Victims Speak: Comparing Child Sexual Abusers and Their Victims Accounts of Offence Circumstances

This article presents findings from a longitudinal study. The research aimed to explore the effectiveness of a treatment program for offenders which lasted for three years. The research design was structured around the program with interviews and psychometric testing undertaken at key points in time with the same group of respondents. View all notes that sought to evaluate a treatment program for child sexual abusers. A triangulated methodological approach was adopted drawing upon quantitative and qualitative methodological techniques. The focus here is upon one element of this research. 2 2The quantitative element of this research will be published shortly but is referred to in the following reports Davidson 2000, 2003 [research funded by the National Probation Service]. Psychometric testing was undertaken over a four-year period with the men attending the treatment program to explore shifts in the extent of denial, blame attribution, and victim empathy over time. Offender cognitive distortions, general health, and self-esteem were also explored via psychometric testing. An interview-administered survey was undertaken with all sex offenders registered with the Probation Service (those on probation and in custody) in order to gather demographic data, and 117 of 150 offenders responded. View all notes Ninety-one in-depth interviews were conducted over a four-year period with a small, nonrandom sample of twenty-one male offenders who had been convicted of sexual offenses against children. All of the men were subject to probation orders with a psychiatric condition (Criminal Justice Act, 1991). One of the aims of this element of the research was to explore the extent to which evidence of denial could be found in offenders’ accounts of offense circumstance and also to explore the extent to which offenders minimized the nature and extent of abuse perpetrated. Offenders’ accounts of offense circumstances were compared to victim statements, and stark differences emerge. These findings have considerable implications for treatment practice with sex offenders, where victims’ perceptions could be used to directly confront offender denial and minimization.

Rethinking Youth Prostitution: National Provision at the Margins of Child Protection and Youth Justice

In March 2000, the Department of Health and the Home Office issued guidance fundamentally altering policy and practice with regard to young people in prostitution. 1 Instead of being arrested and punished for prostitution-related offences, those under 18 years old were to be thought of as children ‘in need’ and offered welfare-based interventions. The practice that has developed in the last three years has offered interventions that are located within both child protection and youth justice work. This article examines these changes in order to generate insights about the changing nature of youth justice. In particular, it is argued that the drive to manage the risks posed by young people in prostitution to specific organisations, takes precedence over either the desire to care for, or the demand to punish them. Through an analysis of how practitioners and policy makers responsible for implementing this new approach to youth prostitution talk about ‘risk’ and ‘responsibility’, ‘liability’, ‘protection’ and ‘punishment’, the article argues that the contradiction between care and control has been re-interpreted, such that there is noticeable blurring of the boundaries between welfare and punishment at the margins of youth justice work.

They Say You are a Danger But You Are Not: Representations and Construction of the Moral Self in Narratives of 'Dangerous Individuals'

This article is based on an analysis of narratives of 26 offenders with mental health problems living in the United Kingdom. It explores the impact of an ascribed dangerous status and the construction of the self as moral and responsible in response to this label with reference to the literature on denial, deviance disavowal and other “techniques of neutralization” and Goffman's presentation of self. Two dominant strands are identified in relation to the construction of moral self-hood: “Not my fault” and “Good at heart” narratives. “Techniques of neutralization” are widely drawn on, particularly denial of responsibility in the “Not my fault” narratives that seek to explain anti-social behavior with reference to external forces such as a hostile environment inhibiting their ability to control their lives. In contrast, “Good at heart” narratives draw on the essentially good and moral nature of the inner-self. Both are used as evidence of sharing and adhering to moral norms in order to present an acceptable and credible self.

Validation of scales measuring self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is embraced internationally as an ideal approach to improve patient outcomes and provide cost-effective care. However, despite the support for and apparent benefits of evidence-based practice, it has been shown to be complex and difficult to incorporate into the clinical setting. Research exploring implementation of evidence-based practice has highlighted many internal and external barriers including clinicians’ lack of knowledge and confidence to integrate EBP into their day-to-day work. Nurses in particular often feel ill-equipped with little confidence to find, appraise and implement evidence. Aims: The following study aimed to undertake preliminary testing of the psychometric properties of tools that measure nurses’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in regard to evidence-based practice. Methods: A survey design was utilised in which nurses who had either completed an EBP unit or were randomly selected from a major tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia were sent two newly developed tools: 1) Self-efficacy in Evidence-Based Practice (SE-EBP) scale and 2) Outcome Expectancy for Evidence-Based Practice (OE-EBP) scale. Results: Principal Axis Factoring found three factors with eigenvalues above one for the SE-EBP explaining 73% of the variance and one factor for the OE-EBP scale explaining 82% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for SE-EBP, three SE-EBP factors and OE-EBP were all >.91 suggesting some item redundancy. The SE-EBP was able to distinguish between those with no prior exposure to EBP and those who completed an introductory EBP unit. Conclusions: While further investigation of the validity of these tools is needed, preliminary testing indicates that the SE-EBP and OE-EBP scales are valid and reliable instruments for measuring health professionals’ confidence in the process and the outcomes of basing their practice on evidence.