Rehabilitating sexual offenders: A strength-based approach.

Marshall, William L.; Marshall, Liam E.; Serran, Geris A.; O’Brien, Martin

doi:10.1037/12310-000

Cited by 132 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 538 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The warm, welcoming, nonjudgmental approach appears to have helped the participants move from reluctance (and even hostility) to active program engagement and feelings of strong positivity toward the program, their group peers, and their group leaders by the program's end. This finding is consistent with research on other programs and interventions that use a strengths-based philosophy to deliver services to mandated clients (Curwood et al 2011;Marshall et al 2011;Ward and Laws 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

An Innovative Program for Justice-Involved Partner Violence Victims: “No Man is Worth Me Getting Locked Up”

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Violence victims who are the primary caregivers for their children sometimes become justice-involved through efforts to protect and defend against intimate partner violence (IPV). Judges often mandate these victims to community-based services, although little is known about these services. Given increasing numbers of such victims, two human service agencies collaborated to create a program for female IPV victims who were their children's primary caregivers and who were mandated to services for violence against a male partner. Our research team conducted a feasibility study of the program using an exploratory qualitative study design to collect data from program participants (n018) and providers (n07). Analyses determined three key findings: (a) the importance of a welcoming, comfortable environment; (b) the value of certain aspects of the program content; and (c) the importance of support from like others for participant improvement. These findings point to indispensable program elements. Implications for other communities and providers serving justice-involved IPV victims who are also primary caregivers are described.Intimate partner violence (IPV) between heterosexual partners affects a considerable number of women each year in the United States. According to census-based population projections, more than a million women each year and upward of 21 million women in their lifetimes will be victimized by a current or former spouse or cohabitating partner (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000a, b). Unfortunately, women who are victimized by IPV can also become involved with the justice system and subjected to legal sanctions as a result of their IPV experiences (Hamberger and Potente 1994;Miller 2001;Rajan and McCloskey 2007). The phrase justice-involved IPV victims is used here to describe this population of women who have experienced IPV victimization and have also been arrested for IPV perpetration. In this study, we particularly focused on female, justice-involved IPV victims who are the primary caregivers for their children. In other words, the program research participants were women who were: (a) principally victims of IPV; (b) identified as perpetrators by the justice system; and (c) mothers, grandmothers, or stepmothers who were the primary caregivers for their children, grandchildren, or stepchildren respectively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

An Innovative Program for Justice-Involved Partner Violence Victims: “No Man is Worth Me Getting Locked Up”

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is not a realistic or feasible expectation-even for very capable therapists-and may explain in part why some choose ineffective interventions to deliver. Their absence may be leading too to overly narrow and reductionist interpretations of the RNR model such as those embodied in some highly structured, cognitive-behavioural closed-group treatment programmes (Marshall et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some concrete models are available for the treatment of sexual offending: they outline how to rehabilitate sexual offenders across a range of risk levels and settings. For example, Marshall, Marshall, Serran, & O'Brien (2011) draw together resources from research, decades of evolving programme practice, and new theoretical developments in positive psychology. They outline a Level II theory: a general approach to 'strength-based' sexual offender rehabilitation, and include several Level III derivatives.…”

Section: Contextualizing the Rnr Model As A Rehabilitation Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therapists cannot adequately tailor the treatment to the client, cannot respond to obvious crises as naturally occurring 'teachable moments', appear unempathic and inflexible, rightly leading to 'cookie cutter' criticisms . Adherence to the responsivity principle requires intervention 'guides' rather than manuals (Marshall et al, 2011), well-trained and experienced staff, and practice supervisors who are sufficiently well informed and skilled to monitor integrity-and enhance practiceby evaluating whether goals were achieved rather than whether treatment content that demonstrates only one method of achieving those goals was presented (Polaschek, 2011). Group-format programmes are not necessarily one-size-fits-all (Kirsch & Becker, 2006).…”

Section: Translation Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment

Polaschek

2012

Legal Criminol Psychol

181

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The science of effective offender rehabilitation remains a very young field: dominated theoretically and empirically by the work of a small group of Canadian psychologists. Their achievements include the 'what works' research literature, and the RNR model of offender rehabilitation. First disseminated in 1990, over the following 20 years, the Risk, Need and Responsivity Principles became the core of the theoretical framework used in those correctional systems around the world that use science as a basis for offender rehabilitation. This paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the RNR model as a Level I rehabilitation framework. It proposes that unrealistic expectations and mistranslations of the model into practice are contributing to concerns about its validity and utility, and stifling needed innovation in the development both of mid-level treatment resources, and of RNR-adherent interventions. It concludes that although the RNR model's empirical validity and practical utility justify its place as the dominant model, it is not the 'last word' on offender rehabilitation; there is much work still to be done.The scientific study of criminal justice interventions has a short history, from which the first publications on 'the RNR model of offender rehabilitation' emerged little more than 20 years ago. Founded on three core principles of offender classification-risk, need, and responsivity-today the RNR model remains the only empirically validated guide for criminal justice interventions that aim to help offenders to depart from that system.Despite the progress made, the RNR model and its growing knowledge base have had limited impact internationally on correctional responses to offenders. The highly emotive and politicized nature of law-and-order issues in our communities can leave little room for the influence of science. Instead, 'truthiness'-judging the validity of ideas by their subjective appeal, without reference to facts, logic, or data (Colbert, 2005) -may prevail. Even in nations that both commit criminal justice resources to rehabilitation and that have adopted the model as a matter of policy, the scope and impact of potentially effective interventions is small compared to the systemic resources dedicated to ineffective but 'true' approaches, such as increasingly severe and diverse forms of punishment and

show abstract

“…All programs at the St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre are manualized and highly structured. Specifically, groups target a variety of needs and presenting issues, such as substance abuse (Velasquez, Crouch, Stephens, & DiClemente, 2015), intimate partner violence (wexler, 2013), anger management (winogron, Van Dieten, & gauzas, 1997), sexual aggression (Marshall, Marshall, Serran, & O'Brien, 2011), and cognitive skills (Ross, Hilborn, & Liddle, 2007). These groups were selected based on several factors, such as demonstrated empirical support and adherence to best practices in offender rehabilitation.…”

Section: Treatment Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Examination of Treatment Change Among Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Risk–Needs Analysis

Kingston

Olver

2017

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined the association of psychiatric symptomatology, criminal attitudes, and treatment changes within these domains to violent and general recidivism in a sample of 614 mentally disordered offenders. Significant pre–post changes were found on multiple measures of criminal attitudes, symptomatology, and readiness for change. Antisocial Intentions and Attitudes Toward Associates (from the Measure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates [MCAA]) predicted general recidivism and covaried with the Big Four criminogenic need domains on the Level of Service Inventory–Ontario Revision; none of the remaining psychometric measures significantly predicted violent or general recidivism. Although pre–post changes were seldom linked to changes in recidivism, positive changes in Antisocial Intentions (MCAA) significantly predicted reductions in general recidivism via Cox regression survival analysis, controlling for baseline risk and pretreatment attitudes score. Risk and need implications of psychometric assessments of treatment change in mentally disordered offender populations are discussed.

show abstract

Rehabilitating sexual offenders: A strength-based approach.

Cited by 132 publications

References 538 publications

An Innovative Program for Justice-Involved Partner Violence Victims: “No Man is Worth Me Getting Locked Up”

An Innovative Program for Justice-Involved Partner Violence Victims: “No Man is Worth Me Getting Locked Up”

An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment

Psychometric Examination of Treatment Change Among Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Risk–Needs Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About