By Ingeborg Jenssen Sandbukt, David
Prescott, LICSW, & Kieran
McCartan, PhD.
Please
note that this blog is longer than normal but we felt that breaking the blog
into two would have been artificial and would have broken up the flow of the piece.
Kieran
The first author (Ingeborg) recently
completed a thesis that studied the concerns expressed by individuals convicted
of sexual offenses. It examined their experiences with stigma, both in prison
and post-release, in Norway. The study is based on qualitative interviews with
eight adult men, all convicted of at least one sex offense. The eight men
interviewed were relatively recently released from prison, and most were still
subject to terms and conditions set by the Norwegian Correctional Services.
Five had been sentenced to regular prison sentences, two had been sentenced to
preventive detention, and one had been given a community sentence in addition
to imprisonment.
These men’s experiences in prison
involved hearing about and witnessing violence and threats towards other
persons convicted of sex offenses. A few of the men had been bullied themselves
by other prisoners. Internationally, these experiences are not unusual for
people incarcerated for sexual offenses. Some of the men were advised by prison
staff to come up with a believable cover story to avoid negative sanctions from
other prisoners. In some cases, these men told others that they had been
convicted for various petty crimes. In one case, a man had been advised by a
prison officer to simply state that he had ben convicted of fraud involving
welfare benefits. Not surprisingly, most participants did their best not to be
recognized as a “sex offender” in prison, although some could not avoid the
label. However, the all the men who took part in the research were all highly
aware that they were unwanted and seen as outcasts by the prison community,
never mind the general society outside of prison, which reemphasizes the stigma
that sexual offending elicits in society.
The experiences that these men had
in prison are relevant to their post-release use of coping strategies. The
results highlighted that the strategies used in most cases were a reaction to
and a result of others’ perceived attitudes towards people convicted of sex offenses
as a group. The strategies were not the result of a proactive desistence
strategy.
Informants in this study
experienced high levels of stress linked to being recognized as someone who had
committed a sexual offense, even after release. In many ways they limited their
own life opportunities as a result of trying to cope with the threats they
perceived. The reasons for these responses are easy to understand. In prison
they learned that their offenses would not be forgiven. They were told to lie
to stay safe. After release, their families and friends cut them off. Courtesy
stigma and episodes of informal notification by others of their crimes led them
to believe that there was no chance of redemption. Finally, through the media,
they learned that others with similar histories as themselves were considered
monsters. As a result, and as a group, informants in this study withdrew and
isolated more, and their self-images were in some cases affected negatively.
This study reflects broader
research in the field internationally, with many participants experiencing
broken bonds with family and friends and a negative portrayal in the media.
Further, they have seen how they are considered to be “monsters” in public
discourses, with the associated perception that they are always going to be a
threat. This is very relevant to post-release experiences in Norway, as media
accounts are widespread, and the country has a comparatively small population
and a deep sense of community that binds people together. Therefore, media
discourses feed into wider stigma.
These media processes and
resulting stigma are especially important because Norway is often seen as exceptional
when it comes to post-release reintegration and inclusiveness. These findings
challenge this belief. Norway does not have official registration and
disclosure policies for people convicted of a sexual offense, but the nature of
the offense was enough to create an informal, persistent label that the men
could not escape. In light of this, Ingeborg’s research examined participants’
perspectives of the way that they were perceived and labelled focusing on how
it impacted their self-image and capacity to desist as well as integrate back
into the community. The research found that some participants presented their
futures with hope and enthusiasm, while others seemed somewhat hopeless. The
men described how their status as a person convicted of sexual offenses did,
and could possibly, limit their opportunities to live the life they wanted post
release.
The recidivism rates for this
group of offenders are low* in Norway, as in the rest of the world. The
challenge is that research consistently finds that one of the greatest
contributors to desistance is strong social bonds and pro-social networks, but
the way that these men are labelled and viewed in society breaks these bonds
and, therefore, makes reoffending more likely. What the participants wanted was
to be able to be open about their conviction and treated like any other citizen
even though they had once committed a sexual offense. Their stories indicate
that there is a need to review the idea of the inclusive Norwegian society,
concerning this topic.
What is the international relevance of these findings
from Norway? These findings add to what has been known from earlier studies (Levenson,
Prescott, & Jumper, 2014; McCartan, Harris, & Prescott, 2019). Namely, that
understanding the service user perspective is central to public safety as well as
successful treatment and integration back into the community. Perhaps the most
puzzling aspect of studying the service user’s voice regarding their treatment
experience is how little study has taken place. Why? How is it that programs
don’t consider feedback? What gets in the way?
First, remember that understanding client experiences
and client satisfaction is not the same as monitoring outcomes or checking in
on the working alliance. Ensuring that clients are generally happy with
services is not the same as ensuring that those services are working, even
though the latter is unlikely without the former. It’s important to consider
every angle of the experience in order to produce services that effectively build
community safety.
Second, the working alliance is about more than just
the relationship; this has been found to be important in community supervision efforts as well as treatment. The working alliance involves
building agreement on the goals of rehabilitative efforts (which itself can
require a wide array of interpersonal skills). It also requires agreement on
the tasks of treatment and agreement on who the therapist is in the life of the
client. Finally, the alliance involves delivering treatment, supervision and
support in a manner that fits with the strong personal and cultural values of
the client.
Third, the vast majority of research into the
treatment of people convicted of sexual offenses is about the model used and
its impact in reducing re-offending, and not about behavior change or harm
reduction; both are helpful key performance indicators in treatment.
Fourthly, and perhaps the biggest barrier to honoring
the service user’s voice, is the belief of agencies and individual clinicians
that they are already doing it. It can be easy for professionals to assume that
they understand each client’s internal experience of treatment and to form
further assumptions and plans for treatment accordingly. Unfortunately,
research from within our field (Beech & Fordham, 1997 ) and outside it (Bertolino
& Miller, 2013) finds that therapists typically overestimate their
effectiveness. This can become a bitter pill to swallow, especially when so
many forms of psychological approaches already come with an implicit assumption
that treatment is something we do to our clients rather than with them or on
their behalf.
Finally, it is worth noting that
if we are truly to help efforts at public safety, it makes perfect sense to
study those who experience our interventions the most. As research indicates,
they are often the ones most motivated to make treatment work.
* In a Nordic study of
recidivism (Graunbøl et al., 2010), 3% of individuals convicted of sexual offenses in Norway recidivated
within 2 years after release from prison, none of them into new sex crimes.
Longer follow-up periods naturally provide higher recidivism rates, as
indicated by a 5-year sexual recidivism rate of 8% in Norway (Grünfeld et al., 1998).
References
Beech, A. R. & Fordham, A. S.
1997. Therapeutic climate of sexual offender treatment programs. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment 9: 219–237.
Bertolino, B. & Miller, S.D.
(Eds.) (2013). The ICCE Feedback Informed Treatment Manuals (6 Volumes). ICCE: Chicago, Illinois.
Graunbøl, H.M., et
al. (2010). RETUR En nordisk
undersøgelse av recidiv blandt klienter i kriminalforsorgen.
Grünfeld, B.,
Noreik, K., & Sivertsen, E.A. (1998). Straffedømte sedelighetsovergripere.
Hvor stor er tilbakefallsrisikoen? Tidsskrift
for Den norske lægeforening, 118(1), 63-66.
Levenson, J.S., Prescott, D.S., & Jumper, S. (2014). A consumer satisfaction survey of civilly committed sex offenders in
Illinois. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 474-495.
McCartan, K.F., Harris, D.A., & Prescott, D.S.
(2019). Seen and not heard: The service user’s experience through the justice
system of individuals convicted of sexual offenses. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 1-17. doi:
10.1177/0306624X19851671.
