544331 research-article2014
SAXXXX10.1177/1079063214544331Sexual AbuseLeclerc and Felson
Article
Routine Activities Preceding Adolescent Sexual Abuse of Younger Children
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2016, Vol. 28(2) 116–131 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1079063214544331 sax.sagepub.com
Benoit Leclerc1 and Marcus Felson2
Abstract Adolescent abuse of younger children has long been recognized, but empirical research on the circumstances of this phenomenon is rare. This article examines how adolescent offenders find and gain access to victims, work out time alone with them, and set up or exploit settings for sexual contact. Prior researchers learned that adult sex offenders use certain routine activities to perform these tasks. The current research inquires whether adolescent offenders are similar. We administered Kaufman’s Modus Operandi Questionnaire to a sample of 116 Canadian adolescent males undergoing treatment for a sexual offense against a child. Adolescent offenders follow routines similar to adults but are better able to use games and activities as a prelude to sexual abuse. We discuss how routine legal activities set the stage for activities and should be considered when devising situational prevention strategies. Keywords sex offenses, adolescent sexual abusers, routine activity, guardian, supervision, situational prevention
Introduction Adolescent male child sexual offenders have received increased recent attention among criminologists (e.g., Carpentier, Leclerc, & Proulx, 2011; Leclerc, Beauregard, & Proulx, 2008). Indeed, adolescents are responsible for committing a substantial proportion of sexual offenses, including those against younger children. Reviewing evidence from several nations, Davis and Leitenberg (1987) concluded that adolescents 1Griffith 2Texas
University, Queensland, Australia State University, Austin, TX, USA
Corresponding Author: Benoit Leclerc, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt Campus, Queensland 4122, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
117
Leclerc and Felson
are responsible for at least one in five sexual offenses. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics on the juvenile share of arrests for forcible rape and sex offenses give similar proportions for the United States (e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). Reporting error is always an issue, but we can at least conclude that adolescent abuse of younger children is a real problem meriting further intensive analysis of what data are available. We believe this may be the first study on child sexual offenses committed by adolescents from a routine activity approach. Before carrying out the offense, a sexual offender needs to find and gain access to the victim, work out time alone and unsupervised, and find settings suitable for sexual contact without discovery (i.e., abusive sexual behavior). Prior researchers have already shown that adult sex offenders use the routine activities of victims and guardians to arrange circumstances for abuse. The current article examines whether that process differs for adolescent sex offenders. We specifically seek to learn how adolescent offenders gain access to younger children and arrange (or exploit) circumstances to facilitate abuse. Here, we do not test routine activity theory as a whole, but rather apply that theory to a specific descriptive task—how adolescent offenders set the stage for abusing children. We pay close attention to ordinary activities that may enable abuse to occur. We also wish to organize information about relevant routines to assist future analysis of sexual abuse events and comprehend offender strategies, but we also hope to understand (within the same framework) how unplanned abuses may unfold. Some earlier researchers have considered the strategies adolescent child sexual offenders adopt to abuse their victims. Kaufman, Hilliker, and Daleiden (1996) found that adolescent sex offenders are similar to adult offenders in favoring enticements over threats. Offenders may offer gifts, love, or attention to children to enable sexual access. Leclerc and Tremblay (2007) also found that many offenders sought to desensitize their victims to the sexual component of their behavior, which increases the likelihood of victim participation in sexual activities. Interestingly, Kaufman, Holmberg, et al. (1998) learned that, compared with adult offenders, adolescents adopted a greater variety of strategies for gaining victim compliance and limiting victim disclosure following abuse. Despite the tendency of both groups to prefer enticements over punishments, these researchers found adolescents are to some extent more likely than adult offenders to use threats, force, or even weapons to gain compliance from child victims. This article seeks to supplement prior research with more information about the situational context immediately preceding adolescents’ sexual abuse of children. We also wonder whether offender strategies shift in different situations, as risks and opportunities vary. Leclerc et al. (2008) learned that adolescents offending within their own homes were able to use a longer period of pre-abuse contact with victims, often trying to desensitize the child to sexual contact prior to the initiation of sexual abuse. However, other offenders may also take appreciable time to cultivate relationships prior to initiating sexual contact. The general point is that offenders must evade a supervisory process to carry out their offenses and that evasion has more than one dimension. The routine activity approach (Cohen & Felson, 1979) is a middle-range theory especially attuned to that process and has already been applied by some of the
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
118
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
adult sex offender studies on crime events (e.g., Deslauriers-Varin & Beauregard, 2010; Leclerc, Smallbone, & Wortley, 2013). Routine activity thinking is broad enough to include varying degrees of planning and premeditation, but its proper application requires more specification of events leading up to an illicit act.
Routine Activity, the Crime Triangle, and Evading Supervision To study child sexual abuse, we cannot simply rely on past routine activity research that focuses on the modus operandi for robbery, burglary, or assaults that can happen very quickly with little preparation. In contrast, a sex offense against a child depends on particular circumstances that might be somewhat harder to find or cultivate. Even though not originally developed with child sexual abuse in mind, routine activity thinking suggests to ask how legal routines set the stage for sexual abuse and how offenders fit such routine activities into their strategy. The current study gathers information about how adolescent child sex offenders manage to gain access to child victims, arrange to be alone with them, and avoid interference from others. At the core of the routine activity approach is the supervisory process. In its original formulation, the term “guardian” referred to ordinary citizens (including parents and relatives) whose presence or proximity served to prevent a crime, often inadvertently as people go about their daily lives. That process has since been elaborated by Clarke and Eck (2005), drawing a “crime triangle”—really one triangle embedded within another (Figure 1). The inner three elements include the offender, the victim, and the place or setting where the crime is committed. An offender must find a victim and a place to carry out the crime. However, that effort is often thwarted by the supervisory process depicted in the outer triangle—especially relevant to sexual offenses against children. The supervisory process is carried out by individuals who may assume three different types of roles (Felson, 1995). A “handler” is somebody whose personal ties and proximity serve to prevent someone from committing an offense (Felson, 1986). In this formulation, the word “guardian” is restricted to those whose proximity serves to protect the victim from potential offenders. A “place manager” might be a property owner, school employee, or facility manager whose presence discourages crime in any given setting. Thus, many people and many routines can interfere with the commission of a crime (for further discussion, see Hollis, Felson, & Welsh, 2013; Reynald, 2009). Moreover, routine activity thinking pays very close attention to absences contributing to a crime situation. In terms of the current article, to increase the likelihood of completing the offense without getting apprehended (a) the potential adolescent child sex offender would need to escape the supervision of parents and others; (b) then find a likely child victim in unsupervised circumstances; and (c) then set up or exploit a location unmonitored for abusing that victim. Within family and household settings, the same parent might play all three roles—simultaneously supervising the likely offender, the suitable victim, and the place where the offense would otherwise occur. However, we must allow
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
119
Leclerc and Felson
a. Adolescent must have parents not watching closely HANDLER a
b. Child must not have parents watching closely c. Offense setting must be unmonitored
OFFENDER
VICTIM b
PLACE c
GUARDIAN
MANAGER
Figure 1. Conditions for adolescent sexual offenses against a child to occur.
that different people can supervise adolescents, younger children, and potential settings for abuse, and any of these might thwart the initiation of such offenses. We must also consider that supervision goes beyond parental love or diligence, and must take into account work schedules, and other duties, and distractions in daily life. Central to routine activity theory is the concept of “stage setting,” namely, that certain routine activities set the stage for crime to occur in the same or nearby times and places. Thus, a parent’s obligations to their job or their own schooling, or parental supervision of other children, can produce absences and distractions that generate risks for sexual abuse. Visits of cousins or other family members, or babysitting circumstances also complicate the risk patterns for sexual abuse. In some cases, the offender helps set the stage or prepare conditions to allow the offense. On the contrary, many adolescent offenders might commit an offense without careful preparation at all but find themselves in a particular situation making the offense relatively easy to carry out. To gain greater insights on these possibilities, we need to gather and organize more information, which is consistent with this study.
Past Research on Adult Sexual Offenders Against Children The existing literature on adult sexual offending has already applied these routine activity ideas. For instance, Deslauriers-Varin and Beauregard (2010) studied serial adult sex offenders against strangers, considering victim activities prior to the assault.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
120
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
Leclerc et al. (2013) focused on the presence of potential guardians during child sexual abuse events and its effect on the severity of abuse. A considerable number of studies also have been completed with respect to strategies adopted by adult sexual offenders specifically. Several researchers have already examined how adult sex offenders gain trust of children or parents, or find settings for illicit sexual contact (e.g., Berliner & Conte, 1990; Budin & Johnson, 1989; Elliott, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995; Lang & Frenzel, 1988; Leclerc, Proulx, & McKibben, 2005; Leclerc, Wortley, & Smallbone, 2011; Proulx, Ouimet, & Lachaîne, 1995). For a sample of adults convicted for child sex offenses, Wortley and Smallbone (2006) described in some detail how these offenders set the stage for abuse or exploit pre-criminal circumstances. Our research borrows heavily from their work, using the same questionnaire (i.e., Modus Operandi Questionnaire [MOQ]) to find where adolescent offenders find victims, gain access, locate settings for abuse, and arrange to be alone with the victim before abuse. Wortley and Smallbone (2006) found that adult offenders often used domestic settings for some part of the offending process, even when victims were unrelated. For instance, 40% of extrafamilial offenders found their victim at a friend’s home and another 21% through babysitting. Extrafamilial offenders frequently reported either spending time with the victim in the presence of parents or caregivers (46%), or establishing a relationship with the parent or caregiver (45%). In other words, they often sought to normalize their own presence and thus to disarm parental concern. Access to victims may occur in one location, while the abuse itself occurs in another. To commit the offense, Wortley and Smallbone (2006) found that 69% of adult offenders (intrafamilial and extrafamilial) used their own home, 27% went for a car ride, and 26% used isolated places such as a vacant lot. Only 1 offender in 10 used such public locations as parks or public toilets as the abuse site. Perhaps the most important finding from their research is that child abuse incidents are normally preceded by non-sexual activities that seem entirely normal—watching television, taking a car ride, or going for a swim. Yet, we need to know more details about child sexual offenses committed by adolescents. There is also a critical need to know about offenders activities with victims immediately prior to abuse.
The Current Study The current study is motivated by a dearth of empirical evidence on how an adolescent male child sexual offender sets up the situation or takes advantage of opportunities to commit the offense. Although clinical knowledge certainly exists on this topic, empirical research is lacking on how adolescent abuse of younger children. With respect to adult offenders, Wortley and Smallbone (2006) explained the critical importance of empirical knowledge to document the circumstances of sexual offending for prevention purposes. Most importantly, without a focus on non-criminal behaviors adopted by offenders, it is difficult to understand the situational context within which offender and victim interact in time and space, allowing criminal behaviors to emerge. In this study, through the lens of the routine activity approach, we describe how routine activities set the stage for sexual abuse incidents involving adolescent male
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
121
Leclerc and Felson
child sexual offenders. The routine activity is not tested but applied to the phenomenon of adolescent male child sexual offending. Routine activity emphasizes how the offender modus operandi interacts with the tangible world. In this study, it focuses on contextual factors and observable behaviors during the period leading to abuse. We examine this in terms of how the opportunity to offend is set up or exploited in the first place by finding and having access to a victim, using a location for sexual contact, adopting strategies, or using situations to be alone with the victim and engaging the victim in routine play activities immediately before the abuse.
Method Seldom does any sample of child sexual offenses committed by adolescents and the circumstances under which these offenses occur appear in the empirical literature. This gap of empirical evidence reflects the fact that official case files on adolescent sex offenders are usually sealed by courts, and official data are unlikely to cover the key topics we consider. Even though this sample is too small for hypothesis testing, a small sample is justifiable for helping to establish a factual baseline for future research with more cases.
Participants and Procedure The sample consisted of 116 adolescent males (between 13 and 17 years old) who have committed at least one official sexual offense against a child (less than 12 years old) at least 3 years younger than themselves. The participants were recruited from eight treatment programs operating in the province of Quebec, Canada. The mean age of the participants was 14.61 (median = 15, range = 12-17 years, SD = 1.43). A total of 26.2% had committed a previous sexual offense (only one offender was arrested for it) and 43% had committed a previous non-sex offense (12.1% of offenders were arrested). In relation to the offense, 19.8% abused only boys, 57.8% only girls, and 22.4% both boys and girls. A total of 62.9% offenders abused an intrafamilial victim, 19% an extrafamilial victim, and 18.1% both type of victims. For intrafamilial cases specifically, 42.5% of offenders attempted or performed penetration on their victim and 63% of offenders involved their victim in sexual activity that lasted more than 5 min. A total of 36% of these offenders abused more than one victim. In relation to extrafamilial cases, 18.5% of offenders attempted or performed penetration on their victim and 36.4% of offenders involved their victim in sexual activity that lasted more than 5 min. A total of 31.8% of extrafamilial offenders abused more than one victim. Regarding offenders who abused in both intra-and extrafamilial contexts, 57.1% of offenders attempted or performed penetration on their victim and 66.7% of offenders involved their victim in sexual activity that lasted more than 5 min. All participants involved in this project were undergoing treatment for having committed a sexual offense and were told that their participation in this study was voluntary and that they were free to withdraw at any time for any reason without negative consequences. Participants were also assured complete anonymity and were asked to
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
122
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
sign a consent form advising them that the information gathered would be used for research purposes only. At the time that the questionnaire was administered, participants had already completed an average of 3 months of treatment, which enhances the validity of the results because offenders in treatment have been found to be less likely to engage in denial and exhibit cognitive distortions (Abel et al., 1987).
Measurement A French language version of the MOQ developed by Kaufman (1994) was used in this study (the procedure followed for the translation and cross-cultural validation of this questionnaire was the same used for the translation of an earlier version of the MOQ used in another study, see Leclerc et al., 2005). The MOQ is a self-report instrument that assesses the strategies adopted by sexual offenders against children and the circumstances in which the offense takes place. This questionnaire allows for data to be collected at different points during the crime-commission process. For the purpose of the current study, and from a list of items included in the questionnaire (available upon request), participants were asked to report (a) how and/or where they found victims, (b) how they got access to victims, (c) where sexual contact occurred, and (d) how they find or had time alone with victims before sexual contact. In addition, through the use of an open-ended question, participants were asked to report the three most common activities engaged with the victim immediately prior to the abuse. Findings obtained on these questions are presented below.
Results Adolescent offenders were first asked about how they found their victims (Table 1) and the strategies or situations used to gain access to victims (Table 2). These tables excluded responses from intrafamilial offenders because these offenders, by definition, find their victims within the family home. Note that the category of extrafamilial offenders was not limited to stranger offenders and that the remaining tables included responses from all offenders. All tables indicate the percentage of offenders who choose a particular response for at least one offense. An offender may also offer multiple responses because the use of several locations, strategies, or activities is possible in the context of a single offense. As shown in Table 1, adolescent extrafamilial offenders typically found their victims in their own neighborhood (50%). Finding a victim through babysitting, at a friend’s home or in a park was also common (38%, 29%, 26%, respectively). Table 2 shows that these offenders most often gained or had access to victims by spending time with them while the parent or caregiver was present (38%) or by offering to babysit them or their brothers or sisters (24%). The locations used by adolescent offenders for sexual contact are presented in Table 3. These two tables report the frequencies according to offender type. Table 3 shows that adolescent offenders most often committed the abuse in their own home in general, a finding that is quite consistent across intrafamilial, extrafamilial, and mixed-type
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
123
Leclerc and Felson
Table 1. Locations (or Situations) for Finding Children for Sexual Contact (Extrafamilial and Mixed-Type Only). Locations
%
In your neighborhood Babysitting At a friends’ home or apartment Parks A neighborhood far from where you live Dating someone who has children Isolated places (pond, vacant lot) Playgrounds School yards They babysat for other children at your home Swimming pools Own home Becoming friends with adults who have children Your apartment building Your place of employment Video arcades Other places Shopping malls Recreation or community centers Movie theaters Public bathroom Being paid to coach a sports team Volunteering as a community activity group leader
50.0 38.1 28.6 26.2 21.4 21.4 16.7 14.3 14.3 11.9 9.5 9.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 4.8 4.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Note. n = 42.
Table 2. Strategies or Situations for Getting Access to Children for Sexual Contact (Extrafamilial and Mixed-Type Only). Strategies
%
Spent time with the children you abused while parent or caregiver was present Offered to babysit the children you abused or brothers or sisters Helped parent or caregiver around the house Made friends with the parent or caregiver Offered to walk the children you abused to or from school Note. n = 42.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
38.1 23.8 14.3 14.3 9.5
124
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
Table 3. Locations for Taking Children for Sexual Contact Without Being Caught According to Offender Type (%). Locations Your own home Your home (no one else was home) An out of the way place in their home (someone else was home) An out of the way place in your home (someone else was home) A friends or relatives home Swimming pools Isolated places (pond, vacant lot) Parks Playgrounds Taking them other places Taking them for walks Other isolated places (bush, backyard) An isolated place at work Isolated place at their school Public bathroom Going for a car ride Restaurant A recreation or community center Mall
Intrafamilial
Extrafamilial
Mixed-type
79.5 53.4
45.5 13.6
71.4 33.3
34.2
18.2
38.1
34.2
22.7
19
23.3 11 9.6 5.5 6.8 4.1 5.5 2.7
31.8 13.6 9.1 13.6 18.2 18.2 9.1 9.1
47.6 4.8 9.5 14.3 0 4.8 4.8 0
2.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 0 1.4 0
0 9.1 4.5 0 9.1 4.5 4.5
4.8 0 4.8 4.8 0 0 0
Note. n = 116.
offenders (79.5%, 45.5%, and 71.4%, respectively). Intrafamilial offenders were quite prolific in offending in their home specifically when nobody else was home (53.4%). Compared with other offender types, mixed-type offenders were quite likely to offend in a friend’s or relative’s home (47.6%). Public locations were not often used across offender types. However, extrafamilial offenders seem somewhat more likely than other offenders to offend in playgrounds or to take victims other places for that purpose. Table 4 presents information about the strategies or situations adolescent offenders used to gain time alone with the victim for sexual contact. Although we are not aware of the exact percentages in this study, please note again that in some cases offenders may have simply exploited a particular situation alone with the victim, without necessarily pre-arranging that time alone with sexual contact in mind. Regardless of offender type, the most common way to get time alone with the victim was through babysitting and watching TV. The percentages reported by intrafamilial, extrafamilial, and mixedtype offenders were, respectively, 52.1%, 50%, and 33.3% for babysitting, and 39.7%,
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
125
Leclerc and Felson Table 4. Strategies or Situations for Being Alone With the Child for Sexual Contact According to Offender Type (%). Strategies Babysitting them Watching TV with them Sneaking into their bedroom at night Taking them places during the day without one of their parents Tucking them in bed Letting them sleep in my bed Going swimming with them Being at home—it was OK for my girlfriend for us to be alone there Taking a bath or shower with them Letting them stay up after their parent had gone to bed Being at the house of a friend or relative who said it was OK for us to be alone there Giving them a bath Going to a playground Being together for a holiday Taking them to parks Taking them on overnight trips without one of their parents Going to isolated places (pond, vacant lot) Taking them to the video arcade Taking them to the movies Taking them to camping Taking them to school Going for a car ride with them Going to a shopping mall
Intrafamilial
Extrafamilial
Mixed-type
52.1 39.7 30.1 17.8
50 36.4 18.2 27.3
33.3 42.9 28.6 28.6
16.4 17.8 16.4 15.1
18.2 13.6 13.6 4.5
33.3 19 23.8 9.5
13.7 12.3
0 9.1
9.5 0
8.2
4.5
19
12.3 6.8 9.6 4.1 6.8
4.5 13.6 9.1 13.6 4.5
4.8 9.5 4.8 14.3 4.8
4.1
4.5
4.8
2.7 4.1 2.7 1.4 2.7 0
13.6 9.1 4.5 4.5 0 4.5
0 0 0 4.8 0 0
Note. n = 116.
36.4%, and 42.9%, respectively, for watching TV. The percentages for other strategies or situations were quite consistent across offender types. Public locations were not often used to get time alone with the victim. Table 5 shows activities in which adolescent offenders engaged with their victim immediately before sexual contact. This table includes responses from all offenders. The frequencies were too low to justify breaking down these findings according to offender type. Note also that some activities (e.g., “talk with the victim”) were classified as indoors, even though exact location was not measured. By far, adolescent offenders most often engaged in conventional activities likely to take place indoors
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
126
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
Table 5. Activities Engaged With Children Immediately Before Sexual Contact for All Offenders. Implication of activity
Activity
%
Conventional activities (apparently indoors)
Play with them Play video games Watch TV or movies Talk to them Babysit them Play hide and seek Read books Play games outside Swim Go to park Taking them places Bicycle ride Play sports (e.g., soccer) Play physical contact games (e.g., tickle and cuddle, mum and dad, doctor games) Give candy or treat Let them go late to bed Sleep together Show porn or masturbate myself Delinquent activities Help them with something Nothing
30.2 23.2 20.0 7.8 5.2 2.6 0.8 9.5 9.5 6.0 4.3 3.4 2.6 7.8
Conventional activities (apparently outdoors)
Marginal tricky activities
Forbidden activities
Other
3.4 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.8 2.6
Note. n = 116.
such as playing with the victim, playing video games, and watching TV or movies with the victim (30%, 23%, and 20%, respectively). The most common conventional activity that took place outdoors was playing games outside with the victim (9.5%). The most frequent marginal activity with the victim was playing physical contact games such as “tickle and cuddle,” “mum and dad,” and “doctor” (7.8%). Regardless of its nature and location, playing with the victim was the most common activity engaged by adolescent offenders as a prelude to sex with a child.
Discussion of Findings This study described how adolescent child sex offenders set the stage for or exploit a situation for abuse through the lens of routine activity. That involves finding a victim, using specific locations for sexual contact, adopting strategies, or using particular situations to have access and be alone with the victim and engaging the victim in routine
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
127
Leclerc and Felson
activities immediately before the abuse. In the section that follows, we focus on comparing and contrasting adolescent offending with adult offending. We found a striking similarity between adolescent and adult child sexual offending in terms of how the offender sets up the situation or exploits the opportunity to offend. First, like their adult counterparts (see Wortley & Smallbone, 2006), adolescent offenders also tended to use domestic settings either to find or have access to child victims. Although adolescent and adult offenders vary in their percentages, both groups of offenders found victims through babysitting or at a friend’s home. The proportion of adolescent offenders who used babysitting as an opportunity to offend reaches almost 40%. Second, both adolescent and adult offenders reported spending time with the victim even while the parent or caregiver is present. Third, to commit the offense, both adolescent and adult offenders reported their own home as the most common location for sexual contact regardless of offender type (see Smallbone & Wortley, 2000). As with adult offenders, public locations were not frequently used to commit sexual offenses by adolescent offenders. Fourth, both adolescent and adult offenders often reported watching TV and babysitting as strategies or situations for having time alone with the victim for sexual contact. Despite these similarities between adolescent and adult offenders, important differences were also found. First, apart from finding victims through babysitting and at a friend’s home, adolescent offenders most often reported accessing victims in their own neighborhood and at a park. In contrast, adult offenders reported finding victims through an organized activity and their place of employment, which was rare in the case of adolescent offenders. Second, adolescent offenders (more often than adults) used their own home or another home for sexual contact—perhaps taking advantage of periods in which their parents were working or otherwise away. Apart from using their own home, adult offenders went for a car ride and used isolated places outside as common locations for sexual contact. Third, adolescent offenders had time alone with the victim mainly by babysitting them, watching TV with them, and sneaking into their bedroom at night. On the contrary, adults found additional methods such as tucking the victim into bed, allowing the victim to sleep with them, or going for a car ride. Reflecting on opportunity factors, adolescent offenders were unlikely to have workplaces or access to their own cars. These findings clearly reflect the context in which each group of offenders spends time in the course of routine daily activities. Compared with adult offenders, adolescent offenders are in a restricted position to set up or take advantage of opportunities to sexually offend against a child. It is interesting to combine what we learned with the findings reported by Kaufman, Holmberg, et al. (1998) in comparing adolescent with adult offenders. They showed that adolescents adopted a relatively wider variety of strategies for gaining victim compliance and limiting victim disclosure following abuse. However, we found that adolescents have a relatively narrower range of locations for sexual contact and obtaining time alone with the victim. In sum, adult offenders have more places to go and more options to be alone with the victim, while adolescent offenders have fewer places to go but a broader range of ways to engage potential victims while in those places, due largely to the circumstances in which they commit their offense: often within the context of games and play activities. The importance of play for adolescent offenders greatly exceeds its
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
128
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
importance for adult offenders. Playing with children fits perfectly with the everyday routine activity typical for adolescences and seems quite natural. It is most interesting that adolescent abuse of younger children can be intertwined with otherwise innocent play. It is not always clear that the offense was premeditated when play was initiated. The locations and situations in which sexual contact occurred between adolescent offenders and children point toward the somewhat spontaneous nature of adolescent offending. Indeed, adolescent offending so often occurs at home, even when somebody else is there—fitting within an otherwise natural flow of activity which sometimes drifts to an abuse situation. As such, adolescents have both a natural means of engaging potential victims and benefit from the perception that they are sharing in pro-social behaviors with these younger children. These findings together indicate the central role of parental supervision for preventing abuse. In fact, parents could very well act simultaneously as handlers, guardians, and place managers. It may be potentially harder for adolescent offenders to defeat supervision if adequately monitored by the parents, including closer supervision during play situations.
The Larger Picture: Getting Access to the Victim Looking beyond the current study, we note four channels through which adolescent child sex offenders might access their victims (Figure 2). The first channel is through the activities of everyday life where a potential adolescent offender and a potential victim converge and spend time together (a), that is, when the offender spends time babysitting the victim. The second channel is through personal ties (b), which includes a half brother or cousin who has normalized access to the victim’s home. Third, a potential offender may gain access to a potential victim through an organizational role (c), such as an employee in the apartment building in which a potential victim lives. Last, some offenders access victims through the Internet (d). The current study contains no such cases but that channel may become more relevant in the future. Each of these four categories requires access in one form or another. For these child sexual offenses to occur, adolescent offenders must have or obtain access in time and space to potential child victims in conditions where handlers, guardians, and place managers are absent or distracted. Consider the range of situations in which adolescent offenders commit their offenses in the absence of supervision by potential guardians (handlers, guardians, or place managers). Unlike intrafamilial offenders, extrafamilial offenders must find their victims first. The less risky situation for these offenders is to locate their victims in an isolated place, which also provides a site for abuse itself to occur. However, finding a child victim in an isolated place may prove difficult. Locating a victim in a more public or visible place requires moving that victim toward a location suitable for abuse—a journey that might attract unwanted attention. Thus, we can see why routine access to the home and family provide such suitable abuse opportunities—avoiding any need to forage for a victim or to transport that victim elsewhere. However, within a home setting, an offender may still need to move the victim to a remote part of a home or to wait until others are absent or preoccupied to carry out an illicit sexual act with a child.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
129
Leclerc and Felson
Figure 2. Sex offender access to child victims.
Conclusion Although this study is based on a small sample, it helps initiate work in an underresearched area. Self-reports by adolescent sex offenders are subject to errors in recollection and potential distortions. However, offenders who took part in this study were in treatment for 3 months before participation, which may to some extent provide more reliable data. Still, other treated offenders might paint a different picture. The survey also gathered very limited information about proximity of others in abuse situations. Despite these limitations, some new and important empirical findings emerged. This study suggests that adolescent offending often occurs at home, even when somebody else is present and that sexual exploitation of children by adolescents can emerge within the natural flow of everyday activities. We also found that play can be a prelude to abuse for adolescent offending. We suggest that adolescents might drift into abuse without prior planning or premeditation. We interpret the pre-abuse situation as resulting from routine and otherwise legitimate activities, highlighting the importance of adult supervision—especially for adolescent males interacting with and playing with younger children. We also note that incipient abuse is easily camouflaged, that is, when an adolescent offender rubs a child without removing clothing. The offender can quickly cease the illicit motion and pretend that nothing happened, relying on the victim’s silence to avoid detection. We cannot deny that adult proximity discourages the onset of sexual abuse by adolescents, but proximity is not a guarantee. One could reasonably expect that eliminating babysitting opportunities for adolescent males would serve to reduce child sexual offending cases (see Margolin & Craft, 1990), with due regard to the caution against paranoia offered by Wortley and Smallbone (2006). Nonetheless, adequate supervision of offenders, victims, and places may eliminate many offending opportunities and victimizations. In support of this, Small and Kerns (1993) found strong empirical evidence on the benefits of parental supervision to reduce sexual victimization (see also Dishion & McMahon, 1998). With a sample of
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
130
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
1,149 young adolescent females, they showed that parental monitoring was the strongest predictor of whether or not an adolescent reported sexual victimization by a peer. Adolescent females who had parents who used an authoritative parenting style were also less likely to suffer sexual victimization. Future research might help find the right balance between caution and paranoia by further specifying which parental routines best serve to disrupt sexual abuse and which adolescent behaviors merit closer attention. It is interesting to consider that many susceptible adolescents may never discover or carry out their worst potential if never provided an easy opportunity to abuse a child. 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Mittelman, M., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Rouleau, J. L., & Murphy, W. (1987). Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 3-25. Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victim’s perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 29-40. Budin, L. E., & Johnson, C. F. (1989). Sex abuse prevention programs: Offenders’ attitudes about their efficacy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 77-87. Carpentier, J., Leclerc, B., & Proulx, J. (2011). Juvenile sexual offenders: Correlates of onset, variety and aggravation of criminal behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 854-873. Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Available from www.popcenter.org Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. Davis, G. E., & Leitenberg, H. (1987). Adolescent sex offenders. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 417-427. Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Beauregard, E. (2010). Victims’ routine activities and sex offenders’ target selection scripts: A latent class analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 315-342. Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61-75. Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594. Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In D. B. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 119-128). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
131
Leclerc and Felson
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime prevention studies: Vol. 4. Crime and place (pp. 53-66). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Hollis, M. E., Felson, M., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 15, 65-79. Kaufman, K. L. (1994). Modus Operandi Questionnaire (Revised version). Columbus, OH: Author. (Children’s Hospital) Kaufman, K. L., Hilliker, D. R., & Daleiden, E. L. (1996). Subgroup differences in the modus operandi of adolescent sexual offenders. Child Maltreatment, 1, 17-24. Kaufman, K. L., Holmberg, J. K., Orts, K. A., McCrady, F. E., Rotzien, A. L., Daleiden, E. L., & Hilliker, D. R. (1998). Factors influencing sexual offenders’ modus operandi: An examination of victim-offender relatedness and age. Child Maltreatment, 3, 349-361. Lang, R. A., & Frenzel, R. R. (1988). How sexual offenders lure children. Annals of Sex Research, 1, 303-317. Leclerc, B., Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2008). Modus operandi and situational aspects of child sexual abuse in adolescent sexual offenses: A further examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 46-61. Leclerc, B., Proulx, J., & McKibben, A. (2005). Modus operandi of sexual offenders working or doing voluntary work with children and adolescents. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2, 187-195. Leclerc, B., Smallbone, S., & Wortley, R. (2013). Prevention nearby: The influence of the presence of a potential guardian on the severity of child sexual abuse. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. doi:10.1177/1079063213504594 Leclerc, B., & Tremblay, P. (2007). Strategic behavior in adolescent sexual offenses against children: Linking modus operandi to sexual behaviors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 23-41. Leclerc, B., Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2011). Getting into the script of adult child sexual offenders and mapping out situational measures. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 48, 209-237. Margolin, L., & Craft, J. L. (1990). Child abuse by adolescent caregivers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 365-373. Proulx, J., Ouimet, M., & Lachaîne, N. (1995). Criminologie de l’acte et pédophilie [Criminology in action and pedophilia]. Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique, 48, 294-310. Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 11, 1-20. Small, S., & Kerns, D. (1993). Unwanted sexual activity among peers during early and middle adolescence: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 941-952. Smallbone, S., & Wortley, R. (2000). Child sexual abuse in Queensland: Offender characteristics and modus operandi (Full report). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Crime Commission. U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). Crime in the United States, Table 38, Arrests by age, 2007 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_38.html Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2006). Applying situational principles to sexual offenses against children. In R. Wortley & S. Smallbone (Eds.), Crime Prevention Studies: Vol. 19. Situational prevention of child sexual abuse (pp. 7-35). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
SAXXXX10.1177/1079063214544331Sexual AbuseLeclerc and Felson
Article
Routine Activities Preceding Adolescent Sexual Abuse of Younger Children
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 2016, Vol. 28(2) 116–131 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1079063214544331 sax.sagepub.com
Benoit Leclerc1 and Marcus Felson2
Abstract Adolescent abuse of younger children has long been recognized, but empirical research on the circumstances of this phenomenon is rare. This article examines how adolescent offenders find and gain access to victims, work out time alone with them, and set up or exploit settings for sexual contact. Prior researchers learned that adult sex offenders use certain routine activities to perform these tasks. The current research inquires whether adolescent offenders are similar. We administered Kaufman’s Modus Operandi Questionnaire to a sample of 116 Canadian adolescent males undergoing treatment for a sexual offense against a child. Adolescent offenders follow routines similar to adults but are better able to use games and activities as a prelude to sexual abuse. We discuss how routine legal activities set the stage for activities and should be considered when devising situational prevention strategies. Keywords sex offenses, adolescent sexual abusers, routine activity, guardian, supervision, situational prevention
Introduction Adolescent male child sexual offenders have received increased recent attention among criminologists (e.g., Carpentier, Leclerc, & Proulx, 2011; Leclerc, Beauregard, & Proulx, 2008). Indeed, adolescents are responsible for committing a substantial proportion of sexual offenses, including those against younger children. Reviewing evidence from several nations, Davis and Leitenberg (1987) concluded that adolescents 1Griffith 2Texas
University, Queensland, Australia State University, Austin, TX, USA
Corresponding Author: Benoit Leclerc, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt Campus, Queensland 4122, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
117
Leclerc and Felson
are responsible for at least one in five sexual offenses. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) statistics on the juvenile share of arrests for forcible rape and sex offenses give similar proportions for the United States (e.g., U.S. Department of Justice, 2008). Reporting error is always an issue, but we can at least conclude that adolescent abuse of younger children is a real problem meriting further intensive analysis of what data are available. We believe this may be the first study on child sexual offenses committed by adolescents from a routine activity approach. Before carrying out the offense, a sexual offender needs to find and gain access to the victim, work out time alone and unsupervised, and find settings suitable for sexual contact without discovery (i.e., abusive sexual behavior). Prior researchers have already shown that adult sex offenders use the routine activities of victims and guardians to arrange circumstances for abuse. The current article examines whether that process differs for adolescent sex offenders. We specifically seek to learn how adolescent offenders gain access to younger children and arrange (or exploit) circumstances to facilitate abuse. Here, we do not test routine activity theory as a whole, but rather apply that theory to a specific descriptive task—how adolescent offenders set the stage for abusing children. We pay close attention to ordinary activities that may enable abuse to occur. We also wish to organize information about relevant routines to assist future analysis of sexual abuse events and comprehend offender strategies, but we also hope to understand (within the same framework) how unplanned abuses may unfold. Some earlier researchers have considered the strategies adolescent child sexual offenders adopt to abuse their victims. Kaufman, Hilliker, and Daleiden (1996) found that adolescent sex offenders are similar to adult offenders in favoring enticements over threats. Offenders may offer gifts, love, or attention to children to enable sexual access. Leclerc and Tremblay (2007) also found that many offenders sought to desensitize their victims to the sexual component of their behavior, which increases the likelihood of victim participation in sexual activities. Interestingly, Kaufman, Holmberg, et al. (1998) learned that, compared with adult offenders, adolescents adopted a greater variety of strategies for gaining victim compliance and limiting victim disclosure following abuse. Despite the tendency of both groups to prefer enticements over punishments, these researchers found adolescents are to some extent more likely than adult offenders to use threats, force, or even weapons to gain compliance from child victims. This article seeks to supplement prior research with more information about the situational context immediately preceding adolescents’ sexual abuse of children. We also wonder whether offender strategies shift in different situations, as risks and opportunities vary. Leclerc et al. (2008) learned that adolescents offending within their own homes were able to use a longer period of pre-abuse contact with victims, often trying to desensitize the child to sexual contact prior to the initiation of sexual abuse. However, other offenders may also take appreciable time to cultivate relationships prior to initiating sexual contact. The general point is that offenders must evade a supervisory process to carry out their offenses and that evasion has more than one dimension. The routine activity approach (Cohen & Felson, 1979) is a middle-range theory especially attuned to that process and has already been applied by some of the
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
118
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
adult sex offender studies on crime events (e.g., Deslauriers-Varin & Beauregard, 2010; Leclerc, Smallbone, & Wortley, 2013). Routine activity thinking is broad enough to include varying degrees of planning and premeditation, but its proper application requires more specification of events leading up to an illicit act.
Routine Activity, the Crime Triangle, and Evading Supervision To study child sexual abuse, we cannot simply rely on past routine activity research that focuses on the modus operandi for robbery, burglary, or assaults that can happen very quickly with little preparation. In contrast, a sex offense against a child depends on particular circumstances that might be somewhat harder to find or cultivate. Even though not originally developed with child sexual abuse in mind, routine activity thinking suggests to ask how legal routines set the stage for sexual abuse and how offenders fit such routine activities into their strategy. The current study gathers information about how adolescent child sex offenders manage to gain access to child victims, arrange to be alone with them, and avoid interference from others. At the core of the routine activity approach is the supervisory process. In its original formulation, the term “guardian” referred to ordinary citizens (including parents and relatives) whose presence or proximity served to prevent a crime, often inadvertently as people go about their daily lives. That process has since been elaborated by Clarke and Eck (2005), drawing a “crime triangle”—really one triangle embedded within another (Figure 1). The inner three elements include the offender, the victim, and the place or setting where the crime is committed. An offender must find a victim and a place to carry out the crime. However, that effort is often thwarted by the supervisory process depicted in the outer triangle—especially relevant to sexual offenses against children. The supervisory process is carried out by individuals who may assume three different types of roles (Felson, 1995). A “handler” is somebody whose personal ties and proximity serve to prevent someone from committing an offense (Felson, 1986). In this formulation, the word “guardian” is restricted to those whose proximity serves to protect the victim from potential offenders. A “place manager” might be a property owner, school employee, or facility manager whose presence discourages crime in any given setting. Thus, many people and many routines can interfere with the commission of a crime (for further discussion, see Hollis, Felson, & Welsh, 2013; Reynald, 2009). Moreover, routine activity thinking pays very close attention to absences contributing to a crime situation. In terms of the current article, to increase the likelihood of completing the offense without getting apprehended (a) the potential adolescent child sex offender would need to escape the supervision of parents and others; (b) then find a likely child victim in unsupervised circumstances; and (c) then set up or exploit a location unmonitored for abusing that victim. Within family and household settings, the same parent might play all three roles—simultaneously supervising the likely offender, the suitable victim, and the place where the offense would otherwise occur. However, we must allow
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
119
Leclerc and Felson
a. Adolescent must have parents not watching closely HANDLER a
b. Child must not have parents watching closely c. Offense setting must be unmonitored
OFFENDER
VICTIM b
PLACE c
GUARDIAN
MANAGER
Figure 1. Conditions for adolescent sexual offenses against a child to occur.
that different people can supervise adolescents, younger children, and potential settings for abuse, and any of these might thwart the initiation of such offenses. We must also consider that supervision goes beyond parental love or diligence, and must take into account work schedules, and other duties, and distractions in daily life. Central to routine activity theory is the concept of “stage setting,” namely, that certain routine activities set the stage for crime to occur in the same or nearby times and places. Thus, a parent’s obligations to their job or their own schooling, or parental supervision of other children, can produce absences and distractions that generate risks for sexual abuse. Visits of cousins or other family members, or babysitting circumstances also complicate the risk patterns for sexual abuse. In some cases, the offender helps set the stage or prepare conditions to allow the offense. On the contrary, many adolescent offenders might commit an offense without careful preparation at all but find themselves in a particular situation making the offense relatively easy to carry out. To gain greater insights on these possibilities, we need to gather and organize more information, which is consistent with this study.
Past Research on Adult Sexual Offenders Against Children The existing literature on adult sexual offending has already applied these routine activity ideas. For instance, Deslauriers-Varin and Beauregard (2010) studied serial adult sex offenders against strangers, considering victim activities prior to the assault.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
120
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
Leclerc et al. (2013) focused on the presence of potential guardians during child sexual abuse events and its effect on the severity of abuse. A considerable number of studies also have been completed with respect to strategies adopted by adult sexual offenders specifically. Several researchers have already examined how adult sex offenders gain trust of children or parents, or find settings for illicit sexual contact (e.g., Berliner & Conte, 1990; Budin & Johnson, 1989; Elliott, Browne, & Kilcoyne, 1995; Lang & Frenzel, 1988; Leclerc, Proulx, & McKibben, 2005; Leclerc, Wortley, & Smallbone, 2011; Proulx, Ouimet, & Lachaîne, 1995). For a sample of adults convicted for child sex offenses, Wortley and Smallbone (2006) described in some detail how these offenders set the stage for abuse or exploit pre-criminal circumstances. Our research borrows heavily from their work, using the same questionnaire (i.e., Modus Operandi Questionnaire [MOQ]) to find where adolescent offenders find victims, gain access, locate settings for abuse, and arrange to be alone with the victim before abuse. Wortley and Smallbone (2006) found that adult offenders often used domestic settings for some part of the offending process, even when victims were unrelated. For instance, 40% of extrafamilial offenders found their victim at a friend’s home and another 21% through babysitting. Extrafamilial offenders frequently reported either spending time with the victim in the presence of parents or caregivers (46%), or establishing a relationship with the parent or caregiver (45%). In other words, they often sought to normalize their own presence and thus to disarm parental concern. Access to victims may occur in one location, while the abuse itself occurs in another. To commit the offense, Wortley and Smallbone (2006) found that 69% of adult offenders (intrafamilial and extrafamilial) used their own home, 27% went for a car ride, and 26% used isolated places such as a vacant lot. Only 1 offender in 10 used such public locations as parks or public toilets as the abuse site. Perhaps the most important finding from their research is that child abuse incidents are normally preceded by non-sexual activities that seem entirely normal—watching television, taking a car ride, or going for a swim. Yet, we need to know more details about child sexual offenses committed by adolescents. There is also a critical need to know about offenders activities with victims immediately prior to abuse.
The Current Study The current study is motivated by a dearth of empirical evidence on how an adolescent male child sexual offender sets up the situation or takes advantage of opportunities to commit the offense. Although clinical knowledge certainly exists on this topic, empirical research is lacking on how adolescent abuse of younger children. With respect to adult offenders, Wortley and Smallbone (2006) explained the critical importance of empirical knowledge to document the circumstances of sexual offending for prevention purposes. Most importantly, without a focus on non-criminal behaviors adopted by offenders, it is difficult to understand the situational context within which offender and victim interact in time and space, allowing criminal behaviors to emerge. In this study, through the lens of the routine activity approach, we describe how routine activities set the stage for sexual abuse incidents involving adolescent male
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
121
Leclerc and Felson
child sexual offenders. The routine activity is not tested but applied to the phenomenon of adolescent male child sexual offending. Routine activity emphasizes how the offender modus operandi interacts with the tangible world. In this study, it focuses on contextual factors and observable behaviors during the period leading to abuse. We examine this in terms of how the opportunity to offend is set up or exploited in the first place by finding and having access to a victim, using a location for sexual contact, adopting strategies, or using situations to be alone with the victim and engaging the victim in routine play activities immediately before the abuse.
Method Seldom does any sample of child sexual offenses committed by adolescents and the circumstances under which these offenses occur appear in the empirical literature. This gap of empirical evidence reflects the fact that official case files on adolescent sex offenders are usually sealed by courts, and official data are unlikely to cover the key topics we consider. Even though this sample is too small for hypothesis testing, a small sample is justifiable for helping to establish a factual baseline for future research with more cases.
Participants and Procedure The sample consisted of 116 adolescent males (between 13 and 17 years old) who have committed at least one official sexual offense against a child (less than 12 years old) at least 3 years younger than themselves. The participants were recruited from eight treatment programs operating in the province of Quebec, Canada. The mean age of the participants was 14.61 (median = 15, range = 12-17 years, SD = 1.43). A total of 26.2% had committed a previous sexual offense (only one offender was arrested for it) and 43% had committed a previous non-sex offense (12.1% of offenders were arrested). In relation to the offense, 19.8% abused only boys, 57.8% only girls, and 22.4% both boys and girls. A total of 62.9% offenders abused an intrafamilial victim, 19% an extrafamilial victim, and 18.1% both type of victims. For intrafamilial cases specifically, 42.5% of offenders attempted or performed penetration on their victim and 63% of offenders involved their victim in sexual activity that lasted more than 5 min. A total of 36% of these offenders abused more than one victim. In relation to extrafamilial cases, 18.5% of offenders attempted or performed penetration on their victim and 36.4% of offenders involved their victim in sexual activity that lasted more than 5 min. A total of 31.8% of extrafamilial offenders abused more than one victim. Regarding offenders who abused in both intra-and extrafamilial contexts, 57.1% of offenders attempted or performed penetration on their victim and 66.7% of offenders involved their victim in sexual activity that lasted more than 5 min. All participants involved in this project were undergoing treatment for having committed a sexual offense and were told that their participation in this study was voluntary and that they were free to withdraw at any time for any reason without negative consequences. Participants were also assured complete anonymity and were asked to
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
122
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
sign a consent form advising them that the information gathered would be used for research purposes only. At the time that the questionnaire was administered, participants had already completed an average of 3 months of treatment, which enhances the validity of the results because offenders in treatment have been found to be less likely to engage in denial and exhibit cognitive distortions (Abel et al., 1987).
Measurement A French language version of the MOQ developed by Kaufman (1994) was used in this study (the procedure followed for the translation and cross-cultural validation of this questionnaire was the same used for the translation of an earlier version of the MOQ used in another study, see Leclerc et al., 2005). The MOQ is a self-report instrument that assesses the strategies adopted by sexual offenders against children and the circumstances in which the offense takes place. This questionnaire allows for data to be collected at different points during the crime-commission process. For the purpose of the current study, and from a list of items included in the questionnaire (available upon request), participants were asked to report (a) how and/or where they found victims, (b) how they got access to victims, (c) where sexual contact occurred, and (d) how they find or had time alone with victims before sexual contact. In addition, through the use of an open-ended question, participants were asked to report the three most common activities engaged with the victim immediately prior to the abuse. Findings obtained on these questions are presented below.
Results Adolescent offenders were first asked about how they found their victims (Table 1) and the strategies or situations used to gain access to victims (Table 2). These tables excluded responses from intrafamilial offenders because these offenders, by definition, find their victims within the family home. Note that the category of extrafamilial offenders was not limited to stranger offenders and that the remaining tables included responses from all offenders. All tables indicate the percentage of offenders who choose a particular response for at least one offense. An offender may also offer multiple responses because the use of several locations, strategies, or activities is possible in the context of a single offense. As shown in Table 1, adolescent extrafamilial offenders typically found their victims in their own neighborhood (50%). Finding a victim through babysitting, at a friend’s home or in a park was also common (38%, 29%, 26%, respectively). Table 2 shows that these offenders most often gained or had access to victims by spending time with them while the parent or caregiver was present (38%) or by offering to babysit them or their brothers or sisters (24%). The locations used by adolescent offenders for sexual contact are presented in Table 3. These two tables report the frequencies according to offender type. Table 3 shows that adolescent offenders most often committed the abuse in their own home in general, a finding that is quite consistent across intrafamilial, extrafamilial, and mixed-type
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
123
Leclerc and Felson
Table 1. Locations (or Situations) for Finding Children for Sexual Contact (Extrafamilial and Mixed-Type Only). Locations
%
In your neighborhood Babysitting At a friends’ home or apartment Parks A neighborhood far from where you live Dating someone who has children Isolated places (pond, vacant lot) Playgrounds School yards They babysat for other children at your home Swimming pools Own home Becoming friends with adults who have children Your apartment building Your place of employment Video arcades Other places Shopping malls Recreation or community centers Movie theaters Public bathroom Being paid to coach a sports team Volunteering as a community activity group leader
50.0 38.1 28.6 26.2 21.4 21.4 16.7 14.3 14.3 11.9 9.5 9.5 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 4.8 4.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Note. n = 42.
Table 2. Strategies or Situations for Getting Access to Children for Sexual Contact (Extrafamilial and Mixed-Type Only). Strategies
%
Spent time with the children you abused while parent or caregiver was present Offered to babysit the children you abused or brothers or sisters Helped parent or caregiver around the house Made friends with the parent or caregiver Offered to walk the children you abused to or from school Note. n = 42.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
38.1 23.8 14.3 14.3 9.5
124
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
Table 3. Locations for Taking Children for Sexual Contact Without Being Caught According to Offender Type (%). Locations Your own home Your home (no one else was home) An out of the way place in their home (someone else was home) An out of the way place in your home (someone else was home) A friends or relatives home Swimming pools Isolated places (pond, vacant lot) Parks Playgrounds Taking them other places Taking them for walks Other isolated places (bush, backyard) An isolated place at work Isolated place at their school Public bathroom Going for a car ride Restaurant A recreation or community center Mall
Intrafamilial
Extrafamilial
Mixed-type
79.5 53.4
45.5 13.6
71.4 33.3
34.2
18.2
38.1
34.2
22.7
19
23.3 11 9.6 5.5 6.8 4.1 5.5 2.7
31.8 13.6 9.1 13.6 18.2 18.2 9.1 9.1
47.6 4.8 9.5 14.3 0 4.8 4.8 0
2.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 0 1.4 0
0 9.1 4.5 0 9.1 4.5 4.5
4.8 0 4.8 4.8 0 0 0
Note. n = 116.
offenders (79.5%, 45.5%, and 71.4%, respectively). Intrafamilial offenders were quite prolific in offending in their home specifically when nobody else was home (53.4%). Compared with other offender types, mixed-type offenders were quite likely to offend in a friend’s or relative’s home (47.6%). Public locations were not often used across offender types. However, extrafamilial offenders seem somewhat more likely than other offenders to offend in playgrounds or to take victims other places for that purpose. Table 4 presents information about the strategies or situations adolescent offenders used to gain time alone with the victim for sexual contact. Although we are not aware of the exact percentages in this study, please note again that in some cases offenders may have simply exploited a particular situation alone with the victim, without necessarily pre-arranging that time alone with sexual contact in mind. Regardless of offender type, the most common way to get time alone with the victim was through babysitting and watching TV. The percentages reported by intrafamilial, extrafamilial, and mixedtype offenders were, respectively, 52.1%, 50%, and 33.3% for babysitting, and 39.7%,
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
125
Leclerc and Felson Table 4. Strategies or Situations for Being Alone With the Child for Sexual Contact According to Offender Type (%). Strategies Babysitting them Watching TV with them Sneaking into their bedroom at night Taking them places during the day without one of their parents Tucking them in bed Letting them sleep in my bed Going swimming with them Being at home—it was OK for my girlfriend for us to be alone there Taking a bath or shower with them Letting them stay up after their parent had gone to bed Being at the house of a friend or relative who said it was OK for us to be alone there Giving them a bath Going to a playground Being together for a holiday Taking them to parks Taking them on overnight trips without one of their parents Going to isolated places (pond, vacant lot) Taking them to the video arcade Taking them to the movies Taking them to camping Taking them to school Going for a car ride with them Going to a shopping mall
Intrafamilial
Extrafamilial
Mixed-type
52.1 39.7 30.1 17.8
50 36.4 18.2 27.3
33.3 42.9 28.6 28.6
16.4 17.8 16.4 15.1
18.2 13.6 13.6 4.5
33.3 19 23.8 9.5
13.7 12.3
0 9.1
9.5 0
8.2
4.5
19
12.3 6.8 9.6 4.1 6.8
4.5 13.6 9.1 13.6 4.5
4.8 9.5 4.8 14.3 4.8
4.1
4.5
4.8
2.7 4.1 2.7 1.4 2.7 0
13.6 9.1 4.5 4.5 0 4.5
0 0 0 4.8 0 0
Note. n = 116.
36.4%, and 42.9%, respectively, for watching TV. The percentages for other strategies or situations were quite consistent across offender types. Public locations were not often used to get time alone with the victim. Table 5 shows activities in which adolescent offenders engaged with their victim immediately before sexual contact. This table includes responses from all offenders. The frequencies were too low to justify breaking down these findings according to offender type. Note also that some activities (e.g., “talk with the victim”) were classified as indoors, even though exact location was not measured. By far, adolescent offenders most often engaged in conventional activities likely to take place indoors
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
126
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
Table 5. Activities Engaged With Children Immediately Before Sexual Contact for All Offenders. Implication of activity
Activity
%
Conventional activities (apparently indoors)
Play with them Play video games Watch TV or movies Talk to them Babysit them Play hide and seek Read books Play games outside Swim Go to park Taking them places Bicycle ride Play sports (e.g., soccer) Play physical contact games (e.g., tickle and cuddle, mum and dad, doctor games) Give candy or treat Let them go late to bed Sleep together Show porn or masturbate myself Delinquent activities Help them with something Nothing
30.2 23.2 20.0 7.8 5.2 2.6 0.8 9.5 9.5 6.0 4.3 3.4 2.6 7.8
Conventional activities (apparently outdoors)
Marginal tricky activities
Forbidden activities
Other
3.4 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.8 2.6
Note. n = 116.
such as playing with the victim, playing video games, and watching TV or movies with the victim (30%, 23%, and 20%, respectively). The most common conventional activity that took place outdoors was playing games outside with the victim (9.5%). The most frequent marginal activity with the victim was playing physical contact games such as “tickle and cuddle,” “mum and dad,” and “doctor” (7.8%). Regardless of its nature and location, playing with the victim was the most common activity engaged by adolescent offenders as a prelude to sex with a child.
Discussion of Findings This study described how adolescent child sex offenders set the stage for or exploit a situation for abuse through the lens of routine activity. That involves finding a victim, using specific locations for sexual contact, adopting strategies, or using particular situations to have access and be alone with the victim and engaging the victim in routine
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
127
Leclerc and Felson
activities immediately before the abuse. In the section that follows, we focus on comparing and contrasting adolescent offending with adult offending. We found a striking similarity between adolescent and adult child sexual offending in terms of how the offender sets up the situation or exploits the opportunity to offend. First, like their adult counterparts (see Wortley & Smallbone, 2006), adolescent offenders also tended to use domestic settings either to find or have access to child victims. Although adolescent and adult offenders vary in their percentages, both groups of offenders found victims through babysitting or at a friend’s home. The proportion of adolescent offenders who used babysitting as an opportunity to offend reaches almost 40%. Second, both adolescent and adult offenders reported spending time with the victim even while the parent or caregiver is present. Third, to commit the offense, both adolescent and adult offenders reported their own home as the most common location for sexual contact regardless of offender type (see Smallbone & Wortley, 2000). As with adult offenders, public locations were not frequently used to commit sexual offenses by adolescent offenders. Fourth, both adolescent and adult offenders often reported watching TV and babysitting as strategies or situations for having time alone with the victim for sexual contact. Despite these similarities between adolescent and adult offenders, important differences were also found. First, apart from finding victims through babysitting and at a friend’s home, adolescent offenders most often reported accessing victims in their own neighborhood and at a park. In contrast, adult offenders reported finding victims through an organized activity and their place of employment, which was rare in the case of adolescent offenders. Second, adolescent offenders (more often than adults) used their own home or another home for sexual contact—perhaps taking advantage of periods in which their parents were working or otherwise away. Apart from using their own home, adult offenders went for a car ride and used isolated places outside as common locations for sexual contact. Third, adolescent offenders had time alone with the victim mainly by babysitting them, watching TV with them, and sneaking into their bedroom at night. On the contrary, adults found additional methods such as tucking the victim into bed, allowing the victim to sleep with them, or going for a car ride. Reflecting on opportunity factors, adolescent offenders were unlikely to have workplaces or access to their own cars. These findings clearly reflect the context in which each group of offenders spends time in the course of routine daily activities. Compared with adult offenders, adolescent offenders are in a restricted position to set up or take advantage of opportunities to sexually offend against a child. It is interesting to combine what we learned with the findings reported by Kaufman, Holmberg, et al. (1998) in comparing adolescent with adult offenders. They showed that adolescents adopted a relatively wider variety of strategies for gaining victim compliance and limiting victim disclosure following abuse. However, we found that adolescents have a relatively narrower range of locations for sexual contact and obtaining time alone with the victim. In sum, adult offenders have more places to go and more options to be alone with the victim, while adolescent offenders have fewer places to go but a broader range of ways to engage potential victims while in those places, due largely to the circumstances in which they commit their offense: often within the context of games and play activities. The importance of play for adolescent offenders greatly exceeds its
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
128
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
importance for adult offenders. Playing with children fits perfectly with the everyday routine activity typical for adolescences and seems quite natural. It is most interesting that adolescent abuse of younger children can be intertwined with otherwise innocent play. It is not always clear that the offense was premeditated when play was initiated. The locations and situations in which sexual contact occurred between adolescent offenders and children point toward the somewhat spontaneous nature of adolescent offending. Indeed, adolescent offending so often occurs at home, even when somebody else is there—fitting within an otherwise natural flow of activity which sometimes drifts to an abuse situation. As such, adolescents have both a natural means of engaging potential victims and benefit from the perception that they are sharing in pro-social behaviors with these younger children. These findings together indicate the central role of parental supervision for preventing abuse. In fact, parents could very well act simultaneously as handlers, guardians, and place managers. It may be potentially harder for adolescent offenders to defeat supervision if adequately monitored by the parents, including closer supervision during play situations.
The Larger Picture: Getting Access to the Victim Looking beyond the current study, we note four channels through which adolescent child sex offenders might access their victims (Figure 2). The first channel is through the activities of everyday life where a potential adolescent offender and a potential victim converge and spend time together (a), that is, when the offender spends time babysitting the victim. The second channel is through personal ties (b), which includes a half brother or cousin who has normalized access to the victim’s home. Third, a potential offender may gain access to a potential victim through an organizational role (c), such as an employee in the apartment building in which a potential victim lives. Last, some offenders access victims through the Internet (d). The current study contains no such cases but that channel may become more relevant in the future. Each of these four categories requires access in one form or another. For these child sexual offenses to occur, adolescent offenders must have or obtain access in time and space to potential child victims in conditions where handlers, guardians, and place managers are absent or distracted. Consider the range of situations in which adolescent offenders commit their offenses in the absence of supervision by potential guardians (handlers, guardians, or place managers). Unlike intrafamilial offenders, extrafamilial offenders must find their victims first. The less risky situation for these offenders is to locate their victims in an isolated place, which also provides a site for abuse itself to occur. However, finding a child victim in an isolated place may prove difficult. Locating a victim in a more public or visible place requires moving that victim toward a location suitable for abuse—a journey that might attract unwanted attention. Thus, we can see why routine access to the home and family provide such suitable abuse opportunities—avoiding any need to forage for a victim or to transport that victim elsewhere. However, within a home setting, an offender may still need to move the victim to a remote part of a home or to wait until others are absent or preoccupied to carry out an illicit sexual act with a child.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
129
Leclerc and Felson
Figure 2. Sex offender access to child victims.
Conclusion Although this study is based on a small sample, it helps initiate work in an underresearched area. Self-reports by adolescent sex offenders are subject to errors in recollection and potential distortions. However, offenders who took part in this study were in treatment for 3 months before participation, which may to some extent provide more reliable data. Still, other treated offenders might paint a different picture. The survey also gathered very limited information about proximity of others in abuse situations. Despite these limitations, some new and important empirical findings emerged. This study suggests that adolescent offending often occurs at home, even when somebody else is present and that sexual exploitation of children by adolescents can emerge within the natural flow of everyday activities. We also found that play can be a prelude to abuse for adolescent offending. We suggest that adolescents might drift into abuse without prior planning or premeditation. We interpret the pre-abuse situation as resulting from routine and otherwise legitimate activities, highlighting the importance of adult supervision—especially for adolescent males interacting with and playing with younger children. We also note that incipient abuse is easily camouflaged, that is, when an adolescent offender rubs a child without removing clothing. The offender can quickly cease the illicit motion and pretend that nothing happened, relying on the victim’s silence to avoid detection. We cannot deny that adult proximity discourages the onset of sexual abuse by adolescents, but proximity is not a guarantee. One could reasonably expect that eliminating babysitting opportunities for adolescent males would serve to reduce child sexual offending cases (see Margolin & Craft, 1990), with due regard to the caution against paranoia offered by Wortley and Smallbone (2006). Nonetheless, adequate supervision of offenders, victims, and places may eliminate many offending opportunities and victimizations. In support of this, Small and Kerns (1993) found strong empirical evidence on the benefits of parental supervision to reduce sexual victimization (see also Dishion & McMahon, 1998). With a sample of
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
130
Sexual Abuse 28(2)
1,149 young adolescent females, they showed that parental monitoring was the strongest predictor of whether or not an adolescent reported sexual victimization by a peer. Adolescent females who had parents who used an authoritative parenting style were also less likely to suffer sexual victimization. Future research might help find the right balance between caution and paranoia by further specifying which parental routines best serve to disrupt sexual abuse and which adolescent behaviors merit closer attention. It is interesting to consider that many susceptible adolescents may never discover or carry out their worst potential if never provided an easy opportunity to abuse a child. 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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References Abel, G. G., Becker, J. V., Mittelman, M., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Rouleau, J. L., & Murphy, W. (1987). Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 3-25. Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victim’s perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 29-40. Budin, L. E., & Johnson, C. F. (1989). Sex abuse prevention programs: Offenders’ attitudes about their efficacy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 77-87. Carpentier, J., Leclerc, B., & Proulx, J. (2011). Juvenile sexual offenders: Correlates of onset, variety and aggravation of criminal behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 854-873. Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Available from www.popcenter.org Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. Davis, G. E., & Leitenberg, H. (1987). Adolescent sex offenders. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 417-427. Deslauriers-Varin, N., & Beauregard, E. (2010). Victims’ routine activities and sex offenders’ target selection scripts: A latent class analysis. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22, 315-342. Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61-75. Elliott, M., Browne, K., & Kilcoyne, J. (1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 579-594. Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In D. B. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 119-128). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
131
Leclerc and Felson
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime prevention studies: Vol. 4. Crime and place (pp. 53-66). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Hollis, M. E., Felson, M., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 15, 65-79. Kaufman, K. L. (1994). Modus Operandi Questionnaire (Revised version). Columbus, OH: Author. (Children’s Hospital) Kaufman, K. L., Hilliker, D. R., & Daleiden, E. L. (1996). Subgroup differences in the modus operandi of adolescent sexual offenders. Child Maltreatment, 1, 17-24. Kaufman, K. L., Holmberg, J. K., Orts, K. A., McCrady, F. E., Rotzien, A. L., Daleiden, E. L., & Hilliker, D. R. (1998). Factors influencing sexual offenders’ modus operandi: An examination of victim-offender relatedness and age. Child Maltreatment, 3, 349-361. Lang, R. A., & Frenzel, R. R. (1988). How sexual offenders lure children. Annals of Sex Research, 1, 303-317. Leclerc, B., Beauregard, E., & Proulx, J. (2008). Modus operandi and situational aspects of child sexual abuse in adolescent sexual offenses: A further examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 46-61. Leclerc, B., Proulx, J., & McKibben, A. (2005). Modus operandi of sexual offenders working or doing voluntary work with children and adolescents. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2, 187-195. Leclerc, B., Smallbone, S., & Wortley, R. (2013). Prevention nearby: The influence of the presence of a potential guardian on the severity of child sexual abuse. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. doi:10.1177/1079063213504594 Leclerc, B., & Tremblay, P. (2007). Strategic behavior in adolescent sexual offenses against children: Linking modus operandi to sexual behaviors. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 19, 23-41. Leclerc, B., Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2011). Getting into the script of adult child sexual offenders and mapping out situational measures. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 48, 209-237. Margolin, L., & Craft, J. L. (1990). Child abuse by adolescent caregivers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14, 365-373. Proulx, J., Ouimet, M., & Lachaîne, N. (1995). Criminologie de l’acte et pédophilie [Criminology in action and pedophilia]. Revue Internationale de Criminologie et de Police Technique, 48, 294-310. Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 11, 1-20. Small, S., & Kerns, D. (1993). Unwanted sexual activity among peers during early and middle adolescence: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 941-952. Smallbone, S., & Wortley, R. (2000). Child sexual abuse in Queensland: Offender characteristics and modus operandi (Full report). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Crime Commission. U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). Crime in the United States, Table 38, Arrests by age, 2007 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_38.html Wortley, R., & Smallbone, S. (2006). Applying situational principles to sexual offenses against children. In R. Wortley & S. Smallbone (Eds.), Crime Prevention Studies: Vol. 19. Situational prevention of child sexual abuse (pp. 7-35). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Downloaded from sax.sagepub.com at NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIV on April 6, 2016
