Objectives

 Provide overview of research on juvenile and adult female sexual offending including typologies.

 Learn about assessment and clinical needs.

 Review recidivism research.

 Discuss probation implications.

Culture of Denial

“That she might seduce a helpless child into sexplay is unthinkable, and even if she did so, what harm can be done without a penis?”

Culture of Denial

“When treating the female offender, it is important to recognize that the psychological dynamics of the female offender are identical to those of the male offender.”

Culture of Denial

“Pedophilia is considered to be a condition afflicting only males… Reported cases of female pedophilia are so uncommon as to be of little significance.”

Culture of Denial

 “Pedophilia… does not exist at all in women” (Freund et al., 1984)  “Research on female sex offenders rejects the use of this term because of its irrelevance to female sexuality” (Dunbar, 1999)

Culture of Denial

Referring to mother-daughter incest – “One in a million…a reasonable but probably high estimate.” (Abramson & Pinkerton, 2001)

Female Depictions

Seducers Not Offenders

Females Depictions

Temptresses Not Rapists

Statistics

 2009 stats: In the US alone, 208 females under age 18 for forcible rape and 5,337 females under 18 were arrested for other sexual offenses (excluding prostitution) (FBI, 2009).

 1% of adult sex offenders who abuse children are female (Groth, 1979).

 Women are responsible for between 4% and 5% of all sexual offenses (Cortoni & Hanson, 2005; Cortoni, Hanson, & Coache, 2010).

Current Thinking

“Aggressiveness is gendered and… attention must be devoted to the particularities of male and female violence” (Cavanaugh, 2002, p.i) .

Current Thinking

 “With respect to human sexuality, there is a female human nature and a male human nature, and these natures are extraordinarily different” (Symons, cited in Pinker, 1997, p. 461) .

Review of the Research



Study Limitations

 Small number of studies and comparison studies      Small sample sizes Lack of statistical analysis Unrepresentative samples Poor generalizability Reliability/validity concerns with archival data  Limitations of self-reported data

Sexual Victimization Histories of Sexually Abusive Girls

 Appears to be the area of greatest gender difference:      95.5% of the girls had sexual abuse histories vs. 69.9% of the boys (Hickey et al., 2008) 63.6% of the girls had sexual abuse histories vs. 50% of the males (Kubik et al., 2002) 72% females vs. 50% males (Miccio Fonseca, 2000) 77.6% girls vs. 44.3% boys (Mathews et al., 1997) 100% girls vs. 63% boys (Bumby & Bumby, 1997)

Sexual Victimization Histories

 Descriptive Studies  72.7% had sexual abuse histories (Weedon, 2011)  97% of girls (Howley, 2001)  100% girls (Hunter et al., 1993)  100% girls (Johnson, 1989)

Sexual Victimization Histories

 Often abused at young ages:  64% of girls prior to age 5 vs. 25.8% of boys (Mathews et al.)  Median age 4 for girls vs. 7 for boys (Hickey et al.)  Median age 3.8 (Howley)  Median age 4.5 (Hunter et al.)  54% of girls prior to age 6 vs. 33% of boys (Miccio-Fonseca)

Sexual Victimization Histories

 Often victimized by multiple perpetrators:  Mean number of perpetrators for girls was 4.83 vs. 1.75 for boys (Kubik et al.).

 Mean number of perpetrators for girls was 4.5 vs. 1.4 for boys (Mathews et al.).

 Median number for girls was 3.5 vs. 1 for boys (Hickey et al.)  74% of girls abused by two or more perpetrators (Howley).

 Mean number of perpetrators for girls was 5 (ranging from 2-7 ) (Hunter et al.).

Sexual Victimization Histories

 Many girls have been abused repeatedly and severely:  75% of girls had been victimized three or more times vs. 20% of boys.

 71.4% endured anal or vaginal penetration vs. 22.2% of boys (Kubik et al.).

 72.5% of girls reported being the victim of force and aggression vs. 45.2% of the boys (Mathews et al.).

Sexual Victimization Histories

 Many girls have been abused by female perpetrators:     Girls were more likely than boys to be abused by both females and males (57.1% vs. 30.1%) (Hickey et at al.).

A female perpetrator abused 32% of the girls (Howley).

3x as many girls than boys reported having been sexually abused by a female perpetrator (Mathews et al.).

60% of girls had been abused by a female perpetrator (Hunter et al.).

Sexual Victimization Histories

Girls more often abused by relatives (85.7% vs. 57.4%) and/or both relatives and acquaintances (57.1% vs. 28.4%) (Hickey et al.)

Other Maltreatment Histories

 Many sexually abusive girls experience multiple forms of maltreatment:  Female adolescents “are more likely to have been maltreated in a variety of ways compared to their male counterparts” (p.77).

 Physical abuse (63.6% vs. 40%)  Neglect (70% vs. 36.4%)  Exposure to family violence (62.5% vs. 22.2%) (Kubik et al.)

Other Maltreatment Histories

 Hickey et al:  90.9% emotional neglect  77.3% physical neglect  Schwartz et al:  95% neglected  Howley’s study:  82% physical abuse  71% general neglect  Mathew’s et al:  60% physical abuse vs. 44.9% of boys.

 Bumby & Bumby:  75% physical abuse.

 42% emotional or physical neglect.

Other Exposure

 Girls more likely than boys to witness domestic violence and sexual deviance within home (Schwartz et al., 2006).

 Girls more likely to be exposed to inadequate sexual boundaries in the home (77.3% vs. 41.3%) (Hickey et al., 2008).

Conclusions Regarding Victimization Histories

 Kubik et al: “[F]emales who committed sexual offenses tended to have more severe histories of maltreatment than their male counterparts” (p.81)  Mathews et al: “In comparison to their male counterparts, the developmental histories of the juvenile female perpetrators reflected even more extensive and severe maltreatment” (p.192).

Conclusions

“Biological and socialization factors create a higher threshold for the externalization of experienced developmental trauma in females than males… [I]t may be that females are generally less likely than males to manifest the effects of maltreatment in the form of interpersonal aggression or violence and that females who develop such patterns are generally those who have experienced remarkably high levels of such developmental trauma in the absence of environmental support for recovery and the presence of healthy female role models” (p.164).

Mental Health Disturbances Among Sexually Abusive Girls

 59.1% had PTSD vs. 26.4% of boys and 40.9% had RAD vs. 15.4% of boys (Hickey et al.).

 50% had PTSD vs. 9.1% of boys (Kubik et al.).

 83% had received prior mental health treatment; 83% had histories of depression (Bumby & Bumby) .  Over 1/2 had a mood disturbance and almost 1/2 of girls met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD (Mathews et al.) .

Suicidal Ideation

 44% of the females had attempted suicide vs. 15% of the males. 50% of the females came from families where someone had attempted suicide vs. 8% of the males (Miccio-Fonseca).  80% received prior mental health; 60% had histories of suicidal ideation and attempts (Hunter et al.).

 58% had histories of suicide attempts (Bumby & Bumby).

Stealing, Truancy, Running Away

 49% had run away; 39% engaged in truancy (Howley).

 33% arrested for stealing; 58% had run away; 58% had been truant. In comparison study, the girls had higher truancy rates than the boys (Bumby & Bumby).

 Higher rates of stealing (74.2% vs. 52.8%) and truancy (43.8% vs. 27.6%) among girls than boys (Ray & English).

 60% had run away (Hunter et al.).

Academic Problems

 80% had a learning disorder (Tardif et al., 2005).

 60% had below average IQs, 50% received special education services (Howley) .

 83% had academic difficulties; only 1 was classified as learning disabled. In comparison study, females were retained at least one grade in school at a significantly higher rate than males (Bumby & Bumby) .

 40% had learning disabilities (Hunter et al.).

Sexual Abuse in Caretaking Roles

 11 out of 12 offended while they were babysitting. None abused strangers (Bumby & Bumby).

 Females appeared more likely to offend while babysitting (Mathews et al.).

 67.9% of offenses occurred while babysitting. None abused strangers (Fehrenbach & Monastersky).

Use of Force

 Considerable force used in most cases (Hendriks & Bijleveld)  No differences between males and females in regards to level of coercion (Kubik et al.).

 40% of girls used force during at least one of their offenses (Hunter et al.).

 All the girls used force or coercion to gain victim compliance (Johnson).

Motivations for Sexual Abuse

 Sex offending more about anger (approx. 60%), most often towards main caretakers, than sexual curiosity or stimulation (Howley).

 Resistance to cultural scripts  Protection by perpetration  Trauma reenactment

Motivation

 To what extent does the desire for sexual arousal and stimulation motivate girls to sexually abuse?

 Girls may be less likely to disclose sexual arousal due to lack of awareness of their sexuality and arousal response, in addition to scripts that teach them to deny their sexuality.

 Lack of physiological measurements

Attachment and Sex

 Perpetrating is “often motivated by the desire to establish or maintain an emotional relationship” (Turner & Turner, 1996, p. 41) .

 “Where attachment has proven unsatisfying as a source of nurturance, girls may resort to precocious sexual involvements in a bid for attachment rather than for actual sexual gratification… [W]here the attachment system falters, the sexual system may come into play in substitute fashion” (Salzman, 1990).

Mother-Daughter Dynamics

 Disconnected relationships  Anger at mother for sacrificing relationship for abusive partner and/or for failing to protect.

 A need for differentiation:  “[F]emale offenders may have perpetrated in order to differentiate themselves from enmeshed, victim identified mothers, and/or to act out rage at their mothers, who failed to protect them from other offenders” (Turner & Turner, p.17) .

Mother-Daughter Dynamics

 Johnson (1989) :  Mothers were extremely dependent on daughters; significant role reversals.

 Mothers had abuse histories and adopted a victim stance in relating to the world.

 Girls may have sexually abused due to a “reaction formation not only stemming from their own victimization but against the almost complete dependency and victim status which their mothers modeled for them” (p.582).

Typologies: Girls Predisposed Offending

 They sexually offend primarily due to their own sexual abuse histories or individual/family psychopathology.

 Severe abuse histories  Co-morbid diagnoses  Attachment and empathy deficits  Criminal orientation or exclusive sexual offending

Typologies: Experimenting/ Exploiting

 Their primary motivation is sexual curiosity.

 Their sexual abuse histories appear secondary.

 Crime of opportunity  Low levels of psychopathology  Lack social skills and prior sexual experiences  Naïve

Typologies: Peer-Influenced Offending

 Offending due to pressure from peers or group involvement.

 Unassertive, dependent, easily influenced  Least likely form of sexual offending for females (or is it?)

Finkelhor, Omrod, & Chaffin (2009)

 Female sexually abusive youth were more likely than their male counterparts to offend with others (36% vs. 23%) as well as with adults (13% vs. 5%).

 They were, however, more likely to be considered victims at the same time they were offending by investigators.

Vandiver (2010)

 52% of the girls had at least one co-offender vs. 19% of boys.

 Social amplification occurs when girls offend with a co-offender. This is not the same for boys.  Arrestee age: boys were significantly older.

 Those who acted with someone were likely to have a male co-offender and have more than one victim. The victim was typically a girl.

Typologies: Women

 Mathews, Matthews & Speltz (1990)  Self-Initiated Offenses:  Intergenerationally Predisposed  Experimenter/Exploiter  Teacher/Lover  Accompanied Offenses:  Male Coerced  Psychologically Disturbed

What about MYLF?

 “Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged. I have a better description for these kids: lucky bastards” (George Carlin, New Rules, 2007).

 MYLF websites  Lucky lads or not?

 Adult females pursued by teenage males

Syed & Williams (1996)

 19 incarcerated female offenders  Teacher/Lover (1)  Angry/Impulsive (1)  Male Coerced (4)  Male Accompanied (familial) (3)  Male Accompanied (non-familial) (2)

Nathan & Ward (2001)

 Co-offending subtypes :  The compliant victim: Psychologically disturbed with strong dependency needs. Will set up her own children.

 The rejected: Sexually rejected by male partners and resort to sexual contact with children. Pathological jealousy and rage.

 The willing ally/imposter: Psychologically disturbed with pathological self-esteem issues. They attach to dominant male with paraphilias and/or antisocial traits.

Saradjian (1996)

 Study of 50 female offenders  Women who initially target young children (Predisposed offenders) (14)  Women who initially target adolescents (teacher/lover) (10)  Women who are initially coerced offenders (male-coerced) (12)  Atypical offenders (10)  Perpetrators of ritual abuse (4)

Saradjian Continued

 All female sole perpetrators have sexual abuse histories.

 Women usually start abusing when they are in maternal roles. Victims are most often female children.

 Many do become aroused from children’s pain.

 All have negative view of self.

 Many have low sex drives.

 Lack of substance abuse.

Saradjian Continued

 Endogenous opioids and Serotonin are involved in sex offending.

 The women’s abuse histories are evidence of a history of a release of endogenous opioids.

 The women had excessive exposure to endogenous opioids and became physiologically dependent on them.

 Intense stress leads to reduced levels of Serotonin: impulsive behavior.

Vandiver & Walker (2002)

 40 female registered sex offenders in Arkansas  Most of the offenders: only one sex offense, no other criminal history  Females significantly more likely to be first time offenders compared to male registered sex offenders.

Prentky (2004)

 Type A: severe child/adolescent abuse leads to severe adult abuse by partner including rape, DV, and coerced sexual abuse of children (Male-coerced typology + personality disordered)  Type B: appear to seek out partners with common pedophilic interests; etiology unclear (Male accompanied offenders)

Prentky (2004)

 Type C: severe child/adolescent abuse leads to a high degree of externalizing, antisocial behavior, including sexual offenses  Type D: acute deficits in social & interpersonal skills and poor self esteem/self-confidence lead to young object choices (developmentally arrested or regressed)

Vandiver & Kercher (2004)

 Registered adult female sex offenders in Texas (N = 471)  Heterosexual nurturers (146)  Similar to teacher/lover typology  Noncriminal homosexual offenders (114)  Female sexual predators (112)  Young adult child exploiters (50)  Homosexual criminals (22)  Aggressive homosexual offenders (17)

Vandiver (2006)

 Compared 123 solo offenders to 104 co-offenders. Co-offenders more likely to:  Have more than one victim.

 Have male and female victims.

 Be related to the victim.

 Have a nonsexual offense in addition to sex offense.

Sandler & Freeman (2007)

 390 registered adult female sex offenders in New York  Offenders displayed a preference to target female victims ages 0-11 and male victims age 12-17. Victims ages 18 and up, slightly more likely to be female.

Six Types

1.

Criminally-limited hebephiles (158) : Matches V & K’s heterosexual nurturers 2.

Criminally-prone hebephiles (105) 3.

Young adult child molesters (27) : Similar to V & K’s young adult child exploiters

Six Types Continued

4. High-risk chronic offenders (25) 5. Older non-habitual offenders (20) 6. Homosexual child molesters (11)

Strickland (2008)

 FSO: N = 60  Female non-sex offenders: N = 70  FSOs have significantly more total childhood trauma.

 FSOs have significantly more social/sexual inadequacies.

 FSOs have inadequate knowledge about sexuality, sexual functioning, anatomy.

 Address victimization history early.

Mental Health of FSO

 Fazel, Sjostedt, Grann, & Langstrom (2008) :  93 convicted women  Just as likely to have mental problems or drug addictions as non-sexual violent female offenders  Incidence of psychosis: 16x higher than in control group  Drug abuse: 23x higher

Eldridge, Elliott, Ashfield (2009)

 43 adult females  51% abused own children  Victims: 44% male, 40% female, 16% combination  7% other children within their family  35% outside of family  7% intra and extra-familial victims  Four categories  Lone offender (victim over 12) (n=11)  Lone offender (victim under 12) (n=9)  Male associated (n=18)  Male coerced (n=5)

Etiological Model of Risk

 Lucy Faithfull foundation & Birmingham University are developing a tool based on Beech & Ward’s (2004) etiological risk domains  Developmental factors  Vulnerability (trait) factors including psychological vulnerabilities (dynamic factors) and historical markers (static factors)  Trigger factors  Acute (state) factors (Eldridge, Elliott, Ashfield, 2009)

Etiological Model of Risk

Distal factors Factors Vulnerability Factors State Factors

Developmental

Factors: Abuse; attachment

Static Factors

(Psychosocial Problems, antisociality, criminal history)

Stable Dynamic

Factors (sexual, self-regulation, cognitions supporting offending)

Acute Dynamic Factors:

Sexual arousal, deviant thoughts and fantasies; affective states

Triggering Events/Contextual Factors

Victim access; social isolation; substance abuse

Developmental factors

 49% poor attachment to primary caregiver  51% parental rejection and/or neglect  67% some form of emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse  42% victim of sexual abuse during childhood. Lone offender group (victim under 12) far more likely to have been a victim of c.s.a. and to have suffered from intrafamilial abuse.

Vulnerability (Trait) Factors

 Including historical markers and psychological dispositions  14% had previous non-sexual, non-violent convictions, none had violent offenses  5% prior convictions for sexual offenses  81% low self-esteem  79% low confidence  63% low assertiveness  86% socially isolated  49% series of unstable relationships  74% prior exploitive and/or abusive relationships  93% cognitive distortions

Trigger Factors

 Depression: 42% were on an antidepressant at the time of their offense.

 53% unstable family life  74% possessive and/or violent partners (more common in male associated groups)

Acute Factors

 Dysphoric mood states (more common in lone offender groups)  Need for intimacy (more common in l.o. group victim over 12)  Need for power and control (more common among l.o. victim under 12)  Current partner (Schedule 1 offender or has prior allegations of sexual abuse)

Beech & Ward’s (2004) Etiological Model of Risk: Adult Female Offender

 Developmental Markers:  History of victimization; attachment problems to mother & maternal rejection; borderline intellectual functioning; Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.

 Vulnerability (Trait) Factors:  Social isolation; poor self-regulation; maladaptive coping strategies; attachment problems; low self-esteem; considerable impulsivity; history of unstable relationships; parenting difficulties; prior criminal behavior; abusive marriage.

Beech & Ward (2004) Etiological Model of Risk: Adult Female Offender

 Trigger (Contextual) Factors:  High levels of depression; feeling lonely & unloved; marital discord; inappropriate use of prescription medications; emotional identification to children.

 Acute Factors:  Victim access (son’s friends); possible psychosis; depression; misuse of prescription medications; alcohol & marijuana use; emotional regression; desire for intimacy and sexual gratification.

The Descriptive Model of Female Sexual Offending (DMFSO)

 Gannon, Rose, Ward (2008)  First preliminary model of female perpetrated sexual abuse  Developmental abuse experiences more severe than those of male offenders  Problems with self-esteem  Severe passivity or aggression  Mental health problems early in adulthood  Victimized in their early intimate relationships

DMFSO

 Motivations/Goals  Sexual gratification (6): solo or male accompanied offenders  Intimacy (5): Solo or male associated subtypes  Instrumental other revenge/humiliation (3) or Financial (2)  Extreme fear (3)

DMFSO

 91% had experienced domestic abuse prior to onset of offending (clear relationship between intimate partner abuse and sexual offending)  20 women identified their personal relationship as major life stressor consisting of domestic abuse (severe/persistent)

DMFSO

 5 followed avoidant pathway  Directed male planning  Intimacy/fear related goals  Negative affect  9 followed approach pathway  Explicit planning  Intimacy  Sexual gratification  Other instrumental goals and positive affect  4 disorganized approach behaviors  Implicit or no planning  The goals underlying sex offending behaviors are subtly different as are the planning and approach styles.

Gannon, Rose & Ward (2010)

 Re-examine DMFSO to investigate the prevalence of specific offence pathways characterizing FSOs  Pathways  (1) Explicit Approach: Child or Adults FSOs  50% of women  Goals: sexual gratification, intimacy, revenge/humiliation, financial  Included women who abused children alone or in the presence of a male; sex  trafficked; and, women who offended against adults in a group or alone.

Offense styles (maternal, aggressive, or operationalized approach)  Preorganized and intentional

Gannon, Rose & Ward cont.

 (2) Directed Avoidant  25% of females  Explicitly directed to commit their offense by a coercive male  Wish to avoid sexual offending  Passive or dependent personality traits resulting from years of physical and/or emotional abuse by previous relationship or co offender.

 Offense-approach: maternal avoidant  Victims are their own children and most likely females

Gannon, Rose & Ward cont.

 (3) Implicit Disorganized Pathway  22% of females  Goals: intimacy, revenge  Lack of planning or implicit planning at a distal stage  Could not be characterized as wishing to offend  Unable to self regulate themselves in the moments preceding the offense  Only two female victims and victims are slightly older children

Wijkman, Bijleveld, Hendriks (2010)

 FSO: N = 111  Almost two-thirds (63%) of the women had co-offended with a male co-offender.  In 75% of the co-offender cases, the husband or intimate partner was the co offender.

Four Prototypes

 Four prototypical offender types:  Young Solo Offenders  Young Assaulter (18 to 24 years)  Often babysitting situations  Fondling/oral sex  Relative & male victim  Similar to V & K’s Young Adult Child Exploiter  Rapist  Sexual intercourse/penetration  Usually older victims  No clear preference for male or female victim  Replication of abuse history?

 Similar to V & K’s female sexual predator and Mathews et al. intergenerationally predisposed offender

Four Prototypes Cont.

 Older Women Types  Psychologically disturbed co-offender  (average age 30 to 35 years old)  No preference for female or male victim  Often their own children  Similar to Mathews et al. (1991) “predisposed molestation type”  Many with sexual abuse histories but not all  Passive mother  (>41 years old)  Watch the abuse or provide opportunity  No active role in the abuse  Victims both sexes  Similar to Mathews et al. (1991) male-coerced type

Similarities Between Male and Female Sex Offending

 Defense Mechanisms  Family of Origin  Grooming (but differences as well)  Peer Relations  Substance Use  Victims

Differences Between Male and Female Sex Offending

 Perception: Females more “seductive” than abusive  Girls are less likely to be adjudicated  21% of sample had been adjudicated (Howley)  2 girls vs. 93 boys charged with a sex offense (Ray & English)  26.6% girls vs. 15.3% boys cases handled informally and 73.4% girls vs. 84.7% boys processed formally (Vandiver).

 Cases involving adult female perpetrators – three times as likely to be classified as ‘unfounded’ (e.g., fabrication) than cases involving males ( Denov , 2004)

Differences

 Boys are more likely to abuse females; females are more likely to abuse both genders (Vandiver & Teske)  Girls tend to be younger when they sexually abuse others (Kubik et al., Vandiver & Teske)  Victims of females are younger (Vandiver & Teske; Finkelhor et al.)  Girls more likely to be involved in incidents with multiple victims (23% vs. 12%) (Finkelhor et al.)

Differences

  Girls more likely to be viewed as victims: Girls more likely to enter the system as victims; boys more likely to enter the system due to concerns about the safety of others (Ray & English) .

    Distortions/Explanations Altruistic/Caretaking “I had no choice” Language of relationship  Etiology  Dependence vs. dominance  Relational aggression

Differences

 Dependency  Fear of rejection/abandonment  Diagnoses  Paraphilias vs. personality disorders  Pedophilia: More of a male disorder?

 Gannon, Rose & Williams (2009): Females do not hold unusual cognitive associations between children and sex unlike MSOs.

Differences

 Forced complicity  Rare among females  History  Significant sexual abuse histories for females.

 Allen (1991): 72% female vs. 36% male  Offender Autonomy  Females work in concert with another adult; males more solo.  Women more likely than men to be co perpetrators (23.5% vs. 13.2%) (Peter, 2009)

Differences

 Self-injury  Sexual Fantasy  Daydreaming vs. deviant fantasies (Saradjian, 1996)  Masturbation to victimization memories  Recidivism risk

Differences

  Use of violence/coercion Less use of weapons   Victim selection Gender  Girls appear to select victims out of convenience rather than a genuine preference for one gender (Vandiver & Teske, 2006)  Adult females: gender of victim equivocal  Stranger vs. known   Multiple victims Girls more likely to be involved in incidents with multiple victims (23% vs. 12%) (Finkelhor et al., 2009).

Impact

 Denov (2004): Qualitative study of 14 adult victims of female adolescent or adult sexual abuse 1. Rage (100%) 2. Mistrust of Women (100%) 3. Discomfort with Sex (100%) 4. Fear of Abusing Children (86%) 5. Suicidal ideation (79%) 6. Depression (64%) 7. Substance abuse (57%) 8. Suicide attempts (55%)

Impact

 Traumatic sexualization:  Victims confuse sex and affection or sex and caregiving  Victims view themselves as sexual aggressors  Stigmatization  Powerlessness  Betrayal  Enmeshment and Identity  Conflict/ambivalence about sex and women  Silence

Assessment

 Best practice is based on a thorough understanding of female development and the research conducted thus far on sexually offending females.

 Greater reliance on self-report (Hunter & Mathews, 1997)  Pay close attention to the more subtle and covert behaviors, and internalization responses, in addition to their more overt behavioral problems.

Assessment

 Offending behavior:  Motivation for offending  Sex = love  Trauma re-enactment  Relational aggression: Who was she wanting to hurt?

 Type of cognitive distortions  Typology  Pathway to offending  History of maltreatment  Female perpetrator?

 Negative outcome to disclosure?

 PTSD symptoms?

 History of conduct disordered behavior and/or relational aggression?

Assessment Continued

 Relational development, female identity, attachment styles  Sexual functioning  Sexually passive and an object for others or does she take ownership of her sexuality?

 Reproductive health  Sexual knowledge pertaining to self  Desire to get pregnant  Unsafe sexual behavior  Body image  Mental health/internalization  Suicidal ideation/behaviors  Depression  Self-mutilation  Eating disorders

Attachment Styles

 Bartholomew’s Model (1990)  Anxious/ambivalent: Preoccupied  Negative self/positive others  Overly dependent  Preoccupied with relationships  Seek approval  Peer influenced or co-offending  Adult females: Fits “teacher/lover,” “male-coerced” “male accompanied” offenders  Preoccupied attachment disproportionately represents females whereas males in dismissing quadrant (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

Attachment Styles

 Avoidant I: Fearful      Negative self/negative others Desires intimacy but avoids it Predisposed offending Experimenting/exploiting Abuse reactive

Attachment Issues

 Avoidant II: Dismissive      Positive self/negative others Lack desire for close relationships Invulnerable to negative feelings Cold and detached; no empathy Predisposed or peer influenced co offending  Adult Females: Fits “forced assault” and “angry/impulsive” offenders

Female Arousal

 January 25, 2009 - New York Times Magazine - What Is Female Sexual Desire?

 Meredith Chivers, sexologist  Uses plethysmography  Men respond genitally in category specific ways: Their objective and subjective ratings are more in agreement.

 Divergence in women between objective and subjective responses  Strong and swift genital arousal to men with men, women with women and women with men (and chimpanzees)  Women aroused by wider range of stimuli  Rudderless system of reflexive physiological arousal

Female Arousal

 Women’s sexual preferences may not be as strongly related to physiological sexual arousal patterns as are men’s preferences (Chivers et al., 2004).

 Female sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality and this may be reflected in less specific pattern of sexual arousal (Chivers et al., 2004).

 The subjective sense of sexual arousal in women does not correlate strongly with genital changes measured by laboratory equipment, yet for men, this correlation is generally high (Laan et al., 1995).

Female Arousal

 Lisa Diamond: sexologist and author of “Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire” (Harvard University Press, 2008)  Female desire is malleable, flexible  Innate orientations can be overriden by emotional closeness  Related to oxytocin  Marta Meana: sexologist  For women, “Being desired is the orgasm.”  Women’s desire is narcissistic: driven by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need.

Forensic Assessment

A comprehensive approach to the forensic assessment of female sexual interest begins with an accurate, empirically grounded appreciation of the gender difference in sex drive and arousal.

Staunton, C., Hammond, S., & Lambert, S. (2008). Applying knowledge of female sexual arousal to the forensic context. The Irish Journal of Psychology, 29(1-2), 103-117.

Abel Screen

 Could visual reaction time be less valid for females?

 Israel & Strassberg (2009): Heterosexual women spend more time looking at same-sex images than men as well as images of the opposite sex.

 Ebsworth (2008): Women’s viewing times varied as a function of the age of the person depicted. Viewing time may only reliably assess some aspects of sexual interests in women.

Polygraph Use with Females

 Heil, Simons, & Burton (2010)  Questions should include indirect and direct sexual offending as well as co offending.

 Sexual questions should include activities that can be abusive yet masked as childcare activities.

   Simons, Heil, Burton, & Gursky (2008) 74 CDOC and 22 probation 35% of incarcerated females/21% of outpatient     females were co-offenders Pornography use (85%) Group sex (56%) Prostitution (35%) Non-sexual child abuse (29%)

Other Assessment Tools: Female Youth

 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)  CBCL/6-18 (Girls Profile) and Youth Self-Report  Early Assessment Risk List for Girls (EARL-21G)  Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2)  Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI)

Assessment Tools

 Multiphasic Sex Inventory (MSI II JF)  Reynold’s Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS-2)  Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale (TABS)  Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC)

Risk Assessments

 Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY)  Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI)  ERASOR, 2.0?

“Unfortunately, there is no research regarding sexual reoffence risk assessment with adolescent females…. It must be stressed, however, that the validity of this risk assessment is limited by the lack of research specifically with adolescent females, and the conclusions should be considered speculative” (Worling & Curwen, 2011).

MEGA

 Introduced at ATSA Conference in 2006  Miccio-Fonseca, Ph.D.

 Validated (2006-2008) on sample of 1184 youth (ages 4 to 19) (979 males, 205 females, and DD youth) Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. (2009). MEGA: A new paradigm in protocol assessing sexually abusive children and adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 2, 124-141.

MEGA



Seven Aggregates

 Neuropsychological  Family Lovemap  Antisocial  Sexual Incident  Coercion  Strategem  Relationship (Predatory Elements)

MEGA

 Females significantly higher on Neuropsycholocial and Family Lovemap Aggregates.

 Males significantly higher on the Antisocial, Sexual Incident, Coercion, Stategem, and Relationship (Predatory Elements) aggregates.

MEGA

 23% of the youths in cross validation sample were low intellectual functioning and found to be at significantly higher risk.

 60% of the cross-validation sample had low risk profiles.

 The MEGA is currently in the process of being computerized.

Risk Assessment

 The PCL-YV is not predictive for future offending behaviors in adolescent females (Odgers, 2005).

 “The low base rate of future serious and violent official offending among female adolescents makes accurate prediction difficult if not impossible… [We] cannot or ethically justify their use due to the obvious limitations in our knowledge regarding risk assessment for girls and the serious decisions that may be made based on these assessments” (Odgers, Schmidt, & Repucci, 2004, p. 204/206).

Risk Assessment

 Funk (1999): Risk factors differ from those of males, and a risk assessment specific to females predicts female recidivism more than twice as well as one designed for both sexes.

 [T]he current state of risk assessment research treats the female group unfairly by failing to identify their specific risks for reoffending” (p.62).

 Bonta, Pang, & Wallace-Capretta (1995): poor generalizability and distinct differences in risk factors (adult males and females) .

Risk Assessment

 Risk factors for males are not necessarily the same for females.

 Having a same sex victim  Juvenile antisocial behavior/multiple types of offenses  Evidence of sexual preoccupation/hypersexuality  Interpersonal aggression/pervasive anger  A history of conduct disorder  Excessive use of violence/weapons  Negative peer associations

Female Youth Risk Factors

 Sexual trauma history:  Prominent among sexually abusive girls.

 Two studies found an association between sexual abuse and recidivism among female juvenile offenders (cited in Bonta, Pang, & Wallace-Capretta, 1995).

 Significant predictive variable for sexually abusive girls (Sigurdsson et al., 2010)  May serve a criminogenic need.

 Physical trauma and/or history of other maltreatment:  Abuse history stronger correlation to reoffending for girls than boys (Funk, 1999).

Odgers (2005)

 The likelihood of general reoffending was significantly increased based on prior victimization experiences.

 Physical and psychological abuse by mother increased odds of recidivism.

Female Youth Risk Factors

 History of witnessed family violence or criminal behavior among family members:  History of family violence correlated to girl’s aggressive behavior (Day, Franklin, & Marshall, 1998).

 Higher levels of family problems among female delinquents; males had more delinquent peer associations (Funk, 1999).

Female Youth Risk Factors

 Family stress and/or dysfunction:  “Family dysfunction appears to serve as a critical pathway to violent and criminal behavior among females, more so than among males” (Wood et al., 2002)  History of inconsistent caregiving (Chamberlain & Moore, 2002)  Disturbances in relationship to female caregiver (see Levene et al., 2001)  Maternal perpetration is related to the development of aggressive behaviors (Tremblay et al., 2004).

Female Youth Risk Factors

 Early maturation:  Relationship between early maturation and delinquency (Caspi et al., 1993; see Levene et al., 2001).

 History of person-related offenses:  Raised risk of reoffending for female delinquents; total number of prior offenses was a risk factor for males (Funk, 1999).

 Assaultive behavior towards others may suggest greater predisposition in females.

Female Youth Risk Factors

 History of running away:  Associated with recidivism for female delinquent youths, not so for male delinquents (Funk) .

 History of self-harm:  Association between assault behavior in adolescence and suicide attempts among females (no such link found for males) (Juon & Ensminger, 1997) .

 Studies on adult females found an association between a history of self injury and recidivism (see Blanchette, 1997; Bonta, Pang & Wallace-Capretta, 1995).

Female Youth Risk Factors

 History of inconsistent caregivers:  Early removal from the family and residential care was pathogenic for girls (see Cloninger et al., 1978).

 Evidence of sexual preoccupation:  Instead of evidence of pornography, evidence of masturbation to victimization experiences may correlate more to female sexual recidivism.

Female Youth Risk Factors

 Use of relational aggression:  Association between relational aggression and direct aggression (Cummings et al., 2002; Henington et al., 1998).

 Attachment disturbances:  Lack of empathy  Sex as a substitute avenue for attachment (Salzman, 1990) .

Female Youth Risk Factors

 Attitudes reflecting non-normative beliefs:  Normative beliefs about aggression, e.g., that aggression is not considered acceptable female social behavior, are protective against the development of aggressive behaviors (Huesmann et al., 1992).

 Posttramatic Stress Disorder:  PTSD leads to high distress levels and low self-restrain t (Cauffman et al., 1998).

Female Youth Risk Factors

 Depressive Disorder:  Association between female depression and aggressive behavior (Obeidallah & Earls, 1999; Paikoff, Brooks-Gunn, & Warren, 1991; Zoccolillo & Rogers, 1991) .

 Conduct Disorder:  High levels of psychiatric comorbidity (Loeber & Keenan, 1994)  Many girls rearrested in study (Zoccolillo & Rogers) .

 Hyperactivity/impulsivity/inattention:  Levene et al. (2001)  Girls with ADHD, more likely to have conduct disorder (Loeber & Keenan; Szatmari, Boyle, & Offord, 1989) .

Prentky and Righthand (2004) Findings

ASAP (Assessment for Safe and Appropriate Placement) Research Project Sample of 135 girls and 585 boys Relationship of J-SOAP to Sexual Aggression by Gender/Age  Risk Predictors for Girls  PTSD  ADHD  History of multiple changes in living situations  Conning and manipulative behavior  Juvenile antisocial behavior  Total number of victims  Level of sexual aggression  Age of ASAP evaluation (age closest to when the child first began acting out).

Prentky & Righthand

 Not predictive:       Multiple types of offenses Arrest before age 16 Conduct Disorder Caregiver instability Exposure to domestic violence Impulsivity

Assessment Tools: Women

 Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)  Adult Self Report (ASR); Adult Behavioral Checklist (ABCL)  Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES)  Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – III  Relationship Questionnaire (RQ)  Speilberger’s State Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI)  Trauma and Attachment Belief Scale (TABS)  Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI)  Women’s Sexual Addiction Screening Test (W-SAST)

Risk Assessment

 Level of Service Inventory - Revised  Measures risk and criminogenic need  54 risk and need factors across 10 domains  Criminal history  Education/Employment  Financial  Family/Marital  Accommodation/Leisure  Recreation  Companions  Alcohol/Drug problems  Emotional/Personal  Attitudes/Orientation (Andrews & Bonta, 1997)

Risk and Recidivism: Adult Females

 Cortoni & Hanson (2005):  380 female sexual offenders  Substantial difference in recidivism rates between males and females  Sexual recidivism rate - 1% (vs. 13 14%)  Violent recidivism (including sexual) – 6.3% (vs. 25%)  Any recidivism (including violent and sexual) – 20.2% (vs. 36-37%)

Recidivism Rates

 Cortoni, Hanson, & Coache (2010):  Study of 2,490 female offenders  Sexual recidivism rate (1-3%)  Violent recidivism (4-8%)  Any recidivism (19-24%)  “Given that general (i.e., nonsexual) recidivism is much more common among female sexual offenders than sexual recidivism, evaluators should consider the use of tools validated to assess risk of general and violent (nonsexual) recidivism among these women” (p. 399).

Recidivism Rates

 Freeman & Sandler (2008) :  MSO significantly more likely than FSO to be rearrested for sexual (5.38% vs. 1.54%) or non-sexual offenses (28.97% vs. 21.28%). Males had greater number of prior drug, violent felony, and sexual offense arrests.

Recidivism Rates

 Sandler & Freeman (2009)  Two subgroups for female sex offenders  Hands on offenses and sexually-related offenses (e.g., child pornography) – this is the traditional sex offender group. 1.2% sexually recidivated (22 out of 1,387)  Prostitution offenses – criminalized sex group 12.66% recidivism rate for prostitution related offenses (10 out of 79)  Implications

General Risk Factors

 Comorbid disorders  Borderline Personality Disorder (Strand & Belfrage, 2001, Weizman-Henelius et al. 2004)  Depression (Benda, 2005)  Antisocial traits or PD (Weizman-Henelius et al., 2004)  Prior criminal history (not specific to sex offenses but for general and violent offenses, Freeman & Sandler, 2008; Vandiver, 2007)  Unhealthy relationships; living with a criminal partner (Benda, 2005)  Substance abuse (Blanchette 2001; noted the majority of studies showing a significant positive association between women’s substance abuse and recidivism)

General Risk Factors

 Self-injury (Bonta, Pang, & Wallace-Capretta, 1995; Blanchette & Motiuk, 1997; Nathan & Ward, 2001)  Childhood and recent sexual and physical abuse (Benda, 2005)  Pre-adolescent sexual abuse Zamble, 2000) (Loucks &

Risk Factors Specific to Female Sex Offending

 Child abuse offenses specifically related to sexual recidivism (Freeman & Sandler, 2008; Sandler & Freeman, 2009)  Extrafamilial victims & solo offending (Williams & Nicholaichuk, 2001)  Previous convictions for sex offenses (Freeman & Sandler, 2008)  Women’s inability to resist pressure from male co-offenders (Beech, Fisher, & Thornton, 2003)  Use of sex to regulate emotional states or fulfill intimacy needs (Gannon et al., 2008)

Risk Assessment

 Current standard of practice: Risk assessment tools for adult males should not be used with female sex offenders (CSOM, 2007).

Risk Assessment

 “Many caveats exist when considering using risk prediction tools evaluated on male populations for female offenders…[N]o one single actuarial tool can be accepted as valid, reliable and normed on female offenders” (Poels, 2005).

Recommendation

 Use the limited research on female offenders to formulate a risk statement incorporating static and dynamic risk factors.

 Be aware that criminogenic needs of women are still not fully understood, that the base rate of serious offending by females is low and that originating factors to offending differ from maintaining.

(Poels, 2007)

Gender-Responsive Treatment

 “[I]dentified differences indicate the need to develop gender-responsive management strategies specific to this population. Indeed, the unique risk and protective factors, distinctive developmental pathways to crime and delinquency, and fundamental differences between genders necessitates that the criminal and juvenile justice systems take into account the needs of women and girls overall” (CSOM, 2007).

Enhancement Model

 “Utilising male-based programs for female offenders ignores specific female needs, such as, sexual abuse, self-image, or parenting” (p.202).

 “[R]ehabilitation of women must encompass a holistic, gender-specific approach offering concrete possibilities for living worthwhile lives based on individual abilities, circumstances, interests, and opportunities, to ultimately culminate in lasting lifestyle changes and reduced recidivism rates” (p. 204).

Sorbello, Eccleston, Ward, & Jones (2002)

Treatment Goals

 Process and integrate complex trauma history, if applicable.

 Build an empathy bridge from her victimization to her perpetration.

 Work on identity formation and self concept.

 Work on self-differentiation/co dependency.

 Develop healthy relational patterns.

 Balance personal needs with the needs of her relationships.

Treatment Goals

 Establish a voice of her own and be able to assert herself.

 Develop healthy sexual subjectivity.

 Develop self-esteem and self-care strategies. Increase coping skills.

 Address/process loss and abandonment issues.

 Address comorbid diagnoses.

 Eliminate self-destructive behaviors, e.g., cutting, bingeing.  Improve internal working model.

Treatment Goals

 Identify healthy female role models.

 For girls: Address family dynamics and increase attunement, trust, and communication between girl and her caregivers. For adults: Address issues around parenting and reunification with children.

Therapeutic Process

 Therapeutic alliance built on respect, feeling heard, and supported  Clear consistent boundaries instead of loosey-goosey boundaries in service of the relationship  Strengths-based and holistic approaches  Collaboration vs. confrontation  Respecting survival strategies as adaptations to prior trauma  Dual specialization

Therapeutic Process

 Treatment based on a model promoting healthy female identity formation, relational development, sexual subjectivity, healing reparation.

 Work on a relational level  Build trust & be consistent  Provide emotionally corrective experience  Respect process-orientation/ sharing stories

Therapeutic Process

 Address victimization/perpetration histories concomitantly.

 Listen for and respond to deep structure-surface split.

 Challenge extreme black and white thinking.

 Do not allow the “I don’t know” & “I don’t care” phenomenon.

 Beware of mothering, overprotecting, or acting overly authoritative or punitive.

Probation Implications

 What about the kids?

 Secondary victim impact on women’s children needs to be considered. These children are, at times, unrecognized and ignored by the system.

 One size does not fit all.

 “Why should females be treated differently?”  Don’t assume they are predators.

 Impact of registration (Tewksbury, 2004)  “Registered female sex offenders frequently experience collateral consequences that may have serious deleterious effects on their social, economic, and physical well-being” (p.33).

Supervision

 “To maximize the success of female sex offenders, it is important that supervision officers assume a role that extends beyond enforcement tasks by also including supportive functions” (CSOM, 2007).

In sum….

 Don’t give up on these girls and women. Many of them expect this and at times, create circumstances to push you away.

 Listen. Don’t assume the dynamics are the same with females.

 Don’t apply a one size fits all model.

 Respect their need for a relationship and process.

Contact Information

Su Robinson NECTA 25 Wentworth Drive Williston, VT 05495 802.878.4990 x17 [email protected]