Validity of Risk Assessment Instruments Among Juveniles Who Sexually Offended: Victim Age Matters

Abstract

Research has identified meaningful subtypes among the heterogeneous population of juveniles who sexually offended (JSO). However, studies that test the validity of risk assessment tools with JSO subtypes are limited. This study compared JSO who offended against a child victim (JSO-C) and JSO who offended against an adolescent/adult victim (JSO-A) with regard to rates of recidivism and the predictive validity of two risk assessment tools (Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism [ERASOR] and Juvenile Sexual Offender Assessment Protocol-II [J-SOAP-II]). Data were analyzed from case files of 185 JSO-C and 297 JSO-A aged 12 to 18 years ( M = 14.11, SD = 1.44) from a consecutive sample of JSO with contact sexual offenses. A total of 34 (7.1%) juveniles reoffended sexually, with no significant difference between the subtypes. The present results suggest that the ERASOR, particularly the structured professional judgment, and to a lesser degree the J-SOAP-II are better suited to predicting sexual recidivism in JSO-A than in JSO-C.

Criminal recidivism and psychosocial adversity in offense-related subtypes of sexually abusive adolescents

“…No differences were found in the risk of sexual criminal recidivism (e.g. Krause et al, 2020). Whereas JSOs with a history of additional nonsexual delinquency showed an increased risk of future general criminal offending compared to those who had engaged exclusively in sexually abusive behaviour, no differences were found in terms of sexual criminal recidivism (Aebi et al, 2012;Butler & Seto, 2002;Chu & Thomas, 2010).…”

Recidivism Rates of Treated, Non-Treated and Dropout Adolescent Who Have Sexually Offended: a Non-Randomized Study

“…Our complementary analyses (Cox regressions) indicate that victim age influences the probability of recidivism: ASO who had sexually assaulted peers or adults were twice as likely to violently (including sexually) reoffend. Some studies have reported that ASO against peers generally exhibit more antisocial behaviors and factors related to general offending that do ASO against children (Awad and Saunders, 1991;Richardson et al, 1997;Parks and Bard, 2006;Gunby and Woodhams, 2010;Seto and Lalumière, 2010;Aebi et al, 2012;Fanniff and Kolko, 2012;Glowacz and Born, 2013;Zeng et al, 2015;Joyal et al, 2016;Leroux et al, 2016;Krause et al, 2020). However, the results in the literature concerning the relationship between victim age and recidivism are inconsistent.…”

“…Finally, the current study not only takes into consideration the principal methodological recommendations of Fortune and Lambie (2006), but also analyses recidivism and participation in treatment in terms of two types of typologies, victim age (children, peers or adults, mixed) and victim relationship (intrafamilial, extra familial, intra/extra familial). The validity of those subtypes has been supported by some studies (Kemper and Kistner, 2007;Latzman et al, 2011;Joyal et al, 2016;Leroux et al, 2016;Krause et al, 2020;Martijn et al, 2020). This is the first published study aiming to measure the effect of this unique treatment offered in Quebec (Canada) on reducing the recidivism rates of ASOs.…”

“…On the one hand, ASO of peers/adults have been reported to exhibit significantly higher rates of sexual (Nisbet et al, 2004;Parks and Bard, 2006), violent non-sexual (Krause et al, 2020) non-sexual (Nisbet et al, 2004), and general (Vandiver, 2006;Fanniff and Kolko, 2012) recidivism. On the other, they have also been reported to exhibit significantly lower rates of sexual recidivism (Kemper and Kistner, 2007), as well as comparable rates of sexual (Krause et al, 2020), violent (Aebi et al, 2012), non-sexual (Kemper and Kistner, 2007), and general (Hagan et al, 2001;Parks and Bard, 2006;Aebi et al, 2012;Krause et al, 2020) recidivism. In addition, ASO against peers/adults have been reported to be more likely than ASO against children to drop out of treatment (Parks and Bard, 2006).…”

Caracterización psicosocial y criminológica de adolescentes chilenos con prácticas abusivas sexuales

“…Para Krause et al (2020) ambos grupos no mani#estan diferencias signi#cativas en reincidencia sexual; sobre este ítem se observa un promedio de 9.2 % para los adolescentes con PAS-VM (prácticas abusivas sexuales dirigidas a víctimas menores) y de 5.7 % para quienes presentan PAS-VP (prácticas abusivas sexuales dirigidas a víctimas pares). Ahora bien, es sabido que muchos de los adolescentes desisten de cometer delitos sexuales en la adultez (Lussier & Blokland, 2014) y que las tasas de reincidencia sexual de los adolescentes que llevan a cabo PAS son bajas, pues registran una tasa media ponderada de 2.75 % de reincidencia, según estudios realizados posteriores al año 2000.…”