A Comparison of the Application of the Self-Regulation Model of the Relapse Process for Mainstream and Special Needs Sexual Offenders

Abstract

The self-regulation model of the relapse process (Ward & Hudson, 2000) has been developed and empirically validated on general sexual offender populations (Bickley & Beech, 2002), but not on specific sexual offender populations. This paper aims to investigate whether special needs offenders, as compared to mainstream sexual offenders, can be categorized into the offense pathways described in the model. In addition, this paper aims to evaluate the application of the self-regulation model in highlighting the treatment needs of the special needs group. Special needs sexual offenders are defined as a treatment population that includes individuals with lower functioning, limited social and communication skills, and literacy deficits. Participants were classified into the self-regulation model using a method developed by Bickley and Beech (2002). Demographic and offense information were collected and comparisons made between the special needs and mainstream groups. The results showed that the sexual offenders with special needs could be reliably classified into the offense pathways of the self-regulation model. The largest group of special needs offenders was in the approach-automatic group, followed by the approach-explicit group. The results indicated no significant differences in representation in the offense pathways between the special needs and mainstream sexual offenders. The results also indicate that the special needs group would benefit from a responsive approach to treatment, which incorporates appropriate treatment targets identified by the self-regulation model.

Youth Who Sexual Offended

“…Importantly, these pathways may differ as a result of offender classification, and our results suggest that these offense pathways also apply within an Asian context. Consistent with Bickley and Beech’s (2002) and Keeling et al’s (2006) findings, the majority of the youth who sexually offended followed the Approach pathways. Closer examination of the offender classifications revealed that youth who committed penetrative offenses tended to follow the Approach pathways, whereas those who molested children tended to follow the Avoidant-Passive and the Approach-Automatic pathways; these findings were somewhat consistent with the literature about the offense pathways for adult rapists and child molesters ( Kingston et al, 2012 ; Yates & Kingston, 2006 ).…”

“…The scores for the dimension items were summed to obtain a Total Score for the Avoidant/Approach dimension (total score = 0-40) and Passive/Active dimension (total score = 0-50). Several studies have utilized this checklist (e.g., Bickley & Beech, 2002 ; Ford et al, 2009 ; Keeling et al, 2006 ; Langdon et al, 2007 ) and the interrater reliability was found to be moderate to excellent (kappa = .60-.83; see Cicchetti, 1994 , for a classification of kappa).…”

“…Taken together, the studies suggest that Avoidant pathway offenders tend to have sexual interest in children and are also likely to engage in intrafamilial offending (see Bickley & Beech, 2002 ; Kingston, Yates, & Firestone, 2012 ; Kingston, Yates, Simons, & Tyler, 2009 ; Yates & Kingston, 2006 ); whereas rapists and those who sexually offended against male children tended to follow the Approach-Explicit pathway. For sexual offenders with special needs and intellectual disability, the extant literature indicates that they are likely to follow the Avoidant pathways (see Ford, Rose, & Thrift, 2009 ; Keeling, Rose, & Beech, 2006 ; Langdon, Maxted, Murphy, & the Sex Offenders Treatment Services Collaborative-Intellectual Disabilities Group, 2007 ). However, it is noted that these studies are somewhat weak methodologically.…”

Sexual Offending Theories and Offenders with Intellectual Disabilities

“…However, the smallest group was in the avoidant‐passive pathway. In examining the self‐regulation theory with sexual offenders with special needs (defined as including some individuals with intellectual disbaility but also higher functioning individuals with other deficits) compared with mainstream sexual offenders, Keeling et al. (2006) found no significant differences between representations in pathways between these two groups.…”

A Systematic Review of Behavioral Health Interventions for Sex Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities

“…Cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT) are widely considered the mainstream treatment modality applied to rehabilitate general populations of sex offenders (Keeling, Rose, & Beech, 2008; Wilson, Bouffard, & Mackenzie, 2005; Witt, Greenfield, & Hiscox, 2008). Concerns have arisen, however, surrounding the applicability of traditional CBT modalities to populations of sex offenders, with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD; Keeling, Rose, & Beech, 2006a). Guided by the principle that programs must remain responsive to the unique psychosocial needs and risk of relapse presented by the individual, sex offender treatments have emerged that cater to the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral challenges presented by sex offenders with IDD (Allam, Middleton, & Browne, 1997; Aust, 2010; Beech & Ward, 2004; Blacker, Beech, Wilcox, & Boer, 2011; Keeling, Rose, & Beech, 2006b; Taylor, Lindsay, & Willner, 2008).…”