The Lowest Bidder Isn’t Always the Best Choice for Public Safety
At sentencing, most people convicted of a sexual offense are ordered to participate in therapy as a condition of release. In many jurisdictions, the therapist is not chosen by the individual, nor by any careful assessment of therapeutic compatibility. Instead, treatment providers are often selected through government contracts, with probation offices referring participants to whichever program was the lowest bidder.
If the goal is merely checking a box, perhaps that system is sufficient. But if the goal is reducing recidivism and improving public safety, it raises an uncomfortable question: Are we prioritizing effective treatment, or simply the cheapest treatment?
A new study from the Université de Montréal suggests that the patient/therapist relationship is extremely relevant. Researchers followed 140 men who had committed sexual offenses against minors for five to eight years after treatment. The single most important factor associated with the success of treatment was not the participant’s stated motivation to change. It was the quality of the relationship between the client and the therapist — a concept known as the “therapeutic alliance.”
The study found that participants who developed stronger therapeutic relationships showed greater reductions in the distorted thinking patterns often associated with offending behavior. More importantly, those stronger therapeutic relationships were linked to lower rates of recidivism after treatment ended. Trust, openness, collaboration, and the ability to receive feedback without feeling attacked emerged as critical components of successful treatment.
For decades, public policy has largely been driven by the assumption that harsher restrictions, broader registries, and more intensive supervision are the keys to public safety. Yet this research points to something far more human: people are more likely to change when they develop a meaningful therapeutic relationship with someone who treats them as a person rather than a label.
The researchers specifically warned against reducing individuals to terms such as “sex offender” or “child molester.” According to the study, when people are viewed only through the lens of their worst act, it can undermine the very therapeutic process that is supposed to reduce future risk. The researchers emphasized that acknowledging a person’s humanity does not minimize the seriousness of the offense. Rather, it creates the conditions necessary for meaningful rehabilitation. We’ve heard from hundreds of members. Some had positive experiences from treatment. Others were traumatized from the berating and dehumanizing.
If society genuinely wants fewer victims, then it should be interested in what actually works. Numerous studies over the years have found that appropriate treatment can reduce recidivism. The question is whether we are investing in treatment that is effective or treatment that is merely available. A therapist who is engaged, experienced, and capable of building trust may help a client identify and challenge harmful thinking patterns. Even a well-meaning therapist who is overworked, undertrained, or simply trying to process a large caseload under a low-cost government contract may struggle to accomplish the same thing. And then there are the ones that are straight harmful.
Therapy should not be punishment. Public safety is often invoked to justify increasingly punitive policies. Yet studies like this remind us that public safety is not achieved through punishment. It is achieved when people leave treatment less likely to reoffend than when they entered it. If we are serious about preventing future crimes, the cheapest option may not be the safest one.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In Florida the ITM group has had the contract for almost 2 decades (more than? 🤷). The policy is to keep that person in “weekly classes” for as long as possible, usually up to the termination of probation. $25 a week per person adds up to a great deal of money for them. It’s a business in the business of making money first and foremost. One size does not fit all.
If it can be managed financially, individual therapists can be a great deal better than the State contracted group settings. Too many do not understand that they DO have the option of seeking court mandated treatment elsewhere, sometimes for not a great deal more money than what they’re already paying
I’ve said a lot of things about “sex offender treatment” over the years here at FAC, ACSOL, et. al. and it appears a lot of them bear repeating. Apologies in advance for the long post.
1. Actual recidivism rates of convicted sex criminals – less than 5% in most studies – should indicate that the sex crimes were the result of poor judgement, not some underlying, incurable mental illness or deficiency. Poor judgment is NOT a mental health issue; the problem is nearly always solved by sufficient consequences, not months and years of “treatment.”
2. “Sex offender treatment” providers by and large are mere substance abuse counselors substituting sex and children for drugs and alcohol in their programs. There are numerous problems with this, but the two major ones are that a substance abuse counselor is no more qualified to treat an actual, bona fide sexual disorder than a ecologist is qualified to perform open-heart surgery. And a program can hardly be considered successful when the overwhelming majority of clients end up on more drug charges within a year of completing said program.
3. In Georgia (and most other states, I’m sure), the state can petition the courts to impose involuntary mental health treatment provided it can show cause and on the recommendation of a LICENSED psychiatrist or physician. First, the statute clearly states that the commission of a crime, by itself, is insufficient to show cause. Second, the recommendation of a licensed psychiatrist or physician NEVER HAPPENS in Georgia, and likely not in any other state either. Yet, “treatment” is mandated at sentencing, both in prison and afterward. “Treatment” is not incentivised as it is in, say, substance abuse or domestic violence matters, where probation is terminated at the conclusion of “treatment.” Rather, “sex offender treatment” continues until the end of near end of one’s criminal sentence for the most part.
That is not to say that there aren’t some truly sick bastards on (and off) the registry that really do need serious treatment or confinement. Nor is it to say that some recipients of “sex offender treatment” don’t get something positive from it. It’s simply to say that the court-ordered nonsense is a joke.
4. I completed my stupid “treatment” program 5 years ago by submitting formal ethics complaints against the providers with every single civilian mental health organization of which they were a member. After that, I was put on the rocket ship to completion. One (somewhat predicted) “inconclusive” polygraph, mandated participation reduced to once per month, and one (really predicted) “passed” polygraph later and I was done. The probation office tried to impose further polygraph testing until I told them I wanted it in writing and take it to court. It was never brought up again.
Noname Relative
Wow same type of thing happened to me. The victim lied to me on social media. I thought she was an adult. She sure looked like one when me ment in person. Everything done was consensual. No one forced anyone to do anything to no one. And I had no past defenses at all. This whole S.O.R. is messed up. Hardly no S.O.R. repeats. Most of tge new crimes are non- S.O.R.
Does Florida have a tier system when classifying Sex-Offenders? Because my relative was labeled an SO when convicted of “inappropriate touching” a minor female, even though she successfully presented herself as an adult, and that’s what he thought he was dealing with on an adult website. He spent 4 years in prison even though there was no assault, no rape, no intercourse. Only an embarrassed mother of a sex-obsessed teenager.He had never looked at children for sex, no kiddie porn on his digital equipment, no police record of any kind. In Oregon, he was deemed a Zero risk for recidivision. Yet when he comes to Florida, he is treated as a pedophile.
There is no risk tiering in Florida.
Jacob
No, but we do have two different designations and could be considered tiers. Offender and Predator are the two designations. Some people could care less which designation, as they hate all of us. But if just an offender, you have a “Little bit” less restrictions.
Some states have a 3-tier system, with the lowest able to be removed from registration in some states much easier in the lowest tier and the top tier near impossible. Also, funny that every state seems to have different rules, as long as they meet the requirements of government compliance.