Support and Accountability Circles ( CoSA ) is a professional-type volunteer group to support sex offenders as they reintegrate into the community once they are released from prison. The CoSA evaluation showed that participation in CoSA could result in statistically significant reductions in recurrent sexual violations in 70% of cases, relative to what would be predicted by a suitable risk assessment or comparison subject. CoSA projects exist throughout Canada, the United Kingdom, and some regions of the United States.
Video Circles of Support and Accountability
Description
Circle of Support and Accountability is based on the principle of restorative justice. Each circle involves 4-6 trained volunteers from the community, forming an inner circle around the former principals ("core members"). The circle receives support and training from professionals, who form the outer circle. The inner circle meets regularly to facilitate the core members' practical needs (ie, access to medical services, social assistance, affordable job/housing achievements, etc.), To provide emotional support, to develop constructive and pro-social strategies to address each day. problems, and to challenge the behavior and attitudes of core members that may be related to the cycle of violation.
Maps Circles of Support and Accountability
History
The CoSA reintegration model began in Canada in 1994. According to Susan Love, Ottawa Program Director for Circles of Support and Accountability, CoSA was initiated by Mennonite minister Harry Nigh, who was friends with mentally delayed recurring sexual prosecutors - a man who had been in and out of the institution for the rest of his life. Almost and some of his parishioners formed a support group; they obtained funding from the Mennonite Central Committee of Ontario and Correctional Service Canada (CSC) to keep the group going. It's effective; the man did not offend. "
Currently, projects are established nationwide across Canada and the UK. The CoSA projects have also started in some American jurisdictions. Interest continues to grow in other countries, including the Netherlands, New Zealand, Latvia, and France. The CoSA model has provided hope that communities can assist in risk management; the end result is greater security for potential victims and increased accountability for released offenders.
Validation
Two Canadian studies have focused on the relative reoffending rates between CoSA Core Members and matched comparison subjects who were not given participation in the Circle. In the first study, 60 high-risk sexual offenders involved in CoSA (Core Member of the original pilot project in South-Central Ontario) were matched with 60 high-risk sexual offenders who were not involved in CoSA (matched comparison subjects). Offenders are matched against risk, length of time in society, and previous involvement in the special treatment of sexual offenders. The average follow-up time is 4.5 years. The results showed a 70% reduction in sexual recidivism for the CoSA group, in contrast to the appropriate comparison group, a 57% reduction in all types of violent (including sexual) recidivism, and an overall 35% reduction in all types of recidivism (including violence and sex).
The second study consisted of Canada's national replication of the study of a pilot project. The same basic methodology is used - comparing the CoSA Core Member with matching comparison subjects. Participants for this study were drawn from CoSA projects in Canada, but excluded members of the pilot project. In total, the recurrence of 44 Core Members was evaluated against 44 comparable matched subjects, with an average follow-up time of approximately three years. Similar to the first study, dramatic reductions in reoffending rates were observed in the CoSA Core Members group. The study reported an 83% reduction in sexual recidivism, a 73% reduction in all types of violent (including sexual) recidivism, and an overall reduction of 71% in all types of recidivism (including sexual and violent) compared to suitable offenders. The authors also present a 3 year fixed comparison analysis, which controls the difference in risk level. Further significant decreases in offensive violence (82%) and offending (83%) were reported, albeit with smaller samples from their main analysis (18 Core Members and 17 non-CoSA controls).
The Minnesota Department of Corrections also implements the Circle of Support and Accountability program as part of the reentry effort. In 2013, preliminary results from randomized controlled trials versus 31 Core Members of the CoSA Minnesota (MnCoSA) program with non-CoSA control samples prospectively randomly assigned participants to separate the group receiving CoSA or supervision as usual. The authors reported an insignificant reduction in sexual recidivism during an average of 2 years of follow-up, but a significant 40% reduction in arrest (for any offense). Further analysis revealed that participation at MnCoSA significantly reduced the odds (hazard ratio) of recapture by 62%, from the lifting of technical violations by 72%, and any 84% reinstatement. There is no significant reduction in the opportunity of re-authentication or renewal of reported new violations.
The retrospective cohort study of 2014 compares 71 Core Members of the UK with 71 matching controls. The study found evidence of statistical differences between Core Members and control groups, with Core Members reoffending at a quarter rate of comparison groups for sexual and violent violations combined.
The Vermont Correction Department, the Humanitarian Services Agency, has released a qualitative report on the Support Circles and Accountability Program used as part of their re-entry service. This report does not specifically address recidivism figures but sees the efforts of professional staff and volunteers in terms of outreach effectiveness.
Criticism effectiveness
Although strongly supportive of the program model, the 2013 report into the implementation of the Circle of Support and Accountability in the United States includes a critical analysis of the effectiveness of Circles of Support and Accountability and characterization as an example of evidence-based practice.
The academic reviews that follow the report highlight a number of methodological limitations in previous studies, which include:
- That the assumption of a chi-square test used to analyze the reduction of recidivism in a Canadian study in 2009 has been compromised. Correcting that statistical error results in insignificant findings. The only reduction in reporting that should be reported as statistically significant in the study is a smaller 3-year fixed comparison analysis between 18 CoSA participants and 17 non-CoSA controls.
- Statistical analysis of the reduction of sexual recidivism reported in the 2014 UK Circles study also yielded insignificant results. Significant reductions are found only when sexual and non-sexual repetitions are grouped together.
- That the retrospective selection and matching criteria of the group in the cohort study (eg, Canadian study 2009 and UK 2014 study) are reported to be poor and inconsistent.
- That Core Member exceptions that have not received at least a 90-day CoSA dose are methodologically questionable for re-entry programs aimed at offenders with the highest levels of risk of recidivism. Furthermore, the UK 2014 study reported this criterion as "in accordance with previous international Circles research" (p.Ã, 868) citing two Canadian studies. However, studies do not appear to mention these criteria in their methods. None of the studies stated whether or not (or how) these criteria were also applied to their control group.
- That randomized controlled trials from the CoSA Department of Minnesota Coordinate program - rigorous and methodologically rigorous evaluation - found no significant reduction in the likelihood of repetition or renewal of new offenses. It found significant reductions in the possibility of rearrest, technical breach, and retention; however, all of these results may be the result of a non-sexual offense or a technical breach of a trial or parole condition.
- That, based on a recent analysis of "almost significant" statistical results, the implication that the findings in previous studies are merely a consequence of low sample sizes is debatable.
The authors of the report concluded that, "[providing] various qualities of previous studies in terms of retroactive matching of experimental and control samples, imperfect methods for matching, integrity of statistical analysis, and a statistically significant lack of experimental results, it can be said that currently there is sufficient evidence to claim that CoSA has proved effective in its program objectives. "(p.Ã, 116). In mitigation, the authors acknowledge that previous findings promised and noted difficulties in evaluating programs such as CoSA on recursive outcomes alone and called for more rigorous evaluation methods that were more adequate and adequately tested the programmed objectives of the Support and Accountability Circle.
See also
- Restorative justice
- Sex offenders
References
External links
General CoSA research links
- Portal
- Other research portals
Australia
- Support and Accountability Circle, Australia
Canada
- Guide to CoSA Project Development, Canadian Prison Services
- Mission MICAH, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
- CoSA, Mennonite Central Committee, Ontario
U.K.
- Circle U.K.
- Support and Accountability Circles, Scottish Crime Center & amp; Justice Research
Netherlands
- NL Circle
US.
- Circle of Support and Accountability-Fresno, Fresno, California
- Colorado CoSA
- Minnesota Support and Accountability Circle
- Support and Accountability Circles, Durham, North Carolina
- Support and Accountability Circles in Oregon (Multnomah County), via Ecumenical Ministries of Oregon
- Vermont Dept of Correction, Human Services Agent
More
- Facebook's Support and Accountability Circle
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments