Toward a Classification of Juvenile Offenders: Subgroups of Serious Juvenile Offenders and Severity of Recidivism.

The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of serious juvenile offenders on the basis of their risk profiles, using a data-driven approach. The sample consists of 1,147 of the top 5% most serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands. A part of the sample, 728 juvenile offenders who had been released from the institution for at least 2 years, was included in analyses on recidivism and the prediction of recidivism. Six subgroups of serious juvenile offenders were identified with cluster analysis on the basis of their scores on 70 static and dynamic risk factors: Cluster 1, antisocial identity; Cluster 2, frequent offenders; Cluster 3, flat profile; Cluster 4, sexual problems and weak social identity; Cluster 5, sexual problems; and Cluster 6, problematic family background. Clusters 4 and 5 are the most serious offenders before treatment, committing mainly sex offences. However, they have significantly lower rates of recidivism than the other four groups. For each of the six clusters, a unique set of risk factors was found to predict severity of recidivism. The results suggest that intervention should aim at different risk factors for each subgroup.

Recidivism in subgroups of serious juvenile offenders: different profiles, different risks?

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that the treatment of juvenile offenders is most effective when it takes into account the possible risk factors for re-offending. It may be asked whether juvenile offenders can be treated as one homogeneous group, or, if they are divisible into subgroups, whether different risk factors are predictive of recidivism. AIMS AND HYPOTHESES: Our aims were to find out whether serious juvenile offenders may be subdivided into clearly defined subgroups and whether such subgroups might differ in terms of the risk factors that predict recidivism. METHODS: In a sample of 1111 serious juvenile offenders, latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups. For each juvenile offender, 70 risk factors were registered. Severity of recidivism was measured on a 12-point scale. Analysis was then conducted to identify the risk factors that best predicted the different patterns of recidivism. RESULTS: Four distinct subgroups of juvenile offenders were identified: serious violent offenders, violent property offenders, property offenders, and sex offenders. Violent property offenders were the most serious recidivists and had the highest number of risk factors. Serious violent offenders and property offenders were characterised by overt and covert behaviour, respectively. Sex offenders differed from the other three groups in the rarity of their recidivism and in the risk factors that are present. For each of these four subgroups, a different set of risk factors was found to predict severity of recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in recidivism rates occurred in spite of the fact that most of these youngsters had been in the standard treatment programme offered to serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands. This was not a treatment outcome study, but the indication that two of the groups identified in our study appeared to be worse after going through this programme, whereas the other two did quite well in terms of recidivism lends weight to our idea that such classification of juvenile offenders may lead to more targeted treatment programmes that would better serve both the general public and the youths concerned.

Risk factors for overall recidivism and severity of recidivism in serious juvenile offenders.

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.

A classification of risk factors in serious juvenile offenders and the relation between patterns of risk factors and recidivism.

BACKGROUND: There has been a lot of research on risk factors for recidivism among juvenile offenders, in general, and on individual risk factors, but less focus on subgroups of serious juvenile offenders and prediction of recidivism within these. OBJECTIVE: To find an optimal classification of risk items and to test the predictive value of the resultant factors with respect to severity of recidivism among serious juvenile offenders. METHOD: Seventy static and dynamic risk factors in 1154 juvenile offenders were registered with the Juvenile Forensic Profile. Recidivism data were collected on 728 of these offenders with a time at risk of at least 2 years. After factor analysis, independent sample t-tests were used to indicate differences between recidivists and non-recidivists. Logistic multiple linear regression analyses were used to test the potential predictive value of the factors for violent or serious recidivism. RESULTS: A nine-factor solution best accounted for the data. The factors were: antisocial behaviour during treatment, sexual problems, family problems, axis-1 psychopathology, offence characteristics, conscience and empathy, intellectual and social capacities, social network, and substance abuse. Regression analysis showed that the factors antisocial behaviour during treatment, family problems and axis-1 psychopathology were associated with seriousness of recidivism. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The significance of family problems and antisocial behaviour during treatments suggest that specific attention to these factors may be important in reducing recidivism. The fact that antisocial behaviour during treatment consists mainly of dynamic risk factors is hopeful as these can be influenced by treatment. Consideration of young offenders by subgroup rather than as a homogenous population is likely to yield the best information about risk of serious re-offending and the management of that risk.

Offense related characteristics and psychosexual development of juvenile sex offenders.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports on offense related characteristics and the psychosexual development in subgroups of juvenile sex offenders as measured by the Global Assessment Instrument for Juvenile Sex Offenders (GAIJSO). The predictive validity of these characteristics for persistent (sexual) offensive behavior in subgroups of juvenile sex offenders was investigated. METHODS: One hundred seventy four sex offenders (mean age 14.9 SD 1.4) referred by the police to the Dutch Child Protection Board were examined. Offense related characteristics were assessed by means of the GAIJSO and the BARO (a global assessment tool for juvenile delinquents), and criminal careers of the subjects were ascertained from official judicial records. RESULTS: Serious need for comprehensive diagnostics were found on the domains sexual offense and psychosexual development in juvenile sex offenders, especially in the group of child molesters. These youngsters displayed more internalizing and (psychosexual) developmental problems and their sexual offense was more alarming as compared to the other juvenile sex offender subgroups. Although one third of the juveniles had already committed one or more sex offenses prior to the index offense, at follow up (mean follow up period: 36 months SD 18 months) almost no sexual recidivism was found (0.6% of the entire sample). However, a substantial proportion of the entire sample of juvenile sex offenders showed non-sexual (55.6%) and violent recidivism (32.1%). Several predictors for a history of multiple sex offending and non-sexual recidivism were identified. CONCLUSION: This study revealed numerous problems in juvenile sex offenders. Assessment using the GAIJSO is helpful in order to identify indicators for extensive diagnostic assessment. In order to investigate the predictive validity for sexual reoffending a longer follow up period is necessary.

Criminal profiles of violent juvenile sex and violent juvenile non sex offenders: an explorative longitudinal study.

Few studies have longitudinally investigated the criminal profiles of violent juvenile sex and violent juvenile non-sex offenders. To make up for this lack, this study used police records of juveniles to determine the nature of the criminal profiles of violent sex offenders (n = 226) and violent non-sex offenders (n = 4,130). All offenders committed their first offense in 1996 and were followed for 7 years. Results showed that violent sex offenders and violent non-sex offenders cannot be considered a homogeneous group because of different background characteristics and criminal profiles. Sex and violent offenses often constitute a small part of a broader criminal pattern. Further research is necessary to reveal in more detail the developmental and criminological patterns of violent and sexual delinquency. Treatment and intervention programs may benefit from this.

Juvenile sex offenders compared to non-sex offenders: a review of the literature 1995-2005.

An unresolved but clinically important issue in the literature on juvenile delinquency is to what extent juvenile sex offenders resemble non-sex offenders with respect to individual, familial, and environmental characteristics. The current article reviewed published studies (1995-2005) comparing sex offenders with non-sex offenders. The 17 articles meeting the inclusion criteria suggest that differences exist between sex offenders and non-sex offenders on personality characteristics, behavioral problems, history of sexual abuse, nonsexual offending, and peer functioning. Inconsistent results were found for demographic factors, family functioning and background, antisocial attitudes, and intellectual and neurological functioning. Although it is likely that sex offenders can be differentiated from nonsex offenders on a number of characteristics, caution is warranted because of methodological differences between studies and small samples size. Also, studies show that sex offenders are a heterogeneous group. Further research should take into account this heterogeneity by including sex offenders from clearly circumscribed groups and investigating characteristics specifically related to sexual behavior.

Violent juvenile sex offenders compared with violent juvenile nonsex offenders: explorative findings from the Pittsburgh Youth Study.

Only a limited number of studies have compared the psychosocial characteristics of juvenile sex offenders and nonsex offenders. The results of these studies have often been contradictory. Furthermore, studies in normal population groups are rare and most of those studies have been conducted in specific populations. This paper reports on the findings of a prospective, longitudinal study, the Pittsburgh Youth Study, in which violent male sex offenders (n = 39) were compared with violent nonsex offenders (n = 430) based on 66 demographic and psychosocial characteristics. The findings show that the sex offenders resembled the nonsex violent offenders with respect to nearly all child, family, peer and demographic risk factors. Some suggestions are made with regard to future research.

Juvenile sex offenders: a group on its own?

There is some debate about whether sex offenders are similar to non-sex offenders. It is known that sex and non-sex offenders are heterogeneous groups. Comparative studies must take this heterogeneity into account. Based on an aggregated database, a study was conducted among adjudicated juvenile (sex) offenders. The sample consisted of juvenile male sex and non-sex offenders who had been subjected to a psychological assessment at the request of the judge or district attorney. The central question focused on the differences between juvenile sex offenders, in particular rapists and sexual assaulters (n = 57), child molesters (n = 55), and non-sex offenders: violent (n = 85) and nonviolent offenders (n = 80). The results demonstrated that sex offenders differ from non-sex offenders with regard to demographic characteristics, problem behavior, and personality traits. Some reference is made regarding future research.