Juvenile Risk Assessment Research Articles

Professional Discretion and the Predictive Validity of a Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument

The ability for professionals to override the results of an actuarial risk assessment tool is an essential part of effective correctional risk classification; however, little is known about how this important function affects the predictive validity of these tools. Using data from a statewide sample of juveniles from Ohio, this study examined the impact of professional adjustments on the predictive validity of a juvenile risk assessment instrument. This study found that the original and adjusted risk levels were significant predictors of recidivism, but the original risk levels were stronger predictors of recidivism than the adjusted risk levels that accounted for overrides.

The importance of counties: Examining the predictive validity of a state juvenile risk assessment instrument

ABSTRACTRisk assessments have been touted by researchers as a key component of best-practices in corrections; however, there remain issues with the inconsistent predictive validity of these tools across different offender samples. To explore this issue, this study investigated the predictive validity of a juvenile risk assessment across 33 counties in Ohio. The results indicated that while the tool was predictive at the state level, there was significant variation across the counties. Further analyses showed that the instrument could predict recidivism in counties on which it was not originally designed and that it performed significantly better in counties with higher crime rates.

Unjust Disparities? The Impact of Race on Juvenile Risk Assessment Outcomes

Research on risk assessments has illustrated many utilitarian purposes of these tools, including the robust prediction of recidivism and uniformity in correctional decision making. Recently, however, Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder vocalized his position that actuarial risk assessments could be unintentionally contributing to disproportionate minority contact in the correctional system. This study used data from approximately 2,600 juvenile delinquents assessed with the Ohio Youth Assessment System–Disposition Instrument to examine these claims across subsamples of White and Black youth. Bivariate and multivariate analyses indicated that the instrument predicted recidivism similarly across the two groups. There were slightly more prediction errors for Black youth than White youth; however, these differences may be the result of methodological factors rather than empirical realities. The article concluded with a discussion of the implications that potential racial biases have on risk assessment research and practice.

Validity of initial, exit, and dynamic juvenile risk assessment: An examination across gender and race/ethnicity

ABSTRACTRisk assessments have been used in the juvenile justice system to predict future crime, identify youth needs, and inform case planning. Currently, the literature shows that juveniles are most often assessed when they enter court jurisdiction and this entry or initial risk assessment score is typically used to predict recidivism. The current study used the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory to examine the predictive validity of initial, exit, and change in risk scores on a diverse sample (N = 360) of young probationers. This study is one of few attempts to determine the predictive accuracy of change in risk, and the first to investigate the comparative validity of initial and exit risk scores with a sample of young offenders. Exit and change in risk scores significantly predicted recidivism 1-year post probation, yet initial scores did not. Differential predictive validity across race and gender was not identified for the initial or exit risk scores. The importance of examining changes in risk over time was discussed.

Predictive validity of adult risk assessment tools with juveniles who offended sexually.

An often-held assumption in the area of sexual recidivism risk assessment is that different tools should be used for adults and juveniles. This assumption is driven either by the observation that adolescents tend to be in a constant state of flux in the areas of development, education, and social structure or by the fact that the judicial system recognizes that juveniles and adults are different. Though the assumption is plausible, it is largely untested. The present study addressed this issue by scoring 2 adult sexual offender risk assessment tools, the Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised and the Static-99, on an exhaustive sample (N = 636) of juveniles who had sexually offended (JSOs) in Utah. For comparison, 2 tools designed for JSOs were also scored: the Juvenile-Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II and the Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale. Recidivism data were collected for 2 time periods: before age 18 (sexual, violent, any recidivism) and from age 18 to the year 2004 (sexual). The adult actuarial risk assessment tools predicted all types of juvenile recidivism significantly and at approximately the same level of accuracy as juvenile-specific tools. However, the accuracy of longer term predictions of adult sexual recidivism across all 4 tools was substantially lower than the accuracy achieved in predicting juvenile sexual recidivism, with 2 of the tools producing nonsignificant results, documenting the greater difficulty in making longer term predictions on the basis of adolescent behavior.

Gender and Ethnicity in Juvenile Risk Assessment

Systematized risk assessment and management in juveniles is still in its infancy, and the bulk of the validation literature focuses on males as they account for a significant proportion of crime. In recent years there has been growing recognition that female arrest rates and convictions are steadily increasing and that there is a need to ensure that risk assessment tools that have been validated with males are appropriate for females, who may have different criminal trajectories. The applicability of violence risk assessment tools for ethnically diverse populations has not been extensively examined, but the limited literature suggests that there may be differences in scores for risk and protective factors across ethnic groups. To address this subject, a review of the literature on the predictive validity of current juvenile risk assessment tools was performed. This summary produced equivocal findings and a requirement for further investigation comprising cohorts with greater diversity.

Review of Risk Assessment Instruments for Juvenile Sex Offenders

Risk assessment is considered to be a key element in the prevention of recidivism among juvenile sex offenders (JSOs), often by imposing long-term consequences based on that assessment. The authors reviewed the literature on the predictive accuracy of six well-known risk assessment instruments used to appraise risk among JSOs: the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol-II (J-SOAP-II), Juvenile Sexual Offence Recidivism Risk Assessment Tool-II (J-SORRAT-II), Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism (ERASOR), Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale (JRAS), Structured Assessment of Violent Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and Hare Psychopathy Checklist:Youth Version (PCL:YV). Through a systematic search, 19 studies were reviewed. Studies showed differences in the predictive accuracies for general, violent, and sexual recidivism, and none of the instruments showed unequivocal positive results in predicting future offending. Not unexpectedly, the accuracy of the SAVRY and PCL:YV appeared to be weaker for sexual recidivism compared with specialized tools such as the J-SOAP-II or the ERASOR. Because of the rapid development of juveniles, it is questionable to impose long-term restrictions based on a risk assessment only. New challenges in improving risk assessment are discussed.

Assessing Violence Risk and Psychopathy in Juvenile and Adult Offenders: A Survey of Clinical Practices

This study surveyed 199 forensic clinicians about the practices that they use in assessing violence risk in juvenile and adult offenders. Results indicated that the use of risk assessment and psychopathy tools was common. Although clinicians reported more routine use of psychopathy measures in adult risk assessments compared with juvenile risks assessments, 79% of clinicians reported using psychopathy measures at least once in a while in juvenile risk assessments. Extremely few clinicians, however, believe that juveniles should be labeled or referred to as psychopaths. Juvenile risk reports were more likely than adult reports to routinely discuss treatment and protective factors, and provide recommendations to reevaluate risk. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Factors predicting recidivism of female violent juvenile probationers: Study for developing FVJP-RRAR(Female Violent Juvenile Probationers-Rapid Risk Assessment of Recidivism)

Factors predicting recidivism of female violent juvenile probationers: Study for developing FVJP-RRAR(Female Violent Juvenile Probationers-Rapid Risk Assessment of Recidivism)

Applying a Generic Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument to a Local Context

This article examines issues raised by the application of a generic actuarial juvenile risk instrument (the Model Risk Assessment Instrument) to New York City, a context different from the one in which it was developed. It describes practical challenges arising from the constraints of locally available data and local sensibilities and highlights important differences between locally relevant recidivism predictors and generic tool predictors. The analysis shows that the generic tool is less predictive than a locally developed risk-assessment tool and also performs less well than unassisted clinical judgment. This is true even after the generic tool has been validated and optimized on local data. This is because the tool does not include key demographic variables relevant to the New York City context.

Evaluating Juvenile Amenability to Treatment: Integrating Statutes and Case Law into Clinical Practice

ABSTRACT When juveniles face transfer to the adult criminal system, mental health professionals are typically consulted for evaluation and testimony with respect to various issues, the most central being the juvenile's amenability to treatment within the juvenile justice system. This article offers information that should help psychologists frame the relevant psycho-legal issues accurately, including recognizing distinctions between clinical and legal definitions of amenability. The authors emphasize the forensic evaluator's need to draw not only from the clinical literature related to juvenile risk assessment and treatment amenability, but also from applicable statutes and case law, with recognition of feasible local resources. A sample case is provided to illustrate key points.

The utility of locus of control for assessing juvenile amenability to treatment

One of the many factors that must be considered when conducting juvenile risk assessments is treatment amenability. Traditionally, research on risk assessments has focused on treatment needs, likelihood of violence, and likelihood of recidivism. However, there has been little empirical guidance for assessing treatment amenability. This article proposes the possibility of using locus of control as a psychological construct to aid in assessing treatment amenability of juveniles. Through a review of the locus of control literature, the authors found that internal orientation has been found to relate to increased treatment participation, help-seeking behaviors, and positive treatment outcomes. Further, external orientation has been found to be related to poorer treatment participation and outcomes. While there is some debate whether locus of control is a static or a fluid phenomenon, its ability as a predictor of treatment amenability as well as an indicator of treatment response is discussed.

A National Survey of Juvenile Risk Assessment

AbstractJuvenile courts in the United State are using risk assessment to measure relative levels of risk posed by delinquent offenders. Risk assessment aids in decisions about restrictiveness, supervision and the type and intensity of treatment needed. The current study surveyed all states in an effort to define the current state‐of‐the‐art in juvenile risk assessment. The results indicate most states have some semblance of risk assessment of juvenile offenders, but a minority of states have formal risk assessment instruments. The predominate risk factors measured in the 50 states include measures of offense severity, past history of offenses, age of the offender, psychological measures, use of community resources, substance abuse, prior institutionalization, family problems, peer group association and absconding. This qualitative research provides an overview of the scope and sophistication of juvenile risk assessment and may provide models for states wishing to implement risk assessment.