Subgroup differences and implications for contemporary risk-need assessment with juvenile offenders.

Abstract

Risk-need assessment is widely accepted as best practice with juvenile offenders and is underpinned by a healthy research literature on risk assessment inventories. Previous studies have found both similarities and differences on risk measures when gender and racial/ethnic subgroups have been compared. Differential validity has been examined, but differential prediction has been overlooked. The current study undertook gender and ethnic comparisons for a large sample (n = 3568) of community-based juvenile offenders who were evaluated using the Australian Adaptation of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI-AA). Analyses showed various gender and ethnic differences at the item level, across domain scores and on the total inventory score, but not for validity indices. However, 1-year reoffending rates for youth in three classification categories (low, moderate, high) varied by gender and ethnicity. The findings were related to contemporary understandings of the risk factors for offending and the dynamics of crime for gender/ethnic subgroups. It is argued that in spite of these subgroup differences, a generic inventory such as the YLS/CMI-AA can be used fairly with various subgroups. Recommendations for how this could be accomplished are provided.

Risk Assessment and Juvenile Justice

“…Just as trauma histories are more likely to increase a girl's likelihood of being involved in the juvenile justice system, there may be factors that are more likely to lead racial/ethnic minority youth to become involved in the justice system as compared with their White counterparts (Onifade et al, 2009). Therefore, missing components that go unmeasured in a risk assessment that are relevant for certain groups of youth would create interaction between race and the risk of those youth, compared with other groups of youth (Baglivio and Jackowski, 2013;Barnes et al, 2015;Onifade et al, 2009;Schwalbe et al, 2006;Thompson and McGrath, 2012).…”

“…Ultimately, findings for both race and gender call for further research to be aimed at explaining and correcting these existing biases, especially focusing on whether assessments are neglecting the potential interaction of criminogenic risk, race, and gender as they relate to recidivism (Jung, Spjeldnes, and Yamatani, 2010;Onifade et al, 2009;Schwalbe et al, 2006;Steinmetz and Anderson, 2015;Thompson and McGrath, 2012). The purpose of this article will be to determine whether criminogenic risk, race, and gender interact when predicting recidivism.…”

Prediction of Youth and Adult Recidivism Among Spanish Juveniles Involved in Serious Offenses

“…Various studies have effectively demonstrated that this instrument accurately evaluates the likelihood of reoffending and is one of the best options for assessing the risk of recidivism among minors (Gendreau et al, 1996; Olver et al, 2014). Moreover, the results of different studies have shown that the YLS/CMI works equally well for different subgroups, including the type of recidivism (e.g., violent/nonviolent), recidivism outcome (e.g., how the variable was measured; number of new files; presence/absence of recidivism), country, and sample characteristics (e.g., high-risk minors; Onifade et al, 2008; Pusch & Holtfreter, 2017; Thompson & McGrath, 2012). In summary, this Inventory was selected among other predictive instruments mainly due to its cutoff scores which allow to classify the minor in a range of risk recidivism levels, the importance given to dynamic risk factors in the assessment and its good reliability and predictive validity values.…”

Accuracy and Fairness for Juvenile Justice Risk Assessments

“…Literature reviews of juvenile criminal justice risk assessments reveal that risk assessments for juveniles and risk assessments for adults raise most of the same issues (Pew Center on the States ; Vincent et al ; National Institute of Justice & Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ; Office of Juvenile Research and Delinquency Prevention ). There are concerns about accuracy (Meyers & Schmidt ; Oliver & Stockdale ) and concerns about fairness (Huizinga et al ; Schwalbe ; Thompson & McGrath ). Differences center on the kinds of predictors used and, arguably, a greater emphasis on determining needs and treatment modalities for juveniles .…”