Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Assessment for Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Risk assessment instruments are increasingly employed by juvenile justice settings to estimate the likelihood of recidivism among delinquent juveniles. In concert with their increased use, validation studies documenting their predictive validity have increased in number. The purpose of this study was to assess the average predictive validity of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments and to identify risk assessment characteristics that are associated with higher predictive validity. A search of the published and grey literature yielded 28 studies that estimated the predictive validity of 28 risk assessment instruments. Findings of the meta-analysis were consistent with effect sizes obtained in larger meta-analyses of criminal justice risk assessment instruments and showed that brief risk assessment instruments had smaller effect sizes than other types of instruments. However, this finding is tentative owing to limitations of the literature.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Results include the parent version (n = 9) and the Australian Adaptation (n = 2).

References

  • *Ashford, J. B., & LeCroy, C. W. (1988). Predicting recidivism: An evaluatin of the Wisconsin Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Risk Instrument. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Ashford, J. B., & LeCroy, C. W. (1990). Juvenile recidivism: A comparison of three prediction instruments. Adolescence, 25, 441–450.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Baker, K., Jones, S., Roberts, C., & Merrington, S. (2003). The evaluation of the validity and reliability of the Youth Justice Board’s assessment for young offenders: Findings from the first two years of ASSET. Oxford: Centre for Criminological Research, University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbaree, H. E., Seto, M. C., Langton, C. M., & Peacock, E. J. (2001). Evaluating the predictive accuracy of six risk assessment instruments for adult sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 490–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J. (1996). Risk-needs: Assessment and treatment. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 18–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, E. W. (Ed.). (1928). Factors determining success or failure on parole. Springfield: Illinois State Board of Parole.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Catchpole, R. E. H., & Gretton, H. M. (2003). The predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 688–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Corrado, R. R., Vincent, G. M., Hart, S. D., & Cohen, I. M. (2004). Predictive validity of the psychopathy checklist: Youth version for general and violent recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22, 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical vs. actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd edn.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downie, N. M., & Heath, R. W. (1983). Basic statistical methods (5th edn.). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. L. (2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice: An organizational perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 472–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Flores, A. W., Travis, L. F., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Case classification for juvenile corrections: An assessment of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), final report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, M. W. (Ed.). (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (2nd edn.). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Smith, P. (2002). Is the PCL-R really the “unparralleled” measure of offender risk?: A lesson in knowledge cumulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 397–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works. Criminology, 34, 557–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Gretton, H. M., McBride, M., O’Shaughnessy, R., & Kumka, G. (2001). Psychopathy and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 427–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, P., & Bozynski, M. (2003). National overviews: State juvenile justice profiles. Retrieved November 5, 2003, from http://www.ncjj.org/stateprofiles/

  • Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. M., & Brannick, M. T. (2002). Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 377–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, K., & Kim, C. (2000). Psychometric study of the child and adolescent functional assessment scale: Prediction of contact with the law and poor school attendence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 287–297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, K., & Wong, M. M. (1996). Psychometric characteristics of a multidimensional measure to assess impairment: The child and adolescent functional assessment scale. Journal of child and Family Studies, 5, 445–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoge, R. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 380–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2001). The youth level of service /case management inventory (YLS /CMI): Intake manual and item scoring key. Carleton University.

  • Howell, J. C. (1995). Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing & reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sanchez-Meca, J., Marin-Martinez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I-2 index? Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Research, 8, 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis (2nd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ilacqua, G. E., Coulson, G. E., Lombardo, D., & Nutbrown, V. (1999). Predictive validity of the Young Offender Level of Service Inventory for criminal recidivism of male and female young offenders. Psychological Reports, 84, 1214–1218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Johnson, K., Wagner, D., & Matthews, T. (2002). Missouri juvenile risk assessment re-validation report. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. R., Harris, P. W., Fader, J., & Grubstein, L. (2001). Identifying chronic juvenile offenders. Justice Quarterly, 18, 479–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Jung, S., & Rawana, E. P. (1999). Risk and need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Krysik, J., & LeCroy, C. W. (2002). The empirical validation of an instrument to predict risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • *LeCroy, C. W., Krysik, J., & Palumbo, D. (1998). Empirical validation of the Arizona risk/needs instrument and assessment process. Tucson, AZ: LeCroy & Milligan Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *NCCD. (2000). Alameda County placement risk assessment validation: Draft of final report. Oakland, CA: Self.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Quist, R. M., & Matshuzi, D. G. M. (2000). The child and adolescent functional assessment scale (CAFAS): A dynamic predictor of juvenile recidivism. Adolescence, 35, 181–192.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737–748.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Comoparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Risler, E. A., Sutphen, R., & Shields, J. (2000). Preliminary validation of the juvenile first offender risk assessment index. Research on Social Work Practice, 10, 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (2nd edn.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Schmidt, F., Hoge, R. D., & Gomez, L. (2005). Reliability and validity analyses of the youth level of service/case management inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 329–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schwalbe, C. S., Fraser, M. W., & Day, S. H. (in-press). Predictive validity of the Joint Risk Matrix with juvenile offenders: A focus on gender and race/ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior.

  • *Schwalbe, C. S., Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., & Arnold, E. M. (2004). North Carolina Assessment of Risk (NCAR): Reliability and Predictive Validity with Juvenile Offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Schwalbe, C. S., Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., & Cooley, V. (2006). Classifying juvenile offenders according to risk of recidivism: Predictive validity, race/ethnicity, and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 305–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Sharkey, J. D., Furlong, M. J., Jimerson, S. R., & O’Brien, K. M. (2003). Evaluating the utility of a risk assessment to predict recidivism among male and female adolescents. Education and Treatment of Children, 26, 467–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Smith, W. R., & Aloisi, M. F. (1999). Prediction of recidivism among “second timers” in the juvenile justice system: Efficiency in screening chronic offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swets, J. A. (1996). Signal detection theory and ROC analysis in psychology and diagnostics: Collected papers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Thompson, A. P., & Pope, Z. (2005). Assessing juvenile offenders: Preliminary data for the Australian adaptation of the youth level of service/case management inventory (Hoge & Andrews, 1995). Australian Psychologist, 40, 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towberman, D. B. (1992). A national survey of juvenile risk assessment. Family & Juvenile Court Journal, 43, 61–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Turner, S., & Fain, T. (2003). Validation of the Los Angeles County Probation Department’s risk and needs assessment instruments. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Upperton, R. A., & Thompson, A. P. (2005). Predicting recidivism: A risk assessment inventory vs juvenile justice officers. Paper presented at the Australian Psychological Society, Melbourne.

  • *Wagner, D., Wiebush, R., & Lunning, S. (2000). Validation of the Indiana DOC juvenile division risk assessment instrument. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (2003). Predicting criminal justice outcomes with the Psychopathy Checklist and Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form: A meta-analytic comparison. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wiebush, R., Wagner, D., & Ehrlich, J. (1999). Development of an empirically-based risk assessment instrument: For the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice final report. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University, School of Social Work, 1255 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Craig S. Schwalbe

Authors
  1. Craig S. Schwalbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig S. Schwalbe.

Additional information

*Article included in the meta-analysis.

About this article

Cite this article

Schwalbe, C.S. Risk Assessment for Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis. Law Hum Behav 31, 449–462 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9071-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9071-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation