Module 2: Screening and Assessment

3B. Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment

In the juvenile justice system, risk assessment typically refers to the process of estimating the likelihood a youth will continue criminal behavior. Assessment provides juvenile justice staff information for making decisions about the appropriate level of security or supervision required. Decisions based on risk assessment can occur throughout the juvenile justice system: arrest, intake, detention, prosecution, disposition, and placement (OJJDP, 1995). Structured risk assessment instruments can be used to develop recommendations for court disposition, or more formal procedures may be in place in which a certain risk score requires a specific response from the court.

Decisions Based on Assessments

When youth come into contact with the juvenile justice system, staff often rely on risk assessment information to decide whether to release the youth to their family, place them on probation, or place them in detention. Whereas the mental health and substance abuse systems may emphasize youth’s risk to themselves, the juvenile justice system emphasizes the youth’s risk of danger to the community, as well as the likelihood of the youth appearing for a court hearing.

Judges typically consider offender risk when determining whether a youth should be committed to a juvenile correctional agency or placed on probation. Upon commitment of youth to a correctional agency, staff should assess risk as well as needs to determine the level of placement (secure/nonsecure) and level or type of services. Staff must assess the likelihood that a youth will escape, harm him/herself, assault a staff member, or be victimized. When making decisions about transitioning youth back into the community, many secure facilities use risk assessment instruments to determine which youth are least likely to return to criminal behavior and are eligible for a group home or a less restrictive placement. Provision of community supervision also relies heavily on risk assessment. Parole and probation resources are limited so it is important to identify the youth who pose the greatest risk to the community and allocate the resources accordingly.

Decision-Making Procedures

Historically, risk assessment and classification have been informal, highly discretionary procedures performed by staff with varying philosophies, different levels of experience, and different criteria for making decisions. More recently, juvenile justice systems have adopted more formal procedures for decision making, including using standardized risk assessment instruments and structured classification systems. This provides greater objectivity, consistency, and structure to the assessment and decision-making process. It also helps the system allocate resources more efficiently, with the most serious and chronic offenders receiving the most intensive and intrusive interventions.

The Washington State Juvenile Court Risk Assessment is an example of a common type of risk assessment tool. Risk assessment instruments typically identify a limited number of factors that have been found to be related to recidivism (e.g., age of first adjudication, number of prior arrests, drug use). Predetermined decision rules are typically used to classify offenders based on a total risk score (e.g., youth with scores of 22 or more are placed in a maximum security facility).

Youth with co-occurring disorders often receive high scores on risk assessment instruments because of their histories of substance abuse, poor school behavior, out-of-home placements, troubled family relations, and prior mental health treatment. Even if their criminal history or current criminal behavior is not severe, these youth may receive high scores because of the other difficulties in their lives that are related to delinquent behavior.

Youth with co-occurring disorders may remain in a more restrictive setting or receive a higher level of supervision due to risk factors other than their criminal behavior. Providing the appropriate treatment for these issues (e.g., substance abuse, mental health, school, family relations, housing stability) helps the youth to be more effective and successful and can result in less restrictive sanctions from the juvenile justice system.

Overrides in Risk Assessment Many risk assessment instruments have specific actions if a youth scores above or below a particular threshold. Most agencies allow specified staff to override an action in individual cases. Youth with co-occurring disorders may receive an override if a probation officer or the detention staff thinks, based on other factors, that the risk assessment score overestimates or underestimates the level of juvenile justice supervision that is necessary. Linking youth with co-occurring disorders to treatment services may be the priority versus a more intensive level of supervision. Some advantages of overrides in risk assessment are that they:

• Take into account individual factors not captured on the risk assessment tool
• Allow staff input to be included in the decision-making process

However, it is recommended that no more than 15 percent of decisions should be the result of overrides (OJJDP, 1995). Otherwise, the system runs the risk of the process becoming subjective and inconsistent. Too many decisions may be based on various staff members' differing philosophies and/or level of experience.