Many individuals who treat incest perpetrators, as well as other family members are clearly utilizing clarification sessions, indicated by 77 percent of the respondents. Approximately, 90 percent of the respondents who had conducted clarification sessions considered 12 of the 14 components to be essential or beneficial before a session took place. Only two items were rated as nonessential or contradicted by more than 10 percent of the sample, marital therapy and evaluation of the perpetrator’s letter by the non-offending parent. Beliefs about the benefits of particular practices during clarification were more varied. Eight-three percent of the individuals who have conducted clarification sessions viewed either assumption of responsibility by the perpetrator or decreased victim self-blame as the primary reasons for conducting the session. Respondents provided a variety of answers to the question regarding the appropriate timing of clarification sessions lending support for two conclusions: (1) timing depended on the nature of the case and (2) clarification should not occur immediately after the discovery of abuse. There are many therapeutic modalities utilized in treating families affected by incest. A main focus of treatment interventions is often clarification of who is responsible for the occurrence of the abuse. This study explored the nature and relative utilization of the clarification session. It surveyed select professionals from the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers regarding their practices, experiences, and beliefs about the regarding clarification process. Because acknowledgement of responsibility for sexual abuse is reported to be an important component of perpetrator treatment, individuals who treat offenders (n=1,089) were considered the most appropriate sample to evaluate. Tables, references