Ohio

Technical Assistance:

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC), Columbus, Ohio (March 2004): CSOM staff and a consultant reviewed a newly proposed sex offender program model and suggested revisions to ODRC’s sex offender services to bring them in line with emerging best practices and with the overall goals of the ODRC plan for offender reentry. The CSOM team also provided recommendations regarding the mission and composition of a task force newly formed by the Director of ODRC to address sex offender services in Ohio’s correctional institutions and in the community.

Franklin County, Ohio (January 2001): CSOM provided support to enable six probation and parole staff to attend the CSOM training at the 2001 Winter APPA Training Institute.

Richland County, Ohio Sheriff's Office (November 1999): Conducted a site visit to provide assistance on sex offender registration.

Youth Advocate Program of Franklin County, Ohio (December 1998): Provided ongoing telephone consultation and assistance to a countywide task force seeking to expand sex offender treatment resources in the community.

Delaware County, Ohio Juvenile Probation Department (October 1998-January 1999): Provided funding for two staff (a treatment provider and a probation officer) to attend a 10-day intensive training session on sex offender treatment in Cleveland, Ohio.

Training:

Presented three breakout workshops at the Alliance of Women in Community Corrections Conference on educating the community about sexual assault and sex offender management, and participated on a panel to discuss issues, trends, and future directions for the corrections field in managing sex offenders to representatives from various agencies throughout Ohio, including community corrections, sexual assault coalitions, police, prosecutors, DOC, treatment facilities, and mental health in Columbus, Ohio, April 2006 (120 participants).

Conducted a training on effective sex offender management in Summit County, Ohio (FY04 OJP Grant Site) to an audience representing law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, supervision staff, treatment providers, and victim advocates in Akron, Ohio, February 2006 (120 participants).

Delivered a two-day training on the comprehensive approach to adult and juvenile sex offender management at the request of the Ohio Judicial College to probation staff (line officers, unit supervisors, and administrators), representatives from the Ohio Department of Youth Services, community treatment providers, victim advocates, and judges and magistrates in Columbus, Ohio, May 2004 (275 participants).

Provided training for the Ohio Chief Probation Officers Association on sex offender management, including the polygraph, for probation and parole representatives in Columbus, Ohio, May 2001 (80 participants).

Convened a session on the supervision of sex offenders in the community at the Second Annual Ohio Probation, Parole, and Community Corrections Training Institute for probation, parole, and community corrections staff, June 2000 (60 participants).

Provided two consultants to conduct two half-day training sessions on sex offender management as part of a continuing education program sponsored by the Center for Public Administration and Public Policy, Kent State University for probation and parole officers in Kent, Ohio, July 1999 (50 participants).

OJP Grant Sites:

2005: The Ohio Department of Youth Services will focus on the juvenile population. The target community for this project will include all 88 counties of Ohio and include 18 congressional districts. The Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) will use grant funds to improve victim advocacy, assessment, treatment, re-entry, supervision, registration, and community notification as it relates to sex offender management. Initially, ODYS will establish a multidisciplinary policy team that represents the agencies, organizations, and others involved in the prosecution, adjudication, care and treatment of juvenile sex offenders in Ohio. Once the collaborative team is solidified, ODYS will establish processes, structures, and appropriate staff support for conducting the assessment of Ohio's current system of managing sex offenders. The current sex offender management policies and practices and legislative requirements will be examined against what is known about the components and fundamental principles of the comprehensive approaches to sex offender management. Subsequently, ODYS will implement the proposed strategy under the direct oversight of the multidisciplinary team to address any gaps identified during the assessment process.

2004: Currently, there are 130 adult convicted sex offenders who fall under the responsibility of Summit County’s supervision and a total of 546 registered sex offenders residing in the county. Additional resources are needed to help manage the steady flow of offenders who have been convicted, are receiving treatment, and who are coming back into the community. Summit County stakeholders are committed to assessing their current practices to ensure that they are developing a multidisciplinary, collaborative response on both the case management and policy levels that include criminal justice system personnel, correctional officials, victim advocates, and others who play a role in preventing further victimization. Through the grant program, Summit County seeks to implement a sex offender management strategy through a two phased process that addresses the needs and gaps in the current system. The first phase will entail finalizing the multidisciplinary team, collecting data and assessing processes, and developing an implementation plan that addresses the most significant sex offender management needs. The second phase will involve utilizing grant funds to implement the plan and develop a monitoring and evaluation strategy.

2002: The Delaware County, Ohio Court proposed working with young juvenile sex offenders (7-12 year olds) as well. Most youth remain in the community; only 4-8 youth actually served sentences in state institutions annually. Many other offenders receive jail as part of their community probation sentences. The county has a history of collaboration and effective juvenile sex offender management within their community. Through this grant, Delaware County expanded and enhanced existing treatment and supervision services for approximately 40 juvenile sex offenders on probation supervision. They used grant funds to hire a full time grant coordinator and coordinate existing resources and personnel, including an intensive probation counselor, a part time victim advocate, and a research coordinator. One of the primary outcomes of the grant was the implementation of at least five treatment foster care homes for juvenile sex offenders.

2001: Clermont County, Ohio is a suburban and rural county located in southwestern Ohio that covers 452 square miles. Clermont County is federally designated as part of the Appalachian region. The county was awarded a planning grant to create a multidisciplinary team to develop a comprehensive plan for the management of juvenile sex offenders in the community. The team sought to educate themselves and the community about best practices in the supervision of juvenile sex offenders and innovations in juvenile sex offender treatment. The team also devoted considerable time to creating a database that provides them with more information about their current sex offender population.

1999: Cuyahoga County is the largest county in Ohio with a 1999 population of 1,401,552. It is home to the City of Cleveland. In 1999, the county probation department had a sex offender unit that supervised approximately 130 offenders, while the parole department also had a specialized unit that served approximately 160 sex offenders. Through a planning grant, the county worked to enhance its knowledge and use of promising practices in sex offender management. The grantee team examined county practices and how offenders are identified and processed in the criminal justice system, assessed system strengths and weaknesses, and developed a comprehensive plan to manage sex offenders living in the county. The team also facilitated cross-training programs and increased collaboration among the treatment community, criminal justice system, and victim advocates.

1999: Montgomery County is an urban county in Ohio, with a 1999 population of approximately 574,000. Its largest city is Dayton. The county Sex Offender Steering Committee used a planning grant to study community needs regarding sex offender management and recommend a strategy to develop needed services and resources. The committee's objectives included: increasing knowledge of the local sex offender population; determining appropriate uses of information from the state's adult sex offender registry; discerning optimal treatment and supervision responses to juvenile offenders; and expanding options for dealing with offenders with developmental disabilities, mental retardation, and mental illnesses. The committee convened six workgroups to address the following topics: sex offender notification, continuum of juvenile treatment options, best practices, risk assessment, prevention/education, and data collection.

1999: Franklin County, Ohio, home to the City of Columbus, had a 1999 population of approximately 1,013,700. The county Court of Common Pleas worked with many partners in the community to identify gaps in their sex offender management system during a strategic planning process. Through an implementation/enhancement grant, these agencies worked to established practices that address these gaps, including conducting polygraph exams on a regular basis with every sex offender under supervision; enhancing night, weekend, and holiday supervision; and adding a 12-week offender education program. In addition, agencies working directly with offenders and participating in the project were provided with workstations to help develop a common library of information regarding offenders and improve inter- and intra-agency agency communication around issues of sex offender management.