Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:23 pm
Time: 10:23 pm
Results for sex offender treatment programs
5 results foundAuthor: Smallbone, Stephen Title: Outcomes of Queensland Corrective Services Sexual Offender Treatment Programs Summary: The authors were engaged by Queensland Corrective Services (QCS) in March 2009 to conduct an independent outcome evaluation of QCS prison-based sexual offender programs. The evaluation set out to answer two main questions: 1. do QCS sexual offender programs produce discernable and intended therapeutic effects, and 2. do these programs produce positive effects on recidivism? The evaluation also set out to answer a number of secondary questions, namely: 1. does the effectiveness of treatment vary according to offender characteristics (e.g. for offenders with child versus adult victims; for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders; for higher- or lower-risk offenders), and 2. are treatment effects moderated by post-release circumstances (e.g. release with or without community supervision)? Risk assessment and recidivism data were obtained on 409 adult males who had served a term of imprisonment for a sexual offence, and who were discharged between April 2005 and June 2008. Recidivism data were obtained from searches of QCS and Queensland Police Service records between April 2005 and the ‘census’ date of 14 September 2009. Additional clinical data were obtained on 158 offenders who had completed a treatment program. Time-at-risk ranged from 15 months to 53 months, with an average of 29 months. Intermediate treatment outcomes were analysed by comparing pre- and post-treatment scores on a range of offender- and therapist-reported measures for the treated group (n = 158). Intermediate outcomes are reported in terms of both statistical significance and clinical significance. Longer-term treatment outcomes were analysed by comparing treated (n = 158) and untreated offenders (n = 251) on sexual recidivism, nonsexual violent recidivism, and non-violent recidivism. Because these two groups differed on static risk measures, comparisons are reported with and without statistically controlling for these differences. Details: Brisbane: Queensland Corrective Services, 2010. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 31, 2012 at: http://www.correctiveservices.qld.gov.au/Publications/Corporate_Publications/Reviews_and_Reports/Final%20Report_%20Outcomes%20of%20QCS%20Sexual%20Off%20Treatment%20Program.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.correctiveservices.qld.gov.au/Publications/Corporate_Publications/Reviews_and_Reports/Final%20Report_%20Outcomes%20of%20QCS%20Sexual%20Off%20Treatment%20Program.pdf Shelf Number: 125818 Keywords: Correctional Treatment ProgramsPrison-Based Treatment ProgramsSex Offender Treatment ProgramsSex Offenders (Australia) |
Author: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management Title: Lifetime Supervision of Sex Offenders: Annual Report Summary: The Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), Colorado Department of Public Safety (CDPS) and the State Judicial Department has collaborated to write this Annual Report on lifetime supervision of sex offenders. The report is submitted pursuant to Section 18-1.3-1011, C.R.S.: “On or before November 1, 2000, and on or before each November 1 thereafter, the department of corrections, the department of public safety, and the judicial department shall submit a report to the judiciary committees of the house of representatives and the senate, or any successor committees, and to the joint budget committee of the general assembly specifying, at a minimum: (a) The impact on the prison population, the parole population, and the probation population in the state due to the extended length of incarceration and supervision provided for in sections 18-1.3-1004, 18-1.3-1006, and 18-1.3-1008; (b) The number of offenders placed in the intensive supervision parole program and the intensive supervision probation program and the length of supervision of offenders in said programs; (c) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who received parole release hearings and the number released on parole during the preceding twelve months, if any; (d) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who received parole or probation discharge hearings and the number discharged from parole or probation during the preceding twelve months, if any; (e) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who received parole or probation revocation hearings and the number whose parole or probation was revoked during the preceding twelve months, if any; (f) A summary of the evaluation instruments developed by the management board and use of the evaluation instruments in evaluating sex offenders pursuant to this part 10; (g) The availability of sex offender treatment providers throughout the state, including location of the treatment providers, the services provided, and the amount paid by offenders and by the state for the services provided, and the manner of regulation and review of the services provided by sex offender treatment providers; (h) The average number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 that participated in Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program during each month of the preceding twelve months; (i) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were denied admission to treatment in Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program for reasons other than length of remaining sentence during each month of the preceding twelve months; (j) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were terminated from Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program during the preceding twelve months and the reason for termination in each case; (k) The average length of participation by sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 in Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program during the preceding twelve months; (l) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were denied readmission to Phase I and Phase II of the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program after having previously been terminated from the program during the preceding twelve months; (m) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were recommended by the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program to the parole board for release on parole during the preceding twelve months and whether the recommendation was followed in each case; and (n) The number of sex offenders sentenced pursuant to this part 10 who were recommended by the department's sex offender treatment and monitoring program for placement in community corrections during the preceding twelve months and whether the recommendation was followed in each case.” This report is intended to provide the Colorado General Assembly with information on the thirteenth year of implementation of the Lifetime Supervision Act in Colorado. The report is organized into three sections, one for each of the required reporting departments. Each department individually addresses the information for which it is responsible in implementing lifetime supervision and associated programs. Details: Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management, 2012. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2013 at: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2012%20Lifetime%20Supervision%20Annual%20Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://dcj.state.co.us/odvsom/sex_offender/SO_Pdfs/2012%20Lifetime%20Supervision%20Annual%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 128506 Keywords: Sex Offender SupervisionSex Offender Treatment ProgramsSex Offenders (Colorado, U.S.) |
Author: Robertson, Caroline Title: Current Issues in the Treatment of Sexual Offenders Summary: This thesis investigates the debate around sex offender treatment efficacy. Numerous methods are utilised to explore this topic, including a meta-analysis (N =15,931), empirical research (N =322) and a single case study. Chapter 1 reviews the efficacy of sex offender treatment in relation to study design, treatment type, and treatment setting. Results indicate a positive effect of treatment in reducing both sexual and general recidivism for treated versus untreated offenders. However, treatment effects varied greatly according to the study design used, with no significant effect of treatment found for randomised controlled trials. Within Chapter 2, survival analysis and logistic regression are used to examine the impact of treatment dose (‘Risk Principle’) on reconviction and within-treatment change. Results indicate that whilst controlling for Risk Matrix 2000 (Thornton, Mann, Webster, Blud, Travers, Friendship & Erikson, 2003) classification, treatment dose does not influence treatment outcome. The results are discussed in light of the need to consider the way that sexual offenders interact with the amount of treatment received. Chapter 3 uses a single case design to explore assessment and low-dose intervention with an internet offender. The case study explores practice based issues, including the difficulty in applying pre-existing knowledge of contact sexual offenders to internet offenders. Chapter 4 provides a critique of Risk Matrix 2000 (Thornton et al., 2003). Chapter 5 discusses the practical and theoretical implications of this thesis, explores limitations of the thesis, and provides recommendations for future research. Details: Birmingham, UK: Centre for Forensic and Criminological Psychology of the University of Birmingham, 2010. 161p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 13, 2013 at: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/857/1/Robertson10ForenPsyD.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/857/1/Robertson10ForenPsyD.pdf Shelf Number: 128716 Keywords: RecidivismSex Offender Treatment ProgramsSex Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Shlonsky, Aron Title: Rapid evidence assessment: Current best evidence in the therapeutic treatment of children with problem or harmful sexual behaviours, and children who have sexually offended Summary: Sexually harmful behaviour is not limited to the sexual abuse of children by adults. It includes sexually problematic and harmful behaviour by other children. While the prevalence of sexually harmful behaviour by children is difficult to establish, emerging and ongoing research indicates that it is a significant problem that represents a substantial proportion of sexual harm to children. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse commissioned this evidence review to identify current best evidence about the effectiveness and content of programs and practices, in Australia and internationally, aimed at treating children with problem sexual behaviour (aged under 10), harmful sexual behaviour (aged 10-17), and children who have sexually offended (aged 10-17). This report details the systematic methods used to locate and synthesise the evidence, the results of this process, and their implications for practice and policy in Australia. Details: Sydney: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2017. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2017 at: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/de93ff4d-649a-4105-8ed7-b32dd00ad04b/Therapeutic-treatment-of-children-with-problem-or Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/de93ff4d-649a-4105-8ed7-b32dd00ad04b/Therapeutic-treatment-of-children-with-problem-or Shelf Number: 145916 Keywords: Juvenile Sex OffendersSex Offender Treatment ProgramsSex Offenders |
Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Sex Offender Registration and Monitoring Triennial Review - 2018 Summary: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Beginning in the early nineties, both federal and Florida law have facilitated oversight of sexual offenders and predators living in Florida communities. Several entities have a role in monitoring sex offenders in Florida, including the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Florida Department of Corrections (FDC), Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), and local law enforcement. The agencies' various activities include monitoring, registering, verifying, and providing information about sex offenders. FDLE's sex offender registry lists more than 73,000 offenders and predators, of which, just over 28,000 reside in Florida communities. Since 2005, when the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) was first statutorily required to review the registry, the number of registered sexual predators and sex offenders in Florida communities has grown by 53%. Sheriffs' offices monitor all registered sex offenders and are meeting statutory requirements, adopting various strategies to fulfill them. Additionally, FDC supervises offenders sentenced to community supervision and those who have been conditionally released from prison. Also, some sex offenders are conditionally released into the community from the Sexually Violent Predator Program's Florida Civil Commitment Center. Some sex offenders are required to participate in specialized treatment as a term of their community supervision. OPPAGA's review found a wide range of treatment costs as well as cost variability by both provider and geographic area. To help ensure reasonable rates and set standards for treatment quality, FDC entered into contractual agreements with treatment providers throughout its four regions to provide sex offender treatment services. However, many sex offender treatment providers do not operate under the parameters of a contract and are not monitored for quality assurance. Sex offenders in Florida may face barriers to housing including residence restrictions, unwelcoming property managers, lack of affordable housing, and issues with employment and income. Transient offenders continue to present monitoring challenges. While the overall percentage of registered sex offenders living in Florida communities with a transient address is small (6%), some counties have higher than average rates. In addition, barriers to housing have contributed to sex offender enclave communities. Enclaves include apartment complexes, rooming houses, trailer parks, and motels that were established expressly for, or are willing to rent to, sex offenders. There are local variations in emergency shelter access for sex offenders, with most communities designating a specific shelter or area of a shelter for sex offenders. In addition, some communities have ordinances that require sex offenders to self-disclose their registration status at shelters. In support of this project, OPPAGA conducted fieldwork in Hendry, Lee, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach counties, including - meeting with FDC, Community Corrections probation officers, and staff; - meeting with sheriff's office staff and accompanying officers on address verifications to multiple sex offender residences; - visiting the Pelican Lake Community, a sex offender enclave near Pahokee in Palm Beach County that is run by Matthew 25 Ministries and houses 125 sex offenders; - facilitating a focus group attended by 31 individuals required to register as offenders and predators; and - attending a meeting of the Palm Beach County Re-Entry Taskforce's Sex Offender Subcommittee. Details: Tallahassee, Florida, United States: Florida Legislature, 2018. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2019 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/summary.aspx?reportnum=18-08 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1808rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 154742 Keywords: Registered Sex OffendersSex Offender RegistrySex Offender Treatment ProgramsSex OffendersSexual PredatorsTransient Offenders |