Understanding Changes in Youth Offenders’ Risk Profiles: A Latent Transition Analysis

Abstract

This study examined youth probationers’ risk profiles at the start and the end of probation and the types of transition in risk profiles over time. It further identified the association between the transition types, their adverse family background as well as their probation completion status. Using a sample of 935 youth probationers in Singapore, a latent transition analysis was conducted based on seven dynamic domains captured in the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0. Based on the risk profiles, three subgroups of youths were identified: (1) the “De-escalators” had reduced risk in one or multiple domains; (2) the “Persistors” continued to have moderate risk in most domains; and (3) the “Escalators” showed an increase in risk levels in one or multiple domains. Compared to the De-escalators, the Persistors and Escalators were less likely to complete their probation orders. Further analysis revealed that youths from nonintact families or families with conviction history showed higher relative risk in being Persistors. These findings contribute to our understanding on the changes in probationers’ risk profiles over time and provide information for early and more targeted intervention efforts.

Changes in Risk Profiles: Latent Transition Analysis of Youth on Probation

“…Similar to prior studies, this study found that while the majority (78%) of the individuals remained within their same group at intake and exit, some youth did switch risk profiles between timepoints (Hilterman et al, 2019; Xu et al, 2020). In this study, the probability of staying in the same group ranged from .67 to .97.…”

“…Consistent with prior studies, there was a group of youth who were overall low risk and a group of youth who were overall high risk across many domains (Brown et al, 2021; Hilterman et al, 2019; Lee & Taxman, 2020; Onifade et al, 2008; Schwalbe et al, 2008; Xu et al, 2020). Consistent with the RNR framework, the youth in the Low Risk group spent the least amount of time on probation and most of these youth exited probation still low risk.…”

“…In their study using an LTA to examine changes in risk scores, Xu et al (2020) provided transition probabilities based on the start and finish of probation and thus is a measure of how risk changes during probation. Using risk scales from a standardized risk assessment (Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0; Hoge & Andrews, 2011) administered at both intake and exit among youth on probation (N = 935) in Singapore, they identified different but similar subgroups at intake and exit.…”

“…Youth classified as Persistors (OR = 13.19) and Escalators (OR = 19.67) were much more likely to reoffend than De-escalators. Hilterman et al (2019) and Xu et al (2020) provide useful insight into whether and how scores on a standardized risk assessment may change among youth during their involvement in the juvenile justice system. More studies with additional samples based in other countries are needed to identify whether subgroups remain consistent throughout juvenile justice involvement and examine how youth may move between groups during their juvenile justice involvement.…”

Specific Issues of Legal Support for Prevention and Preclusion of the Juvenile Delinquency and Crime (Federal and Regional Aspects)

“…With the support of the Safe Futures funds, the probation services and mentoring programs for the youth are introduced in some states, as well as in the specialized centers (Morley et al, 2000). The youth rehabilitation service conducts ample activities in USA targeting the reduction in risk of the repletion of crimes committed by the minors and held accountable previously (Xu et al, 2019). that manifests particular significance of the interests of children and adolescents, and the need to nationwide and steadily take into account the priority of the interests of children.…”