Sex Offender Treatment Priority: An Illustration of the Risk/Need Principle

• NCJ Number: 166761
• Journal: Forum Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (May 1996) Pages: 30-32
• Author(s): T P Nicholaichuk
• Date Published: 1996
• Length: 3 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: Canada

Annotation

This study contrasts outcome (recidivism) research on two Saskatchewan (Canada) sex offender treatment programs and draws implications for treatment programming.

Abstract

One program is for provincially incarcerated offenders, and the other operates at the Federal maximum-security Regional Psychiatric Centre. The two programs are of similar intensity; however, the provincially incarcerated offender arguably needs less intensive treatment, since federally incarcerated sex offenders tend to commit more serious crime, have greater needs, and present greater risk. Both treatment programs focus on relapse prevention and operate in a group format to help offenders recognize high-risk situations, overcome rationalizations and denial, and assume responsibility for their offenses. A total of 26 inmates in the provincial sex offender treatment program during the study period were included in the study. A comparison group was created from a sample of men who had been incarcerated for similar types of sex offenses in Saskatchewan during the study period. Recidivism data were obtained from Canadian Police Information Centre database records The average follow-up period for the treatment group was 31.2 months, and the average follow-up for the comparison group was 28.8 months. The findings for the provincial group showed that although treatment apparently improved offender emotional states and social functioning, these changes were not associated with recidivism. The study of the offender sample at the Regional Psychiatric Centre yielded different results after a 3-year follow-up, the treatment group had a 59 percent lower sexual recidivism rate than the comparison group. Based on these findings, the study concludes that sex offenders in their 30's with no previous sex offenses, a limited history of non-sex offenses, and a sentence of less than 2 years should receive low- intensity, low-cost programming. More intensive programming should be reserved for the more difficult offenders, who can benefit from it more than the low-risk offenders. 1 table and 7 footnotes