|
Abstract
|
All 1964-1965 California Youth Authority admissions to the Reception Guidance Center, Deuel Vocational Institution, form the study population for this research. A variety of data was utilized to explore relationships within the sample to simple recidivism on parole and to violent recidivism on parole in par ticular. Using a selection of relevant variables, three independent statistical approaches were carried out. They resulted in a linear predictive index and an effort to develop a prediction equation through a linear regression analysis. The methods employed and the results obtained are discussed. The authors suggest that efforts to better classify and define violence should be coupled with efforts to develop assessment techniques that are specifically designed to shed light on violence- proneness in persons. Such research efforts should be continued in addition to or in conjunction with much needed research efforts aimed at modifying violence producing situations. Such a two- pronged research strategy would acknowledge the interactional characteristic of violence and allow for the hypothesis that both persons and their characteristics, and situations and their charac teristics, contribute to the occurrence or non-occurrence of violence.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study by Wenk and Emrich was to conduct an exploratory examination of the relationships within a group of California Youth Authority wards to simple and violent recidivism on parole.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi-experimental cross-sectional design with a non-probability sample of all 4,146 males comprising the 1964-1965 California Youth Authority admissions to the Reception Guidance Center, Deuel Vocational Institution. Data collection centered upon demographic information, intellectual, vocational and personality assessment, evaluation of psychopathology, psychiatric information, social evaluation, identification of special problems, California Youth Authority Board decisions during initial hearings, and follow-up data regarding parole. Analysis included examination of frequencies, chi-square and regression analyses.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors began with a summary description of the kinds of violent acts committed by the subjects both on their admission offense and on their parole violation offense. Of the 250 subjects committed for violent admission offenses and the 104 individuals returned to custody after parole violation offenses, assault with a deadly weapon was the most frequent offense both for admission (29.2%) and for parole violation (28.9%), followed in both cases by simple assault and/or battery (27.6% and 18.3% respectively). A non-significant chi-square was found for the relationship between level of violence and offense category, indicating that there was no difference between admission offenses and parole violation offenses in the degree of seriousness of violence. Subjects were then classified into one of three categories according to actual histories of violent behavior, in order to add an additional dimension to the study of subjects: 2,385 subjects had no known history of violence, 755 had no prior history of violence but history of involvement in aggressive criminal behavior and 1,006 of the group had a history of actual violence, not limited to criminal violence. After a 15-month parole period, 61.1% had a favorable parole outcome, whilst 38.9% had violated their parole conditions. Of this latter group, 104 had violated parole with a violent offense. Examining a number of variables to determine which groups had a simple violation rate different from that for the entire sample (61.1% favorable outcome), the authors found that three variables showed a significant relationship - violent admission offense, with 70.4% favorable parole outcome, fourth or higher admission to the Youth Authority, with 46.5% favorable outcome, and moderate to serious opiate involvement, with 42.4% maintaining parole conditions. Examining profiles on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for these three subgroups of offenders, individuals with four or more admissions to the Youth Authority, and those with a more than mild history of opiate use, increasingly showed evidence of psychological disturbance and pathology. These subjects also had recidivism rates slightly higher than those for the whole sample. Turning to violent parole violation offenses, six groups were found to have high percentages of parole violators who violated parole by committing a violent offense: those who had been referred for psychiatric evaluation of violence potential (17.6%), those whose admission offense had been violent (17.4%), those who had a history of violence (14.9%), Mexican-Americans (12.1%), those subjects with a severe alcohol problem (11.2%), and those who had been admitted to the Youth Authority four or more times (10.2%). Overall, 7.4% of parole violation was for a violent offense. Examining intelligence and aptitude information of the 104 violent recidivists and the 4,042 subjects who did not have violent recidivism, the authors found that subjects in the first group showed less intelligence or aptitude than those in the second. The authors suggested that this finding might be due to the greater number of minority races in the violent recidivism group, who tend to score lower than the general population on such cognitive tests, which might often be culturally biased. Examining differences between the two groups on three personality inventories - the california Psychological Inventory, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Interpersonal Personality Inventory - the authors found few differences between the violent recidivists and those who had no violent recidivism. Conducting a regression analysis to attempt to predict violent recidivism, the authors found that only number of admission to the Youth Authority, level of education, score on the Interpersonal Personality Inventory and the Manual Dexterity score of the General Aptitude Test Battery were useful and had a high level of significance.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors suggested that three areas need attention if future research is to be successful: the definition of violence, the classification of the violent criminal offender, and the potential for further analysis of the characteristics of the violent offender. A definition of violence is needed that can function more efficiently in the criminal justice system, as criminal categories tend to be legal rather than relating to behavior on the street. An operational definition is needed so that better data can be collected, including information not only about the circumstances of the act, but also about the severity of violence involved. If violence is of the type that begins as nonviolent and then escalates, intervention opportunities are present for defusing the situation and preventing violence. Police should be trained in the skills necessary for such intervention, including taking into consideration the cultural, environmental and ecological factors of the setting in which violence occurs. As long as the definition of violence continues to be ambiguous, prediction or analyzing of violent criminal behavior will be impossible. Studies have found different categories of violent offenders, from those who commit occasional acts of very serious violence to those who commit more frequent acts of less serious violence. If these categories do actually exist, studies should take these differences into account, as behavioral and background variables might suggest different methods of prediction. Better definitions of violence and behavioral classifications of violent offenders are not enough - more thorough data on the characteristics of the offenders is still needed. Psychological measures and other testing strategies and instruments should be designed to specifically explore those underlying dynamics and characteristics that are related to violence-proneness. Improved data collection can address the issue of violence in people, and should be combined with efforts aimed at the modification of violence-producing situations.
EVALUATION:
The authors present an interesting examination of some of the issues surrounding the violent offender. Whilst the sample size is good and the age range of the sample covers that where violent acts are fairly frequent, there is no discussion of the measurement of the variables, or even of exactly which variables are employed. The results are presented in an often confusing manner, and conclusions about findings are few. However, whilst the study itself leaves one hoping for better clarity of explanation, the recommendations for future research represent a valuable addition to the field of violence prevention, and should be seen as important ideas for policy planners and researchers alike. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - 1960s
KW - California
KW - Offender Recidivism
KW - Research Recommendations
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Male
KW - Juvenile Inmate
KW - Incarcerated
KW - Offender Characteristics
KW - Juvenile Justice System
KW - Juvenile Correctional Institution
KW - Male Violence
KW - Male Inmate
KW - Male Offender
KW - Violence Potential
KW - Violence Prediction
KW - Parole
KW - Incarcerated |