Juvenile Sex Offenders Annotated Bibliography

JUVENILE SEX OFFENDERS ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

JuvenileSex Offenders Annotated Bibliography

JuvenileSex Offence is one of the most explored concepts in sexual criminaloffences in the contemporary human society. It is particularlyprevalent among youths who engage in sexually abusive behaviors andit accounts for significant number of sexual assault against childrenand women in the community. A number of etiological predictors havebeen identified as causal factors which lead to the development ofjuvenile sex offences, these are exposure to pornography, substanceabuse and exposure to aggressive role models.

Therefore,assessment of at community level for accountability in sexualoffences is paramount in designing effective control and interventionmeasures to reduce the vice. This paper examines a wide range ofscholarly works and texts regarding juvenile sex risk assessmentinstruments. Specifically, this paper seeks to examine literaturepertaining effective juvenile sex risks assessment tools that can beused to effectively predict sexual offences from the offenders.

WashingtonState Institute for Public Policy, (2008). Assessingthe risk of Juvenile Sex Offenders using the Intensive Parole sexoffender Domain.United States: Olympia

Thisreport presents an assessment off juvenile sex offences and offers acritical account on recent developments on juvenile sex offences. Itclassifies sex offenders in levels and assumes that there is highrisk of offenders’ recidivism rates increasing for parole releasethan sexual reoffending. In addition the report assess that recidivism rates rises because parole releases have high risks ofbeing restricted to level 3 sex offences. Similarly the report assessthat, perfect prediction of juvenile sex offences is achieved whenall juveniles are classified as high risks recidivated with sexoffences and when none of other juveniles are recidivated with sexoffence. The report further assesses that selecting one assessment ofestimating juvenile sex offences may not be enough in providingsufficient information. As such information collection instrumentsshould be developed to predict violent as well as sexual recidivism.This information could be collected from databases created about sexoffenders and scores of existing juvenile assessments computed todetermine youths risk levels.

Ralston,C., &amp Epperson, D. (2013). Predictivevalidity of adult risk assessment tools with juveniles who offendedsexually.Psychological Assessment, 25 (3), 905-916.

Accordingto the authors of this book, they differ on the commonly heldassumptions in the area of sexual recidivism that different toolsshould be used for juveniles and adult offenders. The obviousassumption is that adolescent risks assessment observations remainconstant and that social or judicial system structure recognizes thedifference between adults and juvenile offenders. However, theauthors argue that this assumption is untested. In their study whichaddressed adult offenders and the juvenile sex offender using risksassessment tools offender screening assessment protocol II and theJuvenile Risk assessment Scale. A sample of juveniles N=636 who hadsexually offended was used to collect recidivism data before andafter the age of 18.

Theresults indicated that recidivism was predicted at approximately thesame level using the adult actuarial risks assessment tools as wellas juvenile tools. However, the accuracy of long term prediction onadult recidivism was found to be lower than accuracy derived injuvenile sexual recidivism prediction. In addition the authors arguethat it was the study results indicated that the 2 tools produced nonsignificant results which could not give long term predictions onadolescent behaviors.

Edinburgh,Laurel. “The10-Question Tool: A Novel Screening Instrument for Runaway Youth”.OJJDPJournal of Juvenile Justice 1,no. 2 (2011): 80-94.

Theauthors of this article postulates that, juvenile sexual offences,physical assault are high among the adolescents who run away fromtheir homes and there is no established screening tools by thepolice to determine adolescents safety and help the officers referthe victims to needed services. The authors observes that, aftertheir study survey on police screening for run away youths, theyfound that this novel way of screening by law officers would help tolocate, identify the disclosure, sexual assault and the need forhealth care among the victims.

Baglivio,Michael T., and Katherine Jackowski. “Examiningthe Validity of a Juvenile Offending Risk Assessment Instrumentacross Gender and Race/Ethnicity.”YouthViolence &amp Juvenile Justice 11,no. 1 (2013): 26-43.

Inthis article, the authors are critical in their assessment ofjuvenile sexual offences by stating that the analysis of predictionvalidity and the risks assessment for sexual victims is important tothe criminal justice system particularly in assessing recidivism ofsexual offenders. In their study, they examined the validity ofPositive Achievement Tool (PACT) among the population in regard tojuvenile sexual offences.

Theirstudy found that, sexual offences recidivism increases with PACTscores and that there were similar prediction for sexual offencesacross all subgroups. This was evident from the 95% confidence levelcarried out among 13 of 19 subgroups examined but factors whichinstigate recidivism of sexual offences differed among the subgroupscriminal background of the offenders was found to be the mostprevalent predictor of recidivism while few factors were associatedto white female offending. Similarly, gender responsiveness was notfound to improve prediction on the abusive and traumatic sexualoffences circumstances.

MartinRattennberger, (2013) Thecontribution of age to the static-99, Risk Assessment in aPopulation- based Prison Sample of Sexual OffendersVienna: Austria

Accordingto the authors of this article, they observe that static 99 has beenthe most commonly risk assessment instrument used and validated forsexual offenders. However, its original version does not coversufficiently the influence of age decreases in increasing therecidivism risk of sexual offenders. The static -99R assessmentinstrument involves four age categories which are compared with onlytwo of the original instrument. They carried out a study to assessthe influence if age variable on the predictive accuracy in relationto the former prediction instrument static 99 using a population ofreleased sexual offenders (N=1077). In their results, they found outthat the prediction of sexual re-offenses in the selected populationsample was way better using the original instrument Static 99 thanthe age correlated static-99R.

MeganC. Kurlychek, Marvin D. Krohn, Beidi Dong, Gina Penly Hall and AlanJ. Lizotte, 2012, ProtectionFrom Risk: Exploration of When and How Neighborhood-Level Factors CanReduce Violent Youth Outcomes.Sage journals,http://yvj.sagepub.com/content/10/1/83.full.pdf+html

Inthis article, the authors engages in a research study to examine therisk factors of neighborhood as a promotive and protective aspect inreducing violent or recidivative outcomes among the adolescents. Theyemployed housing market study and the aggregation of individual levelsurvey in exploring a cross level interaction of promotive andprotective aspects of neighborhoods in influencing violent behaviorsamong the youths. Their study revealed that high risk youths whoseparents had high levels of social integration were less likely toexperience violent offences than parents who have low socialintegrations in the community. In this case therefore, the resultsindicated that neighborhood effects tend to interact rather thanmediate levels of violent risks among the youths.

Theauthors observe that across all domains, protective factors remainedsignificant in social and neighborhood integrations. They thereforeargue that, it is important to consider the source of risks as wellas the level. Neighborhood influences can infiltrate more readily inschools and peer domains than in personal domains. However, whileneighborhood serves to reduce violent offences among the youthsneighborhood can mediate on the impact of high risks among the youthsand therefore a different approach is needed in intervention andprevention of such risks.

Hempel,Inge, Nicole Buck, Maaike Cima, and Hjalmar van Marle. “Reviewof Risk Assessment Instruments for Juvenile Sex Offenders: What isNext?”InternationalJournal of Offender Therapy &amp Comparative Criminology 57,no. 2 (2013): 208-228.

Riskassessment for juvenile sex offenders is critical in checkingrecidivism and prevention among the offenders which has long termconsequence after the assessment. In this article the authors’presents their analysis based on literature review on the predictiveaccuracy of established risk assessment instruments for appraisingjuvenile sex offences. The assessed instruments were Juvenile sexassessment protocol-II (J-SOAP-II), Juvenile Sexual OffenceRecidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (J-SORRAT-II), Estimate of Risk ofAdolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism (ERASOR), Juvenile RiskAssessment Scale (JRAS), Juvenile Risks Assessment scale (JRAS),Structured Assessment of Violent Risks in Youth (SAVRY) and HarePsychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV).

Inthis respect they conducted 19 systematic in which they discoveredsubstantial differences in the predictive accuracies for juvenilesexual offences. They discovered that, these instruments did not givepositive adequate accuracy in predicting future sexual recidivism orviolent behaviors among the youths. Surprisingly, the predictivecapacity of SAVRY and PCL: YV were found to give weaker sexualrecidivism predictive results than the more specialized tools such asthe J-SOAP-II and the ERASOR. As such the authors observes that,based on recent developments among the juveniles, there is moredoubt in imposing long term restrictions among the offenders basedon the risks assessment instruments only. The new challenge isimproving on these risks assessment instruments to ensure quality andpredictable juvenile sexual offences.

Luong,Duyen, Stephen J. Wormith. “ApplyingRisk/Need Assessment to Probation Practice and its Impact on theRecidivism of Young Offenders.”CriminalJustice and Behavior 38,no. 12 (2011): 1177-1199.

Theauthors of this article sought to explore the link between risksassessment and case management of young juvenile sexual offender.Specifically they focused on whether adherence to principles of RNR(Risks, responsivity and need in case management were part or relatedto recidivism. They observed that, the extent to which casemanagement is guided by risk assessment is vital because the impactof the assessment process can not be successfully realized ifassessment instruments are not applied effectively. In their studydata was collected from a sample of 192 young offenders, the findingsindicated that the Level of service Inventory –Saskatchewan YouthEdition (LSI-SK) in the total score and subscale scores werecorrelated positively with recidivism. The authors argue that therewas consistency in predictive validity substantially across differentbase rates of juvenile sexual offences recidivism when calculated inone correctional agency. In this respect the validity of LSI-SK wasused to prepare for case management plans as it was found to offersubstantial element of prediction validity among young offenders.

Schmidt,Fred, Mary Ann Campbell, and Carolyn Houlding. 2011,“Comparative Analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL: YV inAdolescent Offenders: A 10-year Follow-Up into Adulthood.”YouthViolence &amp Juvenile Justice9,no. 1 (2011): 23-42.

Theauthors, offers a comparative analysis on the different risksassessment instruments used for predicting juvenile sexual offencesand argue that, despite the growing body of research which isdedicated to developing risk assessment instruments, there islimitation in the short term test carried out to test predictivevalidity of the instruments. Instead they carried out a study toexamine the comparative validity of Youth Level Service casemanagement inventory (YLS/CMI), Structured Assessment OF ViolenceRisks In Youth (SAVRY) and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version(PCL:YV) among the juvenile offenders. According to the findings,each instrument recorded a predicament recidivism, YLS/CMI=.66 whileSAVRY AUC=.74 PCL: YV AUC=.79. There was variation observed in thevalidity of prediction in all types of recidivisms and threeinstruments were found better in predicting recidivism in males thanfemales. In the same respect, SAVRY was found to give incrementalvalidity in its structure of risks judgment.

Schmidt,Fred, Mary Ann Campbell, and Carolyn Houlding. “ComparativeAnalyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL: YV in Adolescent Offenders:A 10-year Follow-Up Into Adulthood.”YouthViolence &amp Juvenile Justice 9,no. 1 (2011): 23-42.http://education.ucsb.edu/sharkey/documents/KeyArticle-schwalbe08.pdf

Thisarticle postulates that, in the justice system, risk assessmentinstruments are widely used in supporting administrative as well asjudicial decisions in matters of juvenile offences. The authors alsoobserve that, such instruments are also used in the restrictivenessof care and sanctioning severity. However, they lament that there hasbeen little efforts to explore the risk assessment instruments forvalidity on their predictiveness. The article also illustrates a Metaanalysis of risks assessment predictive validity on males and femalesjuvenile offenders. The authors also conducted nineteen studies in 20unique samples in which findings indicated that, the predictivevalidity estimates were equivalents among the female and the maleswith consistency in field Meta analysis. The studies indicated thatthere exist gender bias and differences in the justice judgments andcase management as opposed to risks assessment in females’offenders and therefore ineffectiveness in some risks assessmentinstruments.

Thompson,Anthony P. and Andrew McGrath. “SubgroupDifferences and Implications for Contemporary Risk-Need Assessmentwith Juvenile Offenders.”Law&amp Human Behavior 36,no. 4 (2012): 345-355.

Thearticle reports that, risk assessment are widely accepted practicefor juvenile offenders and these instruments are part of healthresearch literature. The authors further observes that, previousstudies on risks assessment have found differences and similaritiesin risks assessment inventories in comparing juvenile offences alongracial, ethnic and gender lines. While differential validity has beenassessed in this risks assessment tools, differential prediction hasnot been fully focused on. As such, the article authors engaged in aresearch study to compare ethnic and gender using a large sample(N=3568) who had previously being evaluated using the Youth Level ofService/ case management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Their analysis wasthat, there exist substantial variance in gender and ethnic acrossall domain scores but not in validity indices.

However,the authors found that the re offending rate among the youth variedby gender and ethnicity. In this respect the findings were found torelate to risks factors of offence dynamics in regard to gender andethnicity subgroups. The authors’ therefore argue that, YLS/CMI canbe used fairly among various subgroups to give reliable and validpredictions.

Viljoen,Jodi L., Kaitlyn McLachlan, and Gina M. Vincent. &quotAssessingViolence Risk and Psychopathy in Juvenile and Adult Offenders: ASurvey of Clinical Practices.&quotAssessment17,no. 3 (September 2010): 377-395.

ThisScholarly article presents authors study survey of 199 clinicians onthe practices they used to assess violence risks among the adults andjuvenile offenders. The authors’ findings were that, there iscommon use of psychopathy and risks assessment tools thoughpsychopathy was more routinely used as a risk assessment measure inadult rather than juvenile risks assessments. Most clinicians werefound to opt for psychopathy assessments once in a while in assessingrisks to juvenile offences. However, few clinicians believed thatlabeling juveniles as psychopaths was unacceptable. In the same line,the authors observe that, juvenile risk reports were more likely thanadult reports to routinely form the basis of treatment discussion andprotective factors.

Viljoen,Jodi L., Sarah Mordell, and Jennifer L. Beneteau. “Predictionof Adolescent Sexual Reoffending: A Meta-Analysis of the J-SOAP-II,ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II, and Static-99.”Law&amp Human Behavior 36,no. 5 (2012): 423-438.

Inthis article the authors presents a Meta analysis of the severaltools of risks assessment used in assessing re offence risks among juvenile sex offenders. They observe that these risks assessmentinstruments theJuvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-Il, the Estimate of Risk ofAdolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism, the Juvenile Sexual OffenseRecidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II and the Static-99, onlyproduces mixed outcomes. As such the authors examined published andunpublished studies which involved 6196 male juveniles of sexualoffences. They conducted separate Meta analysis using correlationsand the characteristic curve (AUC). In their findings, all theinstruments positively predicted sexual reoffending in varying rangesof correlations. However, heterogeneity in all studies was high andno major difference in the risks assessment tools. The articleauthors, argues that though Static 99 was designed for adults,results were similar as other tools used in risk assessment among theadolescents.

Vincent,Gina M., Rachael T. Perrault, Laura S. Guy, and Bernice G.Gershenson. “DevelopmentalIssues in Risk Assessment: Implications for Juvenile Justice.”Victims&amp Offenders 7,no. 4 (2012): 364-384.

Thearticle presents a study conducted by the authors in assessing issuesrelated to juvenile risks assessment which would be important to thejuvenile justice agencies. These issues were the possibilities ofdynamic factors providing unique contribution in risk assessment andthe implication of age related differences in impairing thepredictive accuracy of risk assessment process across all youths. Theauthors therefore, made a study by tracking new juvenile offences inaverage of 14.5 per month in a large sample of 674 for the youngoffenders who were assessed using the Structured Assessment ofViolence Risk for Youth (SAVRY). The article authors indicate that,they found that age had little moderation effect in re offences.However, dynamic risk factors had incremental effects on thepredictive validity than static factors in various types ofrecidivism. The authors therefore observe that, the juvenile justiceagencies should consider including dynamic risks factors in the risksassessment instruments among the juveniles and generalizing acrossall ages.

Conclusion

Theimportance of applying effectively the right risks assessmentinstruments in assessing and predicting validly the occurrence ofjuvenile sexual offence can not be under emphasized. Risk assessmentfor juvenile sex offenders is critical in checking recidivism andprevention among the offenders which has long term consequence afterthe assessment which is critical to the juvenile justice agencies.The extent to which case management is guided by risk assessment isvital because the impact of the assessment process can not besuccessfully realized if assessment instruments theJuvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-Il, the Estimate of Risk ofAdolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism, the Juvenile Sexual OffenseRecidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II and the Static-99, arenot applied effectively.

Thejuvenile justice agencies should consider including dynamic risksfactors in the risks assessment instruments among the juveniles andgeneralizing across all ages, italso important to consider the source of risks as well as thedifferent levels. Neighborhood influences can infiltrate more readilyin schools and peer domains than in personal domains. However, whileneighborhood serves to reduce violent offences among the youthsneighborhood can mediate on the impact of high risks among the youthsand therefore a different approach is needed in intervention andprevention of such risks.The new challenge is improving on these risks assessment instrumentsto ensure quality and predictable juvenile sexual offences.

References

Baglivio,Michael T., and Katherine Jackowski. (2013)“Examining the Validity of a Juvenile Offending Risk AssessmentInstrument across Gender and Race/Ethnicity.”YouthViolence &amp Juvenile Justice 11,no. 1: 26-43.

Ralston,C., &amp Epperson, D. (2013). Predictivevalidity of adult risk assessment tools with juveniles who offendedsexually.Psychological Assessment, 25 (3), 905-916.

Edinburgh,Laurel. (2011).“The 10-Question Tool: A Novel Screening Instrument for RunawayYouth”.OJJDPJournal of Juvenile Justice 1,no. 2: 80-94.

MartinRattennberger, (2013). Thecontribution of age to the static-99, Risk Assessment in aPopulation- based Prison Sample of Sexual OffendersVienna: Austria

MeganC. Kurlychek, Marvin D. Krohn, Beidi Dong, Gina Penly Hall and AlanJ. Lizotte, (2012). Protectionfrom Risk: Exploration of When and How Neighborhood-Level Factors CanReduce Violent Youth Outcomes.Sage journals,http://yvj.sagepub.com/content/10/1/83.full.pdf+html

Hempel,Inge, Nicole Buck, Maaike Cima, and Hjalmar van Marle. (2013).“Reviewof Risk Assessment Instruments for Juvenile Sex Offenders: What isnext?”InternationalJournal of Offender Therapy &amp Comparative Criminology 57,no. 2: 208-228.

Luong,Duyen, Stephen J. Wormith. (2011).“Applying Risk/Need Assessment to Probation Practice and its Impacton the Recidivism of Young Offenders.”CriminalJustice and Behavior 38,no. 12: 1177-1199.

Schmidt,Fred, Mary Ann Campbell, and Carolyn Houlding. (2011).“Comparative Analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL: YV inAdolescent Offenders: A 10-year Follow-Up into Adulthood.”YouthViolence &amp Juvenile Justice9,no. 1 (2011): 23-42.

Schmidt,Fred, Mary Ann Campbell, and Carolyn Houlding. (2011)“Comparative Analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY, and PCL: YV inAdolescent Offenders: A 10-year Follow-Up Into Adulthood.”YouthViolence &amp Juvenile Justice 9,no. 1: 23-42.http://education.ucsb.edu/sharkey/documents/KeyArticle-schwalbe08.pdf

Thompson,Anthony P. and Andrew McGrath. (2012).“Subgroup Differences and Implications for Contemporary Risk-NeedAssessment with Juvenile Offenders.”Law&amp Human Behavior 36,no. 4: 345-355.

Viljoen,Jodi L., Kaitlyn McLachlan, and Gina M. Vincent. (September 2010).&quotAssessingViolence Risk and Psychopathy in Juvenile and Adult Offenders: ASurvey of Clinical Practices.&quotAssessment17,no. 3: 377-395.

Viljoen,Jodi L., Sarah Mordell, and Jennifer L. Beneteau. (2012).“Predictionof Adolescent Sexual Reoffending: A Meta-Analysis of the J-SOAP-II,ERASOR, J-SORRAT-II, and Static-99.”Law&amp Human Behavior 36,no. 5: 423-438.

Vincent,Gina M., Rachael T. Perrault, Laura S. Guy, and Bernice G.Gershenson. (2012).“Developmental Issues in Risk Assessment: Implications for JuvenileJustice.”Victims&amp Offenders 7,no. 4: 364-384.

WashingtonState Institute for Public Policy, (2008). Assessingthe risk of Juvenile Sex Offenders using the Intensive Parole sexoffender Domain.United States: Olympia