Gina M Vincent, PhD A ssociate P rofessor, UMass Medical School National Youth Screening & Assessment Project (NYSA

1. DOING IT RIGHT Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice April 25, 2013 Gina M Vincent, PhDAssociate Professor, UMass Medical SchoolNational Youth Screening & Assessment Project (NYSAP)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Why Is knowledge of a youth’s risk-level Important?

6. 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.

7. 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)

8. 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 Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) Approach to CaseManagement

9. Matching Services to Criminogenic Needs Can Have a Large Impact (Vieira et al., 2009) % Re-offended Match based on # of Services Given in Response to a Youth’s Criminogenic Needs

10. Risk Changes Across Adolescence, For Most

11. Why are Objective, Validated Instruments Better Than Current Practice? • What do we do now? • What is the accuracy?

12. Elements of an Evidence-based risk assessment tool

13. What is a Risk Assessment Tool? • Risk = risk for serious delinquent or violent offending • A risk for reoffending or violence assessmenttool 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

14. 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

15. Example Actuarial Tool 42 Risk Items 8 Domains - Family - Attitude/orientation + Strengths Items rated present/ absent using interview + all available info

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. Elements of a Comprehensive Risk Assessment. Most Appropriate for ‘Deep End’ Use ≠ Enables reassessment of risk level to measure change

22. 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)

23. Risk assessment implementation

24. Eight Steps of Implementation • 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

25. Point in the Process for Using Risk Assessment: Pre-Adjudication Family Service Divert? Risk Assessment Substance Abuse Treatment Reduce Re-Arrest? Formally Process Peer Relations Disposition

26. Point in the Process for Using Risk Assessment: Post-Adjudication/Pre-Disposition Family Service Probation Substance Abuse treatment Risk Assessment Group Home Reduce Re-Arrest? Mental Health Secure Life Skills

27. 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)

28. 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

29. Service Matrix Example (partial) YLSRisk/Need Area

30. What can Risk assessment if implemented properly do for you?

31. Results of the MacArthur Risk Assessment Study: Reducing Use of Out-of-Home Placements (Vincent et al., 2012) OR = 0.56 OR = 0.37

32. Improved Allocation of Services (Vincent et al., 2012) p = .04 p = .01 Mean # Services

33. Reducing Use of Maximum Levels of Supervision on Probation(Vincent et al., 2012) % At Supervision Level

34. In Some Cases, Reduce Recidivism OR = .48 OR = .47 OR = .42 New Petitions – 18 month follow-up (N = 442)

35. 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)

36. 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

37. Questions? • NYSAP website: http://www.nysap.us - for downloading the manual • Gina.Vincent@umassmed.edu www.njjn.org