Evaluating the Effectiveness of Professionally-Facilitated Volunteerism in the Community-Based Management of High-Risk Sexual Offenders: Part Two - A Comparison of Recidivism Rates

Abstract

This study represents an examination of recidivism rates associated with the pilot project of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) in South-Central Ontario, Canada. A group of 60 high-risk sexual offenders involved in COSA after having been released at the end of their sentence were matched to a group of 60 high-risk sexual offenders who had been released at the end of their sentence, but who did not become involved in COSA. Results show that the offenders who participated in the COSA pilot project had significantly lower rates of any type of reoffending than did the offenders who did not participate in COSA. Specifically, offenders who participated in COSA had a 70% reduction in sexual recidivism in contrast to the matched comparison group (5% vs. 16.7%), a 57% reduction in all types of violent recidivism (including sexual - 15% vs. 35%), and an overall reduction of 35% in all types of recidivism (including violent and sexual - 28.3% vs. 43.4%). Further, a considerable harm reduction function was noted in the COSA sample, in that sexual reoffences in this group were categorically less severe than prior offences by the same individual. This function was not observed in the matched comparison group.

Full text

Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Professionally-Facilitated
Volunteerism in the
Community-Based Management
of High-Risk Sexual Offenders:
Part Two – A Comparison of
Recidivism Rates
ROBIN J. WILSON, JANICE E. PICHECA and
MICHELLE PRINZO
Robin J. Wilson is Director of Research, School of Social and Community
Services, Humber Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Toronto,
Canada; Janice E. Picheca is Psychologist, Correctional Service of Canada;
Michelle Prinzo is Psychological Associate, York Catholic District
School Board, Toronto, Canada
Abstract: This study represents an examination of recidivism rates associated with the
pilot project of Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) in South-Central Ontario,
Canada. A group of 60 high-risk sexual offenders involved in COSA after having been
released at the end of their sentence were matched to a group of 60 high-risk sexual
offenders who had been released at the end of their sentence, but who did not become
involved in COSA. Results show that the offenders who participated in the COSA pilot
project had significantly lower rates of any type of reoffending than did the offenders who
did not participate in COSA. Specifically, offenders who participated in COSA had a
70% reduction in sexual recidivism in contrast to the matched comparison group (5% vs.
16.7%), a 57% reduction in all types of violent recidivism (including sexual 15%
vs. 35%), and an overall reduction of 35% in all types of recidivism (including
violent and sexual – 28.3% vs. 43.4%). Further, a considerable harm reduction function
was noted in the COSA sample, in that sexual reoffences in this group were categorically
less severe than prior offences by the same individual. This function was not observed in
the matched comparison group.
The release to the community of a sexual offender is frequently
accompanied by intense coverage by the media which, ultimately,
forces many offenders into hiding or out of one community and into
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337
327
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK

another, where the process starts all over again. This state of affairs is
counterproductive to both offender integration and community safety.
Secrecy is a critical element of sexual offending, and forcing offenders
into hiding does nothing to increase community safety or offender
accountability.
In the summer of 1994, a low-functioning, repeat child molester was
released at his warrant expiry date (WED – that is, the end of his sentence)
to the city of Hamilton in South-Central Ontario. This release was
accompanied by considerable media attention and public outcry. The
Hamilton Police Service instituted around-the-clock surveillance, report-
edly at a cost of many thousands of dollars, and community groups
picketed the offender’s residence. In a bold and unprecedented move, the
Reverend Harry Nigh – a Mennonite pastor from a small urban
congregation – agreed to offer assistance to the offender. Reverend Nigh
gathered a small group of members of his church and asked them to
volunteer some of their time to help this offender establish himself in the
community. This was the birth of Circles of Support and Accountability
(COSA – see Correctional Service of Canada 2002; Wilson, Huculak and
McWhinnie 2002; Wilson and Picheca 2005; Wilson, Picheca and Prinzo
2005, 2007; Wilson and Prinzo 2001; Wilson et al. 2007b), although, at the
time, it was really a rather ad hoc approach to assisting an offender’s
reintegration to the community.
When a similar offender was released a few months later in neighbour-
ing Toronto, a colleague of the Hamilton pastor decided to try the same
approach. A short time later, the Mennonite Central Committee of Ontario
(MCCO) accepted a small contract from the Correctional Service of Canada
(CSC) to establish a pilot project to investigate whether Reverend Nigh’s
approach could be operationalised and more broadly implemented.
Parallel to that endeavour, a research protocol was established to ascertain
the efficacy of Circles of Support and Accountability in promoting
community safety.
The corrections literature in the 1990s, and continuing into the 21st
Century, has been dominated by catch-phrases like ‘what works?’ and
‘evidence-based practice’. Canadian correctional workers have been
greatly influenced by the ‘risk, need, and responsivity’ concepts introduced
by Andrews and Bonta (2003), which state that effective interventions are
those which match treatment intensity to offender risk, while ensuring that
criminogenic needs are precisely targeted in a manner which gives the
offender ample opportunity and motivation to change in the desired
direction.
One critical aspect of the evidence-based practice movement is the need
to demonstrate empirically that an intervention is achieving the desired
goal. Project effectiveness has been traditionally gauged by relative rates of
recidivism between treatment subjects and matched comparison subjects;
however, given relatively low base-rates in many offence categories,
particularly with sexual offenders (see Barbaree 1997), statistical signifi-
cance has often been difficult to achieve. As such, other researchers (see
Gendreau, Little and Goggin 1996) have suggested that we consider the
328
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

social significance associated with decreases in recidivism that may not
reach the traditional statistical po0.05 level. In the evaluation of the COSA
pilot project, we endeavoured to assess the data from both perspectives, in
considering not only the rates of reoffending, but also the impact the
project has had on a variety of community stakeholders.
The evaluation of the COSA pilot project in South-Central Ontario was
accomplished in two phases (see also Wilson, Picheca and Prinzo 2005).
The first phase (Wilson, Picheca and Prinza 2007) examined the
experiences of various COSA stakeholders, as well as effects on the
community-at-large. This second study compared a group of ex-offenders
in a Circle with a group of matched ex-offenders not participating in a
Circle.
Method
Participants
Two groups of offenders were included in this study. The first group was
comprised of 60 offenders who were involved in a COSA after having been
released at the end of their sentence (known in Canada as ‘warrant expiry
date’ or WED). The second group consisted of a matched comparison
sample of 60 similar offenders who were also released at sentence
completion but did not participate in a COSA. The groups were matched
a priori, meaning that there was an intentional process involved in selecting
the comparison sample, so that it would be a more comparable group for
the COSA participants.
Matching criteria
In Canada, detention to sentence completion (WED) requires an order by
the National Parole Board following a detailed review of the case.
Detention is recommended only in those cases where reoffence is likely
to occur prior to WED. As such, detention to WED is reasonably equivalent
to a rating of ‘high risk’. The COSA project was intended to address the
post-release needs of offenders detained until WED. To ensure adequate
matching, we included only similarly detained sexual offenders in the
comparison sample. To further guarantee that the two groups were
equivalent in criminality and risk levels, we scored each subject on the
General Statistical Information on Recidivism scale (GSIR – Nuffield
1982). Each member of the COSA group was matched with a comparison
subject in the same general risk category (for example, low, low-moderate,
moderate, moderate-high, or high).
In matching the two groups of offenders, we also endeavoured to make
sure that the matched subject was released on or about the same date as the
subject in the COSA group. The purpose for doing so was twofold: first,
this process ensured that the matched subjects were released to relatively
the same political and community climate; and second, it allowed for an
easy comparison of the length of time at risk before failure (for those
offenders who did commit a new offence).
329
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

Last, we ensured that the two groups were matched with regard to prior
involvement in sexual offender treatment programming. Given recent
results suggesting that completion of a treatment programme adhering to
the principles of effective correctional interventions can have a significant
impact on recidivism, it was important to make sure that any differences
found between the two groups were not the result of variations in previous
treatment experiences.
Measures
STATIC-99 (Hanson and Thornton 1999)
The STATIC-99 is a tool that actuarially assesses risk for sexual and violent
recidivism based primarily on static risk variables. This instrument has
moderate predictive ability (r50.33, ROC area 50.71), and has extensive
survival data from which long-term prognosis of risk potential can be
established.
Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offence Recidivism (RRASOR – Hanson 1997)
The RRASOR is a four-item scale designed to actuarially assess risk for
sexual reoffending in known sexual offenders. These four items are wholly
contained in the STATIC-99 but, on their own, provide a moderately
accurate screening of risk potential (r50.27, ROC area 50.71). Recent
research suggests that the RRASOR might actually outperform the
STATIC-99 with certain subpopulations of offenders, including the
developmentally-delayed (see Tough 2001).
Phallometric testing
The phallometric test is a psychophysiological procedure in which changes
in penile circumference or volume are measured during presentation of
audiovisual stimuli. Differential responding to various age, gender, or
activity stimulus categories is helpful in diagnosing deviant sexual
preferences (or paraphilias). Although conflicting research exists regard-
ing the psychometric properties of the test (see Fernandez 2002; Freund
and Watson 1991), it is generally accepted as a useful tool for diagnosis and,
by extrapolation, risk assessment.
Recidivism
Recidivism was defined as being charged for a new sexual offence or for
having breached a condition imposed by the court. Only official
documentation was utilised and, in most cases, this information came in
the form of CPIC (Canadian Police Information Check – a national
database of offence histories) records indicating that a charge had been laid
or a conviction registered.
Statistical significance
In this study, statistical significance was observed at the traditional po0.05.
However, as noted above, there are times when it is useful to evaluate
results in terms of their social significance, that is, the impact the particular
finding has on the community. This concept was important in assessing the
330
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

relative rates of reoffending between the two groups, and is discussed in
greater detail below.
Procedure
In order to assess the effects of COSAs on recidivism, we gathered data on
the first 60 men offered COSAs in the pilot project. In order to understand
better the results we obtained from these men, we also selected 60 similar
offenders from the Ontario Region’s Offender Management System
(OMS) database. The 60 comparison subjects were matched to their COSA
counterparts according to the criteria above.
Results
Demographic Variables
Demographic data are summarised in Table 1. No significant differences
were found between the two groups with regard to age or the percentage
of members who had deviant phallometric test results. The two groups
were not significantly different on the STATIC-99; however, there is a
somewhat higher average risk score for COSA participants. The COSA
group is at significantly higher risk for sexual recidivism than the
comparison group, when judged by RRASOR scores (F[1,115] 514.70,
po0.01). However, if the matching process was foolproof, these two groups
should not differ with regard to risk. In this case, it is clear that there is an
over-representation of higher risk WED sexual offenders in the COSA
group.
In looking at the victim profiles, the two groups were not different with
regard to the percentages of unrelated or stranger victims. However, the
COSA group has a significantly higher average number of victims
(F[1,118] 54.160, po0.05) and there are significantly more offenders in
the comparison group with ‘female only’ victims (chi-squared [1] 513.889,
po0.01). This likely explains why the two groups were different on
TABLE 1
Offence-Specific Demographic Information
Circles (n560) Comparison (n560)
Mean (SD) age (years) 47.47 (12.27) 43.62 (10.84)
Mean (SD) STATIC-99 5.60 (2.22) 5.00 (2.00)
Mean (SD) RRASOR
nn
3.18 (1.65) 2.12 (1.31)
% deviant phallometric results 81.58 70.27
Victims
Mean (SD) number
n
3.10 (3.63) 2.05 (1.66)
female only
nn
43.33% 76.67%
familial only 15.00% 15.00%
children only 58.30% 53.30%
(Notes:
n
po0.05;
nn
po0.01)
331
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

actuarial prediction scores, as ‘number of previous sexual offences’ and
‘male victim’ are points on each of the sexual offence-related actuarial
measures noted.
Time at Risk
As one of the matching variables was ‘date of release’, the groups should
reoffend at the same rate and within the same time frame, if being in a
COSA has no effect. Also, because the COSA group was found above to be
of relatively higher risk for reoffence, if there was to be a difference, it
should be the COSA members who reoffend faster. The opposite was found
in our comparisons, although this difference is not statistically significant.
The comparison group recidivated more quickly than the COSA group.
Specifically, 17 offenders in the COSA group recidivated in any way with an
average time at risk of 22.10 months while 26 of the comparison subjects
reoffending with an average time at risk of 18.54 months (see Table 2).
Recidivism
As seen in Table 2, the COSA group reoffended in all domains at a rate
considerably lower than their matched counterparts, despite having a
higher risk profile. Specifically, regarding sexual recidivism, the compar-
ison group had more than three times as many instances of recidivism as
the COSA group (10 vs. 3), a statistically significant difference (chi-squared
[1] 54.23, po0.05).
An examination of the nature of the new offences in this study shows
that in each of the three instances of sexual recidivism in the COSA group,
the new offence was qualitatively less severe or invasive than the offence for
which they had most recently served sentence. For instance, the new
offence of one of the COSA members was making an obscene telephone
call, while his prior offence was a violent rape. No function of harm
reduction was found in the comparison sample; their new offences were
just as violent and invasive as their most recent offences.
TABLE 2
Recidivism Data
Circles (n560) Comparison (n560)
Mean (range) follow-up (months) 54.67 (3–123) 52.47 (3–124)
Mean time until first failure (months) 22.1 18.54
Recidivism
Sexual
n
5.00% (3) 16.67% (10)
Expected sexual 28.33% (17)
nn
26.45% (16)
Violent
nn
(includes sexual) 15.00% (9) 35.00% (21)
Any (includes violent and sexual) 28.33% (17) 43.44% (26)
Dispositions 38 49
(Notes:
n
po0.05;
nn
po0.01)
332
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

With regard to violent recidivism (argued by Quinsey et al. (1998) to be a
more robust indicator of violent, including sexual, recidivism in sexual
offender populations), again, the COSA group reoffended at a rate
considerably lower than the comparison group (chi-squared [1] 56.40,
po0.01). The difference with regard to any recidivism is on the cusp of
significance (chi-squared [1] 52.94, po0.07), and should certainly be seen
as socially significant according to the argument made above. Overall,
28.33% of COSA participants reoffended in any way in comparison to
43.44% of the non-COSA group.
As a group, we expected that offenders who had been assessed at high
risk for sexual recidivism would reoffend at a rate commensurate with their
actuarial scores. With regard to actuarial projections, the comparison
group is much closer to STATIC-99 actuarial projections (10 observed vs.
16 expected), whereas the COSA group is reoffending sexually at a rate far
below statistical projections (3 observed vs. 17 expected; chi-squared
[1] 511.76, po0.001).
‘Dispositions’ refers to the number of discrete reoffence occasions. It is
more or less equivalent to ‘sentencing dates’ on the STATIC-99. In the
COSA group, 17 offenders were responsible for 38 events, while 26
offenders were responsible for 49 events in the comparison group.
ROC Area Under the Curve
We predicted that the STATIC-99 would lose its predictive utility when
applied to the high-risk subgroup of sexual offenders examined in this
study, due to the lack of variability in scores. In fact, the reverse was found
for those offenders who participated in a COSA. The ROC area under the
curve for the COSA group regarding the STATIC-99 hit-rate was 0.71 for
sexual recidivism, whereas the ROC area under the curve for the
comparison group was only 0.58. Similar results were obtained with
regard to any new recidivism and, to a lesser degree, violent recidivism.
Discussion
The recidivism results compiled in evaluating the COSA pilot project are
very encouraging. Sexual recidivism by COSA Core Members is 70% lower
than that of the matched comparison sample, and is less than one-quarter
of the actuarial sexual recidivism rates projected by the Hanson and
Thornton STATIC-99 survival curves – both statistically significant results.
While recidivism of any sort is tragic and regrettable, the harm reduction
effect observed in those unfortunate instances where a Core Member did
recidivate sexually was also particularly encouraging.
Given the differences in RRASOR scores between the two groups, it
would appear that the matching protocol used in this evaluation was less
than exact. Interestingly, this deficiency should have resulted in differences
between the two groups that served to increase type 2 error, in support of
the null hypothesis that COSAs have no effect on offender success in the
community. The fact that the COSA group is a higher-risk group is
333
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

apparently the result of a selection bias; that is, the highest-risk WED
releases were actively targeted for involvement in a COSA. Given the
resource difficulties of the MCCO COSA project, it was imperative that the
limited services available be provided to those who needed them the most.
As a result, it appears that those offenders at particularly high risk to
reoffend were ‘skimmed’ off the top, leaving a somewhat lower-risk group
for selection of comparison subjects. All in all, given these deficiencies
in the matching protocol, we would have expected rates of reoffending
to be higher in the COSA group, with longer survival rates in the
comparison sample. In fact, the opposite was found – the comparison
group reoffended faster and at a higher rate. This result underscores the
ultimate position that COSAs have a marked positive effect on the
community integration and long-term functioning of high-risk sexual
offenders released at WED.
The comparisons between the two groups on both sexual and violent
recidivism reached a conventional level of statistical significance. As the
number of discrete dispositions is more than 25% higher in the comparison
sample, it is clear that the comparison group has been responsible for
considerably more mayhem in the community than their COSA compa-
triots. Of further indication of the effectiveness of the initiative is the
finding of a harm reduction function (Marlatt 1998) in the COSA group. As
mentioned earlier, in each of the three instances of sexual recidivism in the
COSA group, the new offence was qualitatively less severe or invasive than
the offence for which they had most recently served sentence.
The predicted rate of sexual reoffence, as suggested by STATIC-99, was
higher in both groups than the rate actually observed. This may be the
result of the skewed risk profile in each group (both groups have high
average STATIC-99 scores). However, it is also possible that this difference
is due to differing base rates between Canadian and international samples
of sexual offenders. Generally, rates of sexual reoffending in Canadian
populations tend to be relatively lower than international norms (cf.
Hanson and Thornton (1999) vs. Motiuk and Brown (1996) or Barbaree,
Seto and Maric (1996)).
We predicted that the STATIC-99 would not provide further assistance
in determining which members, within these already high-risk groups,
would be at highest risk to recidivate, due to the truncated nature of the
risk scores. However, the higher ROC value for the COSA group suggests
that recidivism in this group conforms to logical models of risk prediction,
in that recidivism was positively related to higher STATIC-99 scores. The
low ROC value found in the comparison group suggests that recidivism is
occurring without a link between scores and outcome in this group.
Ultimately, this finding suggests that the Andrews and Bonta risk principle
still holds – the highest degrees of support and monitoring should be given
to those offenders with the highest-risk profiles. In other words, even
within COSAs, additional attention should be paid to those offenders who
have particularly high STATIC-99 scores.
The results of this evaluation show that reinvolvement in crime,
generally, is considerably less in the COSA group. In a review by Detective
334
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

Wendy Leaver of the Toronto Police Service, offenders on a CCC 810.1
order (that is, a modification of peace bond legislation) were found to be
substantially less likely to reoffend when that order was paired with
involvement in a COSA (Leaver, personal communication). In fact, after
years of ‘putting these guys in jail’, Detective Leaver is now a particularly
active and vocal COSA adherent, having sat on several Circles as a
volunteer and served as a critical liaison between the MCCO project and
the Toronto Police Service.
The current results need to be put in context with the literature and
discussion on treatment and recidivism, generally. The Collaborative Data
Project of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (Hanson
et al. 2002) has recently demonstrated a substantial treatment effect, in
which the treated group reoffended at a rate 41% less than the untreated
comparison group (10% vs. 17%, respectively). A recent review of the
recidivism rates associated with the Central Ontario Parole District’s
relapse prevention maintenance programme showed that considerable
incremental reductions in reoffending can be achieved through a
combination of informed parole supervision and community-based
follow-up of institutional sexual offender treatment programming (Wilson
et al. 2007a; see also Wilson et al. 2000). COSAs are very much in line with
these findings; however, it is important to note that both groups of men
included in this study are generally of a much higher average risk rating
that those reported in most treatment effectiveness reports. The results of
this study provide strong evidence that adherence to principles of effective
interventions, even when accomplished by community volunteers, can
dramatically affect rates of reoffending.
1
Note
1Acknowledgements: The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the
Humber Institute of Technology and Applied Learning, the Government of Canada,
the Correctional Service of Canada, or the York Catholic District School Board. The
authors would like to thank Eileen Henderson, Reverend Harry Nigh, Andrew
McWhinnie, Reverend Hugh Kirkegaard, Detective Wendy Leaver, Gerry Minard,
Evan Heise, Ed Vandenburg, Rick Cober Bauman, and Reverend David Molzahn for
their assistance in facilitating this review. We are also thankful for the grant provided by
the Research Branch of the Correctional Service of Canada, as well as the support and
assistance of Drs Franca Cortoni and Ralph Serin from the Branch.
References
Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, J. (2003) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 3rd ed.,
Cincinnati, OH.: Anderson.
Barbaree, H.E. (1997) ‘Evaluating treatment efficacy with sexual offenders: the
insensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effectiveness’, Sexual Abuse,9,
111–28.
Barbaree, H.E., Seto, M.C. and Maric, A. (1996) Sex Offender Characteristics, Response to
Treatment and Correctional Release Decisions at the Warkworth Sexual Behaviour Clinic
(Working Papers in Impulsivity Research Report), Toronto, ON.: Clarke Institute
of Psychiatry.
335
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

Correctional Service of Canada (2002) Circles of Support and Accountability: A Guide to
Training Potential Volunteers, Training Manual 2002, Ottawa, ON.: Correctional
Service of Canada.
Fernandez, Y. (2002) ‘Phallometric testing with sexual offenders against female
victims: limits to its value’, Forum on Corrections Research,14, 7–12.
Freund, K. and Watson, R. (1991) ‘Assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of a
phallometric test: an update of ‘‘phallometric diagnosis of pedophilia’’ ’,
Psychological Assessment,3, 254–60.
Gendreau, P., Little, T. and Goggin, C. (1996) ‘A meta-analysis of adult offender
recidivism: what works!’, Criminology,34, 575–607.
Hanson, R.K. (1997) The Development of a Brief Actuarial Scale for Sexual Offense
Recidivism (User Report 1997-04), Ottawa, ON.: Department of the Solicitor
General of Canada.
Hanson, R.K., Gordon, A., Harris, A.J.R., Marques, J.K., Murphy, W., Quinsey, V.L.
and Seto, M.C. (2002) ‘First report of the Collaborative Outcome Data Project on
the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sexual offenders’, Sexual Abuse,14,
169–94.
Hanson, R.K. and Thornton, D. (1999) Static-99: Improving Actuarial Risk Assessments for
Sexual Offenders (User Report 1999-02), Ottawa, ON.: Department of the Solicitor
General of Canada.
Marlatt, G.A. (1998) Harm Reduction: Pragmatic Strategies for Managing High-risk
Behaviors, New York, NY.: Guilford.
Motiuk, L.L. and Brown, S.L. (1996) Factors Related to Recidivism Among Released
Federal Sex Offenders (Research Report # R-49), Ottawa, ON.: Research Branch,
Correctional Service of Canada.
Nuffield, J. (1982) Parole Decision-making in Canada: Research Towards Decision Guidelines,
Ottawa, ON.: Communication Division.
Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E. and Cormier, C.A. (1998) Violent Offenders:
Appraising and Managing Risk, Washington, DC.: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
Tough, S.E. (2001) ‘Validation of two standardized risk assessments (RRASOR, 1997;
Static-99, 1999) on a sample of adult males who are developmentally disabled with
significant cognitive deficits’ (unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Toronto,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada).
Wilson, R.J. and Picheca, J.E. (2005) ‘Circles of Support and Accountability: engaging
the community in sexual offender risk management’, in: B.K. Schwartz (Ed.),
The Sexual Offender,vol. 5, New York, NY.: Civic Research Institute.
Wilson, R.J. and Prinzo, M. (2001) ‘Circles of support: a restorative justice initiative’,
Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,13, 59–77.
Wilson, R.J., Huculak, B. and McWhinnie, A. (2002) ‘Restorative justice innovations in
Canada’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law,20, 1–18.
Wilson, R.J., Picheca, J.E. and Prinzo, M. (2005) Circles of Support and Accountability:
An Evaluation of the Pilot Project in South-Central Ontario (Research Report R-168),
Ottawa, ON.: Correctional Service of Canada.
Wilson, R.J., Picheca, J.E. and Prinzo, M. (2007) ‘Evaluating the effectiveness of
professionally-facilitated volunteerism in the community-based management of
high-risk sexual offenders: Part One – effects on participants and stakeholders’,
Howard Journal,46, 289–302.
Wilson, R.J., Stewart, L., Stirpe, T., Barrett, M. and Cripps, J.E. (2000) ‘Community-
based sexual offender management: combining parole supervision and treatment
to reduce recidivism’, Canadian Journal of Criminology,42, 177–88.
336
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337

Wilson, R.J., Cortoni, F., Picheca, J.E. and Nunes, K. (2007a) Community-based Sexual
Offender Maintenance Treatment Programming: An Evaluation (Research Report
R-188), Ottawa, ON.: Correctional Service of Canada.
Wilson, R.J., McWhinnie, A., Picheca, J.E., Prinzo, M. and Cortoni, F. (2007b) ‘Circles
of Support and Accountability: engaging community volunteers in the manage-
ment of high-risk sexual offenders’, Howard Journal,46, 1–15.
Date submitted: December 2005
Date accepted: January 2006
337
r2007 The Authors
Journal compilation r2007 The Howard League
The Howard Journal Vol 46 No 4. September 2007
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 327–337