The Effectiveness of Sexual Offender Treatment for Juveniles as Measured by Recidivism: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

Published and unpublished data from nine studies on juvenile sexual offender treatment effectiveness were summarized by meta-analysis (N=2986, 2604 known male). Recidivism rates for sexual, non-sexual violent, non-sexual non-violent crimes, and unspecified non-sexual were as follows: 12.53%, 24.73%, 28.51%, and 20.40%, respectively, based on an average 59-month follow-up period. Four included studies contained a control group (n=2288) and five studies included a comparison treatment group (n=698). An average weighted effect size of 0.43 (CI=0.33-0.55) was obtained, indicating a statistically significant effect of treatment on sexual recidivism. However, individual study characteristics (e.g., handling of dropouts and non-equivalent follow-up periods between treatment groups) suggest that results should be interpreted with caution. A comparison of odds ratios by quality of study design indicated that higher quality designs yielded better effect sizes, though the difference between groups was not significant.

Effect of treatment on sex offenders’ recidivism: a meta-analysis.

“…Violent recidivism: 25.5% vs. 29.1%; p < .01. General recidivism: 46.53% vs. 52.41%; p < .001); results highly similar to those obtained in prior meta-analyses (Reitzel & Carbonell, 2006;Schmucker & Lösel, 2015), although based solely on recent studies (from 2004 to 2014). Following Herrero (2013), we can confirm that re-offending sex offenders who commit new sexual offences (15.30%), constitute a minority within this type of crime.…”

“…Moreover, Reitzel and Carbonell (2006) analyzed the data from nine studies conducted between 1975 and 2003 on the effectiveness of psychological treatment on juvenile sex offenders. Treatment effect on sexual recidivism rates was statistically significant (7.37% in treated subjects vs. 18.93% in the control groups); the effect size obtained was r = .43 (95% CI = .33 -.55).…”

“…Some reviews have concluded that treatment reduces the risk of recidivism of such subjects (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus & Hodgson, 2009;Reitzel & Carbonell, 2006;, while others state that the evidence is not sufficient to reach such conclusions (Dennis et al, 2012;Grønnerød, Grønnerød & Grøndahl, 2015); all of the latter obviating a clear need for more and better studies -randomized controlled trials and high-quality quasi-experimental studies, especially outside North America (Schmucker & Lösel, 2015).…”

Confronting Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse

“…youth do have future arrests, they are far more likely to be for nonsexual crimes such as property or drug offenses than for sex crimes (Alexander, 1999;Caldwell, 2002;Reitzel and Carbonell, 2007). These empiri cal findings contrast with popular thought and widely publicized anecdotal cases that disproportionately portray incidences of sex crime recidivism.…”

“…They must conduct investigations and manage juvenile offend ers in a way that best prevents reoffending. Fortunately, several intervention strate gies have proven effective in reducing recidivism among teenage sex offenders, and communities should acquaint them selves with these approaches (Borduin and Schaeffer, 2001;Reitzel and Carbonell, 2007;Letourneau et al, 2009). Good results have also been reported across a number of short-term interventions with juvenile offenders younger than age 12 (Chaffin et al, 2008).…”