|
|
| Surviving the media jumble |
| By Jim Montalto, News Editor |
| Published: 01/15/2007 |
What happens when a small DOC finds itself entangled in media coverage about an outspoken judge who rankled his state after initially giving a sex offender a short sentence? The state loses a highly regarded judge, and the DOCs hard work on improving a fairly successful program becomes lost in the controversy.This is what happened when Vermont's paper, The Burlington Free Press, last September covered the retirement announcement of District Court Judge Edward Cashman, 63, who became a target of criticism from the governor, other legislators, and media outlets after giving an offender a two-month jail sentence for repeatedly sexually assaulting a young girl. Cashman said it was the best way for the offender to get the sex-offender the treatment he needed. The judge's 23-year career was mixed with controversy and praise - he was re-appointed to his position in 1989 with minimal support after being criticized for visiting and appearing to vaguely support anti-abortion demonstrators, but then received one of the highest scores in 2001 for his fourth term. The paper briefly listed his work history, but mostly highlighted other controversies Cashman endured through the years, and underscored the sex offender case in most of the article. The VTDOC received a small paragraph about how state corrections officials “later changed their policy for treating sex offenders, allowing [the offender] to get treatment in prison, prompting Cashman to increase the sentence to a three-year minimum.” Praise was forthcoming for the judge after his retirement announcement, but not without what seemed to be some back-handed criticism against the VTDOC. In the article, State Senator Vincent Illuzzi stated that Cashman's sentence “brought about much-needed, constructive change to the need for an effective sex-offender treatment in prisons.” Vermont Bar Association president James Gallagher said it was sad to “see someone with 23 years of honorable experience in the judiciary be subjected to so much criticism for a good-faith effort in trying to follow the ethical requirements.” But what about the VTDOC, which manages the state's sex offenders? Where was the information about the changes it made? Where were their quotes about the strength and success of the existing program? “The press misinterpreted the offender's sentence,” Vermont sex offender treatment programs director Georgia Cumming says when asked these questions. “Some of the press made it sound like he wasn't going to get treatment or that we didn't have any programs.” “The truth is our program as it stands is very well established,” adds VTDOC Director Rob Hoffman. This is true. In fact, the state initiated in 1982 an integrated, statewide group of inpatient and outpatient programs for sex offenders called the Vermont Treatment Program for Sexual Aggressors, which the VTDOC was charged with running. In 1989, the VTDOC provided program information to researchers who were conducting a study on 195 offenders that were offered VTPSA. The study ran until 1997 and had a follow-up that ended in 2000, and showed that the number of sexual re-offenders receiving complete treatment was significantly lower compared to those who either refused treatment or agreed to minimal treatment. Clearly, then the VTDOC has a program and, more importantly, it seems to work. Cumming says their sex offender treatment program is guided by principles to avoid over treatment, but every offender does receive some form of treatment. Moderate and high risk offenders have always received treatment in prison. Before Cashman's decision, the lowest risk offenders received help in their community. “But now we have a program in prison for our incarcerated low risk offenders. The low risk program is six months, the moderate is 12 18 months, and the intensive program is two to three year, all of which is done when they're in prison. And all of our offenders go into community-based treatments when they get out,” Cumming explains. It is also worth noting that the VTDOC's report “Outcome of a Treatment Program for Adult Sex Offenders, From Prison to Community,” which Cumming helped author, states that the VTPSA was offered to 195 adult male participants who represent a range of offenses from incest and rape to molesting and non-contact offense. As professionals in the field are now aware, there is no “one size fits all” solution, since these offenders struggle with varying degrees of problems. Also, the offenders were not required to fully participate, so only 56 completed and another 49 partially completed the program. Community treatment and supervision was also provided in addition to the prison program. Despite this abundance of information, it seems that much of it gets lost when an opportunity arises to present itself. The VTDOC didn't seem very willing at first to promote that information either when asked about its program. Hoffman only hesitantly agreed to briefly speak with me after initially saying his department wasn't willing to talk to any media outside of Vermont. Cumming also agreed to speak but only after several attempts to gain approval through various departments. To support her program, Cumming did mail three reports, but they were old with the most recent being from 2000. The VTDOC can't be blamed for its hesitancy, however, to speak with the press. Due to the agency's size, it is associated with the state's Agency of Human Services. Therefore, it can be more difficult to disseminate information when several agencies are combined. Also, it's no secret that a disproportionate number of corrections stories by the media are negative. The idea that high drama, sex, and corruption all sell papers and bring in advertising dollars still exists and will probably continue to. This is unfortunate because it overshadows the good that corrections tries to accomplish. Finally, the VTDOC has better things to do than speak about their work, because it does after all have important work to do, like help the state's sex offenders. But Hoffman and Cumming did take the time to talk. Even so, a bigger question still remains: Should the media's need for sensational stories smother the desire for DOCs to promote their stories? It should not. In fact, it should fuel the directors, public information officers, and other agency representatives to both reactively and pro-actively communicate with county, state and national media. They should counteract slighted stories, like that of Judge Cashman, with information that will provide a more balanced piece about the work they do. It is an endless circle between those who write and those who have the information worth writing about, but the power to keep it moving doesn't have to be solely in the media's hands. Those who hold the information, like the DOCs, have the power too, and they should be encouraged to use it more to promote and not hide the beneficial work of their staff and facility. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
I read a lot of interesting facts and gambling tips for this profile, thanks. For now, I will able to improve my skills in it. Hope to see more parts soon here.