Jail programs had little effect on whether freed inmates re-offended, new study shows

3-31-2004 Canada:

VANCOUVER -- Treating sex offenders in custody for their deviant urges has little impact on whether they go on to commit sex crimes -- or other offences -- after they're freed, according to a new study.

The study, which is sure to reignite the debate about whether sex offenders can ever be safely rehabilitated, traced a group of 724 sex offenders serving federal prison terms in British Columbia beginning in the early 1980s. Of these, 403 received treatment, while 321 did not.

After 12 years, the criminals who underwent a treatment program in jail had slightly lower repeat records, but the differences were so negligible that researchers said they had no significance.

For example, 21.1 per cent of sex offenders who received treatment went on to commit another sex crime, compared with 21.8 per cent of those who were not treated.

Another 42.9 per cent of treated criminals committed violent crimes after release, compared with 44.5 per cent for offenders with no treatment. For other crimes, the repeat rate was 56.6 per cent for treated offenders versus 60.4 per cent for those who weren't counselled.

"It is reasonable to conclude that the overall [treatment] program did not have any meaningful effect on recidivism rates," said the study, co-authored by psychologist Karl Hanson and published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Studies. "We still have much to learn about how best to intervene with sexual offenders."

The study could be viewed as a blow to the professionals who provide treatment to sex offenders in Canadian prisons, where the conventional wisdom has been that treatment works. The new study paints a bleaker picture of whether treatment has a positive impact.

As early as this year, federal statistics said treatment for sex offenders reduced that sexual recidivism rate from 17 per cent to 10 per cent.

Right now, there are just over 3,000 inmates in federal institutions whose primary crime is a sex offence. And while treatment isn't mandatory, it's often part of an inmate's "correction plan" written for an offender as he starts his sentence. Since the late 1980s, however, sex offenders in B.C. have been required to undergo treatment before they're released.

According to Correctional Service Canada statistics, 40 per cent of sex offenders are in treatment and 20 per cent are on a waiting list.

However, there's never been scientific proof that treatment works. For years there have been debates among law enforcers, social workers, treatment providers and academics about the effectiveness of treating sex offenders.

For academics, the main problem has always been finding random subjects to study. They provide the most statistically sound outcomes, but they're hard to find in the criminal justice system, and sex offenders, because they're a small group, are harder to come by. Many offenders who don't receive treatment have refused it.

If that person goes on to reoffend, it's not clear if it's because he didn't receive treatment or because he was not motivated to change in the first place.

Mr. Hanson said the new survey provides a more accurate picture because the inmates who did not receive treatment were randomly selected from an era when treatment wasn't required as part of a B.C.'s sex offenders correction plan.

However, he added, the news isn't all bad. Treatment programs today in Canadian prisons are more sophisticated than the programs available when his subjects were incarcerated.

Now, prisons tailor programs for sex offenders to address deviant behaviour. They also identify an offender's level of risk to the community.

"The moral of this particular article is that even though we think these [new programs] are likely to be better, we need to do the evaluations to make sure we're not fooling ourselves again."

The study followed a group of male prisoners released between 1980 and 1992. All the men were serving federal prison terms for a sex offence, meaning their sentences were longer than two years. ..more.. by Column courtesy The Globe & Mail © worldwide 2004