This study uses administrative data from Michigan to present a descriptive analysis of recidivism hazard among a large cohort of individuals convicted of sex-related offenses (ICSOs) (N = 23,621) with an average follow-up of 10.5 years, up to a maximum of 15 years. Using Bayesian discrete-time survival models, we find within 15 years 19% of this cohort of ICSOs was returned to prison, for either a new crime or technical violation, or received a new probation sentence. Sexual recidivism was rare. With the caveat that demographic information on the sample was not available for statistical controls, we found risk was higher among those released from prison without supervision (“max outs”). As the hazard of recidivism was relatively higher in the first year at risk, and then gradually dissipated, the findings reiterate the importance of front-loading supervision services and intensity toward the earlier periods of time at risk in the community.
AbbottB. R. (2020). Illuminating the dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(6), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2494
2.
AllisonP. D. (2014). Event history and survival analysis: Regression for longitudinal event data (Vol. 46). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452270029
3.
AlperM.DuroseM. (2019). Recidivism of sex offenders released from state prison: A 9-year follow-up (2005-14) (Bureau of Justice Statistics NCJ 251773). U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsorsp9yfu0514.pdf
4.
AlperM.DuroseM. R.MarkmanJ. (2018). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014) (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 250875). U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
AzizianA.OlverM. E.RokopJ.D’OrazioD. M. (2022). A preliminary analysis of sexual recidivism and predictive validity of the Static-99R in men discharged from state hospitals pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. Sexual Abuse, 34(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632211019726
6.
BenchL. L.AllenT. D. (2013). Assessing sex offender recidivism using multiple measures: A longitudinal analysis. The Prison Journal, 93(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885513500765
7.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22.
8.
Brouillette-AlarieS.LeeS. C.LongpréN.BabchishinK. M. (2023). An examination of the latent Constructs in risk tools for individuals who sexually offend: Applying multidimensional item response theory to the Static-2002R. Assessment, 30(4), 1249–1264. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911221076373
9.
BürknerP. C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01
10.
CarrA. E.WillisG. M. (2022). Balancing political and criminogenic needs: Evaluating the New Zealand Department of Corrections’ response to men assessed with a below average risk for sexual recidivism. Sexual Abuse, 34(4), 456–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632211042365
CohenT. H. (2018). Predicting sex offender recidivism: Using the federal post conviction risk assessment instrument to assess the likelihood of recidivism among federal sex offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 15(3), 456–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12184
DuroseM. R.CooperA. D.SnyderH. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (Vol. 28, Bureau of Justice Statistics NCJ 244205). U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf
HansonR. K. (2002). Recidivism and age: Follow-up data from 4,673 sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(10), 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605-0201710-02
17.
HansonR. K. (2018). Long-term recidivism studies show that desistance is the norm. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(9), 1340–1346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818793382
HansonR. K.BussièreM. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.2.348
20.
HansonR. K.HarrisA. J.HelmusL.ThorntonD. (2014). High-risk sex offenders may not be high-risk forever. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 2792–2813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514526062
21.
HansonR. K.HarrisA. J.LetourneauE.HelmusL. M.ThorntonD. (2018). Reductions in risk based on time offense-free in the community: Once a sexual offender, not always a sexual offender. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000135
22.
HansonR. K.LeeS. C.ThorntonD. (2022). Long-term recidivism rates among individuals at high risk to sexually reoffend. Sexual Abuse, 36(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632221139166
23.
HansonR. K.Morton-BourgonK. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154
HelmusL. M.HansonR. K.ThorntonD.BabchishinK. M.HarrisA. J. R. (2012). Absolute recidivism rates predicted by Static-99R and Static-2002R sex offender risk assessment tools vary across samples: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1148–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812443648
26.
HelmusL. M.ThorntonD. (2015). Stability and predictive and incremental accuracy of the individual items of Static-99R and Static-2002R in predicting sexual recidivism: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(9), 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814568891
27.
HollidayS. B.SreenivasanS.WalkerS. C.JordanV.AzizianA.GarrickT. (2022). Longitudinal patterns of sexual recidivism by age over a 25-year follow-up in California. Sexual Offending: Theory, Research, and Prevention, 17, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5964/sotrap.3667
JohnsonJ. L. (2006). Sex offenders on federal community supervision: Factors that influence revocation. Federal Probation, 70(1), 18–32.
31.
JonesP. R. (1996). Risk prediction in criminal justice. In HarlandA. T. (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 33–68). Sage.
LetourneauE. J.LevensonJ. S.BandyopadhyayD.SinhaD.ArmstrongK. S. (2010). Effects of South Carolina’s sex offender registration and notification policy on adult recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(4), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409353148
35.
LevensonJ. S.ShieldsR. T.SingletonD. A. (2014). Collateral punishments and sentencing policy: Perceptions of residence restrictions for sex offenders and drunk drivers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412462385
MaltzM. D. (1984). Recidivism. University of Illinois at Chicago.
38.
ManciniC.BuddK. M. (2016). Is the public convinced that “nothing works?” Predictors of treatment support for sex offenders among Americans. Crime & Delinquency, 62(6), 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715597693
39.
McElreathR. (2020). Statistical rethinking: A Bayesian course with examples in R and Stan (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
MeloyM. L. (2005). The sex offender next door: An analysis of recidivism, risk factors, and deterrence of sex offenders on probation. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403404270601
42.
MeloyM. L.CurtisK.BoatwrightJ. (2013). The sponsors of sex offender bills speak up: Policy makers’ perceptions of sex offenders, sex crimes, and sex offender legislation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(4), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812455740
43.
OlverM. E.MarshallL. E.MarshallW. L.NicholaichukT. P. (2020). A long-term outcome assessment of the effects on subsequent reoffense rates of a prison-based CBT/RNR sex offender treatment program with strength-based elements. Sexual Abuse, 32(2), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218807486
OstermannM.SalernoL. M.HyattJ. M. (2015). How different operationalizations of recidivism impact conclusions of effectiveness of parole supervision. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(6), 771–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815580626
46.
ParentG.GuayJ.-P.KnightR. A. (2011). An assessment of long-term risk of recidivism by adult sex offenders: One size doesn’t fit all. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(2), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810388238
47.
PlantyM.LangtonL.KrebsC.BerzofskyM.Smiley-McDonaldH. (2013). Female victims of sexual violence, 1994-2010 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ 240655). U.S. Department of Justice.
48.
PrentkyR. A.LeeA. F.KnightR. A.CerceD. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 635–659. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024860714738
RothwellM.FidoD.HeymN. (2021). Perceptions around adult and child sex offenders and their rehabilitation as a function of education in forensic psychology independent of traditionalism and perpetrator sex. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 2(100039), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiml.2020.100039
SampleL.BrayT. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403405282916
54.
SchmuckerM.LöselF. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(4), 597–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9241-z
55.
ScurichN.GongolaJ.KraussD. A. (2016). The biasing effect of the “sexually violent predator” label on legal decisions. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.05.002
56.
ScurichN.JohnR. S. (2019). The dark figure of sexual recidivism. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 37(2), 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2400
57.
SerinR. C.LowenkampC. T.LloydC. D. (2020). Managing violent offenders in the community: Reentry and beyond. In WormithJ. S.CraigL. A.HogueT. E. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of what works in violence risk management: Theory, research and practice (pp. 543–558). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119315933.ch28
58.
SerinR. C.MaillouxD. L.MalcolmP. B. (2001). Psychopathy, deviant sexual arousal, and recidivism among sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(3), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626001016003004
SivertssonF. (2016). Catching up in crime? Long-term processes of recidivism across gender. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2(3), 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0035-4
61.
SociaK. M.HarrisA. J. (2016). Evaluating public perceptions of the risk presented by registered sex offenders: Evidence of crime control theater?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 375–385.
62.
SpohnC.HolleranD. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 652–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100095051
TewksburyR.JenningsW. G.ZgobaK. M. (2012). A longitudinal examination of sex offender recidivism prior to and following the implementation of SORN. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(3), 308–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.1009
66.
VehtariA.GelmanA.GabryJ. (2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
67.
ZevitzR. G. (2006). Sex offender community notification: Its role in recidivism and offender reintegration. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(2), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010600764567
68.
ZilneyL. J.ZilneyL. A. (2009). Perverts and predators: The making of sexual offending laws. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
