A meta-analysis of trends in general, sexual, and violent recidivism among youth with histories of sex offending
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that sexual recidivism rates have been declining, which contrasts with observations regarding general recidivism rates as well as perceptions of sexual reoffending risk. If sexual recidivism rates are in decline, it raises fundamental policy questions about the youth justice system's tendency to operate on the assumption that juvenile sexual offending is a risk marker for sexual reoffending in adulthood. A systematic review and a quantitative meta-analysis were conducted to determine the general, violent, and sexual recidivism rates of adolescent perpetrators of sexual offenses with data stemming from studies published worldwide between 1940 and 2019. A total of 158 empirical studies including 30,396 adolescent perpetrators of sexual offenses were retrieved to examine estimates of general, violent, and sexual recidivism. The study findings highlight that the risk of general recidivism (weighted pooled mean = .44) is substantially higher than violent (weighted pooled mean = .18) and sexual recidivism (weighted pooled mean = .08). The study did not observe convincing evidence that sexual recidivism rates for adolescent perpetrators are declining, but rather that these rates have been consistently low over the years. There was strong evidence that multiple study characteristics moderate the recidivism rates observed. Given the low weighted pooled sexual recidivism rate reported in the study, the use of adult-like strategies to increase public safety and prevent sexual recidivism seems misguided, not only because sexual recidivism is unlikely, but also because such strategies are not developed to address general criminogenic needs that may explain general recidivism rates observed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".