What Have We Learned From Evaluations of Sex Offender Programs/Strategies?

Sex Offender Treatment
Many sex offender studies have suffered from problems such as small sample size and other methodological problems. Despite these issues, some sex offender studies provide evidence suggesting that treatment programs used today are more effective than most used before the 1980s. Evaluations comparing different therapeutic approaches show that cognitive-behavioral treatment and pharmacological (hormonal) treatment hold promise for reducing sex offender recidivism. Cognitive-behavioral treatment is usually provided in a group setting and focuses on treating the cognitive distortions, lack of victim empathy, denial of the offense, and deviant sexual preferences of the sex offender. Hormonal treatments have not been studied as often as cognitive-behavioral treatments mainly because few sex offenders receive hormonal treatment. However, studies that have been conducted show that hormonal treatment often reduces deviant sexual arousal, but it has not been shown to be more effective overall when compared to cognitive-behavioral programs.

Research has shown that sex offender treatment programs tend to have a high percentage of offenders who are either expelled from or drop out of treatment. Higher risk offenders and those who are mandated to receive treatment are the most likely to drop out. Fewer individuals drop out of cognitive-behavioral than hormonal treatment. Offenders who are married and employed are more likely to complete treatment. Offenders who do not complete treatment are more likely to commit subsequent sexual offenses than those who do complete treatment. Though preliminary, there is some evidence to suggest that treatment refusal does not put an individual at higher risk of committing future sex crimes. Validated risk assessments appear to be the best way to identify individuals at high risk of reoffending.

Though there are few studies that focus on providing treatment to specific types of sex offenders (e.g., child molesters, adults who rape adults, exhibitionists, and incest offenders), researchers overwhelmingly conclude that studies should be conducted to determine if certain types of sex offenders benefit from treatment more than others or if a particular treatment approach is better for one type of sex offender than another. Although more research is needed, evaluations indicate that targeting treatments to specific types of sex offenders while focusing on their specific risks, needs, and responsivity levels may hold promise. There is some evidence that multi-systemic therapy is particularly effective for juvenile sex offenders.

Sex Offender Laws
Although sex offender laws such as community notification and registries are a popular strategy for sex offender management, little work has been done to determine the ability of the laws to protect the public. Evaluations that examine the impact of the laws on the community have generally found community support for the laws. However, evaluations have shown some unintended consequences. For example, in one instance citizens became more anxious about sex offenders than they had been prior to the implementation of such laws. In another case, after a notification law took effect in one state, offenders resistant to treatment began to acknowledge their offending, attend treatment, and work harder in treatment. Research also suggests that implementation of notification laws can result in additional costs for law enforcement and probation. Some evaluations have examined the effect of the laws on sex offender reintegration into the community as well as sex offenders' perceptions of the laws. Studies have shown that sex offenders may experience disruptive effects (e.g., harassment and threats, eviction, job loss, or family break-up) as a result of the laws, but there is also evidence that the laws motivated some sex offenders not to reoffend upon release. In addition, one study showed that sex offenders subject to notification, and thus under supervision for compliance with notification legislation, were arrested for new crimes more quickly than sex offenders not subject to notification.

There have been no studies of sex offender registries that address issues examining the differences in web site design and content of the registries, their effectiveness in informing the public, and the impact of that information on the rights of offenders. Examinations of state sex offender registries show that data on the registry are sometimes inaccurate or incomplete. Research has not addressed whether the registries or notification strategies have had a displacement effect on sex offending; that is, offenders subject to notification offending in a different community where they are not known as sex offenders. In addition, research has not addressed whether sex offenders move to states with less restrictive registry laws, or whether sex offenders abscond from supervision or their area of residence in lieu of registering because they consider the registration laws too restrictive.

| | |
| | |