Recidivism: The Impact of Judicial and Community Programs

Sexual offenders being re-integrated in the community spark various reactions from the public. Some people are concerned with whom the offenders' next target might be, what schools the offenders may be watching, and how we can keep our children safe with these offenders living in the community. Do these worries have merit? Contrary to this belief, one might be surprised to learn how low the rate of sexual recidivism actually is. The low recidivism rate of sexual offenders is attributed to judicial and community treatment programs that provide necessary tools for offenders to be safe within communities. These tools focus on diversity of treatment such as multi-types of proven evaluation methods, medical treatment programs, mental health treatment, community notification, sexual offender registration, probation, parole, and offender compliance. Exploring these treatment programs will show the impact on the recidivism rate of sexual offenders.

Clearing up the misconceptions of sexual offenders are necessary to understand the underlying issues that may contribute to re-offending and determining who a potential offender truly is. Sexual offenders are often stigmatized as creatures lurking in the dark waiting for unsuspecting women or children. Some view sexual offenders as mentally handicapped, or someone with a psychiatric disorder such as Schizophrenia or a Multiple Personality Disorder. Sexual offenders released into communities hold the stigma that they are already stalking their next prey, waiting to make their move. Some believe that an offender cannot be cured and their desires are uncontrollable. These are arguments held by many people.

In arguing the effectiveness of community notification and registration laws Wakefield, MA, H (2006) makes the claim that the stigmatism placed on sexual offenders can have an adverse affect to recidivism, placing hardships on the offender, due to lack of work and public scrutiny, in effect causing the offender to re-offend. Currently there has been no data collected to support this claim but the argument holds plausibility. Therefore, public education of sexual offenders is necessary to clear these stigmatisms. Who is most likely to be a sexual offender? The Center For Sex Offender Management (2000) show us that 78% of adults were victimized by former spouses, live-in spouses or dates and 60% of boys, 80% of girls are victimized by someone known to the child or the child's family such as: Relatives, friends, baby-sitters, persons in positions of authority over the child, or persons who supervise children. Thus, strangers are less likely to be the sexual offender. Understanding that there are other misconceptions of sexual offenders held by the population, knowing who is likely to offend and re-offend is important when sexual offenders are re-introduced into the community.

Realizing that individuals respond differently to different types of treatments, a wide range of diverse programs are in place for sexual offenders. Effective evaluations of sexual offenders are used to pair the offender with specific treatment programs. Hall, MD, R & Hall, MD, PA, R (2007), show that the evaluation and careful categorization of sexual offenders are one of the first steps in treatment. Two of the evaluation methods used to evaluate the likelihood for re-offense and treatment specification is the Static-99 and SORAG. "The Static-99 is a 10-item actuarial risk assessment tool...The items relate to deviant sexual behavior, range of potential victims, persistence of sexual offending, and anti-sociality" (Looman, 2006, p. 196). "The SORAG is a 14-item actuarial scale designed to predict violent recidivism among sexual offenders" (Looman, 2006, p. 197). In studies shown by Looman (2006), both the SORAG and Static-99 showed 95% accuracy (confidence interval) in correctly assessing and predicting recidivism rates of sexual offenders.

Medical treatment programs are available methods of treatment for sexual offenders that have been carefully evaluated and deemed suitable to participate. The medical treatment programs use testosterone suppressing drugs in a method called anti-androgenic therapy, sometimes referred to as chemical castration. These drugs work by lowering the sex drive, curbing the impulse of the offender to re-offend. These drugs are delivered orally or through a depo-injection. Medical treatment programs require intense supervision of the sexual offender and frequent evaluation of the drug's effectiveness. In Oregon, a study was done to find the effectiveness of medical treatment on reducing the risk of re-offense by sexual offenders. The Oregon Depo-Provera Program was evaluating the drug Medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), also known as Depo-Provera; another testosterone suppressing drug (Maletzky, Tolan, & McFarland, 2006). The study evaluated 275 sexual offenders (men) scheduled for release to participate in this program from the years 2000 through 2004. After evaluation the study placed these men in three groups: men recommended to use MPA, men judged to need MPA and did not receive it, and men deemed not to need MPA. The results given by Maletzky, Tolan, and McFarland (2006) were staggering. In a response to the study the authors stated:

While generalizations from these types of retrospective and partially subjective findings are inherently limited, the present study lends credence to the belief that in selected sexual offenders, anti-androgenic medication can be a valuable, if time-limited, addition to a cognitive and behavioral treatment program.

(Maletzky, Tolan, & McFarland, 2006, p. 303)

The success of this medical treatment program, of over five years, shows how effective use of medical treatment can impact positively on the recidivism rate of sexual offenders.

The Texas Department of State Health Services (2005) makes the claim that "The purpose of treatment is to modify both cognitive distortions and deviant sexual behavior to reduce the risk of re-offending." Mental health programs are an essential component in lowering the recidivism rate of sexual offenders. Not only is diversity of programs important in combating the recidivism rate of sexual offenders, but diversity within the specific programs is also important. Mental health programs for specific sexual offenders may include but are not limited to: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, psychological analysis, Existential Therapy, psychosocial therapy, and Solution Focused Therapy. When evaluating a sexual offender for mental health programs it is important to understand what effective programs look like. Measuring program effectiveness and outcome measures give good indicators of effective programs. As stated by The Bureau of Justice Assistance (2006) treatment program outcome goals for sexual offenders should show low reconvictions for sexual offenses, low reconviction numbers for violent offenses, a change in motivation for treatment, more engagement in treatment sessions, increase in offender emotional health, increase in offender self-esteem, increase in offender well-being, increase in offender satisfaction with therapy, and an increase in offender self actualization. In addition to this the Bureau of Justice Assistance (2006) also suggest that effective offender outcomes should see decreases in pro-offending attitudes, sexual fantasies, sexual drive, sexual arousal, sexual behavior, and serum testosterone levels.

The mental health programs are the frontline in the treatment of sexual offenders. Accountability measures can be held by other authorities, but the recommendations and evaluations of mental health professionals keep the offenders moving through specific treatment programs. Mental health programs would be the starting point for offenders that are released and the most valuable component in combating recidivism and in its role in the low rate of re-offenses.

Community notification and registration laws play a roll in the low recidivism rates of sexual offenders as well. Megan's Law was named after 7-year-old Megan Kanka who was raped and murdered on her way home from a friend's house in 1994 (Hall, MD, R & Hall, MD, PD, R, 2007). This law came into affect because the offender's presence as a sexual offender in the community was unknown. According to Zevitz (2006) Megan's Law makes offenders more compliant with treatment, act as a deterrent to re-offenses, and notify communities with information they can use to protect their children. Community notification goes even further than this. Online programs offer the user the ability to map all registered sexual offenders in the neighborhood, city, and if desired state. Most of these notification programs detail the offense the sexual offender was convicted of, what the offender looks like, noticeable markings like scars and tattoos, age, and even alias used. Community notification and registration laws raise public awareness, helping to detour potential re-offenses in the community, hence helping to keep the recidivism rate of sexual offenders low.

Another factor that contributes to the low recidivism rate of sexual offenders and facilitates accountability of treatment to sexual offenders is judicial programs like probation and parole. Probation and parole departments allow sexual offenders to be placed back into the community under strict supervision. These departments help facilitate accountability for sexual offenders by tracking progress in mandatory treatment programs, evaluation of if the sexual offender is in compliance with all state and federal mandated requirements, and use versatility to change treatment programs at the recommendations of the professionals issuing their treatment. Probation and parole departments also have the authority to resend the release of sexual offenders and have them incarcerated for violations in mandatory treatment programs, evaluations, or if failure of random drug analysis occur.

Fitting all the pieces that work together to treat sexual offenders and reduce the risk of re-offense is a large process with involvement from many different resources. This process would look like as follows: First, the accused sexual offender is convicted. Second, the sexual offender is either incarcerated or released on probation. If the sexual offender is incarcerated, the institution evaluates the offender for treatment and performs a risk assessment. Most institutions have mandatory treatment programs that sexual offenders must participate in while incarcerated. Upon release, from either time served or a parole hearing, the offender has another risk assessment completed. At this point, a released sexual offender from incarceration will be placed in time-limited probation or on parole. In the next step, sexual offenders will be combined into one category containing probationers or parolees. These departments work in similar fashions to hold sexual offenders accountable in treatment programs, evaluations, and compliance. Sexual offenders placed back in the community must be in immediate compliance with all state and federal notification and registration laws, compliance is mandatory for the lifetime of the sexual offender. Probation and parole departments will have the sexual offender evaluated by a mental health professional. The mental health professional, after evaluation, will recommend specific treatment programs for the sexual offender. These treatment programs could consist of medical treatment programs, mental health programs or a combination of both. The mental health professional will report these findings to the judicial programs involved and treatment begins. When mandated treatment programs have been completed by the sexual offender, the offender may voluntarily continue treatment outside the facilitation of judicial programs. However, sexual offenders will always have to comply will all state and federal registration and notification laws. This is a simple view of the processes that work together in the treatment of sexual offenders. Post-incarceration programs, judge mandated programs, or other factors could add to the process of treatment of sexual offenders.

"Incarceration in a penal institution does not deter repeat sexually violent predators or the proliferation of sexual violence...punishment merely suppresses deviant behavior and does not eradicate it" (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2005). This statement from the Texas Department of State Health Services shows the need for the community and judicial treatment programs listed. A study performed at the Oshkosh correctional facility demonstrates the effectiveness of community and judicial treatment programs, combined, and their impact on the recidivism rate of sexual offenders. Lotke (2003) explains how after sexual offenders receive treatment recidivism rates drop to an average of 10.9%, and after the year 1980, the effectiveness of treatment programs dropped the recidivism rate to 8.4%. This is effective in proving that untreated offenders are more likely to re-offend then treated offenders and demonstrating the impact on recidivism that judicial and community treatment programs have.

As with any program or treatment process, continuous research and new program development will help re-define processes of treatment and evaluations. The evaluations of the tools provided for the treatment of sexual offenders demonstrate that the low recidivism rate of offenders is in direct result of judicial and community programs currently in place.

References:

Bureau of Justice Assistance (2006). Planning to Evaluate a Sex Offender Treatment Program/Strategy? What Are Some Challenges? In Center for Program Evaluation. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/evaluation/psi_sops/sops4.htm

Center For Sex Offender Management (2000). Myths and Facts About Sex Offenders. In CSOM Documents. Retrieved August 26, 2007, from http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

Hall, MD, R., & Hall, MD, R. (2007). A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82(4), 457-471. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.

Looman, J. (2006, April). Comparison of Two Risk Assessment Instruments for Sexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18(2), 193-206. Retrieved August 23, 2007, from SocIndex database.

Lotke, E. (2003). Issues & Answers - Sex Offenders: Does Treatment Work. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://beachildshero.com/doestreatmentwork.htm

Maletzky, B. M., Tolan, A., & McFarland, B. (2006). The Oregon Depo-Provera Program: A Five-Year Follow-Up. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 18(3), 303-317. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from SocIndex database.

Texas Department of State Health Services (2005). Treatment of Sex Offenders - Effectiveness of Treatment. In Council on Sex Offender Treatment. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/csot/csot_teffective.shtm

Wakefield, MA, H. (2006). The Vilification of Sex Offenders: Do Laws Targeting Sex Offenders Increase Recidivism and Sexual Violence? In Institute for Psychological Therapies. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://www.ipt-forensics.com/library/jsocc_s101.htm

Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex Offender Community Notification: Its Role in Recidivism and Offender Reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193-208. Retrieved August 22, 2007, from SocIndex database.