- Email: [email protected]
Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability in offense type and risk factors
Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability in offense type and risk factors Jessica J. Asscher *, Claudia E. van der Put, Geert Jan J.M. Stams University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 26 March 2012 Received in revised form 22 May 2012 Accepted 22 May 2012 Available online 30 June 2012
The present study aimed to examine differences between American juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (ID) in offense type and risk factors. The sample consisted of adolescents with ID (n = 102) and without ID (n = 526) who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. Results showed that adolescents with ID had committed more offenses against persons compared to adolescents without ID. Few differences in risk factors were found between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the domains of school, family and use of free time. Juvenile offenders without ID more often had problems in the relationship and alcohol/drugs domain, whereas juveniles with ID more often experienced problems in the domains of attitude, aggression and skills. ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Juvenile offenders Intellectual disability (ID) Offense type Risk factors
The present study examined differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (ID) in offense type and risk factors. Over the years, there has been great interest in offenders with ID (see e.g., Lindsay, 2002, 2011; Lindsay, Hastings, & Beech, 2011), and the literature on problem behaviors of individuals with ID has accumulated (Heyvaert, Maes, & Onghena, 2010). It has repeatedly been reported that individuals with ID ‘‘represent a sizable minority of the offender population’’ (Gray, Fitzgerald, Taylor, MacCulloch, & Snowden, 2007, p. 474), and tend to commit more offenses than persons without ID (Hodgins, 1992). However, although researchers repeatedly state that offender populations for a substantial part consist of offenders with intellectual disabilities (Holland, Clare, & Mukhopadyay, 2002), the prevalence rates in various studies differ. For example, Chitsabesan et al. (2007) estimated that 20% of the juvenile offenders in the UK were intellectually disabled (IQ below 70), whereas the Law Report Commission (1996) came up with percentages ranging from10 to13%. Differences in prevalence rates can be influenced by the decision of what is selected as IQ cut-off point. Lindsay and Taylor (2005) concluded that it is not clear whether people with ID commit more or less crime than people without ID, or whether type and frequency of crimes differ from non-intellectually disabled offenders. Despite the unclarity about prevalence rates of delinquent behavior in individuals with ID, intellectually disabled offenders represent an important offender subgroup for at least two reasons. First, intellectual disability may affect the understanding of social conventions and criminal law. The judicial system requires a minimal level of understanding to be able to understand the rules of society, but also to provide fair and equal measures to a group that potentially does not understand the rules (Lindsay et al., 2011). Additionally, juveniles with ID tend to be a vulnerable group for juvenile delinquency (Zhang, Barrett, Katsiyannis, & Yoon, 2011). A substantial part of the ID populations show more anger and aggression, which puts them at risk for delinquent behaviors (Novaco & Taylor, 2004). Offenders with ID may have deficits in information processing and communication skills (e.g., Gardner & Moffiat, 1990), which, in combination with lack of self-control and increased
* Corresponding author at: Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.J. Asscher). 0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.05.022
1906
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
impulsiveness, may cause aggressive and violent behavior. Second, effective treatment requires that behavioral interventions should be responsive to the needs of the participants (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). This may mean that treatment programs for non-intellectually disabled offenders should be adjusted for use with offenders with ID. Especially the group of juvenile offenders with ID is an important focus of study, given their vulnerability to external influences, such as peer pressure and cognitive misinterpretations, but also since risk assessments and treatments should be adjusted in order to be useful with this specific group. It is remarkable that little research is available on the comparison of characteristics of juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (Hall, 2000). 1. Explanations for delinquent behavior in people with ID The development of delinquent behavior is influenced by both static and dynamic risk factors (Heyvaert et al., 2010). There are indications that risk factors may differ between groups (Van der Put, 2011). Several static risk factors for reoffending were identified in ID groups, such as age, number of previous offenses and number of days hospitalized in psychiatric hospitals (Fitzgerald, Gray, Taylor, & Snowden, 2011). Lindsay (2011) reported that offenders with ID tend to more often misuse substances and have more psychiatric disorders. Consequently, a number of risk factors for delinquency may be specific to ID groups. Knowledge about dynamic risk factors for reoffending is largely based on research in sample of offenders without ID. Interventions that are offered to offenders with ID are therefore based on dynamic risk factors identified in non-ID populations. Given that many interventions for ID groups have been shown to be non-effective (Thompson Prout & Nowak-Drabik, 2003) and little evidence-based treatment for juvenile delinquents with ID exists (Bhaumik, Gangadharan, Hiremath, & Russell, 2011), it is important to further study differences between offenders with and without ID. Penal interventions are believed to be most effective if they target dynamic factors that are related with the development and persistence of delinquent behaviors, in other words, when they are responsive to the criminogenic needs of the offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). It is therefore important to determine whether there are differences between offenders with and without ID in the presence and content of risk factors for recidivism. The first research question of the present study is (1) whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in type of offense? The second research question concerns the question (2) whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the presence of dynamic risk factors for recidivism, such as skills and attitude or familial problems? The current study thus focuses on the prevalence of dynamic risk factors in offenders with and without ID. This is important, as previous research has mainly focused on the question of epidemiology, such as prevalence of ID in offenders, and whether or not they are at increased risk for reoffending. However, in order to be able to provide adequate treatment, it is important to identify potential differences in dynamic risk factors between intellectually disabled and non-intellectually disabled offenders. Novel to this study is thus that differences in risk factors for recidivism are examined, which this is important in order to be able to adjust treatments to juvenile offenders with ID. 2. Methods 2.1. Sample For this study, data from the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) validation study were used (Barnoski, 2004), consisting of American juveniles, aged 12–18, who appeared before the courts for a criminal act in the period from January 1999 to January 2000 and for whom the WSJCA was completed. A distinction was made between the following groups: (a) Offenders with intellectual disability: all juvenile offenders with a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability. A formal diagnosis of ID means a full scale IQ of less than 70, coupled with significant deficit in adaptive behavior, with childhood onset. The juveniles in this group are special education students or have a formal diagnosis of a special education need. (b) Offenders without intellectual disability: a random sample of all juvenile offenders without a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability. The group of juvenile offenders with ID consisted of n = 102 participants, 79% were male with a mean age of 15.35 (SD = 1.21). The group of juvenile offenders without ID consisted of n = 526 participants, 73% were male, and the mean age was 15.39 (SD = 1.38). There were no differences between the groups in gender (x2 = 1.63, p = n.s.) or age (F (1, 627) = .17, p = n.s.). In Table 1 the offenses committed by the juvenile offenders are presented. There were no differences in number of felony or misdemeanor offenses, total number of offenses for which the most serious offense was a non-traffic misdemeanor that resulted in a conviction, diversion, deferred adjudication, or deferred disposition. Juvenile offenders with ID had committed more felony offenses against persons (homicide, manslaughter, assault, robbery, kidnapping, rape, domestic violence, harassment, criminal mistreatment, intimidation, coercion, etc.) and misdemeanor offenses against persons (involving threats, force or physical harm to another person) than juvenile offenders without ID.
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1907
Table 1 Type of offenses committed by juvenile offenders with and without ID.
Number Number Number Number
of of of of
felony offenses misdemeanor offenses felony offenses against persons misdemeanor offenses against persons
ID group (n = 102)
Non-ID group (n = 526)
F
1.04 2.43 .36 1.06
1.02 2.06 .22 .63
0.03 2.48 3.94* 11.73**
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01.
2.2. Instruments and procedure 2.2.1. Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) De WSJCA is a screening and risk assessment instrument, which was developed in Washington State (Barnoski, 2004). The WSJCA maps out the most important risk and protective factors in a large number of domains. The selection of domains and items took place on the basis of a review of the juvenile delinquency research literature and then was modified, based on feedback from an international team of experts. The assessment was revised again following reviews by Washington State juvenile court professionals. The WSJCA comprises two parts: a pre-screen and full assessment. The pre-screen is a shortened version of the full assessment that quickly indicates whether a youth is at low, moderate or high risk for reoffending. The pre-screen comprises the most important predictors of recidivism from two domains: the criminal history domain and the social history domain (Barnoski, 2004). The pre-screen is administered to all youth on probation and the full assessment is required only for youth who are assessed as having moderate or high risk on the pre-screen (71% of the juvenile offenders). The full assessment identifies a youth’s risk and protective factor profile to guide rehabilitative efforts. The courts have refocused their resources on moderate and high risk youth by assigning low risk youth to minimum supervision caseloads. Probation officers perform the full assessments on the basis of information from a structured motivational interview with the youth and youth’s family. Additionally, the items concerning schools (e.g., grades) were checked with the schools the juveniles are attending. Probation officers are trained in conducting the assessment. This training includes reviewing videotaped interviews and the resulting assessment to ensure that the probation officer has mastered the assessment skills. There is a manual available for the full assessment and quality assurance is an important part of the assessment structure and organization in Washington State (Barnoski, 2004). The quality assurance consists of a training manual and curriculum, which ensures that the staff completing the assessments understands the concepts intended to be assessed. Assessment staff is trained and has received feedback to become certified trainers. Moreover, each court assigns a quality assurance specialist (for more detailed information see: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004). In the present study, we analyzed dynamic risk factors from the following domains: school, use of free time, relationships, family, alcohol and drugs, attitude, aggression and skills. Per domain, the following dynamic risk factors were measured: use of free time, relationships, family, alcohol and drugs, attitude, aggression, and skills (see Table 2 for an overview of the risk factors and explanations of the risk factors where necessary). The predictive validity of the WSJCA has been tested in two studies: a study of Barnoski (2004) and a study of researchers from Orbis Partners (2007). In the first study the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the WSJCPA was .64 and in the second study the AUC was .63. In a meta-analysis of the predictive validity of risk-assessment instruments for juveniles it was shown that the AUC varied from .53 to .78, with an average AUC of .64 (Schwalbe, 2007). The AUC of the WSJCPA is therefore comparable to the average AUC of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments. 2.3. Analyses To measure the prevalence of the risk factors in the various domains, the risk factors were recoded into dichotomous variables (1 if there is an increased risk and 0 if there is no increased risk). A total score was calculated for each domain by adding the number of risk factors. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were differences in the prevalence of risk factors between the different groups of offenders. ANOVA’s were conducted separately for each risk factor in which the mean levels of each risk factor were compared between juvenile offenders with and without ID. For each risk factor a mean score was calculated and then averaged per group. In the ANOVA the average per risk factor was the dependent variable and group (ID/non-ID) the grouping factor. The dynamic risk factors were operationalized this way in the assessment instrument that was used. 3. Results In Table 1, differences in offense type between juvenile offenders with and without ID are presented. There were no differences in the number of felony offenses or in the number of misdemeanor offenses. However, The group with ID had
1908
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
Table 2 Dynamic risk factors assessed in the present study.a Risk factor School (total number of problems) Severe behavior problems Truancy Poor academic performance Poor relationship with teachers Recent expulsions Not interested/involved in school activities Not likely to graduate Does not believe school is encouraging Does not believes getting education of value Use of free time (total number of problems) No daily activities Not interested/involved in unstructured activities Not interested/involved in structured activities Relationships (total number of problems) No positive relationships with adults No prosocial bonds in the community No positive relationships with adults No prosocial bonds in the community Romantic relationship antisocial person Admiration of antisocial behavior No resistance to influence of antisocial peers Family (total number of problems) Low family income Family member in detention Parental alcohol problems Parental drug problems Parental mental health problems Parental employment problems Poor relationship with father Poor relationship with mother Serious conflicts in the family Poor parental supervision Poor parental authority and control Poor parental punishment Poor parental reward No family support network Run away from home Alcohol/drug abuse (total number of problems) Alcohol abuse Alcohol contributes to criminal behavior Drugs abuse Drugs contributes to criminal behavior Attitude (total number of problems) Low aspirations for better life Impulsive behavior No or little control over antisocial behavior No or little empathy No or little respect for others’ property No or little respect for authority figures No or little respect for rules/social conventions Does not accept responsibility for behavior Does not think they can comply with measures Aggression (total number of problems) Low frustration tolerance Hostile interpretation of behavior Verbal aggression to solve conflict Physical aggression to solve conflict Report of violent behavior Report of sexually violent behavior Skills (total number of problems) Problems with consequential thinking Problems with goal setting Poor problem-solving behavior Poor situational perception Problems in dealing with others
Examples Fighting or threatening students/staff, lying, cheating, dishonesty, crimes, e.g., theft, vandalism, overly disruptive behavior Some full-day unexcused absences or truancy petition/equivalent or withdrawn Some Ds and mostly Fs Not close to any adult at school Two or more recent expel/suspend
Youth does not attend school or work clubs, groups, Church Hobby
No people in his or her community who Discourage the youth from getting into trouble or are willing to help the youth
Annual income under $15,000 Jail/imprisonment of persons who are currently involved with the household (siblings and/or mother and/or father) Current alcohol problem Current drugs problem
Not close to father Not close to mother Family verbal intimidation, threats of physical abuse and/or domestic violence Parents do not or hardly know whom youth is with, when youth will return, where youth is going, and what youth is doing Youth consistently disobeys family Inconsistently or consistently insufficient Consistently appropriate/inconsistently or consistently insufficient
Alcohol and/or drugs causing family conflict and/or disrupting education and/or causing health problems and/or interfering with keeping prosocial friends
Little sense of purpose or plans for better life Usually acts before thinking Believes cannot stop antisocial behavior Does not have remorse, sympathy, or feelings for victims of criminal behavior
Often gets upset over small things or has temper tantrums
Aggressive sex, young sex partners, sex for power, voyeurism, exposure Does not understand about consequences of actions Does not set any goals or set unrealistic goals Cannot identify problem behaviors Cannot analyze the situation for use of a prosocial skill Lacks basic social skills
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1909
Table 2 (Continued ) Risk factor Problems in dealing with difficult situations Problems in dealing with feelings Problems in controlling internal triggers Problems in controlling external triggers
Examples Cannot recognize and monitor internal triggers [thoughts, needs, emotions] that lead the youth into trouble Cannot recognize and monitor external triggers (people, situations, events) that lead the youth into trouble Lacks techniques to control impulsive behavior, lacks alternatives to aggression
a
Some risk factors are scored on a 2-point scale (0 if the risk is not present, 1 if it is present), some on a 3-point scale (0 if the risk is not present, 1 if it is somewhat or sometimes present and 2 if the risk is very present or often present, during the past six months) and some on a 4-point scale, if the protective side is also measured.
committed more felony offenses (F (1, 625) = 3.94, p < .05) and misdemeanor (F (1, 625) = 11.73, p < .01) against persons than the group without ID. Differences in risk factors between offenders with and without ID are presented in Table 3. At the school level, there were no differences between offenders with and without ID in performance, teacher relationships, involvement in school, and perceived value of education. There were, however, significant differences in severe behavior problems and truancy. Juveniles with ID were more likely to show severe behavior problems (F (1, 625) = 5.66, p < .05) and less likely to be truant (F (1, 625) = 12.98, p < .001) than juvenile offenders with ID. There were no differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID with in their use of free time (see Table 3). Juveniles without ID had more often problems in the relationship domain than juveniles without ID (F (1, 625) = 6.40, p < .01). Juveniles without ID had more antisocial friends (F (1, 625) = 43.51, p < .001), were more often involved in a romantic relationship with an antisocial person (F (1, 625) = 5.45, p < .05) and showed more admiration for antisocial behavior (F (1, 625) = 4.05, p < .05). There were no differences between offenders with and without ID in positive relationships with adults, gang membership or ability to resist antisocial peer pressure. Family risk factors did not differ with regard to income, family member in detention, alcohol problems, drug problems, relationship quality with father, serious conflicts, parental control, punishment, reward, support network or running away. Juvenile offenders with ID, however, more often had a parent with mental health problems (F (1, 625) = 3.96, p < .05), but less often had a poor relationship with their mother (F (1, 625) = 6.06, p < .05) and poor parental supervision (F (1, 625) = 5.81, p < .05). Juvenile offenders with ID less often had problems with substance abuse (F (1, 625) = 9.74, p < .05). Juvenile offenders without ID more often abused alcohol (F (1, 625) = 7.55, p < .001) or drugs (F (1, 625) = 10.59, p < .001), but there were no differences between offenders with and without ID in the contribution of alcohol and drugs to criminal behavior. Juvenile offenders with ID more often had problems in the attitude domain (F (1, 625) = 13.25, p < .001). They more often had lower aspirations for a better life (F (1, 625) = 16.05, p < .001), more often showed impulsive behavior (F (1, 625) = 35.17, p < .001), had relatively little control over antisocial behavior (F (1, 625) = 14.67, p < .05), more often did not accept responsibility for their behavior (F (1, 625) = 4.00, p < .05), and more often thought they could not comply with measures (F (1, 625) = 19.85, p < .001) compared to juvenile offenders without ID. Moreover, juvenile offenders with ID more often had problems in the aggression domain (F (1, 625) = 29.40, p < .001) than juvenile offenders without ID, including low frustration tolerance (F (1, 625) = 36.42, p < .001), verbal aggression (F (1, 625) = 3.83, p < .05), physical aggression (F (1, 625) = 11.87, p < .01), violent behavior (F (1, 625) = 17.25, p < .001) and sexually violent behavior (F (1, 625) = 19.85, p < .001). Finally, juvenile offenders with ID turned out to have more problems in the skills domain than juvenile offenders without ID (F (1, 625) = 57.80, p < .001). Juvenile offenders with ID had more problems with consequential thinking (F (1, 625) = 16.26, p < .001), goal setting (F (1, 625) = 29.39, p < .001), problem-solving behavior (F (1, 625) = 17.82, p < .001), situational perception (F (1, 625) = 22.35, p < .001), dealing with others (F (1, 625) = 29.37, p < .001), difficult situations (F (1, 625) = 46.17, p < .001), feelings (F (1, 625) = 29.69, p < .001), and with controlling internal (F (1, 625) = 30.67, p < .001) or external (F (1, 625) = 28.56, p < .001) triggers. 4. Discussion The present study revealed that there were differences between offenders with and without ID in felony and misdemeanor offenses against persons, but not in the general number of offenses. Few differences were found in school problems and none in leisure time activities. There were few differences in family problems. Offenders without ID had more problems with relationships and substance use. Offenders with ID, however, had more problems with attitude, aggression and skills. The finding that offenders with ID tend to commit crimes against persons more often than offenders without ID can be understood from the literature showing that offenders with ID more often experience problems with anger and aggression (Novaco & Taylor, 2004). Children with (mild) intellectual disabilities tend to have problems with social information processing: they tend to encode more negative information, and tend to show more aggressive problem solving skills (Van Nieuwenhuizen et al., 2005). The finding that offenders with ID have higher levels of sexually violent behavior is in line with the finding of Simpson and Hogg (2008) that individuals with ID have a relatively higher prevalence of sexual offending. A
1910
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
Table 3 Prevalence of dynamic risk factors in juvenile offenders with and without ID.a
School (total number of problems) Severe behavior problems Truancy Poor academic performance Poor relationship with teachers Recent expulsions Not interested/involved in school activities Not likely to graduate Does not believe school is encouraging Does not believes getting education of value Use of free time (total number of problems) No daily activities Not interested/involved in unstructured activities Not interested/involved in structured activities Relationships (total number of problems) No positive relationships with adults No prosocial bonds in the community Antisocial friends Gang membership Romantic relationship antisocial person Admiration of antisocial behavior No resistance to influence of antisocial peers Family (total number of problems) Low family income Family member in detention Parental alcohol problems Parental drug problems Parental mental health problems Parental employment problems Poor relationship with father Poor relationship with mother Serious conflicts in the family Poor parental supervision Poor parental authority and control Poor parental punishment Poor parental reward No family support network Run away from home Alcohol/drug abuse (total number of problems) Alcohol abuse Alcohol contributes to criminal behavior Drugs abuse Drugs contributes to criminal behavior Attitude (total number of problems) Low aspirations for better life Impulsive behavior No or little control over antisocial behavior No or little empathy No or little respect for others’ property No or little respect for authority figures No or little respect for rules/social conventions Does not accept responsibility for behavior Does not think they can comply with measures Aggression (total number of problems) Low frustration tolerance Hostile interpretation of behavior Verbal aggression to solve conflict Physical aggression to solve conflict Report of violent behavior Report of sexually violent behavior Skills (total number of problems) Problems with consequential thinking Problems with goal setting Poor problem-solving behavior Poor situational perception Problems in dealing with others Problems in dealing with difficult situations
ID group (n = 102)
Non-ID group (n = 526)
Fa
4.55 78% 49% 64% 41% 50% 49% 79% 29% 15% 1.01 16% 42% 45% 2.53 50% 35% 48% 6% 4% 59% 51% 6.37 74% 39% 23% 23% 21% 34% 68% 32% 67% 48% 75% 50% 43% 25% 25% 0.69 21% 7% 29% 12% 5.25 54% 77% 82% 33% 67% 46% 27% 73% 66% 3.40 56% 50% 81% 64% 75% 15% 7.49 95% 68% 96% 93% 97% 85%
5.56 65% 69% 69% 49% 48% 47% 77% 24% 9% 1.05 17% 44% 43% 3.00 48% 33% 79% 12% 12% 69% 49% 6.67 69% 40% 25% 22% 13% 22% 76% 46% 64% 61% 76% 56% 47% 19% 32% 1.12 34% 13% 47% 18% 4.18 33% 46% 63% 33% 69% 46% 20% 62% 47% 2.44 26% 44% 72% 45% 52% 4% 5.20 78% 39% 79% 71% 73% 50%
0.01 5.66* 12.98*** 0.73 2.12 0.18 0.25 0.13 1.51 3.24 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.08 6.40*** 0.15 0.22 43.51*** 3.09 5.45* 4.05* 0.18 0.69 1.10 0.01 0.12 0.04 3.96* 7.05** 3.46 6.06* 0.29 5.81* 0.04 1.36 0.50 1.50 2.22 9.74*** 7.55** 2.84 10.59** 2.40 13.25*** 16.05*** 35.17*** 14.67*** 0.00 0.15 0.00 3.04 4.00* 12.69*** 29.40*** 36.42*** 1.44 3.83* 11.87** 17.25*** 19.85*** 57.80*** 16.26*** 29.39*** 17.82*** 22.35*** 29.37*** 46.17***
(SD = 2.33)
(SD = 0.98)
(1.63)
(3.65)
(1.15)
(2.54)
(1.53)
(1.94)
(SD = 2.28)
(SD = 0.93)
(SD = 1.75)
(3.24)
(1.31)
(2.75)
(1.67)
(2.92)
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1911
Table 3 (Continued )
Problems in dealing with feelings Problems in controlling internal triggers Problems in controlling external triggers
ID group (n = 102)
Non-ID group (n = 526)
Fa
81% 75% 58%
53% 46% 31%
29.69*** 30.67*** 28.56***
a
Based on mean level comparisons. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
possible explanation is that juvenile offenders with ID are more often victims of (sexual) abuse themselves (Van der Put, Asscher, Wissink, & Stams, 2012), which increases the risk for sexual offending (Falshaw, Browne, & Hollin, 1996; Widom, 1989). Generally, there were few differences between offenders with and without ID in school and family problems and use of free time. Nevertheless, both groups showed substantial problems in these areas, which, consequently, warrant attention to school problems, activities and daily routines as alternatives for delinquent behavior. Moreover, it may be necessary that treatment programs target parental supervision and relationship quality with the mother. Additionally, the family of juvenile offenders with ID may be helped by focusing on parental health and employment. For example, both groups had low academic performance. It is remarkable that few differences in academic performance were present between the ID and non-ID group. It is possible that the juvenile offenders with ID achieved a similar level of performance by attending special education or receiving extra support within the normal education system. It is important, however, to realize that school performance was assessed by examining school grades instead of school level, which means that a juvenile performing well in lower level education obtains a higher performance score than a juvenile scoring moderate in higher level education. School performance may be an important focus in treatment of juvenile offenders with and without ID, because both groups appear to perform less well in school and there is empirical evidence showing that improvement in academic performance during incarceration is associated with lower levels of recidivism (Drakeford, 2002). It is not in line with previous research (e.g., Lindsay, 2011) that juvenile offenders without ID more often had problems with substance abuse. For drug use, this finding concurs with results from a study by Zhang et al. (2011), who reported a lower percentage of juvenile offenders with a drug abuse history in juvenile offenders with ID. However, it should be noted that Zhang et al. (2011) used a self-report measure to assess drug use, which may have affected the results. Although abuse was not related to criminal activity in the present study, it may be important to focus on addictions during treatment of this group, as addictions are likely to be a moderator of program effectiveness (Belenko & Logan, 2003). When referring juvenile offenders without ID to treatment programs, it is thus useful to assess carefully whether there are substance abuse problems in order to address these problems. There were differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in attitude, aggression and skills. Delinquents with ID scored consistently higher than offenders without ID on aggressive and violent behaviors. It seems therefore important to target aggression regulation in treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. The social information processing of juvenile offenders with ID has been shown to be not well developed (Jahoda, Pert, & Trower, 2006). Jahoda et al. showed that aggressive people with ID attributed more hostile intent to protagonists and were more likely to respond aggressively than non-aggressive participants. Benson (1994) explained higher levels of aggression in juveniles with ID by lack of problem solving skills. Jahoda, Pert, Squire and Trower (1998) found that a more vulnerable sense of self-control did affect aggression. Novaco (1997) demonstrated that the association between a negative appraisal of events and an aggressive response was mediated by anger. This was confirmed by Baker and Bramston (1997). It is thus important to address negative attributions, such as low life aspirations, problems with impulse control and compliance with measures, and problem solving skills in treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. The present study finding that juvenile offenders with ID had many problems with skills is in line with the need to address problem solving skills in treatment. Lack of self-control and problem solving skills have also been reported in other studies of people with ID. For instance, Hall (1999, in: Hall, 2000) reported impairment in social and communication skills. Lindsay (2005) showed that addressing cognitive distortions and improving problem solving skills are crucial in the treatment of sex offenders with ID. Skills training adjusted to the level of intellectual functioning therefore seems an important aspect of improving treatment for offenders with ID. Additionally, as offenders with ID showed more violent sexual behavior, special attention should be focused in treatment programs on sexual related violence. Lindsay and Smith (1998) suggested that sex offenders with ID find it more difficult to understand the other’s point of view. Moreover, they explain sexual offending by the social isolation that offenders with ID tend to suffer from, which makes it harder to develop age appropriate teenage romantic (and sexual) relationships (Lindsay, 1999). Juvenile offenders should be taught in skills training or cognitive behavioral therapy to find socially accepted ways to deal with their feelings. There should be attention for denial of offense, intent, responsibility, and harm to victim (Lindsay, 1999). There are several limitations worth mentioning. First, we included only juveniles in the ID group for whom a diagnosis of ID was present. It is possible, however, that there were low functioning juvenile offenders in the non-ID group, who just did
1912
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
not happen to have no formal diagnosis of ID. Additionally, there were no different levels of ID determined. Possibly, if different levels would have been taken into account, different results would have emerged. However, the information available in the present study is the information that is usually present in court. So it is important to use this information to come to treatment decisions. Second, the WSCJA was not designed to provide an in-depth examination of risk factors. Instead, it is a risk assessment tool that is designed to be used by juvenile justice professionals and clinicians to summarize juveniles’ risks and needs, classify their overall risk level, and plan treatment and supervision strategies. Third, the interrater reliability of the WSJCA was not established in this study. However, given that quality assurance is an important part of the assessment structure and organization in Washington State and probation officers receive intensive training to adequately administer and reliably score the WSJCA (Barnoski, 2004), we have no reason to assume that reliability of the WSJCA would be low. Fourth, if individuals with ID are remanded to hospitals or other care facilities for nonviolent crimes because of their ID (as they sometimes are), it could skew results. Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study provides important information on the differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID. There were differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the type of offense they committed. Juveniles with ID more often had committed offenses against persons. There were few differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in school and family problems and use of free time. Juvenile offenders without ID were more often substance abusers and had more problems in the relationship domain, whereas juveniles with ID more often had problems with attitude, aggression and skills. This study provides important information for the treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. Treatments for juvenile offenders with ID should provide skills training, and should focus on problems with cognitive information processing and regulation of aggressive behaviors. The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to examine differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in this many dynamic risk factors. References Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 16, 39–55. Baker, W., & Bramston, P. (1997). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression in people with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 3, 169–185. Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington state juvenile court assessment. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Belenko, S., & Logan, T. K. (2003). Delivering more effective treatment to adolescents: Improving the Juvenile Drug Court model. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25, 189–211. Benson, B. A. (1994). Anger management training: a self-control programme for persons with mild mental retardation. In N. Bouras (Ed.), Mental health in mental retardation: Recent advances and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhaumik, S., Gangadharan, S., Hiremath, A., & Russell, P. S. S. (2011). Psychological treatments in intellectual disability: The challenges of building a good evidence base. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 198, 428–430. Chitsabesan, P., Bailey, S., Williams, R., Kroll, L., Kenning, C., & Talbot, L. (2007). Learning disabilities and educational needs of juvenile offenders. Journal of Children’s Services, 2, 4–17. Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 139–144. Falshaw, L., Browne, K. D., & Hollin, C. R. (1996). Victim to offender: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 389–404. Fitzgerald, S., Gray, N. S., Taylor, J., & Snowden, R. J. (2011). Risk factors for recidivism in offenders with intellectual disabilities. Psychology, Crime and Law, 17, 43– 58. Gardner, W. I., & Moffiat, C. W. (1990). Aggressive behavior: Definition, assessment, treatment. International Review of Psychiatry, 2, 91–100. Gray, N. S., Fitzgerald, S., Taylor, J., MacCulloch, M. J., & Snowden, R. J. (2007). Predicting future reconviction in offenders with intellectual disabilities: The predictive efficacy of VRAG, PCL-SV, and the HCR-20. Psychological Assessment, 19, 474–479. Hall, I. (2000). Young offenders with a learning disability. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 6, 278–286. Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2010). A meta-analysis of intervention effects on challenging behavior among persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 634–649. Hodgins, S. (1992). Mental disorder, intellectual deficiency, and crime. Evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 476–483. Holland, T., Clare, I. C. H., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (2002). Prevalence of ‘criminal offending’ by men and women with intellectual disability and the characteristics of ‘offenders’: Implications for research and service development. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 6–20. Jahoda, A., Pert, C., Squire, J., & Trower, P. (1998). Facing stress and conflict: A comparison of the predicted responses and self-concepts of aggressive and nonaggressive people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42, 360–369. Jahoda, A., Pert, C., & Trower, P. (2006). Socioemotional understanding and frequent aggression in people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities: Recognition of facial affect and role-taking abilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111, 77–89. LRC. (1996). People with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system. Report 80. Law Reform Commission. Downloaded from: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R80APPENDIXB [07.03.12]. Lindsay, W. R. (1999). Treatment of adolescent sex offenders with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation, 37, 201–2011. Lindsay, W. R. (2002). Integration of recent reviews on offenders with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 111–119. Lindsay, W. (2005). Model underpinning treatment for sex offenders with mildintellectual disability: Current theories of sex offending. Mental Retardation, 43, 428–441. Lindsay, W. R. (2011). People with intellectual disability who offend or are involved with the criminal justice system. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24, 377–381. Lindsay, W. R., Hastings, R. P., & Beech, A. R. (2011). Forensic research in offenders with intellectual developmental disabilities 1: Prevalence and risk assessment. Psychology Crime & Law, 17, 3–7. Lindsay, W. R., & Smith, A. H. W. (1998). Responses to treatment for sex offenders with a learning disability: A comparison of men with one year and two year probation sentences. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research, 42, 346–353. Lindsay, W. R., & Taylor, J. L. (2005). A selective review of research on offenders with developmental disabilities: Assessment and treatment. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 201–214. Novaco, R. W. (1997). Remediating anger and aggression with violent offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 77–88. Novaco, R. W., & Taylor, J. L. (2004). Assessment of anger and aggression in male offenders with developmental disabilities. Psychological Assessment, 16, 42–50. Orbis Partners Inc.. (2007). Long-term validation of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) in New York State juvenile probation. Ottowa, Ontario: Orbis Partners Inc. Schwalbe, C. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449–462.
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1913
Simpson, M. K., & Hogg, J. (2008). Patterns of offending among people with intellectual disability: A systematic review. Part 1: Methodology and prevalence data. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 384–396. Thompson Prout, H., & Nowak-Drabik, K. M. (2003). Psychotherapy with persons who have mental retardation: An evaluation of effectiveness. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108, 82–93. Van der Put, C. E. (2011). Risk and needs assessment for juvenile delinquents. Doctorate thesis. Amsterdam: GVO Ponsen & Looijen. Van der Put, C. E., Asscher, J. J., Wissink, I. B., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2012). The relationship between victimization of maltreatment and sexual and violent offending: Differences between adolescent offenders with and without intellectual disability, submitted for publication. Van Nieuwenhuizen, M., Bijman, E. R., Lamberix, I. C. W., Wijnrokx, L., Orobio de Costro, B., Vermeer, A., et al. (2005). Do Children do what they say? Responses to hypothetical and real-life social problems in children with mild intellectual disabilities and behavior problems. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 419–433. Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160–166. Zhang, D., Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., & Yoon, M. (2011). Juvenile offenders with and without disabilities: Risk and patterns of recidivism. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 12–18.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Research in Developmental Disabilities
Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability in offense type and risk factors Jessica J. Asscher *, Claudia E. van der Put, Geert Jan J.M. Stams University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 26 March 2012 Received in revised form 22 May 2012 Accepted 22 May 2012 Available online 30 June 2012
The present study aimed to examine differences between American juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (ID) in offense type and risk factors. The sample consisted of adolescents with ID (n = 102) and without ID (n = 526) who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. Results showed that adolescents with ID had committed more offenses against persons compared to adolescents without ID. Few differences in risk factors were found between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the domains of school, family and use of free time. Juvenile offenders without ID more often had problems in the relationship and alcohol/drugs domain, whereas juveniles with ID more often experienced problems in the domains of attitude, aggression and skills. ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Juvenile offenders Intellectual disability (ID) Offense type Risk factors
The present study examined differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (ID) in offense type and risk factors. Over the years, there has been great interest in offenders with ID (see e.g., Lindsay, 2002, 2011; Lindsay, Hastings, & Beech, 2011), and the literature on problem behaviors of individuals with ID has accumulated (Heyvaert, Maes, & Onghena, 2010). It has repeatedly been reported that individuals with ID ‘‘represent a sizable minority of the offender population’’ (Gray, Fitzgerald, Taylor, MacCulloch, & Snowden, 2007, p. 474), and tend to commit more offenses than persons without ID (Hodgins, 1992). However, although researchers repeatedly state that offender populations for a substantial part consist of offenders with intellectual disabilities (Holland, Clare, & Mukhopadyay, 2002), the prevalence rates in various studies differ. For example, Chitsabesan et al. (2007) estimated that 20% of the juvenile offenders in the UK were intellectually disabled (IQ below 70), whereas the Law Report Commission (1996) came up with percentages ranging from10 to13%. Differences in prevalence rates can be influenced by the decision of what is selected as IQ cut-off point. Lindsay and Taylor (2005) concluded that it is not clear whether people with ID commit more or less crime than people without ID, or whether type and frequency of crimes differ from non-intellectually disabled offenders. Despite the unclarity about prevalence rates of delinquent behavior in individuals with ID, intellectually disabled offenders represent an important offender subgroup for at least two reasons. First, intellectual disability may affect the understanding of social conventions and criminal law. The judicial system requires a minimal level of understanding to be able to understand the rules of society, but also to provide fair and equal measures to a group that potentially does not understand the rules (Lindsay et al., 2011). Additionally, juveniles with ID tend to be a vulnerable group for juvenile delinquency (Zhang, Barrett, Katsiyannis, & Yoon, 2011). A substantial part of the ID populations show more anger and aggression, which puts them at risk for delinquent behaviors (Novaco & Taylor, 2004). Offenders with ID may have deficits in information processing and communication skills (e.g., Gardner & Moffiat, 1990), which, in combination with lack of self-control and increased
* Corresponding author at: Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.J. Asscher). 0891-4222/$ – see front matter ß 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.05.022
1906
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
impulsiveness, may cause aggressive and violent behavior. Second, effective treatment requires that behavioral interventions should be responsive to the needs of the participants (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). This may mean that treatment programs for non-intellectually disabled offenders should be adjusted for use with offenders with ID. Especially the group of juvenile offenders with ID is an important focus of study, given their vulnerability to external influences, such as peer pressure and cognitive misinterpretations, but also since risk assessments and treatments should be adjusted in order to be useful with this specific group. It is remarkable that little research is available on the comparison of characteristics of juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (Hall, 2000). 1. Explanations for delinquent behavior in people with ID The development of delinquent behavior is influenced by both static and dynamic risk factors (Heyvaert et al., 2010). There are indications that risk factors may differ between groups (Van der Put, 2011). Several static risk factors for reoffending were identified in ID groups, such as age, number of previous offenses and number of days hospitalized in psychiatric hospitals (Fitzgerald, Gray, Taylor, & Snowden, 2011). Lindsay (2011) reported that offenders with ID tend to more often misuse substances and have more psychiatric disorders. Consequently, a number of risk factors for delinquency may be specific to ID groups. Knowledge about dynamic risk factors for reoffending is largely based on research in sample of offenders without ID. Interventions that are offered to offenders with ID are therefore based on dynamic risk factors identified in non-ID populations. Given that many interventions for ID groups have been shown to be non-effective (Thompson Prout & Nowak-Drabik, 2003) and little evidence-based treatment for juvenile delinquents with ID exists (Bhaumik, Gangadharan, Hiremath, & Russell, 2011), it is important to further study differences between offenders with and without ID. Penal interventions are believed to be most effective if they target dynamic factors that are related with the development and persistence of delinquent behaviors, in other words, when they are responsive to the criminogenic needs of the offenders (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). It is therefore important to determine whether there are differences between offenders with and without ID in the presence and content of risk factors for recidivism. The first research question of the present study is (1) whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in type of offense? The second research question concerns the question (2) whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the presence of dynamic risk factors for recidivism, such as skills and attitude or familial problems? The current study thus focuses on the prevalence of dynamic risk factors in offenders with and without ID. This is important, as previous research has mainly focused on the question of epidemiology, such as prevalence of ID in offenders, and whether or not they are at increased risk for reoffending. However, in order to be able to provide adequate treatment, it is important to identify potential differences in dynamic risk factors between intellectually disabled and non-intellectually disabled offenders. Novel to this study is thus that differences in risk factors for recidivism are examined, which this is important in order to be able to adjust treatments to juvenile offenders with ID. 2. Methods 2.1. Sample For this study, data from the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) validation study were used (Barnoski, 2004), consisting of American juveniles, aged 12–18, who appeared before the courts for a criminal act in the period from January 1999 to January 2000 and for whom the WSJCA was completed. A distinction was made between the following groups: (a) Offenders with intellectual disability: all juvenile offenders with a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability. A formal diagnosis of ID means a full scale IQ of less than 70, coupled with significant deficit in adaptive behavior, with childhood onset. The juveniles in this group are special education students or have a formal diagnosis of a special education need. (b) Offenders without intellectual disability: a random sample of all juvenile offenders without a formal diagnosis of intellectual disability. The group of juvenile offenders with ID consisted of n = 102 participants, 79% were male with a mean age of 15.35 (SD = 1.21). The group of juvenile offenders without ID consisted of n = 526 participants, 73% were male, and the mean age was 15.39 (SD = 1.38). There were no differences between the groups in gender (x2 = 1.63, p = n.s.) or age (F (1, 627) = .17, p = n.s.). In Table 1 the offenses committed by the juvenile offenders are presented. There were no differences in number of felony or misdemeanor offenses, total number of offenses for which the most serious offense was a non-traffic misdemeanor that resulted in a conviction, diversion, deferred adjudication, or deferred disposition. Juvenile offenders with ID had committed more felony offenses against persons (homicide, manslaughter, assault, robbery, kidnapping, rape, domestic violence, harassment, criminal mistreatment, intimidation, coercion, etc.) and misdemeanor offenses against persons (involving threats, force or physical harm to another person) than juvenile offenders without ID.
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1907
Table 1 Type of offenses committed by juvenile offenders with and without ID.
Number Number Number Number
of of of of
felony offenses misdemeanor offenses felony offenses against persons misdemeanor offenses against persons
ID group (n = 102)
Non-ID group (n = 526)
F
1.04 2.43 .36 1.06
1.02 2.06 .22 .63
0.03 2.48 3.94* 11.73**
Note: * p < .05. ** p < .01.
2.2. Instruments and procedure 2.2.1. Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) De WSJCA is a screening and risk assessment instrument, which was developed in Washington State (Barnoski, 2004). The WSJCA maps out the most important risk and protective factors in a large number of domains. The selection of domains and items took place on the basis of a review of the juvenile delinquency research literature and then was modified, based on feedback from an international team of experts. The assessment was revised again following reviews by Washington State juvenile court professionals. The WSJCA comprises two parts: a pre-screen and full assessment. The pre-screen is a shortened version of the full assessment that quickly indicates whether a youth is at low, moderate or high risk for reoffending. The pre-screen comprises the most important predictors of recidivism from two domains: the criminal history domain and the social history domain (Barnoski, 2004). The pre-screen is administered to all youth on probation and the full assessment is required only for youth who are assessed as having moderate or high risk on the pre-screen (71% of the juvenile offenders). The full assessment identifies a youth’s risk and protective factor profile to guide rehabilitative efforts. The courts have refocused their resources on moderate and high risk youth by assigning low risk youth to minimum supervision caseloads. Probation officers perform the full assessments on the basis of information from a structured motivational interview with the youth and youth’s family. Additionally, the items concerning schools (e.g., grades) were checked with the schools the juveniles are attending. Probation officers are trained in conducting the assessment. This training includes reviewing videotaped interviews and the resulting assessment to ensure that the probation officer has mastered the assessment skills. There is a manual available for the full assessment and quality assurance is an important part of the assessment structure and organization in Washington State (Barnoski, 2004). The quality assurance consists of a training manual and curriculum, which ensures that the staff completing the assessments understands the concepts intended to be assessed. Assessment staff is trained and has received feedback to become certified trainers. Moreover, each court assigns a quality assurance specialist (for more detailed information see: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004). In the present study, we analyzed dynamic risk factors from the following domains: school, use of free time, relationships, family, alcohol and drugs, attitude, aggression and skills. Per domain, the following dynamic risk factors were measured: use of free time, relationships, family, alcohol and drugs, attitude, aggression, and skills (see Table 2 for an overview of the risk factors and explanations of the risk factors where necessary). The predictive validity of the WSJCA has been tested in two studies: a study of Barnoski (2004) and a study of researchers from Orbis Partners (2007). In the first study the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the WSJCPA was .64 and in the second study the AUC was .63. In a meta-analysis of the predictive validity of risk-assessment instruments for juveniles it was shown that the AUC varied from .53 to .78, with an average AUC of .64 (Schwalbe, 2007). The AUC of the WSJCPA is therefore comparable to the average AUC of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments. 2.3. Analyses To measure the prevalence of the risk factors in the various domains, the risk factors were recoded into dichotomous variables (1 if there is an increased risk and 0 if there is no increased risk). A total score was calculated for each domain by adding the number of risk factors. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there were differences in the prevalence of risk factors between the different groups of offenders. ANOVA’s were conducted separately for each risk factor in which the mean levels of each risk factor were compared between juvenile offenders with and without ID. For each risk factor a mean score was calculated and then averaged per group. In the ANOVA the average per risk factor was the dependent variable and group (ID/non-ID) the grouping factor. The dynamic risk factors were operationalized this way in the assessment instrument that was used. 3. Results In Table 1, differences in offense type between juvenile offenders with and without ID are presented. There were no differences in the number of felony offenses or in the number of misdemeanor offenses. However, The group with ID had
1908
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
Table 2 Dynamic risk factors assessed in the present study.a Risk factor School (total number of problems) Severe behavior problems Truancy Poor academic performance Poor relationship with teachers Recent expulsions Not interested/involved in school activities Not likely to graduate Does not believe school is encouraging Does not believes getting education of value Use of free time (total number of problems) No daily activities Not interested/involved in unstructured activities Not interested/involved in structured activities Relationships (total number of problems) No positive relationships with adults No prosocial bonds in the community No positive relationships with adults No prosocial bonds in the community Romantic relationship antisocial person Admiration of antisocial behavior No resistance to influence of antisocial peers Family (total number of problems) Low family income Family member in detention Parental alcohol problems Parental drug problems Parental mental health problems Parental employment problems Poor relationship with father Poor relationship with mother Serious conflicts in the family Poor parental supervision Poor parental authority and control Poor parental punishment Poor parental reward No family support network Run away from home Alcohol/drug abuse (total number of problems) Alcohol abuse Alcohol contributes to criminal behavior Drugs abuse Drugs contributes to criminal behavior Attitude (total number of problems) Low aspirations for better life Impulsive behavior No or little control over antisocial behavior No or little empathy No or little respect for others’ property No or little respect for authority figures No or little respect for rules/social conventions Does not accept responsibility for behavior Does not think they can comply with measures Aggression (total number of problems) Low frustration tolerance Hostile interpretation of behavior Verbal aggression to solve conflict Physical aggression to solve conflict Report of violent behavior Report of sexually violent behavior Skills (total number of problems) Problems with consequential thinking Problems with goal setting Poor problem-solving behavior Poor situational perception Problems in dealing with others
Examples Fighting or threatening students/staff, lying, cheating, dishonesty, crimes, e.g., theft, vandalism, overly disruptive behavior Some full-day unexcused absences or truancy petition/equivalent or withdrawn Some Ds and mostly Fs Not close to any adult at school Two or more recent expel/suspend
Youth does not attend school or work clubs, groups, Church Hobby
No people in his or her community who Discourage the youth from getting into trouble or are willing to help the youth
Annual income under $15,000 Jail/imprisonment of persons who are currently involved with the household (siblings and/or mother and/or father) Current alcohol problem Current drugs problem
Not close to father Not close to mother Family verbal intimidation, threats of physical abuse and/or domestic violence Parents do not or hardly know whom youth is with, when youth will return, where youth is going, and what youth is doing Youth consistently disobeys family Inconsistently or consistently insufficient Consistently appropriate/inconsistently or consistently insufficient
Alcohol and/or drugs causing family conflict and/or disrupting education and/or causing health problems and/or interfering with keeping prosocial friends
Little sense of purpose or plans for better life Usually acts before thinking Believes cannot stop antisocial behavior Does not have remorse, sympathy, or feelings for victims of criminal behavior
Often gets upset over small things or has temper tantrums
Aggressive sex, young sex partners, sex for power, voyeurism, exposure Does not understand about consequences of actions Does not set any goals or set unrealistic goals Cannot identify problem behaviors Cannot analyze the situation for use of a prosocial skill Lacks basic social skills
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1909
Table 2 (Continued ) Risk factor Problems in dealing with difficult situations Problems in dealing with feelings Problems in controlling internal triggers Problems in controlling external triggers
Examples Cannot recognize and monitor internal triggers [thoughts, needs, emotions] that lead the youth into trouble Cannot recognize and monitor external triggers (people, situations, events) that lead the youth into trouble Lacks techniques to control impulsive behavior, lacks alternatives to aggression
a
Some risk factors are scored on a 2-point scale (0 if the risk is not present, 1 if it is present), some on a 3-point scale (0 if the risk is not present, 1 if it is somewhat or sometimes present and 2 if the risk is very present or often present, during the past six months) and some on a 4-point scale, if the protective side is also measured.
committed more felony offenses (F (1, 625) = 3.94, p < .05) and misdemeanor (F (1, 625) = 11.73, p < .01) against persons than the group without ID. Differences in risk factors between offenders with and without ID are presented in Table 3. At the school level, there were no differences between offenders with and without ID in performance, teacher relationships, involvement in school, and perceived value of education. There were, however, significant differences in severe behavior problems and truancy. Juveniles with ID were more likely to show severe behavior problems (F (1, 625) = 5.66, p < .05) and less likely to be truant (F (1, 625) = 12.98, p < .001) than juvenile offenders with ID. There were no differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID with in their use of free time (see Table 3). Juveniles without ID had more often problems in the relationship domain than juveniles without ID (F (1, 625) = 6.40, p < .01). Juveniles without ID had more antisocial friends (F (1, 625) = 43.51, p < .001), were more often involved in a romantic relationship with an antisocial person (F (1, 625) = 5.45, p < .05) and showed more admiration for antisocial behavior (F (1, 625) = 4.05, p < .05). There were no differences between offenders with and without ID in positive relationships with adults, gang membership or ability to resist antisocial peer pressure. Family risk factors did not differ with regard to income, family member in detention, alcohol problems, drug problems, relationship quality with father, serious conflicts, parental control, punishment, reward, support network or running away. Juvenile offenders with ID, however, more often had a parent with mental health problems (F (1, 625) = 3.96, p < .05), but less often had a poor relationship with their mother (F (1, 625) = 6.06, p < .05) and poor parental supervision (F (1, 625) = 5.81, p < .05). Juvenile offenders with ID less often had problems with substance abuse (F (1, 625) = 9.74, p < .05). Juvenile offenders without ID more often abused alcohol (F (1, 625) = 7.55, p < .001) or drugs (F (1, 625) = 10.59, p < .001), but there were no differences between offenders with and without ID in the contribution of alcohol and drugs to criminal behavior. Juvenile offenders with ID more often had problems in the attitude domain (F (1, 625) = 13.25, p < .001). They more often had lower aspirations for a better life (F (1, 625) = 16.05, p < .001), more often showed impulsive behavior (F (1, 625) = 35.17, p < .001), had relatively little control over antisocial behavior (F (1, 625) = 14.67, p < .05), more often did not accept responsibility for their behavior (F (1, 625) = 4.00, p < .05), and more often thought they could not comply with measures (F (1, 625) = 19.85, p < .001) compared to juvenile offenders without ID. Moreover, juvenile offenders with ID more often had problems in the aggression domain (F (1, 625) = 29.40, p < .001) than juvenile offenders without ID, including low frustration tolerance (F (1, 625) = 36.42, p < .001), verbal aggression (F (1, 625) = 3.83, p < .05), physical aggression (F (1, 625) = 11.87, p < .01), violent behavior (F (1, 625) = 17.25, p < .001) and sexually violent behavior (F (1, 625) = 19.85, p < .001). Finally, juvenile offenders with ID turned out to have more problems in the skills domain than juvenile offenders without ID (F (1, 625) = 57.80, p < .001). Juvenile offenders with ID had more problems with consequential thinking (F (1, 625) = 16.26, p < .001), goal setting (F (1, 625) = 29.39, p < .001), problem-solving behavior (F (1, 625) = 17.82, p < .001), situational perception (F (1, 625) = 22.35, p < .001), dealing with others (F (1, 625) = 29.37, p < .001), difficult situations (F (1, 625) = 46.17, p < .001), feelings (F (1, 625) = 29.69, p < .001), and with controlling internal (F (1, 625) = 30.67, p < .001) or external (F (1, 625) = 28.56, p < .001) triggers. 4. Discussion The present study revealed that there were differences between offenders with and without ID in felony and misdemeanor offenses against persons, but not in the general number of offenses. Few differences were found in school problems and none in leisure time activities. There were few differences in family problems. Offenders without ID had more problems with relationships and substance use. Offenders with ID, however, had more problems with attitude, aggression and skills. The finding that offenders with ID tend to commit crimes against persons more often than offenders without ID can be understood from the literature showing that offenders with ID more often experience problems with anger and aggression (Novaco & Taylor, 2004). Children with (mild) intellectual disabilities tend to have problems with social information processing: they tend to encode more negative information, and tend to show more aggressive problem solving skills (Van Nieuwenhuizen et al., 2005). The finding that offenders with ID have higher levels of sexually violent behavior is in line with the finding of Simpson and Hogg (2008) that individuals with ID have a relatively higher prevalence of sexual offending. A
1910
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
Table 3 Prevalence of dynamic risk factors in juvenile offenders with and without ID.a
School (total number of problems) Severe behavior problems Truancy Poor academic performance Poor relationship with teachers Recent expulsions Not interested/involved in school activities Not likely to graduate Does not believe school is encouraging Does not believes getting education of value Use of free time (total number of problems) No daily activities Not interested/involved in unstructured activities Not interested/involved in structured activities Relationships (total number of problems) No positive relationships with adults No prosocial bonds in the community Antisocial friends Gang membership Romantic relationship antisocial person Admiration of antisocial behavior No resistance to influence of antisocial peers Family (total number of problems) Low family income Family member in detention Parental alcohol problems Parental drug problems Parental mental health problems Parental employment problems Poor relationship with father Poor relationship with mother Serious conflicts in the family Poor parental supervision Poor parental authority and control Poor parental punishment Poor parental reward No family support network Run away from home Alcohol/drug abuse (total number of problems) Alcohol abuse Alcohol contributes to criminal behavior Drugs abuse Drugs contributes to criminal behavior Attitude (total number of problems) Low aspirations for better life Impulsive behavior No or little control over antisocial behavior No or little empathy No or little respect for others’ property No or little respect for authority figures No or little respect for rules/social conventions Does not accept responsibility for behavior Does not think they can comply with measures Aggression (total number of problems) Low frustration tolerance Hostile interpretation of behavior Verbal aggression to solve conflict Physical aggression to solve conflict Report of violent behavior Report of sexually violent behavior Skills (total number of problems) Problems with consequential thinking Problems with goal setting Poor problem-solving behavior Poor situational perception Problems in dealing with others Problems in dealing with difficult situations
ID group (n = 102)
Non-ID group (n = 526)
Fa
4.55 78% 49% 64% 41% 50% 49% 79% 29% 15% 1.01 16% 42% 45% 2.53 50% 35% 48% 6% 4% 59% 51% 6.37 74% 39% 23% 23% 21% 34% 68% 32% 67% 48% 75% 50% 43% 25% 25% 0.69 21% 7% 29% 12% 5.25 54% 77% 82% 33% 67% 46% 27% 73% 66% 3.40 56% 50% 81% 64% 75% 15% 7.49 95% 68% 96% 93% 97% 85%
5.56 65% 69% 69% 49% 48% 47% 77% 24% 9% 1.05 17% 44% 43% 3.00 48% 33% 79% 12% 12% 69% 49% 6.67 69% 40% 25% 22% 13% 22% 76% 46% 64% 61% 76% 56% 47% 19% 32% 1.12 34% 13% 47% 18% 4.18 33% 46% 63% 33% 69% 46% 20% 62% 47% 2.44 26% 44% 72% 45% 52% 4% 5.20 78% 39% 79% 71% 73% 50%
0.01 5.66* 12.98*** 0.73 2.12 0.18 0.25 0.13 1.51 3.24 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.08 6.40*** 0.15 0.22 43.51*** 3.09 5.45* 4.05* 0.18 0.69 1.10 0.01 0.12 0.04 3.96* 7.05** 3.46 6.06* 0.29 5.81* 0.04 1.36 0.50 1.50 2.22 9.74*** 7.55** 2.84 10.59** 2.40 13.25*** 16.05*** 35.17*** 14.67*** 0.00 0.15 0.00 3.04 4.00* 12.69*** 29.40*** 36.42*** 1.44 3.83* 11.87** 17.25*** 19.85*** 57.80*** 16.26*** 29.39*** 17.82*** 22.35*** 29.37*** 46.17***
(SD = 2.33)
(SD = 0.98)
(1.63)
(3.65)
(1.15)
(2.54)
(1.53)
(1.94)
(SD = 2.28)
(SD = 0.93)
(SD = 1.75)
(3.24)
(1.31)
(2.75)
(1.67)
(2.92)
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1911
Table 3 (Continued )
Problems in dealing with feelings Problems in controlling internal triggers Problems in controlling external triggers
ID group (n = 102)
Non-ID group (n = 526)
Fa
81% 75% 58%
53% 46% 31%
29.69*** 30.67*** 28.56***
a
Based on mean level comparisons. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
possible explanation is that juvenile offenders with ID are more often victims of (sexual) abuse themselves (Van der Put, Asscher, Wissink, & Stams, 2012), which increases the risk for sexual offending (Falshaw, Browne, & Hollin, 1996; Widom, 1989). Generally, there were few differences between offenders with and without ID in school and family problems and use of free time. Nevertheless, both groups showed substantial problems in these areas, which, consequently, warrant attention to school problems, activities and daily routines as alternatives for delinquent behavior. Moreover, it may be necessary that treatment programs target parental supervision and relationship quality with the mother. Additionally, the family of juvenile offenders with ID may be helped by focusing on parental health and employment. For example, both groups had low academic performance. It is remarkable that few differences in academic performance were present between the ID and non-ID group. It is possible that the juvenile offenders with ID achieved a similar level of performance by attending special education or receiving extra support within the normal education system. It is important, however, to realize that school performance was assessed by examining school grades instead of school level, which means that a juvenile performing well in lower level education obtains a higher performance score than a juvenile scoring moderate in higher level education. School performance may be an important focus in treatment of juvenile offenders with and without ID, because both groups appear to perform less well in school and there is empirical evidence showing that improvement in academic performance during incarceration is associated with lower levels of recidivism (Drakeford, 2002). It is not in line with previous research (e.g., Lindsay, 2011) that juvenile offenders without ID more often had problems with substance abuse. For drug use, this finding concurs with results from a study by Zhang et al. (2011), who reported a lower percentage of juvenile offenders with a drug abuse history in juvenile offenders with ID. However, it should be noted that Zhang et al. (2011) used a self-report measure to assess drug use, which may have affected the results. Although abuse was not related to criminal activity in the present study, it may be important to focus on addictions during treatment of this group, as addictions are likely to be a moderator of program effectiveness (Belenko & Logan, 2003). When referring juvenile offenders without ID to treatment programs, it is thus useful to assess carefully whether there are substance abuse problems in order to address these problems. There were differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in attitude, aggression and skills. Delinquents with ID scored consistently higher than offenders without ID on aggressive and violent behaviors. It seems therefore important to target aggression regulation in treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. The social information processing of juvenile offenders with ID has been shown to be not well developed (Jahoda, Pert, & Trower, 2006). Jahoda et al. showed that aggressive people with ID attributed more hostile intent to protagonists and were more likely to respond aggressively than non-aggressive participants. Benson (1994) explained higher levels of aggression in juveniles with ID by lack of problem solving skills. Jahoda, Pert, Squire and Trower (1998) found that a more vulnerable sense of self-control did affect aggression. Novaco (1997) demonstrated that the association between a negative appraisal of events and an aggressive response was mediated by anger. This was confirmed by Baker and Bramston (1997). It is thus important to address negative attributions, such as low life aspirations, problems with impulse control and compliance with measures, and problem solving skills in treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. The present study finding that juvenile offenders with ID had many problems with skills is in line with the need to address problem solving skills in treatment. Lack of self-control and problem solving skills have also been reported in other studies of people with ID. For instance, Hall (1999, in: Hall, 2000) reported impairment in social and communication skills. Lindsay (2005) showed that addressing cognitive distortions and improving problem solving skills are crucial in the treatment of sex offenders with ID. Skills training adjusted to the level of intellectual functioning therefore seems an important aspect of improving treatment for offenders with ID. Additionally, as offenders with ID showed more violent sexual behavior, special attention should be focused in treatment programs on sexual related violence. Lindsay and Smith (1998) suggested that sex offenders with ID find it more difficult to understand the other’s point of view. Moreover, they explain sexual offending by the social isolation that offenders with ID tend to suffer from, which makes it harder to develop age appropriate teenage romantic (and sexual) relationships (Lindsay, 1999). Juvenile offenders should be taught in skills training or cognitive behavioral therapy to find socially accepted ways to deal with their feelings. There should be attention for denial of offense, intent, responsibility, and harm to victim (Lindsay, 1999). There are several limitations worth mentioning. First, we included only juveniles in the ID group for whom a diagnosis of ID was present. It is possible, however, that there were low functioning juvenile offenders in the non-ID group, who just did
1912
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
not happen to have no formal diagnosis of ID. Additionally, there were no different levels of ID determined. Possibly, if different levels would have been taken into account, different results would have emerged. However, the information available in the present study is the information that is usually present in court. So it is important to use this information to come to treatment decisions. Second, the WSCJA was not designed to provide an in-depth examination of risk factors. Instead, it is a risk assessment tool that is designed to be used by juvenile justice professionals and clinicians to summarize juveniles’ risks and needs, classify their overall risk level, and plan treatment and supervision strategies. Third, the interrater reliability of the WSJCA was not established in this study. However, given that quality assurance is an important part of the assessment structure and organization in Washington State and probation officers receive intensive training to adequately administer and reliably score the WSJCA (Barnoski, 2004), we have no reason to assume that reliability of the WSJCA would be low. Fourth, if individuals with ID are remanded to hospitals or other care facilities for nonviolent crimes because of their ID (as they sometimes are), it could skew results. Notwithstanding these limitations, the present study provides important information on the differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID. There were differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the type of offense they committed. Juveniles with ID more often had committed offenses against persons. There were few differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in school and family problems and use of free time. Juvenile offenders without ID were more often substance abusers and had more problems in the relationship domain, whereas juveniles with ID more often had problems with attitude, aggression and skills. This study provides important information for the treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. Treatments for juvenile offenders with ID should provide skills training, and should focus on problems with cognitive information processing and regulation of aggressive behaviors. The present study is, to our knowledge, the first to examine differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in this many dynamic risk factors. References Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 16, 39–55. Baker, W., & Bramston, P. (1997). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression in people with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 3, 169–185. Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington state juvenile court assessment. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Belenko, S., & Logan, T. K. (2003). Delivering more effective treatment to adolescents: Improving the Juvenile Drug Court model. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 25, 189–211. Benson, B. A. (1994). Anger management training: a self-control programme for persons with mild mental retardation. In N. Bouras (Ed.), Mental health in mental retardation: Recent advances and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bhaumik, S., Gangadharan, S., Hiremath, A., & Russell, P. S. S. (2011). Psychological treatments in intellectual disability: The challenges of building a good evidence base. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 198, 428–430. Chitsabesan, P., Bailey, S., Williams, R., Kroll, L., Kenning, C., & Talbot, L. (2007). Learning disabilities and educational needs of juvenile offenders. Journal of Children’s Services, 2, 4–17. Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 139–144. Falshaw, L., Browne, K. D., & Hollin, C. R. (1996). Victim to offender: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 389–404. Fitzgerald, S., Gray, N. S., Taylor, J., & Snowden, R. J. (2011). Risk factors for recidivism in offenders with intellectual disabilities. Psychology, Crime and Law, 17, 43– 58. Gardner, W. I., & Moffiat, C. W. (1990). Aggressive behavior: Definition, assessment, treatment. International Review of Psychiatry, 2, 91–100. Gray, N. S., Fitzgerald, S., Taylor, J., MacCulloch, M. J., & Snowden, R. J. (2007). Predicting future reconviction in offenders with intellectual disabilities: The predictive efficacy of VRAG, PCL-SV, and the HCR-20. Psychological Assessment, 19, 474–479. Hall, I. (2000). Young offenders with a learning disability. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 6, 278–286. Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2010). A meta-analysis of intervention effects on challenging behavior among persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 634–649. Hodgins, S. (1992). Mental disorder, intellectual deficiency, and crime. Evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 476–483. Holland, T., Clare, I. C. H., & Mukhopadhyay, T. (2002). Prevalence of ‘criminal offending’ by men and women with intellectual disability and the characteristics of ‘offenders’: Implications for research and service development. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 6–20. Jahoda, A., Pert, C., Squire, J., & Trower, P. (1998). Facing stress and conflict: A comparison of the predicted responses and self-concepts of aggressive and nonaggressive people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42, 360–369. Jahoda, A., Pert, C., & Trower, P. (2006). Socioemotional understanding and frequent aggression in people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities: Recognition of facial affect and role-taking abilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111, 77–89. LRC. (1996). People with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system. Report 80. Law Reform Commission. Downloaded from: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R80APPENDIXB [07.03.12]. Lindsay, W. R. (1999). Treatment of adolescent sex offenders with intellectual disabilities. Mental Retardation, 37, 201–2011. Lindsay, W. R. (2002). Integration of recent reviews on offenders with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 111–119. Lindsay, W. (2005). Model underpinning treatment for sex offenders with mildintellectual disability: Current theories of sex offending. Mental Retardation, 43, 428–441. Lindsay, W. R. (2011). People with intellectual disability who offend or are involved with the criminal justice system. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 24, 377–381. Lindsay, W. R., Hastings, R. P., & Beech, A. R. (2011). Forensic research in offenders with intellectual developmental disabilities 1: Prevalence and risk assessment. Psychology Crime & Law, 17, 3–7. Lindsay, W. R., & Smith, A. H. W. (1998). Responses to treatment for sex offenders with a learning disability: A comparison of men with one year and two year probation sentences. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities Research, 42, 346–353. Lindsay, W. R., & Taylor, J. L. (2005). A selective review of research on offenders with developmental disabilities: Assessment and treatment. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 201–214. Novaco, R. W. (1997). Remediating anger and aggression with violent offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 77–88. Novaco, R. W., & Taylor, J. L. (2004). Assessment of anger and aggression in male offenders with developmental disabilities. Psychological Assessment, 16, 42–50. Orbis Partners Inc.. (2007). Long-term validation of the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI) in New York State juvenile probation. Ottowa, Ontario: Orbis Partners Inc. Schwalbe, C. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449–462.
J.J. Asscher et al. / Research in Developmental Disabilities 33 (2012) 1905–1913
1913
Simpson, M. K., & Hogg, J. (2008). Patterns of offending among people with intellectual disability: A systematic review. Part 1: Methodology and prevalence data. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 384–396. Thompson Prout, H., & Nowak-Drabik, K. M. (2003). Psychotherapy with persons who have mental retardation: An evaluation of effectiveness. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108, 82–93. Van der Put, C. E. (2011). Risk and needs assessment for juvenile delinquents. Doctorate thesis. Amsterdam: GVO Ponsen & Looijen. Van der Put, C. E., Asscher, J. J., Wissink, I. B., & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2012). The relationship between victimization of maltreatment and sexual and violent offending: Differences between adolescent offenders with and without intellectual disability, submitted for publication. Van Nieuwenhuizen, M., Bijman, E. R., Lamberix, I. C. W., Wijnrokx, L., Orobio de Costro, B., Vermeer, A., et al. (2005). Do Children do what they say? Responses to hypothetical and real-life social problems in children with mild intellectual disabilities and behavior problems. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 419–433. Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160–166. Zhang, D., Barrett, D. E., Katsiyannis, A., & Yoon, M. (2011). Juvenile offenders with and without disabilities: Risk and patterns of recidivism. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 12–18.