Sexual violence evidence based policy and prevention

Elizabeth L. Jeglic · Cynthia Calkins
Editors

Sexual
Violence
Evidence Based Policy and Prevention


Sexual Violence


Elizabeth L. Jeglic Cynthia Calkins
•

Editors

Sexual Violence
Evidence Based Policy and Prevention

123


Editors
Elizabeth L. Jeglic
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
New York, NY
USA

ISBN 978-3-319-44502-1
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44504-5

Cynthia Calkins
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
New York, NY
USA

ISBN 978-3-319-44504-5

(eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016948227
© Springer International Publishing AG 2016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland


This book is dedicated to those who have

been affected by sexual violence and to all
who continue to fight for a safer world for our
children.
We also dedicate this book to our patient and
supportive husbands—Steve and Ruben—who
allow us to do the work that we do.

v


Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Alexandra Holtzman and Sean McKinley for their dedication and assistance in the publication of this book.

vii


Contents

1

Starting the Conversation: A Shift in Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Elizabeth L. Jeglic and Cynthia Calkins

2

Overview of Sexual Offender Typologies, Recidivism,
and Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brandy L. Blasko

Part I

1

11

Sex Offender Policies

3

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) . . . . . . . .
Kristen Zgoba and Deborah Ragbir

33

4

Residence Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jill S. Levenson and Claudia P. Vicencio

51

5

Civil Commitment of Sexual Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Michelle A. Cubellis and Andrew J. Harris

67

6

Internet Sexual Offender Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ashley Spada

81

7

The Use of Electronic Monitoring as a Supervision Tool . . . . . . . . .
Stephen V. Gies

95

8

Introduction to Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Alexandra Holtzman and Sean McKinley

Part II
9

Prevention

The Public Health Approach to Preventing Sexual Violence . . . . . . 129
Ryan T. Shields and Kenneth A. Feder

10 Situational Prevention Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Stephen Smallbone

ix

x

Contents

11 Community-Level Approaches to Prevent Sexual Violence . . . . . . . 161
Sarah DeGue, Tracy N. Hipp and Jeffrey H. Herbst
12 Effective or Not? Measuring Outcomes of Sexual Violence
Primary Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Gwenda M. Willis and Natalie S. Germann
13 “Coaching Boys into Men”: A Social Norms Change Approach to
Sexual Violence Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Elizabeth Miller, Maria Catrina D. Jaime and Heather M. McCauley
14 Proactive Strategies to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse
and the Use of Child Abuse Images: The German
Dunkelfeld-Project for Adults (PPD) and Juveniles (PPJ) . . . . . . . . 249
Klaus M. Beier
15 Help Wanted: Young Pedophiles and the Importance of Primary
Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Luke Malone
16 Holding Our Sexual Violence Policy Accountable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Eric S. Janus
17 The Economics of Sex Offender Policy and Prevention . . . . . . . . . . 305
Anthony D. Perillo
18 Strategies to Combat Sexual Violence: The Need for a Menu
of Informed Choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
Cynthia Calkins and Elizabeth L. Jeglic
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors
Elizabeth L. Jeglic is Professor of Psychology at John Jay College. Her research
interests include evidence-based sex offender legislation, and sex offender assessment and treatment. She teaches an MA level class on the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. She is on the editorial board of Psychology, Public Policy and
the Law and Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment and a member
of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and the American
Psychology and Law Society.
Cynthia Calkins is Professor of Psychology at John Jay College. She is interested in
the empirical evidence underlying sex offender policy and the prevention of sexual
violence. She teaches a class each semester on the evaluation of sex offenders. She is
also on the editorial board of Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.
Last, she is a member of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and the
American Psychology and Law Society.

Contributors
Klaus M. Beier Department of Health and Human Sciences, Institute of Sexology
and Sexual Medicine, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Brandy L. Blasko Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Sam
Houston State University, Huntsville, USA
Cynthia Calkins Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, New York, NY, USA
Michelle A. Cubellis Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, USA

xi


xii

Editors and Contributors

Sarah DeGue Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Violence
Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
Kenneth A. Feder Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Natalie S. Germann School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand
Stephen V. Gies Development Services Group, Inc., Bethesda, MD, USA
Andrew J. Harris University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, USA
Jeffrey H. Herbst Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of
Violence Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
Tracy N. Hipp Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA,
USA
Alexandra Holtzman John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, USA
Maria Catrina D. Jaime Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine,
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, USA; Department of
Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA
Eric S. Janus Mitchell Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, MN, USA
Elizabeth L. Jeglic Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, New York, NY, USA
Jill S. Levenson Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, USA
Luke Malone New York, USA
Heather M. McCauley Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine,
Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, USA; Department of
Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA
Sean McKinley John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, USA
Elizabeth Miller Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children’s
Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, Pittsburgh, USA; Department of Pediatrics,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA
Anthony D. Perillo Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA, USA

Deborah Ragbir Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA
Ryan T. Shields Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Stephen Smallbone Griffith Criminology Institute, Brisbane, Australia


Editors and Contributors

xiii

Ashley Spada John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center,
CUNY, New York, USA
Claudia P. Vicencio Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, USA
Gwenda M. Willis School of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland,
New Zealand
Kristen Zgoba New Jersey Department of Corrections, Trenton, USA


Chapter 1

Starting the Conversation: A Shift
in Paradigm
Elizabeth L. Jeglic and Cynthia Calkins

Sexual abuse is a global epidemic (Stoltenborgh et al. 2011). In the United States
(U.S.), it is estimated that one out of five girls and one in twenty boys will be a
victim of childhood sexual abuse (Finkelhor 2009) and that each year almost two
million adult U.S. women report being raped (Brieding et al. 2014). As researchers
and psychologists who study sex offenders, much of our work has focused on
understanding what we can do to prevent sexual violence in order to keep our
communities safe. In our field, the majority of the prevention efforts have been

directed toward legislation designed to monitor and contain released sex offenders.
These fall under the umbrella of tertiary prevention initiatives which focus on
reducing or minimizing the consequences of a problem—such as sexual offending
—after it has already happened (www.cdc.gov). There are currently more than
750,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. (National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children [NCMEC], Prevent Abuse Now, Criminal Justice Agency 2014)
and the majority of these tertiary prevention laws are directed at them. Given that
we still know relatively little about the complex set of factors that lead someone to
become a sex offender, it makes intuitive sense to dedicate our scarce resources to
those who are already known to pose a danger to our children and our communities.
With sensationalized media reports of child abductions and murders committed by
released sex offenders, it is understandable that there is a heightened fear of those
who commit sexually based crimes. Upon hearing these terrifying stories, concerned parents push legislators to develop laws to prevent such crimes from happening again in the future. Consequently, much of this legislation has been

E.L. Jeglic (&) Á C. Calkins
Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
524 W. 59th St, New York, NY 10019, USA
e-mail:
C. Calkins
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing AG 2016
E.L. Jeglic and C. Calkins (eds.), Sexual Violence,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44504-5_1

1


2

E.L. Jeglic and C. Calkins

developed in response to these alarming—yet highly atypical—offenses, resulting
in reactionary laws that are not evidence based (Meloy et al. 2013).
Throughout the 1990s numerous sex offender laws were enacted in the U.S. to
address the perceived threat of recidivistic sex crimes. These laws included registration and notification statutes, residence restrictions, GPS monitoring, and
post-sentence civil commitment (Cohen and Jeglic 2007). In 1994, the U.S.
Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Bill, which included the Jacob Wetterling
Crimes against Children and Sexual Violent Offender Registration Act mandating
all 50 states to create a sex offender registry (Jacob Wetterling Act 1994). The first
amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act, known as Megan’s Law, was passed in
1996 and required all 50 states to establish and maintain a community notification
system such that law enforcement agencies would notify community members and
agencies of registered sex offenders’ whereabouts (Calkins et al. 2014). More
recently, in an effort to standardize sex offender legislation, Congress passed the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA), which included the Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). SORNA required federal
registration by sex offenders and created a nationwide online sex offender registry
and notification system (Adam Walsh Act 2006).
These sex offender laws, which are described in Chaps. 3–7, have been conceived without close attention to budget and it is often unclear where the funds to
support long-term monitoring and confinement of this group of offenders will come
from. Further, these laws were enacted in the backdrop of an economic crisis. As a
result, many states have had difficulty balancing budgets and thus money to fund
these legislative efforts has been taken directly from health care and education
(Bosman 2015; Yourish and Stanton 2011). It would be one thing to fund these
laws if they were in fact keeping our children safer. For example, who would not
want to dedicate resources to keeping sex offenders off the street if it meant saving a
child from being sexually assaulted? But in reality this is not the case. These laws
are largely based upon the “stranger-danger” myth and the misconception that all
sex offenders reoffend. Contrary to fear-driven media reports, relatively few sex
offenders reoffend sexually. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice found that

in a sample of 9691 released sex offenders, only 5 % were rearrested for new sex
crimes over a three year period (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS] 2003). Further, in
2005, Hanson and Morton-Bourgon, conducted a meta-analysis of 73 studies
involving 19,267 sex offenders, and found that after an average 5–6 years
post-release only 13.7 % of the sex offenders recidivated sexually. Using a longer
follow-up period, Harris and Hanson (2004) found that 24 % of 4724 released sex
offenders were charged with, or convicted of, a new sexual offense 15 years following release. As we will describe in Chap. 2, sex offenders have some of the
lowest recidivism rates of all types of offenders.
Further, the majority of these sex offender laws were designed to protect us from
the mythical sexual predator who is lurking in the bushes, when in reality most sex
offenders are individuals who are already known to the victim (BJS 2003). The BJS
(2003) found that only a minority of sexual crimes (15.6 %) were committed by
strangers. More specifically, 34.4 % of all sex crimes against victims aged 18 or


1 Starting the Conversation: A Shift in Paradigm

3

older were committed by strangers, but only 6.7 % of sex crimes perpetrated
against victims under the age of 18 were committed by strangers. Other studies
have found that between 76 and 90 % victims of rape or sexual assault were
assaulted by a family member, romantic partner, or acquaintance (Greenfeld 1997;
Tjaden and Thoennes 1998) and among minors, 60 % of boys and 80 % of girls
were victimized by someone known to them or a family member (Lieb et al. 1998).
Thus these so-called “stranger danger” laws are missing the mark. Finally, and
perhaps most importantly, only about 5 % of all new sex crimes are committed by
recidivistic sex offenders (Sandler et al. 2008). That means that 95 % of sexual
offenses are committed by individuals who are not known to the system as sex
offenders. This would suggest that in essence many of these laws are focused on

preventing crimes that make up a small minority (5 %) of all the offenses that occur
in a given year.
Most released sex offenders will be on sex offender registries for at minimum
15 years and maximum life following release (Adam Walsh Act 2006). They will
likely encounter difficulty finding housing and jobs and there are few individuals or
resources available to help released sex offenders (Levenson 2008; Levenson and
Cotter 2005a, b; Levenson et al. 2007b; Mercado et al. 2008). While we are not
arguing their crimes are not heinous and deserving of punishment—our primary
concern is keeping our communities safe. Many of our current policies make sex
offenders modern day pariahs bearing the scarlet letter of their sex offense for the
remainder of their lives. The U.S. Department of Justice has created a mobile
application (app) where users can obtain information about registered sex offenders
whose residence, work, or school address is within close proximity to the device
running the application, making the released offender’s personal information
available to anyone with a cell phone. Even if sex offenders are removed from the
official sex offender registry, their crimes, identities and personal information
remain available for anyone to access on duplicate registries or other online sources
created by concerned citizens. As you will see in this text, this type of community
ostracization of sex offenders is at odds with years of criminological research on
factors that enhance successful community reintegration.
Finally, the effectiveness and consequences of these sex offender laws will be
examined. While well intentioned, the majority of these laws are ineffective or
unproven to reduce sexual violence (Sandler et al. 2008; Scham and Milloy 1995;
Vasquez et al. 2008; Zevitz 2006; Zgoba and Bachar 2009). What is even more
disconcerting is that not only do they not prevent sexual violence, but in some cases
they may actually increase the risk as many of these laws destabilize sex offenders
as they are released back into the community (Bonnar-Kidd 2010). It is known that
this is a particularly high risk period for offenders in general, and efforts are often
made to help them reintegrate back into society. However, laws designed to alert
the public to their crimes prevent them from finding affordable housing or maintaining stable employment, making it more—rather than less—difficult for sex

offenders to remain crime free. Despite research findings these laws continue to be
enacted both in the U.S. and internationally. Countries that historically have
emphasized rehabilitation over punishment are implementing restrictive post


4

E.L. Jeglic and C. Calkins

incarceration policies for sex offenders (Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehension, Registering, and Tracking 2014). Human Rights Watch
(2007) has stated that sex offender laws may do more harm than good and has made
recommendations urging states and the federal government to reform sex offender
laws so as to limit their scope and reach. While many of these laws have been
challenged as high as the Supreme Court, post-conviction regulation of sex
offenders has generally been found constitutional (Calkins et al. 2014).
In Chap. 4 we direct our attention to residence restriction laws that prevent
sexual offenders from living within a specified radius (generally ranging from 500
to 2500 ft) of places where children may congregate such as parks, schools, and
daycare centers. The presumptive rationale for residence restriction laws is that sex
offenders may encounter or seek out their victims in child-dense public places.
However, our research has shown that this is not the case, and that more than three
fourths of sex offenders first come to know their victims in a private location (76.
5 %) and the large majority of crimes also take place in private (82.2 %) residential
settings (Colombino et al. 2009). Because residence restrictions severely limit
housing availability there are sometimes no places where sex offenders can live in
child-dense urban areas (Chajewski and Mercado 2009), and they are often relegated to living under bridges or in homeless shelters and motels that house sex
offenders (Socia et al. 2015). Further, we know from criminological theory that
housing and job instability negatively impact desistance. Not only are they ineffective and costly, but residence restrictions likely increase the risk for sexual
recidivism by destabilizing sex offenders as they attempt to reintegrate back into the

community.
In Chap. 5 you will learn about Sexual Violent Predator (SVP) laws and
post-sentence civil commitment. This is a civil process wherein sex offenders who
are determined to be at high risk for reoffending can be detained indefinitely following the completion of their prison sentence. Though ethically and legally
controversial, 21 states, the District of Colombia, and the federal government all
currently maintain SVP commitment policies. SVP commitment is one of the most
questionable policies as it is very expensive, costing more than $100,000 per sex
offender per year, and is likely to have a very small impact on overall rates of sexual
violence. As Janus discusses in Chap. 16—by focusing efforts on only a small
group of high risk offenders—most of whom would not reoffend—the impact on
sexual offending is small. Given that 95 % of all sex crimes are committed by first
time offenders (Sandler et al. 2008), from a resource allocation perspective we must
ask whether it is worth it to focus on the 5 % or whether this money might be better
utilized trying to prevent the 95 % from committing sex crimes in the first place?
Finally in Chaps. 6 and 7 you will read about Internet Sex Offender Laws and the
Electronic Monitoring of released sex offenders. As the world changes so does the
way that sex crimes can be committed—and prevented—and thus these chapters
will review the current state of the art in these fields showing that electronic
surveillance may actually be one of the more effective (both in terms of recidivism
and cost) legislative endeavors to date.


1 Starting the Conversation: A Shift in Paradigm

5

Thus it is within this backdrop that the idea for this book came to be. We, along
with our colleagues, have become frustrated with talking about legislative policies
that do not work. Countless scholarly articles have shown that not only are these
policies ineffective and questionable for the reasons mentioned above, but also that

they can actually increase risk and divert scarce resources away from preventive
efforts. However, this message is not being heard. Even if politicians are educated
about the realities of sexual offending, they are often reluctant to repeal laws that
have wide constituent support, even when these laws might increase risk of sex
crime. The popular refrain is that no cost is too much to if we can prevent one child
from being molested. However, state budgets are not unlimited and sometimes this
legislation may increase rather than decrease risk to children. What if we could
prevent not one—but five or ten—children from being molested and at less cost?
However, it is hard to argue against these policies as they make people feel secure.
Sexual violence is, of course, a very emotional and personal issue that elicits strong
emotions. We must, however, make decisions on how best to use our limited
resources to prevent the most sexual crime, basing decisions in reason rather than
emotion. Why? Because the costs of sexual violence to the victims, the community
and society as a whole are tremendous and we as authors of this text and parents of
young children think that we can do better to enhance public safety. What we have
set out to do in this book is to provide a menu of options with clear evidence about
the associated costs and benefits of policy and prevention options. It is our hope that
readers and policy stakeholders can review the data about effectiveness and cost so
as to make decisions that will save not just one, but many children from becoming
victims of a sexual offense.

A Shift in Focus
There has long been a debate in the field of offender management about whether to
treat or to punish. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a generally sentiment that
offenders could be rehabilitated and thus treatment programs were developed and
implemented for offenders while they were incarcerated. However, in 1974, Robert
Martinson published his seminal article “What Works? Questions and Answers
About Prison Reform” in which he challenged the notion that rehabilitating
offenders was an effective approach for offender management. As a consequence of
Martinson’s report there was a widespread adoption of the notion that “nothing

works” in offender rehabilitation. This study, along with the “get tough on crime”
Zeitgeist of the early 1980s fueled a shift from rehabilitation to punishment. It was
at this point that prisons started cutting rehabilitative programs including those
related to education and vocational training and states and the federal government
mandated stricter sanctions such as Three-Strikes laws (Three Strikes Law 1995).
This change in focus from treatment to punishment led to skyrocketing imprisonment rates, with the U.S. currently having the highest rates of incarceration in the
world (Ye Hee Lee 2015). This more punitive shift has also seen in sex offender


6

E.L. Jeglic and C. Calkins

legislation. Legislators have designed laws to monitor and incapacitate released sex
offenders. While these laws have been hotly contested and legally challenged—they
have generally been upheld as constitutional. These laws were created in a pandemic of fear—but in the decades since their creation we now have ample evidence
to suggest many of these laws are at best ineffective and at worst harmful. Thus it is
time for change.
Part II of this book will then set the stage for where we see the field of sexual
violence prevention going. We really felt that it is time to shift the discourse from
tertiary prevention to primary and secondary prevention. While tertiary prevention
is the response after the crime has been committed—primary prevention initiatives
work to stop crimes before they happen. Secondary prevention initiatives reflect an
immediate response to the crime in order to minimize the consequences to the
victim and locate and intervene with the perpetrator (www.atsa.com). Secondary
prevention can also focus on targeting at-risk individuals who have an increased
likelihood of engaging in sexual violence. As detailed in Chaps. 9–11, primary
prevention utilizes population-based approaches that are designed to prevent the
sexual violence before it occurs. Chapters 13–15 describe secondary prevention
initiatives with identified individuals who may be at higher risk for engaging in

sexual violence. While this shift may sound easy enough in theory—there are three
main impediments to making this shift—politics, money, and limited outcome data.
As is discussed in Chaps. 3–7, there is tremendous public support for these
tertiary preventions laws. However, as you will learn, the majority of these laws
were reactionary and developed following high profile cases in which children were
assaulted and even killed. Communities were outraged, and legitimately so. This
outrage elicited public outcry for legislators to “do something.” One study found
that the majority of state-based sex offender laws were proposed or supported by
legislators in part because of specific instances of victimization generally involving
female children (Meloy et al. 2013). This same study found that the majority of
these lawmakers felt that sex offender legislation was working, but could only give
anecdotal evidence to support this claim. While this is troublesome from many
perspectives—it is the reality of what we are faced with. Further, preventing sexual
abuse and specifically the sexual abuse of children is a very emotional topic and one
in which rationality does not always come into play. For example, several studies
found that the public would maintain support of restrictive sex offender policies
even if there was no evidence to support their effectiveness (Koon-Magnin 2015;
Levenson et al. 2007a). While there is some evidence that these strong attitudes can
be changed with psychoeducational interventions (Kleban and Jeglic 2012), it is
unclear at this point if we can change behaviors (i.e., how people vote).
Interestingly, recent research shows that contrary to what we may hypothesize—
those individuals who have been sexually abused in fact have more positive attitudes toward sex offenders than those who were not abused (Spoo and Jeglic 2016).
Legislators often assume that victims want retribution, and thus advocate for
harsher and stricter laws (Meloy et al. (2013). However, this may not be in line with
what those most affected by abuse may want. While attempts should continue to be
made to educate the public about sex offenders—and the myths and realities


1 Starting the Conversation: A Shift in Paradigm

7

surrounding them in an effort to develop evidence-based legislation—the reality is
that most individuals do not want to engage in this conversation. Reforming sex
offender legislation is not a hot cocktail party topic. Thus, if change is to be made—
it may be that legislators may have to make tough decisions that may not be well
received. Researchers can work together with politicians to provide accurate data
and policy evaluations that reflect the true costs and benefits of primary, secondary,
and tertiary prevention initiatives such that informed decisions can be made. It is
our goal in this text to make facilitate rational decision-making by laying out a
menu of options and their associated costs and benefits.
Doing something is not always better than doing nothing—and sex offender
legislation may be one of those cases. Precise data on how much these laws cost to
enact is often lacking. As you will read in Chaps. 3–7—cost data on enforcing these
laws is sparse. We know little to nothing about how much residence restriction
legislation costs, while other legislative initiatives such as SORNA and SVP civil
commitment prove to be significant cost burdens to the states. Imagine what can be
done in the community to monitor those offenders while at the same time working
with them to help make them productive members of society. However, states are
not given any additional funding from the federal government to enforce these laws
and thus the funds to maintain them come directly from state budgets, diverting
resources from education and health care. The good news is that generally both
primary and secondary interventions can target larger groups of individuals and at
much less of a cost burden. There is truth to the old adage that an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure. If such prevention efforts work to stop sex
crimes before they even occur, or minimize their consequences, then there are
countless financial and nonfinancial benefits to supporting such efforts. For
example, preventing sexual abuse from taking place saves a victim, their family and
society tremendous pain and suffering. When someone is victimized it can negatively impact them for life, causing psychological, physical, and employment difficulties. This in turn affects their loved ones and society who has to work to help
them. While one cannot put a price on pain and suffering—it is estimated that the

sequela of each rape costs approximately $151,423 and that annually rape costs the
U.S.$127 billion dollars—more than any other type of crime (National Sexual
Violence Resource Center 2015). There are also the more tangible financial costs to
the criminal justice system such as arrest, trial, incarceration, and then subsequent
monitoring once the sex offenders are released. The individual who committed the
crime also will lose at least some of their ability to be a productive citizen and
consequently the perpetrator and their family are also negatively impacted. So by
preventing the abuse from happening in the first place this negative cascade of
events with high costs to everyone is prevented.
The final hurdle in making a shift toward primary and secondary prevention is
that we still do not know much about the effectiveness of such interventions.
Chapter 12 describes some of the methodological challenges in measuring and
assessing primary prevention outcomes and proposes methods in which more robust
evaluations of such programs can be conducted.


8

E.L. Jeglic and C. Calkins

This book culminates with an analysis of sexual violence prevention both from a
policy (Chap. 16) and economic (Chap. 17) perspective where we weigh the
political and economic costs and benefits of such policies. Thus, the goal of this
book is to argue that a paradigm shift must occur in how we think about sexual
violence—we strive to provide a menu of options with associated costs and benefits
so that this conversation can begin based upon evidence-based policies. We must
attempt to separate emotion from research and logic, thereby developing evidencebased prevention initiatives. Through these shifts, we can begin to focus on not
simply identifying the most dangerous offenders but rather on solutions that have
broader impact and prevent more sex crimes.

References
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (AWA), Pub. L. No. 109–248, 120 Stat. 587.
(2006). (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901-62).
Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. (n.d.). Sexual violence prevention fact sheet.
Retrieved from />Bonnar-Kidd, K. K. (2010). Sexual offender laws and prevention of sexual violence or recidivism.
American Journal of Public Health, 100(3), 412–419. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.153254
Bosman, J. (2015, June 7). States confront wide budget gaps even after years of recovery. The New
York Times. Retrieved from
Brieding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M. T. (2014).
Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking and intimate partner violence
victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(SS08), 1–18.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Calkins, C., Jeglic, E., Beattey, R. A., Zeidman, S., & Perillo, A. D. (2014). Sexual violence
legislation: A review of case law and empirical research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
20, 443–462. />Chajewski, M., & Mercado, C. C. (2009). An evaluation of sex offender residency restriction
functioning in town, county, and city-wide jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20
(1), 44–61. doi:10.1177/0887403408320845
Cohen, M., & Jeglic, E. L. (2007). Sex Offender Legislation in the United States: What do we
know? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51,
369–383. doi:10.1177/0306624X06296235
Colombino, N., Mercado, C. C., & Jeglic, E. L. (2009). Situational aspects of sexual offending:
Implications for residence restriction laws. Justice Research and Policy, 11(1–2), 27–43.
doi:10.3818/JRP.11.2009.27
Finkelhor, D. (2009). The prevention of childhood sexual abuse. Future of Children, 19(2),
169–194.
Greenfeld, L. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgnon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual

offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154
Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. Ottawa, ON:
Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.


1 Starting the Conversation: A Shift in Paradigm

9

Human Rights Watch. (2007, September 11). Sex offender laws may do more harm than good.
Retrieved from />Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children and Sexually Violent Offenders Registration Act, Pub.
L. No. 103–322, 108 Stat. 1796. (1994). (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 14071-80).
Kleban, H., & Jeglic, E. L. (2012). Dispelling the myths: Can psychoeducation change public
attitudes towards sex offenders? Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18(2), 179–193. doi:10.1080/
13552600.2011.552795
Koon-Magnin, S. (2015). Perceptions of and support for sex offender policies: Testing Levenson,
Brannon, Fortney, and Baker’s findings. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 80–88. doi:10.
1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.12.007
Levenson, J. S. (2008). Collateral consequences of sex offender residence restrictions. Criminal
Justice Studies, 21, 153–166. doi:10.1080/14786010802159822
Levenson, J. S., Brannon, Y. N., Fortney, T., & Baker, J. (2007a). Public perceptions about sex
offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1),
137–161. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005a). The effect of Megan’s Law on sex offender reintegration.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 49–66. doi:10.1177/1043986204271676
Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005b). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000
feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 49, 168–178. doi:10.1177/0306624X04271304
Levenson, J. S., D’Amora, D. A., & Hern, A. (2007b). Megan’s Law and its impact on community

re-entry for sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 587–602. doi:10.1002/bsl.770.
Lieb, R., Quinsey, V., & Berliner, L. (1998). Sexual predators and social policy. In M. Tonry
(Ed.), Crime and justice (pp. 43–114). US: The University of Chicago Press Books.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public
Interest, 35, 22–54.
Meloy, M., Curtis, K., & Boatwright, J. (2013). The sponsors of sex offender bills speak up: Policy
Maker’s perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex offender legislation. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 40(4), 438–452. doi:10.1177/0093854812455740
Mercado, C. C., Alvarez, S. A., & Levenson, J. S. (2008). The impact of specialized sex offender
legislation on community re-entry. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20,
188–205. doi:10.1177/1079063208317540
National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2015). Statistics about sexual violence. Retrieved
from />statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf
NCMEC, Prevent Abuse Now, Criminal Justice Agency. (2014, July 7). Sex offender statistics.
Retrieved from />Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehension, Regsitering, and Tracking (2014).
Global overview of sex offender registration and notification systems. Retrieved fromhttp://
www.smart.gov/pdfs/GlobalOverview.pdf
Sandler, J. C., Freeman, N. J., & Socia, K. M. (2008). Does a watched pot boil? A time-series
analysis of New York State’s sex offender registration and notification law. Psychology, Public
Policy and Law, 14(4), 284–302. doi:10.1037/a0013881
Scham, D. D., & Milloy, C. D. (1995). Community notification: A study of offender characteristics
and recidivism. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Socia, K. M., Levenson, J. S., Ackerman, A. R., & Harris, A. J. (2015). “Brothers under the
bridge”: Factors influencing the transience of registered sex offenders in Florida. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(6), 559–86. doi:10.1177/1079063214521472
Spoo, S., & Jeglic, E. L. (2016, June). Victims’ attitudes toward sex offenders. Paper presented at
the Universitat Regensburg 12th Annual Summer Conference: Research in Forensic
Psychiatry, Regensburg, Germany.

10

E.L. Jeglic and C. Calkins

Stoltenborgh, M., van Ilzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2011).
A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of prevalence around the world.
Child Maltreatment, 16(2), 79–101. doi:10.1177/1077559511403920
Three Strikes Law. (1995). 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c).
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against
women: Findings from the national violence against women survey. U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from />183781.pdf
Vasquez, B. E., Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2008). The influence of sex offender registration and
notification laws in the United States: A time-series analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54(2),
175–192. doi:10.1177/0011128707311641
Ye Hee Lee, M. (2015, July 7). Yes, U.S. locks people up at higher rate than any other country.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from />Yourish, K., & Stanton, L. (2011, February). States in budget crisis. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from />Zevitz, R. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender
reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 193–208. doi:10.1080/14786010600764567
Zgoba, K. M, & Bachar, K. (2009). Sex offender registration and notification: Limited effects in
New Jersey. In Short: Toward Criminal Justice Solutions. U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from />

Chapter 2

Overview of Sexual Offender Typologies,
Recidivism, and Treatment
Brandy L. Blasko

Introduction
Sexual violence is a serious public health problem that can lead to lasting harmful

effects for individuals, families, and communities. Accordingly, sexual violence has
proven a consistent area of concern for the general public, as evidenced by substantive findings from public opinion studies (Anderson and Sample 2008; Anderson
et al. 2015; Burchfield 2012; Button et al. 2013; Kernsmith et al. 2009; Klein 2015;
Levenson et al. 2007; Lieb and Nunlist 2008; Phillips 1998; Proctor et al. 2002;
Redlich 2001; Schiavone and Jeglic 2009; Zevitz and Farkas 2000). These works
highlight two broader, important points. First, over time the general public has
remained largely supportive of sexual offender registration and related crime control
policies. For example, findings from a 1998 survey of Washington State residents
revealed that 80 % of residents viewed community notification laws as very
important for public safety (Phillips 1998), which were consistent with a more recent
2007 survey of Florida residents (Levenson et al. 2007). Second, public perceptions
about sexual offenders are not aligned, for the most part, with the available research
evidence and are based primarily upon myths and misconceptions.
Given the opinions of United States residents, it is perhaps not surprising that
sexual violence has also remained at the center of national criminal justice policy
debate. Sex offense legislation relies on controversial crime control methods to
restrict and regulate individuals convicted of sexual crimes. Despite jurisdictional
variations, there are several common forms of sex offender-specific legislation,
including registration and community notification laws, residency restrictions,

B.L. Blasko (&)
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology,
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, USA
e-mail:
© Springer International Publishing AG 2016
E.L. Jeglic and C. Calkins (eds.), Sexual Violence,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-44504-5_2

11

12

B.L. Blasko

electronic monitoring laws, and sexually violent predator legislation (Calkins et al.
2014) that will be addressed and reviewed in Chaps. 3–7. Today, roughly 1 of 181
males in the United States is a registered sexual offender.1 Critics contend that these
policies and laws have adverse effects on individuals, families, and communities
(Ackerman et al. 2013; Burchfield and Mingus 2014; Evans and Cubellis 2015;
Jennings et al. 2014; Rydberg et al. 2014) and fail to achieve their intended purpose
of recidivism reduction (Ackerman and Furman 2012; Barnes et al. 2009; Duwe
and Donnay 2010; Freeman 2012; Levenson et al. 2010) and do little to reduce
sexual recidivism.
Due to its complicated, emotionally charged nature, sexual offending is a topic
that abounds with myths and misconceptions. In light of these dynamics, the
purpose of this chapter is to review the current state of empirical knowledge about
sexual offender typologies, recidivism, and treatment. Hence, the chapter is divided
into three sections: sexual offender typologies, sexual offender recidivism, and
sexual offender treatment. Each section provides a comprehensive overview about
current knowledge and related empirical literature support.

An Overview of Sexual Offender Typologies
Sexual abuse encompasses a wide range of events and behaviors, and therefore it is
not surprising that research consistently finds significant heterogeneity among
individuals who commit sexual crimes. Resulting efforts to understand the different
characteristics and motivations of individuals who engage in sexual abuse have now
produced a plethora of theoretically derived classification schemes that arrange
sexual offenders by different discrete typologies (Bickley and Beech 2001; Harris
2010; Ward and Hudson 1998). Classification systems most commonly separate

sexual offenders within the broad classifications of adult male rapists, adult male
child molesters, and adult female sexual offenders that will form the focus of this
section. Effective classification systems are fundamental to the application of scientific evidence criminal justice system problem, yet empirical research on existing
sexual offender typologies is limited, and what is available has produced inconsistent results over the years (Bickley and Beech 2001; Harris 2010). Evidence
indicates that some sex offenders do not fit neatly into one typology, but instead
present with characteristics from multiple typologies, or sometimes none at all.
Therefore, it is surprising that, with the exception of Knight and his colleagues
(e.g., Knight and Prentky 1990) who have focused their work on the development a
multiple dimension classification system (i.e., Massachusetts Treatment Center:
Child Molester Version 3 and Rapist Version 3), the majority of sexual offender
classification models provide simple unidimensional typologies. The purpose of this

1

The following data sources were used to calculate this statistics: 2010 U.S. Census Bureau,
National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.


2 Overview of Sexual Offender Typologies, Recidivism, and Treatment

13

section is to provide an overview of sexual offender typologies. Because exhaustive
reviews of sexual offender typologies have been provided elsewhere (see Robertillo
and Terry 2007), this section will highlight the characteristics that are common
within the various classification systems.

Adult Male Rapists
Adult male rapists, like the overall population of sexual offenders, do not represent
a homogenous group. Rather, typology research undertaken to date has produced

many adult rape typologies in which rapists are commonly classified by
motivation—broadly grouped as sexual or non-sexual in nature. For the purpose of
this chapter, existing adult male rapists typologies were synthesized into five theoretically meaningful classifications (see Table 2.1): (a) compensatory, (b) sadistic,
(c) anger, (d) power/control, and (e) opportunistic/antisocial.
Both compensatory and sadistic rapists are motivated by sexual fantasies. The
compensatory rapist, also referred to as the power reassurance or gentleman rapist,
achieves social competence and improved self-esteem by way of carrying out
sexual fantasies (Rada 1978). Rapists classified as compensatory typically express
Table 2.1 Adult male rape classification
Classification

Behavioral description

Citations

Compensatory

Expression of sexual
fantasies with minimal
aggression evident

Sadistic

Expression of aggressive
sexual fantasies

Anger

Expression of rage

Power/Control

Desire to achieve power
and dominance
Spur of the moment,
impulsive, situational

Cohen et al. (1969), Conklin (1992),
Groth et al. (1977), Kopp (1962),
Guttmacher and Weihofen (1952),
Hazelwood (1995) and Prentky et al.
(1985)
Becker and Abel (1978), Bromberg
and Coyle (1974), Cohen et al.
(1971), Gebhard et al. (1965), Groth
(1979), Groth et al. (1977),
Guttmacher and Weihofen (1952),
Knight (1999), Prentky et al. (1985)
and Rada (1978)
Cohen et al. (1971), Groth (1979),
Groth et al. (1977), Hazelwood
(1995) and Knight (1999)
Groth (1979), Prentky et al. (1985)
and Robertillo and Terry (2007)
Amir (1971), Conklin (1992), Glueck
(1956), Groth et al. (1977),
Guttmacher and Weihofen (1952),
Hazelwood (1995), Knight (1999),
Kopp (1962), Gebhard et al. (1965),
Prentky et al. (1985), Rada (1978)

and Selkin (1975)

Opportunistic/Antisocial


14

B.L. Blasko

concern for the well-being of their victim and therefore only use force as needed to
control the victim (Cohen et al. 1969; Conklin 1992; Groth et al. 1977; Kopp 1962;
Guttmacher and Weihofen 1952; Hazelwood 1995; Prentky et al. 1985). Contrary
to the compensatory rapist, however, the sadistic rapist’s fantasies are sexually
aggressive; the sadistic rapist is sexually aroused by aggression and violence
(Becker and Abel 1978; Bromberg and Coyle 1974; Cohen et al. 1971; Gebhard
et al. 1965; Groth 1979; Groth et al. 1977; Guttmacher and Weihofen 1952).
Rapists falling within the anger and power/control classifications are typically
motivated by non-sexual needs. Power/control rapists are motivated primarily by a
desire to achieve power and dominance (Groth 1979; Prentky et al. 1985; Robertillo
and Terry 2007). Groth (1983) best describes this classification as “the sexual
expression of aggression rather than the aggressive expression of sexuality”
(p. 165). The anger rapist, also referred to as the anger retaliation rapist, more
specifically aims to hurt his victim as a means to get even for the real or imagined
injustices he has faced at the hands of women. Anger rapists generally exhibit
negative attitudes toward women (Cohen et al. 1971; Groth 1979; Groth et al. 1977;
Hazelwood 1995; Knight 1999).
The last classification—the opportunistic/antisocial rapist—is also largely motivated by non-sexual needs in the commission of the crime. Typically, opportunistic/
antisocial rapists impulsively commit rape during the commission of another crime.
This rapist is more antisocial in nature and therefore generally engages in non-sexual
crime more so than sexual-related crime (Amir 1971; Conklin 1992; Glueck 1956;

Groth et al. 1977; Guttmacher and Weihofen 1952; Hazelwood 1995; Knight 1999;
Kopp 1962; Gebhard et al. 1965; Prentky et al. 1985).

Adult Child Molesters
Adult male child molesters are commonly classified according to a continuum:
individuals with a preference for sexual relationships with exclusively children—or
preferential child molesters—at one end, and individuals who situationally depart
from their primary sexual attraction to adults—or situational child molesters—at the
other end.
Preferential child molesters, also referred to as fixated child molesters, are
typically interested in solely children, and often have victim and gender preferences. As summarized in Table 2.2, child molesters within the preferential classification can be described according to three typologies: (a) manipulative,
(b) introverted, and (c) sadistic. A manipulative child molester presents with a
primary attraction to children and typically grooms a victim over a lengthy period
of time in an effort to lower resistance before engaging in sexual abuse. Similarly,
an introverted child molester is primarily attracted to children, however, lacks
the social skills to adequately engage in grooming and manipulation to access the
victim. On the other hand, the sadistic child molester—sexually aroused by the