The Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT) was developed in 1997 using a theoretical construction of items, responses, and weights. While derived from an original tool created for a Washington State probation population, the risk-need assessment is one of the most widely used youth tools utilized today. To advance the model from its theoretical construction, the current study demonstrates tool updates making use of a large sample of Washington State youth (N = 50,862). Specifically, several mechanisms were utilized to customize the assessment, including (a) item weighting, (b) outcome specificity, and (c) gender responsivity. Based on the updated design, we identify improvements in predictive validity of the continuous risk scale, accuracy of risk-level assignment, and reductions in racial/ethnic disparity. Scheduled to be implemented in the coming year, this article describes the development of the Modified Positive Achievement Change Tool (M-PACT).
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Anderson/LexisNexis.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithS. J. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 7-27.
4.
BairdC.HealyT.JohnsonK.BogieA.Wicke DankertE.ScharenbrochC. (2013). A comparison of risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice. Washington, DC: National Council on Crime & Delinquency.
5.
BarnoskiR. (2004a). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (Report No. 04-03-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
6.
BarnoskiR. (2004b). Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment manual, Version 2.1 (Report No. 04-03-1203). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
7.
BarnoskiR.DrakeE. K. (2007). Washington’s Offender Accountability Act: Department of Corrections’ static risk instrument. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
8.
BontaJ. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 355-379.
9.
BorumR.BartelP. A.ForthA. (2006). Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource.
10.
BrennanT.DieterichW.EhretB. (2009). Evaluating the predictive validity of the COMPAS risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 21-40.
11.
BroidyL.PayneJ.PiqueroA. R. (2018). Making sense of heterogeneity in the influence of childhood abuse, mental health, and drug use on women’s offending pathways. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1565-1587.
12.
BrumbaughS.Hardison WaltersJ. L.WinterfieldL. A. (2010). Suitability of assessment instruments for delinquent girls. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
13.
DeLongE. R.DeLongD. M.Clarke-PearsonD. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44, 837-845.
14.
DesmaraisS. L.SinghJ. P. (2013). Instruments for assessing recidivism risk: A review of validation studies conducted in the U.S. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.
15.
DuweG. (2014). The development, validity, and reliability of the Minnesota Screening Tool Assessing Recidivism Risk (MnSTARR). Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 579-613.
16.
DuweG. (2019). Better practices in the development and validation of recidivism risk assessments: The Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool–4. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30, 538-564.
17.
GriffithJ.JirardS.RickettsM. (2012). Pennsylvania juvenile justice Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) monitoring, reduction and prevention efforts. Shippensburg, PA: Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research, Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission.
18.
HamiltonZ.CampagnaM.TollefsbolE.van WormerJ.BarnoskiR. (2017). A more consistent application of the RNR model: The STRONG-R needs assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 261-292.
19.
HamiltonZ.KigerlA.CampagnaM.BarnoskiR.LeeS.van WormerJ.BlockL. (2016). Designed to fit: The development and validation of the STRONG-R recidivism risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 230-263.
HamiltonZ.van WormerJ.BarnoskiR. (2015). PACT validation and weighting results: Technical report. Olympia: Washington Association of Juvenile Court Administrators.
23.
HanJ.KamberM.PeiM. (2011). Data mining: Concepts and techniques (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
24.
MulveyE. P.IselinA. R. (2008). Improving professional judgments of risk and amenability in juvenile justice. The Future of Children, 18(2), 35-57.
OstermannM.HerrschaftB. A. (2013). Validating the Level of Service Inventory-revised: A gendered perspective. The Prison Journal, 93, 291-312.
27.
PerraultR. T.VincentG. M.GuyL. S. (2017). Are risk assessments racially biased? Field study of the SAVRY and YLS/CMI in probation. Psychological Assessment, 29, 664-678.
28.
PlattA. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
29.
PuzzancheraC.AdamsB.HockenberryS. (2012). Juvenile court statistics 2009. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
30.
PuzzancheraC.HockenberryS. (2013). An interpretation of the national DMC relative rate indices for juvenile justice system processing in 2010 (National Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook). Washington, DC: National Center for Juvenile Justice for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
31.
RiceM.HarrisG. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615-620.
32.
SchwalbeC. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449-462.
33.
SchwalbeC. S. (2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367-1381.
34.
SchwalbeC. S.FraserM. W.DayS. H. (2007). Predictive validity of the joint risk matrix with juvenile offenders: A focus on gender and race/ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 348-361.
35.
SchwalbeC. S.FraserM. W.DayS. H.CooleyV. (2006). Classifying juvenile offenders according to risk of recidivism: Predictive validity, race/ethnicity, and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 305-324.
36.
StoneM. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society:Series B (Methodological), 36, 111-147.
37.
TaxmanF. S. (2017). Risk assessment: Where do we go from here? In SinghJ. P.KronerD.WormithS.DesmaraisS. L.HamiltonZ. (Eds.), Handbook of recidivism risk / needs assessment (pp. 269-284). New York, NY: John Wiley.
38.
TaxmanF. S.BelenkoS. (2011). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. Boulder, CO: Springer.
39.
TonryM. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in the prediction of recidivism. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26, 167-176.
40.
Van VoorhisP.WrightE. M.SalisburyE.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 261-288.
41.
VincentG. M.LauraS. G.GrissoT. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
42.
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (n.d.). Criminal history database: Documentation. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
