A Comparison of the Family Systems of Adolescent Sexual Offenders and Nonsexual Offending

Delinquents
Author(s): Gary P. Bischof, Sandra M. Stith and Stephan M. Wilson
Source: Family Relations, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 318-323
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/585197
Accessed: 01-11-2015 19:32 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Council on Family Relations and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.184.26.108 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:32:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A Comparison of the FamilySystems of Adolescent Sexual
Offenders and Nonsexual Offending Delinquents*
Gary P. Bischof, Sandra M. Stith, and Stephan M. WIlson**

While literature on adolescent sexual offenders has burgeoned over the last decade and families are often involved in treatment,
little is known about the family systems of these offenders. Adolescents' perception of family adaptability and cohesion are assessed
(using FACES-Ill) in an effort to identify whether and in what ways the family systems of adolescent sex offenders (n = 39) differ from
violent juvenile delinquents (n = 25), nonviolent juvenile delinquents (n = 41), and from nonproblem families (normative data). The data
reveal that families of sex offenders are characterized by greater family cohesion when compared with other delinquents, but sex
offenders perceive their families as less cohesive than do members of nonproblem families. No significant differences between the
groups were found for family adaptability. Implications for practice are offered.

U ntil the 1980s, adolescent sexual
offenders received little attention in
the professional literature. Adoles-
cent sexual offenders were not taken seri-
ously; their behavior was often explained
as normal experimentation or develop-
mental curiosity. A "boys will be boys"
attitude prevailed (Knopp, 1985).
Although research has burgeoned in the
last decade, it has largely been con-
cerned with individual characteristics of
offenders and offenses. Little is known
about the family systems of these offend-
ers. It is also unclear how, if at all, these
offenders and their families differ from
other juvenile delinquents or from adoles-
cents from nonproblem families since few
studies compare these groups or include
a representative sample of nonoffenders
as a comparison group.
This study was designed to assess
adolescent sexual offenders' perceptions
of the adaptability and cohesion level of
their families. Male adolescent sexual
offenders were compared with two com-
parison groups: male juvenile delinquents
who had committed violent nonsexual
offenses and male juvenile delinquents
who had committed nonviolent nonsexual
offenses. Male juvenile delinquents were
selected for a comparison group
because, while adolescent sexual offend-
ers and other juvenile delinquents are fre-
quently placed together in residential
treatment facilities, most experts advo-
cate offense-specific treatment for ado-
lescent sexual offenders (Knopp, 1985).
Professionals in the sex offender treat-
ment field claim that adolescent sexual
offenders are unique and distinct from
other nondelinquent and delinquent ado-
lescents (Knopp, 1985; O'Brien, 1985).
Families of these offenders are frequently
involved in treatment and findings from
this study are likely to enhance services
to these families. Results from this study
their families differ from other juvenile
delinquents. Findings may also promote
continued development of theori6s on the
etiology of sexual offenses by adoles-
cents, and help foster early identification
of at-risk families.
Literature Review
Ageton (1983), in a general popula-
tion study, found that approximately 3 to
4% of adolescents aged 15-21 years had
committed a sexual offense (i.e., an esti-
mated 500,000 offenses annually). Crime
reports and surveys have determined that
adolescents are responsible for approxi-
mately 20% of rapes and 30 to 50% of
cases of child sexual abuse (Davis & Leit-
enberg, 1987; Deisher, Wenet, Paperny,
Clark, & Fehrenbach, 1982; Groth & Lore-
do, 1981). These figures may underesti-
mate the actual number of adolescent
sexual offenders, due to the high number
of rapes and incidents of child sexual
abuse which go unreported. In addition,
only a small number of complaints ever
result in an arrest (Groth & Loredo, 1981).
Studies of adult sexual offenders (Abel,
Mittleman, & Becker, 1984; Becker &
Abel, 1985) indicate that about half of
adult offenders report that their first sex-
ual offense occurred as an adolescent
and often offenses escalated in frequency
and severity over time. These alarming
findings have led to increased efforts in
the identification and treatment of adoles-
cents who sexually abuse and to the
recognition of this group of offenders as a
distinct juvenile justice problem and clini-
cal population.
A thorough examination of the vari-
ous sociocultural contexts of adolescent
sexual offenders is beyond the scope of
this study. However, one significant con-
text for developing adolescents is the
family system. The behavior of each indi-
vidual in the family is influenced by the
behavior as serving some positive func-
tion or purpose within the family system
(e.g., a son's delinquent behavior may
serve to unite parents who may be expe-
riencing marital problems). Two aspects
of the family system that have been iden-
tified as indicators of family functioning
are adaptability and cohesion (Olson et
al., 1983). Family adaptability is defined
as the ability of a family system to change
its power structure, role relationships, and
relationship rules in response to situa-
tional and developmental stress. Cohe-
sion assesses the degree to which family
members are separated from or connect-
ed to their family and is defined as the
emotional bonding that family members
have toward one another (Olson, Portner,
& Lavee, 1985).
Aside from descriptive studies, which
have primarily addressed individual
offender and offense characteristics,
research on adolescent sexual offenders
is sparse. Many studies are limited by
small sample size and geographical bias.
Studies including normal control groups
are sparse (Davis & Leitenberg, 1987).
Although there is conjecture on how the
family influences the commission of an
offense and clinicians generally agree
that an effective assessment of adoles-
cent sexual offenders includes an assess-
ment of the offender's family (Becker,
1990), little scientific research has been
*The data used in this study were collected for the first
author's Master's Thesis at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University's Department of Family and Child Develop-
ment, Northern Virginia Graduate Center.
- Gary Bischof is a doctoral student in Marriage and
Family Therapy, Purdue University, 523 Russell Street, W.
Lafayette, IN 47906. Sandra Stith is an Assistant Professor of
Marriage and Family Therapy in the Department of Family and
Child Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Northern Virginia Graduate Center, Falls Church,
VA 22042. Stephan Wilson is an Associate Professor of Fami-
ly Studies and Director of the University of Kentucky Research
Center for Families and Children, 197 Erikson Hall, Lexington,
KY 40506.

may help clarify whether, and in what reciprocal interactions among family
ways, adolescent sexual offenders and members. Clinicians often view deviant (Family Relations, 1992, 41, 318-323.)

318 FAMILYRELATIONS July 1992

This content downloaded from 134.184.26.108 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:32:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
conducted to confirm or disclaim these
impressesions about the family dynamics
of adolescent sexual offenders. Review-
ing the literature, Monastersky and Smith
(1985) conclude that studies are virtually
unanimous in identifying the family as a
crucial influence in the development or
elicitation of the offending behavior, but it
is not clear how this occurs.
Knopp (1982), reporting on limited
clinical impressions of an unspecified
number of families in one adolescent sex-
ual offender program, found that families
of adolescent sexual offenders reflect two
types of family systems. Either the fami-
lies are very rigid and enmeshed, with
strict rules and a perfectionist bent to
parental expectations, or they are very
chaotic with a great deal of role confu-
sion. Knopp reports that staff in another
adolescent sexual offender program serv-
ing very violent and dangerous sexual
offenders in a long-term locked facility
used the word "chaotic" when describing
the families of the majority of the adoles-
cents. In these families it was not uncom-
mon for one of the parents to have
demonstrated deviant behavior very simi-
lar to the child's. Thus, families of adoles-
cent sexual offenders have been
described in the literature as rigid and
enmeshed or chaotic. The implications of
these terms is that these families are
either inflexible or too flexible and that
they are too close emotionally, the result
being a dysfunctional family system that
discourages or prevents healthy develop-
ment among its members. However, the
authors drawing these conclusions typi-
cally have been clinicians who have
based their ideas solely on clinical
impressions. One recent retrospective
study examined male college students'
earlier experience as perpetrators of child
sexual abuse (Fromuth, Burkhart, &
Jones, 1991). These authors found no dif-
ferences in the family backgrounds of the
16 men who reported that they had
molested a child and the 566 men who
reported no such history.
While only a limited number of stud-
ies have used reliable measures to
assess adaptability and cohesion of fami-
lies of adolescent sexual offenders, stud-
ies have appeared addressing these
dimensions in families of more general
troubled adolescents. For example,
assessing adolescents in outpatient treat-
ment and prevention programs, adoles-
cent substance abusers (n = 148) and
their mothers (n = 135) and fathers (n =
67) reported their perceptions of their
families using FACES-Ill (Volk, Edwards,
Lewis, & Sprenkle, 1989). These families
were found to be far more disengaged
than nonproblemfamilies, while on mea-
sures of adaptability,substance-abusing
adolescents saw their families as slightly
July 1992
This content downloaded from 134.184.26.108 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:32:32 UTC
more rigid than nonproblem families.
Conversely, mothers of substance
abusers saw their families as slightly
more chaotic than nonproblem families.
In a study of juveniles referred to
juvenile court intake (McGaha & Fournier,
1988) which assessed both the adoles-
cents' (n = 40) and parents' (n = 50) per-
ceptions using FACES-Il, the study
sample was found to be significantly less
cohesive and much more rigid than the
national norms. McGaha and Fournier
also reported that family adaptability and
cohesion were related to the type of
offense. The Circumplex Model classifies
families based on scores for adaptability
and cohesion. In the original conceptual-
ization of FACES-Ill, 16 different types of
families were identified using this instru-
ment (Olson et al., 1985). These family
types were grouped under three general
family types: extreme, midrange and bal-
anced. Extreme families (i.e., considered
most dysfunctional), who scored in the
extreme range on both measures, tended
to commit more violent crimes (e.g.,
assault) or status offenses (e.g., running
away, incorrigibility,or truancy) while bal-
anced (moderate on both measures) and
midrange (moderate in only one mea-
sure) families were more likely to commit
property crimes.
Only three studies have addressed
adaptability and cohesion of families of
adolescent sexual offenders formally.
Each of these studies used FACES-Il.
Considering adolescent sexual offenders
(n = 51) who had committed offenses of
various patterns and levels of severity,
Bera (1985) found no significant differ-
ence between these families and non-
problem adolescent families. Further, no
differences were found in the family sys-
tems of "mild"(i.e., few and less violent
offenses) versus "severe" (i.e., many and
more violent) adolescent sexual offend-
ers.
While Bera used only the adoles-
cent's perception of his family system,
Smith and Monastersky (1987) gathered
perspectives from adolescent sexual
offenders (n = 66) and their mothers (n =
71) and fathers (n = 51). Their sample
included adolescents treated in an out-
patient program, a majority of whom had
committed less aggressive offenses.
They found that the adolescent sexual
offender families were more likely than
the general population to be character-
ized as rigid in response to changes (i.e.,
low adaptability) and emotionally dis-
engaged (i.e., low cohesiveness). In their
study, degree of violence of the offense
was related to the family system; the
more rigid and disengaged the family
(according to the parents' perceptions)
the more violent the offense. These find-
FAMILYRELATIONS
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ings are consistent with correlations
McGaha and Fournier (1988) found
between the level of iigidity and dis-
engagement in the family system and the
seriousness of offense within the general
juvenile delinquent population.
Smith and Monastersky (1987) noted
a difference between the perceptions of
adolescent sexual offenders in their study
and the perceptions of juvenile delin-
quents from previous studies. The ado-
lescent sexual offenders' perceptions of
their families were generally similar to
their parents' perceptions, while studies
of juvenile delinquents have revealed that
the delinquents frequently viewed their
family as more harsh and unresponsive
than did other family members. Further-
more, the authors suggest that future
research compare the family systems of
sexual offending and nonsexual offending
juvenile delinquents in an effort to identify
distinguishing characteristics between the
groups. Neither of these studies (Bera,
1985; Smith & Monastersky, 1987) has
been published in the professional litera-
ture.
Sefarbi (1990) evaluated adaptability
and cohesion (FACES-Il) for adolescent
sexual offenders who denied their offense
(n = 5) and those who admitted to their
offense (n = 5). The "deniers" tended to
be in enmeshed family systems, while
"admitters" were in disengaged family
systems. Deniers' families were also
characterized by overwhelmed mothers
who relied on the parentified adolescent
sexual offender for physical and emotion-
al support. A history of abandonment, first
by fathers, and later by mothers for cru-
cial periods, distinguished the families of
admitters.
In summary, the family system is a
significant context for adolescents. A
review of the literature revealed only one
small published study assessing the
adaptability and cohesion of the family
systems of adolescent sexual offenders.
Other research has not been published,
thus limiting knowledge about families of
adolescent sexual offenders. Families are
frequently involved in treatment and are
thought to be influential in the etiology of
sexual offenses by adolescents. No stud-
ies directly compared the family systems
of sexual offending and nonsexual offend-
ing juvenile delinquents, though experts
suggest there are differences between
these families. This study was designed
to address these gaps in the literature by
comparing family adaptability and col-e-
sion of adolescent sexual offenders, vio-
lent juvenile delinquents, nonviolent
juvenile delinquents, and of a representa-
tive sample of nonproblem adolescents. It
was expected that the family systems of
adolescent sexual offenders would differ
from violent and nonviolent delinquents
319
and from nonproblem adolescents, thus
supporting recognition of adolescent sex-
ual offenders as a distinct juvenile justice
problem and clinical treatment population.
Methods
Participants
Questionnaires were distributed to
109 adolescent males in various out-
patient and residential programs; 105
questionnaires were returned (96.3%).
Participants were adolescent males, aged
12-18, who were grouped as follows: (a)
adolescent sexual offenders (n = 39) who
self-reported having committed child sex-
ual molestation or who were involved in
treatment programs designated for iden-
tified adolescent sexual offenders; (b)
juvenile delinquents (n = 25) who self-
reported committing violent offenses
(e.g., homicide, manslaughter, robbery,
aggravated assault); and (c) juvenile
delinquents (n = 41) who self-reported
committing nonviolent offenses such as
property offenses, nonviolent crimes
against persons, status offenses, or sub-
stance abuse violations. A nondelinquent
control group was not included in this
study, but FACES-Ill has been normed to
the general population of adolescent fam-
ilies and these norms were compared to
scores by the groups in this study. Partici-
pants were not paid, but were encour-
aged to participate in the research as a
way to help other young people and soci-
ety in general.
Measures
Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scale (FACES-Ill) (Olson et
al., 1985). FACES-Ill is a 20-item self-
report scale that is the most recent ver-
sion of the Family Adaptability and
Cohesion Evaluation Scale. The instru-
ment is designed to assess perceptions
of the family system. The revised version
differs in several important ways from ver-
sions (FACES and FACES-Il) which were
used in earlier research on families of
adolescent sexual offenders. The instru-
ment is shorter, it has two empirically
independent (orthogonal) dimensions so
it better achieves the theoretical criteria
for a Circumplex Model; it is more rele-
vant for a variety of nonnuclear family
forms, and it has specific norms for fami-
lies across the life cycle. Participants
respond to each question with one of five
Likert-type answers from almost never to
almost always. Family cohesion assesses
the degree to which family members are
separated from or connected to their fam-
ily. Sample items for the cohesion scale
include, "Familymembers feel very close
to each other"and "Familymembers like
to spend free time with each other."Fain-
320
This content downloaded from 134.184.26.108 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:32:32 UTC
ily adaptability has to do with the extent to
which the family system is flexible and
able to change. Sample items for the
adaptability scale include, "Different per-
sons act as leaders in our family" and
"Rules change in our family."
Although FACES-Ill was originally
conceptualized as measuring adaptability
and cohesion as curvilinear measures
(i.e., families with balanced and midrange
levels of adaptability and cohesion were
considered more healthy than families
with extreme scores on these measures),
more recent research has disputed the
curvilinear hypothesis (Green, Harris,
Forte, & Robinson, 1991; Olson, 1991a,
1991b). In fact, David Olson (1991a), one
of the authors of the instrument, recently
indicated that, "there is considerable evi-
dence that FACES-Ill is a linear measure,
with high scores on cohesion and adapt-
ability being related to more functional
family relationships. High scores on cohe-
sion and adaptability are reconceptual-
ized as measuring Balanced family types
and low scores on the two dimensions as
measuring Extreme family types (p. 74).
The revised linear conceptualization of
FACES-Ill with corresponding cutoff
points for Very Cohesive, Cohesive,
Somewhat Cohesive, Disengaged, Very
Flexible, Flexible, Structured, and Rigid
was used in this study.
Internal consistency reliability for the
cohesion subscale was .86 and for the
adaptability scale was .64 for the current
study sample. The perceived form, cover-
ing perceptions of current family function-
ing, was used; adolescents were asked to
report on their family at the time of the
offense.
Delinquency and Sexual Offense
Self-Report. Participants were provided a
list of several categories of delinquent
acts and sexual offenses and were asked
to indicate whether they had committed
an offense from each category and
whether they had been held by the police
or convicted for any offense from a partic-
ular category. The seven categories
included: violent offenses against per-
sons, property offenses, nonviolent
offenses against persons, general sex
offenses, child molestation, offenses
against public order and drug abuse vio-
lations, and status offenses. This self-
report instrument was used to classify the
participants into the appropriate group
(i.e., adolescent sexual offenders, non-
violent delinquent, or violent delinquent).
Participants who indicated that they had
committed child molestation and those
who were involved in treatment programs
designated for identifiedadolescent sex-
ual abusers were included in the adoles-
cent sexual abuser group. Juvenile
delinquentswho reportedcommittingvio-
FAMILYRELATIONS
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
lent offenses against persons were
included in the violentjuvenile delinquent
group and juvenile delinquents who self-
reported committing nonviolent offenses
such as property offenses, nonviolent
crimes against persons, status offenses,
or substance abuse violations were
included in the nonviolent delinquent
group.
Demographic variables. The follow-
ing demographic factors were included:
age and race of participants, family
income, and parental employmentstatus
and occupation. These were assessed
withstandardfact sheet items.
Procedure
A paper-and-pencilself-reportsurvey
was administered to adolescent partici-
pants by a research investigatoror treat-
ment professional. Programs/facilities
participatingin the study signed a state-
ment of participation, indicating their
understandingof the purpose and proce-
dures of the study. Parents/guardians/
custodians gave their written permission
and informed consent for the youth in
their charge to participate in the study
and anonymitywas assured.
Results
DemographicFactors
Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs)
were executed among the three groups
on demographicfactors. There was a sig-
nificantdifference in age among the three
groups [F(2) = 6.41, p = .002]; mean age
for the adolescent sexual offender group
was 15.39, whereas mean age for violent
and nonviolent juvenile delinquents was
16.16 and 16.34, respectively. Results
from a Chi-squareanalysis demonstrated
that there were no significantdifferences
in race among the three groups (73%
white, 16% black, 3% Latino, 3% Asian,
5% other for entire sample).
Participants came predominantly
from the Washington, D.C. metropolitan
area. Level of family income differedsig-
nificantlybetween the three groups [F(2)
= 4.44, p = .01]. Mean familyincome was
$38,400, $41,000, and $52,000 for ado-
lescent sexual offenders, violent juvenile
delinquents, and nonviolent delinquents,
respectively. The majority of fathers
(74%)and mothers (71%)were employed
full-time, with no significant differences
between groups. Mothersmost frequently
workedin service occupations (33%)or in
technical or clerical work (32%). Fathers
worked primarily in service or military
occupations (26%) and in administration,
engineering, or scientific endeavors
(19%). There were no significant differ-
ences among the groups on parents'
occupation.
July 1992
Table 1. pared with the perceptions of violent juve-
ANOVAs for Study Samples and Normed Scores for Family Adaptability and Cohesion nile delinquents and nonviolent juvenile
Adolescent Violent Nonviolent delinquents. These data were compared
Sexual Juvenile Juvenile with normative data for nonproblem ado-
Offender Delinquent Delinquent lescents and their families. Family adapt-
(n = 37) (n = 24) (n = 40) Norms
Variable Mean Mean Mean Mean F-ratio ability and cohesion were considered. It
was anticipated that the family systems of
FACES-Ill: adolescent sexual offenders would differ
Adaptability 23.76a 24.54a 23.05a 24.30a .44
Cohesion 30.08a 24.96b 25.05b 37.1 Oc 87.76* from violent and nonviolent delinquents
and from nonproblem adolescents, thus
Note. Norms for FACES-Ill are for parents and adolescents combined (n = 1,315). supporting recognition of adolescent sex-
abcDuncanmultiple range test results: Clusters with different letters differ significantly (p < .05).
*p < .001. ual offenders as a distinct juvenile justice
problem and clinical treatment population.
solving, and many strict rules. Four levels There were no significant differences
Family Adaptability between the groups in this study or
of cohesion have also been described
and Cohesion (i.e., very cohesive, cohesive, somewhat between the study samples and nonprob-
cohesive, and disengaged). Very cohe- lem adolescent families in family adapt-
Because adaptability and cohesion
sive and cohesive are characterized as ability. Mean scores for adaptability for all
have been recently reconceptualized as
most healthy and as most balanced on the samples in this study were in the
linear constructs (Olson, 1991a, 1991b),
ANOVAs were performed for measures of cohesion. Disengaged families (very low moderate range, toward the rigid (i.e., low
cohesion) are typified by low emotional adaptability) level. This confirms findings
adaptability and cohesion (see Table 1).
There were no significant differences bonding, closed internal boundaries, rigid by Bera (1985) that outpatient adolescent
generational boundaries, and a general sexual offenders were very similar to non-
among the four groups (i.e., adolescent
sense of separateness. In contrast, very problem adolescents in their perception of
sexual offenders, violent delinquents,
nonviolent delinquents, and nonproblem cohesive and cohesive families are char- family adaptability. Yet, it is inconsistent
acterized by balanced levels of emotional with results of an analysis of outpatient
adolescents) on family adaptability. There
bonding. See Table 2 for the full range of adolescent sexual offenders (Smith &
were differences [F(3) = 87.76, p < .001]
levels for both adaptability and cohesion. Monastersky, 1987) which found that
for cohesion. Post hoc Duncan tests con-
families of adolescent sexual offenders
firmed that adolescent sexual offenders The mean scores for adaptability were more likely than the general popula-
perceived their families as having higher (i.e., adolescent sexual offenders = 23.76, tion to be characterized as rigid in
levels of emotional bonding among family violent = 24.54, nonviolent = 23.05) all fall response to changes.
members (X = 30.08) than did either vio- within the structured level considered
lent (X = 24.96) or nonviolent (X = 25.05) moderate (toward the rigid level), and Adolescent sexual offenders per-
delinquents. Non-problem families (X = within the range for healthy family func- ceived their family system as more cohe-
37.10) were perceived as being signifi- tioning. While the mean scores of the four sive, that is, viewed their family members
cantly more cohesive than adolescent groups differed significantly on levels of as more bonded emotionally to each
sexual offenders, violent delinquents, and cohesion, all the scores fall within the dis- other (Olson et al., 1985), than did delin-
nonviolent juvenile delinquents according engaged level, indicating that adolescents quents in this study. While mean scores
to post hoc Duncan tests. in all three groups perceived their families for family cohesion were significantly dif-
The revised guide to the FACES-Ill as having low emotional bonding, closed ferent, all fell within the lowest level for
(Olson, 1991b) provides cutoff scores for internal boundaries, rigid generational cohesion (i.e., disengaged), which raises
levels of adaptability and cohesion. Four boundaries, and a general sense of sepa- the question about whether this statistical
levels of adaptability have been delineat- rateness. Adolescent sexual offenders difference is meaningful. In addition, ado-
ed (i.e., very flexible, flexible, structured see their families as more cohesive than lescent sexual offenders perceive their
and rigid). Very flexible and flexible fami- do other delinquents, but still as disen- families as significantly less cohesive
lies are characterized as most healthy gaged, the extreme low level of cohesion. than do nonproblem adolescents. These
and as most balanced on adaptability. findings support those found by Smith
Rigid families (very low adaptability) are Discussion and Monastersky (1987), that families of
characterized by authoritarian leadership, adolescent sexual offenders are more
Adolescent sexual offenders' percep- likely than nonproblem families to be
limited negotiation and poor problem tions of their family system were com- emotionally disengaged. The preponder-
ance of low family cohesiveness for fami-
Table 2.
FACES-Ill Family Types (as percentages) for Study Families with Offenders and Nonproblem Fam- lies of adolescent sexual offenders in this
ilies. study conflicts with clinical impressions
(Knopp, 1982) that many of these families
Adolescent Violent Nonviolent
Sexual Juvenile Juvenile are enmeshed. Only one adolescent sex-
Offender Delinquent Delinquent Nonproblem ual offender in this study viewed his fam-
Family Type (n = 37) (n = 24) (n = 40) (n = 1,315) ily as being very cohesive.
Cohesion: The lack of enmeshed families of
Disengaged 54.1 75.0 80.0 18.6
Somewhat cohesive 24.3
adolescent sexual offenders could be
16.7 10.0 30.3
Cohesive 18.9 8.3 10.0 36.4 attributed to several factors. First, prob-
Very cohesive 2.7 - - 14.7 lems inherent in the FACES-Ill instrument
Adaptability:
may not have allowed the study to identify
Very flexible 18.9 12.5 12.5 13.9 enmeshed families. That iS, the instru-
Flexible 24.3 41.7 27.5 32.9 ment may be more sensitive to identifying
Structured 32.4 25.0 32.5 37.3 disengaged families, rather than en-
Rigid 24.3 20.8 27.5 15.9 meshed families. Second. only the ado-
July 1992 i FAMILY RELATIONS 321

This content downloaded from 134.184.26.108 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:32:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
lescent's perception of his family was
assessed in this study. Adolescents tend
to view their family with greater nega-
tivism and tend to perceive their families
as more disengaged than do other family
members (Olson et al., 1983). Normative
data for adolescent perceptions using
FACES-Ill is not available. Normed
scores represent combined adolescents'
and parents' perceptions. This may
account for the preponderance of low
family cohesion scores in the study sam-
ple. Interestingly, though, Smith and
Monastersky (1987) surveyed both ado-
lescents and parents using FACES-Ill
and found that adolescent sexual offend-
ers and their parents perceived their fami-
lies very similarly. Similarity between
adolescent and parent scores was signifi-
cantly higher for families of adolescent
sexual offenders than it was for families
of nonsexual offending delinquents.
Therefore, for these families, the adoles-
cent's perception alone may be an accu-
rate representation of the entire family's
perception.
The second factor that could account
for the discrepancy between clinical
impressions and family members' experi-
ence of their family is the vantage point,
either from inside the family or as an out-
sider looking in (Olson, 1977). Clinical
impressions are outsiders' perspectives;
clinicians see many families of adolescent
sexual offenders as enmeshed, with dif-
fuse internal boundaries, and closed
external boundaries (Knopp, 1982). They
often report that these families rely on
their family almost exclusively for support
and that they are socially isolated. Family
members, though, perceive their family
from the inside, resulting in a different
view. Hence, they see their family and the
relationships therein as less cohesive and
more separate. This explanation was also
proposed to account for a similar discrep-
ancy between the clinical literature (i.e.,
clinicians viewing families as enmeshed
and over-involved) and family perceptions
(i.e., family members viewing themselves
as disengaged) for adolescent substance
abuse families (Volk et al., 1989).
Limitations
Participants in this study were volun-
tary and self-selected, and therefore are
not necessarily representative of the
delinquent populations included here.
Parental/guardian permission first had to
be obtained, and then adolescents decid-
ed if they would participate after learning
what would be required. Participants
came from programs/facilities that agreed
to cooperate with the study. Nonsexual
offendingdelinquentscame primarilyfrom
four residentialprograms,and all but one
was involved in a residential program.
Adolescent sexual offenders were closely
322
This content downloaded from 134.184.26.108 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:32:32 UTC
divided between outpatients and resi-
dents. Placement in residential care often
comes only after other less restrictive
alternatives have been exhausted, and
frequently family dysfunction is a criterion
for placement out of the home. Future
studies should either include offenders
from various levels of outpatient and resi-
dential treatment, or should control for
placement setting.
Information in this study was ob-
tained by adolescent retrospective self-
report. Participants were asked to report
on conditions at the time of their offense.
In some cases, a long period of time had
passed since the offense, inviting the
possibility of treatment effect and inaccu-
rate recall of prior family conditions. For a
more accurate and complete perspective
of the family system information ideally
should be obtained early in the assess-
ment or screening process and should
include the perceptions of several family
members. It is recommended that family
instruments be included in routine
assessment, as families are frequently
involved in treatment. A more compre-
hensive understanding of the family con-
text would prove valuable in treatment
planning and intervention design.
Detailed information about offenses
and offense history was not obtained in
this study. Future studies should attempt
to differentiate family characteristics
among various types of adolescent sex-
ual offenders. Indeed, Bera (1985) found
little difference between families of ado-
lescent sexual offenders and nonproblem
adolescent families in general, but signifi-
cant differences emerged between vari-
ous types of adolescent sexual offenders,
classified according to offenses and
offense patterns.
A limitation mentioned above was the
lack of normative data for the adoles-
cent's perception for FACES-Ill. Compar-
isons of adolescents' perceptions for
samples in this study and combined ado-
lescent and parent scores for nonproblem
families may be questionable. Admittedly,
it is preferable to gather information from
several family members when assessing
family variables, yet this is not always
possible, and was beyond the scope of
this study. The reporting of separate fami-
ly member's perceptions for normative
data is suggested so that accurate com-
parisons can be made when access is
limited to individual family members.
Implications for Practice
The review and findings of this study
have a number of implications for inter-
vention with families of adolescent sexual
offenders. The familysystems of adoles-
cent sexual offendersappearto be similar
to the familysystems of violent and non-
FAMILYRELATIONS
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
violent juvenile delinquents in terms of
adaptability. Though there was a signifi-
cant difference in mean scores for family
cohesion, the means all fell within the
same disengaged level of cohesion.
Treatment approaches and family inter-
ventions proven effective with general
juvenile delinquents are likely to be help-
ful with adolescent sexual offenders, too.
Clinical literature and experience with
general juvenile delinquents are more
advanced and lessons learned with juve-
nile delinquents appear to be transferable
to adolescent sexual offenders and their
families.
While similar to delinquents' families
in some ways, the families of adolescent
sexual offenders closely approximated
nonproblem families on level of cohesion.
These findings support some previous lit-
erature (Fagan & Wexler, 1988) that ado-
lescent sexual offenders and their
families are more similar to nonproblem
adolescents and their families than are
other delinquents. This would indicate
that these families have competencies
that would be helpful for the clinician to
notice, call attention to, and enhance in
treatment. It also suggests that a dysfunc-
tional family system is not necessarily
associated with sexual offenses by ado-
lescents. It may be that for some types of
offenders, sociocultural contexts other
than the family (e.g., peer group, mass
media, societal norms related to mas-
culinity and aggression) are more influen-
tial in the etiology of the offenses.
The finding that most adolescent
sexual offenders view their families as
disengaged and few perceive their fami-
lies as very cohesive can be beneficial to
clinicians. Understanding the adoles-
cent's perspective can be helpful in join-
ing and creating strategies that fit with the
adolescent's world view. Utilization of
interventions designed to enhance emo-
tional support and bonding among family
members would seem appropriate for
most of these families.
While the adolescent views his family
as disengaged from an insider perspec-
tive, the clinician can maintain an outsider
perspective that may be helpful in hypoth-
esizing about the family system. The sys-
temic notion that delinquent behavior
serves some positive function in the fam-
ily system could be applied here. Adoles-
cent sexual offenders who view their
families as disengaged may be attempt-
ing through their behavior to unite family
members around some common cause.
Another systemic hypothesis is that the
adolescent sexual offender's offense is a
misplaced attempt at "closeness" with
other family members from whom he
feels disengaged. Further, the offense
could be seen as an effortto seek help
July 1992
for other unacknowledged problems (e.g.,
incest between other family members,
substance abuse) that may be occurring
in the family.
REFERNCES
Abel, G., Mittleman, M., & Becker, J. (1984). Sexual offenders:
Results of assessment and recommendations for treat-
ment. Unpublished manuscript, available from New York
State Psychiatric Institute, Sexual Behavior Clinic.
Ageton, S. S. (1983). Sexual assault among adolescents. Lex-
ington, MA: Heath.
Becker, J. V., & Abel, G. G. (1985). Methodological and ethical
issues in evaluating and treating adolescent sex offenders.
In E. M. Otey & G. D. Ryan (Eds.), Adolescent sex offend-
ers: Issues in research and treatment (pp. 109-129).
Rockville, MD: USDHHS.
Becker, J. V. (1990). Treating adolescent sexual offenders.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21, 362-365.
Bera, W. H. (1985). A preliminary investigation of a typology of
adolescent sex offenders and their family systems. Unpub-
lished masters thesis, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Davis, G. E., & Leitenberg, H. (1987). Adolescent sex offend-
ers. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 417-427.
Deisher, R. W., Wenet, G. A., Paperny, D. M., Clark, T. F., &
Fehrenbach, P. A. (1982). Adolescent sexual offense
July 1992
This content downloaded from 134.184.26.108 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:32:32 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
behavior:The role of the physician.Joumalof Adolescent
Health Care, 2, 279-286.
Fagan,J., &Wexler,S. (1988). Explanationsof sexual assault
among violent delinquents. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 3, 363-385.
Fromuth,M., Burkhart,B., & Jones, C. (1991). Hiddenchild
molestation:An investigationof adolescent perpetratorsin
a nonclinical sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6,
376-384.
Green,R. G., Harris,R. N., Forte,J.A.,&Robinson,M. (1991).
EvaluatingFACES-Illand the circumplexmodel: 2,440
families. Family Process, 1, 55-73.
Groth,A. N., & Loredo,C. M. (1981). Juvenilesexual offend-
ers: Guidelines for assessment. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 25, 31-39.
Knopp, F. H. (1982). Remedial intervention in adolescent sex
offenses: Nine program descriptions. Orwell, VT: Safer
SocietyPress.
Knopp,F. H. (1985). Recentdevelopmentsin the treatmentof
adolescent sex offenders. In E. M. Otey & G. D. Ryan
(Eds.), Adolescent sex offenders: Issues in research and
treatment(pp. 1-27).Rockville,MD:USDHHS.
McGaha,J., & Fournier,D. (1988). Juvenilejustice and the
family:A systems approachto familyassessment. Marriage
and Family Review, 12, 155-172.
Monastersky,C., & Smith,W. (1985). Juvenilesexual offend-
ers: A familysystems paradigm.InE. M.Otey &G.D. Ryan
(Eds.), Adolescent sex offenders: Issues in research and
treatment(pp. 164-175).Rockville,MD:USDHHS.
O'Brien,M.(1985).Adolescentsexual offenders:An outpatient
FAMILYRELATIONS
program'sperspectiveon researchdirections.InE. M.Otey
& G. D. Ryan (Eds.), Adolescentsex offenders:Issues in
researchand treatment(pp. 147-163).Rockville,MD:USD-
HHS.
Olson, D. H. (1977). Insiders'and outsiders'views of relation-
ships: Research studies. In G. Levinger& H. L. Rausch
Perspectiveson the meaningof
(Eds.), Close relationships:
intimacy (pp. 115-136). Amherst: University of Mas-
sachusetts Press.
Olson, D. H. (1991a). Commentary:Three-dimensional(3-D)
circumplexmodeland revisedscoringof FACES-Ill.Family
Process, 30, 74-79.
Olson,D. H. (1991b, October).FamilyCircumplex Model:Clini-
cal assessment and treatmentintervention.Paperpresent-
ed at the AnnualConferenceof the AmericanAssociation
forMarriageand FamilyTherapy,Dallas,TX.
Olson, D. H., McCubbin,H. I., Barnes, H. L., Larsen,A. S.,
Muxen, M. J., & Wilson, M. A. (1983). Families: What
makes themwork.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage Publications.
Olson, D. H., Portner,J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-Ill.St.
Paul:FamilySocial Science, Universityof Minnesota.
Sefarbi, R. (1990). Admittersand deniers among adolescent
sex offendersand theirfamilies:A preliminarystudy.Amer-
ican Journalof Orthopsychiatry,60, 460465.
Smith,W. R., & Monastersky,C. (1987). Strategiesforstudy-
ing the role of the family in the commission of sexual
offenses by adolescents.Unpublishedmanuscript.
Volk, R. J., Edwards,D. W., Lewis, R. A., & Sprenkle,D. H.
(1989). Familysystems of adolescent substance abusers.
FamilyRelations,38, 266-272.
323