Typology of youth-produced sexual image cases known to law enforcement. To create the typology we reviewed the narrative case descriptions prepared by interviewers to identify the themes that were used to describe the case types and subtypes. We then circulated the initial typology among researchers in the field and revised it on the basis of their comments. We used quantitative data and narrative case summaries to categorize cases as to type. The quantitative data included variables that described whether various aggravating circumstances occurred (eg, adult involvement; criminal behavior such as blackmail or violence; lack of consent to being photographed or to distribution, including images forwarded by a recipient). Cases that could not be classified on the basis of such variables were coded using the narrative case descriptions. All cases were double-coded by project staff with discrepancies resolved by the study director.
As a result of this case, suspect will or will likely be a registered sex offender
n/a, not applicable.
↵a Results are weighted to reflect selection probabilities. ns and percentages may not be proportionate because some cases have more influence than others. Some totals do not round to 100% because of rounding or missing data. Missing data are shown when they exceed 5%.
↵b Police considered some minors to be offenders because they aggressively pursued sexual contacts with adults.
↵d By definition, all adult-involved aggravated cases and no experimental cases involved criminal behavior.
↵e We used a question based on the federal definition of child pornography to determine whether images were sexually explicit (ie, images showed genitals or sexual activity). Cases with no sexually explicit images involved nude or seminude images that were not sexually explicit.
↵f Some minors who were charged in state court also had juvenile court cases.
Youth-Produced Sexual Image Cases Handled by Law Enforcement Agencies During 2008 and 2009: Distribution of Youth-Produced Sexual Images by Case Typea