Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 597–630 | Cite as

The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations

  • Martin SchmuckerEmail author
  • Friedrich Lösel
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Sound evaluations of sexual offender treatment are essential for an evidence-based crime policy. However, previous reviews substantially varied in their mean effects and were often based on methodologically weak primary studies. Therefore, the present study contains an update of our meta-analysis in the first issue of this journal (Lösel and Schmucker Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146, 2005). It includes more recent primary research and is restricted to comparisons with equivalent treatment and control groups and official measures of recidivism as outcome criteria.

Methods

Applying a detailed search procedure which yielded more than 3000 published and unpublished documents, we identified 29 eligible comparisons containing a total of 4,939 treated and 5,448 untreated sexual offenders. The study effects were integrated using a random effects model and further analyzed with regard to treatment, offender, and methodological characteristics to identify moderator variables.

Results

All eligible comparisons evaluated psychosocial treatment (mainly cognitive behavioral programs). None of the comparisons evaluating organic treatments fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean effect size for sexual recidivism was smaller than in our previous meta-analysis but still statistically significant (OR = 1.41, p < .01). This equates to a difference in recidivism of 3.6 percentage points (10.1 % in treated vs. 13.7 % in untreated offenders) and a relative reduction in recidivism of 26.3 %. The significant overall effect was robust against outliers, but contained much heterogeneity. Methodological quality did not significantly influence effect sizes, but there were only a few randomized designs present. Cognitive-behavioral and multi-systemic treatment as well as studies with small samples, medium- to high-risk offenders, more individualized treatment, and good descriptive validity revealed better effects. In contrast to treatment in the community, treatment in prisons did not reveal a significant mean effect, but there were some prison studies with rather positive outcomes.

Conclusions

Although our findings are promising, the evidence basis for sex offender treatment is not yet satisfactory. More randomized trials and high-quality quasi-experiments are needed, particularly outside North America. In addition, there is a clear need of more differentiated process and outcome evaluations that address the questions of what works with whom, in what contexts, under what conditions, with regard to what outcomes, and also why.

Keywords

Evaluation Meta-analysis Recidivism Sex offender treatment Treatment efficacy 

References

  1. Abracen, J., Looman, J., Ferguson, M., Harkins, L., & Mailloux, D. (2011). Recidivism among treated sexual offenders and comparison subjects: recent outcome data from the Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario) high-intensity Sex Offender Treatment Programme. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17, 142–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th ed. Cincinatti: Anderson.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 735–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbaree, H. E. (1997). Evaluating treatment efficacy with sexual offenders: the insensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effects. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 9, 111–128.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corabian, P., Dennett, L., & Harstall, C. (2011). Treatment for convicted adult male sex offenders: an overview of systematic reviews. Sexual Offender Treatment, 6 (1), online journal.Google Scholar
  7. Curtis, N. M., Ronan, K. R., & Borduin, C. M. (2004). Multisystemic treatment: a meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doren, D. M. (2004). Stability of the interpretative risk percentages for the RRASOR and static-99. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 25–36.Google Scholar
  9. Drake, C. R., & Ward, T. (2003). Practical and theoretical rules for the formulation based treatment of sexual offenders. International Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1, 71–84.Google Scholar
  10. Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: can both be reduced? Criminology and Public Policy, 10, 13–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eisner, M. (2009). No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrington, D. P. (2006). Methodological quality and the evaluation of anticrime programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 329–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrington, D. P., Gottfredson, D. C., Sherman, L. W., & Welsh, B. C. (2002). The Maryland scientific methods scale. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidencebased crime prevention (pp. 13–21). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fleiss, J. L. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In L. V. Hedges (Ed.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 245–260). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  15. Freeman, N. J., & Sandler, J. C. (2008). Female and male sex offenders: a comparison of recidivism patterns and risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1394–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effects of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gill, C. E. (2011). Missing links: how descriptive validity impacts the policy relevance of randomized controlled trials in criminology. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 201–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grady, M. D., Edwards, D., Pettus-Davis, C., & Abramson, J. (2013). Does volunteering for sex offender treatment matter? Using propensity score analysis to understand the effects of volunteerism and treatment on tecidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenberg, D., Bradford, J., Firestone, P., & Curry, S. (2000). Recidivism of child molesters: a study of victim relationship with the perpetrator. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1485–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hanson, R. K. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial scale for sexual offense recidivism. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services of Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W. D., Quinsey, V. L., & Seto, M. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169–194.Google Scholar
  24. Hanson, K., Burgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: a meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 865–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harkins, L., & Beech, A. R. (2007). A review of the factors that can influence the effectiveness of sexual offender treatment: risk, need, responsivity, and process issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 616–627.Google Scholar
  26. Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Swenson, C. C., & Borduin, C. M. (2006). Methological critique and meta-analysis as a Trojan horse. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Higgins, J. P. T., Simon, G. T., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ[British Medical Journal], 327(7414), 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hollin, C. R. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. J. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Koehler, J, & Lösel, F. (2015). A differentiated view on the effects of sex offender treatment. British Medical Journal (eLetter), http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h199/rr-0.
  33. Koehler, J. A., Lösel, F., Humphreys, D. K., & Akoensi, T. D. (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of young offender treatment programs in Europe. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Letourneau, E. J., Henggeler, S. W., McCart, M. R., Borduin, C. M., Schewe, P. A., & Armstrong, K. S. (2013). Two-year follow-up of a randomized effectiveness trial evaluating MST for juveniles who sexually offend. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 978–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Littell, J. H., Campbell, M., Green, S., & Toews, B. (2005). Multisystemic Therapy for social, emotional, and behavioral problems in youth aged 10–17. 2005, Issue 4. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4.Google Scholar
  40. Lösel, F. (1998). Treatment and management of psychopaths. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. B. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research and implications for society (pp. 303–354). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lösel, F. (2007). Doing evaluation in criminology: Balancing scientific and practical demands. In R. D. King & E. Wincup (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice (2nd ed., pp. 141–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lösel, F. (2012). Offender treatment and rehabilitation: What works? In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (5th ed., pp. 986–1016). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lösel, F., & Koehler, J. (2014). Can prisons reduce reoffending? A meta-evaluation of custodial and community treatment programs. Presentation at the 14th Conference of the European Society of Criminology, 10–13 September 2014, Prague, CZ.Google Scholar
  44. Lösel, F., & Köferl, P. (1989). Evaluation research on correctional treatment in West Germany: A metaanalysis. In H. Wegener, F. Lösel, & J. Haisch (Eds.), Criminal behavior and the justice system (pp. 334–355). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lösel, F., & Schmucker, M. (2014). Treatment of sex offenders. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 5323–5332). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lösel, F., Pugh, G., Markson, L., Souza, K., & Lanskey, C. (2012). Risk and protective factors in the resettlement of imprisoned fathers with their families. Final research report. Norwich: Ormiston Children and Families Trust.Google Scholar
  48. Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Markson, L., Lösel, F., Souza, K., & Lanskey, C. (2015).Male prisoners’ family relationships and resilience in resettlement. Criminology and Criminal Justice, in press, online; doi: 10.1177/1748895814566287).
  50. Marshall, W. L. (2009). Manualization: a blessing or a curse? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. (2010). The importance of therapeutic processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marshall, W. L., & Marshall, L. E. (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.Google Scholar
  53. Marshall,W.L., & Marshall, L.E. (2010). Can treatment be effective with sexual offenders or does it do harm? A response to Hanson (2010) and Rice (2010). Sexual Offender Treatment, 5 (2), online.Google Scholar
  54. Marshall, W. L., Fernandez, Y. M., Hudson, S. M., & Ward, T. (Eds.). (1998). Sourcebook of treatment programs for sexual offenders. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  55. Marshall, W. L., Serran, G. A., Fernandez, Y. M., Mulloy, R., Mann, R. E., & Thornton, D. (2003). Therapist characteristics in the treatment of sexual offenders: tentative data on their relationship with indices of change. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 9, 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McConaghy, N., Blaszczynski, A., & Kidson, W. (1988). Treatment of sex offenders with imaginal desensitization and/or medroxyprogesterone. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 77, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B. L., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuse management: The safer society 2009 North American survey. Brandon: The Safer Society Press.Google Scholar
  58. Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  59. Ogden, T., Hagen, K., & Andersen, O. (2007). Sustainability of the effectiveness of a programme of Multisystemic Treatment (MST) across participant groups in the second year of operation. Journal of Children’s Services, 2, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Olver, M. E., Nicholaichuk, T. P., Gu, D., & Wong, S. C. P. (2012). Sex offender treatment outcome, actuarial risk, and the aging sex offender in Canadian corrections: a long-term follow-up. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 396–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Orlinsky, D. E., Grawe, K., & Parks, B. K. (1994). Process and outcome in psychotherapy. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 270–376). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  62. Petrosino, A., & Soydan, H. (2005). The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pratt, T. C. (2010). Meta-analysis in criminal justice and criminology:what it is, when it's useful, and what to watch out for. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21, 152–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Prochaska, J. O., & Levesque, D. A. (2002). Enhancing motivation of offenders at each stage of change and phase of therapy. In M. McMurran (Ed.), Motivating offenders to change (pp. 57–73). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2003). The size and signs of treatment effects in sex offender therapy. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (pp. 428–440). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  66. Robertiello, G., & Terry, K. J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 508–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2011). Meta-analysis as a method of systematic reviews. In D. Gadd, S. Karstedt, & S. F. Messner (Eds.), The Sage handbook of criminological research methods (pp. 425–443). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Seligman, M. E., & Levant, R. F. (1998). Managed care policies rely on inadequate science. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(3), 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Seto, M. C., Marques, J. K., Harris, G. T., Chaffin, M., Lalumière, M. L., Miner, M., Berliner, M. H., Rice, M. E., Lieb, R., & Quinsey, V. L. (2008). Good science and progress in sex offender treatment are intertwined. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 247–255.Google Scholar
  70. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  71. Smallbone, S., & McHugh, M. (2010). Outcomes of Queensland corrective services sexual offender treatment programs. Unpublished report. Brisbane: Griffith University.Google Scholar
  72. Smid, W. J., Kamphuis, J. H., Wever, E. C., & Van Beek, D. J. (2014). A quasi-experimental evaluation of high-intensity inpatient sex offender treatment in the Netherlands. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. doi: 10.1177/1079063214535817.Google Scholar
  73. Sundell, K., Hansson, K., Löfholm, C. A., Olsson, T., et al. (2008). The transportability of multisystemic therapy to Sweden: short-term results from a randomized trial of conduct-disordered youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk-paradigm. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  75. Ward, T., Polaschek, D. L. L., & Beech, A. R. (2005). Theories of sexual offending. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ware, J., Mann, R. E., & Wakeling, H. C. (2009). Group versus individual treatment:what is the best modality for treating sexual offenders? Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand, 1, 70–79.Google Scholar
  77. Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson, D. B. (2001). Meta-analytic methods for criminology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Worling, J. R., Litteljohn, A., & Bookalam, D. (2010). 20-year prospective follow-up study of specialized treatment for adolescents who offended sexually. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 46–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Studies included in the meta-analysis (individual comparisons within the same report are documented in brackets)

  1. Bakker, L., Hudson, S. M., Wales, D. S., & Riley, D. (1998). And there was light: Evaluating the Kia marama treatment programme for New Zealand sex offenders against children. Christchurch: Psychological Service, Department of Corrections.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duwe, G., & Goldman, R. A. (2009). The impact of prison-based treatment on sex offender recidivism: evidence from Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 279–307.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Greenberg, D. M., Da Silva, J.-A., & Loh, N. (2002). Evaluation of the Western Australian Sex Offender Treatment Unit (1987–1999): A quantitative analysis. Forensic Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences & Crime Research Centre: University of Western Australia. [Comparisons: (a) = Child molesters, (b) rapists]Google Scholar
  7. Guarino-Ghezzi, S., & Kimball, L. M. (1998). Juvenile sex offenders in treatment. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2, 45–54.Google Scholar
  8. Hanson, R. K., Steffy, R. A., & Gauthier, R. (1992). Long-term follow-up of child molesters: Risk predictors and treatment outcome. User Report No. 1992–02. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.Google Scholar
  9. 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 Sciences, 36, 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lab, S. P., Shields, G., & Schondel, C. (1993). Research note: an evaluation of juvenile sexual offender treatment. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 543–553.Google Scholar
  11. La Macaza Clinic (2002). Criterion 8 - Program Follow-up and ongoing assessment. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. Looman, J., Abracen, J., & Nicholaichuk, T. P. (2000). Recidivism among treated sexual offenders and matched controls: data from the regional treatment centre (Ontario). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marques, J. K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D. M., Nelson, C., & von 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.Google Scholar
  14. Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1988). The long-term evaluation of a behavioral treatment program for child molesters. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 26, 499–511. [Comparisons: (a) = Molesters of nonfamilial female children, (b) = Molesters of nonfamilial male children].Google Scholar
  15. 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, 26, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGrath, R. J., Hoke, S. E., & Vojtisek, J. E. (1998). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of sex offenders. A treatment comparison and long-term follow-up study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nicholaichuk, T. P. (1996). Sex offender treatment priority: an illustration of the risk/need principle. Forum on Corrections Research, 8, 38–41.Google Scholar
  18. Ortmann, R. (2002). Sozialtherapie im Strafvollzug: Eine experimentelle Längsschnittstudie zu den Wirkungen von Strafvollzugsmaßnahmen auf Legal- und Sozialbewährung. [Social therapy in prisons: An experimental longitudinal study on the effects of treatment in prisons on legal and social outcomes. Freiburg: Max-Planck-Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law.Google Scholar
  19. Procter, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Quinsey, V. L. (1993). Evaluating treatment programs for child molesters. In J. Hudson & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Evaluating justice: Canadian policies and programs (pp. 189–203). Toronto: Thompson.Google Scholar
  21. Robinson, D. (1995). The impact of cognitive skills training on post-release recidivism among Canadian federal offenders (Research Report No. R-41). Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar
  22. Romero, J. J., & Williams, L. M. (1983). Group psychotherapy and intensive probation supervision with sex offenders: a comparative study. Federal Probation, 47, 36–42.Google Scholar
  23. Ruddijs, F., & Timmerman, H. (2000). The stichting ambulante preventie projecten method: a comparative study of recidivism in first offenders in a Dutch outpatient setting. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44, 725–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmid, P. (1988). Was geschieht mit den Sexualstraftätern in der Psychiatrie? Darstellung und Bewertung der psychiatrischen Behandlung von Sexualstraftätern im Psychiatrischen Landeskrankenhaus Bad Schussenried in den Jahren 1978–1987. [What happens with sexual offenders in psychiatry: Description and evaluation of the psychiatric treatment of sexual offenders in the psychiatric clinic of Schussenried between 1978 and 1987]. Unpublished Dissertation, Tübingen: Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  25. Taylor, R. (2000). A seven-year reconviction study of HMP Grendon Therapeutic Community (Research Findings No. 115). London: Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ziethen, F. (2002). Rückfallpräventive Effizienz der sozialtherapeutischen Behandlung von Sexualstraftätern. Evaluation der Sozialtherapie in der JVA Berlin-Tegel. [The effects of social therapy on recidivism of sexual offenders: Evaluation of the social-therapeutic prison Berlin –Tegel]. Unpublished Diplomarbeit, Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyFriedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations