Transcript Gina M Vincent, PhD - National Juvenile Justice Network | NJJN

DOING IT RIGHT
Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice
April 25, 2013
GINA M VINCENT, PHD
Associate Professor, UMass Medical School
National Youth Screening & Assessment Project (NYSAP)



Leads a national movement
State-based juvenile justice coalitions
and organizations
Laws, policies and practices that are
fair, equitable and developmentally
appropriate for all children, youth and
families
Photo: Moriza
Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A
Guidebook for Implementation
Combines empirical evidence with the consensus of
experts from three panels & multiple reviewers.
Experts/Scholars on Risk Assessment
 Advisory Group (practitioners)
 Legal Stakeholders



Focuses on risk assessment at probation or probation
intake
Layout
Executive Summary
 Explanation of risk assessment concepts
 8 steps of implementation
 CD with policy and other document templates

Outline


Why is knowledge of a youth’s risk-level important
for dispositional decisions and case management?
What is a risk assessment tool?
 Why
is it better than current practice?
 What makes a tool evidence-based?


What can risk assessment do for you if it is properly
implemented?
Implementation Issues
WHY IS KNOWLEDGE OF A
YOUTH’S RISK-LEVEL
IMPORTANT?
Guiding Principles: Research Evidence
There is emerging consensus on characteristics of
effective programming for young offenders:
 Punitive
sanctions without effective services do not have a
significant effect on re-offending (Gatti et al., 2009).
 Most low-risk youth are unlikely to re-offend even if there is
no intervention (Lipsey, 2009). But mixing them with high risk
youth can make them worse.
 When services are matched to youth’s “crime-producing”
(criminogenic) needs, the lower the chance of repeat
offending.
 The goal is to have the right services for the right youth.
Results of Cost/Benefit Research:
Benefits Per Dollar Invested

For every $1.00 spent on the following services,
you save:
 Functional Family Therapy: $28.34
 Multisystemic Family Therapy: $28.81
 Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: $43.70
 Adolescent Diversion Project: $24.92
 Juvenile Boot Camps: $0.81
 Scared Straight: -$477.75 (NET LOSS)
Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) Approach to
Case Management

Risk – Match the intensity of the intervention with
one’s level of risk for re-offending
Tells us ‘Who’ to target
 Useful for level of supervision/intensity of services/
placement & disposition


Need – Target criminogenic needs (or dynamic risk
factors)
Tells us ‘What’ to target
 Provide only services for areas where youth have the
highest needs


Responsivity – Match the mode & strategies of
services with the individual
% Re-offended
Matching Services to Criminogenic Needs Can
Have a Large Impact (Vieira et al., 2009)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Risk/Need
Poor Match
Med Match
Good Match
Match based on # of Services Given in Response to a
Youth’s Criminogenic Needs
Probability of commit ting violence
Risk Changes Across Adolescence, For Most
1
Life-course persistent
or Chronic Offenders
0.8 6% - 8%
0.6
Adolescent-Limited Offenders >
60%
0.4
0.2
0
3
6
9
12
15
Age
18
21
24
27
30
Why are Objective, Validated Instruments
Better Than Current Practice?


What do we do now?
What is the accuracy?
ELEMENTS OF AN
EVIDENCE-BASED RISK
ASSESSMENT TOOL
What is a Risk Assessment Tool?


Risk = risk for serious delinquent or violent offending
A risk for reoffending or violence assessment tool is an
instrument developed to help answer the question: “Is
this youth at relatively low or relatively high risk for
reoffending or engaging in violent behavior?”
Brief risk assessment
 Comprehensive risk assessment


Some, also address “What is possibly causing the
youth to be at low or relatively high risk for
reoffending?”

Comprehensive risk assessment
What Does the Risk Level Mean?
Risk is relative
•
Low risk
–
–
–
Few risk factors, or few salient risk factors
Low intensity management/supervision sufficient
If left alone or with minimal management, would likely not
reoffend
•
High risk
•
Many risk factors, or some critical risk factors
– High intensity management/supervision necessary
– If left alone or with minimal management, would likely
reoffend
Moderate risk: neither high nor low risk
–
Example Actuarial Tool
42 Risk Items
8 Domains
- Family
- Attitude/orientation
+ Strengths
Items rated present/
absent using interview
+ all available info
Example Structured Professional Judgment
Tool
24 Risk Items
- 10 Static
- 14 Dynamic
+ 6 Protective
Items
Items rated a on
3-pt scale using
interview + all
available info
Definition of Terms: Risk Factor

Risk factor: anything that increases the probability
that a person will re-offend:
1. Static Risk Factors – do not change

Examples:
 Early
Onset of violent behavior
 Early Onset of arrests
 Number of past delinquent acts
 Onset of Substance Use
Risk Factors
2. Dynamic Risk Factors – changeable, targets for
services and intervention (criminogenic needs)
“Personality”/Attitude
 Traits
– Lacks Remorse, Lacks Empathy, CD/ODD
 Attention Deficit
 Impulsivity/Risk-Taking
 Antisocial Attitudes
Family Factors
 Inconsistent
discipline
 Low parental involvement/supervision
Dynamic Risk Factors
Substance Use/Abuse

If it has a direct effect on their delinquent activity and is
outside of the norm for adolescence
Poor School/Work Achievement
Antisocial Peers
Needs that are NOT Criminogenic do NOT belong in risk
assessment tools (at least not for calculating a risk
score) :
Some mental health variables
 Self-mutilation
 Learning Disability

Protective Factors or Strengths

Decreases the potential harmful effect of a risk
factor (a ‘buffer’)
 Pro-social
activities/sports
 Positive social support
 Excelling at school
Elements of a Comprehensive Risk Assessment.
Most Appropriate for ‘Deep End’ Use
Evidence-Based
Assessment
Static Risk Factors
Enables
reassessment
of risk level to
measure
change
Dynamic Risk
Factors
(criminogenic needs)
≠
Well-Being or NonCriminogenic Needs
Protective or
Responsivity Factors
How to Pick an Evidence-Based Risk
Assessment Tool – 5 elements (Vincent et al., 2009)





Purports to assess “risk” for re-offending
Has a test manual
Was developed for, or validated on, juvenile justice
youth in the right setting (gender, race, etc)
Demonstrates reliability - two independent raters
would reach similar conclusions
Demonstrates a strong relation to re-offending
(research refers to this as predictive validity)
RISK ASSESSMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
Eight Steps of Implementation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Getting ready
Establishing stakeholder and staff buy-in
Select the tool and prepare to use it
Developing policies and other essential documents
Training
Pilot test implementation
Full implementation
Tasks to promote sustainability
Case examples
Point in the Process for Using Risk
Assessment: Pre-Adjudication
Divert?
Substance
Abuse
Treatment
Formally
Process
Peer
Relations
Disposition
Reduce Re-Arrest?
Risk
Assessment
Family
Service
Point in the Process for Using Risk Assessment:
Post-Adjudication/Pre-Disposition
Risk
Assessment
Group
Home
Secure
Substance
Abuse
treatment
Mental
Health
Life Skills
Reduce Re-Arrest?
Probation
Family
Service
What Else Should Be In Place for An
Effective Risk Assessment ‘System’?

Policies about…
 Use
of the risk assessment tool
 Requirements
for staff training
 Administration (when, by whom, to whom)
 How the information will be communicated (to courts,
treatment providers, etc.) & appropriate information-sharing
agreements
 Quality assurance procedures (by supervisors, via data
reports)
What Else Should Be in Place? cont.

Policies and documents structuring and
‘standardizing’ how the information will be used in
decisions….
 Disposition
 Case
recommendations
plan
 Service referrals (application of a Service Matrix)
 Supervision level
Service Matrix Example (partial)
YLS Risk/Need Area
Substance
Abuse
Family
Circumstances/
Parenting
Education/
Employment
Low risk
Fill in services
Fill in services
Fill in services
Moderate
Fill in services
Fill in services
Fill in services
High risk
Fill in services
Fill in services
Fill in services
WHAT CAN RISK ASSESSMENT
IF IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY DO
FOR YOU?
Results of the MacArthur Risk Assessment Study:
Reducing Use of Out-of-Home Placements
(Vincent et al., 2012)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pre-SAVRY
Post-SAVRY
OR = 0.56
Any placement during
study
OR = 0.37
Placed immediately
after disposition
Improved Allocation of Services (Vincent et al.,
2012)
5
Low Risk
Moderate
High Risk
Mean # Services
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
p = .01
p = .04
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Services Referred
Services Completed
% At Supervision Level
Reducing Use of Maximum Levels of
Supervision on Probation (Vincent et al., 2012)
100%
90%
80%
70%
Minimum
Moderate
Maximum
Intensive
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pre-SAVRY
Post-SAVRY
In Some Cases, Reduce Recidivism
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Pre-YLS
Post-YLS
OR = .48
Non-Violent
OR = .47
OR = .42
Violent
Violations
New Petitions – 18 month follow-up (N = 442)
What Risk Assessments Do NOT Do



NOT prescriptive
These types of general risk assessments are NOT
appropriate for identifying risk for sexual offending
NOT mental health assessments
 They
also do not identify potential mental health
problems in need of an assessment

Typically do NOT include items that are unrelated to
future offending, like “well-being needs” (e.g., special
education, depression, trauma)
Summary: Benefits of Risk Assessment


Helps states to conserve resources
Can help improve outcomes for young offenders…..
 Improved

offending
 Better use of placement and monitoring = improved
functioning and cost-savings
Provides a means for data tracking to evaluate….



chance of reducing risk = reduction in re-
Changes in youths’ risk (if using a dynamic assessment)
Services and decisions pertaining to out-of-home placement
Caveat: The benefits are unlikely to be attained without
appropriate implementation
Questions?


NYSAP website: http://www.nysap.us - for
downloading the manual
[email protected]
www.njjn.org