Mulder Eva, Vermunt Jeroen, Brand Eddy, Bullens Ruud, van Marle Hjalmar
Department of Child Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2012 Apr;22(2):122-35. doi: 10.1002/cbm.1819. Epub 2011 Dec 30.
Research has shown that the treatment of juvenile offenders is most effective when it takes into account the possible risk factors for re-offending. It may be asked whether juvenile offenders can be treated as one homogeneous group, or, if they are divisible into subgroups, whether different risk factors are predictive of recidivism. AIMS AND HYPOTHESES: Our aims were to find out whether serious juvenile offenders may be subdivided into clearly defined subgroups and whether such subgroups might differ in terms of the risk factors that predict recidivism.
In a sample of 1111 serious juvenile offenders, latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups. For each juvenile offender, 70 risk factors were registered. Severity of recidivism was measured on a 12-point scale. Analysis was then conducted to identify the risk factors that best predicted the different patterns of recidivism.
Four distinct subgroups of juvenile offenders were identified: serious violent offenders, violent property offenders, property offenders, and sex offenders. Violent property offenders were the most serious recidivists and had the highest number of risk factors. Serious violent offenders and property offenders were characterised by overt and covert behaviour, respectively. Sex offenders differed from the other three groups in the rarity of their recidivism and in the risk factors that are present. For each of these four subgroups, a different set of risk factors was found to predict severity of recidivism.
Differences in recidivism rates occurred in spite of the fact that most of these youngsters had been in the standard treatment programme offered to serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands. This was not a treatment outcome study, but the indication that two of the groups identified in our study appeared to be worse after going through this programme, whereas the other two did quite well in terms of recidivism lends weight to our idea that such classification of juvenile offenders may lead to more targeted treatment programmes that would better serve both the general public and the youths concerned.
研究表明，在考虑到再次犯罪的可能风险因素时，对少年犯的治疗最为有效。可能会有人问，少年犯是否可以被视为一个同质群体，或者，如果他们可以分为不同的亚组，不同的风险因素是否能预测再犯情况。目的和假设：我们的目的是找出严重少年犯是否可以细分为明确界定的亚组，以及这些亚组在预测再犯的风险因素方面是否存在差异。
在1111名严重少年犯的样本中，使用潜在类别分析来识别亚组。为每名少年犯记录了70个风险因素。再犯的严重程度用12分制来衡量。然后进行分析，以确定最能预测不同再犯模式的风险因素。
确定了四个不同的少年犯亚组：严重暴力罪犯、暴力财产罪犯、财产罪犯和性罪犯。暴力财产罪犯是最严重的再犯者，风险因素数量最多。严重暴力罪犯和财产罪犯分别以公开和隐蔽行为为特征。性罪犯与其他三组的不同之处在于其再犯率低以及存在的风险因素。对于这四个亚组中的每一组，都发现了一组不同的风险因素来预测再犯的严重程度。
尽管这些年轻人中的大多数都参加了荷兰为严重少年犯提供的标准治疗项目，但再犯率仍存在差异。这不是一项治疗结果研究，但我们的研究中确定的两组人在经历这个项目后似乎情况更糟，而另外两组在再犯方面表现良好，这一迹象支持了我们的观点，即对少年犯进行这样的分类可能会导致更有针对性的治疗项目，这将更好地服务于公众和相关青少年。
