Washington State Juvenile Research Articles

Interrelatedness of Family and Parenting Risk Factors for Juvenile Delinquency: A Network Study in U.S. and Dutch Juveniles.

Family interventions that address a diversity of family and parenting factors are often used to prevent juvenile delinquency, but are effective to only a limited extent. This study applied a network approach to risk factors for juvenile delinquency and examined the interrelatedness of specifically family and parenting risk factors in a U.S. and separate Dutch sample of juveniles and their family members. Differences in interrelatedness between these samples were examined as well. Secondary analyses were conducted on data collected in the United States with the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) and on data collected in the Netherlands with a Dutch-adapted translation of the WSJCA. Network analyses were performed, separately for the U.S. (N = 13,613) and Dutch (N = 3,630) sample, on seven risk factors that were assessed with a three-point Likert scale ranging from each factor's protective side to a corresponding risk side. In the U.S. sample network, "inadequate parental punishment" and "lack of parental supervision" that both refer to an authoritarian parenting style were the most "central" factors and had the strongest associations with the other risk factors. In the Dutch sample network, "the family not providing opportunities" and "inadequate parental reward" were the most "central" factors, which refer to an authoritative parenting style. The family and parenting factors identified as most central in the networks may be promising to address in family interventions, as it can be expected that both the directly addressed problems and their correlated problems will improve. The current results may inform attempts to strengthen family interventions for juvenile delinquency in the United States and the Netherlands.

The school-to-prison pipeline for probation youth with special education needs.

Juvenile justice-involved youth with special education eligibility may have distinct needs from other justice-involved youth that place them at higher risk of re-offending. This study examines the extent to which the comorbidity of risk factors, such as school challenges and mental and emotional health problems, is related to recidivism among probation youth with a diagnosis eligible for special education. Data came from the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment provided to 4,317 youth adjudicated to probation for at least 3 months. We used independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests to assess the difference in mental health and school problems (e.g., suspension/expulsion history) between those with and without special education needs. Multiple regression models estimated the unique and cumulative role of special education status, mental health, and school problems in future recidivism. In the study sample, 39.6% (n = 1,708) of the youth had diagnoses eligible for special education; over 42% of these youth had two or more qualifying diagnoses. Controlling for demographics, mental health, and self-regulation skills, our findings suggest that probation youth with special education needs, compared to the rest of the probation youth, were more likely to recidivate. School exclusion increased the number of recidivisms significantly more for justice-involved youth with special education needs than those without special education needs. The findings of the study illuminate important factors for continued justice-involvement as well as insights into service and treatment planning for youth serving probation in the community, especially for those who are eligible for special education. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Use of Manifest Injustice in the Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration.

In the Washington State Juvenile Code, the Manifest Injustice (MI) provision allows judges to sentence youth outside of the standard guidelines. We compared rates of Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) involvement and MI between racial minority youth and Caucasian youth. Although not statistically significant, there was a trend toward African American and multiracial youth having MI used to decrease their sentence less frequently than Caucasian youth. African American youth were about half as likely to have MI used to intensify their sentence compared with Caucasian youth (rate ratio = .49, p = .002), whereas multiracial youth were 42 percent less likely (rate ratio = .58, p = .04). More African American youth reside in urban and liberal parts of the state where judges may be more progressive and less likely to use MI to intensify sentences. More diversion programs targeting minority youth exist in urban areas of Washington, and more African American youth are transferred to adult court; both reduce the likelihood of minority youth receiving MI. Judges in rural areas of the state, which have fewer treatment resources, may be using MI to access services only available to court-involved youth. It is imperative that community behavioral health services are available so that youth and families can be justly served.

2.40 How Just Is Manifest Injustice? Evaluating the Use of Manifest Justice in the Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration

In the Washington (WA) State Juvenile Code, a provision called Manifest Injustice (MI) allows judges to sentence youth outside of the standard sentencing guidelines. Racial inequality in juvenile justice sentencing is well established. This investigation evaluates how MI is used across racial groups among WA youth in the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA). It was hypothesized that MI would be used more frequently to decrease sentences of Caucasian youth and increase sentences of minority youth.

Child maltreatment victimization by type in relation to criminal recidivism in juvenile offenders.

BackgroundThis study aimed to examine the relation between different types of child abuse victimization and criminal recidivism among juvenile offenders.MethodSecondary analyses were conducted on data collected with the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment and general recidivism. The sample consisted of female (n = 3502) and male (n = 10,111) juvenile offenders.ResultsFor male juvenile offenders, neglect and physical abuse victimization were significantly but rather weakly associated with both general and violent recidivism. For female juvenile offenders, neglect and physical abuse were weakly associated with general recidivism, but not with violent recidivism. Sexual abuse was not related to either general or violent recidivism in both male and female juvenile offenders. Most associations between dynamic (treatable) risk domains and recidivism were stronger in male juvenile offenders than in female juvenile offenders. In addition, most risk domains were more strongly related to general recidivism than to violent felony recidivism. For male juvenile offenders, neglect victimization was uniquely related to general recidivism whereas physical abuse victimization was uniquely related to violent recidivism, over and above dynamic risk factors for recidivism. For female juvenile offenders none of the maltreatment variables were uniquely related to general or violent felony recidivism.ConclusionsChildhood experiences of neglect and physical abuse predict reoffending in male juvenile offenders, pointing at a possible need to address these in risk management interventions.

Female adolescent sexual and nonsexual violent offenders: a comparison of the prevalence and impact of risk and protective factors for general recidivism.

BackgroundThis study adds to the scarce literature on female adolescent sexual offenders by examining differences between female adolescent sexual and nonsexual violent offenders in the prevalence and impact of dynamic risk and protective factors for general recidivism.MethodThe sample consisted of female adolescents who were convicted for a sexual offense (FSOs; n =31) or nonsexual violent offense (FNSOs; n = 407), and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment was completed.ResultsIn FSOs, considerably more protective and fewer risk factors were present than in FNSOs in almost all domains (i.e., school, relationships, family, attitude and aggression). In addition, differences in the impact of risk/protective factors on general recidivism were found. In FSOs, risk/protective factors in the family and aggression domains were especially important, whereas in FNSOs, risk/protective factors in the attitude domain were especially important.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that treatment programs developed for mainstream female offenders may also be useful for female sexual offenders in reducing general recidivism. Furthermore, the results are of importance for determining the main focus of treatment for both mainstream and sexual female adolescent offenders.

Differences between juvenile offenders with and without substance use problems in the prevalence and impact of risk and protective factors for criminal recidivism

BackgroundLittle is known about the needs of substance-using juveniles in treatment aimed at reducing criminal recidivism. Therefore, we aimed to examine treatment needs of substance-using juvenile offenders. MethodsDifferences were examined between juvenile offenders who abstain from substance use (ASU; n=1974) and substance-using juvenile offenders without (SU; n=7000) and with substance use problems (SUP; n=3317), in the prevalence of risk/protective factors for criminal recidivism and strength of associations between risk/protective factors and criminal recidivism. We conducted secondary data analysis on recidivism risk assessments, collected with the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment, and re-offending data. Analyses of variance and Partial correlations, adjusted for age, gender and ethnicity were applied, as well as Fisher's z tests and logistic regression analyses. ResultsResults showed that substance-using offenders, especially those with substance use problems, had more risk factors and less protective factors than ASU youths in the domains of school, use of free time, relationships, family, attitude, aggression and skills. The associations between most of the risk/protective factors and recidivism were stronger in the ASU group than in the SUP group. Substance use uniquely predicted recidivism, net of risk factors. ConclusionsThese results suggest that general interventions for juvenile offenders addressing risk and protective factors with the aim to reduce recidivism may be less effective for offenders with substance use problems, and that substance use (problems) should be addressed, too.

Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disabilities in the importance of static and dynamic risk factors for recidivism

Juvenile offenders with intellectual disability (ID) have been largely ignored in the literature of risk assessment, while they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, and ID is a risk factor for juvenile delinquency and recidivism. The aim of this study was to examine whether there are differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors for recidivism. Both the impact of static and dynamic risk factors were examined. Static risk factors were examined in the criminal history domain and dynamic risk factors were examined in the domains of family, school, use of free time, friends, alcohol/drugs, attitude, aggression and skills. This knowledge is important for both assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders with ID. The sample consisted of adolescents who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. The group of ID juvenile offenders (n = 102) consisted of juvenile offenders with a formal diagnosis of ID, which means a full scale IQ of less than 70, coupled with significant deficits in adaptive behaviour, with childhood onset. The juveniles of this group are special education students or they have a formal diagnosis of a special education need. The group without ID (n = 526), was a random sample of all juvenile offenders without a formal diagnosis of ID. No differences were found between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors on recidivism in most domains. However, in the skills domain, the relations between all risk factors and recidivism were significantly stronger in adolescents without ID than in adolescents with ID. Although not or only borderline statistically significant, these risk factors were all negatively related to recidivism in adolescents with ID, whereas these risk factors were significantly and positively related to recidivism in adolescents without ID. There are few differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the impact of risk factors for recidivism, suggesting that the same assessment methods can be used for juvenile offenders with and without ID. There were, however, differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the skills domain. What these differences mean for the treatment of juvenile offenders is yet to be determined. For now it is important to be aware of potential negative (side) effects on recidivism when skills training is offered to juvenile offenders with ID.

The relationship between maltreatment victimisation and sexual and violent offending: differences between adolescent offenders with and without intellectual disability

Juveniles with intellectual disabilities (ID) are more often victims of maltreatment and more often perpetrators of abuse than juveniles without ID. Because previous research on the relationship between maltreatment victimisation and subsequent offending behaviour was primarily performed in non-disabled samples, the present study aimed to examine differences between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the relationship between maltreatment victimisation and sexual and violent offending. The sample consisted of juvenile offenders with ID (n = 102) and without ID (n = 526) who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the strength of the relationship between maltreatment and offending, Fisher's z tests were calculated to assess the significance of the differences between the two groups in the strength of the correlations, and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the unique contribution of maltreatment victimisation to the prediction of violent and sexual offending. Seventy per cent of the juvenile offenders with ID and 42% of the juvenile offenders without ID had experienced abuse and/or neglect. Both sexual and violent offending were more common in juvenile offenders with ID than in juvenile offenders without ID. Moreover, the relationship between different forms of maltreatment and sexual offending was stronger in juvenile offenders with ID than in juvenile offenders without ID. Given the high rates of abuse and neglect victimisation and the strength of the association between victimisation and sexual offending, especially in juvenile offenders with ID, treatment should focus on potential trauma and other problems associated with the abuse.

Differences Between Juvenile Offenders With and Without AD(H)D in Recidivism Rates and Risk and Protective Factors for Recidivism

Objective: This study examined differences between juvenile offenders with AD(H)D (n = 1,348), with both AD(H)D and conduct problems (n = 933), and without AD(H)D or conduct problems (n = 2,180) in recidivism rates, prevalence of risk and protective factors, and strength of associations between risk/protective factors and recidivism. Method: Existing data were used, collected with the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment. ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and Fisher’s z tests were calculated. Results: Recidivism was highest in the AD(H)D-comorbid group, followed by the AD(H)D-only group and lowest in the comparison group. In offenders with AD(H)D, especially comorbid AD(H)D, the number of risk factors was considerably larger than the number of protective factors, whereas the number of risk and protective factors was the same in the comparison group. Conclusion: Juvenile offenders with AD(H)D may benefit most from interventions that focus on risk and protective factors in multiple domains.

Short-Term General Recidivism Risk of Juvenile Sex Offenders

It is important to examine whether general risk-assessment instruments developed for nonsex offenders can also be applied to sex offenders, because juvenile sex offenders are much more likely to reoffend with a nonsexual offense than a sexual offense. This study examined to what extent the Washington State Juvenile Court Prescreen Assessment (WSJCPA) can be used to assess the risk for general recidivism among different types of juvenile sex offenders. The predictive validity of the WSJCPA was examined separately for the following subgroups: boys convicted for a misdemeanor sexual offense against a peer (n = 381), boys convicted for a felony sexual offense against a peer (n = 282), boys convicted for a sexual offense against a younger child (n = 521), and girls convicted for a sexual offense (n = 71) and two comparison groups of male (n = 15,155) and female (n = 5,811) juvenile nonsex offenders. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve scores for general recidivism ranged between .64 and .73. The WSJCPA proved to be at least equally predictive of general offending among juvenile sex and nonsex offenders groups.

Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability in offense type and risk factors

The present study aimed to examine differences between American juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (ID) in offense type and risk factors. The sample consisted of adolescents with ID (n=102) and without ID (n=526) who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. Results showed that adolescents with ID had committed more offenses against persons compared to adolescents without ID. Few differences in risk factors were found between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the domains of school, family and use of free time. Juvenile offenders without ID more often had problems in the relationship and alcohol/drugs domain, whereas juveniles with ID more often experienced problems in the domains of attitude, aggression and skills.

Predictive Validity of the Washington State Juvenile Court Pre-Screen Assessment in the Netherlands

This study examined the predictive validity of the Washington State Juvenile Pre-Screen Assessment (WSJCA pre-screen) in the Netherlands. Previous research conducted in the United States showed the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen to be modest, as is the case with the predictive validity of most other risk assessment instruments for juveniles. Therefore, it was also examined whether the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen can be improved by modifying the scoring procedure. The sample consisted of 520 youths who had been referred to the juvenile probation service by court. The present study showed the predictive validity of the WSJCA pre-screen in the Netherlands to be modest too, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of .625. Modifying the scoring procedure by means of chi-squared automatic interaction detector analyses significantly improved the predictive validity to an AUC of .702. The modified scoring procedure is time-saving because only variables that uniquely contribute to the prediction of recidivism are included, which at the same time leads to a more accurate prediction of recidivism.

The assessment of risk to recidivate among a juvenile offending population

The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has implemented a new fourth-generation risk/need assessment to assess the risk to re-offend for juveniles referred to the department. The new assessment, the Positive Achievement Change Tool, or PACT, is adapted from the validated Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment, on which the Youth Assessment Screening Inventory (YASI) was also modeled. This study validated the PACT assessment, and examined whether the instrument is as predictive of female delinquency as it is of male delinquency, utilizing subsequent official delinquency referral as the dependent measure. Gender differences were explored and illustrated the instrument to be effective in predicting female and male delinquency, yet the factors predicting female delinquency did not mimic those predictive of male delinquency. Furthermore, for both male and female juveniles, a score of environmental and personal characteristics and situations had a stronger relationship with recidivism than did a score of official criminal history.

2003 Findings from the States

MANY of those who have never lived in a textbook-adoption state have never really understood the concept of depository. In my mind, I've always pictured a gray Texas building with dusty windows, from which a rifle was aimed at the President of the United States. However, depositories exist in many of the approximately two dozen textbook- adoption states. Florida is one of those states, and it is a major force in the national instructional materials market. The Florida book depository is a private for-profit company that maintains a 300,000- square foot warehouse and an inventory of 21,000 items, including state-adopted and non-adopted materials. To understand book depositories, one must understand the most-favored- nation legal clause, which requires publishers to provide every textbook-adoption state with the same best offers as were made to any state or district within the United States. The law does not automatically ensure that all states receive identical prices, because the requirement governs prices only in the year that the contract between a state and a publisher is established -- and publishers tend to raise prices each year. Florida uses an adoption process that includes four steps: 1) the state department writes and publishes specifications for new instructional materials and solicits bids, 2) publishers that respond to the bid submit samples of materials, 3) the state commissioner reviews publishers' submissions and adopts materials for each subject area, and 4) districts review these materials and select those they wish to use. From the textbook-adoption process flow additional state mandates and controls over the curriculum, curriculum guides, and content coverage, which are then reflected in state testing programs. The textbook-adoption states vary widely in their operations and control. Getting back to the depository, some states operate central instructional materials depositories to which publishers send textbooks and from which the states in turn distribute the textbooks, collect surplus books, and handle the distribution process. These states tend to have high levels of state control. Other states identify one or more texts for local districts to order on their own, and the amount of state control is much less. A state depository makes materials easily accessible and is convenient for districts, since they do not have to contact multiple publishers. Nonetheless, when the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) -- an office of the Florida legislature -- contacted 10 adoption states, it found that California, Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, New York, Tennessee, and Texas allow local schools to purchase materials directly from publishers, which avoids additional shipping and handling charges. OPPAGA contends that Florida pays these charges twice -- once to get materials from the publisher to the book depository (included in the state contract price) and a second time to get materials from the depository to the school. OPPAGA posed two questions: How does Florida's system for acquiring and distributing textbooks compare to those used by other states? And can changes be made to Florida's process to reduce costs? Generally, staff members found that Florida's system is similar to other comparable states, except that Florida districts cannot purchase used state- adopted materials. And yes, changes could be made. Among other things, the OPPAGA study recommended that Florida amend its law to authorize the sale and purchase of state-adopted materials across district lines, to give districts the option to buy used state-adopted materials to replace their existing inventory after the first two years of an adoption, to give districts the option to buy state-approved materials directly from publishers, and to require the state to implement a penalty system for publishers who fail to deliver on time. New Reports from Washington State Juvenile offenders. …

The Washington State Juvenile Justice System Reform: A Review of Findings

Although many states have altered their juvenile justice systems during the past decade, none has undertaken a reform as far-reaching or complex as that implemented by the state of Washington in 1978. The intent of the Washington system is to hold juveniles accountable for their crimes and, simultaneously, to hold the system accountable for what it does to juveniles. Rehabilitation has been replaced as the fundamental philosophy of the court by a "justice" or "just deserts" model which emphasizes fairness, uniformity and proportionality in the court's response to juvenile offenses. This article summarizes the results of a federally-funded assessment of the reform. The legislation, which included intake and sentencing guidelines based on seriousness of offense, prior offenses and age of the youth, produced many changes in decision-making. The practice of informally adjusting cases at intake, for example, was completely eliminated, and sentences were considerably more uniform and more proportionate in the post-reform era. The overall level of sentence severity, however, was actually reduced at least during the first two years after the law went into effect. Status offenses were removed from court jurisdiction without any noticeable net-widening effect but with considerable relabeling. The effect of these changes on recidivism of offenders or status offenders was almost impossible to determine because of the confounding between changes in system processing and changes in actual behavior of the youths.