Advertisement

Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 595–602 | Cite as

Exploring Risk: Potential Static, Dynamic, Protective and Treatment Factors in the Clinical Histories of Female Sex Offenders

  • Ian A. Elliott
  • Hilary J. Eldridge
  • Sherry Ashfield
  • Anthony R. Beech
Original Article

Abstract

Despite nearly a century of knowledge indicating a significant number of women engaging in sexual activities with children, the phenomenon has not yet been fully acknowledged. Recently, however, there has been a marked increase in research in this area. However, due to the relatively small numbers of detections or convictions there remains a lack of data regarding: (1) the specific clinical characteristics of female sex offenders; and (2) how these clinical factors link to re-offending and treatment need. The following study examines potential risk, protective, and treatment factors that are highlighted through the process of clinical intervention, using an adapted version of the Beech and Ward (2004) risk framework. We describe how female sex offenders typically display clinical deficits in the same risk domains as their male counterparts, while noting the ways in which these deficits manifest in this population. In addition, we compare these vulnerability factors in four established types of female sex offender.

Keywords

Female sexual abuse Risk Treatment Protective factors 

References

  1. Allen, C. M. (1991). Women and men who sexually abuse children: A comparative analysis. Orwell: Safer Society.Google Scholar
  2. Beech, A. R., Parrett, N., Ward, T., & Fisher, D. (2009). Assessing female sexual offenders’ motivations and cognitions: an exploratory study. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 15, 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beech, A. R., & Ward, T. (2004). The integration of etiology and risk in sex offenders: a theoretical framework. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 31–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr, A. (1999). The handbook of child and adolescent clinical psychology: a contextual approach. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christiansen, A., & Thyer, B. (2003). Female sexual offenders: a review of empirical research. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 6, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cortoni, F. & Hanson, R. K. (2007). A review of the recidivism rates of adult female sexual offenders (R-169), Ottawa: Research Branch, Correction Service of Canada. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r169/r169_e.pdf.
  7. Denov, M. S. (2001). A culture of denial: exploring professional perspectives on female sex offending. Canadian Journal of Criminology:, 43, 303–329.Google Scholar
  8. Denov, M. S. (2003). The myth of innocence: sexual scripts and the recognition of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 303–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eldridge, H. E., & Saradjian, J. (2000). Replacing the function of abusive behaviors for the offender: Remaking relapse prevention in working with women who sexually abuse children. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 402–426). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Ford, H. (2006). Women who sexually abuse children. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Fromuth, M. E., & Conn, V. E. (1997). Hidden perpetrators: sexual molestation in a nonclinical sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 456–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gannon, T. A., & Rose, M. R. (2008). Female child sexual offenders: towards integrating theory and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 442–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gannon, T. A., & Rose, M. R. (2009). Offense-related interpretative bias in female child molesters: A preliminary study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 21, 194–207.Google Scholar
  14. Hanson, R. K., & Harris, A. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offence recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 6–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanson, R. K. & Harris, A. J. R. (2001). The Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR): A method for measuring change in risk levels. Retrieved, July 21, 2009, from http://www.sgc.gc.ca/epub/corr/e200001a/e200001b/e200001b.htm. [NB: Please note this is an older version of SONAR and should not be used.]
  16. Lewis, C. F., & Stanley, C. R. (2000). Women accused of sexual offenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 73–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Marshall, W. L., & Serran, G. A. (2000). Improving the effectiveness of sexual offender treatment. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1, 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mathews, R., Hunter, J. A., & Vuz, J. (1997). Juvenile female sexual offenders: clinical characteristics and treatment issues. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9, 187–199.Google Scholar
  19. Matthews, J. K. (1993). Working with female sexual abusers. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female sexual abuse of children: The ultimate taboo (pp. 61–78). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Matthews, J. K., Mathews, R., & Speltz, K. (1991). Female sexual offenders: a typology. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Family sexual abuse: Frontline research and evaluation (pp. 199–219). Newbury Park London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2000). Adult and adolescent female sex offenders: experiences compared to other female and male sex offenders. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex offenders: clinical and demographic features. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pothast, H. L., & Allen, C. M. (1994). Masculinity and femininity in male and female perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 763–767.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rallings, M. & Webster, S. D. (2001). The NOTA Intake Protocol: Characteristics of a Large Sample of Sexual Offenders. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Organization for the Treatment of Abusers (NOTA U.K.), Cardiff, U.K, October 2007.Google Scholar
  25. Russell, B. L., & Oswald, D. L. (2001). Strategies and dispositional correlates of sexual coercion perpetrated by women: an exploratory investigation. Sex Roles, 45, 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell, B. L., & Oswald, D. L. (2002). Sexual coercion and victimization of college men: the role of love styles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saradjian, J. (1996). Women who sexually abuse children: From research to clinical practice. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Sorbello, L., Eccleston, L., Ward, T., & Jones, R. (2002). Treatment needs of female offenders: a review. Australian Psychologist, 37, 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Struckman-Johnson, C. (1988). Forced sex on dates: it happens to men, too. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (1998). The dynamics and impact of sexual coercion of men by women. In P. Anderson & C. Struckman-Johnson (Eds.), Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies (pp. 121–143). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  31. Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vandiver, D. M., Dial, K. C., & Worley, R. M. (2008). A qualitative assessment of Registered female sex offenders: Judicial processing experiences and perceived effects of a public registry. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 177–198.Google Scholar
  33. Ward, T., & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters’ implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 821–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 34, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ward, T., Mann, R. E., & Gannon, T. A. (2007). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian A. Elliott
    • 1
    • 4
  • Hilary J. Eldridge
    • 1
  • Sherry Ashfield
    • 2
  • Anthony R. Beech
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Birmingham & The Lucy Faithfull FoundationBirminghamUK
  2. 2.The Lucy Faithfull FoundationBirminghamUK
  3. 3.University of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations