Does sexual offender treatment work? : A systematic review of outcome evaluations. '??Es efectivo el tratamiento de los delincuentes sexuales? : una revisi??n sistem??tica de los resultados evaluados'

Resumen tomado de la publicaci??n. Resumen tambi??n en ingl??s

Good lives sexual offender treatment for mentally disordered offenders

Purpose – The main aim of this paper is to describe the content, structure and preliminary evaluation of a new Good Lives sexual offender treatment group (SOTG) for male mentally disordered offenders.

Design/methodology/approach – As evaluation and work on the SOTG is necessarily ongoing, case study descriptions of each patient who attended the SOTG and of their progress throughout SOTG are described.

Findings – Overall, the case study progress reports suggest that mentally disordered male patients made some notable progress on SOTG despite their differential and complex needs. In particular, attention to each patient's life goals and motivators appeared to play a key role in promoting treatment engagement. Furthermore, patients with lower intelligence quotient and/or indirect pathways required additional support to understand the links between the Good Lives Model (GLM) and their own risk for sexual offending.

Research limitations/implications – Further evaluations of SOTG groups, that incorporate higher numbers of participants and adequate control groups, are required before solid conclusions and generalisations can be made.

Practical implications – Practitioners should consider providing additional support to clients when implementing any future SOTGs for mentally disordered patients.

Originality/value – This is the first paper to outline and describe implementation of the GLM in the sexual offender treatment of mentally disordered male patients group format. As such, it will be of interest to any professionals involved in the facilitation of sexual offender treatment within this population.

'Grooming' and the Sexual Abuse of Children: Implications for Sex Offender Assessment, Treatment and Management

'Grooming' has been termed 'a ubiquitous feature of the sexual abuse of children' (Thornton, 2003: 144). Despite the prominence of the term in contemporary discourses on sexual offending against children, it is a term that is insufficiently understood in the psychological, sociological, criminological or legal literature. Most recently, the term has been used in two primary offending contexts - on-line grooming and abuse by strangers, and institutional grooming and abuse by those in positions of trust. This article argues, however, that grooming and its role in child sexual abuse is a multi-faceted phenomenon and much more complex than has been highlighted previously. While there are a number of typologies of grooming, this article concentrates on those which may be most relevant for treatment and management contexts - 'peer-to-peer grooming' and 'institutional grooming.' Drawing on extensive fieldwork with professionals who work in the fields of child protection or victim support, and sex offender assessment, treatment or management across the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, the aim of this article is two-fold: (i) to deconstruct the term grooming and examine its actual role in the onset of sexual offending against children; and (ii) to draw out the implications of these complexities for policy and practice, chiefly in terms of treatment and prevention.

Assessment and case conceptualization in sex offender treatment

The assessment of sexual offenders consists of the systematic collection of clinically relevant information in order to detect clinical phenomena or problems and to provide clear treatment targets. The result of this process is a conceptual model, or case formulation, representing the client’s various problems, the hypothesized underlying mechanisms, and their interrelationships. The focus of this article is on the importance of psychological assessment and case formulation in the rehabilitation and management of individuals convicted of sexual offences. First, we make a number of general points about the importance of evidence based assessment and clinical reasoning in case formulation. Second, we review key elements of contemporary sexual offender theory that highlights the heterogeneity evident among sex offenders and the implications for case formulation and treatment planning. Third, we discuss the role of case formulation for risk assessment and management. Finally, we illustrate our major points with a brief case study and conclude with a brief consideration of the value of case formulations.

Working positively with sexual offenders : maximizing the effectiveness of treatment

In this article, the authors draw on literatures outside sexual offending and make suggestions for working more positively and constructively with these offenders. Although the management of risk is a necessary feature of treatment, it needs to occur in conjunction with a strength-based approach. An exclusive focus on risk can lead to overly confrontational therapeutic encounters, a lack of rapport between offenders and clinicians, and fragmented and mechanistic treatment delivery. The authors suggest that the goals of sexual offender treatment should be the attainment of good lives, which is achieved by enhancing hope, increasing self-esteem, developing approach goals, and working collaboratively with the offenders. Examples are provided of how these targets may be met. When this is done within a therapeutic context where the treatment providers display empathy and warmth and are rewarding and directive, the authors suggest that treatment effects will be maximized.

Punishment or therapy? The ethics of sexual offending treatment

The claim that sex offender treatment is a form of punishment and as such cannot be covered by traditional ethical codes is a controversial one. It challenges the ethical basis of current practice and compels clinicians to rethink the work they do with sex offenders. In this paper I comment on Bill Glaser's defence of that idea in a challenging and timely paper and David Prescott and Jill Leveson's rejection of his claims. First, I consider briefly the nature of both punishment and treatment and outline Glaser's argument and Prescott and Levenson's rejoinder. I then investigate what a comprehensive argument for either position should look like and finish with a few comments on each paper.

How to integrate the good lives model into treatment programs for sexual offending : an introduction and overview

The good lives model (GLM) represents a new theoretical framework informing sex offender treatment programs; however, substantial variation has been observed in terms of how GLM-related ideas and practices have been applied. Integrated appropriately, the GLM offers potential for improving outcomes of programs following a cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) approach and operating according to a narrow operationalization of risk, need, responsivity (RNR) principles. Conversely, misguided or otherwise poor integration could increase the very risk practitioners work to prevent and manage. The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction and overview on how to integrate the GLM into treatment using CBT and RNR. The authors describe clinical implications of the GLM as they relate to program aims and orientation, assessment and intervention planning, content, and delivery

Restorative Justice as a Response to Sexual Offending – Addressing the Failings of Current Punitive Approaches

This article explores the use of restorative justice as a response to sexual crime. The management of high risk sex offenders, particularly in the community post-release, has been a key focus of contemporary popular and political debates on sexual offending. Many offenders fail to come to the attention of the criminal justice system. For those that do, there is the almost blanket application of recent control in the community measures such as sex offender registries and community notification which have failed to prevent reoffending. The response by the media and the public to the presence of sex offenders in the community may also impede offender rehabilitation. The use of punishment alone via formal criminal justice is, therefore, an inadequate deterrent for sexual crimes. Although controversial, this article advocates the use of restorative practices with sexual crime as a proactive, holistic response to the problem and ultimately as a more effective means of reducing the incidence of sexual offences and sex offender recidivism.

“The Ministry of Obligation warns”: it is necessary to protect the sexual offender adolescents

This text deals with a part of the research-action “Multifamiliar groups with sexual offender adolescents” and emphasizes the written production of the adolescents during the process. two texts were involved: the first one was a letter addressed to the parents and the second was an evaluation of the multifamiliar group. Seven adolescents between 14 and 17 years old wrote the texts. About the first text we discussed: the adolescent as responsible for the domestic work; the adolescent and his need to receive support and protection and the adolescent and the recognition of his growth phase. about the second text: the feelings of the adolescent regarding sexual abuse; the relation with the institution that carries out the intervention; the symbols that identify his ambivalence. We comment about the sexual abuse practiced by these adolescents as from two main points: the adolescence seen as a development phase and the role played by the family in the conduction of this phase.

Specific risk assessment based on victim type in children sexual offenders

Actuarial instruments for assessing sex offender recidivism have limited utility for specific risk assessment questions, such as the risk posed to particular types of victim. In order to obtain variables that discriminate between offenders with different classes of victim, data were coded from 324 files of child sexual offenders from a community-based sexual offender treatment program. Offenders with single or multiple victims were compared, as were offenders who did or did not offend against victims of both genders, and offenders with only intra-familial or extra-familial victims versus offenders with victims in both relationship categories. Variables that discriminated single-victim and multiple-victim offenders were similar to those identified in actuarial risk assessment scales, with the exception of history of childhood sexual abuse. With the exception of physical abuse history, the same variables discriminated specific offender groups according to victim gender and victim relationship, although in different combinations. There was limited support for the notion of specific risk variables.