Dosage of treatment to sexual offenders: are we overprescribing?
ABSTRACT A sample of 337 offenders who received treatment in a variety of sex offender treatment programs in the Ontario region of Correctional Service Canada between 1993 and 1998 were divided based on the highest intensity sex offender programming that they received (low, moderate, and high). The three groups were compared with reference to a variety of actuarial risk assessment measures, criminogenic factors, and the number and type of treatment programs completed. It was hypothesized that the high-intensity group would have more criminogenic risk factors, higher actuarial scores, and participate in more treatment programs than both the moderate- and low-intensity groups. The results indicate that in general, the hypotheses were supported. Nonetheless, the results suggest that the low-intensity group may be receiving too much sex offender-specific treatment.
- SourceAvailable from: Jan Looman[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Follow-up data are reported on 89 sexual offenders treated at the Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario) and 89 untreated sexual offenders matched for pretreatment risk. The average time at risk was 9.9 years. It was found that the treated group had a sexual recidivism rate of 23.6%, whereas the untreated group had a sexual recidivism rate of 51.7% (pJournal of Interpersonal Violence 01/2000; 15(3):279-290. · 1.64 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The present report describes the component of our treatment program that is aimed at enhancing intimacy skills and reducing loneliness in sexual offenders. The evaluation of this component, although limited in sophistication, offers data that encourages confidence in the value of the treatment component.Journal of Family Violence 08/1996; 11(3):219-235. · 1.17 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Treatment programs for sexual offenders have been implemented in prison settings with the objective of reducing recidivism among released offenders. Reviews of the literature evaluating the efficacy of treatment have not found convincing evidence that institutional treatment reduces recidivism. However, these reviews have been most concerned with the possibility of a Type I error in hypothesis testing: specifically, that we might reject the null hypothesis when it is true, concluding that recidivism among treated offenders has been reduced compared with that of untreated offenders and concluding that treatment is effective when it is not. The present paper explores the risks of Type II error by examining the sensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effects and the power of statistical tests of treatment hypotheses in recidivism studies. Using a series of “what if” analyses and power calculations, the sensitivity of statistical hypothesis testing was explored in recidivism studies under a variety ofN's, base rates, and treatment effects. The size of treatment effects required for significance at thep<.05 level at variousN's and base rates was calculated and theN required to obtain significance at thep<.05 level in the “average” recidivism study was estimated. This paper examines the sensitivity of statistical hypothesis testing in three of the most oft-cited recidivism studies of institutional sexual offender treatment. Recidivism studies were found to be quite insensitive to the effects of treatment and these findings are discussed with respect to the likelihood of a Type II error. Alternative methods of assessing sexual offender treatment efficacy are described and recommended.Sexual Abuse A Journal of Research and Treatment 01/1997; 9(2):111-128. · 1.54 Impact Factor