Assessing Recidivism Risk Among Young Offenders

Putnins, Aldis L.

doi:10.1375/000486505774824785

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has suggested that youth who proceed to serious offending experience significant disciplinary, attainment, and learning challenges in school (Arnull et al, 2005;MacRae et al, 2008;Mullis et al, 2005). As discussed previously, diagnoses of ADD/ADHD and learning exceptionalities are common among reoffending youth (Putnins, 2005), which also has a significant impact on school investment and success. Further, truancy has been identified as a common concern among reoffending youth (Mullis et al, 2005;MacRae et al, 2008).…”

Section: Family Factorsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…A Toronto study of criminal trajectories (Day, Bev, Theodor, Rosenthal, & Duchesne, 2008) revealed that 82% of the youth studied met the criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder. Specifically, Attention Deficit or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Mullis et al, 2005;Putnins, 2005), as well as neuropsychological conditions such as Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (Turner, Hartman, & Bishop, 2007), are linked particularly to chronic reoffending, with substance abuse being consistently linked with a risk to reoffend (Howell, 2009;Denning & Homel, 2008;Putnins, 2005;Sharkey et al, 2003).…”

Section: Risk Factors and Youth Reoffendingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relating Risk and Protective Factors to Youth Reoffending: A Two-Year Follow-Up

MacRae¹,

Bertrand²,

Paetsch³

et al. 2011

IJCYFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents findings of a retrospective longitudinal study of youth reoffending in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Increasingly, the examination of risk and protective factors in the youth reoffending literature is grouped into five general domains: individual, family, peer, school, and community. For purposes of the present study, data on each of these factors were obtained from interviews and probation file reviews for a sample of 123 youth who had various levels of involvement in the youth justice system. These baseline data were collected from July 2006 to July 2007. Reoffending was tracked for two years following the interview using police contact data. Descriptive findings indicated that, overall, youth who possessed risk factors in each domain had a higher average rate of reoffending. Stepwise linear regression analysis revealed that in the individual domain, a history of purchasing illegal drugs, stealing a car or motorcycle, and committing an assault with a weapon, as well as a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD, were significantly related to the extent of reoffending. In the peer domain, gang affiliation was significant. In the community domain, the presence of gangs in the community was significant. None of the predictors in the family or school domains were significant. Implications for future Canadian research are discussed.Key Words: youth, reoffending, risk factors, longitudinal study Acknowledgement: The authors would like to acknowledge the City of Calgary and the Alberta Law Foundation for funding this project.

show abstract

Section: Family Factorsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Risk Factors and Youth Reoffendingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating Risk and Protective Factors to Youth Reoffending: A Two-Year Follow-Up

MacRae¹,

Bertrand²,

Paetsch³

et al. 2011

IJCYFS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another possibly pertains to the variation in risk level of individuals found NCRMD, which we were unable to control for. given that age of first offense is a risk factor for recidivism of young individuals-with those whose first offense occurs at a younger age being more likely to reoffend that those who first offense occurs at an older age- (Putniņš, 2005), individuals found NCRMD at younger ages may have had higher preexisting risk levels than those found NCRMD when older. Moreover, because of judicial leniency toward juveniles who offend, judicial processing biases may also exist wherein those who are convicted at younger ages tend to have more serious offenses than older individuals who offend (Putniņš, 2005).…”

Section: Developmental Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…given that age of first offense is a risk factor for recidivism of young individuals-with those whose first offense occurs at a younger age being more likely to reoffend that those who first offense occurs at an older age- (Putniņš, 2005), individuals found NCRMD at younger ages may have had higher preexisting risk levels than those found NCRMD when older. Moreover, because of judicial leniency toward juveniles who offend, judicial processing biases may also exist wherein those who are convicted at younger ages tend to have more serious offenses than older individuals who offend (Putniņš, 2005). Perhaps younger individuals were more likely to be those characterized by Moffitt's (1993) life course-persistent offending trajectory rather than an adolescent-limited offending trajectory, as compared with older individuals.…”

Section: Developmental Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance to Antisocial Peers in Adolescents Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder: Predictive and Incremental Validity With the VRAG-R

Patricny

Haag

Pei

2022

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There has been a recent theoretical shift toward the inclusion of protective factors within risk assessment. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence surrounding this practice in unique forensic populations. Using a long-term retrospective design, we examined the predictive and incremental validity of the protective factor resistance to antisocial peers and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide—Revised in 119 individuals who were found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) as adolescents. The results indicated that resistance to antisocial peers significantly predicted general nonrecidivism (area under the curve [AUC] = .647) and violent nonrecidivism (AUC = .654) in the long term (maximum 35-year follow-up). Incorporation of resistance to antisocial peers into the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide—Revised did not significantly increase the incremental validity for general or violent recidivism. Using logistic regression, adolescents’ age at their NCRMD start date had no significant relationship with recidivism and was unrelated to the protective effect of resistance to antisocial peers.

show abstract

“…Although in their reply, Richards and Lee (2013) take some issue with the authors' key arguments, they nevertheless agree that a more detailed Australian analysis, including additional analysis of Weatherburn and his colleagues' (2013) own data, is needed to bring clarity to this ongoing debate. Prichard and Payne (2005) and Putnins (2003), for example, limited their attention to offenders in custody, while Lynch and fellow researchers (2003) limited their attention to offenders placed on supervised orders. Most studies have had only limited follow-up periods (for example, Carcach & Leverett 1999;Victoria Department of Community Services 2001;Luke & Lind 2002;Vignaendra & Fitzgerald 2006) or restricted samples.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Juvenile Reoffending: a ten‐year retrospective cohort analysis

Payne¹,

Weatherburn²

2015

Aust J Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminologists and other developmental researchers have long acknowledged the importance of both continuity and change in antisocial and criminal behaviour over the life-course. To the extent that young offenders having contact with the police will persist with offending into adulthood is an important social issue with significant implications for the ongoing development and implementation of early intervention and prevention programs. Using data from New South Wales, this paper tracks a cohort of 8,797 juvenile offenders over ten years and is among the first of its kind to use multivariate techniques to examine the long-term outcomes of those who were cautioned, conferenced or convicted in that state. The study finds that just over half of all juvenile offenders were reconvicted in court of a further offence and that reconviction rates were higher for young males and Indigenous offenders than for females or non-Indigneous offenders. In concluding, this paper draws attention to the need for improved assessment and early intervention efforts that more accurately target those young people most at risk of persisting with offending into adulthood.

show abstract

Assessing Recidivism Risk Among Young Offenders

Cited by 3 publications

References 31 publications

Relating Risk and Protective Factors to Youth Reoffending: A Two-Year Follow-Up

Relating Risk and Protective Factors to Youth Reoffending: A Two-Year Follow-Up

Resistance to Antisocial Peers in Adolescents Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder: Predictive and Incremental Validity With the VRAG-R

Juvenile Reoffending: a ten‐year retrospective cohort analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About