IOWA CSOM GRANT FINAL REPORT
Rural Iowa Sex Offender Enhancement
Program
January - February 2005
PROGRAM ACTIVITY REPORT
Goals:
Goal
#1: To minimize the incidence of recidivism
among sexual offenders through appropriate assessment, intensive supervision
and participation in specialized programming as measured by comparing the
recidivism and program completion rates of sex offenders in the two identified
program areas with sex offender in similar rural areas whose programs have not
been enhanced.
The sex
offenders being served in the First District are assessed upon entry into the
program and are supervised by sex offender treatment professionals. Plans for data collection to determine
offender outcomes are underway. The PPO
hired by the Second District has retired and that position was not filled.
Goal #2: To provide institutional release coordination through the Transition Program at the MPCF.
3
offenders have been transferred to the project from the Iowa prisons to date in
the First District. 2 have had a good transition. 1 has been placed in the West
Union Residential Facility due to compliance issues.
Goal #3: To enhance community safety within rural areas by increased accountability of sex offenders.
The First District continues to have a PPO
III supervise offenders in this project. The offenders are seen 6 times per
month and home visits are conducted every 6 months. The project officer in the First Judicial District currently
supervises 20 offenders. She also conducts Pre-sentence Investigations.
Goal
#4: To enhance current sex offender treatment programs by providing
education/support groups for offenders’ significant others.
The First District has been conducting
educational groups for significant others. Pre and post measures are being used
to determine increased knowledge and understanding of the offense
dynamics. 17 significant others
completed the groups in the First District and 8 continue to be involved
In addition to the groups for the
offenders’ significant others, educational presentations are being held in the
community.
Technical Assistance:
No technical assistance is needed at this time.
Performance Measures:
PROCESS CRITERIA:
1) The Project Director will meet at least quarterly with the two Judicial District Management Staff to review if the tasks identified in the work plan were completed in a timely manner.
2) The Judicial Management staff will meet with the project staff at least quarterly to ensure the program is being implemented as intended.
There has not been an additional meeting during the rating period of 1/1/05 to 2/28/05.
3) The Probation/parole supervisors will observe the family/significant other groups at least twice per year to ensure the group is being implemented as intended.
There is no additional information during this latest
rating period.
4) The number of PSI's completed by project staff will be tracked.
First District project staff completed 3 Pre-sentence
Investigations during this reporting period.
5) The number of family members participating in the groups will be tracked.
In the 1st District, 17 significant others
have participated in and completed the education/support group. 8 are currently
involved in the groups.
6) The number of offenders supervised by project staff will be tracked.
The First Judicial
District project officer currently supervises 20 offenders.
OUTCOME CRITERIA:
See next page for complete report from local evaluator.
Special Requirements:
The special requirements have been addressed and completed.
LOCAL EVALUATION REPORT
Outcome Data
Summary of Sex Offender Data
Sex Offender Description
This section describes the 44 sex offenders admitted to the supervision of the first judicial district and 44 sex offenders admitted to the supervision of the second judicial district, department of correctional services, under the rural sex offender enhancement program between January 1, 2003 and January 31, 2005. About three-fourths of the offenders entered enhanced supervision as probationers; the remaining offenders entered via parole, pre-trial release, interstate compact or pre-trial release followed by probation.
Table 1 – Supervision Status at Admission
|
|
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
Supervision |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Probation |
32 |
72.7% |
31 |
70.5% |
63 |
71.6% |
|
Pretrial Release |
4 |
9.1% |
5 |
11.4% |
9 |
10.2% |
|
Pretrial/Probation |
4 |
9.1% |
4 |
9.1% |
8 |
9.1% |
|
Parole |
2 |
4.5% |
2 |
4.5% |
4 |
4.5% |
|
Interstate Compact-Parole |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Interstate Compact-Probation |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
The sex offender population is primarily male and Caucasian. Three females were included in the study, all of whom were Caucasian. Just over half of the offenders had completed high school, a GED or above, and 61.4% were employed part-time or full-time. The average age at referral was 32.2 years; with only one offender under the age of 18 and three over the age of 60.
Table 2 – Sex Offenders by Gender and Race
|
Gender/Race |
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Male |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caucasian |
40 |
90.9% |
37 |
84.1% |
77 |
87.5% |
|
African-American |
3 |
6.8% |
3 |
6.8% |
6 |
6.8% |
|
Asian |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
1.1% |
|
Pacific Islander |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
1.1% |
|
Female |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caucasian |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
4.5% |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
Table 3 – Education at Admission
|
|
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
Education |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
BA |
0 |
0.0% |
2 |
4.5% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
High school |
14 |
31.8% |
19 |
43.2% |
33 |
37.5% |
|
GED |
8 |
18.2% |
6 |
13.6% |
14 |
15.9% |
|
11th grade |
2 |
4.5% |
6 |
13.6% |
8 |
9.1% |
|
10th grade |
8 |
18.2% |
3 |
6.8% |
11 |
12.5% |
|
9th grade & under |
1 |
2.3% |
3 |
6.8% |
4 |
4.5% |
|
Special Ed |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
1.1% |
|
Unknown |
11 |
25.0% |
4 |
9.1% |
15 |
17.0% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
Table 4 – Employment at Admission
|
|
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
Employment |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Full-time |
18 |
40.9% |
25 |
56.8% |
43 |
48.9% |
|
Part-time |
7 |
15.9% |
4 |
9.1% |
11 |
12.5% |
|
Seasonal |
1 |
2.3% |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
1.1% |
|
Spot Job |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Student |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Retired |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Disabled |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
4.5% |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Welfare |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
1.1% |
|
Unemployed |
13 |
29.5% |
7 |
15.9% |
20 |
22.7% |
|
Unknown |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
4.5% |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
Table 5 – Age at Referral
|
Age |
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Under 21 |
9 |
20.5% |
6 |
13.6% |
15 |
17.0% |
|
Age 21-29 |
20 |
45.5% |
13 |
29.5% |
33 |
37.5% |
|
Age 30-39 |
9 |
20.5% |
11 |
25.0% |
20 |
22.7% |
|
Age 40-59 |
5 |
11.4% |
12 |
27.3% |
17 |
19.3% |
|
Over 60 |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
4.5% |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
Victims
The Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) in their
August 2000 document, Myths and Facts About Sex Offenders, made the following
comments about the relationship of sex offenders and their victims.
Adult Victims: Statistics indicate that the majority of women who
have been raped know their assailant. A 1998 National Violence Against Women
Survey revealed that among those women who reported being raped, 76% were
victimized by a current or former husband, live-in partner, or date (Tjaden and
Thoennes, 1998). Also, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study found that nearly 9
out of 10 rape or sexual assault victimizations involved a single offender with
whom the victim had a prior relationship as a family member, intimate, or
acquaintance (Greenfeld, 1997).
Child Victims: Approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are
sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child's
family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998). Relatives, friends, baby-sitters,
persons in positions of authority over the child, or persons who supervise
children are more likely than strangers to commit a sexual assault.
Not surprisingly, offenders in the enhancement program largely had victimized people known to them, and their victims were mainly females under the age of 18. All of the male victims were minors. A larger percent of adult victims was found in the first district (34.1%) than in the second district (11.4%). Of the total victims, 61.4 percent were under the age of 15.
Table 6 - Age of Victims
|
Victim Age |
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Unknown |
2 |
4.5% |
6 |
13.6% |
8 |
9.1% |
|
Minors |
3 |
6.8% |
6 |
13.6% |
9 |
10.2% |
|
Under Age
6 |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Age 6 to
10 |
5 |
11.4% |
5 |
11.4% |
10 |
11.4% |
|
Age 11-14 |
13 |
29.5% |
12 |
27.3% |
25 |
28.4% |
|
Age 15-17 |
5 |
11.4% |
9 |
20.5% |
14 |
15.9% |
|
Age 18+ |
15 |
34.1% |
5 |
11.4% |
20 |
22.7% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
Table 7 - Sex of Victims
|
Victim Sex |
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Unknown |
2 |
4.5% |
6 |
13.6% |
8 |
9.1% |
|
Female |
40 |
90.9% |
32 |
72.7% |
72 |
81.8% |
|
Male |
2 |
4.5% |
5 |
11.4% |
7 |
8.0% |
|
Both Sexes |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
1.1% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
Table 8 - Offender Relationship to Victim
|
Victim Relationship |
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Unknown |
6 |
13.6% |
15 |
34.1% |
21 |
23.9% |
|
Acquaintance |
26 |
59.1% |
15 |
34.1% |
41 |
46.6% |
|
Relative |
9 |
20.5% |
9 |
20.5% |
18 |
20.5% |
|
Stranger |
2 |
4.5% |
4 |
9.1% |
6 |
6.8% |
|
Stranger & acquaintance |
1 |
2.3% |
1 |
2.3% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Total |
44 |
100.0% |
44 |
100.0% |
88 |
100.0% |
Analyses
Offenders admitted to the enhancement program under pre-trial release typically remained in the program a short period of time while awaiting trial. Unless these offenders continued under supervision as probationers, they were excluded from the study analyses. There were nine offenders admitted under this category, four in the first district and five in the second district. The analyses that follow include a total of 79 offenders, 40 in the first district and 39 in the second district.
While the majority of offenders were referred to the sex offender enhancement program because of a sex-related crime, ten percent were under supervision for failure to register as a sex offender and another 35.4 percent were under supervision for other crimes but were referred to the enhancement program because of past sex-related crimes or crimes which were deemed to have a sex-related component. Misdemeanors comprised the majority of the current convicted offenses (58.2%). Four of the six parolees had been convicted of a felony. The following table shows the current convicted offense by supervision.
Table 9 – Current Offense by Supervision Status
|
Current Offense |
Parolees |
Probationers |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Felony |
4 |
66.7% |
29 |
39.7% |
33 |
41.8% |
|
Misdemeanor |
2 |
33.3% |
44 |
60.3% |
46 |
58.2% |
|
Total |
6 |
100.0% |
73 |
100.0% |
79 |
100.0% |
Criminal History: A majority of offenders (62%) had at least one prior conviction. Of the prior convictions, most were misdemeanors; nearly one-third were sex-related crimes. Two of the prior sex-related crime convictions were committed by offenders currently under supervision for a sex crime; thirteen were committed by offenders currently under supervision for another offense. Nine of the offenders (two in the first district and seven in the second district) had served prior prison sentences.
Table 10 - Criminal History
|
|
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
No
convictions |
16 |
40.0% |
14 |
35.9% |
30 |
38.0% |
|
Prior
convictions |
24 |
60.0% |
25 |
64.1% |
49 |
62.0% |
|
Total |
40 |
100.0% |
39 |
100.0% |
79 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior
Convictions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felony |
7 |
29.2% |
8 |
32.0% |
15 |
30.6% |
|
Misdemeanors |
17 |
70.8% |
17 |
68.0% |
34 |
69.4% |
|
Total
Convictions |
24 |
100.0% |
25 |
100.0% |
49 |
100.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sex Crimes |
6 |
25.0% |
9 |
36.0% |
15 |
30.6% |
Intervention Needs and Programs: Interventions were designed to meet the primary needs of the participants in the enhancement program which, for a large majority, were identified as emotional/personal needs, following by alcohol and drug problems.
Table 11 - Offender Primary Intervention Need
|
Primary Need |
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Emotional/Personal |
34 |
85.0% |
27 |
69.2% |
61 |
77.2% |
|
Alcohol/Drug Problem |
2 |
5.0% |
9 |
23.1% |
11 |
13.9% |
|
Companions |
1 |
2.5% |
1 |
2.6% |
2 |
2.5% |
|
Attitudes/Orientation |
1 |
2.5% |
1 |
2.6% |
2 |
2.5% |
|
Employment |
1 |
2.5% |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
1.3% |
|
Criminal History |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.6% |
1 |
1.3% |
|
None |
1 |
2.5% |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
1.3% |
|
Total |
40 |
100.0% |
39 |
100.0% |
79 |
100.0% |
Most offenders were placed in Sex Offender Programming, Batterers’ Education Programming (BEP) and/or TASC (Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime) as deemed appropriate. A brief description of each program follows:
Sex Offender Program goal is to help offenders learn to control their deviant behaviors and learn pro-social skills. Treatment, intensive supervision, and accountability are combined to enhance community safety. While treatment is individualized, most offenders attend cognitive-behavioral group treatment.
BEP provides a 24 week group education process, using the Duluth Model, for offenders arrested for domestic violence charges or who have a pattern of abusive behavior within their relationships. BEP staff are actively involved in local Domestic Violence Coalitions, using a community response model to address domestic violence.
TASC serves as the communication bridge between the criminal justice system and the substance abuse treatment providers. The mission of TASC is to reduce the criminal/substance abusing behavior of offenders by providing and coordinating correctional and substance abuse services.
Completion rates averaged 37.9 percent but were considerably higher in the second district than in the first district; two participants successfully completed more than one program. Of those who started programs, 42.4 percent were still participating as of January 31, 2005; only 19.7 percent had dropped out because of discharge of sentence, transfer to different location, revocation, or non-compliant behavior issues
Table: 12 - Offender Programs
|
|
1st District (N=40) |
||||||
|
|
Started Program |
Completed Requirements |
Partial Completion |
Still Participating |
|||
|
Type of Program |
n |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Sex
Offender Program |
26 |
5 |
19.2% |
4 |
15.4% |
17 |
65.4% |
|
Batterers’
Education |
4 |
2 |
50.0% |
2 |
50.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
|
TASC |
7 |
2 |
28.6% |
3 |
42.9% |
2 |
28.6% |
|
Total |
37 |
9 |
24.3% |
9 |
24.3% |
19 |
51.4% |
|
|
2nd District (N=39) |
||||||
|
|
Started Program |
Completed Requirements |
Partial Completion |
Still Participating |
|||
|
Type of Program |
n |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Sex
Offender Program |
23 |
11 |
47.8% |
3 |
13.0% |
9 |
39.1% |
|
Batterers’
Education |
1 |
1 |
100.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
|
TASC |
5 |
4 |
80.0% |
1 |
20.0% |
0 |
0.0% |
|
Total |
29 |
16 |
55.2% |
4 |
13.8% |
9 |
31.0% |
*Partial completions were due to
discharge of sentence, transfer to different location, revocation, or
non-compliant behavior issues.
Offenders could have been enrolled in more than one program.
In addition to the programming above, specific interventions designed to meet the special needs of each individual were used throughout the enhancement program. The following is a list of interventions that were successfully completed by individuals in each district during enhancement supervision.
Table 13 - Specific Interventions by District
|
Intervention |
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|
Anger
Management |
3 |
|
3 |
|
BEP
Intake |
3 |
1 |
4 |
|
BEP
Treatment Group |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
Cognitive
Restructuring |
2 |
|
2 |
|
Family
Support Services |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Hook,
Line, and Thinker-Cognitive Skills |
4 |
|
4 |
|
Job
Seeking/Keeping-Employment Services |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Mental
Health Evaluation |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
Mental
Health Treatment |
1 |
|
1 |
|
Psychosexual
Evaluation |
|
3 |
3 |
|
SA
Halfway House Treatment |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Sex
Offender Individual Counseling |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Sex
Offender-Confirmatory Polygraph |
|
2 |
2 |
|
Sex
Offender-Education Group |
4 |
|
4 |
|
Sex
Offender-Maintenance Polygraph |
27 |
7 |
34 |
|
Sex
Offender-Plethysmograph |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
Sex
Offender-Screening Evaluation |
|
2 |
2 |
|
Sex
Offender-Sexual History Polygraph |
13 |
10 |
23 |
|
Sex
Offender-Significant Other Group |
5 |
|
5 |
|
Sex
Offender-Specific Issue Polygraph |
6 |
1 |
7 |
|
Sex
Offender-Treatment Group |
4 |
4 |
8 |
|
Substance
Abuse Education/Treatment |
|
4 |
4 |
|
Substance
Abuse Evaluation |
3 |
5 |
8 |
|
TASC-Case
Management |
2 |
|
2 |
|
TASC-Cognitive
Group |
2 |
|
2 |
|
TASC-Strategies
for Self Improvement & Change |
|
1 |
1 |
|
TOW-The
Other Way |
|
1 |
1 |
|
Total
Completed Interventions |
85 |
49 |
134 |
Employment/Residence: One of the project goals was to increase the stability of offenders in the community with some emphasis on employment, housing and family. Employment status for most of the participants remained the same throughout the enhancement programming; between 60 and 70 percent of offenders had some type of employment. In the first district there was a net gain of two persons who were not employed at admission but were employed at release or end of program; in the second district there was a net loss of two persons, resulting in the same number of people employed at both periods of time for the entire study group.
Table 14 - Employment Status
|
|
1st District (N=40) |
2nd District (N=39) |
Total (N=79) |
|||
|
Employment Status |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Employed at Admission |
25 |
62.5% |
28 |
71.8% |
53 |
67.1% |
|
Employed at Release |
27 |
67.5% |
26 |
66.7% |
53 |
67.1% |
|
Net Gain/Loss |
2 |
|
-2 |
|
0 |
|
This group of offenders showed some residence stability with 41.8 percent living at the same residence and 29.1 percent moving only once since their admission date.
Table 15 - Residence Stability
|
|
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
# of Residences |
n |
% |
n |
% |
N |
% |
|
One |
16 |
40.0% |
17 |
43.6% |
33 |
41.8% |
|
Two |
9 |
22.5% |
14 |
35.9% |
23 |
29.1% |
|
Three or
more |
15 |
37.5% |
8 |
20.5% |
23 |
29.1% |
|
Total |
40 |
100.0% |
39 |
100.0% |
79 |
100.0% |
Recidivism: For the purpose of this evaluation, recidivism was defined as any new arrest, new conviction or revocation of supervision. Recidivism data were collected for offenders from the time they entered the sex offender enhancement program until January 31, 2005. Time under enhanced supervision ranged from 14 days to two years with average time at risk of 1.6 years.
Table 16 - Recidivism Data
|
|
1st District (N=40) |
2nd District (N=39) |
Total (N=79) |
|||
|
|
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Any New
Arrest |
9 |
22.5% |
12 |
30.0% |
21 |
26.6% |
|
Any New
Conviction |
6 |
15.0% |
11 |
27.5% |
17 |
21.5% |
|
New Sex
Conviction |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.5% |
1 |
1.3% |
|
Return to
Prison |
1 |
2.5% |
7 |
17.5% |
8 |
10.1% |
|
Revoked
to Residential Facility |
0 |
0.0% |
3 |
7.5% |
3 |
3.8% |
Results show that just over ten percent of participants were returned to prison either on new charges or on parole/probation violations, just over one-fourth of the participants were charged with a new offense and only one was convicted of a new sex offense. These findings appear to be consistent with prior Iowa data for sex offenders on parole and/or probation, which indicated less than two percent of sex offenders were convicted of new sex crimes and around 25 percent encountered new other criminal charges within 2.2 years of release.
A slightly higher rate of recidivism was found for the second district compared to the first district. It should be noted that the enhancement program for the second district ended July 15, 2004; however, the enhancement program for the first district is still in place with 19 offenders still under enhanced supervision on January 31, 2005, which may partially explain this difference.
CJJP will continue to collect recidivism data on these offenders through November 30, 2005. An updated recidivism report will be issued in December, 2005.
Current Supervision Status
A number of the sex offenders who participated in the rural sex offender enhancement program have been discharged or moved to other supervision statuses; 19 remain under the first district’s enhancement supervision.
Table 17 - Supervision Status as of January 31, 2005
|
|
1st District |
2nd District |
Total |
|||
|
Supervision Status |
n |
% |
n |
% |
n |
% |
|
Discharged |
12 |
30.0% |
16 |
41.0% |
28 |
35.4% |
|
Under Other Supervision |
4 |
10.0% |
15 |
38.5% |
19 |
24.1% |
|
Under Enhanced Supervision |
19 |
47.5% |
0 |
0.0% |
19 |
24.1% |
|
In Prison |
0 |
0.0% |
6 |
15.4% |
6 |
7.6% |
|
In Residential Facility |
3 |
7.5% |
1 |
2.6% |
4 |
5.1% |
|
Unsupervised Probation |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
2.6% |
1 |
1.3% |
|
Interstate Compact Return |
1 |
2.5% |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
1.3% |
|
Absconded |
1 |
2.5% |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
1.3% |
|
|
40 |
100.0% |
39 |
100.0% |
79 |
100.0% |
Sex Offender Significant Others Group Program
Evaluation Findings
Study Design
Evaluation of the significant others groups involved the creation of a pre-test and post-test instrument to be filled out by program staff who conducted the group sessions. The purpose of the instrument was to identify the goals of the program which were then operationalized as a measure of participant behavior.
In addition to the significant others associated with the offenders admitted to the rural sex offender enhancement program, the groups were opened to anyone associated with persons with a history of a sex offense (current or past charges).
|
Pre-Test/Post-Test Questions by Program Goal |
|
|
|
Goal 1: Understanding
offender's pattern of abuse |
|
The significant other was
able to identify red flags, signs and symptoms of abuse of sex offenders. |
|
Goal 2: Understanding
the criminal justice systems' expectations of offenders |
|
The significant other was
able to describe rules, expectations and major laws pertaining to sex
offender supervision and treatment. |
|
Goal 3: Understanding
what motivates offenders to offend |
|
The significant other was
able to describe sex offenders' characteristics and what motivates them to
offend. |
|
Goal 4: Understanding
the effects of abuse |
|
The significant other
understands the possible effects of the abuse on the victim and the
significant other's family. |
|
Goal 5: Reducing denial
related to the abuse |
|
The significant other is
willing to admit the offender has the responsibility for having committed a
crime. |
|
Goal 6: Understanding
sex offender treatment |
|
The significant other was
able to identify the major components of sex offender treatment. |
In addition to the pre-test/post-test instrument (which was completed by program staff), a client satisfaction survey was given to participants to determine how satisfied the participants were with the program and to elicit comments about the benefits of the program to them.
Client
Satisfaction Survey
The Significant Others Group
|
Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Disagree |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Disagree |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Disagree |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Agree |
|
Neutral |
|
Disagree |
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Comments/Suggestions:
Findings: Pre-Test/Post-Test
The first judicial district completed classes for three significant others groups during the program period; a fourth group is scheduled for completion in April, 2005. Participants were invited to attend classes for as long as they felt they were helpful, resulting in one person participating in three different groups. Each group held approximately 14 class sessions, depending on group needs.
Participants included family members such as mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers as well as wives, friends or girlfriends. Successful completion criteria included attending at least 11 sessions, completing a safety plan, letter of clarification and an exit interview. Fifteen participants were determined to have successfully completed the significant others’ program and nine were considered unsuccessful.
Using the questions listed above, each participant was scored on a scale of 1 to 10, with higher scores relating to desirable characteristics. Successful participants were observed to have improved understanding and reduction in denial related to the sex abuse at the end of the group sessions. Pre-test/post-test scores are presented in Table 1 below
The second judicial district completed classes for approximately 12 participants. Outcome data were not available for these significant others groups.
Table 1 - Significant Others’ Group Results: All classes
|
First Judicial District |
Average Scores |
||
|
Question Measure |
Pre-test |
Post-test |
Change |
|
1: Understanding offender's
pattern of abuse |
1.6 |
7.9 |
6.3 |
|
2: Understanding the
criminal justice systems' expectations of offenders |
1.9 |
8.0 |
6.1 |
|
3: Understanding what
motivates offenders to offend |
1.6 |
7.0 |
|