Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Forensic Psychology
- Part I Psychological Underpinnings
- Part II Psychology and Criminal Behaviour
- Part III Assessment
- Part IV Interventions
- 4.1 Forensic Mental Health Interventions
- 4.2 Restorative Justice
- 4.3 Treatment of Persons with Sexual Offense Histories
- 4.4 Strength-Based Approaches to Addiction Recovery and Desistance from Crime
- 4.5 Victimology and Victim Interventions
- 4.6 Interventions with Violent Offenders
- 4.7 Women Offenders
- 4.8 Preventing Delinquency and Later Criminal Offending
- Part V Civil Proceedings
- Part VI Professional Practices
- Index
- References
4.3 - Treatment of Persons with Sexual Offense Histories
from Part IV - Interventions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Forensic Psychology
- Part I Psychological Underpinnings
- Part II Psychology and Criminal Behaviour
- Part III Assessment
- Part IV Interventions
- 4.1 Forensic Mental Health Interventions
- 4.2 Restorative Justice
- 4.3 Treatment of Persons with Sexual Offense Histories
- 4.4 Strength-Based Approaches to Addiction Recovery and Desistance from Crime
- 4.5 Victimology and Victim Interventions
- 4.6 Interventions with Violent Offenders
- 4.7 Women Offenders
- 4.8 Preventing Delinquency and Later Criminal Offending
- Part V Civil Proceedings
- Part VI Professional Practices
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter presents an overview of treatment approaches for Persons with Sexual Offense Histories (PSOHs). These approaches include those that have been used historically, such as behavioural interventions, and those that have come into use more recently, such as interventions based on the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model and the Good Lives Model (GLM). Models that integrate or update aspects of these frameworks are also discussed – one of these is the newly developed Integrated Risk Assessment and Treatment System (IRATS), which has shown promise among high-risk, high-need populations. The chapter also describes subgroups of PSOHs that may warrant additional consideration in treatment. Although heterogeneity exists among PSOHs, groups such as female PSOHs, juvenile PSOHs and those engaged in online sexual offenses may present with unique treatment needs that could be addressed by service providers. For these and other groups, treatment efficacy may depend on factors including the formation of a therapeutic alliance and attention to cultural barriers and histories of trauma. Future considerations for ongoing treatment development are included.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology , pp. 530 - 551Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Abbiati, M., Mezzo, B., Waeny-Desponds, J., Minervini, J., Mormont, C., & Gravier, B. (2014). Victimization in childhood of male sex offenders: Relationship between violence experienced and subsequent offenses through discourse analysis.Victims & Offenders, 9(2), 234–254.Google Scholar
Allard, T., Rayment-McHugh, S., Adams, D., Smallbone, S., & McKillop, N. (2016). Responding to youth sexual offending: A field-based practice model that “closes the gap” on sexual recidivism among Indigenous and non-Indigenous males. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(1), 82–94.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735–755.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investigation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(1), 88–100.Google Scholar
Barnett, G., & Wood, J. L. (2008). Agency, relatedness, inner peace, and problem solving in sexual offending: How sexual offenders prioritize and operationalize their good lives conceptions. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(4), 444–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnett, G. D., Manderville-Norden, R., & Rakestrow, J. (2014). The good lives model or relapse prevention: What works better in facilitating change? Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 26(1), 3–33.Google Scholar
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at the annual conference of the British Educational Research Association, Exeter, England.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Connors, M. E. (2011). Attachment theory: A “secure base” for psychotherapy integration. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 21(3), 348–362.Google Scholar
Cording, J. R., Beggs Christofferson, S. M., & Grace, R. C. (2016). Challenges for the theory and application of dynamic risk factors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(1–2), 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortoni, F., & Gannon, T. A. (2013). What works with female sexual offenders. In What works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence based approach to assessment and treatment (pp. 271–284). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, L., Thornton, D., Beech, A., & Browne, K. (2007). The relationship of statistical and psychological risk markers to sexual reconviction in child molesters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 314–329.Google Scholar
Craissati, J., Falla, S., McClurg, G., & Beech, A. (2002). Risk, reconviction rates and pro-offending attitudes for child molesters in a complete geographical area of London. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8(1), 22–38.Google Scholar
Dervley, R., Perkins, D., Whitehead, H., Bailey, A., Gillespie, S., & Squire, T. (2017). Themes in participant feedback on a risk reduction programme for child sexual exploitation material offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23(1), 46–61.Google Scholar
DeSorcy, D. R., Olver, M. E., & Wormith, J. S. (2016). Working alliance and its relationship with treatment outcome in a sample of aboriginal and non-aboriginal sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(4), 291–313.Google Scholar
Dopp, A. R., Borduin, C. M., & Brown, C. E. (2015). Evidence-based treatments for juvenile sexual offenders: Review and recommendations. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 7(4), 223–236.Google Scholar
Douglas, T., Bonte, P., Focquaert, F., Devolder, K., & Sterckx, S. (2013). Coercion, incarceration, and chemical castration: An argument from autonomy. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 10(3), 393–405.Google Scholar
Drapeau, M. (2005). Research on the processes involved in treating sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drawbridge, D. C., Todorovic, K., Winters, G. M., & Vincent, G. M. (2019). Implementation of risk-need-responsivity principles into probation case planning. Law and Human Behavior, 43(5), 455–467.Google Scholar
Elliott, I. A., Mandeville-Norden, R., Rakestrow-Dickens, J., & Beech, A. R. (2019). Reoffending rates in a U.K. community sample of individuals with convictions for indecent images of children. Law and Human Behavior, 43(4), 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fromberger, P., Jordan, K., & Müller, J. L. (2018). Virtual reality applications for diagnosis, risk assessment and therapy of child abusers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36(2), 235–244.Google Scholar
Gannon, T. A., King, T., Miles, H., Lockerbie, L., & Willis, G. M. (2011). Good Lives sexual offender treatment for mentally disordered offenders. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 13(3), 153–168.Google Scholar
Gannon, T. A., Olver, M. E., Mallion, J. S., & James, M. (2019). Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical Psychology Review, 73, 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gannon, T. A., Rose, M. R., & Ward, T. (2008). A descriptive model of the offence process for female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(3), 352–374.Google Scholar
Gillespie, S. M., Bailey, A., Squire, T., Carey, M. L., Eldridge, H. J., & Beech, A. R. (2018). An evaluation of a community-based psycho-educational program for users of child sexual exploitation material. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 30(2), 169–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heffernan, R., & Ward, T. (2019). Dynamic risk factors, protective factors and value-laden practices. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 26(2), 312–328.Google Scholar
Heffernan, R., Wegerhoff, D., & Ward, T. (2019). Dynamic risk factors: Conceptualization, measurement, and evidence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 865–891.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sex Abuse, 14(2), 169–194; discussion 195–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T., & Helmus, L. (2007). Assessing the risk for sexual offenders on community supervision: The Dynamic Supervision Project. Retrieved from www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/crp2007-05-en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Harkins, L., & Beech, A. R. (2007). A review of the factors that can influence the effectiveness of sexual offender treatment: Risk, need, responsivity, and process issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(6), 615–627.Google Scholar
Harkins, L., Flak, V. E., Beech, A. R., & Woodhams, J. (2012). Evaluation of a community-based sex offender treatment program using a good lives model approach. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(6), 519–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henggeler, S. W. (1990). Family therapy and beyond: A multisystemic approach to treating the behavior problems of children and adolescents (Henggeler, S. W. & Borduin, C. M., Eds.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Borduin, C. M., Rowland, M. D., & Cunningham, P. B. (2009). Multisystemic therapy for antisocial behavior in children and adolescents (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, C. S., Grimm, J. R., Shier, E. K., van Dooren, S., Ciesar, E. R., & Reid-Quiñones, K. (2020). Preliminary findings of problematic sexual behavior-cognitive-behavioral therapy for adolescents in an outpatient treatment setting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 105, 104428.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, T., Adams, C. E., Bilby, C., Brooks-Gordon, B., & Fenton, M. (2004). Psychological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(3), Cd004858.Google Scholar
Kettrey, H. H., & Lipsey, M. W. (2018). The effects of specialized treatment on the recidivism of juvenile sex offenders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14, 361–387.Google Scholar
Lamade, R., Gabriel, A., & Prentky, R. (2011). Optimizing risk mitigation in management of sexual offenders: A structural model. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(3), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laws, D. R., Hudson, S.M., & Ward, T. (Eds.). (2000). Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laws, D. R., & Marshall, W. L. (2003). A brief history of behavioral and cognitive behavioral approaches to sexual offenders: Part 1. Early developments. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(2), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levenson, J. S., & Grady, M. D. (2016). The influence of childhood trauma on sexual violence and sexual deviance in adulthood. Traumatology, 22(2), 94–103.Google Scholar
Levenson, J. S., Grady, M. D., & Morin, J. W. (2019). Beyond the “ick factor”: Counseling non-offending persons with pedophilia. Clinical Social Work Journal, 48, 380–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Looman, J., & Abracen, J. (2013). The risk need responsivity model of offender rehabilitation: Is there really a need for a paradigm shift? International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8(3–4), 30–36.Google Scholar
Looman, J., Dickie, I., & Abracen, J. (2005). Responsivity issues in the treatment of sexual offenders. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6(4), 330–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, A. (2016). Integrating risk, the Good Lives Model and recovery for mentally disordered sexual offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 22(1), 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovins, B., Lowenkamp, C. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment make some sex offenders worse? The Prison Journal, 89(3), 344–357.Google Scholar
Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(2), 191–217.Google Scholar
Marques, J. K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., & van Ommeren, A. (2005). Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(1), 79–107.Google Scholar
Marsa, F., O’Reilly, G., Carr, A., Murphy, P., O’Sullivan, M., Cotter, A., & Hevey, D. (2004). Attachment styles and psychological profiles of child sex offenders in Ireland. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2), 228–251.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. L., Fernandez, Y. M., Serran, G. A., Mulloy, R., Thornton, D., Mann, R. E., & Anderson, D. (2003). Process variables in the treatment of sexual offenders: A review of the relevant literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(2), 205–234.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. L., & Laws, D. R. (2003). A brief history of behavioral and cognitive behavioral approaches to sexual offender treatment: Part 2. The modern era. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 15(2), 93–120.Google Scholar
Marshall, W. L., & Marshall, L. E. (2014). Psychological treatment of sex offenders: Recent innovations. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 37(2), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCamey, J. D. Jr. (2010). Reducing recidivism in adolescent sexual offenders by focusing on community reintegration. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 27(1), 55–67.Google Scholar
McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B. L., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.Google Scholar
Mews, A., Di Bella, L., & Purver, M. (2017). Impact evaluation of the prison-based Core Sex Offender Treatment Programme. London: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series.Google Scholar
Middleton, D., Mandeville-Norden, R., & Hayes, E. (2009). Does treatment work with Internet sex offenders? Emerging findings from the internet sex offender treatment programme (i-SOTP). Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
Nelson, M., Herlihy, B., & Oescher, J. (2002). A survey of counselor attitudes towards sex offenders. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24(1), 51–67.Google Scholar
Newsome, J., & Cullen, F. T. (2017). The risk-need-responsivity model revisited: Using biosocial criminology to enhance offender rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(8), 1030–1049.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Davis, M. R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk-needs-responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(3), 229–242.Google Scholar
Olver, M. E., Wong, S. C. P., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychological Assessment, 19(3), 318–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patel, K., & Lord, A. (2001). Ethnic minority sex offenders’ experiences of treatment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 7(1), 40–50.Google Scholar
Pflugradt, D., Allen, B., & Marshall, W. (2018). A gendered strength-based treatment model for female sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 40.Google Scholar
Pithers, W. D., Marques, J. K., Gibat, C. C., & Marlatt, G. A. (1983). Relapse prevention with sexual aggressors: A self-control model of treatment and maintenance of change. In Stuart, G. G. I. R. (Ed.), The sexual aggressor: Current perspectives on treatment (pp. 214–239). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Polaschek, D. L. L. (2012). An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Ricciardelli, R., & Moir, M. (2013). Stigmatized among the stigmatized: Sex offenders in Canadian penitentiaries. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55(3), 353–385.Google Scholar
Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2003). The size and sign of treatment effects in sex offender therapy. In Prentky, E. S. J & Seto, M. C. (Eds.), Sexually coercive behavior: Understanding and management (Vol. 989, pp. 428–440). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Seto, M. C. (2018). Sexual abuse’s new person first guideline. Sexual Abuse, 30(5), 479.Google Scholar
Shatokhina, K., Harkins, L., & Abracen, J. (2020). The Integrated Risk Assessment and Treatment System (IRATS) model and its application to motivation among sexual offenders. Paper presented at the annual conference for the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
ter Beek, E., Spruit, A., Kuiper, C. H. Z., Rijken, R. E. A., Hendriks, J., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2018). Treatment effect on recidivism for juveniles who have sexually offended: A multilevel meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(3), 543–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse, 14(2), 139–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornton, D. (2016). Developing a theory of dynamic risk. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(1–2), 138–150.Google Scholar
Venable, V. M., & Guada, J. (2014). Culturally competent practice with African American juvenile sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders, 23(3), 229–246.Google Scholar
Ward, T. (2014). The dual relationship problem in forensic and correctional practice: Community protection or offender welfare? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 19(1), 35–39.Google Scholar
Ward, T., & Fortune, C. (2016). The role of dynamic risk factors in the explanation of offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 79.Google Scholar
Ward, T., & Laws, D. R. (2010). Desistance from sex offending: Motivating change, enriching practice. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9(1), 11–23.Google Scholar
Ward, T., Polaschek, D., & Beech, A. R. (2006). Theories of sexual offending. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(4), 353–360.Google Scholar
Watson, R., Daffern, M., & Thomas, S. (2017). The impact of interpersonal style and interpersonal complementarity on the therapeutic alliance between therapists and offenders in sex offender treatment. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(2), 107–127.Google Scholar
Wong, J. S., & Gravel, J. (2018). Do sex offenders have higher levels of testosterone? Results from a meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 30(2), 147–168.Google Scholar
Willis, G. M., & Letourneau, E. J. (2018). Promoting Accurate and respectful language to describe individuals and groups. Sexual Abuse, 30(5), 480–483.Google Scholar
Willis, G. M., & Ward, T. (2011). Striving for a good life: The good lives model applied to released child molesters. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17(3), 290–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, G. M., Ward, T., & Levenson, J. S. (2014). The good lives model (GLM): An evaluation of GLM operationalization in North American treatment programs. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 26(1), 58–81.Google Scholar
Willis, G. M., Yates, P. M., Gannon, T. A., & Ward, T. (2013). How to integrate the Good Lives model into treatment programs for sexual offending: An introduction and overview. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(2), 123–142.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. J., & Yates, P. M. (2009). Effective interventions and the Good Lives model: Maximizing treatment gains for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(3), 157–161.Google Scholar
Yates, P. M. (2013). Treatment of sexual offenders: Research, best practices, and emerging models. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8(3–4), 89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar