Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP)
Allgemeine Informationen
Verschiedene Formen von SOTP
Diagnostik, Auswahl und Evaluation der Teilnehmer
1. Einteilung der Sexualdelinquenten nach Diagnosen
- Störungen der Sexulpräferenz (F65.0 - F65.9): Fetischismus, fetischistische Transvestismus, Exhibitionismus, Voyeurismus, Pädophilie, Sadismus, multiple, sonstige und nicht näher bezeichnete Störungen der Sexual Präferenz
- Andere ICD-10-relevante Störungen (F0 – F9): Psychoorganische Beeinträchtigungen (F0), Störungen durch psychotrope Substanzen (F1) Schizophrenie (F2) affektive Störungen (F3) Angst und Belstungsstörungen (F4) Persönlichkeitsstörungen(F60) besondere Borderline-, antisoziale, narzisstische, schizoide (evtl. selbstunsichere PST) Störungen der Impulskontrolle (F63) Aufmerksamkeitdefizie-/Hyperaktivitäts-Syndrom ADHS (F90)
- Sexualdelinquenten ohne ICD-10-Diagnosen: Gelegenheitsdelikte bei Tendenz zu kognitiven Verzerrungen, Selbsttäuschungen und oft auf dem Hintergrund unsicherer früher Bindung
6) Evaluationsinstrumente: Fragebogen
- Einfühlungsvermögen bzgl. Frauen
- Einstellungen und Ansichten
- Einstellungen zur Sexualstraftat
- Opferempathie
- Rückfallvermeidungsinterview
Therapieeffekte
1. Deliktartspezifische kognitive Verzerrungen: Besonderen Fähigkeiten der Kindern, Kinder wissen über Sex bescheid, Sex schadet Kindern nicht, Sex mit Kindern ist akzeptabel, Frauen sind hinterlistig, Vergewaltigungsmythen, Einen Anspruch auf Sex haben
2. Spezifische Leugnungstendenzen: Wiederholungsgefahr, Tatvorbereitung, Schädigung des Opfers, Kontrolle, Strafbarkeit, Verantwortung
3. Rückfallvermeidungsinterview: Kurzzeitfolgen, Langzeitfolgen, Erkennen & Bewältigung von Risikosituationen, Selbseinschätzung der Rückfallgefahr
Modifikation
1. Längere Zeit & mehr Sitzungszahlen pro Behandlungsblock nötig als im Manual
2. Da eine Offenbarung ihrer Delikte und eine sich über einen längeren Zeitraum erstreckende, sich selbst konfrontierende Auseinandersetzung mit ihrer Gefährlichkeit den Patienten schwer fällt, musste ein geringeres „Tempo“ der Gruppe als Ausdruck des Widerstands im Sinne einer Maßnahme zur Aufrechterhaltung des eigenen psychischen Gleichgewichts.
3. Ähnlich wurde die Notwendigkeit von auf die Gruppendynamik zentrierenden, supportiven und konfrontierenden Interventionen gerechnet, was im Manual des SOTP nicht und in der CBT nur gering erwähnt wird.
Weblinks und Literatur
UK Government 2017: Impact Evaluation of SOTP
Hauptergebnisse:
Einige statistisch signifikante Unterschiede wurden über einen Zeitraum von durchschnittlich 8,2 Jahren festgestellt.
(1) Mehr behandelte Sexualstraftäter begingen mindestens eine sexuelle Wiederholungstat (ohne Verstöße gegen Bewährungsauflagen) während des Follow-up-Zeitraums im Vergleich zur Vergleichsgruppe (10,0% gegenüber 8,0%).
Mehr behandelte Sexualstraftäter begingen mindestens ein kindbezogenes Sexualdelikt während der Nachbeobachtungszeit als die Vergleichsgruppe (4,4% gegenüber 2,9%).
A suitable comparison group of sex offenders who did not participate in Core SOTP could be formed because many were in prisons where Core SOTP was not run, while others were in prisons where the programme was run but could not participate due to a shortage of places.
The main findings of the analysis were as follows:
- Some statistically significant differences were detected over an average 8.2 year
follow up period. They were small in magnitude although they widened over the follow-up period. In particular:
- More treated sex offenders committed at least one sexual reoffence
(excluding breach) during the follow-up period when compared with the matched comparison offenders (10.0% compared with 8.0%).
- More treated sex offenders committed at least one child image reoffence
during the follow-up period when compared with the matched comparison offenders (4.4% compared with 2.9 %). Otherwise, the matched treated and comparison groups had similar reoffending rates across a variety of outcome measures.
- A variety of sensitivity analyses were performed, which mostly focused on the sexual reoffending measure. The sexual reoffending treatment effect was found to be reasonably stable across these
This study draws on large treatment and comparison groups, long follow-ups, and many matching factors, thus addressing the most common shortcomings in the research field on sex offenders' reoffending behaviour. However it still has a number of limitations that could either bias the findings or the interpretation of them. In particular:
- It is impossible to conclusively rule out the absence of variables relating to deviant sexual interest,5 general self-regulation problems and the degree of violence associated with the current sexual offence that could possibly influence the results. Moreover, it is possible that the available data do not fully account for issues such as motivation to address offending behaviour. However, these absences are at least partly accounted for by matching factors included in this study (e.g. sexual deviancy by matching factors covering previous offending). Furthermore as shown above, what remains unaccounted for would need to have strong relationships both with participation onto treatment and reoffending to conclude that Core SOTP is associated with a reduction in sexual reoffending.
- The estimated impact of Core SOTP was found to be similar when removing from the comparison group those who were identified as having done community SOTP. However, it will include some differences between the matched treatment and comparison groups that reflect changes occurring after the prison sentence has commenced and which are not associated with the provision of Core SOTP. Such factors include participation on other treatment programmes in prison and in the community, differences in offender management and in supervision, and regional demographics e.g. in employment rates.
- Availability of good quality data on all factors which determine an offenders’ participation on core SOTP, was also a particular issue. It is possible that paucity of data on some key offender characteristics including denial of offending, and a degree of self-selection, could bias the results.
Eines der Hauptthemen, die in zukünftigen Studien über die Wirksamkeit von SOTP in Gefängnissen unter Verwendung einer Art von Matching-Ansatz behandelt werden müssen, ist die Sammlung von Informationen zu allen potenziell wichtigen Variablen. Der Mangel an umfassenden empirischen Daten über Devianz ist ein Hauptproblem, das weiter untersucht werden muss. Weitere Faktoren, die in eine zukünftige Studie einbezogen werden müssen, sind andere Interventionen, die in Gefängnissen und in der Gemeinde eingehen, und das Ausmaß der Überwachung, das einmal aus der Haft entlassen wurde. Zusätzlich wird empfohlen, sich auf die Verbesserung der Qualität der Daten zu konzentrieren, die bereits auf SOTP gesammelt wurden, z. ein einzelner Datensatz pro Täter.
Diese Studie gibt nicht Aufschluss darüber, inwieweit die Ergebnisse von Kern-SOTP-Rückfällen auf ein Behandlungsdesign oder eine schlechte Umsetzung zurückzuführen sind. Der Behandlungsansatz sollte jedoch im Einklang mit der neuesten Evidenzbasis, zu der diese Studie gehört, modifiziert werden. Insbesondere könnte es sowohl Einzelsitzungen als auch Gruppensitzungen umfassen. Es könnte sich auch stärker auf Faktoren konzentrieren, die zur Vorhersage von Rückfällen etabliert wurden.
ORIGINAL: One of the main issues that will need to be addressed in any future studies on the effectiveness of SOTP in prisons, using some form of matching approach, is the collection of information on all potentially important variables. The lack of comprehensive empirical data on deviancy is a major issue that needs further investigation. Additional factors that need incorporating into any future study include other interventions received in prison and in the community, and the level of supervision once released from custody. Additionally, it is recommended that there be a focus on improving the quality of the data already collected on SOTP, e.g. a single unified record per offender. This study does not reveal the extent to which Core SOTP reoffending outcomes are due to treatment design or poor implementation. However the treatment approach should be modified in line with the latest evidence base, of which this study is part. In particular, it could include individual sessions as well as group sessions. It could also focus more on factors that have been established to predict reoffending.
Sozialtherapeutische Anstalt Hamburg
The research project to evaluate the social-therapeutic institution of the Hamburg correctional services (SothA-HH) has been carried out since August 2010. The SothA-HH was established with a capacity to treat 163 inmates and represents currently the largest socialtherapeutic institution in Germany. The main goal of the current study was to present forensic assessment data of SothA-HH inmates and to examine if different offender groups could be identified. The paper also presents sociodemographic, criminological and clinical data. All participants were assessed with an extensive battery of instruments comprising various risk and protective factors related to recidivism risk. The current sample includes 193 male inmates of SothA-HH which represent 87.3 % of all admissions since August 2010. Index offences were predominantly sexual offences (47.8 %) and (non-sexual) violent offences (37.2 %). Data analyses indicate that there are two offender groups with significantly different risk profiles represented in SothA-HH-population. Sexual offenders were identified as a lower risk group than non-sexual violent offenders regardless of the type of instrument administered. Comparisons with other general offender populations from German-speaking countries are discussed.
W. Bassler 2016: The Effectiveness of Sex-Offender Treatment Programs (zu Grundfragen, nicht speziell SOTP
In the state funded study commissioned by the legislators of Oregon entitled, ‘Sex Offenders in Oregon‘ by T K Martin & J L Hutzler, the Furby study was quoted as stating, “there is as yet no evidence that clinical treatment reduces the rate of sexual offenses.” Furby and her colleagues other statement was omitted from the state report. It stated that, “the re-offense rate of treated offenders is not lower than that for untreated offenders, if anything it tends to be extremely higher.”
Irwin S. Dreiblatt, Phd. of Pacific Psychological Services of Seattle Washington stated in the book, ‘Retraining Adult Sex Offenders‘ – by Fay Honey Knopp, “I become concerned that we get carried away with the notion of treatment as the only response to sex offenders. We get to far in viewing treatment as a universal response rather that a selected approach to appropriate individuals. One of the big changes in this big wave seems to be, ‘Well, now we can do something for the sex offenders, let us get everybody into treatment.’ I’m scared about that approach… there are a lot of sex offenders whom we do not know what to do… I think the mental health community often oversells its product, and I think everyone needs to be cautious not to oversell… I am discouraged about the prospect of trying to provide treatment for everyone who comes along with the problem of sexual aggression.”
Robyn M. Dawes in his book ‘House of Cards Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth‘, stated “A person who claims that a treatment is effective must demonstrate that it has an effect in comparison to a hypothetical counter-factual, obtained through construction of a randomly constituted control group.” Such randomized experiments are very necessary in evaluating treatments for emotional disorders and one of the best such experiments is what is called a ‘Wait List Control’. This was used in the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative study from 1984. In this research it was discovered that the people who had completed treatment re-offended sexually at 13.6% and other crimes at 18.6%. Those who did not complete treatment re-offended sexually at 6.5% and 12.9% for other crimes. And those that were on the list, but did not get into treatment re-offended sexually at 5% and in other crimes at 0%. Essentially it shown that the more the treatment, the more the criminal activity!
Does this mean that all treatment programs increase recidivism rather than reduce it? Maybe, there are some that use a humanistic approach though which focuses on self-awareness and self-management rather than probe the traumas of the past or attempt to reduce deviant behavior through behavior modification. One such program was the Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (CSATP) from Santa Clara county, California. (It must be pointed out that the study’s from this program did not meet the strict requirements for the ‘Furby’ evaluation.) According to the (CSATP) data from 1971 to 1982 they treated over 12,000 individuals, both victims and offenders. More clients than any other single agency in its field. Jean M. Goodwin in her book ‘Sexual Abuse‘ (1989), stated that, “the CSATP was rated the best program in the country with a maintained re-offense rate of less than 1%.” This, without failing or removing people from the program. Only through a personal choice can a person change his or her direction in life not by being forced in to it by anyone else. This is and will remain the primary reason that mandated therapy, especially when it includes the threat of one being booted from the program and/or being forced to face additional years in prison unless they parrot back what the therapist thinks is the appropriate responses, is at the root of problem.
In the Romero & Williams publication, ‘A Ten-Year Follow-Up of Sex Offender Recidivism‘, the psychiatrist rated the members of the treatment group and then later their arrest records were looked into also. The ones rated best re-offended at 50%, those second best at 69.8%, and those that the psychiatrist rated as doing worst in their treatment group re-offended at 35%. quite obviously these trained professionals are more fixated on people parroting back what they believe to be the correct answers than actually helping people. The therapists over seeing treatment programs are in control of others lives and in order to gain even more control they continue to feed the Criminal Justice System and the public misleading information. This type of thinking in anybody else the therapist would call diversion, justification and minimization.
Kanadische Meta-Analyse 2009
Consistent with previous meta-analyses, the sexual and general recidivism rates for the treated sexual offenders were lower than the rates observed for the comparison groups (based on unweighted averages, 10.9% versus 19.2% for sexual recidivism; 31.8% versus 48.3% for any recidivism). These numbers are very similar to those reported by Lösel and Schmucker (2005; sexual recidivism rates of 11.1% versus 17.5%, based on a weighted average from 74 comparisons). Hanson et al. reported similar numbers (2002; sexual recidivism rates of 12.3% and 16.8% - based on an unweighted average from 38 studies and general recidivism rates of 27.9% versus 39.2% - based on 30 studies). Although the violent recidivism rates were not significantly different for the treated offenders compared to the untreated offenders in this review, the effect was in the same direction (unweighted averages of 22.9% versus 32.0%, respectively).
Confidence in the findings, however, must be tempered by the observation that most studies used weak research designs. Although this meta-analysis excluded 105 studies that did not meet minimum levels of study quality, of the remaining 23 studies, 18 were rated as weak and five were rated as good according to the CODC Guidelines. The effects tended to be stronger in the weak research designs compared to the good research designs. Reviewers restricting themselves to the better quality, published studies (Borduin et al., 2009; Hanson, Broom, & Stephenson, 2004; Marques et al., 2005; McGrath, Hoke, & Vojtisek, 1998; Meyer & Romero, 1980) could reasonably conclude that there is no evidence that treatment is effective in reducing sexual offence recidivism.
The treatments examined in the better studies, however, were diverse. If there is anything to be learned from the broad debate over the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation, it is that not all interventions reduce recidivism. Multiple reviews and meta-analyses with general offender samples have demonstrated that the interventions that are most likely to reduce recidivism are those that meaningfully engage higher risk offenders in the process of changing their criminogenic needs (or criminogenic factors) (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Andrews & Dowden, 2006; Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; D. B. Wilson et al., 2005). The current review found that the same principles are also relevant to the treatment of sexual offenders. The pattern of results was completely consistent with the direction predicted by the principles of Risk, Need, and Responsivity (Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta & Andrews, 2007) in both the full set of studies as well as in the better, published studies (these latter analyses were not reported).
The analyses based on the Risk principle, however, were not statistically significant in any of the analyses in the current review. The Risk principle is also the principle with the least influence on treatment effectiveness for general offenders. Andrews and Dowden (2006) found that the average effect of correctional treatment was only slightly larger for studies that examined higher risk offenders (phi = .10 in 256 studies) than for studies involving lower risk offenders (phi = .05 in 74 studies). Although this difference is similar to the (non-significant) differences observed in the current set of studies, the magnitude of these differences is sufficiently small as to be of little practical value in most settings.
Landenberger and Lipsey's (2005) meta-analysis found strong support for the Risk principle, but the method they used for classifying risk levels artificially inflated the association between risk and treatment outcome. Specifically, offenders were classified as high risk or low risk based on the observed recidivism rates of the comparison groups. To understand the problem with this approach, imagine two matched sets of independent, random numbers drawn from the same population. When the values in Set 1 are sorted from highest to lowest, the expected value of the second set of numbers does not change. Consequently, the highest values in sorted column (Set 1) would be expected to be larger than the population mean whereas the expected value of corresponding numbers in unsorted column (Set 2) would remain the population mean.
In the current review (and previous reviews), the Risk principle has been coded based on the risk level of the offenders participating in specific treatment programs. This definition does not fully express the meaning of the Risk principle, which states that interventions should be proportional to the offenders' risk of recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Given that high risk offenders would be expected to require more treatment than moderate or low risk offenders (Bourgon & Armstrong, 2005), the relationship between risk and treatment effectiveness is unlikely to be linear.
Consequently, it may be preferable to consider the Risk principle at a broader level of program design and implementation. Since the 1990s, for example, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has streamed sexual offenders into low, moderate, or high intensity programs based on initial assessments of risk and needs (National Committee on Sex Offender Strategy, 1996). Low and moderate intensity programs would screen out high risk offenders, directing these offenders toward more intensive (and more appropriate) interventions elsewhere. Consequently, the system would be adhering to the Risk principle, even if the Risk principle would not apply to individual programs considered in isolation. Evaluating such broad applications of the Risk principle would require comparing a complete cohort of CSC offenders with a complete cohort of offenders from a different jurisdiction in which the intensity of treatment was not matched to risk.
B. Trowbridge: Does Sex Offender Treatment Work?
Another problem in doing follow-up research on released sex offenders is that, although the public seems to believe otherwise, recidivism rates for sexual offenders (although, as mentioned above, highly variable) are fairly low; most estimates are under 20 percent. The best data on sexual offender re-offense rates, Hanson and Bussiere’s 1998 meta-analysis, show that sexual offenders’ five-year re-offense rate is on average only 13.4 percent, much lower than most lay people would predict, and less than the re- offense rate for criminals generally. Barbaree followed up 477 adult sex offenders for an average of 5.9 years and came up with an overall sex-offender recidivism rate of 11.3 percent. Janus and Meehl reviewed the literature, and concluded that a 20 percent base- rate for sexual recidivism is roughly correct. (Many sex offenses may be unreported or undetected, and therefore the true recidivism rate is probably higher, but most researchers limit themselves to using arrests and/or convictions when calculating recidivism data.) If over 80 percent of the offenders treated were not going to re-offend anyway even if they have not received treatment, a very powerful treatment effect and/or a very large number of treated offenders would be needed to demonstrate effectiveness conclusively. Barbaree has calculated the statistical power necessary to discern benefits from treatment of sex offenders. According to his calculations, with the usual low rates of re-offending and with a reasonably powerful treatment effect, almost 1,000 subjects would be needed who would be followed-up for 10 years before treatment could be demonstrated to be effective.
There have been some studies, including meta-analyses, which have reported apparently significant (albeit small) treatment effects. However, critiques have raised some serious methodological problems with those studies. Even researchers who initially thought the data showed that sexual offender treatment was effective have now concluded that there is nothing in the literature that demonstrates sex offender treatment reduces recidivism, as studies using the better methodologies have failed to show positive treatment effects.
Sonstiges
Jüngste Studien haben spezifische Bereiche von SOTPs aufgezeigt, die mehr Aufmerksamkeit erfordern, z. B. Bindungsprobleme, geringes Selbstwertgefühl, Zuversicht und Einsamkeit. Andere Arten von Ansätzen, die viele SOTPs anbieten, sind Psychotherapie, Fertigkeitstherapie, der psycho-pädagogische und der pharmakologische Ansatz (FIND). Diese Ansätze zielen darauf ab, die Empathie des Opfers zu erhöhen, die Verwendung von Medikamenten zu erhöhen, "Geheimnisse zu erlangen" und auch über das Gesetz zu lernen. Therapeuten und Bewährungshelfer haben tägliche Routinen, um Straftäter während der Behandlungszeiten zu untersuchen und sie zu Hause zu besuchen. Dies beinhaltet auch Untersuchungen zu Drogen- / Alkoholkonsum. Britische Gefängnisse haben Gruppensitzungen mit etwa acht Straftätern und zwei Tutoren. Therapie im Gefängnis begann 1991 und diese Sitzungen bestehen auch aus kognitiven Verhaltensansätzen, aber es gibt viele andere beteiligte Personen als nur Psychologen, wie Polizeibeamte, Lehrer und auch Kapläne. Einige der Techniken, die das Gefängnis SOTP verwendet, sind Brainstorming, Rollenspiel und Denkstrategien.
"Die effektivste Art, potenziell gefährliche Straftäter in der Gemeinschaft zu verwalten und zu beaufsichtigen, besteht darin, dass die zuständigen Behörden zusammenarbeiten". Diese Arbeit wird von den Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) verwaltet und geleitet. MAPPA wurde am 1. April 2001 auf nationaler Ebene entwickelt und arbeitet mit vielen verschiedenen Arten von Agenturen zusammen, wie jugendliche beleidigende Teams, Kinderbetreuung, soziale Dienste für Erwachsene, Gesundheitsbehörden, lokale Wohnungsbehörden, Job Plus und Anbieter elektronischer Überwachung. MAPPA nutzt diese Agenturen, um polizeiliche Überwachung, spezialisierte Unterkünfte, Drogen- / Alkoholrehabilitation und laufende Verwaltung durch andere Dienste zu erhalten. Wer sind die MAPPA-Straftäter? Es gibt drei Kategorien von MAPPA-Straftätern. Kategorie eins besteht aus Sexualstraftätern, die ihren Namen und ihre Adresse bei der Polizei registrieren müssen. Kategorie zwei umfasst gewalttätige Straftäter, die zu Gefängnisstrafen von 12 Monaten oder mehr verurteilt wurden. Die letzte Kategorie ist für gefährliche Straftäter, die ein Risiko für die Gesellschaft darstellen, aber nicht in die oben genannten Kategorien passen.
MAPPA und COSA haben sich als wirksam erwiesen. Beide Programme wurden hinsichtlich ihrer Auswirkungen auf die Kriminalitätsrate untersucht. "Straftäter, die diese Programme erfolgreich abschließen, werden dreimal weniger verurteilt als Straftäter, die dieses Programm noch nicht abgeschlossen haben". COSA hat die Wiederholung von Straftaten um 70% reduziert, und von 35 untersuchten Straftätern wurden nur 3 Kriminelle als rückfällig befunden. Eine wirksame Behandlung ist sehr wichtig. Zwei große Probleme bei SOTPs sind, dass die Forschung ergab, dass es einen hohen Prozentsatz an Ausfällen gibt (drop-outs). Ein weiteres Problem ist, dass Bewährungshelfer zugegeben haben, nicht in der Lage zu sein, richtig mit Sexualstraftätern zu kommunizieren, und dass sie mehr Fähigkeiten und Training benötigen, um die Öffentlichkeit schützen zu können (FIND).
Original: Recent studies have shown specific areas of SOTPs that need more attention such as attachment issues, low self esteem, confidence and loneliness. Other types of approaches many SOTPs provide are psychotherapy, skills therapy, the psycho-educational and the pharmacological approach (FIND). These approaches focus on increasing victim empathy, uses of medication, 'getting out secrets', and also learning about the law. Therapists and probation officers have daily routines to inspect offenders during treatment hours and visiting them at home, this also includes drug/alcohol use checkups. UK prisons, have groups sessions with about eight offenders and two tutors. Therapy in prison started in 1991 and these sessions also consist of cognitive behavioural approaches but there are many other people involved than just psychologists, such as police officers, teachers and also chaplains (Psychology Textbook - pg.435). Some of the techniques the prison SOTP uses are brainstorming, role playing and thinking strategies (Textbook).
'The most effective way to manage and supervise potentially dangerous offenders in the community is for the relevant agencies to work together' (leicsprobation.co.uk). This work is managed and directed by the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). MAPPA was developed nationally on 1st April 2001 and works with many different types of agencies like Youth Offending Teams, Children Services, Adult Social Services, Health Trusts, local housing authorities, Job Plus and electronic monitoring providers (MAPPA book). MAPPA uses these agencies to get police surveillance, specialised accommodation, drug/alcohol rehabilitation and ongoing management by other services. Who are the MAPPA offenders? There are three categories of MAPPA offenders. Category one consists of sexual offenders who are required to register their names and address to the police. Category two includes violent offenders who have been sentenced to imprisonment for 12months or more. The last category is for dangerous offenders who are a risk to society but do not fit under the categories above (MAPPA BOOK).
MAPPA and COSA on the other hand give positive responses of effectiveness. Both programmes have been researched regarding their impact on crime rates. 'Offenders successfully completing these programmes are 3 times less likely to be re-convicted than offenders who have not completed this programme' (NOTA). COSA has reduced re-offending by 70% and out of 35 offenders researched upon, only 3 criminals have been found to re-offend (paper). Receiving effective treatment is a very important. However, two major downfalls with SOTPs is that research has shown that there is a high percentage of drop outs. Another problem which arises is that probation officers have admitted to not being able to communicate properly with sex offenders and have said they need more skills and training to be able to protect the public (FIND).