Implications of our developing understanding of risk and protective factors in the treatment of adult male sexual offenders.

This paper summarizes our developing knowledge of factors that contribute added risk of sexual recidivism (risk factors) and factors that are associated with a reduced risk of sexual recidivism (protective factors). Specific im-plications for the design of future treatment programs are drawn. This information is contrasted with the common foci of sexual offender treatment programs that were designed before these research findings emerged, and suggestions made about how common clinical tasks might be re-revisited and revised in the light of this new knowledge. Keywords Criminogenic need, sexual risk factors, protective factor, sexual offender treatment, sex offenders Sexual offender treatment had firmly evolved as a specialty by the mid 1990s, so much so that it was possible for Hanson et al. (2002) in their review of evaluations of sexual offender treatment to distin-guish “modern ” forms of treatment, which were deemed to be somewhat effective, from older forms of treatment, which were deemed ineffective. Com-mon elements of treatment regarded as “modern” around that time included the use of cognitive-be-havioral methods and clinical tasks such as: (a) elic-iting accounts of past deviancy and offending, (b) challenging denial and self-serving cognitive dis-tortions, c) developing empathy for victims, (d) an-alyzing past offenses to identify offense precursors, (e) developing a relapse prevention plan designed to be relevant to the identified offense-precursors, and (f) rehearsing skills for putting this plan into practice. More developed programs might also have included behavior therapy designed to modi-fy offense-related sexual arousal patterns and anger management. This paradigm for treatment was evolved prior to the completion of much foundational research into the treatment of sexual offenders, so it relied heavily on the clinical common sense of practitioners com-bined with some borrowing of ideas that were then current in related fields like substance abuse treat-ment. However, since around 2000, there have been a number of seminal developments. First, Hanson,