Juvenile Risk Assessment Research Articles

The Validity of Violence Risk Assessment in Young Adults: A Comparative Study of Juvenile and Adult Risk Assessment Tools

Few studies have addressed the application of violence risk assessment for individuals transitioning from youth to adulthood. For 202 young adults released from Dutch juvenile justice institutions this study investigated the predictive validity and potential disparities in impact of juvenile risk assessment tools (i.e., SAVRY [Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth], and SAPROF-YV [Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk-Youth Version]), and comparable adult risk assessment tools (i.e., HCR-20V3 [Historical Clinical Risk management-20 Version 3], and SAPROF [Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk]). Assessments with juvenile and adult risk assessment tools yielded similar predictive validity for violent and non-violent recidivism. Risk and protective factors related to treatability, parents, community participation, resilience, and personality showed individual predictive validity. These findings offer flexibility when applying risk assessment in clinical practice. The choice between youth and adult assessment tools should be made considering the individual’s developmental stage.

What's risk got to do with it: Judges' and probation officers' understanding and use of juvenile risk assessments in making residential placement decisions.

This hypothetical vignette-based experiment was designed to better understand judges' and probation officers' interpretations and use of juvenile risk assessment tools in their decision-making around restrictive sanctions and confinement of youths on the basis of the youths' risk level and race. We expected that estimates of the probability of juvenile recidivism would significantly mediate the relationship between a categorical risk descriptor and decisions regarding the ordering confinement of youths. We also hypothesized that youths' race would serve as a significant moderator in the model. Judicial and probation staff (N = 309) read a two-part vignette about a youth who was arrested for the first time; in this vignette, race (Black, White) and risk level (low, moderate, high, very high) of the youth were varied. Participants were asked to estimate the likelihood that the youth would recidivate in the following year and their likelihood of ordering or recommending residential placement. Although we found no simple, significant relationship between risk level and confinement decisions, judicial and probation staff estimated higher likelihoods of recidivism as risk-level categories increased and ordered out-of-home placements at increased rates as their estimations of the youth's likelihood of recidivation increased. The youth's race did not moderate the model. The greater the probability of recidivism, the more likely each judge or probation officer was to order or recommend out-of-home placement. However, importantly, legal decisionmakers appeared to apply categorical risk assessment data to their confinement decisions using their own interpretations of risk category rather than being guided empirically on the basis of risk-level categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Supplemental Material for What’s Risk Got to Do With It: Judges’ and Probation Officers’ Understanding and Use of Juvenile Risk Assessments in Making Residential Placement Decisions

Supplemental Material for What’s Risk Got to Do With It: Judges’ and Probation Officers’ Understanding and Use of Juvenile Risk Assessments in Making Residential Placement Decisions

Predictive Bias in Juvenile Risk Assessment: Considering Race/Ethnicity and Sex

This study examines the joint effects of race/ethnicity and sex on the classification quality of the Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT). We assess predictive parity, calibration, and error rate balance using a statewide sample of youth who completed probation from 2007 to 2014. Similar rates of predictive parity were observed across groups. Calibration was observed consistently across groups, but only when low risk youth were used as the reference category. Black and Hispanic boys revealed the highest base rates of re-arrest and inaccurate classification (i.e., scored low risk but were rearrested). Our findings highlight the difficulty in making conclusions about test bias, especially when base rates of recidivism are not equal across groups. Implications for juvenile justice policy and practice are discussed.

Criminogenic Risk Score Trajectories of Justice-Involved Youth: An Investigation Across Race/Ethnicity

Juvenile risk assessments are standardized rating tools used by court practitioners to measure criminogenic risk in justice-involved youth. To capture individual fluctuation in risk level over time, juvenile risk assessments are often readministered throughout court supervision. The purpose of this study is to clarify the average criminogenic risk score trajectory among justice-involved youth, both in aggregate and by race/ethnicity. Analyses draw upon a sample of 611 justice-involved youths who received two or more risk assessment scores and were under court supervision for at least 1 year. Using multilevel modeling, findings indicate that risk scores decrease over the first 19 months of court supervision before rebounding in increasingly larger increments. Furthermore, risk scores of White youth appear to be most amenable to reduction over time, while scores of Black youth remain stagnant. Results have implications toward understanding the gains and losses in risk score reduction observed in youth under prolonged court supervision.

An Item-Level Examination of a Youth Assessment: Practical Implications of Alternate Measurement and Analytic Procedures

ABSTRACT To date, research has focused on the scale-level properties of juvenile risk assessments, such as their predictive validity across populations. Although these studies are valuable, they provide little item-level information to inform future developments in assessment strategies. Item-level information, including the difficulty and discrimination parameters of the items that comprise the scale, provides insight into patterns of endorsement across risk levels. The current study examines the item-level characteristics of the Ohio Youth Assessment System-Disposition Tool (OYAS-DIS) in a sample of 459 justice-involved youths across a Midwestern state. Using the two-parameter logistic model of Item Response Theory, discrimination and difficulty parameters were estimated for each item that comprises the OYAS-DIS. A test information curve was also examined to determine the levels at which the OYAS-DIS provides the most information. Results indicated that prosocial decision-making items had low difficulty, meaning that even low-risk youths endorsed them. Overall, OYAS-DIS provides the most information for low- to high-risk youths, but additional items should be created to examine prosocial decision-making, as these items may be characteristic of justice-involved youths as a group and not an indicator of greater recidivism risk.

Examining Sex-Based Measurement Invariance in the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory

Juvenile risk assessments are used to predict likelihood of reoffending in court-involved youths, and inform several decisions throughout court supervision. Accordingly, it is critical that the psychometric properties of juvenile risk assessment instruments are consistent for youths across demographic subgroups, particularly biological sex. This study tests the measurement invariance of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) by sex. Analyses draw from 2,384 youths who were adjudicated as delinquent in a county-level juvenile court. Results indicate that the factor configuration and structure of the YLS/CMI are consistent for youths across sex. However, boys and girls differ appreciably in risk profile. Findings validate the use of the YLS/CMI and highlight the importance of responsivity to sex-based variation in criminogenic risk.

The Impact of Risk Assessment on Juvenile Justice Decision-Making and New Adjudication: An Analysis of Usage and Outcome

Juvenile risk and needs assessments (JRNAs) have been the focus of extensive research in the academic literature. Prior studies have primarily focused on the risk-recidivism relationship and establishing predictive validity with juvenile populations. Less investigated is the use of risk and need assessment in practice, including how such tools are used to inform decision-making. This study uses record data encompassing 3,034 youth from a multi-state study to examine dispositional and treatment decisions associated with the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS). Specifically, mediation analyses were conducted to evaluate how current practices align with underlying logic and theory regarding the role of assessments in juvenile justice. Findings reveal varied and complex relationships between assessment scores, case decisions, and recidivism. While risk was generally associated with recidivism, our results suggest juvenile risk and need assessments are inconsistently used to inform case management and placement decisions. Implications for practice and future research are also discussed.

Predictive validity and measurement invariance in juvenile risk assessment: Implications for racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice

ABSTRACT U.S. states have made a good deal of progress in reducing the number of youths incarcerated in residential facilities in recent decades. While this is a positive development, racial and ethnic disparities (RED) persist in which youths are being placed in these facilities. That incongruence means that youths of color are still poised to experience the downsides of those custodial experiences. Juvenile risk and needs assessment (JRNA) has been endorsed as one means of reducing RED in the juvenile justice system, but the literature on performance across race and ethnicity subgroups is limited and mixed to date. This study uses data from 680 youth in juvenile residential facilities in a Western U.S. state, including large subsamples of White and Hispanic youths, to investigate the performance of a JRNA tool, the Ohio Youth Assessment System. The analyses focus on race and ethnicity differences in prevalence of risk and needs; predictive validity across groups; and measurement invariance between White and Hispanic youths. The discussion focuses on key findings and their implications for addressing RED in juvenile justice.

Bias detected? An examination of criminal history using the OYAS-DIS for girls and black youth

Black youth and girls are at an increased risk of formal involvement in the juvenile justice system. These differential experiences have the potential to harm the validity of the criminal history measures on juvenile risk assessments. The present study examines the incremental validity of the criminal history items on the Ohio Youth Assessment System-Disposition Tool in a sample of 3,591 youth across gender and race. Results indicated that the criminal history items significantly contributed to the predictive validity of the tool for White boys, but this was not the case for Black boys, Black girls, or White girls. Future risk assessments should consider modifying or omitting these items, as they neither predict recidivism nor inform treatment for various youth.

Risk Assessment in Juvenile and Young Adult Offenders: Predictive Validity of the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV.

Most juvenile risk assessment tools heavily rely on a risk-focused approach. Less attention has been devoted to protective factors. This study examines the predictive validity of protective factors in addition to risk factors, and developmental differences in psychometric properties of juvenile risk assessment. For a national Dutch sample of 354 juvenile and young adult offenders (16-26 years) risk and protective factors were retrospectively assessed at discharge from seven juvenile justice institutions, using the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk – Youth Version (SAPROF-YV). Results show moderate validity for both tools predicting general, violent, and nonviolent offending at different follow-up times. The SAPROF-YV provided incremental predictive validity over the SAVRY, and predictive validity was stronger for younger offenders. Evidently both the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV seem valid tools for the assessment of recidivism risk in juvenile and young adult offenders. Results highlight the importance of protective factors, especially in juvenile offenders, emphasizing the need for a balanced risk assessment.

Protective Factors for Reducing Juvenile Reoffending: An Examination of Incremental and Differential Predictive Validity

Juvenile court practitioners and researchers have recently gained interest in evaluating internal and external strengths, or protective factors. Some scholars assert that incorporating measures of strengths into the risk assessment process can increase the accuracy of identifying odds of recidivating. Relatively few juvenile risk assessment validation studies have evaluated the predictive validity of strengths. This study employed a diverse sample ( N = 278) of juveniles under supervision in a Midwestern court. The Protective Factors for Reducing Juvenile Reoffending (PFRJR) significantly predicted recidivism for the total sample, males, and White youth. There was no evidence of differential predictive validity across gender; however, strengths predicted differently across race/ethnicity. Strengths did not increase the amount of variance explained in recidivism after accounting for the variance explained by risk factor scores. Findings contribute to the paucity of validation studies that investigated the differential and incremental predictive validity of strengths.

Validation of the Ohio Youth Assessment System Dispositional Tool (OYAS-DIS): An Examination of Race and Gender Differences

The Ohio Youth Assessment System-Disposition Tool (OYAS-DIS) is a juvenile risk assessment that is used in numerous states and jurisdictions to assess criminogenic risk of juvenile offenders. Still, there is little published research on the predictive validity of the tool. The purpose of the current study was to examine the predictive validity of OYAS-DIS, with a specific focus on understanding prediction of recidivism across racial and gender subgroups. The sample consisted of 4,383 youth that received a court petition in a single large Midwestern county juvenile court. The findings indicated that the OYAS-DIS was a statistically significant predictor of recidivism across all racial and gender subgroups. However, there was statistically significant variation in predictive validity across subgroups. For instance, the tool was a statistically significantly better predictor of recidivism for White males as compared to Black male youth. There was also statistically significant variation in the predictive validity of certain domains (e.g., juvenile justice history) on the OYAS-DIS across racial and gender subgroups. Implications of research favor the use of the OYAS-DIS to predict recidivism for adjudicated juveniles.

Identifying Risk Profiles for Antisocial Behavior in a Spanish Sample of Young Offenders.

One of the main purposes of juvenile risk assessment is to distinguish different risk profiles, which may lead to referring youths into specific intervention programs tailored to their specific needs. This study is devoted to identifying main typologies of risk in a sample of 286 Spanish young offenders aged 14 to 22 (M = 17.36; SD = 1.61) years. Participants were classified into different profiles, representing different levels of risk in terms of individual and psychosocial dynamic variables. A three-class (low-, middle-, and high-risk profiles) and a four-class (low-, middle-, high-risk family problems/callous-unemotional (CU) traits, and high-risk impulsive/undercontrolled) solutions were identified. These profiles showed their distinctiveness and meaningfulness in a set of comparisons on antisocial behavior and prior offenses measures. These findings highlight the presence of diverse patterns of risk and suggest that a limited number of specialized interventions may respond to the main needs of most institutionalized youths.

Evolving Standards of Decency: Juvenile Risk Assessment, Treatment Amenability, and the Courts

The objectives of this session are as follows: 1) to gain knowledge about the juvenile justice system and violent juvenile offenders; 2) to review the neurodevelopmental literature and the influence on recent landmark case law and legislative trends in juvenile sentencing and transfer to criminal court; 3) to understand the role of risk assessment and evaluating treatment amenability in juvenile offenders; 4) to learn an overview on risk assessment instruments specific to juvenile offenders; and 5) to work through unique cases involving juvenile homicide offenders to increase proficiency in using evidence-based risk assessment instruments.

Assessing Intervention Needs of Juvenile Probationers: An Application of Latent Profile Analysis to a Risk–Need–Responsivity Assessment Model

The assessment of criminogenic risk is critical in the prediction of future delinquency and the ability to provide appropriate services and interventions for youth offenders. The goal of this study was to determine whether using latent profile analysis (LPA) produced better risk classification profiles than traditional linear methods. Archival data were used to examine 1,263 male and female youth probationers. Criminogenic profiles were developed using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, a widely used juvenile risk assessment. LPA determined that there were three distinct profiles: Minimal Intervention Needs, Social Behavior and Social Bonding Needs, and Maximum Intervention Needs. The profiles that youth fit into differed across demographic variables such as gender, age, recidivism, and history of child maltreatment, but not minority status and offense type. This research may aid in addressing specific intervention needs of offenders.

Gender and Risk Assessment in Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analysis

Although young males are still the primary perpetrators of juvenile crime, the percentage of girls experiencing criminal justice system contact has risen. To identify effective interventions and address public concerns regarding juvenile crime, scholars and practitioners have assessed recidivism risk using tools such as the Youth Level of Service (YLS) Inventory. While the appropriateness of using gender-neutral tools to assess female criminality in adult correctional populations has been debated, mixed findings regarding juvenile risk-assessment tools have not provided definitive answers. To address these concerns, separate meta-analyses were conducted for male and female juvenile offenders. Specifically, mean effect sizes were compared to determine whether predictive validity varies by sex. Results largely indicate that the YLS/Case Management Inventory (CMI) works equally well for a variety of subgroups, including recidivism type, recidivism outcome, geographical location, and sample characteristics. The implications of these findings for theory, research, and correctional policy are discussed.

How well do juvenile risk assessments measure factors to target in treatment? Examining construct validity.

There has been a surge of interest in using 1 type of risk assessment instrument to tailor treatment to juveniles to reduce recidivism. Unlike prediction-oriented instruments, these reduction-oriented instruments explicitly measure variable risk factors as "needs" to be addressed in treatment. There is little evidence, however, that the instruments accurately measure specific risk factors. Based on a sample of 237 serious juvenile offenders (Mage = 18, SD = 1.6), we tested whether California Youth Assessment Inventory (CA-YASI) scores validly assess the risk factors they purport to assess. Youth were assessed by practitioners with good interrater reliability on the CA-YASI, and by research staff on a battery of validated, multimethod criterion measures of target constructs. We meta-analytically tested whether each CA-YASI risk domain score (e.g., Attitudes) related more strongly to scores on convergent measures of theoretically similar constructs (e.g., criminal thinking styles) than to scores on discriminant measures of theoretically distinct constructs (e.g., intelligence, somatization, and pubertal status). CA-YASI risk domain scores with the strongest validity support were those that assess criminal history. The only variable CA-YASI risk domain score that correlated more strongly with convergent (Zr = .35) than discriminant (Zr = .07) measures was Substance Use. There was little support for the construct validity of the remaining 6 variable CA-YASI risk domains-including those that ostensibly assess strong risk factors (e.g., "Attitudes," "Social Influence"). Our findings emphasize the need to test the construct validity of reduction-oriented instruments-and refine instruments to precisely measure their targets so they can truly inform risk reduction. (PsycINFO Database Record

Supplemental Material for How Well Do Juvenile Risk Assessments Measure Factors to Target in Treatment? Examining Construct Validity

Supplemental Material for How Well Do Juvenile Risk Assessments Measure Factors to Target in Treatment? Examining Construct Validity

The Exploration of Risk and Protective Score Differences Across Juvenile Offending Career Types and Their Effects on Recidivism

Despite an abundance of research on serious and violent juvenile offenders, few studies have linked juvenile offending career categories to juvenile court risk assessments and future offending. This study uses juvenile court referrals and assessment data to replicate earlier categorizations of serious, violent, and chronic offenders; to examine risk and protective score differences across these categories; and to assess whether risk and protective score constructs differentially predict adult criminality across these offender categories. Based on a sample of 9,859 juvenile offenders who aged out of Connecticut’s juvenile justice system between 2005 and 2009, we found that (1) our categorization of juvenile career types mirrored earlier work, (2) comparing risk and protective factors across and within juvenile career types identified distinct patterns, and (3) the juvenile risk and protective assessment subscales were not predictive of adult arrests for chronic offenders but were predictive for nonchronic juvenile career types.