What are the Policy Implications of Our Knowledge on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders?

Abstract

Lia Ahonen U n i v e r s i t y o f P i t t s b u r g h , P i t t s b u r g h , P AB aglivio, Jackowski, Greenwald, and Howell (2014, this issue) have replicated several aspects of previous studies, fortifying our knowledge about serious, violent, and chronic (SVC) offenders as a small group of individuals who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of serious crime (e.g., Loeber and Farrington, 2012;Loeber, Farrington, and Waschbusch, 1998;Moffitt, 1993, to mention a few). The sample is impressive: State-wide data on all juveniles referred to the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) during the course of 5 years. What makes this particular study stand out is the inclusion of protective factors to balance the effect of risk factors, which is a leap forward in the study of serious offending. Taken together, Baglivio et al.'s extended approach to serious and violent offenders is of great importance to policy makers on all levels. This is also true for agencies that depend on accurate and precise risk assessments to identify individuals who are most at risk for recidivism and, in the end, reduce the financial burden on society caused by crime as well as increase public value of the administration of justice.A wide array of papers and books have covered the topic of increasing public value and making official institutions such as the justice system more accessible and customer user-friendly, somewhat resembling the efforts of companies within the commercial/private sector (reviewed by Moore, 2013). One of the more important questions is what public value means to different groups and how is this attainable. Public value is sometimes defined as the individual's perception of use and perception of the quality of an organization's Direct correspondence to Rolf Loeber,

Do female offenders differ? Comparing the criminal histories of serious violent perpetrators with a control sample

“…Adding support for the need for consistency amongst research, Nieuwbeerta, Blokland, Piquero, and Sweeten () noted difficulties in making comparisons amongst research as a result of the different categories used. What is more, considering the use of categories has important implications to practitioners (e.g., Loeber & Ahonen, ).…”

Static screening instruments for risk of minor and major violence

“…The criminal justice system has the responsibility of fulfilling the overall goal of public protection (Loeber & Ahonen, 2014). In accomplishing required social outcomes, focus on efficiency and effectiveness should also be included within this framework (Moore, 2013).…”

“…The accuracy of such an assessment should be at a sufficiently high level so that the authorities and the public can rely on this assessment. But accurate prediction is one of the most challenging in criminological research and practice (Loeber & Ahonen, 2014).…”

Delinquency Referrals; Predictive and Protective Factors for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders; and Juvenile Justice Interventions

“…The three scholars commenting on the Baglivio et al () article in their policy essays are accomplished researchers in studies of juvenile delinquency and rehabilitation. Loeber and Ahonen (, this issue) state that “Baglivio et al's extended approach to serious and violent offenders is of great importance to policy makers on all levels,” and Piquero (, this issue) assesses Baglivio et al as “a very good example of a careful, descriptive analysis of” SVC juvenile offenders in the state of Florida. In addition, these authors highlight dimensions of the research and its application to juvenile justice policy.…”

“…After noting that the Baglivio et al () article shows the key importance of individually developed treatment or rehabilitation plans during incarceration, Loeber and Ahonen () describe the relevance of research findings for four categories of professionals who deal with SVC offenders: legislators, city and regional officials, individuals heading justice institutions, and practitioners in the community. This is a valuable nuanced discussion of the pressures and constraints placed on individuals in each of these categories.…”