Once Fallen
"Through Knowledge and Wisdom Shall We Rise From The Ashes"
<--Back To Index

The Complexities of Sex Offender Recidivism
Derek “The Fallen One” Logue
February 1, 2008

Introduction

One of the more commonly held sex offender myths is the belief that “sex offenders have a high recidivism rate.” In one
recent study, respondents estimated sex offense recidivism rates to be around 75%: "Sex offenders in general were seen
by our sample as the criminals most likely to re-offend, even though in toto they have lower re-arrest rates for their crime of
choice than other types of offenders” (Levenson, Branson, Fortney, and Baker 2007, p. 17). The myth has reared its head in
numerous places:

“The risk or recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high’.” (Smith v. Doe, 538 US at 103)

“Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers: they evoke unparalleled fear among constituents… Sex
offenders have a high risk of re-offending” (NCMEC 2007)

Not surprisingly, the media has played a media role in perpetuating the myth. A recent report found that all politicians derive
that at least some of sex offender information from the media; even those who claimed to read “official research reports”
read media reports of the research rather than the actual reports:

“Although respondents suggested that they receive information about sex offending from several sources, all acknowledge
that, to some degree, they rely on government reports found in media accounts for their information about the problem.
Respondents also suggested that the constituents who pressure their representatives for action very likely rely on the
media for much of their information about sex offenders and offending. Directly or indirectly, the media play a vital role in
framing the legislative response to sex crimes.” (Sample & Kadleck 2008).

In reality, sex offenders are among the least likely to commit their crimes or any crime in general. In order to understand the
task at hand, a study in recidivism is necessary. Once you research recidivism on your own, you will find the “simple”
question of recidivism is actually quite complex.

Recidivism Defined: More complex than you think

The simple definition of recidivism is the rate at which an offender will commit another crime. However, studies vary greatly
on what constitutes “recidivism.” Harris and Hanson (2004), in a study of available recidivism studies, found a variety of
factors that greatly influence the final numbers of each study:

  1. How the word “recidivism” is defined; re-conviction rates, re-arrest rates, informal reports to child agencies, self-
    reporting, violations of conditional release, or simply being questioned by police. The broader the definition, the
    higher the number, obviously.
  2. Follow-up period: The longer the follow-up period, obviously the higher the number. However, the longer the
    individual remains offense free, the less likely the offender will be to re-offend
  3. Diversity among sex offenders: Certain classes of offenders have differing re-offense rates
  4. Determining the percentage of crimes that go unreported to the police. This is usually achieved by victimization
    surveys. One major problem, however, is the definition of “sexual assault.” The researchers noted the Besserer and
    Trainor (2000) study, noting the study used “a very broad definition of sexual assault,” including all unwanted forms
    of sexual touching and threats, and possibly “behaviors not conforming to the popular image of a sexual offense.”
    The researchers noted that 59% of the respondents of this study stated the reason they did not report was because
    they felt the “incident was not important enough” to report. “Consequently, readers may wonder what counts as a
    sexual assault.” (Harris & Hanson 2004, p. 1-2)

General and Specific Recidivism

One more factor must be addressed in reading a recidivism study: the type of recidivism studied. There are two types of
recidivism, general/ overall recidivism and specific recidivism.

  • “Specific” recidivism is the rate at which an offender commits the same type of offense. Obviously this means sex
    offenders committing sex crimes.
  • “General” (overall or baseline) recidivism is the rate an offender commits another crime of any kind (Logue 2007).
  • A sex offender who later commit’s a drug offense is a general recidivist but NOT a sex-specific  recidivist

Many studies, including the landmark US Department of Justice (2003) recidivism study, studies both types of recidivism.
For all intensive purposes, specific recidivism is likely the type of statistic that comes to mind when we think of recidivism.
However, as can be expected, general recidivism will always be higher than specific recidivism.

Specialization

Simply put, specialization is another term for specific recidivism, the rate at which a certain type of offender will commit the
same type of crime. This is a mantra proponents of sex offender legislation love to quote and quote often: “Sex offenders
are X times more likely to re-offend sexually than non-sex offenders.” The US Dept. of Justice 3 year follow-up (2003) notes
5.3% of sex offenders released in 1994 were arrested for a new sex offense in 3 years, while 1.3% of all non-sex offenders
were arrested for a sex crime. Thus, the magic number is four. There are two issues with this line of logic.

First of all, specialization is no more common for sex offenders than any other type of offender; thieves are more likely to
steal, drug offenders are more likely to commit drug crimes, an so on. Furthermore, strong evidence suggests sex
offenders actually specialize at a lower rate than most other offenses. The Michigan Parole Board study (2000) shows sex
offenders committed sex crimes (2.46%) at a lower rate than forgers committing forgery (6.86%), Burglars committing
burglary (10.56%), robbers committing robbery (5.17%), Drug offenders committing drug crimes (6.42%), and Larcenists
committing larceny (12.65%).

Secondly, the statement takes places emphasis on sex offenders who commit sex crimes, while failing to address the fact
sex offenders commit only a small percentage of sex crimes that occur every year. Going by number of offenders rather
than percentages, The US Dept. of Justice (2003) study found that 517 sex offenders committed a new sex crime, while
3,228 non-sex offenders committed sex crimes. That is roughly six times the number of sex offenders committing sex
crimes! Consider also the following statistic from the US Dept. of Justice (1997) study which found 86% (about 6 of 7) of
inmates in prison on sex crimes were first time offenders; only 14% had previous sex crimes. Thus, this statement
convolutes the bigger picture.

The Recidivism Curve

“For all crimes (and almost all behaviours) the likelihood that the behaviour will reappear decreases the longer the person
has abstained from that behaviour. The recidivism rate within the first two years after release from prison is much higher
than the recidivism rate between years 10 and 12 after release from prison” (Harris & Hanson 2004, p. 4). The Florida
Department of Corrections (2003) presents a very good chart of recidivism trends; while the article refers to general
recidivism, the same concepts apply to specific recidivism as well:

“This chart shows that re-offense rates increase most quickly immediately after release and grow more slowly as the
follow-up period increases. For example, in the first six months after release the re-offense rate grows to 12.1%, but
between 36 and 48 months after release the rate grows only 4.9 points from 39.9% to 44.8%. The pattern of re-
imprisonment rates is somewhat different, with the largest growth (5.8 points) occurring between 12 and 18 months after
release. This difference reflects the length of time required for the recidivists to be arrested, convicted, sentenced, and
delivered to the Department.”

This trend strongly suggests the first few years after release are the most critical. Based on this fact, it would be difficult to
deny the importance of a successful reintegration program for sex offenders newly released from prison. The chart also
reveals a very important fact, namely, the longer the offender is out of prison, the less likely the offender will re-offend. I call
this the “FALL;” a number of inmates suffer the “free at long last” mentality after leaving prison, going back to the same
environment upon release, not having learned anything from prison. There will always be a small number of individuals
who do this; many more inmates truly learned their lesson. The recidivism curve merely shows that most who are destined
to fail will do so right out the gate; thus, it is important to support successful reintegration programs to lower the likelihood
of recidivism.

The Harris and Hanson 2004 study (p. 8, Table 2) found that the 5 year recidivism rate for offenders who have been out of
prison  five years was 7%; among offenders out 10 years, 5%; and among offenders out 15 years, 4%.

Sex Crimes among Sex Offender sub-groups

The Harris and Hanson study found recidivism differences between specific offense types, thus showing a need to divide
recidivism rates by offender type. In order from, least likely to re-offend to most likely to re-offend (in parentheses,
recidivism rates after 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years):

  • Extended Incest Child Molesters (6%, 9%, 13%)
  • “Girl Victim” Child Molesters (9%, 13%, 16%)
  • Rapists (14%, 21%, 24%)
  • “Boy Victim” Child Molesters (23%, 28%, 35%)

A Marshall and Barbaree (1990) study found an even greater discrepancy between those sex offenders with the lowest
recidivism rates (Incest offenders, 4%-10%) and those with the highest (Exhibitionists, 41%-71%).

Also worth noting, the Harris and Hanson study also found that one time offenders (10%, 15%, 19%) recidivated lower than
those who had two or more prior convictions (25%, 32%, 37%). In short, the need to break the general “sex offender” group
into a more specific offense category is seen as necessary.

Issues regarding Under-reporting Sex Crimes

The most popular trend to explain consistently low recidivism rates among sex offenders is trying to estimate the amount of
sex crimes that go unreported. Studies vary regarding the number of rimes that go unreported. As previously noted, one
study quoted in the Harris and Hanson study found that 59% of sex cases not reported to the police were not reported
because it wasn’t “important enough” to pursue,  which implies a rather flexible definition of what constitutes a sex crime.

The US Department of Justice conducts the “National Crime Victimization Survey” (NCVS) bi-annually, which measures
various crime statistics, whether reported or not. The NCVS studies estimates of non-reporting and the reasons for non-
reporting. The 2003 NCVS found that 67.3% of rapes and attempted rapes (attempts included verbal threats of sexual
violence) and 53.2% of sexual assaults go unreported (Table 91). The NCVS found numerous reasons for lack of reporting;
the reasons are listed below:

  • Reported to another official- 7.1%                
  • Private/ Personal matter- 17.1%
  • Offender unsuccessful- 11.4%                
  • Not important enough- 3.7%
  • Not aware crime occurred until later- 4.9%        
  • No way to ID- 2.8%
  • Lack of proof-10.6%                                
  • Police would not want to be bothered- 7.4%
  • Police inefficient, ineffective, biased- 3.7%        
  • Fear of reprisal- 11.2%
  • Too inconvenient, time consuming- 3.7%        
  • Other reasons- 18%

One major influence in the decision to report a crime is victim-offender relationship.  The 2005 NCVS Table 104 illustrates
this major difference between non-reporting with a stranger offender and an offender known to him. Among the top
reasons for non-reporting when a stranger is involved: Reported to another official (49.6%), Police don’t want to be
bothered  (19.9%), Offender unsuccessful (12.7%), Fear of reprisal (11%), and Police inefficient, ineffective, or biased
(6.9%). Among the top reasons for non-reporting when a non-stranger is involved: Other Reasons (47%), Private or
personal matter (31.1%), Police don’t want to be bothered (10.8%), Report to another official (5.1%), Police ineffective,
inefficient, biased (2.8%), and Too incontinent, time consuming (2.4%).

The NCVS sex crimes definition:

  • Sexual assault: A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks
    or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may
    or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal
    threats.
  • Rape: Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual
    intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where
    the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims
    and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

The NCVS is very thorough, but there are a few problems. Firstly, it combines actual crimes with threats of crimes in many
places; Table 1 of the NCVS divides reported rapes (72,240) and attempted rape (44,650), but combines sexual assault
with attempt (81,950). Secondly, the reports are limited to crimes involving people age 12 and older, no children. Thirdly,
the phrase “verbal threats” is a rather vague term. Still, the NCVS is the most likely source for under-reporting estimates.
That being said, there are many reasons why certain crimes go unreported.

In an attempt to rectify certain issues with the NCVS, the DOJ conducted a study called “Sexual Assault of Young Children
as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics” (2000). Since the NCVS only relates to
victims 12+ years of age, the study relied on the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). While there is
no feasible way to survey children on unreported sex crimes, this study offers up another X factor to further complicate the
issue: the number of sexual assaults committed by juveniles who are likely not a registered sex offender. The study found
that juveniles made up 23.2% of total sex crimes against children: 40% of offenders of children under age 6 and 39% of
offenders against children ages 7-11 were juveniles; and the single age with the greatest number of offenders is 14 (p. 8).

In short, it is rather difficult to sufficiently determine just how many factors impact the ability to estimate exactly how many
crimes go unreported. On one hand, there is a number of sex crimes going unreported. On the other hand, what are the
reasons for the under-reporting? Also, how do we even determine a base number to use to determine the total number of
actual sex crimes being committed by people old enough to be sex offender recidivists?  Do we count verbal threats as
bona fide sex crimes or not? In fairness, what about the number of false allegations? A number of recent exonerations of
convicted rapists as a result of DNA evidence immediately come to mind. And sadly, sex crimes are typically he-said-she-
said events. Even if we could somehow come up with a formula that accurately portrays the amount of unreported crimes in
general, how can we truly determine the number of registered sex offenders that have committed these acts? In reality, this
line of thinking merely serves to attempt to explain an undesired result, namely, sex offenders have a lower recidivism rate
than other offenders.

One final note: Patkin (2008) states that under-reporting for crime in general is under-reported; citing the 1999 NCVS,
Patkin notes 64% of overall crime goes unreported. Thus, the idea that sex crimes go reported at a higher rate than other
crimes is another myth.

Factors in Recidivism

Another concern is the factors which play a role in recidivism. There are two main factors: Static and Dynamic.

  • Static: Circumstances that do not change, such as age when sex offense was committed, problematic childhood,
    and current age.
  • Dynamic factors: Factors that can change, such as circumstances and attitudes. Dynamic factors can be stable
    (changing slowly over time) or acute (changing quickly, like being evicted, harassed, threatened or sexual arousal).
    Dynamic factors are more likely to affect recidivism (Patkin 2008).

Recidivism Studies

Various studies conducted  over the years have found a consistently low number of sex offenders who re-offend. In light of
the consistency of research, it would be hard-pressed to explain away why so many studies have come to the same
consistent conclusion.

US Department of Justice, “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released into the Community in 1994.”

  • Three-year follow-up period
  • 9,641 sex offenders released in 15 states
  • 262,420 non-sex offenders released in same 15 states in 1994
  • 517 sex offenders (5.3% of all sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within 3 years
  • 3,228 non-sex offenders (1.3% of all no-sex offenders) were arrested for a sex crime within the same three year
    period
  • 3.5% of sex offenders re-convicted

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, “Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases.”

  • 8% of sex offenders were recommitted in the 10-year period
  • 3% of sex offenders committed a sexually-related violation of probation/ parole
  • Half of recidivists re-offended within two years of release
  • 2/3 of recidivists re-offended within 3 years of release
  • Treatment found to reduce recidivism (16.7% w/o treatment, 7% w/ treatment)

Michigan DOC Parole Board Stats for parolees 1990-2000 (3 year follow-up)

  • 4762 SO paroled, 993 total failures, 702 technical violations, 291 returned to prison, 117 committed sex crimes
    (2.46%), 6.11% total recidivism (apparently based on return to prison)
  • Lowest total (general) recidivism: Homicide (6.03%), Sex Offenders (6.11%), Embezzlement (8.44%), Arson
    (8.64%), Motor Vehicle Offenses (10.75%)
  • Lowest same crime (specific) recidivism: Embezzlement (0.44%), Murder (0.99%), Arson (1.49%), Sex Offenses
    (2.46%), Assault (2.83%)

Sex Offender Sentencing In Washington State: Recidivism Rates (5 year + 1 year for adjudication, based on conviction
rates)

  • General SO Recidivism 13%; Sex Offense Recidivism 2.7%; among child victim offenders, 2.3%; among rapists,
    3.9%

Arizona Dept. of Corrections follow up of SO released from 1984-1998 (up to 12 year follow-up period)

  • 3,205 released SO; 25.2% general recidivism; 5.5% sex crime; Indecency SO recidivists, 9.3%; Rapists, 5.9%; sex
    abuse 5%; sex conduct with minor, 3.5%

Alaska three year recidivism study (2007)

  • SO specific recidivism rate, 3%; SO arrested for any crime (gen. recid.) 39%; All criminals general recidivism, 60%.
    Factors correlated with higher recidivism: Youth, substance abuse, mental illness, poor

Harris and Hanson (2004) Summary of Canadian Recidivism studies (averaged percentages of recidivists after 5, 10, and
15 years respectively)

  • All Sex offenders - 14%, 20%, 24%
  • Rapists- 14%, 21%, 24%
  • Incest Molesters - 6%, 9%, 13%
  • Girl Victim Molesters - 9%, 13%, 16%
  • Boy victim molesters - 23%, 28%, 35%
  • First time sex offenders - 10%, 15%, 19%
  • Repeat sex offenders - 25%, 32%, 37%

Conclusion

The simple question of recidivism has a rather complex answer. However, the general consensus is our worst fear,
namely the number of sex offenders committing new sex crimes, is much lower than believed. Still, the recidivism myth
runs deep and proponents of sex offender legislation have given many excuses regarding the consistently low numbers of
sex specific recidivism. Some claim sex offenders “learn not to get caught again” (Hopkins 2007), others look at the
concept of unreported crimes, misread and misinform the public on research findings (whether intentional or not), or
simply reject the findings altogether. Regardless of the criticism, the fact remains that sex offenders have a low recidivism
rate, are less likely to commit crimes than other offenders, vary greatly by offense type, are less likely to re-offend the longer
they are out of prison, and make up only a fraction of sex crime arrests. As long as the recidivism myth remains, there is
little hope for progress in addressing the root causes of criminal sexual behavior.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
.
  1. Arizona Dept. of Corrections (2007) Sex Offender Recidivism. http://www.adcprisoninfo.az.gov/
  2. Florida Dept. of Corrections (July 2003) Data and Methods: Recidivism Rate Curves. www.dc.state.fl.
    us/pub/recidivism/2003/index.html
  3. Harris, A. J. R., Hanson, R. K. (2004) Sex Offender Recidivism: A Simple Question.
  4. Hopkins, K. (2007). “Sexual crime study shows repeats low.” Anchorage Daily News. www.adn.com.
  5. Levenson, J.S., Branon, Y. N., Fortney, T., and Baker, J. (2007). Public Perceptions About Sex Offenders and
    Community Protection Policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1., 1-25.
  6. Logue, D. (2007) Comprehensive sex offender fact sheet from Once Fallen. www.oncefallen.com/SOFactGuide.html.
  7. Marshall, W.L. & Barbaree, H.E. (1990). Outcomes of comprehensive cognitive-behavioral treatment programs. In W.
    L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, and H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of
    the offender (pp. 363-385). New York: Plenum.
  8. Michigan Dept. of Corrections (2000). Recidivism Statistics: from Annually Published Michigan Dept. of Corrections,
    Statistical Reports (Parole Board) Cumulative Parole Board Statistics for Parolees 1990 through 2000 -- As noted at
    www.geocities.com/voicism
  9. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (2007). Sex Offenders: History. www.ncmec.org
  10. Patkin, D. (2008) Megan’s law and the misconception of sex offender recidivism.
  11. Sample, L. and Kadleck, C. (March 2008). Sex Offender Laws: Legislators’ Accounts of the Need for Policy. Criminal
    Justice Policy Review (Advance copy courtesy of Lisa Sample, University of Nebraska-Omaha)
  12. Smith v. Doe, 538 US at 103 (2002)
  13. US Dept. of Justice. Criminal Victimization In The United States, 2003 Statistical Tables.
  14. US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994.
  15. US Dept. of Justice (1997). Sex Inmates in Prison.
  16. US Dept. of Justice. (2000). Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident,
    and Offender Characteristics
  17. Washington State Institute for Public Policy (2005). Sex Offender Sentencing in Washington State: Recidivism
    Rates. www.wsipp.wa.gov
Copyright (c) 2007-2008 Derek "The Fallen One" Logue
All rights reserved. No part of this website may be used in any way without expressed written consent of the site owner.