| RESEARCH OF THE MSOP TREATMENT PROGRAM Conducted by Mary Thuringer of Citizens For Reform July 2002 |
| The following research analysis was conducted by Mary Thuringer of Citizens For Reform, a non-profit organization which advocates on behalf of ex-sex offenders, who have been civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. The following details will explain the views of residents within these “regional treatment” facilities in regard to the treatment program itself, as well as the punitive state within this program, the psychological and emotional abuses they have encountered, and lack of rehabilitative treatment thereof, within this program. Out of 200 surveys sent into the Moose Lake and St. Peter facilities, 89 responses were received. Thirty-one questions were asked of these residents, and descriptive answers were also requested to better understand their points of view of the treatment they have been receiving. Some resident comments will be included in this report to give a clearer understanding of what they have been encountering over the years. Keep in mind that not all of these men answered every question on the survey form; therefore, not all numbers will match accordingly. The average amount of time these men have been civilly committed has been 8-12 years (from 1990-2002). There are also five men who were civilly detained for sex offenses between 1973 and 1985 and are still detained in these facilities. The average age range of these men is from 18 to 70+ years of age. Some of the younger men, who entered treatment in juvenile facilities between the ages of 14-15 years of age, were informed that this treatment would only be approx. 2 years, only to be civilly committed to adult facilities once they reached the age of 18 where they have been detained ever since. Out of the 89 men surveyed, there were 36 in Treatment and Core Group, 12 in Treatment Only, 7 in Core Group Only, and 6 who were journaling. The remaining individuals were not attending treatment at the time of this survey. There are four phases of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program plus Transition. The group receiving treatment is broken down as follows: 17 were in Phase I, 32 were in Phase II, 9 were in Phase III and 1 was in Phase IV. It took these men an average of one year to reach Phase I, two years to reach Phase II, three years to reach Phase III, and five years to reach Phase IV. On average, these men have been in Phase I for 2 years, Phase II for 4.5 years, Phase III for 1.5 years, and Phase IV for 2 years. When these men were asked if they had ever participated in treatment in any other facility or prison, 77% said “yes”. They were found to have participated in programs while in prison or juvenile treatment facilities, which included ITSPA, T-Stop, SEEC, ADAPT, etc. A portion of these men completed treatment while in prison or juvenile treatment facilities, but have discontinued treatment at the MSOP due to frustration, anger, confusion, inability to understand, verbal abuse by facilitators, etc. When asked if the MSOP treatment criteria were too difficult for them to understand, 39% said “yes”. Our research found this to be mainly due to a lack of education or a learning disability and, therefore, suggests an inability to understand psychological terms used within the program or the inability to fully understand what is expected of them. This can cause a great deal of frustration, lack of self-esteem, and, therefore, a feeling of defeat causing individuals undergoing treatment to give up. Many of the men also found it very difficult to achieve success in the treatment process due to the fact that the program continuously changes daily and/or weekly making the patients confused, frustrated, and uncertain as to what they should and should not be thinking or doing. For example, a facilitator may commend a patient by telling him he is doing things correctly, only to find that the next day a different facilitator will tell him he is not doing things correctly. Also, when the treatment modules change regularly, it keeps patients unaware of the appropriate behaviors and cognitions expected of them. Out of the 81 residents who were tested in the treatment phases, only 26% had advanced to the next phase, which leaves 55% who were not. An excuse given to residents by staff for not being advanced is that they are not using what they have learned in group enough during their “everyday life” within the facility. However, these men have passed written tests in the 80th to 90th percentile. Others, who have advanced to Phase III or IV, have been “demoted” to Phases I or II because they were assumed to not have been using “everything” they have learned in previous phases enough and, therefore, needed to go back and start again. This, of course, also takes away additional privileges they had “earned” by moving up in phases, such as additional work hours, a privilege card so one could have more visitation hours and move about the facility without staff accompanying them. It is obvious that these types of behaviors by MSOP administration/staff are indeed defeating and discouraging. That is why 54% of the men had dropped out of treatment by the time this survey was conducted. When asked if an Individual Treatment Plan had been setup for them, many did not understand the question and, therefore, the answers being sought were not helpful. However, most of the men claimed that the treatment they were receiving in groups was not based solely on their Finding of Facts, but also included information from their court records which the courts found irrelevant. Questions were also asked regarding various types of treatment and group sizes. Fifty-nine percent of the residents agreed that smaller group sizes would be more helpful, as everyone would get ample time to speak and, therefore, receive input to assist them in their healing process. Sixty-one percent agreed that individual treatment (one-to-one) with a psychologist would be more helpful to them, as they would be focusing solely on their needs and not the needs of everyone else. Many feel uncomfortable listening to the offense histories of other residents and/or are uncomfortable in discussing their offenses in the presence of others because of the guilt and shame they feel. Keep in mind that there are flashers, child molesters, incest perpetrators, pedophiles, power rapists, etc. within these facilities all being treated with the same program together in the same groups. One resident stated that “There are great differences in what a power rapist does as to what a pedophile does. If you focus on what the person has done, I believe you would get right to the core of his problem.” Another resident asked, “What would help a pedophile if he is not a rapist? How could a rapist help a child molester other than [in the way that] a citizen on the street could do? None have anything much in common and frequently hate each other.” Still another stated that “Forgiveness is the key to unlocking the past.” |
 |
|