Frequently Asked Questions
Our office has probation and parole officers trained to work with people who committed sexual offences. Are their services sufficient for conducting assessments?
Many probation and parole officers are trained to conduct assessments of sexual offending and conduct these commendably. Nevertheless, thorough assessment is time consuming. Moreover, research reveals that regular practice doing assessment increases validity [2]. Case managers can delegate these tasks to Focused Psychological Services with the confidence that assessment will be conducted with fidelity.
Some case managers have yet to have the opportunity to study the theories explaining sexual offending or the time to regularly practice assessment. The clinicians at Focused Psychological Services spent hundreds of hours reading research on the theories of sexual offending and the practice of assessment.
Our office has probation and parole officers trained to provide intervention with people who committed sexual offences. What is the purpose of someone else providing treatment?
There is a conflict of interest if a probation or parole officer attempts the dual roles of enforcer of the law and therapist. Imagine a client grappling with his fantasies after observing children at a park. With whom is he more likely to be forthcoming? A probation or parole officer performing the dual role of legal enforcer and treatment provider can unintentionally undermine treatment.
Best practices with clients who perpetrated sexual abuse is a collaborative approach between the probation or parole officer and therapist. The Association for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse highlight the importance of, “The distinct but potentially complementary roles and responsibilities of treatment providers and supervision officers”.[3]
Is intensive supervision by a probation or parole officer sufficient to reduce recidivism?
Several studies reveal that, “Intensive community supervision without treatment is actually associated with either no reduction or a slight increase in recidivism rates. Clearly, the combination of supervision and treatment is important.”[4]
My clients’ offending occurred while intoxicated. Is directing them to an addictions counsellor sufficient to reduce recidivism?
Public Safety Canada [5] explain that substance abuse and other risk factors, such as social supports for crime and procriminal attitudes, independently contribute to criminal behaviour. Counselling for both risks can be warranted. Cummings and McGrath (2005)[6] provide the guidance:
“A provider’s clinical degree is probably not as important as his or her training, experience, and overall competence as a clinician. Training in the treatment of sexual deviancy, as well as familiarity with both offender and victim issues, is essential, and because the field is established, it is negligent and dangerous to send clients to clinicians who are learning by trial and error. So, it is important and reasonable for supervising officers to ask therapists how they keep up-to-date with emerging issues in the field and in what concrete ways they incorporate relevant new information and treatment techniques into their practice with sex offenders.”
