who volunteer for treatment.
In Virginia, some offenders receive intensive post-release supervision or halfway house
treatment, and/or continued counseling from community providers.
In Alaska, aftercare is provided by the Department of Corrections approved providers
under contract, who follow the same treatment standards as the institutional programs.
J. ADVISORY AND STANDARDS BOARDS/ENTITIES
In 14 states, the Department of Corrections has an internal system for tracking program
effectiveness. Systems are under development in seven other states. In Texas, a state
entity, the Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council, monitors the performance of state
programs.
Among survey respondents, 18 reported a state- mandated identification process for sex
offenders in prison. State mandates have also established eight advisory boards, as well
as ten boards or entities for setting standards and requirements for treatment. The board
in New Jersey, the special Classification Review Board, determines whether a sex
offender will be recommended for parole.
Two states reported boards that set standards but are not state-mandated. In Iowa, various
private and public groups established a separate certification board that serves as an
independent entity. Although Minnesota has no board, the Department of Corrections is
required by law to promulgate rules for program components, procedures, and standards.
A comparison is made with the state of Michigan, because it has a comparable
population of incarcerated sex offenders as Ohio. In 1999, they reported in the
survey that 9,567 identified sex offenders were incarcerated for active sex offenses
out of a total population of 44,617. Reportedly, their programs are administered by the
Department’s Bureau of Health Care Psychological Services Unit, and are developed
within the framework of cognitive-behavioral and relapse prevention models, which also
have aftercare for paroled sex offenders. Inmates are screened at reception, and are given
an assessment within 24 months of their first parole hearing. Reportedly, this period of
time allows for assessment, program participation, and progress evaluation. Programs,
which are voluntary, are 12 months in duration, and consist of group psychotherapy
for a minimum of two hours a week. Their program philosophy also adheres to the

67
tenant that sex offenders are fully responsible for their behaviors, and can never be
cured. The Michigan Department of Corrections limits their program availability to
offenders that are most likely to benefit from the taking part in the program. During the
screening process, offenders that have three or more felony convictions are excluded.
According to their research, offenders who fit this description are less likely to
benefit from the programs, and have higher rates of denial than others.
Furthermore, it was cited as being a more cost effective approach to administering
the programs.
K. PROGRAM COSTS
Only 16 survey respondents reported costs for both the overall Department of
Correction’s budget and the Department of Correction’s sex offender treatment program,
including personnel services and operating costs. Of those that responded, the percentage
of the overall DOC budget dedicated to the sex offender treatment program ranged from
.017% in New York to 14% in Kansas. The total cost of sex offender treatment ranged
from $250,000 in Arizona (.04% of the total DOC budget) to $3,800,000 in Minnesota
(1.16% of the total budget).
IX. SUMMARY OF RECIDIVISM STUDIES
CONDUCTED BY OTHER STATES
Several states reported in the 50 State Survey of State Sex Offender Treatment Programs,
on the collection of recidivism data on sexual offenders in their state. Summaries of the
findings reported by several states in the survey are listed below. According to the
survey, the number of years for tracking sex offenders after release ranges from three
years to life.
ALASKA: A study completed in 1996 tracked 685 sex offenders for up to nine years.
The study found that sex offenders who had completed treatment lasted significantly
longer before committing a new sex offense than sex offenders who had not completed
treatment.
COLORADO: Several studies conducted in 1989, 1994, and 1996 determined that sex
offenders who participated in more than 50 treatment sessions had a significantly
reduced chance of recidivating.
1988

Study tracked the new crime rate for offenders who participated in
treatment for more than 40 sessions, compared to those who had
completed less than 40 sessions.
Less than 40 sessions: 32%
More than 40 sessions: 8%

1994

The second review of those inmates in the 1988 study and their return to
prison for any new crime.

68

No treatment: 34%
Less than 50 sessions: 7%
More than 50 sessions: 2%
1995

Third review tracked the percentage, and treatment status of offenders
released between January 1994, and May 1996 who were returned to
prison for any reason, including for revocation for technical parole
violations. The study tracked 8,755 offenders, and 1,140 sex offenders.
Of the sex offenders who were released, 842 (74%) had not participated in
any treatment. 118 (10%) had participated in less than 50 treatment
sessions, and 180 (16%) participated in more than 50 treatment sessions.
The percentages represent those that were returned to prison.
Sex Offenders: No Treatment 21.6%
Less than 50 treatment sessions: 9.3%
More than 50 treatment sessions: 6.1%

KENTUCKY: A study conducted in 1997 followed 285 sex offenders for a period of
five years. It was concluded that sex offenders that received no treatment (8.7%) were
more likely to recidivate.
MASSACHUSETTS: Inmates participating in the program, if paroled, are generally
paroled to a structured intensive supervision program specifically designed for sex
offenders. At the time of the survey response, the program had been in place for
four years, at which time no new offenses had been committed by participating
offenders.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: A 1999 study revealed a 6.2% sexual offending re-arrest rate for
204 sex offenders who completed the Intensive Sex Offender Program and were
released for an average of 4.8 years. The recidivism rate was 12.4% for 435 sex
offenders who received no treatment and were released for 8.6 years. Arrests for other
criminal offenses were four times higher for the no-treatment group when compared
to the treatment group.
VERMONT: A 2000 study followed 190 offenders for 10 years. The re-arrest rates for
new offenses is as follows:
Completed Treatment:
Quit or were terminated from the program:
Received no treatment:

3.8%
22.4%
27.0%

69
X. RECOMMENDATIONS
ODRC's own report, "Profile of ODRC Sex Offenders Assessed at the Sex Offender Risk
Reduction Center," published in 2001, makes the following recommendations for future
research:
1. Formal review of SORRC.
SORRC has been open since 1995, and
improvements are continually being made to increase its effectiveness and
efficiency in reaching the sex offender population. There are currently five
components of SORRC, including risk assessments, comprehensive
assessments, basic education, pre -release programming, and community
service. The effectiveness of each component should be studied.
2. Risk assessment. Assessment of risk is crucial to the programming or
treatment offered to Ohio sex offenders. Although clinical judgments are used
and exceptions are made, generally, only those offenders designated as
moderate to high risk to sexually re -offend will receive a comprehensive
assessment from SORRC and extensive programming.
There are many risk instruments designed to specifically predict risk of
reoffending for sex offenders. However, it is widely suggested that the validity
of an instrument be assessed prior to use on a jurisdiction for which it was
not designed. In the interim, an immediate follow- up to this report can cover a
basic description of the offenders assessed at SORRC in relationship to the
various risk instruments designed for sex offenders. Those instruments include
the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASOR), the Static
99, the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOST-R) and the
Ohio Sex Offender Instrument (SOI).
3. Work with SORRC to define more precisely sub-populations of sex offenders
with particular programming needs. By defining these groups and estimating
each size, ODRC can improve allocation of staff within the sex offender treatment
arena.
Although this report was published in 2001, it does not appear that any follow-up
research has been conducted within the Department. As noted within the
recommendations, it is absolutely imperative that risk assessment procedures be fully
researched and evaluated, with evidence presented that the current model used does
in fact accurately project an inmate's risk of re -offending. The assessment determines
a multitude of issues for the inmate, including whether or not the inmate receives
treatment within the institution. Thus, the assessment needs to be accurate.
Despite the Department's own research recommendations , current thinking has
dictated that programming at all institutions will be standardized, without regard to the
different categories and corresponding needs of the offenders who are receiving the
treatment.

70
ODRC's report, "Ten Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases," also
published in 2001, makes the following recommendations for future research needs:
1.

Study of the mandatory educational program for sex offenders at SORRC.
A thorough analysis of this program would give the department an idea as to the
benefits, if any, of the mandatory program.

2.

Study of the STATIC-99 risk instrument used at SORRC, as well as the risk
instrument designed by DRC. These risk instruments combined with the
clinical assessment (theoretically) help to determine whether or not a sex
offender gets treatment. The obvious research question would be whether these
instruments have validity on an Ohio sex offender population. Can we say with
certainty that offenders who score high on these risk instruments actually
have a greater chance of sexual recidivism? Do those with a low risk score
have a lower rate of sexual re -offense?

3.

Evaluation of comprehensive sex offender programs. Do these programs
make a difference? Have they helped to reduce sex offender re -offending?
A thorough evaluation of these programs has not been conducted.

ODRC is strongly encouraged to follow through on the above recommendations and
to provide research data to the public regarding its treatment program policies. In
addition to ODRC's recommendations, the following are proposed:
•

Increase the total enrollment capacity in the sex offender treatment programs to
better provide services to the incarcerated sex offender population;

•

Provide extensive training to ODRC staff regarding the need for documentation of
sexual acts, and implementation of the zero-tolerance policy involving staff
sexual misconduct with inmates;

•

Facilitate the transfer of information from institutions regarding RIB convictions
related to inmate sexual misconduct to SORRC and require the re-evaluation of
the inmate’s assigned Risk Level based on the information;

•

Incorporate a much larger portion of substance abuse education into the
Comprehensive Sex Offender Program;

•

Provide an Aftercare Component to inmates who complete the Comprehensive
Program, but still have time remaining before release;

•

Develop sex offender treatment programming for high security inmates,
particularly those who will be released to the community from Level 4;

•

Develop creative methods of staff recruitment for the sex offender program,
particularly in light of the need for Psychologists;

71
•

Produce a follow-up to the Sex Offender Risk Reduction Reentry Task Force
recommendations, reporting on initiatives taken and changes made in response;

•

Consider the development of a Therapeutic Community aspect to sex offender
treatment; and,

•

Request ODRC to provide biennial evaluation reports, including resulting
recidivism rates, to the Ohio General Assembly.

72
XI. RESOURCES
The ODRC Director of Sex Offender Services facilitated communication and dialogue
between this office and those responsible for supervising sex offender programs in Ohio
prisons. The United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, and
the Solicitor General’s Office of Canada also supplied further information.
Abracen, Mailloux, Serin, Cousineau, Malcolm, and Looman. “A Model for the
Assessment of Static and Dynamic Factors in Sexual Offenders.” The Journal of Sex
Research. v. 41, n. 4, pp. 321-328. November 2004.
Barbaree, Howard, Michael Seto, Calvin Langton, and Edward Peacock. “Evaluating the
Predictive Accuracy of Six Risk Assessment Instruments for Adult Sex Offenders.”
Criminal Justice and Behavior. v. 28. pp. 490-521. 2001.
Bartosh, Garby, Lewis, Gray. “Differences in the Predictive Validity of Actuarial Risk
Assessments in Relation to Sex Offender Types.” International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology. v. 47. pp.422-438. 2003.
Black, Maureen and Coretta Pettway. "Profile of ODRC Sex Offenders Assessed at the
Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center." Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections publication. December 2001.
Black, Parks, And Konicel. "Ten-Year Recidivism Follow-Up of 1989 Sex Offender
Releases." State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Publication. April
2001.
Corrections Directorate Solicitor General of Canada, STATIC-99 Coding Rules Revised2003. Harris, Phenix, Hanson, and Thornton. 2003.
Epperson, Douglas, et. al. “Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised (MnSOSTR).”
Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2000.
Accessed at:
http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1058-1.pdf
Hanson, R. Karl and Kelly Morton-Bourgon. "Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An
Updated Meta-Analysis 2004-02." Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada
Publication, 2004.
Harris, Andrew J.R. and R. Karl Hanson. "Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question
2004-03." Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada publication, 2004.
Langan, Patrick and David Levin. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.” U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics publication.
June 2002.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

73
La Vigne, Nancy G., et. al. "A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio."
Institute's Justice Policy Center. www.urban.org.

The Urban

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Publication, Sex Offender Risk
Reduction Reentry Task Force Report. February, 2005.
Pettway, Coretta and Paul Konicek. "Development of a Sex Offender Risk Assessment
Instrument." Published in the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's 2002
Compendium.
Shoaf, Lisa Contos. "A Descriptive Study of Ohio's Sex-Offending Population." Ohio
Office of Criminal Justice Services. Published in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Corrections' 2004 Compendium.
State of Colorado Department of Corrections Publication, Survey of State Sex Offender
Treatment Programs. August, 2000.

74
APPENDIX A
Appendix A and B are taken from the STATIC-99 Coding Rules Manual. Appendix A is
not meant to include all information listed in the manual as pertaining to the STATIC-99
questions; rather, it is meant to impart the general intent of each Item listed. Appendix A
should not be used for any assessment. For further information, consult the STATIC-99
Coding Rules Manual or visit www.sgc.gc.ca.
STATIC-99 QUESTIONS
Item #1 – Young
Research shows that sexual recidivism is more likely in an offender’s early adult
years than in an offender’s later adult years. The offender is scored based upon his age
at the time of exposure to risk.
Item #2 – Ever Lived with an Intimate Partner – 2 years
Research suggests that having a prolonged intimate connection to someone may
be a protective factor against sexual re -offending. The intent of this item is to reflect
whether the offender has the personality/psychological resources, as an adult, to establish
a relatively stable “marriage- like” relationship with another person. It does not matter
whether the intimate relationship was/is homosexual or heterosexual.
This is the only item that may be omitted on the STATIC-99. If no information is
available, this item should be scored a “0”—as if the offender has lived with an intimate
partner for two years.
If a person has been incarcerated most of his life or is still quite young and has not
had the opportunity to establish an intimate relationship of two years duration, he is still
scored as never having lived with an intimate partner for two years. Generally,
relationships with adult victims do not count. Illegal relationships (such as incest) also
do not count.
Item #3 – Index Non-sexual Violence (NSV)—Any Convictions
A meta-analytic review of the literature indicates that having a history of violence is
a predictive factor for future violence. The presence of non-sexual violence predicts
the seriousness of damage, were a re-offence to occur and is strongly indicative of
whether overt violence will occur. In English data, convictions for non-sexual violence
were specifically predictive of rape (forced sexual penetration) rather than all kinds
of sexual offenses.
This item refers to convictions for non-sexual violence that are dealt with on the
same sentencing occasion as the Index sex offense. A separate non-sexual violence

75
conviction is required to score this item. These convictions can involve the same victim
as the index sex offense or they can involve a different victim.
Included are:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Aggravated assault
Arson
Assault
Attempted Abduction
Attempted Robbery
False Imprisonment

•
•
•
•
•
•

Forcible Confinement
Give Noxious Substances
Grand Theft Person
Kidnapping
Murder
Robbery

Item #4 – Prior Non-sexual Violence—Any Convictions
A meta-analytic review of the literature indicates that having a history of violence is a
predictive factor for future violence. The presence of non-sexual violence predicts the
seriousness of damage, were a re -offense to occur and is strongly indicative of
whether overt violence will occur.
This item refers to convictions for non-sexual violence that are dealt with on a
sentencing occasion that pre-dates the index sex offense-sentencing occasion. These
convictions can involve the same victim as the index sex offense or they can involve a
different victim, but the offender must have been convicted for this non-sexual violent
offense before the sentencing date for the index offense.
Included are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Aggravated assault
Arson
Assault
Attempted Abduction
Attempted Robbery
False Imprisonment
Forcible Confinement
Give Noxious Substances
Grand Theft Person
Kidnapping
Murder
Robbery

76

Item #5 – Prior Sex Offenses
This item and the others that relate to criminal history and the measurement of
persistence of criminal activity are based on a firm foundation in the behavioral literature.
As long ago as 1911, Thorndyke stated that, “the best predictor of future behavior, is past
behavior.” Andrews & Bonta (2003) state that having a criminal history is one of the
“Big Four” predictors of future criminal behavior. More recently, and specific to
sexual offenders, a meta-analytic review of the literature indicates that having prior sex
offenses is a predictive factor for sexual recidivism.
Charges and convictions are summed separately and these totals are then transferred
to the scoring chart. Whichever column, charges, or convictions give the offender the
“higher” final score is the column that determines the final score.
This item is based on officially recorded institutional rule violations, probation,
parole and conditional release violations, charges, and convictions. Only institutional
rule violations, probation, parole, and conditional release violations, charges, and
convictions of a sexual nature that occur PRIOR to the index offense are included.
Item #6 – Prior Sentencing Dates
This item and the others that relate to criminal history and the measurement of
persistence of criminal activity are based on a firm foundation in the behavioral literature.
Prior Sentencing Dates is a convenient method of coding the length of the criminal
record.
Count the number of distinct occasions in which the offender was sentenced for
criminal offenses. The number of charges/convictions does not matter, only the number
of sentencing dates. The index sentencing date is not included when counting up the
sentencing dates. Among other factors, technical parole violations also do not count.
Item #7 – Any Convictions for Non-Contact Sex Offenses
Offenders with paraphilic interests are at increased risk for sexual recidivism.
For example, most individuals have little interest in exposing their genitals to strangers or
stealing underwear. Offenders who engage in these types of behaviors are more likely
to have problems conforming their sexual behavior to conventional standards than
offenders who have no interest in paraphilic activities.
This category requires a conviction for a non-contact sexual offense, such as:
•
•
•
•

Exhibitionism
Possessing obscene material
Obscene telephone calls
Voyeurism

77
•
•
•

Exposure
Elicit sexual use of the Internet
Sexual Harassment (unwanted sexual talk)

Item #8, 9, & 10 Overview– The Three Victim Questions
The following three items concern victim characteristics: Unrelated Victims, Stranger
Victims, and Male Victims. For these three items, the scoring is based on all available
credible information, including self-report, victim accounts, and collateral contacts. The
items concerning victim characteristics, however, only apply to sex offenses in which the
victims were children or non-consenting adults. In addition to all of the “everyday”
sexual offenses (Sexual Assault, Rape, Invitation to Sexual Touching, Buggery) you also
score victim information on the following charges:
•
•
•
•
•

Illegal use of a Minor in Nudity-oriented Material
Importuning (Soliciting for Immoral Purposes)
Indecent Exposure (when a specific victim has been identified)
Sexually Harassing Telephone Calls
Voyeurism (when a specific victim has been identified)

Occasionally, there are “Accidental Victims” to a sexual offense. A common example of
an accidental victim occurs when a person in the course of his/her daily life or profession
happens across a sexual offense. However, these persons are not counted in any of the
three victim items regardless of any conviction in court. For the purposes of STATIC-99,
there has to be some intention to offend against that person for that person to be a victim.
In addition, for the purposes of STATIC-99,
•
•
•
•
•

Victims portrayed in child pornography are not scored as victims. Only real, live,
human victims count.
Consensual sexual behavior that is prohibited by statute also does not create
victims.
Exhibitionism may count if there was a targeted victim.
In sexual assaults of animals, animals do not count as victims.
If an offender has sexual contact with dead bodies, these people do count as
victims.

Item #8 – Any Unrelated Victims?
Research indicates that offenders who offend only against family members
recidivate at a lower rate compared to those who have victims outside of their
immediate family. Having victims outside the immediate family is empirically related
to a corresponding increase in risk.

78
Item #9 – Any Stranger Victims?
Research shows that having a stranger victim is related to sexual recidivism. A
victim is considered a stranger if the victim did not know the offender 24 hours before
the offense. For stranger victims, the offender can either not know the victim or it can be
the victim no t knowing the offender. In the first case, where the offender does not know
the victim (the most common case), the offender chooses someone who they are
relatively sure will not be able to identify them (or they just do not care) and offends
against a stranger.
The criteria for being a stranger are very high. Even a slight degree of knowing is
enough for a victim not to be a stranger.
In the case of “stalking,” the offender may know a great deal about the victim and her
habits. However, if the victim does not know the offender when they attack, this still
qualifies as a stranger victim.
Item #10 – Any Male Victims?
Research shows that offenders who have offended against male children or male
adults recidivate at a higher rate compared to those who do not have male victims.
Having male victims is correlated with measures of sexual deviance and is seen as an
indication of increased sexual deviance.

79
APPENDIX B
STATIC-99 SCORING SHEET AND RATES*
Question
Number
1

2

Risk Factor

Codes

Score

Young

Aged 25 or older

0

Aged 18-24.99

1

(S9909)
Ever Lived With

Ever lived with a lover for
at least two years?

3

4

5

(S9910)
Index non-sexual violence
Any Convictions?
(S9904)
Prior non-sexual violence
Any Convictions?
(S9905)
Prior Sex Offences

(S9901)
6

8

Prior Sentencing Dates
(excluding Index)
(S9902)
Any convictions for noncontact sex offenses
(S9903)
Any Unrelated Victims

9

(S9906)
Any Stranger Victims

10

(S9907)
Any Male Victims

7

(S9908)
Total Score

Yes

0

No

1

No

0

Yes

1

No

0

Yes

1

Charges

Convictions

None

None

0

1-2

1

1

3-5

2-3

2

6+

4+

3

3 or less

0

4 or more

1

No

0

Yes

1

No

0

Yes

1

No

0

Yes

1

No

0

Yes

1

80
APPENDIX C
BASIC SEX OFFENDER EDUCATION
POST TEST
Directions: Please circle one correct answer for each question.
1. Which of the following Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD's) is now the fastest
growing STD in the United States, infecting an estimated 24 million people?
a.
b.
c.
d.

Chlamydia
H.P.V. (Human Papillomavirus Virus)
H.I.V. (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)
Gonorrhea

2. True or False: The best way to control your feelings is to not talk about them.
3. Of the following, which is an example of non-consensual sex?
a. having sex with someone who is mentally disabled
b. having sex with someone who is intoxicated
c. having sex with someone who says "no" after you ask he/she if they want to
have sex
d. all of the above
4. True or False: A moral inventory is a way to consider if you want to change.
5. ________________ is an example of a grooming behavior.
a.
b.
c.
d.

asking a child to have sexual intercourse
wrestling, tickling, cuddling, or playing touch games with a child
watching a child play in the park
none of the above

6. True or False: Marital rape is against the law in Ohio.
7. True or False: Power and Control are the basic building blocks in sexually
abusive behavior.
8. True or False: Most Internet pornography traffic occurs between 9:00 a.m. – 5:00
p.m. on weekdays.
9. True or False: If you are designated as a sexually oriented offender, you have to
register for life.
10. Which body fluid does not transmit the H.I.V. virus?

81

a.
b.
c.
d.

vaginal fluid
saliva
breast milk
blood

11. Consent is:
a.
b.
c.
d.

agreeing to something by saying "yes"
is active NOT passive
based on choice
all of the above

12. True or False: The S.O.R.R.C. program is a treatment program.
13. True or False: Sexual Assault can be expla ined in three ways: accessibility,
vulnerability, and opportunity.
14. Which of the following is one of the stages in the stages of change model?
a.
b.
c.
d.

concentration stage
denial stage
willpower stage
contemplation stage.

15. True or False: Victim Stance Thinking means a person sees himself as a victim
when in fact he has victimized other.
16. The reasons for studying your cycle include:
a.
b.
c.
d.

learning how the victim feels
learning when and how to stop your unhealthy behaviors
learning how feelings and thoughts affect your behavior
both b & c

17. True or False: The rates of sexually transmitted diseases tend to be higher among
African-Americans than Caucasians.
18. True or False: Children between the ages of 12 an 15 have the ability to give
informed consent.
19. Choose which characteristics are found in all sex offender.
a. secrecy
b. manipulation
c. a & b

82
d. none of the above
20. True or False: Three to four million American women are battered each year.
21. True or False: We all have a basic way of seeing life that includes a set of core
beliefs or fundamental ideas about who we are as individuals and what role other
people play in our lives.
22. Sex Offender treatment programs are available:
a.
b.
c.
d.

in every parent institution
not available while incarcerated
to inmates who maintain their innocence
in select minimum, medium, and close security prisons

23. True or False: Pretend-Normal, Build-Up, Acting-Out and Justification are the
stages of the behavior cycle
24. True or False: Studies have shown that most sex offenders view pornography on a
regular basis.
25. S.U.D. stands for:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Seriously unusual danger
Seemingly unimportant decisions
Sexually underage deviants
Socially underage development

26. Which of the following is NOT a major thinking error?
a.
b.
c.
d.

pride
ownership
empathy to others
victim stance

27. True or False: Rape is an impulsive uncontrollable sexual act.
28. What are the components of an open channel of communication?
a.
b.
c.
d.

criticizing others
disclosure/honesty
confrontation
manipulating a conversation

29. True or False: Obscene phone calling is not a form of sexual abuse.

83
30. What is the most common type of rape?
a.
b.
c.
d.

marital rape
family member rape
stranger rape
date or acquaintance rape

POST TEST ANSWER KEY
1. B
2. F
3. D
4. T
5. B
6. T
7. T
8. T
9. F
10. B
11. D
12. F
13. T
14. D
15. T
16. D
17. T
18. F
19. C
20. T
21. T
22. D
23. T
24. T
25. B
26. C
27. F
28. B
29. F
30. D