Systematic reviews of offenders’ as well as non-offenders’ engagement research revealed inadequate and inconsistent definitions and assessments of engagement and an absence of theory. Furthermore there is no research on facilitators’ engagement in offending behaviour programmes. A constructivist grounded theory methodology was employed to develop a theory of engagement in group offending behaviour programs that accounts for facilitators’ engagement as well as that of offenders’. Interviews and observations of sessions were used to collect data from 23 program facilitators and 28 offenders (group members). Group members’ engagement was a process of ‘moving on’, represented by a number of conceptual categories including early ambivalence, negotiating the group, and acknowledging and accepting. Facilitators’ engagement was a process of building engagement, by personalizing treatment frameworks using ‘the hook’, a cornerstone of treatment similar to the therapeutic or working alliance. It also involved disarming group members and dealing with initial resistance, and establishing roles and positions in the treatment framework. There were a number of barriers to both group members’ and facilitators’ engagement identified that were rooted in programme and referral factors. The TEGOBP provides four distinct developments in engagement research as well as a number of important implications for research and practice that are discussed.

Yes / In the past ten years or so there has been a growing concern that the treatment needs of Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) sex offenders in prison are not being appropriately met. Underpinning this concern is the continued under representation of BME sex offenders on the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). Although some research has been undertaken into how BME prisoners experience the SOTP and in to its ostensible effectiveness with BME sex offenders, little is known about why the take-up of the SOTP is poor with this group. In this paper we first consider some specific demographic issues that need to be understood in order to reflect more widely on the BME sex offender in prison. We then summarise what is currently known about effective practice with this group, thereafter we consider, in turn, current provision for BME sex offenders in England and Wales and suggestions for developing practice with this group of men. However, before we turn to these issues, it is important to consider briefly issues of terminology. Terminologies in relation to ethnicities and race are fraught with conceptual difficulties. Aspinall has highlighted the limitations of `pan-ethnic¿ groups, such as `BME¿; such groupings are `statistical collectivities¿ and `the groups thus defined will be nothing more than meaningless statistical collectivities that do not represent any of the constituent groups within the term.¿ . However, at the outset of this paper we use the collective term BME - this term is currently used by a number of Government Departments in the UK, including the Prison Service. Later we suggest that a more sophisticated understanding of ethnic cultures may be necessary to develop practice with BME sex offenders.

Yes / This paper addresses the under representation of Black and minority ethnic (BME) sex offenders in the sex offender treatment programme (SOTP) of the prisons of England and Wales. The proportional over representation of BME men in the male sex offender population of the prisons of England and Wales has been noted for at least ten years. Similarly the under representation of BME sex offenders in prison treatment programmes has been a cause for concern during the last decade. This paper presents current demographic data relating to male BME sex offenders in the prisons of England and Wales. The paper draws together a wide range of social and cultural theories to develop a tripartite model for understanding the dynamics underlying the non-participation of BME