1 / 25

Juvenile Offending Trajectories

Juvenile Offending Trajectories. A Queensland Study. Presentation. Background Current study Results Limitations and future research Conclusions. Criminal Careers. Based on longitudinal cohort studies Exploring initiation, frequency, duration, specialisation, escalation and desistance

ilori
Download Presentation

Juvenile Offending Trajectories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Juvenile Offending Trajectories A Queensland Study 1

  2. Presentation • Background • Current study • Results • Limitations and future research • Conclusions 2

  3. Criminal Careers • Based on longitudinal cohort studies • Exploring initiation, frequency, duration, specialisation, escalation and desistance • Focus on identifying offender sub-populations 3

  4. Criminal Careers • E.g. Wolfgang et. al. (1975) • Chronics = >5 offences • Farrington et. al. (1987) • ‘Frequents’ and ‘Occasionals’ • Moffitt et. al. (1993) • ‘Life course persistent’ and ‘adolescent-limited’ offenders 4

  5. Offending Trajectories 5

  6. Offending Trajectories 6

  7. Trajectory models • Land and Nagin (1993) developed Semiparametric Group Based Method (SPGM) • Group together ‘similar’ trajectories of offending • Identify offender subgroups from the data rather than imposing ex ante definitions 7

  8. Current study • Develop a trajectory model of juvenile offending • Explore correlates of trajectory membership • Assess predictive validity of trajectories 8

  9. Cohort • People born in 1983 or 1984 with one or more finalised court appearances in Queensland • Offending (cautioning and court) modelled between the ages of 10 and 16 9

  10. Trajectory model 10

  11. Late Onset Group • Included more than two-thirds of the cohort • Average of 2.3 offences as juveniles • Responsible for 40% of the entire cohort’s offending 11

  12. Adolescent Limited Group • Included 20% of the cohort • Committed 23% of the offences committed by the whole cohort • Early onset with offending peaking at age 14. 12

  13. Chronic group • Included just over one-tenth of the cohort • Responsible for 33% of the entire cohort’s offending • Average of 10.5 juvenile offences each 13

  14. Factors associated with trajectories • Six factors explored: • Sex • Indigenous status • Remoteness of residence • Socio-economic disadvantage (of area of residence) • Child protection history • First court outcome 14

  15. Factors associated with trajectories • Multivariate analysis: • Little difference between adolescent-limited and adolescent-onset groups • Males more than twice as likely as females to follow ‘chronic’ trajectory • Indigenous offenders between 3 and 5 times as likely as non-Indigenous to follow ‘chronic’ trajectory 15

  16. Factors associated with trajectories • Multivariate analysis: • Young people with child protection substantiations were 2 – 4 times more likely to follow ‘chronic’ trajectory • Young people with a supervised order at the first court appearance were around 1.5 times more likely to follow ‘chronic’ trajectory 16

  17. Predictive validity of trajectories • Relationship between juvenile offending trajectory and adult offending • For this study, adult offending was based on adult court appearances and was simply coded as a yes/no variable 17

  18. Predictive validity of trajectories 18

  19. Predictive validity of trajectories • When sex, Indigenous status, remoteness and SED, child protection and first court outcome were controlled for in a logistic regression model: • Chronics were 2.7 times more likely to progress than late onset offenders • Chronics were 3.3 times more likely to progress than adolescent limited offenders 19

  20. Findings • Trajectory model similar to U.S., U.K. and New Zealand models • Consistency of results adding evidence to a model of offending that includes two or more subpopulations of offenders 20

  21. International comparisons 21

  22. Findings • Expected differences between males and females; Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders • Some evidence that some females do follow a chronic offending trajectory 22

  23. Findings • Child protection history strongly related to offending trajectory • Offending trajectories strongly predict future offending at an aggregate levels • Similarities between late-onset and adolescent-limited groups need further examination 23

  24. Limitations of study • Short time frame • Limited range of factors available • Sample attrition • Use of official data for offending 24

  25. Future research • Extend study into adult offending • Explore distinct trajectory models based on sex and Indigenous status • Studies of how interventions/social changes (such as marriage, employment etc) affect trajectory group membership 25

More Related