Implications of the self‐regulation model for treatment with sexual offenders with intellectual disabilities

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to explore treatment implications of the self‐regulation model (SRM) for sexual offenders with an intellectual disability in an effort to provide practical applications that could be employed in treatment.Design/methodology/approachThe SRM of sexual offending proposes that difficulties in self‐regulation may lead to an increased risk of sexual offending; describing four potential pathways to sexual offending that are based on self‐regulation style and offence‐related goals. Research has focussed on the application and implications of this theoretical model for mainstream sexual offenders. However, more recently, there has been an increasing interest into the application and treatment implications for the SRM for sexual offenders with an intellectual disability. This paper reviews literature on both the SRM and related work on offenders with intellectual disability.FindingsThe evidence reviewed supports the notion that the SRM is a valid theoretical model on which to base treatment programmes for people with intellectual disabilities and specific recommendations are made for the design of treatment programmes with this client group.Originality/valueIt is suggested that this model should be used when devising intervention programmes for people with intellectual disabilities in the future.

The Wiley Handbook on What Works for Offenders with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…Authors have also presented a range of criminogenic treatment models developed from those established for people with IDD. These include the Good Lives Model (Ward & Brown, 2004;Ward, Mann, & Gannon, 2007;Ward, Yates, & Willis, 2012); self-regulation model (Keeling & Rose, 2012;Lindsay, Ward, Morgan, & Wilson, 2007) and various forms of psychotherapy (Cohen & Harvey, 2016). The reviews have consistently reported finding a lack of randomised control studies; a wide range of methods; a lack of consistently applied criteria for participation; an assortment of outcomes; a lack of control group or adequate control group; or a combination of these factors.…”