The Abilities, Risks, and Needs of youth with FASD in the Criminal Justice System. Kaitlyn McLachlan University of Alberta

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Abilities, Risks, and Needs of youth with FASD in the Criminal Justice System. Kaitlyn McLachlan University of Alberta"

Megan Andrews
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Abilities, Risks, and Needs of youth with FASD in the Criminal Justice System Kaitlyn McLachlan University of Alberta

Rationale: Overlap in Risk Large overlap between neurobehavioral deficits/secondary disabilities and risk factors for poor psycholegal capacity and risk for offending behaviour Difficulty adhering to

2 Rationale: Overlap in Risk Large overlap between neurobehavioral deficits/secondary disabilities and risk factors for poor psycholegal capacity and risk for offending behaviour Difficulty adhering to conditions Group treatment challenges Intervention Complication Poor Legal Abilities Primary & Secondary Deficits Higher Risk Poor intellectual fx Communication problems Problems with decision making Impulsivity Substance use Susceptibility to peer influence Adverse early experiences

3 FASD in Justice Settings Overrepresentation in justice/forensic settings 23.3% in youth forensic psychiatric inpatient assessment unit (Fast et al. 1999) 9.8% in federal correctional facility (MacPherson & Chudley, 2006) 60% trouble with the law (Streissguth et al., 1996) Growing number of cases being heard in court Major current CJS policy implications Little empirical research

4 The Present Research Two Studies & Descriptive Data Study 1: Psycholegal capacities for navigating arrest and adjudication Study 2: Justice system experiences, risk and protective factors for offending, and validity of risk assessment tools Descriptive data on mental health needs, victimization, substance abuse problems Results compared to a justice-involved sample of youth without prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) Overall purpose: Develop a knowledge base concerning the abilities, risks, and needs of youth with FASD in the CJS Inform policy and clinical decision making

5 Present Studies Prospective longitudinal cohort design Baseline, 3-months, 6-months, 12-months, 2-years Two groups FASD (Dx via Canadian Guidelines) Comparison: CJS non-fasd (screened) Participants referred/recruited from community clinic and justice settings (BC & Manitoba) Study sessions Baseline (3hrs) semi-structured interview, psychometric testing, record review Follow-up (25 mins) & official records

6 Participants 100 justice-involved youth (81% male) between ages 12 to 23 (SD = 1.57) FASD (n = 50) Recruited from Dx clinics, POs, programs Reading level = 5.16 (SD = 2.20) IQ = (SD = 10.73) Comparison (n = 50) Recruited from POs, programs Reading level = 7.78 (SD = 2.96) IQ = (SD = 11.27)

7 Measures Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights (Grisso, 1998) Fitness Interview Test-Revised (Roesch et al., 1998) Wide Range Achievement Test-4 th Ed. (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006) Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (Psychological Corporation, 1999) MAYSI-2 (Grisso & Barnum, 2000) Drug & Alcohol use Questionnaire (Bosworth & Espelage, 1995) Self-Report of Offending Questionnaire (Huizinga et al., 1991) Stressful Urban Life Events Scale (Attar et al., 1994) YLS-CMI (Hoge et al., 2002) SAVRY (Borum et al., 2003) PCL-YV (Forth et al., 2003) Child & Youth Resilience Survey (Ungar et al., 1998) Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Roberts et al., 1999) Semistructured interviews for youth and collateral informants (developed for current study) Victimization Problem Behavior Frequency Scale (Multisite Violence Project, 2004)

8 Study 1: Research Questions Q1. Are youth with FASD more likely to waive arrest rights or make false confessions? Hypotheses: Yes: é waiver frequency & false confessions Q2. Are youth with FASD more likely to demonstrate impaired psycholegal abilities in interrogation or adjudication? Hypotheses: Yes: é impairment across psycholegal abilities Q3. What factors are associated with youths waiver decisions, false confessions, and psycholegal abilities? demographics, IQ/academic, CJS experience, diagnosis Hypotheses: ê general intellectual abilities (FASD) = é impairment

decisions Many youth made admission of guilt (40%) % 100 80

9 Q1: Waiver Decisions Youth asserted rights frequently, no group differences No predictors associated with waiver decisions Many youth made admission of guilt (40%) % FASD Comparison 0 Right to Silence Right to Counsel Right to Adult

SR false confessions False confessions resulted in serious

10 Q1: Self-Reported False Confessions High proportion of false confessions, no group differences No predictors associated with SR false confessions False confessions resulted in serious sanctions (67% convicted) % FASD Comparison 0 False Confession

11 Results: Rights Comprehension Youth with FASD demonstrated significantly more impaired understanding and appreciation of the arrest warnings IQ and reading comprehension accounted for differences, not diagnostic status 8 M FASD (SD) Comparison M (SD) t value d Paraphrasing (12) 6.96 (2.71) 9.18 (2.42) -4.32*** -.87 Recognition (18) (2.26) (1.68) -3.67*** -.87 Vocabulary (22) (4.44) (3.99) -4.19*** -.85 Appreciation (30) (3.83) (3.44) -2.82* -.57 * p <.05, *** p <.001

12 Results: Fitness to Stand Trial Youth with FASD received significantly lower scores on all indices and had scores below a cut-off point for impairment IQ, reading comprehension, and diagnosis all significant independent predictors M FASD (SD) C-Off Comparison M (SD) C-off t value d FIT-R (6.05) (4.43) Understanding 6.94 (2.61) 76% 9.48 (2.25) 28% -5.21*** Appreciation 4.04 (1.75) 24% 5.08 (1.16) 4% -3.51** -.71 Communication 9.66 (3.02) 24% (1.87) 4% -4.53*** -.92 ** p <.01, *** p <.001

13 Study 1: Discussion Q1. Past waiver decisions and false confessions No group differences More youth invoked rights than anticipated, but high level of waivers High rate of past false confessions Q2. Psycholegal abilities in interrogation and adjudication Yes: substantially higher impairment in youth with FASD More vulnerable to miscarriages in justice Q3. Factors associated with Q1 and Q2 Difficult to predict who exercised their rights/confessed IQ & reading comprehension robust independent predictors (Q2) FASD diagnosis important in clinical evaluation of adjudicative capacity

14 Adverse Outcomes & Needs

Historical Factors 100 FASD 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Comparison FASD group

15 Historical Factors 100 FASD Comparison FASD group significantly earlier CFS placements (5 vs. 14) No differences in # placements)

16 Clinical Factors FASD Comparison

Victimization 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Sex Trade DV Vic Vio Crime Vic Prop

17 Victimization Sex Trade DV Vic Vio Crime Vic Prop Crime FASD Comparison No significant differences on self-report peer-victimization scale

18 Current Substance Abuse Youth reported similar current substance use patterns across measures: DAQ 30 days FASD Comparison Tobacco Alcohol Drunk Marijuana Inhalants Other Street Last few months At risk MAYSI Drug Risk 28% 28% Age 1 st Use FASD Comparison Drunk Marijuana Inhalants 6 9 Other Street Youth with FASD more likely to OD (38% vs. 10%) DAQ: 0 = Never; 1 = Once; 2 = 2-3; 3 = 4; 4 = 5+

19 Current Mental Health Problems Youth with FASD at higher risk for problems related to depression/ anxiety (interfering with motivation) & Suicidal Ideation MAYSI Low Risk Caution Warning FASD (n) Comp (n) FASD (n) Comp (n) FASD (n) Comp (n) Alcohol/Drug Use Angry-Irritable Depressed-Anxious ** 4 Suicidal Ideation ** 6 Somatic Complaints Thought Disturbance

20 Justice System Trajectories

21 Study 2: Research Questions Q1. Are there differences in criminal justice histories? Hypotheses: Yes: Youth with FASD = earlier and more frequent offending No differences in crime severity or offending patterns, except breaches Q2. Are there differences in risk and protective factor profiles? Hypotheses: Yes: Youth with FASD = higher level of risks/needs and fewer protective factors Q3. Predictive validity of the SAVRY, YLS/CMI, PCL-YV in FASD? Hypotheses: Risk tools may poorly differentiate high risk youth with an FASD diagnosis

22 Results: CJS Experiences Youth with FASD incurred earlier official charges, substantially more overall charges & convictions, and more breaches Higher average crime severity in comparison sample M FASD SD Comparison M SD t value Effect size (d) 1 st Police Contact (2.12) st Charge (1.68) (1.72) -3.01** -.61 Tot Charges Violent Sexual Property Breach (30.69) (5.80) (3.17) (11.67) (8.92) (27.24) (6.50) (.55) (9.03) (16.56) * Tot Convictions (13.03) (9.73) 2.79**.56 Crime Severity (58.95) (120.81) -3.09**

23 Results: Custody Experiences Youth with FASD admitted to pre-trial custody more frequently (not necessarily spending more time) Remand % ever 1 st admission # times # days Sentenced % ever 1 st admission # times # days 94% FASD % M SD % (1.65) (7.02) (253.66) (1.76) (2.66) (234.92) Comparison % M SD t value 94 % % (2.68) (4.75) (283.87) (1.60) (1.28) (198.73) ** Total Days (370.30) (370.00) Effect Size (d)

24 Primary Offense Type Primary offense type was mixed for both groups 50 # Participants FASD Comp 0 Violent Property Combined

25 Results: Self-Report Offending Comparison group reported significantly higher overall offending frequency Youth with FASD lower offending across categories, except prostitution * p <.05 FASD M (SD) Comparison M (SD) t value Effect size (d) Aggressive 1.13 (.11) 1.53 (.92) -2.34* (-.48) Income/Property 1.52 (.85) 1.98 (.90) -2.59* (-.53) Total (16.62) (19.10) -2.36* (-.48)

Results: Recidivism Base Rates Substantial FASD recidivism, no significant differences % 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Crime Severity M SD FASD

26 Results: Recidivism Base Rates Substantial FASD recidivism, no significant differences % Crime Severity M SD FASD COMP t (34) =.82, p =.42, d =.28 # Charges M SD FASD COMP FASD Comparison t (34) = -.65, p =.52, d = -.22

27 Results: Time to Recidivism Mean time to recidivism for FASD group is 9 weeks (vs. 11) Est. SE FASD COMP (1, 78) = 2.85, p =.09, d =.37

28 Results: Risk Classifications & GR Majority of FASD youth classified as high or very high risk Raters augmented YLS/CMI rating from high to very high SAVRY SPJ YLS-CMI Actuarial YLS-CMI ORR n (%) n ( %) n (%) FASD Low Mod High V. High 3 (6.0) 6 (12.0) 33 (66.0) - 0 (0.0) 10 (20.0) 30 (60.0) 2 (4.0) 4 (8.0) 5 (10.0) 25 (50.0) 8 (16.0) Comp. Low Mod. High V. High 4 (8.0) 13 (26.0) 20 (40.0) - 4 (8.0) 16 (32.0) 17 (34.0) 0 (0.0) 4 (8.0) 14 (28.0) 18 (36.0) 1 (2.0)

(AUCs:.65 -.80) AUC s for SAVRY total score (.

29 Results: Predictive Validity Risk classifications for FASD youth across tools yielded moderate/good predictive accuracy (AUCs: ) AUC s for SAVRY total score (.81), YLS/CMI ORR (.80), and PCL-YV total score (.73) yielded significant AUCs (p <.01)

Results: Salient Risk Factors Youth with FASD scored significantly higher on several risk scales across the three instruments FASD M (SD) COMP M (SD) t value Effect size (d) SAVRY Historical

30 Results: Salient Risk Factors Youth with FASD scored significantly higher on several risk scales across the three instruments FASD M (SD) COMP M (SD) t value Effect size (d) SAVRY Historical Individual/Clinical Protective (6.69) (3.05) (2.70).96 (1.18) (7.28) (3.59) 8.76 (4.39) 1.88 (1.48) 4.85*** 5.43*** 3.62*** -3.44** YLS/CMI Personality/Behavior Attitude/Orientation (3.05) 4.62 (1.35) 2.70 (1.39) (3.59) 2.85 (1.86) 1.66 (1.43) 4.15*** 5.52*** 3.92*** PCL-YV Lifestyle Antisocial (5.65) 6.28 (2.01) 7.18 (2.00) (6.30) 4.44 (2.04) 5.22 (2.24) 4.15*** 5.52*** 3.92*** ** p <.01, *** p <.001

31 Intervention Targets in FASD SAVRY: Individual/Clinical Factors Anger management problems Poor compliance Low interest/commitment to school YLS-CMI: Substance Abuse PCL-YV Lifestyle Factors (e.g., impulsivity, irresponsibility)

32 Summary: Youth with FASD. Demonstrated significant limitations in psycholegal abilities Risk for miscarriages of justice Youth with FASD have considerable past and present risk/need patterns Many carry serious outcomes/consequences High level of intervention required Responsivity: May not benefit from traditional programming approaches Several factors appear important in case management plans, all related to impulsivity: Anger management Substance abuse Poor compliance Self-harm/suicide

33 Summary continued However, also many similarities: Police experiences Criminal justice system trajectories & offending patterns Current social/contextual issues Considerable heterogeneity within the FASD group Some youth desisted entirely from crime Some youth lower risk Differential pattern of risks and needs Unclear whether treatment in the aggregate is appropriate Current lack of evidence to support the efficacy of specialized treatment programs more empirical research is needed

34 Acknowledgments Mentors/Project Committee: Dr. Ronald Roesch, Dr. Jodi Viljoen, Dr. Kevin Douglas Supporting Agencies: Manitoba FASD Youth Justice Program, Manitoba Corrections, New Directions, Manitoba Asante Centre for FAS, BC Ministry of Child and Family Services, BC Youth Justice, BC Corrections Funding Partners:

Screening and Assessment

Screening and Assessment Screening and assessment are two different ways to obtain mental health and substance use information about youth. Screening is typically a brief procedure, performed by non-mental-health