Collaborative
Multidisciplinary Teams and Polygraphs: One Protocol for Increasing
Rehabilitative Integrity
Heather Elliott
Graduate Student
Graduate School of
Public Affairs
University of Colorado
at Colorado Springs
And
Mark L. McConkie
Professor
Graduate School of
Public Affairs
University of Colorado
at Colorado Springs
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.
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 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).
To increase offender accountability for damaging and
illegal behavior, and to enable therapists and others to help in the
reconstructive 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 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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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 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.”
The participants included 65 convicted adult male and 2
convicted adult female sex offenders under the jurisdiction of the Colorado
Department of Corrections. 28 males and 2 females were supervised by a
community corrections program from January 1999 to March 2002, and participated
in the collaborative multidiscipline polygraph process. 37 males were supervised by the same
community corrections program from January 1994 to December 1997 and
participated in the traditional polygraph process. A total of 373 polygraphs were collected from these two
groups—260 for the collaborative multidiscipline polygraph group and 113 for
the traditional polygraph group.
Members of both groups were required to attend offense
specific treatment and comply with a mandatory polygraph every six months. In addition, they were required to abide by
Colorado’s mandatory registration laws. At the same time, the community
corrections program required a mandatory polygraph every three months and
offenders, as part of a “therapeutic community,” were required to attend
treatment once a week for 1.5 hours. The average length of treatment for the
sex offenders who participated in the collaborative multidiscipline polygraph
process was four years, and the average length for those with the traditional
polygraph process was two years.
Data were collected on sex offender polygraphs from
January 1994 to March 2002. For the sex
offenders participating in the collaborative multidiscipline polygraph process,
polygraphs were collected from January 1999 to March 2002. For sex offenders participating in the
traditional polygraph process, polygraphs were collected from January 1994 to
December 1997. The dependent variables
were the information disclosed by the sex offender during the post-test as
shown in the 13 categories listed in the Procedures section of this paper. The independent variables were the
traditional polygraphs (control) compared with the collaborative
multidiscipline team polygraphs.
Independent licensed polygraph examiners conducted the
polygraph examinations, all of whom had been approved by the Colorado Sex
Offender Management Board. The
polygraph equipment used was the Axciton Computerized Polygraph System and the
Lafayette Instrument LX-2000. For reliability and validity, both systems use
the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory Polyscore computer-scoring
algorithm. The polygraph examination
measures the sex offender’s cardiovascular, respiratory, and galvanic skin
resistance to each question.
The polygraph examination has a pretest and posttest
component. The polygraph examiner
worked with the therapist and/or supervising agent in developing questions for
disclosure, new offenses, and compliance for the polygraph examination. This research focuses only on the
information disclosed by the sex offender during the post-test
(debriefing). The post-test involves
the polygraph examiner reviewing the deceptive results of the examination with
the sex offender. This review allows
for the sex offender to disclose any additional information pertaining to the
questions and examination results. Upon
completion of the polygraph examination, the polygraph examiner generates a
report based on the polygraph results and what information the sex offender has
disclosed. Each polygraph is video
taped for accuracy. Each polygraph
report includes generally the three-polygraph questions, the offender’s physical response to those
questions, the pre-test, post-test, and any information disclosed by the sex
offender to the polygraph examiner and/or the collaborative multidiscipline
team.
The comparison was between the traditional polygraph
post-test and polygraph post-test done with a collaborative multidiscipline
team. This research collected the information
disclosed in the post-test reports of the sex offenders in a community
corrections program, which conducts polygraphs as a collaborative effort
between the polygraph examiner, therapist, and supervising agent and compared
them with the information disclosed in the post-test reports of the sex
offenders previously in the same community corrections program but with the use
of the traditional polygraph process, which is conducted only with the
polygraph examiner. In the traditional
polygraph process the only collaboration between the polygraph examiner,
therapist, and/or the supervising agent occurs when designing polygraph
questions for the sex offenders. During
the traditional polygraph process, the polygraph examiner is the only one who
conducts the posttest (debriefing). The
polygraph examiner then generates the report, which is then sent to the
supervising agent and therapist within two weeks. Whereas in the collaborative multidiscipline team polygraph
process, the polygraph examiner, therapist, and supervising agent are all
involved in both the formulation of polygraph questions and the posttest
(debriefing) process. For the purpose of this study specific issues, sexual
history, and maintenance polygraphs were used.
A worksheet was
developed specially for the purpose of data collection for this particular
study. The worksheet includes the
clients ID number (to maintain confidentiality), age, gender, race/ethnicity,
and disclosure categories for scoring.
The disclosure categories included the following:
1. New sexual offense (felony
& misdemeanors)
2. New crime
(nonsexual—felony & misdemeanors)
3. Victim Contact
4. 3rd party victim contact
5. Deviant sexual behavior
a. viewing
pornography
b.
masturbation
c. public
masturbation
d.
visiting an adult book store
e.
visiting a topless or nude bar
f. sexual
contact w/ animals
g.
fondling own genitals (no ejaculation)
h. paid
for sex
i.
internet use for sexual purposes
j. cross
dressing
k.
frottage
6. Unauthorized contact w/
anyone under 18 years old.
7. Unreported masturbatory
fantasies
8. Program compliance
9. Drug and/or alcohol use.
10. Unauthorized
relationships
11. Unauthorized contact with
family members
12. External verification
(field check, self report, positive urinalysis/breathalyzers, 3rd party,
etc…)
13. Additional victims (sex history)
The rater reviewed each polygraph post-test report and
reported the number of incidences in which each sex offender had disclosed a
new offense, a violation of the terms of his/her supervision contract, and/or a
deviant sexual behavior. Data
collection for each sex offender’s polygraph post-test report was reviewed by
two independent raters to maintain rater validity. For analytical purposes, each category was compared between the
traditional polygraph process and that of the collaborative multidiscipline
team polygraph, using Independent T-test with a .05 significance level.
Results
The median age of the sex offenders participating
in this study was 41, and the average age of sex offenders serving sentences in
the community corrections program who participated in the collaborative
multidiscipline polygraph was 42. The average age of the sex offenders who
served their sentence in the same community corrections program and
participated in the traditional polygraph was 39. Of the participants, 49 were Caucasian, 6 were African American,
11 were Hispanic, and 1 a Pacific Islander.
In the collaborative polygraph group, 20 Caucasians, 4 African
Americans, 5 Hispanics, and 1 Pacific Islander participated. In the traditional polygraph group, 29
Caucasians, 2 African Americans, and 6 Hispanics participated.
The first data set analyzed examined the percentage of
disclosures of each polygraph category for both the collaborative polygraph
group and the traditional polygraph group.
It showed that for the collaborative group one polygraph post-test
(.04%) had a disclosure of a new sexual offense. This offense was reported as an “accidental exposure,” where as
the sex offender was undressing and did not close the blinds to his
residence. For the collaborative
polygraph group, five polygraph post-test participants (1.9%) disclosed victim
contact, four (1.5%) 3rd party victim contact, thirty-six (13.8%) deviant
sexual behavior, five (1.9%) unauthorized contact with someone under the age of
eighteen, fifty-seven (21.9%) unreported masturbatory fantasies, five (1.9%)
program compliance violations, three (1.2%) unauthorized relationships, five
(1.9%) unauthorized contact with family and nineteen (7.3%) additional victims
(sex history polygraphs). For the
collaborative polygraph group, there was no additional disclosure during the
post-test on new crimes, drug and/or alcohol use, and/or external
verification. The analysis showed that
for the traditional polygraph group five polygraph post-tests (4.4%) disclosed
victim contact, twenty-two (19.5%) deviant sexual behavior, two (1.8%)
unauthorized contact with someone under the age of eighteen, ten (8.8%)
unreported masturbatory fantasies, eleven (9.7%) program compliance violations,
four (3.5%) unauthorized relationships, one (.9%) unauthorized contact with
family, and one (.9%) additional victims (sex history polygraphs). For the traditional polygraph group, there
was no additional disclosure during the post-test on new sexual offenses, new
crimes, 3rd party victim contact, drug and/or alcohol use, and/or external
verification. (See Table I).
The second data set we analyzed examined the percentage
of disclosures of each polygraph subcategory under deviant sexual behavior for
both the collaborative polygraph group and the traditional polygraph
group. The analysis showed that for the
collaborative polygraph group, five polygraph post-tests (1.9%) disclosed
viewing pornography, nineteen (7.3%) masturbation, two (.08%) public
masturbation, one (.4%) adult book store, four (1.5%) fondling own self (no
ejaculation), one (.4%) paid for sex, one (.4%) used the internet for sexual
reasons, and three (1.2%) participated in frottage. For the collaborative polygraph group, there was no additional
disclosure on topless and/or nude bars, sexual contact with animals, and/or
cross-dressing. The analysis showed
that for the traditional polygraph group, three polygraph post-tests (2.7%)
disclosed viewing pornography, seventeen (15%) masturbation, one (.9%) adult
book store, and two (1.8%) fondling own self (no ejaculation). For the traditional polygraph group, there
was no additional disclosure on the public masturbation, topless and/or nude bars,
sexual contact with animals, paying for sex, internet use for sex,
cross-dressing, and/or frottage (See Table II).
The third data set analyzed examined the statistical
significant difference in disclosure for the collaborative polygraph process and
the traditional polygraph process. With
a significance level of .05, an Independent T-test revealed a significant
difference between the two polygraph processes for unreported masturbatory
fantasies, program compliance violations, additional victims (sex history
polygraph), and under the deviant sexual behavior subcategory,
masturbation. The effects of the
collaborative polygraph process was statistically significant for unreported
masturbatory
fantasies at t (371) = 3.052, p < .05, two-tailed and for additional victims
(sex history polygraph) at t (371) = 2.546, p < .05, two-tailed. As where the effects of the traditional
polygraph process was statistically significant for program compliance
violations at t (371) = 3.467, p < .05, two-tailed and for masturbation, a
subcategory of deviant sexual behavior, at t (371) = 2.336, p < .05,
two-tailed. (See Table III).
Table
1
Percentage of Polygraphs
Where the Sex Offender Disclosed
Additional Information During
the Post-test
|
Disclosure
Categories |
Polygraph
Groups (N=373) |
|
|
Collaborative
(N=260) |
Traditional
(N=113) |
|
|
New
sexual Offenses New
Crime Victim
Contact 3rd
Party Victim Contact Deviant
Sexual Behavior 2 items 3 items Unauth.
Contact w/ Under 18 years old Unreported
Fantasies Program
Compliance Drug/Alcohol
Use Unauthorized
Relationships Unauthorized
Contact w/ Family External
Verification Additional
Victims (sex history polygraph) |
.4% * 1.9% 1.5% 11.9% 1.5% .4% 1.9% 21.9% 1.9% * 1.2% 1.9% * 7.3% |
* * 4.4% * 16.8% 2.7% * 1.8% 8.8% 9.7% * 3.5% .9% * .9% |
* There was no disclosure during the post-test
Table
II
Percentage of Polygraphs
Where the Sex Offender Disclosed Additional Information During the Post-test
(Deviant Sexual Behavior—Subcategories)
|
Disclosure
Categories |
Polygraph
Group (N=373) |
|
|
|
Collaborative
(N=260) |
Traditional
(N=113) |
||
|
Pornography Masturbation Pubic
Masturbation Adult
Book Store Topless/Nude
Bar Sexual
Contact with Animals Fondling
own self (no ejaculation) Paid
for Sex Internet
Use for Sexual Reasons Cross
Dressing Frottage |
1.9% 7.3% | ||