A New Jersey Supreme Court decision directed the New Jersey Attorney General's Office to develop a risk assessment scale specific to juvenile sex offenders, to be used to place juvenile sex offenders in risk tiers in accord with New Jersey's community notification law. In light of the court's decision, the scale previously used for both adults and juveniles in New Jersey was modified, creating the JRAS. The present article describes the development of the JRAS, as well as the predictive validity study that was conducted to determine the relationship between JRAS scores and recidivism. The predictive validity study found that the ability of the JRAS to predict both sex offense and non-sex offense recidivism is on the same level as other accepted scales. Factor analysis revealed that the major predictive factor in the JRAS was a general antisocial behavior factor.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbelG. G.RouleauJ. L. (1990). The nature and extent of sexual assault. In MarshallW. L.LawsD. R.BarbareeH. E. (Eds.), Handbook of sexual assault (pp. 9–21). New York, NY: Plenum Press
2.
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (2006). H.R.4472-Public Law No: 109–248
3.
AlexanderM. (1999). Sexual offender treatment efficacy revisited. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 11, 101–116
4.
BarbareeH. E.MarshallW. L.HudsonS. M. (Eds.) (1993). The juvenile sex offender. New York, NY: Guilford Press
5.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. (2002). Manual for the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida
6.
DorenD. M. (2002). Evaluating sex offenders: A manual for civil commitments and beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
7.
EppersonD. L.KaulJ. D.HuotS. J.GoldmanR.AlexanderW. (2001, 2003). Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool—Revised Technical Paper: Development, Validation, and Recommended Cut Scores. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections
8.
EppersonD. L.RalstonC. A.FowersD.DeWittJ.GoreK. S. (2006). Actuarial risk assessment with juveniles who offend sexually: Development of the Juvenile Sexual Offense Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (JSORRAT-II). In PrescottD.D. (Eds.), Risk Assessment of Youth Who Have Sexually Abused: Theory, Controversy, and Emerging Strategies (pp. 118–169). Oklahoma City, OK: Wood & Barnes Publishing
9.
FergusonG. E.EidelsonR. J.WittP. H. (1998). New Jersey's sex offender risk assessment scale: Preliminary validity data. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 26, 327–351
10.
GottfredsonM. R.HirischiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
11.
HansonR. K. (2000). Risk Assessment. Beaverton, OR: Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers
12.
HansonR. K. (2002). Introduction to the special section on dynamic risk assessment with sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 99–101
13.
HansonR.K.BussiereM. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348–362
14.
HansonR. K.GordonA.HarrisA. J. R.MarquesJ. K.MurphyW.QuinseyV. L.SetoM. C. (2002). First report of the collaborative outcome data project on the effectiveness of psychological treatment for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 14, 169–194
15.
HansonR. K.HarrisA. J. R. (2000). Where should we intervene? Dynamic predictors of sexual assault recidivism. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 27, 6–35
HansonR. K.ThorntonD. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: A comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 119–136
18.
HeckerJ.ScoularJ.RighthandS.NangleD. (2002). Predictive validity of the JSOAP over 10-plus years: Implications for risk assessment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
19.
H.R. 4472, United States Federal Law 109–248 109th Congress
20.
HunterJ. (1999). Understanding juvenile sexual offending behavior: Emerging research, treatment approaches, and management practices. Center for Sex Offender Management. Available from www.csom.org
21.
HunterJ.GoodwinD.W.BeckerJ.V. (1994). The relationship between phallometrically measured deviant sexual arousal and clinical characteristics in juvenile sexual offenders. Behavior Research and Therapy, 32. 533–538
22.
In the Matter of Registrant C.A. 146 N.J. 71 (1996).
23.
In the Matter of Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304 (2001).
24.
Juvenile Sex Offender Focus Group. (2001). Understanding Treatment and Accountability in Juvenile Sex Offending: Results and Recommendations from an OJJDP Focus Group. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
25.
LangstromN.GrannM. (2000). Risk for criminal recidivism among young sex offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 855–871
NisbetI. A.WilsonP. H.SmallboneS. W. (2004). A prospective longitudinal study of sexual recidivism among adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 223–234
28.
PooleD.LiedeckeD.MarbibiM. (2001). Risk assessment and recidivism. Juvenile Sex Offenders: A Validation of the Static-99. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. San Antonio. TX
29.
PrentkyR.HarrisB.FrizzellK.RighthandS. (2000). An actuarial procedure for assessing risk with juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 12, 71–94
30.
PrentkyR.RighthandS. (2003). Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol—II (JSOAP—II). Available from Center for Sex Offender Management at www.csom.org
31.
PrescottD. S. (2006). Risk assessment of youth who have sexually abused: Theory, controversy, and emerging strategies. Oklahoma City, OK: Wood & Barnes Publishing
32.
QuinseyV. L.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E.CormierC. A. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association
33.
TrivitsL.C.RepucciN.O. (2002). Application of Megan's Law to juveniles. American Psychologist, 57, 690–704
34.
VandiverD.M. (2006). A prospective analysis of juvenile male sex offenders: Characteristics and recidivism rates as adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(5), 673–688
35.
WaiteD.PinkertonR.WieckowskiE.McGarveyE.BrownG.L. (2002). Tracking treatment outcome among juvenile sexual offenders: A nine year follow-up study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
36.
WeibushR. G.BairdC.KrisbergB.OnekD. (1995). Risk assessment and classification for serious violent and chronic offenders. In HowellJ.C.KrisbergB.HawkinsJ. D.WilsonJ. J. (Eds.), A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (pp. 171–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
37.
WeinrottM.R. (1996). Juvenile sexual aggression: A critical review. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence
38.
WittP.H.DelRussoJ.OppenheimJ.FergusonG. (1996). Sex offender risk assessment and the law. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 24. 343–377
39.
WittP. H.DyerF. J. (1997). Juvenile transfer cases: Risk assessment and risk management. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 25, 581–614
40.
WorlingJ. R.CurwenY. (2001). Estimate of Risk Adolescent Sexual Offense Recividism (ERASOR). Version 2.0 Toronto, Canada: Safe-T Program Thistletown Regional Center for Children and Adolescents, Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services
41.
WorlingJ. R.CurwenY. (2000). Adolescent sexual offender recidivism: Success of specialized treatment and implications for risk prediction. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 965–982
42.
ZgobaK.M.SagerW.R.WittP.H. (2003). Evaluation of New Jersey's sex offender treatment program at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 31, 133–164
