VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
THE ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT OF SEXUAL OFFENDERSIN ENGLAND AND WALES
By David Middleton*

I. INTRODUCTION
The design and implementation of programmes to tackle offending behaviour have developed
considerably in the last fifteen years. These programmes are now based on international evidence of “WhatWorks” to reduce re-offending (McGuire, 1995; Andrews & Bonta, 1994).
The application of this approach to sex offending has been given a high priority by both UK Prison and
Probation Services. We now offer, nationally, programmes of recognised quality, which put into practice thetechniques that have been proven to be most effective by the latest research.
The UK Government is committed to ensuring that the assessment, treatment and management of sex
offenders is coordinated seamlessly, from reports provided to judges prior to sentencing, through any period
in custody to release and supervision in the community or a non-custodial sentence, where the court may
direct programme attendance.
The programmes set out in detail in this document provide the principal means to reduce risk, within astrategic framework for the management of risk posed by sex offenders.
These programmes are delivered by staff who have successfully passed an Assessment Centre bydemonstrating competencies known to be associated with successful delivery of sex offender treatment. The
components of the assessment include making a presentation, conducting an interview in role play, receiving
and responding to feedback and demonstrating knowledge and attitudes during a structured interview withthe assessment panel.

A. Statistics
The Prison Service currently has a target to deliver 1240 offenders who have completed treatment in2004. In the same year the National Probation Service (NPS) will have 1800 offenders on treatment
programmes in the community. At any one time there are approximately 6,000 sex offenders in prison and
5,000 sex offenders who are subject to statutory supervision in the community. (The UK total prison
population is currently 77,000). The programmes are delivered in 26 prisons and all 42 Probation Areas inEngland and Wales.
Since 1997 convicted sex offenders are required to notify details of their residence to the police. At theend of 2005 there were 28,994 sex offenders subject to these requirements (known as the “sex offenderregister”) and this number is expected to increase by approximately 3,000 per year.

B. “Duty to Co-operate”
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 places a “duty to co-operate” on a number of agencies in respect ofsharing information concerning individual sex offenders who are living in the community. This information is
co-ordinated by the Police, Probation and Prison authorities who have a statutory duty to prepare risk
management plans on sex offenders who pose a risk of harm to the public. These arrangements known as
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements are one of the most important advances in the management* Head of Sex Offender Strategy and Programmes, National Offender Management Service & National Probation Directorate,
Home Office, London.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72

of sex offenders in the community. It requires each local area to• Maintain a register of residence details for each offender• Formally assess the risk posed by each offender• Share information between agencies• Consider what intervention may be required in each case to protect previous victims and the publicin general.
The National Probation Service, along with the Police, have a key role in the provision of external
controls on sex offenders in the community, through statutory supervision in the form of Community
Rehabilitation Orders or through supervision following release from prison.
The following diagram provides examples of the different forms of control that may be deployed to manage
risk:
Effective Risk Management

Self Control

External Control
Regular Supervision

Supportive Environment
Motivation not to offend
Effective Treatment

Monitoring
Restrictions on movements and associations
Curfews
Sex Offender Orders
Surveillance

C. Risk Management – A Multi-Agency Approach
Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) have a paramount role in determining the best
local response to risk management of sex offenders in the community. Prison and Probation staff mustensure that timely referral is made to the MAPPA covering the area in which the offender is, or will be,living. Prison staff must make relevant information available to the MAPPA so that the appropriateness ofapplying for a Sex Offender Order, to assist in the risk management process, can be properly considered.
Staff must ensure that information is exchanged between Prison and Probation staff concerning the releaseof each sex offender to satisfy themselves that referral is taking place to the relevant MAPPA and, if
appropriate, to the Public Protection Group in the National Probation Directorate.
D. Attendance as a Condition of Release from Prison
The NPS has a statutory responsibility to supervise sex offenders on release in order to protect the
public. Wherever possible involving sex offenders in programmes to address their offending behaviour ispart of the risk management plan. Therefore, all sex offenders due for release should be considered forreferral to a treatment programme offered by the responsible Probation Area. This includes those offenders
who have refused treatment in prison and those who deny their offence.
E. Disclosure to the Public
The police have the power to make a public disclosure of details concerning an offender if this is required
to protect the public and this is exercised in a minority of cases. The disclosure must be proportionate to therisk posed. In practice disclosure is rarely used since there can be negative consequences arising from suchdisclosure such as vigilante action, offenders moving into hiding or causing undue public alarm. However,
the threat of disclosure is useful in persuading sex offenders to co-operate with the multi-agency risk
management plan.
F. Evidence of Effectiveness of Risk Management
The combined effect of treatment and risk management arrangements, is to protect the public, and inparticular to prevent re-offences by known sex offenders. It is difficult to prove that events have not42133RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

occurred, which otherwise would have occurred, if these arrangements were not in place. The question
could be “how many offences would have occurred but for these arrangements?” In answer the Home Officepublishes annual reports concerning the MAPPA. In 2004 this showed that 2,500 sex and violent offenders
were assessed as being the highest risk of reconviction. Of these 48 (2%) were arrested for further serious
offences. A further 517 (18%) were recalled to prison for breach of release conditions or Sex Offence Orders
which prohibited them from engagement in activities associated with their past offences. It is important torecognise that these 18% were recalled without having committed a further contact offence against a victim,
but were recalled because their behaviour led the agencies to consider that such an offence was imminent.
These actions can be estimated to have saved some 500 – 1000 victims from further serious abuse.

II. THE LINK BETWEEN ASSESSMENT, TREATMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Involvement in appropriate treatment is one of the most successful methods of protecting the public fromfuture risk. As well as improving the skills and motivation of offenders to stop their abusive behaviour,
treatment plays a part in gathering information that guides both assessment and management of future risk.
Sex Offender Treatment Programmes do not offer a “cure” for sexual offending, but risk of reconviction
can be reduced by research-based treatment. However, it is the case that treatment will never be an option
for all sex offenders. Treatment should be targeted at those who are best able to benefit from theprogramme, who are motivated, or can be motivated, to stop offending, and those for whom it is in theinterests of the public that they should complete treatment. The aim is to motivate and equip offenders withthe skills for self control over their behaviour. The UK Prison & Probation Service programmes enableoffenders to develop strategies for self control. Self control may not be sufficient in itself, particularly in theearly stages of treatment/release. Therefore, effective risk management requires a combination of self
control and external control factors.

Risk Assessment Methods
Sex Offender risk assessment needs to tell us three things• What is the risk of this offender (or offenders like him/her) being reconvicted of further offences inthe short, medium and long term? (The Static Risk Factors)• What personality characteristics increase the risk of reconviction and can these be changed throughtreatment? (The Dynamic “Stable” Risk Factors)• What are the factors in the immediate environment or behaviour of the offender that may increase
the risk? (The Dynamic Acute Risk Factors)
1. Static Risk Factors
In the UK the standard static risk assessment tool is the Risk Matrix 2000. This is an actuarial tool which
gives a weighting to risk factors derived from research on those characteristics most associated withreconviction. Developed by Dr. David Thornton (Thornton et al. 2003) the tool is based on research studies
which followed convicted sex offenders who were released from prison in 1979 and followed up for almost 20
years. The Risk Matrix predicts that offenders with• previous sex convictions• more than four previous convictions of any kind
• younger at the time of risk
• non-contact offenders• those with a preference for boys
• stranger offenders• those who have not been in a stable intimate relationshiptend to reconvict at a higher rate than those sex offenders without these characteristics. The combination ofthese factors allows assessment to assign offenders to those in a Low Risk Group, Medium Risk Group,
High Risk and Very High Risk Group.
Table 1 below gives the relative risk of reconviction for each of these groups. It should be rememberedthat no risk tool can accurately predict the risk of a particular individual. What these tools tell us is that
individuals who share these characteristics tend to reconvict at these rates, however human beings arenotoriously prone to random responses to particular situations. To help us further therefore we need toassess the characteristics that may make some individuals given the same circumstances respond differently.
These are the dynamic risk factors.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72

2. Dynamic Risk Factors
Dynamic risk factors by definition are capable of change. They tend to be relatively stable because
personality characteristics are relatively stable, however many personality traits are the result of learnt
behaviour and therefore new ways of thinking and behaviour can also be learnt. This is not an easy task
since many sex offenders are thirty, forty or fifty years of age before entering treatment and therefore
patterns of behaviour may be deeply entrenched. The use of structured risk assessment can tell us which
factors on an individual case are present and how they increase/decrease the probability of reconviction. In
the UK Prison and Probation Service the assessment tool used is the Structured Assessment of Risk and
Need (SARN). This assesses the presence of personality characteristics which research has shown to be
most associated with reconviction. These can be grouped into four “Risk Domains” where each domain
contains a number of related specific risk factors. The SARN risk domains are• Sexual Interests
Sexual preoccupation
Sexual preference for children
Sexualised violence preference
Other offence related sexual interest• Distorted Attitudes
Adversarial sexual beliefs
Child Abuse supportive beliefs
Sexual entitlement beliefs
Rape supportive beliefs
View women as deceitful• Management of Relationships
Feelings of personal inadequacy
Distorted intimacy balance
Grievance thinking towards others
Lack of emotional intimacy with adults• Management of Self
Lifestyle impulsiveness
Poor problem solving
Poor management of emotions
In order to use the SARN tool effectively assessors are required to attend designated training run by HM
Prison & Probation Service, however for the purposes of this paper a simplified account is given. In making
an assessment the assessor looks for evidence of any of these risk factors in both the offence behaviour andmore generally in the offender’s lifestyle. It is possible to use psychometric assessments for each of theserisk factors in addition to clinical judgement. The greater the number of factors which can be evidenced inboth offence and lifestyle suggests that both the degree of deviancy and treatment needs will be greater.
Typically an assessment is made prior to treatment intervention and a full assessment follows completion of
the treatment so that any change in dynamic risk can be identified. This may provide an indication ofprogress made by the offender, and additionally if assessments are combined for large numbers of offenders
undergoing the same treatment programme, we may be able to draw some conclusions about theeffectiveness of the programme itself.
Combining dynamic risk assessment with static risk factors appears to offer greater potential forassessing risk. Indeed Ward & Beech (2004) suggest that dynamic risk factors may indicate thecausal/psychological vulnerabilities at the time of the assessment, while the static factors indicate the levelof psychological vulnerabilities over an individual’s life history of offending. Therefore, we may be able toassess for both the level of risk of reconviction posed by an individual with particular historical factors andthrough dynamic risk assessment we may know the particular factors which make the offender vulnerable tooffend. What Probation Officers or staff tasked with monitoring the risk of an individual in the community
need however, is to recognise when a particular offender is moving closer to re-offence as signalled bydeterioration in his behaviour or attitudes. This assessment is carried out by assessing for acute risk factors.
3. Acute Risk Factors
The research into acute risk factors is relatively recent and is still in some stage of development. The
approach of Hanson and Harris (2000) in Canada has been to examine the case files, and conduct interviews

44133RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

with supervising officers of sex offenders in the community. By comparing the factors present in the monthprior to re-offence with those factors present on cases where there was no re-offence, Hanson & Harris
have drawn up a list of indicators which can be monitored on each case. These are• Victim Access – attempts to meet and engage with potential victims, behaviour which indicates thatthe offender is arranging his life so that they “naturally” contact members of their preferred victim
group.
• Emotional Collapse – emotional disturbance which leads to inability to maintain normal routines, outof control thoughts and overwhelming emotions. Actions are taken which are aimed only at
immediate relief of distress.
• Collapse of Social Supports – in particular the loss of contact with those who may act as a positive
influence in avoiding risk behaviour, or an increase in social networks which are negative influences.
• Hostility – either irrational and reckless defiance or general hostility to the victim group which has
increased from baseline level.
• S u b s t a n c e A b u s e – increase from a baseline level may indicate loss of control or increasing
disinhibition.
• Sexual preoccupations – using sex to handle distress, fixation on sexual matters, increase in sexual
tension.
• Rejection of supervision – Whether the offender is working with or against the supervisor. Can be
expressed through disengagement, absences, manipulation, deception, indirect hostility or open
confrontation.
Hanson and Harris also suggest that some offenders have a unique characteristic that represent a risk
factor for that offender such asa specific date (e.g. anniversary) that causes an emotional response possibly triggering
substance abuse
Homelessness
Contact with a specific family member (mother?)
Health problems of a cyclical nature
Intrusive thoughts of own victimisation
Regular monitoring of these factors in supervision, or by home visit to the offender, can assist in
detecting when an offender is beginning to lose control or direct more of his effort into new offence
behaviour rather than offence avoidance.
Combining risk tools appears to be of assistance to sex offender management. Static risk has been thesubject of most research and therefore is generally regarded as the best predictor of risk, and certainly
better than clinical judgement alone. Research in dynamic risk factors is now being given greater
prominence and is also considered better than clinical judgement. Monitoring of acute risk factors has thegreat advantage that the offender can still be assessed even if not engaged in a treatment programme.
However, whilst these tools are useful in assessing risk the most effective method of reducing risk in thecommunity for most offenders is through participation in high quality treatment programmes.

III. TREATMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS
Sex offending can cause lasting trauma to its victims and their families. Sex offences are rarely a ‘one off’;
perpetrators repeat their behaviour because it provides short-term gratification in the form of emotional andsexual release. The UK Prison and Probation Services have a responsibility to offer specialist help to sex
offenders in order to reduce re-offending and thus protect the public and, specifically, potential future
victims.
Current programmes are suitable only for male sex offenders. Work is in progress to develop
programmes that will be suitable for female sex offenders. What follows here is applicable primarily to maleoffenders and, therefore, male terminology is used when referring to sex offenders.
In order for a sex offender to stop offending, he needs to be motivated to do so and he needs to possess
the insight, skills and strategies to manage his risk and control his thoughts and behaviour. The programmesdelivered by the Prison and Probation Services are based on established cognitive-behavioural principles of45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72

the type known to be most effective in reducing risk of re-offending. The cognitive-behavioural approach totreatment teaches offenders to understand and control thinking, feelings and behaviour. Such programmes
are based within the Risk/Need framework which focuses therapy on individual and social risk factors thatare likely to reduce crime rates if suitably modified. (Ward, et al. 2006). The model suggests that if factors
which are linked to risk of offence behaviour for an individual can be accurately assessed, these factors thenbecome clinical targets for modification, control or elimination. Similar programmes for sex offenders inNorth America have been shown to reduce offending by up to one quarter.
The Prison Service Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) consists of five inter-related accreditedgroup work programmes. In the Probation Service, four programmes have been accredited and each
Probation Region has implemented one of the generic sexual offence programmes and the new programme
for internet related sexual offending. All the programmes use methods such as group discussion, role-playand skills practice to help offenders understand and change their thinking, develop new skills and prepare fora new type of life.
The programmes are based on research into the most successful ways to help offenders stop offending.
The content of the programmes has been and will continue to be revised periodically, as new information on
effective treatment becomes available. The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel advises ondevelopment and ensures that the programmes are kept up to date with best practice elsewhere in theworld.
The Prison and Probation treatment programmes are not mutually exclusive. Prisoners are not expected
to choose between addressing their offending behaviour in custody or in the community. Ideally, a prisoner
will attend a programme in prison and build on the treatment gains following release by attending a probation
programme1. The Probation Service programmes have sufficient flexibility to allow access at different
points, according to the amount of previous work undertaken whilst in custody, or to be the starting point fortreatment intervention if the offender has not addressed his offending prior to release, or has received acommunity-based sentence. The Prison and Probation programmes use the same risk assessment methods.

A. Different Structures – Same Treatment Model
The Prison and Probation programmes all have a modular structure. The names and structures of themodules differ, which reflects their separate original design. However, all programmes• share the same treatment model• use cognitive-behavioural methods• target the same dynamic risk factors• have similar selection criteria• are suitable for all forms of sex offending.
Appendix A describes the programmes which are delivered in prison and Appendix B the programmes which
are delivered in the community.

B. Treatment Style
Research has indicated (Marshall et al. 2005) that the therapist’s style has a strong influence on theeffectiveness of sex offender treatment. The key features required of a good therapist are that they be warm,
empathic, rewarding and directive. When challenging offence-supportive attitudes, the therapist must beable to be firm but supportive, rather than harshly confrontational. Therapists should also be supportive,
respectful, genuine and confident, able to self-disclose and use humour appropriately.
C. Treatment Outcome
Three recent research papers have combined, using statistical procedures, the outcomes of individual
evaluations. (Hall 1995; Alexander 1999; Hanson et al. 2002). In general they found that treatment had aneffect on reconviction rates.
The most recent and comprehensive meta-analysis of sex offender treatment effectiveness, combined 69
studies published in five languages with a total sample size of over 22,000 (Losel et al. 2005) The majority of
1 Sentence length and the time on licence will affect whether this ideal is practicable.

46

133RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

studies confirmed a positive effect of treatment. Over all the studies, treated offenders showed 6 percentage
points or 37% less sexual recidivism than controls. Castration and hormonal medication were the mosteffective treatments, although only cautious conclusions should be drawn from this because the group of
offenders who received this treatment were highly selected and motivated. Among psychologicalprogrammes, only cognitive-behavioural or behavioural programmes impacted on recidivism. Additionally,
only programmes designed specifically for sexual offenders were effective. Treatment drop-outs showed
consistently higher rates of recidivism.
All four of the meta-analytic studies conducted in the last ten years have indicated that a cognitivebehavioural/relapse prevention type programme can reduce the levels of sexual re-offending by about ten
percentage points, to less than 10%. Violent and general recidivism rates are also reduced by treatment.
This seems to be a justifiable conclusion even when the programmes treat mixed offender types, andwhether the programmes are sited in an institution or in the community.

D. The Financial Benefit of Treatment
It may appear that a reduction in recidivism of about ten percentage points is not very high. However,when this impact is examined in terms of financial cost-benefit, it is apparent that treatment saves far morethan it costs. The costs of treatment are covered if only three or four people out of 100 are prevented fromre-offending.
E. Comparison of Effects of Sex Offender Treatment with Other Forms of Treatment
It is useful to understand the impact of sex offender treatment by comparing it to other forms oftreatment – e.g. treatment of other offenders, treatment for mental health and physical health problems. A
recent paper (Marshall 2003) has examined this question by calculating and comparing “effect sizes” ofvarious treatments. The effect size of modern sex offender treatment programmes, calculated from the
ATSA study described above, was .28. This effect size is considerably larger than that achieved by manywell-accepted medical procedures such as chemotherapy for breast cancer (effect size=.08), aspirin for
myocardial infarction (effect size=.03), bypass surgery (effect size=.15), and AZT for AIDS (effectsize=.23). The effect size for sexual offender treatment is about the same as the effect sizes forpsychotherapy for general mental health problems and for treatment programmes for general non-sexual
criminals. As a final point, it is interesting to note that deterrence programmes, such as imprisonment alone,or “scared straight” programmes, typically have an effect size of zero. It is concluded that “the treatment ofsexual offenders produces results of sufficient magnitude to justify confident comparisons with treatment forvarious other disorders”.
F. Effectiveness of the Prison Service SOTPs
There have been some difficulties with the evaluation of SOTP because the number of convictions forsexual offences in the UK is falling – the rate has halved since 1981. This has meant that the “base rate”(untreated sexual offender recidivism rate) is too low for statistical comparison with the treated rate to showmuch statistical difference.
The impact on recidivism is only known for the SOTP Core Programme. Other subsequent programmes
have not yet been subject to outcome evaluation. However, clinical evaluation has been conducted on the
SOTP Extended and Adapted programmes, and findings are summarised below.
1. The SOTP Core Programme
The evaluation of the first four years of the SOTP (1992-1996) was published in 2003 (Friendship et al.
2003). This evaluation covers a time when just one treatment programme was offered for sexual offenders –the SOTP Core Programme (there are now four other SOTPs, forming together a flexible package foroffenders of different risk and need levels). In the time period between 1992 and 1996, the SOTP Core
Programme was shorter than it is now, and it focused more on overcoming denial and minimisation than on
skill training (more recent research indicates that this was not an appropriate balance of treatment targets,and the balance in SOTP has consequently now been reversed). The impact of the early SOTP Core
Programme on serious re-offending (i.e. sexual and/or violent) is shown in Table 1 below.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72

Table 1: Two-year Sexual and/or Violent Reconviction Rates for Treatment (N= 647) and Comparison
Group (N = 1,910) by Static Risk Classification
Treatment Group –Percentage Re-offending

Comparison Group –Percentage Re-offending

% (n)

% (n)

Low

1.9 (5)2.6 (25)noMedium-Low

2.7 (6)12.7 (83)yesMedium-High

5.5 (6)13.5 (31)

yes

High

26.0 (13)28.1 (16)noOverall

4.6 (30)

8.1 (155)

yes

Risk Category

Statistical Significanceof Reduction?

It can be seen that the impact differs according to the level of risk presented by the offender. The Core
Programme is clearly effective with the medium risk group. With the low risk group, the base rate is too low
for a statistically significant difference in recidivism to be achieved, but the difference in re-offending rates
can be taken to represent a worthwhile impact. However, there is little or no impact of this programme onhigh risk sexual offenders – who by definition have more previous sexual convictions and thus a morestrongly established pattern of sexually abusive behaviour.
This result was not a surprise, as it was already expected that the highest risk sexual offenders would
require a higher dose of treatment than the 170 hours provided by the Core Programme. Accordingly, asecond treatment programme for high risk sexual offenders was introduced in 1998 to supplement the Core
Programme and provide an additional 140 treatment hours. This programme has not been running for a
sufficient length of time for its additional benefits to be evaluated. This is because at least two years offollow up after release are required for the effectiveness of a programme evaluation to be reliable – as highrisk offenders tend to have longer sentences, only a few who have completed both the Core and Extended
programmes are presently at large.
2. Effectiveness of the Probation Service Programmes
The evaluation of the C-SOGP pathfinder programme, consisting of a sample of 155 adult male sex
offenders (126 Child Sexual Abusers (CSAs), 13 adult rapists, 16 exhibitionists) found that in a three years
period at risk, treated offenders were up to three times less likely to be reconvicted of a sexual offence thana group of matched controls (47 CSAs, 19 rapists, 8 exhibitionists).
Sexual Reconvictions %Violent Reconvictions %Treated CSAs (n=126)

3.2% (n=4)

2.4% (n=3)

Untreated CSAs (n=47)

10.6% (n=5)

12.8% (n=6)

Treated Rapists (n=15)

7.7% (n=1)

7.7% (n=1)

Untreated Rapists (n=19)

26.3% (n=5)

26.3% (n=5)

Treated Exhibitionists (n=15)

18.75% (n=3)

12.5% (n=2)

Untreated Exhibitionists (n=8)

37.5% (n=3)

37.5% (n=3)

Group

A study of the TV-SOGP followed 173 sexual offenders for a mean time of three years and elevenmonths. It found a reconviction rate of 9% following treatment. Whilst there was no control group in thisstudy, a comparison can be made with the untreated reconviction rates quoted above.

48

133RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

3. Limitations of Reconviction Studies
Evaluation of sex offender treatment programmes are hindered by not being able to provide short term
answers to questions of success. They take at least five years from set up to reporting findings. In addition
there are problems of:• Low base rates, and declining rates, of sexual reconvictions• Small sample sizes• Inadequate follow-up periods• Inaccurate data sources• Official reconviction rates underestimate sexual re-offending• Ethical problems in conducting randomised control studies
Most of the treatment programmes however are able to demonstrate success in changing sex offender
attitudes. Psychometric tests reveal evidence of in-treatment progress in all treatment targets which wereassessed such as cognitive distortions about women and children; victim empathy; lower levels of denial andminimisation; self-reported lower levels of sexual dysfunction and sexual preoccupation; fewer justifications
and rationalisations; higher levels of motivation to change; and improved relapse prevention skills.

IV. CONCLUSIONS
It is established in the scientific literature that sexual offender treatment typically produces a small but
robust impact on recidivism rates. It seems that the impact of cognitive-behavioural treatment is to reduce
recidivism by about ten percentage points, and the re-offence rate of those who have received treatment islikely to be under 10%, whatever their age or offence type. Results to date from the Prison Service SOTP
indicate that this pattern is followed for low and medium risk sexual offenders, but high risk offenders needadditional intervention.

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72

APPENDIX A
I. SUMMARY OF THE PRISON SERVICE PROGRAMMESThe SOTP currently runs in 27 establishments, throughout England and Wales. There are five different
programmes, all of which are accredited. Sessions are run two to five times a week, depending on the
programme and the establishment. A summary of each programme follows general points that apply to all
programmes.

A. Suitability and Assessment
The SOTP is available to any male prisoner who has been convicted of a sex offence or an offence with asexual element and who will have enough time in prison to complete a course.
All prisoners are assessed before joining a group. The assessment identifies the treatment needs thatexist for each individual. It also provides a baseline from which change during treatment can be judged. The
assessment process identifies those for whom SOTP is not suitable, perhaps for medical or personality
reasons.
The assessment involves:• interviews, usually with a psychologist;• completion of questionnaires;• and, in some prisons, a penile plethysmograph (PPG) assessment, that helps identify sexual
preferences.
Some of the assessments are then repeated on completion of the treatment programme, to provide ameasure of impact and to contribute towards further treatment planning.

Relationship between Static Risk, Treatment Need and Programme Suitability
Risk Category:
RM2000

Low Treatment Needs(SRA)

Medium Treatment Needs(SRA)

High Treatment Needs(SRA)

Low Static

Rolling

Rolling

Rolling/Core

Medium Static

Rolling

Core1

Core + Extended

High StaticCore + ExtendedCore + Extended + RollingCore + Extended + Rolling

Very High StaticCore + ExtendedCore + Extended + RollingCore + Extended + Rolling

B. Core Programme
The Core Programme consists of 90 sessions lasting six to eight months at three to four sessions per
week. It addresses a range of offending behaviours by:• challenging thinking patterns used by offenders to excuse and justify their behaviour;• enabling prisoners to understand how the offences appear from the victim’s point of view and how arange of people are affected by sex offending; and• developing prisoners’ ability to recognise risk factors (things that might trigger future offending) andto generate strategies for living successful lives without offending in the future.
C. Adapted Programme
The ASOTP consists of 85 sessions lasting six to eight months at three to four sessions per week. It is
designed for those who may have difficulty keeping up with the language and literacy skills required in the
1 There is also an ‘Adapted’ Core programme for sexual offenders with learning or communication difficulties.

50

133RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Core Programme. It has slightly different goals, which include:• increasing sexual knowledge;• modifying thinking patterns used by offenders to excuse and justify their behaviour;• developing the ability to recognise risk factors (things that might trigger future offending) and to
generate strategies for living successful lives without offending in the future.

D. Extended Programme
The Extended Programme consists of 74 sessions plus some individual work and lasts six months atthree sessions per week. The EP is designed for those who have ‘successfully’ completed the Core or
Rolling Programme (or equivalent offending behaviour work), but who could benefit from completing further
work. This includes• working with certain thinking styles that are related to offending and manifest themselves in otherareas of life;• effectively managing offence-related emotional states;• developing skills to help manage intimate relationships successfully;• understanding the role of offence related sexual fantasy and developing skills for managing this.
The Programme also aims to continue the development of skills needed to recognise things that might
trigger future offending.
Individual work with a psychologist, to address offence related sexual fantasy and arousal, is part of theEP.

E. Rolling Programme
Extent of participation on the Rolling Programme is dependent on individual treatment needs. Average
length of participation is three to four months at three sessions per week. The RP addresses the same rangeof behaviours as the Core Programme, but runs in a ‘rolling’ format so group members may join and leave
when appropriate.
The Rolling Programme has two target groups, who may be mixed within a group. These are:• low risk and low deviance offenders, who will normally be identified by the SOTP Structured Risk
Assessment; and• higher risk offenders who have already completed the Core (and possibly the Extended) programme
but who need some additional work to achieve a satisfactory impact.
At initial assessment, the SOTP Treatment Manager will decide whether the Core Programme or the
Rolling Programme is more suitable.

F. Booster Programme
The Booster Programme consists of 35 sessions and lasts two to three months at three sessions per
week. It is designed for those who have ‘successfully’ completed the Core, Rolling and/or Extended
Programme (or equivalent offending behaviour work) and are within 18 months of being released. The
Booster programme revises the concepts of the Core or Rolling Programme and then allows participants toplan and prepare for release in more detail.
The Booster Programme is currently being revised with a view to providing more support in maintainingchange for prisoners on long sentences.

II. EVALUATION OF THE PRISON SERVICE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME
Evaluation of programme impact is an accreditation requirement and contributes towards programme
improvement.
The following table presents data comparing outcomes in terms of reconvictions for prisoners whocompleted the Core Programme with imprisoned sex offenders of similar risk who did not undertake anytreatment.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72

Two Year Sexual and/or Violent Reconviction Rates for Treated and Comparison Groups by Level of
Risk. (n=647 and Comparison Group n – 1910)
Risk of
Re-Offence

1. Treatment
Group %

2. Comparison
Group %% Point Reduction

Proportionate
reduction %

Low

1.9

2.6

0.7

26

Medium – low

2.7

12.7

10.0

78

Medium – high

5.5

13.5

8.0

59

High

26.0

28.1

2.1

7

52

133RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

APPENDIX B
I. SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT IN THE COMMUNITY
The National Probation Service has four accredited sex offender programmes. Each of the Probation
regions will be running one of these programmes, together with a new programme for internet related
sexual offenders.
The difference in the name and structure of the programmes reflects their original design in the West
Midlands (C-SOGP), Thames Valley (TV-SOGP) and Northumbria (N-SOGP). Each has been designed tomeet the needs of sex offenders living in the community who are subject to supervision either as a noncustodial sentence or on licence following release from a prison sentence. All three programmes have
proved to be effective in work with adult male sex offenders. The work which is undertaken is similar. The
selection requirements and length of attendance are similar. The programmes have a number of different
entry points for offenders according to:• Level of risk and deviance• Whether they have completed sex offender treatment programmes in prison
The Treatment Manager responsible for the programme in the Probation Area to which a prisoner may
be released decides the most appropriate method of addressing the risk presented by the sex offender after
release from custody. This includes the point of entry into the community-based treatment programme.
Treatment Managers will take into account the assessment of risk and deviance, the level of denial, and thestandard criteria for inclusion on the programme (i.e. Male, Adult, I.Q. 80+)2.

A. C-SOGPThis programme has three main components.
1. Induction ModuleThis is a 50-hour module designed as the main point of entry into the programme. Offenders will start
this module if they have been sentenced from Court to attend as part of a 3-year Community Rehabilitation
Order. Offenders released from prison who have not previously taken part in a treatment programme will
also start the C-SOGP in the Induction Module3. The Induction Module is a closed group (i.e. all groupmembers start the programme together and no new members join the group once it has started). The firstweek of the Module is a five-day block. Following this first week the Module continues in two-and-a-halfhour sessions. These sessions are usually delivered on a weekly basis for ten weeks. Some Probation Areas
may run this Module on a twice-weekly basis or run two sessions on one day.
The Module aims to help offenders take greater personal responsibility for their offence and to reducethe minimisation often found in offender accounts. During the course of the Module, offenders will be
encouraged to identify patterns in their offending behaviour.
2. Long Term Therapy Programme
Following completion of the Induction Module, offenders who are assessed as Medium and High Risk orHigh Deviance, will be entered into the Long Term programme. Offenders who have completed treatment inprison but who are still assessed as High Risk and/or Deviance will usually enter the C-SOGP in the Long
Term programme. This contains six modules and the offender may enter at the start of any Module (otherthan Victim Empathy). The Long Term programme is usually run on a weekly basis of one session per week.
The total number of 190 hours worked in this part of the C-SOGP will take seventy-six weeks to complete if
the programme is run on a weekly basis. These modules are designed to continue the process of• challenging distorted thinking• identifying maladaptive relationship styles and core beliefs• learning new skills to improve self-management
2 Whilst the NPS does not currently have an accredited programme for sex offenders with learning disabilities referral of suchoffenders should still be made. Many Areas have arrangements to deal with this offender group.
3 Research suggests that it is inadvisable for sex offenders to commence treatment unless they are able to complete theprogramme. Therefore sentencers are recommended to use Sec 58, PCCS Act 2000 to apply extended sentence provision of
three year post release supervision periods for sex offender cases. The Treatment Manager will make a judgement ofsuitability for the programme in cases of shorter licence periods.

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72••

understanding the role that deviant fantasy plays in offending and techniques to control such
fantasies
developing victim empathy, relapse prevention skills and new lifestyle goals.

3. 50-Hour Relapse Prevention Programme
Offenders who have been assessed as Low Risk and Deviance following completion of the Induction
Module will complete the 50-hour RP Programme. Offenders who have made treatment gains during
successful completion of the sex offending treatment programme in prison, and who are assessed as
Low/Medium risk and Low Deviance may enter the C-SOGP in the 50-Hour RP programme. This is run as arolling programme; therefore, offenders can enter at any session and continue their attendance for twenty
weeks.
This programme is designed for offenders whose behaviour may be less entrenched or who can build on
treatment gains made elsewhere. The programme includes work on• challenging distortions• victim empathy• relapse prevention and• lifestyle change.

B. TV-SOGP
This programme has five main components. Low deviance offenders will complete the Foundation Block,
Victim Empathy and Relapse Prevention Blocks. High Deviance offenders will be required to complete thefull 160-hour Programme. Successful SOTP completers can enter at the start of any of the Blocks
1. Foundation BlockThis is a 60-hour block designed as the main point of entry into the programme. Offenders will start withthis module if they have been sentenced from court to attend as part of a three-year Community
Rehabilitation Order. Offenders released from prison who have not previously taken part in a treatment
programme will also start the C-SOGP in the Foundation Block.
The Foundation Block is designed as a two-week full-time block. Some Probation Areas may run this as a
block of seven days with the remaining three days run as weekly sessions; however, it will normally be run
as ten days over a two week period. It will always be run as a closed group.
This block tackles the offence-specific areas such as• offence details• attitudes towards the offence• identifying offence patterns and• the role of deviant sexual thoughts.
2. Victim Empathy Block
The 16-hour Victim Empathy Block consists of eight two-hour sessions run on a twice-weekly basis. It istaken after the Foundation Block. The sessions could be run weekly, at the Probation Area’s discretion, but
twice-weekly sessions are recommended so that they retain their impact. It is run as a closed group.
Offenders work on perspective taking skills and relate these to victim perspectives of sexual abuse.
3. Life Skills BlockThis 40-hour block is structured in twenty sessions that can be delivered either weekly or twice weekly,
as a closed group.
The block covers work on• problem recognition & solving skills• coping skills• relationship skills and• other non-offence-specific factors which may have contributed to an individual’s offending.

54

133RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

4. Relapse Prevention BlockThis 44-hour block is run as a weekly group of two-hour sessions. The ideal joining point is at the
beginning of the block; however, to obtain maximum flexibility, arrangements can be made to join at othersessions during this block.
The block focus is on learning and practising strategies for leading a more satisfying life without sex
offending. Sessions deal with the reduction of personal risk factors.
5. Partners ProgrammeThis is 36 hours in length and is intended for female partners who are intending to continue theirrelationship with the offender. It is particularly appropriate for partners of low risk/deviance intra-familial
sex offenders, where the contextual risk may be high. Partners of men who have sexually abused adults or
who have committed non-contact offences may also attend.

C. N-SOGPThis programme has two components. Offenders assessed as High Risk/Deviancy will attend the Core
Programme (144 hours minimum) followed by Relapse Prevention (36 hours), giving a total programme
length of 180 hours. Low risk/deviance offenders will normally complete individual preparation work
followed by the Relapse Prevention Programme. Offenders released from prison will follow similar routes,
according to the assessment of their risk and deviance.
1. Core ProgrammeThis is a rolling programme consisting of four blocks of eight weeks each (total 32 weeks). Sessions of
4.5 hours are delivered on a weekly basis. This programme was originally designed to run in daytime
sessions; however, some Probation Areas may choose to run two evening sessions of shorter duration tocover the same amount of material. The blocks are separated by a gap, usually two weeks, to allow for
feedback to Case Managers and identification of individual work required. An offender may join at the start ofany of the blocks. This group structure provides flexibility in terms of quick access into the programme andthe possibility of offenders repeating a block if they are assessed as having made insufficient progress. Groupsessions combine both “Personal” work, in which an individual presents his individual work to the group forchallenge, and “Thematic” work which involves the whole group in structured exercises. Personal work
includes “My Offence”, “Cycle of Offending”, “What’s Changed” and “Risk Factors”, which are the focus foreach of the four blocks that make up the Core Programme. Thematic exercises include work on• links between sexual fantasy and deviance• cognitive distortions• victim empathy• risk awareness and management• problem solving and social skills.
2. Relapse Prevention
This is a closed group running over a twelve-week period of three hours per weekly session. All
offenders who completed the Core Programme will be expected to complete the relapse prevention group.
Other offenders may join
• on release from prison if they demonstrate sufficient learning from the SOTP or• are low risk/deviancy offenders who have completed individual work with their Case Manager.
The emphasis of the group is on identifying new, pro-social ways of behaving and reinforcing the positive
feelings that are associated with an offence-free lifestyle. The group itself primarily addresses the internal
self management component of desistance from offending. Each member will therefore leave the group withhis own relapse prevention (or “new life”) plan.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 72

REFERENCES
Alexander, M.A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
and Treatment, 11, 2, 101-116.
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (1994) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Cincinnati, OH, Anderson
Publishing Co.
Friendship, C., Mann, R. E. and Beech, A. R. (2003) Evaluation of a national prison-based treatment
programme for sexual offenders in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Hall, G. C. N. (1995) Sexual offender treatment recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment
studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 802-809.
Hanson, R. K., Gordon, A., Harris, A. J. R., Marques, J. K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. L. and Seto, M. (2002)
First Report on the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment
for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 2, 169-197.
Hanson, R. K. and Harris, A. J. R. (2000) Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual offence
recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 27, 6-35.
Losel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005) The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive
meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.
Marshall, W. L. (2005) Therapist Style in sexual offender treatment: Influence on indices of change. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 109-116.
Marshall, W. L. & McGuire, J. (2003) Effect sizes in the treatment of sexual offenders. International Journalof Offender therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47, 653-663.
McGuire, J. (1995) Reviewing “What Works”: Past, Present and Future. In McGuire, J. What Works:
Reducing Reoffending (p3 -34): Wiley & Sons Ltd, London.
Thornton, D. Mann, R. E., Webster, S. D., Blud, L., Travers, R., Friendship, C. and Erikson, M (2003)
Distinguishing and combining risks for sexual and violent recidivism. Annals of New York Academy of
Science. 989: 225-235.
Ward, T., Polaschek, D. L. L. and Beech, A. R. (2006) The Risk-Need Treatment Model Chapter 16 in
Theories of Sex Offending Wiley, London.

56