A Comparative Analysis of Recidivism With Propensity Score Matching of Informal and Formal Juvenile Probationers

Abstract

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.

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

“…There were a large number of studies that met the first three criteria, but combined males and females when calculating the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI (Campbell, 2009;Catchepole & Gretton, 2003;Clarke, 2015;Cuervo & Villanueva, 2014;Guebert & Olver, 2014;Hilterman, Nicholls, & Nieuwenhuizen, 2013;Li, Chu, Goh, Ng, & Zeng, 2015;Livsey, 2005;Onifade, Barnes, Campbell, Anderson, Petersen, & Davidson, 2014;Onifade, Davidson, Livsey, Turke, Horton, Malinowski, Atkinson, & Wimberly, 2008;Onifade, Wilkins, Davidson, Campbell, & Petersen, 2011;Thompson & Pope, 2005;Peterson-Badali, Skilling, & Haquanee, 2015;Shepherd, Green, & Omobien, 2005;Shepherd, Singh, & Fullam, 2015;Upperton & Thompson, 2007;Vieira, Skilling, & Peterson-Badali, 2009;Welsh, Schmidt, McKinnon, Chattha, & Meyers, 2008). Since the research question addresses gender differences, these studies that did not separate males and females were excluded from the meta-analyses.…”

“…Finally, the last inclusion criterion was that the study had to report separate effect sizes for males and females. There were a large number of studies that met the first three criteria but combined males and females when calculating the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI (Campbell, 2009; Catchpole & Gretton, 2003; Clarke, 2015; Cuervo & Villanueva, 2014; Giresi, 2012; Guebert & Olver, 2014; Hilterman, Nicholls, & Nieuwenhuizen, 2013; Li, Chu, Goh, Ng, & Zeng, 2015; Livsey, 2005; McCafferty, 2017; McGrath & Thompson, 2012; Onifade et al, 2014; Onifade, Davidson, Livsey, et al, 2008; Onifade, Wilkins, Davidson, Campbell, & Petersen, 2011; Peterson-Badali, Skilling, & Haquanee, 2015; Shepherd, Green, & Omobien, 2005; Shepherd, Singh, & Fullam, 2015; Thompson & Pope, 2005; Upperton & Thompson, 2007; Vieira, Skilling, & Peterson-Badali, 2009; Vincent, Guy, Perrault, & Gershenson, 2016; Welsh, Schmidt, McKinnon, Chattha, & Meyers, 2008). As we are interested in gender differences, studies that did not separate males and females were excluded.…”

Mental health disorders and recidivism among incarcerated adult offenders in a correctional facility in South Africa: A cluster analysis

“…While the model has been critiqued and acknowledged revisions made, scholars contend it is a sound and empirically tested model for responding to recidivism [ 47 ]. This approach could potentially reduce the overuse of valuable police, court, and correctional facility resources and services on individuals who could benefit from other services, such as diversion programs for low-risk offenders [ 48 ]. In this regard, recommendations are made for testing the effectiveness of the Risk-Need Responsivity (RNR) Model in the South African justice system.…”

Philosophies in Community Supervision of Gang-Involved Youth and Adults

“…The structure, philosophy, and impact of supervision are fundamentally intended to vary for youth due to early perspectives favoring leniency and the belief in youth’s “redeemability” (Goshe, 2019; Kokkalera et al, 2022; Liberman et al, 2021; Onifade et al, 2011). However, the system’s underlying goal was overshadowed by 1990s-era reforms that “emphasized punishment and treated youth much like adults” (Nelson & Vincent, 2018, p. 1136).…”