Complex Trauma and Criminogenic Needs in a Youth Justice Sample: A Gender-Informed Latent Profile Analysis

• Author: Terri Scott,Tracey A. Skilling,Kayla A. Wanamaker,Shelley L. Brown,Leigh Greiner
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854820964513
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• Date: 01 February 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 2, February 2021, 175 –194.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820964513

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

175

COMPLEX TRAUMA AND CRIMINOGENIC

NEEDS IN A YOUTH JUSTICE SAMPLE

A Gender-Informed Latent Profile Analysis

SHELLEY L. BROWN

KAYLA A. WANAMAKER

LEIGH GREINER

TERRI SCOTT

Carleton University

TRACEY A. SKILLING

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

University of Toronto

How complex trauma features and criminogenic needs co-vary within youth justice populations requires examination. This

study applies latent profile analysis to a sample of 311 justice-involved Canadian youth (211 male, 100 female) to identify

if unique profiles of youth would emerge delineated by different combinations of comorbid needs pulled from complex

trauma and personality/social learning models. Two similar profiles emerged for males and females alike: a complex trauma

with criminogenic needs profile (70% of females, 58.8% of males) and a low overall needs profile (30% of females, 41.2%

of males). Surprisingly, the Youth-Level Service/Case Management Inventory predicted recidivism well among the complex

trauma/criminogenic need female cases (AUC = .71), but poorly among the complex trauma/criminogenic need male cases

(AUC = .59). Trauma-informed approaches that target criminogenic needs in both genders is a clear implication of the

findings.

Keywords: adolescence; trauma; criminogenic needs; delinquency; gender differences; recidivism; latent profile analysis

Although youth-perpetrated crime continues to drop in the United States, the proportion

of arrests attributed to female youth continues to grow, rising from 20% in 1985 to

30% in 2015 (Puzzanchera & Ehrmann, 2018). In Canada, youth-perpetrated crime is

declining in both genders. However, the decrease is greater among males than females

(Kong & AuCoin, 2008; Savage, 2019). Notably, it is well established that the apparent

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Leigh Greiner is now at British Columbia Corrections, Ministry of Public Safety and

Solicitor General. We have no conflicts of interests associated with this research. This research was funded by

the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council, Grant 76034, Principal Investigator: Shelley L. Brown &

co-investigator: Tracey A. Skilling. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shelley L.

Brown, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

K1S 5B6; e-mail: shelley.brown@carleton.ca.

964513CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820964513Criminal Justice and BehaviorBrown et al. / Short Title

research-article2020

176 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

increase and/or relatively slower decrease in the female crime rate relative to males is

largely a reflection of legal and policy changes rather than changes in actual behavior

(Brown et al., 2019). At the same time, gender-focused criminological research has grown

exponentially.

Historically, explanatory models of delinquency and crime as well as correctional assess-

ment and intervention approaches have been grounded in decidedly gender-neutral para-

digms such as social learning theory (Akers, 1973), personality-based models (Gottfredson

& Hirschi, 1990), and developmental life course models (Loeber & Farrington, 2000).

Feminist-driven scholarship has changed this landscape. A new generation of gender-

responsive scholars is increasingly studying justice-involved girls and/or women (some-

times alongside male comparison groups) using a range of qualitative and quantitative

approaches. Unlike mainstream psychological perspectives, prevailing gender-responsive

theories emphasize interpersonal trauma, addictions, maladaptive relationships, and impov-

erished social capital (Bloom et al., 2003; Salisbury et al., 2016). Concomitantly, the study

of psychological trauma has evolved considerably since the American Psychiatric

Association (APA) introduced posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) into the Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Third Edition (DSM-III, 1980). Increasingly,

leading trauma experts now recognize that strict adherence to the definitional confines of

PTSD precludes more complex forms of trauma resulting from chronic exposure to inter-

personal adversity (van der Kolk, 2005).

Gender-responsive and gender-neutral scholars are now regularly exploring heterogene-

ity within justice-involved samples using person-centered as opposed to variable-centered

approaches (Brennan et al., 2012; Lanctôt, 2018; Schwalbe et al., 2008). These approaches

attempt to determine if latent or unobserved heterogeneity exists (e.g., different subtypes/

profiles/classes of justice-involved people) within seemingly homogeneous groups. This

small but significant body of research underscores the diversity within justice-involved

samples of females as well as males. However, more work is needed to elucidate the nature

and number of latent profiles, and to clarify if different profiles exist who are best character-

ized by complex trauma (CT) symptomatology or social learning/personality features. This

is particularly important to investigate among youth as gender-responsive scholars have

been slow to differentiate between adult and adolescent female samples. Using latent pro-

file analysis (LPA; Lazarsfeld & Henry, 1968), this article explores if latent subtypes of

justice-involved youth can be delineated using variables derived from CT and social learn-

ing models.

COMPLEX TRAUMA (CT) THEORY

The original features of PTSD encapsulated intrusive memories, avoidant/numbing

symptoms, and hyperarousal symptoms all resulting from a single event “outside the range

of usual human experience” (p. 236, DSM-III; APA, 1980). This definition has been criti-

cized for being unable to capture the complex array of trauma catalysts and ensuing sequa-

lae routinely observed in clinical practice (Briere, 2013). Trauma experts (Ford & Courtois,

2009; Herman, 1992; van der Kolk, 2005) have explained how chronic, interpersonal trauma

such as prolonged childhood abuse and neglect or chronic violence and/or forced displace-

ment experienced during war, captivity, or genocide can disrupt: (a) the normal develop-

ment of secure attachments within caregiving relationships, and (b) core self-regulation