Moving beyond the risk paradigm: Using the Good Lives Model with offenders in denial of sexual offending

Introduction

This article will examine the complexity faced by probation officers in managing offenders in complete denial of sexual offending, and reflect on the value of employing the Good Lives Model (GLM), the theory that underpins sex offender groupwork programmes, in working on a one-to-one basis with deniers. Traditionally, work with offenders in denial who are managed by the probation service in England and Wales has followed the risk paradigm, which states that an offender’s level of risk is the paramount factor to be considered; and the higher the risk, the greater the intensity of management an offender will require. Under the risk agenda, probation work with sex offenders who deny has become the most focused on comprehensive surveillance and monitoring (Hebenton 2008, 2011; Hebenton and Seddon 2009). Historically, complete deniers have been largely excluded from participating in treatment such as the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) as they are seen to be avoiding responsibility for their offending behaviour (Ministry of Justice, 2010). This has resulted in the one-to-one interaction between an offender and the probation officer tasked with managing their case becoming the key relationship. This can be problematic, as the probation officer can frequently encounter difficulties in creating a productive professional working environment that does not become overshadowed by denial.

A report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP, 2010) has discussed the issues probation officers can face as a result of a lack of training to work with denial, in particular the concern that breaking through denial can lead to discussions that the professional can feel under-equipped to control. This article will discuss the complexity of denial of sexual offending and argue that using the theory that underpins the GLM in practice will provide a means for probation officers to construct and maintain positive professional relationships with deniers in one-to-one-work. The traditional focus on the risk-needs-responsivity model of intervention, public protection and surveillance of sex offenders has resulted in there being relatively little guidance made available to probation officers on how to work effectively on a one-to-one basis with deniers using rehabilitative methods (HMIP, 2010); and that this deficiency can lead to lack of officer confidence in using such an approach.

The issue of denial and implications for treatment

Denial of sexual offending has historically been viewed as an important issue by the probation service, and there appears to be a very real dilemma as to how it can be addressed. However, the importance of denial as a predictor of future risk has been disputed: ‘Denial and minimisation of the offending behaviour has long been viewed as such a crucial factor to future risk of recidivism . . . Research, however, has failed to demonstrate a link between denial or admittance and risk of recidivism’ (Cortoni, 2009: 45). As this suggests, there have been numerous studies of the effectiveness of the risk-based approach, and the results have been inconclusive (Rich, 2013; Thornton and Knight, 2007). It has been variously noted that complete deniers who did attend a treatment programme did not have noticeably higher recidivism rates than treated admitters; and that deniers who had attended a programme were significantly less likely to reoffend than admitters or deniers who did not receive any programme intervention (Marshall et al., 2001: 207). Additionally, whilst it has been observed that there was a link between denial and higher levels of recidivism for high risk offenders (Langton et al., 2008; Schneider and Wright, 2004), other studies have refuted this evidence (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998; Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Lund, 2000; Nunes et al., 2007; Worting and Langstrom, 2006) and stated that there is no proven link between the presence of denial and an increase in risk of further recidivism. The inconsistency in the literature has prompted debate as to whether denial has any relevance as a risk factor (Levenson, 2011; Thornton and Knight, 2007). It has also been argued that, regardless of denial or acceptance of their offending behaviour, the socio-legal emphasis of focusing on dynamic risk factors can be detrimental as it reduces an offender’s personal agency, or capacity for positive change (Glaser, 2003; Heffernan and Ward, 2015; Thornton, 2016; Vernham and Nee, 2016; Ward, 2016; Ward and Salmon, 2009).

Whether or not it is seen as impacting on risk, denial is extensive among those convicted of sexual offending. Statistics on convictions in Crown Courts in England and Wales state that in 2011, of 7061 defendants brought to trial for sexual offences 1639 (23.2%) entered a plea of not guilty but were found guilty after trial (Ministry of Justice, 2013). It has been stated that 54–87% of those convicted of sexual offending are in complete or partial denial during some of, or throughout, their sentences (Barbaree, 1991; Brown et al., 2012; Maletzky, 1991). Barbaree (1991) studied a sample of offenders in custody and found that 98% exhibited degrees of partial or complete denial; with 54% of those convicted of rape, and 66% of child sex offenders being in complete denial at the time of the study. In other studies, complete denial has been observed in 30% of offenders; a figure that has remained constant in studies that cover 20 years of research (Craissati, 2015; Kennedy and Grubin, 1992). Partial deniers have been found to account for a further third of sex offenders (Craissati, 2015; Marshall, 1994). Taking both partial and complete deniers into account, denial can be seen to represent a significant and enduring issue, which might be expected to have an important impact on the ways it is addressed by professionals. It can significantly impede the professional–offender relationship, and therefore, even if it is deemed not to impact on risk, it is clearly an issue that should be addressed. Research has acknowledged that working with individuals who have been convicted of sexual offending can be stressful (Briggs and Kennington, 1996; Erooga, 1994) given the issues of sex and sexuality that must necessarily be addressed. Erooga (1994) notes that this can create fears of contamination and raise the possibility of identification for workers of both sexes. There are also considerable ethical considerations in working with sexual offending behaviour (Glaser, 2003; Ward and Salmon, 2009), which can be compounded by a punitive, risk-based style of working, with a stress on the negative aspects of an individual’s behaviour. For male workers, the issue of identification can be related to the work of Brown (2010) in terms of the power relations inherent in masculinity; but, in addition, there are risks of hostile feelings towards the offender owing to the nature of the offending, which can attract feelings of revulsion in both sexes. For female staff, Erooga (1994) argues that some may relate the work with sexually abusive clients to personal experiences of abuse, creating a sense of victimisation, or alternatively, feeling shame and guilt about sexual power relations in society in general (Briggs and Kennington, 1996: 46). This might equally apply to a male worker given that males may also experience abuse. These previous experiences can impact on the ability to communicate effectively in terms of being able to fully address sexual issues, or treat the offender with an appropriate level of respect and professionalism. It can also cause significant stress to the staff member (Briggs and Kennington, 1996) who may feel unable or unwilling to disclose concerns to their colleagues or management (Briggs and Kennington, 1996).

Thus, there can be difficulties in developing a professional working relationship with sex offenders that is based on empathy and trust; and the presence of denial may compound this issue. Yet this has been seen as a crucial factor in developing a positive working relationship (McNeil, 2006). This may be because of the probation officer’s fear of being seen to collude with the offender, or risk identification with their actions, or be unable to deal with feelings of revulsion that arise in the course of discussing sexual offending behaviour. Previous research on workers on sexual offending behaviour treatment programmes have reported concerns regarding issues including sexual arousal; first, that discussing sexual matters may arouse the client, or (more rarely) arouse the worker. Second, that their own attitudes to their partner have changed and their interest in sex has decreased. Third, there is a fear of becoming part of the offender’s fantasies, or fears for their children from men in wider society that can cause increased protectiveness (Briggs and Kennington, 1996; Mothersole, 2000). Clarke (2004) suggests that concerns of this nature are more likely early in a career, as staff learn to adapt their thinking and behaviour with offenders with time and experience and additionally become more adept in discussing concerns with line managers and seeking the support of counsellors if required. However, selecting appropriate ways of engaging individual offenders will also be an effective strategy. It may not be realistic to expect a probation officer to completely eradicate these feelings and reactions; nor is it necessary to do so to be able to work constructively with offenders. As the GLM takes a strengths-based approach, the probation officer may find this positive framework helps them to complete effective work with an individual despite any negative personal feelings, as they engage in refocusing and considering the offender’s life more broadly than would be possible by purely considering their offending behaviour (Thornton, 2016).

The function of denial for sex offenders

In a discussion of the importance of confession in criminal justice, Foucault (2014) has suggested that in the post-modern era, admitting to an offence has assumed a new importance. Where previously, an admission of guilt was required in order to assert the power of the sovereign in its judicial function, it has now assumed the dual functions of punishment and rehabilitation (Foucault, 2014: 224). Avowal is also a means to control an ever-present threat of danger from crime (2014: 218). In Foucault’s analysis, the key function of the judiciary and other agencies (which would include the probation service) is to protect society from the threat, by incarcerating and giving treatment to those who commit serious crime. Accordingly, in the modern criminal justice system, the simple establishment of guilt is not sufficient; the perpetrator of serious crimes must admit to his offending and, in addition, offer an explanation for his crimes in order to be helped and cured. Avowal has assumed a place in the discourse of power and, by admitting and explaining a crime, the perpetrator can be seen as consenting to engage in treatment, or to put it another way, consenting to be punished as the justice system sees fit. Therefore, denial may appear to give a sense of power and control to the offender, as he can remain an unknown quantity to the criminal justice system. For an individual convicted of sexual offending, maintaining denial enables him to justify his behaviour and maintain a positive self-image, feel psychologically comfortable and lessen feelings of guilt and remorse towards the victim (Brown et al., 2012; Cohen, 2001). It has also been argued that denial can act as a protective factor for some offenders; by maintaining that he has not committed an offence, the offender has in fact created a barrier to further offending, as people important to him – such as family and friends – will remain supportive whilst believing the individual to be innocent of the offence (Harkins et al., 2010; Levenson, 2011; Winn, 1996). Viewed in this way, denial is arguably a normal cognitive reaction to maintain self-esteem and manage the cognitive dissonance between the maintenance of a positive self-image and the offending behaviour (Brown et al., 2012; Cohen, 2001; Yates, 2009). But, as Foucault observed in a later essay, the refusal to admit can also be limiting to the self, and act as a psychological barrier to a fulfilled life. Denial can be self-preservation but it can also be self-limiting; causing the offender’s life to be stranded without treatment as a means to move forward.

Understanding the importance of shame and guilt in work with deniers

It has been argued that an understanding of the roles played by the emotions of shame and guilt are a key factor for effective work with those in denial of sexual offending, Shame is a common feature of sexual offending behaviour; and, as McAlinden (2008) notes, it is frequently a stage for offenders to pass through in order to accept their actions. Furthermore, it is considered to be strongly linked to denial as it is indicative of a reluctance to accept responsibility for the offending behaviour. Whilst in the state of shame, an offender will be considered unsuitable for treatment, and those working with the individual will have to break through the feelings of shame.

Expressions of shame often involve the offender taking a passive stance in relation to the offending behaviour; they may admit the offence occurred, but that it was owing to their circumstances, or the behaviour of the victim. Conversely, when guilt is expressed, it is seen as a sign that the offender is taking responsibility, and is approaching suitability for treatment. It is active acceptance. As has been noted previously, denial can manifest in a range of behaviours at the time of the offence and attitudes subsequent to it (Calder, 1999) and according to the psychological study of the motivations for sexual offending, an understanding of an offender’s position on the typology of denial (Calder, 1999) is instructive in assisting to identify how they might view their offence in terms of adopting a position of feeling shame or feeling guilt for their actions. As Calder has noted, what an offender is saying about their offence can indicate how entrenched the denial may be. It has been argued (Calder, 1999; Proeve and Howells, 2006; Serren and Marshall, 2006) that the greater the level of denial, the more shame the offender feels; conversely, the greater degree to which the offender admits their actions and motives indicates acceptance, and an admission of guilt. Addressing shame is central to the approach taken in treatment programmes such as the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). It is argued that this is a preliminary, passive stance:

With regard to victim empathy, Roys (1997) argued that shame inhibits empathy, as its focus on self-worth dulls the person’s capacity to experience other emotions . . . victim empathy interventions in sexual offender treatment might trigger a feeling of personal threat, which leads to the emotion of shame (Proeve and Howells, 2006: 125).

In contrast, the experience of guilt leads to an examination of the important issue of empathy by the offender, as they become more aware of the effects of the offending on the victim. This may lead them to take reparative action, and should enable an increased ability to identify adaptive coping responses and decreased risk of reoffending (Proeve and Howells, 2006: 125).

Organisational perspectives on the management of sex offenders

In 2010, the Ministry of Justice issued a statement regarding denial of sexual offending that set down the agency’s position regarding the treatment of offenders. In it, it is acknowledged that minimisation or partial denial is common to cases of sexual offending, and that there are a number of issues that probation staff may face in addressing the issue.

The GLM: Its potential for working with denial

There have been recent indications that the Ministry of Justice is reconsidering its stance on denial of sexual offending, by acknowledging the inconsistencies revealed in the literature and questioning its importance as a risk factor. This is to be reflected in new treatment programmes (Harkins et al., 2015; Wakeling, 2013). Yet, even if it is not considered to be a precluding factor for programme intervention, denial will continue to present a challenge to professionals. If a risk society is one in which risk must be thoroughly understood in order to aid the process of prediction (Beck, 1992) and control (Garland, 2001), then denial represents a specific challenge to the process. If the full focus is on the offender’s denial, it can reduce the work that can be completed with them. Seeking out alternative ways to work productively in the face of denial therefore becomes the challenge of an individual probation officer.

The issue of working with an offender holistically, in a manner that is grounded to the social work tradition, is pertinent here. It has been argued that there is a need for the probation service to incorporate what have been termed its ‘core conditions for effectiveness’ (McNeill, 2006: 52) that are: ‘Empathy and genuineness; the establishment of a working alliance; and using person-centred, collaborative and client-driven approaches’ (McNeill, 2006: 52). Working with sex offenders in denial in this way may prove more productive and fulfilling for the probation officer, and it may ultimately lead the offender more effectively towards desistance, but it will also challenge the values of a system based on the assessment and management of risk. It can appear to contradict those of the probation service when it is recast as an agency for public protection, as it may also appear to deviate from a focus on risk (McNeill, 2006; Gregory, 2011). However, it is increasingly being argued that the two approaches can (and indeed must) co-exist in order to effectively work with certain groups, with sex offenders in denial constituting one such group.

An approach that is currently used in the probation service and importantly, in its work with sexual offending behaviour, is the Good Lives Model (GLM). The GLM is the underpinning theory of the SOTPs available in England and Wales; and, as they tend to be excluded from programmes, the majority of complete, entrenched deniers do not benefit from the approach in the group work format. Yet it can be argued that they would benefit from the approach, as the underpinning goal of the GLM is to assist an offender to increase the positive, prosocial aspects of their life and develop a more solid base on which to develop a future that does not rely on sexual offending to meet their emotional and physical needs. And they will also be addressing risk in two distinct ways; first, an offender may be motivated to seek help to address substance misuse issues because succeeding will enable him to undertake training for a job; and second, in developing new skills and interests (for example, attending training for a new career) an individual learns to concentrate, and focus their attention on positive achievements (Purvis et al., 2015).

The GLM seeks to move beyond the risk-needs-responsivity model by focusing on the development of an offender’s strengths and enabling them to improve their social skills whilst also addressing offending behaviour and working on cognitive skills development (Laws and Ward, 2011; Ward and Brown, 2004; Ward and Gannon, 2006; Ward and Stewart, 2003; Ward et al., 2006, 2007).

The GLM was an attempt to develop a treatment programme of broader scope, giving consideration of a wider range of psychological, social and economic factors. The programme initially developed as a strengths-based response to risk-based programmes and approaches based on RNR and rejects the concept of risk managing an offender, by taking the approach that rehabilitation is a ‘value-laden process’ (Laws and Ward, 2011: 188). Whilst managing risk and reducing reoffending is one goal of the GLM, it also seeks to enhance the well-being of the individual and expand their lives to encourage a prosocial outlook and promote non-offending behaviour. Given this belief, it seeks to work collaboratively and holistically with individuals to go beyond a focus on the deficits in their lives and strive to set and achieve goals to achieve ‘primary human goods’ (Laws and Ward, 2011; Ward and Stewart, 2003); and 11 distinct groups have been identified. Each primary human good is secured by acquiring instrumental ‘secondary human goods’ to support it. Social goods come in many forms, employment, accommodation and prosocial relationships beyond those of family ties can also act as protective factors (Laws and Ward, 2011) as an exploration of the GLM will demonstrate.

Exploring the GLM

It has been suggested that for community supervision to be effective, professionals should seek to develop four key concepts in the offender, which are psychological flexibility, self-efficacy, optimism and hope (Woldgabreal et al., 2014); and this is how the GLM can be seen to be a benefit to the supervisory relationship (Purvis et.al., 2011, 2015). As previously discussed, the GLM seeks to address risk by encouraging the positive development of an offender’s life. Professionals will work collaboratively with individual offenders to identify an area of their lives which require development (for example, securing employment). The offender and professional will then develop a plan, with a series of steps required to achieve the end goal. The requirement to create a plan, and steps towards its achievement, will create structure and focus for the professional relationship between the probation officer and offender; and this structure will in turn reduce the tension that an unrelenting focus on sexual offending can create.

In the GLM, the desired goal will fall within one of 11 groups called primary human goods. These groups are: (1) Life (that which is required for healthy living and functioning, such as food, water and physical health) with secondary goods such as a healthy diet and the management of health concerns. (2) Knowledge suggests an inherent curiosity in all individuals and a desire to acquire more knowledge to grow as a person; secondary goods are asking questions of others and participating in education or training. The two areas (3) Excellence in play and (4) Excellence in work centre on the need to enjoy and excel at tasks and strive for mastery of work and leisure activities; thus, secondary goods would be taking part in sport and hobbies. (5) Autonomy is the desire to achieve goals without negative interference from others; instrumental means would be financial independence and work which allows a degree of self-direction. (6) Inner peace refers to emotional self-regulation and competence; secondary means would be achieving a balanced lifestyle, emotional control and having positive relationships with others. (7) Relatedness refers to the need to have warm and affectionate social ties with family, partners and friends. Therefore, the secondary human good here would be acquiring and maintaining these ties. (8) Community centres on a sense of connection to a larger social network and making a positive contribution to society; this need can be fulfilled through involvement with a political party or social support network. (9) Spirituality refers to a sense of purpose and meaning to life; this can be achieved through religion, but is also possible through affiliation to a belief such as non-violence. (10) Happiness refers to contentment and pleasure; this encompasses a broad range of activities from sex and eating, to a major achievement such as acquiring a new skill or passing an exam. Finally, (11) creativity is the desire for novelty and innovation; this can include parenting, playing an instrument or art (Laws and Ward, 2011; Ward and Maruna, 2007).

The goal planning, and the steps to achievement, will be unique to each offender, as all individuals will rank the primary human goods in a different order of importance. Yet it is noted that at least some positive change in all areas is necessary for total balance in life (Laws and Ward, 2011; Purvis et. al. 2011; Ward and Maruna, 2007).

The benefits of the GLM approach

The GLM seeks to support individuals to achieve these primary human goods using methods that are grounded in psychology and acknowledge that individuals will have barriers to change that are both internal (self-created) and external (products of society). It therefore aims to address emotional and behavioural issues that research has identified as problematic in sex offenders; not merely their offending itself but their value systems and ways of gaining emotional and sexual fulfilment. Sexual offending is frequently underpinned by unmet needs (Laws and Ward, 2011; Ward and Maruna, 2007) and abuse the perpetrators experienced as children (Carich et al., 2010; NSPCC, 2013) that can manifest in the adult seeking to make up for emotional deficiencies inappropriately. As Carich et al. (2010, 190–193) put it:

The GLM proposes that rehabilitation will be most effective when offenders learn to manage their risk of reoffending within the broader goal of learning to lead a better life. A better life is one in which an individual meets his or her basic human needs in socially acceptable and personally satisfying ways . . . From a GLM perspective it is not sufficient simply to teach skills to reduce or manage risk factors.

In other words, the risk management approach alone is unsuitable in working with sex offenders as it is based on ‘an exclusive focus on deficits and a belief that should they be eradicated, then safety could be achieved’ (Carich et al., 2010: 190). This can lead to a ‘punitive confrontational approach to sex offenders’ (Carich et al., 2010: 190) that is likely to increase resistance, and will not adequately address risks or criminogenic needs.

The value of the GLM is its intention to enhance an offender’s life rather than restrict or punish. In this way, it can be seen as rehabilitative in focus; yet it also works to reduce risk. As Purvis et al. (2015) observe, risk reduction is addressed in two distinct ways within the GLM. First, working to establish the internal and external capability to achieve their goals in socially acceptable ways (that is, non-offending) can assist the individual to positively affect the associated dynamic risk factors. Second, risk reduction can occur as the development of new skills and interests can naturally move the individual away from offending behaviour (Purvis et al., 2015).

Thus, the GLM focuses on the well-being of an individual, by enabling personal development through (for example) acquiring new skills, creating a better social life, and as a result, improving their self-esteem. But the programme can also have an important role in reducing risk, as the creation of protective factors (such as a job, accommodation and a healthy adult relationship) can encourage an individual to move away from a perceived need to offend (Serin et al., 2016).

Yet the GLM also addresses sexual offending by focussing on a number of key areas. First, taking responsibility and cognitive restructuring. This could be a challenging area for a denier if the focus were entirely on offending behaviour; but the offender could also be encouraged through the use of hypothetical scenarios, which deniers may be able to look at objectively. Second, by looking at and developing empathy, both by introducing empathy as a general concept, again potentially through hypothetical scenarios, then becoming increasingly victim-specific if the offender is able to engage. Third, the GLM seeks to increase skills in regulation (coping) in the areas of sexual arousal, mood management and more generic intervention regulation skills (that is, coping in daily life). Fourth, the GLM includes change maintenance strategies that are targeted to relapse prevention and looking at the patterns and processes that can result in offending behaviour, with the aim that an individual learns to recognise and approach these in non-offending ways by developing more positive coping strategies. Fifth, interpersonal skills examine any issues and insecure or unhealthy attachments (for example, from family relationships). Sixth, needs and issues such as self-esteem and any related motivational problems are addressed as being intrinsic to the development of new, healthy primary human goals (Carich et al., 2010; Laws and Ward, 2011).

Exercises used within programmes based on the GLM model will seek to explore the offender’s own life; this will include experiences of both non-offending and offending; and being a victim of offending. Working with an offender to produce a timeline of significant events in their lives can be instructive in the exploration of their sexual development and deviant behaviour (Sullivan, 2013). This can be done through the creation of a personal history, or timeline. Perspective-taking will build empathy skills (through hypothetical scenarios); using goal-setting exercises will assess individual needs and build self-esteem; and examining sexual behaviour in order to assist the offender to identify positive and negative aspects of their behaviour and what needs sex fulfils for them.

As resistance to change is recognised as a natural part of every individual’s process of change (Laws and Ward, 2011), the GLM was designed to work with elements of denial as it recognises that this is a fundamental aspect of sexual offending behaviour. Historically, as complete or significant denial ruled out participation, yet it can be argued that the use of the GLM approach can be highly beneficial in exploring sexual offending and additionally as a means of promoting compliance with the probation service, as it requires the development of a relationship of trust between practitioner and the offender. This could, in turn, encourage the offender to engage in discussion about their life, and facilitate positive outcomes.

Using the GLM approach with deniers through one-to-one programme resources will enable them to have access to this way of working. Furthermore, the use of these programmes would provide a structure for probation officers that has been found to be effective in group work contexts.

Moving forward with the GLM: Interventions and further developments

A key conclusion of the What Works debate was that treatment programmes are an effective means to work with offenders to manage risks of reoffending and harm (Andrews and Bonta, 1994). However, the qualified officers in the questionnaire study in my research overwhelmingly believed that there were no programmes specifically addressing sexual offending that were available to deniers in their area. In terms of programmes based on group work, this proved to be accurate. However, my research identified two resources (one pre-existing and one under development) for use on a one-to-one basis with sex offenders who have been assessed as unsuitable for group programmes that have been developed by two probation trusts and are based on the theoretical framework of the GLM.

Such programmes are for delivery by offender managers (probation officers supervising cases) to offenders who have been assessed as unsuitable for group work programmes. This is to include those deemed unsuitable owing to their level of denial. In terms of programme content, there is the similarity that both use exercises developed from the GLM, including the construction of a life history, using a timeline to identify key stages that might have influenced cognitive development and led to offending behaviour; discussions of previous offending (with the option to make these hypothetical); current relationships (including partners, family, friends, professionals, pets) that are positive or negative; types of ‘risky thinking’ and the development of a plan for an offence-free lifestyle.

The interventions have as a central focus the importance of building a positive professional working relationship with an offender and, in addition, the development of the offender’s abilities to show empathy (Glaser, 2003, 2010). However, to achieve this objective, it is recognised that the professional must also demonstrate empathy in working with the offender (see Glaser, 2010). This can be challenging; in being required to work openly and constructively with sex offenders, probation practitioners may need to challenge their own values and beliefs. It has already been noted (Nash, 2006) that supervising officers also bring their own beliefs and values to the risk management process, which will influence their responses to offenders. Bumby and Maddox’s (1999) study of judges’ difficulties sentencing sex offenders, in balancing the ‘legal and technical . . . personal and emotional . . . and . . . public scrutiny and public pressure’ (p. 305) seems equally pertinent to the dilemmas probation officers can face during the supervision process. Given the seriousness of the behaviour, there can be significant pressure on professionals to ensure that individuals convicted of sexual offences are seen to be punished; and therefore treatment programmes (or one to one supervision) must be appropriately punitive (Ward and Salmon, 2009), yet it can be argued that is also vital to address the issues of individuals with concern and in an ethically sound manner (Glaser, 2010). In addition, professionals working with offenders can risk feeling over-responsible for the outcomes of their work because of the propensity of this type of offender to manipulate and deny their own involvement or responsibility. Overcoming these issues will require ongoing training and awareness and support from managers.

Conclusion

Although the relationship between risk and denial is has been questioned, the numbers of offenders who exhibit denial indicates that it will continue to be a significant issue in working effectively with sexual offending behaviour, as it can inhibit progress. This article has argued that the GLM can present an effective means to construct a professional one-to-one relationship within a rehabilitative framework, which seeks to promote protective factors and build self-esteem; as such, it represents a meaningful approach for the professional offender-probation officer relationship. Using the theoretical approach of the GLM can assist probation officers in one-to-one work with offenders in denial, in providing a theoretical framework and practical exercises that can be used with the denier. This can reduce feelings of stress on the worker and encourage positive engagement, which can, in turn, promote movement forward in the supervision process, develop trust and effect positive change. For the offender, taking the opportunity to address the deficiencies in their life (including their denial) can lead to the creation of a new life that is no longer stranded and limited.