More or less likely to offend? Young adults with a history of identified Developmental Language Disorder

Background: There is now substantial literature demonstrating that a disproportionate number of young people who come into contact with youth justice services evidence unidentified language difficulties. These young people, therefore, have received little or no professional input in this area. Conversely, there is a dearth of research pertaining to criminality outcomes among those individuals with identified developmental language disorders who have received such interventions. Aims: The paper examines police-initiated contact and substance use outcomes of young adults with a history of identified developmental language disorders (DLD) versus age matched peers (AMPs). Additionally, self-reported rule breaking behaviours and aggression are considered. We hypothesise that early identification/intervention reduces engagement with risky behaviour such as substance and alcohol use as well as offending-related behaviours. Methods & Procedures: Adversarial police-initiated contacts were examined in 84 young adults with a history of DLD and 88 AMPs. Rule-breaking and aggression were evaluated using the Achenbach Adult Self-Report for ages 18-59. Outcomes & Results: Adults with a history of DLD, who received targeted intervention during their school years, reported less contact with their local police service compared to AMPs at age 24. Comparable proportions of both groups reported current alcohol consumption but group differences were found relating to alcohol use. No group differences in rule breaking behaviours were found but the DLD group was found to have a statistically significant higher raw score on the aggressive behaviour scale. Conclusions & Implications: There is a need for early identification of children with DLD. Early intervention aimed at ameliorating such difficulties could possibly have distal outcomes in relation to offending

Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity Research

It is often surprisingly difficult to make definitive scientific statements about the functional value of group diversity. We suggest that one clear pattern in the group diversity literature is the prevailing convention of interpreting outcomes as the effect of diversity alone. Although work in this arena typically compares diverse groups with homogeneous ones, we most often conceive of homogeneous groups as a baseline—a reference point from which we can understand how diversity has changed behavior or what type of response is “normal.” In this article, we offer a new perspective through a focus on two propositions. The first proposition is that homogeneity has independent effects of its own—effects that, in some cases, are robust in comparison with the effects of diversity. The second proposition is that even though subjective responses in homogeneous groups are often treated as a neutral indicator of how people would ideally respond in a group setting, evidence suggests that these responses are often less objective or accurate than responses in diverse groups. Overall, we believe that diversity research may unwittingly reveal important insights regarding the effects of homogeneity.National Science Foundation (U.S.) (NSF Grant 0921728