Download Female Sex Offenders: Underrepresentation and Research Gaps and more Lecture notes Literature in PDF only on Docsity!
C e n t e r f o r S e x O f f e n d e r M a n a g e m e n t
A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
Female Sex Offenders
March 2007
Introduction
Although the vast majority of attention on sex crimes focuses on men as the offenders, an increased awareness of females as sex offenders has surfaced in recent years. Highly publicized cases involving inappropriate and illegal sexual contact between female high school teachers and their male students are a primary source of this growing attention. These cases are not representative of the full nature or scope of sexual abuse committed by females, however, and they have the potential to promote myths and misperceptions about the broader issue of female-perpetrated sex crimes.
This policy and practice brief synthesizes the research and other professional literature about women and adolescent girls who commit sex offenses. This review encompasses what is known about the seemingly low incidence of these crimes and their under-recognition, common characteristics and typologies of female sex offenders, and key considerations relative to assessment, treatment, and supervision strategies. It is intended for a wide range of professionals, including criminal and juvenile justice practitioners, court officials, treatment providers, child welfare personnel, victim advocates, and others who may be involved in the broader management of this special population.
At present, the research and literature about this unique segment of the sex offender population remains in its infancy, and there is no evidence-based guidance or other consensus about the most effective approaches to working with them. Experts do agree, however, that understanding female sex offenders remains a significant area of need within the criminal and juvenile justice fields.
The Extent of Sex
Offending by Females
Because sexual victimization is significantly underreported overall, reliable information about the incidence of sex crimes committed by females is difficult to obtain. Nonetheless, a variety of sources can collectively provide a working estimate of the scope of the problem, including arrest trends, census and caseload data from criminal and juvenile justice agencies, representation in sex offender treatment programs, and victimization reports.
Arrest Data
National criminal justice statistics reveal that of all adults and juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities for sex crimes, females account for less than 10% of these cases (FBI, 2006). Specifically, arrests of women represent only 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape and 6% of all adult arrests for other sex offenses.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Forcible rape Other sex offense male female
Adult Arrests: Sex Offenses by Perpetrator Gender
(Adapted from Snyder & Sickmund, 2006)
Parallel data concerning adolescent sex offenders indicate that females are responsible for 3% of forcible rape cases and 5% of other violent sex offenses – and 19% of non-violent
Established in June 1997, CSOM’s goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the management of adult and juvenile sex offenders who are in the community. A collaborative effort of the Office of Justice Programs, the National Institute of Corrections, the State Justice Institute, and the American Probation and Parole Association, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy.
sex offenses – handled by the juvenile courts annually (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
It is of interest to note that while arrests of adult women for sex offenses have decreased in recent years, the number of adolescent girls coming to the attention of the juvenile courts for sex offenses has increased significantly (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). More specifically, between 1997 and 2002, juvenile cases involving female-perpetrated forcible rapes, other violent sex offenses, and non-violent sex offenses rose by 6%, 62%, and 42%, respectively.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Forcible rape Other violent sex offense
Non-violent sex offense male female
Juvenile Court Cases: Sex Offenses by Perpetrator Gender
(Adapted from Snyder & Sickmund, 2006)
Census and Caseload Data from
Criminal and Juvenile Justice
Agencies
In contrast to the approximately 140,000 men incarcerated in prisons nationwide for sex crimes, only 1,500 women are estimated to be imprisoned for these offenses (Harrison & Beck, 2005). They represent only 1% of all adults incarcerated for sex offenses, and 2% of all females in prison. Similarly, adolescent girls represent only 2% of the roughly 7, sex offenders placed in juvenile residential facilities nationwide, and they account for only 1% of all girls in residential placements (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).
Within the community, women represent 23% of adult probationers and 12% of parolees (Glaze & Bonczar, 2006). Because sex offenders represent only a fraction of all adults under supervision, the number of adult female sex offenders under probation or parole supervision is extremely small.
Representation in Sex Offender
Treatment Programs
Data from sex offender treatment programs across the country indicate that roughly one third of programs provide services to female sex offenders; well over 300 programs served adult women, and more than 250 provided treatment to adolescent girls (McGrath, Cumming, & Burchard, 2003). While nearly 3,800 adult women and 2,700 adolescent girls were served by those programs, these figures represent less than ten percent of the total number of clients served across all sex offender programs. Nonetheless, this was nearly twice the proportion of female sex offenders that had been served in programs two years earlier.
Victimization Reports
Information about the low proportion of sex offenses committed by females is fairly consistent, at least when relying on data about female sex offenders known to the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Yet when various individuals are surveyed about their sexual victimization experiences, the incidence of female-perpetrated sex crimes is often higher and much more variable. For example, reviews of multiple sources of victimization data reveal that up to 63% of female victims and as many as 27% of male victims report having been sexually victimized by a female (see, e.g., Schwartz & Cellini, 1995). In addition, although the National Criminal Victimization Survey – which captures information from victims who may or may not have reported the incident to the authorities – indicates that females represent up to 6% of rapes or sexual assaults by an individual acting alone, it also implicates female offenders in up to 40% of sex crimes involving multiple offenders (BJS, 2006).
Factors Affecting the
(Under) Recognition of
Female-Perpetrated Sex
Offenses
Collectively, the available information suggests that adult women and adolescent girls represent the minority of sex offenders. However, a lingering question remains as to
Research Limitations
The recognition of female sex offending is further limited by the way in which research is designed (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Becker et al., 2001; Johansson-Love & Fremouw, 2006). Specifically, investigators may inadvertently define sexual victimization in a manner that reflects only behaviors that involve male perpetrators. In other instances, researchers examining sexual victimization simply fail to inquire about the gender of the perpetrator. The potential also exists for gender bias in research methods, whereby males are asked only about perpetration experiences and females are asked only about victimization experiences (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Hunter & Mathews, 1997).
Finally, the ability to increase awareness of this often neglected population of sex offenders is hampered considerably by the low numbers of adult and adolescent female sex offenders readily available for research. As the previously highlighted statistics indicate, male sex offenders far outnumber female sex offenders in prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, and specialized treatment programs. These considerably larger sample sizes of male sex offenders – which make research findings more robust, generalizable, and publishable – coupled with accessibility, efficiency, and methodological convenience, can make studying female sex offenders less “attractive” to researchers.
Individual Concerns
Without question, these cultural, professional, and research influences create barriers to reporting female-perpetrated sexual abuse at the level of the individual victim. Underreporting is also the result of an interaction between these unique dynamics and various factors already known to negatively impact victim disclosures of sexual abuse in general (e.g., shame, guilt, fear, and threats).
For example, adolescent girls may be reluctant to disclose experiences of sexual abuse perpetrated by a woman or female peer because they may begin to question – and fear that others may question – their sexual identity. Similarly, adolescent boys who are sexually abused by an adult woman may feel
emasculated and may worry about how others will perceive their masculinity (Hislop, 2001). In addition, particularly if they experienced physiological arousal, adolescent boys may feel ashamed, question whether their experience was in fact sexual abuse, and fear that their disclosures will be met by disbelief or minimization.
These concerns are certainly not without merit, given the evidence that sexual contact between an adult woman and an adolescent boy is considered by some to be a rite of passage, or even a “lucky” encounter for the boy (Becker et al., 2001; Denov, 2004; Hunter & Mathews, 1997). Moreover, some victims report that professionals dismiss, overlook, or show discomfort with the topic when victims disclose their abuse by a female (Denov, 2004; Hislop, 2001).
Understanding Female Sex
Offenders
In contrast to the burgeoning body of literature describing male sex offenders, the research on female sex offenders is considerably under- developed. Much of what exists is purely descriptive in nature and tends to be based on small samples of women and adolescent girls in clinical settings, making it impossible to draw reliable inferences about any defining characteristics, risk factors, or offense dynamics of female sex offenders as a whole. In addition, as is the case with male sex offenders, the research on female sex offenders thus far suggests that they are a heterogeneous population (see, e.g., Becker et al., 2001; Grayston & De Luca, 1999; Hunter, Becker, & Lexier, 2006; Johansson-Love & Fremouw, 2006).
Adults: Characteristics and
Typologies
Keeping in mind the limitations of the current state of the research as well as the diversity of the population, some preliminary findings about adult women who commit sex offenses suggest that they may have the following characteristics:
- Histories of childhood maltreatment, including sexual victimization;
- Mental health symptoms, personality disorders, and substance abuse problems;
- Difficulties in intimate relationships, or an absence of intimate relationships;
- A propensity to primarily victimize children and adolescents (rarely adults);
- A tendency to commit offenses against persons who are related or otherwise well known to them; and
- An increased likelihood of perpetrating sex offenses in concert with a male intimate partner.
Certainly, not all of these characteristics apply to all sexually abusive women, and there are additional features and offense patterns that have been identified in some studies but not in others.
As a means of further categorizing groups of female sex offenders based on potential commonalities, a few professionals have attempted to identify typologies of sexually abusive women (Mathews, Matthews, & Speltz, 1989; Nathan & Ward, 2002; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). In the seminal work of Mathews and her colleagues – which remains the most influential and commonly cited framework for female sex offender typologies – three primary subtypes emerged (Mathews et al., 1989):
- Male-coerced: These women tended to be passive and dependent individuals with histories of sexual abuse and relationship difficulties. Fearing abandonment, they were pressured by male partners to commit sex offenses, often against their own children. - Predisposed: Histories of incestuous sexual victimization, psychological difficulties, and deviant sexual fantasies were common among these women, who generally acted alone in their offending. They tended to victimize their own children or other young children within their families. - Teacher/lover: At the time of their offending, women in this subtype were often struggling with peer relationships, seemed to regress and perceive themselves as having romantic or sexually mentoring “relationships” with under-aged adolescent victims of their sexual preference, and, therefore, did not consider their acts to be criminal in nature.
As the authors acknowledged, these original typologies were not statistically generated and were based largely on the clinical observations of a sample of only 16 women, thus limiting the ability to generalize the findings to the larger population of female sex offenders. However, subsequent investigations have continued to support their applicability (Matthews, 1998; Nathan & Ward, 2002; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004).
Most recently, Vandiver and Kercher (2004) added considerably to the research by employing a statistical approach to identify subtypes, using the largest sample of female sex offenders to date. From the over 450 female sex offenders in the study, six statistically-derived clusters were revealed, some of which were consistent with the Mathews et al. (1989) typologies.
Co-Offending Women Versus Solo Female Offenders
Particularly unique to female-perpetrated sex offenses is the increased potential for a male co-offender. Until recently, little was known about the differences between male-accompanied female sex offenders and women who acted alone. In a comparative study of over 200 female sex offenders, several differences were identified (Vandiver, 2006). Specifically, co-offending women were more likely than female solo offenders to:
- Have multiple young victims;
- Victimize females – or both females and males – as opposed to males only;
- Target family members including their own children, versus solo offenders, who often target acquaintances; and
- Have been charged with non-sex crimes at the same time the sex offense charge occurred.
Dunbar,1999; Grayston & De Luca, 1999; Nathan & Ward, 2001; Vandiver, 2006):
- Sexual victimization histories are exceedingly more common among adult and adolescent female sex offenders than with male sex offenders, and their maltreatment experiences are often more longstanding, extensive, and severe;
- Adult women are more likely than men to commit sex offenses with a co- offending male, either in concert with the male or as a result of coercion by the male;
- Offending by adult and adolescent females is more likely to occur within the context of caregiving situations;
- Acts of rape are less common among female sex offenders, but when they occur, the victims tend to be the same gender, unlike the victims of male- perpetrated rapes;
- The victims of adolescent female perpetrators more often than adolescent male offenders tend to be young children; and
- When child victims are involved, adolescent female offenders are more likely than adolescent males to target both genders, whereas adolescent males more commonly target children of the opposite sex.
These similarities and differences have implications for the ways in which these women and girls are managed in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.
No Easy Answers About
Effective Management
Strategies
The knowledge base about female sex offenders has increased in recent years, although the current state of the research still leaves professionals responsible for managing sexually abusive females with only a rudimentary understanding of this special population. In addition, the identified heterogeneity found within samples of adult and adolescent female sex offenders –
coupled with the various similarities among and differences between female and male offenders – increases the complexity of management efforts.
Furthermore, specialized risk and needs assessment tools are lacking for female sex offenders, making key decisions difficult at various points throughout the system (e.g., sentencing/disposition, inpatient or correctional programming, release planning, community supervision, and treatment progress). And with respect to treatment and supervision specifically, the literature offers only preliminary recommendations about gender- responsive practices, the majority of which remain empirically untested. Put simply, best- practice or evidence-based guidance with female sex offenders does not exist at this time. Taken together, these realities often raise more questions than answers about how to intervene most effectively with this population.
The Importance of Gender-
Responsiveness
Historically, when direction is lacking for special populations, criminal and juvenile justice professionals have tended to rely on existing management strategies designed for those in the majority. While this is not ideal, it is perhaps understandable. This, too, has been the case with female sex offenders, whereby interventions have been largely modeled after approaches used with male sex offenders. In some ways, this may have been a logical starting point because, as the preceding review indicated, several commonalities exist among sexually abusive females and males.
At the same time, identified 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 (see, e.g., Bloom, Owen, & Covington, 2003; Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). And in recent years, key findings from the research and other professional literature
with general female offenders – both adult and Assessment juvenile – have formed the basis for recommendations about the implementation of gender-responsive services, including the following (Bloom et al., 2003):
As is the case with any individual who has committed a sex offense, decisionmaking with sexually abusive females should be informed by comprehensive assessment information. Ideally, such an assessment includes information from a range of sources and takes into account multiple factors including – but not limited to – the nature and extent of the sexual behavior problems, psychosocial functioning, healthcare needs, quality of interpersonal relationships, family and environmental circumstances, and developmental experiences, such as a history of victimization or other trauma and its associated impact.
- To maximize effectiveness, policymakers and practitioners must acknowledge that gender makes a difference;
- The environments in which management strategies are implemented must ensure safety, respect, and dignity;
- Because relationships play a key role in the lives of women and girls, their importance must be incorporated into the ways in which the criminal and juvenile justice systems operate;
In addition to record reviews and clinical interviews with offenders and collaterals to obtain this and other relevant information, the use of various assessment instruments can provide objective data to guide intervention planning. Although many general psychological assessment instruments have been validated on samples of women and girls and are often used to assess intellectual, personality, and psychological functioning with females in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, they provide no specific information with respect to sexually deviant attitudes and behaviors. Unfortunately, most tools that assess sex offense-specific issues have been developed for and normed on male sex offenders, making their use with female sex offenders questionable, at best.
- The interrelatedness of substance abuse, trauma, and mental health needs are particularly germane to this population, and must be addressed through integrated management efforts;
- The commonly identified socioeconomic challenges for women offenders warrant a dedicated focus on providing them with specific opportunities and services that can improve these conditions; and
- Collaborating to provide a system of holistic and comprehensive services within the community is critical to effective outcomes. Risk assessment This and other influential work on gender- responsiveness, in combination with lessons from the broader sex offender management field, provides an ideal foundation for assessment, treatment, and supervision strategies for sexually abusive females. Developing appropriate management approaches for this special population also requires consideration of the sociocultural influences, professional biases, and various individual factors that impact the ways in which systems respond to female-perpetrated sex offenses. But as outlined briefly in the sections that follow, this has proven to be easier said than done.
Similarly, in contrast to the availability of several empirically validated risk assessment instruments designed specifically for adult male sex offenders – and a few promising tools for adolescent male sex offenders – no such measures have yet been developed for sexually abusive females, either adult or adolescent. The extremely low numbers of female sex offenders that come to the attention of the authorities and that are available for follow-up studies significantly impedes researchers’ attempts to identify specific risk factors associated with sexual recidivism among this population (Denov & Cortoni, 2006; Nathan & Ward, 2001).
sexually abusive females, but only through further empirical research can this be confirmed. Moreover, because of a lack of research on the reliability and validity of physiological measures to assess deviant arousal and interests with female sex offenders (i.e., vaginal photoplethysmography, viewing time), their use with adult women is questionable (Hunter & Mathews, 1997), and with adolescent girls they are inadvisable (see, e.g., Robinson, 2006).
- Ensuring healthy sexual development, expression, and boundaries.
With adolescent girls, it is also important to understand their overall development within the context of family, peers, and schools, and ensure that targets of intervention take into account those multiple determinants (Frey, 2006; Hunter et al., 2006; Robinson, 2006).
The comparatively high rates of sexual victimization and trauma that are common to both adolescent and adult female sex offenders also suggest that treatment will often need to include an emphasis on addressing trauma and its impact on emotional, social, psychological, and sexual adjustment. For example, identifying and treating co-morbid psychiatric conditions such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is critical for female sex offenders who have experienced significant trauma, especially given the higher prevalence of this disorder among women and adolescent girls (Bloom et al., 2003; Hunter et al., 2006). But as always, practitioners must take great care to effectively and compassionately address victimization issues without minimizing or justifying sexually abusive behaviors (see, e.g., Denov & Cortoni, 2006; Hislop, 2001; Nathan & Ward, 2001).
Treatment
Initially, many treatment programs for female sex offenders mirrored programs for males and, in some instances, female sex offenders were placed in treatment groups with males (Mathews et al., 1989). Over time, however, the field began to witness a gradual movement away from exclusively male-modeled programs (and placement in treatment programs with males) in favor of more gender-responsive sex offender treatment. And particularly in the past few years, the need for such tailoring has been emphasized in the literature pertaining to sexually abusive women (Denov & Cortoni, 2006; Hislop, 2001; Hunter & Mathews, 1997; Mathews, 1998; Nathan & Ward, 2001) and adolescent girls who have committed sex offenses (Bumby & Bumby, 2004; Frey, 2006; Hunter et al., 2006; Mathews et al., 1997; Robinson, 2006).
These gender-responsive targets and considerations – together with the more “traditional” expectations of sex offender treatment, such as accepting responsibility, modifying cognitive distortions, enhancing empathy, identifying risk factors and triggers, and developing effective coping responses – are consistent with the overarching goal of ensuring that these women and girls are able to lead productive, meaningful, and satisfying lives without compromising the safety and wellness of others (Eldridge & Saradjian, 2000; Nathan & Ward, 2001).
Based on their unique needs and differing typologies, the following treatment goals are particularly salient for female sex offenders:
- Establishing and maintaining trusting, supportive, and equitable intimate relationships;
- Promoting autonomy and self- sufficiency;
- Developing a positive self-concept; (^) Current programming trends
- Enhancing assertiveness and social competency; In light of advances in the treatment literature about female sex offenders, the question arises as to whether accompanying changes in actual practices have followed. Unfortunately, recent national data from sex offender programs suggest that the way in which treatment is designed for sexually abusive females and males remains very similar in
- Increasing effective emotional management;
- Reducing self-destructive/self-injurious behaviors; and
many ways (McGrath et al., 2003). To illustrate, reported practices with female and male sex offenders – both within adult programs and within adolescent programs – appear nearly identical in terms of the primary theories driving treatment, the core and ancillary targets of treatment, and the frequency of group, individual, and family sessions provided per week.
On a more optimistic note, however, and consistent with some of the suggestions in the literature specific to female sex offenders, a few key differences were identified (McGrath et al., 2003). Most notably:
- Treatment programs for adult and adolescent females were much less likely than programs for males to report using arousal control methods;
- Programs serving women were more likely to report addressing sexual victimization or trauma, family reunification, and intimacy and relationship skills; and
- Treatment programs providing services for adolescent females were more likely to employ expressive and experiential approaches (e.g., art therapies, drama therapy), and to address family reunification and intimacy and relationship issues.
Although these data are somewhat promising, it remains difficult to ascertain the extent to which programs are truly responsive to the unique needs of adult women and adolescent girls. Factors that may shed additional light on this issue, such as program integrity variables (e.g., staff training and supervision, and individualized treatment planning) and process-related variables (e.g., therapist gender and style, and program climate) have
not yet been explored within female sex offender treatment. And unfortunately, most notably lacking are data about treatment outcomes for female sex offenders, making it impossible at this time to offer any defensible inferences about the effectiveness of these interventions.
Community Supervision
As has been noted several times, the research and practice literature on assessment and treatment for female sex offenders remains in its infancy. As such, the field is still awaiting the development of specific and evidence- based guidance about how to supervise this unique population. Even with male sex offenders, professional writings about community supervision are comparatively lacking, with very few exceptions pertinent to adults (CSOM, 2000; Cumming & McGrath, 2000, 2005; English, Pullen, & Jones, 1996) and adolescents (Bumby & Talbot, in press; CSOM, 1999, 2007; Hunter, 2006; NAPN, 1993).
As a result, supervision officers have been left to extrapolate from the approaches used with sexually abusive males and the strategies emerging for general women offenders. For example, given the common dynamics involved in the commission of sex offenses, experts have suggested that the specialized conditions of supervision commonly imposed on male sex offenders – such as restricting employment or other activities that may increase exposure to potential victims, prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors, and limiting access to pornographic or sexually exploitive materials – may be equally applicable to female sex offenders (Cumming & McGrath, 2005).
The Building Blocks of Gender-Responsive Sex Offender Treatment
- Recognize the heterogeneity of sexually abusive females;
- Develop interventions that are based on the unique pathways to female offending;
- Appreciate the similarities among and differences between male and female sex offenders;
- Understand the developmental differences between adult and adolescent females who commit sex offenses;
- Acknowledge the victim-offender duality that exists among many women and girls who sexually abuse;
- Consider the potential impact of the unique sociocultural messages to which women and girls are exposed and which can affect their sense of identity; and
- Honor the role of relationships and family – both within and outside of the therapeutic context.
Conclusion
The effective management of sex offenders has been a longstanding focus within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, yet the overwhelming majority of the policies, research, and resources have been directed toward males who commit these crimes. Until recently, females who perpetrate sex offenses have been largely overlooked for a host of reasons. As a result, comparatively little is known about sexually abusive females, and the strategies for assessing, treating, and supervising this population remain in the early stages of development. Without question, additional research is needed. In the meantime, the application of gender-specific principles and practices with women offenders and delinquent girls – when coupled with lessons learned from the broader sex offender management field – holds promise for management of this special population.
Acknowledgements
Rachelle Giguere and Dr. Kurt Bumby of the Center for Sex Offender Management co- authored this policy and practice brief. CSOM extends special thanks and recognition to Dr. Judy Berman for her considerable developmental efforts on an earlier draft of this document, and to Dr. John Hunter of the University of Virginia, Dr. Judy Johnson of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and Dr. Ruth Mathews of St. Mary’s University of Minnesota for their thoughtful review of this material.
Contact
Center for Sex Offender Management 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 589- Fax: (301) 589- E-mail: askcsom@csom.org Internet: www.csom.org
References
Allen, C. (1991). Women and men who sexually abuse children: A comparative analysis. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.
Anderson, P., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (Eds.) (1998). Sexually aggressive women: Current perspectives and controversies. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto: Multi- Health Systems.
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Document No. 01- 05-1201. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Becker, J., Hall, S., & Stinson, J. (2001). Female sexual offenders: Clinical, legal and policy issues. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1 , 29-50.
Berman, J. (2005). Women offender transition and reentry: Gender responsive approaches to transitioning women offenders from prison to the community. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: an integrated perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies: Research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
Bumby, K. M., & Bumby, N. H. (1997). Adolescent female sexual offenders. In B. Schwartz and H. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments, volume II (pp. 10-1 – 10-16). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Bumby, N. H., & Bumby, K. M. (2004). Bridging the gender gap: Addressing juvenile females who commit sexual offences. In G. O’Reilly, W. L. Marshall, A. Carr, & R. C. Beckett (Eds.), The handbook of clinical intervention with young people who sexually abuse (pp. 369–381). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Bumby, K. M., & Talbot, T. B. (in press). Treating juveniles who commit sex offenses: Historical approaches, contemporary practices, and future directions. In M. Calder (Ed.) Working with children and young people who sexually abuse: Taking the field forward. Lyme Regis, UK: Russell House.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Crime and victim statistics (Web site). http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm, accessed March 29, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Center for Sex Offender Management. (1999). Understanding juvenile sexual offending behavior: Emerging research, treatment approaches, and management practices. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Center for Sex Offender Management. (2000). Community supervision of the sex offender: An overview of current and promising practices. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Center for Sex Offender Management. (2007). The effective management of juvenile sex offenders in the community (Web site). http://www.csom.org/train/juvenile/index.html, accessed March 29, 2007. Silver Spring, MD: Author.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice (3 rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Cumming, G. F., & McGrath, R. J. (2000). External supervision: How can it increase the effectiveness of relapse prevention? In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 236-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cumming, G. F., & McGrath, R. J. (2005). Supervision of the sex offender: Community management, risk assessment, and treatment. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.
Davin, P., Hislop, J., & Dunbar, T. (1999). Female sexual abusers: Three views. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.
Denov, M. (2004). Perspectives on female sex offending: A culture of denial. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Denov, M., & Cortoni, F. (2006). Women who sexually abuse children. In C. Hilarski & J.S. Wodarski (Eds.), Comprehensive mental health practice with sex offenders and their families (pp. 71-99). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crime and Delinquency, 45 , 438-452.
Eldridge, H., & Saradjian, J. (2000). Replacing the function of abusive behaviors for the offender: Remaking relapse prevention in working with women who sexually abuse children. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention with sex offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 402- 426). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime in the United States, 2005: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Frey, L.L. (2006). Girls don’t do that, do they? Adolescent females who sexually abuse. In R. E. Longo & D. S. Prescott (Eds.), Current perspectives: Working with sexually aggressive youth and youth with sexual behavior problems (pp. 255-272). Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press.
Glaze, L., & Bonczar, T. (2006). Probation and parole in the United States, 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Grayston, A. D., & De Luca, R. V. (1999). Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: A review of the clinical and empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 4 , 93-106.
Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta–analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 , 348–
Center for Effective Public Policy © 2007
This project was supported by Grant Nos. 2005-WP-BX-K179 and 2006-WP-BX-K004 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.
Robinson, S. (2006). Adolescent females with sexual behavioral problems: What constitutes best practice? In R. E. Longo & D. S. Prescott (Eds.), Current perspectives: Working with sexually aggressive youth and youth with sexual behavior problems (pp. 273-324). Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press.
Schmidt, F. Hoge, R. D. & Gomes, L. (2005). Reliability and validity analysis of the Youth Level of Services/Case Management Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32 , 329-344.
Schwartz, B., & Cellini, H. (1995). Female sex offenders. In B. Schwartz & H. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender: Corrections, treatment and legal practice (pp. 5-1 – 5-22). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Vandiver, D. (2006). Female sex offenders: A comparison of solo offenders and co- offenders. Violence and Victims , 21 , 339-354.
Vandiver, D., & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of registered female sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 16 , 121-137.
Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
Worling, J. R., & Langstrom, N. (2006). Risk of sexual recidivism in adolescents who offend sexually: Correlates and assessment. In H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender (2nd ed., pp. 219–247). New York: Guilford Press.
