Risk Management of Youth Who Sexually Offend: The Singapore Experience

  • Gerald Zeng
  • Chi Meng Chu
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Risk, Crime and Society book series (PSRCS)


The way in which youth who sexually offended are managed has significant implications for their rehabilitation. A balance must be struck between deterrence and prevention of recidivism, and the rehabilitation and reintegration of the youth back into family and society. In addition to the risk factors, criminogenic needs and protective factors that influence their offending, assessment, and treatment of youth who sexually offended should also take their developmental needs into account. This chapter will describe the Singapore experience in the assessment and treatment of youth who sexually offended. Singapore adopts an integrated strengths- and risk-based approach, with the Risk-Need-Responsivity and Good Lives Model serving as the foundational guide for assessment and treatment of youth who sexually offended. Over the years, this approach and its associated programmes have also evolved and improved in response to findings from local research and evaluation.


Youth sexual offending Risk assessment Risk management Offender rehabilitation 


  1. Ægisdóttir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., … D., R. J. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction Stefania Aegisdottir. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341–382. doi: 10.1177/0011000005285875.
  2. Andrews, D. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow up. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1995). The level of service inventory-revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). New Providence: Anderson.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A meta-analytic review of programme integrity. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(2), 173–187. doi: 10.1348/135532505X36723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andrews, D. A., & Friesen, W. (1987). Assessments of anticriminal plans and the prediction of criminal futures aresearch note. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(1), 33–37. doi: 10.1177/0093854887014001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andrews, D. A., & Kiessling, J. J. (1980). Program structure and effective correctional practices: A summary of the CaVIC research. In R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment (pp. 439–463). Toronto: Butterworth.Google Scholar
  8. Andrews, D. A., Robinson, D., & Hoge, R. D. (1984). Manual for the youth level of service inventory. Ottawa: Carleton University, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  9. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52. doi: 10.1177/0093854890017001004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). The level of service/case management inventory (LS/CMI). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  11. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2008). The level of service/risk-need-responsivity (LS/RNR). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  12. Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735–755. doi: 10.1177/0093854811406356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Appelbaum, P. (2009). Foreword. In F. M. Saleh, J. Grudzinskas, J. M. B. Albert, & D. J. Brodsky (Eds.), Sex offenders: Identification, risk assessment, treatment, and legal issues. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Baird, S. C., Heinz, R. C., & Bemus, B. J. (1979). Project report #14: A two-year follow-up. Wisconsin: Department of Health and Social Services, Case Classification/Staff Deployment Project, Bureau of Community Corrections.Google Scholar
  15. Birgden, A. (2004). Therapeutic jurisprudence and sex offenders: A psycho-legal approach to protection. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 16(4), 351–364. doi: 10.1023/ Scholar
  16. Birgden, A., & Cucolo, H. (2011). The treatment of sex offenders: Evidence, ethics, and human rights. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23(3), 295–313. doi: 10.1177/1079063210381412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 123–142. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Borum, R., Bartel, P., & Forth, A. (2006). Structured assessment for violence risk in youth (SAVRY). Tampa: Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.Google Scholar
  19. Carpenter, K. M., & Addis, M. E. (2000). Alexithymia, gender, and responses to depressive symptoms. Sex Roles, 43(9–10), 629–644. doi: 10.1023/A:1007100523844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheong, D., & Lim, Y. H. (2015, August 23). Rise in sexual crimes over last four years. The Straits Times. Singapore. Retrieved from
  21. Chu, C. M., & Thomas, S. D. M. (2010). Adolescent sexual offenders: The relationship between typology and recidivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 22(2), 218–233. doi: 10.1177/1079063210369011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chu, C. M., & Ward, T. (2015). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: Working positively with sexual offenders. In N. Ronel & D. Segev (Eds.), Positive criminology: The good can overcome the bad (pp. 140–161). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Chu, C. M., & Zeng, G. (2017). The assessment and management of youth offenders in Singapore: The implementation of the risk, needs, and responsivity framework. In H. C. O. Chan & M. Y. S. Ho (Eds.), Psycho-criminological perspective of criminal justice in Asia: Research and practices in Hong Kong, Singapore, and beyond (pp. 200–218). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Chu, C. M., Ng, K., Fong, J., & Teoh, J. (2012a). Assessing youth who sexually offended the predictive validity of the ERASOR, J-SOAP-II, and YLS/CMI in a non- western context. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 24(2), 153–174. doi: 10.1177/1079063211404250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chu, C. M., Teoh, J., Lim, H. S., Long, M., Tan, E. E., Tan, A., … Lim, P. L. (2012b). The implementation of the risk-needs-responsivity framework across the youth justice services in Singapore. Poster presented at the Australian and New Zealand Association for Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law 2012 Congress, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  26. Chu, C. M., Ward, T., & Willis, G. (2014a). Practicing the good lives model. In I. Durnescu, & F. McNeill (Eds.), Understanding penal practice (pp. 206–222). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Chu, C. M., Yu, H., Lee, Y., & Zeng, G. (2014b). The utility of the YLS/CMI-SV for assessing youth offenders in Singapore. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12), 1437–1457. doi: 10.1177/0093854814537626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chu, C. M., Koh, L. L., Zeng, G., & Teoh, J. (2015a). Youth who sexual offended: Primary human goods and offense pathways. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(2), 151–172. doi: 10.1177/1079063213499188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chu, C. M., Lee, Y., Zeng, G., Yim, G., Tan, C. Y., Ang, Y., … Ruby, K. (2015b). Assessing youth offenders in a non-Western context: The predictive validity of the YLS/CMI ratings. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1013–1021. doi:  10.1037/a0038670.
  30. Chu, C. M., Tan, J., Liu, D., Noorahman, N., & Goh, M. L. (2015c). Programme evaluation compendium: Clinical and forensic psychology branch. Singapore: Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service, Ministry of Social and Family Development.Google Scholar
  31. Chua, J. R. Z. H., Chu, C. M., Yim, G., Chong, D., & Teoh, J. (2014). Implementation of the risk-need-responsivity framework within the juvenile justice agencies in Singapore. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(6), 877–889. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2014.918076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. de Ruiter, C., & Nicholls, T. L. (2011). Protective factors in forensic mental health: A new frontier. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 10(3), 160–170. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2011.600602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. de Vogel, V., de Ruiter, C., Bouman, Y., & de Vries Robbé, M. (2012). SAPROF. Guidelines for the assessment of protective factors for violence risk (2nd ed.). Utrecht: Van der Hoeven Stichting.Google Scholar
  34. de Vries Robbé, M., & Willis, G. M. (2017). Assessment of protective factors in clinical practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Department of Statistics Singapore. (2017). Latest data. Retrieved 6 March 2017, from
  36. Edwards, W., & Hensley, C. (2001). Restructuring sex offender sentencing: A therapeutic jurisprudence approach to the criminal justice process. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 45(6), 646–662. doi: 10.1177/0306624X01456002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Family Justice Courts of Singapore. (2017a). Youth court matters. Retrieved 19 February 2017, from
  38. Family Justice Courts of Singapore. (2017b). Youth courts. Singapore. Retrieved from
  39. Gendreau, P., Litte, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575–608. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(6), 1154–1163. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2002). Youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/CMI). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  43. Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2011). Youth level of service/case mangement inventory 2.0 (YLS/CMI 2.0): User manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  44. Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781452243740.n6.Google Scholar
  45. Lodewijks, H. P. B., de Ruiter, C., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2010). The impact of protective factors in desistance from violent reoffending a study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(3), 568–587. doi: 10.1177/0886260509334403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Luthar, S. S., & McMahon, T. J. (1996). Peer reputation among inner-city adolescents: Structure and correlates. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6(4), 581–603.Google Scholar
  47. McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crime: Perspectives on theory and action. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Miller, H. A. (2006). A dynamic assessment of offender risk, needs, and strengths in a sample of pre-release general offenders. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(6), 767–782. Scholar
  49. Ministry of Home Affairs. (2017). Written reply to parliamentary question on the number of child sex offences reported in the past five years by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law. Retrieved 30 March 2017, from
  50. Monahan, J. (1981). Predicting violent behavior: An assessment of clinical techniques. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  51. National Institute of Justice. (2015). Program profile: Children with problematic sexual behavior-cognitive behavioral therapy (PSB–CBT). Retrieved from
  52. O’Donnell, C. R., Lydgate, T., & Fo, W. S. O. (1971). The buddy system: Review and follow-up. Child Behavior Therapy, 1, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Phua, A., & Lim, J. (2012, July 14). Is it time for a sex offender registry? The New Paper. Singapore. Retrieved from
  54. Pullman, L., & Seto, M. C. (2012). Assessment and treatment of adolescent sexual offenders: Implications of recent research on generalist versus specialist explanations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36, 203–209. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Seow, B. Y. (2017, February). New one-stop centre for sexual crime victims after review of investigation, court processes: MHA. The Straits Times. Retrieved from
  56. Singapore Department of Statistics. (2016). Yearbook of statistics 2016. Singapore. Retrieved from
  57. Thakker, J., Ward, T., & Chu, C. M. (2014). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: A case study. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Case studies in sexual deviance: Towards evidence-based practice (pp. 79–101). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Ward, T., & Stewart, C. A. (2003). The treatment of sex offenders: Risk management and good lives. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Willis, G. M., Yates, P. M., Gannon, T. A., & Ward, T. (2013). How to integrate the good lives model into treatment programs for sexual offending: An introduction and overview. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(2), 123–142. doi: 10.1177/1079063212452618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Worling, J. R. (2013). Desistence for adolescents who sexually harm. Unpublished document. Retrieved from
  61. Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2001). Estimate of risk of adolescent sexual offense recidivism (Version 2.0: The “ERASOR”). In M. C. Calder (Ed.), Juveniles and children who sexually abuse: Frameworks for assessment (pp. 372–397). Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Zeng, G., Chu, C. M., & Lee, Y. (2015b). Assessing protective factors of youth who sexually offended in singapore: Preliminary evidence on the utility of the DASH-13 and the SAPROF. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 27(1), 91–108. doi: 10.1177/1079063214561684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Zeng
    • 1
  • Chi Meng Chu
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service, Ministry of Social and Family DevelopmentSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations