scispace - formally typeset
A

Andrew J. Harris

Researcher at Nottingham Trent University

Publications -  72
Citations -  4285

Andrew J. Harris is an academic researcher from Nottingham Trent University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Sex offender & Poison control. The author has an hindex of 25, co-authored 68 publications receiving 3905 citations. Previous affiliations of Andrew J. Harris include University of Massachusetts Lowell & University of Lincoln.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders.

TL;DR: This meta-analytic review examined the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders by summarizing data from 43 studies, finding current treatments were associated with reductions in both sexual recidivism and general recidivist rates.
Journal ArticleDOI

Where Should We Intervene? Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Offense Recidivism

TL;DR: In this paper, information on dynamic (changeable) risk factors was collected through interviews with community supervision officers and file reviews of 208 sexual offense recidivists and 201 non-recidivist.
Journal ArticleDOI

A structured approach to evaluating change among sexual offenders.

TL;DR: The Sex Offender Need Assessment Rating (SONAR) showed adequate internal consistency and moderate ability to differentiate between recidivist and nonrecidivists after controlling for well-established risk indicators.

STATIC-99 Coding Rules Revised - 2003

TL;DR: StatIC-99 as mentioned in this paper is a risk assessment instrument that uses self-reported risk information to assess the risk of an individual to a risk assessor, and it has been used as an instrument for risk assessment in the criminal justice system.
Journal ArticleDOI

Sexual offender recidivism risk: what we know and what we need to know.

TL;DR: Research does not support the popular notion that sexual offenders inevitably reoffend, and the limitations of actuarial risk assessments are sufficient that experts have yet to reach consensus on the best methods for combining risk factors into an overall evaluation.