See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327535258

Do Developmental and Life-Course Theory Risk Factors Equally Predict Age of

Onset Among Juvenile Sexual and Nonsexual Offenders?

Article in Sexual Abuse A Journal of Research and Treatment · September 2018

DOI: 10.1177/1079063218797714

CITATIONS READS

9 480

3 authors, including:

Melanie Escue Bryanna Fox

University of South Florida University of South Florida
6 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS 75 PUBLICATIONS 969 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Risk Factors of Violent, Sexual, and Prolific Juvenile Offenders View project

Experimental Evaluations of Policing Programs Effects on Crime View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bryanna Fox on 01 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Do Developmental and Life-Course Theory Risk Factors Equally Predict Age of Onset
among Juvenile Sexual and Nonsexual Offenders?

Melanie Rosa
University of South Florida
Department of Criminology
4202 East Fowler Avenue
Tampa, FL 33620-7200
Email: valentinrosa@mail.usf.edu

Bryanna Fox, PhD

University of South Florida
Department of Criminology

Wesley G. Jennings, PhD

Texas State University
School of Criminal Justice

Abstract:
Previous empirical inquiries into the etiology of juvenile sex offending have been largely
atheoretical. Consequently, a call for studies conducted utilizing Developmental and Life-Course
(DLC) criminological theory has been made to better understand the onset, development, risk
and protective factors of juvenile sex offending. Therefore, this study contributes to the
discussion by testing key predictions proposed by the DLC framework regarding the theoretical
correlates of early onset offending, as applied to juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) and juvenile non-
sex offenders (JNSOs). Drawing upon a dataset of more than 64,000 youth referred to the Florida
Department of Juvenile Justice, results indicate that although the number and severity of risk
factors for early age of onset differ between the JSOs and JNSOs, the specific type of risk factors
that emerged align with DLC theory predictions. The implications of these findings and
contributions for DLC theory are also discussed.

Keywords: developmental and life-course criminology, sexual offending, juveniles, risk factors

Published in: Sexual Abuse

Citation:
Rosa, M., Fox, B.H., & Jennings, W.G. (2018). Do developmental and life-course theory risk
factors equally predict age of onset among juvenile sexual and nonsexual offenders?
Sexual Abuse, doi: 10.1177/1079063218797714.
Go to: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1079063218797714
 2

Do Developmental and Life-Course Theory Risk Factors Equally Predict Age of Onset
among Juvenile Sexual and Nonsexual Offenders?

Research on juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) has been growing in recent years, perhaps in

part due to the notable portion of sex crimes that these young offenders commit. Specifically,

JSOs are responsible for 20% of all those arrested for sex crimes in the United States in 2013

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014), and commit up to 20% of all rapes, half of all child

sexual abuse, and 33% of all sex crimes against other juveniles in the United States. (Barbaree,

Hudson, & Seto, 1993). In short, JSOs appear to be a sizable and problematic group of offenders

who warrant further research on the development of this behavior, and how prevention strategies

can be used to intervene prior to the onset of sexual offending.

Several recent studies have made major contributions to our understanding of juvenile

sex offending by examining trajectories of JSO behavior (Cale, Smallbone, Rayment-McHugh,

& Dowling, 2016; Piquero, Farrington, Jennings, Diamond, & Craig 2012) and the continuity of

sexual offending from adolescence into adulthood (Lussier, Corrado, & McCuish, 2016; Reingle,

2012; van Den Berg, Bijleveld, & Hendriks, 2017; Zimring, Piquero, & Jennings, 2007). This

research on the rate, continuity, and desistance of JSOs has made significant headway toward

understanding the development and life course of these young offenders, and led to important

implications for both criminological theory and public policy.

Specifically, this research has helped to illuminate the empirical realities that juvenile sex

offending and recidivism are relatively uncommon, and sex offending continuity (i.e., sexual

offending in adolescence and in adulthood) is even more rare. Thus, efforts to try and predict

adult sex offending behavior (and develop policies such as registering JSOs for life) based on

knowledge of sex offending behavior in adolescence almost always results in a false positive.
 3

Other research has focused on the demographic, social, school, psychological, and family

risk factors associated with juvenile sex offending (Baglivio et al., 2014; Calley, 2007; Fox,

2017; Hunter, Hazelwood, & Slesinger, 2000; Rice & Harris, 1997; Robertiello & Terry, 2007;

Seto & Lalumière, 2010; Worling, 2001). In general, this research indicates that certain

personality traits, psychopathologies, and childhood traumas are significant risk factors for

juvenile sex offending. Specifically, Seto and Lalumière’s (2010) meta-analysis of 59 studies on

the predictors and correlates of juvenile sex offending compared theoretically derived risk factors

for adolescent male sex offenders with adolescent male nonsexual offenders. Results indicated

that overall, deviant sexual interests, sexual and physical abuse in childhood, and certain

psychopathologies were strong and significant predictors of juvenile sex offending versus

nonsexual offending among the all-male samples (see also Hall & Hirschman, 1991, 1992;

Marshall & Barbaree, 1990; Ward & Beech, 2006). Notably, JSOs scored lower than nonsex

offenders in terms of criminal involvement, antisocial peer associations, and substance use, but

JSOs still showed “extensive” histories of criminal behavior, conduct problems, and antisocial

tendencies as compared to nonoffenders (Seto & Lalumière, 2010; see also Chewning, 1991;

Etherington, 1993; Katz, 1990; Lindsey, Carlozzi, & Eells, 2001; Valliant & Bergeron, 1997).

In a recent study examining the unique and significant risk factors for JSOs among male

and female offenders in Florida, Fox (2017) found that having low empathy, high impulsivity,

depression and/or psychosis; experiencing sexual abuse, an earlier age of criminal onset; and

being male all significantly increased the risk of sexual versus nonsexual juvenile offending,

even while controlling for all other theoretically derived measures in the analysis.

Age of Onset and Juvenile Sex Offending

Although this body of research has been an important step toward understanding the
 4

correlates and criminal careers of these young offenders, far less research has examined the

unique predictors of the age of onset for juvenile sexual offending. For instance, just two studies

in Seto and Lalumière’s (2010) meta-analysis examined age of onset, and the results indicated

that lower age at first intercourse predicted an earlier age of onset for JSOs. Specifically, Seto

and Lalumière (2010) stated that childhood intercourse, likely caused by childhood sexual abuse,

is related to the commission of a sex offense (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-

Bourgon, 2005). Treating sexual abuse after it occurs is unlikely to reduce reoffending among

identified JSOs, but preventing the abuse may also prevent sexual offending. Thus, identifying

the risk factors which increase the likelihood of committing a sexual offense (and at an earlier

age) may increase the opportunities to prevent sexual offending from ever occurring.

Indeed, Seto and Lalumière’s (2010) meta-analysis prompted further inquiry into the age

of onset for sex offenders (Lussier, Blokland, Mathesius, Pardini, & Loeber, 2015). In fact,

Blokland and Lussier (2015) stated that “(t)he most important theoretical question to be

answered is whether sex offenders should be regarded as similar or different to nonsexual

offenders in terms of the etiology of their offending behavior” (p. 16).

To address this question, Lussier and colleagues (2015) examined the childhood risk

factors predictive of criminal onset in adolescence (below age 18) versus adulthood (age 18 and

older) for sex offenders. This study, which drew upon a sample of 92 sex offenders, showed that

youth onset offenders were more likely to live in a poor neighborhood, be exposed to structural

deficits, have behavioral issue(s), have a psychological disorder, commit more delinquent acts,

and be more sexually active, as compared with the adult onset offenders (Lussier et al., 2015).

This study was among the first to demonstrate the wide variety of developmental correlates

predictive of an adolescent versus adult onset of sex offending. Similarly, Carpentier, Leclerc,
 5

and Proulx (2011) found that sexual offenders with an early onset, prior to age 12, were more

likely to have early aggressive behavior, deviant sexual behavior, and parents who were victims

of sexual crimes, as compared with those with later criminal onset in adolescence and/or

adulthood.

Taken together, these studies support the notion that risk factors predictive of early onset

offending will likely differ from predictors of adolescent onset offending among JSOs. However,

there has been little consensus on the reason for the earlier age of onset among JSOs. To address

this gap, scholars examining the etiology of juvenile sex offending have argued the importance

of examining JSOs using a theoretical lens, specifically developmental and life-course (DLC)

criminological theories (Lussier, 2017; McCuish & Lussier, 2017). Specifically, Lussier (2017)

noted that although developmental changes have been shown to correlate with juvenile sexual

offending (such as childhood trauma and abuse), very little is known on the risk factors for the

deviant sexual behavior, and particularly, at such an early age. Consequently, Lussier (2017)

called for more research on JSOs from a DLC perspective, specifically requesting studies that

test the applicability of DLC theories to this unique population, and identify which risk factors

are most predictive both of sexual offending and early (vs. adolescent) age of criminal onset.

DLC Theoretical Perspective

DLC theories emerged as a prominent perspective in the 1990s by criminological

researchers who believed that the risk and protective factors for offending, and the resultant

criminal career patterns, are not the same for all individuals (Farrington, 2003; Loeber &

LeBlanc, 1990). Therefore, DLC theories aim to identify the within- individual causes of criminal

offending, and the various correlates of criminal behavior over the life course. Unlike other

theoretical perspectives in criminology, DLC is comprised of multiple subtheories, each aiming

 6

to explain three main issues: 1) the onset and development of criminal behavior over the

lifecourse; 2) the risk and protective factors for crime at different ages; and 3) the effect of life

events on the course of criminal development (Farrington, 2003).

Although DLC theories have been very successful and increasingly popular within

criminology (Farrington, 2003), the tenets of DLC theory have not been applied to examine the

unique risk factors contributing to variations in age of criminal onset among JSOs. As Farrington

(1989, 1991, 1998) argued that specific explanations were unnecessary for individuals involved

in specific types of crime, DLC theory provides an appropriate framework to test whether

theoretically derived risk factors are predictive of onset of offending for JSOs and juvenile

nonsex offenders (JNSOs).

Therefore, this study seeks to determine whether predictions made regarding the risk

factors for early versus adolescent onset of criminal behavior, as proposed by the DLC

theoretical framework, equally apply for juvenile sex and nonsex offenders. To do this, we draw

on the theoretical predictions made about early versus adolescent onset by DLC theories to

evaluate the applicability of these theoretical predictions for juvenile sexual and nonsexual

offenders.

DLC Theory and Early Age of Onset

Several major DLC perspectives make predictions regarding the risk factors for early

versus adolescent onset of criminal behavior. In general, DLC research suggests that the etiology

of early onset offenders arises from neuropsychological deficits that interact with negative social

environments such as the family, school, and community to produce the early start and continuity

of criminal behavior (Farrington, 2003; Moffitt, 1993; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989;

Patterson & Yoerger, 2002; Piquero et al., 2012; Thornberry & Krohn, 2005). Specifically,
 7

neuropsychological issues including impulsivity, inattention (i.e. attention-deficit disorder

[ADD]), difficult temperaments (i.e., conduct disorder, aggression), and cognitive deficits, as

well as weak parental attachment or lack of affection, structural adversity, low interest and

performance in school, and abuse and/or neglect in childhood are recurring risk factors in the

DLC literature (see Farrington, 2003; Lahey, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2003; Patterson et al., 1989;

Patterson & Yoerger, 2002; Piquero, 2001; Piquero & Moffitt, 2005; Thornberry & Krohn,

2005). Early onset offenders are predicted to have few protective factors in terms of family,

school, and community support (Farrington, 2003; Moffitt, 1993, Patterson & Yoerger, 2002;

Thornberry & Krohn, 2005).

DLC Theory and Adolescent Age of Onset

With respect to “later onset” offenders, who typically show delinquent and criminal

behavior in their early- to midteenage years, DLC theories predict that these youth are more

susceptible to peer influences, versus family, school, and neuropsychological deficits

(Farrington, 2010; Patterson et al., 1989; Patterson & Yoerger, 2002). Instead, adolescent onset

offenders are more likely to offend due to social pressures such as peer influence and emulation

of deviant peers, and then desist in early adulthood (Moffitt, 1993).

As adolescence is a transition period when children become less dependent on parents

and more concerned with individualism and peer acceptance, higher rates of delinquency

(particularly for “adult-like” behavior such as underage drinking, sex, and drug use) are more

common (Moffitt, 1993). However, as prosocial behaviors are more promoted in adulthood and

the need to fill the “maturity gap” decreases, adolescent onset offenders desist (Moffitt, 1993).

Current Study

The purposive selection of the DLC theoretical framework emphasizes the developmental
 8

aspect of offending, and unique relationships between psychological, biological, social, parental,

and peer influences that may influence onset of offending at different ages. Given the largely

atheoretical examination of JSOs and specific call for studies to utilize DLC theory to better

understand the onset, development, and risk and protective factors of juvenile sex offending, this

study tests whether DLC perspectives on early onset offending can be generalized to JSOs with

criminal histories exclusive to sex offending.

This study contributes to the discussion prompted by Lussier (2017) by focusing on two

specific developmental stages (childhood and adolescence), and the corresponding DLC-

informed risk factors for offending during each developmental stage. By examining the onset of

JSO behavior, and the associated risk factors for it, we may be able to better understand the

etiology of juvenile sex offending (and how it differs from early onset nonsexual offending) in

three novel ways. First, including and testing DLC-informed risk factors for early onset juvenile

sex offending can help address a notable limitation in existing research (Lussier, 2017). Second,

this is one of the few studies conducted to specifically examine the predictors of age of onset

among JSOs. Although it is the norm to employ age of onset as a control variable, in this study,

onset of offending will be examined as an outcome measure to determine whether DLC-

informed risk factors for early onset offending apply to JSOs. Finally, this study aims to

determine whether specific DLC risk factors are unique to early onset juvenile sex offending

versus nonsexual offending.

These aims and novel contributions are also important as research on the etiology of

juvenile sex offending has often not included a comparison group of nonsex offenders. To this

end, Zakireh, Ronis, and Knight (2008) noted, “few studies have included appropriate

comparison groups (e.g., juvenile offenders who have not committed sexual crimes). Without
 9

such control groups, it is difficult to determine whether observed results are linked with sexual

offending in particular or with delinquency in general” (p. 324). Specificity-design studies such

as this allow for the determination as to whether a variable distinguishes early onset JSOs from

nonsexual and adolescent onset offenders, and is, therefore, a potential causal candidate in the

etiology of juvenile sex offending (Garber & Hollon, 1991).

Ultimately, the current study represents an innovative approach to further understanding

the etiology of juvenile sex offending. Building on previous studies and calls for this type of

research (e.g., Fox, 2017; Lussier, 2017; McCuish & Lussier, 2017; Seto & Lalumière, 2010),

this study draws on a large sample of male and female juvenile offenders to determine whether

the DLC-informed risk factors for early onset (i.e., neuropsychological, family, structural

deficits, school) versus adolescent onset can explain early onset offending specifically for JSOs

with criminal histories exclusive to sex offending.

Method

Data

The data set utilized in this study was retrieved from the Florida Department of Juvenile

Justice (FDJJ), following approval from the lead author’s university institutional review board.

Because Florida does not specify a minimum age for criminal responsibility, referrals for all

juvenile offenders, as young as age 7, are included in the FDJJ dataset. In total, 64,329 juvenile

sex and nonsex offenders were referred to FDJJ and followed until they aged out of the system

between 2007 and 2012. In short, if a juvenile committed an offense (status, misdemeanor,

felony) prior to age 18, the offense and the offender are included in this database.

Per Florida statute, JSOs must have committed a misdemeanor or felony that met the

requirements of a sex offense. Therefore, juveniles with a criminal history comprised entirely of
 10

either misdemeanor and/or felony sex offense(s) made up the population of JSOs under study1 .

Conversely, juveniles with a criminal history exclusive to nonsex offenses (violent, property,

drug) comprised the population of JNSOs. In other words, juveniles classified as sex offenders

could not have criminal histories with nonsex offenses and nonsex offenders could not have

criminal histories with sex offenses. Therefore, out of the 64,329 juvenile offenders, 4,153 were

JSOs whereas 60,176 were classified as JNSOs.

Measures

In addition to records of criminal history, a referral to FDJJ prompts the issuance of the

Positive Achievement for Change Tool (PACT). This tool is used to assess the unique needs and

future risk of each adjudicated juvenile offender for programming and placement purposes. The

PACT provides extensive information on not readily available information, such as adverse

childhood experiences (ACEs) and the presence of psychopathologies (for a complete review,

see Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015). This method of data collection has high validity

because self-reported responses are verified by official records, to substantiate the veracity of

claims.

The FDJJ offender database and the PACT assessment are widely used in criminology

due to the high validity of the measures (e.g. Baglivio et al., 2014; Baglivio et al., 2015; Fox,

Perez, Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015; Fox 2017; Fox & Delisi, 2018; Perez, Jennings, &

Baglivio, 2018; Wolff, Baglivio, & Piquero, 2017) and large population of offenders. Interviews

and file reviews are conducted to ensure the most accurate responses are obtained (Fox, Perez,

Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015) and Baglivio and colleagues performed quality checks on the

1Due to data limitations, the temporal order and frequency of offenses among youth who commit sexual and
nonsexual offenses (i.e. sex-plus offenders) are unknown. Therefore, to most clearly determine the risk factors
predictive of early onset sex offending (and not general offending within the sex offender group), we use the sex-
only (JSO) group.
 11

PACT data which indicate the data are highly reliable (see Baglivio, 2009; Baglivio &

Jackowski, 2013). Furthermore, several studies have utilized the same data and exact

dichotomous coding as the current study (Fox 2017; Fox & Delisi, 2018) to indicate the presence

or absence of specific risk factors for juvenile sex offending.

Age of Onset

This study draws on insights from Erikson’s (1963) psychosocial developmental stages to

guide the operationalization of age of onset. Erikson proposed two major phases of development

relevant to this study (i.e., ages where youth in this study began offending). The first stage,

industry versus inferiority, emphasizes the school years in childhood (ages 5-12). This is a period

when children begin to juggle the growing demands of school, friendships, and extracurricular

activities. Conversely, the later ego identity versus role confusion stage (ages 13-18) demarcates

childhood from adolescence, where autonomy takes precedence (McMaken, 2000).

To determine whether DLC perspectives can be generalized to onset of juvenile sex

offending, and not general offending with sex offense histories, the population was partitioned

based on the youths’ offense histories (exclusive sex offenses vs. exclusive nonsex offenses) and

age of onset according to Erikson’s (1963) definition. Specifically, all those with a criminal onset

at 12 years of age or less were classified as having an “early” onset, while those who began their

offender careers between 13 and 18 were classified as “adolescent” onset. The resultant outcome

variable represents a dichotomy, where 1 = early onset and 0 = adolescent onset. Of the JSOs,

1,405 were identified as early onset, whereas 2,748 were identified as adolescent onset offenders.

Of the JNSOs, 14,613 were early onset offenders, whereas 45,563 identified as adolescent onset

offenders.
 12

DLC Risk Factors for Early Age of Onset

Demographics. The demographic control measures of gender and race are included to

determine whether, and to what extent, the likelihood of being an early onset versus adolescent

onset JSO versus JNSO varies by gender or race (see Ellis, Beaver, & Wright 2009; Fix,

Cyperski, & Burkhart, 2017; Murphy, DiLillo, Haynes, & Steere, 2001). Gender is a

dichotomous variable, where 1 = male and 0 = female. Race is coded 1 = White and 0 = non-

White.

Structural deficits. DLC theories suggest that less than ideal structural factors may place

a strain on caretakers, serving as a hindrance to a successful parent-child relationship

(Farrington, 2005; Murray & Farrington, 2010). To tap into potential financial strains, annual

family income is included as an ordinal variable, where 0 = less than US$15,000, 1 = US$15,000

- US$34,999, 2 = US$35,000 - US$49,999, and 3 = US$50,000+.

Child Maltreatment. Research indicates that childhood trauma, abuse, and

maltreatment relate to higher risk of offending, known as the victim-offender overlap (see

Baglivio, Wolff, DeLisi, Vaughn, & Piquero, 2017; Jennings, Higgins, Tewksbury, Gover, &

Piquero, 2010; Widom, 1989). These ACEs, particularly childhood sexual abuse, have also been

shown to be predictors of sexual offending among juveniles (Fox, 2017; Morais, Alexander, Fix,

& Burkhart, 2018; Seto & Lalumière, 2010). For example, McCuish, Cale, and Corrado (2017)

found that adolescent sex offenders are more likely than adolescent nonsex offenders to have

sexual abuse histories and that family histories of sexual abuse have a strong and significant

effect on youth sexual abuse and, consequently, sex offenses committed by youth (McCuish et

al., 2017). This study, therefore, examines four types of child maltreatment as predictors of

sexual offending and age of onset: emotional neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and
 13

witnessing household violence. All are dichotomous measures, where 1 = history of neglect,

abuse, or exposure to violence, and 0 = no history of childhood trauma.

School. A dichotomous variable of youth’s involvement in school activities was used,

where 1 = not interested in school activities and 0 = interested or involved in school activities.

Familial adversity. Put forth as one of the dominant risk factors during childhood, DLC

theories emphasize the salient role parents play, and if that role becomes tenuous, the effects may

lead to an early onset of offending (Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, & Epps, 2015; Fox, Jennings, &

Farrington, 2015). To examine whether, and to what extent, familial adversity uniquely identifies

onset among juvenile offenders, four measures were used: parental supervision (1 = sporadic or

inadequate supervision, 0 = consistent supervision), punishment (1 = consistently overly severe,

erratic, or insufficient punishment, 0 = consistently appropriate punishment), mental health

issues (1= yes, 0= no), and incarceration history (1= yes, 0= no), which were all dichotomous.

Neuropsychological deficits. Although neuropsychological deficits cannot be measured

directly, five psychopathologies are used in the analysis: ADD/attention-deficit hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD), anger/irritability, empathy, impulsivity, and psychosis. These

psychopathologies are theoretically predicted to relate to an earlier onset of offending according

to DLC theory, and have been shown to predict sexual offending, as well as the type of sexual

offending behavior and the rate of sex crime recidivism (Becker, Harris, & Sales, 1993; DeLisi et

al., 2008; Fagan & Wexler, 1988; Fox, 2017; Fox & DeLisi, 2018; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998;

Robertiello & Terry, 2007; Worling, 2001). Both impulsivity and ADD/ADHD measures are

dichotomized, with 1 = presence of the specific psychopathology. Conversely, empathy is a

binary measure, where 1 = unempathetic towards victims and 0 = empathetic to victims.

Anger/irritability is a dichotomous variable, where 1 = consistently gets angry or irritable and 0

 14

= never or occasionally gets angry or irritable. To distinguish between juveniles with psychosis

versus those without, a dichotomous variable was included, where 1 = psychotic symptoms and 0

= no psychotic symptoms.

Neuropsychological deficit (ND) * Familial adversity (FA). To determine whether, and

to what extent, the presence of both neuropsychological deficit (ND) and familial adversity (FA)

measures are predictive of an early onset of offending for both JSOs and JNSOs, an interaction

term was included (Moffitt, 1993). To appropriately test Moffitt’s ND*FA prediction, variables

were created for both ND (ADD + anger + empathy + impulsivity + psychosis) and FA (parental

supervision + parental punishment + parental incarceration + parental mental illness), which

were then multiplied together to create the interaction term. Therefore, juvenile offenders with

nonzero values must be afflicted by both ND and FA measures.

DLC Risk Factor for Adolescent Age of Onset

Peers. Indicative of an adolescent onset of offending, DLC predicts that peer influence is

highly pronounced during adolescence, when parental influence begins to wane and is replaced

by peer influence and social factors (Agnew, 1991; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich,

1979; Chung & Steinberg, 2006; Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, & Conger, 1991). To measure peer

influence, a single dichotomized variable was included in the model, where 1 = strongly or

somewhat admires/emulates antisocial peers and 0 = does not admire/emulate antisocial peers.

Analytic Technique

To determine whether, and to what extent, DLC theoretical predictions regarding risk

factors for early versus adolescent offending can be generalized to JSOs, the analysis proceeds in

three stages. First, descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of association and odds ratio (OR)

effect sizes are presented to determine the bivariate relationships between DLC theoretically
 15

informed risk factors for early and adolescent onset of offending among JSOs and JNSOs (Table

1)2 . Next, multivariate binary logistic regressions are conducted to determine whether DLC risk

factors significantly predict early versus adolescent criminal onset among JSOs and JNSOs, after

controlling for all other theoretical and demographic covariates. As DLC theory emphasizes the

cumulative impact of neuropsychological deficits (NDs) and familial adversity (FA) in

increasing the risk of chronic, violent, and other types of severe offending (i.e., that the

cumulative effect of experiencing familial adversity and neuropsychological deficits is the

strongest risk factor for early onset for all offending types; see, for example, Moffitt, 1993),

moderation analyses examining the interaction between ND and FA on the risk of early versus

adolescent onset among the JSO and JNSOs are run for each analysis. Finally, a multinomial

logistic regression is conducted to determine whether DLC risk factors significantly distinguish

early onset JSOs and early onset JNSOs, when compared with juvenile offenders of any kind

with adolescent onset. The interaction term of ND and FA is also included to evaluate the

moderating effect of these cumulative risks on early onset JSO and JNSOs as compared with all

forms of adolescent onset juvenile offenders.

Together, this analytic plan will allow for an assessment of whether, and to what extent,

DLC theoretical predictions align with the observed risk factors for early and adolescent onset of

offending among the two distinct groups of juvenile offenders.

Results

Multivariate Analysis: JSOs

As noted in the DLC literature, criminal behavior, family adversity, neuropsychological

deficits, and childhood trauma tend not to occur in isolation. Therefore, prior to running

2 For a description of all variables across early and adolescent onset for juvenile sex and nonsex offenders,
including chi-square measures of associations and odds ratio (OR) effect sizes, please see Table 1.
 16

multivariate regression models, an analysis of multicollinearity was first conducted. Diagnostic

results show that although several variables tend to occur in tandem, the variance inflation

factors (VIFs) for all covariates in the analyses were satisfactory (range = 1.05 - 1.71).

As the next step of the analytic process, a series of multivariate logistic regression models

were estimated to determine the ability of the above noted DLC risk factors to predict early

versus adolescent onset of offending, when controlling for all other covariates, for both juvenile

sex and nonsex offenders (Table 2). The initial models (labeled Models 1 and 3 in Table 2)

evaluate the theoretical and demographic risk factors’ ability to predict age of onset for the JSO

and JNSO groups. A second set of models containing the summed ND and FA interaction term

was added into the models for both JSO and JNSO groups (labeled Models 2 and 4 in Table 2),

to perform a more precise test of the predictions made by DLC theory. Results of the

multivariate binary logistic regression models distinguishing early versus adolescent onset

among the JSO and JNSO youth are presented in Table 2 below. In each case, early onset is the

predicted outcome, and adolescent onset is the reference category.

<<INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE>>

Four DLC risk factors emerged as statistically significant predictors of an early onset of

juvenile sex offending in Model 1, after holding all other theoretical and demographic variables

constant: emotional neglect, parental incarceration, ADD/ADHD, and anger/irritability. JSOs

who experienced emotional neglect were 24% more likely to have early versus adolescent onset

(OR = 1.24, p < .05), having a parent incarcerated increased the odds of early onset among JSOs

by 41% (OR = 1.41, p < .001), a history of ADD/ADHD increased the odds of early onset by

52% (OR = 1.52, p < .001), and anger/irritability increased the odds of early onset by 28% (OR =

1.28, p <.01). Admiration/emulation of deviant peers bordered on statistical significance as a risk

 17

factor predicting early onset for JSOs (OR = 1.18, p < .055). Each of these risk factors, except

admiration of deviant peers, is a risk factor for early onset JSOs according to DLC theory.

Race/ethnicity was also a significant predictor of an early onset sex offending as a demographic

control measure in the model. Surprisingly, gender was not significant.

In Model 2, which includes the interaction term evaluating the cumulative effect of

neuropsychological deficits and familial adversity, results are largely similar to Model 1.

Emotional neglect (OR = 1.24, p <.05), parental incarceration (OR = 1.36, p <.01), ADD/ADHD

(OR = 1.45, p <.001), history of anger/irritability, (OR = 1.21, p <.05), and admiration/emulation

of deviant peers (OR = 1.18, p <.05) were statistically significant predictors of an early criminal

onset among the JSOs. Although the effect sizes differed slightly in some cases, none changed in

direction or lost significance. However, the interaction term for neuropsychological deficits and

family adversity was not a significant predictor of age of onset among the JSOs.

Multivariate Analysis: JNSOs

Model 3 of Table 2 presents the results of the multivariate binary logistic regression

predicting age of onset among JNSOs. In total, 16 risk factors emerged as significant predictors

for early versus adolescent onset among the JNSOs, after controlling for all other theoretical and

demographic variables. These risk factors, nearly all of which presented in the theoretically

expected direction, indicate that the number of DLC risk factors increasing risk of early onset

among JNSOs exceeds the number for JSOs.

Specifically, childhood sexual abuse increased the odds of early onset by 9% among the

JNSOs (OR = 1.09, p < .05), whereas witnessing household violence raised the risk of early

onset by 17% (OR = 1.17, p < .001). Interestingly, emotional neglect slightly reduced the risk of

early onset among the JNSOs (OR = 0.94, p < .05), a finding contrary to theoretical predictions.
 18

All four familial adversity items significantly predicted early onset among JNSOs, as

sporadic/inadequate supervision increased the odds by 20% (OR = 1.20, p < .001),

severe/insufficient punishments increased the odds by 9% (OR = 1.09, p < .01), and having a

parent with a history of incarceration and mental illness increased the odds of early onset by 62%

(OR = 1.62, p < .001) and 10% (OR = 1.10, p < .01), respectively.

Neuropsychological deficits all increased the risk of early onset among JNSOs, in line

with DLC predictions. ADD/ADHD increased risk of early onset among the JNSOs by 70% (OR

= 1.70, p < .001), whereas anger/irritability raised the odds by 20% (OR = 1.20, p <.001). Having

low empathy increased the risk of early onset by 8% (OR = 1.08, p < .01), whereas having high

impulsivity increased the odds of an early onset by 14% (OR = 1.14, p < .001). JNSOs with

psychosis were 10% more likely to have an early onset of offending (OR = 1.10, p < .05).

Admiration and emulation of antisocial peers was shown to reduce the risk of early onset

(in other words, increase the risk of adolescent onset) by 7% among the JNSOs, when controlling

for all other factors (OR = 0.93, p < .01). This finding is directly aligned with DLC theoretical

expectations. School involvement was not a statistically significant predictor of age of onset

among the nonsexual offenders. Gender and race/ethnicity were both significant predictors of

early onset sex offending as demographic control measures in the model.

A moderation analysis of the cumulative effects of neuropsychological deficits and

familial adversity on early onset among nonsex offenders is presented in Model 4. All risk

factors distinguishing early onset among the JNSOs remained significant in the model, and

changed only slightly, if at all, in terms of their effect size. Interestingly, the interaction term was

shown to have a small effect as a significant predictor of adolescent (not early) onset offending

among the nonsexual offender group (OR = 0.98, p < .05). This finding, which is theoretically
 19

unexpected, is elaborated on in further detail in the “Discussion” section, to follow.

Multinomial Analysis: Early Onset JSOs

Finally, a series of multinomial logistic regression models were estimated to determine

the ability of the above noted DLC risk factors to predict early onset offending for both JSOs and

JNSOs, when compared with all adolescent onset juvenile offenders. The initial models (labeled

Model 1 and 3, respectively) evaluate the risk factors’ ability to predict early onset for the JSO

and JNSO groups. Once again, a second set of models containing an interaction term for the

cumulative risk of neuropsychological deficits and familial adversity was estimated for both JSO

and JNSO groups (labeled Model 2 and 4, respectively). Results of the multinomial regression

models of risk factors distinguishing age of onset among the JSO and JNSO youth are presented

in Table 3. In each case, the ability for risk factors to predict early onset for the JSO and JNSO

youth is compared with all offenders with adolescent onset (the reference category).

<<INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE>>

As shown in Model 1 of Table 3, JSOs with early onset were distinguished by seven DLC

risk factors: physical abuse, sexual abuse, parental incarceration, having ADD/ADHD, low

empathy, high impulsivity, and psychosis. Specifically, physical abuse (OR = 1.16, p <.05) and

sexual abuse (OR = 3.15, p <.001) in childhood increased the odds of early onset sex offending

by 16% and 215% respectively, as compared with youth offenders with adolescent onset.

Among the familial adversity measures, having a parent with a history of incarceration increased

the odds of early onset by 49% (OR = 1.49, p < .001). With respect to neuropsychological

deficits, a history of ADD/ADHD (OR = 2.37, p <.001), low empathy (OR=1.20, p <.05), high

impulsivity (OR=1.20, p <.01), and psychosis (OR = 1.49, p <.001) all increased the odds of

early onset for JSOs. Aligned with DLC predictions, admiration/emulation of antisocial peers
 20

reduced the risk of early onset among JSOs by 36% when controlling for all other factors (OR =

0.64, p < .001).

To determine whether, and to what extent, a combination of neuropsychological deficits

and familial adversity measures were predictive of an early onset among JSOs, an interaction

term was added to Model 2. Except for low empathy and high impulsivity, all risk factors

remained statistically significant predictors of early onset sex offending. Furthermore, the

interaction term was borderline statistically significant in the theoretically predicted direction

(OR=1.04; p <.055).

Multinomial Analysis: Early Onset JNSOs

As shown in Model 3 of Table 3, JNSOs with early onset were distinguished from youth

with adolescent onset of offending by the following DLC risk factors: witnessing household

violence, sporadic/inadequate parental supervision, severe/insufficient parental punishment,

parental incarceration, parental mental illness, having a history of ADD/ADHD, high

anger/irritability, low empathy, and high impulsivity. Results indicate that witnessing household

violence increased the risk of being an early onset JNSO by 17%, when compared with any type

of adolescent onset juvenile offender (OR = 1.17, p <.001). All four of the familial adversity

items significantly predicted early onset, as sporadic/inadequate supervision increased the odds

by 21% (OR = 1.21, p <.001), severe/insufficient punishments increased the odds by 11% (OR =

1.11, p <.001), and having a parent with a history of incarceration and mental illness increased

the odds of early onset by 61% (OR = 1.61, p <.001) and 9% (OR = 1.09, p <.01), respectively.

Furthermore, having a history of ADD/ADHD increased the odds of early onset nonsex

offending by 65% (OR = 1.65, p < .001), whereas high anger/irritability increased the odds by

22% (OR = 1.22, p <.001). In addition, having low empathy and high impulsivity increased the
 21

odds of early onset by 7% (OR = 1.07, p <.01) and 12% (OR = 1.12, p <.001), respectively.

Contrary to theoretical predictions, emotional neglect slightly reduced the risk of early

onset among the JNSOs (OR = 0.95, p < .05). In addition, neither school involvement3 nor

admiration/emulation of antisocial peers were significant predictors in this model.

The interaction of neuropsychological deficits and familial adversity measures was

included as a predictor of early onset offending among JNSOs in Model 4. Although the

interaction term bordered on statistical significance (OR = 0.99, p < .055), all risk factors (now

including psychosis) remained statistically significant predictors of early onset nonsexual

offending.

Discussion

This study aimed to examine the applicability of DLC theory-informed risk factors,

including neuropsychological deficits, family adversity, structural deficits, lack of school

involvement, and deviant peers, in differentiating early versus adolescent onset among JSOs and

JNSOs. After conducting a series of bivariate analyses and multivariate regression analyses

(logistic and multinomial logistic), several important findings emerged.

First, although DLC risk factors were found to distinguish early onset from adolescent

onset of offending for both JSOs and JNSOs, as theoretically predicted, it is clear that the

number of risk factors predicting early onset among the nonsex offenders far exceeded those for

the sex offenders (refer to Table 2).This finding is very interesting, as it supports DLC

theoretical predictions that risk factors for early onset differ in kind from risk factors for

adolescent onset; however, JNSOs with an early onset seemed to be disproportionately

characterized by nearly all DLC risk factors, whereas early onset was less distinguishable among

3 School involvement is nonsignificant due to the rounding up of the lower bound of the confidence interval (CI).
 22

the JSOs. In other words, the early onset JNSOs seemed to simply be characterized by a greater

degree of risk, but JSOs might be characterized by a specific kind of risk.4

Specifically, JSOs with early versus adolescent onset showed more issues relating to

familial adversity/maltreatment (i.e. emotional neglect, parental incarceration) and

neuropsychological deficits (i.e. ADD/ADHD, anger/irritability), while JNSOs with early onset

were distinguished from their counterparts with adolescent onset by every single DLC risk factor

with the exception of physical abuse and school involvement.

These findings align with previous research on JSOs, which indicate that in general,

psychopathologies and childhood trauma/family adversity are primary significant risk factors for

juvenile sex offending (Fox, 2017; Hall & Hirschman, 1991, 1992; Marshall & Barbaree, 1990;

Seto & Lalumière; 2010; Ward & Beech, 2006). The present study also builds upon past research

by indicating that even among JSOs, those with psychopathologies and childhood trauma/family

adversity are at greater risk for early onset of offending.

Furthermore, when comparing the early onset JSOs to youth with any form of adolescent

onset offending, sexual abuse was very strong and significant as a predictor, increasing the risk

of early onset sexual offending by more than 200%. This echoes findings from prior research,

which consistently shows that sexual offending, particularly with an earlier age of onset, is

predicted by childhood sexual abuse (Carpentier et al., 2011; Fox, 2017; Hanson & Bussiere,

1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Seto & Lalumière; 2010).

Results of this study also differ from DLC theoretical predictions and prior research in a

few ways. For instance, peer influence was a significant or bordering significant predictor of

early, not adolescent, onset among JSOs in several models. This contradicts a major DLC

4 We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for raising this important point.
 23

prediction that admiration and association with deviant peers would increase risk of adolescent

onset (Moffitt, 1993). However, it should be noted that in the multinomial logistic regression

comparing early onset JSOs with juvenile offenders with adolescent onset, peer influence

significantly increased the risk of adolescent onset, as theoretically expected.

In addition, in the initial logistic regression models, sexual abuse served as a risk factor

for early onset (which is expected) among the JNSOs (which is not expected). This finding raises

an interesting question, as to whether sexual abuse was more strongly predictive of early onset,

or for nonsex offending, as the results may be affected by the fact that adolescent onset nonsex

offenders are far less likely to have been sexually abused in childhood compared with early onset

JNSOs (and adolescent onset JSOs). In the follow- up multinomial analysis, results fall more in

line with DLC theory and prior research, as childhood sexual abuse was only predictive of early

onset JSOs when compared with adolescent onset offenders. In other words, when able to

compare the ability of sexual abuse to distinguish between early onset JSOs and adolescent onset

offenders, sexual abuse significantly and substantially increased the risk of sex offending at an

earlier age, as seen in prior research (Fox, 2017; Seto & Lalumière, 2010).

Another surprising departure was the general lack of significance for the interactive

effects of familial adversity and neuropsychological deficits, which was expected to significantly

increase the risk of early onset offending. Only in the multinomial logistic regression, where the

interaction was bordering on significance (p <.055), did the effects present in the expected

direction by increasing risk of early onset among the sex offenders. In all other models the

results were either nonsignificant, bordering significance, or operated in the opposite direction.

Future research should aim to examine the cumulative effects of familial adversity and

neuropsychological deficits, particularly as they appear to be strongly related to early onset and
 24

juvenile sex offending outside of the moderation analyses.

Finally, although the current study did not aim to compare risk factors for sexual versus

nonsexual offenders generally (instead, focusing on risk factors for varied ages of onset for each

group), the multinomial analysis was able to shed some light on the distinctions between these

groups. For instance, early onset JSOs were distinct from adolescent onset juvenile offenders as

they showed a significantly increased risk of sexual abuse, physical abuse, low empathy,

impulsivity, psychosis, ADD/ADHD, and parental incarceration. Each of these risk factors,

which fall primarily in the neuropsychological deficit and childhood maltreatment categories, are

in alignment both with prior research and DLC theoretical predictions.

Importantly, nonsex offending youth with early onset were distinguished from adolescent

onset offenders by a similar (but larger) set of significant risk factors, to include low empathy,

impulsivity, ADD/ADHD, anger/irritability, parental incarceration, low parental supervision,

harsh punishment, parental mental illness, and witnessing household violence. The risk factors

unique to the early onset nonsex offending youth appear to fall more in the realm of familial

adversity, potentially illustrating a unique distinction for early onset nonsex offenders that is

worth additional investigation in future research.

Limitations and Future Research

Of course, it is important to note the limitations of the current study. For instance, the

FDJJ includes both JSOs and JNSOs; however, JNSOs encompassed a variety of offenders,

including violent offenders. Future research should separate nonsex offense categories to better

understand risk factors predictive of violent, sexual, and nonsexual offending during early and

adolescent onset. Also, due to the nature of the sample, researchers should exercise caution when

generalizing these findings. These findings provide insight into the risk factors predictive of
 25

early onset sex offending for sex-only offenders and are not reflective of risk factors predictive

of the versatile (i.e., “sex-plus”) offenders. In addition, although the PACT risk assessment is

verified by, among other legitimate sources, official court records and Department of Children

and Families (DCF) reports, there is a chance that some forms of neglect or abuse were never

reported. Besides possible underreporting issues, the data account for only the existence of

abuse/neglect and not the frequency or dates of the events. Future research should employ

longitudinal data to determine causality, specifically focusing on the temporal order between

sexual abuse, psychopathologies, and onset of sex offending.

Conclusion

DLC theories, in general, predict that certain developmental, social, environmental,

psychological, and biological factors increase the risk of offending, but may not apply equally to

all individuals (Farrington, 2003; Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990). For instance, for some people, DLC

theory would expect that high levels of neuropsychological deficits and familial adversity would

increase the risk of early age of onset and chronic future offending, whereas antisocial peer

influence serves as a substantial risk factor for adolescent onset and limited offending behaviors

for others (Moffitt, 1993). This study aimed to examine whether DLC-informed risk factors were

able to distinguish early onset from adolescent onset among juvenile sex and nonsex offenders,

thereby indicating the applicability of DLC theory to the understanding of onset among both

offender groups (see Farrington, 1989, 1991, 1998; Lussier, 2017).

Overall, results of this study indicate that the risk factors for early onset differ in kind

from risk factors for adolescent onset, and generally align with predictions made by DLC theory.

However, a unique finding and contribution of this study is that the number of DLC risk factors

predicting early onset for nonsex offenders was much higher than for the sex offenders. In other
 26

words, the early onset JNSOs appear to be disproportionately characterized by nearly all DLC

risk factors, indicating a greater degree of risk, whereas early onset JSOs were characterized by a

more narrow and specific kind of risk, primarily relating to neuropsychological deficits and

trauma/abuse in childhood.

Consequently, these findings indicate both the need for further research on JSOs from a

DLC perspective, as well as a need for early life-course prevention, risk assessment, and

intervention efforts (Wijetunga, Martinez, Rosenfeld, & Cruise, 2018). Early family parent

training, nurse-practitioner partnerships, and self-control improvement programs are examples of

specific programs that are both effective in the short and long term (Piquero, Farrington, Welsh,

Tremblay, & Jennings, 2009, Piquero, Jennings, & Farrington, 2010, Piquero, Jennings,

Diamond, Farrington, Tremblay, Welsh, & Reingle Gonzalez, 2016, Piquero, Jennings,

Farrington, Diamond, & Reingle Gonzalez, 2016), and yield a considerable cost benefit

particularly in terms of preventing the onset of a young person’s criminal career (Cohen,

Piquero, & Jennings, 2010).

 27

References

Agnew, R. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delinquency. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28(2), 126-156.

Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and

deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review,

44(4), 636-655.

Baglivio, M. T. (2009). The assessment of risk to recidivate among a juvenile offending

population. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(6), 596-607.

Baglivio, M. T., & Jackowski, K. (2013). Examining the validity of a juvenile offending risk

assessment instrument across gender and race/ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile

Justice, 11(1), 26-43.

Baglivio, M. T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Huq, M. S., Sheer, A., & Hardt, N. S. (2014). The

prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile

offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 1-23.

Baglivio, M.T., Wolff, K.T., Piquero, A.R., & Epps, N. (2015). The relationship between adverse

childhood experiences (ACE) and juvenile offending trajectories in a juvenile offender

sample. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 229-241.

Baglivio, M. T., Wolff, K. T., DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Juvenile

animal cruelty and firesetting behaviour. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(5),

484-500.

Barbaree, H.E., Hudson, S.M., & Seto, M.C. (1993). Sexual assault in society: The role of the

juvenile offender. In H.E. Barbaree, W.L. Marshall, & S.M. Hudson (Eds.), The juvenile

sex offender (pp. 1-24). New York, NY: Guilford.

 28

Becker, J.V., Harris, C.D., & Sales, B.D. (1993). Juveniles who commit sexual offenses: A

critical review of research. In G.C. Nagayama-Hall, R. Hirschman, J.R. Graham, & M.S.

Zaragoza (Eds.), Sexual aggression: Issues in etiology, assessment, and treatment (pp.

215-228). PA: Taylor & Francis.

Blokland, A. A., & Lussier, P. (2015). The criminal career paradigm and its relevance to

studying sex offenders. In A.A. Blokland & P. Lussier (Eds.), Sex offenders: A criminal

career approach (pp. 3 -21). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cale, J., Smallbone, S., Rayment-McHugh, S., & Dowling, C. (2016). Offense trajectories, the

unfolding of sexual and non-sexual criminal activity, and sex offense characteristics of

adolescent sex offenders. Sexual Abuse, 28(8), 791-812.

Calley, N.G. (2007). Integrating theory and research: The development of a research-based

treatment program for juvenile male sex offenders. Journal of Counseling and

Development, 85(2), 131-142.

Carpentier, J., Leclerc, B., & Proulx, J. (2011). Juvenile sexual offenders: Correlates of onset,

variety, and desistance of criminal behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(8), 854-

873.

Chewning, M. F. (1991). A comparison of adolescent male sex offenders with juvenile

delinquents and nonreferred adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(7-B),

3557.

Chung, H. L., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Relations between neighborhood factors, parenting

behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency among serious juvenile

offenders. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 319-331.

Cohen, M.A., Piquero, A.R., & Jennings, W.G. (2010). Estimating the costs of bad outcomes for
 29

at-risk youth and the benefits of early childhood interventions to reduce them. Criminal

Justice Policy Review, 21(4), 391-434.

DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M.G., Beaver, K.M., Wright, J.P., Hochstetler, A., Kosloski, A.E., & Drury,

A.J. (2008). Juvenile sex offenders and institutional misconduct: The role of thought

psychopathology. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18(5), 292-305.

Ellis, L., Beaver, K., & Wright, J.P. (2009). Handbook of crime correlates. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Erikson, E.H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Etherington, R. R. (1993). Diagnostic and personality differences of juvenile sex offenders, non-

sex offenders and non-offenders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(4-B), 2195.

Fagan, J., & Wexler, S. (1988). Explanations of sexual assault among violent delinquents.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 3(3-4), 363-385.

Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence

and Victims, 4(2), 79-100.

Farrington, D. P. (1991). Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and later-life

outcomes. In D.J. Pepler & K.H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment of

childhood aggression (pp. 5-29). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Farrington, D. P. (1998). Predictors, causes, and correlates of male youth violence. Crime and

Justice, 24, 421-475.

Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life‐course criminology: Key theoretical and

empirical issues‐the 2002 Sutherland Award address. Criminology, 41(2), 221-225.

Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 12(3), 177-190.

Farrington, D. P. (2010). Life-course and developmental theories in criminology. In E.

 30

McLaughlin & T. Newburn (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of criminological theory (pp.

249-270). Los Angeles: Sage.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2014). Crime in the United States, 2013. Washington,

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fix, R. L., Cyperski, M. A., & Burkhart, B. R. (2017). Disproportionate minority contact:

Comparisons across juveniles adjudicated for sexual and non-sexual offenses. Sexual

Abuse, 29(3), 291-308.

Fox, B. H., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Bringing psychopathy into

developmental and life-course criminology theories and research. Journal of Criminal

Justice, 43(4), 274-289.

Fox, B. H., Perez, N., Cass, E., Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2015). Trauma changes everything:

Examining the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and serious, violent

and chronic juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 163-173.

Fox, B. (2017). What makes a difference? Evaluating the key distinctio ns and predictors of

sexual and non-sexual offending among male and female juvenile offenders. Journal of

Criminal Psychology, 7(2), 134 – 150.

Fox, B., & DeLisi, M. (2018). From criminological heterogeneity to coherent classes:

Developing a typology of juvenile sex offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,

16, 299-318. doi: 10.1177/1541204017699257.

Garber, J., & Hollon, S. D. (1991). What can specificity designs say about causality in

psychopathology research? Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 129-136.

Hall, G. C. N., & Hirschman, R. (1991). Toward a theory of sexual aggression: A quadripartite

model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 662-669.

 31

Hall, G. C. N., & Hirschman, R. (1992). Sexual aggression against children: A conceptual

perspective of etiology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19(1), 8-23.

Hanson, R. K., & Bussiere, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: a meta-analysis of sexual offender

recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 348 – 362.

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual

offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 73(6), 1154-1163.

Hunter, J.A., Hazelwood, R.R., & Slesinger, D. (2000). Juvenile-perpetrated sex crimes: Patterns

of offending and predictors of violence. Journal of Family Violence, 15(1), 81-93.

Jennings, W.G., Higgins, G.E., Tewksbury, R., Gover, A.R., & Piquero, A.R. (2010). A

longitudinal assessment of the victim–offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 25 (2), 2147-2174.

Katz, R. C. (1990). Psychosocial adjustment in adolescent child molesters. Child Abuse &

Neglect, 14(4), 567-575.

Lahey, B. B., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2003). Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile

delinquency. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lindsey, R. E., Carlozzi, A. F., & Eells, G. T. (2001). Differences in the dispositional empathy of

juvenile sex offenders, non-sex-offending delinquent juveniles, and nondelinquent

juveniles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(6), 510-522.

Loeber, R., & LeBlanc, M. (1990). Toward a Developmental Criminology. In M. Tonry & N.

Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An Annual Review of Research, (pp. 375-473).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lussier, P., Blokland, A., Mathesius, J., Pardini, D., & Loeber, R. (2015). The childhood risk
 32

factors of adolescent – onset and adult – onset of sex offending: Evidence from a

prospective longitudinal study. In A.A. Blokland & P. Lussier (Eds.), Sex offenders: A

criminal career approach (pp. 93 - 128). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Lussier, P., Corrado, R. R., & McCuish, E. (2016). A criminal career study of the continuity and

discontinuity of sex offending during the adolescence-adulthood transition: A prospective

longitudinal study of incarcerated youth. Justice Quarterly, 33(7), 1123-1153.

Lussier, P. (2017). Juvenile sex offending through a developmental life course criminology

perspective: An agenda for policy and research. Sexual Abuse, 29(1), 51-80.

Marshall, W. L., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). An integrated theory of the etiology of sexual

offending. In W.L. Marshall, D.R. Laws, & H.E. Barbaree (Eds.), Handbook of Sexual

Assault: Issues, theories, and treatment of the offender (pp. 257-275). Boston, MA:

Springer.

McCuish, E. C., Cale, J., & Corrado, R. R. (2017). Abuse experiences of family members, child

maltreatment, and the development of sex offending among incarcerated adolescent

males: Differences between adolescent sex offenders and adolescent non-sex

offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 61(2), 127-149.

McCuish, E. C., & Lussier, P. (2017). Unfinished stories: From juvenile sex offenders to juvenile

sex offending through a developmental life course perspective. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 37, 71-82.

McMaken, M.V. (2000). The relationship between Erikson’s developmental tasks and children

identified as at-risk (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2630
 33

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.

Morais, H. B., Alexander, A. A., Fix, R. L., & Burkhart, B. R. (2018). Childhood sexual abuse in

adolescents adjudicated for sexual offenses: Mental health consequences and sexual

offending behaviors. Sexual Abuse, 30(1), 23-42.

Murphy, W.D., DiLillo, D., Haynes, M.R., & Steere, E. (2001). An exploration of factors related

to deviant sexual arousal among juvenile sex offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of

Research and Treatment, 13(2), 91-103.

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: key

findings from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(10), 633-642.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on

antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44(2), 329 – 335.

Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (2002). A developmental model for early- and late-onset

delinquency. In J.B. Reid, G.R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in

children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 147

– 172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Perez, N. M., Jennings, W. G., & Baglivio, M. T. (2018). A path to serious, violent, chronic

delinquency: the harmful aftermath of adverse childhood experiences. Crime &

Delinquency, 64(1), 3-25.

Piquero, A. (2001). Testing Moffitt's neuropsychological variation hypothesis for the prediction

of life-course persistent offending. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7(1-4), 193-215.

Piquero, A. R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Explaining the facts of crime: How the developmental

taxonomy replies to Farrington’s invitation. In D.P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated

 34

developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 51-72). New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction.

Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P., Welsh, B.C., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W.G. (2009). Effects of

early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 83-120.

Piquero, A.R., Jennings, W.G., & Farrington, D.P. (2010). On the malleability of self-control:

Theoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime. Justice

Quarterly, 27(6), 803-834.

Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Fontaine, N. M. G., Vincent, G., Coid, J., & Ullrich, S.

(2012a). Childhood risk, offending trajectories, and psychopathy at age 48 years in the

Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,

18(4), 577-598.

Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., & Craig, J. (2012b). Sex

offenders and sex offending in the Cambridge study in delinquent development:

Prevalence, frequency, specialization, recidivism, and (dis) continuity over the life-

course. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(3), 412-426.

Piquero, A.R., Jennings, W.G., Diamond, B., Farrington, D.P., Tremblay, R.E., Welsh, B. C., &

Reingle Gonzalez, J.M. (2016). A meta-analysis update on the effects of early

family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 12(2), 229-248.

Piquero, A.R., Jennings, W.G., Farrington, D.P., Diamond, B., & Reingle Gonzalez, J.M. (2016).

A meta-analysis update on the effectiveness of early self-control improvement programs

to improve self-control and reduce delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology,

 35

12(2), 249-264.

Reingle, J. M. (2012). Evaluating the continuity between juvenile and adult sex offending: A

review of the literature. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(3), 427-434.

Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. (1997). Cross-validation and extension of the Violence Risk

Appraisal Guide for child molesters and rapists. Law and Human Behavior, 21(2), 231-

241.

Robertiello, G., & Terry, K.J. (2007). Can we profile sex offenders? A review of sex offender

typologies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(5), 508-518.

Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual

offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 136(4), 526-575.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (1991). Parenting factors, social

skills, and value commitments as precursors to school failure, involvement with deviant

peers, and delinquent behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(6), 645-664.

Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional theory to the explanation of

continuity and change in antisocial behavior. In D.P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated

developmental and life-course theories of offending (pp. 183 – 209). New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction.

Valliant, P. M., & Bergeron, T. (1997). Personality and criminal profile of adolescent sexual

offenders, general offenders in comparison to nonoffenders. Psychological

Reports, 81(2), 483-489.

van Den Berg, C., Bijleveld, C., & Hendriks, J. (2017). The juvenile sex offender: Criminal

careers and life events. Sexual Abuse, 29(1), 81-101.

 36

Ward, T., & Beech, A. (2006). An integrated theory of sexual offending. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 11(1), 44-63.

Widom, C.S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology, 27(2),

251-271.

Wijetunga, C., Martinez, R., Rosenfeld, B., & Cruise, K. (2018). The influence of age and sexual

drive on the predictive validity of the juvenile sex offender assessment protocol–revised.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(1), 150-

169.

Wolff, K. T., Baglivio, M. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). The relationship between adverse

childhood experiences and recidivism in a sample of juvenile offenders in community-

based treatment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative

Criminology, 61(11), 1210-1242.

Worling, J.R. (2001). Personality-based typology of adolescent male sexual offenders:

Differences in recidivism rates, victim-selection characteristics, and personal

victimization histories. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 13(3), 149-

166.

Zakireh, B., Ronis, S.T., & Knight, R.A. (2008). Individual beliefs, attitudes, and victimization

histories of male juvenile sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and

Treatment, 20(3), 323-351.

Zimring, F. E., Piquero, A. R., & Jennings, W. G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in Racine: Does

early sex offending predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood?.

Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 507-534.

Table 1. DLC Risk Factors for Early vs. Adolescent Onset by Juvenile Offender Types.
Juvenile Sex Offenders Juvenile Non-Sex Offenders
Early Adolescent 2 OR Early Onset Adolescent 2 OR
χ χ
Onset Onset % Onset
% % %
Sex Male 93.5 92.9 81.2 76.1
Female 6.5 7.1 0.62 1.00 18.8 23.9 168.59*** 1.07***

Race White 36.4 42.7 32.9 39.8

Non-White 63.6 57.3 15.30*** 0.57*** 67.2 60.3 223.41*** 0.83***

Family Income Under $15,000 19.9 17.9 1.11 22.2 18.7 1.18***
$15,000 - $34,999 56.5 53.8 19.87*** 1.05 57.9 52.5 1.10***
$35,000-$49,999 18.1 19.2 0.94 14.7 19.0 510.95*** 0.77***
$50,000+ 5.5 9.2 0.59*** 5.2 9.8 0.53***
Household Witnessed household violence 85.8 77.1 87.6 80.3
Violence No household violence 14.2 22.9 44.67*** 1.11*** 12.4 19.7 396.17*** 1.09***

Emotional Emotionally neglected 20.6 14.1 19.7 17.7

Neglect Never emotionally neglected 79.4 85.9 29.30*** 1.46*** 80.3 82.3 31.06*** 1.11***
Physical Abuse Physically abused 41.4 31.2 34.0 27.6
Never physically abused 58.6 68.9 43.35*** 1.32*** 66.0 72.4 218.08*** 1.23***
Sexual Abuse Sexually abused 24.7 20.0 12.7 10.8
Never sexually abused 75.3 80.0 11.84** 1.23*** 87.4 89.2 37.95*** 1.17***
School No interest in school activities 48.0 37.6 51.6 45.0
Involvement Interested/involved 52.0 62.4 37.54*** 1.28*** 48.4 55.0 171.90*** 1.15***

Peers Admires antisocial peers 60.4 46.8 69.7 62.8

Doesn’t admire antisocial peers 39.6 53.2 68.78*** 1.29*** 30.3 37.2 231.69*** 1.11***
Parental Sporadic/inadequate 58.8 45.6 65.8 54.2
Supervision Consistent 41.2 54.4 64.23*** 1.29*** 34.2 45.9 609.87*** 1.21***

Parental Severe, insufficient, or erratic 52.2 37.9 57.7 46.7

Punishment Appropriate punishment 47.8 62.1 76.66*** 1.38*** 42.3 53.3 526.40*** 1.23***

Parental History of incarceration 74.0 60.2 76.7 62.5

Incarceration No history of incarceration 26.0 39.8 76.84*** 1.23*** 23.3 37.5 1.0e3*** 0.92***

Parental History of mental illness 12.8 9.2 11.1 8.0

Mental Illness No history of mental illness 87.2 90.8 12.65*** 1.39*** 88.9 92.0 134.10*** 1.39***

ADD/ADHD History of ADD/ADHD 45.3 31.5 33.0 20.3

76.94*** 1.43*** 1.0e3*** 1.62***
No history of ADD/ADHD 54.7 68.5 67.0 79.7

37
 Anger/ Consistently angry/irritable 47.9 32.9 49.7 38.5
Irritability Never/occasionally angry/irritable 52.1 67.1 88.29*** 1.46*** 50.3 61.5 567.96*** 1.29***
Empathy No empathy to victims 29.0 21.3 28.8 21.4
Empathetic to victims 71.0 78.7 30.39*** 1.36*** 71.2 78.6 336.63*** 1.34***
Impulsivity High impulsivity 54.7 41.9 54.5 43.2
High self-control 45.3 58.1 61.06*** 1.30*** 45.5 56.8 570.47*** 1.26***

Psychosis Psychotic symptoms 9.8 6.5 6.5 4.5

13.86*** 1.51*** 95.25*** 1.44***
No psychotic symptoms 90.2 93.5 93.5 95.5
% of Sample 33.8 66.2 24.3 75.7

Note: Total JSOs n = 4,153; Early onset n = 1,405; Adolescent onset n = 2,748. Total JNSOs n = 60,176; Early onset n = 14,613; Adolescent onset n = 45,563.
** p<.01; *** p<.001. OR= Odds Ratio. OR’s shown for first level of binary variables.

38
Table 2. Multivariate Logistic Regression of DLC Risk Factors Predicting Early vs. Adolescent Onset among Juvenile Sex Offenders
and Juvenile Non-Sex Offenders
Juvenile Sex Offenders Juvenile Non-Sex Offenders
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI
+ *** ***
Male 1.34 0.99 - 1.80 1.34 1.00 - 1.80 1.41 1.34 - 1.50 1.42 1.34 - 1.50
*** *** *** ***
White 0.74 0.63 - 0.86 0.74 0.63 - 0.87 0.74 0.70 - 0.77 0.74 0.70 - 0.77
*** ***
Family Income 0.92 0.84 - 1.01 0.92 0.84 - 1.01 0.82 0.80 - 0.85 0.82 0.80 - 0.85
*** ***
Household Violence 1.12 0.90 - 1.38 1.13 0.91 -1.41 1.17 1.09 - 1.25 1.15 1.08 - 1.23
* * * *
Emotional Neglect 1.24 1.02 - 1.50 1.24 1.02 - 1.50 0.94 0.89 - 0.99 0.94 0.89 - 0.99
Physical Abuse 1.10 0.92 - 1.32 1.10 0.92 - 1.32 1.04 0.99 - 1.10 1.05 0.99 - 1.10
Sexual Abuse 1.05 0.87 - 1.28 1.05 0.87 - 1.28 1.09* 1.01 - 1.17 1.09* 1.01 - 1.17
School Involvement 1.10 0.95 - 1.29 1.10 0.95 - 1.29 1.03 0.99 - 1.08 1.03 0.99 - 1.08
+ * ** **
Peers 1.18 1.00 - 1.40 1.18 1.00 - 1.40 0.93 0.88 - 0.97 0.92 0.88 - 0.97
*** ***
Poor Parental Supervision 1.04 0.87 - 1.26 1.00 0.82 - 1.22 1.20 1.14 - 1.27 1.23 1.16 - 1.30
** ***
Poor Parental Punishment 1.17 0.97 - 1.41 1.12 0.91 - 1.37 1.09 1.04 - 1.15 1.12 1.06 - 1.19
Parental Incarceration 1.41*** 1.19 - 1.66 1.36** 1.14 - 1.63 1.62*** 1.54 - 1.70 1.65*** 1.57 - 1.74
Parental Mental Illness 1.06 0.84 - 1.33 0.99 0.76 - 1.28 1.10** 1.02 - 1.18 1.14** 1.06 - 1.24
ADD/ADHD 1.52*** 1.30 - 1.78 1.45*** 1.21 - 1.73 1.70*** 1.62 - 1.79 1.76*** 1.66 - 1.87
Anger/Irritability 1.28** 1.09 - 1.50 1.21* 1.01 - 1.47 1.20*** 1.15 - 1.26 1.24*** 1.17 - 1.31
Empathy 1.05 0.89 - 1.25 0.99 0.80 - 1.22 1.08** 1.03 - 1.14 1.13*** 1.06 - 1.20
Impulsivity 1.02 0.86 - 1.21 0.98 0.81 - 1.18 1.14*** 1.08 - 1.19 1.17*** 1.11 - 1.24
Psychosis 1.12 0.86 - 1.46 1.05 0.79 - 1.40 1.10* 1.01 - 1.20 1.14** 1.04 - 1.26
ND*FA Interaction 1.03 0.98 – 1.03 0.98* 0.97 - 1.00
Note: DV reference= adolescent onset; OR= Odds Ratio; SE= standard error; CI= 95% Confidence Interval. ND= neuropsychological deficits; FA=familial
adversity; +p<.055; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.

39
 Table 4. Multinomial Logistic Regression of DLC Risk Factors Predicting Early vs. Adolescent Onset among Juvenile Sex Offenders
and Juvenile Non-Sex Offenders
Juvenile Sex Offenders Juvenile Non-Sex Offenders
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI
Male 6.53*** . 5.15 - 8.27 6.51*** 5.13 - 8.25 1.31*** 1.24 - 1.38 1.31*** 1.24 - 1.39
White 0.71*** 0.62 - 0.80 0.71*** 0.63 - 0.81 0.74*** 0.70 - 0.77 0.74*** 0.70 - 0.77
Family Income 0.87*** 0.81 - 0.94 0.87*** 0.81 - 0.94 0.83*** 0.80 - 0.85 0.83*** 0.80 - 0.85
Household Violence 0.99 0.82 - 1.19 . 1.02 0.84 - 1.23 1.17*** 1.10 - 1.25 1.16*** 1.09 - 1.24
Emotional Neglect 1.09 0.94 - 1.26 1.08 0.94 - 1.26 0.95* 0.90 – 1.00 0.95* 0.90 - 1.00
Physical Abuse 1.16* 1.00 - 1.33 1.15+ 1.00 - 1.33 1.04 0.99 - 1.10 1.04 0.99 - 1.10
Sexual Abuse 3.15*** 2.69 - 3.70 3.17*** 2.70 - 3.72 0.99 0.92 - 1.07 0.99 0.92 - 1.06
School Involvement 0.96 0.85 - 1.08 . 0.96 0.85 - 1.08 1.04 1.00 - 1.09 1.04 1.00 - 1.09
Peers 0.64*** 0.56 - 0.74 0.64*** 0.56 - 0.74 0.97 0.92 - 1.02 0.97 0.92 - 1.01
Poor Parental Supervision 1.01 0.87 - 1.17 0.95 0.80 - 1.11 1.21*** 1.14 - 1.27 1.23*** 1.16 - 1.30
Poor Parental Punishment 1.02 0.88 - 1.18 0.94 0.80 - 1.12 1.11*** 1.05 - 1.17 1.13*** 1.07 - 1.20
Parental Incarceration 1.49*** 1.30 - 1.71 . 1.41*** 1.22 - 1.64 1.61*** 1.54 - 1.70 1.65*** 1.56 - 1.74
Parental Mental Illness 1.16 0.97 - 1.39 1.04 0.84 - 1.28 1.09** 1.02 - 1.17 1.14** 1.05 - 1.23
ADD/ADHD 2.37*** 2.10 - 2.69 2.20*** 1.90 - 2.55 1.65*** 1.57 - 1.73 1.70*** 1.61 - 1.80
Anger/Irritability 0.99 0.87 - 1.13 0.92 0.79 - 1.07 1.22*** 1.17 - 1.28 1.26*** 1.19 - 1.33
Empathy 1.20* 1.04 - 1.38 1.09 0.91 - 1.29 1.07** 1.02 - 1.13 1.12** 1.05 - 1.19
Impulsivity 1.20** 1.05 - 1.38 1.12 0.96 - 1.31 1.12*** 1.07 - 1.18 1.16*** 1.09 - 1.22
Psychosis 1.49*** 1.22 - 1.82 1.36** 1.08 – 1.69 1.07 0.98 - 1.17 1.12* 1.02 - 1.23
ND*FA Interaction 1.04+ 1.00 - 1.08 0.99+ 0.97 - 1.00
Note: DV reference= adolescent onset offenders; OR= Odds Ratio; SE= standard error; CI= 95% Confidence Interval. ND= neuropsychological deficits;
FA=familial adversity; +p<.055; *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.

40

View publication stats