A service for non-offending partners of male sexual offenders

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of a novel service for the non-offending partners (NOPs) of men who have sexually offended against children. Design/methodology/approach The paper examines the rationale for the current service and the preliminary qualitative data that reflect how NOPs experience the group innovations. Findings Interviews and previous qualitative analyses demonstrate both the positive changes that the NOP programme supports regarding child protections skills and the value that NOPs perceive in incorporating male therapists and male offenders into the process. Research limitations/implications Given these recent changes to the NOP group, and the small group sizes, the ability to examine how the NOPs perceive these innovations, the personal impact they have on change in NOPs, and more importantly, the impact on recidivism and reduction of further harm to children are yet to be fully investigated and these are central questions for the service to ensure that it offers a valid and reliable intervention programme and limits the extent to which the programme can be generalised. Further research will plug this gap. Practical implications The service offers new challenges for NOPs with the aim of making them better understand offending against children, their role in protecting children, and ultimately the protection of children in general. This may act as a model for the development of future services for these individuals. Originality/value There are few programmes aimed at providing support and intervention for an often marginalised group of individuals, the female NOPs of men who have sexually offended against children. This programme includes new approaches to working with the women providing them with new sources of support and insight.

A Grounded Theory Model of Relationship Decision-Making in Non-Offending Partners of Individuals Accused of Sexual Offending

“…In many cases, isolation and stigma are exacerbated by intervening agencies, which non-offending partners perceive to be judgmental, insensitive, and ignorant ( Duncan et al, 2020 ; Liddell & Taylor, 2015 ). For example, some support services appear to prioritize the “value” ( Duff et al, 2017 , p . 293) that non-offending partners hold in decreasing their partner’s recidivism risk (e.g., Duff et al, 2017 ; Shannon et al, 2013 ; Wager et al, 2015 ; see Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005 and Larson et al, 2016 for research linking relationship breakdown and conflict to recidivism).…”

“…For example, some support services appear to prioritize the “value” ( Duff et al, 2017 , p . 293) that non-offending partners hold in decreasing their partner’s recidivism risk (e.g., Duff et al, 2017 ; Shannon et al, 2013 ; Wager et al, 2015 ; see Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005 and Larson et al, 2016 for research linking relationship breakdown and conflict to recidivism).…”