Application of the Risk Principle in the Supervision and Treatment of Individuals Who Have Sexually Offended: Does “Oversupervision” Matter?

• Date: 01 March 2022
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211040852
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 3, March 2022, 350 –370.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211040852

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

350

APPLICATION OF THE RISK PRINCIPLE IN

THE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT OF

INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE SEXUALLY

OFFENDED

Does “Oversupervision” Matter?

KAITLYN M. PEDERSON

HOLLY A. MILLER

Sam Houston State University

Individuals who sexually offend are commonly misunderstood as being high risk. According to the risk–need–responsivity

(RNR) principles, treatment and supervision levels should be determined by actuarial risk for the best outcomes. To date, no

studies have examined these principles with individuals on supervision for a sexual offense. This study applies the RNR

principles to a sample of 133 men and women serving probated sentences for a sexual offense and mandated to specialized

treatment. Results indicate low-risk individuals convicted of a sexual offense were more likely to be compliant with probation

and treatment than moderate-risk individuals. An analysis of risk level and supervision overrides (N = 75) provides support

for the prediction that low-risk individuals supervised at high levels may be more likely to have compliance problems. Results

suggest similar outcomes when violating the risk principle for individuals who have sexually offended to the findings among

general justice-involved people.

Keywords: RNR principles; supervision; treatment; individuals who sexually offend

In 2002, during the United States Supreme Court case McKune v. Lile, Justice Anthony

Kennedy spoke in a plurality opinion stating, “sexual offenders have a frightening and

high risk of recidivism.” In addition claiming, “the rate of recidivism of untreated offend-

ers has been estimated to be as high as 80%” (Ellman & Ellman, 2015, p. 495; McKune v.

Lile, 2002). These false beliefs are not only held by the U.S. Supreme Court, but also

common among the general public. In a survey administered by Levenson et al. (2007),

community members in Florida estimated the rate of recidivism for individuals who have

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank Abigail Eck for her contribution to the data collection

process. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kaitlyn M. Pederson, Department of

Criminal Justice and Criminology, George J. Beto Criminal Justice Center, Sam Houston State University, 816

17th St., Huntsville, TX 77341; e-mail: kmp071@shsu.edu.

1040852CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211040852Criminal Justice and BehaviorPederson, Miller / Does Oversupervision Matter?

research-article2022

Pederson, Miller / DOES OVERSUPERVISION MATTER? 351

sexually offended to be around 75%. Furthermore, respondents demonstrated another

myth among this population, indicating they are all high risk. Most participants (76.3%)

not only believed all individuals who have sexually offended should be subject to com-

munity notification policies, almost half also stated they would support “sex offender

policies even if there was no scientific evidence showing that they reduce sexual abuse”

(Levenson et al., 2007, p. 146).

A possible explanation for this false assumption is the interchangeable usage of the

concepts of risk and seriousness (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004). Although there is no

refuting the seriousness of a sexual offense, relative risk of reoffending is a discrete mat-

ter. The concept of risk is commonly perceived as being correlated with the seriousness

of an offense when in reality both concepts are separate continuums. Thus, an individual

may have committed a petty crime, but their risk for reoffending is high. In contrast,

individuals who sexually offend have committed a serious crime, yet their risk for sexu-

ally recidivating may be low. In many cases, rates of sexual reoffending are low; on

average, sexual recidivism is 5% to 15% for males (Alper & Durose, 2019; Gannon

et al., 2019; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson et al., 2014; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon,

2005; Schmucker & Losel, 2015; Zgoba et al., 2018) and 1% to 3% for females (Cortoni

et al., 2010; H. A. Miller & Marshall, 2019; Sandler & Freeman, 2009). Risk of sexual

reoffending also varies depending on risk level. For example, among males convicted of

a sexual offense and scoring in the low-risk range on an actuarial assessment, risk of

sexual recidivism ranges from 1% to 5% across a 10-year span (Hanson et al., 2014). In

addition, individuals scoring in the high-risk range upon release from custody have a

sexual recidivism rate of 28.8% upon release, but the likelihood decreases over time

(Hanson et al., 2014).

When predicting risk for recidivism, sexual recidivism becomes the main focal point

with individuals who have sexually offended once (Wormith et al., 2012). General recidi-

vism, however, is significantly more common, with rates ranging from 33.2% to 49.6%

(Alper & Durose, 2019; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2009; Wormith et al., 2012). The

value of general risk assessment instruments and application with individuals who sexually

offend has been debated (Wormith et al., 2012). Given the higher likelihood of general

recidivism compared with sexual recidivism, ignoring general criminogenic needs may be

problematic. In 2012, Wormith et al. examined the role of a general risk assessment (LS/

CMI) among individuals convicted of a sexual offense and found significant predictive util-

ity for this group.

Despite the higher rates of general recidivism and the support for general risk assess-

ments among individuals who sexually offend, trained public officials, such as supervi-

sion officers, commonly fail to accurately apply general risk and needs assessments to

case management or supervision decisions (Bonta et al., 2008; J. Miller & Maloney,

2013; Viglione, 2019; Viglione et al., 2015; Wormith et al., 2012). For example, Viglione

(2019) examined the implementation of evidence-based practices and the risk–need–

responsivity (RNR) principles by interviewing probation officers. If officers believed a

supervisee was “too risky,” they were less likely to implement evidence-based practices.

Individuals who sexually offend were commonly considered to fall within a specialized

“high risk” group. As a consequence, few probation officers were willing to supervise

these individuals at low-intensity supervision levels and regularly treated this group as

all high risk, despite general actuarial risk assessments indicating low levels of risk