[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
researching child abuse investigation models
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#f0e8d8>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On behalf of the Community Alliance of Palm Beach
County I am researching best practices and successful
models pertaining to child abuse
investigations. We are interested in reviewing models of
practice involving Law Enforcement, State and/or Private
Agencies. We need information on how the models are structured, outcomes,
collaborative efforts, who pays for what, the cost -- total
budget/per person, and demographic information. Any information you
can provide or suggestion as to where/who to contact would be very
helpful. Thank you!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dorothy K. Carmichael-Schwab, Ph.D.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Consultant for the Community Alliance of
Palm Beach County<BR>5023 Whispering Hollow<BR>Palm Beach Gardens, FL
33418<BR>561/622-2235<BR>561/622-2235*51 fax<BR><A
href="mailto:dtschwab@bellsouth.net";>dtschwab@bellsouth.net</A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Jan 28 09:24:24 2002
Status: U
Return-Path: <owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Received: from elist02.mail.cornell.edu (elist02.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.15])
by postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12384;
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:00:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA11935;
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 16:00:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from elist02.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA10349;
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:59:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6])
by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15159
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist02.mail.cornell.edu>; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:05:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA27130
for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist02.mail.cornell.edu; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:05:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hosting-network.com (UNIX66.HOSTING-NETWORK.COM [64.38.103.1])
by cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA27094
for <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>; Sat, 26 Jan 2002 12:05:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail 80266 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2002 17:07:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ron) (24.19.214.55)
by node-67.hosting-network.com with SMTP; 26 Jan 2002 17:07:17 -0000
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-PH: V4.1@elist02 (Cornell Modified)
From: "Ron Kokish" <ron@delko.net>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: RE: Predictors of Recidivism - Sexual Abuse
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 09:05:55 -0800
Message-ID: <BLEDIIOPANDPLOFJKCHICEFECCAA.ron@delko.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To: <2290522220.1011607836@66-108-247-189.nyc.rr.com>
Message-Tag: 3975
Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09.cu.02/011115/14:19 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
>>I'm looking for research more on determining the risk of the perpetrator
reoffending.....what factors would tell us when a perp [serial offender] has
responded to treatment and is less likely to reoffend. What if the offender
has a child and a decision needs to be made regarding the risk to that child
relative to treatment progress made ?
I'm aware of research by Hanson and Bussiere in the Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology [1998 Vol 66, No 2, pp348-362] who conducted a meta
analysis of sexual offender studies with regard to predicting relapse....so
far my mind is thinking that predicting relapse is a bit like asking how
long is a piece of string..<<
The best single factor for classifying reoffense risk in child molesters is
deviant sexual arousal as measured with a penile plethysmograph. (ppg)
Psychopathy as measured with the Hare Psychopathy Scale (PCL-R) is also
pretty useful, all by itself.
There are several actuarial instruments for classifying known sexual abusers
into risk "categories" or "pools." See www.ccoso.org/links/index.html.
Then scroll down to the section on "actuarial risk assessment tools" for
several good links. (Note that the third link down is dead because it is
incorrect. It should be http://www.mhcp-research.com/ragpage.htm I will
try to have it corrected ASAP)
Most of these instruments rely on "static" variables like age, offense
history, social history, etc. This is because static factors are the most
accurate classification instruments and should always be used a starting
point in any risk assessment. But static factors tell us nothing about
"treatment progress" which is of course, a "dynamic variable." Dynamic
variables can then be applied to help us monitor offenders and "place bets"
about short and intermediate term recidivism.
No instrument accurately and specifically measures "treatment progress" as
it applies to reducing recidivism. Clinical judgment isn't helpful, because
it has proved a very poor indicator. This is especially true for men who
score high on the PCL-R. (See, "Seto, M.C. and H.E. Barbaree, Psychopathy,
treatment behavior, and sex offender recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 1999. 14(12): p. 1235-1248.")
Treatment progress should however, be reflected in a lowering of dynamic
variables. Presently, the best available instrument for risk classification
using dynamic factors is the "Sex Offender Needs Assessment Rating (SONAR),
which can be accessed via the URL I gave you above. I'm not saying SONAR is
very good, and the authors make no such claim. However, it's what we have
for now. SONAR should be used at treatment intake, and periodically
there-after. As treatment progresses, you should see dynamic risk fall and
stay low on subsequent administrations. If you monitor an offender with
this instrument, periodic sexual arousal or interest testing with ppg or
Abel Assessment, and polygraph examinations you should be in pretty form
ground in the near and intermediate term. However, the further out you try
to predict, the less accurate your classification will be, I'd recommend
monitoring quarterly. This is because DYNAMIC variables are poor long term
indicators precisely because they are "dynamic." What goes down, can go up
again, so the instruments only help as long as you keep monitoring. There
is nothing except clinical judgment to shed light on whether an individual's
dynamic scores will stay low over the long haul and the less said about the
accuracy of clinical judgment, the better. (Except for yours and mine of
course.)
Regards,
Ron Kokish
Education C0-chair - California Coalition on Sexual Offending