Washington State Sex Offenders: Overview of Recidivism Studies

Washington Feb 1995:

INTRODUCTION
Some convicted offenders reoffend after they return to the community.this reoffense behavior is known as recidivism. The percentage of offenders who reoffend within a specified time period is described as the recidivism rate.

State policymakers have expressed interest in knowing the recidivism rates of Washington State sex offenders. Information on these rates can guide policy decisions on issues such as sentence length, terms of supervision, and treatment options.

In 1990, the legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to study the effectiveness of the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). Legislators wanted to know if this treatment option.which allows judges to order community treatment for eligible sex offenders.compromised public safety.

In 1991, the Institute reported on sex offenders who received or were statutorily eligible for SSOSA from January 1985 through June 1986. The report concluded that SSOSA is an effective sentencing alternative for eligible sex offenders because:

• The community is at no greater risk,
• Criminal justice professionals and treatment providers support the alternative, and
• Costs to state government are presumed to be lower.

Following this research, legislators inquired about the recidivism patterns of sex offenders who are not eligible for SSOSA.rapists and repeat child molesters.and requested more information on the effectiveness of treatment.

This publication reports on three studies regarding sex offenders that are designed to answer policymakers. questions. Each study addresses a particular aspect of recidivism.


I. The Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative: A Follow-Up Study of Recidivism

This study examines sex offenders who received community treatment, and determines whether their recidivism rates were different from sex offenders who did not receive treatment. It extends the follow-up period of the 1991 study and includes a new group of sex offenders. those not eligible for SSOSA. The study sample included all male sex offenders convicted in Washington State from January 1985 through June 1986.

Sex offense recidivism rates within a seven-year period were: 11 percent for those who received SSOSA, 14 percent for those statutorily eligible but who did not receive SSOSA, and 31 percent for those not eligible for SSOSA.

This study addresses questions such as: Does the community treatment option for sex offenders pose additional risks to public safety? Which offenders are more likely to be selected for community treatment?


II. Recidivism Patterns of Adult Sex Offenders

This second study examines the recidivism patterns of adult sex offenders convicted between 1985 and 1991 in Washington State. The overall recidivism rates for various crime categories were estimated, as well as the offender characteristics that were associated with a higher likelihood of rearrest. This study had the largest sample (1,373).

Recidivism rates within a seven-year period were estimated to be: 12 percent for sex offenses, 3 percent for violent offenses, and 8 percent for other felony offenses.

This study addresses questions such as: What is the overall pattern of recidivism for sex offenders? What are the characteristics of sex offenders who are most likely to commit additional sex offenses? Does a community treatment sentence reduce recidivism?


III. The Twin Rivers Sex Offender Treatment Program: Recidivism Rates

The third study compares the recidivism patterns of sex offenders who received treatment during prison confinement with those of offenders who were imprisoned without treatment.

The treated offenders completed a sex offender program at Twin Rivers Corrections Center and resided in the community for an average of 20 months.

The estimated recidivism rate of the treatment group (11 percent) was slightly lower than the rate of the comparison group (12 percent). However, the difference was not statistically significant. ..more.. by Lin Song -and- Roxanne Lieb

Sex offender therapy: A battle on multiple fronts

4-1-2014 Oregon, National:

Working with individuals with sex offense convictions is a specialized area of counseling. There are also “specialties within the specialty” when factoring in the different venues for treatment, including programs in prison, in private practice (often with those on postprison supervision or probation) and in mental institutions. The individuals within this population are generally quite different, and the dynamics are made even more complex when considering whether the offenders are adult males, adult females (yes, there are female sex offenders) or juveniles. The research on each population varies considerably. There is a paucity of research on female sex offenders, and research is still somewhat lacking (although growing) on the ever-complex juvenile offenders.

Sex offender therapy is challenging regardless of the nature of the clients, and other factors also come into play. There exists the constant issue of resistance to treatment, particularly when treatment is a condition of probation or parole. Criminogenic thinking pervades the scene, and counselors must be on guard for the often subtle signs of that mind-set. For instance, individuals convicted of sex offenses can be highly manipulative, not only with their therapist but also with others in their therapy groups. Power plays, deflection, grooming and lying are a few examples of the criminal thinking that may be evident. Many offenders will also present with a virtual encyclopedia of thinking errors. Often topping the cognitive distortion list are victim stance (“This label is unfair”), minimization (“All I did was grope her”), justification (“We’d had sex before and she didn’t complain”) and entitlement.

In addition to the cognitive distortions and potential for criminogenic behavior, counselors may also have to contend with other factors such as addictions, co-occurring disorders and, of course, shame, guilt and incredibly demeaning self-talk. The ultimate goal of sex offender therapy is relapse prevention, based first upon accountability and assumption of responsibility for offensive behavior. But when all of these factors are thrown into the mix, the counselor is often faced with denial on several levels: denial of facts (“It wasn’t me”); denial of intent (“I was drunk”); denial of impact (“She didn’t seem to mind”); and denial of the need for treatment.

Research supports the best practice of sex offender therapy being conducted in groups whenever possible. The peer support, which includes challenging denial and other thinking errors, is invaluable in treatment and also lends itself to generally better outcomes. Part of the reason for this is that so many sex offenses are based in secrecy. Bringing offenses out into the open is generally conducive to discussion and to the cognitive elements that are so important to reducing recidivism.

Of course, group therapy adds still other elements for the therapist to consider, including properly populating groups (for example, matching risk factors, genders and ages) and building and maintaining effective group dynamics. Sex offenders don’t want to talk about their “stuff” in front of others. Consequently, providing a safe environment and building trust are staples of effective sex offender therapy groups.

While this represents a formidable enough battlefront on its own, sex offender therapists are faced with another perhaps even more challenging front — that of our society, including our lawmakers.

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT, TREATMENT, AND CIVIL COMMITMENT: AN EVIDENCE BASED ANALYSIS AIMED AT REDUCING SEXUAL VIOLENCE

9-25-2013:

Executive Summary:

This study was designed to provide a comprehensive exploratory examination of the program management, treatment, and recidivism of sexual offenders in New Jersey. There were four main objectives of the research: 1) To provide normative data on a large sample of New Jersey sex offenders; 2) To determine which sex offenders get selected for treatment and what criteria are used to make that decision; 3) To examine the effect of treatment on recidivism; and 4) To compare those offenders selected for commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) with those offenders not selected for commitment.

Data were gathered from the archival records of 3,168 male sex offenders who were housed at either a prison-based sex offender treatment facility (treatment group) or any of the New Jersey State prisons (no treatment group) and released from custody between the years 1996 and 2007. Additionally, archival data were gathered from all detained or committed SVPs. Federal and state recidivism data were obtained for all released offenders.

Ultimately, three general outcome categories were the focus of the analyses: selection for treatment (determined by whether the offender was housed at the prison-based sex offender treatment facility), recidivism (determined by whether an offender was convicted of an additional offense—sexual or non-sexual—following release), and SVP commitment (determined by whether the offender was released or civilly committed upon completion of the index sentence).

After coding the archival file data for offender characteristics, offense characteristics, risk assessment outcomes, and recidivism (and what type of recidivism, if applicable), comparisons were made via chi-square analysis and independent samples t-test across these three outcomes; that is, we compared treated and non-treated offenders, recidivists and non-recidivists, and committed and not-committed offenders on these factors.

Additionally, a series of classification tree analyses and logistic regressions were conducted to gather insight into what factors were most strongly indicative of selection for treatment, SVP commitment, and recidivism. ..Source.. by Cynthia Calkins Mercado, PI -and- Elizabeth Jeglic, PI -and- Keith Markus, Co-PI -and- R. Karl Hanson, Consultant -and- Jill Levenson, Consultant