The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders remains controversial, even though it is widely agreed that certain forms of human service interventions reduce the recidivism rates of general offenders. The current review examined whether the principles associated with effective treatments for general offenders (risk-need-responsivity; RNR) also apply to sexual offender treatment. Based on a meta-analysis of 23 recidivism outcome studies meeting basic criteria for study quality, the unweighted sexual and general recidivism rates for the treated sexual offenders were lower than the rates observed for the comparison groups (10.9%, n = 3,121 vs. 19.2%, n = 3,625 for sexual recidivism; 31.8%, n = 1,979 vs. 48.3%, n = 2,822 for any recidivism). Programs that adhered to the RNR principles showed the largest reductions in sexual and general recidivism. Given the consistency of the current findings with the general offender rehabilitation literature, the authors believe that the RNR principles should be a major consideration in the design and implementation of treatment programs for sexual offenders.
Abracen, J., Looman, J., & Nicholaichuk, T.P. (1999). Recidivism among treated sexual offenders and matched comparison subjects: Data from the Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario) post-1989 sample. Unpublished manuscript.
2.
Andrews, D.A. ( 1980). Some experimental investigations of the principles of differential association through deliberate manipulations of the structure of service systems. American Sociological Review, 45, 448-462.
3.
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. ( 2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis /Anderson.
Andrews, D.A., & Dowden, C. ( 2006). Risk principle of case classification in correctional treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50, 88-100.
6.
Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. ( 1999). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime: A review of national research findings with implications for Washington State (Document No. 99-05-1202). Olympia : Washington State Institute for Public Policy .
7.
*Bakker, L., Hudson, S., Wales, D., & Riley, D. ( 1998). And there was light: Evaluating the Kia Marama treatment programme for New Zealand sex offenders against children. Christchurch: New Zealand Department of Corrections .
8.
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. ( 2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-06). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada .
9.
*Borduin, C.M., Henggeler, S.W., Blaske, D.M., & Stein, R.J. ( 1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders . International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105-113.
10.
*Borduin, C.M., Schaeffer, C.M., & Heiblum, N. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 26-37.
Bourgon, G., & Armstrong, B. ( 2005). Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a "real world" prison setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 32, 3-25.
13.
Campbell, M.A., French, S., & Gendreau, P. ( 2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 567-590.
14.
Carpentier, M.Y., Silovsky, J.F., & Chaffin, M. ( 2006). Randomized trial of treatment for children with sexual behavior problems: Ten-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 482-488.
15.
Collaborative Outcome Data Committee. (2007 a). The Collaborative Outcome Data Committee’s guidelines for the evaluation of sexual offender treatment outcome research Part 2: CODC guidelines (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-03). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
16.
Collaborative Outcome Data Committee. (2007 b). Sexual offender treatment outcome research: CODC guidelines for evaluation Part 1: Introduction and overview (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-02). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
17.
*Cooper, H.M. ( 2000). Long-term follow-up of a community-based treatment program for adolescent sex offenders. Masters Abstracts International , 45 (03). (UMI No. MR21542)
18.
Craissati, J., & Beech, A.R. ( 2005). Risk prediction and failure in a complete urban sample of sex offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology , 16, 24-40.
19.
*Davidson, P.R. ( 1984, March). Behavioral treatment for incarcerated sex offenders: Post-release outcome. Paper presented at a conference on sex offender assessment and treatment, Kingston, Ontario , Canada.
20.
Fleiss, J.L. ( 1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 245-260). New York: Russell Sage.
21.
French, S.A., & Gendreau, P. ( 2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 185-218.
22.
*Friendship, C., Mann, R.E., & Beech, A.R. ( 2003). Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment program for sexual offenders in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 744-759.
23.
Furby, L., Weinrott, M.R., & Blackshaw, L. ( 1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 3-30.
24.
Gallagher, C.A., Wilson, D.B., Hirschfield, P., Coggeshall, M.B., & MacKenzie, D.L. (1999). A quantitative review of the effects of sex offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 19-29.
25.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. ( 1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607.
26.
Gottfredson, D.E., Najaka, S.S., Kearley, B.W., & Rocha, C.M. ( 2006). Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore city drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 67-98.
27.
Gutierrez, L. ( 2008). A meta-analysis of drug treatment court literature: Assessing study and treatment quality. Unpublished undergraduate’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario , Canada.
28.
Hall, G.C.N. ( 1995). Sexual offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809.
29.
*Hanson, R.K., Broom, I., & Stephenson, M. (2004). Evaluating community sex offender treatment programs: A 12-year follow-up of 724 offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 87-96.
30.
Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R., Marques, J.K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V.L., et al. (2002). First report of the Collaborative Outcome Data Project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment of sex offenders . Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.
31.
Hanson, R.K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis (Corrections Research User Report No. 2004-02). Ottawa, Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
32.
Hanson, R.K., & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.
33.
*Hanson, R.K., Steffy, R.A., & Gauthier, R. ( 1993). Long-term recidivism of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 646-652.
34.
*Harkins, L. ( 2004). Recidivism and within-treatment change among treated sex offenders and matched comparison subjects. Masters Abstracts International, 43 (03), 993. (UMI No. MQ95168)
35.
Harris, A., Phenix, A., Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. ( 2003). Static-99 coding rules: Revised 2003. Ottawa: Solicitor General Canada.
36.
Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Quinsey, V.L. ( 1998). Appraisal and management of risk in sexual aggression: Implications for criminal justice policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 73-115.
37.
Hedges, L.V. ( 1994). Fixed effect models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 285-299). New York: Russell Sage.
38.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. ( 1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
39.
Hedges, L.V., & Vevea, J.L. ( 1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis . Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504.
40.
Helmus, L. ( 2008). Structured guidelines for evaluating study quality . In G. Bourgon, R. K. Hanson, J. D. Pozzulo, K. E. Morton Bourgon, & C. L. Tanasichuk (Eds.), The Proceedings of the 2007 North American Correctional & Criminal Justice Psychology Conference (pp. 45-49). Ottawa , Ontario: Public Safety Canada.
41.
Helmus, L., Hanson, R.K., & Thornton, D. ( 2009). Reporting Static-99 in light of new research on recidivism norms. The Forum, 21(1), 38-45.
42.
Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., & Egger, M. ( 1999). The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association , 282, 1054-1060.
43.
Kenworthy, T., Adams, C.E., Brooks-Gordon, B., & Fenton, M. ( 2004). Psychological interventions for those who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending (CD004858; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
44.
Kraemer, H.C., Kazdin, A.E., Offord, D.R., Kessler, R.C., Jensen, P.S., & Kupler, D.J. ( 1997). Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General Psychiatry, 54, 337-343.
45.
Kunz, R., & Oxman, A. ( 1998). The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 317, 1185-1190.
46.
Landenberger, N.A., & Lipsey, M.W. ( 2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment . Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451-476.
47.
Langton, C.M. ( 2003). Contrasting approaches to risk assessment with adult male sexual offenders: An evaluation of recidivism prediction schemes and the utility of supplementary clinical information for enhancing predictive accuracy. Dissertations Abstracts International, 64, 1907B. (UMI No. NQ78052)
48.
Letourneau, E.J., Henggeler, S.W., Borduin, C.M., Schewe, P.A., McCart, M.R., Chapman, J.E., et al. (2009). Multisystemic therapy for juvenile sexual offenders: 1-year results from a randomized effectiveness trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 89-102.
49.
Lipsey, M.W. ( 1998). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann , L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York: Russell Sage.
50.
Lipsey, M.W., & Cullen, F.T. ( 2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science , 3, 297-320.
51.
Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. ( 2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology , 1, 117-146.
52.
Lowenkamp, C.T., Latessa, E.J., & Smith, P. ( 2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
53.
*Malcolm, P.B., Marshall, L., & Marshall, W.L. (2004). Outcome of a motivational preparatory program for sexual offenders: A comparison with a matched control . Unpublished manuscript.
54.
Mander, A.M., Atrops, M.E., Barnes, A.R., & Munafo, R. ( 1996). Sex offender treatment program: Initial recidivism study . Anchorage: Offender Program, Alaska Department of Corrections and Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Unit, Justice Center, University of Alaska, Anchorage.
55.
Marlowe, D.B., Festinger, D.S., Lee, P.A., Dugosh, K.L., & Benasutti, K.M. (2006). Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime & Delinquency , 52, 52-76.
56.
*Marques, J.K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D.M., Nelson, C., & van Ommeren, A. (2005). Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 79-107.
57.
Marshall, L.E., & Marshall, W.L. (2007). The utility of the random controlled trial for evaluating sexual offender treatment: The gold standard or an inappropriate strategy? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 175-191.
58.
*Marshall, L.E., Marshall, W.L., Fernandez, Y.M., Malcolm, P.B., & Moulden, H.M. ( 2008). The Rockwood Preparatory Program for sexual offenders: Description and preliminary appraisal. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 25-42.
59.
*Marshall, W.L., Eccles, A., & Barbaree, H.E. (1991). The treatment of exhibitionists: A focus on sexual deviance versus cognitive and relationship features. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29, 129-135.
60.
*Martin, I. ( 1998). Efficacité d’un programme cognitif-behavioural institutionnel pour délinquants sexuels [Effectiveness of an institutional cognitive-behavioural program for sexual offenders]. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (01), 518B. (UMI No. NQ43732)
61.
Martinson, R. ( 1974). What works?-Questions and answers about prison reform . The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
62.
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 Press .
63.
*McGrath, R.J., Hoke, S.E., & Vojtisek, J.E. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 25, 203-225.
64.
*Meyer, L.C., & Romero, J. ( 1980). A ten-year follow-up of sex offender recidivism . Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.
65.
Moher, D., Jadad, A.R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., & Walsh, S. ( 1995). Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Controlled Clinical Trials, 16, 62-73.
66.
*Nathan, L., Wilson, N.J., & Hillman, D. ( 2003). Te Whakakotahitanga: An evaluation of the Te Piriti Special Treatment Programme for child sex offenders in New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Corrections .
67.
National Committee on Sex Offender Strategy. ( 1996). Standards and guidelines for the provision of services to sex offenders. Retrieved November 26, 2008, from http://198.103.98.138/text/pblct/so/standards/stande-eng.shtml
68.
Olver, M.E., Wong, S.C.P., Nicholaichuk, T., & Gordon, A. ( 2007). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Sexual Offender Version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change . Psychological Assessment, 19, 318-329.
69.
Overton, R.C. ( 1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3, 354-379.
70.
*Proctor, E. ( 1996). A five-year outcome evaluation of a community-based treatment program for convicted sexual offenders run by the probation service . Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2, 3-16.
71.
Quinsey, V.L., Khanna, A., & Malcolm, P.B. ( 1998). A retrospective evaluation of the Regional Treatment Centre sex offender treatment program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 621-644.
72.
Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. ( 2003). The size and sign of treatment effects in sex offender therapy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 989, 428-440.
73.
*Robinson, D. ( 1995). The impact of cognitive skills training on post-release recidivism among Canadian federal offenders (User Report R-41). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
74.
Rosenthal, R. ( 1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results . Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
75.
*Ruddijs, F., & Timmerman, H. ( 2000). The Stichting Ambulante Preventie ProjectenMethod: A comparative study of recidivism in first offenders in a Dutch outpatient setting . International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 725-739.
76.
Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2008). Does sexual offender treatment work? A systematic review of outcome evaluations. Psicotherma , 20, 10-19.
77.
Seto, M.C., Marques, J.K., Harris, G.T., Chaffin, M., Lalumière, M.L., Miner, M.H., et al. (2008). Good science and progress in sex offender treatment are intertwined: A response to Marshall and Marshall (2007). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 247-255.
78.
Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., Mackenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. ( 1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. A report to the United States Congress. College Park: University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
79.
Simpson, K., Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Yessine, A., Helmus, L., et al. (2008, June). What we know and where we need to go for effective community supervision. In G. Bourgon, L. Gutierrez, T. Rugge, & K. Simpson (Chairs), From "what works" to "making it work": The strategic training initiative in community supervision (STICS) project. Symposium conducted at the 69th Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
80.
*Taylor, R. ( 2000). A seven-year reconviction study of HMP Grendon therapeutic community. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate Research Findings, 115, 1-4.
81.
*Ternowski, D.R. ( 2004). Sex offender treatment: An evaluation of the Stave Lake Correctional Centre Program. Dissertation Abstracts International , 66 (06), 3428B. (UMI No. NR03201)
82.
Whitehead, A. ( 2002). Meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons .
83.
Wilson, D.B., Bouffard, L.A., & Mackenzie, D.L. (2005). A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders . Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 172-204.
84.
*Wilson, R.J., Picheca, J.E., & Prinzo, M. ( 2005). Circles of Support & Accountability: An evaluation of the pilot project in south-central Ontario (User Report R-168). Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
85.
*Worling, J.R., & Curwen, T. ( 2000). Adolescent sexual offender recidivism: Success of specialized treatment and implications for risk prediction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 965-982.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
