Re: juvenile sex offenders

MONOGRAPH

SERIES N O 2, 1999

CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AUSTRALIAN JUVENILE Clinical Characteristics of SEX

OFFENDERS: IMPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENT

http://www.djj.nsw.gov.au/pdf/pdf_research/monograph%202.pdf

"Information contained in the counsellors’ reports was drawn from multiple sources, including the offender (98.6%), his mother (71.4%), police reports (60.0%),court depositions (58.6%), and his father (45.7%). Additional sources included school personnel/ school records (33.0%), psychologist/ psychiatrist (23.0%), and the Department of Community Services (19.0%)."

" A number of the young people in the sample had been exposed to multiple family risk factors. For the 46 for whom data were recorded on this variable, 17 (37.0%) had one risk factor, and the remaining 29 (63.0%) had between two (11; 23.9%) and six (4.3%) risk factors recorded. Seventeen (24.3%) had been removed from home by the Department of Community Services. At the time of the report, 50% of the group continued to be exposed to one (18; 25.7%), two (11; 15.7%), or three (6; 8.6%) risk factors."

Interestingly- this research has perhaps the greatest groundbreaking information yet on sex offenders and once again it doesn't seem worthty of discussion by the so called 'researchers'.... That is that kids removed form home and placed in 'care' are so highly overrepressented.

Note these kids make up 0.1to 0.2% of the population yet are 25% of convicted sex offenders! so are somewhere for 125 - 250 x overrepressented.

And the research in this field gets better all the time doesn't it- note again that the title is "implications for treatment" but nothing about the massive over rep' of kids in care.

ho hum

"best interests of the child" to all- cheers

John Murray

From: "Ineke Way"

Reply-To: CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu

To: Child Maltreatment Researchers

Subject: Re: juvenile sex offenders

Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:05:17 -0400

MIME-Version: 1.0

Received: from mc1-f22.law16.hotmail.com ([65.54.236.29]) by mc1-s4.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:09:04 -0700

Received: from elist02.mail.cornell.edu ([132.236.56.15]) by mc1-f22.law16.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:18:45 -0700

Received: from elist02.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA26984;Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:05:14 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from mailhub2.mail.cornell.edu (mailhub2.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.26])by elist02.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA07010for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:05:21 -0400 (EDT)

Received: (from daemon@localhost)by mailhub2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA29322for CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@elist02.mail.cornell.edu; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:05:23 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from mx2.it.wmich.edu (mx2.it.wmich.edu [141.218.1.94])by mailhub2.mail.cornell.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA29277for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:05:21 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from mercury.it.wmich.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1])by mercury.localmail (8.1336/8.12.4) with SMTP id g98H58lu025236for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:05:20 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from mx.wmich.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by mercury.it.wmich.edu (NAVGW 2.5.2.9) with SMTP id M2002100813052023301 for ; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:05:20 -0400

Received: from groupwise.wmich.edu (certauth.cc.wmich.edu [141.218.20.38])by mx.wmich.edu (8.1336/8.12.4) with SMTP id g98H5Kgi025299for ; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 13:05:20 -0400 (EDT)

Received: from WMU-Message_Server by groupwise.wmich.eduwith Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:05:20 -0400

Message-Id:

X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.6.1

X-PH: V4.1@mailhub2

Message-Tag: 5338

Sender: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu

X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.09.cu.02/011115/14:19 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN

Return-Path: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2002 18:18:49.0847 (UTC) FILETIME=[264EC870:01C26EF7]

Susan

I agree that it is critical to recognize the issue of social

desirability and how we can present interview questions neutrally

rather than indicate that we value any particular response.

in our particular research, during the consent/assent process, the

adolescent research participants were specifically asked (verbally

and in writing) to "talk only about abuse history that was already

part of (their) records".

if I recall correctly, the study you may be referring to (Hindman,

1988) compared self-reports from two separate adult offender samples

8 years apart and did find a much lower self-reported rate of

childhood sexual abuse in the sample that was told about the

polygraph confirmation.

In another study, adolescent sexual offenders reported equally high

rates of sexual abuse victimization with interview and polygraph,

with a slightly higher (though not significantly different)

disclosure rate with the polygraph (Emerick & Dutton, 1993).

Ineke

>>> SusanEtkind@aol.com 10/07/02 07:35PM >>>

What (if any) honesty incentives were offered to the offenders? In

studies

with adult offenders, rates of self-reported abuse histories

dropped

substantially (i.e., from 75%-ish to 25%-ish) when the offenders

were told

they could receive reduced incarceration time if their answers were

corroborated by polygraph exam.

--Susan Etkind

credentials in progress :)

In a message dated 10/7/2002 10:27:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ineke.way@wmich.edu writes:

> of the total sample (N = 96), 11 (11.5%) reported no history of

> sexual abuse, physical abuse, or neglect

> Ineke

> Ineke Way, Ph.D., ACSW

> Assistant Professor

> School of Social Work

> Western Michigan University

> 1903 W Michigan Ave

> Kalamazoo MI 49008-5354

> 269/387-3195

> fax 269/387-3183

> ineke.way@wmich.edu

> >>> sherioz 10/05/02 03:05AM >>>

> Ineke:

> Your figures about sex offenders' history are interesting. How

> many, however, did not report any abuse at all?

I did my dissertation research as part of a larger study with Dr.

David Burton at the University of Michigan School of Social Work.

measured childhood maltreatment history (28 items rated on a

likert

scale, with separate questions for sexual abuse, physical abuse,

neglect, emotional abuse, emotional neglect) using the Childhood

Trauma Questionnaire (Bernstein & Fink, 1998).

My dissertation data for 96 adolescents adjudicated for sexual

offending showed that 67% endorsed a history of sexual abuse, 82%

endorsed physical abuse, and 40% endorsed physical neglect.

Frequently these youths had experienced multiple forms of

maltreatment - 42% reported 2 forms of maltreatment, and 34%

reported all three forms of maltreatment (Way, 1999).