CJSW Brieng

Paper 2 : December 2001

Effective Intervention for Serious and Violent Young Offenders Bill Whyte

Serious and violent offending by young people stands out as one of the most prominent social problems associated with youth crime (Davies and Pearson, 1999). The media, politicians, public and academics alike seem in agreement that the recorded number of youths committing serious and violent offences is increasing in Europe at a time when youth crime in general seems to be levelling out and declining (Pfeiffer, 1998). However some criminologists suggest that the increase is an indicator of increased formal processing partly resulting from the emergent attention given to youth violence in recent years rather than an increase in incidence in itself (Estrada, 2001). Whatever the case, delivering interventions that are effective is essential to any strategy designed to reduce the rates of criminal behaviour, particularly for young people involved in serious or violent behaviour who have the potential for long and harmful criminal careers. If we could condently predict which young people are prone to commit violent acts and at which stage in their development this is most likely to emerge, it would strengthen efforts at prevention and effective early intervention. Unfortunately, as yet, there are few longitudinal studies of predictors of youth violence. This brieng paper draws mainly on the results of two meta-analyses (systematic synthesis of quantitative research results). The rst is aimed at identifying risk factors in childhood and adolescence associated with later serious and violent offending (Lipsey and Derzon, 1998; Hawkins et al 2000); the second is addressing whether intervention programmes can reduce re-offending rates among serious offenders, and if so, what types of programmes are likely to be most effective (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). Existing evidence suggests that a proportion of persistent offenders will become involved in violent and serious non violent offences and studies show a considerable overlap between serious, violent and persistent offending. Research has shown that early onset of violence and offending is associated with more serious and chronic violence in later life (Thornberry et al, 1995; Tolan and Thomas, 1995). Farrington (1995) found that one-half of boys adjudicated for a violent offence between the age of 10 and 16 were convicted of a violent crime by age 24, compared with only 8 percent of controls. Persistent and serious offenders often experience multiple and overlapping difculties including problem drug use, mental health problems, school and family difculties. Parental criminality may also be an important factor. Studies have found that men aged 1823 with criminal fathers were over three times more likely to have committed violent criminal acts than those with non criminal fathers (Baker and Mednick, 1984) and that boys who had a parent arrested before their 10th birthday were twice as likely to commit violent crimes than those with non criminal parents (Farrington, 1989). In contrast, however, Moftt (1987) found that adults (ages 2952) with criminal parents were no more likely to be arrested for a violent offence than those with non criminal parents. McCord (1979) did not nd a link between fathers alcoholism and criminal conduct and their sons later violence. Further research is necessary to understand the inuence of parental criminality. Lipsey and Derzons review (1998) examined predictors of violent or serious offending in adolescence and early adulthood. The table below lists the predictors at ages 611 and ages 1214 of violent or serious offending in later life in order of signicance determined by statistical analysis and in groups based on estimated aggregated effect size. www.cjsw.ac.uk
The Centre is a joint project between the Universities of Edinburgh and Stirling. Director: Bill Whyte

2
Ranking of ages 6-11 and ages 12-14 Predictors of violent or serious offending at ages 15-25 Predictors at ages 6-11 Predictors at ages 12-14 Rank 1 Group General offences (.38) Substance use (.30) Social ties (.39) Anti-social peers (.37) Rank 2 Group Gender (male) (.26) Family socio-economic status (.24) Anti-social parents (.23)

General offences (.26)

Rank 3 Group Aggression (.19) School attitude/performance (.19) Psychological state (.19) Parent-child relations (.19) Gender (male) (.19) Physical violence (.18) Rank 4 Group Psychological state (.15) Parent-child relations (.15) Social ties (.15) Problem behaviour (.13) School attitude/performance (.13) Medical/physical characteristics (.13) IQ (.12) Other family characteristics (.12)

Aggression (.21) Ethnicity (.20)

Anti-social parents (.16) Person crimes (.14) Problem behaviour (.12) IQ (.11)

Rank 5 Group Broken home (.10) Family socio-economic status (.10) Abusive parents (.09) Other family characteristics (.08) Substance abuse (.06) Ethnicity (.04)

Broken home (.09) Abusive parents (.07) Anti-social peers (.04)

While not without its limitations, this meta-analysis suggests that the best predictors of violent or serious offending differ according to age-groups. Offending at ages 611 was ranked as the strongest predictor of subsequent violent or serious offending even if the early offences did not involve violence. Offending at age 1214 was ranked the second most powerful predictor of future violent offending. Substance abuse for children ages 611 was among the best predictors of future violence but one of the poorest predictors for young people aged1214. The two strongest predictors of subsequent violence for the 12-14 age group, lack of positive social ties and involvement with anti-social associates - both to do with interpersonal relationships - seem relatively weak predictors at age 6-11. Relatively xed family and personal characteristics which may not be readily open to change were the second and third-rank predictors of subsequent violence for the 611 age-group, whereas for the 12-14 group, dynamic and relatively changeable behavioural predictors were second and third-rank predictors of subsequent violence (general offences, aggression, and school performance). Broken and disrupted homes and abusive parents were among the poorest predictors of subsequent violence for both age groups. The signicance of anti-social peers and substance abuse was reversed in the two age groups. Whereas having anti-social peers was a strong predictor of future violent offending at age 1214, it was a weak predictor at age 611. These ndings have important implications for providing early effective interventions that might prevent potentially serious and violent offenders and represent an important challenge to practitioners in both the Childrens Hearings and

Criminal Justice systems in Scotland. For any intervention to be effective, the targeted risk factors must be amenable to change. The data suggests that the strongest predictors of subsequent serious and violent offending for both age groups are relatively changeable factors early offending and substance abuse at age 6-11, and anti-social associates and social ties at age 12-14. The second and third rank of risk factors for the 611 age group provide few intervention leads; with the exception of aggressive behaviour, the main variables - anti-social parents, socio-economic status are not readily amenable to change. However the collective data provides some promising leads on the changeable risk factors that should be given priority for intervention, particularly in the 12-14 age-group, where disrupting early patterns of anti-social behaviour and negative peer association, while promoting positive social ties is likely to be an effective strategy for the prevention of future violent and serious offending. Effective Interventions

Although recent systematic reviews of research have shown promising evidence that some intervention approaches are effective in reducing re-offending rates, they have tended only to highlight general principles of effectiveness (Andrews et al., 1990; Garrett, 1985; Gendreau and Ross, 1987; Lipsey, 1992; Palmer, 1994). Little systematic attention has been given to the effectiveness of interventions with distinct types of offenders, especially those serious offenders who might be expected to be most resistant to change. Lipsey and Wilsons review (1998) included 200 experimental or quasi-experimental studies of interventions with institutionalised and non institutionalised young people, mainly males aged between 10 and 21. Most had records of prior offences that usually involved property crimes and aggressive behaviour. Only one outcome measure was selected from each study in this review. Police contact or arrest was selected if it was available; otherwise, ofcially recorded contact with a court or community supervision violations were used because they were judged the most comparable to police arrest. The difference between the target and control groups on the selected re-offending measure was calculated for each study and standardised so that different measures could be compared. Overall, offenders who received human service interventions showed an average 12-percent decrease in re-offending compared to controls. This result, while not enormous, was positive, statistically signicant, and large enough to be meaningful. More importantly, however, was the large variation in effects across the studies in the review. The methodadjusted effect sizes were analysed in terms of various intervention factors to identify those producing larger outcome effects. Four clusters of variables were associated with more than half of the variation among effect sizes across the studies. In decreasing order of magnitude these were individual characteristics (offence and aggressive behaviour history) intervention type (restitution, structured counselling, behavioural programmes and multi-modal service) the amount of service delivered (total number of weeks and frequency) general programme characteristics (the way in which a programme was organised, staffed, and administered).

This model was further rened to include only the variables in each category that were most closely related to intervention effects on re-offending. Three intervention types showed the strongest and most consistent evidence of reducing re-offending: interpersonal skills training individual structured counselling, particularly multi-systemic and reality training behavioural programmes

The review found that these interventions reduced re-offending by about 40 percent. Only a small number of studies were available for each type of intervention and more data will be needed in the future to conrm these ndings and before strong conclusions can be drawn. Close behind the top three intervention approaches was a second tier of intervention types for which evidence was also promising and positive. These included multi-modal services (combinations of services or interventions that involved several different approaches) and restitution programmes. A nal group of intervention types showed the most consistent evidence that they were not effective in reducing reoffending in serious offenders. These included wilderness/challenge programmes, deterrence programmes (mostly shock incarceration) vocational programmes (career counselling, job search and interview skills programmes).

Employment-related programmes (involving paid employment), academic programmes, and advocacy/social casework, group counselling, and family counselling programmes presented mixed or ambiguous evidence for outcomes with serious offenders. The same four clusters of variables were examined in programmes for those in young offenders institutions or in residential facilities. The clusters associated with the largest variation in method-adjusted effect size were, in decreasing order of magnitude: general programme characteristics intervention types the amount of service delivered individual characteristics.

The general characteristics of institutional intervention (the way in which a programme was organised, staffed, and administered) showed the strongest relationship to the effect of the interventions impact on re-offending, particularly the longevity of the programme and who it was administered by irrespective of the individual characteristics of the young people. Again the model of analysis was further rened to weed out the weakest variables. Two types of interventions showed relatively large, statistically signicant, mean effect sizes for institutionalised offenders. As with community based approaches, interpersonal skills programmes (involving training in social skills, aggression replacement and anger control and cognitive restructuring) provided very promising outcomes in institutional and residential settings as did family group living homes using behaviour modication and token economy methods. These programmes typically reduced re-offending by 34 to 38 percent. Promising, but less consistent, results appeared for multi-modal service programmes, therapeutic community residential programmes, and other miscellaneous interventions. Milieu therapy (in which the total environment, including peers, is structured to support the goals of intervention) showed consistent null results. Drug abstinence programmes, wilderness/challenge programmes, and employment-related programmes did not show statistically signicant or consistent results in residential or institutional settings. Outcomes in this review for individual and group counselling proved inconclusive in determining intervention effects in institutional and residential settings. Effectiveness of Intervention Type Can structured interventions be effective with serious offenders? The ndings of this review provide promising evidence that they can. The reviewers conclude that there is reason to believe that community based interventions that are generally effective would be equally effective with more serious offenders. The review found that the average intervention effect, though modest, was positive and statistically signicant. Systematic reviews of this nature are not without their limitations and the rst and most important nding is that sufcient research has yet to be conducted on the effects of intervention with serious offenders. The number of studies in any given category was too small to provide anything other than tentative conclusions. Nonetheless the wide variation in effects across studies suggests that some approaches are likely to be more effective than others and the data provide promising leads for practitioners to undertake this challenging work with some optimism. What works for offenders in general also seems to work for serious offenders. Equally what does not seem to work for general offenders also seems not to work for serious offenders with the exception of individual counselling. Reviews on general offending have highlighted that this method of intervention seems to have limited positive effect. In this review individual structured counselling approaches similarly seemed to have little positive effect on institutionalised serious offenders. Paradoxically for community based serious offenders it had one of the most positive outcomes. This apparent discrepancy needs further exploration in practice. When compared to control groups where the reoffending rate was estimated to be around 50%, the most effective approaches used with community based serious young offenders were estimated to reduce re-offending to around 30% which is a very substantial reduction given the seriousness of the offenders. A number of important messages from these and other studies have direct relevance for policy and practice in Scotland. Results indicate that well structured community based alternatives to secure connement even for serious offending young people are at least as effective in reducing re-offending and are much less costly. Young people making the transition to adult court proceedings are more likely to be incarcerated and also more likely to re-offend (Loeber and Farrington, 1999: xxiii). Programmes that show the strongest evidence of effectiveness should be given the highest priority. Bill Whyte 2001

References
This paper draws heavily on: Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B & Cothern, L. (2000) Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Justice Bulletin, April, Rockville: OJJDP available at as an OJJDP Bulletin at http://virlib.ncjrs.org/JuvenileJustice.asp Lipsey, M.W., Wilson, D.B. (1998) Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of Research in Loeber, R. and Farrington, D. (eds) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Lipsey M.W. & Derzon, J.H. (1998) Predictors of Violent or Serious Delinquency in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research, in Loeber, R.& Farrington, D.P. (eds) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W. & Cothern, L. (2000) Predictors of Youth Violence Juvenile Justice Bulletin, April, Rockville: OJJDP available as an OJJDP Bulletin at http:// virlib.ncjrs.org/JuvenileJustice.asp

Additional References
Andrews, D.A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R.D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F.T. (1990) Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis Criminology 28(3):369-404 Baker, R., and Mednick, B. (1984) Inuences on Human Development: A Longitudinal Perspective. Boston, MA: KluwerNijhoff Davies, A., & Pearson, G. (1999) Histories of Crime and Modernity, British Journal of Criminology, 39/1, special edition Elstrada, F. (2001) Juvenile Violence as a Social Problem, British Journal of Criminology, 41 pp.639-655 Farrington, D.P. (1989) Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence, Violence and Victims 4:79100 Farrington, D.P. (1995) Key issues in the integration of motivational and opportunity reducing crime prevention strategies, in Wikstrm P.O.H., Clarke, R.V. & McCord. J (eds) Integrating Crime Prevention Strategies: Propensity and Opportunity, Stockholm, Sweden: National Council for Crime Prevention Garrett, C.J. (1985) Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A meta-analysis Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22(4):287-308 Gendreau, P., and Ross, R.R. (1987) Revivication of rehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s Justice Quarterly 4(3):349407 Lipsey, M.W. (1992) Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analysis inquiry into the variability of effects in Cook, T.D. Cooper, & H. Cordray, D.S. Meta-analysis for Explanation. A Casebook New York, NY: Russell Sage Loeber, R. and Farrington, D. (eds) (1998) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications McCord, J. (1979) Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal behaviour in adult men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:14771486. Palmer, T. 1994. A Prole of Correctional Effectiveness and New Directions for Research. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Pfeiffer, C. (1998) Juvenile Crime and Violence in Europe, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 23, pp. 255-328 Tolan, P.H., and Thomas, P. (1995) The implications of age of onset for delinquency risk: II. Longitudinal data. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23:157181 Thornberry, T.P., Huizinga, D., and Loeber, R. (1995) The prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, in Howell J.C., Krisberg, B. Hawkins, J.D. & Wilson J.J. (eds) Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications

About CJSW
The CJSW Development Centre for Scotland is based within the Department of Social Work in the University of Edinburgh and is run in partnership with the University of Stirling. It is located in the Adam Ferguson Building until March 2002, thereafter in 31 Buccleuch Place. It is open from 9am-5pm Monday to Friday for anyone wishing to make enquiries either by phone (0131 651 1464) or in person. The CJSW Development Centre aims to provide a resource room with borrowing facilities and internet access a bibliographic service, research and information data bases a data base of expertise in Scotland links with other resources or networks in the UK and beyond regular brieng papers and publications support for champion groups to assist agencies meet future accreditation requirements an annual colloquium and two national seminars per year advice and consultancy

Find out more at http://www.cjsw.ac.uk

The Centre intends to establish an effective network for information exchange, dialogue and dissemination of good practice in Scotland. The feasibility of a virtual centre is being explored to link practitioners and managers throughout Scotland and beyond. In the meantime information is available on the website.

Contact CJSW
We want to hear from you! Tell us what you think of the brieng paper and the website .If you have original data and would like to write a brieng paper or to share ideas about practice, let us know. You can contact us at cjsw@ed.ac.uk

ISSN: 1740-1623 (print) ISSN: 1740-1631 (online)