Autism spectrum disorder symptoms in juvenile suspects of sex offenses.

2009:

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To investigate autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms in juvenile suspects of sex offenses.

METHOD:
A group of 175 juvenile suspected sex offenders (all males, mean +/- SD age = 14.9 +/- 1.4 years) was compared with a matched healthy control group (N = 500, mean +/- SD age = 14.0 +/- 1.4 years) and a group of children with DSM-IV-diagnosed ASD (N = 114, mean +/- SD age = 14.2 +/- 1.9 years) with respect to autistic symptoms as measured by means of a standardized questionnaire, the Children's Social Behavior Questionnaire. Furthermore, specific subgroups of sexual offenders, i.e., child molesters, solo peer offenders, and group offenders, were compared with regard to levels of ASD symptoms. The study was conducted from May 2003 to December 2006.

RESULTS:
Significantly higher levels of ASD symptoms were found in juvenile sex offenders than in healthy controls, while levels were lower than in the ASD group (F = 148.259, p < .05). Solo peer offenders and child molesters scored higher on several subscales as well as on core autistic symptoms than group offenders (F = 5.127, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS:
Levels of ASD symptoms are higher in juvenile suspects of sex offenses as compared to the healthy population, which argues for considering specific diagnostic assessment in this population, especially in solo offenders and child molesters. ..Continued..

New Report Finds Incarceration for ‘Status Offenses’ Still Widespread

April 2015:

WASHINGTON – More than half of U.S. states allow children to be detained for repeated nonviolent “status offenses” such as skipping school, running away from home or possession of alcohol, a new report says.

The revelation comes more than 40 years after the landmark Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) stipulated that in states receiving federal juvenile justice grants, no child should be locked up for such minor transgressions. They’re called status offenses because they are considered crimes owing only to a youth’s status as a juvenile.

The provision of the 1974 JJDPA calling for “deinstitutionalization” of status offenders had led to a marked decline in detention of these youths.

But the JJDPA, the main federal juvenile justice law, was amended in 1980 to include an exception allowing judges to confine a youth adjudicated guilty for a status offense if the child had violated a “valid court order” not to repeat the offense.

The report, Status Offenses: A National Survey, by the Washington-based Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ), showed most of the cases of children being detained for status offenses occurred in just a handful of states. But judges can still detain repeat status offenders under the exception in 26 states and Washington, D.C.

CJJ’s 64-page report found the names used to describe status offenses and what constitutes a status offense varied widely among states.

Juvenile Sex Offenses: Finding Justice

March 2014:

Approximately 30% of all sexual assaults on children are committed by perpetrators under the age of 18.2 To assist prosecutors in fashioning an effective response to these crimes, this article summarizes current research related to juvenile sexual recidivism, charging options available to prosecutors, and treatment methods and registration requirements imposed at disposition. ..Source.. by A. Ann Ratnayake, National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse

Youth who commit sex offenses: Facts and Fiction

2008 National:

In the push to target dangerous individuals and protect children from sexual violence, lawmakers have indiscriminately targeted some youth with legislation that publicly brands them as sexual predators. This is bad policy because public registries not only fail to protect communities, but they hurt young people by stigmatizing them and alienating them from crime-reducing social networks like families, schools and jobs. This fact sheet debunks some of the most common mis-perceptions about young people convicted of sex
offenses.

FICTION: Youth commit a large portion of sex offenses.
FACT: Less than 1 percent of all arrests of youth 17 years of age and younger were for sex offenses. 1 In 2006, youth 17 years of age and younger accounted for 18 percent of arrests for sex offenses. Youth under the age of 15 accounted for 9 percent of sex offense arrests in the same year.

FICTION: Youth convicted of sex offenses will become adults who commit sex offenses.
FACT: Research has shown that a young person who commits a sex offense is unlikely to commit another one.
• Recidivism rates are difficult to ascertain and compare because states and localities often define recidivism differently. However, a few academic studies have attempted to determine recidivism rates generally for youth and specifically for sex offenses. Overall, general ecidivism rates for youth convicted of all offenses are higher than recidivism rates for youth convicted of sex offenses. ..Continued.. by Justice Policy Institute

Against Juvenile Sex Offender Registration

September 2013:

Abstract:
Imagine if you were held accountable the rest of your life for something you did as a child?

This is the Child Scarlet Letter in force: kids who commit criminal sexual acts and who pay the price with the burdens and stigma of sex offender registration. And in a game of “how low can you go?,” states have forced children as young as nine and ten years old onto sex offender registries, some with registration requirements that extend the rest of their lives.

No matter the constitutionality of adult sex offender registration – and on that point, there is debate – this article argues that child sex offender registration violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Once a sex offender, always a sex offender is not an apt adage when dealing with children who commit sexual offenses. Low recidivism rates and varied reasons for their misconduct demonstrate that a child’s criminal sexual act does not necessarily portend future predatory behavior. And with a net cast so wide it ensnares equally the child who rapes and the child who engages in sex with an underage partner, juvenile sex offender registration schemes are not moored to their civil regulatory intent.

Compounding the problem is mandatory lifetime registration for child offenders. This paper analogizes this practice to juvenile sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Miller v. Alabama and Graham v. Florida. This article argues that mandatory lifetime registration applied to children in the same manner as adult offenders is cruel and unusual punishment because it violates fundamental principles that require sentencing practices to distinguish between adult and child offenders.

Scrutiny of child sex offender registration laws places front and center the issue of what it means to judge our children. And on that issue, we are failing. The public’s desire to punish children appears fixed despite our understanding that child offenders pose little danger of recidivism, possess diminished culpability, and have the capacity for rehabilitation. In a debate clouded by emotion, it is increasingly clear that juvenile sex offender registration is cruel and unusual punishment. ..Source.. by Catherine L. Carpenter, Southwestern Law School

Community Reactions to Young People Who Have Sexually Abused and Their Families: A Shotgun Blast, Not a Rifle Shot

May 2013:

Abstract:
Data on 117 young sexual abusers were examined to investigate the nature of community responses to young people's abusive behaviour. A wide range of community responses were found, with stigmatisation, social isolation and collateral damage being common. A contagion effect was noted, with community responses extending over time and across contexts. Some young offenders and their families were attacked and forced out of their homes. In some cases, community responses heightened risk factors. The policy and practice implications of the findings are discussed, including the need for caution about the inclusion of children in policies on community notification of sex offenders. ..Source..

New therapy proves effective for juvenile sex offenders

See also: Multisystemic Therapy: An Overview

4-24-2013 Illinois:

How big a difference can new evidence-based treatment methods make in the cases of juvenile offenders with mental health problems?

In Cook County, Illinois, juvenile court leaders decided to find out. Specifically, they agreed to participate in a randomized controlled experiment to test the impact of Multisystemic Therapy (MST) – a prominent new treatment methodology – against the court’s usual services for youth accused or adjudicated for juvenile sex offenses.

The study, published in 2009, involved 127 youth accused of sex offenses and ordered by the court to attend sex offender treatment. Sixty-seven were assigned to MST, and 60 were assigned to Cook County probation department’s existing juvenile sex offender unit and required to take part in weekly sex offender treatment groups.

The offenders’ mean age was 14.6 years (range 11 to 18 years). Most youth (98 percent) were male, 54 percent Black, 44 percent White, with 31 percent reporting Hispanic ethnicity. Their offenses included aggravated criminal sexual assault (31 percent), criminal sexual abuse (24 percent), criminal sexual assault (18 percent), and aggravated criminal sexual abuse (15 percent). Evaluators found no differences between youth in the MST and comparison groups in terms of their sexual offense records or demographics.

Youth assigned to MST received treatment at home and in community settings such as school, scheduled for the family’s convenience. Caregivers as well as the juvenile offender were included in the treatment, which was delivered by clinicians specifically trained on the MST model. MST focuses on giving parents the skills and resources they need to deal with difficulties commonly experienced while raising adolescents, and giving the juveniles the skills and resources to deal with problems both inside and outside the family. For the sex offender group, the MST model was tailored to address youth and caregiver denial of the offense, minimize the youths’ access to potential victims, and promote normative, age-appropriate sexual experiences with peers.

The Treatment as Usual (TAU) group received services primarily from personnel from the juvenile sexual offender unit of Cook County’s juvenile probation department. They attended weekly sex offender treatment groups of 8 to 10, for 60-minute sessions led by probation officers who had completed a certification course for treating juvenile sexual offenders. The sessions addressed issues such as victim empathy, deviant arousal, and cognitive distortions, with the goals of helping youth accept responsibility for their offenses, break the sexual offense cycle, and devise strategies to reduce the risks for recidivism.

Researchers collected data on problem sexual behavior, delinquency, substance use, mental health symptoms, and out of home placement (e.g., foster care, detention, residential treatment) at baseline (within 72 hours of recruitment into the study) and at 6 and 12 months after recruitment. Sexual reoffending was not examined as an outcome because it is too rare to support statistical analysis—in fact only one incident of sexual recidivism was recorded for the entire study group during the 12-month period.

The study found that youth in the MST group proved far and away more successful than those receiving usual treatment. Juveniles in MST experienced significant reduction in problem sexual behavior (e.g., having unprotected sex, pressuring others into having sex), relative to the TAU group, as well as a significant reduction in delinquent behavior and substance use relative to the TAU group over the 12-month period. For instance, involvement in delinquent behavior declined from 75 percent to 30 percent for MST youth, versus a much smaller decline for youth in the TAU group (52 percent to 42 percent). Finally, MST youth proved far less likely than TAU youth to be removed from home in the year after treatment: 7 percent versus 18 percent.

“The findings suggest that family- and community-based interventions, especially those with an established evidence-base in treating adolescent antisocial behavior, hold considerable promise in meeting the clinical needs of juvenile sexual offenders,” the study concluded. “In addition, current results supporting MST bring into question the public health/safety effects of the increasingly severe legal consequences (e.g., lifetime public registration, prolonged residential treatment) placed on juveniles who sexually offend.” ..Source.. by Sarah Boslaugh is a staff writer for the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange.

On Emotion, Juvenile Sex Offenders, and Mandatory Registration

2012:

Abstract:
It is both unremarkable and true that juveniles are different from adults. United States Supreme Court decisions over the past decade have highlighted the extent of the differences. Yet, played out against the backdrop of sex offender registration laws, the conversation takes an abrupt turn. Rather than differentiating between adult and juvenile offenders, federal sex offender registration laws require juveniles convicted of certain sex offenses to face the same onerous registration and notification burdens as their adult counterparts.

Tracking the shift in sex offender registration models from “likely to reoffend” to “conviction-based" assessment, this article argues that “conviction-based” assessment is an unstable proposition when applied to child offenders for two fundamental reasons. First, juvenile offenders lack intentionality and purpose that adult offenders possess, thereby diminishing the value that a conviction carries. Further, and more importantly, studies reveal that the commission of juvenile sex crimes does not portend future predatory behavior, raising the question of the purpose of registration for this class of offenders.

Ultimately, the legislative push to require juvenile sex offenders to suffer serious register and notification burdens demonstrates convincingly the pitfall that impacts the entire debate over sex offender registration. Emotional rhetoric controls the legislative agenda, even in the face of compelling arguments to the contrary. ..Source.. by Catherine L. Carpenter, Southwestern Law School

Juvenile Court Statistics 2009

May 2012 National:

Forward:
Juvenile Court Statistics 2009 describes delinquency cases handled between 1985 and 2009 and petitioned status offense cases handled between 1995 and 2009 by U.S. courts with juvenile jurisdiction. National estimates of juvenile court delinquency caseloads in 2009 were based on analyses of 1,095,797 automated case records and court-level statistics summarizing an additional 49,692 cases. Estimates of status offense cases formally processed by juvenile courts in 2009 were based on analyses of 95,444 automated case-level records and court-level summary statistics on an additional 8,630 cases. The data used in the analyses were contributed to the National Juvenile Court Data Archive (the Archive) by more than 2,300 courts with jurisdiction over 82% of the juvenile population in 2009.

The first Juvenile Court Statistics report was published in 1929 by the U.S. Department of Labor and described cases handled by 42 courts during 1927. During the next decade, Juvenile Court Statistics reports were based on statistics cards completed for each delinquency, status offense, and dependency case handled by the courts participating in the reporting series. The Children's Bureau (within the U.S. Department of Labor) tabulated the information on each card, including age, gender, and race of the juvenile; the reason for referral; the manner of dealing with the case; and the final disposition of the case. During the 1940s, however, the collection of case-level data was abandoned because of its high cost. From the 1940s until the mid-1970s, Juvenile Court Statistics reports were based on simple, annual case counts reported to the Children's Bureau by participating courts. ..Source.. by Charles Puzzanchera, Benjamin Adams, Sarah Hockenberry, National Center for Juvenile Justice

...

1/3 of Child Sex Abusers Are Other Children

January 2012:

Child sex abuse has always existed, but in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, it has renewed its status as a major issue of public concern. Parents have begun to fear teachers, coaches and babysitters. Legislators have responded with promises of tougher sentences and police vigilance.

But did you know that 35.6% of sex offenses committed against minors are also committed by minors? Approximately 1/3 of known cases of child sex abuse involve child-on-child sex abuse.

That number comes from a 2009 Justice Department-sponsored study that analyzed data from 29 states, explains the Associated Press. That study also concluded the following about child-on-child sex abuse:

93% of offenders are male;
Offenders are mostly between the ages of 12 and 14;
59% of their victims are younger than 12; and
75% of those victims are female.

The good news? Approximately 85% to 95% of juvenile sex offenders never reoffend.

This may be the result of the reasons behind juveniles sex crimes. Only a small number "commit violent, premeditated acts of sexual assault and rape," according to the Associated Press. Many act out of curiosity, peer pressure or misinterpretation of interest. Some have developmental disorders that inhibit the ability to understand right from wrong.

Citing these motivations and the low recidivism rate, many youth advocates argue that the justice system should change the way it deals with child-on-child sex abuse. Juvenile sex offenders should be treated differently because so few of them become adult pedophiles. ..Source.. by Stephanie Rabiner

Zachary S. Nelson, Pedophile Convicted at 15 and Facing Life, Is One of Many Young Sex Criminals

6-25-2011 Washington:

Zachary S. Nelson is said to have molested his first boy at age 4. Since then he's been charged with and convicted of two other sex crimes: one for dragging a 4-year-old sleeping boy out of his bed and molesting him and another for raping a 5-year-old girl. His conviction came at age 15.

Now, at 19, after spending most of his life in and out of mental institutions with seemingly no improvement in his behavior, prosecutors have filed paperwork to try and send him to McNeil Island possibly for the rest of his life.

Interestingly, he may have plenty of company his age.

The P-I has the story this morning on Nelson, who psychologists contend is a committed pedophile that will re-offend at the first given opportunity.

No one is coming to his defense, either; apparently, when his mother was told that if Nelson was released he'd have to come stay with her, she said "Oh, hell no!"

Perhaps most interesting in the P-I's story is this little fact thrown out by state-contracted psychologist Harry Hoberman, explaining that young offenders like Nelson are far from uncommon.

Juvenile sex offenders account for a disproportionately large percentage of sexual offenses, Hoberman told the court. He went on to assert that juvenile offenders are responsible for one of every five rapes, and 30 to 50 percent of sexual assaults against children.

The P-I's piece didn't note where that figure came from, but a cursory look through law-enforcement studies appears to back up the notion that when it comes to molesting young kids, slightly older kids are often the main culprits.

Here are some charts from a 2000 study by the National Center for Juvenile Justice:

---

---

UPDATE: Psychologist Harry Hoberman just called in to also note another another study by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that shows the high rate of juvenile offenders that commit sex crimes against children.

As you can see, the age of sex offenders peaks around 13 or 14 for very young victims, then gets slightly older as the victims themselves get older.

So while it's notable that a man who was convicted at age 15 of a sex crime may never see freedom, it would appear that his circumstances are far from uncommon. ..Source.. by Curtis Cartier

Iowa Sex Offender Research Council, Report to the Iowa General Assembly, January, 2011

January 2011:

Statement of the Issue:
The Sex Offender Research Council (SORC), at their June 23, 2010 meeting chose to emphasize the effect that Iowa’s current legislation and practices has on juveniles accused and adjudicated on sex offenses. Significant changes were made during the 2009 Legislative session with regard to the treatment of juvenile sex offenders, specifically in response to compliance with the federal Adam Walsh Act. The SORC requested a more comprehensive analysis of the changes made to IA Code 692A, and the impact on juveniles.

Preface:
Over the last several years, lawmakers have responded to several highly publicized child abduction, assault, and murder cases. While such cases remain rare in Iowa, the public debates they have generated are having far-reaching effects. Policy makers are responsible for controlling the nature of such effects. Challenges they face stem from the need to avoid responses whose primary motivation is political and the desire to make informed decisions that recognize both the strengths and the limitations of the criminal justice system as a vehicle for promoting safe and healthy families and communities.

One of the standing goals of the Research Council is to provide nonpartisan guidance to help avoid or fix problematic sex offense policies and practices. Setting this goal was a response to the concern over what can result from elected officials’ efforts to respond to the types of sex offender-related concerns that can easily become emotionally laden and politically charged due to the universally held abhorrence of sex crimes against children.

An issue of perhaps the greatest interest to many Council members is a belief in the benefit of viewing Iowa’s efforts to protect children from sex crimes with as comprehensive a platform as possible. It has been suggested that much more can be done to prevent child-victim sex crimes than would be accomplished by concentrating solely on what to do with offenders after a crime has occurred. To prevent child victimization, most laws and policy provisions rely largely on incapacitation and future deterrent effects of increased penalties, more restrictive supervision practices, and greater public awareness of the risk presented by a segment of Iowa’s known sex offenders. For some offenders, these policies will no doubt prevent future sex crimes against children, and the Council supports long-term studies to examine the desired results and for ways to improve such results through better supervision tools and more effective offender treatment.

Unfortunately, many of the effects from the new policies may primarily influence persons who have already committed sex offenses against minors and who have already been caught doing so. The evidence suggests, however, that most offenders coming to the attention of the justice system for sex crimes have not previously been adjudicated for such crimes. Thus, Council members continue to discuss the need for a range of preventive efforts and a need to think about sex crimes against children from other than just a “reaction-to-the-offender” perspective. This is particularly true for juvenile sex offenders, where early intervention has the best potential to stop future offending behaviors.

Along with incapacitation and deterrence, comprehensive approaches to the prevention of child-victim sex crimes would also involve ensuring that parents have the tools needed to detect signs of adults with sex behavior problems, to both help teach their children about warning signs and to find the support necessary for healthy parenting. School, faith-based, and other community organizations might benefit from stronger supports and better tools to more effectively promote positive youth development and the learning of respect for others, respect for boundaries, and healthy relationships.

All of us who have children, or who live in communities where there are children, need to understand the limitations of our justice system and the importance of our own ability to play a role in preventing sexual abuse and protecting children from sex offenders, who are often the child’s own family members. Over 1,000 incidents of child sexual abuse are confirmed or founded each year in Iowa, and many such acts take place in the child’s home or the residence of the caretaker of the child. Efforts to prevent child sexual abuse and to provide for early interventions with children and families at risk should be strategically examined and strengthened.

Summary of Recommendations
Following are the specific recommendations to be found in the body of this report.

1. The Sex Offender Research Council recommends that juvenile court officials, when determining the appropriate charge(s) when making an allegation of delinquency for a sex offense, should take into consideration the type of abuse, the use of force, and the comparative ages of offender and victim.

2. The Sex Offender Research Council, through an evaluation of available research, recognizes the mandatory placement of certain juvenile offenders on the sex offender registry based solely on offense classification is not the best practice for addressing the treatment and rehabilitation needs of the juvenile offender. The research suggests a better approach would include a registration determination based on case specific information including the nature and circumstances of the offense, comparative ages of the offender and victim, the offender’s background and a determination of the risk to re-offend.

3. All juvenile sex offenders should be evaluated by a team of multi-disciplinary personnel prior to any final dispositional orders; the timing of such an evaluation is not being specified at this point in time.

4. As recommended in past reports, the State should establish criteria and licensing/certification for individuals and programs providing sex offender treatment to juveniles.

5. The Sex Offender Research Council recommends that further research be conducted to determine the best practice for supervising sex offenders, using criteria based upon risk assessment, recidivism, public safety, and optimal use of scarce public resources.

6. Although the Council recognizes that policies requiring prevention efforts are difficult to enforce, members encourage the dissemination of evidence-based materials to the widest audiences possible, and encourage all agencies, institutions, and providers that work with parents and children to include information on sexual abuse and healthy relationships in materials, conversations, and education sessions. Further, as funds become available, the Council would recommend providing funds to help with the dissemination of materials and supporting the training of key individuals who work with the target population.

For the remainder of this paper: by Iowa Sex Offender Research Council

Risk Factors for Overall Recidivism and Severity of Recidivism in Serious Juvenile Offenders

February 2010:

Abstract:
This study was aimed at finding risk factors that predict both overall recidivism and severity of recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. Seventy static and dynamic risk factors associated with family characteristics, peers, psychopathology, substance abuse, psychological factors, and behavior during treatment were assessed with the Juvenile Forensic Profile in a sample of 728 juvenile offenders. Official reconviction data were used to register recidivism with a minimum time at risk of 2 years. Severity of offending was categorized according to the maximum sentence for the offense committed combined with expert opinion. Several risk factors for recidivism were found: past criminal behavior (number of past offenses, young age at first offense, unknown victim of past offenses), conduct disorder, family risk factors (poor parenting skills, criminal behavior in the family, a history of physical and emotional abuse), involvement with criminal peers, and lack of treatment adherence (aggression during treatment, lack of coping strategies). Having an unknown victim in past offenses, criminal behavior in the family, lack of treatment adherence, and lack of positive coping strategies were predictive of serious (violent) recidivism. The results are discussed in terms of their use for risk assessment and in improving treatment effect. Targeting poor parenting skills, involvement in criminal environment, lack of treatment adherence, and problematic coping strategies should reduce the severity of recidivism.

For the remainder of this paper: by Eva Mulder*, Eddy Brand, Ruud Bullens, and Hjalmar van Marle

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2010, doi:10.1177/0306624X09356683

Net-Widening in Delaware: The Costs of Punishing Kids Like Adults When They Commit Sex Offenses

February 2010:

Abstract:
This article examines recent legislative and judicial changes to Delaware’s approach to children who have sexually offended. Since the early 1990s, laws related to sex offender registration, penalties for sex offenses, and waiver of children to adult court have all hardened considerably, while both general and sexual recidivism rates for kids released from detention in Delaware have decreased. Recent research into the children targeted by these laws demonstrates that they are not comparable to children who have sexually offended in other states. Delaware’s aggressive legislative approach, although softened by judges in practice, has apparently led to net-widening. Placing children who are at low risk for re-offense in detention and residential treatment, and in public registries, costs the state millions of dollars and actually increases the likelihood of future criminal offending. Many of these children would have been more properly treated in the community.

For the remainder of this paper: by Chrysanthi S. Leon, University of Delaware - Sociology and Criminal Justice -and- David L. Burton, Smith College -and- Dana Alvare, University of Delaware - Sociology and Criminal Justice

Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors

December 2009:

Introduction:
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to improving the justice system’s response to crimes against children. OJJDP recognizes that children are at increased risk for crime victimization. Not only are children the vic-tims of many of the same crimes that victimize adults, they are subject to other crimes, like child abuse and neglect, that are specific to childhood. The impact of these crimes on young victims can be devastating, and the violent or sexual victimization of chil-dren can often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. The purpose of OJJDP’s Crimes Against Children Series is to improve and expand the Nation’s efforts to better serve child victims by presenting the latest information about child victimization, including analyses of crime victimization statistics, studies of child victims and their spe-cial needs, and descriptions of programs and approaches that address these needs.


Although those who commit sex offenses against minors are often described as "pedophiles" or "predators" and thought of as adults, it is important to understand that a substantial portion of these offenses are committed by other minors who do not fit the image of such terms. Interest in youth who commit sexual offenses has grown in recent years, along with specialized treatment and management programs, but relatively little population-based epidemiological information about the characteristics of this group of offenders1 and their offenses has been available. The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) offers perspective on the characteristics of the juvenile sex offender population coming to the attention of law enforcement.


Key findings from this Bulletin include the following:

--Juveniles account for more than onethird (35.6 percent) of those known to police to have committed sex offenses against minors.

--Juveniles who commit sex offenses against other children are more likely than adult sex offenders to offend in groups and at schools and to have more male victims and younger victims.

--The number of youth coming to the attention of police for sex offenses increases sharply at age 12 and plateaus after age 14. Early adolescence is the peak age for offenses against younger children. Offenses against teenagers surge during mid to late adolescence, while offenses against victims under age 12 decline.

--A small number of juvenile offenders. 1 out of 8 are younger than age 12.

--Females constitute 7 percent of juveniles who commit sex offenses.

--Females are found more frequently among younger youth than older youth who commit sex offenses. This group's offenses involve more multiple-victim and multiple-perpetrator episodes, and they are more likely to have victims who are family members or males.

--Jurisdictions vary enormously in their concentration of reported juvenile sex offenders, far more so than they vary in their concentration of adult sex offenders.


For the remainder of this study: by David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, and Mark Chaffin