Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Academic Writing Services
Criminal Justice > Criminal Psychology > Criminal Risk Assessment > Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment

Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment




According to the most recent estimates by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, there were a total of 1.32 million juvenile arrests in 2012. Of these juveniles, 12,400 were arrested for sex offenses. The largest proportion of perpetrators of juvenile sex offenses reported each year are male (90%) and White (72%) adolescents. Although sex offenders represent a small proportion of offender populations, protecting individuals from sex crimes and providing early interventions for sex offenders have been an ongoing concern among the general public and policy makers.




A growing area of interests within the field of corrections is risk assessment. The goal of risk assessment is to provide correctional practitioners (e.g., probation officers, juvenile court officers) and judges with information concerning an offender’s potential risk of committing future crimes. The adoption and use of proper risk assessments for juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) means that correctional practitioners will be informed about rehabilitation needs of JSOs, which in turn may reduce risk of reoffending through adulthood. Research suggests that JSOs are distinct from adult sex offenders. For example, JSOs have fewer victims, engage in less aggressive acts of violence, are less likely to have victims that are strangers, and are more likely to be involved in illegal sexual behavior as the result of curiosity and experimentation. Given that there are potentially different factors that predict sex crimes for adults, it is critical for juvenile courts to use risk assessments that address the unique needs of juveniles who engage in illegal sexual activity.

The Use of Risk Assessments for Juvenile Offenders

The use of risk assessments has a long history in justice system practice that started with the adult justice system. Risk assessments for juvenile offenders are one-way juvenile practitioners who systematically identify the presence and severity of key static (stable over time) and dynamic (changing) criminogenic risk factors that may lead to ongoing delinquent behavior. Examples of static criminogenic risk factors include criminal history, family criminality, and age at first offense, whereas examples of dynamic criminogenic risk factors include peer relationships, education, and involvement in antisocial activities. By examining static and dynamic risk factors using standardized measurements, juvenile courts can not only determine a juvenile’s probability of reoffending but also identify specific programs that may reduce criminogenic risk. Further, these tools also provide courts with a system to track a youth’s progress based on the services and treatment received.

Static and dynamic risk factors typically fall within one of eight central areas that predict  general delinquency (i.e., assault, shoplifting, theft, breaking and entering). These central eight  criminogenic risk areas measured by general risk assessments include antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression), antisocial personality (e.g., impulsive/ lacks self-control), cognition (e.g., antisocial beliefs), antisocial peers (e.g., delinquent peers), family (e.g., lack of supervision or poor quality relationships with parents), school/work (e.g., problems at school), leisure/recreation (e.g., use of free time), and substance abuse (e.g., alcohol and drug use). While these eight areas have been useful for estimating a juvenile’s risk of involvement in general delinquency, some criminologists and psychologists have questioned the utility of these risk areas for predicting future sex offenses. As a result, specific risk assessment tools have been developed to predict sex offenses to capture risk factors uniquely associated with illegal sexual behavior.

Specialized Risk Assessments for JSOs

Past research shows that general risk assessments are effective in determining whether or not nonJSOs or JSOs will be involved in general delinquency; however, research is both scant and mixed concerning how well general assessments correctly identify juveniles at risk of a future sex offense. Although general risk assessments capture some factors that are relevant to JSOs (e.g., impulsive behaviors and antisocial attitudes), these assessments do not assess characteristics unique to sex offenders (e.g., deviant sexual interests, access to victims, and sexual preoccupation). As a result, general risk assessments fail to gather information necessary to guide treatment plans of JSOs.

Once a JSO is adjudicated/sentenced due to some illegal sexual behavior, a juvenile court officer (i.e., probation officers) and judge must identify which rehabilitation efforts will best benefit JSO. JSO risk assessments have provided decision makers with the opportunity to make standardized recommendations concerning treatment needs and level of services. To identify the risk and needs of a JSO and accurately predict persistence of sex offending, assessors should focus on a juvenile’s past and current sexual behaviors, experiences, and belief systems. Commonly measured static risk factors on JSO assessments include history of sexual abuse and victimization, history of sexual violence against others, history of antisocial behavioral problems, and history of sex offender treatment program experiences. Dynamic factors commonly measured by JSO risk assessments include the following: sexual attitudes and deviant sexual interest, poor social connections with others and underdeveloped social skills, low levels of empathy for others, antisocial personality, n egative psychosocial functioning, negative family functioning, negative environmental conditions, social isolation, and poor parent–child relationships. Given the link between these aforementioned risk factors and sexual deviance observed among JSOs, these risk factors have been the starting place for many sex offender assessments used by courts today. As more research is conducted in this area, there will be increased opportunities for courts to better understand which static and dynamic factors are most meaningful in the assessment of JSOs.

Commonly Used JSO Risk Assessments

The two most common JSO risk assessments with promising ability to predict a future sex offense and highlight target risk areas critical for reducing sexual recidivism include the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) and the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR). The J-SOAP-II, the most popular JSO assessment, is comprised of 28 items that are divided into four subcategories: sexual drive  preoccupation, impulsive/antisocial behaviors, interventions, and community stability/adjustment. The ERASOR includes 25 items that fall within five subcategories: sexual interests, attitudes and behaviors, historical sexual assaults, psychosocial functioning, family/environmental functioning, and treatment. Although there is great overlap between the subcategories of the J-SOAP-II and ERASOR, empirical evidence concerning validity and utility of these measures is mixed.

Research concerning the accuracy and validity of JSO assessments shows some promise in predicting sexual recidivism. In the case of a JSO, the goal of juvenile court probation officers and judges is to determine how well an assessment can predict future crime. The ability for an assessment to perform over and above chance suggest that the standardized measure outperforms professional decision-making or a hunch. The use of validation studies provides practitioners with information concerning how valid risk assessment tools are in predicting future crime.

One of the largest validation studies on the J-SOAP-II suggests that this instrument has good internal consistency, meaning the measurement items are closely related to the same phenomenon (i.e., sexual recidivism). The JSOAP-II has also been identified as a measure that has both construct validity (i.e., the extent to which items measure what they claim to measure) and predictive validity (i.e., the extent to which scores predict future behavior) for future sex offenses. Further, one validation study found that the J-SOAP-II total score was also a significant predictor of general recidivism. This means that J-SOAP-II was able to identify those juveniles who had an increased likelihood of coming in contact with the juvenile justice system for general offenders as well as sex offenders about 33% above chance. While the J-SOAP-II shows some promise, some studies found that the J-SOAP-II barely performs as well as chance.

Similarly, research is promising yet mixed with regard to the validity of the ERASOR. Research studies on the ERASOR also have inconsistent reviews. While some studies indicate that the ERASOR has shown some promise in predicting sexual recidivism (14% above chance), other studies have reported estimating future recidivism as low as 4% above chance. These findings suggest that there is still room for improvement in identifying the factors most relevant to predicting future sex offending among juvenile populations. Given studies concerning the validity of these assessments are limited, increasing research in this area will allow courts to increase their ability to identify risk and intervention needs for JSOs.

Shortcomings of JSO Risk Assessments

One limitation of studies that have tested if JSO risk assessment instruments are valid predictors of future sex crimes is that these studies are conducted on very small samples of juveniles. For instance, current validation studies have examined the predictive validity of sex offender risk assessment among small samples of juveniles of mostly male offenders. In addition to small sample sizes, there is also a low base rate by which sex crimes are committed and reported. Low base rates in occurrence and reporting make it difficult to determine the factors that matter most in predicting future sex crimes. As a result, there is still much to learn concerning the factors that predict sex offending.

Further, of the validation studies that exist, many risk assessment tools are tested with juveniles who have been found guilty by the court and placed in a residential treatment program. This is problematic because excluding community- supervised JSOs who may not share the same characteristics as those in residential facilities may lead to a misunderstanding of risk factors that predict future sex offenses. Given that the initial purpose of risk assessments is to use risk factor information to guide treatment plans prior to placement, more studies are needed that examine all juveniles who are involved in the juvenile court due to a sex offense charge prior to adjudication (i.e., sentencing).

Finally, other studies show variation in predictive validity across demographic characteristics such as gender and age. For example, there is evidence to suggest that these tools are better predictors for older offenders and male offenders. These observations are likely due to the small number of girls and younger juveniles involved in and/or being reported for a sex crime. While low rates of involvement in sex crimes are good, identifying appropriate measures for JSOs will take more time. For JSO risk assessments to be seen as accurate mechanisms to predict future sex offenses, it is important that these instruments be validated on larger and more diverse populations (e.g., girls, different age groups, residential and nonresidential samples).

Conclusion

In all, while the utility of these assessment tools appears promising, more evidence is needed to say with confidence that these tools should be used in practice for various subpopulations of JSOs (e.g., by gender, race/ethnicity, and incarcerated vs. community supervised JSOs). The policy implications concerning assessing JSOs are vast, and adopting risk assessment practices for decisionmaking about JSOs should be informed by empirically validated research. If courts adopt JSO assessment tools, they must correctly assess level of risk of recidivism and intervention needs and validate the assessments for their population to ensure accuracy.

The use of risk assessments for JSOs is just one step toward addressing the unique needs of juveniles engaged in illegal sexual behaviors. If courts are able to identify key static and dynamic risk factors that impact JSOs, the likelihood of reoffending, and particularly sex crimes, can be substantially decreased. Further, courts would have the opportunity to create new prevention and intervention programs that may best reduce the likelihood a sex offense would occur by targeting dynamic needs unique to JSO populations.

References:

  1. Andrews, D. A., & James, B. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39–55. doi:10.1037/ a0018362
  2. Barbaree, H., & Marshall, W. (2008). The juvenile sex offender. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  3. Hempel, I., Buck, N., Cima, M., & Van Marle, H. (2013). Review of risk assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders: What is next? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(2), 208–228. doi:10.1177/0306624X11428315
  4. Knight, R. A., & Sims-Knight, J. E. (2014). Assessment of dynamic treatment targets for juveniles who sexually offend. In D. Bromberg & W. O’Donohue (Eds.), Toolkit for working with juvenile sex offenders. Practical resources for the mental health professional (pp. 29–68). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
  5. Långström, N., & Grann, M. (2000). Risk for criminal recidivism among young sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(8), 855–871.
  6. Letourneau, E. J., & Miner, M. H. (2005). Juvenile sex offenders: A case against the legal and clinical status quo. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(3), 293–312. doi:10.1177/107906320501700304
  7. Martinez, R., Flores, J., & Rosenfeld, B. (2007). Validity of the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) in a sample of urban minority youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(10), 1284–1295. McCuish, E. C., Lussier, P., & Corrado, R. R. (2015). Examining antisocial behavioral antecedents of juvenile sexual offenders and juvenile non-sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 27(4), 414–438.
  8. Murphy, W. D., Haynes, M. R., & Page, I. J. (2013). Adolescent sex offenders. In W. O’Donohue, & J. Geer (Eds.), The sexual abuse of children: Volume II: Clinical issues (pp. 394–429). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  9. Prentky, R., Harris, B., Frizzell, K., & Righthand, S. (2000). An actuarial procedure for assessing risk with juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12(2), 71–93. doi:10.1177/107906320001200201
  10. Rich, P. (2009). Juveniles who commit sexual offenses: A comprehensive guide to risk evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  11. Schwalbe, C. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449–462. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9071-7
  12. Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (Eds.). (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.
  13. Tully, R. J., Chou, S., & Browne, K. D. (2013). A systematic review on the effectiveness of sex offender risk assessment tools in predicting sexual recidivism of adult male sex offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(2), 287–316.
  14. Viljoen, J. L., Elkovitch, N., Scalorax, M. J., & Ullman, D. (2009). Assessment of re-offense risk in adolescents who have committed sexual offenses. Predictive validity of the ERASOR, PCL: YV, YLS/CMI, and Static-99. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 981–1000.
  15. Vincent, G. M., Guy, L. S., & Grisso, T. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. New York, NY: Models for Change.
  16. Waite, D., Keller, A., McGarvey, E. L., Wieckowski, E., Pinkerton, R., & Brown, G. L. (2005). Juvenile sex offender re-arrest rates for sexual, violent nonsexual and property crimes: A 10-year follow-up. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(3), 313–331. doi:10.1177/107906320501700305
  17. Worling, J. R., & Langstrom, N. (2006). Risk of sexual recidivism in adolescents who sexually offend. In H. Barbaree & W. L. Marshall (Eds.), The juvenile sex offender (2nd ed., pp. 219–247). New York, NY: Guilford Press.