Community corrections professionals use strategies to monitor sex offenders. The three main general categories of surveillance are legal warrants, processing, and electronic surveillance devices. Since sex offenders are the most difficult to monitor, effective strategies must be put in place. This group is the most difficult to supervise because a sexual act can occur at any time and anywhere in a rapid period of time. Statutory Mandates The laws and sanctions that sex offenders must follow while under some type of community supervision, whether at a low or high level of risk of recidivism. , is to ensure the safety of the community. Statutory mandates keep offenders away from repeat offenses. To help enforce community safety, sex offenders have been required to register under Megan's Law since 1994 in Arizona. There are more than 14,000 registered sex offenders in Arizona. In a crossover study of two risk assessments (RRASOR and Static-99) that were statistically analyzed, research found that "our total cohort (N=1,400) included both rapists and child molesters who might have equated the potential effects of age and may thus explain why younger age was not related to the overall increased risk of sexual recidivism in this study. (Sjöstedt & Långström P.639) This means that the separate assessments showed opposite meanings depending on young age. When a more comprehensive analysis was conducted in outcome research, all risk factors were significant except among male victims. The two assessments should therefore not be isolated. With this in mind, more assessments need to be cross-examined before exclusion decisions are made. (Sjöstedt & Långström P.639)These studies provide insight into how to improve statutory mandates for the supervision of sex offenders. Risk predictors can always be updated and created... middle of paper ... with electronic monitoring devices all operating at their full potential, effective supervision is a goal that can be achieved. References Farkas A. Mary and Miller Gale, Federal Sentencing Reporter, Vol. 21, No. 2, Sex Offenders: recent Developments in Punishment and Management, (December 2008), P. 78-82 University of California Press on behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 10.1525 /fsr.2008.21.2.78, accessed: 10/18/2011Loftus Rebecca PH.D., Risk Assessment Conference, Fall 2011, Probation and Community Corrections. Noted: 10/13/11 - 10/20/11Sjöstedt Gabrielle and Långström Niklas, Actuarial assessment of the recidivism risk of sex offenders: a cross-validation of RRASOR and Static-99 in Sweden, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 25, no. 6, (December 2001), P. 629-645, Springer, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1394544, consulted: 10/18/2011