Perceived Effectiveness of a Gender Responsive Prison-Based Sex Offender Treatment Program

Background and Purpose:

Despite evidence implicating that women make up a significant number of individuals who commit sex crimes, public discourse and scholarly inquiry around sexually deviant behavior center nearly exclusively on men (Elliott et al., 2010; Cortoni et al., 2016). Consequently, treatment interventions for individuals charged with sex offenses is rarely gender responsive, instead relying on programming created for men to intervene with individuals of all genders (Gower et al., 2023). However, there are gender-based differences in individual characteristics, offense patterns and risk of recidivism between men and women who offend, which necessitates gender responsive approaches to treatment (Pflugradt et al., 2018).

This study seeks to gain insight into participants’ perceptions of a treatment program designed specifically for women charged with a sex offense who are in a prison setting. The study asked: What were the experiences of women who participated in a prison-based gender-specific treatment program? What were the common traits of individuals who found the treatment program useful?

Methods:

Content analysis was used to analyze interviews with 11 women currently incarcerated for a sex crime participating in a prison-based gender-specific treatment program. Data consisted of interview notes. Themes that emerged from the data include: Course experience and evaluation; stigma; charges and sentencing; trauma; and substance use and abuse. In a second coding cycle, relational analysis was used to identify perceived course effectiveness and shared participant traits. A final coding cycle was utilized to analyze the Presentence Investigation Reports and Sexual Offense Risk Assessments of the 11 interviewees to gain insight into their offenses, and how they were perceived by the facilitators of the program.

Results:

Individuals who spoke more positively about the facilitators were more likely to speak more positively about the course. Individuals who spoke more critically about the facilitators and course, were less likely to have successfully completed the program. They were also less likely to have taken any accountability for their actions during sessions. Program components which resonated most with participants were schemas, or the examination of one’s thinking and behaviors around relationships, sex, and boundaries; and goal setting for the future to improve relationships and avoid recidivism. Shared experiences among participants which were tied to a more critical evaluation of the program included motherhood, trauma history, and concerns about encountering barriers and stigma upon release. In relation to barriers and stigma, most participants expressed specific concerns about the impact of being placed on the sex offender registry, especially if lifelong registration was required.

Conclusions and Implications:

Findings suggest that while course content was impactful for participants, perception of the program facilitator played a more substantial role in whether they found the program to be effective. Individuals who found the program effective described their facilitator(s) as helpful, caring, and non-judgmental, while those who found it ineffective felt dehumanized and dismissed by their facilitator(s). Departments of Correction that seek to implement gender-specific treatment programs must be conscious of the fact that while gender responsive course content is important, the approach of the facilitator is paramount.