The Safe Guard Program is an educational program made up of 8 sessions (or more) with
target assignments for a support "safe guard" in conjunction with a specific offender.
Assignments are tailored to the specific offense cycle of the sexual offender in question.
Upon completion of the program the proposed "safe guard" should function as an informed,
effective and assertive support person within the community context. The assignments
are designed to be broad enough to determine whether the individual to act as the
"safe guard" is suitable to the task and cannot be intimidated by the offender in the
event that he/she begins to lapse into his/her offender cycle of abuse. Through this
program the "safe guard" becomes aware of the offender's specific relapse cycle. The
participants are educated in many of the principles of the Relapse Prevention model of
treatment. The offender has learned the application of these principles over a period
of time within the sexual offender group treatment process. The safe guard becomes
more and more aware of community-based attitudes toward sex offenders, offenders'
propensity for recidivism, and the components of the cognitive/behavioral treatment
model in order to be an effective and knowledgeable community resource for the sex
offender in recovery.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The sex offender Safe Guard Program has been introduced into the Vermont Department
of Corrections. It is an adjunct program to the adult sex offenders' community based
relapse prevention therapies covering a broad range of indexed sex offender convictions.
The goal of the program is the education of significant other(s) in the offender's life
who interact with him/her in the regular day functioning within the extended family and
the broader community. A graduate of this program is referred to as a safe guard.
Typically a safe guard, within the program structure, is a concerned individual known
to the offender who is trained and deemed appropriate for guarding the unique
vulnerabilities of children with whom the sex offender will eventually come in contact.
The Safe Guard Program can be implemented at the point at which both the offender's
therapist and probation officer agree that the offender has progressed though the
Relapse Prevention Program and has obtained the level of skills (cognitive and
behavioral) to allow limited contact with specifically identified non-victimized
children. Children who have been the targeted victim of the offender, or secondary
victims, are not considered as appropriate children with whom the offender may have
contact through the Safe Guard Program.
In order for the potential supervising adult safe guard (usually the significant
other to the offender) and offender to successfully complete the program, which
generally consists of eight weekly one-hour sessions, a list of stringent objectives
must be met to the satisfaction of both the therapist and probation officer.
If these criteria are not met, contact with specified children will not be approved
and the offender and significant other may apply for the program at a later date
when the offender has advanced further in the Relapse Prevention Treatment Program
and/or a more suitable safe guard person is found. This decision is dependent on
specified reasons that the Safe Guard Program was not successfully completed. It
should be further noted that disapproval for successful completion of the Safe Guard
Program is at the discretion of either the acting therapist or the probation officer.
Within the program there is a degree of flexibility to tailor the goals and course
objectives criteria to address the specific past and present dysfunctional behavior
patterns of the offender. It will also take into consideration the risk to re-offend
and the characteristics specific to the offender which are related to his/her
manipulation, access and grooming the targeted victim(s). The program currently
contains eight generalized components that are implemented at the discretion of
the facilitator or probation officer presenting the course to the individuals
who have applied. Skill levels vary among presenters. It is my intent to expand
upon the general guidelines and identify specific areas of understanding that are
necessary for the proper education of the safe guard person in conjunction with
the Relapse Prevention Plan of sexual offenders
Chapter 2 discusses the need for both the safe guard and offender to be aware of
the variety of any community's response when adjusting to the knowledge that there
is a convicted sex offender within their neighborhood and community. The indexed
offense with which the offender was charged, creates more than the initial victim(s)
the offender targeted. Immediate and extended relatives, friends, clergy, teachers
and others in the immediate community, as well as other geographic areas are
secondary victims of the crime and respond in varying ways and degrees to the
primary victim(s) and the offenders. They respond to the invasion of boundaries
into their life, feel shame by association, and deceived by the offender. They
quite understandingly fear for their continued safety. To date community based
notification programs vary from state to state and many jurisdictions are still
arguing the ramifications of Megan's Law. Studies relative to recidivism rates
have generally lacked standardization and consistent data are difficult to
assemble in a meaningful way to allow validation examination of recidivism rates
as a result of community notification. Disagreement between those knowledgeable
in the field further confuses the average person within a community; it is small
wonder that the current information generates confusion, stereotypic myths, and
fear.
In this chapter we will look at statistics furnished by the Bureau of Justice,
a recidivism rate scale developed by R. Karl Hanson and used by the state of Vermont,
a cross-validation study of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (a tool used to
predict violence among high-risk offenders. Other references include Furby,
Weinrott and Blackshaw's examination of 42 studies, a study by Ogloff, Wong and
Greenwood examining a therapeutic community program for personality disordered
individuals many who were classified as psychopaths and an evaluation of the
therapeutic community programs for violent psychopathic offenders by Marnie E.
Rice of the Mental Health Centre in Ontario.
Chapter 2A discusses communities outcries of indignation and the solutions they
seek to resolve the problems, some of which are based in misinformation.
California passed a law in 1996 that mandated chemical castration for repeat
child molesters. As of that date several other states have considered passing
such laws, those being, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Texas and Washington. The most common drugs used for this purpose are Depo-Provera
and Depo-Lupron. The purpose of these drugs is to lower the blood serum testosterone
levels in the males in the belief that it will lower sexual drive and aggression.
The drug reduces the sexual drive by influencing the hypothalamus that stimulates
the pituitary to release the hormones that control the production of sperm.
Men using the drug can still obtain an erection, ejaculate and engage in sexual
intercourse (Cummings, Buell, 1997). What these laws do not take into
consideration is that these men can still engage in non-criminal and criminal
sexual behavior while on these drugs. In effect, these current laws have allowed
politicians to prescribe drugs rather than those professionals in the medical
fields. While their use might placate societies need for punitive retribution,
as a blanket solution it not only falls short of the mark but also is contrary
to medical ethics when used to further political needs. The use of chemical
castration should only be available to those who want the treatment or can be
actually helped by it (ATSA, 1997). While the use of chemical castration has
it's place with some sex offender cases there are much more humane treatment
programs for the majority of sex offenders who choose to change their behaviors.
This chapter is framed by research from such practitioners as Maletzky, Cumming
and Buell, Berlin, Kafka, Paykel, Bradford and the ATSA among others.
Chapter 2B discusses the sex offender registration/community notification laws
in those states being held up as models for the recently formed federal guidelines
addressing sex offender prosecution and treatment
As a result of recent public notification legislation (Pam Lychner Sexual Offender
Tracking and Identification Act of 1996, section 115, General Provisions of
Title I Department of Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998), changes were required to conform to the Jacob
Wetterling Act and Megan's Law. The Pam Lychner Act included the requirement
that sex offenders convicted of particularly serious offenses and recidivism
were subject to life long registration. States were required to comply within
three years of the enactment of the bill (October 3, 1996) (Federal Register, 1998).
States were allowed to file for a possible two-year extension from the date of
the enactment (Federal Register, 1998).
CJSA requirements made far-reaching changes to the Wetterling Act and gave
States greater leeway in how they chose to implement sex offender registration
requirements. The intent of the Act was to assist law enforcement with guidelines
to maintain public safety through the use of registration and transfer of
information concerning sexual predators and recidivists. It gave the states a minimum
standard of performance while allowing states to maximize safety for the public
at the discretion of the state. It also does not require that a state implement
the provisions by statute. A clarification process was implemented prior to the
publication of the final guideline that was intended to assist States to hold to
the intent of the law. We will explore some of these clarifications.
Research and informed theories contained in this chapter will include: Federal
Register, Oregon Department of Corrections, Minnesota Session Laws, Bishop,
NCMEC, Hare, McPherson and Forth, state of Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
and Matson and Scott.
Chapter 3 is a discussion of one widely accepted community-based treatment
program model used in conjunction with probation and parole.
One size fits all treatment programs are not effective and programs should be
offender specific according to offender typology and paraphilia. They should
incorporate relapse prevention (NCMEC, 1998). Treatment method of choice for
sex offenders is based on the cognitive/ behavioral model of group therapy with
the inclusion of relapse prevention. There are five elements that need to be
covered within this model: accepting responsibility, modifying thinking errors
that lead to the offense, developing victim empathy, developing social skills
and developing relapse prevention skills.
Levels of denial vary from one offender to another and in varying degrees as the
offender works through his treatment program. Depending of the level of resistance
to the various components of the program the offender in treatment may repeat
certain treatment assignments until they are mastered.
Resources for this Chapter include NCMEC, Blanchard, Ross, Briere and Runtz,
Hammond, Cullen and Freeman-Longo, Marshall, Laws and Barbaree, and PAVE.
This chapter also relies on the standards and practices learned during my
internship with the Rutland County Probation and Parole office under the
supervision of Bradford Hammond.
Chapter 4 discusses an enhancement of the currently used Safe Guard Program
guidelines used in the State of Vermont
The current guidelines as stated by the Vermont Department of Corrections are
insufficient to cover adequately the many components that are included over the
life span of the Sexual Offender Treatment Program. The Treatment Program enables
the motivated offender to pass through three stages of behavioral/cognitive
change. These stages take into consideration that at the initial stages the
offender is less lightly to want to institute meaningful change to behaviors.
They are generally unmotivated, uncommitted and either unwilling or unable to
make those changes. With group intervention and support the offender enters
stage two when they become aware that not only is there a need to change but
they are in fact at risk to re-offend. As a result they become more motivated
to address the need for changes to begin to occur. There is still generally
resistance to commitment and change is difficult. Offenders who are most likely
to be considered for a Safe Guard Program are those who enter into a stage three
and who actively have made consistent action to modify their patterns of behaviors,
experiences or environmental conditions which led/lead to lapses and relapses into
sexually deviant behavior. It is important that the safe guard understand both
the cognitive and behavioral modifications that have occurred and continue to occur
as a result of sex offender treatment.