Her Name Was ……

By Cordelia Anderson, MA.,  and Alissa R. Ackerman, PhD.

 

Say your name, how your feel about being here, a hope you have for this circle of accountability, what your brought for an object of meaning to you and why you chose it for this circle…

And so begins the restorative justice circle we’d been planning for weeks. We had been thinking about what it would mean for survivors to know the healing power of telling the truth of their victimization in front of someone who had committed such an act. No, he did not rape anyone that is in this room. He raped a woman when he was in college – decades ago. He didn’t know or remember her name and there is no way he can be held accountable through traditional criminal justice sanctions; he tried. He wants to help other men speak to the truth of past harms they have done, and who want to be accountable somehow. He agreed to being part of this circle for accountability.

One of the participants, Alissa Ackerman, is a public survivor and criminologist, who has facilitated and participated in meetings with over 370 men who have committed sex offenses. She has lived the reality that sitting face to face with men who’ve committed such egregious acts of harm to other women, is healing for her. She calls this work “vicarious justice.” She also believes that part of the accountability for those who committed sex offenses– outside of and along with their criminal justice system and therapy work – is listening to her stories and the stories of other survivors. Being heard matters. In this circle she participated as a member of the circle, not as the facilitator.

The Circle Keeper, Cordelia Anderson, is trained in restorative justice and circles and has extensive experience doing circles with those who’ve caused harm and with those who have been harmed. Sometimes they are all in the same room; there are many ways to approach restorative processes and circles for healing, for intervention and for prevention. Serving as Keeper of this circle for accountability, (e.g., where the majority of the participants are survivors, and the one wanting the process for accountability has one person of support with him), was new.

For three hours and 15 minutes a talking piece was passed from person to person. When the talking piece came to the next person, they could speak to the question at hand or they could pass. After the opening pass, and rituals to set the stage and tone, participants were asked to speak to whatever it is they want to say, at that moment about:

-          Why they are here today

-          What the impact of what happened to them/or that they did, was for them

-          How they are responding to what they’ve heard

-          What they need to have happen next

-          How to keep the confidentiality discussed as part of the opening values, while also clarifying how they will talk about today’s experience with others

-          What it is they are taking away from today’s gathering

Part of the closing was the keeper reading from a piece written by Ashley Judd. In the 5/26/18 piece she wrote for TIME, about Harvey Weinstein, she said:

 

I was hopeful Harvey would plead guilty, that his surrender was volitional, so that in addition to carving out a singular position of disgrace, he could come forward as the predator who walks out of shame onto a new path of humility, introspection, accountability and amends, thereby leading our men and country in the necessary and inexorable of trajectory of restorative justice. It seems that Harvey, though, will not be the person to do that, as he is pleading not guilty and still maintains, in the face of so many accusations that all sex was consensual. Denial can stand for “I don’t even know I am lying,” and it appears that is where Harvey still lives.

 

So as these current steps of justice in New York City unfold, and the system does its necessary and important thing, we still wait for an accused who can and will embody what the #metoo movement and our society needs and wants: someone who can navigate the duality of having aggressed and address their abuse of power with culpability and integrity. Restorative justice is also dual; in order for survivor-victims and society to embrace and restore the reformed, the reformed must have been genuinely transformed, shedding layers of toxic masculinity, exiting the denial/apology tour and standing in a new and collective space where both the person is and the narrative are made whole and unified.

 

 

As ATSA members, who work very hard to treat those who’ve committed sex offenders or conduct research to better understand them or treatment process, or who work as victim advocates and/or for prevention, restorative practices and vicarious justice, offer additional opportunities for healing and accountability. Too often our work is in siloes that separates the life experiences and truth of survivors from the life experience and truth of those who’ve committed sex offenses.  We all feel the limits and the benefits of our work. These processes offer an additional way for individual and collective healing and accountability.

 

The importance of being ethical when conducting research

By Kieran McCartan, PhD

Recently, I was asked to speak at a research event at my university on the challenges of ethical research with high risk populations. At first I thought that this was going to be an easy presentation because all researchers should be on the same ethical and moral page, but I soon realized that there is a lot of different notions of good research vs. good enough research and the related research governance, in general, never mind with “high risk populations”.  

All research presents ethical issues and dilemmas which mean that the researcher should be a reflexive and considerate person. A researcher should be thinking about the consequences of their research on the research population, related organization's/institutions and their research organization (i.e., in my instance a university, but it does not always need to be); but, this is not always the case for sometimes see that a researchers allegiance can be to their findings and publications. This is not to say that researcher’s should not be mindful of their findings and the dissemination and impact of those findings; but, rather that they should be committed and mindful of the whole process not just the end point. A reflexive and considerate researcher is a good researcher. Being a good, creditable researcher is essential when dealing with high risk, risky or vulnerable populations. I recognize that these terms (high risk, risky or vulnerable) are sweeping generalized terms, loaded terms and intertwined terms, quite often someone who is risky is also vulnerable, someone who is a perpetrator is also a victim, etc. The populations that we research with (people who have committed sexual abuse, victims of sexual abuse and those impacted by both) present their challenges to us in terms of consent, confidentiality, anonymity, disclosure, health and safety as well as researcher wellbeing (physically, emotionally and psychologically). Therefore we need to start any research in the field of sexual abuse from a place of reflection, consideration and sensitivity.

I believe that there are four main components to any research project that need to be in constant consideration, all of which become essential when dealing with high risk/challenging populations;

-        The researcher:  The researcher always needs to consider their own physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing. Are they supported throughout the research process? Does the researcher have the capacity to access all the different the types of support they need? Can the researcher receive physical support if necessarily in a confrontation, who can they discuss the challenges of the research with and are they able to withdraw from the research process if it becomes to challenging or difficult? Have they considered why they are involved in the research and what that means for their own going mental health? The person conducting the research is as central to the research process as the questions being asked or the data collected, therefore we have to make sure that they are supported throughout the process.

 

-        The person being researched: Quite often research participants can be boiled down to numbers on an excel or SPSS spreadsheet, they can be dehumanized. Good ethical research reinforces the humanity of participants. We need to make sure that the understand the research process, the research questions, that they can consent to the research (as well as understand what that consent means), that they are not tricked, that they do not incriminate themselves or indirectly cause harm to themselves (or others). This means that we need to consider their vulnerabilities, capacity and degrees of “powerlessness” in the research process. As researchers we need to make sure that research participants are treated fairly and that the data that we obtain through them is fit for purpose.

 

-        The various institutions and partners: As researchers we have a responsibility to the institutions that we work for (maybe universities or research bodies, but not always) and the institutions where we research (maybe prisons, probation/parole offices, police stations, etc.) to research in an ethical fashion. We are carrying the name and responsibility of these institutions with us. On one level this means conducting all research ethically, getting the appropriate clearance, responsible data sharing, agreeing confidentiality with host as well as partner organization's and being honest about the data that you are collecting/storing/disseminating. Remember that you are representing your institution, and your field of study, and any unethical research practice not only reflects poorly on you, but them too as well as other potential researchers in the future.

 

-        The research itself: When conducting research it is essential to make sure that all the necessary rules, regulations and guidelines have been adhered to. Have you got ethical clearance from your institution? Does the host institution or organization need to give you approval (the police, probation, parole, prison, charity, NGO, etc.)? Do you need external body ethical clearance (the NHS, Department of Justice, etc.)? Do you have a safe and secure place to store your data? Have you made it clear to participants what you are going to do with their data? Do you have data sharing agreements with all necessary organization's, institutions and collaborators? It’s essential that your research is coherent, watertight, ethical and adheres to all aspects of research coherence because if it’s not your findings can be jeopardized.

Researching challenging and high risk populations can, and does, have rewards in that it can impact upon changes to policy and practice; but, it should be done ethically, carefully and with a great deal of reflection.

Supporting Help-Seeking Behaviors: Help Wanted

By Ryan Shields, PhD (ryan_shields@uml.edu) and Julie Patrick (jpatrick@raliance.org)

How can we make help-seeking behaviors that prevent sexual harm the norm? The Moore Center for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse at Johns Hopkins University’s answer to this question is the Help Wanted project, an online prevention intervention to educate and support help seeking behaviors for adolescents with a sexual attraction to children who have not yet acted on their attraction.

This American Life

The impetus for Help Wanted came from an April 2014 interview by reporter Luke Malone with a young man named “Adam” who identified as a “non-offending pedophile” on his experience seeking help on NPR’s This American Life . The segment illuminated how the stigma of pedophilia and the fear of criminal consequences keep these adolescents from seeking help. The fear of being turned away by professionals, or difficulty in finding the right professional with appropriate expertise, leaves many to struggle alone with the collateral consequences of their attraction.

Malone also spoke with Dr. Elizabeth Letourneau at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Given that approximately half of child sexual abuse cases in the US are committed by other youth, more must be done to address prevention with youth. Letourneau, Dr. Ryan Shields and colleagues conceptualized a prevention program to advance the healthy and safe development of adolescents attracted to younger children.

Phase 1: Help Wanted

The team conducted a qualitative study with young adults (aged 18-30) who identified as being sexually attracted to younger children on how they successfully managed their attractions when they were younger. Study participants commonly noted a sense of isolation and hopelessness during adolescence and wanting access to better information, treatment services, and role models.

The project team concluded that a prevention-focused intervention for youth recognizing an attraction to younger children was critically needed and must meet youth where they are – online. A web-based model helps reduce fear of requesting help in person and reduces difficulties with transportation, geographic dispersion, availability, cost, and stigma. To be sure, some youth will undoubtedly require more intensive services than can be provided via a web-based platform.

Of note, the Help Wanted intervention focuses on primary prevention of child sexual abuse and in this respect differs from Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD) and related efforts to address youth sexually abusive behavior. As described in several publications, PPD provides an intensive treatment to men and, more recently, adolescents who are formally diagnosed with pedo- or hebephilia and who have acted on their attractions without being caught or who have not acted on their attractions but need assistance. The PPD intervention typically lasts one year and consists of a formal diagnostic assessment followed by weekly in-person group treatment sessions (Beier et al., 2015). Such an expensive and intensive intervention is incompatible with the diffusion of primary prevention interventions (Rohrbach, Grana, Sussman, & Valente, 2006). Moreover, as Letourneau and others have demonstrated, there are well-validated treatment interventions for youth who have engaged in sexually abusive behavior and been identified in formal systems (e.g., juvenile justice, mental health, child welfare) (Letourneau et al., 2013; Letourneau et al., 2009), but very few resources for youth who are sexually attracted to children but have not engaged in harmful behavior.

Phase 2: Support from Raliance

To build this online tool, the Moore Center sought additional funding from Raliance, a national partnership among leaders in the prevention of sexual harassment, misconduct, and abuse. With seed-funding from the National Football League, Raliance is dedicated to ending sexual violence in one generation and supports an impact grant program with a specific funding category to prevent primary perpetration.

A collaborative process ensued uplifting the expertise of consultants in the field to create 5 key foci for the online intervention tool. Such consultants include: Ms. Karen Baker, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape/National Sexual Violence Resource Center; Ms. Maia Christopher, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse; Ms. Geraldine Crisci, Geraldine Crisi & Associates; Mr. Gerald Hover, INTERPOL Crimes Against Children; Dr. Jill Levenson, Barry University; Dr. Michael Miner, University of Minnesota Program in Human Sexuality; Dr. Daniel Rothman, Forensic Psychological Services; and Ms. Joan Tabachnick, DSM Consulting. Project consultants also include non-offending young adults with a sexual attraction to children.

This group prioritized five foci: 1) access to information about child sexual abuse and why it is harmful; 2) disclosure and safety skills; 3) practical advice for self-management and coping techniques; 4) building self-identity and developing positive narratives; and 5) skill building for healthy sexuality. The curriculum for these online modules is being created and tested by those with proven success using online therapeutic and mental health interventions.

Raising awareness about supporting help-seeking behaviour is also vital to the project. Dr. Letourneau’s December 2016 TEDMED talk: Child sexual abuse is preventable, not inevitable brought this information to a wider, mainstream audience. And Dr. Shields presented to sexual violence professionals at the 2017 National Sexual Assault Conference.

Advancing to Phase 3

No project is complete without piloting, revising and evaluation. More will be shared as those exciting developments unfold.

The forgotten risk

By David S. Prescott, LICSW & Alissa Ackerman, Ph.D

An ever-emerging body of scientific research has found that punitive responses to crime don’t actually decrease risk. The findings are so clear as to not be uncontroversial: punishment is not anything more than punitive. While punishment can have its place, we should never consider it a meaningful deterrent from crime, a form or rehabilitation, or even a fully adequate response for those who have been abused. While one can easily find media accounts of people who want those who abuse to suffer as a result of their actions, there are many more who simply wanted the abuse to stop and the person who abused them to get help. Sadly, their accounts rarely lend themselves to sensational media. Indeed, excellent documentaries of the results of America’s legal system, such as Pervert Park and Untouchable garner some attention and then too often disappear from our sustained awareness.

Likewise, what seems to go further unnoticed is that even our “intermediate sanctions” – the term that criminologists have used for measures such as registration, community notification, and residence restrictions – also produce no appreciable effects on the re-offense risk of those who sexually abuse. Many have fought these laws in court, and while some have prevailed, the courts have consistently ruled that sex crimes policies are not criminal sanctions. They are civil in nature, so many of the arguments used to fight them in court hold no water.

Let us be clear: there are no appreciable positive changes with respect to re-offense risk that have resulted from these policies. To this point, there have been no documented improvements as a result of these policies beyond occasional (and frankly, highly infrequent) anecdotes.

Followers of the risk assessment literature are aware of many of the primary risk factors for re-offense: abuse-related sexual interests, high levels of psychopathic traits, problematic responses to stress, impulsivity, all alone and in combination can serve to increase risk. It is easy to forget, however, the risks involved in the chronic social isolation experienced by people who have abused and are now attempting to reintegrate into society (or integrate for the first time).

The isolation and lack of connection experienced by registered people has been documented in the literature for over a decade. Most recently, Dr. Danielle Bailey of University of Texas in Tyler has written that the isolation experienced by registered people also extends to their significant others. Importantly, loved ones often experience disenfranchised grief when they learn about the sexual abuse that has transpired. They must learn to adjust to life after losing the person they thought they knew.

Unlike family members who experience loss as a result of a medical diagnosis such as Alzheimer’s or stroke, family members who support a registrant have little social or community support to process their grief. This leads them into further isolation. The prosocial bond formed between the registrant and the significant other may be disrupted or it may fully disintegrate as a result.

 You may be wondering how punitive measures and intermediate sanctions impact people who have experienced sexual abuse. For starters, most people who have experienced sexual victimization know the person who committed the abuse. According to Dr. Rachel Bandy’s research, coalitions against sexual assault caution against current sex crimes policies because they have the capacity to silence people who have experienced victimization. First, because the person who victimized them is often someone they know and love, they are hesitant to come forward knowing that doing so could result in a lifetime of mandates and hardships. Second, most people who have experienced sexual victimization see no reflection of themselves in current laws. Finally, current policies do nothing to promote healing for people who have experienced abuse, and, in fact, these policies may have detrimental impacts on the healing process.

The forgotten risk of isolation and disconnection stem far beyond people who have sexually abused. It permeates families and communities. It silences people who have experienced sexual victimization. Human beings are social animals. We are meant to be in close relationship with others. Research shows that social isolation is associated with health risks and early death!

And it begs the question: what is our end goal?  Do we want to decrease sexual victimization? Do we want to feel safe? Or do we actually want to be safe? 

Families of the perpetrator: The hidden victims of online sexual abuse

By Kieran McCartan, PhD

Please note this is a reposting of a NOTA blog post by the same author, the original can be found here – kieran.

Late last week I attended a conference on online perpetrators of sexual abuse hosted by the Lucy Faithful Foundation, the aim of which was to make us reflect upon the reality of downloading and viewing child sexual abuse imagery in the UK (i.e., that is 100,000 individuals downloading material in the UK currently), but especially in the South West of England, as well as how to best respond to it. Although the conference was interesting, informative and worthwhile, it was the questions that were not answered or addressed that had the biggest impact on me. Not the questions about perpetrators, policing or offence characteristics; but rather, the questions about the collateral consequences of downloading and viewing child sexual abuse imagery on the families, friends and communities linked to the perpetrator.

When we talk about sexual abuse we tend to talk about perpetrators and victims. We do not tend to talk about the surrounding family and peers that are indirectly affected by the abuse and its consequences. Often there is an assumption in contact offending that the perpetrator is offending against members of their families, that members of their families are always at risk and that partners are complicit in the abuse; but this is generally not true. If it’s not true for contact offenders, is it also not true for individuals who download and view child sexual abuse imagery? The short answer is that we don’t know!

The conference really highlighted to me that we do not really know, empirically, what the impact of having a parent convicted of online sexual abuse, viewing inappropriate images, grooming children online or networking with other perpetrators on the dark web is. There is a perception that the collateral consequences of being convicted of viewing online child sexual abuse imagery is the same for the perpetrator and their families as being a contact offender, that is

-          That perpetrators receive a prison/community sentence, they go on the sex offenders register, are often being exposed in the press &/or community during their trial, have the  possibility of losing their family, friends, peers, home, job and  have a resultant social stigma;

 

-          That families of perpetrators are too being socially stigmatised because of their relationship to the perpetrator, can be exposed in the press &/or community by default have the possibility of losing a family member/friend, might lose their home, may lose additional income, may lose social standing and suffer from suspicion around complicity (i.e. a feeling that somehow you should have known).

These assumptions are problematic as we do not really know if they are as true in online offending as they are in contact offending. What we do know, which the conference discussed at length, is the recognition that the lives of people related to the online perpetrators have their worlds turned upside down, directly and indirectly, by the behaviour and that they struggle to cope with the related outcomes (i.e., the removal of technology, the police investigation, the re-evaluation of who the perpetrator is and what you really knew about them); but that there is not a lot of support for these indirect victims of online sexual abuse (i.e., they were not abused but they have been impacted by it). Which is problematic because families feel at a loss because of the nature of the offence and that there are many misconceptions about the perpetrators of online sexual abuse, the risk that they pose and the reality of their offences by the public – which includes members of the public misunderstanding what online offending looks like, its level off seriousness (is it as serious as contact offenders?), whether online offending leads to contact offending, whether it is easier to forgive the perpetrator compared to contact offending or who the victim is? All of which means that the families of online offenders can face collateral consequences similar to those of contact offenders, but with less understanding, nuance and (possibly) less sympathy. Over the past 10 or 15 years the level of support and help for the families of individuals who have downloaded and viewed child sexual abuse imagery has grown, but it still not common place and these individuals do not always get the help that they need. Research is starting to be done in this area. Lisa Thornhill presented on her recently concluded research on the impact of having a father or family member that has been arrested on suspicion of downloading and viewing child sexual abuse imagery. This research is important is as it will give us an empirical base to start developing and implementing appropriate services for people directly impacted by having a parent of family member who has child sexual abuse imagery so that they can understand the offences, the consequences of the offences, be helped to process and move past the impact that the offences have on their lives. Sexual abuse, in all its forms, impacts not only the perpetrator and the victims but also the communities in which it happens; therefore the more that we can help these communities understand and move past sexual abuse the more adaptive they will be.