Circles of Support and Accountability for Sex Offenders: A Systematic Review of Outcomes

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting on the effectiveness of Circles of Support and Accountability (Circles). Circles use volunteers to provide support for sex offenders living in the community. We searched 10 databases up to the end of 2013 and identified 3 relevant outcome studies. An additional 12 papers or reports were identified by searching reference lists, Google, and contacting key authors and Circles providers to obtain unpublished data. These 15 studies comprised one randomized controlled trial, three retrospective cohorts with matched controls, and 11 case series. The majority reported measures of recidivism, particularly reconviction. The 4 studies with controls generally reported that participation in Circles was associated with lower recidivism although there were few statistically significant differences. Few studies examined changes in risk or psychosocial outcomes. A number of methodological issues are discussed. Longer term, prospective follow-up studies with control groups are required to address these issues.

Keywords

Circles of Support and Accountability CoSA sex offender core member restorative justice community reintegration

Introduction

This article reports the findings of a systematic review of research relating to the effectiveness of a social intervention—known as a Circle of Support and Accountability (CoSA, or “Circle”)—that aims to reduce the likelihood of reoffending among high-risk sex offenders who have been released from prison by providing support from a small number of community volunteers.

Interventions for Sex Offenders

The effectiveness of interventions for sex offenders in reducing recidivism is mixed; whereas some research points to positive outcomes (from certain types of interventions), other research suggests little effect. A meta-analysis by Hanson et al. (2002), comprising 43 studies reporting on institution-based treatments, community-based treatments, and treatment in both settings, found a lower rate for sexual offense recidivism for those offenders who received treatment, over a mean follow-up of 46 months, though benefits were modest with 12.3% recidivism in those who received interventions compared with 16.8% in those who did not. People who dropped out of treatment had higher sexual recidivism rates than those who completed, regardless of the type of treatment and even when the treatment was found to be ineffective. Post 1980, cognitive-behavioral-based treatments appeared more effective than earlier treatments. Conversely, Dennis et al. (2012) found no evidence in favor of psychological interventions for sex offenders in reducing sexual recidivism. Their systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified the need for more good quality studies.

Consequently, what is clear is that despite the provision of sex offender treatment programs (SOTPs), sexual reoffending remains a possibility, and with potentially very serious consequences. There is therefore a need to further improve the effectiveness of SOTPs or to develop interventions to further reduce the risk of sexual reoffending following completion of these programs both during and after incarceration. In addition, there is a group of offenders who, for various reasons, do not participate in sex offender programs but are nevertheless released back into the community when their sentence expires; these individuals are of particular concern as their risk remains unmodified (Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012).

Irrespective of whether or not sex offenders have participated in treatment interventions, the reintegration of sex offenders is an emotive subject and successful reintegration into the community can be difficult. However, successful reintegration is integral to reducing the likelihood of reoffending. For example, isolation and loneliness are potential risk factors in sexual offending (Edwards & Hensley, 2001; Marshall, 2010). Thus, communities that fail to reintegrate offenders may, counterintuitively, also fail to quell important risk factors. Circles are an important development in terms of such community reintegration.

The Circles Model

Circles are an innovative community approach to the reintegration of sex offenders following release from prison. Circles began in Canada in 1994 (Hannem & Petrunik, 2007) as a one-off response to a particularly high-risk sex offender who was about to be released from prison with no supervision or support in the community. The history of this one case—and the start of the movement more generally—is well-documented elsewhere (e.g., Hannem & Petrunik, 2007; Hanvey, Philpot, & Wilson, 2011; R. Wilson, McWhinnie, & Wilson, 2008; R. J. Wilson & Prinzo, 2001a). In summary, the first Circle was formed by members of a Mennonite congregation who agreed to form a support group around the offender. The group had the dual role of providing him with support through the very hostile response from the community and monitoring his behavior to ensure that the community was kept safe. The group was effective at helping the man to remain offense-free and its model was swiftly replicated. What began as a one-off example of community action has spread into an international movement (Hanvey & Höing, 2012); Circles are now provided in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Catalonia, Bulgaria, and Latvia, with various other countries (e.g., France, Hungary, Ireland) registering keen interest and some taking steps toward implementation.

How Circles Work

The way that such Circles operate has been described elsewhere (e.g., Hannem, 2013; Höing, Bogaerts, & Vogelvang, 2013; C. Wilson, Bates, & Völlm, 2010), but the essence is that they provide both support and accountability. The sex offender, or core member (CM) as he or she is known, is given support by a group of four to six volunteers (who are in turn supported by a Circle coordinator). Volunteers are from within the community, with a range of ages and backgrounds, and meet with the CM on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. Help is provided to carry out basic aspects of community life such as looking for work or accommodation and adjusting to life outside of prison. In addition, the volunteers hold the CMs to account for their own reintegration (and in terms of managing their own risk, for example, sticking to their desistance plan and avoiding triggers to offend). The relationship between the CMs and volunteers is one of openness and honesty, which is essential to the success of the Circle; being able to ask (and respond to) potentially challenging questions—including relating to offense-supportive beliefs—is pivotal. The volunteers also provide a monitoring function, and Circle coordinators work closely with statutory agencies (in the context of the United Kingdom, this means working with the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA), alerting the relevant agencies of any potential risk posed by the CM. Having volunteers with such close insight into the life of the CM is invaluable in helping statutory agencies to act swiftly and prevent further reoffending.

Hanvey (2011) argued that the Circles model is most closely associated with the therapeutic approach advocated in the strengths-based good lives model (GLM; Ward & Stewart, 2003); thus, the work that is carried out by Circles may in some respects parallel and build upon treatments that offenders may receive while incarcerated. The GLM approach focuses on improving how the offender functions as a person by enhancing his or her capabilities to attain goals, or primary human goods, through socially acceptable means (Ward & Gannon, 2006). Through the provision of practical help to offenders (e.g., through finding work, appropriate friendships, or housing), Circles might assist in achieving the goods required for the offenders to lead a “good life.” In addition, Circles may reduce risk factors associated with antisocial and offending behavior, namely, social exclusion and antisocial attitudes. Social exclusion may reduce prosocial behavior in general (Baumeister, De Wall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005; Twenge, Baumeister, De Wall, Ciarocco, & Bartels, 2007) while antisocial orientation and deviant sexual interests are key factors in sexual reoffending (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004, 2005). Circles target some of these risk factors by aiming to improve insight, problem solving, social skills, coping and self-regulation skills, social integration, and participation in society (Höing et al., 2013).

The majority of Circles research is related to the effectiveness of Circles, particularly whether Circles are effective at helping CMs to remain offense-free. However, Circles are provided on a relatively small scale due to the relatively low number of sex offenders being released at any one time, the need for willing volunteers, and the novelty of the Circles approach. Therefore, large-scale effectiveness studies are rare.

The main aims of this article are twofold: to provide a systematic review of studies relating to Circle effectiveness to date and to use the findings of that review, including reflection upon the strengths and limitations of previous studies, to inform the design of future effectiveness studies. It is by understanding the limitations of previous research that the most effective study designs can be created and the most fruitful future avenues identified.

Method

We identified studies and reports investigating the effectiveness of Circles on relevant outcomes in sex offenders. The review question was defined in terms of population, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) as recommended by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2008).

Participants

Adult (18 years+) sex offenders. We expected the majority would be males although we did not exclude females.

Interventions

A Circle as described above. The Circle will be operational while the CM is in the community although the Circle may have been initiated prior to the CM’s release from prison or other custody.

Comparators

Sex offenders not receiving a Circle.

Outcomes

Our primary focus was on studies reporting recidivism outcomes: reconviction for any offense and any sexual offense, reoffending, arrest, recall, and breach of license. Given that Circles provide support for other needs, and the potential impact of those needs on recidivism, other outcomes such as psychosocial adaptation, housing, relationships, and employment were also recorded. Accordingly, the search strategy did not define specific outcomes.

Study Design

RCTs are the preferred way of assessing the effectiveness of interventions. However, given the ethical considerations of RCTs in forensic populations, matched control studies, risk norm, and cohort studies have been included in similar reviews (Elliott & Beech, 2011, 2013) and so are included here. Our inclusion criteria for study design therefore were RCTs, matched control studies, cross-sectional studies, prospective studies, retrospective studies, risk norm studies, case series, and cohort studies. We excluded reviews, expert opinions, editorials, single case reports, and any other nonempirical papers.

Databases were searched up to the end of 2013. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), Sociological Abstracts, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, and LexisLibrary. Reference lists of identified papers were checked. In addition, a Google search was conducted for any gray literature. Key authors and Circles providers in the United Kingdom and Netherlands were contacted to obtain unpublished data.

Search terms were (“circle$ of support and accountability” OR “circle$ AND support AND accountability” OR “circle$ of support” OR “CoSA”) AND (sex$ offend$). This syntax was adapted to match the capabilities of the databases.

Data analysis

Risk ratios were calculated for studies reporting reconviction rates for CMs and control groups.

Results

Studies Identified

The search of the databases identified 68 papers of which 29 were unique. Of these 29, the majority described the concept or the development of Circles while only 3 were relevant outcome papers (Bates, Macrae, Williams, & Webb, 2012; Duwe, 2012; R. J. Wilson, Cortoni, & McWhinnie, 2009). A further 5 papers (Bates, Saunders, & Wilson, 2007; Bates & Wager, 2012; Bates, Williams, Wilson, & Wilson, 2014; R. J. Wilson, Picheca, & Prinzo, 2007; R. J. Wilson & Prinzo, 2001a) and 4 reports (Fox, 2013; Haslewood-Pócsik, Smith, & Spencer, 2008; McCartan et al., 2014; Quaker Peace and Social Witness, 2005) that met the inclusion criteria were identified from Google searches. One unpublished report (Earnshaw, 2014) and two unpublished studies (Clarke, Warwick, & Völlm, n.d.; Höing, Vogelvang, & Bogaerts, n.d.) were also identified. These 15 studies are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Empirical Studies of Circles of Support and Accountability.

Country/study	Type of study and setting	Participants	Length of follow-up	Methods and measures	Findings
United States
Duwe (2012)^a	Randomized Controlled Trial Minnesota CoSA (MnCoSA)—one of five counties	31 CMs and 31 controls to be released within 60 to 120 days Level 2 (“moderate public risk”) Significantly more CMs (33%) than controls (10%) had more than one prior sex offense conviction	Mean 2 years (range: 3-47 months) Offenders released between February 2008 and October 2011	Recidivism measures: a. rearrest; b. reconviction; c. in prison for new offense; d. prison for technical violation; e. any imprisonment Cox regression models of recidivism Cost-benefit analysis	Sex offense rearrest: 0 (0%) CMs, 1 (3.2%) controls [not sig] Risk ratio 0.33 (95% CI = [0.01, 7.88]) equivalent to 67% less sexual reoffending than the controls (calculated for this review); Reconviction: 8 (25.8%) CMs, 14 (45.2%) controls [not sig] Risk ratio 0.57 (95% CI = [0.28, 1.16]) equivalent to 43% less reoffending than the controls (calculated for this review); Rearrest: 12 (38.7%) CMs, 20 (64.5%) controls [sig; p = .043]; Predatory offense rearrest: 0 (0%) CMs, 2 (6.5%) controls [not sig]; Resentence to prison: 3 (9.7%) CMs, 8 (25.8%) controls [not sig]; Revocation: 13/27 (48.1%) CMs; 17/25 (68.0%) controls [not sig]; Any reincarceration: 15 (48.4%) CMs; 19 (61.3%) controls [not sig] Cox regression: Circles reduced the hazard ratio for three of the five recidivism measures by 62% for rearrests, 72% for technical violation revocations, and 84% for any reincarceration. Cost-benefit ratio: for every US$1 spent on MnCoSA, estimated benefit of US$1.82
Fox (2013) and personal communication, February 20, 2014	Case series Vermont, United States	12 CMs (57%) were sex offenders; 9 CMs were nonsex offenders (43%) Circles funded by the Second Chance Act since 2010			None of the 12 sex offenders were reconvicted;One of the 9 nonsex offenders was charged with a new offense3 of the 12 sex offenders were revoked (not for sexual offenses) for violating conditions of release.3 of the 9 nonsex offenders were revoked for violating conditions of release
Canada
R. J. Wilson, Picheca, and Prinzo (2007)^b,c	Retrospective cohort study with matched control groupMatched comparisonCircles pilot project, South Central Ontario, Canada	60 CMs60 controls(all men)Circle group had significantly higher risk of sexual recidivism (RRASOR score), higher average number of victims and fewer female only victims	Circles:54.7 months mean follow-up (range: 3-123 months)Controls:52.5 months mean follow-up (range: 3-124 months)	Case file data for CMsControls selected from Ontario Region’s Offender Management System databaseRecidivism “. . . being charged for a new sexual offence or for having breached a condition imposed by the court.”STATIC-99; RRASOR	Sexual recidivism [sig; p < .05]3 CMs (5.0%) [STATIC-99 projection = 17]10 controls (16.7%) [STATIC-99 projection = 16; sig; p < .001]Risk ratio 0.30 (95% CI = [0.09, 1.04]) equivalent to 70% less sexual reoffending than the controls (CI calculated for this review)The 3 new sex offenses committed by CMs were “qualitatively less severe or invasive” than their most recently served sentence.Violent recidivism (includes sexual) [sig; p < .05]9 CMs (15.0%)21 controls (35.0%)Any recidivism [not sig; p < .07]17 CMs (28.3%)26 controls (43.4%)
					Risk ratio 0.65 (95% CI = [0.40, 1.07]) equivalent to 35% less reoffending than the controls (CI calculated for this review)Number of offenses 38 offenses from the 17 CM reoffenders49 offenses from the 26 control reoffendersMean time until first failure CMs: 22.1 monthsControls: 18.6 months
R. J. Wilson, Cortoni, and McWhinnie (2009)^a,c	Retrospective cohort study with matched control groupCircles projects from Montreal, Ottawa, Kingston, Winnipeg, Saskatoon & Calgary, Canada	44 CMs44 controls(all men)	Circles:35.8 months mean follow-up (range: 9-86 months)Controls:38.6 months mean follow-up (range: 8-96 months)	Recidivism “. . . being charged or convicted of a new offense.”STATIC-99; RRASOR;Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R); Phallometric testing; time-at-risk; recidivism	Mean time until first failure [not sig]CMs: 9.6 months (SD 5.9; range: 0-15 months)Controls: 16.7 months (SD 10.9; range: 1-43 months)Sexual recidivism (Not significant using Fisher’s Exact Test [FET])1 CM (2.3%)6 controls (13.7%)Risk ratio 0.17 (95% CI = [0.02, 1.33]) equivalent to 83% less sexual reoffending than the controls (CI calculated for this review)Any violent recidivism (includes sexual) [sig; p < .01]4 CMs (9.1%) [73% less violent reoffending]15 controls (34.1%)Any recidivism [sig; p < .01]5 CMs (11.4%)
					17 controls (38.6%)Risk ratio 0.29 (95% CI = [0.12, 0.73]) equivalent to 71% less reoffending than the controls (CI calculated for this review)Number of convictions and charges [sig; p < .01]17 convictions and charges from the 5 CM reoffenders73 convictions and charges from the 17 control reoffenders
R. J. Wilson and Prinzo (2001a)^d	Case seriesMennonite Circles, South Central Ontario, Canada	30 CMs (all men)	Average follow-up 36 months “which is an approximation of the length of time of involvement in a Circle” (range: 16 months-6 years 7 months)	Recidivism: “charges or convictions recorded on an offender’s criminal record”Actuarial: STATIC-99; RRASOR; Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG)	STATIC-99: Predicted 7 instances of sexual recidivism (74% survival) but 3 recidivated (observed survival 90%)—not statistically significant3/30 (10.0%) recidivated (indecent phone call; offenses against child; sexual assault against female adult)
United Kingdom
Clarke, Warwick, and Völlm (n.d.)	Case seriesTen Circles Projects from 2002 to 2013.165 (60.0%) Circles commenced between 2011 and 2013.	275 CMs (all men)192 Circles had ended	The length of time in the Circle was available for 184 (95.8%).	Described the characteristics of admissions and presented follow-up data where available.	192 (69.8%) Circles had ended at the time of data collection: 131 (68.2%) had a planned ending and 57 (29.7%) had an unplanned ending.At the end of Circle:Significantly more CMs were in a relationship (20.4%) than at the start (14.3%), McNemar’s test p < .05;
	Includes CMs from Circles South East (CSE)/Hampshire Thames Valley (HTV)		Median time in Circle: 365 days (interquartile range: 203-528days).Length of follow-up not available	All data extracted by the coordinating centers from Circle case files. These data were submitted to Circles UK in anonymized form as part of their monitoring activity.MAPPA management (available for 253 CMs):107 Level 1 (42.3%);122 Level 2 (48.2%);24 Level 3 (9.5%)Risk Matrix 2000/Slevels (available for 225 CMs):58 (25.8%) low;69 (30.7%) medium;70 (31.1%) high;28 (12.4%) very high	Significantly fewer CMs were unemployed (67.4%) than at the start (75.4%), McNemar’s test p < .01;Significantly fewer CMs were claiming benefits (82.9%) than at the start (88.4%), McNemar’s test p < .05;Significantly more CMs were living with either a partner, family, or on their own in their own or tenanted accommodation (80.1%) than at the start (48.8%), McNemar’s test p < .01
Bates, Williams, Wilson, and Wilson (2014)^e See also Bates, Saunders, and Wilson (2007); Bates, Macrae, Williams, and Webb (2012)	Retrospective cohort study with “broadly” matched control groupCSE, UK(formerly HTV Circles until 2010 when HTV expanded to include Kent)	71 CMs (68 men and 3 women)71 controls (described as “broadly matched”—referred but did not receive a Circle)	90-day rule29 of 100 Circles were excluded from the analysis:19 running for less than 6 months;	Reconviction; Breach of orders; prison recallMatched reconviction data accessed from Police National Computer (PNC)	54/71 CMs engaged in no behavior involving a legal sanction following their formal involvement in a Circle.Sexual reconviction:noncontact sexual reconviction: [not sig]3 CMs (4.2%)
	71 of the first 100 CSE Circles between November 2002 and March 2012	Mean age at start of Circle of the 71 CMs 47.75 years (range: 19-75 years)58 (80.5%) contact sexual index offense;50/58 (86.2%) of sexual offenses were against children	10 in Circle for less than 90 days.Longest postrelease follow-up 9 years 6 months;27 CMs followed up for more than 5 years.Average time of Circle = 15.9 months (range: 4-63 months)	MAPPA level at Circle entry for 71 CMs:6 Level 1 (8.5%);55 Level 2 (77.5%);10 Level 3 (14.1%)	2 controls (2.8%)contact sexual reconviction:0 CMs (0%) [not sig;]; (1 historical reconviction [1.4%])3 controls (4.2%)Risk ratio 0.60 (95% CI = [0.15, 2.42]) equivalent to 40% less sexual reoffending than the controls (excluding historical reconviction) (calculated for this review)Violent offense reconviction: [sig p = .013 2-tailed FET calculated for this review]0 CMs (0%)7 controls (9.9%)Combined sexual, nonsexual, or violent reconviction: [sig p = .014, 2-tailed χ² calculated for this review]3 CMs (4.2%)12 controls (16.9%)Overall reconviction (figures provided by Bates): [not sig p = .217, 2-tailed χ² calculated for this review]12 CMs (16.9%)18 controls (25.4%)Risk ratio 0.67 (95% CI = [0.35, 1.28]) equivalent to 33% less reoffending than the controls (calculated for this review)Breach of Sexual Offenses Prevention Order (SOPO): [not sig]2 CMs (2.8%)
					0 controls (0%)Failure to comply with Sex Offender’s Register (SOR): [not sig]3 CMs (4.2%)6 controls (8.5%)Recall: [no data for controls]5 CMs (7.0%)Rate (using RM-2000) of sexual reconviction for sex offenders with at least 5 years follow-up was lower than expected but not significantly lower:5.75 instances expected but 2 observed (subset of 25 CMs) [not sig; p < .25]4.39 instances expected but 3 observed (subset of 21 controls) [not sig; p > .50]
Bates et al. (2012)^a See also Bates et al. (2007)	Case seriesHTV Circles, UK	60 CMs: 57 men and 3 women	Mean follow-up 36.2 months (range: 1-84 months);25 CMs in community for more than 3 years8 Circles lasted 2 months or less (includes recently commenced);21 lasted 2-12 months;	Case files examined in November 2009Improvement in risk factors characterized in the Offender Assessment System (OASys)+ 3 case studies (“John,” “Mick” & “Bill”)Risk Matrix 2000 likelihood of reconviction:22 (36.7%) high/very high;	Circle status at point of analysis:14 (23%) active Circles Phase 1;8 (13%) Phase 216 (26%) Circles completed;2 (3%) in informal contact with volunteers (outside auspices of Circle) after Circle ended;4 (7%) involved in further Circle after period of recall to prison45 (75%) categorized as positive outcome, that is, Circle ongoing in some form or completed objective1 (1.6%) reconvicted of sexual offense (downloading images of child abuse);
			20 lasted 12-24 months;11 exceeded 24 months	17 (28.3%) medium;16 (26.7%) low;3 no score (females)2 no sexual convictions (not applicable)	2 (3.2%) SOPO for paralleling behavior which “fell short of actual reoffending”5 (8.3%) recalled to prison (of whom 4 were recalled “very quickly” before meaningful engagement with the Circle had happened);6 (10%) withdrew early due to limited motivation
Bates et al. (2007) See also Bates et al. (2012)	Case seriesThames Valley Circles, UK(later merged with Hampshire to form HTV)	16 CMs registered between November 2002 and May 2006 (all men)12/16 had served prison sentences of 3 years or more10 MAPPA Level 2;6 MAPPA Level 3	10/16 Circles lasted more than 1 year	Case files and interviews with Circles staff.Reports the role the Circles played in resettlement progress for all 16 CMs	0 CMs reconvicted of sex offense;1 CM (6.3%) convicted of breach of SOPO;4 CMs (25.0%) recalled to prison for breaching conditions of their parole license;5 CMs (31.3%) identified as showing some recidivist behavior.6 CMs (37.5%) no further problematic behaviors identified.Circles provided assistance on:Accommodation to 11 CMs (68.8%); Employment to 7 CMs (43.8%); Education to 9 CMs (56.3%); Family to 5 CMs (31.3%)
Quaker Peace and Social Witness (2005)	Case seriesReport of first 3 years. Includes information about volunteers, and perspectives from the Police and National Offender Management Service (NOMS)Thames Valley Circles, UK	20 CMs	The first 3 years of Circles (follow-up times not stated)	“Soft data” held by Circles and local agencies+ 3 case studies from CMs (“Harry,” “John,” and “Jack”) and 1 case study from a volunteer	8/20 displayed recidivist behavior;0 CMs reconvicted of sex offense;1 CM convicted of breach of SOPO;3 CMs recalled to prison for breaching conditions of their parole license;4 other CMs identified as showing recidivist behavior;7/8 cases of recidivist behavior identified by the Circle
Haslewood-Pócsik, Smith, and Spencer (2008)	Case series(Outcomes contained within qualitative report)IMPACT CirclesFieldwork interviews conducted January-November 2007	IMPACT term the CMs “beneficiaries”Five men with index offense of indecent assault of a child. Only 4 started a Circle	IMPACT term the CMs “beneficiaries”Five men with index offense of indecent assault of a child. Only 4 started a Circle	Interviews with CM, volunteers, volunteer coordinator, offender manager, employment advisor7 interviews with the 5 beneficiaries (of whom 4 participated in a Circle)17 interviews with the 11 volunteers	Four of the Circles were put in place 14 to 30 months after release from prison and were referred through the probation hostel. The fifth was being considered for a Circle and had been released for 3 months.One CM was arrested on suspicion of a new sexual offense but was not charged. The existence of the Circle was critical in bail being granted
McCartan et al. (2014)	Case series(Outcomes contained within qualitative report—did not aim to evaluate impact on recidivism)Circles pilots—Lucy Faithfull Foundation (LFF) and HTV	32 CMs: 31 men & 1 woman		Case file review	3 CMs withdrew from the Circle themselves;2 CMs recalled during Phase 1 and did not complete their Circle;2 CMs only completed Phase 1;25 CMs completed Phase 1 and 2.21 (65.6%) recorded as reporting (self- or otherwise documented) some positive changes in attitudes and motivations.
					21 (65.6%) received support to engage in prosocial activities19 (59.4%) Circles discussed offending related behaviors and how the Circle worked with the CM to pursue safer goals and activities.Some End of Circle reports reported negative or mixed ability of CM to self-manage. A small number of files recorded lack of engagement, openness, and honesty. [“some” and “small number” not specified]
Bates and Wager (2012)	Case series with Dynamic Risk Review (DRR) data collected at baseline and every three months	13 CMs with three completed DRRsBetween December 2009 and July 2011 the DRR was administered to 39 CMs on at least one occasion and a total of 108 DRRs were completed overall	DRR completed at baseline and then at 3 monthly intervals	Examined changes in dynamic risk scores of 13 CMs on whom the DRR was completed at least three times.Initially a Principal Components Analysis on was conducted on 39 completed DRRs. Changes over time in the identified factors were then sought	Five factors identified:Factor 1 (Hostile Coping)—poor internal reliability and excluded from analysis;Factor 2 (Inappropriate Sexual Attitudes)—A repeated measures ANOVA showed significant reduction in scores, F(1, 11) = 5.307, p = .042, η² = .325; 61.5% demonstrated a positive reduction in scores, 23% were recorded as demonstrating no change and 15% demonstrated a slight detrimental increase.Factor 3 (Overconfident Hostile Sexualization)—A repeated measures ANOVA showed significant reduction in scores, F(1, 11) = 18.746, p =.001, η² = .630; indicated that 15% remained unchanged, 77% were found to have a positive reduction in their scores and 7.7% were recorded as demonstrating a detrimental increase in this factor.
					Factor 4 (Inadequacy)—A repeated measures ANOVA showed a nonsignificant change in scores, F(1, 11) = 3.44, p = .09, η² = .238; 61.5% were found to have a positive reduction, 7.7% did not complete the scale, 15% remained unchanged, and 15% were recorded as demonstrating a detrimental increase.Factor 5 (Dealing With Stress)—Comprised one item loaded and excluded from analysis.Only 2 CMs (15%) demonstrated a detrimental increase in scores across two of the subscales, and 9 (69%) demonstrated a positive decrease in scores across at least two of the subscales
Earnshaw (2014) (Article written for Trustees Meeting January 28, 2014—forwarded by Stephen Hanvey)	Case series with DRR data collected at baseline and every 3 months	52 CMs with at least three completed DRRsSince 2008, 301 DRRs have been completed relating to 142 CMs from 11 projects	DRR completed at baseline and then at 3 monthly intervals	There were 85 instances where individual scores were not given for an item	The highest total score recorded using original DRR was 74 out of 102.The highest total score recorded using revised DRR was 67 out of 90.There were 52 CMs for whom at least 3 DRRs were completed. For these CMs the mean reduction in total score from their first review to their last was 11. The author noted considerable variation. For example, one CM’s DRR score had reduced by 41 points, whereas an increase of 20 points was recorded for other CMs.
					Total scores as low as 10 were recorded for the first DRR.The majority consistently received very low scores on the “sexual interest” and “offense related attitude” items which the author noted may indicate the CMs or volunteers felt uncomfortable broaching these areas.More than 60% of DRRs completed scored engagement with appropriate hobbies and interests as unproblematic.More than 70% of DRRs completed indicated that the CMs were not in employment
Netherlands
Höing, Vogelvang, and Bogaerts (n.d.) & personal communication (June 11, 2014)	Case seriesProspective design with qualitative and quantitative studies	17 out of 21 CMs agreed to participate (all men).The CMs’ probation officer, circle volunteers, and the circle coordinator also completed risk assessments and interviews	Examined change at 6 months and 12 months during first year of Circle	Self-report questionnaires and interviews conducted before the circle (Time 0), at 6 months (Time 1) and at 12 months (Time 2).Quantitative measures of internal transitions included emotional loneliness, self-esteem, self-regulation, coping skills, motivation to change, and motivation to work in a circle.	Three Circles had ended before the 12 months (including one which stopped shortly after 6 months due to lack of cooperation by the CM).Scores on 7 of the 13 outcome variables changed in the expected direction (four at p < .05 and three at < .01). Statistically significant changes (p < .05) were self-esteem (increased), self-soothing, emotion regulation, and internal locus of control.
				Measures of external transitions were participation in society (housing, work, and/or volunteering) and social network characteristics	Scores on participation in society (using a composite measure giving a total score ranging from 0 to 7) and the size of social network using a composite measure giving a total score ranging from 0 to 9) had not improved by the end of the first year in the circle.A structured risk assessment by probation officers indicated a reduction in dynamic risk, with the “Dealing with sexual risk factors” subscale reaching statistical significance (p < .05)

Note. CoSA = Circles of Support and Accountability; CI = confidence interval; RRASOR = Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism; IMPACT = Innovation Means Prisons and Communities Together.

Identified in literature database search.

This information is also available in R. J. Wilson, Picheca, and Prinzo (2005) and R. J. Wilson and Picheca (2005).

This information is also available in R. J. Wilson, Picheca, McWhinnie, and Cortoni (2011).

This information is also available in R. J. Wilson and Prinzo (2001b).

This information is also available in Circles South East (2012).

The Samples

Location and study type

The studies were from the United Kingdom (predominantly England; n = 9), Canada (n = 3), the United States (n = 2), and the Netherlands (n = 1). In the only RCT, Duwe (2012) followed up 31 moderate-risk sex offenders receiving a Circle in Minnesota, United States and 31 controls. There were also three retrospective cohort studies with matched controls and 11 case series.

Inclusion of CMs from previous studies and updated outcomes

Several of the papers updated previous studies by reporting increased sample sizes as more Circles developed within the project or the project area expanded. R. J. Wilson and Prinzo (2001a) briefly described the outcome of 30 CMs in South Central Ontario after which R. J. Wilson et al. (2007) expanded the study by adding a further 30 CMs and then compared these 60 CMs with 60 controls.

In the United Kingdom, Bates et al. (2007) described the outcome of 16 CMs in Hampshire and Thames Valley (HTV) Circles before Bates et al. (2012) increased this sample and described the outcome of 60 CMs. Bates et al. (2014) then described 71 of the first 100 Circles South East (CSE) Circles—renamed after HTV Circles expanded to include the county of Kent in 2010. Bates et al. (2014) excluded 19 CMs whose Circle had been operational for less than 6 months and a further 10 CMs under their “90-day rule” whereby CMs who spent less than 90 days in a Circle were deemed not to have had the opportunity to benefit from being in a Circle. This was the only U.K. study with a control group—a sample of sex offenders not receiving a Circle. The controls were sex offenders who had been referred to a Circle, considered to be suitable, but did not receive a Circle, and were broadly matched on risk status and period of community follow-up (Bates et al., 2014). The majority of these U.K. data were subsumed when Clarke et al. (n.d.) described the characteristics of the first 275 men who participated in a Circle under the auspices of Circles UK. Where available, Clarke et al. also reported follow-up data for the Circles that had ended; follow-up data were available for 185 CMs although there were missing data for many of the outcomes

In total, these 15 studies comprised approximately 446 Circles. This figure excludes the smaller samples where CMs were counted in larger samples.

Recidivism

Defining recidivism

Most of the studies reported recidivism, which comprised definitions that either grouped outcomes or reported specific types of outcomes (e.g., reconviction). Bates et al. (2007) and Quaker Peace and Social Witness (2005) reported instances of recidivist behaviors that included conduct indicative of previous offense patterns as well as reoffending and reconviction. Others defined recidivism as being charged for or convicted of a new offense (R. J. Wilson et al., 2009; R. J. Wilson & Prinzo, 2001a) and sexual recidivism as either being charged with a new sexual offense or breaching a court-imposed condition (R. J. Wilson et al., 2007). However, the majority of studies reported specific outcomes: reconviction (7), recall (5), breach of an order (4), rearrest (3), new charges (3), revocation (2), new Sexual Offenses Prevention Order (SOPO; 2), failure to comply with a Sex Offender’s Register (SOR; 1), resentence to prison (1) and any reincarceration (1).

Impact upon recidivism

Overall, there was some evidence that CMs had lower rates of general recidivism than controls. The few cases of sexual recidivism were reported as being less severe than the index offense. However, there were few significant differences between CMs and controls. These findings will now be discussed in more detail.

Duwe (2012) found that CMs had lower rates of recidivism on all five measures compared with the randomized controls but only rearrest was significantly lower using chi-square. However, this was for any offense rather than specifically sexual offenses. A reduction in sexual offenses was not demonstrated as only one of the 31 controls and none of the 31 CMs were rearrested for a sexual offense. Duwe (2012) also found that, despite the small sample size, Cox regression analyses showed significant reductions in time to recidivism for three of the five measures of recidivism used in this study (any arrests, technical violation revocations, and any reincarceration) for those who received a Circle compared with the controls.

The other study from the United States (Fox, 2013) was unusual in that Circles were provided for nonsex offenders (n = 9) as well as sex offenders (n = 12). There were no instances of sexual recidivism in either of the groups. Three of the sex offenders (25.0%) and three of the nonsex offenders (33.3%) were revoked for violating the conditions of their release, such as lack of residence or not complying with the conditions of their release (K. Fox, personal communication, February 20, 2014).

In Canada, R. J. Wilson et al. (2007) examined 60 CMs and 60 controls and found that CMs had a significantly lower rate of sexual recidivism (5.0%) compared with controls (16.7%). Incidentally, the three instances of sexual recidivism by CMs were the same three instances recorded in R. J. Wilson and Prinzo’s (2001a) smaller study of 30 CMs where 10.0% had recidivated. R. J. Wilson et al. (2007) described the three new instances of sexual recidivism by CMs as “qualitatively less severe or invasive than the offense for which they had most recently served sentence” (p. 332). Such a reduction in harm was not evident in the 10 new instances of sexual recidivism by the controls. However, there were no statistical differences between CMs and controls in the time to first failure or in the overall recidivism rates (i.e., sexual and nonsexual) although the latter approached significance and the authors argued it should be seen as socially significant.

R. J. Wilson et al. (2009) examined a different cohort of sex offenders (44 CMs and 44 controls) to replicate the R. J. Wilson et al. (2007) study albeit with a smaller sample and shorter follow-up. They found that CMs had a significantly lower rate of any recidivism (11.4%) compared with controls (38.6%). They also reported that CMs had a significantly lower rate of sexual recidivism (2.3%) compared with controls (13.7%). However, Elliott and Beech (2013) noted that the assumptions of the chi-square test had not been met and reanalyzed these data using Fisher’s Exact Test, which showed that the difference was not significant (albeit marginally). R. J. Wilson et al. (2009) then examined a subsample of 19 CMs and 18 controls with a 3-year follow-up period and found significant differences between CMs and controls for sexual recidivism (0%; 27.8%), violent recidivism (including sexual recidivism: 10.5%; 61.1%), and any recidivism (including sexual and violent recidivism: 10.5%; 66.7%), respectively. While there were no significant differences in the STATIC-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999) risk scores between the subsample of CMs and controls, there were significant differences in the amount of new charges/convictions: The two CMs and 12 controls who had recidivated had incurred a total of 5 and 45 charges/convictions, respectively.

In England, while Bates et al. (2014) identified that 54 of the 71 CMs (76.1%) had not faced any legal sanctions during the follow-up period, comparable figures were not available for the 71 controls because data regarding recall to prison were not available. Three CMs (4.2%) and two controls (2.8%) were reconvicted of a noncontact sex offense. Three controls (4.2%) and one CM (1.4%) were convicted of a contact sexual offense; however, the CM’s conviction was for a historical offense and therefore not classed as a reconviction. While there were fewer sexual reconvictions than predicted using the Risk Matrix 2000 for CMs and for Controls after a 5-year follow-up, these differences were not significant. Other comparisons also showed no significant differences between CMs and controls, including breaching a SOPO or failing to comply with the SOR (these two outcomes do not create more victims and are not classed as sex offenses). Given that Bates et al. (2014) found that only three CMs were reconvicted of a sexual offense, it is not surprising that the smaller samples from the same Circles project, reported in earlier publications, found that no CMs were reconvicted of sexual offenses (Bates et al., 2007; Quaker Peace and Social Witness, 2005).

Risk

Perhaps surprisingly, little attention has been given to changes in risk as the Circle progressed. Only three studies examined changes in risk (Bates & Wager, 2012; Earnshaw, 2014; Höing et al., n.d.). Each used the Dynamic Risk Review (DRR) which was based on the Structured Assessment of Risk and Need (SARN; HM Prison Service, 2005) and was developed by Circles UK to provide a structured means of evaluating a CM’s progress by assessing dynamic risk factors. The DRR is administered approximately every 3 months by the Circle coordinator in collaboration with the Circle volunteers. Bates and Wager (2012) identified five factors on the original DRR (17-items scored 0-6 on a 7-point scale). After excluding two factors, one for poor internal reliability and one for comprising only one item, Bates and Wager reported changes in DRR scores for the 13 CMs who had completed three DRRs. There were significant changes in two of the three factors: Inappropriate Sexual Attitudes (Factor 2) and Overconfident Hostile Sexualization (Factor 3). Overall, positive reductions in scores for Factor 2 and Factor 3 were noted for 61.5% and 77% of CMs, respectively. In contrast, scores for two CMs (15%) indicated their risk had increased. However, the sample size was small, it is not known what constitutes a meaningful reduction, and changes cannot be attributed to the Circle.

Further information on changes in DRR scores was available in a paper prepared for a Circles UK Trustees Meeting (S. Hanvey, personal communication, June 27, 2014) at which Earnshaw (2014) reported a larger sample of 52 CMs with at least three completed DRRs. There was a mean reduction in total score of 11 points from their first DRR to their last. However, Earnshaw noted considerable variation; one CM’s DRR score had reduced by 41 points, whereas for some other CMs, DRR scores had increased by 20 points (although the actual scores were not reported). Furthermore, Earnshaw noted that the scores for the “sexual interest” and “offence related attitude” items were often very low at all time points, which may indicate that the CMs or other Circle members felt uncomfortable broaching these important areas. Earnshaw also reported that more than 60% of scores indicated that engagement with appropriate hobbies and interests was unproblematic but that more than 70% of DRRs indicated that the CMs were not in employment. The DRR has also been used in the Netherlands where Höing et al. (n.d.) found a nonsignificant decrease in risk in 13 CMs between 6 months and 12 months after the beginning of the Circle.

Psychosocial Outcomes

While good quality reconviction data are important, measures of recidivism do not capture the extent of the impact of participating in Circles. Psychosocial adaptation, housing, relationships, and employment are also important in assessing the efficacy of Circles, not least as they have been linked with recidivism. However, while examples of these outcomes are discussed in qualitative studies (not reviewed here), few quantitative data were available.

Volunteers supported and assisted CMs in a variety of ways such as accessing employment (Bates et al., 2012; Bates et al., 2007) and accommodation (Bates et al., 2007). Furthermore, there were improvements in prosocial attitudes (Bates et al., 2012; McCartan et al., 2014), participation in prosocial activities (McCartan et al., 2014), emotional well-being (Bates et al., 2012), and self-esteem (Höing et al., n.d.). While tangible improvements were documented, none of these studies used control groups.

Positive changes in several psychosocial factors were reported when Bates et al. (2012) examined CMs’ files to identify the dynamic risk factors categorized in the Offender Assessment System (OASys) risk assessment tool (Home Office, 2002). Bates et al. (2012) asserted that, in some cases, their Circle was instrumental in assisting with these improvements: 42 CMs (70%) showed improvement in emotional well-being, 37 CMs (62%) had displayed attitudes and behaviors that were prosocial, 30 CMs (50%) had increased their engagement in age-appropriate relationships, 29 CMs (48%) had improved links with their families and increased their support networks, 29 CMs (48%) were encouraged and supported by the volunteers to access employment and education, 17 CMs (28%) experienced financial difficulties with which the volunteers were able to advise and assist them, 17 CMs (28%) were given assistance in accessing housing support, and 13 CMs (22%) were encouraged to seek medical help and, in some cases, reduction of stress and depression could be linked to the actions of the volunteers. Specific details of the support given were provided in three case studies. However, the effectiveness of the support provided, for example, in improving financial circumstances, was not reported.

Similarly, Bates et al. (2007) reported the role that Circles played in the resettlement progress of 16 CMs, such as assisting with a move to independent accommodation and in the process of disclosure of offenses to prospective employers. Again, longer term outcomes were not reported.

Some significant differences for CMs between the beginning and the end of a Circle have been found (Clarke et al.,n.d.). For example, more CMs were in a relationship at the end of the Circle. However, data on the type or quality of the relationship were not available as these were dichotomous classifications of “yes” or “no.” Also, fewer people were unemployed at the end of the Circle—two thirds compared with three quarters.

McCartan et al. (2014) reviewed case files of 32 CMs from two pilot sites and found that two thirds received support to engage in prosocial activities, including safe leisure activities, use of a gym (with a volunteer in attendance), social events, volunteering, support groups, education courses, and employment. McCartan et al. (2014) also found that two thirds were recorded as self-reporting some positive changes in attitudes and motivations.

Höing et al. (n.d.) found self-esteem had significantly increased at 12 months into the Circle. Three of the six factors identified on a measure of volitional skills also showed significant improvements: self-soothing, emotion regulation, and internal locus of control. Other measures such as participation in society (which included dichotomous measures of housing, stability of housing, employment, having leisure time activities, and being a member of an association) and size of social network had not significantly improved at 12 months.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Further to the specific outcomes of CMs identified in this review, others have modeled the cost-benefit of providing Circles. Overall, these studies indicate that costs are outweighed by benefits, though the extent to which this is the case varies according to the type of calculation undertaken.

In addition to the RCT of Circles in Minnesota (MnCoSA), Duwe (2012) modeled the cost-benefit of Circles within the first 4 years by comparing the cost of operating Circles with the costs associated with rearrest (chosen instead of reconviction because of the short follow-up period) and reincarceration. The costings mainly relate to nonsexual offenses because only one of the 85 rearrests was for a sexual offense. Nevertheless, Duwe (2012) concluded “The cost-benefit ratio indicates that for every dollar spent on MnCoSA, the State of Minnesota has seen an estimated benefit of US$1.82, which results in an 82% return on investment” (p. 160).

The cost-benefit analyses by Elliott and Beech (2011) provide further evidence of the cost savings of Circles in the United Kingdom. The authors modeled costs based on a hypothetical 50 sex offenders having a Circle and 50 not having a Circle. They calculated a small cost-benefit of participating in Circles (£0.18 in savings for every £1 invested in Circles) although the cost savings substantially increased when they modeled intangible costs to the society (Elliott & Beech, 2011). Elliott and Beech (2013) used slightly different coefficients to model the cost-benefits of participating in Circles and also concluded there was a small cost-benefit of participating in Circles ( £0.04 in savings for every £1 invested in Circles) and larger cost savings when intangible costs to the society were considered. However, Elliott and Beech (2013) acknowledged that the different ways in which Circles are provided make it difficult to estimate costs.

Discussion

This article reports on a systematic review of quantitative studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of Circles. First, we discuss the findings from our review of the literature. Second, we discuss the methodological issues and limitations of the research included in this review. Third, we discuss the programmatic issues associated with Circles. Fourth, we describe the limitations of our review. Finally, we outline the directions for future research.

The Effectiveness of Circles

There were few statistically significant differences between CMs and controls in the outcomes reported. However, where there were significant differences, CMs fared better than controls (e.g., R. J. Wilson et al., 2009).

Reconviction

The studies were not able to demonstrate a reduction in reconvictions for sexual offenses. This is not surprising given the methodological limitations outlined below. Some studies provided evidence that fewer CMs than controls were reconvicted for any type of offense.

Recidivism

The broader outcome of recidivism was the main outcome reported with less attention given to other outcomes. This may be because of the ethos of “no more victims” and therefore needing to quantify whether or not CMs have created more victims. It may be that funding and support from respective Governments also require a focus on recidivism. If the effectiveness of Circles is measured solely by a reduction in sexual recidivism for CMs, again one would have to conclude that data are not yet available to support their effectiveness. This does not mean that Circles are not effective—rather, we need studies with a sufficiently long follow-up. Given that reductions in recidivism mean fewer victims, it has been argued that differences that approach statistical significance could be considered socially significant (R. J. Wilson et al., 2007).

Importantly, there is no evidence that participating in a Circle has an adverse effect on outcomes. Likewise, the cost-benefits of participating in Circles, financially and to the wider community, add support for Circles (Duwe, 2012; Elliott & Beech, 2011, 2013). This is particularly important given the reduction in funding for statutory and voluntary organizations (Circles South East, 2012).

Psychosocial outcomes

Clearly, providing support and opportunities to be active members of the community is important for the rehabilitation and reintegration of sex offenders (Brown, Spencer, & Deakin, 2007). Therefore, more attention should be given to recording other outcomes to assess how CMs are functioning, integrating, and coping in the community. There were specific examples of where Circles have provided support and had an impact on the CM (e.g., Bates et al., 2012; McCartan et al., 2014). Clarke et al. (n.d.) noted that some changes between the beginning and end of a Circle could not necessarily be attributed to the CM participating in the Circle. Indeed some changes would likely have happened over time regardless of participating in a Circle. However, due to the methodology of most of the studies, comparable outcomes for non-CMs were not available.

Being able to resume normal lives after punishment for an offense is an important part of desistance theories (Willis, Levenson, & Ward, 2010). By helping to reduce social isolation, Circles support desistance from sexual offending. This facilitation of community inclusion, together with nonjudgmental social support, is consistent with the GLM (Fox, 2017). However, the theoretical framework on how Circles work requires further development. This is particularly important given that desistance is a process that may include relapses (Willis et al., 2010). Nonetheless, what sets this aside from many other interventions is that the support is given by people from the local community who are volunteering to help the individual reintegrate and desist from sexual offending.

Methodological Issues—Limitations of the Research Included

We will now discuss the limitations of the study design, small sample size, short follow-up, data sources, and Circles dosage.

Study design

There was only one RCT. Duwe (2012) found that the demand to participate in a Circle exceeded the availability of a Circle. Thus, overcoming ethical concerns surrounding withholding an intervention in an RCT—albeit an intervention that at the time had even less of an evidence base. The majority of outcome studies were case series. These are easier to conduct and considerably less expensive than RCTs but they do not have control groups with which to compare the outcomes of people participating in Circles.

Two of the three matched control studies matched the two groups a priori based on risk (all detained until their sentence was completed), general criminality, release date, and previous sexual offender treatment (R. J. Wilson et al., 2009; R. J. Wilson et al., 2007). However, both studies noted that the matching was less than exact given that that there were differences on one of the two actuarial risk assessments for sexual reoffending. One where the Circles group were higher risk (R. J. Wilson et al., 2007) and one where the controls were higher risk (R. J. Wilson et al., 2009). The third matched control study reported their groups were broadly matched on risk status and time in the community (Bates et al., 2014).

There are likely to be many factors associated with the effectiveness of interventions such as the offending history, the needs of the offender, risk level, statutory supervision, and participation in other sexual offender treatment programs. For example, Circles complement sexual offender treatment programs (Bates et al., 2014) and CMs may have completed such programs or may have participated in one alongside their Circle (Clarke et al.,). Likewise, members of control groups may have participated in sexual offender treatment programs. The aim of such treatment is, of course, to reduce the risk of reoffending. A meta-analysis of other types of sexual offender treatment studies comprising control groups, albeit mainly nonrandomized, found that the sexual recidivism rate was 37% lower overall for the treated sex offenders compared with the controls (Schmucker & Lösel, 2008). This again supports the need for randomization (Duwe, 2012) or including previous treatment as one of the matching criteria (R. J. Wilson et al., 2009; R. J. Wilson et al., 2007). Furthermore, outcomes were not reported in a way that distinguished between whether or not CMs had completed, or were completing, other SOTPs in addition to participating in a Circle. More data are required to establish whether a combination of Circles and other interventions are more effective at reducing reconviction or whether Circles are sufficient on the own.

Non-RCTs have to consider how to assess noncompleters. There will be many reasons why CMs do not complete their Circle but the effectiveness of Circles can only really be measured if noncompleters are included. Given Circles were set up to offer support to those sex offenders who are expected to fail in the community very quickly, it is antithetical to the ethos of Circles to exclude CMs who drop out quickly when assessing their effectiveness. Elliott (2014) criticized Bates et al. (2014) for including people who withdrew from the process after being assessed as suitable for a Circle in the control group, rather than in the treatment group. Elliott rightly argued that withdrawal may indicate a lack of motivation to stop offending and it could therefore potentially overinflate differences between the two groups if noncompleters were included as part of the control group. The one RCT (Duwe, 2012) randomized offenders who were willing to participate. Nonetheless, an RCT would address the issue of CMs’ motivation outlined by Elliott (2014) if data were analyzed by “intention to treat” whereby noncompleters would be included in the treatment group. Hanson et al. (2002) asserted that it is important to promote equivalence between treatment and comparison groups and that this matters more than sample size.

Limitation of small sample size

An additional methodological limitation in the literature reviewed was the small sample sizes in most studies resulting in a failure to detect statistically significant differences. Despite detecting some significant differences, Duwe (2012) acknowledged that the reconviction outcome measure was not sufficiently powered to detect a meaningful difference (or effect size) between CMs and controls. This can lead to a Type II error whereby the null hypotheses—that no difference exists between the groups—is not rejected when it is false. Power, the probability of avoiding a Type II error, is conventionally set at 80%. Achieving this level of power depends on the sample size, the effect size, and the probability level at which the effect is considered statistically significant (conventionally > 95%). Studies need to have a sufficient number of participants to detect a meaningful effect but not too many as to detect a trivial effect. Furthermore, the inclusion of too many participants could raise ethical concerns if participants were denied an effective intervention or given an intervention which, with fewer participants, could have been shown to be ineffective.

Short follow-up

Short follow-up periods are problematic given that a key indicator in assessing the efficacy of Circles is being able to show a reduction in sexual offending. However, low rates of recidivism, particularly for sex offenders, present a challenge and therefore long follow-up periods, for example, 5 to 10 years, are required for studies of sex offenders (Hanson & Bussière, 1998). Duwe (2015) pointed out that low rates of sexual recidivism leave little room for Circles and other interventions to substantially reduce sexual recidivism. Further to the low rates, Cann, Falshaw, and Friendship (2004) demonstrated a slow rate of reconviction when they followed up sex offenders released from prisons in England and Wales in 1979. While only 10% had been reconvicted of a sexual offense within the first 2 years following discharge, this increased to one quarter after 21 years (Cann et al., 2004). This serves to underline the need for longitudinal studies, in particular those that include control or match-control participants.

Limitation of data sources

Reconviction rates for sexual offenses can vary depending on the data source (Falshaw, Bates, Patel, Corbett, & Friendship, 2003). However, the majority of studies did not explicitly report which data sources were used to acquire outcomes such as reconviction. In most studies, it is likely that CM case files were the only source used but such files were not compiled for the purpose of research. While CM case files may contain information from official sources (e.g., the Police National Computer in England and Wales), provided by other agencies working with the Circle, these data may not be up-to-date. For future research, careful consideration should be given to which data sources are used to acquire outcome data and these sources—and the period covered—should be stated. A judiciously designed prospective study should allow comparable data to be available for CMs and controls. This is often not the case with retrospective studies as Bates et al. (2014) found when data regarding recall to prison were not available for the controls.

Circles dosage

While some studies reported data for the length of time in a Circle, specific information relating to the dosage of Circles was not reported. Dosage would also include the frequency of meetings, whether they were group or individual meetings, how many volunteers were in the Circle, and the duration of meeting. Again, this information may not have been recorded, particularly in the earliest Circles, or readily available to the researchers. However, this seems particularly important to collect as part of future research as Circles are not a manualized treatment with a prescribed schedule—rather they are unique to the individual CM and his or her circumstances. Clearly, it is difficult to assess the efficacy of an intervention if no one “completes” a “sufficient” dosage. However, what this is remains unclear.

Programmatic Issues

There are programmatic factors that need to be acknowledged as these issues will impact on outcome studies.

Increased detection of recidivism

While many CMs will be subject to statutory supervision—unlike the original Circles—being in a Circle provides an extra layer of surveillance; this increases the opportunity to detect recidivist behavior. This additional layer of surveillance therefore may lead to what appears to be an increase rather than a decrease of recidivism (when compared with controls). This was demonstrated when Quaker Peace and Social Witness (2005) found seven of the eight cases of recidivist behavior were identified by the Circle. Holding CMs to account could be recognized as a positive outcome for Circles. Furthermore, outcomes such as being recalled to prison should be acknowledged as positive rather than negative if the Circle contributed to the outcome, thereby giving the opportunity to address problematic antecedents that otherwise could potentially lead to more serious offending.

Variation between circles

Circles originated in the community and evolved as a community response to sex offenders. However, while all Circles developed with the aim of making their local community safer, caution is required when comparing projects and generalizing outcomes because of the variability across Circles projects. For example, Duwe (2012) pointed out several notable differences between the original Canadian Circles and the Minnesota Circles he investigated: the impetus for the Circles (initiated by the community or the Department of Corrections), the development of Circles (organic or systematic), the recruitment of volunteers (from faith groups or the wider community), postrelease supervision (none or statutory), the commencement of Circles (community or in prison), and the location of meetings (individual’s homes or secure public venues). In the United Kingdom, Circles usually commence on release from prison although in some cases Circles meet with the sex offender in prison prior to being released. However, in one study, the four Circles were only put in place 14 to 30 months after release from prison (Haslewood-Pócsik et al., 2008). An examination of data from Circles UK showed variations in the demographics and background characteristics of CMs within and across the five projects that provided the most Circles (Clarke et al.,). Indeed, the structure of Circles Projects develops based on specific, local constraints (Fox, 2017). There is likely to be more variation in the future in the United Kingdom as projects look to provide support to groups such as young people or people with learning disabilities and develop additional support such as mentoring. Further variation in Circles provision is likely too as they are implemented in new countries (with differing social contexts and criminal justice systems) and this variability is important to consider for future research.

Limitations of the Review

We excluded qualitative studies that “only” reported the experience of Circles by either the CM or other stakeholders. However, consideration of experience would have been helpful given the difficulties in assessing the quality of the outcome and attributing any changes in the CMs’ circumstances to being in a Circle. For example, more information is required about the role of Circles in outcomes, such as detecting offending behavior or assisting to find suitable employment or accommodation. This will require the Circle having the knowledge that their actions affected the outcome and that these outcomes are systematically recorded.

Only one RCT and three retrospective non-randomized-controlled studies were identified and so it was not feasible to conduct a meta-analysis on the recidivism data. There were also insufficient data reported to assess other types of outcome.

Directions for Future Research

Well-designed quasi-experimental designs have their place in adding to the evidence base when evaluating offending behavior programs (Hollin, 2008). Nevertheless, RCTs are perceived as the gold standard methodology for assessing the efficacy of interventions and a larger scale RCT would increase the evidence base. Elliott, Zajac, and Meyer (2013) offered advice on conducting an RCT of Circles. Pursuing an RCT would require overcoming ethical concerns, convincing stakeholders, deciding on the primary outcome, and designing a methodology with a sufficient sample size and follow-up period alongside robust data collection. Longer term follow-up studies would demonstrate whether positive changes, such as gaining employment, had been sustained but would also address some of the practical concerns of researching sexual offending, namely, the slow and low and rates of reconviction.

Subgroups of CMs should also be examined as it is likely that different groups, such as younger or older CMs, will have different needs and outcomes. Furthermore, few women have participated in Circles and more data are required. It is possible that Circles could be adapted for mentally disordered sex offenders (MDSOs), for example, those leaving prison or forensic secure hospitals or being treated by community forensic teams. This would require exploring how Circles could best be adapted, such as providing additional training and support for the volunteers.

Different countries will have different regulations for participating in academic research but CMs should be encouraged to participate in research, either face-to-face or allowing access to records, to evaluate the effectiveness. Such evidence could help allay public fears and increase the opportunities to acquire funding for Circles.

Conclusion

Circles have helped sex offenders in adjusting to their release to the community. The dual components of support and accountability mean that Circles have a role over and above statutory supervision in that they address known risk factors for reoffending and provide an additional layer of surveillance. Data from Circles in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States broadly suggest positive outcomes although methodological issues have meant this has not yet been adequately demonstrated, particularly for sexual offenses. Longer term, prospective research would allow further evaluation and more attention should be given to evaluating the role Circles have in the outcomes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Birgit Völlm is a former Trustee of Circles UK.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bates

Macrae

Williams

Webb

(2012). Ever-increasing circles: A descriptive study of Hampshire and Thames Valley Circles of Support and Accountability 2002-09. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 18, 355-373.

Bates

Saunders

Wilson

(2007). Doing something about it: A follow-up study of sex offenders participating in Thames Valley Circles of Support and Accountability. British Journal of Community Justice, 5, 19-42.

Bates

Wager

(2012). Assessing dynamic risk in the community: The DRR and Circles of Support and Accountability. Forensic Update, 108, 8-16.

Bates

Williams

Wilson

R. J.

(2014). Circles South East: The first 10 years 2002-2012. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 861-885.

Baumeister

R. F.

De Wall

C. N.

Ciarocco

N. J.

Twenge

J. M.

(2005). Social exclusion impairs self- regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 589-604.

Brown

Spencer

Deakin

(2007). The reintegration of sex offenders: Barriers and opportunities for employment. The Howard Journal, 46, 32-42.

Cann

Falshaw

Friendship

(2004). Sexual offenders discharged from prison in England and Wales: A 21-year reconviction study. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9, 1-10.

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2008). Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: York Publishing Services.

Circles South East. (2012). Ten Year Report April 2002–March 2012. Didcot, UK: Author.

10.

Clarke

Warwick

Völlm

(n.d.). Circles of Support and Accountability: The characteristics of core members in the UK. Manuscript under review.

11.

Criminal Justice Joint Inspection. (2012). Second aggregate report on offender management in prisons: Findings from a series of joint inspections by HM inspectorate of probation and HM inspectorate of prisons. London, England: Author.

12.

Dennis

J. A.

Khan

Ferriter

Huband

Powney

M. J.

Duggan

(2012). Psychological interventions for adults who have sexually offended or are at risk of offending. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007507.pub2

13.

Duwe

(2012). 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.

14.

Duwe

(2015). What has worked and what has not with Minnesota sex offenders: A review of the evidence. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21, 71-85.

15.

Earnshaw

(2014, January). Dynamic risk review: Overview of data. Paper presented at Circles UK Trustees Meeting, Reading, UK.

16.

Edwards

Hensley

(2001). Contextualizing sex offender management legislation and policy: Evaluating the problem of latent consequences in community notification laws. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45, 83-101.

17.

Elliott

I. A.

(2014, June 6). CoSA: An inconvenient truth [Weblog post]. Retrieved from https://nextgenforensic.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/cosa-an-inconvenient-truth/

18.

Elliott

I. A.

Beech

A. R.

(2011). A cost-benefit analysis of Circles of Support and Accountability. Reading: Circles UK.

19.

Elliott

I. A.

Beech

A. R.

(2013). A U.K. cost-benefit analysis of Circles of Support and Accountability interventions. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25, 211-229.

20.

Elliott

I. A.

Zajac

Meyer

C. A.

(2013). Evaluability assessments of the Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) model: Cross site report. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243832.pdf

21.

Falshaw

Bates

Patel

Corbett

Friendship

(2003). Assessing reconviction, reoffending and recidivism in a sample of UK sexual offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 207-215.

22.

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

23.

Fox

K. J.

(2017). Contextualizing the policy and pragmatics of reintegrating sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(1), 28–50.

24.

Hannem

(2013). Experiences in reconciling risk management and restorative justice: How Circles of Support and Accountability work restoratively in the risk society. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 269-288.

25.

Hannem

Petrunik

(2007). Circles of Support and Accountability: A community justice initiative for the reintegration of high risk sex offenders. Contemporary Justice Review, 10, 153-171.

26.

Hanson

R. K.

Bussière

M. T.

(1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348-362.

27.

Hanson

R. K.

Gordon

Harris

A. J. R.

Marques

J. K.

Murphy

Quinsey

V. L.

Seto

M. C.

(2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169-194.

28.

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

(2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Corrections Research, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

29.

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

K. E.

(2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163.

30.

Hanson

R. K.

Thornton

(1999). Static-99: Improving actuarial risk assessments for sex offenders (User Report 99-02). Ottawa, Ontario: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

31.

Hanvey

(2011). But does it work? Evaluation and evidence. In Hanvey

Philpot

Wilson

(Eds.), A community-based approach to the reduction of sexual reoffending: Circles of Support and Accountability (pp. 150-165). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

32.

Hanvey

Höing

(2012). Circles of Support and Accountability, and community reintegration for those at risk of sexually reoffending. EuroVista, 2, 55-60.

33.

Hanvey

Philpot

Wilson

(2011). A community-based approach to the reduction of sexual reoffending: Circles of Support and Accountability. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

34.

Haslewood-Pócsik

Smith

Spencer

(2008, January). IMPACT circles: Balancing risk management with support. Manchester, UK: Criminal Justice Unit, University of Manchester.

35.

HM Prison Service. (2005). Structured assessment of risk and need (sexual offenders): Manual version 2 (Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit). London, England: Author.

36.

Höing

Bogaerts

Vogelvang

(2013). Circles of Support and Accountability: How and why they work for sex offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 267-295.

37.

Höing

Vogelvang

Bogaerts

(n.d.). “I am a different man now” the impact of Circles of Support and Accountability on sex offenders’ process of desistance: A prospective study. Manuscript under review.

38.

Hollin

C. R.

(2008). Evaluating offending behaviour programmes: Does only randomization glister? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8, 89-106.

39.

Home Office. (2002). Offender assessment system user manual (Vol. 2). London, England: Author.

40.

Marshall

W. L.

(2010). The role of attachments, intimacy, and loneliness in the etiology and maintenance of sexual offending. Sexual & Marital Therapy, 25, 73-85.

41.

McCartan

Kemshall

Westwood

Solle

MacKenzie

Pollard

(2014). Circles of Support and accountability (CoSA): A case file review of two pilots. London, England: Ministry of Justice.

42.

Quaker Peace and Social Witness. (2005). Circles of Support and Accountability in the Thames Valley: The first three years April 2002 to March 2005. London, England: Author.

43.

Schmucker

Lösel

(2008). Does sexual offender treatment work? A systematic review of outcome evaluations. Psicothema, 20, 10-19.

44.

Twenge

J. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

De Wall

C. N.

Ciarocco

N. J.

Bartels

J. M.

(2007). Social exclusion decreases social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56-66.

45.

Ward

Gannon

T. A.

(2006). Rehabilitation, etiology, and self-regulation: The comprehensive good lives model of treatment for sexual offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11, 77-94.

46.

Ward

Stewart

(2003). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 125-143.

47.

Willis

G. M.

Levenson

J. S.

Ward

(2010). Desistance and attitudes towards sex offenders: Facilitation or hindrance? Journal of Family Violence, 25, 545-556.

48.

Wilson

Bates

Völlm

(2010). Circles of Support and Accountability: An innovative approach to manage high-risk sex offenders in the community. The Open Criminology Journal, 3, 48-57.

49.

Wilson

McWhinnie

Wilson

(2008). Circles of Support and Accountability: An international partnership in reducing sexual offender recidivism. Prison Service Journal, 178, 26-36.

50.

Wilson

R. J.

Cortoni

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.

51.

Wilson

R. J.

Picheca

J. E.

(2005). Circles of Support and Accountability: Engaging the community in sexual offender management. In Schwartz

B. K.

(Ed.), The sex offender: Issues in assessment, treatment, and supervision of adult and juvenile populations (pp. 13.1-13.21). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

52.

Wilson

R. J.

Picheca

J. E.

McWhinnie

A. J.

Cortoni

(2011). Engaging the community in sexual offender management—Circles of Support and Accountability. In Schwartz

B. K.

(Ed.), Handbook of sex offender treatment (pp. 64.1-64.26). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

53.

Wilson

R. J.

Picheca

J. E.

Prinzo

(2005). Research report—Circles of support & accountability: An evaluation of the pilot project in South-Central Ontario. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Services of Canada.

54.

Wilson

R. J.

Picheca

J. E.

Prinzo

(2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of professionally-facilitated volunteerism in the community-based management of high-risk sexual offenders: Part Two—A comparison of recidivism rates. The Howard Journal, 46, 327-337.

55.

Wilson

R. J.

Prinzo

(2001a). Circles of support: A restorative justice initiative. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 13, 59-77.

56.

Wilson

R. J.

Prinzo

(2001b). Circles of support: A restorative justice initiative. In Miner

M. H.

Coleman

(Eds.), Sex offender treatment: Accomplishments, challenges, and future directions (pp. 59-77). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.