C enter For S ex O ffender M anagement

Recidivism of Sex Offenders

May 2001

Introduction

The criminal justice system manages most

convicted sex offenders with some

combination of incarceration, community

supervision, and specialized treatment

(Knopp, Freeman-Longo, and Stevenson,

1992). While the likelihood and length of

incarceration for sex offenders has increased

in recent years,

1

 the majority are released at

some point on probation or parole (either

immediately following sentencing or after a

period of incarceration in prison or jail).

About 60 percent of all sex offenders

managed by the U.S. correctional system

are under some form of conditional

supervision in the community (Greenfeld,

1997).

While any offender’s subsequent reoffending

is of public concern, the prevention of

sexual violence is particularly important,

given the irrefutable harm that these

offenses cause victims and the fear they

generate in the community. With this in

mind, practitioners making decisions about

how to manage sex offenders must ask

themselves the following questions:

ß What is the likelihood that a specific

offender will commit subsequent sex

crimes?

ß Under what circumstances is this

offender least likely to reoffend?

ß What can be done to reduce the

likelihood of reoffense?

 

1

 Since 1980, the number of imprisoned sex offenders has

grown by more than 7 percent per year (Greenfeld, 1997). In

1994, nearly one in ten state prisoners were incarcerated for

committing a sex offense (Greenfeld, 1997).

The study of recidivism—the commission of

a subsequent offense—is important to the

criminal justice response to sexual offending.

If sex offenders commit a wide variety of

offenses, responses from both a public

policy and treatment perspective may be no

different than is appropriate for the general

criminal population (Quinsey, 1984).

However, a more specialized response is

appropriate if sex offenders tend to commit

principally sex offenses.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the

critical issues in defining recidivism and

provide a synthesis of the current research

on the reoffense rates of sex offenders. The

following sections summarize and discuss

research findings on sex offenders, factors

and conditions that appear to be associated

with reduced sexual offending, and the

implications that these findings have for sex

offender management. Although studies on

juvenile sex offender response to treatment

exist, the vast majority of research has

concentrated on adult males. Thus, this

paper focuses primarily on adult male sex

offenders.

Issues in the Measurement of Sex

Offender Recidivism

Research on recidivism can be used to

inform intervention strategies with sex

offenders. However, the way in which

recidivism is measured can have a marked

difference in study results and applicability

to the day-to-day management of this

criminal population. The following section

explores variables such as the population(s)

of sex offenders studied, the criteria used to

Established in June 1997, CSOM’s goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the management of

adult and juvenile sex offenders who are in the community. A collaborative effort of the Office of Justice Programs, the National Institute of

Corrections, and the State Justice Institute, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy and the American Probation and

Parole Association.
2

measure recidivism, the types of offenses

studied, and the length of time a study

follows a sample. Practitioners must

understand how these and other study

variables can affect conclusions about sex

offender recidivism, as well as decisions

regarding individual cases.

Defining the Sex Offender Population

Studied

Sex offenders are a highly heterogeneous

mixture of individuals who have committed

violent sexual assaults on strangers,

offenders who have had inappropriate sexual

contact with family members, individuals

who have molested children, and those who

have engaged in a wide range of other

inappropriate and criminal sexual behaviors.

If we group various types of offenders and

offenses into an ostensibly homogenous

category of “sex offenders,” distinctions in

the factors related to recidivism will be

masked and differential results obtained

from studies of reoffense patterns. Thus,

one of the first issues to consider in

reviewing any study of sex offender

recidivism is how “sex offender” is defined;

who is included in this category, and, as

important, who is not.

Defining Recidivism

Although there is common acceptance that

recidivism is the commission of a

subsequent offense, there are many

operational definitions for this term. For

example, recidivism may occur when there

is a new arrest, new conviction, or new

commitment to custody. Each of these

criteria is a valid measure of recidivism, but

each measures something different. While

the differences may appear minor, they will

lead to widely varied outcomes.

ß Subsequent Arrest—Using new charges

or arrests as the determining criteria for

“recidivism” will result in a higher

recidivism rate, because many individuals

are arrested but for a variety of reasons,

are not convicted.

ß Subsequent Conviction—Measuring new

convictions is a more restrictive criterion

than new arrests, resulting in a lower

recidivism rate. Generally, more

confidence is placed in reconviction,

since this involves a process through

which the individual has been found

guilty. However, given the process

involved in reporting, prosecution, and

conviction in sex offense cases, a

number of researchers favor the use of

more inclusive criteria (e.g., arrests or

charges).

ß Subsequent Incarceration—Some studies

utilize return to prison as the criterion for

determining recidivism. There are two

ways in which individuals may be

returned to a correctional institution.

One is through the commission of a new

offense and return to prison on a new

sentence and the other is through a

technical violation of parole. The former

is by far the more restrictive criterion,

since an offender has to have been found

guilty and sentenced to prison.

Technical violations typically involve

violations of conditions of release, such

as being alone with minor children or

consuming alcohol. Thus, the use of this

definition will result in the inclusion of

individuals who may not have committed

a subsequent criminal offense as

recidivists. When one encounters the

use of return to prison as the criterion for

recidivism, it is imperative to determine if

this includes those with new convictions,

technical violations, or both.

Sex offenders are a highly heterogeneous mixture

of individuals who have committed violent sexual

assaults on strangers, offenders who have had

inappropriate sexual contact with family

members, individuals who have molested

children, and those who have engaged in a wide

range of other inappropriate and criminal sexual

behaviors.
3

Underestimating Recidivism

Reliance on measures of recidivism as

reflected through official criminal justice

system data obviously omit offenses that

are not cleared through an arrest or those

that are never reported to the police. This

distinction is critical in the measurement of

recidivism of sex offenders. For a variety of

reasons, sexual assault is a vastly

underreported

crime. The

National Crime

Victimization

Surveys (Bureau of

Justice Statistics)

conducted in

1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32

percent (one out of three) of sexual assaults

against persons 12 or older are reported to

law enforcement. A three-year longitudinal

study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour,

1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84

percent of respondents who identified

themselves as rape victims did not report

the crime to authorities. (No current studies

indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual

assault, although it is generally assumed

that these assaults are equally

underreported.) Many victims are afraid to

report sexual assault to the police. They

may fear that reporting will lead to the

following:

ß further victimization by the offender;

ß other forms of retribution by the offender

or by the offender's friends or family;

ß arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of

an offender who may be a family

member or friend and on whom the

victim or others may depend;

ß others finding out about the sexual

assault (including friends, family

members, media, and the public);

ß not being believed; and

ß being traumatized by the criminal justice

system response.

These factors are compounded by the

shame and guilt experienced by sexual

assault victims, and, for many, a desire to

put a tragic experience behind them. Incest

victims who have experienced criminal

justice involvement are particularly reluctant

to report new incest crimes because of the

disruption caused to their family. This

complex of reasons makes it unlikely that

reporting figures will change dramatically in

the near future and bring recidivism rates

closer to actual reoffense rates.

Several studies support the hypothesis that

sexual offense recidivism rates are

underreported. Marshall and Barbaree

(1990) compared official records of a sample

of sex offenders with “unofficial” sources of

data. They found that the number of

subsequent sex offenses revealed through

unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than

the number that was recorded in official

reports. In addition, research using

information generated through polygraph

examinations on a sample of imprisoned sex

offenders with fewer than two known

victims (on average), found that these

offenders actually had an average of 110

victims and 318 offenses (Ahlmeyer, Heil,

McKee, and English, 2000). Another

polygraph study found a sample of

imprisoned sex offenders to have extensive

criminal histories, committing sex crimes for

an average of 16 years before being caught

(Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons, 1999).

Offense Type

For the purpose of their studies, researchers

must determine what specific behaviors

qualify sex offenders as recidivists. They

must decide if only sex offenses will be

considered, or if the commission of any

crime is sufficient to be classified as a

recidivating offense. If recidivism is

determined only through the commission of

a subsequent sex offense, researchers must

consider if this includes felonies and

misdemeanors. Answers to these

fundamental questions will influence the

level of observed recidivism in each study.

Several studies support

the hypothesis that

sexual offense recidivism

rates are underreported.
4

Length of Follow-Up

Studies often vary in the length of time they

“follow-up” on a group of sex offenders in

the community. There are two issues of

concern with follow-up periods. Ideally, all

individuals in any given study should have

the same length of time “at risk”—time at

large in the community—and, thus, equal

opportunity to commit subsequent offenses.

In practice, however, this almost never

happens. For instance, in a 10-year followup study, some subjects will have been in

the community for eight, nine, or 10 years

while others may have been out for only two

years. This problem is addressed by using

survival analysis, a methodology that takes

into account the amount of time every

subject has been in the community, rather

than a simple percentage.

Additionally, when researchers compare

results across studies, similar time at risk

should be used in each of the studies.

Obviously, the longer the follow-up period,

the more likely reoffense will occur and a

higher rate of recidivism will be observed.

Many researchers believe that recidivism

studies should ideally include a follow-up

period of five years or more.

Effect on Recidivism Outcomes

What are we to make of these caveats

regarding recidivism—do they render

recidivism a meaningless concept? On the

contrary, from a public policy perspective,

recidivism is an invaluable measure of the

performance of various sanctions and

interventions with criminal offenders.

However, there is often much ambiguity

surrounding what appears to be a simple

statement of outcomes regarding recidivism.

In comparing the results of various

recidivism studies, one should not lose sight

of the issues of comparable study samples,

criteria for recidivism, the length of the

follow-up period, information sources utilized

to estimate risk of reoffense, and the

likelihood that recidivism rates are

underestimated.

Factors Associated with Sex

Offender Recidivism

In many instances, policies and procedures

for the management of sex offenders have

been driven by public outcry over highly

publicized sex offenses. However, criminal

justice practitioners must avoid reactionary

responses that are based on public fear of

this population. Instead, they must strive to

make management decisions that are based

on the careful assessment of the likelihood

of recidivism. The identification of risk

factors that may be associated with

recidivism of sex offenders can aid

practitioners in devising management

strategies that best protect the community

and reduce the likelihood of further

victimization.

It is crucial to keep in mind, however, that

there are no absolutes or “magic bullets” in

the process of identifying these risk factors.

Rather, this process is an exercise in

isolating factors that tend to be associated

with specific behaviors. While this

association reflects a likelihood, it does not

indicate that all individuals who possess

certain characteristics will behave in a

certain manner. Some sex offenders will

inevitably commit subsequent sex offenses,

in spite of our best efforts to identify risk

factors and institute management and

treatment processes aimed at minimizing

these conditions. Likewise, not all sex

offenders who have reoffense risk

characteristics will recidivate.

The identification of risk factors that may be

associated with recidivism of sex offenders can

aid practitioners in devising management

strategies that best protect the community and

reduce the likelihood of further victimization.
5

This section explores several important

aspects in the study of recidivism and

identification of risk factors associated with

sex offenders’ commission of subsequent

crimes.

Application of Studies of General Criminal

Recidivism

The identification of factors associated with

criminal recidivism has been an area of

significant research over the past 20 years.

This work has fueled the development of

countless policies and instruments to guide

sentencing and release decisions throughout

the criminal justice system. If one assumes

that sex offenders are similar to other

criminal offenders, then the preponderance

of research should assist practitioners in

identifying risk factors in this population as

well. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued

that there is little specialization among

criminal offenders. In this view, robbers

also commit burglary and those who commit

assaults also may be drug offenders. The

extensive research on recidivism among the

general criminal population has identified a

set of factors that are consistently

associated with subsequent criminal

behavior. These factors include being

young, having an unstable employment

history, abusing alcohol and drugs, holding

pro-criminal attitudes, and associating with

other criminals (Gendreau, Little, and

Goggin, 1996).

However, there is some evidence that

suggests that sexual offending may differ

from other criminal behavior (Hanson and

Bussiere, 1998). Although sex offenders

may commit other types of offenses, other

types of offenders rarely commit sex

offenses (Bonta and Hanson, 1995; Hanson,

Steffy, and Gauthier, 1995). If this is the

case, then a different set of factors may be

associated with the recidivism of sex

offenders than for the general offender

population. This statement is reinforced by

the finding that many persistent sex

offenders receive low risk scores on

instruments designed to predict recidivism

among the general offender population

(Bonta and Hanson, 1995).

Identification of Static and Dynamic Factors

Characteristics of offenders can be grouped

into two general categories. First, there are

historical characteristics, such as age, prior

offense history, and age at first sex offense

arrest or conviction. Because these items

typically cannot be altered, they are often

referred to as static factors. Second are

those characteristics, circumstances, and

attitudes that can change throughout one’s

life, generally referred to as dynamic factors.

Examples of dynamic characteristics include

drug or alcohol use, poor attitude (e.g., low

remorse and victim blaming), and intimacy

problems. The identification of dynamic

factors that are associated with reduced

recidivism holds particular promise in

effectively managing sex offenders because

the strengthening of these factors can be

encouraged through various supervision and

treatment strategies.

Dynamic factors can further be divided into

stable and acute categories (Hanson and

Harris, 1998). Stable dynamic factors are

those characteristics that can change over

time, but are relatively lasting qualities.

Examples of these characteristics include

deviant sexual preferences or alcohol or drug

abuse. On the other hand, Hanson and

Harris (1998) suggest that acute dynamic

factors are conditions that can change over

a short period of time. Examples include

sexual arousal or intoxication that may

immediately precede a reoffense.

Understanding Base Rates

Understanding the concept of “base rates” is

also essential when studying sex offender

recidivism. A base rate is simply the overall

rate of recidivism of an entire group of

offenders. If the base rate for an entire

group is known (e.g., 40 percent), then,

without other information, practitioners
6

would predict that any individual in this

group has approximately a 40 percent

chance of recidivating. If static or dynamic

factors related to recidivism are identified,

error rates can be improved and this

information can be used to make more

accurate assessments of the likelihood of

rearrest or reconviction. However, if the

base rate is at one extreme or the other,

additional information may not significantly

improve accuracy. For instance, if the base

rate were 10 percent, then practitioners

would predict that 90 percent of the

individuals in this group would not be

arrested for a new crime. The error rate

would be difficult to improve, regardless of

what additional information may be available

about individual offenders. In other words,

if we simply predicted that no one would be

rearrested, we would be wrong only 10

percent of the time.

It is quite difficult to

make accurate

individual

predictions in such

extreme situations.

What has come to be termed as “the low

base rate problem” has traditionally plagued

sex offender recidivism studies (Quinsey,

1980). As noted previously, lack of

reporting, or underreporting, is higher in

crimes of sexual violence than general

criminal violence and may contribute to the

low base rate problem. The following

studies have found low base rates for sex

offender populations:

ß Hanson and Bussiere (1998) reported an

overall recidivism rate of 13 percent.

ß Grumfeld and Noreik (1986) found a 10

percent recidivism rate for rapists.

ß Gibbens, Soothill, and Way (1978)

reported a 4 percent recidivism rate for

incest offenders.

Samples of sex offenders used in some

studies may have higher base rates of

reoffense than other studies. Quinsey

(1984) found this to be the case in his

summary of sex offender recidivism studies,

as have many other authors who have

attempted to synthesize this research.

There is wide variation in results, in both the

amount of measured recidivism and the

factors associated with these outcomes. To

a large degree, differences can be explained

by variations in the sample of sex offenders

involved in the studies. Although this is a

simple and somewhat obvious point, this

basic fact is “responsible for the

disagreements and much of the confusion in

the literature” on the recidivism of sex

offenders (Quinsey, 1984).

Furthermore, results from some studies

indicate that there may be higher base rates

among certain categories of sex offenders

(Quinsey, Laumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995;

Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). For

example, in their follow-up study of sex

offenders released from a psychiatric facility,

Quinsey, Rice, and Harris (1995) found that

rapists had a considerably higher rate of

rearrest/reconviction than did child

molesters.

Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce

(1997) found that over a 25-year period,

child molesters had higher rates of reoffense

than rapists. In this study, recidivism was

operationalized as a failure rate and

calculated as the proportion of individuals

who were rearrested using survival analysis

(which takes into account the amount of

time each offender has been at risk in the

community). Results show that over longer

A base rate is simply

the overall rate of

recidivism of an entire

group of offenders.

Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997)

New Sex Offense Charges (Failure Rate)

9%

19%

26%

39%

6%

19%

30%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1 Year 5 Years 10 Years 25 Years

Rapists (N=136)

Child Molesters (N=115)
7

periods of time, child molesters have a

higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of

rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39

percent over 25 years).

Making Sense of Contradictory Findings

Studies on sex offender recidivism vary

widely in the quality and rigor of the

research design, the sample of sex offenders

and behaviors included in the study, the

length of follow-up, and the criteria for

success or failure. Due to these and other

differences, there is often a perceived lack

of consistency across studies of sex

offender recidivism. For example, there

have been varied results regarding whether

the age of the offender at the time of

institutional release is associated with

subsequent criminal sexual behavior. While

Beck and Shipley (1987) found that there

was no relationship between these variables,

Clark and Crum (1985) and Marshall and

Barbaree (1990) suggested that younger

offenders were more likely to commit future

crimes. However, Grunfeld and Noreik

(1986) argued that older sex offenders are

more likely to have a more developed

fixation and thus are more likely to reoffend.

A study by the Delaware Statistical Analysis

Center (1984) found that those serving

longer periods of incarceration had a lower

recidivism rate—while Roundtree, Edwards,

and Parker (1984) found just the opposite.

To a large degree, the variation across

individual studies can be explained by the

differences in study populations. Schwartz

and Cellini (1997) indicated that the use of a

heterogeneous group of sex offenders in the

analysis of recidivism might be responsible

for this confusion:

“Mixing an antisocial rapist with a

socially skilled fixated pedophile

with a developmentally disabled

exhibitionist may indeed produce a

hodgepodge of results.”

Similarly, West, Roy, and Nichols (1978)

noted that recidivism rates in studies of sex

offenders vary by the characteristics of the

offender sample. Such a situation makes

the results from follow-up studies of

undifferentiated sex offenders difficult to

interpret (Quinsey, 1998).

One method of dealing with this problem is

to examine recidivism studies of specific

types of sex offenders. This approach is

warranted, given the established base rate

differences across types of sex offenders.2

Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their

review of studies that the recidivism rate for

specific types of offenders varied:

ß Incest offenders ranged between 4 and

10 percent.

ß Rapists ranged between 7 and 35

percent.

ß Child molesters with female victims

ranged between 10 and 29 percent.

ß Child molesters with male victims ranged

between 13 and 40 percent.

ß Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71

percent.

In summary, practitioners should recognize

several key points related to research

studies on sex offender recidivism. First,

since sexual offending may differ from other

criminal behavior, research specific to sex

offender recidivism is needed to inform

interventions with sex offenders. Second,

researchers seek to identify static and

dynamic factors associated with recidivism

of sex offenders. In particular, the

identification of, and support of, “positive”

dynamic factors may help reduce the risk of

 

2

 Recent research suggests that many offenders have

histories of assaulting across genders and age groups, rather

than against only one specific victim population. Researchers

in a 1999 study (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons) found that,

through polygraph examinations, the number offenders who

“crossed over” age groups of victims is extremely high. The

study revealed that before polygraph examinations, 6 percent

of a sample of incarcerated sex offenders had both child and

adult victims, compared to 71 percent after polygraph exams.

Thus, caution must be taken in placing sex offenders in

exclusive categories.
8

recidivism. Third, although research studies

on recidivism of sex offenders often appear

to have contradictory findings, variations in

outcomes can typically be explained by the

differences in the study populations. Finally,

since base rate differences have been

identified across types of sex offenses, it

makes sense to study recidivism of sex

offenders by offense type.

Review of Studies

The following sections present findings from

various studies of the recidivism of sex

offenders within offense categories of

rapists and child molesters.3 Overall

recidivism findings are presented, along with

results concerning the factors and

characteristics associated with recidivism.

Rapists

There has been considerable research on the

recidivism of rapists across various

institutional and community-based settings

and with varying periods of follow-up. A

follow-up study of sex offenders released

from a maximum-security psychiatric

institution in California found that 10 of the

57 rapists (19 percent) studied were

reconvicted of a rape within five years, most

of which occurred during the first year of

the follow-up period (Sturgeon and Taylor,

1980). These same authors reported that

among 68 sex offenders not found to be

mentally disordered who were paroled in

1973, 19 (28 percent) were reconvicted for

a sex offense within five years.

In a study of 231 sex offenders placed on

probation in Philadelphia between 1966 and

1969, 11 percent were rearrested for a sex

offense and 57 percent were rearrested for

 

3 The studies included in this paper do not represent a

comprehensive overview of the research on sex offender

recidivism. The studies included represent a sampling of

available research on these populations and are drawn from

to highlight key points.

any offense (Romero and Williams, 1985).

Rice, Harris, and Quinsey (1990) conducted

a more recent study of 54 rapists who were

released from prison before 1983. After

four years, 28 percent had a reconviction for

a sex offense and 43 percent had a

conviction for a violent offense.

In their summary of the research on the

recidivism of rapists, Quinsey, Lalumiere,

Rice, and Harris (1995) noted that the

significant variation in recidivism across

studies of rapists is likely due to differences

in the types of offenders involved (e.g.,

institutionalized offenders, mentally

disordered offenders, or probationers) or in

the length of the follow-up period. They

further noted that throughout these studies,

the proportion of offenders who had a prior

sex offense was similar to the proportion

that had a subsequent sex offense. In

addition, the rates of reoffending decreased

with the seriousness of the offense. That is,

the occurrence of officially recorded

recidivism for a nonviolent nonsexual

offense was the most likely and the

incidence of violent sex offenses was the

least likely.

Child Molesters

Studies of the recidivism of child molesters

reveal specific patterns of reoffending

across victim types and offender

characteristics. A study involving mentally

disordered sex offenders compared samesex and opposite-sex child molesters and

incest offenders. Results of this five-year

54 Sex Offenders Released Before 1983

28%

43%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Reconvicted for Sex Offense Reconvicted for Violent Offense

Rice, Harris, and Quinsey, 1990
9

follow-up study found that same-sex child

molesters had the highest rate of previous

sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the

highest reconviction rate for sex crimes (30

percent). In comparison, 43 percent of

opposite-sex child molesters had prior sex

offenses and a reconviction rate for sex

crimes of 25 percent, and incest offenders

had prior convictions at a rate of 11 percent

and a reconviction rate of 6 percent

(Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). Interestingly,

the recidivism rate for same-sex child

molesters for other crimes against persons

was also quite high, with 26 percent having

reconvictions for these offenses. Similarly,

a number of other studies have found that

child molesters have relatively high rates of

nonsexual offenses (Quinsey, 1984).

Several studies have involved follow-up of

extra-familial child molesters. One such

study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988)

included both official and unofficial

measures of recidivism (reconviction, new

charge, or unofficial record). Using both

types of measures, researchers found that

43 percent of these offenders (convicted of

sex offenses involving victims under the age

of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a

four-year follow-up period. Those who had

a subsequent sex offense differed from

those who did not by their use of force in

the offense, the number of previous sexual

assault victims, and their score on a sexual

index that included a phallometric

assessment.4 In contrast to other studies of

child molesters, this study found no

difference in recidivism between oppositesex and same-sex offenders.

In a more recent study (Rice, Quinsey, and

Harris, 1991), extra-familial child molesters

were followed for an average of six years.

During that time, 31 percent had a

reconviction for a second sexual offense.

Those who committed subsequent sex

offenses were more likely to have been

married, have a personality disorder, and

have a more serious sex offense history than

those who did not recidivate sexually. In

addition, recidivists were more likely to have

deviant phallometrically measured sexual

preferences (Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and

Harris, 1995).

In a study utilizing a 24-year follow-up

period, victim differences (e.g., gender of

the victim) were not found to be associated

with the recidivism (defined as those

charged with a subsequent sexual offense)

of child molesters. This study of 111 extrafamilial child molesters found that the

number of prior sex offenses and sexual

preoccupation with children were related to

sex offense recidivism (Prentky, Knight, and

Lee, 1997). However, the authors of this

study noted that the finding of no victim

differences may have been due to the fact

that the offenders in this study had an

average of three prior sex offenses before

their prison release. Thus, this sample may

have had a higher base rate of reoffense

than child molesters from the general prison

population.

 

4

 Also referred to as plethysmography: a device used to

measure sexual arousal (erectile response) to both

appropriate (age appropriate and consenting) and deviant

sexual stimulus material.

Those who committed subsequent sex offenses

were more likely to have been married, have a

personality disorder, and have a more serious sex

offense history than those who did not recidivate

sexually.

Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980

A Comparison of Offense Rates for Incest

Offenders and Child Molesters

6%

25%

30%

11%

43%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Incest Offenders Opposite Sex Child

Molesters

Same Sex Child

Molesters

Reoffense

Previous Offense
10

Probationers

Research reviewed to this point has almost

exclusively focused upon institutional or

prison populations and therefore, presumably

a more serious offender population. An

important recent study concerns recidivism

among a group of sex offenders placed on

probation (Kruttschnitt, Uggen, and Shelton,

2000). Although the factors that were

related to various types of reoffending were

somewhat similar with regard to subsequent

sex offenses, the only factor associated with

reducing reoffending in this study was the

combination of stable employment and sex

offender treatment. Such findings

emphasize the importance of both formal

and informal social controls in holding

offenders accountable for their criminal

behavior. The findings also provide support

for treatment services that focus on coping

with inappropriate sexual impulses,

fantasies, and behaviors through specific sex

offender treatment.

Synthesis of Recidivism Studies

There have been several notable efforts at

conducting a qualitative or narrative

synthesis of studies of the recidivism of sex

offenders (Quinsey, 1984; Furby, Weinrott,

and Blackshaw, 1989; Quinsey, Lalumiere,

Rice, and Harris, 1995; Schwartz and

Cellini, 1997). Such an approach attempts

to summarize findings across various studies

by comparing results and searching for

patterns or trends. Another technique,

known as meta-analysis, relies upon a

quantitative approach to synthesizing

research results from similar studies. Metaanalysis involves a statistically sophisticated

approach to estimating the combined effects

of various studies that meet certain

methodological criteria and is far from a

simple lumping together of disparate studies

to obtain average effects.

Meta-analyses have certain advantages over

more traditional summaries in that through

the inclusion of multiple studies, a reliable

estimation of effects can be obtained that is

generalizable across studies and samples.

As noted earlier, the results obtained from

individual studies of sex offenders are

heavily influenced by the sample of

offenders included in the research.

Therefore, there is much to be gained

through the use of meta-analysis in

summarizing sex offender recidivism (see

Quinsey, Harris, Rice, and Lalumiere, 1993).

As has also previously been observed, it is

imperative to distinguish between sex

offense recidivism and the commission of

other subsequent criminal behavior, as well

as the type of current sex offense. One of

the most widely recognized meta-analyses

of sexual offender recidivism (Hanson and

Bussiere, 1998) was structured around

these dimensions.

Meta-Analysis Studies

In Hanson and Bussiere’s meta-analysis, 61

research studies met the criteria for

inclusion, with all utilizing a longitudinal

design and a comparison group. Across all

studies, the average sex offense recidivism

rate (as evidenced by rearrest or

reconviction) was 18.9 percent for rapists

and 12.7 percent for child molesters over a

four to five year period. The rate of

recidivism for nonsexual violent offenses

was 22.1 percent for rapists and 9.9

percent for child molesters, while the

recidivism rate for any reoffense for rapists

was 46.2 percent and 36.9 percent for child

molesters over a four to five year period.

However, as has been noted previously and

as these authors warn, one should be

cautious in the interpretation of the data as

these studies involved a range of methods

and follow-up periods.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of the metaanalysis approach is in determining the

relative importance of various factors across
11

studies. Using this technique, one can

estimate how strongly certain offender and

offense characteristics are related to

recidivism because they show up

consistently across different studies.

In the 1998 Hanson and Bussiere study,

these characteristics were grouped into

demographics, criminal lifestyle, sexual

criminal history, sexual deviancy, and

various clinical characteristics. Regarding

demographics, being young and single were

consistently found to be related, albeit

weakly, to subsequent sexual offending.

With regard to sex offense history, sex

offenders were more likely to recidivate if

they had prior sex offenses, male victims,

victimized strangers or extra-familial victims,

begun sexually offending at an early age,

and/or engaged in diverse sex crimes.

The factors that

were found

through this

analysis to have

the strongest

relationship with sexual offense recidivism

were those in the sexual deviance category:

sexual interest in children, deviant sexual

preferences, and sexual interest in boys.

Failure to complete treatment was also

found to be a moderate predictor of sexual

recidivism. Having general psychological

problems was not related to sexual offense

recidivism, but having a personality disorder

was related. Being sexually abused as a

child was not related to repeat sexual

offending.

Studies that Focus on Dynamic Factors

As noted earlier, the detection of dynamic

factors that are associated with sexual

offending behavior is significant, because

these characteristics can serve as the focus

of intervention. However, many recidivism

studies (including most of those previously

discussed) have focused almost exclusively

on static factors, since they are most readily

available from case files. Static, or

historical, factors help us to understand

etiology and permit predictions of relative

likelihood of reoffending. Dynamic factors

take into account changes over time that

adjust static risk and informs us about the

types of interventions that are most useful in

lowering risk.

In a study focused on dynamic factors,

Hanson and Harris (1998) collected data on

over 400 sex offenders under community

supervision, approximately one-half of whom

were recidivists.5 The recidivists had

committed a new sexual offense while on

community supervision during a five-year

period (1992-1997). A number of

significant differences in stable dynamic

factors were discovered between recidivists

and non-recidivists. Those who committed

subsequent sex offenses were more likely to

be unemployed (more so for rapists) and

have substance abuse problems. The nonrecidivists tended to have positive social

influences and were more likely to have

intimacy problems. There also were

considerable attitudinal differences between

the recidivists and non-recidivists. Those

who committed subsequent sex offenses

were less likely to show remorse or concern

for the victim. In addition, recidivists tended

to see themselves as being at little risk for

 

5

For the purposes of this study, recidivism was defined as a

conviction or charge for a new sexual offense, a non-sexual

criminal charge that appeared to be sexually motivated, a

violation of supervision conditions for sexual reasons, and

self-disclosure by the offender.

Sexual interest in children

was the strongest

predictor of recidivism

across all studies.

Meta-Analysis of 61 Studies

12.7%

9.9%

36.9%

18.9%

22.1%

46.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Sexual Reoffense Nonsexual Violent

Reoffense

Any Reoffense

Child Molesters

Rapists

Hanson and Bussiere, 1998
12

Characteristics* of recidivists include:

• multiple victims;

• diverse victims;

• stranger victims;

• juvenile sexual offenses;

• multiple paraphilias;

• history of abuse and neglect;

• long-term separations from parents;

• negative relationships with their mothers;

• diagnosed antisocial personality disorder;

• unemployed;

• substance abuse problems; and

• chaotic, antisocial lifestyles.

*It should be noted that these are not necessarily risk factors.

committing new offenses, were less likely to

avoid high-risk situations and were more

likely to report engaging in deviant sexual

activities. In general, the recidivists were

described as having more chaotic, antisocial

lifestyles compared to the non-recidivists

(Hanson and Harris, 1998).

The researchers concluded that sex

offenders are:

“...at most risk of reoffending when they

become sexually preoccupied, have access

to victims, fail to acknowledge their

recidivism risk, and show sharp mood

increases, particularly anger.”

In sum, because meta-analysis findings can

be generalized across studies and samples,

they offer the most reliable estimation of

factors associated with the recidivism of sex

offenders. Most meta-analysis studies,

however, have focused on static factors. It

is critical that more research be conducted

to identify

dynamic

factors

associated

with sex

offender

recidivism. These factors will assuredly

provide a foundation for developing more

effective intervention strategies for sex

offenders.

Impact of Interventions on Sex

Offender Recidivism

Although not the primary purpose of this

document, a few words regarding sex

offender treatment and supervision are in

order. Factors that are linked to sex

offender recidivism are of direct relevance

for sex offender management. If the

characteristics of offenders most likely to

recidivate can be isolated, they can serve to

identify those who have the highest

likelihood of committing subsequent sex

offenses. They can also help identify

offender populations that are appropriate for

participation in treatment and specialized

supervision and what the components of

those interventions must include.

Treatment

When assessing the efficacy of sex offender

treatment, it is vital to recognize that the

delivery of treatment occurs within different

settings. Those offenders who receive

treatment in a community setting are

generally assumed to be a different

population than those who are treated in

institutions. Thus, base rates of recidivating

behavior will differ for these groups prior to

treatment participation.

Sex offender treatment typically consists of

three principal approaches:

ß the cognitive-behavioral approach, which

emphasizes changing patterns of thinking

that are related to sexual offending and

changing deviant patterns of arousal;

ß the psycho-educational approach, which

stresses increasing the offender’s

concern for the victim and recognition of

responsibility for their offense; and

ß the pharmacological approach, which is

based upon the use of medication to

reduce sexual arousal.

In practice, these approaches are not

mutually exclusive and treatment programs

These [dynamic] factors will

assuredly provide a foundation

for developing more effective

intervention strategies for sex

offenders.
13

are increasingly utilizing a combination of

these techniques.

Although there has been a considerable

amount of writing on the relative merits of

these approaches and about sex offender

treatment in general, there is a paucity of

evaluative research regarding treatment

outcomes. There have been very few

studies of sufficient rigor (e.g., employing an

experimental or quasi-experimental design)

to compare the effects of various treatment

approaches or comparing treated to

untreated sex offenders (Quinsey, 1998).

Using less rigorous evaluation strategies,

several studies have evaluated the outcomes

of offenders receiving sex offender

treatment, compared to a group of offenders

not receiving treatment. The results of

these studies are mixed. For example,

Barbaree and Marshall (1988) found a

substantial difference in the recidivism rates

of extra-familial child molesters who

participated in a community based cognitivebehavioral treatment program, compared to

a group of similar offenders who did not

receive treatment. Those who participated

in treatment had a recidivism rate of 18

percent over a four-year follow-up period,

compared to a 43 percent recidivism rate for

the nonparticipating group of offenders.

However, no positive effect of treatment

was found in several other quasiexperiments involving an institutional

behavioral program (Rice, Quinsey, and

Harris, 1991) or a milieu therapy approach in

an institutional setting (Hanson, Steffy, and

Gauthier, 1993).

On the other hand, an evaluation of a

cognitive-behavioral program that employs

an experimental design presented preliminary

findings that suggest that participation in

this form of treatment may have a modest

(though not statistically significant) effect in

reducing recidivism. After a follow-up

period of 34 months, 8 percent of the

offenders in the treatment program had a

subsequent sex offense, compared with 13

percent of the control group, who had also

volunteered for the program, but were not

selected through the random assignment

process (Marques, Day, Nelson, and West,

1994).

Some studies present optimistic conclusions

about the effectiveness of programs that are

empirically based, offense-specific, and

comprehensive. A 1995 meta-analysis

study on sex offender treatment outcome

studies found a small, yet significant,

treatment effect (Hall, 1995). This metaanalysis included 12 studies with some form

of control group. Despite the small number

of subjects (1,313), the results indicated an

8 percent reduction in the recidivism rate for

sex offenders in the treatment group.6

Recently, Alexander (1999) conducted an

analysis of a large group of treatment

outcome studies, encompassing nearly

11,000 sex offenders. In this study, data

from 79 sex offender treatment studies were

combined and reviewed. Results indicated

that sex offenders who participated in

relapse prevention treatment programs had a

combined rearrest rate of 7.2 percent,

compared to 17.6 percent for untreated

offenders. The overall rearrest rate for

 

6

 For the purposes of this study, recidivism was measured by

additional sexually aggressive behavior, including official legal

charges as well as, in some studies, unofficial data such as

self-report.

Comparison of Recidivism Rates of Treated and 

Untreated Child Molesters

18%

43%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Treated Child Molesters Untreated Child Molesters

Barbaree and Marshall, 1988
14

treated sex offenders in this analysis was

13.2 percent.7

The Association for the Treatment of Sexual

Abusers (ATSA) has established a

Collaborative Data Research Project with the

goals of defining standards for research on

treatment, summarizing existing research,

and promoting high quality evaluations. As

part of this project, researchers are

conducting a meta-analysis of treatment

studies. Included in the meta-analysis are

studies that compare treatment groups with

some form of a control group. Preliminary

findings indicate that the overall effect of

treatment shows reductions in both sexual

recidivism, 10 percent of the treatment

subjects to 17 percent of the control group

subjects, and general recidivism, 32 percent

of the treatment subjects to 51 percent of

the control group subjects (Hanson, 2000).8

Just as it is difficult to arrive at definitive

conclusions regarding factors that are

related to sex offender recidivism, there are

similarly no definitive results regarding the

effect of interventions with these offenders.

Sex offender treatment programs and the

results of treatment outcome studies may

vary not only due to their therapeutic

approach, but also by the location of the

treatment (e.g., community, prison, or

psychiatric facility), the seriousness of the

 

7

 Length of follow-up in this analysis varied from less than

one year to more than five years. Most studies in this

analysis indicated a three to five year follow-up period.

8

 Average length of follow-up in these studies was four to

five years.

offender’s criminal and sex offense history,

the degree of self-selection (whether they

chose to participate in treatment or were

placed in a program), and the dropout rate of

offenders from treatment.

Juvenile Treatment Research

Research on juvenile sex offender recidivism

is particularly lacking. Some studies have

examined the effectiveness of treatment in

reducing subsequent sexual offending

behavior in youth. Key findings from these

studies include the following:

ß Program evaluation data suggest that the

sexual recidivism rate for juveniles

treated in specialized programs ranges

from approximately 7 to 13 percent over

follow-up periods of two to five years

(Becker, 1990).

ß Juveniles appear to respond well to

cognitive-behavioral and/or relapse

prevention treatment, with rearrest rates

of approximately 7 percent through

follow-up periods of more than five years

(Alexander, 1999).

ß Studies suggest that rates of nonsexual

recidivism are generally higher than

sexual recidivism rates, ranging from 25

to 50 percent (Becker, 1990, Kahn and

Chambers, 1991, Schram, Milloy, and

Rowe, 1991).

In a recently conducted study, Hunter and

Figueredo (1999) found that as many as 50

percent of youths entering a communitybased treatment program were expelled

during the first year of their participation.

Those who failed the program had higher

overall levels of sexual maladjustment, as

measured on assessment instruments, and

were at greater long-term risk for sexual

recidivism.

Supervision

There has been little research on the

effectiveness of community supervision

Rearrest Rates of Treated and 

Untreated Sex Offenders

7.2%

13.2%

17.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Relapse Prevention

Treatment

All Treated Offenders Untreated Offenders

Alexander, 1999
15

programs (exclusively) in reducing reoffense

behavior in sex offenders. The majority of

supervision programs for sex offenders

involve treatment and other interventions to

contain offenders’ deviant behaviors.

Therefore, it is difficult to measure the

effects of supervision alone on reoffending

behavior—to date, no such studies have

been conducted.

Evaluating the Effects of Interventions

Identification of factors associated with

recidivism of sex offenders can play an

important role in determining intervention

strategies with this population. Yet, the

effectiveness of interventions themselves on

reducing recidivism must be evaluated if the

criminal justice system is to control these

offenders and prevent further victimization.

However, not only have there been few

studies of sufficient rigor on treatment

outcomes, less rigorous study results thus

far have been mixed. Although one study

may find a substantial difference in

recidivism rates for offenders who

participated in a specific type of treatment,

another may find only a modest positive

treatment effect, and still other studies may

reveal no positive effects. There has been

even less research conducted to evaluate

the impact of community supervision

programs in reducing recidivism. More

studies measuring the effects of both

treatment and supervision are necessary to

truly advance efforts in the field of sex

offender management.

Implications for Sex Offender

Management

This paper presented a range of issues that

are critical in defining the recidivism of sex

offenders. Although there are certainly large

gaps in criminal justice knowledge regarding

the determinants of recidivism and the

characteristics of effective interventions,

what is known has significant implications

for policy and intervention.

The heterogeneity of sex offenders must be

acknowledged. Although sex offenders are

often referred to as a “type” of offender,

there are a wide variety of behaviors and

offender backgrounds that fall into this

classification of criminals (Knight and

Prentky, 1990). As mentioned earlier, many

sex offenders have histories of assaulting

across sex and age groups—recent research

(Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000)

found that these offenders may be even

more heterogeneous than previously

believed.

Criminal justice professionals must continue

to expand their understanding of how sex

offenders are different from the general

criminal population. Although some sex

offenders are unique from the general

criminal population (e.g., many extrafamilial

child molesters), others (e.g., many rapists)

possess many of the same characteristics

that are associated with recidivism of

general criminal behavior. As criminal

justice understanding of these offenders and

the factors associated with their behavior

increases, more refined classification needs

to be developed and treatment programs

need to be redesigned to accommodate

these differences.

Interventions should be based on the

growing body of knowledge about sex

offender and general criminal recidivism.

Research demonstrates that while sex

offenders are much more likely to commit

subsequent sexual offenses than the general

More studies measuring the effects of both

treatment and supervision are necessary to truly

advance efforts in the field of sex offender

management.
16

In the realm of interventions with general

criminal offenders, there is a growing body of

literature that suggests that the cognitivebehavioral approach holds considerable promise.

criminal population, they do not exclusively

commit sexual offenses. Therefore, some

aspects of intervention with the general

criminal population may have implications

for effective management of sex offenders.

Quinsey (1998) has recommended that in

the absence of definitive knowledge about

effective sex offender treatment, the best

approach would be to structure interventions

around what is known about the treatment

of offenders in general.

In the realm of interventions with general

criminal offenders, there is a growing body

of literature that suggests that the cognitivebehavioral approach holds considerable

promise (Gendreau and Andrews, 1990).

Cognitive-behavioral treatment involves a

comprehensive, structured approach based

on sexual learning theory using cognitive

restructuring methods and behavioral

techniques. Behavioral methods are

primarily directed at reducing arousal and

increasing pro-social skills. The cognitive

behavioral approach employs peer groups

and educational classes, and uses a variety

of counseling theories. This approach

suggests that interventions are most

effective when they address the

criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders

(Andrews, 1982). The characteristics of

programs that are more likely to be effective

with this population include skill-based

training, modeling of pro-social behaviors

and attitudes, a directive but non-punitive

orientation, a focus on modification of

precursors to criminal behavior, and a

supervised community component (Quinsey,

1998).

Although these program characteristics may

be instructive in forming the basis for

interventions with sex offenders, treatment

approaches must incorporate what is known

about this particular group of offenders. A

number of characteristics that are typically

associated with the recidivism of sex

offenders were identified in this document,

including: victim age, gender, and

relationship to the offender; impulsive,

antisocial behavior; the seriousness of the

offense; and the number of previous sex

offenses. Also, an influential factor in sex

offender recidivism is the nature of the

offender’s sexual preferences and sexually

deviant interests. The discovery and

measurement of these interests can serve as

a focus for treatment intervention.

Dynamic factors should influence

individualized interventions. In addition,

dynamic factors associated with recidivism

should inform the structure of treatment and

supervision, as these are characteristics that

can be altered. These factors include the

formation of positive relationships with

peers, stable employment, avoidance of

alcohol and drugs, prevention of depression,

reduction of deviant sexual arousal, and

increase in appropriate sexual preferences,

when they exist.

Interventions that

strive to facilitate

development of

positive dynamic

factors in sex

offenders are

consistent with cognitive-behavioral or social

learning approaches to treatment. Such

approaches determine interventions based

upon an individualized planning process,

utilizing standard assessment instruments to

determine an appropriate intervention

strategy. As Quinsey (1998: 419) noted

“with the exception of antiandrogenic

medication or castration, this model is

currently the only approach that enjoys any

evidence of effectiveness in reducing sexual

recidivism.”

...dynamic factors

associated with recidivism

should inform the structure

of treatment and

supervision...
17

Conclusion

Although there have been many noteworthy

research studies on sex offender recidivism

in the last 15 to 20 years, there remains

much to be learned about the factors

associated with the likelihood of reoffense.

Ongoing dialogue between researchers and

practitioners supervising and treating sex

offenders is essential to identifying research

needs, gathering information about offenders

and the events leading up to offenses, and

ensuring that research activity can be

translated into strategies to more effectively

manage sex offenders in the community.

Ultimately, research on sex offender

recidivism must be designed and applied to

practice with the goals of preventing further

victimization and creating safer

communities.

Practitioners must continue to look to the

most up-to-date research studies on sex

offender recidivism to inform their

intervention strategies with individual

offenders. Researchers can minimize

ambiguity in study results by clearly defining

measures of recidivism, comparing distinct

categories of sex offenders, considering

reoffense rates for both sex crimes and all

other offenses, and utilizing consistent

follow-up periods (preferably five years of

follow-up or more). In order to reduce

underestimations of the risk of recidivism,

they also must strive to gather information

about offenders’ criminal histories from

multiple sources, beyond official criminal

justice data. In comparing results of various

studies, practitioners should not lose sight of

how these issues impact research outcomes.

Researchers must also continue to

accumulate evidence about the relationship

of static and dynamic factors to recidivism—

such data can assist practitioners in making

more accurate assessments of the likelihood

of reoffending. In particular, researchers

must strive to identify dynamic

characteristics associated with sex offending

behavior that can serve as the focus for

intervention. This information can be

utilized to categorize the level of risk posed

by offenders, and help determine whether a

particular offender is appropriate for

treatment and specialized supervision.

However, in order to make objective and

empirically based decisions about the type of

treatment and conditions of supervision that

would best control the offender and protect

the public, more rigorous research is needed

to study the effects of various treatment

approaches and community supervision on

recidivism.

Acknowledgements

Tim Bynum, Ph.D., Michigan State

University, School of Criminal Justice, was

the principal author of this paper, with

contributions by Madeline Carter, Scott

Matson, and Charles Onley. The Center for

Sex Offender Management would like to

thank David D’Amora, Kim English, Robert

Prentky, and Lloyd Sinclair for their

assistance and contributions to this article.

Kristin Littel and Scott Matson edited the

document.

Contact

Center for Sex Offender Management

8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 589-9383

Fax: (301) 589-3505

E-mail: askcsom@csom.org

Internet: www.csom.org

References

Alexander, M.A. (1999). Sexual offender

treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse:

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11

(2), 101-117.
18

Ahlmeyer, S., English, K., & Simons, D.

(1999). The impact of polygraphy on

admissions of crossover offending behavior

in adult sexual offenders. Presentation at

the Association for the Treatment of Sexual

Abusers 18th Annual Research and

Treatment Conference, Lake Buena Vista,

FL.

Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., McKee, B., and

English, K. (2000). The impact of

polygraphy on admissions of victims and

offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual

Abuse: A Journal of Research and

Treatment, 12 (2), 123-138.

Andrews, D. A. (1982). The supervision of

offenders: Identifying and gaining control

over the factors which make a difference.

Program Branch User Report. Ottawa:

Solicitor General of Canada.

Barbaree, H.E. & Marshall, W.L. (1988).

Deviant sexual arousal, offense history, and

demographic variables as predictors of

reoffense among child molesters. Behavioral

Sciences and the Law, 6 (2), 267-280.

Beck, A.J. & Shipley, B.E. (1989).

Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Becker, J.V. (1990). Treating adolescent

sexual offenders. Professional Psychology:

Research, and Practice, 21, 362-365.

Bonta, J. & Hanson, R.K. (1995). Violent

recidivism of men released from prison.

Paper presented at the 103rd Annual

Convention of the American Psychological

Association, New York.

Clarke, S.H. & Crum, L. (1985). Returns to

prison in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC:

Institute of Government, University of North

Carolina.

Delaware Statistical Analysis Center.

(1984). Recidivism in Delaware after release

from incarceration. Dover, DE: Author.

English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (Eds.)

(1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A

containment approach. Lexington, KY:

American Probation and Parole Association.

Furby, L., Weinrott, M.R., & Blackshaw, L.

(1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review.

Psychological Bulletin, 105 (1), 3-30.

Gottfredson, M.R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A

general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D.A. (1990).

What the meta-analysis of the offender

treatment literature tell us about what

works. Canadian Journal of Criminology,

32, 173-184.

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C.

(1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of

adult criminal recidivism: What works.

Criminology, 34, 575-607.

Gibbens, T.C.N., Soothill, K.L., & Way, C.K.

(1978). Sibling and parent-child incest

offenders. British Journal of Criminology,

18, 40-52.

Greenfeld, L.A. (1997). Sex offenses and

offenders: An analysis of data on rape and

sexual assault. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Grunfeld, B. & Noreik, K. (1986).

Recidivism among sex offenders: A followup study of 541 Norwegian sex offenders.

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,

9, 95-102.

Hall, G.C.N. (1995). Sex offender

recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of

recent treatment studies. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63 (5),

802-809.

Hanson, R.K. (2000). The effectiveness of

treatment for sexual offenders: Report of the

Association for the Treatment of Sexual

Abusers Collaborative Data Research

Committee. Presentation at the Association

for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 19th

Annual Research and Treatment Conference,

San Diego, CA.
19

Hanson, R.K. & Bussiere, M. (1998).

Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual

offender recidivism studies. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 (2),

348-362.

Hanson, R.K. & Harris, A. (1998). Dynamic

predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa:

Solicitor General of Canada.

Hanson, R.K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R.A.

(1995). A comparison of child molesters

and nonsexual criminals: Risk predictors and

long-term recidivism. Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, 32 (3), 325-337.

Hanson, R.K., Steffy, R.A., & Gauthier, R.

(1993). Long-term recidivism of child

molesters. Journal of Consulting and

Criminal Psychology, 61 (4), 646-652.

Hunter, J.A. & Figueredo, A.J. (1999).

Factors associated with treatment

compliance in a population of juvenile sexual

offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of

Research and Treatment, 11, 49-68.

Kahn, T.J. & Chambers, H.J. (1991).

Assessing reoffense risk with juvenile sexual

offenders. Child Welfare, 19, 333-345.

Kilpatrick, D.G., Edmunds, C.N., & Seymour,

A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the

nation. Washington, D.C.: National Center

for Victims of Crime and Crime Victims

Research and Treatment Center.

Knight, R.A. & Prentky, R.A. (1990).

Classifying sexual offenders: The

development and corroboration of taxonomic

models. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, and

H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual

assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of

the offender (pp. 23-52). New York:

Plenum.

Knopp, F.A., Freeman-Longo, R., &

Stevenson, W.F. (1992). Nationwide survey

of juvenile and adult sex offender treatment

programs and models. Orwell, VT: Safer

Society Press.

Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K.

(2000). Predictors of desistance among sex

offenders: The interactions of formal and

informal social controls. Justice Quarterly,

17 (1), 61-87.

Marques, J.K., Day, D.M., Nelson, C., &

West, M.A. (1994). Effects of cognitivebehavioral treatment on sex offenders’

recidivism: Preliminary results of a

longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 21, 28-54.

Marshall, W.L. & Barbaree, H.E. (1990).

Outcomes of comprehensive cognitivebehavioral treatment programs. In W.L.

Marshall, D.R. Laws, and H.E. Barbaree

(Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues,

theories, and treatment of the offender (pp.

363-385). New York: Plenum.

Prentky, R., Knight, R., & Lee, A. (1997).

Risk factors associated with recidivism

among extra-familial child molesters.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 65 (1), 141-149.

Prentky, R., Lee, A., Knight, R., & Cerce, D.

(1997). Recidivism rates among child

molesters and rapists: A methodological

analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21,

635-659.

Quinsey, V.L. (1980). The base-rate

problem and the prediction of

dangerousness: A reappraisal. Journal of

Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 329-340.

Quinsey, V.L. (1984). Sexual aggression:

Studies of offenders against women. In

D.N. Weisstub (Ed.). Law and Mental

Health: International Perspectives (pp. 140-

172), Vol. 2. New York: Pergamon.

Quinsey, V.L. (1998). Treatment of sex

offenders. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook

of crime and punishment (pp. 403-425).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., &

Lalumiere, M. (1993). Assessing treatment

efficacy in outcome studies of sex

offenders. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 8, 512-523.
20

Quinsey, V.L., Lalumiere, M.L., Rice, M.E.,

& Harris, G.T. (1995). Predicting sexual

offenses. In J.C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing

dangerousness: Violence by sexual

offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp.

114-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Quinsey, V.L., Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T.

(1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual

recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 10 (1), 85-105.

Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T., & Quinsey, V.L.

(1990). A follow-up of rapists assessed in a

maximum security psychiatric facility.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5 (4),

435-448.

Rice, M.E., Quinsey, V.L., & Harris, G.T.

(1991). Sexual recidivism among child

molesters released from a maximum security

institution. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 59, 381-386.

Romero, J. & Williams, L. (1985).

Recidivism among convicted sex offenders:

A 10-year follow-up study. Federal

Probation, 49, 58-64.

Roundtree, G.A., Edwards, D.W., & Parker,

J.B. (1984). A study of personal

characteristics of probationers as related to

recidivism. Journal of Offender Counseling,

8, 53-61.

Schram, D.D., Milloy, C.D., & Rowe, W.E.

(1991). Juvenile sex offenders: A follow-up

study of reoffense behavior. Olympia, WA:

Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Schwartz, B.K. & Cellini, H.R. (1997). Sex

offender recidivism and risk factors in the

involuntary commitment process.

Albuquerque, NM: Training and Research

Institute Inc.

Sturgeon, V.H. & Taylor, J. (1980). Report

of a five-year follow-up study of mentally

disordered sex offenders released from

Atascadero State Hospital in 1973. Criminal

Justice Journal, 4, 31-63.

West, D.J., Roy, C., & Nichols, F.L. (1978).

Understanding sexual attacks: A study

based upon a group of rapists undergoing

psychotherapy. London: Heinemann.

This project was supported by Grant No. 97-WT-VX-K007, awarded by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent

the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.