In a recent study by Moon & Shivy, treatment manner amongst clinicians who provided treatment to sex offenders who were under community supervision were conducted (2008). The participants that are used in this study are the ten treatment providers and nine probation and parole officers who are conducting treatment and supervision to the sex offenders within the Southeastern state (Moon & Shivy, 2008). The seven domains to conduct the effectiveness of the treatment were used to round data (Moon & Shivy, 2008). Along with the nine probation and parole officers supervising the sex offenders were interviewed by using the six domains. (Moon & Shivy, 2008).
The results of this study conclude that there are many differences between the treatment providers and the probations and parole officers conducting supervision to these sex offenders.
It was found that cognitive-behavioral therapy was effective on the side of provider exposure to the treatment that was being monitored. It was also found that the biggest predictor of recidivism of sex offenders is that the offenders tend to be less social and deviant to sex (Moon & Shivy, 2008). It was found that the victim empathy was not able to be compared to sexual recidivism. Another conclusion was that the treatment providers do not take advantage of supervision opportunity as a whole in order to help with treatment. Such as conferences and training experiences. The overall finding of this study is that sex offender treatment should consist of both a monitoring purpose and a treatment-oriented purpose, not just one (Moon & Shivy, 2008). More so, it is important to have open communication within the supervision of sex offenders.
Next, Witt, Greenfield, & Hiscox conducted a study analyzing the overview of psychotherapeutic treatment conflicts of adult sex offenders (2008). It goes into detail about psychotherapeutic and cognitive-behavioral approaches that work within sex offender treatment and the various ways that it can be effective. The approaches and modules in the study consist of the following: the treatment approach, the cognitive-behavioral treatment, the relapse prevention approach, and the institutional programs modules (Witt, Greenfield, & Hiscox, 2008). This study attempts to help the sex offenders to identify and explore the extent to their offenses which help them understand what they have committed is not humanly moral.
Browse this source to find your unique essay sample: https://newyorkessays.com/
More so, the variety of modules of the cognitive-behavioral approach treatment help them receive treatment for many things. Such as setting primary personal goals, allowing them to identify responsibilities, and positive emotional states (Witt, Greenfield, & Hiscox, 2008). This study used many common scales to identity different clinical dimensions. Such as Sex Offender Treatment Rating Scale (SOTRS), Goal Attainment Scale (GAS), Treatment Progress Scale (TPS), and Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offenders Recidivism ( RRASOR). These scales help find the consistency of effectiveness of treatment for sex offenders. They collect the various characteristics traits of sex offenders measurements to find what is needed to create the most effective treatment approach to reduce recidivism.
The findings of this study consist of bringing together the approach used to treat sex offenders and what that approach advances to show effectiveness. It was found that cognitive-behavioral treatment was to be most successful for sex offender (Witt, Greenfield, & Hiscox, 2008). Within, the Institutional Program Modules, it found a lot of effective training techniques to improve the educational aspect of the treatment. It is important to have sex offenders education on their actions and behaviors because most offenders are weakly education about human sexuality and sex education alone (Witt, Greenfield, & Hiscox, 2008).
Another finding was within the Anger Management approach, most offenders are violent with their victims so, it is important to show sex offender how to express their anger the correct way. Another important approach that was shown to be effective is Social Skills Training. It was found that sex offenders frequently have impaired capacity for emotional intimacy, which this training helps them have social interaction and ability to relate to others (Witt, Greenfield, & Hiscox, 2008).
Overall, within the approach of cognitive-behavioral treatment helps them focus on the development of positive life goals rather than bringing the negative emotions back into their thought process. Amongst the effective findings in the recidivism and treatment needs, there is a mix of difficulties in the measurements. Such as the “definition of recidivism”, unreported sex crimes, and attrition.
Following that study, another research was conducted by Collie, Ward, & Vess, analyzed the importance of psychological assessment and case formulation in the rehabilitation and management of individuals of sexual offenses (2008). In this study, they focus on four major points in the importance of sex offender treatment. First, it begins by focusing on the Evidence-Based Assessment and Clinical Reason. In this, it is typically for detecting and explaining the patterns of sex offenders offenses. More so, they want you to understand the risk of future offending, rehabilitation needs, risk management, treatment progress and current risk issues (Collie, Ward, & Vess, 2008).
Mainly, it is to collect information about the sex offender and understand their case. Secondly, the key elements of sexual offender theory that outlines the heterogeneity evident among sex offenders (Collie, Ward, & Vess, 2008). It is crucial to understand why these individuals commit the crimes that they do so, understanding the theories behind them are important. Along with the formulation of the case and treatment planning needs. The third major point, to understand and discuss the role of case formulation of risk assessment. The last major point in finding the importance of sex offender treatment is to dissect the case and the value of the consideration of treatment
(Collie, Ward, & Vess, 2008).
The results of this study conclude many approaches to understanding the sexual recidivism and offense process of sex offenders over time (Collie, Ward, & Vess, 2008). The most effective approach that helps find all key factors and elements to the importance of recidivism in sex offenders was the Relapse Prevention (RP), Model. Along with the Self-Regulation Model (SRM), which helps better, the understanding of sexual goals and self-regulation styles in their lives (Collie, Ward, & Vess, 2008). It helps evaluate the motivations, goals, and skills within the sex offender’s life.
Another finding is that to complete effective treatment, the use of Risk Assessment is valuable. It helps provide the right treatment for each sex offender for a certain treatment for them. Overall, the finding concluded that sexual offender treatment does not only help with using one form of approach for treatment but multiple approaches to creating the most effective treatment for sex offenders to reduce recidivism. It is most important to know the level of the offender and the treatment needs to create the most effective form.
Another research conducted by McGrath, Lasher, & Cumming, examined dynamic risks among adult male sex offenders and their change with intervals during treatment using The Sex Offender Treatment Intervention and Progress Scale (SOTIPS) (2012). The main reason to conduct this study was to examine the psychometric properties using male sex offenders who were under supervision at a correctional facility. This study consist of using the SOTIPS and Static-99 risk assessment to collect data on sexual, violent, and criminal reoffending factors (McGrath, Lasher & Cumming, 2012). The SOTIPS consist of trying to find if the offenders show a statistically significant relationship to sexual recidivism. This scale was scored on a 4-point scale consisting what type of improvement they needed. The Static-99 was used to measure the recidivism risk.
The findings of this study consist of the measurements used from both the SOTIPS and Static-99 scales. The SOTIPS was able to show that sex offender overtime showed lower rates of recidivism than those who did not. Along with that, it was seen that the top three components that show a statistically significant relationship to recidivism was Sexual Deviance, Criminality, and Social Stability and Support. As it was predicted, both of these scales were able to find that sex offender who is violent are more likely to have higher recidivism rates. More so, the treatment needs would need to be evaluated by what type of community they would be placed in correspondence to the level of risk they are to offend again.
Next, Marques, Day, Nelson, & West examined the effectiveness of cognitive-behavior treatment on sex offender recidivism (1994). Their study contained three main groups to collect the treatment program effectiveness for sex offenders, those groups were the treatment group, a volunteer control group, and non-volunteer control group. This study begins with using the method of the Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Project (SOTEP). That entails having two goals: to develop the treatment and to the evaluation of treatment (Marques, Day, Nelson, & West, 1994). Along with that, the treatment program used the Relapse Prevention Framework for this study. The major issues that helped develop this study include the following: comparison groups, recidivism measures, attrition, and statistical methods (Marques, Day, Nelson, & West, 1994).
The results of this study tend to be obvious to what they wanted to find, which was that this treatment showed little of recidivism in both sex crimes and other violent crimes. Since that seemed to be the outcome of the study, it certainly does not show the effectiveness of the treatment program itself (Marques, Day, Nelson, & West, 1994).
For what can be taken from this article is to find sufficient data on sex offender treatment effectiveness is that their needs to be more addressing information to methodological issues. It seems that the findings of this study are that it was not able to conduct the effectiveness of the treatment program but, it was able to analyze the recidivism rates.
Olver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk conducted a study to evaluate the outcome of high-intensity of inpatient sex offender recidivism rates (2009). This program was used throughout the time incarcerated in a correctional treatment called the Clearwater Program. It used the cognitive-behavioral approach for a six to nine month period. The program only allowed sex offenders who had a minimum of two years in the correctional facility. The observed the sex offenders by using the Cox regression survival analyses (Olver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk, 2009). With separating them the groups of the sex offenders in untreated and treated groups.
It seems that in the finding of this research that it shows that there is no recidivism for sex offender in sexual offense (Olver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk, 2009). It has been noticeable that through most research for the recidivism outcome in sex offender treatment that there is a low rate of sexual recidivism. It was interesting to find that when sex offenders are being treated that their rates are slightly lower than untreated sex offenders. It was obvious to see that the dropout rates for this research were higher than most other researches (Olver, Wong, & Nicholaichuk, 2009). Overall it appears that there are lower rates for treated sex offenders for receiving treatment while being incarcerated and having the opportunity to begin treatment before reintegrating into society.
In another study, it was studied through the recidivism rate of sex offenders who were referred to a prison-based cognitive-behavioral treatment program conducted by McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke., (2003). By using two actuarial measure, RRASOR and Static-99, collect the pretreatment risk for sexual reoffending (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke., 2003). These measurement intertwine each other by making up ten items of the sex offenders risks of recidivism (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke., 2003). The participants that were used for this study were adult males who were in closed units within medium security correctional facilities.
It could be concluded from the findings of this study were quite similar between groups. The found recidivism rates all connected with new charges that were not only sexual but, violent and other offenses (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke., 2003). It was shown that sex offenders who were able to complete the treatment were less likely to be charged for committing a new sexual offense than the other sex offenders who dropped out, refused treatment, or offenders who were terminated from the treatment (McGrath, Cumming, Livingston, & Hoke., 2003). Even though sex offender who reoffended could offender for any time of the offense, offenders who completed treatment are at lower rates of reoffending for sexual offenses. Overall, reduction to sexually reoffending for sex offenders was seen when completed the treatment from the correctional facilities.
In older research, the prediction of treatment completion and outcome of adult sex offender were conducted by Shaw, Herkov, & Greer (1995). It used certain variables that were used to predict treatment outcome in outpatient sex offender programs. The measurement that were used was demographic characteristics of the sex offender inabilities (Shaw, Herkov, & Greer, 1995). Following that is the outcomes that were conducted in this research. The first outcome predicted was offenders who were rejected from the program from the beginning. The second outcome predicted was offenders who dropped out of the treatment. The last outcome predicted was the offenders who completed the program.
The findings within the three groups with support the variables to evaluate if the prediction of the outcome of sex offender treatment is effective. It showed that offenders that completed the treatment program had the better reading ability then offenders who had been rejected or dropped out of the program (Shaw, Herkov, & Greer, 1995). It seems that if the sex offender is married while going through this treatment program reflects a more positive outcome to the program in many ways. Such as, having a better support system, having someone to return to after the program, and having a relationship shows to have better interpersonal skills (Shaw, Herkov, & Greer, 1995). Overall, it seems that personal attributes to the sex offenders related positively on the outcome of treatment programs.
In this study, it was conducted by Levenson, Prescott & D’Amora, examine sex offenders’ perceptions of treatment and the role treatment plays in their criminal sexual behavior (2010). This research was conducted by handing out a survey to collect information on the satisfaction of treatment for sex offenders. The question was found from previous researchers and a mixture of some new ones. The findings were conducted by separating certain domains to find the satisfaction of treatment.
The first domain was to find the importance of treatment from the view of one’s recovery using 18 items to create findings. Along with a second area asking 5 questions on the importance of group process using a Process Importance subscale (Levenson, Prescott & D’Amora, 2010). The second domain consists of using a Likert-type scale asking a question to relate to their treatment satisfaction. The third domain was created to measure satisfaction with program modules. For example, group therapy versus individual therapy. Along with those domains, there was another instrument created to measure the concurrence of satisfaction and the level of engagement(Levenson, Prescott & D’Amora, 2010).
The finding in this study consist of the correlation of importance and satisfaction within the differences and relationships of treatment. It seems to be that sex offender’ viewed their responsibility, victim impact, and comprehending offense triggers as important items to considering while being treated (Levenson, Prescott & D’Amora, 2010). Furthermore, in domain two, it was found that it was more important to get support and help others rather than confrontation in a group setting (Levenson, Prescott & D’Amora, 2010). Lastly, it was founded that the less important items in the satisfaction of treatment were in life skills, sexuality, and controlling sexual compulsivity. Overall, it seems that the outcome in the sex offender eyes is exactly what the therapist wants to overcome for these individuals. It also seems that sometimes the therapist is focusing more on basic skills than actually treating the sex offender for the treatment they need (Levenson, Prescott & D’Amora, 2010).
In relation to the article above, Langton, et al., conducted a study that examined the relationship between the recidivism and response to cognitive-behavioral treatment that takes place in a prison setting (2006). This study was measured by The Psychopathy Checklist-Revisited, which is understood by developmental assessment designed to pick up psychopathic personality traits. To conducted the responses to treatment the researchers used “The Response to Treatment scale-Treatment Behavior scale”, this scale reviewed and developed the attendance and participant within the treatment the sex offenders are receiving (Langton, et al., 2006). Majority of this was completed within a five-month treatment program. Overall, the predictions of responses were examined using two predictors. Such as serious recidivism and sexual recidivism. Moreover, it was conducted to see the significances of sexual and serious recidivism in relation to psychopathy.
Furthermore, this treatment discussed the following: cognitive-behavioral, cognitive restructuring techniques, modeling, and role-play following the well-known Relapse Prevention Model. This study completely failed to have effective findings. It showed that there has to be treatment progress in later follow-up programs not in just a few scales (Langton, et al., 2006). Many limitations were found in this study. It showed that methodological issues were major in the management of the cases. More so, it is difficult to have findings of sex offender treatment because there is many different cases and seriousness to the cases (Langton, et al., 2006). The ratings of the response to sex offender treatment failed to have the prediction of the predictors of serious or sexual recidivism (Langton, et al., 2006). This study shows that you have to dig deeper to find the response to sex offender treatment since there were no significant findings regarding the relationship between serious and sexual recidivism and psychopathy.