Pretrial Diversion for Intrafamilial Child Sexual Offending

Abstract

Diversion programs are generally reserved for offenders rated as low risk. The scant recidivism data on incest offenders classify intrafamilial offenders as lower risk than extrafamilial pedophiles. Even so, few community-based treatment programs accommodate offenders who sexually abuse children. Access to treatment programs for intrafamilial offenders is rare. Using a sample of 214 intrafamilial offenders who pled guilty on referral to a community-based pretrial diversion program for intrafamilial offenders, the authors explored whether biological fathers, typically classified as incest offenders, and nonbiological fathers, traditionally classified as extrafamilial pedophiles, benefited equally from diversion. Biological and nonbiological fathers were systematically compared to determine whether diversion programs should take the victim’s relationship to the offender—biological or nonbiological—into account when determining diversion eligibility. Effect sizes confirmed that the two subgroups of intrafamilial offenders were substantially similar on demographic features, characteristics of the index victim and index offense, and prior offending history. The victim–offender relationship was unrelated to acceptance into treatment, treatment completion, and sexual reoffending. These findings advance knowledge of sex offender subtypes and indicate that policies and practices that distinguish biological from nonbiological father offenders should be reconsidered. At a minimum, exclusion of nonbiological intrafamilial sex offenders from community-based treatment programs appears unwarranted.

Keywords

pretrial diversion sex offender intrafamilial sexual assault father–daughter sex abuse recidivism

Extreme depictions of violent, sexual predators and pedophiles as social menaces attract international media attention (Finkelhor, 2009; Horley, 2008). Commentators avow, “Don’t let recidivists out! . . . As far as pedophilia . . . I really don’t think those can be rehabbed. Put ‘em in, and throw away the key” (Sachs, 2005). Sexual offenders against children are thought of as “sick strangers,” or opportunistic family infiltrators who take advantage of a decline in traditional family values (e.g., absent fathers; Devine, 2010). Policies often mimic these and other depictions of the incurable sex offender pathology, miring available data on prevalence rates and treatment (Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, & Smith, 1990). The resulting policy reform becomes unbalanced and primarily retributive and targets nonbiological child molesters (Gelb, 2007). However, when the potential importance of the father–child dynamic in the perpetuation of child sexual abuse is minimized, a staggering proportion of sexually victimized children is overlooked (Finkelhor, 2009; Gelb, 2007; Greenberg, Firestone, Bradford, & Curry, 2000).

The majority of reported child sexual abuse cases are perpetrated by the victim’s father, stepfather or foster father, or other familial figure (Gelb, 2007; Vander Mey & Neff, 1984). Roughly one fourth of reported sexual abuse victims have been assaulted by a family member (Finkelhor, 2009). Within this context, sexual abuse is often protracted and repeated. One survey of 159 intrafamilial offenders estimated 12,927 instances of sexual abuse against 286 girls (Abel et al., 1987). Moreover, contrary to common belief, factors usually regarded as protective (e.g., marital stability, family support) are not exculpatory when identifying individuals likely to sexually reoffend against their own children (Stalans, 2004; Stinson, Sales, & Becker, 2008).

Despite limited policy attention, sexual offending, and in particular “incest” offending, is amendable to treatment (Gelb, 2007). When coupled with the overwhelming prevalence of intrafamilial child sexual abuse, the potential for effective treatment suggests that policies aimed at the effective identification and prevention of such abuse within the home would stand primed for implementation. This is not the case. Instead, laypersons perceive sexual abuse within the home as unlikely and readily resolved (Gelb, 2007). Empirical studies characterize incestuous offenders as low risk and less predatory, deeming them more appropriate for alternative sentencing programs than their extrafamilial counterparts. However, in practice, few diversion programs focus on offenders who sexually abuse young children (Barbaree & Marshall, 1998). Moreover, it remains unclear where offenders who share only a familial role with the child (stepfathers, foster fathers, de facto parents, etc.) should fit within these policy and etiological parameters. Paradoxically, such policies may perpetuate intrafamilial child sexual abuse because of their skewed focus on biological relationships and assumptions of risk (Gelb, 2007; Hall, 1995; Herman & Hirschman, 1977; Rush, 1980).

Alternative Adjudication for Intrafamilial “Low-Risk” Offenders

Widespread empirical inconsistencies about child sex offenders led Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw (1989) to lament that “the range of recidivism rates reported in studies is exceeded only by the array of statutes and policies applied to sex offenders” (p. 3). Still, several guiding generalizations can be gleaned from the research. First, recidivism rates among child sexual abusers are better depicted as probable rather than certain (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Langevin et al., 2004). Second, extensive meta-analyses have yielded significantly lower recidivism rates for treated sexual offenders compared to control groups and treatment noncompleters (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009; Lösel & Schmucker, 2005). Third, sexual deviance has been identified as the primary predictor of sexual abuse recidivism; however, less is known about predictors of intrafamilial sexual abuse recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Langevin et al., 2004).

For decades, researchers have postulated that male child molesters who offend against familial victims are least likely to recidivate (Fitch, 1962; Hanson, Steffy, & Gauthier, 1993). Research has largely supported this assertion (Greenberg et al., 2000; Langevin et al., 2004). Nevertheless, every component of sexual deviance—the frequency of reported deviant sexual behavior, diverse sexual crimes with multiple victims, male and stranger victims, and deviant sexual interests—is less common, less commonly reported, or inherently absent from intrafamilial sexual offending behaviors (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). Research has yet to yield parallel predictors of reoffending by particular sexual offender subtypes (i.e., extrafamilial, intrafamilial) but nonetheless uniformly relegates intrafamilial offending to the lower risk category.

Child Sexual Abuse Policy Reform: Balancing Inclusion and Specification

Adult male intrafamilial sexual offenders against children have long been deemed socially deviant but traditionally not sufficiently sexually deviant to warrant the attention accorded to pedophiles. Two issues follow from this discussion. First, policy makers are urged not to ignore the specificity and prevalence of all kinds of sexual offending behavior, particularly child sexual abuse within the home (Gelb, 2007; Stalans, 2004). Second, researchers are implored to more accurately define child sexual abuse, within the family context and otherwise, for application to intervention programs (Blanchard et al., 2006; Janus & Prentky, 2008; Soothill, Francis, Sanderson, & Ackerley, 2000; Stalans, 2004). Motivated by classification findings by Greenberg, Firestone, Nunes, Bradford, and Curry (2005), we addressed this latter issue by querying legal distinctions traditionally drawn between biological and nonbiological father offenders. If differences between these groups are persistently negligible, the extension of findings from etiological perspectives to diversion policy is warranted.

From Definition to Specification

Nearly four decades have passed since initial calls for “definitional reform” of intrafamilial sexual abuse (Bixler, 1983, p. 197; Quinsey, 1977). Previous studies led to overgeneralization of “incestual” sexual offending and “assumptions regarding its cause” (Bixler, 1983, p. 198). Subsequent attempts to distinguish offender subgroups uncovered more possible heterogeneity within intrafamilial subtypes, resulting in the systematic distinction between biological and nonbiological fathers (Bixler, 1983; Groff & Hubble, 1984).

Research has since emphasized the development of multidimensional typologies aimed at reducing the heterogeneity within offender groups while uncovering general predictors for subtype-specific treatments (Becker & Murphy, 1998; Blanchard et al., 2006; Janus & Prentky, 2008). Much of the previous research neglected to clarify if a distinction between biological and nonbiological offenders was considered, whereas few studies set this distinction as the primary aim (Furby et al., 1989; Greenberg et al., 2000). Only one study examined sexual abuse survival rates for biological fathers versus other specified biological and unrelated male offender subgroups, identifying the need for greater attention to nonstranger offenders against children (Greenberg et al., 2000). Overall, findings on this rarely researched topic are inconsistent, and comparisons of biological and nonbiological father offenders have failed to yield reliable results (Blanchard et al., 2006). Assumptions that the two father subgroups compose a coherent, homogenous group may impede effective legal policy and treatment (Furby et al., 1989; Gelb, 2007; Greenberg et al., 2005; Janus & Prentky, 2008; Soothill et al., 2000).

Eligibility for Pretrial Diversion and Community-Based Treatment

Under the jail diversion model, a surge in community-based forensic treatment for offenders with mental disabilities occurred (Heilbrun & Griffin, 1998; Steadman, Davidson, & Brown, 2001; Wexler & Winick, 1996). Jail diversion first identifies and deflects individuals away from jail and then directly links persons with comprehensive treatment in the least restrictive environment possible (Steadman et al., 2001). Diversion interventions are not necessarily synonymous with community-based treatment programs (Desai, 2003); however, they all aim to increase the likelihood of “therapeutically-informed criminal sentencing” for selected groups of offenders (Wolff, 2003, p. 174). In general, eligibility for diversion is negatively correlated with the severity of the index offense, as more serious crimes usually warrant inpatient forensic evaluation (Desai, 2003). Additional risk factors such as a history of juvenile offending and substance abuse and general criminogenic factors associated with the social environment and access to resources are typically considered when determining suitability for community-based treatment (Fisher, Wolff, & Roy-Bujnowski, 2003). The potential benefits of diversion are largely unexplored for offending behavior that transitions from minor offenses secondary to mental disability to that of rearrests for more serious crimes associated with “character disorders” and more severe pathology (Fisher et al., 2003, p. 43). In short, eligibility selection “is not just about treatment” (Wolff, 2003, p. 186) but entails consideration of “the context of the needs of the target population, the legal traditions of our country, and the community treatment ethics and culture” (p. 186).

Diversion criteria for sexual offenders

This context is paramount for “sexual predators” who are typically deemed unsuitable for diversion (Steadman, 2007). The recidivism literature designates intrafamilial child sex offenders as the most likely low-risk group of offenders appropriate for diversion. However, pretreatment assessments typically deem sexual offenders ineligible for community-based programs based on substantial denial or minimization of offending (Barbaree & Marshall, 1998). A study of progressive self-disclosure of offending by 124 adult intrafamilial child sex offenders drawn from the same sample as this study confirmed that offenders declined and accepted for diversion disclosed more information about their offending than did their child victims (Pratley & Goodman-Delahunty, 2011). These results suggested that the extent and nature of abuse by intrafamilial child sex offenders in the early stages of detection are underestimated and that refusal of offenders into treatment programs based on denial and minimization is a practice that warrants review (Pratley & Goodman-Delahunty, 2011).

Pretreatment assessments also tend to screen out offenders when their victims are children (Barbaree & Marshall, 1998), reflecting community members’ view that this group is permanently sexually deviant, pedophilic, and “incestuous” (Becker & Murphy, 1998, p. 121; Finkelhor, 2009; Gelb, 2007). Legal classifications of sexual offending behavior within federal sex offender registration laws in the United States confirm this position. Intrafamilial sex offenders are typically registered in the most extreme group, Tier III, since most intrafamilial victims are younger than 12 years, or, alternatively, Tier II, for sexual abuse of a minor aged 12 to 15 years and/or nonviolent sexual acts against a minor in custodial, disciplinary, or supervisory care (Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, 2006, § 111). Given this stalemate between cultural-legal perceptions and empirical data, diversion programs for sexual offenders (intrafamilial or otherwise) are not proliferating.

Diversion for adult intrafamilial child sexual offenders

To the extent that various types of intrafamilial offenders (e.g., stepfathers, foster fathers) are construed as having sexually deviant interests, the likelihood they will be considered for the few existing adjudication alternatives is small. Relatively few programs are designed specifically for intrafamilial sex offenders, and fewer still are pretrial diversion programs (Collins, Peters, & Lennings, 2009). Roughly one third of sex offender treatment programs are community based, for outpatients. In 1986, a survey of prospective child sexual abuse treatment programs in the United States yielded responses from 553 distinct community-based treatment services, many of which focused only on victims of intrafamilial sexual abuse, although some specialized in extrafamilial cases (Keller, Cicchinelli, & Gardner, 1989). Exceedingly little has been published about pretrial diversion program design, referral criteria, and implementation for child sex offenders. Furthermore, treatment outcome analyses of community-based programs are noticeably lacking (Collins et al., 2009; Keller et al., 1989).

In the United States, the Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Program (CSATP) in Santa Clara, California, has been working with the courts since 1978 (Giarretto, 1982). Descriptive sources from within the CSATP program, rather than independent evaluations, claimed recidivism rates of less than 1% among treatment completers (Giarretto, 1982; Heilbrun & Griffin, 1998). The diversion program examined in the present study incorporates a similar integrative approach to treat the entire family; however, several key differences exist. Although CSATP espouses the goal of family reunification, the Cedar Cottage program described in this study focuses on strengthening victims’ relationships with nonoffending family members and gives primacy in therapy to victims’ rights over those of the offender. Perhaps the most notable distinction for policy makers and the courts is the offenders eligible for referral to the program. Although CSTAP was not designed specifically to treat intrafamilial offending, in practice the Santa Clara County court primarily refers adult male offenders who offend within the traditional biological father–victim relationship (Giarretto, 1982). By contrast, Cedar Cottage treats both biological and nonbiological offenders in a parental relationship with the victim. The current study assessed whether nonbiological familial offenders realized the same benefits as biological offenders from this diversion program.

Study Aims

This study calls attention to legal doctrines and policies that persistently confine “incest” statutes to biological intrafamilial offending. We directly examined whether the biological relationship of a child sexual abuse victim to the offender should take precedence over familial role when determining the eligibility for community-based treatment or pretrial diversion. We simultaneously queried the extent to which this offender subgroup should be partitioned by systematically assessing similarities and differences within a large sample of intrafamilial child sex offenders.

We specifically explored whether biological and nonbiological fathers (e.g., stepfather, foster father) were equally likely to meet the eligibility criteria for diversion programs. We first hypothesized (Hypothesis 1; H1) that the two subgroups would not differ with respect to demographic background and history of own abuse, as found by Greenberg and colleagues (2005). We then focused attention on variables that traditionally warrant consideration when determining eligibility for community-based diversion. More specifically, we hypothesized (Hypothesis 2; H2) that biological and nonbiological fathers would have similar criminal histories (i.e., numbers of prior convictions) as well as (Hypothesis 3; H3) negligible differences with regard to index offense characteristics (i.e., victim characteristics, level of intrusiveness, violence employed, and intoxication during the offense). A fourth set of analyses investigated the hypothesis (Hypothesis 4; H4) that both father types would be equally likely to complete treatment, accept responsibility, and recidivate.

Method

Design

Using a quasi-experimental retrospective design, we compared nonbiological and biological offenders on demographics, criminal history, history of own abuse, index offense characteristics, treatment progress, and recidivism. G*Power 3.1 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) was used to assess achieved power and to compute effect sizes.

Sample

The data were gathered from a specialized treatment program in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, designed to divert intrafamilial child sex offenders away from the traditional criminal justice system and into treatment that serves the offender, the victim, and the family. The NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders (Child Sexual Assault) Program, locally known as Cedar Cottage, commenced in 1989. This program provided a valuable source of information regarding treatment effectiveness for this type of intervention in an intrafamilial sample (Butler, Goodman-Delahunty, & Lulham, 2011; Goodman-Delahunty, 2009; Pratley & Goodman-Delahunty, 2011). A separate study drawing on the same sample applied propensity analysis to test the effectiveness of the Cedar Cottage program by comparing rates of sexual recidivism in intrafamilial sex offenders who were accepted for treatment with those of participants who were declined treatment (Butler et al., 2011).

Participants were 214 males referred to Cedar Cottage between 1989 and 2003. All offenders referred to Cedar Cottage during this period were men. Of these, 44.9% (n = 96) were biological fathers and 55.1% (n = 118) were nonbiological fathers. Over half of the referrals (56.5%; n = 121) were deemed unsuitable for treatment and returned to court (declined group). Biological fatherhood of the index victim was statistically unrelated to acceptance into treatment, χ² = 0.400, df = 2, p = .580, ω = .13. Although the legislation excluded offenders whose offense involved overt use of force or violence, or who had been previously convicted of a contact-sexual offense from eligibility for diversion, some referrals had prior convictions for sexual offenses. All the intrafamilial sex offenders had a parenting relationship with a minor (i.e., child’s parent, grandparent, stepparent, or foster parent or parent’s de facto spouse), regardless of blood relation.

Procedure

A total of 11 graduate-level researchers affiliated with the second author coded records from 214 Cedar Cottage clinical files that were then matched with official reoffending data to evaluate the program effectiveness (Butler et al., 2011; Goodman-Delahunty, 2009). Key operational definitions were derived from the Child Sex Offender Act Pre-Trial Diversion Program. Child sexual abuse included noncontact sexual conduct (e.g., grooming, exposure), nonpenetrative sexual contact (e.g., kissing, masturbation), and penetrative sexual contact or intercourse (by any part of the body) as defined by the New South Wales Crimes Act 1900. Sexual recidivism was operationally defined as sexual assault, rape, indecent assault, acts of indecency, indecent exposure, peep and pry, and possession of child pornography. Nonsexual recidivism included stealing, breaking and entering, supply or possession of controlled substances, possession of stolen goods, exceeding prescribed concentration of alcohol while driving, and fraud offenses such as obtaining benefit by deception. Recidivism data were derived from official reports of sexual and nonsexual offenses included in incident reports (regardless of whether a charge resulted), charges, offense descriptions, and convictions from NSW Police Force and NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research records (Butler et al., 2011). A definition less stringent than convictions was applied because the low conviction rate associated with intrafamilial child sex offending was deemed uninformative. Time to recidivate or “survival time” computed for each offender was time spent after treatment or prison without committing reoffenses. Coding also included a distinct feature of the diversion program classified as face-ups, or an offender’s written or verbal full account of his abusive behavior, often beyond that detailed in victims’ statements, to a family member.

Results

To assess mean differences between biological and nonbiological fathers on continuous dependent variables, t tests were used, and χ² tests on categorical outcome variables were used. Subsamples of the overall study sample were used to test each hypothesis based on available data for each variable of interest (denoted by a specified n in each relevant table). Because our hypotheses anticipated no differences between the two groups no correction of the significance level for alpha inflation was made, thereby avoiding overly conservative tests with low power in a small sample with small effect sizes. Regarding tests of statistical significance, we assumed differences (H1) as opposed to no differences (H0) between biological and nonbiological fathers. Instead of considering the “nil hypothesis” (the assumption that differences or correlations equal zero; Cohen, 1994), the H0 was designated as negligibly small differences (Murphy & Myors, 1999). Because only large effects would directly inform policy reform regarding biological and nonbiological offenders, we were not interested in whether there was an effect versus no effect but instead whether the effect was meaningful versus negligible. Thus, we computed the F values and compared them to the critical F values for minimal effect testing (Murphy & Myors, 1999). However, this was not possible for χ² tests and logistic or Cox regressions. In light of criticisms of null hypothesis testing and our goal to discern only meaningful differences in the data, we further relied on effect sizes for each analysis (d for t tests and ω for χ² tests), and R² values where applicable (Cohen, 1992, 1994; Schmidt, 1996).

H1: Differences in demographic background of biological and nonbiological fathers will be negligible.

Employing variables similar to those tested by Greenberg et al. (2005) regarding offender demographic background and history of own abuse, we found few meaningful differences between biological and nonbiological fathers, confirming H1 (Table 1).

Table 1:

Demographic Profile and History of Own Abuse of Biological Versus Nonbiological Fathers

	Biological Fathers		Nonbiological Fathers
Variable	n	M and SD or %	n	M and SD or %	df	t or χ²	p Value	d or ω	df1, df2	F	F_crit 1%
Age at first offense against index victim (M, SD)	96	37.76, 7.65	117	35.13, 7.18	211	−2.584	.010	.36	1, 211	6.677	9.58
Age at time of referral (M, SD)	96	41.35, 7.34	118	38.06, 7.47	212	−3.236	< .001	.44	1, 212	10.471	9.58
Some intellectual disability (%)	23	4.3	29	27.6	1	4.840	.034	.29
Witness/victim of physical or emotional abuse (before age 16; %)	46	6.5/45.7	66	10.6/42.4	2	0.575	.750	.07
Witness/victim of sexual abuse (before age 16; %)	52	3.8/63.5	80	6.3/61.3	2	0.369	.832	.09
Sexual abuse by relative (%)	34	41.2	52	46.2	1	0.207	.665	.04
Substance abuse history linked/not linked to offenses (%)	57	28.1/40.4	79	32.9/30.4	2	1.456	.483	.08

The mean age of offenders at the time of the first offense against the index victim was 36.31 years (SD = 7.5), with a range from 20 to 68 years. Offenders were on average 39.54 (SD = 7.57) years of age at referral. Biological fathers were significantly older at the time of their first offense and at referral. In practical terms, the magnitude of these differences was between 2 and 3 years; however, the size of the effect was medium to large for both differences. Information on intellectual disability was available for only one quarter of the sample (n = 52). Of these, fewer than one in five offenders 17.3% had a history of some disability, whereas the majority of the remaining offenders (82.7%) did not. The proportion of intellectually disabled offenders was significantly larger among the nonbiological father subgroup (Table 1). Given the small sample size, this result must be interpreted with caution.

With respect to their own experiences as victims of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, more than half of the 112 offenders with available information on this topic had either witnessed (8.9%) or been victim of (43.8%) physical or emotional abuse before the age of 16. A larger proportion had been witnesses (5.3%) to or victims (62.1%) of sexual abuse before this age. Information on sexual abuse before the age of 16 was available for 132 offenders. Almost half (44.2%) reported abuse by a relative. There were no significant differences in the abuse experiences of biological and nonbiological fathers.

Of 136 offenders whose case files contained information about substance abuse, just more than one third had no history of alcohol or drug abuse (34.6%), and a similar proportion had a history of substance abuse unrelated to their offending. Alcohol and drug abuse was linked to offending in one third of the sample. No differences emerged between biological and nonbiological offenders.

On most demographic factors, differences between biological and nonbiological fathers were negligible, providing strong confirmation for the first hypotheses.

H2: Differences in the criminal histories of biological and nonbiological fathers will be negligible.

Given that not all of the reports to the police resulted in charges, we analyzed prior convictions as well as other available information about criminal history to gain a broader perspective on criminal proclivities of the sample. Results are depicted in Table 2. Taking into account all reports to the police, more than half (54.7%; n = 120) of the sample had some form of criminal history. One third of the 120 offenders who had some prior report of offending had a juvenile offending history (only one of whom did not offend as an adult until the index crime). Nonbiological fathers were significantly more likely to have a criminal history, although the effect was small. With respect to sexual offending history, there were no differences between subgroups; 24 referrals had a sexual offending history, 9 as juveniles.

Table 2:

Criminal History and Prior Convictions in Biological Versus Nonbiological Fathers

	Biological Fathers		Nonbiological Fathers
Variable	n	M and SD or %	n	M and SD or %	df	t or χ²	p Value	d or ω	df1, df2	F	F_crit 1%
Criminal history (%)	96	46.9	118	61.0	1	4.272	.039	0.16
Sexual offending history (unconfirmed reports and juvenile included; %)	96	11.5	118	11.0	1	0.010	.919	0.00
Prior conviction (%)	96	39.6	118	50.0	1	2.318	.128	0.10
Juvenile offending (%)	46	41.3	74	28.4	1	2.133	.144	0.13
Age of offending onset (M, SD)	46	24.96, 10.81	74	24.00, 9.31	118	−0.513	.642	0.09	1, 114	0.217	7.24

In all, 45% of the 214 offenders referred to the diversion program had a conviction (n = 97). The majority of the offenses were nonsexual in nature; only 10 offenders were previously convicted for sexual offending, of whom 4 were biological and 6 were nonbiological fathers. Given the small samples, no inferential statistics were computed. Biological and nonbiological offending fathers who were accepted into treatment were equally likely to hold prior convictions. In sum, the subgroups did not differ with respect to records of prior offending (Table 2), confirming H2.

H3: Differences between index offenses of biological and nonbiological fathers will be negligible.

Several analyses were conducted on characteristics of the index offenses to explore potential differences between father subgroups (H3). Results are presented in Table 3. The number of index victims ranged from one to five per offender (M = 1.23, SD = 0.57). The vast majority of the sample (91.1%) abused only female children. Fewer than 1 in 20 offenders abused male victims only (4.7%) or both male and female victims (4.2%). The age distribution of the youngest self-reported victim was similar across groups (M = 8.48, SD = 3.77), ranging from 6 months to 16 years. The age of the youngest victim of biological fathers (M = 7.78, SD = 3.75) was significantly lower than that of nonbiological fathers (M = 9.07, SD = 3.05). The duration of offending ranged from 0 to 16 years (M = 3.22, SD = 3.29, n = 213). The number of occasions of abuse for 187 offenders (biological n = 84, nonbiological n = 103) ranged from one to estimates exceeding 2,500 occasions (overall: M = 128.70, Mdn = 10, SD = 324.13; biological: M = 122.65, Mdn = 10, SD = 285.01; nonbiological: M = 133.62, Mdn = 13, SD = 354.16).

Table 3:

Characteristics of Index Victim(s) and Offenses in Biological Versus Nonbiological Fathers

	Biological Fathers		Nonbiological Fathers
Variable	n	M and SD or %	n	M and SD or %	df	t or χ²	p Value	d or ω	df1, df2	F	F_crit 1%
Number of victims	96	1.28, 0.64	118	1.19, 0.49	212	−1.110	.268	0.16	1,212	1.232	9.58
Victim gender: female only/male only/both	96	93.8/3.1/3.1	118	89.0/5.9/5.1	2	1.508	.470	0.10
Age of youngest victim	94	7.78, 3.75	110	9.07, 3.05	202	2.703	.007	0.38	1,202	7.306	9.58
Penetrative abuse	96	80.2	117	87.2	1	1.910	.167	0.11
Digital penetration	96	30.2	117	43.6	1	4.026	.045	0.12
Duration of offending (years)	96	3.57, 3.52	117	2.93, 3.07	211	−1.408	.161	0.19	1,211	1.982	9.58
No. of occasions of abuse	84	122.65, 285.01	103	133.62, 354.16	185	0.230	.819	0.03	1,185	0.053	8.61
Use of threats or intimidation/threat or actual force/violence	90	34.4/18.9/1.1	110	37.3/24.5/3.6	3	3.612	.307	0.14
Premeditation: impulsive/some planned/clearly planned	93	2.2/26.9/71.0	112	1.8/29.5/68.8	2	0.190	.909	0.04
Sexual gratification	96	76.0	117	71.8	1	0.491	.484	0.07

Across 213 offenders with available data on the index offense, 84.0% were penetrative and 37.6% involved digital penetration on the index victim, which in NSW constitutes sexual intercourse. Although nonbiological fathers were significantly more likely than biological fathers to perdigital penetration on their victim(s), the effect size was very small. Given that the differences between offender subgroups were few and small, we did not correct for them in the following analyses.

Out of 201 offenders with data applicable to the use of physical threats during the index offense, 2.3% used violence beyond what was necessary to ensure compliance, 20.7% used threats of or actual physical force, and 33.8% used threats or intimidation with no actual force. Fewer than 1% of offenders used a blunt object to achieve compliance; consequently, no comparison on this variable with respect to victim–offender relationship was feasible. Information on premeditation of the index offense was available for 205 offenders. The majority had clearly planned the offense (69.8%), with some planning reported by a further 28.3%. Relatively few offenders reported sexual gratification (i.e., 56 of 213, or 26.3%).

The average number of occasions of abuse of the index victim (beyond the index offense) was statistically independent of the victim–offender relationship (χ² = 0.090, p = .765, df = 1, ω = .04, Table 4). The proportion of “one-off” offenders in the sample (charged with committing abuse on only one occasion) was relatively low at 12.3% (biological = 13.1%, nonbiological = 11.7%). Inspection of the median revealed that many victims were abused roughly 10 times prior to charges being made. Only one participant, a nonbiological father, was charged with a no-contact offense.

Table 4:

Acceptance of Offense Responsibility by Victim–Offender Relationship and Treatment Completion (percentages)

	Accepts responsibility (n = 68)	Accepts partial responsibility (n = 21)	Denies responsibility (n = 1)	Total (n = 90)
Biological (n = 44)
Completion	91.3	8.7	0.0	43.4
Noncompletion	47.6	47.6	4.8	56.6
Nonbiological (n = 46)
Completion	93.3	6.7	0.0	56.8
Noncompletion	56.3	43.8	0.0	43.2
Total (n = 90)
Completion	92.5	7.5	0.0	100.0
Noncompletion	51.4	45.9	2.7	100.0

In summary, significant differences between biological and nonbiological fathers were observed with respect to only 2 of the 10 characteristics of the index offenses: the age of the youngest victim and the frequency of digital versus vaginal penetration. Overall the offending behaviors of the biological and nonbiological fathers were more similar than different, confirming the third hypothesis.

H4: Differences in treatment completion, acceptance of responsibility, and recidivism rates by biological and nonbiological fathers will be negligible.

Similar proportions of the biological and nonbiological fathers completed treatment, and roughly one third in each group breached the treatment agreement (36.4% vs. 32.7%). Fewer participants voluntarily withdrew from the program (11.4% biological vs. 6.1% nonbiological fathers). Victim–offender relationship, or VOR, was statistically unrelated to treatment completion (completion vs. noncompletion), χ² = 0.758, df = 1, p = .409, ω = .11.

Face-ups to the nonoffending parent and the child victim were inspected. Data were available for 88 (42 biological and 46 nonbiological fathers) of the 93 offenders accepted into treatment. Face-ups were defined as an offender’s written or verbal full account to a family member of his abusive behavior, often beyond that provided in victims’ statements. Overall, 64 offenders produced face-ups to the nonoffending parent, whereas slightly fewer offenders (n = 52) produced face-ups to the child victim. Of the biological fathers, 64.3% produced a face-up to the nonoffending parent and 54.8% to the child victim. Analogously, of the nonbiological fathers, 63.0% produced a face-up to the nonoffending and exactly one half to the victim. Offenders who had faced up to the nonoffending parent were significantly more likely to also face up to the victim (Kendall’s τ = .764, p < .0001). VOR was not statistically related to the probability of a face-up to the nonoffending parent (χ² = 1.786, df = 1, p = .244, ω = .17) or the child victim (χ² = 0.294, df = 1, p = .671, ω = .04).

Data on recidivism were available for all 214 declined and accepted offenders. Sexual and nonsexual recidivism was inspected; proportions are displayed in Table 5. A total of 15 offenders who reoffended nonsexually also reoffended sexually.

Table 5:

Sexual and Nonsexual Recidivism by Biological and Nonbiological Fathers by Intent to Treat (percentages)

	Reoffense Type	Accepted (n = 93)	Declined (n = 121)	Total (n = 214)
Biological (n = 96)	Sexual	9.1	15.4	12.5
	Nonsexual	20.5	28.8	25.0
Nonbiological (n = 118)	Sexual	6.1	11.6	9.3
	Nonsexual	24.5	31.9	28.8
Total (n = 214)	Sexual	7.5	13.2	10.7
	Nonsexual	22.6	30.6	27.1

Variables were dummy coded to assess the impact of VOR and intent to treat on recidivism. To account for differences in subsample sizes, the mean was subtracted after coding the variables as 0 and 1. Interaction terms were computed by multiplying the two main effect dummy variables. Intent to treat was considered by comparing offenders accepted and declined for diversion. Logistic regressions assessed the impact of VOR and intent to treat on recidivism. Across accepted and declined participants, VOR did not significantly affect sexual, B = .370, SE(B) = .460, e^B = 1.448, df = 1, p = .420, or nonsexual recidivism, B = –.182, SE(B) = .314, e^B = 0.833, df = 1, p = .562. Across biological and nonbiological subgroups, acceptance into treatment did not significantly predict sexual, B = –.653, SE(B) = .486, e^B = 0.520, df = 1, p = .179, or nonsexual recidivism, B = –.407, SE(B) = .318, e^B = 0.666, df = 1, p = .200. Moreover, the VOR and intent to treat interaction effect did not significantly predict sexual, B = –.653, SE(B) = .486, e^B = .520, df = 1, p = .179, or nonsexual recidivism, B = –.088, SE(B) = .641, e^B = 0.915, df = 1, p = .890. The regression models for neither sexual, χ² = 2.498, df = 3, p = .476, Nagelkerke’s R² = .023, nor nonsexual recidivism, χ² = 2.067, df = 3, p = .559, Nagelkerke’s R² = .014, were significant.

Time to recidivate, also referred to as survival time, was counted for all participants including those who did not reoffend. For those who did reoffend, the average numbers of days to recidivate by type of recidivism (sexual vs. nonsexual), split by VOR and intent to treat, are displayed in Table 6. Given the small proportions of sexual reoffenders, all results should be interpreted with caution.

Table 6:

Time(days) to Sexual and Nonsexual Recidivism by Relationship to Victim (Mean, SD)

	Sexual recidivism
	Accepted (n = 7)	Declined (n = 16)	Total (n = 23)
Biological fathers (n = 10)	1767.00 (1246.84)	1307.88 (738.98)	1460.92 (906.97)
Nonbiological fathers (n = 13)	1346.33 (2080.18)	1208.12 (1238.49)	1245.82 (1394.02)
Total (n = 23)	1358.04 (1143.10)	1258.00 (986.55)	1358.04 (1143.10)
	Nonsexual recidivism
	Accepted (n = 21)	Declined (n = 37)	Total (n = 58)
Biological fathers (n = 24)	1554.89 (1027.06)	1911.67 (1291.45)	1777.88 (1188.80)
Nonbiological fathers (n = 34)	1587.08 (1394.75)	772.14 (991.19)	1059.76 (1195.79)
Total (n = 19)	1573.29 (1221.53)	1234.11 (1242.34)	1356.91 (1235.06)

Survival analyses using Cox proportional hazard regressions analyzed the period of desistance before relapse to test whether differences in average time to recidivate were statistically related to VOR or intent to treat (Table 7). There were no significant differences between offender subgroups with respect to time to sexual or nonsexual recidivism. Intent to treat did not significantly predict survival rates, nor did its interaction with VOR, confirming the fourth hypothesis.

Table 7:

Cox Regression on Sexual and Nonsexual Recidivism by Victim–Offender Relationship and Intent to Treat

Predictor	n	B	SE(B)	e^B	df	p
Sexual recidivism
Victim–offender relationship main effect	214	.299	.436	1.349	1	.492
Intent to treat main effect		−.527	.464	0.590	1	.256
Relationship × intent to treat interaction		.235	.914	1.264	1	.797
χ²		1.674
p value		.643
df		3
Nonsexual recidivism
Victim–offender relationship main effect	214	−.278	.270	0.757	1	.302
Intent to treat main effect		−.241	.274	0.786	1	.379
Relationship × intent to treat interaction		.128	.554	1.137	1	.817
χ²		2.084
p value		.555
df		3

Discussion

This study augmented information about the prevention of child sexual abuse by appraising long-debated questions surrounding nonbiological father–daughter sexual abuse in the management, risk assessment, and treatment contexts. The foregoing findings advanced knowledge of sex offender subtypes and indicated that policies and practices distinguishing biological from nonbiological father sexual offenders against children should be reconsidered.

Negligible Differences

A unique sample provided an opportunity to compare a narrow (biological only) versus a broader (biological and role-based) definition of intrafamilial or incest offenders. Findings replicated those of Greenberg et al. (2005) on available variables and indicated negligible differences between biological and nonbiological intrafamilial sex offenders only with regard to demographic characteristics and prior experiences of childhood abuse. Biological father offenders were significantly older than their nonbiological counterparts at the time of first offense. Although offender age has been associated with a lower risk of reoffending (e.g., Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998), reoffending rates between subgroups were undifferentiated. Where differences were observed (i.e., nonbiological father offenders exhibited significantly more intellectual impairments and a more extensive prior criminal history), effect sizes were small. Of particular interest with regard to suitability for adjudication alternatives and community-based treatment is presence of offender substance abuse history either in relation to the index offense or otherwise (Fisher et al., 2003). No statistically significant differences were found with respect to this variable. Finally, we examined offender acceptance of responsibility given that denial and minimization of offending behavior is a primary exclusion criterion for most diversion programs. Results found that VOR was not statistically related to the probability of a face-up to the nonoffending parent and that the majority (72.7%) of accepted offenders overall faced up to the nonoffending parent, whereas roughly 50% did so to the child victim.

Policy and Definitional Reform

Diversion of intrafamilial offenders

Considered together, the lack of observed differences between biological and nonbiological subgroups called into question whether, as a matter of policy, diversion programs designed for intrafamilial sex offenders should be expanded to include nonbiological parents. Our findings support this contention. Results inform the development of eligibility criteria for diversion to intrafamilial treatment programs with longer-term monitoring. At a minimum, exclusion of nonbiological intrafamilial sex offenders from community-based treatment programs appears unwarranted. Moreover, both subgroups benefited equally from treatment, as indicated by the equivalent reduction in reoffending rates in these groups following acceptance into the program. Although differences between the groups on nonsexual reoffenses were not significant, the fact that this rate of reoffending was somewhat higher than that of biological parents might be expected, given the slightly higher rate of prior convictions among nonbiological fathers.

Classification implications

This study highlights the historically disparate definitional systems in the legal and clinical contexts that may operate as barriers to effective management of intrafamilial child sex abuse (Desai, 2003). Confusion arises because the terms (father–daughter) incest and intrafamilial have both been applied to either or both biological and nonbiological fathers. In the sexual abuse literature, the term incest was replaced by the term intrafamilial offending. The clinically adopted term intrafamilial reflects the social role and familial relationship between an offender and victim as paramount, rather than a blood relation (Herman & Hirschman, 1977; Quinsey, Chaplin, & Carrigan, 1979). This growing lexical shift has masked a subtle difference between the incest and intrafamilial, which are readily, but often incorrectly, presumed to be synonymous. Moreover, legal arenas use different terminology than what is exercised in the clinical and therapeutic contexts. Reports of parent–child incest offenses have customarily been confined to those involving a victim–offender blood relationship (Greenspan & Rosenberg, 2000; Quinsey et al., 1979). When legally specified, nonbiological father offending is not termed incest because the legal definition is biologically based and instead allocates this group to extrafamilial subgroups within prison samples (Greenspan & Rosenberg, 2000). The resulting blurring of these definitional distinctions has contributed to widespread research and policy confusion.

From definition to implications

Our findings may thwart future reliance on potentially flawed assumptions regarding intrafamilial sexual offenders by more accurately defining the population for which diversionary legal alternatives may be beneficial. We informed this objective by illuminating the father–child relationship (biological or nonbiological) as the defining characteristic for meaningful group membership. Contrary to legal tradition, nonbiological father offenders should be considered along with biological fathers rather than extrafamilial offenders when legal sanctions are considered. From an etiological perspective, nonbiological father offenders should be grouped with biological fathers to form an “intrafamilial” or familial-role typology within the child molestation spectrum. Aided by this clarification, future research considering this subgroup of sex offenders may serve to erode the “lack of consistent findings about father-daughter child molesters” regarding etiology, treatment, risk management, and prevention (Rice & Harris, 2002, p. 330).

Recidivism

Our results strongly suggested that any substantial differences observed between nonbiological and biological father offenders on relative risk for reoffending sexually abusive behavior against children may be capricious. Analyses found no significant differences between father offender subgroups on offender time to recidivate, nor with regard to sexual and nonsexual reoffending behavior. Although some research has identified different treatment effects and recidivism rates for offenders delineated as low or high risk generally predicted by level of sexual deviance (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998; Stalans, 2004, p. 576), in the case of intrafamilial offending, a recurrent deviant sexual pattern is not readily apparent or established. Thus, it is more challenging to predict intrafamilial reoffending. Nevertheless, our findings are consistent with those of prior research indicating that in absolute terms intrafamilial offenders are likely to recidivate and exhibit comparable risk prediction accuracy and general criminality across subgroups (Rice & Harris, 2002; Stalans, 2004; Studer, Clelland, Aylwin, Reddon, & Monro, 2000).

Limitations

Several limitations to this study must be noted. First, it is likely that our recidivism estimates were constrained by an underestimation of true recidivism frequencies (Furby et al., 1989). An advantage of our design was the extensive set of official records on offending providing insight into not only the prior offending history but also recidivism estimates without the limitations inherent in relying only on records of convictions. Second, although we cannot say with certainty that biological and nonbiological fathers did not differ on the assessed variables, the absence of differences and small effect sizes observed where differences existed reinforced this conclusion.

Finally, some of the Cedar Cottage sample characteristics (e.g., 5% with prior sexual offense convictions) may imply that the diversion referral system specific to the sample’s jurisdiction or that the eligibility criteria for referral increased the likelihood that differences between biological and nonbiological fathers would be negligible. However, this limitation is inherent within the sexual offender treatment literature (Hanson et al., 2009). The second implication is that the nonviolent nature of their sexual offending tended to qualify the sample as lower risk from the outset. This criticism is rebutted by the sample’s frequency and severity of the reported offending.

Low-Risk Designations and Policy Attention

The seriousness of the sexual abuse and the length of protracted abuse endured by a single victim—both exemplified in our sample—as well as the long-term nature of its consequences to victims and families warrant attention. A corollary of the findings reported in this study is that review of designation as “low” versus “high” risk is important given its relation to resource allocation and policy attention. Recent data shed doubt on the low-risk designation of intrafamilial child sexual abuse because intrafamilial offenders had multiple victims, held a primary erotic preference for adolescent hebephilic victims, and reoffended at rates not significantly different from those of extrafamilial child molesters (84.2% and 89.8%, respectively) once undetected sexual reoffenses not captured by arrest and successful conviction records were taken into account (Langevin et al., 2004; Studer & Aylwin, 2006). From both treatment and policy perspectives, more should be gleaned about intrafamilial sex offenders before relegating this group to a low-risk generality (Stalans, 2004).

Future Research

In short, we echo concerns that policy attention has been skewed toward stereotypical “pedophilic” offenders (Blanchard et al., 2006, p. 2). Robust policy initiatives will depend on offsetting this view with clarification regarding the extent to which classifications should delineate between, or group together, different subtypes of sex offenders. Future research should continue to deconstruct the demarcation between biological and nonbiological offenders as well as potential delineations between intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders. Comparisons between recidivism rates of valid groupings of intrafamilial versus extrafamilial offenders will continue to inform legal and clinical arenas (Janus & Prentky, 2008). The ultimate aim remains to increase the likelihood that such abuse will be prevented, reported, and appropriately addressed by treating all victims and affected family members.

Conclusion

Over three decades ago, Giarretto and colleagues noted that a “criminal justice system intervention can either accelerate the self-destructive cycle [of sexual abuse against children] or have a creative effect” (Giarretto, Giarretto, & Sgroi, 1978, p. 232). The offenders referred to the diversion program examined in this study included nonbiological fathers who are traditionally regarded as higher risk than biological fathers and thus ineligible for community-based treatment. The lack of observed differences between the two groups showed that those assumptions are false. These findings provide a basis to extend the creative effects of diversion programs to nonbiological intrafamilial sex offenders.

Footnotes

This article is part of a special issue titled “Diversion from Standard Prosecution”, edited by Kirk Heilbrun and David DeMatteo of Drexel University. This research was supported in part by an East Asia and Pacific Summer Institutes program grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1015619) and the Australian Academy of Science to the first author; and a Faculty of Arts Publication Grant to the second author from Charles Sturt University. The authors are grateful to the NSW Police Force and NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Program staff for their guidance and support, in particular Associate Clinical Advisor Dale Tolliday, Associate Program Director Karen Parsons, and Treatment Coordinator Jessica Pratley.

References

Abel

G. G.

Becker

J. V.

Mittelman

Cunningham-Rathner

Rouleau

J. L.

Murphy

W. D.

(1987). Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 3-25. doi:10.1177/08862608700200100110.1177/088626087002001001

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 109-248, H.R. 4472, 109th Cong. § 111 (2006).

Barbaree

H. E.

Marshall

W. L.

(1998). Treatment of the sexual offender. In Wettstein

R. M.

(Ed.), Treatment of offenders with mental disorders (pp. 265-328). New York, NY: Guilford.

Becker

J. V.

Murphy

W. D.

(1998). What we know and do not know about assessing and treating sex offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 116-137. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.4.1-2.11610.1037/1076-8971.4.1-2.116

Bixler

R. H.

(1983). The multiple meanings of “incest.” Journal of Sex Research, 19, 197-201. doi:10.1080/0022449830955118010.1080/00224498309551180

Blanchard

Kuban

M. E.

Blak

Cantor

J. M.

Klassen

Dickey

(2006). Phallometric comparison of pedophilic interest in nonadmitting sexual offenders against stepdaughters, biological daughters, other biologically related girls, and unrelated girls. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18(1), 1-14. doi:10.1177/10790632060180010110.1177/107906320601800101

Bonta

Law

Hanson

(1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.12310.1037/0033-2909.123.2.123

Butler

L. A.

Goodman-Delahunty

Lulham

(2011). The effectiveness of community-based treatment in reducing sexual reoffending rates of adult intrafamilial child sexual offenders. Unpublished manuscript, Charles Sturt University, Manly, Australia.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.15510.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

10.

Cohen

(1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.99710.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997

11.

Collins

Peters

Lennings

(2009). Community intervention with sex offenders: Do dynamic risk factors change with treatment? Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 1, 87-97.

12.

Desai

(2003). Jail diversion for people with mental illness: What do we really know? In Fisher

W. H.

(Ed.), Community-based interventions for criminal offenders with severe mental illness (pp. 99-122). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

13.

Devine

(2010, July 3). Evil we’re too afraid to confront. Brisbane Times. Retrieved from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/evil-were-too-afraid-to-confront-20100702-zu0m.html

14.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.

15.

Finkelhor

(2009). The prevention of childhood sexual abuse. Future of Children, 19, 169-194. doi:10.1353/foc.0.003510.1353/foc.0.0035

16.

Finkelhor

Hotaling

Lewis

I. A.

Smith

(1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 19-28. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-710.1016/0145-2134(90)90077-7

17.

Fisher

W. H.

Wolff

Roy-Bujnowski

(2003). Community mental health services and criminal justice involvement. In Fisher

W. H.

(Ed.), Community-based interventions for criminal offenders with severe mental illness (pp. 25-51). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

18.

Fitch

J. H.

(1962). Men convicted of sexual offences against children: A descriptive follow-up study. British Journal of Criminology, 3, 18-37.

19.

Furby

Weinrott

M. R.

Blackshaw

(1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 3-30. doi:0033-2909/89/100.750033-2909/89/100.75

20.

Gelb

(2007). Recidivism of sex offenders (Research report). Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council of Australia.

21.

Giarretto

(1982). A comprehensive child sexual abuse treatment program. Child Abuse & Neglect, 6, 263-278. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(82)90029-110.1016/0145-2134(82)90029-1

22.

Giarretto

Sgroi

S. M.

(1978). Coordinated community treatment of incest. In Burgees

A. W.

Groth

Holmstrom

L. L.

Sgroi

S. M.

(Eds.), Sexual assault of children and adolescents (pp. 231-240). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

23.

Goodman-Delahunty

(2009). The New South Wales pre-trial diversion of offenders (child sexual assault) program: An evaluation of treatment outcomes (Research report). Sydney, Australia: Sydney West Area Heath Services.

24.

Greenberg

D. M.

Firestone

Bradford

J. M.

Curry

(2000). Recidivism of child molesters: A study of victim relationship with perpetrator. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1485-1494. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00197-610.1016/S0145-2134(00)00197-6

25.

Greenberg

D. M.

Firestone

Nunes

K. L.

Bradford

J. M.

Curry

(2005). Biological fathers and stepfathers who molest their daughters: Psychological, phallometric, and criminal features. Sex Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 39-46. doi:10.1177/10790632050170010510.1177/107906320501700105

26.

Greenspan

E. L.

Rosenberg

(2000). Martin’s annual criminal code. Aurora: Canada Law Book.

27.

Groff

M. G.

Hubble

L. M.

(1984). A comparison of father–daughter and stepfather–stepdaughter incest. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 11, 461-475. doi:10.1177/009385488401100400510.1177/0093854884011004005

28.

Hall

G. C. N.

(1995). Sexual recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.63.5.80210.1037/0022-006X.63.5.802

29.

Hanson

R. K.

Bourgon

Helmus

Hodgson

(2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865-891. doi:10.1177/009385480933854510.1177/0093854809338545

30.

Hanson

R. K.

Bussiere

M. T.

(1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.34810.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348

31.

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

K. E.

(2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.115410.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154

32.

Hanson

R. K.

Steffy

R. A.

Gauthier

(1993). Long-term recidivism of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 646-652. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.61.4.64610.1037/0022-006X.61.4.646

33.

Heilbrun

Griffin

P. A.

(1998). Community-based forensic treatment. In Wettstein

R. M.

(Ed.), Treatment of offenders with mental disorders (pp. 168-210). New York, NY: Guilford.

34.

Herman

Hirschman

(1977). Father–daughter incest (Vol. 2). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Horley

(2008). Sexual offenders: Personal construct theory and deviant sexual behavior. New York, NY: Routledge.

36.

Janus

E. S.

Prentky

R. A.

(2008). Sexual predator laws: A two-decade retrospective. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21, 90-98.

37.

Keller

R. A.

Cicchinelli

L. F.

Gardner

D. M.

(1989). Characteristics of child sexual abuse treatment programs. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 361-368.

38.

Langevin

Curnoe

Fedoroff

Bennett

Langevin

Peever

. . . Sandhu

(2004). Lifetime sex offender recidivism: A 25-year follow-up study. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 531-552. doi:10.3138/cjccj.46.5.53110.3138/cjccj.46.5.531

39.

Lösel

Schmucker

(2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146. doi:10.1007/s11292-004-6466-10.1007/s11292-004-6466-

40.

Murphy

K. R.

Myors

(1999). Testing the hypothesis that treatments have negligible effects: Minimum-effect tests in the general linear model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 234-248. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.23410.1037/0021-9010.84.2.234

41.

Pratley

Goodman-Delahunty

(2011). Increased self-disclosure of offending by intrafamilial child sex offenders. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 44-52.

42.

Quinsey

V. L.

(1977). The assessment and treatment of child molesters: A review. Canadian Psychological Review, 18, 204-220. doi:10.1037/h008143610.1037/h0081436

43.

Quinsey

V. L.

Chaplin

T. C.

Carrigan

W. F.

(1979). Sexual preferences among incestuous and nonincestuous child molesters. Behavior Therapy, 10, 562-565. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(79)80057-X10.1016/S0005-7894(79)80057-X

44.

Rice

M. E.

Harris

G. T.

(2002). Men who molest their sexually immature daughters: Is a special explanation required? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 329-339. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.111.2.32910.1037/0021-843X.111.2.329

45.

Rush

(1980). Best kept secret: Sexual abuse of children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

46.

Sachs

(2005, June 14). Galley Girl: Talking with Nancy Grace. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/columnist/sachs/article/0,9565,1071930,00.html

47.

Schmidt

F. L.

(1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.11510.1037/1082-989X.1.2.115

48.

Soothill

Francis

Sanderson

Ackerley

(2000). Sex offenders: Specialists, generalists—or both? British Journal of Criminology, 40, 56-67. doi:10.1093/bjc/40.1.5610.1093/bjc/40.1.56

49.

Stalans

L. J.

(2004). Adult sex offenders on community supervision: A review of recent assessment strategies and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 564-608. doi:10.1177/009385480426709310.1177/0093854804267093

50.

Steadman

H. J.

(2007, June). Treatment not jails: New leadership and promising practices. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, San Diego, CA.

51.

Steadman

H. J.

Davidson

Brown

(2001). Mental health courts: Their promise and unanswered questions. Psychiatric Services, 52, 457-458.

52.

Stinson

J. D.

Sales

B. D.

Becker

J. V.

(2008). Sex offending: Causal theories to inform research, prevention, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

53.

Studer

L. H.

Aylwin

A. S.

(2006). Sexual offender subtyping: The incest offender question. Sexual Offender Treatment, 1, 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.sexual-offender-treatment.org/42.html

54.

Studer

L. H.

Clelland

S. R.

Aylwin

A. S.

Reddon

J. R.

Monro

(2000). Rethinking risk assessment for incest offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 23, 15-22. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(99)00002-310.1016/S0160-2527(99)00002-3

55.

Vander Mey

B. J.

Neff

R. L.

(1984). Adult-child incest: A sample of substantiated cases. Family Relations, 33, 549-557. doi:10.2307/58383410.2307/583834

56.

Wexler

D. B.

Winick

(Eds.). (1996). Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

57.

Wolff

(2003). Courting the court: Courts as agents for treatment and justice. In Fisher

W. H.

(Ed.), Community-based interventions for criminal offenders with severe mental illness (pp. 143-198). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.