Treatment Outcome Study: Seventeen Years After Sexual Offender Treatment

Abstract

Long-term recidivism rates of 180 male sexual offender treatment completers and almost completers (persons who had been in treatment 2 years plus and had only a few goals to complete) were compared in this study. All men in this study were followed after treatment from 6 months to 17 years by interviews, anonymous questionnaires, and/or criminal record checks. The treatment center, located in Minneapolis, checked all criminal records in Minnesota and surrounding states or country: North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Canada. Seventeen men had reoffended sexually and five others had reoffended criminally (theft, DWI, etc.) but not sexually. Only those finishing treatment or nearly finishing treatment were addressed in this study, recognizing that self-selection and program screening may have contributed to the statistical success of this outpatient program. The anonymous questionnaire addressed issues regarding the offender's original offenses and the success or nonsuccess of treatment techniques as judged by them. Data regarding problematic areas still existing in their lives were collected. Of these 180 treated men, 108 men also appeared, or telephoned in, for personal interviews (using a second structured questionnaire, as opposed to the anonymous one mailed to each patient). They were interviewed six times each during the 17 years. The personal interviews yielded other aspects of data used to cross-validate the questionnaires and the criminal record checks. Total sexual recidivism was 9.0%. Data thus indicate that treatment was successful for 91% of these men. The need for more sophisticated research about what constitutes successful treatment is addressed in the discussion.

Community Solutions for the Community’s Problem

“…Table 4 summarizes the recidivism data from this study and other studies in New Zealand and internationally that share a relatively similar methodology and definition of outcome measure. The recidivism rates for the treatment group were at the lower end of the range (i.e., better than average) of recidivism rates reported in previous individual and meta-analytic studies of the outcome of prison-based and community-based sexual offender treatment programs with similar client populations (e.g., Dwyer, 1997;Hall, 1995;Hanson & Bussiere, 1998;Hanson et al, 2002). The findings of this study support the effectiveness of these programs in reducing the risk of sexual reoffending among adults who are assessed as being suitable for community treatment.…”

A 25-Year Follow-Up of Cognitive/Behavioral Therapy with 7,275 Sexual Offenders

“…For example, we do not know if, among the 13 recidivist molesters of girls, any of the same men are represented in the 21 reporting lapses or relapses or in the 9 failing the plethysmograph test. Data within similar studies indicate some correlation and overlap among these variables (Dwyer, 1997;Hall, 1995).…”

“…Data were drawn from a typical, clinically based population of offenders, apparently similar to those throughout North America (Dwyer, 1997;Hall, 1995), and included follow-up on a large number of offenders over a longer time period than previously reported. In addition, therapeutic techniques used were composed of those most often employed in treating this population (Freeman-Longo et al, 1995).…”

“…Some evidence indicates that relapse prevention alone may not be an optimum treatment strategy (Maletzky, 1998;McConaghy, 1998). Second, Dwyer (1997) continued to collect data on treatment provided to sexual offenders enrolled in a community-based treatment program. Although no control groups were possible, data appeared optimistic in this recent report, with total recidivism averaging 9%.…”

Harm F-acilitation

“…We should not shrink from promoting our successes out of false embarrassment at our failings. Too many studies (e.g., Dwyer, 1997;Hildebran & Pithers, 1992;Maletzky, 1993) and too many clinicians have attested to success, and future studies, I believe, will even more strongly demonstrate declining recidivism after cognitive/behavioral treatment. Problems of low base rates (only for some offenders), the need for lengthy follow-up periods, and insufficient data to yield statistically significant findings must all be put into perspective: No objective data exist to prove the value of removing a brain tumor or of treating sexual offenders, yet countless potential victims have been spared by this work.…”