BACKGROUND: This paper investigates the efficacy of a treatment program for sexual offenders with special needs in comparison to treatment outcomes for mainstream sexual offenders. Follow-up data is also presented for the group of offenders with special needs. METHOD: Participants from the two groups were matched on four variables (risk category, sex of victim, type of offence and age). All participants completed an assessment battery pre- and post-treatment and the scores on these tests were analysed for each group. Change on these measures was also compared between the two groups. Follow-up data for the special needs cohort were collected from an offender database. RESULTS: Overall, both groups made few significant changes on the tests post-treatment, however individual results demonstrated that some offenders in both groups had achieved reliable change. In comparing treatment results between the two groups, the sexual offenders with special needs differed only on progress relating to "avoidant" relationship styles. The results also indicated that social desirability bias played a significant role in self-report assessment for both groups. Follow-up data for the group with special needs identified that none of the offenders had committed further sexual offences, after an average release time of 16 months. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of limitations to this study, particularly as a result of the experimental design and the small number of participants, and these should be considered as a major limitation on the conclusions drawn from the results. However, it is suggested that the program had some positive effects for some offenders, with little difference in progress detected between the two groups. Possible explanations for the varied outcomes are discussed.
BACKGROUND: This paper investigates the efficacy of a treatment program for sexual offenders with special needs in comparison to treatment outcomes for mainstream sexual offenders. Follow-up data is also presented for the group of offenders with special needs. METHOD:Participants from the two groups were matched on four variables (risk category, sex of victim, type of offence and age). All participants completed an assessment battery pre- and post-treatment and the scores on these tests were analysed for each group. Change on these measures was also compared between the two groups. Follow-up data for the special needs cohort were collected from an offender database. RESULTS: Overall, both groups made few significant changes on the tests post-treatment, however individual results demonstrated that some offenders in both groups had achieved reliable change. In comparing treatment results between the two groups, the sexual offenders with special needs differed only on progress relating to "avoidant" relationship styles. The results also indicated that social desirability bias played a significant role in self-report assessment for both groups. Follow-up data for the group with special needs identified that none of the offenders had committed further sexual offences, after an average release time of 16 months. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of limitations to this study, particularly as a result of the experimental design and the small number of participants, and these should be considered as a major limitation on the conclusions drawn from the results. However, it is suggested that the program had some positive effects for some offenders, with little difference in progress detected between the two groups. Possible explanations for the varied outcomes are discussed.