The document discusses the history and research on effective rehabilitation programs for sex offenders. It covers several key points: 1) Early research in the 1970s concluded rehabilitation programs did not work, but later research from the 1980s onward found that some programs can reduce recidivism, especially those targeting criminogenic needs. 2) Effective programs are based on principles like matching treatment intensity to offender risk level, targeting dynamic risk factors linked to reoffending, and delivering treatment in a way that considers offender characteristics. 3) Cognitive-behavioral programs that teach pro-social thinking skills and address criminal thinking have been shown to change antisocial behavior and reduce recidivism when applied correctly.

1. Rehablitation of sex offenders
Mishra Rajat M.
Msc Forensic Psychology-III
2016-17

2. history of sex offender rehabilitation researches
Many studies,lots of variabillities
 Martinson(1974) ‘’Nothing works”
‘’what works’’
 Lipsey(1989)
 Andrews,zinger et al. (1990)
 Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau, Dowden

3. i. Anti-social attitudes, values, and beliefs (criminal thinking);
ii. Pro-criminal associates and isolation from pro-social associates;
iii. Particular temperament and behavioral characteristics (e.g., egocentrism);
iv. Weak problem-solving and social skills;
v. Criminal history;
vi. Negative family factors (i.e., abuse, unstructured or undisciplined environment, criminality in the
family, substance abuse in the family);
vii. Low levels of vocational and educational skills;
viii.Substance abuse.
(Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D. A. 1990)
Attributes Associatedwith Criminal Behaviors and Recidivism

4. The Key Characteristics of Effective Intervention
 In 1990, Andrews, Bonta and Hoge described the common characteristics of
offender programs that reduced recidivism. They listed four important
principles.
 The first principle was called the Risk Principle.
An effective treatment program must be able to differentiate
offenders in their risk to re-offend and then match their risk to level of service.
Higher risk offenders require more intensive services while the lower risk
offenders require very little or no services. There is evidence to suggest that
intensive levels of services with low risk offenders either has no effect on
recidivism or, may even increase recidivism. Thus, reliable risk assessment is
important not only for monitoring and release decisions but also for the delivery
of effective treatment

5. The Risk Principle
 The risk principle embodies the assumption that criminal behavior can be predicted for individual
offenders on the basis of certain factors.
 The Risk Principle states that the level of treatment should match the risk level of the offender. That is,
higher risk offenders require intensive levels of treatment services while low risk offenders require
minimal levels of treatment.
 Some factors, such as criminal history, are static and unchangeable. Others, such as substance abuse,
antisocial attitudes and antisocial associates, are dynamic and changeable.
 With proper assessment of these factors, researchers and practitioners have demonstrated that it is
possible to classify offenders according to their relative likelihood of committing new offenses with as
much as 80 percent accuracy.
 Application of the risk principle requires matching levels or intensity of treatment with the risk levels of
offenders. High-risk offenders require intensive interventions to reduce recidivism, while low-risk
offenders benefit most from low intensity interventions or no intervention at all.
(Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D. A. 1990)

6. The NeedPrinciple
 the Need Principle, makes the point that there are two types of offender needs: criminogenic and
noncriminogenic.
 Criminogenic needs are the offender needs that when changed, are associated with changes in recidivism.
For example, substance abuse and employment problems are criminogenic needs. They may serve as
treatment goals which, if successfully addressed, may reduce recidivism. Anxiety and self-esteem are
examples of noncriminogenic needs. Decreasing anxiety or increasing self-esteem is unlikely to impact
future criminal behaviour.
 The Need Principle identifies two type of offender needs: 1) criminogenic and 2) noncriminogenic.
Criminogenic needs are offender risk factors that when changed are associated with changes in
recidivism. Effective offender treatment programs are those that target criminogenic needs.Most
offenders have many needs. However, certain needs are directly linked to crime.
 Criminogenic needs constitute dynamic risk factors or attributes of offenders that, when changed,
influence the probability of recidivism.
 Non-criminogenic needs may also be dynamic and changeable, but they are not directly associated with
new offense behavior.
(Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D. A. 1990)

7.  the Responsivity Principle
 the Responsivity Principle. There are certain personality and cognitive-behavioural characteristics of the
offender that influence how responsive he/she is to types of treatment and how that treatment is
delivered. In general, cognitive-behavioural treatments are more effective than other forms of treatment
(e.g., psychodynamic, client-centred). But, a cognitive-behavioural treatment program, in and of itself,
may not reduce offender recidivism. If the program fails to target criminogenic needs (Need Principle)
and with the appropriate intensity (Risk Principle), there may be little effect.
 The responsivity principle refers to the delivery of treatment programs in a manner that is consistent with
the ability and learning style of an offender. Treatment effectiveness (as measured by recidivism) is
influenced by the interaction between offender characteristics (relative empathy, cognitive ability,
maturity, etc.) and service characteristics (location, structure, skill and interest of providers, etc.)
 Characteristics such as the gender and ethnicity of an offender also influence responsivity to treatment.
Application of the risk principle helps identify who should receive treatment, the criminogenic need
principle focuses on what should be treated, and the responsivity principle underscores the importance of
how treatment should be delivered.
(Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D. A. 1990)

8. Criminal Thinking:
When surveyed, most correctional practitioners admit that dealing effectively with antisocial logic
is the single most important part of public safety and offender change. While they admit it is
important, staff also reports lacking the necessary understanding and skill to deal with criminal
thinking.
(Gornik, M., Bush, D. and M. Labarbera. 1999)
Antisocial thinking is very seldom simply a matter of imagining crimes or plotting assaults. With most
offenders, there is almost always a subtler network of attitudes, beliefs and thinking patterns that create
an entitlement and righteousness about selfish and harmful acts. Antisocial thinking provides a self
validating and rewarding escape from responsibility and social norms. Many offenders are accustomed
to feeling unfairly treated and have learned a defiant, hostile attitude as part of their basic orientation
toward life and other people. Hostile responses and victim-stance thinking are learned cognitive
behaviors. For the offender, feeling like a victim creates a sense of outrage, power, and self-
gratification.

9. Research on Effective Offender Rehabilitation
 One of the prevailing myths in corrections is that offender rehabilitation does not "work" and that it has
never been effective in reducing recidivism.
 This myth was greatly enhanced by Lipton, Martinson and Wilks’ (1975) review of the offender
rehabilitation literature and their conclusion that treatment is ineffective.
 Subsequently, many critics of offender treatment programs made selective references from previous
reviews of the rehabilitation literature (e.g., Bailey, 1966; Kirby, 1954) charging that providing treatment
to offenders never did demonstrate reductions in recidivism.
 A close examination of the literature reviews that supposedly did not support the efficacy of offender
treatment indicates that some treatments do work (Andrews & Bonta, 1994).
 Beginning with the first review article (Kirby, 1954) and continuing to Logan's (1972) review, the
majority of studies showed reductions in offender recidivism (see Table 1). However, the 1970s and the
decades following were not a fashionable time for ideas of rehabilitation.
 Nevertheless, research on offender treatment programs continued to show that some treatments reduced
recidivism and that there was a growing understanding of the conditions necessary for effective
interventions.

10. Cognitive Programs
i. cognitive-behavioural interventions enhance the effectiveness of treatment programs.
Cognitive-behavioural treatment programs have the following characteristics:
ii. The goal is to train behavioural skills.
iii. The programs are clearly structured.
iv. The therapist is interpersonally warm, socially skilled but firm and consistent.
v. The therapist models the appropriate behaviour.
vi. The therapist provides feedback. Prosocial behaviour is reinforced and antisocial
behaviour is discouraged.

11.  Cognitive behavior is the key to social behavior. Problem behavior is almost always rooted in
modes of thinking that promote and support that behavior. Permanent change in problem behavior
demands change at a cognitive level, i.e., change in the underlying beliefs, attitudes, and ways of
thinking;Authority and control that increases resentment and antisocial attitudes is
counterproductive.
 Punitive methods of controlling behavior all too often reinforce modes of thinking that were
responsible for the initial anti-social behavior. The alternative to punitive measures is not
permissiveness. The alternative is a rational strategy of authority and control combined with
programs of cognitive change;
 Authority and control can achieve both compliance and cooperation. Authority can define rules and
enforce consequences while reminding and encouraging offenders to make their own decisions. As
offenders learn to make conscious and deliberate decisions they accept responsibility for their
behavior;
 Programs of cognitive change can teach pro-social ways of thinking, even to severely criminogenic
and violent offenders. The effectiveness of cognitive programs in changing antisocial behavior has
been demonstrated in numerous scientific studies;
 The values of cognitive strategies extend well beyond the correctional environment. Cognitive
principles can be applied to victim restitution, educational settings, personal development, and as an
overall approach to public safety and offender change.

12.  http://www.pbpp.pa.gov
 Bonta, J., & Andrews, D.A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment
and rehabilitation.
 Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment
 Langan, P.A and Levin, D.J, “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994
reference