Juveniles who have committed sex offenses are a heterogeneous mix (Bourke and Donohue, 1996; Knight and Prentky, 1993). They vary according to victim and offense characteristics. They also differ on a wide range of other variables, including types of offending behaviors, histories of child maltreatment, sexual knowledge and experiences, academic and cognitive functioning, and mental health issues (Knight and Prentky, 1993; Weinrott, 1996).
In spite of the apparent heterogeneity of juveniles who have sexually offended, findings from the few existing studies that compared juveniles who committed sex offenses with those who committed other types of offenses frequently have not revealed significant differences between samples (Becker and Hunter, 1997). This finding may suggest that a substantial number of juvenile sex offenders may not differ significantly from other juvenile offenders, although subgroups of juveniles who committed sex offenses do differ from juveniles who committed other offenses. Subgroups of juveniles who committed sex offenses are discussed in more detail in the section on Types and Classifications.
Sexually Abusive Behaviors and Sex Offense Characteristics
As noted above, sexually abusive behaviors range from noncontact offenses to penetrative acts. In a study of Maine juveniles identified as having committed sex offenses (Righthand, Hennings, and Wigley, 1989), more than half of the abusive acts involved oral-genital contact or attempted or actual vaginal or anal penetration.
Offense characteristics include factors such as the age and sex of the victim, the relationship between the victim and the offender, and the degree of coercion and violence used. See table 1 for details of offense characteristics.
Notes: a Davis and Leitenberg, 1987; b Fehrenbach et al., 1986; c Hunter and Figueredo, 1999; d Miner, Siekert, and Ackland, 1997; e Rasmussen, 1999; Righthand, Hennings, and Wigley, 1989; g Ryan et al., 1996; h Smith and Monastersky, 1986; iWieckowski et al., 1998; j Knight and Prentky, 1993; Becker, 1998.
Nonsexual Criminal Behavior
Juvenile sex offenders frequently engage in nonsexual criminal and antisocial behavior (Fehrenbach et al., 1986; Ryan et al., 1996). Such behavior may, in fact, be quite typical of juvenile sex offenders, especially those who engage in forcible sexual assaults such as rape and attempted rape. In a national survey, Elliott (as cited in Weinrott, 1996) found that most of the 80 juveniles who disclosed sexually assaultive behavior had previously committed a nonsexual aggravated assault, whereas relatively few (7 percent) had perpetrated exclusively sex offenses. Nonsexual (violent and nonviolent) criminal behavior is correlated with repeated sexual violence by adult sex offenders (Chaffin, 1994; Hanson and Buissière, 1996) and may also be an important risk factor for repeated sex offending by juveniles.
The childhood experience of sexual abuse has been associated with juvenile sex offending (Fehrenbach et al., 1986; Kahn and Chambers, 1991; Kobayashi et al., 1995). Rates of juvenile sex offenders who have experienced sexual abuse as children reportedly range from 40 to 80 percent (Becker and Hunter, 1997). Yet, such abusive experiences of juvenile sex offenders have not consistently been found to differ significantly from those of other juvenile offenders (Lewis, Shanok, and Pincus, as cited in Knight and Prentky, 1993; Spaccarelli et al., 1997). Furthermore, Smith and Monastersky (1986) found that among the juvenile sex offenders in their sample, there was a relationship between childhood experience of sexual abuse and higher rates of nonsexual reoffending but lower rates of sexual reoffending.
Not surprisingly, childhood experiences of being physically abused, being neglected, and witnessing family violence have been independently associated with sexual violence in juvenile offenders (Kobayashi et al., 1995; Ryan et al., 1996). Proportions of juvenile sex offenders who have experienced physical abuse as children reportedly range from 25 to 50 percent (Becker and Hunter, 1997). A study comparing juvenile sex offenders with juveniles who have committed nonsexual offenses suggests that sex offenders may have higher rates of childhood physical abuse (Ford and Linsey, as cited in Becker and Hunter, 1997). When juvenile sex offenders were compared only with juveniles who have committed nonsexual violent offenses, however, this result was not replicated (Knight and Prentky, 1993). This latter finding suggests that a history of physical abuse is correlated with some type of violent behavior but not necessarily with sexually violent behavior.
The role of child maltreatment in the etiology of sex offending appears quite complex (Prentky et al., 2000). One recent study (Hunter and Figueredo, as cited in Becker and Hunter, 1997) used several comparison and control groups to investigate factors associated with sex offending, such as a history of sexual victimization and family support. The study found four variables predictive of sex offending: younger age at the time of victimization, higher rates of abusive incidents, longer period between abuse and disclosure, and lower level of perceived family support following the disclosure of the abuse.
Cooper, Murphy, and Haynes (as cited in Becker, 1998) compared juvenile sex offenders who had been sexually or physically abused with those who had not. They found that the abused juveniles began their sex offending 1.6 years earlier than the nonabused group, had twice the number of victims, were more likely to have both female and male victims, and were less likely to limit their offending to family members.
Other research on various offender groups suggests that offenders with histories of maltreatment begin offending at earlier ages than other offenders who were not maltreated. For example, Knight and Prentky (1993) found that rapists who began offending as juveniles had higher rates of emotional neglect as children than other rapists who began their assaults in adulthood. Child molesters who began offending as juveniles also had higher rates of physical abuse as children than did child molesters who began offending in adulthood. Although these samples did not differ significantly regarding the experience of intrafamilial sex abuse, child molesters who began offending as juveniles had higher rates of sexual victimization experiences throughout their childhood than did rapists who began their offending as adults. Rapists who began offending while still juveniles, as contrasted with those who began offending in adulthood, tended to come from families where sexually deviant or abusive behavior was directed at other family members. Data pertaining to an additional group of sex offenders, who had no official record of juvenile sex offenses but who admitted to such behavior in a confidential, computer-generated interview, were similar. In this group, offenders who began perpetrating as juveniles, contrasted with those who began as adults, had overall higher rates of childhood sexual victimization, their sexually abusive experiences began at younger ages, and the sexual assaults they experienced as children tended to be more severe (i.e., on a scale ranging from fondling to intercourse).
Social and Interpersonal Skills and Relationships
Family Factors
In addition to child maltreatment, factors such as family instability, disorganization, and violence have been found to be prevalent among juveniles who engage in sexually abusive behavior (Bagley and Shewchuk-Dann, 1991; Miner, Siekert, and Ackland, 1997; Morenz and Becker, 1995). Studies vary as to the percentages of these juveniles who are from intact families. Some studies (Kahn and Chambers, 1991; Fehrenbach et al., 1986) have found that less than one-third of the juvenile sex offenders in their samples resided with both birth parents.
Graves et al. (as cited in Becker, 1998) used statistical procedures (meta-analysis) to analyze the findings of multiple studies that were conducted over 20 years and described characteristics of juvenile sex offenders. The analysis resulted in identification of three groups of juveniles: sexually assaultive juveniles, whose victims were the offenders' peers or older; pedophilic juveniles, whose victims were at least 3 years younger than the offenders; and a mixed group, described as including juveniles who perpetrated more than one class of sex offense, including hands-off and hands-on offenses (Weinrott, 1996). The Graves et al. results (as cited in Becker, 1998) also indicated that juveniles who committed sexual assaults against victims who were their peers or older were more likely to come from single-parent homes (78 percent) than those who committed "pedophilic" offenses (44 percent) or mixed offenses (37 percent). Those who committed pedophilic offenses, however, frequently lived with foster or blended families (53 percent).
Miner, Siekert, and Ackland's (1997) study of incarcerated offenders revealed that only 16 percent of the juveniles in their sample came from intact families. The low rate of intact families, however, may reflect the nature of the sample (i.e., incarcerated juveniles).
In contrast to these studies, Cellini (1995) reported that approximately 70 percent of juvenile sex offenders lived in two-parent homes at the time their abusive behavior was discovered. It was not clear, however, whether the two parents in these homes were both birth parents.
Together, these various studies suggest that many juvenile sex offenders have experienced physical and/or emotional separations from one or both of their parents. The cause of this separation may be family instability, parental separation or divorce, or residential placement of the juvenile.
Research on family factors affecting juvenile sex offenders has also examined family communication styles and types of family involvement with the juvenile. Studies have found that supportive communication and comments that facilitate dialog are limited in the families of juvenile sex offenders and violent offenders, whereas negative communication, such as aggressive statements and interruptions, are frequent (Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler, and Mann, as cited in Morenz and Becker, 1995). Not surprisingly, adequate support and supervision may be lacking in the families of these juveniles (Borduin, Henggeler, Blaske, and Stein, as cited in Hunter and Figueredo, 1999).
In a comparison study of juvenile sex offenders and other juvenile offenders in two residential treatment centers, sexually assaultive juveniles were described as typically coming from intact, "hothouse" families that frequently evidenced severe pathology, including child maltreatment (Bagley and Shewchuk-Dann, 1991). Although the sexually aggressive juveniles experienced less family instability (as defined by multiple male adult caregivers and/or desertions by their father figure), their parents evidenced higher levels of marital stress. Furthermore, the mothers and fathers of these juveniles had more mental health problems that required intervention, and the fathers evidenced slightly greater rates of alcohol abuse. Parents of juveniles in the sexually aggressive group also were more likely to be overly ambitious for their children and excessively critical of poor school grades.
Similarly, Miner, Siekert, and Ackland (1997) described the juvenile sex offenders in their sample as coming from "chaotic" family environments. Nearly 60 percent of the biological fathers had substance abuse histories, and 28 percent had criminal histories. Biological mothers, when compared to fathers, were less likely to have substance abuse histories (28 percent) or criminal histories (17 percent). The mothers, however, were more likely than the fathers to have a history of psychiatric treatment (23 percent versus 13 percent, respectively). Furthermore, nearly one-fifth of the subjects' siblings had criminal histories, and 29 percent of biological siblings and 20 percent of stepsiblings had psychiatric histories.
Smith and Israel (1987) found that some parents of juveniles who sexually abused their siblings were physically and/or emotionally inaccessible and distant. They also reported that some parents evidenced sexual pathology and exposed the juveniles to their sexual behaviors. Similarly, Miner and Crimmins (1995) found that sex-offending juveniles appeared to be more disengaged from their families than were other juveniles and, consequently, may have been cut off from possible sources of emotional support and less able to form positive attachments. This latter possibility gains some support from the finding of Kobayashi et al. (1995) that more positive relationships between juveniles and their mothers may be related to decreased levels of sexual aggression in juveniles. Weinrott (1996) reported there is strong evidence that family instability and problems in parent-child attachment in childhood are associated with more intrusive forms of juvenile sex offending.
Kimball and Guarino-Ghezzi (1996) found that the juveniles in their sample identified as child molesters reported significantly more ongoing conflict with a parental figure than was reported by juveniles identified as rapists. Rapists were significantly more likely than molesters to perceive their parents as not supportive of treatment. Stevenson and Wimberley (1990) opined, "The importance of family influences in the life of the adolescent sex offender cannot be underestimated as it is often the barometer of what can or cannot happen in treatment" (p. 59).
Social Skills and Relationships
Research repeatedly documents that juveniles with sexual behavior problems have significant deficits in social competence (Becker, 1990; Knight and Prentky, 1993). Inadequate social skills, poor peer relationships, and social isolation are some of the difficulties identified in these juveniles (Fehrenbach et al., 1986; Katz, 1990; Miner and Crimmins, 1995). For example, Katz (1990) compared three groups—adolescent "child molesters," juvenile delinquents who had not committed sex offenses, and a comparison group recruited from a local high school2—on various measures of social competence. The juveniles who had committed child molestation offenses were more socially maladjusted than either of the other groups and evidenced more social anxiety and fear of heterosexual interactions. Miner and Crimmins (1995) found that juveniles who have sexually offended had fewer peer attachments and felt less positive attachment to their schools, compared with other delinquent juveniles and nondelinquent juveniles. In fact, they stated that this and other research—
point to the primacy of isolation and poor social adjustment as distinguishing characteristics of adolescent sex offenders, indicating that interventions that maximize the ability to build interpersonal attachments potentially affect the propensity to engage in sexually abusive and aggressive behaviors. (pp. 9–11)
Sexual Knowledge and Experiences
Sexual Histories and Beliefs
Research suggests that adolescent sex offenders generally have had previous consenting sexual experiences (Becker, Kaplan, Cunningham-Rathner, and Kavoussi, as cited in Knight and Prentky, 1993; Groth and Longo, as cited in Knight and Prentky, 1993; Ryan et al., 1996). Research also suggests that sometimes their experiences have exceeded the experiences of control juveniles who have not committed sex offenses (McCord, McCord, and Venden, as cited in Knight and Prentky, 1993). Prior experiences with sexual dysfunction, most commonly impotence or premature ejaculation, have also been reported in juvenile sex offenders (Longo, as cited in Knight and Prentky, 1993). A study of 1,600 juvenile sex offenders described by 90 independent contributors from 30 States (Ryan et al., 1996) found that only about one-third of the juveniles perceived sex as a way to demonstrate love or caring for another person; others perceived sex as a way to feel power and control (23.5 percent), to dissipate anger (9.4 percent), or to hurt, degrade, or punish (8.4 percent).
Deviant Sexual Arousal
Studies of male college students and adult sex offenders have shown that deviant sexual arousal is strongly associated with sexually coercive behavior (Barbaree and Marshall, as cited in Hunter and Becker, 1994; Earls and Quinsey, as cited in Hunter and Becker, 1994; Prentky and Knight, as cited in Knight and Prentky, 1993). Controlled studies of deviant sexual arousal in juvenile sex offenders are lacking, although some related research has been reported.
In their sample of 197 juvenile sex offenders, Schram, Milloy, and Rowe (1991) found that sexual recidivists, defined as juveniles arrested for a new offense, were significantly more likely than other offenders to have deviant patterns of sexual arousal. Similarly, Kahn and Chambers (1991) found a trend associating deviant arousal and sexual reoffending, but it was not statistically significant. Both studies, however, relied on clinical judgments to determine the existence of deviant arousal, rather than more objective means such as phallometric assessment.
Knight and Prentky (1993) found that adult sex offenders who began offending as juveniles did not differ from those who began as adults in terms of preoccupation with sexual fantasies, problems with sexuality, or sexually deviant conduct. Knight and Prentky concluded this finding suggests that the importance of sexualization as an issue for juvenile sex offenders, as for adult sex offenders, may vary depending on the type of offender.
In their review of the role of deviant sexual arousal in juvenile sex offending, Hunter and Becker (1994) noted the limited research in this area and encouraged further investigations. They stressed that although deviant arousal may be more of a factor for sex offenders who target children (particularly those who target boys), research suggests that juveniles who engage in sexually abusive behavior are a heterogeneous group. They also emphasized that the sexual interest and arousal patterns of these juveniles are more changeable than those of adult sex offenders and cautioned against applying to juveniles what is known about deviant arousal in adults.
Pornography
Investigations into the role of pornography in juvenile sex offending are limited in number. Becker and Stein (as cited in Hunter and Becker, 1994) found that only 11 percent of the juvenile sex offenders in their study reported that they did not use sexually explicit material. Approximately 74 percent reported that pornography increased their sexual arousal, 3 percent indicated it decreased their arousal, and 23 percent said it had no effect. There were no statistically significant differences between the subjects in terms of use of pornography and number of victims or in terms of types of pornography used and number of victims.
In a sample of 30 juveniles who had committed sex offenses, exposure to pornographic material at a young age was common (Wieckowski et al., 1998). The researchers reported that 29 of the 30 juveniles had been exposed to X-rated magazines or videos; the average age at exposure was about 7.5 years. Similarly, Ford and Linney (as cited in Becker and Hunter, 1997) found that 42 percent of juvenile sex offenders, compared with 29 percent of juvenile violent offenders (whose offenses were nonsexual) and status offenders, had been exposed to hardcore, sexually explicit magazines. The juvenile sex offenders also had been exposed at younger ages, ranging from 5 to 8. High rates of exposure to pornography also have been found for girls who have committed sex offenses (Mathews, Hunter, and Vuz, 1997).
Academic and Cognitive Functioning
Academic Performance
Studies typically report that, as a group, juveniles who sexually offended experienced academic difficulties (Fehrenbach et al., 1986; Kahn and Chambers, 1991; Miner, Siekert, and Ackland, 1997; Pierce and Pierce, as cited in Bourke and Donohue, 1996). For example, Kahn and Chambers found that more than half of the juveniles in their study had evidenced at least one of three kinds of difficulty at school: disruptive behavior (53 percent), truancy (nearly 30 percent), or a learning disability (39 percent). Only 57 percent of the sample used by Fehrenbach et al. had achieved grade-appropriate placement or better. Pierce and Pierce found that 49 percent of the juvenile sex offenders in their sample had academic problems, 38 percent had been placed in special classes, and 14 percent were diagnosed as mentally retarded.
As part of an investigation of learning difficulties as a potential factor in sex offender treatment, Langevin, Marentette, and Rosati (1996) examined the case files of 162 male adult sex offenders who had participated in a treatment program and who had relevant data available. Fifty percent of the sample had repeated a grade. Although most of the subjects (43 percent) had repeated just one grade, 14 percent had repeated two grades and 3.5 percent had failed three or more grades. Seven others had been placed in special education classes as children. In all, 53 percent of the subjects apparently experienced learning difficulties during childhood.
Some juveniles who have sexually offended, however, do well in school. For example, O'Brien (as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996) found that 32 percent of the offenders in his sample were described as above average in their academic performance.
Intellectual and Cognitive Impairments
Research that focuses on the intellectual and cognitive functioning of juveniles who have committed sex offenses is limited. Existing studies suggest that intellectual and cognitive impairments are factors that should be addressed (Awad, Saunders, and Levene, as cited in Knight and Prentky, 1993; McCurry et al., 1998). For example, in a comparative study of juvenile sex offenders and delinquents who had not committed sex offenses, the sex offenders had slightly lower IQ scores and more variability within subtests of standardized tests (Atcheson and Williams, as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996). In addition, more than one-quarter (25.2 percent) of the juvenile sex offenders had IQ scores below 80, whereas only 11.1 percent of the other delinquents scored in this range. Additionally, Saunders et al. (as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996) found that violent juvenile sex offenders tended to have lower IQ scores than nonviolent sex offenders. Ferrara and McDonald argued that such differences may be attributed to higher rates of neurological impairments among violent offenders.
McCurry et al. (1998) noted that verbal deficits among juveniles who had conduct disorders and who scored within the average range on standardized tests were associated with higher rates of aggression and antisocial behavior. To investigate the role of verbal deficits in adolescents and children with inappropriate sexual behaviors, McCurry et al. studied 200 juveniles with serious psychiatric disorders, 99 of whom also evidenced inappropriate sexual behaviors such as hypersexuality (37 of the juveniles), exposing (24), and victimizing (38). Analyses revealed that, in general, subjects with lower IQ scores evidenced significantly more inappropriate sexual behaviors than did those with higher scores. This finding was especially true for subjects who molested or raped. Furthermore, subjects who evidenced the most serious inappropriate sexual behaviors had verbal IQ scores that were significantly lower than their performance IQ scores. The authors noted that deficits in verbal cognitive functioning, reflected by impulsivity and poor judgment, may contribute to the increased rates of serious inappropriate sexual behaviors among these juveniles. The authors stressed that treatment providers should consider the effects of verbal deficits when designing and applying interventions.
Lewis, Shanok, and Pincus (as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996) investigated possible neurological deficits in a group of juvenile sex offenders and a comparison group of juveniles who had committed nonsexual but violently assaultive offenses. Psychological tests were administered,3 and sleep electroencephalographs (EEG's) were performed when possible. The groups did not differ on full-scale, verbal, or performance IQ scores. Sex offenders evidenced greater difficulties on the reading test than the comparison group (5.59 versus 3.95 years below grade level, respectively). The results of the EEG's revealed the most direct evidence of neurological impairments among the juveniles from both groups: 23.5 percent of the sex offenders and 3.3 percent of the comparison group evidenced grossly abnormal EEG's or grand mal seizures. The finding of neurological impairments in both groups of juvenile offenders is consistent with other research regarding juvenile delinquents in general and violent juvenile offenders specifically (Ferrara and McDonald, 1996).
Academic functioning is not determined solely by intellectual or neurological functioning (parental level of education and support, truancy, and other variables are important); nevertheless, learning disorders are related to below-average academic achievement (Ferrara and McDonald, 1996). Furthermore, although the role of learning disabilities has not been well investigated, one study (O'Brien, as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996) found that of a sample of 170 male adolescents who sexually offended, as many as 37 percent experienced learning disabilities.
The incidence of attention deficit disorders in juveniles with sexual behavior problems has not been satisfactorily examined. Kavoussi, Kaplan, and Becker (1988), however, found that of the 58 juveniles who had been evaluated or treated in an outpatient juvenile sex offender program, approximately 7 percent met the full diagnostic criteria for attention deficit disorder as specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, 3rd Edition (DSM-III). Nearly 35 percent of the juveniles evidenced some symptoms of an attention deficit disorder. Miner, Siekert, and Ackland (1997) found that more than 60 percent of the incarcerated juveniles in their study exhibited hyperactive and restless behaviors, and approximately 75 percent were identified as having attention problems, a learning disability, or both.
Although studies investigating specific areas of cognitive deficits in juvenile sex offenders are lacking, Ferrara and McDonald (1996) noted that research on juvenile delinquents has demonstrated two areas of impairment: difficulties with executive functions, such as planning, abstraction, inhibition of inappropriate impulses, and cognitive flexibility; and difficulties with receptive and expressive language. Studies as noted above suggest that at least some juveniles who sexually offend do not differ significantly from juveniles who commit other types of offenses and that some juvenile sex offenders experience cognitive deficits similar to those identified in other groups of juvenile offenders. Based on their review of the literature, Ferrara and McDonald concluded that between one-quarter and one-third of juvenile sex offenders may have some form of neurological impairment. They noted, "Furthermore, it is likely that the neurologically impaired juvenile sex offender who goes undetected will not attain the [optimal] benefit from treatment due to problems in concentration, comprehension, and memory" (p. 13).
In their study of the impact of learning difficulties in adult sex offender treatment, Langevin, Marentette, and Rosati (1996) observed that cognitive and neuropsychological testing revealed that the average level of intellectual functioning of the sample was in the average range. A closer examination, based on normative data, revealed that more than expected fell within the borderline range of intellectual functioning (i.e., IQ of 70-79), fewer than expected were within the "bright normal" range (IQ of 110-119), and more than expected fell within the very superior range (i.e., IQ of 130-140). Neuropsychological testing with the Halstead-Reitan Battery indicated that 33 percent of the sample scored within the impaired range.
Cognitive Distortions and Attributions
Knight and Prentky (1993) pointed out that some factors observed in abused children may have relevance for juvenile sex offenders who have been maltreated. For example, they cited studies indicating that abused children evidence less empathy than nonabused children, have trouble recognizing appropriate emotions in others, and have difficulty taking another person's perspective. This observation is consistent with research indicating that cognitive distortions, such as blaming the victim, were associated with increased rates of sexual reoffending among juveniles who committed sex offenses (Kahn and Chambers, 1991; Schram, Milloy, and Rowe, 1991).
Symptoms and Disorders
Conduct disorder diagnoses and antisocial behavior frequently have been observed in populations of juveniles who have sexually offended (Kavoussi, Kaplan, and Becker, 1988; Miner, Siekert, and Ackland, 1997). For example, Kavoussi, Kaplan, and Becker found that the most common DSM-III diagnosis in their sample of male juvenile sex offenders was a conduct disorder (48 percent). Most of the juveniles were classified with the socialized, non-aggressive type. A much higher rate of conduct disorders was found among juveniles who had raped or attempted to rape adult women (75 percent).
In addition to conduct disorder diagnoses and antisocial traits, studies have described other behavioral and personality characteristics in juveniles who have sexually offended. For example, impulse control problems and lifestyle impulsivity have been associated with juvenile sex offending (Prentky and Knight, as cited in Prentky et al., 2000; Smith, Monastersky, and Deisher, as cited in Prentky et al., 2000). Carpenter, Peed, and Eastman (1995) found that adolescents who sexually offended against younger children evidenced higher scores on the Schizoid, Avoidant, and Dependent scales of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) than those who offended against age peers. These differences were statistically significant. Carpenter and colleagues also found that the degree of narcissism in the group of adolescents who offended against peers was within the clinically significant range, whereas the degree of narcissism in the group who offended against younger children was not clinically significant. The difference between the scores of the two groups on the narcissism scale was not, however, statistically significant. In another study, Schram, Milloy, and Rowe (1991) described slightly more than half of the juveniles in their sample of juvenile sex offenders as shy or immature.
Studies have indicated that juveniles who have sexually offended have higher rates of depressive symptoms than are found in the general juvenile population (Becker, Kaplan, and Tenke, as cited in Becker and Hunter, 1997; Kaplan, Hong, and Weinhold, as cited in Becker and Hunter, 1997). Sexually aggressive juveniles who had histories of childhood physical abuse or sexual abuse had higher rates of depressive symptoms, with as many as 29.2 percent of these offenders appearing severely depressed (Becker, as cited in Becker and Hunter, 1997). Becker and Hunter stressed that this finding illustrates the importance of evaluating whether juvenile sex offenders are experiencing symptoms of depression, especially if they have been victimized themselves.
Few studies of adolescents and children who evidence sexual behavior problems report major psychopathology in the subjects or their families (Becker, as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996; Johnson, as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996). Sexually aggressive juveniles placed in residential programs, however, evidence higher levels of "emotional disturbance," compared with other juveniles in these programs (Lewis et al., as cited in Ferrara and McDonald, 1996). Bagley and Schewchuk-Dann (1991) studied male juveniles in two residential treatment centers. They found that residents with sexual behavior problems, as compared with an age-matched control group of residents with no record of sexual problems, demonstrated higher levels of hyperactivity or restlessness; more depression and anxiety; more histories of fire setting, encopresis (defecation in inappropriate places), and running away; more early-onset neurological conditions or illnesses; more learning disorders; and health problems beginning at an earlier age. In contrast, juveniles from the control group were more aggressive toward peers and siblings and were more destructive of possessions and property.
Substance Abuse
Studies vary widely on the importance of substance abuse as a factor in sex offending among juveniles. Lightfoot and Barbaree (1993) reported that rates at which juvenile sex offenders were found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they committed their offenses ranged from 3.4 to 72 percent.
Although substance abuse has been identified as a problem for many juveniles who have sexually offended (Kahn and Chambers, 1991; Miner, Siekert, and Ackland, 1997), the role of substance abuse in sex offending remains unclear, and for some juveniles, substance abuse may not be related to sex offending. Becker and Stein (as cited in Hunter and Becker, 1994) found that although 62 percent of the juvenile sex offenders in their study admitted to alcohol use, only 11 percent reported that alcohol use increased their sexual arousal. Statistical analyses indicated that the juveniles who reported increased arousal had more victims than those who said alcohol had no effect on their arousal or who said they did not drink. Illicit drug use was less commonly reported than alcohol use among these juveniles: 39 percent reported illicit drug use. Of these, approximately 23 percent reported that it increased their sexual arousal. There were no statistically significant differences between subjects in terms of drug use and number of victims.
As Lightfoot and Barbaree (1993) pointed out, assessments should differentiate substance abuse problems from "normative" experimentation that is part of the developmental process. They noted that classification schemes have been developed (George and Skinner, as cited in Lightfoot and Barbaree, 1993) to differentiate between infrequent, experimental, recreational, and chronic users and between different types of life problems associated with substance abuse among juvenile offenders (Lightfoot, Lightfoot, and Hodgins, as cited in Lightfoot and Barbaree, 1993). These authors stressed the importance of adequate assessments of substance abuse as part of a comprehensive evaluation of sex offenders. They pointed out that offenders who have evidence of organic impairment, possibly as a result of their substance abuse, are likely to require treatment similar to that required by offenders who are below average in intellectual functioning. Such treatment approaches should be simple and concrete, provide opportunities to rehearse new skills, and include strategies to facilitate the development and use of new skills in a variety of settings. The authors also noted that even among adolescents who are infrequent substance abusers, issues such as poor impulse control, problem-solving difficulties, and poor social skills can be exacerbated by even small amounts of substance and, consequently, may increase the risk of sex offending. Lightfoot and Barbaree (1993) further suggested that whereas less frequent users may benefit from substance abuse treatment efforts that are part of a comprehensive treatment program, more chronic users may require more intensive substance abuse treatment efforts, possibly prior to treatment related to sex offending.
It appears that evidence is insufficient to identify substance abuse as a causative factor in the development of sexually abusive behavior, although substance abuse has a disinhibiting potential and, if present, may require intervention. For example, Miner and Crimmins (1995) found that the substance abuse histories of juvenile sex offenders were very similar to those of other adolescents, including both nonoffenders and juveniles who committed violent but nonsexual offenses. Although the three groups did not differ in their alcohol abuse, the violent nonsexual offenders had the highest rates of drug abuse. Yet, as Lightfoot and Barbaree (1993) have suggested, assessments of juveniles who have committed sex offenses would do better to determine not simply whether substance abuse is present in a juvenile's life but whether it is a risk factor for offending. If it is found to be a risk factor, the next step is to evaluate what interventions are required to reduce this risk.
2 Some of the high school students in the comparison group may have had contact with the juvenile or criminal justice systems, but this number was assumed to be small.
3 Tests included the Wechsler Intellectual Scale for Children, Bender Gestalt, Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, and Key Math Diagnostic Arithmetic Test.