Can circles of support and accountability (CoSA) significantly reduce sexual recidivism? Results from a randomized controlled trial in Minnesota

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Objectives

This study evaluates the effectiveness of Minnesota Circles of Support and Accountability (MnCOSA), a sex offender reentry program implemented by the Minnesota Department of Corrections in 2008.

Methods

Using a randomized controlled trial, this study compares recidivism and cost–benefit outcomes among sex offenders in the MnCOSA (N = 50) and control groups (N = 50).

Results

The results suggest MnCOSA significantly reduced sexual recidivism, lowering the risk of rearrest for a new sex offense by 88%. In addition, MnCOSA significantly decreased all four measures of general recidivism, with reductions ranging in size from 49 to 57%. As a result of the reduction in recidivism, findings from the cost–benefit analysis reveal the program has generated an estimated $2 million in costs avoided to the state, resulting in a benefit of $40,923 per participant. For every dollar spent on MnCOSA, the program has yielded an estimated benefit of $3.73.

Conclusions

Although difficult to implement, the CoSA model is a cost-effective intervention for sex offenders that could also be applied to other correctional populations with a high risk of violent recidivism.

Keywords

Sex offender Recidivism Social support Cost–benefit Restorative justice 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, S. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aos, S., & Drake, E. (2013). Prison, police, and programs: Evidence-based options that reduce crime and save money (Doc. No. 13-11-1901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
  3. Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45, 287–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates, A., Macrae, R., Williams, D., & Webb, C. (2012). Ever-increasing circles: A descriptive study of Hampshire and Thames Valley circles of support and accountability 2002–2009. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates, A., Saunders, R., & Wilson, C. (2007). Doing something about it: A follow-up study of sex offender participating in Thames Valley circles of support and accountability. British Journal of Community Justice, 5, 19–42.Google Scholar
  6. Bates, A., Williams, D., Wilson, C., & Wilson, R. J. (2014). Circles south east: The first 10 years 2002–2012. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 861–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, M., & Huebner, B. M. (2010). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 382–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berk, R. A., Sherman, L., Barnes, G., Kurtz, E., & Ahlman, L. (2009). Forecasting murder within a population of probationers and parolees: A high stake application of statistical learning. Journal of Royal Statistical Society, 172, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camp, S. D., Daggett, D. M., Kwon, O., & Klein-Saffran, J. (2008). The effect of faith program participation on prison misconduct: The Life Connections program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caudy, M. S., Durso, J. M., & Taxman, F. S. (2013). How well do dynamic needs predict recidivism? Implications for risk assessment and risk reduction. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cochran, J. C. (2014). Breaches in the wall: Imprisonment, social support, and recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 200–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeLisi, M., Kosloski, A., Sween, M., Hachmeister, E., Moore, M., & Drury, A. (2010). Murder by numbers: Monetary costs imposed by a sample of homicide offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 21, 501–513.Google Scholar
  14. Derkzen, D., Gobeil, R., & Gileno, J. (2009). Visitation and post-release outcomes among federally-sentenced offenders. Research report. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar
  15. Duwe, G. (2012). Predicting first-time sexual offending among prisoners without a prior sex offense history: The Minnesota Sexual Criminal Offending Risk Estimate (MnSCORE). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(1), 434–1,454.Google Scholar
  16. Duwe, G. (2013). Can circles of support and accountability (COSA) work in the United States? Preliminary results from a randomized experiment in Minnesota. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duwe, G. (2014a). The development, validity, and reliability of the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk (MnSTARR). Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 579–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duwe, G. (2014b). To what extent does civil commitment reduce sexual recidivism? Estimating the selective incapacitation effects in Minnesota. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duwe, G. (2015). What has worked and what has not with Minnesota sex offenders: A review of the evidence. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Duwe, G. (2017). Better practices in the development and validation of recidivism risk assessments: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-4 (MnSOST-4). Criminal Justice Policy Review.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417718608.
  21. Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2013). Blessed be the social tie that binds the effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2015). Importance of program integrity: Outcome evaluation of a gender-responsive, cognitive-behavioral program for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duwe, G., & Donnay, W. (2008). The impact of Megan’s law on sex offender recidivism: The Minnesota experience. Criminology, 46, 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duwe, G., Hallett, M., Hays, J., Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. (2015). Bible college participation and prison misconduct: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duwe, G., & Johnson, B. (2016). The effects of prison visits from community volunteers on offender recidivism. The Prison Journal, 96, 279–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duwe, G., & King, M. (2013). Can faith-based correctional programs work? An outcome evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Minnesota. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 813–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Firth, D. (1993). Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika, 80, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fox, K. J. (2013). Circles of support & accountability: Final report prepared for the State of Vermont Department of Corrections. Retrieved from: http://www.doc.state.vt.us/about/reports/circles-of-support-accountability-final-report/view .
  29. Gendreau, P., French, S., & Gionet, A. (2004). What works (what doesn’t work): The principles of effective correctional treatment. Journal of Community Corrections, 13, 4–6.Google Scholar
  30. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hannem, S., & Petrunik, M. (2007). Circles of support and accountability: A community justice initiative for the reintegration of high-risk sex offenders. Contemporary Justice Review, 10, 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoing, M., Vogelvang, B., & Bogaerts, S. (2017). “I am a different man now”—Sex offenders in circles of support and accountability: A prospective study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61, 751–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, B. R., & Larson, D. B. (2003). The InnerChange freedom initiative: A preliminary evaluation of a faith-based prison program. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society.Google Scholar
  34. Kerr, N., Tully, R. J., & Vollm, B. (2017). Volunteering with sex offenders: The attitudes of volunteers toward sex offenders, their treatment, and rehabilitation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063217691964.
  35. Landenberger, N., & Lipsey, M. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McCollister, K.E., French, M.T., & Fang, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 108, 98–109.Google Scholar
  37. Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Siennick, S. E., & Bales, W. D. (2011). Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.583932.
  38. Mitchell, M. M., Spooner, K., Jia, D., & Zhang, Y. (2016). The effect of prison visitation on reentry success: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Northcutt Bohmert, M., Duwe, G., & Kroovand Hipple, N. (2016). Evaluating restorative justice circles of support and accountability: Can social support overcome structural barriers? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16652627.
  40. Penduzzi, P., Cocato, J., Kemper, E., Holford, T. R., & Feinstein, A. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1373–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmucker, M., & Lösel, F. (2015). The effects of sexual offender treatment on recidivism: An international meta-analysis of sound quality evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 597–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vittinghoff, E., & McCulloch, C. E. (2007). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165, 710–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ward, T. (2002). Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders: Promises and problems. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 513–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, R. J., Picheca, J. E., & Prinzo, M. (2005). Circles of support & accountability: An evaluation of the pilot project in south-Central Ontario. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.Google Scholar
  45. Wilson, R. J., Cortoni, F., & McWhinnie, A. W. (2009). Circles of Support & Accountability: A Canadian national replication of outcome findings. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 21, 412–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minnesota Department of CorrectionsSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations