Moving beyond the risk paradigm: Using the Good Lives Model with offenders in denial of sexual offending
| Author | Jill Dealey |
| Published date | 01 April 2018 |
| Date | 01 April 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2066220318755530 |
| Subject Matter | Original Articles |
755530EJP0010.1177/2066220318755530European Journal of ProbationDealey
2018
Original Article
European Journal of Probation
2018, Vol. 10(1) 28 –43
Moving beyond the risk
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
paradigm: Using the Good
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220318755530
DOI: 10.1177/2066220318755530
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp
Lives Model with offenders in
denial of sexual offending
Jill Dealey
University of Winchester, UK
Abstract
Denial of sexual offending is complex, and can hinder the development of a positive
working relationship between an offender and the probation officer managing their case;
it can also impact on the offender’s wider life experience as they are stranded between
their past offending and creating a new offence-free life. The theory of the Good Lives
Model can be used as a tool to reduce both the tensions in this professional relationship
and enable the offender to move forward, both in addressing their behaviour and
establishing a non-offending life.
Keywords
Denial, Good Lives Model, probation service, sex offending
Introduction
This article will examine the complexity faced by probation officers in managing offend-
ers in complete denial of sexual offending, and reflect on the value of employing the
Good Lives Model (GLM), the theory that underpins sex offender groupwork pro-
grammes, in working on a one-to-one basis with deniers. Traditionally, work with offend-
ers in denial who are managed by the probation service in England and Wales has
followed the risk paradigm, which states that an offender’s level of risk is the paramount
factor to be considered; and the higher the risk, the greater the intensity of management
an offender will require. Under the risk agenda, probation work with sex offenders who
deny has become the most focused on comprehensive surveillance and monitoring
Corresponding author:
Jill Dealey, Research Officer in Criminology, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester, SO22
4NR, UK.
Email: jill.dealey@winchester.ac.uk
Dealey
29
(Hebenton 2008, 2011; Hebenton and Seddon 2009). Historically, complete deniers have
been largely excluded from participating in treatment such as the Sex Offender Treatment
Programme (SOTP) as they are seen to be avoiding responsibility for their offending
behaviour (Ministry of Justice, 2010). This has resulted in the one-to-one interaction
between an offender and the probation officer tasked with managing their case becoming
the key relationship. This can be problematic, as the probation officer can frequently
encounter difficulties in creating a productive professional working environment that
does not become overshadowed by denial.
A report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP, 2010) has discussed the
issues probation officers can face as a result of a lack of training to work with denial, in
particular the concern that breaking through denial can lead to discussions that the pro-
fessional can feel under-equipped to control. This article will discuss the complexity of
denial of sexual offending and argue that using the theory that underpins the GLM in
practice will provide a means for probation officers to construct and maintain positive
professional relationships with deniers in one-to-one-work. The traditional focus on the
risk-needs-responsivity model of intervention, public protection and surveillance of sex
offenders has resulted in there being relatively little guidance made available to proba-
tion officers on how to work effectively on a one-to-one basis with deniers using reha-
bilitative methods (HMIP, 2010); and that this deficiency can lead to lack of officer
confidence in using such an approach.
The issue of denial and implications for treatment
Denial of sexual offending has historically been viewed as an important issue by the
probation service, and there appears to be a very real dilemma as to how it can be
addressed. However, the importance of denial as a predictor of future risk has been dis-
puted: ‘Denial and minimisation of the offending behaviour has long been viewed as
such a crucial factor to future risk of recidivism . . . Research, however, has failed to
demonstrate a link between denial or admittance and risk of recidivism’ (Cortoni, 2009:
45). As this suggests, there have been numerous studies of the effectiveness of the risk-
based approach, and the results have been inconclusive (Rich, 2013; Thornton and
Knight, 2007). It has been variously noted that complete deniers who did attend a treat-
ment programme did not have noticeably higher recidivism rates than treated admitters;
and that deniers who had attended a programme were significantly less likely to reoffend
than admitters or deniers who did not receive any programme intervention (Marshall
et al., 2001: 207). Additionally, whilst it has been observed that there was a link between
denial and higher levels of recidivism for high risk offenders (Langton et al., 2008;
Schneider and Wright, 2004), other studies have refuted this evidence (Hanson and
Bussiere, 1998; Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Lund, 2000; Nunes et al., 2007;
Worting and Langstrom, 2006) and stated that there is no proven link between the pres-
ence of denial and an increase in risk of further recidivism. The inconsistency in the lit-
erature has prompted debate as to whether denial has any relevance as a risk factor
(Levenson, 2011; Thornton and Knight, 2007). It has also been argued that, regardless of
denial or acceptance of their offending behaviour, the socio-legal emphasis of focusing
on dynamic risk factors can be detrimental as it reduces an offender’s personal agency,
30
European Journal of Probation 10(1)
or capacity for positive change (Glaser, 2003; Heffernan and Ward, 2015; Thornton,
2016; Vernham and Nee, 2016; Ward, 2016; Ward and Salmon, 2009).
Whether or not it is seen as impacting on risk, denial is extensive among those con-
victed of sexual offending. Statistics on convictions in Crown Courts in England and
Wales state that in 2011, of 7061 defendants brought to trial for sexual offences 1639
(23.2%) entered a plea of not guilty but were found guilty after trial (Ministry of Justice,
2013). It has been stated that 54–87% of those convicted of sexual offending are in com-
plete or partial denial during some of, or throughout, their sentences (Barbaree, 1991;
Brown et al., 2012; Maletzky, 1991). Barbaree (1991) studied a sample of offenders in
custody and found that 98% exhibited degrees of partial or complete denial; with 54% of
those convicted of rape, and 66% of child sex offenders being in complete denial at the
time of the study. In other studies, complete denial has been observed in 30% of offend-
ers; a figure that has remained constant in studies that cover 20 years of research
(Craissati, 2015; Kennedy and Grubin, 1992). Partial deniers have been found to account
for a further third of sex offenders (Craissati, 2015; Marshall, 1994). Taking both partial
and complete deniers into account, denial can be seen to represent a significant and
enduring issue, which might be expected to have an important impact on the ways it is
addressed by professionals. It can significantly impede the professional–offender rela-
tionship, and therefore, even if it is deemed not to impact on risk, it is clearly an issue that
should be addressed. Research has acknowledged that working with individuals who
have been convicted of sexual offending can be stressful (Briggs and Kennington, 1996;
Erooga, 1994) given the issues of sex and sexuality that must necessarily be addressed.
Erooga (1994) notes that this can create fears of contamination and raise the possibility
of identification for workers of both sexes. There are also considerable ethical considera-
tions in working with sexual offending behaviour (Glaser, 2003; Ward and Salmon,
2009), which can be compounded by a punitive, risk-based style of working, with a
stress on the negative aspects of an individual’s behaviour. For male workers, the issue
of identification can be related to the work of Brown (2010) in terms of the power rela-
tions inherent in masculinity; but, in addition, there are risks of hostile feelings towards
the offender owing to the nature of the offending, which can attract feelings of revulsion
in both sexes. For female staff, Erooga (1994) argues that some may relate the work with
sexually abusive clients to personal experiences of abuse, creating a sense of victimisa-
tion, or alternatively, feeling shame and guilt about sexual power relations in society in
general (Briggs and Kennington, 1996: 46). This might equally apply to a male worker
given that males may also experience abuse. These previous experiences can impact on
the ability to communicate effectively in terms of being able to fully address sexual
issues, or treat the offender with an appropriate level of respect and professionalism. It
can also cause significant stress to the staff member (Briggs and Kennington, 1996) who
may feel unable or unwilling to disclose concerns to their colleagues or management
(Briggs and Kennington, 1996).
Thus, there can be difficulties in developing a professional working relationship with
sex offenders that is based on empathy and trust; and the presence of denial may com-
pound this issue. Yet this has been seen as a crucial factor in developing a positive work-
ing relationship (McNeil, 2006). This may be because of the probation officer’s...
To continue reading
Request your trial