Treatment Outcome and Criminal Offending by Youth With Sexual Behavior Problems

Abstract

Children and adolescents treated for general delinquency problems and rated by caregivers as having sexual behavior problems (N = 696) were compared with youth from the same sample with no sexual behavior problems (N = 1185). Treatment outcome through 12-months post-treatment follow-up and criminal offense rates through an average 48-month post-treatment follow-up were compared for both groups. It was hypothesized that youth with any sexual behavior problems (SBP) would improve significantly over time but would continue to evidence greater psychopathology than youth with no sexual behavior problems (NSBP). These hypotheses were supported. Specifically, both groups evidenced significant improvement on parent-reported treatment outcomes, although the SBP group exhibited more behavior problems, relative to the NSBP group through follow-up. It was further hypothesized that youth with sexual behavior problems would not differ from youth with no sexual behavior problems in rates of future sexual or non-sexual offenses. These hypotheses were also supported. Specifically, SBP group membership was not a significant predictive factor in analyses modeling future offending in general or future person offenses. Few youth in either group had sexual offenses (1.5% and 1.9% for the SBP and NSBP groups, respectively). The importance of these findings for clinical and policy decision-making is discussed.The scientific literature on children with sexual behavior problems is limited, but of exceptionally high quality. There have, for example, been multiple randomized clinical treatment trials (Bonner, Walker & Berliner, 1993, 1999 Cohen & Mannarino, 1996, 1997Pithers & Gray, 1993;Pithers, Gray, Busconi, & Houchens, 1998) and, recently, a 10-year follow-up from one of those trials (Carpentier, Silovsky & Chaffin, 2006). The results of these and other treatment outcome studies collectively support short-term, sexual behaviorfocused cognitive-behavioral (CBT) interventions that substantively include children's caregivers (Carpentier et al., 2006; Cohen & Mannarino, 1996, 1997 Deblinger & Heflin, 1996;Silovsky, Niec, Bard, & Hecht, 2005). In a 10-year follow-up, Carpentier and colleagues reported that youth treated with CBT committed significantly fewer sexual offenses than youth treated with play therapy. Importantly, the rate of future sexual offending by the CBT condition was indistinguishable from a sample of children originally presenting with non-sexual psychiatric problems (Carpentier et al., 2006). Taken together, these results do much to dispel concerns that children with sexual behavior problems follow a developmental path that leads them through adolescent sexual offending and on to adult sexual predatory behaviors-a pathway suggested by retrospective studies linking adult (or adolescent) sexual offending to adolescent (or childhood) sexual misbehavior (Abel et al., 1987; Burton, 2000; Zolondek, Abel, Northye, & Jordan, 2001). Letourneau, & Silovsky, 2002, p. 208). To date, most research on SBP, including the rand...

Attitudes Toward Juvenile Sex Offender Legislation: The Influence of Case-Specific Information

“…Not only do JSOs appear to recidivate at much lower rates than adults sex offenders, but they have also shown to be more amenable to treatment and rehabilitation than adults (Chaffin, 2008;Craun & Kernsmith, 2006;Trivits & Reppucci, 2002). For example, several randomized control studies of multisystemic therapy (MST) have shown that MST has been found to significantly reduce problematic sexual behaviors and nonsexual reoffenses in JSOs, while similar treatments have not shown to be as effective in adults (Borduin, Henggler, Blaske, & Stein, 1990;Borduin, Schaeffer, & Heiblum, 2009;Letourneau, Chapman, & Schoenwald, 2008). Moreover, research has shown that JSOs offend against victims of both genders, while adult offenders may be more specialized in their victim gender preference (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Chaffin, 2008).…”

Making use of historical case material: the problems of looking back and the implications for service development in relation to research and evaluation activities

“…Considerable work has been undertaken to improve delivery of assessment and intervention programmes, but there has been limited UK empirical research of a follow-up nature. This is in contrast to the US where there have been various attempts to establish recidivism rates and outcomes in 4 groups of treated and non-treated adolescent sexual offenders over the short and/or medium term (see, for example, Bonner et al, 1999;Letourneau et al, 2008). However, there has been little in-depth research, either in the UK or internationally, which has tried to establish the longer term developmental trajectories of children and young people with sexual behaviour problems after the involvement of child welfare or youth justice agencies has ceased and when the young people concerned have moved into young adulthood (Beckett, 2006;Masson and Hackett, 2003;Vizard, 2007).…”

“…If research focuses primarily on the seemingly small minority of young sexual abusers who re-offend (Letourneau et al, 2008) and, in the absence of any data on the majority of young sexual abusers who enter into adulthood without persistent sexual behaviour problems (Chaffin, 2008), policy may become skewed towards an unwarranted focus on risk. As a consequence, intervention responses on offer to individual young people may be unnecessarily intrusive and may fail to distinguish between those young abusers with extensive needs, as opposed to those who may need only a limited professional response.…”

Dance movement psychotherapy and sexually harmful behaviour

“…Others, like Amand, Bard, and Silovsky (2008) and Letourneau et al (2008) mention the use of Multisystemic Therapy highly influenced by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT).…”

“…Some information found provides definition, diagnosis and intervention about SHB such as the work of Friedrich (2008) or Letourneau, Chapman, and Schoenwald (2008). This material establishes a base to compare the most common interventions with DMP.…”