Early detection of risk for maltreatment within Dutch preventive child health care: A proxy-based evaluation of the long-term predictive validity of the SPARK method.

BACKGROUND: For effective prevention of child maltreatment, it is crucial that risk factors for child maltreatment are identified as early as possible. In the Dutch preventive child healthcare, the SPARK-method is used for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: The current study investigated the predictive validity of the SPARK-method for predicting child protection activities, as a proxy for child maltreatment, and whether the estimation can be improved with an actuarial module. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Participants included a community sample of 1582 children of approximately 18-months-old for whom the SPARK was administered during well-child visits at home (51 %) or at the well-baby clinic (49 %). METHODS: SPARK measurements were linked to data on child protection orders and residential youth care over a 10-year follow-up period. The predictive validity was evaluated using Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve (AUC) values. RESULTS: Results showed good predictive validity for the SPARK clinical risk assessment (AUC = 0.723; large effect). The actuarial module led to a significant improvement in predictive validity (AUC = 0.802; large effect), z = 2.05, p = .04. CONCLUSION: These results show that the SPARK is suitable for estimating the risk of child protection activities and that the actuarial module is a valuable addition. The SPARK can be used to support professionals in preventive child healthcare with their decision on appropriate follow-up actions.

Protective factors as uni- or bipolar factors and their incremental validity and accuracy in predicting general recidivism.

This study examined whether protective factors are unique or the opposite of risk factors and whether they have incremental validity in the prediction of general recidivism. Using a sample of 3306 Dutch forensic outpatients, this study was the first large-sample study ever performed on this topic. Results from exploratory factor analyses demonstrated a relatively stable factor structure of 14 factors, consisting of 32 of the initially included 68 risk factors and 11 of the initially included 17 protective items. The protective factors were found to be either bipolar (i.e., mirror images of risk factors) or responsivity characteristics (i.e., motivation for treatment, cognitive disability). Incremental validity for the recidivism prediction was found in one factor with internal protective items (e.g., empathy, financial management, life goals). This factor decreased the recidivism risk by 6%. However, weak predictive accuracy was found for this factor. Implications for clinical forensic practice are discussed with special focus on the risk-need-responsivity model.

The relationship between maltreatment victimisation and sexual and violent offending: differences between adolescent offenders with and without intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: Juveniles with intellectual disabilities (ID) are more often victims of maltreatment and more often perpetrators of abuse than juveniles without ID. Because previous research on the relationship between maltreatment victimisation and subsequent offending behaviour was primarily performed in non-disabled samples, the present study aimed to examine differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the relationship between maltreatment victimisation and sexual and violent offending. METHOD: The sample consisted of juvenile offenders with ID (n = 102) and without ID (n = 526) who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the strength of the relationship between maltreatment and offending, Fisher's z tests were calculated to assess the significance of the differences between the two groups in the strength of the correlations, and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the unique contribution of maltreatment victimisation to the prediction of violent and sexual offending. RESULTS: Seventy per cent of the juvenile offenders with ID and 42% of the juvenile offenders without ID had experienced abuse and/or neglect. Both sexual and violent offending were more common in juvenile offenders with ID than in juvenile offenders without ID. Moreover, the relationship between different forms of maltreatment and sexual offending was stronger in juvenile offenders with ID than in juvenile offenders without ID. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high rates of abuse and neglect victimisation and the strength of the association between victimisation and sexual offending, especially in juvenile offenders with ID, treatment should focus on potential trauma and other problems associated with the abuse.

Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disabilities in the importance of static and dynamic risk factors for recidivism.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile offenders with intellectual disability (ID) have been largely ignored in the literature of risk assessment, while they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ID is a risk factor for juvenile delinquency and recidivism. The aim of this study was to examine whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors for recidivism. Both the impact of static and dynamic risk factors were examined. Static risk factors were examined in the criminal history domain and dynamic risk factors were examined in the domains of family, school, use of free time, friends, alcohol/drugs, attitude, aggression and skills. This knowledge is important for both assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. METHOD: The sample consisted of adolescents who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. The group of ID juvenile offenders (n = 102) consisted of juvenile offenders with a formal diagnosis of ID, which means a full scale IQ of less than 70, coupled with significant deficits in adaptive behaviour, with childhood onset. The juveniles of this group are special education students or they have a formal diagnosis of a special education need. The group without ID (n = 526), was a random sample of all juvenile offenders without a formal diagnosis of ID. RESULTS: No differences were found between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors on recidivism in most domains. However, in the skills domain, the relations between all risk factors and recidivism were significantly stronger in adolescents without ID than in adolescents with ID. Although not or only borderline statistically significant, these risk factors were all negatively related to recidivism in adolescents with ID, whereas these risk factors were significantly and positively related to recidivism in adolescents without ID. CONCLUSIONS: There are few differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors for recidivism, suggesting that the same assessment methods can be used for juvenile offenders with and without ID. There were, however, differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the skills domain. What these differences mean for the treatment of juvenile offenders is yet to be determined. For now it is important to be aware of potential negative (side) effects on recidivism when skills training is offered to juvenile offenders with ID.

Short-term general recidivism risk of juvenile sex offenders: validation of the Washington State Juvenile Court Prescreen Assessment.

It is important to examine whether general risk-assessment instruments developed for nonsex offenders can also be applied to sex offenders, because juvenile sex offenders are much more likely to reoffend with a nonsexual offense than a sexual offense. This study examined to what extent the Washington State Juvenile Court Prescreen Assessment (WSJCPA) can be used to assess the risk for general recidivism among different types of juvenile sex offenders. The predictive validity of the WSJCPA was examined separately for the following subgroups: boys convicted for a misdemeanor sexual offense against a peer (n = 381), boys convicted for a felony sexual offense against a peer (n = 282), boys convicted for a sexual offense against a younger child (n = 521), and girls convicted for a sexual offense (n = 71) and two comparison groups of male (n = 15,155) and female (n = 5,811) juvenile nonsex offenders. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve scores for general recidivism ranged between .64 and .73. The WSJCPA proved to be at least equally predictive of general offending among juvenile sex and nonsex offenders groups.

Changes in the relative importance of dynamic risk factors for recidivism during adolescence.

This study examined which dynamic risk factors for recidivism play an important role during adolescence. The sample consisted of 13,613 American juveniles who had committed a criminal offense. The results showed that the importance of almost all dynamic risk factors, both in the social environment domain (school, family, relationships) and in the individual domain (attitude, skills, aggressiveness), decreased as juveniles grew older. Therefore, the potential effect of an intervention aimed at these factors will also decrease as juveniles grow older. The relative importance of the risk factors also changed: In early adolescence, risk factors in the family domain showed the strongest association with recidivism, whereas in late adolescence risk factors in the attitude, relationships, and school domain were more strongly related to recidivism. These results suggest that the focus of an intervention needs to be attuned to the age of the juvenile to achieve the maximum potential effect on recidivism.