Sex Offender Supervision: Communication, Training, and Mutual Respect Are Necessary for Effective Collaboration Between Probation Officers and Therapists

Abstract

Developed with the goal of preventing recidivism, contemporary sex offender supervision models focus on collaboration between probation officers and therapists. This exploratory study used focus groups to examine the working relationships between probation officers and therapists from two large U.S. urban probation departments. Overall, both probation officers and therapists were quite positive about their working relationships; they valued each others’ roles and agreed that regular, accurate, and timely communication occurred frequently. Not all relationships, however, were effective. Several probation officers and therapists expressed dissatisfaction with poor communication, conflicts between the goals of therapy and probation, a lack of resources, and deficits in the policies they needed to adequately implement components of their supervision model (the containment model). Our findings suggest ways to structure sexual offender supervision that integrate the distinct orientations of probation officers and therapists into a collaboration that promotes public safety and work well for all.

A Delicate Dance: Ethical and Systemic Issues in Providing Community-Based Sex Offender Treatment

“…Furthermore, although many understood the officers' need to focus on supervision rather than treatment because of legal liability and public perception, some providers reported feeling pressured by the criminal justice system to put the needs of the system above the needs of their clients. These findings support prior qualitative research that have discussed the complicated relationship between treatment providers and community corrections officers not only in the field of sex offender treatment (McGrath et al, 2002;Newstrom et al, 2019) but in other fields that treat mandated clients (e.g., opioid and alcohol use disorders; Duffee & Carlson, 1996;Friedmann et al, 2013;Monico et al, 2016).…”

“…Practitioners in these fields may also be required by the criminal justice system to report to the court or community corrections officers regarding their mandated clients' disclosures during treatment. Results from this study support prior research (e.g., Edens et al, 2018;Monico et al, 2016;Newstrom et al, 2019) stressing the need to increase communication (its frequency, accuracy, and collaborative spirit) between treatment provider, client, and criminal justice agents, regarding a client's rights, informed consent, reporting requirements, and process for disclosure involved in any field of community health treatment, not just sex offender treatment.…”

“…It encourages a broader focus on positive relationships between the treatment provider and the client (Levenson et al, 2018;Martin et al, 2000;Ross et al, 2008;Serran et al, 2003;Ward & Salmon, 2011;Youssef, 2017), and developing a client's ability to make good decisions and set positive life goals (Ward & Brown, 2004). Although various fields in mandated, community-based treatment increasingly acknowledge the need for a more collaborative and person-centered approach (rather than overly punitive approaches) for effective treatment (Edens et al, 2018;Serran et al, 2003;Ward & Salmon, 2011;Youssef, 2017), individuals and agencies within the criminal justice system may still cling to the idea that the only truly effective way to reduce sexual offending is on reliance of strong external controls (such as intensive community supervision; Newstrom et al, 2019).…”

“…They found that more important than the voluntary versus involuntary status of a client is the relationship between treatment provider and client for a positive behavior outcome. Furthermore, scholars and practitioners recognize the importance of a positive provider-client relationship, and as a result there has been a call to shift treatment modalities from risk-management and confrontational methods to a more collaborative relationship with community corrections officers and client-centered treatment approaches (Martin et al, 2000;McGrath et al, 2002;Newstrom et al, 2019;Serran et al, 2003;Ward & Brown, 2004;Youssef, 2017).…”

Does Reassessment Improve Prediction? A Prospective Study of the Sexual Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS)

“…We expected (a) the first (static) SOTIPS to predict recidivism, (b) the first SOTIPS to predict recidivism incrementally to another measure of static risk factors (Static-99R), and (c) for the dynamic (changing) SOTIPS scores to have a stronger relationship to recidivism than the first (static) SOTIPS scores. The data were collected as part of a National Institute of Justice study examining the influence of SOTIPS on community supervision practices and public safety (Miner et al, 2018;Newstrom et al, 2018).…”