U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking 

Sex Offender 

Management Assessment 

and Planning Initiative 
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh St. NW 

Washington, DC 20531 

Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, 

Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking 

www.smart.gov

Updated: March 2017

This report was produced by the National Criminal Justice Association under grant number 2010-DB-BX-K086,

awarded by the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART),

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this report are those of the authors and contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position 

or policies of the SMART Office or the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report can be found at SMART.gov/SOMAPI.
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE i 

Contents 

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. iii 

Adult Section........................................................................................................ 1 

Chapter 1: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Offending ..................................................................3 

Chapter 2: Etiology of Adult Sexual Offending ..................................................................................37 

Chapter 3: Sex Offender Typologies ....................................................................................................61 

Chapter 4: Internet-Facilitated Sexual Offending ...............................................................................91 

Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism ........................................................................................107 

Chapter 6: Sex Offender Risk Assessment.........................................................................................133 

Chapter 7: Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult Sex Offenders......................................................155 

Chapter 8: Sex Offender Management Strategies ............................................................................181 

Juvenile Section ............................................................................................... 219 

Chapter 1: Unique Considerations Regarding Juveniles 

 Who Commit Sexual Offenses ........................................................................................................221 

Chapter 2: Etiology and Typologies of Juveniles 

 Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses.........................................................................................227 

Chapter 3: Recidivism of Juveniles 

 Who Commit Sexual Offenses ........................................................................................................251 

Chapter 4: Assessment of Risk for Sexual Reoffense in Juveniles

 Who Commit Sexual Offenses .........................................................................................................269 

Chapter 5: Effectiveness of Treatment for Juveniles 

 Who Sexually Offend ......................................................................................................................303 

Chapter 6: Registration and Notifcation of Juveniles 

 Who Commit Sexual Offenses ........................................................................................................319 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE iii 

Acknowledgments 

The Offce of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking would like to 

acknowledge this report’s authors — in particular Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky and Roger Przybylski, who 

wrote several chapters each and also edited the report — and also Kay Chopard Cohen for assisting with the 

development of the project. The authors’ bios follow. 

Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D. 

Section 1, Chapter 6: Sex Offender Risk Assessment 

Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist with a dual emphasis on research and forensics. A senior 

researcher at Applied Research Services, a national consulting frm specializing in criminal justice research and 

policy analysis, Dr. Baldwin also serves as Director of Forensic Services at the Highland Institute — Atlanta, an 

outpatient clinic specializing in the assessment and treatment of people with sexual behavior problems. He 

has directed federally funded research projects, authored more than a dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals 

and has both designed and evaluated substance abuse treatment programs. He has provided evaluation and 

technical assistance to various problem-solving courts, including family drug courts, mental health courts and 

child support courts. He also performs forensic examinations for state and federal courts and probation/parole 

authorities, serves as an expert witness in both juvenile and adult courts, and has worked in both inpatient 

and community-based mental health settings. Dr. Baldwin is a frequent presenter at regional and national 

conferences and has provided training and technical assistance to treatment and court staff in various settings. 

He earned his Ph.D. at Georgia State University after completing an adult forensic internship at the University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 

Susan Faupel, M.S.W. 

Section 1, Chapter 2: Etiology of Adult Sexual Offending 

Susan Faupel, M.S.W., has been the Training Director for the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault (ICASA) 

since 2001. In this capacity, Ms. Faupel is responsible for the development, coordination and implementation 

of mandated trainings for statewide sexual assault staff, including counselors, advocates, educators and 

managers. She also coordinates ICASA’s annual statewide sexual assault conference and develops and 

coordinates training with other professional allied organizations, including the Illinois Department of Human 

Services, Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and others. 

Prior to directing ICASA’s Training Institute, Ms. Faupel directed ICASA’s Sexually Aggressive Children and 

Youth Project with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services from 1995 to 2001. This involved 

developing and implementing standards to guide the department’s response to children and youth with sexual 

behavior problems as well as developing and implementing training for all departmental staff. She is a past 

member of the Illinois Sex Offender Management Board of the Illinois Attorney General’s offce. 
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Ms. Faupel is an outspoken and passionate activist against violence in all forms, especially violence directed 

toward women, children and disenfranchised populations. She conducts statewide and national presentations 

on issues related to sexual violence and other issues of oppression. She has worked actively in the movement 

opposing violence against women and children since 1981, providing direct services and program management 

in local domestic violence and sexual assault programs in Arkansas, Kentucky and Illinois. In 1987, Ms. Faupel, 

then Program Director of A Woman’s Place in Urbana, Illinois, walked more than 600 miles from Chicago to 

the capital in her home state of Arkansas to celebrate the work of the domestic violence and sexual assault 

movements and to raise awareness about violence against women and children. 

Tom Leversee 

Section 2, Chapter 2: Etiology and Typologies of Juveniles Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses 

Tom Leversee is a licensed clinical social worker with 39 years of clinical and administrative experience in 

the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections and in private practice. He retired from the Division of Youth 

Corrections in July 2008 and is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Denver Graduate School 

of Social Work. He has more than 30 years of experience working with sexually abusive youth. Mr. Leversee 

developed the Moving Beyond Sexually Abusive Behavior group therapy curriculum and student manual and 

co-edited/authored the third edition of Juvenile Sexual Offending: Causes, Consequences, and Correction with 

Gail Ryan and Sandy Lane. He also has written journal articles and chapters in numerous books. Mr. Leversee 

was presented the National Adolescent Perpetration Network’s Pioneer Award in 2005 for his “21 years of 

unique contributions to prevent perpetration of sexual abuse.” He continues to provide clinical services, 

consultation and training focused on juveniles who have committed sexual offenses. Mr. Leversee is a member 

of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board and the Board of ATSA. 

Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky 

Section 1, Chapter 2: Etiology of Adult Sexual Offending 

Section 1, Chapter 8: Sex Offender Management Strategies 

Section 2, Chapter 1: Unique Considerations Regarding Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

Section 2, Chapter 3: Recidivism of Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

Section 2, Chapter 6: Registration and Notifcation of Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky is a licensed clinical social worker with 27 years of experience working in sex 

offender management and treatment, including treatment program and policy development. Mr. LobanovRostovsky works for the Colorado Department of Public Safety/Division of Criminal Justice as the Program 

Director for the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, where he develops standards for the treatment 

and management of sexual offenders, approves treatment providers and provides legislative and policy input. 

He also works as a private consultant for federal and federally funded agencies and organizations (e.g., Fox 

Valley Technical College) — including tribal jurisdictions — that are responsible for developing and providing 

training, technical assistance, program assessment, literature reviews, peer review of grant solicitations and 

reports, and legislative and policy development. Mr. Lobanov-Rostovsky has also published numerous articles 

and chapters related to sex offender management, with specifc expertise on the state implementation of 

federal sex offender management legislation and sex offender public policy. He is on the Board of Directors of 

the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) and is co-chair of ATSA’s public policy committee. 

Mr. Lobanov-Rostovsky would like to acknowledge the assistance of Roger Przybylski for his guidance in 

preparing the chapter on recidivism in Section 2. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE v 

Roger Przybylski 

Introduction 

Section 1, Chapter 2: Etiology of Adult Sexual Offending 

Section 1, Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism 

Section 1, Chapter 7: Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult Sex Offenders 

Section 2, Chapter 1: Unique Considerations Regarding Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

Section 2, Chapter 5: Effectiveness of Treatment for Juveniles Who Sexually Offend 

Roger Przybylski is a consultant and founder of RKC Group, a private company that provides applied 

research, program evaluation and training and technical assistance services to public, private and nonproft 

organizations working on public safety issues. Prior to forming RKC Group in 1997, Mr. Przybylski held research 

and management positions in criminal justice agencies at both the state and local levels. He most recently 

served as Associate Director for the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, where he directed the 

agency’s research division. He also has served as coordinator of research for the Chicago Police Department, 

the nation’s second-largest local law enforcement agency. Mr. Przybylski is a past president of the Justice 

Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) and a current member of JRSA’s Executive Committee. He also serves 

as chairman of the American Evaluation Association’s crime and justice interest group. Mr. Przybylski has 

been an adjunct faculty member at Loyola University Chicago and the University of Illinois at Chicago and an 

associate editor for the Justice Research and Policy journal and the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. He also 

has served with the Illinois Legislative Committee on Juvenile Justice, the Governor’s Commission on Gangs 

in Illinois, and the Illinois Task Force on Crime and Corrections. Mr. Przybylski recently authored What Works: 

Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk-Focused Prevention Programs, A Compendium of Evidence-Based 

Options for Preventing New and Persistent Criminal Behavior, and he served as guest editor for the 2012 special 

issue of Justice Research and Policy focused on evidence-based policy and practice. 

Mr. Przybylski would like to acknowledge the assistance of Scott Matson, Senior Policy Advisor at the SMART 

Offce, for his assistance in writing the Introduction and Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky for his review of the 

chapter on treatment effectiveness in Section 2. 

Phil Rich, Ed.D., LICSW 

Section 2, Chapter 4: Assessment of Risk for Sexual Reoffense in Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

Phil Rich, Ed.D., a licensed independent clinical social worker for more than 30 years, specializes in working 

with sexually abusive youth. He presents, trains, and consults nationally and internationally. For 13 years, he 

was the Clinical Director of the Stetson School, a residential treatment program for sexually reactive children 

and adolescent and young adult sexual offenders in Massachusetts. Dr. Rich is the author of Understanding 

Juvenile Sexual Offenders: Assessment, Treatment, and Rehabilitation (frst and second editions); Attachment 

and Sexual Offending: Understanding and Applying Attachment Theory to the Treatment of Juvenile Sexual 

Offenders; Juvenile Sexual Offenders: A Comprehensive Guide to Risk Evaluation; and the four Stages 

of Accomplishment workbooks for sexually abusive youth in treatment. Dr. Rich holds a Ed.D. in applied 

behavioral and organizational studies and a master’s degree in social work. 

Michael Seto, Ph.D. 

Section 1, Chapter 4: Internet-Facilitated Sexual Offending 

Michael Seto, Ph.D., is a clinical forensic psychologist and Director of the Forensic Research Unit at the 

University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health as well as Director of Forensic Rehabilitation Research at the 
vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Royal Ottawa Health Care Group. Dr. Seto is cross-appointed to the Department of Psychiatry at the University 

of Toronto, Department of Psychology at Ryerson University (Toronto), Department of Psychology at Carleton 

University (Ottawa), and Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa. Dr. Seto has 

published and presented extensively on the topics of child pornography, pedophilia, sexual offending against 

children and risk assessment. Much of this work is represented in a book on pedophilia and sexual offending 

published in 2008 and a second book on Internet sex offenders published in 2013. Dr. Seto received his Ph.D. in 

clinical psychology in 1997 from Queen’s University. 

Dominique A. Simons 

Section 1, Chapter 3: Sex Offender Typologies 

Dominique Simons has conducted research for the Colorado Department of Corrections Sex Offender Treatment 

and Monitoring Program for 16 years. 

In addition to program and treatment evaluation, she consults on projects regarding juvenile sexual offender 

recidivism, Good Lives Model and self-regulation model treatment, and what works with sexual offenders in 

Colorado. She also conducts research and gathers statistics for various health and mental health organizations. 

Ms. Simons has presented on and authored journal articles and book chapters regarding the developmental 

experiences of sex offenders, sexual interest in children among the general population, sex offender typologies, 

process issues in sex offender treatment, the therapeutic relationship, crossover sexual offenses, the formulation 

of prevention strategies from etiological models, the prevalence and treatment of multiple paraphilias, offense 

patterns of female sexual offenders and the prevalence of intimate partner rape among domestic violence and 

sexual offenders. 

Jane Wiseman 

Section 1, Chapter 1: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Offending 

Jane Wiseman has been improving government operations, as an appointed offcial in government and a fnancial 

advisor and consultant, for more than 25 years. An innovator herself, Ms. Wiseman has learned from both the 

successes and challenges of creating a new program from scratch, which she has done as a federal and state 

offcial. Her passion for excellence in government and her ability to share an insider’s perspective on innovation 

are invaluable to her clients. 

Ms. Wiseman’s consulting clients have included the U.S. Departments of Justice, Veterans Affairs and Commerce; 

National Governors Association; National Criminal Justice Association; University of Massachusetts Medical School; 

Massachusetts Executive Offce of Housing and Economic Development; U.S. Postal Service; and the State of Michigan. 

Ms. Wiseman has provided consulting services to a wide range of businesses, from IBM to local small businesses. 

Her consulting work has included organizational strategy, performance management and eGovernment strategy 

for Accenture and Price Waterhouse. Ms. Wiseman served as Assistant Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Offce 

of Public Safety, where she was recognized for her organizational reform efforts in the Pioneer Institute’s Better 

Government Competition. Other government service includes an appointment as Assistant to the Director for 

Strategic Planning, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Ms. Wiseman has also served as a 

staff assistant for the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee and as an intern for the Offce 

of Management and Budget. Ms. Wiseman holds a bachelor’s degree in government from Smith College and a 

master’s degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. 
SECTION 1: ADULTS 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 3 

Chapter 1: Incidence and 

Prevalence of Sexual Offending 

by Jane Wiseman and Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky 

FINDINGS 

◆ At least 16 different data sources report on sex crimes and victimization. 

◆ There is no single defnition of sexual offending. 

◆ An accurate accounting is virtually impossible because so many sex crimes are hidden from public view: 

• The vast majority of victims do not report crimes. 

• Sex offenders do not typically self-report sex crimes. 

Introduction 

S

imple questions do not always have easy answers. For example, the answers to, “How many sex offenses 

are committed each year?” and “How great is an individual’s lifetime risk of being a victim of a sex 

crime?” vary greatly depending on the source consulted. Even with the best sources of data, it is extremely 

diffcult to estimate the actual number of sex crimes committed because of low levels of reporting. Sex crimes 

are not only often unreported, they are often unseen by anyone other than the victim and perpetrator. One 

group of researchers puts it aptly: 

Among highly personal and sensitive behaviors and experiences, including other forms of interpersonal 

violence, rape and other forms of sexual violence are probably the most diffcult experiences to measure. 

They are rarely observed and occur in private places (Cook et al., 2011, p. 203). 

Nevertheless, statistics on the incidence and prevalence of sex crimes, as well as trend data, can provide 

important insight into the nature and extent of sexual violence that policymakers and practitioners can use 

to design and deliver more effective prevention and intervention strategies. This chapter presents empirically 

derived information that helps paint a portrait of what we currently know about the incidence and prevalence 

of sexual offending and victimization. It also describes the strengths and weaknesses of the available data so 

policymakers and practitioners can better assess and interpret the existing knowledge base. 
4 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Key Data Sources 

And What They Can Tell Us About the Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Offending 

DEFINITIONS 

• Incidence refers to the number of separate victimizations, or incidents, perpetrated against people within a 

demographic group during a specifc time period. 

• Prevalence refers to the number of people within a demographic group (e.g., women or men) who are victimized 

during a specifc time period, such as the person’s lifetime or the previous 12 months. 

Source: Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006. 

Creating a complete and accurate accounting of the extent of sexual offending is challenging. First, there 

is no single defnition of sexual offending. Statutory defnitions of sex offenses differ from jurisdiction to 

jurisdiction; a sex crime committed in one state might not be classifed as a sex crime in an adjacent state. 

State laws differ on whether rape must involve physical force or threats of physical force, and so on. Even 

when using national standards, such as the categories reported by the 17,000 police departments submitting 

Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), it is impossible for each offcer 

in each department to use the same exact criteria to decide how to classify a crime. Comparing recorded crime 

and victimization statistics is also challenging due to the variety of reference periods. UCR data are reported 

on a calendar year basis while National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, also completed annually, are 

compiled based on reports of victimization in the 12 months prior to the time of the interview. Comparing 

victimization data from different sources is even diffcult, as some sources measure lifetime victimization while 

others measure annual or college semester victimization. Finally, rate comparison can be problematic given the 

different ways in which the sample being studied is measured. 

With these challenges in mind, following is a review of key data sources and what they reveal about the 

incidence and prevalence of sexual offending. 

Uniform Crime Reports 

The FBI compiles its UCR from data submitted by law enforcement agencies across the nation. Law enforcement 

agencies reporting crimes to the FBI oversee approximately 93 percent of the total U.S. population (FBI, 2004). 

As part of the UCR program, the FBI collects data on 8 serious crimes1

 as well as arrest data for 21 additional 

crime categories. Prior to 2012, for the purposes of UCR reporting, the FBI defned forcible rape as the carnal 

knowledge of a female by force (including threats of force) and against her will.2

 Conversely, the NCVS 

defnition of sexual assault measures the extent of sexual assaults against both men and women. Also, UCR 

does not count sexual assault, statutory rape without force, or simple assault. 

Based on the defnition of forcible rape used for UCR reporting prior to 2012, the FBI (2014) reported that 

79,770 forcible rapes were reported to law enforcement in 2013, a rate of 25.2 crimes per 100,000 females in 

the United States. This is a 10.6 percent decrease from the 88,097 rapes in 2009, which had a rate of 28.7 crimes 

per 100,000 females in the United States. Slightly more than 4 out of 10 rapes reported to police in 2009, the 

most recent year such data were available, were cleared by arrest or exceptional means (FBI, 2009a). Overall, 

an estimated 21,407 arrests for forcible rape were made by law enforcement agencies in the United States in 

2009 (FBI, 2009b). Offenders arrested for rape in 2009 were predominantly young, white, and (as expected) 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 5 

overwhelmingly male. Only 1 percent of the offenders arrested for rape in 2009 were female. About 15 percent 

of the nation’s rape arrestees in 2009 were under the age of 18, and 37 percent were 18–29 years old. Whites 

accounted for 65 percent of the rape arrestees, African-Americans accounted for 33 percent, and other races 

made up about 2 percent of the arrestees (FBI, 2009c). 

UCR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — UCR’s key strength is that it is a consistently collected source of data that covers most of the nation. 

This data source has credibility among law enforcement and provides a basis for long-term trend analysis. 

• Weaknesses — UCR’s key weakness for purposes of assessing sexual offending is that UCR crime incident data 

refect only crimes reported to police, and this type of crime frequently is not reported to police. An additional 

weakness is that the classifcation of crimes by police offcers in the feld can be subjective — what one offcer calls 

a rape, another may classify as an aggravated assault. Finally, until 2012, UCR’s defnition of rape excluded many 

sexual assault crimes even if they were reported to the police. Some examples follow: 

○ Sex crimes not meeting the FBI defnition of rape, including oral and anal sexual assaults, penetration with a 

fnger or foreign object, and sexual battery. 

○ Sexual assaults facilitated with drugs and/or alcohol, or of an unconscious victim. 

○ Sexual assaults when the victim is male. 

○ Sexual assaults when the victim has a disability that precludes the individual from legally being able to give consent. 

○ Sexual assaults of children under age 12 (reported as child sexual assault) (Lonsway, 2010). 

In a study using National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data from 1993–2010, it is estimated there would 

have been a total of 455,234 incidents of forcible rape using the new defnition, an increase of 41 percent over the 

number (269,656) based only on the former defnition (Bierie & Davis-Siegel, 2015). 

National Crime Victimization Survey 

NCVS was established by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 1973 to provide a source of information on 

the characteristics of criminal victimization in the United States. NCVS collects information on the frequency 

and nature of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, 

theft and motor vehicle theft. Murder is not included in NCVS as victim reporting is the method for collecting 

these data. A nationally representative sample of approximately 42,000 households is included in the survey. 

Each household is included in the survey for three years, and all individuals over age 12 in the household 

are interviewed. The initial interview is in person and subsequent interviews are conducted by phone. NCVS 

collects data on crimes reported to police as well as those not reported and assesses the victim’s experience 

with the criminal justice system. NCVS gathers data on the nature and circumstances of the crime, such as 

where it occurred, when it occurred, and whether the victim knew the perpetrator. 

Based on NCVS data, an estimated 284,350 rape/sexual assault victimizations3

 occurred in the United States in 

2014, a rate of 1.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 and over (Truman & Langton, 2015). NCVS data also 

indicate that most rape/sexual assault victims are female, white, and under age 30. Based on the 2010 survey, 

when victim gender information was most recently reported, more than nine out of every 10 rape/sexual 

assault victims in the United States were female (Truman, 2011). Further, based on the results of the 2008 

national survey (the latest survey for which comprehensive rape/sexual assault victim demographic information 

is available), an estimated 63 percent of victims are white, 28 percent are African-American, and 9 percent are 

other races. In 2008, the rape/sexual assault victimization rate for African-American females was about three 

times higher than it was for white females. Among different age groups, people aged 16–19 and 20–24 had 
6 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

the highest rape/sexual assault victimization rates in 2008 — 2.2 and 2.1 per 1,000 persons in each age group, 

respectively. By comparison, BJS (2011) found that people aged 35–49 had an estimated rape/sexual assault 

victimization rate of 0.8 per 1,000 persons in the age group in 2008, and people aged 12–15 had an estimated 

rate of 1.6 (although the latter estimate is based on a small sample of cases) (Truman & Rand, 2010). 

NCVS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES4 

• Strengths — Two key strengths of NCVS are that it measures unreported victimization incidents as well as 

victimization reported to police, and that these data are collected and reported annually. An additional strength 

is that it includes sex crimes against both men and women. The survey includes semiannual interviews over three 

years; the frst interview is conducted in person and subsequent interviews are conducted by phone. This may 

lead to development of rapport, trust and interviewer credibility, possibly leading to increased rates of disclosure. 

Administration by the U.S. Census Bureau brings added credibility to NCVS. The survey is a convenient platform for 

more in-depth studies and has periodically administered supplements to study specifc topics (e.g., stalking, crime 

on college campuses).* Finally, in 1993, NCVS was redesigned and began to more accurately estimate incidents 

of violence perpetrated by intimate partners and family members, and also to ask more directly about unwanted 

sexual contact (Bachman & Taylor, 1994). 

• Weaknesses — One challenge with NCVS is that, because it is a crime victimization survey, some respondents may 

not report victimizations that they do not personally label as a crime, such as unwanted sexual contact by an 

acquaintance. This may lead to an undercount of sex crimes. Additionally, the questions have a two-stage design: 

respondents are frst asked if they were raped, and are only asked about specifc aspects of the victimization if 

they respond affrmatively to this initial question. This approach may underestimate victimization compared to 

strategies that ask about specifc behaviors† rather than a specifc label.‡ For example, Fisher (2009) found that in 

comparing two samples of college-age women, rates of reported sexual victimization were 11 times higher when 

using behaviorally specifc questions versus asking the yes/no rape screening question alone. Another weakness 

of NCVS is that it omits crimes committed against victims younger than age 12. Finally, because the survey is 

administered at the respondent’s home, there is the possibility that a family member or partner who perpetrated 

a crime against the respondent is present at the time of the interview and that the victim would fail to report the 

crime committed by that person. 

* See later sections in this chapter for more information about these topics. 

† For example, “Were you subject to sexual contact after you said ‘no’ or ‘stop’?’’ 

‡ Strategies that ask behaviorally specifc questions allow for the categorization of a sex crime based on the answers 

to these questions. 

Although NCVS data provide valuable insights about the incidence and prevalence of sexual offending 

nationwide, BJS acknowledges — 

The measurement of rape and sexual assault represents one of the most serious challenges in the feld of 

victimization research. Rape and sexual assault remain sensitive subjects that are diffcult to ask about in 

the survey context. As part of the on-going redesign of NCVS, BJS is exploring methods for improving the 

reporting of these crimes (Truman & Rand, 2010). 

National Violence Against Women Survey 

Sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the 

National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) was administered in the mid-1990s to assess the extent of 

violence against women in the United States. A nationally representative sample of 8,000 men and 8,000 women 

aged 18 and older were surveyed between November 1995 and May 1996. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 7 

NVAWS found that 17.6 percent of female and 0.3 percent of male respondents had been the victim of a rape 

at some time in their lives. Based on this fnding, the authors estimate that almost 18 million women and 

almost 3 million men in the United States have been raped. Rape prevalence rates were the same for minority 

and nonminority women, but Native American/Alaska Native women were signifcantly more likely to have 

experienced a rape in their lifetime. Rape was more likely to affect younger women than older women, with 

more than half of female victims and nearly three-quarters of male victims being victimized prior to age 18. 

Overall, 86 percent of rape victims were female, while most rapists were male. Finally, female victims were 

signifcantly more likely than male victims to have been the victim of a rape by a current/former intimate 

partner and to be injured during the rape (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). 

NVAWS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — The key strength of NVAWS is that it was a nationally representative sample of both men and 

women. Another key strength of this study was the design — respondents were asked a series of questions 

(referred to as a scale) about their experience of sexual assault, rather than being asked yes/no questions. 

This means that victims who did not label their experience as a crime could be included in measures of sexual 

victimization. Questions included items identical to those used in the National Women’s Study, which is described 

later in this chapter, allowing for comparability across studies (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Finally, a strength of this 

study is that it measured both per-year and lifetime victimization. 

• Weaknesses — The key weakness of NVAWS is its age. Conducted more than 20 years ago, the fndings may or 

may not refect the experiences of women today. Another weakness is that the survey was conducted by phone. 

Individuals without phones were not included in this sampling frame. At the time of this study, individuals without 

phones were more likely to have low incomes. 

National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing, nationally representative 

telephone survey that collects information about sexual violence, stalking victimization, and intimate partner 

violence among adult women and men ages 18 and older in the United States. CDC launched the survey in 

2010, with the support of NIJ and the U.S. Department of Defense (Black et al., 2011; Breiding et al., 2014). 

NISVS data will be collected annually as long as funding for the survey is available. 

NISVS is unique because it is the frst ongoing survey designed to describe and monitor sexual violence, 

stalking, and intimate partner violence from a public health rather than crime perspective. Survey respondents 

are frst asked about various health conditions to establish a health context for the survey. Then they are asked 

about victimization experiences using behaviorally specifc questions. Research has shown that this healthbased approach increases disclosure of violent victimization.5 

NISVS also collects data on victimization involving sexual violence other than rape, control of reproductive 

health and other forms of sexual victimization that have not been measured in the past. It is also the frst 

survey to provide national and state-level data on sexual violence, stalking and intimate partner violence. 

Findings from the second year of NISVS data were published by Breiding and colleagues in 2014.6

 Based on 

12,727 completed interviews (6,879 women and 5,848 men), the 2011 survey found that nearly 1 in 5 women 

(19.3 percent) and 1 in 59 men (1.7 percent) have been raped in their lifetime. In addition, 43.9 percent of 

women and 23.4 percent of men reported being victims of other forms of sexual violence in their lifetime. 

Nearly one-half (45.4 percent) of female rape victims reported being victimized by an intimate partner, while a 
8 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

similar number (46.7) percent reported being victimized by an acquaintance. More than four in 10 (40.4 percent) 

female rape victims experienced their frst completed rape before age 18. 

The 2011 survey also found that 15.2 percent of women and 5.7 percent of men have experienced stalking 

victimization “in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed 

or killed” (Breiding et al., 2014, p. 6). Female victims were most often stalked by a current or former intimate 

partner, while men were stalked primarily by an intimate partner or acquaintance. Nearly one in four women 

(22.3 percent) and one in seven men (14 percent) reported experiencing severe physical violence7

 perpetrated 

by an intimate partner, while nearly half of all women (47.1 percent) and men (46.5 percent) reported 

experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner. 

In the 2011 survey, 1.6 percent of the female respondents surveyed reported being raped in the 12 months prior 

to taking the survey. That equates to an estimated 1.9 million women nationally. About one in 20 women and 

men (5.5 percent and 5.1 percent, respectively) reported being victims of sexual violence other than rape, while 

about 4.2 percent of women and 2.1 percent of men reported being stalked in the 12 months before the survey. 

The 2011 NISVS also found that about 32.3 percent of multiracial women, 27.5 percent of American Indian/Alaska 

Native women, 21.2 percent of African-American women, 20.5 percent of white women and 13.6 percent of 

Hispanic women have been raped in their lifetime. 

The 2010 NISVS produced the frst national data on the prevalence of sexual violence, stalking and intimate 

partner violence victimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual women and men. Lesbians and gay men were 

found to have sexual violence victimization rates equal to or higher than those reported by heterosexuals, while 

bisexual women had signifcantly higher lifetime prevalence rates of rape and sexual violence other than rape 

compared to both lesbian and heterosexual women (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2011a). 

NISVS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — Key strengths of NISVS are its use of a public health approach, its exclusive focus on sexual violence, its 

assessment of 60 different violent behaviors, its coverage of more than select populations (e.g., college students) 

and its use of both cellphone and landline phone samples. NISVS also collects information on forms of sexual 

violence that have not been measured in a national survey before, and is the frst survey to provide both national 

and state-level data on sexual violence, stalking and intimate partner violence. It also is the frst study to produce 

national prevalence estimates of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and stalking victimization among 

lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men. 

• Weaknesses — NISVS relies on self-reports of victimization experiences. In addition, “although NISVS includes 

a large sample size, in some cases statistically reliable estimates for all forms of violence among all populations 

and sub-populations are not able to be calculated from annual data” (National Center for Injury Prevention and 

Control, 2011b, p. 2). 

National College Women Sexual Victimization Study 

The National College Women Sexual Victimization Study (NCWSV), funded by NIJ, surveyed a randomly 

selected, national sample of 4,446 women attending two- or four-year colleges during the fall 1996 semester 

(Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). Students were asked via telephone about events that occurred that school 

year, a period of approximately seven months (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). Lifetime exposure to sexual 

victimization was not assessed. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 9 

Fisher, Cullen and Turner (2000) found that 2.8 percent of college women who responded to the survey 

had experienced either a completed or attempted rape during the semester. Of those who reported rape, 

23 percent reported multiple rapes. As the study period included only one semester of college, the authors 

caution that over the years of the participants’ college experience, rates of victimization may be higher than 

reported for the time period under study. Further, they also found that many women did not characterize 

their sexual victimization as a crime. For the incidents categorized as rape by the researchers, 49 percent of the 

women responded “yes” when asked if they would describe the incident they experienced as a rape (Fisher, 

Cullen & Turner, 2000). The reasons survey respondents gave for not describing the incident as rape were 

varied, and included embarrassment, not clearly understanding the legal defnition of rape, not wanting to 

defne someone they know who victimized them as a rapist or because they blamed themselves for their sexual 

assault (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). Most victims knew their offender: The authors found that nine out of 

10 offenders were known to their victim. Most often, the offender was a boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, classmate, 

friend, acquaintance or coworker (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). Campus rape victims were not likely to report 

the crime to police; fewer than 5 percent of completed and attempted rapes were reported. However, in 

approximately two-thirds of the cases, the victim did report the incident to another person, most typically a 

friend rather than a family member or college offcial (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). 

NCWSV STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — Key strengths of NCWSV are its sample size (4,446 women) and the sample of colleges was a 

probability sample proportionate to female student enrollment and college location (urban, suburban, and rural) 

(Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). Additionally, in an attempt to capture victimization that may not be classifed by 

the victim as rape, the survey used a two-stage process to ask behaviorally specifc questions to assess victimization 

(Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2000). 

• Weaknesses — A key weakness of this study is that it addresses a narrow population — women attending 

college. Other weaknesses are that comparisons to other studies are diffcult because the reference period is seven 

months rather than 12 months and that lifetime victimization is not measured. Finally, the two-stage process for 

categorizing experiences as rape is not without methodological challenges and may require fne-tuning if it is to 

consistently estimate rates of victimization in the future (Cook et al., 2011). 

Sexual Experiences Survey 

The Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) was developed in the late 1970s to “operationalize a continuum of 

unwanted experiences that at the extreme refect legal defnitions of attempted rape and rape” (Koss et al., 

2007, p. 359). Unlike the other sources described here, SES is neither an annual data collection instrument nor 

a one-time national sample. Instead, it represents a standard set of questions that have been used repeatedly 

by scholars, particularly in the public health feld, to study unwanted sexual experiences. In some studies, 

the survey has been used in its original form, while in others researchers have customized the questions to 

suit their specifc research needs. This self-report survey instrument was revised in 1987 and again in 2007. Its 

questions were modeled on the statutory defnition of rape in Ohio. Separate versions of the survey assess 

victimization and perpetration of sex crimes. The survey tool is available in both short and long form, allowing 

for screening or for in-depth study. Respondents are asked about incidents since age 14 and in the past year, 

thus providing both annual results and lifetime rates of victimization. 

Using SES questions, Testa and colleagues (2004) conducted in-person interviews with 1,014 women living in 

or near Buffalo, New York, between May 2000 and April 2002. Of the respondents, 38 percent indicated they 

had experienced sexual victimization since age 14. The most common experience reported by respondents 

was unwanted sexual contact. Of the respondents, 27 percent reported unwanted sexual contact, 17 percent 

reported a rape and 12 percent reported an attempted rape (Testa et al., 2004). 
10 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

SES STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — A key strength of this instrument is the wide range of sexual victimization that is characterized by 

the questions asked. Also, the instrument does not use the word “rape,” but rather uses behaviorally specifc 

descriptions of unwanted sexual acts. This is done to minimize victim underreporting in cases in which the victim 

does not label the unwanted sexual act as a rape. 

• Weaknesses — Different methods (e.g., sampling frame, sample size, method of survey administration) in using 

SES can lead to variability in responses. Some scholars suggest that such a comprehensive set of questions may lead 

to overcounts of victimization incidents. Further, basing defnitions on the laws of the state of Ohio could limit the 

applicability in other states. An additional weakness is that in some cases questions are lengthy, possibly leading the 

respondent to become confused or distracted. Regardless, the revised SES is exhaustive, and “each item queries the 

sexual act, tactic used and expression of non-consent or reason for inability to consent.”(Cook et al., 2011, p. 207). 

National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System 

The National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) has provided annual counts of incidents of 

child sexual abuse since 1992. NCANDS data are based on reports from participating state child protection 

agencies. NCANDS includes case-level data on the characteristics of screened-in reports of abuse and neglect 

made to the agencies, including the children involved, the types of maltreatment alleged, the disposition of 

the investigation, the risk factors of the child and the caregivers, the services provided and information about 

the perpetrators.8

 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publishes an annual report — Child 

Maltreatment — that summarizes NCANDS data reported from the states. Each state has its own defnition of 

child abuse and neglect based on federal law (Children’s Bureau, 2014). Child sexual abuse is reported annually 

along with incidents of neglect, physical abuse and psychological maltreatment. For 2014, NCANDS estimates 

that 58,105 children were victims of sexual abuse. 

NCANDS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — This data source provides annual data that are published and made available on the U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services website. State participation is nearly universal — since 2007, all 50 states have 

provided summary data, and many also provide case-level data. In place since 1992, this data source can help track 

trends over time. 

• Weaknesses — Data from this source refect incidents of abuse by caretakers reported to child protection agencies. 

Sexual abuse committed by a nonfamily member or a noncaretaker may not be included in this data set. Sexual 

abuse reported directly to law enforcement, and not to a child protective agency, is not included in this data set. 

National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence 

The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) is sponsored by the Offce of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and supported by CDC. This is the frst national survey to measure 

both past-year and lifetime exposure to conventional crime, child maltreatment, victimization by peers and 

siblings, sexual victimization, witnessing and indirect victimization, school violence and threats and internet 

victimization for children aged 17 and younger. (For more on “Internet-Facilitated Sexual Offending,” see 

Chapter 4 in the Adult section.) This study was designed by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the 

University of New Hampshire. It attempted to measure children’s experience of violence in the home, school 

and community. Telephone interviews were conducted with respondents aged 10–17. For respondents aged 9 

and under, their adult caregivers were interviewed. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 11 

Key research fndings were that 5.6 percent of children had been sexually victimized in the past year and 9.5 

percent had been a victim during their lifetime. Sexual victimization includes attempted and completed rape, 

sexual assault, fashing or sexual exposure, sexual harassment and statutory sexual offenses. In addition, 

16.4 percent of youth aged 14–17 had been sexually victimized in the past year and 27.3 percent had been 

sexually victimized during their lifetime. This study found that children were often the victims of multiple 

types of violence. A child who was physically assaulted in the past year was found to be fve times as likely to 

have been sexually victimized (Finkelhor et al., 2015). 

In addition, the majority (61 percent) of reported past-year peer victimizations (including assault, bullying, 

sexual victimization and property crime) occurred at school (Turner et al., 2011). Emotional bullying by peers 

was most likely to occur at school, while sexual assault and rape were most likely to occur elsewhere (Turner 

et al., 2010). Considering only serious violent events (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault), the 

rates for these crimes at school for adolescents aged 12–18 are lower than those occurring away from school. In 

2008, the serious violent victimization rates were four per 1,000 students at school and eight per 1,000 students 

away from school (Robers, Zhang & Truman, 2010). Children living in households with lower incomes have 

higher rates of exposure to sexual and physical assault than those living in households with middle and high 

incomes (Crouch et al., 2000). 

NatSCEV STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — This survey is notable for its large sample size (4,500 respondents). A major strength of this study is 

the care taken to oversample in certain populations to allow for subgroup analysis. For example, areas with high 

concentrations of African-American, Hispanic and low-income households were oversampled so that analysis could 

be performed for these subgroups. This study also examines lifetime exposure to violence, crimes against children 

younger than age 2, threats of violence and internet victimization. 

• Weaknesses — A weakness of this study is that it is not conducted annually, so annual comparisons to other 

data sources are not possible. Further, while NCVS includes interviews every six months, NatSCEV includes a 

single interview. Some respondents may have diffculty accurately recalling incidents in the past year, versus the 

past six months. 

Developmental Victimization Survey 

A precursor to NatSCEV and conducted by the same researchers, the Developmental Victimization Survey (DVS) 

was a random-digit-dial survey of households conducted in 2003. The survey sample consisted of 2,030 children 

aged 2–17 within the households surveyed. One child from each household was randomly selected (the child 

with the most recent birthday). Telephone interviews were conducted directly with children aged 10–17, while 

a caregiver was questioned regarding children aged 2–9. DVS uses the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire, 

which is widely known and used to screen individuals for incidence of violence (Finkelhor et al., 2005). DVS 

results indicated that one in 12 children in the sample (82 per 1,000) had experienced a sexual victimization in 

the sample year, including 22 per 1,000 who experienced an attempted or completed rape and 32 per 1,000 

who experienced a sexual assault (Finkelhor et al., 2005). 
12 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

DVS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — The strengths of DVS are its large sample size (2,030) and the wide range of screening questions 

asked of the child sample. 

• Weaknesses — DVS interviews were administered in English only, thereby missing non-English speakers, and only 

using the telephone, eliminating from the sample those households that did not have a phone. Further, interviewing 

of children younger than age 10 was done with the child’s caregiver, which may have limited the reporting of 

victimization (particularly if perpetrated by the caregiver) (Finkelhor et al., 2005). Finally, DVS did not sample children 

younger than age 2 or ask questions related to a broader assessment of types of violence (e.g., witnessing intimate 

partner violence and other violence in the home). Many of the weaknesses of DVS have been addressed by the more 

current NatSCEV. 

National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children–2 

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children–2 (NISMART–2) was 

an estimate of the number of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities 

and law enforcement agencies. Data were collected via telephone interviews in 1999 and have been reported 

in several publications. 

Key research fndings were that an estimated 285,400 children were victims of a sexual assault, for a rate of 

approximately 4.1 victims per 1,000 children in the United States. Of these, an estimated 141,400 children 

were victims of a rape (anal, oral or vaginal penetration) and 60,400 experienced an attempted rape. Eightynine percent of victims were female and 95 percent were assaulted by a male. Eighty-one percent of victims 

were aged 12–17. Victimization of whites and African-Americans was proportionate to their presence in the 

general child population. Hispanics constituted 9 percent of victims and 16 percent of the U.S. child population. 

Seventy-one percent of child sexual assault victims were victimized by someone they knew or recognized by 

sight, 18 percent were victimized by a stranger and 10 percent were victimized by a family member (Finkelhor, 

Hammer & Sedlak, 2008). 

NISMART–2 STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — This was a national survey using a probability sample of households. In developing national estimates 

from the interviews conducted, youth and adult interview data were weighted to refect the census-based population 

of children. The sample size was very large; more than 16,000 adult caretakers were interviewed, representing nearly 

32,000 children. Additionally, 5,000 youth were also interviewed. Care was taken not to double-count incidents that 

were reported by both a caretaker and a child. Another key strength is that defnitions of crimes used in NCVS were 

used for NISMART–2, allowing comparisons between the results of both surveys. NISMART–2 counted incidents that 

would not be included in NCVS, such as those with victims younger than age 12 and incidents in which the adult 

caretaker but not the victim had disclosed (Finkelhor, Hammer & Sedlak, 2008). 

• Weaknesses — This study is not conducted annually. NISMART–2 was conducted in 1999 and NISMART–1 was 

conducted in 1988, making comparison between the two diffcult. In addition, data collected on sexual assault were 

different between the two studies, preventing direct comparison. Also, for children younger than age 10, sexual 

abuse could only be reported by an adult caretaker who both knew about and chose to report the abuse. This could 

have led to an undercount of such incidents. According to Finkelhor, Hammer and Sedlak (2008, p. 9): 

[M]ore than half of the youth who were interviewed after their caretaker disclosed the youth’s victimization 

did not disclose the assault in their own interview. As a result, one would expect that a considerable number 

of additional youth whose caretakers did not know about the assault also failed to disclose. Additionally, the 

accuracy of the proxy reports by caretakers could be infuenced by their not wanting to disclose the abuse to 

a telephone interviewer. The latter situation would have a proportionally larger effect on underreporting for 

victims younger than 10, for whom caretaker proxy reports were the only source of information. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 13 

National Women’s Study 

The National Women’s Study (NWS) is a three-year longitudinal study of a national probability sample of 

4,008 adult women in the United States aged 18 and older. Three waves of interviewing were completed: at 

the time of the initial study and at one and two years after the initial interview. 

The results indicated that 13 percent of women reported being the victim of at least one completed rape in 

their lifetime. Based on this, it was estimated that 12.1 million women in the United States have been the 

victim of one forcible rape in their lifetime. In addition, 0.07 percent of women surveyed reported having been 

raped in the past year, equating to 683,000 adult women in the United States. Of those who reported being 

raped, 56 percent reported one rape and 39 percent indicated they were raped more than once (with 5 percent 

uncertain how many times they were raped). Twenty-nine percent of the rapes occurred when the victim 

was younger than age 11 and another 32 percent occurred when the victim was between 12 and 18. In total, 

61 percent of rapes were committed against a female victim younger than age 18. In terms of the relationship 

between the perpetrator and the victim, 22 percent were raped by a stranger, while the vast majority of rapes 

were perpetrated by an intimate partner, family member, friend or neighbor (National Victim Center & Crime 

Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992). 

NWS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES 

• Strengths — The strength of this study was the probability sampling process that created greater representation 

in the sample. In addition, the longitudinal nature of the study allowed for variation in response over three 

interviews in a two-year period. 

• Weaknesses — A telephone survey is limited to those who live in households with a phone; therefore, those 

without phones were not represented in the sample. In addition, this survey excluded females younger than age 

18 and males from the survey and is therefore only valid for adult women in the United States. 

Other Data Sources 

Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated and Forcible Rape: A National Study 

For the Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated and Forcible Rape (DAFR) national study, Kilpatrick and colleagues 

(2007) conducted a national telephone survey of 5,000 women aged 18–86, including approximately 3,000 who 

represented all women in the United States and 2,000 women attending college. 

The research results indicated that for women of all ages, an estimated 18 percent had been raped during their 

lifetime. This translates into an estimated 20 million victims of rape out of 112 million women in the United 

States. In looking at past-year victimization alone, the authors estimated that more than 1 million women had 

been raped. Of those who reported that they were raped, 16 percent indicated they had reported the crime 

to law enforcement. The study found that victims of drug-facilitated or incapacitated rape were less likely to 

report the crime to the police than victims of forcible rape (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). 

National Survey of Adolescents 

The National Survey of Adolescents consisted of interviews of 4,023 adolescents (aged 12–17) on various topics 

that included victimization history. The survey used random-digit dialing and stratifed sampling techniques to 

identify households that had a telephone, an adolescent aged 12–17 with a parent or legal guardian, and both 

a parent or guardian and an adolescent who spoke English or Spanish. 
14 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

 

Results of the survey indicated that 8.1 percent of those responding had a history of sexual victimization. 

Native American adolescents had the highest prevalence rate of sexual victimization (15.7 percent), 

compared to 13.1 percent for African-Americans, 10 percent for Hispanics, 6.7 percent for whites and 

6.5 percent for Asians. Adolescent females were at greater risk of sexual assault than males (13 percent 

compared to 3.4 percent). Seventy-four percent of victims reported knowing the perpetrator prior to the 

sexual offense. Finally, only 13 percent of victims reported the sexual offense to the police (Kilpatrick, 

Saunders, & Smith, 2003). 

Adverse Childhood Experiences 

The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study was conducted with members of the Kaiser Permanente Health 

Plan who had visited the San Diego Health Appraisal Clinic. Data were collected from 17,337 study participants 

between 1995 and 1997. Unlike some of the other studies described above, the ACE study surveyed adults 

about a variety of previous childhood experiences: psychological, physical and sexual abuse during childhood; 

substance abuse; mental illness; violence against the respondent’s mother; and criminal behavior in the 

household. The results indicated that 20.7 percent of the sample experienced childhood sexual abuse, including 

24.7 percent of women and 16 percent of men (Felitti et al., 1998). 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) is a national school-based survey conducted biennially by CDC. In 2013, 

13,583 questionnaires were completed in 148 schools. This survey monitors several categories of health-risk 

behaviors among youth and young adults, including violence. Both public and private schools in the United 

States with students in grades 9–12 are included in the sampling frame for this survey. YRBS includes violence 

measures for dating violence, rape and bullying. The 2013 study indicated that 7.3 percent of the sample 

had been subject to forcible sexual intercourse, with 10.5 percent of females and 4.2 percent of males 

reporting such an incident. This number did not change signifcantly from 2011 (8 percent) to 2013. In 

addition, 10.4 percent of students who dated reported being victims of sexual dating violence during the 

year prior to the survey, including 14.4 percent of females and 6.2 percent of males (Kann et al., 2014). (For a 

discussion of adult “Sex Offender Risk Assessment,” see Chapter 6 in the Adult section.) 

Survey of Inmates in Local Jails 

BJS’s Survey of Inmates in Local Jails (SILJ) has been conducted periodically over approximately the past 40 years 

and consists of interviews with a national sample of jail inmates. Based on the 2002 survey of nearly 7,000 jail 

inmates, it is estimated that the most serious offense for 3.4 percent (nearly 21,200 inmates) of the 623,492 jail 

inmates in the United States was for rape (0.6 percent) or another type of sexual assault (2.8 percent) (James, 

2004). This survey and the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities (SISFCF) both 

provide information about the prevalence of sexual offenders within local, state and federal correctional/ 

detention facilities.9 

Survey of Sexual Victimization 

BJS’s Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) has been conducted annually since 2004 on juveniles in detention 

facilities and adults in corrections facilities, in response to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; 

P.L. 108-79). The SSV is a summary of allegations of sexual victimization by other inmates or staff reported to 

correctional authorities. In 2012, there were 865 allegations of sexual assault in state juvenile systems and 613 in 

local, private and Indian Country facilities. The rate of allegations in the state juvenile systems has more 

than doubled from 19 per 1,000 in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012. The rate of allegations in local or private 

facilities increased from 7.2 per 1,000 in 2010 to 13.5 per 1,000 in 2012. From 2007 to 2012, there were 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 15 

nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual assault in state, local or private facilities, 55 percent of which were youth 

against youth (25 percent of which were substantiated) and 45 percent (10 percent of which were substantiated) 

were staff against youth allegations (Beck & Rantala, 2016). 

Results of the SSV for all adult correctional facilities indicated there was 8,763 allegations of sexual victimization 

in 2011, a statistically signifcantly increase from the 8,404 in 2010 and 7,855 in 2009. The overall rate specifcally 

for prisons has increased by 39 percent from 2005 (4,791) to 2011 (6,660). In terms of substantiated allegations, in 

2011, 902 adult correctional facility allegations (10 percent) were substantiated, 52 percent of which were inmate 

against inmate sexual victimizations while 48 percent were staff against inmate (Beck, 2015). 

Trend Data 

Historical data on the incidence of sexual assault can provide important insight about trends over time. Data 

from law enforcement as well as from victimization surveys suggest that sexual assaults, much like other 

types of crime, have substantially declined over the past 10 to 20 years. 

According to the FBI, the number of forcible rapes reported to the police fell 14 percent between 1990 and 

2009, from 102,555 to 88,097. The number of rapes reported to police per 100,000 U.S. residents also fell 

during that time (from 41.1 to 28.7), a decline of 30 percent (FBI, 2009). Data on sexual assault victimization 

surveys follow a similar pattern. According to NCVS, the number of rape/sexual assault victimizations for 

those aged 12 and older in the United States fell by more than 30 percent between 2002 and 2011, dropping 

from 349,810 to 243,800 over the nine-year period. Overall, the estimated number of rape/sexual assault 

victimizations fell by more than one-third in 2011 (from about 383,000 in 1990 to 243,800) (Rennison, 2000; 

Truman & Planty, 2012). It should be noted that the number of rape/sexual assault victimizations increased to 

300,170 in 2013, and then decreased by 5.3 percent to 284,350 in 2014 (Truman & Langton, 2015). Finally, data 

from NCANDS indicate that substantiated cases of child sexual assault in the United States have also fallen in 

recent years, dropping by 53 percent between 1992 and 2006 (Finkelhor, Hammer & Sedlak, 2008). 

Limitations of the Data 

Although increased scholarly attention has been paid to sexual victimization and victimization surveys in the 

past two decades, and notable improvements regarding the reporting of sexual assault crimes have recently 

been made in the national UCR program, much remains to be done to develop standard defnitions of sex 

crimes and to measure victimization in a way that elicits self-report of a traumatic experience many victims may 

choose not to discuss. As Cook and colleagues (2011, p. 210) point out, the feld “remains hampered by the 

lack of a standard defnition of rape and its components of act, tactics and non-consent.” What is known about 

victims and offenders is based on an incomplete picture of the true extent of victimization. Studies of victims 

rely on self-report, resulting in dramatic undercounts of victimization. What we know to date is that sexual 

victimization is far more common than existing sources indicate and that more needs to be done to develop a 

credible literature on the extent, causes and consequences of sexual victimization. 

No single defnition of sexual offending 

is used across data sources. 
16 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Summary of the Data 

Information on the incidence and prevalence of sexual offending in the United States can be obtained from 

a diverse range of sources. Some sources, such as the FBI’s UCR program, focus on sex crimes reported to the 

police and the offenders arrested for those crimes. Others, such as NCVS, focus on victims of sex crimes. Some 

sources collect and report data on a regular, ongoing basis. Others do so only periodically or on a one-time 

basis. A wide range of methods are used to collect incidence and prevalence data as well. Despite these 

differences, the available data provide important insight about the extent of sexual offending in the United 

States, along with the characteristics of victims and known offenders. 

The FBI’s UCR statistics indicate that in 2013, 79,770 forcible rapes were reported to law enforcement 

(FBI, 2014). Arrestees for forcible rape are typically young, white males (FBI, 2009c). Based on NCVS data, 

284,500 rape/sexual assault victimizations are estimated to have occurred in the United States in 2014 (Truman & 

Langton, 2015). NCVS data also indicate that most rape/sexual assault victims are female, white and younger than 

age 30 (Truman, 2011). Based on NCANDS estimates, nearly 58,105 children were victims of sexual abuse in 2014 

(Children’s Bureau, 2014). 

NVAWS found that 17.6 percent of women and 0.3 percent of men had been the victim of a rape at some time 

in their life, meaning that almost 18 million women and almost 3 million men in the United States have been 

raped (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Data from NWS indicated that 13 percent of women reported being the 

victim of at least one completed rape in their lifetime. Based on this, it was estimated that 12.1 million women 

in the United States have been the victim of one forcible rape in their lifetime (National Victim Center & Crime 

Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992). Trend data indicate that the number of forcible rapes reported 

to the police fell 14 percent between 1990 and 2009, and that the estimated number of rape/sexual assault 

victimizations fell by more than one-third between 2002 and 2011 (Rennison, 2000; Truman & Planty, 2012). 

Although these data provide insight into the incidence of sexual offending and victimization, the gap between 

sexual victimizations and sex crimes reported to police, and the characteristics of victims and perpetrators, 

they must be interpreted in light of their limitations. Differences in the methods used to collect data as well 

as when the data were collected can render the comparison of statistics from certain sources diffcult and 

sometimes meaningless. Users of the data must also recognize that quantitative statistics on sexual offending 

and victimization lack precision. An accurate accounting of sexual offending and victimization is virtually 

impossible because so many sex crimes and victimizations are hidden from public view. Although the available 

data can help policymakers and practitioners better understand incidence patterns and trends, efforts to 

enhance existing data systems and improve both the quality and comparability of the data are needed. 

At least 16 different data sources report 

on sex crimes and victimization. 

Underreporting of Sex Crimes 

One of the greatest challenges to developing an accurate estimate of the incidence and prevalence of sexual 

offending is the fact that not every victim will disclose the incident to law enforcement, and many will also not 

disclose the incident to a researcher during a survey. Research has clearly demonstrated that many sex offenses 

are never reported to authorities. For example, NCVS data suggest that only about 25 to 33 percent of rapes 

or sexual assaults have been reported to police over the past 15 years, with some between-year fuctuations 

(Bachman, 1998; Truman & Langton, 2015; Truman & Planty, 2012). In addition, Tjaden and Thoennes (2006) 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 17 

found that only 19 percent of women and 13 percent of men who were raped since their 18th birthday 

reported the rape to the police. Several studies of victims have shown that the likelihood that a victim will 

report sexual assault to law enforcement decreases with the victim’s age (Kilpatrick, Saunders & Smith, 2003). 

Finally, NWS results indicated that 84 percent of victims did not report the rape to the police. Of the 16 percent 

who did report the rape to the police, 12 percent did so within 24 hours of the rape and 4 percent did so more 

than 24 hours after the rape (National Victim Center & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992). 

Larcombe (2012, p. 483) argues that “the attrition of sexual offenses ... both before and after reporting to 

police, ensures that the minority of cases that secure a conviction for a sexual offense are not refective of the 

most common or injurious forms of sexual violence experienced by women and children.” Citing two Australian 

studies on police and prosecutorial discretion (Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault, 

Victoria, 2006; Lievore, 2004, as cited in Larcombe, 2012, p. 482), she points out that cases “clearly interpretable 

as violence” and not involving what appears to be “potential sexual partners” are more likely to proceed to 

conviction. Examples include cases involving male and younger victims and victims whose perpetrators were 

strangers, particularly when force, threats and weapons are used and result in physical injury to the victim 

and when verbal resistance is offered. Further, Larcombe (2012) reports that women aged 15–24, those with a 

psychiatric disability or a mental health issue and indigenous women are less likely to see their cases result in 

conviction. In terms of the offenders, those who have a prior history of criminal behavior (particularly violent 

and sexual offenses), are indigenous and have a disability (intellectual or psychiatric) are more likely to have 

their cases proceed to conviction (Larcombe, 2012). Given the evidence that sex crimes and sex offenders that 

are identifed by authorities and processed in the criminal justice system are not representative of sexual 

crimes and perpetrators overall, Larcombe (2012) suggests that policies, practices and research need to 

consider attrition dynamics and their implications. Although the studies cited by Larcombe may have limited 

applicability because they used Australian samples, research on attrition dynamics and characteristics using 

American samples likely would strengthen our understanding of the incidence and prevalence of sexual 

victimization in the United States. 

The vast majority of victims do 

not report sex crimes. 

Special Populations and Related Topic Areas 

Some studies have focused on a number of special populations and related topic areas regarding the incidence 

and prevalence of sexual victimization.10 Several of these areas are addressed below: stalking, sexual offending 

on college campuses and sexual offending against individuals with disabilities, members of the military and 

Native Americans in Indian Country. 

Stalking 

Stalking was frst defned as a crime in 1990 by the state of California. Since that time, all 50 states and 

the District of Columbia have passed a law against stalking. State statutes defne stalking behavior rather 

differently, however, and no single legal defnition of stalking applies across all states. Even for a victim, 

defning stalking can be diffcult, as behaviors that often appear as a part of stalking (e.g., gifts, notes and 

visits) are not in themselves criminal. Rather it is the nature of the behavior — unwanted attention, unwanted 

gifts, persistent or threatening notes, harassing visits and so forth — that defnes the act as stalking. In some 

states, stalking laws are invoked for verbal threats, while in other states the threat must be written or implied 

by the conduct (Klein et al., 2009). In some states the perpetrator must act in a way that makes the victim 

fearful, and in other states it is suffcient if the perpetrator acts in a way that would make a reasonable person 
18 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

 

fear the behavior (Fox, Nobles & Bonnie, 2011). As Tjaden (2009, p. 263) points out, “Nearly 20 years after the 

frst stalking law was enacted, many policymakers and practitioners still are unclear about what constitutes 

stalking.” 

With this confusion among state laws, it is not surprising that there has been no standard defnition used 

by researchers in studying the crime of stalking. Fox, Nobles, and Bonnie (2011) found that the four major 

national assessments of the extent of stalking all used different questions, making comparisons across the 

studies problematic. A few of the questions are similar, but none are exactly the same. Fox, Nobles, and Bonnie 

(2011) also point out that the major studies have failed to publish reliability estimates for their scales, reducing 

the ability to generalize beyond the sample population. It also should be noted that the sampling frame used 

in each of the four national stalking victimization studies is different. NVAWS, NCVS and the National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System (NIPSVSS) sample the general population, while NCWSV 

samples only female college students (Fox, Nobles & Bonnie, 2011). In reviewing 56 peer-reviewed assessments 

of stalking, Fox, Nobles and Bonnie (2011) found that 55 percent of the studies examined a college-age 

population while 45 percent examined the general population; they also found that many studies of stalking 

rely on subpopulations, such as college students or nonprobability samples.11 

Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) conducted the frst-ever national study of stalking within NVAWS and found that 8 

percent of women and 2 percent of men have been stalked in their lifetime. This telephone survey of 8,000 men 

and 8,000 women found that most stalking victims were female (78 percent) and most perpetrators were male 

(87 percent). In most cases, stalking involved perpetrators and victims who knew each other — only 23 percent of 

female victims and 36 percent of male victims reported being stalked by strangers. Stalking was in many cases the 

continuation of a violent relationship — 81 percent of women who were stalked by a present or former spouse or 

partner had also been sexually assaulted by that person and 31 percent had been raped by that person (Tjaden & 

Thoennes, 1998). These fndings demonstrate the importance of looking at domestic violence, stalking and sexual 

assault as a connected constellation of behaviors, given that the risk to the victim increases with the presence 

of these factors. In addition, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) found that about half of stalking victimizations (55 

percent for women and 48 percent for men) were reported to the police. In one out of fve cases reported to the 

police, the victim indicated the police did not take any action. Only 24 percent of women and 19 percent of men 

who reported a victimization to the police indicated that their stalker had been criminally prosecuted (Tjaden & 

Thoennes, 1998). 

In 2006, NCVS included a Supplemental Victimization Survey to assess the extent of stalking. Approximately 

65,000 men and women completed the survey between January and June 2006. This survey estimated 

that 2.4 percent of the population experienced stalking or harassment in the year prior to the study (Baum 

et al., 2009). The study did not seek to assess lifetime victimization. Women were at greater risk of stalking 

victimization than men (3 percent of women reported being a victim of stalking compared to 1.7 percent 

of men). Stalking and harassment rates for those aged 18–24 were signifcantly higher than for other age 

groups, with the rate of victimization decreasing with age. For those who reported stalking, many reported 

being victimized by persistent offenders — 46 percent of stalking victims experienced at least one unwanted 

contact per week, and 11 percent of victims said they had been stalked for fve years or more (Baum et al., 

2009). Most offenders were known to their victims (73 percent), and more than half of stalking victims lost 

5 or more days from work due to their victimization (Baum et al., 2009). One-third of women and one-ffth 

of men reported stalking or harassment to law enforcement. However, many other victims did not categorize 

their experience as stalking. Researchers asked questions about seven types of harassing or unwanted behavior 

and classifed a respondent as a victim of staking if he or she had experienced at least one of the behaviors on 

at least one occasion and felt fear as a result. Respondents who experienced the behavior but did not feel fear 

were categorized as victims of harassment. Researchers did not use the term “stalking” until the fnal question. 

Of those whose experiences were classifed as stalking, 60 percent reported that the experience was “not 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 19 

 

stalking” (Baum et al., 2009). This fnding raises the issue of defnitions and terminology, and underscores the 

complexity of accurately providing a picture of the national experience of victimization in general and stalking 

in particular. 

In a further analysis of 2006 NCVS data (n = 1,159), 31 percent of stalking victims were found to have engaged 

in informal help-seeking behavior (family or friends) while 29 percent engaged in formal help-seeking from 

law enforcement. Factors identifed that infuenced the type of help-seeking behavior utilized included 

perceived seriousness, fearfulness, and whether the offender was known. It was further noted that informal 

help-seeking may also lead to formal help-seeking, and seeking help was infuenced by how the victim viewed 

the victimization (Reyns & Englebrecht, 2014). 

Finally, results of the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) highlighted earlier in this 

report also include survey results related to stalking. Stalking is receiving increased attention in the literature 

and policy development, and further research is needed. 

Sexual Offending on College Campuses 

College campuses have frequently been used by researchers at universities seeking convenience samples for 

small studies. College campuses have also become of interest to researchers and policymakers in order to better 

understand the unique risks for young people during their likely frst experience of living without parental 

supervision. 

In a special study on the victimization of college students, BJS found that students experience both violent 

crime and serious violent crime at lower rates than nonstudents of the same age (Hart, 2003). Campuses 

themselves may provide some protection, as BJS found: “The number of off-campus victimizations of college 

students was over 14 times greater than the number of on-campus victimizations” (Hart, 2003, p. 1). The only 

category of violent crime for which the rates were not lower on college campuses was rape. Unlike robbery, 

aggravated assault, and simple assault, rape was reported at the same rate for those on campuses and sameage nonstudents. Several studies further examine rape and sexual victimization on college campuses. 

In examining lifetime exposure to sexual violence, higher rates of rape victimization tend to be found for 

college women. Kilpatrick and colleagues (2007) conducted a national telephone survey of drug-facilitated, 

incapacitated and forcible rape12 that included 2,000 women attending college. The study found that 11.5 percent 

had experienced rape during their lifetime. When looking at past-year victimizations, they found that 5.2 percent 

of college women were raped. Of those reporting rape in this study, about 12 percent of the crimes were 

reported to law enforcement. Victims of drug-facilitated and incapacitated rape were less likely than victims of 

forcible rape to report to the authorities (Kilpatrick et al., 2007). 

A larger and more recent study found that similar levels of college women reported being sexually victimized 

in their lifetime. McCauley and colleagues (2009) interviewed a national sample of 1,980 college women and 

found that 11.3 percent reported having been sexually victimized at some point in their life. 

The link between alcohol or drug use and sexual victimization has been studied, with consistent fndings of 

a strong connection. Mohler-Kuo and colleagues (2004) surveyed nearly 24,000 women between 1997 and 

2001 in the College Alcohol Study. They found that 4.7 percent had been raped and of those, 72 percent 

were intoxicated at the time the incident occurred (Mohler-Kuo et al., 2004). In a survey of approximately 

300 female college students, Lawyer and colleagues (2010) found that 29.6 percent of the respondents 

reported a drug-related sexual assault or rape, and 5.4 percent reported a forcible sexual assault or rape. 

Voluntary incapacitation (via drugs or alcohol) preceded 84.6 percent of drug-related assaults, and involuntary 

incapacitation preceded 15.4 percent of drug-related assaults. The majority of drug-related assaults (96.1 percent) 

involved alcohol consumption prior to assault (Lawyer et al., 2010). 
20 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Further, when looking at stalking behavior on college campuses as part of NCVS, Fisher, Cullen and Turner 

(2000) found that 13 percent of college women had been stalked. This rate of victimization is much higher 

than that reported by Tjaden and Thoennes (2006). The key difference in the studies is the age of the sample 

population. While Tjaden and Thoennes (2006) studied all ages, Fisher, Cullen and Turner (2000) studied college 

students exclusively — an age group at higher risk for stalking. 

In a study of NCVS sexual victimization data of college age females (aged 18-24) from 1995-2013, college 

students had a 20 percent reporting rate (6.1 per 1,000) while nonstudents had a 32 percent rate (7.6 per 

1,000). Eight of 10 victims knew the offender prior to the offense across both groups. Fifty-one percent of 

students were sexually victimized during leisure activities away from home, while 50 percent of nonstudents 

were sexually victimized during other activities at home (Sinozich & Langton, 2014). 

Finally, as part of a systematic review of studies on prevalence fndings from sexual assault on college campuses 

from 2000-2015 (n = 34 studies), Fedina et al. (2016) found the range of completed rape rate was 0.5-8 percent, 

unwanted sexual contact rate was 1.8-34 percent for females and 4.8-31 percent for males, and incapacitated 

rape rate was 1.8-14.2 percent for females and 1.9 percent for males. Overall, the composite sexual assault 

range was 6-44.2 percent for females and 1.4-3.2 percent for males. Variations in fndings are attributed to 

differences in research designs, sampling strategies and characteristics, measures used, behavior defnitions, 

time frames and the presence or absence of provided examples. The authors noted that “the majority of 

research has sampled predominately White, heterosexual, female students attending four-year colleges and 

prevalence fndings are limited to this population” (Fedina et al., 2016, p. 15). 

In summary, college students seem to be at unique risk for sexual violence and warrant the increased attention 

paid by policymakers in the form of sexual violence prevention and intervention programs. Tharp and 

colleagues (2015) further suggest that such efforts must not only focus on rape but also on unwanted sexual 

contact and verbal sexual harassment. Finally, a summary of the research related to bystander interventions 

to prevent sexual violence on college campuses described this strategy as effective and one worthy of further 

consideration (Fenton et al., 2016). 

Sexual Offending Against Individuals With Disabilities 

The rate at which individuals with disabilities are victimized is not well understood. Until mandated by law, 

no national statistics on this population were gathered in the United States. The few studies that have been 

conducted are mainly outside the United States or are exploratory in nature. Petersilia (2001, p. 658) described 

the state of literature in the feld as “... not a scientifcally rigorous literature, consisting mostly of anecdotal 

evidence, data from convenience samples and nonrandom program evaluations.” 

Key issues for individuals with disabilities include challenges reporting crimes and being believed or taken 

seriously when they do report crimes. This problem is documented in Sorensen (2002), who refers to crime victims 

with disabilities as “invisible.” Another challenge is repeat victimization. In a Canadian study of 162 individuals 

with cognitive disabilities, Sobsey and Doe (1991) found that 80 percent of those who had been sexually 

assaulted had been victimized more than once, while 49.6 percent had experienced 10 or more sexual assaults. 

In a survey (n = 352) of adult family caregivers and advocates (84.2 percent of the sample) and school-age 

child victims of sexual assault who have developmental disabilities (15.8 percent of the sample), respondents 

reported behaviors including having clothes pulled off or down (41 percent of the sample), having genitals 

exposed (40.4 percent of the sample), and forced intercourse (30.1 percent of the sample). Finally, 75.6 percent 

of respondents who reported victimization noted multiple incidents (Caldas & Bensy, 2014). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 21 

In one of the few studies specifcally designed to gather data from individuals with cognitive disabilities, 

Wilson and Brewer (1992) surveyed 174 individuals at a sheltered workshop in Australia. The study found that 

the rate of sexual assault was 10.7 times greater in the sheltered workshop than for the general population 

(Wilson & Brewer, 1992). Further, Wilson and Brewer (1992) found that rates of victimization were greater 

for individuals living in institutions. The Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act became law in 1998 to 

“increase public awareness of the plight of victims of crime with developmental disabilities, to collect data to 

measure the magnitude of the problem, and to develop strategies to address the safety and justice needs of 

victims of crime with developmental disabilities” (P.L. 105–301, October 27, 1998). NCVS now includes statistics 

on the rate of victimization of individuals with disabilities. 

In examining the data collected as part of the 2008 NCVS, Harrell and Rand (2010) found that the rate of 

violent crime against individuals with disabilities is twice that of individuals without disabilities. When 

adjusted for age, the rate of victimization for individuals with disabilities is two to three times higher than 

it is for individuals without disabilities for each type of violent crime measured (rape/sexual assault, robbery, 

aggravated assault, and simple assault). When measuring rates of victimization for rape/sexual assault, the 

age-adjusted victimization rate for individuals with disabilities is more than twice that of individuals without 

disabilities. Individuals with disabilities were slightly less likely than individuals without disabilities to offer 

resistance to the offender during a crime. Within measured categories of disability (hearing, vision, ambulatory, 

cognitive, self-care and independent living), individuals with cognitive disabilities had the highest risk of 

victimization (Harrell & Rand, 2010). 

These data are limited in that they do not include those residing in institutions. A signifcant number of 

individuals with disabilities reside in institutions, particularly those with severe disabilities. In addition, the 

format for the NCVS interviews may limit the ability of individuals with hearing or cognitive disabilities to 

participate. Individuals with cognitive disabilities may have diffculty understanding the terminology used 

in the interview questionnaire, and individuals with hearing impairments may not be able to participate in 

telephone interviews. Finally, when proxy interviews are allowed for individuals who are not able to answer for 

themselves due to cognitive or communication challenges, it may lead to underreporting of victimization. The 

proxy responder may not know about the victimization, or could even be the perpetrator of abuse. In these 

cases, the crime would go unreported (Harrell & Rand, 2010). 

The issue of sexual offending against individuals with disabilities is receiving more attention today than in the 

past, yet both the rate and characteristics of sexual victimization involving individuals with disabilities is not 

well understood. Clearly, more and better data are needed to determine the extent of sexual offending against 

this population. 

Sexual Offending Against Members of the Military 

Depending on the population studied and the defnitions used, the extent of sexual offending against 

members of the military varies widely. Studies have produced estimates suggesting that as few as 4 percent 

and as many as 78 percent of armed forces members have been the victim of a sex offense (Bastian, Lancaster, 

& Reyst, 1995). 

Unfortunately, there has been little consistency across studies in the methodologies, sample population 

characteristics, defnitions of sexual offending, and the wording of questions used to determine if a sex offense 

has occurred. In response to congressional reporting requirements, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) now 

collects data on sexual offending against active-duty service members. However, this data collection effort — 

in place since 2002 — only addresses active-duty personnel. A major shortcoming of the data collected by the 

department is the reluctance of service members to report acts of sexual misconduct. Scholars are beginning to 
22 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

look at the experience of military personnel both during active military service and after, but far more work is 

needed to understand the incidence and prevalence of sexual offending against this population. 

The Navy’s Tailhook convention scandal in 1991 and the cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault at the 

Army training camp in Aberdeen, Maryland, in 1996 drew public attention to how women are treated in the 

military. 

The department undertook a study of sexual harassment among active-duty military members in 1994 and 

published the results in 1995. Results of this study showed that 55 percent of women and 14 percent of men 

reported one or more incidents of harassment at work during the prior year. When asked about unwanted 

“sex-related attention” at work or off duty, 78 percent of women and 38 percent of men reported they had 

been harassed in the prior year (Bastian, Lancaster & Reyst, 1995). Researchers asked about fve types of 

unwanted sex-related attention: sexual assault, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, sexist behavior 

and crude/offensive behavior. Table 1-1 shows the results for women and men respondents. 

Table 1-1. Percentage of Women and Men Subject to Unwanted Sex-Related Attention, by Type 

Type Percentage of All Respondents Reporting 

Women Men 

Any type (one or more) 78 38 

Sexual assault 6 1 

Sexual coercion 13 2 

Unwanted sexual attention 41 8 

Sexist behavior 63 15 

Crude/offensive behavior 70 35 

Source: Bastian, Lancaster & Reyst, 1995. 

Many service members did not consider the experiences they reported to be sexual harassment. Although 

78 percent of women and 38 percent of men reported experiences that fell into the fve categories 

presented in Table 1-1, only 52 percent of women and 9 percent of men indicated that their experiences 

constituted sexual harassment (Bastian, Lancaster & Reyst, 1995). Of those who indicated sexual harassment 

in the survey, 24 percent reported their experience to someone else, including 40 percent of women and 17 

percent of men (Bastian, Lancaster & Reyst, 1995). For those who reported the experience to someone else, the 

vast majority were not investigated, with only 14 percent of women and 4 percent of men indicating that the 

harassment was being investigated. Further, 10 percent of women and 7 percent of men were encouraged to 

drop their complaint, and 23 percent of women and 16 percent of men indicated their report was not taken 

seriously. Of those who reported the incident, 21 percent of women and 12 percent of men indicated that a 

supervisor or coworker was hostile after the complaint was reported (Bastian, Lancaster & Reyst, 1995). 

Since 2002, the department has been required by law to conduct a quadrennial Workplace and Gender 

Relations Survey of Active Duty Members. This survey assesses the extent of “unwanted sexual contact”13 

between military service academy members (Rock et al., 2011). Data from 2014 found that 8.2 percent of 

women and 1.1 percent of men experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact during the previous year, 

down from 12.4 percent and 2 percent respectively in 2012 (DoD, 2015). In the same study, 48 percent of 

women and 10 percent of men experienced some form of sexual harassment, which, compared to 2012, is a 

decrease from 51 percent of women and unchanged for men. These statistics may underestimate the extent 

of unwanted sexual contact, as “8 of 10 sexual assaults in the military go unreported” (Whitley, 2010, p. 1). 

The study also found that there were 28 complaints of sexual harassment at military service academies for the 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 23 

 

 

academic program year 2014–15, up from 20 in 2013–14; additionally, there were 91 sexual assault reports in 

2014–15, up from 59 in the prior year (DoD, 2016a). 

The DoD also completes an annual summary of the number of sexual assaults and sexual harassment 

complaints reported by military service members (DoD, 2016b). There were 6,083 reports of sexual assault 

involving service members in 2015, a 1 percent decrease from the number reported in 2014. In addition, there 

were 657 sexual harassment complaints, of which 56 percent were found to be substantiated. 

In a national cross-sectional study of women serving in the military from 1971 to 2002 (Vietnam era to Persian 

Gulf era), Sadler and colleagues (2003) found that 79 percent reported sexual harassment during their military 

service, 54 percent reported unwanted sexual contact, and 30 percent reported one or more completed rapes 

(Sadler et al., 2003). Of those who had been raped, 14 percent indicated they had been gang raped. The study 

found that rape occurred more frequently on base, often in the barracks. The defnition of rape used in this 

study was that adopted by the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and 

Gynecologists. 

In examining the extent of sexual offending against veterans of military service while they were still active, 

recent attention has focused on military sexual trauma (MST), defned by the U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs as sexual assault or harassment during military service. Recognizing the importance of providing 

services, department hospitals now provide free services to survivors of MST, regardless of their eligibility 

for any other department services (Center for Women Veterans, 2011). The department has also supported 

research to understand the extent and consequences of MST. 

Since 2002, the Veterans Health Administration has implemented universal screening for MST for veterans returning 

from Afghanistan and Iraq. The frst national, population-based study of veterans accessing administration services 

after returning from Afghanistan or Iraq shows MST in 15.1 percent of women and 0.7 percent of men (Kimerling 

et al., 2010). This study was a cohort analysis of the medical records of 22,000 women and 143,000 men. High 

rates of postdeployment mental health conditions were found among all patients, and those with MST were 

signifcantly more likely to have a mental health diagnosis. This study may underestimate the extent of MST 

due to underreporting. Burnam and colleagues (2009) documented the stigma associated with seeking help 

among Afghanistan and Iraq war veterans. Examples of the stigma associated with help-seeking for MST are 

shame, desire to maintain unit cohesion, and fear related to reporting a fellow service member with whom the 

victim may continue to work. 

Underreporting of incidents of sexual offending is a serious problem. A U.S. Government Accountability Offce 

(GAO) survey found that half of service members who had indicated they had been sexually assaulted in the 

prior year did not report the assault (GAO, 2008). The offce also found that even after being trained, 13 to 

43 percent of military personnel were not sure how to report an assault (GAO, 2008). Sadler and colleagues 

(2003) reported that one-third of military women were uncertain of specifc steps to take to report a rape 

and only 26 percent of victims reported their rape to a superior offcer. It has been suggested that the range 

of reasons for not reporting include the victim’s fear that he or she will not be believed, shame, and fear of 

retaliation, being negatively judged, being revictimized, having to continue to serve alongside the perpetrator, 

and being prosecuted for other problematic or illegal behavior that occurred at the time of the attack, such as 

underage drinking, adultery, and so forth (DoD, 2004; GAO, 2008; Mullins, 2005; U.S. Air Force, 2002). Sadler 

and colleagues (2003, p. 5) found that one-ffth of victims did not report their attack because they believed 

that “rape was to be expected in the military.” 

In a study with a convenience sample of 196 female veterans, 72 percent reported that they had experienced 

sexual abuse (Himmelfarb, Yeager & Mintz, 2006). This study differs from others in that it asked participants 

about sexual abuse that occurred during their childhood, during adulthood but before military service, during 
24 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

the time of their military service, and after their military service. Many other studies of MST among female 

veterans focus on the time of military service or solely on adulthood, and therefore are not comparable. This 

study was conducted at a Veterans Administration hospital in Los Angeles. The sample is not representative 

of the ethnic makeup of female veterans as a whole, or of those in other regions. The study participants 

volunteered to be in the study and may differ in their level of MST from those who chose not to participate. 

Also, the sample may not be representative of female veterans as clinical populations typically report higher 

levels of trauma than nonclinical populations (Himmelfarb, Yeager & Mintz, 2006). 

The issue of sexual offending against members of the military has received signifcant attention in the media 

in recent years, and DoD has placed a renewed emphasis on prevention and intervention policies and practices. 

Still, more study on the extent, nature and dynamics of sexual offending involving members of the military is 

warranted to determine future policy directions. 

Sexual Offending Against Native Americans in Indian Country 

Native Americans comprise 0.9 percent of the U.S. population, or 2.9 million. Across the 565 federally 

recognized tribes (per the Bureau of Indian Affairs), there is no single, standardized repository of crime data to 

measure the extent of sexual offending against victims in Indian Country; thus, estimates of sexual offending 

in Indian Country are imprecise. Even though none of the existing estimates regarding the extent of sexual 

offending or victimization in Indian Country are precise, the available data consistently indicate that Native 

American women experience violent victimization and sexual victimization at signifcantly higher rates than 

other women in the United States. 

NCVS’s most recently published results do not provide victimization rates for Native Americans.14 This is due 

to the reduction in the overall sample size for NCVS that recently occurred and the impact it had on the size 

of subsamples for certain groups, such as Native Americans. In short, Native Americans are no longer sampled 

in suffcient numbers to provide valid statistics for the group. To have an accurate national estimate of 

victimization against Native American women, NCVS would need to return to its original sample size. 

In NVAWS, conducted in 1995 and 1996, 34 percent of Native American women reported a victimization of rape 

at some point in their life — the highest victimization rate of any racial or ethnic group and nearly twice the 

national average for all ethnic groups. The number of male rape victims cannot be estimated from this source 

due to the low numbers reported (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). The data sample for this survey included telephone 

interviews with a total of 88 Native American women and 105 Native American men. Caution is necessary when 

generalizing about 2.9 million Native American women and men from this sample of 193 individuals. 

In their 1998 research, Tjaden and Thoennes found that lifetime victimization rates for stalking are higher for 

Native American women than for women of any other ethnicity examined in their study. For Native American 

women, the lifetime rate of victimization for stalking was 17 percent, while the rate for the study population 

as a whole was 8.2 percent (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Similarly, Native American men reported higher lifetime 

victimization for the crime of stalking, with a rate of 4.8 percent compared to the 2.3 percent lifetime rate for 

men in the study population as a whole. 

Available estimates of the extent of victimization are consistent in indicating high levels of victimization 

among Native American women. Few large-scale studies exist to describe the nature of victimization of Native 

American women. However, the studies that do exist point to a need for further research. 

Hamby found that Native American women were twice as likely as women of other racial and ethnic groups 

to say that police would not believe them or would blame them if they reported a rape (Hamby, 2008). 

Hamby also found other barriers for Native American victims in seeking help from law enforcement, including 

prejudice, confict between Western and Native values, language barriers, and poverty. Getting help is also 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 25 

 

complicated by jurisdictional issues if the crime takes place in Indian Country, as often it is not clear which law 

enforcement entity has jurisdiction to prosecute the crime. For crimes that occur on Indian lands, jurisdiction 

for handling the investigation may fall to federal, state, or tribal law enforcement, depending on whether the 

perpetrator is Indian or non-Indian as well as on the nature of the crime (e.g., felony, misdemeanor). 

Bachman and colleagues (2010) found that rapes involving Native American women are more severe than 

rapes committed against other women. Analyzing archived data from NCVS, Bachman and colleagues (2010) 

found that 94 percent of rapes reported by Native American women involved physical assault, compared to 

74 percent of rapes reported by non-Native American women. Fifty percent of Native American women rape 

victims were physically injured during the rape, compared to 30 percent of non-Native American women rape 

victims. Finally, more than three times as many rapes of Native Americans involved weapons — 34 percent 

compared to 11 percent (Bachman et al., 2010). 

Hamby and Skupien (1998) conducted in-person interviews with 117 women living on the San Carlos Apache 

Reservation and found that in their current relationship, 75 percent had experienced physical violence from 

their partner and 62 percent had been injured by their partner. In a study of 341 women who visited health 

clinics located on the Navajo Nation Reservation, Fairchild, Fairchild and Shirley (1998) found that 42 percent 

had been physically assaulted and 12 percent had been sexually assaulted by a partner in their lifetime. 

Comparisons across these studies are diffcult as the sample sizes, sampling methods, study methods and 

defnitions used are different. Many of the studies use convenience samples, which may make the results 

less generalizable to the broader population. Further, there may be differences in the experience of Native 

American women in rural areas and urban areas, yet this has not been studied. Also, methods of data 

collection differ. For example, Tjaden and Thoennes used a telephone survey with random-digit dialing to 

select participants; Fairchild, Fairchild and Shirley (1998) used in-person interviews conducted among medical 

clinic populations; and Hamby and Skupien (1998) used in-person interviews but recruited volunteers via 

media outreach. 

Amnesty International found that Native American victims seeking help at their local health facility may not 

get the help they need, as facilities often lack rape kits or the specialized training needed to preserve evidence 

for use at trial. The organization reported that 44 percent of Indian Health Service facilities lack personnel 

trained to provide emergency services to respond to sexual violence, and 30 percent lack the basic protocols for 

treating victims (Amnesty International, 2007). 

Similarly, the scarcity of resources in the criminal justice system in Indian Country is also a challenge. The 

Bureau of Indian Affairs reported that more than 30 Indian reservations had violent crime rates that exceeded 

the national average in fscal year 2008. Many of these reservations have law enforcement staffng shortages 

that require a handful of offcers to cover geographically large areas. For example, according to the Senate 

report accompanying the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 (Report 111–93), the Wind River Indian Reservation 

in Wyoming (with a violent crime rate that is more than three times the national rate) has only six or seven 

offcers to patrol 2.2 million acres of reservation land. With two or three offcers on duty at any given time, 

each could be responsible for covering 1 million acres (U.S. Senate, 2009). 

Sexual assault has a signifcant impact on members of the Native American community. Despite the limitations 

of the available data, sexual victimization appears to occur disproportionately among Native American women, 

and resources for preventing and responding to sexual offenses in Indian Country appear to be inadequate and 

fragmented. While more research and better data collection systems are needed to document and understand 

sexual offending and victimization in Indian Country more thoroughly, there is little question that the problem 

of sexual offending against Native Americans warrants greater attention. As a result, the Attorney General’s 

Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence (2014) emphasized 
26 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

the need to address issues of violence, including sexual violence, against Native American children. Finally, the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has developed a comprehensive research program to address violence against 

Native American women, and is testing a survey instrument administered by Native American researchers via 

computer assisted personal interviewing (Crossland et al., 2013). 

Summary 

Although credible conclusions are diffcult to make given the limitations of the available data, statistics from 

several key sources suggest that the incidence of sexual offending may be declining. UCR data on sex crimes 

reported to the police, NCVS data on sexual victimizations, and NCANDS data on substantiated reports of child 

abuse and neglect all present a consistent picture of declining incidence over time. Whether this pattern can be 

explained by factors other than a true decline remains subject to debate, but the convergence of key indicators 

and other empirical evidence suggests that the true decline hypothesis should be further examined and not 

dismissed (Finkelhor & Jones, 2004). Keeping in mind the limitations of the data, policymakers are encouraged 

to monitor key indicators of incidence over time and to work with researchers to better understand the factors 

infuencing patterns in the data, including the roles of various policies and practices designed to prevent, treat 

or otherwise intervene in sexual offending behavior. 

Knowledge Gaps and Recommendations for Future Research 

RESULTS FROM THE SOMAPI INVENTORY OF PROMISING PRACTICES 

• Q: What would you identify as gaps or needs in your feld? 

○ Additional specialized training, ongoing professional development for treatment and supervision staff. 

○ Appropriate release placements for sex offenders. 

○ Better communication with the releasing agency about where the offender is going to reside. 

○ Qualifed sex offender therapists to handle these cases. 

○ Community education and involvement. 

○ Public education ... housing restrictions have signifcantly negatively infuenced offender success in the 

community. 

• Q: What type of assistance can the SMART Offce provide to help you do your job better or address these gaps/needs? 

○ Support of research, start-up fnancing for new approaches and political support for evidence-based initiatives. 

○ Remain aware of trends and actual best practices, serve as information dissemination and sharing source and 

help to defne standards for best practice. 

○ Develop mechanisms to make sex offender case fles and court documents more accessible to law enforcement. 

○ Provide resources to train parole agencies about effective case management collaboration. 

With so many inconsistencies and uncertainties in the available data, identifying the most important 

knowledge gaps and priorities for future research is a daunting task. Nevertheless, to improve our 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 27 

understanding of the incidence and prevalence of sexual offending, several of the most pressing issues that 

warrant examination are as follows: 

• Rates of disclosure. Evidence indicates that victims sometimes choose not to disclose crimes that have been 

committed against them. In some cases, it may be to save themselves from re-experiencing the trauma of 

the event. The SOMAPI forum participants identifed the need for additional research concerning the ways 

the criminal justice system contributes to underreporting and the steps that can be taken to address the 

problem and improve support for victims. 

• Victim perception of the crime. With so many victims not labeling a sexual victimization as a crime or a 

rape, further study is needed to help identify the factors within the victimization experience (e.g., offender 

manipulation, posttraumatic stress disorder) that shape victims’ perceptions of the offending behavior. 

• Wording of questions. Some evidence suggests that the way in which questions are worded in a 

victimization survey will infuence reported levels of sexual violence. For example, Cook and colleagues 

(2011) reported that when the question uses the tactic of leading with a behaviorally specifc description 

of an unwanted sexual act rather than a question about the sexual act, greater rates of victimization and 

perpetration are described by both men and women. This merits further investigation. 

• Prevention. The literature on what works in preventing sexual abuse is neither complete nor rigorous. More 

study in this area could provide insight into how best to allocate scarce resources. 

• Vulnerable populations. More research is needed to understand the extent and nature of sexual 

victimization of individuals in vulnerable situations, including children in schools or youth programs, young 

adults on college campuses, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and those living in rural and hard-toreach areas (including Native American and Alaska Native women and men). Individuals in settings such as 

these may have limited ability to protect themselves or seek help after victimization. 

Without valid data on the nature and extent of sexual victimization, policymakers and practitioners are 

more likely to rely on anecdotes, opinions or stereotypes rather than facts when developing prevention and 

intervention strategies. Gaining a better understanding of the extent and nature of sexual victimization will 

help policymakers and practitioners develop responses that are both more effective and more responsive to the 

needs of victims. 

Given the current state of our knowledge base, there is an acute need to both improve and expand our 

data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization. In particular, work should be done to enhance 

the comparability of incidence and prevalence data from different sources and time periods. Currently, 

methodological variations — including differences in the ways sex crimes and victimizations are defned — 

make comparisons across data sources and time periods challenging. Agencies responsible for administering 

data collection efforts should actively seek opportunities to implement common and consistent data 

collection methodologies when possible. Funding for such efforts and for the expansion of data collection is 

critically needed. 

There also is an acute need to learn more about the underreporting of sex crimes. Steps should be taken to 

create an environment in which victims feel appropriately supported and protected in the criminal justice and 

service delivery systems. Many of the barriers to reporting have already been identifed through research, but 

SOMAPI forum participants acknowledged the need for further study in this area. In addition, policymakers 

must be committed to making the types of changes within the criminal justice and service delivery systems 

that are needed to overcome reporting barriers. Just as importantly, steps should be taken to help ensure 

that victims are not re-traumatized when reporting any victimization to authorities or when supporting the 

prosecution of perpetrators. 
28 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Sex offenders do not typically 

self-report sex crimes. 

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that even when sex offender management approaches are designed 

and delivered based on scientifc evidence, hidden offending presents signifcant challenges. (For more, see 

Chapter 8: “Sex Offender Management Strategies,” in the Adult section.) Given the number of sex crimes 

that go unreported, the number of sex offenders that have never come to the attention of authorities, and 

the disproportionate attrition of certain sex offenses and sex offenders within the criminal justice system, 

any perception or expectation on the part of the public or policymakers that sex offender management 

professionals working in the community are providing victims and the public with protection against all sex 

offenders is unrealistic. Simply put, there are many unidentifed sex offenders who are not being managed 

within existing systems and much reoffending that is not accounted for in the management process. Therefore, 

practitioners must be up front about these limitations and expectations for sex offender management on the 

part of the public, and policymakers must be tempered accordingly. 

An accurate accounting of sexual offending 

is virtually impossible because so many 

sex crimes are hidden from public view. 

Notes 

1. The following eight crimes that are reported to the police make up Part I of UCR: criminal homicide, forcible 

rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary (breaking or entering), larceny-theft (other than motor vehicle 

theft), motor vehicle theft and arson. 

2. The limitations of the pre-2012 defnition are highlighted in the sidebar “UCR Strengths and Weaknesses.” 

Based on the noted weaknesses, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a revision to the UCR defnition of 

rape to include penetration of the anus by any body part or object and penetration of the mouth by a sex 

organ, and also to add male victims (Holder, 2012). 

3. Similar to the UCR defnition of forcible rape, the NCVS defnition of rape/sexual assault is also currently 

being revised to facilitate the development of standard measurements of rape and sexual assault. 

4. For an investigation of the accuracy of the NCVS measures of rape and sexual assault, and recommendations 

for best practices, see the National Research Council. (2014). Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual 

Assault. Panel on Measuring Rape and Sexual Assault in Bureau of Justice Statistics Household Surveys, C. 

Kruttschnitt, W.D. Kalsbeek, and C.C. House, Editors. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral 

and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

5. In 2000, NIJ and BJS compared the methodologies of NCVS and NVAWS and found that behaviorally specifc 

questions outside of the crime context substantially increased reporting of violence. 

6. The following results are discussed in Blake (2011). 

7. For example, being hit with a fst, beaten or slammed against something. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 29 

8. Screened-in reports are those that the state child protection agency has determined warrant further 

investigation or some other type of response (screened out = no further action). 

9. Both SILJ and SISFCF are currently being reformulated, and SISFCF will next be completed for inmates in 

2012. 

10. A number of other specialized topic areas related to sexual victimization are not addressed here (e.g., 

sexual victimization occurring within detention centers, jails and prisons, as emphasized by the Prison Rape 

Elimination Act [PREA]). For more information on this topic, read PREA Data Collection Activities, 2011, 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdca11.pdf. 

11. Nonprobability samples can include a convenience sample, which is a study of subjects taken from a group 

that is accessible to the researcher (e.g., college students), or snowball sampling, which is typically used for 

harder-to-access groups, by targeting the social networks between group members to build a sample. 

12. See the previous section in this chapter on the DAFR study. 

13. The term “unwanted sexual contact,” although not defned in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 

is an umbrella term designed to encompass certain acts prohibited by the UCMJ, including rape, nonconsensual 

sodomy (oral or anal sex) and indecent assault (unwanted, inappropriate sexual contact or fondling) (Rock et 

al., 2011). 

14. The “other race” category in NCVS now includes “American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native 

Hawaiians and other Pacifc Islanders” (BJS, 2011). 

References 

Amnesty International (2007). Maze of Injustice. New York: Amnesty International USA. 

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence 

(2014). Ending Violence So Children Can Thrive. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/fles/ 

defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2015/03/23/ending_violence_so_children_can_thrive.pdf. 

Bachman, R. (1998). Factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National 

Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(1), 8–29. 

Bachman, R. & Taylor, B. (1994). The measurement of family violence and rape by the redesigned National 

Crime Victimization Survey. Justice Quarterly, 11(3), 499–512. 

Bachman, R., Zaykowski, H., Lanier, C., Poteyeva, M. & Kallmyer, R. (2010). Estimating the magnitude of rape 

and sexual assault against American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Women. Australian and New Zealand 

Journal of Criminology, 43(2), 199. 

Bastian, L.D., Lancaster, A.R. & Reyst, H.E. (1995). Department of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Study. 

Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center. 

Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M. & Rose, K. (2009). Stalking Victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
30 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Beck, A.J. (2015). PREA Data Collection Activities, 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pdca15.pdf. 

Beck, A.J. & Rantala, R.R. (2016). Sexual Victimization Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2007–12. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved 

from: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5560. 

Bierie, D.M. & Davis-Siegel, J.C. (2015). Measurement Matters: Comparing Old and New Defnitions of Rape in 

Federal Statistical Reporting. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(5), 443–459. 

Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J. & Stevens, M.R. (2011). 

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 

Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Basile, K.C., Walters, M.L., Chen, J. & Merrick, M.T. (2014). Prevalence and 

Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization – National Intimate 

Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 

63(8), 1–18. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2011). Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2008, Statistical Tables. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved 

from: www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0801.pdf. 

Burnam, M., Meredith, L.S., Tanielian, T. & Jaycox, L.H. (2009). Mental health care for Iraq and Afghanistan war 

veterans. Health Affairs, 28(3), 771–782. 

Caldas, S.J., & Bensy, M.L. (2014). The Sexual Maltreatment of Students with Disabilities in American School 

Settings. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23, 345–366. 

Center for Women Veterans (2011). 25 Frequently Asked Questions from Women Veterans. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Center for Women Veterans. Retrieved from: https://www.visn12.va.gov/ 

docs/wvh/25FAQs.pdf. 

Children’s Bureau (2014). Child Maltreatment 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. Retrieved from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/fles/cb/cm2014.pdf. 

Cook, S.L., Gidycz, C.A., Koss, M.P. & Murphy, M. (2011). Emerging issues in the measurement of rape 

victimization. Violence Against Women, 17(2), 201–218. 

Crossland, C., Palmer, J. & Brooks, A. (2013). NIJ’s Program of Research on Violence Against American Indian 

and Alaska Native Women. Violence Against Women, 19(6), 771–790. 

Crouch, J.L., Hanson, R.F., Saunders, B.E., Kilpatrick, D.G. & Resnick, H.S. (2000). Income race/ethnicity and 

exposure to violence in youth: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of Community 

Psychology, 28, 625–641. 

Fairchild, D., Fairchild, M. & Shirley, S. (1998). Prevalence of adult domestic violence among women seeking 

routine care in a Native American health care facility. The American Journal of Public Health, 88(10), 1515. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 31 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2004). Crime in the United States, 2004. Clarksburg, WV: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Retrieved from: 

www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS2004.pdf. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2009a). Crime in the United States, 2009 — Offenses Cleared. Clarksburg, 

WV: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. 

Retrieved from: www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/clearances/index.html#fgure. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2009b). Crime in the United States, 2009 — Table 29. Clarksburg, WV: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Retrieved 

from: www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_29.html. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2009c). Crime in the United States, 2009 — Arrests. Clarksburg, WV: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Retrieved 

from: www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (2014). Crime in the United States, 2013. Clarksburg, WV: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Retrieved from: 

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/rape-addendum/rape_ 

addendum_fnal. 

Fedina, L., Lynne Holmes, J. & Backes, B.L. (2016). Campus Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of Prevalence 

Research From 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence & Abuse. Published online before print on February 22, 2016, 

doi: 10.1177/1524838016631129. 

Felitti, V.J., Anda, R.F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D.F., Spitz, A.M., Edwards, V., Koss, M.P. & Marks, J.S. (1998). 

Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4). 

Fenton, R.A., Mott, H.L., McCarten, K. and Rumney, P.N.S. (2016). A review of evidence for bystander 

intervention to prevent sexual and domestic violence in universities. London: Public Health England. 

Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H. & Sedlak, A. (2008). Sexually Assaulted Children: National Estimates and 

Characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Offce of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Finkelhor, D. & Jones, L.M. (2004). Explanations for the Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Offce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H. & Hamby, S.L. (2005). The victimization of children and youth: A 

comprehensive national study. Child Maltreatment, 10(1), 5–25. 

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. Shattuck, A., Hamby, S. & Kracke, K. (2015). Children’s Exposure to Violence, Crime and 

Abuse: An Update. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Offce of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248547.pdf. 

Fisher, B. (2009). The effects of survey question wording on rape estimates: Evidence from a quasi-experimental 

design. Violence Against Women, 15(2), 133–147. 

Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T. & Turner, M.G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. Research Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 
32 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Fox, K., Nobles, M. & Bonnie S.F. (2011). Method behind the madness: An examination of stalking 

measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(1), 74–84. 

Hamby, S. (2008). The path of helpseeking: Perceptions of law enforcement among American Indian victims of 

sexual assault. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 36(1-2), 89–104. 

Hamby, S.L. & Skupien, M.B. (1998). Domestic violence on the San Carlos Apache Reservation: rates, associated 

psychological symptoms and current beliefs. The IHS Primary Care Provider, 23, No. 8, 103–106. Retrieved from: 

https://www.ihs.gov/provider/includes/themes/newihstheme/display_objects/documents/1990_1999/PROV0898.pdf. 

Harrell, E. & Rand, M. (2010). Crime Against People With Disabilities, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Hart, T. (2003). Violent Victimization of College Students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Himmelfarb, N., Yaeger, D. & Mintz, J. (2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder in female veterans with military and 

civilian sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19(6), 837–846. 

Holder, E. (2012). Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Report’s Defnition 

of Rape. Press release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from: www.justice.gov/opa/ 

pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html. 

James, D.J. (2004). Profle of Jail Inmates, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S.L., Flint, K.H., Hawkins, J., Harris, W.A., Lowry, R., O’Malley Olson, E., 

McManus, T., Chyen, D., Whittle, L., Taylor, E., Demissie, Z., Brener, N., Thornton, J., Moore, J. & Zaza, S. (2014). 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey — United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance 

Summaries, 63(4), 1–168. 

Kilpatrick, D., Resnick, H., Ruggiero, K., Conoscenti, L. & McCauley, J. (2007). Drug-Facilitated, Incapacitated, 

and Forcible Rape: A National Study. Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of 

Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B.E. & Smith, D.W. (2003). Youth Victimization: Prevalence and Implications. Research 

in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Kimerling, R., Street, A.E., Pavao, J., Smith, M.W., Cronkite, R.C., Holmes, T.H. & Frayne, S.M. (2010). Militaryrelated sexual trauma among Veterans Health Administration patients returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. 

American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1409–1412. 

Klein, A., Salomon, A., Huntington, N., Dubois, J. & Lang, D. (2009). A Statewide Study of Stalking and Its 

Criminal Justice Response. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 

Koss, M.P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M. & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A 

collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women 

Quarterly, 31(4), 357–370. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 33 

Larcombe, W. (2012). Sex offender risk assessment: The needs to place recidivism research in the context of 

attrition in the criminal justice system. Violence Against Women, 18(4), 482–501. 

Lawyer, S., Resnick, H., Bakanic, V., Burkett, T. & Kilpatrick, D. (2010). Forcible, drug-facilitated and 

incapacitated rape and sexual assault among undergraduate women. Journal of American College Health, 

58(5), 453. 

Lievore, D. (2004). Prosecutorial decisions in adult sexual assault cases: An Australian Study. Canberra, Australia: 

Offce of the Status of Women. 

Lonsway, K. (2010). Measuring sexual violence: Methods, misconceptions and a new (revised) measure. Family 

and Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly, 2(4), 369–384. 

McCauley, J., Ruggiero, K.J., Resnick, H.S., Conoscenti, L.M. & Kilpatrick, D.G. (2009). Forcible, drug-facilitated 

and incapacitated rape in relation to substance use problems: Results from a national sample of college 

women. Addictive Behaviors, 34(5), 458–462. 

Mohler-Kuo, M., Dowdall, G., Koss, M. & Henry, W. (2004). Correlates of rape while intoxicated in a national 

sample of college women. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(1), 37. 

Mullins, C. (2005). Understanding sexual assault in the United States Military culture. Connections, VII(1), 

8–11. Retrieved from: http://www.wcsap.org/sites/default/fles/uploads/resources_publications/connections/ 

Military2005.pdf. 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2011a). NISVS: An Overview of 2010 Findings on 

Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center 

for Injury Prevention and Control. 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2011b). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence 

Survey: An Overview. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control. 

National Victim Center & Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center. (1992). Rape in America: A Report to the 

Nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center, and Charleston, SC: Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center. 

Petersilia, J.R. (2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 28(6), 655–694. 

Rennison, C.M. (2000). Criminal Victimization 1999, Changes 1998-99 With Trends 1993-99. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Reyns, B.W. & Englebrecht, C.M. (2014). Informal and Formal Help-Seeking Decisions of Stalking Victims in the 

United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(10), 1178–1194. 

Robers, S., Zhang, J. & Truman, J. (2010). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics and U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Rock, L.M., Lipari, R.N., Cook, P.J. & Hale, A.D. (2011). 2010 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active 

Duty Members: Overview Report on Sexual Assault. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center. 
34 CHAPTER 1: INCIDENCE AND PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Sadler, A.G., Booth, B.M., Cook, B.L. & Doebbeling, B.N. (2003). Factors associated with women’s risk of rape in 

the military environment. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 43(3), 262–273. 

Sinozich, S. & Langton, L. (2014). Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995– 

2013. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf. 

Sobsey, D. & Doe, T. (1991). Patterns of sexual abuse and assault. Sexuality & Disability, 9(3), 243–259. 

Sorensen, D. (2002). The invisible victims. Update of an article originally published in Prosecutor’s Brief (the 

California District Attorneys Association’s quarterly journal). Retrieved from: http://ftp.aspires-relationships. 

com/the_invisible_victims.pdf. 

Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault, Victoria (2006). A Study of Reported Rapes in 

Victoria 2000–2003: Summary Research Report. Melbourne, Australia. Offce of Women’s Policy, Department of 

Victorian Communities. 

Testa, M., VanZile-Tamsen, C., Livingston, J.A. & Koss, M.P. (2004). Assessing women’s experiences of sexual 

aggression using the Sexual Experiences Survey: Evidence for validity and implications for research. Psychology 

of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 256–265. 

Tharp, A.T., Swartout, K., Koss, M.P., DeGue, S., Basile, K.C., White, J., Abbey, A. & Thompson, M. (2015). Key 

Findings: Rethinking Sexual Perpetration. National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Retrieved from: http:// 

www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/fles/key-fndings_rethinking-serial-perpetration_0.pdf. 

Tjaden, P. (2009). Stalking policies and research in the United States: A twenty-year retrospective. European 

Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(3), 261–278. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women 

Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N., (2006). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings From 

the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Truman, J.L. (2011). Criminal Victimization, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Truman, J.L. & Langton, L. (2015). Criminal Victimization, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Truman, J.L. & Planty, M. (2012). Criminal Victimization, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Truman, J. & Rand, M. (2010). Criminal Victimization, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce 

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Turner, H.A., Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S.L., Shattuck, A. & Ormrod, R.K. (2011). Specifying type and location of peer 

victimization in a national sample of children and youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(8), 1052–1067. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 35 

U.S. Air Force (2002). Secondary Victimization: Implications for Sexual Assault Response. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Air Force, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program. 

U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from: www.census.gov/prod/ 

cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2004). Task Force Report on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved from: http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/taskforce-report-for-care-of-victims-of-sa-2004.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2015). Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military 

Service Academies: Academic Program Year 2013–2014. Retrieved from: http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/MSA/ 

APY_13-14_MSA_Report.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2016a). Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military 

Service Academies. Retrieved from: http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/MSA/APY_14-15/APY_14-15_MSA_Report.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). (2016b). Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military: Fiscal year 2015. 

Retrieved from: http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY15_Annual/FY15_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_in_ 

the_Military.pdf. 

U.S. Government Accountability Offce (GAO). (2008). Military Personnel: DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and Oversight Challenges. GAO-08-924. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Offce. Retrieved from: www.gao.gov/new.items/d08924.pdf. 

U.S. Senate (2009). The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009: Report 111-93. Washington, DC: U.S. Senate. 

Retrieved from: www.narf.org/nill/resources/TOLASenateReport.pdf. 

Whitley, K. (June 14, 2010). Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. 

Wilson, C., & Brewer, N. (1992). The incidence of criminal victimization of individuals with an intellectual 

disability. Australian Psychologist, 27, 114–117. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 37 

Chapter 2: Etiology of Adult 

Sexual Offending 

by Susan Faupel, M.S.W. and Roger Przybylski 

FINDINGS 

◆ There is no simple answer to the question of why people engage in this behavior. 

◆ The problem of sexual offending is too complex to attribute solely to a single theory (multifactor theories are stronger). 

◆ What is known — 

• Sexual abuse is a learned behavior. 

• Negative or adverse conditions in early development — particularly poor relationships with caregivers — 

can contribute to the problem. 

• Sex offenders engage in cognitive distortions. 

• Repeated exposure to sexually violent pornography can contribute. 

• Problems with self-regulation and impulse control can contribute. 

• Short-term relationships and negative attitudes toward women can contribute. 

Introduction 

T he etiology of adult sexual offending refers to the origins or causes of sexually abusive behavior, 

including the pathways that are associated with the behavior’s development, onset and maintenance. 

Even though questions about the causes of sexual offending have been asked for many years, they 

remain important today, primarily because defnitive answers have been exceptionally hard to fnd. While 

research has generated important insights about the etiology of sexual offending, our understanding of the 

causes and origins of sexually abusive behavior arguably remains rudimentary.1 

There are multiple reasons why it is important to be concerned with the etiology of sexual offending. First, 

the development of effective prevention strategies is contingent on having credible knowledge about the 

underlying causes of sexual offending and victimization. Without credible etiological knowledge, prevention 

efforts are likely to be haphazard and ineffcient. Second, knowledge about causes can help sex offender 

management professionals manage and mitigate risk more effectively. (For more, see Chapter 6: “Sex Offender 

Risk Assessment,” and see Chapter 8: “Sex Offender Management Strategies,” both in the Adult section.) 

Simply put, knowledge about causes and pathways to offending can provide important insights into the 

characteristics of various sex offending behaviors (including preferred victim type) and the likelihood that 

they will persist over time. Third, knowledge about causes can help sex offender management professionals 

develop more effective treatment interventions. (See Chapter 7: “The Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult 

Sex Offenders” in the Adult section for more.) Rather than focusing on symptoms or using a one-size-fts-all 

approach, rehabilitation efforts can target the specifc underlying causes and pathways to offending that apply 

to the individual offender. Fourth, etiological information can inform both discourse and decision-making at 

the policy level, whether the focus is on sentencing, oversight in the community, civil commitment or any other 
38 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

criminal justice or societal response to sexual offending. In short, knowledge about origins, causes and pathways 

to sexual offending can play a critical role in the development and delivery of effective public safety strategies. 

Single-Factor Theories of Sexual Offending Behavior 

Biological Theories 

Biological theories of sexual offending have centered on abnormalities in the structure of the brain, hormone 

levels, genetic and chromosomal makeup and defcits in intellectual functioning. Key research fndings 

concerning the validity of various biological theories follow: 

• A number of studies have found abnormalities in the brains of some sexual offenders; however, the 

evidence is clear that such abnormalities do not exist in the majority of cases (Aigner et al., 2000; Corley et 

al., 1994; Galski, Thornton & Shumsky, 1990; Hucker et al., 1986; Langevin et al., 1988, 1989; Wright et al., 

1990). 

• Studies examining the link between hormonal abnormalities and sexual offending have focused on the role 

of certain hormones (e.g., testosterone) known to be related to physical changes in males. To date, these 

studies have not found evidence of a clear link between hormone levels and sexual offending (Bain et al., 

1987; Hucker & Bain, 1990). 

• Consideration has also been given to the possibility of a genetic defect in sex offenders that makes them 

more likely to engage in aggressive sexual behavior. The few studies that have examined this issue have 

been based on a small sample size, and far more research is needed before conclusions about a causal 

relationship to sex offending can be made (Beckmann et al., 1974; Harrison, Clayton-Smith & Bailey, 2001). 

• Links between defcits in intellectual functioning and sexual offending have also been hypothesized, but 

empirical evidence supporting these theories has not been produced. Moreover, it should be noted that 

aggression is not the norm in this population (Day, 1994; Murray et al., 2001; O’Callaghan, 1998). 

Summary of the Evidence on Biological Theories 

The empirical evidence produced to date does not indicate that the presence of a particular biological 

phenomenon has a causal relationship with sexual offending. However, biological studies are still relatively 

new. With improved methodologies, future research may demonstrate that certain aspects of biological 

theories yield benefcial information for understanding and explaining the origins of sexual offending 

behavior (Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). 

Evolutionary Theories 

Evolutionary theories have been proposed to explain a variety of human behaviors, including sexual 

aggression. Evolutionary theory views human behavior as the result of millions of years of adaptive changes 

designed to meet ongoing challenges within the environment. 

Several theories rely on evolutionary postulates about sexual selection and sexual strategies to explain sexual 

aggression. One is that sexual coercion is a conditional sexual strategy. In this theory, sexual coercion is 

postulated to be merely a type of reproductive strategy, as it is in nonhuman species (Bailey, 1988; Malamuth 

& Heilmann, 1998; Thornhill & Palmer, 2000). Another evolutionary theory views rape as an outcome of a 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 39 

competitive disadvantage for some men that causes them to lack the resources or ability to obtain a mate by 

more appropriate means (Figueredo et al., 2000; Lalumiere et al., 1996; Malamuth & Heilmann, 1998; Quinsey 

& Lalumiere, 1995). Another theory describes rape as a “courtship disorder” that results from an interruption in 

normal mating processes (Freund, 1990; Freund, Scher & Hucker, 1983, 1984). 

Summary of the Evidence on Evolutionary Theories 

It is very diffcult to empirically test the validity of evolutionary theories. They present a unique perspective in 

that they view sex offending behavior as an adaptation to environmental or interpersonal events. While this is 

a new direction that may deserve further consideration, researchers in the feld have largely disregarded these 

hypotheses as the cause of sexual offending because of their limitations (Travis, 2003). 

Personality Theories 

Personality theories are among the earliest sources of explanation for sexual offending behavior. They 

emerged based on the work of Sigmund Freud, who believed that sexual deviance is an expression of the 

unresolved problems experienced during the early stages of an individual’s development. Due to a lack 

of empirical evidence, Freud’s personality theories have fallen out of favor with etiological researchers in 

deference to other theories. Later personality theorists, however, suggested that early childhood relationships 

involving trauma or mistreatment could lead a child to internalize negative attitudes and beliefs about both 

the self and relationships with others, thus altering how the child perceives sex and his or her role in sexual 

relationships (Leguizamo, 2002). 

One of these later personality theories — attachment theory — was frst introduced by Bowlby (1988) to 

explain the relationship between a child and his or her primary caretaker, and how this early relationship 

affects later adjustment. According to attachment theory, humans have a propensity to establish strong 

emotional bonds with others, and when individuals have some loss or emotional distress, they act out as a 

result of their loneliness and isolation. Later research indicates there is a relationship between poor quality 

attachments and sexual offending. Marshall (1989) found that men who sexually abuse children often have not 

developed the social skills and self-confdence necessary to form effective intimate relations with peers. This 

failure creates frustration that causes them to seek intimacy with young partners (Marshall, 1989; Marshall and 

Marshall, 2000). 

Seidman and colleagues (1994) conducted two studies aimed at examining intimacy problems and the 

experience of loneliness among sex offenders. According to these studies, sex offenders have defciencies in 

social skills that seriously restrict the possibility of maintaining intimacy. Ward and colleagues (1995) proposed 

that sex offenders are likely to have diffculty forming attachments with others and will engage in distorted 

thinking, such as “courting” a child and treating him or her as his lover. Knox (2014) recently found that 

juveniles who have committed a sexual offense had lower levels of attachment to fathers or father fgures than 

juveniles who have committed a nonsexual offense. 

Personality theorists also use formulations of personality development based on the results of testing 

instruments designed to profle personality types. Studies concerning this approach, however, have produced 

diverse and contradictory fndings, and they have been criticized for failing to adequately demonstrate how 

the results obtained from testing instruments can add to the understanding of the origins of sexually deviant 

behavior (Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). Further evidence is needed to show how certain personality traits 

relate specifcally to the cause of sexual offending behavior. 
40 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Summary of the Evidence on Personality Theories 

Personality theories are successful in demonstrating that sex offenders have poor social skills and problems 

with intimacy, and that there is a connection between poor relationships with others (particularly caregivers) 

and sexual offending behavior. The primary criticism of personality theories is that while they show that 

disturbances exist within the personalities of sex offenders, they fail to explain why these disturbances occur. 

Hence, personality theories alone do not provide a complete explanation of the cause of sexual offending 

behavior (Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). 

Cognitive Theories 

Cognitive theories address the way in which offenders’ thoughts affect their behavior. It is well documented 

that when individuals commit deviant sexual acts, they often try to diminish their feelings of guilt and shame 

by making excuses or justifcations for their behavior and rationalizing their actions (Scott & Lyman, 1968; 

Scully, 1990; Sykes & Matza, 1957). These excuses, justifcations and rationalizations are commonly referred to 

as “cognitive distortions” or “thinking errors.” They allow offenders to absolve themselves of responsibility, 

shame or guilt for their actions. Thinking errors on the part of sex offenders have been identifed and 

supported frequently in research. These errors include denial, minimization of harm done, claiming the right or 

entitlement to the behavior and blaming the victim (Marshall, Anderson & Fernandez, 1999; Ward & Keenan, 

1999). The literature also suggests that many sex offenders hold feelings of resentment and use these feelings 

as justifcation for their behaviors. Marshall, Anderson and Champaigne (1997) theorized that sex offenders 

are more likely to be self-protective and self-serving due to low self-esteem, poor relationships with others and 

emotional discomfort or anxiety. When challenged about their behavior, sex offenders reframe the situation to 

maintain feelings of self-worth. 

Another type of cognitive distortion common among sexual offenders is a sense of entitlement, which involves 

the belief that the need to offend is more important than the negative consequences experienced by the victim 

(Hanson, Gizzarelli & Scott, 1994). Hanson, Gizzarelli and Scott (1994) found that this sense of entitlement in 

incest offenders led to decreased self-control, while Ward, Hudson and Keenan (1998) found that thinking 

errors lead sex offenders to pay attention to information consistent with their distorted beliefs and to reject 

information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. For example, a child molester may interpret a child’s hug 

as sexual interest because that interpretation conforms to his or her distorted beliefs, or a child molester may 

ignore a child’s crying because it conficts with his or her beliefs. Further, egocentricity or self-interest allows 

the sex offender to justify deviant sexual behavior on the basis that it satisfes his or her needs. The offender 

will see victims as deserving of victimization or may have distorted views of what the victim wants from the 

offender. He or she may display a consistent tendency to blame others or negate personal responsibility 

through such statements as “I just couldn’t help myself” (Hanson, 1999; Hanson, Gizzarelli & Scott, 1994: Segal 

& Stermac, 1990; Ward, 2000; Ward, Hudson & Keenan, 1998). 

Finally, the way sex offenders process both internal and external cues may explain how and why they 

manipulate information. Research suggests that sex offenders misinterpret social cues and have diffculty 

recognizing and interpreting the emotional state of others. Further, they do not make good choices based on 

the information they perceive and do not consider the perceptions of others in making decisions about their 

own behavior (Keenan & Ward, 2000; Ward, 2000). 

Summary of the Evidence on Cognitive Theories 

Cognitive theories have contributed to a better understanding of sex offenders and their behaviors. There is 

evidence demonstrating that sex offenders engage in cognitive distortions or thinking errors, and that these 

distorted thinking patterns have the capacity to drive deviant sexual behavior. Cognitive theories serve as 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 41 

a core component of many of the sex offender treatment programs in existence today, and most treatment 

programs incorporate some type of intervention to help the perpetrator identify and correct his or her 

thinking errors. 

Despite the contributions made by cognitive theories and their use in treatment models, these theories have 

limitations. First, no method has been identifed for connecting in a causal manner what the offender reports 

about his or her thought processes and a sex offending act itself. Second, cognitive theories do not explain 

where the cognitive distortion thought processes originate. Third, the research that is available on cognitive 

theories refects few differences between sex offenders with cognitive distortions and nonsex offenders 

with cognitive distortions. In short, cognitive theories do not explain why some individuals commit sexually 

offensive acts specifcally (Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). 

Behavioral Theories 

Behavioral theories explain sexually abusive behaviors as a learned condition. Behavioral theories are based 

on the assumption that sexually deviant arousal plays a pivotal role in the commission of sex crimes and 

that people who engage in sex with, or have sexual feelings toward, inappropriate stimuli are more likely 

to commit sexual violence than those with appropriate sexual desires (Becker, 1998; Hunter & Becker, 1994; 

Lalumiere & Quinsey, 1994). 

In behavioral theory, the occurrence of continued deviant sexual behavior (as with all behavior) depends on 

reinforcement and punishment. Sexual gratifcation and the perceived lack of negative consequences for 

sexual offending, coupled with a lack of support for not engaging in sexual offending behavior, increases the 

likelihood for sex offenses to continue. The key factor is that if the negative consequences of the behavior 

(punishment) are suffciently strong, the negative behavior (sex offending) is less likely to occur (Laws & 

Marshall, 1990). 

Self-regulation is also a behavioral theory that has been applied to sexually deviant behaviors. Self-regulation 

involves the selection of a goal and strategies to reach that goal. The goals of sexual satisfaction, intimacy, 

mood control or other rewards related to sexual deviance can affect recall, judgment and information 

processing (Ward, 2000). According to self-regulation theory, the goal of engaging in sexually deviant behavior 

and the strategies employed to reach that goal become automatically integrated into the behavior of the 

offender because they have been consistently reinforced in the past (Ward & Hudson, 1998). 

Summary of the Evidence on Behavioral Theories 

Research offers support for sexual abuse being a learned behavior. Acknowledgment of the role of selfregulation also appears to be a necessary component of a thorough understanding of sexual behavior 

problems. Further research in these areas certainly seems merited. Nonetheless, behavioral theories have 

limitations. First, it is important to recognize that many male sex offenders lack deviant sexual arousal 

patterns; in fact, many male sex offenders have arousal patterns similar to those of non-sex-offending men 

(Looman & Marshall, 2005). This limits the ability to generalize the deviant arousal patterns of some sex 

offenders to all such offenders. In addition, no research has predicted which reinforcements or consequences 

are likely to increase or inhibit sexual offending behavior. This seems critical both in understanding etiology 

and prescribing treatment and public policy. Research on the effect of “mediators” — such as support for 

nonoffending behavior, levels of supervision and restricting access to victims — in the process of sexual 

offending is also limited. Other variables such as the lack of victim empathy, moral values or remorse in some 

individuals may also play a role in the development of deviant sexual behavior patterns. Behavioral theories 

postulated to date do not take these variables into consideration. Additionally, the theories are based on the 

assumption that individuals are infuenced by the threat of negative consequences (punishment). However, no 
42 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

empirical evidence substantiates this assumption consistently. Therefore, sex offenders may not consider the 

consequences of their behavior as a deterrent to their actions (Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). 

Social Learning Theories 

Two primary social learning hypotheses have been suggested as possible explanations for sexual offending 

behaviors. The frst is that children who are sexually abused grow into sexually abusive adults, and the second 

is that sexually explicit material contributes to sexual offending behavior. 

Much research has examined the impact of victimization on future victimizing behavior. However, early 

childhood victimization does not automatically lead to sexually aggressive behavior. While sex offenders have 

higher rates of sexual abuse in their histories than would be expected in the general population, the majority 

of perpetrators were not abused as children (Berliner & Elliot, 2002; Putnam, 2003). There is relatively good 

evidence to support this, including the disproportionate number of women who were victimized as children 

who do not go on to sexually abuse others (Berliner & Elliot, 2002; Putnam, 2003). 

Negative or adverse conditions in 

early development have been linked 

to sexual offending later in life. 

Even so, a large percentage of sex offenders do report being sexually abused as children (Becker, 1998; 

Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002; Graham, 1996; Jonson-Reid & Way, 2001; Seghorn, Prentky & Boucher, 

1987; Veneziano, Veneziano & LeGrand, 2000; Worling, 1995; Zgourides, Monto & Harris, 1997). Certain types 

of offenders, such as those who sexually offend against young boys, have higher rates of child sexual abuse 

in their histories (Becker & Murphy, 1998; Burgess, Hartman & McCormack, 1987; Burton, Miller & Schill, 

2002; Freeman-Longo, 1986; Freund & Kuban, 1994; Garland & Dougher, 1990; Ryan, 2002). For those victims 

who later become perpetrators, the majority are male (Berliner & Elliot, 2002; Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). 

Therefore, in this regard, researchers have focused on male victims, the way they perceive their abuse and how 

it affects them later in life. The aspects of the abusive experience that infuenced their learning have been of 

most interest. 

Using social learning theory, researchers have identifed the process through which this learning occurs and the 

key variables that help to determine whether deviant sexual behavior patterns will be adopted. For example, 

a child who has internalized the victimization experience as normal or pleasurable in some way is more likely 

to adopt a belief system that is favorable to offending (Briggs & Hawkins, 1996; Burton, Miller & Schill, 2002; 

Eisenman, 2000; Freeman-Longo, 1986; Hummel et al., 2000). Several different types of thought patterns may 

lead more easily to the development of sexually abusive behaviors in victims. For example, the victim may 

think, “This must be normal” or “It isn’t a bad thing because someone who loves me is doing it to me” or even 

“This feels good and I like it” (Briggs & Hawkins, 1996; Burton, Miller & Schill, 2002; Eisenman, 2000; FreemanLongo, 1986; Hummel et al., 2000). A child who internalizes these thought processes in reaction to his or her 

own abuse is more likely to grow into an adult who views sexually abusive acts as less harmful and more 

pleasurable to the victim. 

Studies have identifed other factors that can play an important role in the link between being sexually 

abused and later exhibiting sexually abusive behaviors. These include the age of victimization, the relationship 

between the perpetrator and the victim, the type of sex act and amount of force used, the sex of the 

perpetrator, the duration of the abuse and the number of perpetrators (Burton, Miller & Schill, 2002; Garland & 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 43 

Dougher, 1990). The younger the victim, the more violent and intrusive the sexual acts, the longer the duration 

of abuse and the greater the number of perpetrators, the more likely it is that sexually deviant behavior 

will develop in victims (Burton, 2000; Burton, Miller & Schill, 2002; Hummel et al., 2000; Seghorn, Prentky & 

Boucher, 1987). 

The manner in which others respond to an individual who discloses victimization is also a factor that has 

been shown to be related to the social learning process involved in victimization. An indifferent response or 

a response of disbelief to a disclosure of sexual abuse has been shown to contribute to a victim internalizing 

negative sexual behaviors and developing future abusive sexual behavior (Burton, Miller & Schill, 2002; Garland 

& Dougher, 1990). All of this suggests that the experience of sexual abuse in childhood has some impact on the 

development of sexually abusive behavior patterns, but exactly how the abuse is modeled and manifested is 

still somewhat unclear. More research is needed in this area. 

Research also has examined resilience in victims of child sexual abuse and the protective factors associated 

with adaptive functioning in childhood, adolescence and adulthood following childhood victimization. 

This research was recently summarized in a systematic review conducted by Domhardt, Münzer, Fegert and 

Goldbeck (2015). A total of 37 studies meeting design quality, sample size and resilience defnition criteria were 

included in the review, with resilience being conceptualized as adaptive functioning and/or the absence of 

psychological disorders. Protective factors were classifed within three broad categories: internal factors related 

to the victim, external factors related to the family of the victim and external factors related to the wider 

social environment of the victim. Further, the researchers analyzed resilience and protective factors for three 

different developmental phases based on age: children (aged 10 years or younger), adolescents (aged 11–17), 

and adults (18 years or older). 

Across the 10 studies in the analysis that reported resilience rates by age, resilience rates ranged from 10 percent 

to 53 percent in children and adolescent study samples, and from 15 percent to 47 percent in adult study 

samples. While Domhardt et al. (2015, p. 487) reported that the wide variation in resilience rates found across 

studies was in part due to methodological and conceptual differences found across studies, they also suggested 

that their fndings indicate “a range of individual and environmental factors moderate or mediate the wellestablished adverse impact of childhood sexual abuse across different developmental periods.” Protective 

factors related to resilience included education, interpersonal and emotional competence, control beliefs, 

active coping, optimism, social attachment, external attribution of blame and social support from the family 

and wider social environment. Further, the magnitude of the beneft of social support from various sources 

appears to be a function of the abuse victim’s developmental period, with children primarily depending on 

support from a nonoffending parent or caregiver, adolescents depending on support from peers and adults 

depending on support from a spouse. The researchers called for future research, particularly longitudinal 

studies, aimed at better understanding how resilience develops over time and how protective factors may 

interact to promote resilience and buffer the effects of childhood victimization. 

Another social learning theory related to sexual offending behavior suggests that pornography serves as 

a model for sexually aggressive behavior for some individuals, encouraging them to engage in behaviors 

depicted in pornography that they viewed. The literature defnes sexually violent pornography as pornography 

in which women are portrayed in humiliating or degrading situations or are the victims of forced or 

coerced sexual interactions (Marshall, 1988).2

 Based on this theory, an individual who views sexually violent 

pornography can experience a change in attitudes toward women and can internalize myths about rape. Burt 

(1980) defned rape myths as prejudicial, stereotyped or false beliefs about rape, rape victims and rapists. 

Lonsway and Fitzgerald (1994, p. 134) expanded on the concept of rape myths and defned them as “attitudes 

and beliefs that are generally false but are widely and persistently held, and that serve to deny and justify male 

sexual aggression against women.” 
44 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Evidence suggests that repeated exposure to sexually aggressive pornography contributes to increased hostility 

toward women, acceptance of rape myths, decreased empathy and compassion for victims and an increased 

acceptance of physical violence toward women (Check & Guloien, 1989; Knudsen, 1988; Lahey, 1991; Linz, 

Donnerstein, & Penrod, 1988; Malamuth & Check, 1980, 1981, 1985). From a social learning perspective, the 

likelihood that these views will lead to abusive behavior depends on the reinforcement in the learning process. 

One such reinforcer is a core feature of much pornography: the portrayal of women as desiring and enjoying 

both the sexual activity and degradation involved in the images (Check & Guloien, 1989; Knudsen, 1988; Norris, 

1991; Sinclair, Lee, & Johnson, 1995). Another reinforcer lies in social cues from others — both the participants 

in the pornography and other viewers. If the participants in the pornographic material seem to be enjoying it 

and watching it appears to be socially acceptable based on the reaction of others, the viewer is more apt to see 

the sexually aggressive content as positive and desirable to imitate (Norris, 1991; Sinclair, Lee & Johnson, 1995). 

Another type of pornography believed to play a role in the etiology of socially learned sexual aggression is 

child pornography — material that uses either children or technology that makes the participants appear to 

be children. Social learning theory suggests that individuals use child pornography, internalize this behavior 

as acceptable and adopt it into their own behavior. Since child pornography is illegal, research on the role 

of child pornography is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, it is known that child molesters report increased use 

of pornography prior to sexually abusing children (Howitt, 1995; Marshall, 1988). More recent research has 

suggested the use of child pornography as a reliable indicator of sexual interest in children (Seto, Cantor & 

Blanchard, 2006). Across multiple studies, offenders have reported the use of pornography to desensitize and 

arouse them so they can engage in abusive behaviors with children (Knudsen, 1988; Marshall, 1988). Child 

pornography also appears to reduce empathy toward child victims (Knudsen, 1988). Portrayals of enjoyment on 

the part of the children and lack of negative consequences may serve as reinforcers of these behaviors. 

Summary of the Evidence on Social Learning Theories 

Social learning theories do not offer the only explanation for sexual offending behavior. However, they do 

provide valuable insights for understanding sexual offending and there is evidence to support various tenets 

of social learning theory in the context of sexual offending. For example, there is sound empirical evidence 

that sexual offending is a learned behavior. Also, while it is true that a direct connection between the use 

of pornography and rape does not exist, research has made it clear that the use of pornography is a factor 

in shaping the attitudes and behaviors in some men who use it and that it is a factor in some men’s sexual 

aggression. Scholars may differ about the specifc nature of pornography’s effects, but none have argued 

about pornography’s articulation of the myths about rape and the contributions of these thinking errors to 

sexual offending behaviors. 

Social learning theory also introduces the notion of environmental infuences on sexual offending, which is 

contrary to the notion of other theories that have assumed that abusive behaviors are inherent within some 

individuals. Insights about the impact of childhood abuse and its ramifcations for sexual offending are also 

valuable contributions. 

The most often cited criticism of social learning theory is that there is little evidence that suggests internalized 

beliefs or attitudes actually result in related behaviors. More research on children who are victimized but do 

not go on to abuse others may be helpful. Further, much of the research on social learning theory, as in many 

other theoretical approaches, depends on self-reports of abusers. Because offenders may be motivated to 

distort stories to place themselves in a more positive light, relying on self-reporting can be problematic. These 

concerns call into question the validity of social learning theory as the sole explanation of sexually abusive 

behavior (Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 45 

Feminist Theories 

Although there are many forms of feminist theory, one of the more prominent focuses on the structure of 

gender relations and the imbalance of power between men and women. This feminist analysis assumes that 

the elimination of sexual violence is linked to gender equality because it is male power that enables the 

acceptance and perpetuation of sexual assault. 

Some feminists have argued that male sex offenders are no different from “normal” men but rather are 

conditioned within a culture that accepts, tolerates, condones, and even perpetuates sexual violence toward 

women and children. Perpetrators within this framework are extended to male partners and acquaintances 

who cajole, pressure, harass, threaten, coerce and/or force women into any sexual behavior to which they do 

not or are unable to consent. This makes it possible to examine acts of sexual coercion that remain hidden or 

taken for granted as “normal” social practices within the confnes of heterosexual dominance (Chung, 2005; 

Cossins, 2000). 

According to Cossins (2000), child sexual abuse is the way some men alleviate a sense of powerlessness and 

establish their ideal image of masculinity. Because masculinity is learned, according to [some] feminist theorists, 

in order for a man to experience power, he must engage in accepted social practices (such as sexual violence) 

that prove his masculinity. Connell (2000) suggests that there can be different concepts of masculinity with 

varying degrees of social acceptance and power. Connell proposes this as the foundation for why sexual 

violence occurs. This perspective has given rise to treatment approaches that shift the focus to positively 

reconstructing a man’s sense of masculinity to exclude the use of sexual violence (White, 2000). Jenkins (1990) 

also developed an approach to therapy that focuses on what restrains men from engaging in respectful 

relationships with women, as opposed to what causes them to engage in these relationships. 

Summary of the Evidence on Feminist Theories 

Currently, there is insuffcient evidence to scientifcally support the feminist theory of gender imbalance as the 

sole cause of sexual violence. However, while the imbalance of power between men and women may not be 

the sole or direct cause of sexual offending, it is clearly a factor. Psychological theorists have long neglected 

the fact that an overwhelming number of perpetrators are male, and thus they have failed to explain the 

role of gender in sexual violence. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind that many feminist theories go 

beyond the binary of gender and discuss the intersections of gender, race, class, ethnicity, culture and other 

factors. This makes the simple gender/power relationship much more complex than that described above, 

and research that explores both the impact of these interactions and their value for understanding sexual 

offending is clearly needed. 

Multifactor Theories of Sexual Offending Behavior 

Believing that single-factor theories are inadequate, a number of scholars have developed theories that 

combine multiple factors to explain sexual offending behavior. The most prominent of these theories are 

discussed below. 

Finklehor’s Precondition Theory 

The frst integrated theory of sexual offending behavior was put forth by Finkelhor in 1984. Finklehor’s theory, 

which applies only to child sexual abuse, outlines four preconditions that must exist for a sex offense to occur: 
46 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

1. The motivation to abuse (e.g., sexual satisfaction, lack of other sexual outlets, a desire to have intimacy, a 

relationship with the child). 

2. The overcoming of internal inhibitions (e.g., personal sense of morals, values, ethics; fear of being caught). 

Internal inhibitors may be overcome due to poor impulse control, the use of alcohol or drugs, engaging in 

excuses and justifcations or impaired mental ability. 

3. The overcoming of external inhibitors (e.g., lack of privacy, adequate supervision, strong personal 

boundaries of the child, good support system around the child, negative social consequences). For an 

offender to overcome external inhibitors, he or she must locate both an opportunity for privacy and a child 

with poor boundaries and inadequate supervision. The offender also must consider that the possibility of 

negative consequences is unlikely. 

4. The overcoming of victim resistance (e.g., taking advantage of a trusting relationship with the child or 

caregiver; using bribes, trickery or manipulation). These strategies are called “grooming behaviors” and are 

used by the offender to successfully engage the potential victim. 

Summary of the Evidence on Finklehor’s Precondition Theory 

Although the existence of motivating conditions (overcoming internal and external inhibitors as well as victim 

resistance) has been supported, Finklehor’s Precondition Theory never explained why someone would possess 

such motivation in the frst place. For example, Howells (1994) noted that while poor social skills or lack of 

available sources of sexual gratifcation (among other factors) may be important, they are not direct causes of 

sexual offending. It is also unclear whether deviant sexual interest, defcits in intimacy or a need for power and 

control may be at work when an individual offends. 

Marshall and Barbaree’s Integrated Theory 

In this theory, the prominent causal factors for sexual offending are developmental experiences, biological 

processes, cultural norms and the psychological vulnerability that can result from a combination of these 

factors. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) proposed that early negative experiences in childhood (e.g., sexual 

abuse, physical abuse, neglect) cause a child to view his or her caregivers as emotionally absent, and to 

see him- or herself as being unworthy to receive love or be protected. This results in low self-esteem, poor 

interpersonal skills and weak coping skills. The presence of antisocial and misogynist attitudes in the home can 

be aggravating factors. If adolescent males feel inadequate, the theory argues, they are more likely to accept 

messages that elevate men to positions of power and dominance. Another key feature of the theory is that 

sex meets a number of psychological needs beyond sexual gratifcation. These may include an increased sense 

of competence, elevated self-esteem, personal connection and fulfllment and a sense of achieving the ideal 

image of masculinity. 

Marshall and Barbaree suggested that a key developmental task for adolescent boys is to learn to distinguish 

between sexual impulses and aggression. They argued that this task is diffcult because both types of impulses 

are generated by the same brain structure. Hence, adolescent boys may fnd it diffcult to know when they are 

angry, sexually aroused or both, and they must learn how to inhibit aggression in sexual situations. Combined 

with the infux of hormones that occur in adolescence, these factors render the young male vulnerable 

to developing sex-offending behaviors. Situational factors such as loneliness, social rejection or a loss of a 

relationship may then trigger the sexually abusive acts committed by adolescents. The more vulnerable a 

person is to committing a sexual offense, the less intense these situational experiences need to be to trigger 

sexually aggressive behavior. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 47 

A later addition to the theory by Marshall and Barbaree is that mood states initially associated with sexual 

arousal may later be able to elicit sexual desire on their own through the process of conditioning. For example, 

if a young man frequently uses masturbation to cope with loneliness, eventually the state of loneliness itself 

creates sexual arousal. 

Summary of the Evidence on Marshall and Barbaree’s Integrated Theory 

Marshall and Barbaree’s Integrated Theory has been the subject of much research. Many of the theory’s 

hypotheses — such as the presence of poor impulse control and a lack of suffcient social skills in sexual 

offenders — have been supported through research (Smallbone & Dadds, 2000). Additionally, Smallbone 

and Dadds (2000) found that insecure childhood attachment, especially parental attachment, can be linked 

to coercive sexual behavior. And Knox (2014) found that juveniles who had committed a sexual offense had 

lower levels of attachment to fathers or father fgures than juvenile who had committed a nonsexual offense. 

Thus, the theory is an important achievement, both innovative and comprising many compelling features. One 

of its key strengths is its ability to unite multiple infuences. Even so, a number of the theory’s features merit 

closer examination (Ward, 2000). One concern is the issue of embedded offense pathways to sexual offending 

behavior. There are distinct and possibly competing offense pathways (e.g., early exposure to problematic 

relationships, unsuccessful relationships, negative consequences for masturbation, deviant sexual fantasies to 

boost self-esteem and a sense of power or worth) in the model. Once these etiological pathways are identifed 

and distinguished from one another, it becomes diffcult to explain why a specifc pathway leads to specifc 

sexual rather than other offending behavior. 

Another weakness relates to impulse control. In their theory, Marshall and Barbaree placed great emphasis on 

the loss of impulse control, stating that individuals commit sex offenses due to their failure to inhibit deviant 

impulses. However, the empirical evidence indicates that while some sex offenders have trouble with sexual 

impulse control, this is not the case for all sexual offenders. In fact, research shows that a comparably small 

number of sex offenders have problems with self-regulation (Proulx, Perreault & Ouimet, 1999). Another 

weakness is the claim that adolescent males have diffculty distinguishing sexual drives from aggression 

because sexual urges and aggression are generated by the same general neurological structures. The 

assumption that basic human drives and capacities share neurological structures has been cast into doubt by 

the results of several studies (Kolb & Whishaw, 1995; Symons, 1979; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). 

Hall and Hirschman’s Quadripartite Model 

Hall and Hirschman (1991) grouped sex offender personality traits and characteristics derived from other 

studies into four factors they believed to be most signifcant in the etiology of sex offending: 1) sexual arousal, 

2) thought processes, 3) emotional control and 4) personality problems or disorders. Hall and Hirschman 

proposed that while all four factors are important, one is generally prominent in the individual sexual 

offender. 

For example, Hall and Hirschman determined that it is not only sexual arousal that is driving the deviant 

sexual behavior, but the individual’s thoughts regarding the arousal. Thought processes — particularly those 

involving justifcations and myths — may disinhibit an individual to such an extent that deviant sexual behavior 

seems acceptable or even appropriate. Believing rape myths is a prime example. Negative emotional moods 

also often precede sexual offending, with anger being an important aspect of negative emotion for rapists 

and depression being the same for child molesters. These emotional states become so uncomfortable that the 

individual has further diffculty controlling behavior. The fnal factor includes negative childhood conditions 

that contribute to personality characteristics highly associated with personality disorders. They include traits 

such as selfshness, a manipulative and exploitative personality, lack of remorse and an unstable or antisocial 

lifestyle. These traits interact with deviant sexual arousal, lack of emotional control or negative thought 

processes and intensify their respective impacts. 
48 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Many sex offenders have problems with 

self-regulation and impulse control. 

Summary of the Evidence on Hall and Hirschman’s Quadripartite Model 

Hall and Hirschman’s theory is based on sound empirical research about the traits of sex offenders, including 

the use of cognitive distortions, the presence of poor impulse control and problems with self-regulation of 

emotions and mood. Additionally, the notion that individual offenders display contrasting problems has 

empirical support. Nevertheless, the theory has serious limitations. One signifcant shortcoming is the failure 

of the theory to adequately explain the relationships that exist and interactions that take place among the 

theory’s four etiological factors. Another shortcoming is the theory’s inability to identify causal mechanisms 

behind each factor. A third is the theory’s failure to explain how the factors function as motivations to abuse 

(Ward, 2000; Ward, Polachek & Beech, 2006; Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). In a 2001 study, Ward argues that 

Hall and Hirschman seem to confuse typology with theory. (See Chapter 3: “Sex Offender Typologies,” in the 

Adult section for more.) Taken together, these shortcomings signifcantly limit the theory’s etiological and 

clinical utility. 

Ward and Siegert’s Pathways Model 

Ward and Siegert’s Pathways Model attempts to combine the best of all of the integrated theories previously 

mentioned. The model suggests that a number of different pathways lead an individual to engage in sexually 

abusive behavior. Within each pathway, a unique set of factors contribute to sexual abuse. The theory focuses 

primarily on the sexual abuse of children by adults. 

Based on different symptom clusters, Ward and Siegert created fve causal pathways for the development of 

problematic and abusive sexual behavior: 

1. The intimacy defcit pathway describes an offender who takes advantage of an opportunity to offend if a 

preferred sexual partner is not available. This offender has signifcant problems with intimacy and turns to 

sex to ease feelings of loneliness. 

2. The deviant sexual scripts pathway suggests that sex offenders have distorted thought processes that guide 

their sexual and intimate behaviors. This involves a fundamental confusion between sex and intimacy as well 

as diffculty in determining when sexual contact is appropriate or desirable. 

3. The emotional deregulation pathway is the primary cause of abusive sexual behavior with children. 

Offenders in this category demonstrate signifcant problems regulating emotional states. In this pathway, 

the offender experiences negative mood states that he or she is unable to manage. 

4. The antisocial cognition pathway involves attitudes and beliefs supportive of criminal behavior. Such 

offenders have an antisocial lifestyle, a signifcant sense of entitlement and little regard for the emotional 

and psychological needs of others. They commonly endorse cultural beliefs consistent with their offending 

lifestyle. 

5. The multiple dysfunctional mechanisms pathway involves all symptom clusters associated with the previous 

pathways, with no single prominent feature among them. 

In the pathways model, situational stressors serve as triggers to sexually abuse children. The specifc triggers 

will vary according to the particular profle of causes underlying each individual’s pathway. For example, for 

offenders who have distorted thought processes, the sexual need combined with the judgment that it is safe to 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 49 

abuse will result in a sexual offense. For an offender with defcits in emotional competence, intensely stressful 

situations can precede an offense (Ward, Polachek & Beech, 2006). 

Summary of the Evidence on Ward and Siegert’s Pathways Model 

This theory lacks a substantial evidential base. The data supporting the basic tenets came from other areas 

of psychology and there is little direct support from the sex offender research. It has also yet to be subjected 

to explicit evaluation. Additionally, there is no empirical justifcation for grouping offenders into separate 

categories. In fact, there is research to suggest that individuals in all fve pathways share many of the same 

traits and they are not characteristic of only one pathway (Simon, 1997a, 1997b, 2002). 

The theory also relies heavily on cognitive distortions related to deviant sexual attitudes and beliefs. However, 

similar to other cognitive theories, Ward and Siegert did not fully explain how an individual moves from a 

thought to a behavior. Nor did they address the origin of the symptom clusters or the role of each cluster. 

Finally, Ward and Siegert do not address the role of pedophilia in the sexual abuse of children. They mention 

that offenders experience deviant sexual arousal but do not explain the origin of this arousal. Rather, they 

focus on the psychological variables that interact with this arousal to result in sexual offending (Stinson, Sales 

& Becker, 2008). 

Nonetheless, the pathways model has a number of strengths. The model addresses some of the issues that 

have been empirically linked to sex offending behaviors. For example, problems with self-regulation of 

emotions and a sense of entitlement have been shown to be associated with sex offending behavior, though 

not in a causal way. Perhaps the theory’s greatest strength is its in-depth description of the factors involved in 

sexual offending and the ability to unify promising aspects of other theories. 

Malamuth’s Confuence Model 

The main idea behind Malamuth’s Confuence Model is that two factors — promiscuous-impersonal sex and 

hostile masculinity — merge to result in sexually aggressive behavior. A desire for intimacy through sex and 

the development of long-term relationships or monogamous sexual activity is lacking. The relevance of sexual 

promiscuity to sexually aggressive behavior is related to evolutionary theory. In short, natural selection has 

created fundamentally different psychological mechanisms in the brains of women and men with regard to 

sex and intimacy, resulting in the male’s preference for short-term over long-term mating patterns. If men are 

adapted for sexual performance in impersonal contexts, then a disinterested or unwilling partner may fail to 

inhibit or may even entice sexual aggression. 

Hostile masculinity involves dominating and controlling personality traits, particularly in regard to women. 

According to Malamuth’s theory, it is in women’s reproductive interest to withhold sex from insuffciently 

invested partners. Drawing on an earlier study that found that withholding sex angers men (Buss, 1998), 

Malamuth theorized that if a woman repeatedly withholds sex from a man, or does so at a developmentally 

signifcant time, the male may develop a chronically hostile interpersonal style. Thus, the male will be easily 

angered and resort to coercion and force to assert his dominance whenever he perceives that a woman is 

threatening his reproductive success (Malamuth, 1996). 

Dean and Malamuth (1997) introduced a third component to the confuence model — the infuence of a highdominance, low-nurturance approach to interpersonal relationships. This personality style is distinguished by 

self-interested motives and goals, a lack of compassion or insensitivity and little concern for potential harm to 

others (Malamuth, 1998). Malamuth suggested that the level of dominance or nurturance traits develops as a 

result of early childhood socialization and the incorporation of familial and cultural messages. Malamuth also 

believed the development of a dominant personality style was due in part to evolutionary processes (Dean & 

Malamuth, 1997; Malamuth, 1998). 
50 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Summary of the Evidence on Malamuth’s Confuence Model 

Research on the confuence model suggests that a number of important tenets of the theory are valid. For 

example, a relationship between dominance and sexual aggression has been documented empirically. There 

is also empirical evidence that those who use sexual coercion are more likely to endorse short-term mating 

strategies, and that hostile masculinity is related to negative attitudes toward women (Dean & Malamuth, 

1997; Malamuth et al., 1995). Research has also found that men with self-interested motives are far more 

likely to act on aggressive thoughts than those with more compassion or empathy (Malamuth, 1998). Still, 

the confuence model has limitations, many of which relate to the shortcoming of evolutionary theory, 

including using animal models as a basis for modeling human behavior (Stinson, Sales & Becker, 2008). Also, 

the confuence model does not take into consideration situational factors, emotional dysregulation or strong 

cognitive rationalizations. These and other variables that may contribute to sexual aggression have not been 

considered in the confuence model, and their absence from the model has not been adequately explained. 

Stinson, Sales and Becker’s Multimodal Self-Regulation Theory 

Multimodal Self-Regulation Theory was recently introduced as an etiological explanation of sexual offending 

by Stinson, Sales and Becker (2008). The theory integrates various psychological perspectives and implicates 

self-regulatory defcits as a key variable in the development of sexually inappropriate interests and behaviors. 

As part of the theory, Stinson, Sales and Becker (2008) argue that signifcant self-regulatory defcits resulting 

from negative childhood experiences combine for the development of deviant sexual interest and arousal. 

When certain biological and temperamental vulnerabilities are also present, the individual is unable to manage 

his or her behavior and sexual offending can result. 

Key to this theory is the premise that sexual arousal becomes linked with a deviant or inappropriate stimulus 

at some early point in sexual development. This occurs through the mind’s attempt to label the experience 

of sexual arousal and to associate a source with the arousal. Since this scenario is unlikely to occur on its 

own, other dynamics are necessary for the connection to occur. The individual would have to normalize the 

experience in some way and also lack other sources to achieve the same results. Nelligan (2013), for example, 

found that deviant sexual arousal was correlated with trauma levels in juveniles who commit sexual offenses, 

and that deviant arousal mediated the relationship between the juvenile’s trauma history and severity of 

sexual offending. 

Stinson, Sales and Becker (2008) suggested that behavioral conditioning in the development of abusive sexual 

behaviors also occurs, as sexual gratifcation coupled with a lack of corrective action helps solidify the behavior. 

Over time, the reinforcing effects of these practices, combined with a lack of negative consequences, will 

contribute to the development of a deviant sexual interest. 

Stinson, Sales and Becker (2008) also suggested that cognitive beliefs and personality traits could serve as 

mediators in the development of deviant sexual behaviors. These include egocentricity, a need for excitement 

and sensation, resentment and a sense of entitlement, impulsivity and irresponsibility. Finally, external factors 

(e.g., parental support for violence against women) and the development of offense-supportive cognitive 

beliefs (e.g., a man’s right to control a woman) solidify the behavior in the individual. 

Summary of the Evidence on Stinson, Sales and Becker’s Multimodal Self-Regulation Theory 

Given the relatively recent introduction of the multimodal self-regulation theory, there is a paucity of 

empirical research regarding its validity. However, there is empirical support for many tenets of the theory, 

including the roles that negative developmental experiences, cognitive distortions and a lack of emotional 

control play in sexual offending. Still, some of the linkages hypothesized in the theory have been criticized for 

being implausible (a criticism the authors acknowledge) because deviant sexual interests are not found among 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 51 

all sex offenders, making it diffcult to generalize the theory to the larger sex offender population (Stinson, 

Sales & Becker, 2008). Far more evaluative research needs to be undertaken before the validity and utility of 

the multimodal self-regulation theory can be determined. 

There is no simple answer to the question 

of why people engage in sexual offending 

behavior. The problem of sexual offending 

is too complex to attribute solely to a single 

theory. Multifactor theories provide greater 

insight into the causes of sexual offending. 

Finally, a team of researchers at the Rand Corporation3 conducted a review of the literature on adults who 

sexually offend against other adults, with a focus on the common characteristics and behavior patterns of 

perpetrators of sexual assault.4 Among its key conclusions were the following: 

• Sexual assault perpetrators are a very heterogeneous group. 

• Sexual assault perpetrators make a series of decisions that lead to opportunities to commit assault. 

• Sexual assault perpetration is likely infuenced by different combinations of factors. 

Summary 

The feld of sex offender management has yet to fnd a clear explanation or cause for sexual offending 

behavior. Despite many unanswered questions, research has produced a number of important fndings about 

the etiology of sexual offending: 

1. No single factor or cause of sexual offending has yet been identifed. Research suggests that a combination 

of factors likely contribute to sexual offending behavior. 

2. Negative or adverse conditions in an individual’s early development lead to poor attachment to others, 

particularly caregivers, and these conditions contribute to the development of sexual offending behaviors. 

These negative or adverse conditions may include sexual and/or physical abuse, as well as emotional neglect 

or absence. 

3. Like other behaviors, sexual abuse appears to be a learned behavior. Further, the learning of sexually 

abusive behavior is infuenced by reinforcement and punishment. If the perceived punishment for sex 

offending is suffcient, the behavior is less likely to occur. However, the specifc punishments needed to 

mitigate sexual offending remain unclear, particularly in light of the cognitive distortions maintained by 

many sex offenders. 

4. Many sex offenders have cognitive distortions or thinking errors, and these distorted thinking patterns 

appear to be involved in maintaining deviant sexual behavior. Many child victims of sexual assault who have 

thinking errors related to their own assault develop sexual offending behaviors as adults. These thinking 

errors often parallel common myths about sexual assault (e.g., there’s nothing wrong with it, no harm is 

done, the victim wants it and enjoys it). 
52 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

5. Repeated exposure to sexually violent pornography may contribute to hostility toward women, acceptance 

of rape myths, decreased empathy and compassion for victims and an increased acceptance of physical 

violence toward women. Positive reinforcement for the behavior, coupled with thinking errors, increases the 

likelihood that these beliefs will lead to sexually abusive behaviors. 

6. Sex offenders appear to have a problem with self-regulation of emotions and moods as well as with impulse 

control. Self-regulation and impulse control problems both appear to be related to sexual offending 

behavior. However, a causal relationship has not been clearly established. 

7. Men who use sexual coercion are more likely to engage in short-term relationships and maintain negative 

attitudes toward women. Men with self-interested motives are more likely to act on aggressive thoughts 

than those with more compassion or empathy. 

It also should be noted that other etiological variables that are not addressed in this chapter have been linked 

to sexual offending. These include alcohol and drugs, domestic violence and mental illness. These variables 

have been found to be factors in sex offending in some cases; however, there is no scientifc evidence that 

any of these factors are the cause of sexual violence. In addition, there is evidence that some individuals who 

are already prone to sexual offending behavior become more likely to engage in that behavior when certain 

situational factors or variables are present. These factors may include limited intellectual functioning, the use 

of alcohol or drugs, stress within the family/home or loss of a relationship or job. These situational factors, 

however, do not cause the sexual offending behavior but may increase the likelihood that it will occur in an 

individual who is already prone to the problem. 

Although numerous theories concerning the etiology of sexual offending have been proposed and empirically 

tested, knowledge about the causes of sexual offending remains somewhat rudimentary. This is due, at least in 

part, to two sets of factors: one related to etiological research and the other to etiological theories themselves. 

Two major, overwhelming shortcomings are noted from this review of the literature: the problem of sampling 

used in the research and a lack of intersection and balance among the different theoretical perspectives. 

Much of the etiological research undertaken to date is based on populations of sex offenders who are either 

in treatment, in prison or both. This is problematic because the evidence is clear that many sex offenders are 

never identifed by authorities; hence, these studies generally represent a very small percentage of individuals 

who engage in sexually aggressive or abusive behavior. Many etiological studies also rely on data self-reported 

by sexual offenders. Because sex offenders are commonly known to engage in cognitive distortions, the validity 

of their self-reporting remains questionable. There may also be incentives for cooperation in treatment, such 

as reduced sentencing. Offenders who deny their offenses altogether typically are not included in research. 

Because many perpetrators who engage in sexually aggressive and abusive behaviors deny it, this implies that a 

large percentage of the population is ignored in research. 

Equally important is the propensity of etiological theories to focus on explanations for sexual offending that 

reside within the individual. Most etiological theories are steeped in the traditional scientifc felds of biology, 

psychology and psychiatry. Hence, the focus largely has been on psychopathological and cognitive-behavioral 

causes of sex offending. These perspectives, in turn, have strongly infuenced policy debates regarding sex 

offender management and intervention. Few of the integrated theories that have been proposed consider the 

ways in which social structures and cultural phenomena contribute to sexual offending behavior. Some theories 

acknowledge situational and environmental factors as related variables or mediators, but the overwhelming 

emphasis is related to problems within the individual. Consideration of a broader range of theoretical 

perspectives may be necessary to understand and effectively combat sexual offending behavior. Ending sexual 

violence may require knowledge and change at the individual, social and institutional levels. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 53 

Several other dynamics identifed in etiological research warrant further study, including the following: 

1. Early maltreatment in childhood development and its impact on attachment. 

2. The role of distorted thinking, how thinking errors originate, and why some individuals act on these 

thoughts and others do not. 

3. How sexual behavior is learned and, more specifcally, the role of punishment (e.g., what punishment is 

most effective, when and how punishment should be administered) and reinforcement (including the lack 

of reinforcement for nonoffending sexual behaviors). 

4. The impact of sexually violent and exploitive images in the culture, not only in pornography but also in 

advertising, videos and music (among others). 

Because much of the etiological research undertaken to date is retrospective in nature, there is a clear need 

for prospective, longitudinal research, particularly to explore antecedents to sex offending and changes in 

sexually aggressive behavior over time. Efforts to employ samples that are more representative of the range of 

individuals who commit sex crimes also are needed, along with studies that include samples of nonoffenders 

and studies that incorporate the experiences of victims. Victims — both female and male — could contribute 

valuable information about offender motivations and behaviors through detailed disclosures of their 

interactions with offenders. This would also allow more opportunity to include the experiences of female 

victims, as opposed to the current focus on male victims who become sexual abusers. Rather than focusing on 

why some male victims go on to abuse others, perhaps it is time to ask why most victims, particularly females, 

do not go on to engage in offending behavior. Including family members associated with the offender could 

be useful as well. More research into the area of gender relations within the culture is also merited. There also 

is a need for further study regarding the integration of theories and the ways that different factors involved 

in sexual offending relate to one another. This need was identifed by the national experts at the SOMAPI 

forum. Success in this area, however, requires more openness and collaboration among researchers with 

different theoretical perspectives and less loyalty to a particular focus or feld of study. 

Notes 

1. This chapter does not distinguish between offenders who sexually abuse adults and those who sexually 

abuse children. However, when a theory focuses specifcally on one of those populations, it is noted in the 

discussion. In addition, this chapter does not present research fndings on the etiology of sexual offending 

perpetrated by juveniles. (For that discussion, see Chapter 2: “Etiology and Typologies of Juveniles Who Have 

Committed Sexual Offenses,” in the Juvenile section.) 

2. Some feminist theorists argue that all pornography is violent because it is based on the sexual exploitation 

and degradation of women. 

3. Greathouse, Saunders, Matthews, Keller & Miller (2015). 

4. Although the review did not focus on studies dealing with military populations, it was undertaken to assist 

the United States Air Force in its efforts to combat sexual assault. 
54 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

 

References 

Aigner, M., Eher, R., Fruehwalk, S., Forttier, P., Gurierrez-Lobos, K. & Dwyer, S.M. (2000). Brain abnormalities and 

violent behavior. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 11, 57–64. 

Bailey, R.C. (1988). The signifcance of hypergyny for understanding subsistence behavior among contemporary 

hunters and gatherers. In B.V. Kennedy & G.M. LeMoine (Eds.), Diet and Subsistence: Current Archaeological 

Perspectives (pp. 57–65). Calgary, AB: University of Calgary Press. 

Bain, J., Langevin, R., Dickey, R., Dickey, R. & Ben-Aron, M. (1987). Sex hormones in murderers and assaulters. 

Behavioral Science and the Law, 5, 95–101. 

Becker, J.V. (1998). What we know about the characteristics and treatment of adolescents who have 

committed sexual offenses. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of 

Children, 3, 317–329. 

Becker, J. & Murphy, W. (1998). What we know and don’t know about assessing and treating sex offenders. 

Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 116–137. 

Beckmann, J., Dupont, A., Erling, I., Jacobsen, P., Mikkelsen, M. & Theilgaard, A. (1974). Report of sex 

chromosome abnormalities in mentally retarded male offenders including a psychological study of patients 

with XYY and XXYY karyo-types. Journal of Mental Defciency Research, 18, 331–353. 

Berliner, L. & Elliot, D.M. (2002). Sexual abuse of children. In J.E.B. Meyers, L. Berliner, J. Briere, C.T. Hendriz, C. 

Jenny & T.A. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment, 2d ed. (pp. 55–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of age. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 1–10. 

Briggs, F. & Hawkins, R.M.F. (1996). A comparison of the childhood experiences of convicted male child 

molesters and men who were sexually abused in childhood and claimed to be non-offenders. Child Abuse & 

Neglect, 20, 221–233. 

Burgess, A.W., Hartman, C.R. & McCormack, A. (1987). Abused to abuser: Antecedents of socially deviant 

behaviors. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1431–1436. 

Burt, M.R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230. 

Burton, D.L. (2000). Were adolescent sex offenders children with sexual behavior problems? Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 37–48. 

Burton, D.L., Miller, D.L. & Schill, C.T. (2002). A social learning theory comparison of the sexual victimization of 

adolescent sex offenders and nonsexual male delinquents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 893–907. 

Buss, D.M. (1998). The psychology of human mate selection: Exploring the complexity of the strategic 

repertoire. In C. Crawford & D.L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and 

Applications (pp. 405–429). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Check, J.V.P. & Guloien, T.H. (1989). Reported proclivity for coercive sex following repeated exposure to sexually 

violent pornography, nonviolent dehumanizing pornography and erotica. In D. Zillman & J. Bryant (Eds.), 

Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations (pp. 159–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 55 

Chung, D. (2005). Violence, control, romance and gender equality: Young women and heterosexual 

relationships. Women’s Studies International Forum, 28, 445–455. 

Connell, R.W. (2000). Masculinities. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. 

Corley, A., Corley, M.D., Walker, J. & Walker, S. (1994). The possibility of organic left posterior hemisphere 

dysfunction as a contributing factor in sex offending behavior. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 1, 337–346. 

Cossins, A. (2000). Masculinities, Sexualities and Child Sexual Abuse. The Hague: Kluwer Law International. 

Craissati, J., McClurg, G. & Browne, K. (2002). Characteristics of perpetrators of child sexual abuse who have 

been sexually victimized as children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 225–239. 

Day, K. (1994). Male mentally handicapped sex offenders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 630–639. 

Dean, K.E. & Malamuth, N.M. (1997). Characteristics of men who aggress sexually and of men who imagine 

aggressing: Risk and moderating variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 449–455. 

Domhardt, M., Münzer, J., Fegert, J.L. & Goldbeck. L. (2015). Resilience in Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse: 

A Systematic Review of the Literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(4), 476–493. 

Eisenman, R. (2000). Explaining sex offenders: The concept of imprinting. International Journal of Adolescence 

and Youth, 8, 1–9. 

Figueredo, A.J., Sales, B.D., Becker, J.V. & Kaplan, M. (2000). A Brunswikian evolutionary-developmental theory 

of adolescent sexual offending. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 309–329. 

Freeman-Longo, R.E. (1986). The impact of sexual victimization on males. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10, 411–414. 

Freund, K. (1990). Courtship disorder. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, & H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual 

Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 195–207). New York: Plenum Press. 

Freund, K. & Kuban, M. (1994). The basis of the abused abuser theory of pedophilia: A further elaboration on 

an earlier study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23, 553–563. 

Freund, K., Scher, H. & Hucker, S. (1983). The courtship disorders: A further investigation. Archives of Sexual 

Behavior, 27, 433–443. 

Freund, K., Scher, H. & Hucker, S.J. (1984). The courtship disorders: A further investigation. Archives of Sexual 

Behavior, 13, 133–139. 

Galski, T., Thornton, K.E. & Shumsky, D. (1990). Brain dysfunction in sex offenders. Journal of Offender 

Rehabilitation, 16, 65–79. 

Garland, R.J. & Dougher, M.J. (1990). The abused/abuser hypothesis of child sexual abuse: A critical review of 

theory and research. In J.R. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions (pp. 488–509). New York: Springer. 

Graham, K. (1996). The childhood victimization of sex offenders: An under-estimated issue. International 

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40(3), 192–203. 

Greathouse, S.M., Saunders, J., Matthews, M., Keller, K.M. & Miller, L.L. (2015). A Review of the Literature on 

Sexual Assault Perpetrator Characteristics and Behaviors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. 
56 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

 

Hall, G.C.N. & Hirschman, R. (1991). Toward a theory of sexual aggression: A quadripartite model. Journal of 

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 662–669. 

Hanson, R.K. (1999). Working with sex offenders: A personal view. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 4, 81–93. 

Hanson, R.K., Gizzarelli, R. & Scott, H. (1994). The attitudes of incest offenders: Sexual entitlement and 

acceptance of sex with children. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 187–202. 

Harrison, L.E., Clayton-Smith, J. & Bailey, S. (2001). Exploring the complex relationship between adolescent 

sexual offending and sex chromosome abnormality. Psychiatric Genetics, 11, 5–10. 

Howells, K. (1994). Child sexual abuse: Finkelhor’s precondition model revisited. Psychology, Crime and Law, 1, 

201–214. 

Howitt, D. (1995). Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic? British Journal of Medical Psychology, 

68(1), 15–27. 

Hucker, S. & Bain, J. (1990). Androgenic hormones and sexual assault. In W.L. Marshall & D.R. Laws (Eds.), 

Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 93–102). New York: Plenum Press. 

Hucker, S., Langevin, R., Wortman, G., Bain, J., Handy, L., Chambers, J. & Wright, S. (1986). Neuropsychological 

impairment in pedophiles. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 440–448. 

Hummel, P., Thomke, V., Oldenburger, H.A. & Specht, F. (2000). Male adolescent sex offenders against children: 

Similarities and differences between those offenders with and those without a history of sexual abuse. Journal 

of Adolescence, 23, 305–317. 

Hunter, J.A. Jr. & Becker, J.V. (1994). The role of deviant sexual arousal in juvenile sexual offending: Etiology, 

evaluation and treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 132–149. 

Jenkins, A. (1990). Invitations to Responsibility: The Therapeutic Engagement of Men Who Are Violent and 

Abusive. Adelaide, South Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications. 

Jonson-Reid, M. & Way, I. (2001). Adolescent sexual offenders: Incidence of childhood maltreatment, serious 

emotional disturbance and prior offenses. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(1), 120–130. 

Keenan, T. & Ward, T. (2000). A theory of mind perspective on cognitive, affective and intimacy defcits in child 

sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 49–60. 

Knox, L.A. (2014). Attachment and Adolescent Offending: An Examination of the Links between Sexually 

Abusive Behavior and the Level of Attachment to Parents and Peers. Portland, OR: Portland State University. 

Knudsen, D.D. (1988). Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship? Journal of Family Violence, 

3, 253–267. 

Kolb, B. & Whisaw, I.W. (1995). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology, 4th ed. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co. 

Lahey, K.A. (1991). Pornography and harm: Learning to listen to women. International Journal of Law & 

Psychiatry, 14, 117–131. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 57 

Lalumiere, M.L., Chalmers, L.J., Quinsey, V.L. & Seto, M.C. (1996). A test of the mate deprivation hypothesis of 

sexual coercion. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 299–318. 

Lalumiere, M.L. & Quinsey, V.L. (1994). The discriminability of rapists from non-sex offenders using phallometric 

measures: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 150–175. 

Langevin, R., Bain, J., Wortzman, G., Hucker, S., Dickey, R. & Wright, P. (1988). Sexual sadism: Brain, blood, and 

behavior. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 163–171. 

Langevin, R., Wortzman, G., Dickey, R., Wright, P. & Handy, L. (1988). Neuropsychological impairment in incest 

offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 1, 401–415. 

Laws, D.R. & Marshall, W.L. (1990). A conditioning theory of the etiology and maintenance of deviant sexual 

preference and behavior. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws & H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, 

Theories, and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 209–230). New York: Plenum Press. 

Leguizamo, A. (2002). The object relations and victimization histories of juvenile sex offenders. In B.K. Schwartz 

(Ed.), The Sex Offender: Current Treatment Modalities and Systems Issues, vol. 4 (pp. 4-2– 4-35). Kingston, NJ: 

Civic Research Institute. 

Linz, D.G., Donnerstein, E. & Penrod, S. (1988). Effects of long-term exposure to violent and sexually degrading 

depictions of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 758–768. 

Lonsway, K.A. & Fitzgerald, L.F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Woman Quarterly, 18, 133–164. 

Looman, J. & Marshall, W.L. (2005). Sexual arousal in rapists. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 367–389. 

Malamuth, N.M. (1996). The confuence model of sexual aggression: Feminist and evolutionary perspectives. In 

D.M. Buss & N.M. Malamuth (Eds.), Sex, Power, Confict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives (pp. 269–295). 

New York: Oxford University Press. 

Malamuth, N.M. (1998). The confuence model as an organizing framework for research on sexually aggressive 

men: Risk moderators, imagined aggression, and pornography consumption. In R.G. Green & E. Donnerstein 

(Eds.), Human Aggression: Theories, Research, and Implications for Social Policy (pp. 229–245). San Diego, CA: 

Academic Press. 

Malamuth, N.M. & Check, J.V.P. (1980). Penile tumescence and perceptual responses to rape as a function of 

victim’s perceived reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(6), 528–547. 

Malamuth, N.M. & Check, J.V.P. (1981). The effects of mass media exposure on acceptance of violence against 

women: A feld experiment. Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 536–446. 

Malamuth, N.M. & Check, J.V.P. (1985). The effects of aggressive pornography on beliefs in rape myths: 

Individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 299–320. 

Malamuth, N.M. & Heilmann, M.F. (1998). Evolutionary psychology and sexual aggression. In C. Crawford 

& D.L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, Issues and Applications (pp. 515–542). 

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
58 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Malamuth, N.M., Linz, D., Heavey, C.L., Barnes, G. & Acker, M. (1995). Using the confuence model of sexual 

aggression to predict men’s confict with women: A 10-year follow-up study. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 69, 353–369. 

Marshall, W.L. (1988). The use of sexually explicit stimuli by rapists, child molesters and nonoffenders. Journal 

of Sex Research, 25, 267–288. 

Marshall, W.L. (1989) Intimacy, loneliness and sex offenders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 27, 491–504. 

Marshall, W.L., Anderson, D. & Champaigne, F. (1997). Self-esteem and its relationship to sexual offending. 

Psychology, Crime, & Law, 3, 161–186. 

Marshall, W.L., Anderson, D. & Fernandez, Y.M. (1999). Cognitive Behavioral Treatment of Sex Offenders. 

Chichester, England: Wiley. 

Marshall, W.L. & Barbaree, H.E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual offending. In W.L. 

Marshall, D.R. Laws & H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the 

Offender (pp. 257–275). New York: Plenum Press. 

Marshall, W.L. & Marshall, L.E. (2000). The origins of sex offending. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 1, 250–263. 

Murray, G.C., McKenzie, K., Quigley, A., Matheson, E., Michie, A.M. & Lindsay, W.R. (2001). A comparison of the 

neuropsychological profles of adult male sex offenders and non-offenders with a learning disability. Journal of 

Sexual Aggression, 7, 57–64. 

Nelligan, K.E. (2013). Trauma, Deviant Sexual Arousal and Sexual Aggression in Adolescent Male Sexual 

Offenders. Keene, NH: Antioch University-New England. 

Norris, J. (1991). Social infuence effects on responses to sexually explicit material containing violence. Journal 

of Sex Research, 28, 67–76. 

O’Callaghan, D. (1998). Practice issues in working with young abusers who have learning disabilities. Child 

Abuse Review, 7, 435–448. 

Proulx, J., Perreault, C. and Ouimet, M. (1999). Pathways in the offending process of extrafamilial sexual child 

molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 117–129. 

Putnam, F.W. (2003). Ten year research updates review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy 

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 269–278. 

Quinsey, V.L. & Lalumiere, M.L. (1995). Evolutionary perspectives on sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal 

of Research and Treatment, 7, 301–315. 

Ryan. G. (2002). Victims who go on to victimize others: No simple explanations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 

891–892. 

Scott, M.B. & Lyman, S.M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–61. 

Scully, D. (1990). Understanding Sexual Violence: A Study of Convicted Rapists. Boston: Unwin Hyman. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 59 

 

 

Segal, Z.V. & Stermac, L.E. (1990). The role of cognition in sexual assault. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws & H.E. 

Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 161–174). 

New York: Plenum Press. 

Seghorn, T.K., Prentky, R.A. & Boucher, R.J. (1987). Childhood sexual abuse in the lives of sexually aggressive 

offenders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 262–267. 

Seidman, B.T., Marshall, W.L., Hudson, S.M. & Robertson, P.J. (1994). An examination of intimacy and loneliness 

in sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 518–534. 

Seto, M.C., Cantor, J.M. & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of 

pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 610–615. 

Simon, L.M.J. (1997a). Do criminal offenders specialize in crime types? Applied and Preventative Psychology, 6, 

35–53. 

Simon, L.M.J. (1997b). The myth of sex offender specialization: An empirical analysis. New England Journal on 

Criminal and Civil Commitment, 23, 387–403. 

Simon, L.M.J. (2002). An examination of the assumptions of specialization, mental disorder and dangerousness 

in sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 275–308. 

Sinclair, R.C., Lee, T. & Johnson, T.E. (1995). The effect of social-comparison feedback on aggressive responses to 

erotic and aggressive flms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 818–837. 

Smallbone, S.W. & Dadds, M.R. (2000). Attachment and coercive sexual behavior. Sexual Abuse Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 12(1), 3–15. 

Stinson, J.D., Sales, B.D. & Becker, J.V. (2008). Sex Offending: Causal Theories to Inform Research, Prevention 

and Treatment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Sykes, G. & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological 

Review, 22, 664–670. 

Symons, D. (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Thornhill, R. & Palmer, C.T. (2000). A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Cambridge, 

MA: MIT Press. 

Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. 

Tooby (Eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture (pp. 19–36). New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Travis, C.B. (2003). Evolution, Gender, and Rape. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 

Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L. & LeGrand, S. (2000). The relationship between adolescent sex offender behaviors 

and victim characteristics with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 363–371. 

Ward, T. (2000). Sex offenders’ cognitive distortions as implicit theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 

491–507. 
60 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY OF ADULT SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Ward, T. (2001). A critique of Hall & Hirschman’s quadripartite model of child sexual abuse. Psychology, Crime & 

Law, 7, 333–350. 

Ward, T. & Hudson, S.M. (1998). A model of the relapse process in sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 13, 700–725. 

Ward, T., Hudson, S.M. & Keenan, T. (1998). A self-regulation model of the sexual offense process. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 10, 141–157. 

Ward, T., Hudson, S., Marshall, W. & Siegert, R. (1995). Attachment styles and intimacy defcits in sexual 

offenders: A theoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7(4), 317–335. 

Ward, T. & Keenan, T. (1999). Child molesters’ implicit theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 821–838. 

Ward, T., Polachek, D.L.L. & Beech, A.R. (2006). Theories of Sexual Offending. Chichester, England: Wiley. 

White, M. (2000). Refections on Narrative Practice: Essays and Interviews. Adelaide, South Australia: Dulwich 

Centre Publications. 

Worling, J.R. (1995). Adolescent sex offenders against females: Differences based on the age of their victims. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39, 276–293. 

Wright, P., Nobrega, J., Langevin, R. & Wortzman, G. (1990). Brain density and symmetry in pedophilic and 

sexually aggressive offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 319–328. 

Zgourides, G., Monto, M. & Harris, R. (1997). Correlates of adolescent male sexual offense: Prior adult sexual 

contact, sexual attitudes and use of sexually explicit materials. International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 41, 272–283. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 61 

Chapter 3: Sex Offender Typologies 

by Dominique A. Simons 

FINDINGS 

◆ Typologies are based on theories postulating that sex offenders specialize: 

• Child abusers: fxated-regressed, victim gender/relationship 

• Rapists: power-reassurance, power-assertive, anger-retaliation, sadistic 

• Females: co-offender, teacher lover/heterosexual nurturer 

• Internet: impulsivity/curiosity, fueling sexual interests, accessing victims/disseminating images, seeking fnancial gain 

◆ Crossover offending presents a challenge to traditional typologies. 

◆ Recent advances: developmental risk factors and offense pathways. 

Introduction 

S

exual violence remains a serious social problem with devastating consequences. However, resource scarcity 

within the criminal justice system continues to impede the battle against sexual violence. The challenge 

of “making society safer” not only includes the need for resources, but also requires a comprehensive 

understanding of accurate offense patterns and risk. (For a discussion of adult “Sex Offender Risk Assessment,” 

see Chapter 6 in the Adult section.) This knowledge may be used to devise offense typologies, or classifcation 

systems, that will inform decisions regarding investigation, sentencing, treatment and supervision. (For more 

on “The Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult Sex Offenders,” see Chapter 7 in the Adult section.) 

Although other typologies exist, this chapter only includes the classifcation systems that have been empirically 

derived and validated. Two empirically validated typologies — Massachusetts Treatment Center: Child Molester 

Version 3 (MTC: CM3) and Rapist Version 3 (MTC: R3) (Knight & Prentky, 1990) — were not included because 

some researchers (e.g., Barbaree et al., 1994; Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008; Hudson & Ward, 1997) have questioned 

their clinical utility.1 

The crossover offending section encompasses more than 25 years of research using different methodologies 

and populations. Although not considered a classifcation system due to the dynamic nature of the offense 

pathways, the self-regulation model (SRM) was reviewed due to its clinical utility and relationship to risk. SRM 

has been validated using several offender populations and methodologies. Due to the limited scope of this 

chapter, this review focuses on adult sexual offenders, although some juvenile studies are included, where 

relevant. (For a discussion of “Etiology and Typologies of Juveniles Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses,” 

see Chapter 2 in the Juvenile section.) 
62 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Summary of Research Findings 

Traditional Typologies 

The majority of theories regarding sexual deviance postulate that sexual offenders specialize in types of 

victims and/or offenses (Simon, 1997). Researchers have developed specifc classifcation-unique offender 

characteristics (Knight & Prentky, 1990; Simon et al., 1992). Most of these typologies imply that victimization 

(i.e., who is a potential victim) is linked to the specifc type of sexual offender (e.g., rapists sexually assault 

adults/peers, child sexual abusers sexually assault children). 

Traditional typologies have been developed to provide a comprehensive understanding of deviant sexual 

behaviors required for treatment intervention and effective supervision. However, classifying sexual offenders 

has been shown to be problematic. Sexual offenders exhibit heterogeneous characteristics, yet they present 

with similar clinical problems or criminogenic needs (e.g., emotional regulation defcits, social diffculties, 

offense supportive beliefs, empathy defcits and deviant arousal); the degree to which these clinical issues are 

evident varies among individual offenders (Gannon, Terriere & Leader, 2012; Ward & Gannon, 2006). Indeed, 

this heterogeneity challenges effective risk management and treatment of offenders (Martinez-Catena, 

Redondo, Frerich & Beech, 2016). Overall, traditional typologies have demonstrated considerable problems, as 

indicated by inadequate defnitions and inconsistent research fndings. In addition, most of the typologies have 

failed to address treatment issues and to predict recidivism (Camilleri & Quincy, 2008; Knight & Prentky, 1990). 

(For information on “Adult Sex Offender Recidivism,” see Chapter 5 in the Adult section.) This section reviews 

the most frequently used and empirically tested sex offender typologies for child sexual abusers, rapists, female 

offenders and internet sexual offenders. 

Child Sexual Abusers 

Finkelhor (1984) provides the most comprehensive defnition of child sexual abuse: Child sexual abuse is the 

use of force/coercion of a sexual nature either when the victim is younger than age 13 and the age difference 

between the victim and the perpetrator is at least fve years, or when the victim is between 13 and 16 and the 

age difference between the victim and perpetrator is at least 10 years. In this defnition, coercion does not 

necessarily imply a direct threat. Child sexual abusers often develop a relationship with a child to manipulate 

him or her into compliance with the sexual act, which is perhaps the most damaging component of child sexual 

abuse (John Jay College, 2004). Indeed, a defning feature of child sexual abuse is the offender’s perception 

that the sexual relationship is mutual and acceptable (Groth, 1983). 

Differences Between Child Sexual Abusers and Rapists 

Child sexual abusers have been diffcult to classify as they vary in economic status, gender, marital status, 

ethnicity and sexual orientation. Child sexual abusers are often characterized as exhibiting poor social skills, 

having feelings of inadequacy or loneliness, having greater sexual problems or being passive in relationships 

(Cortoni & Marshall, 2001; Groth, 1979; Maniglio, 2012; Marshall, 1993; Whitaker et al., 2008). They differ 

from rapists with respect to thought processes and affect, and often describe their offending behaviors 

as uncontrollable, stable and internal; whereas rapists attribute their offenses to external, unstable and 

controllable causes (Garlick, Marshall & Thorton, 1996). Indeed, Whitaker et al.’s (2008) meta-analytic review of 

89 studies indicates child sexual abusers have fewer externalizing behaviors compared to rapists. Child sexual 

abusers display defcits in information-processing skills and maintain cognitive distortions to deny the impact 

of their offenses (e.g., having sex with a child is normative; Hayashino, Wurtele & Klebe, 1995; Whitaker et al., 

2008). In contrast, rapists display distorted perceptions of women and sex roles, and often blame the victim for 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 63 

their offense (Ó Ciardha, 2011; Polaschek, Ward & Hudson, 1997). With respect to affect, child sexual abusers 

assault to alleviate anxiety, loneliness and depression. Rapists typically assault as a result of anger, hostility and 

vindictiveness (Polaschek, Ward & Hudson, 1997). Many of these characteristics have been incorporated into the 

typologies of rapists and child sexual abusers (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008; Groth, 1979; Knight & Prentky, 1990). 

Pedophilic and Nonpedophilic Distinction 

The most important distinction among child sexual abusers is whether they are pedophilic or nonpedophilic, 

because pedophilia has been shown to be a strong predictor of sexual recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). 

Not all individuals who sexually assault children are pedophiles. Pedophilia consists of a sexual preference 

for children that may or may not lead to child sexual abuse (e.g., viewing child pornography), whereas child 

sexual abuse involves sexual contact with a child that may or may not be due to pedophilia (Camilleri & 

Quinsey, 2008). According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (American 

Psychiatric Association, 2013), a diagnosis of pedophilia requires an individual to have recurrent, intense and 

sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors directed toward a prepubescent child (generally 13 years of age 

or younger) over a period of at least six months; to have acted on these urges or to be distressed by them; and 

to be at least 16 years old and at least fve years older than the child victim. The World Health Organization, 

which publishes the International Statistical Classifcation of Diseases and Related Health Problems (WHO, 

2010) defnes pedophilia as a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or 

early pubertal by an adult. 

Types of Child Sexual Abusers 

One of the frst typologies was formulated from the delineation of pedophilic and nonpedophilic child sexual 

abuse. Groth, Hobson and Gary (1982) classifed child sexual abusers based on the degree to which the sexual 

behavior is entrenched and the basis for psychological needs (fxated-regressed typology). The fxated offender 

prefers interaction and identifes with children socially and sexually (Simon et al., 1992). These individuals 

often develop and maintain relationships with children to satisfy their sexual needs (Conte, 1991). In contrast, 

regressed child sexual abusers prefer social and sexual interaction with adults; their sexual involvement with 

children is situational and occurs as a result of life stresses (Simon et al., 1992). The majority of fxated child 

sexual abusers are individuals who sexually assault male children who are not related; regressed child sexual 

abusers often consist of incest offenders or offenders who sexually assault female adolescents (Priest & Smith, 

1992). The fxated-regressed typology has been incorporated into the current models of sexual offending (e.g., 

self-regulation model; Ward & Hudson, 1998, 2000) discussed later in this chapter. 

Victim Characteristic Distinction 

Of the traditional models, the victim gender-relationship typology is the only model that has demonstrated 

clinical utility because it accounts for much of the variability in child sexual abuse, addresses treatment 

issues and is related to recidivism (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008). The gender of the victim remains an important 

distinction among child sexual abusers because this factor has been shown to be a strong predictor of sexual 

reoffense (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998), although exactly what can be predicted is unclear. One study showed that 

male child sexual abusers who assault males are twice as likely to recidivate in comparison to offenders who 

abuse females (Quinsey, 1986). Yet, contradictory fndings have also been reported in the literature. Several 

studies found that child sexual abusers who sexually assault females report over twice as many victims as samesex child offenders (Abel et al., 1981). More recent studies have shown that mixed-gender child sexual abusers 

reported the highest number of victims (Cann, Friendship & Gozna, 2007; Stephens, Seto, Goodwill & Cantor, 

2016), offenses (Simons & Tyler, 2010) and the highest rates of risk for reoffense (Abel et al., 1988; Kleban, 

Chesin, Jeglic & Mercado, 2013). However, after controlling for number of victims, mixed-gender offenders 
64 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

were not more likely to sexually recidivate compared to child sexual abusers who offend against males and 

females exclusively (Stephens et al., 2016). Overall, small sample sizes and reliance on offcial records have 

limited the extensive investigation of this group. 

Within this typology, child sexual abusers are also categorized based on their relationship to the victim (i.e., 

intrafamilial or extrafamilial). According to Rice and Harris (2002), intrafamilial child sexual abusers (i.e., 

incest offenders) are less psychopathic, less likely to report male victims, cause less injury, are less likely to 

exhibit pedophilia and have lower sexual and violent recidivism rates. Intrafamilial child sexual abusers are 

less likely to have antisocial tendencies (e.g., criminal history, substance abuse) and atypical sexual interests 

(Seto, Babchishin, Pullman & McPhail, 2015). Seto et al. (2015) also found intrafamilial offenders display fewer 

offense-supportive beliefs and interpersonal defcits than extrafamilial child sexual abusers. Extrafamilial child 

sexual abusers are more likely to be diagnosed with pedophilia (Seto et al., 2015) and are often unable to 

maintain adult relationships (Prentky et al., 1989). Although intrafamilial child sexual abusers substitute a child 

for an adult sexual partner, they often maintain their adult sexual relationships (Miner & Dwyer, 1997). Studies 

have reported that intrafamilial child sexual abusers have fewer victims as compared to extrafamilial sexual 

offenders (Miner & Dwyer, 1997) and lower rates of sexual recidivism (Stephens et al., 2016). These studies 

relied primarily on offcial records (i.e., criminal convictions), which do not take into account the possibility that 

many incest offenders may have undisclosed victims to whom they are not related. Nonetheless, the gender/ 

relationship typology is the most frequently used and researched typology of child sexual abusers. 

Extrafamilial child sexual abusers are more 

likely to be diagnosed with pedophilia and are 

often unable to maintain adult relationships. 

Rapists 

In comparison to child sexual abusers, rapists are more likely to be younger, to be socially competent and 

to have engaged in an intimate relationship (Gannon & Ward, 2008). Rapists differ from child sexual abusers 

in that they tend to be of lower socioeconomic status and are more likely to abuse substances and exhibit a 

personality disorder (e.g., antisocial disorder) or psychosis (Langstrom, Sjostedt & Grann, 2004). In addition, 

rapists often display the following criminogenic needs: intimacy defcits, negative peer infuences, defcits in 

sexual and general self-regulation and offense-supportive attitudes (e.g., justifcation of the sexual offense and 

feelings of entitlement in relation to the expression of a strong sexual desire) (Craissati, 2005). 

Rapists and Violent Offenders 

Rapists have been found to have a greater number of previous violent convictions, and they tend to use 

greater levels of aggression and force than child sexual abusers (Bard et al., 1987). Likewise, rapists are more 

likely to reoffend violently rather than sexually. A meta-analysis conducted by Hanson and Bussiere (1998) 

found that of 1,839 rapists, 19 percent (n = 349) sexually recidivated and 22 percent (n = 405) violently 

recidivated over an average follow-up of fve years.2

 The researchers assessed recidivism from several studies 

that reported the commission of another sex crime (e.g., rape) or violent crime (e.g., assault) through 

reconviction records (84 percent), arrest records (54 percent), self-reports (25 percent) and parole violation 

records (16 percent).3

 They caution that these fndings are based on diverse methods and follow-up periods. 

Rapists have been shown to resemble violent offenders or criminals in general. Similar to violent offenders, 

Simon (2000) found that rapists displayed signifcant diversity in their offense records in comparison to child 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 65 

sexual abusers and had committed equivalent proportions of drug-related offenses, thefts and burglaries. 

Harris, Mazerolle and Knight (2009) suggest that rape can be explained by the general theory of crime. Rapists 

are versatile criminals who engage in many different types of crime over time; sexual offending refects only 

one manifestation of an underlying antisocial condition (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). 

Types of Rapists 

The majority of traditional rapist typologies have focused on the relationship to the victim, degree of 

aggression, motivation, sexual versus nonsexual nature of the assault and degree of control (impulsive vs. 

planned). Like child sexual abusers, rapists are often classifed by their relationship to the victim (i.e., stranger 

vs. acquaintance). Seventy-three percent of rapists know their victims (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012). 

Acquaintance rapists are characterized as coercive, less violent and less opportunistic than stranger rapists 

(Bruinsma, 1995). In contrast, stranger rapists are more hostile and use more expressive violence (i.e., inficting 

pain or injury as the goal itself) toward women (Polaschek, Ward & Hudson, 1997). 

Rapists have been shown to resemble 

violent offenders or criminals in general. 

Acquaintance rapists are less violent and 

opportunistic than stranger rapists, who are 

more hostile and use expressive violence. 

Rapists have also been classifed based upon motivational characteristics. Groth (1979) created a typology based 

upon the degree of aggression, the underlying motivation of the offender and the existence of other antisocial 

behaviors, which resulted in four types of rapists. The power-reassurance or sexual-aim rapist is characterized 

by feelings of inadequacy and poor social skills and does not infict injury upon his victims (National Center 

for Women and Policing, 2001). The violence used by the power-reassurance rapist is only suffcient to achieve 

the compliance of the victim or to complete the sexual act. Such an individual may perceive that the victim has 

shown a sexual interest in him, or that by the use of force the victim will grow to like him (Craissati, 2005). The 

power-assertive or antisocial rapist is impulsive, uses aggressive methods of control and abuses substances. His 

sexual assaults are often unplanned and he is unlikely to use a weapon (Groth, 1979). The third type of rapist 

is the anger-retaliation or aggressive-aim rapist, who is motivated by power and aggression. This individual 

sexually assaults for retaliatory reasons and often degrades or humiliates the victim. 

The fourth type is the sadistic rapist, who reenacts sexual fantasies involving torture or pain. Sexual sadism is 

defned as the repeated practice of cruel sexual behavior that is combined with fantasy and characterized by 

a desire to control the victim (MacCullock et al., 1983). This type is characterized by extensive planning and 

may often result in sexual murder (Groth, 1979). Although it has been reported in only 5 percent of rapists (see 

Craissati, 2005, for a review), sexual sadism has consistently been shown as a strong predictor of both sexual 

and violent recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). 

Characterized by Groth’s (1979) anger-retaliation rapist, Ramirez, Jeglic and Calkins (2015) examined the 

relationship between pervasive anger and the use of physical and verbal aggression (including use of a weapon) 

during a sexual offense. Additionally, the study compared child sexual abusers and rapists with respect to levels 

of expressive anger and use of violence during the commission of the crime. Records of 571 offenders were 

reviewed and coded to assess anger (using a pervasive anger measure) and violence used during the sexual 
66 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

offense. Findings indicated rapists were rated as exhibiting more expressive anger than child sexual abusers. 

Regardless of victim type, sexual offenders who used violence (physical and verbal, but not a weapon) during 

the sexual offense were evaluated as angrier than those who did not use violence. Taken together, fndings 

provide support for Groth’s conceptualization of the third type of rapist. 

Although inherently useful for research purposes, these traditional rapist typologies demonstrate little clinical 

utility because they exclude the irrational cognitions (i.e., offense-supportive beliefs) displayed by most men 

who commit rape (Hudson & Ward, 1997). 

Female Sexual Offenders 

Differences between male and female sexual offenders are identifed in the literature. In contrast to male 

sexual offenders, female offenders are more likely to sexually assault males and strangers (Allen, 1991; 

Vandiver, 2006). Female sexual offenders report different offense-supportive cognitions than males. Specifcally, 

their beliefs are gender-specifc; they perceive female abuse as less harmful, men control women and their 

partner’s needs are paramount (Gannon, Hoare, Rose & Parrett, 2010). Studies have also shown that female 

sexual offenders are less likely than male sexual offenders to sexually reoffend (Freeman & Sandler, 2008). 

For example, Cortoni and Hanson (2005) found a female sexual recidivism rate of 1 percent over a fve-year 

average follow-up period with a sample of 380 females. 

Yet the most evident distinction between male and female offenders is that female offenders are more 

likely to sexually assault with another person or group (i.e., co-offenders). In a sample of 227 female sexual 

offenders, Vandiver (2006) found that 46 percent offended with another person and the majority of these 

co-perpetrators were male (71 percent), 62 percent offended with one individual and 38 percent offended 

within a group. Studies have differentiated female co-offending according to whether the female participated 

in an active or passive role (Grayston & De Luca, 1999; Nathan & Ward, 2002). Females who take an active role 

in the abuse engage in direct sexual contact with the victim. Females who participate passively do not engage 

in direct sexual contact; instead, these women may observe the abuse but not intervene, procure victims for 

others to sexually assault or expose children to pornography or sexual interaction (Grayston & De Luca, 1999). 

Typologies of female offenders include 

the co-offender and the teacher 

lover/heterosexual nurturer. 

Recently, more extensive typologies of female sexual offending have been developed to summarize these 

female offense characteristics (Matthews, Mathews & Speltz, 1991; Nathan & Ward, 2002; Vandiver & Kercher, 

2004). Most of the typologies differentiate female offenders based on the presence of a co-offender, the age 

of the victim and the motivation for the offense. 

Compared to females who abuse alone, females who co-offend are more likely to abuse females and familial 

victims, to commit multiple sexual offenses (Wijkman, Bijeveld & Hendriks, 2011) and are more likely to be 

arrested for a nonsexual offense (Vandiver, 2006). Females who abuse alone are more likely to abuse unrelated 

males and to be diagnosed with a mood disorder (Muskens, Bogaerts, van Casteren & Labrijn, 2011; Vandiver, 

2006). Gillespie and colleagues (2014) found a greater prevalence of sexual dissatisfaction, substance abuse, 

depression, denial and involvement with known offenders among co-offending females. Prior to the offense, 

female offenders who sexually abuse alone exhibited a greater need for power or dominance, need for 

intimacy, negative mood state, extensive offense planning and abusive fantasies. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 67 

Females who co-offend with a male (i.e., accompanied abusers) have been described as emotionally 

dependent, socially isolated and displaying low self-esteem (Matthews, Mathews & Speltz, 1991; Muskens et 

al., 2011; Nathan & Ward, 2002). These individuals are further differentiated based on the use of coercion by 

the accomplice. Female offenders coerced into sexual offending are motivated by fear and dependence upon 

the co-offender (Matthews, Mathews & Speltz, 1991; Muskens et al., 2011). Although they initially perpetrate 

under duress, some later initiate the abuse on their own (Saradjian & Hanks, 1996). These females have been 

shown to report a history of childhood sexual and physical abuse. Female offenders who accompany a male 

co-offender and take an active role in the abuse have been shown to be motivated by jealousy and anger and 

often offend in retaliation (Nathan & Ward, 2002). 

Female offenders who sexually abuse alone (i.e., self-initiated abusers) are differentiated based upon age of 

the victim and motivation for the offense (Nathan & Ward, 2002). One typology, the teacher lover/heterosexual 

nurturer, describes female offenders who sexually abuse adolescent boys within the context of an acquaintance 

or position-of-trust relationship (Matthews, Mathews & Speltz, 1991; Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). These females 

exhibit dependency needs and often abuse substances. They are less likely to report severe child maltreatment; 

instead, their sexual abuse behaviors often result from a dysfunctional adult relationship and attachment 

defcits. Female offenders within this category attempt to meet intimacy and/or sexual needs through sexual 

offending. 

Self-initiated female offenders who sexually assault prepubescent children, also referred to as predisposed 

offenders, have been shown to display signifcant psychopathologies (Matthews, Mathews & Spletz, 1991). 

They are more likely than other female offenders to display symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder 

(a serious psychological condition that occurs as a result of experiencing a traumatic event) (Foa, Keane 

& Friedman, 2000) and depression. These female offenders report extensive physical and sexual abuse by 

caregivers. Researchers contend that they are often motivated by power (i.e., to reenact their childhood 

trauma, this time as the aggressor) and sexual arousal. 

Recently, additional typologies have been added to describe female offenders who sexually assault adult or 

postpubescent females (Vandiver & Kercher, 2004). Female offenders who engage in the exploitation or forced 

prostitution of other females have been reported to be motivated by fnancial gain and have higher number 

of arrests for nonsexual crimes. Cortoni, Sandler and Freeman (2014) found females convicted of promoting 

prostitution of a minor tend to be younger at age of frst conviction, have a greater history of incarceration 

and exhibit general criminality (e.g., noncompliance with supervision, antisocial personality) than traditional 

female sexual offenders. Female offenders who themselves sexually assault other female adults often offend 

within an intimate relationship as a form of domestic violence (i.e., aggressive homosexual offenders). They are 

motivated to assault out of anger, retaliation and jealousy. 

Although these female typologies are useful to describe offense characteristics, they (like the male typologies) 

do not provide a theoretical framework for the etiology of sexual offending (Logan, 2008). (For a discussion 

of the “Etiology of Adult Sexual Offending,” see Chapter 2 in the Adult section.) To reduce the incidence 

and prevalence of sexual violence in the future, there remains a need for etiological research to provide an 

empirical basis for treatment interventions for female offenders. 

To reduce the incidence and prevalence of 

sexual violence in the future, there remains 

a need for etiological research to provide an 

empirical basis for treatment interventions. 
68 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Internet Offenders 

The widespread availability of pornography on the internet has facilitated the development and maintenance 

of sexual deviance (Delmonico & Griffn, 2008; Quayle, 2008). The internet has been used as a vehicle for child 

sexual abuse in at least three ways: viewing pornographic images of children, sharing pornographic images 

of children and luring or procuring child victims online (Robertiello & Terry, 2007). Individuals download 

pornographic pictures of children to aid arousal and masturbation, as a collecting activity, as a way of 

facilitating social relationships and as a substitute for child sexual contact (Quayle & Taylor, 2003). 

In comparison to child sexual abusers, internet child pornography offenders reported more psychological 

diffculties in adulthood and fewer sexual convictions (Webb, Craissati & Keen, 2007). In this study of 90 internet 

offenders and 120 child sexual abusers (Webb, Craissati & Keen, 2007), internet offenders were more likely 

to succeed in the community (4 percent characterized as failures) and less likely to engage in sexually risky 

behaviors (14 percent) as compared to child abusers (29 percent and 26 percent, respectively). Formal failure 

was defned by reconviction, violation and return to prison. With respect to demographics, the majority of 

offenders are male, younger than other sexual offenders and likely to be of white European descent (Webb, 

Craissati & Keen, 2007; Quayle, 2008; Seto, Hanson & Babchishin, 2011; Wolak, Finkelhor & Mitchell, 2012). In a 

recent meta-analysis, Seto, Hanson and Babchishin (2011) reported that in a sample of 2,630 online offenders, 

4.6 percent recidivated sexually after an average follow-up period of four years. Likewise, of 983 online 

offenders, 4.2 percent recidivated with a violent offense. With respect to risk factors, Seto and Elke (2008) 

reviewed Canadian police fles of 282 child pornography offenders to examine sexual contact and predictors 

of recidivism; 10.3 percent of the sample sexually recidivated and 6.6 percent violently recidivated. Researchers 

reported substance abuse and criminal history predicted future contact sexual offenses; self-reported sexual 

interest in children, criminal history and substance use problems predicted future violent offending among 

child pornography offenders. 

Internet offender typologies: impulsivity/ 

curiosity, fueling sexual interests, 

accessing victims/disseminating 

images, seeking fnancial gain. 

Several typologies have been created to categorize internet offenders. In their review of internet offenders, 

Beech and colleagues (2008) summarized these typologies into four groups. The frst group consists of 

individuals who access pornographic images impulsively and/or out of curiosity. This group includes those who 

never exhibited sexual problems until they began using the internet (Delmonico & Griffn, 2008). The second 

group is composed of individuals who access or trade pornography to fuel their sexual interest in children 

(Beech et al., 2008). For these individuals, the internet facilitates an extension of an already-existing pattern 

of sexual deviance (Delmonico & Griffn, 2008). The third group consists of sexual offenders who use the 

internet as part of a pattern of offine contact offending, including those who use it to acquire victims and/or 

disseminate images that they produce (Beech et al., 2008; Delmonico & Griffn, 2008). The fourth group consists 

of individuals who download pornographic images for nonsexual reasons (e.g., fnancial gain). To date, studies 

have not examined the personality characteristics, criminogenic needs or risk factors of these offenders. In 

addition, it is not known if these offenders are pedophiles and whether they view pornographic images more 

than the general population (Quayle, 2004). 

A recent qualitative typology was proposed by Tener, Wolak and Finkelhhor (2015), identifying four types 

of internet offenders who use online communications to commit sex crimes against minors. The typology 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 69 

was derived from 75 case narratives described by law enforcement of offenders who met victims online or 

knew them and used the internet for communication. Data analysis identifed four dimensions of offense 

characteristics: patterns of online communication, online identities, nature of the relationship and levels of 

expertise (number of victims, child pornography involvement, sophistication of strategies and awareness 

of criminality) (Tener et al., 2015). The dimensions were summarized into four internet offender types on a 

continuum of level of crime expertise (high to low). 

The highest level of crime expertise, the experts, consists of sophisticated offenders who systematically procure 

victims. The experts utilize extensive planning, manipulation and techniques to procure victims. Likewise, they 

have the ability to use more than one strategy to achieve their goal of sex, for which they spend an extensive 

time refning. Expert offenders typically meet their victim(s) online and strategically manipulate them into 

a sexual relationship using a false identity. They sexually assault multiple victims (often hundreds) without 

emotional attachment; the expert type may offend alone or collaborate with others to acquire victims and/or 

to share porn. Indeed, pornography use (including production) is prevalent among this type. Expert offenders 

have explicit awareness of the criminality and use extreme methods to prevent detection. Thirty-two percent of 

the cases were classifed as the experts. 

Contrary to the experts, cynical offenders know their victims or, if they meet online, they fabricate or present 

true identities. Regardless, the online relationship usually progresses into physical meetings. Cynical offenders 

have less knowledge of offending, fewer skills, fewer victims (one typically) and spend less time manipulating 

than the expert offenders. In addition, their victim selection is based solely upon personal preference. Like 

expert offenders, sex is the goal and cynical offenders are not emotionally involved with the victim, are aware 

they are committing a sex crime and use pornography but the involvement is less extensive (Tener et al., 2015). 

The cynical type comprised 35 percent of the cases. 

Unlike expert and cynical offenders, attention-focused offenders meet victims online with the intention of 

developing a genuine relationship. As a result, they develop feelings for and become emotionally involved with 

a minor. Contrary to the other types, the attention-focus offender does not use manipulation. The offender and 

the victim are mutually interested in a sexual relationship, which may or may not include an awareness of the 

victim’s age (actual) and the criminality of the relationship. If the age is unknown and later revealed, attentionfocused offenders often continue with the relationship, even if it remains online only. Pornography is seldom 

involved in these cases. Twenty-one percent of cases were identifed as attention-focused. 

The sex-focused type of offender has the lowest level of crime expertise. The online communication in these 

cases originates on sex-oriented internet sites to arrange a physical, sexual encounter (Tener et al., 2015). 

Initially, the sex-focused type is not seeking sex with minors; instead, they are looking for immediate sexual 

interaction with adults. As such, no grooming or manipulation is involved; there is no planning; they present 

true identities; and the relationship is intentionally brief. Frequently, the sex-focused type inadvertently 

meets a minor online posing as an adult; they continue the sexual encounter after the victim’s age is revealed. 

From the beginning of the encounter, both parties are interested in immediate sexual gratifcation without 

emotional attachment. Tener and colleagues (2015) conceptualize this relationship as exchanges or deals. 

Twelve percent of cases were categorized as sex-focused. 

All of the 75 cases were considered sex crimes and resulted in arrests. Differences among the types of offenders 

who procure victims online are useful for understanding the heterogeneity of internet sexual offending for 

need-based intervention (Tener et al., 2015). 

For more on “Internet-Facilitated Sexual Offending,” see Chapter 4 in the Adult section. 
70 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Limitations of Traditional Typologies: Crossover Offending 

Traditional typologies rely on an offcial record and/or self-report data. Over 25 years of research (including 

victim and offender studies) have shown that only 1–3 percent of offenders’ self-admitted sexual offenses are 

identifed in offcial records (Abel et al., 1988; English et al., 2003; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; Tjaden & 

Thoennes, 2006). These studies reported a “crossover effect” of sex offenders admitting to multiple victims and 

offenses atypical of criminal classifcation. Specifcally, studies (e.g., Abel et al., 1988; English et al., 2000; Heil, 

Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; O’Connell, 1998) have shown that rapists often sexually assault children and incest 

offenders often sexually assault children both within and outside their family. These fndings are consistent 

among populations (e.g., community, prison, parole, probation) and methodologies (e.g., guaranteed 

confdentiality, polygraph testing). This section reviews the evidence of crossover offending, which challenges 

the validity of traditional sex offender typologies (those that are based on a known victim type). 

Crossover offending presents signifcant 

challenges to traditional sex offender typologies. 

Despite differences in location and supervision status of offenders, crossover offending has been reported 

in studies using guaranteed confdentiality, anonymous survey or treatment with polygraphy4 (Abel et al., 

1988; Emerick & Dutton, 1993; English et al., 2003; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; O’Connell, 1998; Simons, 

Heil & English, 2004; Weinrott & Saylor, 1991; Wilcox et al., 2005). The fndings indicate that offenders, on 

average, admit signifcantly more victims and offenses than are documented in offcial records. Using offcial 

record databases containing 1,345 incarcerated sexual offenders, Cann et al. (2007) found only 8 percent of 

offenders had assaulted both adults and children, 9 percent victimized males and females and 14 percent of 

incest offenders sexually abused children not related to them. Cann et al. (2007) attributed the low prevalence 

of crossover to the use of offcial records. Using polygraph testing combined with treatment, Heil, Ahlmeyer 

and Simons (2003) examined offense patterns of 223 incarcerated and 266 paroled sex offenders. This study 

found that the average number of victims reported in offcial records (two for incarcerated offenders and one 

for paroled offenders) increased to 18 and three, respectively, after polygraph testing. The average number 

of offenses reported in offcial records increased from 12 for incarcerated offenders and three for paroled 

offenders to 137 and 14 respectively, after polygraph testing. 

These studies have also demonstrated that male sexual offenders engage in crossover sexual offending at higher 

rates than reported in other studies (e.g., Guay et al., 2001; Marshall, Barbaree & Eccles, 1991; Smallbone & 

Wortley, 2004). Age crossover (i.e., victimizing both children and adults) ranged from 29 to 73 percent (Simons 

Heil & English, 2004; Wilcox et al., 2005). Of further interest is the high percentage of offcial record-identifed 

rapists who admit child sexual victimization. Studies have reported prevalence rates from 32 to as high as 64 

percent; the majority of studies found rates in the range of 50 to 60 percent (Abel & Osborn, 1992; English et 

al., 2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; O’Connell, 1998; Wilcox et al., 2005). With respect to gender crossover 

(i.e., victimizing both males and females), fndings have been relatively consistent and range from 20 to 43 

percent (Abel & Osborn, 1992; Elliott, Browne & Kilcoyne, 1995; English et al., 2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 

2003). The majority of offenders who assault males have also assaulted females (63–92 percent), but not the 

reverse (23–37 percent). With respect to relationship crossover, studies have shown that 64–66 percent of incest 

offenders report sexually assaulting children who they were not related to (Abel and Osborn, 1992; English et 

al., 2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003). 

Recent studies have found similar rates of crossover (referred to as polymorphism) using offcial records 

coupled with treatment and assessment fles. Using a combination of offcial record and treatment fles, 

Stephens et al. (2016) found 41 percent of 751 adult male sexual offenders did not exhibit stability in victim 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 71 

 

type (i.e., polymorphism). The most common type of polymorphism consisted of age (35 percent); 13 percent of 

offenders were gender polymorphic and 11 percent were relationship polymorphic. In addition, polymorphic 

offenders had a greater number of sexual assault victims. Although Stephens et al., found age and relationship 

crossover was associated with higher rates of sexual recidivism, the relationship was no longer signifcant after 

controlling for the number of victims. 

Sims and Proeve (2010) studied the prevalence and patterns of offending against more than one victim type 

and its relationship to risk of sexual recidivism. To avoid underestimation of sexual offending using offcial 

records, a victim was counted if there was a conviction, charge or arrest and the sample included only sexual 

offenders against children and adolescents with more than one victim. The prevalence rate for 128 sexual 

offenders who crossed over into at least one domain (i.e., age, gender, relationship) was 63 percent, a rate 

comparable to studies using guaranteed confdentiality, anonymous survey or treatment with polygraphy. In 

this study, 48 percent of sexual offenders reported adult and child victims, 22 percent sexually offended against 

both genders and 26 percent crossed over into the relationship domain. Sexual offenders who victimized both 

adult and child victims and crossed over in the relationship domain had more victims than those who did not 

crossover. Crossover was not associated with sexual recidivism rate or frequency of offending. With respect to 

victim type stability over time, repeat offending was not stable in the age domain; offenders with victims 5 years 

old or younger show the least stability (i.e., more likely to assault victims from different age categories). Offenders 

showed the most stability in the gender domain particularly whose index victim was female. 

Studies have also shown the rates of age crossover are higher when adolescents are included as a distinct age 

category (vs. adults and children) (Kleban et al., 2013). In their examination of crossover offending, Kleban et 

al. (2013) compared three age categories: adolescent victims’ ages ranged from 13 to 17 years old, child victims 

consisted of those under age 13 and adults were 18 years and older. Using archival records of 789 incarcerated 

offenders, this study examined the prevalence of crossover offending from three victim categories across 

three domains (age, gender and relationship). Kleban et al. (2013) also examined risk variables to determine 

which characteristics differentiate crossover offenders from offenders who have a stable offense history. 

Results indicated 35 percent of offenders had multiple victims at index offense and 26 percent of offenders 

were convicted of a previous sex crime. Of those with multiple victims at index crime, 13 percent sexually 

assaulted both genders; 14 percent had a conviction that included a combination of child, adult and 

adolescent victims; 13 percent had assaulted victims from multiple relationship categories. Of the repeated 

offenders, 21 percent offended against victims of both genders; 40 percent victimized a combination of adults, 

adolescents and children; and 48 percent assaulted victims from multiple relationships. Kleban et al. collapsed 

child and adolescent categories and found only 9 percent of offenders had victims from both age categories. 

When adolescents were excluded completely, only 5 percent of offenders crossed over from child to adult 

victim, which suggests examining crossover offending using broad categories of adult and child results in an 

underestimation of age crossover. Likewise, offenders were more likely to offend against adolescents and 

children rather than adults and children, suggesting victims should be classifed according to developmental 

characteristics not age. These fndings illustrate the importance of a comprehensive history for treatment and 

management decisions. 

Among female sexual offenders, Heil, Simons and Burton (2010) reported similar fndings with respect to 

offense patterns. Using polygraph testing, Simons and colleagues (2008) examined the offense patterns of 

incarcerated female sex offenders and female sex offenders who had been released in the community. The 

sample consisted of 74 incarcerated adult female sexual offenders and 22 female sexual offenders in the 

community who were under supervision at the Colorado Department of Corrections. All participants received 

cognitive-behavioral treatment. Offense patterns disclosed during treatment with polygraph testing revealed 

similar fndings to those of male offenders. Female sexual offenders reported more extensive offense patterns 

(i.e., number of victims and offenses, crossover offending) than otherwise indicated by their criminal history. 
72 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

 

Simons and colleagues (2008) demonstrated that the average number of victims — reported in offcial records 

as one for both incarcerated offenders and offenders in the community — increased to four and three, 

respectively, after polygraph testing. The average number of offenses increased from 33 for incarcerated 

offenders and fve for offenders in the community to 44 and 13, respectively. In comparison to female sexual 

offenders in the community, incarcerated female sexual offenders reported signifcantly more offenses, but 

these groups were comparable in the number of victims. After polygraph testing, 21 percent of incarcerated 

females and 11 percent of female offenders in the community reported age crossover (i.e., offending against 

children and adults). Both incarcerated offenders (30 percent) and those in the community (21 percent) 

disclosed relationship crossover (i.e., offending against individuals from more than one relationship). This 

study indicates that female sexual offense patterns may be less extensive than those of male sexual offenders. 

Nonetheless, this research indicates that female offenders report poor sexual boundaries regarding illegal 

behaviors and they also disclose legal, but sexually problematic, behaviors. In addition, female offenders were 

more likely to co-offend than male offenders. Based on polygraph testing, these co-offenses were seldom 

coercive and the majority of women sexually assaulted alone either before or after the co-offense. 

Polygraph testing has also recently been used to distinguish internet offenders who commit “hands-on” child 

sexual assault from those who do not attempt physical sexual contact. Some internet sex offenders do not 

attempt physical contact or engage in hands-on sexual offending (e.g., Surjadi et al., 2010; Quayle & Taylor, 

2003; Webb, Craissati & Keen, 2007). This classifcation is important because those individuals who view or 

download child abuse images but do not have inappropriate contact with children may not pose a direct 

threat. A recent meta-analysis examined the prevalence of child sexual abuse among internet offenders. Seto, 

Hanson and Babchishin (2011) reviewed 24 studies and found that 12.5 percent of internet offenders engaged in 

contact sexual offending as indicated by offcial records; however, this rate increased to approximately 50 percent 

using self-report. In this meta-analysis, only one study used polygraph testing to verify the self-report. Bourke and 

Hernandez (2009) demonstrated signifcant increases in the number of previously undisclosed victims, offenses 

and paraphilic interests when self-report is corroborated through polygraph examination. Using polygraph 

testing, these researchers examined the prevalence of hands-on sexual offending among 155 internet child 

pornography offenders. Prior to testing, 74 percent (n = 115) of the internet offenders had no known sexual 

contact with children. After polygraph examination, 85 percent of 155 (n = 132) offenders disclosed handson sexual abuse. These fndings suggest that crossover to hands-on offending may be more prevalent among 

internet offenders and further support the use of the polygraph to classify offenders. However, additional 

research is needed in this area due to the limitations of this study. The sample consisted of volunteers and the 

majority reported hands-on offenses prior to internet pornography use. Future research should differentiate 

between those who view pornography and later commit sexual abuse from those who use pornography as 

a supplement to or a substitute for sexual contact. (For more on “Internet-Facilitated Sexual Offending,” see 

Chapter 4 in the Adult section.) 

Taken together, crossover fndings suggest that traditional typologies based on victim type may not be useful 

to allocate resources, evaluate risk or devise individualized treatment interventions. Although crossover 

fndings have been reported in numerous studies using different methodologies, some suggest that the 

prevalence of age crossover or multiple paraphilias is overstated, particularly in studies that use polygraph 

testing. Kokish, Levenson and Blasingame (2005) report that 5 percent of individuals stated that they provided 

false admissions in response to a deceptive result on a polygraph exam. In addition, Marshall (2007) contends 

that very few sexual offenders commit more than one type of offense. 

Accurate self-reporting of victim and offense information remains critical for risk assessment. For example, risk 

assessment instruments are derived from research demonstrating intrafamilial child sexual abusers present a 

lower risk of reoffense than extrafamilial offenders (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998); as such, incest offenders are 

more likely to be assigned as lower risk, consequently receiving less treatment services and supervision. Indeed, 

crossover research suggests legislative decisions based upon index crime may underestimate an offender’s 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 73 

risk level (Kleban et al., 2013). However, the relationship between crossover offending and recidivism are 

not conclusive. Cann et al. (2007) found crossover offenders scored higher on risk assessment than offenders 

reporting one victim type; yet Kleban et al. (2013) failed to fnd a relationship between crossover and sexual 

recidivism risk. Studies are more likely to fnd a relationship if age crossover is examined. Harris, Knight, 

Smallbone and Dennison (2011) found crossover offenders were more likely to sexually recidivate compared 

to offenders who assault children only; offenders whose victims are adults and incest offenders. In this study, 

crossover offenders violently recidivated comparably to offenders who assault adults exclusively. After a 15-year 

follow-up, Parent, Guay and Knight (2011) found offenders who assaulted children and adults (43 percent) 

reoffended more frequently and sooner than child sexual abusers (3 percent) and rapists (19 percent). Findings 

from a study conducted by Stephens et al. (2016) indicate number of victims explains the relationship between 

age crossover and sexual recidivism. 

According to Gannon, Beech and Ward (2008), when offense crossover is disclosed, assigned risk level increases 

because child sexual abuse of males (i.e., gender crossover), impulsivity and regulation defcits (as suggested 

by age crossover), and stranger victims (i.e., relationship crossover) are shown to be signifcantly associated 

with sexual recidivism (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004; Stephens et al., 2016). Likewise, Levenson, Becker 

and Morin (2008) emphasize the importance of understanding crossover offending patterns to enhance safety 

planning for the offenders and the community. To address the issue of heterogeneity and crossover offending 

with respect to offender typologies, researchers (e.g., Robertiello & Terry, 2007) have suggested that the best 

way to regard typologies is as a continuum rather than discrete categorizations, and they emphasize the 

importance of classifying offenders based on offense characteristics that have been shown to be related to 

recidivism. 

Recent Advances in the Development of Sexual Offense Patterns 

Recent models of the sexual offense process have been devised to include etiological theories of sexual 

offending and treatment-relevant factors. Assessment, classifcation and treatment should be formulated from 

rehabilitation theories, which are integrative practice frameworks that contain elements of etiology, ethics 

and research (Ward, Yates & Willis, 2011). They are based on clusters of behaviors and psychological processes 

to account for the heterogeneity of offending. The heterogeneity of traits, experiences and criminal history 

of sexual offenders requires more advanced methods of categorizing offense behaviors (Martinez-Catena et 

al., 2016). The most promising are the developmental pathways of sexual offending model, the self-regulation 

model and the specialist vs. generalist model. These models take into account problematic behaviors, distorted 

thought processes and offense histories. Developmental factors have been shown to be predictive of high-risk 

sexual behaviors, treatment failure, and dynamic risk (Craissati & Beech, 2006), and the self-regulation model 

has been shown to be associated with static and dynamic risk for reoffense (Yates & Kingston, 2006; Simons 

et al., 2009). The generalist theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirshi, 1990) has also been examined in sexual 

offender research (e.g., Lussier, Proulx & LeBlanc, 2005). Similar to crossover fndings, studies have shown 

that few sexual offenders “specialize” in sexual offending (Harris, Mazerolle & Knight, 2009; Lussier, Proulx 

& LeBlanc, 2005). Specialization has been associated with child sexual abusers who sexually prefer children, 

while rape has been associated with criminal versatility (Harris, Mazerolle & Knight, 2009). This section reviews 

models that may ultimately replace traditional typologies to inform treatment and management of sexual 

offenders. (For more on “Sex Offender Management Strategies,” see Chapter 8 in the Adult section.) 

The interaction of biological and 

social learning factors infuences the 

development of sexual offending. 
74 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Developmental Histories of Sexual Offenders 

Due to advanced statistical methods that evaluate the unique and combined contributions of risk factors, more 

comprehensive descriptions of the psychological processes, developmental histories and offense patterns have 

been devised to explain sexual deviance. Although they are not described as typologies, they have been shown 

to be related to different trajectories of offending and they are able to identify criminogenic needs, which 

have been shown to be predictive of sexual recidivism (Craissati & Beech, 2006; Martinez-Catena et al., 2016). 

Etiological research has suggested that it is the interaction of biological and social learning factors that 

infuences the development of sexual offending behaviors (Ward & Beech, 2008). Researchers explain that 

genetic factors may predispose an individual to pursue a specifc human need (e.g., sex or intimacy), but it 

is the environmental experiences that provide the methods through which these needs are met — either 

appropriately through the development of relationships or inappropriately through the use of violence (Ward 

& Beech, 2008). Negative developmental experiences fgure prominently in many models of sexual offending 

behavior. 

In a recent study of 614 incarcerated sexual offenders, childhood emotional abuse and neglect predicted sexual 

victimization and later sexual offending behavior (Jennings, Zgoba, Maschi & Reingle, 2014). In comparison to 

the general population, incarcerated sexual offenders were more than three times as likely to report sexual 

abuse during childhood, two times as likely to experience physical abuse, 13 times as likely to experience 

emotional abuse and more than four times as likely to experience neglect (Levenson, Willis & Prescott, 2016). 

These individuals were found to be at increased risk for substance abuse and for criminal diversity (Levenson & 

Socia, 2015). 

Indeed, a recent meta-analysis has confrmed the association between the experience of sexual abuse and 

subsequent sexual offending against children (Jespersen, Lalumiere & Seto, 2009). Yet, not all sexual offenders 

report being sexually victimized during childhood. Research fndings indicate that there may not be only one 

type of abuse that serves as a developmental risk factor for later sexual offending. Instead, multiple types of 

abusive experiences, or a pathological family environment, may precede offending behaviors (Dube et al., 

2001). Researchers have also suggested that different types of maltreatment may be associated with different 

types of sexual offending behaviors (e.g., Lee et al., 2002; Simons, Wurtele & Heil, 2002). This section reviews 

the current research fndings that compare the developmental risk factors of various offender characteristics. 

Child Sexual Abusers 

Researchers have found that child sexual abusers exhibited heightened sexuality in childhood. Meta-analysis 

results indicate that juveniles who commit sexual offenses were more likely than nonsex offenders to have 

been exposed to sexual violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect (Jespersen, Lalumiere & Seto, 

2009). Within the adult sex offender population, Simons, Wurtele and Durham (2004) found that child 

sexual abusers, as compared to rapists, reported more experiences of child sexual abuse, early exposure to 

pornography, sexual activities with animals and an earlier onset of masturbation. 

Rapists 

In contrast, the childhood histories of rapists appear more indicative of violence. Simons, Wurtele and Durham 

(2004) found that rapists, when compared to child sexual abusers, reported more frequent experiences of 

physical abuse, parental violence, emotional abuse and cruelty to animals. Researchers contend that physical 

abuse, parental violence and emotional abuse result in externalizing behaviors only when they are considered 

in combination (Lee et al., 2002; McGee, Wolfe & Wilson, 1997). As an illustration, Beauregard, Lussier and 

Proulx (2004) found that physical and verbal abuse during childhood led to antisocial behavior and callous 

personality traits, both of which led to aggressive sexual fantasies. Likewise, Salter and colleagues (2003) 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 75 

indicate that the combination of physical violence, domestic violence, emotional abuse and neglect predicted 

subsequent sexual offending. In a prospective study of childhood abuse histories, Widom and Massey (2014) 

reported individuals who experienced physical abuse and neglect (but not sexual abuse) were at signifcantly 

increased risk for arrest for sexual offenses in comparison to those who did not experience abuse. Researchers 

(e.g., Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002a) explain that an individual who has been raised in an emotionally 

impoverished environment is often unable to identify his emotions in an accurate manner and, as a result, is 

likely to become confused when confronted with emotionally charged situations. These individuals often react 

to confusing situations with overt aggression. 

Rapists, when compared to child sexual abusers, 

reported more frequent experiences of physical 

abuse, parental violence and emotional abuse. 

Crossover Offenders 

In studies that examined the developmental risk factors of crossover offenders or indiscriminate offenders 

(e.g., Heil & Simons, 2008; Simons, Tyler & Heil, 2005), fndings indicate that indiscriminate offenders report 

childhood histories of both violence and heightened sexuality. Indiscriminate offenders, also known as mixed 

offenders, report sexually abusing both adults and children equivalently. With respect to heightened sexuality, 

Simons, Tyler and Heil (2005) found that indiscriminate offenders were less likely than child sexual abusers to 

be sexually abused, but they were more likely to report early sexual experiences with peers (before age 10), 

to have witnessed sexual abuse as a child, and to have had more frequent exposure to pornography before 

age 10. Similar to child sexual abusers (i.e., 62 percent), 58 percent of indiscriminate offenders reported an 

early onset (before age 11) and high frequency of masturbation. A great majority of indiscriminate offenders 

(81 percent) disclosed engaging in bestiality during childhood in comparison to fewer child sexual abusers 

(59 percent) and rapists (30 percent). With respect to childhood violence, both indiscriminate offenders and 

rapists described childhood experiences consistent with physical and emotional abuse. However, indiscriminate 

offenders were exposed to domestic violence signifcantly more frequently than rapists. Results indicated that 

parental violence and bestiality were strong predictors of crossover offending. 

Female Sexual Offenders 

Similar to indiscriminate offenders (of both genders), the majority of female sexual offenders report both 

violent and sexualized childhoods (Heil, Simons & Burton, 2010). Of a subsample of 42 female sexual offenders, 

Simons and colleagues (2008) reported that the majority (81 percent) had been sexually abused by multiple 

perpetrators at a young age with high frequency. Female offenders masturbated later than male offenders 

(i.e., during adolescence instead of childhood) and with less frequency, but like male offenders who abuse 

children, they are more likely to masturbate to their abuse experiences and report masturbation to deviant 

fantasies during adolescence. Likewise, many female offenders were exposed to pornography before age 10, 

but early exposure is signifcantly more prevalent among male sexual offenders. Similar to male offenders, 

females report engaging in bestiality during adolescence, but the prevalence rates for females are signifcantly 

lower than for child sexual abusers and indiscriminate offenders of both genders. Similar to indiscriminate 

offenders, Simons and colleagues (2008) also found that the majority of female sexual offenders reported 

physical abuse, emotional abuse and witnessing of domestic violence. Although the frequency of physical 

abuse among female sexual offenders was less than for males, females were more likely to be abused by both 

male and female perpetrators. Yet, female sexual offenders were more likely than male offenders to report 

witnessing violence perpetrated by a female; male rapists and indiscriminate offenders more often witnessed 

violence by a male perpetrator. 
76 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Similar fndings were reported among 47 female sexual offenders assessed on a childhood experiences measure 

by Levenson, Willis and Prescott (2015). Compared to the general population, female sexual offenders had 

more than three times the odds of being sexually abused; four times the odds of experiencing verbal abuse; 

and more than three times the odds of neglect and having an incarcerated family member. Female sexual 

offenders experienced multiple adverse childhood experiences consisting of sexual abuse, neglect, verbal abuse 

and substance abuse in the home, which was associated with having younger victims. These fndings emphasize 

the importance of trauma-informed care with female sexual offenders. 

Attachment 

In addition to childhood abuse, the majority of sexual offenders (93 percent) exhibited insecure attachment 

(Marsa et al., 2004). According to researchers, childhood adversities may result in the failure to establish 

secure attachment bonds to parents (Cicchetti & Lynch, 1995). Marshall (1993) contends that the failure of sex 

offenders to develop secure attachment bonds in childhood results in their failure to develop suffcient social 

skills and self-esteem necessary to achieve intimacy with adults. Recent models of sexual deviance suggest that 

poor parental bonding enhances the effects of child maltreatment and may subsequently initiate the processes 

that lead to sexual offending by creating vulnerability in the child (Marshall & Marshall, 2000), a lack of 

empathy for others (Craissati, McClurg & Browne, 2002b), or intimacy defcits (Ward et al., 1995). 

Poor parental bonding enhances the effects 

of child maltreatment and may contribute to 

sexual offending by creating vulnerability, 

a lack of empathy and intimacy defcits. 

Early attachment research recognized four patterns of attachment: secure attachments that develop when 

caregivers are consistently responsive to their child’s needs; insecure-ambivalent (anxious) attachments that 

develop when caregivers respond inconsistently to the needs of their child; insecure-avoidant attachments 

that develop when caregivers are consistently unresponsive to their child’s needs; and insecure-disorganized 

attachment, a category established to describe children who fail to demonstrate a coherent pattern of 

response to parental separation (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). Recently, attachment style has been associated 

with different types of offending. Rapists have been shown to exhibit avoidant parental attachments, whereas 

child sexual abusers display anxious or ambivalent attachment (Simons & Tyler, 2010; Simons, Wurtele & 

Durham, 2008; Ward et al., 1995). Studies have found that indiscriminate and female offenders were more 

likely to exhibit disorganized attachment (Simons, Tyler & Heil, 2005; Simons, Wurtele & Durham, 2008). 

Maniglio (2012) summarized the infuence of attachment on sexual offending behavior. A sexual offender’s 

insecure attachment style during childhood affects the development of social skills and self-confdence, 

which in turn, prevents initiation or maintenance of intimate relationships during adulthood. Instead, sexual 

offenders may use deviant sexual fantasies as a means to achieve intimacy, power and control, absent of reality. 

Maniglio (2012) explains deviant fantasy as a means to achieve intimacy or autonomy creates a disposition 

to sexually offend. Likewise, in their recent meta-analysis comparing intrafamilial to extrafamilial offenders, 

Seto et al. (2015) found that family abuse and poor attachment played an important role in the etiology of 

intrafamilial sexual offending. This fnding confrms family dysfunction as an important etiological factor in 

sexual offending. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 77 

Etiological Theory 

Taken together, these fndings support Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) integrated theory of sexual offending, 

which postulates that individuals who experienced child maltreatment are likely to exhibit distorted internal 

working models of relationships, which result in poor social skills and emotional self-regulation. The lack of 

social skills, especially during adolescence, is likely to result in rejection by others, which in turn will decrease 

self-esteem, increase anger and produce cognitive distortions about peers and relationships. Negative emotions 

combined with cognitive distortions may increase the intensity of sexual desire and deviant sexual fantasies 

(e.g., those about children, whom they perceive as less threatening). Masturbation to these fantasies may 

serve as a coping mechanism from stress, as a means to exert control, and ultimately, as a behavioral rehearsal 

to sexual offending. These developmental factors interact with disinhibiting factors (e.g., intoxication, 

stress, negative affect) and the presence of a potential victim to impair an individual’s ability to control their 

behaviors, which in turn may result in a sexual offense. The emotional and psychological reinforcement of 

the behavior may be approach oriented (i.e., to achieve a goal directly) or avoidant oriented (i.e., to avoid an 

unpleasant result). The actual sexual offense combined with cognitive distortions serves to maintain sexual 

offending behaviors. 

The assessment of developmental risk factors is important to determine the criminogenic needs of the 

individual offender; the assessment also contributes to static predicting (Craissati & Beech, 2006). Consistent 

with Marshall and Barbaree’s (1990) integrated theory of sexual offending, bestiality and masturbation to 

abuse experiences contribute to the development of deviant sexual interest and frequent masturbation 

suggests problems with emotional self-regulation. Frequent masturbation coupled with frequent pornography 

use increases the likelihood of sexual compulsivity. Sexualized coping often serves as a means of meeting needs 

of intimacy and control (Grady, Levenson & Bolder, 2016). Likewise, insecure attachments suggest intimacy 

defcits, empathy defcits, antisocial lifestyle and social diffculties. Violence in the home has been shown 

to be predictive of antisocial lifestyle, hostile attitudes toward women, emotional callousness and hostile 

masculinity (Malamuth et al., 1991), all of which suggest pro-offending attitudes toward rape. In addition to 

diffculties with self-regulation, a heightened sexual childhood may lead to the development of child sexual 

abuse-supportive beliefs (e.g., sexual entitlement, sex with a child is benefcial). As summarized by Craissati 

and Beech (2006), developmental experiences (sexual and violent experiences and insecure attachment) predict 

dynamic risk that, when combined with static markers (e.g., male victims, single status), increase the likelihood 

of reoffense. 

Self-Regulation Model 

Ward and Hudson (1998, 2000) developed a nine-stage model of the sex offense process, which takes into 

account the heterogeneity of sexual offending. The self-regulation model (SRM) summarizes the offense 

process by examining situational precipitants (e.g., desire for deviant sex), cognitive distortions (whether 

entrenched or function to justify the offense), degree of control over behavior (i.e., impulsiveness or extensive 

planning), evaluation of sexual assault after the offense and attitude with respect to future offending (positive 

or negative). SRM contends that individuals are goal-directed as sexual abusers and offend to achieve a desired 

state — either to satisfy or to avoid offending. 

This model proposes that four pathways lead to sexual offending. Two pathways characterize offenders who 

attempt to avoid offending (avoidance oriented) but do not have adequate strategies (i.e., they have either 

underregulation or misregulation of self-control) to avoid the undesired behavior (the sexual offense). The 

two remaining pathways characterize individuals who seek to achieve goals associated with sexual offending 

(approach oriented) and experience positive feelings as a result. These approach-oriented individuals vary with 

respect to self-regulation; some of them exhibit defcient self-regulation (i.e., impulsivity), whereas others 
78 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

display intact, effective self-regulation. Thus, the assessment of SRM offense pathways depends on whether the 

offender attempted to avoid (indirect) or to engage (direct) in the sexual offense, the ability to self-regulate 

(underregulation, misregulation, effective regulation) and the degree of awareness associated with the sexual 

offense (implicit or explicit). 

The avoidant-passive pathway consists of an offender who attempts to prevent offending (indirect route) but 

does not have the ability or awareness to prevent the offense (underregulation, implicit awareness). Similarly, 

the avoidant-active pathway is characterized by the desire to avoid offending (indirect), but the offender uses 

counterproductive strategies to control deviant thoughts and fantasies (misregulation, explicit awareness). 

For example, an individual who follows the avoidant-active pathway masturbates to deviant fantasies as an 

alternative to acting on these fantasies, but this behavior inadvertently increases his/her likelihood to offend. 

In contrast, the approach-automatic pathway is characterized by the impulsive desire to sexually offend and 

assault (direct route). Indeed, approach-automatic pathway offenders fail to control their behavior as they 

respond to situational cues on the basis of well-entrenched cognitive-behavioral scripts that support sexual 

offending. Individuals on the approach-explicit pathway desire to sexually offend (direct), but they carefully 

plan their offenses (effective regulation, explicit). Individuals on the approach pathways experience positive 

emotional states from offending; cognitive dissonance is absent. These offenders do not experience an internal 

confict after the offense because they achieved their goal to sexually offend. 

Research on SRM supports the validity of the model and its use in classifcation and treatment. Specifcally, SRM 

pathways have been shown to differentiate offense characteristics and static and dynamic risk. With respect to 

offense pathways, incest offenders have been shown to follow the avoidant-passive pathway (Bickley & Beech, 

2002, 2003). Rapists are more likely to follow the approach-automatic pathway because their goal is to offend, 

but they offend impulsively to situational cues (Yates, Kingston & Hall, 2003). Child sexual abusers who offend 

against male victims are more likely to follow the approach-explicit pathway (Simons & Tyler, 2010). Their 

goal is to offend and they carefully plan their offenses by establishing relationships with their victims. The 

indiscriminate (or crossover) offenders who sexually assault both children and adults of both genders and from 

multiple relationships are more likely to follow the approach-automatic pathway (Simons, McCullar & Tyler, 

2008; Simons & Tyler, 2010). 

Specialist vs. Generalist Model 

The specialist vs. generalist model is another theory that explains the sexual offense process, taking into 

account the risk and needs of offenders. Although the implicit assumptions about sexual offenders are that 

they engage in distinct types of crimes and differ signifcantly from nonsexual offenders, some sexual offenders 

have been shown to be more versatile in their criminal behaviors and to share attributes with nonsexual 

offenders. (Lussier, Proulx & LeBlanc, 2005). According to this model, sexual offenders may be characterized as 

specialists who commit sexual crimes persistently or as generalists who do not restrict themselves to one type 

of crime; they commit different crimes over time (Lussier, 2005). 

One of the assumptions of the traditional explanatory models of sex offending (i.e., the specialist) is that 

offenders who sexually abuse children engage in sexual offending exclusively. This model has been shown to 

have a distinct etiology — specifcally, a history of childhood sexual abuse (Burton, 2003; Marshall & Marshall, 

2000). As previously discussed, developmental studies have demonstrated the association between childhood 

sexual experiences and sexual abuse of children (Jespersen, Lalumiere & Seto, 2009). Child sexual abusers who 

are specialists are more likely than generalists to exhibit sexual deviance and sexual preoccupation and to have 

an emotional congruence with children (Groth, 1979; Harris, Mazerolle & Knight, 2009; Laws & Marshall, 1990). 

Similar to rapists, generalist (versatile) offenders resemble violent nonsexual offenders (Craissati, 2005; 

Langstrom, Sjostedt & Grann, 2004; Simon, 2000). The generalist theory contends that offenders participate in 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 79 

a broad array of activities that are manifestations of low self-control and impulsivity, such as excessive alcohol 

use, unprotected sex and reckless driving (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Hanson (2002) concluded that, in 

addition to sexual deviance, variables such as low self-control, criminal lifestyle, impulsivity and opportunity 

are important factors associated with sexual offending. Sexual offenders (the majority of rapists and a subset 

of child sexual abusers) have demonstrated substance abuse and relationship problems, antisocial behavior in 

adolescence, employment instability and evidence of psychopathy (Harris, Mazerolle & Knight, 2009; Lussier, 

Proulx & LeBlanc, 2005). 

Lussier, Proulx and LeBlanc (2005) examined whether sexual offending among 388 convicted sexual offenders 

could be explained by a generalist theory of crime using structural equation modeling. They reported 

differences among child sexual abusers and rapists and concluded that, similar to traditional typologies, the 

offense patterns of rapists were versatile and that rapists displayed extensive antisocial tendencies. In contrast, 

child sexual abusers were more likely than rapists to specialize in sexual offending. 

Harris, Mazerolle and Knight (2009) examined 374 male sexual offenders to compare these models of sexual 

offending. The researchers found that the majority of sexual offenders followed the generalist model. Rapists 

and child sexual abusers exhibited extensive criminal histories, substance abuse issues, antisocial tendencies 

and psychosis. In addition, few rapists specialized in sexual crimes. Those who did specialize in sexual crimes 

were more likely to exhibit characteristics similar to child sexual abusers, such as sexual deviance and sexual 

preoccupation. As Lussier, Proulx and LeBlanc (2005) found, the specialist model was evident in child sexual 

abusers. Child sexual abusers assessed as specialists were more likely than nonspecialists to know the victim, 

exhibit sexual preoccupation and display emotional congruence with children. 

Francis, Harris, Wallace, Knight and Soothill (2013) examined the life course of 780 sexual offenders in civil 

commitment treatment between 1959 and 1984. Specifcally, this study investigated distinct trajectories 

of offending, comparing generalist crime to specialist crime. Results identifed four trajectories to sexual 

offending, which varied according to offense pattern. Differences were found with respect to criminal onset, 

length of criminal career, age of peak offending and time of entry into treatment. Overall, late onset was 

associated with child sexual abuse and early onset (younger) was associated with rape. Likewise, fndings 

indicated sexual offending began later than nonsexual offending and three out of four groups exhibited a 

decrease in frequency with age. Two groups (low-rate and high-rate limited) offended at an earlier age than 

the other groups (low-rate persistent and high-rate persistent). Low-rate persistent offenders (56 percent of 

the sample) began offending during late teens and offended less than once per year with the highest point 

in their 30s. This group was equally as likely to commit rape as child sexual abuse. High-rate limited offenders 

(24 percent) exhibited an earlier age of onset and offended most frequently (average twice per year) during 

their late 20s. This group consisted mostly of rapists. This trajectory was consistent with the generalist pattern 

and the decline in offending occurred during their 50s. The third group or high-rate accelerators (12 percent) 

began offending during their 20s and their offending increased until mid-40s; this group consisted primarily of 

child sexual abusers. The fourth group was classifed as late onset accelerators (8 percent). They began sexual 

offending during their late 20s and the offending behaviors increased to its peak during their mid-50s. The 

majority of these offenders sexually assaulted relatives (i.e., incest offenders). Taken together, fndings indicate 

there are distinct trajectories of offending based upon onset, frequency and persistence. 

These fndings are consistent with many traditional typologies of rapists and child sexual abusers; however, 

the results suggest that the generalist vs. specialist model is a better way to assess sexual offenders, regardless 

of victim type. Future research in this area is needed to further identify factors that characterize specialist 

offenders from generalist offenders. 
80 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Summary 

The prevention of sexual violence requires a balance of community safety with effective resource allocation. 

Current research emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive approach to sex offender typologies, through 

the assessment of criminogenic needs (dynamic risk) and offense patterns, not based upon the type of victim 

exclusively (Martinez-Catena et al., 2016). Recent advances in our knowledge of developmental risk factors 

and offense pathways can assist with risk and need evaluation, but additional research is needed to develop 

more extensive models to explain sexual deviance. Nonetheless, through a comprehensive understanding of 

treatment needs and subsequent effective intervention, an offender can attend to the process, learn skills and 

alternative strategies to sexual violence and, ultimately, strive to live a healthy lifestyle without offending. 

Advances in developmental risk factors and 

offense pathways can assist with risk and 

need evaluation, but additional research is 

needed to develop models of sexual deviance. 

Notes 

1. MTC: CM3 contains two axes that assess psychological issues, abuse behaviors and the degree of sexual 

fxation. Axis I includes fxation, or the degree of pedophilic interest and the degree of social competence. 

Axis II includes the amount of contact with the child (low or high), the meaning of high contact (either 

interpersonal or narcissistic), the level of physical injury for low contact and whether the injuries were sadistic 

or nonsadistic. Although this typology has been validated in several studies, it has not demonstrated clinical 

utility with respect to recidivism or treatment (Camilleri & Quinsey, 2008). MTC: R3 includes nine subtypes 

that differentiate rapists by motivation, impulsivity, criminality and social competence. Rapists are classifed 

as opportunistic (with high or low social competence), pervasively angry, sadistic (overt or muted), sexual 

nonsadistic (also with high or low social competence) and vindictive (with high or low social competence). 

Studies have failed to classify rapists according to these nine subtypes without refnement (Barbaree et al., 

1994). 

2. Hanson and Bussiere (1998) conducted a meta-analysis based on 61 studies for a total sample of 28,972 sexual 

offenders. (A meta-analysis combines the results of many evaluations into one large study with many subjects.) 

With respect to sexual recidivism, the total sample consisted of 23,393 sexual offenders (including 1,839 rapists 

and 9,603 child sexual abusers whose recidivism rates were compared). The recidivism rate for rapists was 

signifcantly higher (18.9 percent) in comparison to child sexual abusers (12.7 percent). 

3. Note these recidivism measures exceed 100 percent as 27 of the 61 studies included in the meta-analysis 

included multiple indexes of recidivism. 

4. The use of polygraphs is controversial. See the “Polygraph” Section of Chapter 8: “Sex Offender 

Management Strategies,” in the Adult section. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 81 

References 

Abel, G.G., Becker, J.V., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Mittelman, M.S. & Rouleau, J.L. (1988). Multiple paraphilic 

diagnoses among sex offenders. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16, 153–168. 

Abel, G.G., Becker, J.V., Murphy, W.D. & Flanagan, B. (1981). Identifying dangerous child molesters. In R.B. 

Stewart (Ed.), Violent Behavior: Social Learning Approaches to Prediction, Management, and Treatment (pp. 53–63). 

New York: Plenum Press. 

Abel, G.G. & Osborn, C.A. (1992). The paraphilias: The extent and nature of sexually deviant and criminal 

behavior. In J.M.W. Bradford (Ed.), Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15 (pp. 675–687). Philadelphia, PA: W.B. 

Saunders Company. 

Ainsworth, M.D.S. & Bowlby, J. (1991). An etiological approach to personality development. American 

Psychologist, 46, 333–342. 

Allen, C. (1991). Women and Men Who Sexually Abuse Children: A Comparative Analysis. Orwell, VT: Safer 

Society Press. 

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. revised. 

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. 

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2003). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 3d ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 

Barbaree, H.E., Seto, M.C., Serin, R.C., Amos, N.L. & Preston, D.L. (1994). Comparisons between sexual and 

nonsexual rapist subtypes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 95–114. 

Bard, L., Carter, D., Cerce, D., Knight, R.A., Rosenberg, R. & Schneider, B. (1987). A descriptive study of rapists 

and child molesters: Developmental, clinical, and criminal characteristics. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 

203–220. 

Beauregard, E., Lussier, P. & Proulx, J. (2004). An exploration of developmental factors related to deviant sexual 

preferences among adult rapists. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 151–161. 

Beech, A.R., Elliot, I.A., Birgden, A. & Findlater, D. (2008). The Internet and child sexual offending: A 

criminological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 216–228. 

Bickley, J.A. & Beech, A.R. (2002). An investigation of the Ward and Hudson pathways model of the sexual 

offense process with child abusers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 371–393. 

Bickley, J.A. & Beech, A.R. (2003). Implications for treatment of sexual offenders of the Ward and Hudson 

model of relapse. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 121–134. 

Bourke, M.L. & Hernandez, M.L. (2009). The Butner study redux: A report of the incidence of hands-on child 

victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 183–191. 

Bruinsma, F. (1995). Immediate assessment of adolescent sex offenders seen at the police station. International 

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 39, 306–317. 
82 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Burton, D.L. (2003). Male adolescents: Sexual victimization and subsequent sexual abuse. Child & Adolescent 

Social Work Journal, 20, 277–296. 

Camilleri, J.A. & Quinsey, V.L. (2008). Pedophilia: Assessment and treatment. In D.R. Laws & W. O’Donohue 

(Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment, vol. 2 (pp. 183–212). New York: Guilford Press. 

Cann, J., Friendship, C. & Gozna, L. (2007). Assessing crossover in a sample of sexual offenders with multiple 

victims. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 149–163. 

Cicchetti, D. & Lynch, M. (1995). Failures in the expectable environment and their impact on individual 

development: The case of child maltreatment. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental 

Psychopathology, Volume 2: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation (pp. 32–71). New York: John Wiley. 

Conte, J.R. (1991). The nature of sexual offences against children. In C.R. Hollin & K. Howells (Eds.), Clinical 

Approaches to Sex Offenders and Their Victims. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons. 

Cortoni, F. & Hanson, R.K. (2001). Sex as a coping strategy and its relationship to juvenile sexual history and 

intimacy in sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 8, 27–43. 

Cortoni, F. & Hanson, R.K. (2005). A Review of the Recidivism Rates of Adult Female Sexual Offenders. Research 

Report 2005 No. R-169. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada, Research Branch. 

Cortoni, F., Sandler, J.C. & Freeman, N.J. (2014). Women convicted of promoting prostitution of a minor are 

different from women convicted of traditional sexual offenses A brief research report. Sexual abuse: A Journal 

of Research and Treatment, 27, 324–334. 

Craissati, J. (2005). Sexual violence against women: A psychological approach to the assessment and 

management of rapists in the community. Probation Journal: The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 

52, 401–422. 

Craissati, J. & Beech, A.R. (2006). The role of key developmental variables in identifying sex offenders likely to 

fail in the community: An enhanced risk prediction model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 327–339. 

Craissati, J., McClurg, G. & Browne, K. (2002a). Characteristics of perpetrators of child sexual abuse who have 

been sexually victimized as children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 225–239. 

Craissati, J., McClurg, G. & Browne, K. (2002b). The parental bonding experiences of sex offenders: A 

comparison between child molesters and rapists. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 909–921. 

Delmonico, D.L. & Griffn, E.J. (2008). Online sex offending: Assessment and treatment. In D.R. Laws & W. 

O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment, vol. 2 (pp. 459–485). New York: 

Guilford Press. 

Dube, S.R., Anda, R.F., Felitti, V.J., Croft, J.B., Edwards, V.J. & Giles, W.H. (2001). Growing up with parental 

alcohol abuse: Exposure to childhood abuse, neglect and household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 

1627–1640. 

Elliott, M., Browne, K. & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse 

& Neglect, 19, 579–594. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 83 

Emerick, R.L. & Dutton, W.A. (1993). The effect of polygraphy on the self-report of adolescent sex offenders: 

Implications for risk assessment. Annals of Sex Research, 6, 83–103. 

English, K. (2007). The containment approach to managing sex offenders. In R.G. Wright (Ed.), Sex Offender 

Laws: Failed Policies, New Directions (pp. 427–448). New York: Springer Publishing Inc. 

English, K., Jones, L., Pasini-Hill, D., Patrick, D. & Cooley-Towell, S. (2000). The Value of Polygraph Testing in 

Sex Offender Management. Final research report submitted to the National Institute of Justice. Denver, CO: 

Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice, Offce of Research & Statistics. 

English, K., Jones, L., Patrick, D. & Pasini-Hill, D. (2003). Sexual offender containment: Use of the postconviction 

polygraph. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 411–427. 

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research. New York: Free Press. 

Foa, E.B., Keane, T.M. & Friedman, M.J. (2000). Effective Treatments for PTSD. New York: Guilford Press. 

Francis, B., Harris, D., Wallace, S., Knight, R. A. & Soothill, K. (2013). Sexual and general offending trajectories 

of men referred for civil commitment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 1079063213492341. 

Freeman, N.J. & Sandler, J.C. (2008). Female and male sex offenders: A comparison of recidivism patterns and 

risk factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1394–1413. 

Gannon, T.A., Beech, A.R. & Ward, T. (2008). Does the polygraph lead to better risk prediction for sexual 

offenders? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 29–44. 

Gannon, T.A., Hoare, J.A., Rose, M.R. & Parrett, N. (2010). A re-examination of female child molesters’ implicit 

theories: Evidence for Female Specifcity? Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 209–224. 

Gannon, T., Terriere, R. & Leader, T. (2012). Ward and Siegert’s Pathways Model of child sexual offending: A 

cluster analysis evaluation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 129–153. 

Gannon, T.A. & Ward, T. (2008). Rape: Psychopathology and theory. In D.R. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual 

Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment, vol. 2 (pp. 336–355). New York: Guilford Press. 

Garlick, Y., Marshall, W.L. & Thorton, D. (1996). Intimacy defcits and attribution of blame among sex offenders. 

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1, 251–258. 

Gillespie, S.M., Williams, R., Elliott, I.A., Eldridge, H.J., Ashfeld, S. & Beech, A.R. (2014). Characteristics of 

Females Who Sexually Offend A Comparison of Solo and Co-Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research 

and Treatment, 1079063214556358. 

Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Grady, M.D., Levenson, J.S. & Bolder, T. (2016). Linking adverse childhood effects and attachment: A theory of 

etiology for sexual offending. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1524838015627147. 

Grayston, A.D. & De Luca, R.V. (1999). Female perpetrators of child sexual abuse: A review of the clinical and 

empirical literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 93–106. 
84 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Groth, A.N. (1979). Sexual trauma in the life histories of rapists and child molesters. Victimology: An 

International Journal, 4, 10–16. 

Groth, A.N. (1983). Treatment of the sexual offender in a correctional institution. In J.G. Greer & I.R. Stuart (Eds.), 

The Sexual Aggressor: Current Perspectives on Treatment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc. 

Groth, A.N., Hobson, W.F. & Gary, T.S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. Journal of Social Work 

and Human Sexuality, 1, 129–144. 

Guay, J., Proulx, J., Cusson, M. & Ouimet, M. (2001). Victim-choice polymorphia among serious sex offenders. 

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 521–533. 

Hanson, R. (2002). Recidivism and age: Follow-up data from 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 17, 1046–1062. 

Hanson, R.K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L. & Hodgson, S. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Treatment 

for Sex Offenders: Risk, Need, and Responsivity. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Hanson, R.K. & Bussiere, M.T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 348–362. 

Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-Analysis. User 

Report 2004-02. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 

Harkins, L. & Beech, A.R. (2007). A review of the factors that can infuence the effectiveness of sex offender 

treatment: Risk, need, responsivity and process issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 615–627. 

Harrell, E. (2012). Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993–2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Harris, D.A., Knight, R.A., Smallbone, S. & Dennison, S. (2011). Post-release specialization and versatility in 

sexual offenders referred for civil commitment. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 243–259. 

Harris, D.A., Mazerolle, P. & Knight, R.A. (2009). Understanding male sexual offending: A comparison of general 

and specialist theories. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1051–1069. 

Hayashino, D.S., Wurtele, S.K. & Klebe, K J. (1995). Child-molesters: An examination of cognitive factors. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 106–116. 

Heil, P., Ahlmeyer, S. & Simons, D. (2003). Crossover sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 15, 221–236. 

Heil, P. & Simons, D. (2008). Multiple paraphilias: Etiology, prevalence, assessment, and treatment. In D.R. Laws 

& W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment, vol. 2 (pp. 527–556). New York: 

Guilford Press. 

Heil, P., Simons, D.A. & Burton, D. (2010). Using the polygraph with female sexual offenders. In T.A. Gannon & F. 

Cortoni (Eds.), Female Sexual Offending: Theory, Assessment & Treatment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 

Hudson, S.M. & Ward, T. (1997). Rape: Psychopathology and theory. In D.R. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual 

Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment, vol. 1 (pp. 322–355). New York: Guilford Press. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 85 

Jennings, W.G., Zgoba, K.M., Maschi, T. & Reingle, J.M. (2014). An empirical assessment of the overlap 

between sexual victimization and sex offending. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology, 58, 1466–1480. 

Jespersen, A.F., Lalumiere, M.L. & Seto, M.C. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders and nonsex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 179–192. 

John Jay College. (2004). The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in 

the United States 1950–2002. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

Kleban, H., Chesin, M.S., Jeglic, E.L. & Mercado, C.C. (2013). An exploration of crossover sexual offending. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 427–443. 

Knight, R.A. & Prentky, R.A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of 

taxonomic models. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws & H.B. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, 

Theories, and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 23–52). New York: Plenum. 

Kokish, R., Levenson, J.S. & Blasingame, G.D. (2005). Post-conviction sex offender polygraph examination: 

Client-reported perceptions of utility and accuracy. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(2), 

211–221. 

Langstrom, N., Sjostedt, G. & Grann, M. (2004). Psychiatric disorders and recidivism in sexual offenders. Sexual 

Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment 16(2). 

Laws, D. & Marshall, W. (1990). A conditioning theory of the etiology and maintenance of deviant sexual 

preference and behaviour. In W. Marshall, D. Laws & H. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, 

Theories, and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 209–229). New York: Plenum. 

Lee, J.K.P., Jackson, H.J., Pattison, P. & Ward, T. (2002). Developmental risk factors for sexual offending. Child 

Abuse & Neglect, 26, 73–92. 

Levenson, J.S., Becker, J. & Morin, J.W. (2008). The relationship between victim age and gender crossover 

among sex offenders. Sexual abuse: a journal of research and treatment, 20, 43–60. 

Levenson, J.S. & Socia, K.M. (2016). Adverse childhood experiences and arrest patterns in a sample of sexual 

offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1883–1911. 

Levenson, J.S., Willis, G.M. & Prescott, D.S. (2016). Adverse Childhood Experiences in the Lives of Male Sex 

Offenders Implications for Trauma-Informed Care. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 

340–359. 

Levenson, J.S., Willis, G.M. & Prescott, D.S. (2015). Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of female sex 

offenders. Sexual abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 258–283. 

Logan, C. (2008). Sexual deviance in females: Psychopathology and theory. In D.R. Laws & W.T. O’Donohue 

(Eds.), Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment, 2d ed. (pp. 486–507). New York: Guilford Press. 

Lussier, P. (2005). The criminal activity of sexual offenders in adulthood: Revisiting the specialization debate. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 269–292. 
86 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Lussier, P., Proulx, J. & LeBlanc, M. (2005). Criminal propensity, deviant sexual interests and criminal activity of 

sexual aggressors against women: A comparison of models. Criminology, 43, 247–279. 

MacCullock, M.J., Snowden, P.R., Wood, P.J. & Mills, H.E. (1983). Sadistic fantasy, sadistic behavior and offending 

behavior. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 20–29. 

Malamuth, N.M., Sockloskie, R.J., Koss, M.P. & Tanaka, J.S. (1991). Characteristics of aggressors against women: 

Testing a model using a national sample of college students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 

670–681. 

Maniglio, R. (2012). The role of parent–child bonding, attachment and interpersonal problems in the 

development of deviant sexual fantasies in sexual offenders. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 13(2), 83–96. 

Marsa, F., O’Reilly, G., Carr, A., Murphy, P., O’Sullivan, M., Cotter, A. & Hevey, D. (2004). Attachment styles and 

psychological profles of child sex offenders in Ireland. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 228–251. 

Marshall, W.L. (1993). The role of attachments, intimacy, and loneliness in the etiology and maintenance of 

sexual offending. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 8, 109–121. 

Marshall, W.L. (2007). Diagnostic issues, multiple paraphilias, and comorbid disorders in sexual offenders: Their 

incidence and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 16–35. 

Marshall, W.L. & Barbaree, H.E. (1990). An integrated theory of sexual offending. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws & 

H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the Offender (pp. 257– 

275). New York: Plenum. 

Marshall, W.L., Barbaree, H.E. & Eccles, A. (1991). Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 6, 323–336. 

Marshall, W.L. & Marshall, L.E. (2000). The origins of sexual offending. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 1, 250–263. 

Martínez-Catena, A., Redondo, S., Frerich, N. & Beech, A. R. (2016). A dynamic risk factors–based typology of 

sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 0306624X16629399. 

Matthews, J.K., Mathews, R. & Speltz, K. (1991). Female sex offenders: A typology. In M.Q. Patton (Ed.), Family 

Sexual Abuse: Frontline Research and Evaluation (pp. 199–219). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

McGee, R.A., Wolfe, D.A. & Wilson, S.K. (1997). Multiple maltreatment experiences and adolescent behavior 

problems: Adolescents’ perspectives. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 131–149. 

Miner, M.H. & Dwyer, S.M. (1997). The psychosocial development of sex offenders: Differences between 

exhibitionists, child molesters, and incest offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 41, 36–44. 

Muskens, M., Bogaerts, S., van Casteren, M. & Labrijn, S. (2011). Adult female sexual offending: A comparison 

between co-offenders and solo offenders in a Dutch sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17, 46–60. 

Nathan, P. & Ward, T. (2002). Female sex offenders: Clinical and demographic features. Journal of Sexual 

Aggression, 8, 5–21. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 87 

National Center for Women and Policing (2001). Successfully Investigating Acquaintance Sexual Assault: A 

National Training Manual for Law Enforcement. Beverly Hills, CA: National Center for Women and Policing. 

Ó Ciardha, C. (2011). A theoretical framework for understanding deviant sexual interest and cognitive 

distortions as overlapping constructs contributing to sexual offending against children. Aggression and Violent 

Behavior, 16, 493–502. 

O’Connell, M.A. (1998). Using polygraph testing to assess deviant sexual history of sex offenders Doctoral 

dissertation, University of Washington, 1998. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, MI 48106. 

Parent, G., Guay, J.P. & Knight, R.A. (2011). An assessment of long-term risk of recidivism by adult sex offenders: 

One size doesn’t ft all. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 188–209. 

Polaschek, D.L., Ward, T. & Hudson, S.M. (1997). Rape and rapists: Theory and treatment. Clinical Psychology 

Review, 17, 117–144. 

Prentky, R.A., Knight, R.A., Rosenberg, R. & Lee, A.F.S. (1989). A path analytic approach to the validation of a 

taxonomic system for classifying child molesters. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6, 231–267. 

Priest, R. & Smith, A. (1992). Counseling adult sexual offenders: Unique challenges and treatment paradigms. 

Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 27–32. 

Quayle, E. (2004). The impact of viewing on offending behavior. In M. Calder (Ed.), Child Sexual Abuse and the 

Internet: Tackling the New Frontier (pp. 26–36). Dorset, England: Russell House Publishing Ltd. 

Quayle, E. (2008). Online sex offending: Psychopathology and theory. In D.R. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), 

Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment, vol. 2 (pp. 439–458). New York: Guilford Press. 

Quayle, E. & Taylor, M. (2003). Model of problematic Internet use in people with a sexual interest in children. 

CyberPsychology & Behavior, 6, 93–106. 

Quinsey, V.L. (1986). Men who have sex with children. In D.N. Weisstub (Ed.), Law and Mental Health: 

International Perspectives, vol. 2 (pp. 140–172). New York: Pergamon Press. 

Ramirez, S.R., Jeglic, E.L. & Calkins, C. (2015). An examination of the relationship between childhood abuse, 

anger and violent behavior among a sample of sex offenders. Health & Justice, 3, 1. 

Rice, M.E. & Harris, G.T. (2002). Men who molest their sexually immature daughters: Is a special explanation 

required? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 329–339. 

Robertiello, G. & Terry, K.J. (2007). Can we profle sex offenders? A review of sex offender typologies. 

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 508–518. 

Saradjian, J. & Hanks, H. (1996). Women Who Sexually Abuse Children: From Research to Clinical Practice. New 

York: Wiley. 

Salter, D., McMillan, D., Richards, M., Talbot, T., Hodges, J., Bentovim, A., Hastings, R., Stevenson, J. & Skuse, D. 

(2003). Development of sexually abusive behavior in sexually victimized males: A longitudinal study. Lancet, 

361, 471–476. 
88 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Seto, M.C., Babchishin, K.M., Pullman, L.E. & McPhail, I.V. (2015). The puzzle of intrafamilial child sexual abuse: 

A meta-analysis comparing intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders with child victims. Clinical Psychology 

Review, 39, 42–57. 

Seto, M.C. & Elke, A. (2008). Predicting new offenses committed by child pornography offenders. Paper 

presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Atlanta, GA. 

Seto, M.C., Hanson, K.R. & Babchishin, K.M. (2011). Contact sexual offending by men with online sexual 

offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 124–145. 

Sim, D.J. & Proeve, M. (2010). Crossover and stability of victim type in child molesters. Legal and criminological 

psychology, 15(2), 401–413. 

Simon, L.M.J. (1997). Do criminal offenders specialize in crime types? Applied and Preventative Psychology, 6, 

35–53. 

Simon, L.M.J. (2000). An examination of the assumptions of specialization, mental disorder, and dangerousness 

in sex offenders. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 18, 275–308. 

Simon, L.M.J., Sales, B., Kasniak, A. & Kahn, M. (1992). Characteristics of child molesters: Implications for the 

fxated-regressed dichotomy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 211–225. 

Simons, D., Heil, P., Burton, D. & Gursky, M. (2008). Developmental and offense histories of female sexual 

offenders. Symposium presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual 

Abusers, Atlanta, GA. 

Simons, D., Heil, P. & English, K. (2004). Utilizing polygraph as a risk prediction/treatment progress assessment 

tool. Paper presented at the 23d Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, 

Albuquerque, NM. 

Simons, D.A., McCullar, B. & Tyler, C. (2008). The utility of the self-regulation model to re-integration planning. 

Paper presented at the 27th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, 

Atlanta, GA. 

Simons, D.A. & Tyler, C. (2010). The self-regulation and good lives models: Analysis of primary goods and 

offender type. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of 

Sexual Abusers, Phoenix, AZ. 

Simons, D.A., Tyler, C. & Heil, P. (2005). Childhood risk factors associated with crossover offending. Poster 

presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Salt Lake 

City, UT. 

Simons, D.A., Wurtele, S.K. & Durham, R.L. (2004). Developmental experiences of child sexual abusers and 

rapists. Paper presented at the 23d Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, 

Albuquerque, NM. 

Simons, D.A., Wurtele, S.K. & Durham, R.L. (2008). Developmental experiences of child sexual abusers and 

rapists. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 549–560. 

Simons, D., Wurtele, S.K. & Heil, P. (2002). Childhood victimization and lack of empathy as predictors of sexual 

offending against women and children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1291–1305. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 89 

Simons, D.A., Yates, P.M., Kingston, D.A. & Tyler, C. (2009). Self-regulation model of sexual offending: 

Treatment compliance, motivation, and progress. Symposium presented at the 28th Annual Conference of the 

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Dallas, TX. 

Smallbone, S.W. & Wortley, R.K. (2004). Onset, persistence, and versatility of offending among adult males 

convicted of sexual offenses against children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 285–298. 

Stephens, S., Seto, M. C., Goodwill, A. M., and Cantor, J. M. (2016). The relationship between victim age, 

gender, and relationship polymorphism and sexual recidivism, Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 1079063216630983. 

Surjadi, B., Bullens, R., Horn, J.V. & Bogaerts, S. (2010). Internet offending: Sexual and non-sexual functions 

within a Dutch sample. Journal of Sexual Aggression: An International, Interdisciplinary Forum for Research, 

Theory and Practice, 16, 47–58. 

Tener, D., Wolak, J. & Finkelhor, D. (2015). A typology of offenders who use online communications to commit 

sex crimes against minors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24, 319–337. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings From 

the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Vandiver, D.M. (2006). Female sex offenders: A comparison of solo offenders and co-offenders. Violence & 

Victims, 21, 339–354. 

Vandiver, D.M. & Kercher, G. (2004). Offender and victim characteristics of registered female sex offenders in 

Texas: A proposed typology of female sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 

16, 121–137. 

Ward, T. & Beech, A.R. (2008). An integrated theory of sexual offending. In D.R. Laws & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), 

Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment and Treatment, vol. 2 (pp. 21–36). New York: Guilford Press. 

Ward, T. & Gannon, T.A. (2006). Rehabilitation, etiology and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives 

model of treatment for sex offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 77–94. 

Ward, T. & Hudson, S.M. (1998). A model of the relapse process in sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 13, 700–725. 

Ward, T. & Hudson, S.M. (2000). A self-regulation model of relapse prevention. In D.R. Laws, S.M. Hudson & T. 

Ward (Eds.), Remaking Relapse Prevention With Sex Offenders: A Sourcebook (pp. 79–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Ward, T., Hudson, S.M., Marshall, W.L. & Siegert, R. (1995). Attachment style and intimacy defcits in sexual 

offenders: A theoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7, 317–335. 

Ward, T., Yates, P.M. & Willis, G.M. (2011). The good lives model and the risk need responsivity model: A critical 

response to Andrews, Bonta and Wormith. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 94–110. 

Webb, L., Craissati, J. & Keen, S. (2007). Characteristics of internet child pornography offenders: A comparison 

with child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 449–465. 
90 CHAPTER 3: SEX OFFENDER TYPOLOGIES 

Weinrott, M.R. & Saylor, M. (1991). Self-report of crimes committed by sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 6, 286–300. 

Whitaker, D.J., Le, B., Hanson, R.K., Baker, C.K., McMahon, P.M., Ryan, G. & Klein, A. (2008). Risk factors for the 

perpetration of child sexual abuse: A review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 529–548. 

Widom, C.S. & Massey, C. (2015). A prospective examination of whether childhood sexual abuse predicts 

subsequent sexual offending. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, e143357-e143357. 

Wijkman, M., Bijleveld, C. & Hendriks, J. (2011). Female sex offenders: Specialists, generalists and once-only 

offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 17, 34–45. 

Wilcox, D.T. (2009). The Use of the Polygraph in Assessing, Treating and Supervising Sex Offenders: A 

Practitioner’s Guide. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 

Wilcox, D., Sosnowski, D., Warberg, B. & Beech, A. (2005). Sexual history disclosure using the polygraph in a 

sample of British sex offenders in treatment. Polygraph, 34, 171–181. 

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D. & Mitchell, K. J. (2012). How often are teens arrested for sexting? Data from a national 

sample of police cases. Pediatrics, 129, 4–12. 

World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-10 classifcation of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical 

descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization. 

Yates, P.M. & Kingston, D.A. (2006). The self-regulation model of sexual offending: The relationship between 

offence pathways and static and dynamic sexual offence risk. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 18, 269–270. 

Yates, P.M., Kingston, D.A. & Hall, K. (2003). Pathways to sexual offending: Validity of Hudson and Ward’s (1998) 

self-regulation model and relationship to static and dynamic risk among treated sex offenders. Paper presented 

at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, St. Louis, MO. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 91 

Chapter 4: Internet-Facilitated 

Sexual Offending 

by Michael Seto, Ph.D. 

FINDINGS 

◆ The different types of internet-facilitated sexual crime are — 

• Possession, distribution, and production of child pornography. 

• Sexual solicitation of minors. 

• Conspiracy crimes using online technologies. 

◆ The characteristics of internet offenders are — 

• One in eight had an offcial record for contact sexual offending. 

• Fifty-fve percent admitted to a history of contact sexual offending. 

• Online only offenders were relatively low risk compared to contact sex offenders. 

• Child pornography offenders are likely to be pedophiles. 

• Sexual solicitation offenders are primarily interested in adolescent girls. 

Introduction 

There is increasing public and professional concern about internet-facilitated sexual offending, refected 

in a greater number of prosecutions and clinical referrals for these crimes (Motivans & Kyckelhahn, 2007; 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2010; United States Sentencing Commission, 2012). Internet sexual offending 

comprises a range of crimes, including possession or distribution of child pornography; production of child 

pornography; sexual solicitations1

 (online interactions with minors for sexual purposes, including plans to meet 

offine); and conspiracy crimes (e.g., collaborating with others to distribute or produce child pornography, 

sexually solicit minors, sexually traffc minors). Most online sexual offenses involve possession or distribution of 

child pornography. 

It is hard to obtain precise estimates of the extent of internet-facilitated sexual offending in the United States, 

as there is no national system for integrating information about internet offenders at the state level and there 

are state-by-state variations in the applicable laws. However, the National Juvenile Online Victimization Study, 

conducted in 2000 and again in 2009, indicates that the number of arrests in the United States for internet sex 

crimes has tripled over that time (Wolak, 2012; Wolak, Finkelhor & Mitchell, 2011). Average sentences are getting 

longer for comparable child pornography offenses, indicating that internet offenders will occupy custodial beds 

longer and will require longer terms of supervision if they become eligible for probation/parole (Wolak, Finkelhor 

& Mitchell, 2009). 

Given the nature of the internet, this type of sexual offending is clearly an international problem, with political, 

legal and geographic complexities. Many child pornography sites are based outside the United States (e.g., 

Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia), where laws differ substantially. The International Centre for Missing & Exploited 
92 CHAPTER 4: INTERNET-FACILITATED SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Children (2010) reviewed laws in 196 countries and found that almost half (89 countries) did not have specifc 

child pornography laws. Some of the remaining countries prohibited child pornography under more general 

obscenity laws, but some countries had no legal prohibitions. There is also variation in prohibitions of child 

pornography; for example, some countries (such as the United States) prohibit only visual depictions of real 

children, whereas other countries (such as Canada) prohibit depictions of fctional children (e.g., anime) or 

nonvisual depictions (e.g., audio recordings or stories). 

The increase in internet sexual offending has been paralleled by a decrease in the number of reported child 

sexual abuse cases, and a decrease in violent crime more broadly (Finkelhor & Jones, 2006; Mishra & Lalumière, 

2009). This suggests that internet sexual offending is a newer phenomenon that may not be infuenced by the 

same contextual factors as other kinds of sexual or violent crime. An important research question is the extent to 

which internet sex offenders represent a new type of sex offender, or whether they refect the transformation of 

conventional sexual offending through the adoption of new technologies (Seto & Hanson, 2011). 

Whatever the explanations for the increased demand, the number of potential internet offending investigations 

could exceed law enforcement resources, leading some experts to acknowledge that it is not possible to arrest 

away this problem. For example, two programs (Fairplay and Roundup) have identifed millions of computers 

involved in peer-to-peer sharing of child pornography fles in the United States (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010). 

In 2017, Operation Broken Heart investigated 69,000 cases and 61 task forces arrested over 1,000 suspected child 

predators. Although more resources are being devoted to peer-to-peer investigations, many police investigators 

continue to conduct proactive, undercover investigations — in which they pretend to be a minor online — in 

anticipation of solicitation attempts by adults (Briggs, Simon & Simonsen, 2011; Mitchell, Wolak & Finkelhor, 

2005). Although resources for law enforcement in this area have increased, the reality is that only some cases will 

be fully investigated and prosecuted. 

Prioritization of Cases 

Faced with more cases than they can handle in a timely fashion, law enforcement and other professionals who 

deal with these offenders need to prioritize their resources. But how should they assign priority? Given an 

overarching goal to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, it makes sense to prioritize and triage 

child pornography cases involving production or high-level distribution over possession alone or “passive” 

distribution (e.g., uploading images to fle-sharing programs but not actively trading with others); solicitation 

cases involving attempts to meet in real life over online fantasy activities (e.g., sexually explicit chat); and 

cases involving internet offenders who have already sexually assaulted children or are currently doing so over 

those with no known contact offending history. High-priority cases, in which children are suspected to already 

be victims or are at imminent risk, should receive the most attention. The scientifc and practical challenge is 

determining how investigators can distinguish, with relatively limited initial evidence, which cases are more likely 

to involve production, solicitation of minors and/or contact offending. 

Summary of Research Findings 

Offender Motivations 

Sexual Interest in Children 

Many, but not all, internet sex offenders are motivated by a sexual interest in children. This has been 

demonstrated in two studies showing that a majority of child pornography offenders assessed at a sexual 

behavior clinic showed more sexual arousal (assessed through penile plethysmography responses in the 

laboratory) to children than to adults, and in fact show a stronger relative response than do offenders with 

contact victims (Blanchard et al., 2007; Seto, Cantor & Blanchard, 2006). As well, one-third to one-half of child 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 93 

pornography offenders interviewed by police or by clinicians admitted they were sexually interested in children 

or in child pornography content (e.g., Seto, Reeves & Jung, 2010). Other studies have also demonstrated a link 

between sexual interest in children and child pornography use through self-report surveys (e.g., Buschman et al., 

2010; Riegel, 2004). 

These results are consistent with what we know about the modal child pornography image seized by police, 

which depicts young girls who appear to be younger than age 12 and often depicts children in sexually 

explicit conduct (Collins, 2012; Quayle & Jones, 2011). It is a reasonable assumption that individuals will seek 

out pornography content that refects their sexual interests (Seto, Maric & Barbaree, 2001). Thus, pedophilic 

individuals will tend to seek out content depicting young children, while nonpedophilic individuals who are 

involved with child pornography will tend to seek out content depicting underage adolescents. The relationship 

between child pornography offending and pedophilia is suffciently robust that child pornography use is relevant 

behavioral evidence for the diagnosis of pedophilic disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s (2013) 

latest nosology (see also Seto, 2010). The revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests — a behavioral measure 

designed to assess pedophilia when sexual arousal testing is not available — now includes a child pornography 

offending item, such that contact offenders against children who have also committed child pornography 

offenses are more likely to be pedophilic than contact offenders without a child pornography history (Seto, 

Sandler & Freeman, 2015; Seto, Stephens, Cantor & Lalumiere, 2015). 

However, not all child pornography offenders show a sexual preference for children over adults and there are 

motivations other than pedophilia. The offenders in Seto, Reeves and Jung (2010) gave other explanations for 

their child pornography offending, including indiscriminate sexual interests, an “addiction” to pornography 

and curiosity (see also Merdian et al., 2013). These explanations are based on self-reporting alone and should be 

interpreted cautiously because offenders may have offered alternative explanations (other than pedophilia) for 

their crimes in response to the stigma associated with the pedophilia label (e.g., Jahnke, Imhoff & Hoyer, 2015). 

Sexual Interest in Adolescents 

In addition, research by the Crimes against Children Research Center suggests that solicitation offenders target 

young adolescents, typically between ages 13 and 15, which would not be consistent with the clinical diagnosis 

of pedophilia (because many of the adolescents involved would be showing some signs of sexual and physical 

maturation) (Wolak et al., 2008). Although it is illegal and is a contravention of social norms about sexual 

behavior, a sexual interest in young to mid-teen adolescents is not indicative of pedophilia. 

Solicitation offenders primarily target 

young adolescent females. 

Briggs, Simon and Simonsen (2011) have suggested that there is a distinction between fantasy-driven and 

contact-driven solicitation offenders. The former group engages in online activities (such as sexual chat, exchange 

of pornographic images or exhibitionism via webcam) that are gratifying in and of themselves, often resulting 

in orgasm while online. These activities appear to refect the sexual fantasies of the offenders and likely fuel 

those same fantasies by providing experiences and images for future occasions. Briggs et al. (2011) suggest that 

this fantasy-driven group is not interested in or likely to commit contact sexual offenses against children. The 

latter group, in contrast, engages in online activities to arrange real-world meetings; their online activity is more 

directed toward meeting offine and shorter in duration than the online interactions of fantasy-driven offenders. 

Briggs et al. (2011) identifed 30 offenders who were considered to be contact driven and 21 who were deemed 

to be fantasy driven. Given the small sample size and exploratory nature of this study, more research is needed to 

determine if this distinction between solicitation offenders is valid and meaningful. 
94 CHAPTER 4: INTERNET-FACILITATED SEXUAL OFFENDING 

For cases resulting in actual meetings between an adult and a minor, sexual contact typically occurred on 

multiple occasions (Wolak et al., 2008). Use of threat or physical force was rare (4–5 percent of cases). Wolak 

and colleagues (2008) concluded that solicitation offenders may have more in common with statutory sex 

offenders — who have sexual contacts with minors who agree to the interactions but are below the legally 

defned age of consent — than they do with pedophilic offenders, who target prepubescent children or 

seek child pornography depicting prepubescent children. It is rare for solicitation offenders to target young 

children, stalk or abduct unsuspecting minors or use physical coercion or force to engage in sex with minors. 

However, only cases involving contacts with real minors that were subsequently reported to police were 

included in this research. It is possible that unreported cases, or cases involving online contacts but no realworld meetings, do involve younger children and/or more violent behavior. 

Krueger, Kaplan and First (2009) compared 22 solicitation offenders and 38 child pornography-only offenders. 

Although this study was limited because of the small sample size, there were no signifcant group differences 

in the prevalence of paraphilia diagnoses, anxiety or mood disorder diagnoses or substance abuse disorder 

diagnoses. As one might expect given the nature of their offenses, solicitation offenders were more likely 

to be identifed as having a hypersexuality disorder (a proposed psychiatric diagnosis for individuals with an 

excessive interest or involvement in sexual behavior) in terms of excessive online sexual activity, whereas child 

pornography-only offenders were more likely to be identifed as having a hypersexuality disorder in terms of 

dependence on pornography. 

Seto and colleagues (2012) compared 70 solicitation offenders to 38 child pornography offenders and 38 contact 

sex offenders on demographic variables; self-reported and self-rated sexual deviance; dynamic risk factors 

assessed using the Stable-2007; and risk estimated on two modifed actuarial risk measures, the Static-99 and 

the VASOR (Seto et al., 2012). (For a discussion of adult “Sex Offender Risk Assessment,” see Chapter 6 in the 

Adult section.) They found that solicitation offenders were similar or lower in potential risk to reoffend than 

child pornography offenders, with fewer men in the former group disclosing undetected sexual offenses, fewer 

admitting sexual interest in prepubescent or pubescent children and lower scores on ratings of sexual deviance. 

This was surprising because most of the solicitation offenders had actually attempted to meet with someone they 

thought was a minor (usually an undercover police offcer), whereas child pornography offenders might never 

have approached a minor directly. 

One in eight internet offenders has 

a history of contact sexual offending 

in their offcial criminal records. 

Contact Offending History 

Seto, Hanson and Babchishin (2011) reviewed available studies and identifed 21 samples of internet offenders 

(a total of 4,464 mostly child pornography offenders, although some samples also included solicitation offenders) 

with information about their contact offending histories.2

 On average, one in eight online offenders had an 

offcial criminal record for contact sexual offending. In the six samples with self-reported data, a little more than 

half (55 percent) admitted to a history of contact sexual offending,3

 usually as a result of clinical involvement and/ 

or polygraph examination. 

More than half of internet offenders selfreported a history of contact sexual offending. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 95 

 

 

Seto, Hanson and Babchishin’s (2011) meta-analysis produced several important fndings: 

1. Many internet offenders have no known prior contact offending history (identifying a major gap in the 

literature, as the established risk measures that are available for contact sex offenders may not apply to the 

internet population). 

2. There is a sizable difference between undetected and detected offenses, when comparing the self-reported 

prevalence rates with the offcial record rates. 

3. Though some of the offenders who deny any history of contact offending may be lying, despite being in 

treatment or undergoing a polygraph examination, it does not appear that most or all internet offenders 

have committed a contact sexual offense. (For more on treatment, see Chapter 7: “The Effectiveness of 

Treatment for Adult Sex Offenders,” in the Adult section.) 

Buschman and Bogaerts (2009) noted that polygraph examination can increase disclosures not only of prior 

contact sexual offenses but also of sexual interest in young children, including admissions of masturbating to 

sexual fantasies of children and seeking opportunities to have sexual contacts with children. 

Further research is needed to identify the factors that distinguish those who have committed contact sexual 

offenses against a child from those who do not commit such offenses. This empirical knowledge would advance 

the understanding of risk of recidivism and the relationship between online and offine offending. (For 

information on “Adult Sex Offender Recidivism,” see Chapter 5 in the Adult section.) For example, it has been 

hypothesized that internet offenders who are lower in self-control (e.g., more impulsive, higher in risk-taking) 

will be more likely to commit contact sexual offenses than those who are higher in self-control (Seto, 2008, 2013). 

Consistent with this idea, Lee and colleagues (2012) found that online offenders who had committed contact 

offenses scored higher on a measure of antisocial behavior and traits than online offenders who had no known 

history of sexual contact victims. 

McCarthy (2010) found that “dual” offenders (i.e., individuals who had committed both contact and online 

sexual offenses) were more likely to be diagnosed with pedophilia and more likely to have prior sexual offenses 

in their histories. Similarly, Long et al. (2012) found that dual offenders were more likely to have prior criminal 

histories, especially for nonsexual offenses, than child pornography only offenders. However, dual offenders were 

less likely to admit pedophilic sexual interests when interviewed, had less child pornography content and were 

involved with child pornography for shorter periods of time. Refecting the potential importance of opportunity, 

dual offenders were more likely to have access to children than child pornography only offenders, through coresidence or occupation. 

Contact Offending in the Future 

Seto, Hanson and Babchishin (2011) also reviewed recidivism rates from nine samples of internet offenders (a 

total sample size of 2,630 online offenders) followed for an average of slightly more than three years (ranging 

from one-and-a-half to six years at risk). Approximately one in 20 (4.6 percent) internet offenders committed a 

new sexual offense of some kind during this time period, with 2 percent committing a contact sexual offense 

and 3.4 percent committing a new child pornography offense; some offenders committed both types of crimes. 

Although the follow-up times are relatively short for this kind of research, and recidivism rates are expected to 

increase with more opportunity, these recidivism rates are lower than those observed in recidivism studies of 

offine offenders (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005) and belie the idea that all internet offenders pose a high 

risk of committing contact offenses in the future. Indeed, there may be a subgroup of online-only offenders who 

pose relatively little risk for a contact sexual offense. 
96 CHAPTER 4: INTERNET-FACILITATED SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Online-only internet offenders have a relatively 

low risk for sexual recidivism compared 

to offine contact sexual offenders. 

In a recent preliminary analysis of data from 101 federal child pornography offenders in the United States, using 

data obtained from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Burgess, Carretta and Burgess (2012) noted that a majority 

of the offenders were employed (68 percent), had some college education (58 percent), were married or had 

previously been married (59 percent) and had no prior criminal offenses (53 percent). Offenders with these kinds 

of characteristics are relatively unlikely to criminally offend again (compared to those who are unemployed, did 

not complete high school, had never married and had prior offenses). 

Internet offenders are not homogeneous with regard to risk. Some of them pose a relatively high risk of directly 

victimizing children (or indirectly victimizing children by again accessing child pornography), and an important 

task for law enforcement and for clinicians is to identify those higher-risk individuals in order to prioritize cases 

and make more effcient decisions about resources. 

Recidivism Risk Factors 

Research is beginning to emerge on the factors that predict recidivism among internet sex offenders, although 

more studies using large samples, a set of theoretically or empirically plausible risk factor candidates, longer 

follow-up times and comprehensive criminal records are clearly needed. These initially identifed risk factors 

appear to be the same kinds of risk factors seen in decades of research on contact sex offenders, and in research 

on all kinds of offenders generally. For example, recent studies have shown that well-established nonsexual 

criminological factors such as offender age at time of frst arrest, prior criminal history and failure on prior 

conditional release (such as bail or parole) can predict sexual recidivism among child pornography offenders (Eke, 

Seto & Williams, 2011; Seto & Eke, 2005). 

Seto and Eke recently examined the predictive utility of these candidate risk factors in a structured checklist, the 

Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT; Seto & Eke, 2015). The CPORT consists of seven items simply scored 

as present or absent: 1) offender age under 35 at the time of the police investigation; 2) any prior criminal history, 

whether sexual or nonsexual; 3) any prior or concurrent contact sexual offending; 4) any prior or concurrent 

failure on conditional release such as bail, probation or parole; 5) evidence of pedophilic or hebephilic sexual 

interests; 6) more boy than girl child pornography content and 7) more boy than girl content in other childrelated content (e.g., magazine models). 

Broadly speaking, and in line with results for previous sex offender risk assessment tools, these items can be 

viewed as refecting either atypical sexual interests (admission of pedophilic or hebephilic sexual interests, relative 

interest in boys versus girls) or antisocial tendencies (younger age, criminal history, failure on conditional release) 

(Seto, 2008, 2013). 

Other researchers have found similar results. Faust, Renaud and Bickart (2009) examined predictors of recidivism 

in a sample of 870 child pornography offenders assessed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons between 2002 

and 2005. The average length of follow-up was almost four years, with a sexual offense rearrest rate of 5.7 

percent for contact or noncontact offenses, including child pornography. Of the 30 predictors examined, fve 

were signifcant predictors of sexual rearrest: lower education level, being single, possessing noninternet child 

pornography, prior sex offender treatment (likely a proxy for having a prior sexual offending history) and not 

possessing depictions of adolescent minors (suggesting that those who show a preference for depictions of 

prepubescent children are at greater risk). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 97 

Wakeling, Howard and Barnett (2011) showed that a modifed version of an established risk measure (the 

Risk Matrix 2000; Thornton, 2007) could predict sexual recidivism in a large sample of Internet offenders 

in the United Kingdom. Risk Matrix items include offender age, sexual and any other sentencing history, 

having a male victim, having a stranger victim, ever having a live-in romantic relationship, and having any 

noncontact offenses. Wakeling and her colleagues obtained recidivism data on 1,326 offenders followed for 

one year (2.1 percent recidivism rate) and 994 of these offenders followed for two years (3.1 percent recidivism 

rate). Although the base rate of sexual recidivism was relatively low after one or two years, making it more 

statistically diffcult to identify signifcant predictors, the measure was nonetheless signifcantly predictive — to 

a similar degree as established risk measures with contact offenders. Three-quarters of the new sexual offenses 

were for internet crimes. 

If this research — showing that the same risk factors that are useful in predicting recidivism among conventional 

contact sex offenders operate similarly for internet offenders — holds up in subsequent replications, then 

clinicians will be empirically justifed to use modifed versions of existing risk measures to assess internet 

offenders, such as the Static-99 (Harris et al., 2003) or Risk Matrix 2000. This research is at an early stage and thus 

it is too soon to confdently conclude that existing risk measures (modifed or not) will accurately predict sexual 

recidivism by internet offenders who have no history of contact sexual offending. The applicability and validity 

of risk measures to internet offenders who do have a history of contact sexual offending is not in question. 

Clinicians and others are clearly justifed in using existing risk measures to assess the risk of internet offenders 

who are known to have a history of contact sexual offending. 

Intervention 

There is relatively little literature on the treatment of internet offenders. Typically, knowledge about 

characteristics and risk of recidivism is established before knowledge about treatment approaches and outcomes 

because of the time it takes to develop and implement programs and then evaluate them for recidivism. Sex 

offender treatment and supervision professionals are struggling to respond to the increasing infux of internet 

offenders. Key questions have yet to be addressed regarding intervention, including what the priority treatment 

targets are, how they should be targeted and whether interventions can reduce recidivism. 

The most clearly articulated program at this time appears to be the Internet Sex Offender Treatment Programme 

(i-SOTP) developed by Middleton and Hayes (2006). This program was created as a result of treatment 

provider concerns about mixing internet and contact offenders in group therapy as well as questions about 

the applicability of some treatment components and targets of conventional contact sex offender treatment 

programs (McGrath et al., 2009). The program is based on contemporary models of contact sexual offending 

that emphasize cognitive-behavioral principles, but it also draws in elements of positive psychology, 12-step 

and self-help approaches (which is also common among conventional contact sex offender programs). The 

program is intended to be less intense than the standard conventional sex offender program available in the 

United Kingdom; it involves fewer (20 to 30) sessions in either individual or group format and more internetrelevant content. The evidence available so far on risk of recidivism suggests that more intensive interventions 

are required only by a minority of internet offenders (Seto, Hanson & Babchishin, 2011). A substantial number of 

internet sex offenders (e.g., child pornography possession-only offenders with no prior criminal history) are likely 

to be served well by less intensive interventions (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). 

The i-SOTP content is organized into six modules corresponding to major dynamic risk factors identifed in 

contact sex offender research, including general self-regulation problems (e.g., diffculties in controlling 

impulses), sexual self-regulation problems (e.g., specifc diffculty controlling sexual urges), offense-supportive 

attitudes and beliefs (e.g., believing that children depicted in child pornography images are not crime victims) 

and interpersonal defcits (e.g., poor social skills). These factors are dynamic because they can change over time 
98 CHAPTER 4: INTERNET-FACILITATED SEXUAL OFFENDING 

(e.g., after consuming alcohol) and any such changes are associated with fuctuations in risk to reoffend. Dynamic 

risk factors can be distinguished from static risk factors that do not or cannot change (e.g., history of alcoholism) 

and are typical of well-validated and commonly used sex offender risk measures such as the Static-99. Static risk 

factors provide the best long-term prediction of recidivism but they do not identify potential treatment and 

supervision targets. Treatments and other interventions that can successfully target dynamic risk factors are more 

likely to lead to reductions in recidivism. 

Middleton, Mandeville-Norden and Hayes (2009) reported preliminary results from a pre-/post-treatment 

evaluation of 264 internet offenders. There were signifcant changes on 10 of 12 psychological measures, many 

corresponding to the treatment targets just described. However, there was no comparison group, so it is not clear 

how much of these changes can be attributed to the treatment as opposed to the passage of time, probation 

involvement or participation in other programs. Another more rigorous evaluation is needed with either a notreatment (e.g., waiting list) or treatment-as-usual comparison group in order to know if changes over time can 

be attributed to the i-SOTP program. Continuing follow-up is also needed to determine if treatment participation 

(especially treatment-related changes on specifc targets) are related to changes in recidivism in the desired 

direction. 

Another interesting self-help treatment approach is provided by the Stop It Now! UK organization. Also adopting 

a blend of cognitive-behavioral, 12-step and self-help techniques, this website includes many of the topics 

covered by i-SOTP but is available to anyone with an internet connection. The main aim of this website is to 

reach individuals who are engaging in problematic online behaviors before they commit contact offenses. Given 

that many such individuals are undetected by authorities (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010), any comprehensive 

response to internet offending will need to include a self-help component. 

A similar service is provided by nongovernmental organizations such as Stop It Now!, which provides a free, 

confdential, toll-free helpline along with access to online resources for individuals who are concerned about 

their sexual interests or behavior involving children. One beneft of self-help and confdential approaches is that 

a larger group of at-risk individuals can be reached, especially in light of evidence that many online offenders 

go undetected. Another beneft is the relatively low cost of such interventions. A disadvantage is the likelihood 

that the highest risk individuals (those who have an antisocial orientation and already engage in contact sexual 

offending) are probably less likely to seek self-help options. Another disadvantage is that follow-up data will not 

be available to evaluate the effcacy of these services. 

Undetected internet offenders are unlikely to seek help given the severe stigma associated with self-identifying 

as being sexually interested in children or engaging, directly or indirectly, in the sexual exploitation of children. 

Undetected offenders are also likely to be inhibited by mandatory reporting requirements, as they cannot talk 

honestly about illegal acts they have committed. A research and treatment project (the Dunkelfeld Project) 

currently underway in Berlin, Germany, was able to recruit a large sample of self-identifed individuals who were 

sexually interested in children (Beier et al., 2009; Neutze et al., 2011). Most individuals in the sample (95 percent) 

had engaged in illegal behavior at some time in their lives, but some had been inactive and had not committed 

a sexual offense in the previous six months. These men were reached through a mass media campaign with 

billboard and other public advertisements and television and radio spots. 

Preliminary evaluation results were reported by Beier et al. (2015). Between 2006 and 2011, 319 help-seeking 

individuals (72 percent admitting child pornography offending at some point in their lives) expressed interest 

in participating in the one-year treatment program, based on cognitive behavioral principles. Beier et al. (2015) 

compared pre-post changes for 53 treated individuals and 22 untreated individuals on the waitlist. Treated 

participants showed improvement on sexual self-regulation, emotional problems and offense-supportive 

attitudes and beliefs, whereas untreated participants did not show any signifcant differences between their 

two assessments (conducted after the same time interval). There was no signifcant difference between groups 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 99 

in self-reported child pornography or contact sexual offending; indeed, many of the treated participants 

continued to use child pornography. 

Summary 

It is clear from this review that research on internet offending is relatively new and that there are substantial 

gaps in the knowledge about internet offenders and the crimes they commit. At the same time, research 

conducted over the past 10 years (paralleling the emergence of the internet in everyday life) sheds some helpful 

light on some key issues. 

Increasing Demand 

There is consistent evidence that the number of internet sexual offending cases is increasing rapidly, with major 

implications for law enforcement, criminal justice, correctional and clinical agencies. However, more precise 

state-by-state data are needed to better understand the breadth and depth of this increasing demand in order 

to allocate resources wisely and to determine if there are meaningful geographic differences that might suggest 

solutions to this demand (e.g., states with sex offender management boards may be better able to cope with 

the demand than states that do not have this integration of systems and services). (For more on “Sex Offender 

Management Strategies,” see Chapter 8 in the Adult section.) 

Solicitation Offenders 

Most of the research on internet offenders has focused on child pornography offenders. Less is known about 

the characteristics, contact offending history and recidivism risk posed by solicitation offenders and the extent to 

which they differ from child pornography offenders (who also use online technologies to commit their crimes) 

and contact sex offenders (who have actually attempted to make or have made physical contact with a victim). 

Also, little is known about offenders who use the internet to commit sex crimes against adults (e.g., using 

Craigslist or other online services to meet women whom they intend to sexually assault) or to commit conspiracy 

crimes (e.g., organizing child sex tourism to other jurisdictions, child pornography trading rings, “abuse on 

demand” via live streaming of images or video). 

Internet-facilitated sexual offending 

includes various types of crimes, 

including possession, distribution and 

production of child pornography; sexual 

solicitations; and conspiracy crimes. 

Internet Offending Types 

Emerging research suggests that solicitation offenders are different from child pornography offenders in 

meaningful ways. In particular, child pornography offenders are likely to be pedophiles, whereas solicitation 

offenders appear to be predominantly interested in adolescent girls. This apparent difference might result 

from two different selection effects. First, individuals who are primarily interested in images of underage 

but sexually mature minors (e.g., girls aged 15–17) are less likely to be prosecuted because of the challenges 

in establishing the ages of the depicted minors, in contrast to the relatively straightforward prosecution of 
100 CHAPTER 4: INTERNET-FACILITATED SEXUAL OFFENDING 

someone in possession of images depicting prepubescent or pubescent children. Second, there may indeed be 

individuals interested in sexually soliciting younger children, but younger children are less likely to be on social 

networking and similar sites (many of which have age restrictions; e.g., Facebook has a minimum age criterion 

of 13, although this may be fouted by some younger children). This apparent difference in internet offender 

motivations may translate to differences in contact offending history, risk of recidivism and the likely targets of 

other criminal sexual behavior (young children versus adolescent minors). 

Child pornography offenders are 

likely to be pedophiles. 

Overlap With Contact Offending 

Only one in eight internet offenders has an offcial record for contact offending, based on available studies 

(Seto, Hanson & Babchishin, 2011). The proportion goes up to approximately four in eight when self-reported 

offending is added, but this still falls short of the idea that most or all Internet offenders have already committed 

contact offenses. Internet offenders and conventional sex offenders are not synonymous groups. Indeed, a recent 

meta-analysis of 30 unique samples found theoretically and clinically important differences between these two 

groups, as well as a third group of dual offenders (Babchishin, Hanson & van Zuylen, 2015). Contact offenders 

scored higher on measures of antisocial tendencies, whereas child pornography and dual offenders were more 

likely to be score high on measures of pedophilia (with dual offenders even higher than child pornography only 

offenders). Refecting opportunity to offend, contact offenders had access to children whereas child pornography 

offenders had more internet access. 

Though the feld is advancing rapidly, there is still an important need for more research on the relationship 

between internet and contact sexual offending. This includes research on the predictors of the onset of internet 

offending (for prevention and early intervention); risk factors for progressing from internet to contact offending, 

or vice versa; and differences between dual offenders and contact or internet offenders. More research is 

also needed on sexual solicitation offenders, as it is still the case that most of the work has focused on child 

pornography offending. 

Risk of Reoffending 

An analysis of nine available follow-up studies suggests that internet offenders, as a group, have a relatively 

low risk of reoffending compared to conventional contact sex offenders (based on offcial records, which are 

conservative estimates of recidivism because of reporting biases and other factors). This has implications for how 

to respond to internet offending, given that the risk principle of effective corrections would suggest that legal, 

policy and clinical responses to internet offenders should be proportional to risk. The minority of offenders who 

have a higher risk of reoffending — based on age, criminal history and other factors that are being identifed in 

ongoing research — require different responses than offenders with no prior criminal history and clear evidence 

of stability and prosocial conduct in all other domains of their lives. Research distinguishing between different 

types of internet offenders will likely be helpful in this regard. 

Intervention 

More research on the onset and maintenance of internet sexual offending is needed to design effective 

interventions for those who require it. Existing interventions represent adaptations of current sex offender 

treatment models, which may or may not work for internet offenders. Although other areas require research 

attention, the area of intervention has the largest knowledge gaps. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 101 

Notes 

1. Solicitation offenders have also been called “travelers” in previous research on this population, while child 

pornography offenders have been called “traders.” Briggs, Simon and Simonsen (2011), discussed in more 

detail later in the chapter, have distinguished between solicitation offenders who appear to be fantasy driven 

(restricting their sexual interactions to online behavior such as sexually explicit chat, exhibitionism via webcam, 

and/or transmission of pornography) and those who appear to be contact driven (whose online interactions are 

directed at arranging face-to-face meetings where sexual activities might take place). 

2. A meta-analysis combines the results of many evaluations into one large study with many subjects. 

3. The Butner Redux study by Bourke and Hernandez (2009), which is often cited in court proceedings pertaining 

to online offenders, was a statistical outlier in the Seto, Hanson and Babchishin (2011) meta-analysis. This 

indicates that the study found an unusually high prevalence of contact offending history: 24 percent of the 

sample of 155 child pornography offenders had a known history of contact offending prior to treatment; 

however, following treatment (and polygraph examination for approximately half of the sample), 85 percent 

admitted to contact offenses or had an offcial contact offense history. 

References 

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. revised. 

Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association. 

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 

Babchishin, K.M., Hanson, R.K. & VanZuylen, H. (2015). Online child pornography offenders are different: 

A meta-analysis of the characteristics of online and offine sex offenders against children. Archives of Sexual 

Behavior, 44, 45–66. 

Beier, K.M., Grundmann, D., Kuhle, L.F., Scherner, G., Konrad, A. & Amelung, T. (2015). The German Dunkelfeld 

Project: A pilot study to prevent child sexual abuse and the use of child abusive images. Journal of Sexual 

Medicine, 12, 529–542. 

Beier, K.M., Neutze, J., Mundt, I.A., Ahlers, Ch.J., Goecker, D. Konrad, A. & Schaefer, G.A. (2009). Encouraging 

self-identifed pedophiles and hebephiles to seek professional help: First results of the Berlin Prevention Project 

Dunkelfeld (PPD). Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 545–549. 

Blanchard, R., Kolla, N.J., Cantor, J.M., Klassen, P.E., Dickey, R., Kuban, M.E. & Blak, T. (2007). IQ, handedness 

and pedophilia in adult male patients stratifed by referral source. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 19, 285–309. 

Bourke, M.L. & Hernandez, A.E. (2009). The “Butner Study” redux: A report of the incidence of hands-on child 

victimization by child pornography offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 183–191. 

Briggs, P., Simon, W.T. & Simonsen, S. (2011). An exploratory study of internet-initiated sexual offenses and the 

chat room sex offender: Has the internet enabled a new typology of sex offender? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 23, 72–91. 

Burgess, A.W., Carretta, C.M. & Burgess, A.G. (2012). Patterns of federal internet offenders: A pilot study. 

Journal of Forensic Nursing, 8, 112–121. 
102 CHAPTER 4: INTERNET-FACILITATED SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Buschman, J. & Bogaerts, S. (2009). Polygraph testing Internet offenders. In D. Wilcox (Ed.), The Use of the 

Polygraph in Assessing, Treating and Supervising Sex Offenders: A Practitioner’s Guide (pp. 111–126). Hoboken, 

NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 

Buschman, J., Bogaerts, S., Foulger, S., Wilcox, D., Sosnowski, D. & Cushman, B. (2010). Sexual history disclosure 

polygraph examinations with cybercrime offences: A frst Dutch explorative study. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 395–411. doi: 10.1177/0306624X09334942. 

Collins, M. (2012). Testimony of Michelle Collins Before the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from: 

www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/20120215-16/Testimony_15_ 

Collins.pdf. 

Eke, A.W. & Seto, M.C. (2012). Risk assessment of online offenders for law enforcement. In K. Ribisl & E. Quayle 

(Eds.), Internet Child Pornography: Understanding and Preventing On-line Child Abuse (pp. 148–168). Devon, 

England: Willan. 

Eke, A.W., Seto, M.C. & Williams, J. (2011). Examining the criminal history and future offending of child 

pornography offenders: An extended prospective follow-up study. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 466–478. 

Faust, E., Renaud, C. & Bickart, W. (2009). Predictors of re-offense among a sample of federally convicted child 

pornography offenders. Paper presented at the 28th annual conference of the Association for the Treatment of 

Sexual Abusers, Dallas, TX. 

Finkelhor, D. & Jones, L. (2006). Why have child maltreatment and child victimization declined? Journal of 

Social Issues, 62, 685–716. 

Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sex offenders: A meta-analysis of 

recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163. 

Harris, A., Phenix, A., Hanson, R.K. & Thornton, D. (2003). Static-99 Coding Rules Revised–2003. Ottawa, ON: 

Solicitor General Canada. Retrieved from: http://static99.org/pdfdocs/static-99-coding-rules_e.pdf. 

Henry, O., Mandeville-Norden, R., Hayes, E. & Egan, V. (2010). Do internet-based sex offenders reduce to 

normal, inadequate and deviant groups? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 33–46. 

International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (2010). Child Pornography: Model Legislation & Global 

Review, 6th ed. Alexandria, VA: International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. 

Jahnke, S., Imhoff, R. & Hoyer, J. (2015). Stigmatization of people with pedophilia: Two comparative surveys. 

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 21–34. 

Jenkins, P. (2001). Beyond Tolerance: Child Pornography on the Internet. New York: New York University Press. 

Krueger, R.B., Kaplan, M.S. & First, M.B. (2009). Sexual and other Axis I diagnoses of 60 males arrested for 

crimes against children involving the internet. CNS Spectrum, 14, 623–631. 

Lee, A.F., Li, N.-C., Lamade, R., Schuler, A. & Prentky, R.A. (2012). Predicting hands-on child sexual offenses 

among possessors of internet child pornography. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 18, 644–672. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 103 

Long, M.L., Alison, L.A. & McManus, M.A. (2013). Child Pornography and Likelihood of Contact Abuse A 

Comparison Between Contact Child Sexual Offenders and Noncontact Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 25, 370–395. 

McCarthy, J.A. (2010). Internet sexual activity: A comparison between contact and non-contact child 

pornography offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 181–195. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G.F., Burchard, B.L., Zeoli, S. & Ellerby, L. (2009). Current Practices and Emerging Trends 

in Sexual Abuser Management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. 

Retrieved from: http://bit.ly/fkLYTb. 

Merdian, H.L., Curtis, C., Thakker, J., Wilson, N. & Boer, D.P. (2013). The three dimensions of online child 

pornography offending. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 19(1), 121–132. 

Middleton, D. & Hayes, E. (2006). Internet Sex Offender Treatment Programme Theory Manual. London: NOMS 

Interventions Unit, Ministry of Justice. 

Middleton, D., Mandeville-Norden, R. & Hayes, E. (2009). Does treatment work with internet sex offenders? 

Emerging fndings from the Internet Sex Offender Treatment Programme (i-SOTP). Journal of Sexual 

Aggression, 15, 5–19. 

Mishra, S. & Lalumière, M.L. (2009). Is the crime drop of the 1990s in Canada and the USA associated with a 

general decline in risky and health-related behaviors? Social Science and Medicine, 68, 39–48. 

Mitchell, K.J., Jones, L.M., Finkelhor, D. & Wolak, J. (2011). Internet-facilitated commercial sexual exploitation 

of children: Findings from a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies in the United States. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 43–71. 

Mitchell, K.J., Wolak, J. & Finkelhor, D. (2005). Police posing as juveniles online to catch sex offenders: Is it 

working? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 241–267. 

Motivans, M. & Kyckelhahn, T. (2007). Federal Prosecution of Child Sex Exploitation Offenders, 2006. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Neutze, J., Seto, M.C., Schaefer, G.A., Mundt, I.A. & Beier, K.M. (2011). Predictors of child pornography offenses 

and child sexual abuse in a community sample of pedophiles and hebephiles. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 23, 212–242. 

Quayle, E. & Jones. T. (2011). Sexualized images of children on the internet. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 23, 7–21. 

Riegel, D.L. (2004). Effects on boy-attracted pedosexual males of viewing boy erotica [letter to the editor]. 

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 321–323. 

Seto, M.C. (2008). Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment, and Intervention. 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Seto, M.C. (2010). Child pornography use and Internet solicitation in the diagnosis of pedophilia [letter to the 

editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 591–593. 
104 CHAPTER 4: INTERNET-FACILITATED SEXUAL OFFENDING 

Seto, M.C. (2013). Internet sex offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Seto, M.C., Cantor, J.M. & Blanchard, R. (2006). Child pornography offenses are a valid diagnostic indicator of 

pedophilia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 610–615. 

Seto, M.C. & Eke, A.W. (2005). The future offending of child pornography offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 17, 201–210. 

Seto, M.C. & Eke, A.W. (2015). Predicting recidivism among adult male child pornography offenders: 

Development of the Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT). Law and Human Behavior, 39, 416–429. 

Seto, M.C. & Hanson, R.K. (2011). Introduction to special issue on internet-facilitated sexual offending. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 3–6. 

Seto, M.C., Hanson, R.K. & Babchishin, K.M. (2011). Contact sexual offending by men arrested for child 

pornography offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 124–145. 

Seto, M.C., Maric, A. & Barbaree, H.E. (2001). Role of pornography in the etiology of sexual aggression. 

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6(1), 35–53. 

Seto, M.C., Reeves, L. & Jung, S. (2010). Motives for child pornography offending: The explanations given by 

the offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 16, 169–180. 

Seto, M.C., Sandler, J.C. & Freeman, N.J. (2015). The revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic Interests: Predictive 

and concurrent validity [online frst]. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. 

Seto, M.C., Stephens, S., Lalumière, M.L. & Cantor, J.M. (2015). The revised Screening Scale for Pedophilic 

Interests (SSPI–2): Development and criterion-related validation [online frst]. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment. 

Seto, M.C., Wood, J.M., Babchishin, K.M. & Flynn, S. (2012). Online solicitation offenders are different from 

child pornography offenders and lower risk contact sexual offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 320–330. 

Thornton, D. (2007). Scoring Guide for the Risk Matrix 2000.9/SVC, February 2007 Version. Retrieved from: 

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-les/psych/RM2000scoringinstructions.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Justice (2010). The National Strategy for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction: 

A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from: projectsafechildhood.gov/ 

docs/natstrategyreport.pdf. 

Wakeling, H.C., Howard, P. & Barnett, G. (2011). Comparing the validity of the RM2000 scales and OGRS3 

for predicting recidivism by Internet sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 

146–168. 

Wolak, J. (2012). Statement to the US Sentencing Commission Public Hearing on Federal Child Pornography 

Offenses. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center. Retrieved from: www.ussc.gov/Legislative_ 

and_Public_Affairs/Public_Hearings_and_Meetings/20120215-16/Testimony_15_Wolak.pdf. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 105 

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D. & Mitchell, K. (2004). Internet-initiated sex crimes against minors: Implications for 

prevention based fndings from a national study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 11–20. 

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D. & Mitchell, K.J. (2009). Law Enforcement Responses to Online Child Sexual Exploitation 

Crimes: The National Online Juvenile Victimization Study, 2000 & 2006. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children 

Research Center. 

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D. & Mitchell, K.J. (2011). Child pornography possessors: Trends in offender and case 

characteristics. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 22–42. 

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K.J. & Ybarra, M.L. (2008). Online “predators” and their victims: Myths, 

realities and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63, 111–128. 

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K. & Finkelhor, D. (2006). Online Victimization of Youth: Five Years Later. Alexandria, VA: 

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 107 

 

 

Chapter 5: Adult Sex Offender Recidivism 

by Roger Przybylski 

FINDINGS 

◆ Observed recidivism rates of sex offenders are underestimates of actual reoffending. 

◆ Measurement variations across studies (operational defnitions, length of the follow-up period, populations being 

studied, methods used) often produce disparate fndings. 

◆ Sexual recidivism rates range from 5 percent after three years to 24 percent after 15 years. 

◆ The rates of recidivism for general crime are higher than those for sex crimes. 

◆ Different types of sex offenders have different rates of recidivism. 

Introduction 

Recidivism has been conceptually defned as the reversion to criminal behavior by an individual who was 

previously convicted of a criminal offense (Maltz, 2001). It refects both the individual’s recurrent failure 

to abide by society’s laws and the failure of the criminal justice system to “correct” the individual’s lawbreaking behavior (Maltz, 2001). While the etiology of criminal behavior is complex (see Chapter 2: “Etiology 

of Adult Sexual Offending,” in the Adult section) and recidivism results from a range of personal and social 

factors, it is important to recognize that recidivism is not simply another term for repeat offending. Rather, it 

refers to the recurrence of illegal behavior after an individual experiences legal consequences or correctional 

interventions imposed, at least in part, to eliminate that behavior or prevent it from occurring again (Henslin, 

2008).1 

While recidivism has long been a concern of criminal justice practitioners and policymakers, it has received 

renewed attention in recent years due to the record number of convicted offenders living in our communities.2 

Research has demonstrated that repeat offenders account for a disproportionate amount of crime and 

that offenders released from prison are arrested at rates 30 to 45 times higher than the general population 

(Rosenfeld, Wallman & Formango, 2005). As a result, there is widespread recognition that recidivism has a direct 

impact on public safety and that recidivism reduction should be a key goal of the criminal justice system. This is 

particularly true with regard to crimes that are sexual in nature, given their impact on individual victims and the 

larger community (see Chapter 1: “Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Offending,” in the Adult section). 

Unfortunately, recidivism remains a diffcult concept to measure, especially in the context of sex offenders. The 

surreptitious nature of sex crimes, the fact that few sexual offenses are reported to authorities and variation in 

the ways researchers calculate recidivism rates all contribute to the problem. 

The measurement problems found in sex offender recidivism research no doubt have contributed to a lack of 

consensus among researchers regarding the proper interpretation of some research fndings and the validity 

of certain conclusions. While there is broad agreement that observed recidivism rates are not true reoffense 
108 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

 

 

rates, the magnitude of the gap between observed and actual reoffending, the propensity of sex offenders to 

reoffend over the life course and whether it is valid to characterize sex offender recidivism rates as low or high 

are examples of key issues that are subject to divergent viewpoints.3

 While debate concerning the interpretation 

and policy implications of research fndings occurs in many public safety areas, it is both pronounced and ongoing 

in the context of sex offender recidivism. 

Despite the limitations and controversies outlined above, research fndings on the extent of sex offender 

recidivism can help policymakers and practitioners in several meaningful ways: 1) they can provide an empirical 

basis for better understanding the differential public safety risks posed by different types of convicted 

sex offenders, 2) they can help identify the risk factors that are related to recidivism and 3) they can help 

policymakers and practitioners design and deliver more tailored and effective recidivism reduction strategies. 

(For a discussion of adult “Sex Offender Risk Assessment,” see Chapter 6 in the Adult section.) 

Knowledge about general recidivism, in addition to sexual recidivism specifcally, is important because many 

sex offenders engage in both sexual and nonsexual criminal behavior. Research has shown that sex offenders 

are more likely to recidivate with a nonsexual offense than a sexual offense (see, e.g., Hanson & Bussière, 1998). 

Studies have also shown that some crimes legally labeled as nonsexual in the criminal histories of sex offenders 

may indeed be sexual in their underlying behavior (Doren, 2010; Rice et al., 2006; Heil et al., 2009). Rice and 

colleagues, for example, reported that “Murder and kidnapping are clear examples of apparently nonsexual 

violent crimes that, when perpetrated by sex offenders, are usually sexually motivated” (2006, p. 526). In 

addition, a charge or conviction that appears in a criminal history record might not refect underlying sexual 

motivation for the crime due to plea bargaining. 

Information about the recidivism rates of different types of sex offenders is equally important. Although sex 

offenders are often viewed as a homogenous group by the public, they are in reality a diverse mixture of 

individuals who have committed an array of illegal acts, ranging from noncontact offenses such as exhibitionism 

to violent sexual assaults (Center for Sex Offender Management [CSOM], 2001). Disaggregating sex offenders in 

recidivism research unmasks important differences in both the propensity to reoffend and the factors associated 

with reoffending for different types of individuals who have committed sexual crimes. 

Issues to Consider 

Numerous scholars have described the key measurement issues that can affect fndings from sex offender 

recidivism research. Rather than reviewing these issues in their entirety or discussing them in depth, the most 

important matters that policymakers and practitioners should be concerned with are briefy summarized below. 

Recidivism Rates Are Not True Reoffense Rates 

Recidivism rates are typically based on offcially recorded information, such as an arrest, criminal conviction or 

incarceration. Because these offcial statistics refect only offenses that come to the attention of authorities, 

they are a diluted measure of reoffending. Research has clearly demonstrated that many sex offenses are never 

reported to authorities. For example, Bachman (1998) found that only about one in four rapes or sexual assaults 

were reported to police. More recently, Tjaden and Thoennes (2006) found that only 19 percent of women and 

13 percent of men who were raped since their 18th birthday reported the rape to the police. Several studies of 

victims have shown that the likelihood that a sexual assault will be reported to law enforcement decreases with 

the victim’s age (Kilpatrick, Saunders & Smith, 2003; Sorenson & Snow, 1991).4 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 109 

 

It is also important to recognize that, once reported to law enforcement, only a subset of sex offenses result in the 

arrest of the perpetrator. Grotpeter and Elliot (2002) found that only 2.5 percent of sexual assaults and 10 percent 

of serious sexual assaults resulted in an arrest and Snyder (2000) found that an arrest was made in only 29 percent 

of reported juvenile sexual assaults. In addition, a number of studies have found that sex offenders disclose in 

treatment or in surveys that they had committed a large number of sex crimes before they were frst caught or 

arrested. Abel and his colleagues interviewed paraphiliacs (i.e., those with a diagnosed psychosexual disorder) 

under conditions of guaranteed confdentiality and found that only 3.3 percent of their self-admitted hands-on sex 

offenses, such as rape and child molestation, resulted in an arrest (Abel et al., 1988). Simons, Heil and English (2004) 

found that only 5 percent of rapes and child sexual assaults self-reported during prison treatment were identifed 

in offcial records. Likewise, another study found that only 1 percent of contact and noncontact sexual offenses selfreported during treatment were identifed in offcial records (Ahlmeyer et al., 2000). 

Studies also have demonstrated a “disproportionate and patterned attrition of sexual offenses and sexual 

offenders from the criminal justice process” (Larcombe, 2012, p. 482). While case attrition (the dropping of 

a legal case by authorities, for various reasons) occurs for all types of offenses, it appears to be particularly 

pronounced for sexual crime and offenders (Gelb, 2007). Moreover, certain types of sexual crimes and offenders 

are more likely to be subject to criminal justice system processing and ultimately conviction, and these cases are 

not representative of sexual offenses or sexual offenders overall (Lievore, 2004; Kelly, Lovett & Regan, 2005). As 

Larcombe (2012, p. 482) points out, police, prosecutors, jurors and the community tend to take more seriously 

those assaults that are “clearly interpretable as violence” and “least similar to potentially appropriate sex.” 

Further, among all sexual offenders, those who have had “prior contact with the police” and those who have 

assaulted “children, male victims and female victims who are strangers” are most likely to be arrested, charged 

and prosecuted (Larcombe, 2012, p. 493; Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault [SSCRSA], 

2006; Kelly, Lovett & Regan, 2005; Temkin & Krahé, 2008). Research indicates that victim characteristics can 

also play a role in attrition. For example, females who are young, who have disabilities or who are members of 

other vulnerable populations have been found to be “proportionally overrepresented as victims of rape” yet 

underrepresented among rape cases processed in the criminal justice system (Larcombe, 2012, p. 489; SSCRSA, 

2006). This systematic and patterned attrition of sexual offenses within the criminal justice system ensures that 

the relatively small number of sex crimes that are reported, prosecuted and ultimately result in conviction do not 

refect “the most common or injurious forms of sexual violence experienced by women and children” (Larcombe, 

2012, p. 483). Hence, fndings from recidivism studies need to be interpreted within the context of sexual assault 

incidence, prevalence and attrition research. 

Due to the frequency with which sex crimes are not reported to police, the disparity between the number of 

sex offenses reported and those solved by arrest and the disproportionate attrition of certain sex offenses and 

sex offenders within the criminal justice system, researchers widely agree that observed recidivism rates are 

underestimates of the true reoffense rates of sex offenders. Hidden offending presents signifcant challenges 

for professionals working in sex offender management as it is diffcult to know whether offenders who appear 

to be nonrecidivists based on offcial records are truly offense free. (For more on “Sex Offender Management 

Strategies,” see Chapter 8 in the Adult section.) In addition, perceptions of the public safety risk associated with 

sex crimes and certain sexual offenders may be distorted when they are based solely on crime and on offender 

profles identifed in offcial records. 

Recidivism Rate Measurements Vary by Study 

Even though the basic meaning of recidivism is clear-cut, recidivism rates are often measured differently from 

one study to the next. Different ways of measuring recidivism rates can produce substantially different results, 

and comparing rates that were derived in different ways can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Some of the most 

common ways in which measurement variation occurs in recidivism research are summarized below. 
110 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

 

Measurement variation across studies 

can produce disparate fndings regarding 

the recidivism rates of sex offenders. 

Operational Defnition of Recidivism 

An operational defnition states in very concrete terms precisely how something is to be measured. When 

researchers operationally defne recidivism for a study, they must specify the event that constitutes recidivism — 

such as an arrest, a conviction or a return to prison. In some studies, recidivism is defned as an arrest during the 

follow-up period; in others, recidivism may be defned as a conviction for a criminal offense or a return to prison 

for a new crime.5

 There are various reasons why one defnition might be used in lieu of others in a particular 

study, but it is critically important to recognize that different operational defnitions of recidivism produce 

different research fndings (CSOM, 2001). 

Length of Follow-up Period 

The length of time an offender is tracked to determine if recidivism occurred also can vary from one study to the 

next. Recidivism rates will naturally increase as offenders are followed for longer time periods because there is 

more time when they are at risk to reoffend and more time for recidivism to be detected. Hence, policymakers 

and practitioners should always be cognizant of the length of the follow-up period when interpreting recidivism 

rate research fndings. They also should recognize that analyses that fail to standardize the time at risk for 

everyone in a given group of offenders being studied may further undercount recidivism because some offenders 

will not have been at risk for the entire follow-up period.6 

Populations Studied 

Variation in the types of offenders studied is common in recidivism research, and studies of sex offender 

recidivism are no exception (Maltz, 2001). For example, some recidivism studies focus on offenders released or 

paroled from prison, while others focus on offenders discharged from probation. Because offenders released 

from prison typically have a more serious criminal history than probationers, and criminal history is related to 

recidivism, recidivism rates are likely to be higher for prison releasees than for probationers (Przybylski, 1986). 

In addition, parolees may be subject to more behavioral constraints than probationers, resulting in higher 

recidivism rates due to technical violations of the conditions of release (Maltz, 2001). Additionally, some prisoners 

are released without parole supervision. Because differences such as these can affect observed recidivism rates, 

policymakers and practitioners who use fndings from recidivism rate research should exercise caution when 

comparing the recidivism rates of markedly different populations (Maltz, 2001). 

Methods Used 

Most recidivism studies search for new recorded criminal events and place offenders without the new events in 

the nonrecidivism category. Heil and colleagues (2009) conducted a recidivism study that accounted for every 

offender and excluded from the fnal calculations those who moved out of state, who died or whose residence 

could not be verifed. This reduced the sample size by more than 17 percent, all of whom would have been 

calculated as “nonrecidivists” in traditional studies. Not surprisingly, one- and fve-year recidivism rates for this 

group of 1,124 prisoners were higher than those reported in many other studies that used follow-up periods 

that were similar in length. The one- and fve-year recidivism rates found by the researchers were, respectively: 

3.9 percent and 10.8 percent for a sex crime rearrest, 26.3 percent and 38.1 percent for a violent crime rearrest 

and 52.6 percent and 77.7 percent for any arrest. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 111 

 

Recidivism Research Findings 

Empirical data on the recidivism rates of sex offenders come from two broad categories of research: single 

studies and meta-analysis. Single studies typically track one or more cohorts of sex offenders following an 

arrest, discharge from probation or release from prison to determine the proportion rearrested, reconvicted 

or returned to prison within a specifed period of time.7

 Meta-analysis is fundamentally different. It employs 

statistical procedures that combine the results of many single studies into one large study with many subjects. By 

pooling the original studies, meta-analysis counteracts a common methodological problem in research — small 

sample sizes — thereby helping the analyst to draw more accurate conclusions. Meta-analysis is especially useful 

when synthesizing the results of studies that use different types of measures, which is a common occurrence in 

recidivism research, because one of the summary statistics meta-analysis can generate in recidivism research is the 

average recidivism rate across studies. This can help make sense of single-study fndings derived from different 

operational defnitions of recidivism or different follow-up period lengths. While these two types of research — 

individual studies and meta-analysis — are fundamentally different, they both have produced useful information 

on the recidivism rates of sex offenders, and fndings from both types of research are presented below.8 

Recidivism Rates: All Sex Offenders 

Perhaps the largest single study of sex offender recidivism conducted to date was carried out by Langan, 

Schmitt and Durose (2003). The study, which was published by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, examined the recidivism patterns of 9,691 male sex offenders released from prisons in 15 states in 

1994. These offenders accounted for about two-thirds of all male sex offenders released from state prisons in 

the United States that year. Using a three-year postrelease follow-up period, rearrest and reconviction rates for 

sexual and other crimes were reported for the entire sample of sex offenders as well as for different categories 

of sex offenders. 

The researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3 percent for the entire sample of sex offenders based on an 

arrest during the three-year follow-up period. The violent and overall arrest recidivism rates for the entire sample 

of sex offenders were much higher; 17.1 percent of sex offenders were rearrested for a violent crime and 43 percent 

were rearrested for a crime of any kind during the follow-up period. Of the 9,691 sex offenders released from 

prison in 1994, 3.5 percent were reconvicted for a sex crime and about one-quarter (24 percent) were reconvicted 

for an offense of any kind during the follow-up period. Nearly four out of every 10 (38.6 percent) sex offenders in 

the study were returned to prison within three years of their release due to the commission of a new crime or a 

technical violation of their release conditions. 

As part of their study, Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003) conducted a comparative analysis of recidivism among 

sex offenders and nonsex offenders. Findings were based on the three-year postrelease offending of 9,691 sex 

offenders and 262,420 nonsex offenders released from prison in 1994. The analysis revealed that once released, 

the sex offenders had a lower overall rearrest rate than nonsex offenders (43 percent compared to 68 percent), 

but their sex crime rearrest rate was four times higher than the rate for nonsex offenders (5.3 percent compared 

to 1.3 percent). Similar patterns are consistently found in other studies that compare sex offender and nonsex 

offender recidivism (see, e.g., Sample & Bray, 2003; Hanson, Scott & Steffy, 1995). 

Another important study, because of its large sample size, was conducted by Sample and Bray (2003). The 

researchers examined the arrest recidivism of 146,918 offenders who were originally arrested in Illinois in 1990. 

Arrestees categorized as sex offenders (based on their most serious charge in 1990 being a sex offense) had oneyear, three-year and fve-year rearrest rates for a new sexual offense of 2.2 percent, 4.8 percent and 6.5 percent, 

respectively.9

 The three-year sexual recidivism rate of 4.8 percent for these sex offender arrestees was similar to 

the three-year rate (5.3 percent) that Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003) reported for sex offenders released from 

prison in 1994. 
112 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

Sex offenders in the Sample and Bray study had one-year, three-year and fve-year rearrest rates for any new 

offense of 21.3 percent, 37.4 percent and 45.1 percent, respectively. These overall recidivism rates were lower 

than those found for all other categories of offenders in the analysis, except homicide and property damage 

offenders. But like Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003), Sample and Bray found that sex offenders had a higher 

sexual recidivism rate than all other categories of offenders. Sample and Bray (2003, p. 72) concluded — 

Sex offenders in Illinois do not appear to commit future offenses, in general, at a higher rate than do 

other offenders. However, they may have higher levels of recidivism for their crimes than other types of 

offenders exhibit for their particular offenses. 

Another important study because of its large sample size and extended follow-up period was conducted by 

Harris and Hanson (2004). The research employed a combined sample of 4,724 sex offenders drawn from 10 prior 

studies; seven of the studies involved sex offenders in Canada, two involved sex offenders in the United States 

and one involved sex offenders in the United Kingdom. All of the 4,724 sex offenders in the Harris and Hanson 

analysis were released from correctional institutions, except for 202 Canadian sex offenders who were placed on 

probation and 287 American sex offenders who received community-based sentences in Washington state. 

Harris and Hanson generated recidivism estimates based on new charges or convictions for sexual offenses using 

fve-, 10- and 15-year follow-up periods for several categories of sex offenders. The fve-year sexual recidivism 

estimate for all sex offenders in the analysis was 14 percent. The 10- and 15-year sexual recidivism rate estimates 

for all sex offenders were 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively. Using the same data set, Hanson, Morton and 

Harris (2003) reported that the 20-year sexual recidivism rate for the sample was 27 percent. 

One of the most important fndings that emerged from the Harris and Hanson (2004) analysis was that the 15-year 

sexual recidivism rate for offenders who already had a prior conviction for a sexual offense was nearly twice that 

for frst-time sex offenders (37 percent compared to 19 percent). Another important fnding was that the rate 

of reoffending decreased the longer offenders had been offense-free. While 14 percent of the offenders in the 

analysis were sexual recidivists after fve years of follow-up, only 7 percent of the offenders who were offensefree at that time sexually recidivated during the next fve follow-up years. For offenders who were offense-free 

after 15 years, the observed sexual recidivism rate was only 4 percent over an additional fve years of follow-up. 

Hanson and colleagues (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 23 recidivism outcome studies to determine whether 

the risk, need and responsivity principles associated with effective interventions for general offenders also apply 

to sex offender treatment.10 (For more on intervention principles, see Chapter 7: “The Effectiveness of Treatment 

for Adult Sex Offenders,” in the Adult section.) This meta-analysis produced an average sexual recidivism rate of 

10.9 percent for treated offenders and 19.2 percent for untreated comparison offenders, based on an average 

follow-up period of 4.7 years.11 The average overall recidivism rate (for any crime) was 31.8 percent for treated 

sex offenders and 48.3 percent for untreated comparison subjects. 

An earlier meta-analysis of 43 sex offender treatment effectiveness studies found somewhat similar results 

(Hanson et al., 2002).12 The average sexual recidivism rate based on an average follow-up period of 46 months 

was 12.3 percent for treated sex offenders and 16.8 percent for untreated sex offenders. The average overall 

recidivism rate was 27.9 percent for treated sex offenders and 39.2 percent for untreated sex offenders. 

One of the largest meta-analyses of studies of the effectiveness of sex offender treatment was conducted by Lösel 

and Schmucker (2005). The analysis included 69 independent studies and a combined total of 22,181 subjects.13 

The researchers found an average sexual recidivism rate of 11.1 percent for treated sex offenders and 17.5 

percent for untreated sex offenders based on an average follow-up period of slightly more than fve years.14 The 

average recidivism rate for any crime was 22.4 percent for treated sex offenders and 32.5 percent for untreated 

sex offenders. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 113 

 

 

In 2015, Schmucker and Lösel published an update of their original study using more recent research and a 

slightly different, but arguably more robust methodology. Overall, 29 independent comparisons containing 

a total of 4,939 treated and 5,448 untreated sexual offenders were included in the analysis and all of the 

comparisons were based on equivalent treatment and control groups. The researchers found that treated 

offenders had a mean sexual recidivism rate of 10.1 percent, and that without treatment the recidivism rate 

would have been 13.7 percent. Treated offenders in the analysis had a general recidivism rate of 32.6 percent on 

average compared to an expected general recidivism rate of 41.2 percent without treatment.15 Finally, it should 

be noted that of the 29 studies, fve involved adolescents, while the specifc population (adult or juvenile) was 

unclear in 10 studies. 

Each of the meta-analyses highlighted above was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of sex offender 

treatment. (For a discussion of “The Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult Sex Offenders,” see Chapter 7 in the 

Adult section.) All of these studies found positive treatment effects, but what is most relevant is the consistent 

fnding across studies that sex offenders are far more likely to recidivate with a nonsexual rather than a sexual 

crime. Several single studies that have been undertaken to evaluate treatment effectiveness, and several metaanalyses that have been undertaken for other reasons, have produced similar fndings. 

For example, McGrath and colleagues (2007) compared a group of 104 adult male sex offenders who received 

treatment, supervision and periodic polygraph exams with a matched group of 104 sex offenders who received 

the same type of treatment and supervision services but no polygraph exams. Based on a fve-year followup period, 5.8 percent of the offenders in the group that received polygraph testing and 6.7 percent of the 

offenders in the group that did not receive polygraph testing were charged with a new sex offense. The general 

recidivism rates for the polygraph and nonpolygraph groups (39.4 percent and 34.6 percent, respectively) were 

more than fve times higher than each group’s sexual recidivism rate. 

In a study employing an even larger sample (403 treated and 321 untreated sex offenders) and an average followup period of 12 years, Hanson, Broom and Stephenson (2004) reported sexual recidivism rates of 21.1 percent 

for the treated offenders and 21.8 percent for the untreated offenders. The general and violent recidivism rates 

for both groups were more than double their sexual recidivism rates. Treated sex offenders had a violent crime 

recidivism rate of 42.9 percent and an overall recidivism rate of 56.6 percent. Untreated sex offenders in the study 

had a violent crime recidivism rate of 44.5 percent and an overall recidivism rate of 60.4 percent. 

Olver, Nicholaichuk, Gu and Wong (2012, p.406) also reported sexual and violent crime recidivism rates in their 

study of sex offender treatment outcomes in a cohort of sex offenders released from prison in Canada. Based 

on a mean post-release follow-up period of 11.7 years, the researchers reported sexual recidivism rates of 

10.7 percent for treated sex offenders (n = 616) and 20.2 for untreated sex offenders (n = 104). Violent crime 

recidivism rates for the treated and untreated groups were 26.5 percent and 44.2 percent, respectively. Again, 

these rates are more than two times higher than those found for sexual recidivism. 

Tewksbury, Jennings and Zgoba (2012) examined sexual and general recidivism as part of a larger study 

primarily focused on the impact of sex offender registration and notifcation (SORN). The study involved a 

sample of 247 sex offenders released from prison in New Jersey from 1990–94 (prior to the implementation 

of SORN) and 248 sex offenders released during the years 1995–99 (after SORN implementation). Based on an 

eight-year follow-up period, the researchers reported sexual recidivism rates of 13 percent and 9.7 percent 

for the pre- and post-SORN releasees, respectively. General recidivism rates of 51.4 percent for the pre-SORN 

releasees and 48 percent for the post-SORN releasees were also reported. The researchers also found “two distinct 

general recidivism trajectories” for the entire study sample: a “low-risk trajectory group and a high-risk trajectory 

group.” The low-risk trajectory was by far the most prevalent trajectory for both pre- and post-SORN releasees, 
114 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

 

as it applied to roughly eight out of every 10 in both release groups. In discussing their fndings, Tewksbury and 

colleagues (2012, p. 32, 35–36) stated — 

The sex offenders in the low-risk trajectories on average did not accumulate greater than approximately 

one-tenth of an arrest in any of the eight years following their release from prison for a sex offense. ... 

Comparatively, the pre- and post-SORN high-risk trajectories (17.7% and 20.5% respectively) indicate that 

among those sex offenders who demonstrate high-risk of recidivism post-prison release, that the majority 

of these sex offenders recidivate early on and there is a noticeable increase in their frequency of recidivism 

from year 1 to year 2 post-release. 

More recently, Mercado and colleagues (2013) examined the recidivism rates of sexual offenders as part of 

a larger study of sex offender management, treatment effectiveness and civil commitment. The researchers 

reported that both treated and untreated offenders in the study had recidivism rates of 5 percent based on 

reconviction for a new sexual offense over an average 6.5-year follow-up period. By comparison, the general 

recidivism rates reported for treated and untreated sex offenders in the study were 25 percent and 51.7 percent, 

respectively. 

Several studies that have examined the recidivism rates of sex offenders across multiple time periods also are 

worth noting. Olver, Wong and Nicholaichuk (2008), for example, conducted a treatment outcome study that 

examined sexual reconviction rates for 472 treated and 282 untreated sex offenders using three-, fve- and 

10-year follow-up periods. For the treated sex offenders, the researchers found sexual reconviction rates of 

11.1 percent after three years of follow-up, 16.9 percent after fve years of follow-up and 21.8 percent after 

10 years of follow-up. Sexual reconviction rates for the untreated sex offenders were 17.7 percent after 

three years, 24.5 percent after fve years and 32.3 percent after 10 years of follow-up. 

Durose, Cooper and Snyder (2014) reported a similar pattern for overall recidivism rates in their large scale 

recidivism analysis involving 404,638 inmates released from state prisons in 2005 in 30 states. Durose and 

colleagues reported that inmates who had been incarcerated specifcally for rape or sexual assault had an overall 

recidivism rate based on a new arrest of 21.9 percent one year after release. By comparison, the overall recidivism 

rate for these sex offenders was 50.9 percent three years after release and 60.1 percent fve years after release. 

Findings from these studies, like those from the Harris and Hanson (2004) analysis, demonstrate how the recidivism 

rates of sex offenders increase as follow-up periods become longer. In the study conducted by Harris and Hanson 

(2004), sexual recidivism rates increased from 14 percent after fve years of follow-up to 24 percent after 15 years 

of follow-up. In the study conducted by Olver, Wong and Nicholaichuk (2008), sexual recidivism rates for treated 

offenders increased from 11.1 percent after three years of follow-up to 21.8 percent after 10 years of follow-up. In 

a somewhat older study, Hanson, Scott and Steffy (1995) found that frst-time recidivism for a sexual/violent crime 

occurred between 10 and 31 years into follow-up for 10 percent of a sample of 191 child molesters released from a 

Canadian prison.16 

While higher recidivism rates should be expected with longer follow-up periods because there is more time 

for reoffending to occur and to be detected, fndings from these studies illustrate how important follow-up 

periods of longer than three or fve years are for understanding the absolute risk of reoffending in sex offender 

populations. 

Findings from two other large-scale studies of sex offender recidivism are reported below. Both studies are 

meta-analyses that undertaken specifcally to identify factors related to the recidivism of sex offenders, and their 

fndings regarding recidivism rates are quite consistent. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 115 

Table 5-1. Recidivism Rates for Male and Female Sex Offenders 

Percentage of Offenders Who Recidivate 

(Five-Year Follow-up) 

Sexual 

Recidivism 

Violent 

Recidivism 

Any Recidivism 

Male sex offenders 13–14 25 36–37 

Female sex offenders 1 6.3 20.2 

 

Hanson and Bussière’s (1998) meta-analysis involved 61 studies and a combined sample of 28,972 sex offenders. 

The researchers found an average sexual recidivism rate of 13.4 percent based on an average follow-up period 

of four to fve years, and an average overall recidivism rate of 36.3 percent.17 More recently, Hanson and 

Morton-Bourgon (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of 95 studies involving a combined sample of 31,216 sex 

offenders. The average sexual recidivism rate found was 13.7 percent and the average overall recidivism rate 

was 36.9 percent, based on an average follow-up period of fve to six years.18 

Recidivism Rates: Female and Male Sex Offenders 

Recent research has begun to shed light on the differential rates of recidivism displayed by female and male sex 

offenders. While the vast majority of known sex offenders are male, estimates suggest that females commit 

between 4 and 5 percent of all sexual offenses (Sandler & Freeman, 2009; Cortoni & Hanson, 2005).19 

Cortoni and Hanson (2005) conducted a study involving 6 sources of recidivism data and a combined sample of 

380 female sex offenders. Based on an average follow-up period of 5 years, the researchers found an average 

sexual recidivism rate for female sex offenders of 1 percent. The observed violent recidivism rate was 6.3 percent 

and the overall recidivism rate was 20.2 percent.20 The researchers compared these recidivism rates for female sex 

offenders to fve-year sexual, violent and overall recidivism estimates for male sex offenders derived from other 

studies.21 The comparison revealed statistically signifcant differences between the recidivism rates for male and 

female sex offenders for each type of recidivism measure.22 Table 5-1 presents a summary of the differential male 

and female recidivism rates reported in the analysis. 

Note: The recidivism rate differences between male and female sex offenders were statistically signifcant for each type of recidivism (p < 0.001). 

Source: Cortoni and Hanson (2005). 

More recently, Sandler and Freeman (2009) examined the recidivism patterns of female sex offenders using a 

sample of 1,466 females convicted of a sexual offense in New York State. They found sexual recidivism rates 

(based on rearrest) of 0.8 percent, 1.3 percent and 1.8 percent, based on follow-up periods of one, three and fve 

years, respectively. The fve-year rearrest rate found for a violent felony offense was 5.2 percent and the fve-year 

rearrest rate found for any offense was 26.6 percent.23 Sandler and Freeman compared the recidivism rates found 

for female sex offenders after fve years of follow-up with fve-year recidivism rates for male sex offenders drawn 

from other studies. The comparison indicated that female sex offenders had far lower rates of sexual recidivism 

(1.8 percent compared to 10–15 percent), violent recidivism (5.2 percent compared to 25 percent) and overall 

recidivism (26.6 percent compared to 36 percent) than male sex offenders.24 

Research indicates that female sex 

offenders reoffend at signifcantly lower 

rates than male sex offenders. 
116 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

 

 

Further evidence that female sex offenders reoffend at signifcantly lower rates than male sex offenders 

comes from a recent meta-analysis of 10 studies conducted by Cortoni, Hanson and Coache (2010).25 The study 

included a combined sample of 2,490 female sex offenders. The researchers found an average sexual recidivism 

rate of about 3 percent for female sex offenders based on an average follow-up period of 6.5 years.26 These 

fndings led Cortoni, Hanson and Coache (2010, p. 387) to conclude that “female sex offenders have extremely 

low rates of sexual recidivism” and that “distinct policies and procedures for assessing and managing the risk 

of male and female sex offenders” are needed. 

Recidivism Rates: Different Types of Sex Offenders 

While researchers have identifed a variety of sex offender typologies (see Chapter 3: “Sex Offender 

Typologies,” in the Adult section), sex offenders are often classifed by their crime type or victim age preference 

in recidivism research. Individuals involved in rape behavior and those involved in child molesting behavior are 

the two principal categories of sex offenders that emerge from this approach, and studies that examine the 

recidivism of specifc types of sex offenders frequently report recidivism rates for one or both of these categories. 

Incest offenders are sometimes distinguished from other child molesters in recidivism research. A limited body 

of research has also examined the recidivism rates of “hands off” — or noncontact — sex offenders, such as 

exhibitionists. When reviewing recidivism rates for different types of sex offenders, however, it is important to 

keep in mind that research has documented a signifcant amount of crossover offending among sex offenders. 

Estimates suggest that 32–64 percent of rapists have molested children and that many child molesters have 

assaulted adults (English and colleagues, 2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; Wilcox and colleagues, 2005). 

While the knowledge base regarding recidivism rates is less extensive for specifc types of sex offenders than 

it is for sex offenders overall, several important studies on the recidivism rates of rapists and child molesters 

have been published in recent years. Key fndings from these studies — and from studies on recidivism among 

exhibitionists — are presented below. 

Rapists 

Researchers studying the recidivism of sex offenders are increasingly reporting recidivism rates specifcally 

for rapists. Two studies previously discussed in this report — Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003) and Harris 

and Hanson (2004) — examined the recidivism of rapists using a relatively large sample size. The Harris and 

Hanson analysis included a sample of 1,038 rapists. Recidivism estimates were reported for three distinct 

follow-up periods: fve years, 10 years and 15 years. Sexual recidivism rates for rapists, based on new charges or 

convictions, were 14 percent at fve years, 21 percent at 10 years and 24 percent at 15 years.27 

The Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003) study of male sex offenders released from state prisons in 1994 is 

arguably one of the largest individual recidivism studies of rapists undertaken to date. The study included a 

sample of 3,115 rapists.28 The researchers found that 5 percent of the 3,115 rapists released from state prison in 1994 

were arrested for a new sex offense during the three-year follow-up period. Of these 3,115 rapists, 78 (2.5 percent) 

were charged specifcally with another rape. The violent crime and overall recidivism rates found for rapists were 

18.7 percent and 46 percent, respectively. Like sex offenders overall, rapists had a lower overall recidivism rate than 

nonsex offenders in the study (46 percent compared to 68 percent), but a higher sexual recidivism rate (5 percent 

compared to 1.3 percent). One of the important fndings that emerged from the study was that about half of 

the rapists with more than one prior arrest were rearrested within three years of their release, a rearrest rate 

nearly double (49.6 percent compared to 28.3 percent) that of rapists with just one prior arrest. 

Another important study because of its lengthy follow-up period — 25 years — was conducted by Prentky 

and colleagues (1997). Generalizing some of the study’s fndings to offenders engaged in rape behavior today 

is problematic because the study period began in 1959 and ended in 1985 and sex offender treatment and 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 117 

management practices were far different then than they are today. In addition, the study sample consisted 

of individuals who were sexually dangerous and civilly committed, so the sample is not representative of all 

rapists or all sex offenders. Still, the 25-year follow-up period employed in the research is arguably one of the 

longest used to examine the recidivism of rapists,29 and certain fndings concerning the variability of recidivism 

rates over time may have signifcance for the measurement and interpretation of recidivism rates today.30 

The study conducted by Prentky and colleagues (1997) examined both short- and long-term sexual and general 

recidivism within a population of 136 rapists who had been committed to the Massachusetts Treatment Center for 

Sexually Dangerous Persons. The researchers found sexual recidivism rates (based on a new charge) of 9 percent 

after one year of follow-up, 19 percent after fve years of follow-up and 31 percent after 15 years of followup.31 Based on the 25-year follow-up period, the researchers found a sexual recidivism rate of 39 percent. The 

overall recidivism rate for any charge by the end of the 25-year follow-up period was 74 percent. Prentky and 

colleagues (1997, p. 656) acknowledged that generalizing the recidivism rates found in the study to other 

samples of sex offenders was problematic due to the “marked heterogeneity of sex offenders,” but they also 

suggested that the “crucial point to be gleaned from this study is the potential variability of the rates” and 

not the specifc rates themselves. Thus, it is worth noting that despite the study’s inherent limitations, some rapists 

remain at risk to reoffend long after their discharge and that conventional follow-up periods of three or fve years 

would have missed roughly half of the frst-time recidivists identifed after 25 years of follow-up (Prentky et al., 1997). 

Using a sample of sex offenders similar to the one employed in the Prentky et al. (1997) study, Knight and 

Thornton (2007) examined the recidivism rates of rapists as part of a larger study aimed at evaluating and 

improving risk assessment schemes for sex offenders. As in the Prentky et al. study, everyone in the sample had 

been referred to the Massachusetts Treatment Center for civil commitment evaluation between 1959 and 1984. 

But unlike in the Prentky et al. study, not everyone in the sample had been civilly committed. Still, generalizing 

fndings from the analysis to rapists overall may be problematic given the high-risk nature of the sex offenders 

in the study and the length of time that has passed since these individuals committed their referral offense. 

Two broad fndings are worth noting. First, based on a new charge for a serious sexual crime (those involving 

physical contact with a victim), Knight and Thornton found that rapists in their study recidivated at a rate 

of 12 percent after three years of follow-up and 20 percent after 15 years of follow-up).32 Second, when the 

researchers examined the pace of recidivism in a comparative analysis involving rapists and child molesters, 

“consistent with the hypothesis that rapists are criminologically more generalists than child molesters,” rapists 

were found to have faster rates of recidivism than child molesters for nonsexual victim-involved and victimless 

crimes” (Knight and Thornton, 2007, p.77). 

The long-term propensity for convicted rapists to sexually reoffend also has been examined by Doren (1998). His 

analysis, which aimed at estimating the true base rate for sexual recidivism among rapists, led him to conclude 

that the 39-percent long-term sexual recidivism rate for rapists found by Prentky and colleagues (1997) was 

consistent with fndings from other research. Doren (1998, p. 107) further suggested that “rapist sexual recidivism 

should be considered to have a conservative approximation of its true base rate at about 39 percent.” 

The accuracy of Doren’s (1998) estimate regarding the long-term propensity of rapists to reoffend and the 

contention that any nontrivial proportion of sex offenders may show frst-time recidivism 20 years or more 

following release from incarceration or discharge from probation, both remain subject to debate. Harris and 

Hanson (2004, p. 11), for example, in discussing their fndings concerning the long-term sexual recidivism 

rates of rapists and child molesters, stated, “The decreasing rate of offending with age suggests that the rates 

observed after 15 to 20 years are likely to approximate the rates that would be observed if offenders were 

followed for the rest of their lives.” 

While a review of the literature on the relationship between age and sexual recidivism is beyond the scope of 

this chapter, it is worthwhile noting that fndings from several recent studies support the conclusion that age is 
118 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

inversely related to sexual recidivism (Prentky & Lee, 2007; Thornton, 2006); that is, as the age of the offender 

increases, the likelihood of sexual recidivism tends to diminish (Prentky & Lee, 2007).33 Doren (2010), however, 

has suggested that drawing meaningful conclusions from the available data about an age threshold for low 

risk is diffcult. While the type of offender may matter, the data are too few and too conditional to arrive at a 

valid conclusion (Doren, 2010). Findings regarding the relationship between age and sexual recidivism reported 

by Knight and Thornton (2007, p. 9–10) in an earlier study designed primarily to evaluate and improve risk 

assessment schemes for sexual offenders offer support for this position. As Knight and Thornton stated — 

The present results suggest that age at discharge should not be introduced as a weighting factor for 

the actuarials. Strikingly, when age on index offense was controlled, increasing age on discharge was 

associated with increased rates of sexual recidivism., Those discharged after the age of 60, however, 

did have lower sexual recidivism rates, but the size of this sample was too small to make any frm 

recommendations. Nonetheless, the present results are consistent with adjusting expected recidivism rates 

down only for those discharged after the age of 60. The complexity of these results demand replication 

before too much weight is placed on them, but they are certainly inconsistent with the hypothesis that 

merely holding someone in prison will enable them to age out of risk. 

The 2012 study referenced above by Olver et al., however, once again found support for the thesis that the 

propensity for sex offenders to recidivate declines with advancing age. In their Canadian study that examined 

how treatment outcomes for adult sex offenders released from prison might be moderated by factors such as 

the offender’s age and risk level, the researchers found that older sex offenders had signifcantly lower sexual 

and violent recidivism rates than younger sex offenders. 

Child Molesters 

A relatively large body of research exists on the recidivism rates of child molesters. While unreported crime 

affects all recidivism research, it is particularly problematic in recidivism studies of child-molesting offenders as 

several studies have demonstrated that the likelihood that a sexual assault will be reported to law enforcement 

decreases with the victim’s age (Kilpatrick, Saunders & Smith, 2003; Smith et al., 2000; Sorenson & Snow, 1991). 

The study of sex offenders released from state prisons in 1994 by Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003) included 

a large sample (4,295) of child molesters. The researchers reported that 5.1 percent of the 4,295 child molesters 

released from prison in 1994 were rearrested for a new sex crime within three years of their release, 14.1 percent 

were rearrested for a violent crime and 39.4 percent were rearrested for a crime of any kind. Similar to the 

pattern for rapists in the study, child molesters with more than one prior arrest had an overall recidivism rate 

nearly double (44.3 percent compared to 23.3 percent) that of child molesters with only one prior arrest. 

As might be expected, child molesters were more likely than any other type of offender — sexual or nonsexual — 

to be arrested for a sex a crime against a child following release from prison. During the three-year postrelease 

follow-up period, 3.3 percent of the child molesters, 2.2 percent of all sex offenders and less than one-half of 

1 percent of the nonsex offenders were arrested for child molestation.34 Released child molesters with more 

than one prior arrest for child molesting were three times more likely to be rearrested for child molesting than 

released child molesters with no more than one prior arrest (7.3 percent compared to 2.4 percent). 

Three other studies mentioned in the prior discussion about the recidivism of rapists also make contributions 

to the knowledge base about the recidivism patterns of child molesters. As part of their larger study designed 

to evaluate risk assessment schemes for sexual offenders, Knight and Thornton (2007) examined the recidivism 

rates of child molesters. Their analysis examined the recidivism of child molesters who had been referred to the 

Massachusetts Treatment Center for evaluation between 1959 and 1984. Again, given the high-risk nature of 

these offenders and the length of time that has passed since these individuals committed their referral offense, 

fndings from the analysis may have limited application to child molesters today. Still, several fndings 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 119 

 

from the analysis are worth noting. First, Knight and Thornton (2007, p. 7) found a recidivism rate for child 

molesters of 12 percent after three years of follow-up (24 of 97 offenders recidivated) and 20 percent after 

15 years of follow-up (18 of 91 offenders recidivated) based on a new serious sexual charge.35 Second, when 

the researchers examined the pace of recidivism in a comparative analysis involving child molesters and rapists, 

they found no difference in the speed of sexual recidivism between these two types of sex offenders. However, 

they did fnd that child molesters recidivated at a slower pace than rapists for both nonsexual victim-involved 

and victimless crimes.” 

Findings from Harris and Hanson’s (2004) analysis are particularly compelling because they document 

differential rates of recidivism for different types of child molesters based on follow-up periods of fve, 10 and 

15 years. For all child molesters in the analysis, the researchers found fve-, 10- and 15-year sexual recidivism 

rates based on new charges or convictions of 13 percent, 18 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Table 5-2 

presents the study’s recidivism estimates (based on new charges or convictions) for fve-, 10- and 15-year 

follow-up periods for molesters of boys, molesters of girls and incest offenders. 

Table 5-2. Sexual Recidivism Rates of Child Molesters 

Type of Offense Recidivism Rate, by Follow-up Period (%) 

5 years 10 years 15 years 

Molested boys 23.0 

(N=315) 

27.8 

(N=105) 

35.4 

(N=95) 

Molested girls 9.2 

(N=766) 

13.1 

(N=218) 

16.3 

(N=208) 

Committed incest 6.4 

(N=416) 

9.4 

(N=73) 

13.2 

(N=69) 

Recidivism estimates are based on new convictions and charges. 

Source: Harris and Hanson (2004). 

Table 5-2 shows that molesters of boys had the highest rates of sexual recidivism. Different patterns of 

reoffending within child molester populations have been found in other studies as well, with molesters of 

boys having higher recidivism rates than other types of child molesters (see, e.g., Seto, 2008). It is important to 

keep in mind that the recidivism rates observed for child molesters, and for incest offenders particularly, are 

impacted by underreporting even more so than recidivism rates for other types of sex offenders, as research 

has shown that child victims who knew their perpetrator were the least likely to report their victimization 

(Smith et al., 2000). 

In a study that examined the recidivism of 191 child molesters and 137 nonsex offenders 15 to 30 years 

after their release from a Canadian prison, Hanson, Scott and Steffy (1995) found that child molesters had 

lower rates of overall recidivism (based on reconviction) than nonsex offenders (61 percent compared to 

83.2 percent), but much higher rates of sexual recidivism (35 percent compared to 1.5 percent). Not all child 

molesters in the study, however, recidivated at the same rate. The highest rate of recidivism among child 

molesters in the study (77 percent) was found for child molesters with previous sexual offenses, those who 

were never married and those who selected extrafamilial boy victims. In contrast, the long-term recidivism rate 

for child molesters categorized as low risk was less than 20 percent. 

One study that did not fnd different rates of recidivism for child molesters based on victim gender was 

Prentky and colleagues’ (1997) analysis of child molesters who were civilly committed in Massachusetts. The 

researchers cautioned, however, that this specifc departure in their fndings from other research may have 

been an artifact of the study sample’s extensive prior criminal history for sexual offenses. The sample consisted 
120 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

of 115 child molesters who were discharged from civil commitment in Massachusetts between 1960 and 1984. 

Again, generalizing certain fndings from the analysis to other samples of sex offenders could be problematic 

because the offenders in the study were very high risk and the study period ended more than 25 years ago. 

Nonetheless, the research is still important because of its lengthy follow-up period. Based on the 25-year 

follow-up period, Prentky and his colleagues (1997) found a sexual recidivism rate of 52 percent (defned as 

those charged with a subsequent sexual offense) for the 115 child molesters in the study. The overall new crime 

recidivism rate found after 25 years of follow-up was 75 percent.36 

While the difference between the sexual recidivism rates for child molesters found by Prentky and colleagues 

(1997) using a 25-year follow-up period (52 percent) and Harris and Hanson (2004) using a 15-year follow-up 

period (23 percent) is striking, the nature and substantive signifcance of the difference can be interpreted 

in fundamentally different ways. One interpretation is that frst-time recidivism may occur for some child 

molesters 20 or more years after criminal justice intervention and that recidivism estimates derived from 

shorter follow-up periods are likely to underestimate the lifetime risk of child molester reoffending (Doren, 

1998). Analyzing data from Prentky and colleagues (1997) and other studies, Doren (1998, p. 105) concluded 

that the lifetime prevalence of sexual recidivism for extrafamilial child molesters “should be thought of as 

having a conservative approximation of about 52 percent.” An alternative interpretation is that the difference 

between Prentky and colleagues’ 25-year estimate and Harris and Hanson’s 15-year estimate is primarily 

an artifact of sampling — Harris and Hanson’s fndings are based on a larger, more diverse sample of child 

molesters, including some serving community sentences — and that the lifetime prevalence of sexual recidivism 

for child molesters overall is lower than the 52 percent suggested by Doren and based, at least in part, on the 

fndings of Prentky and colleagues. While the rate at which child molesters are likely to sexually recidivate 

over the life course may be subject to further debate, current empirical evidence suggests that molesters 

of boys have higher short- and long-term recidivism rates than other types of sex offenders. It is important 

to keep in mind, however, that both gender-crossover and age-crossover offending are not uncommon and 

that far more research on the recidivism patterns of crossover offenders is needed (Wilcox et al., 2005; Heil, 

Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; English et al., 2000).37 Additionally, recidivism is highly variable even within subtypes 

of sex offenders and the propensity of child molesters and other sex offenders to reoffend can best be 

understood in the context of both historical — or static — and dynamic risk factors empirically associated with 

recidivism. 

Exhibitionists 

A limited body of research exists on the recidivism rates of exhibitionists. Marshall, Eccles and Barbaree (1991) 

reported recidivism data from two studies that examined the effectiveness of specifc treatment approaches for 

exhibitionists. Both studies were based on samples that were small in size.38 The frst study examined recidivism 

for 23 exhibitionists who participated in study treatment and 21 exhibitionists who served as comparison 

offenders.39 The follow-up period was just under nine years for both groups. The researchers found that 

nine of the 23 (39.1 percent) treated exhibitionists and 12 of the 21 (57.1 percent) comparison exhibitionists 

recidivated during the follow-up period. The second study examined recidivism for 17 males charged with 

exhibitionism and treated between 1984 and 1987. Based on a follow-up period of almost four years, the 

researchers found that four of the 17 (23.6 percent) exhibitionists recidivated. 

Sugarman and colleagues (1994) examined recidivism for exhibitionists with a larger sample (210 exhibitionists) 

and a follow-up period of 17 years. The researchers reported a 32-percent recidivism rate based on a conviction 

for a contact sexual offense during the follow-up period, and a 75-percent recidivism rate based on a 

conviction for any type of crime other than exposing. More recently, Rabinowitz-Greenberg and colleagues 

(2002) examined the recidivism of 221 exhibitionists assessed at the Royal Ottawa Hospital Sexual Behaviors 

Clinic between 1983 and 1996. Based on an average follow-up period of 6.8 years, the researchers found a 

sexual recidivism rate of 11.7 percent (based on a new charge or conviction), a violent crime recidivism rate of 

16.8 percent and an overall recidivism rate of 32.7 percent. Building upon the analysis, Firestone and colleagues 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 121 

(2006) examined recidivism for 208 of the exhibitionists in the analysis conducted by Rabinowitz-Greenberg and 

colleagues, extending the follow-up period to an average of 13.2 years. The researchers found that 23.6 percent 

of the offenders in the study sample were charged with or convicted of a sex crime (based on the 13.2-year 

average follow-up period), 31.3 percent were charged with or convicted of a violent crime and 38.9 percent were 

charged with or convicted of any criminal offense. Sexual recidivists who were charged with or convicted of a 

hands-on sex crime during the 13.2-year average follow-up period were found to have a more extensive prior 

criminal history for violent crime and any type of crime than the exhibitionists who sexually recidivated with a 

hands-off offense. 

Summary 

Drawing frm conclusions about the extent of sex offender recidivism can be diffcult due to a number of 

factors. First, although there is universal agreement that the observed recidivism rates of sex offenders are 

underestimates of actual reoffending, the magnitude of the gap between observed and actual reoffending 

remains subject to debate. As a result, conclusions about the extent of sex offender recidivism and the 

propensity of sex offenders to reoffend over the life course inherently involve some uncertainty. Second, 

measurement variation across studies often produces disparate fndings that can be diffcult to interpret. 

Comparing and corroborating fndings can be diffcult for the same reason. Third, short follow-up periods and 

small sample sizes limit the generalization of certain fndings. Drawing frm conclusions about the propensity 

of specifc subgroups of sex offenders to reoffend over the life course is particularly diffcult, as sample sizes 

often fall to unrepresentative levels as follow-up periods grow longer.40 Both individually and collectively, these 

factors present considerable challenges for anyone wanting to synthesize research fndings for the purpose 

of drawing valid, widely accepted conclusions. Still, recent research has produced several trustworthy fndings 

concerning the recidivism rates of child molesters, rapists and sex offenders overall. 

• Offcial records underestimate recidivism. Studies of sexual assault victims and studies of sex offenders in 

treatment demonstrate that actual offending rates are poorly refected by offcial records. Simons, Heil 

and English (2004) found that only 5 percent of rapes and child sexual assaults self-reported during prison 

treatment were identifed in offcial records; Tjaden and Thoennes (2006) found that only 17 percent of 

victim reports resulted in the perpetrator’s conviction. While the magnitude of the difference between 

observed and actual reoffending needs to be better understood, there is universal agreement in the 

scientifc community that the observed recidivism rates of sex offenders are underestimates of actual 

reoffending. 

• The observed sexual recidivism rates of sex offenders range from about 5 percent after three years to 

about 24 percent after 15 years. Relatively low rates of recidivism — particularly sexual recidivism — are 

reported in studies using follow-up periods shorter than fve years. Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003), 

for example, found a sexual recidivism rate of 5.3 percent using a three-year follow-up period for a large 

sample of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Sample and Bray (2003) reported a sexual recidivism 

rate of 4.8 percent for a large sample of sex offenders in Illinois based on a three-year follow-up period. 

Studies employing longer follow-up periods consistently report higher rates of recidivism. Harris and 

Hanson (2004), for example, reported sexual recidivism rates of 20 percent and 24 percent for a sample of 

sex offenders based on a 10- and 15-year follow-up period, respectively. While observed recidivism rates 

will naturally increase as the length of the follow-up period increases, it is important to recognize that 

recidivism rates derived from follow-up periods of fve years or less may mislabel a considerable proportion 

of repeat offenders as nonrecidivists, resulting in a signifcant underestimation of the absolute risk to public 

safety that sex offenders pose. 

• Sex offenders — regardless of type — have higher rates of general recidivism than sexual recidivism. 

Although this basic reoffending pattern would naturally be expected to occur, the magnitude of the 
122 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

difference found in research is somewhat striking. It suggests that sex offenders are far more likely to 

reoffend for a nonsexual crime than a sexual crime and, as Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2004, p. 4) 

have aptly stated, “policies aimed at public protection should also be concerned with the likelihood of 

any form of serious recidivism, not just sexual recidivism.” It is important to keep in mind, however, that 

nonsexual offenses are more likely than sexual offenses to be reported to law enforcement, and that some 

crimes legally labeled as nonsexual in the criminal histories of sex offenders may indeed be sexual in their 

underlying behavior. 

• Sex offenders have lower rates of general recidivism but higher rates of sexual recidivism than nonsex 

offenders. Research comparing the recidivism rates of sex offenders with nonsex offenders consistently fnds 

that sex offenders have lower overall recidivism rates than nonsex offenders. Child molesters, rapists and sex 

offenders overall, however, are far more likely than nonsex offenders to recidivate sexually. Langan, Schmitt 

and Durose (2003), for example, found sexual recidivism rates that are four times higher for sex offenders 

compared to nonsex offenders in their study of about two-thirds of all sex offenders released from state 

prisons in 1994. 

• Female sex offenders have lower rates of sexual and general recidivism than male sex offenders. Five- to 

six-year rates of sexual recidivism for female sex offenders may be as low as 1 to 3 percent. The empirical 

evidence regarding the differential recidivism rates of female and male sex offenders suggests that 

intervention and management practices need to differentiate between female and male sex offenders, 

and that procedures for assessing risk developed for male sex offenders are unlikely to be accurate when 

applied to female sex offenders (Cortoni, Hanson & Coache, 2010). In addition, until stronger empirical 

evidence is assembled concerning the factors associated with female sex offender recidivism, assessment and 

intervention practices for female sex offenders should be driven by scientifc evidence on female offenders 

overall rather than by knowledge about male sex offenders (Cortoni & Hanson, 2005; Public Safety Canada, 

2006). 

• Different types of sex offenders have markedly different rates of recidivism. Research that examines the 

recidivism of rapists and child molesters indicates that the highest observed recidivism rates are found 

among child molesters who offend against boys. Harris and Hanson’s (2004) analysis, for example, found 

a fve-year sexual recidivism rate of 23 percent and a 15-year sexual recidivism rate of 35 percent for 

molesters of boys. Comparatively lower recidivism rates are found for rapists, child molesters who victimize 

girls and incest offenders. In the Harris and Hanson (2004) analysis, rapists were found to have a fve-year 

sexual recidivism rate of 14 percent and a 15-year sexual recidivism rate of 24 percent. Child molesters 

who victimize girls were found to have a fve-year sexual recidivism rate of 9 percent and a 15-year sexual 

recidivism rate of 16 percent. While differential rates of recidivism between opposite-sex and same-sex 

child molesters have not always been found in research, the weight of the evidence suggests that contact 

offenders who target boys are more likely to sexually reoffend than those who target girls (Seto, 2008).41 

Incest offenders appear to have lower sexual recidivism rates than rapists or other child molesters. In the 

Harris and Hanson (2004) analysis, incest offenders were found to have a fve-year sexual recidivism rate 

of 6 percent and a 15-year sexual recidivism rate of 13 percent. It is important to keep in mind, however, 

that the recidivism rates observed for child molesters, and for incest offenders particularly, are artifcially 

depressed by underreporting even more so than recidivism rates for other types of sex offenders, as 

research indicates that child victims who know their perpetrator are the least likely to report their 

victimization. In addition, both gender-crossover and age-crossover offending are not uncommon, and far 

more research on the recidivism patterns of crossover offenders is needed. 

Still, the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that different types of sex offenders have a different 

propensity to reoffend. This suggests that different recidivism-reduction policies and practices are needed for 

different types of sex offenders. Policies and practices that take into account the differential reoffending risks 

posed by different types of sex offenders are likely to be more effective and cost-benefcial than those that 

treat sex offenders as a largely homogenous group. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 123 

Different types of sex offenders have 

a different propensity to reoffend. 

While a sound foundation of knowledge on the extent of sex offender recidivism has been produced in 

recent years, signifcant knowledge gaps and unresolved controversies remain. Variations across studies in the 

operational defnition of recidivism, the length of the follow-up period employed and other measurement 

factors continue to make it diffcult to make cross-study comparisons of observed recidivism rates. Interpreting 

disparate fndings and their implications for policy and practice also remains a challenge. 

Research documenting the recidivism 

patterns of crossover offenders and other 

specifc sex offender subtypes is needed. 

While the operational defnitions and follow-up periods employed in sex offender recidivism research will 

largely be dictated by the available data, studies that produce more readily comparable fndings are greatly 

needed, as are those that employ follow-up periods longer than fve years. Analyses that standardize the 

time at risk for all offenders in a given study using survival analysis also are needed. Future research should 

also attempt to build a stronger evidence base on the differential recidivism patterns of different types of sex 

offenders. While important information on the recidivism of rapists and child molesters has been produced, 

far more evidence regarding the recidivism patterns of crossover offenders and other specifc sex offender 

subtypes is needed. 

We must develop a way to bridge the gap 

between the perspective that “few sex 

offenders reoffend” and the evidence that 

few victims report their victimization. 

Finally, far more policy-relevant research is needed on the absolute and relative risks that different types of 

sex offenders pose. The extant literature on sex offender recidivism has thus far been unable to decisively 

resolve the readily apparent controversy that exists in the feld about the proper interpretation of recidivism 

data and its meaning for public policy. On one hand, some researchers interpret the observed recidivism 

rates of sex offenders as low, and hence argue for revisions to the current sex offender policy framework. 

Other researchers are more reticent to interpret recidivism data in the same way, pointing out that the true 

reoffense rates of sex offenders remain largely unknown due to underreporting and other factors. There 

is little question that policies and practices aimed at the reduction of sex offender recidivism would be far 

more effective and cost-benefcial if they better aligned with the empirical evidence, but bridging the gap is 

plagued by measurement problems and conficting interpretations of the existing scientifc evidence. Individual 

and community safety would no doubt be served by a redoubling of efforts to break down victim reporting 

barriers, improve research and build more meaningful collaborations between researchers, policymakers, 

practitioners and the public. 
124 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

Notes 

1. Also see the defnition for recidivism in Public Safety Canada’s Glossary of Key Terms in Crime Prevention. 

2. This includes offenders returning to the community upon release from incarceration as well as offenders 

who are serving or who have been discharged from community-based sentences. 

3. Some researchers interpret the observed recidivism rates of sex offenders as relatively low or conclude that 

most sex offenders do not recidivate. Others are more reticent to interpret recidivism data in the same way, 

arguing that the true reoffense rates of sex offenders are high or unknown or that observed recidivism rates 

can be misleading because the propensity of sex offenders to reoffend is poorly refected in offcially recorded 

recidivism, particularly when short follow-up periods are involved. 

4. See Pipe and colleagues (2007) for more information about childhood disclosure of sexual abuse. 

5. Some studies that examine the recidivism of offenders on parole or probation include in their defnition of 

recidivism imprisonment that results from a technical violation of the conditions of release or supervision. 

6. For example, some offenders found to be nonrecidivists may have moved out of state before the end of 

the follow-up period, or some may have spent a portion of the follow-up period in jail. Had these offenders 

actually been at risk in the community for the entire follow-up period, recidivism may have been detected, 

resulting in a higher observed recidivism rate for the entire group of offenders being studied. 

7. Some single studies do not simply calculate the proportion rearrested, reconvicted or returned to prison; 

rather, they employ a technique called survival analysis, which standardizes the at-risk time for everyone in the 

analysis. See endnote 37. 

8. Meta-analysis has been criticized by some researchers, primarily for mixing very different studies together or 

for including studies of questionable quality in the analysis. Advances in methods regarding heterogeneity and 

methodological variability can successfully address these criticisms. See, for example, Petrosino and Lavenberg 

(2007); Wilson and Lipsey (2001); and Lipsey (2002). Meta-analyses that are based on prudent exclusionary 

criteria, incorporate statistical tests of homogeneity and explore how methodological and contextual variations 

impact treatment effects are uniquely equipped to provide policymakers and practitioners with highly 

trustworthy and credible evidence. 

9. Sample and Bray (2003) did not report the number of 1990 arrestees who were categorized as sex offenders. 

10. Twenty-two of the studies examined sexual recidivism (3,121 treated sex offenders and 3,625 comparison 

offenders) and 13 studies examined general recidivism (1,979 treated sex offenders and 2,822 comparison 

offenders). 

11. Recidivism was defned as reconviction in 10 studies and rearrest in 12 studies. In one study, the criterion for 

recidivism was not specifed. Average follow-up periods ranged from one to 21 years, with a median of 4.7 years. 

12. The 43 studies examined 5,078 treated offenders and 4,376 untreated offenders. Thirty-eight studies 

reported sexual recidivism (4,321 treated sex offenders and 3,591 comparison offenders) and 30 studies 

reported general recidivism (3,356 treated sex offenders and 2,475 comparison offenders). Recidivism was 

defned as reconviction in eight studies and rearrest in 11 studies. In 20 studies, broad defnitions of recidivism 

were used, including parole violations, readmissions to institutions or community reports. Average follow-up 

periods ranged from one to 16 years, with a median of 46 months. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 125 

13. The 22,181 study subjects included 9,512 treated sexual offenders and 12,669 untreated sexual offenders. 

14. These recidivism rates are based on the n-weighted average for the treatment and comparison groups. 

The unweighted average recidivism rates were 12 percent for the treatment group and 24 percent for the 

comparison group. The average follow-up period for treated sex offenders was 63.54 months (5.3 years) and 

the average follow-up period for untreated offenders was 62.41 months (5.2 years). 

15. Only 13 of the studies in the meta-analysis reported data on general recidivism. 

16. A handful of other studies have employed follow-up periods of 20 or more years. Prentky and colleagues 

(1997), for example, examined the recidivism rates of rapists and child molesters at various follow-up points; 

the longest was 25 years after the offenders’ release from confnement. The observed sexual recidivism 

rate after fve years of follow-up was 19 percent for both rapists and child molesters. By comparison, the 

observed sexual recidivism rates after 25 years of follow-up were 39 percent for rapists and 52 percent for 

child molesters. These analyses are discussed in greater detail in the “Recidivism Rates: Different Types of Sex 

Offenders” section in this chapter. 

17. The sexual recidivism analysis was based on a combined sample of 23,393 offenders; the general recidivism 

analysis was based on a combined sample of 19,374 offenders. 

18. The sexual recidivism analysis was based on a combined sample of 20,440 offenders; the general recidivism 

analysis was based on a combined sample of 13,196 offenders. 

19. Reliable estimates on the prevalence of female sexual offending are diffcult to obtain, as a number of 

factors can affect the recognition of female perpetrated sex offenses (CSOM, 2007). According to the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), only about 1 percent of the offenders arrested for rape 

in 2009 were female. (For more on UCR, see the “Uniform Crime Report” section of Chapter 1: “Incidence and 

Prevalence of Sexual Offending,” in the Adult section.) A recent Safer Society survey of sex offender treatment 

programs in the United States and Canada found that females accounted for about 5 percent of the clients 

treated in U.S. programs in 2008 (McGrath et al., 2010). 

20. The defnition of recidivism varied widely, ranging from arrests to convictions and reports provided by 

probation offcers. 

21. Recidivism rates for males sex offenders were derived from Hanson and Bussière (1998) and Hanson and 

Morton-Bourgon (2004). 

22. p < 0.001. 

23. Five-year recidivism rates were based on 1,041 female offenders. 

24. The sexual, violent and overall recidivism rates for male sex offenders were drawn from Hanson and 

Bussiere (1998) and Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2004). 

25. Recidivism was defned as an arrest, charge, conviction or incarceration for a new offense. 

26. As a comparison, the researchers reported a sexual recidivism rate of 13.7 percent for male sex offenders 

based on an average follow-up period of 5.5 years. The average sexual recidivism rate reported for male sex 

offenders was derived from a previous meta-analysis (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004) of 84 studies involving 

20,440 sex offenders, the majority of whom were males. Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2004) reported that 
126 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

one of the 84 studies in the meta-analysis focused on female sex offenders. Based on the N-size reported in 

that study of female offenders, fewer than 100 of the 20,440 sex offenders in the Hanson and Morton-Bourgon 

(2004) meta-analysis were female. 

27. The fve-year recidivism rate estimate is based on 514 offenders, the 10-year estimate is based on 261 offenders 

and the 15-year estimate is based on 157 offenders. 

28. The study conducted by Langan, Schmitt and Durose (2003) separated “violent sex crimes” into two 

categories: “rape” and “other sexual assault.” The term “rapist” was used to refer to a released sex offender 

whose imprisonment offense was defned by state law as forcible intercourse with a female or male. The 

“rape” category excluded statutory rape or any other nonforcible sexual act with a minor or with someone 

unable to give legal or factual consent. Sex offenders whose imprisonment offense was a violent sex crime 

that could not be positively identifed as “rape” were placed in the “sexual assault” category. The threeyear recidivism rates reported for the 6,576 sex offenders categorized as sexual assaulters follow: 5.5 percent 

were rearrested for a new sex crime, 16.4 percent were rearrested for a violent crime and 41.5 percent were 

rearrested for a crime of any kind. 

29. Maletzky and Steinhauser (2002) conducted a study of 7,275 sexual offenders, including 448 rapists, who 

entered a treatment program between 1973 and 1997. Although the follow-up period for some offenders was 

as long as 25 years, the failure rates reported in the study were based on self-admission of covert and/or overt 

deviant behaviors or the presence of deviant sexual arousal (which is not a crime), in addition to reoffending. 

30. Prentky and his colleagues also employed a statistical technique called survival analysis, which takes into 

account the amount of time each offender has been on the street and is thus able to reoffend. Recidivism 

is reported as the failure rate, which is the proportion of individuals who recidivated (or failed) based on 

a standardized time at risk for all study subjects. Determining the simple proportion of individuals who 

reoffended during the follow-up period — the most common method of calculating a recidivism rate — can 

underestimate the rate of recidivism because some of the nonrecidivists may not have been at risk in the 

community for the entire follow-up period. Had they been, recidivism may have been detected, resulting in a 

higher observed recidivism rate for the entire group of offenders being studied. By standardizing the at-risk 

time for all study subjects, survival analysis yields a more accurate estimate of recidivism. 

31. These recidivism rates are the failure rates generated by survival analysis and reported in the study. 

32. Serious sexual charges consisted of 15 sexual charges that involved physical contact with a victim (e.g., 

carnal abuse, accosting, unnatural acts, indecent assault, assault with intent to rape, rape, sodomy, statutory 

rape, incest). 

33. Prentky and Lee’s 2007 analysis of the relationship between age at release and age at recidivism used the 

same sample of 136 civilly committed rapists used in their 1997 research. 

34. Of the approximately 141 children allegedly molested by these child molesters during the postrelease 

follow-up, 79 percent were age 13 or younger. 

35. Serious sexual charges consisted of 15 sexual charges that involved physical contact with a victim (e.g., 

carnal abuse, accosting, unnatural acts, indecent assault, assault with intent to rape, rape, sodomy, statutory 

rape, incest). 

36. The sexual and overall recidivism rates reported here are failure rates reported by Prentky and colleagues 

(1997) based on survival analysis. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 127 

37. With respect to gender crossover, research suggests that the majority of offenders who assault males have 

also assaulted females (63–92 percent), but not the reverse (23–37 percent) (Abel & Osborn, 1992; English et al., 

2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003). (For more information on “Sex Offender Typologies,” see Chapter 3 in 

the Adult section). 

38. Outcome data for both studies were obtained from offcial records and police reports, and recidivism 

was defned as a new charge or conviction or an incident where exposing behavior was reported to law 

enforcement and the offender was identifed in the police report, even if the alleged incident did not lead to a 

criminal charge. 

39. All of the treated and comparison offenders were charged with exhibitionism and psychologically assessed 

between 1976 and 1984. The 23 treated offenders participated in the treatment program being studied. The 

21 comparison offenders were referred to counseling in their local community. 

40. Variation in sex offender management practices over time or across jurisdictions may also limit the 

transferability of fndings. Some researchers, for example, have expressed concern about generalizing 

recidivism fndings derived from lengthy follow-up periods to present-day sex offenders because sex 

offender management strategies have changed and improved over time (see, e.g., Wilson, 2011). See, for 

example, Maletzky and Steinhauser (2002) for a discussion of treatment improvement over time and see, 

for example, Lösel and Schmucker (2005) for an alternative fnding. Also, some researchers have questioned 

the comparability of fndings from studies of domestic and foreign sex offenders on the grounds that U.S. 

offenders are often subject to polygraph testing, whereas foreign offenders are not. 

41. Studies that have not found a difference in recidivism between opposite-sex and same-sex child molesters 

include Barbaree and Marshall (1988) and Prentky and colleagues (1997). 

References 

Abel, G.G., Mittelman, M., Becker, J.B., Rathner, J. & Rouleau, J.L. (1988). Predicting child molesters’ response to 

treatment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528, 223–234. 

Abel, G.G. & Osborn, C.A. (1992). The paraphilias: The extent and nature of sexually deviant and criminal 

behavior. In J.M.W. Bradford (Ed.), Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 15 (pp. 675–687). Philadelphia, PA: W.B. 

Saunders Company. 

Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., McKee, B. & English, K. (2000). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and 

offenses of adult sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 123–138. 

Bachman, R. (1998). Factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National 

Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8–29. 

Barbaree, H.E. & Marshall, W.L. (1988). Deviant sexual arousal, demographic and offense history variables as 

predictors of reoffense among child molesters and incest offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 6, 267–280. 

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) (2001). Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD: Center for 

Sex Offender Management. 

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM) (2007). Female Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex 

Offender Management. 
128 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

Cortoni, F. & Hanson, R.K. (2005). A Review of the Recidivism Rates of Adult Female Sex Offenders. Research 

Report No. R-169. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada. 

Cortoni, F., Hanson, R.K. & Coache, M.È. (2010). The recidivism rates of female sex offenders are low: A metaanalysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 387–401. 

Doren, D. (1998). Recidivism base rates, predictions of sex offender recidivism and the “sexual predator” 

commitment laws. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 97–114. 

Doren, D. (2010). Empirically based recidivism risk assessment estimate extrapolations across time and outcome 

measure. In A. Schlank (Ed.), The Sexual Predator, Legal Issues, Assessment, Treatment. Kingston, NJ: Civic 

Research Institute. 

Durose, M., Cooper, A. & Snyder, H. (2014). Special Report, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: 

Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

English, K., Jones, L., Pasini-Hill, D., Patrick, D. & Cooley-Towell, S. (2000). The Value of Polygraph Testing in Sex 

Offender Management. Final research report submitted to the National Institute of Justice for grant number 

D97LBVX0034. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Offce of Research and Statistics. 

Firestone, P., Kingston, D.A., Wexler, A. & Bradford, J.M. (2006). Long-term follow-up of exhibitionists: Psychological, 

phallometric and offense characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 349–59. 

Gelb, K. (2007). Recidivism of Sex Offenders Research Paper. Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council. 

Grotpeter, J.K. & Elliot, D.S. (2002). Violent Sexual Offending. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Center for 

the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science. 

Hanson, R.K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L. & Hodgson, S. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Treatment 

for Sex Offenders: Risk, Need and Responsivity. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Hanson, R.K., Broom, I. & Stephenson, M. (2004). Evaluating community sex offender treatment programs: 

A 12-year follow-up of 724 offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 87–96. 

Hanson, R.K. & Bussière, M.T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism studies. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362. 

Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R., Marques, J., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V. & Seto, M. (2002). First report 

of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169–194. 

Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Ottawa, 

ON: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 

Hanson, R.K., Morton, K.E. & Harris, A.J.R. (2003). Sex offender recidivism risk: What we know and what we 

need to know. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 154–166. 

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, 325–337. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 129 

Harris, A.J.R. & Hanson, R.K. (2004). Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety and 

Emergency Preparedness Canada. 

Heil, P., Ahlmeyer, S. & Simons, D. (2003). Crossover sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 15, 221–236. 

Heil, P., Harrison, L., English, K. & Ahlmeyer, S. (2009). Is prison sex offending indicative of community risk? 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 892–908. 

Henslin, J.M. (2008). Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (8th Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn and 

Bacon. 

Kelly, L., Lovett, J. & Regan, L. (2005). A Gap or a Chasm? Attrition in Reported Rape Cases. London, England: 

Home Offce Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. 

Kilpatrick, D.G., Saunders, B.E. & Smith, D.W. (2003). Youth Victimization: Prevalence and Implications. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Knight, R. & Thornton, D. (2007). Evaluating and Improving Risk Assessment Schemes for Sexual Recidivism: A 

Long-Term Follow-Up of Convicted Sexual Offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Langan, P., Schmitt, E. & Durose, M. (2003). Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From Prison in 1994. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Larcombe, W. (2012). Sex offender risk assessment: The need to place recidivism research in the context of 

attrition in the criminal justice system. Violence Against Women, 18(4), 482–501. 

Lievore, D. (2004). Prosecutorial Decisions in Adult Sexual Assault Cases: An Australian Study. Canberra, 

Australia: Offce of the Status of Women. 

Lipsey, M.W. (2002). Meta-analysis and program evaluation. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskirft, 9, 194–208. 

(Translated.) 

Lösel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders: A comprehensive metaanalysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146. 

Maletzky, B. & Steinhauser, C. (2002). A 25-year follow-up of cognitive/behavioral therapy with 7,275 sexual 

offenders. Behavior Modifcation, 26, 123–147. 

Maltz, M.D. (2001). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Originally published by Academic Press. Retrieved from www.uic. 

edu/depts/lib/forr/pdf/crimjust/recidivism.pdf. 

Marshall, W.L., Eccles, A. & Barbaree, H.E. (1991). The treatment of exhibitionists: A focus on sexual deviance 

versus cognitive and relationship features. Behavioural Research and Therapy, 29, 129–135. 

McGrath, R., Cumming, G., Burchard, B., Zeoli, S. & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current Practices and Emerging Trends in 

Sexual Abuser Management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G., Hoke, S.E. & Bonn-Miller, M.O. (2007). Outcomes in a community sex offender 

treatment program: A comparison between polygraphed and matched non-polygraphed offenders. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 381–393. 
130 CHAPTER 5: ADULT SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM 

Mercado, C., Jeglic, E., Markus, K., Hanson, R.K. & Levenson, J. (2013). Sex Offender Management, Treatment 

and Civil Commitment: An Evidence Based Analysis Aimed at Reducing Sexual Violence. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Olver, M., Nicholaichuk, T., Gu, D. & Wong, S. (2012). Sex Offender Treatment Outcome, Actuarial Risk and the 

Aging Sex Offender in Canadian Corrections: A Long-Term Follow-up. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment 25(4) 396–422. 

Olver, M., Wong, S. & Nicholaichuk, T.P. (2008). Outcome evaluation of a high-intensity inpatient sex offender 

treatment program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 522–536. 

Petrosino, A. & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and metal-analytic best evidence on “what works” for 

criminal justice decisionmakers. Western Criminology Review, 8, 1–15. 

Pipe, M.E., Lamb, M.E., Orbach, Y. & Cederborg, A.C. (Eds.). (2007). Child Sexual Abuse: Disclosure, Delay and 

Denial. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Prentky, R. & Lee, A. (2007). Effect of age-at-release on long term sexual re-offense rates in civilly committed 

sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 43–59. 

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. 

Przybylski, R. (1986). The Impact of Prior Criminal History on Recidivism. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice 

Information Authority. 

Public Safety Canada (2006). Recidivism Rates of Female Sexual Offenders. Research Summary, vol. 11, no. 3. 

Retrieved from www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rcvdsm-fmlffndrs/index-eng.aspx. 

Rabinowitz-Greenberg, S., Firestone, P., Bradford, J. & Greenberg, D. (2002). Prediction of recidivism in 

exhibitionists: Psychological, phallometric and offense factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 14, 329–347. 

Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T., Lang, C. & Cormier, C.A. (2006). Violent sex offenses: How are they best measured from 

offcial records? Law and Human Behavior; 30, 525–541. 

Rosenfeld, R., Wallman, J. & Formango, R. (2005). The contribution of ex-prisoners to crime rates. In J. Travis and 

C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America (pp. 80–104). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Sample, L.L. & Bray, T.M. (2003). Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 59–82. 

Sandler, J.C. & Freeman, N.J. (2009). Female sex offender recidivism: A large-scale empirical analysis. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 455–473. 

Schmucker, M. & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international 

analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 597–630. 

Seto, M.C. (2008). Pedophilia and Sexual Offending Against Children: Theory, Assessment and Intervention. 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 131 

Simons, D., Heil, P. & English, K. (2004). Utilizing polygraph as a risk prediction/treatment progress assessment 

tool. Paper presented at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 23d Annual Research and 

Treatment Conference, Albuquerque, NM. 

Smith, D., Letourneau, E., Saunders, B., Kilpatrick, D., Resnick, H. & Best, C. (2000). Delay in disclosure of 

childhood rape: Results from a national survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 273–287. 

Sorenson, T. & Snow, B. (1991). How children tell: The process of disclosure in child sexual abuse. Child Welfare, 

70, 3–15. 

Snyder, H.N. (2000). Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident and 

Offender Characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics. 

Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Sexual Assault, Victoria (SSCRSA) (2006). A Study of Reported Rapes 

in Victoria 2000–2003: Summary Research Report (based on a study by Dr. Melanie Heenan & Dr. Suellen 

Murray). Melbourne, Australia: Offce of Women’s Policy, Department of Victorian Communities. 

Sugarman, P., Dumughn, C., Saad, K., Hinder, S. & Bluglass, R. (1994). Dangerousness in exhibitionists. Journal of 

Forensic Psychiatry, 5, 287–296. 

Temkin, J. & Krahé, B. (2008). Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude. London: Hart Publishing. 

Tewksbury, R., Jennings, W. & Zgoba, K. (2012). Sex Offenders: Recidivism and Collateral Consequences. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Thornton, D. (2006). Age and sexual recidivism: A variable connection. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 18, 123–135. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, Nature and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings From 

the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Wilcox, D., Sosnowski, D., Warberg, B. & Beech, A. (2005). Sexual history disclosure using the polygraph in a 

sample of British sex offenders in treatment. Polygraph, 34, 171–181. 

Wilson, D.B. & Lipsey, M.W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from 

meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6, 413–429. 

Wilson, R.J. (2011). Long-Term Management of Risk Posed by Sex Offenders. Washington, DC: National 

Criminal Justice Association and U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Offce of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 133 

Chapter 6: Sex Offender Risk Assessment 

by Kevin Baldwin, Ph.D. 

FINDINGS 

The purposes of risk assessment span the spectrum of the adjudication process. 

◆ The three generations of risk assessment methods are — 

• Unstructured professional opinion. 

• Actuarial measures using static predictors. 

• Measures that include both static and dynamic factors. 

◆ No single risk factor is the best predictor; there is no single best instrument. 

◆ The feld is moving toward measures of risk that incorporate both static and dynamic risk factors. These measures 

also have the beneft of providing targets for intervention, given the changeable nature of dynamic risk factors. 

Introduction 

Although the desire to predict the risk of future violence posed by individuals is likely centuries old, risk 

assessment efforts until recently have been relatively unsuccessful in terms of their predictive accuracy. 

Notwithstanding pseudoscientifc methods such as phrenology (which claimed to gauge behavior 

propensities based on measurements of the skull), risk assessment for many decades has primarily involved 

individual mental health professionals applying their accumulated experience and clinical acumen to produce 

a clinical judgment of the degree of risk posed by a particular individual. Scientists have repeatedly questioned 

the validity of such unstructured clinical judgment as the basis for risk assessments (Grove, 2005; Grove & 

Meehl, 1996; Meehl, 1954), but it took the publication of John Monahan’s Predicting Violent Behavior: An 

Assessment of Clinical Techniques in 1981 to usher in a truly scientifc approach to violence risk assessment. In 

the three decades since the publication of Monahan’s book, the relative accuracy of violence risk assessments 

has increased substantially. 

The ability to accurately assess the likelihood of future violent acts — and future criminal behavior more 

generally — is important to clinicians, policymakers and the public alike. In this context, risk assessment typically 

involves arriving at an estimate of the likelihood that an offender will recidivate (that is, revert to illegal 

behavior) after the individual experiences legal consequences or intervention for a prior criminal act. 

(For more information on “Adult Sex Offender Recidivism,” see Chapter 5 in the Adult section.) 

Risk assessment serves many purposes throughout the adjudication process. It is often undertaken for dispositional 

purposes to help determine, for example, an appropriate sentence or custody level or the conditions of community 

supervision. In these situations, decisions are often predicated, at least in part, on the assessed likelihood of 

recidivism, with resources being allocated accordingly to promote community safety (Kingston et al., 2008). 
134 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

Research has suggested that offenders convicted of sexual offenses have received more attention from 

policymakers than any other category of offenders over the past 25 years (Ackerman et al., 2011; Hanson & 

Bourgon, in press; Levenson, 2009), and that there is consequently a need for methods and tools that can be 

used to accurately assess the risk to public safety that sexual offenders pose. Indeed, estimates of risk for sex 

offenders are used in various community corrections, institutional corrections and civil commitment decisionmaking contexts. Thus, the scientifc and theoretical underpinnings of risk assessment are a critical component of 

the successful management of adult sexual offenders (Hanson & Bourgon, in press; Mann, Hanson & Thortnon, 

2010; Tabachnick & Klein, 2011). (For more on “Sex Offender Management Strategies,” see Chapter 8 in the Adult 

section.) 

In many respects, the effectiveness of sex offender management policies relies on the ability of criminal justice 

professionals to accurately differentiate sexual offenders according to their risk for recidivism (Hanson & MortonBourgon, 2005). Arguing from a policy standpoint, Tabachnick and Klein (2011) have stated that the results of 

actuarial risk assessments in particular should inform decision-making at all levels regarding the supervision of 

adult sexual offenders in order to prevent recidivism. Given the role played by risk assessment in high-stakes 

decisions such as those involving potential civil commitment for those designated as sexually violent predators, as 

well as the possibility of lifetime community supervision, reliance on methods and procedures possessing a strong 

scientifc evidence base is especially critical. 

While much progress has been made regarding the ability of professionals in the feld to accurately estimate the 

likelihood of future sexual reoffense, no one is presently able to estimate either the timing or the severity of such 

future criminal conduct (J. Levenson, personal communication, May 23, 2011). Therefore, it is critically important 

to establish a clear understanding of exactly what risk is being assessed and to frame expectations accordingly. 

Current methods at present allow, in most cases, only for an estimate of the likelihood of both future sexual and 

nonsexual offending over a specifc timeframe. The accuracy of these estimates depends in part on the degree to 

which the individual offender being assessed matches a known group of sex offenders (knows as the normative 

sample or norm group) and the degree to which the factors included in the risk assessment accurately refect the 

known universe of relevant risk factors. 

Review of Research 

Sex offender risk assessments are most often employed in applied forensic settings for purposes of decisionmaking (Doren, 2002). The typical venues for sex offender risk assessment include — 

• Sentencing and criminal adjudications, during which the results of the assessment are used to ascertain 

appropriate levels and periods of confnement and/or community supervision. 

• Determinations of treatment needs, settings and modalities. 

• Sex offender registration and notifcation (SORN) proceedings, during which assessment results are used to 

classify (“level”) offenders based on their assessed risk. 

• Civil commitment proceedings, during which assessment results are used to argue for and against indefnite 

confnement based on the assessed risk for sexual recidivism. 

The purposes of risk assessment span the 

spectrum of the adjudication process. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 135 

Figure 6-1. Sex Offender Management Practices Across the Criminal Justice Spectrum 

Case Processing 

Arrest and Investigation 

Prosecution and Defense 

Sentencing and Disposition 

Corrections Programming 

Treatment 

Supervision 

Treatment 

Registration 

Community Notifcation 

Corrections Re-entry and Tracking 

Prevention and Education 

Victim Services and Outreach 

Community Involvement 

Community Support 

Methods of assessing sex offender risk can generally be categorized as follows (Hanson, 1998): 

• Unguided (or unstructured) clinical judgment: The evaluator1

 reviews case material and applies personal 

experience to arrive at a risk estimate, without relying on a specifc list of risk factors or underlying theory 

to prioritize or weight any of the information used. 

• Guided (or structured) clinical judgment: The evaluator begins with a fnite list of factors thought to be 

related to risk, drawn from personal experience and/or theory rather than from relevant empirical evidence. 

• Research-guided clinical judgment: The evaluator begins with a fnite list of factors identifed in the 

professional literature as being related to risk. While these factors are given priority in the risk assessment, 

they are combined with other factors and considerations using the clinician’s judgment. 

• Pure actuarial approach: The evaluator employs an existing instrument composed of a fnite, weighted set 

of factors (generally static, or relatively unchanging and historical in nature) identifed in the literature as 

being associated with risk. The instrument is used to identify the presence or absence of each risk factor, 

and an estimate of risk is arrived at through a standard, prescribed means of combining the factors. This 

approach is the only risk assessment method that can be scored using a computerized algorithm or by 

minimally trained nonclinicians. 

• Adjusted actuarial approach: The evaluator begins with the administration of an existing actuarial 

instrument and then employs a fnite list of considerations that can be used to raise or lower the assessed 

level of risk. 

Comparisons of the above-described approaches to risk assessment have a long, and at times contentious, 

history (Grove, 2005; Grove & Meehl, 1996; Grove et al., 2000; Meehl, 1954). While the superiority of structured 

approaches to unstructured approaches appears to have been settled (Grove, 2005; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 
136 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

2009; A. Phenix, personal communication, May 10, 2011), each of the structured approaches has its merits 

as well as its supporters and detractors (Doren, 2002; A. Phenix, personal communication, May 10, 2011). 

Nonetheless, recent research (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009) suggests that pure actuarial assessments 

should be favored over other approaches (Hanson, 2009). 

As regards the adjusted actuarial approach, a number of recent studies (Hanson, Helmus & Harris, 2015; Storey, 

Watt, Jackson & Hart, 2012; Wormith, Hogg & Guzzo, 2012) have demonstrated that clinical adjustment of 

actuarial results more often than not decreases the accuracy of the actuarial measure, and thus, this practice is 

not recommended. 

Criminologist James Bonta (1996) has identifed three generations of risk assessment methods: unstructured 

professional opinion (corresponding to Hanson’s [1998] unstructured clinical judgment), actuarial methods 

using static predictors (corresponding to Hanson’s actuarial approach) and methods that include both static 

and dynamic factors (referred to by Bonta as criminogenic needs). By including dynamic risk factors in the 

assessment process, third-generation risk assessments can be used to both guide and evaluate the impact 

of intervention efforts. Current developments in the feld confrm the promise of third-generation risk 

assessment methods, as research tells us more about the relationship between specifc dynamic factors and 

risk for recidivism (Hanson, 2011; Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010; A. Phenix, personal communication, May 

10, 2011). Recent studies have in fact demonstrated that the inclusion of dynamic risk factors can contribute 

incrementally to the ability of static (relatively unchangeable) risk factors to accurately predict risk for sexual 

reoffense (Eher et al., 2012; Nunes & Babchishin, 2012; Olver et al., 2014; Thornton & Knight, 2015). 

There are three generations of risk 

assessment methods: unstructured 

professional opinion, actuarial methods 

using static predictors and methods that 

include both static and dynamic factors. 

For accurate risk assessment to occur, the factors associated with the type of risk being assessed must be 

known. Knowledge about the risk factors associated with recidivism typically is generated through research 

in which the recidivism rate for offenders with a particular characteristic is compared to the recidivism rate 

for offenders without that characteristic, or for offenders possessing other characteristics (Hanson, 2000). To 

date, no single characteristic (that is, “risk factor”) has been found in isolation to be a robust predictor of 

recidivism. As a result, the assessment of risk by necessity involves the combination of a number of risk factors 

in a meaningful manner. 

Karl Hanson and his colleagues (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005) have published the 

results of a series of meta-analyses2

 that together have shed considerable light on the known universe of static 

risk factors associated with sexual recidivism. The strongest predictors of sexual recidivism are factors related 

to sexual criminality, such as a demonstrated sexual interest in children, a history of prior sexual offenses, the 

age of onset of sexual offending behavior and having committed a variety of sexual offenses. Factors relating 

to a lifestyle of instability/criminality were also found to be associated with sexual offense recidivism (Hanson 

& Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Criminal lifestyle characteristics (e.g., substance abuse, 

history of rule violation) are also the factors most strongly related to violent and/or any recidivism among sex 

offenders, mentally disordered offenders and offenders in general (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009). More 

recent analyses of the specifc factor structure of actuarial risk assessments have reinforced the stability of 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 137 

these two factors — sexual and general criminality (Babchishin et al., 2016; Jung et al., 2015). Recent studies 

of the structure of risk assessment instruments have also identifed potential additional factors assessed by 

these measures (Brouillette-Alarie et al., 2016), who together identifed a factor tapping youthful stranger 

aggression in their study of the underlying constructs of the Static-99R and Static-2002R. 

Recently, signifcant focus has been directed toward a more contextual understanding and assessment of risk, 

conceptualizing risk as but one aspect of a larger and more holistic understanding of the individual. Included 

in this context should be the assessment of needs, protective factors, developmental progressions and change/ 

treatment progress and the role of desistence (Hanson & Bourgon, in press; McGrath, Lasher & Cumming, 

2012). 

These developments are part of a larger move away from a singular focus on defcits and psychopathology 

toward a view that incorporates consideration of assets and strengths. A seminal infuence in this regard 

has been that of Positive Psychology as described by Martin Seligman (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). 

A number of researchers have assessed the contribution of strengths, assets and protective factors to the 

prediction of sex offender risk (Miller, 2015; Turner et al., 2014). Available at present are at least four risk 

assessment measures for use with adults that include assessment of assets, strengths or protective factors 

(Miller, 2015). Of these, the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF; de Vries 

Robbe, de Vogel & Bogaerts, 2015) appears the most promising regarding assessment of sex offender 

risk. Results of a study involving 83 contact sexual offenders show good interrater reliability and negative 

correlations between the SAPROF and two actuarial tools. The ability of the SAPROF to assess risk for general 

and sexual violence appears to be acceptably good over both short-term (one- to three-year) and long-term 

(15 year) follow-up periods, even after controlling for static risk (de Vries Robbe, de Vogel & Bogaerts, 2015). 

Another aspect of dynamic assessment that has gained recent attention concerns the measure of change 

associated with participation in treatment. McGrath and colleagues (McGrath, Lasher & Cumming, 2011) 

have developed the Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) to accomplish this very 

purpose. In a study that included 759 adult male sex offenders under correctional supervision and enrolled 

in sexual offender treatment, study participants were assessed using a number of actuarial measures as 

well as the 16-item SOTIPS. One and three years following assessment, both the Static-99R and the SOTIPS 

demonstrated moderate ability to rank order risk for sexual, violent and any criminal recidivism and return to 

prison. When combined using a statistical procedure known as logistic regression, both the SOTIPS and Static-99R 

consistently performed better than either instrument did in isolation. Furthermore, study participants whose 

SOTIPS scores suggested that they made progress in treatment demonstrated lower rates of recidivism than 

participants who didn’t demonstrate a treatment effect. 

The emergent emphasis within risk assessment on more positive and healthy aspects of individuals is also 

refected in the literature concerning desistence from crime. The study of desistence involves identifying those 

characteristics, features and events that lead to the cessation of criminal behavior (Laub & Sampson, 2001). 

Explorations of the factors that lead to desistence from sexual offending have recently begun to emerge in the 

sex offender risk assessment literature (Cale & Lussier, 2012; de Vries Robbe et al., 2015). De Vries Robbe and 

colleagues reviewed the available literature regarding protective factors and desistance from sex offending, 

and concluded there are three compelling reasons to include the assessment of strengths in sex offender risk 

assessment. First, to do so may improve the predictive validity of current risk assessment instruments. Second, 

focusing on risk alone can lead to overprediction of violence risk. And third, assessments that focus only on 

defcits and pathology lead to the stigmatization of those assessed (de Vries Robbe et al., 2015). Rather than 

simply viewing the absence of a need as a strength, the desistence literature identifes certain characteristics as 

assets in their own right, such as positive social relationships and the presence of healthy coping mechanisms. 

While consideration of the above factors has added to the ability to accurately assess sex offender risk, the 

literature also has identifed factors that do not contribute to the accurate assessment of risk. Over the past 
138 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

three decades, numerous studies have examined the factors that are related to sexual offense recidivism, 

and not a single study has found the specifc type of crime an offender is convicted of to be predictive of the 

likelihood of recidivism (Freeman & Sandler, 2010). 

Sex offender risk assessment, while similar in many ways to the assessment of other latent constructs 

(psychological concepts) within psychology and mental health, differs in at least one signifcant aspect. The 

construct being assessed — the commission of a new sexual offense — is unobservable and is likely never to 

be observed by the assessor. Sex offender risk assessment entails a process of estimating the likelihood of a 

future event based entirely on secondary, indicator variables (Hanson, 2009). While actuarial risk assessment 

tools must meet standard criteria for psychological measures (e.g., reliability and validity), the utility of 

these instruments depends considerably on the selection of relevant risk factors and the methods used to 

combine these factors to arrive at a meaningful overall assessment of risk (Hanson, 2009). It is important 

to keep in mind that for purposes of risk assessment, the utility of a risk factor depends on its empirical 

relationship to the outcome being predicted (Helmus et al., 2012). The consideration of base rates is also 

critical (Thornton, Hanson & Helmus, 2011). The base rate is equal to the proportion of a group that shares a 

specifc characteristic. For purposes of sex offender risk assessment, the relevant base rate is the proportion of 

convicted sex offenders who commit a subsequent sexual offense, either over a specifed timeframe or over the 

course of their lifetime. The base rate is arrived at through reference to large meta-analyses of sex offender 

recidivism, such as Hanson and Bussière (1998) and Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2005). These studies found 

the fve-year recidivism rate to be approximately 13 percent. However, it is important to remember that this 

fgure is an underestimate, given that not all recidivist behavior is detected. 

The accurate assessment of risk involves gaining an understanding of all available, relevant factors associated 

with the known criterion or outcome behavior. While research fndings are quite consistent regarding the 

historical, relatively unchangeable factors referred to as “static” risk factors (e.g., age at frst offense, number 

of previous convictions), there is less agreement at present regarding more fuid, changeable risk factors 

referred to as “dynamic” risk factors (e.g., employment status, cooperation with supervision). The utility of a 

rather fxed set of static variables associated with sex offender risk has been established in numerous studies 

(Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005), and empirically identifed static risk factors are 

a primary component of several valid and reliable instruments used in the feld today (e.g., Static 99R, Static2002R, MnSOST-3). 

A number of instruments incorporating dynamic factors have appeared in recent years, such as the Stable-2007/ 

Acute-2007 (Hanson et al., 2007) and the Structured Risk Assessment-Forensic Version (Thornton & Knight, 

2009). Neither of these instruments, however, has the research backing of the more established instruments 

of static risk, such as the Static-99R and Static 2002R. A recent meta-analysis (Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 2010) 

provides the most complete understanding to date of the relationship between a host of dynamic factors and 

sex offender recidivism. 

The use of third-generation risk assessment instruments that incorporate both static and dynamic risk factors is 

becoming more prevalent (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; A. Phenix, personal communication, May 10, 2011). 

These instruments have the potential added beneft of providing targets for intervention. An example of a 

third-generation instrument is the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 

2004), which provides a general assessment of risks and needs for criminal-justice-involved persons. The 

Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offender Version (VRS:SO) is a recently developed instrument specifcally designed to 

assess risks and needs among sex offenders. This measure contains seven static factors and 17 dynamic factors; the 

dynamic, treatment-change factors are based on the Transtheoretical Model of Change (Beggs & Grace, 2010). (For 

more on treatment, see Chapter 7: “The Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult Sex Offenders,” in the Adult section.) 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 139 

The use of third-generation risk assessment 

instruments that incorporate both static and 

dynamic risk factors is becoming more prevalent. 

These instruments have the potential added 

beneft of providing targets for treatment. 

A variety of sex offender risk assessment tools possess acceptable, empirically supported psychometric 

properties (Doren, 2002, 2006; Hanson, 2009; Hanson et al., 2013; Hanson et al., 2016; Helmus et al., 2012; 

A. Phenix, personal communication, May 10, 2011; Nunes & Babchishin, 2012). While a complete review and 

analysis of these instruments is beyond the scope of this chapter, a meta-analysis conducted by Hanson and 

Morton-Bourgon (2009) provides important insights concerning the relative accuracy of different approaches. 

Their analysis consisted of 536 fndings drawn from 118 distinct samples with a total sample of 45,398 sex 

offenders in 16 countries. The follow-up periods ranged from six months to 23 years; the average follow-up 

period was fve years and 10 months (standard deviation = 46.6 months). The following types of risk assessment 

approaches were included in the analysis: empirical actuarial, mechanical (using factors chosen primarily on the 

basis of theory or literature reviews), adjusted actuarial, structured professional judgment and unstructured 

professional judgment. 

Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2009) concluded that empirically derived actuarial approaches were more 

accurate than unstructured professional judgment in assessing risk of all outcomes — sexual, violent and any 

recidivism. The accuracy of structured professional judgment methods fell in between these two methods. For 

the prediction of sexual recidivism, actuarial instruments designed for assessing the risk of sexual recidivism 

had the greatest predictive accuracy, followed by mechanical approaches designed for assessing the risk of 

sexual recidivism and actuarial instruments designed for assessing the risk of general recidivism. Unstructured 

professional judgment and actuarial instruments for assessing violent recidivism risk were less accurate in 

assessing the likelihood of sexual recidivism. The predictive accuracy of structured professional judgment fell 

in between that of actuarial instruments and unstructured professional judgment approaches. In addition, 

structured professional judgment exhibited a large degree of variability in the few studies that examined this 

method (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009). 

Hanson and Morton-Bourgon (2009) also found that, for assessing the likelihood of sexual recidivism, the bestsupported instruments were the following: 

• Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 2000) 

• Static-2002 (Hanson, Helmus, & Thornton, 2010) 

• MnSOST-R (Epperson et al., 2000) 

• Risk Matrix-2000 Sex (Kingston et al., 2008) 

• SVR-20, specifcally using the mechanical approach of adding up the item scores (Boer et al., 1997) 

For assessing the likelihood of violent (including sexual) recidivism, the best-supported instruments were the 

following: 

• Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) (Webster et al., 1994) 

• Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) (Quinsey et al., 2006) 
140 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

 

• Risk Matrix-2000 Combined (Thornton, 2007) 

• Statistic Index of Recidivism (SIR) (Nafekh & Motiuk, 2002) 

• Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and its variants (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004, 2006) 

Some risk assessment experts have suggested that the accuracy of purely actuarial approaches can be increased 

if certain dynamic risk factors (e.g., active substance abuse, demonstrated pro-offending attitudes) are included 

in the assessment instrument or otherwise considered as part of the assessment process. Discussions of the 

relative merits of this approach can be found in Wollert and colleagues, 2010; Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, 

2009; Doren, 2002; and McGrath, Cumming and Lasher, 2012. One dynamic risk factor that has received 

considerable attention in this context is the offender’s age at the time of assessment. The inverse relationship 

between age and criminal offending — as age increases, offending decreases — is one of the more robust 

fndings within criminology. This relationship has been found to hold across time and geographic locations, for 

different types of crimes and offenders and in both community and incarcerated offender populations (Hirschi 

& Gottfredson, 1983). Age as an adjusting factor in risk assessment has received considerable attention not 

only because of the strength and consistency of its relationship to offending, but also because some actuarial 

instruments (e.g., Static-99 and Static-2002) have been found to underestimate the likelihood of recidivism for 

younger offenders and to overestimate it for older offenders (Helmus et al., 2012; Wollert et al., 2010). As a 

result of these fndings, the Static-99 and Static-2002 have been revised to better account for the impact of the 

offender’s age at the time of assessment, resulting in the Static-99R and Static-2002R. (Both of these revised 

instruments do not need to be adjusted for age.) Using age-adjusted risk tables is especially important when 

assessing older offenders. 

Another set of factors often considered as potential adjustments to actuarial measures are those referred to 

as “criminogenic needs” (Bonta, 1996) or psychologically meaningful risk factors (Mann, Hanson & Thornton, 

2010; Thornton & Knight, 2015). These are dynamic (that is, changeable) risk factors that can serve as targets 

for intervention efforts. For a risk factor to be considered psychologically meaningful, there must be a plausible 

rationale that the factor is a cause of sexual offending and there must be strong empirical evidence that the 

factor predicts sexual recidivism. This latter requirement is best demonstrated through research associating 

variation between groups in the predictor (proposed predicting factor) with variation between groups in 

the rate of failure (Hanson, 2009). Specifc measures have been found helpful in the assessment of dynamic 

risk factors (e.g., the STABLE-2000 and STABLE-2007; Eher et al., 2012; Nunes & Babchishin, 2012) and riskenhancing behaviors such as substance abuse have also been found to be salient dynamic factors worthy of 

consideration in assessing risk (Looman & Abracen, 2011). 

While it stands to reason that clinicians would want to consider dynamic factors when assessing risk, doing so 

via clinical adjustment of actuarial instruments has not been found to be effective. Many studies have examined 

the effects of clinical adjustments to the results of actuarial instruments, fnding that “overrides” — a clinician’s 

consideration of factors outside the actuarial scheme (i.e., the evaluator judges whether the predicted 

recidivism rate is a fair evaluation of the offender’s risk) — decrease predictive accuracy (Gore, 2007; Hanson, 

2007; Hanson, 2009; Hanson, Helmus & Harris, 2015; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Storey, Watt, Jackson 

& Hart, 2012; Vrana, Sroga & Guzzo, 2008). All of these studies have involved the adjustment of actuarial sex 

offender risk assessments currently in use, with each study concluding that the adjustments made actually 

decreased the predictive power of the actuarial instruments. 

It is important to note that empirical research undertaken to date has yet to identify a single “best” assessment 

instrument. With this and the limitations of using only one risk assessment instrument (particularly in especially 

high-stakes situations such as civil commitment evaluations) in mind, clinicians have considered the potential 

benefts of using more than one instrument during the assessment process (Doren, 2002; Hanson, 2009, 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 141 

2011). In fact, in a study of evaluators who conduct civil commitment evaluations, Jackson and Hess (2007) 

reported that 79.5 percent of the evaluators use more than one actuarial instrument in their sex offender civil 

commitment evaluations. 

Empirical research has yet to identify a 

single “best” risk assessment instrument. 

Two primary rationales support the notion that using more than one instrument provides potential benefts. 

First, classical test theory suggests that increasing the number of items in an assessment increases reliability 

and coverage. Second, if there are multiple driving forces behind sexual offending behavior, and individual risk 

assessment instruments tap these underlying dimensions or pathways to sexual offense recidivism differentially, 

then the use of multiple instruments would have a distinct advantage over the use of a single instrument 

alone. As Doren (2002, p. 138) points out, “The evidence for multiple underlying dimensions potentially 

driving sexual offending represents the main relative weakness to using only the ‘best’ single risk assessment 

instrument in a sex offender civil commitment evaluation.” 

Indeed, the empirical evidence suggests that multiple dimensions or pathways underlie sexual offending, 

with a number of scholars describing a convergence between two of these dimensions: sexual criminality 

and general criminality. Doren (2002) describes the high sexual criminality/low general criminality pathway 

as typical of the generally law-abiding pedophile, and the low sexual criminality/high general criminality 

pathway as typical of an antisocial individual for whom sexual violence is simply one of many manifestations 

of a criminal behavioral pattern. Evidence for these two pathways also has been found in meta-analytic studies 

of the factors associated with sex offender recidivism (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 

2005). Hence, an evaluation of both dimensions/pathways as part of the risk-assessment process seems 

benefcial and advisable, whether it is done using a single instrument that assesses both dimensions or multiple 

instruments that tap each dimension separately. In fact, recent studies have found that combining these factors 

or dimensions in sexual offender risk assessment increases predictive accuracy (Brouillette-Alarie et al., 2016; 

Olver et al., 2016). For more about pathways, see Chapter 3: “Sex Offender Typologies,” in the Adult section.) 

These two underlying dimensions of sexual offending were discussed in a recent study of the incremental 

validity of a number of actuarial instruments (Babchishin, Hanson & Helmus, 2011). As part of that study, the 

Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism (RRASOR) instrument was found to tap sexual criminality, 

while the Static-99 was found to assess risk along the general criminality pathway. Further, Babchishin, Hanson 

and Helmus (2011) found that the RRASOR (which taps the sexual criminality dimension) and the Static-99R 

and Static-2002R (both of which tap the general criminality dimension) all added incremental validity to one 

another, in spite of substantial intercorrelations and substantial item overlap across the three instruments. 

Recent research indicates that even measures as highly correlated as the Static-99R and Static-2002R add 

incrementally to each other (Babchishin et al., 2012; Lehmann et al., 2013), although the size of the gains are 

generally quite small. This would suggest that practically all of the current well-validated risk factors provide 

some degree of unique and predictively useful information. 

There are other compelling reasons to use more than one instrument during the risk-assessment process, even 

when the instruments tap the same dimension or the same theoretical domain. Including a larger number of 

items that assess the same construct and having similar predictive accuracy increases reliability and adds to the 

overall predictive accuracy of the procedure. Recently, Babchishin and colleagues (2012) conducted a metaanalysis of 20 samples (n = 7,491) in which they compared a variety of methods of combining risk scales. They 

found that averaging the scores produced the most psychometrically sound results. They interpreted these 

fndings as further support of the need to understand the underlying psychological constructs of factors of 
142 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

criterion-referenced measures such as the Static-99R and Static-2002R (Babchishin et al., 2012). Hanson and 

Bourgon (in press) make the case that rather than just blindly accepting the mechanical relationships between 

risk factors and the outcome of interest, it is important to pay careful attention to the constructs assessed by 

the measures. From the standpoint of construct validity, the factors measured in assessment are indicators 

for unobservable (referred to as latent) traits or constructs. From this perspective (the traditional perspective 

of psychological assessment), the factors that successfully predict recidivism (both static and dynamic) do 

so because they serve as indicators for the latent traits or constructs directly related to the risk of criminal 

behavior. In situations in which all of the risk factors represent a single latent construct, summing the risk 

factors results in a sense of where the offender lies on that particular dimension. The more risk factors, the 

greater the risk for future criminality. This approach will not work, however, when the risk factors represent 

more than a single construct. As a result, assessors must be aware of the underlying constructs represented by 

the risk assessment(s) they employ. Many of the current actuarial risk assessment measures necessarily assess at 

least two constructs or domains representing general and sexual criminality (Hanson and Bourgon, in press). 

Another issue of critical importance in sex offender risk assessment is the communication of risk assessment 

fndings (Babchishin & Hanson, 2009; Doren, 2002; Hanson, 2009; Hanson and Bourgon, in press). Currently, 

nominal descriptors of risk (low, moderate and high) are used most commonly (Babchishin & Hanson, 2009). 

While qualitative descriptions in general and these particular nominal descriptors are usually preferred 

over numerical formats for communicating risk, the use of qualitative labels alone has certain limitations. 

Perhaps the most signifcant limitation is that clinicians (as well as decision-makers) can have very different 

interpretations of what these nominal categories represent. The context in which risk assessment fndings are 

communicated can also infuence interpretation. 

One way to mitigate the problems associated with the exclusive use of nominal categories is to also provide 

numerical indicators of risk, such as a recidivism rate probability, a percentile rank (Hanson et al., 2012), or a 

risk ratio (Hanson et al., 2013). There are various numerical formats commonly used to convey absolute risk, 

such as frequencies (e.g., the likelihood of recidivism is one out of 10) and percentages (e.g., the likelihood 

of recidivism is 10 percent), both of which are usually accompanied by a specifc timeframe (e.g., within the 

next fve years). Relative risk estimates, such as percentile ranks (e.g., the individual’s risk for reoffense is equal 

to or greater than 90 percent of offenders) and risk ratios (the individual is four times more likely to sexually 

recidivate compared to the average offender), are useful as well. 

While numerical estimates provide more information and are potentially less ambiguous than qualitative 

descriptors alone, they too have limitations. For example, even though the assessed risk is the same, risk 

frequencies reported with larger denominators (e.g., 10 out of 10,000 compared to one out of 1,000) tend to 

result in higher perceived risk. Interpreting numerical risk estimates properly can also be a challenge when base 

rates for the behavior in question are unknown or are not taken into consideration. Simply put, people tend 

to overestimate the likelihood of low-probability events and underestimate the likelihood of high-probability 

events. For instance, people are more likely to fear fying than driving, even though the likelihood of dying in 

a car crash is many times that of dying in a plane crash. 

Evaluators can also make mistakes when communicating the results of risk assessments. Doren (2002) has 

identifed three common errors in communicating results when using a single instrument: incorrectly describing 

the risk percentage associated with a particular score, neglecting to address sampling error or failing to 

provide confdence interval estimates and ignoring or incorrectly stating the qualifers as to what has been 

assessed. 

Consumers of risk assessment information typically desire more than a simple nominal or numeric indicator of 

risk. Frequently, decision-makers want the risk-assessment process to provide them with information on the 

likelihood of recidivism, the potential consequences associated with recidivism and what might be done to 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 143 

mitigate the assessed risk (Hanson, 2009). Doren’s (2002) recommendations for communicating the results of 

sex offender risk assessment, especially in cases involving civil commitment, include the following: 

• Nominal risk categories should be accompanied by numerical risk estimates. When used in tandem, nominal 

and numerical means of conveying risk are more accurate and informative than either one in isolation. 

• Nominal categories should be explicitly defned so as to limit the degree to which readers defne for 

themselves the meaning of the specifc nominal descriptors. Two examples would be stating that “low 

risk” means that the risk of sexual recidivism is similar to what would be expected from a group of nonsex 

offenders, and “high risk” means that an offender is more likely than not to sexually recidivate over the 

course of his lifetime. 

To date, there exists no agreed-upon, much less universal means of either describing risk or communicating the 

fndings of risk assessments. Different risk assessments have different categories, different rules for assigning 

to categories and different proportions of offenders in their categories. Therefore, even when different scales 

share one or more category descriptors, they do not describe the same thing. Put simply, a single offender can 

be assigned to different risk categories by different measures, which understandably leads to confusion on 

the part of consumers of risk information (Hanson and Bourgon, in press). What is agreed upon, however, is 

that offenders can be rank ordered from low to high with respect to their risk, and that the current crop of 

measures can do so quite accurately. There also exists to a certain degree of agreement as to the characteristics 

of the offenders that make up either end of the risk continuum. Ideally, communication of risk would include 

factors relevant not only to risk for reoffense but also regarding dynamic factors (criminogenic needs) to be 

targeted for change, as well as information regarding strengths and protective factors that can be tapped with 

an eye toward promoting desistence. The ideal categorical risk levels would not be tied to a particular risk 

instrument but rather would apply across the range of risk measures. Hanson and Bourgon (in press) describe 

an ongoing process by which the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center is working to defne risk 

levels for the prediction of general criminality. Similarly, The STATIC Development Group has likewise proposed 

updated risk categories to be used with the Static-99R and Static-2002R (Hanson et al., 2016). In a manner 

similar to the standardized risk assessment levels proposed by CSG’s Justice Center, the new categories for 

the Static measures have been designed to be applied across a wide range of sex offender risk-assessment 

measures. 

Future Directions 

The pace of development in the feld of sexual offender risk assessment is rapid and refects a great deal of 

innovative forward thinking regarding how best to assess for and communicate about sexual offender risk. The 

following represent emerging trends and future directions in this feld. 

• Increasingly greater attention will be paid to the conceptual nature of risk factors and the interrelationships 

between them. This will necessarily involve moving beyond describing purely mechanical and empirical 

relationships to elucidating conceptual relationships among and between individual risk factors as well as 

the underlying (latent) constructs they represent. 

• A great deal of empirical support has demonstrated the utility of actuarial risk assessments, and the best 

of these measures are all approximately equal in their ability to assess risk for reoffense. Research into the 

norms and reference tables for these measures, as well as concerning the practical applications of their use, 

will continue. 
144 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

• It may very well be that the reason that so many of the actuarial static risk assessments possess roughly 

equivalent predictive ability is because they have reached a limit (asymptotic) in terms of the amount 

of variability in risk than can be predicted with reference to static factors alone. This paves the way for 

inclusion of other factors and characteristics related to risk, such as dynamic factors, treatment effects, 

inclusion of strengths and protective factors, and factors predictive of desistence. This more inclusive and 

holistic approach will more clearly refect the complicated nature of human behavior. 

• These measures will continue to be applied to new populations and settings (e.g., clergy sex offenders; 

offenders within youth serving organizations; different ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups), as well as fnd 

new uses (e.g., the use of a subscale and item from the Static-2002R being used to predict general criminal 

recidivism). 

• The growing emergence and availability of large datasets, combined with ever-increasing computing power 

and the proliferation of emerging sophisticated statistical techniques (e.g., decision trees, classifcation and 

regression tree analysis), will result in an eventual move toward fully automated actuarial risk assessments 

that rely exclusively on large institutional datasets. This has the potential to eliminate the coding and 

mathematical errors that can occur even with the current crop of purely actuarial risk-assessment measures. 

Signifcant growth has occurred in recent years in both the development of sex-offender-specifc riskassessment instruments and their use in the feld. While signifcant advances have been made regarding 

the reliability and predictive validity of instruments, a number of limitations remain. As noted above, there 

is currently no single “best” risk assessment for all offenders in all situations. In fact, there are certain 

populations for whom there is no validated risk-assessment instrument (e.g., child pornography offenders 

and female offenders). (For more on child pornography offenders, see Chapter 4: “Internet-Facilitated Sexual 

Offending,” in the Adult section.) In addition, while development and testing of third-generation instruments 

continues, some experts are skeptical that a single actuarial scale containing all relevant risk factors could ever 

be developed (Hanson, 2000). Therefore, contemporary risk assessment involves a bit of paradox: Even though 

research on risk assessment has largely eliminated subjective judgment from within the risk assessment process 

itself, clinical judgment on the part of the evaluator is still needed to make valid, research-informed decisions 

about the appropriate risk assessment instrument(s) to apply in any particular setting. To that end, Hanson 

(2009) has provided the following set of qualities to guide the future of sex offender risk assessment: 

• Assess risk factors whose nature, origins and effects can be understood. 

• Enable reliable and valid assessment of clinically useful causal factors. 

• Provide precise estimates of recidivism risk. 

• Allow all relevant factors to be considered. 

• Inform the development of treatment targets and risk management strategies. 

• Allow the assessment of both long- and short-term changes in risk. 

• Incorporate protective factors as well as risk factors. 

• Facilitate the engagement of the patient/offender in the assessment process. 

• Use risk assessment methods that are easy to implement in a broad range of settings. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 145 

Summary 

Signifcant advancements in the science and practice of sex offender risk assessment have occurred over the 

past two decades. A number of reliable, valid approaches for assessing sex offender risk are now available. 

Rigorous scientifc research has demonstrated that respectable levels of predictive accuracy have been obtained 

with purely actuarial risk assessment approaches, approaches using structured professional judgment and 

the mechanical combination of items from structured risk schemes. While research evidence to date has not 

indicated which of these approaches are best suited to specifc testing circumstances and contexts (Hanson, 2009), 

recent meta-analyses (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009) suggest that purely actuarial assessment approaches 

should be favored over other approaches for the assessment of risk for sexual reoffense (Hanson, 2009). 

Ultimately, however, decisions about the best approach or instrument to use should be made in the context of 

the assessment setting, the characteristics of the individual being assessed and the specifc purpose of the risk 

assessment. 

Many of the purely actuarial tools in wide use today can be completed quickly and easily by a variety of 

trained personnel (Klima & Lieb, 2008). The advent of automated actuarial tools conceptually allows even 

clerical workers to compute risk scores using these instruments. It is nonetheless important to provide ongoing 

training and monitoring of evaluators to ensure that risk-assessment procedures and instruments are always 

used appropriately and with integrity. The need for training and technical assistance in the context of risk 

assessment was identifed by the 2012 SOMAPI forum participants as well as in recent literature (Hanson et 

al., 2015; Storey et al., 2012). 

Training and monitoring of evaluators is 

needed to ensure that risk assessment 

procedures and instruments are used 

appropriately and with integrity. 

One of the primary challenges for the feld in the future will be to identify more comprehensively the 

risk factors (both static and dynamic) that are related to sexual offending. Identifying these factors and 

incorporating them into the risk-assessment process will help clinicians and decision makers better match risk 

levels to treatment and management efforts, thereby fulflling the promise of third-generation risk-assessment 

instruments (Bonta, 1996). The need for tailored rather than uniform interventions, and the need to match sex 

offender treatment and management efforts to the risk levels and criminogenic needs of sex offenders, were 

acknowledged by the experts — both researchers and practitioners — who participated in the SOMAPI forum. 

Given the lack of a single best risk-assessment instrument, evaluators will continue to have to rely on their 

professional judgment to select and employ the best risk-assessment approach for the circumstances and 

setting. Incorporating dynamic risk factors (e.g., assessment of treatment change) can be accomplished through 

the use of newly developed measures such as the SOTIPS (treatment change; McGrath et al., 2012) and the 

SAPROF (protective factors; de Vogel et al., 2009). Additional research concerning the use of dynamic risk 

factors is clearly needed, is further work to explore the factors that lead to desistence from sexual offending 

(Griffn et al., 2008; K. Hanson, personal communication, April 8 and June 7, 2011; Maruna & LeBel, 2003). It 

is recommended however that risk assessment conceptually and practically be incorporated into the larger 

concept of psychological assessment, encompassing a more comprehensive and holistic view that incorporates 

not only defcits but strengths, protective factors and consideration of desistence. 
146 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

Research on the best ways to revise assigned risk based on post-index behavior or qualities also is needed. 

In effect, this entails identifying treatment targets and assessing the impact of treatment on risk and other 

factors, such as institutional misconduct or the amount of time that has elapsed without a new conviction 

(K. Hanson, personal communication, April 8 and June 7, 2011). The ability to detect meaningful changes in 

risk, especially for high-risk offenders, is particularly important (Hanson, 2011; Olver et al., 2007). The VRS:SO 

is a promising development in this area (Beggs & Grace, 2010; Thornton, Hanson & Helmus, 2011), as is the 

SOTIPS (McGrath et al., 2012). Other instruments to consider for gauging changes in risk over time include the 

STABLE-2007 and the SRA—Forensic Version (Thornton & Knight, 2009). Olver and colleagues (2014) describe 

their application of logistic regression to combine risk and change information into clinically meaningful 

post-treatment risk assessments (Olver et al., 2014). As noted previously, the Static-99 and Static-2002 have 

been revised to incorporate the impact of aging on risk, resulting in the inclusion of new age weights and the 

publication of the Static-99R and Static-2002R (Helmus et al., 2012). 

There also is a need to devise more effective and intuitive means of communicating risk-assessment fndings. 

Communication of risk should be tailored to the purpose and setting of the assessment, and both qualitative 

descriptors and numerical estimates that consumers of risk-assessment information can use to guide sex 

offender management decision-making should be provided. Ultimately, the development of a standardized 

language to communicate risk would obviate many sources of potential confusion among consumers if risk 

information (Hanson and Bourgon, in press). Furnishing decision makers with both an accurate, contextual 

understanding of risk, and also with recommendations for mitigating and managing risk, is likely to be most 

benefcial. 

Based on current knowledge, using 

science-based, actuarial methods to 

assess sex offender risk is advisable. 

In conclusion, based on current knowledge, using science-based, actuarial methods to assess sex offender risk 

is highly advisable (Doren, 2002; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Tabachnik & Klein, 2011). As Hanson and 

Morton-Bourgon (2009, p. 10) aptly state, “Given its genesis in data, the empirical actuarial approach will 

ultimately provide the best estimates of absolute risk.” In fact, such instruments should not be ignored in 

assessing the risk for sex offender reoffense unless there is clear and justifable reason to do so, such as in cases 

for which no applicable risk instrument exists (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009). 

For assessing the likelihood of sexual recidivism, the best-supported instruments are the Static-99R, Static2002R, MnSOST-3 (Duwe & Freske, 2013; potential issues with limited generalizability outside of Minnesota), 

Risk Matrix-2000 Sex and adding the item scores from the SVR-20 (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009). The 

Static family of measures are by far the most often used sex offender risk assessments in the United States and 

Canada (Storey et al., 2012; Swinburne Romine et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2014). These measures have been 

found to be effective for a variety of different populations, including clergy offenders (Montana et al., 2012), 

those who work with children (Turner et al., 2014) and Latinos (Leguizamo et al., 2016), and with aboriginal 

and nonaboriginal Australians (Smallbone et al., 2013). 

For assessing the likelihood of violent (including sexual) recidivism, the best supported instruments are the 

VRAG, the SORAG, the Risk Matrix-2000 Combined, The Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (Hare, 2003; assessed 

by Parent et al., 2011) and the LSI-R and its variants (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009). For assessing the risk 

of general (nonsexual) recidivism among sexual offenders, Hanson and Bourgon (in press) recommend using 

the Brief Assessment for Recidivism Risk (BARR-2002R; Babchishin et al., 2015), which is comprised of the age at 

time of assessment and the general criminality factor from Static-2002R. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 147 

Notes 

1. The terms “evaluator” and “evaluation” used throughout this chapter refer to the individual performing the 

risk assessment and the overall risk-assessment process, respectively. 

2. A meta-analysis combines the results of many evaluations into one large study with many subjects. 

References 

Ackerman, A.R., Harris, A.J., Levenson, J.S. & Zgoba, K. (2011). Who are the people in your neighborhood? 

A descriptive analysis of individuals on public sex offender registries. International Journal of Law and 

Psychiatry, 34(3), 149–159. 

Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. & Wormith, J.S. (2004). The Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI). 

Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems. 

Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. & Wormith, J.S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. 

Crime and Delinquency, 52, 7–27. 

Babchishin, K.M. & Hanson, R.K. (2009). Special feature: Improving our talk: Moving beyond the “low,” 

“moderate” and “high” typology of risk communication. Crime Scene, 16, 11–14. Retrieved from: www.cpa.ca/ 

cpasite/userfles/Documents/Criminal%20Justice/Crime%20Scene%202009-05(1).pdf. 

Babchishin, K.M., Hanson, R.K. & Blais, J. (2016). Less Is More: Using Static-2002R Subscales to Predict Violent 

and General Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(3), 

187–217. 

Babchishin, K.M., Hanson, R.K. & Helmus, L. (2011). The RRASOR, Static-99R and Static-2002R All Add 

Incrementally to the Prediction of Recidivism among Sex Offenders. Corrections Research: User Report 2011-02. 

Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Babchishin, K.M., Hanson, R.K. & Helmus, L. (2012). Even highly correlated measures can add incrementally to 

predicting recidivism among sex offenders. Assessment, 19(4), 442–461. 

Beggs, S.M. & Grace, R.C. (2010). Assessment of dynamic risk factors: An independent validation of the Violence 

Risk Scale: Sex offender Version. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 234–251. 

Boccaccini, M.T., Murrie, D.C., Mercado, C., Quesada, S., Hawes, S., Rice, A.K. & Jeglic, E.L. (2012). Implications of 

static-99 feld reliability fndings for score use and reporting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(1), 42–58. 

Boer, D.P., Hart, S.D., Kropp, P.R. & Webster, C.D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20: Professional 

Guidelines for Assessing Risk of Sexual Violence. Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Institute Against Family 

Violence. 

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A.T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Options 

That Work: Defning the Demand and Evaluating the Supply (pp. 18–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Brouillette-Alarie, S., Babchishin, K.M., Hanson, R.K. & Helmus, L. (2016). Latent constructs of the Static-99R and 

Static-2002R: a three factor solution. Assessment, 23(1), 96–111. 
148 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

Cale, J. & Lussier, P. (2012). Merging developmental and criminal career perspectives: implications for risk 

assessment and risk prediction of violent/sexual recidivism in adult sexual aggressors of women. Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(2), 107–132. 

de Vries Robbe, M., de Vogel, K.K. & Bogaerts, S. (2015). Assessing protective factors for sexually violent 

offending with the SAPROF. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(1), 51–70. 

de Vries Robbe, M., Mann, R.E., Maruna, S. & Thornton, D. (2015). An exploration of protective factors 

supporting desistance from sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(1), 16–33. 

Doren, D.M. (2002). Evaluating Sex Offenders: A Manual for Civil Commitments and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Sage Publications. 

Doren, D.M. (2006). Inaccurate arguments in sex offender civil commitment proceedings. In A. Schlank (Ed.), 

The Sexual Predator: Law and Public Policy, Clinical Practice. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Duwe, G. & Freske, P.J. (2012). Using logistic regression modeling to predict sexual recidivism: The Minnesota 

Sex Offender Screening Tool-3 (MnSOST-3). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(4), 350–377. 

Eher, R., Matthes, A., Schilling, F., Haubner-MacLean, T. & Rettenberger, M. (2012). Dynamic risk assessment 

in sexual offenders using STABLE-2000 and the STABLE-2007: An investigation of predictive and incremental 

validity. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(1), 5–28. 

Epperson, D.L., Kaul, J.D., Huot, S.J., Hesselton, D., Alexander, W. & Goldman, R. (2000). Cross-validation of the 

Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool – Revised. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Research and Treatment 

Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, San Diego, CA. 

Freeman, N.J. & Sandler, J.C. (2010). The Adam Walsh Act: A false sense of security, or an effective public policy 

initiative? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 31–49. 

Gore, K.S. (2007). Adjusted actuarial assessment of sex offenders: The impact of clinical overrides on predictive 

accuracy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68, 4824B. 

Griffn, H.L., Beech, A., Print, B., Bradshaw, H. & Quale, J. (2008). The development and initial testing of 

the AIM2 framework to assess risk and strengths in young people who sexually offend. Journal of Sexual 

Aggression, 14, 211–225. 

Grove, W.M. (2005). Clinical versus statistical prediction: The contribution of Paul E. Meehl. Journal of Clinical 

Psychology, 61, 1233–1243. 

Grove, W.M. & Meehl, P.E. (1996). Comparative effciency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal 

(mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, 

and Law, 2, 293–323. 

Grove, W.M., Zald, D.H., Hallberg, A.M., Lebow, B., Snitz, E. & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical 

judgment: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30. 

Hanson, R.K. (1998). Predicting sex offender re-offense: Clinical application of the latest research. Presentation 

sponsored by Sinclair Seminars and given in Richmond, VA. 

Hanson, R.K. (2000). Risk Assessment. Beaverton, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 149 

Hanson, R.K. (2007). How should risk assessments for sex offenders be conducted? Paper presented at the 

Fourth Annual Forensic Psychiatry Conference, Victoria, BC. 

Hanson, R.K. (2009). The psychological assessment of risk for crime and violence. Canadian Psychology, 50, 

172–182. 

Hanson, R.K. (2011). Directions for future research on evaluating change among high risk sex offenders. Paper 

presented at Advancing our Understanding of Treatment Change Among High-risk Sex Offenders Conference, 

Carleton University, Ottawa, ON. 

Hanson, R.K., Babchishin, K.M., Helmus, L. & Thornton, D. (2013). Quantifying the relative risk of sex offenders: 

risk ratios for Static-99R. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(5), 482–515. 

Hanson, R.K. and Bourgon, G. (in press). Advancing sexual offender risk assessment: standardized risk 

levels based on psychologically meaningful offender characteristics. In Taxman, F. (Ed.) American Society of 

Criminology, Division on Corrections and Sentencing Handbook on Corrections & Sentencing, Volume 1, 

Risk and Need Assessment: Theory and Practice. 

Hanson, R.K. & Bussière, M.T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sex offender recidivism studies. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362. 

Hanson, R.K., Harris, A.J.R., Helmus, L. & Thornton, D. (2014). High-risk sex offenders may not be high risk 

forever. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 2792-2813. 

Hanson, R.K., Harris, A.J.R., Scott, T.-L. & Helmus, L. (2007). Assessing the Risk of Sex Offenders on Supervision: 

The Dynamic Supervision Project. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Hanson, R.K., Helmus, L. & Harris, A.J. (2015). Assessing the risk and needs of supervised sexual offenders: 

A prospective study using STABLE-2007, Static-99R, and Static-2002R. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 

1205–1224. 

Hanson, R.K., Helmus, L. & Thornton, D. (2010). Predicting recidivism among sex offenders: A multi-site study of 

Static-2002. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 198–211. 

Hanson, R.K., Lunetta, A., Phenix, A., Neeley, J. & Epperson, D. (2014). The feld validity of Static-99/R sex 

offender risk assessment tool in California. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 1(2), 102–117. 

Hanson, R.K., Lloyd, C.D., Helmus, L. & Thornton, D. (2012). Developing non-arbitrary metrics for risk 

communication: percentile ranks for the Static-99R and Static-2002R sexual offender risk tools, International 

Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(1), 9–23. 

Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sex offenders: A meta-analysis of 

recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163. 

Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2009). The accuracy of recidivism risk assessments for sex offenders: 

A meta-analysis of 118 prediction studies. Psychological Assessment, 21, 1–21. 

Hanson, R.K. & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three 

actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136. 
150 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

Hanson, R.K., Thornton, D., Helmus, L. & Babchishin, K.M. (2016). What sexual recidivism rates are associated 

with Static-99R and Static-2002R scores? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28(3), 218–252. 

Harris, A.J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. & Levenson, J.S. (2010). Widening the net: The effects of transitioning to the 

Adam Walsh Act classifcation system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 503–519. 

Helmus, L., Babchishin, KM. & Blais, J. (2012). Predictive accuracy of dynamic risk factors for aboriginal and 

non-aboriginal sex offenders: an exploratory comparison using STABLE-2007. International Journal of Offender 

Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56(6), 856–876. 

Helmus, L., Hanson, R.K., Thornton, D., Babchishin, K.M. & Harris, A.J.R. (2012). Absolute recidivism rates 

predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples. A MetaAnalysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1148–1171. 

Helmus, L. & Thornton, D. (2015). Stability and predictive and incremental accuracy of the individual items of 

Static-99R And Static-2002R in predicting sexual recidivism: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 

42(9), 917–937. 

Helmus, L., Thornton, D., Hanson, R.K. & Babchishin, K.M. (2012). Improving the predictive accuracy of Static-99 

and Static-2002 with older sex offenders: Revised age weights. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 24(1), 64–101. 

Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 

552–584. 

Jackson, R.L. & Hess, D.T. (2007). Evaluation for civil commitment of sex offenders: A survey of experts. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 409–448. 

Jung, S., Ennis, L., Hermann, C.A., Pham, A.T., Choy, A.L., Coabian, G. & Hook, T. (2015). An evaluation of the 

reliability, construct validity, and factor structure of the Static-2002R. International Journal of Offender Therapy 

and Comparative Criminology, 1–24. 

Kingston, D.A., Yates, P.M., Firestone, P., Babchishin, K.M. & Bradford, J.M. (2008). Long-term predictive ability 

of the Risk Matrix 2000: A comparison with the Static-99 and the Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 466–484. 

Klima, T. & Lieb, R. (2008). Risk Assessment Instruments to Predict Recidivism of Sex Offenders: Practices in 

Washington State. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

Langevin, R. & Curnoe, S. (2011). Psychopathy, ADHD, and brain dysfunction as predictors of lifetime recidivism 

among sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(1), 5–26. 

Laub, J.H. & Sampson. R.J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28: 1–69. 

Leguizamo, A., Lee, S.C., Jeglic, E.L. & Calkins, C. (2015). Utility of the Static-99 and Static-99R with Latino sex 

offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, p. 1–21. Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at 

ATSA on March 30, 2016. 

Levenson, J.S. (2009). Sex offense recidivism, risk assessment, and the Adam Walsh Act. Sex Offender Law 

Report, 10(1). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 151 

Looman, J. & Abracen, J. (2011). Substance abuse among high-risk sexual offenders: Do measures of lifetime 

history of substance abuse add to the prediction of recidivism over actuarial risk assessment instruments? 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 683–700. 

Looman, J. & Abracen, J. (2015). The Static-99R: Are there really differences between the normative groups? 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(7), 888–907. 

Mann, R.E., Hanson, R.K. & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the 

nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 

191–217. 

Maruna, S. & LeBel, T. (2003). Welcome home? Examining the re-entry court concept from a strengths-based 

perspective. Western Criminology Review, 4, 91–107. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G.F. & Lasher, M.P. (2012). SOTIPS: Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress 

Scale. Self-published. Retrieved from: www.csom.org/pubs/SOTIPS%20MANUAL%202012.pdf. 

McGrath, R.J., Lasher, M.P. & Cumming, G.F. (2011). A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk 

Assessment. National Institute of Justice, Document Number 236217. 

McGrath, R.J., Lasher, M.P. & Cumming, G.F. (2012). The Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale 

(SOTIPS): Psychometric properties and incremental predictive validity with Static-99R. Sexual Abuse: A Journal 

of Research and Treatment, 24(5), 431–458. 

Meehl, P.E. (1954). Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence. 

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 

Miller, H.A. (2015). Protective strengths, risk, and recidivism in a sample of known sexual offenders. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(1), 34–50. 

Monahan, J. (1981). Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage Publications. 

Montana, S., Thompson, G., Ellsworth, P., Lagan, H., Helmus, L. & Rhoades, C.J. (2012). Predicting relapse for 

catholic clergy sex offenders: The use of the Static-99. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 

24(6), 575–590. 

Nafekh, M. & Motiuk, L.L. (2002). The Statistical Information on Recidivism Revised 1 (SIR-R1) Scale: 

A Psychometric Examination. Ottawa, ON: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada. Retrieved from: 

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/scc-csc/PS83-3-126-eng.pdf. 

Nunes, K.L. & Babchishin, K.M. (2012). Construct validity of Stable-2000 and Stable-2007 scores. Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(1), 29–45. 

Olver, M.E., Beggs Christofferson, S.M., Grace, R.C. & Wong, S.C.P. (2014). Incorporating change information 

into sexual offender risk assessments using the Violence Risk Scale–Sexual Offender Version. Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26(5), 472–499. 

Olver, M.E., Nicholaichuk, T.P., Gu, D. & Wong, S.C.P. (2012). Sex offender treatment outcome, actuarial risk, and 

the aging sex offender in Canadian corrections: A long-term follow-up. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research 

and Treatment, 25(4), 396–422. 
152 CHAPTER 6: SEX OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT 

Olver, M.E. & Wong, S.C.P. (2011). Assessment of sexual offender risk and need in a treatment context. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 38(2), 113–126. 

Olver, M.E., Wong, S.C.P., Nicholaichuk, T. & Gordon, A. (2007). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk 

Scale—Sex Offender Version: Assessing sex offender risk and evaluating therapeutic change. Psychological 

Assessment, 19, 318–329. 

Parent, G., Guay, J. & Knight, R.A. (2011). An assessment of long-term risk of recidivism by adult sex offenders: 

One size doesn’t ft all. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(2), 188–209. 

Parent, G., Guay, J. & Knight, R.A. (2012). Can we do better? The assessment of risk of recidivism by adult sex 

offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1647–1667. 

Quesada, S.P., Calkins, C. & Jeglic, E.L. (2014). An examination of the interrater reliability between practitioners 

and researchers on the Static-99. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 

58(11), 1364–1375. 

Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. & Cormier, C.A. (2006). Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk, 

2d ed. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. 

Seligman, M.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: In introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 

5–14. 

Smallbone, S. & Rallings, M. (2013). Short-term predictive validity of the Static-99 and Static-99R for indigenous 

and nonindigenous Australian sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(3), 

302–316. 

Storey, J.E., Watt, K.A., Jackson, K.J. & Hart, S.D. (2012). Utilization and implications of the Static-99 in practice. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(3), 289–302. 

Swinburne Romine, R.E., Miner, M.H., Poulin, D., Dwyer, S.M. & Berg, D. (2012). Predicting reoffense for 

community-based sexual offenders: An analysis of 30 years of data. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 24(5), 501–514. 

Tabachnick, J. & Klein, A. (2011). A Reasoned Approach: Reshaping Sex Offender Policy to Prevent Child Sexual 

Abuse. Beaverton, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sex Abusers. 

Thornton, D. (2007). Scoring guide for the Risk Matrix 2000.9/SVC: February 2007 version. Unpublished 

manuscript. Retrieved from: www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-les/psych/RM2000scoringinstructions.pdf. 

Thornton, D., Hanson, R.K. & Helmus, L. (2011). Moving beyond the standard model for actuarial assessment for 

sex offenders. Perspectives: The Quarterly Newsletter of the California Coalition on Sex Offending. Retrieved 

from: www.ccoso.org/newsletter.php. 

Thornton, D. & Knight, R. (2009). Using SRA Need domains based on structured judgment to revise relative 

risk assessments based on Static-2002 and Risk Matrix 2000. Presentation at the 28th Annual Research and 

Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Dallas, TX. 

Thornton, D. & Knight, R.A. (2015). Construction and validation of SRA-FV need assessment. Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(4), 360–375. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 153 

Tully, R.T., Shihning, C. & Browne, K.D. (2013). A systematic review on the effectiveness of sex offender risk 

assessment tools in predicting sexual recidivism of adult male sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(2), 

287–316. 

Turner, D., Rettenberger, M., Yoon, D., Klein, V., Eher, R. & Briken, P. (2014). Risk assessments in child sexual 

abusers working with children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, Published Online 

December 18, 2014; p. 1–25. 

U.S. Government Accountability Offce (2013). Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation Act: Jurisdictions 

Face Challenges to Implementing the Act, and Stakeholders Report Positive and Negative Effects. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Accountability Offce. Retrieved from: www.gao.gov/assets/660/652032.pdf. 

Vrana, G.C., Sroga, M. & Guzzo, L. (2008). Predictive validity of the LSI-R among a sample of adult male sex 

assaulters. Unpublished manuscript. Ontario, Canada: Nipissing University. 

Webster, C.D., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., Cormier, C. & Quinsey, V.L. (1994). Violence Prediction Scheme: Assessing 

Dangerousness in High Risk Men. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology. 

Wollert, R., Cramer, E., Waggoner, J., Skelton, A. & Vess, J. (2010). Recent research (N = 9,305) underscores the 

importance of using age-stratifed actuarial tables in sex offender risk assessments. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 22, 471–490. 

Wormith, S.J., Hogg, S. & Guzzo, L. (2012). The predictive validity of a general risk/needs assessment inventory 

on sexual offender recidivism and an exploration of the professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 

39(12), 1511–1538. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 155 

Chapter 7: Effectiveness of Treatment 

for Adult Sex Offenders 

by Roger Przybylski 

FINDINGS 

◆ Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that certain treatment approaches work: 

• Cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention approaches 

• Adherence to risk-need-responsivity model 

◆ Treatment impact is not the same: 

• Those offenders who respond to treatment do better than those who do not respond well 

• Moderate- to high-risk offenders beneft most 

◆ Treatment can reduce sexual recidivism over a 5-year period by 5–8 percent. 

◆ Recent treatment advances are the self-regulation model and the Good Lives Model. 

Introduction 

S

ex offenders have received considerable attention in recent years from both policymakers and the 

public. This is due at least in part to the profound impact that sex crimes have on victims and the 

larger community. Perpetrators of sex crimes have come to be viewed by policymakers, practitioners 

and, arguably, the public as a unique group of offenders in need of special management practices. Indeed, 

therapeutic interventions aimed at reducing the likelihood of reoffending have become a staple of 

contemporary sex offender management practice. (For more on “Sex Offender Management Strategies,” 

see Chapter 8 in the Adult section.) 

According to a recent Safer Society survey (McGrath et al., 2010), 1,307 sex-offender-specifc treatment 

programs were operating in the United States in 2008.1 That year, treatment programs for sex offenders 

were operating in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and more than 80 percent of the programs were 

community based. Sex offender treatment programs in the United States in 2008 provided therapeutic services 

to more than 53,811 individuals who had committed sex crimes. 

While there is strong scientifc evidence that therapeutic interventions work for criminal offenders overall, the 

effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders remains subject to debate. Inconsistent research fndings and the 

fact that those studies that have found a positive treatment effect have not been randomized controlled trials 

are two primary factors contributing to the uncertainty about treatment effectiveness. 

The mechanisms that lead to sexually abusive behavior vary by offender. Treatment needs vary by offender as 

well, and treatment effectiveness is likely to vary depending on various individual and contextual factors. Like 

therapeutic interventions for other criminal offenders, sex offender treatment at its broadest level is a tool 
156 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

 

for promoting offender accountability, reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety. Within that context, 

policymakers should recognize that even modest reductions in recidivism achieved through treatment can 

translate into fewer victims, reductions in individual and community harm and a positive return on taxpayer 

investment (Drake, Aos & Miller, 2009; Donato, Shanahan & Higgins, 1999). 

Issues to Consider 

While there is growing interest in crime control strategies that are based on scientifc evidence, determining 

what works is not an easy task. It is not uncommon for studies of the same phenomena to produce ambiguous 

or even conficting results, and there are many examples of empirical evidence misleading crime control policy 

and practice because shortcomings in the quality of the research were overlooked and inaccurate conclusions 

about an intervention’s effectiveness were made (see Sherman, 2003; McCord, 2003; Boruch, 2007). The 

importance of basing conclusions about what works on highly trustworthy and credible evidence cannot be 

overstated, and both the quality and consistency of the research evidence always have to be considered. 

Because the quality of research studies may vary and it can be diffcult for policymakers and practitioners to 

understand how one study differs from another, brief descriptions of the types of studies discussed in this 

review are provided below. The defning characteristics of experiments (or randomized controlled trials), 

quasi-experiments and various forms of synthesis research — specifcally, narrative reviews, systematic 

reviews and meta-analyses — are briefy described here. 

Single Studies 

In the felds of criminology and criminal justice, there is general agreement that certain types of single studies — 

namely, well designed and executed experiments or randomized controlled trials — provide the most trustworthy 

evidence about an intervention’s effectiveness (see, e.g., Sherman et al., 1997; MacKenzie, 2006; Farrington 

& Welsh, 2007). Modeled on laboratory experiments, randomized controlled trials have several key features, 

most notably the use of random assignment. In random assignment, the researcher randomly decides which 

study subjects receive the intervention under examination (treatment) and which study subjects do not 

(control). In randomized controlled trials, subjects in the treatment group and subjects in the control group 

are compared on outcomes of interest, such as recidivism. A comparatively (and statistically signifcant) lower 

rate of recidivism for the subjects in the treatment group would indicate that the treatment being tested worked. 

The random assignment of subjects creates the optimal study conditions for making causal inferences about the 

effectiveness of an intervention. In other words, the researcher can reasonably conclude that an observed program 

result — such as a lower recidivism rate for treated subjects — is due to treatment and not some other factor. 

While randomized controlled trials are an important method for determining the effectiveness of an 

intervention, they can be diffcult to implement in real-life settings. Randomized controlled trials are expensive 

and require a level of organizational (and, at times, community) cooperation that can be diffcult to obtain. 

In addition, there may be resistance to the use of random assignment on the grounds that withholding 

potentially benefcial treatment from some study subjects for the sake of research is unethical. In practice, 

various constraints can preclude an evaluator from using a randomized controlled trial, and few of these 

studies have been employed in the assessment of sex offender treatment. 

When a randomized controlled trial cannot be used, researchers examining the effectiveness of an 

intervention typically employ the next best approach, a quasi-experiment. Many quasi-experiments are 

similar to randomized controlled trials; however, they do not employ random assignment. These studies 

typically involve a comparison of outcomes — such as recidivism — observed for treatment participants and 

a comparison group of subjects who did not receive treatment. In this approach, researchers try to ensure 

that the treatment and comparison subjects are similar in all ways but one: participation in the treatment 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 157 

program. This is often accomplished by matching the treatment and comparison offenders on demographics, 

criminal history, risk level and other factors that are related to the outcome of interest. Sometimes statistical 

techniques are employed retrospectively to create equivalence between the treated and comparison subjects. 

When treatment and comparison subjects are closely matched, the study can be capable of producing highly 

trustworthy fndings. But in practice, equivalence between the groups can be hard to achieve, which may result 

in diffculties in reducing bias and inferring causality. As a result, quasi-experiments are typically less adept at 

reducing bias and inferring causality than randomized controlled trials (Boruch, 2007; Cook, 2006).2

 In fact, 

fndings from single studies of treatment effectiveness that did not employ treatment and comparison groups 

that were closely matched have been typically viewed as untrustworthy (see Beech et al., 2007a, 2007b). 

Synthesis Research: Narrative Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis 

There also is agreement in the scientifc community that single studies are rarely defnitive (see Lipsey, 2002; 

Petrosino & Lavenberg, 2007; Beech et al., 2007a). Individual studies with seminal fndings exist; however, 

single studies — even a randomized controlled trial — should be replicated before defnitive conclusions about 

a program’s effectiveness are made, and the effectiveness of an intervention can always best be understood by 

examining fndings from many different studies (Lipsey, 2002; Petticrew, 2007; Petrosino & Lavenberg, 2007). 

Researchers typically accomplish this by conducting a narrative or systematic review of a large body of research 

concerning an intervention’s effectiveness. 

A narrative review is a qualitative synthesis of fndings from many different individual studies.3

 Conclusions are 

made by the reviewer using professional judgment. Narrative reviews have been criticized for their subjectivity 

and lack of transparency, but they provide a rudimentary mechanism for assessing the general quality and 

consistency of the research evidence to arrive at a conclusion about whether an intervention works. Narrative 

reviews were the most common form of synthesis research in the past. Today, researchers primarily rely on 

a more objective and quantitative process called a systematic review. Unlike a narrative review, a systematic 

review adheres to a pre-established protocol to locate, appraise and synthesize information from all relevant 

scientifc studies on a particular topic (Petrosino & Lavenberg, 2007).4

 Methodological quality considerations 

are a standard feature of most systematic reviews today, and studies that fail to reach a specifed standard 

of scientifc rigor are typically excluded from the analysis.5

 Many systematic reviews rely exclusively on welldesigned and executed randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments to draw conclusions about an 

intervention’s effectiveness. This helps enhance the trustworthiness of the review fndings. A well-designed and 

executed systematic review produces a comprehensive summary of the scientifc evidence on a particular topic, 

such as whether or not an intervention is effective in reducing recidivism. 

Systematic reviews are increasingly incorporating a statistical procedure called meta-analysis to synthesize 

fndings from multiple studies. Meta-analysis enhances the quantitative nature of the review and helps to 

reduce bias and the potential for erroneous conclusions. In practice, meta-analysis combines the results of 

many evaluations into one large study with many subjects. This is important, because single studies based on 

a small number of subjects can produce misleading fndings about a program’s effectiveness (Lipsey, 2002). 

By pooling the subjects from the original studies, meta-analysis counteracts a common methodological 

problem in evaluation research — small sample size — thereby helping the analyst draw more accurate and 

generalizable conclusions.6

 In addition, meta-analysis focuses on the magnitude of effects found across studies 

rather than their statistical signifcance. Determining effect sizes is important because, as Lipsey (2002, p. 201) 

points out, an outcome evaluation of an individual program “can easily fail to attain statistical signifcance 

for what are, nonetheless, meaningful program effects.” Hence, effect size statistics provide the researcher 

with a more representative estimate of the intervention’s effectiveness than estimates derived from any single 

study or from multistudy synthesis techniques that simply calculate the proportion of observed effects that are 

statistically signifcant. 
158 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

Meta-analysis has been criticized by some researchers, primarily for combining different research approaches in 

the same analysis or for including studies of different quality — sometimes even studies of very poor quality — 

to arrive at a single estimate of treatment effectiveness (Petrosino & Lavenberg, 2007). However, advances in 

methods regarding heterogeneity and methodological variability can be used to address these concerns (see 

Petrosino & Lavenberg, 2007; Lipsey, 2002; Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Meta-analyses that are based on prudent 

exclusionary criteria, that incorporate sophisticated statistical tests to discover potential bias,7 and that explore 

how methodological and contextual variations impact treatment effects are uniquely equipped to provide 

policymakers and practitioners with highly trustworthy evidence about what works (Petrosino & Lavenberg, 

2007; Lipsey, 2002; Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Still, it is important to recognize that conclusions derived from a 

review or meta-analysis of poor quality studies are no more trustworthy than conclusions derived from an 

individual study that lacks scientifc rigor (Rice & Harris, 2003). When systematic reviews and meta-analyses 

are done well, however, they provide the most trustworthy and credible evidence about an intervention’s 

effectiveness. 

Summary of Research Findings 

Findings From Single Studies 

One of the few studies to use a randomized controlled trial design to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment 

for adult sex offenders was conducted by Marques and colleagues (2005). Widely known as the California Sex 

Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project, the study examined the effects of a cognitive behavioral/relapse 

prevention program on the recidivism of sex offenders who were serving prison sentences for child molestation 

or rape. The research is widely referenced in the literature because of its use of random assignment. 

Marques and her colleagues (2005) compared the recidivism rates of 204 sex offenders treated in an intensive 

treatment program with the recidivism rates of sex offenders in two untreated control groups.8 One control 

group consisted of 225 incarcerated sex offenders who volunteered for treatment but who were randomly 

selected not to receive it. The other control group consisted of 220 incarcerated sex offenders who did not 

want treatment. The outcome measures of interest were sexual and nonsexual violent recidivism. No signifcant 

differences were found among the three groups in their rates of sexual or violent recidivism. Based on a mean 

follow-up period of approximately eight years, the observed sexual recidivism rates were 21.6 percent for the 

sex offenders who completed a year or more of treatment, 20 percent for the sex offenders who volunteered 

for treatment but who did not receive it and 19.1 percent for the sex offenders who refused treatment.9 

This null fnding — that is, the fnding that treatment did not lead to a signifcant reduction in recidivism — 

persisted for both rapists and child molesters, and for high-risk as well as low-risk offenders. (For a discussion 

of adult “Sex Offender Risk Assessment,” see Chapter 6 in the Adult section.) Marques and her colleagues 

(2005, p. 99) concluded the following: “In the context of growing optimism about the benefts of sex offender 

treatment, this study’s message is, ‘Not so fast, we are still far from understanding how and when treatment 

works.’” 

In discussing their fndings, the researchers explored possible explanations for the study’s overall results. 

Marques and her colleagues (2005) suggested that, despite the use of random assignment, the treatment and 

control groups likely differed in some important ways. For example, the treated subjects tended to be higher 

risk, and may have been less motivated or more sexually deviant than control group subjects. In addition, the 

screening procedures used in the research likely eliminated some of the highest risk offenders from the study. 

As a result, the intervention may have been too intensive for the offenders in the treatment group. Finally, the 

treatment program itself did not refect “state-of the-art” treatment in several ways (Marques et al., p. 100). 

For example, the program did not fully adhere to the risk-need-responsivity model of effective intervention 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 159 

 

because it did not focus on high-risk offenders and treatment targets included only some dynamic risk factors. 

(See the discussion of risk-need-responsivity in the section “Findings From Synthesis Research.”) Given the 

limitations of the study, Marques and colleagues (2005) called for “additional controlled investigations to 

address the many questions that remain about when and how treatment works for sexual offenders” (pp. 

99–100). The researchers emphasized the importance of including appropriate comparison groups in future 

treatment outcome studies, and they urged researchers who assess the effects of treatment “to control for 

prior risk by using an appropriate actuarial measure for both treatment and comparison groups” (p. 103). 

It is worth noting that some of the subgroup analyses performed in the California Sex Offender Treatment 

and Evaluation Project study did fnd a treatment effect. Specifcally, high-risk offenders who participated in 

treatment and demonstrated they “got it” — meaning that they derived beneft from the program, or basically 

met specifed treatment goals — recidivated at a signifcantly lower rate than offenders who “did not get 

it.”10 Only 10 percent of the high-risk treated offenders who “got it” recidivated, compared to 50 percent of 

the high-risk subjects who “did not get it.” While this fnding was based on a small sample — only 38 highrisk study subjects were part of the analysis — a similar fnding was observed for treated child molesters who 

“got it” based on a larger sample of 126 subjects. Individuals with child victims who “got it” recidivated at a 

signifcantly lower rate than similar offenders who “did not get it” — 9.3 percent compared to 31.3 percent.11 

Another study that did not fnd overall evidence of a positive treatment effect was conducted by Hanson, Broom 

and Stephenson (2004). Recidivism rates for 403 sex offenders released from prison into mandated communitybased treatment and a comparison group of 321 untreated sex offenders released from prison in earlier years 

were examined. Based on an average follow-up period of 12 years, no signifcant differences were found 

between the treated and untreated sex offenders in terms of their sexual, violent or overall recidivism rates. 

Somewhat different results were found in an evaluation of the effectiveness of the national sex offender 

treatment program operating in prisons in England and Wales in the early 1990s (Friendship, Mann & Beech, 

2003).12 The researchers compared two-year reconviction rates for a sample of 647 prisoners who voluntarily 

participated in and completed prison-based treatment between 1992 and 1994 and a retrospectively 

selected sample of 1,910 sex offenders who had been incarcerated but had not participated in treatment. 

The comparison group members were matched to the treatment sample on year of discharge and risk 

level. While no signifcant differences in the two-year sexual reconviction rates were found between the 

treatment and comparison groups, there was a signifcant difference between the treatment and comparison 

group reconviction rates for sexual and violent crimes combined. Treated offenders had a combined sexual 

and violent two-year reconviction rate of 4.6 percent, compared to a rate of 8.1 percent for the untreated 

comparison offenders (Friendship, Mann & Beech, 2003). 

Signifcant differences were also found for the medium-low-risk and medium-high-risk offender groups.13 

For low-risk and high-risk offenders, treated offenders had a slightly lower rate of recidivism than the 

untreated offenders, but the differences were not statistically signifcant. Overall, the treatment effects 

found in the analysis persisted when factors linked to recidivism (such as risk level and prior criminal history) 

were statistically controlled. Based on their fndings, the researchers cautiously concluded that the treatment 

program had an impact on reconvictions for sexual and violent offenses combined. 

Friendship, Mann and Beech (2003) point out that treatment should not be expected to have the same effect 

on all sexual offenders, as success can depend on various factors, including the treatment climate, program 

delivery and how the participant responds to treatment. With this in mind, researchers are increasingly 

examining whether a positive treatment effect is found for a particular subgroup of treated offenders, even 

if positive treatment effects are not observed for program participants overall. The California Sex Offender 

Treatment and Evaluation Project study discussed above is an important example (Marques et al., 2005). 

The study is frequently cited as evidence that treatment for sex offenders is not effective, yet some of the 

treatment subgroups — such as high-risk offenders who “got it” — demonstrated signifcantly lower rates of 
160 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

recidivism than their comparison group counterparts. Beech and colleagues (2001) reported a somewhat similar 

fnding in their study that examined sexual reconviction rates for 53 sex offenders six years after participating 

in community-based treatment. Offenders who were responsive to treatment (based on a positive change in 

pro-offending attitudes) were less likely to sexually recidivate than offenders who were not. 

Offenders who were responsive to treatment — 

based on a positive change in pro-offending 

attitudes — were less likely to sexually 

recidivate than offenders who were not. 

Olver, Wong and Nicholaichuk (2008) conducted a treatment outcome study that examined the effects of 

a high-intensity sex offender treatment program in a Canadian prison. The program employed a cognitivebehavioral approach and it subscribed to the risk-need-responsivity model of effective correctional 

intervention. The 2008 study was an extension of an earlier evaluation that found that sex offender treatment 

worked for both frst-time and repeat sex offenders. In this study, 14.5 percent of treated offenders were 

convicted of new sexual offenses compared to 33.2 percent of the untreated comparison group offenders, 

based on an average follow-up period of six years (Nicholaichuk et al., 2000).14 A higher proportion of treated 

offenders (48 percent) compared with untreated offenders (28.3 percent) also remained out of prison during 

the follow-up period. Treatment, however, did not appear to affect the rate at which new nonsexual crimes 

were committed. 

The 2008 study was more rigorous than the original study. It was based on a larger sample size (472 treated 

and 265 untreated sex offenders) and a longer follow-up period. It also incorporated survival analysis, 

statistical controls of several factors that have been empirically linked to sexual recidivism (such as time at risk, 

age at release and sexual offending history), and an intent-to-treat design.15 Sexual reconviction rates were 

examined across follow-up periods of various lengths of time. Signifcant differences between the recidivism 

rates of treated and untreated offenders were found at each follow-up period (see Table 7-1). 

Table 7-1. Sexual Reconviction Rates 

Sexual Reconviction Rate, by Follow-up Period (%) 

3 Years 5 Years 10 Years 

Treated offenders 11.1 16.9 21.8 

Untreated offenders 17.7 24.5 32.3 

Note: Differences between treated and untreated offenders are statistically signifcant: 3 years (p = 0.012), 5 years (p = 0.023), 10 years (p = 0.030). 

Source: Olver, Wong and Nicholaichuk (2008). 

Positive treatment effects persisted after controlling for age and sexual offending history. In addition, 

survival analysis indicated that positive treatment effects persisted over time. Olver, Wong and Nicholaichuk 

(2008, p. 533) stated: 

In conclusion, the present study provides empirical support to indicate that a high-intensity treatment 

program for moderate- to high-risk sex offenders that follows the “what works” principles can yield 

reductions in sexual recidivism in both the shorter- and longer-term, even after potentially confounding 

variables were controlled for. In short, treatment appeared to “work” for this group of sex offenders. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 161 

 

A recent study of prison-based sex offender treatment in Minnesota also found positive results. Researchers 

examined treatment effectiveness using a sample of 2,040 sex offenders released from prisons in Minnesota 

between 1990 and 2003 (Duwe & Goldman, 2009). This study used propensity score matching to create the 

study’s comparison group — a sophisticated statistical technique for achieving greater equivalence between 

the treatment and comparison offenders. The researchers examined recidivism outcomes for 1,020 sex 

offenders who received treatment while incarcerated and 1,020 matched comparison sex offender inmates 

who had not received treatment. The average follow-up period was 9.3 years. After controlling for other 

factors, study results showed that participating in treatment signifcantly reduced the likelihood and pace of 

recidivism (Table 7-2). 

Table 7-2. Rearrest Recidivism Rates 

Rearrest Recidivism Rate, by Offense Type (%) 

Sex Offense Violent Offense General Offense 

Treated offenders 13.4 29 55.4 

Untreated offenders 19.5 34.1 58.1 

Note: Signifcant at p < 0.01. 

Source: Duwe and Goldman (2009). 

Other studies examining the effectiveness of prison-based treatment for sexual offenders also have found 

positive results. McGrath and colleagues (2003), for example, examined the recidivism rates of 195 adult male 

sex offenders who were referred to a prison-based cognitive-behavioral treatment program. Fifty-six offenders 

completed treatment, 49 entered but did not complete treatment and 90 refused treatment services. The study 

subjects were similar in terms of their pretreatment risk for sexual recidivism. The researchers found a sexual 

recidivism rate of 5.4 percent for the sex offenders who completed treatment, based on an average follow-up 

period of approximately six years. Far higher sexual recidivism rates were found for the offenders who did not 

complete treatment and for those who refused treatment: 30.6 percent and 30 percent, respectively. 

A 2003 study of a prison-based sex offender treatment program in Colorado also found positive results 

(Lowden et al., 2003). The program employed a cognitive-behavioral approach within a therapeutic community 

environment. Results showed that participation in treatment was signifcantly related to success on parole. 

Sex offenders who completed treatment and participated in aftercare had revocation rates three times lower 

than untreated sex offenders.16 The length of time that an offender participated in treatment was related 

to positive outcomes after release. Each additional month spent in the therapeutic community increased the 

likelihood of success upon release by 1 percent (12 percent per year). Seventy-nine percent of inmates who 

participated in therapeutic community treatment and who were released on parole were arrest-free after 

three years, compared to 58 percent of former sex offender inmates released on parole who did not participate 

in treatment.17 

Zgoba and Simon (2005) examined the effectiveness of prison-based treatment in New Jersey. Although results 

did not show a positive treatment impact on sexual recidivism, treatment was found to reduce nonsexual 

recidivism. The study sample included 495 treated offenders from the state’s only sex-offender-specifc prison. 

Sexual and nonsexual recidivism rates for the treated sex offenders were compared with those for a sample of 

223 sex offenders from the general prison population who did not receive treatment. All study subjects were 

released from prison during a three-year period (1994–97). Based on this follow-up period, about 9 percent 

of the treated sex offenders were reconvicted of a sexual offense, compared to 8.2 percent of the nontreated 

sex offenders released from the general prison population. However, only 12.3 percent of the treated sex 

offenders had a nonsexual reconviction, compared to 26.8 percent of the nontreated sex offenders. 
162 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

Several studies concerning sex offender treatment have been conducted by the Washington State Institute 

for Public Policy. In one study, Barnoski (2006a) examined the effectiveness of Washington’s Specialized Sex 

Offender Sentencing Alternative. Under the sentencing alternative, certain felony sex offenders are granted, 

in lieu of imprisonment, a special sentence that involves some jail time, community supervision and outpatient 

treatment (Barnoski, 2006a). The evaluation found that the sexual and violent crime recidivism rates for 

offenders granted a sentencing alternative were consistently lower than the rates for other types of sex 

offenders. Barnoski (2006b) also examined the effectiveness of a prison-based sex offender treatment program 

in Washington that uses a combination of treatment techniques, including group therapy, psychoeducational 

classes, behavioral treatment and family involvement. The study found that the program did not reduce the 

recidivism rates of program participants. 

Finally, Kriegman (2006) reanalyzed data from two studies that examined the recidivism rates of sex 

offenders.18 After a fve-year follow-up, the “more dangerous” (treated) offenders in the analysis had a 

signifcantly lower rate of recidivism than the “less dangerous” (untreated) offenders.19 In fact, the observed 

recidivism rate for the untreated offenders was twice as high as the rate for the offenders who received 

treatment — 38 percent compared to 19 percent.20 

In summary, several single examinations designed to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment for adult sex 

offenders have been conducted in recent years. While only one of these studies employed an experimental 

design, the scientifc rigor of recent research has improved relative to studies conducted years ago. Recent 

research more frequently employed matched comparison groups, statistical controls of factors that are linked 

to treatment effects, lengthier follow-up periods and propensity score matching. Findings from single studies 

of sex offender treatment conducted within the past 10 years remain somewhat inconsistent, but the weight 

of the evidence from more rigorous studies suggests that treatment — particularly cognitive behavioral 

approaches — can have a positive effect. 

Findings From Synthesis Research 

One of the most infuential early reviews of sex offender treatment outcome research was conducted by Furby, 

Weinrott and Blackshaw (1989). Based on a review of 42 individual studies, the researchers concluded that, due 

to methodological shortcomings and inconsistent fndings, very little is known about the effectiveness of sex 

offender treatment. More recently, the U.S. General Accounting Offce (1996), now called the U.S. Government 

Accountability Offce, published a review of sex offender treatment research based on 22 other reviews 

covering 550 studies. In this 1996 report, the offce reported to Congress that defnitive conclusions about 

the effectiveness of sex offender treatment could not be made. While both of these early reviews produced 

inconclusive results at best, systematic reviews conducted more recently have produced more positive, albeit 

qualifed fndings. 

Two exceptions to the pattern of recent positive review fndings come from synthesis studies that examined 

the effectiveness of psychological interventions for sex offenders. It is important to note that both studies 

relied exclusively on fndings from randomized controlled trials; evaluations that did not employ a randomized 

design were excluded from the analysis. The frst, a systematic review conducted by Kenworthy and colleagues 

(2004), examined the fndings from nine studies, all randomized controlled trials, and the researchers 

concluded that due to limited data the effects of treatment are unclear. The second, a meta-analysis of 10 

studies (again, all randomized controlled trials) conducted by Dennis and colleagues (2012) also was unable 

to reach frm conclusions about the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sexual offenders. While the 

researchers did fnd some encouraging fndings in two of the studies included in their meta-analysis, they 

stated that “the inescapable conclusion of this review is the need for further randomized controlled trials” 

(2012, p. 2). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 163 

An earlier meta-analysis of 43 studies of psychological treatment for sex offenders conducted by Hanson and 

colleagues (2002) produced somewhat different results.21 The study was based on a total of 5,078 treated 

offenders and 4,376 untreated offenders. Average follow-up periods ranged from one to 16 years, with a 

median of 46 months. Hanson and his colleagues found that treatment produced a small but statistically 

signifcant reduction in both sexual and overall recidivism.22 The researchers also reported that newer 

treatment programs were found to have a positive treatment effect, while older treatment programs were 

associated with a small but not statistically signifcant increase in sexual recidivism. In discussing their fndings, 

Hanson and colleagues (2002, p. 186) stated, “We believe that the balance of available evidence suggests that 

current treatments reduce recidivism, but that frm conclusions await more and better research.” 

The meta-analysis conducted by Hanson and colleagues (2002) was criticized by Rice and Harris (2003) for 

its reliance on poor-quality studies. Rice and Harris described the methodological shortcomings of many of 

the studies in the meta-analysis and argued that the positive, albeit tentative, conclusions drawn by Hanson 

and colleagues were not justifed. More broadly, Rice and Harris (2003) concluded, “... the effectiveness of 

psychological treatment for sex offenders remains to be demonstrated” (p. 428) and “... it is abundantly clear 

that any conclusions about the effectiveness of psychological therapy await many more random assignment 

studies” (p. 437). 

While the Rice and Harris critique of the meta-analysis is a constructive and valuable treatise on threats to validity 

and the hazards of weak inference, it is important to recognize that the quality of a study and the credibility of 

its fndings can be viewed differently by different researchers. As Beech and colleagues (2007a, pp. 1–2) pointed 

out in their discussion of methodological quality considerations in sex offender treatment research: 

The problem facing the feld of sex offender research is that the best studies identifed by Rice and Harris 

(2003), by Kenworthy et al. (2004) and by Hanson et al. (2002) were all different. It was not that one group of 

researchers was more lenient or more restrictive than another concerning study quality; the problem is that 

most of the studies rated as credible by one group were considered inherently biased by the other groups. 

In fact, Craig, Browne and Stringer (2003) reported that 18 of the 19 treatment studies published between 

1995 and 2003 demonstrated positive treatment effects, and a third of those used sound methodological 

techniques. While there are well-constructed guidelines and tools available that promote objectivity and 

reliability in the assessment of methodological rigor, differences of opinion about the quality and scientifc 

value of certain methods or individual studies are not uncommon. 

Lösel and Schmucker’s (2005) study of sex offender treatment effectiveness employed one of criminology’s most 

commonly used tools for evaluating the quality of a study: the Maryland Scientifc Methods Scale. This tool is 

used to assess the methodological quality of a study along a number of dimensions, including the following: 

• The study’s ability to control outside factors and eliminate major rival explanations for an intervention’s 

effects. 

• The study’s ability to detect program effects. 

• Other considerations, such as attrition and the use of appropriate statistical tests (Sherman et al., 1998). 

Using the Scientifc Methods Scale, Lösel and Schmucker (2005) excluded any studies that did not employ 

a control/comparison group. Altogether, 69 independent studies and 22,181 subjects were included in the 

analysis, making it one of the largest meta-analyses of studies of the effectiveness of sex offender treatment 

ever undertaken. In 40 percent of the comparisons, equivalence between the group of study subjects 

who received treatment and the group of comparison subjects who did not receive treatment was either 
164 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

 

demonstrated or it could be assumed. Nearly one-half of the comparisons in the analysis addressed cognitivebehavioral programs. About one-half were based on programs operating in an institutional setting. Signifcant 

differences between the recidivism rates of treated and untreated offenders were found (see Table 7-3). 

Table 7-3. Recidivism Rates, per Meta Analysis 

Recidivism Rate, by Offense Type (%) 

Sex Offense* Violent Offense Any Offense 

Treated offenders 11.1 6.6 22.4 

Untreated offenders 17.5 11.8 32.5 

Note: Signifcant at p < 0.01. 

*Recidivism rates based on n-weighted averages. Unweighted average recidivism rates: 12 percent for treated and 24 percent for untreated. Average follow-up period: 

slightly more than 5 years. 

Source: Lösel & Schmucker (2005). 

Lösel and Schmucker (2005) also found that physical treatments had larger treatment effects. Among 

psychological treatments, however, cognitive-behavioral treatments and behavior therapy had signifcant 

treatment effects. Treatment effects also were greater for sex offenders who completed treatment, as 

dropping out of treatment doubled the odds of recidivating. 

Even though the study protocol excluded studies that either did not employ a control/comparison group or 

those that only compared treatment completers and treatment dropouts, only six of the studies in the metaanalysis employed a randomized design.23 In addition, equivalence between the treatment and comparison 

groups could not be assumed in about 60 percent of the studies in the analysis. This led Lösel and Schmucker 

(2005, p. 135) to suggest that one should draw “very cautious” conclusions from the study. In discussing their 

fndings, Lösel and Schmucker (2005, p. 135) stated: 

The most important message is an overall positive and signifcant effect of sex offender treatment.... Sex 

offender treatment also has an effect on general recidivism.... Obviously, effective programs do not just 

infuence sexually motivated problem behavior but also have a broader impact on criminality. 

Effective programs do not just infuence 

sexually motivated problem behavior; 

they also have a broader impact on 

criminality (Lösel & Schmucker, 2005). 

In 2015, Schmucker and Lösel published an update of their original study using a slightly different, but 

arguably more robust methodology. In addition to including more recent research, the 2015 update was 

based exclusively on studies with equivalent treatment and control groups. Overall, 29 eligible comparisons 

containing a total of 4,939 treated and 5,448 untreated sexual offenders were included in the analysis. 

Unlike the original study, all of the comparisons in the 2015 meta-analysis evaluated psychosocial treatment 

approaches, and most were cognitive behavioral programs. Treatment, offender and methodological 

characteristics also were examined to identify various factors that moderated treatment effectiveness. 

Schmucker and Lösel found that treated offenders had a mean sexual recidivism rate of 10.1 percent, and 

that without treatment the recidivism rate would have been 13.7 percent, a statistically signifcant difference 

of 3.6 percentage points,24 or 26.3 percent reduction in sexual recidivism. Although only 13 of the studies in 

the meta-analysis reported data on general recidivism, the researchers were able to conclude that treatment 

did indeed reduce both sexual and general offending. Treated offenders in the analysis had a general 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 165 

recidivism rate of 32.6 percent on average compared to an expected general recidivism rate of 41.2 percent 

without treatment, a statistically signifcant difference of 8.6 percentage points,25 or a 26.4 percent reduction in 

general recidivism. 

The overall treatment effects found by Schmucker and Lösel in their 2015 meta-analysis did contain 

heterogeneity, and this was primarily due to offender and treatment characteristics. Variation in the effects 

of treatment on sexual recidivism attributed to offender and program characteristics is discussed in the 

two paragraphs below. Methodological variation across the underlying studies in the meta-analysis did not 

infuence observed effect sizes in a signifcant way. 

Arguably, one of the most important fndings regarding the moderation of treatment effects was related 

to risk of offending. A strong linear relationship was found between offender risk levels and treatment 

effectiveness, as treatment effects increased as the risk levels of the offenders participating in treatment 

increased. Simply put, larger treatment effects were found for higher-risk offenders, while treatment for 

low-risk offenders was not effective at all. This fnding comports with previous research demonstrating the 

importance of following the risk-need-responsivity model in the treatment of offenders who have sexually 

offended. 

Several other fndings from the moderator analysis are noteworthy. First, while cognitive-behavioral treatment 

modalities yielded a signifcant reduction in sexual recidivism, other psychotherapeutic approaches did not. 

Second, treatment was equally effective for those who entered treatment on a voluntary or mandatory 

basis. This fnding means that treatment initiated as a result of the external pressures of the criminal justice 

system can indeed be successful, and it “points to the important role of change motivation as a process 

(e.g., Prochaska and Levesque, 2002) and techniques such as motivational interviewing” (Schmucker and 

Lösel, 2015, p. 21).26 Third, there was a tendency for community-based treatment to demonstrate higher 

levels of effectiveness than prison-based treatment. And fnally, although confounding variables may be at 

work, fndings from the moderator analysis suggest that incorporating individual therapeutic sessions in the 

treatment format produces better recidivism reduction results. 

In discussing their fndings, Schmucker and Lösel (2015, p. 21) stated, “The results suggest that treatment can 

effectively reduce recidivism in sexual offenders.” But the researchers also acknowledged that more highquality research, especially randomized controlled trials, are needed to unambiguously demonstrate treatment 

effectiveness and defnitively answer questions about what types of treatment work best for which offenders 

in which situations. They pointed out that there is a need for more research on the treatment process and 

the way various program features infuence treatment effectiveness, and they argued that future research 

should take into account what is known about various sub-types of sexual offenders so that the relationship 

between offender characteristics and treatment success is better understood. Finally, they called for better 

documentation of treatment concepts and their implementation in future research, as poor descriptive validity 

and insuffcient documentation are chronic problems that impede our understanding of causal mechanisms 

and the nuances of treatment effectiveness. 

Another important meta-analysis was conducted by MacKenzie (2006). Her analysis of 28 evaluations extended 

the earlier work by Gallagher and colleagues (1999), examining the effectiveness of sex offender treatment. 

The original meta-analysis by Gallagher and colleagues found evidence that cognitive-behavioral approaches 

with relapse prevention components are effective at reducing recidivism. Sex offenders treated with cognitivebehavioral/relapse prevention techniques recidivated at a rate that was 8 percentage points below that of 

comparison sex offenders. 

MacKenzie’s (2006) meta-analysis is important not only because the review protocol excluded studies that did 

not employ a no-treatment comparison group, but also because it included an analysis of treatment effects 

based only on highly rigorous evaluations.27 MacKenzie found that treated sex offenders had a signifcantly 

lower rate of recidivism than untreated sex offenders. The average recidivism rate was 12 percent for the 
166 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

 

treated offenders in the analysis, compared to 22 percent for the untreated comparison offenders.28 Because 

large differences in effect sizes were found across studies, MacKenzie examined how various substantive and 

methodological characteristics of the studies affected treatment outcomes. In one analysis, the effects of 

various treatment types were examined using only studies of high methodological quality. Based only on these 

high-quality studies, MacKenzie found that cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention treatment, behavioral 

treatment and hormonal medication signifcantly reduced sexual recidivism.29 For sex offenders receiving 

cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention treatment, the average recidivism rate was 9 percent, compared to 

an average recidivism rate of 21 percent for untreated comparison sex offenders. No signifcant differences 

were found based on whether treatment was delivered by a criminal justice agency or other organization 

or whether treatment was delivered in an institution or in the community. MacKenzie concluded that sex 

offender treatment programs using cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention approaches are effective at 

reducing recidivism.30 

As previously mentioned, several studies concerning the effectiveness of sex offender treatment have been 

conducted by Washington State Institute for Public Policy, which is widely recognized for its work regarding 

meta-analysis and cost-beneft analysis. As part of a larger study on evidence-based public policy options to 

reduce crime and criminal justice system costs, Drake, Aos and Miller (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 

six rigorous studies of adult sex offender treatment with aftercare and found that these programs reduced 

recidivism, on average, by 9.6 percent. In addition, these programs produced a net return on investment of 

more than $4,000 per program participant, or more than $1.30 in benefts per participant for every $1 spent. 

Another important meta-analysis was recently conducted by Hanson and colleagues (2009). The study’s primary 

aim was to determine whether the risk-need-responsivity model associated with effective interventions for 

general offenders also applied to sex offender treatment. The risk-need-responsivity model emerged from 

more than 30 years of research on interventions for criminal offenders. This research has produced a body 

of evidence that clearly demonstrates that rehabilitation works (Gendreau & Ross, 1987; Lipsey & Cullen, 

2007; Joliffe & Farrington, 2007). It also has demonstrated that effective interventions share a common set 

of features. These common characteristics form what criminologists Don Andrews, Paul Gendreau and their 

colleagues have called the “principles of effective intervention” (Andrews, 1995; Gendreau, 1996; Gendreau, 

Goggin & Smith, 1999; Andrews & Dowden, 2005). Three of these are commonly known as the risk-needresponsivity principles: 

1. Higher-risk offenders are more likely to beneft from treatment than lower-risk offenders. This is the risk 

principle. In practice, more intensive levels of treatment should be reserved for higher-risk offenders. In 

fact, using high levels of treatment with low-risk offenders is not only ineffcient, it can actually increase 

recidivism (Lovins, Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2009; Wilson, 2007). 

2. To effectively reduce recidivism, programs should target the criminogenic needs of higher-risk offenders. 

This is the need principle. Criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that are related to subsequent 

offending, such as substance abuse or an antisocial lifestyle. Dynamic risk factors can be changed through 

programming, whereas static risk factors, such as criminal history and age at frst arrest, cannot. 

3. Successful programs are responsive to the motivation, cognitive ability and other characteristics of the 

offender. This is the responsivity principle. In essence, therapeutic interventions must be tailored to the 

learning style and capabilities of the offender. 

Research has demonstrated that programs incorporating the risk-need-responsivity model are far more 

effective at reducing recidivism than those that do not (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). Given the strong scientifc 

evidence supporting the effcacy of treatment for offenders overall, and the role that risk-need-responsivity 

plays in effective treatment, there is a growing interest in applying the risk-need-responsivity model to 

treatment for sex offenders. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 167 

Although Hanson and colleagues (2009) sought to test the relevance of the risk-need-responsivity model for 

sex offender treatment, a secondary aim was to assess treatment effectiveness using only studies that met a 

minimum level of scientifc rigor. Using the Guidelines of the Collaborative Outcome Data Committee, which 

were explicitly developed to assess the quality of research on sex offender treatment outcomes, the researchers 

excluded from the analysis more than 100 potentially relevant studies because they did not meet minimum 

levels of study quality. However, of the 23 studies that were fnally included in the analysis, only fve (22 percent) 

were rated as good in terms of methodological quality; 18 were rated as weak. Based on an average follow-up 

period of 4.7 years, Hanson and colleagues found average sexual recidivism rates of 10.9 percent for treated 

offenders and 19.2 percent for the untreated comparison offenders.31 The average overall recidivism rate was 

31.8 percent for treated sex offenders and 48.3 percent for untreated comparison subjects. The researchers also 

found that adhering to the risk-need-responsivity model increased treatment effectiveness. While treatment 

that adhered to one or two of the principles was more effective than treatment that did not adhere to any of 

the principles, treatment that adhered to all three principles was most effective. 

A study by Lovins, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2009) examined the direct effects of the risk principle on sex 

offenders. The researchers sought to determine whether intensive treatment was more effective for higherrisk sex offenders and whether less-intensive treatment had greater effects for lower-risk sex offenders. The 

study sample included 348 sex offenders paroled from a state correctional institution. Of this sample, 110 

were released to a halfway house for residential sex offender treatment and 238 were released directly to the 

community. While offenders released directly to the community may have received outpatient treatment, sex 

offenders released to a halfway house were subjected to a more intensive level of treatment. The researchers 

examined general recidivism but not sexual recidivism in the study. Study subjects were categorized based on 

their assessed risk levels. 

Results showed that intensive treatment was effective in reducing recidivism for all risk categories of offenders, 

except low-risk offenders. In fact, high-risk offenders who completed intensive residential treatment were 

more than two times less likely to recidivate than high-risk sex offenders who did not receive intensive 

treatment. Conversely, low-risk sex offenders who received intensive treatment were 21 percent more likely to 

recidivate than low-risk sex offenders who were released directly to the community. These fndings lend further 

support to the importance of the principles of effective intervention in sex offender treatment programming. 

While there is growing recognition that treatment effectiveness can be moderated by a number of factors, and 

that a one-size-fts-all approach to treatment is ineffective, there is a paucity of research on the effectiveness 

of various treatment approaches with specifc sub-types of sexual offenders. Two recent studies, however, 

have attempted to synthesize the evidence produced in high-quality studies of treatment interventions for 

adult offenders who have sexually abused children. Unfortunately, both studies were unable to draw frm 

conclusions about the treatment approaches they examined. In a systematic review based on only fve studies, 

Långström et al. (2013) reported there was insuffcient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the benefts 

and risks of psychological treatments or pharmacotherapy (i.e., antiandrogenic drugs) when used specifcally 

with adults who sexually abuse children. Similarly, Gronnerd et al. (2015, p. 280) published a meta-analysis 

involving 14 studies that focused on psychological treatment of sexual offenders against children and reported 

that their results failed to establish any effect of treatment of sexual offenders against children. In discussing 

their fndings, the researchers went on to state that “(d)espite a large amount of research, only a tiny fraction 

of studies meet a minimum of scientifc standards, and even fewer provide sensible and useful data from which 

it is possible to draw conclusions.” 

Finally, two other reviews completed in recent years deserve brief mention, as they also have reported positive 

treatment effects. Luong and Wormith (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 30 studies and found that sex 

offenders who received treatment recidivated at a signifcantly lower rate than sex offenders who did not 

receive treatment. The researchers reported that for every 100 untreated sex offenders who sexually recidivate, 

82 treated sex offenders will do so. Again, cognitive-behavioral approaches were associated with signifcant 
168 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

 

reductions in both sexual and general recidivism.32 Prentky, Schwartz and Burns-Smith (2006, p. 5) conducted a 

narrative review of treatment effectiveness studies and concluded that “the most reasonable estimate at this 

point is that treatment can reduce sexual recidivism over a fve-year period by 5–8 percent.” 

Given the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have examined the effectiveness 

of treatment for sexual offenders, a handful of researchers have attempted to draw conclusions about 

treatment effectiveness by examining fndings exclusively from prior synthesis research. For example, 

Przybylski (2008, p. 53) reviewed systematic reviews of sex offender treatment effectiveness that were 

conducted prior to 2008, many incorporating meta-analysis, as part of a larger review of what works to reduce 

recidivism. He concluded that “the most recent scientifc evidence suggests that certain types of sex offender 

treatment can reduce recidivism.” 

More recently, Corabian, Dennett and Harstall (2011) reviewed synthesis studies published since 1998 in order 

to assess the effectiveness of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in reducing the recidivism of adult sexual 

offenders. Eight systemic reviews were examined in their study, with seven of the reviews being moderate- to 

high-quality in their scientifc rigor. The underlying research was based primarily on American and Canadian 

samples of offenders. Most of the studies provided little or no information on the characteristics of the 

offenders in treatment, and none reported results for different sub-types of sexual offenders. Based on their 

analysis of the seven moderate-to-high quality systematic reviews, Corabian and her colleagues (2011, p. 16) 

concluded that cognitive behavioral therapy delivered within programs adhering to the risk-need-responsivity 

model has the potential to reduce sexual and nonsexual recidivism. However, given the methodological 

limitations of the underlying research, the researcher stated, “It was diffcult to draw strong conclusions about 

the effectiveness of [sex offender treatment] programs using various [cognitive behavioral therapy] approaches 

for such a heterogeneous population.” 

Finally, based on a review of 11 meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of treatment for sexual 

offenders, Kim, Benekos and Merlo (2016, p. 114) concluded that “treatments can be considered as proven or 

at least promising.” All 11 meta-analyses they reviewed produced evidence that treatment works, with the 

fve meta-analyses conducted since 2002 fnding larger treatment effects (an overall 22 percent reduction in 

recidivism) than those conducted between 1995 and 2002 (an overall 10 percent reduction in recidivism). 

Findings from systematic reviews and metaanalyses conducted in recent years suggest that 

certain treatment approaches can and do work. 

While researchers agree that the evidence concerning the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders is 

far from defnitive, fndings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in recent years suggest 

that certain sex offender treatment approaches can and do work. Specifcally, cognitive-behavioral/relapse 

prevention approaches appear to be effective in reducing recidivism, whether delivered in an institutional 

or community-based setting. The empirical evidence also demonstrates, however, that differential treatment 

impacts are likely to occur for different offenders. Adhering to the risk-need-responsivity model of effective 

intervention appears to be important. Matching treatment to the risk levels and criminogenic needs of sex 

offenders may help maximize treatment effectiveness and the return on investment of treatment resources. 

Adhering to the risk-need-responsivity 

model is important. High- and moderate-risk 

offenders beneft most from treatment. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 169 

Based on fndings from a recent Safer Society survey (McGrath et al., 2010), sex offender treatment programs 

operating in the United States in 2008 most frequently identifed cognitive-behavioral therapy as one of the 

top three theoretical models that best described their treatment approach (McGrath et al., 2010). Relapse 

prevention therapy was the second most frequently identifed model, but the number of programs endorsing 

relapse prevention has fallen since 2002. McGrath and colleagues (2010, p. vii) speculated that the decrease 

in the use of the relapse prevention model likely refects the “considerable criticism leveled by practitioners 

and researchers against relapse prevention in recent years,” specifcally the criticisms that relapse prevention 

describes only one pathway to offending and that it overemphasizes risk avoidance as opposed to individual 

strengths and goals. 

McGrath and his colleagues (2010) also reported that about one-third of the treatment programs in the United 

States responding to the Safer Society survey identifed the Good Lives Model and about one-quarter identifed 

the self-regulation model as one of the top three theoretical models that best described their treatment 

approach. These two models — Good Lives and self-regulation — are designed, at least in part, to address 

some of the perceived shortcomings of the relapse prevention model. (For more on the self-regulation model, 

see Chapter 3: “Sex Offender Typologies,” in the Adult section.) 

The Good Lives Model is grounded in the belief that sex offenders, like most individuals, seek to achieve 

psychological well-being and that offenders desist from criminal behavior when prosocial behavior provides 

a more fulflling life. Rather than focusing solely on risk avoidance and management, this model attempts 

to equip sex offenders with the skills, attitudes and resources needed to lead a prosocial, fulflling life, 

thereby reducing the likelihood of reoffending. The self-regulation model postulates that sex offenders 

follow different pathways to offending behavior and that treatment will be most effective if it takes those 

pathways into account. Four different offense pathways are identifed in the self-regulation model, and they 

address both an individual’s offending behavior goals and the manner in which the individual tries to reach 

them (Yates & Kingston, 2006). The self-regulation model was recently integrated with the Good Lives Model 

to create a more comprehensive treatment approach for managing risk and helping sex offenders develop 

prosocial lifestyles. 

The integrated Good Lives/self-regulation 

model approach to treatment has become 

more prevalent. Research examining 

the effectiveness of this approach 

with sexual offenders is needed. 

While there is both statistical and anecdotal evidence suggesting that the use of the Good Lives/self-regulation 

treatment approach has become more prevalent, little is known about the effcacy of these treatment models 

(either alone or in tandem) for reducing the recidivism of sex offenders. To date, studies have focused on 

validating the Good Lives and self-regulation models for sex offenders or discovering within-treatment 

change (Yates & Kingston, 2006; Yates et al., 2009; Kingston, Yates & Firestone, 2012). While there is growing 

interest in the Good Lives/self-regulation approach — and research is beginning to lay the requisite empirical 

foundation of support — research has not yet examined whether the approach is effective at reducing 

recidivism among sex offenders. 
170 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

Summary 

Given the impact sex crimes have on victims and the larger community, and the growing number of sex 

offenders under correctional supervision, the need for knowledge about criminal justice interventions that are 

effective at reducing the recidivism of sex offenders may be greater today than ever before. 

While there is strong scientifc evidence that therapeutic interventions work for criminal offenders in general, 

the effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders has been the subject of considerable debate. Inconsistent 

research fndings and measurement shortcomings have contributed to the uncertainty about treatment 

effectiveness, but both the pattern of fndings and quality of the evidence have changed in recent years. 

This review examined the evidence on treatment effectiveness from both individual studies and synthesis 

research conducted during the past 20 years. While there is agreement among researchers that the knowledge 

base is far from complete, the evidence suggests that certain therapeutic interventions for sex offenders can 

and do work. Specifcally, cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention approaches have been identifed as being 

effective at reducing both sexual and nonsexual recidivism. 

Cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention 

approaches appear to be effective.

 Because so few studies of treatment effectiveness have employed an experimental design — and randomized 

controlled trials have not produced clear evidence of a treatment effect — some researchers will likely disagree 

that a positive conclusion about treatment effectiveness is warranted. While there is an undeniable need for 

more high-quality research on treatment effectiveness, especially well-designed and well-executed randomized 

controlled trials, there are several reasons why it is reasonable to conclude, albeit cautiously, that some 

treatment approaches can produce at least moderate reductions in recidivism for some sex offenders. 

TREATMENT EFFICACY 

There are several reasons why it is reasonable to conclude, albeit cautiously, that some treatment approaches can 

produce at least moderate reductions in recidivism for some sex offenders: 

• A relatively consistent pattern of positive fndings has emerged from recent research. 

• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that employ more advanced and scientifcally rigorous methods consistently 

indicate that treatment works. 

• Recent studies have found positive treatment effects for various subgroups of treatment participants, even when 

positive treatment effects were not discovered for the entire treatment sample. 

First, a relatively consistent pattern of positive fndings has emerged from recent research, and studies of 

treatment effectiveness conducted in recent years have generally improved in quality. More and more fndings 

are based on studies employing matched comparison groups or statistical controls to achieve treatment and 

comparison group equivalence. 

Second, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that employ more advanced and scientifcally rigorous 

methods consistently indicate that treatment works. For example, using only high-quality studies, MacKenzie 

(2006) found that cognitive-behavioral/relapse prevention treatment, behavioral treatment, and hormonal 

medication signifcantly reduced sexual recidivism. For sex offenders receiving cognitive-behavioral/relapse 

prevention treatment, MacKenzie found an average recidivism rate of 9 percent, compared to an average 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 171 

 

 

recidivism rate of 21 percent for untreated sex offenders. No signifcant differences were found based on 

whether treatment was delivered by a criminal justice agency or other organization or whether treatment 

was delivered in an institution or in the community. Drake, Aos and Miller’s (2009) meta-analysis of six highly 

rigorous studies of adult sex offender treatment with aftercare found that these programs reduced recidivism, on 

average, by 9.6 percent. In addition, these programs produced a net return on investment of more than $4,000 

per program participant. Finally, Schmucker and Lösel (2015) found that treated offenders had a mean sexual 

recidivism rate of 10.1 percent, and that without treatment the recidivism rate would have been 13.7 percent, 

a statistically signifcant difference of 3.6 percentage points,33 or 26.3 percent reduction in sexual recidivism. 

Treatment was effective in reducing general recidivism as well. 

Third, recent studies have found positive treatment effects for various subgroups of treatment participants, 

even when positive treatment effects were not discovered for the entire treatment sample. For example, 

fndings from the California Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project study, which are often cited 

as evidence that treatment has not been shown to work because of the study’s use of random assignment, 

indicated that treatment produced signifcant reductions in recidivism for subgroups of treatment participants 

who “got it” (Marques et al., 2005). Findings like these suggest not only that treatment works for certain 

offenders, but also that positive treatment effects can be masked in aggregate fndings for the overall 

treatment sample. 

Taken together, the overall pattern of positive fndings from single studies and synthesis research, the 

positive fndings that have emerged specifcally from meta-analyses that are based on prudent exclusionary 

criteria and that employ advanced statistical tests and subgroup analysis research fndings that clearly align 

with empirically supported principles about effective interventions, all lend support to the conclusion that 

treatment for sex offenders can be effective. As Marshall and Marshall (2010, p. 5) stated, “We believe the 

empirical literature justifes a positive answer to the question ‘Can sexual offender treatment be effective?’ ... 

Furthermore, we confdently interpret the literature as indicating no evidence of negative effects arising from 

sexual offender treatment.” 

Treatment, however, does not affect all sex offenders in the same way. The empirical evidence clearly 

demonstrates that treatment may have a differential impact, depending on the characteristics of the treatment 

participant and other contextual factors. Sex offenders clearly vary in terms of their recidivism risk levels, 

criminogenic needs and pathways to offending. Hence, rather than following a one-size-fts-all approach, 

treatment is apt to be most effective when it is tailored to the risks, needs and offense dynamics of individual 

sex offenders. The differential impact of treatment, and the need for tailored rather than uniform treatment 

approaches, was acknowledged by the national experts — both researchers and practitioners — at the 

SOMAPI forum. “Instead of sweeping controversies about the effectiveness of sex offender treatment, more 

differentiated perspectives are needed,” stated Schmucker and Lösel (2015, p. 27). 

Treatment is apt to be most effective when 

it is tailored to the risks, needs and offense 

dynamics of individual offenders. 

There is mounting evidence that the risk-need-responsivity model is important for sex offender treatment. 

Lovins, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2009) found that high-risk sex offenders who completed intensive residential 

treatment were more than two times less likely to recidivate than high-risk sex offenders who did not receive 

intensive treatment. Conversely, low-risk sex offenders who received intensive treatment were 21 percent more 

likely to recidivate than low-risk sex offenders who did not receive intensive treatment. Hanson and colleagues 
172 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

(2009) found that treatment that adhered to the risk-need-responsivity model of effective intervention showed 

the largest reductions in recidivism. In discussing the implications of their research fndings for treatment 

providers, Hanson and colleagues (2009, p. 25) stated, “We believe that the research evidence supporting the 

[risk, need and responsivity] principles is suffcient so that they should be a primary consideration in the design 

and implementation of intervention programs for sex offenders.” 

While the knowledge base regarding treatment effectiveness has greatly improved, signifcant knowledge 

gaps and unresolved controversies remain. The need for more high-quality studies on treatment effectiveness 

has long been a theme in the literature, and both randomized controlled trials and highly rigorous quasiexperiments that employ equivalent treatment and comparison groups were identifed as future research 

needs by the experts who participated in the SOMAPI forum. 

There is an acute need for more high-quality 

studies on treatment effectiveness. Both 

randomized controlled trials and highly rigorous 

quasi-experiments that employ equivalent 

treatment and comparison groups are needed. 

While sound randomized controlled trials that examine treatment effectiveness are greatly needed, 

policymakers and practitioners, as well as researchers, must recognize that the use of a randomized controlled 

trial design does not automatically make a study’s fndings trustworthy, nor does the need for trustworthy 

evidence obviate the need for high-quality quasi-experiments. 

Marshall and Marshall (2007, 2010, p. 3–4) also have pointed out that the randomized controlled trial approach 

“typically requires strict adherence to a treatment manual so that the internal validity of the study is assured.” 

This is done, they argue, “to ensure that it is the specifcs of the program that produces the results and so that 

the program, and its results, can be replicated by others.” Yet, there is strong empirical evidence that “the 

way in which treatment is delivered accounts for far more of the observed treatment benefts than does the 

application of appropriate procedures.”34 Simply put, the responsivity principle matters. The manner in which a 

therapist delivers a program protocol and the therapeutic alliance with the offender are important moderators 

of treatment success. 

Given the constraints typically found when working with offender populations, it is unlikely that fndings 

from randomized controlled trials conducted in different treatment settings and with different populations 

of sex offenders will become available in the immediate future. Hence, fndings from quasi-experiments that 

examine treatment effects using equivalent treatment and comparison groups remain important, as they 

can make signifcant contributions to the evidence base regarding treatment effectiveness. Propensity score 

matching and other advanced techniques for controlling bias and achieving equivalence between treatment 

and comparison subjects can help enhance the credibility of evidence produced by studies that do not employ 

random assignment. 

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on prudent exclusionary criteria and that employ the most 

rigorous analytical methods available are also needed. Future research should also attempt to build a stronger 

evidence base on the differential impact of treatment on different types of sex offenders. Empirical evidence 

that specifes what works for certain types of offenders, and in which situations, is important for both policy 

and practice, and it too was identifed as a key research priority by the SOMAPI forum participants. Subgroup 

analyses are particularly important because the positive effects of treatment for a particular subgroup of 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 173 

offenders can be masked in a fnding that treatment failed to have a positive impact for the overall treatment 

sample. Researchers must be diligent, however, not to selectively emphasize treatment benefts for a subgroup 

of study subjects while ignoring fndings for the larger treatment sample (Sherman, 2003). New treatment 

models, such as Good Lives/self-regulation models, also need to be rigorously evaluated to assess their 

effectiveness at reducing recidivism. 

Specifying what types of treatment work 

for certain types of offenders, and in which 

situations, is a key research priority. 

Finally, most of the concerns about weak study designs are raised to avoid the pitfalls of erroneously 

concluding that treatment is effective when it is not. Concluding that treatment is ineffective when it actually 

is effective seems equally problematic. Given the modest reductions in recidivism that have been found in 

prior treatment effectiveness studies, researchers should be cognizant of the need to design evaluations of 

treatment programs with suffcient statistical power to detect small treatment effects. 

Given the quality and consistency of the empirical evidence, it is reasonable to conclude, albeit cautiously, 

that certain types of treatment can produce reductions in recidivism for certain sex offenders. While a number 

of researchers are likely to view the empirical evidence in a similar way, some may view a positive conclusion 

about treatment effectiveness as unwarranted, given the current evidence base. Because treatment has 

become an integral part of sex offender management in jurisdictions throughout the country, it seems that 

one of the crucial questions to ask is whether the empirical evidence assembled to date warrants continued 

support for treatment — provided treatment is well-designed and delivered — or whether it would be 

safer to desist from treating sex offenders until far more defnitive evidence becomes available. Given the 

evidence assembled to date, pursuing the latter seems unwarranted. While various important questions and 

methodological concerns need to be addressed in the future, the quality and consistency of the evidence 

indicates that treatment can lead to at least modest reductions in recidivism, which in turn can translate into 

fewer victims, less individual and community harm and a positive return on taxpayer investment. 

Notes 

1. Of the 1,307 U.S. programs, 608 provided treatment services to adult sexual offenders. 

2. Randomized controlled trials are considered superior for discovering treatment effects and inferring 

causality because of their capacity to create valid counterfactuals and reduce bias. 

3. For an example of a narrative review, see Furby, Weinrott and Blackshaw (1989). 

4. For an example of a systematic review, see Lösel and Schmucker (2005) or MacKenzie (2006). 

5. Methodological quality considerations typically include an assessment of the following: the study’s ability to 

control outside factors and eliminate major rival explanations for an intervention’s effects; the study’s ability to 

detect program effects; and other considerations, such as attrition and the use of appropriate statistical tests. 

Based on the assessment, studies of substandard quality are typically excluded from the analysis. In addition, 

studies that are included in the analysis may be weighted based on their relative scientifc rigor. 
174 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

6. Meta-analysis also generates a summary statistic called the average effect size, which helps the analyst 

determine not only if the intervention is effective, but also how effective it is. There are several methods used 

to calculate an effect size, as described in Lipsey and Wilson (2001). The mean difference effect size is common 

when outcomes are continuously measured; the odds-ratio effect size is common when outcomes are measured 

dichotomously. 

7. Such as statistical tests of homogeneity. 

8. A total of 259 study subjects were assigned to the treatment group, but 55 offenders withdrew prior to 

starting treatment. 

9. Of the 204 sex offenders who entered treatment, 190 completed one year or more of treatment and 14 

dropped out of the program before completing at least one year of treatment. The observed sexual recidivism 

rate for treatment dropouts was 35.7 percent, based on a mean follow-up period of 8.4 years. 

10. p = 0.026. 

11. p = 0.006. 

12. The researchers noted that the evaluation was undertaken before a system of accreditation was in place to 

ensure treatment program quality. 

13. p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively. 

14. p < 0.001. 

15. Survival analysis is a technique for standardizing the time at risk for all study participants, thereby 

producing a more accurate estimate of recidivism. It can be used to examine the pace at which recidivism 

occurs over specifed intervals of time. In the treatment group, intent-to-treat analysis includes data about 

study participants who dropped out of, or were dropped from, the study before completing treatment. 

16. p < 0.001. 

17. p < 0.01. 

18. One study involved 251 sex offenders civilly committed in Massachusetts between 1959 and 1985 (Prentky 

et al., 1997); the other study involved 31 sex offenders recommended for civil commitment by clinicians but 

deemed “not sexually dangerous” by courts and released without treatment (Cohen, Groth & Siegel, 1978). 

19. The “more dangerous” sex offenders were deemed to be “sexually dangerous” by two “qualifed 

examiners” (clinicians) and were subsequently civilly committed by the courts to the Massachusetts Treatment 

Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons. The “less dangerous” sex offenders were found to be “not sexually 

dangerous” by the courts and were released without treatment after serving whatever criminal sanctions the 

court imposed (Kriegman, 2006). 

20. p < 0.007. 

21. Thirty-eight studies reported sexual recidivism (4,321 treated sex offenders and 3,591 comparison offenders) 

and 30 studies reported general recidivism (3,356 treated sex offenders and 2,475 comparison offenders). 

22. Sexual recidivism (p < 0.001); overall recidivism (p < 0.001). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 175 

23. Seven of the comparisons in the analysis were based on a randomized design, but one of those was 

compromised and was not rated by the researchers as a randomized study. 

24. p = 0.005. 

25. p = 0.002. 

26. Miller & Rollnick (2002). 

27. Fifteen studies in the overall analysis focused on cognitive-behavioral programs; seven of these studies 

were rated three or higher on the Maryland Scientifc Methods Scale, indicating a high level of scientifc 

rigor. Four studies focused on behavioral programs; three of these studies rated three or higher on scale. 

28. Cohen’s d = 0.48. 

29. Cognitive behavioral/relapse prevention treatment: mean odds-ratio = 2.04; behavioral treatment: mean 

odds-ratio = 2.92; hormonal treatment: mean odds-ratio = 4.01. 

30. MacKenzie (2006) also found that programs using chemical castration/psychotherapy were effective in 

reducing recidivism but cautioned that the fnding was based on a single study conducted in Germany. She also 

noted that no further discussion followed because surgical castration is not used in the United States. 

31. Average follow-up periods ranged from one to 21 years, with a median of 4.7 years. 

32. Sexual recidivism (p < 0.01); general recidivism (p < 0.01). 

33. p = 0.005. 

34. See, for example, Serran, Fernandez, Marshall & Mann (2003). 

References 

Andrews, D.A. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In J. McGuire (Ed.), What 

Works: Reducing Reoffending — Guidelines From Research and Practice (pp. 35–62). New York, NY: John Wiley. 

Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 4th ed. Newark, NJ: Lexis Nexis. 

Barnoski, R. (2006a). Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Special Sex Offender Sentencing 

Alternative Trends. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

Barnoski, R. (2006b). Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Does the Prison Treatment Program Reduce 

Recidivism? Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

Beech, A.R., Bourgon, G., Hanson, K., Harris, A.J., Langton, C., Marques, J., Miner, M., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V., 

Seto, M., Thornton, D. & Yates, P.M. (2007a). Sex Offender Treatment Outcome Research: CODC Guidelines for 

Evaluation Part 1: Introduction and Overview. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Beech, A.R., Bourgon, G., Hanson, K., Harris, A.J., Langton, C., Marques, J., Miner, M., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V., 

Seto, M., Thornton, D. & Yates, P.M. (2007b). The Collaborative Outcome Data Committee’s Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Sexual Offender Treatment Outcome Research Part 2: CODC Guidelines 2007-03. Ottawa, ON: 

Public Safety Canada. 
176 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

Beech, A.R., Friendship, C., Erikson, M. & Ditchfeld, J. (2001). A six-year follow-up of men going through 

representative probation based sex offender treatment programmes. HMSO [Her Majesty’s Stationary Offce], 

114, 1/4. 

Boruch, R. (2007). Encouraging the fight of error: Ethical standards, evidence standards, and randomized trials. 

In G. Julnes & D. Rog (Eds.), Informing Federal Policies on Evaluation Methodology: Building the Evidence Base 

for Method Choice in Government Sponsored Evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 

Cohen, M.L., Groth, A.N. & Siegel, R. (1978). The clinical prediction of dangerousness. Crime and Delinquency, 

January, 28–39. 

Cook, T.D. (2006). Describing what is special about the role of experiments in contemporary educational 

research: Putting the “Gold Standard” rhetoric into perspective. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6, 1–7. 

Corabian, P., Dennett, L. & Harstall, C. (2011). Treatment for convicted adult male sex offenders: an overview of 

systematic reviews. Sexual Offender Treatment, 6(1). 

Craig, L.A., Browne, K.D. & Stringer, I. (2003). Treatment and sexual offence recidivism. Trauma, Violence, and 

Abuse, 4, 70–89. 

Dennis, J.A., Khan, O., Ferriter, M., Huband, N., Powney, M.J. & Duggan, C. (2012). Psychological interventions 

for adults who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012; 

12:CD007507. 

Donato, R., Shanahan, M. & Higgins, R. (1999). A Cost-Beneft Analysis of Child Sex-Offender Treatment 

Programs for Male Offenders in Correctional Services. Adelaide, South Australia, Australia: Child Protection 

Research Group, University of South Australia. 

Drake, E.K., Aos, S. & Miller, M. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice 

costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4, 170–196. 

Duwe, G. & Goldman, R. (2009). The impact of prison-based treatment on sex offender recidivism: Evidence 

from Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 279–307. 

Farrington, D.P. & Welsh, B.C. (2007). Saving Children from a Life of Crime, Early Risk Factors and Effective 

Interventions. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Friendship, C., Mann, R.E., & Beech, A.R. (2003). The Prison-Based Sex Offender Treatment Programme — 

An Evaluation. London, England: Home Offce. 

Furby, L., Weinrott, M.R. & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex-offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 

3–30. 

Gallagher, C.A., Wilson, D.B., Hirschfeld, P., Coggeshall, M.B. & MacKenzie, D.L. (1999). A quantitative review of 

the effects of sex offender treatment on sexual reoffending. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 19–29. 

Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. Harland (Ed.), Choosing 

Correctional Interventions That Work: Defning the Demand and Evaluating the Supply. Newbury Park, CA: 

Sage. 

Gendreau, P., Goggin C. & Smith, P. (1999). The forgotten issue in effective correctional treatment: Program 

implementation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 80–87. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 177 

Gendreau, P. & Ross, R.R. (1987). Revivifcation of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, 

349–407. 

Gronnerd, C., Gronnerd, J.S. & Grondahl, P. (2015). Psychological treatment of sexual offenders against children: 

A meta-analytic review of treatment outcome studies. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16, 280–90. 

Hanson, R.K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L. & Hodgson, S. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Treatment 

for Sex Offenders: Risk, Need and Responsivity. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Hanson, R.K., Broom, I. & Stephenson, M. (2004). Evaluating community sex offender treatment programs: 

A 12-year follow-up of 724 offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36, 87–96. 

Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R., Mareques, J.K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V.L. & Seto, M.C. (2002). First 

report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex 

offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14(2), 169–194. 

Kim, B., Merlo, A.V. & Benekos, P.J. (2016). Sex offender recidivism revisited: Review of recent meta-analyses on 

the effects of sex offender treatment. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1), 105–117. 

Kingston, D.A., Yates, P.M. & Firestone, P. (2012). The self-regulation model of sexual offending: Relationship to 

risk and need. Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 215–224. 

Kriegman, D. (2006). The reduction of sexual offense recidivism following commitment and psychodynamic 

treatment: A challenge to the dominant cognitive-behavioral model. Journal of Sex offender Civil Commitment: 

Science and the Law, 1, 90–98. Retrieved from: www.soccjournal.org/2005-06/Kriegman_2006.pdf. 

Långström, N., Enebrink, P., Laurén, E., Lindblom, J., Werkö, S. & Hanson, K. (2013). Preventing sexual abusers 

of children from reoffending: systematic review of medical and psychological interventions. BMJ 2013; 

347:f4630 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4630 (Published, August 9, 2013). 

Lipsey, M.W. (2002). Meta-analysis and program evaluation. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskirft, 9, 194–208 

(translated). 

Lipsey, M.W. & Cullen, F.T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic 

reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3. 

Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Lösel, F. & Schmucker, M. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders: A comprehensive metaanalysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117–146. 

Lovins, B., Lowenkamp, C.T. & Latessa, E. J. (2009). Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: Can treatment 

make some sex offenders worse? The Prison Journal, 89, 344–357. 

Lowden, K., Hetz, N., Patrick, D., Pasini-Hill, D., Harrison, L. & English, K. (2003). Evaluation of Colorado’s Prison 

Therapeutic Community for Sex Offenders: A Report of Findings. Denver, CO: Offce of Research and Statistics, 

Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety. 

Luong, D. & Wormith, S.J. (2006). The Effectiveness of Psychological Sex Offender Treatment: A Meta-Analysis. 

Saskatoon, Canada: University of Saskatchewan, Department of Psychology. Available from the authors at 

Duyen.Luong@usask.ca. 
178 CHAPTER 7: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR ADULT SEX OFFENDERS 

MacKenzie, D.L. (2006). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and 

Delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

Marques, J.K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D.M., Nelson, C. & van Ommeren, A. (2005). Effects of a relapse 

prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation 

Program (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 79–107. 

Marshall, W.L. & Marshall, L.E. (2007). The utility of the Random Controlled Trial for evaluating sexual 

offender treatment: The gold standard or an inappropriate strategy? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 19, 175–191. 

Marshall, W.L. & Marshall, L.E. (2010). Can treatment be effective with sexual offenders or does it do harm? A 

response to Hanson (2010) and Rice (2010). Sexual Offender Treatment, 5. 

McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the 

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 16–30. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G., Burchard, B., Zeoli, S. & Ellerby, L. (2010) Current Practices and Emerging Trends in 

Sexual Abuser Management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G., Livingston, J.A. & Hoke, S.E. (2003). Outcome of a treatment program for adult sex 

offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 3–17. 

Nicholaichuk, T., Gordon, A., Gu, D. & Wong, S. (2000). Outcome of an institutional sex offender treatment 

program: A comparison between treated and matched untreated offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 12, 139–153. 

Olver, M., Wong, S. & Nicholaichuk, T.P. (2008). Outcome evaluation of a high-intensity inpatient sex offender 

treatment program. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 522–536. 

Petrosino, A. & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and metal-analytic best evidence on “what works” 

for criminal justice decisionmakers. Western Criminology Review, 8, 1–15. 

Petticrew, M. (2007). Making high quality research accessible to policy makers and social care practitioners. 

Plenary presentation at the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Glasgow, Scotland. 

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. 

Prentky, R., Schwartz, B. & Burns-Smith, G. (2006). Treatment of Adult Sex Offenders. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, 

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

Prochaska, J.O. & Levesque, D.A. (2002). Enhancing motivation of offenders at each stage of change and phase 

of therapy. In M. McMurran (Ed.), Motivating offenders to change (pp. 57–73). Chichester: Wiley. 

Przybylski, R. (2008). What Works? Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk-Focused Prevention Programs: 

A Compendium of Evidence-Based Options for Preventing New and Persistent Criminal Behavior. Lakewood, 

CO: RKC Group. 

Rice, M.E. & Harris, G.T. (2003). The size and signs of treatment effects in sex offender therapy. Annals of the 

New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 428–440. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 179 

Schmucker, M. & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international 

analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 597–630. 

Serran, G.A., Fernandez, Y.M., Marshall, W.L. & Mann, R.E. (2003). Process issues in treatment: Application to 

sexual offender programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 368–374. 

Sherman, L.W. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. 

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 6–19. 

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1998). Preventing Crime: 

What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

U.S. General Accounting Offce. (1996). Sex Offender Treatment: Research Results Inconclusive About What 

Works to Reduce Recidivism. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Offce. 

Wilson, J.A. (2007). Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight and the Potential Consequences of Correctional 

Programming. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Wilson, D.B. & Lipsey, M.W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from 

meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6, 413–429. 

Yates, P.M. & Kingston, D.A. (2006). The self-regulation model of sexual offending: The relationship between 

offence pathways and static and dynamic sexual offence risk. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 18, 259–270. 

Yates, P.M., Simons, D., Kingston, D.A. & Tyler, C. (2009). The good lives model of rehabilitation applied to 

treatment: Assessment and relationship to treatment progress and compliance. Paper presented at the 28th 

Annual Research and Treatment Conference for the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Dallas, TX. 

Zgoba, K.M. & Simon, L.M.J. (2005). Recidivism rates of sex offenders up to 7 years later: Does treatment 

matter? Criminal Justice Review, 30, 155–173. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 181 

Chapter 8: Sex Offender 

Management Strategies 

by Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky 

FINDINGS 

◆ Some empirical support exists for intensive supervision with a rehabilitative treatment approach. However, 

these studies had short follow-up periods, small sample sizes, different recidivism measures and problems with 

scientifc rigor. 

◆ Some support exists for Circles of Support and Accountability. 

◆ Polygraphs and global positioning systems should only be used with other controls. 

◆ Findings are mixed on registration and notifcation: 

• Some studies have found benefts in reducing sex crime rates, reducing recidivism or expediting arrests for new 

sex crimes, but other studies have not found statistically signifcant changes in the measured effects. Studies in 

this area may fail to control for other infuential factors and may lack suffcient scientifc rigor. 

• The public is generally supportive of registration and notifcation requirements as protective of public safety. 

Many sex offenders report negative social and personal impacts but may also report that the requirements deter 

offending or motivate them to be successful. 

• No study to date has examined the multifaceted elements of registration laws, generally, or Title I of the 

Adam Walsh Act, the Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation Act (SORNA), specifcally. SORNA incorporates 

registration requirements and procedures, and information sharing and enforcement mechanisms, going 

beyond the registration and notifcation systems examined in past studies. 

Introduction 

P

revention and intervention strategies for sexual offending behavior, including sex offender management, 

have become increasingly prominent and important in the United States.1

 The concept of sex offender 

management has been conceptualized under the construct of a Comprehensive Approach to Sex Offender 

Management (CASOM) by the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM). The CASOM model (CSOM, 2007) 

includes the following — 

• Fundamental principles 

○ Victim-centered approach 

○ Specialized knowledge and training for professionals 

○ Public education 

○ Monitoring and evaluation of the strategies 

○ Multidisciplinary collaboration 
182 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

• Critical components 

○ Investigation, prosecution and disposition 

○ Assessment 

○ Treatment (For more on treatment, see Chapter 7: “The Effectiveness of Treatment for Adult Sex 

Offenders,” in the Adult section.) 

○ Supervision 

○ Reentry 

○ Registration and community notifcation 

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at yearend 2008 more than 165,000 offenders convicted of 

rape or sexual assault were in state prisons (Guerino, Harrison & Sabol, 2011). The National Parole Resource 

Center (2014) indicates 95 percent of these offenders will ultimately be released to communities, at a rate 

of approximately 10,000–20,000 per year. Additionally, more than 861,800 registered sex offenders currently 

reside in communities across the United States (National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 2017). 

While it is diffcult to track national trends over time, there is little question that the number of sex offenders 

under correctional supervision in the community has increased substantially over the past 20 years. In fact, sex 

offender management laws have become so prominent in the United States that the issue was identifed as the 

ffth most important area of concern for state legislators (CSOM, 2008). Such laws typically address issues such 

as incapacitation, retribution/punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation (CSOM, 2008). During the 2007–08 

legislative biennium alone, 1,500 bills related to sexual offenders were introduced in 44 states (six states 

had no legislative session during this timeframe), with 275 of these bills passing into law (Council of State 

Governments [CSG], 2010). 

In a survey of nearly 600 professionals working in the feld of sex offender management, nearly a third of 

whom (30.5 percent) have more than 10 years’ experience working with this population, most believed that 

community supervision and treatment, and to a lesser extent electronic monitoring (GPS) and sex offender 

registration and notifcation (SORN), reduce recidivism. In addition, barriers to successful reentry were 

identifed as lack of housing and employment, public sentiment and residence restrictions, among others 

(Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015). 

Despite the intuitive value of using science to guide decision-making, laws and policies designed to combat 

sexual offending are often introduced or enacted in absence of empirical support. This dynamic was recently 

acknowledged and identifed as a concern by the national experts — both researchers and practitioners — 

who participated in the February 2012 SOMAPI forum. The reasons why this occurs are varied and complex, 

and they will not be explored in this chapter.2

 However, there is little question that both public safety and the 

effcient use of public resources would be enhanced if sex offender management strategies were based on 

evidence of effectiveness rather than other factors. This chapter on sex offender management strategies was 

developed with this in mind. 

This chapter does not discuss the theoretical and sociological explanations for a given policy or place the 

research within this context. It also does not present an exhaustive review of the research; it focuses on recent 

studies deemed to be important for understanding the effectiveness of a given strategy. Finally, its primary 

focus is on the management of adult sexual offenders. Although some research on juveniles who commit 

sexual offenses is included, the effectiveness of sex offender management strategies with a juvenile population 

is addressed in the Juvenile section of this publication. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 183 

 

 

Summary of Research Findings 

Specialized Supervision 

The development and refnement of specialized legal supervision for sexual offenders has largely occurred over 

the past 25 years. Specialized supervision frequently involves specially trained probation and parole offcers 

who manage a caseload of sexual offenders using sex-offender-specifc supervision strategies that include 

special conditions of supervision, multidisciplinary collaboration with a treatment provider and, if appropriate 

and permissible, the use of GPS monitoring and polygraph testing. Based on responses to a 2008 survey of state 

offcials, most states use some form of specialized supervision to manage risk and provide services to sexual 

offenders in the community; in addition, many states use sex-offender-specifc probation or parole caseloads 

(Daly, 2008). (For a discussion of adult “Sex Offender Risk Assessment,” see Chapter 6 in the Adult section.) 

In terms of strategies used by specialized supervision offcers, a survey of probation and parole supervisors 

(N = 732) conducted in 1994 found that 85 percent referred offenders to sex-offender-specifc counseling 

and that 30 percent of probation offcers and 32 percent of parole offcers had specialized caseloads; 

however, less than 10 percent required polygraph testing (English, Pullen & Jones, 1996). The importance of 

multidisciplinary collaboration with supervision offcers was also supported in a survey of treatment providers 

from 45 states and the District of Columbia (N = 190), where 90 percent said their rapport with probation offcers 

was excellent or good, 24.2 percent said probation offcers attended weekly group sessions and 87.4 percent said 

communication with probation offcers was essential (McGrath, Cumming & Holt, 2002). 

This section reviews research on the effectiveness of specialized supervision practices. It is important to note 

that these are not sex-offender-specifc studies. Research relating to the effectiveness of Circles of Support and 

Accountability (COSA), civil commitment, polygraph and electronic monitoring (including GPS) immediately 

follows. These studies focus primarily on sex-offender-specifc supervision strategies. 

Research 

Several large-scale studies have assessed the effectiveness of intensive supervision used with criminal offenders. 

It is not known whether fndings from these studies are generalizable to sex offender populations, but the 

fndings provide important insights concerning the effectiveness of intensive supervision overall. In one largescale systematic review of 291 studies conducted over a 40-year period on various intensive supervision programs 

used with criminal offenders, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found no research support for 

the effectiveness of community-based intensive supervised probation with a primary surveillance orientation 

in reducing criminal recidivism (n = 24 studies). (For information on “Adult Sex Offender Recidivism,” see 

Chapter 5 in the Adult section.) However, Washington State did fnd research support for the effectiveness of 

treatment-oriented intensive supervised probation, which produced an average reduction in criminal recidivism 

of 21.9 percent (n = 10 studies). Based on these results, Washington concluded that rehabilitation via treatment — not 

intensive supervision — leads to a reduction in criminal recidivism (Aos, Miller & Drake, 2006). It should be noted 

that this study was a follow-up to an earlier study by the same state agency, in which the authors concluded that 

surveillance-oriented intensive supervised probation had a small effect, which was not statistically signifcant, on 

reducing criminal offender recidivism (n = 19 studies) (Aos et al., 2001). 

There is no research support for 

intensive supervision without a 

rehabilitative treatment approach. 
184 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

A second study on the effectiveness of intensive supervised probation for general criminal offenders was 

a randomized clinical trial3 conducted between 1986 and 1991 across 14 sites in nine states. In a one-year 

follow-up, the offenders subject to ISP were rearrested at a rate of 37 percent, while the offenders not subject 

to intensive supervised probation were rearrested at a rate of 33 percent. Further, those subject to ISP were 

recommitted to prison at a rate of 27 percent, while the nonintensive supervised probation recommitment rate 

was 19 percent. In discussing the study results, the researchers concluded, “Despite the experience of hundreds 

of intensive supervision programs in this country and many studies, albeit few experimental, we still know 

very little about the effectiveness of these programs to reduce prison overcrowding and ... to reduce crime in 

detectable ways” (Petersilia & Turner, 1993, p. 121). 

Questions about the effectiveness of intensive supervision in the absence of treatment have led to the 

development of intensive supervision programs with a treatment orientation. A specifc example is the 

containment approach, which includes collaboration on specialized supervision of sexual offenders provided 

by trained supervision personnel, sex-offense-specifc treatment and polygraph assessment. Unlike many other 

sex management strategies that have been implemented over the years, English, Pullen and Jones (1996) 

developed the containment approach based on their study of best practices in place across the country. 

Research on the effectiveness of the containment approach has been completed in a handful of jurisdictions 

across the country. One study was conducted in Jackson County, Oregon, where the community corrections 

offce integrated treatment, supervision and polygraph assessment in a multidisciplinary collaboration model. 

The research compared the recidivism rates for sexual offenders who were subject to the containment approach 

between 1985 and 1995 (N = 601) with those of sexual offenders from 1) a different county (Linn County) who 

were not subject to the containment approach between 1985 and 1992 (n = 89), and 2) a group of nonsex 

offenders supervised in Jackson County between 1985 and 1995 (n = 231) in a matched sample. The study used 

a three- to fve-year follow-up period, and recidivism in this study was defned as a new felony conviction. 

The study found a recidivism rate of 8.8 percent for offenders in the containment group based on a followup period of at least one year, while the rates for the comparison groups were 15 percent and 26.7 percent, 

respectively. This was a statistically signifcant difference in recidivism for the containment group compared 

to both comparison groups.4 The researchers also noted that sexual offenders subject to the containment 

approach had a higher recidivism rate than the comparison groups for the frst year, possibly due to the 

increased supervision scrutiny provided by this approach (Aytes et al., 2001). 

A second study of the containment approach used with sex offenders in Colorado found that sexual offenders 

subject to specialized parole supervision following release from prison (n = 1,003), which included requirements 

for sex-offense-specifc treatment and polygraph assessment, had a statistically signifcant lower recidivism rate 

(16.1 percent) than sex offenders not subject to parole supervision (29.3 percent; n = 2,040).5

 Recidivism in this 

study was measured as a new arrest, court fling or return to prison (Lowden et al., 2003). 

Finally, a third study undertaken in Virginia compared sexual offenders subject to containment on probation and 

parole (n = 583) to all sexual offenders on probation and parole between 2000 and 2002 (N = 1,753) using a threeto fve-year follow-up period. The results indicated that the containment sexual offenders returned to prison for 

any crime at a rate of 11.3 percent, and specifcally for a sex crime at a rate of 0.5 percent. The comparison group 

had a similar return-to-prison rate of 9.9 percent for any crime and a rate of 0.6 percent for a new sex crime, a 

difference that was not statistically signifcant. The researchers hypothesized that the higher return-to-prison rate 

for the containment sexual offenders was due to increased surveillance and detection provided by the model. It is 

also important to note that the comparison group in this study (all sexual offenders released from prison between 

2000 and 2002) included the sex offenders subject to containment (Boone et al., 2006). 

Three additional research studies on specialized sex offender supervision are worth noting. One study 

compared sex offenders (n = 195) under specialized supervision and in sex-offense-specifc treatment to a 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 185 

matched group of sex offenders who did not have community supervision using a six-year follow-up period. 

The results indicated that sexual offenders under community supervision had a sexual recidivism rate of 14 percent 

based on either a new sexual offense charge or a substantiated sexual offense by child protective services. In 

comparison, those who were not under supervision had a recidivism rate of 35 percent, leading to the conclusion 

that specialized supervision resulted in a statistically signifcant reduction in sexual recidivism6

 (McGrath et al., 2003). 

However, in a contradictory study completed in Illinois, no signifcant difference in sexual recidivism was found 

between sex offenders subject and not subject to specialized supervision. In this study in Lake County, Illinois, 

recidivism was defned as a new sex crime arrest over a three- to fve-year follow-up period (Stalans, Seng & 

Yarnold, 2002). The results indicated that sexual offenders subject to specialized supervision (n = 104) had a 

sexual rearrest rate of 28.8 percent, while sexual offenders not subject to this strategy (n = 104) had a sexual 

rearrest rate of 25 percent (Stalans, Seng & Yarnold, 2002). 

Finally, in a second contradictory study from British Columbia, Canada (N = 269), there was no signifcant 

difference in sexual reconviction between sex offenders subject to a specialized intensive community 

supervision program for high-risk sex offenders (the CHROME program) compared to the control groups, 

however, the small number of overall sexual recidivists (3 percent overall) limited the ability to distinguish 

between groups (Lussier et al., 2014). 

Limitations 

The research on the effectiveness of specialized sex offender supervision in conjunction with treatment 

(e.g., the containment approach) has a number of limitations. These include a small number of studies, 

short follow-up periods, small sample sizes, the use of different recidivism measures (making cross-study 

comparisons challenging), little information about the specifc elements of the programs that are found to 

be successful and problems with the scientifc rigor of some of the studies (including one study where the 

intervention group was part of the comparison group). Finally, general issues related to underreporting of 

sex crimes leads to the problem typically seen in sex offender management research — that is, a low base rate 

for sexual recidivism, which limits the ability to achieve signifcant differences between the intervention and 

comparison groups. 

Research limitations include short follow-up 

periods, small sample sizes, different recidivism 

measures and problems with scientifc rigor. 

On the other hand, the research on the effectiveness and limitations of generalized intensive supervision for all 

criminal offenders, particularly when combined with a treatment component, is much more extensive based on 

a number of large-scale research studies. 

In terms of future research directions, it is recommended that research using rigorous scientifc methods 

be encouraged and supported. Comparison studies with large sample sizes and longer follow-up periods 

should be conducted on the effectiveness of specialized supervision in conjunction with treatment for sexual 

offenders. Finally, it would be benefcial for future research to identify not only the effect of the intervention, 

but also the program components that appear to be most benefcial and the mechanisms by which successful 

outcomes are achieved. 
186 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Summary 

There is empirical support for the use of intensive supervision with criminal offenders in conjunction with a 

rehabilitative treatment approach, and some preliminary support for specialized sexual offender supervision 

models (such as the containment approach) that are delivered in conjunction with treatment. However, there is 

no research support for the use of intensive or specialized supervision either in isolation or without treatment 

for either population. Given the above, the SOMAPI forum participants recommended that jurisdictions should 

use specialized supervision with a rehabilitation orientation as one component of an overall sex offender 

management strategy. 

Circles of Support and Accountability 

The COSA model is a supervision strategy involving the use of community volunteers to provide support to 

an individual sex offender. COSA assists offenders in garnering community resources while holding them 

accountable to their self-monitoring plan, typically following completion of legal supervision. This program 

was frst developed in Canada but has since been implemented in the United States, United Kingdom, 

Netherlands, Belgium, Catalonia, Bulgaria and Latvia, with a total of 446 circles identifed to date in the 

literature (Clarke et al., 2015). Currently, there are U.S. COSA programs in California, Colorado, Minnesota and 

Vermont, with additional projects being developed in North Carolina and Washington, among others. 

Research 

The COSA model has been the subject of several studies, including a number of single studies evaluating COSA’s 

effectiveness in reducing recidivism (one of which was a randomized controlled trial), one systematic review 

of the research, two cost-beneft analyses and surveys of sexual offender participants and public member 

volunteers. 

Outcome Studies 

In the Canadian outcome studies, one evaluation compared the recidivism rates of 60 COSA high-risk sex offenders 

and 60 non-COSA high-risk sex offenders using a 4.5-year follow-up period. The study found a 5 percent sexual 

recidivism rate (defned as a new sex crime charge or conviction) for the COSA group and a 16.7 percent recidivism 

rate for the non-COSA group. The researchers concluded that COSA participation resulted in a statistically signifcant 

reduction in sexual recidivism (Wilson, Picheca & Prinzo, 2005).7 

In a second Canadian study, the recidivism rates for 44 high-risk sex offenders participating in COSA were compared 

to those for a matched comparison group of 44 high-risk sex offenders who did not participate in COSA using a 

35-month follow-up period. The study found that the COSA group sexually recidivated at a 2.3 percent rate 

while the non-COSA group recidivated at a 13.7 percent rate, a statistically signifcant difference (Wilson, Cortoni 

& McWhinnie, 2009).8 

Duwe (2012) conducted an evaluation of COSA effectiveness in Minnesota (N = 62) using a randomized controlled 

trial design and found that COSA participants had a lower rate of sexual rearrest than nonparticipants (0 percent 

vs. 3.2 percent, respectively), although the difference was not statistically signifcant. However, COSA participants 

did have a signifcantly lower level of any rearrest than nonparticipants (38.7 percent vs. 64.5 percent).9 

Finally, a study of the COSA program in the United Kingdom examined recidivism outcomes for program 

participants (n = 71), as compared to those screened for COSA but who did not enter the program (n = 71). 

The United Kingdom COSA model is slightly different than the model that has been implemented in Canada, 

in that sexual offenders in the program are still under legal supervision. Based on a 55-month follow-up 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 187 

period, the study found a signifcant reduction in sexual contact or violent reconviction for COSA participants 

compared to nonparticipants (0 percent vs. 14.1 percent).10 However, there was no signifcant difference between 

COSA and non-COSA sex offenders on noncontact sex offense reconviction (4.2 percent vs. 2.8 percent), failure 

to comply with the sex offender registry (4.2 percent vs. 8.5 percent) or breach of supervision (2.8 percent vs. 

0 percent). The authors described the results related to noncontact sex offenses for COSA participants from a 

harm reduction perspective in that the recidivistic crimes were less harmful and invasive than their pre-program 

participation offenses (Bates et al., 2014). 

Cost-Beneft Analysis 

In a cost-beneft study of a COSA program in the United Kingdom, Elliot and Beech (2012) estimated that 

program participation would reduce recidivism by 50 percent and that, as a result, COSA produced a return on 

investment of $1.04 in tangible costs (defned as direct costs of the criminal justice process) for every $1 of cost 

per program participant (costs were converted from pounds for purposes of this review). 

Duwe also conducted a cost-beneft analysis as part of a larger evaluation of a COSA program and concluded 

that for every $1 spent on COSA there would be return on investment of $1.82 (Duwe, 2012). 

Systematic Review 

In addition to the single studies described above, a systematic review of the research on COSA was completed 

by Clarke and colleagues in 2015. They noted a total of 15 COSA studies including one randomized controlled 

trial, three retrospective cohorts with matched controls and 11 case series (case studies) from the United 

Kingdom (nine), Canada (three), United States (two) and Netherlands (one). The authors summarized the 

research on COSA as not currently showing a signifcant reduction in sexual reconviction or recidivism, but 

demonstrating harm reduction in recidivism with the new offense being less severe than the index offense, a 

reduction in the time to recidivism, some evidence of general recidivism reduction and having a positive return 

on investment (Clarke et al., 2015). 

COSA was identifed in the Inventory of 

Promising or Effective Programs in Sex 

Offender Management as a researchsupported program model. 

Impact on Sex Offenders and the Public 

In a survey of COSA participants and public members, 90 percent of sex offenders from Canada who responded 

described participation in COSA as helpful in refraining from reoffense, while 68 percent of public members 

who responded said offenders’ participation in COSA made them feel safer (Wilson, Picheca & Prinzo, 2005). 

Impact on Volunteers 

In a review of the results from several surveys of COSA volunteers, Hoing et al. (2014) noted that COSA had a 

number of tentative impacts on program volunteers. Positive impacts included increased self-esteem, a sense 

of contributing to community safety and greater support for restorative justice practices and treatment for 

sex offenders. However, participation in COSA also negatively impacted community volunteers through stress 

about the offender’s risk and challenges related to dealing with the diffcult behavior of sex offenders, as well 

as negative familial and societal reactions about their COSA volunteer work (Hoing et al., 2014). 
188 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

 

Limitations 

Regarding the outcomes from single studies, while the results regarding COSA effectiveness thus far have been 

positive, only four studies have employed a comparison group (one randomized controlled trial) and these 

studies had relatively small sample sizes. In addition, the relatively short follow-up periods are a challenge for 

these studies. Finally, only one study has been completed in the United States, while the other three studies 

were in Canada and the United Kingdom, where polygraph is not used routinely to corroborate disclosure and 

accountability. As a result, generalization to the United States is still in question. Therefore, future research 

should include larger samples sizes, sex offenders from multiple jurisdictions in the United States and longer 

follow-up periods. Regarding survey results, limitations include small response rates and sample sizes, leading 

to possible self-selection bias, and therefore, any conclusions must be considered tentative and in need of 

confrmation. 

Summary 

COSA studies thus far have demonstrated some positive results. While further use of the model is encouraged, 

implementation should occur in conjunction with rigorous evaluation. Far more high-quality research is 

needed before the effcacy and effectiveness of COSA with sexual offenders can be frmly established. The 

strength of the model is that it uses community resources for sex offender management and can be used in the 

absence of court supervision. 

Polygraph 

The use of polygraph assessment with sexual offenders is a somewhat more controversial management 

strategy than the others described thus far. (It is important to note that the containment approach — 

described above — includes polygraph testing as part of a comprehensive supervision and treatment strategy. 

This approach is premised on the assumption that the information disclosed via polygraph enhances the ability 

to create an individualized treatment and supervision plan.) Three different types of polygraphs are used 

with sexual offenders: a specifc-incident exam that focuses on the sexual offense conviction or other specifc 

offenses or behaviors, a sexual-history exam that explores the offender’s history of sexual offending behavior 

and a maintenance exam that reviews the offender’s compliance with supervision and treatment conditions. 

While the extent of polygraph use in the management of sexual offenders is diffcult to document, there is some 

evidence that polygraph use has increased since the mid-1990s. In terms of sex offenders supervised within the 

federal probation and pretrial service system, one study found that in fscal years 2004–05 (N = 2,199), 44 percent 

of those in treatment were subject to polygraph testing (Baerga-Buffer & Johnson, 2006). Similarly, in a survey 

of state offcials (prison, community treatment, reentry and community supervision), less than 50 percent of 

the respondents reported polygraph use in prison-based treatment (Daly, 2008). This percentage, however, 

was signifcantly higher than the percentage reported by English, Pullen and Jones (1996) based on their 1994 

national survey of supervision offcers (N = 732), in which less than 10 percent required polygraph testing. 

According to the Council of State Governments (2008), the following states were using polygraph testing in the 

management of sexual offenders: Colorado, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Texas. Evidence that polygraph 

use has increased since the mid-1990s also comes from a survey of U.S. treatment providers (N = 1,307 programs), 

which found that respondents reporting the use of polygraph increased from 30 percent in 1996 to 79 percent in 

2009 (McGrath et al., 2010). 

Research 

Research on polygraph use can be broken down into the following content areas: impact on disclosure, impact 

on sexual offender recidivism, impact on supervision professionals, impact on sexual offenders and test validity. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 189 

Impact on Disclosure 

Results of multiple research studies across various jurisdictions indicate that using polygraphs with sexual 

offenders leads to additional disclosures. Reported increases in offender disclosure based on polygraph 

include the number of victims, offenses and offense categories (Ahlmeyer et al., 2000; English et al., 2000; 

Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; Hindman & Peters, 2001; O’Connell, 1998); high-risk behaviors (Buschman et 

al., 2010; Gannon et al., 2014; Grubin et al., 2004); and age of onset, duration of offending and frequency 

(English et al., 2003). One example of such a study is from the Netherlands, where child pornography sexual 

offenders who received polygraph testing (N = 25) yielded disclosures of high-risk behavior during treatment 

in the areas of masturbation to fantasies of sexual contact with children (n = 15) (including masturbation while 

looking at children in public [n = 9]) and masturbation while manipulating children into posing nude during 

webcam contact (n = 4). In addition, disclosures included cruising in public places for children (n = 14), taking 

children’s pictures (n = 5) and having scripted scenarios to be used to sexually victimize a child if there were an 

opportunity to do so (n = 5) (Buschman et al., 2010). It should be noted that no comparison group was used 

in this study; hence, attributing the disclosures directly to the use of the polygraph is problematic. Increases in 

the number of victims disclosed via polygraph ranged from an initial self-report of one victim to 11–13.6 victims, 

depending on the study, following polygraph testing (Ahlmeyer et al., 2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003; 

Hindman & Peters, 2001). The rate of polygraph-aided disclosure was higher than the rate for offender selfreports (Gannon et al., 2014; Hindman & Peters, 2001), and was more pronounced for inmates than parolees 

(Ahlmeyer et al., 2000; Heil, Ahlmeyer & Simons, 2003). Finally, results of polygraph disclosure research 

indicated a large number of sanctions and changes in the case plan for offenders (English et al., 2000; 

Gannon et al., 2014; Tubman-Carbone, 2009). 

Limitations: Impact on Disclosure 

Polygraph disclosure research undertaken to date has been based on relatively small sample sizes. There also was 

no corroboration of the disclosures made, allowing for the possibility of false admissions and an overstating of 

the number of victims. However, many polygraph disclosure studies also note that, given the deceptive polygraph 

results, there is also a possibility that the true incidence of offending behavior is underreported. This makes the 

interpretation of disclosure research fndings diffcult. Perhaps most importantly, most of the disclosure studies 

lacked comparison groups so it is not possible to know with certainty that the polygraph was responsible for 

the new disclosures. Further, many of these studies are limited to one state or jurisdiction, with only one study 

encompassing four states, raising questions about the generalizability of fndings to other jurisdictions. Finally, 

the fact that the polygraph was voluntary in one study suggests the possibility that the results may have been 

different had all offenders completed the assessment. Future research on polygraph disclosures is clearly needed 

and it should include matched comparison groups and larger samples. Disclosure studies spanning multiple 

jurisdictions are also needed. 

Impact on Sexual Offender Recidivism 

As noted in the “Specialized Supervision” section above, the research results for sexual offenders subject 

to polygraph testing as part of the containment approach typically demonstrated lower levels of recidivism 

than sexual offenders not subject to this intervention (Aytes et al., 2001; Lowden et al., 2003). However, in a 

study conducted by McGrath and colleagues (2007), no signifcant differences in sexual recidivism between 

polygraphed and nonpolygraphed sex offenders were found. In that study, the recidivism rates of 104 sex 

offenders subject to polygraph testing were compared with those of a group of 104 matched sex offenders 

not subject to polygraph testing. The recidivism rate based on sexual recidivism charges was 5.8 percent for the 

polygraph group and 6.7 percent for the nonpolygraph group, a difference that is not statistically signifcant. 

However, there was a signifcant difference between the two groups in violent recidivism (operationalized as a 

new violent crime charge). The violent recidivism rate for those offenders subject to polygraph was 2.9 percent, 
190 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

compared to 11.5 percent for the nonpolygraph group.11 It should also be noted that a large percentage of 

high-risk behaviors were disclosed during the polygraph examinations (McGrath et al., 2007). 

Limitations: Impact on Sexual Offender Recidivism 

The limitations cited for the specialized supervision research, and in particular the containment approach, hold 

for the polygraph research as well. Indeed, the only study that specifcally looked at recidivism related to sexual 

offenders subject to polygraph, compared to those who were not, showed no signifcant difference in the rate 

of sexual recidivism. However, this study acknowledged that several issues may have confounded the study 

results, including the small sample size, potential selection bias (in that probation offcers decided who would 

take the polygraph) and the infrequency of polygraph testing. Hence, the study conducted by McGrath and 

colleagues (2007) should be replicated using a larger sample size, matched comparison groups and program 

features that reduce the probability of selection bias and maintain the integrity of the polygraph treatment. 

Studies examining the impact of polygraph testing on recidivism in different jurisdictions are also needed. 

Impact on Supervision Professionals 

In a 1998 telephone survey of probation and parole supervisors (N = 679), approximately three-fourths 

believed that polygraph use enhanced disclosure of offender behavior and two-thirds believed it led to better 

supervision of offenders (Cooley-Towell, Pasini-Hill & Patrick, 2000). In another survey, more than 80 percent 

of the offender manager respondents reported that the results of a specifc polygraph examination were 

a useful tool for offender supervision (Gannon et al., 2014). Other surveys of service providers have found 

similar positive results. For example, in one survey, 96 percent of the respondents reported that the polygraph 

was helpful (McGrath et al., 2007). In another survey, 100 percent of the providers (n = 11) and 90 percent 

of the parole offcers (n = 105) who responded reported that the polygraph was helpful. In the same survey, 

80 percent of the providers who responded reported that having one group member take a polygraph test 

positively impacted other group members (Tubman-Carbone, 2009). 

Impact on Sexual Offenders 

Research on the perceived impact of the polygraph by sex offenders themselves is extremely limited. One study 

that examined this was conducted by Kokish, Levenson and Blasingame (2005). The study surveyed 95 sexual 

offenders and found that 72 percent of those surveyed rated the polygraph as helpful, while 11 percent said 

the polygraph was harmful (Kokish, Levenson & Blasingame, 2005). 

Limitations: Impact on Sexual Offenders 

Most of the limitations commonly found with survey data apply to the above studies. (For more on general 

limitations of sex offender research, see the “Limitations of the Data” section of Chapter 1: “Incidence and 

Prevalence of Sexual Offending,” in the Adult section.) In addition, the answers provided by sex offenders 

under supervision may be subject to distortion because offenders may try to give a socially desirable response 

or portray themselves in a sympathetic light. 

Test Validity 

One of the signifcant critiques of the polygraph is that it does not produce valid results. While this chapter 

only addresses the issue of test validity very briefy, readers are directed to the National Research Council 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 191 

report titled The Polygraph and Lie Detection (2003) for additional information. Its key research fndings 

regarding test validity follow: 

• A large-scale review of 57 studies on the use of specifc-incident polygraph testing with sexual offenders 

found that such testing demonstrated the ability to discriminate between truth and deception at a rate well 

above chance. 

• Screening tests (sexual history and maintenance) performed with the polygraph showed less of an ability to 

discriminate between truth and deception. 

Research Summary 

Research suggests that polygraph testing increases offender disclosure across multiple offending or behavior 

categories, including historical and current offending and high-risk behavior. The empirical evidence also 

suggests that polygraph testing can help reduce sexual recidivism when used in conjunction with specialized 

supervision and treatment within the containment approach. 

Limitations Summary 

One of the key limitations in the polygraph research studies reviewed in this chapter is the inability of 

the research to distinguish the impact of the polygraph from other strategies (treatment and specialized 

supervision). Small sample sizes are also a problem and jurisdiction-specifc approaches may limit the 

generalizability of research fndings. Future research should employ more rigorous methods to better isolate 

the impact of polygraph testing on both disclosure and recidivism. 

Polygraph Summary 

Until more defnitive research regarding the validity and impact of polygraph testing is available, the polygraph 

will continue to be a controversial technique used inconsistently in sex offender management schemes. If 

polygraph testing is used in the management of sex offenders, it should be implemented as one component of 

an overall sex offender management strategy. Polygraph disclosure information may be useful for assessment of 

risk factors and identifcation of treatment needs, but in some jurisdictions such information may not be used for 

prosecution or supervision revocation. Given the questions that remain about test validity, it is not recommended 

that polygraph results be relied on exclusively for sex offender management decision-making. 

Polygraphs should be used as one component of 

an overall sex offender management strategy. 

Electronic Monitoring, Including Global Positioning Systems 

Another recent trend in sex offender management and supervision has been the use of GPS to monitor sex 

offenders. GPS is an updated, more technologically advanced form of the electronic monitoring techniques 

used with criminal offenders in the past. These earlier versions of electronic monitoring were much more 

passive in nature, and they typically involved the use of a radio transmitter device (worn by offenders) that 

alerted a home-based receiver and a remote monitoring station whenever the offender was out of range. 

Offenders could never be tracked or otherwise located once they left their homes. In a signifcant technological 

advance, GPS provides real-time tracking of and location data for the offender, and it also is capable of 

notifying authorities if an offender enters a prohibited area, such as an offender exclusion zone or victim 
192 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

 

residence. Monitoring by GPS can be either active (viewing an offender’s movement between locations in 

real time) or passive (data are saved and reviewed later, and notifcation is only done electronically based on 

restriction parameters violated). In the United States — 

• Six states use lifetime electronic monitoring (Nieto & Jung, 2006). 

• Forty-seven states have some form of electronic monitoring legislation, 19 of which require the use of 

an electronic monitoring tool. The remaining 28 states permit but do not require electronic monitoring 

(Button, DeMichele & Payne, 2009). 

• Thirty-one states introduced electronic monitoring legislation in 2007, with 14 of 109 bills passing (CSG, 2010). 

Research 

In a systematic review of 12 studies examining the effectiveness of non-GPS electronic monitoring used with 

criminal offenders overall (not necessarily sex offenders), WSIPP found no signifcant reduction in criminal 

recidivism for offenders subject to electronic monitoring techniques (Aos, Miller & Drake, 2006). However, a 

second large study that examined the effectiveness of passive monitoring devices and GPS used with criminal 

offenders subject to home confnement in Florida between 1998 and 2002 did fnd promising results (N = 75,661). 

Study fndings indicated that criminal offenders placed on both passive electronic monitoring devices and GPS 

had signifcantly lower levels of revocation for a new criminal offense or for absconding than did offenders 

subject to home confnement without such monitoring12 (Padgett, Bales & Blomberg, 2006). 

In a study of non-GPS passive electronic monitoring specifc to sexual offenders in three of four Canadian 

provinces that use such a technique, Bonta, Wallace-Capretta and Rooney (2000) compared the recidivism rates 

of a group of inmates and probationers who were not subject to electronic monitoring with those of a group 

of offenders who were subject to it. Based on a one-year follow-up period, those on electronic monitoring 

sexually recidivated (defned as a sex crime reconviction) at a rate of 26.7 percent, compared to 33.3 percent 

for the probationers who were not monitored and 37.9 percent for the inmates who were not monitored. 

However, the researchers noted that although there was a statistically signifcant difference in recidivism 

between the electronic monitoring and nonelectronic-monitoring groups,13 when the results were controlled 

for risk there was no difference between them. Hence, they concluded that the observed recidivism reductions 

were due to offender risk dynamics, not program components (Bonta, Wallace-Capretta & Rooney, 2000). 

In a study comparing states that have implemented electronic monitoring laws for sexual offenders with those 

that have not, Button, DeMichele and Payne (2009) found that the states with such laws were no more likely 

to have rates of violent crime and rape that were higher than the U.S. average than were states without such 

laws. Additionally, a second study looked at the rates of forcible rape from 2000–2011 Uniform Crime Report 

data in 10 states14 that had passed statewide “Jessica’s Laws,” which included lifetime GPS monitoring. The 

results found a marginally signifcant decrease in rape in Georgia related to implementation of GPS,15 but no 

signifcant reduction in rape related to GPS in any of the other nine states. As a result, the authors concluded 

that there was a null relationship between lifetime GPS and the rate of forcible rape across the 10 states 

studied (Dierenfeldt & Varriale Carson, 2014). 

State agencies in California, Florida, New Jersey and Tennessee, among others, have studied the use of GPS 

with sexual offenders. Among sexual offenders on GPS in New Jersey (N = 225), there were 19 nonsexual 

criminal recidivists or technical violators and one sexual recidivist in a one-year follow-up (New Jersey State 

Parole Board, 2007). It should be noted there was no comparison group for this study. In a Florida study of 

705 offenders on electronic monitoring using predominantly active GPS (70 percent of whom were lower-risk 

offenders and 30 percent of whom were habitual or sexual offenders), offenders on electronic monitoring 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 193 

 

had a felony recidivism rate of 2.6 percent, while offenders who were not subject to electronic monitoring 

recidivated at a rate of 6.6 percent in a one-year follow-up. It is not known whether this difference was 

statistically signifcant (Offce of Program Policy Analysis & Governmental Accountability, 2005). Conversely, a 

Tennessee study that compared the outcomes of 493 sex offenders on GPS with those of 370 offenders in the 

same counties prior to the use of GPS found no signifcant difference between the two groups in the number 

of technical violations or new charges that occurred or in the number of days before a frst technical violation 

(Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, 2007). 

A California study compared outcomes for 94 GPS offenders and a group of 91 high-risk offenders who were 

not on GPS. No signifcant differences in technical violations (which included offenders who committed a 

new crime) were found between the two groups (39.6 percent vs. 37.2 percent); however, the GPS group was 

less likely to abscond. This study also included a process evaluation of GPS that showed equipment problems, 

signal drift, blocked signals and high caseloads impacted effectiveness (Turner et al., 2007). Finally, in a second 

California study of high-risk sex offenders (N = 516) (half of whom were on GPS while the other half was a 

matched non-GPS comparison group), no signifcant differences in sex crime rearrest (2.7 percent for the GPS 

compared to 5 percent for the non-GPS group) or reconviction (1.9 percent compared to 4.3 percent) were 

found based on a one-year follow-up period. However, the GPS group had signifcantly lower levels of sexrelated parole violations (5 percent compared to 12.4 percent),16 general rearrests (14.4 percent compared to 

26.4 percent)17 and return to custody (58.1 percent compared to 58.9 percent)18 (Gies et al., 2012). 

Limitations 

In terms of the limits of the GPS-specifc studies, the sample sizes were relatively small (ranging from 94–262), 

with at least one study referencing primarily a lower risk, nonsexual offender group. The follow-up periods 

employed in many studies were not of suffcient length. The inability of several studies to detect a positive GPS 

effect may be related to problems using the technology or staffng limitations within the monitoring program. 

The effcacy of electronic monitoring techniques such as GPS cannot be established at this time. Additional 

studies with suffcient sample sizes and follow-up periods, and matched comparison groups, are needed to test 

the impact of GPS. Technological and staffng problems within monitoring programs also need to be addressed 

so that impact evaluations can focus on GPS programs that are implemented and delivered with integrity. 

Finally, while research on non-GPS electronic monitoring provides important insights about the value of 

monitoring strategies, the technological differences between passive alert systems (non-GPS and passive GPS19) 

and an active monitoring system (active GPS) are signifcant and must be accounted for when assessing the 

effectiveness of any specifc monitoring technique or electronic monitoring strategy as a whole in any research 

summary. 

Summary 

While GPS may eventually be found to be effective as one strategy in an overall management approach for 

sexual offenders, empirical evidence does not at this time establish that the strategy is effective when used 

in isolation. Policymakers and the public should not view GPS as a viable alternative to empirically supported 

supervision models that incorporate treatment. 

GPS should not be used in isolation 

and should be a part of an overall sex 

offender management strategy. 
194 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Sexual Offender Civil Commitment 

At present, 20 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government have enacted legislation allowing 

for the establishment of sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC) procedures.20 SOCC is predicated on the 

belief that some offenders will be at continued high risk (in some cases termed “more likely than not”) to 

commit a new sexual offense if they are not preventively detained and offered treatment designed to lower 

their risk for recidivism. To be subject to civil commitment, most SOCC statutes require the state to demonstrate 

that a potential candidate for this measure has 1) a history of engaging in criminal sexual behavior and 2) a 

“mental abnormality” that, without treatment, would preclude him or her from being able to manage his 

or her criminal sexual propensities in the community. These “criteria” form the principal basis for SOCC, and 

persons committed as sexually violent persons/predators (SVPs) are held until such time as a court fnds they no 

longer meet the criteria. 

Research 

More than 40,000 sexual offenders in Florida have been screened for possible referral to the courts for SOCC 

proceedings since the law came into effect in early 1999. However, approximately 9 percent of those screened 

offenders were referred for psychological/psychiatric evaluation and only about 3.5 percent have been referred 

to court for civil trial. Even fewer of those referred for commitment were actually found to be SVPs — in 

fact, less than half of those referred for trial (1.5 percent of the total considered) were designated as SVPs. 

This makes those persons found to be SVPs an “elite” group, at least as far as Florida is concerned (Wilson 

et al., 2013). Similar numbers have been reported for SOCC programs in other states: Texas (1 percent civilly 

committed according to Boccaccini and colleagues, 2009); New York (3.7 percent civilly committed according 

to the New York State Offce of Mental Health, 2010); and Minnesota (6 percent civilly committed according to 

Duwe, 2013). 

At present, very few civil commitment programs have released suffcient numbers of offenders to allow 

researchers to study the impact of civil commitment in a meaningful way. Across the 16 SOCC programs 

reporting data to the annual survey of the Sexual Offender Civil Commitment Programs Network (Jackson, 

Travia & Schneider, 2010), the average number of releases per program was less than 10. Further, most releases 

from civil commitment have occurred recently, meaning that follow-up times would be quite short. As such, 

very little data currently exist regarding rates of reoffending in SVPs following release to the community. 

Studies of Sex Offenders Recommended for Civil Commitment But Not Designated SVP 

A number of studies looked at the sexual recidivism rates for sex offenders recommended for civil commitment 

but not ultimately designated as a SVP. One such study that provides some insight into the impact of civil 

commitment on postrelease offending examined the reoffense rates of 135 “almost SVPs” (persons who 

were referred for SOCC, but petitions were not fled with the court) in Washington State (Milloy, 2007). With 

a uniform follow-up period of six years, 23 percent were convicted of new felony sexual offenses — a rate 

considerably higher than that found in “routine” samples of sexual offenders. Another study of note compared 

high-risk/need sexual offenders in a Canadian jurisdiction to SVPs in Florida (Wilson et al., 2013). In that study, 

the Canadian and American offenders were virtually identical on pertinent risk assessment and clinical factors, 

and their relative rates of sexual reoffending were also remarkably similar (6.1 percent in 5.48 years compared 

to 3.2 percent in 2.54 years), although the Florida SVP sample size was small (n = 31) and the follow-up period 

for the Florida SVPs was relatively short. 

In another study involving Florida sex offenders recommended for civil commitment but not ultimately 

designated SVP, the sexual felony reconviction rates for these offenders was 6.8 percent (for those offenders 

released for a period between fve and 10 years) and 6.5 percent (for those offenders released for a period 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 195 

over 10 years and no more than 14 years) respectively, as compared to 3 and 4 percent respectively, for those 

offenders not recommended for SVP consideration and released over the same time periods (Carr et al., 2013). 

In a study of 102 sex offenders in New Jersey considered for SVP but not actually committed, 10.5 percent sexually 

recidivated over a 6.5-year follow-up (Calkins Mercado et al., 2013). Additionally, in a study of 1,928 Texas 

offenders considered for SVP but not actually committed, 3.2 percent sexually recidivated over a 2.25-7.5-year 

follow-up (Boccaccini et al., 2009). Finally, in a study of 1,722 similar sex offenders in New York, 1.6 percent and 

2.9 percent were rearrested for a sex crime after a one- and two-year follow-up, respectively (New York State 

Offce of Mental Health, 2010). 

Studies of Civilly Committed Sexual Offenders Under Community Supervision 

In a study of 77 New York sex offenders civilly committed via placement under Strict and Intensive Supervision 

and Treatment (SIST) in the community, 10 percent violated for sexually inappropriate behavior, with 2.6 percent 

receiving a new sex crime charge (New York State Offce of Mental Health, 2010). In addition, a study of 78 Virginia 

SVPs on conditional release since 2003 found a 3.8 percent rate for a new sex offense charge (Joint Legislative 

Audit and Review Committee, 2013). Further, in a study of 347 Texas SVPS, 170 of whom were under community 

supervision in Texas, none had been charged with or convicted of a new sexual crime. The report does note that 

both out-of-state SVPS (n = 2) were subsequently convicted of new sex crimes. It should be noted that the follow-up 

time was unspecifed in the report (Council of Sex Offender Treatment, 2014). 

Finally, in a study of 105 sexual offenders civilly committed in Minnesota from 2004–06, Duwe (2013) used an 

actuarial risk assessment instrument (MnSOST-R) to estimate the recidivism of this population if it had not been 

civilly committed and reported that civil commitment likely reduced recidivism by 12 percent over four years. 

Limitations 

There has not been adequate empirical study to determine the effectiveness of SOCC as a sex offender 

management strategy at this time, at least in terms of the impact of SOCC on postrelease offending. The 

limited number of sexual offenders released from SOCC, the short follow-up periods researchers would 

inherently have to use, and the lack of adequate comparison groups all contribute to a paucity of research on 

SOCC effectiveness. Far more offenders will have to be released from SOCC, and these offenders will have to 

spend far more postrelease time in the community, before the impact of SOCC on postrelease offending can be 

studied in a meaningful way. 

Summary 

SOCC strategies are being used by 40 percent of states (20 states). While these programs seek to contain 

and treat the most dangerous sex offenders, they have signifcant costs; a 2005 survey found that annual 

per-resident costs ranged from $12,680 to $109,000, and that more than $224 million was spent annually to 

operate SOCC facilities nationwide (Lieb & Gookin, 2005). 

Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation 

Registration was frst used in the 1930s with repeat criminal offenders as well as sex offenders. California 

became the frst state to implement sex offender registration in 1947, while Washington became the frst 

state to implement community notifcation on sex offenders in 1990. The goals of Sex Offender Registration 

and Notifcation (SORN) programs have been summarized as deterring offenders from reoffending, giving law 

enforcement an investigative tool and increasing public protection (CSOM, 1999). 
196 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

The federal government frst implemented a national registration law with the Jacob Wetterling Crimes 

Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act in 1994. A national notifcation law was 

enacted with the Megan’s Law amendment to the Wetterling Act in 1996. Subsequently, all 50 states have 

implemented SORN systems. The federal government repeatedly refned and expanded the scope of SORN via 

a series of amendments to the Wetterling Act (the Lychner Act in 1996, the Jacob Wetterling Improvements 

Act in 1998, the Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act in 2000 and the PROTECT Act in 2003), and then ultimately 

set forth a new SORN scheme with the passage of the Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 

Act of 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation Act (SORNA), which replaced the Wetterling Act 

and subsequent amendments. SORNA’s requirements and how they differ from the Wetterling Act have been 

documented in other sources.21 The changes include enhanced registration requirements and procedures, 

increased availability of sex offender registration information to the public, strengthened information 

sharing and enforcement mechanisms and greater federal assistance in operating and upgrading sex offender 

registration programs, sharing and disseminating sex offender information and enforcing registration 

requirements. 

Research 

SORN requirements arguably have been implemented in the absence of empirical evidence regarding 

their effectiveness. It has been suggested that SORN may be a specifc deterrent for sex offenders in that 

it facilitates awareness, monitoring and apprehension of sex offenders and helps prevent sex offenses — 

particularly repeat sex offenses — from occurring. While these hypotheses were not empirically tested prior 

to the implementation of SORN requirements, a signifcant body of research using various methods has since 

examined the impact of SORN, particularly in relation to recidivism. 

Interrupted Time Series Analysis Studies 

One research method used to assess the effectiveness of SORN for adult sexual offenders is interrupted time 

series analysis, which essentially examines an outcome of interest using many observations before and after 

the implementation of a specifc intervention. Several interrupted time series analyses assessing SORN have 

been completed in recent years. In one analysis of state SORN laws, Prescott and Rockoff (2011) found that 

SORN may have contributed to a decrease in sex crimes. More specifcally, the study found that sex offender 

registration led to a decrease in the rate of victimization of nonstrangers and a reduction in recidivism for 

identifed sex offenders. However, community notifcation did not appear to reduce recidivism for identifed 

sex offenders (Prescott & Rockoff, 2011). 

A similar analysis focused on the impact of SORN on rape in 10 states. Using Uniform Crime Report (UCR) 

data on rapes reported to the police as the outcome measure, the study found that statistically signifcant 

reductions in reported rape occurred following the implementation of SORN in three of the 10 states (Hawaii22, 

Idaho23 and Ohio24). In six states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma and West Virginia), no 

signifcant change was observed following SORN implementation, and one state (California) actually had a 

statistically signifcant increase in sex crimes following SORN implementation.25 Based on the varied fndings, 

the authors concluded there was no systematic infuence of SORN on the rate of reported rape (Walker et al., 

2006). (For more on UCR data, see the “Uniform Crime Report” section of Chapter 1: “Incidence and Prevalence 

of Sexual Offending,” in the Adult section.) 

Presently, 41 states have some kind of registration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses; 30 states 

either permit or require public website posting for those juveniles, and that the vast majority require registration 

and public notifcation for juveniles transferred for trial and convicted as an adult.26 In reviewing UCR sex crime 

arrest data from 47 states for 1994 through 2009, Holmes (2009) did not fnd a statistically signifcant decrease in 

the rate of sex crime arrest in either juvenile registration states or juvenile notifcation states (post-SORN). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 197 

Several studies have examined the impact of SORN in individual states. For example, in South Carolina, adult 

sex crimes were compared to nonsexual assault and robbery crimes pre- and post-SORN implementation 

(N = 194,575, of which 19,060 were sex crime arrests). Data were examined for 1990 through 2005. SORN 

implementation occurred in 1995. The study found that the sex crime rate declined by 11 percent27 from pre- to 

post-SORN while the rates of assault and robbery did not, suggesting the possibility that SORN was a deterrent 

to sex crimes (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong & Sinha, 2010). In another study from New 

Jersey, a downward trend in the sex assault rate was observed both pre- and post-Megan’s Law (SORN), but the 

rate of decline increased after Megan’s Law was implemented (Veysey, Zgoba & Dalessandro, 2008). 

A number of state studies did not fnd evidence that SORN implementation positively impacted the rate of 

sexual offending or recidivism. Interestingly, one of these studies focused on South Carolina, where another 

study did fnd evidence of a positive SORN impact (Letourneau, Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Armstrong & Sinha, 

2010). 

In the South Carolina study that did not fnd evidence of a positive SORN effect, recidivism was examined in 

the context of registration status for 6,064 male offenders convicted of at least one sex crime in that state 

between 1990 and 2004. The study found that registration status did not predict recidivism (Letourneau, 

Levenson, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha & Armstrong, 2010). Another state study taking place in New York analyzed 

sex crime, assault, robbery, burglary and larceny arrests from 1986 through 2006. Study results indicated that the 

implementation of the state’s sex offender registry did not decrease the rearrest rate for convicted sex offenders, 

deter nonregistered offenders from offending or decrease the overall rate of sex crimes. It was also noted that 

94.1 percent of child molestation arrests were for frst-time sex offenders (Sandler, Freeman & Socia, 2008). 

Finally, an analysis that focused on South Carolina juveniles who committed sexual offenses between 1990 and 

2004 (N = 1275) found that 7.5 percent were charged with a new sex offense and 2.5 percent were adjudicated 

for a new sex offense during a nine-year follow-up period (Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha & Armstrong, 

2010). More importantly, the researchers found that registration was not associated with recidivism; however, 

nonsexual, nonassault recidivism (defned as a new charge) signifcantly decreased for those on the registry28 

(Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha & Armstrong, 2010). 

Limitations: Interrupted Time Series Analysis Studies 

One of the primary limitations of the studies cited above is that time series analysis and before/after methods 

in general are not as capable of isolating intervention effects as a randomized controlled trial. While an 

interrupted time series analysis based on a suffcient number of observations can produce highly trustworthy 

fndings, outside factors such as changes in supervision, treatment and other sex offender management 

practices pre- and post-SORN may also be infuencing study results. Further, the authors in the New Jersey study 

cautioned that wide variety across county sex crime rates was noted, and the analysis did not uniformly and 

consistently demonstrate downward trends, suggesting that the statewide pattern identifed might represent 

a spurious effect and be an aggregation artifact (Veysey, Zgoba & Dalessandro, 2008). Finally, other variables 

such as sex crime underreporting (which could be aggravated by SORN due to the unwillingness of intrafamilial 

victims to report because of fears about SORN) and the limitations of offcial sex crime statistics may be 

confounding these results. 

Studies Employing a Comparison Group 

A number of studies have examined the impact of SORN by comparing the outcomes of sex offenders subject 

to SORN with those not subject to this strategy. These studies have generally produced mixed results. 

One study fnding a positive effect examined the recidivism of 8,359 sexual offenders in Washington State. 

Some of those offenders were subject to SORN, while others were not because SORN requirements were not 
198 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

yet in place. The study found that the sex offenders subject to SORN sexually recidivated (defned as a new 

Washington state conviction for a felony sex crime) at a 2 percent rate, while the pre-SORN group recidivated 

at a 7 percent rate29 (WSIPP, 2005). Another study fnding a positive impact took place in Minnesota. 

Researchers compared Level III sexual offenders subject to community notifcation between 1997 and 2002 (n =155) 

with precommunity notifcation sexual offenders retrospectively scored as Level III offenders (n = 125), and 

Level I and II sexual offenders not subject to community notifcation (n = 155).30 Based on a three-year followup period, the community notifcation group had a statistically signifcantly lower sexual recidivism rate based 

on reconviction (3.2 percent), compared to the prenotifcation group and nonnotifcation group (32.8 percent and 

9.6 percent, respectively)31 (Duwe & Donnay, 2008). 

On the other hand, several state-level studies have not found evidence of a positive SORN effect. For 

example, in an Iowa study, a group of sex offenders subject to registry requirement (n = 233) who were 

also under legal supervision were compared to a matched group of preregistry sex offenders not under 

supervision (n = 201). In a 4.3-year follow-up, the registry group sexually recidivated (defned as a new sex 

crime conviction) at a rate of 3 percent, compared to the nonregistry group’s 3.5-percent recidivism rate. This 

difference was not statistically signifcant. However, when the recidivism rates of parolees and probationers 

were compared, the researchers found that registration requirements may have had more of an impact on 

parolees (Adkins, Huff & Stageberg, 2000). 

In New Jersey, researchers compared the recidivism rates of offenders subject to SORN with those of 

offenders who were not subject to this strategy (n = 550). Based on a 6.5-year follow-up period, offenders 

subject to SORN recidivated at a rate of 7 percent, compared to 11 percent for offenders who were not 

subject to SORN; however, these differences were not found to be statistically signifcant (Zgoba & Bachar, 

2009; Zgoba et al., 2008). 

In Wisconsin, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to registration and extensive notifcation between 

1997 and 1999 (n = 47) were compared with those of sex offenders who had limited notifcation requirements 

(n = 166). No statistically signifcant differences in sex crime rearrest rates over a four-year follow-up period 

were found, as 19 percent of the extensive notifcation group sexually recidivated, compared to 12 percent 

for the limited notifcation group (Zevitz, 2006). Similar fndings were reported in a Washington State study. 

Again, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to SORN (n = 139) were compared with those of sex 

offenders not subject to SORN. Based on a 54-month follow-up, sex offenders subject to SORN were found 

to have a sex crime rearrest rate of 19 percent while the rate for the non-SORN group was 22 percent, a 

difference that is not statistically signifcant. However, the researchers noted that the offenders subject to 

SORN were arrested more quickly than offenders in the comparison group (Schram & Milloy, 1995). Finally, in 

a study of New York sex offenders pre- and postcommunity notifcation (N = 10,592), researchers found no 

signifcant differences in sexual (7 percent) or general (46.6 percent) rearrest rates based on an 8.2-year followup period. However, the community notifcation offenders were rearrested twice as quickly for a new sex crime 

as the noncommunity notifcation offenders32 (Freeman, 2012). 

Research on SORN as it relates to offender 

recidivism has produced mixed results. 

Limitations: Studies Employing a Comparison Group 

The primary limitation of the studies described above is the inability to control for all outside factors and to 

isolate the effects of SORN requirements on recidivism. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 199 

Survey Data 

Surveys of stakeholders can provide descriptive data about the impact of SORN on different populations, 

including the public, sexual offenders and supervision offcers. 

Impact on the Public 

One multistate study (n = 115 from 15 states) of community members found general familiarity with and 

support for SORN, along with a belief that it prevents offending (Schiavone & Jeglic, 2009). State-level surveys 

of community members regarding SORN in Florida, Nebraska, Washington and Wisconsin found that the 

public — 

• Was aware of and supported SORN (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008). 

• Thought it was fair (Brannon et al., 2007). 

• Believed that it provides safety for their family (Anderson & Sample, 2008; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008; Zevitz & 

Farkas, 2000a). 

• Thought it makes sex offenders follow the law (Phillips, 1998, as cited in CSOM, 2001; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008; 

Brannon et al., 2007). 

• See the benefts of SORN and learning about sex offenders through SORN (Phillips, 1998, as cited in CSOM, 

2001; Lieb & Nunlist, 2008). 

• Took preventive measures (38 percent)33 based on SORN information (Anderson & Sample, 2008). 

• Reported suspicious behavior of offenders (3 percent)34 (Lieb & Nunlist, 2008). 

• Accessed the registry (31 percent),35 but those who did were more likely to be female, to be affuent and to 

have children (Sample, Evans & Anderson, 2011). 

Survey responses indicate that SORN has both 

negative and positive impact on offenders 

and that the public is generally supportive 

of SORN as promoting public safety. 

Impact on Offenders 

In a review of eight individual surveys on SORN’s impact on sexual offenders subject to it,36 Lasher and McGrath 

(2012) found that — 

• 8 percent of sex offenders reported physical assault or injury 

• 14 percent reported property damage 

• 20 percent reported being threatened or harassed 
200 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

 

• 30 percent reported job loss 

• 19 percent reported loss of housing 

• 16 percent reported a family member or roommate being harassed or assaulted 

• 40–60 percent reported negative psychological consequences 

However, more than one-third of adult sex offenders reported communities being safer and approximately 

three-fourths felt it was a deterrent to offending (Lasher & McGrath, 2012). 

A number of studies involving surveys of sexual offenders in states across the country indicate that SORN 

requirements have a range of negative impacts on sexual offenders. These include negative impacts on sex 

offenders’ jobs, housing, friends and family (Ackerman, 2009; Levenson, D’Amora & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 

2004; Vandiver, Dial & Worley, 2008), which results in stress, isolation, loss of hope and shame/embarrassment 

(Levenson & Cotter, 2005a), and the greater likelihood of living in disadvantaged neighborhoods where 

services are less available (Hughes & Kadleck, 2008). Studies have also found that 10–13 percent of sex 

offenders report experiencing violence (Brannon et al., 2007; Levenson, D’Amora & Hern, 2007) and harassment 

(Vandiver, Dial & Worley, 2008; CSOM, 2001). While many sexual offenders report the belief that SORN would 

not deter reoffending and was unfair punishment (Ackerman, 2009; Brannon et al., 2007; Levenson, D’Amora 

& Hern, 2007; Tewksbury & Lees, 2007; Tewksbury, 2004), many also report that SORN requirements motivate 

them to be successful (Levenson, D’Amora & Hern, 2007; Levenson & Cotter, 2005a). 

Impact on Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Professionals 

In a survey of probation and parole offcers (n = 77), respondents reported they generally believed community 

notifcation served an appropriate goal but had a high cost for corrections in terms of personnel, time and 

money. They also believed it made sex offender housing diffcult to locate (Zevitz & Farkas, 2000b). 

In a second survey of criminal justice professionals (N = 1,157), law enforcement offcers and prosecutors were 

more supportive of SORN and residence restrictions, while other corrections professionals (e.g., wardens, parole 

board members and community corrections personnel) were less supportive.37 In addition, higher levels of 

education and experience was inversely related to support for such policies, in that the most experienced and 

educated personnel were less supportive than their less experienced and educated counterparts (Mustaine et 

al., 2015).38 

Finally, in a survey of law enforcement professionals (N = 1,247) from 49 states and the District of Columbia, 

including command staff (35 percent), supervisory staff (30 percent) and line sworn and civilian staff (35 percent), 

the primary purposes and effectiveness of SORN were identifed as monitoring offenders and information 

sharing, and to a lesser extent informing the public and criminal investigation. Deterrence of future sexual 

offending by registrants was not typically identifed as a goal or outcome of SORN. Concerns identifed by 

respondents included public misunderstanding of and inaction as a result of SORN, which provides a false 

sense of security. In addition, incomplete registry information including the lack of accurate risk information 

on registrants, the lack of integrated data with other information systems, transient and homeless registrants 

and lack of court supervision were identifed as needs. Law enforcement recommendations included enhanced 

penalties and prosecution for registry noncompliance and the need for additional resources (Harris et al., 2015). 

Impact on Sexual Assault Survivors 

In a survey of sexual assault survivors (n = 598), respondents reported support for SORN to be applied to all 

sexual offenders regardless of the relationship to the victim and did not believe that it impacted reporting 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 201 

by survivors to law enforcement. However, survey results provided less support for SORN as a mechanism to 

provide for public safety or deter future sexual offending, and indicated concerns related to SORN providing a 

false sense of security (Craun & Simmons, 2012). 

Limitations: Survey Data 

The limitations of survey data have previously been identifed and are applicable here. 

Impact of Failure To Register 

Several studies have examined whether sex offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements are more 

likely to recidivate than offenders who do comply. For example, a Washington State Institute for Public Policy 

study (2006) found higher recidivism for noncomplying sex offenders compared to their registration-compliant 

counterparts. Noncomplying sex offenders had a felony sex crime conviction recidivism rate of 4.3 percent, while 

complying sex offenders had a rate of 2.8 percent. It is unknown whether this difference was statistically 

signifcant (WSIPP, 2006). Studies in Minnesota, New Jersey and South Carolina, however, failed to fnd any 

signifcant differences in recidivism between registration-compliant and noncompliant sex offenders. In 

Minnesota, Duwe and Donnay (2010) compared the recidivism rates of 170 sex offenders who had a failure-toregister charge between 2000 and 2004 with those of 170 nonfailure-to-register sex offenders and found that 

the noncompliant sex offenders were no more likely to sexually recidivate (defned as a new sex crime arrest 

or conviction) (Duwe & Donnay, 2010). Similarly, a study focused on sex offenders in South Carolina (N = 2,970) 

found that those who failed to register were no more likely to sexually recidivate (11 percent) than those not 

so charged (9 percent) (Levenson et al., 2009). Finally, in a study of New Jersey sex offenders (N = 1,125), 644 of 

whom failed to register and 481 who did register, researchers again found no signifcant difference between 

the two groups in terms of their sexual rearrest rates (18 percent for the failure-to-register group compared to 

11 percent for the registering group) (Zgoba & Levenson, 2012). 

Limitations: Impact of Failure To Register 

Relatively few studies have examined whether noncompliant offenders are more likely to reoffend than 

compliant offenders, and the studies again suffer from the low base rate for sexual recidivism and limited 

generalizability. 

Accuracy Research 

A number of studies have examined the accuracy of sex offender registries. For example, Hughes and 

Kadleck (2008) reviewed the accuracy of sex offender registries in Nebraska and Oklahoma and found that 

approximately 90 percent of the Nebraska records were accurate (n = 975), while 56.5 percent of the Oklahoma 

records were accurate (n = 5,163). In a random sample of New York registry records (n = 200), 37 percent of 

the records were found to be inaccurate, including 27 percent that did not match driver’s license information 

and 2.5 percent that had wrong addresses (Offce of the New York State Comptroller, 2006). Finally, in a 

Vermont study of sex offender registry records (n = 57), 75 percent of the records were found to have critical or 

signifcant errors (Vermont State Auditor, 2010). 

Limitations: Accuracy Research 

Audits of sex offender registry records provide important insights about the accuracy and reliability of sex 

offender registries. The major limitations of these studies are that they often are based on small sample sizes 

and their generalizability to other jurisdictions remains unknown. 
202 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Summary 

In summary, research on the effectiveness of SORN remains relatively limited and fndings from the studies 

are somewhat inconclusive. Findings from time series studies are mixed. Some studies fnd lower rates of sex 

crimes following SORN implementation, while others do not. Studies based on a comparison of outcomes for 

sex offenders subject and not subject to SORN also produced mixed fndings. An arguable lack of suffcient 

scientifc rigor may further cloud the import of studies in this area. Therefore, the results of SORN research 

undertaken to date continue to leave open questions about the effects of registration and community 

notifcation requirements. Finally, few if any studies to date have examined the multifaceted elements 

of registration laws, generally, or SORNA, specifcally which incorporates requirements, procedures and 

information sharing and enforcement mechanisms going beyond those prevalent in SORN programs examined 

in past studies. 

Research fndings on the effectiveness of SORN 

are mixed, and more high-quality studies 

with suffcient scientifc rigor are needed. 

Sexual offenders in survey responses claim a range of negative impacts from SORN; however, many see it as a 

deterrent to committing future crimes. Further research is clearly needed to corroborate these survey fndings. 

Surveys of community members indicate that the public is familiar with SORN laws, and also that they are 

generally supportive of SORN. 

Finally, registry accuracy studies have found signifcant problems with registry records in some states. The need 

for accurate registry information was recently highlighted by the sex offender management experts who 

participated in the 2012 SOMAPI forum. 

Clearly, additional research is needed to help better answer questions about SORN effectiveness and about 

which aspects of the policy may be benefcial and cost-effective and, conversely, which may not. Given the 

limitations of existing research regarding SORN, the SOMAPI forum participants recommended that future 

changes to SORN be studied prior to enactment, particularly in the context of existing knowledge about 

sexual offender risk and recidivism. Pilot testing prior to full-scale implementation provides one mechanism for 

examining potential impacts, both positive and negative. 

Residence Restrictions 

Sex offender residence restrictions that limit where convicted sex offenders may legally live have become 

more popular across the country. These restrictions typically prevent sex offenders from living within 1,000 to 

2,500 feet of schools, daycare centers and other places where children congregate. The frst states to adopt 

residence restrictions were Delaware and Florida in 1995. Currently, 30 states and many more municipalities 

have residence restriction laws, some in accordance with Jessica’s laws (Meloy, Miller & Curtis, 2008). As with 

many other sex offender management strategies implemented across the United States, there was no research 

evidence to support the effectiveness of residence restrictions prior to the enactment of this policy. However, 

empirical evidence questioning the effectiveness of residence restrictions is becoming available. 

Outcome Data 

Several studies have looked at sexual offender recidivists to determine whether living in proximity to places 

where children congregate was a risk factor and whether residence restrictions would have deterred reoffense. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 203 

In one study commissioned by the Colorado legislature for the purpose of studying the potential impact of 

residence restrictions prior to implementation (a recommended practice), no signifcant difference in recidivism 

(defned as any new criminal conviction) patterns was found based on whether or not an offender lived in 

proximity to schools and daycare centers (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004). In a study of sex 

offenders subject to residence restrictions in Florida (n = 165), researchers found no signifcant difference in 

the distance recidivists (defned as a new sex crime rearrest) and nonrecidivists lived in proximity to schools and 

daycare centers (Zandbergen, Levenson & Hart, 2010). 

In Jacksonville, Florida, researchers investigated the effects of a 2,500-foot residence restriction ordinance on 

sexual recidivism (defned as a new sex crime arrest) and sex crime arrest rates. No signifcant differences in 

recidivism were found pre- and post-policy implementation. Similarly, there was no signifcant difference in sex 

crime arrest rates pre- and post-policy implementation. The authors concluded that the residence restriction 

ordinance did not reduce recidivism or deter sex crimes (Nobles, Levenson & Youstin, 2012). 

In a study of county and local residence restrictions in New York (N = 8,928 cases; 144 months of data from each 

of 62 New York counties), researchers found no signifcant impact on sexual recidivism against child or adult 

victims or on arrests for sex crimes against child victims. However, there was a 10 percent decrease in the rate 

of arrests for sex crimes against adult victims.39 As a result, the researchers concluded that residence restrictions 

do not appear to deter sexual recidivism or sex crime arrests where the victim was a child, but they may deter 

sex crimes involving adult victims (Socia, 2012). 

The Iowa Department of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning studied the effect of Iowa’s 2,000-foot 

residence restriction law, which was implemented in August 2005. The number of charges for sexual assaults 

involving minor victims was examined for both the 12-month period preceding the law’s implementation and 

the 24-month period after the law went into effect. The study found no signifcant downward trend in the 

number of charges following passage of the law. In fact, sex crime arrests increased steadily over each of the 

three years (913, 928 and 1,095) of the study (Blood, Watson & Stageberg, 2008). 

In a study of the impact of residence restrictions on sex offenders in Michigan and Missouri, the results 

indicated a decline, but not statistically signifcant, in sex offenders living in restricted areas following 

implementation of the restriction (Michigan: 23 percent lived within a restricted area prior to the law, while 

22 percent lived in such an area post-law; Missouri: 26 percent lived within a restricted area prior to the law, 

while 21 percent lived in such an area post-law). This suggests there was not a signifcant displacement of sex 

offenders to rural areas as has been found in other studies, although those that did live within a restricted 

area were more likely to be in a disadvantaged area. In addition, there was no signifcant difference found in 

general recidivism after the law was enacted in either state, although recidivists in Michigan were reconvicted 

more quickly following implementation of the law (the same did not hold true for Missouri). Finally, the study 

noted that sexual recidivism outcomes for those subject to restrictions could not be analyzed due to the low 

base rate in the overall sample (less than 3 percent) (Huebner et al., 2014). 

Socia (2015) completed a review of Uniform Crime Report data on forcible rape over a 19-year period from 

49 states (excluding Illinois) and the District of Columbia. The results indicated that rate of forcible rape was 

13 percent higher in states having residence restrictions than those that did not have such restrictions. 

One of the more comprehensive studies of residence restrictions occurred in Minnesota. The researchers 

examined the characteristics of recidivism events for 224 sex offenders who committed a new sex crime and 

were reincarcerated between 1990 and 2002. The researchers found that 79 percent of these offenders knew 

the victim prior to the reoffense. Moreover, 85 percent of the reoffenses studied occurred in a residential 

location and 39 percent occurred outside the home, with 9 percent taking place within 1 mile of the offender’s 

house. Of these 9 percent, three offenders contacted a victim at a restricted location; two of the offenders 
204 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

were not in proximity to where they lived and the third contacted an adult victim. The researchers concluded 

that none of the reoffenses would have been deterred by residence restrictions (Duwe, Donnay & Tewksbury, 

2008). It is interesting to note that in Minnesota, the Department of Corrections raised concerns about the 

unintended negative consequences of residence restrictions, including the potential for sex offenders to 

congregate in rural areas without ties to the community, thereby resulting in social isolation; a lack of work, 

education and treatment; and being farther away from supervision (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 

2003). 

Finally, in a convenience sample study of sex offenders randomly selected after being released from prison 

between 1996 and 2006 (n = 293 child molesters and 112 rapists), researchers found that 76.5 percent of the 

offenders met their victim in a private location and only 6.8 percent met a victim in proximity to a residence 

restriction setting. Additionally, 82.2 percent of offenses occurred in a private setting and 9.1 percent of victims 

were strangers to the offender, with 18.8 percent of rapists and 14.7 percent of child molesters meeting the 

victim in a public location. Based on this analysis, the researchers suggested that social rather than geographic 

proximity infuenced offending (Columbino, Mercado & Jeglic, 2009). 

Limitations: Outcome Data 

Limitations of residence restriction outcome studies are similar to those previously identifed for other research, 

including small sample sizes, short follow-up periods, low sexual recidivism rates and the inability of most 

studies to isolate the impact of residence restrictions from other infuences. 

Survey Data 

Impact on the Public 

A number of researchers have studied the impact of residence restrictions on where sex offenders reside in 

the community. In a Chicago study (N = approximately 4,000), researchers found that sex offenders were more 

likely to live in disadvantaged neighborhoods (30 percent of sex offenders lived in these areas, which is nearly 

5.5 times greater than the number living in affuent areas). In a study of those sex offenders violating the 

residence restriction law (n = 1,008), 29 percent lived in a disadvantaged neighborhood and 2 percent lived 

in an affuent neighborhood. Finally, it was noted that 70 percent of the disadvantaged area was off limits to 

sex offenders, compared to 32 percent of affuent areas. The research suggests that residence restrictions lead 

to a disproportionate number of sex offenders living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Hughes & Burchfeld, 

2008). Similar results concerning the disproportionate impact of residence restrictions have been found in other 

studies. A Minnesota Department of Corrections study found that more offenders would be relegated to rural 

areas as a result of residence restrictions (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2003). In a New Jersey study 

of three different areas (rural Alpha and Phillipsburg, urban Newark and suburban Bergen County), researchers 

found that half of the rural area, 93 percent of Newark and 66 percent of Bergen County would be restricted 

(Mandelstam & Mulford, 2008). 

Impact on Offenders 

Sex offenders have had to relocate due to the passage of residence restriction laws in states and municipalities 

(Barnes et al., 2009; Chajewski & Mercado, 2008; Levenson & Cotter, 2005b; Tewksbury & Zgoba, 2010). 

Residence restrictions further limit the housing options in urban areas (Barnes et al., 2009; Chajewski & 

Mercado, 2008; Page et al., 2012; Levenson, 2008). This combination led to a report of increased homelessness 

(Levenson, 2008), loss of family support and fnancial hardship (Page et al., 2012; Levenson & Cotter, 2005b). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 205 

In a study of nonincarcerated registered sex offenders in Florida (n = 23,523), the rate of failure to register 

(FTR) was approximately 11 percent with fewer than 2 percent having multiple failures to register and about 

3 percent listed as having absconded. In addition, 3.2 percent of registrants were identifed as transient and 

the majority of those (84 percent) were no longer under probationary supervision. The study indicated that 

larger number of transients were found in counties that had more residence restrictions covering larger areas 

with higher population density and housing costs (Levenson et al., 2015). 

Impact on Criminal Justice Professionals 

For more information related to the viewpoints of criminal justice professionals on residence restrictions, see 

Mustaine et al. (2015) in the SORN section. 

Limitations: Survey Data 

Limitations of survey data have previously been highlighted. 

Summary 

In summary, there is no empirical support for the effectiveness of residence restrictions. In fact, a number of 

negative unintended consequences have been empirically identifed, including loss of housing, loss of support 

systems and fnancial hardship that may aggravate rather than mitigate offender risk. In addition, residence 

restrictions lead to the displacement and clustering of sex offenders into other areas, particularly rural areas. 

Given the above, expansion of this policy was not recommended by the group of sex offender management 

professionals attending the SOMAPI forum. 

Summary 

This chapter has focused on the effectiveness of a number of prominent sex offender management strategies, 

including specialized supervision, COSA, polygraph, GPS, civil commitment, SORN and residence restrictions. 

Specialized supervision, in conjunction with rehabilitation, appears to be effective in reducing recidivism for 

sexual offenders. However, the use of specialized supervision in the absence of rehabilitation is not supported 

by research. The few single studies of COSA that have been undertaken thus far have produced encouraging 

fndings, but far more research employing larger samples of offenders and more rigorous designs capable of 

isolating COSA effects are needed. Nevertheless, given COSA’s ability to facilitate collaboration with members 

of the community, the SOMAPI forum experts recommend COSA as a sex offender management strategy. 

Research related to the use of polygraph assessment is somewhat less defnitive. Therefore, the polygraph, if 

used, should only be used in conjunction with a comprehensive supervision and treatment approach. 

In terms of SORN, research to date has exhibited mixed results on sex offender crime rates and recidivism. 

Studies have not adequately controlled for outside factors that might serve as an alternative explanation for 

the observed study outcomes. Future, more rigorous research on the effects of SORN is needed. Despite these 

limitations, there is broad public and policymaker support for SORN and a perceived public safety beneft 

among these groups. 

Finally, the evidence is fairly clear that residence restrictions are not effective. In fact, the research suggests 

that residence restrictions may actually increase offender risk by undermining offender stability and the ability 

of the offender to obtain housing, work and family support. There is nothing to suggest this policy should be 

used at this time. 
206 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Sex offender management policies are often implemented on a one-size-fts-all basis for all sexual offenders. 

The merits of using targeted rather than one-size-fts-all strategies were recently acknowledged by 

participants in the 2012 SOMAPI forum. The SOMAPI forum experts recommend implementation of all of 

the above-noted policies that show a positive impact, with the caveat that the use of any strategy should 

always be commensurate with offender risk and need. 

Future Directions 

The SOMAPI forum experts recommend that sex offender management policymakers strive to use 

empirically supported strategies. Granted, there are times when new strategies are identifed in the absence 

of research and need to be tested for effectiveness, as innovation in criminal justice practice, including sex 

offender management, is important. Therefore, it is recommended that future implemented policies should 

be evidence-generating. 

RESULTS FROM THE SOMAPI INVENTORY OF PROMISING PRACTICES 

• Q: Are you moving toward using a particular program in your work? 

○ Self-regulation model (Good Lives) 

○ Risk, needs, responsivity model 

○ Use of the stable and acute assessments — to determine risk of sexual reoffense and develop strategies to address 

○ Changing emphasis from exclusive relapse prevention to more strengths-based treatment and targeting of 

dynamic risk factors 

• Q: What practices or programs have you tried that didn’t work? 

○ We tried offering funds for transitional housing ... landlords were reluctant to participate. 

○ Excessive focus on a detailed sexual history and accountability for all past sexual behavior has not worked. 

○ Overemphasis on relapse prevention with low-risk sex offenders or offenders with only one sexual offense has 

not worked. 

Sex offender management continues to be a priority for the public, policymakers and professionals. Using 

research to identify what does and does not work can help ensure that the best possible strategies for 

protecting the public and reducing victimization are in place. Only through objective, systematic study can 

we defnitively know what is and what is not effective. As Patty Wetterling, in whose son’s memory the frst 

SORN system was developed at the federal level, has observed, “People want a silver bullet that will protect 

children, but there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence” 

(Human Rights Watch, 2007). 

Notes 

1. While sex offender management has also taken on increasing importance in other countries, the focus of 

this chapter is on sex offender management strategies in the United States. 

2. For an in-depth review, see Levenson and D’Amora (2007). 

3. A study consisting of random assignment to either the intervention group or a comparison group, and 

comparing the outcomes for the two groups. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 207 

4. p < 0.41 for the Linn County sexual offenders and p < 0.01 for the Jackson County nonsexual offenders. 

5. p < 0.01. 

6. p < 0.001. 

7. p < 0.05. 

8. Ibid. 

9. p < 0.05. 

10. p < 0.05. 

11. Ibid. 

12. p < 0.001. 

13. p < 0.05. 

14. California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island and 

Wisconsin. 

15. p < 0.10. 

16. p < 0.001. 

17. Ibid. 

18. p < 0.05. 

19. Passive GPS does not allow movement to be viewed in real time (active GPS) and must be downloaded from 

the device to a computer. 

20. Dr. Robin Wilson provided assistance with the development of this section. 

21. See, for example, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, The National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation, 

73 Fed. Reg. 38029, 38044-45, 38047, 38058-61, 38069-70 (July 2, 2008); U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Supplemental 

Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation, 76 Fed. Reg. 1630, 1636-38 (Jan. 11, 2011); Harris and 

Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2010. 

22. p < 0.1. 

23. p < 0.05. 

24. Ibid. 

25. Ibid. 
208 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

26. For further details as to each state’s treatment of juveniles adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses and their 

corresponding registration responsibilities and notifcation requirements, see ALA. CODE §15-20A-28 (2014), 

ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-3821(D) (2014), ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-27-356 (2014), CAL. PENAL CODE §290.008(a) 

(2014), COLO. REV. STAT. §16-22-102(3) (2013), DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, §§ 4121(a)(4)(b) & 4123 (2014), FLA. 

STAT. § 943.0435(a)(1)(d) (2014), IDAHO CODE ANN. § 18-8403 (2014), 730 ILL. COMP. STAT. 150/3-5 (2014), IND. 

CODE ANN. §11-8-8-4.5(b) (2014), IOWA CODE § 692A.103 (2013), KAN. STAT. ANN. § 22-4902(b)(2) (2013), LA. 

REV. STAT. ANN. §15:542 (2013), MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. PROC. § 11-704.1 (2014), MASS. GEN. LAWS. ANN. ch. 

6, §178K (2014), MICH. COMP. LAWS. SERV. §28.722 (2014), MINN. STAT. §243.166 (2014), MISS. CODE ANN. 

§45-33-25 (2013), MO. REV. STAT. §§ 211.425 & 589.400 (2014), MONT. CODE ANN. § 46-23-502 (2013), NEB. 

REV. STAT. ANN. § 29-4003 (2013) (only juveniles relocating from out of state with pre-existing registration 

requirements are required to register, https://sor.nebraska.gov/FAQ), NEV. REV. STAT. ANN. § 179D.095 (2014), 

N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. 651-B:1(XI), N.J. REV. STAT. § 2C:7-2 (2014), N.M. STAT. ANN. §29-11A-5.1 (2013), N.C. 

GEN. STAT. §14-208.26 (2014), N.D. CENT. CODE §12.1-32-15 (2013), OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §2950.01 (2014), 

OKLA. STAT. tit. 10A, §2-8-102 (2013), OR. REV. STAT. §181.823 & §181.609 (2013), 42 PA. CONS. STAT. §9799.12 

(2014), R.I. GEN. LAWS § 11-37.1-2(c)(4) (2014), S.C. CODE ANN. §23-3-430(C) (2013), S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 

22-24B-2 (2014), TENN. CODE ANN. §40-39-202(28) (2014), TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art 62.001 & 62.351 

(2014), UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-41-102(9)(f) (2014), VA. CODE ANN. §9.1-902(G) (2014), WASH. REV. CODE ANN. 

§9A.44.128 (2013), WIS. STAT. §301.45(1g)(a) (2014), WYO. STAT. ANN. §7-19-301 (2014). 

27. p < 0.0001. 

28. p < 0.05. 

29. Differences among study periods are statistically signifcant beyond the 0.05 probability level. 

30. Level III sex offenders (high public risk) are those who score greater than 7 on the MnSOST-R, a state-based 

risk assessment instrument, and are subject to broad public notifcation. On the other hand, Level I (low public 

risk) and Level II (moderate public risk) sex offenders score less than 4 and between 4 and 7, respectively, and 

are not subject to broad public notifcation. 

31. p < 0.01 for the prenotifcation group and p < 0.05 for the nonnotifcation group. 

32. p < 0.05. 

33. The percentage of public members who responded to this item was less than for previous items. 

34. Ibid. 

35. Ibid. 

36. Lasher and McGrath (2012, p. 1) reported in the abstract, “Eight quantitative studies that examined the 

social and psychological impact of community notifcation on adult sex offenders (N = 1,583) were reviewed. 

The pattern of results across studies showed considerable similarities despite marked variability in the 

populations examined, survey methods used and response rates obtained.” 

37. p < 0.01. 

38. p < 0.01. 

39. p < 0.01. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 209 

References 

Ackerman, A.R. (2009). Registration and community notifcation laws: Do the consequences outweigh the 

benefts? Sex Offender Law Report, 10(6), 81–95. 

Adkins, G., Huff, D. and Stageberg, P. (2000). The Iowa Sex Offender Registry and Recidivism. Des Moines, IA: 

Iowa Department of Human Rights. 

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

Anderson, A.L. & Sample, L.L. (2008). Public awareness and action resulting from sex offender community 

notifcation laws. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(4), 371–396. 

Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What 

Does Not. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/ 

rptfles/06-01-1201.pdf. 

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R. & Lieb, R. (2001). The Comparative Costs and Benefts of Programs to Reduce 

Crime. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Document 01-05-1201. Retrieved from: 

www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/756. 

Aytes, K.E., Olsen, S.S., Zakrajsek, T., Murray, P. & Ireson, R. (2001). Cognitive/behavioral treatment for sexual 

offenders: An examination of recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(4), 223–231. 

Baerga-Buffer, M. & Johnson, J.L. (2006). Sex offender management in the federal probation and pretrial 

service system. Federal Probation, 70(1), 13–17. 

Barnes, J.C., Dukes, T., Tewksbury, R. & De Troye, T.M. (2009). Analyzing the impact of statewide residence 

restriction law on South Carolina sex offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 21–43. 

Bates, A., Macrae, R., Williams, D., Wilson, C. & Wilson, R.J. (2014). Circles South East: The First 10 Years 

2002–2012. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(7), 861–855. 

Blood, P., Watson, L. & Stageberg, P. (2008). State Legislation Monitoring Report. Des Moines, IA: Criminal and 

Juvenile Justice Planning. 

Boccaccini, M.T., Murrie, D.C., Caperton, J.D. & Hawes, S.W. (2009). Field Validity of the Static-99 and MnSOST-R 

Among Sex Offenders Evaluated for Civil Commitment as Sexually Violent Predators. Psychology, Public Policy 

and Law, 15(I), 278–314. 

Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S. and Rooney, J. (2000) Can electronic monitoring make a difference? 

An evaluation of three Canadian programs. Crime and Delinquency, 46(1), 61–75. 

Boone, D.L., O’Boyle, E., Stone, A. & Schnabel, D. (2006). Preliminary Evaluation of Virginia’s Sex Offender 

Containment Programs. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Corrections, Research, Evaluation and 

Forecasting Unit. 
210 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Brannon, Y.N., Levenson, J.S., Fortney, T. & Baker, J.N. (2007). Attitudes about community notifcation: 

A comparison of sexual offenders and the non-offending public. Sexual Abuse, 19, 369–379. 

Buschman, J., Bogaerts, S., Fougler, S., Wilcox, D., Sosnowski, D. & Cushman, B. (2010). Sexual history disclosure 

polygraph examinations with cybercrime offences: A frst Dutch explorative study. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(3), 395–411. 

Button, D.M., DeMichele, M. & Payne, B.K. (2009). Using electronic monitoring to supervise sex offenders: 

Legislative patterns and implications for community corrections offcers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(4), 

414–436. 

Calkins Mercado, C., Jeglic, E., Markus, K., Hanson, R.K. & Levenson, J. (2013). Sex Offender Management, 

Treatment and Civil Commitment: An Evidence Based Analysis Aimed at Reducing Sexual Violence. Grant 

number 2007-IJ-CX-0037. Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffles1/nij/grants/243551.pdf. 

Carr, C., Schlank, A. & Parker, K.C. (2013). Review of Florida’s Sexually Violent Predator Program Offce. The 

Florida Department of Children and Families, Substance Abuse and Mental Health (SAMH) Program Offce. 

Retrieved from: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/09/23/09.23_SVPP_Report.pdf. 

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM). (1999). Sex Offender Registration: Policy Overview and 

Comprehensive Practices. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex Offender Management. Retrieved from: 

www.csom.org/pubs/sexreg.pdf. 

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM). (2001). Community Notifcation and Education. Silver Spring, 

MD: Center for Sex Offender Management. Retrieved from: www.csom.org/pubs/notedu.pdf. 

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM). (2007). Enhancing the Management of Adult and Juvenile 

Sex Offenders: A Handbook for Policymakers and Practitioners. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex Offender 

Management. Retrieved from: www.csom.org/pubs/CSOM_handbook.pdf. 

Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM). (2008). Legislative Trends in Sex Offender Management. Silver Spring, 

MD: Center for Sex Offender Management. Retrieved from: www.csom.org/pubs/legislative_trends.pdf. 

Chajewski, M. & Mercado, C.C. (2008). An evaluation of sex offender residence restrictions functioning in town, 

county and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(1), 44–61. 

Clarke, M., Brown, S. & Vollm, B. (2015). Circles of Support and Accountability for Sex Offenders: A Systematic 

Review of Outcomes. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Published online before print 

September 14, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1079063215603691. 

Colombino, N., Mercado, C.C. & Jeglic, E.L. (2009). Situational aspects of sexual offending: Implications for 

residence restriction laws. Justice Research and Policy, 11, 27–43. 

Colorado Department of Public Safety (2004) Report on Safety Issues Raised by Living Arrangements for 

and Location of Sex Offenders in the Community. Denver, CO: Colorado Sex Offender Management Board. 

Retrieved from: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/FullSLAFinal.pdf. 

Cooley-Towell, S., Pasini-Hill, D. & Patrick, D. (2000). The value of post-conviction polygraph: The importance of 

sanctions. Polygraph, 29(1), 6–19. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 211 

Council on Sex Offender Treatment. (2014). Biennial Report Regarding the Council on Sex Offender Treatment: 

December 1, 2012 – November 30, 2014. Report prepared for the Offce of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 

and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Retrieved from: http://www.ovsom.texas.gov/docs/ 

OVSOMBiennialReport12012014.pdf. 

Council of State Governments (CSG) (2008). Zoned Out: States Consider Residency Restrictions for Sex 

Offenders. Public Safety Brief. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments. Retrieved from: www.csg.org/ 

knowledgecenter/docs/pubsafety/ZonedOut.pdf. 

Council of State Governments (CSG) (2010). Legislating Sex Offender Management: Trends in State Legislation 

2007 and 2008. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments. Retrieved from: www.csg.org/policy/documents/ 

SOMLegislativeReport-FINAL.pdf. 

Council of State Governments (CSG) (2015). The Reentry of Adults Convicted of Sexual Offenses: A National 

Survey of Reentry Professionals. Retrieved from: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ 

NSRv.8.pdf 

Craun, S.W. & Simmons, C.A. (2012). Taking a Seat at the Table: Sexual Assault Survivors’ Views of Sex Offender 

Registries. Victims and Offenders, 7, 312–326. 

Daly, R. (2008). Treatment and Reentry Practices for Sex Offenders: An Overview of States. New York: Vera 

Institute of Justice. Retrieved from: www.vera.org/sites/default/fles/resources/downloads/Sex_offender_ 

treatment_with_appendices_fnal.pdf. 

Dierenfeldt, R. & Varriale Carson, J. (2014). Examining the Infuence of Jessica’s Law on Reported Forcible Rape: 

A Time-Series Analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, Published online before print on December 17, 2014. 

DOI: 10.1177/0887403414563139. 

Duwe, G. (2012). Can Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) work in the United States? Preliminary 

Results from A Randomized Experiment in Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 

25(2), 143–165. 

Duwe, G. (2013). To what extent does civil commitment reduce sexual recidivism? Estimating the selective 

incapacitation effects in Minnesota. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 193–202. 

Duwe, G., Donnay, W. & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Does residential proximity matter? A geographic analysis of sex 

offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 484–504. 

Duwe, G. & Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of Megan’s Law on sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota 

experience. Criminology, 46(2), 411–446. 

Duwe, G. & Donnay, W. (2010). The effects of failure to register on sex offender recidivism. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 37(5), 520–536. 

Elliott, I.A. & Beech, A.R. (2012). A U.K. Cost-Beneft Analysis of Circles of Support and Accountability 

Interventions. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(3), 211–229. 

English, K., Jones, L., Pasini-Hill, D., Patrick, D. & Cooley-Towell, S. (2000) The Value of Polygraph Testing in 

Sex Offender Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice. 
212 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

English, K., Jones, L., Patrick, D. & Pasini-Hill, D. (2003). Sex offender containment laws: Use of postconviction 

polygraph. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 989, 411–427. 

English, K., Pullen, S. & Jones, L. (Eds.). (1996). Managing Adult Sex Offenders: A Containment Approach. 

Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association. 

Freeman, N.J. (2012). The public safety impact of community notifcation. Crime and Delinquency, 58, 539. 

Gannon, T.A., Wood, J.L., Pina, A., Tyler, N., Barnoux, M.F.L. & Vasquez, E.A. (2014). An Evaluation of Mandatory 

Polygraph Testing for Sexual Offenders in the United Kingdom. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 26(2), 178–203. 

Gies, S.V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M.I., Healy, E., Yeide, M., Bekelman, A., Bobnis, A. & Hopps, M. (2012). Monitoring 

High Risk Sex Offenders with GPS Technology: An Evaluation of the California Supervision Program. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 

from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf. 

Grubin, D., Madsen, L., Parsons, S., Sosnowski, D. & Warberg, B. (2004). A prospective study of the impact of 

polygraphy on high risk behaviors in adult sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal in Research and Treatment, 

16(3), 209–222. 

Guerino, P., Harrison, P.M. & Sabol, W.J. (2011). Prisoners in 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Harris, A.J. and Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (2010). Implementing the Adam Walsh Act’s sex offender registration 

and notifcation provisions: A survey of the states. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(2), 202–222. 

Harris, A.J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. & Levenson, J.S. (2010). Widening the net: The effects of transitioning to the 

Adam Walsh Act classifcation system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 503–519. 

Harris, A.J., Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. & Levenson, J.S. (2015). Law Enforcement Perspectives on Sex Offender 

Registration and Notifcation Preliminary Survey Results. Grant Number 2013-IJ-CX-0028. Retrieved from: 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffles1/nij/grants/249189.pdf. 

Heil, P., Ahlmeyer, S. & Simons, D. (2003). Crossover sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal in Research and 

Treatment, 15(4), 221–236. 

Hindman, J. & Peters, J.M. (2001). Polygraph testing leads to better understanding adult and juvenile sex 

offenders. Federal Probation, 65(3). 

Hoing, M., Bogaerts, S. & Vogelvang, B. (2014). Volunteers in Circles of Support and Accountability Job 

Demands, Job Resources, and Outcomes. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. Published online 

before print October 21, 2015, doi: 10.1177/1079063215612441. 

Holmes, S. (2009). An Empirical Analysis of Registration and Notifcation Laws for Juvenile Sex Offenders. 

Working Paper Series. Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1710745. 

Huebner, B.M., Kras, K.R., Rydberg, J., Bynum, T.S., Grommon, E. & Pleggenkuhle, B. (2014). Effect and 

Implications of Sex Offender Residence Restrictions: Evidence from a Two-State Evaluation. Criminology & 

Public Policy, 13(1), 139–168. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 213 

Hughes, L.A. & Burchfeld, K.B. (2008). Sex offender residence restrictions in Chicago: An environmental 

injustice? Justice Quarterly, 25(4), 647–673. 

Hughes, L.A. & Kadleck, C. (2008). Sex offender community notifcation and community stratifcation. Justice 

Quarterly, 25(3), 469–495. 

Human Rights Watch. (2007). No Easy Answers. New York: Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from: www.hrw.org/ 

en/reports/2007/09/11/no-easy-answers. 

Jackson, R.L., Travia, T. & Schneider, J. (2010). Annual survey of sex offender civil commitment programs. Paper 

presented at the Sex Offender Civil Commitment Programs Network Annual Meeting, Phoenix, AZ. 

Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee. (2013). Review of the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent 

Predators. Retrieved from: http://jlarc.virginia.gov/pdfs/reports/Rpt423.pdf. 

Kokish, R., Levenson, J.S. & Blasingame, G.D. (2005). Post-conviction sex offender polygraph examination: Client 

perceptions of utility and accuracy. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research & Treatment, 17(2), 211–221. 

Lasher, M. & McGrath, R. J. (2012). The impact of community notifcation on sex offender reintegration: A 

quantitative review of the research literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology, 56(1), 6–28. 

Letourneau, E.J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D. & Armstrong, K.S. (2010). The infuence of sex offender 

registration on juvenile sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(4), 435–458. 

Letourneau, E.J., Levenson, J.S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Armstrong, K.S. & Sinha, D. (2010). Effects of South 

Carolina’s sex offender registration and notifcation policy on deterrence of adult sex crimes. Criminal Justice 

and Behavior, 37(5), 537–552. 

Letourneau, E.J., Levenson, J.S., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D. & Armstrong, K.S. (2010). Effects of South 

Carolina’s sex offender registration and notifcation policy on adult recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 

21(4), 435–458. 

Levenson, J.S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal Justice Studies, 

21(2), 153–166. 

Levenson, J., Ackerman, A.R., Socia, K.M., & Harris, A.J. (2015). Where for Art Thou? Transient Sex Offender and 

Residence Restrictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26(4), 319–344. 

Levenson, J.S. & Cotter, L.P. (2005a). The impact of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration. Journal of 

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 49–66. 

Levenson, J.S. & Cotter, L.P. (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger 

or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(2), 

168–178. 

Levenson, J.S. & D’Amora, D.A. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: The emperor’s new 

clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(2), 168–199. 

Levenson, J.S, D’Amora, D. & Hern, A. (2007). Megan’s Law and its impact on community re-entry for sex 

offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, (25), 587–602. 
214 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Levenson, J., Letourneau, E., Armstrong, K. & Zgoba, K. (2009). Failure to Register: An Empirical Analysis of Sex Offense 

Recidivism. Self-published. Retrieved from: www.ccoso.org/library%20articles/FTR%20SC%20short%20report.pdf. 

Lieb, R. & Gookin, K. (2005). Involuntary Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators: Comparing State 

Laws. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub. 

asp?docid=05-03-1101. 

Lieb, R. & Nunlist, C. (2008). Community Notifcation as Viewed by Washington’s Citizens: A 10-Year 

Follow-Up. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/ 

rptfles/08-03-1101.pdf. 

Lowden, K., Hetz, N., Harrison, L., Patrick, D., English, K. & Pasini-Hill, D. (2003). Evaluation of Colorado’s Prison 

Therapeutic Community for Sex Offenders: A Report of Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Offce of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance and Denver, CO: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 

Drug Control and System Improvement Program. Retrieved from: http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/WebTC.pdf. 

Lussier, P., Gress, C., Deslauriers-Varin, N. & Amirault, J. (2014). Community Risk Management of High-Risk Sex 

Offenders in Canada: Findings From a Quasi-Experimental Study. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 287–314. 

Mandelstam, J. & Mulford, C. (2008). Unintended consequences of sex offender residency laws: Can GIS 

mapping help? Corrections Today, August. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G.F., Burchard, B.L., Zeoli, S. & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current Practices and Emerging Trends 

in Sexual Abuser Management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. 

Retrieved from: www.safersociety.org/uploads/WP141-Current_Practices_Emerging_Trends.pdf. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G.F., Hoke, S.E. & Bonn-Miller, M.O. (2007). Outcomes in a community sex offender 

treatment program: A comparison between polygraphed and matched non-polygraphed offenders. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19(4), 381–393. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G.F. & Holt, J. (2002). Collaboration among sex offender treatment providers and 

probation and parole offcers: The beliefs and behaviors of treatment providers. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 14(1), 49–65. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G., Livingston, J.A. & Hoke, S.E. (2003). Outcome of a treatment program for adult sex 

offenders: From prison to community. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(1), 3–17. 

Meloy, M.L., Miller, S.L. & Curtis, K.M. (2008). Making sense out of nonsense: The deconstruction of state-level 

sex offender residence restrictions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 209–222. 

Milloy, C. (2007). Six-year follow-up of released sex offenders recommended for commitment under 

Washington’s sexually violent predator law, where no petition was fled. Olympia: Washington State Institute 

for Public Policy, Document No. 03-12-1101. Retrieved from: http://www.defenseforsvp.com/Resources/Age/ 

Milloy_2007_SVP_WSIPP.pdf. 

Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003). Level Three Sex Offenders Residential Placement Issues. St. Paul, MN: 

Minnesota Department of Corrections. Retrieved from: www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2003/mandated/030175.pdf. 

Mustaine, E.E., Tewksbury, R., Connor, D.P. & Payne, B.K. (2015). Criminal Justice Offcials’ View of Sex 

Offenders, Sex Offender Registration, Community Notifcation and Residency Restrictions. Justice System 

Journal, 36(1), 63–85. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 215 

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (2015). Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States. 

Retrieved from: www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/Sex_Offenders_Map.pdf. 

National Parole Resource Center (2014). Resource Package for Paroling Authorities on Sex Offenders. Project 

funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Offce of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved 

from: http://nationalparoleresourcecenter.org/resource-package-sex-offenders/background.htm. 

National Research Council (2003). The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 

Retrieved from: www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309084369. 

New Jersey State Parole Board (2007). Report on New Jersey’s GPS Monitoring of Sex Offenders. Retrieved 

from: www.state.nj.us/parole/docs/reports/gps.pdf. 

New York State Offce of Mental Health. (2010). 2009 Annual Report on the Implementation of Mental 

Health Hygiene Law Article 10: Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act of 2007. Retrieved from: 

https://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/statistics/SOMTA_Report.pdf. 

Nieto, M. & Jung, D. (2006). The Impact of Residence Restrictions on Sex Offenders and Correctional 

Management Practices: A Literature Review. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau. 

Nobles, M.R., Levenson, J.S. & Youstin, T.J. (2012). Effectiveness of residence restrictions in preventing sex 

offense recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 58, 491. 

O’Connell, M.A. (1998). Using polygraph testing to assess deviant sexual history of sex offenders. Dissertation 

Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Science. Volume 58 (8-A), February 1998, 3023. 

Offce of the New York State Comptroller (2006). New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Sex 

Offender Registry Program. Albany, NY: Division of State Government Accountability, Offce of the State 

Comptroller. Retrieved from: http://ccoso.org/library%20articles/NYS%20evaluation.pdf. 

Offce of Program Policy Analysis & Governmental Accountability (2005). Electronic Monitoring Should 

Be Better Targeted to the Most Dangerous Offenders. Tallahassee, FL: Offce of Program Policy Analysis & 

Government Accountability. Retrieved from: www.oppaga.state.f.us/reports/pdf/0519rpt.pdf. 

Padgett, K.G., Bales, W.D. & Blomberg, T.G. (2006). Under surveillance: An empirical test of the effectiveness 

and consequences of electronic monitoring. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(1), 61–92. 

Page, A.D., Hill, J.S. & Gilbert, G. (2012). False Security: North Carolina Sexual Offenders’ Perceptions of 

Residence Restrictions. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 2(2-3), 108–121. 

Petersilia, J. & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In M.H. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A Review 

of Research (p. 17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Phillips, D. (1998). Community Notifcation as Viewed by Washington’s Citizens. Olympia, WA: Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfles/CnSurvey.pdf. 

Prescott, J.J. & Rockoff, J.E. (2011). Do sex offender registration and notifcation laws affect criminal behavior? 

Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1). Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ 

id=1100663. 
216 CHAPTER 8: SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 

Sample, L.L., Evans, M.K. & Anderson, A.L. (2011). Sex offender community notifcation laws: Are their effects 

symbolic or instrumental in nature? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(1), 27–49. 

Sandler, J.C., Freeman, N.J. & Socia, K.M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series analysis of New York’s 

state sex offender registration and notifcation laws. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(4), 284–302. 

Schiavone, S.K. & Jeglic, E.L. (2009). Public perception of sex offender social policies and the impact on sex 

offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(6), 679–695. 

Schram, D. & Milloy, C.D. (1995). Community Notifcation: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism. 

Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub. 

asp?docid=95-10-1101. 

Socia, K. (2012). The effcacy of county-level sex offender residence restrictions in New York. Crime & 

Delinquency, 58, 612. 

Socia, K. (2015). State Residence Restriction and Forcible Rape Rates: A Multistate Quasi-Experimental Analysis 

of UCR Data. Sexual Abuse, 27(2), 205–227. 

Stalans, L.J., Seng, M. & Yarnold, P.R. (2002). Long-term Impact Evaluation of Specialized Sex Offender 

Probation Programs in Lake, DuPage and Winnebago Counties. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information 

Authority. 

Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole (2007). Monitoring Tennessee’s Sex Offenders Using Global Positioning 

Systems: A Project Evaluation. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. Retrieved from: http:// 

state.tn.us/bopp/Press%20Releases/BOPP%20GPS%20Program%20Evaluation,%20April%202007.pdf. 

Tewksbury, R. (2004). Experiences and attitudes of registered female sex offenders. Federal Probation, 68(3), 30–33. 

Tewksbury, R. & Lees, M.B. (2007). Perceptions of punishment: How registered sex offenders view registries. 

Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 380–407. 

Tewksbury, R. & Zgoba, K. (2010). Perceptions and coping with punishment: How registered sex offenders 

respond to stress, Internet restrictions and the collateral consequences of registration. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(4), 537–551. 

Tubman-Carbone, H. (2009). An Exploratory Study of New Jersey’s Sex Offender Polygraph Policy: Report to the 

New Jersey State Parole Board. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Parole Board. Retrieved from: http://media.nj.com/ 

ledgerupdates_impact/other/11.18.09%20polygraph%20report.pdf. 

Turner, S., Jannetta, J., Hess, J., Myers, R., Shah, R., Werth, R. & Whitby, A. (2007). Implementation and Early 

Outcomes For the San Diego High Risk Sex Offender (HRSO) GPS Pilot Program. Irvine, CA: Center for EvidenceBased Corrections. Retrieved from: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/fles/2013/06/HRSO_GPS_Pilot_Program.pdf. 

Vandiver, D.M., Dial, K.C. & Worley, R.M. (2008). A qualitative assessment of registered female sex offenders: 

Judicial processing experiences and perceived effects of a public registry. Criminal Justice Review, 33(2), 177–198. 

Vermont State Auditor (2010). Sex Offender Registry: Reliability Could be Signifcantly Improved. Montpelier, 

VT: Vermont State Auditor. Retrieved from: http://auditor.vermont.gov/sites/auditor/fles/Final_SOR_report.pdf. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: ADULT SECTION 217 

Veysey, B.M., Zgoba, K. & Dalessandro, M. (2008). A preliminary step towards evaluating the impact of Megan’s 

Law: A trend analysis of sexual offenses in New Jersey from 1985 to 2005. Justice, Research & Policy, 10(2), 1–18. 

Walker, J.T., Maddan, S., Vasquez, B.E., VanHouten, A.C. & Ervin-McLarty, G. (2006). The Infuence of Sex 

Offender Registration and Notifcation Laws in the United States. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Crime Information 

Center. Retrieved from: www.reentry.net/library/attachment.86354. 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2005). Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Has 

Community Notifcation Reduced Recidivism? Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. 

Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfles/05-12-1202.pdf. 

Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2006). Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Failure to 

Register as a Sex Offender—Revised. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: 

www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfles/06-01-1203A.pdf. 

Wilson, R.J., Cortoni, F. & McWhinnie, A. (2009). Circles of Support & Accountability: A Canadian national 

replication of outcome fndings. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 412–430. 

Wilson, R.J., Looman, J., Abracen, J. & Pake, D.R. (2013). Comparing sexual offenders at the Regional Treatment 

Centre and the Florida Civil Commitment Center. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology, 57(3), 377–395. 

Wilson, R.J., Picheca, J.E. & Prinzo, M. (2005). Circles of Support & Accountability: An Evaluation of the Pilot 

Project in South-Central Ontario. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada. Retrieved from: www.csc-scc.gc.ca/ 

research/r168-eng.shtml. 

Zandbergen, P.A., Levenson, J.S. & Hart, T. (2010). Residential proximity to schools and daycares: An empirical 

analysis of sex offense recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(5), 482–502. 

Zevitz, R.G. (2006). Sex offender community notifcation: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. 

Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2). 

Zevitz, R.G. & Farkas, M.A. (2000a). Sex Offender Community Notifcation: Assessing the Impact in Wisconsin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Zevitz, R.G. & Farkas, M.A. (2000b). The impact of sex-offender community notifcation on probation/parole in 

Wisconsin. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 8–21. 

Zgoba, K. & Bachar, K. (2009). Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation: Limited Effects in New Jersey. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 

from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffles1/nij/225402.pdf. 

Zgoba, K.M. & Levenson, J. (2012). Failure to register as a predictor of sex offense recidivism: The big bad wolf 

or a red herring? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(4), 328–349. 

Zgoba, K., Witt, P., Dalessandro, M. & Veysey, B. (2008). Megan’s Law: Assessing the Practical and Monetary 

Effcacy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Retrieved from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffles1/nij/grants/225370.pdf. 

SECTION 2: JUVENILES 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 221 

Chapter 1: Unique Considerations 

Regarding Juveniles Who 

Commit Sexual Offenses 

by Roger Przybylski and Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky 

FINDINGS 

◆ Based on the scientifc evidence, it is clear that juveniles and adults differ in their cognitive capabilities, capacity for 

self-management and regulation, susceptibility to social and peer pressure and in other areas related to judgment, 

criminal intent and the capacity to regulate behavior. 

◆ Risky behavior is more prevalent during adolescence than it is during either preadolescence or adulthood. 

◆ The ability to plan ahead, be aware of time and anticipate future consequences signifcantly increases with age. 

Introduction 

While most perpetrators of sex crimes are adults, a signifcant number of sex crimes are committed by 

offenders who are younger than age 18. Estimates of the prevalence of juvenile sexual offending 

vary depending on the data source and method of measurement. Finkelhor, Ormrod and Chaffn 

(2009), for example, estimated that juveniles account for about one out of every four (25.8 percent) sexual 

offenders known to law enforcement and more than one out of every three (35.6 percent) sexual offenders 

who victimize a minor and are known to law enforcement. Statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

Uniform Crime Reporting program indicate that about 15 percent of the nation’s 21,407 rape arrestees in 2009 

were younger than age 18 (FBI, 2009). Victim reports, however, suggest that juvenile perpetrators may be 

responsible for as many as four out of every 10 sexual assaults (Swenson & Letourneau, 2011). 

Although laws and policies designed for adult sexual offenders are increasingly being applied to juveniles 

who sexually offend, juvenile offenders have historically been viewed as a distinct population from adult 

offenders. The juvenile justice system has been largely independent from the adult criminal justice system since 

the frst juvenile court in the United States was created in 1899, and the procedures and methods used with 

juvenile offenders tend to emphasize accountability and rehabilitation rather than retribution and punishment 

(Przybylski, 2008; Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 1997). 

Juvenile justice systems throughout the United States were established under and have largely been guided 

by the doctrine of parens patrie. This means that the state acts as the guardian or responsible authority 

for a minor to protect the youth from harmful conduct or environments (Przybylski, 2008; Illinois Criminal 

Justice Information Authority, 1997). This approach is based on a formal recognition that juveniles are 

developmentally different from adults and are impressionable enough to be diverted from persistent criminal 

behavior. Hence, the procedures of the juvenile court are intentionally nonadversarial and the terminology 

used with juvenile offenders is intentionally noncriminal (Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 

1989). The juvenile court’s philosophy and goals are to hold youthful offenders accountable for their behavior 

while ensuring that they receive necessary guidance and appropriate therapeutic services. Although many 
222 CHAPTER 1: UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

states have enacted laws in recent years that encourage greater accountability and punishment for juvenile 

offenders, most juvenile courts and other segments of the juvenile justice system continue to view treatment 

and guidance for young offenders as central to their mission. (See Chapter 5: “The Effectiveness of Treatment 

for Juveniles Who Sexually Offend,” in the Juvenile section.) 

While juvenile offenders have long been viewed as fundamentally different from adult offenders, the 

developmental differences between juveniles and adults that have been identifed through recent advances 

in neuroscience and developmental criminology are extensive and profound. Based on the scientifc evidence, 

it is clear that juveniles and adults differ in their cognitive capabilities, capacity for self-management and 

regulation, susceptibility to social and peer pressure and other factors related to judgment, criminal intent and 

the capacity to regulate behavior (Tolan, Walker & Reppucci, 2012). Juveniles also differ from adults in their 

propensity to engage in persistent criminal behavior, in that they are less likely to continue to engage in such 

behavior (Tolan, Walker & Reppucci, 2012). 

While improvements in cognitive functioning and reasoning undoubtedly occur during late childhood 

and adolescence, “mature judgment is the product not only of cognitive capacity ... but also of emotional 

capabilities” (Tolan, Walker & Reppucci, 2012, p. 126). Brain research demonstrates that psychosocial 

development occurs much more slowly than cognitive development and that juveniles thus have less capacity 

than adults to manage emotions and control behavior, despite their growing ability to process information 

(Scott & Steinberg, 2008; Tolan, Walker & Reppucci, 2012). 

Research also demonstrates that “adolescence is a time of heightened risk-taking and recklessness” and that 

puberty is associated with both higher levels of sensation-seeking behavior and heightened intensity of feeling 

in risk-taking situations (Steinberg et al., 2008, p. 1776). Steinberg and colleagues (2008), for example, found 

that risky behavior is more prevalent during adolescence than it is during either preadolescence or adulthood. 

Similarly, in a study employing random assignment procedures, Gardner and Steinberg (2005, pp. 625 and 634) 

found that “adolescents are more inclined toward risky behavior and risky decision making than are adults” 

and that “the presence of peers makes adolescents and youth, but not adults, more likely to take risks and 

more likely to make risky decisions.” Again, these fndings regarding adolescent behavior are not surprising, as 

neurobiological research demonstrates that dopamine — a neurotransmitter that plays a key role in the reward 

circuitry of the brain — is at its highest levels during early adolescence and that higher levels of dopamine are 

associated with increased reward-seeking behavior (Steinberg, 2012; Steinberg et al., 2008). As Steinberg and 

colleagues (2008) have stated: 

Heightened vulnerability to risk-taking in middle adolescence may be due to the combination of relatively 

higher inclinations to seek excitement and relatively immature capacities for self-control that are typical 

of this period of development ... adolescent risk taking is hypothesized to be stimulated by a rapid and 

dramatic increase in dopaminergic activity within the socio-emotional system around the time of puberty, 

which is presumed to lead to increases in reward seeking.... The temporal gap between the arousal of 

the socio-emotional system, which is an early adolescent development, and the full maturation of the 

cognitive control system, which occurs later, creates a period of heightened vulnerability to risk taking 

during middle adolescence. 

Juveniles also have less capacity than adults to consider the future consequences of their actions, as recent 

brain research demonstrates that regions of the brain associated with foresight and planning continue to 

develop well beyond adolescence (Casey et al., 2005; Steinberg et al., 2009). Steinberg and colleagues (2009) 

examined age differences in future orientation in a large sample of individuals (N = 935) ages 10 to 30 

and found that planning ahead, time perspective, and anticipation of future consequences all signifcantly 

increased with age. Steinberg and his colleagues found not only that adolescents tended to emphasize shortterm consequences when making decisions, but also that decreases in planning took place between ages 10 

to 15. Similarly, in a study examining the ability to recognize long-term consequences of actions in a legal 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 223 

context, Grisso and colleagues (2003) found that younger adolescents were signifcantly less likely than older 

adolescents to recognize the consequences of their decisions. Overall, these fndings are consistent with 

those produced in other studies and they can be explained by the evidence on brain development derived 

from neuroscience (see, e.g., Casey, Jones & Hare, 2008; Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; and Nurmi, 1991) as the 

“weaker orientation to the future” and “lesser sensitivity to the longer term consequences” of actions found 

among adolescents that appear to be primarily “related to arousal of the socio-emotional network” of the 

brain (Steinberg et al., 2009, p. 40). 

Taken together, research fndings from neuroscience and developmental criminology increasingly support 

the notion long held in the juvenile justice system that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults. 

The scientifc evidence clearly indicates that there are signifcant differences between adults and juveniles 

in their capacity to plan ahead, regulate emotions, control behavior, and weigh the costs and benefts of 

decisions (Scott & Steinberg, 2008; Tolan, Walker & Reppucci, 2012). Moreover, these cognitive and behavioral 

differences can be explained and understood in the context of the brain’s physiology and neurofunctioning. 

The evidence regarding adolescent development from neuroscience and developmental criminology has 

important implications for policy and practice aimed at juvenile offenders of all types, including those who 

commit sexual offenses. As Tolan and his colleagues (2012, p. 129) have aptly stated: “In sum, research on 

the neurophysiology of the brain and the neurofunctional developmental changes in the brain suggest a 

qualitatively different basis for much of the behavior that falls under sexual offense if the behavior is that of 

an adolescent rather than an adult.” 

Unfortunately, many of the intervention and management strategies for juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses that have emerged in recent years have not been based on a formal recognition that juveniles are 

developmentally different from adults. Prior to the 1980s, juvenile sexual offending in the United States 

tended to be minimized and dealt with outside of the justice system. Following a series of retrospective studies 

conducted in the 1980s, in which many adult sexual offenders reported engaging in sexual offending behaviors 

as juveniles, many policymakers and practitioners began to view juveniles who commit sexual offenses as 

future adult sexual offenders. As a result, a greater focus was placed on detecting and responding to sexual 

offenses committed by juveniles, and treatment and intervention strategies using targets and approaches 

previously reserved exclusively for adult sexual offenders began to proliferate (Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2010). 

By the early 2000s, many treatment and supervision strategies for juveniles who commit sexual offenses 

began to account for the developmental differences between juveniles and adults and to move away from 

adult-oriented models. However, many new legislative and policy initiatives that equated juveniles with 

adult sex offenders also began to emerge, culminating in the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection 

and Safety Act of 2006 (Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2010). The use of sex offender management strategies such as 

civil commitment, residence restrictions, registration and notifcation became more common in jurisdictions 

across the country, and they tended to be applied to juveniles much as they were to adults. (See Chapter 8: 

“Sex Offender Management Strategies,” in the Adult section and Chapter 6: “Registration and Notifcation of 

Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses,” in the Juvenile section for more information about these strategies.) 

Of course, the Adam Walsh Act included the Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation Act (SORNA), which for 

the frst time required states to register juveniles who commit sexual offenses.1

 Jurisdictions failing to comply 

with SORNA requirements risked losing 10 percent of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 

federal funds available to them pursuant to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. 

Despite the concerns raised by some stakeholders — about statutes or policies that treat juveniles in a 

manner similar to adults — many policymakers, legislators and members of the public continue to equate the 

characteristics and risks of juveniles who commit sexual offenses with those of adult sexual offenders (for a 

more thorough review of this topic, see Lobanov-Rostovsky, 2010). 
224 CHAPTER 1: UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Organization of Section 2: Juveniles Who Commit 

Sexual Offenses 

Given the fundamental differences that have been observed between juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses and adult sexual offenders, it is critically important to distinguish between these two populations 

when describing their characteristics or discussing research on issues such as etiology, risk or intervention 

effectiveness. Hence, Section 2 of this report focuses specifcally on research pertaining to juveniles who 

sexually offend. It examines what is scientifcally known in the following topic areas: 

• Etiology and typologies 

• Assessment of risk for sexual reoffense 

• Treatment effectiveness 

• Registration and notifcation 

• Recidivism 

Issues To Consider 

In each topic area, research focused specifcally on juveniles who sexually offend is reviewed and key, up-todate fndings that policymakers and practitioners can use to better understand and manage juveniles who 

commit sexual offenses are presented. Research concerning adults who sexually offend is addressed in Section 1 

of this report. 

When reading the chapters that follow, it is important to keep certain ideas in mind. First, relatively few 

studies in any of the topic areas addressed in this review cover female juveniles who commit sexual offenses 

or preadolescent children who engage in sexually abusive or sexually troubled behavior. Hence, the fndings 

presented in this review are most directly relevant to male adolescents who commit sexual offenses. While 

there is evidence suggesting that important differences exist between males and females who sexually offend, 

as well as between adolescents who sexually offend and preadolescents with sexual behavior problems, 

the extant literature is not suffcient in either its scope or level of detail to allow substantive fndings to be 

presented about preadolescent or female juvenile populations. Again, relatively few studies have focused on 

either population, and research dealing with juveniles who sexually offend has not consistently or suffciently 

described the age or gender characteristics of study participants. As a result, adolescent/child or male/female 

breakdowns simply cannot be presented for many of the studies discussed in this section. 

Second, the empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that juveniles are fundamentally different from adults 

in their cognitive capabilities and capacity to regulate emotions, control behavior and weigh the long-term 

consequences of actions. The evidence suggests that juveniles differ from adults in their propensity to engage 

in persistent criminal behavior; simply put, sexual offending prior to age 18 is not necessarily indicative of 

an ongoing and future risk for sexual offending. Research also has demonstrated that labeling — legal or 

otherwise — can have unintended harmful consequences, particularly for youth. Therefore, this population is 

referred to as “juveniles who commit sexual offenses,” rather than juvenile sex offenders, in each chapter, and 

only juvenile-specifc research should be considered as relevant for this population. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 225 

Note 

1. SORNA applies to youth aged 14 and older who are adjudicated delinquent for an offense equivalent to 

aggravated sexual abuse. These youth are subject to Tier III classifcation under SORNA, which requires lifetime 

registration and quarterly verifcation with law enforcement; however, they are eligible for removal after 

25 years with a “clean record.” Furthermore, youth included under SORNA may be excluded from public sex 

offender website posting, per each jurisdiction’s discretion. 

References 

Casey, B.J., Jones, R.M, & Hare, T.A. (2008). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 

1124, 111–126. 

Casey, B.J., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S. (2005). Imaging the developing brain: What have we learned 

about cognitive development? Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 104–110. 

Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less 

culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 741–760. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2009). Crime in the United States, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. Retrieved 

from: www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html. 

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., & Chaffn, M. (2009). Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Offce of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer infuence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in 

adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625–635. 

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci, N.D., & Schwartz, 

R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial 

defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333–363. 

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (1989). Trends and Issues 89: Criminal and Juvenile Justice in 

Illinois. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (1997). Trends and Issues 1997. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal 

Justice Information Authority. 

Lobanov-Rostovsky, C. (2010). Juvenile justice, legislative, and policy responses to juvenile sexual offenses. 

In G. Ryan, T. Leversee, and S. Lane (Eds.), Juvenile Sexual Offending: Causes, Consequences, and Correction, 3d 

ed. (pp. 183–197). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Nurmi, J. (1991). How do adolescents see their future? A review of the development of future orientation and 

planning. Developmental Review, 11, 1–59. 
226 CHAPTER 1: UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Przybylski, R. (2008). What Works: Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk Focused Prevention Programs: 

A Compendium of Evidence-Based Options for Preventing New and Persistent Criminal Behavior. Denver, CO: 

Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice. 

Scott, E., & Steinberg, L. (2008). Rethinking Juvenile Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk taking. Developmental Review, 28, 

78–106. 

Steinberg, L. (2012). Should the science of adolescent brain development inform public policy? Issues in Science 

and Technology, Spring. Retrieved from: www.issues.org/28.3/steinberg.html. 

Steinberg, L., Albert, D., Cauffman, E., Banich, M., Graham, S., & Woolard, J. (2008). Age differences in 

sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model. 

Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1764–1778. 

Steinberg, L., O’Brien, L., Cauffman, E., Graham, S., Woolard, J., & Banich, M. (2009). Age differences in future 

orientation and delay discounting. Child Development, 80(1), 28–44. 

Swenson, C.C., & Letourneau, E.J. (2011). Multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders. In B.K. Schwartz 

(Ed.), Handbook of Sex Offender Treatment (pp. 57-1–57-32). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Tolan, P.H., Walker, T., & Reppucci, N.D. (2012). Applying developmental criminology to law: Reconsidering 

juvenile sex offenses. Justice Research and Policy, 14(1), 117–146. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 227 

Chapter 2: Etiology and 

Typologies of Juveniles Who Have 

Committed Sexual Offenses 

by Tom Leversee 

FINDINGS 

◆ Etiology 

• Sexual victimization plays a disproportionate role in the development of sexually abusive behavior in 

adolescents; however sexual abuse should not be examined in isolation as it co-varies with other developmental 

risk factors. 

• Social learning is a powerful developmental infuence and explanation for juvenile sexual offending. 

• Adolescents who commit sexual offenses have much less extensive criminal histories, fewer antisocial peers and 

fewer substance abuse problems compared with nonsexual offenders. 

◆ Typology 

• There is increasing research support for both victim-age based and sex-only vs. sex-plus theories for 

differentiating subtypes of juveniles who have committed sexual offenses. 

• There is increasing research support that there are unique risks and needs associated with the different subtypes 

of juveniles who have committed sexual offenses. 

• Individualized treatment is needed, rather than a “one size fts all” approach. 

Introduction 

T

his chapter addresses two topics: the etiology of sexual offending by juveniles and typologies for 

juveniles who have committed sexual offenses. The etiological research reviewed in this chapter 

addresses the causes or origins of juvenile sexual offending and the pathways related to the 

development, onset and maintenance of sexually abusive behavior in this population. Knowledge about 

the etiology of sexual offending is important because it provides both conceptual frameworks and specifc 

guidance that can be used to develop more effective prevention efforts across a broad continuum, from 

primary to tertiary.1 

The typological research reviewed in this chapter addresses classifcation schemes based on types or categories 

of offenders or victims and offense characteristics. Empirically based typologies provide important information 

for clinical intervention by identifying key constructs for assessment, possible etiological factors specifc to 

each subtype or typology of juveniles and unique risks and needs for each subtype that should be targeted 

in treatment (Faniff & Kolko, 2012). (For more information on assessment, see Chapter 4: “Assessment of Risk 

for Sexual Reoffense in Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses,” in the Juvenile section.) Aebi and colleagues 

(2012, p. 268) add that a validated typology “shows a specifc profle of an offender, victim and offense 

characteristics that refect [sic] underlying psychological processes” of the youth that are relevant to etiology, 

maintenance, treatment and recidivism. (For more information on the “Effectiveness of Treatment for Juveniles 
228 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Who Sexually Offend,” see Chapter 5, and for more information on “Recidivism of Juveniles Who Commit 

Sexual Offenses,” see Chapter 3, both in the Juvenile section.) The information gained from typology research 

provides the foundation for designing and implementing more effective and effcient treatment programming 

and supervision protocols that refect individualized risks and needs. 

Summary of Research Findings 

Etiology 

The research on etiological factors for sexual offending includes studies that focus on single factors and those 

that focus on multiple factors. There appears to be a consensus in the feld that etiological factors typically 

both co-vary and interact with each other in the development and onset of sexual offending and nonsexual 

delinquency. 

Etiological factors typically both covary and interact with each other in 

the development and onset of sexual 

offending and nonsexual delinquency. 

Sexual Victimization 

Veniziano, Veniziano and LeGrand (2000) gathered information from a sample of 68 juveniles who had 

committed sexual offenses and were court ordered to a residential treatment facility. All of the juveniles had 

experienced sexual victimization. Information was gathered about their prior sexual victimization, and the 

characteristics and behaviors of their perpetrators. These data were compared to the adolescent offenders’ 

behaviors in the sample and the characteristics of their victims. The results of the study supported the 

hypothesis that the juveniles who had been sexually victimized were more likely to select sexual behaviors 

that refected their own sexual victimization in regard to age and gender of the victim and the types of 

sexual behaviors perpetrated against the victims. However, the relationship between prior victimization and 

subsequent offending was not as strong with respect to whether victims were inside or outside the family. The 

researchers concluded that fndings from the study offered support for the notion that the sexual offending of 

some adolescents represents a re-enactment of their own sexual victimization, or a reactive conditioned and/or 

learned behavior pattern. 

Grabell and Knight (2009) studied 193 juveniles who had committed sexual offenses, sampled from different 

inpatient treatment facilities. The study sought to examine child sexual abuse patterns and sensitive periods in 

the lives of juveniles who had committed sexual offenses. The results suggest a relationship between childhood 

sexual abuse and sexual fantasy in sexually abusive adolescents that is moderated by the age at which the 

abuse occurred. More specifcally, it was found that ages 3 to 7 may be a sensitive period when sexual abuse 

can do the most damage and place a youth at higher risk for engaging in sexually abusive behavior later in life. 

The researchers compared their fndings related to discrete periods of sexual abuse with those from an earlier 

study conducted by Burton, Miller and Shill (2002), and concluded that continuous sexual abuse was more likely 

related to severe perpetration than were discrete periods. Grabell and Knight concluded that both age and the 

length of the sexual abuse contribute to attitudes and behaviors in juveniles who commit sexual offenses. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 229 

Berman and Knight (2015) assessed a sample of 178 juveniles who committed sexual offenses from an 

inpatient treatment center. Two-thirds of the participants reported having experienced sexual abuse as a 

child. The study explored the nature of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim as it relates 

to the factors important to subsequent sexual offending. The study examined multiple levels of interpersonal 

closeness (stranger, relative and cohabitant) between the perpetrators of the sexual abuse and their victims. 

The results presented were for a three-month minimum of cohabitation. Berman and Knight (2015) found that 

being sexually abused by a cohabitant perpetrator was the best predictor of subsequent sexualization (sexual 

preoccupation, sexual compulsivity and hypersexuality), callousness/manipulativeness and higher impulsivity 

or disinhibition. Child sexual abuse occurring in the context of an attachment relationship was discussed as 

it relates to a model for future relationships that encourage social learning of sexually abusive behavior. The 

results of the study supported the author’s hypothesis that, “in studying the outcomes of sexual abuse, it is 

essential to differentiate levels of relatedness between victim and perpetrator” (p. 601). 

Relationship Between Sexual Victimization and Personality Variables 

Hunter and Figueredo (2000) focused on delineating the relationship between sexual victimization and 

personality variables in predicting patterns of sexual offending against children. Data were collected on 

235 adolescents, representing subsamples of sexually victimized and nonvictimized, perpetrating and 

nonperpetrating, and emotionally maladjusted and nonmaladjusted youth. A younger age at time of sexual 

victimization, a greater number of incidents, a longer period of waiting to report the abuse and a lower level 

of perceived family support after revelation of the abuse were found to be predictive of subsequent sexual 

perpetration. See “Typologies” in this chapter. 

Burton (2008) conducted an exploratory study of the contribution of personality traits and childhood sexual 

victimization to the development of sexually abusive behavior, thereby testing a social learning/victim-tovictimizer hypothesis for the development of sexually abusive behavior. The study compared 74 incarcerated 

sexual abusers and 53 nonsexual abusers. Similar to the fndings of many previous studies, Burton found that 

adolescent sexual abusers tend to have higher rates of sexual victimization than nonsexually abusive youth. 

In addition, sexually abusive youth who had been sexually victimized themselves were likely to repeat what 

was done to them in regard to the relationship with and gender of their victim(s), modus operandi and sexual 

behaviors. These results suggest that sexually abusive youth may have learned to be sexually abusive from their 

own sexual perpetrator(s). The personality traits that contributed signifcantly to the social learning model 

were “submissive” and “forceful.” Burton suggested that those who scored higher on the submissive trait may 

believe that close relationships with others are required to feel comfortable and socially confdent, and that 

those who scored higher on the forceful personality trait may derive pleasure from inficting pain on their 

victims and may attain this pleasure via forceful acts. 

Multiple Types of Child Maltreatment 

Awad and Saunders (1991) compared 49 male adolescents who sexually offended against females their age 

or older to 45 adolescents who engaged in sexually abusive behavior toward younger children. The results 

showed that the majority of the adolescents who sexually offended against females their age or older came 

from a disturbed family background. The sexual victimization rate for the adolescents who sexually offended 

against children was much higher. The researchers concluded that, for some of these adolescents, sexual 

aggression was a learned behavior, modeled after what they observed at home. See “Typologies” in this 

chapter. 

Kobayashi and colleagues (1995) tested a theoretical model of the etiology of deviant sexual aggression by 

adolescents that included several family factors: perceived parental deviance, child physical and sexual abuse 

history, and a child’s bonding to parents. Study subjects consisted of 117 juvenile males who committed sexual 
230 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

offenses and who had been referred to a treatment clinic. Results indicated that paternal physical abuse and 

sexual abuse by males increased sexual aggression among adolescents and that mother-child bonding had 

the opposite effect. The results can be explained from a social learning and a parent-child attachment or 

social control perspective. In addition, the researchers suggested an alternative perspective from evolutionary 

psychology to explain the fndings. Kobayashi and colleagues noted that the behavior developed by juveniles 

who sexually offend may be the result of social modeling and highlighted the ethological literature related to 

sexual imprinting in animals to support this perspective. 

Cavanaugh, Pimenthal and Prentky (2008) studied a sample of 667 boys and 155 girls involved with social 

services, the vast majority of whom had engaged in hands-on sexualized behaviors. Almost all of the youth 

came from “highly dysfunctional” families and had experienced a high degree of physical, psychological and 

sexual abuse as well as neglect. The researchers found that 66.7 percent of the study subjects had attentiondefcit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 55.6 percent had posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and 49.9 percent 

had a mood disorder. Approximately one-quarter used drugs and about one-ffth consumed alcohol. These 

fndings highlight the importance of assessing and treating co-occurring issues, which can often be infuential 

in sexual offending behaviors. 

Seto and Lalumiere (2010) tested special and general explanations of male adolescent sexual offending by 

conducting a meta-analysis of 59 independent studies comparing male adolescents who committed sexual 

offenses with male adolescents who committed nonsexual offenses (n = 13,393) on theoretically derived 

variables refecting general delinquency risk factors (antisocial tendencies), childhood abuse, exposure 

to violence, family problems, interpersonal problems, sexuality, psychopathology and cognitive abilities. 

The results did not support the notion that adolescent sexual offending can be explained as a simple 

manifestation of general antisocial tendencies. Adolescents who committed sexual offenses had much less 

extensive criminal histories, fewer antisocial peers and fewer substance abuse problems compared with 

nonsexual offenders. Special explanations for adolescent sexual offending suggested a role for sexual 

abuse history, exposure to sexual violence, other abuse or neglect, social isolation, early exposure to sex or 

pornography, atypical sexual interests, anxiety and low self-esteem. Explanations focusing on attitudes and 

beliefs about women or sexual offending, family communication problems or poor parent-child attachment, 

exposure to nonsexual violence, social incompetence, conventional sexual experience and low intelligence 

were not supported. Ranked by effect size, the largest group difference was obtained for atypical sexual 

interests, followed by sexual abuse history for adolescents who had committed sexual offenses and, in turn, 

criminal history, antisocial associations and substance abuse for nonsexual offenders. 

Leibowitz, Burton and Howard (2012) collected data from 478 youth, comparing sexually victimized and 

nonsexually victimized adolescent sexual abusers with a group of nonsexually victimized delinquent youth. 

The researchers found that the sexually victimized sexual abusers had the highest mean scores on trauma and 

personality measures, followed by nonsexually victimized sexual offenders and general delinquent youth. The 

sexually victimized sexual abusers reported experiencing signifcantly greater levels of all fve types of abuse 

(emotional abuse, emotional neglect, physical abuse, physical neglect and sexual victimization) than the other 

two groups. General delinquent youth had fewer behavioral and developmental problems than victimized 

and nonvictimized juveniles who commit sexual offenses. This difference between general delinquency youth 

and juveniles who commit sexual offenses has not been found in other studies (as summarized by Seto and 

Lalumière’s 2010 meta-analysis). 

Wanklyn et al. (2012) focused exclusively on childhood risk factors in comparing three groups of juvenile 

offenders on risk factors, including individual, family, peer and school domains: 

• Violent nonsex offenders (VNSO): these offenders committed murder, assault, robbery and weapons offenses 

(n = 172) 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 231 

• Pure sex offenders (PSO): these offenders committed violent sex offenses (n = 28) 

• Versatile violent sex offenders (VVSO): these offenders committed violent sex and nonsex offenses (n = 24). 

Findings from the study provide support for both the specialist and generalist models of sexual offending. 

Both subtypes of sex offending youth (VVSO and PSO) exhibited higher odds of sexually precocious behaviors. 

Extrafamilial sexual abuse and intrafamilial child maltreatment were found in higher frequency among the 

juvenile sexual offending groups. A number of fndings suggested that VVSOs may encompass a more severe 

and high-risk subset of the juvenile sexual offending population. The percentage of VVSO youth engaging in 

antisocial behaviors was nearly double that of the other subgroups. VVSOs also had greater odds of growing 

up with criminal family members and experienced a higher incidence of a variety of childhood risk factors. This 

study provided a more robust understanding of different predictors of subgroups of violent juvenile offending, 

as well as the different developmental pathways experienced by violent sex and nonsex offenders. In discussing 

future research needs, Wanklyn et al. suggested that, “Further research should explore possible causal 

mechanisms that link distal risk factors to offending outcomes through more proximal mediating risk variables, 

such as substance use and coping styles ... Understanding the unique childhood risk factors for each subgroup 

may assist in the early identifcation of high-risk children and inform the development of prevention strategies 

tailored to each group’s specifc risk factors” (p. 2140-2141). 

Marini et al. (2014) studied the relationships among childhood victimization, substance use prior to the 

commission of a sexual offense and force used during a sexual offense in a sample of 406 residentially based, 

male juveniles who committed a sexual offense. Childhood victimization included sexual victimization, 

physical and emotional abuse, neglect and emotional neglect, as well as cumulative exposure to childhood 

victimization. Substance use was assessed in order to investigate the potential mechanism of disinhibition as it 

relates to the relationship between substance use and use of force. The authors found that substance use prior 

to committing a sexual offense partially accounted for the effects of multiple types of cumulative childhood 

victimization experiences on the force used during a sexual offense: Youth who used drugs or alcohol prior 

to a sexual offense used more force than those who did not. Contrary to expectations, the authors did not 

fnd that the relationship among victimization, substance use and severity of sexual offending was strongest 

for juveniles who committed sexual offenses and had experienced sexual abuse themselves. Proposed clinical 

implications included treating alcohol use as part of specialized treatment, as well as addressing the sequelae 

of complex trauma utilizing evidence-based interventions such as trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy. 

Felizzi (2015) studied 502 male adjudicated juvenile sexual and nonsexual offenders in a large Midwest state, 

exploring the effects of parent or caregiver instability and disrupted parental attachment on juvenile sex 

offending. Felizzi found that the sexually offending juveniles experienced signifcantly greater parent or 

caregiver instability, as characterized by “lots of moves or homelessness, followed by sexual abuse in the home; 

children placed out of the home; neglect by caregivers; observing hitting, punching or slapping; and physical 

abuse” (p. 650). The nonsignifcant fnding related to parental attachment appeared to contradict the fndings 

of some previous research. The results of the Felizzi study support social learning as a powerful infuence for 

the developing child and as an important explanation for juvenile sexual offending. Other factors that should 

be considered include television, access to internet pornography, drug and alcohol use and peer infuences. 

Relationship Between Multiple Types of Child Maltreatment and Personality Variables 

Johnson and Knight (2000) studied 122 juveniles who committed sexual offenses and were in inpatient 

treatment centers. The researchers explored developmental pathways possibly conducive to adolescent 

sexually abusive behavior, measuring the extent to which the sample experienced childhood trauma, engaged 

in adolescent delinquency and exhibited particular personality dispositions and cognitive biases. The results 

suggest that sexual compulsivity and hypermasculinity, through misogynistic fantasy behavior, signifcantly 
232 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

discriminate verbally and physically coercive juveniles who commit sexual offenses from those who do not 

report using force in their offenses. Sexual victimization directly and indirectly (via sexual compulsivity) 

affected sexual coercion. The study’s results also suggest that alcohol abuse may play a more salient role 

in the expression of juvenile sexual coercion than previously hypothesized. Physical abuse had an indirect 

effect on sexual coercion and was found to be predictive of delinquent behaviors such as peer aggression and 

adolescent alcohol abuse. 

Knight and Sims-Knight (2004) studied 218 juveniles who were adjudicated for sexual offenses and resided in 

inpatient specialized treatment facilities. As part of the study, the researchers presented a three-path model 

intended to serve as a framework for understanding sexually abusive behavior toward women. Knight and 

Sims-Knight emphasized that an alternative model should be developed for sexually abusive behavior toward 

children. The three latent traits that identifed the paths are sexual drive/preoccupation, antisocial behavior/ 

impulsivity and callous/unemotional trait. The paths predicted sexual coercion against women among juveniles 

who have committed sexual offenses. The researchers found that early traumatic physical and sexual abuse 

play an important etiological role, increasing the likelihood of sexually abusive behavior either directly by 

themselves or indirectly through the three intervening paths. The authors assert that these traits play a critical 

role across the life span, are critical in assessing risk of recidivism and should be targets of treatment. See 

“Typologies” in this chapter. 

In contrast to the above study that presented a model for sexually abusive behavior toward women, Daversa 

and Knight (2007) focused on an etiological model for sexual offending behavior toward younger victims. Data 

were gathered on 329 juveniles from inpatient treatment facilities in four states, all of whom had committed 

a sexual offense. The results provided evidence that various developmental and early childhood maltreatment 

experiences and specifc, mediating personality traits contribute signifcantly to predicting adolescent sexual 

offending against younger victims. Four signifcant paths emerged in the model (Daversa & Knight, 2007): 

1. From emotional and physical abuse, through psychopathy and sexual fantasy, to child fantasy and child 

victimization 

2. From emotional and physical abuse; through sexual inadequacy, sexual fantasy and child fantasy; to child 

victimization 

3. From emotional and physical abuse, through sexual inadequacy, to child fantasy and child victimization 

4. From sexual abuse directly to child victimization 

The direct path from a history of sexual abuse to the sexual victimization of children is consistent with the 

fnding that a disproportionate number of sexually abusive adolescents also report being victimized sexually. 

The researchers suggest that a subset of these sexually victimized offenders may select victim(s) specifc to a 

particular age group that is consistent with the age at which they were victimized, indirectly supporting the 

victim-to-victimizer theory of adolescent sexual offending. The authors assert that this study provides data for 

the preliminary design of a dimensional model of adolescent sexual abusive behavior against younger children. 

See “Typologies” in this chapter. 

Zakireh, Ronis and Knight (2008) examined the individual beliefs and attitudes, and victimization histories, 

of 100 male youth aged 13–19. The youth were divided equally into four demographically similar groups: 1) 

sexual offenders in residential placement, 2) sexual offenders in outpatient treatment, 3) nonsexual offenders 

in residential placement and 4) nonsexual offenders in outpatient treatment. The sexually offending youth 

included those who had exclusively offended against peer age and adult victims, those who had exclusively 

offended against children younger than age 12 and those who offended against mixed-age victims. The 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 233 

authors found that three categories of risk factors — greater hypersexuality or sexual deviance, more violent 

behavior or fantasies and an increased history of victimization — are consistent with path models that predict 

sexually abusive behavior toward peers and adults. The authors asserted that their fndings were consistent 

with hypotheses about the signifcant role that the domains of callousness, unemotionality and antisocial 

behavior play in sexually abusive behavior against peers and the limited etiological role they play in sexually 

abusive behavior toward children. The study’s fndings are consistent with past evidence regarding the role 

that sexual victimization plays in subsequent sexual offending behavior. See “Typologies” in this chapter. 

Additional Etiological Factors 

Burton, Leibowitz and Howard (2010) compared pornography exposure between male adolescents who 

sexually abuse and male nonsexual offending delinquent youth. Although previous literature indicates that 

pornography use for adult males at risk for aggression may result in sexually aggressive behavior, very little 

research has been reported on exposure to pornography on the part of juveniles who commit sexual abuse. 

The juveniles who had engaged in sexually abusive behavior reported more exposure to pornography when 

they were both younger and older than age 10 than nonsexual abusers. However, their exposure was not 

correlated to the age at which their sexually abusive behavior started, to the reported number of victims or 

to sexual offense severity. The exposure subscale before age 10 was not related to the number of children the 

group sexually abused, and the forceful exposure subscale was not correlated with either arousal to rape or 

degree of force used by the youth. Finally, exposure was signifcantly correlated with all of the nonsexual crime 

scores in the study. The researchers characterized this study as exploratory in nature and stated that no clear 

conclusions can be drawn regarding prohibitions or control of pornography for adolescents who sexually abuse 

and who are in treatment or on parole or probation. 

Yoder, Leibowitz and Peterson (2016) explored the differences in characteristics of parental and peer attachments 

between youth who had committed sexual offenses (n = 355) and nonsexual offending youth (n = 150). The 

authors found that, compared to nonsexual offending youth, those who had committed sexual offenses 

had higher alienation as well as lower trust and communication with mothers. Youth who had committed 

sexual offenses also had higher alienation, and lower trust and overall attachment with fathers. There 

were no statistically signifcant differences between the groups on peer attachment. The study fndings 

are consistent with previous research demonstrating an association between unmet attachment and socioemotional needs with sexual offending, and they underscore the importance of parent-child relationships as 

a factor in the etiology of juvenile sexual offending. The study fndings related to nonsexual offending youth 

also are important given the robust empirical evidence that juveniles who commit sexual offenses are more 

likely to reoffend nonsexually. The authors stated that there is a need for additional research focused on the 

interactions among social isolation, family dynamics, peer attachment and severity of offending. Replication of 

the current study’s fndings would lend support for treatment approaches that target family-level attachment 

characteristics through multimodal intervention approaches. 

Boonman et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis involving 21 studies and a total sample size of 2,951 juveniles 

who sexually offended and 18,688 nonsexual delinquents to determine the prevalence of mental disorders in 

juvenile sex offenders. Differences in mental disorders between sexually offending juveniles and nonsexual 

delinquents were also assessed. The meta-analysis found that mental disorders are highly prevalent in juvenile 

sex offenders, as 69 percent had at least one mental disorder and 44 percent had at least two. Further, 51 percent 

were reported to have conduct disorder; 18 percent had anxiety disorder (PTSD = 8 percent); 14 percent had 

ADHD; 9 percent had affective disorder; 30 percent had at least one substance use disorder (SUD); and 42 percent 

had paraphilia. 

Nonsexual delinquents were more likely than juvenile sex offenders to have externalizing disorders and to 

meet the criteria for one or more mental disorders and were more often diagnosed with ADHD, disruptive 
234 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

behavior disorder and SUD. Related to juvenile sex offenders, the prevalence of conduct disorder and alcohol 

and drug abuse/dependence disorders increased with age while PTSD and oppositional defant disorder 

decreased with age. Substance use disorder increased overall when the percentage of females included in the 

studies increased. Related to this fnding, the authors recommended the underlying causes of SUD, such as 

traumatic experiences and PTSD, should receive focus in the assessment and treatment of females who have 

committed sexual offenses. 

Summary on Etiology 

Knight and Sims-Knight (2004, p. 49) provide an excellent synthesis on the importance of etiology regarding 

the treatment, supervision and policy response to juvenile sexual offending: 

Identifying the developmental antecedents of sexual aggression not only informs treatment planning 

(i.e., tertiary intervention), but also will ultimately be the basis for identifying at-risk groups for 

primary and secondary interventions. Having a validated model of the etiology of sexual aggression is 

the cornerstone of any public health approach to sexual aggression and a necessary prerequisite for 

implementation of a primary prevention perspective. 

The research cited above describes both single- and multiple-factor etiological theories. There is strong 

evidence that sexual victimization plays a disproportionate role in the development of sexually abusive 

behavior in adolescents. A number of studies have described a direct path from sexual victimization to sexually 

abusive behavior, and others have described an indirect path that is affected by personality variables. Overall, 

the empirical evidence supports the notion that sexual abuse should not be examined in isolation as it clearly 

co-varies with other developmental risk factors. Much of the research has described multiple-factor theories 

in which early childhood maltreatment (traumatic physical and sexual abuse, neglect and chaotic family 

environments) increases the likelihood of sexually abusive behavior, either directly or indirectly, in relationship 

with more proximal mediating variables, including personality variables, coping styles, substance use, etc. See 

Table 2-1 for a summary of the etiological research. 

Table 2-1. Summary of Etiology Research 

Study Focus Findings 

Sexual Victimization 

Veniziano, 

Veneziano & 

LeGrand (2000) 

Sexual victimization and subsequent 

sexual offending 

Sexual offending of some adolescents represents a 

re-enactment of their own sexual victimization or a reactive 

conditioned and/or learned behavior pattern. 

Berman & Knight 

(2015) 

Nature of relationship between a 

perpetrator and the victim as it relates 

to the factors important to subsequent 

sexual offending 

Being sexually abused by a cohabitant perpetrator was the 

best predictor of subsequent sexualization, callousness/ 

manipulativeness and higher impulsivity or disinhibition as 

it relates to juvenile sexual offending. 

Grabell & Knight 

(2009) 

Child sexual abuse patterns and 

sensitive periods in juveniles who had 

committed sexual offenses 

Ages 3–7 may be a sensitive period during which sexual 

abuse can do the most damage and place a youth at higher 

risk for engaging in sexually abusive behavior later in life. 

Sexual Victimization and Personality 

Hunter & 

Figueredo (2000) 

Delineating the relationship between 

sexual victimization and personality 

variables in the prediction of patterns 

of sexual offending against children 

The following factors predict subsequent sexual offending 

in sexually victimized offenders: a younger age at time of 

sexual victimization, a greater number of incidents, a longer 

period of waiting to report the abuse and a lower level of 

perceived family support after revelation of the abuse. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 235 

Table 2-1. Summary of Etiology Research (continued) 

Study Focus Findings 

Burton (2008) 

Contribution of personality and 

childhood sexual victimization to a 

social learning victim-to-victimizer 

hypothesis for the development of 

sexually abusive behavior 

Sexually abusive youth who had been sexually victimized 

were likely to repeat what was done to them in regard to 

the relationship with and gender of their victim(s), modus 

operandi and sexual behaviors. Suggests that sexually 

abusive youth may have learned to be sexually abusive from 

their own sexual perpetrator(s). 

Multiple Types of Child Maltreatment 

Awad & Saunders 

(1991) 

Compared male adolescents who 

sexually offended females their age 

or older to juvenile delinquents and 

adolescents who engaged in sexually 

abusive behavior toward younger 

children 

A majority of the adolescents who sexually offended 

against females their age or older came from a disturbed 

family background. The rate of sexual victimization for 

the adolescents who sexually offended against children 

was much higher and suggested that in some of these 

adolescents their sexual aggression was a learned behavior, 

modeled after what they observed at home. 

Kobayashi et al. 

(1995) 

Tested a theoretical model of the 

etiology of deviant sexual aggression 

by adolescents that included several 

family factors: perceived parental 

deviance, child physical and sexual 

abuse history and a child’s bonding to 

parents 

Physical abuse by the father and sexual abuse by males 

increased sexual aggression by adolescents. Also, a child’s 

bonding to his mother was found to decrease his sexual 

aggression. The results can be explained from a social 

learning and a parent-child attachment or social control 

perspective. Alternative perspectives of evolutionary 

psychology are also considered. 

Cavanaugh, 

Pimenthal & 

Prentky (2008) 

Co-occurring issues that can often 

be infuential in sexual offending 

behaviors 

Almost all of the youth came from “highly dysfunctional” 

families and had experienced a high degree of physical, 

psychological and sexual abuse and neglect. A total of 

66.7% had ADHD, 55.6% had PTSD and 49.9% had a mood 

disorder. Approximately a quarter used drugs and about 

one-ffth consumed alcohol. 

Seto & Lalumiere 

(2010) 

Tested special and general explanations 

of male adolescent sexual offending 

Results did not support the notion that adolescent sexual 

offending can be explained as a simple manifestation of 

general antisocial tendencies. 

Leibowitz, 

Burton & Howard 

(2012) 

Compared sexually victimized and 

nonsexually victimized adolescent 

sexual abusers with a group of 

nonsexually victimized delinquent 

youth on trauma and personality 

measures 

Sexually victimized sexual abusers reported experiencing 

signifcantly greater levels of all fve types of abuse than 

the other two groups (emotional abuse, emotional neglect, 

physical abuse, physical neglect and sexual victimization). 

General delinquent youth had fewer behavioral and 

developmental problems than victimized and nonvictimized 

juveniles who commit sexual offenses. 

Wanklyn et al. 

(2012) 

Compared three groups of juvenile 

offenders on childhood risk factors, 

including individual, family, peer and 

school domains 

Extrafamilial sexual abuse and intrafamilial child 

maltreatment were found in higher frequency among the 

juvenile sexual offending groups. Versatile violent offenders 

may encompass a more severe and high risk subset of the 

juvenile sexual offending. 

Marini et al. 

(2014) 

Relationships among childhood 

victimization, substance use prior to 

and force used during a sexual offense 

Substance use prior to committing a sexual offense partially 

accounted for the effects of multiple types of cumulative 

childhood victimization experiences on the force used during 

a sexual offense. 

Felizzi (2015) 

Effects of parent or caregiver instability 

and disrupted parental attachment on 

juvenile sex offending 

Sexually offending juveniles experienced signifcantly greater 

parent or caregiver instability. Supports social learning as 

a powerful infuence and as an important explanation for 

juvenile sexual offending. 
236 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Table 2-1. Summary of Etiology Research (continued) 

Study Focus Findings 

Multiple Types of Child Maltreatment and Personality 

Johnson & 

Knight (2000) 

Explored developmental pathways 

possibly conducive to adolescent 

sexually abusive behavior, measuring 

the extent to which the sample 

experienced childhood trauma, 

engaged in adolescent delinquency 

and exhibited particular personality 

dispositions and cognitive biases 

Results suggest that sexual compulsivity and hypermasculinity 

signifcantly discriminate verbally and physically coercive 

sexually abusive juveniles from those who do not report 

using force. Sexual victimization directly and indirectly (via 

sexual compulsivity) affected sexual coercion. Alcohol abuse 

may play a more salient role. Physical abuse had an indirect 

effect on sexual coercion and was found to be predictive of 

delinquent behaviors. 

Knight & SimsKnight (2004) 

Three-path model intended as a model 

for sexually abusive behavior toward 

women 

Early traumatic physical and sexual abuse play an important 

etiological role, increasing the likelihood of sexually abusive 

behavior either indirectly through the three intervening 

paths or directly. 

Daversa & Knight 

(2007) 

Etiological model for sexual offending 

behavior toward younger victims 

Various developmental and early childhood maltreatment 

experiences and specifc, mediating personality traits 

contribute signifcantly to predicting adolescent sexual 

offending against younger victims. A subset of sexually 

victimized sexual abusers may select victim(s) specifc to a 

particular age group that is consistent with the age at which 

they were victimized, indirectly supporting the victim-tovictimizer theory of adolescent sexual offending. 

Zakireh, Ronis & 

Knight (2008) 

Individual beliefs and attitudes, and 

victimization histories of four groups 

of sexual and nonsexual offenders 

Three categories of risk factors — greater hypersexuality 

or sexual deviance, more violent behavior or fantasies 

and an increased history of victimization — are consistent 

with path models that predict sexually abusive behavior 

toward peers and adults. Findings were consistent with past 

evidence regarding the role that sexual victimization plays in 

subsequent sexual offending behavior. 

Additional Etiological Factors 

Leibowitz, 

Burton & Howard 

(2010) 

Compared pornography exposure 

between male adolescents who 

sexually abuse and male nonsexual 

offending delinquent youth 

The juveniles who had engaged in sexually abusive behavior 

reported more exposure to pornography when they were 

both younger and older than age 10 than nonsexual 

abusers. Exposure was signifcantly correlated with all of the 

nonsexual crime scores in the study. 

Yoder, Leibowitz 

& Peterson (2016) 

Differences in characteristics of 

parental and peer attachments 

between youth who had committed 

sexual offenses and nonsexual 

offending youth 

Sexual offending youth had higher alienation and lower trust 

and communication with mothers, and higher alienation and 

lower trust and overall attachment with fathers. Important 

in lieu of previous research that associate unmet attachment 

and socio-emotional needs with sexual offending. 

Boonman et al. 

(2015) 

Conducted a meta-analysis to 

determine the prevalence of mental 

disorders in juveniles who sexually 

offended. 

Mental disorders are highly prevalent in juvenile sex 

offenders with the following percentages: 69% at least one 

mental disorder; 44% at least two mental disorders; 51% 

conduct disorder; 18% anxiety disorder (PTSD = 8%); 14% 

ADHD; 9% affective disorder; 30% at least one substance use 

disorder; and 42% paraphilia. 

Grabell and Knight (2009) suggest that in addition to having risk factors, it is likely that juveniles who have 

committed sexual offenses lack protective factors — such as emotional support and social competence — to 

buffer against risk in early experience. Future research should consider the complex relationships between 

these risk and protective factors in the development of sexually abusive behavior. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 237 

Research supports a multifactorial explanatory 

theory regarding etiological pathways. 

Typologies 

Typology research to date has primarily differentiated subtypes of juveniles who have committed sexual 

offenses based on victim age, delinquent history (differentiating sex-only vs. sex-plus offenders) and 

personality characteristics. This section focuses on research as it relates to these dimensions. 

Subtypes Based on Victim Age 

Awad and Saunders (1991) found that the majority of adolescents who sexually offended against females their 

age or older were recidivists, had a history of antisocial behavior predating and coinciding with their sexual 

offenses and came from a disturbed family background. Adolescents who sexually assaulted peer or older 

females were less likely to be socially isolated than those who offended against children and more likely to 

socialize with older peers than a comparison group of delinquents. Alcohol and drugs were not found to play a 

prominent role in the adolescents who sexually victimized peer or older females. Sexually deviant impulses and 

antisocial traits were found to be motivating factors for the majority of these youth. 

Hunter and Figueredo (2000) found that juveniles who offended against children were more likely to be 

pessimistic and less likely to be self-suffcient than nonoffending youth. These fndings appear to be consistent 

with a conceptualization of juveniles who sexually offend against children as youth who are lacking in social 

competencies and who are competitively disadvantaged relative to their peers. The researchers proposed that 

the sexual acting out of these juveniles may be more refective of compensatory behavior than psychopathy 

and more refective of arrested sexual development than paraphilic interest. 

Hunter, Hazelwood and Slesinger (2000) conducted a study comparing 62 adolescents who offended against 

children to 64 adolescents who offended against peers and adults. The fndings suggest that a meaningful 

differentiation can be made between youth who sexually offend against younger children (5 or more years 

younger) and those who target peers and adults. According to the study, adolescents who targeted peers and 

adults were more likely to have — 

• Selected a female victim who was either a stranger or acquaintance; 

• Committed their offense in a public area, and acted in a group with others; 

• Committed the sex crime in association with other criminal activity and have been more aggressive and 

violent in commission of the offense; and 

• Used a weapon. 

Hunter, Hazelwood and Slesinger (2000) suggested that the differences in victim age (peer/adult vs. younger 

children) represent unique populations of sexually aggressive youth. In general, peer/adult adolescents who 

commit sexual offenses display behaviors that suggest they have greater antisocial tendencies and are more 

prone to violence in the commission of their sexual offenses than adolescents who molest children. 
238 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

In a follow-up study, Hunter and colleagues (2003) contrasted adolescent males who sexually offended against 

prepubescent children with those who targeted pubescent and postpubescent females. Table 2-2 identifes the 

differences found between the two groups. 

Table 2-2. Differentiation Between Categories of Adolescent Males Who Sexually Offend 

Those Who Target Prepubescent Children Those Who Target Pubescent and 

Postpubescent Females 

• Greater defcits in psychosocial functioning 

• Use less aggression in their sexual offending 

• More likely to offend against relatives 

• More likely to meet criteria for clinical intervention for 

depression and anxiety 

• Employ more force in the commission of their sexual 

offense 

• More likely to use a weapon and to be under the 

infuence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the 

offense 

• Less likely to be related to their victim 

• Less likely to commit the offense in the victim’s home 

or in their own residence 

• More likely to have a prior arrest history for a 

nonsexual crime 

• Demonstrate less anxiety and depression, and less 

pronounced social self-esteem defcits 

Source: Hunter et al. (2003). 

Defcits in psychosocial functioning were found to affect the infuence of childhood exposure to violence 

against females on adolescent perpetration of sexual and nonsexual offenses. Childhood physical abuse by a 

father or stepfather and exposure to violence against females were found to be associated with higher levels 

of comorbid anxiety and depression. Noncoercive childhood sexual victimization by a male nonrelative was 

found to be associated with sexual offending against a male child. 

Knight and Sims-Knight’s (2004) three-path model for sexual coercion against women found that juvenile 

rapists evidenced more antisocial behavior and a higher use of alcohol. Additionally, juvenile rapists were more 

likely to come from more disturbed families and to have experienced more caregiver instability. The researchers 

found that these juveniles had committed more violent offenses than offenders who victimized younger 

children and that they evidenced borderline intellectual functioning more frequently. 

Daversa and Knight’s (2007, pp. 1326–1327) dimensional model of adolescent sexually abusive behavior against 

younger children indicates that “different models of developmental antecedents and core traits are involved 

in adolescent sexually abusive behavior against peer-aged girls or women and younger children and that 

identifable paths to offending are evident in each model.” The researchers proposed that their results suggest 

that a typology based on victim age and developmental trajectory is possible. Further, their fndings challenged 

those from prior research that suggested all adolescents who offend against children are submissive, 

dependent, socially isolated and less aggressive in their sexual offending. Daversa and Knight suggested that 

a subgroup of adolescent child molesters may be impulsive and aggressive in their offense planning, entertain 

sadistic fantasies and demonstrate a high degree of sexual arousal toward young children. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 239 

Hunter (2009) reported on a study of a national sample of 256 adolescent males who committed sexual 

offenses and were receiving treatment in an institutional or community-based setting. Initial results suggest 

the presence of fve subgroups and associated characteristics: 

• Life Course Persistent — Antisocial 

○ Has the highest arrest rate for nonsexual crimes and the highest reported rate of childhood exposure to violence 

○ Evidences lengthy childhood histories of exposure to violence and early developmental onset of 

pornography viewing and drug/alcohol use 

• Adolescent Onset — Experimental 

○ Is more inclined to sexually offend against peer and adult females 

○ Appears less psychosocially and psychosexually disturbed than other subgroups, and reports less 

childhood exposure to violence and less preadolescent pornography/substance use 

○ Appears to have the lowest average number of victims of the fve subgroups 

• Socially Impaired — Anxious and Depressed 

○ Predominantly sexually offends against children 

• Pedophilic Interests — Antisocial 

• Pedophilic Interests — Non-Antisocial 

○ Evidences lengthy childhood histories of exposure to violence and early developmental onset of 

pornography viewing and drug/alcohol use 

Zakireh, Ronis and Knight (2008) found that greater hypersexuality or sexual deviance, more violent 

behavior or fantasies and an increased history of victimization are consistent with path models that predict 

sexually abusive behavior toward peers and adults. Additionally, they found that the domains of callousness, 

unemotionality and antisocial behavior play a signifcant role in sexually abusive behavior against peers and a 

limited etiological role in sexually abusive behavior toward children. 

Kemper and Kistner (2010) gathered archival data on 296 male adolescents who were committed to a residential 

high-risk facility for serious and/or chronic offenders aged 12–19. The study examined the strength of the 

relationship between victim-age-based subgroup membership and personal, criminal history and offense history 

variables. Consistent with previous research, juveniles who offended against children tended to victimize male 

and female relatives while peer offenders tended to victimize female acquaintances. Child and mixed-victim-age 

offenders were more likely to have been victims of sexual abuse. Peer offenders had a more extensive nonsexual 

delinquent history. Few associations were found between subgroup membership and measures of physical abuse, 

social skills or impulsivity. Kemper and Kistner (2010) argued that victim age is more likely a proxy for pertinent 

factors associated with sexual offending and that these include the physical and emotional development of 

the victim. They proposed that when information related to the victim is used in classifcation, the combination 

method of using both victim age and offender-victim age discrepancy is preferable. 
240 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Miner and colleagues (2010) explored the relationship between sexual abuse perpetration and insecure attachment 

and adolescent social development. The researchers compared three samples of 13- to 18-year-old adolescent 

males: adolescents who committed sexual offenses against child victims, adolescents who committed sexual 

offenses against peer/adult victims and nonsexual delinquent youth. The results indicated that attachment 

style had an indirect effect on sexual abuse perpetration. Attachment anxiety affected involvement with 

peers and interpersonal adequacy. Feelings of interpersonal inadequacy, combined with oversexualization and 

positive attitudes toward others distinguished adolescents who committed sexual offenses against child victims 

from nonsexual delinquents and from adolescents who committed sexual offenses against peer/adult victims. 

Attachment anxiety with a lack of misanthropic attitudes toward others appears to lead to isolation from peers 

and feelings of interpersonal inadequacy. The researchers proposed that individuals with this constellation of 

factors may turn to children to meet their exaggerated intimacy and sexual needs. The data suggest that youth 

who assault peers or adults are not substantially different from other delinquent youth on most measures. 

Faniff and Kolko (2012) studied a sample of 176 males adjudicated for a sexual offense who were considered 

low risk and court ordered to participate in outpatient treatment. Participants were classifed into one of 

three groups based on their victim’s age: child victims (at least four years younger than the offender), peer/ 

adult victims or both types of victims (referred to as “mixed”). Regardless of victim type, the researchers 

found more similarities than differences across the groups in regard to maltreatment experiences, antisocial 

tendencies, mental health functioning, family functioning and recidivism risk. In contrast to much of the 

research discussed above, Faniff and Kolko concluded that it is not clear that the selection of a particular type 

of victim is indicative of unique risks and needs, and suggested that subtyping based on criminal history or 

personality measures may prove more meaningful. They acknowledged, however, that there is a pattern across 

studies suggesting greater anxiety and internalizing problems in juveniles with child victims. Similarly, juveniles 

with peer/adult victims had higher general rearrest rates, consistent with the hypothesis that juveniles who 

select peer/adult victims are more generally antisocial than those who select child victims. The current study 

was not able to draw any frm conclusions about mixed offenders given how few were present in the sample. 

Miner et al. (2014) followed up on a previous study and further explored the association between insecure 

attachment to parents, social isolation and interpersonal adequacy, as they relate to adolescent sexual offending 

against children. The study compared adolescents who committed offenses against children (n = 140) and those 

who committed offenses against peer or adults (n = 92), with a sample of similarly aged males in treatment 

for mental health or substance use issues (n = 93). The results of the current study replicated prior Miner et 

al. (2010) fndings that anxious attachment had an indirect effect on child sexual abuse perpetration through 

social isolation and interpersonal inadequacy. The authors hypothesize, “that when an adolescent experiences 

isolation from peers, this anxious attachment could contribute to feelings of further isolation and alienation, 

and is related to feelings of inadequacy, especially in the masculine role... Sexual offending may be an attempt 

to compensate for this inadequacy” (p. 147). The study found that sexual offending against peer/adults was 

related to sexual behavioral control, as opposed to interpersonal functioning as it relates to attachment, social 

involvement or masculine adequacy. Sexual compulsivity, or perceived lack of control over sexual behavior, 

distinguished both sexual offending groups of adolescents from the adolescent group with mental health or 

substance abuse problems. 

Zeng et al. (2014) investigated if there were differences in the risk and criminogenic needs of 167 Singaporean 

youth who sexually offended based on two typologies. The study compared the risk and need profles of a) 

youth who offended only sexually and youth who offended sexually and nonsexually (see discussion below in 

Delinquent History) and b) youth who sexually offended against child victims and youth who sexually offended 

against nonchild victims. The study was retrospective in nature, utilizing clinical fle reviews and administering 

the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) (Hoge & Andrews, 2010) and the Estimated 

Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR) (Worling & Curwen, 2001) ratings. Regarding sexual 

reoffending risk factors, a greater number of previous sexual assaults was the only factor that differentiated 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 241 

youth who sexually offended against child victims from youth who offended against nonchild victims. A 

possible explanation for this difference could be a greater availability of child victims, and a lower risk of a 

child victim being able to resist an older and stronger perpetrator. Youth who offended against child victims 

did not differ signifcantly from youth who offended against nonchild victims in terms of level of general 

criminogenic needs. 

Leroux et al. (2016) examined a Canadian sample (n = 162) comparing adolescents who had sexually offended 

against children, adolescents who have offended against peers or adults and adolescents who had victims in 

both age groups. Participants were compared on several factors including childhood sexual abuse, atypical 

sexual interests, sexual experience, social competence, psychiatric history and general delinquency. The authors 

concluded that the study results provide further support for the validity of distinguishing adolescents who 

commit sexual offenses by victim age, as synthesized in the following table: 

Adolescents With Child Victims Adolescents With Peer or Adult Victims 

• Less sexually experienced, which suggests they are more 

likely to offend against children secondary to lacking the 

sexual and social maturity to form intimate relationships 

with peers 

• Most sexually atypical 

• Lower on measures of general delinquency 

• Results “partially support the hypothesis that adolescent 

sexual offending against children is better explained by 

special explanation factors rather than general delinquency 

factors” (p. 91) 

• More likely to have inficted more physical harm on 

their victims 

• More likely to have been under infuence of 

substances at time of offense 

• Most severe behavioral problems include higher rates 

of general substance use, prior conduct disorder, and 

disruptive behavior disorder at time of assessment 

• Results more consistent with the general delinquency 

explanation 

The results suggest that adolescents with mixed victim age (both child and peer/adult victims) constitute a 

distinct group of offenders and that both general delinquency and special explanation factors contribute to 

the onset of the mixed victim age type of sexual offending. It further implies that this subtype of juvenile who 

has committed a sexual offense has the most treatment needs. 

Joyal, Carpentier and Martin (2016) assessed the value of subgrouping juveniles who have committed sexual 

offenses based on victim age and secondarily, based on sibling incest. Retrospective data was collected 

on 351 adolescent males from the archives of a legal forensic center in Montreal. The results of the study 

“further confrms the usefulness of distinguishing [juvenile sexual offenders] of children versus [juvenile 

sexual offenders] of peers/adults” (p. 18). 

JSOs With Child Victims JSOs With Peer or Adult Victims 

• Socially isolated or rejected by their peers 

• Low social competence 

• Atypical sexual interests 

• Present antisocial profle: diverse criminality, criminal 

activity with peers, using drugs and alcohol and 

conduct disorder diagnosis 

• Have more peer-aged friends 

• Previous consensual sex with peer-age teen 

• Targeted an unknown victim 

Sibling incest juvenile sex offenders were more likely to have been sexually victimized during their own 

childhood, suggesting that victimization is more strongly related to family relation than victim age. Compared 

to juvenile sex offenders with extrafamilial child victims, sibling incest juvenile sex offenders were also less 
242 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

likely to have much younger friends and to be socially isolated or rejected by peers and more likely to have 

received a conduct disorder diagnosis. The authors argued that these fndings indicate that sibling incest 

offenders have more varied and complex treatment needs, stating that the overall fndings of the study “stress 

the importance of considering subtypes of juvenile sex offending in treatment plan elaboration” (p. 20). 

Subtypes Based on Delinquent History 

Butler and Seto (2002) sought to distinguish between adolescents who sexually offend based on nonsexual 

offense history. Based on their criminal records, 114 male adolescent offenders were divided into three groups: 

adolescents who commit sexual offenses, versatile offenders and nonaggressive offenders. The adolescents 

who committed sexual offenses were further classifed as “sex only” if they had only been charged with sex 

offenses or as “sex plus” if they had ever been charged with a nonsexual offense. Youth were compared on 

measures of childhood conduct problems, current behavioral adjustment, antisocial attitudes and beliefs and 

risk for future delinquency. The researchers found that sex-only adolescents who committed sexual offenses 

had signifcantly fewer childhood conduct problems, better current adjustment, more prosocial attitudes and 

a lower risk for future delinquency than did the adolescents who committed nonsexual offenses. Sex-plus 

adolescents resembled criminally versatile offenders. Butler and Seto concluded that differences between 

sex-only and sex-plus adolescents who committed sexual offenses refect a valid typological distinction and 

that this discrimination has implications for differential intervention. Sex-plus adolescents are at higher 

risk for general reoffending than are sex-only adolescents and are more likely to beneft from treatment 

targeting general delinquency factors. They may also be more likely to require multisystemic interventions that 

simultaneously address individual, family and social infuences on antisocial behavior. 

Zakireh, Ronis and Knight (2008) found that juveniles who have committed sexual offenses may share a 

number of common diffculties with general delinquents because many of these youth have similar patterns of 

criminal offending. Thus, sexual offending may be part of a broader pattern of serious antisocial behavior for a 

proportion of sexual offending juveniles. 

As a follow-up to the above-noted Butler and Seto (2002), Pullman et al. (2014) compared sex-only (n = 71) and 

sex-plus (n = 87) sexually abusive adolescents on a range of antisocial and atypical sexual interest variables and 

variables associated with specialist models of sexual offending. The sex-plus adolescents had to have a sexual 

and nonsexual delinquent history and/or a history of moderate to severe conduct disorder before age 10. The 

sex-plus adolescents were further differentiated between early onset (moderate to severe conduct problems 

before age 10) and late onset. A synthesis of the fndings differentiated the two groups as follows: 

Sex-Only Offenders Sex-Plus Offenders 

• More atypical sexual interests 

• Greater defcits in romantic relationships 

• More likely to have a child victim 

• More likely to have a male victim 

• More likely to be diagnosed with antisocial 

personality traits 

• More likely to use drugs 

• Exhibit more psychiatric issues 

• Greater defcits in general social skills 

• Caused more physical injury to victim and more likely 

to use weapon 

• More likely to have familial psychiatric and substance 

abuse history 

• More likely to be living in single-parent home 

• More likely to have been physically abused 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 243 

Little support was found for the use of the early vs. late-onset classifcation scheme. The overall results provide 

further support for the validity of a sex-only vs. sex-plus distinction, as well as supporting the generalist/ 

specialist literature as it relates to etiology. Generalists are more driven by general antisocial factors, which 

suggests that treatment focused on delinquency factors will be more effective. Sex-only adolescents appear 

to be more driven by specialist explanations and, as such, should receive specialized interventions, including 

addressing diffculty with romantic partnerships and atypical sexual interests. 

McCuish, Lussier and Corrado (2015) utilized Loeber and Hay’s (1994) three pathway model in assessing 

differences in antisocial pathways within juveniles who had committed sexual offenses and juveniles who had 

committed nonsexual delinquency. The fnal sample consisted of 51 juvenile sexual offenders and 94 juvenile 

nonsexual offenders incarcerated in open and secure custody facilities in British Columbia, Canada. The results 

indicated the presence of multiple antisocial behavioral pathways in juvenile sexual offenders that refect 

those of nonsexual offenders. A Low Antisocial group was the most prevalent pathway, representing about 

50 percent for both juvenile sexual and nonsexual offenders. The other half of the sample of both juvenile 

sexual and nonsexual offenders was almost evenly split between the Overt and Covert groups, and can be 

distinguished based on their pattern of predominantly covert or overt antisocial behavior. 

Juvenile Sexual Offenders — Overt Group Juvenile Sexual Offenders — Covert Group 

• May have engaged in sexual offending as part of an 

escalating and long-standing (before age 12) pattern of 

aggressive and violent behavior 

• Sexual victims were more likely to be aware of their 

victimizer because the overt confrontational nature 

• Types of behaviors require actively avoiding detection 

• Sexual offense may have refected well-concealed and 

deceitful pattern that possibly included identifying 

vulnerable victims who were less likely to report 

(e.g., a mentally disabled child, children under their 

supervision while babysitting or severely intoxicated 

individuals) 

The authors posit that the fndings support the need for more precise assessments of the antisocial behavior 

profle in order to determine whether there is a link between the nature of the antisocial behavior pathway 

and the modus operandi of a juvenile sexual offender’s offense. This should include assessment of criminogenic 

factors and risk for general recidivism, which research suggests is the most likely outcome of juvenile sexual 

offenders who reoffend. 

As discussed above, Zeng et al. (2015) investigated if there were differences in the risk and criminogenic needs 

of 167 Singaporean youth who sexually offended based on two typologies, one of which was comparing youth 

who offended both sexually and nonsexually to youth who offended only sexually. Youth who offended both 

sexually and nonsexually were found to have higher risk and criminogenic needs as compared to youth who 

engaged in sexual offending only. This suggests that criminally diverse youth who sexually offended may be 

infuenced by general criminogenic risk and needs factors. The study results also are consistent with prior 

research fndings that youth who offended sexually and nonsexually bear similarities to nonsexual delinquent 

youth in their group characteristics. The authors suggested that antisocial interpersonal orientation, a lack of 

intimate peer relationships, interpersonal aggression, and problematic parent–child relationships represent 

particularly salient risk factors and needs for youth who offended sexually and nonsexually. 

Subtypes Based on Victim Age and Delinquent History 

Aebi and colleagues (2012) sampled 223 male children and adolescents aged 10–18 who had been convicted 

of sexual assaults against children, sexual assaults against adolescents and adults, coercive sexual behavior, 

exhibitionism and sexual harassment in Zurich, Switzerland. The research tested the validity of typing sexually 

abusive juveniles based on victim age, co-offender status and crime history. The best evidence was found for 
244 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

the victim-age-based subtype that differentiated juveniles who offended against children from those who 

had offended against adolescents and adults. Consistent with fndings from previous research, Aebi and 

his colleagues found that offenders against children were younger at the time of offense, less likely to be 

of foreign nationality, more likely to have male victims and showed less aggression in their offenses. The 

researchers also found that sexual offense severity was higher among child offenders and included more 

intrusive behaviors relative to adolescents who had offended against adolescents and adults. The consideration 

of a distinct underlying psychological mechanism differentiating offenders based on victim age may be 

important for intervention planning. 

Although there was some support for juveniles who offend against children as a separate type, Aebi and 

colleagues (2012) concluded that the limited validity and lack of independence found for the three types 

strongly suggest that a comprehensive typology is not feasible. The researchers suggested that a dimensional 

approach based on the following factors is more adequate for describing juveniles who have committed sexual 

offenses: 

• Single offender with severe molestation of a related child 

• Persistent general delinquent with migrant background 

• Older offender with alcohol use and familial constraints 

• Multiple and aggressive offender with social adversities 

• Offender with unselected and multiple victims 

Aebi and colleagues (2012, p. 283) concluded that these fndings suggest “distinct dimensions of criminality 

implying different pathways that lead to sexual offending in youth” and proposed that the identifcation of 

criminality dimensions in terms of relevant patterns of sexual offending characteristics may be more useful in 

guiding treatment intervention. 

Subtypes Based on Victim Age and Personality Characteristic 

Carpenter, Peed and Eastman (1995) compared the personality characteristics of adolescents who committed 

sexual offenses by examining the extent (if any) to which personality differences exist between adolescents 

who offend against their peers and adolescents who offend against younger children. The sample consisted 

of 36 adolescents who committed sexual offenses (16 peer offenders and 20 child offenders) and who were 

committed to Virginia’s Department of Youth and Family Services. The researchers found that adolescents 

who molested children are more schizoid, avoidant and dependent than adolescents who offended against 

peers. The adolescents who offended against children frequently demonstrated a pattern of withdrawing 

from social encounters with peers and, as such, commonly experienced loneliness and isolation. In discussing 

these fndings, Carpenter and his colleagues (1995, p. 196) stated that these results “may help explain why 

adolescent sexual offenders against children gravitate to their victims.” Results also suggest that adolescents 

who offend against peers have an infated self-image and are arrogant and interpersonally exploitative. 

Evidence suggests that the design and effectiveness of treatment programs may be enhanced if the personality 

differences between the type of victim (child or peer) can be taken into account. 

Worling (2001) examined the California Psychological Inventory Scores from 112 males aged 12–19 who 

committed sexual offenses. A cluster analysis of the factor-derived scores revealed four personality-based 

subtypes and associated characteristics: 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 245 

• Antisocial/impulsive youth are likely to have a propensity for rule violations. Their sexual offending, at least 

initially, is more a result of this factor than deviant sexual arousal. Descriptors of this subgroup may include 

anxious, unhappy and rebellious. 

• Unusual/isolated youth are emotionally disturbed and insecure. They are characterized by a peculiar 

presentation and social isolation. Their awkward personality features may inhibit their ability to develop 

and maintain healthy and intimate relationships with consenting peers. 

• Overcontrolled/reserved youth endorse prosocial attitudes, are cautious to interact with others and tend to 

keep their feelings to themselves. 

• Confdent/aggressive youth are confdent, self-centered, outgoing, aggressive and sociable. 

Signifcant differences were observed among the groups regarding history of physical abuse, parental marital 

status, residence of the juveniles and whether or not they received criminal charges for their initial sexual 

assaults. Membership in the subgroups was unrelated to victim age, victim gender and the juvenile’s history 

of sexual victimization. The juveniles in the two most pathological groups — antisocial/impulsive and unusual/ 

isolated — were most likely to be charged with a subsequent violent (sexual or nonsexual) or nonviolent offense. 

Worling reported that 39 percent of his sample was sexually victimized, with no between-group differences being 

found. Twice as many juveniles in the antisocial/impulsive group had a history of physical victimization compared 

to the other groups in the study. Worling asserted that these results provided evidence for heterogeneity in the 

presence and nature of psychopathology, personality characteristics and social functioning in adolescents who 

commit sexual offenses and of different etiological pathways and treatment needs. 

Richardson and colleagues (2004) described a personality-based taxonomy based on an outpatient sample 

of 112 sexually abusive adolescents. Five subgroups were derived from cluster analytic procedures applied 

to personality pattern scales scores from the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI): normal, antisocial, 

submissive, dysthymic/inhibited and dysthymic/negativistic. The groups were also found to be differentiated on 

MACI’s psychopathology scales, with mood disorders indicated in three of the fve subgroups. The study results 

provide evidence of the heterogeneity of adolescents who sexually abuse in both personality characteristics 

and psychopathology. A comparison of the groups differentiated on the basis of victim characteristics did 

not indicate a relationship between personality and sexual offense. The broad clinical distinction between 

internalizing and externalizing disorders was found to be valid in this sample. The researchers suggested that 

it may be better clinical practice to facilitate treatment planning that is based on subgroup membership, as 

evidenced by personality type and clinical presentation. 

Summary 

The dearth of research on juveniles who have committed sexual offenses in the 1980s resulted in a “trickledown” approach, in which an adult sexual offender model was used that supported a narrow and specialized 

one-size-fts-all treatment and supervision approach. The national experts who participated in the SOMAPI 

forum identifed the importance of individualizing treatment for juveniles who commit sexual offenses. 

In addition, research has increasingly demonstrated the heterogeneity of the population of juveniles who 

have committed sexual offenses in regard to etiological pathways, offending patterns, delinquent history, 

personality characteristics and clinical presentation, and risk for sexual and nonsexual recidivism. The 

integration of fndings from etiological and typology studies suggests differential risk and treatment and 

supervision needs. 
246 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

The importance of using individualized treatment and supervision strategies was also acknowledged by the 

experts at the SOMAPI forum. Related to typologies, Knight and Prentky (1993, p. 77) provide a balanced 

assessment of the use of clinical labels: 

Clinical labels have some negative consequences. If however, we refrain from applying labels because of 

fears about the possible negative consequences of the misapplication of such labels, we would also forfeit 

our chances of discerning causes, of designing intervention programs that address the more specifc needs 

of subgroups, of identifying vulnerable individuals who might proft from primary prevention programs, 

and of improving our dispositional decisions about specifc subgroups of offenders.... Thus, categorization 

yields multiple advantages, and must be pursued. We must also remain cognizant of the limits of our 

taxonomic models and continually challenge our constructs and scrutinize the empirical validity of the 

measures and types we generate. 

Typology research dealing with juveniles who commit sexual offenses has focused primarily on the subtyping 

of juvenile offenders based on victim age, delinquent history and personality characteristics. This research has 

yielded substantial insights in regard to identifying differential etiological paths, typological characteristics 

and associated treatment targets. Although there is a great deal of diversity in juvenile sexual offenders, there 

is increasing research support for both victim-age based and sex-only vs. sex-plus theories for differentiating 

subtypes of juvenile sexual offenders. There appears to be a convergence of research that delineates subtypes 

differentiated by the presence of a nonsexual delinquent history and a general delinquency orientation 

(generalists) versus juveniles whose sexual offending is associated with issues related to anxious attachment, 

social and sexual immaturity and inadequacy, and social isolation (specialists). A small subset of the specialists 

manifests atypical sexual interests. Given the large number of potential infuences and interactions of sexual 

offending characteristics, Aebi and colleagues (2012) argue that juvenile sexual offenders may be better 

described by using dimensional measures rather than assigning them to specifc types. The research to date has 

provided very useful information regarding dimensions that include trauma and chaotic family environments, 

attachment, psychosocial adjustment, delinquent history and orientation, co-occurring mental health problems, 

sexual drive and preoccupation, and atypical sexual interests. 

The evolving knowledge on etiological pathways and typologies is increasingly informing intervention 

practices, particularly the ability of sex offender management professionals to design intervention programs 

that address the specifc risk and needs of subgroups of juveniles who commit sexual offenses. Empirical 

evidence concerning the prevalence of child maltreatment in early development offers support for continuing 

treatment aimed at victimization and trauma resolution with sexually abusive youth. Developmental models, 

which have included early childhood experiences and family functioning, should be broadened to include 

larger social variables such as exposure to sexually violent media and characteristics of social ecologies. 

While research has documented the heterogeneity and differential treatment and supervision needs that 

exist within the juvenile offender population, policy responses tend to be designed with only the highest risk 

offenders in mind. Rather than using a one-size-fts-all approach, legislative initiatives should encourage risk 

assessment and the application of aggressive strategies and the most intensive interventions only for those 

offenders who require the greatest level of supervision, treatment and personal restriction. In this way, both 

community safety and the successful rehabilitation of youth who offend can be ensured. 

Note 

1. Primary prevention approaches occur before sexual violence to stop initial victimization; tertiary prevention 

approaches occur after sexual victimization to address the consequences to the victim as well as the 

management of known sex offenders to minimize the possibility of reoffense (Association for the Treatment of 

Sexual Abusers, 2013). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 247 

References 

Aebi, M., Vogt, G., Plattner, B., Steinhausen, H.C. & Bessler, C. (2012). Offender types and criminality dimensions 

in male juveniles convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (24)3, 

265–288. 

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (2013). Sexual Violence Prevention Fact Sheet. Beaverton, OR: 

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Retrieved from: www.atsa.com/sexual-violence-preventionfact-sheet. 

Awad, G.A. & Saunders, E.B. (1991). Male adolescent sexual assaulters: Clinical observations. Sexual Abuse: A 

Journal of Research and Treatment, (6)4, 102–115, 446–460. 

Berman, A.K. & Knight, R.A. (2015). The Relation of Familiarity With Sexual Abusers to Subsequent 

Developmental Adaptation in Youths Who Have Sexually Offended. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, (27)6, 587–608. 

Boonmann, C., van Vugt, E.S., Jansen, L.M.C., Colin, O.F., Doreleijers, T.A.H., Stams, J.M. & Vermeiren, R.J.M. 

(2015). Mental disorders in juveniles who sexually offended: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 

24, 241–249. 

Burton, D.L. (2008). An exploratory evaluation of the contribution of personality and childhood sexual 

victimization to the development of sexually abusive behavior. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, (20)1, 102–115. 

Burton, D.L., Leibowitz, G.S. & Howard, A. (2010). Comparison by crime type of juvenile delinquents on 

pornography exposure: The absence of relationships of exposure to pornography and sexual offense 

characteristics. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 6, 121–129. 

Burton, D.L., Miller, D.L. & Shill, C.T. (2002). A social learning theory comparison of the sexual victimization of 

adolescent sexual offenders and nonsexual offending male delinquents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 893–907. 

Butler, S.M. & Seto, M.C. (2002). Distinguishing two types of adolescent sex offenders. Journal of the American 

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, (41)1, 83–90. 

Carpenter D., Peed, S. & Eastman, B. (1995). Personality characteristics of adolescent sexual offenders: A pilot 

study. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7(5), 195–203. 

Cavanaugh, D.J., Pimenthal, A. & Prentky, R. (2008). A descriptive study of sexually abusive boys and girls — 

externalizing behaviors. In B.K. Schwartz (Ed.), The Sex Offender: Offender Evaluation and Program Strategies, 

vol. VI (pp. 12-1–12-21). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Daversa, M.T. & Knight, R.A. (2007). A structural examination of the predictors of sexual coercion against 

children in adolescent sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(10), 1313–1333. 

Faniff, A.M., & Kolko, D.J. (2012). Victim age based subtypes for juveniles adjudicated for sexual offenses: 

Comparisons across domains in an outpatient sample. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 

(24)3, 224–264. 

Felizzi, M.V. (2015). Family or Caregiver Instability, Parental Attachment, and the Relationship to Juvenile Sex 

Offending. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24, 641–658. 
248 CHAPTER 2: ETIOLOGY AND TYPOLOGIES OF JUVENILES WHO HAVE COMMITTED SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Grabell, A.S., & Knight, R.A. (2009). Examining child abuse patterns and sensitive periods in juvenile sexual 

offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (21)2, 208–222. 

Hunter, J.A. (2009). The sexual crimes of juveniles. In R.R. Hazelwood & A.W. Burgess (Eds.), Practical Aspects of 

Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Hunter, J.A., & Figueredo, A.J. (2000). The infuence of personality and history of sexual victimization in the 

prediction of juvenile perpetrated child molestation. Behavior Modifcation, 24(2), 241–263. 

Hunter, J.A., Figueredo, A.J., Malamuth, N.M. & Becker, J. (2003). Juvenile sex offenders: Toward the 

development of a typology. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (15)1. 

Hunter, J.A., Hazelwood, R.R. & Slesinger, D. (2000). Juvenile perpetrated sex crimes: Patterns of offending and 

predictors of violence. Journal of Family Violence, 15(1), 81–93. 

Johnson, G.M. & Knight, R.A. (2000). Developmental antecedents of sexual coercion in juvenile sexual 

offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (12)3, 165–178. 

Joyal, C.C., Carpentier, J. & Martin, C. (2016). Discriminant factors for adolescent sexual offending: On the 

usefulness of considering both victim age and sibling incest. Child Abuse & Neglect, 54, 10–22. 

Kemper, T.S., & Kistner, J.A. (2010). An evaluation of classifcation criteria for juvenile sex offenders. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (22)2, 172–190. 

Knight, R.A. & Sims-Knight, J.E. (2004). Testing an etiological model for male juvenile sexual offending against 

females. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(3/4), 33–55. 

Knight, R.A. & Prentky, R.A. (1993). Exploring characteristics for classifying juvenile sex offenders. In H.E. 

Barabaree, W.E. Marshall & S.M. Hudson (Eds.), The Juvenile Sex Offender (pp. 45–83). New York: Guilford. 

Kobayashi, J., Sales, B.D., Becker, J.V., Figueredo, A.J. & Kaplan, M.S. (1995). Perceived parental deviance, 

parent-child bonding, child abuse and child sexual aggression. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, (7)1, 25–44. 

Leibowitz, G.S., Burton, D.L. & Howard, A. (2012). Differences between victimized and nonsexually victimized 

adolescent sexual abusers and delinquent youth: Further group comparisons of developmental antecedents 

and behavioral changes. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21, 315–326. 

Leroux, E.J., Pullman, L.E., Matayne, G. & Seto, M.C. (2016). Victim Age and the Generalist Versus Specialist 

Distinction in Adolescent Sexual Offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (28)2, 79–95. 

Marini, V., Leibowitz, G., Burton, D. & Stickle, T. (2014). Victimization, substance use and sexual aggression in 

male adolescent sexual offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(5), 635–649. 

McCuish, E.C., Lussier, P. & Corrado, R.R. (2015). Examining Antisocial Behavioral Antecedents of Juvenile Sexual 

Offenders and Nonsexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (27)4, 414–438. 

Miner, M.H., Robinson, B.E., Knight, R.A., Berg, D., Swinburne Romine, R. & Netland, J. (2010). Understanding 

sexual perpetration against children: Effects of attachment style, interpersonal involvement, and 

hypersexuality. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (20)3, 58–77. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 249 

Miner, M.H., Romine, R.S., Robinson, B.E., Berg, D. & Knight, R.A. (2014). Anxious Attachment, Social Isolation 

and Indicators of Sex Drive and Compulsivity: Predictors of Child Sex Abuse Perpetration in Adolescent Males. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (28)2, 132–153. 

Pullman, L.E., Leroux, E.J, Matayne, G. & Seto, M.C. (2014). Examining the developmental trajectories of 

adolescent sexual offenders. Child Abuse and Neglect, 38, 1249–1258. 

Richardson, G., Kelly, T., Graham, F. & Bhate, S. (2004). Personality-based classifcation derived from the 

Personality Pattern scales from the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI). British Journal of Clinical 

Psychology, 43, 258–298. 

Seto, M. & Lalumiere, M. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending: A review and test 

of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526–575. 

Veniziano, C., Veniziano, L. & LeGrand, S. (2000). The relationship between adolescent sex offender behaviors 

and victim characteristics with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(4), 363–374. 

Wanklyn, S.G., Ward, A.K., Cormier, M.S., Day, D.M. & Newman, J.E. (2012). Can We Distinguish Juvenile Violent 

Sex Offenders, Violent, Nonsex Offenders and Versatile Violent Sex Offenders Based on Childhood Risk Factors? 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, (27)11, 2128–2143. 

Worling, J.R. (1995). Sexual abuse histories of adolescent male sex offenders: Differences on the basis of the 

age and gender of their victims. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104(4), 610–613. 

Worling, J.R. (2001). Personality-based typology of adolescent male sexual offenders: Differences in recidivism 

rates, victim selection characteristics, and personal victimization histories. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research 

and Treatment, 13(3), 149–166. 

Yoder, J.R., Leibowitz, J.S. & Peterson, L. (2016). Parental and Peer Attachment Characteristics: Differentiating 

between Youth Sexual and Nonsexual Offenders and Associations with Sexual Offense Profles. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 2016 Feb 12. pii: 0886260516628805. [Epub ahead of print]. 

Zakireh, B., Ronis, S.T. & Knight, R.A. (2008). Individual beliefs, attitudes, and victimization histories of male 

juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20(3), 323–351. 

Zeng, G., Chu, C.M., Koh, L.L. & Teoh, J. (2015). Risk and Criminogenic Needs of Youth Who Sexually Offended 

in Singapore: An Examination of Two Typologies. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, (27)5, 

479–495. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 251 

Chapter 3: Recidivism of Juveniles 

Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

by Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky 

FINDINGS 

◆ There does not appear to be a signifcant difference in the rate of either sexual or general recidivism between 

juveniles who commit sexual offenses against peer or adult victims and those who commit sexual offenses against 

child victims. 

◆ The observed sexual recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses range from about 7 percent to 

13 percent after 59 months, depending on the study. 

◆ Recidivism rates for juveniles who commit sexual offenses are generally lower than those observed for adult sexual 

offenders. 

◆ Juveniles who commit sexual offenses have higher rates of general recidivism than sexual recidivism. 

Introduction 

J

uveniles who commit sexual offenses have come under increasing scrutiny from the public and 

policymakers in the past 25 years. Previously, this population was not seen as a signifcant public safety 

threat and was instead viewed with a “boys will be boys” attitude. However, in a series of studies 

conducted in the late 1970s and early ’80s that featured retrospective sexual history interviews with adult 

sexual offenders, many adults reported they began their sexual offending during adolescence. These fndings 

led practitioners and policymakers to focus more attention on juveniles who commit sexual offenses as a way 

to prevent adult sexual offending. 

In the absence of knowledge on juveniles who commit sexual offenses, interventions for these juveniles 

were constructed using existing theories and practices designed for adults. That juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses might differ from adult sexual offenders was rarely considered. Also, little consideration was given 

to any differences that might exist between juveniles who commit sexual offenses and those who commit 

nonsexual offenses. Since the 1980s, a signifcant body of knowledge specifc to juveniles who commit 

sexual offenses has been developed, particularly in relation to the characteristics of these youth and their 

propensity to reoffend. To accomplish this, researchers employed methodologies very different from those 

that retrospectively examined the offending history of adult sex offenders. These methodologies enabled 

researchers to better understand the experiences, characteristics and behaviors of juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses, including recidivism rates and patterns. 

This chapter provides a review of recidivism research on juveniles who commit sexual offenses. Research 

fndings concerning both sexual and general recidivism are presented. Findings concerning general recidivism 

are important because many juveniles who commit sexual offenses also engage or will engage in nonsexual 

criminal offending. In fact, research has demonstrated that juveniles who commit sexual offenses are more 

likely to recidivate in a nonsexual rather than a sexual manner. Sexual recidivism and general recidivism are 

both risks to public safety. 
252 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

 

Prior to reviewing the recidivism research, a defnition of recidivism is needed. Recidivism has been 

conceptually defned as the return to criminal behavior by an individual previously convicted of or adjudicated 

for a criminal offense (Maltz, 2001). It is indicative of a criminal offender’s recurrent failure to follow the law 

despite having been subject to some type of response from the criminal or juvenile justice system. Recidivism 

is not merely repeat offending, but rather refers to the recurrence of illegal behavior after a criminal offender 

receives negative legal consequences, including legal supervision, rehabilitative treatment or some form of 

residential or institutional placement. (For more information on the “Effectiveness of Treatment for Juveniles 

Who Sexually Offend,” see Chapter 5 in the Juvenile section.) Given the profound impact that sexual recidivism 

has on victims and the community, it is important to know the patterns and rates of recidivism attributed 

to juveniles who commit sexual offenses. However, sexual recidivism has proven diffcult to quantify for 

both juveniles and adults for a number of reasons; the main reason is the extent to which sexual crimes are 

underreported to authorities. As a result, sexual recidivism rates do not necessarily capture the true extent 

of sexual reoffense, and all analyses of recidivism research must be mindful of this limitation. In addition, 

recidivism has been defned and operationalized by researchers in various ways (e.g., self-report, rearrest/new 

charge, readjudication for juveniles under age 18 or reconviction for those who have now become adults, and 

recommitment for juveniles or reincarceration for adults). This hampers cross-study comparisons and often 

results in variations in observed recidivism rates that are primarily artifacts of different study methodologies. 

Despite these limitations, recidivism research on juveniles who commit sexual offenses provides an empirical 

basis for understanding both the absolute and relative risk of reoffense posed by this population. Trustworthy 

data on the recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses, and how they compare to rates found for 

both adult sex offenders and other juvenile offenders, can help policymakers and practitioners at the federal, 

state and local levels develop interventions that are not only effective, but also appropriate and proportionate. 

This chapter does not present an exhaustive review of the recidivism research related to juveniles who 

commit sexual offenses, but instead focuses on studies deemed to be important for a general understanding 

of recidivism rates and patterns. This review also does not address the risk factors related to recidivism, the 

manner in which recidivism risk might be mitigated through treatment or supervision practices, or research 

fndings on adult sexual offender recidivism. Research on the effectiveness of treatment for juveniles who 

commit sexual offenses is reviewed in Chapter 5 of the Juvenile section. Findings from research on the 

recidivism of adult sexual offenders may be found in Chapter 5 in the Adult section. Finally, it should be noted 

that for ease in reading, data presented in this chapter have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 

Issues to Consider 

The following measurement issues, which can impact the recidivism rates observed in studies, should be 

considered when reviewing the fndings presented in this chapter: 

• Recidivism rates are not true reoffense rates. As noted above, recidivism rates are typically based on offcial 

criminal or juvenile justice records pertaining to an arrest, criminal adjudication or conviction, or commitment 

or incarceration. These records do not include any of the substantial number of sexual offenses that do not 

come to the attention of criminal or juvenile justice authorities. For example, Bachman (1998) found that only 

about one in four rapes or sexual assaults were reported to police, and Tjaden and Thoennes (2006) found 

that only 19 percent of women and 13 percent of men who were raped since their 18th birthday reported 

the rape to the police. Child victims report at an even lower rate. Even when a sex crime is reported to police, 

relatively few are cleared by arrest and even fewer result in a conviction/adjudication or incarceration. In a 

prospective study of adolescents, for example, Grotpeter and Elliot (2002) found that the rate of arrest for 

those who reported committing a sexual offense was between 3 and 10 percent, depending on the severity 

of the sex crime (Grotpeter & Elliott, 2002). Therefore, observed recidivism rates for juveniles who commit 

sexual offenses likely underrepresent the true incidence of reoffense for this population, particularly for 

sexual crimes. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 253 

• Recidivism rates are often calculated differently from one study to the next. Different recidivism measures 

such as rearrest, readjudication as a juvenile or reconviction as an adult and recommitment (for juveniles) 

or reincarceration (for adults) can produce different recidivism rates, as can variations in the length of 

the follow-up period used in a particular study. This makes cross-study comparisons of recidivism rates 

diffcult. Studies using rearrest as a recidivism measure will typically produce higher observed recidivism 

rates than studies using readjudication or recommitment because only a subset of all arrests ultimately end 

in adjudication or commitment. Similarly, studies employing longer follow-up periods will tend to produce 

higher observed recidivism rates because the offenders being studied will have more time to reoffend and 

more time to be identifed as a recidivist by authorities. 

Differences in juvenile research populations may also lead to different recidivism results. Juveniles who have 

been released from a residential or correctional facility may be fundamentally different from those placed 

under community supervision in terms of overall risk for recidivism. Similarly, much of the juvenile recidivism 

literature involves youth of vastly different ages. There are signifcant differences between an 11-year-old 

and a 17-year-old, and the age of the juveniles in a study sample should be considered when interpreting 

individual study results or when making cross-study comparisons. 

• Recidivism rates for juvenile females who commit sexual offenses are relatively unknown. Most studies of 

juveniles who commit sexual offenses employ samples or populations that are exclusively or predominantly 

male. Even those studies that do include females do not necessarily identify the unique recidivism rate for 

this population. Therefore, knowledge about recidivism for juvenile females remains obscure at this time, 

and the fndings presented in this review should only be considered relevant for juvenile males. 

Both underreporting and measurement variation need to be considered when interpreting fndings presented 

in this review of recidivism research. Recognizing that the observed recidivism rates for juveniles who commit 

sexual offenses are not true reoffense rates will help ensure that risk to public safety is not underestimated. 

Understanding how differences across research studies may impact recidivism fndings can also assist 

policymakers and practitioners in avoiding interpretation errors and in identifying the most appropriate 

intervention strategies. 

Summary of Research Findings 

Empirical data on the recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses come from two broad categories 

of research: single studies and meta-analyses. Single studies typically examine the recidivism rates of a group of 

juveniles at the end of one or more specifed follow-up periods using one or more recidivism measures. Metaanalyses, on the other hand, examine the results of many different individual studies to arrive at an overall 

conclusion about a particular issue, such as the likelihood of recidivism. They employ statistical procedures that 

effectively combine the results of many single studies into one large study that includes all of the single studies 

and subjects. This approach helps the analyst overcome problems in single studies created by small sample sizes 

and the use of different recidivism measures or follow-up periods. Findings from both single studies and metaanalyses are presented below. 

Pre-1980s Single Studies 

As noted, little was known about juveniles who commit sexual offenses prior to the mid-1980s, as little 

attention and arguably even less research were focused on this population. However, a handful of studies 

undertaken many years ago suggested that the recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses were 

extremely low. One such study from the 1940s reviewed the recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses without (n = 108) and with (n = 146) concurrent histories of nonsexual offenses. Those without a 
254 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

history of nonsexual offenses have been referred to as “exclusive offenders” or “specialists,” and those with 

a history of nonsexual offenses have been referred to as “mixed offenders” or “generalists.” The study found 

rates of recidivism, as defned as a sexual rearrest, of 2 percent for the exclusive juveniles and 10 percent for 

the mixed juveniles (Doshay, 1943, as cited in Schram, Milloy & Rowe, 1991). 

A second pre-1980 study focused on juveniles aged 7–16 seen by the Toronto Juvenile Court between 1939 

and 1948 (n = 116). Juvenile males who committed sexual offenses were returned to court for a new general 

criminal charge at a 41-percent rate (3 percent for sexual recidivism), as compared to a 55-percent rate of 

return to court for juveniles who committed nonsexual offenses (Atcheson & Williams, 1954). 

Historical Studies of Adult Sexual Offenders: Sexual History Interviews 

As noted, very few studies focused on juveniles who commit sexual offenses were undertaken prior to the 

1980s, and very little attention arguably was paid to this population by juvenile justice policymakers and 

practitioners. That all began to change, however, when a series of retrospective studies based on sexual history 

interviews with adult sex offenders was conducted in the late 1970s and early ’80s. In these studies, adult 

sex offenders self-reported a signifcant, previously unidentifed history of sexual offending, which included 

sexual offending as a juvenile. For example, 24 to 75 percent of the adult sex offenders reported committing 

sexual offenses that were unidentifed by authorities and 24 to 36 percent reported sexual offending that 

began when the respondent was a juvenile. In one of the studies (Longo & Groth, 1983), adult sexual offenders 

reported a juvenile history of indecent exposure and voyeurism, suggesting that juveniles who commit less 

severe sex crimes can progress to committing more serious adult sex offenses. Despite their limitations, these 

studies played a signifcant role in shifting policy and practice. Juveniles who commit sexual offenses began to 

be viewed as budding adult sex offenders, and efforts to intervene with this population began to be based on 

the assumption that they were fundamentally similar to adults who were engaged in sex offending behavior 

(see, for example, Groth, 1977; Groth, Longo & McFadin, 1982; Longo & Groth, 1983; Marshall, Barbaree & 

Eccles, 1991). 

Practitioners and policymakers arguably misinterpreted fndings from retrospective studies of adult sexual 

offenders by assuming that most juveniles who commit sexual offenses will continue to commit sexual offenses 

as adults if left unchecked. What was missing at that time was a forward-looking perspective that began 

with juveniles who commit sexual offenses and that examined the proportion of juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses who go on to recidivate later in life (examining their rates and patterns of recidivism later in life). 

However, the information presented above is exclusively focused on those who did report this progression 

from juvenile to adult sexual offenders and did not study those juveniles who did not engage in adult sexual 

offending. Further, no prospective recidivism data are offered on the adult sexual offenders in these studies, 

so much appeared to be unknown about the impact of juvenile sexual offending at that time. This outcome 

is an example of how studies can be misinterpreted and lead to inaccurate policies. As a result of these data, 

however, the assumption that juveniles who commit sexual offenses are the same as adult sexual offenders 

would become the subject of debate and study over the next two decades. 

Prospective National Youth Sample That Included Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

The National Youth Survey is an ongoing longitudinal study that began in 1976. The study has followed 

over time a nationally representative sample of 1,725 youth aged 11–17 in 1976, surveying them about their 

behaviors, attitudes and beliefs regarding various topics, including violence and offending. Members of the 

original study sample are now adults, and both they and their family members have been surveyed in recent 

waves of the study; hence, the study is now called the National Youth Survey Family Study. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 255 

 

In the 1992 survey wave (the latest for which relevant sexual offending data were collected), 6 percent of the 

sample reported having committed a sexual assault (n = 90), which was defned as youth who reported one 

sexual assault during the initial frst three waves of data collection, and 2 percent of the sample reported 

having committed a serious sexual assault (n = 41), which was defned as youth who reported two or more 

sexual assaults during the same time frame. In addition, 70 percent of those acknowledging a sexual offense 

reported the onset to have been prior to age 18. It should be noted that only 3 percent of the sexual assaulters, 

as defned above, reported being arrested for the crime, while 10 percent of the serious sexual assaulters, as 

defned above, reported being arrested. In terms of recidivism, 58 percent of those youth committing a sexual 

assault reported committing a subsequent sexual assault. Of the serious sexual assaulters, 78 percent reported 

committing another serious sexual assault. The rate of general reoffense was reported at 99 percent for those 

youth who committed a sexual offense. Finally, in terms of adult sexual assaults, 10 percent of those who 

committed a sexual assault as a juvenile also committed an adult sexual offense, while 17 percent of those who 

committed a serious sexual assault as a juvenile also committed an adult sexual offense (Grotpeter & Elliott, 

2002). 

While this research provides valuable insights about both the extent of sexual offending within the juvenile 

population and the recidivism of juveniles who commit sexual offenses, it is important to keep the following in 

mind when interpreting the study’s fndings: 

• The data produced in the study are based on self-reports. 

• The juveniles who reported sexual reoffenses were generally not subject to juvenile justice system 

intervention; therefore, the impact of such a mediating factor on sexual recidivism is unknown. 

Large-Scale Systematic Reviews, Including Meta-Analyses 

As mentioned, meta-analysis is a statistical technique that allows the analyst to synthesize the results of many 

individual studies. One feature of meta-analysis that is helpful for studying recidivism is its ability to generate 

an average recidivism rate based on a large number of offenders pooled from many different studies. Findings 

from four relevant meta-analyses of recidivism studies are presented below. 

The frst meta-analysis synthesized fndings from 79 studies involving 10,988 study subjects overall. The studies 

were undertaken between 1943 and 1996. The overall sample consisted of 1,025 juveniles who had committed a 

sexual offense. The average sexual recidivism rate for juveniles who had committed sexual offenses was 5 percent 

for those studies with one year of follow up, 22 percent for those studies with three years of follow up and 7 percent 

for those studies with fve or more years of follow up (Alexander, 1999). 

A second meta-analysis involved nine studies and 2,986 subjects, all of whom were juveniles who had 

committed a sexual offense. The vast majority of study subjects (2,604) were male. Based on an average followup period of 59 months, the study found a sexual recidivism rate of 13 percent, a nonsexual violent recidivism 

rate of 25 percent and a nonsexual and nonviolent recidivism rate of 29 percent for study subjects (Reitzel & 

Carbonell, 2006). 

The third meta-analysis reviewed involved 63 studies and a combined sample of 11,219 juveniles who 

committed sexual offenses. Recidivism was measured over a mean follow-up period of 59 months. The study 

found a weighted mean sexual recidivism rate of 7 percent and a weighted mean general recidivism rate of 

43 percent for study subjects (Caldwell, 2010). 

The fnal meta-analysis included both juvenile and adult studies (29 total studies with all but two including 

a comparison group), and a total of 4,939 treated male offenders and 5,448 untreated male offenders. The 
256 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

results indicated that treated offenders had a signifcantly lower rate of sexual and general recidivism (10 and 

33 percent, respectively) as compared to untreated offenders (14 and 41 percent, respectively) over an average 

5.9-year follow-up period.1

 It should be noted that of the 29 studies, only fve involved adolescents, while the 

specifc population (adult or juvenile) was unclear in 10 studies, and aggregate recidivism data across the entire 

sample, including specifcally for adolescents, was not presented (Schmucker & Losel, 2015). 

Single Studies 

A number of single studies have examined the recidivism rates of juveniles who have committed a sexual 

offense. These studies have focused on offender populations from various intervention settings. In some 

studies, for example, the subjects have been released from a correctional institution or residential placement; 

in others, the subjects have been on community supervision. Since these variations in settings may refect 

differential levels of risk for recidivism among study subjects, this review reports fndings from studies focused 

on juveniles released from an institutional placement separately from those derived from studies focused on 

juveniles released from a community-based setting. 

Rather than presenting fndings and study characteristics in narrative form, tables are used to summarize key 

features of each study’s sample and to present sexual and general recidivism rate fndings.2

 Many, but not all, 

of the studies identifed the gender of sample members (the tables note gender if identifed in the study). 

Keep in mind that many of the studies summarized in these tables do not provide detailed information about 

the type of intervention used, the risk level of the sample, the ages of sample members and other contextual 

factors that are needed to make cross-study comparisons and to properly interpret recidivism results. These 

contextual factors can help explain variations in reported recidivism rates often found across different studies. 

Hence, caution is urged when making cross-study comparisons or when drawing inferences from the data. 

Correctional or Residential Intervention Settings 

Table 3-1 presents key characteristics and fndings from eight studies that examined the recidivism rates of 

juveniles who committed sexual offenses and who were released from correctional and residential settings. 

Some researchers have questioned whether juveniles placed in residential or correctional intervention and 

treatment settings are a higher risk population than juveniles in community-based settings. However, risk was 

not typically quantifed in most of the single studies reviewed. Therefore, it cannot necessarily be assumed that 

the studies in Table 3-1 focused exclusively on high-risk subjects. 

Table 3-1. Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Committed Sexual Offenses and Were Released From 

Correctional or Residential Settings 

Sample Size Year of Release 

or Offense 

Follow-up 

Period 

Sexual 

Recidivism (%) 

General 

Recidivism (%) Study Authors 

197 males 1984 5 years 12 (rearrest) 51 (rearrest) Schram, Milloy & 

Rowe, 1991a 

21 males 1990–2003 As of December 

2005 38 (reconviction) 71 (reconviction) Milloy, 2006b 

256 juveniles 1992–1998 5 years 5 (rearrest) 53 (rearrest) Waite et al., 2005c 

86 males 1993–1995 4 years 8 (rearrest) 47 (rearrest) Miner, 2002 

319 (305 males 

and 14 females) 1995–2002 5 years 9 (reconviction) 60 (reconviction) Barnoski, 2008d 

22 juveniles 2001 5 years 41 (rearrest) 77 (rearrest) Rodriguez-Labarca 

& O’Connell, 2007e 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 257 

 

 

 

Table 3-1. Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Committed Sexual Offenses and Were Released From 

Correctional or Residential Settings (continued) 

Sample Size Year of Release 

or Offense 

Follow-up 

Period 

Sexual 

Recidivism (%) 

General 

Recidivism (%) Study Authors 

104 (103 males 

and 1 female) 2004 3 years 

2 (reincarceration 

for any new 

offense or 

technical violation) 

23 (reincarceration 

for any new 

offense or 

technical violation) 

Garner, 2007 

110 juveniles 2001 1 year 0 (rearrest) 38 (rearrest) 

Maryland 

Department of 

Juvenile Services, 

2007f 

a The researchers noted that the greater risk was during the frst year post-treatment when sample members were still juveniles. It was also noted that juveniles in institutional 

settings were more likely to recidivate than those in the community. 

b This study focused on youth who were discharged from their sentence and referred for civil commitment evaluation based on risk and dangerousness, but who were ultimately 

not committed. 

c Juveniles in this study were specifcally identifed as high risk. 

d

 Forty-one of these juveniles were classifed as higher risk (level III), while 278 were classifed as lower risk (levels I and II) via registration status assessment. The sexual 

recidivism rate for the higher risk juveniles was 12 percent while the sexual recidivism rate for the lower risk juveniles was 9 percent. 

e

 Juveniles in this study were determined to be high risk. 

f Between 4 and 5 percent of the juveniles were recommitted to the juvenile justice system, but none were incarcerated in the adult criminal justice system. 

Overall, the reported rates of recidivism for juveniles released from a correctional or residential setting varied 

considerably across studies. Sexual recidivism rates ranged from a low of 0 percent after one year of follow up 

to a high of 41 percent after fve years of follow up, while general recidivism rates ranged from 23 percent 

(based on reincarceration) after three years of follow up to 77 percent after fve years of follow up. It is unclear 

whether the juveniles in these studies were also provided treatment, but most correctional and residential 

programs provide treatment. 

Community-Based Intervention Settings 

Table 3-2 presents key characteristics and fndings from 13 studies that examined the recidivism rates of 

juveniles who committed sexual offenses and who were in community-based settings. Again, risk was not 

typically quantifed in most of the single studies reviewed; therefore, it cannot automatically be assumed that 

the following studies involve subjects who are exclusively low risk. 

Table 3-2. Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Committed Sexual Offenses and Were Released From 

Community-Based Settings 

Sample Size Follow-up Period Sexual Recidivism 

(%) 

General Recidivism 

(%) Study Authors 

220 males 55 months 15 (rearrest) 51 (rearrest) Gretton et al., 2001a 

155 males Unknown 3 (reconviction) 19 (reconviction) Lab, Shields & 

Schondel, 1993 

75 juveniles 1 year 4 (reconviction) 7 (reconviction) Prentky et al., 2000 

170 (167 males and 3 

females) 5 yearsb 14 (readjudication) 54 (readjudication) Rasmussen, 1999 

122 males 18 years 4 (rearrest) N/A Seabloom et al., 2003 

112 males 29 months 14 (rearrest) 35 (rearrest) Smith & Monastersky, 

1986 

300 males 3–6 years after age 18 4 (rearrest) 53 (rearrest) Vandiver, 2006 
258 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

Table 3-2. Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Committed Sexual Offenses and Were Released From 

Community-Based Settings (continued) 

Sample Size Follow-up Period Sexual Recidivism 

(%) 

General Recidivism 

(%) Study Authors 

366 juveniles 18–35 months 4 (rearrest) 31–51 (rearrest) Wiebush, 1996c 

266 juveniles 18 months 1 (reconviction) 17 (reconviction) Barnoski, 1997 

303 males 7 years 25 (rearrest) 79 (rearrest) Nisbet, Wilson, & 

Smallbone, 2005d 

46 (44 males and 2 

females) 5 years 20 (reconviction) 65 (reconviction) Langstrom & Grann, 2000e 

359 males 10 years 12 (reconviction) 53 (reconviction) Rojas & Gretton, 2007f 

148 (139 males and 9 

females) 16 years 16 (rearrest) N/A Worling, Littlejohn & Bookalam, 2010g 

a Juveniles with higher levels of psychopathy had signifcantly higher levels of sexual recidivism than juveniles with lower levels of psychopathy (p < 0.05). 

b This study followed juveniles who committed sexual offenses until they reached age 19. 

c The author looked at several different samples and did not report a general recidivism rate across all samples. 

d The authors noted that once the sample reached adulthood, the sexual recidivism rate was 9 percent and the general recidivism rate was 61 percent. 

e This study consisted of juveniles ages 15–20 in Sweden who received a court-ordered evaluation. Thus, the sample included both community-based and residential or 

correctional populations. 

f The authors compared Canadian aboriginal (n = 102) to nonaboriginal (n = 257) juveniles who committed sexual offenses and found that aboriginal youth had a signifcantly 

higher (p < 0.01) sexual recidivism rate (21 percent) than nonaboriginal youth (9 percent). 

g The authors noted that the adult sexual recidivism rate was 11 percent. In addition, the study found a nonsexual, violent recidivism rate of 32 percent; a nonviolent, nonsexual 

recidivism rate of 43 percent; and a recidivism rate of 49 percent for any crime (overall general recidivism was not specifcally noted). 

Again, the reported rates of recidivism vary across studies. Sexual recidivism rates for the juveniles released 

from a community-based setting ranged from a low of 1 percent (based on reconviction) after 18 months of 

follow up to a high of 25 percent after seven years of follow up, while general recidivism rates ranged from a low 

of 7 percent (based on reconviction) after 1 year of follow up to a high of 79 percent after seven years of follow 

up. These reported rates of recidivism do not vary greatly from the rates of recidivism found for those juveniles 

released from correctional and residential settings. Interestingly, a similar pattern is discernible in the recidivism 

rates found for juveniles from different intervention settings by Alexander (1999) in her meta-analysis. In that 

study, a sexual recidivism rate of 6 percent was found for juveniles from community-based supervision settings 

(e.g., probation), a rate of 7 percent was found for juveniles from prison and a rate of 9 percent was found for 

juveniles from hospital settings (Alexander, 1999). 

Although it is diffcult to base frm conclusions on these data, the relative similarity in observed recidivism rates 

found across different intervention settings indirectly suggests that 1) the risk levels of youth from different 

settings may not be appreciably different, and therefore 2) appropriate intervention placement based on 

assessed risk may not have been occurring at the time these studies were undertaken. Given the importance of 

reserving more intensive interventions and services for high-risk offenders, these hypotheses and their relevance 

for contemporary sex offender management practice arguably should be tested more directly and rigorously. 

Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses, by Victim Type 

Some recidivism studies that have focused on juveniles who have committed a sexual offense have 

differentiated offenders who victimize younger children (child molestation) from those who victimize peers 

or adults (rape). Table 3-3 presents key characteristics and fndings from seven studies that examined the 

recidivism rates of juveniles who committed rape and/or child molestation. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 259 

 

Table 3-3. Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Committed Rape and/or Child Molestation Offenses 

Sample Size Follow-up 

Period 

Sexual Recidivism (%) General Recidivism (%) Study 

Child Authors

Molestation Rape Child Molestation Rape 

223 males 4.3 years 6 (new charge) 2 (new charge) 33 (new 

charge) 

46 (new 

charge) 

Aebi et al., 

2012* 

176 males 1 & 2 years 0 (rearrest) 3 (rearrest) 8 (rearrest) 30 (rearrest) Faniff & Kolko, 

2012* 

100 males 2–5 years 8 (reconviction) 10 

(reconviction) 

38 

(reconviction) 

54 

(reconviction) 

Hagan & Cho, 

1996* 

50 males 10 years N/A 16 

(reconviction) N/A 90 (reconviction) 

Hagan & GustBrey, 1999 

150 males 8 years 20 

(reconviction) 

16 

(reconviction) N/A N/A Hagan et al., 2001 

296 males 5 years 8 (rearrest) 1 (rearrest) 41 (rearrest) 46 (rearrest) Kemper & 

Kistner, 2007 

156 males 134 months 4 10 32 28 Parks & Bard, 

2006 

* The differences were not statistically signifcant. 

Although it is diffcult to draw frm conclusions from the data, there does not appear to be a signifcant 

difference in the rate of either sexual or general recidivism between juveniles who commit sexual offenses 

against peer or adult victims and those who commit sexual offenses against child victims, based on the 

results of these studies. It is interesting to note, however, that Alexander’s (1999) meta-analysis of earlier 

studies produced somewhat similar fndings. Alexander found an average sexual recidivism rate of 6 percent 

for those juveniles who commit rape and an average sexual recidivism rate of 2 percent for those who 

molested a child — a difference that was not statistically signifcant. 

Research has not found a signifcant difference 

in sexual recidivism between juveniles 

who commit sexual offenses against peer 

or adult victims and those who commit 

sexual offenses against child victims. 

Juveniles Who Commit Sexual and Nonsexual Offenses 

Studies have also compared the recidivism rates of juveniles who have committed sexual offenses exclusively 

(specialists) with those of juveniles who have either committed both sexual and nonsexual/general offenses 

(generalists), or those who have only committed nonsexual, general offenses. Table 3-4 presents the key 

characteristics and fndings of Chu and Thomas’ (2010) study that reported comparative recidivism data for 

specialists and generalists. This is one of the few recent studies reporting this type of data found in the literature. 

Table 3-5 presents key characteristics and fndings from eight studies that reported comparative recidivism data 

for juveniles who committed sexual offenses and juveniles who committed nonsexual, general offenses. 
260 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

Table 3-4. Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Committed Sexual Offenses Exclusively (Specialists) 

and Those Who Committed Sexual and Nonsexual Offenses (Generalists) 

Sample Size Follow-up Sexual Recidivism (%) General Recidivism (%) Study 

Period Authors

Specialists Generalists Specialists Generalists 

156 males 57–68 months 10 

(reconviction) 

14 

(reconviction) 

24 

(reconviction) 

46 

(reconviction) 

Chu & Thomas, 

2010 

Note: The difference in the sexual recidivism rate between specialists and generalists is not statistically signifcant, but the difference in the general recidivism rate (any 

recidivism) between the two groups is statistically signifcant (p < 0.01). 

Table 3-5. Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Committed Sexual Offenses and Those Who 

Committed Nonsexual, General Offenses 

Sample Size Follow-up 

Period 

Sexual Recidivism (%) General Recidivism (%) Study 

Sexual Authors

Offenses 

General 

Offenses 

Sexual 

Offenses 

General 

Offenses 

150 males 8 years 18 

(reconviction) 

10 

(reconviction) N/A N/A Hagan et al., 2001a 

110 juveniles 33 months 2 0 32 16 Brannon & 

Troyer, 1991 

2,029 males 5 years 7 (charge) 6 (charge) 74 (charge) 80 (charge) Caldwell, 2007b 

166 juveniles 2 years 0 (reconviction) 3 (reconviction) 0 (reconviction) 19 and 33 

(reconviction) Calley, 2012c 

1,645 juveniles 4 years 2 (charge) 3 (charge) N/A N/A 

Letourneau, 

Chapman, & 

Schoenwald, 

2008d 

256 males 3 years 0 (reconviction) 1 (reconviction) 44 

(reconviction) 

58 

(reconviction) Milloy, 1994e 

306 males 6 years 10 (rearrest) 3 (rearrest) 32 (rearrest) 44 (rearrest) Sipe, Jensen, & 

Everett, 1998f 

3,129 males 

4–14 years 

after 

adulthood 

9 (rearrest) 6 (rearrest) N/A N/A 

Zimring, 

Piquero, & 

Jennings, 2007g 

a The difference was statistically signifcant (p > 0.05). 

b The difference in sexual recidivism was not statistically signifcant, but the difference in general recidivism was statistically signifcant (p > 0.01). 

c The general offender group consisted of substance abusing juveniles and general juvenile offenders, and the recidivism rates are refected for each comparison group (19 and 

33 percent respectively). The difference in general recidivism was statistically signifcant between juveniles who commit sexual offenses as compared to substance abusing and 

general juvenile offenders (p = 0.8444 and 0.4002, respectively). 

d The difference was not statistically signifcant. 

e The differences were not statistically signifcant. 

f The difference for sexual recidivism was statistically signifcant (p > 0.04), but the general recidivism rate was not signifcant. 

g The difference was not statistically signifcant. The researchers concluded that the number of juvenile police contacts was far more predictive of future adult sex offenses. 

In the Chu and Thomas (2010) study comparing specialists and generalists, no signifcant difference in sexual 

recidivism was found between the two groups. However, generalists had a signifcantly higher rate of general 

recidivism than specialists. In fact, their rates of both violent and nonviolent recidivism were also signifcantly 

higher than the rate for specialists. 

On the other hand, comparisons involving juveniles who commit sexual offenses with those who commit 

nonsexual, general offenses produced mixed results. Some studies found that juveniles who commit sexual 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 261 

 

offenses had signifcantly higher rates of sexual and general recidivism than their general-offending juvenile 

counterparts, while others did not. Given the inconsistent fndings, it is diffcult to draw conclusions about the 

propensity of one group to recidivate relative to the other. 

Continuity of Sexual Offending into Adulthood 

Two recent studies have attempted to identify future adult sexual offending by juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses, given the 1980s concern for the connection between the two based upon the historical sexual history 

interviews of adult sex offenders. In a retrospective study of 493 adult sex offenders (465 of whom were adultonly offenders, and 28 of whom were continuity from juvenile to adult offenders), the following risk factors 

were some of those found to be signifcant for continuity offending: having mental health problems, having 

sexually assaulted a child, having both male and female victims and most notably having nonsexual offending. 

Finally, continuity offenders were signifcantly more likely (224 percent) to have a post-release sexual 

reoffense3

 (Beaudry-Cyr et al., 2015). 

In a study of 498 Dutch juveniles who committed hands-on sexual offenses over a 14-year average follow 

up, approximately 10 percent (n = 52) were considered high-rate, slow-desistance offenders who continued 

to offend into adulthood (50 percent reoffended as juveniles and 60 percent reoffended as adults), while 

446 juveniles were considered adolescent-limited offenders with a cessation of sexual offending by early 

adulthood (Lussier et al., 2012). 

These two studies have attempted to differentiate those juveniles whose sexual offending is limited to their 

juvenile years from those whose offending continues into adulthood. This research is important in better 

identifying those juveniles who may be in need of more intensive interventions that are typically reserved for 

adult sex offenders. However, additional research is needed to prospectively identify juveniles who appear 

to be continuity or high-rate, slow-desistance offenders, and compare their rates of sexual recidivism to 

adolescent limited or adult only offenders. 

Summary 

Drawing sound conclusions about the recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses can be diffcult 

due to a number of factors. Since many sex offenses are never reported to law enforcement or cleared by 

arrest, the observed recidivism rates of juveniles remain underestimates of actual reoffending. Measurement 

variation across studies, small sample sizes, short follow-up periods and missing information about the 

characteristics of the sample studied and the interventions study subjects were exposed to make it diffcult 

to draw defnitive conclusions from the available data. Still, fndings from recent research provide important 

insights regarding the sexual and general recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses. Key 

conclusions that can be drawn from the empirical evidence are outlined below: 

• The observed sexual recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses range from about 7 to 13 percent 

after 59 months, depending on the study. Although the sexual recidivism rates reported in single studies tend 

to vary signifcantly because different methods and follow-up periods are employed across studies, fndings 

from meta-analyses suggest that juveniles who commit sexual offenses have a sexual recidivism rate ranging 

from 7 to 13 percent after 59 months, depending on the recidivism measure employed. In addition, there 

is empirical evidence indicating that the percentage of juveniles who commit sexual offenses who go on 

to sexually offend as adults is similar. Hence, policies and practices designed to address juvenile sexual 

offending should recognize that the potential for desistance prior to adulthood is substantial. 
262 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

• Recidivism rates for juveniles who commit sexual offenses are generally lower than those observed for 

adult sexual offenders. For example, in a 2004 meta-analysis, Harris and Hanson found average sexual 

recidivism rates for adult offenders of 14 percent after a fve-year follow-up period, 20 percent after a 

10-year follow-up period and 24 percent after a 15-year follow-up period (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Hence, 

recidivism data suggest that there may be fundamental differences between juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses and adult sexual offenders, particularly in their propensity to sexually reoffend. Given the above, 

the national experts at the SOMAPI forum recommended that policymakers and practitioners not equate 

the two groups. 

Observed sexual recidivism rates range 

from about 7 to 13 percent. These rates 

are generally lower than the rates 

observed for adult sex offenders. 

• A relatively small percentage of juveniles who commit a sexual offense will sexually reoffend as adults. 

The message for policymakers is that juveniles who commit sexual offenses are not the same as adult sexual 

offenders, and that all juveniles who commit a sexual offense do not go on to sexually offend later in life. 

Some preliminary studies have begun to attempt to identify this high-risk juvenile population and further 

study is needed. 

• Juveniles who commit sexual offenses have higher rates of general recidivism than sexual recidivism. 

Although this basic recidivism pattern would naturally be expected to occur, the magnitude of the 

difference found in research is somewhat striking. It suggests that juveniles who commit sexual offenses 

may have more in common with other juveniles who commit delinquent acts than with adult sexual 

offenders, and interventions need to account for the risk of general recidivism. However, policymakers and 

practitioners should also keep in mind that nonsexual offenses are more likely than sexual offenses to be 

reported to law enforcement, and that some crimes legally labeled as nonsexual in the criminal histories of 

sex offenders may indeed be sexual in their underlying behavior. 

Juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses have higher rates of general 

recidivism than sexual recidivism. 

Although recent research provides important insights about the recidivism rates of juveniles who sexually 

offend, signifcant knowledge gaps and unresolved controversies remain. Variations across studies in the age 

and risk levels of sample members, the intervention setting, the operational defnition of recidivism, the length 

of the follow-up period employed and other measurement factors continue to make cross-study comparisons 

of observed recidivism rates diffcult. Interpreting disparate fndings and their implications for policy and 

practice also remains a challenge. 

While the operational defnitions and follow-up periods employed in recidivism research for juveniles who 

commit sexual offenses will largely be dictated by the available data, the SOMAPI forum participants identifed 

the need for recidivism studies that produce more readily comparable fndings. Studies employing follow-up 

periods that are long enough to capture sexual and nonsexual recidivism during adulthood are also needed. 

Future research should also attempt to build a stronger evidence base on the differential recidivism patterns 

of different types of juveniles who commit sexual and/or nonsexual offenses, and what specifc interventions 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 263 

might be effective with a given population. (Research on the effectiveness of treatment for juveniles who 

commit sexual offenses is reviewed in Chapter 5 of the Juvenile section). Finally, recidivism research on juvenile 

females who commit sexual offenses is greatly needed. 

SOMAPI forum participants also identifed the need for more policy-relevant research on the absolute 

and relative risks that different types of juveniles who commit sexual offenses pose. The literature to date 

on recidivism for this population has thus far been unable to decisively identify the specifc risk posed by 

juveniles and its meaning for public safety policy. There is little question that policies and practices aimed at 

the reduction of recidivism would be far more effective and cost-benefcial if they better aligned with the 

empirical evidence; however, bridging the gap is plagued by both measurement problems associated with 

true rates of reoffending and the tendency on the part of policymakers and members of the public to equate 

juveniles with adult sexual offenders even though the current research does not support this conclusion. 

Given the above, the SOMAPI forum participants offered the following recommendations: 

1. Juveniles who commit sexual offenses should not be labeled as sexual offenders for life. The recidivism 

research suggests that most juveniles do not continue on to commit future juvenile or adult sexual offenses. 

Therefore, labeling juveniles as sex offenders legally or otherwise — particularly for life — is likely to result 

in harm for many juveniles without a commensurate public safety beneft. The empirical evidence suggests 

that sexual offending prior to age 18 is not necessarily indicative of an ongoing and future risk for sexual 

offending. Moreover, the unintended but nevertheless harmful effects of inappropriate labeling have 

repeatedly been identifed in other research. 

2. All policies designed to reduce sexual recidivism for juveniles who commit sexual offenses should be 

evaluated in terms of both their effectiveness and their potential iatrogenic effects on juveniles, their 

families and the community. Evaluations using scientifcally rigorous research designs that examine the 

intended and unintended effects of policies and interventions aimed at juveniles who sexually offend should 

be undertaken and adequately funded. 

3. Intervention policies should be individualized based on the unique risk and needs of each juvenile who 

commits a sexual offense. One-size-fts-all policies should be avoided. Juveniles who sexually offend are a 

heterogeneous population, and intervention strategies aimed at this population should be similarly diverse. 

Some juveniles who commit sexual offenses certainly warrant management and treatment using methods 

similar to adult sexual offenders, but others may not be responsive to such methods. 

4. Intervention efforts should be concerned with preventing both sexual recidivism and general recidivism. 

Juveniles who sexually offend are more likely to recidivate with a nonsexual rather than a sexual offense. 

Hence, treatment and supervision efforts should be concerned with both types of reoffending. 

5. Sex offender management policies commonly used with adult sex offenders should not automatically be 

used with juveniles who commit sexual offenses. Empirical evidence concerning both the effectiveness 

and potential unintended consequences of policies (such as residence restrictions, polygraph and 

GPS monitoring) should be carefully considered before they are applied to juvenile populations. The 

effectiveness of these policies with adult sex offenders remains questionable, and there is even less empirical 

evidence suggesting that they work with juveniles. Jurisdictions should carefully consider the empirical 

evidence and weigh the costs and benefts for all stakeholders before any of the above management 

strategies are expanded or applied with juveniles. Research has begun to show that fundamental differences 

exist between juveniles who commit sexual offenses and adult sexual offenders, and that juveniles who 

sexually offend may have more in common with juveniles who commit nonsexual offenses. This information 

should be used by policymakers and practitioners to develop rehabilitation and management strategies that 

are effective, appropriate and fair. 
264 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Notes 

1. p < 0.01. 

2. In this chapter’s tables, general recidivism refects all identifed nonsexual recidivism in the study. However, 

general recidivism rates may or may not include all nonsexual crimes, as some studies only counted certain 

types of nonsexual crimes when calculating the general recidivism rate. In addition, some juveniles may be 

counted twice as general recidivists, as they may have new criminal offenses in multiple categories (e.g., violent, 

nonsexual; nonviolent, nonsexual; any crime). The recidivism columns of these tables generally note what the 

recidivism rate was based on (e.g., rearrest, reincarceration); the “reconviction” label includes 1) readjudication 

as a juvenile or reconviction as an adult or 2) recommitment as a juvenile or reincarceration as an adult in 

conjunction with readjudication or reconviction. 

3. p < 0.01. 

References 

Aebi, M., Vogt, G., Plattner, B., Steinhausen, H.C. & Bessier, C. (2012). Offender types and criminality dimensions 

in male juveniles convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(3), 

268–288. 

Alexander, M.A. (1999). Sexual offenders treatment effcacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 11(2), 101–116. 

Atcheson, J.D. & Williams, D.C. (1954). A study of juvenile sex offenders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 111, 

366–370. 

Bachman, R. (1998). Factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National 

Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8–29. 

Barnoski, R. (2008). Assessing the Risk of Juvenile Sex Offenders Using the Intensive Parole Sex Offender 

Domain. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/ 

ReportFile/1012/Wsipp_Assessing-the-Risk-of-Juvenile-Sex-Offenders-Using-the-Intensive-Parole-Sex-OffenderDomain_Full-Report.pdf. 

Barnoski, R. (1997). Washington State Juvenile Court Recidivism Estimates: Fiscal Year 1994 Youth. Olympia, 

WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1259/Wsipp_ 

Washington-State-Juvenile-Court-Recidivism-Estimates-Fiscal-Year-1994-Youth_Full-Report.pdf. 

Beaudry-Cyr, M., Jennings, W.G., Zgoba, K. & Tewksbury, R. (2015). Examining the Continuity of Juvenile Sex 

Offending into Adulthood and Subsequent Patterns of Sex and General Recidivism. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. pii: 0306624X15594442. [Epub ahead of print] 

Brannon, J.M. & Troyer, R. (1991). Peer group counseling: A normalized residential alternative to the 

specialized treatment of adolescent sex offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology, 35, 225–234. 

Caldwell, M.F. (2007). Sexual offense adjudication and sexual recidivism among juvenile offenders. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 107–113. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 265 

Caldwell, M.F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender recidivism. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(2), 197–212. 

Calley, N.G. (2012). Juvenile Offender Recidivism: An Examination of Risk Factors. Journal of Child Sexual 

Abuse, 21, 257-272. 

Chu, C.M. & Thomas, S.D.M. (2010). Adolescent sexual offenders: The relationship between typology and 

recidivism. Sex Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 218–233. 

Doshay, L.J. (1943) The Boy Sex Offender and His Later Career. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. 

Faniff, A.M. & Kolko, D.J. (2012). Victim age-based subtypes of juveniles adjudicated for sexual offenses: 

Comparisons across domains in an outpatient sample. Sex Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 224. 

Garner, A. (2007). Juvenile Recidivism 2007. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Correction. Retrieved from: 

www.in.gov/idoc/fles/2007JuvRecidivismRpt.pdf. 

Gretton, H.M., McBride, M., Hare, R.D., O’Shaughnessy, R. & Kumka, G. (2001). Psychopathy and recidivism in 

adolescent sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(4), 427–449. 

Groth, A.N. (1977). The adolescent sexual offender and his prey. International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 21, 249–254. 

Groth, A.N., Longo, R.E. & McFadin, J.B. (1982). Undetected recidivism among rapists and child molesters. Crime 

and Delinquency, 28, 450–458. 

Grotpeter, J.K. & Elliott, D.S. (2002). Violent Sexual Offending. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and 

Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science. 

Hagan, M.P. & Cho, M.E. (1996). A comparison of treatment outcomes between adolescent rapists and child 

sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40, 113–122. 

Hagan, M.P. & Gust-Brey, K.L. (1999). A ten-year longitudinal study of adolescent rapists upon return to the 

community. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 43, 448–458. 

Hagan, M.P., Gust-Brey, K.L., Cho, M.E. & Dow, E. (2001). Eight-year comparative analyses of adolescent rapists, 

adolescent child molesters, other adolescent delinquents, and the general population. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 314–324. 

Harris, A.J.R. & Hanson, R.K. (2004). Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question 2004–03. Ottawa, ON: Public 

Safety Canada. 

Kemper, T.S. & Kistner, J.A. (2007). Offense history and recidivism in three victim-age based groups of juvenile 

sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19(4), 409–424. 

Lab, S.P., Shields, G. & Schondel, C. (1993). Research note: An evaluation of juvenile sexual offender treatment. 

Crime and Delinquency, 39, 543–553. 

Langstrom, N. & Grann, M. (2000). Risk for criminal recidivism among young sex offenders. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 15, 855–871. 
266 CHAPTER 3: RECIDIVISM OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Letourneau, E.J., Chapman, J.E. & Schoenwald, S.K. (2008). Treatment outcome and criminal offending by youth 

with sexual behavior problems. Child Maltreatment, 13, 133–44. 

Longo, R.E. & Groth, A.N. (1983). Juvenile sexual offenses in the histories of adult rapists and child molesters. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 27, 150–155. 

Lussier, P., Van Den Berg, C., Bijleveld, C. & Hendricks, J. (2012). A Developmental Taxonomy of Juvenile Sex 

Offenders for Theory, Research, and Prevention. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(12), 1559-1581. 

Maltz, M.D. ([1984] 2001). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc. Retrieved from: www.uic.edu/depts/lib/ 

forr/pdf/crimjust/recidivism.pdf. 

Marshall, W.L., Barbaree, H.E. & Eccles, A. (1991). Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 6, 323–335. 

Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. (2007). Second Task Force Report on Juvenile Sex Offenders. 

Baltimore, MD: Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. Retrieved from: http://djs.state.md.us/pdf/secondtask_force_report_on_juvenile_sex_offenders.pdf. 

Milloy, C.D. (1994). A Comparative Study of Juvenile Sex Offenders and Non-Sex Offenders. Washington 

State Institute for Public Policy. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: 

www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1165. 

Milloy, C.D. (2006). Juvenile Sex Offenders Recommended for Commitment Under Washington’s Sexually 

Violent Predator Law, Where No Petition Was Filed. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public 

Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/940/Wsipp_Juvenile-Sex-Offenders-Recommended-forCommitment-Under-Washingtons-Sexually-Violent-Predator-Law-Where-No-Petition-Was-Filed_Full-Report.pdf. 

Miner, M. (2002). Factors associated with recidivism in juveniles: An analysis of serious juvenile sex offenders. 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 421–436. 

Nisbet, I.A., Wilson, P.H. & Smallbone, S.W. (2005). A prospective longitudinal study of sexual recidivism among 

adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 223–234. 

Parks, G.A. & Bard, D.W. (2006). Risk factors for adolescent sex offender recidivism: Evaluation of predictive 

factors and comparison of three groups based upon victim type. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 18, 319–342. 

Prentky, R., Harris, B., Frizzell, K. & Righthand, S. (2000). An actuarial procedure for assessing risk with juvenile 

sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 71–93. 

Rasmussen, L.A. (1999). Factors related to recidivism among juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 11, 69–85. 

Reitzel, L.R. & Carbonell, J.L. (2006). The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured 

by recidivism: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 401–421. 

Rodriguez-Labarca, J. & O’Connell, J.P. (2007). Recidivism of Delaware Juvenile Sex Offenders Released in 2001. 

Dover, DE: State of Delaware Offce of Management and Budget. Retrieved from: http://cjc.delaware.gov/pdf/ 

recidivism_juvenile_2007.pdf. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 267 

Rojas, E.Y. & Gretton, H.M. (2007). Background, offence, characteristics, and criminal outcomes of aboriginal 

youth who sexually offend: A closer look at aboriginal youth intervention needs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 19, 257–283. 

Schmucker, M. & Losel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: an international metaanalysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology. 11(4), 597-630. 

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. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/ 

ReportFile/1139/Wsipp_Juvenile-Sex-Offenders-A-Follow-Up-Study-of-Reoffense-Behavior_Full-Report.pdf. 

Seabloom, W., Seabloom, M.E., Seabloom, E., Barron, R. & Hendrickson, S. (2003). A 14- to 24-year longitudinal 

study of a comprehensive sexual health model treatment program for adolescent sex offenders: Predictors 

of successful completion and subsequent criminal recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 47, 468–481. 

Sipe, R., Jensen, E.L. & Everett, R.S. (1998). Adolescent sexual offenders grown up: Recidivism in youth 

adulthood. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 109–24. 

Smith, W.R. & Monastersky, C. (1986). Assessing juvenile sex offenders’ risk for reoffending. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 13, 115–140. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, Nature & Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings From the 

National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Vandiver, D.M. (2006). A prospective analysis of juvenile male sex offenders: Characteristics and recidivism rates 

as adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 673–688. 

Waite, D., Keller, A., McGarvey, E.L., Wieckowski, E., Pinkerton, R. & Brown, G.L. (2005). Juvenile sex offender 

re-arrest rates for sexual, violent nonsexual and property crimes: A 10-year follow-up. Sexual Abuse: A Journal 

of Research and Treatment, 17, 313–331. 

Wiebush, R.G. (1996). Juvenile Sex Offenders: Characteristics, System Response, and Recidivism, Final Report. 

Washington, DC: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Retrieved from: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffles1/ 

Digitization/166462NCJRS.pdf. 

Worling, J.R., Littlejohn, M.A. & Bookalam, D. (2010). 20-year prospective follow-up study of specialized 

treatment for adolescents who offended sexually. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 46–57. 

Zimring, F.E., Piquero, A.R. & Jennings, W.G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in Racine: Does early sex offending 

predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood? Criminology and Public Policy, 6(3), 507–534. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 269 

 

Chapter 4: Assessment of Risk 

for Sexual Reoffense in Juveniles 

Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

by Phil Rich, Ed.D., LICSW 

FINDINGS 

◆ It has been strongly asserted in both juvenile and adult risk assessment contexts that actuarial assessment has 

the capacity to predict risk more accurately than clinical assessment; however, this contention is not universally 

accepted and many have noted that both assessment models have strengths and weaknesses. Despite this 

ongoing debate, it is generally recognized that the exercise of unaided professional judgment by mental health 

practitioners is not a reliable or accurate means for assessing the potential for future dangerous behavior. 

◆ The goals of a comprehensive risk assessment process extend beyond the assessment of risk alone. 

◆ Much of the literature on risk factors for juvenile sexual offending is theoretical and descriptive rather than the 

result of statistical research. Given these problems, it is not surprising that fndings regarding risk factors vary 

considerably and are inconsistent across different studies. Despite these problems, the empirical research indicates 

that it is the presence and interaction of multiple risk factors, rather than the presence of any single risk factor 

alone, that is most important in understanding risk. 

◆ Although there is a developing research base, the empirical evidence concerning the validity of commonly 

identifed risk factors for juvenile sexual offending remains weak and inconsistent. 

◆ Although some empirical support for the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR and JSORRAT-II assessment 

tools can be found in the literature, the instruments do not perform in a manner that suggests or proves their 

ability to accurately predict juvenile sexual recidivism. 

◆ Despite the apparent importance of protective factors, few of the instruments commonly used with juveniles 

incorporate protective factors and those that do either have no empirical support or are in development and have 

not yet been empirically validated. 

Introduction 

The assessment of sexual recidivism risk for juveniles who commit sexual offenses serves several purposes. 

The overall purpose is to estimate the risk of future sexual offending so that the most effective steps 

can be taken to reduce, contain or eliminate that risk. Hence, risk assessment essentially serves as an 

investigative tool that helps inform and guide various intervention, treatment and legal processes. (For more 

information on treatment, see Chapter 5: “Effectiveness of Treatment for Juveniles Who Sexually Offend,” in 

the Juvenile section.) 

A risk assessment can be administered at different points once a juvenile is identifed by authorities as the 

perpetrator of a sexual offense. An assessment can be administered during the intake screening process to 

inform and guide authorities as to the appropriate course of action. In the event of a referral to the court, an 

assessment can be administered prior to or during adjudication (or trial, when transfer to the adult criminal 

court occurs) to provide the court, its offcers and other professionals with risk information that can be used in 

legal proceedings, as well as in decision-making regarding supervision or treatment. Finally, assessments may 
270 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

be administered at the post-adjudication level to provide the court, its offcers, correctional authorities and/or 

treatment professionals with information about risk that can be used in dispositional or sentencing hearings, 

as well as in decisions regarding institutional placement, community supervision or treatment. Of note, the 

point in the process at which an assessment is administered, as well as the purpose of the evaluation, may have 

signifcant impact on the risk evaluation. Within the context of treatment, risk assessment is typically used to 

set a baseline assignment of risk and to then periodically re-evaluate risk during treatment. In addition, the risk 

assessment process can be used to determine the type and intensity of treatment needed and to help defne 

targets for treatment and case management. The risk assessment process can thus work hand in hand with the 

three principles of risk, need and responsivity that have increasingly come to hallmark individualized treatment 

planning and case management (Looman & Abracen, 2013; Yates, 2013). 

Regardless of the purpose of risk assessment or the point at which it occurs, assessing risk involves making 

predictions about the likelihood of future behavior, which is an inherently diffcult task under any 

circumstances. The process of risk assessment for juveniles who sexually offend is further complicated by 

the relatively low base rates1

 of sexual recidivism found among juveniles. Given these low base rates, the 

process of risk prediction can potentially result in type I errors, or false positive fndings, in which risk is 

overestimated and low or lower-risk juveniles are incorrectly determined to be high-risk (Caldwell, 2013; 

Craig, Browne & Stringer, 2004; Wollert, 2006). Juvenile risk assessment is complicated even further by the 

ongoing development and maturation of youth. In short, juveniles vary and change over time in their physical 

development; cognitive, neurological and personality development; formation of attitudes and acquisition 

of information; and emotional and behavioral maturity (Rich, 2009; Steinberg, 2009, 2010; Steinberg & Scott, 

2003; Zimring, 2004). Accordingly, risk assessment models and tools must account for these developmental 

factors in order to accurately estimate risk. Hence, Stockdale, Olver and Wong (2013) note that adolescent risk 

assessment instruments must be capable of capturing changes in risk that result from developmental changes, 

with or without treatment. 

Whereas the process of juvenile risk assessment was once largely driven by adult risk assessment research and 

instrumentation, the feld of juvenile risk assessment has largely developed in its own right over the past 15 or 

so years, and continues to do so. Like adult risk assessment, juvenile assessment has traditionally focused on the 

identifcation and assessment of factors within the individual that increase (and possibly predict) risk for sexual 

recidivism. Risk assessment for sexual recidivism — both juveniles and adult — has also traditionally focused on 

static risk factors that refect historical behaviors and experiences related to sexual offending. Static risk factors 

are those that have previously occurred and will remain unaltered over time. Contemporary risk assessment, 

however, also includes a focus on dynamic risk factors. Dynamic risk factors are those associated with current 

behaviors, thoughts, feelings, attitudes, situations, interactions and relationships. So named because they are 

fuid and sometimes relational or situational, dynamic risk factors may thus change over time, particularly 

through some form of treatment. Dynamic risk factors are sometimes referred to as criminogenic needs because 

they contribute directly or indirectly to criminal behavior. Although the measurement and evaluation of one 

or both types of risk factors (static and dynamic) is central to the risk assessment process, focusing on dynamic 

risk factors is particularly important when treatment is provided because criminogenic needs provide targets for 

rehabilitative interventions (Beggs & Grace, 2011; Olver & Wong, 2009; Pedersen, Rasmussen & Elsass, 2010). In 

addition, both juvenile and adult risk assessment can also be used as a process by which to identify and assess risk 

factors, as well as protective factors, or those elements, strengths, supports and circumstances that mitigate risk 

for sexual recidivism, increasingly considered in contemporary juvenile risk assessment. 

Given the importance of risk assessment in sex offender management and treatment, this chapter reviews 

the literature on the assessment of risk for sexual recidivism for juveniles who commit sexual offenses. It 

summarizes what is scientifcally known about risk assessment for juveniles who sexually offend and presents 

key, up-to-date research fndings on the defning features and predictive accuracy of commonly used 

assessment instruments. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 271 

When reading this chapter, it is important to keep the following in mind. First, while it is possible to describe 

the historical context and current state of juvenile risk assessment, there is ongoing controversy in the feld 

about the best model to employ in risk assessment and the capacity of various models and instruments to 

accurately predict risk for sexual recidivism. Both of these issues will be discussed in detail. Second, although 

research on female juveniles who commit sexual offenses and preadolescent children who engage in sexually 

abusive and sexually troubled behavior is emerging, the existing knowledge base concerning juvenile risk 

assessment is primarily based on studies of adolescent males who commit sexual offenses. Little has changed 

in this regard, despite increased research on female juveniles, and no risk assessment instrument exists that is 

specifcally designed to assess risk in the adolescent female population. The same continues to be true with 

respect to both understanding and estimating risk in children with sexual behavior problems, and the research 

stream for this population has not picked up in any noticeable manner. Accordingly, although much of the 

information in this review is pertinent to both males and females, and to adolescents and pre-adolescents, the 

reader must bear in mind that the research cited and discussed in this chapter is most directly relevant to male 

adolescents who commit sexual offenses. 

Risk Assessment Process 

Juvenile sexual offending takes place within an environment of developmental, social and contextual 

circumstances that differ for each young person, and we recognize the heterogeneity of each individual 

despite shared features and commonalities. 

Juvenile risk assessment, therefore, focuses not only on adolescents who commit sexual offenses, but also 

on the systems within which they live, learn and function and on which they depend for structure, guidance 

and nurturance. In short, risk assessments of juveniles who sexually offend place behavior and risk factors in 

the context of the social environment, as well as the context of child and adolescent development. In fact, 

unlike adult risk assessment instruments, the most widely used juvenile risk assessment instruments set what 

are essentially time limits (or expiration dates) for any individual’s assessed risk level or score, either requiring 

reassessment of risk within a specifed time period (such as every six months2

) or noting that the risk estimate 

is limited to sexual recidivism prior to age 18.3

 Developmental considerations are important not only when 

estimating the risk of sexual recidivism, but also when identifying the very risk factors that are to be used as 

the foundation for the risk assessment process itself (Quinsey, Skilling, Lalumiere & Craig, 2004). For instance, 

in their study of 1,396 juvenile offenders, van der Put and colleagues (2011) found that the effect of both static 

and dynamic risk factors on recidivism varied by the age of the adolescent. 

Evaluation should include a wide range 

of individual, social, interactional 

and contextual factors. 

Models of Risk Assessment 

Currently, two general models are used in juvenile risk assessment: the actuarial model and the clinical 

model. In both models, the assessment process attempts to identify and evaluate the likely effects of risk 

factors believed to be associated with sexual recidivism. In the actuarial model — also known as statistical or 

mechanical assessment — risk determination is based entirely on a statistical comparison between the personal 

characteristics and past behavior of the juvenile and those of known recidivists. The assessment of static risk 
272 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

factors is a distinguishing feature of the actuarial model, although clinical models exist as well. Clinical risk 

assessment is primarily based on observation and professional judgment, rather than statistical analysis, in 

which the evaluator attempts to develop an understanding of the juvenile and the presence and likely effect of 

defned risk factors. In contemporary applications of the clinical model, a structured risk assessment instrument 

is used to guide clinical judgment. Hence, this approach is considered a structured or anchored clinical risk 

assessment (Rettenberger, Boer & Eher, 2011), increasingly referred to as structured professional judgment. 

Unlike actuarial assessment, clinical risk assessment typically evaluates both static and dynamic risk factors and, 

increasingly, protective factors that may decrease the risk of sexual reoffense. 

Actuarial and Clinical Judgments of Risk 

It has been strongly asserted in both juvenile and adult risk assessment contexts that actuarial assessment has 

the capacity to predict risk more accurately than clinical assessment (Hanson & Thornton, 2000; Harris & Rice, 

2007; Meehl, 1996; Quinsey et al., 1998; Steadman et al., 2000). In addition, some researchers have argued that 

the two methods of assessment — actuarial and clinical — are essentially incompatible (Grove & Lloyd, 2006; 

Harris & Rice, 2007). In fact, Quinsey and colleagues (2006) have argued for strict adherence to the actuarial 

model and the elimination of clinical judgment from the risk assessment process altogether. These positions, 

however, are not universally agreed upon, and there is strong disagreement with the assertion that actuarial 

risk assessment has greater predictive power than clinical assessment (Boer et al., 1997; Hanson & MortonBourgon, 2007; Hart, Michie & Cooke, 2007; Litwack, 2001). 

Sjöstedt and Grann (2002), for example, have argued that there are problems associated with strict proactuarial positions, and other researchers have suggested that actuarial instruments should be used to support, 

rather than replace, clinical judgment (Grubin, 20111; Monahan et al., 2001). Moreover, Sjöstedt and Grann 

(2002) and Pedersen, Rasmussen and Elsass (2010) reported strong predictive validity for structured clinical risk 

assessment, and Hart and colleagues (2003) have argued that guidelines for structured professional judgment 

help improve the consistency, transparency and usefulness of decision-making. Further, Rettenberger, Boer and 

Eher (2011) and Rich (2011) have argued that actuarial assessment does not provide information about risk or 

possible risk management strategies that are highly personalized for the individual being assessed; hence, it 

fails to meet the practical and ethical issues and requirements relevant to any individual case. 

Despite the ongoing debate, it is important to recognize that the exercise of unaided professional judgment by 

mental health practitioners is not considered a reliable or accurate means for assessing the potential for future 

dangerous behavior (Ægisdóttir et al., 2006; Hanson & Thornton, 2000; Monahan & Steadman, 1994; Steadman 

et al., 2000; Webster et al., 1997). Further, it is clear that the actuarial and clinical assessment models both have 

strengths and weaknesses. Campbell (2004) writes that neither actuarial nor clinical risk assessment instruments 

stand up to rigorous scientifc scrutiny, noting that all current actuarial and clinical risk assessment instruments 

are insuffciently standardized, lack inter-rater reliability,4

 are absent of adequate operational manuals and 

generally fail to satisfy signifcant scientifc standards. Similarly, Grisso (2000) and Hart and colleagues (2003) 

have argued that such instruments have not yet achieved the level of psychometric rigor needed to meet 

publication standards. Sixteen years or so later, little has changed, despite advances in both adult and juvenile 

risk assessment. 

Development of Risk Assessment Instruments 

Bonta (1996) and others have characterized the evolution of risk assessment methods as occurring in distinct 

stages (Andrews, Bonta & Wormith, 2006; Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Hannah-Moffat & Maurutto, 2003; and 

Schwalbe, 2008). First-generation methods primarily involved unstructured clinical judgment, whereas secondgeneration methods involved statistically derived and static actuarial assessments of risk. Third-generation 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 273 

methods, which are increasingly common in sexual risk assessments of adult offenders, incorporate both 

the actuarial base of a static assessment and the dynamic factors of a clinical assessment. Fourth-generation 

methods integrate an even wider range of dynamic factors, incorporating factors relevant to treatment 

interventions, case management and monitoring. Third- and fourth-generation methods not only recognize 

the utility of both static and dynamic risk factors, but also that “there is no reason to think that one type is 

superior to another when it comes to the predicting recidivism” (Bonta, 2002, p. 367). In fact, when dynamic 

measures are part of the assessment process, the predictive accuracy of risk assessment can exceed that which 

may be achievable with only static risk factors (Allan et al., 2007). McGrath and Thompson (2012) report that 

although static and dynamic risk factors both predicted sexual recidivism in juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses, a combination of static and dynamic factors resulted in a signifcant improvement in prediction. 

While the characterizations and propositions described above are largely drawn from the literature on risk 

assessment for adult sexual offenders, they are equally relevant in the context of risk assessment for juveniles 

who commit sexual offenses, in which, thus far, clinical risk assessment represents almost the entirety of 

juvenile sexual risk assessment instruments, with the exception of a single actuarial instrument. Moreover, 

these ideas and principles are essential for understanding the groundwork upon which juvenile risk assessment 

is built. 

Focus and Breadth of Juvenile Risk Assessment 

Epps (1997) describes the goal of juvenile risk assessment as synthesizing psychosocial, statistical, factual 

and environmental information in a manner that allows defensible decisions to be made about matters of 

management, treatment and placement. Within this context, Will (1999) describes three broad purposes for 

juvenile risk assessment: i) the assessment of risk for reoffense, ii) the development of a clinical formulation 

upon which treatment can be based and iii) the assessment of the juvenile’s motivation to accept and engage 

in treatment. Notably, these three goals closely approximate the principles of risk, need and responsivity that 

have been increasingly central in practice. Graham, Richardson and Bhate (1997) describe six overarching and 

interactive goals for juvenile risk assessment: 

1. Identifying troubled patterns of thoughts, feelings and behavior. 

2. Recognizing and understanding learned experiences and processes contributing to the development and 

maintenance of juvenile sexually abusive behavior. 

3. Identifying situational contexts and correlates of sexually abusive behavior. 

4. Evaluating the probability of sexual recidivism. 

5. Assessing the juvenile’s motivation to engage in treatment aimed at emotional and behavioral regulation. 

6. Gathering the information required to develop interventions and treatment. 

In short, the goals of a comprehensive risk assessment process extend beyond the assessment of risk alone. To 

this end, Prentky, Righthand and Lamade (2016) describe juvenile risk assessment as informing the treatment 

planning process with respect to risk-relevant needs and interventions designed to support prosocial 

rehabilitation. Similarly, Viljoen, Brodersen, Shaffer and McMahon (2016) have stated the “goal of risk 

assessment is to identify youths’ needs in order to assist in planning individualized risk management or risk 

reduction efforts” (p. 519). 
274 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Risk Factors for Juvenile Sexual Offending 

An extensive literature has developed that has identifed and discussed risk factors for juvenile sexual 

offending.5

 Although defnitive conclusions regarding the risk factors that are most pertinent to the prediction 

of sexual recidivism have yet to be made, similar risk factors appear in the most frequently used juvenile risk 

assessment instruments, and can be grouped into one of 10 categories (Rich, 2009): 

1. Sexual beliefs, attitudes and drive 

2. History of sexual offending behavior 

3. History of personal victimization 

4. History of general antisocial behavior 

5. Social relationships and connection 

6. Personal characteristics 

7. General psychosocial functioning 

8. Family relationships and functioning 

9. General environmental conditions 

10. Response to prior/current treatment 

However, much of the literature on risk factors for juvenile sexual offending remains theoretical and 

descriptive, rather than the result of reliably replicated statistical research. It also is characterized by a number 

of methodological problems and other limitations (Spice et al., 2013). Spice and colleagues (2013) noted that 

early studies on juvenile sexual recidivism were often based on follow-up periods of less than three years, and 

that early, as well as more contemporary, studies often employed small sample sizes. They also noted that risk 

factors examined vary widely from one study to another. Similarly, McCann and Lussier (2008) maintained that 

the risk factors examined in many studies were selected by researchers based on their own clinical experience, 

the literature on adult sexual recidivism and, until recently, a lack of theoretical understanding regarding 

sexual offending behavior among juveniles. 

Additionally, risk factors for juvenile sexual and nonsexual offending are signifcantly infuenced by 

developmental processes in children and adolescents, and are not necessarily stable or uniform during 

adolescence (Kim and Duwe, 2016; Quinsey et al., 2004; Sampson & Laub, 2003). Further, more recently the 

research of Leroux, Pullman, Motayne and Seto (2016) illustrates that different risk factors appear to be at play 

for adolescents who sexually offend, based upon the age of their victims (child, peer/adult and mixed child and 

peer/adults victims), in which different types of risk factors appear to be at play. Given these problems, it is not 

surprising that fndings regarding risk factors vary considerably and are inconsistent across different studies 

(Spice et al., 2013). 

Interactive Effect of Multiple Risk Factors 

Despite the problems outlined above, the empirical research indicates that it is the presence and interaction 

of multiple risk factors, rather than the presence of any single risk factor alone, that is most important in 

understanding risk. Thus, all risk assessment instruments — regardless of whether they are used with adults or 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 275 

juveniles, or whether they are actuarial or clinical — include multiple risk factor items, and all risk assessment 

processes are concerned not only with the presence of different risk factors, but also with the interactive 

and amplifying effects of multiple risk factors. Simply put, no single risk factor, even one with relatively high 

predictive strength, is alone capable of predicting recidivism accurately (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & 

Morton-Bourgon, 2005, 2007; Roberts, Doren & Thornton, 2002). 

Empirical Basis of Risk Factors for Juvenile Sexual Recidivism 

The problem of the low base rate for juvenile sexual recidivism complicates the process of determining which 

individual risk factors are likely to be most important in juvenile risk assessment. In fact, many of the risk 

factors included in juvenile risk assessment instruments used today have face validity (an intuitive and perhaps 

common sense appeal that appears to refect aspects of risk), but very little proven predictive validity. In any 

case, as Prentky et al. (2016) note, risk factors are rarely demonstrated to be causal, and are instead, in most 

cases, correlational. That is, establishing causality requires empirical evidence that the presence or absence of 

the risk factor results in changes in the base rate of offending behavior (Prentky et al., 2016). This is, at best, a 

diffcult task. 

Indeed, Worling and Långström (2003, 2006) contend that most risk factors commonly associated with juvenile 

sexual offending lack empirical validation. Describing 21 commonly cited risk factors, Worling and Långström 

(2006) argue that only fve factors — deviant sexual arousal, prior convicted sexual offenses, multiple victims, 

social isolation and incomplete sexual offender treatment — are empirically supported through at least 

two published, independent research studies, and that only two other factors — problematic parent-child 

relationships and attitudes supportive of sexually abusive behavior — have empirical support in at least one 

study, and thus can be considered “promising” risk factors. The remaining 14 factors they describe as either 

third-tier “possible” risk factors based on general clinical support or fourth-tier “unlikely” risk factors that 

either lack empirical support or are contradicted by empirically derived evidence. 

However, Worling and Långström’s (2006) typology of empirically supported risk factors is both incomplete and 

has not been replicated and is only weakly supported by later research. Although evidence supporting some 

elements of their typology is found in later studies, it is also true that later studies have found evidence for 

factors not supported in their four-tier typology, as well producing some evidence for still more risk factors. 

Indeed, the literature is mixed and inconsistent. 

For instance, supporting Worling and Långström’s (2006) typology, in a meta-analysis of 18 studies and more 

than 3,100 juveniles, McCann and Lussier (2008) found support for deviant sexual interest as a risk factor, as did 

Seto and Lalumière (2010) in their meta-analysis of 59 studies.6

 Seto and Lalumière additionally identifed social 

isolation as a signifcant risk factor for juvenile sexual recidivism, also identifed by Gunby and Woodhams 

(2010) and van der Put and colleagues (2013). Leroux et al. (2016) also described social isolation and lack of 

peer intimacy as a risk factor, although specifcally in the case of adolescents who sexually abused children, 

rather than those who sexually abused peers or adults. Similarly, Miner and colleagues (2016) identifed social 

isolation as a risk factor, or predictor, for adolescents who sexually abuse children (but not peers or adults), as 

well as the adolescent’s experience of masculine inadequacy. 

However, in direct contrast to the Worling and Långström (2006) typology, Epperson and colleagues 

(2006), Mallie et al. (2011) and Carpentier and Proulx (2011) found empirical support for a history of sexual 

victimization as a risk factor for juvenile sexual recidivism, and Epperson and colleagues (2006) also found 

empirical evidence for a history of nonsexual offending as a risk factor, both of which were identifed by 

Worling and Långström as unlikely risk factors for sexual recidivism. In their analysis of data from the National 

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Casey, Beadnell and Lindhorst (2009) also found childhood sexual 

victimization to be a signifcant predictor of later sexually coercive behavior, as was a history of adolescent 

delinquency. Similarly, Leroux et al. (2016) implicated general delinquency as a risk factor, but primarily for 

adolescent sexual offenders with peer or adult victims. 
276 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Knight and Sims-Knight (2003, 2004) and Knight, Ronis and Zakireh (2009) found support for hypersexuality/ 

sexual deviance, impulsivity/antisocial behavior, arrogant/deceitful personality, violent behavior/fantasies 

and history of victimization as risk factors. However, only one of these factors (sexual deviance) was included 

among Worling and Långström’s (2006) empirically supported risk factors. 

In addition to identifying deviant sexual interests as a risk factor, McCann and Lussier (2008) found that having 

a stranger victim as predictive of sexual recidivism, as well as several risk factors described by Worling and 

Långström (2006) as empirically unsupported or unlikely. These included a history of prior nonsexual offenses, 

the use of threats or weapons, having a male victim and having a child victim. In addition, McCann and Lussier 

found that older age upon intake for treatment was associated with increased likelihood of reoffending. 

Nevertheless, they noted that even the risk factors found to be the best predictors of sexual recidivism in 

their study had a relatively small effect size and were based on fndings derived from analyses involving small 

sample sizes. In an earlier meta-analysis, Heilbrun, Lee and Cottle (2005)7

 concluded that younger age at frst 

offense, prior noncontact sexual offenses and having an acquaintance victim (rather than a stranger victim) 

were associated with sexual recidivism. However, in their study of 193 juveniles who commit sexual offenses, 

Spice and colleagues (2013) found that only opportunity to reoffend was signifcantly associated with sexual 

recidivism, although a number of risk and protective factors were linked to nonsexual recidivism. 

Finally, Worling, Bookalam and Litteljohn (2012) identifed obsessive sexual interests and/or preoccupation, 

antisocial interpersonal orientation, lack of intimate peer relationships/social isolation, interpersonal 

aggression and problematic parent-child relationships/parental rejection as risk factors for juvenile sexual 

recidivism, only two of which were identifed as empirically supported or promising risk factors in Worling 

and Långström’s (2006) earlier typology. In his continuing research, Långström (2011) has described sexual 

offense in a public area, sexual offense involving a stranger victim, two or more sexual offenses and two or 

more victims as risk factors for juvenile sexual recidivism. However, only one of these appears in Worling and 

Långström’s earlier typology. 

As the fndings presented above demonstrate, research on the risk factors for sexual recidivism has produced 

inconsistent and sometimes contradictory results. Indeed, as Spice and colleagues (2013) observe, it is clear that 

the research literature regarding risk factors for sexual recidivism among sexually abusive youth is disconnected 

and varied, with little to unify it. Whether the disparate fndings are an artifact of the methodological 

variations found across studies, a refection of real-world risk factor dynamics or some combination of the 

two remains unknown at this time. Spice and colleagues (2013) and McCann and Lussier (2008) have voiced 

concerns about the idiosyncratic nature of individual studies as well as the lack of consistency across studies 

in terms of research designs, samples, hypotheses and statistical procedures. However, Rich (2009) argues 

that risk factors for sexual recidivism may operate differently in different people, and at different points in 

child and adolescent development. For instance, in their study of 1,396 juvenile offenders, van der Put and 

colleagues (2011) found that the effect of both static and dynamic risk factors on recidivism varied by the age 

of the adolescent. Thus, risk factors may exert different infuences on the propensity to reoffend depending 

on a number of personal and contextual factors, including the juvenile’s age, development and social settings, 

and the myriad interaction effects different risk factors have in different circumstances and at different points 

in time. Casey, Beadnell and Lindhorst (2009) similarly noted how diffcult it is to clearly implicate in sexually 

coercive behavior any one risk factor in the absence of other potential risk factors, again highlighting the role 

multiple risk factors play in contributing to juvenile sexual recidivism. 

Both Seto and Lalumière (2010) and van der Put and colleagues (2013) describe further subtlety in 

understanding and identifying risk factors for juvenile sexual recidivism. Each set of authors recognizes prior 

childhood sexual victimization as a risk factor for later juvenile sexually abusive behavior. However, Seto and 

Lalumière describe childhood sexual abuse as a risk factor for the onset of juvenile sexually abusive behavior, 

but not for sexual reoffense. Similarly, in their study of 625 sexually abusive youth, van der Put and colleagues 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 277 

found that a history of childhood sexual abuse was not a risk factor for recidivism, although they reported 

signifcant differences in the incidence of prior sexual victimization among different types or groups of sexually 

abusive youth, refecting both heterogeneity within the population and the multifaceted nature of risk factors. 

Risk Factors for Sexual Recidivism: Summary and Conclusions 

Despite a developing research base, the empirical evidence concerning the validity of commonly identifed risk 

factors for juvenile sexual offending remains weak and inconsistent. As a result, the knowledge base regarding 

risk factors for juvenile sexual recidivism is speculative and provisional at this point in time, but it is evolving. 

The inability of research to thus far produce trustworthy and defnitive evidence regarding juvenile risk factors 

for sexual recidivism may refect problems with the research undertaken to date. However, it is also likely that 

complex interactions among different risk factors are at play at different times in the development of children 

and adolescents and that these dynamics are exceptionally diffcult to disentangle and document empirically. 

Indeed, Krahé and Vanwesenbeeck (2016) write that juvenile sexually abusive behavior results from the 

interaction of multiple risk factors and variables found at different levels, ranging from the macro social level 

to the level of the individual youth. Furthermore, similarities found between risk factors that place juveniles 

at risk for sexual offending and those that place juveniles at risk for many other problem behaviors, including 

general delinquency, complicate matters even further. Far more research is needed to identify, understand and 

construct both static and dynamic risk variables linked specifcally to juvenile sexual recidivism. 

Juvenile Risk Assessment Instruments 

Most studies designed to assess the accuracy and validity of juvenile risk assessment instruments have focused 

on the overall structure and predictive accuracy of the most widely used instruments, rather than the individual 

risk factors within them. Since many, if not most, of the risk factors used in these instruments have not been 

empirically validated, it is not surprising that instrument validation studies have produced weak or inconsistent 

results. Nevertheless, there is some empirical support for the capacity of risk assessment instruments to identify 

statistically valid risk factors, as well as for the predictive validity of various instruments. However, it is not 

currently possible to defnitively assert that any such instrument is empirically validated in terms of its capacity 

to accurately predict juvenile sexual recidivism. Based on the current, and still developing, research literature, 

the best we can say about current juvenile sexual risk assessment instruments is that they are partially 

validated, meaning that validation of their ability to accurately estimate sexual recidivism is weak, with 

evidence — often only mild to moderate — provided by some research studies but not others. Kim and Duwe 

(2016), for instance, describe limitations in the capacity of existing risk assessment tools to reliably predict 

juvenile sexual recidivism. Similarly, Prentky et al. (2016) describe the inability of research to conclude that any 

current risk assessment instrument is able to accurately estimate or predict juvenile sexual recidivism. 

Validation Studies of the Most Commonly Used Instruments 

Although there are a number of juvenile sexual risk assessment instruments in use today, the two most 

commonly used instruments in North America are the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) 

and the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR), both of which are structured and 

empirically informed instruments designed for clinical assessment. The only actuarial assessment instrument 

currently available for use with juveniles who commit sexual offenses is the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism 

Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II), but it is not used as extensively as either J-SOAP-II or ERASOR. Unlike 

J-SOAP-II and ERASOR — both of which are structured clinical instruments — the JSORRAT-II is a static 

assessment instrument; that is, it includes only static risk factors. 
278 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

The JSORRAT-II has been validated by its designers for use only in Utah (where it was initially developed) and 

Iowa, but it is also available for use in Georgia and California, where it is presently undergoing, and has been 

for some time, validation studies. Despite its lack of validation in California, the instrument has nonetheless 

been selected by the State Authorized Risk Assessment Tool for Sex Offenders Committee (www.saratso.org) as 

the required instrument to be used in the assessment of male juveniles who commit sexual offenses (California 

Penal Code, §§ 290.03-290.08). However, the instrument authors have relaxed the use of the JSORRAT-II 

outside of these four states, so that it may now be used as a measure of relative risk (in which individual risk is 

compared against the total sample), rather than absolute risk (the statistical probability of a sexual reoffense). 

Inter-Rater Reliability 

The J-SOAP-II, ERASOR and JSORRAT-II have each been generally reported to have inter-rater reliability 

(Caldwell, Ziemke & Vitacco, 2008; Knight, Ronis & Zakireh, 2009; Martinez, Flores & Rosenfeld, 2007; Park 

& Bard, 2006; Viljoen et al., 2008). For example, in a study of both ERASOR and J-SOAP-II, Rajlic and Gretton 

(2010) found strong inter-rater reliability for both instruments, with an intraclass correlation score of 0.78 for 

the total risk assignment of ERASOR and 0.94 for the J-SOAP-II total score.8 

However, Vitacco and colleagues (2009) report an absence of well-designed and executed inter-rater reliability 

studies in the juvenile risk assessment feld overall, pointing out the need for these studies across populations 

of juveniles in different treatment or supervision settings as well as for research that examines the potential 

for allegiance bias. Although their study focused on three sexual risk assessment instruments commonly 

used with adults, Murrie and colleagues (2009) found that assessed risk levels varied depending on whether 

the assessment instrument was administered by an evaluator retained by the defense or the prosecution. 

This suggests that assessed risk scores used in legal proceedings may be infuenced by the allegiance of the 

evaluator. Boccaccini and colleagues (2012) also found that subjective factors infuenced assessment outcomes 

in their study of an actuarial instrument used with adults, even though high inter-rater reliability values were 

reported for the instrument. 

Predictive Validity 

Drawing frm conclusions about the predictive validity of juvenile risk assessment instruments is diffcult 

for several reasons. First, relatively few validation studies of juvenile risk assessment instruments have been 

undertaken to date, and research that has examined the predictive validity of juvenile instruments has 

produced inconsistent fndings. Second, there is very little consistency across validation studies in terms of the 

recidivism defnition employed, the time period studied, the selection of the sample/cohort, the study design 

itself and the ways in which statistics are applied9

 and/or interpreted. In addition, some research has reviewed 

multiple instruments, some of which are not intended nor designed to measure risk for sexual recidivism, while 

other research has reviewed and evaluated only a single instrument. Sometimes, but not always, the research 

has also reviewed the capacity of juvenile sexual risk instruments to accurately predict nonsexual recidivism, 

although none of the juvenile risk assessment instruments currently available for use in the feld are designed 

for that purpose. Notwithstanding these problems, research fndings concerning the predictive validity of the 

J-SOAP-II, ERASOR and JSORRAT-II are sequentially presented in subsequent sections below. 

Studies that have examined the predictive validity of each instrument are shown in Table 4-1. However, despite 

continued research on the psychometric properties of juvenile sexual risk assessment instruments, as well as 

continued interest in the process and application of juvenile sexual risk assessment in general, little new or 

recent research has been undertaken with respect to the predictive validity of these instruments. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 279 

Table 4-1. Snapshot of Predictive Validity Research 

Study Authors 

Instrument Studied 

J-SOAP-II ERASOR JSORRAT-II Other 

Aebi et al. (2011) X 

Caldwell & Dickinson (2009) X 

Caldwell, Ziemke & Vitacco (2008) X 

• Texas Juvenile Sex Offender 

Risk Assessment Instrument 

• Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale 

• Wisconsin Department of 

Corrections Guidelines for 

Release 

Chu et al. (2012) X X 

Epperson et al. (2006) X 

Epperson & Ralston (2009) 

Epperson & Ralston (2015) 

Epperson, Ralston & Edwards (2009) 

Ralston, Epperson & Edwards (2014) 

X 

Fanniff & Letourneau (2012) X 

Hiscox, Witt & Haran (2007) Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale 

Martinez, Flores & Rosenfeld (2007) X 

Parks & Bard (2006) X 

Prentky et al. (2010) X 

Powers-Sawyer & Miner (2009) X 

Rajlic & Gretton (2010) X X 

Ralston & Epperson (2012) X 

Viljoen et al. (2008) X 

Viljoen et al. (2009) X 

Worling, Bookalam & Litteljohn (2012) X 

Viljoen, Mordell & Beneteau (2012) X X X 

Statistics Used in Assessing Predictive Validity: Area Under the Curve 

Statistics used to evaluate the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments vary by study; Area under the 

curve values (also known as receiver operating characteristics) have been increasingly and commonly used for 

this purpose. In part used to overcome the possibility of false positives, which can occur with low base rates 

(such as those for the sexual recidivism of juveniles), area under the curve analysis is unaffected by base rate 

variations (Craig, Browne & Stringer, 2004; Wollert, 2006). 

Whereas an area under the curve value of 1.0 represents 100 percent predictive validity, or discrimination, an 

area under the curve of 0.5 represents only a 50 percent chance of accuracy, or a level of predictive accuracy 

that is no better than chance and lacks discriminative value. However, there is no clear standard or benchmark 

for what area under the curve values between these two points represent, other than the fact that any area 

under the curve value of 0.51 or higher indicates a probability greater than chance, with a value of 0.64 

meeting a commonly accepted standard of statistical signifcance. Nevertheless, statistical signifcance in this 

case simply denotes that the result is not simply the result of chance, and should not be equated with strong 
280 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

predictive validity. Indeed, Singh, Desmarais and Van Dorn (2013) report a lack of consistency in the description 

and interpretation of area under the curve performance indicators across studies, suggesting a need for 

standardized guidelines for risk assessment predictive validity studies, although “there is no such agreement” 

(Singh, 2014, p. 181). In fact, although there is some disagreement regarding what the area under the curve 

value actually represents with respect to weak, mild, moderate or strong predictive validity, Kim and Duwe 

(2016) suggest that the bar is often set low in describing the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments 

across the feld. Caution and critical appraisal is thus required in considering the meaning of an area under the 

curve value when it comes to evaluating the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. 

However, drawn from the general statistical literature (for instance, Fan, Upadhye & Worster, 2006; Streiner 

& Cairney, 2007; Zhu, Zeng & Wang, 2010), area under the curve values between 0.65 and 0.7 are generally 

considered to show weak-mild predictive accuracy, values between 0.71 and 0.8 indicate mild to moderate 

predictive accuracy and values above 0.8 indicate moderate to strong predictive accuracy. Area under the curve 

values between 0.5 and 0.6 suggest that predictive accuracy is no better or little better than chance. Values 

between 0.61 and 0.64/0.65 offer weak evidence of predictive accuracy, as these values fall below the threshold 

that demonstrates any meaningful level of predictive validity, despite reaching a level of statistical signifcance. 

Nevertheless, Kim and Duwe (2016) describe predictive validation as a matter of degree in the feld of risk 

assessment, in which an instrument may be considered to show predictive validity as long as it meets or 

exceeds, even slightly, a level of statistical signifcance. 

Predictive Validity of the J-SOAP-II 

The J-SOAP-II has received the most attention with respect to its psychometric properties and its capacity for 

predictive validity. The instrument has also been studied in combination with, and in contrast to, other juvenile 

risk assessment instruments, such as the ERASOR, JSORRAT-II and other more general (i.e., nonsexual) juvenile 

risk assessment instruments. 

Table 4-2 summarizes research fndings regarding the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II. Area under the 

curve values reported in each study for the J-SOAP-II total score and the instrument’s four subscale scores are 

presented in the table, in most cases for both sexual and nonsexual or general recidivism predictive accuracy. 

Overall, the values shown in Table 4-2 tend to follow an inconsistent pattern across individual studies. Area 

under the curve values for the J-SOAP-II total score, for instance, range from 0.51 to 0.83 for sexual recidivism, 

indicating that some studies found strong levels of predictive validity while others found that the instrument’s 

predictive accuracy was no better than chance. Similar variation is reported for nonsexual recidivism and for 

the instrument’s four subscales. Variation in the predictive validity of the instrument is even found within 

individual studies. 

The strongest support for the predictive validity of J-SOAP-II arguably comes from the study conducted by 

Prentky and colleagues (2010). The research examined the predictive validity of the instrument based on an 

analysis of sexual recidivism for 336 preadolescent and 223 adolescent males using a follow-up period of seven 

years. Two of the researchers who conducted the study were involved in the development of the instrument. 

Prentky and colleagues reported total score area under the curve values of 0.8 for the preadolescent males and 

0.83 for the adolescent males, who were among the higher risk offenders in the study sample. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 281 

Table 4-2. Overview of Research Into the Predictive Validity of the J-SOAP-II 

Study Authors 

J-SOAP-II 

Total Score 

J-SOAP-II Subscales 

Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 

Type of Recidivism 

Sex NS/ 

Gen Sex NS/ Gen Sex NS/ Gen Sex NS/ Gen Sex NS/ Gen 

Aebi et al. (2011) .65 .61 .51 .47 .74 .66 .5 .57 .74 .6 

Caldwell & Dickinson (2009) 

1-year follow-up NA NA .23 .39 .59 .55 NA NA NA NA 

Caldwell & Dickinson (2009) 

49-month follow-up NA NA .47 .39 .7 .65 NA NA NA NA 

Caldwell, Ziemke & Vitacco (2008) 

Cox regression 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig Sig Not Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Chu et al. (2012) .51 .79 .72 .52 .37 .71 .41 .79 .55 .69 

Fanniff & Letourneau (2012) .58 .6 NG NG .64 .61 NA .61 NA NA 

Parks & Bard (2006) 

Cox regression 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig Sig Sig Not Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Not 

Sig 

Powers-Sawyer & Miner (2009) .75 .45 .72 .41 .64 .47 NA NA NA NA 

Prentky et al. (2010) 

Preadolescents .8 NA .78 NA .56 NA NA NA .76 NA 

Prentky et al. (2010) 

Adolescents .83 NA .83 NA .66 NA NA NA .81 NA 

Rajlic & Gretton (2010) 

Total sample .69 .77 .65 .56 .61 .79 .64 .7 .68 .74 

Rajlic & Gretton (2010) 

Juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses only 

.8 .62 .66 .48 .73 .72 .75 .51 .77 .62 

Rajlic & Gretton (2010) 

Juveniles who commit sexual and 

nonsexual offenses 

.51 .74 .59 .51 .41 .72 .51 .73 .53 .69 

Viljoen et al. (2008) .54 .56 .6 .53 .54 .64 .52 .49 .45 .54 

Viljoen, Mordell & Beneteau (2012) .67 .66 .61 .49 .63 .66 .6 .6 .7 .65 

Martinez, Flores & Rosenfeld (2007) .78 .76 

Static Scale (1 and 2) Dynamic Scale (3 and 4) 

Sex NS/Gen Sex NS/Gen 

.63 .68 .86 .74 

Note: Results are shown by area under the curve value, unless otherwise noted. Sex = sexual recidivism; NS/Gen = nonsexual or general recidivism; NG = value not given; NA = 

scale not assessed; Sig = signifcant. 

However, in a 2012 study involving 73 adolescent males who sexually offended, Fanniff and Letourneau (2012) 

found that the J-SOAP-II total score was not predictive of either sexual recidivism (AUC = 0.58) or general 

recidivism (AUC = 0.6). In studying both the J-SOAP-II and JSORRAT-II, Viljoen and colleagues (2008) reported that 

neither instrument reached a level of statistical signifcance in predicting sexual recidivism. The J-SOAP-II achieved 

an area under the curve value of only 0.54 for sexual recidivism and 0.56 for general recidivism. Similarly, Parks 

and Bard (2006) and Caldwell, Ziemke and Vitacco (2008) found no relationship between the total score of the 

instrument and either sexual or nonsexual recidivism. Chu and colleagues (2012) studied the use of J-SOAP-II in 

Singapore and also found that the total score was not predictive of sexual recidivism (AUC = 0.51); however, the 

researchers reported that the instrument showed moderate predictive validity for general recidivism (AUC = 0.79). 
282 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

In their study, Rajlic and Gretton (2010) found substantial variation in the predictive accuracy of the J-SOAPII within subgroups of sexually abusive youth who later sexually recidivated. While the researchers reported 

a sexual recidivism area under the curve value of 0.69 (demonstrating mild predictive accuracy) based on an 

analysis of all 286 study subjects, a higher degree of predictive validity was found among the 128 juveniles 

who had previously committed only sexual offenses, and a much lower degree of predictive validity was 

found among study subjects who had previously committed both sexual and nonsexual offenses. For juvenile 

recidivists who had previously committed only sexual offenses, Rajlic and Gretton reported an area under the 

curve value of 0.8, indicating moderate validity in predicting sexual recidivism. Conversely, they reported a 

value of only 0.51 in predicting sexual recidivism in the group of 14010 juveniles who had previously committed 

both sexual and nonsexual offenses, indicating only chance levels of predictive validity. 

Finally, Viljoen, Mordell and Beneteau (2012) conducted a meta-analysis that examined the predictive accuracy 

of several sexual risk assessment instruments, including the J-SOAP-II. Aggregated area under the curve values 

were reported for each instrument studied.11 For the J-SOAP-II, the researchers reported aggregated values of 

0.67 for sexual recidivism and 0.66 for general recidivism, both of which narrowly fall into the range of mild 

predictive validity. It is important to note, however, that these fndings arguably refect a homogenized view 

of the instrument’s predictive validity rather than a set of consistent or stable validation results across different 

studies, as aggregated area under the curve values mask and flter out signifcant variation in outcomes 

produced across different studies. 

J-SOAP-II Subscales 

As previously noted, the J-SOAP-II consists of four subscales, each of which produces a risk score. As the data 

reported in Table 4-2 indicate, research examining the predictive validity of these subscales has also produced 

inconsistent fndings. Wide variations in predictive accuracy are found across studies even within specifc 

subscales. For example, area under the curve values for sexual recidivism within subscale 1 of the J-SOAPII range from a high of 0.83 (strong predictive accuracy) to a low of 0.23 (no better than chance). Similar 

variation is apparent within other subscales of the instrument. 

Although there is some support in the literature for the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II, the empirical 

evidence can best be described as partial and inconsistent. In some studies, evidence of predictive accuracy has 

been found for the total score of the instrument, while in others the total score was found to be less predictive 

than the individual subscales of the instrument. Rajlic and Gretton (2010) also found signifcant differences in 

the predictive capacity of the instrument based on the composition of the juveniles being assessed. Further, 

in some independent research, the J-SOAP-II has been found to be effective in predicting general, but not 

sexual, recidivism. Given these disparate fndings, the J-SOAP-II cannot be considered an empirically validated 

instrument at this time. Far more research is needed to determine whether the disparate validation fndings 

refect true weaknesses in the predictive accuracy of the instrument or shortcomings within the validation 

research undertaken to date. However, as Fanniff and Letourneau (2012, p. 403) aptly state — 

Mental health professionals conducting predisposition evaluations should proceed with great caution 

when interpreting J-SOAP-II scores as part of broader risk assessments. Even when J-SOAP-II is only one 

source informing clinical judgment, evaluators have been unable to produce valid estimates of risk. 

Although Hecker (2014) challenged Fanniff and Letourneau’s (2012) conclusion regarding scale 1 of the J-SOAPII, Fanniff and Letourneau (2014) stood by the results and implication of their study. They, in turn, argued that 

greater level of accuracy is demanded when instrument scores may be used to inform decisions that may have 

a serious, long-term and possibly harmful impact on the young person, urging “caution in the interpretation of 

J-SOAP-II scores in disposition evaluations” (p. 410). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 283 

 

Predictive Validity of the ERASOR 

The ERASOR has not been as widely examined as the J-SOAP-II. However, like the J-SOAP-II, the available 

research on the ERASOR offers inconsistent and, at best, partial, support for its predictive validity. 

Table 4-3 summarizes research fndings concerning the predictive validity of the instrument. Area under the 

curve values reported in each study for the instrument’s clinical rating score and total score are presented for 

both sexual and general recidivism predictive accuracy. The reader should note that the ERASOR total score is a 

numerical scoring system assigned by researchers, rather than a scale that appears in the instrument itself; it is 

not likely to be used by practitioners in the feld. Instead, the instrument employs only a clinical rating system 

based on the evaluator’s professional judgment of risk associated with the presenting risk factors. 

As with the J-SOAP-II, the area under the curve values reported for the ERASOR vary considerably across 

studies. For example, area under the curve values for the clinical rating score for sexual recidivism range from 

0.86 (high predictive validity) to 0.54 (no better than chance). Total score values for sexual recidivism range 

from 0.93 to 0.54. 

The strongest support for the predictive validity of ERASOR comes from the study conducted by Worling, 

Bookalam and Litteljohn (2012). The researchers reported an area under the curve value of 0.82 for the 

sexual recidivism clinical rating score based on a mean follow-up period of 1.4 years. However, the reported 

value drops to 0.61 when the follow-up period increases to a mean of 3.7 years. Worling and his colleagues 

suggested that this may refect the deterioration of accurate risk prediction in still-developing adolescents, 

and noted that the instrument is intended to measure risk in a two-year period. In discussing their fndings, 

Worling, Bookalam and Litteljohn (2012, p. 14) stated — 

The fact that more contemporaneous ratings were ... more predictive of subsequent sexual offending 

suggests that it is important for clinicians to reassess adolescents and that clinical and forensic decisions are 

likely to be more accurate if they are based on more recent risk assessments. 

Table 4-3. Overview of Research Into the Predictive Validity of the ERASOR 

Study Authors 

Total Score Clinical Rating 

Sexual 

Recidivism 

General 

Recidivism 

Sexual 

Recidivism 

General 

Recidivism 

Chu et al. (2012) .74 .66 .83 .69 

Rajlic & Gretton (2010) 

Total sample .71 .7 .67 .71 

Rajlic & Gretton (2010) 

Juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses only 

.86 .66 .77 .64 

Rajlic & Gretton (2010) 

Juveniles who commit sexual and 

nonsexual offenses 

.54 .61 .54 .58 

Viljoen et al. (2009) .6 .53 .64 .5 

Viljoen, Mordell & Beneteau (2012) .66 .59 .66 .59 

Worling, Bookalam & Litteljohn (2012) 

7.9-year follow-up (mean 3.7 years) .72 .65* .61 .61 

Worling, Bookalam & Litteljohn (2012) 

2.5-year follow-up (mean 1.4 years) .93 .62* .82 .62 

Note: Results shown in area under the curve values. 

* Nonsexual violent crimes only. Rates for nonviolent crimes are not reported in this chapter. 
284 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Indeed, the study conducted by Worling — the instrument’s primary author — and his colleagues shows 

variability in results depending on what is measured, when it is measured and how it is measured. Area under 

the curve values range from 0.61 to 0.82 for the clinical rating score, and from 0.72 to 0.93 for the total score in 

this study. 

Although Worling et al. (2012) argue that the results of their study provide support for the predictive validity 

of the ERASOR regarding sexual recidivism, their results varied depending on the length of the follow-up 

period and how the instrument was scored. Moreover, for the purposes of research, Worling and colleagues, 

like researchers in some other studies, scored the ERASOR in ways that most feld evaluators would not. In 

addition to a clinical rating (low, moderate or high) based on the fnal judgment of the evaluator (which is the 

way in which ERASOR is designed to be scored by evaluators in the feld), Worling et al. additionally scored 

the total number of risk factors assessed as present and calculated a total score, based on assigning numerical 

values to each risk factor. As noted, based on the design of and instructions for the instrument, it is only the 

clinical rating score that is most likely to be used in the feld. 

While some studies other than that conducted by Worling and his colleagues (2012) have found moderate to 

high levels of sexual recidivism predictive accuracy associated with the ERASOR clinical rating score, others have 

not produced similar results. For example, Chu and colleagues (2012) reported an area under the curve value 

of 0.83 for the ERASOR clinical scale, indicating moderate to strong predictive validity for sexual recidivism. 

However, Viljoen and colleagues (2009) examined the predictive validity of ERASOR as part of a larger study 

of risk assessment instruments and reported a value of only 0.64, concluding that the instrument did not yield 

signifcant predictive validity for accurately or dependably predicting juvenile sexual recidivism.12 

In their study, Rajlic and Gretton (2010) reported that ERASOR was moderately predictive of sexual recidivism, 

with an overall area under the curve value of 0.71 for the total score and 0.67 for the clinical rating score. 

When used to evaluate risk for sexual recidivism among juveniles who had previously committed only sexual 

offenses, ERASOR yielded an area under the curve of 0.86 for the total score and 0.77 for the clinical rating 

score. However, when used to evaluate predictive validity for sexual recidivism for juvenile sexual offenders 

who had previously committed both sexual and nonsexual offenses, ERASOR resulted in an area under the 

curve value of only 0.54 for both the clinical rating and total score, failing to show predictive validity. 

Most recently, in their meta-analysis consolidating the results from 33 studies, Viljoen, Mordell and Beneteau (2012) 

reported aggregate area under the curve values for the ERASOR of 0.66 for sexual recidivism and 0.59 for nonsexual 

recidivism. Even though an aggregate score potentially infates the area under the curve value, Viljoen and 

colleagues’ results still produce only marginal evidence of predictive validity for the instrument. Based on the 

evidence, ERASOR may be considered a promising, but not an empirically validated, instrument. 

Predictive Validity of the JSORRAT-II 

The JSORRAT-II is the frst and only actuarial risk assessment instrument available for use with juveniles 

who sexually offend. Although it is still undergoing validation, the introduction of JSORRAT-II has added a 

signifcant new dimension to the assessment of juveniles who commit sexual offenses. However, few studies 

focusing on JSORRAT-II have been undertaken to date, and their fndings offer little consistent empirical 

support for the predictive validity of the instrument, based on area under the curve values. 

Table 4-4 summarizes research fndings from fve studies that examined the predictive validity of JSORRATII. Area under the curve values reported in each study for the instrument’s sexual and nonsexual recidivism 

predictive validity are presented in the table. Again, the research has produced mixed results. Area under 

the curve values for sexual recidivism range from a high of 0.89 (strong predictive validity) to a low of 0.53 

(predictive validity that is no better than chance). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 285 

 

Table 4-4. Overview of Research Into the Predictive Validity of the JSORRAT-II 

Study Authors 

JSORRAT-II 

Sexual Recidivism General Recidivism 

Epperson et al. (2006) .89* NA 

Epperson & Ralston (2009) 

Epperson, Ralston & Edwards (2009) .65–.66 NA 

Ralston & Epperson (2012) .7 .54 

Ralston, Epperson & Edwards (2014) .7 .54 

Age 11-13 .73 

Age 14-15 .74 NA

Age 16-17 .56 

Viljoen et al. (2008) .53 .54 

Viljoen, Mordell & Beneteau (2012) .64 NA 

Note: Results shown in area under the curve values. 

* AUC value for sexual recidivism prior to age 18. The AUC value for sexual recidivism at any time is 0.79. 

The strongest support for the predictive validity of the JSORRAT-II comes from a study conducted by the instrument’s 

developers, Epperson and colleagues (2006). In their 2006 study based on an initial sample of 636 adjudicated 

male juveniles who committed sexual offenses, Epperson and colleagues (2006) reported an area under the 

curve value of 0.89 for predicting sexual recidivism prior to age 18, and a value of 0.79 for predicting sexual 

recidivism any time prior to or after age 18. Both values refect strong predictive accuracy. However, in 

examining the instrument’s capacity to accurately predict sexual recidivism only after age 18, Epperson and 

colleagues reported a value of 0.64, indicating weak predictive validity. This led the researchers to speculate 

that different risk factors may be at play for young adult recidivists compared to juvenile recidivists. Despite the 

strong area under the curve values Epperson and colleagues found in their 2006 study, in the cross-validation 

study of the instrument (the sample against which the initial predictive model was tested after frst being 

developed), Epperson and Ralston (2009) and Epperson, Ralston and Edwards (2009) reported sexual recidivism 

values of only 0.66 and 0.65, respectively, both of which fall at the threshold of mild predictive validity (despite 

statistical signifcance, which again simply indicates that the results are greater than chance alone). 

In a more recent study, Ralston and Epperson (2012) and Ralston, Epperson and Edwards (2014) reported an 

area under the curve value of 0.7 for the JSORRAT-II’s capacity to predict sexual recidivism, indicating mildmoderate predictive accuracy. However, when gradated by age, although area under the curve values for 

adolescents aged 11-15 fell between 0.73 and 0.74, indicating moderately good predictive validity, when 

applied to older adolescents, aged 16-17, the value was only 0.56. 

Independent studies focusing on the JSORRAT-II are few, and have not found the same level of predictive 

validity that Epperson and colleagues found in their 2006 study and 2012 studies. In the only independent 

study of the instrument, Viljoen and colleagues (2008) found no evidence of predictive validity for either 

sexual or nonsexual recidivism, reporting area under the curve values of 0.53 for sexual recidivism and 0.54 for 

general recidivism. In their meta-analysis of all juvenile risk assessment instrument validation studies, Viljoen, 

Mordell and Beneteau (2012) reported an aggregated area under the curve value of 0.64 (which included the 

values previously reported by Epperson and colleagues) for the capacity of JSORRAT-II to predict juvenile sexual 

recidivism, which falls just below a marginal level of predictive validity despite the aggregated score. 

In summary, while there is some evidence supporting the instrument’s capacity for accurately predicting sexual 

recidivism for juveniles prior to age 18, the research studies conducted by independent researchers have failed 
286 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

to demonstrate that the instrument meets the threshold for predictive accuracy. Given the limited body of 

research on the instrument and the considerable variation in fndings, JSORRAT-II cannot yet be considered an 

empirically validated instrument. 

State-Specifc Juvenile Risk Assessment Instruments 

In addition to the three instruments discussed above, a handful of state-specifc juvenile risk assessment 

instruments have been developed and placed into use to meet state requirements for sexual offender 

registration. (For more information on registration, see Chapter 6: “Registration and Notifcation of Juveniles 

Who Commit Sexual Offenses,” in the Juvenile section.) Structured and empirically based risk assessment 

instruments have been developed and tailored for use in Texas (Texas Juvenile Sex Offender Risk Assessment 

Instrument), New Jersey (Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale: JRAS) and Wisconsin (Wisconsin Department of 

Corrections Guidelines for Release). However, none of these instruments are based on actuarial validation, 

nor are they empirically validated (Vitacco et al., 2009). Caldwell, Ziemke and Vitacco (2008) concluded 

that the risk constructs underlying the instruments were not valid, and that none of the three instruments 

predicts sexual recidivism. 

One study has been completed on the JRAS (used in New Jersey), conducted by the instrument’s developers, 

Hiscox, Witt and Haran (2007). The study followed 231 adjudicated male adolescent sexual offenders for an 

average follow-up period of 8.5 years and found that one of the three primary factors of JRAS — the antisocial 

factor — was moderately predictive of nonsexual recidivism and mildly predictive of sexual recidivism. Area 

under the curve values of 0.7 and 0.67 were found for nonsexual and sexual recidivism, respectively. The 

instrument’s sexual deviance factor proved not to be predictive of either sexual or nonsexual recidivism. In 

terms of the number of youth assessed at a risk level that correctly matched actual recidivism, only 19 percent 

of youth assessed at moderate risk and 25 percent of youth assessed at high risk actually sexually recidivated; 

there were false positive rates of 81 percent and 75 percent for youth assessed at moderate and high risk, 

respectively. 

The MEGA 

The Multiplex Empirically Guided Inventory of Ecological Aggregates for Assessing Sexually Abusive 

Adolescents and Children (MEGA) is a structured clinical risk assessment instrument released for use in 2013, 

after several years in development. To date, the instrument has undergone validation studies largely aimed at 

developing a strong instrument, conducted by its developer or close associate, and has yet to be evaluated by 

independent researchers. Studies have thus far focused primarily on the instrument’s internal construction and 

consistency (Miccio-Fonseca, 2009, 2010), with one study (Miccio-Fonseca, 2013) describing predictive validity, with 

reported area under the curve values for the risk scale of the instrument of 0.71 for ages 13-19 and 0.77 for 

ages 4-12, over a six-month follow-up period. While these values indicate mild-moderate predictive validity, the 

follow-up period is short, and predictive validity has yet to be examined or established over a longer follow-up 

period, and awaits independent research. 

The MEGA is intended for use with males and females aged 4 through 19, of all IQ levels; this is a remarkably 

wide range of potentially applicable assessment subjects for a single risk assessment instrument, including both 

young children and young adults. While the practical benefts of having a single instrument that can be used 

with so many different subjects are many, targeting such a wide range of subjects with a single instrument 

(in terms of age, gender and cognitive capacity) may inadvertently undermine the instrument’s capacity to 

predict recidivism accurately. In a study of almost 1,400 juvenile offenders, van der Put and colleagues (2011) 

found that the effect of both static and dynamic risk factors on recidivism, and hence predictive validity, varied 

by adolescent age. The researchers suggested not only that different risk assessment instruments be used for 

juveniles and adults, but that different instruments be used for different age groups within adolescence, as well. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 287 

Summary 

Although empirical support for the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR and JSORRAT-II is found in 

the literature, the instruments do not perform in a manner that suggests or proves their ability to accurately 

predict juvenile sexual recidivism (Caldwell et al., 2008; Viljoen et al., 2009; Vitacco, Viljoen & Petrila, 2009). As 

Knight, Ronis and Zakireh (2009) have stated, the relatively few studies of juvenile risk assessment instruments 

undertaken to date have not produced consistent evidence that either the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR or JSORRAT-II 

are effective in predicting sexual recidivism.13 Tests of the predictive accuracy of the instruments conducted 

by independent investigators have typically yielded mixed to poor results for both sexual and nonsexual 

risk, and especially for the prediction of sexual recidivism. Hence, none of the instruments has a consistently 

demonstrated record of predictive validity and, as, Viljoen, Mordell and Beneteau (2012) note, juvenile risk 

assessment instruments may be insuffcient to make predictions that require a high degree of precision, such as 

situations in which the civil commitment of juveniles who commit sexual offenses is at stake or juveniles face 

the possibility of extended or lifetime sexual offender registration. 

Until existing or new instruments are better validated, evaluations in this context will remain a complex 

balancing act between the need to provide the courts and other stakeholders with useful information 

and the serious limitations in empirically based knowledge about sexual risk. (Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012, 

pp. 403–404). 

No juvenile risk assessment instrument has 

demonstrated consistent predictive validity. 

Things to Come 

The juvenile sexual risk assessment feld continues to develop, and there is a signifcantly different type 

of risk assessment model on the horizon. Funded by the U.S. Department of Justice (grant # 2013-AWBX-0053), Kim and Duwe (2016) describe the development of a statistical machine learning model they hope 

will address the feld’s fundamental approach to risk assessment. Machine learning involves mathematical 

algorithms, in which the assessment model iteratively learns from data in order to form predictions, in this 

case regarding sexual recidivism. 

Based on a sample of over 3,000 juvenile offenders, Kim and Duwe (2016) describe the comparison of machine 

learning models against more traditional methods of risk prediction (comparing models for statistically 

estimating risk, not risk assessment instruments). In this study, one of several underway to build the model, 

machine learning models resulted in the highest area under the curve values for two-year and three-year 

follow-ups in the validation sample of 1,125 juvenile sexual offenders, ranging between 0.81 and 0.71, 

compared to values that ranged between 0.58 and 0.72 for more traditional models of prediction. As each 

prediction model was based on exactly the same set of information and variables, Kim and Duwe highlight the 

importance of how risk predictors were measured, and not simply what was measured or classifed. 

However, there is a tradeoff when it comes to statistical and computerized models of assessment and deriving 

information, not only about possible sexual recidivism, but, importantly, also the use of the risk assessment 

model as a means to inform, shape and guide treatment, and for the purposes of re-evaluation over time. 

That is, the possibility of gaining greater predictive power may also result in a loss of interpretive power and 

the capacity of risk assessment to understand youthful offenders and inform treatment. This juxtaposition of 

statistical (and in this case entirely computerized) and clinical assessment models raises questions about the role 

and nature of the risk assessment instrument/model in the larger and more comprehensive assessment of risk 
288 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

designed to drive case management and treatment, rather than passively predicting future behavior. Indeed, as 

Kim and Duwe (2016) note, the black box process of machine learning is unable to provide guidance on how to 

identify and address treatment needs. This is a bridge to be crossed in the event that machine learning models 

for juvenile sexual risk assessment become a reality, possibly sometime within the next one to two years. 

Protective Factors in Assessments of Juvenile Risk 

Although risk factors are the foundation of virtually all risk assessment instruments, in recent years, and 

increasingly so, more attention has been given to protective factors and their role in mitigating the effects of 

risk factors. Protective factors have been described in the child and adolescent development literature, and 

their role in delinquency prevention has long been recognized. Their appearance in the forensic literature and 

consideration of protective factors in the process of evaluating and treating risk for juvenile sexual recidivism, 

however, are both relatively new (for example, Langton, & Worling, 2015; de Vries Robbé, Mann, Maruna & 

Thornton, 2015). 

The relationship between risk and protective factors is complex. Jessor and colleagues (1995, 2014) describe 

risk and protection as opposite ends of the same constructs. They argue that risk and protective factors exist 

independently of one another, and are not statistically correlated. Similarly, Hall and colleagues (2012) view 

risk and protective factors as conceptually distinct (rather than opposite ends of a single dimension) and assert 

that it is not only possible, but essential to conceptualize and defne risk and protective factors independently 

from one another. Regardless, it remains diffcult to estimate the effects protective factors have on risk, even 

though the process of risk assessment arguably must take protective factors into account, and in addition there 

are different types of protective factors, include those that act directly and those that act indirectly, sometimes 

also known as promotive factors (Farrington & Ttof, 2011) 

In his critique of forensic risk assessment, Rogers (2000) describes assessment as inherently fawed if it pays 

attention only to risk factors without consideration of the presence, weight and action of protective factors. 

Similarly, Rutter (2003) describes the importance of paying attention to the possibility of factors that protect 

against antisocial behavior, as well as to those that fuel it. Although not referring to protective factors per se, 

in describing clinical predictions of risk Monahan (1995) noted the importance of giving balanced consideration 

to factors that indicate the absence of violent behavior, as well as those that suggest the recurrence of 

violence. Finally, several researchers have described the mitigating effects protective factors can have on 

risk, noting that these effects have direct implications for programming to reduce violent recidivism, as both 

risk and protective factors should be targets of intervention and treatment efforts (Lodewijks, de Ruiter & 

Doreleijers, 2010; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002). Indeed, Lodewijks, de Ruiter and Doreleijers (2010, p. 584) 

stated, “We can safely conclude that protective factors should be an inextricable part of all risk assessment 

instruments used with youth.” 

Despite their importance in mitigating 

risk, protective factors are incorporated in 

few juvenile instruments at this time. 

Despite the apparent importance of protective factors, few of the instruments commonly used with juveniles 

incorporate protective factors, and those that do either have no empirical support or are in development 

and have not yet been empirically validated. In fact, Worling, Bookalam and Litteljohn (2012) noted that very 

little research regarding factors that lead to the cessation of sexual offending behaviors for juveniles has 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 289 

been undertaken to date, and that it will be important for future research to identify protective factors and 

determine how best to combine risk and protective factors to enhance judgments of future sexual behavior. 

One of the frst studies to examine the relationship of risk and protective factors to sexual and nonsexual 

recidivism was conducted by Spice and colleagues (2013) using a sample of adolescent males who committed 

sexual offenses. Although the study failed to fnd any protective factors that were statistically related to sexual 

recidivism or desistance, study fndings nonetheless suggest there may be protective factors that are specifc to 

sexual, rather than nonsexual, recidivism. Like Worling, Bookalam and Litteljohn (2012), the researchers called 

for more research on both risk and protective factors and the roles they play in sexual offending, and they 

specifcally noted the need for studies that examine whether there are protective factors that apply to sexually 

abusive youth specifcally. Since that time, a handful of studies have emerged that address the nature and role 

of protective factors in helping to reduce or buffer against sexual recidivism, but this research is in its early 

stages. Nevertheless, learning more about and understanding the mechanisms and effects of protective factors 

on risk for sexual reoffense will perhaps prove as diffcult as better understanding the actions and complexities 

of risk factors. In their study, for example, Klein, Rettenberger, Yoon, Köhler and Briken (2015) found that the 

presence of protective factors failed to achieve any measurable effect on juvenile sexual recidivism, whereas 

van der Put and Asscher (2015) arrived at an opposite conclusion. In their study of sexually abusive youth, 

they found that the inclusion of protective factors in the risk assessment process added to increased predictive 

validity regarding sexual recidivism (although not in those juveniles who also had a history of violent offenses). 

A handful of juvenile sexual risk assessment instruments are worth noting due to their assimilation of 

protective factors. These include the AIM2 (Print et al., 2007), the Juvenile Risk Assessment Tool (J-RAT) (Rich, 

2011) and the previously mentioned MEGA (Miccio-Fonseca, 2010). However, the protective factors scales 

of these instruments have not yet been empirically tested, and so remain only theoretical instruments for 

clinical use and treatment planning at this time. The Protective Factors Scale (PFS) (Bremer, 2006) is not a risk 

assessment instrument, but was nevertheless developed specifcally for work with sexually abusive youth and 

its sexuality scale reviews three elements specifcally related to such behavior. However, the PFS has received 

scant attention from researchers and practitioners: It has not been subject to any form of validation and is 

not in general use in the feld. More recently, the Desistence for Adolescents Who Sexually Harm (DASH-13) 

has become available for helping to incorporate protective factors into the process of risk assessment, and has 

been the subject of one research study. However, Zeng, Chu & Lee (2015) found that the instrument did not 

predict desistance from sexual or nonsexual recidivism. 

Summary 

Research concerning the factors that place juveniles at risk for sexual offending behavior and sexual recidivism 

is still in its infancy, as is research on the capacity of risk assessment instruments to accurately predict risk for 

sexual recidivism. Nevertheless, studies that have been undertaken to date provide some important insights 

about both issues. 

First, the range of risk factors for juvenile sexual offending behavior and recidivism is relatively well defned, 

and the types and classes of factors that place youth at risk for sexually abusive behavior or sexual recidivism 

have been identifed. However, our understanding of these factors and how they relate to sexual offending 

tends to be global rather than specifc in nature. The role and effect of risk factors is fairly well understood, 

but the specifc mechanisms through which risk factors develop and ultimately impact the behavior of children 

and adolescents are not. The effects of risk factors under different circumstances and their interactions with 

one another are particularly obscure. Moreover, research has not yet produced a universally agreed upon, 

fnite and valid set of risk factors for sexually abusive behavior. 
290 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Second, the risk assessment instruments that are currently available for use with juveniles who sexually 

offend are far from empirically validated. In short, there is a lack of consistent, independently corroborated 

empirical evidence concerning both inter-rater reliability and the predictive validity of current juvenile sexual 

risk assessments, making it diffcult to conclude with any degree of confdence that the instruments are 

scientifcally valid. This raises concerns about the capacity of such instruments to reliably and accurately predict 

the risk of juvenile sexual recidivism or to inform either juvenile court decisions or public policy debates. 

While some validation research has produced promising fndings, the evidence concerning the predictive 

accuracy of various instruments is mixed and inconsistent overall. Thus, Vitacco and colleagues (2009) describe 

current instruments as important developmental milestones in further refning the risk assessment process 

and method, but far from complete. Viljoen, Mordell and Beneteau (2012) also warn that such instruments 

are not yet capable of making precise and certain estimates of risk and should thus be used cautiously in legal 

procedures, such as the civil commitment of juveniles who commit sexual offenses or their placement onto sex 

offender registries. 

Third, given the developmental processes that characterize both childhood and adolescence, there is a clear 

need for juvenile risk assessment instruments and processes to focus on estimates of short-term rather than 

long-term risk (Fanniff & Letourneau, 2012; Vitacco et al., 2009; Worling, Bookalam & Litteljohn, 2012). 

Participants in the Sex Offender Management Assessment and Planning Initiative forum expressed concern 

that estimates of risk reaching more than one to three years into the future are unlikely to suffciently account 

for the fuid nature of child and adolescent development. However, the adoption of a short-term assessment 

model will likely mean that the manner in which juvenile risk instruments are used and researched will have to 

signifcantly change. 

Finally, Rich (2011) and Spice and colleagues (2013) have argued for future research to study not only risk 

factors and the accuracy of risk assessment instruments, but also the nature of risk itself. They further argue 

that risk assessment instruments should be used as a platform for case management and treatment rather 

than for making “passive predictions of limited practical use” (Boer et al., 1997, p. 4). In this vein, Viljoen, 

Mordell and Beneteau (2012) write that despite the research focus on the prediction of sexual recidivism, these 

instruments are also intended to help manage risk and plan treatment to prevent reoffense. They note that 

increased attention to the utility of tools for these purposes will enable us to move beyond the prediction of 

sexual reoffense toward the prevention of sexual reoffense. 

Regardless of the strength of the instrument, sound risk assessment requires well-trained risk evaluators who 

do not simply rely on risk scores when making decisions about a juvenile offender, particularly decisions with 

potentially lifelong consequences. As described in the psychological evaluation guidelines of the American 

Psychological Association (Turner et al., 2001), risk evaluators should use their professional training and 

knowledge of psychology, human behavior and social interactions to draw clinical conclusions. Even when 

using an actuarial assessment tool, it remains important for the evaluator to apply clinical judgment in the risk 

assessment process. 

Indeed, SOMAPI national forum participants noted a need for the provision of federally funded training and 

technical assistance to ensure the development of well-trained evaluators who understand the nature of the 

risk assessment process and the limitations of assessment instruments that are currently available. Well-trained, 

knowledgeable evaluators are the best defense against the pitfalls associated with erroneous assumptions 

concerning the predictive accuracy or use of risk assessment instruments for juveniles who sexually offend. 

Those who use the results of juvenile risk assessments must also understand the strengths and weaknesses of 

the risk assessment process and the limitations of risk assessment instruments in use today, and particularly the 

lack of empirical evidence demonstrating their predictive accuracy. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 291 

Perhaps most important, risk assessment instruments must be integrated into a comprehensive assessment 

process that produces a thorough understanding of the juvenile who is being assessed. Risk assessment 

instruments certainly can play an important role in the process, but their current value arguably lies more in 

their ability to serve as a basis for case management and treatment rather than in their capacity to accurately 

predict risk. The role that risk assessment instruments can play in identifying the presence of dynamic risk 

factors that provide targets for treatment is particularly important, as is the role they can play in identifying 

the presence of protective factors and their potentially mitigating effects on risk. Indeed, participants in 

the 2012 SOMAPI forum recommended that protective factors be incorporated into juvenile risk assessment 

instruments, both those currently in use and those that will be developed in the future. Future research 

should be concerned with expanding the knowledge base concerning both risk and protective factors, 

including the mechanisms through which they affect the propensity to reoffend, particularly in combination 

with one another. 

Finally, better risk assessment instruments for juveniles who sexually offend and better trained evaluators are 

both needed. In describing the “covenant” between the developers and users of risk assessment instruments, 

Rich (2009) underscored how important well-designed instruments and trained, experienced evaluators are 

for effective professional practice. As Ward, Gannon and Birgden (2007, p. 207) aptly stated in discussing the 

responsibility of the instrument end user: 

Practitioners have obligations to always use such measures appropriately, ensure they are trained in their 

administration and, most importantly, make sure that the assessment process culminates in an etiological 

formulation that is based around the individual’s features alongside those they share with other offenders. 

Notes 

1. The base rate refers to the frequency with which a defned situation occurs, or its incidence rate. 

2. Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II). 

3. Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II). 

4. Inter-rater reliability refers to the consistency of a measure or tool in giving the same result when the same 

information is collected and assessed by different evaluators. 

5. Rich (2011) identifed 101 risk factors for juvenile sexually abusive behavior and more have since been 

described in the literature. 

6. The meta-analysis involved a combined sample of almost 3,900 adolescent male sexual offenders. In this 

meta-analysis, Seto and Lalumière described deviant sexual interest as “atypical” sexual interest. 

7. The meta-analysis involved nine studies. 

8. An intra-class correlation coeffcient greater than 0.75 indicates a high level of inter-rater consistency. 

9. However, receiver operating characteristic scores and resulting area under the curve values have been 

increasingly used in the assessment of the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. 

10. Eighteen juveniles were excluded from the breakdown into subgroups due to unavailable data regarding 

prior sexual and nonsexual offenses. 
292 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

11. Viljoen and colleagues studied the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR, JSORRAT-II and Static-99, an adult risk assessment 

instrument. Overall, the meta-analysis consolidated 33 studies involving more than 6,000 male adolescent 

sexual offenders. 

12. The other instruments in the study were the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) and the 

Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), which are designed to assess and predict risk 

for juvenile nonsexual violence and aggression, respectively; and Static-99, an adult actuarial risk assessment 

instrument. 

13. Also see Hempel et al. (2011). In their review of juvenile sexual risk assessment instruments, the researchers 

conclude that “the predictive validities of the risk assessment instruments for JSOs are still insuffcient to 

accurately predict recidivism” (p. 16). 

References 

Aebi, M., Plattner, B., Steinhausen, H.C. & Bessler. C. (2011). Predicting sexual and non-sexual recidivism in 

a consecutive sample of juveniles convicted of sexual offences. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 23, 456–473. 

Ægisdóttir, S., White, M.J., Spengler, P.M., Maugherman, A.S., Anderson, L.A., Cook, R.S., Nichols, C.N., 

Lampropoulos, G.K., Walker, B.S., Cohen, G.R. & Rush, J.D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment 

project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling 

Psychologist, 34, 341–382. 

Allan, M., Grace, R.C., Rutherford, B. & Hudson, S.M. (2007). Psychometric assessment of dynamic risk factors for 

child molesters. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 347–367. 

Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J. & Wormith, S.J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. 

Crime and Delinquency, 52, 7–27. 

Beggs, S.M. & Grace, R.C. (2011). Treatment gain for sexual offenders against children predicts reduced 

recidivism: A comparative validity study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 182–192. 

Boccaccini, M.T., Murrie, D.C., Mercado, C., Quesada, S., Hawes, S., Rice, A.K. & Jeglic, E.L. (2012). Implications of 

Static99 feld reliability fndings for score use and reporting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 42–58. 

Boer, D.P., Hart, S.D., Kropp, P.R. & Webster, C.D. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20. Burnaby, BC: 

The Mental Health, Law, & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University. 

Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs assessment and treatment. In A.T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing Correctional Options 

That Work: Defning the Demand and Evaluating the Supply (pp. 18–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 

355–379. 

Bonta, J. & Andrews, D.A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. 

Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 293 

Bremer, J. (2006). Protective factors scale: Determining the level of intervention for youth with harmful sexual 

behavior. In D.S. Prescott (Ed.). Risk Assessment of Youth Who Have Sexually Abused (pp. 195–221). Oklahoma 

City, OK: Wood & Barnes. 

Caldwell, M.F. (2013). Accuracy of sexually violent person assessments of juveniles adjudicated for sexual 

offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 516–526. 

Caldwell, M.F. & Dickinson, C. (2009). Sex offender registration and recidivism risk in juvenile sexual offenders. 

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 941–956. 

Caldwell, M.F., Ziemke, M. & Vitacco, M.J. (2008). An examination of SORNA as applied to juveniles. Evaluating 

the ability to predict sexual recidivism. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 89–114. 

Campbell, T.W. (2004). Assessing Sex Offenders: Problems and Pitfalls. Springfeld, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 

Carpentier, J. & Proulx, J. (2011). Correlates of recidivism among adolescents who have sexually offended. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 434–455. 

Casey, E.A., Beadnell, B. & Lindhorst, T.P. (2009). Predictors of sexually coercive behavior in a nationally 

representative sample of adolescent males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1129–1147. 

Chu, C.M., Ng, K., Fong, J. & Teoh, J. (2012). Assessing youth who sexually offended: The predictive validity 

of the ERASOR, J-SOAP-II and YLS/CMI in a nonwestern context. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 24, 153–174. 

Craig, L.A., Browne, K.D. & Stringer, I. (2004). Comparing sex offender risk assessment measures on a UK 

sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 7–27. 

DeMatteo, D., Wolbransky, M. & LaDuke. (2016). Risk assessment with juveniles. In Heilbrun, K., D. DeMatteo 

& N.E.S. Goldstein (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice (pp. 365–384). Washington, DC: 

American Psychological Association. 

de Vries Robbé, M., Mann, R.E., Maruna, S. & Thornton, D. (2015). An exploration of protective factors 

supporting desistance from sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 16–33. 

Epperson, D.L. & Ralston, C.A. (2009). Validation of the Juvenile Sexual Offender Recidivism Risk Assessment 

Tool-II (JSORRAT-II) in Iowa. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the 

Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders, Dallas, TX. 

Epperson, D.L. & Ralston, C.A. (2015). Development and validation of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism 

Risk Assessment Tool–II. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 529–558. 

Epperson, D.L., Ralston, C.A. & Edwards, S. (2009). Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II 

(JSORRAT-II): Updated Research on Reliability and Validity. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Research and 

Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders, Brooklyn Park, MN. 

Epperson, D.L., Ralston, C.A., Fowers, D., Dewitt, J. & Gore, K.S. (2006). Actuarial risk assessment with juveniles 

who sexually offend: Development of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRATII). In D.S. Prescott (Ed.), Risk Assessment of Youth Who Have Sexually Abused: Theory, Controversy, and 

Emerging Strategies (pp. 118–169). Oklahoma City, OK: Wood & Barnes. 
294 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Epps, K.J. (1997). Managing risk. In M.S. Hoghughi (Ed.), Working With Sexually Abusive Adolescents 

(pp. 35–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Fan, J., Upadhye, S., & Worster, A. (2006). Understanding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. 

Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine, 8, 19–20. 

Fanniff, A.M. & Letourneau, E.J. (2012). Another piece of the puzzle: Psychometric properties of the J-SOAP-II. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 378–408. 

Fanniff, A.M. & Letourneau, E.J. (2014). Keep testing the taters: Fanniff and Letourneau reply. Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 26, 401–405. 

Farrington, D.P. & Ttof, M.M. (2011). Protective and promotive factors in the development of offending. In T. 

Bliesener, A. Beelmann & M. Stemmler (Eds.). Antisocial behavior and crime: Contributions of developmental 

and evaluation research to prevention and intervention (pp. 71–88). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publishing. 

Graham, F., Richardson G. & Bhate, S. (1997). Assessment. In M.S. Hoghughi (Ed.), Working With Sexually 

Abusive Adolescents (pp. 52–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Grisso, T. (2000). Ethical issues in evaluations for sex offender re-offending. Invited address presented at Sinclair 

Seminars, Madison, WI. 

Grove, W.M. & Lloyd, M. (2006). Meehl’s contribution to clinical versus statistical prediction. Journal of 

Abnormal Psychology, 115, 192–194. 

Grubin, D. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of Risk Matrix 2000 in Scotland. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research 

and Treatment, 23, 419–433. 

Gunby, C. & Woodhams, J. (2010). Sexually deviant juveniles: Comparisons between the offender and offence 

characteristics of “child abusers” and “peer abusers.” Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 47–64. 

Hall, J.E., Simon, T.R., Mercy, J.A., Loeber, R., Farrington, D.P. & Lee, R.D. (2012). Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention’s expert panel on protective factors for youth violence perpetration: Background and overview. 

American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 43(2; supplement 1) S1–S7. 

Hannah-Moffat, K. & Maurutto, P. (2003). Youth Risk/Need Assessment: An Overview of Issues and Practices. 

Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice Canada, Youth Justice Policy, Research and Statistics Division. 

Hanson, R.K. & Bussière, M.T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348–362. 

Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis 

of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6, 1154–1163. 

Hanson, R.K. & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2007). The Accuracy of Recidivism Risk Assessments for Sexual Offenders: 

A Meta-Analysis. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Hanson, R.K. & Thornton, D. (1999). Static 99: Improving Actuarial Risk Assessment for Sex Offenders. Ottawa, 

ON: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 295 

 

Hanson, R.K. & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three 

actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119–136. 

Harris, G. & Rice, M. (2007). Characterizing the value of actuarial violence risk assessments. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 34, 1638–1658. 

Hart, S.D., Kropp. P.R., Laws, R.D., Klaver, J., Logan, C. & Watt, K.A. (2003). The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol 

(RSVP): Structured Professional Guidelines for Assessing Risk of Sexual Violence. Burnaby, BC: Mental Health, 

Law, & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University. 

Hart, S.D., Michie, C. & Cooke, D.J. (2007). Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the 

“margins of error” of group v. individual predictions of violence. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190 (suppl. 49), 

s60–s65. 

Hecker, J. (2014). Baby with the bath water: Response to Fanniff and Letourneau. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of 

Research and Treatment, 26, 395–400. 

Heilbrun, K., Lee, R. & Cottle, C.C. (2005). Risk factors and intervention outcomes: Meta-analyses of juvenile 

offending. In K. Heilbrun, N.E. Goldstein & R. Redding (Eds.), Juvenile Delinquency: Prevention, Assessment, 

and Intervention (pp. 111–133). New York: Oxford University Press. 

Hempel, I., Buck, N., Cima, M. & van Marle, H. (2013). Review of risk assessment instruments for juvenile sex 

offenders: What is next? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(2), 

208–228. 

Hiscox, S.P., Witt, P.H. & Haran, S.J. (2007). Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale (JRAS): A predictive validity study. 

The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 35, 503–539. 

Jessor, R. & Turbin, M.S. (2014) Parsing protection and risk for problem behavior versus pro-social behavior 

among US and Chinese adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1037–1051. 

Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J., Vanderryn, J., Costa, F.M., & Turbin, M.S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent 

problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923–933. 

Kim, K. & Duwe, G. (2016, October). Improving the performance of risk assessments: A case study on the 

prediction of sexual offending among juvenile offenders. In F. S. Taxman (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need 

assessment: Theory and practice. ASC Division on Corrections & Sentencing Handbook series (pp. not yet 

assigned), NY: Routledge. 

Klein, V., Rettenberger, M., Yoon, D., Köhler, N. & Briken, P. (2015). Protective factors and recidivism in accused 

juveniles who sexually offend. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 71–90. 

Knight, R.A. & Sims-Knight, J.E. (2003). The developmental antecedents of sexual coercion against women: 

Testing alternative hypotheses with structural equation modeling. Annals of the New York Academy of 

Sciences, 989, 72–85. 

Knight, R.A. & Sims-Knight, J. (2004). Testing an etiological model for male juvenile sexual offending against 

females. In R. Geffner, K.C. Franey., T.G. Arnold, & R. Falconer (Eds.), Identifying and Treating Youth Who 

Sexually Offend: Current Approaches, Techniques, and Research (pp. 33–55). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. 
296 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Knight, R.A., Ronis, S.T. & Zakireh, B. (2009). Bootstrapping persistence risk indicators for juveniles who sexually 

offend. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 878–909. 

Krahé, B., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2016). Mapping an agenda for the study of youth sexual aggression in Europe: 

Assessment, principles of good practice and the multilevel analysis of risk factors. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 

33, 161–176. 

Långström, N. (2011). Long-term follow-up of criminal recidivism in young sex offenders: Temporal patterns 

and risk factors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 41–58. 

Langton C.M. & Worling, J.M. (2015). Introduction to the special issues on factors positively associated with 

desistance for adolescents and adults who have sexually offended. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 27, 3–15. 

Leroux, E.J., Pullman, L.E., Motayne, G. & Seto, M.C. (2016). Victim age and the generalist versus specialist 

distinction in adolescent sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 79–95. 

Litwack, T.R. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 

7, 409–443. 

Lodewijks, H.P.B., de Ruiter, C. & Doreleijers, T.A.H. (2010). The impact of protective factors in desistance from 

violent reoffending: A study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 

568–587. 

Looman, J. & Abracen, J. (2013). The Risk Need Responsivity Model of Offender Rehabilitation: Is There Really a 

Need For a Paradigm Shift? International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8, 30–36. 

Mallie, A.L., Viljoen, J.L., Mordell, S., Spice, A. & Roesch, R. (2011). Childhood abuse and adolescent sexual 

reoffending: A metaanalysis. Child and Youth Care Forum, 40, 401–417. 

Martinez, R., Flores., J. & Rosenfeld, B. (2007). Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II in a 

sample of urban minority youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1284–1295. 

McCann, K. & Lussier, P. (2008). Antisociality, sexual deviance and sexual reoffending in juvenile sex offenders: 

A meta-analytical investigation. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 363–385. 

McGrath, A. & Thompson, A.P. (2012). The relative predictive validity of the static and dynamic domain scores in 

riskneed assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 250–263. 

Meehl, P.E. (1996). Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Literature. 

Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. 

Miccio-Fonseca, L.C. (2009). MEGA: A new paradigm in protocol assessing sexually abusive children and 

adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 2, 1–18. 

Miccio-Fonseca, L.C. (2010). MEGA: An ecological risk assessment tool of risk and protective factors for assessing 

sexually abusive children and adolescents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 734–756. 

Miccio-Fonseca, L.C. (2013). MEGA: A new paradigm in risk assessment tools for sexually abusive youth. 

Journal of Family Violence, 28, 623–634. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 297 

Miner, M.H., Swinburne Romine, R. Robinson, B.E., Berg, D. & Knight, R.A. (2016). Anxious attachment, 

social isolation and indicators of sex drive and compulsivity: Predictors of child sexual abuse perpetration in 

adolescent males? Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 28, 132–153. 

Monahan, J. (1995). The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. 

Monahan, J. & Steadman, H.J. (1994). Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments in Risk Assessment. 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Monahan, J., Steadman, H.J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P.S., Robbins, P.C., Mulvey, E.P., Roth, L.H., Grisso. T. & 

Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking Risk Assessment: The MacArthur Study of Mental Disorder and Violence. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Murrie, D.C., Boccaccini, M.T., Turner, D.B., Meeks, M., Woods, C. & Tussey, C. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on 

risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic 

evaluation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 19–53. 

Olver, M.E. & Wong, S.C.P. (2009). Therapeutic responses of psychopathic sexual offenders: Treatment attrition, 

therapeutic change and long-term recidivism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 328–336. 

Parks, G.A. & Bard, D.E. (2006). Risk factors for adolescent sex offender recidivism: Evaluation of predictive 

factors and comparison of three groups based upon victim type. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 18, 319–342. 

Pedersen, L., Rasmussen, K. & Elsass, P. (2010). Risk assessment: The value of structured professional judgments. 

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 9, 74–81. 

Powers-Sawyer, A.B. &. Miner, M.H. (2009). Actuarial prediction of juvenile recidivism: The static variables of the 

Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II). Sexual Offender Treatment, 4(2), 1–11. 

Prentky, R.A., Li, N., Righthand, S., Schuler, A., Cavanaugh, D. & Lee, A.F. (2010). Assessing risk of sexually 

abusive behavior among youth in a child welfare sample. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 24–45 

Prentky, R.A., Righthand, S. & Lamade, R. (2016). In Heilbrun, K., D. DeMatteo, & N. E. S. Goldstein (Eds.), 

APA handbook of psychology and juvenile justice (pp. 641–672). Washington, DC: American Psychological 

Association. 

Print, B., Griffn, H., Beech, A., Quayle, J., Bradshaw, H., Henniker, J. & Morrison, T. (2007). The AIM2 Model of 

Initial Assessment: Guidance Document. (Available from the AIM Project, 14 Carolina Way, Salford M50 2ZY, 

England). 

Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. & Cormier, C.A. (1998). Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk. 

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. & Cormier, C.A. (2006). Violent Offenders: Appraising and Managing Risk, 

2d ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Quinsey, V.L., Skilling, T.A., Lalumiere, M.L. & Craig, W.M. (2004). Juvenile delinquency: Understanding the 

origins of individual differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 
298 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Rajlic, G. & Gretton, H.M. (2010). An examination of two sexual recidivism risk measures in adolescent 

offenders: The moderating effect of offender type. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1066–1085. 

Ralston, C.A. & Epperson, D.L. (2012). Validation of the JSORRAT-II in Iowa: Update and Expansion. Paper 

presented at the 31st Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of 

Sexual Abusers, Denver, CO. 

Ralston, C.A., Epperson, D.L. & Edwards, S.R. (2014). Cross-validation of the JSORRAT-II in Iowa. Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment. Advance online publication. Doi: 10.1177/1079063214548074. 

Rettenberger, M., Boer, D.P. & Eher, R. (2011). The predictive accuracy of risk factors in the Sexual Violence Risk20 (SVR-20). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1009–1027. 

Rich, P. (2009). Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses: A Comprehensive Guide to Risk Evaluation. Hoboken, 

NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 

Rich, P. (2011). Understanding Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses: Assessment, Treatment, and 

Rehabilitation, 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 

Roberts, C., Doren, D.M. & Thornton, D. (2002). Dimensions associated with assessments of sex offender 

recidivism risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 569–589. 

Rogers, R. (2000). The uncritical assessment of risk assessment in forensic practice. Law and Human Behavior, 

24, 595–605. 

Rutter, M. (2003). Crucial paths from risk to causal mechanisms. In B.B. Lahey, T.E. Mofftt & A. Caspi (Eds.), 

Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency (pp. 3–24). New York: Guilford Press. 

Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J.H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed 

to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555–592. 

Schmidt, F., Sinclair, S.M. & Thomasdót, S. (2016). Predictive validity of the Youth Level of Service/Case 

Management Inventory with youth who have committed sexual and non-sexual offenses: The utility of 

professional override. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 413–430. 

Schwalbe, C.S. (2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by 

gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367–1381. 

Seto, M.C. & Lalumière, M.L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and 

test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 4, 526–575. 

Singh, J.P. (2013). Predictive validity performance indicators in violence risk assessment: A methodological 

primer Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31, 8–22. 

Singh, J.P., Grann, M. & Fazel, S. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic 

review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 

499–513. 

Singh, J.P. (2014). Five opportunities for innovation in violence risk assessment research. Journal of Threat 

Assessment and Management, 1, 179–184. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 299 

 

Singh, J.P., Desmarais, S.L. & Van Dorn, R.A. (2013). Measurement of predictive validity in violence risk 

assessment studies: A second-order systematic review. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31, 55–73. 

Sjöstedt, G. & Grann, M. (2002). Risk assessment: What is being predicted by actuarial prediction instruments? 

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 179–183. 

Spice, A., Viljoen, J.L., Latzman, N.E., Scalora, M.J. & Ullman, D. (2013). Risk and protective factors for recidivism 

among juveniles who have offended sexually. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(4), 

347–369. 

Steadman, H.J., Silver, E., Monahan J., Appelbaum, P.S., Robbins, P.C., Mulvey, E.P., Grisso, T., Roth, L.H. & Banks, 

S. (2000). A classifcation tree approach to the development of actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and 

Human Behavior, 24, 83–100. 

Steinberg, L. (2009). Should the science of adolescent brain development inform public policy? American 

Psychologist, 64(8), 739–750. 

Steinberg, L. (2010). A behavioral scientist looks at the science of adolescent brain development. Brain and 

Cognition, 72, 160–164. 

Steinberg, L. & Scott, E.S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence. American Psychologist, 58, 1009–1018. 

Stockdale, K.C., Olver, M.E. & Wong S.C.P. (2013). The validity and reliability of the Violence Risk Scale-Youth 

Version in a diverse sample of violent young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 114–138. 

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., Wei, E., Farrington, D.P. & Wikström, P.O. (2002). Risk and promotive effects 

in the explanation of persistent serious delinquency in boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 

111–123. 

Streiner, D.L. & Cairney, J. (2007). What’s Under the ROC? An Introduction to Receiver Operating Characteristics 

Curves. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 121–128. 

Turner, S.M., DeMers, S.T., Fox, H.R. & Reed, G.M. (2001). APA’s guidelines for test user qualifcations: 

An executive summary. American Psychologist, 56, 1099–1113. 

van der Put, C.E. (2014). Youth Actuarial Risk Assessment Tool (Y-ARAT): The development of an actuarial risk 

assessment instrument for predicting general offense recidivism on the basis of police records. Assessment, 21, 

340–351. 

van der Put, C.E. & Asscher, J.J. (2015). Protective factors in male adolescents with a history of sexual and/ 

or violent offending: A comparison between three subgroups. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 27, 109–126. 

van der Put, C.E, Dekovic, M., Stams, G.J.J.M., van der Laan, P.H., Hoeve, M. & van Amelsfort, L. (2011). Changes 

in risk factors during adolescence: Implications for risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 248–262. 

van der Put, C.E., van Vugt, E.S., Stams, G.J.J.M, Deković, M. & van der Laan, P.H. (2013). Differences in the 

prevalence and impact of risk factors for general recidivism between different types of juveniles who have 

committed sexual offenses (JSOs) and juveniles who have committed non-sexual offenses (NSOs). Sexual Abuse: 

A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 41–68. 
300 CHAPTER 4: ASSESSMENT OF RISK FOR SEXUAL REOFFENSE IN JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Viljoen, J.L., Brodersen, E., Shaffer, C. & McMahon, R.J. (2016). In Heilbrun, K., D. DeMatteo, & N.E.S. 

Goldstein (Eds.), APA Handbook of Psychology and Juvenile Justice (pp. 517–544). Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

Viljoen, J.L., Elkovitch, N., Scalora, M.J. & Ullman, D. (2009). Assessment of reoffense risk in adolescents who 

have committed sexual offenses: Predictive validity of the ERASOR, PCL:YV, YLS/CMI and Static-99. Criminal 

Justice and Behavior, 36, 981–1000. 

Viljoen, J.L., Mordell, S. & Beneteau, J.L. (2012). Prediction of adolescent sexual reoffending: A meta-analysis of 

the J-SOAP-II, ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II and Static-99. Law and Human Behavior, 36(5), 423–438. 

Viljoen, J.L., Scalora, M., Cuadra, L., Bader, S., Chávez, V., Ullman, D. & Lawrence, L. (2008). Assessing risk for 

violence in adolescents who have sexually offended: A comparison of the J-SOAP-II, JSORRAT-II and SAVRY. 

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 5–23. 

Vitacco, M.J., Caldwell, M., Ryba, N.L., Malesky, A. & Kurus, S.J. (2009). Assessing risk in adolescent sexual 

offenders: Recommendations for clinical practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 929–940. 

Vitacco, M.J., Viljoen, J. & Petrila, J. (2009). Introduction to this issue: Adolescent sexual offending. Behavioral 

Sciences and the Law, 27, 857–861. 

Ward, T., Gannon, T.A. & Birgden, A. (2007). Human rights and the assessment and treatment of sexual 

offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 195–216. 

Webster, C.D., Douglas, K.S., Eaves, D. & Hart, S.D. (1997). Assessing risk of violence to others. In C.D. Webster & 

M.A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment (pp. 251–277). New York: Guilford Press 

Will, D. (1999). Assessment issues. In M. Erooga & H. Masson (Eds.), Children and Young People Who Sexually 

Abuse Others: Challenges and Responses (pp. 86–103). London, England: Routledge. 

Wollert, R. (2006). Low base rates limit expert certainty when current actuarials are used to identify sexually 

violent predators: An application of Bayes’s Theorem. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 56–85. 

Worling, J.R., Bookalam, D. & Litteljohn, A. (2012). Prospective validity of the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent 

Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 203–223. 

Worling, J.R. & Långström, N. (2003). Assessment of criminal recidivism risk with adolescents who have 

offended sexually. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 4, 341–362. 

Worling, J.R. & Långström, N. (2006). Risk of sexual recidivism in adolescents who sexually offend. In H.E. 

Barbaree & W.L. Marshall (Eds.), The Juvenile Sexual Offender, 2d ed. (pp. 219–247). New York: Guilford Press. 

Yates. P.M. (2013). Treatment of Sexual Offenders: Research, Best Practices, and Emerging Models. International 

Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 8, 89–95. 

Zeng, G., Chu, C.M. & Lee, Y. (2015). Assessing protective factors of youth who sexually offended in Singapore: 

Preliminary evidence of the DASH-13 and the SAPROF-YV. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 

27, 91–108. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 301 

Zhu, W., Zeng, N. & Wang, N. (2010, November). Sensitivity, specifcity, accuracy, associated confdence interval 

and ROC analysis with practical SAS implementations. NESUG/SAS Conference Proceedings: November 14–17, 

2010, Baltimore, Maryland. 

Zimring, F.E. (2004). An American Travesty: Legal Responses to Adolescent Sexual Offending. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 303 

 

Chapter 5: Effectiveness of Treatment 

for Juveniles Who Sexually Offend 

by Roger Przybylski 

FINDINGS 

◆ Single studies have consistently found at least modest treatment effects for both sexual and nonsexual recidivism. 

◆ Meta-analysis studies have also consistently found that sex offender treatment works, particularly multisystemic 

and cognitive-behavioral treatment approaches. 

◆ Cost-beneft analysis also demonstrates that sex offender treatment programs for youth can provide a positive 

return on taxpayer investment. 

Introduction 

S

ex offenders have received considerable attention in recent years from both policymakers and the 

public. This is due at least in part to the profound impact that sex crimes have on victims and the larger 

community. While most perpetrators of sex crimes are adults, a signifcant percentage of sexual offenders 

are under age 18. 

Given the prevalence of sexual offending by juveniles, and the potential links between sexually abusive 

behavior during adolescence or childhood and sexual offending later in life, therapeutic interventions for 

juveniles have become a staple of sex offender management practice in jurisdictions across the country. 

Indeed, the number of treatment programs for juveniles who commit a sexual offense has increased 

signifcantly over the past 30 years. Worling and Curwen (2000), for example, reported that only one 

specialized treatment program for adolescent sexual offenders was operating in the United States in 

1975. By 1995, the number of programs serving juveniles had increased to more than 600. In 2008, more 

than one-half (699) of the approximately 1,300 sex-offender-specifc treatment programs operating in the 

United States provided treatment services to juveniles. While most (494) of the juvenile programs in 2008 

provided treatment services to adolescents, about 30 percent (205) provided services to children 11 years old 

and younger. Overall, adolescents accounted for about 23 percent and children 11 years old and younger 

accounted for about 3 percent of all clients (adult and juvenile) treated in sex-offender-specifc treatment 

programs in the United States in 2008 (McGrath et al., 2010). 

Treatment approaches for juveniles who commit sexual offenses also have changed since the 1970s. For many 

years, treatment for juveniles was largely based on models used with adult sexual offenders. However, as 

knowledge about the developmental, motivational and behavioral differences between juvenile and adult 

sexual offenders has increased, therapeutic interventions for juveniles have become more responsive to the 

diversity of sexually abusive behaviors and the specifc offending-related factors found among adolescents 

and children. 
304 CHAPTER 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES WHO SEXUALLY OFFEND 

Juveniles who commit sexual offenses are 

diverse in terms of offending behaviors 

and future public safety risk. 

Juveniles who commit sexual offenses are clearly quite diverse in terms of offending behaviors and future risk 

to public safety. In fact, they appear to have far more in common with other juvenile delinquents than they do 

with adult sexual offenders. This is a common theme in the literature, and the diversity found in the offending 

behavior and risk levels of juveniles who commit sexual offenses, as well as the dissimilarity that exists 

between juveniles who commit sexual offenses and their adult counterparts, were both acknowledged by the 

experts at the SOMAPI forum. Juveniles are generally more impulsive and less aware of the consequences of 

their behavior than adults. And while a few sexually abusive behaviors in youth are compulsive and refective 

of a recurrent pattern of social deviance, others may be more isolated and not indicative of a long-term 

behavior pattern. Therapeutic interventions for juveniles are increasingly taking this diversity into account, 

along with family, peer and other social correlates that are related to sexually abusive behavior in youth. Still, 

it appears that far more change is needed. As Letourneau and Borduin (2008, pp. 290–291) have pointed out — 

Although the research literature reviewed earlier strongly indicates that sexually offending youths are 

infuenced by multiple ecological systems, most current treatments focus heavily on presumed psychosocial 

defcits in the individual youth.... Another problem with the predominant approaches to treatment 

is the fact that many sexually offending youths desist from future offending (even in the absence of 

intervention). 

Many sexually offending youth 

desist from future offending, even 

in the absence of intervention. 

While there is strong scientifc evidence that therapeutic interventions work for criminal offenders overall, 

the effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders — whether juveniles or adults — has been subject to 

considerable debate. Some people argue that treatment can be at least modestly effective. Others are 

uncertain or outright skeptical that sex offender treatment works. While inconsistent research fndings and 

measurement shortcomings no doubt have contributed to the ongoing controversy, a body of scientifc 

evidence has emerged in recent years suggesting that therapeutic interventions for juveniles who commit 

sexual offenses can and do work. 

This chapter reviews the scientifc evidence on the effectiveness of treatment for juveniles who commit 

sexual offenses. It was developed to support informed policy and program development at the federal, state 

and local levels. The chapter summarizes what is scientifcally known about the impact of treatment on the 

recidivism of juveniles who sexually offend. (For more information on “Recidivism of Juveniles Who Commit 

Sexual Offenses,” see Chapter 3 in the Juvenile section.) It presents key, up-to-date research fndings from 

single studies of treatment effectiveness as well as from research that synthesizes information from multiple 

treatment effectiveness studies. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 305 

Issues to Consider 

While there is growing interest in crime control strategies that are based on scientifc evidence, determining 

what works is not an easy task. It is not uncommon for studies of the same phenomena to produce ambiguous 

or even conficting results, and there are many examples of empirical evidence misleading crime control policy 

and practice because shortcomings in the quality of the research were overlooked (see, for example, Sherman, 

2003, and McCord, 2003). The importance of basing conclusions about what works on highly trustworthy and 

credible evidence cannot be overstated, and both the quality and consistency of the research evidence has to 

be considered. 

Single Studies 

In the feld of criminology, there is general agreement that certain types of single studies — namely, welldesigned and executed experiments or randomized controlled trials — provide the most trustworthy evidence 

about an intervention’s effectiveness (Sherman et al., 1998; MacKenzie, 2006; Farrington & Welsh, 2007).1 

While randomized controlled trials are an important method for determining the effectiveness of an 

intervention, they can be diffcult to implement in real-life settings. Randomized controlled trials are expensive 

and require a level of organizational (and, at times, community) cooperation that can be diffcult to obtain.2

 In 

practice, various constraints can preclude an evaluator from using a randomized controlled trial, and relatively 

few of these studies have been used in the assessment of sex offender treatment. 

When randomized controlled trials cannot be used, researchers examining the effectiveness of an intervention 

typically employ the next best approach, a quasi-experiment. Many quasi-experiments are similar to 

randomized controlled trials, but they do not employ random assignment. These studies typically involve 

a comparison of outcomes — such as recidivism — observed for treatment participants and a comparison 

group of individuals who did not participate in treatment. In this approach, researchers try to ensure that 

the treated and comparison subjects are similar in all ways but one: participation in the treatment program.3 

When treatment and comparison subjects are closely matched, the study can be capable of producing highly 

trustworthy fndings. 

Synthesis Research: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 

There also is agreement in the scientifc community that single studies are rarely defnitive (Lipsey, 2002; 

Petrosino & Lavenberg, 2007; Beech et al., 2007). Individual studies with seminal fndings certainly do exist, 

but single studies — even randomized controlled trials — can produce misleading results (Lipsey, 2002). Hence, 

single-study fndings must be replicated before meaningful conclusions can be made, and the effectiveness of 

an intervention can best be understood by examining fndings from many different studies (Petticrew, 2007). 

Researchers typically accomplish this through synthesis research, such as a systematic review. A systematic 

review adheres to a pre-established protocol to locate, appraise and synthesize information from all relevant 

scientifc studies on a particular topic (Petrosino & Lavenberg, 2007). Methodological quality considerations 

are a standard feature of most systematic reviews today, and studies that fail to reach a specifed standard of 

scientifc rigor are typically excluded from the analysis.4 

Systematic reviews are increasingly incorporating the statistical procedure of meta-analysis. In practice, metaanalysis combines the results of many evaluations into one large study with many subjects. This is important 

because single studies based on a small number of subjects can produce distorted fndings about a program’s 

effectiveness (Lipsey, 2002). By pooling the subjects from the original studies, meta-analysis counteracts a 
306 CHAPTER 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES WHO SEXUALLY OFFEND 

 

common methodological problem in evaluation research — small sample size — thereby helping the analyst 

draw more accurate and generalizable conclusions.5

 In addition, meta-analysis focuses on the magnitude of 

effects found across studies rather than their statistical signifcance. Determining effect sizes is important 

because, as Lipsey (2002) points out, an outcome evaluation of an individual program “can easily fail to attain 

statistical signifcance for what are, nonetheless, meaningful program effects.” Hence, effect size statistics 

provide the researcher with a more representative estimate of the intervention’s effectiveness than estimates 

derived from any single study or from multistudy synthesis techniques that simply calculate the proportion of 

observed effects that are statistically signifcant. When systematic reviews and meta-analyses are done well, 

they provide the most trustworthy and credible evidence about an intervention’s effectiveness. 

Summary of Research Findings 

Findings From Single Studies 

Several single studies examining the effectiveness of treatment programs for juveniles who sexually offend 

have been undertaken in recent years, and these studies have consistently found at least modest treatment 

effects on both sexual and nonsexual recidivism. Worling and Curwen (2000), for example, used a quasiexperimental design to examine the effectiveness of a specialized community-based treatment program 

that provided therapeutic services to adolescents and children with sexual behavior problems and their 

families. While treatment plans were individually tailored for each offender and his or her family, cognitivebehavioral and relapse prevention strategies were used, and offenders typically were involved in concurrent 

group, individual and family therapy. Recidivism rates were calculated using survival analysis for a treatment 

group consisting of 58 adolescents (53 males and 5 females) and a comparison group consisting of 90 

adolescents (86 males and 4 females). Comparison group subjects consisted of three subgroups: juveniles 

who refused treatment, juveniles who received an assessment in the program only and juveniles who 

dropped out of the community-based program prior to completing 12 months of treatment.6

 To determine 

potential effects of group differences, the researchers also examined whether the treatment and comparison 

group subjects differed in any meaningful way on various factors related to recidivism (e.g., prior criminal 

history, offender demographics, victim characteristics); no signifcant differences between the treatment and 

comparison group subjects were found. 

Based on a 10-year follow-up period, Worling and Curwen (2000) found that the juveniles in the treatment 

group had signifcantly better outcomes than comparison group members on several measures of recidivism 

(see Table 5-1).7

 For example, the sexual recidivism rate was 5 percent for the treatment group compared 

to 18 percent for the combined comparison group. The recidivism rates for any offense were 35 percent 

for the treatment group and 54 percent for the combined comparison group. In fact, for every measure of 

recidivism employed in the study, the treatment group had lower recidivism rates than comparison group 

members who either refused treatment, received an assessment only or dropped out of the program prior to 

completing 12 months of treatment. 

In 2010, Worling, Litteljohn and Bookalam reported fndings from a followup analysis that extended the follow-up 

period for the original sample of study subjects to 20 years. Study subjects were, on average, 31.5 years old at the end 

of the 20-year follow-up period. The analysis demonstrated that the positive treatment effects originally observed by 

Worling and Curwen (2000) using a 10-year follow-up period had persisted over a longer period of time. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 307 

 

Table 5-1. Recidivism Rates for Treatment vs. Comparison Groups 

Recidivism 10-Year Recidivism Rate (%) 20-Year Recidivism Rate (%) 

Measure Treatment Group 

(n = 58) 

Comparison Group 

(n = 90) 

Treatment Group 

(n = 58) 

Comparison Group 

(n = 90) 

Sexual charge 5* 18 9* 21 

Nonsexual 

violent charge 19* 32 22* 39 

Any charge 35** 54 38* 57 

* p < 0.05. 

** p < 0.01. 

Sources: Worling & Curwen, 2000; Worling, Litteljohn & Bookalam, 2010. 

The 2010 analysis by Worling, Litteljohn and Bookalam mirrored Worling and Curwen’s (2000) original 

investigation in several ways. First, recidivism was examined using charges for sexual, nonsexual violent, 

nonviolent and any new offense. Second, comparison group subjects consisted of three subgroups: juveniles 

who refused treatment, juveniles who received an assessment in the program only and juveniles who dropped 

out of the community-based program prior to completing 12 months of treatment. Third, the researchers 

examined whether the treatment and comparison group subjects differed in any meaningful way on various 

factors related to recidivism, and no signifcant differences were found. Treatment and comparison group 

subjects were not signifcantly different in terms of personal characteristics, offense characteristics or any of 

the assessment test scores examined (Worling, Litteljohn & Bookalam, 2010). (For more information on the 

“Assessment of Risk for Sexual Reoffense in Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses,” see Chapter 4 in the 

Juvenile section.) 

Based on the 20-year follow-up period, Worling and colleagues (2010) found that adolescents who participated 

in specialized treatment were signifcantly less likely than comparison group members to receive subsequent 

charges for sexual, nonsexual violent, nonviolent or any crime (see Table 5-1). Interestingly, the 20-year 

recidivism rates refect only small increases over the 10-year recidivism rates reported by Worling and Curwen 

(2000). In discussing their fndings, Worling and colleagues (2010, p. 56) concluded — 

The results of this investigation suggest that specialized treatment for adolescents who offend sexually 

leads to signifcant reductions in both sexual and nonsexual reoffending — even up to 20 years following 

the initial assessment.... The results of this investigation also support the fnding that only a minority of 

adolescents who offend sexually are likely to be charged for sexual crimes by their late 20s or early 30s. 

Another study that found positive treatment effects was conducted by Waite and colleagues (2005). The 

researchers examined treatment effectiveness using a sample of juveniles who had been incarcerated for 

sexual offenses. The study compared the recidivism outcomes of two groups. One consisted of juveniles who 

participated in an intensive sex offender treatment program in a specialized, self-contained living unit of the 

correctional facility. The other consisted of juveniles who received less intensive treatment and remained housed 

within the general population of the correctional facility. Several recidivism outcomes were examined using a 

10-year follow-up period. While the study did not employ random assignment or an equivalent “no-treatment” 

comparison group, it is one of the few studies to examine treatment effectiveness for incarcerated juveniles 

who have committed sexual offenses. The researchers found that study subjects who participated in the more 

intensive, self-contained treatment program had lower recidivism rates for any crime (47 percent compared to 

71 percent) and for nonsexual violent crime (31 percent compared to 47 percent) than the incarcerated juveniles 
308 CHAPTER 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES WHO SEXUALLY OFFEND 

 

who received less intensive treatment and who remained housed in the facility’s general population. The sexual 

recidivism rates for the two groups, however, were not signifcantly different (about 5 percent for both the 

treatment and comparison groups). 

Finally, Seabloom and colleagues (2003) examined the effects of a community-based treatment program for 

juveniles who sexually offended. Treatment was based on principles of sexual health and it involved individual, 

group and family therapy. Based on an average follow-up period of about 18 years, the researchers found that 

treated juveniles had a lower sexual recidivism rate than untreated juveniles. Positive treatment effects also 

were reported by Wolk (2005). Based on a three-year follow-up period, treated juveniles had a recidivism rate 

of 26 percent for any offense compared to a rate of 60 percent for untreated juveniles. 

Although none of the evaluations referenced above randomly assigned study subjects to treatment and 

control conditions, a series of studies focusing on the use of multisystemic therapy with juveniles who 

sexually offend have employed an experimental — or randomized controlled trial — design. Multisystemic 

therapy is a community-based intervention that has been used with serious and chronic juvenile offenders 

in jurisdictions across the country. It was developed in the late 1970s based on the premise that individual, 

family and environmental factors all play a role in shaping antisocial behavior. Multisystemic therapy works 

within multiple systems (i.e., individual, family, school) to address the various causes of a child’s delinquency 

(Henggeler, 1997), and it has been adapted to the special needs of juveniles who sexually offend (Letourneau 

et al., 2009). 

While the effectiveness of multisystemic therapy with juvenile offenders in general has been documented both in 

individual studies and systematic reviews, research on its effectiveness with juveniles who commit a sexual offense 

is still emerging. The frst study to examine the impact of multisystemic therapy on the recidivism of juveniles 

who sexually offend was conducted more than 20 years ago by Borduin and colleagues (1990). While the study 

employed random assignment, the sample size was very small. Only 16 adolescents (and their families) were 

randomly assigned to either home-based multisystemic therapy services or outpatient therapy. Based on a threeyear follow-up period, Borduin and his colleagues reported that the adolescents who received multisystemic 

therapy treatment had signifcantly lower sexual and nonsexual recidivism rates than their comparison group 

counterparts. Multisystemic therapy-treated adolescents in the study had a sexual rearrest rate of 12.5 percent 

compared to a sexual rearrest rate of 75 percent for the comparison group subjects. The rearrest rates for 

nonsexual crimes were 25 percent for multisystemic therapy-treated adolescents and 50 percent for comparison 

group subjects. 

More recently, Borduin, Schaeffer and Heiblum (2009) examined the effcacy of multisystemic therapy with 

juveniles who sexually offend using a somewhat larger sample of 48 adolescents.8

 Based on a follow-up 

period of 8.9 years,9

 the researchers found signifcantly lower recidivism rates for juveniles who received the 

treatment. The sexual recidivism rate was 8 percent for multisystemic therapy-treated subjects compared to 

46 percent for the comparison group subjects. The nonsexual recidivism rate was 29 percent for multisystemic 

therapy-treated adolescents compared to 58 percent for comparison group subjects. Multisystemic therapytreated juveniles also spent 80 percent fewer days in detention facilities compared to their control group 

counterparts. 

The most recent evaluation of multisystemic therapy’s effectiveness with juveniles who sexually offend also 

employed an experimental design (Letourneau et al., 2009). As part of the study, Letourneau and colleagues 

randomly assigned juveniles who sexually offend to multisystemic therapy treatment (n = 67) or treatment 

as usual (n = 60) conditions. Based on initial analyses using one-year and two-year follow-up periods, the 

researchers found that multisystemic therapy-treated youth had signifcantly lower rates of self-reported sexual 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 309 

behavior problems and delinquency and reduced risk of out-of-home placements compared to study subjects 

receiving treatment as usual (Letourneau et al., 2009; Swenson & Letourneau, 2011). 

In summary, several single studies designed to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment for juveniles who 

commit a sexual offense have been conducted in recent years. While only a handful of these studies have 

employed an experimental design, a matched comparison group or statistical control of factors that are linked 

to treatment effects, the weight of the available evidence — although it is far from defnitive — suggests that 

treatment for juveniles who sexually offend can be effective. Studies employing a randomized controlled trial 

design have demonstrated the effcacy of multisystemic therapy in reducing the recidivism of juveniles who 

commit sexual offenses. It should be noted, however, that these studies have been conducted by program 

developers and are based on relatively small sample sizes. Independent evaluations that employ larger sample 

sizes should be undertaken to further establish the effectiveness and transportability of multisystemic therapy 

with juveniles who sexually offend. Nevertheless, multisystemic therapy was identifed as an effective program 

in the 2011 National Criminal Justice Association survey. 

Rigorous studies have found that multisystemic 

therapy is effective in reducing the recidivism 

of juveniles who commit sexual offenses. 

Recent research on other treatment approaches has also produced positive results. While it is diffcult to isolate 

treatment effects and identify the specifc treatment approaches that are most effective, interventions that 

address multiple spheres of juveniles’ lives and that incorporate cognitive-behavioral techniques along with 

group therapy and family therapy appear to be most promising. However, there is a clear need for more highquality research that can better demonstrate the effectiveness of various treatment approaches delivered in 

the community as well as in secure settings. Studies that employ random assignment or equivalent treatment 

and comparison group conditions — achieved through matching or statistical controls — are greatly needed. 

Findings From Synthesis Research 

One of the most frequently cited studies of the effectiveness of juvenile treatment was conducted by 

Reitzel and Carbonell (2006). Their meta-analysis included nine studies and a combined sample of 2,986 

juvenile subjects, making it one of the largest studies of treatment effectiveness for juveniles who sexually 

offend undertaken to date. Two of the studies in the analysis employed random assignment. The treatment 

approaches most often were based on cognitive-behavioral and relapse-prevention techniques, although other 

approaches such as sexual trauma therapy and psychosocial education were also represented in the analysis. 

Based on an average follow-up period of nearly fve years, the researchers found an average sexual recidivism 

rate of 7.37 percent for treated juveniles. By comparison, the average sexual recidivism rate for comparison 

group members was 18.93 percent. Further, the researchers reported that every study in the analysis yielded 

a positive treatment effect. Overall, an average weighted effect size of 0.43 was found, indicating “that for 

every 43 sexual offenders receiving the primary treatment who recidivated, 100 of the sexual offenders in 

the comparison group (i.e., those receiving comparison treatment or no treatment) recidivated” (Reitzel & 

Carbonell, 2006; p. 409). 

Interestingly, two of the four strongest treatment effects found in the meta-analysis were from studies of 

multisystemic therapy treatment. In addition, Reitzel and Carbonell did not fnd that studies of cognitive-
310 CHAPTER 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES WHO SEXUALLY OFFEND 

behavioral treatment had stronger treatment effects than studies of noncognitive-behavioral approaches. 

However, the researchers speculated that a number of confounding factors may have infuenced this fnding, 

including diffculties associated with categorizing studies based on their treatment approach. In discussing the 

overall fndings from their analysis, Reitzel and Carbonell (2006, p. 417) stated — 

It is encouraging that results supported previous fndings ... and suggested the effectiveness of [juvenile 

sexual offender] treatment in the reduction of sexual recidivism, although methodological issues 

and reporting practices in the individual studies comprising this meta-analysis warrant caution in the 

interpretation of results. 

Multisystemic therapy was also identifed as an effective treatment approach in a systematic review recently 

conducted by Långström et al. (2013). This review focused exclusively on the results of evaluations that employed 

a randomized controlled trial design in examining the effectiveness of a treatment intervention for individuals 

who sexually offend against children. Only one study in the analysis focused on treatment for juveniles who 

sexually offend against children, and that study examined the effectiveness of multisystemic therapy with this 

population. In discussing the fndings from their review, Långström and colleagues (2013, p. 5) stated — 

“For adolescents, limited evidence from one trial suggested that multisystemic therapy prevented 

reoffence. ... For children under the age of 13 with sexual behaviour problems towards other children, 

we found insuffcient evidence (one high-quality randomised controlled trial) to determine if cognitive 

behavioural therapy combined with parental support was more effective than standard treatment in 

preventing sexual offending.” 

Another meta-analysis that found positive effects for treatment provided to juveniles who sexually offend 

was conducted by Winokur and colleagues (2006). The analysis is important because it employed a protocol 

that assessed the methodological quality of potentially relevant research and excluded studies that did not 

reach a suffcient standard of scientifc rigor. Overall, seven rigorous recidivism studies were included in the 

meta-analysis — one randomized controlled trial and six studies that matched treatment and comparison 

subjects on relevant demographic and criminal history characteristics. Of the seven studies in the analysis, 

three examined treatment delivered in a community-based outpatient setting, three examined treatment 

delivered in a residential setting and one examined treatment delivered in a correctional setting. In all 

seven studies, treatment involved some type of cognitive-behavioral approach. The average follow-up time 

across the seven studies was six years. 

The researchers found that adolescents who completed sexual offender treatment had signifcantly lower 

recidivism rates than untreated adolescents. Positive treatment effects were found for sexual recidivism,10 

nonsexual violent recidivism,11 nonsexual nonviolent recidivism12 and any recidivism.13 Treated juveniles had 

sexual recidivism rates ranging from 0 to 5 percent across the seven studies. By comparison, sexual recidivism 

rates for untreated comparison group subjects ranged from 5 to 18 percent. Nonsexual recidivism rates ranged 

from 10 to 36 percent for treated subjects compared to 10 to 75 percent for untreated subjects. Based on their 

fndings, Winokur and colleagues (2010, pp. 23–24) concluded — 

According to the results, there is a small to moderate positive effect of treatment on the recidivism rates 

of JSO. Specifcally, juveniles who complete a cognitive-behavioral treatment program are less likely to 

commit a sexual or nonsexual re-offense than are juveniles who do not receive treatment, receive an 

alternative treatment, or do not complete treatment.... The sparse results from the subgroup analyses 

indicate that cognitive-behavioral treatment is effective in both community and residential settings. 

Other recent meta-analyses have also found positive treatment effects. Walker and colleagues (2004), for 

example, conducted a meta-analysis of 10 studies involving a combined sample of 644 study subjects. The 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 311 

researchers found that treatments for male adolescent sexual offenders, particularly cognitive-behavioral 

approaches, were effective. Walker and his colleagues reported a treatment effect size of 0.37, meaning that 

only 37 treated study subjects recidivated for every 100 untreated study subjects who recidivated. 

More recently, Kim, Benekos and Merlo (2016, pp. 109-113) conducted a review of 11 meta-analyses that 

examined the effectiveness of treatment for individuals who sexually offend, both juvenile and adult. While 

the overall study did not focus exclusively on treatment interventions for juveniles, the researchers examined 

treatment effects across different age populations of treatment recipients. Based on fve independent metaanalyses that provided effect size data for treatment provided to adolescents, Kim et al. found that “sex 

offender treatments for adolescents produced an overall 24 percent reduction in recidivism...” In addition, 

they reported that this 24 percent reduction in recidivism was “almost 3.8 times bigger than the grand mean 

effect size of sex offender treatments for adults.” 

Finally, Drake, Aos and Miller (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of fve rigorous studies of sex offender 

treatment programs for youth as part of a larger study on evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime 

and criminal justice system costs. The researchers found that sex offender treatment programs for juveniles 

reduced recidivism, on average, by 9.7 percent. In addition, the treatment programs produced a net return on 

investment of more than $23,000 per program participant, or about $1.70 in benefts per participant for every 

$1 spent. 

In summary, a handful of systematic reviews employing meta-analysis have examined the effectiveness of 

treatment for juveniles who commit sexual offenses in recent years. While there is widespread agreement 

among researchers that the evidence is far from defnitive, these studies have consistently found that sex 

offender treatment works, particularly multisystemic and cognitive-behavioral treatment approaches. Costbeneft analysis also demonstrates that sex offender treatment programs for youth can provide a positive 

return on taxpayer investment. 

Studies Focused on Treatment for Children with Sexual 

Behavior Problems 

While several single and synthesis studies examining the effectiveness of treatment for juveniles who sexually 

offend have been conducted in recent years, the majority of these studies have focused on treatment for 

adolescent offenders. Far fewer studies have examined what works in treating children (under age 13) who 

display sexual behavior problems. One recent study that did examine treatment effectiveness specifcally for 

this population specifcally was a randomized controlled trial conducted by Carpentier and colleagues (2006). 

Children with sexual behavior problems were randomly assigned to either a cognitive behavioral intervention 

with parental support or a control group whose members received play therapy and parental support. Based 

on a 10-year follow-up period, the researchers found that only 2 percent of the children who participated in 

the cognitive behavioral treatment program committed another sexual offense, compared to 10 percent of the 

children in the control group. 

While the lower recidivism rate for children who received cognitive behavioral therapy suggests that treatment 

using this approach worked, the difference in recidivism between children in the treatment and control 

groups in the study was not statistically signifcant, though this may have been due to a methodological 

artifact of the study. Given the lack of a statistically signifcant recidivism reduction fnding, and the 

methodological shortcomings of the study, the researchers concluded that there was insuffcient evidence to 

determine if treatment for children with sexual behavior problems is effective. Nevertheless, it is important 

to note the relatively low rate of sexual recidivism observed for even the untreated children after a 10-year 
312 CHAPTER 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES WHO SEXUALLY OFFEND 

follow-up period. This low rate of recidivism, especially in relation to recidivism rates observed for adult 

offenders, underscores the importance of viewing juveniles who sexually offend, especially children, as a 

distinct population. Given the empirical evidence, policy makers and practitioners must be diligent to avoid 

unjustifed perceptions of future risk, as well as labeling and stigmatization that could harm the child’s future 

development. 

Other recent studies focused on treatment for children with sexual behavior problems have also reported 

positive fndings. Gagnon, Tremblay and Bégin (2005) used a single-group, prepost design to examine the 

effectiveness of a treatment intervention that included group and family sessions. Pre- and post-treatment 

sexual behavior problems were assessed using two standardized instruments, the Child Sexual Behavior 

Inventory (CSBI-3) and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Though the post-treatment assessment sample 

was small (n = 27 for the CSBI-3; n = 26 for the CBCL), the researchers found a reduction in post-treatment 

sexual behavior problems as measured by the two instruments. The other recent study examined a treatment 

intervention for children 3-7 years old who displayed sexual behavior problems (Silovsky et al., 2007). Of the 

85 children who received the intervention, 35 percent had been sexually abused. The intervention included 

both group treatment and family activities. Again, sexual behavior problems were measured using the CSBI-3 

and the CBCL. Forty-seven children who received treatment services received post-treatment assessments. 

Again, the researchers found reductions in sexual behavior problems when comparing intake with posttreatment assessment scores on both standardized instruments. 

One of the few synthesis studies that examined the effectiveness of treatment for children with sexual 

behavior problems was conducted by St. Amand, Bard and Silovsky (2008). The researchers reviewed 11 studies 

that examined the outcomes of treatments provided to children aged 3–12 with sexual behavior problems. 

The researchers found that both sexual-behavior-focused and trauma-focused interventions were effective 

at reducing sexual behavior problems among this population. In terms of important practice elements, St. 

Amand and colleagues found that parenting management skills were particularly important in reducing sexual 

behavior problems in children. 

In summary, while the number of studies focused on treatment for children with sexual behavior problems is 

relatively small, and research conducted to date has generally involved small sample sizes, both single studies 

and synthesis research have produced a pattern of positive fndings. In addition, the empirical evidence 

supports the thesis that children with sexual behavior problems should be viewed differently than adolescents 

or adults who sexually offend. As stated above, when dealing with children who display sexual behavior 

problems, policy makers and practitioners must be careful to avoid unjustifed perceptions of future risk, as 

well as any form of labeling or stigmatization that could harm the child’s future development. 

Summary 

Given the prevalence of sexual offending by juveniles, therapeutic interventions for juveniles who sexually 

offend have become a staple of sex offender management practice in jurisdictions across the country. 

Indeed, the number of treatment programs for juveniles who commit sexual offenses has increased over 

the past 30 years, and the nature of treatment itself has changed as the developmental and behavioral 

differences between juvenile and adult sexual offenders have become better understood. Yet, despite 

the growth and widespread use of treatment with juveniles who sexually offend, uncertainty about the 

effectiveness of treatment in reducing recidivism is not uncommon. While inconsistent research fndings 

and the fact that few high-quality studies of treatment effectiveness have been undertaken to date have 

contributed to the uncertainty, both the pattern of research fndings and quality of the evidence have been 

changing in recent years. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 313 

 

This review examined the recent evidence on the effectiveness of treatment for juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses. While there is widespread agreement among researchers that the knowledge base is far from 

complete, the weight of the evidence from both individual studies and synthesis research conducted during the 

past 10 years suggests that therapeutic interventions for juveniles who sexually offend can and do work. 

Therapeutic interventions for juveniles who 

sexually offend can and do work. While 

multisystemic therapy has been 

shown to be effective, single studies and 

meta-analyses on other treatment approaches 

have also produced positive results. 

Rigorous studies have demonstrated the effcacy of multisystemic therapy in reducing the recidivism of juveniles 

who commit sexual offenses. Recent research — both single studies and meta-analyses — on other treatment 

approaches has also produced positive results. For example, Worling and Curwen (2010) found that the juveniles 

who participated in a community-based treatment program had signifcantly better outcomes than comparison 

group members on several measures of recidivism. Based on a 20-year follow-up period, adolescents who 

participated in specialized treatment were signifcantly less likely than comparison group subjects to receive 

subsequent charges for sexual (9 percent compared to 21 percent), violent nonsexual (22 percent compared to 

39 percent) or any (38 percent compared to 57 percent) new offense. The researchers also found that only a 

minority (11.49 percent) of the adolescent study subjects were charged with a sexual crime as an adult. Waite 

and colleagues (2005) found that incarcerated juveniles who received intensive treatment in a self-contained 

housing unit of the correctional facility had better recidivism outcomes than incarcerated juveniles who 

received less-intensive treatment and who remained in the facility’s general population. Also, meta-analyses 

conducted by Reitzel and Carbonell (2006), Winokur and colleagues (2006), and Drake, Aos and Miller (2009) all 

found positive treatment effects. Winokur and colleagues (2006) reported that cognitive/behavioral treatment 

is effective in both community and residential settings. 

Juveniles who sexually offend are clearly quite diverse in terms of offending behaviors and future public 

safety risk. In fact, they appear to have far more in common with other juvenile delinquents than they do 

with adult sexual offenders. Research is demonstrating that there are important developmental, motivational 

and behavioral differences between juvenile and adult sexual offenders and also that juveniles who commit 

sexual offenses are infuenced by multiple ecological systems (Letourneau & Borduin, 2008). Hence, therapeutic 

interventions that are designed specifcally for adolescents and children with sexual behavior problems are 

clearly needed. Moreover, treatment approaches that are developmentally appropriate; that take motivational 

and behavioral diversity into account; and that focus on family, peer and other contextual correlates of sexually 

abusive behavior in youth, rather than focusing on individual psychological defcits alone, are likely to be 

most effective. The need for tailored rather than uniform treatment approaches was acknowledged by the 

experts at the SOMAPI forum. In addition, there is an emerging body of evidence suggesting that the delivery 

of therapeutic services in natural environments enhances treatment effectiveness (Letourneau & Borduin, 

2008) and that the enhancement of behavior management skills in parents may be far more important in the 

treatment of sexually abusive behaviors in children than traditional clinical approaches (St. Amand, Bard & 

Silovsky, 2008). 

While the knowledge base regarding the effectiveness of treatment for juveniles who sexually offend is both 

expanding and improving, signifcant knowledge gaps remain. The need for more high-quality studies on 
314 CHAPTER 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES WHO SEXUALLY OFFEND 

treatment effectiveness has long been a theme in the literature, and both randomized controlled trials and 

well-designed quasi-experiments that examine treatment effects using equivalent treatment and comparison 

groups are greatly needed. Sound randomized controlled trials can provide the most trustworthy evidence 

about treatment effectiveness, but as Cook (2006) points out, they “are only suffcient for unbiased causal 

knowledge when” a correct random assignment procedure is chosen and properly implemented, “there is not 

differential attrition from the study across the groups being compared” and “there is minimal contamination 

of the intervention details from one group to another.” Propensity score matching and other advanced 

techniques for controlling bias and achieving equivalence between treatment and comparison subjects can 

help enhance the credibility of evidence produced through quasi-experiments. Following their study of 

treatment effectiveness for adults in California — one of the few treatment studies to employ a randomized 

design — Marques and colleagues (2005) emphasized the importance of including appropriate comparison 

groups in future treatment outcome studies, and they urged researchers who assess the effects of treatment 

“to control for prior risk by using an appropriate actuarial measure for both treatment and comparison 

groups.” Synthesis studies that are based on prudent exclusionary criteria and that employ the most rigorous 

analytical methods available are also needed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that are based on the most 

rigorous studies, incorporate statistical tests to discover potential bias and explore how methodological and 

contextual variations impact treatment effects are well-equipped to provide policymakers and practitioners 

with highly trustworthy evidence about what works. Future research should also attempt to build a stronger 

evidence base on the types of treatments that work. Empirical evidence that specifes which types of treatment 

work or do not work, for whom and in which situations is important for both policy and practice. The need for 

high-quality studies that help identify offender- and situation-specifc treatment approaches that work was 

acknowledged by the national experts who participated in the 2012 SOMAPI forum. Trustworthy evidence on 

the treatment modalities and elements that are effective with juveniles who have committed sexual offenses 

was also identifed as a pressing need. 

Notes 

1. Randomized controlled trials are considered superior for discovering treatment effects and inferring 

causality because of their capacity to create valid counterfactuals and reduce bias. Modeled on laboratory 

experiments, randomized controlled trials have several key features, most notably the use of random 

assignment. In random assignment, the researcher randomly decides which study subjects participate in 

treatment and which do not. The random assignment of subjects creates the optimal study conditions for 

comparing treated and untreated subjects and making causal inferences about the impact of the intervention. 

2. In addition, there may be resistance to the use of random assignment on the grounds that withholding 

potentially benefcial treatment from some study subjects for the sake of research is unethical. 

3. This is often accomplished by matching the treatment and comparison group members on factors that are 

related to the outcome of interest. Sometimes statistical techniques are employed retrospectively to create 

equivalence between the treated and comparison subjects. 

4. Methodological quality considerations typically include an assessment of the following: the study’s ability to 

control outside factors and eliminate major rival explanations for an intervention’s effects; the study’s ability to 

detect program effects; and other considerations, such as attrition and the use of appropriate statistical tests. 

Based on the assessment, studies of substandard quality are typically excluded from the analysis. In addition, 

studies that are included in the analysis may be weighted based on their relative scientifc rigor. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 315 

5. Meta-analysis also generates a summary statistic called the average effect size, which helps the analyst determine 

not only if the intervention is effective, but also how effective it is. There are several methods used to calculate 

effect sizes, as described in Lipsey and Wilson (2001). The mean difference effect size is common when outcomes are 

continuously measured; the odds-ratio effect size is common when outcomes are measured dichotomously. 

6. Of the 46 juveniles who received an assessment in the program, only 30 received some form of treatment 

outside the program being studied. 

7. The researchers also found that sexual interest in children was a predictor of sexual recidivism, and 

that factors commonly related to delinquency overall — such as prior criminal offending and an antisocial 

personality — were predictive of nonsexual recidivism. 

8. The research also examined whether multisystemic therapy treatment improved important family, peer and 

academic correlates of juvenile sexual offending. 

9. Study subjects were, on average, 22.9 years old at the end of the follow-up period. 

10. p < 0.01. 

11. Ibid. 

12. p < 0.001. 

13. Ibid. 

References 

Beech, A.R., Bourgon, G., Hanson, K., Harris, A.J., Langton, C., Marques, J., Miner, M., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V., 

Seto, M., Thornton, D. & Yates, P.M. (2007). Sex Offender Treatment Outcome Research: CODC Guidelines for 

Evaluation Part 1: Introduction and Overview. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety Canada. 

Borduin, C.M., Henggeler, S.W., Blaske, D.M. & Stein, R. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual 

offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105–113. 

Borduin, C.M., Schaeffer, C.M. & Heiblum, N. (2009). A randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with 

juvenile sexual offenders: Effects on youth social ecology and criminal activity. Consult Clinical Psychology, 77, 

26–37. 

Carpentier M.Y., Silovsky, J.F. & Chaffn, M. (2006). Randomized trial of treatment for children with sexual 

behavior problems: ten-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 482–488. 

Cook, T.D. (2006). Describing what is special about the role of experiments in contemporary educational 

research: Putting the “Gold Standard” rhetoric into perspective. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6, 1–7. 

Drake, E.K., Aos, S. & Miller, M. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice 

costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims and Offenders, 4, 170–196. 

Farrington, D.P. & Welsh, B.C. (2007). Saving Children From a Life of Crime, Early Risk Factors and Effective 

Interventions. New York: Oxford University Press. 
316 CHAPTER 5: EFFECTIVENESS OF TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES WHO SEXUALLY OFFEND 

Gagnon, M.M., Tremblay, C. & Bégin, H. (2005). Intervention de groupe auprès d’enfants présentant des 

comportements sexuels problématiques: évolution comportementale, affective et sociale [Group intervention 

for children with sexual behavior problems: Behavioral, affective and social development]. Santé mentale au 

Québec, 30(2), 257–279. 

Henggeler, S.W. (1997). Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MST Approach. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice Programs, Offce of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Kim, B., Benekos, P.J. & Merlo, A.V. (2016). Sex Offender Recidivism Revisited: Review of Recent Meta-analyses 

on the Effects of Sex Offender Treatment. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(1) 105–117. 

Långström, N., Enebrink, P., Laurén, E., Lindblom, J., Werkö, S. & Hanson, K. (2013). Preventing sexual 

abusers of children from reoffending: systematic review of medical and psychological interventions. BMJ 

2013;347:f4630 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4630 (Published, August 9, 2013). 

Letourneau, E.J. & Borduin, C.M. (2008). The effective treatment of juveniles who sexually offend: An ethical 

imperative. Ethics and Behavior, 18, 286–306. 

Letourneau, E.J., Henggeler, S.W., Borduin, C.M., Schewe, P.A., McCart, M.R., Chapman, J.E. & Saldana, L. 

(2009). Multisystemic therapy for juvenile sexual offenders: 1-year results from a randomized effectiveness trial. 

Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 89–102. 

Lipsey, M.W. (2002). Meta-analysis and program evaluation. Socialvetenskaplig Tidskirft, 9, 194–208. 

(Translated.) 

Lipsey, M.W. & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

MacKenzie, D.L. (2006). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and 

Delinquents. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Marques, J.K., Wiederanders, M., Day, D.M., Nelson, C. & van Ommeren, A. (2005). Effects of a relapse 

prevention program on sexual recidivism: Final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation 

Program (SOTEP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17, 79–107. 

McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the 

American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 16–30. 

McGrath, R.J., Cumming, G., Burchard, B., Zeoli, S. & Ellerby, L. (2010). Current Practices and Emerging Trends in 

Sexual Abuser Management: The Safer Society 2009 North American Survey. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. 

Petrosino, A. & Lavenberg, J. (2007). Systematic reviews and metal-analytic best evidence on “what works” for 

criminal justice decision-makers. Western Criminology Review, 8, 1–15. 

Petticrew, M. (2007). Making high quality research accessible to policy makers and social care practitioners. 

Plenary presentation at the Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Glasgow, Scotland. 

Reitzel, L.R. & Carbonell, J.L. (2006). The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured 

by recidivism: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 401–421. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 317 

Schwartz, B.K. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of Sex Offender Treatment. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Seabloom, W., Seabloom, M.E., Seabloom, E., Barron, R. & Hendrickson, S. (2003). A 14- to 24-year longitudinal 

study of a comprehensive sexual health model treatment program for adolescent sex offenders: Predictors 

of successful completion and subsequent criminal recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and 

Comparative Criminology, 47, 468–481. 

Sherman, L.W. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. 

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 589, 6–19. 

Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S. (1998). Preventing Crime: 

What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Silovsky, J.F., Niec, L., Bard, D. & Hecht, D. (2007). Treatment for preschool children with interpersonal sexual 

behavior problems: A pilot study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 378–391. 

St. Amand, A., Bard, D.E. & Silovsky, J.F. (2008). Meta-analysis of treatment for child sexual behavior problems: 

Practice elements and outcomes. Child Maltreatment, 13, 145–166. 

Swenson, C.C. & Letourneau, E.J. (2011). Multisystemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders. In B.K. Schwartz 

(Ed.), Handbook of Sex Offender Treatment (pp. 57-1–57-32). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute. 

Waite, D., Keller, A., McGarvey, E.L., Wieckowski, E., Pinkerton, R. & Brown, G.L. (2005). Juvenile sex offender 

rearrest rates for sexual, violent nonsexual and property crimes: A 10-year follow-up. Sexual Abuse: A Journal 

of Research and Treatment, 17, 313–331. 

Walker, D.F., McGovern, S.K., Poey, E.L. & Otis, K.E. (2004). Treatment effectiveness for male adolescent sexual 

offenders: A meta-analysis and review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13, 281–293. 

Winokur, M., Rozen, D., Batchelder, K. & Valentine, D. (2006). Juvenile Sexual Offender Treatment: A Systematic 

Review of Evidence-Based Research. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Applied Research in Child 

Welfare Project, Social Work Research Center, School of Social Work, College of Applied Human Sciences. 

Wolk, N.L. (2005). Predictors associated with recidivism among juvenile sexual offenders. Unpublished doctoral 

dissertation. Houston, TX: University of Houston. 

Worling, J.R. & Curwen, T. (2000). Adolescent sexual offender recidivism: Success of specialized treatment and 

implications for risk prediction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 965–982. 

Worling, J.R., Litteljohn, A. & Bookalam, D. (2010). 20-year prospective follow-up study of specialized treatment 

for adolescents who offended sexually. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 46–57. 

SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 319 

 

Chapter 6: Registration and 

Notifcation of Juveniles Who 

Commit Sexual Offenses 

by Christopher Lobanov-Rostovsky 

FINDINGS 

◆ Many states have some kind of registration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses and the vast 

majority require registration and public notifcation for juveniles transferred for trial and convicted as an adult. 

◆ Conclusions about the impact of sex offender registration and notifcation with juveniles are diffcult to make 

because so few studies have been conducted, the available research has not isolated the impact of sex offender 

registration and notifcation from other interventions and the overall rate of sexual recidivism attributed to 

juveniles is low. 

◆ Juvenile cases have been pled to nonregistration offenses at the expense of the juvenile not being eligible for 

treatment. 

Introduction 

S

ex offender registration and notifcation has been used as a management strategy since the 1930s. 

California became the frst state to pass a sex offender registration law in 1947, while Washington became 

the frst state to pass community notifcation legislation in 1990. In 1994, the U.S. federal government 

frst implemented a national sex offender registration law for adult sexual offenders via the Jacob Wetterling 

Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. 

Community notifcation was subsequently added through the Megan’s Law amendment to the Act in 1996. 

Per these federal laws, all 50 states have implemented registration and notifcation systems for adult sexual 

offenders, with some states also applying registration and notifcation to juveniles who commit sexual 

offenses. Many states have some kind of registration for juveniles adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses, 

and the vast majority require registration and public notifcation for juveniles transferred for trial and 

convicted as an adult. The implementation of sex offender registration and notifcation for juveniles varies 

by state, with some states choosing to add juvenile registration based on adjudication for a specifed crime, 

while others provide for judicial discretion related to whether a juvenile should register and for how long. 

Finally, in 2006, the U.S. Congress included mandatory registration for juveniles ages 14 and older who are 

adjudicated delinquent for certain violent sexual offenses in the national sex offender registration and 

notifcation standards of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA1

). 

The expansion in the use of sex offender management strategies traditionally designed for adult sex offenders 

with juveniles who commit sexual offenses arguably has been made based on assumptions that there is a high 

rate of juvenile sexual offending, that juveniles who commit sexual offenses are similar to adult sex offenders 

and that juveniles who commit sexual offenses lack heterogeneity, are diffcult to intervene with and are at 

high risk for recidivism (Chaffn, 2008; Letourneau & Miner, 2005). (For more information on the “Recidivism of 

Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses,” see Chapter 3 in the Juvenile section.) 
320 CHAPTER 6: REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

 

Unfortunately, the body of research addressing sex offender registration and notifcation effectiveness with 

juveniles remains extremely limited today. Defnitive conclusions regarding the impact of registration and 

notifcation with juveniles who commit sexual offenses are diffcult to make at this time, not only because 

so few studies have been conducted but also because the available research is generally hampered by an 

inability to isolate the impact of registration and notifcation from other interventions (e.g., specialized 

supervision and treatment) and the overall low rate of sexual recidivism attributed to juveniles. (For more 

information on treatment, see Chapter 5: “Effectiveness of Treatment for Juveniles Who Sexually Offend,” 

in the Juvenile section.) Nevertheless, this chapter reviews these studies and their fndings for the purpose 

of informing policy and practice at the federal, state and local levels. Findings from studies comparing the 

recidivism rates of juveniles who commit sexual offenses with those of two groups — adult sex offenders and 

juveniles who commit nonsexual offenses — are also presented to shed light on any comparative differences 

that exist in the propensity to reoffend. 

This chapter does not discuss the theoretical and sociological explanations for registration and notifcation 

or place the research within this context. Its focus is on registration and notifcation for juveniles who 

commit sexual offenses. (For information about sex offender registration and notifcation as it relates to 

adult sex offenders, see Chapter 8: “Sex Offender Management Strategies,” in the Adult section.) 

Summary of Research Findings 

As stated above, very few studies examining the impact of sex offender registration and notifcation on 

juveniles have been undertaken to date. Only a small number of studies were identifed in the literature 

that examined (either directly or indirectly) the effect of registration and notifcation on juvenile sex 

offense rates. One of these studies examined juvenile sex crime arrest rates prior to and following the 

implementation of sex offender registration and notifcation, and another two examined the recidivism of 

juveniles who sexually offend and required to register as compared to groups who were not registered. The 

fnal two studies examined the recidivism of juveniles subject to different registration and notifcation levels. 

Findings from these studies are presented below. 

Studies Examining Registration and Notifcation With Juveniles Who Sexually Offend 

A study by Holmes (2009) examined sex crime arrest rates before and after sex offender registration and 

notifcation implementation based on an analysis of annual sex crime arrests recorded in the Uniform Crime 

Report data for 47 states. Data were analyzed for 1994 through 2009. The study did not fnd a statistically 

signifcant decrease in the rate of sex crime arrests in juvenile registration states and juvenile notifcation 

states post-sex offender registration and notifcation implementation (Holmes, 2009).2 

A second study examined recidivism levels pre- and post-sex offender registration and notifcation 

implementation focused on juveniles who committed sexual offenses (N = 1,275) in South Carolina 

between 1990 and 2004. Sex offender registration and notifcation was implemented in South Carolina 

in 1995. Observed recidivism rates were based on an average follow-up period of nine years. Registration 

implementation was not found to be associated with a signifcant reduction in sexual recidivism. However, 

nonsexual, nonassault recidivism (defned as a new charge) was signifcantly greater for those subject to 

registration and notifcation,3

 suggesting a possible surveillance effect (Letourneau et al., 2009a). 

Another study compared the recidivism rates of juveniles subject to registration and notifcation 

requirements with those of juveniles not required to register (N = 172). Based on a mean follow-up period 

of 49.2 months post-release from a secure setting, the researchers found no signifcant differences between 

registrants and nonregistrants in sexual recidivism (12.2 percent), as measured by a new charge for a felony 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 321 

 

 

 

 

sex crime. However, the rate of general recidivism (59.3 percent) was found to be signifcantly lower for 

registrants than nonregistrants4

 (Caldwell & Dickinson, 2009). 

Further, a study examining recidivism for juveniles subject to different levels of registration and notifcation 

focused on juveniles in Washington state who were subject to assessment for registration and notifcation 

level following release to parole after incarceration from 1995 to 2002 (N = 319). Sexual reconviction rates 

were examined over a fve-year follow-up period. The research found that juveniles identifed either as 

level I or level II (n = 278) offenders had a 9 percent sexual reconviction rate, while those identifed as level 

III offenders had a 12 percent sexual reconviction rate. Level III is the highest registration and notifcation 

level in Washington, requiring active community notifcation, while levels I and II do not require community 

notifcation (Barnoski, 2008). 

Finally, a study also looked at the differences between juveniles aged 10-19 classifed as tier III in the Adam 

Walsh Act compared to those not so classifed (N = 108). There was no signifcant differences between those 

who met the registration and notifcation criteria and those who did not meet this criteria on either sexual 

(overall, 1.9 percent across both groups) or general (overall, 16.7 percent across both groups) recidivism 

(Bastastini et al., 2011). 

Limitations 

The aforementioned studies have limitations common to all studies that employ offcial statistics on 

sexual offending or sexual recidivism, namely, the underreporting of sexual offenses to authorities (see, 

for example, Bachman, 1998, and Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006) and the low base rate for recidivism.5 In 

addition, some of the studies examined outcomes pre- and post- sex offender registration and notifcation 

implementation; the others examined registration and notifcation effects on recidivism indirectly. Finally, 

none of the studies were based on random assignment, although it should be noted that interrupted time 

series analysis based on a suffcient number of observations can produce highly trustworthy fndings. 

Juvenile Disposition Studies 

The following fndings from two juvenile disposition studies shed light on some of the unintended 

consequences of registration and notifcation application with juveniles who have sexually offended. 

In one study, disposition outcomes for South Carolina juveniles who committed sexual assault or robbery 

crimes between 1990 and 2004 (N = 18,068) were examined. The study found that juveniles who committed 

sexual offenses (n = 5,166) were subject to a signifcant change in prosecutor decision-making following 

implementation of the sex offender registry in 1995, particularly younger juveniles and those with fewer 

prior offenses. Letourneau and colleagues (2009b, p. 158) concluded, “For sexual offense charges, there 

was a 41 percent reduction in the odds of a prosecutor moving forward after registration was implemented 

than before.”6

 Similarly, there was a statistically signifcant reduction in assault dispositions of 22 percent,7 

but there was not a statistically signifcant reduction in robbery dispositions over the same time period 

(Letourneau et al., 2009b). 

In a study of dispositions for juveniles who committed sexual offenses in an urban region of Michigan in 

2006 (N = 299 petitions fled), Calley (2008) found that a high percentage of serious charges were pled down 

to a lesser charge and, as a result, a signifcant number of juveniles who committed sexual offenses were no 

longer eligible for county-funded sex-offense-specifc treatment. In essence, juvenile cases were being pled 

to nonregistration offenses at the expense of not being eligible for treatment (Calley, 2008). 
322 CHAPTER 6: REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

 

Limitations 

The limitations of these studies include generalizability given the specifc geographic regions of the studies, 

the limited time frame reviewed in the Michigan study, and the retrospective rather than prospective nature 

of the studies. Finally, there were no survey data on the actual decision-making process by prosecutors. 

Survey Data 

Surveys of stakeholders can provide descriptive data about the impact of registration and notifcation on 

different populations, including the public, juveniles who commit sexual offenses and their family members, 

and treatment providers and other professionals who work with juveniles who commit sexual offenses. 

Impact on the Public 

In a survey of members of the public (n = 168), higher levels of education were found to be correlated with 

decreased support for the juvenile registry based on not identifying community safety effectiveness or 

juveniles who committed sexual offenses as having signifcant understanding of their behavior8

 (Stevenson 

et al., 2013). 

Impact on Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

In a survey of adults (n = 165) aged 21 to 39 who either were never required to register for a juvenile sex 

crime, formerly registered for a juvenile sex crime or are currently registering for a juvenile sex crime, 

registration was correlated with “increased severity of depression”9

 (Denniston, 2016, p. 1). However, 

surprisingly, those registrants whose information was made public had decreased severity of depression 

compared to those registrants whose information was not made public. In addition, other factors such as 

age at initial registration, years registered, having a juvenile adjudication or adult conviction, having a 

misdemeanor or felony offense, having a subsequent sexual offense or risk tier registration level were all 

also unrelated to severity of depression (Denniston, 2016). 

Impact on Family Members of Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

In a focus group of four Michigan family members of juveniles who commit sexual offenses, concerns were 

identifed for the stigma of the registry and the impact on social support and employment (Comartin et al., 

2010). 

Impact on Treatment Providers and Other Professionals Who Work with Juveniles Who Commit 

Sexual Offenses 

In a survey of 265 treatment providers who work with juveniles who commit sexual offenses, registration 

and notifcation was seen as leading to mental health problems, shame, embarrassment, hopelessness, 

harassment, school problems and housing instability (Harris et al., 2015). In addition, in a survey of juvenile 

and criminal justice professionals whose agencies work with juveniles who commit sexual offenses (n = 15), 

the registry was seen as leading to increased legal proceedings and registry work, confusion in terms of 

registry requirements and a false sense of security, although some participants acknowledged public support 

for the registry (Henderson, 2015). 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 323 

 

Limitations: Survey Data 

Limitations of the survey data include small sample sizes and response rates, leading to possible self-selection 

bias. In addition, many of the survey samples were confned to a specifc geographic location and may not 

be generalizable to other areas of the country. Finally, given these limitations, the survey results identifed 

above should be considered exploratory in nature, and therefore, no validated conclusions can be drawn at 

this time on the impact of registration and notifcation. 

Comparative Recidivism Rates for Juveniles Who Commit Sexual Offenses 

Given the limited research on sex offender registration and notifcation with juveniles, a brief review of 

fndings concerning the sexual recidivism rates of juveniles who sexually offend in relation to two groups — 

adult sexual offenders and juveniles who commit nonsexual offenses — is presented below. 

Compared With Adult Sex Offenders 

The results of three meta-analyses suggest that juveniles who commit sexual offenses have a sexual 

recidivism rate between 7 and 13 percent based on a follow-up period of approximately fve years 

(Alexander, 1999; Caldwell, 2010; Reitzel & Carbonell, 2006). By comparison, a relatively recent meta-analysis 

of studies focusing on adult sexual offenders reported average sexual recidivism rates of 14 percent after 

a fve-year follow-up period, 20 percent after a 10-year follow-up period and 24 percent after a 15-year 

follow-up period (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Hence, there appears to be at least a marginal difference in the 

propensity to reoffend between juveniles who commit sexual offenses and adult sexual offenders. 

Compared With Juveniles Who Commit Nonsexual Offenses 

The premise that juveniles who commit sexual offenses are more likely to sexually recidivate than juveniles 

who commit other types of crimes has been studied by a number of researchers with mixed results. While some 

studies have found a signifcant difference in the propensity of the two groups to sexually reoffend, others 

have not. Of the comparison studies between juveniles who commit sexual offenses and those who commit 

nonsexual offenses, two studies suggested that the sexual recidivism rate for juveniles who committed sexual 

offenses was signifcantly different than for juveniles who commit nonsexual offenses. For example, in a study 

involving a sample of 150 offenders, Hagan and colleagues (2001) found sexual recidivism rates (defned as 

reconviction) of 18 percent for juveniles who committed sexual offenses and 10 percent for juveniles who 

committed nonsexual offenses over an eight-year follow-up period, a statistically signifcant difference 

(Hagan et al., 2001).10 Similarly, in a study involving 306 juveniles, Sipe, Jensen and Everitt (1998) found sexual 

rearrest rates of 9.7 percent for juveniles who commit sexual offenses and 3 percent for juveniles who commit 

nonsexual offenses over a six-year follow-up period, a difference that again is statistically signifcant (Sipe, 

Jensen & Everitt, 1998).11 

On the other hand, a number of studies have not found signifcant sexual recidivism rate differences. 

For example, in a study of 2,029 juveniles released from secure custody, including 249 who committed 

sexual offenses and 1,780 who committed nonsexual offenses, Caldwell (2007) reported sexual recidivism 

rates of 6.8 percent for the juveniles who committed sexual offenses and 5.7 percent for the juveniles 

who committed nonsexual offenses over a fve-year follow-up period, a difference that is not statistically 

signifcant (Caldwell, 2007). Similarly, in a study involving 91 juvenile males who committed sexual offenses 

and 174 juvenile males who did not commit sexual offenses but who were treated in the same program, 

Caldwell, Ziemke and Vitacco (2008) found no signifcant difference in the felony sexual recidivism rates 

observed for the two groups. A felony sexual recidivism rate of 12.1 percent was found for juveniles who 
324 CHAPTER 6: REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

committed sexual offenses compared to 11.6 percent for the juveniles who did not commit sexual offense 

over an average 71.6-month follow-up period. Letourneau, Chapman and Schoenwald (2008) also failed 

to fnd a signifcant difference in recidivism rates in their study involving 1,645 juveniles in treatment who 

either had or did not have a sexual behavior problem (as defned by the caregiver-reported scoring on the 

Child Behavioral Checklist Sex Problems scale developed by Achenbach, 1991). The researchers reported a 2 percent 

sexual recidivism rate (defned as a new charge) for those juveniles with a sexual behavior problem and a 3 percent 

rate for those who did not have a sexual behavior problem (Letourneau, Chapman & Schoenwald, 2008). Finally, 

in a birth cohort study involving 3,129 juvenile males and 2,998 juvenile females from Racine, Wisconsin, Zimring, 

Piquero and Jennings (2007) reported sexual arrest recidivism rates of 8.5 percent for juveniles who committed 

sexual offenses and 6.2 percent for juveniles who had any police contact, a difference that is not statistically 

signifcant. The recidivism rates were based on a four- to 14-year follow-up period after age 18. The researchers 

concluded that the number of juvenile police contacts was more predictive of adult sexual recidivism than juvenile 

sexual offenses (Zimring, Piquero & Jennings, 2007). 

Summary 

Very few studies examining sex offender registration and notifcation with juveniles have been undertaken 

to date. Only fve outcome studies were identifed in the literature and none of them produced conclusive 

fndings about the application of registration and notifcation to juveniles who commit sexual offenses. In 

addition, exploratory information from survey data suggests potential iatrogenic effects from registration 

and notifcation with this population, but the data to date is far from conclusive. Findings from studies 

comparing the sexual recidivism rates of juveniles who sexually offend, adult sexual offenders and juveniles 

who commit nonsexual offenses are somewhat mixed. There appears to be at least a marginal difference 

in the propensity to reoffend between juveniles who commit sexual offenses and adult sexual offenders. 

However, defnitive conclusions about sexual recidivism similarities or differences between juveniles who 

commit sexual and nonsexual offenses are diffcult to make. Two studies found a signifcantly higher rate 

of sexual recidivism for the juveniles who commit sexual offenses, while several other studies did not fnd a 

signifcant difference in the sexual recidivism rates for the two groups. 

Given these research fndings, the merit and appropriateness of using registration and notifcation with 

juveniles who sexually offend remain open to question. While far more research is needed, participants 

in the SOMAPI forum recommended against any further expansion of registration and notifcation with 

juveniles in the absence of more extensive empirical evidence supporting the utility of this strategy. 

The SOMAPI forum participants identifed the need for research using scientifcally rigorous methods to 

assess the impact of registration and notifcation on juveniles who commit sexual offenses. There is a 

clear need for research that can isolate the impact of registration and notifcation from other sex offender 

management strategies (e.g., supervision and treatment) that are also in place and that employs large 

enough sample sizes to overcome the low base rate for sexual recidivism. Additional research that examines 

outcome measures other than sexual recidivism (e.g., supervision compliance; iatrogenic effects on the 

juvenile, family and community) also is needed. Research also needs to identify whether juveniles are 

similar to adult sexual offenders prior to using such policies with this population. The goal of intervention 

with juveniles who commit sexual offenses is to prevent recidivism, decrease risk and increase protective 

factors that buffer against reoffending. Society clearly benefts from effective and appropriate intervention 

with this population, but more research is needed to examine whether registration and notifcation laws 

may require modifcation in their use with juveniles who commit sexual offenses if public safety is to be 

effectively enhanced. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 325 

 

Notes 

1. The federal government cannot require states to implement the Adam Walsh Act; however, if states fail to 

“substantially implement” the provisions of the Act, they are subject to a 10-percent penalty of their Edward 

Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funding. 

2. Per author request, permission was received to cite this paper; the paper’s author expected a revision to be 

completed in 2014. 

3. p < 0.05. 

4. p < 0.01. 

5. For example, Letourneau et al. (2009a) found the percentage of youth in their sample with new sexual 

offense charges (7.5 percent) or adjudications (2.5 percent) to be low. 

6. p < 0.0001. 

7. p < 0.001. 

8. p < 0.05. 

9. p < 0.01. 

10. p > 0.05. 

11. p < 0.04. 

References 

Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavioral Checklist and 1991 Profle. Burlington, VT: University 

of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. 

Alexander, M.A. (1999) Sexual offenders treatment effcacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and 

Treatment, 11(2), 101–116. 

Bachman, R. (1998). Factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the National 

Crime Victimization Survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8–29. 

Barnoski, R. (2008). Assessing the Risk of Juvenile Sex Offenders Using the Intensive Parole Sex Offender 

Domain. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from: www.wsipp.wa.gov/ 

ReportFile/1012/Wsipp_Assessing-the-Risk-of-Juvenile-Sex-Offenders-Using-the-Intensive-Parole-Sex-OffenderDomain_Full-Report.pdf. 

Bastastini, A.B., Hunt, E., Present-Koller, J. & DeMatteo, D. (2011). Federal Standards for Community 

Registration of Juvenile Sex Offenders: An Evaluation of Risk Prediction and Future Implications. Psychology, 

Public Policy, and Law, 17(3), 451–474. 
326 CHAPTER 6: REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION OF JUVENILES WHO COMMIT SEXUAL OFFENSES 

 

Caldwell, M.F. (2007). Sexual offense adjudication and sexual recidivism among juvenile offenders. Sexual 

Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 107–113. 

Caldwell, M.F. (2010). Study characteristics and recidivism base rates in juvenile sex offender recidivism. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(2), 197–212. 

Caldwell, M.F. & Dickinson, B.A. (2009). Sex Offender Registration and Recidivism Risk in Juvenile Sexual 

Offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 941–956. 

Caldwell, M.F., Ziemke, M.H. & Vitacco, M.J. (2008). An examination of the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notifcation Act as applied to juveniles. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(2), 89–114. 

Calley, N.G. (2008). Juvenile sex offender and sex offender legislation and unintended consequences. Federal 

Probation, 72(3). 

Chaffn, M. (2008). Our minds are made up — Don’t confuse us with the facts: Commentary on policies 

concerning children with sexual behavior problems and juvenile sex offenders. Child Maltreatment, 13, 

110–121. 

Comartin, E.B., Kernsmith, P.D. & Miles, B.W. (2010). Family Experiences of Young Adult Sex Offender 

Registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(2), 204–225. 

Denniston, S.E. (2016). Juvenile Sex Offender Registration: Its relationship to depression in adulthood. 

The ATSA Forum Newsletter, XXVIII(2). 

Hagan, M.P., Gust-Brey, K.L., Cho, M.E. & Dow, E. (2001). Eight-year comparative analyses of adolescent rapists, 

adolescent child molesters, other adolescent delinquents, and the general population. International Journal of 

Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(3), 314–324. 

Harris, A.J.R. & Hanson, R.K. (2004). Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety 

Canada. 

Harris, A.J., Walfeld, S.M., Shields, R.T. & Letourneau, E.J. (2015). Collateral Consequence of Juvenile Sex 

Offender Registration and Notifcation: Results From a Survey of Treatment Providers. Sexual Abuse, DOI: 

1079063215574004. 

Henderson, J.S. (2015). Estimating Impacts of SORNA in Pennsylvania: The Potential Consequences of Including 

Juveniles. U.S. Department of Justice Document Number 249197. Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/ 

pdffles1/nij/grants/249147.pdf. 

Holmes, S. (2009). An Empirical Analysis of Registration and Notifcation Laws for Juvenile Sex Offenders. 

Working Paper Series. Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1710745. 

Letourneau, E.J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D. & Armstrong, K.S. (2009a). The infuence of sex offender 

registration on juvenile sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(2), 136–153. 

Letourneau, E.J., Bandyopadhyay, D., Sinha, D. & Armstrong, K.S. (2009b). Effects of sex offender registration 

policies on juvenile justice decision making. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 149–165. 
SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING INITIATIVE: JUVENILE SECTION 327 

Letourneau, E.J., Chapman, J.E. & Schoenwald, S.K. (2008). Treatment outcome and criminal offending by youth 

with sexual behavior problems. Child Maltreatment, 13, 133–144. 

Letourneau E.J. & Miner M.H. (2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A case against the legal and clinical status quo. 

Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(3), 293–312. 

Reitzel, L.R. & Carbonell, J.L. (2006). The effectiveness of sexual offender treatment for juveniles as measured 

by recidivism: A meta-analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 401–421. 

Sipe, R., Jensen, E.L. & Everett, R.S. (1998). Adolescent sexual offenders grown up: Recidivism in youth 

adulthood. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(1), 109–124. 

Stevenson, M.C., Smith, A.C., Sekely, A. & Farnum, K.S. (2013). Predictors of Support for Juvenile Sex Offender 

Registration: Educated Individuals Recognize the Flaws of Juvenile Registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 

22, 231–254. 

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Rape Victimization: Findings from 

the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Offce of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Zimring, F.E., Piquero, A.R. & Jennings, W.G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in Racine: Does early sex offending 

predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood? Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 507–534. 


*NCJ~251950*