Can circles of support and accountability (CoSA) significantly reduce sexual recidivism? Results from a randomized controlled trial in Minnesota
- 603 Downloads
This study evaluates the effectiveness of Minnesota Circles of Support and Accountability (MnCOSA), a sex offender reentry program implemented by the Minnesota Department of Corrections in 2008.
Using a randomized controlled trial, this study compares recidivism and cost–benefit outcomes among sex offenders in the MnCOSA (N = 50) and control groups (N = 50).
The results suggest MnCOSA significantly reduced sexual recidivism, lowering the risk of rearrest for a new sex offense by 88%. In addition, MnCOSA significantly decreased all four measures of general recidivism, with reductions ranging in size from 49 to 57%. As a result of the reduction in recidivism, findings from the cost–benefit analysis reveal the program has generated an estimated $2 million in costs avoided to the state, resulting in a benefit of $40,923 per participant. For every dollar spent on MnCOSA, the program has yielded an estimated benefit of $3.73.
Although difficult to implement, the CoSA model is a cost-effective intervention for sex offenders that could also be applied to other correctional populations with a high risk of violent recidivism.
KeywordsSex offender Recidivism Social support Cost–benefit Restorative justice
- Aos, S., & Drake, E. (2013). Prison, police, and programs: Evidence-based options that reduce crime and save money (Doc. No. 13-11-1901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
- Bates, A., Saunders, R., & Wilson, C. (2007). Doing something about it: A follow-up study of sex offender participating in Thames Valley circles of support and accountability. British Journal of Community Justice, 5, 19–42.Google Scholar
- Derkzen, D., Gobeil, R., & Gileno, J. (2009). Visitation and post-release outcomes among federally-sentenced offenders. Research report. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar
- Duwe, G. (2012). Predicting first-time sexual offending among prisoners without a prior sex offense history: The Minnesota Sexual Criminal Offending Risk Estimate (MnSCORE). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(1), 434–1,454.Google Scholar
- Duwe, G. (2017). Better practices in the development and validation of recidivism risk assessments: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-4 (MnSOST-4). Criminal Justice Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417718608.
- Fox, K. J. (2013). Circles of support & accountability: Final report prepared for the State of Vermont Department of Corrections. Retrieved from: http://www.doc.state.vt.us/about/reports/circles-of-support-accountability-final-report/view .
- Gendreau, P., French, S., & Gionet, A. (2004). What works (what doesn’t work): The principles of effective correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections, 13, 4–6.Google Scholar
- Johnson, B. R., & Larson, D. B. (2003). The InnerChange freedom initiative: A preliminary evaluation of a faith-based prison program. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society.Google Scholar
- Kerr, N., Tully, R. J., & Vollm, B. (2017). Volunteering with sex offenders: The attitudes of volunteers toward sex offenders, their treatment, and rehabilitation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217691964.
- Northcutt Bohmert, M., Duwe, G., & Kroovand Hipple, N. (2016). Evaluating restorative justice circles of support and accountability: Can social support overcome structural barriers? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16652627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E., & Prinzo, M. (2005). Circles of support & accountability: An evaluation of the pilot project in south-Central Ontario. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar