Wednesday, February 28, 2007

More NCJRS Abstracts, February 28, 2007--Sex Offender Research, Part One


NCJ 217125
Gregory A. Parks ; David E. Bard
Risk Factors for Adolescent Sex Offender Recidivism: Evaluation of Predictive Factors and Comparison of the Three Groups Based Upon Victim Type
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Volume:18 Issue:4 Dated:October 2006 Pages:319 to 342

Results indicated higher overall risk scores for mixed type juvenile sex offenders on all scales included in the study. Few differences in risk factors were found between offenders against children and offenders against peers/adults, which is a departure from previous research that had indicated significant differences between these two groups. Offenders against peers/adults demonstrated low levels of sexual preoccupation compared to the other two groups, suggesting that this type of sexual offense is often opportunistic in nature. Offenders who victimized children and offenders who victimized peers/adults exhibited similar levels of nonsexual delinquency. Offenders who victimized both types of victims had the most extensive history of problem behaviors compared to the other two groups of offenders. Mixed type offenders also exhibited significantly greater deficits in affective characteristics than offenders against children and offenders against peers/adults. In terms of sexual recidivism, offenders against peers/adults had recidivism rates over twice that of offenders against children. No significant differences between these two groups were found for nonsexual recidivism. The findings suggest that most juvenile sex offenders do not reoffend. Restrictive treatment options are best targeted at the highest risk offenders. Participants were 156 male juvenile sex offenders in a secure correctional facility in Oklahoma who had enrolled in the sex offender treatment program and were discharged between 1992 and 2004. Participants were divided into one of the three offender groups based on their archival file data. Researchers coded risk factors from the offenders’ closed files using the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (JSOAP-II) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). Comparisons between the three groups were made using analysis of variance, survival curve analysis, and Cox regression analysis. Future research should include a larger sample to allow for more complex regression tree analyses. Tables, footnotes, references

NCJ 217126
R. K. Hanson
Does Static-99 Predict Recidivism Among Older Sexual Offenders?
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment Volume:18 Issue:4 Dated:October 2006 Pages:343 to 355

Findings indicated that the Static-99 was moderately accurate in estimating the relative recidivism risk for the different age groups under examination. Older sexual offenders had lower Static-99 scores than younger sexual offenders. Results also revealed, however, that the older sexual offenders had lower actual recidivism rates than was indicated by their Static-99 scores. Evaluators who use the Static-99 should therefore take into account the overall lower recidivism risk for offenders of advanced age when preparing estimates of risk for older sexual offenders. Researchers analyzed Static-99 scores and recidivism information for eight different samples drawn from previous studies in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom: (1) a Canadian Federal study on sexual offender recidivism; (2) a Canadian Federal--Quebec Region study on sexual offender recidivism; (3) the Millbrook Recidivism Study; (4) the Institut Philippe Pinel study on sexual offender treatment and recidivism; (5) Her Majesty’s Prison Service follow up study on all sexual offenders released in 1979; (6) Washington State’s Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative dataset; (7) the Manitoba Probation risk scale study; and (8) the Dynamic Supervision Project. All 3,425 offenders were adult males. Cox regression analyses were used to examine the combined effects of Static-99 and age. Future research should examine how advanced age impacts the recidivism risk of offenders who grow old in prison. Tables, references

NCJ 217129
Lorraine R. Reitzel ; Joyce L. Carbonell
Effectiveness of Sexual Offender Treatment for Juveniles as Measured by Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment
Volume:18 Issue:4 Dated:October 2006 Pages:401 to 421

Study results indicated a statistically significant effect of sexual offender treatment on juvenile sexual recidivism. Specifically, the sexual recidivism rate of the total sample was 12.5 percent. Rates of sexual recidivism for juvenile sexual offenders were lower than their rates of non-sexual recidivism, which ranged from 20.4 percent to 28.5 percent. These results are consistent with previous research on adult sexual offenders. The authors note that the results should be viewed cautiously due to the characteristics of the individual studies included in the analysis. In particular, the authors note important methodological questions about the handling of treatment dropouts and different follow-up periods within the datasets examined for this analysis. The meta-analysis research method involved computer searches for relevant data published between 1975 and early 2003, which was conducted in several social science and criminal justice databases. Unpublished data on recidivism and treatment outcomes were gathered from over 300 residential and community treatment programs, which were identified through Internet searches, professional organizations, and a mailing list provided by the Safer Society Press. A total of nine published and unpublished studies were identified and included in the analysis. The studies were then coded according to three primary categories: sample descriptors, treatment variables, and recidivism variables. Coding reliability was examined using Cohen’s Kappa and treatment and recidivism outcomes were examined using linear regression models. Future studies should examine differences between the sexual recidivism rates of juveniles versus adults who receive treatment using larger samples and longer follow-up periods. Tables, footnotes, appendix, references

No comments: