Advertisement

Current Psychiatry Reports

, 21:119 | Cite as

The Application of the Good Lives Model to Women Who Commit Sexual Offenses

  • Dawn M. PflugradtEmail author
  • Bradley P. Allen
Sexual Disorders (LE Marshall and H Moulden, Section Editors)
  • 35 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Despite increased studies which have identified the treatment needs of women who commit sex offenses, there are no empirically derived treatment models based upon a comprehensive theoretical paradigm.

Recent Findings

Although current treatment models include similar goals and approaches, there are some important distinctions. The following article provides an overview of two treatment models, gender-responsive treatment and gendered strength-based treatment. These models were then examined to determine whether they could be integrated within a comprehensive theoretical rehabilitation framework such as the Good Lives Model.

Summary

The Good Lives Model provides a comprehensive theoretical framework that allows for integration of the gender-responsive and gendered strength-based treatment models. These treatment models utilize strength-based approaches, risk-need-responsivity principles, cognitive behavioral techniques, and relational processes to foster change.

Keywords

Good lives model Offender rehabilitation Women sex offenses 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •• Pflugradt DM, Allen BP, Marshall WL. A gendered strength-based treatment model for female sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2018;40:12–8. This is the only study that presents treatment of women who commit sexual offenses from a gendered strengths-based perspective. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Cortoni F. Women who sexually abuse: assessment, treatment & management. Safer Society Press; 2018. This is the most up to date work that synthesizes current research and best practices related to female sexual offenders. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cortoni F, Gannon TA. What works with female sexual offenders. In: Craig LA, Dixon L, Gannon TA, editors. What works in offender rehabilitation: an evidence based approach to assessment and treatment. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Budd KM, Bierie DM, Williams K. Deconstructing incidents of female perpetrated sex crimes: comparing female sexual offender groupings. Sex Abus. 2017;29(3):267–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cortoni F. The assessment of female sexual offenders. In: Gannon TA, Cortoni F, editors. Female sexual offenders: theory, assessment and treatment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denov MS. Perspectives on female sex offending: a culture of denial. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing; 2004.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Logan C. Sexual deviance in females: psychopathology and theory. In: Laws DR, O’Donohue WT, editors. Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment. New York: Guilford Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McLeod DA. Female offenders in child sexual abuse cases: a national picture. J Child Sex Abuse. 2015;24(1):97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rousseau MM, Cortoni F. The mental health needs of female sexual offenders. In: Gannon TA, Cortoni F, editors. Female sexual offenders: theory, assessment and treatment. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Strickland SM. Female sex offenders: exploring issues of personality, trauma, and cognitive distortions. J Interpers Violence. 2008;23(4):474–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wijkman M, Bijleveld C, Hendriks J. Women don’t do such things! Characteristics of female sex offenders and offender types. Sex Abuse. 2010;22:135–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vandiver DM, Walker JT. Female sex offenders: an overview and analysis of 40 cases. Crim Justice Rev. 2002;2:284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gannon TA, Rose MR, Ward T. A descriptive model of the offense process for female sexual offenders. Sex Abus. 2008;3:352–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandler JC, Freeman NJ. Topology of female sex offenders: a test of Vandiver and Kercher. Sex Abus. 2007;2:73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cortoni F, Hanson RK, Coache MÈ. The recidivism rates of female sexual offenders are low: a meta-analysis. Sex Abus. 2010;4:387–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman NJ, Sandler JC. Female and male sex offenders: a comparison of recidivism patterns and risk factors. J Interpers Violence. 2008;23(10):1394–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pflugradt DM, Allen BP. A grounded theory analysis of sexual sadism in females. J Sex Aggress. 2012;18:325–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pflugradt, DM, Allen, BP. Identifying sadists among female sexual offenders using the cumulative scale of severe sexual sadism. Sex Offender Treatment. 2013;8(1).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pflugradt DM, Allen BP. An exploration of differences between small samples of female sex offenders with pre-pubescent versus post-pubescent victims. J Child Sex Abuse. 2015;24:682–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    • Pflugradt DM, Cortoni F. Women who sexually offend: a case study. In: Wilcox D, Garrett T, Harkins L, editors. Sex offender treatment: a case study approach to issues and interventions. Chichester: Wiley; 2014. This chapter offers a case study approach and provides an example of how to conduct an evidence-based assessment on a woman who has committed a sexual offense. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gannon TA, Rose MR. Female child sexual offenders: towards integrating theory and practice. Aggress Violent Behav. 2008;13:442–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gannon TA, Cortoni F. Female sexual offenders: theory, assessment and treatment: John Wiley & Sons; 2010.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steffensmeier DQ, Allan EA. Gender and crime: toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annu Rev Sociol. 1996;22:459–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steffensmeier DQ, Schwartz J. Contemporary explanations of female offending. In: Price BR, Sokoloff NJ, editors. The criminal justice system and women: offenders, victims and workers. New York: Mc-Graw Hill; 2004.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Steffensmeier DQ, Allan EA. Criminal behavior: gender and age. In: Sheley J, editor. Criminology: a contemporary handbook. Florence: Wadsworth; 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rumgay J. Scripts for safer survival: pathways out of female crime. Howard J Crim Just. 2004;43(4):405–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verona E, Murphy B, Javdani S. Gendered pathways: violent childhood maltreatment, sex exchange, and drug use. Psychol Violence. 2016;6(1):124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Williams KS, Bierie DM. An incident-based comparison of female and male sexual offenders. Sex Abus. 2015;27(3):235–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blanchette K, Brown SL. The assessment and treatment of women offenders: an integrative perspective: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Marshall WL, Marshall LE, Serran GA, O'Brien MD. Rehabilitating sexual offenders: a strength-based approach. American Psychological Association; 2011. This book provides the foundational tenets of an evidence based strength-based treatment program. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brennan T, Breitenbach M, Dieterich W, Salisbury EJ, Van Voorhis P. Women’s pathways to serious and habitual crime: a person-centered analysis incorporating gender responsive factors. Crim Justice Behav. 2012;11:1481–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Van Voorhis P, Wright EM, Salisbury E, Bauman A. Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: the current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Crim Justice Behav. 2010;37(3):261–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ward T, Mann RE, Gannon TA. The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: clinical implications. Aggress Violent Behav. 2007;12(1):87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ward T, Gannon TA. Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: the comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggress Violent Behav. 2006;11:77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ward T. The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: basic assumptions, aetiological commitments, and practice implications. In: McNeill F, Raynor P, Trotter C, editors. Offender supervision: New directions in theory, research and practice: Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ward T, Brown M. The good lives model and conceptual issues in offender rehabilitation. Psychol Crime Law. 2004;10(3):243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ward T, Mann R. Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders: a positive approach to sex offender treatment. In: Linley PA, Joseph S, editors. Positive psychology in practice. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wilson RJ, Cortoni F, McWhinnie AJ. Circles of support & accountability: a Canadian national replication of outcome finding. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 2009;21:412–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilson RJ, McWhinnie A, Picheca JE, Prinzo M, Cortoni F. Circles of support and accountability: engaging community volunteers in the management of high-risk sexual offenders. Howard J Crim Just. 2007;46(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Siegel DJ. The mindful brain: reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. WW Norton & Company; 2007.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Covington SS. The relational theory of women’s psychological development:implications for the criminal justice system. In: Zaplin RT, editor. Female offenders: critical perspectives and effective interventions. 2nd ed. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2007.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    • Willis GM, Yates PM, Gannon TA, Ward T. How to integrate the Good Lives Model into treatment programs for sexual offending: An introduction and overview. Sex Abuse. 2013;25:123–42. This article explains the GLM in a user friendly manner and describes how to employ the principles within a sex offender treatment program. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Whitehead PR, Ward T, Collie RM. Time for a change: applying the Good Lives Model of rehabilitation to a high-risk violent offender. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2007;51:578–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Willis GM, Ward T. Striving for a good life: the good lives model applied to released child molesters. J Sex Aggress. 2011;17:290–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thakker J, Ward T, Tidmarsh P. A reevaluation of relapse prevention with adolescents who sexually offend: a good-lives model. In: Barbaree HE, Marshall WL, editors. The juvenile sex offender. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Langlands RL, Ward T, Gilchrist E. Applying the good lives model to male perpetrators of domestic violence. Behav Chang. 2009;26:113–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gannon TA, King T, Miles H, Lockerbie L, Willis GM. Good lives sexual offender treatment for mentally disordered offenders. Br J Forensic Pract. 2011;13:153–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McMurran M. Motivational interviewing with offenders: a systematic review. Leg Criminol Psychol. 2009;14(1):83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McMurran M, Ward T. Motivating offenders to change in therapy: an organizing framework. Leg Criminol Psychol. 2004;9:295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Marshall WL, Burton DL. The importance of group processes in offender treatment. Aggress Violent Behav. 2010;15(2):141–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    • Bonta J, Andrews DA. The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge; 2016. This book provides evidence-based perspectives of criminal behavior and offers a description of the RNR model. Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Andrews DA, Bonta J, Wormith JS. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Crim Justice Behav. 2011;38(7):735–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Salisbury EJ, Van Voorhis P. Gendered pathways: a quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Crim Justice Behav. 2009;36(6):541–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Salisbury EJ, Van Voorhis P, Spiropoulos GV. The predictive validity of a gender-responsive needs assessment: an exploratory study. Crime Delinq. 2009;55(4):550–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Spiropoulos GV, Spruance L, Van Voorhis P, Schmitt MM. Pathfinders and problem solving: comparative effects of two cognitive-behavioral programs among men and women offenders in community and prison. J Offender Rehabil. 2005;42(2):69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yesberg JA, Scanlan JM, Hanby LJ, Serin RC, Polaschek DL. Predicting women’s recidivism: validating a dynamic community-based ‘gender-neutral’ tool. Probat J. 2015;62(1):33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Pflugradt DM, Allen BP, Weidner KE. An evaluation of pornography use by incarcerated female offenders. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center, Evaluation UnitMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations