Research Reports

Contrasting Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Sexual Offenders to Determine Unique Client Characteristics and Potential Implications for Sex Offender Assessment and Treatment Strategies

January, 2002

---

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Native Clan Organization’s Forensic Behavioral Management Clinic (FBMC) is located in Winnipeg, Manitoba and provides assessment and treatment services for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal individuals who have engaged in sexual offending behaviour. In an effort to profile and better understand the composition and characteristics of offenders who completed treatment at FBMC, an offender database was established. Variables were identified through a review of the literature and consultation with the clinical team at FBMC, which includes psychologists, social workers, Aboriginal spiritual helper/healers and community outreach workers.

The database includes 235 variables and encompasses a range of areas including general offender characteristics, Aboriginal offender specific characteristics, developmental history, criminal history, pattern of offending behaviour and participation in and response to treatment. The objective of identifying the characteristics of the men who participated in treatment at FBMC was to assist in guiding the programs evolution to better meet the needs of the men we assess and provide care for, as well as to access information that can contribute to the knowledge base in this field. A total of 303 closed treatment files were reviewed from 1987-1999.

Of the 303 sex offender cases reviewed, 40% of clients were Aboriginal(including North American Indian, Métis and Inuit) while 60% were non-Aboriginal. The indigenous people groups were collapsed into the Aboriginalcategory as the numbers of Métis (n = 21, 7%) and Inuit offenders (n = 1, 0.3%)were not sufficient to analyze in separate categories. This will be an importantarea for future investigation as it is unlikely sufficient to assume homogeneityacross these groups. Of the Aboriginal offenders in our sample the majorityspoke English as their first language. The most common Aboriginal firstlanguage among our client group was Cree. The majority of the Aboriginaloffenders in our sample were raised on reserve communities, however mostrelocated to urban centres. Only a very small percentage of the Aboriginaloffenders in our sample identified growing up learning/experiencing traditionalAboriginal culture, teachings and ceremonies as a part of their life.

There were some important differences between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders in the FBMC sample with regards to developmental andsocial histories. While both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men in our sampleexperienced difficult and traumatic experiences in their developmental years,such experiences were more pronounced among the Aboriginal men. Inexploring the men’s formative years, the largest percentage of offenders reportedbeing raised by both of their parents. However, Aboriginal offenders were morelikely than non-Aboriginal offenders to have been raised by extended familymembers and to report the experience of parental separation or abandonment.Aboriginal offenders also were much more likely to have experienced the tragicloss of a family member through suicide and murder. Aboriginal offenders weremore likely to have family members who abused substances and who hadcriminal histories. They were also more likely to have had knowledge of, or tohave witnessed, domestic abuse and inappropriate sexual boundaries in thehome while growing up. Aboriginal offenders were more likely than non-Aboriginal offenders to have experienced neglect and sexual abuse. However,no differences were found between the two groups in regards to the experienceof physical and emotional abuse, which occurred with a high degree of frequencyfor both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.A history of having abused substances (alcohol, drugs and solvents) was moredramatic among Aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal offenders were also moredisadvantaged in terms of their level of formal education and employment historythan were non-Aboriginal offenders.

There were no significant differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginaloffenders with regard to the number of young offender or adult convictions theyincurred. However, Aboriginal offenders did self-disclose having committed moreviolent offences as a young offender, for which they were not charged, than didnon-Aboriginal offenders. They also reported having committed more violentoffences than charged for, as adults. Non-Aboriginal offenders demonstrated agreater tendency to report having committed sexual offences, as adults, for whichthey were not charged.

In regards to their sexual offending behaviour, Aboriginal sex offenders appearedmore likely to be perpetrators of rape than any other sex offence, while non-Aboriginal sex offenders appear more likely than Aboriginal offenders to beperpetrators of sexual offences against children, particularly incest.There were some interesting differences between the two groups in regards tothe characteristics and pattern of their offending behaviour. For example,Aboriginal offenders were more likely to offend against female victims whereasnon-Aboriginal offenders were more likely to victimize both males and females.Non-Aboriginal offenders were also more likely to offend against infant, prepubescentand pubescent age victims than were Aboriginal offenders. Therewere no significant differences between the two groups in regards to offendingagainst teen, adult or elderly victims, or in having victims of multiple ages.Aboriginal offenders were more likely to offend against Aboriginal victims, whilenon-Aboriginal offenders were more likely to offend against non-Aboriginalvictims. Non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely than Aboriginal offenders tohave victims of various ethnic backgrounds. There were few differencesbetween the two groups in regards to their relationship with/to their victim(s). Anotable difference was that non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely to offendagainst victims with whom they held a non-familial role of trust and authority (forexample, religious leader, teacher, coach). A final interesting finding in regardsto differences in the victim profiles between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginaloffenders was that the victims of Aboriginal offenders were more likely to haveabused alcohol or both alcohol and drugs at the time of the offence then were thevictims of non-Aboriginal offenders.

No differences were found between the two groups in a host of cognitivedistortions that are often maintained to facilitate and support sexual offending.The only distortion in which Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders differed wasthat Aboriginal offenders were more likely to endorse the belief that their offencewould not have occurred had they not been intoxicated.Differences were noted between the means of accessing victims betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal offenders were more likely toidentify their planning/grooming process as including giving their victims alcoholor drugs in order to facilitate offending. In contrast, non-Aboriginal offenderswere more likely to give their victims gifts and show them pornography. Non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely to identify themselves as tricking ormanipulating the victim in order to gain sexual access.

While there were no differences between the two groups in regards to the use ofthreats during the commission of a sexual offence, Aboriginal offendersdemonstrated a significantly greater tendency to physically assault their victimduring the course of a sexual offence.

In exploring differences between the two groups related to inappropriate sexualinterests it was noted that non-Aboriginal offenders tended to demonstrate moresexually deviant interests. For example, non-Aboriginal offenders identified asignificantly higher level of sexual fantasy to images of their victims and toimages of sexual violence. They were also significantly more likely to masturbateto pictures of children. Additionally, non-Aboriginal offenders demonstrated asignificantly greater reporting of paraphilias related to exhibitionism, bondage andsexual sadism (such as, thoughts of and masturbation to images of a sexuallyrelated homicide). Interestingly, despite these noted differences, no significantdifferences were found in the sexual preference profiles of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexual offenders as determined through phallometric testing (aphysiological test evaluating sexual arousal profiles).In terms of response to treatment and treatment gains, as rated by the offendersprimary therapist, few differences were noted between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal offenders demonstrated a significantly greaterlevel of recall from pre to post treatment as it pertained to being able to regainspecific details of their offending which they initially indicated they could not recalldue to their level of alcohol or drug use at the time of the offence. No differenceswere found between the two groups in regards to gains in enhancing their level ofself-disclosure and accountability related to the frequency and duration of theiroffending behaviour; the level of intrusiveness of their offending behaviour or thelevel of force involved in their offending behaviour. No differences were foundbetween therapists’ ratings of the two groups in regards to gains in their level ofremorse and understanding of victim impact/empathy.

While treatment completion rates were higher for non-Aboriginal offenders priorto the advent of the FBMC’s Blended Traditional Healing/ContemporaryTreatment program for Aboriginal sexual offenders, the difference in completionrates disappeared once culturally relevant and appropriate programming becameavailable. A high number of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenderscontinued to attend treatment at FBMC after the mandate to attend was nolonger in place (e.g., at the expiry date of their sentence). After theimplementation of the Blended group for Aboriginal offenders, the number ofAboriginal offenders who maintained their involvement with the clinic after theend of their mandate increased further. Finally, no significant differences werefound in the sexual recidivism rate of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders inthe FBMC program. However, both groups demonstrated a significantly lowerrecidivism rate than that of a matched comparison group of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.

These findings suggest that while there are many similarities between theAboriginal and non-Aboriginal men who participated in sex offender treatment atthe FBMC between 1987-1999 there are differences between the two groups thatneed to be considered and attended to. These differences are relevant tooffender assessment, to the development and delivery of programming directedat reducing sexual recidivism and to our understanding of the dynamics of thesexual offending behaviour of these two groups.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There have been a number of individuals who have been instrumental in the development of the Forensic Behavioral Management Clinic’s (FBMC) databaseand the completion of this research project. I would like to acknowledge andthank Heather Cherewick, Marlow Gal and Paula MacPherson for thecontributions each have made in developing, setting up and refining thedatabase. I would also like to thank them for their efforts in the enormous task ofreviewing over a decade’s worth of files and inputting and analyzing the data.

I would also like to thank the FBMC’s clinical team for their contribution inidentifying the variables of interest and for reviewing the data forms for theirclients to ensure accuracy of information. Thanks go to Jacqueline Bedard, ShirlChartrand, Bill Christian, Brenda Ellerby, Arthur Fourstarr, Lori Grant, PatriciaHarper, Ervin Hilts, Jaye Miles, Karina O’Brien, Daniel Rothman, Don Smith, andTodd Smith.

I also would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Terry Nicholaichuck andDeqiang Gu for their feedback and assistance with some of the analysis.

This project would not have been possible without the encouragement andsupport of Correctional Service of Canada’s Research Branch. Thanks go toLarry Motiuk, Roger Boe and Shelley Trevethan for their support.

Lawrence Ellerby

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• LIST OF TABLES
• LIST OF FIGURES
• INTRODUCTION
• DESCRIPTION OF THE SEX OFFENDER SURVEY INSTRUMENT
• FINDINGS
  • Sex offender characteristics
  • Developmental and social histories of sex offenders
  • Aboriginal specific characteristics
  • Criminal history
    • Convictions as a young offender
    • Convictions as an Adult
  • Patterns of offending
  • Victim characteristics
    • Cognitive Distortions
    • Offence Planning and Grooming
    • Coercion
    • Deviant Sexual Interests
  • Treatment
    • Characteristics of Treatment
    • Change in Offender Self-Disclosure and Accountability
    • Treatment Completion
    • Recidivism
• CONCLUSION
  • Review of Findings
    • Aboriginal Offender Characteristics
    • Developmental and Social Histories
    • Criminal Histories
    • Patterns of Sexual Offending Behaviour
    • Treatment Outcome
  • Implication of Findings
• APPENDIX A: FBMC SEXUAL OFFENDER DATABASE QUESTIONNAIRE SEXUAL OFFENDING DATABASE V2

LIST OF TABLES

• Table 1. Offender’s Primary Childhood Caregiver
• Table 2. Total Mean Number of Primary Caregivers
• Table 3. Parental Separation
• Table 4. Family Criminal Factors
• Table 5. Tragic Family Loss
• Table 6. Witnessed or Knowledge of Parental Abuse within Family as a Minor
• Table 7. Experience of Childhood Abuse
• Table 8. Relationship of Sexual Abuser(s) to Offender
• Table 9. Self-Harm
• Table 10. Offender Substance Abuse Issues
• Table 11. Offender Educational Status
• Table 12. Offender Employment History
• Table 13. Offender Employment Status at Time of Current Offence
• Table 14. Frequencies of Racial Identity of Sex Offender Clients Treated at FBMC
• Table 15. Primary Aboriginal Language
• Table 16. Community Specifics
• Table 17. Residential School Experiences
• Table 18. Traditional Upbringing
• Table 19. Convictions as a Young Offender
• Table 20. Frequency of Self-Disclosed Offences Not Convicted for as a Young Offender
• Table 21. Convictions as an Adult
• Table 22. Frequency of Self-Disclosed Offences Not Convicted For as an Adult Offender
• Table 23. Gang Affiliation
• Table 24. Nature of Sexual Offending Behaviour
• Table 25. Gender of Victim(s)
• Table 26. Age of Victim(s)
• Table 27. Ethnicity of Victims
• Table 28. Familial Relationship of Victims to Offender
• Table 29. Non-Familial Relationship of Victims to Offender
• Table 30. Multiple Relationships of Victims
• Table 31. Victim’s Substance Abuse at Time of Offence
• Table 32. Frequencies of Cognitive Distortions Pre-Treatment
• Table 33. Manipulations to Facilitate Offending
• Table 34. Threats and Violence to Victims as a Function of Race
• Table 35. Threats and Violence to Victims as a function of Offender Type
• Table 36. Use of and Response to Pornography
• Table 37. Paraphilias
• Table 38. Acknowledgement of Fantasies Pre- and Post-Treatment
• Table 39. Penile Pleythismography Data: Sexual Preference Profile and Race
• Table 40. Location of Treatment with FBMC
• Table 41. Participation by Aboriginal Offenders in Aboriginal Sex Offender Treatment (ASOT)
• Table 42. Participation in Prior Sex Offender Treatment
• Table 43. Offender Responsibility - Pre- versus Post-Treatment
• Table 44. Offender’s Memory Affected by Length of Time Since Offending (Pre- versus Post-treatment)
• Table 45. Offender’s Memory Affected by Alcohol or Drug Use (Pre- versus Post-Treatment)
• Table 46. Minimization of Level of Intrusiveness of Sexual Offending Behaviour (Pre - versus Post-Treatment)
• Table 47. Minimization of the Frequency and Duration of Sexual Offending Behaviour Pre- versus Post-Treatment
• Table 48. Minimization of Level of Force in Offending Behaviour Pre- versus Post-Treatment
• Table 49. Feelings of Remorse and Empathy by Offender (Pre- versus Post- Treatment)
• Table 50. Treatment Outcome
• Table 51. Treatment Outcome for Aboriginal Offenders: Aboriginal Sex Offender Program versus Cognitive-Behavioral Sex Offender Program
• Table 52. Continued Treatment Post Warrant Expiry Date
• Table 53. Aboriginal Offenders Continuing Treatment Post Warrant Expiry Date Aboriginal Sex Offender Program versus Cognitive-Behavioral Sex Offender Program

LIST OF FIGURES

• Figure 1: Sexual Offence Recidivism Rate

INTRODUCTION

The Native Clan Organization’s Forensic Behavioral Management Clinic (FBMC)has been providing assessment and treatment services for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal individuals in Manitoba who have engaged in sexual offendingbehaviour since 1987. Historically, the FBMC has primarily been a clinicalprogram and, like many treatment programs we did not have the time orresources to involve ourselves in research. We were however aware that ourtreatment files were a rich, untapped source of data that we needed to organizeand review. We believed that by establishing a database and analyzing variablesof interest that there was an excellent potential to gain insight and direction toevolve our assessment and treatment strategies as well as to offer a contributionto the knowledge base related to sexual offenders. This research report offersthe first glimpse into this effort and provides information on our closed treatmentfiles from 1987-1999.

This report specifically investigates the similarities and differences between theAboriginal and non-Aboriginal adult male sexual offenders who have participatedin institutional and community based treatment with the FBMC. In doing so, ourobjective is not to compare Aboriginal to non-Aboriginal offenders for comparisonsake or to hold one group up against another in judgement. Rather, it is ourhope that this examination will allow us to learn more about the profiles of themen who have participated in treatment at FBMC and guide the evolution of ourassessment and treatment approaches so we can better attend to and meet theneeds of our clients. Ultimately, identifying and understanding the similaritiesand differences among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders will enhance ourability to assist and support the offenders in treatment both manage their risk andfacilitate their ability to live their lives in a healthy, balanced, pro-social manner.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SEX OFFENDER SURVEY INSTRUMENT

At this time the FBMC database questionnaire consists of 235 items, which arecompleted for each offender who receives treatment through FBMC (seeAppendix A for database questionnaire). The items include variables identifiedthrough a review of other sex offender treatment program databasequestionnaires, the research literature on sexual offenders and variables ofinterest identified by the treatment team, which includes psychologists, socialworkers, a phallometric technician, Aboriginal spiritual helpers/ healers (Naïvespiritual Elders, pipe-carriers, Aboriginal therapists) and the clinic’s communityoutreach workers. The database questionnaire taps into a range of areasincluding:

• Referral Information
• Offender Demographics
• Sexual Offending History (Juvenile and Adult, reported/unreported)
• Memory
• Accountability, Offence Cycle Information
• Cognitive Distortions
• Offence Planning/Grooming of Victim(s)
• Deviant Sexual Interests and Arousal
• Victim Profile
• Family of Origin and Developmental Experiences of Offender
• Criminal History
• Treatment Information
• Treatment Outcome and Recidivism

There is also a section, which pertains specifically to Aboriginal characteristics.

This section considers issues such as:

• Racial Identity
• Primary Language
• Home Communities
• Residential School Experience/Impact
• Developmental Experience with Aboriginal Culture
• Involvement in Aboriginal Specific Treatment Programs

Data for each of the closed files was obtained by a review of the treatment filesincluding various reports (such as, Correctional Service of Canada reports,Provincial Corrections reports, Police reports and reports completed by FBMC),the treatment process notes included in the treatment files and testing materialon file (for example, various self-report measures, risk assessment, phallometrictesting). Additionally, the primary therapist for each offender reviewed thecompleted data sheets for accuracy of information. Although not an idealmethodological procedure, therapists were also asked to rate each of theoffenders who had been on their caseload in terms of a number of pre-posttreatment changes observed. This was done in an effort to gain somepreliminary information related to treatment change/outcome. In the future, amore methodologically sound protocol for collecting these data will beestablished.

FINDINGS

Sex offender characteristics

The database consisted of 303 closed treatment cases of adult male sexualoffenders referred to the FBMC for institutional and/or community basedtreatment. The majority of these offenders were referred by the CorrectionalService of Canada, Penitentiaries and Parole (82%). The remaining 18% werereferred by a variety of sources including the Manitoba Department of Justice-Probation Services, Winnipeg Child and Family Services and the ProvincialDepartments of Mental Health and Family Services. Of the total sample 40%(n = 121) were Aboriginal and 60% (n = 182) were non-Aboriginal.

Developmental and social histories of sex offenders

To better understand the backgrounds and histories of the men in our program,we were interested in learning about their family of origin and early childhooddevelopmental and social experiences. We view these as meaningful as theseexperiences shape lives and have likely contributed to the unhealthy coping anda state of imbalance that has been evident in the lives of the men in our program.In considering these experiences we investigated issues related to caregivers,separation and loss, exposure to dysfunctional styles of coping and inappropriateconduct on the part of adults responsible for their care (such as, crime,substance abuse, physical and sexual abuse, inappropriate sexual boundaries).We also looked at the men’s own experience of victimization. Finally, weconsidered areas that may be reflective of the impact of these experiences onthe men. In this regard we investigated self-injurious behaviours, substanceabuse and the men’s educational and employment histories.

Table 1: Offender's Primary Childhood Caregiver

Offender	Mother & Father		Mother		Father		Extended Family		Non-Family Members
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	63	52.1	25	20.1	2	1.7	20	16.5	11	9.1
Non-Aboriginal	121	68.4	29	16.4	1	0.6	13	7.3	13	7.3
Total	184	61.7	54	18.1	3	1.0	33	11.1	24	0.8

In looking at who the primary childhood caregiver(s) were for the men it was interesting to note that the largest percentage of offenders (62%) were raised by both parents. In contrasting the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men, chi-square analyses indicated a significant difference between the offender groups with regard to the primary childhood caregiver (X2 = 15.477, p<.05). Aboriginal men were more likely than non-Aboriginal men to have extended family members as their primary childhood caregiver (17% versus 7%), while non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely to have both their mother and father as the primary childhood caregiver (68% versus 52%).

Table 2: Total Mean Number of Primary Caregivers

Offender	Mean
Aboriginal	3.9
Non-Aboriginal	3.5
Total	3.7

We were interested in looking at the number of caregivers the men reported as ameans of trying to capture the occurrence of being raised by people other thanbiological parents, including being placed in care (such as, foster care, grouphomes). Overall, the mean total number of primary caregivers was 3.7 for alloffenders. T-tests showed no significant difference in the total mean number ofprimary caregivers between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men(t(286) = .871, ns). This suggests that although many of the men reported beingraised by their parents, they also appear to have had alternative caregivers at pointsduring their formative years.

Table 3: Parental Separation

Offender	Separation / Abandonment		Parental Divorce
	Yes		Yes
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	82	68.9	56	49.6
Non-Aboriginal	92	52.0	65	37.6
Total	174	58.8	111	40.9

Perhaps consistent with the previous finding, a large percentage of all menreported having been parted from a parent due to separation or abandonment(59%). A smaller number, yet still a large percentage (41%), also reportedhaving experienced parental divorce. While the rates were high for both groups,Aboriginal offenders demonstrated a significantly greater experience ofseparation from or abandonment by parents (69% versus 52%) compared tonon-Aboriginal offenders (X2 = 8.418, p<.05). Aboriginal men also experiencedparental divorce significantly more often than non-Aboriginal men (50% versus38%; X2 = 4.023, p<.05). This is viewed as very important as clinically it is notuncommon for men in treatment to identify having developed feelings of angerand resentment, an uncaring attitude and coping strategies of being highlydefended, untrusting and acting out connected to childhood feelings ofabandonment and an absence of healthy attachments.

Table 4: Family Criminal Factors

Offender	Family Criminality
	n	%
Aboriginal	57	48.3
Non-Aboriginal	41	23.4
Total	98	33.4

There was a striking difference between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men intheir report of family members who had been involved in criminal behaviour.Aboriginal men demonstrated a significantly greater experience of having familymembers who had been involved in criminal behaviour (X2 = 19.583, p<.001)than non-Aboriginal men (48% versus 23%).

Table 5: Tragic Family Loss

Offender	Family Suicide		Family Homicide
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	19	16.7	15	12.9
Non-Aboriginal	10	5.7	6	3.4
Total	29	10.0	21	7.2

While overall the number of offenders experiencing a tragic family loss throughsuicide (10%) or murder (7%) is low, it is noteworthy that there were significantdifferences in the frequency of these experiences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men. Aboriginal men more frequently experienced a family membercommitting suicide (17% versus 6%; X2 = 9.276, p<.005) and losing a familymember through murder (13% versus 3%; X2 = 9.498, p<.005) than non-Aboriginal men.

Table 6: Witnessed or Knowledge of Parental Abuse within Family as a Minor

Offender	Physical Abuse		Sexual Abuse		Inappropriate Sexual Boundaries		Alcohol, Drug / Solvent Abuse
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	66	56.9	22	19.0	49	42.2	96	81.4
Non-Aboriginal	73	41.7	24	13.7	49	28.2	99	56.6
Total	139	47.8	26	16.8	98	33.8	195	66.6

In considering exposure to early trauma we were interested in investigating themen’s experience of witnessing or having knowledge of their parents engaging inabusive behaviours. This involved being aware of, or observing, destructivebehaviours their parents engaged in (for example, substance abuse) and otherforms of acting out behaviour perpetrated by parents against each other (suchas, domestic violence) or against others (such as, the offender’s siblings). Whilemany of the men identified being aware of, or observing, abusive behaviours bytheir parents, Aboriginal men were more likely to report this knowledge orexperience. Aboriginal men reported a significantly greater knowledge of, orwitnessed physical abuse between parents as a minor (57% versus 42;X2 = 6.445, p<.05). They also reported a significantly greater awareness of theoccurrence of inappropriate sexual boundaries within the family growing up (42%versus 28%; X2 = 6.168, p<.05). No significant difference were found betweenthe two groups in regards to having knowledge of, or witnessing a parentengaging in sexual abuse against another family member (X2 = 1.445, ns).While a high percentage of all offenders reported being aware of, or observing,parental substance abuse (67%), there was a significant difference between theoffender groups (X2 = 19.449, p<.001) with Aboriginal men demonstrating asignificantly greater experience of parental substance abuse (81% versus 57%)compared to non-Aboriginal men.

Table 7: Experience of Childhood Abuse

Offender	Physical		Sexual		Emotional		Neglect
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	80	69.0	77	65.3	80	68.4	60	51.3
Non-Aboriginal	109	61.9	92	51.7	107	60.5	33	18.6
Total	189	64.7	169	57.1	187	63.6	93	31.6

Overall, a large percentage of the men in our program reported experiencingchildhood victimization including physical abuse (65%), sexual abuse (57%),emotional abuse (64%) and neglect (32%). No significant differences were foundbetween the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men in regards to being subjected tophysical (X2 = 1.515, ns) or emotional abuse (X2 = 1.911, ns). However,Aboriginal men were significantly more likely to report having experiencedneglect (51% versus 19%; X2 = 34.696, p<.0001) and sexual abuse (65% versus52%; X2 = 5.333, p<.05). As can be seen, the incidence of sexual abuse washigh for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men. In further exploring childhoodsexual abuse experiences, no significant differences were found between thegroups with regard to age of first abusive sexual experience (t(147) = -.579, ns).A significant difference (t(150) = 2.173, p<.05) was found between Aboriginal andnon-Aboriginal men with regard to mean number of sexual abuse perpetratorswith Aboriginal men having a mean of 2.91 sexual abuse perpetrators while non-Aboriginal men had a mean of 2.13 sexual abuse perpetrators.

Table 8: Relationship of Sexual Abuser(s) to Offender

Offender	Immediate Family Member(s)		Extended Family Member(s)		Non-Biological Family Member(s)		Various Family Member(s)
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	9	15.8	23	40.4	6	10.5	9	15.8
Non-Aboriginal	25	32.1	15	19.2	8	10.3	10	12.8
Total	34	25.2	38	28.1	14	10.4	19	14.1

In considering the relationship of the sexual abuser to the men, we exploredfamilial and non-familial relationships. Chi-square analyses showed significantdifferences between the offender groups with regard to familial relationship ofsexual abuser(s) to the offender (X2 = 9.857, p<.05), however no significantdifferences were determined between the groups with regard to the offenderbeing sexually abused by a stranger(s) or friend/family friend. It appears thatAboriginal men were more likely to be abused by extended family members (40%versus 19%) while non-Aboriginal men were more likely to be offended againstby immediate family members (32% versus 16%). This may be related to whothe offender’s primary caregivers were in their younger years (see Table 1).

Table 9: Self-Harm

Offender	Immediate Family Member(s)		Extended Family Member(s)		Non-Biological Family Member(s)
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	6	5.0	23	19.0	34	28.1
Non-Aboriginal	10	5.5	42	23.3	37	20.6
Total	16	5.3	65	21.6	71	23.6

In exploring self-destructive attempts to cope with pain through self-injuriousthoughts and behaviours it was interesting to note that almost one-quarter of themen (24%) reported having experienced suicidal ideation, with a number of men(22%) having attempted suicide. Only a small percentage of men (5%) reportedhaving engaged in self-mutilation (for example, slashing-not related to suicidalgestures, burning). Chi-square analyses showed no significant differencesbetween the offender groups with regard to self-mutilation (X2 = .713, ns(p = .713)), suicide attempts or suicidal ideation with no attempts (X2 = 2.361, ns (p =.307)).

Table 10: Offender Substance Abuse Issues

Offender	Alcohol		Drug		Solvent
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	115	95.0	80	66.1	31	25.6
Non-Aboriginal	111	61.3	77	42.5	8	4.4
Total	226	74.8	157	52.0	39	12.9

It appears that many of the men attempted to cope through substance abuse,particularly alcohol (75%) and drug (52%) abuse. Chi-square analyses indicatesignificant differences between the two offender groups with regard to history ofalcohol, drug and solvent abuse respectively (X2 = 43.773, X2 = 16.147; andX2 = 28.98, all p <.0001). Aboriginal men demonstrated significantly greateralcohol (95% versus 61%, drug (66% versus 43%) and solvent (26% versus 4%)abuse than did non-Aboriginal men.

Table 11: Offender Educational Status

Offender	<Grade 8		Grade 8-11		High School Diploma		GED		Trade School		University or College
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	45	37.2	66	54.5	5	4.1	1	0.8	3	2.5	1	0.8
Non-Aboriginal	24	13.3	93	51.7	31	17.2	5	2.8	11	6.1	16	8.9
Total	69	22.9	159	52.8	36	12.0	6	2	14	4.6	17	5.6

Education levels were explored and considered important in that a limited education may be reflective of difficult early life experiences, which may inhibiteither access or ability to maintain involvement in schooling. As well, a limitededucation could contribute to personal adjustment issues later in life and impactareas such as self-esteem, employment and financial stability. Overall, the menin our program had low levels of education with only a small number havingcompleted high school (12%), or having attended a trade school (5%) oruniversity (6%). A striking 23% reported having completed less than grade 8education. Chi-square analyses showed a significant difference between theoffender groups and education level (X2 = 40.207, p <.0001). Most notably,Aboriginal men appeared to have a lower level of education with more havingless than grade 8 (37% versus 13%) and fewer having completed a high schooldiploma (4% versus 17%). As well, Aboriginal men were less likely to haveattended a trade school (3% versus 6%) or university (1% versus 9%). Asignificant difference was also found between the offender groups with regard tohistory of school maladjustment with 49% of Aboriginal men reporting a history ofschool maladjustment whereas 28% of non-Aboriginal men reported such history(X2 = 13.522, p <.0001).

Table 12: Offender Employment History

Offender	No history		Sporadic employment		Stable Employment		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	31	25.6	67	55.4	23	19.0	121	100
Non-Aboriginal	12	6.7	92	51.1	76	42.2	180	100
Total	43	14.3	159	52.8	99	32.9	301	100

Employment history was also thought to be an important indicator that may be reflective of personal wellness, life opportunities, self-esteem and emotionalstability and financial security. Overall, the employment history of the men wasquite limited with only 33% having a stable employment history. Chi-squareanalyses showed a significant difference between the offender groups andemployment history (X2 = 30.526, p <.0001). Aboriginal men appeared moredisadvantaged in their employment history and were more likely to have nohistory of employment (26% versus 7%) whereas non-Aboriginal men appear tohave a more stable employment history (42% versus 19%). With this said, thisstill leaves a large percentage of (58%) of non-Aboriginal men who did not havea stable employment history.

Table 13: Offender Employment Status at Time of Current Offence

Offender	Employed Full- or Part-Time		Unemployed		Student		Retired/Disability		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	40	33.1	76	62.8	3	2.5	2	1.7	121	100
Non-Aboriginal	113	62.8	57	31.7	6	3.3	4	2.2	180	100
Total	153	50.8	133	44.2	9	3.0	6	2	301	100

Employment status at the time of their current offence was also examined. Thisdoes not offer much insight into the relationship between employment andoffending as approximately one-half (51%) were employed and just under onehalf(44%) were unemployed. Consistent with the above finding related togeneral employment history, chi-square analyses showed a significant differencebetween the offender groups and employment status at time of offence(X2 = 28.751, p <.0001) with Aboriginal men being more likely to be unemployedthan non-Aboriginal men (63% versus 32%).

Aboriginal specific characteristics

In exploring our client profiles we were interested in learning more about somespecific characteristics of the Aboriginal men who had participated in ourprogram. In this regard we were interested in issues such as racial identity,language, home communities and attendance at a residential school andexperiences in this environment. We were also interested in the men’s exposureto traditional Aboriginal culture (such as, teachings, ceremonies) in theirformative years and what this might mean in terms of the relevance andimportance of culturally appropriate programming.

Table 14: Frequencies of Racial Identity of Sex Offender Clients Treated at FBMC

Racial Identity	n	%
North American Indian	99	32.7
Métis	21	6.9
Inuit	1	0.3
Non-Aboriginal	182	60.1
Total	303	100

The majority of clients treated through FBMC during the time frame of thedatabase were non-Aboriginal (60%), while Aboriginal persons made up 40% ofthe clientele. In further examining the Aboriginal category, most men were North American Indian (33%) with a smaller number of men identifying themselves as Métis (7%)and only one Inuit client (0.3%).

Table 15: Primary Aboriginal Language

Language	n	%
Cree	26	22.8
Ojibway	13	11.4
Seaulteaux	7	6.1
Dene	4	3.5
Inuktitut	1	0.9
Total	63	55.2

(Not applicable) English speaking only 63 55.2Language is viewed as an important variable that must be considered in bothassessment and treatment programming. The ability to respond and participatein an assessment and to engage in, and benefit from, treatment is tied tolanguage and the ability to both comprehend concepts being addressed and tocommunicate relevant issues. Language is not simply an issue related togeneral comprehension but is also significant because of distinct differences inthe construction of Aboriginal languages compared to English.

The majority of Aboriginal men who participated in our program during the timeframe of the database spoke English only (55%) and did not possess a primaryAboriginal language. Of those who did speak a primary Aboriginal language, themajority spoke Cree (23%), followed by Ojibway (11%) and Seaultaux (6%).While it appears that programming delivered in English would not have been animpediment for many Aboriginal men, given that 45% of the men spoke anAboriginal language as their first language speaks to the importance of beingmore aware of and attending to language issues.

Table 16: Community Specifics

Community	Reserve		Rural		Urban		Various		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Of origin	73	61.3	22	18.5	24	20.2	-	-	121	100
Of residence at time of offence	48	39.7	14	11.6	59	48.8	-	-	121	100
Where offence occurred	47	38.8	13	10.7	59	48.8	2	1.7	121	100

Looking at the location of the men’s home communities was of interest. Inparticular, examining where these men grew up, where they resided at the timeof their offence and where their offences occurred. The community of origin forthe majority of Aboriginal offenders was a reserve community (61%). However,urban communities were the main community of residence at the time of offence(49%). The men tended to commit offences where they were residing at the timeof the offence rather than live in one location and offend in another. In thisregard 39% offended in reserve communities, where 40% resided; 11% offendedin rural communities, where 12% resided and 49% offended in urbancommunities where 49% resided.

Table 17: Residential School Experiences

Sexually Abused		Physically Abused		Emotionally Abused
n	%	n	%	n	%
4	36.4	10	90.9	9	81.8

A very small number of the Aboriginal men in our program attended residentialschools (9%, n = 11), likely as the majority of men were too young to have beenin a residential school. Of the men who were placed in residential schools, themajority were physically (91%) and/or emotionally (82%) abused while inattendance and more than a third (36%) experienced sexual abuse within this setting.

Table 18: Traditional Upbringing

Traditional Upbringing		Non-Traditional Upbringing
n	%	n	%
19	15.5	102	84.5

The experience of a traditional upbringing was of interest in that it may speak toissues such as the impact of colonization, the degree of acculturation and theneed for, and role of, culturally relevant programming for Aboriginal men. Of the121 Aboriginal men in our sample, a small proportion (16%) were raised learningabout Aboriginal cultural and spiritual teachings and ceremonies. The majority ofmen (84%) were not exposed to this as part of their experience growing up. Thismight suggest that not all Aboriginal men will be comfortable with or find culturallyoriented programming relevant. It may also highlight the importance of this typeof programming as a means of providing men with an opportunity for exposure tothese important historical ways of life that were lost to them for various reasonsand that may be significant in defining a healthy identify.

Criminal history

In reviewing the backgrounds of the men and in exploring various forms ofdestructive styles of coping we were interested in looking at criminal behaviour.In particular we wanted to explore juvenile and adult histories of violent andsexual offending behaviour. In investigating criminal histories we consideredboth convictions recorded in the men’s criminal records as well as self-reportinformation of offences committed that did not result in charges or convictions.Convictions as a young offenderOf the 303 offenders, 25% (n = 77) had convictions as a young offender. Ofthese 8% (n = 23) held convictions for violent offence(s) and 6% (n = 18) heldconvictions for sexual offence(s).

Convictions as a young offender

Of the 303 offenders, 25% (n = 77) had convictions as a young offender. Of these 8% (n = 23) held convictions for violent offence(s) and 6% (n = 18) held convictions for sexual offence(s).

Table 19: Convictions as a Young Offender

Offender	Mean Total # of Convictions	Mean Total # of Violent Offence Convictions	Mean Total # of Sexual Offence Convictions
	n	n	n
Aboriginal	4.2857	1.6667	1.1667
Non-Aboriginal	3.2286	1.2500	1.0833

No differences were found between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men inregards to their juvenile offending histories. Chi-square analyses demonstratedno significant difference between the offender groups with regard to total numberof convictions (X2 = 11.076, ns), violent offence conviction (X2 = 1.477, ns), orsexual offence convictions (X2 = .281, ns) as a young offender. Independentsample t-tests indicated no significant differences between offender groups forthe mean total number of sexual offence convictions (t(16) = .504, ns), mean totalnumber for violent offence convictions (t(21) = .480, ns) or for mean total numberof convictions (t(75) = 1.016, ns) as a young offender.

Table 20: Frequency of Self-Disclosed Offences Not Convicted for as a Young Offender

Frequency	Aboriginal				Non-Aboriginal
	Sexual Offences		Violent Offences		Sexual Offences		Violent Offences
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
0	85	71.4	38	31.9	121	67.2	110	61.5
1-2	18	15.1	17	14.3	26	14.4	16	8.9
3-5	7	5.9	24	20.2	20	11.1	29	16.2
6-9	2	1.7	0	0.0	2	1.1	3	1.7
10+	6	5.0	40	33.6	9	5.0	21	11.7

The only differences evident between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men in theirself-disclosed histories of juvenile offending behaviour was that the Aboriginalmen disclosed committing a higher number of violent offences as youth, whichthey were never charged for (X2 = 33.734, p <.001.). While 62% of non-Aboriginal men indicated that they had never committed a violent offences forwhich they were not charged, only 32% of the Aboriginal men reported similarly.No significant difference was found between the offender groups with regard tofrequency of self-disclosed sexual offences as a young offender (X2 = 2.602, ns).Independent sample t-tests indicated no significant difference between offendergroups for the mean total number of self-disclosed violent (t(148) = 1.808, ns) orsexual offences (t(88) = -.066, ns).

Convictions as an Adult

Table 21: Convictions as an Adult

Offender	Mean Total # of Convictions	Mean Total # of Violent Offence Convictions	Mean Total # of Sexual Offence Convictions
	n	n	n
Aboriginal	9.1858	3.0278	2.0982
Non-Aboriginal	7.8373	2.6885	2.6524

As with juvenile criminal histories, no differences were found between theAboriginal and non-Aboriginal men in their adult criminal histories with regard tototal number of convictions (X2 = 39.119, ns), violent offence convictions(X2 = 12.052, ns), or sexual offence convictions (X2 = 7.798, ns). Independentsample t-tests indicated no significant differences between offender groups forthe mean total number of sexual offence convictions (t(274) = -1.874, ns), meantotal number for violent offence convictions (t(131) = .734, ns) or for mean totalnumber of convictions (t(277) = 1.165, ns) as an adult.

Table 22: Frequency of Self-Disclosed Offences Not Convicted for as an Adult Offender

Frequency	Aboriginal				Non-Aboriginal
	Sexual Offences		Violent Offences		Sexual Offences		Violent Offences
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
0	81	68.6	28	23.7	98	54.1	77	42.5
1-2	20	16.9	10	8.5	34	18.8	19	10.5
3-5	9	7.6	16	13.6	18	9.9	31	17.1
6-9	1	0.8	5	4.2	4	2.2	9	5.0
10+	6	5.1	59	50.0	26	14.4	45	24.9

In terms of self-disclosed offending behaviour as adults, the Aboriginal mendisclosed a greater frequency of engaging in violent offences for which they werenever charged (X2 = 21.139, p <.0001) compared to the non-Aboriginal men.The non-Aboriginal men however disclosed committing significantly more sexualoffences that they were never charged with than the Aboriginal men (X2 = 9.701,p <.05). Independent sample t-tests illustrated significant differences betweenthe offender groups with regard to self-disclosed violent offences (t(297) = 4.533,p <.0001) with Aboriginal men disclosing more. A significant difference was alsofound between the groups with regard to self-disclosure of sexual offences(t(295) = -3.332, p <.05.) with Aboriginal men disclosing less. As examples ofthis, fewer non-Aboriginal men reported not having committed a sexual offencefor which they were never charged or convicted of (54% versus 69%). As well agreater number of the non-Aboriginal men identified having committed 10 ormore sexual offences which had never been detected (14% versus 5%).

Table 23: Gang Affiliation

Offender	Yes		No		Suspected Involvement		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	10	8.3	108	89.3	3	2.5	121	100
Non-Aboriginal	7	3.8	175	96.2	0	0.0	182	100
Total	17	5.6	283	93.4	3	0.9	303	100

Although there was limited information available related to gang involvement,given the increasing attention to problems associated with gangs, gang affiliationwas investigated. Gang affiliation is worth noting amongst this offenderpopulation as a potentially dangerous dilemma emerges for gang members whohave committed a sexual offence. These individuals become at risk from theirgang (both while incarcerated and/or in the community) due to the abhorrence inthe criminal sub-culture for sexual offenders. Chi-square analyses demonstrateda significant difference between the offender groups with regard to gangaffiliation (X2 = 7.411, p<.05). While the numbers are quite small, moreAboriginal offenders appeared to be affiliated with gangs than non-Aboriginalsexual offenders (8% versus 4%).

Table 24: Nature of Sexual Offending Behaviour

Offender	Incest		Child Molester		Pedophile		Rapist		Rapist/Pedophile		Hands Off		Adult Fondler/Hands On		Sexual Murder		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	26	21.5	9	7.4	17	14.0	57	47.1	10	8.3	1	0.8	1	0.8	0	0.0	121	100
Non-Aboriginal	55	30.2	20	11.0	36	19.6	46	25.3	15	8.2	5	2.7	4	2.2	1	0.5	182	100
Total	81	26.7	29	9.6	53	17.5	103	34.0	25	8.3	6	2.0	5	1.7	1	0.3	303	100

The two offender groups were compared to see if there were any differences inthe type of sexual offences committed by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexualoffenders. Chi-square analyses demonstrated a significant difference betweenthe offender groups with regard to nature of offence (X2 = 17.434, p <.05).Aboriginal sexual offenders appear to be more likely to be perpetrators of rape(47%) than any other sex offence while non-Aboriginal sexual offenders appearmore likely to be perpetrators of incest (30%). Non-Aboriginal offenders alsoappeared to be more involved in sexual offences against children than Aboriginaloffenders (61% versus 43%).

Patterns of offending

In identifying client profiles we were very interested in investigating patterns ofoffending and potential similarities and differences that may be evident betweenthe offending dynamics of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. In exploringthis we focused on examining a number of areas including: victim characteristics(for example, gender, age, ethnicity, relationship to offender and victims use ofsubstances at the time of the offence), the cognitive distortions maintained by themen to assist them engage in offending (such as, minimizations,rationalizations/justifications and projecting responsibility) and looking at the rolesof offence planning and grooming (manipulation to gain access to victims),coercion, and finally, deviant sexual interests and arousal.

Victim characteristics

Table 25: Gender of Victim(s)

Offender	Male		Female		Both male & female		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	3	2.5	109	90.1	9	7.4	121	100.0
Non-Aboriginal	8	4.4	133	73.1	41	22.5	182	100.0
Total	11	3.6	242	79.9	50	16.5	303	100.0

A gender difference was noted in the victim selection of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders with Aboriginal offenders being significantly more likely toselect female victims compared to non-Aboriginal offenders (X2 = 13.395,p <.005). However, it is clear that both offender groups most often offendedagainst females (Aboriginal 90%, non-Aboriginal 73%). Non-Aboriginal sexoffenders were more likely than Aboriginal sex offenders to victimize both malesand females than (23% versus 7%).

Table 26: Age of Victim(s)

Offender	Infant (birth-5 yrs)		Pre-Pubescent (6-9 yrs)		Pubescent (10-13 yrs)		Teen (14 -17 yrs)		Adult (18+)		Elderly (65+)		Multiple Ages
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	21	17.4	37	30.6	35	28.9	39	32.2	59	48.8	4	3.3	70	57.9
Non-Aboriginal	48	26.2	87	45.9	81	44.3	61	33.3	75	41.0	7	3.8	119	65.0
Total	69	22.7	121	39.8	116	38.2	100	32.9	134	44.1	11	3.6	189	62.2

As previously noted, non-Aboriginal offenders were found to offend morefrequently against child victims than Aboriginal offenders. Chi-square analysesdemonstrated a significant difference between the offender groups with regard toage of victim(s) (X2 = 3.269, p <.05, X2 = 7.138, p <.005, X2 = 7.260, p <.05, forinfant, pre-pubescent and pubescent victims respectively). Non-Aboriginaloffenders were more likely to offend against each of these age groups than wereAboriginal offenders. No significant differences were found between the offendergroups with regard to teen, adult, elderly or victims of multiple ages.

Table 27: Ethnicity of Victims

Offender	Caucasian		Aboriginal		Various Backgrounds
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	9	7.8	92	79.3	14	12.1
Non-Aboriginal	90	51.1	7	4.0	79	44.9
Total	99	33.9	99	33.9	93	31.8

The two offender groups were found to significantly differ in terms of the ethnicityof victims selected (X2 = 182.243, p <.0001). Offenders most frequently offendedagainst victims of the same ethnicity as themselves. This was particularly true ofthe Aboriginal sex offenders who offended against Aboriginal victims 79% of thetime. While non-Aboriginal sex offenders were also most likely to victimize non-Aboriginal victims (51% of the time), they were much more likely than Aboriginalsex offenders to offend against victims of various ethnic backgrounds (49% versus 12%).

Table 28: Familial Relationship of Victims to Offender

Offender	Immediate Family Member(s)		Extended Family Member(s)		Non-Biological Family Member(s)		Various Family Member(s)		Not Family Member(s)
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	35	40.7	15	17.4	3	3.5	13	15.1	20	23.3
Non-Aboriginal	68	50.4	19	14.1	2	1.5	29	21.5	17	12.6
Total	103	46.6	34	15.4	5	2.3	42	19	27	16.7

Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders frequently offended against victimswho were family members (64%), be they immediate family, extended family ornon-biological family members (such as, stepchildren). Most often however(47%) the victim(s) was an immediate family member. No significant differenceswere found between the offender groups with regard to the type of familialrelationships they had with their victim(s) (X2 = 7.065, ns).

Table 29: Non-Familial Relationship of Victims to Offender

Offender	Family Friend(s)		Non-Familial Position of Trust & Authority		Friend(s)/Acquaintance(s)		Stranger(s)
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	15	12.4	3	2.5	62	51.2	22	18.2
Non-Aboriginal	31	16.9	16	8.7	75	41.0	51	27.9
Total	46	15.1	19	6.3	137	45.1	73	24.0

Of the victims who were not family members, friends/acquaintances (45%) andstrangers (24%) were the most common victims. Chi-square analysesdemonstrated no significant difference between the offender groups with regardto their relationships to the victim(s) with the exception of the category ‘nonfamilialposition of trust and authority’ (X2 = 4.877, p <,05). This category isrelated to situations were the offender is in a position of having a level of trustand authority over the victim (for example, a physician, religious leader, teacher,coach). Non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely than Aboriginal offenders tooffend against victims whom they were in a position of authority over.

Table 30: Multiple Relationships of Victims

Offender	Yes		No		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	60	50.8	58	49.2	118	100.0
Non-Aboriginal	114	63.7	65	36.3	179	100.0
Total	174	58.6	123	41.4	297	100.0

Interestingly many of the offenders (59%) had victims of various relationships tothem rather than selecting victims from one particular relationship category, forexample, offending only against immediate family members. Non-Aboriginaloffenders however demonstrated a greater tendency to have a broader range ofoffending (for example, having victims including a family member and a family friend),(X2 = 4.832, p <.05 , 64% versus 51%).

Table 31: Victim’s Substance Abuse at Time of Offence

Offender	Abuse of alcohol		Abuse of Drugs		Abuse of alcohol & drugs		No substance abuse		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	46	38.0	1	0.8	11	9.1	63	52.1	121	100.0
Non-Aboriginal	25	13.7	1	0.5	15	8.2	141	77.5	182	100.0
Total	71	23.4	2	0.7	26	8.6	204	67.3	303	100.0

In comparing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders there was a significantdifference between the offender groups with regard to victim’s substance abuseat the time of the offence (X2 = 25.399, p <.0001). Victims of Aboriginal sexoffenders were more likely to have abused alcohol (38% versus 14%) at the timeof the offence than were victims of non-Aboriginal sex offenders. Victims of non-Aboriginal sex offenders were more likely to have no substance abuse at the timeof the offence (78% versus 52%). The fact that the victims of Aboriginaloffenders, who were most often adult Aboriginal women (see Tables 25, 26 and27) should in no way be read or interpreted to place any level of responsibility onthese victims. Rather, as will be reported in the planning and grooming section,this is more likely a reflection of Aboriginal offenders either taking advantage of avictims state of intoxication or facilitating this state in order to commit andoffence.

Cognitive Distortions

Cognitive distortions are distorted perceptions or beliefs that sexual offenderstypically maintain to minimize the seriousness of their offending behaviour andtheir culpability, to rationalize and justify their behaviour and to projectresponsibility on to others, most often their victims. These distortions facilitatethe process of engaging in and continuing to commit sexual offences in the faceof knowing that their behaviour is inappropriate and harmful. We were interestedin investigating if Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexual offendersutilized/maintained the same types of distortions. To explore this we comparedthe men in our sample on a number of distortions common among sexualoffenders. Table 32 represents the men’s endorsement of these distortions priorto sex offender treatment. Pre-treatment perceptions were focused on as one ofthe goals of treatment is to assist men enhance their level of accountability anddisclosure related to their sexual offending behaviours. In part, this typicallyinvolves challenging the reality of these distorted beliefs by assisting the men toface the more accurate reality of their offending.

Table 32: Frequencies of Cognitive Distortions Pre-Treatment

Cognitive Distortion	Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal
	n	%	n	%
Victim consented	76	62.8	114	63.0
Offender was providing sex education	8	6.7	34	18.4
Offender blames the victim	76	62.8	107	58.5
Offender believes the victim enjoyed it	38	31.7	76	41.8
Offender believes the victim did not get hurt physically or emotionally it	45	37.5	88	48.4
Offender believes it would not have happened if offender were not drunk or high	66	62.3	40	22.0
Offender is the real victim	63	52.5	103	56.6

Overall, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders did not differ in the types ofcognitive distortions they endorsed. Chi-square analyses demonstrated nosignificant difference between the offender groups with regard to their pretreatmentperceptions that their victim(s) were consenting (X2 = .001, ns), thattheir victim(s) enjoyed the sexual contact (X2 = 3.134, ns), that their victim(s)were to blame for the sexual contact occurring (X2 = .414, ns) and in believingthat their victim(s) were not harmed as a result of the offending (X2 = 3.456, ns).There were also no differences between the two groups in endorsing thedistortions that the sexual behaviour occurred in the context of providing sexeducation (X2 = 8.719, p <.005, usually in relation to child victims) or in believingthat they were the real ‘victims’ as a result of the disclosure of sexual abuse(X2 = .390, ns). Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders (63% each)frequently tended to initially indicate that their victims were consenting. Bothoffender groups also often initially blamed the victim (Aboriginal 63%, non-Aboriginal 59%) and saw themselves as the real victims (Aboriginal 53%, non-Aboriginal 57%) in their situation.

There was one specific distortion in which there was a significant differencebetween Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal offenders morefrequently endorsed the belief that their offence would not have happened hadthey not been drunk or high (X2 = 34.618, p =.000, 62% versus 22%). Thisdifference is understandable given that alcohol was more often a significantfactor in the offences committed by Aboriginal offenders (see Table 33).

Offence Planning and Grooming

Sexual offending behaviour rarely takes place without forethought and planningalthough offenders often initially assert that it "just happened". Planning can bevery well thought out and calculated in nature or it can be may be morespontaneous and opportunistic. In either case there is still thought or planningthat occurs. In some cases the planning is referred to as grooming. This is agradual process, typically used to access child victims, where the offender engages in various behaviours to develop trust, comfort and erode boundaries.In developing client profiles we were interested to see what similarities ordifferences might be evident in the manner in which Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexual offenders plan manipulations to access victims and facilitateoffending.

Table 33: Manipulations to Facilitate Offending

Offender	Alcohol or Drugs		Gifts		Shown Pornographic Material		Victim Tricked or Manipulated		Others Tricked or Manipulated
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	39	32.5	30	25.0	6	5.0	111	92.5	89	74.2
Non-Aboriginal	31	17.0	77	42.3	27	14.8	178	97.8	151	82.5
Total	70	23.2	107	35.4	33	10.9	289	95.7	240	79.2

There were some interesting differences in the ways in which Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders tended to gain access to victims. While these disparateforms of accessing victims are likely largely associated to victim selection, it issuggested that they may also highlight and speak to differences in patterns ofoffending as well as in factors related to motivation and offence precursors.

Aboriginal offenders were significantly more likely to give their victims alcohol ordrugs at the time of the offence in order to gain compliance or access tooffending (X2 = 9.716, p <.005) than were non-Aboriginal offenders (33% versus17%). This is consistent with the earlier finding that the victims of Aboriginaloffenders were more likely to have abused substances at the time of the offence(see Table 31).

Non-Aboriginal offenders, on the other hand, were more likely to engage ingrooming type behaviours. This is consistent with earlier findings that non-Aboriginal offenders tend to offend more frequently against children (see Tables24 and 26). The non-Aboriginal offenders were significantly more likely to givetheir victims gifts as part of a grooming process to establish trust and closeness(X2 = 9.469, p <.005) compared to Aboriginal sexual offenders (42% versus25%). Non-Aboriginal offenders were also significantly more likely to show theirvictims pornographic material as a means of eroding boundaries, sexualizing andillustrating the sexual acts they are wanting to engage in (X2 = 7.187, p <.05)than were Aboriginal offenders (15% versus 5%). While the vast majority ofoffenders, acknowledged some level of planning through tricking or manipulatingtheir victim(s) post-treatment (Aboriginal 93%, non-Aboriginal 98%), chi-squareanalysis demonstrated a significant difference between the offender groups withregard to tricking or manipulating their victims with non-Aboriginal sex offendersreporting a greater likelihood of carrying out these behaviours(X2 = 4.935, p <.05).

Coercion

While coercion is always a part of any form of sexual assault, we were interestedin specifically looking at the role of threats to the victim and the presence of aphysical assault of the victim in combination with the sexual assault. This was ofinterest in an effort to better understand ways in which offenders gain access totheir victims through intimidation and to see other ways in whichanger/aggression is acted out during a sexual assault. In considering issues ofcoercion we were interested in the similarities or difference between Aboriginaland non-Aboriginal offenders related to the use of threats and violence in theiroffending as well as how the type of offence may be related to the use of threats,force and violence.

Table 34: Threats and Violence to Victims as a Function of Race

Offender	Verbally Threatened Victim		Physically Assaulted Victim		Threatened Victim With a Weapon
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	92	76.0	65	53.7	21	17.4
Non-Aboriginal	131	72.0	70	38.5	38	20.9
Total	223	73.6	135	44.6	59	19.5

The majority of offenders (74%) acknowledged having verbally threatened theirvictims during the commission of their sexual offending. No significantdifferences were found between the offender groups with regard to verbal threats(X2 = 0.615, ns) with both groups frequently threatening their victims (Aboriginal76%, non-Aboriginal 72%). Threatening a victim with a weapon was lesscommon but still noteworthy with 20% of offenders engaging in this behaviour.Again, there were no significant differences between the offender groups withregard to threatening their victims with a weapon (X2 = .576, ns; Aboriginal 17%,non-Aboriginal 21%).

A significant difference was found between the offender groups with regard tovictims being assaulted physically during the commission of the sexual assault(X2 = 8.713, p <.05). Aboriginal offenders were more likely to physically assaulttheir victims than were non-Aboriginal offenders (54% versus 39%).

Table 35: Threats and Violence to Victims as a function of Offender Type

Offender	Verbally Threatened Victim				Physically Assaulted Victim				Threatened Victim With a Offender Weapon
	Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal		Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal		Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal
Nature of Offence	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Incest	18	14.9	34	18.7	9	7.4	7	3.8	2	1.7	4	2.2
Child Molester	5	4.1	12	6.6	2	1.7	2	1.1	2	1.7	2	1.1
Pedophile	10	8.3	23	12.6	3	2.5	7	3.8	1	0.8	2	1.1
Rapist	50	41.3	40	22.0	45	37.2	40	22.0	13	10.7	22	12.1
Rapist/Pedophile	8	6.6	15	8.2	5	4.1	11	6.0	3	2.5	5	2.7
Hands Off	0	0.0	4	2.2	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	0.5
Adult Fondler/Hands On	1	0.8	2	1.1	1	0.8	2	1.1	0	0.0	1	0.5
Sexual Murder	0	0.0	1	0.8	0	0.0	1	0.5	0	0.0	1	0.5

In considering threats and violence by the type of offender/offence it was notsurprising to find that rapists were significantly more likely to verbally threatentheir victim(s) (X2 = 25.941, p <.005), to physically assault their victim(s)(X2 = 118.086, p <.005) and to threatening their victim(s) with a weapon(X2 = 35.059, p <.005) than other types of offenders. Given that Aboriginaloffenders were most often identified as fitting into the rapist offence category(see Table 24), these findings illustrate why Aboriginal sex offenders were foundto more frequently physically assaulted their victims (see Table 34).

Deviant Sexual Interests

While there are a number of different needs met, in distorted and deleteriousways, through sexual offending behaviour (such as, a sense ofadequacy/competency, displaced anger, power and control, revenge) as theseare achieved through a sexual means it is important to look at the role of sexualinterests and arousal among sexual offenders. The role that sexual gratificationplays as a primary contributing factor in the commission of a sexual offencevaries. In some cases it may be a lower priority, for example in the case of arapist who offends primarily based on anger and control needs. In others it maybe the main priority, for example in the case of a pedophile whose primarymotivation and interest is sexual gratification. Given that the offender isattempting to meet these various needs, emotional and/or sexual, through thecommission of a sexual crime we were interested in exploring the experience ofsexual interest and arousal among our clients. In this regard we investigatedwhat we believed were some key areas and compared and contrasted theexperiences of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. These included the useof and response to pornography, the existence of paraphilias or atypical sexualinterests, the experience of inappropriate sexual fantasies related to offendingbehaviour and the experience of sexual arousal to deviant cues (such as,children, sexual violence) as measured through sexual preference testing.

Table 36: Use of and Response to Pornography

Pornography	Offender
	Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal
	n	%	n	%
Use of Pornographic Material	102	85.7	144	79.1
Sexual Arousal While Watching Violence or Rape on TV/Movie/Internet	28	23.5	38	20.8
Sexual Arousal While Watching Children on TV/Movie/Internet	12	10.1	35	19.2
Masturbated to Pictures of Children	11	9.2	28	15.3

Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders reported a high level ofpornography use. Chi-square analyses demonstrated a significant differencebetween the offender groups with regard to use of pornographic material(X2 = 4.622, p <.05) with Aboriginal sex offenders more frequently reporting useof pornographic material than non-Aboriginal sex offenders (86% versus 79%).In investigating more specific viewing of and arousal to materials that depictimages that could be used to fuel inappropriate sexual thoughts, fantasies andarousal, some differences were noted. While there was no significant differencebetween Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders report of becoming sexuallyaroused to watching images of violence or rape (Aboriginal 24%, non-Aboriginal21%), there was when it came to becoming sexually aroused by images ofchildren. Non-Aboriginal offenders demonstrated a significantly greaterexperience of becoming sexually aroused while watching television shows,movies or images on the internet depicting children (X2 = 4.569, p <.05) than didAboriginal offenders (19% versus 10%). Non-Aboriginal offenders were alsomore likely to masturbate to pictures of children than were Aboriginal offenders(15% versus 9%). This interest and arousal is consistent with non-Aboriginaloffenders more frequently offending against child victims.

Table 37: Paraphilias

Paraphilia	Offender
	Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal
	n	%	n	%
Masturbated to Pictures of Children	11	9.2	28	15.3
Sexual Arousal While Watching Violence or Rape on TV/Movie/Internet	28	23.5	38	20.8
Sexual Arousal While Watching Children on TV/Movie/Internet	12	10.1	35	19.2
Obscene Phone Calls	9	7.6	22	12.0
Exhibitionism	5	4.2	22	12.1
Voyeurism	28	23.3	62	33.9
Bestiality	4	3.4	12	6.6
Frottage	6	5.0	13	7.1
Fetish	15	12.6	30	16.4
Dressed in Female’s Clothing	3	2.5	14	7.7
Stolen Women’s or Children’s Underwear/Clothing	4	3.4	13	7.1
Bondage	7	5.9	34	18.7
Sado Masochism	12	10.1	22	12.0
Sexual Sadism	10	8.5	25	13.7
Taken Pictures/Videos of Offending Behaviour	5	4.2	13	7.1
Masturbated to Thoughts of Sexually Related Homicide	0	0.0	8	4.4
Attempted to/Engaged in Necrophilia	0	0.0	1	0.5

Overall, non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely to report paraphilias thanAboriginal offenders. They reported greater frequencies of all of the paraphiliasexplored with the exception of experience sexual arousal to images of violenceand rape, to which Aboriginal offenders reported a slightly higher, but nonstatisticallysignificant, experience (24% versus 21%). Chi-square analysesdemonstrated a significant difference between the offender groups with regard toengaging in exhibitionism (X2 = 5.480, p <.05), bondage(X2 = 10.018, p <.005) and masturbation to thoughts of a sexuallyrelated homicide (X2 = 5.374,p <.05). Non-Aboriginal offenderswere significantly more likely to engage inexhibitionism (12 versus 4%) and participatein more violent paraphilias such as bondage (19% versus 6%) and masturbation tothoughts of a sexually related homicide (4% versus 0%).

Table 38: Acknowledgement of Fantasies Pre- and Post-Treatment

Frequency	Aboriginal				Non-Aboriginal
	Denial/Minimal		Some/High		Denial/Minimal		Some/High
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Sexual Thoughts/Fantasies Specific to Victim (Pre-)	97	85.1	17	14.9	145	81.5	33	18.5
Sexual Thoughts/Fantasies Specific to Victim (Post-)	58	50.9	56	49.1	59	33.3	118	66.7
Fantasies About Children (Pre-)	57	86.4	9	13.6	109	84.5	20	15.5
Fantasies About Children (Post-)	40	60.6	26	39.4	70	53.4	61	46.6
Fantasies About Sexual Violence (Pre-)	78	89.7	9	10.3	99	86.1	16	13.9
Fantasies About Sexual Violence (Post-)	64	73.6	23	26.4	66	57.4	49	42.6
Fantasies About Revenge/Non-sexual Violence (Pre-)	78	87.6	11	12.4	87	81.3	20	18.7
Fantasies About Revenge/Non-sexual Violence (Post-)	46	51.7	43	48.3	47	44.3	59	55.7

Men were asked both pre and post treatment to describe their experience ofinappropriate sexual fantasies, including sexual images of their victim(s), aboutchildren, about sexual violence and about non-sexual violence. While nosignificant differences were noted between the two offender groups in their pretreatmentresponding, there were some significant differences in what appearedto be their more candid post-treatment responding. Non-Aboriginal offenderswere significantly more likely to report having maintained "some to a high"frequency of sexual thoughts/fantasies about their victims post-treatment(X2 = 8.877, p <.005) compared to Aboriginal offenders (67% versus 33%). Non-Aboriginal offenders were also more likely to report experiencing "some to a high"frequency of sexual thoughts/fantasies about sexual violence post-treatment(X2 = 5.647, p <.05), compared to Aboriginal offenders (43% versus 26%).These results are interesting in that while Aboriginal offenders are more likely tocommit a rape (see Table 24) and are more likely to physically assault a victim(see Table 34) during the commission of an offence, non-Aboriginal offendersreport more frequent sexual thoughts and fantasies about sexual aggression.

No significant differences were reported between the offender groups with regardto acknowledgement of sexual thoughts/fantasies about children or sexualthoughts/fantasies about revenge/non-sexual violence post-treatment. It ishowever interesting that a number of offenders did acknowledge the experienceof these fantasies post-treatment (fantasies about children - Aboriginal 39%, non-Aboriginal 47% and fantasies of non-sexual violence – Aboriginal 48%, non-Aboriginal 56%).

In considering deviant sexual interests and examining the arousal profiles ofAboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders, the men in treatments were categorizedbased on their response profile during sexual preference testing conductedthrough penile plethysmography (PPG). This testing involved measuring thecircumferencial change in penile tuminesence during an arousal response to arange of visual and auditory stimuli depicting appropriate (adult, consenting) andinappropriate (child, coercion) images and narratives.

Table 39: Penile Pleythismography Data: Sexual Preference Profile and Race

Offender	Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Non-responder	23	19.0	37	20.3	60	19.8
Adult Preference	6	5.0	17	9.3	23	76
Child + Adult Preference	29	24.0	29	15.9	58	19.1
Child Preference	2	1.7	8	4.4	10	3.3
Violent Sexual Assault Against a Child PreferenceRapist	1	0.8	2	1.1	3	10
Adult Consent + Rape Preference	0	0.0	4	2.2	4	13
Adult Rape Preference	0	0.0	1	0.5	1	0.3
Violent Sexual Assault Against Child + Adult Preference	2	1.7	5	2.7	7	23
Arousal to all stimuli	18	14.9	28	15.4	46	15.2
Refused	0	0.0	3	1.6	3	10
Not Completed	40	33.1	48	26.4	88	29

A number of offenders did not complete the sexual arousal testing as theoffending behaviour that brought them into treatment and their offence history didnot suggest that this type of intrusive evaluation was warranted or would yieldmeaningful results (Aboriginal 33%, non-Aboriginal 26%). Of those tested, 20%were "Non-Responders", meaning that their overall level of arousal across thevarious stimulus presentations was too low for meaningful interpretation(Aboriginal 19%, non-Aboriginal 20%). The highest levels of arousal measuredwere in response to the categories of "Child+Adult" preference, in which theoffender demonstrated aroused to both cues of age appropriate adults as well asto children (Aboriginal 24%, non-Aboriginal 16%) and the "Arousal to All"category in which the offenders demonstrate a generalized arousal across all thestimulus presentations (Aboriginal 15%, non-Aboriginal 15%). Chi-squareanalyses demonstrated no significant differences with regard PPG resultsbetween Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.

Treatment

In considering treatment participation we were interested in a number of areas.From a practical perspective we wanted to determine the characteristics ofclients involvement in treatment (for example, location of treatment, duration oftreatment, type of treatment and previous participation in sex offender treatment).We were also of course interested in the effectiveness of treatment and in thisregard we looked at a range of issues including gains observed pre-posttreatment, treatment outcome (such as, completion rates) and finally recidivism.

Characteristics of Treatment

We were interested in looking at where treatment was provided for two reasons.Firstly, we wanted to identify where the majority of referrals originate and wherethe bulk of treatment occurs. We also wanted to try and capture the continuumof care FBMC has developed over the years. In this regard, we have hadopportunity to develop and deliver treatment services at the two federalcorrectional institutions in Manitoba - Stony Mountain Institution (a mediumsecurityinstitution) and Rockwood Institution (a minimum-security institution). Aswell, the clinic has long provided community-based services in Winnipeg forCorrectional Service of Canada-Parole. Delivering services at each of thesesites has allowed us a unique opportunity to continue to provide care andcontinuity in treatment/healing services to an individual as they cascade to alower security institution and/or as make their way to the community uponrelease (Day Parole, Full Parole, Statutory Release and Warrant Expiry).

Table 40: Location of Treatment with FBMC

Location	Offender				Total
	Aboriginal		Non-Aboriginal
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Stony Mountain Institution Only	10	8.3	17	9.3	27	8.9
Stony Mountain Institution and Community	7	5.8	8	4.4	15	5.0
Stony Mountain Institution and Rockwood Institution	2	1.7	3	1.6	5	1.7
Stony Mountain Institution, Rockwood Institution and Community	3	2.5	1	0.5	4	1.3
Rockwood Institution Only	1	0.8	4	2.2	5	1.7
Rockwood Institution and Community	43	35.5	47	25.8	90	29.7
Community Only	55	45.5	102	56.0	157	51.8
Total	121	100.0	182	100.0	303	100.0

The majority of the clients in treatment during the timeframe of the databasewere referred to the clinic for community based treatment (52%). This wasfollowed by beginning to provide treatment to men at Rockwood Institution, andthen following these men into the community and providing follow up communitybased treatment (30%). Treatment commenced for 17% of the men at StonyMountain Institution. These numbers likely reflect the timing of the FBMCdelivering services to the various sites. For example, in 1987 the clinic begandelivering community based treatment and it was not until early 1990 that weaccepted inmates from Rockwood Institution into the community group onEscorted Temporary Absences and the mid 1990’s that FBMC began providingtreatment at Rockwood Institution, which further facilitated the transition to thecommunity program. The numbers are the lowest for the medium securityinstitution as it was not until the late 1990’s that we began providing treatmentservices at Stony Mountain Institution.

It was interesting to look at continuum of care that is offered by FBMC and howthis allows for treatment to facilitate men to cascade from the medium to theminimum security institution to the community, or to commence treatment in oneof the institutions and participate in community based treatment upon release, allthe while maintaining involvement the same treatment team. Overall, 38% of themen who were in treatment with FBMC were able to take advantage of thiscontinuum of care. This is quite a considerable number considering that for thefirst 5 years of the clinic’s operation (1987-1991) the clinic only providedtreatment services in the community (accounting for why community only is thehighest category, 52%). No significant differences were found between theoffender groups with regard to location of treatment with FBMC (X2 = 7.138, ns).

As well, no significant difference was found between the offender groups withregard to mean total time (months) in treatment with FBMC. Aboriginal men hada mean total time of 14.6 months in treatment and non-Aboriginal men had a meantotal time of 16.0 months (t293 = -1.515, ns).

Table 41: Participation by Aboriginal Offenders in Aboriginal Sex Offender Treatment (ASOT)

ASOT Within Institution		ASOT Upon Release		Contact with Aboriginal Elder Within Institution		Contact with Aboriginal Elder Upon Release
n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
34	30.1	24	21.6	44	38.9	18	16.1

Over the years FBMC has developed and delivered sex offender programmingthat attends to cultural issues and ways of healing for Aboriginal men. The waysin which this programming has been delivered has varied over the years and is acontinually evolving process. While the clinic’s blended traditionalhealing/contemporary treatment Aboriginal sex offender programming has variedlargely based on the clinic gaining more experience and the training of Aboriginalspiritual helpers to work with sexual offender specific issues, it has also varied asa function of the site that treatment is delivered. Based on the institutionalenvironment, different programming is available at Stony Mountain Institution,compared to Rockwood Institution, compared to the community.

Not all Aboriginal offenders participate in the clinic’s blended traditionalhealing/contemporary treatment program which is facilitated by spiritual helpers(for example, Elders, pipe-carriers, Aboriginal therapists) and incorporatestraditional teachings, ceremonies and processes. It is up to the offender tochoose whether or not they wish to participate in this stream of programming orattend the cognitive-behavioral, relapse prevention sex offender programming.During the time frame of the database 30% of the Aboriginal men chose toparticipate in blended traditional healing/contemporary treatment programmingoffered within the federal correctional institutions, compared to 22% whoparticipated in this programming in the community. It is suspected that a reviewof the treatment cases to date would reveal a higher number participating in thiscommunity program, as it has become increasingly sought out by Aboriginaloffenders over the last few years.

Within correctional institutions, as part of, and separate from, the clinic’s blendedtraditional healing/contemporary treatment program, men have the ability toconnect with Elders for counselling, support and ceremony. Interestingly, andunfortunately contact with Elders was seen to decrease at the point at whichAboriginal men were released to the community. Of the Aboriginal men whoattended treatment with the clinic 39% sought out Elders while incarceratedcompared to only 16% once released. Again it is suggested that this numberwould likely be higher today given the increased involvement of Aboriginal men inthe blended traditional healing/contemporary treatment program.

Table 42: Participation in Prior Sex Offender Treatment

Offender	Participation Prior to Current Offence
	n	%
Aboriginal	9	7.4
Non-Aboriginal	18	9.8
Total	27	8.9

We were interested to know how many offenders who attended treatment atFBMC had previously participated in sex offender specific treatment. Only 9% ofthe men had prior sex offender specific treatment, which meant that FBMC wasthe first treatment experience for 91% of the men. Chi-square analysesdemonstrated no significant difference between the offender groups with regardto participation in sex offender treatment prior to the current offence (X2 = .518,ns).

Change in Offender Self-Disclosure and Accountability

In an initial attempt to explore treatment gains we investigated changes in the men’s level of self-disclosure and accountability from pre-to-post-treatment.Therapist ratings, based on a combination of a review of pre and post treatmentself-report measures and clinical observation and judgment, were used toevaluate changes over the course of treatment. Areas considered included levelof responsibility, recollection of details of offending, level of minimization ofaspects of offending (for example, intrusiveness, frequency and duration, level offorce) and degree of remorse and empathy.

Table 43: Offender Responsibility - Pre- versus Post-Treatment

Offender	Pre-Treatment		Post-Treatment
	High Responsibility		High Responsibility
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	14	15.7	70	78.7
Non-Aboriginal	28	19.7	127	80.9

Prior to commencing treatment, both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenderswere rated as low in regards to assuming responsibility for their offendingbehaviour (16% and 20%, respectively). Chi-square analyses demonstrated nosignificant difference between the offender groups with regard to acceptance ofresponsibility post-treatment (X2 = .585, ns and X2 = .179, ns, respectively).Both groups were rated as substantially increasing their level of responsibility fortheir offending post-treatment with 79% of Aboriginal men and 81% of non-Aboriginal men being identified as assuming a high level of responsibility.

Table 44: Offender’s Memory Affected by Length of Time Since Offending (Pre- versus Post-treatment)

Offender	Pre-Treatment		Post-Treatment
	Quite a Bit / A Great Deal		Quite a Bit / A Great Deal
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	4	3.7	1	0.9
Non-Aboriginal	13	8.0	1	0.6

Memory deficits and poor recollection of details are sometimes used as a meansof avoiding culpability and self-disclosure. Only a small number of men (4%Aboriginal, 8% non-Aboriginal) indicated that their memory was quite a bit orgreatly affected by the amount of time that had passed since their offending.Chi-square analyses demonstrated no significant difference between the offendergroups with regard to offender memory being affected by length of time sinceoffending, as rated by therapists, for pre- versus post-treatment (X2 = 1.966, nsand X2 = .079, ns, respectively). Both groups demonstrated an increased levelof recollection from pre- to post-treatment.

Table 45: Offender’s Memory Affected by Alcohol or Drug Use (Pre versus Post-Treatment)

Offender	Pre-Treatment		Post-Treatment
	Quite a Bit / A Great Deal		Quite a Bit / A Great Deal
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	48	51.1	13	12.7
Non-Aboriginal	22	13.6	4	2.3

Claiming a lack of recall as a result of substance use/abuse was much morecommon, with 51% of Aboriginal and 14% of non-Aboriginal offenders initiallyindicating that they were unable to recall the details of their offending due to theiruse/abuse of substances. Chi-square analyses demonstrated a significantdifference between the offender groups with regard to memory being affected byalcohol or drug use pre- versus post-treatment (X2 = 42.068, p <.001 andX2 = 12.043, p < .005, respectively) as rated by therapists with Aboriginal mendemonstrating significantly greater memory deficits related to alcohol use/abuse.What is most interesting was that both groups demonstrated a dramatic increasein their level of recollection from pre- to post-treatment, particularly the Aboriginalmen. Aboriginal men moved from 51% rated as having memory deficits due tosubstance abuse to only 13% post-treatment. Non-Aboriginal men moved from14% claiming such memory deficits to 2%. This finding seems to indicate thattypically the claim of alcohol blackout or lack of recall du to substance use/abuseis more commonly a defence mechanism rather than a legitimate memory deficit.

Table 46: Minimization of Level of Intrusiveness of Sexual Offending Behaviour (Pre - versus Post-Treatment)

Offender	Pre-Treatment		Post-Treatment
	Low/Little or No Minimization		Low/Little or No Minimization
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	15	16.3	71	78.0
Non-Aboriginal	23	16.0	122	80.8

Prior to treatment it is common for sexual offenders to minimize the level ofintrusiveness of the sexual offending behaviour as a means of presentingthemselves in a favourable light, minimizing the seriousness of their offendingand distorting reality to minimize their own sense of guilt and shame. This wascertainly the case with the men in treatment at FBMC as only 16% were rated asevidencing a low level or little or no minimization of the intrusiveness of theiroffending pre-treatment. Chi-square analyses demonstrated no significantdifferences between the offender groups with regard to minimization of offendingbehaviour pre- versus post-treatment (X2 = .005, ns and X2 = .270, ns,respectively) as rated by therapists. Both groups demonstrated a considerabledecrease in their level of minimization post-treatment, with 78% of Aboriginalmen and 81% of non-Aboriginal men being rated as evidencing a low level orlittle or no minimization of the intrusiveness of their offending post-treatment.

Table 47: MMinimization of the Frequency and Duration of Sexual Offending Behaviour Pre- versus Post-Treatment

Offender	Pre-Treatment		Post-Treatment
	Low/Little or No Minimization		Low/Little or No Minimization
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	36	42.4	87	86.1
Non-Aboriginal	46	32.4	131	85.1

A number of offenders also minimized the frequency and duration of their sexualoffending behaviour prior to treatment, with 42% of Aboriginal men and 32% non-Aboriginal men being rated as demonstrating low or little or no minimization inthis area pre-treatment. Chi-square analyses demonstrated no significantdifference between the offender groups with regard to minimizing the extent oftheir offending behaviour pre- versus post-treatment (X2 = 2.285, ns andX2 = .057, ns, respectively) as rated by therapists. Both groups demonstrate areduction in minimization from pre-to post-treatment. Eighty-six percent ofAboriginal men and 85% of non-Aboriginal men were rated as demonstrating lowor little or no minimization of the frequency and duration of their offending posttreatment.

Table 48: Minimization of Level of Force in Offending Behaviour Pre versus Post-Treatment

Offender	Pre-Treatment		Post-Treatment
	Low/Little or No Minimization		Low/Little or No Minimization
	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	11	12.9	51	68.9
Non-Aboriginal	13	11.7	73	68.9

A high percentage of offenders minimized the level of force involved in theiroffending prior to treatment. Only 13% of Aboriginal men and 12% of non-Aboriginal men were rated as demonstrating low or little or no minimization offorce pre-treatment. Chi-square analyses demonstrated no significant differencebetween the offender groups with regard to minimization of level of force inoffending behaviour pre-versus post-treatment (X2 = .068, nsand X2 = .000, ns, respectively) as rated by therapists.Both groups demonstrate a reduction in minimization from pre-to post-treatmentwith 69% of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men rated as demonstrating lowor little of no minimization of force post-treatment.

Table 49: Feelings of Remorse and Empathy by Offender (Pre- versus Post-Treatment)

Offender	Pre-Treatment				Post-Treatment
	Remorse Shows Remorse		Empathy Shows Empathy		Remorse Shows Remorse		Empathy Shows Empathy
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	85	71.4	38	31.9	121	67.2	110	61.5
Non-Aboriginal	13	11.1	5	3.5	73	57.9	58	47.5

Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders were rated as showing limited remorse for their offending behaviour (16% and 11%) and empathy for theirvictim(s) (2% and 4%) pre-treatment. Chi-square analyses demonstrated nosignificant difference between the offender groups with regard to feelings ofremorse (X2 = 1.148, ns and X2 = 0.003, ns, respectively) and empathy preversuspost-treatment (X2 = 0.398, ns and X2 = 0.084, ns, respectively) as ratedby therapists. Both groups demonstrate an increase in their experience ofremorse with 58% of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men being rated asshowing a high level of remorse and 45% of Aboriginal and 48% of non-Aboriginal men being rated as showing a high level of empathy and posttreatment.

Treatment Completion

In looking at treatment completion we were interested in the percentage of menwho completed treatment as well as looking at those who did not complete andthe reasons why. We were also interested in how the introduction of Aboriginalspecific programming effected completion/retention rates. Finally, we wereinterested in looking at how many offenders’ stay connected with the clinic aftertheir mandate to attend (for example, parole or probation period) was completed.

Table 50: Treatment Outcome

Offender	Completed		Terminated		Dropped Out		Suspended
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal	72	59.5	10	8.3	15	12.4	17	14.0
Non-Aboriginal	137	74.9	15	8.2	10	5.5	8	4.4

The majority of men appeared to complete the treatment program. However,there was a significant difference between the offender groups with regard totreatment status (X2 = 17.101, p <.005) with a larger percentage of non-Aboriginal than Aboriginal men completing treatment (75% versus 60%), a largernumber of Aboriginal men dropping out of treatment (12% versus 6%), and alarger number of Aboriginal men being suspended (14% versus 4%).

Table 51: Treatment Outcome for Aboriginal Offenders: Aboriginal Sex Offender Program versus Cognitive-Behavioral Sex Offender Program

Offender	Completed		Terminated		Dropped Out		Suspended
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal Specific	20	83.3	0	0.0	0	0.0	3	12.5
Non-Aboriginal Specific	48	55.2	7	8.0	14	16.1	14	16.1

It was in response to the findings identified in Table 50 that the clinic sought outguidance and involvement of Native spiritual Elders to assist us in providingprogramming that would be more engaging and meaningful to Aboriginaloffenders. It was hoped that a blending of contemporary sex offender treatmentstrategies and traditional healing approaches would reduce the number of menwho did not complete the treatment process. Although a chi-square analyses didnot demonstrate a significant difference between the completion rates forAboriginal men participating in the Aboriginal specific blended traditionalhealing/contemporary treatment program compared to those participating in thecognitive-behavioral treatment program (X2 = 9.506, ns) there were noteworthydifferences. Aboriginal men in the blended program had substantially highercompletion rates than Aboriginal men in the cognitive-behavioral program (83%versus 55%). As well, Aboriginal men in the blended program had lower rates oftermination (0% versus 8%), drop out (0% versus 16%) and suspension (13%versus 16%). This seems to suggest that this approach has had some successin retaining Aboriginal men in the treatment/healing process.

Table 52 :Continued Treatment Post Warrant Expiry Date

Offender	Yes		No		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal Specific	42	42.0	58	58.0	100	100.0
Non-Aboriginal Specific	80	59.7	54	40.3	134	100
Total	122	52.1	112	47.9	234	100

When considering the overall treatment group, a greater number of non-Aboriginal men continued to participate in treatment compared to Aboriginal men(60% versus 42%). Chi-square analyses demonstrated a significant differencebetween the offender groups with regard to treatment status (X2 = 7.191, p <.05)with more non-Aboriginal men continuing to attend treatment after warrant expiry.However, this number increased when we considered the retention rate of clientspost mandate for culturally relevant programming.

Table 53: Aboriginal Offenders Continuing Treatment Post Warrant Expiry Date Aboriginal Sex Offender Program versus Cognitive-Behavioral Sex Offender Program

Program	Yes		No		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Aboriginal Specific	13	59	9	41	22	100
Non-Aboriginal Specific	30	39	47	61	77	100

Aboriginal men participating in the Aboriginal specific program were more likely to maintain their involvement in treatment after the legal mandate to participatehad expired, compared to Aboriginal men participating in the cognitive-behavioralsex offender treatment stream (59% versus 39%). While a larger percentage ofAboriginal specific participants continued to attend treatment post warrant expirythan did Non-Aboriginal specific participants, chi-square analyses demonstratedno significant difference between the treatment programs with regard tocontinuing to attend treatment post warrant expiry (X2 = 4.288, ns).

Recidivism

 

In reviewing recidivism data, no significant difference was found between the recidivism rate between Aboriginal (8.1%) and non-Aboriginal men (3.1%) who participated in treatment at the FBMC, z = -1.914, p = .06. However, a significant difference was determined between the FBMC treated client group (n = 282) and a matched (on age of first conviction, date of index offence, age at index offence, number of convictions before index offence and number of sexual offences prior to index offence) comparison group (n=196) with regard to sexual offence reconviction, z = 6.094, p <.0001, with the FBMC clients demonstrating a significantly lower re-occurrence of sexual offending behaviour post treatment than the comparison group.

CONCLUSION

This project sought to explore the profiles of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal menwho participated in treatment at FBMC between 1987-1999 and to identifydifferences that may have implications for evolving our understanding of, andassessment and treatment protocols for, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men whoengage in sexual offending behaviour. While there were many similaritiesbetween the two offender groups, we found there to be interesting differences inprofiles of the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders that warrant considerationand attention.

Review of Findings

Aboriginal Offender Characteristics

Of the 303 sex offenders cases reviewed, 40% of clients were Aboriginal(including North American Indian, Métis and Inuit) while, 60% were non-Aboriginal. The indigenous people groups were collapsed into the Aboriginalcategory as the numbers of Métis (n = 21, 7%) and Inuit offenders (n = 1, 0.3%)were not sufficient to analyze in separate categories. The majority of Aboriginaloffenders in our sample spoke English as their first language. The most commonAboriginal first language among our client group was Cree. The majority of theAboriginal offenders in our sample were raised on reserve communities, howevermost relocated to urban centres. Only a very small percentage of the Aboriginaloffenders in our sample identified growing up learning/experiencing traditionalAboriginal culture, teachings and ceremonies as a part of their life. Few of theAboriginal men in our sample attended residential schools, likely as the majoritywere too young to have had this experience. Those that did attend reported highlevels of physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

Developmental and Social Histories

Both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men in our sample experienced difficultand traumatic experiences in their developmental years. In exploring the men’sformative years, the largest percentage of offenders reported being raised byboth of their parents. Aboriginal offenders, however, were more likely then non-Aboriginal offenders to have been raised by extended family members and toreport the experience of parental separation or abandonment. Aboriginaloffenders were also more likely to have experienced the tragic loss of a familymember through both suicide and murder. Aboriginal offenders were seen tohave more pronounced histories of exposure to abuse in their developmentalyears than non-Aboriginal offenders. The Aboriginal men were more likely tohave family members who abused substances and who had criminal histories.They were also more likely to have had knowledge of, or witnessed, domesticabuse and inappropriate sexual boundaries in their formative years. While bothAboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders reported having experienced a highdegree of physical and emotional abuse, the Aboriginal men were more likely tohave described having experienced neglect and sexual abuse.

In considering areas related to social coping and adjustment, the Aboriginal menwere much more likely to have a history of abusing substances (alcohol, drugsand solvents). The Aboriginal men were also more disadvantaged in terms oftheir level of formal education and employment history compared to the non-Aboriginal men.

Criminal Histories

There were no significant differences in the number of young offender or adultconvictions incurred by the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal men. Somedifferences were noted with regard to self-disclosed offences for which the menhad never been charged. The Aboriginal men self-disclosed having committedmore violent offences both as young offenders and as adults, for which they werenot charged, compared to the non-Aboriginal men. The non-Aboriginal men onthe other hand reported having committed more sexual offences, as adults, forwhich they had not been charged for compared to the Aboriginal men.

Patterns of Sexual Offending Behaviour

There were some interesting differences between the two groups in regards tothe characteristics and pattern of their offending behaviour. The Aboriginalsexual offenders tended to more frequently be perpetrators of rape than anyother sex offence while non-Aboriginal sexual offenders were more likely thanAboriginal offenders to be perpetrators of sexual offences against children (moreoften having infant, pre-pubescent and pubescent age victims), particularlyincest. Consistent with this, the Aboriginal offenders were more likely to offendagainst female victims whereas non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely tovictimize both males and females. The offenders tended to offend againstvictims of the same race with Aboriginal offenders more often offending againstAboriginal victims and non-Aboriginal offenders more often offending againstnon-Aboriginal victims. The non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely than theAboriginal offenders to have victims of various ethnic backgrounds. While therewere few differences between the two groups in regards to their relationshipwith/to their victim(s), one notable difference was that non-Aboriginal offenderswere more likely to offend against victims with whom they held a non-familial roleof trust and authority (such as, physician, religious leader, teacher, coach). Afinal difference between the two groups in regards to the profiles of their victimswas that the victims of Aboriginal offenders were more likely to have abusedalcohol or both alcohol and drugs at the time of the offence then were the victimsof non-Aboriginal offenders.

Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders maintained a high degree ofcognitive distortions, which minimized the seriousness of their offendingbehaviour and their level of responsibility prior to treatment. The only distortionin which Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders differed was that Aboriginaloffenders were more likely to endorse the belief that their offence would not haveoccurred had they not been intoxicated. Both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalmen demonstrated the ability to challenge their cognitive distortions over thecourse of treatment and enhance their level of accountability.

Differences were noted between the means of accessing victims betweenAboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Aboriginal offenders were more likely toidentify their planning/grooming process as including giving their victims alcoholor drugs in order to facilitate offending. In contrast, non-Aboriginal offenderswere more likely to give their victims gifts and show them pornography. Non-Aboriginal offenders were more likely to identify themselves as tricking ormanipulating the victim in order to gain sexual access.

While there were no differences between the two groups in regards to the use ofthreats during the commission of a sexual offence, Aboriginal offenders weremore likely to physically assault their victim during the course of a sexual offence.

The non-Aboriginal sexual offenders tended to demonstrate more sexuallydeviant interests than the Aboriginal offenders. Non-Aboriginal offenders weremore likely to report having maintained sexual thoughts and fantasies about theirvictims and of images of sexual violence. They were also significantly more likelyto masturbate to pictures of children. The non-Aboriginal offenders also weremore likely to report paraphilias other than their sexual offending behaviour (forexample, exhibitionism, bondage and sexual sadism). Despite these noteddifferences, no significant differences were found in the sexual preferenceprofiles of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal sexual offenders as determined throughphallometric testing.

Treatment Outcome

Therapist rates revealed few differences between the treatment progress ofAboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders. Both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginalmen were viewed as making positive and substantial gains in their level of selfdisclosure,accountability and insight.

While treatment completion rates were higher for non-Aboriginal offenders priorto the advent of the FBMC’s blended traditional healing/contemporary treatmentprogram for Aboriginal sexual offenders, the difference in completion ratesdisappeared once culturally relevant and appropriate programming becameavailable. A high number of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenderscontinued to attend treatment at FBMC after the mandate to attend was nolonger in place (such as, at the expiry date of their sentence). After theimplementation of the Blended group for Aboriginal offenders, the number ofAboriginal offenders who maintained their involvement with the clinic after theend of their mandate increased further. Finally, no significant differences werefound in the sexual recidivism rate of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders inthe FBMC program. However, both groups demonstrated a significantly lowerrecidivism rate than that of a matched comparison group.

Implication of Findings

From this project we have learned that there is a need to better attend toAboriginal specific characteristics in the evaluation of Aboriginal offenders. Tothis end, a more thorough exploration of racial identity and background, exposureto Aboriginal language and culture, level of assimilation and the potential impactof residential school, particularly on second generation family members, shouldbe considered and integrated into offender assessments. Further focus onattachment styles, substance abuse and anger and aggression may also bebeneficial in the evaluation of Aboriginal sexual offenders. It will also beimportant, as sample size allows, to investigate the differences within theAboriginal groups to identify unique characteristics that may be found amongAboriginal, Métis and Inuit offenders.

It is suggested that the findings of this research project provide noteworthyinformation for consideration in establishing treatment targets for the treatment ofAboriginal sexual offenders. It is suggested that the data provide a strongargument for the importance of addressing family of origin and developmentalexperiences among Aboriginal offenders. Attending to issues such as loss,abandonment, grief, abuse and attachment issues may be significant to facilitatewellness and risk management. It is also suggested that it will be imperative forprogramming to support offenders, particularly Aboriginal men, to find ways ofrelating with their family members in a healthy way. It may be the case that notassisting them to manage these relationships, should family still be functioning inan unhealthy way, may contribute to them being drawn back into familydysfunction and challenge the healthy coping skills they have worked on inprograms and in treatment. Assisting Aboriginal offenders to develop healthysocial support networks (including and beyond family) also seems to be animportant area for treatment programming.

The data also suggest that life skills are a relevant area for intervention amongmany Aboriginal offenders. Programming directed as enhancing education andemployability seem critical. As well, given the number of offenders who relocateto an urban environment, the development of skills, to assist those who requirethem, to live in a functional manner within a larger urban centre would seem tobe a very pragmatic and beneficial focus of treatment.

Within sexual offender treatment for Aboriginal men a heavy focus on substanceabuse and on anger and violence appears key. These factors seem primary andareas of intervention that require further attention than perhaps deviant sexualinterests. As previously noted, attention to abuse issues and abandonment maysupport this area of work. The data also suggest that attention to the area ofinappropriate sexual boundaries and clarifying appropriate boundaries should beincorporated into treatment for Aboriginal sexual offenders.

Finally, although few Aboriginal offenders were raised with Aboriginal language,culture, teachings and ceremonies, it appears that these core aspects ofAboriginal identity are critical to the healing process. The opportunity toparticipate in programs that will introduce Aboriginal culture to Aboriginaloffenders or allow offenders involved in their culture to continue to develop theirunderstanding and practice seems very important. It also appears that the abilityto facilitate Aboriginal men in acquiring skills to manage their risk to sexually reoffendis heightened by a cultural approach as this appears more engaging andmore offenders are able to successfully complete the treatment/healing process.

APPENDIX A

FBMC SEXUAL OFFENDER DATABASE QUESTIONNAIRE

FBMC – SEXUAL OFFENDING DATABASE V2

OFFENDER PROFILE

1. Name of client
   
   
   
   _______________________________________________________
   
   
   
2. F.P.S. #
   
   
   
   _______________________________________________________
   
   
   
3. Referred by
   
   
   
   1. Correctional Services Canada
   2. Probation
   3. Mental health services
   4. Family services
   5. Self-referral
   6. Crown (Section 8-10)
   7. Other __________________________________________
   
   
   
4. Date of birth
   
   
   
   _________________________
   
   
   
5. Gender
   
   
   
   1. Male
   2. Female
   
   
   
6. Nature of sex offence
   
   
   
   1. Incest
   2. Child Molester
   3. Pedophile
   4. Rapist
   5. Rapist/Pedophile
   6. Hands off
   7. Adult fondler/Hands on
   8. Sexual-murder
   
   
   
7. Length of sentence for current offence(s)
   
   
   
   _________________________ months
   
   
   
8. Offender is mentally ill
   
   
   
   1. Yes
   2. No
   
   
   
9. Offender is low functioning
   
   
   
   1. Yes
   2. No
   
   
   

   Offender Accountability

   
   
   
10. Offender accepts responsibility for offending pre treatment

    
    
    

    Denied
    Denied Offending

    High
    High Minimization

    Some
    Some Minimization

    Low
    Low Minimization

    High
    High Responsibility

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
11. Offender accepts responsibility for offending post treatment

    
    
    

    Denied
    Offending

    High
    Minimization

    Some
    Minimization

    Low
    Minimization

    High
    Responsibility

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
12. Offender remembers offence pre treatment

    
    
    

    Not at all

    A little bit

    Somewhat

    Quite a bit

    A great deal

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
13. Offender remembers offence post treatment
    
    
    
    Not at all

    A little bit

    Somewhat

    Quite a bit

    A great deal

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
14. Offender’s memory has been affected by alcohol or drug use pre treatment

    
    
    

    Not at all

    A little bit

    Somewhat

    Quite a bit

    A great deal

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
15. Offender’s memory has been affected by alcohol or drug use post treatment

    
    
    

    Not at all

    A little bit

    Somewhat

    Quite a bit

    A great deal

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
    1. Offender’s memory has been affected by alcoholic blackout pre-treatment

       
       
       

       Not at all

       A little bit

       Somewhat

       Quite a bit

       A great deal

       
       
       

       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       
       
       
    2. Offender’s memory has been affected by alcoholic blackout post-treatment

       
       
       

       Not at all

       A little bit

       Somewhat

       Quite a bit

       A great deal

       
       
       

       1

       2

       3

       4

       5

       
       
       
16. Offender’s memory has been affected by the length of time since offending pre-treatment

    
    
    

    Not at all

    A little bit

    Somewhat

    Quite a bit

    A great deal

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
17. Offender’s memory has been affected by the length of time since offending post treatment

    
    
    

    Not at all

    A little bit

    Somewhat

    Quite a bit

    A great deal

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
18. Minimization of offending behavior i.e. level of intrusiveness or seriousness pre treatment

    
    
    

    Denial

    High

    Some

    Low

    Little or no

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
19. Minimization of offending behavior i.e. level of intrusiveness or seriousness pre treatment

    
    
    

    Denial

    High

    Some

    Low

    Little or no

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
20. Minimization of the extent of offending behaviour i.e. level of frequency and duration pre-treatment

    
    
    

    Denial

    High

    Some

    Low

    Little or no

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
21. Minimization of the extent of offending behaviour i.e. level of frequency and duration post treatment

    
    
    

    Denial

    High

    Some

    Low

    Little or no

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
22. Minimization of level of force in offending behavior pre treatment

    
    
    

    N/A (No force)

    Denial

    High

    Some

    Low

    Little or no

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    
    
    
23. Minimization of level of force in offending behavior post treatment

    
    
    

    N/A (No force)

    Denial

    High

    Some

    Low

    Little or no

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    6

    
    
    

    Pre-minimization score (sum questions 18, 20, and 22) _________________________

    
    
    

    Post-minimization score (sum questions 19, 21 and 23) _________________________

    
    
    

    Offence Cycle

24. Feelings of remorse pre treatment

    
    
    

    No remorse

    Some remorse

    Shows remorse

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
25. Feelings of remorse post treatment

    
    
    

    No remorse

    Some remorse

    Shows remorse

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
26. Feelings of empathy for the victim(s) pre treatment

    
    
    

    No remorse

    Some remorse

    Shows remorse

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
27. Feelings of empathy for the victim(s) post treatment

    
    
    

    No remorse

    Some remorse

    Shows remorse

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
28. Offender acknowledged sexual thoughts/fantasies about the victim(s) or offending prior to the offence(s) pre treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
29. Offender acknowledged sexual thoughts/fantasies about the victim(s) or offending prior to the offence(s) post treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
30. Offender acknowledged fantasies about children pre treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
31. Offender acknowledged fantasies about children post treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
32. Offender acknowledged fantasies about sexual violence pre treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
33. Offender acknowledged fantasies about sexual violence post treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
34. Offender acknowledged fantasies about revenge/non-sexual violence pre pre treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    
35. Offender acknowledged fantasies about revenge/non-sexual violence pre post treatment

    
    
    

    N/A

    Denial

    Minimal

    Some

    High

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    4

    5

    
    
    

    Cognitive Distortions

36. Victim(s) consented i.e. wanted sex, did not say No pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
37. Victim(s) consented i.e. wanted sex, did not say No post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
38. Relationship with victim(s) howing the victim love pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
39. Relationship with victim(s) howing the victim love post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
40. Sex education pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
41. Sex education post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
42. Blaming the victim(s) i.e. loose, sleazy, damaged goods, caused trouble
    for men, lied about what happened or was used/set up by victim pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
43. Blaming the victim(s) i.e. loose, sleazy, damaged goods, caused trouble
    for men, lied about what happened or was used/set up by victim post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
44. Blaming others i.e. external circumstances, offender’s spouse, offender
    was set up by others or a stressful lifestyle pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
45. Blaming others i.e. external circumstances, offender’s spouse, offender
    was set up by others or a stressful lifestyle post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
46. Victim(s) initiated sex .i.e. overly affectionate or tempted the offender pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
47. Victim(s) initiated sex .i.e. overly affectionate or tempted the offender post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
48. Victim(s) enjoyed it pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
49. Victim(s) enjoyed it post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
50. Victim(s) did not get hurt physically or emotionally pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
51. Victim(s) did not get hurt physically or emotionally post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
52. Victim(s) was not forced or coerced pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
53. Victim(s) was not forced or coerced post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
54. Victim(s) looked and acted older than their real age pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
55. Victim(s) looked and acted older than their real age post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
56. Offender did not go all the way so offence was not that serious pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
57. Offender did not go all the way so offence was not that serious post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
58. Offender would not have offended if they were not drunk/high pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
59. Offender would not have offended if they were not drunk/high post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
60. Offender is the real victim in this case pre treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    
61. Offender is the real victim in this case post treatment

    
    
    

    Did not endorse

    Some endorsement

    Strong endorsement

    
    
    

    1

    2

    3

    
    
    

    For Pre-Cognitive Distortions scores count some and strong endorsements as 1

    and did not endorse as a 0.

    Pre-total distortions score (sum 36,38,40,42,44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58,60)

     
    
    _________________________
    
    

    
    
    

    For Post-Cognitive Distortions scores count still some and still maintains as 1 and did not endorse or challenged as a 0.

    Post-test distortions score (sum 37,39,41,43,45,47,49,51,53,55,57,59,61)

     
    
    _________________________
    
    

    Grooming

62. Victim(s) given alcohol or drugs by offender
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
63. Victim(s) given gifts/money from offender
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
64. Victim(s) shown pornographic material by offender
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
65. Victim(s) tricked or manipulated by offender
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
66. Others tricked or manipulated by offender
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
    Total grooming score (total the number of "yes"s for 62,63,64,65,66)
     
    
    _________________________
    
    
    
    
    
67. Victim(s) threatened verbally
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
68. Victim(s) threatened physically
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
69. Victim(s) threatened with weapon
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    

    Deviant Sexual Interests/Paraphilia

    PPG Results

70. PPG results pre treatment

    70A. Auditory	70B. Slide	70C. Movie
    A1. Non responder	B1. Non responder	C1. Non responder
    A2. Adult	B2. Adult	C2. Adult
    A3. Child and adult	B3. Child and adult	C3. Child and adult
    A4. Child	B4. Child	C4. Child
    A5. Child and coercion against children	B5. Child and coercion against children	C5. Child and coercion against children
    A6. Adult coercion and consent	B6. Adult coercion and consent	C6. Adult coercion and consent
    A7. Adult coercion	B7. Adult coercion	C7. Adult coercion
    A8. Child and adult coercion	B8. Child and adult coercion	C8. Child and adult coercion
    A9. Arousal to all stimuli	B9. Arousal to all stimuli	C9. Arousal to all stimuli
    A10. Refused	B10. Refused	C10. Refused
    A11. Not completed	B11. Not completed	C11. Not completed

    
    
    
71. PPG revealed deviant arousal to material not related to offence
    
    
    
    1. N/A (Not completed/refused)
    2. Yes specify_____________________________
    3. No
    
    
    
72. Arousal control session pre treatment
    
    
    
    1. N/A (No arousal control session)
    2. Unable to reduce / inhibit arousal
    3. Some ability to reduce / inhibit arousal
    4. Ability to reduce / inhibit arousal below level of significance
    
    
    
73. Arousal control session post treatment
    
    
    
    1. N/A (No arousal control session)
    2. Unable to reduce / inhibit arousal
    3. Some ability to reduce / inhibit arousal
    4. Ability to reduce / inhibit arousal below level of significance
    
    
    

    Paraphilia

74. Offender use of pornographic material
    
    
    
    1. Never
    2. Rarely
    3. Sometimes
    4. Regularly
    5. Very frequently
    
    
    
75. Obscene phone calls
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
76. Exhibitionism
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
77. Voyeurism
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
78. Bestiality
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
79. Frottage
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
80. Dressed in female’s clothing
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
81. Stolen women’s or children’s underwear/clothing
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
82. Fetish
    
    
    
    1. Yes specify _______________
    2. No
    
    
    
83. Bondage
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
84. Sado masochism
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
85. Sexual arousal while watching violence or rape on television or movie or internet
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
86. Sexual arousal while watching children on television or movie or internet
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
87. Masturbated to pictures of children
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
88. Sexual sadism
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
89. Masturbated to thoughts of sexually related homicide
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
90. Attempted to/engaged in necrophilia
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
91. Taken pictures or videos of offending behaviour
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
    Total paraphilias (add "yes" for 74 to 91)
     
    
    _________________________
    
    
    
    
    

    II. VICTIM PROFILE

92. Total number of identified sexual abuse victims pre treatment
     
    
    __________
    
    
93. Total number of identified sexual abuse victims post treatment
     
    
    __________
    
    
94. Gender of victim(s)
    
    
    1. Male only
    2. Female only
    3. Both male and female
    
    
    

    Age range of victim(s)

    
    
95. Infant victim(s) i.e. birth-5 years.
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
96. Prepubescent victim(s) i.e. 6-9 years.
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
97. Pubescent victim(s) i.e. 10-13 years.
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
98. Teen victim(s) i.e. 14-17 years.
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
99. Adult victim(s) i.e. over the age of 18 years.
    
    
    
    1. Yes
    2. No
    
    
    
100. Elderly victim(s) i.e. over the age of 65 years.
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
101. Multiple ages
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
102. Ethnic background of victim(s)
     
     
     
     1. Caucasian
     2. Aboriginal
     3. Inuit
     4. Métis
     5. Asian
     6. Black
     7. Various backgrounds
     
     
     

     Relationship of victim(s) to offender

103. Family member(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A (Victims were not family members)
     2. Immediate family member(s) specify __________________
     3. Extended family member(s) specify _________________
     4. Non-biological family member(s) specify _______________
     5. Various family members
     
     
     
104. Family friend(s)
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
105. Non-familial position of trust and authority
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
106. Friend(s) or acquaintance(s)
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
107. Stranger(s)
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
108. Multiple relationships to the victim(s)
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
109. Approximate duration of the current sexual assault(s) if the abuse was more than one contact _______ months
     
     
     
110. Victim(s) substance abuse
     
     
     
     1. Abuse of alcohol at the time of the offence(s)
     2. Abuse of drugs at the time of the offence(s)
     3. Abuse of both alcohol and drugs at the time of the offence(s)
     4. substance abuse at the time of the offence(s)
     
     
     

     Acts perpetrated against the victim(s)

111. Fondling
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
     1. Digital penetration
        
        
        
        1. Yes
        2. No
112. Simulated intercourse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
     1. Oral Sex
        
        
        
        1. Yes
        2. No
        
        
        
113. Anal intercourse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
114. Anal intercourse
     
     
     
     1. N/A (male victims only)
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
115. Insertion of objects
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
116. Victim(s) were physically assaulted

     
     
     

     1. Yes
     2. No

     
     
     

     1. Victim was yelled or sworn at
        
        
        
        1. Yes
        2. No
        
        
        
     2. Victim was pushed, shoved or grabbed
        
        
        
        1. Yes
        2. No
        
        
        
     3. Victim was punched or kicked
        
        
        
        1. Yes
        2. No
        
        
        
     4. Victim was tied or gagged
        
        
        
        1. Yes
        2. No
        
        
        
117. Resulting death for the victim(s)
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     

     Family Dynamics

     
     
     
118. Offender’s primary childhood caregiver
     
     
     
     1. Both mother and father
     2. Mother
     3. Father
     4. Grandparent(s)
     5. Other relative(s)
     6. Non-family member(s)
     7. Foster/group home(s)
     8. Raised as ward of community
     9. Other___________
     
     
     
119. Total number of primary care givers from birth-18years
      
     
     __________
     
     
120. Separation/abandonment from parents
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
121. Biological father unknown
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
122. Parental divorce/separation
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
123. Maternal infidelity/promiscuity
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
124. Paternal infidelity/promiscuity
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
125. Parental physical illness
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
126. Parental mental illness
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
127. Parental alcohol or drug/solvent abuse
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
128. Familial suicide
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
129. Familial homicide
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
130. Familial criminality
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
131. Witness to or knowledge of parental physical abuse within the family as a minor
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
132. Witness to or knowledge of parental sexual abuse within the family as a minor
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     

     Offender Victimization as a Minor

133. Physical abuse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
134. Number of physical abuse perpetrators
      
     
     __________
     
     
135. Gender of physical abuser(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Male only
     3. Female only
     4. Both male and female
     
     
     
136. Familial relationship to offender
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Immediate family member(s) specify____________
     3. Extended family member(s) specify_____________
     4. Non-biological family member(s) specify_________
     5. Various family members
     
     
     
137. Offender physically abused by non-family member(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
138. Sexual abuse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
139. Age at first abusive sexual experience
      
     
     __________
     
     
140. Number of sexual abuse perpetrators
      
     
     __________
     
     
141. Gender of sexual abuser(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Male only
     3. Female only
     4. Both male and female
     
     
     
142. Familial relationship to offender
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Immediate family member(s) specify____________
     3. Extended family member(s) specify_____________
     4. Non-biological family member(s) specify_________
     5. Various family members
     
     
     
143. Offender sexually abused by stranger(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
144. Offender sexually abused by a friend/family friend or acquaintance(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
145. Witnessed inappropriate sexual behaviour/pornographic material as a minor
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
146. Emotional abuse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
147. Gender of emotional abuser(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Male only
     3. Female only
     4. Both male and female
     
     
     
148. Familial relationship to offender
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Immediate family member(s) specify____________
     3. Extended family member(s) specify_____________
     4. Non-biological family member(s) specify_________
     5. Various family members
     
     
     
149. Neglect
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
150. Gender of emotional neglector(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Male only
     3. Female only
     4. Both male and female
     
     
     
151. Relationship to offender
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Mother
     3. Father
     4. Both mother and father
     5. Other primary care giver(s)
     
     
     
     Family Dysfunction Score: (sum the "yes" for 120-132, +133+138+146+149)
      
     
     __________
     
     
     
     
     

     Substance Abuse

152. Offender consumed alcohol/drugs/solvents at the time of the offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
153. History of alcohol abuse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
     1. Age started drinking _________
        
        
        
154. History of drug abuse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
     1. Type of drugs used and age of first use
        
        
        
        1. Marijuana (hash, oil, weed) age started ______
        2. Opiates (heroin, morphine) age started ______
        3. Crack/cocaine age started ______
        4. Hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP) age started ______
        5. Prescription Drugs age started ______
     
     
     
155. History of solvent abuse
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
     1. Age started using solvents _____

     Criminal History

156. Total number of convictions as a young offender
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
157. Number of violent offence convictions as a young offender
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
158. Number of self-disclosed violent offences not convicted for as a young
     
     
     
     1. 0 offences
     2. 1-2 offences
     3. 3-5 offences
     4. 6-9 offences
     5. 10 or more offences
     
     
     
159. Age at first violent offence
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
160. Number of sexual offence convictions as a young offender
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
161. Number of self-disclosed sexual offences not convicted for as a young offender
     
     
     
     1. 0 Offences
     2. 1-2 offences
     3. 3-5 offences
     4. 6-9 offences
     5. 10 or more offences
     
     
     
162. Age at first sexual offence
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
163. Total number of adult convictions
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
164. Number of adult convictions for violent offences
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
165. Number of self-disclosed violent offences not convicted for as an adult
     
     
     
     1. 0 Offences
     2. 1-2 offences
     3. 3-5 offences
     4. 6-9 offences
     5. 10 or more offences
     
     
     
166. Number of adult convictions for sexual offences
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     
167. Number of self-disclosed sexual offences not convicted for as an adult
     
     
     
     1. 0 Offences
     2. 1-2 offences
     3. 3-5 offences
     4. 6-9 offences
     5. 10 or more offences
     
     
     
168. Gang affiliation
     
     
     
     1. Yes specify_____________
     2. No
     3. Suspected involvement
     
     
     
169. Self-mutilation
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
170. Suicide attempts
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     3. Suicide ideation but no attempts
     
     
     
171. Age at first suicide attempt
     
     
     
     ____________
     
     
     

     Community Functioning

172. Employment status at time of current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. 1. Employed (full time or part time)
     2. 2. Unemployed
     3. 3. Student
     4. 4. Retired/disability
     
     
     
173. Occupation(s) at time of current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. Student
     2. Semiskilled or unskilled laborer
     3. Skilled laborer
     4. Clerical/sales
     5. Lower management
     6. Managerial/professional
     7. Unemployed/social assistance
     8. Retired/disability
     9. Various occupations
     
     
     
174. Employment history
     
     
     
     1. No employment history
     2. Sporadic employment
     3. Stable employment
     
     
     
175. Education at time of current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. Less than grade 8
     2. Less than grade 12
     3. High school diploma
     4. GED
     5. Trade school
     6. University/college
     
     
     
176. History of school maladjustment
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
177. Marital status at time of current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. Single
     2. Married
     3. Common law
     4. Estranged/divorced
     5. Widowed
     1. Any history of spousal abuse (conviction or self-report current or past relationship)
        
        
        
        1. Yes
        2. No
     
     
     
178. Offender was/is married to a minor
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
179. Marital/relationship problems at time of current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A (Not married/no relationship)
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
180. History of sexual promiscuity
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
181. History of experiencing sexual dysfunction
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
182. History of social isolation
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     

     III. ABORIGINAL SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS

183. Aboriginal
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
184. Racial identity
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Status or treaty
     3. Non-status
     4. Inuit
     5. Métis
     
     
     
185. Spoken language(s)
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. English
     3. Aboriginal
     4. Bilingual (Aboriginal/English)
     5. Other_______________
     
     
     
186. Primary Aboriginal language
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Cree
     3. Ojibway
     4. Seaulteaux
     5. Inuktitut
     6. Dene
     7. Other___________
     8. N/A (English speaking only)
     
     
     
187. Location of current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Reserve
     3. Rural
     4. Urban
     5. Various locations
     
     
     
188. Residence at time of current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Reserve
     3. Rural
     4. Urban
     
     
     
189. Community of origin
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Reserve
     3. Rural
     4. Urban
     
     
     
190. Raised in community of originl
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
191. Traditional Aboriginal upbringing
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
192. Participated in Aboriginal sex offender treatment within the institution
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
193. Participated in Aboriginal sex offender treatment upon release
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
194. Contact with Aboriginal Elder within the institution
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Regular contact
     3. Occassional contact
     4. Minimal contact
     5. No contact
     
     
     
195. Contact with Aboriginal Elder upon release
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Regular contact
     3. Occassional contact
     4. Minimal contact
     5. No contact
     
     
     
196. Offender attended residential school
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
197. Offender sexually abused in residential school
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     4. N/A (Did not attend residential school
     
     
     
198. Offender physically abused in residential school
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     4. N/A (Did not attend residential school
     
     
     
199. Offender emotionally abused in residential school
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     4. N/A (Did not attend residential school
     
     
     
200. Offender subjected to racism within the community or institution
     
     
     
     1. Not Aboriginal
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     

     IV. TREATMENT

201. Participation in sex offender treatment prior to current offence(s)
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
202. Participation in sex offender treatment at other institution(s)
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     

     For current offence

203. Participation in RPC
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
204. Participation in Base Exodus
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
205. Total time in FBMC treatment
     
     
     
     ____________ months
     
     
     
206. Location of treatment with FBMC
     
     
     
     1. Stony Mountain Institution only
     2. Stony Mountain Institution and community
     3. Stony Mountain Institution and Rockwood Institution
     4. Stony Mountain Institution, Rockwood Institution and community
     5. Rockwood Institution only
     6. Rockwood Institution and community
     7. Community only
     
     
     
207. Primary therapist
     
     
     
     1. Lawrence Ellerby
     2. Brenda Ellerby
     3. Todd Smith
     4. Jacqueline Bedard
     5. Other__________
     
     
     
208. Participation in core contemporary
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
209. Participation in individual therapy
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
210. Participation in blended treatment
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
211. Participation in couple therapy
     
     
     
     1. N/A (No relationship/marriage)
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
212. Participation in family therapy
     
     
     
     1. N/A (No family)
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
213. Partner involved in partner support group
     
     
     
     1. N/A (No relationship/marriage)
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     
214. Arousal modification
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
215. Contact with community support worker
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
216. Medical management of sexual arousal
     
     
     
     1. Yes
     2. No
     
     
     
217. Treatment status
     
     
     
     1. In progress
     2. Refused
     3. Dropped out
     4. Terminated
     5. Completed
     6. Suspended
     7. Transferred
     
     
     
     1. Suspension
        
        
        
        1. Suspended and charged with a new non-violent non-sexual offence
        2. Suspended and charged with a new violent offence
        3. Suspended and charged with a new sexual offence
        4. Suspended and returned to treatment
        5. Suspended for breach of conditions
        6. Suspended for breach of conditions and parole revoked
     
     
     
218. Continued to attend post WED
     
     
     
     1. N/A
     2. Yes
     3. No
     
     
     

     Recidivism

219. Charged with sexual offence(s) post treatment
     
     
     
     1. Yes (completed treatment)
     2. No (completed treatment)
     3. Yes (did not complete treatment)
     4. No (did not complete treatment)
     
     
     
220. Charged with violent offence(s) post treatment
     
     
     
     1. Yes (completed treatment)
     2. No (completed treatment)
     3. Yes (did not complete treatment)
     4. No (did not complete treatment)
     
     
     
221. Charged with nonsexual/nonviolent offence(s) post treatment
     
     
     
     1. Yes (completed treatment)
     2. No (completed treatment)
     3. Yes (did not complete treatment)
     4. No (did not complete treatment)
     
     
     

     Risk Assessment

222. GSIR score
     
     
     
     ____________
223. VRS-SOV score
     
     
     
     ____________
224. Clinical judgement risk report pre treatment for sexual recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
225. Clinical judgement needs report pre treatment for sexual recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
226. Clinical judgement risk report post treatment for sexual recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
227. Clinical judgement needs report post treatment for sexual recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
228. Clinical judgement risk report pre treatment for violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
229. Clinical judgement needs report pre treatment for violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
230. Clinical judgement risk report post treatment for violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
231. Clinical judgement needs report post treatment for violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
232. Clinical judgement risk report pre treatment for non-violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
233. Clinical judgement needs report pre treatment for non-violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
234. Clinical judgement risk report post treatment for non-violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low
     
     
     
235. Clinical judgement needs report post treatment for non-violent recidivism
     
     
     
     1. High
     2. Medium
     3. Low