Forensic Psychology
Page 92
Soothill, K., Francis, B., Sanderson, B., & Ackerley, E. (2000). Sex offenders: Specialists, generalists or both? British Journal of Criminology, 40, 56–67.
Thompson, B. (1995). Recidivism in NSW: general study. Research publication, No. 31. Sydney, Australia: NSW Department of Corrective Services.
Thornton, D. (2002). Constructing and testing a framework for dynamic risk assessment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 141, 139–153.
Thornton, D. (2013). Implications of our developing understanding of risk and protective factors in the treatment of adult male sexual offenders. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8, 63–66.
Thornton, D., & Blud, L. (2007). The influence of psychopathic traits on response to treatment. In H. Hervé & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 505–539). New York: Routledge.
Tong, L. S. J., & Farrington, D. E. (2006). How effective is the “Reasoning and Rehabilitation” programme in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 3–24.
Wakeling, H., Beech, A. R., & Freemantle, N. (2013). Investigating treatment change and its relationship to recidivism in a sample of 3773 sex offenders in the UK. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 19, 233–252.
Ward, T., & Beech, A. R. (2006). An integrated theory of sex offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 44–63.
Ward, T., & Hudson, S. M. (1998). A model of the relapse process in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 700–725.
Ward, T., Mann, R., & Gannon, T. A. (2007). The good lives model of rehabilitation: Clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 87–107.
Ward, T., & Nee, C. (2009). Surfaces and depths: Evaluating the theoretical assumptions of cognitive skills programmes. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 165–182.
Ward, T., Polachek, D. L. L., & Beech, A. R. (2006). Theories of sexual offending. Chichester: Wiley.
Ward, T., & Siegert, R. J. (2002). Toward a comprehensive theory of child sexual abuse: A theory knitting perspective. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 8, 319–351.
Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and the good lives model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353–360.
Ward, T., Vess, J., Collie, R. M., & Gannon, T. A. (2006). Risk management or good promotion: The relationship between approach and avoidance goals in treatment for sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 378–393.
Ware, J., Mann, R. E., & Wakeling, H. C. (2009). Group versus individual treatment: What is the best modality for treating sexual offenders? Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 2, 2–13.
Willis, G., Gannon, T., Yates, P., Collie, R., & Ward, T. (2011, Winter). “In style” or evolving through research? Misperceptions about the Good Lives Model. The ATSA Forum, XXIII (1).
Willis, G. M., Yates, P. M., Gannon, T. A., & Ward, T. (2013). How to integrate the good lives model into treatment programs for sexual offending an introduction and overview. Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment, 25(2), 123–142.
Wong, S. C. P. & Gordon, A. (2006) The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale: A treatment friendly violence risk assessment tool. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12, 279–309.
Wong, S. C. P., & Hare, R. D. (2005). Guidelines for a psychopathy treatment program. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
NOTE
1 A score of 30 on the PCL-R is used as a cut-off to indicate psychopathy (Hare, 2003).
20 Interventions with Female Offenders
FRANCA CORTONI AND NATHALIE M. G. FONTAINE
CHAPTER OUTLINE
20.1 INTRODUCTION
20.2 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN ADOLESCENT FEMALES 20.2.1 Overview of the Phenomenon
20.2.2 Antisocial Behaviour in Adolescent Females Based on Official Records and Self-reports
20.2.3 Overview of Theoretical Models Explaining Antisocial Behaviour in Females
20.2.4 The Manifestations of Antisocial Behaviour in Adolescent Females
20.2.5 Adolescent Females and the Justice System
20.2.6 Potential Effective Interventions for Adolescent Females with Antisocial Behaviour
20.3 ADULT FEMALE OFFENDERS 20.3.1 Prevalence and Recidivism
20.3.2 Pathways to Offending and Related Criminogenic Factors
20.3.3 Interventions for Adult Female Offenders
20.3.4 What is Treatment Responsivity?
20.3.5 Relational Theory and Implications for Treatment
20.3.6 A Final Note on Interventions for Female Offenders
20.4 SUMMARY
LEARNING OUTCOMES
BY THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
Understand why a psychological analysis of gender-neutral and gender-specific factors is important to understand female offending behaviour
Appreciate the principal research methods used to explore female-specific risk factors for criminality
Understand the implications of existing findings for improved interventions with female offenders.
20.1 INTRODUCTION
Women have long been the afterthought in research on criminal behaviour (Blanchette & Brown, 2006); the majority of research on offending behaviour has been conducted on male offenders. One reason for this lack of research is an assumption that the factors that lead to criminal behaviour are universal, regardless of gender. This assumption, however, has been proven inaccurate. Research has shown that although men and women share some of the same characteristics that lead to criminal behaviour, differences do exist. Consequently, it is becoming evident that a gender-informed, as opposed to a gender-neutral, approach to the assessment and treatment of female offenders is warranted. The term gender-neutral, in this context, refers to characteristics and practices that are equally applicable to men and women offenders. The term gender-specific refers to characteristics unique to females or that manifest themselves in gendered ways. Finally, the term gender-informed refers to models of interventions that have been informed by women-based research (rather than adaptation of male-based models of interventions). This chapter provides an overview of this knowledge base and outlines current intervention practices for adolescent and adult female offenders.
20.2 ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN ADOLESCENT FEMALES
20.2.1 Overview of the Phenomenon
Until recently, most of the research on adolescent antisocial behaviour focused on male samples. This is partly because antisocial behaviour in males, as defined by the criminal justice system (e.g. assault, burglary, vandalism) is more common, serious and persistent than in females (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2014; Lanctôt, 2010) and appears to be more costly to society (Foster, Jones, & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2005). The late 1990s were marked by an increased interest in antisocial behaviour in females (Lanctôt, 2010). The media depicted cases of isolated, although particularly violent, antisocial acts committed by adolescent females, which were reinforced by official statistics that suggested increasing rates of female violent delinquency (Verlaan & Déry, 2006).
The scientific community also started to pay more attention to the phenomenon, leading to a multiplication of publications on antisocial behaviour in female adolescents (Lanctôt, 2010). Research showed that like in males, antisocial behaviour in adolescent females is associated with a constellation of adjustment problems in adolescence and adulthood, including substance use problems, criminal behaviour, violence in intimate relationships, poor educational attainment, and internalizing problems (Fontaine et al., 2008; Odgers et al., 2008). Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that a history of maternal antisocial behaviour and early childbirth can contribute to the transmission of antisocial behaviour across generations (Serbin et al., 2004; Zoccolillo et al., 2005). Research shows that antisocial behaviour in adolescent females is an important mental health and social issue and that a comprehensive understanding of this phenomenon has the potential to
inform clinical practices (Fontaine, Carbonneau, Vitaro, Barker, & Tremblay, 2009). In this section, we will assess the extent of antisocial behaviour in adolescent females based on official records and self-reports, review theoretical models, examine the behaviours more particularly manifested by adolescent females, discuss issues related to the juvenile justice system and address potential effective interventions for females.
20.2.2 Antisocial Behaviour in Adolescent Females Based on Official Records and Self-reports
Given the increased interest in antisocial behaviour in adolescent females and the apparent raise in female violent delinquency according to official statistics, one may wonder if antisocial behaviour really augmented over time. Here are a few observations1 based on extant research (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2014; Lanctôt, 2010):
Adolescent females are less likely than their male counterparts to be arrested for violent crimes and for serious property offenses.
Based on official records, the number of charges for property crimes tends to decrease in females.
Based on official records, the number of violent charges has increased in females. However, violent delinquency based on females’ self-reports over the last 30 years appears relatively stable.
Although adolescent females are much less involved in delinquent behaviour than adolescent males, self-reports suggest that a small group of girls, increasing in number but still representing a minority, is highly involved in violent delinquency. This group may explain, at least partially, the increased rates of female violent delinquency observed in official records.
20.2.3 Overview of Theoretical Models Explaining Antisocial Behaviour in Females
Different theoretical models have been proposed to explain antisocial behaviour in females. Because it would not be possible to discuss in detail all proposed models in this chapter, we will focus on two influential approaches, namely the feminist perspectives and the developmental models (for more in-depth information about models explaining antisocial behaviour by adolescent females, see e.g. Lanctôt & Le Blanc, 2002).
First, proponents of the feminist perspectives have put forward broader societal and cultural influences as contributing factors of antisocial behaviour in females, including socialization processes, gender-based roles, patriarchal society, oppression, victimization and social classes (e.g. Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2014). For instance, females’ violence has been explained by a reaction to male dominance and abuse, adverse family environment and victimization, economic dependence and sexual oppression within relationships, and patriarchal values of society that depreciate females’ roles. Although feminist approaches have not traditionally focussed on individual factors to explain antisocial behaviour in females, some feminist scholars have more recently considered the interactions between the multiple spheres of influence in people’s lives, including social, historical, institutional, as well as individual factors (e.g. the Feminist Ecological Model; Ballou, Matsumoto, & Wagner, 2002). Empirical research has notably highlighted the critical importance of abusive family relationships to explain female delinquency (Cernkovich, Lanctôt, & Giordano, 2008).
Second, research by developmental criminologists has also contributed to the understanding of antisocial behaviour in females. Researchers have suggested that individuals can follow different developmental trajectories of antisocial behaviour (e.g. Moffitt, 1993; Patterson, 1982). Two of the most commonly discussed trajectories are the early-onset/life-course-persistent and the adolescence-limited (Moffitt, 2003). Based on the model, life-course-persistent individuals are characterized by multiple risk factors2 (e.g. severe family adversity, harsh discipline, neuropsychological deficits, hyperactivity) and by poor adult outcomes (e.g. violence, substance abuse, and work and family life problems). They also tend to manifest violent behaviour early in life. Only a small proportion of the population (around 5% to 10%; primarily males) is estimated to follow this trajectory (Moffitt, 2003). Adolescence-limited individuals (about 15% to 30% of the adolescent population), conversely, are transient in their expression of antisocial behaviour. They seek social status through delinquent behaviours, are influenced by deviant peers and tend to be poorly supervised by their parents. These youths are less prone to use violence, compared to the youths following an early-onset/life-course-persistent trajectory, and their antisocial behaviour is expected to be limited to adolescence. However, their adult outcomes can also be characterized by adjustment problems, although less so than life-course-persistent individuals, notably because they may be entrapped in “snares” (e.g. criminal record, addiction, low education attainment) that compromise their ability to successfully transition to adulthood (Moffitt, 2003).
Because the developmental trajectories of antisocial behaviour were validated primarily on male or predominantly male samples, their generalization to the development of antisocial behaviour in females has been questioned (Silverthorn & Frick, 1999). For instance, it has been proposed that the two-trajectory model (i.e. early- onset/life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited) was not consistent with existing data on antisocial females, and that a third trajectory, an adolescence-delayed-onset trajectory, is more appropriate to characterize females’ antisocial behaviour (Silverthorn & Frick, 1999). These particular females are expected to have similar risk factors to early-onset/life-course males (i.e. family adversity and neuropsychological deficits), but to have an adolescence-onset of antisocial behaviour. They are also expected to manifest antisocial behaviour in adulthood as well as other adjustment problems, such as substance abuse and mental health disorders. The adolescence-delayed-onset trajectory could be explained by a combination of factors leading to the inhibition of childhood antisocial behaviour even in the presence of risk factors. At least two processes may be at work, namely socialization processes that discourage girls from adopting externalizing behaviours, but encourage the expression of their behavioural symptoms through internalizing problems, and protective factors3 more prevalent in females than in males, such as better school achievement and higher levels of parental supervision (Keenan & Shaw, 1997; Silverthorn & Frick, 1999).
Empirical findings provide partial support for the three trajectories of antisocial behaviour in females, namely the early-onset/life-course-persistent, adolescence- limited and adolescence-delayed-onset (Fontaine et al., 2009). Further research is needed to advance theoretical and empirical knowledge about the emergence and development of antisocial behaviour in females.
20.2.4 The Manifestations of Antisocial Behaviour in Adolescent Females
Like in males, female antisocial behaviour encompasses a wide range of manifestations. One important difference is that females are less prone to severe and violent behaviour compared to males. To assess better the extent of antisocial behaviour in females, researchers and clinicians should expand the definition beyond offenses defined by the criminal justice system (Lanctôt & Le Blanc, 2002). For instance, antisocial behaviour in females should include an array of manifestations, such as conduct problems, defiant and oppositional behaviour, violence in intimate relationships, as well as status offenses, namely actions that are prohibited only to minors (e.g. running away from home and being a truant). Adolescent females may also tend to be involved in forms of aggression that do not involve physical confrontations, such as social, relational or indirect aggression4 (Archer & Coyne, 2005). It consists of many forms, such as spreading nasty rumors, deliberately leaving others out of the group, and breaking confidences. These behaviours harm others through damage (or threat of damage) to relationships or group inclusion. They have attracted attention because they can lead to considerable psychological harm to their victims, such as depressive and anxiety symptoms, and even suicide (see Archer & Coyne, 2005). Comorbid disorders, such as depression, anxiety and substance use problems are also prevalent in adolescent females with antisocial behaviour (Zoccolillo, 1992). Such comorbidity has also been found in males. However, there is evidence suggesting that for females, depression appears to follow antisocial
behaviour and to grow more severe as they enter adulthood (Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). Another aspect of antisocial behaviour in females that draws clinicians’ and researchers’ attention concerns their involvement in street gangs. Females involved in street gangs are at risk for victimization and sexual exploitation (prostitution and nude dancing). There is also evidence suggesting that they are involved in fraud, theft, drug dealing, and other forms of antisocial behaviour such as assault (Lanctôt, 2010).
20.2.5 Adolescent Females and the Justice System
The justice system is often deemed paternalistic and protectionist toward adolescent females with antisocial behaviour. It appears that the justice system aims to protect the girls against their abusive environment and dangerous lifestyle (runaway; victimization; substance use; gang involvement) more than to protect society. This may not just be due to the justice system’s paternalistic attitude – it may also reflect the vulnerabilities of the girls under the care of the justice system (Lanctôt, 2010). As previously discussed, adolescent females, compared to their male counterparts, are less prone to severe and violent delinquency. They are more likely to be involved in the justice system because of their risky behaviour and dysfunctional environment. In that context, involving these girls in the justice system may not be the best plan of action. Iatrogenic effects of the juvenile justice system on recidivism in young adulthood have been reported in males (Petitclerc, Gatti, Vitaro, & Tremblay, 2013). We may wonder if exposure to the justice system could also lead to negative outcomes in females and if extrajudicial measures, for instance, may be more effective at least for some of them.