The following is a January 2006 article published by The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA), a non-profit research, advocacy, and direct-service organization founded in 1977 by Dr. Jerome G. Miller and Herbert J. Hoelter. In this issue paper, authors Eric Lotke and Herb Hoelter review current research on sex offenders and recidivism, revealing little-publicized information about recidivism and responsiveness to treatment among this population. The positions taken by the authors and NCIA are not necessarily those of CJPC's members, nor has the information presented been verified by CJPC.

Few offenses evoke more fear and loathing than sexual offenses. The idea stirs up images of innocent children deceived and victimized by scheming predators. Neighborhoods, fueled by sexual registries, are concerned, and intent on finding ways to reduce the frequency and severity of this personally destructive crime. This review is intended to summarize basic facts about sex offenses and sexual offending. The goal is to clarify current knowledge and focus attention on the policies most likely to reduce the incidence and increase safety in communities. This report highlights the salient facts and discusses how they apply to public policy, so future policy can be crafted to improve safety and reduce future sexual victimization.

FAMILIES

Most sexual victimization takes place within families and among friends. Even though parents warn children about strangers, the vast majority of sexual offenses occur among people who are known and trusted — parents, siblings, friends, teachers, coaches or anyone within the family’s “zone of association.”¹ Victimization of juveniles usually takes place within families (34%) and among friends (59%). Juveniles are rarely victimized by strangers (7%).² Victimization of adults generally occurs among acquaintances (61%) and family members (12%). Victimization by strangers is far less common (27%).³ Nearly half (44%) of men imprisoned for a sex crime victimized their own child, stepchild or other family member. Rarely (7%) was the victim a stranger.⁴ The vast majority (84%) of sexual assaults on children below age 12 occur in a residence.⁵

Policy Implications

• Knowledge: The people who need to know the most about the offense learn about it as soon as it is revealed. They do not need web pages, public registries or satellite tracking to tell them about the location of the perpetrator. They already know it.
• Protection: Children in private places are at greater risk. Children in public places such as school yards and playgrounds are protected by their visibility and their peers, so distance limits (e.g., not within 2,000 feet of a playground) are superfluous.
• Victim Privacy: Notifying the public about the identity of the perpetrator also often identifies the victim. Public shaming of an incest offender is humiliating to the victim and the rest of the family.

RECIDIVISM

There is a widespread misperception that people who commit sexual crimes do it again and again. The research, however, directly contradicts this. Recidivism rates for sex offenses are relatively low, typically running in the 3-13% range, and among the lowest of all types of crimes.

The largest, most sophisticated analysis was performed by Karl Hanson, Solicitor General of Canada. His 2004 quantitative metaanalysis examined research evidence and recidivism risk factors in a total of 95 studies involving 31,000 sexual offenders with an average follow-up time of 5 years. Hanson’s findings include:

• Overall recidivism rate for new sex crimes: 13.7%⁶
• Recidivism rate for child molestation: 12.7%⁷
• Recidivism rate for child molestation within families: 8.4%⁸
• Recidivism rate for rape: 18.9%⁹

A less nuanced study of former prisoners performed by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reached similar conclusions, and found that people convicted of sex crimes had much lower reoffense rates than people convicted of other crimes. The BJS study followed 9,700 people incarcerated for sex crimes for three years after release. The findings include:

• 5.3% of people imprisoned for sex crimes were rearrested for another sex crime.¹⁰
• 3.3% of people imprisoned for child molestation were rearrested for another sex crime against a child.¹¹

Certainly, any instance of sexual recidivism is cause for concern, and we should not lose sight that even a 1% sexual recidivism rate represents a certain number of victims of sexual assault. However, there is a rather widespread misconception that sex offenders, as a whole, are repeat sex offenders. While this study is obviously unable to determine the actual rate of reoffense, it is clear that a sex offender returning to an Ohio prison for a new sex offense is a fairly unusual occurrence.

— Study by the Ohio Department of Corrections finding a sexual recidivism rate of 8% among released prisoners¹²

In contrast, the general rearrest rate for people released from prison was 68%. The highest rates were stealing motor vehicles (79%) and possessing or selling stolen property (77%).¹³ The myth of high reoffense rates for sexual offenders is supported by some facts that are easily misinterpreted or misunderstood:

• Many individuals commit multiple offenses prior to being caught, often in pattern with the same victims over a long course of time. Thus, repeat numbers can be quite high — but it is important to distinguish repeats “before caught” from repeats “once caught.” In most cases, the first known offense is also the last — though there may have been multiple priors.
• The risk of sexual recidivism is lower than the risk of recidivism of most other crimes. However, the risk that any particular individual will commit a sex crime is greater among people who have previously committed a sex crime than among other people. Thus, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics can truthfully report that “sex offenders were about four times more likely than non-sex offenders to be arrested for another sex crime” — even though the study’s reoffense rate for sex crimes was just 5.3%.¹⁴

Studies offer a range of factual findings with wide ranges of heterogeneous types of crime. Statistically outlying studies of crimes with higher recidivism rates are often used to exemplify the entire class of sex offenses. Researchers may talk about recidivism rates “as low as” 3% or “up to” 40%, but the “up to” is often dropped out of reporting, leaving people with the impression that the higher figure is the whole truth.

The chance that a person convicted of a sex crime will someday commit some other crime greatly exceeds the chance that he or she will commit another sex crime. The second offense may be possession of marijuana, driving drunk or shoplifting — but it increases the reoffense rate. Such subsequent misconduct carries its own concerns, but it is not the repeat incurable pedophile of myth. Indeed reoffense rates for all crimes among sex offenders is still lower than reoffense rates for all crimes among non-sex offenders. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics found:

• Child molester rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 3.3%¹⁵
• All sex offender rearrest rate for new sex crime against a child: 2.2%¹⁶
• All sex offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 43%¹⁷
• All offenders rearrest rate for any kind of offense: 68%¹⁸

A necessary caution: all studies of recidivism are limited by the observer’s knowledge. What isn’t known can’t be measured, so reoffense rates may be higher than instances captured by researchers. On the other hand, some subsequent allegations may be unfounded but they will still result in people being caught in “rearrest” figures.

Policy Implications

Overbreadth: Most people who commit sex crimes will not commit another sexual offense after they are caught. Adding more people to the databases just hides the needle deeper in the haystack. Safety may be better served with smaller numbers of higher risk individuals in the database, rather than so many people listed in every community that resources are wasted and warnings becomes meaningless.

More than with any other class of offender, getting caught leaves sex offenders humiliated, shamed and shaken to the core. Being handcuffed and hauled away from decent society is a shattering experience for anyone; but it is all the more electrifying and soul-stripping when the offense is as intimate and shameful a secret as is a sex crime. In some cases, the perpetrator’s first lesson in recognizing the consequences of his behavior comes with the shock of seeing his name and perhaps, his picture, in the newspaper or on television, accused and exposed before all his friends, family, neighbors and coworkers. The shock of getting caught adds to other nightmares of being arrested — the gruesome reality of prison, the embarrassment of seeing one’s face on the web — and the fear is overwhelming. There is no excuse for this behavior and we know it. The lesson of arrest is printed in indelible ink. No lesson is more painful. We never forget. That lesson alone stops most of us from ever doing it again.

— Statement of convicted sex offender who chose to remain anonymous

PREDICTABILITY

Predicting the future is always risky, but Karl Hanson’s database of 31,000 sexual offenders and nearly 2,000 recidivism predictions leads to some highly reliable statistical guidance about likelihood of reoffense:

• Actuarial instruments based on routine information (e.g., demographic and criminal history) have shown a high degree of predictive accuracy.¹⁹
• Troubled childhood environments and prior sexual victimization are associated with sexual misconduct, though not significantly associated with recurrence after the first episode.²⁰
• Many commonly emphasized legal or clinical characteristics are not significantly related to sexual recidivism: lack of victim empathy, minimization of the seriousness of the offense, lack of motivation for treatment.²¹

In explanation, Hanson notes the difficulty of measuring remorse in criminal justice settings. Although psychotherapists often consider disclosure desirable and courts are lenient towards people who show remorse, “few of us, however, are inclined to completely reveal our faults and transgressions. Offenders who minimize their crimes are at least indicating that sexual offending is wrong.”²²

• Accurate indicators of sexual recidivism included measures of deviant sexual interest, antisocial orientation, lifestyle instability, impulse control and various personality disorders.²³

Policy Implications

• Risk Assessment Instruments: Many routine decisions in the justice system such as sentencing and parole use actuarial risk assessment instruments. Decisions regarding notification and civil commitment should use similar instruments, probably in conjunction with clinical observation. It follows that higher scores would lead towards increased supervision and intervention, and a wiser investment of justice resources.
• Added Instability: Lifestyle instability is a risk factor for reoffending, and social normalization reduces the risk. Yet interventions such as web based notification, community leafleting, burdensome regulations, public stigma and possible harassment and flight make it difficult to stabilize one’s life. Thus, some notification schemes can actually increase the risk of reoffense.
• Responsibility: People who commit sex crimes must take full responsibility for their actions. Comprehensive treatment and community reintegration are excellent means of increasing personal responsibility and internal control, while notification is an external means of surveillance. Notification shifts responsibility to the community, which can undermine offenders’ personal sense of responsibility and leave the impression they can do whatever they can get away with.

TREATMENT

Although there is a great deal of skepticism, and research is not yet conclusive, there is considerable and growing evidence that deviant sexual behavior can be reformed by treatment. Available research indicates that quality treatment can reduce recidivism by more than one-third.

• Margaret Alexander’s 1999 metaanalysis of nearly 11,000 sex offenders from 79 separate studies found that people who participated in treatment programs had a combined rearrest rate of 7.2% compared to 17.6% among untreated individuals (a reduction of 59%).²⁴
• Karl Hanson’s 2000 comprehensive metaanalysis found 10% of treatment subjects reoffended, compared to 17% of untreated subjects (a reduction of 41%).²⁵
• The Campbell Collaboration metaanalysis of 69 studies of 22,000 individuals found that treatment reduced recidivism by 37%.²⁶
• Gordon Hall’s 1995 metaanalysis found that treatment reduced recidivism by 30%.²⁷

Policy Implications

There is no downside to treatment and growing evidence that treatment reduces the risk of reoffense. It follows that treatment should be extensive and ongoing.

As a rape victim, I think it’s vitally important that treatment should be widespread and readily available outside of the justice system, and corrections should provide it during incarceration and after release. The man who raped me is doing at least 26 years, but never had to go into treatment to do the “hard labor” of having to face himself and what he did to me. Taxpayers will pay over a million dollars just to house him, and yet the system is not accountable to us to treat him. I’d rather he got 10 years with intensive treatment. As it is, he will come out at age 52, more angry, less capable of finding work, and we will be just as much the risk. Treatment is the best path to safety.

— Phyllis Turner-Lawrence, Victim Services and Restorative Justice Consultant

ENDNOTES

¹Phrase used by SoHopeful, http://www.sohopeful.org/
²U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, July 2000, NCJ 182990, table 6.
³Ibid.
⁴U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, November 1993, NCJ 198281, p. 36.
⁵U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, July 2000, NCJ 182990, table 4.
⁶Hanson, R.K., and Morton-Bourgon, K, Predictors of Sexual Recidivism: An Updated Metaanalysis. Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada (2004-2), p. 8.
⁷Hanson, R.K. and Bussiere, M., Predicting Relapse: A Metaanalysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (1998) p. 8.
⁸Hanson, R.K., Age and Sexual Recidivism: A Comparison of Rapists and Child Molesters, Department of the Solicitor General of Canada (2001-01), p. 9.
⁹Hanson, Predicting Relapse, p. 8.
¹⁰U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994, November 1993, NCJ 198281, table 27.
¹¹Ibid., table 35.
¹²State of Ohio, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases (April 2001) p. 12.
¹³U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, June 2002, NCJ 193427, table 2. (Fewer than half of the people rearrested were returned to prison for a new crime).
¹⁴Press release by Bureau of Justice Statistics, 5 Percent Of Sex Offenders Rearrested For Another Sex Crime Within 3 Years Of Prison Release (November 16, 2003). Accessed at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm. The sexual reoffense rate for non-sex offenders is 1.3%.
¹⁵BJS, Recidivism of Sex Offenders, Table 35.
¹⁶Id., Table 36.
¹⁷Id., Table 41.
¹⁸U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, June 2002, NCJ 193427, table 2. (Fewer than half of the people rearrested were returned to prison for a new crime).
¹⁹Hanson, Predictors of Sexual Recidivism, p. 3.
²⁰Ibid., p. 10.
²¹Ibid., p. 11.
²²Ibid., p. 17.
²³Ibid., pp. 9-10.
²⁴Alexander, M., Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11 (2), 101-117 (1999). Cited by U.S. Department of Justice, Center for Sex Offender Management, Recidivism of Sex Offenders (May 2001).
²⁵Hanson, R.K. The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: Report of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers Collaborative Data Research Committee. Presentation at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 19th Annual Research and Treatment Conference, San Diego, CA (2000). Cited by U.S. Department of Justice, Center for Sex Offender Management, Recidivism of Sex Offenders (May 2001).
²⁶Loesel, F. and Schmucker, M., The Effectiveness of Treatment for Sexual Offenders: A Systematic Review, part of the Campbell Collaboration, Presentation at the 2005 World Conference on Criminology (2005).
²⁷Hall, G., Sex offender recidivism revisited: A metaanalysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(5), pp. 802-809 (1995). Cited by Blanchette, K., Sex Offender Assessment, Treatment and Recidivism: A Literature Review, Correctional Services Canada (August, 1996).

Circles of Support & Accountability (COSA) is a novel restorative justice approach to reintegrating high-risk, high-need sex offenders into the community upon release from prison. The first circles were formed more than twelve years ago by the Mennonite Community in Ontario, Canada, in an attempt to help offenders avoid further offending. Currently, there are projects in all Canadian provinces, in the UK and Ireland, and in a number of U.S. states, including Vermont.

As described on the COSA website, offenders are matched with a circle when “high risk and low levels of support” have been identified while the offender is still in custody. Circle members—usually four to six trained volunteers—agree to befriend a released sex offender, meet at least weekly with this person, offer support and advice, and challenge signs of inappropriate behavior. Additionally, circles maintain close contact with police and probation and have a responsibility to inform appropriate authorities when necessary.

The offender becomes the circle’s “core member.” At the first meeting, the circle draws up a contract with the core member committing all to “openness within the circle and confidentiality beyond.” Core members promise as well to follow the release plan and to not offend. All decision making is by consensus.

A May 2005 outcome study after ten years of operation of the COSA Mennonite Reintegration Project documents a number of positive outcomes to COSA circles. These include “statistically significant reductions in recidivism,” as well as “increased community tolerance of offenders” by participation in the risk management process.

Another report on the COSA programs is in Hannem and Petrunik (2004). “Canada’s circles of support and accountability: a community justice initiative for high-risk sex offenders”. American Correctional Association, Corrections Today 66.7 (Dec 2004: p98).

Massachusetts Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Partnership and Enough Abuse Campaign

In October of 2002, Massachusetts was selected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, as one of three sites in the country to pilot and evaluate promising sex abuse prevention models with three-year grants. The project’s aim was described in early press releases, by Jetta Bernier, the MCC Exec. Director of the lead agency, Massachusetts Citizens for Children (MCC), as follows: “to broaden the public health response to the issue beyond previous efforts that have focused primarily on addressing the prevention of victimization through safety training programs aimed at children.”

In preparation for the grant, MCC had already organized the Massachusetts Sexual Abuse Prevention Partnership (MCSAPP), a group of 23 state-level private and public organizations which has guided the project. The Partnership’s mission is: “to prevent child sexual abuse by engaging adults and communities in effective perpetration prevention efforts at the local and state levels.” Go here to see a list of the Partnership’s member organizations.

In April of 2003, the project held a conference featuring two keynote speakers, a survivor’s panel, and an afternoon of workshops showcasing several promising child sexual abuse prevention initiatives. In 2003, it commissioned a series of benchmarking and tracking studies regarding public opinion on abuse and prevention. It developed local projects in North Quabbin, Gloucester, and Newton as pilots.

In 2004 the Partnership formed the Enough Abuse Campaign which is described on its website as “a statewide effort to eliminate child sexual abuse in Massachusetts.” The Campaign is aimed at eliminating the “secrecy and denial” surrounding child sexual abuse—especially regarding the fact that most abusers are in the child’s “circle of trust”—in order to effectively address these crimes. Campaign members also address the fact that “older children are also involved in sexually offending younger children in a significant number of cases. Many of these children themselves have been victims of sexual abuse and are in need of therapeutic help to deal with their own current or past abuse.”

Federal funding for the Enough Abuse Campaign and the Massachusetts Child Abuse Partnership will end within a year, and state funding through the Mass. Department of Public Health will be needed to continue and spread the effort.

Center for Sex Offender Management – Information and Technical Assistance on Community Management of Sex Offenders

Out of a 1996 summit, Promoting Public Safety through Sex Offender Management, convened by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the US Department of Justice, came the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM).1 Administered by the OJP and the Center for Effective Public Policy, CSOM is a national program aimed at supporting state and local jurisdictions with effective community management of sex offenders. Its primary goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further the community victimization through improving the management of sex offenders under community supervision. CSOM sub goals, as described on its website, include these:

• Provide those responsible for managing sex offenders ready access to the most current knowledge and effective practices by synthesizing and disseminating knowledge and practices to the field.
• Capture the lessons learned from communities around the country who have demonstrated—through collaboration between criminal justice agencies and other stakeholders—that they can manage known sex offenders and increase public safety, and to disseminate those lessons so that others might benefit from them.

Involved in the creation and operation of CSOM are the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), and the State Justice Institute (SJI) and the American Probation and Parole Association. CSOM’s National Resource Group obtains guidance from expert practitioners and organizations in the fields of sex offender management, treatment, and supervision. Two members of this 21-member team are from Massachusetts: Robert Prentky, Unit Director of the Justice Resource Institute in Bridgewater, and Fran Henry, founder of Stop It Now, an organization based in Northampton.

CSOM's goals are carried out through three primary activity areas: information exchange, training and technical assistance, and support to select Resources Sites and OJP grantees. Access to a wide range of training curricula is available here, and the website also offers a large selection of policy statements and fact sheets. Also see Managing Sex Offenders in the Community: A Handbook to Guide Policymakers and Practitioners through a Planning and Implementation Process, CSOM’s handbook for policymakers and practitioners of widely differing levels of expertise who are engaged in assessing and strengthening their adult and juvenile sex offender management approaches.

Additionally, CSOM gives technical assistance to local and state projects, including those funded through the Comprehensive Approaches to Offender Management Discretionary Grant Program (CASOM), which was established in 1994. These grants which have totaled about $2.8 annually since 1999 “must be targeted for the community reintegration and community management of these offenders and not to institutional services.” Information on CASOM grant programs that have operated in Massachusetts can be found at http://www.csom.org/activities/ma.html.

¹Information adapted from the CSOM and CASOM websites.

Generation Five: Change Through Multiple Systems and Generations.

Generation Five, a San Francisco-based non-profit organization, was launched in 2000 in response to a 1997 Child Sexual Abuse Strategic Action Project aimed at identifying what community and professional leaders would need to support effective organizing to end child sexual abuse. The mission of Generation Five is to end the sexual abuse of children within five generations through the five cycles of change outlined below. Its programs feature leadership training for community members, activists and agency professionals and fostering national strategy and information exchange on child sexual abuse. Generation Five is located at 3288 21 Street #171, San Francisco, CA 94110 and its website is http://www.generationfive.org.

As stated on its website, Generation Five formulated its vision by defining the problem of child sexual abuse broadly from mental health, public health, family violence as well as human rights perspectives. In addition to those most directly affected by child sexual abuse, emphasis is also placed upon the deep impact it has on families and communities when there is no adequate response to the issue.

Generation Five is committed to creating sustainable plans for multi-generation change in public systems, community values, and personal practices. Transformation is conceived as taking place through five cycles of change. These are:

Survivor Leadership – training and supporting local leaders to infuse effective responses to child sexual abuse into their intimate and community networks. “Leaders” are those who are willing to surface child sexual abuse and work with other community members in finding preventative and restorative solutions, and are often survivors and witnesses to child sexual abuse that are connected to offenders in intimate ways.

Community Organizing – supporting communities in designing their own plans for prevention, intervention, and accountability in order to make best use of their capacity to stop child sexual abuse. Through grassroots organizing efforts it is believed that community responses to child sexual abuse can be transformed into effective means of prevention and recovery.

Offender Accountability – developing new forms of offender accountability while offering a continuum of services aimed at recovery and appropriate restitution. The need for change in deeply rooted stereotypes about offenders is emphasized if response and preventative systems are to be effective. Furthermore, the consequences of public exposure must shift in order to make it viable for offenders to seek help in changing their behavior. For hope to reach the majority of offenders, those who are never reported, what works in legal and social services must be leveraged and what does not work must be changed in order to promote effective response to, recovery for, and accountability on the part of offenders.

Systems Change – transforming public systems to increase their ability to identify, capacity to respond to, and willingness to prevent child sexual abuse and promote individual, family and community health. Systems must develop compassionate responses to the impact of trauma and adopt pro-active outreach and education plans that include universal screening for child sexual abuse in healthcare settings, special courts for sexual offenders, and community involvement in children’s welfare.

Restorative Justice – Generation Five is committed to a restorative justice approach that looks to community to develop means of accountability, reparation, and restoration that will interrupt and mend the intergenerational impact of child sexual abuse. Current criminal justice approaches are perceived as unlikely to achieve these aims. Restorative justice attempts to infuse justice into community frameworks rather than pull “offending” people out and placing them in prison.

Four Affiliated Groups of Clinicians Who Treat Sex Abusers/Offenders – MATSA, ATSA, IATSO, & MASOC

1. MATSA - The Massachusetts Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers is a non-profit, interdisciplinary local chapter of the national parent organization, ATSA. (See below.) Formed in 1995, the group maintains a website and offers a conference in cooperation with the Massachusetts Adolescent Sex Offender Coalition (MASOC) every spring. The MATSA website has information on sex offender court cases and decisions, an analysis of the 1999 Mass Sex Offender Law, links to other websites, and information about MATSA meetings and the Annual MATSA/MASOC Joint Conference. In 1998, MATSA established Requirements and Procedures for Credentialing as a Specialist in the Assessment and Treatment of Sexually Abusive Youth.

MATSA is involved in broad policy questions as well as training and credentialing of treatment providers, as shown in the questions below to which last year’s (2006) MATSA/MASOC conference was directed: “Even if treatment is shown to reduce recidivism, we must ask whether all sex offenders have an equal need for specialized and intensive treatment.

• Can sufficient treatment for some sex offenders be found in programs already in place for the general offender population?
• Must all treatment be provided during incarceration, or could some offenders safely receive less costly services in the community?
• Is the delivery of programs in prison sufficient to affect offenders' behavior in the community, or should treatment be continued following release?

2. ATSA - The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers was founded in 1984 by a small group of clinicians in Oregon who were working with sex offenders. According to its website, ATSA now includes more than one thousand members. ATSA holds an annual conference and aims to foster research and information exchange. On its website are a number of position papers and fact sheets at http://www.atsa.com/pubPPapers.html including these:

• Community Notification Position Statement
• Reducing Sexual Abuse Through Treatment and Intervention with Abusers
• Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Offenders
• Position on the Effective Legal Management of Juvenile Sexual Offenders
• Sexual Abuse as a Public Health Problem
• Ten Things You Should Know About Sex Offenders and Treatment

ATSA’s goals are:

• “elimination of sexual victimization;
• the protection of our communities through responsible and ethical treatment of sex offenders;
• the prevention of sexual assault through effective management of sex offenders; and
• the maintenance of high standards of professionalism and integrity within its membership.”

3. IATSO - International Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders . Formed in March of 1998 in Caracas, Venezuela IATSO is “committed to the promotion of research of and treatment for sexual offenders throughout the world.” Its website states that IATSO’s objectives are:

• The sponsorship of a biennial International Conference on the Treatment of Sexual Offenders for the dissemination of new research, treatment methods and to provide continuing education and networking opportunities
• The promotion of international, regional and local conferences on the Treatment of Sexual Offenders
• Updating the IATSO Standards of Care consistent with advances in knowledge of the treatment of sexual offenders
• Advocacy of humane, dignified, comprehensive, ethical and effective treatment of sexual offenders throughout the world.”

4. MASOC - The Massachusetts Adolescent Sex Offender Coalition is a professional organization similar to MATSA, that assists Massachusetts clinicians and the public in the area of sex abuser treatment of adolescents. In 1998 it established Requirements and Procedures for Credentialing as a Specialist in the Assessment and Treatment of Sexually Abusive Youth which provide a credentialing system, requiring a certain number of hours of “sex abuser specific” training and treatment experience plus other education and experience. These appear here on the website the Massachusetts Association on Treatment of Sexual Abusers (MATSA). MASOC is the co-sponsor with MATSA of the Annual MATSA/MASOC Joint Conference which is to be held this year on April 11-12 2007. The conference brochure is soon to appear at http://www.matsa.org/conftraining.htm.

MASOC does not currently have its own website – it can be reached at this address: MASOC, c/o New England Adolescent Research Institute, 70 North Summer Street, Holyoke, MA 01040, Phone: 413.532.171, Fax: 413.532.1795 Email: [email protected]