C enter for S ex O ffender M anagem ent 

A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice 

Female Sex Offenders 

March 2007 

Introduction 

Although the vast majority of attention on sex 

crimes focuses on men as the offenders, an 

increased awareness of females as sex 

offenders has surfaced in recent years. Highly 

publicized cases involving inappropriate and 

illegal sexual contact between female high 

school teachers and their male students are a 

primary source of this growing attention. 

These cases are not representative of the full 

nature or scope of sexual abuse committed by 

females, however, and they have the potential 

to promote myths and misperceptions about 

the broader issue of female-perpetrated sex 

crimes.

 

This policy and practice brief synthesizes the 

research and other professional literature

about women and adolescent girls who commit 

sex offenses. This review encompasses what 

is known about the seemingly low incidence of 

these crimes and their under-recognition,

common characteristics and typologies of 

female sex offenders, and key considerations 

relative to assessment, treatment, and 

supervision strategies. It is intended for a wide 

range of professionals, including criminal and 

juvenile justice practitioners, court officials,

treatment providers, child welfare personnel, 

victim advocates, and others who may be 

involved in the broader management of this 

special population. 

At present, the research and literature about 

this unique segment of the sex offender 

population remains in its infancy, and there is 

no evidence-based guidance or other 

consensus about the most effective 

approaches to working with them. Experts do 

agree, however, that understanding female sex 

offenders remains a significant area of need 

within the criminal and juvenile justice fields. 

The Extent of Sex 

Offending by Females 

Because sexual victimization is significantly 

underreported overall, reliable information 

about the incidence of sex crimes committed 

by females is difficult to obtain. Nonetheless, a 

variety of sources can collectively provide a 

working estimate of the scope of the problem, 

including arrest trends, census and caseload 

data from criminal and juvenile justice 

agencies, representation in sex offender 

treatment programs, and victimization reports. 

Arrest Data 

National criminal justice statistics reveal that of 

all adults and juveniles who come to the

attention of the authorities for sex crimes, 

females account for less than 10% of these 

cases (FBI, 2006). Specifically, arrests of 

women represent only 1% of all adult arrests 

for forcible rape and 6% of all adult arrests for 

other sex offenses. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Forcible rape Other sex offense

male female

Adult Arrests:

Sex Offenses by Perpetrator Gender

(Adapted from Snyder & Sickmund, 2006)

Parallel data concerning adolescent sex 

offenders indicate that females are responsible 

for 3% of forcible rape cases and 5% of other 

violent sex offenses – and 19% of non-violent 

1

Established in June 1997, CSOM’s goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the 

management of adult and juvenile sex offenders who are in the community. A collaborative effort of the Office of Justice 

Programs, the National Institute of Corrections, the State Justice Institute, and the American Probation and Parole 

Association, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy.
sex offenses – handled by the juvenile courts 

annually (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). 

It is of interest to note that while arrests of 

adult women for sex offenses have decreased 

in recent years, the number of adolescent girls 

coming to the attention of the juvenile courts 

for sex offenses has increased significantly 

(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). More specifically, 

between 1997 and 2002, juvenile cases 

involving female-perpetrated forcible rapes, 

other violent sex offenses, and non-violent sex 

offenses rose by 6%, 62%, and 42%, 

respectively. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Forcible rape Other violent sex

offense

Non-violent sex

offense

male female

Juvenile Court Cases:

Sex Offenses by Perpetrator Gender

(Adapted from Snyder & Sickmund, 2006)

Census and Caseload Data from 

Criminal and Juvenile Justice 

Agencies 

In contrast to the approximately 140,000 men 

incarcerated in prisons nationwide for sex 

crimes, only 1,500 women are estimated to be 

imprisoned for these offenses (Harrison & 

Beck, 2005). They represent only 1% of all 

adults incarcerated for sex offenses, and 2% of 

all females in prison. Similarly, adolescent 

girls represent only 2% of the roughly 7,500 

sex offenders placed in juvenile residential 

facilities nationwide, and they account for only 

1% of all girls in residential placements 

(Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). 

Within the community, women represent 23% 

of adult probationers and 12% of parolees 

(Glaze & Bonczar, 2006). Because sex 

offenders represent only a fraction of all adults 

under supervision, the number of adult female 

sex offenders under probation or parole

supervision is extremely small. 

Representation in Sex Offender 

Treatment Programs 

Data from sex offender treatment programs 

across the country indicate that roughly one 

third of programs provide services to female 

sex offenders; well over 300 programs served 

adult women, and more than 250 provided 

treatment to adolescent girls (McGrath, 

Cumming, & Burchard, 2003). While nearly 

3,800 adult women and 2,700 adolescent girls 

were served by those programs, these figures

represent less than ten percent of the total 

number of clients served across all sex 

offender programs. Nonetheless, this was 

nearly twice the proportion of female sex 

offenders that had been served in programs 

two years earlier. 

Victimization Reports 

Information about the low proportion of sex 

offenses committed by females is fairly 

consistent, at least when relying on data about 

female sex offenders known to the criminal 

and juvenile justice systems. Yet when 

various individuals are surveyed about their 

sexual victimization experiences, the incidence 

of female-perpetrated sex crimes is often 

higher and much more variable. For example, 

reviews of multiple sources of victimization 

data reveal that up to 63% of female victims 

and as many as 27% of male victims report 

having been sexually victimized by a female 

(see, e.g., Schwartz & Cellini, 1995). In 

addition, although the National Criminal 

Victimization Survey – which captures 

information from victims who may or may not 

have reported the incident to the authorities – 

indicates that females represent up to 6% of 

rapes or sexual assaults by an individual 

acting alone, it also implicates female 

offenders in up to 40% of sex crimes involving 

multiple offenders (BJS, 2006). 

Factors Affecting the 

(Under) Recognition of 

Female-Perpetrated Sex 

Offenses 

Collectively, the available information suggests 

that adult women and adolescent girls 

represent the minority of sex offenders. 

However, a lingering question remains as to 

2
whether these data truly reflect a relative 

under-occurrence or if female sex offending is 

simply under-recognized, with external factors 

contributing to what seems to be an underrepresentation of females as sex offenders. It 

appears that both may be true. 

In other words, much like crime in general, for 

which males comprise the vast majority of all 

arrests (FBI, 2006), there is no reason to 

believe that females would necessarily be

responsible for a significantly greater 

proportion of sex crimes. On the other hand, 

there is evidence that sexual victimization 

perpetrated by females is likely to be underidentified – even more so than maleperpetrated sex offenses – for several 

reasons, including societal and cultural 

stereotypes, professional biases, problems 

with research methodologies, and unique

dynamics that impact victims’ disclosures of 

these offenses. 

Sociocultural Influences 

At the macro level, sex offending long has 

been viewed within society as a male-only 

crime. This is, in part, because of pervasive 

gender role stereotypes about women as

nurturing, caretaking individuals who are, by 

their very nature, unlikely to engage in 

aggressive or harmful behaviors toward others 

(see, e.g., Allen, 1991; Anderson & 

Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Denov, 2004; 

Hislop, 2001). Also potentially operating are 

sexist beliefs that depict males as controlling 

all sexual encounters and females as passive 

and submissive recipients (Allen, 1991; 

Becker, Hall, & Stinson, 2001; Denov, 2004; 

Schwartz & Cellini, 1995). 

Misperceptions also exist about the “ability” of 

women to sexually victimize males, with some 

believing that males are incapable of being 

physically aroused if they are unwilling 

participants (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson, 

1998; Hislop, 2001). This reflects not only a 

limited understanding of physiological 

responses, but also suggests a narrow view of 

female-perpetrated sexual victimization as 

solely involving members of the opposite sex. 

Finally, undoubtedly contributing to societal 

under-awareness of female-perpetrated sex 

offenses is the sheer volume and imbalance of 

cases involving males as offenders that are 

brought to the attention of the authorities. 

Professional Biases 

Beliefs and perceptions at the macro level can, 

in turn, influence the perspectives and 

responses at a more micro level. Indeed, 

there is evidence that broader cultural biases

play a role in the willingness of various criminal 

justice and treatment professionals to 

acknowledge female sex offending (see, e.g., 

Becker et al., 2001; Denov, 2004). For 

example, researchers found that training for 

law enforcement officers tends to be geared 

exclusively around men as sex offenders and 

women as victims. In combination with the sex 

role stereotypes that exist within society, this

impacts the responses of law enforcement to 

female-perpetrated sex crimes (Denov, 2004). 

Specifically, the research revealed that police 

officers reacted with disbelief to allegations 

involving women, minimized the seriousness of 

the reports, viewed the female suspects as 

less dangerous and harmful, and were prone 

toward labeling the cases as “unfounded” 

(Denov, 2004). 

Similar patterns have been identified within the 

medical and mental health fields, in which the 

interacting effects of training, diagnostic 

criteria, and cultural stereotypes are believed 

to impact professionals’ considerations about 

sex offenses committed by females (Becker et 

al., 2001; Denov, 2004; Denov & Cortoni, 

2006; Hunter & Mathews, 1997). When 

presented to psychiatrists and other clinicians, 

these kinds of cases have been met with

skepticism and marginalization, and the 

women who committed the acts have been 

perceived as less culpable and less harmful 

(Denov, 2004; Hislop, 2001). 

As a result, cases of sexual abuse perpetrated 

by adult women and adolescent girls may be 

less likely to be reported, and even if they are 

reported, they may not be aggressively 

pursued within child welfare, criminal justice, or 

juvenile justice systems (Becker et al., 2001; 

Bumby & Bumby, 2004; Denov, 2004; Hislop, 

2001). 

“The lack of public and professional cognizance of 

female sexual offending and its detrimental effects 

serves to deprive both the victims and the females who 

perpetrate against them of needed familial and 

professional support and intervention.” 

(Hunter & Mathews, 1997, p. 465)

3
Research Limitations 

The recognition of female sex offending is 

further limited by the way in which research is 

designed (Anderson & Struckman-Johnson, 

1998; Becker et al., 2001; Johansson-Love & 

Fremouw, 2006). Specifically, investigators 

may inadvertently define sexual victimization in 

a manner that reflects only behaviors that 

involve male perpetrators. In other instances, 

researchers examining sexual victimization 

simply fail to inquire about the gender of the 

perpetrator. The potential also exists for 

gender bias in research methods, whereby 

males are asked only about perpetration

experiences and females are asked only about 

victimization experiences (Anderson & 

Struckman-Johnson, 1998; Hunter & Mathews, 

1997). 

Finally, the ability to increase awareness of 

this often neglected population of sex 

offenders is hampered considerably by the low 

numbers of adult and adolescent female sex 

offenders readily available for research. As 

the previously highlighted statistics indicate, 

male sex offenders far outnumber female sex 

offenders in prisons, juvenile correctional

facilities, and specialized treatment programs. 

These considerably larger sample sizes of 

male sex offenders – which make research 

findings more robust, generalizable, and

publishable – coupled with accessibility, 

efficiency, and methodological convenience, 

can make studying female sex offenders less 

“attractive” to researchers.

Individual Concerns 

Without question, these cultural, professional, 

and research influences create barriers to 

reporting female-perpetrated sexual abuse at 

the level of the individual victim. 

Underreporting is also the result of an 

interaction between these unique dynamics 

and various factors already known to 

negatively impact victim disclosures of sexual 

abuse in general (e.g., shame, guilt, fear, and 

threats). 

For example, adolescent girls may be reluctant 

to disclose experiences of sexual abuse

perpetrated by a woman or female peer 

because they may begin to question – and fear 

that others may question – their sexual 

identity. Similarly, adolescent boys who are 

sexually abused by an adult woman may feel 

emasculated and may worry about how others 

will perceive their masculinity (Hislop, 2001). 

In addition, particularly if they experienced 

physiological arousal, adolescent boys may 

feel ashamed, question whether their 

experience was in fact sexual abuse, and fear 

that their disclosures will be met by disbelief or 

minimization.

These concerns are certainly not without merit, 

given the evidence that sexual contact 

between an adult woman and an adolescent 

boy is considered by some to be a rite of 

passage, or even a “lucky” encounter for the 

boy (Becker et al., 2001; Denov, 2004; Hunter 

& Mathews, 1997). Moreover, some victims 

report that professionals dismiss, overlook, or 

show discomfort with the topic when victims 

disclose their abuse by a female (Denov, 2004; 

Hislop, 2001). 

Understanding Female Sex 

Offenders 

In contrast to the burgeoning body of literature 

describing male sex offenders, the research on 

female sex offenders is considerably underdeveloped. Much of what exists is purely 

descriptive in nature and tends to be based on 

small samples of women and adolescent girls 

in clinical settings, making it impossible to 

draw reliable inferences about any defining 

characteristics, risk factors, or offense 

dynamics of female sex offenders as a whole. 

In addition, as is the case with male sex 

offenders, the research on female sex 

offenders thus far suggests that they are a 

heterogeneous population (see, e.g., Becker et 

al., 2001; Grayston & De Luca, 1999; Hunter, 

Becker, & Lexier, 2006; Johansson-Love & 

Fremouw, 2006). 

Adults: Characteristics and 

Typologies 

Keeping in mind the limitations of the current 

state of the research as well as the diversity of 

the population, some preliminary findings 

about adult women who commit sex offenses

suggest that they may have the following

characteristics:

• Histories of childhood maltreatment, 

including sexual victimization; 

4
• Mental health symptoms, personality 

disorders, and substance abuse 

problems; 

• Difficulties in intimate relationships, or 

an absence of intimate relationships; 

• A propensity to primarily victimize 

children and adolescents (rarely adults); 

• A tendency to commit offenses against 

persons who are related or otherwise 

well known to them; and 

• An increased likelihood of perpetrating 

sex offenses in concert with a male 

intimate partner. 

Certainly, not all of these characteristics apply 

to all sexually abusive women, and there are 

additional features and offense patterns that 

have been identified in some studies but not in 

others. 

As a means of further categorizing groups of 

female sex offenders based on potential

commonalities, a few professionals have

attempted to identify typologies of sexually 

abusive women (Mathews, Matthews, & 

Speltz, 1989; Nathan & Ward, 2002; Vandiver 

& Kercher, 2004). In the seminal work of 

Mathews and her colleagues – which remains 

the most influential and commonly cited

framework for female sex offender typologies – 

three primary subtypes emerged (Mathews et 

al., 1989): 

• Male-coerced: These women tended to 

be passive and dependent individuals 

with histories of sexual abuse and 

relationship difficulties. Fearing 

abandonment, they were pressured by 

male partners to commit sex offenses, 

often against their own children. 

• Predisposed: Histories of incestuous 

sexual victimization, psychological 

difficulties, and deviant sexual fantasies 

were common among these women, 

who generally acted alone in their 

offending. They tended to victimize their 

own children or other young children 

within their families. 

• Teacher/lover: At the time of their 

offending, women in this subtype were 

often struggling with peer relationships, 

seemed to regress and perceive 

themselves as having romantic or 

sexually mentoring “relationships” with 

under-aged adolescent victims of their 

sexual preference, and, therefore, did 

not consider their acts to be criminal in 

nature. 

As the authors acknowledged, these original 

typologies were not statistically generated and 

were based largely on the clinical observations 

of a sample of only 16 women, thus limiting the 

ability to generalize the findings to the larger

population of female sex offenders. However, 

subsequent investigations have continued to 

support their applicability (Matthews, 1998; 

Nathan & Ward, 2002; Vandiver & Kercher, 

2004). 

Most recently, Vandiver and Kercher (2004) 

added considerably to the research by 

employing a statistical approach to identify 

subtypes, using the largest sample of female 

sex offenders to date. From the over 450 

female sex offenders in the study, six 

statistically-derived clusters were revealed, 

some of which were consistent with the 

Mathews et al. (1989) typologies. 

Co-Offending Women Versus Solo Female Offenders 

Particularly unique to female-perpetrated sex offenses is the increased potential for a male co-offender. Until recently, little was 

known about the differences between male-accompanied female sex offenders and women who acted alone. In a comparative 

study of over 200 female sex offenders, several differences were identified (Vandiver, 2006). Specifically, co-offending women

were more likely than female solo offenders to: 

• Have multiple young victims; 

• Victimize females – or both females and males – as opposed to males only;

• Target family members including their own children, versus solo offenders, who often target acquaintances; and 

• Have been charged with non-sex crimes at the same time the sex offense charge occurred. 

5
Unfortunately, because the data were limited 

to basic demographic and criminal record 

information, no specific features could be

identified with respect to the motivating, 

psychosocial, or other characteristics of these 

women. Nevertheless, these findings 

converge around the notion that women who 

commit sex offenses are a heterogeneous 

population, and support the belief that there 

may be distinct subgroups of female sex

offenders. 

Adolescents: Characteristics and 

Typologies 

Perhaps even more so than with adult female 

sex offenders, the research on adolescent girls 

who commit sex offenses is very limited. Thus 

far, researchers have revealed the following 

common characteristics (see Bumby & Bumby, 

2004; Frey, 2006; Hunter et al., 2006; and 

Robinson, 2006 for reviews): 

• High prevalence of sexual victimization; 

• Instability and dysfunction within the 

family and home; 

• Co-occurring psychiatric disorders, 

including Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder; 

• Victimizing young children within the 

family or with whom they are familiar; 

• Targeting victims of either gender; and 

• Acting alone, often offending within the 

context of care-giving activities. 

Based on the current available literature, it 

appears that many of the characteristics of 

adolescent female sex offenders parallel those 

of their adult counterparts, although further 

research that explicitly examines their unique 

developmental circumstances is needed. 

In terms of typology research, only one 

published study has offered a differentiation 

between subgroups of adolescent girls who 

have committed sex offenses (Mathews,

Hunter, & Vuz, 1997). The following three 

preliminary subtypes were identified from the 

sample of 67 adolescent females: 

• Those who engaged in a limited number 

of incidents against a non-related child 

within the context of babysitting. They 

were relatively inexperienced, naïve, 

and somewhat fearful with respect to 

sexual matters, and their offending 

behaviors appeared to be motivated 

primarily by experimentation or curiosity. 

Histories of maltreatment, family 

dysfunction, and psychological 

difficulties were fairly limited within this 

subtype. 

• Girls who appeared to be sexually 

reactive, generally abusing younger 

children in a manner that mirrored their 

own victimization. Although some in this

subtype evidenced emotional, 

psychological, and other difficulties, 

these issues generally were not severe, 

and many of these youth possessed 

adequate social skills and other 

personality strengths. 

• Adolescent females who engaged in 

more extensive and repetitive sex 

offending behaviors and who manifested

much greater levels of emotional and 

psychosexual disturbance. Many had 

experienced considerable 

developmental trauma, including sexual 

victimization often beginning at an early

age, which likely contributed to their 

significant difficulties with adjustment 

and stability. 

Female Versus Male Sex Offenders: 

Similar or Different?

Given the nature and dynamics of sex crimes, 

it should come as no surprise that individuals 

who commit sex offenses – regardless of 

gender – have several features in common. 

Indeed, many sexually abusive women and 

men show evidence of poor coping skills,

relationship difficulties, cognitive distortions,

and victim empathy deficits (see, e.g., Allen, 

1991; Denov & Cortoni, 2006; Grayston & De 

Luca, 1999; Mathews et al., 1989; Nathan & 

Ward, 2001, 2002). In addition, with 

adolescents, co-occurring behavioral health 

needs, delinquency, low self-esteem, 

substance use, and family difficulties are

common among samples of both girls and 

boys who have committed sex offenses (see, 

e.g., Bumby & Bumby, 1997; Mathews et al., 

1997; Kubik, Hecker, & Righthand, 2002). 

At the same time, several differences between 

female and male sex offenders have been 

noted, including the following (see, e.g., 

Becker et al., 2001; Davin, Hislop, & 

6
Dunbar,1999; Grayston & De Luca, 1999; 

Nathan & Ward, 2001; Vandiver, 2006): 

• Sexual victimization histories are 

exceedingly more common among adult 

and adolescent female sex offenders 

than with male sex offenders, and their 

maltreatment experiences are often 

more longstanding, extensive, and 

severe;

• Adult women are more likely than men 

to commit sex offenses with a cooffending male, either in concert with the

male or as a result of coercion by the 

male; 

• Offending by adult and adolescent 

females is more likely to occur within the 

context of caregiving situations; 

• Acts of rape are less common among 

female sex offenders, but when they 

occur, the victims tend to be the same 

gender, unlike the victims of maleperpetrated rapes; 

• The victims of adolescent female 

perpetrators more often than adolescent

male offenders tend to be young 

children; and

• When child victims are involved, 

adolescent female offenders are more 

likely than adolescent males to target 

both genders, whereas adolescent 

males more commonly target children of 

the opposite sex. 

These similarities and differences have 

implications for the ways in which these

women and girls are managed in the criminal 

and juvenile justice systems. 

No Easy Answers About 

Effective Management 

Strategies 

The knowledge base about female sex 

offenders has increased in recent years, 

although the current state of the research still 

leaves professionals responsible for managing

sexually abusive females with only a 

rudimentary understanding of this special

population. In addition, the identified 

heterogeneity found within samples of adult 

and adolescent female sex offenders – 

coupled with the various similarities among 

and differences between female and male 

offenders – increases the complexity of 

management efforts. 

Furthermore, specialized risk and needs 

assessment tools are lacking for female sex 

offenders, making key decisions difficult at 

various points throughout the system (e.g., 

sentencing/disposition, inpatient or correctional 

programming, release planning, community 

supervision, and treatment progress). And 

with respect to treatment and supervision

specifically, the literature offers only 

preliminary recommendations about genderresponsive practices, the majority of which 

remain empirically untested. Put simply, bestpractice or evidence-based guidance with 

female sex offenders does not exist at this 

time. Taken together, these realities often 

raise more questions than answers about how 

to intervene most effectively with this 

population. 

The Importance of GenderResponsiveness 

Historically, when direction is lacking for 

special populations, criminal and juvenile

justice professionals have tended to rely on 

existing management strategies designed for 

those in the majority. While this is not ideal, it 

is perhaps understandable. This, too, has 

been the case with female sex offenders, 

whereby interventions have been largely 

modeled after approaches used with male sex 

offenders. In some ways, this may have been 

a logical starting point because, as the 

preceding review indicated, several 

commonalities exist among sexually abusive 

females and males. 

At the same time, identified differences 

indicate the need to develop genderresponsive management strategies specific to 

this population. Indeed, the unique risk and 

protective factors, distinctive developmental 

pathways to crime and delinquency, and

fundamental differences between genders 

necessitates that the criminal and juvenile

justice systems take into account the needs of 

women and girls overall (see, e.g., Bloom, 

Owen, & Covington, 2003; Chesney-Lind & 

Shelden, 2004; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 

2001). And in recent years, key findings from 

the research and other professional literature 

7
with general female offenders – bo Assessment th adult and 

juvenile – have formed the basis for 

recommendations about the implementation of 

gender-responsive services, including the 

following (Bloom et al., 2003): 

As is the case with any individual who has 

committed a sex offense, decisionmaking with 

sexually abusive females should be informed 

by comprehensive assessment information. 

Ideally, such an assessment includes 

information from a range of sources and takes 

into account multiple factors including – but not 

limited to – the nature and extent of the sexual 

behavior problems, psychosocial functioning, 

healthcare needs, quality of interpersonal 

relationships, family and environmental 

circumstances, and developmental 

experiences, such as a history of victimization 

or other trauma and its associated impact. 

• To maximize effectiveness,

policymakers and practitioners must 

acknowledge that gender makes a 

difference; 

• The environments in which 

management strategies are

implemented must ensure safety, 

respect, and dignity; 

• Because relationships play a key role in 

the lives of women and girls, their 

importance must be incorporated into 

the ways in which the criminal and 

juvenile justice systems operate; 

In addition to record reviews and clinical 

interviews with offenders and collaterals to 

obtain this and other relevant information, the 

use of various assessment instruments can 

provide objective data to guide intervention 

planning. Although many general 

psychological assessment instruments have 

been validated on samples of women and girls 

and are often used to assess intellectual, 

personality, and psychological functioning with 

females in the criminal and juvenile justice 

systems, they provide no specific information 

with respect to sexually deviant attitudes and 

behaviors. Unfortunately, most tools that 

assess sex offense-specific issues have been 

developed for and normed on male sex 

offenders, making their use with female sex 

offenders questionable, at best. 

• The interrelatedness of substance 

abuse, trauma, and mental health needs 

are particularly germane to this 

population, and must be addressed 

through integrated management efforts;

• The commonly identified socioeconomic

challenges for women offenders warrant

a dedicated focus on providing them 

with specific opportunities and services 

that can improve these conditions; and

• Collaborating to provide a system of 

holistic and comprehensive services

within the community is critical to 

effective outcomes. 

Risk assessment 

This and other influential work on genderresponsiveness, in combination with lessons 

from the broader sex offender management 

field, provides an ideal foundation for 

assessment, treatment, and supervision

strategies for sexually abusive females. 

Developing appropriate management 

approaches for this special population also 

requires consideration of the sociocultural 

influences, professional biases, and various 

individual factors that impact the ways in which 

systems respond to female-perpetrated sex 

offenses. But as outlined briefly in the sections

that follow, this has proven to be easier said 

than done. 

Similarly, in contrast to the availability of 

several empirically validated risk assessment 

instruments designed specifically for adult 

male sex offenders – and a few promising 

tools for adolescent male sex offenders – no 

such measures have yet been developed for 

sexually abusive females, either adult or 

adolescent. The extremely low numbers of 

female sex offenders that come to the attention 

of the authorities and that are available for 

follow-up studies significantly impedes 

researchers’ attempts to identify specific risk 

factors associated with sexual recidivism

among this population (Denov & Cortoni, 2006; 

Nathan & Ward, 2001).

8
The literature on risk factors and crimeproducing needs with adult women and 

adolescent girls in the criminal and juvenile 

justice systems can, however, be instructive 

with respect to risk considerations with female 

sex offenders. Indeed, many sexually abusive 

females share a number of psychosocial

needs with other justice-involved women and 

girls, many of which are associated with risk 

for further criminal or delinquent behavior (see, 

e.g., Denov & Cortoni, 2006; Grayston & De 

Luca, 1999; Hunter et al., 2006; Robinson, 

2006). For example, the links between 

victimization and other trauma, mental health 

difficulties, substance abuse, and crime and 

delinquency have been established with adult 

women and adolescent girls (see, e.g., Bloom 

et al., 2003; Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004) 

and, as noted previously, these factors are 

commonly identified among sexually abusive 

women and girls as well. 

Even with the awareness of these factors and 

needs, empirically validated tools for women 

offenders and delinquent girls remain lacking, 

with very few exceptions. For example, the 

Level of Service Inventory-Revised and the 

Youth Level of Service/Case Management 

Inventory have been validated on adult and 

adolescent females, respectively (Andrews & 

Bonta, 1995; Hoge, Andrews, & Lescheid, 

2002; Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005). 

However, these tools were largely developed 

based on the identified risk factors and 

criminogenic needs of males. Even though 

many of the risk factors and needs have

relevance for females, these and other 

measures validated with females are not 

explicitly framed around the unique risk and 

needs of female offenders, and, therefore, may 

not adequately and accurately capture the 

experiences of women and girls and the ways 

in which various risk factors and needs interact 

(see, e.g., Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Hollin & 

Palmer, 2006; Van Voorhis & Presser, 2001). 

Notwithstanding their limitations – and keeping

in mind that the risk of sexual recidivism is not 

specifically addressed – these tools can

provide broad guidance for the assessment 

and intervention planning with sexually abusive 

females.

Physiological assessment

A final note regarding assessment involves the 

use of physiological methods to identify the 

potential presence of deviant arousal, 

interests, or preferences. For example, with 

adult male sex offenders, the penile

plethysmograph and viewing time measures 

are often used as part of a comprehensive 

assessment. Identifying these factors among 

sexually abusive men is important because of 

their significant correlation with recidivism 

(Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & MortonBourgon, 2004). Deviant interests and 

preferences are also believed to be associated 

with recidivism among adolescent males (see, 

e.g., Worling & Langstrom, 2006). 

Yet for female sex offenders, little is known 

about whether these elements are a driving 

factor in their offense patterns or whether they 

are correlated with reoffending (Grayston & 

De Luca, 1999; Hunter & Mathews, 1997; 

Nathan & Ward, 2001, 2002). Intuitively, 

deviant arousal, interests, and preferences 

would be important assessment targets with 

Key Examples of Risk Factors for Women and Girls 

 Women

• Low self esteem 

• Self-injury, suicidal attempts 

• Victimization during childhood and/or adulthood 

• Employment difficulties 

• Low educational attainment 

• Difficulties in intimate relationships 

• Antisocial peers and attitudes 

• Mental health difficulties 

• Substance abuse 

 Adolescent Girls

• Sexual and physical victimization 

• Dysfunctional family

• Parent/child relationship difficulties 

• Antisocial peers 

• Academic failure 

• Pregnancy

• Early onset of puberty

• Mental health difficulties 

• Substance abuse 

(see, e.g., Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004) 

9
sexually abusive females, but only through 

further empirical research can this be 

confirmed. Moreover, because of a lack of 

research on the reliability and validity of 

physiological measures to assess deviant 

arousal and interests with female sex 

offenders (i.e., vaginal photoplethysmography, 

viewing time), their use with adult women is 

questionable (Hunter & Mathews, 1997), and 

with adolescent girls they are inadvisable (see, 

e.g., Robinson, 2006). 

• Ensuring healthy sexual development, 

expression, and boundaries. 

With adolescent girls, it is also important to 

understand their overall development within 

the context of family, peers, and schools, and 

ensure that targets of intervention take into 

account those multiple determinants (Frey, 

2006; Hunter et al., 2006; Robinson, 2006). 

The comparatively high rates of sexual 

victimization and trauma that are common to 

both adolescent and adult female sex 

offenders also suggest that treatment will often 

need to include an emphasis on addressing 

trauma and its impact on emotional, social, 

psychological, and sexual adjustment. For 

example, identifying and treating co-morbid 

psychiatric conditions such as Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder (PTSD) is critical for female 

sex offenders who have experienced 

significant trauma, especially given the higher 

prevalence of this disorder among women and 

adolescent girls (Bloom et al., 2003; Hunter et 

al., 2006). But as always, practitioners must 

take great care to effectively and 

compassionately address victimization issues

without minimizing or justifying sexually 

abusive behaviors (see, e.g., Denov & Cortoni, 

2006; Hislop, 2001; Nathan & Ward, 2001).

Treatment 

Initially, many treatment programs for female 

sex offenders mirrored programs for males 

and, in some instances, female sex offenders 

were placed in treatment groups with males

(Mathews et al., 1989). Over time, however, 

the field began to witness a gradual movement 

away from exclusively male-modeled programs 

(and placement in treatment programs with 

males) in favor of more gender-responsive sex 

offender treatment. And particularly in the past 

few years, the need for such tailoring has been 

emphasized in the literature pertaining to 

sexually abusive women (Denov & Cortoni, 

2006; Hislop, 2001; Hunter & Mathews, 1997; 

Mathews, 1998; Nathan & Ward, 2001) and 

adolescent girls who have committed sex 

offenses (Bumby & Bumby, 2004; Frey, 2006; 

Hunter et al., 2006; Mathews et al., 1997; 

Robinson, 2006). 

These gender-responsive targets and 

considerations – together with the more

“traditional” expectations of sex offender 

treatment, such as accepting responsibility, 

modifying cognitive distortions, enhancing 

empathy, identifying risk factors and triggers, 

and developing effective coping responses – 

are consistent with the overarching goal of 

ensuring that these women and girls are able 

to lead productive, meaningful, and satisfying 

lives without compromising the safety and 

wellness of others (Eldridge & Saradjian, 2000; 

Nathan & Ward, 2001). 

Based on their unique needs and differing

typologies, the following treatment goals are 

particularly salient for female sex offenders:

• Establishing and maintaining trusting, 

supportive, and equitable intimate 

relationships;

• Promoting autonomy and selfsufficiency;

• Developing a positive self-concept; Current programming trends 

• Enhancing assertiveness and social 

competency; In light of advances in the treatment literature 

about female sex offenders, the question

arises as to whether accompanying changes in 

actual practices have followed. Unfortunately, 

recent national data from sex offender 

programs suggest that the way in which 

treatment is designed for sexually abusive 

females and males remains very similar in

• Increasing effective emotional 

management; 

• Reducing self-destructive/self-injurious

behaviors; and 

10
many ways (McGrath et al., 2003). To 

illustrate, reported practices with female and 

male sex offenders – both within adult 

programs and within adolescent programs – 

appear nearly identical in terms of the primary 

theories driving treatment, the core and 

ancillary targets of treatment, and the 

frequency of group, individual, and family

sessions provided per week. 

On a more optimistic note, however, and

consistent with some of the suggestions in the 

literature specific to female sex offenders, a 

few key differences were identified (McGrath et 

al., 2003). Most notably: 

• Treatment programs for adult and 

adolescent females were much less 

likely than programs for males to report 

using arousal control methods; 

• Programs serving women were more 

likely to report addressing sexual 

victimization or trauma, family 

reunification, and intimacy and 

relationship skills; and 

• Treatment programs providing services 

for adolescent females were more likely 

to employ expressive and experiential 

approaches (e.g., art therapies, drama 

therapy), and to address family 

reunification and intimacy and 

relationship issues. 

Although these data are somewhat promising, 

it remains difficult to ascertain the extent to 

which programs are truly responsive to the 

unique needs of adult women and adolescent 

girls. Factors that may shed additional light on 

this issue, such as program integrity variables

(e.g., staff training and supervision, and 

individualized treatment planning) and 

process-related variables (e.g., therapist

gender and style, and program climate) have 

not yet been explored within female sex 

offender treatment. And unfortunately, most 

notably lacking are data about treatment

outcomes for female sex offenders, making it 

impossible at this time to offer any defensible 

inferences about the effectiveness of these 

interventions.

Community Supervision 

As has been noted several times, the research 

and practice literature on assessment and 

treatment for female sex offenders remains in 

its infancy. As such, the field is still awaiting 

the development of specific and evidencebased guidance about how to supervise this 

unique population. Even with male sex 

offenders, professional writings about 

community supervision are comparatively 

lacking, with very few exceptions pertinent to 

adults (CSOM, 2000; Cumming & McGrath, 

2000, 2005; English, Pullen, & Jones, 1996) 

and adolescents (Bumby & Talbot, in press; 

CSOM, 1999, 2007; Hunter, 2006; NAPN, 

1993). 

As a result, supervision officers have been left 

to extrapolate from the approaches used with 

sexually abusive males and the strategies 

emerging for general women offenders. For 

example, given the common dynamics 

involved in the commission of sex offenses, 

experts have suggested that the specialized 

conditions of supervision commonly imposed 

on male sex offenders – such as restricting 

employment or other activities that may 

increase exposure to potential victims,

prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors, 

and limiting access to pornographic or sexually 

exploitive materials – may be equally 

applicable to female sex offenders (Cumming 

& McGrath, 2005). 

The Building Blocks of Gender-Responsive Sex Offender Treatment 

• Recognize the heterogeneity of sexually abusive females; 

• Develop interventions that are based on the unique pathways to female offending; 

• Appreciate the similarities among and differences between male and female sex offenders; 

• Understand the developmental differences between adult and adolescent females who commit sex offenses; 

• Acknowledge the victim-offender duality that exists among many women and girls who sexually abuse;

• Consider the potential impact of the unique sociocultural messages to which women and girls are exposed and which 

can affect their sense of identity; and 

• Honor the role of relationships and family – both within and outside of the therapeutic context. 

11
Research with male offenders in the general 

correctional field reveals consistently that 

recidivism is reduced when supervision 

strategies complement or support rehabilitative 

programs and services (see, e.g., Aos, Phipps, 

Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001). Similar evidence 

exists within the gender-specific criminal

justice literature, with investigators identifying 

better outcomes for female offenders when 

supervision approaches include a human

services component in contrast to an 

exclusively surveillance-oriented or sanctionsdriven approach to supervision (Dowden & 

Andrews, 1999). 

In light of these findings, experts have argued 

for a balanced approach to supervising adult 

and adolescent sex offenders (Bumby &

Talbot, in press; CSOM, 2000; Cumming & 

McGrath, 2005). This balanced supervision 

philosophy recognizes that when offenders – 

whether male or female – are provided 

necessary resources to address their needs, 

they are more likely to be successful and 

stable in the community, and successful, 

stable offenders translates into increased 

community safety. Therefore, establishing 

effective supervision approaches for sexually 

abusive females should also incorporate the 

use of a balanced and rehabilitative-focused 

philosophy, rather than a sole focus on 

surveillance, monitoring, and sanctions.

To maximize the success of female sex

offenders, it is important that supervision 

officers assume a role that extends beyond 

enforcement tasks by also including supportive 

functions. For example, a key responsibility 

should center around understanding the 

specific needs of their clients and ensuring that 

appropriate resources are available to address 

those needs (see, e.g., Berman, 2005). This 

requires the development of formal and 

informal partnerships with a range of relevant 

professionals experienced with providing

specialized services to justice-involved women 

and girls, including the following: 

• Mental health and substance abuse 

treatment providers; 

• Domestic violence and other victim 

services organizations; 

• Healthcare agencies; 

• Educational and employment programs; 

• Child care assistance and other services

for women with children; and 

• Sex offense-specific treatment 

providers. 

With adolescent females who have committed 

sex offenses, additional collaborative partners 

may include school personnel, family 

therapists, and mentors, each of whom can 

play a unique role in the support and 

monitoring of these youth. 

Establishing networks of other key individuals 

in the community who can serve as sources of

support and accountability may also enhance 

supervision efforts with female sex offenders. 

From this perspective, it is particularly critical 

to work closely with non-offending partners, 

parents or caregivers, or other family members 

to ensure that they understand the ways in 

which they can support supervision and 

treatment efforts. Fostering these types of 

relationships will also complement the 

approach that should be modeled by 

supervision officers – one in which 

accountability and support are carefully 

blended. 

Taken together, these and other philosophies

and practices have begun to shape the ways in 

which female offenders are managed in the 

community and hold promise for ensuring that 

sexually abusive women and girls are 

supervised in a more tailored and genderresponsive manner. Indeed, in some 

jurisdictions, supervision agencies have

invested in gender-specific caseloads or, at the 

very least, specialized training for officers 

about the unique risk factors and needs of 

women and girls (see, e.g., Berman, 2005). 

These promising approaches to supervision 

are relatively new within the general criminal 

and juvenile justice fields, and newer still as 

applied specifically to female sex offenders. 

As is the case with the attempts to develop 

gender-responsive assessment and treatment 

practices with sexually abusive females, the 

ultimate value and impact of specific 

community supervision strategies with this 

population will only be determined through 

additional research. 

12
Conclusion 

The effective management of sex offenders 

has been a longstanding focus within the

criminal and juvenile justice systems, yet the 

overwhelming majority of the policies, 

research, and resources have been directed 

toward males who commit these crimes. Until 

recently, females who perpetrate sex offenses

have been largely overlooked for a host of 

reasons. As a result, comparatively little is 

known about sexually abusive females, and 

the strategies for assessing, treating, and 

supervising this population remain in the early 

stages of development. Without question, 

additional research is needed. In the 

meantime, the application of gender-specific 

principles and practices with women offenders 

and delinquent girls – when coupled with 

lessons learned from the broader sex offender 

management field – holds promise for 

management of this special population. 

Acknowledgements 

Rachelle Giguere and Dr. Kurt Bumby of the 

Center for Sex Offender Management coauthored this policy and practice brief. CSOM 

extends special thanks and recognition to Dr. 

Judy Berman for her considerable 

developmental efforts on an earlier draft of this 

document, and to Dr. John Hunter of the 

University of Virginia, Dr. Judy Johnson of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and Dr. 

Ruth Mathews of St. Mary’s University of 

Minnesota for their thoughtful review of this 

material. 

Contact 

Center for Sex Offender Management 

8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Phone: (301) 589-9383 

Fax: (301) 589-3505 

E-mail: askcsom@csom.org 

Internet: www.csom.org 

References 

Allen, C. (1991). Women and men who 

sexually abuse children: A comparative 

analysis. Brandon, VT: The Safer Society 

Press.

Anderson, P., & Struckman-Johnson, C. (Eds.)

(1998). Sexually aggressive women: Current 

perspectives and controversies. New York, 

NY: The Guilford Press.

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The Level 

of Service Inventory-Revised. Toronto: MultiHealth Systems.

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. 

(2001). The comparative costs and benefits of 

programs to reduce crime. Document No. 01-

05-1201. Olympia, WA: Washington State 

Institute for Public Policy. 

Becker, J., Hall, S., & Stinson, J. (2001). 

Female sexual offenders: Clinical, legal and 

policy issues. Journal of Forensic Psychology 

Practice, 1, 29-50. 

Berman, J. (2005). Women offender transition 

and reentry: Gender responsive approaches 

to transitioning women offenders from prison to 

the community. Washington, D.C.: National 

Institute of Corrections. 

Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The 

assessment and treatment of women 

offenders: an integrated perspective. 

Chichester, West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & 

Sons. 

Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). 

Gender-responsive strategies: Research, 

practice, and guiding principles for women 

offenders. Washington, D.C.: National 

Institute of Corrections. 

Bumby, K. M., & Bumby, N. H. (1997). 

Adolescent female sexual offenders. In B. 

Schwartz and H. Cellini (Eds.), The sex 

offender: New insights, treatment innovations 

and legal developments, volume II (pp. 10-1 – 

10-16). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research 

Institute. 

Bumby, N. H., & Bumby, K. M. (2004). 

Bridging the gender gap: Addressing juvenile 

females who commit sexual offences. In G. 

O’Reilly, W. L. Marshall, A. Carr, & R. C. 

Beckett (Eds.), The handbook of clinical

intervention with young people who sexually

abuse (pp. 369–381). New York, NY: 

Brunner-Routledge. 

13
Bumby, K. M., & Talbot, T. B. (in press). 

Treating juveniles who commit sex offenses: 

Historical approaches, contemporary practices, 

and future directions. In M. Calder (Ed.) 

Working with children and young people who 

sexually abuse: Taking the field forward. 

Lyme Regis, UK: Russell House. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Crime 

and victim statistics (Web site). 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm, 

accessed March 29, 2007. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. (1999). 

Understanding juvenile sexual offending

behavior: Emerging research, treatment 

approaches, and management practices. 

Silver Spring, MD: Author. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2000). 

Community supervision of the sex offender: 

An overview of current and promising 

practices. Silver Spring, MD: Author. 

Center for Sex Offender Management. (2007). 

The effective management of juvenile sex 

offenders in the community (Web site). 

http://www.csom.org/train/juvenile/index.html, 

accessed March 29, 2007. Silver Spring, MD: 

Author. 

Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004). 

Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice (3rd

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. 

Cumming, G. F., & McGrath, R. J. (2000). 

External supervision: How can it increase the 

effectiveness of relapse prevention? In D. R. 

Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. Ward (Eds.), 

Remaking relapse prevention with sex 

offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 236-253). 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Cumming, G. F., & McGrath, R. J. (2005). 

Supervision of the sex offender: Community 

management, risk assessment, and treatment. 

Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.

Davin, P., Hislop, J., & Dunbar, T. (1999). 

Female sexual abusers: Three views. 

Brandon, VT: The Safer Society Press.

Denov, M. (2004). Perspectives on female sex 

offending: A culture of denial. Hampshire, 

England: Ashgate Publishing. 

Denov, M., & Cortoni, F. (2006). Women who 

sexually abuse children. In C. Hilarski & J.S. 

Wodarski (Eds.), Comprehensive mental

health practice with sex offenders and their 

families (pp. 71-99). Binghamton, NY: The 

Haworth Press. 

Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. (1999). What 

works for female offenders: A meta-analytic 

review. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 438-452. 

Eldridge, H., & Saradjian, J. (2000). Replacing 

the function of abusive behaviors for the 

offender: Remaking relapse prevention in 

working with women who sexually abuse

children. In D. R. Laws, S. M. Hudson, & T. 

Ward (Eds.), Remaking relapse prevention 

with sex offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 402-

426). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1996). 

Managing adult sex offenders: A containment 

approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation 

and Parole Association. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Crime 

in the United States, 2005: Uniform Crime 

Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Frey, L.L. (2006). Girls don’t do that, do they? 

Adolescent females who sexually abuse. In R. 

E. Longo & D. S. Prescott (Eds.), Current 

perspectives: Working with sexually

aggressive youth and youth with sexual 

behavior problems (pp. 255-272). Holyoke, 

MA: NEARI Press.

Glaze, L., & Bonczar, T. (2006). Probation and 

parole in the United States, 2005. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

Grayston, A. D., & De Luca, R. V. (1999). 

Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: A 

review of the clinical and empirical literature. 

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 93-106. 

Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). 

Predicting relapse: A meta–analysis of sexual 

offender recidivism studies. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–

362. 

14
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). 

Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated 

meta-analysis. User Report 2004-02. Ottawa: 

Public Works and Government Services

Canada. 

Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A.J. (2005). Prison 

and jail inmates at midyear 2004. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Hislop, J. (2001). Female sex offenders: 

What therapists, law enforcement and child 

protective services need to know. 

Ravensdale, WA: Issues Press/Idyll Arbor. 

Hoge, R. D., Andrews, D. A., & Lescheid, A.W. 

(2002). The Youth Level of Service/Case 

Management Inventory. Toronto, Canada: 

Multi-Health Systems. 

Hollin, C. R., & Palmer, E. J. (2006). 

Criminogenic need and women offenders: A 

critique of the literature. Legal and 

Criminological Psychology, 11, 179-195.

Hunter, J. A. (2006). Understanding diversity 

in juvenile sexual offenders: Implications for 

assessment, treatment, and legal 

management. In R. E. Longo & D. S. Prescott 

(Eds.), Current perspectives: Working with 

sexually aggressive youth and youth with

sexual behavior problems (pp. 63–77). 

Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press.

Hunter, J. A., Becker, J. V., & Lexier, L. J.

(2006). The female juvenile sex offender. In 

H. E. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The 

juvenile sex offender (2nd ed.) (pp. 148–165). 

New York: Guilford Press. 

Hunter, J., & Mathews, R. (1997). Sexual 

deviance in females. In Laws & O'Donohue 

(Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, 

and treatment (pp. 465-480). New York: 

Guilford Press. 

Johansson-Love, J., & Fremouw, W. (2006). A 

critique of the female sexual perpetrator

research. Aggression and Violent Behavior,

11, 12-26. 

Kubik, E., Hecker, J., & Righthand, S. (2002). 

Adolescent females who have sexually 

offended: Comparisons with delinquent 

adolescent female offenders and adolescent 

males who sexually offend. Journal of Child 

Sexual Abuse, 11, 63-83.

Mathews, R., Hunter, J. A., & Vuz, J. (1997). 

Juvenile female sexual offenders: Clinical 

characteristics and treatment issues. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 

9, 187-199. 

Mathews, R., Matthews, J., & Speltz, K. 

(1989). Female sexual offenders: An 

exploratory study. Brandon, VT: The Safer 

Society Press. 

Matthews, J. (1998). An 11-year perspective 

of working with female sexual offenders. In W. 

L. Marshall, T. Ward, & S. M. Hudson (Eds.), 

Sourcebook of treatment programs for sexual 

offenders (pp. 259-272). New York, NY: 

Plenum Press. 

McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., & Burchard, 

B. L. (2003). Current practices and trends in 

sexual abuser management: The Safer 

Society 2002 nationwide survey. Brandon, VT: 

Safer Society.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, 

P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial 

behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency, 

and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal 

Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press.

Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2001). Females who 

sexually abuse children: Assessment and 

treatment issues. Psychiatry, Psychology, and 

Law, 8, 44-55. 

Nathan, P., & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex 

offenders: Clinical and demographic features. 

The Journal of Sexual Aggression, 8, 5-21. 

National Adolescent Perpetrator Network. 

(1993). The revised report from the National 

Task Force on Juvenile Sexual Offending. 

Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 44, 1–120. 

15
Center for Effective Public Policy © 2007

16

This project was supported by Grant Nos. 2005-WP-BX-K179 and 2006-WP-BX-K004 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points 

of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States 

Department of Justice. 

Robinson, S. (2006). Adolescent females with 

sexual behavioral problems: What constitutes 

best practice? In R. E. Longo & D. S. Prescott 

(Eds.), Current perspectives: Working with 

sexually aggressive youth and youth with 

sexual behavior problems (pp. 273-324). 

Holyoke, MA: NEARI Press. 

Schmidt, F. Hoge, R. D. & Gomes, L. (2005). 

Reliability and validity analysis of the Youth 

Level of Services/Case Management 

Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 

329-344. 

Schwartz, B., & Cellini, H. (1995). Female sex 

offenders. In B. Schwartz & H. Cellini (Eds.), 

The sex offender: Corrections, treatment and 

legal practice (pp. 5-1 – 5-22). Kingston, NJ: 

Civic Research Institute. 

Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile 

offenders and victims: 2006 national report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Vandiver, D. (2006). Female sex offenders: A 

comparison of solo offenders and cooffenders. Violence and Victims, 21, 339-354. 

Vandiver, D., & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender 

and victim characteristics of registered female 

sexual offenders in Texas: A proposed 

typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 

16, 121-137. 

Van Voorhis, P., & Presser, L. (2001). 

Classification of women offenders: A national 

assessment of current practices. Washington, 

D.C.: National Institute of Corrections. 

Worling, J. R., & Langstrom, N. (2006). Risk of 

sexual recidivism in adolescents who offend 

sexually: Correlates and assessment. In H. E. 

Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The juvenile 

sex offender (2nd ed., pp. 219–247). New 

York: Guilford Press.