Thesis (D.N. Sc.)--Catholic University of America. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-88).

Thesis (M.D)--University of Hong Kong, 1999. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 80-124).

Thesis (M. Soc. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.W.)--Smith College School for Social Work, Northampton, Mass., 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 120-124).

Thesis (D.N. Sc.)--Catholic University of America. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-88).

Thesis (M.A.)--Villanova University, 2010. / Sociology Dept. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Illinois State University, 1998. / Title from title page screen, viewed July 13, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Connie B. Horton (chair), Raymond Bergner, Daniel Graybill, Jeff Laurent, Susan L. Smith. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 72-80) and abstract. Also available in print.

The aim of this research is to examine attachment in offenders with mild intellectual disability. Insecure attachment is evidenced as a developmental risk factor with regard to antisociality, in the mainstream population. However there is a dearth of evidence with regard to attachment and the development of antisociality in offenders with intellectual disability (ID). Differences in lifespan development and cognitive limitations may affect the development of attachment bonds in this group. This research explores attachment (measured retrospectively in childhood), relationships to perceived parenting, emotion and personality pathology in offenders with ID. Adaptation of an existing self report measure (Relationship Questionnaire) (RQ) resulted in the development of the ‘Adapted Relationship Questionnaire’ (ARQ). To test construct validity and reliability the ARQ and the RQ were administered to 60 university student participants. Participants rated each questionnaire with regard to retrospective childhood attachment, 41 additional participants filled in the ARQ only. No significant differences were found between categorical attachment ratings of attachment on the RQ and ARQ. A test of construct validity showed convergence between the ‘Fearful Avoidant’ and ‘Preoccupied’ attachment styles. Principal Components Analysis (Direct Oblimin) resulted in a three factor solution for the ARQ of ‘Secure’, ‘Anxious Avoidant and ‘Dismissing Avoidant’ attachment styles which showed Cronbach’s Alpha ratings of .69, .87 and .84 respectively. A control group (n25) of participants with mild ID, who had no offending history, and a group of offenders with ID (n38) completed the ARQ. Background, forensic and childhood adversity information was gathered from file review for offenders. The Parental Bonding Inventory (PBI) was completed by offenders with mild ID and the Emotional Problem Solving (EPS) scale and Interpersonal Adjectives Scale (IAS) was completed by clinical staff involved in the support of the participant. Borderline and Antisocial Personality Disorder was assessed by consensus rating from file review, clinicians ratings, observational ratings of staff and staff interview using the Structured Assessment of Personality (SAP). Consensus agreement was attained from three sources of the assessment sources before the particular PD trait was rated positively. Assessment of emotion in controls was carried out using the Dundee Provocation Inventory (DPI) and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). Results show no significant differences in attachment style relative to gender or comparison between offender and controls of non offenders with ID or offenders compared to mainstream student participants. No significant relationships were found between attachment style and childhood adversity. Orderly relationships were found within the 'Secure' attachment style with positively relationships to 'Optimal Parental Care', ratings of 'Self Esteem' and level of submissiveness and compliance within interpersonal styles. The insecure 'Anxious Avoidant' attachment style related positively to the low care/high protection parenting style with negative relationships to dimensional ratings of care within the parental relationship and submissiveness and compliance within ratings of interpersonal style. The insecure 'Dismissing Avoidant' attachment style in offenders with ID showed a negative relationship to optimal parenting and a positive relationship to a verbally aggressive, coercive interpersonal style and also antisocial personality disorder. Only two participants were allocated a diagnosis of Borderline personality disorder which did not facilitate quantitative statistical analysis of this group. Within the control group 'Secure' attachment style appeared to be a protective factor to emotional difficulties, and was positively related to the perception of optimal parenting and care received in childhood but not parental protection. The insecure 'Anxious Avoidant' attachment style appeared to act as a risk factor to the development of emotional difficulties. No significant relationships were found between the 'Dismissing Avoidant' style and emotional problems.

Mentoring has become increasingly popular in recent years in the criminal justice system, and has been recommended by the Scottish Government as a service that can address the specific ‘needs’ of women who offend. Despite the popularity of mentoring, there has been limited evidence to suggest that it reduces reoffending of women, or facilitates significant changes in their lives. In addition, there has been a lack of clarity around the definition of mentoring, including role definition, the extent of intensive support offered and the key aims of the service. This thesis (in collaboration with Sacro and the University of Stirling), explores the experiences of women who have accessed the Sacro Women’s Mentoring Service and accounts from mentors and staff to establish what the key aims and processes of mentoring are, alongside a critique of whether this offers an approach that can address key issues related to the marginalisation of these women. Findings from the data revealed that mentoring consisted of practical support, helping women to respond to difficulties related to poverty and their disadvantaged circumstances generally. The most common outcomes for women were: engagement with agencies; increases in confidence and self-esteem and improvements in emotional well-being. The rhetoric of mentoring offered by mentors and staff suggested that mentoring was based on an individualistic approach that contained responsibilising strategies, aimed at helping women to make improved choices and become responsible citizens. In practice, however, mentors were helping women to resolve issues related to the welfare system and other services outwith the criminal justice system. Many mentors and staff viewed mentoring as role modelling, however, women who accessed the service were more likely to view their mentor as a friend and ‘someone to talk to’ suggesting that the relationship was not an opportunity for women to model the behaviours of their mentor, but as emotional support and a release from their social isolation. This disconnect was also reflected in ‘imaginary penalities’ which were observed, such as staff completing paperwork they did not view as relevant to the service they delivered or staff being sent on training that they could not apply to the work they delivered on a day to day basis. This may be a result of the increasing marketisation of mentoring within the criminal justice system. Those services labelled as ‘mentoring’ may be more likely to gain funding as it is a service that is currently favoured by statutory funders in Scotland. If positive outcomes of mentoring are viewed by policy makers to be the result of an individualistic approach, and not mentors addressing problems outwith the criminal justice system, as best as they can, then this takes responsibility away from the state to make changes to policy. It also places unrealistic expectations on mentors to make significant changes to the lives of women in an environment of continuing funding cuts to welfare and services.