Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 387–401 | Cite as

Enhancing Treatment Outcomes for Male Adolescents with Sexual Behavior Problems: Interactions and Interventions

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This exploratory study identifies patterns of multidisciplinary interactions and interventions that aim to improve outcomes for juvenile sex offenders (JSOs). With a response rate of 63.45% at two major statewide conferences in Texas, data from 336 JSO service providers suggest that interactions among service providers should occur before the delivery of interventions. Factor analyses indicated that Protocol (26%), Collaboration (17%), and Role Clarity (15%) explain 58% of the variance in “Multidisciplinary Interactions,” while Counseling (13%), Treatment Placement (11%), and Self-Discipline (10%) explain 34% of the variance in “Interventions.” Treatment staff preferred the implementation of cognitive and person-centered treatment approaches. Additional research is needed to establish objectivity and increase awareness about the importance of service diversity with a common goal within this multidisciplinary community.

Keywords

Juvenile sex offenders Child sexual abuse Multidisciplinary interactions Intervention effectiveness 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Becker, J. V., & Murphy, W. D. (1998). What we know and do not know about assessing and treating sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4(1–2), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brandes, B. J., & Cheung, M. (2009). Supervision and treatment of juveniles with sexual behavior problems. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26(3), 179–196.Google Scholar
  3. Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Blaske, D. M., & Stein, R. J. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, London England, 35, 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bronstein, L. (2002). Index of interdisciplinary collaboration. Social Work Research, 26(2), 113–125.Google Scholar
  5. Bruhn, J. (1995). Beyond discipline: Creating a culture for interdisciplinary research. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 30(4), 331–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM). (1999, December). Understanding Juvenile sexual offending behavior: Emerging research, treatment approaches, and management practices. Retrieved from http://www.csom.org/pubs/juvbrf10.html
  7. Council on Sex Offender Treatment (CSOT). (2003). The Management of Sex Offenders. [Brochure]. Distributed at the 2004 Annual Conference of Sex Offender Treatment Providers. San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  8. Council on Sex Offender Treatment (CSOT). (2010). Treatment of sex offenders: Difference between sex offender treatment and psychotherapy. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_tdifference.shtm
  9. Flitton, A., & Brager, R. (2002). Juvenile sex offender: Assessment and treatment. In N. G. Ribner (Ed.), The California School of Professional Psychology Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology [electronic resource]. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Frey, A., & George-Nichols, N. (2003). Intervention practices for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Using research to inform school social work practice. Children & Schools, 25(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
  11. Gadja, R. (2004). Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliance. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 65–77.Google Scholar
  12. Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(5), 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall, R., Clark, J., Giorday, P., Johnson, P., & Van Roekel, M. (1977). Patterns of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 457–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haskell, M., & Yablonsky, L. (1978). Juvenile delinquency. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  15. Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Brondino, M. J., Scherer, D. G., & Hanley, J. H. (1997). Multisystemic therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 821–833.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunter, J. A. (2000). Understanding juvenile sex offenders: Research findings and guidelines for effective management and treatment. Retrieved from http://www.ilppp.virginia.edu/Publications and Reports/UndJuvSexOff.htm
  17. Illinois State Department of Human Services, Head Start State Collaboration Office (2001). Guidebook to collaborating with the Illinois Child Care Subsidy System. East St. Louis, IL: Author.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. McKay, B. (2002). The state of sex offender probation supervision in Texas. Federal Probation (0014–9128), 66(1), 16–20.Google Scholar
  20. Polivka, B., Dresbach, S., Heimlich, J., & Elliott, M. (2001). Interagency relationships among rural early intervention collaboratives. Public Health Nursing, 18(5), 340–349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Portner, J. (1998). How legislatures are changing the juvenile-justice landscape. Education Week, 17(31), 1–3.Google Scholar
  22. Pratt, H., Patel, D., Greydanus, D., Dannison, L., Walcott, D., & Sloane, M. (2001). Adolescent sexual offenders: Issues for pediatricians. International Pediatrics, 16(2), 1–7.Google Scholar
  23. Prentky, R., Harris, B., Frizzell, K., & Righthand, S. (2000). An actuarial procedure for assessing risk with juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12(2), 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Righthand, S., & Welch, C. (2001). Juveniles who have sexually offended: A review of the professional literature. Washington: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  25. Sarbaugh-Thompson, M., Lobb, C., & Thompson, L. (1999). Dimensions of collaboration and family impacts. Administration & Society, 31(2), 222–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS). (2010). Treatment of sex offenders: Juveniles with sexual behavior problems. Retrieved from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_tjprobs.shtm
  27. U.S. Department of Justice, Center for Sex Offender Management (USDOJ). (2010). Myths and facts about sex offenders. Retrieved from http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html
  28. Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2000). Adolescent sexual offending recidivism: Success of specialized treatment and implications for risk prediction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(7), 965–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Worling, J. R., Littljoh, A., & Bookalau, D. (2010). 20-year prospective follow-up study of specialized treatment for adolescents who offended sexually. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang, C.H. (2003). Research proposal: Community interagency collaborations for children with intellectual disability and their families. Unpublished proposal from Chen Shiu Institute of Technology, Kaohsiung Aiwan ROC. Retrieved from http://www.hicsocial.org/Social2003Proceedings/Chih-Hung%20Yang.pdf
  31. Younglove-Webb, J., Gray, B., Abdalla, C. W., & Thurow, A. P. (1999). The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academics. The Review of Higher Education, 22(4), 425–440.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate College of Social Work, University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  2. 2.ADAPT CounselingHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations