338P
A Qualitative Investigation of Treatment Components for Families of Youth Who Have Sexually Offended
Traditional treatment approaches for sexually abusive youth are understudied and lack consideration for youths’ evolving context and development. A holistic model is becoming increasingly important in service delivery, whereby broad and systemic factors are integrated into treatment. Family treatment is argued to be a holistic approach with burgeoning support and field recognition, but has limitations in regards to feasibility and applicability in disparate settings. The field is increasingly emphasizing family-oriented models for youth who have sexually offended. This qualitative study attempted to systematically uncover components of family treatment regularly used with youth who have sexually offended with the goal of revealing practical and functional techniques for service agencies to emulate. This study was guided by two overarching research questions: 1) What does family treatment entail? and 2) What factors help families progress through treatment?
Methods:
Sample.Interviews were conducted with services providers (N=19) working with youth who have sexually offended and their families. Recruitment strategies included e-mail contacts, direct phone calls, and snowball sampling techniques by providers wishing to involve additional participants. Measures. Preliminary focus groups were held with multi-disciplinary team members to capture an initial understanding of issues related to family treatment. Emergent themes centered on family service needs and necessary improvements in service delivery. A semi structured interview guide was developed with content areas inclusive of family service provision questions.
Data Analyses.Transcribed interview data was entered into ATLAS.Ti and a coding schema was developed to formulate an analytical coding process that included open, first, and second cycle coding strategies, which ultimately generated common themes. The data were analyzed through a constant comparison technique, relating themes between different providers and different interviews, between same provider and follow-up interviews, and themes emerging in the same interview. Qualitative rigor was achieved by using multiple coders, triangulation of the data (focus groups, interviews, and written memos), observer triangulation, member checks, peer debriefing, and a well-organized audit trail.
Results:
Findings revealed that sex offender specific psychoeducation is predominately applied during initial stages of treatment. Families may enter into treatment unacquainted with concepts related to sexual perversion and knowledge of such concepts enables open discourse and improved ability to identify problem situations. More predominately, the findings revealed the value using the therapeutic alliance with the family to develop communication and problem solving skills and work through a deeply painful experience.
Implications:
Findings from this study support the need to expand evidenced based family-oriented practices. The field would greatly benefit from understanding how family treatment components like communication, problem solving, and working through the pain can be quantitatively linked to outcomes. This study is a starting point for understanding how both component based approaches and the therapeutic relationship are uniformly valued. These findings can inform the development of family-based approaches that can be tested, validated, and disseminated. It is the goal that treatment programs and providers across the country can execute this model across various service sectors.