Assessing reconviction, reoffending and recidivism in a sample of UK sexual offenders

Abstract

Purpose. The rate of sexual reconviction for sexual offenders is known to be low. Sexual reconviction, however, is currently the most commonly used outcome measure in sex offender treatment evaluation studies. It is expected that sex offender treatment programmes will reduce the likelihood of reconviction amongst participants. A low base rate of sexual reconviction means that any reduction in reconviction (which could be attributed to treatment) will be small and unlikely to be statistically significant. This study aimed to assess other offence‐related outcomes for sexual offenders, in addition to reconviction. Methods. The sample comprised 173 sexual offenders who had completed a community sex offender treatment programme. Follow‐up information was collected forthe sample from programme files containing multi‐agency information. Official reconviction rates were also calculated using both Home Office and police data. Results. Collecting evidence of any offence‐related sexual behaviour during this study multiplied the sample's sexual reconviction rate by a factor of 5.3. Conclusions. The results show that broadening the outcome measure under observation indicates a higher level of offence‐related sexual behaviour displayed by sexual offenders than reflected by reconviction data. These results have implications for the outcomes measured in treatment evaluation research for sexual offenders.

Differences in personality and risk characteristics in sex, violent and general offenders

“…Official sources are known to underreport recidivism (Marshall and Barbaree, 1988;Falshaw et al, 2003). Sexual offences have been known to be 'bargained down' (Bagley and Pritchard, 2000;Corbett et al, 2003).…”

Psychosexual characteristics of sexual offenders and the relationship to sexual reconviction

“…This database only records whether the offender was reconvicted and of what offence and does not record re-arrest data. Official sources are known to underreport recidivism Falshaw, Bastes, Patel, Corbett, & Friendship, 2003). The OI only records more serious offences and does not record minor motoring offences and some common assaults, victim/offence details or the nature, extent and severity of violence during the offence.…”

A comparison of the predictive properties of nine sex offender risk assessment instruments.

“…Moderating variables commonly suggested to account for the inconsistent performance of instruments across studies are inter rater agreement, missing values, sample selection bias, and widely differing outcome measures (e.g., in terms of the duration of follow-up periods, official vs. unofficial sources utilized, incon sistent definitions for recidivism; see, e.g., Craig, Beech, & Browne, 2006;Falshaw, Bastes, Patel, Corbett, & Friendship, 2003;Hanson, 2002;Marshall & Barbaree, 1988). Although sam ple selection and outcome measures can be put on the same metric by studying the performance of alternative instruments in the same sample (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009;Langton et al, 2007; and the present study), this does not hold for the issues of interrater agreement and missing values.…”