Outcome of a Treatment Program for Adult Sex Offenders

Abstract

McGrath et al. / OUTCOME OF A TREATMENT PROGRAMThis study examined the recidivism rates of 195 adult male sex offenders who were referred to a prison-based cognitive-behavioral treatment program. Of this sample, 56 participants completed treatment, 49 entered but did not complete treatment, and 90 refused treatment services. Although participants were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions, there were no between-group differences on participants'pre-treatment risk for sexual recidivism as appraised on two actuarial risk measures, the RRASOR and Static-99. Over a mean follow-up period of almost 6 years, the sexual reoffense rate for the completed-treatment group was 5.4% versus 30.6% for the some-treatment and 30.0% for the no-treatment groups. Lower sexual recidivism rates were also found among those participants who received aftercare treatment and correctional supervision services in the community.

The Responsiveness of Sexual Offenders to a Therapeutic Group Work Programme at Westville Medium B Prison

“…The results of the study by McGrath, Cumming, Hoke and Lingston (2003) evaluating a Vermont Department of Corrections treatment programme for adult male sex offenders indicated that, men who complete cognitive-behavioural sex offender programmes sexually re-offend at relatively low rates. The number of sexual re-offenders in the completed treatment groups (5,4%) was significantly lower than that of the some treatment (30,6%) and no treatment groups (30%) (McGrath et al, 2003).…”

“…The number of sexual re-offenders in the completed treatment groups (5,4%) was significantly lower than that of the some treatment (30,6%) and no treatment groups (30%) (McGrath et al, 2003). A review of North American sexual offender programmes revealed that most were either cognitive-behavioural or any one form or another of multi-modal or eclectic psychotherapy (Brzecki & Wormith, cited in Marshall, 1999).…”

Community Notification Laws

“…The media and political misrepresentations, along with the attention focused on the few violent offenders, causes the general public into believing that sex offenders are persistent; however, some of the reoffense data does not suggest this is the case (US DOJ, 1994;McGrath et al, 2003;Zimring et al, 2007;Garfinkle, 2003).…”

“…Furthermore, the punitive aspect of notification laws and desires of sex offenders to avoid public humiliation have resulted in plea bargain agreements that subvert the stated reason for notification which may put the community at more risk (Freeman-Longo, 2000). Finally, exaggerated claims of high recidivism rates among sex offenders by activists are countered by data suggesting sex offenders have lower rates than the general criminal population (Sample and Bray, 2003;US DOJ, 1994, CSOM, 2002McGrath et al, 2003); however, sex offenders who do recidivate are more likely than other criminals to commit a new sex offense (Sample and Bray, 2003).…”

“…Certain offender types, however, may not benefit from SSOSA or similar programs (Bamoski, 2006b;Berliner, 2007). Offenders serving their sentence in the community should be restricted to those lower risk offenders, as determined by risk assessment tools such as the STATIC 99 (McGrath et al, 2003), RRASOR (Levenson and Cotter, 2005a), or any other reliable tool. Research suggests extra-familial offenders, rapists, and homosexual pedophiles re-offend at higher rates than other types (Barnoski, 2006b;Maletzky and Steinhauser, 2002;Hood et al, 2000).…”