Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Psychological Treatment of Sex Offenders

  • Sexual Disorders (JP Fedoroff, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Psychiatry Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article reviews the research evidence, practice guidelines and accreditation standards for the psychological treatment of individuals who commit sexually motivated crimes. Overall, the sexual offender treatment outcome research is not well developed, which limits strong conclusions. There is, however, strong research evidence concerning the effectiveness of interventions for general (non-sexual) offenders. Given the considerable overlap in risk factors for sexual and general offending, the “what works” principles for general offenders provide useful guidelines for sexual offender treatment. Specifically, the intensity of treatment should be proportional to the offender’s risk level (risk principle), treatment should focus on characteristics associated with recidivism risk (i.e., criminogenic needs; need principle), and be tailored to the learning style and abilities of clients (responsivity principle). Examples of promising new approaches to sexual offender treatment are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Briken P, Kafka MP. Pharmacological treatments for paraphilic patients and sex offenders. Curr Opinions Psychiatry. 2007;20:609–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thibaut F, de la Barra F, Gordon H, et al. The World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (WFSBP) Guidelines for the biological treatment of paraphilias. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2010;11:604–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 5th ed. New Providence: LexisNexus Matthew Bender; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Smith PP, Gendreau P, Swartz K. Validating the principles of effective intervention: a systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Vict Offenders. 2009;4:148–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. • Hanson RK, Bourgon G, Helmus L, Hodgson S. The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 2009;36:865–91. Compliance with the risk-need-responsivity principles predicted the effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cortoni F, Hanson RK, Coache M. Les déliquantes sexuelles: prevalence et récidive [Female sexual offenders: Prevalence and recidivism]. Rev Int Criminol Police Tech Sci. 2009;62:319–37.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mann RE, Hanson RK, Thornton D. Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sex Abuse. 2010;22:191–217.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hanson RK, Bussière MT. Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66:348–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Helmus L, Hanson RK, Thornton D, et al. Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: a meta-analysis. Crim Justice Behav. 2012;39:1148–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hanson RK, Helmus L, Thornton D. Predicting recidivism among sexual offenders: a multi-site study of Static-2002. Law Hum Behav. 2010;34:198–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Duwe G. Predicting first-time sexual offending among prisoners without a prior sex offense history: the Minnesota Sexual Criminal Offending Risk Estimate (MnSCORE). Crim Justice Behav. 2012;39:1436–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Langan PA, Schmitt EL, Durose MR. Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sample LL, Bray TM. Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminol Public Policy. 2003;3:59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lovins B, Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ. Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: can treatment make some sex offenders worse? Prison J. 2009;89:344–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Martinson R. What works? – Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest. 1974;35:22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Andrews DA, Zinger I, Hoge RD, et al. Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology. 1990;28:369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge RD. Classification for effective rehabilitation: rediscovering psychology. Crim Justice Behav. 1990;17:19–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gendreau P, Ross RR. Effective correctional treatment: Bibliotherapy for cynics. Crime Delinq. 1979;25:463–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bonta J, Andrews DA. Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-06). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Lee PA, et al. Matching judicial supervision to clients’ risk status in drug court. Crime Delinq. 2006;52:52–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Andrews DA, Bonta J. Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychol Publ Policy Law. 2010;16:39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. French SA, Gendreau P. Reducing prison misconducts: what works! Crim Justice Behav. 2006;33:185–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Landenberger NA, Lipsey MW. The positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders: a meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1:451–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson DB, Bouffard LA, Mackenzie DL. A quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral programs for offenders. Criml Justice Behav. 2005;32:172–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gendreau P, Little T, Goggin C. A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works! Criminology. 1996;34:575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hanson RK. The psychological assessment of risk for crime and violence. Can Psychol. 2009;20:172–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Medical and psychological methods for preventing sexual offences against children: a systematic review. (Report No. 207). Stockholm: Author; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  28. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. • Borduin CM, Schaeffer CM, Heiblum N. A randomized clinical trial of multi-systemic therapy with juvenile sexual offenders: effects on youth ecology and criminal activity. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009;77:26–37. Multi-systemic therapy resulted in significant reductions in sexual and general recidivism for high-risk youth who have been convicted of sexual offences.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Corabian P, Ospina M, Harstall C. Treatment for convicted adult male sex offenders. Edmonton: Institute of Health Economics; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lösel R, Schmucker M. The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: a comprehensive meta-analysis. J Exp Criminol. 2005;1:117–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Collaborative Outcome Data Committee. Sexual offender treatment outcome research: CODC Guidelines for evaluation part 1: introduction and overview (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-02). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Collaborative Outcome Data Committee. The Collaborative Outcome Data Committee’s guidelines for the evaluation of sexual offender treatment outcome research part 2: CODC guidelines (Corrections Research User Report No. 2007-03). Ottawa: Public Safety Canada; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ, Smith PP. Does correctional program quality matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminol Public Policy. 2006;5:575–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Marshall WL, Marshall LE, Serran G, Fernandez YM. Treating sexual offenders: an integrated approach. New York: Routledge; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McGrath RJ, Cumming GF, Burchard BL, et al. Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abuser management: the Safer Society 2009 North American survey. Brandon: Safer Society; 2009. p. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Beech A, Mann R. Recent developments in the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders. In: McGuire J, editor. Offender rehabilitation and treatment: effective programmes and policies to reduce re-offending. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2002. p. 259–88.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Correctional Service Canada. Correctional programs: correctional program descriptions. 2000. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/cor-pro-2009-eng.shtml. Accessed Oct 2012.

  39. Marshall WL, Yates PM. Comment on Mailloux et al.’s (2003) dosage study. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2003;49:221–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bourgon G, Armstrong B. Transferring the principles of effective treatment into a “real world” prison setting. Crim Justice Behav. 2005;32:3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lipsey MW. Juvenile delinquency treatment: a meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In: Cook TD, Cooper H, Cordray DS, Hartmann H, Hedges LV, Light RJ, Louis TA, Mosteller F, editors. Meta-analysis for explanation: a casebook. New York: Russell Sage; 1992. p. 83–127.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hanson RK, Lloyd CD, Helmus L, Thornton D. Developing non-arbitrary metrics for risk communication: percentile ranks for the Static-99/R and Static-2002/R sexual offender risk scales. Int J Forensic Mental Health. 2012;11:9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon KE. The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73:1154–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Helmus L, Hanson RK, Babchishin KM, Mann RE. Attitudes supportive of sex offending predict recidivism: a meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2012. doi:10.1177/1524838012462244.

  45. Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon K. Predictors of sexual recidivism: an updated meta-analysis (Corrections Research User Report No. 2004-02). Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Prescott DS. Building motivation for change in sexual offenders. Brandon: Safer Society Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Redondo S, Garrido V, Sánchez-Meca J. What works in correctional rehabilitation in Europe: a meta-analytic review. In: Redondo S, Garrido V, Perez J, Barberet R, editors. Berlin Advances in psychology and law: international contributions. Germany: Walter de Gruyter; 1997. p. 499–523.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Public Safety Canada. Accreditation standards for correctional programs. http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/sum/cprs200501_1-eng.aspx. Accessed Oct 2012.

  49. Hanson RK, Yates PM. In: Eliasson M, editor. Anthology on interventions against violent men. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsalla Women’s Studies B: Women in the Humanities: 3. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet; 2004. p. 151–66.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lipton DS, Thornton D, McGuire J, et al. Program accreditation and correctional treatment. Subst Use Misuse. 2000;35:1705–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Maguire M, Grubin D, Lösel F, Raynor P. ‘What works’ and the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel: taking stock from an inside perspective. Criminol Crim Justice. 2010;10:37–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pithers WD, Marques JK, Gibat CC, Marlatt GA. Relapse prevention with sexual aggressives: a self-control model of treatment and maintenance of change. In: Greer JG, Irving RS, editors. The sexual aggressor: current perspectives on treatment. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1983. p. 214–39.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Laws DR. The rise and fall of relapse prevention. Aust Psychol. 2003;38:22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Laws DR, Hudson SM, Ward T. The original model of relapse prevention with sex offenders: promises unfulfilled. In: Laws DR, Hudson SM, Ward T, editors. Remaking Relapse Prevention with sex offenders: a sourcebook. Newbury Park: Sage; 2000. p. 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Marques JK, Wiederanders M, Day DM, et al. Effects of a relapse prevention program on sexual recidivism: final results from California’s Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). Sex Abuse. 2005;17:79–107.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Laws DR, Ward T. When one size doesn’t fit all: the reformulation of relapse prevention. In: Marshall WL, Fernandez YM, Marshall LE, Serran GA, editors. Sexual offender treatment: controversial issues. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. p. 241–54.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ward T, Hudson SM. The construction and development of theory in the sexual offending area: a metatheoretical framework. Sex Abuse. 1998;10:47–63.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Yates PM, Ward T. Good lives, self-regulation, and risk management: an integrated model of sexual offender assessment and treatment. Sex Abuse Aust N Z: An Interdiscip J. 2008;1:3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Yates PM. Treatment of adult sexual offenders: a therapeutic cognitive-behavioural model of intervention. J Child Sex Abus. 2003;12:195–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ward T, Stewart CA. The treatment of sex offenders: risk management and good lives. Prof Psychol: Res Pract. 2003;34:353–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ward T, Gannon T. Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: the good lives model of sexual offender treatment. Aggress Violent Behav. 2006;11:77–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. McGrath RJ, Cumming GF, Burchard BL. Current practices and trends in sexual abuser management: the Safer Society 2002 Nationwide survey. Brandon: Safer Society; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ward T, Melser J, Yates PM. Reconstructing the risk–need–responsivity model: a theoretical elaboration and evaluation. Aggress Violent Behav. 2007;12:208–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yates PM. Using the good lives model to motivate sexual offenders to participate in treatment. In: Prescott DS, editor. Building motivation to change in sexual offenders. Brandon: Safer Society Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Yates PM, Prescott DS, Ward T. Applying the good lives and self-regulation models to sex offender treatment: a practical guide for clinicians. Brandon: Safer Society Press; 2010. http://www.safersociety.org/safer-society-press/.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Simons D, McCullar B, Tyler C. Evaluation of the good lives model approach to treatment planning. Presented at the XXV Annual Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Research and Treatment Conference. Chicago, Illinois; September, 2006.

  67. Simons D, McCullar B, Tyler C. Evaluation of the good lives model approach to treatment planning. Presented at the XXVII Annual Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Research and Treatment Conference. Atlanta, Georgia; October, 2008.

  68. Yates PM, Simons DA, Kingston DA, Tyler C. The good lives model of rehabilitation applied to treatment: assessment and relationship to treatment progress and compliance. Presented at the XXVIII Annual Convention of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA). Dallas, Texas; October 2, 2009.

  69. Wilson RJ, Picheca JE, Prinzo M. Circles of Support and Accountability: an evaluation of the pilot project in south-central Ontario. Ottawa: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  70. • Duwe G. Can Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) work in the United States? Preliminary results from a randomized experiment in Minnesota. Sex Abuse. 2012. doi:10.1177/1079063212453942. Significant reductions in general recidivism for sexual offenders who receive structured community support.

  71. Elliott IA, Beech AR. Cost-benefit analysis of Circles of Support and Accountability interventions. Sex Abuse. 2012. doi:10.1177/1079063212443385.

  72. Wilson RJ, Cortoni F, McWhinnie AJ. Circles of Support & Accountability: a Canadian national replication of outcome findings. Sex Abuse. 2009;21:412–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Beier KM, Alhers CJ, Goecker D, et al. Can pedophiles be reached for primary prevention of child sexual abuse? First results of the Berlin Prevention Project Dunkelfeld (PPD). J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2009;20:851–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Amelung T, Kuhle LF, Konrad A, et al. Androgen deprivation therapy of self-identifying, help-seeking pedophiles in the Dunkelfeld. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2012;35:176–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Beier KM. The German Dunkelfeld Project: Proactive strategies to prevent child sexual abuse and the use of child abusive images. Presented at the XXXI Annual Research and Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Denver, Colorado; October 19, 2012.

  76. Neutze J, Michael MC, Schaefer GA, et al. Predictors of child pornography offenses and child sexual abuse in a community sample of pedophiles and hebephiles. Sex Abuse. 2011;23:212–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Barbaree H. Evaluating treatment efficacy with sexual offenders: the insensitivity of recidivism studies to treatment effects. Sex Abuse. 1997;9:111–28.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Statement Supporting the Use of Randomized Control Trials for the Evaluation of Sexual Offender Treatment. 2010. http://www.atsa.com/statement-supporting-use-randomized-control-trials-evaluation-sexual-offender-treatment. Accessed Dec 2012.

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Corrections Research, Public Safety Canada, 340 Laurier Ave., West, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0P8, Canada

    R. Karl Hanson

  2. Cabot Consulting and Research Services, P.O. Box 38027, 1430 Prince of Wales Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K2C 1N0, Canada

    Pamela M. Yates

Authors
  1. R. Karl Hanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pamela M. Yates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Karl Hanson.

Additional information

The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Public Safety Canada.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Sexual Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hanson, R.K., Yates, P.M. Psychological Treatment of Sex Offenders. Curr Psychiatry Rep 15, 348 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-012-0348-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-012-0348-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation