Research Briefs

Compiled by Nancy G. Calley, Ph.D., LPC

To continuously enhance knowledge related to juvenile sex offender management, brief summaries of recent research are provided. Complete reference information is provided so that individuals can locate the full article for review.

The Limitations of Risk Assessment with Juvenile Sex Offenders

This empirical study evaluated three assessment instruments designed to assess risk for sexual recidivism among juvenile sex offenders: the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II, the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool—II, and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth. Using the tools with 169 male juvenile sex offenders, none of the tools was significant in predicting sexual re-offenses. Total scores on the SAVRY and J-SOAP-II significantly predicted nonsexual violence and both instruments were more effective in predicting violent re-offending in youth over age 15. This study has particular importance with regard to the challenges inherent in predicting future sexual offending among juvenile sex offenders. The study provides further evidence that there continues to be an absence of well-validated tools for use in predicting risk of sexual recidivism among this population.

Viljoen, J.L., Scalora, M., Cuadra, L., Bader, S., Chavez, V., Ullman, D., and Lawrence,
L. (2008). Assessing risk for violence in adolescents who have sexually offended:
A comparison of the J-SOAP II, J-SORRAT-II, and SAVRY. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 35, 5-23.

Is Treatment Working for Some and Not for Others?

This comparative study examined recidivism rates between 249 juvenile sex offenders and 1,780 non-sex offending delinquents. In a 5 year follow–up period, no significant differences were found between the two groups of offenders on sexual recidivism with 6.8% of juvenile sex offenders having committed a new sexual offense compared to 5.7% for the non-sexual offenders. Juvenile sex offenders were ten times more likely to commit a non-sex offense opposed to a sex offense.

Caldwell, M.F. (2007). Sexual offense adjudication and sexual recidivism among juvenile offenders.
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 107-113.

Examining Patterns of Juvenile Offending

A Denmark study comparing the offending trajectories of juvenile sex offenders with non-sexual juvenile offenders found both between-group differences as well as within-group differences. Three types of juvenile sex offenders were included in the study: child molesters, rapists, and exhibitionists. Non-sexual juvenile offenders included both violent and property offenders.

Overall, juvenile sex offenders began their criminal career at an earlier age than their non-sexually offending peers. In an examination of differences between the sub-groups of juvenile sex offenders, the vast majority of juvenile child molesters and juvenile rapists began their criminal career with a sex offense, while exhibitionists were less likely to begin with a sexual offense. Viewing the pattern of offending behaviors, all three of the sub-groups tended to decrease their number of sexual offenses over time, while increasing their number of non-sexual offenses over time. Interestingly, juvenile rapists were more likely to move into violent crimes than were their sexual offending counterparts, possibly suggesting a broader context of anti-social behavior for this particular sub-group of juvenile sex offenders. In comparison, non-sexual offenders that initially engaged in violent crimes were more likely to replace violent crimes with non-violent property and public disorder crimes.

Overall, these findings reinforce earlier findings that juvenile sex offenders have a varied pattern of criminal behavior over time. As such, this research draws attention to the ongoing need to provide effective interventions to juvenile sex offenders that address both the sexual nature of sex crimes as well as the broader issue of behavioral challenges that may contribute to a pattern of antisocial development.

Bullens, R. van Wijk, A., & Mali, B. (2006). Similarities and differences between criminal careers of Dutch juvenile
sex offenders and non-sex offenders. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 12, 155-164.

How can you Really Assess Risk?

Whereas the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II (J-SOAP II) (Prentky & Righthand, 2005) has been increasingly used to assess risk among juvenile sex offenders, the validity of this and other actuarial-like tools is questioned in a recent study. Smith, Wampler, Jones, and Reifman (2005) point out that because this type of assessment tool attempts to assess change as both a function of treatment and a risk of recidivism following treatment, it is not adequate for use with juvenile sex offenders that have not been previously involved in the juvenile justice system as this population will not have relevant static (historic) or dynamic (treatment history) risk factors. As an alternate method of risk assessment, a comprehensive approach is offered that includes a small battery of psychological tests to assess such areas as family cohesion, aggression, self-esteem, impulsivity, social avoidance and sexual fantasy combined with interviews with family members, juvenile officers and treatment workers and other relevant sources of information about the juvenile. Drawn from previous juvenile sex offender literature, six static risk factors are identified that include high-risk offense history, prior sexual offense, sexual abuse, substance abuse, behavior problems, and unstable home life. These risk factors are found to be meaningful in distinguishing juvenile sex offenders in level of risk.

This study draws attention to several issues related to the assessment of juvenile sex offenders that include:

1) the need to use a variety of assessment methods in evaluating risk of sexual recidivism,

2) the need to ensure that multiple informants are involved in the assessment process (e.g., teachers, caregivers, probation workers, previous clinicians), and

3) empirically-identified characteristics of juvenile sex offenders can be indicative of a progression of more serious sexual offending behavior. As with all discussions of risk assessment, caution must be taken to ensure that classification methods do not prohibit understanding of unique individual differences that need to be addressed through individual treatment planning.

Smith, S., Wampler, R., Jones, J., & Reifman, A. (2005). Differences in self-report
measures by adolescent sex offender risk group. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49, 82-106.

Sex Offender Registration: Differences between Registered Juvenile and Adult Sex Offenders

Since Megan’s Law was implemented in 1996 requiring offenders of specific sex crimes to register, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the impact of the law on juvenile sex offenders. In order to gain further knowledge in this area, Craun and Kernsmith (2006) examined 2004 data from the Texas Registry. A number of similarities and differences were found between the adult and juvenile offenders. In terms of similarities, 98% of both groups were male and the overwhelming majority were White (79% of adults and 75% of juveniles).

Differences between the groups included the following:

Juveniles were classified as higher risk than adults (risk determined by State of Texas),
there were significantly more Black juvenile offenders than Black adult offenders, of the offenders with multiple offenses,
juveniles had committed significantly more offenses than adults, juveniles were most likely to have committed aggravated sexual assault whereas adults were most likely to have committed indecency with a child (36%),
and males were more likely to be victimized by juvenile offenders (34%) than adult offenders (11%).

This analysis uncovers some interesting issues related to juvenile sex offending and the Sex Offender Registration Law (SOR). One of particular interest is that differential criteria may be used in dispositional decision-making regarding juvenile and adult sex offenders. Juvenile sex offenders that were registered tended to be those that were identified as higher risk than their adult counterparts as well as those with a more extensive sexual offending history. This may suggest that even though the legislation pertains to both juvenile and adult sex offenders, differential application of the law may be used as a method to continuously promote the stark ideological differences between the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

Craun, S.W. & Kernsmith, P.D. (2006). Juvenile offenders and sex offender registries:
Examining the data behind the debate. Federal Probation, 70, 45-49.