Does Volunteering for Sex Offender Treatment Matter? Using Propensity Score Analysis to Understand the Effects of Volunteerism and Treatment on Recidivism

September 2012:

Abstract:

A common critique of program evaluations of prison-based sex offender treatment holds that the samples inherently show selection bias because the participants typically volunteer for treatment. To address this critique, we used propensity score analysis to assess the influence of volunteerism on treatment effects. We examined recidivism outcomes for a sample of participants who volunteered for treatment, of whom some participated in treatment (n = 161) and some did not (n = 282) and compared these outcomes to the recidivism rate of a matched sample of nonvolunteers for treatment (n = 443).

The primary finding is that offenders who volunteered for treatment did not demonstrate any differences in recidivism rates when matched with and compared to inmates who did not volunteer to participate in treatment. Furthermore, our results revealed that there were a number of significant differences between unmatched volunteers and unmatched nonvolunteers, perhaps most importantly in their risk for future recidivism as measured by the STATIC-99 risk assessment. We discuss study strengths and limitations and present the implications of the findings for policy, practice, and research. ..Source.. by Melissa D. Grady, Daniel Edwards, Carrie Pettus-Davis and Jennifer Abramson

Opinion: Sex Offense Recidivism Is Rare, Shouldn't Determine Policy

9-5-2013 National:

The crimes featured in a recent Sun Sentinel investigation were tragic. The newspaper found that in Florida, for every one sex offender who was committed to a sex predator treatment center, “nearly two others were released and then arrested on a sex charge.”

What the article does not highlight is that all of the sex offenders released from Florida prisons – 31,0000 of them -- were screened for civil commitment over 14 years.

Sexual Recidivism Rates

Of approximately 31,000 sex offenders who were assessed and released, there were 1,400 recidivists (new arrests for sexual crimes.)

That statistic represents a 5 percent recidivism rate over 14 years.

That means for every one re-arrested, about 20 did not go on to commit new sex crimes. In 95 percent of the cases, the screening team, evaluators, courts and program officials made the right call.

Of the sexual recidivists, there were 14 murders, accounting for about one percent of the recidivistic cases and less than 5 in 10,000 of all sex offenders released from prison.

While these egregious cases are heinous and unacceptable, they are rare events.

Sexual recidivism rates are lower than commonly believed, and are in fact lower than the overall recidivism rate in the state. In most cases the Sexually Violent Predator program did, in fact, do a good job of identifying the worst of the worst. The vast majority of sex offenders did not go on to commit any new sex crime, and most are strictly supervised in the community.

How To Prevent More Sex Offenses

A small but dangerous subgroup of sex offenders are at highest risk for violent re-offending. But passing laws based on anomalous cases is not good social policy.

We should take a close look at the 95 percent of offenders who did not re-offend, so we can identify and enhance the sex offender management and treatment strategies that are working well.

The legislature is now considering mandatory minimum sentencing in response to the concern about violent re-offending by convicted sex offenders. However, as seen by the recidivism statistics when viewed as part of the bigger picture, mandatory sentences might prove to be a very costly response. The sentencing enhancements will likely be unnecessary in the majority of cases.

Mandatory minimums also remove discretion from judges, encouraging plea bargains to non-sex crimes in some cases -- which means those offenders will not receive sex offender probation, monitoring, and treatment.

An alternative might be a risk assessment by a qualified practitioner prior to sentencing, which would offer valuable information to the judge and state attorney to aid in sentencing decisions.

Every dollar spent on hastily-passed sex offender policies is a dollar not spent on sexual assault victim services, child protection, and social programs designed to aid at-risk families.

The legislature is rightly concerned with another series of recent cases in which children died as a result of abuse or neglect. They should be equally concerned with the children who live through childhood trauma. We need to start thinking about early prevention and fund, not cut, social service programs for children and families. Today's perpetrators are often yesterday's victims. ..Source.. by Jill Levenson, Ph.D., LCSW, is an Associate Professor and Researcher at Lynn University. She is considered a national expert in sex crime policy analysis and has published over 80 articles about the treatment and management of sexual offenders.

Bureau of Justice - Recidivism

1994 through 1997:

Below are the figures quoted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on their "Recidivism Page," however, there are considerable points about those figures which the DOJ has left out. Accordingly, I will point out those facts below as (Notes by eAdvocate).

The 9,691 sex offenders were released from State prisons in these 15 States: Arizona, Maryland, North Carolina, California, Michigan, Ohio, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Illinois, New York, and Virginia.

The DOJ is quoting from is: Recidivism of SexOffenders Released from Prison in 1994 (NCJ 198281) (PDF), published November 2003, By Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., Erica L. Schmitt, and Matthew R. Durose, Statisticians, Bureau of Justice Statistics

DOJ recidivism page Shows:


Recidivism: (All types of crimes)

Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 States in 1994 (all types of offenders), an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.

The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 accounted for nearly 4,877,000 arrest charges over their recorded careers.

Within 3 years of release, 2.5% of released rapists were rearrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.

Sex offenders were less likely than non-sex offenders to be rearrested for any offense –– 43 percent of sex offenders versus 68 percent of non-sex offenders.

Sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime after their discharge from prison –– 5.3 percent of sex offenders versus 1.3 percent of non-sex offenders.

(Note, that following release 1.3% of non-sex offenders committed a sex offense [not something they had done before].

Now, sometimes looking at percentages is misleading, so, translating these percentages to real numbers: 5.3% is 517 sex offenders -and- 1.3% is 3,328 non-sex offenders. Looking close shows us that non-sex offenders committed 3,328 sex crimes while sex offenders committed 517 sex crimes.

That means, former non-sex offenders are more dangerous to the community and committed 6 sex crimes to every one committed by a former sex offender. You might want to review that a few times to get over the shock, lawmakers ignore this fact.)

Sex offenders

On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.

The median age of the victims of imprisoned sexual assaulters was less than 13 years old; the median age of rape victims was about 22 years.

An estimated 24% of those serving time for rape and 19% of those serving time for sexual assault had been on probation or parole (not necessarily for a previous sex crime) at the time of the offense for which they were in State prison in 1991.

Of the 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 States in 1994, 5.3% were rearrested for a new sex crime within 3 years of release. (5.3% over 3 years, however, that equates to a annual rate of 1.76%. Further, of the 5.3% of those arrested, 3.5% were actually convicted.)

Of released sex offenders who allegedly committed another sex crime, 40% perpetrated the new offense within a year or less from their prison discharge. ( This is a common fact of all types of crime. The first year following release is the hardest in readjusting to society, and those having troubles readjusting often resort to their old tactics: recidivism.)


Child victimizers

Approximately 4,300 child molesters were released from prisons in 15 States in 1994. An estimated 3.3% of these 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison. ( Again, percentages can be misleading. [ 4,300 was actually 4,295 X 3.3% = 141 new sex crimes]. Now, missing is, some non-sex offenders released committed sex crimes against a child 0.4% [262,420 X .4% = 1,042 new sex crimes]. Again, non-sex offenders are more dangerous to the community and lawmakers ignore this fact.)

Among child molesters released from prison in 1994, 60% had been in prison for molesting a child 13 years old or younger.

Offenders who had victimized a child were on average 5 years older than the violent offenders who had committed their crimes against adults. Nearly 25% of child victimizers were age 40 or older, but about 10% of the inmates with adult victims fell in that age range.

eAdvocate Note: Here are a few charts created from that study which show the facts clearly. These charts, and more, were on my old Yahoo website, but Yahoo closed those FREE sites. When they did "oocities" preserved the information, links to the charts there are below:

A) Recidivism Rates: All released sex offenders -vs- non-sex offenders

B) Recidivism Rates: Showing offenders who re-offended against a child!

C) Department of Justice: Victim/Offender Relationship Statistics

====== Copyright eAdvocate (All Right Reserved) ======

AK- Alaska Sex Offender Recidivism Study

1996 Alaska

Sex offenders benefit if they participate in treatment during their incarceration, "surviving" much longer than untreated offenders before committing new crimes after returning to society, according to a long term study recently completed by the University of Alaska Anchorage and the Alaska Department of Corrections.

The study also showed that the longer they stayed in treatment, the longer they lasted in the community without reoffense, and that those who reached the advanced stages of treatment committed no new offenses during the period studies.

"These are positive results. They show our treatment program is working," said Margaret Pugh, Commissioner of Corrections. "No matter how you measure, the treatment group did better after release than untreated. And the further they go in treatment, the better their chances are of not reoffending."

The four-year study was done in conjunction with the university's Anchorage Justice Center. It reviewed the records of 685 prisoners who served time in Alaska correctional facilities between January 1987 and August 1995, including 411 who participated in the state's primary sex offender treatment program at Hiland Mountain Correctional Center in Eagle River.

Significant findings of the study are:

None of the 41 offenders in the study who reached the advanced stage of treatment has been reported committing a new offense.

All treated offenders, even those whose participation in treatment was minimal, went longer in the community without committing a new offense than offenders in any other comparison group.

Sexual assault offenders (rapists) and sexual abuse of a minor offenders do equally well, both in terms of how long they stay in treatment and how far they advance.

Alaska Native offenders do not progress in treatment as well as non-Natives, and both older, more educated Natives and those with a history of combined alcohol and drug abuse tend to leave treatment in the earlier phases.

"It's important to realize that this study does not claim we are curing sex offenders through treatment. The fact is, sex offenders are never considered cured," Pugh said. "But treatment can help offenders learn to control their behavior when they return to society. The vast majority of offenders do return to their communities, and treatment clearly is helping to reduce the number of victims of reoffenders."

Pugh said the reasons behind the findings concerning higher dropout rates for Alaska Natives aren't clear, but the department already is working on a plan to address the issue, she said. Part of the effort will involve a working group to focus on cultural issues. The working group will include representatives of several Alaska Native organizations, Pugh said.

"The value of this study is that now we have some baseline data on providing sex offender treatment to Native American inmates. We believe this research is at the forefront nationally, and even internationally, in that regard," Pugh said.

Pugh said the study took much longer than anticipated to complete because of difficulties involved in building and maintaining data bases with the department's inadequate management information system. The department is working with the state's other criminal justice agencies to create an integrated information system that will benefit public safety statewide, she said. ..more.. by the Alaska Department of Corrections. Full Study

AK- Sex Offender Treatment Program: Initial Recidivism Study

July 1996

Executive Summary:
The Alaska Department of Corrections, in conjunction with the University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, recently completed a study of sex offenders in the treatment program at Hiland Mountain Correctional Center during the period of January 1987 to August 1995. The study included analysis of descriptive characteristics of the participants; treatment variables such as length of time in program, reason for discharge and treatment stage at discharge; and re-offense data. The treatment group was compared with three other groups, including a motivated control group, an unmotivated control group, and a group of non-sex offenders (generics). There were several significant findings from the study:

A treatment effect was clearly demonstrated. Treated sex offenders lasted longer in the community before they re-offended than offenders in any of the comparison groups. Even under varied definitions of re-offense, the treatment group lasted longer without re-offense regardless of the definition applied. (See Figure 1.)

Treatment at any level improved survival in the community without re-offense. Those who were in treatment longer tended to last longer in the community without a re-offense. Those who completed all stages of treatment through the advanced stage had a zero re-offense rate for sexual re-offenses. This included Sexual Assault offenders (rapists), who generally tend to re-offend more quickly and at a higher frequency. (See Figure 2.)

Sexual Assault offenders (rapists) do as well as Sexual Abuse of a Minor (SAM) offenders, both in terms of how long they stay in treatment and how far they advance through the program. This is an unusually positive outcome that has not been typically reported by other programs. For Sexual Abuse of a Minor (SAM) offenders, there was little difference shown in re-offense rate between those who reached intermediate phase and those who reached advanced phase in the program. For Sexual Assault (SA) offenders, achievement of intermediate or advanced stage was related to survival as measured by first arrest. (See Figures 3 and 4.)

Alaska Native offenders do not progress as well in the program as non-Native offenders. This is the first study which directly addressed the demographic characteristics of Alaska Native sex offenders and the findings were somewhat different from what had been expected. It was originally anticipated that Alaska Natives who left the program early would be young, less educated and have a history of both alcohol and drug abuse. In fact, the study demonstrated that older, more educated Alaska Natives left the program early. The effect of a combined alcohol and drug abuse history was as expected. Two-thirds of offenders in the treatment group had a history of substance abuse, with an even higher incidence among Alaska Native offenders. Those who had no history of substance abuse tended to advance further in the program; those with a history of both alcohol and drug abuse tend to leave in the earlier phases of the program. ..Source.. by Alaska Department of Corrections and Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Unit.