The Risk and Needs of Juvenile Offenders with an Intellectual Disability Matt Frize, Statewide Behaviour Intervention Service, DADHC, Australia Professor Dianna Kenny, Sydney University, Australia Dr Chris Lennings, Sydney University, Australia

Prevalence Question around the extent ID causes offending Question around the extent ID causes offending Previous studies have highlighted many methodological issues: Previous studies have highlighted many methodological issues: – –different measures used to define and code offending behaviour and ID (Keith & McCray, 2002; Kenny & Press, 2006; Kvarfordt, Purcell, & Shannon, 2005; McBrien, 2003) – –heterogeneity of offender and offending categories (Lindsay & Taylor, 2005); – –prevalence of ID at different points in the criminal justice system (e.g. court versus prison) (Hayes, 2004; Holland, Clare, & Mukhopadhyay, 2002); – –Different sentencing options in different jurisdictions (McBrien, Hodgetts, & Gregory, 2003)

Prevalence Simpson & Hogg (2001) “…there is no convincing evidence that the prevalence of offending among people with an intellectual disability is higher than for the wider population” …. “…offending among those with an IQ less than 50 is rare.” (p. 394) Simpson & Hogg (2001) “…there is no convincing evidence that the prevalence of offending among people with an intellectual disability is higher than for the wider population” …. “…offending among those with an IQ less than 50 is rare.” (p. 394) Lindsay & Taylor (2005) stated “[i]t is not clear, however, whether people with developmental disability commit more or less crime than those without developmental disability, or whether the type and frequency of crimes committed by offenders with developmental disability differ from those committed by the general populations of offenders” (p. 201). Lindsay & Taylor (2005) stated “[i]t is not clear, however, whether people with developmental disability commit more or less crime than those without developmental disability, or whether the type and frequency of crimes committed by offenders with developmental disability differ from those committed by the general populations of offenders” (p. 201).

Prevalence NSW Hayes (1997) estimated 9% of those in the juvenile justice system had an ID. Hayes (1997) estimated 9% of those in the juvenile justice system had an ID. Allerton, Kenny, Champion, and Butler, (2003) found 17% of juveniles had an IQ below 70 in juvenile correctional centres in NSW. 13% if WIAT-2 taken as adaptive functioning. Allerton, Kenny, Champion, and Butler, (2003) found 17% of juveniles had an IQ below 70 in juvenile correctional centres in NSW. 13% if WIAT-2 taken as adaptive functioning. Cashin, Butler, Levy, & Potter, (2006) found 0.9% of a random sample (n = 914) of adult inmates from NSW prisons were found to have an IQ below 70. Cashin, Butler, Levy, & Potter, (2006) found 0.9% of a random sample (n = 914) of adult inmates from NSW prisons were found to have an IQ below 70.

Predictors of Recidivism in Juveniles by Predictive Strength (Cottle et al., 2001, p. 385)

Psychology of Criminal Conduct

RNR Principles Risk Risk –degree of treatment a person receives should be matched to the level of risk assigned to the person Needs Needs –Programs should be directed towards changeable factors (dynamic variables or criminogenic needs) –Factors chosen should be those that most influence risk of offending (proximal to the offence) Responsivity Responsivity –need for the styles and modes of criminogenic needs service to be matched to the learning styles and abilities of the offender

RNR Based Tools Level of Supervision Inventory, (LSI: Andrews, 1982); Level of Supervision Inventory, (LSI: Andrews, 1982); Level of Service Inventory- Revised, (LSI-R: Andrews & Bonta, 2001); Level of Service Inventory- Revised, (LSI-R: Andrews & Bonta, 2001); Level of Service / Case Management Inventory, (LS/CMI: Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004); Level of Service / Case Management Inventory, (LS/CMI: Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2004); the Youth Level of Service / Case Management Inventory, (YLS/CMI: Hoge & Andrews, 2002); and the the Youth Level of Service / Case Management Inventory, (YLS/CMI: Hoge & Andrews, 2002); and the Youth Level of Service / Case management Inventory: Australian Adaptation, (YLS/CMI:AA: Hoge & Andrews, 1995) Youth Level of Service / Case management Inventory: Australian Adaptation, (YLS/CMI:AA: Hoge & Andrews, 1995)

Method Data from the ‘NSW Young People on Community Order Health Survey ’ Data from the ‘NSW Young People on Community Order Health Survey ’ N =800 (42% of the sampling frame) N =800 (42% of the sampling frame) 85% male, (proportion reflected the total pop) 85% male, (proportion reflected the total pop) Mean age = 16 years 6 months (range: 12 to 21 years) Mean age = 16 years 6 months (range: 12 to 21 years) 20% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people. 20% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) people. IQ score for 97.6% of participants IQ score for 97.6% of participants At least 1 YLS/CMI: AA was obtained for 94% of participants At least 1 YLS/CMI: AA was obtained for 94% of participants

Method Measures: Measures: –IQ (WASI) –Criminogenic risk / need (YLS / CMI: AA) –Criminal justice involvement ID measured as IQ below 70 ID measured as IQ below 70 Adaptive taken as AAMR definition (social deficit) Adaptive taken as AAMR definition (social deficit)

Youth Level of Service / Case Management Inventory: Australian Adaptation ( YLS/CMI: AA) Risk Prior and current offences (8 items) Education / Employment (7 items) Family and living circumstances (7 items) Peer relations (4 items) Substance abuse (6 items) Leisure / Recreation (3 items) Personality / Behaviour (7 items) Attitudes / Beliefs (5 items) Strength Individual level (1 item) Family Level (1 item) Social Level (1 item) 47 items 47 items Based on the YLS/CMI Based on the YLS/CMI Thompson & Pope (2003; 2005) found acceptable validity / reliability (total cronbach alpha =.91, n=290) Thompson & Pope (2003; 2005) found acceptable validity / reliability (total cronbach alpha =.91, n=290)

Results Sample Characteristics Sample Characteristics –15.2% were found to have a Full Scale IQ score below 70 (M = 83.24, SD = 13.23) –On average, participants had a Performance IQ points higher than their Verbal IQ (SD = 12.82). –No significant difference in proportion of males / females with an ID [  ² (1, N = 781) =.254, p =.61].

Results Criminal Justice Involvement Criminal Justice Involvement –No difference between ID vs nonID in:  being a type of offender (property, physical violence, traffic, sexual, other)  experiencing any one type of court outcome –Those with ID were more likely to Have a larger number of attendances at court Have a larger number of attendances at court Have more recorded offences Have more recorded offences Have a greater frequency of bonds / probation Have a greater frequency of bonds / probation Have committed more property offences Have committed more property offences

Level of Risk on YLS/CMI:AA for ID vs. non-ID

Level of Risk on YLS/CMI:AA YLS/CMI: AA Risk Category IQ < 70 (n = 102) IQ > 69 (n = 526) Offence Type LowMediumHighTOTALLowMediumHighTOTAL Robbery% (n) 26.7 (4) 40.0 (6) 33.3 (5) (15)51.6 (64) 27.4 (34 ) 21.0 (26) (124) Break and Enter% (n) 0 (0) 53.8 (7) 46.2 (6) (13)41.7 (20) 43.8 (21) 14.6 (7) (48) Other assault% (n) 24.3 (9) 40.5 (15) 35.1 (13) (37)25.9 (38) 36.7 (54) 37.4 (55) (147) Car & other theft% (n) 20.0 (3) 53.3 (8) 26.7 (4) (15)38.9 (21) 40.7 (22) 20.4 (11) (54) Aggravated assault% (n) 14.3 (1) 71.4 (5) 14.3 (1) (7)50.6 (44) 28.7 (25) 20.7 (18) (87) AVO% (n) 0 (0) 20.0 (1) 80.0 (4) (5)30.3 (10) 42.4 (14) 27.3 (9) (33) Other% (n) 40.0 (4) 40.0 (4) 20.0 (2) (10)48.5 (16) 39.4 (13) 12.1 (4) (33) TOTAL% (n) 20.6 (21) 45.1 (46) 34.3 (35) (102)40.5 (213) 34.8 (183) 24.7 (130) (526)

Level of Risk on YLS/CMI:AA YLS/CMI: AA Risk Category IQ < 70 (n = 102) IQ > 69 (n = 526) Offence Type LowMediumHighTOTALLowMediumHighTOTAL Break and Enter% (n) 0 (0) 53.8 (7) 46.2 (6) (13)41.7 (20) 43.8 (21) 14.6 (7) (48) AVO% (n) 0 (0) 20.0 (1) 80.0 (4) (5)30.3 (10) 42.4 (14) 27.3 (9) (33) TOTAL% (n) 20.6 (21) 45.1 (46) 34.3 (35) (102)40.5 (213) 34.8 (183) 24.7 (130) (526)

Criminogenic Needs YLS/CMI: AA DomainTotalIQ<70IQ>69 Mann- Whitney U Mdn (Range) Mdn (Range) Mdn (Range) Prior and current offences 3 (0-9) 4 (0-9) 3 (0-9) 30196** Family & living circumstances 2 (0-7) 2 (0-6) 2 (0-7) Education/employment 2 (0-7) 3 (0-7) 2 (0-7) ** Peer relations 2 (0-4) 2 (0-4) 2 (0-4) ** Substance abuse 2 (0-6) 2 (0-6) 2 (0-6) Leisure and recreation 1 (0-3) 2 (0-3) 1 (0-3) ** Personality/behaviour 1 (0-7) 1 (0-7) 1 (0-7) Attitudes and orientation 0 (0-5) 1 (0-5) 0 (0-5) *

Criminogenic Needs YLS/CMI: AA DomainTotalIQ<70IQ>69 Mann- Whitney U Mdn (Range) Mdn (Range) Mdn (Range) Prior and current offences 3 (0-9) 4 (0-9) 3 (0-9) 30196** Education/employment 2 (0-7) 3 (0-7) 2 (0-7) ** Peer relations 2 (0-4) 2 (0-4) 2 (0-4) ** Leisure and recreation 1 (0-3) 2 (0-3) 1 (0-3) ** Attitudes and orientation 0 (0-5) 1 (0-5) 0 (0-5) *

Implications - Risk Reinforces that ID is a risk factor for reoffending Reinforces that ID is a risk factor for reoffending Higher rates of ID in higher risk services Higher rates of ID in higher risk services Impacted by offence type that requires further analysis (though no greater expression of sexual or physical violence) Impacted by offence type that requires further analysis (though no greater expression of sexual or physical violence) Clear need for awareness of ID when entering criminal justice system. Clear need for awareness of ID when entering criminal justice system.

Implications - Needs Those with an ID have the same needs as non-ID offenders Those with an ID have the same needs as non-ID offenders Those with an ID often have higher needs than non-ID offenders Those with an ID often have higher needs than non-ID offenders Those with an ID have prominent social needs Those with an ID have prominent social needs Juvenile offenders with an ID have clear anti-social attitudes Juvenile offenders with an ID have clear anti-social attitudes

Implications - Responsivity ID offenders are younger ID offenders are younger High risk offenders had a higher risk of being ID High risk offenders had a higher risk of being ID Offenders have lower verbal IQs Offenders have lower verbal IQs Indigenous status Indigenous status

Issues Definition and diagnosis of ID in custodial settings Definition and diagnosis of ID in custodial settings Under representation of ID Under representation of ID Need to look at a comparative non- offending sample Need to look at a comparative non- offending sample Need to target criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders with an ID Need to target criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders with an ID Highlights that ID is not just a responsivity consideration Highlights that ID is not just a responsivity consideration