Content uploaded by Jane Goodman-Delahunty
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jane Goodman-Delahunty on Nov 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, July 2011; 3(1): 10-22
Correspondence: Jessica Pratley,
NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Program
ISSN 0833-8488
Increased Self-Disclosure of Offending by Intrafamilial Child Sex Offenders
Jessica Pratley
NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Program, Australia
Jane Goodman-Delahunty
Charles Sturt University, Australia
Abstract
Acceptance of intrafamilial child sex offenders into a
treatment program generally requires the offender to
admit and accept responsibility for the crimes with which
he was charged. Once this level of disclosure has been
reached, it is rare for him to be challenged regarding
other offences that he may have committed. Anecdotal
clinical reports indicated that some offenders disclosed a
higher level of abuse than that provided by the victim.
This study built on the limited empirical research on this
topic. The sample consisted of 124 male offenders
referred for treatment at the NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of
Offenders Program (Cedar Cottage) between 1989 and
2003. Analyses of disclosures by offenders referred to
the program revealed that following contact with the
Cedar Cottage personnel, all offenders disclosed
significantly more details regarding their offending
behaviour, irrespective of whether they were accepted
into the program for treatment or declined. Eleven
percent of the offenders disclosed victims beyond the
individual identified in the index offence. Expanded
details were also provided regarding victim age when
offending began, the duration and frequency of
offending, the number of locations where abuse
occurred, and the range and intrusiveness of abusive acts
committed. Program completers did not disclose more
than noncompleters. These results suggested that the
extent and nature of abuse by intrafamilial child sex
offenders in the early stages of detection is
underestimated. Refusal of offenders into treatment
programs based on denial and minimisation is a practice
that warrants review.
Introduction
The dynamics of intrafamilial child sexual abuse result
in a high risk that child victims will refuse to testify
against their abusers (Herman, 1981), requiring the
Director of Public Prosecutions to drop charges against
the offender. In 2006, in 13.6% of all cases tried in the
Supreme or District Court involving at least one count
of a sexual assault against a child, the charges were
dropped, most frequently due to applications by the
Crown for no further proceedings. In those cases that
went to trial, the offenders were convicted of at least
one charge in slightly more than half (55%) of the
cases, and were acquitted of all charges in a substantial
number of cases (45%) (BOCSAR, 2007). In 2007,
45.7% of people convicted of at least one child sex
offence who appeared in any NSW court (Local,
District or Supreme) were not convicted. Just under
half of those convicted did not receive a custodial
sentence (45.5%) (NSW BOCSAR, 2008).
This low conviction rate is in part attributable to the
fact that misconceptions commonly held by the public
and many jurors concerning children’s memory
abilities, suggestibility, disclosure of and reactions to
sexual abuse are incongruent with the experience of
most victims of sexual abuse (Cossins, Goodman-
Delahunty, & O'Brien, 2009; Goodman-Delahunty,
Cossins, & O'Brien, 2010). Thus, legal incentives for
offenders to deny all charges when the evidence relies
on the testimony of a child witness are strong.
The proclivity of many child sex offenders to deny
their offences is undisputed. “Denial has always been
the incestuous father’s first line of defence” (Herman,
1981, p. 22). Not only are there legal factors that
motivate intrafamilial child sex offenders to deny their
abuse after it is reported, but denial is integral to the
offender’s modus operandi. Denial and minimisation
are important features of the early stages of child sexual
abuse, crucial in allowing offenders to overcome their
own internal inhibitions, as well as external inhibitions,
such as resistance by the victim (Wright & Schneider,
2004). Minimisation is observed when offenders deny
part, but not all, of their offence. For example,
offenders may admit to fewer incidents and a
constrained range of abusive acts, a shorter duration of
abuse, or committing the abuse less frequently than they
enacted (Beech & Fisher, 2002; Salter, 1988).
Offenders learn to avoid taking responsibility for, or to
deny the harmfulness of their actions (Schneider &
Wright, 2004).
Clinical research indicates that denial can be
decreased with treatment (Marshall, Serran, Marshall,
& Fernandez, 2005). However, acceptance into a
treatment program often requires that the offender
admit and accept responsibility for the crimes with
Increases in Disclosure
which he
1
has been charged. Once this level of
disclosure has been reached, it is rare for an offender to
be interviewed regarding other offences that he may
have committed. Few studies have explored the extent
to which an offender fully discloses his abusive
behaviour, in part due to a dearth of corroborating
evidence. This study addresses that gap in the
empirical literature.
Official records consistently underestimate criminal
offending in multiple areas and self report often
uncovers additional offences (Payne, 2007). Research
suggests that sexual offenders are different from
nonsexual offenders (though sexual offenders
frequently commit nonsexual offences, nonsexual
offenders are unlikely to commit sexual offences)
(Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). This study investigates
whether the trend of self-reported offending at higher
levels than official records observed in nonsexual
offenders is evident in intrafamilial child sexual
offenders.
Denial
Following conviction, denial and minimisation often
persist into the early stages of treatment (Salter, 1988;
Schneider & Wright, 2004). Over a 17-year period of
monitoring, denial of all or part of a sexual offence was
demonstrated in 87% of first interviews of offenders
referred to a treatment centre in Oregon (Maletzky,
1991). Another study revealed that 66% of incarcerated
child sexual abusers denied commission of an offence,
and when the investigators examined both minimisation
and denial, this percentage rose to 98% (Barbaree,
1991).
An offender is rarely classified exclusively as either a
“denier” or “admitter.” Rather, denial tends to fluctuate
depending on both internal and external factors (Brake
& Shannon, 1997). The degree to which sex offenders
deny and minimise their offences has been shown to
decrease as they progress through treatment (Wright &
Schneider, 2004), signifying that denial is a dynamic
factor that can be targeted in treatment. From a relapse-
prevention perspective, self-disclosure is seen as
beneficial for the offender (Frost, 2004). Denial has
been demonstrated to hinder treatment progression
(O'Donohue & Letourneau, 1993), and in intrafamilial
sex offenders, to increase the likelihood of recidivism
(Nunes, et al., 2007). Although denial has not been
consistently associated with risk of recidivism (Hanson
& Bussiere, 1998) most previous study samples did not
differentiate between intrafamilial and extrafamilial
child sex offenders. Increased self-disclosure and low
denial can assist offenders to complete a treatment
1
Because the majority of sexual offenders are men, and all
participants in this study are male offenders, the male pronoun
is used throughout this manuscript.
program (Levenson & Macgowan, 2004). The level of
disclosure by an offender of the abuse he has
perpetrated is likely to have important consequences for
other family members. An offender who denies or
minimises his offences will reduce the support that the
non-offending parent is able to provide (Lambie,
Seymour, Lee, & Adams, 2002; Saywitz, Mannarino,
Berliner, & Cohen, 2000), and increase the likelihood
that the child victim will make internal attributions
about the abuse (Brake & Shannon, 1997). Researchers
who argue that denial should not be a target in
treatment of sexual offenders (Marshall, Marshall, &
Ware, 2009) fail to acknowledge the impact of an
intrafamilial offender’s denial or minimisation on
victims and their families.
The impact of an offender’s denial on the child
victim can be substantial. When offenders deny the
allegations that are made against them, they remove
responsibility from themselves and promote self-blame
and feelings of shame in the victim (Brake & Shannon,
1997). Shame, in particular, has been linked to poorer
victim outcomes. It is possible for victims to
experience shame in the absence of self-blame (Cohen
& Mannarino, 2002). Furthermore, if the offender
minimises his abuse by admitting to some aspects of the
offence but denying others, this may leave the victim
with self-doubt (Reid, 1998).
Researchers in the field of child sexual abuse have
noted that disclosure of sexual abuse by child victims is
a process, rather than an event (e.g., Lewis, 2006;
Sorenson & Snow, 1991). Similarly, the phenomenon
of disclosure as a process in offenders has been
observed anecdotally by treatment providers. One early
study provided a brief structured treatment program to
17 child sex offenders who denied their offences. After
seven group sessions, 65% of these offenders changed
status from that of “denier” to “admitter” (O'Donohue
& Letourneau, 1993). However, no systematic
investigation has yet been conducted of the precisely
contextual features that facilitate disclosure by
offenders. Marshall and colleagues (2005)
demonstrated that when provided with a face-saving
way in which to reveal details of offending, some
offenders are able to recall previously “forgotten”
aspects of the abuse: a group of 22 Canadian offenders
who could not recall details of their offending was
given two to four weeks of instruction in a memory
recovery technique based on empirical memory
research. Thereafter, 90.9% provided an account of
their assault that matched that recorded in official
statements (Marshall et al., 2005).
Disclosure beyond the child victim’s account
Admissions regarding the offences with which one is
charged are different, however, from admissions
concerning further offences that have not previously
J. Pratley & J. Goodman-Delahunty
been reported by a victim. The experience of many
clinicians who work with sex offenders is that their
clients do not disclose the full extent of their offending
until several months into treatment (O'Donohue &
Letourneau, 1993; Reid, 1998). This phenomenon may
be due to a number of factors, including cognitive
distortions regarding the offending, concern about
attracting further legal implications, shame about the
offending, denial about their level of offending (Baker,
Tabacoff, Tornusciolo, & Eisenstadt, 2001) and trust
issues with the therapist and therapy milieu (Denov,
2004; Laws, 2008). These factors may be heightened
when the offender has abused young children, same-sex
victims and relatives (Baker et al., 2001). This
clinically observed delay is unsurprising, considering
that child sex offenders spend years learning to
minimise the harm caused by their actions, or laying
responsibility elsewhere (e.g., with an “unresponsive”
wife).
Practitioners with clinical experience at sex offender
treatment facilities described intrafamilial sex offenders
as individuals who generally enter treatment admitting
to the bare minimum of offences; presumably sufficient
to ensure their acceptance into the diversion program so
they can avoid incarceration (Reid, 1998). However,
throughout treatment, the abuse admitted by the
offender can increase, and in some cases, surpass that
disclosed by the victim. This effect was demonstrated in
a sample of 47 juvenile male sex offenders aged 12-17
years in New York State (Baker et al., 2001): after 6-36
months in treatment, 30% of offenders admitted to new
offences against the victims of offences for which they
were adjudicated (either a greater number of the same
offences against that victim, additional types of
offending against the known victim, or both), and
31.9% of offenders disclosed sexual offences they had
committed against victims other than those already
known to therapists and law enforcers. In total, 53.2%
of participants disclosed a new offence, a new victim,
or both. This study provided strong empirical evidence
in support of clinical observations that offenders do not
disclose the full extent of their offending in the initial
stages of treatment. However, young sexual offenders
may differ from adult offenders with regards to
disclosure in a number of ways. First, they do not
necessarily face the same threat of incarceration as
adult sexual offenders (Salter, 1988), so the motivation
to deny their offences may not be as strong. Second,
they have also spent less time denying their offences,
and thus may be less resistant to attempts by therapists
to gain a full understanding of the extent of their
abusive behaviour.
A qualitative study conducted in New South Wales
provided further support for the observation that
offenders in treatment gradually expand their accounts
of their offending behaviour. An in-depth study of ten
adult intrafamilial sex offenders revealed that eight
expanded their original account of the sexually abusive
acts they perpetrated (Reid, 1998). In four of the eight
cases, the offenders disclosed abusive behaviour that
exceeded the victims’ level of disclosure. Seven of the
ten offenders disclosed that their abusive behaviour had
lasted longer than they originally admitted. In five of
these cases, the offenders’ further disclosure closely
matched that of their victims. Related to this was the
finding that seven offenders admitted abusing children
younger in age than they had originally stated. The
small sample of offenders studied did not permit
conclusions regarding the frequency with which
intrafamilial sex offenders provide further disclosures
in treatment.
The current study
This study examined whether the effects reported by
Baker et al. (2001) were replicable in Australian adult
intrafamilial sex offenders, and whether a larger sample
size yielded statistical significance to the results
observed by Reid (1998). Specifically, we
hypothesised that intrafamilial child sex offenders
undergoing a sex offender treatment program would
disclose significantly more abusive behaviour than
similarly-situated offenders who did not complete the
treatment program. Given that disclosure is an
unfolding process seen in children (Sorenson & Snow,
1991) and anecdotally in offenders, it was also expected
that offenders who completed the treatment program
would disclose significantly more about their abusive
behaviour than those who did not complete the
program.
Context of the research
The research was conducted using data gathered at the
New South Wales Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders
Program (Cedar Cottage). Pursuant to Section 2A of
the NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Act (1985),
Cedar Cottage provides community-based treatment for
offenders who plead guilty to a sexual offence against
their own or their partner’s child/ren. Legal proceedings
are adjourned until assessment is complete. Treatment
consists of individual therapy and group sessions. The
treatment draws upon cognitive-behavioural therapy,
narrative therapy, the Good Lives Model (Ward and
Stewart, 2003) and invitational practice in theory.
Treatment takes a holistic approach and supports fathers
in the program to make positive changes in all aspects
of their lives. Although the term “offender” is used
throughout this article, men in the program are referred
to as “Program Participants” to reflect that their choice
to sexually abuse does not comprise their entire being.
To be accepted into the program, applicants must
provide statements about their offending behaviour that
Increases in Disclosure
match the statement about that conduct provided to the
police by the victim. Applicants are invited to provide
as much detail as possible regarding their abusive
behaviour. Over an eight-week assessment period, the
program director determines if the potential applicant is
suitable for the program, and the offender decides
whether the program is suitable for him.
Applicants who disclose further information
regarding their offending behaviour during the
assessment period are encouraged to provide an updated
statement to the police, and any eligible offences
disclosed within this period are dealt with under the
Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Program legislation
(D. Tolliday, personal communication, March 1, 2010).
Once the assessment period ends, further offences that
are revealed are reported to the police (by either the
offender or the therapist), and, if new charges are laid,
they are addressed independent of the offender’s
participation in the program. Program participants are
informed about these limits to confidentiality within the
program. Program participants have a minimum of
two years to complete the program, with the possibility
of an extension of up to one year. Although the initial
phases of treatment are uniform, each individual
progresses through the treatment program at a different
pace.
Method
Participants
The participants were 124 male offenders referred to
the NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Program
(Cedar Cottage) between 1989 and 2003. Of these,
70% (87) were accepted into the treatment program.
Forty-two percent (n=52) of offenders successfully
completed the treatment program (completers), while
28% (n=35) offenders commenced the treatment
program but failed to complete it (22%, n=28, breached
their treatment agreement and 6%, n=7, withdrew). A
third group was comprised of 30% (n=37) applicants
who were not accepted into the treatment program
(declined group). A total of 214 offenders were
referred to the program between 1989 and 2003; 90
were excluded from the current study as there was not
sufficient information in their files to assess changes to
their disclosure about their offending.
At the point of assessment, the majority of applicants
(89%) reported only female victims, and more were
nonbiological fathers (including stepfathers, de facto
stepfathers, adoptive fathers, foster fathers) (56%) than
biological fathers (44%) (Table 1).
The applicants ranged in age from 23 to 57 years (M
= 39.47, SD = 7.66). Applicants declined entry to the
program were slightly younger on average than those
accepted (mean age of 37.43 years versus 39.85 years)
whereas those who completed the program were
slightly older on average than those who breached
(mean age of 41.58 versus 36.25 years). These
differences were not statistically significant.
Table 1: Victim-Offender Relationship, Victim Gender,
and Applicant Status (percent)
Completed
(n=52)
Noncompleted
(n=35)
Declined
(n=37)
Total
(n=124)
Relationship
with victim
Biological
father
46.2
51.4
35.1
44.4
Nonbiological
father
Gender of
victim
53.8 48.6 64.9 55.6
Female
victims only
86.5 88.6 91.9 88.7
Male victims
only
9.6 2.9 2.7 5.6
Male & female
victims
3.8 8.6 5.4 5.6
Months in
treatment
mean (SD)
31.2
(6.13)
16.3
(8.0)
N/A 25.2
(10.05)
Procedure and measures
Offenders’ descriptions of their abusive behaviour were
examined at up to six points in time to assess their level
of disclosure: (1) the offender’s initial statement to the
police (pre-assessment); (2) the end of the preliminary
eight-week assessment period (post-assessment); (3)
after 8 months of treatment; (4) after 16 months of
treatment; (5) after 24 months of treatment; and (6) for
participants who required an extension of treatment, at
completion of the program. Overall disclosures were
analysed based on each offender’s final statement,
regardless of time spent in the program, as this was the
optimal point in time to measure propensity to disclose.
At each periodic assessment point, participants’
descriptions of the abusive conduct were scored on
seven dimensions: (1) age of victim at first instance of
abuse; (2) number of instances of abuse; (3) duration of
abuse; (4) frequency of abuse; (5) location of abuse; (6)
type of abuse perpetrated; and (7) the degree of
intrusiveness. Victims’ accounts, contained in the
police records, were scored in the same manner. The
number of victims disclosed by the offender was
recorded.
Where information regarding the duration and
frequency of the abuse was not obvious, estimates were
derived from other information (e.g., if number of
instances of abuse was not stated, it was estimated from
the frequency and duration information provided). The
locations coded included the victim’s bedroom,
offender’s bedroom, lounge room, bathroom, other
room in house, car, holiday location, and other. Table 2
J. Pratley & J. Goodman-Delahunty
specifies the criteria used to score intrusiveness on a 5-
point scale.
Table 2: Range and Intrusiveness of Abusive Acts
Intrusiveness
score
Impact on victim Examples of conduct
1.0 Non-contact, no
exposure
•
exposure to
pornography
•
peeping
1.5 Attempted
exposure
2.0 Non-contact,
exposure
•
exposure/exhibiting
•
offender masturbated
in front of victim
2.5 Attempted
physical contact
3.0
Non-penetrative
physical
•
touching/fondling
•
kissing
•
offender forced
victim to touch him
•
genital to genital
contact without
penetration
3.5 Attempted non-
penile penetration
4.0
Non-penile
penetration
•
oral abuse by
offender
•
digital-vaginal
penetration
•
digital-anal
penetration
4.5 Attempted penile
penetration
5.0 Penile penetration
•
penile-oral
penetration by
offender
•
penile-vaginal
penetration
•
penile-anal
penetration
The data were collected by systematically examining
clinical case records maintained at Cedar Cottage. This
information was coded by the first author and four
postgraduate interns from the University of New South
Wales.
To assess the internal consistency of the coding
instrument, K-alpha reliability estimates were
calculated (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). Eight per
cent of the sample was dual-coded. For all respondents,
K-alpha had a value of 0.81 indicating almost perfect
agreement. When different types of variables were
examined independently, this high level of internal
reliability was maintained (nominal variables: K-alpha
= 0.83; ordinal variables: K-alpha = 0.82; interval
variables: K-alpha = 0.99). Disagreements between
coders were managed by discussing and resolving the
disparities.
Changes in disclosure during assessment were
derived for each offender by recording increases or
decreases on each aspect of the abuse from the time of
the pre-assessment account to the post-assessment
account. Treatment change scores were calculated for
those offenders accepted into the program by
comparing their disclosure on each aspect of abuse
from their earliest post-assessment account to their final
account. Overall change scores were calculated for
accepted offenders by comparing pre-assessment
accounts to final accounts. Only one accepted offender
failed to provide a pre-assessment account. All
declined offenders provided pre-assessment accounts.
A decrease in information provided was scored -1, no
change scored 0, and an increase in information was
scored as 1. An overall disclosure score at each
assessment period was computed, ranging from -7
(maximum an account could decrease in disclosure) to
7 (the maximum increase in information). Only 14%
(n=17) participants had second, third, and fourth index
victims (n=12, 4, and 1 respectively). All analyses
were conducted with regard to information provided
about the first index victim. Age was the only variable
which was normally distributed; t-tests were conducted
to assess differences in this variable, while
nonparametric equivalents were conducted on all other
variables.
Results
Overall disclosure during assessment
Sixty-four percent (n=79) of the offenders achieved
disclosure scores of one or more during assessment,
compared with 25% (n=31) who did not change any of
the seven aspects of their account of their abuse (change
score = 0) and 10% (n=13) who provided less
information post-assessment than pre-assessment. No
change score was calculated for one accepted offender
who did not provide a pre-assessment account.
Accepted offenders were more likely to demonstrate
an increase in disclosure (68%, n=59) than a decrease
(7%, n=6) or no change (24%, n=21). Similar
disclosure patterns emerged among declined offenders:
the majority (54%, n=20) achieved positive disclosure
scores while 27% (n=10) achieved change scores in
assessment of 0 and 19% (n=7) provided less
information post-assessment than pre-assessment.
Accepted offenders obtained significantly higher
disclosure scores during assessment than their
counterparts who were declined treatment (Mdn = 2 and
1, respectively), U=1170, p<.05, r=-0.21. There was no
difference between disclosure scores during assessment
for completers and noncompleters (Mdn = 2 and 1,
respectively), U= 731, ns.
Increases in Disclosure
Overall disclosure by program completers and
noncompleters
As expected, program completers spent significantly
longer in the treatment program than those who
breached (Mdn = 32.5 months versus 17 months), U =
138, p < .001, r=-0.72. Time spent in the program was
significantly correlated with offenders’ disclosure
scores, r
s
= 0.21, n = 87, p < .05. This significant
correlation was not maintained within the two groups,
completers: r
s
= 0.13, n = 52, ns; noncompleters: r
s
=
0.20, n = 35, ns. Further analyses of disclosure by
participants in each group were conducted without
controlling for the amount of time spent in the program.
Program completers did not disclose significantly more
than noncompleters during the time they were in
treatment (Mdn = 2 and 1, respectively), U=728, ns.
Considering overall disclosure (during assessment
and in treatment combined), there were no significant
differences between total disclosure scores for program
completers and noncompleters (Mdn = 4 and 3,
respectively), U = 713, ns. When the seven aspects of
abuse were examined individually, Mann-Whitney tests
revealed no significant differences between the groups
on any of these seven aspects of abuse.
Intercorrelations
The intercorrelations between changes in the seven
aspects of disclosure ranged in strength and direction
(see Table 3).
Age of victim at first abuse was negatively correlated
with all other variables; the strongest positive
correlation emerged between age of victim at first abuse
and duration of offending. Number of incidents of
abuse was not significantly correlated with any other
variable.
Changes in disclosure about individual aspects
of abuse during assessment
Bonferroni-adjusted Mann-Whitney tests (a Bonferroni-
adjusted independent-sample t-test was conducted for
the variable ‘age of victim at first abuse’), with alpha
levels set at 0.007, revealed no statistically significant
differences in disclosure between those accepted into
the program and those declined entry to the program at
the time of pre-assessment. Similarly, no significant
differences were found between the completers and
noncompleters in their pre-assessment accounts.
Disclosure change was assessed at Time 1 (pre-
assessment) and Time 2 (post-assessment), in order to
assess the scope of disclosure that occurred during the
offenders’ initial contact with Cedar Cottage personnel.
Although there was some variation over the period of
14 years in the number of sessions afforded to
participants during the assessment phase, these
differences were minor (at the program’s inception, the
assessment phase consisted of fewer sessions), and the
goals of the assessment phase remained constant
throughout this period.
A Bonferroni-adjusted paired samples t-test revealed
that post-assessment, participants disclosed that they
began offending when victims were significantly
younger (mean age=8.9 years) than was initially
claimed (mean age= 9.3 years), t(114)=3, p<.007,
d=0.14, r
Yλ
=0.07. Bonferroni-adjusted Wilcoxon signed
ranks tests were conducted on mean disclosure scores
for each of the six dimensions of the abuse descriptions
noted above (excluding ‘age of victim at first abuse’),
with alpha levels set at .007. Results of these analyses
revealed that offenders disclosed significantly more
information about all aspects of their offending
behaviour at the end of the assessment period. Using
Cohen’s (1992) definition of effect sizes (small: r=0.10,
medium: r=0.30, large: r=0.50), effect sizes observed
were generally medium (see Table 4).
This trend towards increased disclosure was evident
irrespective of whether the offenders were ultimately
accepted for treatment: those accepted for treatment
disclosed significantly more information about all
aspects of their offending behaviour (see Figure 1).
The same pattern of results emerged among declined
offenders although differences between pre-assessment
and post-assessment disclosure scores in the latter
group did not reach statistical significance (Figure 2).
Increases in Disclosure
Table 3: Intercorrelations Between Change Scores on Seven Aspects Of Abusive Behaviour
Change in: Age of victim Number of
incidents Duration Frequency Locations Abusive acts Intrusive-ness
Age of victim -
Number of
incidents -.24* -
Duration -.82** .11 -
Frequency -.35** .08 .37** -
Locations -.43** .13 .53** .38** -
Abusive acts -.26** .07 .37** .12 .48** -
Intrusiveness -.24* .06 .36** .10 .32** .60** -
Notes. Based on raw change scores.
*p < .05; **p < .01 (2-tailed).
Table 4: Changes in Disclosure Pre-Assessment Versus Post-Assessment
Pre-assessment median
(range)
Post-assessment median
(range)
Z d r
Yλ
Incidents of abuse 4 (1-600) 9.5 (1-1500) -4.8* -.28 -.38
Duration of offending (days) 225 (1-3650) 420 (1-3650) -3.7* -.24 -.30
Frequency 5 (1-13) 7 (1-12) -3.2* -.38 -.27
Locations 2 (1-8) 2 (1-9) -4.3* -.48 -.28
Range of abusive acts 3 (0-8) 4 (1-11) -5.3* -.58 -.38
Intrusiveness of abuse 4 (2-5) 4 (3-5) -4.0* -.38 -.21
Note. * p < .007, two-tailed
0
2
4
6
8
10
Age of victim*
Incidents (x 10)*
Duration (x 100 days)*
Frequency*
Locations*
Range*
Intrusiveness*
Pre-assessment
Post-assessment
Figure 1: Mean changes in disclosure by offenders
accepted for treatment
Note *p<.007, two-tailed
0
2
4
6
8
10
Age of victim
Incidents (x 10)
Duration (x 100 days)
Frequency
Locations
Range
Intrusiveness
Pre-assessment
Post-assessment
Figure 2. Mean changes in disclosure by offenders
declined treatment
Increases in Disclosure
Disclosure during treatment
After offenders commenced treatment, the trend of
expanded disclosure continued. Similar comparisons of
mean disclosure scores on all seven dimensions of
abuse were made at the end of the assessment phase and
from the offender’s final description upon completion
of the program. Offenders accepted into the program
revealed significantly more information regarding their
abusive behaviour on all dimensions. At their final
account, they disclosed that they began offending when
the victims were significantly younger (mean age = 8.3
years) than they had indicated at post-assessment (mean
age = 8.8 years), t(83)=2.9, p<.007,d=0.13, r
Yλ
=0.06.
This significant trend of increased disclosure was
observed for all aspects of abuse as assessed by
Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (Table 5).
Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (repeated measures t-
tests for age of victim at first abuses) demonstrated the
same trend for completers, although frequency of abuse
did not reach statistical significance. A similar pattern
emerged among noncompleters, however, these changes
did not reach statistical significance (Figures 3 and 4).
0
5
10
15
20
Age of victim*
Incidents (x 10)*
Duration (x 100 days)*
Frequency
Locations*
Range*
Intrusiveness*
Post-assessment
Final account
Figure 3: Mean changes in disclosure by completers:
post-assessment vs final account
Note *p<.007, two-tailed
0
5
10
15
Age of victim
Incidents (x 10)
Duration (x ...
Frequency
Locations
Range
Intrusiveness
Pre-assessment
Final account
Figure 4: Mean changes in disclosure by
noncompleters: post-assessment vs final account
Disclosure by victims compared to offenders
Victims’ accounts provided to the police were
compared with offenders’ pre-assessment statements.
The results revealed that offenders declined entry to the
program did not provide significantly different accounts
to their victims at pre-assessment, on any aspect of
abuse.
Prior to the assessment period, offenders who were
accepted into the program disclosed significantly less
than their children did about the number of times they
sexually abused their child (Mdns = 5 and 15,
respectively; z = -2.96, p<.007, d = -.25), the frequency
of their sexual abuse (Mdns = 5 and 9 respectively; z = -
3.06, p<.007, d = -.28), the duration of their offending
behaviour (Mdns = 365 and 730 respectively; z = -3.39,
p<.007, d = -.28), the intrusiveness of their abuse
(Mdns = 4 and 4 respectively, z = -3.72, p<.007, d = -
.29) and the number of types of abusive acts they
perpetrated (Mdns = 3 and 4 respectively, z= -3.87,
p<.007, d = -.30). There were no significant differences
between offenders’ pre-assessment accounts and
victims’ police statements for number of locations
(Mdns = 2 and 2 respectively, z = -1.91, ns) and age of
victim at first offence (M = 9.65 and 9.16, respectively;
t (76) = -2.43, ns).
Of those accepted into the program, program
completers were more likely to have discrepancies
between their pre-assessment account and their victim’s
account than were program noncompleters. Program
completers disclosed significantly less than their
children about the frequency of their offending
behaviour (Mdns = 6 and 9, respectively; z = -3.11,
p<.007, d = -.37), the duration of their abuse (Mdns =
365 and 730, respectively; z = -3.24, p<.007, d = -.35),
the range of abusive acts they perpetrated (Mdns = 3
and 4, respectively; z = -2.97, p<.007, d = -.30), and the
age of victim at first abuse (M = 8.8 and 9.73,
respectively; t (44) = -3.63, p<.007, d = .23).
Program noncompleters disclosed significantly less
about the intrusiveness of their sexually abusive
behaviour than their children did (Mdns = 4 and 4,
respectively; z = -2.75, p<.007, d = -.33).
At the end of the assessment period, offenders
accepted into the program provided accounts that did
not differ significantly on any aspect of abuse from
their victim’s accounts. This pattern was sustained
when completers and noncompleters were examined
separately. Those declined entry reported that they
sexually abused their children on fewer occasions than
their children reported (Mdns = 7.5 and 18,
respectively, z = -2.92, p<.007, d = -.42).
J. Pratley & J. Goodman-Delahunty
Table 5: Changes in Disclosure Post-Assessment Versus Completion of Treatment
Post-assessment median
(range)
Final description median
(range)
Z d r
Yλ
Incidents of abuse 11.5 (1-1500) 20 (1-4000) -4.3* -.19 -.35
Duration of offending (days) 730 (1-3650) 880 (1-3650) -3.8* -.17 -.30
Frequency 7 (1-12) 8 (1-12) -3.3* -.28 -.28
Locations 2 (1-9) 3 (1-10) -4.5* -.44 -.34
Range of abusive acts 4 (1-11) 5 (1-11) -5.1* -.44 -.38
Intrusiveness of abuse 4 (3-5) 4.5 (3-5) -3.2* -.27 -.24
Note. * p < 0.007, two-tailed
Finally, offenders’ final accounts of their offences
were compared with victim accounts provided to police.
Results revealed that offenders disclosed that they
began abusing when the victim was younger (mean age
= 8.46, SD=3.3) than the victim had stated (mean age =
8.89, SD=3.2), however, a repeated measures t-test was
not statistically significant.
Although participants disclosed that they offended for
longer than was disclosed by the victim, that they
committed a wider range of abusive acts in a wider
range of locations, and that those abusive acts were
more intrusive than those disclosed by the victim,
statistically significant differences (using Bonferroni-
adjusted Wilcoxon signed ranks tests) emerged only for
the number of locations where abusive acts occurred,
and the range of abusive acts committed (Table 6). The
same trend was observed among offenders accepted for
treatment (Table 7).
As expected, offenders displayed some level of
minimisation at their first contact with Cedar Cottage
personnel. By the time they provided their final
account at the completion of the treatment program 2-3
years later, the scope of disclosure in the descriptions of
abusive behaviour that they provided exceeded that
provided by the victims (Figure 5).
This difference was evident on all seven aspects of
abuse.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Age of victim at first abuse
Number of incidents (x100)
Duration (years)
Frequency
Number of locations
Range of abusive acts
Intrusiveness of abuse
Victim's Account
Pre-assessment
Final (accepted)
Figure 5: Mean disclosure by victims and offenders
prior to and following treatment
Table 6: Comparisons Between Median Scores in Victims’ and Offenders’ Final Accounts
Victims’ account
median (range)
Offenders’ final account median
(range)
Z d r
Y
Incidents of abuse 15 (1-2555) 20 (1-4000) -.81
Duration of offending (in days) 730 (1-4380) 730 (1-3650) -1.1
Frequency of offending 9 (1-13) 8 (1-12) -.24
Number of locations 2 (1-8) 3 (1-10) -3.9* -.59
-.25
Range of abusive acts committed 4 (1-10) 5 (1-11) -4.1* -.49
-.26
Intrusiveness of abuse 4.5 (3-5) 4.5 (3-5) -.28
Note. * p < 0.007, two-tailed
Table 7: Comparisons Between Median Scores in Victims’ and Offenders’ Final Accounts
Victims’ account
median (range)
Offenders’ final account
median (range)
Z d r
Y
Incidents of abuse 15 (1-1000) 20 (1-4000) -6.8
Duration of offending (in days) 730 (1-4380) 880 (1-3650) -1.5
Frequency of offending 9 (1-13) 8 (1-12) -.12
Number of locations 2 (1-8) 3 (1-10) -5.2* -.59 -.40
Range of abusive acts committed 4 (1-9) 5 (1-11) -4.5* -.49 -.34
Intrusiveness of abuse 4 (3-5) 4.5 (3-5) -1.7
Note. * p < .007, two-tailed
J. Pratley & J. Goodman-Delahunty
Number of victims
At the time of offenders’ pre-assessment account, a
total of 147 victims were identified. The majority were
the stepchildren (49%) or biological children (46%) of
the offender. The remainder of victims were adopted or
foster children (3%), or victims who were not in the
offender’s family of procreation: two siblings and one
cousin (2%).
The majority of offenders did not disclose further
victims throughout treatment. Eleven percent (n = 23)
of the offenders disclosed sexual offences against other
victims. One offender disclosed a total of 16 further
victims (two biological children and 14 family friends).
Additional disclosures are summarised in Table 8.
Table 8: Percentage of Offenders Who Disclosed
Additional Victims
Number
of
additional
victims
Accepted
%(n)
Declined
%(n)
Total
%(n)
Assessment Treatment Assessment
1 66.7 (6) 25.0 (3) 50.0(1) 43.5(10)
2 22.2 (2) 16.7 (2) 17.4(4)
3 11.1(1) 25.0(3) 50.0(1) 21.7(5)
4 - 16.7(2) - 8.7(2)
7 - 8.3(1) - 4.3(1)
16 - 8.3(1) - 4.3(1)
Total 100 (9) 100 (12) 100 (2) 100 (23)
Accepted offenders were significantly more likely to
disclose additional victims (Mdn = 0) than were
declined offenders (Mdn = 0), U=1306.5, p<0.05.
Significance was not maintained when only disclosures
in assessment were examined, U=-1532.5, ns.
Of those who revealed additional victims,
approximately one third (n = 8) of the offenders
reported that they commenced sexual offending in
adolescence (ages 11-15 years), and 22% (n = 5)
commenced in early adulthood (ages 21-25 years).
Discussion
The results of this study demonstrated that the
information provided by intrafamilial child sex
offenders at the time of their apprehension did not
accurately represent their abusive conduct. Throughout
the course of a treatment program, intrafamilial sex
offenders are likely to provide further disclosures
relating to the victim’s age at time of the first abuse,
number of incidents of abuse, duration and frequency of
offending, the number of locations at which they
offended, the range of abusive behaviours committed,
and the intrusiveness of their abusive acts.
The level of disclosure demonstrated in this study is
striking considering the legal ramifications for the study
participants. Disclosures made by offenders during the
assessment period were incorporated into the charges
for which they were referred to the Pre-Trial Diversion
of Offenders Program. However, during the assessment
period, there is no guarantee that referred offenders will
be accepted into the treatment program. This puts
applicants in a predicament. If they make further
disclosures and are subsequently declined treatment,
they may face further charges and harsher penalties
upon return to the courts for trial.
Offenders declined entry into the program provided
pre-assessment accounts of their abuse that did not
differ significantly from the police statements made by
their children. This contrasts from those accepted into
the program, who, at pre-assessment provided less
information about their abuse than their children. By the
end of the assessment period, there were no significant
differences between the accounts provided by offenders
accepted into the program and their children’s
statements.
Offenders who were declined provided less
information than their victims about the number of
incidents of abuse at the end of the assessment period.
It may be that by this stage in the assessment process,
these offenders had identified they were unlikely to be
accepted and were concerned about the legal
implications they may face. Alternatively, they may
have found it difficult to acknowledge the extent of
their sexually abusive behaviour and for this reason,
were assessed as unsuitable for the program.
Program noncompleters provided pre-assessment
accounts of their abuse that more closely matched their
victims’ police statements than did accounts provided
by program completers. These significant differences
disappeared by the end of the assessment period. These
changes in disclosure during assessment fit with what
would be expected, given that in order to be accepted
into the program, offenders must provide an account of
their sexually abusive behaviour that matches the
statement provided by their child.
The fact that offenders continued to make disclosures
during treatment, after they were no longer protected by
the legislation on Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders,
suggested that something in the treatment program
structure provided a motivation for offenders to disclose
that outweighed their fear of the legal consequences.
This motivation may be related to the program’s focus
on responsibility, impact, and victim empathy.
Given that time in program was positively correlated
with disclosure, but treatment group was not, it appears
that other unmeasured variables account for increases in
disclosure. This may include relational issues, such as
Increases in Disclosure
an offender’s plans to reunite with his family, the type
of contact (if any) that he is having with his family
during treatment, or the therapeutic relationship.
Alternatively, factors such as development of empathy
or self-respect may influence an offender’s decision-
making about how much to disclose, and when.
Changes in the scope of new disclosures did not
differ significantly between offenders who completed
the treatment program and those who did not. This
finding is supported by previous research demonstrating
that a brief treatment program focussed on denial was
beneficial in reducing denial (Marshall et al., 2005).
These findings reinforced earlier research from the Pre-
Trial Diversion of Offenders Program which
demonstrated an increase in self-disclosure by program
participants (Reid, 1998) and suggested that similar
effects seen with juvenile sex offenders (Baker et al.,
2001) are not unique to young offenders. The similarity
in rates of disclosure across the two groups of
participants suggested that the message from
practitioners at Cedar Cottage that encourages
disclosure operates from early on in treatment, and is
well-received by participants. Disclosure scores
demonstrated by program completers exceeded those of
noncompleters, and when individual aspects of abuse
were considered, significant differences disappeared for
noncompleters. This suggested that there might be a
relationship between disclosure and successful
completion of an intrafamilial child sex offender
treatment program.
An increase in self-disclosure by offenders
potentially provides benefits relating to victim recovery.
First, increases in disclosure by offenders can provide
substantial therapeutic benefit for victims who are
engaged in counselling by removing the responsibility
from children who have experienced abuse to disclose
this information themselves (Jenkins, 1990). Second,
one factor that has been identified as mitigating the
impact of sexual abuse is the role of social, and
particularly parental, support for the victim. That is, the
best mental health outcomes for child victims of sexual
assault are seen in children who are believed and
supported throughout disclosure and its aftermath
(Lambie et al., 2002; Wilcox, Richards, & O'Keefe,
2004). Specifically, studies of sexually abused children
highlight that the best outcomes are seen when
nonoffending parents or caregivers are involved in the
treatment process and able to provide appropriate
support (Saywitz et al., 2000). In families where a
parent has sexually abused a child, there is a strong
likelihood that the offender will have created an
atmosphere of conflict between the nonoffending parent
and the child victim, in order to allow him to continue
offending undetected (Herman, 1981). This highlights
the importance of the offender’s further disclosures in
assisting the nonoffending parent to understand what
the child has experienced and work on rebuilding her
relationship with the victim. In addition, when an
offender discloses the full extent of the abuse he has
perpetrated, by providing the nonoffending parent with
full details regarding what the child victim has
experienced, he places her in a better position to
provide support for the victim. Third, some types of
abuse (e.g., penetration, abuse that occurs over an
extended period of time) are associated with poorer
victim outcomes (Wilcox et al., 2004). Knowing the
full extent of the abuse assists the nonoffending parent
to be more aware of the increased risk of negative
psychological outcomes and to be vigilant towards
warning signs of these outcomes.
Fourth, a mitigating factor which decreases the
likelihood that a victim will experience
psychopathology following sexual abuse is the victim’s
attributions about the abuse and why it happened.
Victims who make internal attributions for the abuse
that place themselves at blame are more likely to
display negative psychological symptoms, such as
depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Increased self-disclosure by the offender may assist
victims to make external attributions about their abuse
and diminish self-blame (Feiring, Taska, & Chen,
2002).
Treatment programs that require intrafamilial child
sex offenders to provide an account that matches the
child victim’s statement in a single session as a criterion
for acceptance into the program may be operating under
a faulty premise. Denial and minimisation are dynamic
and fluid factors (Brake & Shannon, 1997); a
measurement conducted at one time point only may be
problematic in assessing an individual’s amenability to
treatment. The data reported in this study combined
with the results of Marshall et al. (2005) and similar
findings in a juvenile population (Baker et al., 2001)
present a strong case for the implementation of an
assessment period that allows potential treatment
program participants time and the necessary cognitive
tools to progressively expand on their account of their
abuse until it matches the experience described by the
victim.
The finding that offenders’ disclosures often exceed
the initial accounts by victims suggested that clinicians
who provide treatment to victims of intrafamilial sexual
abuse should heed the fact that their clients may not
have revealed the full extent of their abusive
experiences. In this situation, psychoeducation for
victims may help remove feelings of self-blame that are
exacerbated by the offender’s minimisation.
Psychoeducation regarding the phenomenon of
increased self-disclosure by the offender over time
would also assist nonoffending parents to provide
appropriate support to the child victim.
J. Pratley & J. Goodman-Delahunty
Observed increases in disclosure by participants
throughout the course of the 24-36 month treatment
program provided a strong argument for researchers to
exercise caution when interpreting results from studies
that rely on child sex offender self-report where the
offenders have not participated in any form of treatment
(regardless of completion). This study demonstrated
that child sex offenders are likely to provide details of
further abusive behaviour if given time and treatment.
Data collected from offenders in early phases of
treatment, or from those who are incarcerated without
treatment, are likely to be only partially correct.
The results of this study suggested that intrafamilial
child sex offenders are not “one-off” offenders who
capitalise on opportunities to offend as they arise. The
nature of abuse described by offenders referred to
Cedar Cottage suggested that they planned their actions.
Although access to potential victims does increase as
the offenders raise families, it is likely that thoughts of
abuse and abusive conduct began much earlier.
Strengths and limitations of this study
This is the first empirical study to investigate self-
disclosure of offending by adult intrafamilial child sex
offenders. The results provide empirical confirmation
of a phenomenon that was previously acknowledged
anecdotally by treatment providers. The findings
provide valuable support to qualitative analyses in a
small sample (Reid, 1998), and similar findings in a
juvenile population (Baker et al., 2001).
Although study participants were not randomly
selected, all available data from all referrals to Cedar
Cottage within a specified study period were included
in the analyses, and data from offenders who were
accepted and declined were compared. Any biases
attributable to selection for treatment are not a threat to
the interpretation of the data in this study.
Future research directions
Research conducted at different treatment centres and
with extrafamilial offenders can establish whether this
phenomenon extends to other offenders or is specific to
Cedar Cottage. It is also vital that the therapeutic
techniques that encourage disclosure are identified.
There is a clear need for research which incorporates
victim data with offender data to investigate the
relationship between expanded self-disclosure by
offenders with victim outcomes and experiences.
Although previous research has suggested that this will
be the case, the depth of data regarding increased
disclosure by offenders available at Cedar Cottage
provides a rich and unique possibility to confirm this
theory.
Conclusions
A goal of the New South Wales Pre-Trial Diversion of
Offenders Act 1985 was to provide protection for
victims while keeping offenders out of prison. Victims
of intrafamilial child sexual abuse may experience
further victimisation through the experience of
testifying in court or when the offender is imprisoned
and unable to provide financial support to the family.
The expanded disclosure demonstrated in the current
study provides potential further benefits to index
victims, and to previously unknown victims who never
received validation or support following their abusive
experiences.
References
Baker, A. J. L., Tabacoff, R., Tornusciolo, G., &
Eisenstadt, M. (2001). Calculating number of
offences and victims of juvenile sexual offending: the
role of posttreatment disclosures. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(2), 79-90.
Barbaree, H. E. (1991). Denial and minimisation among
sex offenders: Assessment and treatment outcome.
Forum on Corrections Research, 3, 30-33.
Beech, A. R., & Fisher, D. D. (2002). The rehabilitation
of child sex offenders. Australian Psychologist,
37(3), 206-214.
Brake, S. C., & Shannon, D. (1997). Using pretreatment
to increase admission in sex offenders. In B. K.
Schwartz & H. R. Cellini (Eds.), The sex offender:
New insights, treatment innovations and legal
developments (Vol. II). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research
Institute, Inc.
Cohen, J. A., & Mannarino, A. P. (2002). Addressing
attributions in treating abused children. Child
Maltreatment, 7(1), 82-86
Cossins, A., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & O'Brien, K.
(2009). Uncertainty and misconceptions about child
sexual abuse: Implications for the criminal justice
system. Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law, 16(2),
1-18.
Denov, M. (2004). Perspectives on female sex
offending: A culture of denial. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Feiring, C., Taska, L., & Chen, K. (2002). Trying to
understand why horrible things happen: Attribution,
shame, and symptom development following sexual
abuse. Child Maltreatment, 7(1), 26-41.
Frost, A. (2004). Therapeutic engagement styles of
child sexual offenders in a group treatment program:
A grounded theory study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 16(3), 191-208.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Cossins, A., & O'Brien, K.
(2010, in press). Enhancing the credibility of
complainants in child sexual assault trials: The effect
of expert evidence and judicial directions. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law.
Increases in Disclosure
Herman, J. L. (1981). Father-daughter incest.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lambie, I., Seymour, F., Lee, A., & Adams, P. (2002).
Resiliency in the victim-offender cycle in male
sexual abuse. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 14(1), 31-48.
Laws, D.R., & O’Donohue, W. T. (Eds.) (2008).
Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment and treatment,
2d ed. NY: The Guilford Press.
Levenson, J. S., & Macgowan, M. J. (2004).
Engagement, denial, and treatment progress among
sex offenders in group therapy. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(1), 49-63.
Lewis, P. (2006). Delayed prosecution for childhood
sexual abuse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maletzky, B. M. (1991). Treating the sexual offender.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Marshall, W. L., Marshall, L. E., & Ware, J. (2009).
Cognitive distortions in sexual offenders: Should they
all be treatment targets? Sexual abuse in Australia
and New Zealand, 2(1), 21-33.
Marshall, W. L., Serran, G., Marshall, L. E., &
Fernandez, Y. M. (2005). Recovering memories of
offense in "amnesic" sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(1), 31-38.
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2007,
September). Increases in the conviction rate for
sexual offences in NSW courts. Retrieved from
http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocs
ar.nsf/vwFiles/Sexual_offence_Information_sheet_06
.pdf/$file/Sexual_offence_Information_sheet_06.pdf
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (2008).
Progress of sexual offences through the NSW
criminal justice system: 2004 – 2007. Retrieved from
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_boc
sar.nsf/vwFiles/jh08-
7025_CJB92_Figure_3_2004_to_2007_nm086843&
mai086847hclc.pdf/$file/jh08-
7025_CJB92_Figure_3_2004_to_2007_nm086843&
mai086847hclc.pdf
Nunes, K. L., Hanson, K. R., Firestone, P., Moulden, H.
M., Greenberg, D. M., & Bradford, J. M. (2007).
Denial predicts recidivism for some sexual offenders.
Sex Abuse, 19, 91-105.
O'Donohue, W., & Letourneau, E. (1993). A brief
group treatment for the modification of denial in
child sexual abusers: Outcome and follow-up. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 17, 299-304.
Payne, J. (2007). Recidivism in Australia: Findings and
future research. Research and Public Policy Series,
80. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Reid, B. (1998). An exploration of tactics used by
perpetrators of intrafamilial child sexual assault.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of New
South Wales, Sydney.
Salter, A. (1988). Treating child sex offenders and
victims. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Saywitz, K. J., Mannarino, A. P., Berliner, L., & Cohen,
J. A. (2000). Treatment for sexually abused children
and adolescents. American Psychologist, 55(9), 1040-
1049.
Schneider, S. L., & Wright, R. C. (2004).
Understanding denial in sexual offenders: A review
of cognitive and motivational processes to avoid
responsibility. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse: A
Review Journal, 5, 3-20.
Sorenson, T., & Snow, B. (1991). How children tell: the
process of disclosure in child sexual abuse. Child
Welfare, 70, 3-15.
Ward, T. & Stewart, C.A. (2003). Good Lives and the
rehabilitation of sexual offenders. In T. Ward, S.
Hudson & R. Laws (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Issues
and controversies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wilcox, D. T., Richards, F., & O'Keefe, Z. C. (2004).
Resilience and risk factors associated with
experiencing childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse
Review, 13, 338-352.
Wright, R. C., & Schneider, S. L. (2004). Mapping
child molester treatment progress with the FoSOD:
Denial and explanations of accountability. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 85-
105.
