U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Comparative Study of Juvenile Sex Offenders and Non-Sex Offenders

NCJ Number
156583
Author(s)
C D Milloy
Date Published
1994
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This report presents the methodology and findings of a study that compared the background characteristics and offense behavior of a group of juveniles who have been convicted of at least one sex offense to a group of delinquent offenders who have never been convicted of a sex offense.
Abstract
The sample for the study consisted of 256 convicted male juvenile offenders who were included in a needs assessment survey conducted in 1990 by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services. The needs assessment yielded baseline descriptive information on each member of the sample. Additional descriptive data on the sexual offender behavior of the juveniles who were convicted of sex offenses were collected from Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation case files. Criminal history and recidivism information during a 3-year follow-up period was collected from multiple official sources. Findings show that the sex offenders were significantly more likely than the non-sex offenders to have been victims of sexual abuse. They were also more likely to have been assessed as having a major mental health dysfunction, to need health or dental hygiene education, to have no age appropriate peer relationships, and to have problems with sexual identity. The juvenile sex offenders were more likely to have been performing adequately in school prior to commitment and were less likely to have prior convictions of any kind. They were also less likely to be using or abusing drugs or alcohol. The sex offenders presented a lower risk of reoffending during the follow-up period than the non-sex offenders. The juvenile sex offenders were not specialists in offending, but rather were involved in other types of criminal behavior as well, generally to a greater extent than their involvement in sexual offending. 11 tables and 2 figures