Thursday, August 27, 2015
Q & A with Gerald Zeng co-author of "Risk and Criminogenic Needs of Youth Who Sexually Offended in Singapore: An Examination of Two Typologies"
Zeng, G., Chu, C. M., Koh, L. L., & Teoh, J. (2015). Risk and Criminogenic Needs of Youth Who Sexually Offended in Singapore: An Examination of Two Typologies. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment.
An increasing amount of research has been carried out to understand the characteristics of subgroups of adult sex offenders, but there is limited research into the risk factors and criminogenic needs of subgroups of youth who sexually offended. The current study investigated if there were differences in the risk and criminogenic needs of 167 Singaporean youth who sexually offended based on two typologies - youth who offended both sexually and nonsexually versus youth who offended only sexually, and youth who offended against child victims versus youth who offended against nonchild victims. Results show that youth who offended both sexually and nonsexually were found to have higher risk and criminogenic needs as compared to youth who only sexually offended. In addition, youth who offended against child victims were found to have higher numbers of previous sexual assaults as compared to youth who offended against nonchild victims. These differences have implications for the management and intervention of youth who sexually offended.
Could you talk us through where the idea for the research came from?
The aim of the study was an exploration of the differences between two typologies of youth sexual offenders which have been previously examined in the Western context. We wanted to see if this was similar locally (Singapore) for youths who had sexually offended. A lot of information that we have on youth offending in Singapore is from research conducted in the Western context, and we are seeking to build local research expertise and findings to better inform our clinical and forensic interventions.
What kinds of challenges did you face throughout the process?
The primary challenge for us was in data collection, which had to be co-ordinated among five coders. Training and resolving differences in understanding the way in which the ERASOR and YLS/CMI were coded was particularly challenging. The coders were a mix of researchers and clinicians and obtaining consensus took some amount of discussion and debate, even with the very specific manuals provided for both instruments.
We were also challenged by our reviewers who asked very pertinent questions that allowed us to not only strengthen our paper, but also broaden our understanding and perspective on conducting research in youth sexual offending.
What kinds of things did you learn about co-authorship as a result of producing this article?
The research centre that Chi Meng (second author) and I work in, the Centre for Research on Rehabilitation and Protection, was established as a centre of excellence in research and practice development. We work closely with operational and clinical staff, such as from the Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service, where both Jennifer and Li Lian (the other co-authors) are from. All three of my co-authors are clinical and/or forensic psychologists, with many years of experience practicing in the field.
A huge benefit from working in the public service with scientist-practitioners such as them, is that I personally learnt a lot about translating research data and findings into policy and practice. Through that, I was exposed to different ways of thought about forensic work and assessment. This has subsequently fed into the way studies are currently designed, executed, analysed and interpreted.
What do you believe to be to be the main things that you have learnt about juvenile sexual offending in Singapore? Also what differences, if any, was found in respect to western research in this area?
One point of difference that we found between our local and Western research is that only a small minority (about a third) of our youth committed both sexual and nonsexual offending. This is a much lower rate as compared to other Western studies (up to 60%-90%), and suggests that the majority of local youth who sexually offended may indeed have a different set of risks and needs as compared to their Western counterparts; further studies will have to be carried out though, to explore if such differences exist.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
I have been spending sometime recently at Griffith University as a visiting scholar at the Griffith Criminology Institute as part of an international network; this trip has provided me with some great insights into Australian sexual harm management practices. On Wednesday we had a conference on community engagement and sex offender management where a number of issues where discussed including Circles of Support and Accountability (myself), sex offender registration (Professor Andrew Day, Deakin University), working with Aboriginal Communities (Professor Stephen Smallbone, Griffith University), desistence from sexual offending (Dr Danielle Harris, San Jose State University) and how to engage with the community on issues of sexual abuse (myself). What really stuck me was that the issues that we all face are the same regardless of geographic location (whether it is North America, Canada, Australia, UK or Ireland to name a few locations) only the context is slightly different. I am not sure whether this is a good or a bad thing? On one hand it’s reassuring to know that our issues are the same and that the majority of problems that we face in the sexual harm field are not that different, while on the other hand it’s depressing to know that all the problems are the same and therefore we start to question whether we are making any head way.
What are some of these issues,
- There is a separation between research, evidence and policy with much sexual harm policy being reactionary and based on ideology not research. So more “policy based evidence” (“Quick we have made a policy quick find some evidence to justify it”) rather than “evidence based policy” (“listen we need to develop a new policy let’s do some research and get some evidence first”).
- There is often a disagreement between professionals about whether treatment with sexual offenders works, whether it should be supported or whether it is simply a tick box exercise to indicate that something is being done with this difficult and challenging population.
- There is often a gap between the state and government’s perception of how perpetrators of sexual harm should be responded to in comparison to researchers and/or treatment providers. The state/governments response is usually harsher, more restrictive and less engaged.
- There are similar laws and a desire to good down similar policy paths. Registration and disclosure is a good example with Australia having a sex offenders register, similar to the UK, USA as well as other international countries, and now based on a high profile case (Daniel Morcombe) some areas of Australia have community notification with other areas looking into it.
- That some tools for working with sexual offenders are becoming more and more global including Circles of Support and Accountability, which is being trialed.
- Reaching and doing community and public engagement can be difficult and challenging because of the way that perpetrators of sexual harm are viewed by the community. With community members (recognizing that there are multiple publics and that all members of the community are not the same and do not think alike) believing that all “sex offenders” are the same, won’t change and should go to prison for extended periods.
- Different cultures within the same country can be more difficult and challenging to reach than others. I felt that there was real resonance with some of the issues facing professionals trying to work with Black and Ethnic Minority groups in the UK (especially in the light of Rotherham) and the challenges presented by working with aboriginal and/or remote communities in Australia on these issues. The difficult line between education, safeguarding, management and cultural sensitivity.
- The issue of historical cases of child sexual abuse and sexual harm committed within state institutions; Australia, like the UK, also has a commission investigating these cases.
- The understanding, especially among professionals, that not all perpetrators of sexual harm are specialists, that the majority of them are generalists and that we need to look at their anti-social, dysfunction lifestyles as much as we look at their offending.
- That the state and criminal justice system is interested in people who commit sexual in as much as they are interested in preventing recidivism and risk managing them; but, that they may not be as interested in helping them to develop pro-social, positive lifestyles and to fully integrate into society.
- That we need to go a lot further in the way that we think about sexual harm prevention, that we need to get the message out there more and that it needs to be ingrained in schools, clubs, societies more. There is a recognition that the messages need to be process and not outcome driven, as well as that the need to be more societally focused (less individualized) and more proactive (rather than reactive “how to avoid being a victim…”).
These issues are common, international and recurring. Although, it may seem disheartening at first, which it is because we have got a long way to go, it does offer some hope because are all dealing with the same issues and therefore in sharing good practice, good research and good policy we can overcome this issues together.
Kieran McCartan, Ph.D.
Friday, August 14, 2015
Washington State has a history of cooperation between those who do victim services and those who treat sex offenders. There has not been the all too common “us versus them” mentality. However, what Dan Knoepfler noticed over his nearly 30 years of working with youth and adults who’ve sexually acted out is that it has been a bit one sided. Groups like King County Sexual Assault Resource Center (KCSARC), Washington State Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs (WSCAP) and Harborview Center for Sexual Assault and Traumatic Stress (HCSATS) consistently and actively spoke out against problematic policies related to those who caused harm and supported productive policies that local ATSA/WATSA folks advocated for. Local victim advocate and prevention leaders such as Mary Ellen Stone and Lucy Berliner understand and have spoken out about stopping an abuser from offending as being an effective prevention strategy as well as doing their work with potential victims. While they didn’t want to coddle the men who abuse others, they understood the importance of helping men obtain stable housing and having a way to be self-supporting so they are less likely to re-offend and not be a drain on the system.
While supportive of victim services and their prevention efforts, it was only when the funding for such services was in jeopardy that Dan realized that he and others working on his side of the coin hadn’t been as active in speaking up in the support of the needs of those who do work for victims and prevention as they had been for his and other ATSA/WATSA members’ work.
Dan was keenly aware because he was raised by activist parents, who were also trained sex educators no less. For many years his office was decorated with a bumper sticker that said “Silence = Complicity.” It was a message for his clients but also something he believed in. When Dan attended a fundraising breakfast for victim services/prevention groups sponsored by KCSARC he was inspired by the voices of victim/survivors and the groups slogan “Be-Loud.” Dan had the uncomfortable realization that he hadn’t been practicing what he believed in and it was time to look in the mirror. He realized he had been silent and therefore complicit in the lack of support for these services he believed in and who had stood up for his work. He committed to have a far more active role.
Dan set a goal of having 100 Conversations this year about the importance of victim services and prevention. How? He put is two slogans together and made a t-shirt that was a conversation starter. He invested in a banner to show his support for the agencies. Every time he speaks he brings the banner, explains the importance of the services and their need for support and gets people to sign it. He wears his t-shirt everywhere and when it got a bit worn he added a new one - “Consent is Sexy.” This is a message he uses to teach his clients, but it is also much more. Particularly on the body of a passionate, funny and vocal advocate for a deeper understanding of what Dan refers to as “going beyond ‘yes means yes,’ which is definitely better than ‘no means no.’ He teaches that consent is a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, time-limited, and situational concept. Dan’s “Consent is Sexy” t-shirt has been a catalyst for continued action. Sometimes, Dan accessorizes his t-shirt with a “Be Loud” button. How is that for a fashion statement?
Potentially damaging policies can also be a catalyst to action. One example was when Washington’s legislature was seriously considering community notification of every juvenile convicted of a sexual offense. The intent of the bill was to send a flyer home to every parent at that student’s school. Dan knew he had to be visible in his opposition. He knew he needed to do that 60 mile drive from Seattle to Olympia to testify. He knew that if it passed, it would take years to change it and even longer to undo the harm to the kids he works with on a daily basis. Yet when he spoke up against it at a gathering at his local library near his office, he was accused of being a sex offender himself and run out of the meeting. Ultimately, with many working together, the bill was defeated (several years in a row). While Dan believes in speaking out, he recognizes the risk and advises all to consider their own safety.
In terms of the success of the conversations Dan has everywhere he goes given his t-shirts, buttons and banner, he believes we have a ways to go to get the general public to recognize the value of preventing initial perpetration. Dan’s biggest success has been with his colleagues. He has worked to get others who assess, manage and treat those with problematic sexual behaviors to recognize their role in prevention and the importance of speaking out themselves and in support of victim and prevention services.
Dan is the spark for 100 conversations to encourage people that might otherwise be complicit in their silence to speak out and to see the power and possibilities of consent. Through Dan’s actions, he is helping us to see actions we can take.
Dan Knoepfler, MC, LMHC, is an ATSA member who nearly 30 years has done assessments and treatment with youth and adults who’ve sexually acted out.
Interview and blog by ATSA-Prevention Committee Member: Cordelia Anderson, M.A. has been working to prevent child sexual abuse, exploitation and sexual violence since 1976. She is a member of the ATSA Prevention Committee
Friday, August 7, 2015
The use of polygraph examinations has again captured the attentions of ATSA’s listserv in recent days, albeit with some interesting twists. Historically, debates have centered on balancing the right against client self-incrimination versus the seemingly valuable information it provides. There remain the scientific elements of validity and reliability, with adherents of each perspective believing that the science touted by those with other perspectives is flawed. During this discussion, however, it has been noteworthy that participants who live in areas of the US where the polygraph is used most extensively have come to question its use, especially with juveniles. Are times changing?
1) The backdrop: Where does the polygraph fit into the treatment of traumatized and otherwise vulnerable clients?
The recent ATSA listserv discussion began with a request for research that would inform whether it is appropriate to use the polygraph with an 11-year-old. The average response, including from those who use the polygraph routinely, was no. It is interesting to recall a study by Craig and Molder in 2003, who polygraph examiners in law enforcement and found that while many expressed concern with its use with those under 12, the majority of examiners made no modifications to their practice when testing juveniles.
To the present, no one has published a study that seeks to clarify peoples’ experiences with these examinations. This seems important. For instance, research has shown that adolescents involved in the legal system often present with a startling array of trauma histories, brain injuries, and other mental health issues. Recent trends in juvenile justice have emphasized trauma-informed systems of care, and the importance of trauma-informed care is beginning to catch on in the adult world as well. Where does the polygraph fit into trauma-informed care?
Although it is easy to see sex offenders, particularly in prison environments, as hardened individuals, it is easy to overlook their vulnerabilities. Jill Levenson, Gwenda Willis, & the author have recently published two studies of the rates of childhood adversity in adult male and female sex offenders. James Reavis, Jan Looman, and their colleagues published a similar paper, asking the important question, “How long must we live before we possess our own lives?” Many, especially those working in prison environments, have noticed that their clients in sex-offender treatment do not present as highly vulnerable, shrinking violets. On the other hand, there is a question of whether the wrong treatment approach (which might involve the polygraph) with the wrong client might actually exacerbate the trauma-related cognitive schemas (e.g., dangerous world, negativity) that therapists are attempting to redirect in treatment.
A case in point might be the 23-year-old client with a mild autism spectrum disorder. Socially isolated and awkward, he views the world as a dangerous and threatening place where the closest he will ever come to rewarding relationships is through contact with children. Depending on how he views his treatment team, a polygraph examination under the wrong conditions might well reinforce his core beliefs that he will never fit in anywhere and might just as well persist in trying to have close relationships exclusively with children. On the other hand, treatment aimed at improving his interpersonal competence at the same time as allowing him the chance to develop and rehearse his skills at managing risk factors may be more beneficial.
Of course, a final consideration is that the polygraph is not necessarily verifying ground truth. The research is full of studies regarding the problems of false confessions and the fallibility of memory. The author is one of many professionals who have had clients make false confessions hoping that it would speed their treatment progress. The teachable moment of these experiences is to establish a treatment culture in which honesty and commitment are valued more than the appearance of compliance with expectations.
2) What are we trying to change in treatment?
The trauma-related points may seem small to many, but are important to consider. In the case example above, it may be that treatment is more effective, particularly in an era of scant resources, when it focuses on the development of skills rather than on preparing for an examination that will provide the impression that a client has become more honest. Is it possible that one-size-fits-all approaches to the polygraph can actually make matters worse by focusing on less relevant areas and slowing the pace of treatment for some in institutions where treatment slots are in short supply? What level of disclosure is good enough for treatment to be effective?
In a fascinating study, Shamai and Buchbinder explored the client perceptions of a treatment program for violent men. From the abstract: “The findings revealed that most of the men experienced therapy as positive and meaningful and underwent personal changes, especially the acquisition of self-control. Deeper analysis of the data, however, shows that the men still used a power scheme in understanding and creating relationships with others, especially with their woman partner.” In other words, the program produced some changes, but left the underlying structure of their relationships untouched. Further, the authors found that in many ways the program modeled the same power dynamics they were seeking to change. Is it possible that in some cases our programs, by coercing confessions, are modeling the same dynamics of power and control that we are seeking to change in our clients?
Even beyond these considerations, questions and controversies abound. The author published an article on the polygraph with juveniles in 2012 for the ATSA Forum newsletter that made points that are relevant to the treatment of adults as well. These include that more information is not necessarily better information and that compelling disclosure is not necessarily the same as building the capacity for honesty.
Since that article’s publication, Roger Cook, one of the authors cited in it has produced an interesting study with his colleagues that points to many of the complexities involved in polygraph with adults. Sadly, there has been only one recent study with juveniles. It examined the information gleaned through the use of polygraph with juveniles. In it, juveniles reported sexual abuse of an average of 1.42 people. After a polygraph examination process, they reported sexual abuse of 2.15 people, or roughly 2/3 of an additional person abused. Given the legal and psychological complexities at stake, there is a real question of to what extent this really is helpful information. Some believe they couldn’t do their work without the polygraph. Others state quite clearly that their clients in treatment are honest enough that they are able to make acceptable changes to their lives such that sexual abuse becomes unnecessary and undesirable to them at all times. Perhaps professionals should consider soliciting feedback from their clients to assess whether the process as well as the content of polygraph exams is more helpful or intimidating. Of course, such an endeavor requires first ensuring an adequate culture of feedback. Further, it is likely that there is a great deal of variability between polygraph examiners in terms of how their examinees perceive them (the same is true of therapists).
3) How are we trying to change our clients?
It’s worth mentioning briefly that research has shown that the most effective therapists in our field and in related fields are warm, empathic, rewarding and directive. Karen Parhar and her colleagues noted that the more coercive the treatment experience (and there are gradations of coercion), the less like treatment is to be effective. What can treatment programs employing polygraph learn from these findings? How does the polygraph fit in? How might the behaviors of individual polygraph examiners play a role in treatment outcome?
4) What are some of the broader questions we should consider?
Of course, all of these issues beg even larger questions; let’s broaden the discussion. In 2004, Andrew Harris and Karl Hanson, describing a long-term recidivism study involving 4,724 adult sex offenders, observed that:
After 15 years, 73% of sexual offenders had not been charged with, or convicted of, another sexual offence. The sample was sufficiently large that very strong contradictory evidence is necessary to substantially change these recidivism estimates.
The numbers for juveniles are arguably even more encouraging. Although official records are likely underestimates of the true rate of re-offense, what seems clear is that simply being processed through the legal system goes a long way to preventing future abuse. Other studies have found that re-offense is reduced by around 40% for those who complete treatment programs, including those that don’t use polygraph.
Based on this, perhaps professionals should reconsider using the polygraph as a standardized component of treatment programs, consider the potential downside impacts, consider under what conditions it may become an advisable component of treatment (if at all), and devise individualized plans for the specific circumstances under which they will use it.
5) So how do people change, anyway?
Maybe it’s time to ask what we know about how people actually make longstanding changes to their lives. After all, we already have strong evidence regarding the principles of effective correctional treatment and the components of effective treatment goals. Tying these threads together, you might want to ask yourself: Have you ever made a big change to your life? Did you make that change with the help of a therapist? If so, did you need to disclose each time you had engaged in behaviors related to the change you were making? Would you have done so completely and honestly if your therapist said it was vital to accurate diagnosis and treatment? In order to make that change, was it more helpful to review the details of the past, or to make an outline of how you wanted to live your life. In other words, what was the active ingredient in making and sustaining this change?
Another way of thinking about this is to recall that other forms of treatment don’t require full disclosure in order to improve functioning. Addicts needn’t disclose every time they took drugs or alcohol, people with eating disorders don’t need to disclose each instance of binging and/or purging, and although some might think these are imperfect analogies, it is also true that violent men don’t need to disclose each instance of violence in order to adopt a non-violent lifestyle.
Clearly, the above are bold statements, and yet I make them with the intention of asking what is actually necessary to build healthier lives and safe communities. To what extent do we professionals require full disclosure to meet our own needs for certainty? Have we ever asked those who have been harmed by abuse whether they want full disclosure of past acts or simply enough of an honest discussion that they can make meaningful amends and build a safer future? If there is anything to be learned from working with people who have been sexually abused, it’s that they need to be able to disclose and heal from their abuse in their own time and in their own way. Even in trauma work, there is little evidence that one needs to disclose what happened in order to move forward with one’s life. Indeed there is some recent evidence that recalling every transgression might be counter-therapeutic.
There will doubtless be more controversies and more research involving the polygraph. As the field sorts through these issues, perhaps we can all consider whether we have adopted an as-yet empirically unsupported paradigm regarding the importance of complete confession, and whether we are having trouble separating our values from our knowledge about what actually works. Those who provide treatment without the polygraph often come to view disclosure as an ongoing process and not necessarily an event.
Ultimately, by adopting a full-disclosure paradigm based more on values than research, and despite the myriad problems of confession, false confession, and memory problems, even when our clients themselves can be highly vulnerable, one has to wonder; have we created mindsets from which we cannot escape?
Obviously, having clients willingly disclose the entirety of their past offending makes the therapist’s work easier. However, it seems worth exploring whether holding back people in treatment who really do want to build better lives for themselves because they can’t pass a polygraph exam is really worth the financial and other human costs. Whose needs are we ultimately meeting? What goals are we trying to achieve? And what steps can we take to ensure that our interventions do not themselves cause harm?
David S. Prescott, LICSW
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Q & A with Jesse Cale author of "Offense Trajectories, the Unfolding of Sexual and Non-Sexual Criminal Activity, and Sex Offense Characteristics of Adolescent Sex Offenders"
Cale, J., Smallbone, S., Rayment-McHugh, S., & Dowling, C. (2015). Offense Trajectories, the Unfolding of Sexual and Non-Sexual Criminal Activity, and Sex Offense Characteristics of Adolescent Sex Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A journal of Research and Treatment.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Risk has been called the ‘world’s largest industry’ (Adams 1995: 31). We are faced with a bewildering array of risks in our everyday lives, ranging from health risks, crime risks, and those risks caused by climate change (Kemshall et al 2013), and we are constantly urged to ‘manage risk’. Responding to the risks posed by others and reducing risks to vulnerable people are all in a day’s work for busy practitioners in agencies such as social work, probation, and prison, or for those offering treatment and intervention to ‘risky groups’. Risk management is an activity many of us regularly engage in, both in our personal and professional lives. But what is involved in this complex activity?
Risk management is inextricably linked to risk assessment. The latter should clearly specify the risk factors that are present and their potential links with harmful outcomes; and identify any positive factors that have the potential to reduce or mitigate harm. Risk management requires the careful matching of interventions and treatments to the risk factors outlined, and the enhancement, or at least consolidation, of any positive factors that can play a role in mitigating risk. The failure to match interventions to risk factors plays a role in many risk management failures, including the failure to properly target those risky behaviours directly linked to harmful outcomes. Clarity of role and responsibilities, particularly in multi agency work, are also critical, with each agency making an agreed contribution to a focused, structured and clear plan, with delivery strategies and responsibilities clearly outlined with formal accountability structures to ensure delivery (Kemshall et al 2013).
Deciding thresholds of risk (low, medium, high for example), and particularly the thresholds of risk required to justify intrusive interventions including for example preventative or extended sentencing for sexual offenders, compulsory treatment programmes, and early interventions with ‘at risk families’ has been challenging. Such thresholding can be dependent upon risk assessment tools that struggle to neatly categorise persons into tiers of risk. This can be exacerbated by practitioner subjectivity, and the atmosphere of ‘precautionary principle’ (better safe than sorry) that can permeate practice particularly following risk management failures. The ethical, legal and moral challenges of preventative risk management, that is, risk management based upon preventing risks arising in the first place, have been acute (Titterton 2005). In the risk management of sexual offenders this has most often occurred in legal and policy debates about indeterminate preventative sentencing; community notification; vetting and barring; restrictive licence conditions; and compulsory treatment (Kemshall 2008).
Risk management measures for sex offenders in particular have attracted increasing evaluation of effectiveness. Cognitive Behavioural Treatment interventions are the most supported by research (Schmuker and Losel, 2008). Other emerging programmes and approaches have been less well evaluated. However, there is effectiveness evidence for Circles of Support and Accountability (McCartan et al, 2014); Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) which has been robustly evaluated in relation to adolescent sexual offenders (Borduin et al, 2009) and is also found to be promising by Finkelhor (2009); and programmes based on the Good Lives Model or desistance approaches (e.g. The Better Lives Sex Offender Programme in the UK) seem to be making promising contributions to the positive management of risk and reintegration of individuals (Barnett and Mann, 2011; Scoones et al, 2012).
The evidence to date would indicate that a combination of risk management techniques is required for maximum effectiveness, comprising both protective and integrative measures (see Kemshall 2008: 132). These include an appropriate balance of restrictive measures, supportive and integrative measures, pro-social supervision, and effective treatment/programme interventions to be successful.
Hazel Kemshall, PhD
Adams, J. (1995) Risk. London: UCL Press.
Barnett, G. and Mann, R. (2011) ‘Good lives and risk assessment: collaborative approaches to risk assessment with sexual offenders’, in H. Kemshall and B. Wilkinson (eds) Good Practice in Assessing Risk: Current Knowledge, Issues and Approaches, London: Jessica Kingsley.#
Borduin, C.M., Schaeffer, C.M. and Heiblum, N. (2009) ‘A Randomized Clinical Trial of Multisystemic Therapy with Juvenile Sexual Offenders: Effects on Youth Social Ecology and Criminal Activity’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association.
Finkelhor, D. (2009) The Prevention of Childhood Sexual Abuse; available at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ856320.pdf; accessed July 24th 2014.
Kemshall, H. (2008) Understanding the Community Management of High Risk Offenders. McGraw Hill/Open University Press.
Kemshall, H., Wilkinson, B. and Baker, K. (2013) Working with Risk. Skills for contemporary social work. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kemshall, H, Kelly, G. Wilkinson, B. and Hilder, S. (2014) What works in work with sexual offenders: A literature review. Available at: http://www.somec-project.eu/default.asp?page_id=600&name=Effective management of high risk and dangerous offenders report; accessed 23 July 2015.
McCartan, K., Kemshall, H., Westwood, S., Solle, J., Mackenzie, G., Cattel, J. and Pollard, A. (2014) Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA): A Case File Review of Two Pilots. Analytical Summary. London: Ministry of Justice, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293400/cosa-research-summary.pdf; accessed 23 July 2015.
Schumuker, M. and Losel, F. (2008) Does Sexual Offender Treatment Work? A systematic review of outcome evaluations. Psicothema 20, 10-19.
Scoones, C.D, Willis, G.M. and Grace, R. C. (2012) Beyond Static and Dynamic Risk Factors: The incremental validity of release planning for predicting sex offender recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (2) 222-238. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21859756; accessed July 24th 2014.
Saturday, July 18, 2015
This week in the British media we have numerous reports about paedophilia and individuals who commit sexual harm against children, with the news (BBC 4, BBC and the Guardian) focusing on the work of Dunklefeld as well as Circles of Support and Accountability. In the main these reports are good news stories focusing on the work that Dunklefeld does in preventing sexual harm while recognizing that we as a society, as well as individually, maybe uncomfortable with the story being done. These media reports emphases two important things to me,
- firstly, that media engagement is as important, if not more important, in changing social perceptions and attitudes towards sexual harm than the research and practice work that we all engage in; and
- secondly, that we are starting to see a shift in the type of sexual harm stories that the media cover and a change in the language as well as the approach that they use.
The media plays a central role in modern society (Mc Quail, 2010). The media is still the main method for the dissemination of information, the shaping of public perception and the reinforcement of societal attitudes (Greer, 2012). Meaning that the media can have a great deal of power and influence, in that it can shape and influence public opinion, while at the same time inform society in a quick in-depth fashion that legitimizes the subject, thereby re-establishing the credibility of the story (Mc Quail, 2010). Research suggests that the public engage with the media, especially the press, in a number of different ways, to either shape, reinforce or consolidate their existing opinions as well as to shape new ones (Howitt, 1998; McQuail, 2010; Bohner and Wanke 2009); however, the impact of the media upon the public depends upon the reader, the story and the credibility of the source (Bohner and Wanke 2009). This suggests that the media can affect attitudes through a series of psychological and sociological processes including, but not limited to, stereotyping, group processes and norm reinforcement. Which suggests that there seems to be a relationship between the media and the public, with the public selecting its media based upon personal preference and the media producing public interest stories (Cohen and Young, 1981; Howitt, 1998; Gamson, Croteau, Haynes & Sassoon, 1992), as such indicating a repetitive cycle with it’s between the media and target audience which results in the reporting as well as creating the news (Cohen & Young, 1981).
This interrelationship between the media, the public and the state is best crystallized through the medias’ representation of crime. One of the most significant and prevalent media stories and moral panics of recent years has been that of paedophilia (Silverman & Wilson, 2002); traditionally the media has helped to construct this through this frequency (Greer, 2012; Critcher, 2002), selectively, negative language and format with it discusses paedophilia (Silverman & Wilson, 2002; Thomas, 2005; McAlinden, 2006). This means that the media has often misrepresented and misunderstood the complexity of paedophilia tending to discuss it in one-dimensional, simplistic and stereotypical terms (Thomas, 2005; McCartan, 2010). This media misrepresentation is problematic as it works to weaken public understandings and social awareness resulting in an inappropriate and a skewed social construction of the realities of paedophilia. However, as previously stated this seems to be starting to change with a range of articles and shows taking about the complexity and reality of sexual harm from This American Life to the recent Dunklefeld stories. These considered approaches to sexual harm stories (another example, published today, is how much consideration is given to victims of sexual harm when publishing new sexual harm stories and a consideration of Trigger Warnings)means that insightful and appropriate messages are going into the public domain, this does not mean that public attitudes will shift overnight (that’s another story for a another day), planting the seed for an informed debate. This realistic conversation about the nature of sexual harm; who perpetrates sexual harm; who are victims of sexual harm and the impact that it has on them; as well as sexual perpetrator prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration. One positive conservation leads to a raft of other positive conversations. Therefore the media should be congratulated and worked with us by academics, professionals and practitioners in the sexual harm field (an approach advocated via Public Criminology with precedent in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland and HMP Whatton) to help develop these stories, changes in narrative and new approaches to sexual harm.
Kieran McCartan, PhD
Bohner, G. and Wanke, M. (2009) ‘The psychology of attitudes and persuasion’, in J. Wood, and T. Gannon (eds) Public Opinion and Criminal Justice. Cullumpton: Willan.
Cohen, S. and Young, J. (1981) The manufacture of news: social problems, deviance and the mass media. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
Critcher, C. (2002) ‘Media, Government and Moral Panic: the politics of paedophilia in Britain 2000-1’, Journalism Studies, 3: 521-35.
Gamson, W. A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W. and Sasson, T. (1992) ‘Media images and the construction of reality’, Annual Review of Sociology, 18: 373-93.
Greer, C. (2012) Sex crime and the media: Sex offending and the press in a divided society. Cullumpton; Willan.
Howitt, D. (1998) Crime, the media and the law. Chichester: Wiley.
McAlinden, A. (2006) ‘Managing Risk: From regulation to the reintegration of sexual offenders’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6: 197-218.
McCartan, K. (2010) Media constructions and reactions to, paedophilia in modern society. In: Harrison, K., ed. (2010) Managing High-Risk Sex Offenders in the Community: Risk Management, Treatment and Social Responsibilities. Willan Publishing, pp. 248-268.
McQuail, D. (2010) Mass Communication Theory, 6th Edition. London: Sage Publications.
Silverman, J., and Wilson, D. (2002) Innocence Betrayed: Paedophilia, the media & society. Cambridge: Polity.
Thomas, T. (2005) Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society, 2nd edition. Cullompton: Willan.