Juvenile offenders assessment current opinion 2011 (1) (original) (raw)
Chapter 35 Evaluation of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System
2015
The relationship between forensic clinical psychology and the juvenile courts and juvenile justice system is a special one. Psychologists and other mental health professionals have been involved in the juvenile courts since their inception a little over 100 years ago, and some commentators have offered that forensic psychology can trace its roots to psychologists' involvement in juvenile matters (Otto & Heilbrun, 2002). In this chapter, after providing an overview of the juvenile justice system and its history, we review a number of clinical issues critical to understanding adolescents and their involvement in the juvenile justice system, and we finish with a discussion of the law and clinical factors surrounding evaluation in this context. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The juvenile court and juvenile justice system are relatively new legal institutions, having just celebrated their 100-year anniversaries a few years ago. The first juvenile court came into existence in Illinois in 1899, and other states rapidly adopted the concept thereafter (Grisso, 1998a). Indeed, the impact of the first juvenile court has even expanded beyond the borders of the United States since special courts for juveniles exist in almost all developed nations (Zimring, 2000). Prior to the establishment of juvenile courts, minors age 14 and older who were accused of criminal acts were processed through (adult) criminal court and received adult sanctions (Tanenhaus, 2000). Children between the ages of 7 and 14 were
Evaluation Process and Outcome in Juvenile Corrections: Musings on a Grim Tale
This paper is a review of some of the issues, dilemmas, and constraints in the evaluation of juvenile corrections. Included are such problems as: (1) adequate assessment criteria; (2) insufficient controls in experimental designs; (3) the conflict between humaneness and effectiveness; and (4) the measurement of program goals. A critique of six studies in juvenile correctns provides examples whose strengths and weaknesses can serve as quicklines for further refinement and elaboration of evaluation methodologies. The process components of these studies, rather than their outcomes, are emphasized. The thoroughness with which the researchers evaluated programs is summarized in a series of charts, one for each of five dimensions; (1) subject population; (2) setting; (3) treatment technology; (4) process variables; and (5) outcome measures. The authors conclude with a delineation of a plan for comparative assessment involving the classification of the functional categories of juvenile cor...
Distinguishing Between Higher and Lower Risk Youth Offenders: Applications for Practice
Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 2009
The authors report the development of an assessment process for distinguishing between higher and lower risk youth offenders through the use of 3 measures. Preliminary results and applications for practice are included. Although the overall juvenile crime rate has steadily decreased since 1994, the current serious and violent crime rate among juveniles is 60% higher than the 1980 rate for youth younger than 15 years and 41% higher for youth 15 years and older (
International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 2003
The current study investigated the reliability and validity of the Risk, Sophistication-Maturity, and Treatment Amenability Instrument, (RST-i) in a sample of 126 incarcerated adolescent males. Raters completed the RST-i, the Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (PCL-YV) and a reactive/proactive aggression form. In addition, data were gathered on treatment compliance and other relevant treatment variables. Intraclass correlation coefficients were high and convergent validity analyses yielded moderate coefficients with theoretically related constructs. Importantly, the RST-i was predictive of transfer to adult court. These results provide preliminary empirical support of the RST-i in relation to theoretically related clinical constructs and transfer decisions. Further research examining the interface of psychological and legal criteria considered in juvenile transfer cases is indicated.
Understanding and treating juvenile offenders: A review of current knowledge and future directions
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2002
Juvenile delinquency is one of our most pressing social problems, with negative emotional, physical, and economic effects felt throughout society. Considering the prevalence, stability, and detrimental impact of juvenile offending, the development of effective treatments is of utmost importance. This article provides an overview of available evidence regarding several key issues pertaining to treatment for juvenile offenders. First, the etiology, continuity, and long-term consequences of juvenile offending are reviewed. Second, factors associated with treatment outcome are discussed. Third, information regarding the most commonly used intervention strategies are provided. These strategies include family/systems, parent and social skills training, cognitive -behavioral, peer group counseling, wilderness programs, and boot camps. Finally, gaps in knowledge, research implications, and future directions are presented. D
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 2010
Background There has been a lot of research on risk factors for recidivism among juvenile offenders, in general, and on individual risk factors, but less focus on subgroups of serious juvenile offenders and prediction of recidivism within these.Objective To find an optimal classification of risk items and to test the predictive value of the resultant factors with respect to severity of recidivism among serious juvenile offenders.Method Seventy static and dynamic risk factors in 1154 juvenile offenders were registered with the Juvenile Forensic Profile. Recidivism data were collected on 728 of these offenders with a time at risk of at least 2 years. After factor analysis, independent sample t-tests were used to indicate differences between recidivists and non-recidivists. Logistic multiple linear regression analyses were used to test the potential predictive value of the factors for violent or serious recidivism.Results A nine-factor solution best accounted for the data. The factors were: antisocial behaviour during treatment, sexual problems, family problems, axis-1 psychopathology, offence characteristics, conscience and empathy, intellectual and social capacities, social network, and substance abuse. Regression analysis showed that the factors antisocial behaviour during treatment, family problems and axis-1 psychopathology were associated with seriousness of recidivism.Conclusions and implications for practice The significance of family problems and antisocial behaviour during treatments suggest that specific attention to these factors may be important in reducing recidivism. The fact that antisocial behaviour during treatment consists mainly of dynamic risk factors is hopeful as these can be influenced by treatment. Consideration of young offenders by subgroup rather than as a homogenous population is likely to yield the best information about risk of serious re-offending and the management of that risk. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Mental health assessments in juvenile justice: report on the consensus conference
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2003
At national, state, and local levels, there is increasing recognition of the importance of identifying and responding to the mental health needs of youths in the juvenile justice system, as policymakers and practitioners struggle to find ways to address causes and correlates of juvenile crime and delinquency. The proposed guidelines for mental health assessment provide explicit information about how, why, and when to obtain mental health information on justice youths at each important juncture in processing.
Assessment, 2013
This study examined the validity and reliability of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV) in a sample of Spanish adolescents with a community sanction (N = 105). Self-reported delinquency with a follow-up period of 1 year was used as the outcome measure. The predictive validity of the three measures was compared with the unstructured judgment of the juvenile's probation officer and the self-appraisal of the juvenile. The three measures showed moderate effect sizes, ranging from area under the curve (AUC) = .75 (SAVRY) to AUC = .72 (PCL:YV), in predicting juvenile reoffending. The two unstructured judgments had no significant predictive validity whereas the SAVRY had significantly higher predictive validity compared with both unstructured judgments. Finally, SAVRY protective factor total scores and SAVRY summary risk ratings did not add incremental validity over SAVRY risk total scores. The high base rates of both violent (65.4%) and general reoffending (81.9%) underline the need for further risk assessment and management research with this population.
Content, Structure, and Usefulness of Juvenile Predisposition Psychological Evaluations
Child & Youth Care Forum, 2015
Background There is a dearth of research regarding the content and structure of juvenile predisposition psychological evaluations. Limited research suggests that key mental health domains are insufficiently represented and judges use evaluator recommendations regarding legal outcomes more often than clinical outcomes. Studies have not addressed whether content and/or structure of evaluations influence the use of evaluator recommendations by juvenile probation officers (JPOs). Objective This study reviewed and rated the content and structure of juvenile predisposition psychological evaluations conducted in an East Coast state to identify evaluation characteristics that informed JPOs use of evaluation recommendations in disposition planning. Methods Juvenile predisposition psychological evaluations (N = 150) were reviewed and coded on key variables (e.g., legal history, sociocultural factors, Forensic Mental Health Assessment-FMHA principles, use of empirically-supported tools). Results Multiple content areas including family history, drug and alcohol history, education history were included in the evaluations (ranging from 48 to 100 %); however, sufficient detail for content domains ranged from 10 to 76 %. Evaluator recommendations were incorporated in disposition plans 35 % of the time, regardless of evaluation content or sufficiency, with 70 % of accepted recommendations being mental health related. Conclusions Although evaluations often included information covering multiple key content areas, there was significant variability in the amount of information provided. Inconsistent with prior research with judges, none of the variables of interest (presence and sufficiency of detail, well-justified and explained recommendations, adherence to FMHA
Treatment of juvenile offenders: Study outcomes since 1980
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 1988
Past reviews of the treatment of juvenile offenders have concluded that "nothing works." More recently, some reviewers have concluded that treatment concepts are not necessarily ineffective, but, instead, research methodology and treatment integrity have been inadequate. The present review looks at the treatment of adjudicated juvenile offenders from a computer-data-based search of the literature published from I980 to 1987. Research outcome and methodology are summarized and critiqued. The conclusions are that treatment outcomes were positive, but that serious methodological weaknesses still exist in the literature. Improvements still need to be made in sample sizes, use of appropriate and multiple measures of recidivism, random assignment andlor use of appropriate control groups, and long-term follow-up assessment.
ICPSR Data Holdings, 2000
reported the outcomes of several validation studies of the LSI-R used with a variety of adult correctional populations. They concluded that the instrument was a valid predictor of correctional adjustment and outcome for different types of correctional programs (community supervision, residential settings, and incarceration); correctional outcomes (revocation, new arrest, new incarceration); and, correctional populations (ethnicity, sex, and age). A related and more recent evaluation of the predictive efficacy of the LSI-R found that the instrument not only accurately predicted recidivism for male offenders, but also equally or better predicted recidivism for female offenders . In an examination of the utility and explanatory power of three different offender risk/need assessments, Gendreau, concluded that for the classification of adult offenders, "the LSI-R is the recommended instrument to date." This is not to say that there is unequivocal support for the LSI-R. A recent study of the validity of the LSI-R for a sample of halfway house offenders reported that the LSI-R failed to predict halfway house outcome, two-year recidivism for any crime, and two-year felony recidivism. conclude that the results should be taken as evidence of exercising caution when importing an "off the peg" instrument to a new correctional setting.
Breaking New Ground in Juvenile Justice Settings: Assessing for Competencies in Juvenile Offenders
Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 2005
S p r i n g 2 0 0 5 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l S p r i n g 2 0 0 5 • J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J o u r n a l a research base of effective practices and principles, including an understanding of criminogenic 2 risk factors and needs. Youths are affected by many individual, social, and contextual factors-such as personality traits, parents, peers, schools, and neighborhoods-and the interaction of these factors. Research has now demonstrated sets of factors highly associated with juvenile delinquency (e.g., Browning & Loeber, 1999). The juvenile justice field has made progress in using this knowledge through implementing systematic and thorough risk and needs assessment of many groups of juvenile offenders (e.g., Mackin, Seljan, Tarte, & Yovanoff, 2002; Schumacher & Kurz, 1999). However, youths and their environments are also full of skills, supports, and coping mechanisms that have helped the youths adapt and survive in oftendifficult circumstances and may have previously been overlooked or underused. The research base and practice of including systematic assessment of youths, family, and community strengths, to augment its risk and needs assessments, has not yet reached its maturity. A promising approach is a focus on strengths or competencies (
Evaluation of Juvenile Delinquency Cases
The aim of this study was to evaluate the juvenile criminal cases examined by forensic medicine department taking cognisance of the age, gender, education level, number of siblings, type of crime, characteristics of the children’s family, with whom the child lived with and thereby providing needful awareness to the population. This is a retrospective study of the data of children examined by forensic medicine with a claim of crime between June 2006 to June 2010 in Çorum, Turkey. Data were evaluated in terms of gender, age, education level, mental status, number of siblings, type of crime and the characteristics of the childrens’ family. There were 246 cases, of which 29 (12%) were female and 217 (88%) were male. 204 cases were between 14 and 15 years of age, 108 (44%) cases were 14 years old, 96 (39%) cases were 15, 38 (15%) cases were 13 years old and 4 (2%) cases were 12 years old. The criminal behavior patterns of children according to age and chi-square analysis of crime pattern...
International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 2010
The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of serious juvenile offenders on the basis of their risk profiles, using a data-driven approach. The sample consists of 1,147 of the top 5% most serious juvenile offenders in the Netherlands. A part of the sample, 728 juvenile offenders who had been released from the institution for at least 2 years, was included in analyses on recidivism and the prediction of recidivism. Six subgroups of serious juvenile offenders were identified with cluster analysis on the basis of their scores on 70 static and dynamic risk factors: Cluster 1, antisocial identity; Cluster 2, frequent offenders; Cluster 3, flat profile; Cluster 4, sexual problems and weak social identity; Cluster 5, sexual problems; and Cluster 6, problematic family background. Clusters 4 and 5 are the most serious offenders before treatment, committing mainly sex offences. However, they have significantly lower rates of recidivism than the other four groups. For each of the six clusters, a unique set of risk factors was found to predict severity of recidivism. The results suggest that intervention should aim at different risk factors for each subgroup.