What's risk got to do with it: Judges' and probation officers' understanding and use of juvenile risk assessments in making residential placement decisions.

OBJECTIVE: This hypothetical vignette-based experiment was designed to better understand judges' and probation officers' interpretations and use of juvenile risk assessment tools in their decision-making around restrictive sanctions and confinement of youths on the basis of the youths' risk level and race. HYPOTHESES: We expected that estimates of the probability of juvenile recidivism would significantly mediate the relationship between a categorical risk descriptor and decisions regarding the ordering confinement of youths. We also hypothesized that youths' race would serve as a significant moderator in the model. METHOD: Judicial and probation staff (N = 309) read a two-part vignette about a youth who was arrested for the first time; in this vignette, race (Black, White) and risk level (low, moderate, high, very high) of the youth were varied. Participants were asked to estimate the likelihood that the youth would recidivate in the following year and their likelihood of ordering or recommending residential placement. RESULTS: Although we found no simple, significant relationship between risk level and confinement decisions, judicial and probation staff estimated higher likelihoods of recidivism as risk-level categories increased and ordered out-of-home placements at increased rates as their estimations of the youth's likelihood of recidivation increased. The youth's race did not moderate the model. CONCLUSION: The greater the probability of recidivism, the more likely each judge or probation officer was to order or recommend out-of-home placement. However, importantly, legal decisionmakers appeared to apply categorical risk assessment data to their confinement decisions using their own interpretations of risk category rather than being guided empirically on the basis of risk-level categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Applying the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' Resolution to Juvenile Probation Reform.

In 2017, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed a resolution advocating for empirically supported juvenile probation reform nationwide. Here, we review the adolescent development and behavioral decision-making research underlying the principles enumerated in the NCJFCJ resolution and describe several of its critical elements. Then, to provide guidance to jurisdictions seeking to revise local policy and practice, we suggest a series of steps that would help juvenile justice professionals translate NCJFCJ resolution principles into innovative probation reform. Finally, we describe how two jurisdictions-Pierce County, Washington and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania-have engaged in ongoing juvenile probation reform efforts to provide real-world models of how this translational work can be carried out successfully.

Health issues for adolescents in the justice system.

Three major health issues for adolescents in the justice system are discussed: the lack of mental health resources and services for youth in the system, increased prosecution of juveniles as adults (and consequent incarceration of youth in adult jails and prisons), and the epidemic of gun violence in this country. For each issue, the paper describes the scope of the problem, analyzes the components of the problem, and makes recommendations for future research and reform efforts. The analysis and recommendations are based on criminal justice, legal, service integration, and public health research.