One Size Doesn’t Fit All

In the adult world, sexual offenses are clear-cut and the punishment swift: Flash yourself at someone in a pool hall, for example, and you’ll quickly find yourself resigning as the Legislature’s assistant majority leader.

Grope someone, or worse, and you’ll carry the label of “sex offender” for the rest of your life.

But what if the offender is a juvenile? And the “grope” a schoolyard smack on the butt? Historically, it hasn’t mattered—the treatment and punishment options for both adult and juvenile sex offenders are largely the same.

Lately, however, some experts are questioning if this is the best approach, as more research sheds light on young offenders and the complex motivations behind their actions—whether it’s simple immaturity or genuine deviance.

“Everyone wants that magic bullet solution,” said Mark Winokur, director of the social work research center in the School of Social Work at Colorado State University. “In social science, that doesn’t happen.”

Instead of a one-size-fits-all treatment solution for young offenders, Winokur is advocating for a more flexible approach, one he believes is more effective at curbing potential future behavior. The results of a 2006 study spurred him to take a deeper look at the issue.

Conducted by CSU and funded by 12 counties and the Colorado Department of Human Services, it analyzed existing research on the impact of different treatments, or the lack of treatment, on juveniles between the ages of 14 and 17 who commit sexual offenses.

Winokur said CSU has decided to revisit the study for several reasons—one being that the field is picking up steam and more studies have been conducted in recent years.

“I think before the 1990s, juvenile sex offenders received very little attention because it was over-explained as experimentation,” Winokur said. “‘Boys will be boys’ was the approach. ... In the last 15 years there has been more awareness, because the awareness of youth-related violence has gone up. Along with that there has been more of a look at sexual violence. In that 15 year period, states have made more changes in the juvenile court system and consequences have become more severe.”

Now, the pendulum may start to swing in the other direction.

Winokur said several counties are concerned that juveniles are treated the same as adults when offenders’ different developmental stages are not necessarily taken into account. Beyond that, treatment within the juvenile offender population is usually the same even though the degree of offenses may vary. Part of the problem is that very little research has been done on the best practices for treating juveniles in the past.

However, according to Winokur, much of the research that does exist suggests there are two types of juvenile sex offenders: Those who act inappropriately due to a general immaturity, and those who engage in deviant behavior. The concern, he said, is that these two types get lumped into the same group and treated the same.

Michelle Brinegar, chief deputy district attorney for the juvenile division in Larimer County said the ways the laws are written do not leave much room for discretion. Though there are juvenile cases that warrant standard treatment for sexual offenders, Brinegar said what works for an adult is not necessarily always going to work for a juvenile.

“It seems you can’t have a cookie-cutter approach to kids who commit sexual offenses,” Brinegar said. “There are a lot of different reasons and ways for them to sexually offend. They might do the bra snapping or grabbing butts at school, but are we ready to label them as sex offenders?”

In an effort to be proactive, Larimer County formed a new diversion program for juveniles last summer. The Fast Track accountability program is guided more toward boundaries, is more community-based and targets those who clearly need intervention.

Brinegar said the boundary class is usually between 14-18 weeks and is not as extensive as sex offender treatment. Those who agree to do the Fast Track program do not enter the court system, unless they violate their agreement. That way, they are still held accountable.

So far, about 11 have entered the program and four have graduated from it. One of its benefits is that services can be put in place for the juveniles much faster than if they were to go through the court system. In Larimer County about 35 to 40 sex offenses a year involve juveniles, Brinegar said.

Manny Ortega, assistant superintendent of secondary schools, said the schools are notified when a case goes to the courts, so a safety plan can be put in place. Such a plan outlines the conditions under which the student may attend school. In working with these students, the district uses the term “sexually reactive youth” instead of identifying them as sex offenders because of the developmental factor.

The few things that arise at school tend to be name calling or teasing and can often be addressed through the district’s policies. Ortega said depending on the severity of an incident, consequences can range from reprimand to expulsion.

“In school, we have an orderly environment so we see pretty minor stuff,” Ortega said. “There is normal goings-on at schools on societal expectations and school expectations. We don’t live in an MTV world, at least not at school.”

The district also has a Sexual Assault Resource Team (SART), which is a peer program that helps to educate students and prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment.

Through his research, Winokur said preliminary findings suggest juvenile sex offenders are unlikely to re-offend as adults and even less likely if they receive treatment. His hope is that his work, when completed, can be used to help legislators and practitioners deliver effective programs tailored specifically to juveniles.

“It should be individualized to meet the risk level and developmental age,” he said. “It’s not one size fits all. That’s the big thing.”