Treating Abuse Before It Happens: Getting the Balance Right

By David S. Prescott, LICSW

Past posts to this blog have shown how providing the right treatment to people who have a sexual interest in children can help prevent abuse. There is a small but growing number of people reaching out for help, often saying, in essence, “Help! I have this interest and I never want to act on it. Can you help me to live a better life?” Often, this interest is accompanied by any number of other conditions, such as anxiety, depression, backgrounds of trauma, substance use disorders, and others.

Treating people who ask for help and are not known to have abused need not be a controversial topic, but it is in many quarters where people have not studied the issues involved. Our field understands the treatment needs of people convicted of sex crimes and has shown that the right interventions have the potential to prevent abuse and other harms. Our track record demonstrates better outcomes than simply punishing people. Likewise, psychotherapy has a long history of efficacy with the other conditions above. We have every reason to believe that the right treatment with the right client can help them to prevent acting on their interests. The evidence for optimism is there, even as much more research and treatment innovation are needed.

Where providing therapy to these individuals becomes controversial, of course, is in the actual context of treatment. Proper balancing of individual rights and mandatory reporting laws, for example, can be complicated. Much has been written in this area, including misconceptions around language. For example, Allyn Walker, Robert P. Butters, and Erin Nichols surveyed 200 students preparing for entry into social service professions at a public university. From the abstract of their paper:

Survey results show that more than half of the students believe clients who identify themselves as pedophiles must be automatically reported to the police, which has implications for providers’ understandings about the term “pedophile,” as well as their knowledge of guidelines for when clinicians may break client confidentiality. This belief was not significantly affected by taking ethics courses, nor courses that discussed mandated reporting guidelines. Despite this finding, 91% of students did not believe that they would need to report a client who had attractions to children, but who had never committed a sexual offense against a child. The majority of students indicated a willingness to work with minor-attracted clients, and commonly indicated in comments that they wanted more information about MAPs and when to break client confidentiality in their programs of study. Study results indicate a need for education among social service students about these issues.

To be clear, “person with a sexual interest in children but who has never committed a sexual offense” and “pedophile” can be the same thing. This study illustrates that words matter. The paper’s title further illustrates the problems that clients and clinicians alike can have: “‘I would report it even if they have not committed anything’: Social service students’ attitudes toward minor-attracted people.” One can rightly wonder if the status quo could possibly make it more difficult to get help.

More recently, a study by Agatha Chronos, Sara Jahnke, and Nicholas Blagden explored the treatment needs and experiences of people with pedohebephilic interests. According to their paper, the authors examined “findings from 22 qualitative, 15 quantitative, and 3 mixed-method studies on the treatment needs and experiences of pedohebephiles.”  From the abstract:

Research suggests that this population experiences significant levels of distress, depression, and anxiety related to their sexual interest. Many individuals belonging to this population would seek (median = 42.3%), or have sought (median = 46.5%), treatment to cope with their sexual interest or with potential related mental health repercussions. Their experiences in treatment have been mixed, with some reporting positive experiences with empathic therapists and others reporting rejection. Most frequently, pedohebephiles report fear of exposure and rejection as barriers to seeking treatment, in addition to fear of the legal repercussions. The current study is the first to summarize and discuss previous findings on the treatment needs and experiences of pedohebephiles. The findings indicate that the treatment needs of pedohebephiles often remain unaddressed. Suggestions to increase the fit between treatment services and the needs of pedohebephiles are put forward.

It is not surprising that so many people would not want to enter treatment under these conditions. Nonetheless, one finding in particular offers implications for the way forward: some clients reported having positive experiences with empathic therapists and others reporting rejection. The idea that therapist empathy is critical to successful treatment goes back to Carl Rogers and earlier. Moyers and Miller (2013) reviewed the evidence and concluded that low therapist empathy can be “toxic.”

In the author’s experience, one of the best ways forward can be to use the components of the therapeutic alliance to ensure that one isn’t tacitly rejecting their client while working to remain empathic and compassionate. This is not easy. Many therapists enter treatment assuming that their number one goal at each step is to prevent offending. At the same time, clients can have other needs that go addressed. For example, one client in a discussion group described a situation along the lines of, “I told my therapist about how I went to see the new superhero movie. They asked if that was a good idea given that there would undoubtedly be children present. They went straight to, “What are your triggers there?” That wasn’t the point. I needed to talk about the cravings for alcohol I was having at the time and what I did to keep myself sober. But my therapist kept coming back to prevention, prevention. I’m not a ticking time bomb, at least not all the time. I wish I could get help for my other issues.” It is entirely likely that attention to elements such as alcohol use and cravings can be as effective in the prevention of abuse as well as other undesirable outcomes.

It often seems that in our rush to prevent abuse quickly, we can easily overlook the crucial foundations of our interventions, including the working alliance, as defined by Edward Bordin in 1979. Practitioners and programs might work to create a culture of feedback and get feedback from their clients, asking in essence:

— Are we working on all the goals that are important to you?

— Do we have agreement on how I fit into your life and how we work together?

— Is my approach a good fit for you?

These may seem like obvious questions, but it is amazing how rarely clinicians actually ask them. From there, it can be possible to have discussions about what is and isn’t working. There is certainly a time and a place to suggest that going to a particular movie likely doesn’t serve a client’s long-term interests. However, there is no reason this can’t take place in a context in which the client’s other needs are met. Given the current state of trust between clients and their therapists at present, and the often challenging context of treatment, returning to the basics of the working alliance has never seemed more important.

Preventing abuse by offering help is critical to healthy communities. For all of our knowledge about what works in treatment, the question for practitioners is how best to be the therapist that each client can respond to.

What does a second chance mean?

 By Kasia Uzieblo, Ph.D.

*Disclaimer: We realize that David Prescott has written a blog about the case of Van de Velde before. However, during her summer break and unaware of David’s blog, Kasia Uzieblo wrote her own blog about the same case. Since this blog offers an additional perspective, we decided to publish this 2nd blog as well.*

What a crazy summer of sports. After the UEFA European Championship and the Tour de France, sports enthusiasts like me can now fully enjoy the Olympic Games in Paris. For many athletes, the Games are one of the—if not *the*—highlights of their sports career. This is also true for 29-year old Steven Van de Velde, a Dutch beach volleyball player who was selected to represent his country in Paris. However, his participation is overshadowed by his past, a past he carries with him daily and can never escape, as shown by British and -broader- international media coverage.

When he was 19, he was a rising star in the Netherlands; more than that, he was described as one of the greatest talents Dutch beach volleyball had ever known. During this period, he met a girl via Facebook. He stated that he was going through a turbulent time and found understanding and support from her. When he found out that she was not 16 but 12, he broke off contact for a while, but this break did not last long. One day, he booked a ticket to England, where he met her, gave her alcohol, and had sex with her multiple times, according to Steven. He also stated that he soon realized he had made a big mistake. The facts came to light when the girl went to the hospital due to physical complaints. Steven Van de Velde confessed his crimes and received a four-year prison sentence in 2016 for child rape. After serving 12 months in a British prison and one month in a Dutch prison, he was released. The conviction was also adjusted to Dutch law, and the charge of rape was changed to fornication. He tried to rebuild his life and hoped for a second chance: “I did what I did. I can't undo it, so I'll have to face the consequences. You can judge, of course. It's the biggest mistake of my life,” he said in a TV interview. After his release, he gradually rebuilt his life, under professional guidance and supervision from probation. He is currently married and has a child. Experts estimate his chances of reoffending as very low, even negligible.

However, international media and various organizations, including national sports organizations and women's safety groups, do not support this second chance, nor believe in the safety measures taken (e.g., the Dutch Olympic committee (NOC*NSF) and Van de Velde decided that he would not enter the Olympic Village and that he would not engage with any press, amongst others). Many newspapers describe him as a child rapist, a convicted rapist, and a sex monster. Many are extremely concerned that he will make new victims in Paris. For example, Ju’Riese, CEO for the US Center for Safesport, said in a statement to CNN: "deeply concerned that anyone convicted of sexually assaulting a minor could participate in the 2024 Olympic Games. With teams from around the world about to convene in Paris, many of which include minor athletes, this sends a dangerous message that medals and money mean more than their safety. Participation in sport is a privilege, not a right[1]."

The story of Steven Van de Velde illustrates the complex and controversial nature of second chances for people convicted of serious crimes, often sex offenses. Despite his efforts to take responsibility and rebuild his life, he continues to face his past, which he also accepts. This raises the question of whether and to what extent someone deserves a new chance to lead a normal life and achieve professional success, for example, in sports.

For many who work with such clients, it is a familiar story. As professionals, we want to support the restorative and reintegration processes as well as possible, often encountering the limits of these processes and facing numerous dilemmas. The call for increasingly severe penalties for sex offenders remains loud. However, by focusing on punishment, we seem to be avoiding important discussions: What happens after punishment? Is there a post-sentence period possible/acceptable? How do we, as a society, but also as sports organization, scouts, schools, academic institutions, film industry, etc., deal with people who have committed a sex offense but are trying to rebuild their lives afterward? We want them to acknowledge the harm they caused and to take responsibility for their crime and reintegration process, but if they do, is that enough? Can this person hold a public position anymore and is this person allowed to achieve (professional) success? After how much time does someone deserve a second chance? And what should or could that second chance look like? And if second chances are not possible: will we then develop a uniform policy for everyone who has exhibited transgressive or criminal behavior? Or will we only focus on people who have committed a sex offense (and of whom this is known)? In sum, what does restoration and re-integration truly means for people who committed sexual offences?

We clearly struggle with these questions. I do not claim to have all the answers to these questions either. Each case is a difficult balancing exercise where, as a professional, you constantly navigate between the well-being and safety of (potential) affected persons, the (criminogenic) needs and well-being of the person who committed the offense, and society. The "easiest" way is to completely exclude the person, to cancel them, as it were. These actions can give us the—albeit false—feeling that we are in control, that we can take revenge on the person in question, that we are fighting for justice. However, we know that such cancel culture can have the opposite effect, causing enormous harm to the person in question, their family and friends, and may even hinder the recovery process of the persons with lived experience. It can even paradoxically increase the risk of recidivism.

It is not the intention of this blog here to make a plea for or against the participation of the aforementioned athlete; nor is it the intention to disregard the suffering caused by people who commit such acts. On the contrary, in formulating answers to the previous questions, it is essential to centralize the recovery process of the persons with lived experience and give them a voice in the debate. However, assuming that they all want their offenders to be punished forever is not giving them a voice, but is deciding for them what is best. From my conversations with many persons who have been affected by various and sometimes the most gruesome crimes, I have learned that their wishes and needs can vary greatly. In which way the voice of the affected person in question was heard in this particular case, I can only guess.

But there must be a debate. We know that numerous individuals cause harm, that many will remain in society, even after the behavior or offense has become known, and that, if imprisoned, most of them will return to society one day. It is therefore a utopia to believe that we can avoid such questions. We have noticed this over the past years with, for example, the recurring discussions about various people who have exhibited (sexually) transgressive behavior and/or have committed sexual offences within the entertainment industry, educational institutions, the Church, etc. Time and again, we encounter the same questions, the same dilemmas.

The space for debate and for an in-depth discussion is however seldom there, as the current case shows. For the media, it certainly seems much easier to avoid difficult discussions and to focus solely on the offenses and on click-worthy headlines, rather than addressing the more difficult questions. But I truly hope that this case will invite at least some to start or continue nuanced conversations with family, friends, colleagues, policy, journalists. Also, I truly hope that this case will (finally) encourage institutions such as -but certainly not limited to- sports organizations and educational institutions to reflect on this and to build[2] a consistent, well-founded, and thoughtful policy which also includes guidelines for dealing with the persons who have engaged in the transgressive/criminal behavior, and this - where feasible and desirable – based on evidence-based rehabilitative and restorative practices.

In any case, these are complex questions that require complex thought processes and often complex and nuanced answers, where we will keep encountering issues as long as we avoid these conversations.

---

[1] But see, EN-Olympic-Charter.pdf (olympics.com) in which participant in sports is being described as a human right.

[2] Or strengthen if a policy is already available. 

Calling Out Another Double Standard

By David S. Prescott, LICSW

The 2024 Paris Olympics are noteworthy for the presence of a participant convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl. Steven Van de Velde, now 29, was 19 at the time of his crime. It is rare for an Olympian to have this kind of conviction on their record. What happened?

The crime took place when Van de Velde, who is from the Netherlands, was in the UK. According to media accounts, at his sentencing, Judge Francis Sheridan told Van de Velde: ‘Prior to coming to this country you were training as a potential Olympian. Your hopes of representing your country now lie as a shattered dream.’ Van de Velde was sentenced to four years in prison after he was extradited to the UK and arrested in January 2016. He was incarcerated after his guilty plea in March 2016. The court then allowed for his charges and sentence to be adjusted in line with Dutch law, meaning the charge of rape was changed to ‘fornication’. He was released from prison in 2017, having only served one year of his original sentence.

From the media coverage: “Van de Velde said a year later: ‘I cannot reverse it, so I will have to bear the consequences. It has been the biggest mistake of my life.’ The NSPCC [National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children] condemned the decision for Van de Velde to be released three years early and said his ‘lack of remorse and self-pity is breathtaking’. It added: ‘We can only begin to imagine how distressed his victim must feel if she sees his comments.’ The Dutch Volleyball Association allowed him to continue his career as a beach volleyball player.”

Van de Velde apparently participated in some form of counseling (“involving self-insight and reflection”). The Dutch Volleyball Association saw “no reason” to exclude him, and the International Olympic Committee said it would not intervene. The media further report that Van de Velde had represented the Netherlands at the 2015 European Games, which took place between the time he committed his crimes and when he was actually extradited to the UK. In any event, he remains on a sex offender registry for life.

While one always has to be careful with media reports, the undisputed aspects of this situation call to mind interesting questions:

·       Did anyone consider the needs of those affected? While it would not be a fair comparison to having Harvey Weinstein moderate the Academy Awards, one wonders where the wellbeing of those who are harmed figure into these kinds of decisions. At what point do the risks of causing further harm outweigh the benefits of having an advantage in volleyball?

·       Given the global outcry against sexual abuse, is this how a country wishes to represent itself? Having visited the Netherlands many times and enjoyed every minute, I can attest that it is one of the most forward-thinking nations on the planet. Nonetheless, at what point do we sacrifice our credibility in calling out other nations where sexual abuse goes unchecked?

·       Have we not learned the lessons of the immediate past? The Netherlands is by no means alone in these kinds of scandals. Just two years ago, we reported on a situation involving a Finnish Hockey player who sexually assaulted a young woman while playing in the United States.

·       Is Van de Velde the best role model for this sport?

From a distance, it seems that the Dutch Volleyball Association acted purely in its own interests. The optics are not good. The media coverage notes that Van de Velde is married to a prominent volleyball player from Germany and his brother-in-law plays for Germany’s national football team. All this calls into question the role of political connections and privilege. Despite our best intentions, are they giving a free pass to those who commit serious crimes simply because they can win games on their behalf? Is that the best person to represent their country on the world stage?

As one final consideration: it’s worthwhile to place this in the context of other misconduct by Olympic Athletes. Had Van de Velde used a performance-enhancing drug, he might have been disqualified, been stripped of a medal, banned from further competition, and received considerable public shaming (Remember when the entire Russian Paralympic team was banned?)

It is impossible to know what an accurate risk assessment might conclude, but Van de Velde likely does not pose a particularly high risk for re-offense. One hopes that as a society we can be compassionate and forgiving. Just the same, the appearances in this case do not place the Dutch Volleyball Association, the Olympics, or anyone involved in a good light. Given the circumstances, one might hope that Van de Velde would move forward with a his life in a manner that those who were harmed might be more at ease with.

As an outsider to the processes, it seems clear that Van de Velde received exceptionally favorable handling by the systems involved. It gives us pause to consider how many people are not extended the same courtesy because, however much they may have to give back to the community, our systems don’t give them the chance.

 

 

 

 

Let’s Talk: Starting the Conversation You Didn’t Want to Have

By Emma Halper, Joan Tabachnick, and Rachel King

Where is the guidance for conversations about concerning sexual behavior among college students? Where are the conversations about a wide range of sexual behaviors, intentions, motivations, and situations?

While there are no easy answers to such complex student interactions, there is a piece of the

puzzle that has been missing from our conversations. This new NSVRC resource Let’s Talk dives into these complex situations and offers concrete information about how to talk to a friend or peer when you are concerned about their behaviors. It also covers what has been missing from student resources so far, which is guidance on how to receive the information when a friend or peer says they are concerned about your own behaviors.

How can this be useful?                                                                              

On campuses across the country, students are engaging in programs about consent and sexual violence, participating in bystander intervention trainings, and advocating for better protections from their institutions. This is essential work and necessary in every college and university. But when a bystander intervenes and everyone gets home safe, what happens the next day? Does anyone reach out to have a conversation with the student who was at risk of causing serious harm? And what about that friend or teammate whose behavior isn't exactly a red flag, but is concerning enough to make others uncomfortable?  

Sometimes nothing is done. Sometimes incidents are reported to a school’s Title IX office. And sometimes students take it upon themselves to talk with the person whose behavior is problematic. The Let’s Talk guide is for these students. This resource offers valuable insights on how to make the decision to talk, what to say, and how to say it. The Let’s Talk Campus Resources sections include:

●       What Is Problematic Sexual Behavior

●       Deciding What To Do and When to Intervene

●       How to Have the Conversation

●       You are told that YOU have crossed the Line

There is also a 1-page infographic, and a suite of Instagram graphics distilling some of the main points of different sections.

How did we create this resource? 

Our first step in creating this guide was talking with students. We based our initial conversations on a brochure developed by Stop It Now!, a child sexual abuse prevention organization, about how to talk with someone you know when you are concerned about their behaviors. In focus groups and individual conversations with students, we discovered that everyone has a story related to this topic. Either a time when they wanted to have a conversation but didn’t, or a time when they attempted the conversation, but felt lost and confused without a script or guidance. 

Students described feeling that they live in a world of absolutes – right-and-wrong thinking when it came to sexual relationships. There are the “known rapists,” the “assumed or suspected rapists,” and the rest of the student population. However, they also talked about peers whose expressed beliefs and attitudes were problematic, and had also seen a lot of concerning behaviors. For example, getting really drunk with a crush in the hopes that, with inhibitions down, ‘something’ might happen. Or partying with the goal of going home with someone at the end of the night. Remarks about who was easy, bets about who could hook up with someone first, and so much more. These were not situations of absolutes. 

And through all this, students talked about the pressure to categorize all interactions: Was that assault or not? Are they a “good person” or not? Should I keep hanging out with them or not?

These don’t need to be either/or questions, but students didn’t seem to easily have access to any alternative.

Students said that the many changes that come with starting college – from increased academic rigor to finding peers, friends and a social group to new social norms - left them feeling confused and out of their depth. They also said that these feelings of confusion and doubt are much greater when it comes to questions of sex, boundaries, harm, and accountability with peers. Research tells us that students are hesitant to seek help from campus administrators, feeling like most of the options focus on punishing the person who caused harm rather than supporting the wants and needs of survivors.

Just as we provide students with guidelines and rubrics for their scholarly work, we need to give them guidance on how to do the work of being in community and keeping each other safe. For a student who wants to have a conversation like this, having some guidance on thinking through whether to have a conversation, whether it is safe to have a conversation, as well as advice on how to say things, will be transformative.

It is our belief that these conversations can play a powerful role in preventing sexual violence.  This resource is not the simple answer that many are looking for. But it is a missing piece of the puzzle to add to the resources on campus for students who are concerned about their own behaviors or about the behaviors of someone they know and care about. 

The challenges of employing people with convictions for a sexual offence: a new way forward or rebranded rhetoric.

By Porter, C., Ph.D., & McCartan, K. F., Ph.D.

Last week the UK elected a new government, a labour government. In the first couple of days they where in power the new prime minister, Sir Kier Starmer, talked about many things including health, education, social welfare, and justice. He said that they all needed an overhaul. As a former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he understands all too well the pressures that the prison and probation service is under and stated that it needs to change, that their needs be a new approach to incarceration and community integration. In line with this, the new prime minster has appointed James Timpson, CEO of Timpson’s, as the new prisons minister. This is a clear declaration of intent to reconceptualise prisons and probation, as Timpson’s employs more people with a criminal conviction than any other organisation. James Timpson, like Kier Starmer, understands that meaningful employment matters in helping people desist from offending, building recovery capital, and pro-socially integrating into society. But what does this mean for people convicted of a sexual offence, a group normally shunned by employers and communities.

 

Across the UK we have reached a crisis point for prison capacity, with more people than ever being incarcerated with 87,453 people in prison across England and Wales as of the 5th of July and the cost per prisoner in the public estate being £33, 628 and in the private estate £51,108. This means that prison is not cheap and is not working (as a crime deterrence, anyway). In 2024 the English and Welsh prison service (approximately 700 individuals short of capcity) almost reached full capacity, and in Scotland it did, forcing the former conservative government to take drastic action. For more context, as of May 2024, there were only 557 spaces left across the entire England and Wales prison estate, with the number being even lower in male prisons. This overcrowding has triggered emergency measures such as, temporarily housing prisoners in police cells, early release, suspend prison sentences of less than 12 months, increased community sentences, Electronic Monitoring (such as GPS tags), removing and deporting foreign offenders, and ultimately building more prisons. These prisoner release schemes generally exclude individuals convicted of violent, sexual, or terrorism-related crimes.

 

Employment for people convicted of a sexual offence is complex and multidimensional, partly because individuals with a prior sexual conviction(s) are perceived negatively by professionals, employers, and members of the public. A series of online experiments have demonstrated that participant employers are typically unwilling to hire those with a prior offence, even when they are asked to make their hiring decisions before a disclosure and barring service ‘DBS’ check. Specifically, Porter and colleagues (2023) found that when they disclosed a prior sexual offence, employers were unwilling to keep the candidate they selected. Typically, they felt that the candidate was untrustworthy, a risk of harm, and a reputational risk to their organisation.

More thought needs to be given to people convicted of a sexual offence, as this population is growing within our prison and probation service with Justice lab data from July 2023 indicating that sexual offenses (13,788 individuals) are the second most common after violence against the person (21,919 individuals). In in the last annual report, 2022-23, there were 68,357 people with a sexual offence under the care of Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) which shows a steady year on year increase which emphasises the importance of employment for this group and the centrality of it for His Majesties Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS). But there has been limited consideration regarding how to find employment for these newly released prisoners, some of which have not had sufficient support or planning with their probation team or other local charities due to the early release scheme.

Recently, we have conducted a series of workshops with practitioners who support individuals with a prior sexual offence to find and maintain employment, including, members of police, probation, the 3^rd sector and NGOs, as well as policymakers and therapists. We have found an inconsistent approach in how different organisations are advising this group to disclose (or hide) their offence. This means that we need to develop a more consistent and forward-thinking approach, which means we should consider:

-  There needs to be more work done by HMPPS on the breaking down the barriers to employing people convicted of a sexual offence by employer’s and the public.

- A review of the skills base and training needs for people convicted of a sexual offence to help them retrain or repurpose their skills to enable employment post release.

- Think creatively about how probation and MAPPA panels can support people convicted of a sexual offence upon their return to the community to gain meaningful employment.

-  Work with the 3^rd sector and charities that support community integration, to see how they can better support their clients as well as strengthening partnership working.

- There should be a consideration of the role and function of disclosure in applying for jobs and broader employability, considering the role of schemes like “ban the box” and the use of CV-based self-disclosure as they might improve employability and generally trustworthiness.

-       To effectively support this group, more work needs to be done to empirically examine employer decision making and disclosure interviews.

-       Think about what we can learn for other areas of criminal justice, social justice and public health, to see what e can learn from other populations. We need to recognise what is similar about challenges to employment for this population compared to others, and what is different.

 

Individuals who are released from prison need access to accommodation, employment, and support services. To successfully obtain access to accommodation, people need regular and secure employment. This is particularly difficult for those with a prior offence and has been made even more challenging for those who have committed a sexual offence. With the new UK government in post less than one week, we are still waiting to see how they tackle this pressing issue but given their history with Criminal Justice System and promising cabinet appointments the future looks promising.