See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305384459

The Proportion of Sexual Offenders Who Are Female Is Higher

Than Thought: A Meta-Analysis

Article in Criminal Justice and Behavior · July 2016

DOI: 10.1177/0093854816658923

CITATIONS READS

147 51,909

3 authors, including:

Franca Cortoni Kelly M Babchishin

Université de Montréal Carleton University
110 PUBLICATIONS 2,176 CITATIONS 80 PUBLICATIONS 3,448 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Understanding change in offending among female sexual offenders and female violent offenders View project

Reducing risk of violent reoffending: Priority questions in assessment and intervention with high-risk violent offenders. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kelly M Babchishin on 16 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

658923
research-article2016
CJBXXX10.1177/0093854816658923CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIORCortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS

The Proportion Of Sexual Offenders

Who Are Female Is Higher Than
Thought

A Meta-Analysis

FRANCA CORTONI
Université de Montréal
KELLY M. BABCHISHIN
University of Ottawa
CLÉMENCE RAT
Université de Montréal

Women commit sexual offenses, but the proportion of sexual offenders who are female is subject to debates. Based on 17
samples from 12 countries, the current meta-analysis found that a small proportion of sexual offenses reported to police are
committed by females (fixed-effect meta-analytical average = 2.2%). In contrast, victimization surveys indicated prevalence
rates of female sexual offenders that were six times higher than official data (fixed-effect meta-analytical average = 11.6%).
Female sexual offenders are more common among juvenile offenders than adult offenders, with approximately 2 percentage
points more female juvenile sex offenders than female adult sex offenders. We also found that males were much more likely
to self-report being victimized by female sex offenders compared with females (40% vs. 4%). The current study provides a
robust estimate of the prevalence of female sexual offending, using a large sample of sexual offenses across diverse countries.

Keywords: female sexual offenders; prevalence; meta-analysis

Introduction
It is well established that some women engage in sexually offending behavior and that
sexual offenses committed by women have far reaching ramifications for their victims.
Despite popular beliefs about the lack of harm caused by women, studies have found that
victims of female sexual offenders suffer the same traumatic effects as victims of male
sexual offenders, including depression, rage, substance abuse problems, self-injury and sui-
cidal ideation, problematic relationships, and difficulties with sexuality (Denov, 2004;

Authors’ Note: This research was partially supported by a Team Research Grant to the first author from
the Fond québécois de recherche sur la société et culture (FQRSC—Québec, Canada) and the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research to the second author (CIHR Banting Fellowship). Correspondence concerning
this article should be addressed to Franca Cortoni, School of Criminology, Université de Montréal, P.O. Box
6128, Downtown Branch, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 3J7; e-mail: franca.cortoni@umontreal.ca.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 201X, Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2016, 1­–18.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854816658923
© 2016 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016
2 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Elliot, 1993; Sgroi & Sargent, 1993). In addition, the traumatic effect of female sexual
abuse is compounded by the fact that many professionals disbelieve victims when they
disclose their sexual victimization at the hand of a woman (Hetherton, 1999). This disbelief
appears particularly strong when the offender is the victim’s mother: Victims are told that
they must have imagined things, misinterpreted their mothers’ care, or were fantasizing
(Denov, 2004; Elliot, 1993).
Considering the harm caused by female sexual offending, it is surprising that we do not
have a good estimate of the proportion of sexual offenders who are female. Generally,
female sexual offending is considered to be a much bigger problem than indicated by arrest
rates (Saradjian, 2010). However, the true prevalence of female sexual offenders continues
to be hotly debated as estimates about the extent of this problem are typically based on non-
representative samples, such as clinical and forensic samples (Saradjian, 2010). Selected
samples, however, are not ideal for estimating prevalence rates of a phenomenon. A more
accurate estimate of the proportion of sexual offenders who are female would permit a bet-
ter understanding of this phenomenon and the development of appropriately adapted crimi-
nal justice policies for the assessment and management of these women.

Why is it important to study female sexual offenders?

According to Denov (2004), there has been a lack of attention to female sexual offending
as a result of sociocultural views that describe women as nurturing, protecting, non-
aggressive, and most importantly non-sexual. Within these views, the acknowledgment that
women might willingly choose to sexually abuse children creates cognitive dissonance that
is often resolved by reframing this abuse as, for example, misguided attempts at intimacy
(Denov, 2004; Hetherton, 1999). To accept that some women willingly and purposefully
engage in sexually offending behavior against children or adults requires that a number of
long-standing perceptions about women be challenged. These perceptions have tradition-
ally included the idea that women only sexually offend due to a major mental disorder,
because they have been forced into it by a man, or that women’s sexual offending is
harmless.
The idea that females only sexually abuse because they are mentally disturbed fits com-
fortably with traditional theories of female offending that have described criminalized
women either as emotionally disturbed, maladapted to their feminine role, or physiologi-
cally or psychologically abnormal (Blanchette & Brown, 2006; DeKeseredy, 2009).
Contemporary explanations, albeit in their infancies, suggest instead that female sexual
offenders, while they tend to be socially or emotionally vulnerable individuals, offend for
different motivations that include sexual gratification, intimacy, or for revenge or humilia-
tion (Harris, 2010).
The perception that women sexually offend because they were forced into it, typically by
a male or romantic partner, ascribes a victim’s role to these women, and ignores the fact that
some women willfully choose to engage in sexually offending behavior (Ford, 2006).
Studies have shown that some women who co-offend have engaged in solo offending prior
to offending with their male partner (Heil, Simmons, & Burton, 2010) or subsequently
engage in solo offending (Desfachelles & Cortoni, 2016; Ford, 2006). Until recently,
depending on individual studies, it was estimated that between one third and two thirds of
women sexually co-offend with either a male or female. For example, Vandiver (2006)

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 3

found that 45% of the women in her study (104 out of 232) were co-offenders. The sample,
drawn from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) managed by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, consisted of all women arrested for a sexual offense in
2001 in 21 American States and Washington, DC. More recently, Williams and Bierie
(2015) examined all sexual criminal incidents reported to the police between 1992 and 2011
in 37 American states (N = 802,150). The data were obtained from the NIBRS database,
which contains information about the offenders, including gender, the victims, and the
offenses. Williams and Bierie (2015) found 43,018 (5.4%) incidents involved female sexual
offenders. Of these, 61.9% (n = 26,630) were offenses committed by a single female. The
remaining 38.1% (n = 16,388) incidents occurred with co-offenders, the majority of which
involved a male co-offender (85.3%, n = 13,986). These findings indicate that only about
one third of cases of female sexual offending involve a co-offender, typically male, mean-
ing that two thirds of females commit their sexual offenses on their own.
Sexual offending by women is often considered harmless, despite clear evidence of phys-
ical, not to mention psychological, harm to the victim (Denov, 2001). Females, like males,
engage in a broad range of abusive acts, although females appear to proportionally engage
in less penetrative behaviors than their male counterpart. The acts committed by female
sexual offenders include exposing one’s genitals, fondling, oral contact, penetration (vagi-
nal, anal), and the use of objects, all of which can be perpetrated on the victim or by the
victim on the offender (Faller, 1987; Peter, 2009; Pflugradt & Allen, 2012; Saradjian &
Hanks, 1996). For example, in an examination of 345 cases of sexual abuse reported to
child protection services in Canada, 37 of which (10.7%) had been perpetrated by an adult
female, Peter (2009) found that while 48% of the male perpetrators had engaged in attempted
or completed penetration (penile, digital, oral, or with objects), only 13.5% of the female
perpetrators had done so. In contrast, an equivalent proportion of the men (48%) and women
(51%) had engaged in touching/fondling of genitals of the victims. Evidence of sadistic
behavior is also found among women (Pflugradt & Allen, 2012; Saradjian & Hanks, 1996),
as well as evidence of concurrent physical abuse in cases of child sexual abuse (Ford, 2006).

Too few to count?

While the existence of sexual offending by females is undisputed, albeit too often dis-
counted, debates regarding its prevalence continue. Various studies are cited as “proof” of
an extreme underreporting of sexual offending by women. However, methodological
choices, such as the data collection method, the definition of sexual abuse utilized, and the
target populations all influence prevalence rates (Saradjian, 2010). For example, Allen
(1991) surveyed 75 males and 65 females convicted of sexual offenses against children and
found that 36% of the male offenders and 72% of the female offenders had been sexually
abused as children. Of those, 45% of the males and 6% of the females reported that their
sexual abuser had been female. Using child help line data, the National Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC; 2007) found that 5% of girls and 44% of boys
who contacted the child line reported having been sexually abused by a female. As a final
example, in their study on the prevalence of child abuse, Finkelhor, Hotaling, Lewis, and
Smith (1990) interviewed 1,145 men and 1,481 women via telephone. They found that 16%
of the men and 27% of the women had been sexually abused as a child. While the majority
had been victimized by a man, 17% of the victimized men and 1% of the victimized women

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

4 Criminal Justice and Behavior

reported a female perpetrator. Unfortunately, other than the Finkelhor et al. (1990) study,
the studies described above all utilized convenience samples of selective groups. Hence,
while these statistics speak of the prevalence of sexual victimization at the hand of a female
in these specific samples, they do not provide information regarding the overall proportion
of sexual offenders who are female.
In attempts at providing more systematic information about the prevalence of female
sexual offending, Cortoni and Hanson (Cortoni & Hanson, 2005; Cortoni, Hanson, &
Coache, 2009) estimated the proportion of sexual offenders who are women on the basis of
official reports and population-wide victimization surveys of randomly selected partici-
pants. The 2005 and subsequent 2009 review were based on data obtained from the same
countries (Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, and the United States), and results
were identical. Based on official records, the proportion of all sexual offenders who were
female ranged from 0.6% (New Zealand) to 8.7% (United States). When these numbers
were averaged across all countries in the study (n = 5), women constituted approximately
4.6% of all sexual offenders. When victimization studies were examined, the proportion of
sexual offenders who were female, as reported by victims, ranged from 3.1% (New Zealand)
to 7.0% (Australia). Across the various victimization studies (n = 6), women constituted an
average 4.8% of all sexual offenders. Overall, official reports and results from victimization
surveys showed that women constitute approximately 5% of the sexual offender population,
and rates seemed consistent across countries, although consistency was not directly tested
in these reviews.
As sexual offending by females gains increased recognition not only by the criminal
justice system, but also by society in general, it would be expected that victims of female
sexual offenders would be better able to recognize and report their victimization (Ford,
2006). As such, both official data and victimization survey results should reflect this
increase. Cortoni and Hanson’s reviews (2005; Cortoni et al., 2009), however, only included
studies from five different countries and included victimization data that dated back to
1984. As well, Cortoni and Hanson (2005, 2009) did not conduct a meta-analysis. As such,
they did not examine the extent to which there was variability across studies or whether
moderator variables, such as year of publication, influenced prevalence rates. They also did
not take into statistical account the size of the studies. Consequently, the current study pro-
vides an updated, meta-analytic review of the prevalence of female sexual offending,
defined as the proportion of sexual offenders who are female, based on official reports and
victimization surveys.

Method
Selection Of Studies

Government websites were searched for victimization surveys and official reports on
sexual offenses (see the Appendix for the complete list). In addition to government web-
sites, database searches of Atrium, EBSCO, PsychInfo, Campbell Collaboration, ProQuest,
Ovid were conducted using the following keywords (document search): female sex* abuse*,
female abuse*, female sexual perpetrators, female perpetrators, female sex* offend*, female
child abusers, female child sex*, female molesters, female adult sex*, female adult offen*,
female juvenile offen*, female juvenile perpetrator, female adolescent offen*, female ado-
lescent sex*, female co-offend*, female solo offend*, vict* sex*, victim* survey, violence

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 5

sexuelle, prevalence, sondage de victimisation, women offend*, women sex*, women sex*
offen*, wom* child molest*, or women molesters.
The study period was fixed to data collected between 2000 and 2013. This end period
was chosen because at the time of the data collection for this study, 2013 was the last year
with complete available data. The start date of 2000 was chosen to only capture more recent
official and victimization data. If, as suggested by Ford (2006), female sexual offending is
becoming more recognized by both professionals and the public, this recognition should be
reflected in increased official and victimization reports of sexual abuse at the hand of a
woman. The inclusion of older data might, therefore, artificially decrease the rates.
To be included in the current meta-analysis, studies had to be in English or French and
report the number of female sexual offenders and the number of male sexual offenders.
Studies reporting prevalence rates based on self-report of convenience samples such as col-
lege/university students, offender samples, or victims groups were excluded from the meta-
analysis. Only large scale victimization surveys (e.g., developed across countries) or rates
based on official data (with at least a total of 10 sexual offenders) were included in the
current meta-analysis. Studies included in the previous review (Cortoni et al., 2009) were
included in the meta-analysis if they met the inclusion criteria.
Female sexual offenders were defined as juvenile (i.e., less than or equal to 18 years of
age) or women (i.e., over 18 years of age) who had been accused, charged, or convicted of
a sexual offense. Prostitution-related or sexual harassment offenses were not considered to
be sexual offenses for the purpose of this study. Official data for a country were sometimes
available for the several different years. In such case, the most recent year and the weighted
average across available years were coded. For the majority of samples, we were able to
code a weighted average rate across available years. Thus, the effect size was coded from
several studies. The full list of the studies averaged for a given sample is in the reference
list. In cases where data were provided separately for each province/state/canton of the
country and for the country as a whole, we coded the prevalence data from the country as a
whole (weighted average).
In all, 17 samples with relevant data (see Table 1) were identified from 12 countries
(Australia, Belgium, Canada, England and Wales, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway,
Scotland, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States). Eleven samples were based on official
records (i.e., arrests, charges, and/or convictions), and six were based on victimization sur-
veys. Most samples based on official rates used convictions (k = 5) or arrests (k = 4); two
samples were based on accusations by tangible parties (e.g., police reported crime). Eight
samples reported the rates separately for juvenile and adult offenders, three samples pre-
sented data for both juveniles and adults pooled into one sample, two samples only pre-
sented information on adult offenders, and four samples did not report the age category of
the offenders. Official rates samples were government reports. Victimization surveys were
either government or public agencies reports. All data were published between 2003 and
2013 (Mdn = 2012).

Aggregation Of Findings

We meta-analyzed the prevalence rate of female sexual offenders (i.e., defined as the
proportion of sexual offenders who are female). Although raw proportions (p) are easily
interpreted, they are not optimal for meta-analyses involving low proportion events. The

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

 6
Table 1: Description of Included Studies

Sample no. Authors Data year Source Country Type of data Agea n % femaleb

1. Ministère de l’Intérieur (2005-2013)c 2004-2012 Official France Accusations Both 6,844 1.9%
2. Ministry of Justice (2007, 2010) & Home Office 2001-2011 Official England and Arrests Both 32,110 2.9%
(2010-2013)c Wales
3. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005-2013)c 2003-2011 Official Australia Convictions Both 1,190 1.7%
4. Scottish Government (2009-2012)c 2007-2011 Official Scotland Convictions Both 391 1.0%
5. Scottish Government (2009-2011)c 2008-2010 Victimization Scotland Sexual interference, Mixed 354 7.9%
unwanted sex acts—after
age 16
6. Pieters, Italiano, Offermans, and Hellemans 2009 Victimization Belgium Sexual interference, Mixed 117 3.4%
(2010) unwanted sex acts prior to
age 18
7. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004-2011)c 2002-2008 Victimization United Rape/Sexual assault prior 12 Mixed 216,399 6.8%
States months
8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2003-2013)c 2002-2012 Official United Arrests Both 78,221 6.8%
States
9. Hotton Mahony (2011) 2009 Official Canada Accusations Mixed 12,424 2.6%
10. Morris, Reilly, Berry, and Ransom (2003) 2000 Victimization New Sexual interference, Mixed 65 3.1%
Zealand unwanted sex acts—prior
12 months
11. Statistics New Zealand (2013)c 2000-2012 Official New Arrests Adult 605 1.0%
Zealand
12. Averdijk, Müller-Johnson, and Eisner (2011) 2009 Victimization Switzerland Sexual abuse prior to age 18 Mixed 985 24.4%
13. Département Fédéral de l’Intérieur (2005, 2003; Official Switzerland Convictions Both 214 1.4%
2011)c 2005-2006

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

14. Spanish Statistical Office (2008-2013)c 2008-2013 Official Spain Convictions Adult 1,767 1.1%
15. Statistics Norway (2012-2013)c 2010-2011 Official Norway Arrests Both 1,393 1.9%
16. Ireland Central Statistics Office (2013)c 2003-2011 Official Ireland Convictions Both 223 0.4%
17. Perreault and Brennan (2010) 2009 Victimization Canada Sexual assault—prior 12 Mixed 585,000 12.8%
months

aBoth = separate data for adults and juveniles; Mixed = rates for juveniles and adults were not separated in the source; Adult = only adult rates. When rates for both
juveniles and adults were provided separately, proportions were computed for each age group and a weighted average proportion was also calculated. bWhen multiple
years were available, the weighted average proportion is presented. cThe sample constitutes an average of the rates reported in the years indicated in the column “data
year.”
 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 7

variance of p using the standard formula, (p × [1 – p]) / n, is small in two quite different
circumstances: (a) when the sample size is very large and (b) when there are few female sex
offenders. The standard approach of meta-analyzing raw proportions assumes that the vari-
ance decreases as the proportions approach 0, which has the effect of giving the most weight
to studies with the smallest number of female sexual offenders. To address this limitation,
we used the variance formula 1 / 4n (Bromiley & Thacker, 2002). As such, the variance (and
weight of the study in the meta-analysis) depended only on the sample size, and not the size
of the proportion.
For low base rate events, it is also not uncommon to find studies (particularly with small
sample sizes) that have a proportion of 0. Proportions of 0 cannot be included in the analy-
ses; however, excluding them disproportionately eliminates studies with the lowest propor-
tions. For these studies, we calculated p using Bartlett’s adjustment, where p is estimated as
1 / 4n (Eisenhart, 1947, sec. 4.3; Cohen, 1988, p. 183). The Bartlett adjustment provides an
estimate of p that is close to 0 and can be used in meta-analysis.
Given that the weight for the proportion is directly determined by sample size because of
the 1 / 4n variance formula, samples with unusually large sample sizes (e.g., Sample 7,
Sample 17) have disproportionally large weights compared with the other studies and, as
such, distort the meta-analytical average toward their proportion. We artificially decreased
the weight of the largest studies so that they could not be more than 50% larger than the next
largest study. This reduced the influence of large studies on the meta-analysis, and although
these studies still had the greatest weight in the analysis, the weight was no more than 50%
greater than the next largest study.
The magnitude and consistency of the proportions were calculated using both fixed-
effect and random-effects models (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). When
variability across studies is low (Q < degrees of freedom), random-effects and fixed-effect
meta-analysis produce identical results. When the analysis includes a small number of stud-
ies (k < 30), greater interpretation weight should be given to fixed-effect rather than ran-
dom-effects analyses because the between-study variability estimate necessary for
random-effects analyses (i.e., tau) loses precision (Schulze, 2007).
To test the variability of findings across studies, we used Cochran’s Q statistic and the I2
statistic. The Q statistic provides a significance test for variability, whereas the I2 is a mea-
sure of effect size for variability. As a rough heuristic, I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% can
be considered low, moderate, and large variability (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman,
2003). A finding was considered an outlier if it was the single extreme value and accounted
for more than 50% of the total variance (Q), and the overall variability (Q) was significant.
When outliers were identified, results are presented both with and without the outlier, with
the main interpretation focusing on the findings with the outlier removed. There was one
exception to this rule: When the analysis only included three studies, outliers were not
removed because with so few studies, the identification of outliers produces unstable results.

Moderator Analyses

Fixed-effect meta-regression was used to examine the extent to which the continuous
moderator variable (e.g., data year) influenced the prevalence rates of female sexual
offenders. Difference scores were used for categorical moderators. Specifically, we cal-
culated a new effect size (difference in proportions [p]) by subtracting the p of juvenile

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

8 Criminal Justice and Behavior

and adult offenders. The variance of the difference score is defined as (2 × r × SDp_adults
× SDp_juveniles), where r is the correlation between the two effect sizes, and the standard
deviation (SD) is the square root of 1 / 4n. If the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the
difference score does not include 0, then the difference was statistically significant at
p < .05.

Interrater Reliability

Interrater reliability was assessed by comparing the ratings of Rater 1 (second author)
with those of Rater 2 (third author). Rater 1 rated the 17 studies using a standardized coding
manual that also included a standardized variable list (available upon request). The second
rater was trained to code study descriptors and effect sizes using six studies and the stan-
dardized coding manual. Once the two independent ratings were complete, a consensus
rating for all included samples was reached.
Interrater analyses were based on 11 studies. The raters coded 89 effect sizes, with high
level of agreement (absolute intraclass correlation [ICC] based on single rater = .97); nine
effect sizes were identified by one rater but not the other. For the other variables coded, ICC
values for the continuous variables (n = 10) ranged from .965 to 1.00 (Mdn ICC = .992). For
categorical variables (n = 15), percentage agreement ranged from 82% to 100% (Mdn =
100%). For the subset of categorical variables where it was possible to compute Cohen’s k
(n = 11), reliability ranged from .67 to 1.00 (Mdn = .95).

Results
Table 1 presents the proportion of sexual offenders who are female for the 11 official
sources and 6 victimization surveys. The prevalence rates of female sexual offenders ranged
from 0.4% to 6.8% for official sources (Mdn = 1.7%) and ranged from 3.1% to 24.4% for
victimization surveys (Mdn = 10.8%). Despite our hypothesis, there was no relationship
between the most recent data year and the prevalence rate based on official sources1 (Z =
−0.59, p = .554; k = 10; range 2006 to 2013, Mdn = 2011) or victimization surveys (Z =
−0.66, p = .509; k = 6; range 2000 to 2010, Mdn = 2009). As such, the meta-analyses of
prevalence rates were based on the weighted average of available data across years rather
than the most recent year available.
Table 2 presents the meta-analytical proportion of sexual offenders who are female based
on either official sources or victimization surveys. The prevalence rates of female sexual
offenders based on official sources was approximately 2% for both fixed-effect and
random-effects models (fixed effect: p = 2.2%, 95% CI = [1.6, 2.9], n = 57,164, k = 10). The
prevalence rates based on self-reported victimization surveys were about six times higher
than the official rates (fixed effect: p = 11.6%, 95% CI = [10.8, 12.5]; random effects: p =
10.8%, 95% CI = [5.4, 16.1], n = 802,920, k = 6). There was significantly more variability
in the proportion of female sex offenders reported in victimization surveys than what would
be expected by chance (Q = 112.9, p < .001).

Offenders’ Age

The prevalence rates of female sexual offenders appeared slightly higher for juvenile
offenders than for adult offenders. Both fixed-effect and random-effects models indicated a

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 9

Table 2: Prevalence Rate of Female Sexual Offenders for Any Sexual Offenses

Fixed effect Random effects

Data sources % 95% CI % 95% CI Q I2 n (k) Sample no.

Official rates 3.86 [3.31, 4.42] 2.42 [0.77, 4.07] 62.75 84.1% 135,385 (11) 1,2,3,4,8,9,11,13,14,15,16
Outlier 2.24 [1.55, 2.93] 2.24 [1.55, 2.93] 3.65 0.0% 57,164 (10) 1,2,3,4,9,11,13,14,15,16
removed
Juveniles official 5.19 [3.98, 6.40] 3.70 [0.81, 6.59] 23.69 70.5% 20,294 (8) 1,2,3,4,8,13,15,16
rates
Outlier 2.34 [0.67, 4.01] 2.34 [0.67, 4.01] 0.28 0.0% 6,284 (7) 1,2,3,4,13,15,16
removed
Adult official rates 3.28 [2.44, 4.12] 2.44 [0.88, 3.99] 24.44 63.2% 101,153 (10) 1,2,3,4,8,11,13,14,15,16
Outlier 1.98 [0.98, 2.98] 1.98 [0.98, 2.98] 1.93 0.0% 36,942 (9) 1,2,3,4,11,13,14,15,16
removed
Victimization 11.62 [10.77, 12.47] 10.78 [5.42, 16.13] 112.86 95.6% 802,920 (6) 5,6,7,10,12,17
rates

Note. Most recent data year presented. Study 8 (FBI official sources) was a statistical outlier for each offender group for official
sources. Values in bold were statistically significant at p < .05. CI = confidence intervals; k = number of studies.

Table 3: Proportions of Sexual Offenders Who Are Female—Juvenile Versus Adult Offenders

N total (nfemale) Proportion female

Sample no. Juveniles Adults Juveniles Adults

1 795 (18) 2,414 (52) .023 .022

2 4,440 (103) 29,369 (830) .023 .028
3 559 (11) 990 (18) .020 .018
4 31 (0) 360 (4) .008 .011
8 14,010 (1,166) 64,211 (4,140) .083 .064
13 202 (8) 220 (0) .040 .001
15 247 (6) 1,148 (22) .024 .019
16 10 (0) 216 (1) .025 .005

Fixed effect Random effects

Difference score Difference 95% CI Difference 95% CI Q (I2) N (k)

Juveniles vs. adults .013 [.008, .018] .007 [−.005, .020] 17.03 (58.9%) 119,222 (8)
p
Outlier removed .017 [.012, .022] .017 [.012, .022] 4.55 (0.0%) 85,413 (7)
(Study 2)

Note. Positive difference score indicates that the proportion of female sexual offenders was higher for juvenile
offenders than for adult offenders. All studies based on official sources, averaged across available years. Bartlett
adjustment conducted for p of 0. Values in bold are statistically significant difference scores at p < .05. CI =
confidence interval; k = number of studies.

prevalence rate of 2.3% among juveniles (95% CI = [1.8, 2.8], n = 6,284, k = 7). In contrast,
the prevalence of women among adult sexual offenders was less than 2% (fixed effect: p =
1.8%, 95% CI = [1.6, 2.8]; random effects: p = 1.4%, 95% CI = [0.9, 2.0], n = 37,089, k = 9).
A subset of official sources provided separate rates for juvenile and adult offenders,
allowing for difference across offender age categories to be examined. Among studies that
presented official rates on both age groups (k = 8), the prevalence of female sexual

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

10 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Table 4: Prevalence Rate of Female Sexual Offenders Based on Victim Gender

Fixed effect Random effects

Gender of
victims % 95% CI % 95% CI Q I2 n (k) Samples

Female victims 4.55 [3.13, 6.22] 3.49 [0.93, 7.60] 16.77 82.1% 6,491 (4) 6,5,12,17
Male victims 38.89 [32.17, 45.60] 43.58 [7.55, 79.62] 56.50 96.4% 3,689 (3) 6,12,17

Difference score .417 [.363, .472] .390 [.099, .682] 55.15 96.4% 6,178 (3) 6,12,17

Note. A positive difference score indicates that the proportion of female sexual offenders was higher in male
victims than female victims. Values in bold are statistically significant difference scores at p < .05. CI = confidence
interval; k = number of studies.

offenders was about 2 percentage points higher in juvenile samples than the adult samples
(both fixed effect and random effects: pdifference = .017, 95% CI = [.012, .022]; see Table 3).

Victim Gender

Based on victimization surveys, female-perpetrated abuse was more prevalent among

male victims (38.9% to 43.6%) compared with female victims (3.5% to 4.6%). This differ-
ence was statistically significant and represented a difference of about 40 percentage points
in the prevalence rates of female sexual offenders with male versus female victims (fixed
effect: pdifference = .417, 95% CI = [.363, .472]; random effects: pdifference = .390, 95% CI =
[.099, .682], see Table 4).

Discussion
Based on a large sample of sexual offenses across 12 countries, this meta-analytical
review found that females constitute a very small portion of sexual offenders when only
officially reported crimes (≈2%) are considered. There was a slightly higher amount of
juveniles who are female sexual offenders when compared with adult females (about 2 per-
centage points). In contrast, when only victimization data are considered, this meta-
analytical review found that female sexual offenders constituted about 12% of all sexual
offenders. These meta-analytical findings confirm that while females constitute a very small
proportion of sexual offenders in police reports and court cases, there exists a much larger
proportion of female sexual offenders that are not reported to the police. There was, how-
ever, considerable variability in the proportions reported in the victimization surveys.
Furthermore, based on victimization surveys, female-perpetrated abuse is more prevalent
among male victims (≈40%) compared with female victims (≈4%).
In this meta-analysis, the 2% official rate of female sexual offending is in contrast to
earlier reviews (Cortoni & Hanson, 2005; Cortoni et al., 2009) that found women consti-
tuted about 5% of all sexual offenders. This finding should not be interpreted to mean that
fewer women are now being reported for sexual crimes. Rather, the current review analyzed
data from a number of countries, such as Ireland and Belgium, that have rates of reported
females that were less than 2%. In contrast, consistent with the previous reviews, the United
States had a 7% official rate of female sexual offenders. As past reviews simply averaged
the rates across countries, these U.S. data would have raised the overall average. Meta-
analytical techniques, however, provide a weighted average and outliers, such as the U.S.
data, can be identified and removed.
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016
 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 11

It is unclear why the United States consistently shows a higher prevalence of women
among reported sexual offenses. It is doubtful that there would be a much higher propor-
tion of sexual offenders who are women in the United States compared with the other
countries included in this study. In fact, the victimization data show a wide range of pro-
portions of offenders who are females, with the United States being somewhere in the
middle. Rather, it is suspected that differing legislation might be responsible for the cat-
egorization of female behavior as sexual offending. For example, many U.S. jurisdictions
consider “promoting prostitution of a minor” as sexual offenses, and it appears that
women may be overrepresented in this category (Cortoni, Sandler, & Freeman, 2015).
The idea that differing legislation might be responsible for the higher official rate of
female sexual offenders in the United States is supported by our data: The weighted pro-
portion of female sexual offenders in the United States between 2002 and 2012 was
reduced to 1.3% (2.2% for juveniles and 1.1% for adults) when only forcible rape offenses
were included in the analyses.
The findings from this meta-analysis indicated that in relation to their similar age-group
male counterparts, there was about 2 percentage points more female juvenile sexual offend-
ers than adult offenders. This finding is consistent with the literature on juvenile offenders
in general that shows a higher ratio of female to male offenders among juveniles when
compared with the female to male adult criminal population. For example, in Canada in
2009, girls were responsible for 28% of all juvenile offenses reported to the police while
women were responsible for 22% of all adult offenses (Hotton Mahony, 2011). In terms of
sexual offenses, Finkelhor, Ormrod, and Chaffin (2009) found that in 2004, girls constituted
7% of juvenile sexual offenders while women constituted 5% of the adult sexual offenders
in the United States. Although there likely would be an overlap between the Finkelhor et al.
(2009) data with some of the data in our meta-analysis, our results also included juvenile
data from several different European countries, indicating that the finding of a higher pro-
portion of girls versus adult women is not unique to North America. The reasons for this
finding, however, are unclear. Finkelhor et al. (2009) did find that juvenile female sexual
offenders tended to be younger than their male counterparts, more often offend in groups,
and to be considered by investigators as victims as well as offenders. It may be that these
girls present with some particular vulnerabilities that lead them to get involved with boys
that exploit them for their own offending needs. For example, Wijkman, Weerman, Bijleveld,
and Hendriks (2015) found that juvenile female sexual offenders tended to have experi-
enced early abuse and neglect, including sexual abuse, and exhibited risky sexual behavior
at a young age. Future research, such as examining whether characteristics of female sexual
offenders differ based on their age at the time of their first sexual offense, is needed to elu-
cidate this finding.
One long-standing debate in the literature was whether women proportionally sexually
assault more females than males. In her review of a large number of studies, Ford (2006)
found no consistent patterns of gender preference. There was a suggestion that some
female sexual offenders may be more likely to offend against girls but again, studies pro-
vided conflicting evidence. Based on victimization surveys, the current meta-analysis
found that 40% of the male victims reported the offender as female but only 4% of the
female victims reported the offender as female. These findings are consistent with Finkelhor
et al. (1990) who found a large proportion of female-perpetrated sexual abuse among
males in their study. These results, however, do not permit the conclusion that women
more often offend against males than females compared with male sexual offenders. When
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016
12 Criminal Justice and Behavior

possible, studies should report the gender of the victims and offenders (male, female, or
both) to allow for a better estimate of this possible phenomenon. In addition, the data did
not permit an examination of the differences in victims’ gender based on solo versus co-
offending or the extent to which gender of victims may differ when based on official
sources. Further research should examine the distribution of victim gender based on these
basic offending characteristics.
Moderator analyses did not find that the official rates of female sexual offending increased
in the years sampled in this meta-analysis (2006 to 2013 for official rates). However, this
review of victimization surveys revealed a much higher proportion of sexual offenders who
are women compared with past reviews (12% vs. 5% found by Cortoni & Hanson, 2005 and
Cortoni et al., 2009). As suggested by Ford (2006), it is likely that the increased societal
recognition that women can and do engage in sexually offending behavior is helping vic-
tims acknowledge their own victimization at the hand of a woman. This possible increased
recognition, however, does not seem to have translated into increased official reporting. It
may be that the criminal justice system is not yet ready to fully acknowledge that women
commit sexual offenses. For example, there is a tendency among professionals to not con-
sider the possibility that sexual abuse by a woman may have occurred, particularly if the
woman is the child’s mother (Ogilvie, 2004). Increased awareness of the proportion of
sexual offenders who are female and of the harm caused to victims may help instill a cul-
tural change among professionals to improve official recognition of female sexual offend-
ing. In turn, victims would feel less ostracized when they attempt to report their victimization
at the hand of a woman.
Relatedly, the meta-analysis underscores that sexual offending by females is underre-
ported. This is not surprising given that we have known for a long time that sexual offend-
ing by males has been and continues to be underreported. Why would we expect a different
situation for female sexual offending? The more interesting question of whether sexual
offending by females is more underreported than that of males cannot be answered with the
current study. Although the findings from this study suggest that female sexual offending
represents a larger portion—in relation to male sexual offending—of hidden sexually
offending behavior (i.e., official rates 2%, victimization rates 12%), there is also evidence
that only 10% to 20% of male sexual offenses are officially reported (McDonald, Wobick,
& Graham, 2004; Sinha, 2013). Therefore, without the true raw numbers of sexual offenses
committed by males and females needed to calculate exact proportions of underreporting,
we cannot establish whether female sexual offending is more underreported than male sex-
ual offending. Until then, population-based anonymous victimization surveys continue to
be the best tool to estimate the prevalence of both female and male-perpetrated sexual
abuse.
A limitation inherent to meta-analysis is that studies use different operational definitions
to assess the variable of interest (sexual offenses in this study). A number of the included
samples also did not distinguish between male and female victims, the sexual acts, or co-
offenders versus solo female offenders. Consequently, while the meta-analytical review
provided an overall prevalence rate of female sexual offending, it could not disaggregate
rates based on specific types of sexually offending behaviors or other important character-
istics such as victims’ age or relationship with the offender. Furthermore, the current meta-
analysis includes samples from 2000 and onward and, as such, cannot speak to trends

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 13

occurring prior to that time, although past reviews that sampled from 1984 onward are
available (Cortoni & Hanson, 2005; Cortoni et al., 2009).

Conclusion
Women commit sexual offenses, and these offenses have far reaching consequences for
their victims and the criminal justice system in general. The current meta-analysis found a
small proportion of sexual offenses reported to police are committed by females (approxi-
mately 2%). In contrast, 12% of sexual offenses reported in victimization surveys are com-
mitted by female sexual offenders. We also found that female sexual offenders are more
common among juvenile offenders than adult offenders. The current study provides a robust
estimate of the prevalence of female sexual offenders, using a large number of sexual
offenders sampled from diverse countries. Future research, however, is needed to examine
how prevalence rates differ across sexual offense type, victim relationship, and between
solo and co-offenders to help better understand the full nature of sexual offending by
females. Until then, our findings confirm that increased criminal justice attention needs to
be paid to victims of female sexual offenders. Police and the courts should recognize that
while not as widespread as male sexual offending, female sexual offending cannot be mini-
mized as an aberration with little or no consequences for victims or society. To do so is to
deem victims of sexual abuse at the hand of female sexual offenders to be unimportant and
less deserving of criminal justice attention than victims of male sexual offenders.

Appendix
List of Government Websites Searched for Data

Country Government website

Argentina Ministry of Justice and Human Rights

Australia Australian Bureau of Statistics
Belgium Service Publique Fédéral
Canada Statistics Canada
Department of Justice
Ministry of Public Safety—Canada
Ministry of Public Safety—Québec
China National Bureau of Statistics of China
Denmark Ministry of Justice
Statistics Denmark
England and Wales Home Office
Office for National Statistics
Ministry of Justice
France Ministry of Justice
Institut National des Hautes Etudes de la Sécurité et de la Justice
Observatoire National de la Délinquance et des Réponses Pénales
Ireland Central Statistics Office
The Department of Justice and Equality
New Zealand Statistics New Zealand
Ministry of Justice
Norway Statistics Norway
Ministry of Justice and Public Security

(continued)

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

14 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Appendix (continued)
Country Government website

Scotland The Scottish Government

ScotStat
Spain Spanish Statistical Office
Switzerland Federal Office of Justice
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
Bureau of Justice Statistics
U.S. Department of Justice

Note
1. Study number 8 was removed from the meta-regression analysis as it was found to be a statistical outlier in the
meta-analysis.

References
References marked with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis.
Allen, C. M. (1991). Women & men who sexually abuse children: A comparative analysis. New York, NY: The Safer Society
Press.
*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Criminal courts, Australia, 2003-2004 (No. 4513.0). Canberra: Author. [Sample 3,
data year 2003]
*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Criminal courts, Australia, 2004-2005 (No. 4513.0). Canberra: Author. [Sample 3,
data year 2004]
*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Criminal courts, Australia, 2005-2006 (No. 4513.0). Canberra: Author. [Sample 3,
data year 2005]
*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2008). Criminal courts, Australia, 2006-2007 (No. 4513.0). Canberra: Author. [Sample 3,
data year 2006]
*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Criminal courts, Australia, 2007-2008 (No. 4513.0). Canberra: Author. [Sample 3,
data year 2007]
*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). Criminal courts, Australia, 2008-2009 (No. 4513.0). Canberra: Author. [Sample 3,
data year 2008]
*Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Criminal courts, Australia, 2011-2012 (No. 4513.0). Canberra: Author. [Sample 3,
data year 2011]
*Averdijk, M., Müller-Johnson, K., & Eisner, M. (2011). Victimisation sexuelle des enfants et adolescents en Suisse: Rapport
final pour l’UBS Optimus Foundation [Sexual victimization of children and adolescents in Switzerland: Final report to
the UBS Optimus Foundation]. Zurich, Switzerland: UBS Optimus Foundation. [Sample 12, data year 2009]
Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women offenders: An integrative perspective. Chichester,
UK: John Wiley.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK:
John Wiley.
Bromiley, P. A., & Thacker, N. A. (2002). The effects of an arcsin square root transform on a binomial distributed quantity.
TINA memo No. 2002-007. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester. Retrieved from http://www.tina-vision.net/docs/
memos/2002-007.pdf
*Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2002: Statistical tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. [Sample 7, data year 2002]
*Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2003: Statistical tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. [Sample 7, data year 2003]
*Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006a). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2004: Statistical tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. [Sample 7, data year 2004]
*Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006b). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2005: Statistical tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. [Sample 7, data year 2005]
*Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2008). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2006: Statistical tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. [Sample 7, data year 2006]
*Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2007: Statistical tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. [Sample 7, data year 2007]

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 15

*Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2011). Criminal victimization in the United States, 2008: Statistical tables. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. [Sample 7, data year 2008]
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cortoni, F., & Hanson, R. K. (2005). A review of the recidivism rates of adult female sexual offenders (Research Report No.
R-169). Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada.
Cortoni, F., Hanson, R. K., & Coache, M. E. (2009). Les délinquantes sexuelles: Prévalence et récidive [Female sexual
offenders: Prevalence and recidivism]. Revue internationale de criminologie et de police technique et scientifique, LXII,
319-336.
Cortoni, F., Sandler, J. C., & Freeman, N. J. (2015). Are females convicted of promoting prostitution of a minor like females
convicted of traditional sexual offenses? A brief research report. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment,
27, 324-334.
Dekeseredy, W. S. (2009). Girls & women as victims of crime. In J. Barker (Ed.), Women and the criminal justice system: A
Canadian perspective (pp. 313-345). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Emond Montgomery.
Denov, M. S. (2001). A culture of denial: Exploring professional perspectives on female sex offending. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 43, 303-329.
Denov, M. S. (2004). The long-term effects of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators: A qualitative study of male & female
victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1137-1156.
*Département fédéral de l’intérieur. (2005). Statistiques des jugements pénaux des mineurs, en 2003 [Statistics of juveniles’
criminal sentences in 2003]. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Office fédéral de la statistique. [Sample 13, data year 2003]
*Département fédéral de l’intérieur. (2011). Femmes et droit pénal: Evolution de la criminalité des femmes [Women &
criminal law: Evolution of women’s criminality]. Neuchâtel, Switzerland: Office fédéral de la statistique. [Sample 13,
data year 2005 and 2006]
Desfachelles, M., & Cortoni, F. (2016). Female sexual co-offenders: A closer look at their offending patterns. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Eisenhart, C. (1947). Inverse sine transformation of proportions. In C. Eisenhart, M. W. Hastay, & W. A. Wallis (Eds.),
Selected techniques of statistical analysis for scientific and industrial research and production and management engi-
neering (pp. 395-416). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Elliot, M. (1993). Female sexual abuse of children: The ultimate taboo. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Faller, K. C. (1987). Women who sexually abuse children. Violence and Victims, 2, 263-276.
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2003). Crime in the United States, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2002]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2004). Crime in the United States, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2003]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006a). Crime in the United States, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2004]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006b). Crime in the United States, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2005]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2007). Crime in the United States, 2006. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2006]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Crime in the United States, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2007]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2008]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2010). Crime in the United States, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2009]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2011). Crime in the United States, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2010]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2012). Crime in the United States, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2011]
*Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2013). Crime in the United States, 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
[Sample 8, data year 2012]
Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women:
Prevalence characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 19-28.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., & Chaffin, M. (2009, December). Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors (Juvenile
Justice Bulletin). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf-
files1/ojjdp/227763.pdf
Ford, H. (2006). Women who sexually abuse children. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Harris, D. A. (2010). Theories of female sexual offending. In T. A. Gannon & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female sexual offenders:
Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 31-52). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

16 Criminal Justice and Behavior

Heil, P., Simmons, D., & Burton, D. (2010). Using the polygraph with female sexual offenders. In T. A. Gannon & F. Cortoni
(Eds.), Female sexual offenders: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 143-160). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hetherton, J. (1999). The idealization of women: Its role in the minimization of child sexual abuse by females. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 23, 161-174.
Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British
Medical Journal, 327, 557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
*Home Office. (2010). Police powers and procedures, England and Wales 2008/09. London, England: National Statistics.
Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http:/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/
hosb0610.pdf [Sample 2, data year 2007 and 2008]
*Home Office. (2011). Police powers and procedures England and Wales 2009/10 (second edition). London, England:
National Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
file/115792/hosb0711.pdf [Sample 2, data year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009]
*Home Office. (2012a). Arrests tables: Police powers and procedures England and Wales 2010/11 (Excel Spreadsheet).
Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/arrests-tables-police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-
wales-2010-11 [Sample 2, data year 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2009]
*Home Office. (2012b). Police powers and procedures England and Wales 2010 to 2011: Second edition. London, England:
Official Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-powers-and-procedures-eng-
land-and-wales-2010-to-2011-second-edition/police-powers-and-procedures-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011-second-
edition#arrests [Sample#2, data year 2007]
*Home Office. (2013). Tables for “police powers and procedures arrests 2011/12” (Excel Spreadsheet). Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tables-for-police-powers-and-procedures-in-england-and-wales-201112
[Sample 2, data year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010, and 2011]
*Hotton Mahony, T. (2011). Women and the criminal justice system (Cat. No. 89-503-X). Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.
Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11416-eng.pdf [Sample 9, data year 2009]
*Ireland Central Statistics Office. (2013). Persons convicted of relevant offences by sex, type of offence, age group & year
(2003-2011). Retrieved from http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/DATABASE/Eirestat/Recorded%20Crime/Recorded%20
Crime_statbank.asp?sp=Recorded%20Crime&Planguage=0 [Sample#16, data year 2003-2011]
McDonald, S., Wobick, A., & Graham, J. (2004). Bill C-46: Records applications post-Mills, a caselaw review (Research
Report No. rr06vic-2e). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/
rp-pr/csj-sjc/ccs-ajc/rr06_vic2/rr06_vic2.pdf
*Ministère de l’Intérieur. (2005). Evolution de l’activité des services de la police et de la gendarmerie nationales en 2004
[Evolution of the activity of the police & the national gendarmerie in 2004]. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/1148/12251/file/107_index_decembre_et_annee__2004.pdf [Sample 1, data
year 2004]
*Ministère de l’Intérieur. (2006). Evolution de l’activité des services de la police et de la gendarmerie nationales en 2005
[Evolution of the activity of the police & the national gendarmerie in 2005]. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/1201/12760/file/107_index_4001_Annee-2005.pdf [Sample 1, data year
2005]
*Ministère de l’Intérieur. (2007). Evolution de l’activité des services de la police et de la gendarmerie nationales en 2006
[Evolution of the activity of the police & the national gendarmerie in 2006]. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/1233/13062/file/107_index_annee_2006.pdf [Sample 1, data year 2006]
*Ministère de l’Intérieur. (2008). Evolution de l’activité des services de la police et de la gendarmerie nationales en 2007
[Evolution of the activity of the police & the national gendarmerie in 2007]. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/1257/13235/file/Index_107_-_Decembre_2007_et_annee_2007.pdf [Sample
1, data year 2007]
*Ministère de l’Intérieur. (2009a). Evolution de l’activité des services de la police et de la gendarmerie nationales en 2008
[Evolution of the activity of the police & the national gendarmerie in 2008]. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/1262/13290/file/Etat_4001_2008.pdf [Sample 1, data year 2008]
*Ministère de l’Intérieur. (2009b). Evolution de l’activité des services de la police et de la gendarmerie nationales en 2009
[Evolution of the activity of the police & the national gendarmerie in 2009]. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/1349/14170/file/107_index_Decembre_2 009_et_annee_2009.pdf [Sample 1,
data year 2009]
*Ministère de l’Intérieur–(under the direction of A. Bauer & C. Soullez). (2011). La criminalité en France: Rapport de
l’Observatoire national de la délinquance et des réponses pénales 2011 [Crime in France: 2011 Report of the National
observatory of delinquency and penal responses]. Paris, France: CNRS Editions. Retrieved from http://www.interieur.
gouv.fr/content/download/87104/675277/file/synthese-rapport-ondrp2011.pdf [Sample 1, data year 2010]
*Ministère de l’Intérieur–(under the direction of A. Bauer & C. Soullez). (2012). La criminalité en France: Rapport 2012 de
l’Observatoire national de la délinquance et des réponses pénales [Crime in France: 2012 Report of the National obser-
vatory of delinquency and penal responses]. Paris, France: CNRS Editions. Retrieved from http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/
content/download/87098/675247/file/rapport-ondrp-2012.pdf [Sample 1, data year 2011]

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

 Cortoni et al. / PREVALENCE OF FEMALE SEXUAL OFFENDERS 17

*Ministère de l’Intérieur–(under the direction of S. Lollivier & C. Soullez). (2013). La criminalité en France: Rapport de
l’Observatoire national de la délinquance et des réponses pénales 2013 [Crime in France: 2013 Report of the National
observatory of delinquency & penal responses]. Paris, France: CNRS Editions. Retrieved from http://www.inhesj.fr/
sites/default/files/files/ondrp_ra-2013/ft_04_mec-aab.pdf [Sample 1, data year 2012]
*Ministry of Justice. (2007). Arrests for recorded crime (notifiable offences) and the operation of certain police powers
under PACE England and Wales, 2005-06. London, England: National Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.google.
ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiz7oaszNXNAhULqx4KHaKa
BvgQFggdMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattach
ment_data%2Ffile%2F218005%2Farrests-recorded-crime-engl-wales-2006-07-b.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHuJUQXhI_jOJ_
mDpif6LV6y8QKag&sig2=j7X_tBWKEZDfrfDmeMYELA [Sample 2, data year 2005]
*Ministry of Justice. (2010). Statistics on women and the criminal justice system 2008-09. London, England: Author. Retrieved
from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217824/statistics-women-cjs-2010.
pdf [Sample 2, data year 2006 and 2007]
*Morris, A., Reilly, J., Berry, S., & Ransom, R. (2003). New Zealand national survey of crime victims, 2001. Wellington, New
Zealand: Ministry of Justice. [Sample 10, data year 2000]
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. (2007). ChildLine casenotes: Calls to ChildLine about sexual
abuse. London, England: Author.
Ogilvie, B. (2004). Mother-daughter incest: A guide for helping professionals. New York, NY: Haworth Maltreatment and
Trauma Press.
*Perreault, S., & Brennan, S. (2010). Criminal victimization in Canada, 2009 (No. 85-002-X). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm
[Sample 17, data year 2009]
Peter, T. (2009). Exploring taboos: Comparing male- and female-perpetrated child sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 24, 1111-1128.
Pflugradt, D., & Allen, B. (2012). A grounded theory analysis of sexual sadism in females. Journal of Sexual Aggression,
18, 325-337.
*Pieters, J., Italiano, P., Offermans, A.-M., & Hellemans, S. (2010). Les expériences des femmes et des hommes en matière
de violence psychologique, physique et sexuelle [The psychological, physical, and sexual victimization experiences of
women and men]. Bruxelles, Belgique: Institut pour l’égalité des femmes et des hommes [Institute for the equality of
women and men]. [Sample 6, data year 2009]
Saradjian, J. (2010). Understanding the prevalence of female-perpetrated sexual abuse & the impact of that abuse on victims.
In T. A. Gannon & F. Cortoni (Eds.), Female sexual offenders: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 9-30). Chichester,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Saradjian, J., & Hanks, H. (1996). Women who sexually abuse children: From research to clinical practice. New York, NY:
John Wiley.
Schulze, R. (2007). Current methods for meta-analysis: Approaches, issues, & developments. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/
Journal of Psychology, 215, 90-103. doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.90
*The Scottish Government. (2009a). Criminal proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2007-08. Edinburgh, Scotland: National
Statistics. [Sample 4, data year 2007]
*The Scottish Government. (2009b). Scottish crime and justice survey: Sexual victimisation and stalking, 2008-09. Edinburgh,
Scotland: National Statistics. [Sample 5, data year 2008]
*The Scottish Government. (2010a). Criminal proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2008-09. Edinburgh, Scotland: National
Statistics. [Sample 4, data year 2008]
*The Scottish Government. (2010b). Scottish crime and justice survey: Sexual victimisation and stalking, 2009-10. Edinburgh,
Scotland: National Statistics. [Sample 5, data year 2009]
*The Scottish Government. (2011a). Criminal proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2009-10. Edinburgh, Scotland: National
Statistics. [Sample 4, data year 2009]
*The Scottish Government. (2011b). Criminal proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2010-11. Edinburgh, Scotland: National
Statistics. [Sample 4, data year 2010]
*The Scottish Government. (2011c). Scottish crime and justice survey: Sexual victimisation and stalking, 2010-11. Edinburgh,
Scotland: National Statistics. [Sample 5, data year 2010]
*The Scottish Government. (2012). Criminal proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2011-12. Edinburgh, Scotland: National
Statistics. [Sample 4, data year 2011]
Sgroi, S. M., & Sargent, N. M. (1993). Impact and treatment issues for victims of childhood sexual abuse by female perpetra-
tors. In M. Elliott (Ed.), Female sexual abuse of children: The ultimate taboo (pp. 15-38). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Sinha, M. (2013). Measuring violence against women: Statistical trends (No. 85-002-X). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved
from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf
*Spanish Statistical Institute. (2008). Crime by type of sexual offence & sex of offender 2007. Retrieved from http://www.ine.
es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t18/p466/a2007/l1/&file=01001.px&type=pcaxis&L=1 [Sample 14, data year 2007]

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

18 Criminal Justice and Behavior

*Spanish Statistical Institute. (2009). Crime by type of sexual offence & sex of offender 2008. Retrieved from http://www.ine.
es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t18/p466/a2008/l1/&file=01001.px&type=pcaxis&L=1 [Sample 14, data year 2008]
*Spanish Statistical Institute. (2010). Crime by type of sexual offence & sex of offender 2009. Retrieved from http://www.ine.
es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t18/p466/a2009/l1/&file=01001.px&type=pcaxis&L=1 [Sample 14, data year 2009]
*Spanish Statistical Institute. (2011). Crime by type of sexual offence & sex of offender 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ine.
es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t18/p466/a2010/l1/&file=01001.px&type=pcaxis&L=1 [Sample 14, data year 2010]
*Spanish Statistical Institute. (2012). Crime by type of sexual offence & sex of offender 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ine.
es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t18/p466/a2011/l0/&file=01001.px&type=pcaxis&L=0 [Sample 14, data year 2011]
*Spanish Statistical Institute. (2013). Crime by type of sexual offence & sex of offender 2012. Retrieved from http://www.ine.
es/jaxi/tabla.do?path=/t18/p466/a2012/l1/&file=01001.px&type=pcaxis&L=1 [Sample 14, data year 2012]
*Statistics New Zealand. (2013). Dataset—Convicted offenders. Retrieved from http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.
aspx [Sample 11, data year 2000-2012]
*Statistics Norway. (2012). Total number of persons charged in each group of offence, by sex & age: Absolute figures (2010).
Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selectvarval/Define.asp?subjectcode=&ProductId=&MainTable
=Eforsk51&nvl=&PLanguage=1&nyTmpVar=true&CMSSubjectArea=sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet&KortNavnWeb
=lovbrudde&StatVariant=&checked=true [Sample 15, data year 2010]
*Statistics Norway. (2013). Total number of persons charged in each group of offence, by sex & age: Absolute figures (2011).
Retrieved from https://www.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/selectvarval/Define.asp?subjectcode=&ProductId=&MainTable
=Eforsk51&nvl=&PLanguage=1&nyTmpVar=true&CMSSubjectArea=sosiale-forhold-ogkriminalitet&KortNavnWeb
=lovbrudde&StatVariant= &checked=true [Sample 15, data year 2011]
Vandiver, D. M. (2006). Female sex offenders: A comparison of solo offenders & co-offenders. Violence and Victims, 21,
339-354.
Wijkman, M., Weerman, F., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2015). Group sexual offending by juvenile females. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 335-356.
Williams, K. S., & Bierie, D. M. (2015). An incident-based comparison of female and male sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse:
A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27, 235-257.

Franca Cortoni is associate professor at the School of Criminology of the Université de Montréal and research fellow at the
International Centre of Comparative Criminology. Her research focuses on recidivism, risk factors, and treatment issues
among male and female sexual offenders.

Kelly M. Babchishin is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research and the
Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. Her doctoral dissertation examined change in acute risk factors of sex offenders;
her current research involves identifying causal candidates for the onset of sexual offending. Her other research interests
include online sexual offending, pedophilia, and risk assessment.

Clémence Rat has a master’s degree in clinical and legal psychology from France and provides psychological services at the
Victoria Institute in Montreal. Her research interests focus on sexual violence, particularly female sexual offenders.

Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF OTTAWA LIBRARY on August 31, 2016

View publication stats