Re: Human Subjects Review/Offending Populations

[Miles Tarter <tarterm@xxxxxxx>]

Dr. Hopps;

I've spent a number of years treating and evaluating various offenders
and their victims; here's my two cents worth: Supposing you find a way
to avoid mandating reporting and assure a greater degree of
confidentiality than is currently possible. Do you believe you would
have more honest disclosure? How much more honest? Fear of prosecution
is only one of the possible reasons for incomplete disclosure amongst
accused offenders. You would not be able to mitigate other possible
outcomes of 'honest' disclosure. It might be interesting to measure
disclosure rates among those offered a more ironclad confidentiality and
those not, but you'd need a pretty large sample to produce reliable
results. I agree that this research should not be done. It can be
misleading to believe that the truth can be pried out of people reliably
in this way.

On the other hand, I would certainly advocate for some type of changes
in disclosure/prosecution practices, so that (less dangerous to the
public) accused offenders could admit their offenses to the court (if
they did in fact occur), agree to obtain appropriate treatment to
completion with a suspended sentence/probation agreement, to avoid the
current state of societal reinforcements which make it more likely that
an accused will deny through completion of adjudication rather than
getting help immediately.

Miles Tarter, M.A.
Psy.D. Candidate
Antioch University

DAVID J. PRATTO wrote:
> 
>         I am looking for information (citations if possible) and/or any
>      advice regarding human subjects approval for conducting research with
>      offending populations.  I am in the early stages of developing a study
>      to do in-depth, qualitative life history interviews with offenders
>      (both batterers and sexual offenders).
>         There are several possible constraints I see to both conducting
>      this research and obtaining human subjects approval.  The first
>      constraint is the offender's denial.  Their denial is no doubt due, in
>      large part, to their concern about possible prosection.  I have done
>      qualitative interviews with sexual offenders where I limited the scope
>      of discussion to the victim for whom the offender was currently in
>      treatment, meaning they were not asked to talk about any other
>      possible undisclosed offending behavior.  I would like to expand the
>      scope of inquiry with these groups of offenders.  Thus, there is the
>      possibility that they might talk about previously undisclosed
>      violence.
>         A second constraint is that you can't do qualitative interviews
>      anonymously.  The kinds of things I am interested in looking at (which
>      I won't go in to here), are best studied from a qualitative
>      perspective.  Yet, a concern I have is that if an outside person (such
>      as a victim's attorney) were to learn of the existence of the
>      interviews they could technically subpoena the material for use in a
>      civil case.
>         A related dilemma I have is that, as a social worker, I am a
>      mandated reporter.  I take my responsibility to protect victims very
>      seriously, but I also believe that in order for us to continue to
>      expand our understanding of interpersonal violence, we need to gather
>      in-depth information from offenders.  This means gathering information
>      on the entire range and history of their offending behavior.
>      Offenders are not likely to give this depth of information without
>      assurances of confidentiality.  However, if they are given these
>      assurances, they may disclose past or ongoing abuse that no action
>      could be taken to address.  This is a very difficult dilemma for me.
>         I would appreciate any thoughts, insights, or past experiences with
>      human subjects approval for this kind of work that any of you can
>      provide.
> 
>      Carolyn Copps Hartley, Ph.D.
>      University of Iowa
>      School of Social Work
>      308 North Hall
>      Iowa City, IA 52242
> 
> As disappointing as this sounds, it is my judgement that you should
> not do the research you are proposing.  Your ethical principles as a
> "mandated reporter" to my mind take precedence over the principle of
> of assuring confidentialty to research respondents. Furthermore, as
> you point out, you are not protected by law from disclosing
> information about your patients or clients.
> 
> I would encourage you to find a non-social worker to
> work collaboratively with you who can do the interviewing and who
> would not provide you with identifying information.  That does not
> solve you problem entirely, but it might be a start.
> David J. Pratto, Professor and Head
> Department of Sociology
> UNCG