Realist Evaluation of Adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programs
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Realist Evaluation of Adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programs for Men with Intellectual Disability
IRAS ID
172513
Contact name
Andrea Hollomotz
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
University of Leeds
Duration of Study in the UK
2 years, 11 months, 31 days
Research summary
Adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programs (ASOTPs) have been modified from mainstream treatment to meet the learning needs of offenders with intellectual disability (ID). This project explores what works on ASOTPs, for whom, in what contexts, why and how. It seeks to make sense of these programs in the contexts in which they take place, in order to illuminate what social factors may help or hinder treatment success. In particular, it examines how effective links between these forensic healthcare interventions and the offender’s living context and social care provision, for instance the nature and level of supervision they receive to manage risk during and after treatment can enhance outcomes.
The research evaluates two ASOTPs, one in the UK and one in Switzerland. Both deliver group cognitive behavioural therapy, lasting about 18 months. The evaluation entails three phases. First, a literature review is followed by interviews with twelve international key academics and practitioners who designed ASOTPs. The aim is to illuminate in what ways ASOTPs are intended to work.
Second, case studies of men who have attended ASOTPs are explored with the aim to explain the impact the program had on them, whether and how it worked and in what contexts. There are three types of data collection. Four focus groups with altogether 24 participants look at the user experiences of treatment. Next, eighty patient files are reviewed to examine how well the treatment worked for each person. From this a sample of 20 participants, ten for whom the treatment worked and ten for whom it did not, are followed up through interviews with offenders and practitioners, to find out in more detail why the program did (not) work. Third, the twelve key practitioners are revisited for expert commentary. The research will conclude with a set of policy and practice recommendations.
REC name
London - South East Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/LO/1217
Date of REC Opinion
20 Jul 2015
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion