A decision-making model for pre-sentence evaluations for juveniles

Abstract

Forensic mental health assessments (FMHAs) are requested by the courts to assist in the sentencing process and can have a major impact upon the life of the person evaluated. Completing these assessments is a core competency for forensic psychologists. However, some FMHAs are undertaken by psychologists who have no forensic training. Despite this, there are no formalised Australian minimum standards to ensure reports are helpful to the courts and reflect sound evaluation methodologies. Drawing upon a critical review of the literature and recent research findings, we propose a 10-step decision-making model for presentence evaluations of juveniles. Our model provides a framework for decision-making and highlights the key elements of an evaluation. The model provides a basis for developing practice guidelines and professional standards. The next step is to test the model in the field to determine its impact on the quality of psychological pre-sentence reports.

Child and adolescent forensic evaluations: Challenges amid scientific and technological advancements.

“…Particularly salient to the forensic evaluation of minors, De Clercq and Laenen (2019) endorse conducting observations in a clinical setting and consulting a multidisciplinary team while incorporating the most psychometrically sound instruments to improve forensic reports. Bycroft et al (2021) propose a decisionmaking model for presentence evaluations of juveniles based on (a) their systematic review, (b) Delphi study of expert psychologists, and (c) communications with experts in the field who provided feedback. The model subsumes 10 "decision points," each relating to at least one essential element of the report.…”

“…The model subsumes 10 "decision points," each relating to at least one essential element of the report. The decision points function to prompt the assessor's recognition of one or more elements of the evaluation, and to help the evaluator recognize any deficit in knowledge or skills that may limit their capacity to sufficiently address said elements (Bycroft et al, 2021). When an evaluator lacks requisite knowledge or skills, they should seek supervision until professional standards and guidelines are more explicit, universal, and available (Bycroft et al, 2021).…”

“…Bycroft et al (2021) propose a decision-making model for presentence evaluations of juveniles based on (a) their systematic review, (b) Delphi study of expert psychologists, and (c) communications with experts in the field who provided feedback. The model subsumes 10 “decision points,” each relating to at least one essential element of the report.…”

“…The decision points function to prompt the assessor’s recognition of one or more elements of the evaluation, and to help the evaluator recognize any deficit in knowledge or skills that may limit their capacity to sufficiently address said elements (Bycroft et al, 2021). When an evaluator lacks requisite knowledge or skills, they should seek supervision until professional standards and guidelines are more explicit, universal, and available (Bycroft et al, 2021). Recently, Neal et al (2022) proposed eight best practices to improve forensic assessment, focused on increasing validity and quality, mitigating bias, and improving communication, with explicit attention to limitations while considering alternative views and observing ethical obligations.…”