The increasing proportion of girls in the juvenile justice system has prompted courts to develop gender-responsive services. The present study examined data from a mid-sized county juvenile court to examine the effects of a group home intervention for girls. The study compared group home participants (n = 172) with girls who did not receive group home treatment (n = 814) using propensity score matching (PSM). Girls who received group home treatment were significantly less likely to re-offend in the 2-year follow-up period. Policy and practice implications for gender-responsive services as well as future directions for research are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Risk assessments such as the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) that predict delinquency outcomes based on proximal risk factors may benefit from an incorporation of distal risk factors in their prediction models. This study utilized a juvenile probationer sample and block group SES data in exploring the differential predictive validity of the YLS/CMI with youth of similar person-centered risk levels from different criminogenic neighborhood types. The study entailed an exploratory factor analysis of block group socioeconomic variables, which were used in a cluster analysis to create criminogenic neighborhood typology system. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to analyze the relationship among recidivism (Level 1), risk score (Level 1), neighborhood SES factors (Level 2), and neighborhood types (Level 2). Significant interactions were found across levels among variables, suggesting the risk-recidivism relationship was moderated by neighborhood socioeconomic ecology. Implications for practice and policy are discussed.

Given service costs and evidence suggesting mixing young offenders of different risk levels increases recidivism, this study determined the extent to which differential disposition and risk determined subsequent recidivism. Furthermore, this study entailed a comparison of offense outcomes for informal probationers (n ¼ 581) and formal probationers (n ¼ 773) of similar risk levels. Criminogenic risk was assessed using the Youth Level of Service=Case Management Inventory. To control for selection effects, the two groups were matched based on propensity scores. Validation of the measure yielded an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of .67 for informal probationers and .62 for formal probationers. Low-, moderate-, and high-risk probationers were found in both groups of offenders. However, there were no significant differences in recidivism rates between similar risk level youth of the two respective probation groups. Policy and practice implications are offered and discussed.