Risk Assessment for Juvenile Violent Offending

Are children, who commit adult crimes, deserving of adult punishments? According to the United Nations, not if it harms their well-being. Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) adopted by the United Nations in November 1989, states that 1) the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration of all state actions involving children, 2) governments must allot children the protection and care necessary for their well-being, and 3) governmental institutions, services, and facilities that deal with children must uphold adequate standards for the safety, health, and supervision of children. The CRC is the U.N.’s primary treaty on the rights of children, making it a valuable point of reference for the basic human rights children are entitled to. However, one sole U.N. member state, out of 196, has not ratified the CRC: the United States. This lack of ratification is reflected in the United States’ juvenile incarceration practices. Since the 1990s, the United States’s juvenile justice system has received widespread criticism for harshly punishing juvenile offenders to deter youth crime, particularly by sentencing and incarcerating youths in the adult criminal justice system. In contrast, fellow U.N. member state Canada’s juvenile criminal justice system is largely focused on the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, and limits harsher sentencing practices. In this article, I will conduct a comparative analysis between established laws in Canada and the United States affecting juvenile sentencing and incarceration to determine whether the countries’ juvenile justice systems’ outcomes comply with Article 3 of the CRC. The analysis will show how various policy differences between the two countries impact the well-being of juvenile offenders, within the framework of CRC Article 3 compliance.

Evolving Standards of Decency: Juvenile Risk Assessment, Treatment Amenability, and the Courts

Juvenile delinquency is a long standing social and legal challenge in Pakistan, arising from a variety of socio-economic and cultural factors that shape the lives of juvenile delinquents. Although Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, which is in force in Pakistan regarding juvenile delinquencies that deal with juvenile delinquents, before that Juvenile justice system was dealt with Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000. These Laws aim to protect Juveniles by ensuring fair trails, humane treatment, rehabilitation, and banning torture and Handcuffing. Despite its enactment, it was not implemented and remained largely symbolic. The issue of age determination of Juvenile delinquents in the Juvenile Justice System continues to be a problem that has not clearly resolved up till now. It also discusses the judicial interpretations that structured the juvenile justice system in Pakistan together with its flaws and application challenges. In this article framework established for delivering Juvenile justice in Pakistan has also been compared with other countries which also emphasize rehabilitation and Judicial supervision rather than punishment. To overcome this problem application of different key criminological theories regarding juvenile delinquency are discussed in this article which gives a systematic and functional solutions, understanding the causes to juvenile delinquents. Paying intention to these criminological theories their implementation shifts from punishment to rehabilitation and prevention of Juvenile delinquents by the cooperation of community, education and family support.

The authors obtained recidivism data on a predominantly Latino/a sample of juvenile offenders within a 24‐month period following their participation in a community‐based psychoeducational counseling program emphasizing life skills development. The treatment group was compared with a sample of youth derived from the same database who had participated in community probationary programs. Youth in the treatment group had statistically significant less recidivism in a 24‐month period subsequent to completing the program than did youth in the control group.

This chapter explores the politics of engaging in a research agenda aimed at maximising the impact of criminological knowledge on policy and practice. It is based on a case study of Scottish penal developments, with specific reference to the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, a longitudinal programme of research which has had demonstrable influence on the nature and function of Scottish juvenile justice (and beyond) (Howard League 2014). The chapter builds on an article first published in the British Journal of Criminology (McAra 2016), which highlighted a major dissonance between policy discourse on youth crime in Scotland and the decision-making practices of key institutions within the juvenile and adult justice systems. In the article I concluded that, for maximum impact, criminologists needed to engage with and challenge both political and institutional practice: a multi-level approach to transformative action.

Dual system youth and their pathways in Los Angeles County: A replication of the OJJDP Dual System Youth Study

Despite an abundance of research on serious and violent juvenile offenders, few studies have linked juvenile offending career categories to juvenile court risk assessments and future offending. This study uses juvenile court referrals and assessment data to replicate earlier categorizations of serious, violent, and chronic offenders; to examine risk and protective score differences across these categories; and to assess whether risk and protective score constructs differentially predict adult criminality across these offender categories. Based on a sample of 9,859 juvenile offenders who aged out of Connecticut’s juvenile justice system between 2005 and 2009, we found that (1) our categorization of juvenile career types mirrored earlier work, (2) comparing risk and protective factors across and within juvenile career types identified distinct patterns, and (3) the juvenile risk and protective assessment subscales were not predictive of adult arrests for chronic offenders but were predictive for nonchronic juvenile career types.

Chapter 35 - Evaluation of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), created by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, has among its responsibilities the administration of a formula grant program that distributes "conditioned" federal financial assistance to states and local governments. Day-to-day administration of the formula grant program falls to OJJDP's State Relations and Assistance Division, which employs "state representatives" who in turn work with juvenile justice specialists in the states, appointed State Advisory Groups, and designated State supervisory agencies. A recently completed study undertaken by the Administrative Conference of the United States, an independent federal agency within the executive branch, examined in detail the approach used by OJJDP to administer the formula grant program. This paper, prepared by two members of the study's research team, explores 1) the extent to which and in what ways the program operates in a quasi-regulatory mode and 2) whether or not the federal grant requirements have overly restricted state flexibility in achieving the statutory mandates. The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-415) was reauthorized and amended (through Public Law 102-586) since the preparation of this article. Several changes in substantive features of the formula grant program were made. Aditionally, some of the same mechanisms previously employed by Congress to assist states in obtaining compliance were continued, while others were enlarged. In effect, however, the authors believe that the changes further demonstrate Congressional willingness to give states maximum flexibility in meeting the Act's quite specific goals.

This study examines how probation officers' (POs) knowledge of juveniles' trauma influences probation practices. The study was conducted with POs who responded to a Web-based survey (n = 308). The POs were directed to randomly select one juvenile from their caseload and to complete the Probation Practices Assessment Survey to assess their knowledge of the youth's lifetime trauma and past-year stressful life experience and their practice approaches. Nineteen percent of youths were reported as having had lifetime exposure to at least one type of trauma (for example, physical assault, sexual assault, witness violent death). The most common traumatic experience was sexual assault, with 11% of POs reporting this experience among the study youths. Structural equation modeling results indicated that POs' knowledge of cumulative exposure to trauma is associated with treatment-oriented probation and counseling approaches. Results of this study signal the importance of careful assessments of exposure to trauma and stressful life events among youths on probation. The use of specialized trauma-informed assessment strategies also are recommended to increase the sensitivity of juvenile justice programs to trauma. KEY WORDS: adolescents; juvenile justice; probation; stressful life events; trauma ********** Evidence suggests that youths who have been exposed to trauma and stressful life events are at an elevated risk of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice involvement (Ford, Chapman, Mack, & Pearson, 2006; Widom, 1989). Traumatic experiences, such as being a victim of or witness to violence, have been linked to juvenile delinquency (Maschi, 2006; Widom, 1989). Traumatic experiences often are described as extreme stressors that involve the threat of or actual serious physical or psychological harm to oneself or significant others, such as family members or close friends (Piotrkowski & Brannen, 2002). Exposure to trauma may result in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for some youths (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Arroyo, 2001). Studies have estimated up to 93% of youths in the juvenile justice system have histories of trauma, whereas upwards of 18% are diagnosed with PTSD (Abram et al., 2004; Crimmins, Cleary, Brownstein, Spunt, & Warley, 2000). Stressful life events, such as the death of a loved one and family and school problems, also have been linked to juvenile delinquency (Maschi, 2006; Thompson, Maccio, Desselle, & Zittel-Palamara, 2007). Compared with trauma, stressful life events more commonly tax the adaptive capacities of individuals and cause distress or concern in most people (Piotrkowski, 1998). In response to stressful life events, youths may manifest their distress in many ways, including psychological, emotional, and behavioral problems, including juvenile delinquency (Hoffman & Cerbone, 1999; Maschi, 2006). Youths who are exposed to traumatic or stressful experiences are at higher risk of developing adverse emotional and psychological consequences (for example, affect dysregulation and hyperarousal), which in turn interfere with problem solving and interpersonal functioning (Ford, Chapman, Hawke, & Albert, 2007; Potter & Jenson, 2007; Vermeiron, 2003). Moreover, exposure to trauma and stressful life events challenge youths' coping resources and are associated with a variety of negative developmental outcomes in addition to delinquency, including alcohol and drug abuse (Maschi, 2006; Thomberry, Ireland, & Smith, 2001; Vermeiron, 2003). The high rates of trauma exposure among youths in the juvenile justice system have led to calls for the development of trauma-informed juvenile justice interventions to improve the treatment of this high-risk population (Ford et al., 2007; Ko et al., 2008). Because a majority of youths legally considered delinquent have been sentenced to probation by a court (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), probation programs are a key point of contact for many youths who have experienced trauma or stressful life events. …

Growing public concern about the rise in violent juvenile crime is borne out by increases in the juvenile court's caseload, which rose 23% between 1989 and 1993. The number of cases involving person offenses increased by 52%. Despite the rise in person offenses, the majority of delinquency cases in juvenile court involve property offenses, and less than 10% of the caseload consists of violent offenses. Almost all juveniles commit at least one delinquent act before turning 18, but most are never arrested. This article follows those youths who are arrested on the pathway through the juvenile justice system. Of all delinquency cases referred to juvenile court, approximately one quarter are dismissed or diverted for handling outside the court process. Another quarter of the cases are handled through informal court processes, while the remaining 51% of cases are formally processed through the juvenile court. At all stages of the juvenile court process, there is an overrepresentation of black youths in relation to their representation in the population at large. In 1993, while only 15% of the juvenile population was black, black youths were involved in 28% of all arrests and 50% of all violent crime arrests. A meta-analysis of the literature on minority youths in the juvenile court found that racial and ethnic status influenced the decisions made about individual youths at every stage of the juvenile court process. Juvenile offenders with four or more arrests are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all violent crimes and half of all property crimes referred to court. The author concludes that early intervention into the lives of these youths is necessary to address the increase in juvenile crime.

The use of a juvenile court for youth crime is almost universal throughout the developed nations. However, every American jurisdiction has provided for exceptions—circumstances and procedures that transfer those within the age boundaries of juvenile court to criminal court instead. This chapter is organized as follows. The first section argues that the necessity of transfers must be understood in the context of the functions and limits of juvenile courts. The second section examines three different structural accommodations to the need for serious punishment for a few youths: wholesale transfer of jurisdiction to criminal courts; the expansion of punishment powers available within the juvenile court so that even the most terrible crimes can meet their just deserts in a juvenile court; and the selective transfer of cases. The third section contrasts three different mechanisms for transfer: legislative standards that define both the necessary and sufficient causes for transfer; a legal framework that delegates power to judges to decide whether a particular case requires transfer; and a system that delegates total power to prosecutors. The concluding section describes a few of the minimum conditions necessary to justice at the interface between juvenile and criminal court.

The determination of risk assessment is an important technique of the new penology in its search for more efficient and effective ways to handle offenders. The current study examines the validity of a risk assessment instrument and its ability to predict recidivism among a sample of 133 male and female juvenile offenders in one of Iowa's eight judicial districts. The study instrument, a risk assessment tool utilized by juvenile court officers at the dispositional stage of juvenile court case processing, was adapted from another risk assessment scale designed for use at the intake stage of juvenile court case processing. The results indicate that the study instrument is statistically valid and provides a 34.2 percent improvement over chance in the prediction of recidivism. This finding contradicts previous research that cautioned against using an instrument that was validated at one stage of juvenile court case processing at another stage. In addition, it was found that leaving the variable in the risk assessment model and making adjustments in the risk categories for females, resulted in higher mean cost rating scores than when treating females the same as males or when scoring males as if they were females. Results from a path analysis indicated that the number of re-referrals to juvenile court was predicted directly by the completion of sanctions and the length of non-recidivism, but there was no direct association found between the risk assessment score and the number of re-referrals to juvenile court. There was also no relationship found between the juvenile court ordered disposition and the number of re-referrals. The reduced models for males and females showed that there were both similarities and differences by sex in the prediction of recidivism. The primary difference by sex that was found was that the juvenile court officer's recommendations and the juvenile court ordered disposition had no association with the number of re-referrals for females, while an indirect association was found to exist or males. In other words, the intrusiveness of the disposition had some impact on male offenders in terms of re-referral, while other factors such as the completion

A significant number of youths involved in the juvenile justice system have experienced childhood maltreatment and/or grief and loss. The mental health consequences of such events may have contributed to the development of the mental health and behavioral problems that resulted in juvenile court involvement. As such, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A), the most commonly used assessment measure among forensic psychologists working with this population, should be evaluated for its utility in identifying youths whose mental health and behavioral problems may be related to such traumatic events. This study aimed to determine if adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system that experienced childhood maltreatment and/or grief and loss have demonstrated consistent differences in item-level responses on the MMPI-A compared to those who did not endorse experiencing such traumatic events. Additionally, the study sought to evaluate whether identified items could be used in a scale that alerts the clinician to the likelihood of a history of trauma exposure, specifically childhood maltreatment and/or grief and loss. Results suggest that juvenile offenders with a history of trauma exposure do respond differently on particular MMPI-A items compared to those without such a history. The results also suggest that it may be possible to develop a scale that aids in differentiating between the juvenile offenders who endorse a history of childhood maltreatment and/or grief and loss and those who deny such experiences. The potential scale developed in this study can be utilized in settings where the MMPI-A is administered with juvenile offenders to alert clinicians to the possibility of a history of trauma, specifically childhood maltreatment and/or grief and loss.

The purpose of this research is to critically analyze the issue of unclear boundaries between the two concepts and to formulate a normative foundation that can serve as the basis for reconstructing a more proportionate and just juvenile criminal justice system. Employing a normative legal research approach with prescriptive analysis, the study reviews statutory regulations, doctrines of juvenile criminal law, and systematically selected academic literature. The findings reveal that the conflation of developmental misconduct with criminal behavior contributes to excessive criminalization of children, weakens the rehabilitative orientation of juvenile justice, and generates legal uncertainty in law-enforcement practices. The discussion situates these findings within theories of child development, the principle of the best interests of the child, and modern criminal-law paradigms that position punishment as an ultimum remedium. The article argues that juvenile justice reform cannot rely solely on procedural mechanisms such as diversion and restorative justice, but must begin with a conceptual reconstruction of the boundaries of juvenile criminal responsibility. The study’s contribution lies in strengthening a normative framework that distinguishes juvenile delinquency from criminal conduct in order to promote a more proportional, humane, and child-centered juvenile justice system. This framework is expected to inform policymakers, law-enforcement authorities, and scholars in developing consistent and rights-based juvenile justice policies aligned with international child-protection standards and restorative justice principles within democratic rule-of-law systems that respond to contemporary social change and long-term child-development challenges both globally and nationally.