Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T05:20:07.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Role of Formulation-based Treatment for Sexual Offenders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

Tony Ward*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne and Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. t.ward@criminology.unimelb.edu.au
Pamela Nathan
Affiliation:
Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
Christopher R. Drake
Affiliation:
Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
Joseph K.P. Lee
Affiliation:
Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
Michele Pathé
Affiliation:
Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr Tony Ward, Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne, 234 Queensberry Street, Melbourne VIC 3952, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

The assessment of sexual offenders consists of the systematic collection of clinically relevant information in order to detect clinical problems and to provide clear treatment targets. A key but neglected issue in the area of sexual offending concerns the role of individual case formulations in the determination of offenders' treatment needs. In this paper, we investigate the relative strengths and weaknesses of manual-based treatment (MBT) and formulation-based treatment (FBT) for sex offenders. On the one hand, FBT has the advantages of greater flexibility and a more individualistic focus, and arguably is better equipped to deal with more complex clinical presentations. On the other hand, MBT has the advantages of standardisation and less reliance on clinicians' (flawed) judgement, and may be a more efficient use of scarce resources. We conclude that clinicians should initially provide manual-based treatment rather than that based on individualised case formulations. However, we also suggest that there are at least four situations where FBT represents a valuable strategy, namely when confronted with particularly complex or unusual cases, when standardised treatment has failed, or when there are significant threats to the therapeutic relationship. Finally, we briefly discuss some possibilities for research, and caution that our mixed model is only proposed as a temporary solution and that ultimately any model concerning treatment selection needs to be empirically based and conceptually defensible.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)