{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018334206390780514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.950155763239875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In defence of NOMS' view about sex offending treatment effectiveness: a reply to Ho and Ross.

We would like to thank the editor for inviting us to respond to this editorial. It seems a rather surprising attack on what we had thought to be a benign and accessible summary of the sex offending treatment effectiveness literature. The ‘fact sheet’ to which Ho and Ross refer is a document produced by National Offender Management Service (NOMS) staff firstly for staff working in prisons and probation and secondly for the many external/public enquiries about what prison and probation services are doing to reduce sexual offending. In producing this document, our main aim was to help readers become familiar with the broad findings in this area and to provide references to the main studies for further reading. The NOMS document summarises the conclusions of studies. Meta-analyses combining two or more evaluations studies with strong designs were considered the highest form of evidence, and these were the only types of studies summarised in the ‘International Evidence’ section. Where no meta-analyses were available, as is the case in relation to prison and probation programmes specifically in England and Wales, we described the individual studies, ensuring that in each case the design was made clear. When researchers are embedded with policy makers, there is always the danger of unintended partiality, and we are very conscious of this. Hence, as is our usual practice with evidence summaries as well as with formal research reports, we obtained a peer review of the document before issuing it. The peer reviewer in this case was an independent academic expert on the effectiveness of correctional programmes, who had no allegiance to or involvement with the delivery of treatment to sexual offenders. We will now comment on the eight statements which, according to Ho and Ross, are controversial: