A five year outcome evaluation of a community-based treatment programme for convicted sexual offenders run by the probation service

A systematic review of psychological interventions for sexual offenders II: Quasi-experimental and qualitative data

“…Four studies matched offenders on offence type (Aytes et al, 2001;Hanson, Broom, & Stephenson, 2004;Henning & Frueh, 1996;Turner et al, 2000). Eight studies matched on demographic criteria, for example age, marital status, education, and employment status (Craissati & McClurg, 1997;Hanson et al, 1993;Henning & Frueh, 1996;Looman, Abracen, & Nicholaichuk, 2000;Marshall, Eccles, & Barbaree, 1991;McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hokes, 2003;Procter, 1996;Turner et al, 2000). Age at onset of offending, which is often considered to be a high predictor of risk of re-offending, was noted in two studies (Henning & Frueh, 1996;Nicholaichuk et al, 2000); date of index offence was noted in Looman et al (2000) and Nicholaichuk et al (2000), and sentence length and sentence served were matched in Henning and Frueh (1996) and McGrath et al (2003).…”

“…Zakrajsek, Murray, & Ireson, 2001;Berliner, Schram, Miller, & Milloy, 1995;Hanson, Steffy, & Gauthier, 1993;Nicholaichuk, Gordon, Gu, & Wong, 2000;Procter, 1996;Turner, Bingham, & Andrasik, 2000); that is, participants were sentenced to a custodial or community punishment for a sexual offence, or an offence with a sexual element. Allocation to treatment groups was made after psychometric testing, with medium and high risk offenders taking part in treatment, which may mean that in some cases offenders assigned to the control group were considered to be at lower risk of re-offending.…”

“…Age at onset of offending, which is often considered to be a high predictor of risk of re-offending, was noted in two studies (Henning & Frueh, 1996;Nicholaichuk et al, 2000); date of index offence was noted in Looman et al (2000) and Nicholaichuk et al (2000), and sentence length and sentence served were matched in Henning and Frueh (1996) and McGrath et al (2003). A history of previous offending, with consideration of violent and sexual offences, was matched in seven studies (Craissati & McClurg, 1997;Hanson et al, 1993;Henning & Frueh, 1996;Looman et al, 2000;McGrath et al, 2003;Nicholaichuk et al, 2000;Procter, 1996). Risk category matching, without taking into account the offence type, may be a result of not refusing treatment to an offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence, which, in turn, leads to the absence of an offence-matched control group within the same institution.…”

Qualitative Review of Community Treatment With Sex Offenders: Perspective of the Offender and the Expert

“…Similar results were found with the few known pure community treatment studies, which are defined as treatment provided while in the community and different to aftercare treatment or supervision. Some studies showed promise in treating sexual offenders in the community (Bingham & Turner, 1995;Lambie & Stewart, 2003;Lee, Proeve, Lancaster, & Jackson, 1996;Marshall & Barbaree, 1988;Procter, 1996), but again most acknowledged methodological problems. (See Collins, Peters, & Lennings, 2009 for a detailed review of community treatments.…”

Treating sexual offenders: how did we get here and where are we headed?

“…Although randomised controlled trials are desirable, this is not the only acceptable research strategy (Collaborative Outcome Data Committee, 2007b). Both Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, andHodgson's (2009) meta-analysis andLångström et al's (2013) systematic review used strict inclusion criteria; nevertheless, they both included several well-executed cohort studies, including one published in this journal (Procter, 1996).…”