Assessment of Reoffense Risk in Adolescents Who Have Committed Sexual Offenses

Abstract

Clinicians are often asked to assess the likelihood that an adolescent who has committed a sexual offense will reoffend. However, there is limited research on the predictive validity of available assessment tools. To help address this gap, this study examined the ability of the Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR), the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV), and the Static-99 to predict reoffending in a sample of 193 adolescents. Youth were followed for an average of 7.24 years after discharge from a residential sex offender treatment program. Although none of the instruments significantly predicted detected cases of sexual reoffending, ERASOR's structured professional judgments nearly reached significance (p = .069). Both the YLS/CMI and the PCL:YV predicted nonsexual violence, any violence, and any offending; however, the YLS/CMI demonstrated incremental validity over the PCL:YV. Although the Static-99 has considerable support with adult sex offenders, it did not predict sexual or general reoffending in the present sample of adolescents.

Differences in Risk Factors for Violent, Nonviolent, and Sexual Offending

“…Further, we found that the predictive value of the total RISc score corresponded with a high effect size for predicting nonviolent recidivism (AUC = .723), with a medium effect size for predicting nonviolent recidivism (AUC = .704), and with a small effect size for predicting sexual recidivism (.585) (given the criteria of Rice & Harris, 2005). Previous research also showed that risk assessment instruments for general recidivism are only weak predictors for sexual recidivism (e.g., Schmidt et al, 2011;Seto & Lalumière, 2010;Viljoen, 2009). A specific risk assessment instrument seems to be needed for predicting sexual reoffending to an acceptable degree, in which specific risk factors, such as deviant sexual interests, prior sexual offenses, and deviant victim choices are assessed (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998;Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005).…”

The Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth for Young Spanish Offenders

“…Regarding the individual items, the total group of minors obtained higher scores on the following: Poor School Achievement and Low Interest/Commitment to School or Work (Viljoen et al, 2009; Weerman, 2010; Van der Put, 2011; Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Harder et al, 2015), Peer Delinquency (Fergusson et al, 2007; Van der Put, 2011; Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Harder et al, 2015; Ortega-Campos et al, 2016; Makarios et al, forthcoming) and Poor Parental Management (Chambers et al, 2001; Álvarez-García et al, 2016; Ortega-Campos et al, 2016; Makarios et al, forthcoming). The lowest mean score in the group of protective factors was for Resilient Personality Traits (Mowder et al, 2010).…”

“…Consequently, interventions from Juvenile Justice should address the criminogenic needs that the juvenile presents, in order for the intervention and the youth’s experience with Juvenile Justice to be as effective as possible, and to meet the objective of reducing the effect and presence of risk factors in the repeat offenders (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Polaschek, 2012; Childs et al, 2014; Ortega-Campos et al, 2016). The SAVRY proves to be a good instrument for younger offenders, discriminating level of risk and risk factors between recidivist and non-recidivist (McEachran, 2001; Catchpole and Gretton, 2003; Gammelgard et al, 2008; Schwalbe, 2008; Welsh et al, 2008; Viljoen et al, 2009; Vincent et al, 2011; Hilterman et al, 2014). …”

“…In the social domain, Peer Delinquency (Fergusson et al, 2007; Van der Put, 2011; Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Harder et al, 2015; Ortega-Campos et al, 2016; Makarios et al, forthcoming) and Poor Parental Management (Chambers et al, 2001; Álvarez-García et al, 2016; Ortega-Campos et al, 2016; Makarios et al, forthcoming). Finally, in the individual domain, Negative Attitudes (Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Makarios et al, forthcoming) and Low Interest/Commitment to School or Work (Viljoen et al, 2009; Weerman, 2010; Van der Put, 2011; Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Harder et al, 2015). …”

“…Factors that show the strongest predictive associations for repeat S-ASBs are: prior S-ASBs (Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015), age when the first delinquent act was committed (Van der Put, 2011), problems at school or work (Viljoen et al, 2009; Weerman, 2010; Van der Put, 2011; Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Harder et al, 2015), antisocial peers (Fergusson et al, 2007; Van der Put, 2011; Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Harder et al, 2015; Ortega-Campos et al, 2016; Makarios et al, forthcoming), poor use of leisure time (Van der Put, 2011; Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Harder et al, 2015), antisocial personality/behavior (Cuervo and Villanueva, 2015; Makarios et al, forthcoming), lack of parental supervision (Chambers et al, 2001; Álvarez-García et al, 2016; Ortega-Campos et al, 2016; Makarios et al, forthcoming) and criminality in family members (Murray and Farrington, 2008; Geller et al, 2009). There are other holistic approaches in juvenile offenders (e.g., the Good Lives Model) premised on the idea that the offenders need to build capabilities and strengths, in order to reduce their risk of reoffending (Cipolletta, 2011; Dumas and Ward, 2016).…”