Accountability in Juvenile Justice

• Author: Sharon Casey,Andrew Day
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Date: 01 October 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15586767
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2016, Vol. 60(14) 1645 –1668

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15586767

ijo.sagepub.com

Article

Accountability in Juvenile

Justice: A Framework to

Assess Client Outcomes

Sharon Casey1 and Andrew Day1

Abstract

This article describes the development of an assessment protocol for use with

juvenile justice clients that can be used to assess needs in a manner that not only

informs the development of case plans but also allows for the assessment of change

over the course of a service contact. The youth justice assessment tool supports

case needs identification and analysis as well as screening for mental health concerns,

risk of harm to self or others, and risk of reoffending. Initial validation of the case

needs component has been undertaken and although further validation is required,

preliminary data reported in this article suggest that this type of approach to client

assessment does hold some promise.

Keywords

youth justice, outcomes, assessment, measurement, client needs

Recent years have seen a number of calls for greater accountability in youth justice by

way of performance measurement and monitoring (e.g., Harp, Bell, Bazemore, &

Thomas, 2006; Mears & Butts, 2008; Myers, 2012; Thomas, 2006, 2008). The primary

performance indicator has traditionally been recidivism (Harris, Lockwood, Mengers,

& Stoodley, 2011), which has also been the outcome variable in credible scientific

studies that have documented the effectiveness of a range of youth justice interven-

tions (see Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey et al., 2010; Schwalbe, Gearing, MacKenzie, Brewer,

& Ibrahim, 2012). However, although reduction of reoffending is the principal goal of

most juvenile justice services, this is nonetheless problematic when it is the only crite-

rion by which service effectiveness is assessed (see Stephenson, Giller, & Brown,

1Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Sharon Casey, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia.

Email: sharon.casey@deakin.edu.au

586767IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15586767International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyCasey and Day

research-article2015

1646 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60(14)

2007; Tresidder, Payne, & Homel, 2009). As Thomas (2006) has noted, a recidivism

statistic neither explains why a young person has committed an offense nor provides

insight into what might prevent a new offense in the future.

The use of recidivism as the only measure of success increases the possibility that

other important changes will be overlooked. Few investigations have, however, exam-

ined the ways in which individual clients change over the course of a youth justice

order.1 The need for such information was highlighted by the U.K. National Audit

Office (2010), which pointed out that information is frequently lacking about the out-

comes of specific youth justice activities. They noted that it was difficult to assess the

extent to which the services provided were achieving their goals in a context where

casework rather than structured program delivery (of the type considered in meta-

analyses and program evaluation) forms the basis of most activity. If accountability is

to exist within a system that also strives to ensure that its policies, programs, and

practices are evidence-based, it is necessary to measure not only reductions in reoff-

ending but also the outcomes from all practices that are put in place to achieve this

goal. In this article, we report on an assessment protocol developed by a youth justice

service with a view to ensuring accountability in service provision. Given these drivers

for the study are relevant to juvenile justice services across the western world, it is our

view that the study should be of particular interest to readers of the journal from the

United Kingdom, United States, and Australia.

The youth justice assessment tool (YJAT) is a multipurpose, integrated, and coor-

dinated assessment protocol that comprises three distinct elements—mental health

screening, risk classification, and case needs identification. Mental health screening

assists in the identification of those who are in need of referral to a mental health

specialist early in their contact with the criminal justice system while risk classifica-

tion is used to assess the individual’s risk of recidivism and determine the level and

type of intervention that should be provided. The case needs identification compo-

nent of the YJAT aims to measure change over time in those domains identified by

the service as key to achieving its goals. This article describes how the YJAT was

developed and reports on an initial validation of the case needs element of this

assessment protocol.

Background

Youth justice services typically aim to achieve multiple outcomes for their clients.

In addition to those related to justice, such as improving community safety by

reducing recidivism and ensuring compliance with orders, they also seek to pro-

vide programs and services that address a broad range of social and emotional

needs and aim to facilitate a positive transition into adulthood (see Hawkins,

Letcher, Sanson, Smart, & Toumbourou, 2009). In the Australian state of Victoria,

Youth Justice (i.e., the statutory body involved in the supervision of young people

within the criminal justice) aims to not only provide targeted interventions that

manage the risk of reoffense in those young people considered serious and/or per-

sistent offenders but also provide a range of interventions designed to promote