No abstract

This study was aimed at finding risk factors that predict both overall recidivism and severity of recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. Seventy static and dynamic risk factors associated with family characteristics, peers, psychopathology, substance abuse, psychological factors, and behavior during treatment were assessed with the Juvenile Forensic Profile in a sample of 728 juvenile offenders. Official reconviction data were used to register recidivism with a minimum time at risk of 2 years. Severity of offending was categorized according to the maximum sentence for the offense committed combined with expert opinion. Several risk factors for recidivism were found: past criminal behavior (number of past offenses, young age at first offense, unknown victim of past offenses), conduct disorder, family risk factors (poor parenting skills, criminal behavior in the family, a history of physical and emotional abuse), involvement with criminal peers, and lack of treatment adherence (aggression during treatment, lack of coping strategies). Having an unknown victim in past offenses, criminal behavior in the family, lack of treatment adherence, and lack of positive coping strategies were predictive of serious (violent) recidivism. The results are discussed in terms of their use for risk assessment and in improving treatment effect. Targeting poor parenting skills, involvement in criminal environment, lack of treatment adherence, and problematic coping strategies should reduce the severity of recidivism.

Differences in recidivism rates occurred in spite of the fact that most of these youngsters had been in the standard treatment programme offered to serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands. This was not a treatment outcome study, but the indication that two of the groups identified in our study appeared to be worse after going through this programme, whereas the other two did quite well in terms of recidivism lends weight to our idea that such classification of juvenile offenders may lead to more targeted treatment programmes that would better serve both the general public and the youths concerned.

An unresolved but clinically important issue in the literature on juvenile delinquency is to what extent juvenile sex offenders resemble non-sex offenders with respect to individual, familial, and environmental characteristics. The current article reviewed published studies (1995-2005) comparing sex offenders with non-sex offenders. The 17 articles meeting the inclusion criteria suggest that differences exist between sex offenders and non-sex offenders on personality characteristics, behavioral problems, history of sexual abuse, nonsexual offending, and peer functioning. Inconsistent results were found for demographic factors, family functioning and background, antisocial attitudes, and intellectual and neurological functioning. Although it is likely that sex offenders can be differentiated from nonsex offenders on a number of characteristics, caution is warranted because of methodological differences between studies and small samples size. Also, studies show that sex offenders are a heterogeneous group. Further research should take into account this heterogeneity by including sex offenders from clearly circumscribed groups and investigating characteristics specifically related to sexual behavior.

Only a limited number of studies have compared the psychosocial characteristicsSince the recognition in the 1970's and 1980's that juveniles are capable of committing sex offenses, many studies have investigated this problem. However, many methodological shortcomings were inherent to these studies, including small sample size, biased sampling, nonstandardized instruments and a reliance on

Objective: This article reports on offense related characteristics and the psychosexual development in subgroups of juvenile sex offenders as measured by the Global Assessment Instrument for Juvenile Sex Offenders (GAIJSO). The predictive validity of these characteristics for persistent (sexual) offensive behavior in subgroups of juvenile sex offenders was investigated. Methods:One hundred seventy four sex offenders (mean age 14.9 SD 1.4) referred by the police to the Dutch Child Protection Board were examined. Offense related characteristics were assessed by means of the GAIJSO and the BARO (a global assessment tool for juvenile delinquents), and criminal careers of the subjects were ascertained from official judicial records.Results: Serious need for comprehensive diagnostics were found on the domains sexual offense and psychosexual development in juvenile sex offenders, especially in the group of child molesters. These youngsters displayed more internalizing and (psychosexual) developmental problems and their sexual offense was more alarming as compared to the other juvenile sex offender subgroups. Although one third of the juveniles had already committed one or more sex offenses prior to the index offense, at follow up (mean follow up period: 36 months SD 18 months) almost no sexual recidivism was found (0.6% of the entire sample). However, a substantial proportion of the entire sample of juvenile sex offenders showed non-sexual (55.6%) and violent recidivism (32.1%). Several predictors for a history of multiple sex offending and non-sexual recidivism were identified. Conclusion:This study revealed numerous problems in juvenile sex offenders. Assessment using the GAIJSO is helpful in order to identify indicators for extensive diagnostic assessment. In order to investigate the predictive validity for sexual reoffending a longer follow up period is necessary.

There is some debate about whether sex offenders are similar to non-sex offenders. It is known that sex and non-sex offenders are heterogeneous groups. Comparative studies must take this heterogeneity into account. Based on an aggregated database, a study was conducted among adjudicated juvenile (sex) offenders. The sample consisted of juvenile male sex and non-sex offenders who had been subjected to a psychological assessment at the request of the judge or district attorney. The central question focused on the differences between juvenile sex offenders, in particular rapists and sexual assaulters (n = 57), child molesters (n = 55), and non-sex offenders: violent (n = 85) and nonviolent offenders (n = 80). The results demonstrated that sex offenders differ from non-sex offenders with regard to demographic characteristics, problem behavior, and personality traits. Some reference is made regarding future research.

The significance of family problems and antisocial behaviour during treatments suggest that specific attention to these factors may be important in reducing recidivism. The fact that antisocial behaviour during treatment consists mainly of dynamic risk factors is hopeful as these can be influenced by treatment. Consideration of young offenders by subgroup rather than as a homogenous population is likely to yield the best information about risk of serious re-offending and the management of that risk.