gina m vincent, phd associate professor, umass medical school national youth screening &...
TRANSCRIPT
GINA M VINCENT, PHDAssociate Professor, UMass Medical SchoolNational Youth Screening & Assessment Project (NYSAP)
Risk Assessment in Juvenile JusticeDOING IT RIGHTApril 25, 2013
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
Matching Services to Criminogenic Needs Can Have a Large Impact (Vieira et al., 2009)
0102030405060708090
100
Poor Match Med Match Good Match
Risk/Need
Match based on # of Services Given in Response to a Youth’s Criminogenic Needs
% R
e-o
ffen
ded
Risk Changes Across Adolescence, For Most
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30Age
Adolescent-Limited Offenders > 60%
Life-course persistent or Chronic Offenders6% - 8%
Pro
babi
lity
of c
omm
it tin
g vi
olen
ce
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 PeersNeeds 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 FactorsDynamic Risk
Factors (criminogenic needs)
Protective or Responsivity Factors
Well-Being or Non-Criminogenic Needs
≠Enables reassessment of risk level to measure change
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 Implementation1. Getting ready2. Establishing stakeholder and staff buy-
in3. Select the tool and prepare to use it4. Developing policies and other essential
documents5. Training6. Pilot test implementation7. Full implementation8. Tasks to promote sustainability Case examples
Point in the Process for Using Risk Assessment: Pre-Adjudication
Divert?
Formally Process
Risk Assessment
Family Service
Substance Abuse
Treatment
Peer Relations
Disposition
Redu
ce R
e-A
rrest
?
Point in the Process for Using Risk Assessment: Post-Adjudication/Pre-Disposition
Probation
Group Home
Secure
Risk Assessment
Family Service
Substance Abuse
treatment
Mental Health
Life Skills
Redu
ce R
e-A
rrest
?
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 recommendations Case plan Service referrals (application of a Service
Matrix) Supervision level
Service Matrix Example (partial)
Substance
Abuse
Family Circumstance
s/Parenting
Education/Employme
nt
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
YLS Risk/Need Area
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)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%Pre-SAVRY
Post-SAVRY
OR = 0.56 OR = 0.37
Improved Allocation of Services (Vincent et al., 2012)
Services Referred Services Completed 0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Risk
Mea
n #
Ser
vice
s
p = .01 p = .04
Reducing Use of Maximum Levels of Supervision on Probation (Vincent et al., 2012)
Pre-SAVRY Post-SAVRY0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
MinimumModerateMaximumIntensive
% A
t Sup
ervi
sion
Lev
el
In Some Cases, Reduce Recidivism
Non-Violent Violent Violations0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Pre-YLS
Post-YLS
OR = .47OR = .48 OR = .42
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 chance of reducing risk = reduction in
re-offending Better use of placement and monitoring =
improved functioning and cost-savings Provides a means for data tracking to evaluate….
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
www.njjn.org