Special Populations: A Challenge to Juvenile Justice

09CH_Juvenile_Johnson.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Special Populations: A Challenge to Juvenile Justice

Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Describe the issues early starters face in their everyday lives, the characteristics of persistently disruptive children, and the methods used to prevent and treat early delinquent behavior.

▪ Explain the complexity of defining gangs and gang behavior and the relationship between gangs and crime.

▪ Analyze the complexity surrounding the labeling of juvenile sex offenders.

9Special Populations

Cultura Limited/SuperStock

Chapter Outline 9.1 Introduction

9.2 Early Starters

▪ Issues Faced by Early Starters

▪ Prevention and Treatment

9.3 Juvenile Gangs

▪ What Is a Gang?

▪ Gang Prevalence in the United States

▪ Girl Gangs

▪ Gang-Related Crime

▪ Consequences of Gang Membership

▪ Gang Prevention: Programs and Initiatives

9.4 Juvenile Sex Offenders

▪ Laws/Statutory Rape

▪ The Juvenile Sex Offender

▪ Policy Initiatives

▪ Juvenile Sex Offenders and Rehabilitation

In the summer of 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a Hollywood, Florida, shopping mall. His mother allowed Adam to play video games near the front entrance while she shopped for lamps. She indicated she was gone for only 10 minutes. According to the store security guard, he found Adam and several other boys fighting over the video games and escorted all of them out of the store. It is believed that Adam was left alone outside the store, at which point he was abducted.

Adam’s decapitated head was found approximately two weeks later; however, the police never recovered his body. The national manhunt remained a cold case for years until, in 2008, offi- cials declared that a previous suspect of the murder was the killer. That man had died in prison 12 years earlier and was never officially tried for Adam’s abduction and murder.

Adam’s father, John Walsh, is well known around the world as the man behind the television show America’s Most Wanted. He is actively involved in missing children cases and advocating for harsher laws surrounding child molesters. Some 25 years later, in 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The law, passed with bipartisan support, requires more stringent sex-offender registration requirements. Although there was no evidence that Adam Walsh was sexually assaulted, given that his body was never found, the man accused of his murder had a history of juvenile delinquency and sex offend- ing. The legislation was seen as a positive step toward holding sex offenders accountable. That accountability is represented in a three-tier notification system that requires serious sex offenders to be listed on a national registry for life.

Section 9.2Early Starters

Sex-offender registration laws are very popular with the public. The popularity of these laws is understandable—people feel they have the right to know if a sex offender is living next door or in their neighborhood. One issue we will examine in this chapter is whether the situ- ation changes when a juvenile is involved. As discussed in previous chapters, many serious adult offenders begin their criminal careers as juveniles. Yet we know that not all juvenile sex offenders become adult offenders. In fact, juvenile sex offenders are more complex than the label suggests.

9.1 Introduction We often talk in terms of the “typical” juvenile delinquent, but certain juvenile delinquents are deserving of special attention. These special populations present particular challenges for the juvenile justice system and, to an extent, the communities in which they reside. For example, some juvenile delinquents are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior at a young age, and they are more likely to continue their criminal involvement as adults. Intervening in the lives of these juveniles is particularly important. Moreover, there are certain types of juvenile delinquents whose behavior is more violent and detrimental to their families, schools, and communities. These populations present special issues and concerns for the juvenile justice system, both from a policy standpoint and from a rehabilitation standpoint.

The word special may seem a misnomer in this circumstance as it is typically used in a posi- tive context. In this chapter, however, we use special to refer to those who depart from typical patterns of criminal behavior among adolescents. The three types of juvenile delinquents that most significantly depart from the norm are the very young delinquents often called early starters, gang-involved youth, and juvenile sex offenders.

What is interesting about each of these types of delinquents is that although they share simi- larities they also are very different. In particular, juvenile sex offenders are a heterogeneous group, meaning that all juvenile sex offenders do not look alike, act alike, or in most circum- stances have the same backgrounds. Understanding the complex legal and social issues at stake with these three special populations is also important.

9.2 Early Starters What does the label early starter mean? Although the age at which we label a juvenile an “early starter” is somewhat debatable, the label is typically reserved for those who begin commit- ting crimes before the age of 14. The number of juveniles who commit crimes before that age is relatively small. In fact, most studies find that early starters represent merely 5% to 7% of the juvenile delinquents arrested in any given year (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Terrie Mof- fitt (1993) categorized delinquents into two groups: adolescent limited offenders and antiso- cial persistent offenders. Both groups can include early starters. Adolescent limited offenders typically stop their delinquent behavior by the end of adolescence. By contrast, antisocial persistent offenders continue their criminal careers into adulthood. They are also more likely to be early starters. In fact, studies find that early starters are two to three times more likely

Section 9.2Early Starters

than juveniles who start offending at a later age to become chronic adult offend- ers (Loeber & Farrington, 2000).

Issues Faced by Early Starters As youth, antisocial persistent offenders often encountered cumulative disadvan- tages that exacerbated their problems. Once these youth are off on the wrong foot, the cycle becomes difficult to break. They are more likely to have neurological difficulties that include impulsivity, hyper- activity, and poor verbal and problem- solving skills (Moffitt, 1993). Understand- ing how and why these juveniles begin their delinquent careers is important for managing and intervening with this population.

These early starters can be a drain on the juvenile justice system. They are more likely than other juvenile offenders to commit crime more frequently. They are also more likely to esca- late their criminal behavior and become increasingly violent. As a result, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) formed a study group. The group, referred to as the Study Group on Very Young Offenders, was comprised of 39 experts on the topic of child delinquency. The study group published a number of reports that can be found at OJJDP. gov under the title Child Delinquency Series. They classified young offenders as those aged 7 to 12. There are several interesting points to highlight:

• Juveniles whose first referral to court for a delinquency offense had occurred before age 13 were far more likely to become chronic offenders—that is, to have had at least four referrals to juvenile court—than juveniles whose first referral had occurred when they were older.

• Early starters, particularly boys, are at risk for becoming teenage parents. • Early starters are more likely to experience complex trauma, emanating from both

their families and communities. • Early starters are at higher risk for mental health issues such as depression

and suicide. • Early starters are more likely to experience trouble in school and have higher tru-

ancy and dropout rates. • Early starters are more likely to begin using substances at an earlier age (Loeber &

Farrington, 2001).

If early starters’ offending persists into adulthood, they are less likely to desist or stop com- mitting crime. DeLisi and Piquero (2011) argue that as delinquents persist into their 20s and beyond, they become increasingly invested in their criminal behavior, reducing their opportunities for legitimate work, relationships, and connections to the community. Given

BananaStock/Thinkstock According to current trends, young offenders are more likely to engage in substance abuse at an earlier age than in previous years.

Section 9.2Early Starters

the potential for these youth to become adult offenders, many argue that we should intervene in their lives in order to prevent this destructive set of events from happening.

Prevention and Treatment The OJJDP study group concluded that interventions focused on preventing child delinquency would exhibit the greatest impact on crime (Loeber, Farrington, & Petechuk, 2003). These efforts should be focused in particular on identifying and intervening with persistently dis- ruptive children. Persistently disruptive children are those who exhibit a pattern of nega- tive behaviors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months. These disruptive youth often experience a number of problems in their lives. For example, they are more likely to have trouble at home, be diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperac- tivity disorder (ADHD), be victims of child abuse, and do poorly in school (Manuzza, Klein, Bessler, & Maloy, 1993; Moffitt, 1990).

The logic here is that children involved in the juvenile justice system often exhibit disrup- tive behavior long before their first official contact with the formal system (e.g., an arrest). Although not all of these youth will become delinquent youth, they are more likely (some studies find about 25%–50% of these youth) to become formally involved in the juvenile jus- tice system (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Identifying the youth who are exhibiting disruptive behavior before they come into contact with the system is the best way to prevent the cycle before it happens.

The family is an important factor for these youth. Family abuse, criminal behavior among fam- ily members (e.g., parents and siblings), lack of supervision, lack of closeness, and low socio- economic status can all contribute to the youth’s delinquency. Similarly, a study by Romeo Vitelli (1997) found early starters are more likely to have a history of exposure to violence in childhood. A study by Alltucker, Bullis, Close, and Yovanoff (2006) found that children who were in foster care were four times more likely to be early starters, and children with a crimi- nal family member were twice as likely to be early starters. Loeber and Farrington (2000) argue that serious delinquents often begin committing delinquent acts in the home and then branch out into their schools and community.

More recently researchers are exploring the importance of trauma on early starters. Those who experience traumatic events are significantly more likely to experience psychological problems and involvement in the juvenile justice system. Studies suggest that youth involved with the juvenile justice system are highly likely to have a history of trauma exposure. In fact, a study of juvenile detainees in Cook County, Illinois, found that 92.5% of the youth sampled in the facility had experienced at least one traumatic event or experience (Abrams et al., 2004). Another study, conducted by Kerig and colleagues (2009), found that 92.3% of their juvenile detention sample had exposure to at least one traumatic event. Trauma-exposed youth are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and substance abuse (Kilpatrick et al., 2000). Researchers have begun exploring the impact of traumatic events in a more systematic way, using the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale, which we detail in the accompanying Spotlight.

Section 9.2Early Starters

Although there is little question that inter- vening with these youth is important, the remaining problem is how and when to intervene. Intervention is more compli- cated than it might at first seem. A young bully on the playground might be tomor- row’s serious and persistent juvenile delinquent, but some aggressive behavior among preschoolers and early elementary schoolers is normal as kids test out their boundaries and relationships with others. When does aggressiveness among young children go beyond the norm?

Experts suggest there are some early warning signs. For example, kids who are more aggressive than is considered nor- mal for their similarly aged peers may be a concern. Others find that juveniles who show conduct problems in preschool are more likely to eventually engage in prop- erty and violent crime (Loeber, 1988). They also note that kids who are fire setters or show cruelty to animals are a particularly high-risk group (Putnam & Kirkpatrick, 2005). And based on our pre- ceding discussion, youth who experience difficulties within the family and school or have experienced trauma, foster care exposure, and abuse are at greater risk for becoming chronic delinquents.

However, the question remains, How and when do we intervene? Who will assess these early warning signs? Do we place the responsibility on the teacher to identify and intervene? Should all children be required to answer a survey in school to help identify troubled youth? Should schools be given the legal authority to do so? Or should these youth only be identified once they become particularly burdensome to the schools? One such intervention, First Steps to Success, argues that the schools should intervene with youth as early as kindergarten (see the accompanying Spotlight).

Spotlight: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale

The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale measures various forms of abuse and neglect (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016), which are outlined below. The specific items refer to the respondent’s first 18 years of life.

Abuse

• Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you, insulted you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt.

• Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed, slapped, threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured.

• Sexual abuse: An adult, relative, family friend, or stranger who was at least 5 years older than you ever touched or fondled your body in a sexual way, made you touch his/ her body in a sexual way, attempted to have any type of sexual intercourse with you.

Household Challenges

• Mother treated violently: Your mother or stepmother was pushed, grabbed, slapped, had something thrown at her, kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, hit with something hard, repeatedly hit for over at least a few minutes, or ever threatened or hurt by a knife or gun by your father (or stepfather) or mother’s boyfriend.

• Household substance abuse: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic or a household member used street drugs.

• Mental illness in household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a household member attempted suicide.

• Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced. • Criminal household member: A household member went to prison.

Neglect1

• Emotional neglect: Someone in your family helped you feel important or special, you felt loved, people in your family looked out for each other and felt close to each other, and your family was a source of strength and support.2

• Physical neglect: There was someone to take care of you, protect you, and take you to the doctor if you needed it2, you didn’t have enough to eat, your parents were too drunk or too high to take care of you, and you had to wear dirty clothes.

Each experience of a traumatic event is considered “1” point. Items such as emotional neglect (i.e., those without someone to help them feel important) are reverse scored. The original study conducted by the CDC found that more than half of people experienced at least one traumatic childhood event. An ACE score of 4 or more indicates an increased risk for depression, suicide, alcohol disorders, and other health-related problems (Felitti et al., 1998). Researchers found that early starters were significantly more likely than other juve- nile offenders to have higher ACE scores and were more likely to persist offending into adult- hood (Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, & Epps, 2015).

More information about the ACE scale can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/violence prevention/acestudy/index.html 1Collected during Wave 2 only. 2Items were reverse-scored to reflect the framing of the question.

Hemera/Thinkstock Early disruptive behaviors, such as defiance, disobedience, and hostility, are considered indicators of future delinquency.

Spotlight: First Steps to Success

Concerned with the prevention of juvenile delinquency, the OJJDP formed the Study Group on Very Young Offenders. The study group was charged with identifying the needs and issues confronting these youth with the ultimate goal of developing prevention and intervention techniques. Intervention techniques are important for the youth, their communities, and ulti- mately for the juvenile justice system (Walker et al., 1998).

(continued on next page)

Section 9.2Early Starters

Spotlight: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale

Abuse

• Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you, insulted you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt.

• Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed, slapped, threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured.

Household Challenges

• Household substance abuse: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic or a household member used street drugs.

• Mental illness in household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a household member attempted suicide.

• Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced. • Criminal household member: A household member went to prison.

Neglect1

Hemera/Thinkstock Early disruptive behaviors, such as defiance, disobedience, and hostility, are considered indicators of future delinquency.

Spotlight: First Steps to Success

(continued on next page)

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

Interventions for these youth need to accommodate the fact that youth experience different types of problems at different times in their lives. For example, for very young children the family environment is the most important. As youth age, peers begin to replace parents as the most important socializing agent. Treatment and prevention efforts must account for devel- opmental issues or milestones in order to be responsive to the youth’s needs. Some of the interventions geared toward prevention should be directed to very young children, which can mean as early as the preschool or even infant years. A promising intervention is a nurse’s program that works with at-risk mothers during the prenatal and postnatal stages. Others programs focus on peers, schools, parents, and communities in an effort to intervene in the lives of at-risk youth.

Many of the youth in the other two at-risk populations addressed in this chapter—gang mem- bers and juvenile sex offenders—could also be early starters.

9.3 Juvenile Gangs During the early 1900s, cities began to experience increased crime rates as populations migrated to urban centers for better job opportunities. The increase in crime rates resulted in

Spotlight: First Steps to Success (continued)

Emerging from this study group was the First Steps to Success program, which is designed for youth 5 to 6 years old to prevent problems in school. The intervention targets youth whose teachers rate them as troublesome. The ratings include some of the following behaviors:

• Aggression • Oppositional defiant behavior • Severe fits of temper • Victimization of others

The intervention calls for a three-pronged approach for identifying and managing early juve- nile delinquents:

• Universal screening of all kindergartners • School-based intervention involving the teachers, child, and parents • Parent training and involvement

The program offers a variety of services:

• Skill building with teachers to train them how to manage disruptive behavior • Awarding points to children for good behavior • Visual cues (green versus red cards) used by teachers to help youth identify good ver-

sus poor behaviors • Rewards for youth who maintain good behavior • Written daily reports for parents who are instructed to encourage and reward behavior

at home

A study conducted by Hill Walker and colleagues (1998) found that kids who participated in the program were rated by teachers as more adaptive and less aggressive in school.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

part from the emergence of gangs. This makes sense in the context of migration. Early gangs were often comprised of ethnic or racial minority group members (e.g., Italian, Irish, Russian) who came to the United States as outsiders in search of a better life (Curry & Decker, 2003).

The next cycle in the growth of criminal gangs occurred in the 1960s (Klein, 1995b). During this time, African American and Latino gangs increased in prevalence. David Curry and Scott Decker (2003) noted that these newer youth gangs were different from those that developed in the early 1900s. For example, they argued the following:

These new gangs were more extensively involved in criminal activity, espe- cially violence. The availability of guns and automobiles gave these gangs more firepower and the mobility to interact with and fight gangs in neighbor- hoods across a city. The more extensive involvement in crime, in turn, led to increased convictions and prison time. As a consequence, the prison became an important site for the growth and perpetuation of gangs. In Illinois and Cal- ifornia in particular, the prison became an important site for recruiting gang members and strengthening gangs. (p. 15)

The complex relationship between prison and community gangs is a significant issue for the police as they try to reduce gang membership.

What Is a Gang? The question “What is a gang?” seems like a reasonable question that should have a reasonably simple answer. However, this is not the case. The U.S. Department of Jus- tice officially defines a gang as an associa- tion of three or more individuals who adopt a collective identity and engage in criminal activity with the intention of pre- serving the power or economic resources of the group (Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion, 2015). But the complexity has more to do with how to define small or disorga- nized gangs than with identifying large organized gangs.

For example, several large, well-known gangs operate in the United States. Those gangs include the Aryan Brotherhood, Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Black Gangster Disciples, MS-13, and the Mexican Mafia. These gangs are organized and by many estimates include thousands of members. For example, the Crips are thought to have over 30,000 members while the Latin Kings boast between 20,000 and 30,000 members spread throughout the country (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011). But what about other gangs that are less organized or have fewer members? Some police departments even consider a group of two or more individuals a gang. But we know that two or even three teenagers picked up for vandalizing school prop- erty is not an example of a gang in the traditional sense.

Kevork Djansezian Associated Press Gangs often claim territory by vandalizing public areas with graffiti.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

Curry and Decker (2003) argue instead that the criteria for defining gang members must include several elements:

• Symbols: often include colors, tattoos, clothing • Communication: handshakes/signs, graffiti • Permanence: gang exists over a period of time • Turf: territory, can be as small as a street to as large as an entire neighborhood • Crime: involvement in illegal behavior

Curry and Decker make the point that an element of family, of a form of kinship and support, is also a key feature in gangs. The idea of gangs representing family is common to many gang members they interviewed:

“Well, in my words, a gang ain’t nothing but people come together to do crime and make money and be a family to each other… It’s a second family. They are like your brothers. They will help you out when you need help. Whenever you mess up they will take care of you too.” (Curry & Decker, 2003, p. 11).

This touches on the lack of support and/or trauma that many juvenile delinquents experi- ence at early ages, which further complicates the formation of gangs and the related criminal behavior that ensues.

Gang Prevalence in the United States Several attempts have been made to measure gang involvement, from interviewing gang members to asking police departments to quantify how many gang members they have arrested. The most comprehensive source of information on the extent of youth gangs in the United States comes from the OJJDP’s National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS). The NYGS began in 1995 and surveys police departments about gang activity in their areas. Survey results were collected annually for over a decade, covering on average nearly 2,300 police depart- ments. The most recent survey was conducted in 2012.

Survey results indicate that there were around 30,000 gangs in the United States in 2012, with just over 850,000 members. Not surprisingly, gangs are more prevalent in larger urban areas than in suburban areas (more on that later), and according to the 2011 NYGS, 46.2% of all documented gang members are Hispanic/Latino, 35.3% are black or African American/ black, and 11.5% are white (National Gang Center, n.d.).

Girl Gangs Girl gangs and girl gang members represent an interesting and generally misunderstood subset of gang activity (Sutton, 2017). According to the NYGS, gangs are comprised primarily of male members. In fact, in 2012, law enforcement agencies reported that less than 10% of known gang members were girls. However, they note that gangs with girl members (i.e., coed gangs) are much more common than girl-only gangs. Other studies find that the percentages of female and male gang members may not be so different. In fact, Esbensen, Brick, Melde, Tusinski, and Taylor (2008) found that nearly identical percentages of boys and girls self- reported gang involvement.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

The complexity surrounding the prevalence of girl gangs versus coed gangs led Walter Miller (1975) to create three categories to describe girl gangs: (a) girl-only gang affiliated with a male gang, (b) girl-only gang with no affiliation, and (c) coed gang. Miller argued that the girl- only gangs with no affiliation were nearly nonexistent. More recent research finds that girl- only gangs are more prevalent than when Miller conducted his studies; however, the preva- lence of all-girl gangs is still lower than those considered coed or mixed gender (Peterson, Miller, & Esbensen, 2001).

The most controversial aspect of girl gang members is the exact role they play in the gang. The OJJDP sponsored a series of publications on youth gangs. A publication by Joan Moore and John Hagedorn (2001), titled Female Gangs: A Focus on Research, noted that “most early reports focused on whether female gangs were ‘real’ gangs or merely satellites of male groups” (p. 1). Instead of seeing girl gang members as equal to their male counterparts, many saw girl gang members as simply sex toys or tomboys who acted as drug mules or weapon carriers for their male members.

Recent research suggests that female gang members are more likely to have family members in a gang (Miller, 2002). However, the exact role they play is difficult to disentangle. Some studies suggest that girl gang members are subordinate to male members, and others sug- gest that this finding may vary by race or ethnicity. For example, some research suggests that Latina gang members may take a more subordinate role than is the case for girls in Afri- can American gangs (Miller & Brunson, 2000). Other studies suggest girl gang members are fully integrated and play an equal role. For example, male members may commit more delin- quency, but researchers found that both genders engaged in a range of delinquent acts (Melde & Esbensen, 2013).

Research examining the pathways that lead boys and girls into gangs has found both simi- larities and differences between the two populations. In their bulletin, Moore and Hagedorn (2001) suggest a number of reasons girl members choose the gang life. For example, eco- nomic poverty is a risk factor for both girls and boys, meaning that those who come from impoverished backgrounds are more likely to seek out gangs, either for economic survival or as a second family while parents are unavailable. In terms of differences, some research suggests that the incidence of past sex abuse and trauma is significantly higher among female gang members than among male gang members. Moreover, they may experience continued sexual abuse from other gang members after joining. Regardless of these differences, how- ever, additional studies are needed to examine these issues.

As mentioned previously, one of the key features of gangs is their involvement in criminal activity (otherwise, we could consider the Boy Scouts a gang). The criminal element is impor- tant for a variety of reasons, most notably to help organize prevention and detection tech- niques to reduce gang membership.

Gang-Related Crime If we examine the latest statistics, we see that gang members are responsible for a dispro- portionate amount of the violent crime committed each year. In other words, if we look just at the raw numbers, juveniles affiliated with a gang commit more violent crime than juve- niles not affiliated with a gang. In fact, research suggests that gang members commit between

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

68% and 85% of the serious violent crime committed by juveniles (Thornberry, 1998; Thorn- berry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 2004). The NYGS (National Gang Center, 2012) makes the following estimation:

In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2006 to 2010.

Moreover, the National Gang Threat Assessment survey results from 2011 indicate that up to 48% of the violent crime committed in the United States each year is attributable to gangs, and that percentage is even higher in some cities (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011).

Even though we know that gang members contribute disproportionately to the crime rate, the other issue to examine is the extent to which the criminal behavior is gang related or simply committed by an individual who is affiliated with a gang but whose criminal behavior is unre- lated to the gang. For example, if a youth steals from a convenience store on his or her own accord, is arrested by the police for the crime, and is a known gang member, the police may record this as a gang-related crime. Disentangling this question is nearly impossible given the lack of data on the issue. For example, the NYGS reveals that other than for homicide and graf- fiti, most police departments do not record whether a crime was gang involved.

One of the more interesting issues involves determining the features of gangs that seem to drive or increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. For example, if we are to believe the previously discussed trends—gang members are more likely to commit crime, particularly violent crime—then what are the driving forces behind these statistics? It turns out that sev- eral prominent features may be influencing these rates.

First, some observers argue for a “birds of a feather flock together” perspective on gang mem- bership. That is, like-minded, violence-prone youth typically seek out one another and rein- force one another’s violent or aggressive behavior (Gravel, Allison, West-Fagan, McBride, & Tita, 2018; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991). Second, a popular theory about gang involvement and crime, social contagion theory, argues that how people act in groups may differ from how they would act independently. In particular, this theory argues that the members of the group can influence collective behavior. Group members may feel anonymous within the group, leading them to diffuse their own degree of responsibility for the behavior. Within this con- text, people become more susceptible to influences by other members of the group (Nye, 1975; Papachristos, Braga, Piza, & Grossman, 2015). Third, given the prevalence of gangs in particular areas, we could surmise that environment plays a role. Social disorganization theory provides an understanding of how cities can create crime through the lack of oppor- tunities for successful advancement into the labor market and a lack of cohesion among com- munity members. A final explanation might be that all of these factors work together to create an environment more hospitable to gang violence. In fact, Decker and Van Winkle (1996) proposed that we examine how individual, group, and community factors interact to predict involvement in gang delinquency.

Gang members are often involved with drug-related crime. Some research finds that gangs can be very organized in their approach to trafficking drugs, whereas other research finds that most gang members use or distribute drugs on their own accord without involvement from the gang as a formal organization. For example, some researchers argue that gangs can be highly organized and have formal leadership structures that facilitate highly successful drug-trafficking rings (Padilla, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Skolnick, 1990). In fact, the

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

organization acts much like a corporation with profits from the drug sales recycled back into the organization. Within these gangs are leaders who must orchestrate a fairly complex sys- tem of trafficking in drugs, which includes drug mules or carriers. Each of these members must be kept in check in order for the organization to run smoothly.

Others argue that most gangs are disorganized and do not have the leadership structure in place that is noted in these studies (Howell & Griffiths, 2018). They argue that most gangs are loosely organized and have many transient members who often do not have the same goals. In fact, John Hagedorn (1988) interviewed gang members in Milwaukee and argued that the gangs he observed were not well organized, did not have a system in place to control their members, and were not profitable.

Consequences of Gang Membership Let’s consider the possibility that many of these gang members could be early start- ers as well. These individuals may have been involved in early disruptive behav- ior that has become more serious. They have often accumulated a number of risk factors that put them at greater risk for continuing their criminal careers. Researchers using meta-analysis tech- niques to study risk factors for crime are able to identify which risk factors are most important. For example, Gendreau, Andrews, Goggin, and Chanteloupe (1992) found that the most common risk factors they surveyed included lower social-class origin (poverty), personal distress/psychopathology, educational/vocational achievement, parental/family factors, temperament/personality, antisocial attitudes, and antisocial associates. The top five risk factors in this list are school, family, personality, attitudes, and peers. Gang members often have trouble with each of these areas.

The gang can place youth on a negative trajectory that can hamper future opportunities for college, employment, marriage, and so on. As such, these individuals are at risk for becoming chronic offenders who will continue their criminal behavior well into adulthood. The con- cerns regarding youth gang involvement in crime and the potential for these offenders to become chronic and persistent criminals has led to a number of anti-gang programs and ini- tiatives. In the following section, we will highlight a number of promising programs.

Gang Prevention: Programs and Initiatives In Chapter 5, on policing, we discussed two gang prevention programs: the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) program and Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Several other types of programs are designed to either reduce gangs or prevent gang violence.

First, the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families established the Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program in the late 1980s. The program is designed to provide funding

Stock Connection/SuperStock Gang membership puts youth at risk of becoming chronic offenders.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

for communities to develop coordinated efforts to reduce gang problems in their areas. The funding provided to agencies led to the development of a range of programs including peer support, education, mentoring, crisis intervention, and recreation programs. Unfortunately, evaluations of the programs found that they were ineffective at reducing gang involvement (Cohen, Williams, Bekelman, & Crosse, 1995).

In the mid-1990s, the OJJDP developed another program, called the Comprehensive Gang Model. (Visit http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Comprehensive-Gang-Model/About to learn more.) The model, originally implemented in Chicago, is now operating in other states as well. It includes targeting five specific areas to reduce and prevent gang involvement and gang-related crime:

• Community mobilization: involvement of community • Opportunity provision: development of education and employment training • Social intervention: service linkages utilizing schools, social service agencies,

families, etc. • Suppression: formal supervision and monitoring of gang activity • Organizational change and development: creation of policies and procedures

Results of the pilot in Chicago indicated that the model could be effective in reducing crimi- nal activity and gang involvement by the youth in the study (Spergel, 2007). The model was expanded to several other states; however, studies revealed that for the model to be effective, it must be implemented appropriately. As we will discuss in Chapter 10, implementation can be the most influential issue impacting treatment programs.

In 2010, the OJJDP issued a report titled Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems. The report advocates for the five areas identified in the Comprehensive Gang Model; however, it also notes that communities must be organized and mobilized around the needs of youth. In that vein, the OJJDP argues for early interventions such as prenatal and infant care and identifying at-risk elementary school children to intervene before they may choose to join a gang. In addition, the report advocates for truancy reduction programs and after-school activ- ities to keep youth active and away from gang members. Finally, it advocates for identifying gang leaders and removing them from the community while simultaneously targeting youth who were previously gang involved and are returning home from a period of confinement (National Gang Center, 2010). This chapter’s Featured Program box highlights PanZou, one of the programs noted in the OJJDP report.

Featured Program: PanZou: North Miami Beach Gang Reduction Program The PanZou program targets youth, primarily of Haitian descent, in an area of the city of North Miami Beach. Many of the residents speak only the native Haitian language of Creole. This language barrier and a lack of services in the area represent obstacles to intervening with the youth and their families (National Gang Center, 2010).

The program is organized around three primary efforts: prevention, intervention, and sup- pression. Prevention efforts typically focus on the following:

(continued on next page)

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

Another popular intervention that addressed gang involvement, the Chicago Area Project (CAP), is based on social disorganization theory and is designed to increase community cohe- sion and address the issues that lead communities to experience high levels of crime (e.g., unemployment, truancy). The CAP program includes after-school programs, mentoring, tutoring, employment training programs, life skills, and counseling (learn more at www.chi- cagoareaproject.org).

Gang prevention programs remain a popular option for police departments and communi- ties across the nation. These programs can be effective in creating community cohesion and reducing violence. To reach their maximum potential, the programs should be multipronged and engage schools, families, community resources, and the police.

9.4 Juvenile Sex Offenders The label “sex offender” is typically applied to an individual convicted of a sex offense. Sex offenses can include sexual assault, rape, sodomy, fondling, or any forced sex act. Sex offend- ers are often placed on the lowest rung of the criminal hierarchy—meaning that most people feel that sex offenders are the worst of the worst. Those who violate children are particularly vilified. This feeling toward sex offenders also extends into prison life. Sex offenders, par- ticularly pedophiles, are often placed in protective custody as other inmates may choose to victimize them in retribution for their crimes (Man & Cronan, 2001).

Featured Program: PanZou: North Miami Beach Gang Reduction Program (continued)

• Pairing youth with a mentor • Teaching youth early literacy and life skills • Strengthening families by helping them to develop parenting skills • Working with schools to develop alternatives to school suspension and reduce

truancy rates • Offering gender-responsive programs for girls • Increasing recreational programs in communities • Providing social skills training to youth

Intervention efforts vary but typically focus on the following:

• Substance abuse counseling • Vocational training • Community service • Referral to community agencies for further treatment (e.g., substance abuse treatment)

Suppression efforts typically focus on the following:

• Involving the police in foot and bike patrol of “hot spots” • Early identification of gang leaders • Gang intelligence gathering by police to proactively engage with the community • Dedicated gang unit within the police department

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

Note, however, that sex offenders are a heterogeneous group. There are many differences among sex offenders, in terms of not only their victims—children, adults, men, women—but also whether they are “generalists” or “specialists.” Generalists tend to engage in a variety of criminal behaviors (e.g., drugs, theft, sexual violence). By contrast, specialists typically repeat the same offense type (e.g., sexual violence). It is difficult to understand exactly who these youth are, but Finkelhor, Ormond, and Chaffin (2009) make the following observation:

The sexual behaviors that bring youth into clinical settings can include events such as sharing pornography with younger children, fondling a child over the clothes, grabbing peers in a sexual way at school, date rape, gang rape, or per- forming oral, vaginal, or anal sex on a much younger child. (p. 3)

Some researchers have argued for narrowing the definition of who should qualify as a sex offender. For example, sexual behavior among consenting adults can include a range of devi- ant acts that may seem unpleasant to some but are normal to others if shared in private. Prentky, Harris, Frizzell, and Righthand (2000) developed a risk-assessment tool and argued that there are several different types of sex offenders: child molesters, rapists, sexually reac- tive children, fondlers, paraphilics, and a combination/unknown group. Some experts argue that sex offenders suffer from a mental disorder known as paraphilia, which is characterized by sexual arousal involving nonhuman objects or nonconsenting persons such as children, which causes harm or distress to others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The issue of consent is complex when it comes to juvenile offenders and victims. For sex offenders, an act of force or coercion that causes distress for others is a key condition. How- ever, that definition is not used by states that identify juvenile sex offenders for the purposes of classification, treatment, or supervision. In the following sections, we will discuss laws surrounding sex offenses, typologies proposed to identify sex offenders, characteristics of juvenile sex offenders, policies designed to prevent or address sex offending in the commu- nity, and treatments.

Laws/Statutory Rape A complex issue surrounding juvenile sex offending involves the ages of the offender and the victim and whether the behavior should be labeled as a sex offense. When an adult or even an older adolescent sexually abuses a child, it is obviously a case of sexual assault. But what if the child is 12 and the perpetrator is 14, and the 12-year-old consented to the behavior?

The age of consent is considered the legal age at which a juvenile can consent to sexual activ- ity. Prior to that age, the juvenile is said not to have the mental capacity to consent to sexual activity. In most states, 16 years is the age of consent. Statutory rape refers to sexual activity involving those who are younger than the age of consent (Waites, 2005).

However, there are peer group exceptions (also known as close-in-age exceptions) to the age of consent rule. For example, what if two young people who are 14 engage in nonforced sexual activity? The law recognizes that juveniles may experiment in sexual activity prior to the age of 16. As long as the youths are not too far apart in age, the law provides for this peer group exception. The age difference between the victim and perpetrator is important. In some states the difference in age is five years between the victim and the perpetrator, in others it could be greater. An example can be found in North Carolina statutory rape law (14-27.7A):

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

(a) A defendant is guilty of a Class B1 felony if the defendant engages in vagi- nal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is at least six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

(b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is more than four but less than six years older than the per- son, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

Class B felonies are considered more serious and carry more severe sanctions. What you might notice from the preceding statute, however, is that it only refers to youth who are 13 and older. What about those who engage in sexual activity prior to the age of 13? Juveniles who are 12 and younger are considered unable to consent to any sexual activity. Again, how- ever, the courts will examine the age of both parties in deciding whether to apply the peer group exception.

The Juvenile Sex Offender According to David Finkelhor and colleagues (2009), juvenile offenders commit 26% of the sex offenses that occur annually in the United States. Even so, juvenile sex offenders represent a fairly small group, at just 3.1% of the general juvenile criminal population. Over 40% of the very young victims in both the under 6 and 7–11-year-old categories are victimized by an offender who is under the age of 18. The vast majority of these offenders knew their victims, as shown in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1: Relationship between victim and offender

In over 80% of cases, victims of sex offenses know the offenders.

From Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors, by D. Finkelhor, R. Ormond, & M. Chaffin, 2009. Office of Justice Programs: Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention and Prevention Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington, D.C.

Family Acquaintance Stranger

Victim’s relation to offender

Victim also offender

Unknown

P er

ce n

ta g

e o

f se

x o

ff en

se s

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

Other interesting findings emerged from this survey. What types of sexual assault are juve- niles committing? Of the sexual assaults, half were acts of fondling, followed by 24% for rape, 12.5% for sodomy, 9.5% for nonforced sex, and 4.7% for sexual assault involving an object. Finally, in terms of time of day, Figure 9.2 illustrates that the majority of assaults occurred during the afternoon, likely when juveniles are out of school and less likely to be supervised.

Figure 9.2: Percentage of incidents by time of day

Only 5% of incidents involving juveniles occur at night. In contrast, 43% occur during afternoon hours.

Why do juveniles commit sex crimes? There is no easy answer to this question. The cycle of abuse is often cited as an issue that has the potential to propel a juvenile into sexual miscon- duct. Studies suggest that more than 40% of juvenile sex offenders have a history of abuse (Awad & Saunders, 1991; Phan & Kingree, 2001; Seto & Lalumière, 2010). Some research suggests that those who suffer sexual abuse are also more likely to begin offending at an earlier age and abuse more victims (Cooper, Murphy, & Haynes, 1996; Fox, 2017). Miner (2002) suggests that juvenile sex offenders who start young are at greater risk for recidivism. Similarly, Langstrom and Grann (2000) suggest that those with a prior record involving a sex offense and those with multiple victims have an increased likelihood of recidivism.

Some studies suggest that these juveniles are more likely to have mental health disorders such as ADHD, depression, and conduct disorder, whereas others even suggest they are more likely to be diagnosed with psychopathy (Veneziano & Veneziano, 2002). Some studies also suggest that exposure to pornography can increase the likelihood of deviant sexual behavior; however, recent research argues that the only increase is among those people predisposed to be sexually aggressive (Malamuth, 2018).

Policy Initiatives Community notification laws are a popular way for states to hold sex offenders accountable. These laws, often designed based on cases with adults, can impact juveniles. For example, Megan’s Law came into effect in 1996 and not only required sex offenders to register with the

Morning 27%

Afternoon 43%

Evening 25%

Night 5%

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

police but also required the police to notify the community. Over 25 states require juveniles to register along with adults. In addition, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was signed into law in 2006. This act led to SORNA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Office of Justice Programs, 2008).

SORNA is designed to protect the public from sex offenders because it requires a more uniform approach to report- ing requirements in each state. Prior to SORNA, most states required sex offenders to be identified on a public register. Sev- eral provisions of SORNA are relevant for juveniles. For example, Caldwell, Ziemke, and Vitacco (2008) note:

Juvenile offenders who offend after their 14th birthday and who were adjudicated delinquent for a crime comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual assault as defined by federal law (Sexual Abuse Act of 1986) will be included in the registry. (p. 90)

In most cases, those on the registry have to reregister every three months.

The legislation also sets forth the registration length. For example, tier-three offenders—those convicted of forcible felony sex crimes—must register for their entire lifetime (this applies to the juveniles noted previously who are adjudicated for offenses comparable to aggravated sexual assault). In addition, as noted by Michael Caldwell and colleagues (2008), individuals subject to SORNA registration will be required to submit to a search of person or property at any time, with or without a warrant, on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of a violation of probation or unlawful conduct (p. 90). This is particularly important when you consider that juveniles are often not given jury trials and are held to different evidentiary standards than those found in adult court. These procedural differences could make juveniles more vulner- able to illegal search and seizure.

The logic for this registration rests on the notion that these youth will remain a long-term risk to the public. Yet studies suggest that the relationship is not always clear. In fact, juvenile sex offenders have low recidivism rates, and their sex offending history does not put them at higher risk for future sex offenses as compared to other delinquents (Caldwell, 2007; Zimring, Piquero, & Jennings, 2007). Another justification for registration is the notion that juvenile sex offenders must be significantly different from juveniles convicted of nonsex offenses. Although some studies suggest there can be differences (Blaske, Bordiun, Henggeler, & Mann,

C.H. Pete Copeland/Associated Press SORNA sets certain public registration require- ments for sex offenders. Under this act, offend- ers as young as 14 may be required to register.

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

1989; Fox 2017), others do not find this to be the case (Caldwell, 2007; van Wijk et al., 2006). Think of this in the context of the 2010 Supreme Court case Graham v. Florida, which con- cluded that juveniles are less culpable due to their brain development in the area of reason- ing. If it is true that juveniles should be held to a different standard than adults, some observ- ers question why the same logic should not apply to national lifetime registries.

Perhaps most compelling is a study finding that the criteria used by SORNA to place juveniles on sex offender registries for life failed to predict sex offending. In other words, the youth who would be placed on these lists were not more likely to reoffend than any other juvenile. This research calls into question the utility of placing youth on these lists, particularly given the emotional and social toll it takes on them and their families. Another concern is that the laws could unintentionally lead to fewer prosecutions. For example, research suggests that prosecutors may be less likely to bring charges against a juvenile because they are worried about the long-term ramifications for a youth who will be placed on a registry (Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2009).

In sum, these studies suggest that although juvenile sex offenders are a concern for the com- munity, there is also a risk that treating them punitively could have long-lasting impacts that could influence their life course.

Juvenile Sex Offenders and Rehabilitation Cognitive behavioral therapy is considered one of the most effective treatment approaches for sex offenders. Cognitive behavioral therapy is designed to shape behavior through a pro- cess of changing how people think (their cognitions) and shaping their behavior through the use of rewards and punishments.

How offenders think is the focus of one particular strategy in which therapists work with cli- ents to get them to understand their offense cycle, which refers to the thoughts and behaviors leading to the sex offense. The thoughts and behaviors that can lead to a sexual offense can occur over hours or maybe days, weeks, or even years. This process is often called grooming. Grooming, or the act of manipulating victims into complying with a sex act, is a process that can be short or quite lengthy. Grooming behaviors often involve children, and the offender can be an adult or another juvenile.

Often with young children, the grooming can include intimidation, games, or other incentives (Pryor, 1996). For example, to include inappropriate touching of the victim, the perpetrator can use a game of wrestling or play. The perpetrator can use candy, toys, or other enticements to engage with the victim. Keeping in mind that the majority of juvenile sex offenders commit acts against someone they know (e.g., a relative or an acquaintance), they may already have built trust with the victim prior to engaging in the sex act. But even when a juvenile is involved in stranger rape, the decision to rape is preceded by particular thoughts and behaviors.

As we discussed earlier, sex offenders and offenses cannot be easily put into one box. In other words, not all sex offenders go through a lengthy process in choosing their victims, particu- larly juveniles. However, the process or cycle is an important one to understand because it illustrates the cognitive or psychological aspects of sex offending.

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

In therapy, a counselor will often work to have the juvenile understand that criminal sexual behavior does not just happen. In other words, the juvenile may make a statement such as, “I don’t know how it happened, before I knew it I was doing it.” The counselor, however, will often challenge the youth’s perspective that an offense “just happened.” Similar to any other criminal behavior, such as using drugs or alcohol, the decision is often preceded by a series of decisions. For example, the decision to use a drug is often preceded by a decision to go to a party where alcohol is being served or by a decision to hang out with friends who often use drugs. We refer to these decisions and situations as high-risk thoughts or high-risk places.

Sometimes high-risk thoughts are called cognitive distortion or thinking errors. High risk in this context means that they contribute to the probability of crime. A high-risk thought about marijuana use might be, “It is OK to smoke marijuana because it should be legal anyway.” A high-risk situation might be attending a party where the youth knows alcohol and drugs will be present and peer pressure to use substances will be high. These situations and thoughts contribute to the likelihood that the youth will decide to use alcohol or drugs.

If we apply this concept to sex offending, the therapist will attempt to get juveniles to under- stand that their actions and behaviors before the offense matter. For example, consider a cli- ent who meticulously planned to be alone with the victim—either through volunteering to babysit or by taking the child to a location where they could be alone. Did the client feel the behavior was justified as experimentation even though the victim was very young? In other circumstances, the therapist might explore the youth’s perspective on consent and whether the client believes that a person has the right to say no at any time, even when the victim con- sented at an earlier time.

Studies on the effectiveness of therapy for juvenile sex offenders are promising. In fact, stud- ies suggest that juvenile sex offenders are very amendable to treatment and therapy. They also underscore the idea that juveniles are different from adults, and that we need to be mind- ful of tailoring services to them from a therapeutic standpoint (Caldwell et al., 2008).

Although the results of therapy are promising, there are those who do recidivate. One of the key factors as it relates to success in treatment is motivation. Without motivation to engage in treatment, a youth is not likely to be successful (McGrath, 1991). Motivation may be a key issue for programs that experience high attrition rates. In fact, a study by Hunter (2000) found that more than 50% of youth dropped out of a community-based sex-offender treat- ment program in its first year of operation.

The high attrition rate noted in the Hunter study is concerning, but the vast majority of juve- nile sex offenders do not persist into adulthood. In fact, most studies find that less than 10% of juvenile sex offenders are rearrested for a sex-related offense.

Overall, the general public’s impression of juvenile sex offenders probably has more to do with a particularly heinous case of sex offending highlighted on the evening news than the types of behavior that occur in reality. There is no easy way to identify youth who are likely to recidivate, but punitive approaches are less likely to have an impact. As can be seen through- out our discussions of all three groups of “special” offenders, treatment and prevention hold the most promise.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Summary of Learning Objectives Describe the issues early starters face in their everyday lives, the characteristics of persistently disruptive children, and the methods used to prevent and treat early delinquent behavior.

• Early starters are those juveniles who begin committing crimes before the age of 14. • Early starters are more likely to have problems within their families, at school, and

within their communities. • Persistently disruptive children are those who exhibit a pattern of negative behav-

iors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months. • Identifying youth who are exhibiting disruptive behavior before they come into con-

tact with the system is the best way to prevent the cycle before it happens.

Explain the complexity of defining gangs and gang behavior and the relationship between gangs and crime.

• Gangs are difficult to study because they are difficult to define. • Researchers suggest police consider the following criteria when deciding whether a

group of youth should be classified as a gang: symbols, communication, permanence, turf, and criminal behavior.

• Girl-only gangs are uncommon; however, coed gangs are quite prevalent. • Statistics suggest that up to 48% of violent crimes in the United States may be

gang related. • A number of gang-prevention and treatment programs exist, although their

effectiveness is limited.

Analyze the complexity surrounding the labeling of juvenile sex offenders.

• Juvenile sex offenders are a complex group of youth who can be involved in a range of sexual behaviors.

• The age of consent is a key issue with regard to juvenile sex offenders. • Sex offender notification laws are popular but tend not to be an effective way to

reduce recidivism among sex offenders. • Cognitive behavioral therapy is considered one of the most effective treatment

approaches for sex offenders. • The recidivism rates of juvenile sex offenders are low; however, early starters may

have a higher probability of recidivism.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What is the best way to prevent the cycle of disruptive behavior in juveniles? 2. What criteria do you think should be used to decide if a group is a gang? 3. In what areas do early starters typically have problems?

Summary of Learning Objectives

Key Terms age of consent The legal age at which a juvenile can consent to sexual activity.

Comprehensive Gang Model An approach developed by the OJJDP to “reduce and pre- vent youth gang violence.”

First Steps to Success An intervention pro- gram that argues schools should intervene with youth as early as kindergarten.

girl gangs Gangs with all female members.

grooming The act of manipulating victims into complying with a sex act.

National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS) The most reliable source of information on the extent of youth gangs in the United States.

offense cycle The process leading up to a sex offense.

PanZou A program that targets youth, pri- marily of Haitian descent, in an area of the city of North Miami Beach.

paraphilia A disorder characterized by sexual arousal involving nonhuman objects or nonconsenting persons such as children, which causes harm or distress to others.

peer group exceptions Exceptions to the age of consent rule, also known as close-in- age exceptions.

persistently disruptive children Children who exhibit a pattern of negative behaviors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months.

social contagion theory A theory that argues that how people act in groups may be different from how they would act independently.

SORNA Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act; an act designed to protect the public from sex offenders by requir- ing a more uniform approach to reporting requirements in each state.

Study Group on Very Young Offenders A study group formed by the OJJDP and com- prised of 39 experts on the topic of child delinquency.

Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program A program designed to provide funding for communities to develop coordinated efforts to reduce gang problems in their areas.