Behau. Res. Thu. Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 533-536, 1992 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0005-7967/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd
JUVENILE SEX OFFENDERS: SIMILAR TO, OR DIFFERENT FROM, OTHER INCARCERATED DELINQUENT OFFENDERS? TRACY Department
KEMPTON
of Psychology,
University
and
REX FOREHAND*
of Georgia,
Athens,
GA 30602, U.S.A.
(Received 2 October 1991) Summary-The purpose of the present study was to compare incarcerated juvenile sex offenders to incarcerated youth who committed confrontational but nonsex offenses, and to those youth who committed only nonconfrontational, nonsex offenses. Furthermore, comparisons were made between two subtypes of sex offenders: those youth convicted for rape or sodomy vs those convicted for child molestation. Eighty-three male juvenile delinquents served as participants. Teachers within the correctional facility completed an instrument which allowed the examination of the two areas of interest: externalizing problems and internalizing problems. The results indicated that sex offenders generally, and particularly those who had committed only sex offenses, were perceived as having fewer externalizing and internalizing problems. No differences emerged between the two subtypes of sex offenders. Implications, as well as limitations, of the findings are discussed.
Juveniles who commit offenses for which they could be arrested may comprise as much as 88% of the population of adolescents (Williams & Gold, 1982). A subset of these youth develop a pattern of delinquent behavior which results in repeated offenses committed over the life time. Indeed, Loeber (1982) has shown that, for many individuals, acting in a criminal manner is a stable characteristic which has an early onset. There are typically financial, emotional, and physical consequences for the victims of such acts, and, as rates of crime rise, so does the public concern for this phenomenon. One particular type of criminal activity among adolescents which is of concern is sexual offenses, especially in light of this age group’s disproportionate arrest record for such crimes. For example, as many as 20% of all rapes and 30-50% of all cases of child sexual abuse may be perpetrated by adolescents (Davis & Leitenberg, 1987). Additionally, recidivism studies have indicated that a large proportion of sexual offenders are arrested again for sexual offenses following release from incarceration. For example, Borduin, Henggeler, Blaske and Stein (1989) report that, in a 3 yr follow-up study, 44% of their sample had been rearrested for sexual offenses. Despite the potential ramifications of an early onset and persistent nature of sexual offending, relatively few empirical studies have been conducted in this area. At this point, much of what is assumed about juvenile sex offenders has been derived from case reports and uncontrolled studies. The present study was undertaken to systematically examine two areas of functioning of sex offenders and to compare these youth to those who commit nonsexual crimes. The two areas were what has generally been considered to be the two broad band behavioral problems of youth: internalizing problems and externalizing problems. In general, delinquents have been found to have difficulties in both areas (Frame, Wierson, Forehand, Armistead, Kempton, DeVincentis & Neighbors, 1990; Freedman, Rosenthal, Donahoe, Schlundt & McFall, 1978). By comparing sex offenders to other types of offenders, the behaviors which are unique to sex offenders and those which are common to all offenders can be ascertained. Tailored intervention programs then can be developed to address the unique problems of different groups of offenders. Only one study has examined the internalizing and externalizing problems of sex offenders. Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler and Mann (1989) reported that sexual offenders showed significantly more self-reported anxiety symptoms than their other three groups (assault offenders, nonviolent offenders, and nondelinquent peers). In contrast, sex offenders had a mother-reported level of *Author
for correspondence. 533
534
TRACY KEMPT~N and
REX FOREHAND
socialized aggression that was comparable to that of nonviolent offenders and significantly less than that of violent offenders. The lack of empirical and controlled studies of adolescent sexual offenders leaves an unclear picture about the nature and correlates of these types of adolescents. The clinical impression that sexual offenders differ from other types of adolescent offenders has not been empirically examined outside of the Blaske et al. study. An additional problem is that the sexual offender group is a heterogeneous one but has been treated as being homogeneous. That is. researchers recently have begun to point out the need to identify subtypes of sexual offenders. For example, rapists and child molesters may represent very different types of individuals. Studies of adult sexual offenders have highlighted the importance of distinguishing subtypes of sexual offenders (Erickson, Luxemberg, Walbek & Seely, 1987; Overholser & Beck, 1986). This conclusion. however, is not universal. Other researchers have shown that adult rapists and adult child molesters are not mutually exclusive subtypes but, instead, sexual offenders may often participate in more than one type of sexual offense (Abel, ~ittelman & Becker, 1985). The importance of subtyping adolescent sexual offenders is uncertain as it has not yet been attempted. In this study, sexual offenders are compared to other types of offenders. Furthermore, in a secondary set of analyses, sex offenders were subtyped and compared to one another. Standardized measures completed by teachers of the adolescents were utilized as the dependent measure. Our hypothesis, based on the earlier findings of Blaske ef al. (1989), is that sex offenders would have more internalizing problems and fewer externalizing problems than other offenders. Without existing literature to guide us, we do not offer hypotheses regarding differences which may exist in different types of sex offenders. METHOD
Eighty-three male incarcerated juvenile delinquents participated in the study. Fifteen of these youth, all of whom were sex offenders, also participated in the secondary analyses, Ss were selected based on a mental health code number which was assigned by a Juvenile Justice mental health worker. Codes range from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most severe mental health rating. Within each code level, 5’s were randomly selected without regard for type of offense commited. This sample constituted all of the male participants for whom teachers within the correctional facility had reported information in a larger study addressing the mental health needs of juvenile delinquents. Of the total youth approached for participation in the study, only three refused. Forty-five of the youth who participated were black, and 38 were white. The age range of the participants was 1 I yr, 2 months-l 8 yr, 7 months (mean = 15 yr, I1 months). To address the first question posed, participants were assigned to one of four groups, based on the types of offenses each had ever committed: sex offender only (7 youth), confrontational nonsex offender*(32 youth), sex plus confrontational offender (9 youth), and neither sex nor confrontational offender t(3.S youth). Assignment to groups was based on an individual’s current and prior arrests as obtained from his file. A 2 (sex offense by no sex offense) by 2 (confrontational offense vs no confrontational offense) analysis of variance indicated no age differences among groups. To address the second question posed, the sex offenders were divided into two groups: those who had been arrested for rape or sodomy, but not child molestation (7 youth) and those who had been arrested for child molestation, but not rape or sodomy (8 youth). One participant, who had been arrested for both types of sexual offenses, was excluded from these analyses. The two groups did not differ on age.
The Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986) was completed by one of the adolescent’s teachers within the correctional facility. Achenbach *Confrontational offenses included battery, armed robbery, assault, and homicide. tThese offenses included unruly behavior, possession of a weapon. car theft, shoplifting, burglary, possession drugs, terror threats, cruelty to animals, peeping tom, arson, property damage and trespassing.
or selling of
Juvenile sex offenders Table I. Means for each deoendent Sex offense
Confrontational offense
no no
no Yes no Yes
Yes Yes
measure for each of four grows’
Anxiety*
Inattentive’
8.43b 6.59ab 3.86’ 10.22b
15.86b 11.721b 6.29’ I 5.22b
Aggressive4,s 31.37 23.56 13.86 20.11
‘Groups in each column with different superscripts differ significantly ‘Anxiety subscale of the CBCL. ‘Inattentive subscale of the CBCL. ‘Aggressive subscale of the CBCL. %ex offenders and nonsex offenders differed at P < 0.05. %ocial/Withdrawal subscale of the CBCL.
Social/Withdrawal6 8.57b 6.19b 2.43’ 7.llb
from each other (P
C
0.01).
and Edelbrock (1986) have reported adequate reliability and validity for this measure. Subscales representing the two areas of adolescent problems selected for study were examined: internalizing problems (Anxiety and Social/Withdrawal subscales), and externalizing problems (Aggressive and Inattentive subscales). Procedure After identifying a potential participant from the state records of the Juvenile Justice System, the place of incarceration was contacted, and an assessment was scheduled. For the purposes of the current study, only the teacher checklist is relevant. RESULTS Initially, 2 (sex offense vs no sex offense) by 2 (confrontational offense vs no confrontational offense) analyses of variance were performed. The dependent variables were four subscales of teacher reported CBCL: Anxiety, Social/Withdrawal, Inattentive, and Aggression. A significant main effect for the sex offender variable emerged for Aggression [F(1,79) = 3.67, P < 0.051, indicating that sex offenders were viewed as being less aggressive than nonsex offenders (means of 17.38 vs 27.64). Significant interactions emerged for the other three subscales of the CBCL: Social/Withdrawal [F( 1,79) = 6.17, P < O.Ol], Anxiety [F(1,79) = 6.77, P < 0.011, and Inattentive [F( 1,79) = 7.22, P < 0.011. Interactions were further examined by NeumannKeuls’ tests. All of the interactions indicated that the sex only offenders had lower scores than the sex plus confrontational group and the nonsex/nonconfrontational group (P < 0.05). In addition, for the Social/Withdrawal subscale, the sex only offenders had lower scores than the confrontational only group (P < 0.05). There were no other significant differences. Means for all measures are presented in Table 1. In the next step, Ss were further divided in order to determine whether subtypes of sexual offenders differed from one another. In these one-way analyses of variance, two groups of offenders were examined: those who had ever been arrested for rape or sodomy, but not child molestation, and those who had been arrested for child molestation, but not rape or sodomy. The same dependent measures were utilized as in the earlier analyses. No significant effects emerged. Means are presented in Table 2. DISCUSSION The findings provide partial support for the proposed hypotheses. Sex offenders were perceived as having fewer externalizing problems than other offenders. However, in terms of internalizing Table 2. Means for each dependent Type of offense
Anxiety2
Rape/sodomy Child molestation
2.56 3.33
measure for two types of sexual offenders’
Inattentive’ 2.00 I .67
‘There were no significant differences between groups *Anxiety subscale of the CBCL. ‘Inattentive subscale of the CBCL. 4Aggressive subscale of the CBCL. ‘Social/Withdrawal subscale of the CBCL.
Aggressive* 10.00 13.22
Social/Withdrawal’ 2.44 2.22
536
TRACY KEMPTON and REX FOREHAND
problems, those who had committed only sex offenses were perceived as generally having fewer difficulties than other types of offenders. While the finding regarding externalizing problems is compatible, at least in part, with the Blaske et al. (1989) findings concerning aggression, the data regarding internalizing difficulties are directly opposite to the earlier work. The difference in the current study and the earlier Blaske et al. study may result from the informant of internalizing problems (teacher report vs self report) or from the sample utilized (incarcerated vs nonincarcerated). The present results indicate that sex offenders are generally perceived as having fewer broad-based behavioral and emotional difficulties than other incarcerated delinquents. Nevertheless, it is important to note that our measures of internalizing problems were collected from teachers, the same individuals who reported the measures of externalizing problems. Our results may reflect teachers perceiving sex offenders as generally functioning better and reporting this across both internalizing and externalizing areas of functioning. That is, there may be a response set that would result in teachers reporting sex offenders as functioning better regardless of the area assessed. However, even if this is the case, it suggests that assessment issues should be given serious consideration with this type of offender. That is, if sex offenders are generally perceived as functioning better than other types of offenders, but yet are committing serious sex crimes, more sensitive assessment procedures may be needed to identify the psychological problems for treatment with this population. Finally, this study represents the first attempt to compare two subtypes of youth sex offenders. The results suggest that those convicted of rape or sodomy did not differ from those convicted of child molestation on any of the dependent measures. The results of these analyses were limited by the sample size. However, it is also important to point out that the titles of ‘rape’, ‘sodomy’, and ‘child molestation’ may not be meaningful discriminations for this age group. For example, when a 12-18 yr old youth sexually assaults a younger person, depending on the age differential, it could be labeled by any one of the above offenses. Therefore, the division by types of sexual offenses may not be appropriate with this age group. Further research in this area is clearly needed. In conclusion, sex offenders are perceived by their teachers as having fewer difficulties in the areas of internalizing and externalizing problems than other groups of incarcerated delinquents. These conclusions may have been limited by the size of the sample, the respondents’ familiarity with the Ss, or the instrument utilized. Nevertheless, as only one earlier study examining internalizing and externalizing problems exists, the current results are important in that they suggest that sex offenders may represent a unique group of juvenile delinquents. Acknowledgements-This research was supported by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council of Georgia, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Guggenheim Foundation, and the University of Georgia’s Behavioral Research. The opinions expressed in this paper represent those of the authors, not necessarily agencies.
the Office of Institute for the funding
REFERENCES Abel, G. G., Mittelman, M. S. & Becker, J. V. (1985). Sexual offenders: Results of assessment and recommendations for treatment, In Ben-Aron, M. H., Hucker, S. J. & Webster, C. D. (Eds), Clinical criminology: The assessment and treatment of criminal behavior. Toronto: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. (1986). Manual for the TRF and teacher version of the child behavior profile. Burlington. Vt: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont. Blaske, D., Borduin, C., Henggeler, S. & Mann, B. (1989). Individual, family, and peer characteristics of adolescent sex offenders and assaultive offenders, Developmental Psychology, 25, 846-855. Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Blaske, D. M. & Stein, R. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105-l 13. Davis, G. & Leitenberg, H. (1987). Adolescent sex offenders. Psychology Bulletin, 101, 417-427. Erickson, W. D., Luxemberg, M. G., Walbek, N. H. & Seely, R. K. (1987). Frequency of MMPI two-point code types among sex offenders, Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 55, 566-570. Frame, C., Wierson, M., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., Kempton, T., DeVincentis, C. &Neighbors, B. (1990). Development of a profile of emotionally disturbed delinquents whose needs may not be met within the current system: Final research report to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Unpublished manuscript. Freedman, B. J., Rosenthal, L., Donahor, C. P., Schlundt, D. G. & McFall, R. M. (1978). A social-behavioral analysis of skill deficits in delinquent and nondehnquent adolescent boys. Journal ConsultingClinical Psychology, 46, 1448-1462. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431-1446. Overholser, J. & Beck, S. (1986). Multimethod assessment of rapists, child molesters, and three control groups on behavioral and psychological measures. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 54, 682-687. Williams, J. R. & Gold, M. (1982). From delinquent behavior to official delinquency. Social Problems, 20, 209-229.
of
0005-7967/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Copyright 0 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd
JUVENILE SEX OFFENDERS: SIMILAR TO, OR DIFFERENT FROM, OTHER INCARCERATED DELINQUENT OFFENDERS? TRACY Department
KEMPTON
of Psychology,
University
and
REX FOREHAND*
of Georgia,
Athens,
GA 30602, U.S.A.
(Received 2 October 1991) Summary-The purpose of the present study was to compare incarcerated juvenile sex offenders to incarcerated youth who committed confrontational but nonsex offenses, and to those youth who committed only nonconfrontational, nonsex offenses. Furthermore, comparisons were made between two subtypes of sex offenders: those youth convicted for rape or sodomy vs those convicted for child molestation. Eighty-three male juvenile delinquents served as participants. Teachers within the correctional facility completed an instrument which allowed the examination of the two areas of interest: externalizing problems and internalizing problems. The results indicated that sex offenders generally, and particularly those who had committed only sex offenses, were perceived as having fewer externalizing and internalizing problems. No differences emerged between the two subtypes of sex offenders. Implications, as well as limitations, of the findings are discussed.
Juveniles who commit offenses for which they could be arrested may comprise as much as 88% of the population of adolescents (Williams & Gold, 1982). A subset of these youth develop a pattern of delinquent behavior which results in repeated offenses committed over the life time. Indeed, Loeber (1982) has shown that, for many individuals, acting in a criminal manner is a stable characteristic which has an early onset. There are typically financial, emotional, and physical consequences for the victims of such acts, and, as rates of crime rise, so does the public concern for this phenomenon. One particular type of criminal activity among adolescents which is of concern is sexual offenses, especially in light of this age group’s disproportionate arrest record for such crimes. For example, as many as 20% of all rapes and 30-50% of all cases of child sexual abuse may be perpetrated by adolescents (Davis & Leitenberg, 1987). Additionally, recidivism studies have indicated that a large proportion of sexual offenders are arrested again for sexual offenses following release from incarceration. For example, Borduin, Henggeler, Blaske and Stein (1989) report that, in a 3 yr follow-up study, 44% of their sample had been rearrested for sexual offenses. Despite the potential ramifications of an early onset and persistent nature of sexual offending, relatively few empirical studies have been conducted in this area. At this point, much of what is assumed about juvenile sex offenders has been derived from case reports and uncontrolled studies. The present study was undertaken to systematically examine two areas of functioning of sex offenders and to compare these youth to those who commit nonsexual crimes. The two areas were what has generally been considered to be the two broad band behavioral problems of youth: internalizing problems and externalizing problems. In general, delinquents have been found to have difficulties in both areas (Frame, Wierson, Forehand, Armistead, Kempton, DeVincentis & Neighbors, 1990; Freedman, Rosenthal, Donahoe, Schlundt & McFall, 1978). By comparing sex offenders to other types of offenders, the behaviors which are unique to sex offenders and those which are common to all offenders can be ascertained. Tailored intervention programs then can be developed to address the unique problems of different groups of offenders. Only one study has examined the internalizing and externalizing problems of sex offenders. Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler and Mann (1989) reported that sexual offenders showed significantly more self-reported anxiety symptoms than their other three groups (assault offenders, nonviolent offenders, and nondelinquent peers). In contrast, sex offenders had a mother-reported level of *Author
for correspondence. 533
534
TRACY KEMPT~N and
REX FOREHAND
socialized aggression that was comparable to that of nonviolent offenders and significantly less than that of violent offenders. The lack of empirical and controlled studies of adolescent sexual offenders leaves an unclear picture about the nature and correlates of these types of adolescents. The clinical impression that sexual offenders differ from other types of adolescent offenders has not been empirically examined outside of the Blaske et al. study. An additional problem is that the sexual offender group is a heterogeneous one but has been treated as being homogeneous. That is. researchers recently have begun to point out the need to identify subtypes of sexual offenders. For example, rapists and child molesters may represent very different types of individuals. Studies of adult sexual offenders have highlighted the importance of distinguishing subtypes of sexual offenders (Erickson, Luxemberg, Walbek & Seely, 1987; Overholser & Beck, 1986). This conclusion. however, is not universal. Other researchers have shown that adult rapists and adult child molesters are not mutually exclusive subtypes but, instead, sexual offenders may often participate in more than one type of sexual offense (Abel, ~ittelman & Becker, 1985). The importance of subtyping adolescent sexual offenders is uncertain as it has not yet been attempted. In this study, sexual offenders are compared to other types of offenders. Furthermore, in a secondary set of analyses, sex offenders were subtyped and compared to one another. Standardized measures completed by teachers of the adolescents were utilized as the dependent measure. Our hypothesis, based on the earlier findings of Blaske ef al. (1989), is that sex offenders would have more internalizing problems and fewer externalizing problems than other offenders. Without existing literature to guide us, we do not offer hypotheses regarding differences which may exist in different types of sex offenders. METHOD
Eighty-three male incarcerated juvenile delinquents participated in the study. Fifteen of these youth, all of whom were sex offenders, also participated in the secondary analyses, Ss were selected based on a mental health code number which was assigned by a Juvenile Justice mental health worker. Codes range from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most severe mental health rating. Within each code level, 5’s were randomly selected without regard for type of offense commited. This sample constituted all of the male participants for whom teachers within the correctional facility had reported information in a larger study addressing the mental health needs of juvenile delinquents. Of the total youth approached for participation in the study, only three refused. Forty-five of the youth who participated were black, and 38 were white. The age range of the participants was 1 I yr, 2 months-l 8 yr, 7 months (mean = 15 yr, I1 months). To address the first question posed, participants were assigned to one of four groups, based on the types of offenses each had ever committed: sex offender only (7 youth), confrontational nonsex offender*(32 youth), sex plus confrontational offender (9 youth), and neither sex nor confrontational offender t(3.S youth). Assignment to groups was based on an individual’s current and prior arrests as obtained from his file. A 2 (sex offense by no sex offense) by 2 (confrontational offense vs no confrontational offense) analysis of variance indicated no age differences among groups. To address the second question posed, the sex offenders were divided into two groups: those who had been arrested for rape or sodomy, but not child molestation (7 youth) and those who had been arrested for child molestation, but not rape or sodomy (8 youth). One participant, who had been arrested for both types of sexual offenses, was excluded from these analyses. The two groups did not differ on age.
The Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986) was completed by one of the adolescent’s teachers within the correctional facility. Achenbach *Confrontational offenses included battery, armed robbery, assault, and homicide. tThese offenses included unruly behavior, possession of a weapon. car theft, shoplifting, burglary, possession drugs, terror threats, cruelty to animals, peeping tom, arson, property damage and trespassing.
or selling of
Juvenile sex offenders Table I. Means for each deoendent Sex offense
Confrontational offense
no no
no Yes no Yes
Yes Yes
measure for each of four grows’
Anxiety*
Inattentive’
8.43b 6.59ab 3.86’ 10.22b
15.86b 11.721b 6.29’ I 5.22b
Aggressive4,s 31.37 23.56 13.86 20.11
‘Groups in each column with different superscripts differ significantly ‘Anxiety subscale of the CBCL. ‘Inattentive subscale of the CBCL. ‘Aggressive subscale of the CBCL. %ex offenders and nonsex offenders differed at P < 0.05. %ocial/Withdrawal subscale of the CBCL.
Social/Withdrawal6 8.57b 6.19b 2.43’ 7.llb
from each other (P
C
0.01).
and Edelbrock (1986) have reported adequate reliability and validity for this measure. Subscales representing the two areas of adolescent problems selected for study were examined: internalizing problems (Anxiety and Social/Withdrawal subscales), and externalizing problems (Aggressive and Inattentive subscales). Procedure After identifying a potential participant from the state records of the Juvenile Justice System, the place of incarceration was contacted, and an assessment was scheduled. For the purposes of the current study, only the teacher checklist is relevant. RESULTS Initially, 2 (sex offense vs no sex offense) by 2 (confrontational offense vs no confrontational offense) analyses of variance were performed. The dependent variables were four subscales of teacher reported CBCL: Anxiety, Social/Withdrawal, Inattentive, and Aggression. A significant main effect for the sex offender variable emerged for Aggression [F(1,79) = 3.67, P < 0.051, indicating that sex offenders were viewed as being less aggressive than nonsex offenders (means of 17.38 vs 27.64). Significant interactions emerged for the other three subscales of the CBCL: Social/Withdrawal [F( 1,79) = 6.17, P < O.Ol], Anxiety [F(1,79) = 6.77, P < 0.011, and Inattentive [F( 1,79) = 7.22, P < 0.011. Interactions were further examined by NeumannKeuls’ tests. All of the interactions indicated that the sex only offenders had lower scores than the sex plus confrontational group and the nonsex/nonconfrontational group (P < 0.05). In addition, for the Social/Withdrawal subscale, the sex only offenders had lower scores than the confrontational only group (P < 0.05). There were no other significant differences. Means for all measures are presented in Table 1. In the next step, Ss were further divided in order to determine whether subtypes of sexual offenders differed from one another. In these one-way analyses of variance, two groups of offenders were examined: those who had ever been arrested for rape or sodomy, but not child molestation, and those who had been arrested for child molestation, but not rape or sodomy. The same dependent measures were utilized as in the earlier analyses. No significant effects emerged. Means are presented in Table 2. DISCUSSION The findings provide partial support for the proposed hypotheses. Sex offenders were perceived as having fewer externalizing problems than other offenders. However, in terms of internalizing Table 2. Means for each dependent Type of offense
Anxiety2
Rape/sodomy Child molestation
2.56 3.33
measure for two types of sexual offenders’
Inattentive’ 2.00 I .67
‘There were no significant differences between groups *Anxiety subscale of the CBCL. ‘Inattentive subscale of the CBCL. 4Aggressive subscale of the CBCL. ‘Social/Withdrawal subscale of the CBCL.
Aggressive* 10.00 13.22
Social/Withdrawal’ 2.44 2.22
536
TRACY KEMPTON and REX FOREHAND
problems, those who had committed only sex offenses were perceived as generally having fewer difficulties than other types of offenders. While the finding regarding externalizing problems is compatible, at least in part, with the Blaske et al. (1989) findings concerning aggression, the data regarding internalizing difficulties are directly opposite to the earlier work. The difference in the current study and the earlier Blaske et al. study may result from the informant of internalizing problems (teacher report vs self report) or from the sample utilized (incarcerated vs nonincarcerated). The present results indicate that sex offenders are generally perceived as having fewer broad-based behavioral and emotional difficulties than other incarcerated delinquents. Nevertheless, it is important to note that our measures of internalizing problems were collected from teachers, the same individuals who reported the measures of externalizing problems. Our results may reflect teachers perceiving sex offenders as generally functioning better and reporting this across both internalizing and externalizing areas of functioning. That is, there may be a response set that would result in teachers reporting sex offenders as functioning better regardless of the area assessed. However, even if this is the case, it suggests that assessment issues should be given serious consideration with this type of offender. That is, if sex offenders are generally perceived as functioning better than other types of offenders, but yet are committing serious sex crimes, more sensitive assessment procedures may be needed to identify the psychological problems for treatment with this population. Finally, this study represents the first attempt to compare two subtypes of youth sex offenders. The results suggest that those convicted of rape or sodomy did not differ from those convicted of child molestation on any of the dependent measures. The results of these analyses were limited by the sample size. However, it is also important to point out that the titles of ‘rape’, ‘sodomy’, and ‘child molestation’ may not be meaningful discriminations for this age group. For example, when a 12-18 yr old youth sexually assaults a younger person, depending on the age differential, it could be labeled by any one of the above offenses. Therefore, the division by types of sexual offenses may not be appropriate with this age group. Further research in this area is clearly needed. In conclusion, sex offenders are perceived by their teachers as having fewer difficulties in the areas of internalizing and externalizing problems than other groups of incarcerated delinquents. These conclusions may have been limited by the size of the sample, the respondents’ familiarity with the Ss, or the instrument utilized. Nevertheless, as only one earlier study examining internalizing and externalizing problems exists, the current results are important in that they suggest that sex offenders may represent a unique group of juvenile delinquents. Acknowledgements-This research was supported by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council of Georgia, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Guggenheim Foundation, and the University of Georgia’s Behavioral Research. The opinions expressed in this paper represent those of the authors, not necessarily agencies.
the Office of Institute for the funding
REFERENCES Abel, G. G., Mittelman, M. S. & Becker, J. V. (1985). Sexual offenders: Results of assessment and recommendations for treatment, In Ben-Aron, M. H., Hucker, S. J. & Webster, C. D. (Eds), Clinical criminology: The assessment and treatment of criminal behavior. Toronto: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. (1986). Manual for the TRF and teacher version of the child behavior profile. Burlington. Vt: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont. Blaske, D., Borduin, C., Henggeler, S. & Mann, B. (1989). Individual, family, and peer characteristics of adolescent sex offenders and assaultive offenders, Developmental Psychology, 25, 846-855. Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., Blaske, D. M. & Stein, R. (1990). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 34, 105-l 13. Davis, G. & Leitenberg, H. (1987). Adolescent sex offenders. Psychology Bulletin, 101, 417-427. Erickson, W. D., Luxemberg, M. G., Walbek, N. H. & Seely, R. K. (1987). Frequency of MMPI two-point code types among sex offenders, Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 55, 566-570. Frame, C., Wierson, M., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., Kempton, T., DeVincentis, C. &Neighbors, B. (1990). Development of a profile of emotionally disturbed delinquents whose needs may not be met within the current system: Final research report to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. Unpublished manuscript. Freedman, B. J., Rosenthal, L., Donahor, C. P., Schlundt, D. G. & McFall, R. M. (1978). A social-behavioral analysis of skill deficits in delinquent and nondehnquent adolescent boys. Journal ConsultingClinical Psychology, 46, 1448-1462. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. Child Development, 53, 1431-1446. Overholser, J. & Beck, S. (1986). Multimethod assessment of rapists, child molesters, and three control groups on behavioral and psychological measures. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 54, 682-687. Williams, J. R. & Gold, M. (1982). From delinquent behavior to official delinquency. Social Problems, 20, 209-229.
of
