ERIC EJ1017931: Putting the "Community" Back in Community Risk Management of Persons Who Have Sexually Abused

2013·0.34 MB·English

by  ERIC

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION AND THERAPY ©2013, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2013, VOL. 8, NO. 3-4 ISSN: 1555–7855
Putting the “Community” Back in Community Risk Smith, Goggin, and Gendreau (2002) investigat-
ed correlations between recidivism and length of
Management of Persons Who Have Sexually Abused
time incarcerated, type of sanction (institutional
sentence vs. community-based monitoring and su-
Robin J. Wilson & Andrew J. McWhinnie pervision), and imposition of an intermediate sanc-
McMaster University & Andrew McWhinnie Consulting tion (e.g., electronic monitoring, boot camps, drug
testing). The following quote showcases this study’s
Abstract findings regarding the possible difficulties associat-
ed with using “sanction alone” as a deterrent against
The actions and consequences of sexual offenders continue to be a topic of great discussion among researchers,
reoffending:
clinicians, policymakers, and the community-at-large. Much of this discussion has centered on how offenders
should be managed once released to the community. Legislatures have been quick to enact statutes identifying We are confident that, no matter how many stud-
and limiting the community behaviors of offenders. However, many in the research community have questioned ies are subsequently found, sanction studies will
not produce results indicative of even modest sup-
their efficacy, or have published research highlighting potential iatrogenic effects suggesting decreased offender
pression effects or results remotely approximating
stability and increased risk for new criminality (including sexual reoffending). This paper reviews current prac-
outcomes reported for certain types of treatment
tices regarding sexual offender sentencing, statutory risk management, and measures of official control prior to
programs. (Smith et al. 2002, p.19)
suggesting a model of community engagement in providing both support and accountability frameworks to of-
fenders demonstrating both high risk and need. The Circles of Support and Accountability model of professionally The overall results of Smith et al.’s meta-analysis
supported wraparound care is described, and research data supporting its effectiveness are provided. General were that type of sanction (incarceration vs. inter-
comments are made regarding policy and practice issues in community-based sexual offender risk management. mediate sanction vs. community-based placement)
did not contribute to reductions in reoffense rates;
Overall, greater collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and the community-at-large is suggested as a
that there were no differential effects of sanction
means to increase offender reintegration potential while mitigating risks to vulnerable persons in the community.
type for juveniles, females, or minorities; and that
Keywords there were tentative indications that longer sentenc-
sexual offenders, community, Circles of Support and Accountability, risk management, sexual offender treatment es were associated with somewhat increased inci-
dences of reoffending. Smith et al. (p. 6) concluded
that:
1. Prisons and intermediate sanctions should not be
Our communities continue to express significant the findings and suggest areas for continued focus,
used with the expectation of reducing criminal be-
concerns regarding the long-term risk posed to exploration, and discussion. Because the large ma-
haviour (sic).
public safety by persons who sexually offend. Ac- jority of sexual offenders are male, this review uses
cordingly, governments have enacted legislation in- masculine pronouns. This is not intended to suggest 2. On the basis of (the Smith et al.) results, excessive
tended to mitigate those risks. Many of these legal that problematic sexual behavior does not also oc- use of incarceration may have substantial cost im-
responses (referred to as measures of “official” or cur among women, or that these behaviors do not plications.
“social” control throughout this review) have result- also cause significant harm to those persons sexu- 3. In order to determine who is being adversely af-
ed in longer sentences, increased supervision upon ally abused by women. For those interested specifi- fected by time in prison, it is incumbent upon pris-
release, sexual offender civil commitment proce- cally in sexual offending committed by women, we on officials to implement repeated, comprehensive
dures, and other measures intended to strengthen suggest readers review Gannon and Cortoni (2010). assessments of offenders’ attitudes, values, and be-
offender accountability in the community. Notwith- haviours (sic) throughout the period of incarcer-
„ Sentencing Practices
standing the fact that sexual offender risk manage- ation and correlate these changes with recidivism
ment is a contentious issue, policymaker and com- Over time, sentences for sexual offenders have upon release into the community.
munity stakeholders are increasingly concerned increased in terms of length, and in terms of the A similar review was completed by researchers at
about what to do regarding elevated risks posed by percentage of offenders receiving custodial sentenc- the Washington State Institute for Public Policy
“sexual predators” and “sexually violent predators” es versus community supervision as the primary (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006). Reviewing data from
(i.e., those offenders at the higher end of the risk sanction. Further, the degree and length of post-in- 291 program evaluations completed over a nearly
continuum). Accordingly, specialized measures carceration risk management have also increased; 40-year period, these researchers obtained compa-
have been applied in an attempt to both manage risk many jurisdictions now have lengthy periods of sex- rable results to Smith et al. (2002). Specifically, pro-
and calm the fears of the community. ual offender probation or even lifetime supervision. gram options that included some aspect of rehabil-
This review examines various strategies aimed at fa- Twenty states and the federal government have also itative work (i.e., treatment) were much more likely
instituted post-sentence civil commitment of of-
cilitating long-term management of the risk posed to decrease recidivism than were those that focused
fenders adjudged to meet criteria for designation as
by persons who sexually offend. This includes dis- solely on sanction or supervision. In reviewing the
sexually violent persons or predators (SVP).
cussion of: effects of intermediate sanctions on criminal recidi-
1. Current sentencing practices and the effects of Effects of Incarceration vism, Aos et al. concluded:
incarceration Sentences for sexual and other offenses are typically The lesson from this research is that it is the treat-
ment – not the intensive monitoring – that results
a. Principles of effective correctional interven- longer in the United States than in other parts of the
tions developed world. This may be a consequence of the in recidivism reduction. (p. 6)
2. Post-incarceration risk management strategies US tendency to aggregate sentences consecutively In a related research stream, Andrews and Bon-
for higher risk offenders for separate offenses, whereas other jurisdictions ta (2010; orig. 1994) responded to the “Nothing
a. Long-term or lifetime probation/supervision (e.g., Canada) tend to sentence offenders concur- Works” perspective resulting from Martinson’s
rently for offenses occurring within the same gener- work in the mid-1970s (Martinson, 1974). In a
b. Sexual offender civil commitment al period. There are important considerations to be meta-analytic review of the research investigating
3. Innovative community reintegration models made regarding the cost implications of sentencing the effects of correctional interventions, Martinson
a. Circles of Support and Accountability practices, as well as whether these efforts are having concluded that there was little or no evidence to
In each section, pertinent issues are highlighted the anticipated or desired effects on reoffending. support a view this programming was reducing re-
and areas for further attention and discussion are In an influential meta-analysis of 117 studies in- offending. However, Andrews and Bonta criticized
suggested. We conclude with a general summary of volving 442,471 subjects from various jurisdictions, these findings, noting that many studies included
72
©2013, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISSN: 1555–7855 COMMUNITY RISK MANAGEMENT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED
73
results indicating positive effects for at least some punishment) in addressing both general and spe- desirable for program evaluation; however, they are
types of offenders. In their answer to the “Nothing cific deterrence. However, while exacting retribu- rarely employed and their feasibility has been ques-
Works” contention, Andrews and Bonta conducted tion and meting out punishments might make us tioned (Långström et al., 2013).
meta-analytic research as to what program com- feel better and satisfy our penchant for holding of-
„ Post-Incarceration Risk Management
ponents might contribute to greater positive out- fenders accountable for their actions, the research
comes. This research ultimately led to the formu- reported above strongly suggests that offenders re- for Higher Risk Offenders
lation of a comprehensive general personality and offend less (i.e., there are fewer victims) on release
Traditionally, persons convicted of sexual offenses
social psychology of crime known as “The Psychol- if they have had access to rehabilitation program-
have received determinate sentences; meaning that
ogy of Criminal Conduct” (PCC), with the Risk, ming. Therefore, public safety-minded offender
the greater majority of such offenders will at some
Need, Responsivity (RNR) model embedded with- management policies must include a combination
point be released to the community. Beginning in
in it, as reported in their seminal volume The Psy- of both aspects – sanction and rehabilitation. In
the early 1990s, various levels of government start-
chology of Criminal Conduct (2010; orig. 1994). The summary, the meta-analytic findings of the effects
ed to consider their options in terms of the post-re-
PCC and its RNR model has significantly shaped of correctional supervision/sanction and rehabili-
lease management of sexual offenders. In Canada,
modern correctional programming throughout the tative interventions suggest the following conclu-
high profile cases of sexual abuse and murder led to
Western world, and is seen as one of the primary sions, which are applicable to persons who sexually
sweeping changes that established national policy
intervention philosophies and frameworks for pro- offend:
and the development of specific community-based
viding evidence-based, best practice human service
1. Sentencing practices should take into consider- sexual offender management practices (see Cor-
to offenders.
ation the level of risk posed by the offender, but rectional Service of Canada, 1996). In the United
As part of their psychology of criminal conduct, should also appreciate the type and intensity of States, national SORs were established and many
the Andrews and Bonta RNR model asserts that correctional programming required to assist the states either established or began investigating sex-
effective interventions will match level of intensi- offender in increasing reintegration potential. ual offender civil commitment. In almost all cases,
ty of intervention to the level of assessed risk (Risk new practices were intended to increase the degree
2. Comprehensive clinical interventions following
principle). Such programs also need to precisely of scrutiny focused on released sexual offenders, in
evidence-based principles of effective correc-
target individualized criminogenic needs (person- addition to generally increasing the length of time
al traits, values, and attitudes known to contribute tional programming (i.e., RNR model) should that scrutiny would endure, in some jurisdictions
to reoffending – Need principle) in a manner that be available to all sexual offenders during their for the remainder of the offender’s life.
responds to client abilities, motivation, and other incarceration.
Long Term Sexual Offender Probation
individualized variables (Responsivity principle). Keeping the prescriptions of the RNR model in
Andrews and Bonta demonstrated that significant mind, it is important to ensure that the most re- and Lifetime Supervision
decreases in reoffending were possible in offering strictive and intensive measures are applied only Meta-analyses focusing on the predictors of sex-
rehabilitative interventions following these simple to those offenders most in need of that level of ual recidivism (e.g., Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,
principles, as compared to supervision or criminal supervision or intervention. Andrews and Bonta 2005) have greatly assisted both risk assessment
sanction alone (i.e., without interventions). In yet (2010) showed that sanction alone did little to ad- and risk management personnel. Evaluators and
another, similarly oriented analysis, Lipsey and dress what they referred to as the “Big 4” predictors treatment staff now have a range of tools available
Cullen (2007) reviewed the various meta-analyses of criminal recidivism (antisocial values and atti- to increase accuracy in identifying offenders at risk,
that have examined differential effects of supervi- tudes, antisocial personality structure, antisocial as well as increasing the effectiveness of interven-
sion/sanction versus rehabilitation treatment. Their behavior, and antisocial peer affiliations). They tions by more specifically targeting pertinent crim-
findings echo those of the others noted here – that demonstrated that these core criminogenic need inogenic needs. However, questions remain as to
supervision or sanction alone result in either no areas were best approached through programming the length of time that sexual offenders remain at
effect or a slightly negative effect on outcome (i.e., that addresses inappropriate behavior by identify- risk, or whether or for how long they need to be in
increased reoffending), while treatment results in ing antisocial values and attitudes developed over rehabilitative programming.
positive and often large effects on outcome (i.e., de- the offender’s life, and which contribute to contin- Many US jurisdictions have statutes allowing for
creased reoffending). In a cost-benefit analysis, the ued offending (i.e., cognitive-behavioral interven- (up to) lifetime community-based supervision for
Correctional Service of Canada (2009) showed that tions based in social learning principles). Finally, sexual offenders, usually according to differential
every dollar spent on sexual offender treatment Andrews and Bonta further showed that, where levels of risk. States like California have estab-
programming resulted in a savings of five dollars feasible and safe, treatment programming is likely lished “three strikes” provisions, in which offend-
in costs not incurred due to decreased reoffending. to have greater effect when offered in the commu- ers with three convictions meeting certain criteria
Some have questioned the applicability of RNR nity. are placed on lifetime supervision. With respect to
constructs to the sexual offender population, pre- However, with respect to the findings noted above, managing risk in the community, many jurisdic-
sumably on the belief that these offenders are some- many researchers have identified difficulties in the tions favor “containment” approaches (see English,
how different in their criminal and behavioral ori- studies comprising this literature (see Hanson, Pullen, & Jones, 1996). This approach seeks to hold
entations and actions. However, in a meta-analysis Bourgon, et al., 2009). Issues have been noted re- persons who sexually offend accountable through
of 23 studies (including 6,746 subjects), Hanson garding inconsistencies in regard to the degree the coordinated use of the client’s internal controls,
Bourgon, Helmus, and Hodgson (2009) demon- of attention to empirical evidence, the use of rig- external criminal justice controls, and polygraph
strated that RNR principles apply to interventions orous program designs, and the degree to which monitoring of client self-regulation and general
with sexual offenders as much as they do with of- implementation follows those designs. In their compliance with external controls. English empha-
fenders in general. These principles have also been review of the sexual offender treatment program- sizes further that treatment, supervision, and mon-
helpful in devising appropriate post-release risk ming literature, Hanson, Bourgon, et al. identified itoring occur through a commitment to teamwork
management schemes (see Wilson, Cortoni, Piche- only a handful of studies that truly adhered to the and collaborative efforts at increasing public safe-
ca, Stirpe, & Nunes, 2009) in which evidence-based prescriptions of the RNR model (i.e., a strong, ev- ty. The containment strategy has five components
case management paired with community-based idence-based program design). Indeed, a general (English, 1998):
aftercare resulted in incremental reductions in finding in the correctional treatment literature has 1. A victim-centered philosophy
post-release reoffending and other difficulties. been that those models most likely to reduce reof-
2. Multi-disciplinary collaboration
fending, or that are most likely to facilitate program
Issues for Further Discussion 3. Specific management tools
evaluative research, are not often those employed
Contemporary American corrections policy has (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007). For instance, random 4. Consistent multi-agency policies and protocols
tended to emphasize sanction (e.g., retribution and assignment designs are often seen as more highly 5. Program quality-control mechanisms
74 WILSON & MCWHINNIE
One of the best examples of the containment ap- baree, Schwartz, & Kafka, 2006). Beyond issues of have suggested that the law and order sector of the
proach is found in Colorado, where sexual offend- constitutionality, the majority of these issues center containment triad (probation/parole supervision,
ers who commit certain types of offenses may be on the methods used to identify persons worthy of community treatment and, more often in the US,
supervised for life after release. Ideally, the contain- SOCC, the efficacy of sexual offender treatment, polygraph supported monitoring) assumes a pre-
ment model is an initiative that assists in increasing and the safety and utility of “less restrictive alter- dominant role when clients experience difficulties
offender accountability, resulting in decreased risk natives” or “step-down” programs used if and when and that collaboration involving information and
to the public. Colorado officials strongly support SVPs might be released to the community. Fur- perspective from treatment providers may be then
use of polygraph in their version of the containment thermore, there has been a general lack of agree- overlooked. As we move toward the future, we
model, asserting that it assists greatly in identifying ment as to what constitutes appropriate procedure must learn from these experiences, meaning it will
problems before they become unmanageable or in measuring of risk to reoffend (see Campbell & become important for all stakeholders to work to-
lead to reoffending (see Heil, Ahlmeyer, McCullar, DeClue, 2010; Mann, Hanson, & Thornton, 2010). gether to maintain a truly collaborative approach to
& McKee, 2000). However, there continues to be a Specifically, issues of base-rates and appropriate- risk management, including some level of partici-
general lack of research regarding the effectiveness ness of comparison groups have been raised as is- pation by members of the community.
of polygraphy in reducing sexual recidivism (Mc- sues for additional attention and study (see Wilson, In The Death and Life of Great American Cities,
Grath, Cumming, Hoke, & Bonn-Miller, 2007). Looman, Abracen, & Pake, 2012). urban development theorist Jane Jacobs (1961) as-
Indeed, the McGrath et al. paper noted here is one For their part, persons sent to civil commitment serted that community involvement was crucial in
of very few to study this issue, suggesting that there centers have expressed anger and frustration at establishing and maintaining public order:
is, as yet, no conclusive evidence regarding the true being brought into the SOCC domain when they The first thing to understand is that the public
value-added of polygraph evaluations in the com- had been expecting to be going home to their fam-
peace –the sidewalk and street peace – is not kept
munity risk management of sexual offenders. ilies. This has significant implications for treatment
primarily by the police, necessary as police are. It
A variation on the containment model is found in readiness (Wilson, 2009), combating hopelessness
is kept primarily by an intricate, almost uncon-
the United Kingdom (UK). Known as Multi-Agen- and addressing issues of poor treatment respon-
scious, network of voluntary controls and stan-
cy Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA – see sivity (Moulden & Marshall, 2009) – each of which
dards among the people themselves and enforced
Wood & Kemshall, 2007), the intent of this frame- is important in the development of the sort of bal-
by the people themselves… No amount of police
work is to ensure collaborative risk management of anced, self-determined lifestyles (Curtiss & War-
can enforce civilization where the normal causal
offenders after they are released from prison. MAP- ren, 1973) required for lasting prosocial change
enforcement of it has broken down. (p. 32)
PAs include representation from statutory agencies and successful community re-entry. Indeed, such
(probation, law enforcement), non-government barriers to treatment success have required the Research generally supports a view that sexual of-
organizations (social service agencies that provide use of considerable creativity on the part of profes- fenders in the community may continue to pose
treatment and support – Quakers, Lucy Faithfull sionals attempting to devise treatment models that risk for reoffending for 10 years or more post-re-
Foundation, Salvation Army), and community will appropriately address the programming needs lease (Hanson & Thornton, 2000; Helmus, 2009;
partners such as victims advocacy groups and Cir- of SVPs as they prepare for possible release to the Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 2005). Accord-
cles of Support and Accountability (CoSA – see be- community. ingly, there is support for extended supervision for
low). As noted, MAPPA is similar to containment On some level, it is reasonable to compare and con- certain offenders. However, it is the latter element
in its intent and implementation; however, the ma- trast SOCC with lifetime supervision. At present, that is most pertinent – for certain offenders. The
jor difference between containment and MAPPA the number of persons being released from civil distribution of risk for sexual offenders is posi-
is the use of polygraph monitoring, not presently commitment centers following completion of in- tively skewed (i.e., low risk offenders outnumber
used by MAPPA. In their review of MAPPA, Wood tensive treatment is relatively low. One important high risk offenders), with the average rate of sex-
and Kemshall (2007) reported that all partners consideration may be financial. According to the ual reoffending over 5-6 years being approximately
indicated increased belief that offender risk and Center for Sex Offender Management (2000), there 15% (Hanson & Bussière, 1998; Hanson & Mor-
needs were being better managed. However, they is a great disparity in costs associated with manag- ton-Bourgon, 2005), although higher rates of reof-
also highlighted unresolved issues regarding avail- ing sexual offenders through incarceration versus fending are likely to be observed over longer fol-
ability of post-incarceration housing and treatment community supervision: low-up periods (i.e., 24% over 15 years – see Harris
services, as well as a lack of key performance indi- & Hanson, 2004).
One year of intensive supervision and treatment in
cators for evaluating efficacy.
However, considerable debate continues in the
the community can range in cost between $5,000
scientific literature and popular media as to what
Sexual Offender Civil Commitment and $15,000 per offender, depending on treat-
are the true rates of reoffending in sexual offend-
ment modality. The average cost for incarcerating
At present, 20 states and the US federal government ers. There are several issues complicating the pro-
an offender is significantly higher, approximately
have legislated sexual offender civil commitment cess of arriving at a reasonable estimate: (a) Due to
(SOCC) procedures. SOCC is based on a belief that $22,000 per year, excluding treatment costs. under-reporting by victims of sexual offenses, un-
some offenders will be at continued high risk (in Depending on the individual state, costs associ- derestimation is a continuing problem; (b) Not all
some cases, termed “more likely than not”) to com- ated with civil commitment may be even higher groups of offenders reoffend at the same rate; and
mit a new sexual offense if they are not preventive- than traditional prison placement. According to a (c) The length of follow-up reported in recidivism
ly detained and offered rehabilitation treatment. 2005 survey (Washington State Institute for Public studies can be misleading. On the last point, many
SOCC statutes typically require that a potential Policy, 2005), costs of SOCC vary from $12,680 to believe that longer-term follow-up studies are pref-
candidate has a history of criminal sexual behav- $109,000 per resident per year. erable; however, there are limitations inherent even
ior, as well as a “mental abnormality” that, without in studies with long periods of follow-up. Essential-
treatment, would preclude him from being able to Issues for Further Discussion ly, a study with a 15-year follow-up is a commen-
manage his sexual behavior in the community. Per- Long-term management of risk among released tary on the effectiveness of interventions offered
sons committed as Sexually Violent Persons/Pred- sexual offenders continues to present theoretical 15 years ago. Given that coordinated methods of
ators (SVPs) are usually held until the Court finds and practical difficulties. As a theoretical model of sexual offender treatment and risk management
they no longer meet the criteria outlined above. community risk management, the containment and are relatively recent (i.e., less than 30 years) and
SOCC continues to be a source of controversy on MAPPA models make sense and are commendable the importance of recent changes in these methods
many fronts, affecting such stakeholders as legisla- for their collaborative focus. However, these mod- (e.g., migration from relapse prevention methods
tors, risk assessors, treatment providers, public pol- els have been criticized for being susceptible to a to self-regulation and Good Lives approaches), it
icy analysts, offenders and their families, and the breakdown of the collaborative element when cli- may be more reasonable to consider shorter-term
general public (see review in Prentky, Janus, Bar- ents experience problems. Specifically, detractors reviews of better practices.
COMMUNITY RISK MANAGEMENT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED
75
Notwithstanding arguments for or against lon- of this condition requires competent assessment, Community safety is theoretically increased be-
ger-term follow-up studies, it is clear that there is effective treatment, and subsequent monitoring cause there is a “narrowing of the field” for law
a group of sexual offenders who pose a higher than (clinical and case management), perhaps, for long enforcement and other officials as they attempt
average risk to reoffend. In keeping with the afore- periods depending on the individual presentations to manage risk to the community. The rationale is
mentioned Risk principle, more highly restrictive of the offenders in question. Although offenders that sexual offenders are “predatory prowlers” who
measures – like long-term or lifetime supervision are certainly known to engage in further problem- are always at risk to commit another offense, and
or SOCC (offender civil commitment) – might be atic behavior while in institutional settings (e.g., that reoffense rates are high – leading to the per-
better and more appropriately applied to this group prison, hospital, civil detention), the community is spective that we need to know where offenders are
than to apply these measures carte blanche across where the rubber hits the road when it comes to at all times to reduce the likelihood that they will
the board to all sexual offenders. For instance, a risk management. engage in further abuse of vulnerable citizens. This
group of “almost SVPs” identified by Milloy (2003) In many respects, when an offender returns to rationale exacerbates the issues we identified in the
appears to be comprised of released offenders the community, an “us vs. them” scenario is often preceding paragraph. Specifically, we know that, as
in need of more intensive supervision, given the played out, in that the offender may be seen as be- a group, sexual offenders demonstrate significant
strong potential for higher rates of recidivism in ing on one side of the coin while the remainder heterogeneity, including the degree to which static
comparison to other groups of sexual offenders. of the key stakeholder groups (e.g., victims, law markers indicate heightened risk and/or the ex-
For offenders at this level of risk, it would be bet- enforcement, correctional and mental health per- tent of lifestyle instability for each individual (i.e.,
ter to employ less restrictive, step-down, graduat- sonnel, the media, etc.) are on the other. Indeed, dynamic factors) (Hanson et al., 2007) – meaning
ed intensity release program options upon their many of the measures enacted to control offender that not all sexual offenders are the same and ap-
re-entering the community (see Jackson, Travia, behavior once released are often aimed at separat- proaches will need to be individualized to achieve
& Schneider, 2010). These options include halfway ing these two sides. However, some (see Levenson greatest effect.
houses or other similar residential options, with & D’Amora, 2007; Huebner et al., 2013) have ques- Current meta-analytic reviews suggest the average
almost three-quarters of such programs offering at tioned whether mandating this separation is actu- sexual reoffense rate for all known sexual offenders,
least some state-based funding to support offender ally good for risk management. post-criminal sanction, is approximately 13 to 15%
reintegration into the community. Among the more popular measures of official con- over a follow-up period of approximately 5-6 years
Regardless, despite the existence of programs able trol instituted by various levels of government are (see Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). However,
to provide graduated intensity, organized com- sexual offender registration and notification, resi- it is also clear that when we subdivide the whole
munity follow-up options, the majority of civil dency restrictions, electronic and GPS monitoring, population of known sexual abusers according to
committees (and other detained sexual offenders, long-term (or lifetime) supervision orders, and risk levels and other grouping variables (e.g., sex-
for that matter) are held in civil commitment for sexual offender civil commitment (SOCC). The ual deviance, personality disorders, offense type;
lengthy periods. This is often because the courts risk management literature contains various entries see Hanson et al., 2007; Helmus, 2009; Mann et al.,
have difficulty ascertaining which offenders are that either support or oppose such measures, de- 2010; Thornton, Hanson, & Helmus, 2009), rates of
most likely to reoffend. Anecdotal reports from pendent on the writers’ perspectives. However, for reoffending vary. Of greatest concern to the com-
professionals working in SOCC centers indicate our part, we believe that each of these approaches munity should be those sexual abusers judged to
the presence of higher than usual levels of apathy, has the potential to help manage the risk of certain be at highest risk to reoffend, and who also present
hopelessness, and other treatment interfering fac- offenders while likely being ineffective or poten- high levels of criminogenic need (e.g., poor sexual
tors in SOCC center residents (see also Levenson tially damaging to the risk management of others. self-management, dysfunctional or unstable life-
& Prescott, 2009). Additionally, there are concerns The key, from our perspective, is staying true to style choices). Additionally, aftercare programs are
as to what options will be available for post-release RNR precepts and ensuring the individualization often few and far between for high risk/need sexual
aftercare for this higher risk/need group. These un- of cases based upon offender presenting problems. offenders coming to the end of their supervision
resolved issues contribute to low rates of release, Clearly, there are some offenders for whom special or conditional release periods. In some cases, the
which makes completion of follow-up studies of attention is warranted and we would be wise to use community has had to be creative in its attempts
this population difficult or impossible. One po- stringent measures to maintain community safety to manage risk in its midst (Silverman & Wilson,
tential solution to this problem is to investigate – consistent with both the risk and need principles 2002).
whether a group of sufficiently high-risk sexual of RNR. However, all too often official control mea-
Circles of Support and Accountability
offenders (analogous to typical civilly committed sures are applied to all identified sexual offenders
sexual offenders) can be identified in a jurisdiction without consideration of whether or not they are In the summer of 1994, Charlie Taylor – a repeat
where no commitment laws have been enacted and actually indicated. Such practices limit the efficacy child molester with a long history of offending and
where offenders are therefore routinely released to of the measures in question in three main ways: a dire risk profile according to actuarial measures
the community (see Wilson et al., 2012). Compar- – was released at the end of his sentence (known
1. Because the distribution of sexual offender risk
isons of these groups would provide insight as to as Warrant Expiry Date, or WED, in Canada and
potential is positively skewed, many more lower
the criminal trajectories of such groups post-re- equivalent to the US phenomenon of “max-ing
risk offenders will be targeted than those who
lease. Long-term follow up data on such a popu- out”), to the city of Hamilton, a short distance
are truly at high risk.
lation would also provide helpful clarification as to southwest of Toronto, Ontario. Charlie was inel-
whether such groups are actually “more likely than 2. Due to the reality of limited resources, commu- igible for the sorts of services typically offered to
not” to reoffend sexually if released to the commu- nity risk management personnel will be unable offenders under supervision. In desperation, Char-
nity. Additionally, information could be extrapolat- to appropriately supervise the high-risk offend- lie’s institutional psychologist reached out to mem-
ed regarding the potential mediating effect of suc- ers because they are spending too much time in bers of the Welcome Inn, an inner-city church with
cessful completion of treatment and/or provision over-supervising lower risk offenders. whom Charlie previously had contact.
of coordinated post-release follow-up treatment 3. Public education efforts may be compromised Charlie’s process of re-entry was made all the more
and supervision. because the message given is one indicating that difficult by a media blitz notifying Hamiltonians
all sexual offenders are at the same level of risk that Charlie was in their midst, resulting in pick-
Innovative Models for Community
and that these time-consuming and, sometimes, eting of the Welcome Inn and expensive, around
Reintegration of Offenders
costly measures must be applied to everyone. the clock police surveillance of Charlie. As well,
Although specifics regarding etiology are scarce, Let us use sexual offender registration (SOR) as a many agencies well known for their work with re-
sexual offending as a behavioral condition like- case in point: Generally speaking, SOR is intend- leased offenders declined to be involved with Char-
ly results from a complex interaction of offender ed to establish a list of all the sexual offenders in lie, given the negative attention he was attracting.
specific and environmental factors. Management a given jurisdiction (state, province, country, etc.). This very first Circle of Support and Accountability
76 WILSON & MCWHINNIE
worked to establish some measure of stability for
Charlie. Days went into weeks and then months, all
without any renewed offending. The police eventu-
ally withdrew their surveillance after having spent
Professionals
many tens of thousands of dollars on overtime. The
media attention also died down; the truth being
that Charlie and his re-entry ceased to be news-
worthy.
Based on these ad hoc methods employed in Ham-
ilton several months earlier, another group of faith- Circle Coordinator
based community members decided to apply the
same approach with a similar high-risk offender,
named Wray, who was released to Peterborough,
Ontario. As this group began to offer its support,
they encountered similar pushback and hostility
Volunteers
from their community, through the media. The
pressure became so intense, Wray was forced ulti-
mately to flee Peterborough, and take up residence
in the larger metropolis of Toronto. Again, the
community reacted with hostility. However, like
Charlie, with time, support and guidance from this
Core Member
second group of concerned citizens, the fear and
hostility that surrounded also cooled and calmed.
On the strength of these experiences, the Men-
Figure 1. Graphic representation of CoSA model (adapted from Wilson & Picheca [2005], Netherlands Probation
nonite Central Committee of Ontario (MCCO)
Service, 2012).
agreed to steward a pilot project, known as the
Community Reintegration Project. Pilot-project problems). This is when the outer circle – com- ect. Using the same basic methodology – compar-
funding was provided by the Government of Can- prised of psychologists, probation and parole offi- ing CoSA core members to matched comparison
ada. Nearly 20 years later, the Community Reinte- cers, social service workers, law enforcement per- subjects – participants for this study were drawn
gration Project is well known as Circles of Support sonnel, etc. – becomes important. Essentially, while from CoSA projects across Canada, but not in-
and Accountability (CoSA). the inner circle provides support and accountabil- cluding members of the pilot project. In total, the
The CoSA model has grown significantly since ity for the core member, the outer circle functions post-release behavior of 44 core members was
the initial circle was formed in Hamilton in 1994. in a markedly similar fashion for the inner circle. compared to 44 matched comparison subjects, with
Projects are established throughout Canada and in an average follow-up time of approximately three
several American jurisdictions (most pertinently The Efficacy of the CoSA Model years. Similar to the first study, dramatic reductions
California, Minnesota, and Vermont). In the Unit- Two Canadian reviews have focused on the rel- in rates of reoffending were observed. Specifically,
ed Kingdom, Circles-UK has been established as a ative rates of reoffending between CoSA core there was an 83% reduction in sexual recidivism
national charity, while projects are established in members and matched comparison subjects who (2.3% vs. 13.7%), a 73% reduction in all types of
some European countries (e.g., the Netherlands) were released without benefit of a Circle (see Wil- violent recidivism (including sexual – 9.1% vs.
and interest continues to grow in other nations son, Picheca, & Prinzo, 2007b; Wilson, Cortoni, & 34.1%), and an overall reduction of 70% in all types
(e.g., New Zealand, Latvia, France, and Korea, McWhinnie, 2009). In the first study, 60 high risk of recidivism (including sexual and violent – 11.4%
among others). sexual offenders involved in CoSAs (core members vs. 38.6%) in comparison to the matched offenders.
In this unique, restorative justice-informed ap- from the original pilot project in South-Central Recently, data were published as to the effectiveness
proach, professionally-supported community Ontario in Canada) were matched to 60 high risk of CoSA in international jurisdictions (Bates, Mac-
members volunteer to assist high-risk, high-need sexual offenders who were not involved in CoSA rae, Wilson, & Wilson, 2013). The UK CoSA model
sexual offenders as they attempt to integrate with (matched comparison subjects), with an average is slightly modified from the Canadian original, in
society after release from prison. The CoSA model follow-up time of 4.5 years. Subjects were matched that most core members are still “under license”
has provided hope that communities can assist in according to level of actuarial risk, type of release, (British terminology for continuing to be super-
risk management, the end result being greater safe- date of release to the community, and prior in- vised by Probation Services). As such, CoSAs in the
ty for potential victims and increased accountabil- volvement in sexual offender treatment. Results UK are more formally situated within the statutory
ity for released offenders. Peer-reviewed evaluative demonstrated a 70% reduction in sexual recidi- framework of criminal justice (i.e., Multi-Agen-
research has shown that involvement in a CoSA vism in the CoSA core members in contrast to the cy Public Protection Arrangements – MAPPA);
can result in statistically significant reductions in matched comparison group (5% vs. 16.7%), a 57% whereas Canadian CoSAs have tended to focus on
sexual recidivism of 70% or more over statistical/ reduction in all types of violent recidivism (includ- core members who are entirely post-sentence. Not-
actuarial projections (such as the Static-99) or ing sexual – 15% vs. 35%), and an overall reduction withstanding this difference, the unifying element
matched comparison subjects (Wilson, McWhin- of 35% in all types of recidivism (including violent between Canadian and UK iterations of the model
nie, & Wilson, 2008). and sexual – 28.3% vs. 43.4%). In those three in- remains with the voluntary sector, rendering the
stances in which a core member committed a new two models more similar than not. Key principles
As shown in figure 1, the CoSA model consists of
sexual offense, a harm reduction (Marlatt, 1998) associated with the UK CoSA model are shown in
two concentric circles of participants. The inner
effect was observed, in that the new offenses were Figure 2.
circle is comprised of a released offender (known
categorically less severe and invasive than the of-
as a Core Member) and 4-6 community volun- In a recent study, British CoSA researchers (Bates et
fenses for which the offenders had previously been
teers. These participants meet regularly to discuss al., 2013) followed 71 core members for an average
convicted. A similar effect was not observed in the
risk and reintegration issues presented by the core period of 55 months, comparing them to a group
matched comparison group.
member. Periodically, issues arise requiring expert of comparison subjects using a matching protocol
assistance (e.g., probation/parole violations, indi- The second Canadian study consisted of a national similar to that used in the Wilson et al. (2007a,
cations of imminent risk to reoffend, mental health replication of the Wilson et al. (2007b) pilot proj- 2009a) studies, described above. Although several
COMMUNITY RISK MANAGEMENT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED
77
The Three Key Principles offender risk in the community. Collaboration
between groups of stakeholders will require a de-
gree of intention, such as that found in the MAP-
Support Monitor Maintain PA scheme in the UK, as outlined above. Further,
it would be of some benefit to the growth of the
Reduce Isolation and model if a process of “seeding” were implemented,
Emotional Loneliness Public Protection Hold Offender Accountable in which existing projects could provide guidance
and other assistance to jurisdictions interested in
establishing their own project. Efforts in this regard
are currently underway.
Additional problems in garnering support for
Model Appropriate Relationships Safer Communities Relationship of Trust re-entry innovations like CoSA come from poten-
tial misappraisals of the reasons for currently de-
creasing rates of reoffending (Finkelhor & Jones,
2006). Some in the United States have suggested
that rates of sexual recidivism are low because
Support Statutory Authorities ‑ identified offenders, by virtue of long periods of
Demonstrate Humanity and Care Maintain Treatment Objectives
Police, Probation, MAPPA incarceration, are being removed from the “risk
pool,” as it were, during the portion of their lives
during which they pose the greatest risk. Howev-
er, this is unlikely to be the sole reason, as similar
trends towards lower recidivism rates have also
been observed in countries without such sentenc-
Reduce Re-offending ing practices.
In our view, the dramatic differences in rates of re-
offending (e.g., between the 1990s and the 2010s)
Figure 2. The Three Key Principles (Saunders & Wilson, 2002)
are due to a combination of factors, both techno-
logical and philosophical. First, intensified focus
core members experienced behavioral difficulties ysis, indicating an 82% return on investment (i.e.,
on implementing practices according to the RNR
related to sexual offending, resulting in enhance- CBA = $1.82).
principles led to the first actuarial risk assessment
ments in their supervision schemes or a return
Issues for Further Discussion instruments (e.g., Static-99R, VRAG, etc.), which
to custody, only three of 71 core members (4.2%)
started to become available to evaluators in the mid
were subsequently charged for sexual or violent re- The data regarding the potential effectiveness of the
to late 1990s. ARAIs advanced the field immeasur-
offending. In contract, among the members of the CoSA model reported above are certainly encour-
ably by providing a reliable and valid means of tri-
comparison group, 12 of 71 offenders (16.9%) were aging; however, it is important to note that these
aging offenders by risk level, so that attention could
charged with new sexual or violent offenses. Over- are but four studies with small sample sizes, short
be better focused on higher risk offenders. Second,
all, these findings are very much in line with those follow-up times, and no random assignment of
the last 10-15 years has also seen the development
reported previously in Canada. As occurred in the participants to CoSA or no-CoSA groups outside
of a number of risk assessment tools focused on dy-
Canadian studies, the UK project also observed a of the MnCoSA evaluation. The use of a matched namic predictors (e.g., Stable-2007, SOTIPS, SRA-
harm reduction effect – core members who reof- comparison design studies improves the strength FV), which are also useful in focusing treatment
fended did so by engaging in noncontact offenses of the findings but, ultimately, it would be very and intervention strategies on those characterolog-
(e.g., pornography or exposing). helpful if additional research meeting high stan- ical and lifestyle issues most highly predictive of
dards of scientific rigor were to be completed. This
At this point, there is a general lack of data regard- reintegration problems. Third, the turn of the mil-
will require more study in individual projects, such
lennium also saw a rethinking of traditional sexual
ing the effectiveness of the CoSA model in US ju-
as the 5-year Process and Impact Evaluation of 16
offender treatment methods. Relapse prevention
risdictions. Currently, there are well-established
Canadian CoSAs currently underway, sponsored
methods (see Laws, 1989) gave way to self-regula-
CoSA projects in California, Minnesota, Pennsyl- by Public Safety Canada’s National Crime Preven- tion and pathways approaches (see Yates, Prescott,
vania, and Vermont, with additional projects in the tion Centre. Researchers from Pennsylvania State & Ward, 2010), as well as strength-based models
development or early stages in Washington, North University are currently working with the Depart- (see Marshall, Marshall, Serran, & O’Brien, 2011).
Carolina, and Colorado, among other states. Re- ment of Justice’s Office of Sex Offender Monitoring, These holistic models of intervention have refined
ports from the program based in Fresno, CA in- Apprehending, Sentencing and Tracking (SMART) treatment techniques while maintaining appropri-
dicate no documented cases of sexual reoffending to develop an evaluation plan for several US CoSA ate levels of attention on treatment responsivity.
among the 25 CoSAs formed to date. However, sites in an effort to assess the utility of the CoSA Indeed, of the RNR principles, it would appear that
there have been technical violations, some of which model in US jurisdictions; however, no formal data the one most often getting short-shrift is responsiv-
were related to risk for sexual reoffense. Minneso- are available as yet. Nonetheless, findings to date ity, which we suggest is an offshoot of society’s gen-
ta has now run more than 30 CoSAs. A recently suggest that CoSA is likely to be just as effective in eral distaste for and intolerance of sexual abuse and
published evaluation of the effectiveness of the reducing risk in the USA as it has been in Canada offenders. Indeed, promoters of CoSA programs
MnCoSA model (Duwe, 2013) employed random and the UK. around the globe are well familiar with the difficul-
assignment of core members and comparison sub- Part of the difficulty associated with large-scale ties associated with finding community members
jects, making it the most methodologically rigor- research on the CoSA model is attributable to the willing to volunteer to spend time guiding and be-
ous CoSA evaluation to date. However, due to short relatively few US jurisdictions in which the model ing friendly with a released sexual offender.
periods of follow-up, Duwe was not able to demon- is used. Implementation of a CoSA project requires
„ General Comments
strate differences in rates of sexual reoffending. a strategic engagement of quality community part-
However, comparative reductions were observed in ners, resulting in both community buy-in (through There is no doubt that communities continue to
the CoSA group regarding rearrests, reconvictions, volunteerism) and support from governmental experience revulsion around the issues of sexual
and return to custody for other reasons. Last, the agencies (e.g., corrections, police, etc.), which is a offending, and considerable fear and unrest about
MnCoSA evaluation included a cost-benefit anal- particularly novel and atypical way of managing the presence of known sexual offenders in their
78 WILSON & MCWHINNIE
midst. Policymakers and legislators have struggled namics of sexual offending in their communities, typically evoked when discussing issues of sexual
to implement effective measures to manage risk to and of the processes involved in sexual offender abuse (e.g., fear, rage, disgust, hatred), the simple
the public and to address the fears of constituents. risk management. Nevertheless, legislators and truth is that most sexual offenders will at some
However, the current literature is mixed as to the sexual offender specialists alike have done a gener- point return to the community. As noted above,
utility of these measures (Levenson & D’Amora, ally poor job in meeting those needs. Future efforts the literature regarding the effectiveness of various
2007; Huebner et al., 2013), and recent results sug- in this vein will need to better educate members of methods of official control (e.g., sexual offender
gest these initiatives may be having unanticipated the community as to what it means to have released registration, community notification, residen-
negative effects on offender stability, which in turn sexual offenders in their midst, as well as what they cy restrictions) does not support the perspective
compromises safety by increasing risk of further can do to personally influence the risk management that these sorts of measures alone will sufficient-
victimization Indeed, there is a considerable dis- process. Although Circles of Support and Account- ly address sexual offender re-entry concerns (see
connect between empiricism and policymaking; ability provide one method for greater community Huebner et al., 2013). Indeed, it would appear that
however, regardless of this reality, it is unlikely participation in risk management, it is nonetheless some of these measures might actually increase risk
that strict measures enacted to manage risk will unlikely that this will fully meet the public’s needs to the community by making it quite difficult for
be repealed simply because scientists say they do in this regard. More, and better quality research, in some offenders to establish stability (see Huebner
not work. Concerned professionals need to work addition to an evaluation of current practices, is et al., 2013; Willis & Grace, 2008, 2009).
collaboratively with policymakers to develop in- required in order for us to know how best to meet If the laws we enact to increase community safety
novative approaches that make the best use of our the dual and inseparable goals of increased public do not appear to be accomplishing their appoint-
increasing knowledge, while accounting for limited safety and effective community reintegration for ed tasks, what are we to do to ensure that vulner-
resources as we strive to ensure the highest degree offenders. The cost-benefit analyses (e.g., Aos et al., able persons are safe and that offenders are able to
of public safety. 2006; Correctional Service of Canada, 2009; Duwe, establish themselves as law-abiding citizens? We
An additional problem potentially confounding 2013; Elliott & Beech, 2013) reported in this article have suggested herein that coordinated and collab-
our efforts at risk management and reduction is the are clear that, although evidence-based initiatives orative approaches to re-entry, in which all stake-
general tendency for practices to be uniformly ap- also promote fiscal responsibility, it is also a sad holder groups are represented (especially including
plied to all sexual offenders, regardless of levels of truth that some of the long-term risk management the community-at-large) and considered, are most
risk and criminogenic need. The literature regard- measures currently employed are neither cost ef- likely to achieve our shared goal of no more vic-
fective nor would they withstand scientific scrutiny tims. Our perspective emphasizes the idea of en-
ing sexual offenders is clear in showing that this
(at least in their current form). suring community involvement in the process of
population is heterogeneous as to the level of risk
posed to the community, their needs, or the degree In this article, we have noted that prolonged incar- community re-entry and risk management.
to which they require rehabilitative programming ceration or increasingly punitive sanctions are un-
„ REFERENCES
(Helmus, 2009). This suggests that supervision likely to reduce reoffending, unless they are paired
models and treatment programming must be de- with human service programming attending to the Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct
signed in appreciation of and adherence to the principles of Risk, Need, and Responsivity. How- (5th ed.) Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
tenets of the RNR model (Wilson & Yates, 2009). ever, the public has little tolerance for the potential Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult correc-
Further complicating the matter is that groups of danger posed by offenders judged to be at higher tions programs: What works and what does not. Olympia: WA:
risk, but, although public fear often leads to legis-
offenders with similar actuarially determined risk Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
lative action, there is an apparent disconnect be-
levels are also heterogeneous (i.e., not all persons Bates, A., Williams, D., Wilson, C., & Wilson, R. J. (2013). Circles
tween research and practice in terms of choosing
who achieve the same score on the Static-99R will South-East: The first ten years 2002-2012. Published online first
measures that are likely to be effective (Levenson
present their “risk” in necessarily the same way, or April 24, 2013, International Journal of Offender Therapy and
& D’Amora, 2007). This suggests that researchers
have the same criminogenic needs (see Thornton et Comparative Criminology. doi:10.1177/0306624X13485362
need to be more proactive in making sure legisla-
al., 2009), suggesting that the risk appraisal process Campbell, T. W., & DeClue, G. (2010). Maximizing predictive accuracy
tors are aware of and have at their disposal good
is more complicated than our current technolo- in sexually violent predator evaluations. Open Access Journal of
research upon which to base their decision-making
gies can accommodate. Future research will need Forensic Psychology, 2, 148-232.
practices. Further, legislators will need to rise above
to focus on the development of reliable and valid Center for Sex Offender Management (2000, August). Myths and facts
political rhetoric in being diligent when consider-
methods for comparing offenders to appropriate about sex offenders. Washington, DC: Author. Available at http://
ing research findings before enacting policy and
comparison groups. www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html (Accessed September 10,
law. In this regard, sentencing and parole decisions
In and of itself, each risk management measure en- would be well advised to consider RNR principles. 2013)
acted is likely to have a beneficial effect for some For example, the risk and need principles assert Correctional Service of Canada (2009). Final Report: February 2009
offenders. However, in order to maximize the val- that more stringent risk management practices like update: The net federal fiscal benefit of CSC programming. (Re-
ue-added of these measures, it is important that community notification, electronic monitoring, or search Report R-208) Ottawa, ON: Author.
they be differentially applied to those offenders long/lifetime supervision should be applied only Curtiss, P. R., & Warren, P. W. (1973). The dynamics of life skills coach-
who require them most (in keeping with both the to those offenders presenting the greatest risk to ing. Prince Albert, SK: Saskatchewan NewStart Inc. for the Training
Risk and Need principles). Wholesale application reoffend and demonstrating the highest degrees of Research and Development Station Department of Manpower and
of a measure to all offenders likely “washes out” lifestyle instability. Immigration.
the particular benefit that might be observed in Duwe, G. (2013). Can Circles of Support and Accountability work in the
It also appears that greater participation of and
those offenders to whom the measure most apply. United States? Preliminary results from a randomized experiment
understanding by community members, including
As such, it is advisable that the application of risk in Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.
citizen legislators, both in recognizing the realities
management measures be individualized according 25, 143-165.
of sexual offending in their community and in the
to the degree of risk a particular offender poses. Al- risk management processes, would lead to a full- Elliott, I. A., & Beech, A. R. (2013). A cost-benefit analysis of Circles of
though this may be initially more time consuming er understanding of the issues faced by offenders Support and Accountability. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research
for case managers who will need to collate risk and returning to the community (Silverman & Wil- and Treatment. 25, 3-20.
need data, there will ultimately be savings in regard son, 2002; Wilson, Picheca, & Prinzo, 2005). This English, K. (1998). The containment approach: An aggressive strategy
to staff resources, as case managers will be able to should then influence legislative reform regarding for community management of adult sex offenders. Psychology,
direct more intensive supervision and services to long-term sexual offender management strategies Public Policy, and Law, 4, 218-235.
those offenders at higher levels of risk and need.
and policies that are commensurate with risk and English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (1996). Managing adult sex offend-
It is also likely that the citizens of any jurisdiction appropriately respond to identified criminogenic ers. A containment approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation
will benefit from greater understanding of the dy- needs. Notwithstanding the emotional responses and Parole Association.
COMMUNITY RISK MANAGEMENT OF PERSONS WHO HAVE SEXUALLY ABUSED
79
Gannon, T. A., & Cortoni, F. (2010). Female sexual offenders: Theory, Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional Wilson, R. J., Looman, J., Abracen, J., & Pake, D. R. (2012). Compar-
assessment, and Treatment. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of ing sexual offenders at the Regional Treatment Centre (Ontario)
Grubin, D. (2010). A trial of voluntary polygraphy testing in 10 English Law and Social Science, 3, 297-320. and the Florida Civil Commitment Center. International Journal of
probation areas. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treat- Mann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010). Assessing risk for Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 377-395.
ment, 22, 266-278. sexual recidivism: Some proposals on the nature of psychologically Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F., & McWhinnie, A. J. (2009a). Circles of Support
Hanson, R. K., Bourgon, G., Helmus, L., & Hodgson, S. (2009). The meaningful risk factors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and & Accountability: A Canadian national replication of outcome findings.
principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexu- Treatment, 22, 191-217. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research & Treatment, 21, 412-430.
al offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, Marlatt, G. A. (1998). Harm reduction: Pragmatic strategies for manag- Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F., Picheca, J. E., Stirpe, T. S., & Nunes, K. (2009b).
865-891. ing high-risk behaviors. New York: Guilford Press. Community-based sexual offender maintenance treatment program-
Hanson, R. K. & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A me- Marshall, W. L., Marshall, L. E., Serran, G. A., & O’Brien, M. D. (2011). ming: An evaluation. (Research Report R-188). Ottawa, ON: Correc-
ta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Con- Rehabilitating sexual offenders: A strength-based approach. tional Service of Canada.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Martinson,
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362. Wilson, R. J., McWhinnie, A. J., & Wilson, C. (2008). Circles of Support
R. (1974). Nothing works: Questions and answers about prison
Hanson, R. K., Harris, A. J. R., Scott, T. L., & Helmus, L. (2007). As- & Accountability: An international partnership in reducing sexual
reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.
sessing the risk of sexual offenders on community supervision: The offender recidivism. Prison Service Journal, 138, 26-36.
McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Burchard, B. L., Zeoli, S., & Ellerby,
Dynamic Supervision Project. [User Report 2007-05] Ottawa, ON: Wilson, R. J., & Picheca, J. E. (2005). Circles of Support & Accountabil-
L. (2010). Current practices and emerging trends in sexual abus-
Public Safety Canada.. ity: Engaging the community in sexual offender risk management.
er management: The Safer Society 2009 North American survey.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K.E. (2005). The characteristics of Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. In: B. Schwartz (Ed.), The sex offender, Vol. 5 (pp. 13-1 – 13-23).
persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
McGrath, R. J., Cumming, G. F., Hoke, S.E., & Bonn-Miller, M. O.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E., & Prinzo, M. (2005). Circles of Support &
(2007). Outcomes in a community sex offender treatment pro-
Hanson, R. K., Phenix, A., & Helmus, L. (2009, September). Stat- gram: A comparison between polygraphed and matched non-po- Accountability: An evaluation of the pilot project in South-Central
ic-99(R) and Static-2002(R): How to interpret and report in light of lygraphed offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Ontario. (Research Report R-168). Ottawa, ON: Correctional Ser-
recent research. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Research and Treatment, 19, 381-393. vice of Canada.
Treatment Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sex- Milloy, C. (2003). Six-year follow-up of 135 released sex offenders Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E., & Prinzo, M. (2007a). Evaluating the ef-
ual Abusers, Dallas, TX. Available at www.static99.org (Accessed recommended for commitment under Washington’s sexually vi- fectiveness of professionally-facilitated volunteerism in the com-
September 10, 2013) olent predator law, where no petition was filed. [Document No. munity-based management of high-risk sexual offenders: Part
Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for 07-06-1101] Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public one – Effects on participants and stakeholders. Howard Journal of
sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Policy. Criminal Justice, 46, 289-302.
Human Behavior, 24, 119-136. Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Origi- Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E., & Prinzo, M. (2007b). Evaluating the ef-
Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A nally published by National Institute of Mental Health. Reprinted as fectiveness of professionally-facilitated volunteerism in the com-
simple question. Ottawa, ON: Public Safety and Emergency Pre- Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques munity-based management of high risk sexual offenders: Part two
paredness Canada. by Sage Publications, also 1981. – A comparison of recidivism rates. Howard Journal of Criminal
Justice, 46, 327-337.
Heil, P., Ahlmeyer, S., McCullar, B. & McKee, B. (2000). Integration of Moulden, H. M, & Marshall, W. L. (2009). A hopeful approach to mo-
polygraph testing with sexual offenders in the Colorado Depart- tivating sexual offenders for change. In D. S. Prescott (Ed.), Build- Wilson, R. J. & Yates, P. M. (2009). Effective interventions and the Good
ment of Corrections. Polygraph, 29, 26-35. ing motivation to change in sexual offenders. Brandon, VT: Safer Lives Model: Maximizing treatment gains for sexual offenders. Ag-
Society Press. gression & Violent Behavior, 14, 157-161.
Helmus, L. (2009). Re-norming Static-99 recidivism estimates: Explor-
Prentky, R. A., Janus, E., Barbaree, H. E., Schwartz, B. K., & Kafka, M. Wood, J., & Kemshall, H. (2007). The operation and experience of
ing base rate variability across sex offender samples (Master’s the-
P. (2006). Sexually violent predators in the courtroom: Science on Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). London,
sis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 357-393. UK: Home Office.
(UMI No. MR58443).
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2005). Violent Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2005). Involuntary com-
Huebner, B. M., Bynum, T. S., Rydberg, J., Kras, K., Grommon, E.,
offenders: Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: mitment of sexually violent predators: Comparing state laws. (Doc-
& Pleggenkuhle, B. (2013, July). An evaluation of sex offender
American Psychological Association. ument No. 05-03-1101). Olympia, WA: Author.
residency restrictions in Michigan and Missouri (Document No.
242952). Retrieved September 10, 2013 from National Criminal Saunders, R. & Wilson, C. (2002). Circles of Support and Accountability Yates, P. M., Prescott, D. S., & Ward, T. (2010). Applying the good lives
Justice Research Service website: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf- in the Thames Valley, Interim Report. Reading, UK: Circles-UK. and self-regulation models to sex offender treatment: A practical
files1/nij/grants/242952.pdf Silverman, J. & Wilson, D. (2002). Innocence betrayed: Paedophilia, guide for clinicians. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.
the media and society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Jackson, R. L., Travia, T., & Schneider, J. (October, 2010). Annual sur- „ Author Contact Information
vey of sex offender civil commitment programs. Presented at the Smith, P., Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2002). The effects of prison sen-
Sex Offender Civil Commitment Programs Network Annual Meet- tences and intermediate sanctions on recidivism: General effects
Robin J. Wilson, Ph.D., ABPP
ing, Phoenix, AZ. and individual differences. (Research Report 2002-01). Ottawa,
ON: Solicitor General Canada. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosci-
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New
Thornton, D., Hanson, R. K., & Helmus, L. (2009). Moving beyond the ences
York: Random House.
standard model for actuarial assessment for sexual offenders. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
Långström, N., Enebrink, P., Laurén, E. M., Lindblom, J., Werkö, S.,
Available at http://www.static99.org/pdfdocs/thorntonhanson-
& Hanson, R. K. (2013, August 12). Preventing sexual abusers Wilson Psychological Services LLC
helmus2009.pdf. (Accessed September 10, 2013)
of children from reoffending: Systematic review of medical and 4047 Bee Ridge Road, Suite C
Willis, G. M. & Grace, R. C. (2008). The quality of community reinte-
psychological interventions. BMJ, 13, 347:f4630. Doi: doi: http:// gration planning for child molesters: Effects on sexual recidivism. Sarasota, FL 34233
dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f4630
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, 218-240. [email protected]
Laws, D. R. (1989). Relapse prevention with sex offenders. NY: Guilford
Willis, G. M. & Grace, R. C. (2009). Assessment of community reinte-
Press. Andrew J. McWhinnie, M.A.
gration planning for sex offenders: Poor planning predicts recidi-
Levenson, J. S., & D’Amora, D. A. (2007). Social policies designed vism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 494-512. Andrew McWhinnie Consulting
to prevent sexual violence: The emperor’s new clothes? Criminal Wilson, R. J. (2009). Treatment readiness and comprehensive treat- 3910 Wilkinson Road
Justice Policy Review, 18, 168-199. ment programming: How do we ensure preparation for and com-
Victoria, BC
Levenson, J. S., & Prescott, D. S. (2009). Treatment experiences of mitment to change in persons who have sexually offended? In D.
Canada, V8Z 5A2
civilly committed sex offenders: A consumer satisfaction survey. S. Prescott (Ed.), Building motivation to change in sexual offenders.
Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 6-20. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press. [email protected]