Variation in the Prostitution of Juveniles

To explore these patterns, the incidents were first divided into groups based on offender age (i.e., juvenile-only incidents and mixed-age incidents, see figure 2). These groups were further subdivided by the gender of the juvenile offender (male juvenile offenders only, female juvenile offenders only, and both male and female juvenile offenders). Finally, further subgroups were identified, where possible, based on additional offender gender and offender number mixes.

As shown in figure 2, prostitution incidents involving juvenile offenders fell into six principal groups:

• Juvenile-only incidents involving male offenders only (50 incidents).
  
  
• Juvenile-only incidents involving female offenders only (44 incidents).
  
  
• Juvenile-only incidents involving both male and female offenders (2 incidents).
  
  
• Mixed-age incidents involving adult offenders with male juvenile offenders only (67 incidents).
  
  
• Mixed-age incidents involving adult offenders with female juvenile offenders only (36 incidents).
  
  
• Mixed-age incidents involving adult offenders with both male and female juvenile offenders (1 incident).

Since two of these groups—juvenile-only incidents involving both male and female offenders and mixed-age incidents involving adult offenders with both male and female juvenile offenders—were nearly empty (2 and 1 incidents, respectively), this left four primary arrangements that accounted for most of the incidents.

One distinctive pattern evident in these four primary groups is pervasive gender segregation (figure 2). Most incidents involved either exclusively male juvenile offenders (117 incidents) or exclusively female juvenile offenders (80 incidents). Furthermore, within the mixed-age incidents, male juvenile offenders were primarily associated with male adult offenders. The major exception to the pattern of gender segregation was found among female juvenile offenders in mixed-age incidents. In these cases, female juvenile offenders were most often (81 percent, or 29 of 36 incidents) associated with male adult offenders, suggesting the presence of pimps. Nearly half of these latter incidents (48 percent, or 14 of 29 incidents) included female adult offenders as well.

These four types of prostitution incidents included other differences beyond gender contrasts (table 2). For one thing, an “assisting prostitution” offense occurred more often in some groups. Among the mixed-age incidents, those involving female juveniles had a large percentage (39 percent) of “assisting” offenses, suggesting that adults are acting as pimps for female juveniles in these incidents. Interestingly, among the juvenile-only incidents, the male offenders, but not the female offenders, had a large percentage (42 percent) of “assisting” offenses. This may mean that male juveniles are pimping for other male juveniles, or, as suggested earlier, it can also indicate prostitutes caught soliciting for themselves.

Further differences distinguished the four types of incidents categorized in table 2. For example, mixed-age incidents involving male juveniles more often involved the oldest juvenile offenders (ages 16 and 17), were the most likely to occur at an outside location, and were the most likely to be linked to an arrest. In contrast, mixed-age incidents involving female juveniles involved more younger juvenile offenders (ages 15 and younger), were the least likely to occur outside (more often tied to a home/residence or a hotel/motel location), and had the highest likelihood of containing an additional offense beyond prostitution (typically a drug-related or sex offense).

The two types of juvenile-only incidents (male juvenile offenders only and female juvenile offenders only) typically fell between the two types of mixed-age incidents in character, and were somewhat similar to each other. The most notable difference between them was the higher occurrence of “assisting prostitution” offenses in the incidents involving only male juveniles, described above. It may be that this difference reflects how the police encounter these juvenile offenders in the course of their investigations or patrols. If a pimp arranges a meeting between a female juvenile prostitute and a patron, the police may only encounter the prostitute and patron but not the pimp. The offense charged would be “prostitution” rather than “assisting prostitution.” If, on the other hand, the police encounter the pimp in the process of soliciting, but without a prostitute present, the offense charged would be “assisting prostitution.” It may be that a number of these pimps are male juveniles, or it may be that male juveniles more often solicit for themselves than do female juveniles.

An additional contrast associated with offender age and gender differences was the pattern of prostitution arrests reported in NIBRS. NIBRS not only records the age and gender of individual offenders identified in prostitution incidents, but also collects the same information for individual arrestees in those incidents. Since the arrest offense is catalogued for each arrestee, this allows those arrested for prostitution to be specifically identified. Thus, the relative numbers of offenders and arrestees in prostitution incidents can be compared in terms of age and gender.

Many fewer of the juvenile offenders were arrested than adult offenders (59 percent and 82 percent, respectively) (table 3). Among the juvenile offenders, males were arrested somewhat more often than females (63 percent and 52 percent, respectively). The differential treatment of male and female prostitutes by law enforcement extended beyond arrest disparities in that most female juveniles (74 percent) arrested for prostitution were subsequently referred to other authorities, whereas a majority (57 percent) of male juveniles arrested for prostitution were handled within the department (i.e., released to parents, released with warning, etc.). In interpreting gender differences, it should be kept in mind that female offenders were typically somewhat younger than male offenders, thus differences in the treatment of male and female juvenile offenders may be influenced by age and not just gender.

Prostitution of Juveniles: Patterns From NIBRS	OJJDP Bulletin • June 2004