Today, cognitive-behavioral approaches predominate. Given the widely varying levels of detail provided in the research reviews, we could not always determine whether reference was being made to a study of sex offender treatment or to other types of studies on sex offenders (e.g., recidivism studies on untreated offenders and studies attempting to identify sex offender characteristics). Research Reviews Identified Methodological Limitations in Evaluating Treatment Effectiveness

The research reviews found that conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment programs were impeded by methodological weaknesses in the implementation and reporting of the studies. Studies reported recidivism rates after 3 months, 1 year, 4 years, 15 years, etc. Limitations in Recidivism Measures Used

The validity of conclusions about treatment effectiveness is greatly affected by which data sources are used to measure outcome. As a result, it was difficult to determine whether, and by how much, sex offender treatment reduced recidivism. The most optimistic reviews concluded that some treatment programs showed promise for reducing deviant sexual behavior. However, nearly all reported that definitive conclusions could not be drawn because methodological weaknesses in the research made inferences about what works uncertain.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed research results on the effectiveness of sex offender treatment programs in reducing recidivism.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) all of the research studies reviewed provided qualitative and quantitative summaries of sex offender treatment programs; (2) nearly all of the studies identified limitations in evaluating treatment effectiveness; (3) there was no consensus as to which treatment reduces recidivism; (4) the cognitive-behavioral treatment approach works well in treating child molesters and exhibitionists, but treatment effectiveness depends on the type of offender and treatment setting; (5) researchers did not engage in comparison studies to measure recidivism rates because of the studies' inconsistent measurements; (6) the research reports lacked sufficient descriptive information on how program participants are selected and recidivism measured; and (7) definitive conclusions could not be drawn about deviant sexual behavior because certain methodological weaknesses have underscored inferences.