FAP with people convicted of sexual offenses.

Psychotherapy

May 2021

Full Citation

Newring, K. A. B. & Wheeler, J. G. (2010). FAP with people convicted of sexual offenses. The practice of functional analytic psychotherapy., 225-246. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-5830-3_13

Abstract

Much has changed in the 20 years since the first application of cognitive-behavioral techniques, including Relapse Prevention (RP), to the treatment of sexual offense behavior. RP quickly became a popular approach to sex offense treatment, and there is some evidence to support its effectiveness with some offenders (e.g., Marques, Weideranders, Day, Nelson, & van Ommeren, 2005; Nicholaichuk, Gordon, Gu, & Wong, 2000; Hanson et al., 2002). Nonetheless, RP has been subject to criticism for a number of reasons, including its utilization as a primary treatment strategy for sex offenses, rather than as a treatment adjunct as originally designed. Furthermore, increased emphasis has been placed on working collaboratively with persons convicted of sexual offenses to help address more positively oriented "approach goals," in addition to traditional avoidance-based treatment targets. Finally, there has been an explosion of research on sex offense risk assessment and risk-based treatment for offenders that have provided new directions for the field of sex offense evaluation and treatment. Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP), at its core, is an intensely interpersonal psychotherapy in which the therapeutic relationship is both the context in which change occurs, and the meaningful agent that motivates and supports changes. As many of the dynamic risk factors for sexual offense recidivism are interpersonal in nature, FAP is ideally suited to direct treatment approaches when working collaboratively with persons convicted of sexual offending. The challenges in working with clients convicted of sexual offenses are problems insofar as they impact the clinician's clinically relevant behavior. Can clinicians allow themselves to form a caring and therapeutic relationship with a person convicted of a sexual offense? Can they allow such a client to matter to them? How can they go about forging a meaningful relationship with the client? Can they forgo topography and instead focus on clinically relevant functions as they promote community safety? (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)