MEGA ♪ : Empirical Findings on the Preternatural: Sexually Violent and Predatory Sexually Violent Youth

Adjudicated Adolescents Located on a State Sex Offender Registry Website as Adults: Common Denominators

This is a landmark study, the first to use a listing on a state sex offender registry website as a predictive variable for tracking adult recidivism of male adolescents adjudicated for sex offenses, and the longest to follow a cohort of these youth after discharge from a secure residential treatment program. Upon admission, the sample (N = 145) were assessed by JSORRAT-II and MEGA♪, two contemporary standardized, validated risk assessment tools for assessing youth who have engaged in sexually abusive behavior. They were then followed once discharged for 17.08 years into adulthood (mean follow-up = 14.0 years, SD = 1.71). Recidivism rate was 6.2% (defined as a listing for the subject on the California Megan's Law Sex Offender Registry Website). The study offers a baseline for future studies that use a state sex offender registry website as a predictive variable for recidivism. Shared common denominators of recidivists and non-recidivists were risk level (i.e. most were High Risk or Very High Risk on MEGA♪); and having a history of adverse childhood experiences other than sexual abuse (i.e. child neglect/emotional abuse and exposure to domestic violence). A history of sexual abuse, experienced by twice as many non-recidivists as recidivists, differentiated the sample. Recidivists also had fewer protective factors than non-recidivists, as assessed by the MEGA♪ upon admission to the facility. The mean age of recidivists was younger than non-recidivists, suggesting they may have been removed from their home at an early age, and/or had an early onset of persistent coarse sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive behaviors that persisted into adulthood. The results highlight the importance of integrating trauma-informed interventions in treatment programs for those individuals who are sexually abusive that have a history of multiple adverse childhood experiences.

Setting the Record Straight Regarding Tools That Assess Risk for Youth with Sexually Abusive Behavior

This critique alerts practicing professionals of the multiple misleading statements in the recently published article entitled, "A compendium of risk and needs tools for assessing male youths at-risk to and/or who have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors." This critique corrects the erroneous information contained in Jung and Thomas' article, providing current accurate information related to the important distinct differences of available standardized risk assessment tools used in forensic settings with youths who have engaged in sexually abusive behaviors. Erroneous statements by other researchers and authors in the field are also discussed. Forensic cases are distinctively different from others seen in clinical settings, requiring specific knowledge and skill set, a notable distinction not often mentioned in research literature.

The Unpopular Victims: Individuals Who Are Sexually Abusive - The Black Swans

This article contends that youth who engage in persistent coarse sexual improprieties and/or, sexually abusive behaviors are too often viewed primarily through a criminological lens, regardless of their age, gender, judicial status, and/or experiences of past trauma/victimization. Such a posture likely falsifies the clinical perception of the individual referred for "treatment." Assessment and interventions for these youth must be holistic and idiosyncratic, considering numerous multiplex developmental variables (i.e., overall human sexual development, gender identity, sexual identity, sexual orientation, erotic development, intimacy deficits, adverse childhood experiences/trauma), as well as sociological and anthropological fundamentals. The lens for assessing and intervening with youth must also include in its focus the constantly changing Zeitgeist, that is, the spirit or the mood of the times. The proposed lens is applicable to all youth, adjudicated and non-adjudicated. Specific considerations are discussed related to those youth with a history of significant child maltreatment who later engage in persistent coarse sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive behaviors.

Contemporary Risk Assessment Tools: Should We Use Them for Sexually Abusive Children Ages 4 to 12 Years?

Empirical findings are reported on an age group of sexually abusive youth (4-12 years) not commonly studied. Findings are from major studies employing the ecologically framed MEGA ♪ risk assessment tool: MEGA ♪ Combined Samples Studies (N = 3901 [1979-2017] (Miccio-Fonseca Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Special Issue on Risk Assessment of Sexually Abusive Youth, 2018a, Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma, 2018b) and MEGA ♪ Combined Cross Validation Studies (N = 2717). Samples consisted of male, female, and transgender-female, ages 4-19 with coarse sexual improprieties and/or sexually abusive youth, including youth with low intellectual functioning. Findings provided normative data, with cut-off scores according to age and gender, establishing four (calibrated) risk levels: Low, Moderate, High, and Very-High. The fourth risk level, Very-High Risk, sets MEGA ♪ apart from other risk assessment tools by the ability to assess those few most seriously concerning and/or dangerous youth, whereas other risk tools (with three risk levels) do not make this differentiation.

MEGA♪ Tool: An Analysis of "Risk/Treatment Needs and Progress Protocol" by Kang, Beltrani, Manheim, Spriggs, Nishimura, Sinclair, Stachniuk, Pate, Righthand, Prentky, and Worling (2019)

A new risk/treatment needs protocol for assessing "juveniles with sex offenses" operationalized in the Treatment Needs and Progress Scale (TNPS) was recently introduced, prompting quick embrace before any serious examination. This article critiques the proposed protocol and TNPS. Highlighted are misleading statements, substantial omissions related to review of research, and significant margins of TNPS underpinnings that cause considerable pause. Target population, essential to adopting and implementing TNPS, is not clearly stated. Multiple basic rudimentary steps are missing in the research protocol for two age groups. The "new" protocol appears to be a re-installment of the old one, applying templates from adult tools and empirical findings on adults to adolescents, thus treating youth like adults, an outdated stance in contemporary research and clinical practice related to risk assessment of sexually abusive youth..