Social Work with Sex Offenders. Cowburn, Malcolm
but it is not what you think) and implicatory denial (what happened was not really bad and can be justified). A common aspect to all three forms is:
people, organisations, governments or whole societies are presented with information that is too disturbing, threatening or anomalous to be fully absorbed or openly acknowledged. The information is therefore somehow repressed, disavowed, pushed aside or reinterpreted. Or else the information ‘registers’ well enough, but its implications – cognitive, emotional or moral – are evaded, neutralised or rationalised away. (Cohen, 2000, p 1)
In relation to sex crimes, a key aspect of denial is the social construction of the sex offender as the ‘dangerous outsider’. Having neither family nor community, the sex offender and the threat s/he poses represent a denial of the fact that offenders and victims are most likely to know one another and, in many cases, be related to each other. This fact is ‘disturbing’ and ‘threatens’ the sanctity of the family as a place of safety, love and care.
Offender denial
There is a long history in the literature relating to practice1 with sex offenders of considering denial (see Salter, 1988; Briggs et al, 1998). Such has been the central importance given to denial and taking responsibility for offending that it has had a high profile in treatment programmes, both in the US (McGrath et al, 2010) and the UK (Beech and Fisher, 2004). However, recently, its relevance to sex offender treatment has been questioned (Yates, 2009; Ware and Mann, 2012). Nevertheless, while the centrality of denial and responsibility within treatment programmes may be contested, it remains an issue for social workers, who frequently encounter sex offenders outside of formal therapeutic settings.
Reflective exercise: Identifying and analysing minimisations
Ware and Mann (2012, p 281, emphasis added) ‘use the term denial to mean categorical rejection of the conviction, and the term minimization to refer to the common tendency to omit or underplay certain aspects of the offending or its consequences’.
In this exercise, we would like you to reflect on something that you have done that you feel ashamed of.
1. Can you identify ways in which you minimise your responsibility for this action? Write out things that you say to yourself and/or other people.
2. Can you identify ways in which you minimise the consequences of the action? Write out things that you say to yourself and/or other people.
Having written out these phrases, you can begin to identify patterns in what you are saying to yourself or to others (eg blaming others for what you have done [external attributions] or blaming something inside you [internal attributions]).
3. How do these phrases help you to cope with your day-to-day life? (What function do they serve?)
If you have some experience in working with sex offenders, repeat the exercise while thinking of how an offender spoke of his offences.
For social workers, encountering denial and minimisations from a sex offender can be difficult. A key issue is to listen to what is being said and to check that it has been recorded accurately. In this way, the worker dispassionately collects detailed information. These data are particularly important in assessing sex offenders and the risks that they may pose (see Chapter Five). The emotional impacts of listening and recording without challenging must be acknowledged and discussed in supervision, peer support, therapy or in other supportive relationships (see Chapter Seven).
Recognising the emotional impacts of working with sex offenders
The impacts of working with sex offenders may be different in degree, depending on whether the worker is engaging with the offender in relation to his/her offending behaviour, or whether they are in emotionally charged situations where (sexual) abuse is not yet formally identified but may be a strong possibility. However, there are commonalities across the work spectrum.
The literatures in relation to the effects of working directly with sex offenders, engaging in safeguarding social work and, more generally, social work in stressful situations point to the reductive impact of this work. This occurs in three areas: physical resilience, interpersonal abilities to engage positively in human relationships and professional capacities to observe, to interpret and to act. Although they often overlap, we consider them individually.
Physical resilience
Two areas of impact are highlighted: vicarious trauma (VT) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VT is the taking on by the therapist/social worker of the symptoms (of trauma) experienced and described by the person they are working with. People who sexually harm others not only impose trauma on their victims, but, in many cases, have also been victimised themselves, with female offenders having higher rates of victimisation than men (see Ogloff et al, 2012). VT is experienced through a range of bodily symptoms, for example, alterations to workers’ sex lives, headaches and nausea (Leicht, 2008; Pack, 2011; NSPCC, 2013). Symptoms of PTSD include disordered sleep (Ellerby, 1997; Jackson et al, 1997), recurrent and intrusive dreams, an inability to concentrate, fear (experienced somatically through a range of symptoms), and extreme tiredness (Farrenkopf, 1992). While the impacts may be experienced physically, it is more common that they are felt psychologically and emotionally. This directly affects a person’s ability to relate to others, whether in a personal or in a professional capacity.
Interpersonal abilities to engage positively in human relationships
Listening to graphic details of offences and hearing personal histories of abuse and neglect may adversely affect a worker’s wider view of the world and personal relationships, particularly in relation to issues of personal safety, trust, power, esteem and intimacy (McCann and Pearlman, 1990). This can involve workers imagining (potential) abusers everywhere, and feeling personally unsafe (Farrenkopf, 1992; Scheela, 2001; Leicht, 2008). Such insecurities may generate increased irritability (Bird Edmunds, 1997), as well as anger and frustration (Farrenkopf, 1992).
In response to these feelings, some workers numb their emotional response to day-to-day experiences and their abilities to respond empathically to harm caused by sexual and interpersonal violence (Farrenkopf, 1992; Bird Edmunds, 1997; Scheela, 2001). Such desensitising inevitably impacts on workers’ professional lives.
Professional capacities to observe, to interpret and to act
The boundary between personal and professional lives is permeable; the impacts of work on interpersonal relations also affect relations with service users. This, however, changes as workers become more experienced. Farrenkopf’s (1992) ‘Phases of Impact’ model identifies four separate phases of adjustment. In the first phase, workers suffer from shock and feelings of vulnerability; they are unable to understand what they were hearing and feeling. In the second phase, workers are immersed in their professional task, characterised by non-judgemental work ethics, empathy for the sex offender and hope that their work will prove to be effective. In the third phase, repressed emotions re-emerge, particularly anger and resentment, leading to cynicism. The final impact phase is either negative, where workers become disenchanted with their task and their client group, or one of accommodation, where workers adopt less idealistic goals for their work.
Scheela (2001) suggests a six-stage ‘remodelling process’. The stages are: falling apart, taking on, tearing out, rebuilding, doing the upkeep and moving on. These phases capture how working with sex offenders initially challenges workers on both emotional and cognitive levels, but how through processes of change or adaptation, this is managed. These models are useful because they emphasise that worker reactions to working with sex offenders are not fixed, but change and develop through the acquisition of both knowledge and skills, and through developing appropriate support mechanisms.
In emotionally charged areas of social work, there is always an impact on the worker(s). The most serious consequence of this is that workers may not be able to engage with the difficult situation(s) they face (McFadden