Young offenders in forensic institutions in the Netherlands after committing serious crimes: Contribution of mandatory treatment and reduction of reincarceration.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, young offenders who have been convicted of a particularly serious offence may be subjected to a so-called 'Placement in an Institution for Juveniles' (PIJ) measure if they are considered to pose a high ongoing risk to public safety. They form a rarely studied distinct group. Treatment in specialist forensic custodial institutions for young people (FYCI) is an intervention of last resort and costly. The most serious young offenders tend to be the hardest to rehabilitate while preventing further offending. Treatment is focussed on reducing risk of harm as well as improving health and other protective factors. AIMS: To explore the contribution of treatment in an FYCI under a forensic treatment order-the PIJ-measure-to the reduction of risk of reoffending. METHODS: In a pre-post intervention study, the Juvenile Forensic Profile (JFP) was used to score complete case files of 178 young offenders at the start and end of their placement in an FYCI under the PIJ-measure, 59% of those serving between the years 2013 and 2016 inclusive. The JFP covers risk and protective factors in seven domains encompassing criminal behaviour, family, environment, risk factors, psychopathology, psychology and behaviour during incarceration. Change or stability in scores was tested against reincarceration within 2 years of PIJ-measure completion. RESULTS: Impulse control and alcohol and drug use problems showed the greatest improvements. Behaviour that deteriorates during the stay is primarily related to obtaining more autonomy during reintegration efforts, including furlough. Reincarceration in the 2 years of community follow-up was unusual (13.5%). The two main variables associated with reincarceration were problematic behaviour during the pre-discharge year and lack of behavioural improvement during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of mandatory treatment in this group of serious young offenders have not previously been studied in a rigorous pre-post intervention study design. We found evidence of an overall tendency to improvement over time in mental state and social skills, reflected by risk assessment scale scores. Continued substance use problems while incarcerated and continuing social skills deficits were most strongly associated with reincarceration suggests a possible need for review of these areas in the PIJ-measure programme. Results contribute to knowledge about risk assessment, treatment and preventions of harms by serious young offenders and may inform evidence-based policies and practices in the Netherlands and beyond.

Toward a Classification of Juvenile Offenders: Subgroups of Serious Juvenile Offenders and Severity of Recidivism.

The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of serious juvenile offenders on the basis of their risk profiles, using a data-driven approach. The sample consists of 1,147 of the top 5% most serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands. A part of the sample, 728 juvenile offenders who had been released from the institution for at least 2 years, was included in analyses on recidivism and the prediction of recidivism. Six subgroups of serious juvenile offenders were identified with cluster analysis on the basis of their scores on 70 static and dynamic risk factors: Cluster 1, antisocial identity; Cluster 2, frequent offenders; Cluster 3, flat profile; Cluster 4, sexual problems and weak social identity; Cluster 5, sexual problems; and Cluster 6, problematic family background. Clusters 4 and 5 are the most serious offenders before treatment, committing mainly sex offences. However, they have significantly lower rates of recidivism than the other four groups. For each of the six clusters, a unique set of risk factors was found to predict severity of recidivism. The results suggest that intervention should aim at different risk factors for each subgroup.

Serious juvenile offenders: classification into subgroups based on static and dynamic charateristics.

BACKGROUND: The population in juvenile justice institutions is heterogeneous, as juveniles display a large variety of individual, psychological and social problems. This variety of risk factors and personal characteristics complicates treatment planning. Insight into subgroups and specific profiles of problems in serious juvenile offenders is helpful in identifying important treatment indicators for each subgroup of serious juvenile offenders. METHODS: To identify subgroups with combined offender characteristics, cluster-analyses were performed on data of 2010 adolescents from all juvenile justice institutions in the Netherlands. The study included a wide spectrum of static and dynamic offender characteristics and was a replication of a previous study, in order to replicate and validate the identified subgroups. To identify the subgroups that are most useful in clinical practice, different numbers of subgroup-solutions were presented to clinicians. RESULTS: Combining both good statistical fit and clinical relevance resulted in seven subgroups. Most subgroups resemble the subgroups found in the previous study and one extra subgroups was identified. Subgroups were named after their own identifying characteristics: (1) sexual problems, (2) antisocial identity and mental health problems, (3) lack of empathy and conscience, (4) flat profile, (5) family problems, (6) substance use problems, and (7) sexual, cognitive and social problems. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroups of offenders as identified seem rather stable. Therefore risk factor scores can help to identify characteristics of serious juvenile offenders, which can be used in clinical practice to adjust treatment to the specific risk and needs of each subgroup.

Recidivism in subgroups of serious juvenile offenders: different profiles, different risks?

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that the treatment of juvenile offenders is most effective when it takes into account the possible risk factors for re-offending. It may be asked whether juvenile offenders can be treated as one homogeneous group, or, if they are divisible into subgroups, whether different risk factors are predictive of recidivism. AIMS AND HYPOTHESES: Our aims were to find out whether serious juvenile offenders may be subdivided into clearly defined subgroups and whether such subgroups might differ in terms of the risk factors that predict recidivism. METHODS: In a sample of 1111 serious juvenile offenders, latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups. For each juvenile offender, 70 risk factors were registered. Severity of recidivism was measured on a 12-point scale. Analysis was then conducted to identify the risk factors that best predicted the different patterns of recidivism. RESULTS: Four distinct subgroups of juvenile offenders were identified: serious violent offenders, violent property offenders, property offenders, and sex offenders. Violent property offenders were the most serious recidivists and had the highest number of risk factors. Serious violent offenders and property offenders were characterised by overt and covert behaviour, respectively. Sex offenders differed from the other three groups in the rarity of their recidivism and in the risk factors that are present. For each of these four subgroups, a different set of risk factors was found to predict severity of recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in recidivism rates occurred in spite of the fact that most of these youngsters had been in the standard treatment programme offered to serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands. This was not a treatment outcome study, but the indication that two of the groups identified in our study appeared to be worse after going through this programme, whereas the other two did quite well in terms of recidivism lends weight to our idea that such classification of juvenile offenders may lead to more targeted treatment programmes that would better serve both the general public and the youths concerned.

Risk factors for overall recidivism and severity of recidivism in serious juvenile offenders.

This study was aimed at finding risk factors that predict both overall recidivism and severity of recidivism in serious juvenile offenders. Seventy static and dynamic risk factors associated with family characteristics, peers, psychopathology, substance abuse, psychological factors, and behavior during treatment were assessed with the Juvenile Forensic Profile in a sample of 728 juvenile offenders. Official reconviction data were used to register recidivism with a minimum time at risk of 2 years. Severity of offending was categorized according to the maximum sentence for the offense committed combined with expert opinion. Several risk factors for recidivism were found: past criminal behavior (number of past offenses, young age at first offense, unknown victim of past offenses), conduct disorder, family risk factors (poor parenting skills, criminal behavior in the family, a history of physical and emotional abuse), involvement with criminal peers, and lack of treatment adherence (aggression during treatment, lack of coping strategies). Having an unknown victim in past offenses, criminal behavior in the family, lack of treatment adherence, and lack of positive coping strategies were predictive of serious (violent) recidivism. The results are discussed in terms of their use for risk assessment and in improving treatment effect. Targeting poor parenting skills, involvement in criminal environment, lack of treatment adherence, and problematic coping strategies should reduce the severity of recidivism.

A classification of risk factors in serious juvenile offenders and the relation between patterns of risk factors and recidivism.

BACKGROUND: There has been a lot of research on risk factors for recidivism among juvenile offenders, in general, and on individual risk factors, but less focus on subgroups of serious juvenile offenders and prediction of recidivism within these. OBJECTIVE: To find an optimal classification of risk items and to test the predictive value of the resultant factors with respect to severity of recidivism among serious juvenile offenders. METHOD: Seventy static and dynamic risk factors in 1154 juvenile offenders were registered with the Juvenile Forensic Profile. Recidivism data were collected on 728 of these offenders with a time at risk of at least 2 years. After factor analysis, independent sample t-tests were used to indicate differences between recidivists and non-recidivists. Logistic multiple linear regression analyses were used to test the potential predictive value of the factors for violent or serious recidivism. RESULTS: A nine-factor solution best accounted for the data. The factors were: antisocial behaviour during treatment, sexual problems, family problems, axis-1 psychopathology, offence characteristics, conscience and empathy, intellectual and social capacities, social network, and substance abuse. Regression analysis showed that the factors antisocial behaviour during treatment, family problems and axis-1 psychopathology were associated with seriousness of recidivism. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The significance of family problems and antisocial behaviour during treatments suggest that specific attention to these factors may be important in reducing recidivism. The fact that antisocial behaviour during treatment consists mainly of dynamic risk factors is hopeful as these can be influenced by treatment. Consideration of young offenders by subgroup rather than as a homogenous population is likely to yield the best information about risk of serious re-offending and the management of that risk.