Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Sources For Soup's CYA Presentation

Jun 6, 2013 - The greatest rates of sexual assaults in the country's juvenile ... that the rates of staff-on-inmate abuse among juveniles are "about three times ...
Jun 10, 2013 - The primary predators are adult staff at correctional facilities, not ... in juvenile facilities in America report being sexually abused in the past year ...
Jun 14, 2013 - Hundreds of Teens Raped and Assaulted by Staff in Juvenile ... that the rates of staff-on-inmate abuse among juveniles are "about three times ...
Jul 4, 2013 - In all, the facilities house more than 18,000 juveniles, representing about one ... Nine out of 10 victims were males abused by female staff.
Jun 6, 2013 - The teens are most often assaulted by staff members working at the facilities, ... said that the rates of staff-on-inmate abuse among juveniles are ...
Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic .... “She's been assaulted in ways that are so inhumane and so offensive we can't talk .... In January 2009, a manager at the Marion County Juvenile Detention Center was ...
May 16, 2013 - ... being assaulted by another inmate, 3.2 percent were abused by staff. ... One former juvenile inmate who was raped and abused in prison ...
Jun 7, 2013 - This is while Allen Beck, the author of the report, underlined that the rates of staff-on-inmate abuse among juveniles are "about three times ...
Jul 18, 2013 - Sexual Abuse and the Juvenile Justice System ... most alarming finding is the percentage of assaults committed by juvenile corrections staff.
Jun 6, 2013 - Interestingly, the rate of staff sexual misconduct is nearly twice as high .... abuse, but we had kids transferred from Juvie who'd been assaulted ...


About 16,600,000 results (0.45 seconds) 

Search Results

1.     NICIC.gov: Searching nicic.gov for: inmate sexual assault juveniles

"Your Role: Responding to Sexual Abuse ... BLOG. 14. Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010 ... Home > Library > Inmate sexual assault > Juveniles in ...

2.     PREA Posters and Inmate Brochures : NIC Information Center

Jun 14, 2012 - ... requires agencies to educate inmates and residents about their zero ... Arizona Dept. of Juvenile Corrections. ... Assault and Sexual Abuse of Juveniles,” “Reception Screening for ... Inmate sexual assault shared files on the NIC Corrections Community website ... PREA in the Juvenile Justice System

3.     In Texas' Juvenile Correctional Facilities, Assaults Among Inmates ...

Feb 11, 2012 - The overhauling of the juvenile justice system in 2007 has had some ... physically and sexually abusing minors under their supervision. ... Overall, confirmed youth-on-youth assaults have more than tripled at the secure juvenile offender ... At the Corsicana Residential Treatment Center, where the state ...
  1. [PDF]

Sexual Assault in Jail and Juvenile Facilities - DCJ Home

by K English - ‎2010 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
Jun 7, 2010 - increased rates of substance abuse, suicide attempts, depression and post ... on-inmate sexual assault in jails and resident-on-resident sexual ...

5.     Juvenile Delinquency - Page 385 - Google Books Result

Donald J. Shoemaker - 2009 - ‎Education
National data suggest that the per-resident annual costs of institutions are very high. ... numerous accounts of violence and assaults on residents by other inmates ... of abuse and neglect within institutions as well as in other parts of the juvenile ...

6.  Child-on-child sex abuse poses challenges – USATODAY.com

Jan 7, 2012 - Some states have balked at complying with the juvenile registration ... "By 14, he was so sophisticated that he could sexually assault a child sitting ... recently assessed 37 youths in a residential sex-offender unit and found that ...

Dealing with child-on-child sex abuse not one size fits all

Updated 1/7/2012 1:51 PM
  • http://i.usatoday.net/_inside2011/_i/_share/email.png
  • http://i.usatoday.net/_inside2011/_i/_share/print.png
  • http://i.usatoday.net/_inside2011/_i/_share/plus.png
NEW YORK (AP) – Recent high-profile cases of child sex abuse have roused national revulsion against the adults who perpetrated them. Rarely mentioned is the sobering statistic that more than one-third of the sexual abuse of America's children is committed by other minors.
For many of the therapists and attorneys who deal with them, these juvenile offenders pose a profoundly complicated challenge for the child-protection and criminal justice systems. It's a diverse group that defies stereotypes, encompassing a minority of youths who represent a threat of long-term danger to others and a majority who are responsive to treatment and unlikely to reoffend.
"There's a long continuum, from kids who will never do it again to a kid who probably will be an adult rapist/pedophile," said Steve Bengis, executive director of the New England Adolescent Research Institute in Holyoke, Mass. "It's not a 'one size fits all' yet we end out with public policy that's geared toward the worst 5%."
That public policy includes a federal law, the Adam Walsh Act, with a requirement that states include certain juvenile offenders as young as 14 on their sex-offender registries. Many professionals who deal with young offenders object to the requirement, saying it can wreak lifelong harm on adolescents who might otherwise get back on the track toward law-abiding, productive lives.
Some states have balked at complying with the juvenile registration requirement, even at the price of losing some federal criminal-justice funding. Other states have provisions tougher than the federal act, subjecting children younger than 14 to the possibility of 25-year or lifetime listings on publicly accessible registries that include photos of the offenders.
Delaware recently had a 9-year-old child on its registry. Several other states have registered 12- and 13-year-olds.
"We're bringing down a very heavy hammer on the head of kids, with significant life-altering consequences," said Marsha Levick, deputy director and chief counsel of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia. "It's a knee-jerk reaction that's foolhardy beyond imagination."
Nicole Pittman, a Human Rights Watch researcher, has been analyzing the impact of registration on the children who get listed, and says states should halt the practice. But she knows it's a longshot quest.
"Most legislators do not believe children should be on the registry — yet it's the kiss of death for most politicians to vote against any sex offender law," she said.
Basic data about child-on-child sex abuse is detailed in an authoritative, Justice Department-sponsored analysis of crime data from 29 states. Conducted by three prominent researchers, the 2009 analysis found that juveniles accounted for 35.6% of the people identified by police as having committed sex offenses against minors.
Of these young offenders, 93% were male, and the peak ages for offending were 12 through 14, the researchers found. Of the victims, 59% were younger than 12 and 75% were female.
The report referred to a popular misconception that juvenile sex offenders are likely to reoffend, and said numerous studies over the years have shown the opposite — that 85 to 95% of offending youth are never again arrested for sex crimes.
University of Oklahoma pediatrics professor Mark Chaffin, a co-author of the 2009 report, says efforts to deal constructively with juvenile sex offenders are complicated by the tendency of some legislators and others to lump them together with adult sexual predators.
"That used to be the message — that we should apply the template from what we know about adult pedophilia," Chaffin said. "Now that the data has shown most of those assumptions were wrong, it's difficult to undo those messages that people in the advocacy and treatment fields were putting out a generation ago."
Experts say the young offenders differ from adult sex offenders not only in their lower recidivism rates, but in the diversity of their motives and abusive behavior.
While some youths commit violent, premeditated acts of sexual assault and rape, others get in trouble for behavior arising from curiosity, naivete, peer pressure, momentary irresponsibility, misinterpretation of what they believed was mutual interest, and a host of other reasons. Some cases involve sibling incest; sometimes the offenders have autism or other developmental disorders that lessen their ability to self-police inappropriate conduct.
"There needs to be a highly discriminative response system," said sociologist David Finkelhor, director of the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center. "It needs to differentiate between the kids we should stigmatize as little as possible, who are probably going to be fine with some kind of education, and others who need a lot of intervention, including maybe incarceration, because they pose a tremendous risk."
"We run a big risk if we get it wrong," he added. "We fail to protect the public on one hand, or we ruin the lives of young people who might otherwise be headed in a healthy direction."
In most cases of child-on-child sex abuse, the public never hears about it. Experts say many incidents are never reported in the first place, due to the shame or embarrassment of victims and their parents, and most of the cases that are reported are handled confidentially through the juvenile justice system.
Robert Edelman, who has worked with many abused children as a mental health counselor in Gainesville, Fla., is well aware of the ripple effects of abuse. In one case, a man now in his 20s was molested at age 8 by an older boy. Later — at 15 — the boy was charged with molesting his half-sister.
During a counseling session after that arrest, Edelman noticed slashes on the youth's arm — he'd tried to kill himself out of remorse for abusing the sister.
In his early 20s, the man was arrested for a domestic violence incident involving his wife, Edelman said, and at one stage faced the possibility of having his children removed from the home because he'd been labeled a juvenile sex offender.
"Something that happened to him when he was 8 was still being carried around 15 years later," Edelman said.
Veronique Valliere, a psychologist with a counseling practice in Fogelsville, Pa., has worked with numerous youths implicated in sex offenses, ranging from those she deemed highly unlikely to reoffend to others who posed a clear long-term menace. One such case, she said, involved a youth who began molesting younger children when he was 12 or 13 and was showing signs of developing pedophilia.
"By 14, he was so sophisticated that he could sexually assault a child sitting next to him in church — or in the backseat of a car," Valliere said.
Despite extensive attempts to treat the young man, the abuse continued, and Valliere said he is now serving a 30-to-60-year prison sentence for child sex abuse he committed as a 22-year-old.
"He was a rare case," she said. "He had every opportunity to get better. We did everything we could do, but he just wasn't willing to manage himself."
Looking nationwide, experts differ as to whether sex abuse by juveniles is proliferating or abating.
The latest juvenile crime data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that arrests of juvenile sex offenders declined by about 25% from 2000 through 2009. That would mesh with a decline in child sex abuse committed by adults, as well as a decline in the overall juvenile crime rate.
But data from New York City, Florida and elsewhere indicates that the prevalence of child-on-child sex hasn't dropped noticeably.
In any case, forms of abuse evolve with the times as sexting becomes a common youth activity and easily accessible online pornography affects some children.
"There's a fear of technology — parents don't think they can control it," said Marsha Levick, who has been working with colleagues to dissuade prosecutors from criminalizing commonplace teen sexting activities.
For parents, it's often hard to discern warning signs about potentially dangerous sexual activity or to identify youths who might pose a threat to their own children.
"It would be less scary if we could come up with a stereotype … so as a parent we could say, 'Stay away from this type of child,'" said Nancy Arnow of Safe Horizon, a New York-based victim services agency. "There is no typical youthful offender. They come from all backgrounds."
Safe Horizon serves adult victims of rape and sex trafficking, but Arnow said the child-on-child sex abuse cases are among the most difficult.
"We have to distinguish between sexualized behavior that might be pretty normal — experimenting, touching each other — versus molesting, subjecting another child to harm," she said. She recalled investigations of children as young as 7, and the arrest of an 8-year-old.
In New York City, sex offenders aged 7 through 15 usually end up in family court, where the main goal is rehabilitation, not punishment.
"We're supposed to consider needs of juveniles and the need for public safety, so it's balancing act," said Thea Davis, chief of the family court's Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit. Cases often end with plea bargaining and probation. The most severe outcome is an 18-month placement in a secure state-run facility for juvenile offenders.
The hardest cases, Davis said, are intra-family cases where a cousin or brother abuses a younger cousin or sibling.
"Immediately you have to separate the perpetrator from the victim and make sure the victim is safe," she said. "But you also have to think that in the long run you're dealing with a family, and you're not going to keep them separated forever."
Virginia White, a family counselor with Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, deals with young victims of sex abuse, including those targeted by siblings.
"The parents are in a tough place — they feel guilty a lot," she said. "And the victim is often torn, because the other sibling may be removed from home."
Ideally, parents as well as the offending child should be involved in treatment, according to Jay Deppeler, president of an agency called Edison Court in Doylestown, Pa., that runs a residential treatment program for adolescent male sex offenders.
However, Deppeler said stigma and fear of consequences probably deter some families from telling authorities about cases of intra-family abuse.
"The family may circle the wagons, and the abuse may persist," he said.
Another challenging type of abuse cases involves youths who are autistic.
Lawrence Sutton, a psychologist from Pittsburgh, recently assessed 37 youths in a residential sex-offender unit and found that 60% were autistic. He said these youths, many of them past victims of sexual abuse, can be treated successfully if the reasons for their behavior problems are understood.
Many don't know who to form relationships, "how to make friends," Sutton said. "Most of them have done to others what was done to them at some point."
Deppeler recalled one autistic young man who came through Edison Court as an outpatient. He had committed a sex offense as a 14-year-old and later — after turning 18 — committed a property-related offense that sent him to the adult criminal justice system. As a result, the young man became obligated to apprise prospective employers of his full record, including the juvenile sex offense — making him "virtually unemployable."
"Long term, I fear his prospects are quite bleak," Deppeler said. "What do we end up doing with a guy like that?"
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

7.     DOJ Report Finds Sexual Abuse At Juvenile Detention Facilities Is ...

Jun 6, 2013 - The report indicates that about 3.5 percent of inmates reported sexual ... percent), Corsicana Residential Treatment Center in Texas (10.5 percent), .... any abuse, but we had kids transferred from Juvie who'd been assaulted ...

At the time Arizona law did not permit any appeals in a juvenile case. .... of age at the Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly the California Youth Authority.) ..... or they have physically restrained you by handcufs or pointing a weapon at you, ...
The worst physical confrontations have ended in death. At least five juveniles died after being forcibly placed in restraints in facilities run by state ... successful landmark litigation against the California Youth Authority (CYA) in April 2006.
Jun 19, 2012 - the Ella Baker Center has pursued juvenile justice reforms in California ... Then known as the California Youth Authority, DJJ ..... Because she was on suicide watch, staff put her in a strait jacket that restrained her physical.
27 posts - ‎2 authors
Juvenile Institution. Case Summary. A taxpayer whose juvenile nephew was a ward of the court filed a lawsuit on January 16, 2003, .... Restraints : physical.
Formal systems of classification are less common in juvenile corrections. ..... of 2003, HGS used chemicals restraints a total of 535 times, physical restraints were ...

Dec 31, 2001 - B.4 Suggested improvement of mental health services in the CYA: Integrating .... evaluation of the California Youth Authority's mental health system. ... Psychiatry Department of the Stanford University School of Medicine.
... sex offender behavior, and substance abuse and mental health problems, and medical care, while maintaining a safe and secure environment conducive to ...
  1. [PDF]
by EW Trupin - ‎2003 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
In addition, we interviewed key administrative, medical, mental health, ... on a review of documents provided by the California Youth Authority (CYA), including.
"The California Youth Authority will contribute to the protection of society from the .... offense criteria, medical or mental health needs or length of confinement".
www.americanbar.org › ... › Spring 2003 - Body Rights and Body Ethics
In the best of circumstances, youthful offenders with mental health issues face ... States, and specifically in the cases handled by the California Youth Authority (CYA). ... context on issues related to provision of medical and mental health care.
The California Youth Authority southern reception center in Norwalk ..... Questions on immunization, medical, mental health, substance abuse patient Records -
  1. [PDF]
capacity, Petitioner Morris has become aware of the medical and mental health problems of youth incarcerated in the California Youth Authority. 7. Respondent ...
www.ylc.org › Our WorkArchivePast Litigation
... challenging the failure of the California Youth Authority (now the Division of Juvenile Justice) to license its inpatient medical and mental health services as ...
The assessment of the mental health system of the California Youth Authority ..... mental health treatment programs best on evidence based medical practice.
The California Youth Authority southern reception center ... months for enhanced robbery, felony assault 63.6 months, 59.5 months for forcible rape. ... to DJJ thanks to the efforts of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi and his staff. .... 58% are in need of substance abuse treatment services, 22% are in need of sexual ...
Jan 9, 2000 - HARDER TIME: California Youth Authority Shifts from Rehab to Brutality ... left to sit in urine-soaked clothing, wards and former staff members said. ... Officials at the prison deny they use the gym sessions to punish or abuse prisoners. .... murder and assault, compared with the 47 percent who were violent ...
Jun 10, 2007 - Uploaded by rosaryfilms
Violence, Abuse & Neglect in the California Youth Authority ... of violence, sexual assault, guard abuse ...
articles.latimes.com › Collections
October 10, 1986 | PHILIP HAGER, Times Staff Writer ... In echoing earlier criticism of the California Youth Authority, the audit ... allegations of abuse against wards, announced her resignation Wednesday. .... California Youth Authority officials revealed Thursday that they were pushing prosecutors to file criminal assault ...
27 posts - ‎2 authors
Assault/abuse by staff. Confinement/ ... Sex w/ staff; sexual harassment by staff ... Review of Health Care Services in California Youth Authority (CYA) 08/23/2003.
  1. [PDF]
The California Youth Authority (CYA), the largest youth correctional system ... substance abuse treatment, specialized counseling, and intensive mental health .... CYA research staff such as Carl Jesness and Ted Palmer, nevertheless, .... gruesome details and harsh realities of life behind bars including the assaults, murders ...
Violence, Abuse and Neglect in the California Youth Authority, Print E-mail ... levels of violence, sexual assault, guard abuse, and medical, educational, and mental health care neglect. ... "They tried to drown me and the staff just looked on.
  1. [PDF]
experience rape, sexual assault and abuse by both correctional officers and other inmates and often receive punitive ... particularly as punishment for reporting cases of assault or abuse by correctional staff. .... The California Youth Authority.
Jun 17, 2012 - Violence, Abuse & Neglect in the California Youth Authority ... sexual assault, guard abuse, and medical, educational, and mental health care neglect. ... was a free for all, staff did what they wanted. lied and denied everything.

Many violent gang members, sexual offenders, and other violent and repeat offenders ... rape 53.8 months,felony assault 51.7 months, other sex offenses 46.3 months. ... to the efforts of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi and his staff. ... In 1996, one inmate murdered a prison guard at the California Youth Authority.
·  [PDF]
by SW McCampbell - ‎2000 - ‎Cited by 3 - ‎Related articles
Summary. Section III – Institutional Culture and Staff/Inmate Dynamics .... abuse, sexual harassment, sexual contact, conduct of a sexual nature or .... administrators of a California Youth Authority school for their ... sex with juveniles under their charge. Two ...... per 100,000 residents has risen from 292 to 476. Louisiana has ...
·  [PDF]

·  [PDF]
state government and conducted 34 interviews with staff in those ... Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP); California Youth Authority; and Victim Compensation ... inventory to include all possible victims of SV, regardless of age, sex, or relationship ... Under ICD-10, the code Y05 indicates a sexual assault using bodily force,.
·  [PDF]
likely to fight with same sex friends or acquaintances than any other type of victim, girls' ... sexual exploitation and abuse by family members and boyfriends, as well as ... A study of girls in the California Youth Authority (now the Division of Juvenile ... Detention and residential facilities, as well as the staff that work in them, are ...
More results for

Top of Form
Training Curricula
Bottom of Form

Center for Sex Offender Management, A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

About CSOM
OJP Grant Sites
Contact CSOM
Training Curricula
What's New
CSOM Documents
Other Resources
Related Links
CSOM Documents
Recidivism of Sex Offenders
May 2001
The criminal justice system manages most convicted sex offenders with some combination of incarceration, community supervision, and specialized treatment (Knopp, Freeman-Longo, and Stevenson, 1992). While the likelihood and length of incarceration for sex offenders has increased in recent years (since 1980, the number of imprisoned sex offenders has grown by more than 7 percent per year; in 1994, nearly one in ten state prisoners were incarcerated for committing a sex offense [Greenfeld, 1997]), the majority are released at some point on probation or parole (either immediately following sentencing or after a period of incarceration in prison or jail). About 60 percent of all sex offenders managed by the U.S. correctional system are under some form of conditional supervision in the community (Greenfeld, 1997).
While any offender’s subsequent reoffending is of public concern, the prevention of sexual violence is particularly important, given the irrefutable harm that these offenses cause victims and the fear they generate in the community. With this in mind, practitioners making decisions about how to manage sex offenders must ask themselves the following questions:
  What is the likelihood that a specific offender will commit subsequent sex crimes?
  Under what circumstances is this offender least likely to reoffend?
  What can be done to reduce the likelihood of reoffense?
The study of recidivism—the commission of a subsequent offense—is important to the criminal justice response to sexual offending. If sex offenders commit a wide variety of offenses, responses from both a public policy and treatment perspective may be no different than is appropriate for the general criminal population (Quinsey, 1984). However, a more specialized response is appropriate if sex offenders tend to commit principally sex offenses.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the critical issues in defining recidivism and provide a synthesis of the current research on the reoffense rates of sex offenders. The following sections summarize and discuss research findings on sex offenders, factors and conditions that appear to be associated with reduced sexual offending, and the implications that these findings have for sex offender management. Although studies on juvenile sex offender response to treatment exist, the vast majority of research has concentrated on adult males. Thus, this paper focuses primarily on adult male sex offenders.
Issues in the Measurement of Sex Offender Recidivism
Research on recidivism can be used to inform intervention strategies with sex offenders. However, the way in which recidivism is measured can have a marked difference in study results and applicability to the day-to-day management of this criminal population. The following section explores variables such as the population(s) of sex offenders studied, the criteria used to measure recidivism, the types of offenses studied, and the length of time a study follows a sample. Practitioners must understand how these and other study variables can affect conclusions about sex offender recidivism, as well as decisions regarding individual cases.
Defining the Sex Offender Population Studied
Sex offenders are a highly heterogeneous mixture of individuals who have committed violent sexual assaults on strangers, offenders who have had inappropriate sexual contact with family members, individuals who have molested children, and those who have engaged in a wide range of other inappropriate and criminal sexual behaviors. If we group various types of offenders and offenses into an ostensibly homogenous category of "sex offenders," distinctions in the factors related to recidivism will be masked and differential results obtained from studies of reoffense patterns. Thus, one of the first issues to consider in reviewing any study of sex offender recidivism is how "sex offender" is defined; who is included in this category, and, as important, who is not.
Defining Recidivism
Although there is common acceptance that recidivism is the commission of a subsequent offense, there are many operational definitions for this term. For example, recidivism may occur when there is a new arrest, new conviction, or new commitment to custody. Each of these criteria is a valid measure of recidivism, but each measures something different. While the differences may appear minor, they will lead to widely varied outcomes.
·         Subsequent Arrest—Using new charges or arrests as the determining criteria for "recidivism" will result in a higher recidivism rate, because many individuals are arrested but for a variety of reasons, are not convicted.
·         Subsequent Conviction—Measuring new convictions is a more restrictive criterion than new arrests, resulting in a lower recidivism rate. Generally, more confidence is placed in reconviction, since this involves a process through which the individual has been found guilty. However, given the process involved in reporting, prosecution, and conviction in sex offense cases, a number of researchers favor the use of more inclusive criteria (e.g., arrests or charges).
·         Subsequent Incarceration—Some studies utilize return to prison as the criterion for determining recidivism. There are two ways in which individuals may be returned to a correctional institution. One is through the commission of a new offense and return to prison on a new sentence and the other is through a technical violation of parole. The former is by far the more restrictive criterion, since an offender has to have been found guilty and sentenced to prison. Technical violations typically involve violations of conditions of release, such as being alone with minor children or consuming alcohol. Thus, the use of this definition will result in the inclusion of individuals who may not have committed a subsequent criminal offense as recidivists. When one encounters the use of return to prison as the criterion for recidivism, it is imperative to determine if this includes those with new convictions, technical violations, or both.
Underestimating Recidivism
Reliance on measures of recidivism as reflected through official criminal justice system data obviously omit offenses that are not cleared through an arrest or those that are never reported to the police. This distinction is critical in the measurement of recidivism of sex offenders. For a variety of reasons, sexual assault is a vastly underreported crime. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (Bureau of Justice Statistics) conducted in 1994, 1995, and 1998 indicate that only 32 percent (one out of three) of sexual assaults against persons 12 or older are reported to law enforcement. A three-year longitudinal study (Kilpatrick, Edmunds, and Seymour, 1992) of 4,008 adult women found that 84 percent of respondents who identified themselves as rape victims did not report the crime to authorities. (No current studies indicate the rate of reporting for child sexual assault, although it is generally assumed that these assaults are equally underreported.) Many victims are afraid to report sexual assault to the police. They may fear that reporting will lead to the following:
  • further victimization by the offender;
  • other forms of retribution by the offender or by the offender's friends or family;
  • arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of an offender who may be a family member or friend and on whom the victim or others may depend;
  • others finding out about the sexual assault (including friends, family members, media, and the public);
  • not being believed; and
  • being traumatized by the criminal justice system response.
These factors are compounded by the shame and guilt experienced by sexual assault victims, and, for many, a desire to put a tragic experience behind them. Incest victims who have experienced criminal justice involvement are particularly reluctant to report new incest crimes because of the disruption caused to their family. This complex of reasons makes it unlikely that reporting figures will change dramatically in the near future and bring recidivism rates closer to actual reoffense rates.
Several studies support the hypothesis that sexual offense recidivism rates are underreported. Marshall and Barbaree (1990) compared official records of a sample of sex offenders with "unofficial" sources of data. They found that the number of subsequent sex offenses revealed through unofficial sources was 2.4 times higher than the number that was recorded in official reports. In addition, research using information generated through polygraph examinations on a sample of imprisoned sex offenders with fewer than two known victims (on average), found that these offenders actually had an average of 110 victims and 318 offenses (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000). Another polygraph study found a sample of imprisoned sex offenders to have extensive criminal histories, committing sex crimes for an average of 16 years before being caught (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons, 1999).
Offense Type
For the purpose of their studies, researchers must determine what specific behaviors qualify sex offenders as recidivists. They must decide if only sex offenses will be considered, or if the commission of any crime is sufficient to be classified as a recidivating offense. If recidivism is determined only through the commission of a subsequent sex offense, researchers must consider if this includes felonies and misdemeanors. Answers to these fundamental questions will influence the level of observed recidivism in each study.
Length of Follow-Up
Studies often vary in the length of time they "follow-up" on a group of sex offenders in the community. There are two issues of concern with follow-up periods. Ideally, all individuals in any given study should have the same length of time "at risk"—time at large in the community—and, thus, equal opportunity to commit subsequent offenses. In practice, however, this almost never happens. For instance, in a 10-year follow-up study, some subjects will have been in the community for eight, nine, or 10 years while others may have been out for only two years. This problem is addressed by using survival analysis, a methodology that takes into account the amount of time every subject has been in the community, rather than a simple percentage.
Additionally, when researchers compare results across studies, similar time at risk should be used in each of the studies. Obviously, the longer the follow-up period, the more likely reoffense will occur and a higher rate of recidivism will be observed. Many researchers believe that recidivism studies should ideally include a follow-up period of five years or more.
Effect on Recidivism Outcomes
What are we to make of these caveats regarding recidivism—do they render recidivism a meaningless concept? On the contrary, from a public policy perspective, recidivism is an invaluable measure of the performance of various sanctions and interventions with criminal offenders. However, there is often much ambiguity surrounding what appears to be a simple statement of outcomes regarding recidivism. In comparing the results of various recidivism studies, one should not lose sight of the issues of comparable study samples, criteria for recidivism, the length of the follow-up period, information sources utilized to estimate risk of reoffense, and the likelihood that recidivism rates are underestimated.
Factors Associated with Sex Offender Recidivism
In many instances, policies and procedures for the management of sex offenders have been driven by public outcry over highly publicized sex offenses. However, criminal justice practitioners must avoid reactionary responses that are based on public fear of this population. Instead, they must strive to make management decisions that are based on the careful assessment of the likelihood of recidivism. The identification of risk factors that may be associated with recidivism of sex offenders can aid practitioners in devising management strategies that best protect the community and reduce the likelihood of further victimization.
It is crucial to keep in mind, however, that there are no absolutes or "magic bullets" in the process of identifying these risk factors. Rather, this process is an exercise in isolating factors that tend to be associated with specific behaviors. While this association reflects a likelihood, it does not indicate that all individuals who possess certain characteristics will behave in a certain manner. Some sex offenders will inevitably commit subsequent sex offenses, in spite of our best efforts to identify risk factors and institute management and treatment processes aimed at minimizing these conditions. Likewise, not all sex offenders who have reoffense risk characteristics will recidivate.
This section explores several important aspects in the study of recidivism and identification of risk factors associated with sex offenders’ commission of subsequent crimes.
Application of Studies of General Criminal Recidivism
The identification of factors associated with criminal recidivism has been an area of significant research over the past 20 years. This work has fueled the development of countless policies and instruments to guide sentencing and release decisions throughout the criminal justice system. If one assumes that sex offenders are similar to other criminal offenders, then the preponderance of research should assist practitioners in identifying risk factors in this population as well. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argued that there is little specialization among criminal offenders. In this view, robbers also commit burglary and those who commit assaults also may be drug offenders. The extensive research on recidivism among the general criminal population has identified a set of factors that are consistently associated with subsequent criminal behavior. These factors include being young, having an unstable employment history, abusing alcohol and drugs, holding pro-criminal attitudes, and associating with other criminals (Gendreau, Little, and Goggin, 1996).
However, there is some evidence that suggests that sexual offending may differ from other criminal behavior (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998). Although sex offenders may commit other types of offenses, other types of offenders rarely commit sex offenses (Bonta and Hanson, 1995; Hanson, Steffy, and Gauthier, 1995). If this is the case, then a different set of factors may be associated with the recidivism of sex offenders than for the general offender population. This statement is reinforced by the finding that many persistent sex offenders receive low risk scores on instruments designed to predict recidivism among the general offender population (Bonta and Hanson, 1995).
Identification of Static and Dynamic Factors
Characteristics of offenders can be grouped into two general categories. First, there are historical characteristics, such as age, prior offense history, and age at first sex offense arrest or conviction. Because these items typically cannot be altered, they are often referred to as static factors. Second are those characteristics, circumstances, and attitudes that can change throughout one’s life, generally referred to as dynamic factors. Examples of dynamic characteristics include drug or alcohol use, poor attitude (e.g., low remorse and victim blaming), and intimacy problems. The identification of dynamic factors that are associated with reduced recidivism holds particular promise in effectively managing sex offenders because the strengthening of these factors can be encouraged through various supervision and treatment strategies.
Dynamic factors can further be divided into stable and acute categories (Hanson and Harris, 1998). Stable dynamic factors are those characteristics that can change over time, but are relatively lasting qualities. Examples of these characteristics include deviant sexual preferences or alcohol or drug abuse. On the other hand, Hanson and Harris (1998) suggest that acute dynamic factors are conditions that can change over a short period of time. Examples include sexual arousal or intoxication that may immediately precede a reoffense.
Understanding Base Rates
Understanding the concept of "base rates" is also essential when studying sex offender recidivism. A base rate is simply the overall rate of recidivism of an entire group of offenders. If the base rate for an entire group is known (e.g., 40 percent), then, without other information, practitioners would predict that any individual in this group has approximately a 40 percent chance of recidivating. If static or dynamic factors related to recidivism are identified, error rates can be improved and this information can be used to make more accurate assessments of the likelihood of rearrest or reconviction. However, if the base rate is at one extreme or the other, additional information may not significantly improve accuracy. For instance, if the base rate were 10 percent, then practitioners would predict that 90 percent of the individuals in this group would not be arrested for a new crime. The error rate would be difficult to improve, regardless of what additional information may be available about individual offenders. In other words, if we simply predicted that no one would be rearrested, we would be wrong only 10 percent of the time. It is quite difficult to make accurate individual predictions in such extreme situations.
What has come to be termed as "the low base rate problem" has traditionally plagued sex offender recidivism studies (Quinsey, 1980). As noted previously, lack of reporting, or underreporting, is higher in crimes of sexual violence than general criminal violence and may contribute to the low base rate problem. The following studies have found low base rates for sex offender populations:
  • Hanson and Bussiere (1998) reported an overall recidivism rate of 13 percent.
  • Grumfeld and Noreik (1986) found a 10 percent recidivism rate for rapists.
  • Gibbens, Soothill, and Way (1978) reported a 4 percent recidivism rate for incest offenders.
Samples of sex offenders used in some studies may have higher base rates of reoffense than other studies. Quinsey (1984) found this to be the case in his summary of sex offender recidivism studies, as have many other authors who have attempted to synthesize this research. There is wide variation in results, in both the amount of measured recidivism and the factors associated with these outcomes. To a large degree, differences can be explained by variations in the sample of sex offenders involved in the studies. Although this is a simple and somewhat obvious point, this basic fact is "responsible for the disagreements and much of the confusion in the literature" on the recidivism of sex offenders (Quinsey, 1984).
Furthermore, results from some studies indicate that there may be higher base rates among certain categories of sex offenders (Quinsey, Laumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995; Quinsey, Rice, and Harris, 1995). For example, in their follow-up study of sex offenders released from a psychiatric facility, Quinsey, Rice, and Harris (1995) found that rapists had a considerably higher rate of rearrest/reconviction than did child molesters.
Conversely, Prentky, Lee, Knight, and Cerce (1997) found that over a 25-year period, child molesters had higher rates of reoffense than rapists. In this study, recidivism was operationalized as a failure rate and calculated as the proportion of individuals who were rearrested using survival analysis (which takes into account the amount of time each offender has been at risk in the community). Results show that over longer periods of time, child molesters have a higher failure rate—thus, a higher rate of rearrest—than rapists (52 percent versus 39 percent over 25 years).
Making Sense of Contradictory Findings
Studies on sex offender recidivism vary widely in the quality and rigor of the research design, the sample of sex offenders and behaviors included in the study, the length of follow-up, and the criteria for success or failure. Due to these and other differences, there is often a perceived lack of consistency across studies of sex offender recidivism. For example, there have been varied results regarding whether the age of the offender at the time of institutional release is associated with subsequent criminal sexual behavior. While Beck and Shipley (1987) found that there was no relationship between these variables, Clark and Crum (1985) and Marshall and Barbaree (1990) suggested that younger offenders were more likely to commit future crimes. However, Grunfeld and Noreik (1986) argued that older sex offenders are more likely to have a more developed fixation and thus are more likely to reoffend. A study by the Delaware Statistical Analysis Center (1984) found that those serving longer periods of incarceration had a lower recidivism rate—while Roundtree, Edwards, and Parker (1984) found just the opposite.
To a large degree, the variation across individual studies can be explained by the differences in study populations. Schwartz and Cellini (1997) indicated that the use of a heterogeneous group of sex offenders in the analysis of recidivism might be responsible for this confusion:
"Mixing an antisocial rapist with a socially skilled fixated pedophile with a developmentally disabled exhibitionist may indeed produce a hodgepodge of results."
Similarly, West, Roy, and Nichols (1978) noted that recidivism rates in studies of sex offenders vary by the characteristics of the offender sample. Such a situation makes the results from follow-up studies of undifferentiated sex offenders difficult to interpret (Quinsey, 1998).
One method of dealing with this problem is to examine recidivism studies of specific types of sex offenders. This approach is warranted, given the established base rate differences across types of sex offenders. (Recent research suggests that many offenders have histories of assaulting across genders and age groups, rather than against only one specific victim population. Researchers in a 1999 study (Ahlmeyer, English, and Simons) found that, through polygraph examinations, the number offenders who "crossed over" age groups of victims is extremely high. The study revealed that before polygraph examinations, 6 percent of a sample of incarcerated sex offenders had both child and adult victims, compared to 71 percent after polygraph exams. Thus, caution must be taken in placing sex offenders in exclusive categories.) Marshall and Barbaree (1990) found in their review of studies that the recidivism rate for specific types of offenders varied:
  • Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
  • Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
  • Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
  • Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
  • Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.
In summary, practitioners should recognize several key points related to research studies on sex offender recidivism. First, since sexual offending may differ from other criminal behavior, research specific to sex offender recidivism is needed to inform interventions with sex offenders. Second, researchers seek to identify static and dynamic factors associated with recidivism of sex offenders. In particular, the identification of, and support of, "positive" dynamic factors may help reduce the risk of recidivism. Third, although research studies on recidivism of sex offenders often appear to have contradictory findings, variations in outcomes can typically be explained by the differences in the study populations. Finally, since base rate differences have been identified across types of sex offenses, it makes sense to study recidivism of sex offenders by offense type.
Review of Studies
The following sections present findings from various studies of the recidivism of sex offenders within offense categories of rapists and child molesters (the studies included in this paper do not represent a comprehensive overview of the research on sex offender recidivism. The studies included represent a sampling of available research on these populations and are drawn from to highlight key points). Overall recidivism findings are presented, along with results concerning the factors and characteristics associated with recidivism.
There has been considerable research on the recidivism of rapists across various institutional and community-based settings and with varying periods of follow-up. A follow-up study of sex offenders released from a maximum-security psychiatric institution in California found that 10 of the 57 rapists (19 percent) studied were reconvicted of a rape within five years, most of which occurred during the first year of the follow-up period (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). These same authors reported that among 68 sex offenders not found to be mentally disordered who were paroled in 1973, 19 (28 percent) were reconvicted for a sex offense within five years.
In a study of 231 sex offenders placed on probation in Philadelphia between 1966 and 1969, 11 percent were rearrested for a sex offense and 57 percent were rearrested for any offense (Romero and Williams, 1985). Rice, Harris, and Quinsey (1990) conducted a more recent study of 54 rapists who were released from prison before 1983. After four years, 28 percent had a reconviction for a sex offense and 43 percent had a conviction for a violent offense.
In their summary of the research on the recidivism of rapists, Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris (1995) noted that the significant variation in recidivism across studies of rapists is likely due to differences in the types of offenders involved (e.g., institutionalized offenders, mentally disordered offenders, or probationers) or in the length of the follow-up period. They further noted that throughout these studies, the proportion of offenders who had a prior sex offense was similar to the proportion that had a subsequent sex offense. In addition, the rates of reoffending decreased with the seriousness of the offense. That is, the occurrence of officially recorded recidivism for a nonviolent nonsexual offense was the most likely and the incidence of violent sex offenses was the least likely.
Child Molesters
Studies of the recidivism of child molesters reveal specific patterns of reoffending across victim types and offender characteristics. A study involving mentally disordered sex offenders compared same-sex and opposite-sex child molesters and incest offenders. Results of this five-year follow-up study found that same-sex child molesters had the highest rate of previous sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the highest reconviction rate for sex crimes (30 percent). In comparison, 43 percent of opposite-sex child molesters had prior sex offenses and a reconviction rate for sex crimes of 25 percent, and incest offenders had prior convictions at a rate of 11 percent and a reconviction rate of 6 percent (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980). Interestingly, the recidivism rate for same-sex child molesters for other crimes against persons was also quite high, with 26 percent having reconvictions for these offenses. Similarly, a number of other studies have found that child molesters have relatively high rates of nonsexual offenses (Quinsey, 1984).
Several studies have involved follow-up of extra-familial child molesters. One such study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988) included both official and unofficial measures of recidivism (reconviction, new charge, or unofficial record). Using both types of measures, researchers found that 43 percent of these offenders (convicted of sex offenses involving victims under the age of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a four-year follow-up period. Those who had a subsequent sex offense differed from those who did not by their use of force in the offense, the number of previous sexual assault victims, and their score on a sexual index that included a phallometric assessment (also referred to as plethysmography: a device used to measure sexual arousal (erectile response) to both appropriate (age appropriate and consenting) and deviant sexual stimulus material). In contrast to other studies of child molesters, this study found no difference in recidivism between opposite-sex and same-sex offenders.
In a more recent study (Rice, Quinsey, and Harris, 1991), extra-familial child molesters were followed for an average of six years. During that time, 31 percent had a reconviction for a second sexual offense. Those who committed subsequent sex offenses were more likely to have been married, have a personality disorder, and have a more serious sex offense history than those who did not recidivate sexually. In addition, recidivists were more likely to have deviant phallometrically measured sexual preferences (Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995).
In a study utilizing a 24-year follow-up period, victim differences (e.g., gender of the victim) were not found to be associated with the recidivism (defined as those charged with a subsequent sexual offense) of child molesters. This study of 111 extra-familial child molesters found that the number of prior sex offenses and sexual preoccupation with children were related to sex offense recidivism (Prentky, Knight, and Lee, 1997). However, the authors of this study noted that the finding of no victim differences may have been due to the fact that the offenders in this study had an average of three prior sex offenses before their prison release. Thus, this sample may have had a higher base rate of reoffense than child molesters from the general prison population.
Research reviewed to this point has almost exclusively focused upon institutional or prison populations and therefore, presumably a more serious offender population. An important recent study concerns recidivism among a group of sex offenders placed on probation (Kruttschnitt, Uggen, and Shelton, 2000). Although the factors that were related to various types of reoffending were somewhat similar with regard to subsequent sex offenses, the only factor associated with reducing reoffending in this study was the combination of stable employment and sex offender treatment. Such findings emphasize the importance of both formal and informal social controls in holding offenders accountable for their criminal behavior. The findings also provide support for treatment services that focus on coping with inappropriate sexual impulses, fantasies, and behaviors through specific sex offender treatment.
Synthesis of Recidivism Studies
There have been several notable efforts at conducting a qualitative or narrative synthesis of studies of the recidivism of sex offenders (Quinsey, 1984; Furby, Weinrott, and Blackshaw, 1989; Quinsey, Lalumiere, Rice, and Harris, 1995; Schwartz and Cellini, 1997). Such an approach attempts to summarize findings across various studies by comparing results and searching for patterns or trends. Another technique, known as meta-analysis, relies upon a quantitative approach to synthesizing research results from similar studies. Meta-analysis involves a statistically sophisticated approach to estimating the combined effects of various studies that meet certain methodological criteria and is far from a simple lumping together of disparate studies to obtain average effects.
Meta-analyses have certain advantages over more traditional summaries in that through the inclusion of multiple studies, a reliable estimation of effects can be obtained that is generalizable across studies and samples. As noted earlier, the results obtained from individual studies of sex offenders are heavily influenced by the sample of offenders included in the research. Therefore, there is much to be gained through the use of meta-analysis in summarizing sex offender recidivism (see Quinsey, Harris, Rice, and Lalumiere, 1993).
As has also previously been observed, it is imperative to distinguish between sex offense recidivism and the commission of other subsequent criminal behavior, as well as the type of current sex offense. One of the most widely recognized meta-analyses of sexual offender recidivism (Hanson and Bussiere, 1998) was structured around these dimensions.
Meta-Analysis Studies
In Hanson and Bussiere’s meta-analysis, 61 research studies met the criteria for inclusion, with all utilizing a longitudinal design and a comparison group. Across all studies, the average sex offense recidivism rate (as evidenced by rearrest or reconviction) was 18.9 percent for rapists and 12.7 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period. The rate of recidivism for nonsexual violent offenses was 22.1 percent for rapists and 9.9 percent for child molesters, while the recidivism rate for any reoffense for rapists was 46.2 percent and 36.9 percent for child molesters over a four to five year period. However, as has been noted previously and as these authors warn, one should be cautious in the interpretation of the data as these studies involved a range of methods and follow-up periods.
Perhaps the greatest advantage of the meta-analysis approach is in determining the relative importance of various factors across studies. Using this technique, one can estimate how strongly certain offender and offense characteristics are related to recidivism because they show up consistently across different studies.
In the 1998 Hanson and Bussiere study, these characteristics were grouped into demographics, criminal lifestyle, sexual criminal history, sexual deviancy, and various clinical characteristics. Regarding demographics, being young and single were consistently found to be related, albeit weakly, to subsequent sexual offending. With regard to sex offense history, sex offenders were more likely to recidivate if they had prior sex offenses, male victims, victimized strangers or extra-familial victims, begun sexually offending at an early age, and/or engaged in diverse sex crimes.
The factors that were found through this analysis to have the strongest relationship with sexual offense recidivism were those in the sexual deviance category: sexual interest in children, deviant sexual preferences, and sexual interest in boys. Failure to complete treatment was also found to be a moderate predictor of sexual recidivism. Having general psychological problems was not related to sexual offense recidivism, but having a personality disorder was related. Being sexually abused as a child was not related to repeat sexual offending.
Studies that Focus on Dynamic Factors
As noted earlier, the detection of dynamic factors that are associated with sexual offending behavior is significant, because these characteristics can serve as the focus of intervention. However, many recidivism studies (including most of those previously discussed) have focused almost exclusively on static factors, since they are most readily available from case files. Static, or historical, factors help us to understand etiology and permit predictions of relative likelihood of reoffending. Dynamic factors take into account changes over time that adjust static risk and informs us about the types of interventions that are most useful in lowering risk.
In a study focused on dynamic factors, Hanson and Harris (1998) collected data on over 400 sex offenders under community supervision, approximately one-half of whom were recidivists (for the purposes of this study, recidivism was defined as a conviction or charge for a new sexual offense, a non-sexual criminal charge that appeared to be sexually motivated, a violation of supervision conditions for sexual reasons, and self-disclosure by the offender). The recidivists had committed a new sexual offense while on community supervision during a five-year period (1992-1997). A number of significant differences in stable dynamic factors were discovered between recidivists and non-recidivists. Those who committed subsequent sex offenses were more likely to be unemployed (more so for rapists) and have substance abuse problems. The non-recidivists tended to have positive social influences and were more likely to have intimacy problems. There also were considerable attitudinal differences between the recidivists and non-recidivists. Those who committed subsequent sex offenses were less likely to show remorse or concern for the victim. In addition, recidivists tended to see themselves as being at little risk for committing new offenses, were less likely to avoid high-risk situations and were more likely to report engaging in deviant sexual activities. In general, the recidivists were described as having more chaotic, antisocial lifestyles compared to the non-recidivists (Hanson and Harris, 1998).
The researchers concluded that sex offenders are:
"…at most risk of reoffending when they become sexually preoccupied, have access to victims, fail to acknowledge their recidivism risk, and show sharp mood increases, particularly anger."
In sum, because meta-analysis findings can be generalized across studies and samples, they offer the most reliable estimation of factors associated with the recidivism of sex offenders. Most meta-analysis studies, however, have focused on static factors. It is critical that more research be conducted to identify dynamic factors associated with sex offender recidivism. These factors will assuredly provide a foundation for developing more effective intervention strategies for sex offenders.
Characteristics* of recidivists include:
  • multiple victims;
  • diverse victims;
  • stranger victims;
  • juvenile sexual offenses;
  • multiple paraphilias;
  • history of abuse and neglect;
  • long-term separations from parents;
  • negative relationships with their mothers;
  • diagnosed antisocial personality disorder;
  • unemployed;
  • substance abuse problems; and
  • chaotic, antisocial lifestyles.
*It should be noted that these are not necessarily risk factors.

Impact of Interventions on Sex Offender Recidivism
Although not the primary purpose of this document, a few words regarding sex offender treatment and supervision are in order. Factors that are linked to sex offender recidivism are of direct relevance for sex offender management. If the characteristics of offenders most likely to recidivate can be isolated, they can serve to identify those who have the highest likelihood of committing subsequent sex offenses. They can also help identify offender populations that are appropriate for participation in treatment and specialized supervision and what the components of those interventions must include.
When assessing the efficacy of sex offender treatment, it is vital to recognize that the delivery of treatment occurs within different settings. Those offenders who receive treatment in a community setting are generally assumed to be a different population than those who are treated in institutions. Thus, base rates of recidivating behavior will differ for these groups prior to treatment participation.
Sex offender treatment typically consists of three principal approaches:
  • the cognitive-behavioral approach, which emphasizes changing patterns of thinking that are related to sexual offending and changing deviant patterns of arousal;
  • the psycho-educational approach, which stresses increasing the offender’s concern for the victim and recognition of responsibility for their offense; and
  • the pharmacological approach, which is based upon the use of medication to reduce sexual arousal.
In practice, these approaches are not mutually exclusive and treatment programs are increasingly utilizing a combination of these techniques.
Although there has been a considerable amount of writing on the relative merits of these approaches and about sex offender treatment in general, there is a paucity of evaluative research regarding treatment outcomes. There have been very few studies of sufficient rigor (e.g., employing an experimental or quasi-experimental design) to compare the effects of various treatment approaches or comparing treated to untreated sex offenders (Quinsey, 1998).
Using less rigorous evaluation strategies, several studies have evaluated the outcomes of offenders receiving sex offender treatment, compared to a group of offenders not receiving treatment. The results of these studies are mixed. For example, Barbaree and Marshall (1988) found a substantial difference in the recidivism rates of extra-familial child molesters who participated in a community based cognitive-behavioral treatment program, compared to a group of similar offenders who did not receive treatment. Those who participated in treatment had a recidivism rate of 18 percent over a four-year follow-up period, compared to a 43 percent recidivism rate for the nonparticipating group of offenders.
However, no positive effect of treatment was found in several other quasi-experiments involving an institutional behavioral program (Rice, Quinsey, and Harris, 1991) or a milieu therapy approach in an institutional setting (Hanson, Steffy, and Gauthier, 1993).
On the other hand, an evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral program that employs an experimental design presented preliminary findings that suggest that participation in this form of treatment may have a modest (though not statistically significant) effect in reducing recidivism. After a follow-up period of 34 months, 8 percent of the offenders in the treatment program had a subsequent sex offense, compared with 13 percent of the control group, who had also volunteered for the program, but were not selected through the random assignment process (Marques, Day, Nelson, and West, 1994).
Some studies present optimistic conclusions about the effectiveness of programs that are empirically based, offense-specific, and comprehensive. A 1995 meta-analysis study on sex offender treatment outcome studies found a small, yet significant, treatment effect (Hall, 1995). This meta-analysis included 12 studies with some form of control group. Despite the small number of subjects (1,313), the results indicated an 8 percent reduction in the recidivism rate for sex offenders in the treatment group. ( For the purposes of this study, recidivism was measured by additional sexually aggressive behavior, including official legal charges as well as, in some studies, unofficial data such as self-report.)
Recently, Alexander (1999) conducted an analysis of a large group of treatment outcome studies, encompassing nearly 11,000 sex offenders. In this study, data from 79 sex offender treatment studies were combined and reviewed. Results indicated that sex offenders who participated in relapse prevention treatment programs had a combined rearrest rate of 7.2 percent, compared to 17.6 percent for untreated offenders. The overall rearrest rate for treated sex offenders in this analysis was 13.2 percent. (Length of follow-up in this analysis varied from less than one year to more than five years. Most studies in this analysis indicated a three to five year follow-up period.)
The Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA) has established a Collaborative Data Research Project with the goals of defining standards for research on treatment, summarizing existing research, and promoting high quality evaluations. As part of this project, researchers are conducting a meta-analysis of treatment studies. Included in the meta-analysis are studies that compare treatment groups with some form of a control group (average length of follow-up in these studies was four to five years). Preliminary findings indicate that the overall effect of treatment shows reductions in both sexual recidivism, 10 percent of the treatment subjects to 17 percent of the control group subjects, and general recidivism, 32 percent of the treatment subjects to 51 percent of the control group subjects (Hanson, 2000).
Just as it is difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions regarding factors that are related to sex offender recidivism, there are similarly no definitive results regarding the effect of interventions with these offenders. Sex offender treatment programs and the results of treatment outcome studies may vary not only due to their therapeutic approach, but also by the location of the treatment (e.g., community, prison, or psychiatric facility), the seriousness of the offender’s criminal and sex offense history, the degree of self-selection (whether they chose to participate in treatment or were placed in a program), and the dropout rate of offenders from treatment.
Juvenile Treatment Research
Research on juvenile sex offender recidivism is particularly lacking. Some studies have examined the effectiveness of treatment in reducing subsequent sexual offending behavior in youth. Key findings from these studies include the following:
  • Program evaluation data suggest that the sexual recidivism rate for juveniles treated in specialized programs ranges from approximately 7 to 13 percent over follow-up periods of two to five years (Becker, 1990).
  • Juveniles appear to respond well to cognitive-behavioral and/or relapse prevention treatment, with rearrest rates of approximately 7 percent through follow-up periods of more than five years (Alexander, 1999).
  • Studies suggest that rates of nonsexual recidivism are generally higher than sexual recidivism rates, ranging from 25 to 50 percent (Becker, 1990, Kahn and Chambers, 1991, Schram, Milloy, and Rowe, 1991).
In a recently conducted study, Hunter and Figueredo (1999) found that as many as 50 percent of youths entering a community-based treatment program were expelled during the first year of their participation. Those who failed the program had higher overall levels of sexual maladjustment, as measured on assessment instruments, and were at greater long-term risk for sexual recidivism.
There has been little research on the effectiveness of community supervision programs (exclusively) in reducing reoffense behavior in sex offenders. The majority of supervision programs for sex offenders involve treatment and other interventions to contain offenders’ deviant behaviors. Therefore, it is difficult to measure the effects of supervision alone on reoffending behavior—to date, no such studies have been conducted.
Evaluating the Effects of Interventions
Identification of factors associated with recidivism of sex offenders can play an important role in determining intervention strategies with this population. Yet, the effectiveness of interventions themselves on reducing recidivism must be evaluated if the criminal justice system is to control these offenders and prevent further victimization. However, not only have there been few studies of sufficient rigor on treatment outcomes, less rigorous study results thus far have been mixed. Although one study may find a substantial difference in recidivism rates for offenders who participated in a specific type of treatment, another may find only a modest positive treatment effect, and still other studies may reveal no positive effects. There has been even less research conducted to evaluate the impact of community supervision programs in reducing recidivism. More studies measuring the effects of both treatment and supervision are necessary to truly advance efforts in the field of sex offender management.
Implications for Sex Offender Management
This paper presented a range of issues that are critical in defining the recidivism of sex offenders. Although there are certainly large gaps in criminal justice knowledge regarding the determinants of recidivism and the characteristics of effective interventions, what is known has significant implications for policy and intervention.
The heterogeneity of sex offenders must be acknowledged. Although sex offenders are often referred to as a "type" of offender, there are a wide variety of behaviors and offender backgrounds that fall into this classification of criminals (Knight and Prentky, 1990). As mentioned earlier, many sex offenders have histories of assaulting across sex and age groups—recent research (Ahlmeyer, Heil, McKee, and English, 2000) found that these offenders may be even more heterogeneous than previously believed.
Criminal justice professionals must continue to expand their understanding of how sex offenders are different from the general criminal population. Although some sex offenders are unique from the general criminal population (e.g., many extrafamilial child molesters), others (e.g., many rapists) possess many of the same characteristics that are associated with recidivism of general criminal behavior. As criminal justice understanding of these offenders and the factors associated with their behavior increases, more refined classification needs to be developed and treatment programs need to be redesigned to accommodate these differences.
Interventions should be based on the growing body of knowledge about sex offender and general criminal recidivism. Research demonstrates that while sex offenders are much more likely to commit subsequent sexual offenses than the general criminal population, they do not exclusively commit sexual offenses. Therefore, some aspects of intervention with the general criminal population may have implications for effective management of sex offenders. Quinsey (1998) has recommended that in the absence of definitive knowledge about effective sex offender treatment, the best approach would be to structure interventions around what is known about the treatment of offenders in general.
In the realm of interventions with general criminal offenders, there is a growing body of literature that suggests that the cognitive-behavioral approach holds considerable promise (Gendreau and Andrews, 1990). Cognitive-behavioral treatment involves a comprehensive, structured approach based on sexual learning theory using cognitive restructuring methods and behavioral techniques. Behavioral methods are primarily directed at reducing arousal and increasing pro-social skills. The cognitive behavioral approach employs peer groups and educational classes, and uses a variety of counseling theories. This approach suggests that interventions are most effective when they address the criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders (Andrews, 1982). The characteristics of programs that are more likely to be effective with this population include skill-based training, modeling of pro-social behaviors and attitudes, a directive but non-punitive orientation, a focus on modification of precursors to criminal behavior, and a supervised community component (Quinsey, 1998).
Although these program characteristics may be instructive in forming the basis for interventions with sex offenders, treatment approaches must incorporate what is known about this particular group of offenders. A number of characteristics that are typically associated with the recidivism of sex offenders were identified in this document, including: victim age, gender, and relationship to the offender; impulsive, antisocial behavior; the seriousness of the offense; and the number of previous sex offenses. Also, an influential factor in sex offender recidivism is the nature of the offender’s sexual preferences and sexually deviant interests. The discovery and measurement of these interests can serve as a focus for treatment intervention.
Dynamic factors should influence individualized interventions. In addition, dynamic factors associated with recidivism should inform the structure of treatment and supervision, as these are characteristics that can be altered. These factors include the formation of positive relationships with peers, stable employment, avoidance of alcohol and drugs, prevention of depression, reduction of deviant sexual arousal, and increase in appropriate sexual preferences, when they exist.
Interventions that strive to facilitate development of positive dynamic factors in sex offenders are consistent with cognitive-behavioral or social learning approaches to treatment. Such approaches determine interventions based upon an individualized planning process, utilizing standard assessment instruments to determine an appropriate intervention strategy. As Quinsey (1998: 419) noted "with the exception of antiandrogenic medication or castration, this model is currently the only approach that enjoys any evidence of effectiveness in reducing sexual recidivism."
Although there have been many noteworthy research studies on sex offender recidivism in the last 15 to 20 years, there remains much to be learned about the factors associated with the likelihood of reoffense. Ongoing dialogue between researchers and practitioners supervising and treating sex offenders is essential to identifying research needs, gathering information about offenders and the events leading up to offenses, and ensuring that research activity can be translated into strategies to more effectively manage sex offenders in the community. Ultimately, research on sex offender recidivism must be designed and applied to practice with the goals of preventing further victimization and creating safer communities.
Practitioners must continue to look to the most up-to-date research studies on sex offender recidivism to inform their intervention strategies with individual offenders. Researchers can minimize ambiguity in study results by clearly defining measures of recidivism, comparing distinct categories of sex offenders, considering reoffense rates for both sex crimes and all other offenses, and utilizing consistent follow-up periods (preferably five years of follow-up or more). In order to reduce underestimations of the risk of recidivism, they also must strive to gather information about offenders’ criminal histories from multiple sources, beyond official criminal justice data. In comparing results of various studies, practitioners should not lose sight of how these issues impact research outcomes.
Researchers must also continue to accumulate evidence about the relationship of static and dynamic factors to recidivism—such data can assist practitioners in making more accurate assessments of the likelihood of reoffending. In particular, researchers must strive to identify dynamic characteristics associated with sex offending behavior that can serve as the focus for intervention. This information can be utilized to categorize the level of risk posed by offenders, and help determine whether a particular offender is appropriate for treatment and specialized supervision. However, in order to make objective and empirically based decisions about the type of treatment and conditions of supervision that would best control the offender and protect the public, more rigorous research is needed to study the effects of various treatment approaches and community supervision on recidivism.
Tim Bynum, Ph.D., Michigan State ariality, School of Criminal Justice, was the principal author of this paper, with contributions by Madeline Carter, Scott Matson, and Charles Onley. The Center for Sex Offender Management would like to thank David D’Amora, Kim English, Robert Prentky, and Lloyd Sinclair for their assistance and contributions to this article. Kristin Littel and Scott Matson edited the document.
Center for Sex Offender Management
8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 589-9383
Fax: (301) 589-3505
Internet: www.csom.org
Alexander, M.A. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11 (2), 101-117.
Ahlmeyer, S., English, K., & Simons, D. (1999). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of crossover offending behavior in adult sexual offenders. Presentation at the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers 18th Annual Research and Treatment Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL.
Ahlmeyer, S., Heil, P., McKee, B., and English, K. (2000). The impact of polygraphy on admissions of victims and offenses in adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12 (2), 123-138.
Andrews, D. A. (1982). The supervision of offenders: Identifying and gaining control over the factors which make a difference. Program Branch User Report. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.
Barbaree, H.E. & Marshall, W.L. (1988). Deviant sexual arousal, offense history, and demographic variables as predictors of reoffense among child molesters. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6 (2), 267-280.
Beck, A.J. & Shipley, B.E. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Becker, J.V. (1990). Treating adolescent sexual offenders. Professional Psychology: Research, and Practice, 21, 362-365.
Bonta, J. & Hanson, R.K. (1995). Violent recidivism of men released from prison. Paper presented at the 103rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.
Clarke, S.H. & Crum, L. (1985). Returns to prison in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: Institute of Government, ariality of North Carolina.
Delaware Statistical Analysis Center. (1984). Recidivism in Delaware after release from incarceration. Dover, DE: Author.
English, K., Pullen, S., & Jones, L. (Eds.) (1996). Managing adult sex offenders: A containment approach. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
Furby, L., Weinrott, M.R., & Blackshaw, L. (1989). Sex offender recidivism: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 105 (1), 3-30.
Gottfredson, M.R. & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford ariality Press.
Gendreau, P. & Andrews, D.A. (1990). What the meta-analysis of the offender treatment literature tell us about what works. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 32, 173-184.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult criminal recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 575-607.
Gibbens, T.C.N., Soothill, K.L., & Way, C.K. (1978). Sibling and parent-child incest offenders. British Journal of Criminology, 18, 40-52.
Greenfeld, L.A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Grunfeld, B. & Noreik, K. (1986). Recidivism among sex offenders: A follow-up study of 541 Norwegian sex offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 9, 95-102.
Hall, G.C.N. (1995). Sex offender recidivism revisited: A meta-analysis of recent treatment studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63 (5), 802-809.
Hanson, R.K. (2000). 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.
Hanson, R.K. & Bussiere, M. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 (2), 348-362.
Hanson, R.K. & Harris, A. (1998). Dynamic predictors of sexual recidivism. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada.
Hanson, R.K., Scott, H., & Steffy, R.A. (1995). A comparison of child molesters and nonsexual criminals: Risk predictors and long-term recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32 (3), 325-337.
Hanson, R.K., Steffy, R.A., & Gauthier, R. (1993). Long-term recidivism of child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Criminal Psychology, 61 (4), 646-652.
Hunter, J.A. & Figueredo, A.J. (1999). Factors associated with treatment compliance in a population of juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 49-68.
Kahn, T.J. & Chambers, H.J. (1991). Assessing reoffense risk with juvenile sexual offenders. Child Welfare, 19, 333-345.
Kilpatrick, D.G., Edmunds, C.N., & Seymour, A. (1992). Rape in America: A report to the nation. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Victims of Crime and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center.
Knight, R.A. & Prentky, R.A. (1990). Classifying sexual offenders: The development and corroboration of taxonomic models. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, and H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 23-52). New York: Plenum.
Knopp, F.A., Freeman-Longo, R., & Stevenson, W.F. (1992). Nationwide survey of juvenile and adult sex offender treatment programs and models. Orwell, VT: Safer Society Press.
Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interactions of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17 (1), 61-87.
Marques, J.K., Day, D.M., Nelson, C., & West, M.A. (1994). Effects of cognitive-behavioral treatment on sex offenders’ recidivism: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 28-54.
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.
Prentky, R., Knight, R., & Lee, A. (1997). Risk factors associated with recidivism among extra-familial child molesters. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65 (1), 141-149.
Prentky, R., Lee, A., Knight, R., & Cerce, D. (1997). Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: A methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 635-659.
Quinsey, V.L. (1980). The base-rate problem and the prediction of dangerousness: A reappraisal. Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 8, 329-340.
Quinsey, V.L. (1984). Sexual aggression: Studies of offenders against women. In D.N. Weisstub (Ed.). Law and Mental Health: International Perspectives (pp. 140-172), Vol. 2. New York: Pergamon.
Quinsey, V.L. (1998). Treatment of sex offenders. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 403-425). New York: Oxford ariality Press.
Quinsey, V.L., Harris, G.T., Rice, M.E., & Lalumiere, M. (1993). Assessing treatment efficacy in outcome studies of sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 512-523.
Quinsey, V.L., Lalumiere, M.L., Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. (1995). Predicting sexual offenses. In J.C. Campbell (Ed.), Assessing dangerousness: Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers (pp. 114-137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Quinsey, V.L., Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. (1995). Actuarial prediction of sexual recidivism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10 (1), 85-105.
Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T., & Quinsey, V.L. (1990). A follow-up of rapists assessed in a maximum security psychiatric facility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5 (4), 435-448.
Rice, M.E., Quinsey, V.L., & Harris, G.T. (1991). Sexual recidivism among child molesters released from a maximum security institution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 381-386.
Romero, J. & Williams, L. (1985). Recidivism among convicted sex offenders: A 10-year follow-up study. Federal Probation, 49, 58-64.
Roundtree, G.A., Edwards, D.W., & Parker, J.B. (1984). A study of personal characteristics of probationers as related to recidivism. Journal of Offender Counseling, 8, 53-61.
Schram, D.D., Milloy, C.D., & Rowe, W.E. (1991). Juvenile sex offenders: A follow-up study of reoffense behavior. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Schwartz, B.K. & Cellini, H.R. (1997). Sex offender recidivism and risk factors in the involuntary commitment process. Albuquerque, NM: Training and Research Institute Inc.
Sturgeon, V.H. & Taylor, J. (1980). Report of a five-year follow-up study of mentally disordered sex offenders released from Atascadero State Hospital in 1973. Criminal Justice Journal, 4, 31-63.
West, D.J., Roy, C., & Nichols, F.L. (1978). Understanding sexual attacks: A study based upon a group of rapists undergoing psychotherapy. London: Heinemann.

Established in June 1997, CSOM’s goal is to enhance public safety by preventing further victimization through improving the management of adult and juvenile sex offenders who are in the community.  A collaborative effort of the Office of Justice Programs, the National Institute of Corrections, and the State Justice Institute, CSOM is administered by the Center for Effective Public Policy and the American Probation and Parole Association.
This project was supported by Grant No. 97-WT-VX-K007, awarded by the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.  Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This page was updated on 3/20/2012
The CYA Report, Part I: Conditions Of Life At The California Youth Authority
By Paul Demuro, Anne Demuro, and Steve Lerner / $5.95
The CYA Report, Part II: Bodily Harm-The Pattern Of Fear And Violence At The California Youth Authority
By Paul Demuro, Anne Demuro, and Steve Lerner / $4.95
The CYA Report, Part III: Reforming The California Youth Authority—How To End Crowding, Diversify Treatment And Protect The Public Without Spending More Money
By Paul Demuro, Anne Demuro, and Steve Lerner / $5.95
The Good News About Juvenile Justice: The Movement Away From Large Institutions and Toward Community-Based Services

About 310,000 results (0.43 seconds) 

Search Results

1.     CDCR DRP - Office of Offender Services, In-Prison Programs Unit

The Office of Offender Services (OS), In-Prison Programs Unit provides comprehensive ... and works closely with Community and Reentry Services to ensure a continuum of care. ... are vital components of California's ongoing efforts to assist offenders in their successful ... In-Custody Sex Offender Treatment Pilot Program.

2.     Mental Health Services Continuum Program - California Department ...

All registered sex offenders are also required to attend POC upon release from ... Program is a comprehensive model which provides varied levels of care...
  1. [PDF]

Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Remedial Plan - California ...

Adequacy of DJJ Sex Offender Programs (including number of treatment beds). 2. .... The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program uses a continuum of care.

4.     California Division of Juvenile Justice - Wikipedia, the free ...

... that provide a continuum of care and assist with the reintegration of youthful offenders into society." ... Wards committed for sexual offenses were allowed to challenge sex offender treatment programs in which they were placed. ... to direct the CYA to obtain licenses for all eleven of its health care facilities within two years.
  1. [PDF]

Aftercare as Afterthought: Reentry and the California Youth Authority.

by D Macallair - ‎2002 - ‎Related articles
Aug 9, 2002 - at [theformalized Continuum of Care Sex Offender Program]. The CYA operates two formal sex offender programs, one in Northern California ...

6.     Juvenile Justice Commission - Introduction to the JJC

Juvenile Gang Intervention and Prevention Program | Special Needs Services ... The Juvenile Justice Commission provides a continuum of care for juveniles ... to allow private providers to designate a total of 12 beds for juvenile sex offenders.

7.     Sex Offender Treatment Service - National Youth Advocate Program

Sex Offender Treatment Services (PASS) ... treatment strategies for youth living at home or in a therapeutic foster care setting. ... NYAP's Continuum of Care. >.


  1. Barth RP. Residential care: From here to eternity. International Journal of Social Welfare. 2005;14:158–162.
  2. Barth RP, Greeson JKP, Guo S, Green RL, Hurley S. Outcomes for youth receiving intensive in-home therapy or residential care: A comparison using propensity scores. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2007;77(4):497–505. [PubMed]
  3. Bean P, White L, Lake P. Is residential care an effective approach for treating adolescents with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health diagnoses? Best Practices in Mental Health. 2005;1(2):50–60.
  4. Bedlington MM, Braukmann CJ, Ramp KA, Wolf MM. A comparison of treatment environments in community-based group homes for adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 1988;15(30):349–363.
  5. Bettmann JE, Jasperson RA. Adolescents in residential and inpatient treatment: A review of the outcome literature. Child and Youth Care Forum. 2009;38(4):161–183.
  6. Blasé KA, Fixsen DL, Freeborn K, Jaeger D. The behavioral model. In: Lyman RD, Prentice-Dunn S, Stewart G, editors. Residential and inpatient treatment of children and adolescents. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1989. pp. 43–59.
  7. Bloom SL. Creating sanctuary for kids: helping children to heal from violence. Therapeutic Community: The International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive Organizations. 2005;26(1):57–63.
  8. Bloom SL. Creating sanctuary: Toward the evolution of sane societies. New York: Routledge; 1997.
  9. Breland-Noble AM, Elbogen EB, Farmer EMZ, Dubs MS, Wagner HR, Burns BJ. Use of psychotropic medications by youths in therapeutic foster care and group homes. Psychiatric Services. 2004;55(6):706–708. [PubMed]
  10. Breland-Noble AM, Farmer EMZ, Dubs MS, Potter E, Burns BJ. Mental health and other service use by youth in therapeutic foster care and group homes. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2005;14(2):167–180.
  11. Brendtro L, Shahbazian M. Troubled children and youth: turning problems into opportunities. Champaign, IL: Research Press; 2004.
  12. Burns BJ, Hoagwood K, Mrazek PJ. Effective treatment for mental disorders in children and adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 1999;2(4):199–254. [PubMed]
  13. Burns BJ, Phillips SD, Wagner HR, Barth RP, Kolko DJ, Campbell Y, Landsverk J. Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: A national survey. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2004;43(8):960–970. [PubMed]
  14. Butler LS, McPherson PM. Is residential treatment misunderstood? Journal of Child Family Studies. 2007;16:465–472.
  15. The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare Practice. n.d www.cebc4cw.org/
  16. Cantrell R, Cantrell M, editors. Helping troubled children and youth: Continuing evidence for the Re-ED approach. Memphis, TN: American Re-Education Association; 2007.
  17. Chamberlain . Treatment foster care. In: Burns BJ, Hoagwood K, editors. Community treatment for youth: evidence based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral disorders. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002. pp. 117–138.
  18. Chamberlain P, Reid JB. Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1998;66(4):624–633. [PubMed]
  19. Chamberlain P, Ray J, Moore KJ. Characteristics of residential care for Adolescent offenders: A comparison of assumption and practices in two models. Journal of Child & Family Studies. 1996;5(3):285–297.
  20. Curtis PA, Alexander G, Lunghofer LA. A literature review comparing the outcomes of residential group care and therapeutic foster care. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2001;18(5):377–392.
  21. Daly DL, Dowd TP. Characteristics of effective, harm-free environments for children in out-of-home care. Child Welfare. 1992;71(6):487–496. [PubMed]
  22. Davis GL, Hoffman RG, Quigley R. Self-concept change and Positive Peer Culture in adjudicated delinquents. Child and Youth Care Quarterly. 1988;17(3):137–143.
  23. Dishion TJ, McCord J, Poulin F. When interventions harm: peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist. 1999;54:755–764. [PubMed]
  24. Dowden C, Andrews DA. Effective correctional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminology. 2000;42(4):449–468.
  25. Duffy K, McCorkle D, Ryan R. Unpublished manual. 2002. Sanctuary psychoeducation group: Leader’s manual.
  26. Farragher B, Yanosy S. Creating a trauma-sensitive culture in residential treatment. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive Organizations. 2005;26(1):97–113.
  27. Fields E, Farmer EMZ, Apperson J, Mustillo S, Simmers D. Treatment and posttreatment effects of a residential treatment using a Re-education model. Behavioral Disorders. 2006;31(3):312–322.
  28. Fixsen DL, Blasé KA. Publications regarding the Teaching-Family Model. Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida; 2002. [On-line]. Available: http://www.teaching-family.org/bibliography.html.
  29. Garland A, Hough RL, Landsverk JA, Brown S. Multi-sector of systems of care for youth with mental health needs. Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, & Practice. 2001;4(3):123–140.
  30. Gibbs JC, Potter GB, Barriga AQ, Liau AK. Developing the helping skills and prosocial motivation of aggressive adolescents in peer group programs. Aggression and Violent Behaviour. 1996;1:283–305.
  31. Gustavsson N, MacEachron AE. Research on foster children. A role for social work. Social Work. 2007;52(1):85–87. [PubMed]
  32. Hair HJ. Outcomes for children and adolescents after residential treatment: A review of research from 1993 to 2003. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2005;14(4):551– 575.
  33. Hoagwood K, Cunningham M. Outcomes of children with emotional disturbance in residential treatment for educational purposes. Journal of Child & Family Studies. 1993;1:129–140.
  34. Hobbs N. Helping disturbed children: Psychological and ecological strategies. American Psychologist. 1966;21:1105–1115. [PubMed]
  35. Hooper SR, Murphy J, Devaney A, Hultman T. Ecological outcomes of adolescents in a psychoeducational residential treatment facility. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2000;70(4):491–500. [PubMed]
  36. James S, Roesch S, Zhang J. Characteristics and behavioral outcomes for youth in group care and family-based care – a propensity score matching approach using national data under review.
  37. James S, Leslie LK, Hurlbert MS, Slymen DJ, Landsverk J, Davis I, Mathiesen SG, Zhang J. Children in out-of-home care: Entry into intensive or restrictive mental health and residential care placements. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2006;14(4):196–208.
  38. Jones RJ, Timbers GD. Minimizing the need for physical restraint and seclusion in residential youth care through skill-based treatment programming. Families in Society. 2003;84(1):21–29.
  39. Kapp SA. Positive Peer Culture: The viewpoint of former clients. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group Therapy. 2000;10:175–189.
  40. Kirigin KA. Teaching-Family Model of group home treatment of children with severe behavior problems. In: Roberts MC, editor. Model programs in child and family mental health. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1996. pp. 231–247.
  41. Kirigin KA, Braukmann CJ, Atwater JD, Wolf MM. An evaluation of Teaching- Family (Achievement Place) group homes for juvenile offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1982;15:1–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Landsman MJ, Groza V, Tyler M, Malone K. Outcomes of family-centered residential treatment. Child Welfare. 2001;80:351–379. [PubMed]
  43. Larzelere RE, Dinges K, Schmidt MD, Spellman DF, Criste TR, Connell P. Outcomes of residential treatment: A study of the adolescent clients of girls and boys town. Child and Youth Care Forum. 2001;30(3):175–185.
  44. Larzelere RE, Daly EL, Davis JL, Chmelka MB, Handwerk ML. Outcome evaluation of Girls and Boys Town s Family Home Program. Education and Treatment of Children. 2004;27(2):130–149.
  45. Laursen EK. Rather than fixing kids – build positive peer cultures. Reclaiming Children and Youth. 2005;4(3):137–142.
  46. Lee BR. Defining residential treatment. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2008;17(5):689–692.
  47. Lee BR, Thompson R. Comparing outcomes for youth in treatment foster care and family-style group care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2008;30(7):746–757. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. Lee BR, McMillen JC. Measuring quality in residential treatment for children and Youth. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth. 2007;24(1/2):1–17.
  49. Leeman LW, Gibbs JC, Fuller D. Evaluation of a multi-component group treatment program for juvenile delinquents. Aggressive Behavior. 1993;19:281–292.
  50. Leichtman M. Residential treatment of children and adolescents: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2006;76(3):285–294. [PubMed]
  51. Leichtman M, Leichtman ML, Barber CC, Neese DT. Effectiveness of intensive short-term residential treatment with severely disturbed adolescents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2001;71:227–235. [PubMed]
  52. Lewis RE. The effectiveness of Families First services: An experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review. 2005;27:499–509.
  53. Lyons JS, Schaefer K. Mental health and dangerousness: Characteristics and outcomes of children and adolescents in residential placements. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2000;9(1):67–73.
  54. Lyons JS, Terry P, Martinovich Z, Peterson J, Bouska B. Outcome trajectories Adolescents in residential treatment: A statewide evaluation. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2001;10(3):333–345.
  55. Mann-Feder VR. Adolescents in therapeutic communities. Adolescence. 1996;31(121):17–29. [PubMed]
  56. McCurdy BL, McIntyre EK. And what about residential …? Re-conceptualizing residential treatment as a stop-gap service for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Interventions. 2004;19:137–158.
  57. McMillen JC, Scott LD, Zima BT, Ollie MT, Munson MR, Spitznagel E. Use of mental health services among older youths in foster care. Psychiatric Services. 2004;55(7):811–817. [PubMed]
  58. McMillen JC, Zima BT, Scott LD, Auslander WF, Munson MR, Ollie MT, Spitznagel E. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among older youths in the foster care system. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2005;44:88–95. [PubMed]
  59. Moody EE, Lupton-Smith HS. Interventions with juvenile offenders: Strategies to prevent acting out behavior. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling. 1999;20(1):2–15.
  60. Nas CN, Brugman D, Koops W. Effects of the EQUIP programme on the moral judgement, cognitive distortions, and social skills of juvenile delinquents. Psychology, Crime and Law. 2005;11(4):421–434.
  61. NREPP. SAMSHA’s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. 2010 http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/
  62. Overcamp-Martini MA, Nutton J. CAPTA and the residential placement: A survey of state policy and practice. Child and Youth Care Forum. 2009;38(2):55–68.
  63. Peterson M, Scanlan M. Diagnosis and placement variables affecting the outcome of adolescents with behavioral disorders. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth. 2002;20:15–23.
  64. Phillips EL, Phillips EA, Fixsen DL, Wolf MM. The Teaching-Family handbook. 2. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas; 1974.
  65. Quigley R. The colorful evolution of a strength-based treatment model. Reclaiming Children & Youth. 2003;12(1):28–32.
  66. Rivard JC. Initial findings of an evaluation of a trauma recovery framework in residential treatment. Residential Group Quarterly. 2004;5(1):3–5.
  67. Rivard JC, Bloom SL, McCorkle D, Abramovitz R. Preliminary results of a study examining the implementation and effects of a trauma recovery framework for youths in residential treatment. Therapeutic Community. 2005;26(1):83–96.
  68. Ryan JP. Dependent youth in juvenile justice: Do Positive Peer Culture programs work for victims of child maltreatment? Research on Social Work Practice. 2006;16(5):511–519.
  69. Sherer M. Effects of group intervention on moral development of distressed youth in Israel. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 1985;14(6):513–526.
  70. Slot NW, Jagers HD, Dangel RF. Cross-cultural replication and evaluation of the Teaching Family Model of community-based residential treatment. Behavioral Residential Treatment. 1992;7(5):341–354.
  71. Thompson RW, Smith GL, Osgood DW, Dowd TP, Friman PC, Daly DL. Residential care: A study of short- and long-term educational effects. Children and Youth Services Review. 1996;18(3):221–242.
  72. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], Administration for Children, Youth and Families. The AFCARS report. Washington DC: Author; 2008. www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb.
  73. Valore T, Cantrell R, Cantrell ML. Competency building in the context of groups. Reclaiming Children and Youth. 2006;14(4):228–235.
  74. Vorrath H, Brendtro L. Positive Peer Culture. 2. New York: Aldine; 1985.
  75. Walker B, Fecser F. Elements of an effective Re-Education program for the 21 century. Reclaiming Children and Youth. 2002;11(2):110–115.
  76. Wasmund WC, Tate TF. Partners in empowerment: a peer group primer. Albion, MI: Starr Commonwealth; 1996.
  77. Weinstein L. Project Re-Ed for schools for emotionally disturbed children: Effectiveness as viewed by referring agencies, parents and teachers. Exceptional Children. 1969;35(9):703–711. [PubMed]
  78. Weis R, Whitemarsh SM, Wilson N. Military style residential treatment for disruptive adolescents: Effective for some girls, all girls, when, and why? Psychological Services. 2005;2(2):105–122.
  79. Whittaker JK. The re-invention of residential treatment: An agenda for research and practice. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America. 2004;13(2):267–278. [PubMed]
  80. Wilmshurst LA. Treatment programs for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders: An outcome study of two alternate approaches. Mental Health Services Research. 2002;4(2):85–96. [PubMed]
  81. Wolf MM, Kirigin KA, Fixsen DL, Blasé KA, Braukmann CJ. The Teaching- Family Model: A case study in data-based program development and refinement (and dragon wrestling) Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 1995;15:11–68.
  82. Wulczyn F, Kogan J, Harden BJ. Placement stability and movement trajectories. Social Science Review. 2003;77(2):212–236.
  83. Zakriski AL, Wright JC, Parad HW. Intensive short-term residential treatment: A contextual evaluation of the “stop-gap” model. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter. 2006;22(6):1–6.

May 16, 2000 - California needs a youthful offender corrections program. ..... a 1,200-bed youth training school, the O.H. Close School, the Karl Holton School, ...
www.prisontalk.com › ... › FOR FAMILY & FRIENDSJuvenile
Jul 22, 2005 - ... law school graduation, the state Bar exam (finished yesterday! ... I wonder why you went to California youth authority, and what happened ... I am currently writing a book to expose the lack of efforts and proper programs to help those ... Hi? i wanted to kno some information about O.h. close because my bf ...
·  [PDF]
by D Steinhart - ‎2002 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
ducted by the Program on Youth Justice within the Urban. Institute's ..... 98. Sources: California Youth Authority (2001b) and California Board of Corrections (2001b). ..... school-based programs, and new juvenile hall ..... O.H. Close Youth.
·  [PDF]
by B Krisberg - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles
1960's and early 1970's the California Youth Authority (CYA), now known at the .... several remaining DJJ facilities such as OH Close, the Chadjerian facility and the ... Youth Corrections Facility and the Camp program for females at Ventura. .... were not attending the regular school at Ventura do to staff and youth concerns ...
California State Archives; 1020 "O" Street; Sacramento, California 95814; Phone: (916) 653-2246; Fax: (916) 653-7363 ... Creator: >California Youth Authority ... The State Reform School at Marysville, established in 1860 ( Stats. ... 690) in an attempt to emphasize prevention as well as correction in the Authority's program.
Oct 21, 2010 - ... the O.H. Close and N.A. Chaderjian youth correctional facilities in ... Prior to the construction of those two schools, juvenile offenders had been housed in adult prisons. ... previously known as the California Youth Authority, accepted youth for ... Since 2006, the DJJ has been reforming its programs to meet ...

 Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Remedial Plan
April 2010
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Background
B. Plan Organization
1. Adequacy of DJJ Sex Offender Programs
2. Organization and Staffing
3. Training
4. Appropriateness of Policies and Procedures
5. Sex Offender Assessment
C. Relationship to Previously Filed Plans
D. Resources Needed for Plan Implementation

II. Program Statement

A. The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Description

B. Mission Statement

C. Vision Statement

III. Organizational Structure

A. Central Office Organization

B. Facility Organization

C. Treatment Team Organization

IV. Staff Training

A. Qualifications and License

B. Training

V. Program Adequacy

A. Assessment
B. Types of Units, Programs, and Interventions
C. Exit Criteria
D. Suspension/Refusal Criteria

E. Case Planning
F. SBTP Program Components
G. Re-entry

VI. Quality Management

I. Introduction
A. Background
On November 19, 2004, a Consent Decree was entered into in the case of Farrell v. Allen by the plaintiff, Margaret Farrell, a taxpayer in the State of California, and the defendant Walter Allen III, director of the California Youth Authority, now the Division of Juvenile Justice (“DJJ”) of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). The Consent Decree required the defendant to file remedial plans that addressed all areas of deficiency identified by experts for the court by January 31, 2005. In January 2005, based on a new direction to reform California’s juvenile system to evidence based rehabilitative model, the parties stipulated to extend the dates for the filing of remedial plans.
Pursuant to the agreed upon time extension, DJJ filed its proposed Sexual Behavior Treatment Program (SBTP) Remedial Plan on May 16, 2005.
By agreement of the parties and the court-appointed sexual behavior treatment expert, Dr. Barbara Schwartz, this revised Plan is being filed.
B. Plan Organization
This modified Remedial Plan is organized to address the deficiencies identified by the sex offender treatment report in the following areas and is guided by Dr. Schwartz’s recommendations:
1.   Adequacy of DJJ Sex Offender Programs (including number of treatment beds)
2.   Organization and Staffing
3.   Training
4.   Appropriateness of Policies and Procedures
5.   Sex Offender Assessment

Each section of this plan addresses one of these major elements. In all cases, each section begins with a brief description of the issue. This is followed by a discussion section wherein details concerning deficiencies and required changes are presented. Each section concludes with an Action Plan and plan for monitoring for compliance, including standards and criteria and identification of actions necessary to achieve compliance.
Page 1
C. Relationship to Previously Filed Plans
DJJ will work with the Farrell Court Experts in the areas of safety and welfare, mental health, education, health care and wards with disabilities in order to reconcile the previously filed plans in those areas with this revised Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Remedial Plan. In the interim, as inconsistencies between these plans are identified, DJJ will notify the Office of the Special Master (OSM), Plaintiff’s counsel, and the appropriate court experts to convene a discussion to resolve the discrepancy. If discrepancies are not resolved by agreement, either party may invoke the dispute resolution procedure under paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Consent Decree.
DJJ will inform Plaintiff’s counsel, the SBTP court expert and the OSM of any planned changes to the SBTP Program Guide. Plaintiff’s counsel, the OSM, and the SBTP court expert can request a meeting to discuss the changes proposed before any modifications are made to the SBTP Program Guide.
D. Resources Needed for Plan Implementation
Reference throughout this plan to numbers and classification of staff reflect DJJ’s and the experts’ judgment at the time the plan was filed as to the numbers and classification of staff necessary for successful implementation. References to positions are working titles rather than specific job classifications. DJJ will adjust staffing levels when such changes are necessary to achieve program compliance, defined as adherence to the SBTP Program Guide.
The staffing resources for SBTP are as follows:
�.          Senior Psychologist Supervisor/Sexual Behavior Treatment Coordinator
�.          Research Program Specialist exclusive to SBTP
�.          Office Technician exclusive to SBTP
�.          SBTP Administrative Task Force

Page 2
Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Team Positions
�.          Program Administrator
�.          Senior Psychologist Supervisor
�.          Clinical Psychologist
�.          Treatment Team Supervisor
�.          Senior Youth Correctional Counselor
�.          Casework Specialist
�.          Re-Entry Parole Agent
�.          Youth Correctional Counselor
�.          Youth Correctional Officer
�.          Office Technician
�.          Compliance Team

The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program will have the following staff assigned with a maximum of 36 youth per living unit:
�.          Two Clinical Psychologists
�.          One Treatment Team Supervisor or equivalent
�.          One Casework Specialist
�.          One Senior Youth Correctional Counselor
�.          Two Youth Correctional Counselors on the second watch
�.          Three Youth Correctional Counselors on the third watch
�.          One Youth Correctional Officer on the first watch
�.          Re-Entry Parole Agent (assigned to each facility at a 1:100 staff to youth ratio)

Before DJJ makes modifications to the staffing model as defined above and in the Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan, DJJ shall consult with the court appointed SBTP expert and provide at least sixty days notice to plaintiff’s counsel and the Office of the Special Master.
This notice will demonstrate that the proposed reduction will not hamper DJJ’s progress towards programmatic compliance in any area
Page 3
covered by this Plan. Changes in types or classes of staff that result in reducing qualifications of significant numbers of staff is deemed a “reduction” in staff for the purposes of this paragraph. Any dispute between the parties over reductions, whether reductions are substantial, or whether reductions are likely to hamper DJJ’s progress towards programmatic compliance, will be resolved pursuant to paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Consent Decree.
II. Program Statement
A. The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Description
The DJJ’s Sexual Behavior Treatment Program is designed to treat youth who have been adjudicated or convicted of a sexual offense, have a history of sexual offending behavior or have displayed high risk, inappropriate sexual behavior(s) within DJJ facilities. The SBTP is a comprehensive program focused on a continuum of care which standardizes the process for assessment and treatment planning through reentry.
The SBTP utilizes a collaborative treatment approach between youth and staff to develop objective Individual Treatment Plans targeting dynamic risk factors that contribute to sexual offending behavior and re-offense. Dynamic risk factors include: sexual deviance, contributory attitudes, interpersonal/socio-affective functioning, self-management, and influential others (Prescott, 2007). Standardized treatment programming agreed upon by mental health professionals will then be tailored to the needs of the individual assigned to the SBTP. The program will adopt an interdisciplinary approach which consists of psychosexual education, individual therapy, group therapy, family integration, psycho-educational groups, educational/vocational services, substance abuse treatment, mental health/health care services, and recreational/leisure activities.
B. Mission
The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program is dedicated to rehabilitating youth exhibiting sexually abusive behavior, which is in direct support of the DJJ’s mission to protect the public.
Page 4
Youth in the SBTP will learn to:
1.   Reduce and eliminate occurrence of all forms of sexually inappropriate behaviors as identified in the youth’s treatment plan.
2.   Acquire skills and knowledge to assist them in becoming responsible, healthy individuals capable of forming positive relationships.
3.   Develop the ability to understand the impact of their crimes on victims, families, and the community.
4.   Develop the thinking and behavioral skills to establish a pro-social, rewarding lifestyle through participation in strength-based individualized treatment.

C. Program Description
The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program uses a continuum of care where treatment occurs from intake to discharge. It is a holistic approach to treatment which incorporates the involvement of the family and community, understanding victims’ rights, and simultaneously recognizing the individualized needs of every youth. The SBTP establishes a therapeutic community with an attachment-informed environment to provide youth with skills and tools to learn how to develop healthy social relationships and lead successful lives. (Understanding that early attachment experiences have an enduring and stable quality through the lifespan, and affect the way individuals interact with their world. Rich, 2009) The program utilizes a case management approach, which promotes interdisciplinary treatment, team cooperation, and collaboration and provides for continuous service between facilities. Respect and dignity for each individual is fundamental in this team-focused, youth-centered therapeutic milieu.
III. Organizational Structure
A. The Issue
DJJ has not established a sufficiently integrated organizational structure at the facility or at the central office level. In addition, DJJ has not established a sufficient Dispute Resolution procedure to address conflicts between treatment team members with different chains of command. The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program is under the auspices of Mental Health Services. It is noted that a majority of the staff assigned to the SBTP do not fall under the direct supervision
Page 5
of mental health administration, but mental health staff will provide clinical direction.
B. Expectation
DJJ will develop or modify central office and facility organizational charts consistent with the principles and concepts discussed above and summarized below. See Facility Organizational Chart on Page 7. The intent of this section is to provide a guide for central office, facility and treatment team organization that will allow for the implementation of the SBTP, not to prescribe a specific and immutable organizational model. DJJ will develop an organizational model that depicts the reporting relationships among all SBTP personnel and that defines the extent and role of clinical direction. It will set an expectation that staff will collaborate and cooperate to ensure maximum treatment and constructive activity in a safe environment. All SBTP unit staff and supervisors are responsible for achievement of the treatment goals of the SBTP in a safe and secure setting, which will require collaboration among clinical and non-clinical staff. SBTP will also be required to operate within DJJ’s Integrated Behavior Treatment Model (IBTM).
The SBTP offers a specialized treatment approach for youth with a history of problematic sexual behavior and operates within the theoretical principles and philosophical orientation of DJJ’s IBTM. The youth participating in the SBTP receive a variety of therapeutic experiences and interventions based on the assessment of their individual needs. These experiences and interventions may be part of the overall IBTM as well as groups, experiential exercises, and psycho-educational activities directed specifically towards the remediation of sexually inappropriate conduct. Assessment(s) may identify specific treatment needs and treatment modalities that will be offered within the framework of the individual treatment needs of each SBTP participant. These complimentary treatments may be offered within a group setting or as part of individual therapy but will be compatible with the IBTM’s overall principle(s). Whenever possible, treatment experiences and modalities will utilize the same vocabulary and basic principles of the IBTM. The SBTP will develop protocols for offering these specialized treatment experiences and interventions so that all SBTP units are consistent with each other and with the IBTM. Individual therapy shall be oriented towards needs identified in the treatment plan and will supplement but remain complementary with the overall philosophy of the IBTM and the SBTP.
Page 6 Director, Division of Juvenile Programs Chief of Mental Health Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Coordinator Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Task Force - consisting of - Senior Psychologist Program Administrator Psychologists - coequals on the Task Force - Supervising Case Work Specialist/ Treatment Team Supervisor Case Manager/ Case Work Specialist/ Parole Agent I Senior Youth Correctional Counselor Youth Correctional Counselor Division of Juvenile Justice Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Organizational Chart March 16, 2010 Key — Direct Supervision Functional Supervision Page 7
1. Central Office
A permanent Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Coordinator (SBTP Coordinator) position will be established and housed in Central Office in the Health Care Division, Mental Health Unit. The SBTP Coordinator will manage the work of the DJJ Research Program Specialist and Office Technician. The duties of this position will include overseeing the implementation and standardization of the Division’s Sexual Behavior Treatment Program. The coordinator will monitor and be responsible for all aspects of the SBTP in regards to program integrity and, therefore, the coordinator’s clinical and programmatic decisions will be binding within the SBTP.
The SBTP Coordinator will monitor the integrity of the SBTP in the DJJ, oversee implementation of standardized programming components, and coordinate the training of Sexual Behavior Treatment Program staff. The SBTP Coordinator will oversee movement into, within, and out of the sexual behavior programs, as well as monitor the populations of SBTPs to ensure that identified youth are appropriately distributed among the programs available. The SBTP Coordinator will attempt to keep youth in programs geographically closest to their families and/or county of commitment.
The SBTP Coordinator will remain knowledgeable of upcoming sex offender training opportunities, trends and treatment techniques for juveniles with inappropriate sexual behaviors. The SBTP Coordinator will work closely with program management to ensure that appropriate training is provided to staff in each program, including attendance at national conferences. The SBTP training budget will be centralized at DJJ Headquarters as a part of the Health Care Services Budget. The SBTP Coordinator will administer the SBTP training budget. The SBTP Coordinator will monitor the treatment staff training records as they relate to SBTP training ensuring that the staff receives the mandated annual training. Training requirements will also be reviewed during the performance standards auditing process. The SBTP Coordinator will also maintain a resource library for use by DJJ treatment staff.
The SBTP Coordinator will supervise the Sexual Behavior Administrative Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force will consist of the Program Administrators and Senior Psychologists who supervise the SBTP unit at each facility as well as representatives from Education Services (who may be from central office); the Policy, Procedures, Programs, & Regulations Unit; and north and south field parole. The SBTP Coordinator will convene task force meetings and
Page 8
make assignments to task force members as necessary for the timely implementation of this Remedial Plan and continuing compliance with this Plan and the Program Guide. Task Force members will be responsible to the coordinator for their task force work. The Task Force will meet, at a minimum, on a quarterly basis.
A DJJ Research Program Specialist will collect and evaluate data pertaining to program effectiveness, compare national trends in sex offender treatment, etc. The initial placement of participants in treatment programs will be evaluated through the assessment process; individual participants will be reviewed periodically to determine if their placement is appropriate given their level of need. It is understood that DJJ will have research and evaluation requirements for its entire treatment program, and SBTP research and evaluation will be accomplished in a way that is consistent with those requirements and avoids redundancy.
An Office Technician will provide clerical support for the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Coordinator and the Research Program Specialist.
2. Facility Organization
The Superintendent is responsible for the operation of his/her facility. His/her responsibility is to carry out division policy to ensure the safe and orderly operation of the facility, and ensure programs and services are provided to youth. The Superintendent will ensure all staff complies with the Program Service Day (PSD) schedule, unless there are safety/security reasons that preclude specific programming. SBTP related clinical decisions will be made by the top level mental health clinician at the facility or his/her designee, with consultation of the SBTP coordinator.
The Senior Psychologist (or highest-ranking mental health clinician), and school principal are members of the Superintendent’s executive team and participate in regular briefings, facility committees and other administrative meetings as appropriate. These meetings will address, among other issues, any disputes between clinical and non-clinical staff that affect the delivery of the program that cannot be resolved at the case-planning level.
The Superintendent or his/her designee may, at the Superintendent’s discretion, provide input to persons completing performance evaluations of all health care services/mental health and educational
Page 9
services staff. If the Superintendent believes that the top level administrators are not performing appropriately and/or in accordance with agency policy, he or she will take the concern up his/her direct chain of authority.
3. Treatment Team Organization
Treatment Teams will be organized around the concept that the treatment team as a whole is responsible for addressing the behaviors and needs of the youth assigned to the SBTP. All DJJ staff will work together to make the best decisions for the collective youth in DJJ’s care, while attending to the best interests of the individual youth. Teams should be inter-disciplinary and at a minimum consist of the youth’s case manager, Youth Correctional Counselor, education representative, health care professional and re-entry specialist.
A Program Administrator and Senior Mental Health Clinician have overall responsibility for unit operations and outcomes for the SBTP Program Guide and will consult the SBTP coordinator on treatment related issues.
A Program Administrator will oversee the management and operations of the Sexual Behavior Treatment Programs. The Program Administrator will work closely with the Treatment Team Supervisor/ Supervising Casework Specialist to ensure consistency and standardization in the operation and service delivery of the SBTPs. The Program Administrator will supervise the Treatment Team Supervisor/Supervising Casework Specialist and will consult with the Senior Psychologist.
The Treatment Team Supervisor and/or Supervising Casework Specialist will be responsible for compliance of the SBTP unit with the Program Guide. This person provides oversight of the daily operations of the living unit, including staff supervision, scheduling, discipline, grievances, casework, etc. This person is the primary liaison between the living units and upper-level facility management. The Treatment Team Supervisor and/or Supervising Casework Specialist will supervise the Casework Specialists (CWS) and the Senior Youth Correctional Counselors. The Treatment Team Supervisor will be the second-line supervisor to the YCCs.
Clinical Psychologists provide sexual behavior treatment services for youth in the SBTP unit. The psychologist provides training, coaching and consultation in treatment and interventions to direct care and
Page 10
other staff in these units. Additionally, psychologists will provide direct services to youth including assessment, individual and group therapy. Psychologists are part of Mental Health Services and report to the facility’s Senior Psychologist. The psychologist will provide the clinical expertise which will guide the treatment resources that will be implemented in each youth’s Individual Treatment Plan.
The Casework Specialist (CWS) is responsible for facilitation of case conferences of the multi-disciplinary team, conducting the majority of the risk/needs assessment, developing an Individual Change Plan (ICP) tailored to the risks and needs of each youth, coordinating and prioritizing interventions, documenting progress in the ICP, communication with parents, guardians, parole officers, and others and providing weekly individual and/or group counseling.
The Senior Youth Correctional Counselor (SYCC) will manage the living unit’s daily operations. The SYCC will have direct supervision of the Youth Correctional Counselors. The SYCC is accountable for the cleanliness, security, and order of the living unit. The SYCC is responsible for scheduling/conducting community groups and activities.
The Youth Correctional Counselors will be required to co-facilitate the Sexual Behavior Treatment Core group. The YCCs are responsible for report writing, filing, and individual youth casework. YCCs are to be trained to conduct resource groups to support the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program. Youth Correctional Counselors provide direct supervision, documentation, behavior management, skills training and maintain a normative culture on the unit. YCC staffing will be sufficient to ensure that all scheduled treatment services and activities, as well as operations, can be provided during the day or evening as needed and directed by the Program Service Day schedule.
C. Action Plan
1. DJJ will produce an organizational chart for central office consistent with the principles outlined in this section by June 1, 2010.
2. DJJ will produce an organizational chart for each DJJ facility with a Sexual Behavior Treatment Program consistent with the principles outlined in this section by June 1, 2010.
Page 11
3. DJJ will produce a dispute resolution protocol for the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program consistent with the principles outlined in this section by June 1, 2010.
4. DJJ will ensure the appropriate number of qualified staff is in place for program implementation and compliance by June 1, 2010.
IV. Staff Training
A. Issue
Because the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program will not succeed in the absence of qualified staff, DJJ must be able to attract and retain competent professionals for existing staff and new hires. Initial and ongoing training is needed to develop and maintain the skills required for implementation and maintenance of an effective Sexual Behavior Treatment Program.
B. Expectation
Treatment Team staff working on the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program shall attend mandated training in working with sexually abusive youth. Training opportunities shall include attendance at national conferences addressing sex offender treatment for selected staff, who in turn will develop curriculum for in-service training and complete information sharing sessions for SBTP staff. All SBTP training materials will be approved by the SBTP Coordinator prior to their use.
The content and required hours of SBTP orientation and refresher training will be based on the content of DJJ’s SBTP curriculum, in consultation with the Farrell court expert. The orientation process for newly assigned SBTP staff will not exceed one month.
Ancillary staff members working with youth assigned to the SBTP shall be provided training related to youth with sexual behavior issues within the parameters of their employment assignment. This is accomplished through written policy, on-site training, contract trainings, and departmental expert training.
Page 12
C. Training
DJJ will either internally or through contract, write curriculum, develop training, provide training for trainers, and implement training for sexual behavior treatment staff. DJJ will develop a training plan and schedule for consistency across all SBTP units in the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program.
Psychologists who provide consulting and coaching to direct care staff on the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program will receive in-depth training in the program either through contract, or as developed by the DJJ.
As described in the Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan, direct care staff receives training in all aspects of the Integrated Behavior Treatment Model. Staff assigned to the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program will also receive training in all aspects of the SBTP, including in-depth instruction in the specific interventions and skill sets used. Staff working on Sexual Behavior Treatment Programs shall receive initial orientation training on the SBTP and yearly in-service training using both the training for trainers’ model and program-wide presentations.
1.   Orientation Training

Upon assignment to an SBTP unit, staff will receive the New Staff SBTP Orientation Packet as a part of orientation training. New YCCs will shadow an experienced SBTP YCC during core/resource groups, individual session and case conferences. Clinical staff will shadow an experienced SBTP psychologist during core/resource group, individual and family sessions and case conferences.
1.   SBTP Staff Training

Staff members involved with the SBTP shall be trained regarding all pertinent aspects of the SBTP for their employment assignment. This is accomplished through written policy, on-site, electronic, contract and departmental expert training.
The Sexual Behavior Treatment Teams will conduct yearly team meetings.
Page 13
Supplemental training will occur during individual unit weekly clinical meetings. Such training may include a review of risk assessments, overview of new research, case management or group facilitation.
SBTP staff assigned to the SBTP units shall be trained in the implementation and expectations of the SBTP curriculum.
In the occurrence of a facility re-bid where a number of new staff will be assigned to the SBTP, the SBTP Coordinator shall provide guidance and coordinate SBTP-specific training to occur to ensure newly assigned staff have the resources to provide appropriate SBTP treatment.
3. Staff Competency
The SBTP is under the auspices of Mental Health Services, and therefore psychiatrists and psychologists will meet the standards set forth by the Mental Health Remedial Plan. The SBTP Coordinator shall provide guidance and consultation regarding the placement of psychologists on the SBTP units.
Psychologists assigned to the SBTP will follow the Peer Review Policy as described in the Mental Health Remedial Plan. However, the items reviewed will be specific to SBTP documentation requirements as described in the SBTP Guide.
Case Work Specialists assigned to the SBTP will be required to meet the minimum qualifications for their specific classification.
Non-Clinical staff will be assigned to the SBTP through the Shift and Bid process. Non-Clinical staff assigned to the SBTP will be required to meet the minimum qualifications for their specific classification and be appropriately trained for their assignment.
D. Action Plan
1. DJJ will ensure that all staff employed on the Sexual Behavior Treatment Programs is qualified generally as mental health professionals, where applicable, and specifically to work with youth with SBTP needs.
2. DJJ will implement pertinent and appropriate training for all staff assigned or associated with the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program, including:
Page 14

�.          Orientation Training Program will be on-going.
�.          Ancillary staff training will occur annually, beginning in January 2011.
�.          Curriculum Training including: basic curriculum; clinical interpretation of curriculum; Training for Trainers on all curriculum components (for internal sustainability); and internal in-service training. Training shall occur within 240 days of the development of the curriculum.

3. At least two representatives from the SBTP Administrative Task Force will attend SBTP-specific national/outside training opportunities annually starting in 2011.
4. DJJ will provide staff of the SBTP residential units with SBTP-specific training 20 hours or more each year.
V. Program Adequacy
A. Issue
The DJJ does not have a standardized Sexual Behavior Treatment Program. The department does not have a Program Manual that describes in detail the implementation of the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program and its components.
B. Expectation
The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program will be designed as a comprehensive, department-wide model, which follows a standardized process for assessment, classification, treatment planning, and service delivery from intake through parole supervision. The SBTP will utilize a curriculum which is based in current research and will be individualized to the needs of the youth. Services shall be developed for participants with developmental disabilities, females, Spanish speakers, and other special needs as determined by the Individualized Treatment Plan.
Youth will be provided with and involved in individualized treatment planning. For example, certain participants (i.e. youth with mental health conditions, dual diagnoses, developmental or learning disabilities, behavior treatment needs, cases on appeal, etc.) will be provided individualized treatment planning based on their needs. Standardized treatment programming will be tailored to meet the
Page 15
needs of the individual, in a manner that is supported by the current research. Treatment will be rendered through a continuum of services and treatment programs for youth with inappropriate sexual behaviors.
The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program will provide integrated services including psychosexual education, individual and group psychotherapy, family therapy and integration (when appropriate), and psycho-education resource groups. An interdisciplinary approach will be utilized, including the involvement of education/vocational and health care services personnel.
The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program curriculum will be standardized and include experiential exercises; youth will demonstrate progress by a progression through individualized goals, and their treatment programs, interventions and services will be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis.
Standardized treatment stages, concepts and hours of treatment will be identified and provided to youth within the Sexual Behavior Treatment Programs.
The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Guide will define and detail all components of the model. All staff and youth will be trained on and made aware of the scope and requirements of the model as it relates to their specific involvement in the treatment of the youth.
C. Action Plan
1. DJJ will produce a written description and guide for its Sexual Behavior Treatment Program. The guide will include:
a.) Assessment:
(1) DJJ will administer appropriate screening and assessment tools which follow all state and federal laws governing youth with sexually abusive behaviors. DJJ will ensure that it utilizes assessments with demonstrated reliability and validity.
(2) On arrival to a SBTP unit, a specific SBTP evaluation will be conducted. The youth will participate in a series of assessments to identify the high/low risk level of the youth and other information such as past trauma, previous intervention efforts,
Page 16
family involvement, education and vocational history, peer associations, mental and medical issues, and substance abuse history. Based on the assessments and information provided, a clinical summary will be completed.
b.) Types of units, programs and interventions:
(1) DJJ will establish a protocol for those youth whose treatment needs hierarchy supersedes sex offender treatment, such as mental health, developmental disabilities and aggressive behavioral treatment needs. The youth in non-residential sex offender living units will be provided sex offender treatment through an individualized treatment plan if determined to benefit from sexual behavior treatment.
(2) DJJ will establish a system for the Sexual Behavior Treatment Program to include the following:
�.          SBTP Orientation/Transition
�.          Healthy Living Treatment
�.          Residential Sexual Behavior Treatment
�.          Individualized Sexual Behavior Treatment
�.          Female Sexual Behavior Treatment

(3) DJJ will develop a transition component providing the youth with a change in their assigned environment. This will enable them to be challenged to look at what has previously been learned in the Residential Program from another perspective and/or environment, while also providing support and structure to maintain their progress.
(4) DJJ will provide a minimum treatment hour expectation for all components of the SBTP.
�.          Two ninety minute groups (3 hours total) of sexual behavior group
�.          1 hour resource group
�.          1 hour of individual counseling (one-half hour clinical, one-half hour casework)

Page 17

�.          1 hour homework on stage, individual or journal assignments that support therapy.
�.          2 hours Residential large group

When a youth does not require the minimum hours of treatment this will be clearly defined in the Individual Treatment Plan.
(5) DJJ will develop and implement a family counseling and reunification intervention. The Sexual Behavior Treatment Program will provide the opportunity to involve the youth’s family/guardian, when appropriate, as prescribed in the treatment process.
a. DJJ will develop and implement a system to document and track attempts to engage families in the youth’s treatment program and participation in the youth’s treatment.
c.) Exit criteria:
DJJ will establish exit criteria to include cases on appeal and youth who have successfully completed the Sexual Behavioral Treatment Program as set forth in the Program Guide. Exit criteria will be competency based, determined by measurable objectives reflecting goal attainment. Youth will be assessed based on their accomplishment of specific changes in outcome measures and behavior and their ability to apply their knowledge to their daily functioning. This will be done via youths’ individual treatment plans and will be monitored at each case conference.
d.) Suspension/Refusal Criteria:
DJJ will establish temporary suspension/refusal criteria which includes monitoring for replacement/placement into the SBTP and includes interventions used prior to suspension. The process will be under the guidance and direction of the SBTP Coordinator.
Page 18
e.) Case Planning:
(1) A comprehensive and continuous assessment process is an integral part of the SBTP. Success in the ability to provide individualized treatment comes from assessing, evaluating and monitoring a youth’s progress. Assessments at the front-end of treatment help to determine risk levels, treatment and programming needs for the youth. Interventions, delivered throughout the youth’s stay in the treatment program, help to prepare each youth for reintegration into the community. The Case Planning and Review Process provides administrative oversight for each youth’s movement through DJJ and ensure that staff involved in parole supervision and aftercare planning has the information they need to effectively identify the youth’s risk level and meet their needs as they are being released into the community.
(2) Case Conferences are to be held at least every 60 days and should include the Interdisciplinary Treatment Team. The Case Conference team will identify and discuss progress on treatment, parole community reentry planning, goal setting and developing a case management plan for the next Case Conference.
(3) DJJ will provide case planning which will include transition planning, pre-release/parole placements, and re-entry services as described in the Program Guide to provide a continuum of care for SBTP youth transitioning from DJJ. Specialized attention needs to be given to SBTP cases due to legal restrictions related to residence and job opportunities.
f.) SBTP Program Components:
(1) Resource Groups will be offered to supplement the SBTP Core Curriculum. More than four Resource Groups will be offered to youth based on treatment needs and treatment objectives as identified in the Individualized Treatment Plan. DJJ
Page 19
will establish additional Resource Groups as youth needs arise.
(2) DJJ will develop or purchase and implement curriculum and programs based on national standards and best practices.
(3) Treatment services in the SBTP are based primarily on currently accepted treatment approaches for a juvenile population, focused on skill development, state of the art approaches and supplemented with positive reinforcement for improvements in behavior. Curriculum components will be culturally sensitive and emphasize cognitive and behavioral skill acquisition.
(4) On a yearly basis, the SBTP Coordinator, in consultation with the Sexual Behavior Administrative Task Force, will review and consider implementing any related and appropriate interventions.
(5) DJJ will ensure that treatment is offered in a way that respects the ethical principles of the involved professions as well as ensuring confidentiality, informed consent and due process. All participants will be adequately informed and sign documents reflecting an understanding of the limits of confidentiality, informed consent to treatment and their due process rights.
(6) DJJ will ensure that adequate and suitable physical facilities and resources, including files, computers, printers, materials for experiential therapy, etc., are available for treatment programs/services and interventions.
g.) Re-entry:
(1) DJJ recognizes that re-entry is an essential part of the SBTP. In consultation with the SBTP expert, DJJ will ensure that re-entry services are provided to youth in the SBTP that are consistent with the SBTP Remedial Plan, SBTP Program Guide, and the IBTM.
Page 20
VI. Quality Management
A. Issue
DJJ shall develop a quality management protocol. DJJ has not had a standard internal audit tool in place for measuring the effectiveness of the Sexual Behavior Treatment Programs or staff assigned to work these programs.
B. Expectation
The SBTP will adhere to current best practices of Program Evaluation and Quality Management. The overall objective of the program monitoring and performance measurement is to track and monitor the target population from identification through parole performance and measure the outcome of sex offender programming. The evaluation process shall include a review of program elements, a description of the implementation process, and a description of data points used to assess program success and failure. Basic principles include but are not limited to:
�.          Clear procedures and expectations for the program
�.          Entrance and exit criteria
�.          Appropriately trained staff
�.          Appropriate supervision and monitoring of staff.

C. Action Plan
1. The Sexual Behavior Administrative Task Force will monitor and ensure adherence to the program guide. This will include internal program checks, including monitoring and assessment of treatment implementation, review of youth files, and risk/needs-oriented records that monitor treatment progress and correspond directly to youth risk and need assessment results utilizing a standardized audit tool consistent with the current audit tool developed for this remedial plan. Non-conformance to the Program Guide may result in the development of a corrective action plan. This monitoring process will begin on July 15, 2010.
2. DJJ will conduct regular program assessment through an outcome evaluation to determine whether the program is effective in meeting its goals. This will begin in April 2011.
Page 21
3. DJJ, under the direction of the SBTP Coordinator, will make appropriate alterations to its program based on evaluations of the program’s effectiveness. This will occur on an on-going basis.
4. DJJ will conduct routine satisfaction surveys of youth and their families (if appropriate) while in the program regarding their satisfaction with the services being provided. The survey results will be summarized and shared with staff from all sections of the facility, and will be used to make facility modifications/improvements when appropriate. This will begin on July 15, 2010, and will occur on an on-going basis and at least every six months.
5. Routine documented observation and monitoring of all SBTP staff regarding delivery of treatment services and programming in the facility, with written feedback provided to staff, will be conducted by the Senior Psychologist assigned to provide clinical supervision to the SBTP. This will occur on an on-going basis and at least every six months.
6. Results of all monitoring conducted on a local level will be sent to the SBTP Coordinator for tracking and review. The audit tool will include documentation of, but will not be limited to: file reviews, review of Proof of Practice Binders and interviews with staff and youth. This will occur on an on-going basis and at least every six months.
Page 22

1.     Sexual Behavior Treatment Program Remedial Plan - California ...

Adequacy of DJJ Sex Offender Programs (including number of treatment beds). 2. Organization and Staffing. 3. Training. 4. Appropriateness of Policies and ...

2.     Juvenile Justice - California Department of Corrections and ...

DJJ provides academic and vocational education, treatment programs that address violent and criminogenic behavior, sex offender behavior, and substance ...
  1. [PDF]

There are 4 Residential Sex Offender Treatment Programs located ...

PROGRAM INFORMATION last updated 09-11-08 ... services to victims of juvenile offenders housed in the California Department of Corrections ... Victim Focused Offender Programs: The CDCR DJJ authored the original Impact of Crime on.

4.     Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) - California Department ...

Parole to Conduct Random Sex Offender Checks During "Operation Boo" ... Learning Centers (CLLC), various other Drug Treatment, and education programs...
  Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ...
  1. [PDF]

There are 4 Residential Sex Offender Treatment Programs ... - PJDC

4241 Williamsbourgh Drive Suite 130, Sacramento, CA 95823. Four facilities operate Residential Sex Behavior Treatment Programs in the Division of Juvenile ... A statewide sex offender database is maintained out of DJJ headquarters.
  1. [PDF]

CDCR-DJJ Sexual Behavior Treatment Program ... - Prison Law Office

Feb 8, 2011 - Attorney Cathleen Beltz in Norwalk, California on February 7, 2011 in connection with the audit of .... addressing sex offender treatment for.

Legislature confirms Mike Minor as DJJ director

By Bill Sessa, PIO
It’s been a busy month for the Division of Juvenile Justice, in which the Legislature approved its new director and the DJJ’s efforts to improve health care programs for juvenile offenders scored a significant approval by the courts.
On Feb. 21, Mike Minor was confirmed by the state Senate as Director, Division of Juvenile Justice.  Minor has spent his entire 28-year career working with juveniles.
He began his career as a Youth Correctional Officer and has held many positions in the DJJ and the former California Youth Authority. The positions included Superintendent of DJJ’s Stockton complex, which houses the O.H. Close and N.A. Chaderjian youth correctional facilities, before assuming the Director’s position a year ago.
In other positive news, on Feb. 15, Attorney General Kamala Harris, representing CDCR, and the Prison Law Office agreed to end court oversight of DJJ’s Health Care Remedial plan, a portion of a six-part consent decree filed as a class-action lawsuit (Farrell) in November 2004.  In a stipulation filed with the Alameda County Superior Court, the parties agreed that “a comprehensive system is now in place to ensure that DJJ youth receive adequate medical care under the California constitution, and all institutions have passed the Medical Care Court’s experts’ audits with high scores.”
CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard noted that the agreement to end court oversight of DJJ’s Health Care program is a sign that “California’s juvenile program has put a troubled past behind it and is on its way to restoring its reputation as a national leader in treating and rehabilitating juvenile offenders.  With Mr. Minor at the helm of DJJ, I am confident we will continue to see improvements in how we prepare young offenders to succeed in our communities.”
Minor attributed the achievements under the remedial plans “to the dedication of the DJJ staff, most of whom have devoted their careers to helping troubled youth.”
Under the Farrell consent decree, DJJ upgraded its medical treatment programs and procedures with the guidance of court-appointed, independent health care experts for its three juvenile correctional facilities in Stockton and Ventura.  In their most recent audit at the end of 2012, the court’s overseers found DJJ in “substantial compliance” with 89 percent of 2,058 items related to delivering health care and in “partial compliance” with the other 11 percent.
That same audit found DJJ in “substantial compliance” with 86 percent of 4,500 program and procedure changes in remedial plans covering Education, Sex Offender treatment, accommodation of Wards with Disabilities, Mental Health, and the overall Safety and Welfare environment in its facilities, in addition to Health Care.
Formerly known as the California Youth Authority, the DJJ once housed as many as 10,000 juvenile offenders in 11 correctional facilities.  In the last 15 years, as policy makers encouraged that more youth be housed and treated in their home communities, the DJJ population has been reduced to 768 wards in three facilities.  All of those youth, some as old as 23, have been adjudicated for crimes that the Penal Code classifies as “serious” or “violent” or sex offenses.  They are considered to be the state’s most troubled juvenile offenders with the most serious violent backgrounds and the most extensive treatment needs.
All of DJJ’s treatment programs have been developed with the help of national and court-appointed experts and are supported by evidence that they are effective with California’s unique juvenile offender population.
Among DJJ’s more notable achievements through its remedial plans:
  • DJJ’s Sex Offender Treatment Program has been rated as “highly effective” by a national standards group, the Correctional Programs Checklist, and is being recognized as a national model for treatment of youth sex offenders;
  • Through the accredited high schools in each of DJJ’s three facilities, more than 6,000 juveniles have earned a high school diploma, GED, a vocational skills certificate, or enrolled in college courses since 2005, a more than 300 percent increase at a time of declining enrollment.
  • Last November, the court lifted its supervision of DJJ’s Dental Care program, noting that it not only met all the requirements of the remedial plan, but exceeded them.
  • DJJ successfully rolled out the court-ordered Integrated Behavior Treatment Model (ITBM) at O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility and will continue to expand the program at the N.A. Chadjerian and Ventura facilities.

One Response to Legislature confirms Mike Minor as DJJ director

  1. Carol Wilson says:
Congratulations Mike! No one deserves this recognition of hard work and dedication like you do. I so very much enjoyed working with you – always so professional and positive. Best wishes. Miss you all in DJJ!
Title: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation CDCR

California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation CDCR
  • Division of Juvenile JusticeDJJ

  • The CYA (DJJ) was created by law in 1941, but
    it wasnt until 1943 that the agency began to
    operate reform schools, providing institutional
    training and parole supervision for juvenile and
    young adult offenders. It is the largest youthful
    offender agency in the nation. 

Background (cont.)
  • In a massive reorganization of California
    corrections in 2005, the CYA became the Division
    of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) under the California
    Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

The Mission
  • Described in Section 1700 of the Welfare and
    Institutions Code
  • To protect the public from criminal activity

Mission (cont.)
  • Provide a range of training and treatment
    services for youthful offenders committed by
  • Direct these offenders to participate in
    community and victim restoration

Mission (cont.)
  • Assist local justice agencies with efforts to
    control crime and delinquency and
  • Encourage the development of state and local
    programs to prevent crime and delinquency.

  • A Division in the Department of Corrections and
  • Secretary reports directly to the Governor and
    serves on his Cabinet.

Organization (cont.)
  • Carries out its responsibilities through three
  • Division of Juvenile Facilities
  • Division of Juvenile Programs
  • Division of Juvenile Parole Services

General Information
  • The DJJ receives its youthful offender population
    from both juvenile and superior court referrals.
  • The DJJ does provide housing for juveniles under
    the age of 18 who have been sentenced to the
    Adult Division.

General Information (cont.)
  • A separate administrative body, The Board of
    Parole Hearings (BPH), Juvenile Justice Division,
    determines their parole release.

  • Determined by
  • the severity of the committing offense
  • the offenders progress toward parole readiness.

BPH Categories and Sliding Scale
  • Sliding Scale Fees were introduced in 1997 to
    encourage counties to find alternatives to CYA
    (DJJ) commitment for non-violent offenders.

Categories and Sliding Scale (cont.)
  • Under this program, counties pay a flat fee of
    150 per month for all commitments in YOPB
    Categories 1 - 4.
  • Included here are most violent offenses involving
    substantial injury and offenses committed while

Categories and Sliding Scale (cont.)
  • For other offenders, (Categories 5 7)
  • counties pay 50, 75 or 100 of the1997 per
    capita cost of CYA (DJJ) housing.

Categories and Sliding Scale (cont.)
  • Category 5 offenses include ADW, Battery (with
    injury), Grand Theft Person, Burglary 1st and
    some Arson
  • Category 6 offenses include Concealable Firearms,
    Burglary 2nd, some Arson and all other felonies
  • Category 7 offenses include all other offenses
    (misdemeanors, primarily)

  • DJJ jurisdiction for the most serious
    offenders ends on the offenders 25th birthday.

Division of Juvenile ProgramsEducation
ServicesCalifornia Education Authority(CEA)

  • Established in the Welfare Institutions Code
    1120 1125.5
  • Juvenile Justice Education funding
  • - Prop 98 -Career to Work
    -Voc Ed/Spec. Ed
  • - Non-Prop 98 -Special Education
    -E-Rate Grant
  • - Lottery -WorkAbility Grant
  • -WIA/ABE - Library Grant
  • -ESEA/NCLB -Criminal Offender

CEA (cont.)
  • California Standards
  • for the Teaching Profession
  • Training
  • Special Education
  • General Education
  • English Language Learner Resources
  • Transition Services Resources

CEA Schools

CEA Schools (cont.)
  • Ione
  • Preston Youth Correctional Facility Clinic
  • -James A. Wieden High School
  • -Pine Grove Youth Correctional
  • Conservation Camp - Pine Grove Camp
  • Campus
  • -Midtown Campus Sacramento Parole

CEA Schools (cont.)

CEA Schools (cont.)

CEA Schools (cont.)
  • All CEA High Schools have been accredited through
    Western Association of Schools and Colleges.

CEA Schools (cont.)
  • Graduation requirements for Diploma
  • -200 credits
  • -Must include 10 credits in Character
  • Education
  • -Passage of CAHSEE
  • -Waiver for special education students, if
  • -Certificate of Completion available for
  • special education students who are not
    able to
  • pass CAHSEE

CEA Schools (cont.)
  • School programs include
  • State Board adopted, standards-based
  • curriculum
  • Vocational programs
  • Special Education services
  • English Learner program

For more information
  • http//www.cdcr.ca.gov/DivisionsBoards/DJJ/index.h

Reform Plans and Progress

Including 2013 spring report
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................. ..............i
Section 1: California Youth Authority
Offender Population Projections and Characteristics .................... 1
A. Overview of the CYA ............................................................... 1
B. Population Projections .............................................................. 2
C. Changing Characteristics of Offender Population....................... 4
D. Factors Contributing to the Changing Offender Population........ 7
Section 2: Current CYA Programs................................................................... 10
A. Programs are Classified as “Core” and “Special and
Supplementary”...................................................................... 10
B. Description of CYA Core Programs........................................ 10
C. Special and Supplementary Programs...................................... 16
Section 3: Offender Needs Assessment - Current Practices
and Special Efforts ......................................................................... 36
A. Overview of Reception Center Process ................................... 36
B. 1996-97 Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Treatment Needs Assessment.................................................. 36
C. Summary of Critical Assessment Tools ................................... 37
Section 4: Preliminary Observations from Needs Assessments
and Emerging Offender Program Needs ....................................... 43
A. Preliminary Observations of Ward Program Needs .................. 43
B. Emerging Institutional Program/Staff/Physical Plant Needs ..... 45
C. Emerging Parole Program/Staff/Physical Plant Needs.............. 48
D. Emerging Education Program Needs....................................... 49
Section 5: Outcome Measurement in the CYA
A Focus on Strategic Goals ........................................................... 50
A. Development of the CYA Strategic Management Process ....... 50
B. Strategic Goals and Key Outcome Measures ........................... 52
Section 6: Systems Required to Evaluate Program Effectiveness ................... 57
A. Program Evaluation and Monitoring--A Two Tier Model........ 57
B. Significant CYA Research and Program Evaluations -
Examples of Tier 1 Efforts .................................................... 58
C. Conditions Required for CYA to Implement
Systematic Evaluation and Program Monitoring Process ......... 61
D. Improved Offender Information System Needed...................... 62
E. Phased Implementation of Two-Tier Model ............................ 66
Appendix A: Characteristics of First Admissions to the California Youth Authority
California Youth Authority
Response to Supplemental Budget Language Request
Item 5460-001-0001
1997-98 Budget Act
Systems and Measures for Evaluating Program Effectiveness with an Increasingly
Violent Youthful Population
Executive Summary
This report is respectfully submitted by the California Youth Authority (CYA) to the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee and the fiscal committees of the California State Legislature
pursuant to a request in the Supplemental Report to the 1997-98 Budget Act. Item 5460-001-
0001 of that report requested that the CYA report by March 1, 1998 on programs needed to
serve institution and parole populations, measures to determine the effectiveness of those
programs and systems required to evaluate the effectiveness of programs operated by the CYA.
The specific language contained in the Supplemental Report is:
Item 5460-001-0001 -- Department of the Youth Authority
1. Treatment Needs Assessment -- Institutional and Parole Populations.
The Department of the Youth Authority shall, using existing resources, complete a
treatment needs assessment that identifies what programs are needed for its institutional
and parole populations. In addition, the assessment should identify the systems required
to evaluate the effectiveness of its rehabilitation programs and what measures it will use to
determine the effectiveness of individual programs and/or combinations of programs on
parole outcomes. The Department shall complete the assessment and transmit copies to
the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the Legislature’s fiscal committees by March
1, 1998.
Overview of the CYA
The CYA was created by law in 1941. It is the largest youthful offender agency in the nation. As
one component of the overall California juvenile justice system, the CYA provides a secure
setting for training, treatment and education to young offenders whose level of delinquency makes
them unsuitable for continued handling at the local level but who, due to their age and/or
maturity, are not considered appropriate for adult prison. Within the CYA, young offenders are
provided an opportunity to accept responsibility for their past actions and develop the
competencies necessary to change their delinquent behavior patterns and become responsible
citizens. In addition, the CYA provides a focus on community restoration through public service
activities and victim services and restitution.
Structure of This Report
In order to

The California Youth Authority (CYA), the largest youth correctional system
in the United States, houses approximately six thousand juveniles and young
adults in eleven institutions and four forestry camps. An additional four thousand
are under parole supervision. Operating under a treatment and training concept,
the CYA provides an extensive array of programs that include academic
education, vocational training and work experience, sex offender treatment,
substance abuse treatment, specialized counseling, and intensive mental health
treatment. Through its Office of Prevention and Victims Services, the CYA
assists local justice agencies in delinquency prevention and intervention and
provides services to victims of youth crime.
The Origin of the CYA
The establishment of the California Youth Authority in 1941 through
legislative action is often cited as a turning point in American juvenile
correctional history. The California Youth Authority Act was the first
implementation of the American Law Institute’s model Youth Correction
Authority Act. Radically breaking with traditional thinking and practice in
juvenile corrections, it proposed a model of juvenile justice based on
rehabilitation instead of retributive punishment and called for state-level
coordination of services. The passage of the California Youth Correction
Authority Act of 1941 represents the first time an elected legislative body
declared that the purpose of juvenile corrections was rehabilitation rather than
During the period leading up to the passage of the Youth Correction Authority
Act in 1941, California’s juvenile justice system could be described as disjointed,
under funded, and prone to brutality. The system’s most serious problems appear
to have been the result of no overall standards. There were no guidelines for
length of stay, for educational services, nor for the quality of correctional
treatment and training. Three crowded, aging institutions and a total of nine parole
agents (with caseloads sometimes as high as two hundred) served all of
California. They operated under the direction of the Department of Institutions, an
agency that was almost totally oriented to running mental hospitals and homes for
the disabled.
Prior to 1941 young offenders were committed directly by the courts to one of
the three schools. If space was not available they were placed in overcrowded jail
facilities along with adults. Even pre-adolescent children were sometimes placed
in jails where they mingled with adult criminals of all types. In such settings
children were exposed to continual criminal influences as well as to physical and
sexual abuse. Publicized reports of children being abused in jails and in the three
juvenile institutions were common. Over time this grew into a highly emotional
public issue. In 1939 public attention became riveted on the Whittier State School
when the Los Angeles Times featured stories concerning a 13-year-old boy who
died under questionable circumstances after being placed in solitary confinement.
When a second boy at the Whittier State School died under almost identical
circumstances a year later, public demand for change became difficult to ignore.
California, of course, was not the only state with such problems. Public
commissions and other influential groups in state after state found that many
juveniles coming into contact with the justice system encountered injustice and
brutality. Juvenile justice committee members in New York City charged with
assessing its system of juvenile justice were shocked at their findings. They
became convinced, however, that the only reason brutal conditions were tolerated
was that the public was generally unaware of them. To address this lack of
knowledge, the committee sponsored a report that detailed the sorry state of
juvenile justice in New York. This report, Youth in the Toils, eventually drew the
attention of the American Law Institute. I

No comments:

Post a Comment