Enhancing evidence-based treatment of child sexual abuse material offenders: The development of the CEM-COPE Program

Abstract

Recent research suggests that child sexual abuse material (CSAM) offenders have distinct characteristics and intervention needs when compared to contact sexual offenders. As such, many sexual offender treatment programs may not be suitable for CSAM offenders without a history of contact offences. This paper describes the development of the CEM-COPE (Coping with Child Exploitation Material Use) Program. We discuss CSAM offender characteristics, recidivism rates and treatment considerations, before outlining the rationale, specifications and underpinnings of the CEM-COPE Program. Challenges in this research area and considerations for future research are also addressed.

Collecting and viewing behaviors of child sexual exploitation material offenders

“…Despite the prevalence of pedophilic indicators, general problematic pornography usage, problematic internet use and novelty seeking may be more important behaviors to target than an interest in pre-pubescent children. Newer treatment programs incorporating these factors have been developed but empirical outcomes are not year available (Henshaw et al, 2020). Additionally, it should not be assumed that collecting behavior is pathological without strong confirmation before addressing it as a criminogenic target.…”

Child sexual exploitation material offenders, one‐size‐fits‐all for? Exploring tailored clinical dimensions based on cognitive and behavioural criminogenic factors

“…Interventions targeting relationships, emotional functioning and self‐control may be worth considering for treating problems associated with this factor. Cognitive approaches of fantasy management, as well as self‐compassion approaches may also be relevant for these CSEM offenders (see Henshaw et al., 2020).…”

“…Responsivity should also be assessed to identify potential obstacles, such as severe mental disorder, needing treatment before beginning treatment for the sexual offending behaviour (Bonta & Andrews, 2017). While treatment programmes have been designed for individuals involved in offline sexual offending who have contact with known/identifiable victims, there is evidence that they are not appropriate for CSEM‐related offenders who have no physical contact with their victims (Henshaw et al., 2020; Middleton et al, 2009). CSEM offenders differ in many points from offline sexual offenders, including in their criminogenic needs, risks and responsivity factors (e.g., Babchishin et al, 2015; Elliot et al, 2013).…”

“…Men who use CSEM who go undetected may nevertheless have specific or more severe problems that could benefit from intervention. If some CSEM offenders have special needs—different from those of contact sexual offenders—this advocates for the implementation of specific intervention programmes based on the characteristics of these individuals (see Brennan et al, 2017; Henshaw et al., 2020; Paquette, 2022). Several authors noted the importance of developing customised interventions based on individual needs instead of applying a ‘one‐size‐fits‐all’ model (Beech et al., 2005; Chopin & Beauregard, 2019).…”