Juvenile risk and needs assessments (JRNAs) have been the focus of extensive research in the academic literature. Prior studies have primarily focused on the risk-recidivism relationship and establishing predictive validity with juvenile populations. Less investigated is the use of risk and need assessment in practice, including how such tools are used to inform decision-making. This study uses record data encompassing 3,034 youth from a multi-state study to examine dispositional and treatment decisions associated with the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS). Specifically, mediation analyses were conducted to evaluate how current practices align with underlying logic and theory regarding the role of assessments in juvenile justice. Findings reveal varied and complex relationships between assessment scores, case decisions, and recidivism. While risk was generally associated with recidivism, our results suggest juvenile risk and need assessments are inconsistently used to inform case management and placement decisions. Implications for practice and future research are also discussed.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 16(1), 39–55. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362
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. http://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281756
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ.WormithJ. S.GuzzoL.BrewsA.RettingerJ.RoweR. (2011). Sources of variability in estimates of predictive validity: A specification with level of service general risk and need. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(5), 413–432. http://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811401990
4.
BaglivioM. T.GreenwaldM. A.RussellM. (2014). Assessing the implications of a structured decision-making tool for recidivism in a statewide analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 5–49. http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12108
5.
BaglivioM. T.WolffK. T.HowellJ. C.JackowskiK., & GreenwaldM. A. (2018). The search for the holy grail: Criminogenic needs matching, intervention dosage, and subsequent recidivism among serious juvenile offenders in residential placement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 55(March/April), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.02.001.
6.
BaglivioM. T.WolffK. T.JackowskiK.GreenwaldM.A. (2015). A multilevel examination of risk/need change scores, community context, and successful re-entry of committed juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(1), 38–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204015596052
7.
BaglivioM. T.ZettlerH.CraigJ. M.WolffK. T. (2021). Evaluating RNR-based targeted treatment and intervention dosage in the context of traumatic exposure. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 19(3), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204020988575
8.
BaronRMKennyDA (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
9.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
10.
CampbellC. A.D’AmatoC.PappJ. (2020). Validation of the Ohio youth assessment system dispositional tool (OYAS-DIS): An examination of race and gender differences. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 18(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204019859938
11.
DuweG.RocqueM. (2017). Effects of automatic recidivism risk assessment on reliability, predictive validity, and return on investment (ROI). Criminology & Public Policy, 16(1), 235–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12270
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. The Guilford Press.
15.
HiltermanELNichollsTLvan NieuwenhuizenC (2014). Predictive validity of risk assessments in juvenile offenders: Comparing the SAVRY, PCL: YV, and YLS/CMI with the unstructured clinical assessments. Assessment, 21(3), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113498113
16.
LatessaE.ListwanS.KoetzleD. (2014). What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism. Anderson Publishing.
LatessaE.LovinsB.OstrowskiK. (2009). The Ohio youth assessment system: Final report. University of Cincinnati.
19.
LipseyM. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573.
20.
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. https://doi.org/10.3818/jrp.15.1.2013.67
21.
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(12), 1177–1199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811421596
22.
LurigioA. J. (2011). People with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system: Causes consequences and correctives. The Prison Journal, 91(3S), 66S–86S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511415226
23.
McCaffertyJ. T. (2013). The predictive validity of the Ohio youth assessment system-disposition instrument: A revalidation study, doctoral dissertation. University of Cincinnati. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
24.
McCaffertyJ. T. (2018). Unjust disparities? The impact of race on juvenile risk assessment outcomes. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(5), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416634163
25.
MearsD. (2012). The front end of the juvenile court: Intake and informal versus formal processing. In BishopD. M.FeldB.C. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice (pp. 1–35). Oxford University Press.
National Research Council (2013). Reforming juvenile justice: A developmental approach. The National Academies Press.
28.
NelsonR. J.VincentG. M. (2018). Matching services to criminogenic needs following comprehensive risk assessment implementation in juvenile probation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1136–1153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818780923
29.
OlverM. E.StockdaleK. C.WormithJ. S. (2009). Risk assessment with young offenders: A meta-analysis of three assessment measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809331457
30.
Peterson-BadaliM.SkillingT.HaqaneeZ. (2015). Examining implementation of risk assessment in case management for youth in the justice system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(3), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814549595
31.
RosseggerAGerthJSeewaldKUrbaniokSinghFSinghJPEndrassJ (2013). Current obstacles in replicating risk assessment findings: A systematic review of commonly used actuarial instruments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(1), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2044
SchwalbeC. S.FraserM. W.DayS. H.CooleyV. (2006). Predictive validity, race/ethnicity, and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806286451
34.
ShookJ. J.SarriR. (2007). Structured decision-making in juvenile justice: Judges’ and probation officers’ perceptions and use. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(1), 1335–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.008
35.
SickmundM.SladkyA.KangW. (2019). Easy access to juvenile court statistics 1985-2017. National Center for Juvenile Justice. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ezajcs
36.
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 & Offenders, 4(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612581
37.
SteinhartD. (2006). A practice guide to juvenile detention reform: Juvenile detention risk assessment. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
38.
SullivanC.J. (2019). Taking juvenile justice seriously: Developmental insights and system challenges. Temple University.
ValeriLVanderweeleTJ (2013). Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: Theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychological Methods, 18(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031034
VieiraT. A.SkillingT. A.Peterson-BadaliM. (2009). Matching court-ordered services with treatment needs: Predicting treatment success with young offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 36(4), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808331249
43.
VincentGMGuyLSFuscoSLGershensonBG (2012a). Field reliability of the SAVRY with juvenile probation officers: Implications for training. Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093974
44.
VincentGMGuyLSGershensonBGMcCabeP (2012b). Does risk assessment make a difference? Results of implementing the SAVRY in juvenile probation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(4), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2014
45.
VincentGMGuyLSPerraultRTGershensonB (2016). Risk assessment matters, but only when implemented well: A multisite study in juvenile probation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000214
