Community Supervision of High-Risk Offenders: The Case of Mr. Z

By Bill Rankin, Communications Officer, Communications and Consultation Sector; Teal Maedel, Psychologist, Vancouver Parole; Staff Sergeant/Psychologist Matt Logan, RCMP Behavioural Science Group

This is the story of Mr. Z and how the criminal justice system goes to great lengths to handle offenders of his type and help ensure the safety of Canadian society.

Mr. Z is a dangerous man with a lengthy criminal history including violent sexual assaults against elderly victims. For his most recent crime – forcible confinement and assault of an 80-year old woman – he was sentenced to seven years (in protective custody) inside the Correctional Service of Canada’s (CSC) maximum-security Kent Institution near Chilliwack, British Columbia. When he became eligible for parole, at the two-thirds point in his sentence, the National Parole Board (NPB) decided that he was not ready to be released and he was detained until warrant expiry.

The NPB had very good reasons for its decision. CSC psychologist Teal Maedel assessed Mr. Z’s risk for future violence and sexual offences as high. “Mr. Z refused to take any treatment programs while incarcerated. He also had substance abuse problems,” she commented, “power and control thinking, and he scored 86 percent on the Psychopathy Checklist – well above the cut-off point.”

Not only is he dangerous, but Mr. Z has refused the offer of a Circle of Support that would keep a close eye on him, report any evidence of him entering into another crime cycle and help him in his transition into the community upon release. What community? Mr. Z has refused to divulge even this piece of information.

A Long Arm Gets Longer
Many citizens would say that people like Mr. Z should be detained indefinitely, they should never be released, but Canadian law and the judicial system dictate that Mr. Z, like most offenders, will eventually be set free and return to society. At one time, this would mean the end of any form of supervision but in recent years new legislation has enabled the long arm of the law to stretch even further. Mr. Z and others like him can now be controlled under further restrictions despite the fact that they have passed their warrant expiry date.

One of these legal tools is called a Section 810 (of the Criminal Code of Canada) recognizance order, that allows police to impose restrictions for up to a year where there is fear that a suspect will commit a serious personal injury offence. Strict conditions are available including a measure that prohibits a suspect from possessing firearms or ammunition, and a measure that requires the offender to report to police or a correctional authority. Section 810s have been particularly useful in cases where prior incidents of physical harm resulted in a sentence that is now completed, as in the case of Mr. Z.

Surveillance and Mapping
As Mr. Z’s release date approaches, law enforcement agencies work closely with CSC institutional parole officers who provide information from their own files on the offender, including his risk and psychopathy assessments and evidence of his crime cycle. In the Pacific Region, this data is sent to the RCMP Behavioural Science Group (BSG) which has developed highly sophisticated intelligence networks to capture all available information on high-risk offenders. Vital information is fed to the BSG not only from CSC but also from police forces such as the Vancouver Police Department and its High Risk Offender Unit.

This unit and the RCMP employ integrated sexual predator observation teams (I-SPOT) that work closely with CSC parole officers. These teams, ideally full-time units of 10 officers, are trained in surveillance techniques and understanding sexual offenders and their specific crime cycles.

RCMP Behavioural Psychologist Staff Sergeant Matt Logan explains further: “Using a template called the Integrated Sexual Predator Intelligence Network (I-SPIN), we take all this information and determine which individuals are the most dangerous to the public and their chances of re-offending.”

Currently in British Columbia, there are 2,200 such offenders in I-SPIN, 33 percent of which are considered at extremely high risk of re-offending. Every known location frequented by each of these offenders is plotted on an electronic mapping system and colour-coded to correspond with the template score given to each offender.

“This system is crucial,” says Staff Sgt. Logan. “Should there be a sexual assault or kidnapping in a particular location, the mapping system will identify the most likely suspects. The goal of the program is to allow police to proactively improve safety in communities.”

Mr. Z Is Released
Three months prior to his release, Mr. Z.’s name is passed along (BY WHO??)by the CSC WED Coordinator to the High Risk Recognizance Advisory Committee (HRRAC), an interagency coordinating body that reviews every federal offender that has been detained until their warrant expiry date with an eye to applying an 810 order. The committee includes police, corrections, victim services, and crown. A case review by HRRAC considers many factors including Mr. Z’s refusal to cooperate while incarcerated and the reports of some of his victims who are still traumatized and terrified at the possibility that they will encounter him again one day.

A Legal Threshhold
The two psychologists on the committee, Teal Maedel and Staff Sgt. Logan, help the other committee members reach a consensus: Mr. Z should be placed under an 810 order once he is released. But the committee must turn to Crown Counsel Roger Cutler to tell them whether or not the offender meets the legal threshold for imposing the order.

Crown Counsel Cutler considers the key legal question: Is there reasonable grounds to fear that Mr. Z would commit a serious personal injury offence upon his release? Because of Mr. Z’s truly dreadful record, his refusal to be treated, and his recent psychiatric assessments, Cutler believes an 810 order should be sought that includes specific conditions – no alcohol or drugs - that will prevent his crime cycle from being triggered.

The 810 Coordinator
Once these decisions are made, the next person to handle Mr. Z’s file is the 810 coordinator, Judy Dizy, a detective from the RCMP Behavioural Science Group who is an expert at preparing a report for Crown counsel that will be handed to the judge in charge of granting the order. The offender information, including victim target group, known residences, associates, crime cycle and many other factors accompanies any report to Crown prosecutors. In many cases, a letter of opinion from a BSG investigative psychologist is also submitted to the courts.

In the meantime, the 810 coordinator, Det. Judy Dizy interviews Mr. Z at Kent Institution and informs him of the intent to impose an 810 order. After mulling it over and weighing his options, Mr. Z realizes that he has little chance of successfully blocking the order and, therefore, he decides not to legally contest it. This is a relief because a challenge would eat up time and become a considerable drain on the criminal justice system’s resources. Naturally, for everyone involved, an order with offender consent is the preferred route.

Everyone Ready
The Court imposes the 810 order two weeks before Mr. Z’s release and now police are ready to take over the functions of monitoring and, if need be, intervention. The Vancouver Police’s High Risk Offender Unit is notified as the offender indicates his destination as Vancouver. Another team, the Coordinated High Risk Offender Management team (CHROMe), comprised of police, a community probation officer, psychologist and outreach workers are ready to help Mr. Z with his transition into the community.

The two weeks finally pass and the institution doors open to allow Mr. Z out on to the streets. He is compliant with conditions for a few days but then both the Vancouver Police and CHROMe workers note a return to his crime cycle. They notify Behavioural Sciences and the I-SPOT team begins its surveillance. Will the offender comply with the conditions of his 810 order? It’s not long before they trail him to one of his old haunts, a crumbling block of dilapidated hotels near the corner of Main and Hastings in Vancouver’s notorious east end. He buys cocaine from a drug dealer and kibitzes with known prostitutes along their stroll. Clearly, Mr. Z has no intentions of sticking with his 810 conditions. The I-SPOT team quickly arrests him before he can progress in another crime cycle and become an extreme risk to public safety. He is charged with possession of a narcotic and breach of recognizance.

“In British Columbia,” comments Crown Counsel Cutler “our courts take breaches of 810s much more seriously than breaches of other court orders. The judges recognize the risk to which that the community is exposed and they know that the offender fully understood that his breach triggers his criminal behaviour.”

Mr. Z is given a sentence of three months. While in custody, outreach workers visit him and discuss the breach and plans are made for substance abuse treatment. On release,
I-SPOT surveillance resumes while outreach workers help the offender find a place to live and other efforts are made to help stabilize him.

A Year Later
Fast forward almost a year to a time close to the expiry of the 810 order. Since his release after the breach conviction, Mr. Z has been compliant, crime free and cooperating with outreach workers. The I-SPOT surveillance was discontinued but the other criminal justice partners agree that an application for renewal of the 810 order is necessary. Before they make the application, the offender is brought in to be assessed by a psychologist.

“Mr. Z is one of those individuals who seems to thrive on structure and support,” the psychologist reports. “His history both in custody and on release indicates that his present success is due to it, at least in part.”

The 810 coordinator prepares another application and the Crown takes it to Court three weeks before expiry of the first 810 order. Mr. Z opposes the application and he is placed on bail with conditions identical to the expiring order and a trial date is set. At the trial, six months later, the Court grants a renewal for another year.

Mr. Z’s support system in the community continues to strengthen and the year passes uneventfully. The offender is assessed again and no renewal of the 810 order is sought.

The execution of Mr. Z’s 810 order is a study in cooperation between criminal justice partners. It highlights the importance of strong partnerships and interagency communication in managing risk. This process coupled with interagency training in identifying and intervening in offender behavioural progression has assisted criminal justice system partners in enhancing safety in our communities.

Wolves in sheep’s clothing: Most child molesters blend into the background

By S/Sgt Matt Logan, Ph.D
RCMP Major Crime Unit, Vancouver
Child molesters are often portrayed as greasy, dirty, unkempt individuals who sneak into our towns and snatch our children.

The reality is most sexual offenders of children are well known to the children and their parents or caretakers, and don’t particularly stand out. The majority of children are seduced when these molesters play on the child’s emotions, establish their trust and give affection.

The most prolific type of child molester is preferential in his focus on children and may be exclusive in his gender interest. The term preferential child molester refers to the behavioural pattern chosen by this sexual predator.

The following article will explore this predator’s patterns of behaviour. The male gender will be used to describe this behaviour. Although there may be more female child sexual abusers than once thought, the vast majority of child molesters are male.

Well groomed
Grooming is a process that begins when the predator chooses a target area. He may visit places where children are likely to go: schools, shopping malls, playgrounds or parks. He may work or volunteer at locations that cater to children. Other predators strike up relationships with adults who have children in the home.

When I was providing family therapy during a practicum placement, one case illustrates this behaviour. The turmoil in the home began when the mother of two young girls (ages 8 and 12) invited her new boyfriend to live with them. I had a sense that the boyfriend was more interested in the girls than he was in their mother. Sure enough, it turned out that he was a convicted child molester and eventually he admitted that his interest in this family was the little girls and not their mother. He was caught in the grooming process. Not only had he moved in with them; he had convinced the mother to allow him to take showers with the girls.

Grooming can take place on three levels. The first target is, of course, the victim. However, there can also be grooming of the parent(s) or adult caretaker in many cases. Finally, there is often a self grooming that takes place. Here, the offender talks himself into the sexual abuse with thoughts such as “she wants me” or “I can give her love” or “she needs me to teach her.”

Although any child may be victimized, it is not surprising that predators often target children with vulnerabilities. A child’s intuition may not yet be loaded with enough information and experience to keep them from harm. They may not yet have learned that there are users and predators in our world.

Sexual predators prey on weakness in much the same way as predators in the wild. Children with family problems who spend time alone and unsupervised, who lack confidence and self esteem, and who are isolated from their peers, are all likely targets. A child who feels unloved and unpopular might gravitate toward anyone who will give them attention.

One predator that I assessed in prison said the following: “I went after the weird one in art class rather than the high school prom queen because she’s probably suffered abuse and doesn’t have much self worth.” He targeted rebellious teens who had emotional problems. This type, he said, was “easy prey.” He admitted he developed a pattern of getting the girls drunk or stoned and then having sex with them. He acknowledged that, in the late 80s, he had approximately 140 teen sexual partners.

“Trust me”
Predators recruit their victims using a variety of methods. Many are charming and offer an understanding ear, ready to listen about how parents don’t understand and how other kids are mean. Predators learn that self disclosure works with vulnerable children. They may tell the child that they went through the same hard times when they were children. Some predators offer to play games, give rides or buy treats and gifts as tokens of friendship. They may offer drugs or alcohol to older children or teenagers. They will find and fill a void in a child’s life while telling them: “I care for you more than anybody else. I love you. I’m here for you.”

A predator will usually introduce secrecy at some point during the grooming process. Initially, secrecy binds the victim to the predator: “Here’s some candy. But don’t tell your friends because they’ll be jealous and don’t tell your mother because she won’t like you eating between meals.” Secrecy can lead to threats if the predator feels threatened with exposure. Threats can range from “If you tell your mother what happened, she’ll hate you” to “I’ll kill you if you tell.”

The emotional bond established through grooming eventually leads to physical contact. Predators use the grooming process to break down a child’s defenses and increase the child’s acceptance of touch. The first physical contact between predator and victim is often non-sexual touching designed to identify limits. This is often play fighting or tickling or an arm around the shoulder. Non-sexual touching desensitizes the child. It breaks down inhibitions and leads to more overt sexual touching, which is the predator’s ultimate goal.

More research needed

The paucity of Canadian based research for projecting trends and patterns among Internet based child sexual offenders was noted in the RCMP Environmental Scan (Sinclair, 2005), which examined Internet-based sexual exploitation of children. The Integrated Child Exploitation sections need a clearer understanding of offender behaviour with Internet-specific offenders. There is a need to gather Canadian statistics on the findings of warrant searches conducted by our police officers. These statistics can further bolster the information to obtain a warrant. Finally, research specific to this topic can be used in training all those involved in the evidentiary process.

There has been much time and effort spent on offender typology and the profiling of an unknown assailant. The RCMP’s Behavioural Sciences Group in B.C. is focused on the known offender with the belief that the top five percent of these offenders are responsible for much of the unsolved crime. The Integrated Sexual Predator Intelligence Network (ISPIN) is a research based and intelligence led process that applies the knowledge of offender behaviour and crime cycle to active police surveillance and investigation.

Whether you are a police officer, social worker, parole/probation officer, teacher or parent, all of us must be vigilant in protecting our children by better understanding the “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Some of the predators who don’t fit into our present understanding of a deviant sexual offender need to be recognized. The knowledge that we can all be groomed by these predators must direct us to tighten up screening procedures and make adults more accountable for time and action with children.

The Behavioural Science Group in “E” Div. have recently investigated three police officers and three teachers with sexual offences against children. There needs to be an increased awareness and knowledge of the child sexual offender so that investigators can look for evidence with open eyes.

S/Sgt Matt Logan has been a member of the RCMP for 25 years. As a psychologist in major crime, he is involved as a consultant for serious crime sections, undercover units, interview teams and crisis negotiation teams.

SIDEBAR

TYPES OF CHILD MOLESTERS

Situational
• The vast majority are male
• Often indiscriminate; will sexually assault male and female children alike
• The psychopath often falls into this category as he craves satisfaction and stimulation achieved through variety and experimentation
• He may also collect pornography, with child pornography comprising a small percentage of the entire collection
• There is likely to be a wide variety of sexual perversion with a higher level of sadism

Preferential
• Male, varying in age from nine to 99 years
• Children are the preferred sexual object
• Characterized by a long term and persistent pattern of behaviour, including well-developed grooming techniques
• Pedophilia (desiring children sexually) is most often diagnosed within this group
• Preferential molesters are much more prolific than other types
• Behaviour is ritualistic—collects child pornography and child erotica with a high degree of predictability
• Uses child pornography to feed sexual fantasies. Some only collect and fantasize about the material without acting out their fantasies, but in most cases the arousal and fantasies facilitated by the pornography is only a prelude to actual sexual activity with children.

Polymorphous perverse

• Displays a variety of deviant sexual interests.
• Sometimes referred to as “trysexual,” as they will try to have sex with anyone or anything.
• This is a very disturbed individual whose deviance often surfaces in childhood or adolescence. A recent assessment conducted with a polymorphous perverse individual resulted in a sadistic personality disorder diagnosis. The 18 year-old offender had begun molesting children and animals at age 11. He admitted to sexual intercourse with five different animals and the sadistic sexual killing of a young dog. His interest in children and infants as sexual objects would likely have likely superseded his arousal to adult women or men.

Building Bridges out of Barricades

On February 6, 1996 at 0700 hours, John Miranda, a 6'5", 260 lb. Hawaiian male with a record for violence and under the influence of Aice@ and cocaine, walked into his former work site with a 12 gauge Winchester pump shotgun loaded with eight slugs.

He took five hostages and then when Honolulu police showed up he fired two rounds at them and a third into the leg of Guy George, the owner of the store. Miranda then phoned a local radio station and told them that someone was going to die. He then taped the shotgun to the head of one of the hostages and walked outside to look for Guy George who had managed to escape. The police were then able to talk to Miranda for several hours who demanded that $20,000 be taken to a location and thrown into the air in support of the Hawaiian Movement for Solidarity.

After eight hours of negotiation, Miranda began a countdown from A60". At about A18", the hostage ducked and spun, at which time Miranda was shot by police snipers. The hostage had one scratch and Miranda was D.O.A. Two weeks after the incident, Miranda=s girlfriend=s body was found; he had killed her before the siege.

On January 16, 1996, a series of robberies ended in a high speed chase with police following the suspect vehicle for 120 miles on Interstate 5 in California. The suspects, Qin Duk, a 38 year old Vietnamese Army Veteran and John Colandro, a 21 year old Filipino, fired on and hit several police vehicles. The chase ended with a collision in downtown Los Angeles at 1630 hours and the gunfight continued as suspects ran into the Hall of Records building and took a female security guard hostage. Duk made initial demands of $500,000 and an armoured truck. Much later in the negotiations he demanded Coca-Cola which was delivered to the suspects. Negotiations took a turn when Colandro accidentally shot himself in the foot. The negotiators suggested that he come out with the hostage and get medical aid but Duk refused to allow it.

Negotiations continued with Duk and he was talked into "saving face" so he could surrender. At 0100 hours, the suspects surrendered. Duk later said that the negotiators confused him into surrendering and he wished he could have died in the Hall of Records building; he later hanged himself in jail.

Despite the violence exhibited in some of these scenarios, the fact that so many hostage/barricade incidents end peacefully is directly attributed to relationship building and communication with the hostage-taker/barricaded person.

The study analyzed the critical incidents within law enforcement responses to barricaded subjects and suicidal persons and determine what facilitates or hinders success in crisis negotiation. Flanagan's (1954) Critical Incident Analysis methodology was used to investigate how police crisis negotiators "build bridges out of barricades". The results indicate that the following factors can contribute to either successor failure: Teamwork, active listening, relationship building, logistics, building a bridge, leadership, learning and development, using intuition, negotiator's personal resources, providing information and direction, support, and time. The results also indicate that success in crisis negotiation can be hindered by the subject's orientation and the subject's behavior. These are elements that can clearly be influenced by the negotiator but are outside of his/her direct control.

There was a strong emphasis on teamwork and the need to strive toward synchronizing the effort of command, tactical, and negotiation units to form a unified crisis response team. The dominance of this category seems to emanate from the continued presence of tension between these units and the desire of negotiators to present a unified presence so that a bridge can be built from chaos to a calm, safe environment.

Implications for theory and research

The results of this study confirm what is being taught in negotiation courses and what is being published in police journals. There is a clear correspondence between what was found in this study and what has been written in these journals and in negotiator publications. This study provides an empirical basis for what has been previously described by SSA (ret'd) Frederick Lanceley as "journal articles on hostage/crisis negotiation that, rather than advancing the field of negotiation, recount 'war stories' or restate what most of us learned in our basic negotiation course" (McMains & Mullins, 1996, p.v). This empirical base is paramount but does not discount the value of the journal articles that are written by seasoned negotiators. The correlation between the results of this study and the publications by negotiators validates their message.

As we move away from the focus of psychopathology, I would caution that we do not follow the pendulum completely away from this area. We can learn much about subject behavior by understanding personality disorder and mental illness. There is also a body of research on psychopathy and the prediction of violence (Hart & Hare, 1996; Webster 'et al', 1997) that is worthy of attention. With the statistics being gathered through the FBI HOBAS system and with an expansion of that system I can foresee developing an instrument similar to the HCR-20 (Webster 'et al') for assessing risk of forcible confinement. This measure could be used with an incarcerated population and then could be accessed by law enforcement outside of corrections when a parolee is entering the community. This study would not only target those at high risk of involvement in a barricade situation but would also assist in developing a profile(s) that would enable a better understanding of the barricaded subject.

This study is part of a growing trend of hostage negotiation research toward a theoretical approach that utilizes the theory behind conflict management. After all, hostage negotiation was always the management of conflict. Educators in this field have been tapping into theories of influence, persuasion, and social learning. The research performed by the Harvard Negotiation Project that resulted in such rich and informative writing by Ury (1981), Fisher & Brown (1988), and Ury (1991) has become an integral part of the negotiator training. The work of Miron & Goldstein (1979), as it relates to the instrumental and expressive behavior of hostage takers, has moved the research past the study of psychopathology. The recent works of McMains & Mullins (1996), and Webster (1997 and 2000) have integrated theory and research with practice and have enriched the field. Empirical research, most of which is directed to examining statistics related to typology and logistics, is still helpful and these very legitimate areas of research dovetail very well with the more qualitative research that examines constructs of communication and relationship building.

There are some subject areas that emerged from this research that require further exploration. The two categories of Using Intuition and Negotiator's Personal Resources are relatively new to this literature and must be examined for value related to selection and training of crisis negotiators. The elements within categories that emerged as relatively new to this body of literature were (a) distracting, (b) demystifying, and (c) disengaging (walking away).

Knowing when and how to provide a distraction that would sidetrack the subject from a violent intent is another intuitive skill that was used positively by some of the participants. Sidetracking seems to allow for the anger to diffuse as the focus of the subject is not being fueled by negative stimulus, at least for the distracted period of time.

There is also merit in learning techniques of distracting in order for tactical movement and intervention to take place. The negotiator awareness of when this tactical intervention is inevitable should be clear to the negotiator, not by notification from the tactical team, but through the tactical awareness maintained by the negotiator. Another attribute of a good negotiator is to maintain this tactical awareness, both for personal safety and the safety of everyone engaged in the incident.

Providing information and "demystifying" the crisis negotiation process was found to be very helpful in resolving situations. Participants found that often the subject was afraid to come out because they did not know what to expect or that expectations were that they would be hurt or killed by police. Assuring the subjects that they would be safe, and taking the mystique out of the presence of armed tactical officers dressed in army fatigues or camouflage, was helpful in allaying fear. Explaining the need for containment and the need to keep everyone safe does not take away from the tactical positioning but it explains its presence. It is apparent from this study that one of the obstacles to those on the other side of the barricade in coming out peacefully is the fear of the unknown. Participants found that taking the mystique out of the police presence made it easier to build a bridge out of the barricade. Explaining the surrender procedure by detailing what the subject would see and what the tactical team would do seemed to "demystify" the process and build some trust between the subject and the negotiator. If the subject believes that the "others" out there are as professional and caring as the negotiator, then the walk out there becomes safe and feasible.

This element of "disengaging" or leaving the conflict after engaging is especially germane in its implications for litigation and media spotlight. The consideration of disengaging is a topic that is overdue and most negotiators can recall a scenario where the question of "why are we here right now?" should have been asked. It is indeed a credit to those who have asked the question, assessed the situation, and made the decision to disengage. It is hoped that its presence in this study will highlight it as a consideration to be applied and to be researched for effectiveness and legal ramifications.

There is a piece of research that has not yet been accessed. This study represents the first part and the second piece is waiting to be done. It is the same study of "what facilitates or hinders successful crisis negotiation" but the research sample is "the other side of the barricade". Perhaps this has never been studied because nobody thought of asking the "perpetrator" why he decided to surrender to police. Maybe there is a feeling that we can't trust the "bad guy" to give us a reliable answer. Could it be that the perception of the subject on "the other side of the barricade" is that he is a "bad guy" and we can't be learning from the perpetrators? Further research from the other perspective is recommended.
Implications for negotiation practice

The field of crisis management is on center stage. The orchestra is comprised of incident commanders, crisis negotiators, tactical personnel, first responders, telecom operators, technical support, translators, educators, researchers, and consulting mental health professionals. It is no longer acceptable to "wing ding some nice little ditty" and hope that we sound okay. The world is watching and the media ensures that what we do is broadcast in full colour and sound. Death Review Boards and Coroner's Jury are seated and ready to hear how we have been selected for the orchestra, how we have trained, and what theories and pieces of empirical research do we use for composition of the music? When the concert begins do we have a conductor and does the conductor know the music or does a member of the orchestra have to enlighten him between stanzas? Have we all practiced together so we know what this will sound like and do we all have the same piece of music or are we playing different versions of the same tune? As we play, why does the percussion section sound so loud and why are they playing a march when the clarinets are playing a lullaby?

The category system derived from this study calls for the need to work as a team, to communicate as a team, to train as a team, and to synchronize the effort of tactical and negotiation. It calls for negotiators to develop attributes that allow them to be good listeners, empathetic, caring, calm, intuitive, willing to integrate their training and to learn from experience. It calls for them to use time to build relationships through affinity, cultural understanding, and communication that reduces fear by explaining and demystifying the process. It calls for negotiators to use intelligence and third parties to co-construct a bridge out of the barricade by minimizing risk and damage and to create an environment of empowerment so the subject can walk across the bridge without losing face. It calls for leadership, not by rank, but by being a person with experience, credibility, and possessing the attributes of a good negotiator. It calls for an ability to assess a situation by asking "why are we here?" and making the decision to walk away if the assessment answer is "we can deal with this in a more effective manner by leaving right now".

It calls for a pursuit of knowledge and a thirst to not only acquire the tools of active listening and relationship building, but to develop personally so that these tools will be more than skills but will be personal attributes. One of the key pieces that became evident to the researcher during the review of taped interviews and incident extraction was that much of the process that facilitated success was due to the resources and personalities of the negotiators. What draws them to negotiation is not the number of tools they can carry in a toolbox but that they (the negotiators) are the toolboxes and they handcraft the tools that they use through caring for other people and having the desire that "everyone goes home safe tonight".

Whether this desire is expressed as spiritual, intellectually challenging, humanistic or a combination of reasons, it is abundantly clear that helping others is the primary motivation for doing this job. It is this motivation that is heard as the underlying message of care and concern by the subject on the other side of the barricade. It is this motivation that keeps the negotiators striving for the goal of peaceful resolution and allows them to focus their attention on the subject for 12 hours and explain that it felt like an hour or two.

The attribute of being empathic and being an empathic listener is a stretch for negotiators, but a necessary stretch. McMains and Mullins (1996), in the introduction of their Crisis Negotiations book, raise a valid point and a hurdle for most negotiators in stating that "the approach negotiators take with hostage takers is diametrically opposed to the approach police are supposed to use. Instead of asserting the authority and power of the badgeYnegotiators become the ally of the criminal and talk him into deciding to peacefully surrender."

Being "soft" with the "bad guy" does not come naturally for police officers but those that are successful investigators, interviewers, and source developers understand the value of an empathic approach. The character quality that I refer to as "tendertoughness" is a key quality for the police officer, and especially the crisis negotiator, to develop. It is a quality that I see in many of this nation's law enforcement officers who are called upon to be both tender and tough.

Empathy involves sensitively and accurately trying to understand another from the other's own point of view. Developing empathy nurtures the tender side; the tough side is usually already present, as many spouses can confirm. The good news is that the ability to be accurately empathic is something that can be developed by training and can be learned most rapidly in an empathic climate from empathic teachers or supervisors. Empathic listening and understanding is a requisite ability to crisis negotiation for these reasons: (a) it dissolves alienation, (b) it absorbs tension, (c) the recipient feels valued and cared for, and (d) it is the most potent element in bringing mental health patients, specifically schizophrenics, out of their estrangement (Rogers, 1980).

It calls for an openness to learn from others, including the subject in our negotiations. The rule of "we don't talk to them after the incident" may have to be abolished or modified when we see rationale for the change. Perhaps someone else could debrief the subject but we must be open to learn what made them react or respond during our negotiations. A few participants make a point of debriefing the subject while other participants use third party intermediaries and others would consider a hostage exchange. These are three factors that would never have been considered in the past, but today, with due diligence, these are considerations and have been used in a manner that has facilitated success.

The word "success" is used subjectively. A "successful negotiation" is defined in this study as a conclusion to a negotiated incident where negotiation was used to preserve life and minimize human casualty. The "success" is also in the process which moves the subject away from an evil intent, even if only temporarily. The "talks failed and we were forced to go tactical" is erroneous. Negotiations didn't fail, the subject made a decision to act in a different manner. The fact that communication existed at all in some of these cases is a success. On the lighter side, may I suggest the fact that the jumper didn't land on anyone is a measure of success!

Unfortunately, as related by participant #14 and #20, there is a "ball score mentality" that says that if you don't win, you lose. This mentality can have an adverse effect on a negotiator who did everything humanly possible but the subject decided to end his life. For a negotiator to get up in front of hundreds of negotiators and boast about how many "successful" negotiations his or her department has had over the years without a single casualty is foolish and presumptuous. This mentality can be very devastating to the negotiator who "lost" and the "what if's" that seem to visit that negotiator can be a serious hindrance to their effectiveness as a negotiator, if not to their own mental health.

The findings of this study contribute to the practice of crisis negotiation by confirming the necessity of teamwork and reinforcing the value of integrated training. They confirm active listening as the vehicle for effective communication across the barricade. They illuminate the value of a selection criteria that will capture the personal resources that a candidate can bring to negotiation and his/her ability to integrate learning and experience in a self renewal process. The findings reinforce the value of relationship building that creates trust that serves as the foundation for the bridge that is co-constructed out of the barricades.


Note: The complete study (204 pages) can be made available by contacting the author at Matt.Logan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Author's Note:
I defended this doctoral dissertation on the morning of September 11, 2001. I salute my fellow Law Enforcement Officers who gave their lives while the sky was falling and dedicate this document to them. I wish to acknowledge my fellow crisis negotiators who "listen" and prevent "the sky from falling" around the world.

A special acknowledgment to my participants who shared their story and spoke for us all. Thank you to Assistant Commissioner Pat Cummins who had the vision to initiate the Operational Psychologist position in the RCMP and to Inspector Dan Killam who supported this research. Appreciation to Lt. Bob Lozito of the Sacramento County Sheriff Dept., Sgt. Mary Dunnigan of the San Francisco P.D., and to Lt. Mel Blizzard of the Baltimore County P.D. for their support and assistance in data collection.

Dr. Matt Logan completed a Ph.D. in Counselling Psychology at the University of British Columbia with a focus on Crisis (Hostage) Negotiation and Major Criminal Conflict Management. He has been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 23 years serving in five communities within British Columbia and a tour of duty in Ottawa and at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia. Matt was working as a Psychologist with Correctional Services Canada (CSC) from May, 1999 to November, 2001 where he did Psychological Risk Assessments for the National Parole Board and worked in therapy with predatory sex offenders. He is currently working in Behavioural Sciences at the RCMP Pacific Region Headquarters in Vancouver.

As Psychologist in Major Crime, Sgt. Logan is involved as a consultant to Serious Crime Sections, Undercover Unit, Interview Team, and Crisis Negotiation Teams. Psychological Risk and Threat Assessments are provided on suspects in serious crime investigations. An FBI trained hostage negotiator, Dr. Logan is a conference speaker and facilitator specializing in Conflict and Crisis Management, Psychopathy, and Trauma.

Sgt. Logan has worked with the International Association Chiefs of Police (IACP) in developing leadership programs for policing and is a visiting professor at the University of Victoria and Trinity Western University, teaching on the MA in Leadership programs. He has published articles on operational and leadership issues related to policing.

Dr. Logan was recently named to the Professional Advisory Board for North America’s first Ph.D Program in Police Psychology at Saybrook Graduate School in San Francisco, California.

We live in a world torn between wanting to listen to the sound of a flower growing and wanting to ignore the sound of the sky falling. By sometimes being sensitive enough to the first process we acquire the energy necessary to prevent the second.

- Author Unknown -

Behavioral Progression

Behavioral Progression
by Lyne Piché Ph.D.
In the last few years, the original concept of a crime cycle has evolved into a more complex theory of the sexual offending patterns of offenders. Fundamentally, a crime cycle was a concept that assisted us in understanding the patterns that occurred prior to a sexual offense. These patterns reflected life events, thoughts and behaviors that were often present prior to a sexual offense. This article will explore those factors, the changes in the concept underlying behavior analysis as well as present some case studies which will highlite the ways in which the new model assists in behavioral analysis.

We observe and evaluate the precursors to a sexual offense by examining the patterns in the offenders life. These patterns are helpful in predicting the individual’s risk of reoffense, factors relating to their offending as well as offender's treatment needs.

Future behavior is predicted by past behavior (see for further discussion, Andrews & Bonta, 2003). Couched in the learning theory, the way we will behave in a given situation is determined by the way in which we behaved in the past. There lies the importance of being able to recognize past patterns of behavior and look to the future to recognize the same pattern prior to a repetition of that same behavior. A crime cycle is a concept that used these principles to help assist in recognizing these patterns of behavior over time. The goal is to offer intervention prior to a repetition of the same behavior whether by arresting the individual, changing release conditions, offering psychological services, or other appropriate action.

Today, the concepts underlying the traditional crime cycle have not fundamentally changed. They have, however, evolved into a more sophisticated analysis of the past and future behavior patterns. Behavioral Progression is the term for the changes made to this concept.

There are many interesting ideas provided by the model of behavioral progression created by Ward & Hudson (2000). One of the elements of their model is to determine the goals of the offender. According to this model, offenders have goals which can be avoidant goals or approach goals. Essentially, this permits the distinction of 1) the offender who does not seek a reoffense but who uses poor coping skills which can lead to a reoffense (avoidant goal) and 2) the offender who is a predator (approach goal). The offender who seeks another reoffense and creates situations to assist him in reoffending is considered to have approach goals. The offender who hopes not to reoffend but who makes choices that could or does lead to another reoffense has avoidant goals. This is a very helpful distinction in understanding differing offender behavior. It also allows for the existence of sexual offenders who don't have life skill deficits and yet continue to reoffend.

Furthermore, by making this distinction, it is also recognized that the offender may feel positive emotions prior to offending and that they do not always avoid reoffending as previously assumed (Yates, 2000).

In order to write a behavioral analysis that is useful and accurate, knowledge of the factors related to the behavior in question is essential. The only way to identify the right risk factors and provide effective intervention techniques is to focus on the right patterns of behaviors. These behaviors are those that are shown to be predictive of a repetition of the pattern. For sexual offenders, we will use the factors that are empirically derived and that have been shown to be related to sexual reoffense. These factors were presented by Hanson & Harris (1998) and are included in their Dynamic Risk Instrument (STABLE).

Recognized risk factors which may be identified and part of the offender's behavioral progression are: intimacy deficits defined as being the absence of lovers or intimate partners, emotional identification with children, hostility towards women, social rejection/loneliness and a lack of concern for others; negative social influences; attitudes supportive of sexual assault as defined as sexual entitlement, rape attitudes and child molester attitudes; poor sexual self-regulation as defined by sex drive/preoccupations, sex as coping and deviant sexual interests; poor cooperation with supervision; and finally, poor general self-regulation defined as being impulsive acts, poor cognitive problem solving skills, and negative emotionality/hostility.

Factors that may be present immediately prior to a sexual reoffense are: emotional collapse, collapse of social supports, sexual preoccupations, rejection of supervision, substance abuse, negative mood, anger/hostility and victim access (Hanson & Harris, 1998).

It is important to note that a thorough behavioral analysis looks at behavior, thoughts, emotions, attitudes, values and all other events that occurred prior to the sexual reoffense. The goal is to identify patterns and provide a succinct way of understanding and perceiving the offender’s thoughts, emotions and behaviors prior to sexual offending.

Techniques used to identify behavior patterns will vary greatly. It is important to obtain information from many sources. Offenders are not always the best at identifying patterns of behaviors in their lives. Techniques used to identify a behavioral progression should include : a full file review looking at all original documents available on the offender; obtaining details about daily life activities, hobbies and schedules; asking the offender to maintain a log, diary or journal that outlines repetitive daily behaviors and routines; direct observation of the person, their behavior and common consequences/reactions to various situations and; talking to collateral sources regularly.

In essence, a behavioral progression involves identifying risk relevant factors, identifying patterns in the offender's behavior and intercepting the pattern when it is observed in the future. The ultimate goal is to avoid a repetition of the illegal and/or harmful behavior.

References:

Andrews, D. A. & Bonta, J. (2003). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publications.
Hanson, R. K. & Harris, A. (1998) Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism, Sol. Gen.
Ward, T. & Hudson, S. (2000) A Self-Regulation Model of Relapse Prevention in D.R. Laws, S. S. M. Hudson & T. Ward (Eds.) Relapse Prevention with Sex Offenders: A Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Yates, P. M., Goguen, B. C., Nicholaichuk, T. P. et al. (2000). National Sex Offender Treatment: Program Manuals. Correctional Service of Canada.

A Systems Application to Stree Management Training in the RCMP

by Cst. Matt Logan,
RCMP HQ, Ottawa, Ontario
Research on police stress has focused primarily on its existence and origins being inherently occupational. This study verifies the existence of occupational stress, but takes a further look into the stress that exists working within an organiza­tion and being part of a family system.

From a systems perspec­tive, this study takes the "big picture" of a police officer's life and assesses the need for training in stress management. This sys­tems' perspective asserts itself in the needs' assessment being di­rected toward both RCMP member and spouse.

A sample of 101 Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers, both male and female, ranging in rank from constable to superintendent, and 72 of their spouses returned question­naires. The questionnaires, using an adaptation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) were designed to answer the following questions:


· Is there a need in the RCMP for Stress Management training?
· Is there a need for a Family Sys­tems application to this training?
· Is there an interest in police officer and spouse joint training?
· At what stage of a police offic­er's career would this training be most valuable?
· In order to design a relevant curriculum, what are the specific areas of stress for the police family?

Results of this study show a need for stress management training as expressed by both RCMP member and spouse, and as evidenced by the data. The need, interest, and per­ceived value of joint training was evidenced in the data, as well as the accompanying written comments.

Specific areas and items of stress were determined and compared in light of gender, rank, duty type, and years of experience. In comparing members and spouses in ratings of stress, the following results were obtained:


· Organizational, occupational, and family stress were ranked in that order by member and spouse.
· Spouses reported higher stress ratings than members in every area.
· The six spouses who reported the highest stress were all living with members who were rated in the top 10% of the high stress cat­egory.
· All factors considered, the RCMP member experiencing the most stress is a male, uniformed con­stable with between nine and twelve years of experience.
· Female members reported lower stress levels.
· The RCMP spouse experiencing the most stress is one that is living with such a member.
· Stressors ranked highest by member and spouse (although in different orders), were: raising children; finances; workload; promotional opportunities; emo­tionally-draining work; and, the feeling of being "always on duty".

RCMP members were asked to respond to more items than the spousal group; for members, occu­pational stress was ranked as the highest, followed by organizational and family stress. The stressor ranked highest by RCMP members by a considerable margin was the frustration of working within the judicial system.

This article is a sample of a longer article written for the RCMP GAZETTE, Vol. 57, No. 11 & 12.1995

BUILDING BRIDGES OUT OF BARRICADES

PRESENTATION ABSTRACT
BUILDING BRIDGES OUT OF BARRICADES

S/Sgt. Matt Logan completed his Ph.D. in Counselling Psychology on the morning of September 11, 2001 by successfully defending his dissertation “What hinders or facilitates successful crisis (hostage) negotiation”.

This presentation reviews the research based on that study and confirms much of what negotiators do. It also questions old ideas and introduces the D-Fusing approach:

-De-escalating
-Demarcating
-Demystifying
-Distraction
-Depolarizing
-Disaffiliating
-Disengaging

This Presentation calls for the need to work as a team, to communicate as a team, to train as a team, and to synchronize the effort of tactical and negotiation. It calls for negotiators to develop attributes that allow them to be good listeners, empathetic, caring, calm, intuitive, willing to integrate their training and to learn from experience.

It calls for them to use time to build relationships through affinity, cultural understanding, and communication that reduces fear by explaining and demystifying the process. It calls for negotiators to use intelligence and third parties to co-construct a bridge out of the barricade by minimizing risk and damage and to create an environment of empowerment so the subject can walk across the bridge without losing face. It calls for leadership, not by rank, but by being a person with experience, credibility, and possessing the attributes of a good negotiator.

It calls for an ability to assess a situation by asking "why are we here?" and making the decision to walk away if the assessment answer is "we can deal with this in a more effective manner by leaving right now". It calls for a pursuit of knowledge and a thirst to not only acquire the tools of active listening and relationship building, but to develop personally so that these tools will be more than skills but will be personal attributes.