Psychological Interventions for Reducing Reoffending

Introduction

The Government of the United Kingdom has from time to time pointed to the fact that there exist large numbers of prisoners who re-offend once they are released from prison. Reoffending is perceived to create more victims in addition to generating increased social and economic costs for communities (Connell, 2016). There is a range of measures adopted by prisons to minimize reoffending. Such measures include therapeutic interventions that are directly aimed at addressing the causes of criminal behaviors that are psychological and services for preparing the criminals for successful reintegration into societies once they are released. Such services include the provision of opportunities for employment, vocational courses, and academic programmes. However, even with such measures in place, the rates of reoffending still remain high. This paper will explore how psychological interventions can best be incorporated to minimize reoffending. Across England and Wales, in the population of all the released offenders, 49.2% of them end up reoffending. These figures are observed to go even higher to 65.5% for those prisoners whose sentences are not more than a year long. The rates of reoffending in Scotland are 62%, Scotland 50%, Norway 20%, Australia 39%, and the United States 52% (de Leon, Mager & Armani, 2018).

There are quite a number of policy measures that have been put up by different government agencies in the UK to deal with reoffending. The Ministry of Justice in the UK published a strategy that was titled Transforming Rehabilitation aimed at dealing with the problem. This strategy was aimed at minimizing the rates of reoffending and the cutting on the attached costs of reoffending to communities (House of Commons Justice Committee: Transforming Rehabilitation, 2017). The Justice Data Lab was piloted by the Ministry of Justice in 2013 aimed at granting those organizations that worked with offender’s access to reoffending data. That would help them assess the impacts of their rehabilitation efforts. In 2015, the Justice Data Lab became a permanent service ("Ministry of Justice Data Lab," 2017). The HM Treasury made an announcement in the same year that it would build nine new prisons that were cheaper to run and more properly tailored to cut on reoffending. To support rehabilitation, the government would invest in prisoner education and new technologies. Both employment and education are from time to time cited as rehabilitation activities that are mainstream in the management of offenders that all prisoners are expected to undertake.

In the Ministry of Justice`s white paper of 2016 titled Prison Safety and Reform, argued that to improve the effectiveness of interventions to rehabilitate prisoners, safer prisoners would be required ("Policy Paper: Prison safety and reform," 2016). In 2017, the Prison and Courts Bill was introduced in the House of Commons seeking to reform courts, tribunals, and prisons ("Prisons and Courts Bill 2016-17", 2017).

Reasons for Reoffending

Poor correctional programs within prisons tend to lead to reoffending. That leads to churning out of offenders after they have finished their sentences who are not capable of supporting themselves. Whenever inmates who are released are not able to gain meaningful employment as a result of their lack of acceptable qualifications academically and vocational tools or certificates that show that they possess certain skills, reformation and rehabilitation hit a stumbling block. Such a lack of skills and academic qualifications with no doubt has implications that are profound for future reoffending (Newton et al., 2018). Poor prison education and skills acquisition programmes and employment that is not stable and that is characterized by earnings that are low are factors that lead to offenders going back to their old ways. Releasing inmates who are demoralized psychologically, economically, socially and physically with follow-up programmes that are not thought out carefully and without basic apparatus that would make them self-reliant is a great danger. There are high chances of these types of people to recede in crime. Poor engagement in pursuit of education and employment, which generally, are pro-social activities, is a huge risk factor for criminal reoffending (Howard et al., 2018).

Substance abuse is observed to be one of the strongest predictors of reoffending among ex-convicts. Beardslee (2018) posits that the primary cause of reoffending is substance abuse. Clearly, alcohol and drugs are the major problems related to both crime and reoffending. There exist a close relationship between the abuse of drugs and reoffending that begins at adolescence and continues to adulthood. For example, most young people who use drugs are more likely than their peers who do not use drugs to engage in acts that are violent (Easton, Crane & Mandel, 2018). Marital and family problems are also strong risk factors for violation of conventional regulations and rules. That owes to the fact that often, family members take the responsibility of offering support in the form of financing, housing and emotionally to their relatives who are ex-convicts (Stewart & Rapp, 2017). As such, in instances where such support and family care is substituted by stigmatization and discrimination, rehabilitation, integration, and adaptation after one has been released from prison become hard. As such, there are higher chances of relapse into those acts that took them to prison initially among such released inmates who are stigmatized (Petersson, Strand & Selenius, 2019).

There exist an unappreciated means of controlling reoffending in family ties. The Justice Data Lab research showed that 70% of prisoners who were not visited by either of their family members while in prison would end up reoffending, while 52% of those that were visited by their partners or any other members of their families would end up reoffending ("Justice Data Lab statistics: July 2018", 2018). Prison visits are actually linked to improved problem solving and communication skills and decreased outcomes of substance misuse which would with no doubt go a long way in facilitating resettlements into communities when an inmate’s sentence is over. A joint report prepared in 2014 by the HM Inspectorate of Probation and Ofsted and the HM Inspectorate of Probation stated that the families of offenders were the most effective agencies for resettlement.

Peer group influence is another powerful reason why most offenders end up reoffending. While it appears that such pressure is more pronounced on youngsters in group settings than in peers who are relatively old and those who are conceived to be clever and smarter, there is a trajectory of symbiotic relationship and criminal learning among such social actors. According to Mowen & Boman (2018), in group influence, direct behavioral learning through imitation and learning is a potent factor. There are offenses that are quite common among the young and that are committed in group settings. Cases in points on reoffending and criminality are the pressures such criminal activities would exert towards experimentation and other different manifestations of growing interdependence among youths. The effects of peer generations are closely linked to the patterns of social interactions within such groups. Spending a lot of time with friends and even members of your family who are criminals is a risk factor for reoffending.

Consequences of Reoffending

The UK prison system has been witnessing large numbers of people going back to their antisocial behaviors. Reoffending takes a huge toll on governments economically. Part of the economic loss that comes from criminal reoffending is attached to the costs that taxpayers incur to maintain the criminal justice system. The cost of the UK prison system is borne by the taxpayers. Crimes committed by inmates who have already been released require ongoing expenditures on prisons and the enforcement of the law (Use, 2002). Such activities end up taking up funds that would have otherwise been used on other important services like community development and education. Additionally, reoffending also has serious cost implications for individuals, communities, and families. The success of rehabilitation efforts tends to be undermined by the returning of offenders to the same communities where they could easily get involved in criminal activities again. Mulgan et al. (2011), posit that reoffending tends to be more common whenever inmates went back to their former neighborhoods after they were released in comparison to inmates who settled in different neighborhoods. However, it is worth noting that while the high crime rates in neighborhoods where inmates who have been released reside, such conditions should never be seen as causes of failure of rehabilitation efforts. While the measurement of reoffending is not clear, public safety is jeopardized by activities of reoffending which further escalate the amounts spent on enforcement of the law and criminal justice.

Offender Behaviour Programmes

According to Holdsworth et al., (2017), Offender Behaviour Programmes consist of therapeutic group-based activities that are properly structured and that are run by facilitators who are properly trained. These programmes, usually are aimed at reducing the chances that an offender would re-offend and work through addressing the psychological causes of the offenders’ criminal behaviour. In the UK, only those programmes that are accredited are implemented in prisons. There are some of these programmes that are designed specifically to reduce substance misuse. They are based on the cognitive behavioral therapy which is a type of talking therapy. Kratcoski (2017) posits that the aim of these programmes is to change those attitudes and beliefs that encourage criminal behavior. Distorted cognition, misinterpretation of social cues, self-justificatory thinking, and moral reasoning that is deficient and entitlement and dominance schemas are some of the most notable characteristics of chronic offenders. Offenders who portray such distorted thinking tend to react to situations that are essentially benign as if they were threatening. For example, they tend to be predisposed to perceive other people’s comments as being attacking or disrespectful. They further tend to hold conceptualizations of other people, themselves and the world that justify behaviors that are antisocial. Such behaviors include; “everyone is against me,” “no one can be trusted” and “society does not give me a chance.”

Such behaviors ten to be guided by rules and assumptions that are dysfunctional on how one is expected to behave; for example, “people have to be punished whenever they mess with you or else they will continue disrespecting you.” Usually, offender Cognitive-behavioural treatments are designed to correct such criminogenic and dysfunctional thinking patterns (Mann & Barnett, 2016). It has been argued that whenever an offender does not experience the distress experienced by an offender, it becomes easier for offenders to harm victims. For such reasons, deficits in the empathizing capacities have been implicated in criminal behaviors. The aim of Offender Behaviour Programmes usually is to increase the empathy that would be experienced by offenders for potential future victims. To facilitate the achievement of such aims, offenders, usually are asked to;

Read on the harms their prior criminal behaviors caused, including the less visible and psychological trauma.

Sit and watch videos of their victims describing the impacts their offenses had on their lives.

Write letters of apology that are hypothetical to their victims.

In the re-enactment of the offense, take the victims place.

Previous studies have suggested that the numbers of offenders who engage in Offender Behaviour Programmes are low. In a survey carried out by the Ministry of Justice in England and Wales in 2015 found out that 7% of the prisoners reported attending a cognitive-behavioral or thinking skills programme, 5% an anger management programme and 27% some sort of support for addiction. The survey found out that 40% of prisoners needed support for addiction ("Justice Data Lab statistics: July 2018", 2018). The Ministry of Justice holds the view that there exist some growing international evidence that the type of cognitive-behavioral techniques applied by programmes that are accredited are the most effective in minimizing reoffending behavior. Professor of Clinical Forensic Psychology James McGuire, in support of the claim by the Ministry of Justice, posited that such programmes show effects that are mainly positive with a degree of reliability that is reasonably high. Professor McGuire claimed that the findings of the positive effects were less consistent with reference to programmes that are prison-based and weaker with respect to domestic violence (McGuire, 2003).

The Sex Offenders Treatment Programme is one example of an Offender Behaviour Programme in England and Wales (Beech, Fisher and Beckett, 1998). According to the Ministry of Justice, this programme increases the awareness of victim harm which goes a long way in helping offenders to develop a better understanding of how and why they committed sexual offenses. Such offenders are further helped to develop life goals that are more meaningful. The Ministry of Justice published its own research that found that the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme did not succeed in sex offenders’ rehabilitation, specifically;

When compared to matched comparison offenders, the number of treated sex offenders who committed at least one sexual re-offense was higher during the follow-up periods (10.0% in comparison with 8.0%).

The number of treated sex offenders committing at least one child image re-offense was higher during the follow-up period when compared with the matched comparison offenders (4.4% in comparison with 2.9%).

Treatment of cognitive disorders is one of the most important elements for CBT interventions (Auburn, 2010). Usually, cognitive distortions are attitudes and beliefs that are not correct and that support offending behavior. For instance, pedophiles may believe that their engagement in sexual contact with children that they are actually educating them and that they are doing it in the best interests of the child. On the other hand, they may also blame the victims and say that that the child was seductive. Cognitive distortions are quite common among sexual offenders. According to Mann and Hollin (2007), offenders who engage in sexual activities in children tend to support their offending with cognitive distortions whose nature is more permanent, such as the beliefs that the young victims wanted and consented the sexual relationship (Navathe, Ward and Gannon, 2008). Sexual offenders of adults tend to use blame attributions that are associated with those offenses particularly (Coy and Horvath, 2010). There is a possibility that sex offenders could misperceive the actions, cues, and behaviors of their victims, the minimization and denial of sexual offenses is another form of cognitive distortion (Crighton, 2006). Denial involves an acceptance of such explanations that reduce accountability and are reinforced by beliefs that are distorted and thinking processes that are self-deceptive.

For an effective CBT intervention programme, these cognitive disorders would first need to be reduced (Thaker, Ward & Navathe, 2009). Such a reduction would go a long way in minimizing the rates of reoffending. To change the beliefs of offenders, cognitive restructuring methods tend to be the most effective. Such methods involve;

Providing explanations to offenders on the roles of the deviant thoughts in their behaviors to sexually offend.

Provision of information to the sexual offenders that would help correct such thoughts,

Helping the offenders to distinguish between the thoughts that are appropriate and those which are not appropriate.

Helping offenders to challenge the thoughts that are not appropriate.

This treatment process would begin with a detailed depiction of the sexual offense by the offender, including those beliefs and thoughts that preceded such behaviors (Wakeling, Webster & Mann, 2005). When offenders are able to verbalize their distortions, they get challenged, and emphasis on their negative consequences happens, and pro-social views are offered. Such views go a long way in reducing the chances of reoffending. The need for treatment of sexual offenders effectively has become a pressing issue in the UK. There has been an increase in the sex offender population, and most of these offenders are eventually released into the communities even when they have not received proper treatment. It is worth noting that sexual reoffending cannot be done away with completely. However, there are ways through which its impact on the community and even on the offender could be reduced (Lacombe, 2008). Through the use of cognitive behavioral therapy interventions for sexual offenders, reductions in sexual offending could be assured. CBT interventions are treatments that are both effectual and comprehensive for sexual offenders which should always be considered whenever dealing with such populations.

Supplementary Programmes

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy forms the basis for the Offender Behaviour Programmes currently implemented in prisons across England and Wales. There are, however, other therapeutic approaches that could be used to supplement the use of CBT; virtual therapy, psychodrama, development of emotional intimacy, neurofeedback and art therapy.

It is observed that neurofeedback and psychodrama are rather novel approaches in England and Wales with art therapy and psychodrama having been used in England and Wales from time to time.

Psychodrama

The primary method in psychodrama which is a therapeutic intervention is re-enactment. This intervention involves re-enactment of past life experiences by members of a group, potential future life events, and internal thought processes from perspectives that are different. The aim of such interventions usually is to understand those perspectives better and further recognize, avoid and resolve offending behaviors triggers.

Virtual Reality Therapy

Whereas the majority of the people engage their capacities for empathy to be default, there are offenders who only engage empathy whenever they are instructed to do so. This has brought about the question of how empathy training can be transferred from imagined victims in therapy to potential future victims in real life (Barnett and Mann, 2012). Offenders could be presented with features of a situation that in the past triggered their offending desires using virtual environments. For instance, a walk through a park that is computer simulated and that is filled with opportunities to commit a crime can be simulated with virtual reality. Such would be used to measure the ability of the environment to elicit cue reactivity and craving that is subjective, that is, skin conductance, subjective emotional responding and heart rate conductance. The offender could in turn practice implementation of their planned responses to their cravings situational triggers in environments that are safe whereby no real harm could happen. Virtual Reality Therapy provides opportunities for therapists to pause such simulations whenever they want so as to immediately provide reinforcement and feedback on the responses of the offender. Already, this type of therapy has been used to alleviate psychological problems effectively especially those that are associated with behaviors that are criminal — for example, treatment of alcoholism.

Development of Emotional Intimacy

Empathy is considered by psychologists to be a key basis for bonding socially. Offending is often linked to deficits in empathy, and sex offenders tend to be lonelier emotionally than other non-sex offenders and non-offenders in general. Stinson, Becker & McVay (2016) posit that sexual offending tends to be a representation of attempts to relieve loneliness. Those sex offenders who have the tendency of equating sex with intimacy may pursue the fulfillment of intimacy needs that are not met repeatedly and the mitigation of loneliness emotionally through sexual contacts that are impersonal even when such sexual contacts are with partners who are not appropriate like children or whose nature is non-consensual. Additionally, Holwerda et al., (2016) argue that loneliness has the potential of generating shame with regard to the failure to form relations that are intimate emotionally with others. Offending tends to provide relief for such kind of a shame. Yet through offending, offenders may bring more shame to themselves that would act to perpetuate their attempts to relieve such shame that were criminal. Other-oriented emotional recognition is also impeded by shame. Other-oriented emotional recognition is a skill that is quite important for the resolve of loneliness without recourse to means that are criminal.

As such, the cognitive-behavioral approach stands to benefit from an integration of emotional consent that is greater such as seeking to address shame and loneliness. Empathy usually is an emotional response to another human being. According to Davis (2018), primarily, empathy is an effective unconscious experience whereby observance of another person’s appearance physically, leads to an intuitive understanding that is also immediate of their feelings and thoughts. The empirical adequacy and external consistency theory find that those problems and deficits that brought about the lack of empathy at the time of offending are closely tied with reconviction. As such, the continued presence of such factors would predict reoffending. This distinction is quite important because there are cases where it would be possible to increase empathy for past victims without necessarily affecting the deficits that initially prevented empathetic experiences. For instance, offenders who are poor in taking perspectives may in therapy, still be able to learn that their victims were harmed. However, in learning such, it is not necessary that they have developed the skill of taking a perspective that they could apply in novel situations in the future. In another example, offenders whose abilities to take perspectives were diminished in particular situations where they were drunk, anger or aroused sexually could be able to adopt the perspectives of their victims with hindsight in therapy. It is, however, not clear whether such an offender would be able to exhibit empathy abilities when they are drunk, angry or aroused sexually.

Assessments of deficits and subsequent treatment planning should always begin with an evidence-based model of the existing relationship between offending and empathy. Treatment activities that are designed to enhance the empathy of victims should with no doubt remain as components of interventions. Such works alone would however not be sufficient to protect offenders against future empathy failures. The most important thing should be working on building empathetic capacities that comprise of interventions that would seek to improve emotional responding and perspective taking. It would be important that such skills are practiced in real life situations so that in times of future stress, they are more accessible and can be easily implemented before other victims are created.

Art Therapy

This involves the creation of drama, paintings, music, and stories to create states that are emotional, as guided by therapists. Most offenders experience problems which are psychological which compromise their abilities to perceive their emotions and further articulate them as well as their abilities to trust others well to the extent that they can express their emotional vulnerabilities openly. For such reasons, non-verbal forms of communication would most effectively be used to develop emotional intimacy. Art therapy is often described as presenting people with opportunities of learning new and different ways to use the languages of creativity which is mostly non-verbal to communicate their inner feelings that previously were not available to them by simply talking about them and thinking about them.

The conclusion of the Justice Data Lab posited that the creative arts were more likely to contribute to the processes of desisting from crime, particularly, through improvement of the engagement of prisoners with a sense of purpose and with the prison regime ("Ministry of Justice Data Lab," 2017).

Neurofeedback

This is another intervention that heavily relies on communication that is nonverbal. It specifically involves providing people real-time, visual and audio feedback about the type and level of electrical activity that occurs in particular parts of their brains, as detected by sensors attached on the scalp. Such technologies put people in a good position to see and hear the immediate impacts of their emotions and thoughts on their brain activities. The intervention is normally aimed at giving people enhanced control over such brain activity, and in turn, such psychological symptoms that are closely associated with those particular brain activities. Patients are bound to receive reward signals whenever there are changes in their brains activities in the direction intended by the therapist. Usually, the rewarding signal takes the form of a change in tone or the action of a character in a video game. According to Nelson, Esty & Barone (2017), neurofeedback's are effective in the treatment of mental disorders and substance abuse which are associated closely with offending.

Conclusion

From this paper, it is evident there are numerous factors that are responsible for reoffending. Such factors include; prison subcultures, negative public and societal reactions and attitudes towards inmates who have been released, structural and familial problems, poor correctional facilities, substance abuse, and peer influence. The research further outlined the best practices of carrying out psychological interventions to reduce reoffending which it was apparent is costly. A proper psychological intervention seeks to understand the thinking of the offender and procedurally helps them change their way of thinking.

Recommendations

The government of the United Kingdom working together with other relevant organizations needs to furnish the prison system with correctional facilities that are state-of-the-art and which are open for inmates.

The government should put in place responsive aftercare, rehabilitation and follow-up by inmates by prison authorities and any other responsible agencies.

Members of the public should be extensively sensitized on how they could accumulate ex-convicts to avoid stigmatization.

Further Research

Other studies could probably seek to uncover the best ways through which communities can treat ex-convicts to ensure that they properly integrate and also to reduce the chances of reoffending.

References

Anderson, J., & Ross, N. M. (2018). A Restorative City for New South Wales-Could Newcastle Be a Model?

Barnett, G., & Mann, R. E. (2012). Empathy deficits and sexual offending: A model of obstacles to empathy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 228-239. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.010

Beardslee, J., Datta, S., Byrd, A., Meier, M., Prins, S., Cerda, M., & Pardini, D. (2018). An examination of parental and peer influence on substance use and criminal offending during the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(6), 783-798.

Beech, A., Fisher, D., & Beckett, R. (1998). An evaluation of the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Programme. A report for the Home Office by the STEP Team.

Connell, C. (2016). Forensic occupational therapy to reduce risk of reoffending: a survey of practice in the United Kingdom. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27(6), 907-928.

Coy, M., & Horvath, M. A. (2010). Lads' Mags, Young Men's Attitudes towards women and acceptance of myths about sexual aggression. Feminism & Psychology, 21(1), 144-150. doi: 10.1177/0959353509359145

Crighton, D. (2006). Psychological research into sexual offenders. In G.J. Towl (Ed.), Psychological Research in Prisons. Oxford: Blackwell.

de Leon, N., Mager, B., & Armani, J. (2018). Service Design in Criminal Justice: A Co-production to Reduce Reoffending. Irish Probation Journal, 137.

Easton, C. J., Crane, C. A., & Mandel, D. (2018). A randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for substance‐dependent domestic violence offenders: an integrated substance abuse‐domestic violence treatment approach (SADV). Journal of marital and family therapy, 44(3), 483-498.

Holdsworth, E., Bowen, E., Brown, S., & Howat, D. (2017). The development of a program engagement theory for group offending behavior programs. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 61(13), 1479-1499.

Howard, M. V., de Almeida Neto, A. C., & Galouzis, J. J. (2018). Relationships between treatment delivery, program attrition, and reoffending outcomes in an intensive custodial sex offender program. Sexual Abuse, 1079063218764886.

Kratcoski, P. C. (2017). Cognitive Behavioral Therapies Used in Correctional Treatment. In Correctional Counseling and Treatment (pp. 255-271). Springer, Cham.

Lacombe, D. (2008). Consumed with sex: The treatment of sex offenders in risk society. The British Journal of Criminology, 48, 55-74.

Mann, R. E., & Barnett, G. D. (2016). Treating cognitive components of sexual offending. The Wiley Handbook on the theories, assessment and treatment of sexual offending, 1385-1401.

Mann, R. E., & Hollin, C. R. (2007). Sexual offenders' explanations for their offending. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 13(1), 3-9.

Mann, R.E., Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual offending: Some proposals on the nature of meaningful risk factors. In press in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.

McGuire, J. (Ed.). (2003). Offender rehabilitation and treatment: Effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending. John Wiley & Sons.

Mowen, T. J., & Boman IV, J. H. (2018). The duality of the peer effect: The interplay between peer support and peer criminality on offending and substance use during reentry. Crime & Delinquency, 64(8), 1094-1116.

Mulgan, G., Reeder, N., Aylott, M., & Bo’sher, L. (2011). Social impact investment: the challenge and opportunity of social impact bonds. Young Foundation, 1-38.

Navathe, S., Ward, T., & Gannon, T. (2008). Cognitive distortions in child sex offenders: an overview of theory, research & practice. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 4(3), 111-122.

Newton, D., Day, A., Giles, M., Wodak, J., Graffam, J., & Baldry, E. (2018). The impact of vocational education and training programs on recidivism: A systematic review of current experimental evidence. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 62(1), 187-207.

Petersson, J., Strand, S., & Selenius, H. (2019). Risk factors for intimate partner violence: A comparison of antisocial and family-only perpetrators. Journal of interpersonal violence, 34(2), 219-239.

Stewart, C., & Rapp, L. (2017). The Relationship of Spirituality and Family Functioning to Recidivism: An Investigation with Incarcerated Adolescent Males. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 34(3-4), 292-310.

Thakker, J., Ward, T., & Navathe, S. (2009). The Cognitive Distortions and Implicit Theories of Child Sexual Abusers. In T. A. Gannon, T. Ward, A. Beech, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Aggressive Offenders' Cognition (pp. 9-29). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Wakeling, H.C., Webster, S.D., & Mann, R.E. (2005). Sexual offenders’ treatment experience: A qualitative and quantitative investigation. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 171-186.

Unit, S.E., 2002. Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners (Vol. 32). London: Social Exclusion Unit.

Wakeling, H.C., Webster, S.D., & Mann, R.E. (2005). Sexual offenders’ treatment experience: A qualitative and quantitative investigation. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 11, 171-186.