Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams and Polygraphs: One Protocol for Increasing Rehabilitative Integrity

This study compares the disclosure performance of sex offenders under two polygraph modalities: first, the traditional single examiner mode, and second the collaborative multidisciplinary team approach. Its asks whether under the team approach offender disclosure rates increase, thus enabling rehabilitative processes to operate more effectively and at the same time offer assurance of increased community protection. The findings suggest offenders are more disclosing on significant items under the collaborative team approach, and the experience and manifest higher levels of integrity, which in and of itself is therapeutic. Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams and Polygraphs: One Protocol For Increasing Rehabilitative Integrity The Challenge of Helping Sex Offenders Confront Themselves In the United States, we have a serious problem with regard to sexual assault and the rehabilitation and monitoring of those who commit such crimes. To illustrate, Greenfield (1997) recently found some 234,000 Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams 345 offenders have been convicted of sexual assault, including rape, and are in custody or under the control of state correctional agencies. Since 1980 the number of sex offenders has grown by more than 7%, and almost one in ten inmates have been confined because of sexual crimes. Most offenders are over the age of eighteen, and two-thirds of the reported victims, 86% of whom are women, are under the age eighteen (Snyder, 2000). Given the far-reaching emotional, psychological and spiritual impacts incurred by victims, the effects on their lives and the lives of those with whom they interact, including society at large, are not only lasting, but deep and painful. The effects of these crimes on the lives of offenders is also deep, painful, and difficult to undo. So much so, that one prevailing sentiment in the rehabilitation community is that “sex offenders never change.” While this view is somewhat cynical, it certainly underscores the difficulty associated with rehabilitation, a difficulty highlighted by the fact that recidivism rates (based on re-arrest rates) for rapists are nearly 19%, and nearly 13% for child molesters (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). Moreover, typical sex offenders have had multiple and diverse victims, have assaulted strangers, committed offenses during their juvenile years, have histories of abuse and neglect, have experienced long-term separation from and poor relationships with parents, particularly their mothers, experience antisocial personality disorder, are unemployed, lead chaotic lifestyles, and have been involved in some substance abuse (Hanson & Harris, 1998). Under the staggering weight of these personal and social problems, the challenge of rehabilitating offenders is intimidating. The hope of rehabilitation, however, as most reconstructive models demonstrate, rests on the doctrine that offenders can and will assume responsibility for their own behavior, which means first they must acknowledge it. These are moments of integrity—self-integrity—in which an offender admits to wrong-doing as a first step in the process of self-correction. From the point of view of those helping in the rehabilitation process, little or no progress can be made until an offender acknowledges having done something wrong and begins to confront the consequences of that wrong doing, both to self and others. Upon acknowledgement of wrong-doing, an offender is in a much better position to help him/herself and be helped by others (McGrath, 1991; Bernfield et.al., 2001). Polygraph Examinations as a Part of Sex Offender Treatment To increase offender accountability for damaging and illegal behavior, and to enable therapists and others to help in the reconstructive Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams 346 process, polygraphs have become important aids in determining the truth of what offenders undergoing rehabilitative treatment say. One primary goal of such treatment is to train the client to be honest with the therapist and with others, including other individuals in treatment groups and supervising agents. If this cannot be accomplished, then other treatment objectives become meaningless. Polygraphs have the added advantage of helping the treatment provider prevent the client from minimizing, rationalizing, and justifying their sex related offenses and inappropriate sexual behavior. Polygraphs also help supervising agents determine if a sex offender appropriately qualifies for community placement without jeopardizing community safety. Lundell (2002) identifies three primary types of polygraph examinations. First, sexual history polygraphs, which are used to validate an offender’s written history of sexual experiences and behaviors prior to his/her most recent conviction. This polygraph is used to ensure the offender has fully disclosed all relevant thought, feeling and behavior to the treatment provider. This examination tests the offender’s level of deception and thus the willingness to be honest with the therapist regarding sexual history. Second, maintenance polygraphs give the sex offender the opportunity to demonstrate to self, the treatment provider, and the supervising agent a willingness to change behavior through compliance with the treatment plan and the conditions of supervision. This polygraph is conducted over the course of the sex offender’s treatment. In the present study, the frequency of polygraph episodes is determined by a State Sex Offender Management Board which requires that every six months offenders under supervision must submit to polygraph interrogation. One specific purpose of this polygraph is to break down an offender’s denial when he/she is concealing the truth about a specific action or behavior. Third, specific issue polygraphs are administered when treatment indicate the need to ensure that an offender is telling the truth on specific rehabilitation, offender behavior or offender history issues. In all three types of polygraph testing, the intent is to ensure truth-telling, which is foundational in the development and administration of a treatment plan. The polygraphy is also designed to help the therapist measure whether the offender is progressing, and act as a deterrent to any offender violation of therapy protocols or rules (Heil, Ahlmeyer, McCullar & McKee, 2000). It is, in short, designed to help ensure honesty in treatment. Initial reactions seem to indicate that it has the desired effects: Harrison and Kirkpatrick (2000), for instance, found Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams 347 that sex offenders under polygraph usage were able to recall and disclose a higher number of victims, more facts about each offense, and other offenses for which they had not been arrested or charged. The Issue of Polygraph Validity Curiously, the use of polygraph testing has grown despite skepticism and legal and policy curbs on its use (see e.g. Cross & Saxe, 1992; Sax & Ben-Shakhar, 1999). With regard to polygraph use and sex offender treatment, strongly contradictory opinions have emerged. Corwin (1988) and Faller (1997), for instance, in their work with children, have been critical of polygraph usage when testing alleged perpetrators; others have criticized their use with alleged victims of abuse (Sloan, 1995). Abrams (1975) believes that children under 11 are too young for effective polygraph reports, and Matte (1996) argued that testing young children can be psychologically damaging, as it causes them to relive previous and painful trauma. Brette, Phillips and Beary (1986), for their part, found evidence that polygraphs can generate positive findings from those who lied, and negative findings from others who were telling the truth. In short, Phillips summarized their research by saying equal results might just as readily be obtained by flipping a coin (1999). On the other hand, strong arguments and supportive data argue the practicality, necessity, and viability of polygraph usage in the arena of sexual abuse and treatment (see, e.g., English, Jones Patrick, Pasini-Hill, & Gonzalez, 2000; English, Pullen & Jones, 1996, 1997; Leberg, 1997). Twelve studies conducted by the American Polygraph Association found that polygraph examinations had an averages accuracy of 98%; the Association then reviewed eleven more studies conducted by independent analysis and found the average accuracy rate of 92% (American Polygraph Association, 2000). Polygraph tests, of course, are not infallible, and their accuracy is a function of a number of factors, including human competency and the willingness of the subject to cooperate, but Abrams and Simmons (2000), in reviewing their use, suggest a number of conditions dealing with their proper usage, which, if adhered with, suggest results which can be statistically significant. Polygraph Testing to Increase Disclosure by Sex Offenders For Treatment Purposes Even where polygraphs provide positive support to the treatment process, and sustain the inquiry after a true relation of the facts, their use Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams 348 can have entangling elements. Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee and English (2000), for example, compared the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSIR), Sexual History Disclosure form and two consecutive polygraph examinations and found that during the preliminary investigation, on average sex offenders admitted to having two victims and committing seven offenses. Yet, when they reviewed the polygraph examinations, they discovered that those same sex offenders admitted to an average of one hundred and sixty-five victims and committing over five hundred and eleven offenses. During a second polygraph, however, they observed a decline in the number of admissions. Overall, however, it does appear that the polygraph assisted in revealing a truer picture of the facts. In a polygraph study using data from a survey of probation and parole officers, sex offender case files, and field research across the United States conducted by the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, the use of polygraphs in conjunction with offense specific treatment revealed higher rates of offending than did instances using only self-reports and criminal history. The findings showed that one in four sex offenders admitted to high risk behavior before the polygraph, whereas after the polygraph four out of five sex offenders admitted to high risk behavior. The polygraph treatment also increased from 22% to 67% admissions of “hands-off” offenses (i.e. exhibitionism, voyeurism, stalking) and from 93% to 98% the number of sex offenders admitting to “hands-on” offenses (i.e. such things as physical contact, like groping) (Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 2000). Again, polygraph testing was helpful in increasing offender disclosure rates. The Containment Approach, and the Need for Collaboration English, Pullen and Jones (1997) propose a five part supervision model for the containment of sex offenders under community supervision. This “containment approach,” as it is called, imposes both internal and external controls on sex offenders. These include: 1) safeguards for community safety and victim rights; 2) individualized case management specifically focusing on sexually deviant behavior; 3) collaboration between the therapist, law enforcement, supervising agents, polygraph examiners, child protection agencies, and others; 4) “clear, informed, and consistent” public policies; and 5) measures for quality control. The central tenet of this containment approach is that the community is the client, and that community safety and victim rights are paramount. Court orders (such as restraints against contacting victims, Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams 349 mandatory treatment and registration) are honored, in order to help guarantee public safety. Treatment modalities are “offense specific” and designed to help offenders learn to monitor and control their own behavior; increased monitoring by a supervising agent, polygraph examinations, and restrictions on where a sex offender can work are illustrative of the kinds of external controls designed to help offenders change behavior. The team approach introduces multiple pressures and reinforcements to achieve the desired behavior: “Through systematic cooperation and collaboration, such teams are an antidote to traditionally fragmented intervention efforts. Teams improve interagency communication, facilitate case-specific information sharing, promote the exchange of expertise and ideas, help break down traditional turf barriers, minimize duplication of effort, maximize resources, and often reduce staff burnout” (English, Pullen & Jones, 1997, p. 6). The impacts of team efforts are buttressed by “clear, informed, and consistent” public policies, such as reducing or eliminating no contest pleas, pleas that reduce sex offenses to non-sex related crimes, deferred judgments and sentences, or making referrals to diversion programs. Quality control includes such items as evaluating policies, practices and programs to ensure they do as intended, minimizing secondary trauma and increasing training for those who work with sex offenders. The containment approach thus envisions the strength of a team approach coupled with a systematic and comprehensive process for dealing with offender rehabilitation. At the heart of this therapeutic process is the recognition that offenders must first be honest with themselves, then with their therapeutic team, and finally with the community at large. Polygraph examinations have become an integral part of guaranteeing that integrity. In this regard, polygraphs become an important containment (supervision) tool, as they help treatment personnel a) gain complete and accurate information needed to determine an offender’s risk to the public, and b) develop a treatment plan reflecting offender’s needs. The Research Questions In spite of growing skepticism by some treatment providers as to the validity of polygraphs (see, e.g. Iacono, 1991; Iacono & Lykken, 1997a, 1997b; Iacono & Patrick, 1987, 1988; Lykken, 1998), they have become a fact of life, and are used in a variety of ways to assess sexual abuse (Williams, 1999). Some police departments, for example, conduct tests Collaborative Multidisciplinary Teams 350 with alleged perpetrators and sometimes with alleged victims (Pence & Wilson, 1994; Sloan, 1995). In other instances, private employers sometimes contract with polygraphers to conduct tests where allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment have occurred (Matte, 1996), and of course polygraph examiners, likely with their own pecuniary motives at heart, have championed the use of polygraph examination in sexual abuse cases (see, e.g. Abrams & Abrams, 1993; Holden, 2000; Raskin & Steller, 1989). With the increased use of polygraphs for therapeutic purposes, the obvious issue of effectiveness surfaces. What can be done to gain the maximum benefit from polygraph usage? This research seeks, at minimum, to answer two questions: • Are polygraphs more effective when used in conjunction with a team of professionals who join together with common treatment objectives than when used without such a team? And • Does the collaborative team approach to polygraph usage in the therapeutic context increase the integrity of sex offender rehabilitative processes? The research thus focuses on ways of increasing the amount of information disclosed by offenders during the polygraph’s post-test. Traditionally, the polygraph examiner conducting the post-test (debriefing) with the sex offender sends the results of the test to the therapist and supervising agent so that they in turn can use the data later—sometimes as much as weeks later. By engaging other professionals in the polygraph post-test process, the data are immediately available to all, and the offender is under an additional pressure to conform to rehabilitative procedures. Because there are multiple attendant witnesses, all with different pieces of information relative to the offender’s behavior, the offender is also under an increased pressure to disclose relevant information, and thus “be more honest.”