Resilience, risk and needs in young adult offenders

Young offenders typically have multiple and complex needs across numerous domains, including mental health, family, peers and community. However, many of these young people also possess strengths that protect against further offending behaviour. Knowledge of the strengths and needs of young offenders, and the relationship between these factors and offending, is integral to the development of accurate risk assessment tools and effective treatment programs. However, research examining the depth and breadth of needs faced by young offenders in Australia remains limited, and research on protective factors is in relative infancy. One purported protective factor, resilience, has been inconsistently defined and has received little research attention in the offending literature despite its inclusion in some risk assessment tools. Arguably, information on the needs of Australian young offenders and clarification of the proposed protective factor of resilience and its association with offending is critical to help guide the development of valid risk assessment tools, as well as more targeted preventative and treatment initiatives. Against this background, the broad aims of this thesis were to (i) obtain data on the prevalence of a variety of needs related to offending including, but not limited to, mental illness, low intelligence and psychopathy in young adult offenders in Victoria, Australia; (ii) examine more closely the construct of resilience and attempt to clarify its conceptualisation; and (iii) explore whether resilience is associated with reoffending in young adult offenders. Three studies are reported. The first was an investigation of the prevalence of low intelligence, mental illness, and psychopathy in young adult offenders. Further, risk for reoffending, including an examination of criminogenic needs, was assessed. Based on semi-structured interviews and a variety of psychological tests, it was found that a large majority of the young offenders had likely Axis I disorders (including mood, anxiety, substance use, eating and psychotic disorders) and were assessed as being a high or very high risk of reoffending. Further, the prevalence of low intelligence was much higher than would be expected in the general population. The second study was an examination of the construct of resilience. A number of factors hypothesised to contribute to resilience, such as family and peer factors, mental health and intelligence, were considered to determine whether they contributed significantly to explaining resilience scores according to a well-validated resilience scale. Resilience was only found to be associated with the absence of a mental illness; however, less than six percent of the resilience score was explained by this factor. The third study explored the relationship between resilience and reoffending (defined as new charges). Recidivism data was obtained from official Victoria Police records. Resilience and a number of risk factors including intelligence, mental illness, and the total score on a risk assessment measure were examined to determine if and how resilience was associated with reoffending. Results showed no statistically significant relationship between resilience and subsequent criminal charges during 7-12 month follow-up. The risk assessment tool, intelligence, and having a history of assault were found to be significantly associated with reoffending; a simple multivariate model comprising the risk assessment measure total score and Full Scale IQ score was found to predict reoffending with good accuracy. Collectively, the findings from these three inter-related studies have implications for the assessment and treatment of young offenders. The high prevalence of both mental illness and low intelligence speaks to the need for adequate assessment of these issues when an individual enters the justice system. As mental illness and poor cognitive functioning have implications for an individuals’ ability to respond to treatment, as well as to serve their sentence and desist from offending, it is critical that they are adequately identified and intervention and management strategies are tailored according to individual’s needs. Importantly, the results also have implications for the conceptualisation of resilience, its measurement, and its inclusion in standardised risk assessment instruments. Results from this research provide clarification regarding which factors do and do not contribute to the construct of resilience. Further, resilience was not found to be associated with future offending. These results suggest contemporary risk assessment instruments incorporating resilience may require revision to ensure they incorporate only risk and protective factors with sound empirical support