UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Sex offender risk assessment in the Netherlands : Towards a risk need responsivity oriented approach

Previous research in the Netherlands documented that clinical judgment may yield a substantial amount of treatment referrals for sexual offenders that are inconsistent with actuarial risk assessment and the Risk Need Responsivity (RNR) principles. The present study tested the risk level distribution of a high-intensity, open format outpatient treatment group. Eighty patients were enrolled during a 620-week period, and their STATIC-99R risk levels were retrospectively determined. The distribution of risk levels in this treatment group did not differ from the distribution of a representative sample of sex offenders referred to outpatient treatment in The Netherlands between 1996-2002 (N = 145), nor from the combined Canadian samples (N = 2011) used to assess STATIC-99R normative percentile. These findings suggests that no selection in terms of actuarial risk level occurred between conviction and treatment, leading to over-inclusion of low risk offenders in this high-intensity outpatient treatment group. It is concluded that the standard use of structured risk assessment for the compilation of treatment groups may improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of sex offender treatment in The Netherlands. rISk levelS, treatmeNt duratION aNd drOp Out IN a treatmeNt grOup 51 Sexual offending behavior is a widespread societal problem that carries great costs and suffering for its victims. To illustrate, in the Netherlands, each year over 1% of the population reports being confronted with some form of unwanted sexual contact (Kalindien, De Heer-De Lange, & Van Rosmalen, 2011), with women being almost five times more likely to experience such behavior than men (2.4% of women versus 0.5% of men). Prior research indicated that the majority of these incidents tend to be described as annoying or insulting behavior; and about 15% tends to be described as an actual (attempted) sexual assault or rape (Frenken, 2002). Consistent with findings from a meta-analysis of 23 recidivism outcome studies (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hodgson, 2009), one principal way to reduce the number of victims of sexual offending is to provide adequate treatment for apprehended sex offenders who are at risk to reoffend. Hanson et al. (2009) furthermore concluded that sex offender treatment is most effective when designed corresponding to the risk need responsivity principles (RNR) (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The RNR principles constitute the most influential model for the assessment and treatment of all types of offenders (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; Ward, Mesler, & Yates, 2007). The risk principle dictates that the level of treatment services must be proportional to the offender’s risk to reoffend, i.e., high risk offenders should receive the most intensive treatment. Prior research has shown that sex offenders’ risk levels can be most accurately assessed through the use of structured actuarial risk assessment instruments (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009) and that so determined risk levels should guide treatment selection (Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Specific recommendations on treatment duration for sex offenders are scarce in the literature. One study (Marshall, Jones, Ward, Johnston, & Barbaree, 1991) indicated that two sessions a week during three months would suffice for low-risk offenders, whereas high-risk offenders would need three sessions a week during nine months, thus implying a roughly four times higher dose of treatment for high-risk offenders than for low-risk offenders. Hanson (2009) described a high-intensity treatment consisting of daily group treatment sessions amounting to 15 hours per week during 8-12 months, and a low-intensity treatment consisting of 2-5 hours of group sessions per week during 4-8 months, implying an at least three times higher treatment dose for high-risk offenders than for low-risk offenders. This large difference in recommended treatment dosages between lowand high-risk offenders points to practical advantages of separate treatment groups for these offender groups. Moreover, in line with the RNR principles, research regarding general offenders has demonstrated that placing low-risk offenders in intensive treatment programs may actually increase their recidivism rates (Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, & Rooney, 2000; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002). This adverse effect may come about by affiliation of low-risk offenders with high-risk