Divergence from Juvenile Risk and Needs Assessment Results: Prevalence, Nature, and Impact of Override Decisions

• In Event: Contemporary Questions in Juvenile Risk and Needs Assessment: Results from a Multi-Site Study

Abstract

The relative usefulness of clinical and statistical judgment has been a point of both theoretical and practical concern in discussions of risk and needs assessment in justice systems. Most risk and needs assessment protocols have safety valves allowing for case-level departures from the statistically-guided conclusions of those tools. The nature and potential impact of these divergences requires greater attention as they have implications for the outcomes of specific cases as well as for the broader performance of risk and needs assessment tools. This study utilizes juvenile case record data and personnel interviews and surveys from a study of risk and needs assessment implementation and outcomes to investigate the prevalence and nature of these departures. We use both quantitative data and qualitative case-level comments from the assessors in this process. We then look at outcomes for relevant subsamples of cases in order to determine the impact and efficacy of these “override” decisions. We also integrate responses from juvenile justice personnel in order to better understand their views of these decisions. Together, these lines of research will offer insight about the relative utility and possible integration of structured assessments and clinical information.

Authors

• Bryan Holmes, University of Cincinnati

• Catherine Strange, University of Cincinnati

• Christopher Sullivan, University of Cincinnati