Violent and Nonviolent Youth Offenders

• Author: Gerald Zeng,Chi Meng Chu,Violet Lai
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204015615193
• Published date: 01 July 2016
• Date: 01 July 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2016, Vol. 14(3) 313-329
Violent and Nonviolent Youth
ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
Offenders: Preliminary
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204015615193
yvj.sagepub.com
Evidence on Group Subtypes
Violet Lai1, Gerald Zeng2, and Chi Meng Chu2
Abstract
Youth violence is a costly social problem. This study compared the risk and needs of nonviolent
youth offenders, with those who had committed violent offenses only (violent only) and those who
had committed violent and nonviolent offenses (violent plus) to determine whether violent youth
were a different ‘‘type’’ from nonviolent youth. The case files of 3,744 youth offenders (3,327 males
and 417 females, between 12 and 18 years old) were retrospectively coded, before official recidivism
records were obtained. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), w2, and Cox regressions were
conducted. Violent-plus youth were younger; higher in their total risk and all criminogenic needs;
more likely to have several noncriminogenic needs; and at higher risk of any reoffending, violent
reoffending, and nonviolent reoffending than nonviolent youth. Violent-only youth had the same
total risk and risk of general and violent recidivism as nonviolent offenders but presented different
criminogenic and noncriminogenic needs and risk of nonviolent recidivism. Compared to violent-
only youth, violent-plus youth were younger, had higher total risk and criminogenic needs on five
domains, were more likely to have several noncriminogenic needs, and were at higher risk of all
types of reoffending (except sexual reoffending), suggesting subtypes of violent youth offenders. The
implication is that nonviolent and violent youth offenders require different dosage and types of
intervention.
Keywords
violence, youth, type, risk, needs, recidivism
Introduction
Youth violence is one of the most prominent social problems (Davies & Pearson, 1999; Mercy,
Butchart, Farrington, & Cerda, 2002). Studies in United States and United Kingdom estimated that
the tangible and intangible costs of violent crimes, which include those committed by youth,
amounted to billions per year (Institute for Economics & Peace, 2013; Shapiro & Hassett, 2012).
1 Research for Evidence-based Practice, Social Service Institute, Singapore
2 Centre for Research on Rehabilitation and Protection, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore
Corresponding Author:
Gerald Zeng, Centre for Research on Rehabilitation and Protection, Ministry of Social and Family Development, 512
Thomson Road, #12-00, MSF Building, Singapore 298136.
Email: gerald_zeng@msf.gov.sg

---

314
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(3)
Notwithstanding the volatility of youth violence trends (Butts & Snyder, 2006; Cook & Laub, 2002),
the substantial costs of each violent act (McCollister, French, & Fang, 2010) confirm that violent
offending by youth requires attention. By virtue of their young age, persistent violent offending
by youth can result in longer term costs and potentially be more damaging when compared to adult
violence. For the above-mentioned reasons, a better understanding of youth violence is critical for
advancing prevention and intervention efforts.
Typological Distinction Between Violent and Nonviolent Youth Offenders
Offender typology involves classifying offenders into theoretically meaningful or practical cate-
gories, on the basis that not all offenders are the same (Clements, 1996; Moffitt, 1993). Although
the development of reliable and valid offender typologies has its challenges (Byrne & Roberts,
2007), offender categories are still useful in understanding offending behavior and in predicting
reoffending (Schmidt, Campbell, & Houlding, 2011). It has also been successfully applied in offen-
der treatment and management, for example, a meta-analysis showed that matching the intensity of
treatment programs to offenders’ risk categories was effective in reducing recidivism (Andrews &
Dowden, 2006).
There is a substantial volume of past research on typologies of delinquents (see brief review by
Loeber, Farrington, & Waschbusch, 1998). In particular, Loeber and colleagues examined a group of
young offenders termed as ‘‘serious violent juvenile offenders.’’ By identifying their unique risk and
protective factors, developmental trajectories, and criminal careers, from longitudinal studies using
self-reports and official records, their research put forward violent delinquents as a category separate
from general delinquency (Loeber & Farrington, 1998).
Recent research has continued to uncover evidence for a violent group of youth offenders, across
different operationalization of violent behavior, some of which included combinations with other
offense types (e.g., violent substance abuser) and offender characteristics (e.g., violent chronic
offender). Using a large, representative sample of 18,614 adolescents, Vaughn, Salas-Wright,
DeLisi, and Maynard (2014) identified a severe 5% group who not only showed higher levels of vio-
lence but also higher levels of substance abuse, and other delinquency behaviors. Baglivio, Jack-
owski, and Greenwald (2014) used an actuarial risk assessment instrument to characterize serious
violent chronic (SVC) youth offenders and found that their reoffending was predicted by a different
set of risk and protective factors compared to the non-SVC youth offenders. Another study found
that the risk factors that predicted the severity of reoffending were different for serious violent offen-
ders, violent property offenders, property offenders, and sex offenders (Mulder, Vermunt, Brand,
Bullens, & Van Marle, 2012). These studies were conducted in Western countries, with majority
of the samples comprising youth of non-Asian descent.
Although there are overlaps across cultures on their definitions of criminal behavior, the devel-
opment of deviant behaviors can differ due to cultural norms, morals, religion, taboos, and expec-
tations (e.g., Bhugra, Popelyuk, & McMullen, 2010; Lahlah, Van der Knaap, Bogaerts, & Lens,
2013). For example, studies showed that cultural factors are related to the risk and protective factors
of violent offending (e.g., Flanagan et al., 2011; Soriano, Rivera, Williams, Daley, & Reznik, 2004).
Given the lack of research on violent typology among Asian youth offenders, it is useful to examine
the dichotomy of violent and nonviolent offenders along with the risk and needs associated with each
group in this population.
The distinction between violent and nonviolent offenders has important practical implications for
law enforcers and rehabilitation practitioners in Singapore and other Asian contexts. If the previous
finding that violent offenders are a more severe group compared to nonviolent offenders is replicated
(e.g., Baglivio, Jackowski, & Greenwald, 2014; Mulder et al., 2012), it warrants a sharper demarca-
tion in intensity of treatment and amount of resources allocated between these two groups.

---

Lai et al.
315
Subtypes of Violent Youth Offenders
Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1998) postulated that youth who are on the overt developmental
pathway will show progression specialized in aggression and violence. In addition, some youth can
be on multiple pathways, such as both the overt and the covert pathways (covert pathway involves
concealing behaviors such as burglary and theft) or move between pathways (Loeber & Hay, 1994).
This suggests a subtype specializing in violent offending and a subtype that is versatile, engaging in
both violent and nonviolent offending.
With regard to the specialization/versatility of violent delinquents, the extant criminal career lit-
erature presents a mixed picture. The question of whether there is specialization in particular types of
offending behavior is important because it determines whether specificity is needed in rehabilitation
(e.g., targeted treatment and selective detention). Although many researchers had strongly purported
that youth offending is predominantly versatile (e.g., Brame, Mulvey, Piquero, & Schubert, 2014;
Farrington, Synder, & Finnegan, 1988; Piquero, 2000), there has also been evidence of specializa-
tion in violence (e.g., Besemer, 2012; Osgood & Schrek, 2007; Thomas, 2013). Resolution of the
contrasting literature has been difficult, due to the lack of agreement about the definition of specia-
lization and shortcomings in methods of analyzing for the presence of specialization (e.g., Baker,
Metacalfe, & Jennings, 2013; Osgood & Schrek, 2007; Thomas, 2013). An even more complex pic-
ture has emerged, with research showing that specialization/versatility can vary across individual
characteristics such as peer influence and marriage (McGloin, Sullivan, Piquero, & Pratt, 2007; Tho-
mas, 2015) or situational variables such as alcohol influence (McGloin et al., 2007). Therefore, crim-
inal career research and the closely related field of offender typology have to examine
specialization/versatility further.
The question of specialization can also be addressed by testing for profile differences between
youth offenders categorized as specialized violent offenders and those categorized as versatile vio-
lent offenders. The reasoning is that if different profiles are observed, then there is evidence for a
specialized group and a versatile group. This simple approach may provide a less ambiguous set
of findings on the existence of specialization, to augment criminal career research. Subtypes of vio-
lent offenders have not received much attention in typology...