Assessing risk in adolescent sexual offenders: recommendations for clinical practice

Abstract

Accurately predicting the likelihood that an adolescent with a sex offense history will reoffend is a precarious task that carries with it the potential for extreme consequences for the adolescent offender (e.g., lifelong public registration). Recently implemented laws regarding adolescent sex offenders are dramatically upstream of current knowledge. Several of these laws were ostensibly based on the misassumption that clinicians could accurately identify adolescents at the greatest risk for sexual recidivism. However, predicting which adolescents are at greatest risk to sexually recidivate is severely constrained by limited knowledge about which predictors are most accurately linked to sexual recidivism and uncertainty over how to best make use of instruments designed to predict recidivism. This paper reviews research on risk assessment and provides a set of recommendations for conducting risk assessments with adolescent sex offenders.

Predicting Sexual and Nonsexual Recidivism in a Consecutive Sample of Juveniles Convicted of Sexual Offences

“…In the recent past, the knowledge of potential risk factors for violent and sexual reoffending has grown continuously (Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 2006; Worling & Långström, 2006). Whereas sexual deviancy and criminal lifestyle characteristics have been identified as the major domains associated with persistent sexual offending in adults (see review of Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005), factors contributing to sexual reoffending in juveniles are less clear (Caldwell, 2002; Vitacco, Caldwell, Ryba, Malesky, & Kurus, 2009). However, support has been found for some risk factors in juveniles (Worling & Långström, 2006), namely, (a) deviant sexual interest, (b) prior criminal sanctions for sexual offending, (c) sexual offending against multiple victims, (d) sexual offending against a stranger, (e) social isolation, and (f) failure to participate in specialized treatments of sexual offending.…”

“…Inconsistent findings regarding the validity of the J-SOAP-II may also be due to different sampling strategies (low-risk vs. high-risk JSO samples), different methods in the assessment of recidivism (charges vs. social service information), and criterion contamination (lacking independence of risk and recidivism assessment). Considering the various methodological difficulties, the J-SOAP-II has not been recommended as a specialized risk assessment instrument for JSO (Vitacco et al, 2009). Consequently, the authors of the J-SOAP-II emphasize the current limitations of the J-SOAP-II and recommend the use of additional information sources in order to arrive at the final decision on risk status (Prentky & Righthand, 2003).…”

Assessing Youth Who Sexually Offended

“…In recent times, there has been more focus in the extant literature on risk assessment measures for youth who sexually offended (see Vitacco, Caldwell, Ryba, Malesky, & Kurus, 2009 , for a review), but the number of studies is small when compared to the literature for risk assessment measures for their adult sexual counterparts. Given the high propensity of youth who sexually offend to engage in future nonsexual reoffenses (e.g., Caldwell, 2007 ; Chu & Thomas, 2010 ; McCann & Lussier, 2008 ), it is important to consider whether general risk assessment measures are accurate for assessing the risk of sexual recidivism in this group of youth, and whether sexual risk assessment measures are accurate for assessing the risk of nonsexual recidivism.…”

Another Piece of the Puzzle

“…Given the influence of juvenile recidivism risk estimates on decisions with such far-reaching effects, the lack of predictive evidence is a significant limitation of existing measures (Fanniff & Becker, 2006; Prescott, 2006a; Worling & Långström, 2003). Moreover, accurate recidivism risk prediction for juveniles is complicated by numerous complex factors as noted by scale developers and others (Prentky & Righthand, 2003; Prescott, 2006a; Vitacco, Caldwell, Ryba, Malesky, & Kurus, 2009; Worling, 2004). Foremost among these is the rapidly changing developmental status of youth.…”