Skip to main content

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

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Applying a detailed search procedure which yielded more than 3000 published and unpublished documents, we identified 29 eligible comparisons containing a total of 4,939 treated and 5,448 untreated sexual offenders.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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Carrying out and publishing a comprehensive meta-analysis takes a lot of time. Therefore, trying to keep a review updated can create a vicious cycle that is in conflict with timely publication. We are aware of a few more recent studies that are not included in our review. We also know about two studies with large samples; however, after some waiting time, the latter findings have not yet been released. Therefore, we felt that the current analysis should now be published. To check the robustness of our findings, we assessed the available more recent studies and found that they were generally in accordance with our main results. The respective studies are briefly reported in the Appendix.

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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Eisner, M. (2009). No effects in independent prevention trials: can we reject the cynical view? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Farrington, D. P. (2006). Methodological quality and the evaluation of anticrime programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 329–337.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effects of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991–998.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hollin, C. R. (2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: does only randomization glister? Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 89–106.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

  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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Marshall, W. L., & Burton, D. (2010). The importance of therapeutic processes in offender treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 141–149.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Chapter  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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]

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  11. La Macaza Clinic (2002). Criterion 8 - Program Follow-up and ongoing assessment. Unpublished manuscript.

  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.

    Article  Google 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].

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Schmucker.

Appendix

Appendix

Relevant studies that appeared more recently

The following is a commented list of more recent evaluations of sexual offender treatment programs (SOTPs). Some of these studies might have been eligible for the current meta-analysis, but we did not fully code them because we know of two rather large evaluations in progress that require a further update of our meta-analysis in the near future. In the meanwhile, the following list serves to check whether recent studies are in accordance with the findings of the present meta-analysis:

Abracen et al. (2011)

This study compared a TG of 64 sex offenders from an institutional SOTP in Ontario with a CG of 55 untreated offenders from the region’s correctional service. The groups were at high risk/need and matched for age at index offense, offender type, psychopathy scores, and risk of recidivism. The treatment was both individual- and group-based, applied a cognitive–behavioral relapse prevention concept and incorporated the Good Lives Model (e.g., Ward and Maruna 2007). Outcome was measured by official reoffending with mean follow-up periods of 9.4 (TG) and 11.2 (CG) years. The base rate of sexual reoffending was low (ca. 10 %) in both groups. Although the comparison between actual and predicted reoffending was somewhat more favorable in the TG, there was no significant difference in recidivism between TG and CG. It has to be noted that only a handful of offenders reoffended, both groups received other programs beyond SOTP, and there were more offenders with higher risk scores and mental health problems in the TG than in the CG.

Comment: This study has the strength of evaluating SOTP in daily practice and with a rather long follow-up period. The findings of overall low rates of sexual recidivism are consistent with our meta-analysis. They also agree with the non-significant effect we observed for custodial treatment.

Grady et al. (2013)

This study mainly investigated whether volunteering for treatment has an impact on reoffending. However, the analyses included actual treatment participation as a variable in a Cox regression model that also controlled for a number of variables (e.g., Static-99 risk score, volunteering for treatment, type of sexual offense, pedophilia diagnosis) and thus also allowed estimation of a treatment effect. A total of 161 sex offenders volunteered and participated in a mainly cognitive–behavioral, group-based institutional program in North Carolina. Non-participants had either volunteered for treatment but were not selected (n = 282) or were eligible but had not volunteered (n = 443). The study participants had a moderate–low recidivism risk. Official recidivism was assessed after 5 years for all study participants. The results indicate a significant reduction in sexual, violent, and non-violent reoffending in the TG.

Comment: The study is not designed to evaluate a treatment effect in the first place and, thus, selection bias is not controlled for, although the analyses applied incorporate a number of relevant control variables. The results differ somewhat from our meta-analytic findings as there is a significant effect in a custodial setting in a rather low-risk group.

Letourneau et al. (2013)

This study is a further U.S.-based evaluation of MST for young sex offenders; for others, see Borduin et al. (1990, 2009) in our results. It is asked whether positive results in efficacy trials could be replicated and sustained after 2 years in an implementation in a community mental health center. In a blockwise RCT on juvenile sex offenders (mean age 14.7 years), a TG of 66 young male offenders was compared with a CG of 58 offenders who received ‘treatment as usual’, that is, mainly group-based CBT interventions. The study reports on a 2-year follow-up for a number of outcomes including official recidivism (re-arrests), but differences in sexual reoffending could not be analyzed because of a very low base rate. There was also no significant decrease in re-arrests when analyses were controlled for baseline status.

Comment: The randomized design is a clear strength of this study. However, as the study does not provide enough ‘hard’ recidivism data it would not influence our results.

Olver et al. (2012)

This study compared a TG of 625 incarcerated sex offenders in Canadian institutions with a CG of 107 sex offenders who did not receive the respective treatment. All programs were based on the Canadian standards of the Risk–Need–Responsivity Model. There were some pre-treatment differences between TG and CG (e.g., less singlehood, more unrelated victims, lower risk scores and higher age at release). The authors used a brief actuarial risk scale to assess and control for group differences. A Cox regression controlling for risk found a significant effect on violent reoffending but only a smaller and not significant effect on sexual recidivism. In further analyses, treated and untreated offenders were stratified for risk level. These showed that only for the high-risk group was there a significant treatment effect on sexual recidivism. In addition, in the TG, the time to new sexual offenses was longer for treated offenders and the offenses committed were somewhat less harmful.

Comment: This is a relatively large study with particular strengths in risk-oriented analyses and differentiated outcome measurement. The overall nonsignificant effect is consistent with our above findings on custodial treatment and large sample sizes. The significant effects for offenders at higher risk are also in accordance with our results.

Smallbone and McHugh (2010)

This study evaluates prison-based treatment in Queensland, Australia. The Queensland prison system offers different treatments according to the risk (medium vs. high) and cultural background of sexual offenders. In total, 158 sexual offenders had attended a treatment program and were compared to 251 untreated sexual offenders with regard to official recidivism (police records) after an average of 29 months. The two groups differed on a number of variables (including risk measures). Treated offenders mostly had moderate–low risk while untreated offenders were at higher risk according to Static-99. Analyses controlling for risk only found a small and nonsignificant treatment effect for sexual recidivism and a marginally significant effect for any recidivism.

Comment: The results are basically in line with our findings in that a prison-based treatment of mainly low to moderate risk sexual offenders showed only a weak effect.

Smid et al. (2014)

This study from the Netherlands applied a quasi-experimental design to evaluate inpatient treatment for high-intensity sex offenders. The sample consisted of 25 % of all convicted Dutch sex offenders that were not referred to any kind of treatment between 1996 and 2002 (CG; n = 176) and all convicted Dutch sex offenders of the same time period who received an inpatient sex offender treatment (TG; n = 90). The treatment took place in special institutions that contain elements of social-therapeutic prisons and forensic hospitals. The concept is based on the Risk–Need–Responsivity model. The Static-99 was applied to control for nonequivalence in risk between the TG and CG. Outcome was measured by official data on sexual reconviction. The mean follow-up period was 12.33 years. In total, 15 % had a sexual and 38 % a violent (including sexual) offense. There were some differences in demographic and offense characteristics between the TG and CG. The results showed no overall significant treatment effect on sexual recidivism when regressions controlled for risk level, age and ethnicity. However, there was a marginally significant treatment effect for high-risk offenders. The latter was stronger for violent recidivism in general and untreated sex offenders at higher risk recidivated more frequently and faster.

Comment: This study has various strengths: It evaluates a complex institutional treatment facility outside North America, uses a long follow-up period, applies a risk-related analysis and investigates survival time curves. Although the Cox regressions may not fully control for baseline differences between TG and CG, the findings are in accordance with our results: the mean recidivism rates were in a similar range, treatment in a custodial setting had no significant effect on sexual recidivism, and the outcome was more favorable for high-risk offenders.

Worling et al. (2010)

This is an update of the Worling and Curwen (2000) study included in our meta-analysis. It is less detailed with regard to the subgroups studied and only compares treatment completers versus a comparison group comprised of non-treated sex offenders as well as treatment dropouts. Thus, we decided to retain the “older” study with a 10-year follow-up but more differentiated reporting of subgroups that allowed a more sensible intent-to-treat estimate of treatment effects. The update that recurs on a 20-year follow-up shows that the results are virtually unchanged and there were only a few additional offenders who recidivated in the 10 years after the first report.

Comment: While the very long follow-up period is a clear strength, the report does not meet stricter methodological criteria. It corroborates the results from the shorter follow-up that met the inclusion criteria of our meta-analysis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmucker, M., Lösel, F. The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. J Exp Criminol 11, 597–630 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9241-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Evaluation
  • Meta-analysis
  • Recidivism
  • Sex offender treatment
  • Treatment efficacy