The study used a three- to five-year follow-up period, and recidivism in this study was defined as a new felony conviction. The study found a recidivism rate of 8.
Article metrics
This was a statistically significant difference in recidivism for the containment group compared to both comparison groups. The results indicated that the containment sexual offenders returned to prison for any crime at a rate of The comparison group had a similar return-to-prison rate of 9. The researchers hypothesized that the higher return-to-prison rate for the containment sexual offenders was due to increased surveillance and detection provided by the model. It is also important to note that the comparison group in this study all sexual offenders released from prison between and included the sex offenders subject to containment Boone et al.
Three additional research studies on specialized sex offender supervision are worth noting. The results indicated that sexual offenders under community supervision had a sexual recidivism rate of 14 percent based on either a new sexual offense charge or a substantiated sexual offense by child protective services. In comparison, those who were not under supervision had a recidivism rate of 35 percent, leading to the conclusion that specialized supervision resulted in a statistically significant reduction in sexual recidivism 6 McGrath et al.
However, in a contradictory study completed in Illinois, no significant difference in sexual recidivism was found between sex offenders subject and not subject to specialized supervision. The research on the effectiveness of specialized sex offender supervision in conjunction with treatment e. These include a small number of studies, short follow-up periods, small sample sizes, the use of different recidivism measures making cross-study comparisons challenging , little information about the specific elements of the programs that are found to be successful and problems with the scientific rigor of some of the studies including one study where the intervention group was part of the comparison group.
Finally, general issues related to underreporting of sex crimes leads to the problem typically seen in sex offender management research — that is, a low base rate for sexual recidivism, which limits the ability to achieve significant differences between the intervention and comparison groups. Research limitations include short follow-up periods, small sample sizes, different recidivism measures and problems with scientific rigor. On the other hand, the research on the effectiveness and limitations of generalized intensive supervision for all criminal offenders, particularly when combined with a treatment component, is much more extensive based on a number of large-scale research studies.
In terms of future research directions, it is recommended that research using rigorous scientific methods be encouraged and supported. Comparison studies with large sample sizes and longer follow-up periods should be conducted on the effectiveness of specialized supervision in conjunction with treatment for sexual offenders. Finally, it would be beneficial for future research to identify not only the effect of the intervention, but also the program components that appear to be most beneficial and the mechanisms by which successful outcomes are achieved.
There is empirical support for the use of intensive supervision with criminal offenders in conjunction with a rehabilitative treatment approach, and some preliminary support for specialized sexual offender supervision models such as the containment approach that are delivered in conjunction with treatment. However, there is no research support for the use of intensive or specialized supervision either in isolation or without treatment for either population.
Given the above, the SOMAPI forum participants recommended that jurisdictions should use specialized supervision with a rehabilitation orientation as one component of an overall sex offender management strategy. The COSA model is a supervision strategy involving the use of community volunteers to provide support to an individual sex offender. COSA assists offenders in garnering community resources while holding them accountable to their self-monitoring plan, typically following completion of legal supervision.
This program was first developed in Canada but has since been implemented in the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Catalonia, Bulgaria and Latvia, with a total of circles identified to date in the literature Clarke et al. Currently, there are U. The COSA model has been the subject of several studies, including a number of single studies evaluating COSA's effectiveness in reducing recidivism one of which was a randomized controlled trial , one systematic review of the research, two cost-benefit analyses and surveys of sexual offender participants and public member volunteers.
The study found a 5 percent sexual recidivism rate defined as a new sex crime charge or conviction for the COSA group and a In a second Canadian study, the recidivism rates for 44 high-risk sex offenders participating in COSA were compared to those for a matched comparison group of 44 high-risk sex offenders who did not participate in COSA using a month follow-up period.
The study found that the COSA group sexually recidivated at a 2. However, COSA participants did have a significantly lower level of any rearrest than non-participants The United Kingdom COSA model is slightly different than the model that has been implemented in Canada, in that sexual offenders in the program are still under legal supervision. Based on a month follow-up period, the study found a significant reduction in sexual contact or violent reconviction for COSA participants compared to nonparticipants 0 percent vs. The authors described the results related to noncontact sex offenses for COSA participants from a harm reduction perspective in that the recidivistic crimes were less harmful and invasive than their pre-program participation offenses Bates et al.
In addition to the single studies described above, a systematic review of the research on COSA was completed by Clarke and colleagues in They noted a total of 15 COSA studies including one randomized controlled trial, three retrospective cohorts with matched controls and 11 case series case studies from the United Kingdom nine , Canada three , United States two and Netherlands one.
The authors summarized the research on COSA as not currently showing a significant reduction in sexual reconviction or recidivism, but demonstrating harm reduction in recidivism with the new offense being less severe than the index offense, a reduction in the time to recidivism, some evidence of general recidivism reduction and having a positive return on investment Clarke et al.
- dallas county criminal case look up.
- arrest records information investigative access database.
- how to find arrest information free.
- Making Sex Offenders Pay - and Pay and Pay and Pay (Ep. ) - Freakonomics Freakonomics.
- polk county florida records of birth.
Positive impacts included increased self-esteem, a sense of contributing to community safety and greater support for restorative justice practices and treatment for sex offenders. However, participation in COSA also negatively impacted community volunteers through stress about the offender's risk and challenges related to dealing with the difficult behavior of sex offenders, as well as negative familial and societal reactions about their COSA volunteer work Hoing et al.
Regarding the outcomes from single studies, while the results regarding COSA effectiveness thus far have been positive, only four studies have employed a comparison group one randomized controlled trial and these studies had relatively small sample sizes. In addition, the relatively short follow-up periods are a challenge for these studies. Finally, only one study has been completed in the United States, while the other three studies were in Canada and the United Kingdom, where polygraph is not used routinely to corroborate disclosure and accountability.
As a result, generalization to the United States is still in question. Therefore, future research should include larger samples sizes, sex offenders from multiple jurisdictions in the United States and longer follow-up periods. Regarding survey results, limitations include small response rates and sample sizes, leading to possible self-selection bias, and therefore, any conclusions must be considered tentative and in need of confirmation.
COSA studies thus far have demonstrated some positive results. While further use of the model is encouraged, implementation should occur in conjunction with rigorous evaluation. Far more high-quality research is needed before the efficacy and effectiveness of COSA with sexual offenders can be firmly established. The strength of the model is that it uses community resources for sex offender management and can be used in the absence of court supervision.
The use of polygraph assessment with sexual offenders is a somewhat more controversial management strategy than the others described thus far.
Essays in Economics of Crime
It is important to note that the containment approach — described above — includes polygraph testing as part of a comprehensive supervision and treatment strategy. This approach is premised on the assumption that the information disclosed via polygraph enhances the ability to create an individualized treatment and supervision plan. Three different types of polygraphs are used with sexual offenders: a specific-incident exam that focuses on the sexual offense conviction or other specific offenses or behaviors, a sexual-history exam that explores the offender's history of sexual offending behavior and a maintenance exam that reviews the offender's compliance with supervision and treatment conditions.
While the extent of polygraph use in the management of sexual offenders is difficult to document, there is some evidence that polygraph use has increased since the mids. Similarly, in a survey of state officials prison, community treatment, reentry and community supervision , less than 50 percent of the respondents reported polygraph use in prison-based treatment Daly, According to the Council of State Governments , the following states were using polygraph testing in the management of sexual offenders: Colorado, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Texas.
Evidence that polygraph use has increased since the mids also comes from a survey of U.
Article Metrics
Research on polygraph use can be broken down into the following content areas: impact on disclosure, impact on sexual offender recidivism, impact on supervision professionals, impact on sexual offenders and test validity. Results of multiple research studies across various jurisdictions indicate that using polygraphs with sexual offenders leads to additional disclosures. Reported increases in offender disclosure based on polygraph include the number of victims, offenses and offense categories Ahlmeyer et al. It should be noted that no comparison group was used in this study; hence, attributing the disclosures directly to the use of the polygraph is problematic.
Increases in the number of victims disclosed via polygraph ranged from an initial self-report of one victim to 11— The rate of polygraph-aided disclosure was higher than the rate for offender self-reports Gannon et al. Finally, results of polygraph disclosure research indicated a large number of sanctions and changes in the case plan for offenders English et al.
Polygraph disclosure research undertaken to date has been based on relatively small sample sizes. There also was no corroboration of the disclosures made, allowing for the possibility of false admissions and an overstating of the number of victims. However, many polygraph disclosure studies also note that, given the deceptive polygraph results, there is also a possibility that the true incidence of offending behavior is underreported. This makes the interpretation of disclosure research findings difficult.
Perhaps most importantly, most of the disclosure studies lacked comparison groups so it is not possible to know with certainty that the polygraph was responsible for the new disclosures. Further, many of these studies are limited to one state or jurisdiction, with only one study encompassing four states, raising questions about the generalizability of findings to other jurisdictions. Finally, the fact that the polygraph was voluntary in one study suggests the possibility that the results may have been different had all offenders completed the assessment.
Future research on polygraph disclosures is clearly needed and it should include matched comparison groups and larger samples.
Follow evidence, not gut feeling, on sex offenders
Disclosure studies spanning multiple jurisdictions are also needed. As noted in the "Specialized Supervision" section above, the research results for sexual offenders subject to polygraph testing as part of the containment approach typically demonstrated lower levels of recidivism than sexual offenders not subject to this intervention Aytes et al. However, in a study conducted by McGrath and colleagues , no significant differences in sexual recidivism between polygraphed and nonpolygraphed sex offenders were found.
In that study, the recidivism rates of sex offenders subject to polygraph testing were compared with those of a group of matched sex offenders not subject to polygraph testing. The recidivism rate based on sexual recidivism charges was 5. However, there was a significant difference between the two groups in violent recidivism operationalized as a new violent crime charge. The violent recidivism rate for those offenders subject to polygraph was 2. The limitations cited for the specialized supervision research, and in particular the containment approach, hold for the polygraph research as well.
- Centre releases National Registry of Sexual Offenders.
- Table of contents;
- Citation Tools;
- nc foreclosed property free search.
- The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending.
- Language selection;
- douglas county nebraska death records.
Indeed, the only study that specifically looked at recidivism related to sexual offenders subject to polygraph, compared to those who were not, showed no significant difference in the rate of sexual recidivism. However, this study acknowledged that several issues may have confounded the study results, including the small sample size, potential selection bias in that probation officers decided who would take the polygraph and the infrequency of polygraph testing.
Hence, the study conducted by McGrath and colleagues should be replicated using a larger sample size, matched comparison groups and program features that reduce the probability of selection bias and maintain the integrity of the polygraph treatment.
Internet Sexual Offenders
Studies examining the impact of polygraph testing on recidivism in different jurisdictions are also needed. In another survey, more than 80 percent of the offender manager respondents reported that the results of a specific polygraph examination were a useful tool for offender supervision Gannon et al. Other surveys of service providers have found similar positive results. For example, in one survey, 96 percent of the respondents reported that the polygraph was helpful McGrath et al. In the same survey, 80 percent of the providers who responded reported that having one group member take a polygraph test positively impacted other group members Tubman-Carbone, Research on the perceived impact of the polygraph by sex offenders themselves is extremely limited.
One study that examined this was conducted by Kokish, Levenson and Blasingame Most of the limitations commonly found with survey data apply to the above studies. For more on general limitations of sex offender research, see the "Limitations of the Data" section of Chapter 1 , "Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Offending," in the Adult section. In addition, the answers provided by sex offenders under supervision may be subject to distortion because offenders may try to give a socially desirable response or portray themselves in a sympathetic light.
One of the significant critiques of the polygraph is that it does not produce valid results. While this chapter only addresses the issue of test validity very briefly, readers are directed to the National Research Council report titled The Polygraph and Lie Detection for additional information. Its key research findings regarding test validity follow:. Research suggests that polygraph testing increases offender disclosure across multiple offending or behavior categories, including historical and current offending and high-risk behavior.