Youth Drug Offenders: An Examination of Criminogenic Risk and Juvenile Recidivism

Papp, Jordan; Campbell, Christina; Onifade, Eyitayo; Anderson, Valerie R.; Davidson, William S.; Foster, Dawn W.

doi:10.1080/23774657.2016.1218804

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, it could be objected that the predictive accuracy of the Central Eight might in general be lower for drug offenders and drug offences were more prevalent among offenders from Arab counties. However, to our knowledge, present evidence does not suggest a lower predictive validity of the Central Eight for drug offenders compared to other offence types (e.g., Kelly & Welsh, 2008;Papp et al, 2016). In addition, Dahle and Schmidt (2014), investigating a sample of young offenders all incarcerated for serious violence offences, reported lower predictive validities for Muslim offenders compared to offenders without an MB.…”

Section: Limitationscontrasting

confidence: 78%

How Culture and Migration Affect Risk Assessment

Schmidt

Meer

Tydecks³

et al. 2018

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We systematically linked cross-cultural literature to the Central Eight risk factors as an example of risk assessment procedures. We expected offenders with a migration background (MB) from Turkey or Arab countries to score higher on criminal history, criminal attitudes, antisocial companions, and education and employment problems in comparison to German offenders without an MB. In contrast, for offenders with an MB from Turkey or Arab countries, a reduced risk for unsatisfactory relationships with their parents, alcohol, and leisure-related factors was assumed. The Central Eight risk factors were applied retrospectively for male offenders serving a sentence length of more than 12 months. German offenders without an MB (n = 214) were compared to offenders with a Turkish (n = 135) or Arab (n = 112) MB concerning risk profiles and predictive validity. Risk profiles of offenders with an MB deviated (d = 0.25-0.56) from risk profiles of German offenders without an MB. For offenders without an MB criminal history, antisocial personality, criminal attitudes, antisocial companions, and alcohol/drug problems significantly predicted (AUC = .56-.73) different recidivism events. Similar results were found for offenders with a Turkish MB (AUC = .60-.70) except for antisocial companions (AUC = .50). Results for offenders with an Arab MB were inconclusive; only alcohol/drug problems consistently showed good predictive values (AUC = .66-.68). Findings demonstrate that a culture-sensitive approach in risk assessment is inevitable and recommendations for culture-sensitive research, risk assessment, and offender treatment are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Limitationscontrasting

confidence: 78%

How Culture and Migration Affect Risk Assessment

Schmidt

Meer

Tydecks³

et al. 2018

The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Court officers in this county were required to complete approximately 30 hours of training on the YLS/CMI before conducting their first assessment. Past research findings have shown that this training leads to reliable use of the YLS/CMI (i.e., interrater reliability and internal consistency) in the court in this study (Onifade et al, 2009;Papp et al, 2016). All youth that received a YLS/CMI between July 1, 2004 and August 31, 2010 were included in this study.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Risk Assessment and Juvenile Justice

Campbell

Papp

Barnes

et al. 2018

Criminology & Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary In this study, we examine the interaction between race, gender, and risk assessment score on risk for recidivism. We used the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) to measure criminogenic risk among a sample of delinquent youth. The results of multivariate Cox regression revealed a significant interaction between race, gender, and risk score when predicting recidivism. The findings indicated that the slope of the relationship between risk score and recidivism differed significantly for Black youth as compared with White youth and that this interaction was even more pronounced for the subsample of males. These findings suggest that there may be social or other policy/enforcement‐related factors that increase risk for recidivism for Black youth. Policy Implications We found that although there were no differences in overall risk score across White and Black youth, Black males were at increased risk for future recidivism. These findings should inform practice and policies in four primary ways. First, court practitioners, like juvenile court officers and judges, should pay special attention to responsivity factors that may minimize barriers to treatment and success. Second, court officers and service providers should implement policies that require tracking how risk assessment information is used in the decision‐making process. Third, the use of reassessments to monitor changes in dynamic criminogenic risk is necessary. Finally, future research should be aimed at investigating the extent to which policies, practices, and enforcement moderate the validity of risk assessment tools across race and gender.

show abstract

“…Violations of probation were not counted as recidivism. Operationalizing recidivism by the filing of a new court petition was ideal because it was the most reliably recorded incident by the court in question and has been used extensively in past research (Anderson et al, 2016; Onifade et al, 2008; Papp et al, 2016). It is important to note that a court petition does not necessarily mean that a crime occurred, which causes error in this measure of recidivism.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Intervention Needs of Juvenile Probationers: An Application of Latent Profile Analysis to a Risk–Need–Responsivity Assessment Model

Campbell¹,

Miller²,

Papp

et al. 2018

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment of criminogenic risk is critical in the prediction of future delinquency and the ability to provide appropriate services and interventions for youth offenders. The goal of this study was to determine whether using latent profile analysis (LPA) produced better risk classification profiles than traditional linear methods. Archival data were used to examine 1,263 male and female youth probationers. Criminogenic profiles were developed using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, a widely used juvenile risk assessment. LPA determined that there were three distinct profiles: Minimal Intervention Needs, Social Behavior and Social Bonding Needs, and Maximum Intervention Needs. The profiles that youth fit into differed across demographic variables such as gender, age, recidivism, and history of child maltreatment, but not minority status and offense type. This research may aid in addressing specific intervention needs of offenders.

show abstract

Youth Drug Offenders: An Examination of Criminogenic Risk and Juvenile Recidivism

Cited by 11 publications

References 40 publications

How Culture and Migration Affect Risk Assessment

How Culture and Migration Affect Risk Assessment

Risk Assessment and Juvenile Justice

Assessing Intervention Needs of Juvenile Probationers: An Application of Latent Profile Analysis to a Risk–Need–Responsivity Assessment Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About