 |
The results of this study have been reported here in order
to provide a perspective on the characteristics, backgrounds and
post-McGregor Hall progress of a small, treated section of this population.
It is important that this perspective is drawn upon to learn about the
conditions which may reduce the likelihood of young residents offending
(whether sexually, or in any other way) in the future. Not only do the
general public, the victims and their families wish it had not happened; so
do the young people themselves. They want to understand why they did it and
how they can avoid doing it in the future.
Referral to McGregor Hall over the period being studied appeared to have
resulted in placements for those convicted of/otherwise known to have
engaged in sexual abuse but not normally in other kinds of offending. For
this client group, sexual conviction post-departure had reduced
dramatically. Those who did not become resident at McGregor Hall (i.e. the
comparison group) were much more active criminals, mainly in respect of
non-sexual offending both before and after referral; five of them also
offended sexually post-referral as compared with two exresidents. Clearly,
however, this comparative quantitative data had only limited validity in the
sense that the two groups had not been matched at the start for previous
non-sexual convictions.
Compared with their lives before McGregor Hall, the majority
of ex-residents reported significantly fewer problems two or more years down
the line. Additionally none of them is in denial about their previous
sexually abusing behaviour. Their remaining problems were not, however,
insignificant, but most of them appeared to have acquired from McGregor Hall
the necessary techniques for coping without precipitating crises. This,
despite frequently lacking the family support enjoyed by many similarly-aged
young men. Two to five years after leaving, the impact of McGregor Hall
appeared to have remained firmly imprinted upon them.
Whilst wide-ranging data were gained from ex-residents, the perennial
problem of identifying cause (either of offending or desistance) raises its
head. Criminal convictions are only a part of the story; ex-residents’ views
about what has helped them are another. Identifying which factor triggered
which reaction was beyond the bounds of this pilot study. Almost all aspects
of the McGregor Hall programme were rated positively by this respondent
group. However, a tentative suggestion would be that the holistic nature of
their therapeutic experience was what had equipped them best to cope with
living in the wider community since leaving McGregor Hall. This pilot exercise has shown that research can be successfully carried out
by following up ex-residents and an associated comparison group, whose
characteristics it is important to match as closely as possible. However,
the circumstances have to be right. Tracing and interviewing are
time-consuming and expensive. The co-operation of busy staff, the
availability of well-organised records, and the functioning of a designated
research reference group, though demanding, are all vital to success.
Clearly, in this kind of study, the qualitative data will tend to have more
validity than the comparative quantitative data, unless a more closely
matched comparison group can be identified. Nevertheless, there is
sufficient evidence about key lifestyle changes and low levels of sexual
reconviction in ex-residents to suggest that McGregor Hall constitutes a
long-term investment which will offer more benefits to individual youngsters
and to the wider society than the short-term ethos of ‘prison works’. Young
men in their mid-to-late teens who enter this therapeutic community may,
thus, be reassured by the unanimous endorsement of this exresident research
group, encapsulated in the words of one of them who left 3 years ago: ‘It’s
hard work, but you’ll be grateful after’. |
 |
