Professor Dianna Kenny, University of Sydney, Australia Risks and needs of Indigenous young offenders: Mental and physical health Professor Dianna Kenny, University of Sydney, Australia

Risks Needs Responsivity (RNR) Principles Intensity of treatment matched to the level of risk assigned to the person Needs Programs directed towards changeable factors (dynamic variables or criminogenic needs) Factors addressed are those that most influence risk of offending (proximal to the offence) Responsivity the treatment modes addressed by criminogenic needs services matched to the learning styles and abilities of the offender The Psychology of Criminal Conduct model proposes three principles of effective offender assessment and treatment: the principles of Risk, Needs and Responsivity (RNR). The ‘risk principle’ states that the degree of treatment a person receives should be matched to their level of assessed risk. The ‘needs principle’ states that programs should be directed towards those criminogenic needs associated with recidivism. The ‘responsivity principle’ refers to the need for the styles and modes of service that address criminogenic needs to be matched to the learning styles and abilities of the offender (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews & Bonta, 2006)

Method Compared YP in custody (N=242) with YP (N=800) on CO 85% male Data from the NSW Young People (YP) in Custody and NSW Young People (YP) on Community Orders (CO) Health Surveys Compared YP in custody (N=242) with YP (N=800) on CO 85% male Mean age = 16 years 6 months (range: 12 to 21 years) 43% Indigenous in custody (n=102) 20% Indigenous on CO (n=160)

Ethnicity Indigenous young offenders on community orders=19.4% A&TSI YPCO 30%; population ≈ 2% Indigenous young offenders on community orders=19.4% Indigenous population ≈ 2.4% % CALD offenders in offender population is similar to community population but ethnic distribution is different

Geographic location Indigenous: 30%-urban 43%-regional 27%-remote

Cognitive ability Average WASI Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score for young people in custody = 82; community = 84 69% (25% standardisation sample) scored below the average range. The average WASI Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score for young people in custody was 82 (sd: 13, range: 52 to 125). The average WASI Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) score for young people in the community was 84 (sd: 13, range: 55 to 147). Seventy-four percent of the Custody group and sixty-nine percent of the Community group scored below the average range, compared to 25% from the standardisation sample.

Verbal, performance and full scale IQ for Indigenous and non-Indigenous young offenders

Indigenous YO with an ID

WIAT composite scores by region 52% rural male offenders have an ID Ability decreases with distance from city

Young offenders by region with ID

Sample Characteristics 15.2% had a Full Scale IQ score < 70 (M = 83.24, SD = 13.23) On average, participants had a Performance IQ 11.84 points higher than their Verbal IQ (SD = 12.82). Significantly more Indigenous YO had an intellectual disability compared with non-Indigenous YO [² (1, N = 772) = 38.2, p = .001]. Mention indig if have time…?

Level of Risk on YLS/CMI:AA for ID vs. non-ID 73% 57% Mean YLS / CMI: AA total score was 17.18 (SD = 9.35) for the total sample, placing participants, on average, in the ‘Medium Risk’ category of the YLS/CMI: AA. On average, those with an IQ below 70 scored in the ‘medium risk’ category and those with an IQ above 69 scored in the ‘low risk’ category.

Results: Summary Criminal Justice Involvement Those with ID (independent of Aboriginality) were more likely to have: a larger number of attendances at court more recorded offences a greater frequency of bonds / probation committed more property offences (Break and enter) greater numbers of AVOs issued

Implications - Risk ID is a risk factor for offending and reoffending Higher rates of ID in higher risk services Offence type requires further analysis (but no greater expression of sexual or physical violence in ID young offenders) Clear need for screening for ID when entering criminal justice system ID offenders young offenders with an ID may have a greater risk of reoffending. This have higher average YLS/CMI: AA scores and more frequent placement in the higher risk category, indicating that is consistent with the PCC and recent meta-analytic studies that indicate that ID is a risk factor for recidivism in juvenile offenders (Cottle et al., 2001; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998). With a very high over-representation of those with an ID in the ‘high risk’ category, it is possible that services delivering to ‘high risk’ offenders are likely to have greater over-representation of offenders with an ID. The percentage of those with and without an ID in categories of ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ risk appeared to differ for different offences. This suggests a possible interaction between offence type, ID status and risk categorisation that requires further exploration.

Implications - Needs ID have higher needs than non-ID offenders ID have significant social needs Juvenile offenders with an ID have clear anti-social attitudes Those with an ID had a significantly different profile of needs to those without an ID. Higher needs for those with an ID included domains relating to peers, leisure, education, employment and attitudes - indicating greater social needs than offenders without an ID. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that a social skills deficit is an important factor for those with an ID (Dodge & Pettit, 2003; Timms & Goreczny, 2002). It was anticipated that much offending by those with an ID was due to being implicated with anti-social peers who had antisocial attitudes. However, the significantly higher score on the ‘Attitudes and Beliefs’ domain suggest those juveniles with an ID have already adopted antisocial attitudes. Those with an ID did not have a significantly higher score on the ‘Family and Living Circumstances’ domain as higher rates of neglect and abuse among children with an ID have been previously reported (Sullivan & Knutson, 2000; Verdugo, Bermejo, & Fuertes, 1995; White, Holland, Marsland, & Oakes, 2003). The previously reported difference between Verbal IQ and Performance IQ of juvenile offenders (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Barrett, & Flaska, 2004; Teichner & Golden, 2000; Vermeiren, De Clippele, Schwab-Stone, Ruchkin, & Deboutte, 2002) was also replicated. This finding is consistent with the above social deficits as previous research has highlighted the link between low Verbal IQ, poor communication and poor social skills (Timms & Goreczny, 2002). However, since the YLS/CMI: AA has not been validated for young offenders with an ID, further research is needed before needs profiles of young offenders with an ID can be assessed reliably with this tool and used in treatment planning.

Implications - Responsivity ID offenders are younger High risk offenders had a higher risk of being ID Indigenous status - does the general ID profile change if the young offender is Indigenous?

Indigenous issues Indigenous offenders were younger than non-Indigenous offenders ID Indigenous offenders were younger than ID non-Indigenous offenders

Criminogenic needs Indigenous YO had significantly higher YLS/CMI:AA total scores than non-Ind (p < .01) ID YO had significantly higher YLS / CMI: AA total scores than those without an ID (p ≤ .05) Interaction between Indigenous and ID status was not significant (p > .05)

Court data, Indigenous status and IQ Indigenous YO had significantly more attendances at court than non-Ind YO (p < .01) All ID YO had similar court attendances. No significant differences b/w ID status for court attendances (p > .05) For the non ID group, Indigenous young people had more court attendances than the non-Indigenous group (p < .01)

Indigenous issues – Risk principle Indigenous status may play a significant role in the relationship between ID and offending in juvenile offenders serving community orders in NSW Indigenous status is associated with increased risk of recidivism, and with higher frequency of court attendances Indigenous status may play a significant role in the relationship between ID and offending in juvenile offenders on community orders in NSW. For those with an ID, Indigenous status appears to have an impact on the risk of recidivism, and is associated with the frequency of court attendances. These findings have clear implications with respect to the ‘risk principle’.

Indigenous issues – Responsivity principle Prevention programs need to be responsive to the learning capacity and motivation of both Indigenous and intellectually disabled juvenile offenders, as well as intellectually disabled Indigenous offenders Given the young age of offenders, services will need to consider how to interact with the family / carers of these young offenders However, with such high prevalence of aboriginality in those with an ID in the sample, there are also significant responsivity implications, with treatment services needing to ensure they address the learning styles and motivation of Indigenous and intellectually disabled juvenile offenders. Given the young age of offenders, such services will need to consider how to interact with the family / carers of these young offenders.

Indigenous issues – Needs principle Bonta and Andrews (2003): Intervention directed towards criminogenic needs proximal to offending using a cognitive – behavioural model BUT Significant long-standing social and economic difficulties that exist for Indigenous people in Australia suggest that systemic intervention by government and non-government agencies should occur beyond cognitive-based treatments at the individual level Whilst Bonta and Andrews (2003) argue that intervention must be directed towards those criminogenic needs proximal to offending using a cognitive – behavioural model, the significant long-standing social and economic difficulties that exist for Indigenous people in Australia suggest that systemic intervention by government and non-government agencies should occur beyond cognitive-based treatments at the individual level.

Other differences between Indigenous and non Indigenous young offenders History of first degree relatives incarcerated Indig = 90% vs non Indig = 52% One or more biological parents deceased Indig = 14% vs non Indig = 9% Young offenders is a parent Indig = 12% vs non Indig = 4% Currently employed Indig = 15% vs non Indig = 30% High risk drinking Indig = 36% vs non Indig = 20%

Similarities between Indigenous and non Indigenous young offenders BMI, blood sugar, lipid analysis, hepatitis and liver biochemistry STI and BBV infection = 15% Head injury (unconscious) = 35%-40% Physical fights in previous six months = 70% Expelled from school = 90% Report emotional distress (55% - 65%) Drunk <16 years = 75% Alcohol dependence/substance abuse disorder = 4% Injecting drug use = 10%-13%

Conclusions All young offenders have high risks and needs Indigenous and non Indigenous young offenders are more alike than otherwise – differences in amount in some factors but not qualitatively Indigenous young offenders have higher levels of intellectual disability and this implies higher risks/needs profiles

FIN Thank you Aboriginal art images from: http://images.google.com/images?q=aboriginal+art&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7RNTN_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=gPOZSvafLqfk6gOKnNW4BA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1 (with thanks)