The findings of this literature review indicate that juveniles who have committed sex offenses are a heterogeneous group who, like all juveniles, have developmental needs, but who also have special needs and present special risks related to their abusive behaviors. There currently are no empirically validated and accepted classification schemes for differentiating types of juveniles who have sexually offended. However, the relatively low known rates of recidivism and existing studies suggesting that a substantial proportion of these juveniles desist from committing sex offenses following the initial disclosed offense and intervention appear to support theoretical classifications. It may be that relatively smaller groups commit additional offenses, including sex offenses, other offenses, or both.

The literature on assessment and treatment clearly supports the importance of interventions that are tailored to the individual juvenile. Risk management strategies likely to be most effective are those that address the needs underlying a juvenile's behavior and make the most of the juvenile's existing strengths and positive supports. Treatment effectiveness is likely to be enhanced by interventions that motivate the juvenile to make positive changes and that facilitate efforts to do so by being responsive to learning or personality styles or other individual characteristics.

Interventions should target factors that are empirically associated with the risk of sex offending specifically (e.g., deviant arousal and limited social competence) and factors associated with delinquent offending in general (e.g., delinquent peers and antisocial attitudes). In addition, appropriate targets of intervention include those that appear theoretically relevant but that either have not yet been studied or have not been demonstrated to be consistently related to risk (e.g., inadequate dating skills).

When selecting appropriate treatment programs and interventions, Chaffin and Bonner's (1998) cautionary remarks should be remembered. They observed that efficacy has not been established for many sex offender interventions considered standard and required. On the other hand, as this literature review has described, there is a wide range of interventions with more of an empirical basis, particularly within the juvenile justice field (such as MST), that may be effective. It also should be remembered that some juveniles may require minimal interventions once their sex offending has been disclosed. An additional—and important—caution is that treatment efforts certainly should not be harmful.

Lastly, it should be remembered that the goal when working with juveniles who have committed sex offenses is to help them stop their abusive behaviors. To label them "juvenile sex offenders" at a time when they are developing their identity may have deleterious effects. There is no evidence pertaining to these juveniles that suggests once a sex offender, always a sex offender, as Chaffin and Bonner (1998) point out in their editorial "Don't Shoot, We're Your Children: Have We Gone Too Far in Our Response to Adolescent Sexual Abusers and Children With Sexual Behavior Problems?" Instead, it is important to remember that they are children and adolescents first—they are young people who have committed offenses and who deserve care and attention.