Victim/survivor input into circles of support and accountability (CoSA): An exploratory mixed methods study

Abstract

Victim/survivors of sexual violence have long served as volunteers in Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA); however, little has been documented about broader victim/survivor input into CoSA. This research addressed this gap through an online survey and in-depth qualitative interviews with CoSA staff and volunteers across the globe. It documented that in participants’ views, victim/survivors need to occupy the ‘Goldilocks’ position by evoking empathy on the part of the perpetrator, while not doing so in a way that is too punitive so as to threaten perpetrator stability. Findings of the study may be relevant to CoSA programs around the world considering expanding and/or formalizing victim/survivor input.

Keywords

Circles of support and accountability CoSA victim/survivors sexual violence victim/survivor input

Introduction

Victim/survivors¹ of sexual violence have increasingly gained opportunities to participate in criminal justice processes such as via restorative justice (Marsh and Wager, 2015), Victim Impact Statements (Miller, 2014) and submissions to parole boards (Caplan, 2010). While far less attention has been given to victim/survivor involvement in perpetrator reintegration (also referred to as ‘re-entry’ or ‘resettlement’), the limited literature contends that victim/survivors can and should (where desired) be involved in perpetrator reintegration (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2000, Center for Sex Offender Management, 2016, Center for Sex Offender Management, 2018, Herman and Wasserman, 2001, Petersilia, 2009, Seymour, 2001). Seymour (2001: 3) argues that crime victims should be considered ‘partners’ in perpetrator reintegration, alongside government and non-government professional organizations. Embedding victim/survivor perspectives into the planning and delivery of perpetrator reintegration measures can improve these measures and contribute to reducing reoffending and enhancing community safety (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2005).

This is especially the case because unlike victims of many other types of crime, victim/survivors of sexual violence are often known (or even related) to the perpetrator, making reintegration measures particularly important to navigate effectively (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2005). As a corollary, the lived experiences of victim/survivors can provide a unique insight into what might reduce reoffending among people convicted of sexual offences (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2005). Victim/survivors of gendered violence are ‘experts by experience’ (Domestic Violence Victoria, 2020); as Petersilia (2009: 16) asserts, ‘victims often have the most detailed knowledge of the offender and the risks he poses to public safety’. In addition, involving victim/survivors in perpetrator reintegration efforts may counteract the re-traumatization that victim/survivors often experience by being excluded from criminal justice processes (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2018). In summary, as Herman and Wasserman (2001: 429) argue:

Victims and victim organizations can positively assist in the reintegration of offenders by providing decision makers with important and relevant information; offering experience and expertise; encouraging offender accountability; and furthering the goals of victim empowerment, safety, restitution, and reintegration.

The Center for Sex Offender Management (2018) suggests a range of ways in which victim/survivors could be involved in perpetrator reintegration practices, such as developing perpetrator case management procedures that include victim/survivors’ voices. In some US states, victim/survivor advocates already contribute to post-custodial perpetrator management teams (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2016). Advocates act as a liaison point between victim/survivors and correctional officers and ensure victim/survivors’ perspectives are considered in decisions about perpetrator reintegration (see also Petersilia, 2009; Seymour, 2001). For example, in Rhode Island, victim advocates serve as members of sex offender supervision teams and play a role in perpetrator treatment by providing a ‘victim presence’ and participating in regular re-entry meetings as well as supporting victim/survivors during the period of a perpetrator's return to the community after prison (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2016: 45). Similarly, Victim Advisory Councils were implemented in some US states to incorporate victims’ concerns into risk assessment and re-entry processes, and develop training initiatives for re-entry volunteers (Seymour, 2001: 43).

Victim/survivor involvement in circles of support and accountability (CoSA)

One way in which victim/survivors of sexual violence have come to play a role in perpetrator reintegration in recent years is through volunteering with circles of support and accountability (CoSA) (Richards & Weir, in press). CoSA are groups of trained volunteers who form a ‘circle’ to assist a person convicted of sexual offending (known as a ‘core member’) to reintegrate into the community after prison (Hannem and Petrunik, 2007, Wilson et al., 2005), with the aim of enhancing community safety by reducing sexual reoffending. CoSA volunteers typically meet weekly as a group and help the core member with everyday tasks associated with re-joining the community, such as grocery shopping and navigating transportation (McCartan and Kemshall, 2020). In addition, they exercise an important accountability function: ‘core members openly discuss their behaviours and thoughts with the circle volunteers, and are answerable to them for any deviations from their own aspirations to live non-offending lives’ (Almond et al., 2015: 27). CoSA were originally devised in Ontario, Canada (Heise et al., 1996) but are now practised across North America, the United Kingdom, Western Europe (see Thompson et al., 2017 for an overview, Richards, 2022) and, to a very limited extent, Australia (Richards et al., 2020).

Victim/survivors have long served as volunteers with CoSA; to be clear, this does not entail victim/survivors volunteering in a CoSA with their own perpetrator, but an unmatched perpetrator of sexual violence. Research into the motivations of CoSA volunteers reveals that some CoSA volunteers report that their own personal experience of sexual violence, and/or being close to someone who has experienced sexual violence, informed their decision to become a CoSA volunteer (Kerr et al., 2018, McCartan et al., 2014, Wilson et al., 2005, Richards, 2011, Richards et al., 2020, Muscat, 2009, Almond et al., 2015, McCartan, 2016, Wager and Wilson, 2017). In fact, Wager and Wilson (2017) estimate that up to one-quarter of CoSA volunteers in the UK are victim/survivors of sexual violence (see further Richards, 2022, Richards et al., 2020, McCartan et al., 2014, Armstrong et al., 2008, Armstrong and Wills, 2014, Cesaroni, 2001, Höing et al., 2017), and point out that this is not surprising given the prevalence of sexual violence in the broader community. While processes for screening prospective volunteers vary around the globe, CoSA programs often have procedures in place to identify whether a prospective volunteer has experienced sexual harm (see Höing et al., 2017) to ensure volunteer wellbeing.

Studies that provide an insight into victim/survivors who volunteer in CoSA (Höing et al., 2017, Richards and Weir, in press, Wager and Wilson, 2017, Wilson and Hudson, 2024) generally concur that victim/survivor volunteers can engage in CoSA without adverse consequences. However, they rely on current volunteers and thus likely suffer from ‘survivorship bias’ (Czeisler et al., 2021); i.e., they mistake a successful subgroup for the entire group. Other sources (Hinton, 2008, Richards, 2011) have documented that on occasion at least, victim/survivor volunteers have withdrawn from a CoSA due to suffering adverse impacts as a result of their participation (see Richards and Weir, in press for a discussion).

There are, of course, other ways in which victim/survivors of sexual violence could have input into CoSA that do not require their direct participation as volunteers. Richards, Death and Ronken (2021: 906) argue that ‘with appropriate supports in place, survivors can contribute unique knowledge and experience to…CoSA, to maximize their benefit and impact’. They thus advocate for a ‘survivor-informed approach to CoSA’ that ‘meaningfully embed[s] survivors’ perspectives [into CoSA] beyond the inclusion of survivors as volunteers on an ad hoc basis’ (Richards et al., 2021: 906).

The research presented in this article begins to address Richards et al.'s (2021: 906) injunction. It sought to document whether and how CoSA programs around the globe incorporate victim/survivor input into CoSA practice. As noted above, this is an important endeavour since involving victim/survivors may enhance perpetrator accountability, foster victim/survivor empowerment and safety (Herman and Wasserman, 2001) and counter victim/survivor traumatization (Center for Sex Offender Management, 2018).

Research design and methodology

To investigate this question, the research adopted an exploratory, mixed methods approach. Rather than testing a pre-defined hypothesis, exploratory research examines topics without a priori hypotheses (Nilsen et al., 2020) and seeks to discover something new (Swedberg, 2020). This broad approach was deemed suitable since little has previously been documented about incorporating victim/survivor input into the delivery of CoSA. A cross-sectional ‘convergent parallel’ design (Creswell, 2015) was used, which involves gathering both quantitative and qualitative data to investigate the same overarching research question(s) (Doyle, 2015) and analysing the data synchronously rather than sequentially (i.e., the qualitative component of the research is not reliant on the findings of the quantitative component or vice versa) (Creswell, 2015).

Data collection

Data collection occurred across two stages. The first was an online survey of CoSA staff and volunteers from around the globe that was designed and hosted on the Qualtrics platform. It aimed to examine: (1) whether and how victim/survivors of sexual violence have already had input into CoSA programs; and (2) whether and how CoSA staff and volunteers think victim/survivors of sexual violence could shape CoSA programs in future. Participants were recruited via the researchers’ contacts with CoSA programs around the world and CoSA peak bodies (e.g., Circles Europe). These contacts were emailed a copy of the Participant Information Sheet and asked to circulate this to CoSA staff and volunteers. The Participant Information Sheet and survey were translated into Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Flemish, French and Belgian to encourage participation from diverse CoSA programs. To be eligible to take part, staff and volunteers were required to be: aged 18 years or above; have experience as a CoSA staff member or volunteer for at least 3 months; and be willing and able to complete the survey.

Most survey respondents (n = 59; 69%) were volunteers, and the remainder (n = 26; 31%) were paid staff (total n = 85). They had carried out most of their work or volunteering with CoSA in Canada (n = 26; 31%), the UK (n = 23; 27%), Spain (n = 16; 19%), the USA (n = 14; 16%), Australia (n = 4; 5%), and the Netherlands (n = 2; 2%). While participants could respond to the survey in their chosen language, most did so in English (n = 68; 80%); 15 respondents (18%) wrote in Spanish, and 2 (2%) wrote in Dutch. Their length of experience with CoSA ranged from less than six months (n = 11; 13%) to more than six months but less than one year (n = 6; 7%), one to three years (n = 26; 31%), and more than three years (n = 41; 48%), demonstrating the significant experience of respondents. (One participant did not answer this question). Respondents had an average age of 47 years (min = 21; max = 85; R = 64). 62% (n = 53) identified as female, 35% (n = 30) as male, 1% each (n = 1) as non-binary and trans* male.

The second stage involved qualitative, semi-structured interviews with CoSA staff and volunteers (n = 16). To recruit interviewees, survey respondents were asked at the end of the survey if they would be interested in taking part in an in-depth interview to further explore their views and experiences. Others were recruited directly from the researchers’ networks (i.e., via the dissemination of project material to CoSA programs as outlined above).² The eligibility criteria for the interviews were the same as those for the survey (as outlined above). The interview questions reported on in this article were designed to elucidate staff and volunteers’ experiences of and views about incorporating victim/survivor input into CoSA practice. Interviewees were asked about the ways in which victim/survivors had already input into the CoSA program with which they work or volunteer, and about how victim/survivors and their perspectives could inform CoSA practice. Questions included: ‘In what ways do victim/survivors of sexual violence have input into your CoSA?’ and ‘Do you have any thoughts on ways in which victim/survivors could shape CoSA?’ Most interviews were conducted via the Zoom online platform; they lasted one hour on average. Participant characteristics are outlined in Table 1. As can be seen, interviewees were generally similar to survey respondents in terms of both gender (with 69% of interviewees identifying as female and 31% as male) and employment status (75% of interviewees were volunteers and the remaining 25% were paid staff). Interviewees’ countries of residence were mostly similar to those of survey respondents; the only notable exception is that a higher proportion of interviewees (38%) than survey respondents (27%) were from the UK.

Table 1.

Interview participants by gender and country (n = 16).

	Staff		Volunteer
	Male	Female	Male	Female
Canada	1			4
UK	1		1	4
Spain			1	1
Netherlands		1
USA		1	1
Total	2	2	3	9

Data analysis

Qualitative data from the survey and interviews were read as a whole to facilitate familiarization with the data (Caulfield and Hill, 2014, Gareth et al., 2017). The data were then coded inductively (i.e., from the data rather than according to pre-defined concepts and categories (Xu and Zammit, 2020, Hsieh and Shannon, 2005)) in the qualitative analysis software NVivo 14 (Jackson and Bazeley, 2019) to generate initial themes (Braun and Clarke, 2019). The qualitative data were then subject to reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2019), which involves the identification and description of implicit and explicit ideas within the data (Guest et al., 2012) and commonalities and divergences across research participants (Nowell et al., 2017). Importantly, in reflexive thematic analysis, themes are not topics or domains within the data, but ‘patterns of shared meaning underpinned or united by a core concept’ (Braun and Clarke, 2019: 593) and are relevant to the interpretation of the phenomenon in question (Xu and Zammit, 2020).

Ethical considerations

The research received approval from Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee (approval #6050). As the research examined a sensitive area, a number of safeguards were implemented to ensure the ethical conduct of the study. In all instances, participation was voluntary. Prospective participants were provided with written information outlining the purpose of the research, what their involvement would entail, and any risks associated with taking part. Respondents to the online survey provided implied consent (i.e., their commencement of the survey indicated their consent). Interviewees were asked to provide verbal consent prior to the commencement of their interview.

To ensure the psychological safety and wellbeing of participants, the researchers informed participants that they were welcome to skip any questions that they were not comfortable answering. Information about local, 24-hour, free counselling/support services was provided to all participants. Information was provided about First Nations/Indigenous-specific counselling/support services both in Australia and abroad. Where requested, interviewees were provided with a full list of the interview questions prior to their involvement to enable them to feel better equipped and more in control of the interview.

The Goldilocks paradox: victim/survivors’ potential contribution to CoSA

This section outlines the three interlocking themes that were identified in the data set. In presenting the qualitative findings, we have heeded Mason's (2018) injunction to give the reader a sense of the frequency that themes were identified within the data set, by referring to ‘a few’, ‘many’ or ‘most’ participants for example.

Theme 1: Victim/survivors present a potentially destabilizing threat to CoSA

In the qualitative data collected for our study, victim/survivors of sexual violence were depicted as possessing a complex, often conflicting, constellation of characteristics that rendered them a potential threat to CoSA operations. This theme was present in a number of iterations. First, victim/survivors were considered by some research participants to be too damaged or psychologically fragile to have input into CoSA; participants held concerns that victim/survivors would be ‘triggered’ by becoming involved in a program for perpetrators of sexual violence. Survey participants cautioned that ‘[p]rograms like this have to be very careful about how they engage with victims/survivors of harm to keep trauma informed in order to not create further trauma’, and ‘I believe that this must be treated with great care and assessed on a case-by-case basis’. Interviewees noted:

[I]f you have had experiences [of sexual violence], is this going to be triggering for you? Are you going to be able to take your experience away from it? And I think in the vast majority of cases, the answer is probably no, you can't….[I]t must be incredibly difficult for them. You know, very triggering, and you can't, it's not something you could promise that like, ‘oh, yeah, I'll be okay, for 12 months, while the Circle goes on, I'll be, you know, fine, weekly talking about sex offenses for 12 months’; that's a long time. (Interviewee 2, UK)

[I]t can stir, stir things up if you have been a victim. (Interviewee 12, The Netherlands)

[T]here's going to be I would imagine, there's got to be some mental or emotional conflict somewhere, I would have thought you'd have to be very, very I don't know, to face something like that. Have you actually got over your own emotional distraught [sic]? How far is that going to affect you? How, how long ago was it since you had that [experience of sexual harm]? (Interviewee 3, UK)

Conversely (or perhaps rather contemporaneously), participants depicted victim/survivors as too angry and/or punitive to make a constructive contribution to CoSA. A few interviewees raised concerns that victim/survivors would be too punitive and that their involvement could result in unhelpful and counterproductive blaming or shaming of the core member. A survey participant warned that ‘[involving victim/survivors] is something that needs to be considered carefully as many ex-offenders have significant guilt. The person [core member] I am working with self-harms and has considered suicide because of guilt and the judgement of others’. Interviewee 1 (Canada) cautioned that ‘I think you need to be very careful [involving victim/survivors]….I don't say you would absolutely not use survivors in any situation. But I think you should proceed with great caution’. For this interviewee, this hesitation stemmed from experience working with probation staff who, they assumed, had experienced sexual harm and who they perceived to be ‘just getting their pound of flesh any way they can’. Other interviewees likewise stated:

I wouldn't think it will be right to do in the Circles program….I think it's introducing an extra element of blame. That isn't positive once they've [the core member has] reached the Circle stage….I think it would have added quite a lot more risk in terms of what the victim was going to say, to the offender. And how we're going to deal with that, and whether it's actually going to be the right message or if it's going to be, you know, ‘you're a monster, there's nothing more to be done’. I think it will be very useful for the victim. I'm not sure it'd be very useful for the offender. (Interviewee 2, UK)

I think if you're coming in with any slight agenda at all, I think that might be a bit detrimental. (Interviewee 3, UK)

[Y]ou don't want somebody who's angry and who's extreme. (Interviewee 5, Canada)

I wouldn't take a volunteer that seems very vengeful, and wants to be doing this in order to, you know, potentially ruin the core member's life. (Interviewee 6, Canada)

These comments evince long-standing concerns raised by critics of conventional restorative justice that crime victims deemed unsuitable will be excluded from restorative practices (Richards, 2009, Marshall, 1998). Such concerns have lingered; stakeholders in a more recent review of restorative justice conferencing queried whether some victims might be ‘too angry to participate’, describing some victims as ‘focused primarily on retribution’ and worrying that conferences might jeopardize offenders’ safety (Centre for Innovative Justice, 2019: 29). As discussed further below, there are numerous differences between traditional restorative justice measures and CoSA – Fox (2014) describes CoSA as ‘quasi-restorative’. Nonetheless, these findings illustrate the enduring nature of concerns about the suitability of victims to perpetrator-focused interventions.

For a few participants, victim/survivors’ experiences of sexual harm would potentially limit their broader understanding of sexual violence, and render them incapable of seeing beyond their own personal experience(s) of sexual harm:

You know, it might be too limited an experience in a way. Like, you know, if you've had one incident, you might have ideas about how to rehabilitate that one person. I'm not sure it would be sort of generalizable or applicable to all the Circles….the whole point of the Circle is almost that you're kind of faceless members of the community, you could be anyone. You are like a representative of people. So, to have someone so personally invested kind of takes away from that. (Interviewee 2, UK)

I think it's quite difficult because if you start to work with [a] sexual perpetrator, you always tend to think about your own, your own experience. (Interviewee 15, Spain)

As a result of the above, for some participants, victim/survivor involvement in CoSA would not be welcomed due to its perceived ability to destabilize the progress of the core member. As one interviewee stated:

[W]e don’t involve victims or survivors of harm. I won’t go so far as to say that kind of defeats the purpose. But CoSA is a unique…opportunity where the guys or the girls, the people [core members] can work on themselves without having to, you know, worry about how to make amends for, for the victims and survivors. (Interviewee 6, Canada)

A couple of interviewees even argued strongly that victim/survivors should not have any input into or involvement in CoSA. For instance, a survey participant responded: ‘I’m not sure they should – maybe opportunities for apologies if the survivor wishes but I don’t think they should be explicitly included’. Interviewee 3 (UK) similarly stated that ‘the core member is the person. Not the [victim/survivor] volunteer, and the volunteer may be looking for some kind of support. If they're looking for support, they need to go to another organization to get support’.

Indeed, for a couple of participants, victim/survivor input should only occur in circumstances in which the core member is also a victim/survivor of sexual harm. Survey respondents argued that ‘[m]any perpetrators of sexual violence are also victims/survivors of it – I think exploring that connection is particularly important for this work’, and ‘I think there could be more attention to/support for individuals who were both victims and perpetrators’. Interviewee 11 (USA) made a similar argument:

[A] lot of our core members were victims, too. I know that they were. And so, while that does not…it just is it's an interesting kind of like binary that sometimes that can create. So, but I do think it's important, and I think that there are a variety of ways in which folks can, can do [address] that. And they should, right?

Taken together, these comments evince a reluctance to allow victim/survivor input into CoSA on the grounds that victim/survivors may pose a threat to the model or destabilize a core member's process of re-entry. In Interviewee 2's (UK) words: ‘you know, all it would take is one comment, one bad session, and then you've sort of tainted the relationship [with the core member]. And I think, you know, if then they [a victim/survivor] had to pull out, that would cause a lot of problems for the Circle’.

Theme 2: Victim/survivors could contribute – but at arm's length

Further underscoring the perception of victim/survivors as a potentially destabilizing force, many participants imagined indirect ways in which victim/survivors might contribute to CoSA. Most commonly, participants argued that direct victim/survivor input is not warranted since the very raison d’etre of CoSA is to prevent sexual victimization and this is the most potent way in which victim/survivor needs can be met. In other words, while CoSA may not respond to the needs of individual victim/survivors, they can prevent the creation of new victim/survivors of sexual harm. As Interviewee 13 (UK) put it, ‘[t]he whole ethos of the charity is to prevent further victims’. Others concurred:

[W]e certainly reduce the recidivism. And I'm sure that's what most victims would, would hope for. Their individual needs or their individual circumstance – I'm not sure (Interviewee 1, Canada)

I think the, the more we share about what CoSA does and, and, and, you know, the, the, the high rate of success compared to when they [perpetrators of sexual harm] aren't in CoSA. I think just sharing that information as, as often and as widely as possible, might help. (Interviewee 5, Canada)

It was also common for participants to discuss victim/survivor input into CoSA in strictly aspirational terms; for the most part they imagined this as involving restorative justice dialogue between core members and their matched victim/survivor(s). For example, a survey respondent championed ‘repairing harm between perpetrator and survivor if they can be included in parts of the process’. Interviewee 8 (Canada; italics added), responding to the question ‘Do you have any thoughts on ensuring that CoSA meet the needs of victims/survivors? Or ways in which they could help to shape CoSA?’, replied:

…in Canada, that's not, not done. And the current laws support the separation of the victim and the offender. So, but yes, ideally, we would like to see at least, you know, the, the offender meeting with other victims to hear their side of the story, the victims meeting with offenders….my ideal is that the offender would at some point meet with their victim.

Interviewee 14 (USA; italics added) similarly responded that:

[I]t's something that I think CoSA is working on helping the victim to understand what CoSA is, and…if there's any chance of there being some reconciliation…seeing if they're willing to meet with the perpetrator. Or if they would at least, like CoSA to let the perpetrator know what they went through. Even though they're, they don't want to meet with them. But to just let them know. I think that may, that may, be something at CoSA we can do a better job of doing more of that.

In these comments, victim/survivors are again portrayed as potentially contributing to CoSA at arm's length, in a reimagined CoSA model more aligned with conventional restorative justice approaches (for a discussion on CoSA and restorative justice, see Fox, 2014, Hannem, 2011, Richards, 2022). While CoSA's roots are embedded in the restorative justice movement (Richards and Whitehead, 2013) and research demonstrates positive outcomes for both perpetrators and victim/survivors of sexual violence who engage with restorative processes (McGlynn et al., 2012, Koss, 2014), CoSA are a distinct practice that does not involve interaction between matched perpetrators and victim/survivors. Participants’ comments may simply reflect their greater familiarity with conventional restorative justice practices than with other avenues via which victim/survivor input could be enacted. They may also reflect an endorsement of the broader principles and dynamics associated with restorative justice. The latter is certainly borne out in participants’ desire for core members to be confronted with the impacts of their offending on victim/survivors (as discussed in the following theme).

Along similar lines, a few participants noted that victim/survivors have (or could have) input into CoSA through governance arrangements (e.g., ‘we have a board member…somebody from the governing body is, has identified as that is their experience’ (Interviewee 11, USA)) or through CoSA programs partnering with victim/survivor organizations:

[S]ome sites like ourselves have started to work with organizations, partnering with organizations that specifically work with victims and survivors. So, in that way, they're kind of, and we're always open to input, so in that way, the victim/survivor perspective is being worked into the CoSA environment. (Interviewee 6, Canada)

Theme 3: Victim/survivors as ‘reminders’ of suffering

The one manner in which participants envisaged victim/survivors having concrete input into CoSA was by reinforcing to core members the harmful impacts of their sexually violent behaviour. Many research participants viewed victim/survivors as uniquely placed to foster victim empathy (and thus accountability) among core members. Survey participants championed the involvement of victim/survivors on the grounds that this would ‘[foster] a greater understanding of victim impact for perpetrator and everyone involved’, ‘promote empathy among the perpetrators’, ‘evoke empathy’, ‘[h]elp offenders to face impacts of offending’, and ‘[help] offenders…[to]…begin to have an idea about the damage they cause and how their actions continue to affect a victim long after the offending ends’. Interviewees concurred: ‘I think it's really important that they [core members] do hear that [victim/survivor] voice about what it's really like, however uncomfortable [that may make the core member]’ (Interviewee 10, UK); ‘they tell their core member about their story. And it's very powerful’ (Interviewee 12, The Netherlands). As one survey respondent noted, this might be especially useful for core members whose offences were perpetrated online, since ‘[o]nline perpetrators don’t seem to realize that images are of real people who are being abused. They see it more as victimless’.

Critically, for our participants, this role for victim/survivors would only be allowable if the victim/survivor was not overly fervent in this task. As one survey respondent put it, ‘it is important that staff have ‘reminders’ of victim experiences as I feel that this reduces the potential of minimizing the harm a Core Member has caused. However, I am not certain that direct victim contact with [victim/survivor] volunteers is the right path’. Interviewees similarly advocated for the involvement of victim/survivors who are sufficiently ‘open minded’ and not too punitive:

Well, somebody who, you know, is retaining a lot of fear and resentment, anger, those, those kinds of things are, you know, and then the memories. So, it just really depends on the person and the situation, I think, whether they'd be, be suitable for that. (Interviewee 14, USA)

I have spoken to victim/survivors who are very supportive of reintegration and not supportive of the sex offender registry and stuff like that. So yeah, if they're open minded, I think that would be really helpful. (Interviewee 8, Canada)

Participants’ strong support for victim/survivors instilling empathy in core members is curious given that victim empathy interventions have not been shown to reduce sexual recidivism (Mann and Barnett, 2013). Their comments in this regard suggest that victim empathy work with perpetrators retains strong intuitive appeal (see Morrow, 2020); this may be especially the case among CoSA staff and volunteers, given CoSA's explicit focus on ‘accountability’.

Discussion

Collectively, in participants’ views, victim/survivors need to occupy the ‘Goldilocks’ position of evoking core member empathy by demonstrating the impacts of sexual harm they have experienced, while not doing so in a way that is too close-minded or punitive so as to threaten the stability of the core member. In doing so, victim/survivors are expected to act in a way that is ‘not too much, not too little, but just right’. While this finding raises the somewhat uncomfortable proposition that there is a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ type of victim/survivor input (and perhaps even a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ type of victim/survivor), given that the purpose of CoSA is to reduce sexual recidivism among core members, this is likely very sound reasoning. Highly punitive victim/survivors would likely do more harm than good in terms of promoting desistance among core members; we want to be clear that we do not disagree with our research participants in this respect.

Nonetheless, this overarching finding merits further interrogation on two primary grounds. First, when considering victim/survivor input into COSA, some participants appeared to adhere to the myth of the ‘vengeful victim’ (Herman, 2005). This is curious given that the research literature demonstrates that victim/survivors’ attitudes toward perpetrators are about the same (Bowman, 2018, Brown, 1999, Comartin et al., 2009, Levenson et al., 2007), or less punitive (Ferguson and Ireland, 2006, Nelson et al., 2002, Socia et al., 2020, Spoo et al., 2018) than those of the general public. As Harper et al. (2017) contend, this is probably due to victim/survivors possessing more comprehensive knowledge of perpetrators, and thus relying less on stereotypes, than members of the wider public. In relation to CoSA, it makes little sense to hold concerns about victim/survivors’ propensity toward punitivism, when this may be a threat posed by any volunteer.

Second, participants’ enduring concern about the wellbeing of victim/survivors who engage with CoSA is interesting given that concerns about wellbeing likewise apply to any and all volunteers. In the existing research on this topic, both Wager and Wilson (2017) and Wilson and Hudson (2024) found that victim/survivor volunteers reported having ‘processed’ or moved on from their experiences of sexual violence before taking part in CoSA. Wager and Wilson (2017) found that although other volunteers held concerns that victim/survivors would be adversely affected by volunteering with CoSA, this was not realized in practice, and Wilson and Hudson (2024) likewise concluded that victim/survivor volunteers are no more at risk of being ‘triggered’ by participating in CoSA than any other volunteer. While Richards and Weir (in press) found that some victim/survivor volunteers were ‘triggered’ as a result of volunteering in CoSA, they did not compare victim/survivor volunteers with other CoSA volunteers. Their findings therefore cannot be taken to mean that victim/survivor volunteers experience distress any more than other CoSA volunteers.

An important point of note here is that all the aforementioned studies rely on samples of current CoSA volunteers, and therefore by definition exclude any victim/survivor volunteer who was sufficiently distressed by participating in CoSA to have ceased their involvement (see further Höing et al., 2017). A couple of sources (Hinton, 2008, Richards, 2011) do, however, offer anecdotal examples of victim/survivor volunteers withdrawing from CoSA due to adverse emotional consequences. This underscores the importance of recognizing the ‘survivorship bias’ (Czeisler et al., 2021) that characterizes the extant scholarship on victim/survivor volunteers. Crucially, however, literature has documented that other CoSA volunteers (i.e., non-victim/survivors) have also ceased involvement with CoSA due to the adverse consequences of working with perpetrators of sexual violence (Parkes et al., 2023). As a result, it should not be assumed that this is uniquely the province of victim/survivors. Indeed, as Richards and Weir (in press: 13; italics in original) tentatively argue: ‘it is possible that volunteers without personal experiences of sexual violence might actually be more confronted by what they observe in CoSA than victim/survivors, given that victim/survivors already have an understanding of sexual harm and those who perpetrate it’. Together, our findings might be useful for CoSA programs to consider, particularly if they are seeking to expand and/or formalize the role of victim/survivors in CoSA delivery.

Conclusion

Against the backdrop of expanding roles for victim/survivors in criminal justice processes, this research documents, for the first time, staff and volunteer reflections on victim/survivor input into CoSA. While staff and volunteers had a wide range of experiences with victim/survivor involvement in CoSA (and a wide range of views about the prospect of this), collectively, their comments revealed a degree of trepidation in this regard. Concern for the wellbeing of victim/survivors – and indeed, of core members – in CoSA is undoubtedly warranted; nonetheless, we emphasize that such concerns ought to apply to all CoSA participants, irrespective of victim/survivor status.

Limitations

Although the cross-national approach utilized in this research enhances the validity of our findings, as an exploratory study utilizing a small and potentially unrepresentative sample, our findings cannot be taken as conclusive. They do, however, provide a prompt for further discussion about this important topic, and provide a platform on which future research can build.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Kelly Richards

Ethical approval and informed consent

The Human Research Ethics Review Committee at Queensland University of Technology approved this research project (approval: 6050) on September 9, 2022. Respondents gave implied consent prior to undertaking the online survey and verbal consent before starting interviews.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the National Office for Child Safety (Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Almond

Bates

Wilson

(2015) Circles of support and accountability: criminal justice volunteers as the ‘deliberative public’. British Journal of Community Justice 13: 25–40.

Armstrong

Chistyakova

Mackenzie

, et al. (2008) Circles of Support & Accountability: Consideration of the Feasibility of Pilots in Scotland. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research.

Armstrong

Wills

(2014) A Review of the Fife Circles of Support and Accountability Project commissioned by Sacro – Final report. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research.

Bowman

(2018) University students’ perceptions of child sex offenders. Master of Arts, University of Colorado Colorado Springs.

Braun

Clarke

(2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11: 589–597.

Brown

(1999) Public attitudes toward the treatment of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology 4: 239–252.

Caplan

(2010) Parole release decisions: impact of positive and negative victim and nonvictim input on a representative sample of parole-eligible inmates. Violence and Victims 25: 224–242.

Caulfield

Hill

(2014) Criminological Research for Beginners: A Student’s Guide. London: Routledge.

Center For Sex Offender Management (2000) Engaging Advocates and Other Victim Service Providers in the Community Management of Sex Offenders. Kensington, Maryland: CSOM.

10.

Center For Sex Offender Management (2016) Promoting collaboration between victim advocates and sex offender management professionals: A resource package. Kensington, Maryland: CSOM.

11.

Center For Sex Offender Management (2018) Advancing a victim-centered approach to supervising sex offenders: A toolkit for practitioners. Kensington, Maryland: CSOM.

12.

Centre For Innovative Justice (2019) It’s healing to hear another person’s story and also to tell your own story: Report on the CIJ's Restorative Justice Conferencing Pilot Program. Melbourne: Centre for Innovative Justice.

13.

Cesaroni

(2001) Releasing sex offenders into the community through “circles of support” – A means of reintegrating the “worst of the worst”. Journal of Offender Rehabilition 34: 85–98.

14.

Comartin

Kernsmith

(2009) Sanctions for sex offenders: Fear and public policy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 48: 605–619.

15.

Creswell

(2015) Revisiting mixed methods and advancing scientific practices. In: Hesse-Biber

Burke Johnson

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 57–71.

16.

Czeisler

Wiley

Czeisler

, et al. (2021) Uncovering survivorship bias in longitudinal mental health surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 30: 1–10.

17.

Domestic Violence Victoria (2020) The Family Violence Experts By Experience Framework. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

18.

Doyle

(2015) Mixed methods. In: Henly

(ed) Routledge International Handbook of Advanced Quantitative Methods in Nursing Research. London: Routledge, 411–422.

19.

Ferguson

Ireland

(2006) Attitudes towards sex offenders and the influence of offence type: a comparison of staff working in a forensic setting and students. British Journal of Forensic Practice 8: 10–19.

20.

Fox

(2014) Restoring the social: offender reintegration in a risky world. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 38: 235–256.

21.

Gareth

Hayfield

Clarke

, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis. In: Willig

Stainston Rogers

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

22.

Guest

Macqueen

Namey

(2012) Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

23.

Hannem

(2011) Experiences in reconciling risk management and restorative justice: how circles of support and accountability work restoratively in the risk society. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57: 269–288.

24.

Hannem

Petrunik

(2007) Circles of support and accountability: a community justice initiative for the reintegration of high risk sex offenders. Contemporary Justice Review 10: 153–171.

25.

Harper

Hogue

Bartels

(2017) Attitudes towards sexual offenders: what do we know, and why are they important? Aggression and Violent Behavior 34: 201–213.

26.

Heise

Horne

Kirkegaard

, et al. (1996) Community reintegration project: A pilot project meeting the needs of communities for enhanced safety by providing Circles of Support for released sex offenders discharged at Warrant Expiry from Federal institutions. Ottawa: Mennonite Central Committee Ontario.

27.

Herman

(2005) Justice from the victim's perspective. Violence Against Women 11: 571–602.

28.

Herman

Wasserman

(2001) A role for victims in offender rentry. Crime & Delinquency 47: 428–445.

29.

Hinton

(2008) Circles of Support and Accountability: Are you ready to be a volunteer? Information for survivors. In: Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies, f. P. U. (ed). Fresno: Fresno Pacific University Center for Peacemaking and Conflict Studies.

30.

Höing

Bogaerts

Vogelvang

(2017) Volunteers in circles of support and accountability: job demands, job resources, and outcomes. Sexual Abuse 29: 541–562.

31.

Hsieh

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15: 1277–1288.

32.

Jackson

Bazeley

(2019) Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo, 3rd edn, Londond, Sage.

33.

Kerr

Tully

Völlm

(2018) Volunteering with sex offenders: the attitudes of volunteers towards sex offenders, their treatment, and rehabilitation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 30: 659–675.

34.

Koss

(2014) The RESTORE program of restorative justice for sex crimes: vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29: 1623–1660.

35.

Levenson

Brannon

Fortney

, et al. (2007) Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 7: 137–161.

36.

Mann

Barnett

(2013) Victim empathy intervention with sexual offenders: rehabilitation, punishment, or correctional quackery? Sexual Abuse 25: 282–301.

37.

Marsh

Wager

(2015) Restorative justice in cases of sexual violence: exploring the views of the public and survivors. Probation Journal 62: 336–356.

38.

Marshall

(1998) Restorative Justice: An Overview. St Paul, MN: Center for Restorative Justice & Mediation and Restorative Justice Consortium.

39.

Mason

(2018) Qualitative Researching, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

40.

Mccartan

(2016) Circles of Support and Accountability: Cabinet Office – Social Action Fund Evaluation. London: Cabinet Office.

41.

Mccartan

Kemshall

(2020) The potential role of recovery capital in stopping sexual offending: lessons from circles of support and accountability to enrich practice. Irish Probation Journal 17: 87–106.

42.

Mccartan

Kemshall

Westwood

, et al. (2014) Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA): A Case File Review of Two Pilots. London: Ministry of Justice.

43.

Mcglynn

Westmarland

Godden

(2012) `I just wanted him to hear me’: sexual violence and the possibilities of restorative justice. Journal of Law and Society 39: 213–240.

44.

Miller

K-L

(2014) Relational caring: the use of the victim impact statement by sexually assaulted women. Violence and Victims 29: 797–813.

45.

Morrow

(2020) Cognitive, affective, and general empathy in individuals convicted of a sexual offense: a meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse 32: 883–906.

46.

Muscat

(2009) An Evaluation of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA): Final report. Fresno, CA: California State University Fresno.

47.

National Center For Victims Of Crime (2005) Bringing Victims and Victim Service Providers into Reentry Planning in New Jersey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Victims of Crime,.

48.

Nelson

Herlihy

Oescher

(2002) A survey of counselor attitudes towards sex offenders. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 24: 51–67.

49.

Nilsen

Bowler

Linnell

(2020) Exploratory and confirmatory research in the open science era. Journal of Applied Ecology 57: 842–847.

50.

Nowell

Norris

White

, et al. (2017) Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16: 1–13.

51.

Parkes

Gray

Mckeague

(2023) Protectors of society: understanding the impact of courtesy stigma on the experiences of volunteers working with individuals convicted of sexual offences. Sexual Abuse 35(7): 842–862. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10790632221146496

52.

Petersilia

(2009) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Richards

(2009) Taking victims seriously? The role of victims’ rights movements in the emergence of restorative justice. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 21: 302–320.

54.

Richards

(2011) The Potential of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) to Reduce Child Sexual Abuse in Australia. Canberra: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.

55.

Richards

(2022) Desistance from Sexual Offending: The Role of Circles of Support and Accountability. London: Routledge.

56.

Richards

Death

Mccartan

(2020) Community-based Approaches to Sexual Offender Reintegration. Sydney: Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety.

57.

Richards

Death

Ronken

(2021) What do victim/survivors of sexual violence think about circles of support and accountability? Victims & Offenders 16: 893–911.

58.

Richards

. and Weir

. (in press) The experiences of victim/survivors of sexual violence who volunteer in Circles of Support and Accountability (CoSA): An exploratory, qualitative study. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

59.

Richards

Whitehead

(2013) Revisiting the role of religious faith in corrections: the case of Circles of Support and Accountability. International Journal of Community Chaplaincy 2: 14–23.

60.

Seymour

(2001) The Victim's Role in Offender Reentry: A Community Response Manual. Washington, D.C: US Department of Justice.

61.

Socia

Grady

Bolder

, et al. (2020) How background relates to perceptions of child sexual abuse prevention and policies related to individuals convicted of sex crimes. Criminal Justice Policy Review 31: 1059–1094.

62.

Spoo

Kaylor

Schaaf

, et al. (2018) Victims’ attitudes toward sex offenders and sex offender legislation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62: 3385–3407.

63.

Swedberg

(2020) Exploratory research. In: Elman

Gerring

Mahoney

(eds) The Production of Knowledge: Enhancing Progress in Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17–41.

64.

Thompson

Thomas

Karstedt

(2017) The Resettlement of Sex Offenders After Custody: Circles of Support and Accountability. London: Routledge.

65.

Wager

Wilson

(2017) Circles of support and accountability: survivors as volunteers and the restorative potential. In: Zinsstag

Keenan

(eds) Restorative Responses to Sexual Violence: Legal, Social and Therapeutic Dimensions. New York: Routledge, 265–282.

66.

Wilson

Hudson

(2024) Circles of support and accountability: restorative outcomes for the survivor volunteer. In: Winder

Hocken

Lievesley

, et al. (eds) Sexual Crime: Victims and Survivors. Cham: Springer International, 169–192.

67.

Wilson

Picheca

Prinzo

(2005) Circles of Support and Accountability: An Evaluation of the Pilot Project in South-central Ontario. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.

68.

Zammit

(2020) Applying thematic analysis to education: a hybrid approach to interpreting data in practitioner research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19: 1–9.