|
|
Living with Sex Offenders:
Enhancing The Containment Model
By Ron Kokish
It is no accident that Sex Offender Containment is the theme for
our 2001 CCOSO conference. The number of registered sex offenders
living in California continues to rise. Although most serve some
time behind bars, virtually all of them eventually resume living
in communities – our communities. How shall we treat them when
they do?
Shunning is one option. Reflexively, it may be the option of choice
for many Californians, but in reality, it makes a bad situation
worse because it drives sex offenders underground, into secret lives.
This makes them more dangerous than ever. Instead of watching over
them, it puts us in the position of having to watch for them. Shunning
makes some people feel safer, because when they drive sex offenders
into hiding they feel as if these dangerous individuals really are
not there, but they are. Shunning is foolish and wrongful. Instead
of reducing risk to potential victims, it actually increases it.
Another option is the “Circles of Support” approach. With
this approach, knowledgeable, faith based volunteers organize to
welcome sexual offenders into their congregations, communities,
and homes, offering them highly visible jobs, living quarters and
friendships away from potential victims. The volunteer friends help
offenders resume useful, productive, and meaningful lives. They
give these men something to live for and a clear message that they
can lose it if they even give the appearance of reoffending. They
set high but realistic expectations and provide intense, personal
support to help offenders meet those expectations. In principle,
Circles of Support is a very good option. Canadian Mennonites have
set up a small, active program of this kind for some of their highest
risk offenders. It seems to work. You can read more about it at
http://198.103.98.138/text/pblct/interactive/ia1296e.shtml.
Unfortunately, “Circles of Support” is not realistic on
a large scale. Not all sex offenders want this kind of active, day-to-day
involvement with helping communities. Even if we had sufficient
resources, forcing it on men who don’t want it may be much
less effective than offering it to those who do. And let’s
face it; there will never be enough capable volunteers to absorb
even a small percentage of California’s registered offenders
into this kind of personal support program.
Our best realistically available approach lies in the “Containment
Model.” In this
model, sexual offenders are “contained” in a triangle
of supervision, monitoring and treatment.
**Treatment consists of cognitive-behavioral
therapy and supportive social services. When provided by knowledgeable
therapists meeting standards promulgated by The
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, this kind of
treatment produces very significant reoffense reductions.
**Monitoring consists of community visits,
verifying offender self-report whenever possible, chemical screening
in appropriate cases, and perhaps most important, periodic polygraph
examinations meeting standards promulgated by the American
Polygraph Association and California
Association of Polygraph Examiners.
**Supervision by Probation or Parole Officers
and Child Welfare Social Workers includes referral to appropriate
support services, verifying offender self report whenever possible,
and seeing that the offender participates in meaningful treatment
and education and employment programs, takes scheduled polygraph
and chemical screening tests, etc. It also includes taking protective
action when offender behavior or tests results point to increasing
risk.
States and communities can implement the Containment Model on a
time-limited basis or mandate varying degrees of lifelong supervision
and monitoring with periodic follow-up treatment. The model always
recognizes that no single individual, agency or discipline can maximize
community safety in relation to these men and it always includes
cooperation, coordination and appropriate communication between
treatment, monitoring and supervisory personnel.
Maximizing Containment Model effectiveness takes funding, on-going
training and coordinated professional efforts. But even with adequate
funding and high quality professional implementation, effective
containment also requires community involvement and support. Research
shows that stress tends to trigger sexual and other violent reoffenses.
The Containment Model works best when offenders are treated respectfully
and humanely and are offered opportunities for meaningful membership
in their respective communities. Municipalities, neighborhoods,
businesses, congregations and families must realize that, like it
or not, they will have registered sexual offenders residing, working,
playing and worshiping within their boundaries. When one community
drive them away, offenders move to other communities, where they
try to avoid further shunning by maintaining secrecy as best they
can. In the meantime, other offenders, driven out of their own communities,
move in and also try to maintain secrecy. Stressed by fear of discovery
by neighbors and employers, these men become more, rather than less,
likely to reoffend. In extreme cases, offenders assume new, false
identities, making containment activity impossible altogether unless
they surface accidentally, perhaps after hurting one or more additional
victims.
The Containment Model has been conceptualized as a supervision,
monitoring and treatment triangle around the offender. This author
proposes that effective containment is better conceptualized as
a square with the fourth side of the figure representing an educated,
sensible and supportive community offering offenders opportunities
for safe and meaningful reintegration. Kris Kristofferson once wrote
and sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left
to lose.” Do
we really want to offer registered sex offenders that kind of freedom?
English, K. (1998).
The Containment Approach" An Aggressive Strategy for the Community
Management of Adult Sex Offenders. Psychology, Public Policy and
Law, 4(1/2), 218-235.
Alexander, M. A. (1999).
Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: Journal
of Research & Treatment, 11(2), 101-116. AND Grossman, L. S.,
Martis, B., & Fichtner, C. G. (1999). Are sex offenders treatable?
A research overview [see comments]. Psychiatr Serv, 50(3), 349-361.
Hanson, R. K., &
Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene?: Dynamic predictors
of sexual assault recidivism. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 27(1),
6-35.
"Me and Bobby
McGee"
|
