Treatment with youth who have committed sexual offences: Extending the reach of systemic interventions through collaborative partnerships

Abstract

Delivery of high‐quality mental health services to clients in regional and remote areas in Australia presents significant challenges. Griffith Youth Forensic Service (GYFS) provides specialised, state‐wide assessment and systemic treatment services for young people in Queensland who have committed sexual offences. In an effort to provide equitable, ecologically valid services, GYFS clinicians recruit local para/professionals as collaborative partners in interventions. The success of GYFS interventions relies partly on the skills, knowledge and confidence of collaborative partners to work effectively. This study examines (a) the effectiveness of collaborative partnerships in enhancing knowledge, skills and confidence, and (b) the perspectives of collaborative partners regarding the collaborative model. Participant self‐reports (n = 47 collaborative partners) indicated that skills, knowledge and confidence were significantly increased over the collaboration, were maintained for 1 year, and that increased knowledge, skills and confidence were associated with perceived improvements in client outcomes.

Improving therapeutic engagement with adolescent sexual offenders

“…Given the critical role of collaborative partners in GYFS interventions (see Smallbone, Rayment-McHugh, Crissman, & Shumack, 2008b), efforts to enhance TE included an increased focus on building the capacity of collaborative partners, particularly with respect to their TE skills with this client group. Capacity building efforts were focused specifically on the provision of formal training programs (see Dadds, Smallbone, Nisbet, & Dombrowski, 2003) and, particularly when collaborative partners were unable to attend training workshops due to their remote locations, on case consultation, professional supervision, opportunities to observe GYFS clinicians, and the provision of written resources.…”

Challenges Redoubled: Contexts of Risk and Compromised Access to Services for Children with Sexualised Behaviours

“…(Jordan and Sketchley 2009 p. 5) Partly informed by this work, ongoing developments in clinical response to children with problem sexual behaviours have given rise to a broad consensus amongst clinicians that these behaviours are not indicative of a child's pathology. Rather, the behaviours are more usefully understood in terms of the context in which a child lives, and the adverse conditions that might have contributed to the behaviours (e.g., Smallbone et al 2008;Johnson et al 2007;McVeigh 2003;Thornton et al 2008). The scholarly and clinical literature on this issue identifies such behaviours as more prevalent where particular conditions of disadvantage also prevail (Veneziano and Veneziano 2002;Lovell 2002;Cavanagh-Johnson 1998).…”

“…There is no sense that a child can be removed, provided with therapy, and then returned to the original context or risk or trauma. Ecological models of therapeutic intervention highlight the importance of family involvement in the successful rehabilitation of children and adolescents with sexualised behaviours (Staiger et al p. 46;Smallbone et al 2008;Rayment-McHugh and Owen 1999).…”

“…Counselling is thought to be effective providing it is made available early in the behavioural trajectory, the full treatment program is completed, and family are engaged in support of the young person's behavioural change (e.g., Staiger et al 2005;Smallbone et al 2008;McGregor 2008;Thornton et al 2008). Despite these indications of therapeutic success, this paper identifies a number of barriers to Australian children with sexualised behaviours accessing the specialised counselling necessary for behaviour modification.…”

On being realistic about reducing the prevalence and impacts of youth sexual violence and abuse in two Australian Indigenous communities

“…Prior work of the clinicians leading the project had focused on the tertiary prevention of continued sexual violence and abuse by known youth offenders (Smallbone & Rayment-McHugh, 2013;Smallbone, Rayment-McHugh, Crissman, & Shumack, 2008;Smallbone, Rayment-McHugh, & Smith, 2013b). However it soon became clear that even if these clinical interventions successfully prevented further offending among individual referred youth, this would have a very limited overall effect on the prevalence and impacts of YSVA in these communities.…”