skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Treatment in the community for individuals convicted of sex offenses

Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2017.  Literature review updated January 2017.
Open PDF
Programs providing treatment for individuals convicted of sex offenses use a broad range of therapeutic components, including individual and/or group counseling, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), aversion therapy, and other forms of psychotherapy.
Participants in these studies were on probation or parole while receiving services and received increased supervision while in the programs. The programs in this meta-analysis vary in duration, ranging from 6 to 24 months. Treatment typically involves weekly outpatient sessions that last one to two hours.
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2016). The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $1,199 Benefits minus costs $1,659
Participants $0 Benefit to cost ratio $1.69
Others $3,482 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($606) benefits greater than the costs 60 %
Total benefits $4,075
Net program cost ($2,416)
Benefits minus cost $1,659
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Benefits from changes to:1 Benefits to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime $1,199 $0 $3,482 $606 $5,287
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($1,212) ($1,212)
Totals $1,199 $0 $3,482 ($606) $4,075
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $2,417 2016 Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars) ($2,416)
Comparison costs $0 2016 Cost range (+ or -) 10 %
Per-participant cost estimate provided by the Washington State Department of Corrections.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic in order to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the types of program impacts that were measured in the research literature (for example, crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases.

Adjusted effect sizes are used to calculate the benefits from our benefit cost model. WSIPP may adjust effect sizes based on methodological characteristics of the study. For example, we may adjust effect sizes when a study has a weak research design or when the program developer is involved in the research. The magnitude of these adjustments varies depending on the topic area.

WSIPP may also adjust the second ES measurement. Research shows the magnitude of some effect sizes decrease over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. We also report the unadjusted effect size to show the effect sizes before any adjustments have been made. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment Age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Adjusted effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime 35 7 960 -0.050 0.061 37 -0.050 0.061 47 -0.125 0.090
Sex offense^ 35 6 887 -0.033 0.065 37 -0.033 0.065 47 -0.100 0.312

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Baird, C., Wagner, D., Decomo, B., & Aleman, T. (1994). Evaluation of the effectiveness of supervision and community rehabilitation programs in Oregon. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Hanson, R.K., I. Broom, and M. Stephenson. (2004). Evaluating Community Sex Offender Treatment Programs: A 12-Year Follow- Up of 724 Offenders. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 36(2), 87-96.

Lambie, I.D., & Stewart, M.W. (2003). Community solutions for the community’s problem: An outcome evaluation of three New Zealand community child sex offender treatment programmes. Available from the Authors at Dept of Psychology, Auckland University.

Marshall, W.L., Eccles, A., and Barbaree, H.E. (1991). The treatment of exhibitionists: A focus on sexual deviance versus cognitive and relationship features. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 29(2), 129-135.

Procter, E. (1996). A five-year outcome evaluation of a community-based treatment programme for convicted sexual offenders run by the probations service. (England) The Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2(1), 3-16.

Romero, Joseph J. and Linda M. Williams. (1983). Group Psychotherapy and Intensive Probation Supervision with Sex Offenders: A Comparative Study. Federal Probation 47: 36-42.

Smid, W.J., Kamphuis, J.H., Wever, E.C., & Van Beek, D.J. (2014). A quasi-experimental evaluation of high-intensity inpatient sex offender treatment in the Netherlands. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.