Guest post from David Prescott

Pornography, Intimacy, and Growing Up

David S. Prescott, LICSW

Isaac Abel, writing for Salon, published an article on January 12, 2013, with the title Did Porn Warp me Forever? In it, he states, “Like other boys my age, I grew up with unlimited access to smut. At 23, I wonder if it's totally screwed me up.” He goes on to describe the lingering effects of pornography taking shape in such forms as remembering scenes during real-life sexual experiences. The article is thoughtful and timely. Most of us wonder about the effects of pornography and access to pornography on children and adolescents, and so it is always interesting to get this kind of first-hand response. It is not difficult to find high-energy rhetoric about the potential harm of pornography. As a fifty-something man, I worry about the portrayal of men as well as women in sexually explicit media. As others have observed, however, even mountains of anecdotes are not the same as data.

What resonated with me in this article were the classic themes of adolescence: What was in-the-moment risk-taking, thrill-seeking, and hilarious fun at fifteen becomes a source of re-consideration in one’s twenties. If memory serves, many adolescents and young adults surveyed prior to the internet self-reported regrets about their first sexual experiences. Doubtless, similar questions in this and other areas have plagued people who work in the fields of assessing, treating, and otherwise preventing sexual violence. How many among us have regrets about sexual experiences, recreational drug use, juvenile delinquency, the way we used to drive, etc.? How many among us have wondered what the effects on our brain have been, or how our lives have been influenced by our adolescent actions? What kinds of vivid memories come back to us as we read the Salon article, or this blog post? To be a little more blunt, how many of us have had an intrusive thought about our work during a sexual experience? How many of us were ever a 23-year-old wondering how our life would turn out?

It seems to me that the author of this article is in many ways a poster child for how people grow up. Adolescence over, he’s learning about connection, competence, and intimacy; this is a crucial part of becoming an adult. The capacity for genuine intimacy is too often lost in media depictions of men as tough and respected.  It’s also worth recalling that adults worried about the effects of Elvis Presley’s public gyrations. In her book Stasiland, author Anna Funder recently documented how the now-defunct German Democratic Republic tried its best to allow only dancing that didn’t involve moving the hips.

Meanwhile, all men and women are affected by their developmental experiences, often for better and sometimes for worse. Being 23 and reflecting on who one is, where s/he has been, and who s/he wants to be seems downright normal. While some worry about the effects of pornography on the brain, this article is a reminder of how prefrontal cortex development takes place into the twenties for young men. Far from the author’s being worried about being “warped for life”, it may be that he’s going through the same stages of personal growth that most of us have, albeit a far more high-tech version. There is no question that we should be concerned about the effects of pornography on young people. This article shows us we should also understand how young people move past the experiences of their youth.

In the end, if Abel is asking the question of whether he has been warped for life, then the answer is almost certainly no. Whatever the other effects on his life, he’s heading in the right direction. Not only that, he’s apparently doing so without the help of professionals, their labels, addiction models, etc. Let’s face it, it’s the job of adults to worry a bit about the next generation. Just the same, it’s also important not to pathologize behavior before we fully understand it.

CoSA in the USA ... and Beyond

In some respects, this has been a big year for Circles of Support & Accountability. Internationally, the first UK projects celebrated their 10^th anniversary of offering Circles, in addition to completing a matched comparison design evaluation that mimics existing research in its findings (approximately 70% reductions in violent or sexual offending--these results are currently in peer-review). Under the direction of Executive Director Stephen Hanvey, Circles-UK also commissioned a cost-benefit analysis from researchers Ian Elliott and Tony Beech and published in SAJRT. When reviewing only tangible costs, CoSA costs no more than traditional probation supervision. However, when intangible costs are also factored in, the CBA reaches 3.52; meaning that for every British Pound spent on CoSA, taxpayers get £3.52 back in benefit.

Elsewhere, the European group, headed up by the Netherlands, has secured a grant from the European Union to sponsor CoSA development in Bulgaria, Catalonia, and Latvia. The Dutch group—led by Bas Vogelvang, Mechtild Hoing, and Jeanne Caspars—jumped right in and started adding their voice to the CoSA movement worldwide. Specifically, they contributed to a small but important revision to the graphic for CoSA—seen below—in adding specific reference to a coordinator role essential to ensuring ongoing dialog between the two levels of support and accountability. Their most noteable contribution has been the publication of a European CoSA Handbook.

Here in the United States, we have also seen some great strides forward in the CoSA movement. Colorado and Vermont have been ongoing recipients of Second Chance Act grants intended to assist (at least partly) with sexual offender reentry. Elsewhere, Circles projects continue to sprout up in various US locations. Towards the end of this year, the federal government (through the SMART Office) issued three CoSA-specific requests for proposals:

1.     To support three CoSA start-up projects (Oregon Department of Corrections and the Criminal Justice Resource Center in Durham, North Carolina were ultimately named by DOJ)

2.     To provide training and technical assistance to the OR and NC projects, as well as other CoSA projects on an ad hoc basis (with that DOJ contract going to a group led by yours truly and including Canadian CoSA expert Andrew McWhinnie)

3.     To conduct an evaluability study on CoSA projects in the USA (awarded by NIJ to the aforementioned Ian Elliott and his associate Gary Zajac at Penn State)

The move by SMART to fund CoSA-related projects is part of their ongoing attempts to encourage and support evidence-based practices in sexual offender risk management. CoSA projects are now underway or in progress in California, Colorado, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Vermont. A first-ever all-USA CoSA symposium was held at last fall’s annual ATSA conference in Denver, with CA, CO, MN, and VT represented. Of particular interest during the symposium was the presentation by MnCoSA, which reported results from a recently published RCT evaluation of their project. Although the follow-up period was too short to show significant differences in sexual recidivism, significant reductions were noted for CoSA core members in regard to probation violations, incurring new charges, and return to custody. Last, MnCOSA researcher Grant Duwe was able to show a 1.82 cost benefit (also in SAJRT).

Finally, Canadian CoSA projects are embarking on a national evaluation, with funding provided by the National Crime Prevention Centre (an arm of Public Safety Canada). We hope to start seeing more extensive outcome data from Canada in about 18 months.

A big year, indeed.

Pornography and Contact Offending

Jon Brandt

David S. Prescott

Robin J. Wilson

Many people have grave concerns about the potential for a relationship between pornography and inappropriate sexual behavior. For obvious reasons, there are apprehensions about the sexual behaviors of those who have sexually abused. As a result, it is not uncommon for persons who have sexually abused to be restricted from certain activities that would have remained available to them had they not sexually offended. However, questions remain as to whether we are using our professional energy and resources wisely in trying to prevent persons convicted of sexual crimes from being sexually active. This point extends to whether persons who have sexually abused should have access to sexually explicit materials.

There are many reasons not to like pornography. Perhaps women, more than men, are objectified by pornography. Both women and men have raised questions about how pornography cheapens and depersonalizes sex. As men dedicated to sexual violence prevention, we are concerned about both the demeaning representation of women and the unflattering portrayal of men (e.g., piggish, self-absorbed, or uncaring) in much commercial pornography. There are also concerns about the effects of the depiction of unhealthy, violent, or potentially harmful sexual behaviors. There is an open question about the long-term effects of exposure to sexually explicit media. These are important considerations, but as offensive as pornography is to many people, extant research does not support a causal relationship between pornography and sexual offending.

Defining pornography remains a challenge. In our field, this is not simply an academic discussion. Sexual offenders are typically restricted from possessing any type of pornography, but there are no clear demarcation points between artistic expressions of the human form, sexually suggestive images, erotica, or hard core pornography. When the legal consequences for possession of any sexual media are so severe, defining pornography has never been more important.

In the US, numerous court decisions, presidential task forces, and various “think tanks” have been unable to produce an agreement or useful definition of “pornography.” With the need for greater precision within our profession than perhaps elsewhere in public discourse, our field would benefit from fine-tuning and distinguishing between various types of sexual media. Using "pornography" to describe all forms of sexual media is both imprecise and emotionally loaded. It can obscure treatment needs and interventions. Missed opportunities of therapeutically beneficial sexual imagery could inadvertently lead to more harm.

The historical perspective that sexually explicit images are offensive and therefore must be harmful is such a powerful narrative that it is difficult to close the gap between what we know about private sexual behavior and widespread public perceptions. We wonder whether some restrictions imposed on our clients are the considered application of good science or a default result of moral panic. If the latter is true, are therapists complicit in the unwarranted enforcement of social controls more than the healing arts of rehabilitation?

Gone are the days when pornography originated in adult bookstores or arrived discreetly in the mail. Most sexual media today is user-produced and shared through cell phones and the Internet. The use of sexual media by male teens and adults today is not just normative, it is pervasive. Science has yet to show any key differences between those who “sext” and those who do not, except for the behavior itself. Consumption of sexually explicit imagery has been explosive in the last decade. Sexual content in cyberspace may account for more than 30% of the data transfer of the entire Internet. Starting as teenagers, consumers are overwhelmingly male, but also include a significant percentage of women.

Though controversial and perhaps even counterintuitive, evidence of the adverse effects of sexual media has not been established. Other than child pornography, broad sexual media restrictions for most persons who have sexually abused does not appear to be supported by research. Frequently, restrictions on "pornography" for such clients include prohibition of every type of sexual media. Without knowing whether some level of exposure to some form of sexual media might have some adverse effects on human behavior, we use a "shotgun” approach to such restrictions. These squishy definitions and operatives also compromise research.

We each entered the field of treating sexual aggression at a time when professionals assumed that all persons who had sexually abused were at high risk to persist. Not only has this turned out to be untrue, but the rates of sexual aggression and re-offense have declined at the very same time as access to sexually explicit imagery has never been easier. Although we know of no interactive relationship between these co-occurring trends, they should each cause us to reconsider our attitudes and beliefs about what is important in the treatment and supervision of persons who have sexually abused.

There has been limited research involving pornography’s influence on sexual aggression. The strongest concerns in studies published in refereed journals include a potentially aggravating influence of routine pornography use by men already at high risk for re-offending (and/or higher in entrenched antisociality, sometimes referred to as psychopathy). Certain types of pornography with high-risk offenders may also increase risk. Researchers such as Drew Kingston and Neil Malamuth appear to support the cautious position that without more conclusive research we should evaluate higher risk situations on a case by case basis. To our knowledge, no studies have as yet produced a credible indictment of pornography usage among persons who have sexually abused.

Two additional facts are worthy of consideration. First, both biased and impartial groups have been funding research for more than 50 years to find a connection between pornography and sexual offending, and none have been able to find any definitive link. Second, despite the explosion of sexual media since the advent of the Internet and rapid transfer of visual imagery, there has been no increase in rates of sexual offending—everywhere it has been studied, around the world. Arguably, the same information superhighway that provides access to pornography has also brought attention to the numerous media outlets that remind us that true sexual violence is intolerable.

Several researchers have suggested that the correlation between pornography and sexual offending is either absent or inverse. A noteworthy advocate for this theory is sexologist Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii. His published research on pornography and sexual offending in the US, Japan, and Europe persuasively argues that the relationship between pornography and sexual offending is negatively correlated. Diamond's research appears to also hold true for the relationship between child pornography and engagement in contact offenses. If validated, consider the implications of such findings in mitigating contact offenses against children, as offensive as it may seem. Perhaps adult pornography really is more offensive than actually harmful in the treatment and supervision of people who have sexually abused.

What might account for a negative correlation between pornography and contact offenses? Diamond and others have theorized that sexual media may provide a vicarious satisfaction of sexual curiosity and/or a cathartic venting effect for libido. If this theory turns out to be correct, restricting most sexual offenders from having sexual media might not just be overly cautious, it might, in individual circumstances, be counterproductive.

Kingston and Malamuth have challenged some of Diamond's research, but only to the extent that Diamond's aggregate data, while compelling, might not apply to certain individuals. Theirs is an important point for consideration. Michael Seto has raised similar concerns with respect to certain risk factors and child pornography. We can also see how this is an important aspect to consider. However, a ban on all sexual media for all persons who have sexually abused appears neither science-based nor justified.

At what point does research become conclusive? It may be that pornography currently remains too controversial and emotionally charged for effective public policy to emanate from good science. Nonetheless, our concern is that broad bans on sexual media may be squandering resources, at the expense of truly science-based treatment and supervision elsewhere.

These are not simply academic points. Revoking a person’s parole or violating their probation because of behaviors that are socially undesirable, rather than an established characteristic of risk or harm, can be costly to society as well as the individual. All too often, we implement public policies and impose restrictions on offenders because we feel better to believe we are doing something to help stop victimization. However, we should also consider that when we overreach with risk management, limited resources are stretched thin.

We are not suggesting that pornography use by clients should be ignored. Following the model of Risk-Needs-Responsivity, the risk and need principles may guide the formation of effective therapeutic and correctional interventions. To that end, clinicians would be wise to thoroughly assess the effects of sexual media on individual clients (see appendix). Professionals should avoid restricting clients’ access to sexual media based only on personal values, unsupported professional beliefs, or undocumented theories. Therapeutic efforts should be focused on managing abuse-related sexual interests (as opposed to all sexual interests). Therapists can provide clients with education about healthy sexuality, with the end goal of a safe, fulfilling, and non-exploitive sex life.

Given that science continues to better inform us about the psychological and social dynamics of sexual behavior, we should periodically review status quo. When scientific trending suggests current policies or practices might be unfounded, outdated, or perhaps even counterproductive, we should gather the professional courage to explore better pathways that might more effectively prevent or mitigate sexual offending.

Appendix

In assessing the effects of sexual media with individual clients, clinicians might explore:

1) The client’s history, current use, and experience with different types of sexual media.
2) The client’s use of sexual media compared to normative data.
3) Possible connections between certain sexual media and problematic sexual behavior.
4) Escalating or compulsive patterns of the use of sexual media.
5) The possible relationships of sexual media to the index offense(s).
6) The use of sexual media as socially or psychologically protective measures.
7) How sexual media could be interfering with relationships.
8) The use of sexual media to explore or satisfy sexuality curiosity.
9) How sexual media is an element of libido management.
10) Whether clients might benefit from a modified use of sexual media.
11) The possible therapeutic or conditioning benefits of proscriptive sexual media.
12) Sexual media that might be contraindicated therapeutically or socially.
13) The legal hazards or consequences for accessing certain types of sexual media.
14) Limitations on certain sexual media for specific higher-risk offenders.
15) The various risk factors involved in client’s access to sexual media via the Internet, cell phones, digital cameras, Wi-Fi communication devices, and social networking websites.
16) The degree to which clients can exercise internal controls in managing sexual media or to what level external controls might be beneficial to aid in risk management.
17) How clients can move from external controls to internal controls prior to discharge from treatment or supervision in anticipation of independent management.

References

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. 5th Ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Bensimon, P. (2007). The role of pornography in sexual offending. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 14.

Burton, D. (2010). Comparison by crime type of juvenile delinquents on pornography exposure: The absence of relationships between exposure to pornography and sexual offense characteristics. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 6.

D’Amato, A. (2006). Porn up, rape down. Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 913013.

Diamond, M. (1999). The effects of pornography: An international perspective. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.

Diamond, M. (2009). Pornography, public acceptance and sex related crime: A review. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.

Diamond, M., et al. (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1037-1043.

Diamond, M., et al. (2011) Rejoinder to Kingston and Malamuth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1049-50.

Ferguson, C.J. & Hartley, R.D. (2009). The pleasure is momentary… the expense damnable?: The influence of pornography on rape and sexual assault. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 323-329.

Kingston, D. & Fedoroff, P. (2008). Pornography use and sexual aggression: The impact of frequency and type of pornography use on recidivism among sexual offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 1-11.

Kingston, D. & Malamuth, N. (2009). The importance of individual differences in pornography use: Theoretical perspectives and implications for treating sexual offenders. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 216-232.

Kingston, D.A. & Malamuth, N.M. (2011). Problems with aggregate data and the importance of individual differences in the study of pornography and sexual aggression: Comment on Diamond, Jozikova, and Weiss (2010). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40.

Seto, M.C., et al. (2010). Contact sexual offending by men with online sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Vol. 23.

Williams, K.M., et al. (2009). Inferring sexually deviant behavior from corresponding fantasies: The role of personality and pornography consumption. Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 36, 198-222.

Winick, C. & Evans, J.T. (1996). The relationship between non-enforcement of state pornography laws and rates of sex crime arrests. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25.

Brian Patrick McKegney 1950 - 2012

McKEGNEY, Brian Patrick - born June 23rd 1950 died unexpectedly September 2nd, 2012 of complications following surgery at Kingston General Hospital. Cherished husband of Cindy McKegney. Devoted Dad to Kate (Krin Mann) and Neal McKegney.



Sometime in the summer of 1992, I met Brian McKegney. I was a newly hired psychologist for the Central Ontario District (essentially, the Greater Toronto Area, or GTA) of the Correctional Service of Canada. He was the staff training coordinator for the District. Brian’s personality was as big as a house and often preceded him, as he was often heard exclaiming, “Holy Doodle” in response to colleagues who shared events and stories with him. The relationship we developed was one of the most important in my career.

Brian was a Parole Officer by trade, but he truly found his calling in staff training—a field in which he excelled like few others. In fact, I believe to this day that Brian was good at his job because he was propelled into it by life experience and he was driven by a need to ensure that he made a difference.

As the new kid on the block—the District’s first community based sex offender specialist—I had knowledge and expertise that would ultimately prove helpful to Brian as he attempted to develop a sex offender risk management training curriculum for parole officers and other staff in the District. We became quite a team. In fact, if you were a PO working in the Ontario Region in the 1990s, there was a good chance that you got your training in working with sex offenders from the one-two punch of McKegney and Wilson. He did the supervision side and I covered the clinical side.

Over the span of eight or so years, we got to meet many CSC staff and community partners (including police and agency staff) as we offered our 5-day course throughout the province, with many interesting and wonderful (if not colourful) extra-curricular moments in the hours outside of the classroom. We clicked. Indeed, before Brian, I had never really done much public speaking. As a lifelong stutterer, I eschewed such responsibilities. Brian taught me how to be a good presenter and encouraged me to be better with each opportunity. I now spend most of my professional life standing in front of crowds of people of various sizes, engaging in knowledge transfer, and trying to do it as well as my buddy Brian did.

However, the learning didn’t stop at the end of the training day. As I worked with this powerful educator, I discovered a bit about the man, the father, and the friend, and why he was so passionate about this particular element of his job—sex offender risk management. In many ways, Brian was working out his personal trauma.

The early 1990s saw many sweeping changes to the way in which sex offenders were managed by CSC in the community. In the span of a few short years in the late 1980s, three particularly troubling sexually motivated murders were perpetrated by offenders on conditional release in the Ontario Region. These events would cause CSC to completely rethink and revamp its methods of treating and supervising conditionally released sex offenders. Indeed, a good part of the reason for my being hired was to increase the likelihood that comprehensive aftercare and treatment services would be available to parolee sex offenders in the GTA.

Perhaps the most troubling of these crimes was that perpetrated on young Christopher Stephenson—by all accounts, a wonderful 11-year-old boy who was abducted from a suburban shopping mall in Brampton on Father’s Day weekend in 1988, sexually assaulted over a day and a half, and murdered. The Coroner’s Jury of the ensuing Stephenson Inquest would level some damning criticisms at the way in which sex offenders were managed in the community, and their recommendations forever changed sex offender risk management policy and practice in Canada. Canada’s first sex offender registry—Christopher’s Law—was named in honour of this young boy.

Brian was a Parole Officer when Christopher died, and he had some degree of involvement in the case. I came to learn that his participation in the case and, ultimately, the inquest, fundamentally changed him as a civil servant and human being. Brian set about becoming as knowledgeable as he possibly could about sex offender risk management, I think, in good part because of a burning desire to make sure that this never happened again on his watch. He took it personally. Brian needed to know that the staff he was responsible for training would have the best training and tools available to assist him in his personal quest for No More Victims.

Ultimately, Brian moved on to be a Staff Training Officer at the Regional Correctional Staff College in Kingston and I took a job in Florida. We didn’t speak often but, from time to time, one of us would call the other to check in. In hindsight, I didn’t do this often enough.

During my time training with him, Brian astounded me with his voracious appetite for new science and literature—evidence-based practice and perspective—in addition to new and improved ways of getting the message across that we (the Correctional Service of Canada and its staff) needed to do a better job to protect the citizens of Toronto and elsewhere. Brian’s breadth of knowledge and understanding was driven by a passion for and dedication to community service that was sincerely greater than that demonstrated by most other professionals with whom I have had the occasion to work. He never stopped being that way, as is clearly apparent in the many messages of condolence posted online after his death by those he trained and worked with. Those who knew him will miss him dearly; those who didn’t are poorer for the missed opportunity. For me, Brian set the bar. I will always be encouraged to work harder in what I do because of the example he set.

Rest peacefully, Doodle Man.

London Calling: Circles South-East Marks 10 Years of COSA in the UK

In June 2000, I was privileged to be one of five Canadians invited by the Quakers and the UK Home Office to discuss what was then a relatively new innovation in re-entry for persons who have sexually offended. Circles of Support and Accountability was just starting to take hold in Canada, and we had had the opportunity to present preliminary research findings at ATSA, ACA, ICCA, and other research and treatment conferences—apparently catching the attention of our British compatriots.

Robin Wilson, Evan Heise, Det. Wendy Leaver, Gerry Minard, Rev. Hugh Kirkegaard

The "Canadian Connection" at Friends House, Euston Square, June 2000

Within two years of our visit and discussions, Circles projects were established by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation (under the direction of Donald Findlater) and the Hampshire and Thames Valley Probation Offices (with Becky Saunders and Chris Wilson leading the way). COSA has since flourished in the UK, with projects found in various communities. In the summer of 2008, a national charity was rolled out under the name “Circles-UK”. As the COSA model moves forward into Europe, Circles-UK continues to play an important role in supporting similar endeavours in such countries as the Netherlands, Belgium, and France, among others.

Meanwhile, back in the UK, celebrations are afoot, and not just because this is a big Jubilee year for the Queen or because the Olympics are about to begin …

On July 6, 2012, Circles of Support and Accountability celebrated 10 years in the United Kingdom. At a very well attended event at Friends House in the Euston Square area of London, British and international delegates met to hear about the successes of the Circles South-East group (formerly Hampshire and Thames Valley Circles, but now including Kent—hence the new name). Keynote speakers at the conference included desistance expert Fergus McNeill of the University of Glasgow and Probation Service psychologist Andrew Bates (who has written or collaborated on the bulk of the UK COSA evaluation research, see here and here).

Andrew Bates presents outcome data from
Circles South-East's new study.

In a document entitled “Ten Years One Hundred Circles: Community Safety – What Can Be Done”, the Circles South-East folks recount the long road from project inception to their current status as the largest COSA project outside of Canada. The booklet includes information and perspective on the UK version of COSA, with inspirational stories from volunteers and core members. There is also a final chapter in which an updated outcome evaluation of the project is presented.

The evaluation, entitled “Circles South-East: The First Ten Years 2002-2012”, co-authored by Andrew Bates, Rebekah Saunders, Dominic Williams, Chris Wilson, and yours truly, marks the first time that our UK compatriots have been able to include a comparison group. This comparison group is comprised of persons who were referred for a COSA but who, for some reason, were never taken into one. Care was exercised not to include those who would never have been placed anyhow, for reasons such as no impending release or a lack of motivation to be involved in a COSA. Fortunately, Risk Matrix 2000 scores were available on these control subjects and the study’s authors were able to identify a similar risk distribution; however, on average the comparison sample (N = 71) was at somewhat lesser risk to reoffend than their COSA-involved peers (N = 71).

The study is currently being prepped for submission for peer-review; however, let me share some of the outcome data with you here. Although the comparison group was of somewhat lower risk, their rates of reoffending (contact sexual or violent reconviction) were significantly higher (see table below). They also had a tendency to higher rates of failure to comply with registration requirements. Indeed, in the COSA group, there were no reconvictions for contact sexual or violent reoffenses. In regard to non-contact sexual offenses, there were three in the COSA group and two in the comparison. Adding the contact and non-contact sexual and violent offenses resulted in a difference of 3 vs. 12, a finding that is also statistically significant (χ2 = 4.77, p < .05). Average length of follow-up was approximately 4.5 years for both groups.

The research findings supporting the COSA model continue to grow. Indeed, I have it on good authority that the outcome study completed by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota DOC’s COSA project (MnCOSA) has been accepted for publication by SAJRT. What makes this particularly exciting is that Grant used a Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) design – by far the most elegant yet in COSA research. I won’t steal Grant’s thunder by publishing his results here; take it from me that they are strongly supportive of a perspective that COSA not only assists Canadian and British core members, it is also helpful in reducing post-release difficulties for American core members. Once Grant’s study is released "online first", I will be sure to blog about it here.

RJW