Criminogenic Risk Score Trajectories of Justice-Involved Youth: An Investigation Across Race/Ethnicity

Abstract

Juvenile risk assessments are standardized rating tools used by court practitioners to measure criminogenic risk in justice-involved youth. To capture individual fluctuation in risk level over time, juvenile risk assessments are often readministered throughout court supervision. The purpose of this study is to clarify the average criminogenic risk score trajectory among justice-involved youth, both in aggregate and by race/ethnicity. Analyses draw upon a sample of 611 justice-involved youths who received two or more risk assessment scores and were under court supervision for at least 1 year. Using multilevel modeling, findings indicate that risk scores decrease over the first 19 months of court supervision before rebounding in increasingly larger increments. Furthermore, risk scores of White youth appear to be most amenable to reduction over time, while scores of Black youth remain stagnant. Results have implications toward understanding the gains and losses in risk score reduction observed in youth under prolonged court supervision.

Dynamic risk and differential impacts of probation: Examining age, race, and gender as responsivity factors.

“…Beyond the exploration of court supervision experiences as predictors of dynamic risk, we also examined the role of specific responsivity factors as predictors and moderators of dynamic risk. The examination of these specific responsivity factors in relationship to dynamic risk fills an important gap in the literature because researchers have recommended that future studies continue to identify facilitators and barriers of dynamic risk beyond race/ethnicity (Kitzmiller et al, 2022). Confirming our hypothesis, analyses showed no main or moderating effect of gender and age on dynamic risk (Hypothesis 3a).…”

“…Little research has used JRNAs to evaluate whether risk scores change over time, the predictive validity of change score indicators, and how court supervision experiences influence those changes. Findings provide evidence of decreases in risk (i.e., demonstrated prosocial or positive changes; Babchishin & Hanson, 2020;Barnes et al, 2016;Cohen et al, 2016;Kitzmiller et al, 2022;Koh et al, 2022;Labrecque et al, 2014;Mulvey et al, 2016;Viljoen et al, 2017;Wanamaker & Brown, 2022), and others show that risk scores increased over the duration of court supervision (e.g., Clarke et al, 2017).…”

“…We hypothesized that race/ethnicity would moderate the relationship between supervision experiences and dynamic risk (Hypothesis 3b). Past research shows that race/ethnicity may impact rates of change in risk (Kitzmiller et al, 2022) and dispositional outcomes (N. A. Campbell et al, 2018).…”

“…Past research on dynamic risk has also investigated the predictive validity of JRNAs’ change score indicators, yet relatively few have focused on juveniles serving probation (Barnes et al, 2016; Clarke et al, 2017; Kitzmiller et al, 2022; Koh et al, 2022; Viljoen et al, 2017). Most of the past research found that change score indicators were meaningful predictors of recidivism (Barnes et al, 2016; Clarke et al, 2017; Koh et al, 2022; Wanamaker & Brown, 2022), although Viljoen et al’s (2017) work yielded opposing results.…”

“…We anticipated that supervision experiences (time under supervision and judicial programs) would be significant predictors of dynamic risk because past research illustrates a relationship between time under supervision (Kitzmiller et al, 2022) and dynamic risk as well as judicial programs (N. A. Campbell et al, 2018) and recidivism.…”