Printer Friendly

Sexual behavior intervention program: an innovative level of care in male sex offender treatment.

The literature does not provide practical, targeted alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for sexual offenders deemed at low risk for recidivism. The Sexual Behavior Intervention Program (SBIP) is an innovative level of care in male sex offender treatment that offers communities an option for treating sexual misconduct. SBIP is a focused, psychoeducational program rooted in the restorative justice model, one that attempts to meet the needs of both individuals and the community.


Sexual misconduct is simultaneously a private and a public offense, affecting both individuals and communities. Historically, incarceration rather than treatment has been society's preferred method of dealing with sex offenders, regardless of the severity of the offense (Blackwell & Cunningham, 2004; Burdon & Gallagher, 2002). Incarceration proposes to restore order to the community and healing to individuals victimized. It is consistent with the view that male sex offenders are deviant, dangerous, and likely to recidivate (Cowburn & Dominelli, 2001).

Yet Cowburn's (2005) analysis of three major reviews of research data collected in North America and Europe from the last 50 years concluded that recidivism rates for sex offenders are low--and lowest for first-time offenders with no prior convictions. The U.S. Bureau of Justice places the three-year recidivism rate for 9,691 sex offenders released from prison in 1994 at 3.5% (Langan, Schmitt, & Durose, 2003). Moreover, an extensive body of literature has demonstrated significant differences between sex offender characteristics, sexual misconduct typology, and motivations for offending (Kirsch & Becker, 2006). Consistent with these studies, there has been growing consensus among law enforcement officials, attorneys, and sex offender clinicians that incarceration for all offenders, regardless of risk and offense type, is not the only option to restore order and promote healing in individuals and communities (Doren, 1998; Zehr, 1997).

Momentum is gathering for a shift from the retributive model (incarceration) to a restorative one (rehabilitation) (Zehr, 1997). The model is used not only to treat individuals accused of sexual misconduct but also to address simultaneously victim and community needs for safety, reparation, and healing. Interestingly, as treatment approaches have grown in breadth and availability since the 1980s, the desire of male sex offenders for treatment seems to be on the decline (Langevin, 2006). Langevin attributes this decline in part to sexual predator laws enacted in the 1990s that may inhibit offender admissions and thus participation in therapy. Sexual predator laws are another mechanism for lumping together all sex offenders. Yet motivating sex offenders to enter into and complete treatment is seen as central to improving treatment compliance and outcomes (Kirsch & Becker, 2006; Langevin, 2006).

The literature offers no practical, targeted alternatives to prosecution and incarceration for sexual offenders deemed at low risk for recidivism. This article briefly reviews historical trends in sex offender treatment, differentiates our Sexual Behavior Intervention Program (SBIP) from Sex Offender Treatment (SOT), and outlines the curriculum for SBIP so that treatment providers can deliver a targeted intervention rooted in restorative justice.


There are differences among men who commit sexual offenses and in the types of sexual offenses they commit, but the traditional view obscures these differences (Cowburn & Dominelli, 2001). The resulting one-dimensional view of the offender and the offense is what informs the emphasis on incarceration rather than treatment. Although incarceration removes sex offenders from society for a time, it strains an overpopulated correctional system (Ward & Stewart, 2003). Attempting to deal with this overpopulation, a number of judges have reduced sentences to allow convicted offenders back into society earlier (Witt, Delrusso, Oppenheim, & Ferguson, 1996). In any case, incarceration can only be a short-term fix--offenders ultimately re-enter the community. According to Shaw and Funderburk (1999), postincarceration treatment is ineffectually enforced and monitored.

Traditional SOT assumes that persons who have offended are more alike than unlike and that their pathways to sexual misconduct are similar. Evaluations of its effectiveness have yielded mixed results. Despite the evidence that sex offenders vary, traditional treatment assumes that they possess a relatively fixed set of characteristics, such as propensity to commit violent and abusive behaviors, an ongoing pattern of sexual deviance, poor self-regulation, an unstable lifestyle, and/or an abusive childhood.

Now, however, a more complex view of sex offenders and sexual offenses is emerging, one grounded in both research and practice. The growing body of research on sex offender treatment indicates a need for a more complete picture of the characteristics associated with offenders, the factors that precipitate sexual misconduct, and how characteristics and dispositional factors relate to types of offenses (Center for Sex Offender Management, CSOM, 2001). Still lacking, however, is a clear understanding of (a) the role developmental variables play in etiology and treatment (Craissati & Beech, 2006); (b) the connection between models of etiology and change (Kirsch & Becker, 2006); (c) motivations for completing sex offender treatment (Langevin, 2006); and (d) the extent to which social constructions of masculinity mediate individual behavior and community responses to male sexual misconduct (Cowbum, 2005).

Thus, there is a growing movement away from the "one-treatment-fits-all" modality (Kaden, 1998). Treatment should reflect the type and characteristics of the offenses (e.g., severity, deviance, and violence) and the reasons for the inappropriate sexual behavior. Moreover, not all individuals convicted of sexual misconduct should be placed in the same treatment setting. Kaden noted that the traditional modality creates many difficulties for treatment providers, such as determining the most effective individual treatment interventions, exposing less sexually deviant participants to those who exhibit more complicated signs and symptoms, and blurring the boundaries between punishment and effective treatment. There is a need for alternatives to incarceration and for less intensive treatment options to address cases involving inappropriate sexual acts that are deemed less deviant or that at the very least lack intent to harm another individual. Additionally, the one-treatment-fits-all model perpetuates the myths, beliefs, and stereotypes of society that all sex offenders are similar and at high risk for recidivism. Treatment models could do more to benefit the victim and restore order to the community by reintegrating the offender (de Beus & Rodriguez, 2007).

Three broad questions arise from this discussion:

1. Should all individuals accused of sexual misconduct, regardless of risk factors, participate in the same or similar intensive rehabilitative treatment programs?

2. Are there alternatives to incarceration that will meet the safety and justice needs of the victim and community?

3. Finally, can an empathetic approach work with sex offenders at low risk for recidivism?


The SBIP grew out of a prosecuting attorney's 2002 request for a treatment option based on the Ohio Revised Code's Pre-Trial Diversion Program (Ohio Revised Code, 2002). A mental health agency in Northwest Ohio designed and delivered the program, which runs twice annually and receives referrals from several counties in Northwest Ohio. The three goals of the program are to (a) reduce recidivism among first-time offenders who successfully complete the program; (b) create an effective alternative to incarceration; and (c) educate community members, victims, and offenders about sexual offenses, sexuality, addictions, and opportunities for reform and rehabilitation. Collaboration is central to the SBIP. Program facilitators hold interdisciplinary staff meetings monthly, attend local sex offender treatment network meetings, and provide educational workshops to attorneys, law enforcement officials, and other helping professionals.

Participant fees fund the program. In 2004-05 the costs were $870 for the 12week program, including the assessment. Consistent with the restorative justice aspect, participants were required to donate an additional $500 to a charity of their victim's choice. One year after successful completion of the program, including HIV testing and the donation, participants may petition the court to have the sexual misconduct charge expunged from their legal record. This later aspect, although controversial, is consistent with the idea that treatment goals should focus mostly on approach goals (securing something desired) rather than avoidance goals (avoiding something undesired) (Marshall et al., 2003).

The SBIP is an option for males accused of sexual misconduct who are deemed at low risk for recidivism. Specifically, it is an alternative to traditional criminal prosecution and treatment. A program goal is therefore to enhance motivation for participation and completion. The program targets individuals charged with a sexual assault crime for the first time that has not yet been adjudicated. This tends to decrease the burdens on a heavily taxed prison system. The program is a treatment milieu tailored to a specific kind of low-risk sexual offender and offense; it avoids the inefficiencies arising from a less targeted approach (Kirsch & Becket, 2006).

Furthermore, the program has a restorative justice element aimed at meeting the needs of persons victimized, the community, and the person who offended. It appears that restorative justice models can improve program completion and reduce recidivism (de Beus & Rodriguez, 2007). Simply put, restorative justice "aim[s] to restore victim dignity and facilitate offender reintegration" (p. 337). Finally, at its core the program adopts an empathetic stance toward all parties, including the person who offended. Thus, the SBIP is a focused psychoeducational and cognitive-behavioral program, offering individuals a safe environment and information to explore offensive behaviors, develop healthier sexual attitudes and behaviors, and create a personal plan to avoid future inappropriate sexual behaviors.

The SBIP incorporates psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, and empathy-building interventions as part of the supportive, focused curriculum. In some ways, the program's outcomes are similar to those espoused by traditional programs. Traditional approaches usually stand on three cornerstone treatment assumptions: the offender will (a) take responsibility for his actions, (b) demonstrate empathy, and (c) decrease thinking distortions and positively alter his behavior (Edwards, 1999). By program's end, successful SBIP participants will recognize and accept responsibility for their inappropriate sexual behaviors by exploring their beliefs and myths about sex. Throughout treatment, participants are offered opportunities to gain an empathetic perspective on what victims feel and identify techniques to avoid the recurrence of offensive sexual behavior. Successful participants will recognize and accept the personal consequences and legal implications of their behavior. Finally, successful participants will understand the issue of sexual abuse and how to recognize and avoid future abusive behaviors.

The SBIP also affords clinicians opportunities to further assess the need for a higher level of care for certain sex offenders, such as those who may not have been accurately assessed during the legal proceedings or the intake process. Other individuals may have been placed into SOT because they were incorrectly deemed deviant or at high risk of recidivism. In these cases, individuals can be referred to the less intense SBIP. The goal of continuing assessment is to ensure that the person who offended is placed in optimal conditions for treatment. Whereas long-term therapy will address sex offender attitudes and behaviors comprehensively, there is evidence for the efficacy of short-term programs geared toward promoting acceptance of one's crimes and helping offenders develop empathy for victims (Marshall & Laws, 2003). Thus, the SBIP is designed to optimize the ability of sex offenders to self-evaluate and cognitively restructure their own thought processes regarding sexual activity. The SBIP also allows clinicians to continually assess the risk of recidivism and if necessary make referrals for more appropriate levels of care.


Screening is part of a larger process of tailoring the right kind of assistance to reduce recidivism (Lemmond & Verhaagen, 2002). Screening is particularly important for treatments using a group milieu. It can also promote motivation for treatment, and it allows for those clients who engage in more deviant behaviors and attitudes to be appropriately placed in a higher level of care, such as a more intensive treatment program.

Screening for the SBIP begins as a legal process in which client and victim agree in court to participate in the SBIP rather than continue the trial process. This component is the first of two using the restorative justice model. In this case, the victim assumes a position of dignity and choice. The offender, on the other hand, is confronted with the human face of his offense and becomes the recipient of the victim's choices. At a court hearing, both parties are informed of the legal and rehabilitative parameters of the SBIP and agree on the record to participate in the SBIP (Haverbusch, 2002). The charge or conviction is not dismissed; the diversion process offers an option to complete the SBIP in lieu of a trial and perhaps incarceration. In a tangible way, treatment begins with this process, binding the offender to the victim and to the community.

Since the SBIP is new, selection criteria are conservative. The program typically accepts individuals charged with or convicted of a sexual offense with the following positive characteristics: (a) one-time abusive behavior; (b) no continuing evident pattern of sexual deviance (duration of behavior less than one year); (c) adequate self-regulation; (d) lifestyle stability (academic study or employment and strong family/social support); and (e) no history of substance abuse. The victim must be at least 16 years old and within four years of the age of the offender, or within two years if 18 or younger.

Numerous components must be considered in determining offender risk, such as (a) assessing initial offender risk and risk of re-offense; (b) targeting intervention programs by examining factors about individuals that result in criminal behavior; (c) providing appropriate monitoring within the community to help reduce offensive activities, and (d) sharing information about the treatment process with appropriate individuals and supervisors to ensure effective treatment and progress (Barrett, Cripps, Steward, Stirpe, & Wilson, 2000). Through the SBIP, all of these components are addressed using a multimodal, multimethod process.

In the absence of relevant research, the program drew on familiar assessment resources in use at the time. One of the tools, the Static-99, has shown modest utility in predicting recidivism (Craig, Thornton, Beech, & Browne, 2007), while the Clarke Sexual History (Paitich, 1977) is used to gather a more complete history of sexually deviant behavior. A polygraph examination is used to facilitate self-awareness. Results are used to assess risk and create an individualized treatment plan that examines factors that may have led to cognitive thinking distortions or maladaptive sexual behavior. All participants are required to complete HIV testing. As the program moves from its initial phase, the efficacy of the screening tools must be evaluated.


The treatment model of the SBIP is a hybrid of traditional SOT (Foubert, 1998; Johnson, 1992; Kilmartin, 2001) that incorporates psycho-educational, cognitive-behavioral, and empathy-building interventions as part of a supportive, focused curriculum. The program also uses constructs from domestic violence or anger management models of treatment (Kahn, 1997; Rusinoff, 1993). Moreover, the curriculum incorporates elements of restorative justice. This is an ambitious design, one borne out of an absence of proven, low-cost, short-term programs for low-risk, first-time offenders. Because it is short term, 12 to 15 weeks, it is likely to enhance motivation for treatment and completion. Research on brief approaches to substance abuse problems suggests that briefer programs may be at least as effective as longer ones (Kirsch & Becker, 2006). Therefore, we incorporated the brief treatment model into the SBIE Perhaps most important, however, are the potential benefits of group treatment, including the experience of a supportive environment that encourages self-understanding through self-disclosure (Reimer & Mathieu, 2006).

Originally, the program consisted of 90-minute group sessions running for 15 consecutive weeks. Later, facilitators reduced the number of sessions to 12 as they became more familiar with the curriculum. Groups typically have six to eight members. Each session (a) allows for expression of unhealthy sexual attitudes and behaviors; (b) includes education on appropriate thoughts and behaviors; and (c) promotes responsibility and empathy. Successful completion of the program is demonstrated when the individual drafts a personal relapse prevention plan to avoid future inappropriate sexual behaviors. This plan should (a) acknowledge an understanding of inappropriate thought patterns; (b) provide strategies to recognize and stop such thought patterns; and (c) list names and phone numbers of contacts who will serve as a support system if inappropriate attitudes or thoughts continue.

Curriculum Sections

The weekly curriculum goals cover one or more of three distinct areas: educational, cognitive restructuring, and resolution. A curricular outline is provided in the Appendix.

Sessions 1-3: The goals of the first three sessions are educational: to raise awareness of gender information, sex in society, types of sexual offenses and behaviors, personal sexuality, sexual myths, and the legal issues surrounding deviant sexual behavior (Kilmartin, 2001; Manley, 1995; Simon & Harris, 1993).

Sessions 4-9: These sessions, the main body of the program, focus on the client's cognitive processes. They deal with awareness of sexual cycles, educational and cognitive restructuring sessions to address sexual thinking distortions, the effects of alcohol and drugs on behavior, effective communication, and how to understand and build empathy for victims or others in general (Foubert, 1998; Johnson, 1992; Kahn, 1997; Rusinoff, 1993).

Sessions 10-12: The final three sessions are designed to incorporate the education and cognitive restructuring strategies already covered as the client prepares to reengage relationships in an appropriate and healthy way. They deal with behavioral changes focusing on healthy relationships in general, healthy sexual relationships, assessment of any changes identified during the SBIP, and relapse prevention planning. These sessions are when plans for change are made; all members of the group, including the facilitators, must accept the client's relapse prevention plan (Foubert, 1998; Manley, 1995; Rusinoff, 1993).

The early sessions are vital to the success of the entire program because they help offenders recognize the cycles of their own behaviors. They also permit the facilitator to engage offenders in a way that builds trust and respect. However, an equally important session is the Victim Empathy Session, which is week seven or eight.


The Victim Empathy session incorporates the restorative justice element. It is designed to build upon previous learnings that inappropriate sexual acts tend to have three components: (a) an intent to hurt someone, (b) a disregard for consent, and (c) a lack of responsibility for one's own thoughts or behaviors (Zehr, 1997). In the SBIP Victim Empathy Session, a victim--one who was not been victimized by any of the offenders in that group--joins the group in order to confront offenders with the human consequences of their misconduct in terms of the three components. It also gives the person who has been victimized a controlled setting in which to assert personal power in a restorative way (Zehr).

This session is a collaborative effort with an actual victim of a sexual assault. We strongly recommend that the victim not be directly linked with one of the current participants in SBIP. Facilitators who adopt this program should also be keenly aware of all the risks. For example, the victim or the SBIP participants may feel a sense of revictimization, experience excessive guilt or shame, or be confrontational toward one another or the facilitator. Safeguards should be in place including, but not limited to, rules established for the group, accessibility to victim advocates or other clinicians prepared to help, and utilization of debriefing. Again, we recommend the victim should be someone who has voluntarily chosen to work in this area, with this population, and has experience working with both victims and offenders.

During the week of the victim session, we strongly recommended the SBIP facilitator have another member of the sex offender treatment team or program coordinator available to meet with the victim before he or she enters the group, when he or she is finished, or if the session has to be terminated. The victim enters the group for approximately 30 minutes to share (a) a detailed account of the offense against him or her; (b) personal reactions toward his or her offender; (c) personal feelings and emotions about him- or herself; and (d) forms of expressive pieces of communication, such as poems and letters, to express each of the phases the victim has experienced.

The group facilitator closely monitors all interactions, nonverbal and verbal, by carefully observing the group members and the victim. If there are any inappropriate nonverbal behaviors, such as sexual gestures, winking, rubbing oneself, or violating personal space, or inappropriate oral statements, such as sexual innuendos, vulgar comments, or asking for addresses or phone numbers, the session is immediately terminated.

Through qualitative evaluation, facilitators have found this session to be quite powerful for the participants. It provides a solid link between the educational sessions and those that prepare for resolution or termination.


A major problem in many communities is that there are few, if any, alternatives to SOT programs designed for persons not convicted of a sexual offense or convicted on a different level or degree than child molesters or sexual predators (Marshall & Laws, 2003). The SBIP is an innovative level of care in treating male sex offenders aimed at giving communities an alternative for treating sexual misconduct. Our intent here has been to describe for the treatment community a program in its early stages of existence. We make no claim for its efficacy beyond preliminary impressions gathered from end-of-treatment surveys of participants, facilitator observations, debriefing sessions with victims, and anecdotal information gathered from community members. The three goals of the program are to (a) reduce recidivism among first-time offenders who successfully complete the program; (b) create an effective alternative to incarceration; and (c) educate community members, victims, and offenders about sexual offenses, sexuality, addictions, and opportunities for reform and rehabilitation.

Participants are given a qualitative evaluation at the end of the SBIP to share the benefits they feel they have gained from the program and whether they believe they have met program goals. So far program graduates report increased self-esteem, a better understanding of healthy relationships, and an understanding of more varied ways to effectively communicate with others. Studies suggest that offenders who are informed of the potential benefits of a rehabilitative program are more likely to participate enthusiastically (Griffin-Shelley, 1997). Thus, we use the data from these termination interviews to motive potential participants to enroll. Our experience shows that using the self-report data from program graduates motivates potential clients to participate in part because the information gives them a sense that the program might work for them.

Others perceived benefits as well: Reports from those who have volunteered for the Victim Empathy Session over the last four years consistently indicate a strong sense of validation that program participants--the offenders--have taken responsibility for their inappropriate actions and understand more fully empathy and healthy relationships. The actual victims of the participants report this as well. In addition, victims of the participants have conveyed a sense of relief that the accused individual is being further assessed for deviancy and is receiving education designed to greatly reduce the chances of recidivism.

The perceptions of community leaders, legal staff, and other professionals are assessed via program evaluation forms sent out by the agency annually and by attendance at the agency's monthly SBIP interdisciplinary staff meetings. The consensus is that the SBIP is a viable less-intensive program that meets the needs of the community. It also gives the legal community an option other than lengthy trials and incarceration.

The response from those outside the program has been mixed. As we have presented the SBIP at conferences such as the Wood County Sexual Assault Conference (2004), All-Ohio Counselors Conference (2005), American Counseling Association Conference in Montreal (2006), and South Dakota Counseling Conference (2007), the intellectual curiosity and support have been encouraging. But the SBIP has also met with skepticism, even at times outright disgust. Several prosecutors have denounced the program, stating that it promotes sexual offenders as noncriminal who deserve a lesser penalty or minimal punishment. Given the social construction of sexual misconduct (Cowburn & Dominelli, 2001), we believe that the response is likely to continue to be mixed, especially in the absence of solid empirical evidence of the program's efficacy.


Participation in the SBIP is an opportunity for an individual to (a) understand what steps he needs to take to change his behaviors; (b) recognize those behaviors that are wrong; (c) develop empathy for his and other victims; and (d) promote the maintenance of not only healthy sexual relationships but healthy relationships in general. The program also benefits victims and community members by helping them realize that individuals can modify their behaviors and continue to be productive members of society. The education and support that the SBIP is designed to provide fosters an environment in which the risk of recidivism may be reduced.

Because this program is in its infancy, the hybrid nature of the treatment model needs to be more clearly articulated and refined. This will allow for replication and evaluation of its efficacy. A step toward this end is to evaluate the current program in a formal, systematic way. Included in this evaluation should be a longitudinal study of participants on criteria that extend beyond recidivism. Research is also needed to examine which instruments and tools (e.g., interview protocols) might be most efficacious for screening and for outcome evaluation. This kind of research is needed to assure the community that its need for safety is met. Finally, since the program has been designed for male offenders, investigation related to its effectiveness with mixed sex and female-only groups will be important.

Table 1. 12-Week Group Curriculum

Weekly Topic      Objectives                  Handouts

Week 1:           Complete introductions      Group rules
  Getting         Present & discuss
  started           program expectations
                  Present & discuss
                    group rules
                  Describe offensive

Week 2: The       Present sexual              The meanings of
  sexual            history:                    sexual behavior
  self &            Autobiography             Gendered culture of
  gender &        Discuss meanings              origin
  sexuality         of sexual behavior        Gender role
                  Discuss gender                stereotyping,
                    likeness & differences      sexuality, &
                  Discuss masculine             sexual abuse
                    codes & stereotypes       Sexual history:
                  Discuss conforming            Autobiography
                    to gendered
                  Present & discuss

Week 3: Sexual    Discuss myths regarding     Myths
  behavior          sexual misconduct         Continuum chart
  myths           Present & discuss           Ohio Revised Code
  & legal           continuum of sexual         Definition of Sex
  consequences      behaviors                   Offenses
                  Present & discuss
                    legal definitions &

Week 4: Types     Present & discuss types     Power wheel
  of sexual         of abuse                  Pressured sex
  abuse &         Present & discuss power       attitude survey
  relationships     & control concepts
                  Present & discuss
                    pressured sex

Week 5:           Present & discuss           Thinking errors
  Thinking          concepts of CBT           Identifying thinking
  distortions     Present & discuss             errors
                    distortions of
                    thought related to
                    sexual misconduct
                  Present & discuss
                    cycles of abuse

Week 6: Effects   Discuss relationship        Appropriate consent
  of alcohol        between use and           Alcohol/drug facts &
  /drugs on         assault                     myth sheet
  sexual          Alcohol/drug myths
  assault         Consent issues
                    related to use

Week 7:           Discuss effects of          Points to remember
  Recognizing       sexual misconduct on        about empathy
  the victim        victim                    Thinking about
                  Present & discuss empathy     victims
                  Assess & discuss current
                    feelings of empathy
                  Meet with a survivor
                    of sexual misconduct

Week 8:           Discuss empathy             Stress inventory
  Personal          assignment                Tips to reduce stress
  growth          Evaluate & discuss
                    personal growth
                    stemming from session
                    with victim

Week 9:           Discuss healthy sexual      Communication
  Communication     behavior                    skills
  skills          Discuss honest &            Healthy sexual
                    responsible                 components
                  Discuss communication
                    & consent
                  Present & discuss
                    differences between
                    sex and sexuality

Week 10:          Discuss healthy             Healthy relationships
  Relapse           relationships &           Understanding
  prevention        appropriate sexual          messages about
                    behaviors                   sexuality
                  Discuss criteria for        Relapse prevention
                    establishing healthy        plan

Week 11:          Participants present        Old-Me/New-Me
  Presentations     relapse prevention          Worksheet
                  Process feedback &
                    incorporate into

Week 12: Beyond   Review relapse              Evaluation
  the group         prevention plan           Certificate of
                  Discuss Old-Me/New-           completion
                    Me Worksheet
                  Program evaluation

Weekly Topic      Assignment

Week 1:           None

Week 2: The       Questions:
  sexual            Meanings of
  self &            sexual
  gender &          behavior
  sexuality       Complete sexual

Week 3: Sexual    None
  & legal

Week 4: Types     None
  of sexual
  abuse &

Week 5:           Write corrections
  Thinking          to three
  distortions       personal

Week 6: Effects   None
  of alcohol
  /drugs on

Week 7:           Written response
  Recognizing       to empathy
  the victim        handout
                  Review points to

Week 8:           None

Week 9:           None

Week 10:          Develop &
  Relapse           complete
  prevention        relapse

Week 11:          Revise relapse
  Presentations     prevention
                  Complete Old-

Week 12: Beyond
  the group


Barrett, M., Cripps, J. E., Steward, L., Stirpe, T., & Wilson, R. J. (2000). Community-based sex offender management: Combining parole supervision and treatment to reduce recidivism. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 177.

Blackwell, B. S., & Cunningham, C. D. (2004). Taking the punishment out of the process: From substantive criminal justice through procedural justice to restorative justice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 67, 59.

Burdon, W. M., & Gallagher, C. A. (2002). Coercion and sex offenders: Controlling sex-offending behavior through incapacitation and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 87-109.

Cowburn, M. (2005). Hegemony and discourse: Reconstructing the male sex offender and sexual coercion by men. Sexualities, Evolution, and Gender, 7, 215-231.

Cowburn, M., & Dominelli, L. (2001). Masking hegemonic masculinity: Reconstructing the pedophile as the dangerous stranger. British Journal of Social Work, 31, 399-415.

Craig, L. A., Thornton, D., Beech, A., & Browne, K. D. (2007). The relationship of statistical and psychological risk markers to sexual reconviction in child molesters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 314-329.

Craissati, J., & Beech, A. (2006). The role of key developmental variables in identifying sex offenders likely to fail in the community: An enhanced risk prediction model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 327-339.

CSOM (2001). Recidivism of sex offenders. Center for Sex Offender Management. Retrieved February 26, 2006, from

de Beus, K., & Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice practice: An examination of program completion and recidivism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 337-347.

Doren, D. M. (1998). Recidivism base rates, predictors of sex offender recidivism, and the "sexual predator" commitment laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 97-114.

Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology, 5, 271-291.

Foubert, J. (1998). The men's program: How to successfully lower men's likelihood of raping (2nd ed.). Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc.

Griffin-Shelley, E. (1997). Sex and love: Addiction, treatment and recovery. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Haverbusch, D. (2002). Sexual offender diversion group possibilities. Toledo, OH: Author.

Johnson. S. A. (1992). Man-to-man: When your partner says no: Pressured sex and date rape. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.

Kaden, J. (1998). Therapy for convicted sex offenders: Pursuing rehabilitation without incrimination. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89, 347-368.

Kahn, T. J. (1997). Pathways (2nd ed.). Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

Kilmartin, C. (2001). Sexual assault in context: Teaching college men about gender. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc.

Kirsch, L. G., & Becker, J. V. (2006). Sexual offending: Theory of problem, theory of change, and implications for treatment effectiveness. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 208-224.

Langan, P. A., Schmitt, E. L., & Durose, M. R. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved April 19, 2008, from

Langevin, R. (2006). Acceptance and completion of treatment among sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 402-417.

Lemmond, T., & Verhaagen, D. A. (2002). Sexually aggressive youth: A guide to comprehensive residential treatment. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Manley, G. (1995). Healthy sexuality: Stage III recovery. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 2, 157-183.

Marshall, W. L., & Laws, R. (2003). A brief history of behavioral and cognitive behavioral approaches to sexual offender treatment: Part 2. The modern era. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 93-120.

Marshall, W. L., Fernandez, Y. M., Serran, G. A., Mulloy, R., Thornton, D., Mann, R. E., et al. (2003). Process variables in the treatment of sexual offenders: A review of the relevant literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 205-234.

Ohio Revised Code (2002). Ohio revised code. Columbus, OH: State of Ohio.

Paitich, D. (1977). The Clarke SHQ: A clinical sex history questionnaire for males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6, 421-436.

Reimer, W. L., & Mathieu, T. (2006). Therapeutic factors in group treatment as perceived by sex offenders: A "consumers' report." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 42, 59-73.

Rusinoff, J. (1993). Domestic abuse project. Minnesota, MN: Author.

Shaw, T., & Funderburk, J. (1999). Civil commitment of sex offenders as therapeutic jurisprudence--A rational approach to community protection. In A. Schlank & F .Cohen (Eds.), The sexual predator: Law, policy, evaluation and treatment, Vol. I (pp. 51-58). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Simon, T. B., & Harris, C. A. (1993). Sex without consent: Peer education training for colleges and universities. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications, Inc.

Ward, T., & Stewart, A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353-360.

Witt, P. H., Delrusso, J., Oppenheim, J., & Ferguson, G. (1996). Sex offender risk assessment and the law. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 24, 343-371.

Zehr, H. (1997). Restorative justice: The concept. Corrections Today, 59, 68.

Christopher P. Roseman and James S. Korcuska are affiliated with the Division of Counseling and Psychology in Education, University of South Dakota. Clancy Yeager and Aaron Cromly are affiliated with Behavioral Connections of Wood County in Bowling Green, Ohio. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Christopher Roseman, 414 E. Clark Street; Delzell 210B, Vermillion, SD 57069. E-mail: Christopher.roseman@usdedu.
COPYRIGHT 2008 American Mental Health Counselors Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:PRACTICE
Author:Roseman, Christopher P.; Yeager, Clancy; Korcuska, James S.; Cromly, Aaron
Publication:Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Oct 1, 2008
Previous Article:Depression and the elder person: the enigma of misconceptions, stigma, and treatment.
Next Article:Non-suicidal self-injury and motivational interviewing: enhancing readiness for change.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters