Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: null; date: 13 August 2020

The juvenile sex offender: Criminal Careers and Recidivism Risk

Abstract and Keywords

Juvenile sexual offending is often regarded as a precursor of serious and continued sexual offending in adulthood, but there has been little empirical evidence supporting this assumption. Could juvenile sexual offending be just a ‘passing phase’? The study discussed in this essay follows the criminal career about 1,600 juvenile sex offenders from early adolescence into adulthood. A comprehensive view of the entire criminal career is presented to establish whether juvenile sexual offending is a precursor of continued (sexual) offending in adulthood or if (sexual) offending is non-chronic for most. The sexual recidivists in the sample are identified, and this group is used to establish the risk factors associated with continued sexual offending. These risk factors are compared to the ones used in risk assessment instruments for (juvenile) sex offenders. This study holds crucial information for policy and theory regarding juvenile sex offenders.

Keywords: empirical evidence, juvenile sex offenders, risk factors, sexual recidivists, theory

Risk assessment in juvenile sex offenders is compromised by the fact that little conclusive evidence exists on risk factors that predict sexual recidivism. It has been difficult to find such evidence because, given the low sexual recidivism rates, very large samples are required. In addition, extant studies have employed varying definitions and follow-up periods and over-relied on clinical samples. This study identifies factors associated with desistance, general (non-sexual) recidivism, and sexual recidivism in a group of 1,525 juvenile sex offenders at moderate risk of reoffending who were followed for an average of almost 10 years.

At 7.7 per cent, the sexual recidivism rate is low, and the general recidivism rate (68 per cent) is much higher. Most sexual reoffending occurs before age 20 and entails mainly rape and sexual assault. Sexual recidivism is associated with low educational performance, conduct disorder, and aggression regulation problems. No associations are found with offender typology or with factors associated with sexual deviance. The main points of this study are as follows:

  • Juvenile sex offenders mainly commit their offences (all offending) in youth.

  • About 8 per cent of juvenile sex offenders reoffend sexually.

  • This continuation of sexual offending (in adulthood) is part of an active and versatile criminal career.

  • Only psychological deficits and educational level were found to predict sexual reoffending, but effects were not very strong.

  • Different subgroups may be associated with different risk factors for sexual recidivism.

(p. 221) This essay is organized as following. After an introduction in section I, section II discusses empirical and theoretical accounts of the criminal career parameters found for juvenile sex offenders. Risk factors associated with sexual reoffending are discussed in section III. Section IV looks at heterogeneity within the group of juvenile sex offenders. In section V the methodology of the study reviewed in this essay is described, followed by the results section (section VI). The final section consists of the conclusion and discussion of findings.

I. Researching Juvenile Sex Offending

Criminological research has shown that some of those who offend in their youth continue to do so in adulthood (Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2003). Specifically, juvenile sexual offending is often regarded as a precursor of continued sexual offending in adulthood. This widely held belief ‘once a sex offender, always a sex offender’ is also reflected in the strict criminal justice policies for sexual offenders implemented in various countries. Most of these policies apply to both juveniles and adults, reflecting this continuity hypothesis, which implies that today’s juvenile sex offenders will be tomorrow’s adult sex offenders. Recently, however, an increasing number of studies have challenged this continuity hypothesis (Nisbet et al. 2004; Vandiver 2006; Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings 2007; Zimring et al. 2009; Van den Berg, Bijleveld, and Hendriks 2011; Lussier et al. 2012; Lussier and Blokland 2014). These mostly prospective longitudinal studies showed that actually relatively few juvenile sex offenders reoffend sexually in adulthood. This would indicate that sexual offending is more of a ‘passing phase’ rather than an announcement of chronicity.

However, it appears that some juvenile sex offenders do become chronic sex offenders, in line with theories that postulate heterogeneity in juvenile sex offenders (Groth 1977). And while various classification schemes for juvenile sex offenders have been proposed, little is known about this small group of offenders who continue sexual offending into adulthood. Part of this knowledge gap may be due to the fact that the subset of offenders who do continue to offend appears to be only a very small proportion of all juvenile sex offenders; therefore, very large samples may be required to investigate them in sufficient detail. Also, many studies investigating juvenile sex offenders had follow-up periods that were too short (Caldwell 2010).

The current study aims to increase our knowledge of the criminal career development of juvenile sex offenders, and specifically to investigate those who persist in sexual offending. Using a large sample of 1,525 juvenile sex offenders, this study will first present a comprehensive view of the entire criminal career (onset, frequency, variety in offending and desistance) to establish the extent to which juvenile sexual offending is a precursor of continued sexual offending in adulthood. Second, the sexual recidivists in the sample will be identified, and we will investigate risk factors that are associated with continued sexual offending. Lastly, risk factors identified by risk assessment instruments (p. 222) will be compared to risk factors for the current sample of juvenile sex offenders. This comparison is vital because a valid assessment of the risk of sexual recidivism for a juvenile sex offender contributes not only to protecting the public but also to ensuring that the rights and welfare of juvenile sex offenders are protected. Therefore, this study holds crucial information for policy, risk assessment, and theory development regarding juvenile sex offenders.

II. The Criminal Career of Juvenile Sex Offenders

The criminal career approach is aimed at describing and explaining continuity of offending over the different stages across the life course. For the general offender population, criminal career studies showed that early-onset offending may be related to persistent and serious offending over the life course (Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2003). Therefore, it is not surprising that juvenile sex offending is often regarded as a precursor to adult sex offending. The criminal career approach has only recently been applied in the study of juvenile sex offenders, describing and explaining persistence and versatility in offending and desistance from (sexual) offending (e.g., Laws and Ward 2011; Lussier and Blokland 2014). Most empirical evidence so far has found that discontinuity in sexual offending is the norm for juvenile sex offenders (Lussier and Blokland 2014). Only a small group of juvenile sex offenders reoffend sexually after the initial sexual offence (e.g., Fortune and Lambie 2006; Caldwell 2010). On average, sexual reoffending rates were found to average 10 per cent (e.g., Fortune and Lambie 2006; Vandiver 2006; Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings 2007; Zimring et al. 2009; Caldwell 2010; Lussier et al. 2012), although they vary considerably across studies. For example, in a review of six studies on recidivism rates, Fortune and Lambie (2006) found sexual reoffending rates to range from 0 per cent to 42 per cent. In a review and meta-analysis of 63 datasets including 11,219 juvenile sex offenders, Caldwell (2010) found the sexual recidivism rates to vary between 0 per cent and 18 per cent. This sizeable variation in sexual reoffending rates may be due to different follow-up periods, differences in the measurement of the sexual reoffending, and differences in the characteristics of study samples (Worling and Långström 2006).

The follow-up period is of interest here as it informs us whether sexual reoffending continues into adulthood or whether any sexual reoffending is also part of an adolescence-limited criminal career (see Moffitt 1993). Caldwell (2010) separated the overall average sexual recidivism rate of 7.08 per cent into adult sexual reoffending and juvenile sexual reoffending. For adult reoffending Caldwell (2010) found 20 studies that had an average sexual recidivism rate of 6.5 per cent over a follow-up of 73.8 months (SD = 46.5). Within studies that focused on juvenile sexual reoffending only, Caldwell (2010) found 15 studies with an average follow-up of 30.5 months (SD = 10.2) (p. 223) (or approximately 2.5 years) and a sexual recidivism rate of 9.9 per cent. The follow-up period as well as the reoffending rates differed significantly between the adult and juvenile reoffending group. For the adult group, longer follow-up periods were associated with lower sexual reoffending rates. Caldwell (2010) explained this difference by assuming that changes in the developmental stages (from adolescence to young adulthood and adulthood) influence sexual behaviour. In a large birth cohort study, Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings (2007) found the prevalence for adult sex offending to be 3.2 per cent (n = 99). Of the 99 male adult sex offenders in this study, 8.5 per cent had been adjudicated for a juvenile sex offence. Therefore, Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings (2007) concluded that, in general, a juvenile sex offence is not a precursor of adult sexual offending. The best predictor of adult sexual offending was in fact found to be the number of all police contacts (i.e., for any crime) as a juvenile. In a more recent study, Lussier and Blokland (2014) focused on whether juvenile sex offenders become adult sex offenders. Again, a small subgroup of about 5 per cent of the juvenile sex offenders were found to continue sexual offending in young adulthood. The individuals in this group were characterized by the highest number of arrests for both sexual and non-sexual offending during the follow-up period. Lussier and Blokland (2014) noted that this finding underlines versatility in the criminal career of this small group.

These studies show, all in all, that juvenile sexual offending appears to only rarely extend into adulthood. Those who do reoffend sexually appear to be characterized by frequent overall offending and thus an overall serious criminal career (see Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings 2007; Lussier and Blokland 2014). As such, juvenile sex offending and specifically continuation of sexual offending in adulthood might be, rather than part of a specialized sexual offending career, associated with general anti-social tendencies (Van der Put et al. 2013). As such tendencies are shared with many other offenders, most of them non-sexual, this raises the question of what other characteristics are predictive of repeated sexual offending that may extend into adulthood.

III. Risk Factors Associated with Sexual Reoffending

Identifying the risk factors associated with sexual reoffending is crucial for judicial and clinical practice: assessing the likelihood of a juvenile’s risk of recidivism is important when deciding on an appropriate punishment or treatment. Many experts have, however, stressed the difficulty of assessing the risk of sexual reoffending among juveniles due to the different developmental stages these youths may be in (e.g., Prentky and Righthand 2003). Within the empirical literature it is emphasized that different developmental stages in life are associated with different risk factors (e.g., Worling and Långström 2006). Juveniles move through particularly turbulent and critical stages in life (adolescence), characterized by rapid and substantial psychological, biological, and (p. 224) social changes. These changes cause the risk factors for sexual reoffending to change in a similarly rapid pace, complicating the assessment of the risk of sexual reoffending.

Sexual reoffending risk is still frequently appraised through clinical assessment. However, such clinical assessments are generally regarded as lacking transparency and replicability (Worling and Långström 2006). Standardized risk assessment instruments have supplemented clinical assessment, as these are regarded as much more ‘objective’ and transparent. For the prediction of juvenile sexual reoffending risk these instruments have not performed well: their predictive validity is low, possible because most have been built from instruments for adults that focus on risk factors relevant in adulthood instead of in adolescence (Viljoen et al. 2008; Knight, Ronis, and Zakireh 2009). Viljoen and colleagues (2008) examined and compared the performance of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool II (J-SORRAT-II), the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II) in predicting violent and sexual reoffending risk in youths convicted of and treated for a sexual offence. All three instruments employ different factors to estimate the recidivism risk. The J-SORRAT-II is focused on the static factors of past victimization, offence, treatment, and school history, while the SAVRY and the J-SOAP-II employ static as well as dynamic items. Predicting the risk of general violent reoffending is the aim of the SAVRY, so that the scales focus on general historical factors (e.g., offending) and environmental and individual characteristics (e.g., impulsiveness, parental monitoring). The J-SOAP-II aims to predict sexual reoffending and is therefore more focused on sex drive and preoccupations and on the manner in which this drive is negotiated. In addition, the J-SOAP-II employs measures of impulsive anti-social behaviour and the so-called measure of intervention (e.g., are there feelings of guilt?). This diversity in the items and scales used, across and within instruments, illustrates how much is still unclear about sexual offending risk assessment for juveniles.

Viljoen and colleagues (2008) found that none of the tools significantly predicted sexual reoffending, while the J-SOAP-II and the SAVRY predict non-sexual violent reoffending. The most important finding was that age at the sexual offence seemed to influence the predictive ability of the instruments. This underlines once more that age and the associated developmental stage are characterized by different risk factors. A risk assessment instrument that is possibly less affected by the influence of age is the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism (ERASOR), which estimates the short-term risk of reoffending (maximum of 1 year risk assessment) (Worling and Curwen 2000). This instrument was built from an adult risk assessment instrument and employs five scales: sexual interests and attitudes, historical sexual assaults, psychosocial functioning, environmental variables, and treatment. In a literature review, Hempel and colleagues (2013) found the ERASOR and the J-SOAP-II to be the most accurate in predicting short-term sexual reoffending compared to the SAVRY, J-SORRAT-II, the Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale (JRAS), and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV). However the predictive validity of the J-SOAP-II and ERASOR for long-term sexual recidivism was still found to be insufficient (Hempel et al. 2013).

(p. 225) In a bid to shed more light on the risk factors for sexual reoffending, Worling and Långström (2006) reviewed empirical literature published between 1980 and 2002 concerning risk factors for sexual reoffending among juvenile sex offenders. Factors were classified into four categories: supported, promising, probable, and unlikely risk factors. The risk factors for sexual reoffending with strongest empirical support included deviant sexual interests, prior sanctions for sexual offending, sexual offending against multiple victims, social isolation, uncompleted offence-specific treatment, and sexual offending against a stranger victim. Markedly, most of these factors are offence related (e.g., prior sanctions for sexual offending, sexual offending against multiple victims, or a stranger victim). While these five risk factors have empirical support, Worling and Långström (2006) also identified promising risk factors in need of better empirical grounding: problematic parent–adolescent relationships and attitudes supportive of sexual offending. A more recent systematic review by McCann and Lussier (2008) of risk factors associated with sexual reoffending by juvenile sex offenders reported on ‘consistently supported’ factors, such as a history of sexual offending, deviant sexual interests, and sexual offending against a stranger victim. McCann and Lussier (2008) also found a younger age at the sexual offence to be associated with an increased likelihood of sexual reoffending. Contrary to the findings of Worling and Långström (2006), McCann and Lussier (2008) found previous non-sexual offending, male and child victims, and the use of threats to predict sexual reoffending. Again, these are offence-related characteristics.

In summary, we see that the literature and risk assessment practice have proposed a broad array of factors that may be associated with sexual reoffending. Very little consistent support has been found for factors that may be regarded as part and parcel of the aetiology of sexual offending. Only factors that may be regarded as a marker for sexual deviance and offending-related characteristics have been found to play a role. The fact that so little empirical progress has been made in this regard is not surprising given the methodological limitations of most studies, such as short follow-up periods and small research samples (Spice et al. 2013). The study discussed in this essay is less burdened by such issues, as the study sample consists of 1,525 juvenile sex offenders followed over a period of an average of almost 10 years, well into adulthood. This study assessed the extent to which a large number of characteristics of juvenile sex offenders measured in adolescence predict sexual reoffending.

IV. Heterogeneity in Juvenile Sex Offenders

Juvenile sex offenders were found to constitute a heterogeneous group, consisting of a number of distinct groups with different aetiologies and risk profiles that lead to different criminal careers (e.g., Becker 1998). Various typologies for juvenile sex offenders (p. 226) have been proposed in the empirical literature. Some of these typologies have been based on underlying motivation for the sex offence (e.g., Knight and Prentky 1993), offending history (e.g., Butler and Seto 2002), personality profiles (e.g., Worling 2001), or offending characteristics (e.g., Långström and Grann 2000; Bijleveld and Hendriks 2003; Hunter et al. 2003). The classification based on offending characteristics has received most attention in empirical research, specifically the typology based on victim age (child abuser and peer abuser) and that based on the distinction between those who committed the offence alone or with at least one co-offender (solo offenders and group offenders).

Juvenile sex offenders who abused a child (child abusers) and those who abused a peer or adult (peer abuser) were found to differ not only on offending characteristics but also on personality profiles. For instance, child abusers were found to lack social skills and to have low levels of self-esteem compared to peer abusers (Hunter et al. 2003). Similar results were found by Gunby and Woodhams (2010), as the child abusers in their sample experienced deficits in self-esteem and greater social isolation. Also, it has been reported that the prevalence of disorders (e.g., pervasive developmental disorders, neuroticism and psychopathology scores) is higher for those who abused a child than for those who abused a peer (e.g., Van Wijk 1999; Van Wijk et al. 2005; Hendriks 2006). The groups of peer and child abusers were also found to differ in recidivism risk. Hagan and colleagues (2001) compared 50 peer abusers with 50 child abusers and 50 persons convicted of offences other than sexual ones and found child abusers to display significantly higher rates of sexual recidivism. Hendriks (2006) also found that reoffending rates were associated with the juvenile sex offender type. In summary, child and peer abusers were found to differ on risk factors such as offending characteristics and personality profiles, and child abusers were found to have significantly higher sexual recidivism rates. Therefore, the continuity of sexual offending might differ between these groups, implying that distinct treatment and prevention programmes might be suitable for these subtypes (Hunter et al. 2003; Hendriks 2006).

The second offending-based classification is derived from the finding that a substantial number of all juvenile offences are committed in a group. For juvenile sex offenders several studies looked into the difference between juveniles who committed the sexual offence alone (solo offenders) and those who committed the offence with at least one co-offender (group offenders). Overall, group offenders were found to have relatively normative personality profiles (e.g., Bijleveld and Hendriks 2003; Bijleveld et al. 2007), although intelligence and school achievements were often below average (Bijleveld et al. 2007; ‘t Hart-Kerkhoffs et al. 2011). Group offenders had less sexual offending in their criminal history than solo offenders did (Bijleveld et al. 2007).

All in all, the most comprehensive typology with the most empirical support appears to be the typology developed by Hendriks (2006). In this typology Hendriks (2006) distinguished between three groups of juvenile sex offenders: those who sexually abused a child with no co-offenders (solo child abusers), those who abused a peer without a co-offender (solo peer abusers), and those who committed a sexual offence (p. 227) with at least one co-offender (group offenders). Empirically, these three groups are distinct in terms of offending characteristics, personality profiles, and recidivism rates (Hendriks 2006).

V. Method

This section describes the methodology of the study reviewed in this essay. First the sample is introduced, followed by the measures and data used, and finally the analytical strategy employed.

A. Sample

The sample consisted of 1,525 male juvenile sex offenders (see Table 12.1 for the descriptive statistics of the sample). All were convicted of or had confessed to at least one (p. 228) contact sexual offence (physical contact between perpetrator and victim), committed between 1985 and 2009. The sample members’ age at the sampling offence ranged from 10 to 18 years, with an average of 14.7 years (SD = 1.5). In total, the sample members committed 1,715 sexual offences that were regarded as ‘sampling offences’; because the sample consisted of 1,525 offenders, some of them committed more than one sexual offence that was regarded as the sampling offence. These sampling offences also comprised 125 accounts of indecent exposure (7.3 per cent), a non-contact sexual offence, but all of them were committed in addition to a contact sexual offence. Six hundred thirty of the juvenile sex offenders in the sample (36.7 per cent) had committed indecent assault for a sampling offence. For 607 (35.4 per cent), the sampling offence was rape. For 353 (20.6 per cent), the sample offence was sexual acts with children (in the following sections we will refer to this offence as sexual abuse).

Table 12.1 Descriptive sample statistics

Indicators

N

M (SD)

Percentage

Age at final assessment

25.7 (4.8)

Age at sampling offence

14.7 (1.5)

Ethnicity

   Western

1,142

74.9

   Non-Western

336

22.0

Treatment

   Screening

209

13.7

   Outpatient

345

22.6

   Inpatient

213

14.0

   Educational programme

758

49.7

Offender type

   Child abuser

518

34.0

   Peer abuser

666

43.7

   Group offender

341

22.3

Sampling offence

   Rape

607

35.4

   Indecent assault

630

36.7

   Sexual assault

353

20.6

   Indecent exposure

125

7.3

The mean follow-up period was 9.9 years (SD = 4.6), at the end of which the sample members were between the ages of 13 and 42 years (average of 25.7 years; SD = 4.8). For the sampling offence, 14 per cent (n = 213) received treatment in an inpatient judicial treatment institution for juveniles, 22.6 per cent (n = 345) received treatment in an outpatient treatment facility, and 49.7 per cent (n = 758) followed a mandatory educational programme. The remaining 209 sample members (13.7 per cent) were only screened at an outpatient treatment facility and did not receive any additional treatment.

The sample members were classified according to the Hendriks (2006) typology by dividing the juvenile sex offenders into three groups: child abusers, peer abusers, and group offenders. The first group, ‘child abusers’, contained juveniles who had been convicted for abusing a pre-pubertal child at least five years younger. This group contained 518 sample members (34.0 per cent). The second group, ‘peer abusers’, were youths convicted for a sexual offence against a victim their own age or older. This group contained 666 juvenile sex offenders (43.7 per cent). The last group, ‘group offenders’, committed their sexual offence with at least one co-offender (n = 341, 22.4 per cent). The classification was based on the treatment or screening file information. When there was no information in the treatment files, the judicial documentation was used to assess the offender type.

Before the end of the follow-up period, 10 sample members had died and 37 had emigrated (according to the Dutch Municipal Personal Records Database [GBA]). No significant differences were found between the 47 censored individuals and other sample members with regard to demographic and study variables.

B. Measures

Three data sources were consulted for this study: treatment files, judicial documentation, and GBA. The use of the various data sources was approved by the Netherlands Ministry of Security and Justice for the use of the judicial documentation and the treatment files, and from the Netherlands Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations for the use of the GBA.

(p. 229) 1. Treatment Files

During treatment and screening, a wide variety of therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists collected information on the sample members using validated standardized measurement instruments. This information was collected in so-called treatment files (if the juvenile had been treated residentially) or screening files (when screening or treatment had taken place in an outpatient centre). The information in the files was multidisciplinary: information on developmental, psychological, environmental, background, treatment, and judicial variables is included. Trained researchers extracted and coded the scores on the validated measurement instruments (e.g., the Adolescent Temperament List and the Netherlands Personality Questionnaire-Youth, and for intelligence, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised for the Netherlands or the Raven Progressive Matrices) into interpretable norm values. For information on the scoring instrument and interrater reliability, see Hendriks (2006).

From the treatment files we extracted the personal characteristics and the offending characteristics of the sample members (see Table 12.2). We chose these characteristics as they were found to be most promising risk factors for estimating sexual recidivism; no direct measures of sexual deviance were present in the treatment or screening files.

2. Judicial Documentation

All criminal career information was obtained from the official registry at the Judicial Documentation Centre of the Netherlands Ministry of Security and Justice. The registry contains information per individual on every offence registered for prosecution (regardless of the verdict), laid down in so-called judicial documentation abstracts. The offences in this judicial documentation are registered by date of perpetration, type of (p. 230) offence (coded according to the Dutch Criminal Code), conviction date, and sentence. The abstracts are filed after the age of legal responsibility, which is age 12 and up. All offences for which a person was acquitted or when the prosecution dropped the case on ‘technical grounds’ (predominantly when the case is expected by the prosecutor to end in acquittal, such as insufficient proof, a wrong suspect identified, etc.) were excluded from the data. We coded the remaining offences using the standard classification of Statistics Netherlands (CBS 2010). The following offending categories were used: violent offending, property offending, sexual offending, and other offending (drugs offences, Firearms and Ammunition Code, and public order offences).

Table 12.2 Personal and offending characteristics identified as risk factors for sexual recidivism

Offending variables

Personal variables

Age at sampling offence

Ethnicity

Age at first offence

Intelligence

Offender type

Psychological deficits

Prior offending (Y/N)

Educational level

Type of prior offence (sexual or not)

Relationship with victim

Victim gender

Number of victims

Treatment

3. Dutch Municipal Personal Records Database

Information on each inhabitant of the Netherlands is registered in the GBA. This database contains date of birth, death, full name, date of marriage, name of the partner, children (date of birth and full names), emigration date and country, and home address(es). For this study information on emigration and death was used to determine follow-up time.

C. Analytical Strategy

We divided the sample into three groups: desisters (those who did not offend at all after the sampling offence), non-sexual recidivists (those who committed at least one new non-sexual offence after the sampling offence), and those who committed another sex offence. Next we compared the groups on the background, offence, and other factors that were available in the files. We were unable to predict group membership in one multivariate analysis as missing values for the large numbers of variables generated too much attrition for the analysis to be meaningful. Instead, we compared the groups on all factors using simple t-tests, χ2-tests, and analysis of variance (ANOVA). For the ANOVA we used the Brown-Forsythe F-stats as our data did not meet the assumption of homogeneous variance between the groups. Following significant results we employed the Games-Howell post-hoc test to uncover groups between which the means differed significantly.

VI. Results

A. Criminal Career

On average the sample started offending at the age of 14.7 years (SD = 1.9). The sampling offence was the first offence in the criminal career for most sample members (75.9 per cent), but about a fourth of the sample had offended prior to the sampling offence. Most (p. 231) prior offending was non-sexual, with property offending the most common prior non-sexual offence (7 per cent), followed by vandalism (2.8 per cent), violence (2.4 per cent), or a mix of property and violent offending (2.1 per cent). However, 150 sample members (9.8 per cent) committed a prior sexual offence.

Most offences were committed around the age of 15. Not surprisingly, this age was close to the average age at which the sampling offence was committed (14.7 years). On average, the sample members committed 4.8 offences per person (SD = 6.0, see Table 12.3) in their criminal career from age 12 to 26 (the average age of the sample members was 25.7 years). Most of these offences were committed in youth: from age 12 to 17 the juvenile sex offenders were responsible for 2.8 offences per person (SD = 3.0). Unsurprisingly, sexual offending was the most common offence in youth, with 1.3 sexual offences per person (SD = 1.1).

In adulthood the average number of offences per person decreased slightly to 2.1 offences per person (SD = 4.3). When inspecting Table 12.3, the difference between sexual offending frequency in youth and adulthood stands out. In youth, 1.3 sexual offences were committed per person, while this decreased to 0.1 sexual offences per person in adulthood. This shows that only a small subgroup within the sample continues sexual offending in adulthood. The other three offence types remain much more stable from youth to adulthood, while only ‘other’ offending doubled from 0.4 offences (SD = 1.0) in youth to 0.8 other offences per person (SD = 2.2) in adulthood.

After the sampling offence, 67.9 per cent (n = 1,035) of the sample members committed at least one subsequent offence (violent, property, sexual, or ‘other’ offending). The sexual reoffending rate was 7.7 per cent (n = 117). The average age at sexual recidivism was 19.6 years (range 13.5 to 33.4 years; SD = 4.1). Thus, if sexual recidivism occurred, it mostly did so in early adulthood. However, if we look at the total number of sexual offences over the entire criminal career (2,224 offences from youth to adulthood, including the sampling offence), only 7.9 per cent (177 offences) were committed in adulthood (after age 18).

B. Sexual Recidivists

The study uncovered a small subgroup of 117 sexual recidivists (7.7 per cent) within the sample. In this section we will compare this small subgroup to non-sexual recidivists and desisters (those who committed no subsequent offences after the sampling offence) to find out how the sexual recidivists were distinct from the non-sexual recidivists. In our comparisons we will also screen for differences with the desisters.

On average, the 117 sexual recidivists started offending at age 14.4 (SD = 1.9). For the no-nsexual recidivists the age of onset was 14.7 (SD = 2.1), so there was no significant difference between the two recidivist groups (t = 1.323 (1036), p = .186). Of the sexual recidivists, 60.7 per cent were first-time offenders at the sampling offence. This was significantly different from the non-sexual recidivists (χ2= 23.974 (8), p = .02), who had (p. 232) (p. 233) more often already committed an offence. Of the 46 sexual recidivists who had offended prior to the sampling offence, 20 per cent had committed a non-sexual offence and the rest had committed a prior sexual offence. When comparing the type of prior offence, the sexual recidivist group had more often committed a sex offence before the sampling offence (χ2 = 23.974 (8), p = .02) than the non-sexual recidivists.

Table 12.3 Descriptive statistics on juvenile and adulthood offending per recidivist type: means over the entire criminal career

Sample

Group comparisons (F-stats)a

All

Recidivist type

Sexual recidivists

Non-sexual recidivists

Desisters

N

1,525

117

921

487

Any offending 12–17

(SD)

2.8

(3.0)

4.1

(3.6)

3.3

(3.2)

1.6

(1.7)

62.41***

Violent offending 12–17

(SD)

0.4

(1.0)

0.5

(1.0)

0.9

(2.0)

0.1

(0.5)

37.48***

Sex offending 12–17

(SD)

1.3

(1.1)

2.1

(1.6)

1.3

(1.0)

1.3

(1.0)

22.35***

Property offending 12–17

(SD)

0.6

(1.7)

1.0

(2.1)

0.9

(2.0)

0.1

(0.7)

31.20***

Other offending 12–17

(SD)

0.4

(1.0)

0.5

(1.1)

0.6

(1.2)

0.1

(0.5)

43.56***

N

1,486

114

908

464

Any offending 18–26

(SD)

2.1

(4.3)

5.0

(5.8)

2.8

(4.7)

0.0

(0.2)

86.95***

Violent offending 18–26

(SD)

0.5

(1.3)

1.2

(2.1)

0.7

(1.4)

0.0

(0.1)

39.72***

Sex offending 18–26

(SD)

0.1

(0.6)

1.3

(1.7)

0.0

(0.3)

0.0

(0.1)

58.65***

Property offending 18–26

(SD)

0.7

(2.2)

1.5

(3.5)

1.0

(2.5)

0.0

(0.1)

26.86***

Other offending 18–26

(SD)

0.8

(2.2)

1.1

(1.8)

1.1

(2.7)

0.0

(0.0)

72.23***

(a) Brown-Forsythe F-stats were used due to violation of the statistical assumption that there is equality of variance for the sample subgroups.

(***) p < .001.

Note. The top part of the table displays the juvenile criminal career; the bottom part displays the adult criminal career.

The sexual recidivists committed mainly rape as a subsequent sexual offence (37.8 per cent). About a third (32.3 per cent) committed sexual assault, 24.4 per cent committed sexual abuse, and the remaining 5.5 per cent committed indecent exposure.

On average, the criminal career of the 117 sexual recidivists comprised 9.1 offences per person (SD = 7.5). Table 12.3 displays the criminal careers in youth and adulthood by recidivist type (non-sexual recidivists, sexual recidivists, and desisters). The sexual recidivists appeared to have the most elaborate criminal careers compared to the other two types. In youth they committed significantly more sexual offences, on average 2.1 (SD = 1.6), than the other two subtypes (F = 22.35, p = .000), while the non-sexual recidivists and desisters did not differ significantly. For other offence types we found significant differences only between the desisters on the one hand and the sexual recidivists or the non-sexual recidivists on the other hand.

In adulthood, the sexual recidivists were even more distinct from the other two types. The offending averages of the sexual recidivists increased for all offence types, with the exception of sexual offending, which decreased from an average of 2.1 offences per person in youth to 1.3 offences per person in adulthood (see Table 12.3). The other two recidivist types showed an overall decrease in offending. This shows that sexual recidivists, even though their sexual offending rate decreases, differ from the other two types in that they become more active offenders in adulthood.

All in all, the sexual recidivists differ significantly from the other two recidivist types with regard to their criminal career in adulthood. The sexual recidivists appeared in a sense to be more ‘anti-social’ offenders, with an extensive criminal career comprising various types of offences. In their juvenile criminal careers, the sexual recidivists resembled the non-sexual recidivists more; only with adulthood did their careers start to diverge.

C. Risk Factors

With regard to offence-related risk factors, the sexual recidivists were already found to commit significantly more prior offences than non-sexual recidivists and desisters (see section above). The sex offender type (child abuser, peer abuser, and group offender) showed some significant differences (χ2 = 33.671 (2), p = .000). Group offenders were found to be more often non-sexual recidivists, and child abusers were more often found to be desisters than expected (see Table 12.4). Sexual recidivists showed no unexpected outcome on the offender type variable. The treatment received for the sampling offence also yielded significant differences (see Table 12.4): sexual recidivists had more often been treated at an inpatient and outpatient treatment facility (χ2 = 20.039 (2), p = .000). (p. 234) The other offence-related characteristics (relationship with victim, gender of victim, and number of victims) did not show significant differences between the sexual recidivists group and the remaining sample members.1

Table 12.4 Descriptive statistics on offending risk factors per recidivist type

Sexual recidivists

Non-sexual recidivists

Desisters

X2

Obs

Exp

Obs

Exp

Obs

Exp

Sex offender type

33.67***

   Child abuser

46

39.7

265

312.8

207

165.4

   Peer abuser

50

51.1

417

402.2

199

212.7

   Group offender

21

26.2

239

205.9

81

108.9

Prior offending

24.08***

   Yes

44

33.0

194

175.9

84

113.1

   No

28

39.0

190

208.1

163

133.9

Prior offending type

38.81***

   No prior offences

71

88.8

696

699.4

391

369.8

   Prior non-sexual offences

23

16.6

153

131.1

41

69.3

   Prior sexual offences

23

11.5

72

90.6

55

47.9

(***) p < .001.

Personal characteristics such as intelligence also did not display significant differences between the recidivist types. However, the recidivist types did differ on psychological disorders and educational levels (see Table 12.5). The sexual recidivists were more often found to have been diagnosed with a conduct disorder or to have aggression regulation problems, while the non-sexual recidivists and desisters had less often been diagnosed with any psychopathology (χ2= 18.890 (7), p = .009). The educational level of the non-sexual recidivists and desisters was higher, as significantly more members of these groups attended secondary education at an intermediate level (Havo). Sexual recidivists were more often present in special educational programmes (χ2 = 21.476 (7), p = .003). Non-sexual recidivists were found to be more often of a non-Western ethnicity, while desisters were more often of a Western ethnicity (χ2 = 39.44 (7), p = .000). There were no unexpected findings for the sexual recidivists with regard to ethnicity.

When we correlated factors employed by risk assessment instruments with sexual recidivism, we found only six risk factors to be significantly associated with sexual recidivism. All correlations were weak, however. Type of prior offence had the strongest association with recidivism (r = .118, p = .000). Educational level followed (r = .113, p = .000), and prior offending was also positively associated with sexual recidivism (r = .112, p = .000). The other associations were even weaker: psychological deficits (r = .104, p = .000), treatment (r = –.093, p = .000), and number of victims (r = .075, p = .003).

(p. 235)

Table 12.5 Descriptive statistics on personal risk factors per recidivist type

Sexual recidivists

Non-sexual recidivists

Desisters

X2

Obs

Exp

Obs

Exp

Obs

Exp

Ethnicity

29.07***

   Western

86

87.3

652

690.8

404

363.9

   Non-Western

27

25.7

242

203.2

67

107.1

Psychological deficits

48.63***

   No deficits

54

69.8

614

595.3

306

308.9

   Learning disability

2

2.2

15

18.3

13

9.5

   Pervasive disorder

4

3.9

19

33.6

32

17.4

   ADHD/ADD

11

7.3

63

62.3

28

32.4

   Conduct disorder

15

8.2

75

69.7

24

36.2

   Enuresis

2

1.8

14

15.3

9

7.9

   Aggression problems

5

1.9

17

15.9

4

8.2

   Other

6

3.9

27

33.6

22

17.4

Educational level

39.44***

   No education

0

0.1

0

0.6

1

0.3

   Elementary school

2

2.8

29

24.4

10

13.8

   Specialized education

21

10.3

78

90.6

53

51.1

   High schoola (IVBO/LWOO)

13

9.3

80

82.2

45

46.4

   High school (MAVO/VMBO)

45

50.4

465

443.4

234

250.2

   High school (Havo)

2

3.0

18

26.2

24

14.8

   Intermediate vocational education

1

6.5

57

57.2

38

32.3

   (Pre) university education

0

1.6

12

14.3

12

8.1

(a) In the Netherlands high school consists of several learning levels (ranked from low to high).

** p < .01.

(***) p < .001.

VII. Conclusion and Discussion

Using a large sample of juvenile sex offenders who had been prospectively followed well into adulthood, this study aimed to expand the existing knowledge of the criminal career and recidivism risk of juvenile sex offenders. Objective registered information on offending and personal characteristics was obtained. Our findings show that only a small subgroup of juvenile sex offenders reoffended sexually. This corresponds with previous empirical findings (e.g., Fortune and Lambie 2006; Vandiver 2006; Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings 2007; (p. 236) Zimring et al. 2009; Caldwell 2010; Lussier et al. 2012). A majority of juvenile sex offenders were criminally active only in youth. In previous studies Van den Berg, Bijleveld, and Hendriks (2011) and Lussier and colleagues (2012) (on a more problematic part of the sample investigated here) already showed evidence that most juvenile sex offenders are adolescent-limited offenders, only partly fitting the model developed by Moffitt (1993). In this much larger study we again found evidence for an adolescence-limited criminal career pattern for juvenile sex offenders.

The sexual recidivists, however, did not follow an adolescence-limited criminal career pattern. This small subgroup (about 8 per cent of the juvenile sex offenders) were found to continue sexual offending in adulthood. The frequency with which they did so decreased somewhat with age, whereas the frequency with which they committed other offence types appeared to increase in adulthood. Overall, the sexual recidivists were characterized by the highest number of (all) offences in youth as well as adulthood. This leads us to believe that juvenile sex offending and continuation of sexual offending in adulthood is part of an active and versatile criminal career. Other empirical accounts also showed that sexual recidivists have a frequent and serious criminal career (Zimring, Piquero, and Jennings 2007; Lussier and Blokland 2014). Specifically, Van der Put and colleagues (2013) found similar results in their study and postulated that sexual reoffending is due to general anti-social tendencies rather than sexual deviance. Our study lends empirical support to this hypothesis, as we found that for sexual recidivists conduct disorder and problems with aggression are more common than in non-sexual recidivists and desisters. These psychological deficits are associated with anti-social tendencies, possibly supporting the statement by Van der Put and colleagues (2013). Another hypothesis is that this small group of sexual recidivists might be life-course-persistent offenders, as described in the dual taxonomy by Moffitt (1993). These offenders are hypothesized to follow a long, versatile, and serious criminal career, and indications of such a career for the sexual recidivists were found in this study. To support this hypothesis, studies with even longer follow-up periods than ours would have to be conducted.

The second aim of the study was to assess the validity of commonly used risk factors for sexual recidivism. We selected offending and personal characteristics based on empirical, clinical, and theoretical evidence. However, we uncovered only very weak associations between a select group of variables and sexual recidivism: only psychological deficits and educational level were found to predict sexual reoffending, and again the effects were not very strong. One explanation for this in a sense unexpected result may be that our sample comprised a diverse group of juvenile sex offenders who had been referred mostly through the criminal justice system, while previous empirical investigations used mostly small clinical samples. Thus, it might be that different factors predict sexual recidivism in clinical and criminal justice samples. Regardless, the lack of corroboration for risk factors does show that risk assessment instruments for juvenile sex offenders likely do not have broad applicability. This lack may also be regarded as yet another manifestation of heterogeneity: different subgroups may be associated with different risk factors for sexual recidivism and may need different treatment. In the current (p. 237) study we investigated heterogeneity using the typology by Hendriks (2006) in our comparisons, but we found no evidence for an association between offender type (child abusers, peer abusers, and group offenders) and sexual recidivism. Some association was found between offender type and non-sexual recidivists and desisters. Desisters were found to be more often child abusers—but this seems counterintuitive, since child abusers are regarded as having the highest risk of sexual reoffending.

This study has important strengths as well as limitations. First, we had a prospective, rich, and unique dataset consisting of long-term objective and detailed information on offending and personal characteristics. Sexual recidivism in juvenile sex offenders is hard to study because reoffending is relatively rare. The large number of sample members, and thus the fairly large number of sexual recidivists, makes this dataset uniquely suited to explore the criminal career of juvenile sex offenders more elaborately over the life course. The fact that we had a good variety, from severely problematic offenders (deemed to need lengthy inpatient treatment) to offenders who were not deemed to need any tailored intervention, adds to the generalizability of our findings.

Several limitations to the study are also noteworthy. First, the data on risk factors were limited, as not every treatment file contained similar information. This led to missing values, adding up to such an extent that we could not perform multivariate analysis. Second, we were able to investigate only those offences and risk factors that made it to official records and as such were part of the official, registered, side of the juvenile sex offenders’ lives. It is likely that more sexual reoffending took place. Much more in-depth research is needed to understand the mechanisms responsible for the association between juvenile sexual offending and continuation of sexual offending in adulthood. Therefore, future studies and analyses should attempt to include measures of self-reported (sexual) offending. Given the difficulty of gathering such data on sex offending, however, innovative methodologies may be warranted.

References

Becker, Judith V. 1998. “What We Know About the Characteristics and Treatment of Adolescents Who have Committed Sexual Offenses.” Child Maltreatment 3:317–29.Find this resource:

    Bijleveld, Catrien, and Jan Hendriks. 2003. “Differential Personality and Background Characteristics of Juvenile Group—and Solo-Sex Offenders.” Psychology, Crime and Law 9:237–45.Find this resource:

      Bijleveld, Catrien, Frank Weerman, Daphne Looije, and Jan Hendriks. 2007. “Group Sex Offending by Juveniles: Coercive Sex as a Group Activity.” European Journal of Criminology 4:5–22.Find this resource:

        Butler, Stephen M., and Michael C. Seto. 2002. “Distinguishing Two Types of Juvenile Sex Offenders.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41:83–90.Find this resource:

          (p. 238) Caldwell, Michael F. 2010. “Study Characteristics and Recidivism Base Rates in Juvenile Sex Offender Recidivism.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 54(2): 197–212.Find this resource:

            CBS. 2010. “Standaardclassicatie misdrijven.” http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/veiligheidrecht/methoden/classi_caties/2011standaardclassi_catie-misdrijven-politie-pub.htm.

            Fortune, Clare-Ann, and Ian Lambie. 2006. “Sexually Abusive Youth: A Review of Recidivism Studies and Methodological Issues for Future Research.” Clinical Psychology Review 26:1078–95.Find this resource:

              Groth, Nicholas. 1977. “The Adolescent Sex Offender and his Prey.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 21:249–54.Find this resource:

                Gunby, Clare, and Jessica Woodhams. 2010. “Juvenile Sex Offenders: Comparisons between the Offender and Offence Characteristics of Child Abusers and Peer Abusers.” Psychology, Crime and Law 16:47–64.Find this resource:

                  Hagan, Michael P., Karyn L. Gust-Brey, Meg E. Cho, and Edward Dow. 2001. “Eight-Year Comparative Analyses of Adolescent Rapists, Adolescent Child Molesters, Other Adolescent Delinquent, and the General Population.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45:314–24.Find this resource:

                    Hempel, Inge, Nicole Buck, Maaike Cima, and Hjalmar van Marle. 2013. “Review of Risk Assessment Instruments for Juvenile Sex Offenders: What is Next?” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57:208–28.Find this resource:

                      Hendriks, Jan. 2006. Jeugdig Zedendelinquenten: een Studie naar Subtypen en Recidive [Juvenile Sex Offenders: a Study of Subtypses and Recidivism]. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht: Forum Educatief.Find this resource:

                        Hunter, John A., Aurelio J. Figueredo, Neil M. Malamuth, and Judith V. Becker. 2003. “Juvenile Sex Offenders: Towards the Development of a Typology.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 15:27–45.Find this resource:

                          Knight, Raymond A., and Robert Prentky. 1993. “Exploring Characteristics for Classifying Juvenile Sex Offenders.” In The Juvenile Sex Offender, edited by Howard E. Barbaree, William L. Marshall, and Stephen M. Hudson, pp. 45–83. New York: Guilford.Find this resource:

                            Knight, Raymond A., Scott T. Ronis, and Barry Zakireh. 2009. “Bootstrapping Persistence Risk Indicators for Juveniles who Sexually Offend.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 27:878–909.Find this resource:

                              Långström, Niklas, and Martin Grann. 2000. “Risk for Criminal Recidivism Among Young Sex Offenders.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5:855–71.Find this resource:

                                Laws, D. Richard, and Tony Ward. 2011. Desistance from Sex Offending: Alternatives to Throwing Away The Key. New York: Guilford Press.Find this resource:

                                  Lussier, Patrick, Chantal Van den Berg, Catrien Bijleveld, and Jan Hendriks. 2012. “A Developmental Taxonomy of Juvenile Sex Offenders for Theory, Research, and Prevention: The Adolescent-Limited and the High-Rate Slow Desister.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 39:1559–81.Find this resource:

                                    Lussier, Patrick, and Arjan Blokland. 2014. “The Adolescence-Adulthood Transition and Robin’s Continuity Paradox: Criminal Career Patterns of Juvenile and Adult Sex Offenders in a Prospective Longitudinal Birth Cohort Study.” Journal of Criminal Justice 42:153–63.Find this resource:

                                      McCann, Kristie, and Patrick Lussier. 2008. “Antisociality, Sexual Deviance, and Sexual Reoffending in Juvenile Sex Offenders: A Meta-Analytical Investigation.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 6:363–85.Find this resource:

                                        (p. 239) Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course-Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100:674–701.Find this resource:

                                          Nisbet, Ian A., P. H. Wilson, and Stephen W. Smallbone. 2004. “A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Sexual Recidivism among Adolescent Sex Offenders.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 16:223–34.Find this resource:

                                            Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein. 2003. “The Criminal Career Paradigm.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 30, edited by Michael Tonry, pp. 359–506. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:

                                              Prentky, Robert, and Sue Righthand. 2003. Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II (J-SOAP-II) Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Find this resource:

                                                Spice, Andrew, Jodi L. Viljoen, Natasha E. Latzman, Mario J. Scalora, and Daniel Ullman. 2013. “Risk and Protective Factors for Recidivism Among Juveniles Who Have Offended Sexually.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 25:347–69.Find this resource:

                                                  ‘t Hart-Kerkhoffs, Lisette A., Robert R. J. M. Vermeiren, Lucres M. C. Jansen, and Theo A.H. Doreleijers. 2011. “Juvenile Group Sex Offenders: a Comparison of Group Leaders and Followers.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26:3–20.Find this resource:

                                                    Van den Berg, Chantal, Catrien Bijleveld, and Jan Hendriks. 2011. “Jeugdige Zedendelinquenten. Lange Termijn Criminele Carrières en Achtergrondkenmerken.” Tijdschrift voor Criminologie 53:227–43.Find this resource:

                                                      Van der Put, Claudia E., Eveline S. van Vugt, Geert-Jan J. M. Stams, and Maja Dekovic, and Peter H. van der Laan. 2013. “Differences in the Prevalence and Impact of Risk Factors for General Recidivism Between Different Types of Juveniles Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses (JSOs) and Juveniles Who Have Committed Nonsexual Offenses (NSOs).” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 25:347–69.Find this resource:

                                                        Vandiver, Donna M. 2006. “A Prospective Analysis of Juvenile Male Sex Offenders: Characteristics and Recidivism Rates as Adults.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21:673–88.Find this resource:

                                                          Van Wijk, Anton V. 1999. Een Verkennend Onderzoek naar Jeugdige Zedendelinquenten? [An Exploratory Study into Juvenile Sex Offenders?]. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Find this resource:

                                                            Van Wijk, Anton V., Joan van Horn, Ruud Bullens, Catrien Bijleveld, and Theo Doreleijers. 2005. “Juvenile Sex Offenders: A Group on Its Own?” International Journal of Offender Therapy an Comparative Criminology 49:25–36.Find this resource:

                                                              Viljoen, Jodi L., Mario Scalora, Lorraine Cuadra, Shannon Bader, Verónica Chávez, Daniel Ullman, and Lisa Lawrence. 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.Find this resource:

                                                                Worling, James R. 2001. “Personality-Based Typology of Adolescent Male Sexual offenders: Differences in Recidivism Rates, Victim-Selection Characteristics, and Personal Victimization Histories.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 13:149–66.Find this resource:

                                                                  Worling, James R., and Tracey Curwen. 2000. “Adolescent Sexual Offender Recidivism: Success of Specialized Treatment and Implications for Risk Prediction.” Child abuse and Neglect 24:956–82.Find this resource:

                                                                    Worling, James R., and Niklas Långström. 2006. “Risk of Sexual Recidivism in Adolescents Who Offend Sexually. Correlates and Assessment.” In The Juvenile Sex Offender, edited by Howard E. Barbaree and William J. Marshall, pp. 219–47. New York: Guilford Press.Find this resource:

                                                                      (p. 240) Zimring, Franklin E., Wesley G. Jennings, Alex R. Piquero, and Stephanie Hays. 2009. Investigating the Continuity of Sex Offending. Evidence from the Second Philadelphia Birth Cohort.” Justice Quarterly 26:58–76.Find this resource:

                                                                        Zimring, Franklin E., Alex R. Piquero, and Wesley G. Jennings. 2007. “Sexual Delinquency in Racine. Does Early Sex Offending Predict Later Sex Offending in Youth and Young Adulthood?” Public Policy 6:507–43.Find this resource:

                                                                          Notes:

                                                                          (1.) Test results for insignificant findings are available from the first author.