Aiming for Zero: Sexual Behaviours Clinic at The Royal
•
1 like•874 views
This session included information on the collaborative work being done between The Royal’s Sexual Behaviours Clinic (SBC) and Ottawa Police Service’s High Risk Offender Unit (HROU). Dr. Paul Fedoroff was the moderator and began the presentations with an overview of innovative work being done within the SBC and the common goals of the Clinic and the HROU. Staff Sargent Dana Reynolds and Det. Mark Horton discussed the role of their team in the community based management of high risk sexual offenders. More specifically they discussed the role of the Unit and common legal designations utilized for high risk sexual offenders. Lisa Murphy, M.C.A. provided an overview of sex offender registries (SORs) and public notification and made comparisons between the approaches used in Canada and the United States. A discussion period followed the panel presentations.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Aiming for Zero: Sexual Behaviours Clinic at The Royal
Similar to Aiming for Zero: Sexual Behaviours Clinic at The Royal (20)
More from The Royal Mental Health Centre
More from The Royal Mental Health Centre (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Aiming for Zero: Sexual Behaviours Clinic at The Royal
- 1. UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinngg SSeexx OOffffeennddeerr RReeggiissttrraattiioonn && PPuubblliicc NNoottiiffiiccaattiioonn Lisa Murphy, MCA Sexual Behaviours Clinic Coordinator Forensic Treatment Unit- Ottawa Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre lisa.murphy@theroyal.ca
- 2. Understanding SORs Databases of information on persons convicted (or found NCRMD) of a designated sexual offence •Report to local police detachments at designated time intervals •Provide personal details to verify and update information •Must alert authorities when change name, residence or travel Reporting period ranges - 5 years to life •Typically 10, 20 or life Info may include •Photograph •Name, address, phone number, aliases, DOB •Physical descriptors •Offence information
- 3. Understanding Public Notification Based on estimate of offender’s risk to community Achieve balance between the safety of the public and the offender’s right to privacy United States - mandate formal community notification linked to SOR Canada - SOR and notification not linked •Provincial community safety legislation •Immediate and serious risk of a violent or sexual offense •Not just sex offenders •Quite rare
- 4. Rationale for SORs and Public Notification Sex Offender Registries: –Policing perspective Investigative tool Monitor residency restrictions –Research perspective Deter recidivism –Critical perspective Public branding and added punishment Public Notification: –Policing and Research SORs alone inadequately protect community Parents to warn kids and report suspicious behaviour Deterred from re-offending because actions are monitored –Critical Perspective Public branding and added punishment
- 5. Canada vs. U.S. Canada • Ontario and National SOR • Collects photo, name, DOB, address, aliases, scars • 10 years, 20 years or life* • Private • Retrospective inclusion: – OSOR - Yes – NSOR - Yes United States •State SORs and National SOR •Treatment history, DNA, fingerprints, social security #, employment, vehicle registration, email info •5 years to life* •Public- Internet access to SORs and through formal request •Many states are retroactive • Registration period influenced by offence type, sentence length and number of victims
- 6. Public Notification (PN) Canada • SOR and notification not linked • Provincial community safety legislation • Immediate and serious risk of a violent or sexual offence • Not just sex offenders • Quite rare United States •Mandate formal community notification linked to SOR • Megan’s Law – Federal law requiring all states to set up form of PN linked to SOR • Zachary’s law- Indiana – first state to set up online SOR • Dru’s Law – National online database that could be searched across state lines
- 7. Lets take a look…..
- 12. Ethical Concerns • Additional scrutiny that ‘normal’ offenders are immune • Not fair to impose additional measures - already in essence paid their debt to society • Most SORs do not distinguish between risk levels – Risk levels for police and on public SORs – Change in reporting requirements based on risk Murphy et al., 2009
- 13. Ethics Concerns cont’d • Vigilantism • PN draws unwanted attention to the victim • False sense of security • PN without education leads to heighten general fear of victimization • PN can drive offenders underground Murphy et al., 2009
- 15. Research on Effectiveness • Research on Canadian SORs is extremely limited • Hard to generalize many findings as American SORs are linked to notification • U.S. Research: • Statistical profiles of registrants • Assessment of recidivism • Registrant compliance • Collateral consequences of registration Mustaine, Tewksbury & Stengel, 2006
- 16. • To date research has not positively demonstrated effectiveness of registration and notification as initially intended • Conflicting and ungeneralizable findings
- 17. • Zgoba et al. (2008) – Federally funded study on sex offenders in New Jersey – No significant effect on: • First time sexual offence rates • Sexual recidivism • Type of offence • Number of victims • “Given the lack of demonstrated effect of Megan’s Law on sexual offences, the growing costs may not be justifiable” (p.2)
- 18. Prescott & Rockoff (2011) • SORs & PN – SORs are less effective when used with PN (open SORs) • SORs only – SORs alone decrease frequency of recidivism • Average SOR size had approx. 14% reduction in recidivism • Larger SORs the effect disappears
- 19. • Impact of PN – PN has slightly positive effect (not sig) when SOR size is small – PN may have small impact on deterrence of first time offenders – Effect is opposite with average or large SOR • PN linked to larger SORs increased offences approx. 3% • Bottom line – SORs may decrease recidivism; – PN can counteract SOR effectiveness and may increase recidivism; – PN may have slight deterrence to first time offenders
- 20. • No significant difference in recidivism rates of offenders subject to notification as compared to offenders without notification (Schram & Milloy, 1995) • Offenders with PN tend to be arrested sooner than those without • Notification has a significant impact on compliance with the SOR (Murphy et al., 2009) • U.S. - compliance is very low (i.e.- Iowa 40% ‘missing’) • Canada – compliance around 95% • Collateral consequences for registrant (Tewksbury, 2005) • Difficulty obtaining employment and secure housing • Financial loss • Ostracized by family and friends • Socially stigmatized and harassed by community members
- 21. Canadian Registrant Perspectives • Sample – 30 registered sex offenders • Common assumption - sex offenders generally object to SORs • Anecdotal accounts - Some sex offenders may be less opposed to the use of registries Murphy & Fedoroff, 2013
- 22. Views of Canadian Registrants – Many registrants were not as opposed to being on an SOR as some may generally assume – 48% of participants expressed that being a registrant was not an onerous or intrusive experience and was generally only a “mild irritant” – 66% expressed that they largely understand the rationale and the need for the use of such a database – Negative associations • Increased profile (police drop-ins) • SOR vs. other restrictions • Length of reporting period Murphy & Fedoroff, 2013
- 23. Concerns of going public • Predicted impact on future recidivism if Canada’s SORs went public • Generally split – Half felt it would have no impact – Other half felt that it would negatively impact likelihood of recidivism • Almost all registrants strongly expressed their fears and concerns about the potential implications of Canada having a public SOR • Expressed fear of vigilantism • Expressed intention to ‘go underground’ Murphy & Fedoroff, 2013
- 24. Questions or Comments? lisa.murphy@theroyal.ca
Editor's Notes
- Introduce and background …
- Rationale: SORs -Investigative tool: are based on the hypothesis that having current reliable data about convicted sex offenders, particularly where they live, can reduce the risk of their reoffending and help police identify and apprehend suspects. Ideally by having a list of known sex offenders may increase efficiency and effectively rule out or identify suspects. - Deter recidivism- based on the idea that having a list of convicted sex offenders would in some way deter the offender from recidivating. The registrant may be more reluctant to commit new offences since his details are already on record. * within Canadian context the stated intention is as investigative tool, if there is a deterrent effect it is a collateral benefit. The use of public notification works from the assumption that registration alone inadequately protects community members from known sex offenders. Notification is thought to help prevent further sexual offenses by alerting communities to the arrival of individuals with histories of criminal sexual behavior. The idea or hope is that public safety is enhanced as parents warn their children about allegedly dangerous members of the community and report suspicious behaviour to the authorities (Petrosino & Petrosino, 1999). The concomitant belief is that potential reoffenders may be deterred from seeking new victims Research has found that many american citizens are aware of the online registries but many do not access the registry. Of those that do most reported that it did not result in avoidant or self protecting behaviour. Research on day care providers found that the majority of day care centres do not review the websites. Michigan study- few respondents looked at SOR. Reasons for nonuse- lack of interest, living in safe area, not having children (Kernsmith et al., 2009).
- In US have to provide more info for SOR than in Canada. Includes treatment history, DNA, fingerprints, social security number, place of employment and vehicle registration. Recent move towards recording online info – emails and user names. In Canada go on for 10, 20 or life In US, depending on state can range from 5 years to life *time designated on the SOR is influenced by offence type, sentence length and number of victims.
- While most jurisdictions in the United States mandate formal community notification to some degree, in the case of all registered sex offenders, community notification in Canada is not linked to the registration process and occurs only in some provinces under the auspices of provincial community safety legislation and even there, only rarely Decisions regarding who warrants a community notification and which communities are informed are typically based on estimates of the offender’s risk to the community. In determining whether to initiate a public notification, criminal justice officials must work to achieve a balance between the safety of the public and the offender’s right to privacy. In Canada, formal notification is used by police and local offender risk-assessment committees only in the case of offenders considered to pose an immediate and serious risk of a violent offense or sexual offense. Generally, formal notification is rare although there are some frequency variations among municipalities with certain local police forces electing to use provincial community safety legislation more than others. In US SOR and PN tend to go hand in hand. States have open online registries which can be accessed by the public. Meghan was raped and murdered.. She was one of four young girls found raped and murdered within an eighteen month period. Public outrage lead to swift implementation of national process of notification. Megans Law – federal – created national standard for PN. – currently all states have some form of notification. Zacharys Law – Indiana – first online sex offender registry that allowed public to access details about registrants from an online database. Dru’s Law – federal –created national standard for national database online. Australia, france, Ireland, Japan and UK also have SORs but none are linked to notification. UK considered linking to notification but after murder of child media started “name and shame” campaign to try to change govt policy. For several weeks the names and pictures of sex offenders were published in newspapers. This event resulted in a number of acts of vitgilantism. As a result of this and American examples of vigilantism they decided not to have open registries but to just permit notification to certain people (daycare providers/schools) when the individuals risk was high enough. Only US and South Korea have open registries. _______________________________________________________ Canada’s three tier PN approach Based on a three-tier model which ranks individuals at a high-, moderate-, or low-risk to reoffend and provides information accordingly. Generally, the more dangerous the offender is deemed to be the wider the range of entities to be notified. Low risk- alert law enforcement agencies Moderate risk- community organizations (schools/recreational facilities) High risk-notification of public within a certain radius When determining whether to do a notification criminal justice officials must work to achieve a balance between public safety and the offenders rights to privacy. Give examples of PN for high risk offenders in US- Going door to door with pamphlet, sign on front law, sign on car door, scarlet letter “S” on clothing. Clearly these types of notification go beyond public protection and can be considered more for public shaming or “branding”. Such actions serve to reinforce the shaming process and alienate offenders as opposed to successfully reintegrating them into the community. ______________________________________________________________ US three tier PN States utilizing “risk-based” offender classification have been asked to transition to a uniform “offense-based” system that, some have argued,may compromise public safety through its reduced discriminatory value. This offence based model required by SORNA requires that jurisdictions operating comprehensive risk-based models must make substantial modifications to their classification systems by supplanting their existing registrant categories with offense-based tiers. Problems with this- expanding list of registerable offences and the retroactive application. Big SORNA changes- inclusion of juveniles, risk classification method basd only on offences, and retroactive application of registration. Freeman and Sandler (2009) reclassified more than 17,000 sex offenders in New York State into SORNA tiers and found no significant correlation between the tier level and sexual or nonsexual recidivism. In fact, Tier 1 offenders recidivated more frequently than did offenders who met criteria for the higher risk SORNA tiers. The authors found that several other risk factors, notably those found in actuarial risk assessment instruments commonly used to assess sex offender risk, did significantly predict recidivism. Harris et al (2010) findings- With SORNA reclassification we are seeing an in-proportionate shift from tier 1 to tier 3. So the majority of the registrants were in low risk category before reclassification and now the majority is in the highest risk. This is even seen with the adolescent sex offenders and those that were retroactively placed on registry. Of the 913 individuals listed in the Oklahoma registry as “completed” cases (i.e., those who have completed their terms of registration and been placed into inactive status), a substantial majority (93%) received a Tier 3 designation. Discussion: 1- Efficacy of deployment of CJ resources- Extrapolating from the estimated 705,000 registered sex offenders nationwide as of December 2009 (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2009), the data presented here suggest that one half to three fourths (between 352,500 and 529,000 registrants across the United States) could potentially be subject to lifetime registration and quarterly in-person reporting—a number that can be expected to grow incrementally as new lifetime registrants are added to the equation. 2- Efficacy of prevention/investigation of sex crimes - public safety perspective, the observed net-widening effect compromises the capacity of registration and notification systems to effectively discriminate between those who pose a substantial risk to society and those who pose minimal risk. Freeman and Sandler (2009) demonstrated that the SORNA tiers did a poor job of predicting future recidivism in New York, calling into question the utility of expanded monitoring of a large portion of offenders who are unlikely to commit new sexually violent crimes. 3-inconsistency between policy and available evidence-A well-calibrated registration system should be one in which tier assignments approximate overall risks of recidivism within the sex offender population. For instance, sexual recidivism rates of large samples of sex offenders tracked over 15 and 20 years were found to be 24% and 27%, respectively (Hanson et al., 2003; Harris & Hanson, 2004). Although the research has made it clear that a limited group of sex offenders is at high risk of reoffense (e.g., those with multiple offenses, unrelated victims, deviant sexual preferences, and antisocial tendencies), it also suggests that the significant majority of those convicted of sexual offenses do not go on to be arrested for a subsequent sex crime (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Furthermore, the findings from Oklahoma indicate that higher tier offenders had more distant rather than recent prior offenses. Harris and Hanson (2004) reported that although the cumulative number of recidivists increases as time goes on, individuals are at reduced risk for recidivism as they spend more time in the community offense free. The Static-99 scoring guidelines state that “the expected offense recidivism rate should be reduced by about half if the offender has five to ten years of offense-free behavior in the community. . . . As offenders successfully live in the community without incurring new offenses, their recidivism risk declines” (Harris & Hanson, 2004, p. 63). Therefore, the inclusion of so many offenders in Tier 3 with distant offenses may misrepresent their risk.
- http://www.familywatchdog.us/ San Diego 1.3 million
- San Diego population – 1.3 million people
- Problematic consequences: 1-shouldn’t be burdened with additional scrutiny for which ‘normal’ offenders would be immune. Critics also argue that PN is not right as it targets individuals not for actions that they have done, but for actions that they may do in the future. 2-critics argue that its not fair to impose additional measures on sex offenders since they have already in essence paid their debt to society. -SORs don’t distinguish between risk levels – on the public SORs in the US - an individual who has been convicted for a more minor non-hands on sexual offence (such as exhibitionism) is not distinguished from a multi-victim child sexual abuser. 3a-Specific determination of risk level - Currently, investigators are able to search the database for specific criteria such as appearance, offence type, location, and so on. However, when investigators receive the list of registrants who match their search criteria they are limited in their ability to prioritize the registrants based on the risk level as this information is not currently available. Furthermore, it would also be possible for risk determinations to assist in delegating how frequent registrants should be required to report and how many police drop-ins are required throughout the year. Proper utilization of actuarial risk assessments can make significant contributions in the way the OSOR and NSOR assist sex crime investigations. - Officers have the ability to search the database by certain search criteria (i.e. – offence type, distinguishing marks, and location) but do not have information on the risk posed by registrants. - When investigators receive the list of registrants who match their search criteria they are limited in their ability to prioritize the registrants based on the risk level as this information is not currently available. - Having risk determinations would arguably increase the ability to efficiently and effectively rule out suspects and identify the perpetrator. 3bLength of reporting period Hanson and Harris (2004) have demonstrated that over time recidivism rates among sex offenders decreased in frequency. The authors expressed the view that “without exception, the longer offenders remain offence-free in the community the less likely they are to sexually recidivate” (p.7). They explain that “the highest risk period is in the first few years after release” (p.7). Bonta and Andrews (2007) discuss the ‘Risk principle’ that calls for criminal justice officials to match the level and intensity of the service with the offender’s risk to re-offend. Based on this information it seems reasonable to scale down the level of supervision and time between reporting periods after the first 5 to 10 years in the community without recidivism. Annual to bi-annual reporting periods for first few years and scale back over time. - It stands that having more intensive management and more up to date offender information would be much more valuable during the first five or so years after the offender is released as that time period contains the highest risk of recidivism. If the registrant has not recidivated within that period, the likelihood of them re-offending begins to drop significantly over time. After 15 years without re-offending the registrant has a low risk of ever sexually recidivating.
- 4 -problem of vigilantism –In the state of Washington, following a notification an angry mob from the community surrounded the house of a known sex offender and burned it down. A 20-year-old man from New Brunswick Canada shot and killed two individuals whose name, photo, and home address appeared on the neighbouring State of Maine’s online SOR, and then took his own life. One of the individuals killed had been convicted of a statutory offense after having sexual intercourse with his girlfriend who was only a few years younger than he was but legally a minor (Ranalli & Heinz, 2006). -5-16% of registrants in US reported being victims of some form of vigilante actions (ATSA, 2005) …. If you have 500,000 registrants that’s 25,000 victims of vigilantism 5-notification draws unwanted attention to the victim ( esp. if it was an incest offence) – can impede the healing process for the victim and their family. Name and shame campaign in UK. 6-false sense of security for the community - because the vast majority of sexual offenders are known to the victim and not the ‘predator’ lurking in the bushes. Instils idea in children to only beware of abuse by unknown offenders. - bedroom rapist case – an offender was b&e bedrooms in middle of the night. The police organized a stakeout for a likely target. They did not notify the victim. He broke in and sexually assaulted her. She sued the police successfully for using her as a guinea pig. There is a large liability if the police say they are going to notify and then do not. Potentially devastating effects for police dept and the victim. False sense of security– “I’ll be ok- the police will warn me if I am in danger”. - based on SORNA requirements for risk of tier levels for registration – study found that tier 1 registrants were rearrested for sexual and general recidivism faster than tier 2 and 3 registrants. False sense of security in that community will feel safe if only tier 1 registrants in area. 7 -although providing this information is intended to empower families, providing info on sex offenders release without proper education on the issue has been found to heighten general fear of victimization. The are given the info without being told how to go about protecting themselves nor are they given info on the reality of sex crimes and risk. 8-notification can cause offenders to go underground or can cause an increase in stress/frustration whereby the offender may become isolated which increases likelihood of reoffence. This is problematic as sex offenders who go underground are significantly more likely to reoffend than offenders who remain compliant with the SOR. - Research has shown that registered sex offenders who go underground and are later charged with failure to comply are almost two times more likely to sexually recidivate than those who are compliant with the SOR (Barnoski, 2007).
- Researchers must recognizing the importance of separating these two processes – researching them as two separate variables. See Precott and Rockoff 2008 Research from Canadian perspective is limited. Academics often refer to American research. Problematic comparison – open versus closed registries Review American research with caution and learn from what is not working for them There currently exists no research which demonstrates the effectiveness of notification and registration.
- Jersey – where megan’s law began.. Research indicated no impact on first time offences, recidivism, offence type or victim number. Conclusion – over time we will see increased cost of maintenance. Based on research continuation of megan’s law may not be justifiable. Over time- especially in US with high number registering for life and retrospective inclusion- the maintenance costs will continue to skyrocket. One area of New Jersey in 2009 (15 counties) cost 4.5 million annually to run and maintain registry. California in 2003 required $20 million to run and maintain.
- - Data from 15 states over more than 10 years Looks at evolution of sex offence rates pre and post SORs and PN. Important to examine laws separately as both laws have different functions and can impact crimes in various ways. SORs without PN reduces reported sex crime substantially (likely through better police monitoring and efficiency in detecting recidivists). For state with average size registry without PN linked decrease recidivism about 13%. The drop in the rates increases as the size of the registry increases. – shows that registration deters recidivists more than first time offenders. Average registry size - 16 registrants/10,000 ppl Decrease of 1.3 sex offences per 10,000 ppl
- Results indicated that having open SORs (PN) may actually decrease the registry’s crime reducing power. While the threat of PN deters some potential first time offenders, released offenders seem to be more deterred than first timers from recidivating. Why encourage recidivism if SOR linked to PN? Little else to lose; PN can make threat of prison less effective; with PN associated psychological, social or financial costs of a crime free life less desirable.
- -Schram & Milloy (1995) found that there was no significant difference in recidivism rates of offenders subject to notification as compared to offenders who did not have notification. What was found is that offenders subject to notification tend to be arrested sooner than those without notification. -Research shows that notification has a significant impact on compliance with the SOR. In US when they are connected the compliance rates are quite low. (Iowa-40% of offenders supposed to be registered are not. Similar in California – 44% of registrants who where at one time compliant and then just stopped reporting. These individuals were essentially “lost” – possibly not providing forwarding information after a move. Canada – compliance around 95% **Link to thesis findings that registrants said they would go underground if the SOR became public. -----Research has shown that registered sex offenders who go underground and are later charged with failure to comply are almost two times more likely to sexually recidivate than those who are compliant with the SOR (Barnoski, 2007). -Collateral consequences of notification for the offenders – difficulty obtaining employment and secure housing, being ostracized and harassed by community members and financial loss.
- Anecdotal accounts – no more onerous than renewing drivers licence; get less ‘door knocks” presumably because they are more easily ruled out during investigation.
- Masters thesis- examined the views of being registrants. This had not yet been conducted within the Canadian context. Similar research had been completed in the US, but due to the fact that registries are open to the public results could not be generalized. Included 30 registrants. Generally registrants were more concerned with the specific way in which registration is administered and the way that registrants are monitored than the process of registration per se. Many would generally assume that registrants would be very opposed to being placed onto a SOR as it would be a intrusion on their life. This was not found to be the case… In fact some referred to the process as being no more onerous than renewing their drivers licence. Negative associations: SORs vs other restricitons- Many of the negative experiences and associations made by registrants referred to the impact of having a criminal record and other mechanisms of offender control and regulation, such as 161 prohibition orders (Criminal Code, 1985: s. 161.1) or restrictions placed on the offender through probation or parole. Limitations on international travel for work or restrictions prohibiting offenders from residing or visiting locations within the vicinity of children’s playgrounds are examples of frustrations cited by registrants that arise from conditions that are separate from those required Canada’s SORs. Length of reporting period - Although many registrants from this sample did not find the annual requirement to register as onerous, some struggled with the extended length of time that they were required to report. This was noted particularly among participants who were required to report for 20 years or life. Reference was made to the fact that they have a hard time completely healing and moving on from the offence if they are reminded of their crime annually for the rest of their life. Manner in which police compliancy drop-ins were conducted - One of the few areas of concern for registrants was the inconsistent manner in which officers conducted the drop-ins; more specifically, the large variation in the appearance of the officers during the visits. Registrants who had experienced drop-ins where the officers arrived in plain street clothes and an unmarked police car were much more likely to report that the visits went positively and reported less fear and anxiety for future police visits. Overall individuals concern was with police behaviours that increased the likelihood of “outing” the offender to his neighbourhood. Ex of good visit – showed up in plain clothes and parked marked car a few doors down. Went inside before asking any questions about the SOR. Ex of bad visit – pulled up in driveway with lights flashing, in full uniform and asked SOR questions at the front door. Another registrant talked about how the police called up with the buzzer from the lobby and said.. “We are here to see Mr. X about the Sex Offender Registry” *no surprise that the individual with the good visit had nothing negative to say about the visit, whereas the others did. The one with the good visit said – he doesn’t care fo the police come 5 times a year- as long as they are subtle.
- Somewhat warranted fear of vigilantism- research has shown that between 5% to 16% of sex offender who are posted on public SORs report some sort of physical violence against them. That means for every 500,000 registrants subject to PN a minimum of 25,000 offenders will experience some form of vigilante actions. As we will discuss in a few slides - This lends support to the idea that if Canadian SORs went public, then their impressive compliancy rate of about 98% would significantly decrease (similar to the US). Research has shown that registered sex offenders who go underground and are later charged with failure to comply are almost two times more likely to sexually recidivate than those who are compliant with the SOR (Barnoski, 2007). Almost all registrants strongly expressed their fears and concerns about the potential implications of Canada having a public SOR Expressed fear of vigilantism (note numerous incident in U.S.) Research has indicated that physical violence against sexual offenders occurs in 5% to 16% of the cases where SORs are publically accessible (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, 2005). Expressed intention to “go underground” Research has shown that registered sex offenders who go underground and are later charged with failure to comply are almost two times more likely to sexually recidivate than those who are compliant with the SOR (Barnoski, 2007).