The goal of this study was to identify distinct and meaningful profiles of the seven criminogenic risk and need domains included on the Ohio Youth Assessment System—Disposition Tool (OYAS-DIS). This goal was accomplished by conducting a latent profile analysis (LPA) on a sample of 4,383 formally processed justice-involved youth assessed by the OYAS-DIS. The LPA determined there were six distinct profiles: (1) Low risk and need, (2) Low/moderate risk and need, (3) Low risk/need with high juvenile justice history, (4) Academic, mental health, and substance use needs, (5) Prosocial skills and decision making, and (6) High risk and need. Results may help juvenile justice practitioners to identify and address specific intervention needs of adjudicated youth.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.HogeR. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(1), 19–52.
2.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 7–27.
3.
AyónC.WilliamsL. R.MarsigliaF. F.AyersS.KiehneE. (2015). A latent profile analysis of Latino parenting: The infusion of cultural values on family conflict. Families in Society, 96, 203–210.
4.
BaglivioM. T.GreenwaldM. A.RussellM. (2015). Assessing the implications of a structured decision-making tool for recidivism in a statewide analysis: Disposition matrix for court recommendations made by juvenile probation officers. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 5–49.
5.
BaglivioM. T.JackowskiK. (2013). Examining the validity of a juvenile offending risk assessment instrument across gender and race/ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(1), 26–43.
6.
BairdC.HealyT.JohnsonK.BogieA.DankertE. W.ScharenbrochC. (2013). A comparison of risk assessment instruments in juvenile justice. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
7.
BallardE. D.Van EckK.MusciR. J.HartS. R.StorrC. L.BreslauN.WilcoxH. C. (2015). Latent classes of childhood trauma exposure predict the development of behavioral health outcomes in adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 45, 3305–3316.
8.
BernburgJ. G.KrohnM. D.RiveraC. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67–88.
9.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct. Taylor & Francis.
10.
CampbellC. A.BarnesA.PappJ.D’AmatoC.AndersonV. R.MosesN. (2020). Understanding the role of neighborhood typology and sociodemographic characteristics on time to recidivism among adjudicated youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820924834
11.
CampbellC. A.D’AmatoC.PappJ. (2019). Validation of the Ohio Youth Assessment System Disposition Tool (OYAS-DIS): An examination of race and gender differences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18, 196–211.
12.
CampbellC. A.MillerW.PappJ.BarnesA. R.OnifadeE.AndersonV. R. (2019). Assessing intervention needs of juvenile probationers: An application of latent profile analysis to a risk–need–responsivity assessment model. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(1), 82–100.
13.
CatchpoleR. E.GrettonH. M. (2003). The predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 688–708.
14.
CollinsL. M.LanzaS. T. (2013). Latent class and latent transition analysis: With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. John Wiley.
15.
DowdenC.AndrewsD. A. (1999, May). What works in young offender treatment: A meta analysis. In Forum on corrections research (Vol. 11, pp. 21–24). Correctional Service of Canada.
16.
DusterT. (2005). Race and reification in science. Science, 307, 1050–1051.
17.
EverittB. S.LandauS.MorvenL. (2001). Cluster analysis (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
18.
GoldenL. S.GatchelR. J.CahillM. A. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of the National Institute of Corrections “Thinking for a Change” program among probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(2), 55–73.
19.
GreenwoodP. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. The Future of Children, 18, 185–210.
20.
GriegerL.HosserD. (2014). Which risk factors are really predictive? An analysis of Andrews and Bonta’s “Central Eight” risk factors for recidivism in German youth correctional facility inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 613–634.
21.
GutierrezL.WilsonH. A.RuggeT.BontaJ. (2013). The prediction of recidivism with Aboriginal offenders: A theoretically informed meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55(1), 55–99.
22.
HaqaneeZ.Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT. (2015). Making “what works” work: Examining probation officers’ experiences addressing the criminogenic needs of juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(1), 37–59.
23.
HogeR. D.AndrewsD. A. (2006). Youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/CMI). Multi-Heath Systems.
KircanskiK.ZhangS.StringarisA.WigginsJ. L.TowbinK. E.PineD. S.LeibenluftE.BrotmanM. A. (2017). Empirically derived patterns of psychiatric symptoms in youth: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 216, 109–116.
26.
LandenbergerN. A.LipseyM. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive–behavioral programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451–476.
27.
LatessaE. (2011). Why the risk and needs principles are relevant to correctional program (even to employment programs). Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 973–977.
28.
LatessaE. J.ListwanS. J.KoetzleD. (2020). What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism (2nd ed.). Routledge.
29.
LatessaE. J.LovinsB. (2010). The role of offender risk assessment: A policy maker guide. Victims and Offenders, 5, 203–219.
30.
LipseyM. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.
31.
LovinsB.LatessaE. (2013). Creation and validation of the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) and strategies for successful implementation. Justice Research and Policy, 15(1), 67–93.
32.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2004). Understanding the risk principle: How and why correctional interventions can harm low-risk offenders (Topics in Community Corrections). National Institute of Corrections.
33.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77–93.
34.
LuongD.WormithJ. S. (2011). Applying risk/need assessment to probation practice and its impact on the recidivism of young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1177–1199.
35.
MaynardB. R.Salas-WrightC. P.VaughnM. G.PetersK. E. (2012). Who are truant youth? Examining distinctive profiles of truant youth using latent profile analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1671–1684.
NetterB. (2006). Using group statistics to sentence individual criminal: An ethical and statistical critique of the Virginia risk assessment program. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97, 699–729.
38.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 329–353.
39.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2014). Thirty years of research on the Level of Service Scales: A meta-analytic examination of predictive accuracy and sources of variability. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 156–176.
40.
OnifadeE.DavidsonW.LivseyS.TurkeG.HortonC.MalinowskiJ.HortonC.MalinowskuJ.AtkinsonD.WimberlyD. (2008). Risk assessment: Identifying patterns of risk in young offenders with the youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 165–173.
41.
OnifadeE.PetersenJ.BynumT. S.DavidsonW. S. (2011). Multilevel recidivism prediction: Incorporating neighborhood socioeconomic ecology in juvenile justice risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 840–853.
42.
PappJ.CampbellC.OnifadeE.AndersonV.DavidsonW.FosterD. (2016). Youth drug offenders: An examination of criminogenic risk and juvenile recidivism. Corrections Policy, Practice and Research, 1, 229–245.
43.
PasmanJ. (2011). The consequences of labeling mental illnesses on the self-concept: A review of the literature and future directions. Social Cosmos, 2, 122–127.
44.
Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT.HaqaneeZ. (2015). Examining implementation of risk assessment in case management for youth in the justice system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 304–320.
45.
PuschN.HoltfreterK. (2018). Gender and risk assessment in juvenile offenders: A meta analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(1), 56–81.
46.
SchmidtF.HogeR. D.GomesL. (2005). Reliability and validity analyses of the youth level of service/case management inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 329–344.
47.
SchwalbeC. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449–462.
48.
SchwalbeC. S. (2008). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1367–1381.
49.
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.
50.
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.
51.
SchwalbeC. S.MacyR. J.DayS. H.FraserM. W. (2008). Classifying offenders: An application of latent class analysis to needs assessment in juvenile justice. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 279–294.
52.
SharleinJ.EngstromM. (2018). Neighborhood disproportion in juvenile justice contact. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 69, 25–41.
53.
ShookJ. J.SarriR. C. (2007). Structured decision making in juvenile justice: Judges’ and probation officers’ perceptions and use. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1335–1351.
54.
SinghJ. P.DesmaraisS. L.SellersB. G.HyltonT.TirottiM.Van DornR. A. (2014). From risk assessment to risk management: Matching interventions to adolescent offenders’ strengths and vulnerabilities. Children and Youth Services Review, 47(1), 1–9.
55.
SmithP.GendreauP.SwartzK. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims and Offenders, 4, 148–169.
56.
SullivanC. J.StrangeC.SullivanC.NewsomeJ.LugoM.MuellerD.PetkusA.HolmesB.LonerganH.McCaffertyJ. (2019). Multi-method study on risk assessment implementation and youth outcomes in the juvenile justice system. University of Cincinnati.
57.
TaxmanF. S.CaudyM. S. (2015). Risk tells us who, but not what or how: Empirical assessment of the complexity of criminogenic needs to inform correctional programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 71–103.
VaughnM. G.FreedenthalS.JensonJ. M.HowardM. O. (2007). Psychiatric symptoms and substance use among juvenile offenders: A latent profile investigation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1296–1312.
60.
ViglioneJ. (2019). The risk-need-responsivity model: How do probation officers implement the principles of effective intervention?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46, 655–673.
61.
ViglioneJ.RudesD. S.TaxmanF. S. (2015). Misalignment in supervision: Implementing risk/needs assessment instruments in probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 263–285.
62.
VincentG. M.ChapmanJ.CookN. E. (2011). Risk-needs assessment in juvenile justice: Predictive validity of the SAVRY, racial differences, and the contribution of needs factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(1), 42–62.
63.
VincentG. M.GuyL. S.GershensonB. G.McCabeP. (2012). Does risk assessment make a difference? Results of implementing the SAVRY in juvenile probation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 384–405.
64.
VincentG. M.Paiva-SalisburyM. L.CookN. E.GuyL. S.PerraultR. T. (2012). Impact of risk/needs assessment on juvenile probation officers’ decision making: Importance of implementation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 549–576.
WalkerS. C.BishopA. S.NuriusP. S.Logan-GreeneP. (2016). The heterogeneity of treatment needs for justice-involved girls: A typology using latent class analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 323–342.
67.
WeisburdD.BrittD. (2014). Statistics in criminal justice. Springer.
68.
WilpertJ.van HornJ. E.BoonmannC. (2018). Comparing the central eight risk factors: Do they differ across age groups of sex offenders?International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 4278–4294.
69.
WooditchA.TangL. L.TaxmanF. S. (2014). Which criminogenic need changes are most important in promoting desistance from crime and substance use?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 276–299.
70.
YigitS.MendesM. (2018). Which effect size measure is appropriate for one-way and two way ANOVA models? A Monte Carlo simulations study. Statistical Journal, 16, 295–313.
71.
YorkR.ClarkB. (2007). The problem with prediction: Contingency, emergence, and the reification of projections. The Sociological Quarterly, 48, 713–743.
