Sexual Violence by Juveniles in Institutions: A Descriptive Study on Prevalence and Circumstances

Abstract

Adolescents in institutionalized care are at a particularly high risk of exhibiting sexually aggressive behavior including sexual harassment. So far, however, studies about the prevalence of sexually aggressive behavior in institutions are lacking. In this survey, 322 adolescents (43% female, average age 16.7 years) from 32 residential care facilities and boarding schools across Germany were asked about sexually aggressive behavior via a standardized questionnaire. Overall, 23.5% of the participants engaged in some form of sexually aggressive behavior in their lives, and 4.6% reported having committed a sexual assault with (actual or attempted) penetration. A closer look at the circumstances of those offenses shows that the victims were in most cases acquainted with and of the same age as the offenders, that threats and violence were used in some cases, and especially in the case of actual or attempted penetration, and that only a minority of offenders suffered any consequences for their acts. The implementation of protective measures for institutions and the treatment of adolescents in institutions will be discussed.

Keywords

sexual aggression adolescents residential care sexual harassment offender

Sexual assaults by adolescents pose a significant problem. Estimates suggest that in the United States 23% of all officially recorded sexual offenses are committed by adolescents; in the case of victims below 18 years of age, the percentage of adolescent offenders even reaches 33% (Snyder, 2000). In a web-based study with 7th- to 12th-grade students (N = 1,220), 7.9% of the boys and 4.4% of the girls reported having someone kissed, hugged, touched someone against his or her will or forced someone to oral sex or sexual intercourse since starting high school (Young, King, Abbey, & Boyd, 2009). In another study including 71,594 9th- to 12th-grade students, 4.8% of the male students and 1.3% of the female students reported a history of forcing someone into a sexual act (Wagman Borowsky, Hogan, & Ireland, 1997). A study conducted in Germany with a sample size of 44,000 students in ninth grade suggested that 2.6% of the boys and 0.3% of the girls had perpetrated some form of sexual violence during the past 12 months (Baier, Pfeiffer, Simonson, & Rabold, 2009).

Risk factors for the development of sexually aggressive behavior seem to be mostly overlapping with risk factors for generally delinquent behavior. These include a positive attitude toward antisocial behavior, intrafamiliar conflicts, dropping out of school, integration into a peer group of delinquents, and poor social integration (Dwyer & Letourneau, 2011). At the same time, a meta-analysis by Seto and Lalumière (2010) including 59 studies showed that sexually aggressive adolescents have experienced more sexual abuse and exhibited more atypical sexual interests than generally aggressive adolescents yet less frequently demonstrate antisocial behavior. A review by DeGue and colleagues (2013) emphasized the importance of peer influence, as well as the role of media with regard to a positive attitude toward sexual violence. In addition, mental disorders and generally delinquent behavior in adolescents with sexually delinquent behavior seem to increase the risk to exhibit sexually aggressive behavior as adults (Beaudry-Cyr, Jennings, Zgoba, & Tewksbury, 2017).

Based on the above findings, it can be assumed that juveniles in residential care are at increased risk of exhibiting sexually aggressive behavior for several reasons (Baker, Schneiderman, & Parker, 2002). First, the prevalence of having experienced sexual violence in adolescents in residential care facilities is markedly higher than in the general population (Euser, Alink, Tharner, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2013; Greger, Myhre, Lydersen, & Jozefiak, 2015). Second, adolescents in residential care are more likely to experience significant psychopathological symptoms (Greger et al., 2015; Schmid, Goldbeck, Nuetzel, & Fegert, 2008), which can be a contributing factor to an increased risk of sexually aggressive behavior, especially in combination with externalizing behavioral disorders. Baker et al. (2002) reported an estimated frequency of 10% to 30% of adolescents in the New York youth welfare system with sexually problematic behavior. A comparable study from Germany that analyzed about 5,000 case files of children and adolescents in institutional care found that 13% exhibited at least slightly pronounced sexual symptoms and 2% of the children and adolescents had a history of having committed sexual assaults that were principally prosecutable under the law (Schuhrke & Arnold, 2009). A study from the Netherlands reported on the frequency of experiences of sexual violence over the previous 12 months while adolescents were living in residential care or with a foster family (Euser et al., 2013). Of the 329 adolescent participants, 18.8% reported to have been a victim of sexual assault (in or outside residential care/foster family), with 57% of assaults committed by housemates. In addition, a survey of professionals in residential care facilities (n = 300) and boarding schools (n = 100) in Germany found that in 39% of the residential care facilities and in 17% of the boarding schools, sexual assaults among peers had occurred over the previous 3 years (Deutsches Jugendinstitut, 2011).

However, there is a lack of studies that question adolescents in institutionalized settings directly about the frequency of sexually aggressive behavior. Similarly, even in the context of the worldwide discussion of cases of abuse and maltreatment of children and adolescents in institutionalized settings that have come to public attention in recent years, such discussions focus on institutional factors such as power differentials or hierarchical structures as potential factors that allow sexual assaults by employees to occur (Spröber et al., 2014). To develop protective measures in institutions, however, it is crucial to also consider sexual violence among peers.

Research Questions

To find out more about prevalence and circumstances of sexually aggressive behavior by adolescents in institutional settings in Germany, we examined the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What is the lifetime prevalence of sexual perpetration by adolescents in institutional care?

Research Question 2: Is there a relationship between different types of offending or sexual perpetration and sexual victimization?

Research Question 3: What is the mean age of initial offending and how many adolescents show sexually problematic behavior for the first time after admission to their current institution?

Research Question 4: Are there differences between types of offending (sexual harassment, assaults with/without penetration) with regard to the perpetrator—victim relationships, preferred age, or gender?

Research Question 5: Are there differences between types of offending (sexual harassment, assaults with/without penetration) with regard to their typical modi operandi, such as use of threats, planning, or individual/group offending?

Research Question 6: What were the consequences of the sexually problematic behavior?

Method

Recruitment and Participants

For this study, all residential care facilities (N = 2,281) and boarding schools (N = 304) in Germany were contacted directly or indirectly via their umbrella organizations. Residential care facilities in Germany are institutions where, according to the German Social Code (SGB VIII), children and adolescents permanently or temporarily live when they cannot stay with their parents due, for example, to abuse and/or neglect in the families, behavioral problems, or poor parenting skills. Residential care is the preferred model for child and youth welfare in Germany. In 2014, 69,203 children and adolescents were in residential care, compared with 67,812 children and youth living in full-time foster care families (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2016).

Boarding schools were included, when they provide school classes according to German law and offer housing for the students during the school year.

The institutions were asked to indicate whether they would principally be willing to participate in the study and to indicate the number of juveniles in the institution who would fulfill the criteria for inclusion in the study (minimum age of 15 years; at the institution for at least 4 weeks, or in the case of boarding schools at least since the beginning of the school year, sufficient cognitive ability, and mental stability to participate). In total, 46 of the boarding schools and 393 of the residential care facilities signaled their willingness to participate in the study. Of those, 12 boarding schools and 20 residential care facilities were selected to achieve a representative sample in terms of geographic distribution in Germany and size of institutions. These 32 selected institutions housed 1,177 adolescents who fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the study. Presentations of the study were given in all these institutions, and the adolescents were provided some time to thoughtfully consider their participation in the study. All participants participated on a voluntary basis in the study. The study received a positive evaluation from the respective ethics commission and took place in group settings with a member of the research team present to alleviate potential stress factors during the survey.

In the end, 322 adolescents participated in the study (see Table 1). The average age of participants was 16.69 years (SD = 1.25, range: 15-22); most participants were German (95.3%), but 13.7% of the adolescents reported to also have a second nationality. The majority of adolescents (75.5%) were still in school, and the remainder were in professional training (10.9%), were working (0.6%), or looking for work (1.6%). The adolescents had been living at the respective institution for an average of 3.08 years (SD = 2.79).

Table 1.

Description of the Sample.

	Residential care	Boarding school	Total
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Male	72 (22.4%)	112 (34.8%)	184 (57.0%)
Female	81 (25.2%)	57 (17.7%)	138 (43.0%)
Total sample	153 (47.5%)	169 (52.5%)	322 (100%)

Instruments

The survey of sexually aggressive behavior was conducted via a questionnaire—adapted for adolescents—for a population representative study of the frequency of sexual abuse (Stadler, Bieneck, & Pfeiffer, 2012). The questionnaire captured the lifetime prevalence of the participants’ own sexually aggressive behavior in and outside institutional care in the form of sexual harassment (confronting others with pornographic material or sexually explicit messages via Internet, cell phone, or direct contact against their will), sexual assaults without penetration (masturbation in front of others, sexually touching breast, buttocks, or genitals against their will), and sexual assault with penetration (attempted/completed sexual assaults with penetration by fingers, tongue, objects, or penis against their will). Also assessed were offense-related circumstances such as the number of victims, offending alone or in a group of at least two offenders, use of threats or violence, age difference between perpetrator and victim, premeditation of assault, and relationship to victim, as well as consequences as a result of the assault. In addition, participants were asked about their own experiences of sexual victimization.

Based on information about the age at which the adolescents were admitted to the current institution and the age at which a first sexual assault occurred, the study also analyzed the frequency of first-time incidents of sexually aggressive behavior while living in the current institution (inside and outside of the institution’s premises).

Analyses

Results are presented as relative frequencies. In the case of group comparisons, the χ² test is applied. The effect size was measured with Cramer’s V. If the size of Cramer’s V is interpreted analogous to the correlation coefficient, then values starting at 0.10 indicate a small effect size, values starting at 0.30 indicate a medium effect size, and values starting at 0.50 a large effect size (Field, 2009). Pearson correlations were calculated to analyze interrelations between different aspects. All statistical analyses were carried out with the statistics software SPSS 22.0. Differing n or percentage sums above 100 are the result of missing or multiple responses.

Results

What Is the Lifetime Prevalence of Sexual Perpetration by Adolescents in Institutional Care?

Of all adolescents responding to the respective questions, 4.6% reported engaging in sexual assaults with penetration, 15.4% reported engaging in assaults without penetration, and 11.7% reported engaging in sexual harassment. Overall, 23.5% of the participants indicated that they had engaged in sexually aggressive behavior in one form or other. In all forms, boys reported a higher prevalence of sexual aggressive behavior than girls. There was no significant difference between the types of institutions in regard to any type of offending (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Frequency of Sexual Assaults, n and %.

	Sample	Boys	Girls	Residential care	Boarding school
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Sexual harassment
Yes	36 (11.7%)	26 (14.9%)^a	10 (7.5%)^a	13 (9.2%)^b	23 (13.8%)^b
No	273 (88.3%)	149 (85.1%)	124 (92.5%)	129 (90.8%)	144 (86.2%)
Assaults without penetration
Yes	46 (15.4%)	38 (22%) ^c	8 (6.3%) ^c	18 (12.9%)^d	28 (17.5%)^d
No	253 (84.6%)	135 (78%)	118 (93.7%)	121 (87.1%)	132 (82.5%)
Assaults with penetration
Yes	14 (4.6%)	13 (7.4%) ^e	1 (0.8%) ^e	9 (6.4%)^f	5 (3.1%)^f
No	289 (95.4%)	163 (82.6 %)	126 (99.2%)	131 (93.6%)	158 (96.9%)
Any type of sexual incident
Yes	67 (23.5%)	52 (30.8%) ^g	15 (13%) ^g	25 (19.4%)^h	42 (26.9%)^h
No	218 (76.5%)	117 (69.2%)	101 (87%)	104 (80.6%)	114 (73.1%)

Note. Different n due to missing answers. Significant differences between gender in bold; no significant differences between type of institution.

χ² = 4.03, p = .045, Cramer’s V = 0.11. ^bχ² = 1.59, p = .207. ^cχ² = 13.66, p = .000, Cramer’s V = 0.21. ^dχ² = 1.18, p = .277. ^eχ² = 7.29, p = .007, Cramer’s V = 0.16. ^fχ² = 1.93, p = .165. ^gχ² = 12.17, p = .000, Cramer’s V = 0.21. ^hχ² = 2.23, p = .135.

Is There a Relationship Between Different Types of Offending or Sexual Perpetration and Victimization?

There was a significant overlap in the individual forms of sexually aggressive behavior. Of the adolescents reporting engaging in sexual harassment (n = 36), only 14 adolescents (38.9%) reported engaging exclusively in sexually harassing behavior. Of 14 adolescents who committed sexual assaults with penetration, nine (64.3%) also reported having committed sexual assaults without penetration, and among 13 adolescents who committed sexual assaults with penetration, eight (61.5%) reported having committed sexual harassment (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Relationship Between Different Types of Offending, n and % (Differences in n due to Missing Responses).

	Isolated behavior	Associated with sexual harassment	Associated with assaults without penetration	Associated with assaults with penetration
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Sexual harassment
Yes	14 (38.9%)		19 (54.3%)	8 (23.5%)
No	22 (61.1%)		16 (55.7%)	26 (76.5%)
Assaults without penetration
Yes	23 (50.0%)	19 (43.2%)		9 (20.5%)
No	23(50.0%)	25 (56.8%)		35 (79.5%)
Assaults with penetration
Yes	0 (0.0%)	8(61.5%)	9(64.3%)
No	14 (100%)	5(38.5%)	5(35.7%)

There was a strong association between victimization and offending as well. Number of total incidents of victimization and offending in the sample show a small correlation (r = .20, p < .001). Of those who exhibited sexually abusive behavior, 76% (n = 47) reported having been victims of sexual assault themselves in their lifetime, while 24% (n = 15) reported no such experience (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Frequency of Perpetrators Without and With Sexual Victimization, n and %.

	No victimization	Victimization
	n (%)	n (%)
Sexual harassment	16 (48.5%)	17 (51.5%)
Assaults without penetration	17 (38.6%)	27 (61.4%)
Assaults with penetration	7 (58.3%)	5 (41.7%)
Any type of sexual incident	15 (24.2%)	47 (75.8%)

What Is the Mean Age of Initial Offending and How Many Adolescents Show Sexually Problematic Behavior for the First Time After Admission to Their Current Institution?

The average age for first-time sexually abusive behavior was 16.4 years (SD = 1.7, range: 10-18) for sexual harassment, 14.7 years (SD = 2.2, range: 8-18) for assaults without penetration, and 14.0 years (SD = 1.7, range: 10-16) for assault with penetration.

Of the study participants, 27 (8.4% of the total sample or 40.8% of the adolescents reporting sexual aggressive behavior) reported having exhibited sexually aggressive behavior for the first time in their current institution (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Age of First Offending and Frequency of First-Time Sexually Abusive Behavior in Current Institution.

	Age of first offending		First-time sexually abusive behavior in current institution
	n	Mean age(SD; range)	n	Share of sample	Share of offenders
Sexual harassment	30	14.60 years(1.69; 10-18)	11	3.4%	30.6%
Assaults without penetration	43	14.65 years(2.20; 8-18)	23	7.1%	44.2%
Assaults with penetration	9	14.00 years(1.66; 10-16)	3	0.9%	18.8%
Any type of sexual incident	61	14.48 years(2.10; 8-18)	27	8.4%	40.8%

Are There Differences Between Types of Offending (Sexual Harassment, Assaults With/Without Penetration) With Regard to the Perpetrator—Victim Relationships, Preferred Age, or Gender?

The majority of offenders denied a preference for a special victim age; however, in assaults with and without penetration, most victims were about the same age as the offender (assaults without penetration 63%, assaults with penetration 53%). In the case of sexual harassment, victims of the same age represented the biggest group (38%). Compared with assaults with and without penetration, there was no clear gender preference of victims in sexual harassment. On a descriptive level, there were some differences between the three types of offending regarding the relationship between offender and perpetrator. Victims of assaults with penetration were mostly acquainted children and adolescents (28%) or partners (24%), while victims of assaults without penetration and victims of sexual harassment besides acquainted children and adolescents (40% and 42%, respectively) were often children and adolescents living with the offender (23% and 19%, respectively; see Table 6).

Table 6.

Gender of Victim, Age Preference, Age Difference, and Relationship Between Offender and Victim (Offenders’ Perspective).

	Sexual harassment	Assaults without penetration	Assaults with penetration
	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)
Gender of victims
Male	36% (13)	29% (13)	14% (2)
Female	39% (14)	60% (27)	71% (10)
Both (several victims)	25% (9)	11% (5)	14% (2)
Age preference of victims
Yes	31% (9)	29% (10)	46% (5)
No	69% (20)	71% (24)	54% (6)
Age difference to victim^a
At least 5 years younger	2% (2)	3% (2)	7% (1)
2-4 years younger	5% (6)	19% (11)	27% (4)
About same age	38% (47)	63% (37)	53% (8)
2-4 years older	26% (32)	12% (7)	0% (0)
At least 5 years older	29% (36)	3% (2)	13% (2)
Relationship to victim^a
Partner	6% (3)	14% (9)	24% (6)
Family member living with offender (child/adolescent)	2% (1)	6% (4)	8% (2)
Family member living elsewhere (child/adolescent)	6% (3)	3% (2)	4% (1)
Other child/adolescent living with offender	19% (10)	23% (15)	16% (4)
Child/adolescent acquainted with offender	42% (22)	40% (26)	28% (7)
Child/adolescent unacquainted with offender	15% (8)	5% (3)	8% (2)
Adult family member	2% (1)	3% (2)	4% (1)
Adult acquaintance	4% (2)	5% (3)	4% (1)
Adult stranger	6% (3)	1% (1)	4% (1)

Note. Valid percentages and number n (differences in n due to missing or multiple responses).

Multiple responses possible.

Are There Differences Between Types of Offending (Sexual Harassment, Assaults With/Without Penetration) With Regard to Their Typical Modi Operandi Such as Use of Threats, Planning, or Individual/Group Offending?

The analysis of the circumstances showed that for all types of offending, most offenders were individual offenders who had more than one victim, and most acted spontaneously (see Table 7 for details). Close to 30% of sexual harassment and sexual assault without penetration cases involved some form of threat, and 54% in the case of sexual assault with penetration. Gifts and promises were also used frequently by offenders in assaults without penetration (25%) and sexual harassment (22%) even though they were nonconsensual acts (see Table 7). In assaults with penetration and assaults without penetration, most offenders (67 %) acted exclusively alone (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Circumstances of Offenses (Offenders’ Perspective).

	Sexual harassment	Assault without penetration	Assault with penetration
	% (n)	% (n)	% (n)
Behavior of offender^a
Promises/Gifts	25% (9)	22% (10)	15% (2)
Threats	28% (10)	29% (13)	54% (7)
Violence without weapon	17% (6)	11% (5)	23% (3)
Violence with weapon	8% (3)	7% (3)	15% (2)
Individual/Group offense
Individual offender	46% (16)	67% (31)	67% (8)
Group offenders	37% (13)	24% (11)	17% (2)
Individual and group offenders	17% (6)	9% (4)	17% (2)
Number of victims
1 victim	32% (10)	46% (19)	40% (4)
2 victims	29% (9)	22% (9)	20% (2)
3 victims	16% (5)	12% (5)	20% (2)
More than 3 victims	23% (7)	20% (8)	20% (2)
Prearrangement/Planning
Never	60% (21)	65% (30)	57% (8)
At least one offense	40% (14)	35% (16)	43% (6)

Note. Valid percentages and number n (differences in n due to missing or multiple responses).

Multiple responses possible.

What Were the Consequences of the Sexually Problematic Behavior?

Of the 67 adolescents who committed sexual assaults, 57 indicated whether the victim pressed charges. This was the case for only eight (12%) of the offenders; in three cases, charges were pressed with a delay of several months after the assault. A total of 42 of the 67 offenders indicated whether they had contact with youth welfare services or a therapist due to their sexually abusive behavior. Of those, only 9 (13%) reported that a conversation with professionals had taken place.

Discussion

Dealing with sexually aggressive behavior by children and adolescents in youth welfare institutions and boarding schools poses a challenge for caregivers (Farmer & Pollock, 2003). Capturing the frequency of sexually aggressive behavior by adolescents in institutional settings is essential for developing protective measures and concepts. Nevertheless, up until now there have been no studies regarding the frequency of sexually aggressive behavior by children and adolescents in institutional care, nor regarding the circumstances of the offenses. To our knowledge, this is the first study that seeks to address this issue by asking young people in institutional care in Germany about their own sexually aggressive behavior.

Prevalence, Interaction, and Incidence of Types of Offending

Our results showed that the lifetime prevalence of sexually aggressive behavior for adolescents in institutional settings was substantial. Overall, about 13% of the girls and 31% of the boys reported having engaged in sexually abusive behavior in one form or other in and outside an institutional setting in their lives so far, including sexual harassment. If only severe assaults with attempted or completed penetration were considered, then the frequency ranges from 7% for boys to about 1% for girls and assaults without penetration range from 22% for boys and 6% for girls. Comparisons with general population or school-based surveys are difficult due to differences in the specificity of definitions and time frames of studies. However, compared with the school-based study by Wagman Borowsky and colleagues (1997), where 4.8% of the male students and 1.3% of the female students reported a history of forcing someone into a sexual act, the rate of sexual aggressive behavior in our sample of institutionalized adolescents was higher. This is not surprising insofar as a lack of specialized institutions for the treatment of sexually aggressive children and adolescents in Germany results in having these adolescents live in general residential care facilities (König, 2011), and antisocial behavior in boys is one of the main reasons for referring them to residential care facilities (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2016). However, we did not find a significant difference in the lifetime prevalence of sexual aggressive behavior when looking at the two types of institutions referenced in this study. Consequently, this means that both youth welfare residential institutions and boarding schools need to develop policies, measures, and interventions that protect against peer-on-peer sexual violence.

In accordance with the meta-analysis of Seto and Lalumière (2010), we also found a high rate of sexual victimization in adolescents with a history of sexual aggressive behavior, especially in boys. Moreover, we found a high overlap between different types of sexually problematic behavior. Given the significant overlap between all types of behavior, consideration needs to be given to what extent sexual harassment is a precursor of, or at least an indicator for, an increased risk of sexually abusive behavior, which, in turn, would need to be considered in programs intended to prevent sexual violence.

The fact that about 40% of the adolescent offenders reported that they exhibited sexually aggressive behavior for the first time following their admission to their current institution underlines the need to implement prevention policies in institutional care to prevent adolescent residents engaging in sexual aggressive behavior (Allroggen et al., 2016).

Circumstances of Offending and Differences Between Offending Types

Besides the fact that we found a high overlap between different types of offending, there were some differences between sexual harassment and assaults without and with penetration regarding the relationship and the age difference between victim and offender, and the gender of victims.

The two biggest groups of victims of sexual assaults with penetration were youths acquainted with the offender and partners, and most victims of sexual assault with penetration were females about the same age as the offender. The fact that acquainted children and adolescents were preferred victims may also be a result of living in an institution together with other juveniles. However, in population-based studies, adolescents and partners known to their victims were named mostly as perpetrators of sexual violence (Finkelhor, Ormrod, & Chaffin, 2009; UBS Optimus Foundation, 2012). In a survey on the frequency of experiences of sexual violence in youth welfare institutions, victims also reported housemates as the most frequent offenders (Euser et al., 2013). Children and adolescents acquainted or living together with the offender represented in our study the biggest groups of victims, both in assaults without penetration and in sexual harassment. However, only in sexual harassment did unacquainted youths represent a meaningful proportion of victims. In addition, the victims of sexual harassment showed the highest diversity concerning victim gender and perpetrator–victim age differences. These differences between sexual harassment and sexual assaults with and without penetration may be a consequence of the fact that sexual harassment can be seen as an expression of general bullying behavior (McMaster, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2002; Pepler et al., 2006), while sexual assaults with and without penetration have a stronger association with a close relationship between victim and perpetrator. Maybe these assaults occur more frequently as dating violence or between sexual partners.

When looking at the coercive strategies, we found that in assaults with penetration the majority of offenses were associated with threats (54%), and some offenders used violence with (15%) or without (25%) weapons. This is comparable to forensic samples of adolescent sexual offenders with up to 50% of the participants reporting use threats or violence (Aebi, Vogt, Plattner, Steinhausen, & Bessler, 2012). However, while studies with forensic samples often described planning of offenses and an extensive grooming strategy to gain the victim’s trust (Kaufman, Hilliker, & Daleiden, 2006; Leclerc, Beauregard, & Proulx, 2008), in our sample most perpetrators described offending as a spontaneous act. This may be a consequence of the fact that at least some victims and offenders live together in an institution and know each other, so that a grooming process to gain trust is not necessary. In this context, however, it is remarkable that some offenders described using promises and gifts prior to the sexual offense. Maybe this is an expression of a failed attempt by the offender to convince the possible victim to engage in consensual sexual acts, which then leads to an offense against the victim’s will.

The fact that sexual harassment is described as spontaneous may also be an indicator of its association with a general bullying or cyberbullying behavior. In general, circumstances of sexual harassment compared with assaults with and without penetration described by the offenders in our study, like a higher rate of male victims and higher rate of acting not alone, confirm its relationship with a general bullying behavior. Assaults with and without penetration in our study, however, showed circumstances similar to surveys of known and officially sentenced juvenile sexual offenders (Aebi et al., 2012; Finkelhor et al., 2009) with regard to the percentage of offenses committed within a group or the percentage of male victims. Taken these results together, sexual offending and sexual harassment by adolescents in institutional care seems not to differ qualitatively from sexual offending and sexual harassment by noninstitutionalized adolescents.

Consequences of Sexual Offending

Considering the consequences of sexually aggressive behavior (contact with police, youth welfare services or a therapist) from the perspective of juveniles, it is important to note that only 12% of juveniles in our study indicated that a police report was filed after the offense occurred. While it can certainly be hypothesized that, at least theoretically, the remainder of the offenses did not rise to the level of an official charge or were committed by children below the age of criminal responsibility (in Germany, these includes children below the age of 14 years), the fact remains that only 13% of the juvenile offenders where explicitly confronted with their sexually problematic behavior. This, in turn, implies that only a minority of offending adolescents received targeted support or therapy offers based on their offenses.

Conclusions and Limitations

To date, there have been no studies that have explored the frequency and circumstances of sexually problematic behaviors by assessing institutionalized adolescents’ perception of their own sexually aggressive acts.

Due to the many institutional and legal hurdles that complicate access to juveniles in institutional settings, we were only able to include adolescents whose institutions agreed to participate in the study. This meant that our sample was very selective, and in the final analysis only 4% of the contacted boarding schools and 1% of the residential youth welfare institutions were included. Within these institutions, however, more than 25% of the residents who fulfilled the study criteria participated in the survey. This makes our study the largest sample of directly surveyed adolescents in institutions in Germany and comparable to other studies that also directly surveyed adolescents in institutions (Euser et al., 2013; Greger et al., 2015). A second important point is the explorative nature of the study and how it captured details of the offenses. This prevented the influence of a priori theories or preset definitions. At the same time, this procedure limits obvious interpretations of the results due to optional multiple responses. Moreover, the possibility must be considered that against all assurances of confidentiality, juveniles did not answer questions about their own sexually abusive behavior honestly due to social desirability or fear of consequences. Accordingly, this may mean an underestimation of the number of sexually offending adolescents in institutions.

Nevertheless, the study succeeded in surveying adolescents in institutions directly and differentiated their sexually aggressive behaviors. The facts that around 25% of adolescents in residential care or boarding schools engage in sexual aggressive behavior in one form or another points to the importance of providing intervention and treatment services within juvenile institution settings, for juveniles with and without prior sexual aggressive and sexually problematic behavior. First, treatment should be offered within the institutional context for juveniles with sexual aggressive and sexually problematic behavior. Second, about 40% of all offenders showed sexually problematic behavior for the first time after admission to their current institution, suggesting that institutional factors influence or provide opportunities for sexually aggressive behaviors. Therefore, possible negative peer influences (DeGue et al., 2013) should be considered as well as factors like access to peers at an elevated risk for sexual victimization (e.g., adolescents who have experienced sexual abuse already). Our results further suggest that due to the high overlap of sexual offending at various levels of severity, apparently minor assaults like sexual harassment should not be ignored in institutions. Furthermore, adolescents who are so far not sexually aggressive but are at an higher risk for developing this behavior like a history of sexual abuse (Seto & Lalumière, 2010) or a positive attitude toward sexual violence (DeGue et al., 2013) should be identified and offered treatment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grant FKZ 01SR1201A).

References

Aebi

Vogt

Plattner

Steinhausen

H.-C.

Bessler

(2012). Offender types and criminality dimensions in male juveniles convicted of sexual offenses. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24, 265-288. doi:10.1177/1079063211420449

Allroggen

Domann

Strahl

Schloz

Fegert

J. M.

Kampert

(2016). How much insecurity does security need? The discrepancy in assessing the sense of security of children, adolescents and caregivers in institutions. Child & Youth Services, 37, 381-397. doi:10.1080/0145935X.2016.1210447

Baier

Pfeiffer

Simonson

Rabold

(2009). Jugendliche in Deutschland als Opfer und Täter von Gewalt [Adolescents in Germany as violence victims and offenders]. Hannover, Germany: Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen.

Baker

A. J. L.

Schneiderman

Parker

(2002). A survey of problematic sexualized behaviors of children in the New York City child welfare system: Estimates of problem, impact on services, and need for training. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 10(4), 67-80. doi:10.1300/J070v10n04_05

Beaudry-Cyr

Jennings

W. G.

Zgoba

K. M.

Tewksbury

(2017). Examining the continuity of juvenile sex offending into adulthood and subsequent patterns of sex and general recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(3), 251-268. doi:10.1177/0306624X15594442

DeGue

Massetti

G. M.

Holt

M. K.

Teten Tharp

Valle

Matjasko

J. L.

Lippy

(2013). Identifying links between sexual violence and youth violence perpetration: New opportunities for sexual violence prevention. Psychology of Violence, 3, 140-156.

Deutsches Jugendinstitut. (Eds.). (2011). Sexuelle Gewalt gegen Mädchen und Jungen in Institutionen [Sexual violence against boys and girls in institutsions]. München, Germany: Deutsches Jugendinstitut.

Dwyer

R. G.

Letourneau

E. J.

(2011). Juveniles who sexually offend: Recommending a treatment program and level of care. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20, 413-429. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2011.03.007

Euser

Alink

L. R. A.

Tharner

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

(2013). The prevalence of child sexual abuse in out-of-home care: A comparison between abuse in residential and in foster care. Child Maltreatment, 18, 221-231. doi:10.1177/1077559513489848

10.

Farmer

Pollock

(2003). Managing sexually abused and/or abusing children in substitute care. Child & Family Social Work, 8, 101-112. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2206.2003.00271.x

11.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

12.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

Chaffin

(2009). Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV171.pdf

13.

Greger

H. K.

Myhre

A. K.

Lydersen

Jozefiak

(2015). Previous maltreatment and present mental health in a high-risk adolescent population. Child Abuse & Neglect, 45, 122-134. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.003

14.

Kaufman

K. L.

Hilliker

D. R.

Daleiden

E. L.

(2006). Subgroup differences in the modus operandi of adolescent sexual offenders. Child Maltreatment, 1, 17-24. doi:10.1177/1077559596001001003

15.

König

(2011). Sexuelle Übergriffe durch Kinder und Jugendliche [Sexual assaults by children and adolescents]. Duisburg, Germany: Universität Duisburg-Essen.

16.

Leclerc

Beauregard

Proulx

(2008). Modus operandi and situational aspects in adolescents sexual offenses against children. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 46-61. doi:10.1177/0306624X07300271

17.

McMaster

L. E.

Connolly

Pepler

Craig

W. M.

(2002). Peer to peer sexual harassment in early adolescence: A developmental perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 91-105.

18.

Pepler

D. J.

Craig

W. M.

Connolly

J. A.

Yuile

McMaster

Jiang

D. A.

(2006). Developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 376-384. doi:10.1002/ab.20136

19.

Schmid

Goldbeck

Nuetzel

Fegert

J. M.

(2008). Prevalence of mental disorders among adolescents in German youth welfare institutions. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2, Article 2. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-2-2

20.

Schuhrke

Arnold

(2009). Kinder und Jugendliche mit problematischem sexuellen Verhalten in (teil-)stationären Hilfen zur Erziehung [Children and adolescents with problematic behaviour in (partly) residential education institutions]. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 58, 186-214.

21.

Seto

Lalumière

M. L.

(2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 526-575. doi:10.1037/a0019700

22.

Snyder

H. N.

(2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and offender characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

23.

Spröber

Schneider

Rassenhofer

Seitz

Liebhardt

König

Fegert

J. M.

(2014). Child sexual abuse in religiously affiliated and secular institutions: A retrospective descriptive analysis of data provided by victims in a government-sponsored reappraisal program in Germany. BMC Public Health, 14, Article 282. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-282

24.

Stadler

Bieneck

Pfeiffer

(2012). Repräsentativbefragung Sexueller Missbrauch 2011 [Representative question sexual abuse 2011]. Hannover, Germany: Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen.

25.

Statistisches Bundesamt. (2016). Statistiken der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe 2014 [Statistics of child and adolescense care 2014]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt.

26.

UBS Optimus Foundation. (Eds.). (2012). Sexual assault on children and adolescents in Switzerland. Forms, extent and circumstances. Zürich, Switzerland: Author.

27.

Wagman Borowsky

Hogan

Ireland

. (1997). Adolescent sexual aggression: Risk and protective factors. Pediatrics, 100(6), e1. doi:10.1542/peds.100.6.e1

28.

Young

A. M.

King

Abbey

Boyd

(2009). Adolescent peer-on-peer sexual aggression characteristics of aggressors of alcohol and non-alcohol-related assault. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 700-703. doi:10.15288/jsad.2009.70.700