Assessing the Implications of a Structured Decision‐Making Tool for Recidivism in a Statewide Analysis

• Author: Michael T. Baglivio,Mark Russell,Mark A. Greenwald
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12108
• Date: 01 February 2015
• Published date: 01 February 2015

RESEARCH ARTICLE

DISPOSITION MATRIX FOR COURT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Assessing the Implications of a Structured

Decision-Making Tool for Recidivism in a

Statewide Analysis

Disposition Matrix for Court Recommendations Made by

Juvenile Probation Officers

Michael T.Baglivio

Mark A. Greenwald

Mark Russell

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Research Summary

The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has implemented a disposition matrix

to guide recommendations made by juvenile probation officers to the court. This

study examines whether recidivism rates for dispositions/placements made within the

suggested range of this matrix differ from those outside of the suggested range. Using

a sample of 38,117 juvenile offenders, we found that the dispositions/placements

within the suggested range had an average recidivism rate of 19.4%, whereas those

whose dispositions were outside the range had an average recidivism rate twice as high

(38.7%). Furthermore, dispositions/placements that were the least restrictive option

within the suggested range performed best. Dispositions above the suggested range (more

restrictive) performed poorly, although those below the suggested range (less restrictive

than suggested) performed the worst. These results held for males and females, across

race/ethnicity, and across risk to reoffend levels.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Florida

Department of Juvenile Justice. Direct correspondence to Michael T. Baglivio, Florida Department of Juvenile

Justice, 2737 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, FL, 32399 (e-mail: Michael.Baglivio@djj.state.fl.us).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12108 C2014 American Society of Criminology 5

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 1

Research Article Disposition Matrix for Court Recommendations

Policy Implications

Implementation of structured decision-making tools leads to questions from stakehold-

ers and front-line staff charged with using those tools regarding their effectiveness.

Research and theory-based justifications do not hold the weight actual data from the

implementation population provide. These tools help control costs, facilitate planning,

and can improve outcomes. Monthly monitoring of adherence rates, development of

override and management oversight protocols, and regular feedback to front-line staff

are critical components of success.

Keywords

structured decision making, juvenile justice, graduated sanctions, recidivism

According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),

there were 1,642,600 arrests of juvenile youth during 2010 (Puzzanchera, 2013).

Most of these youth participated in some type of sanction as the result of a plea

agreement or other judicial action (Baltic, 2011). A core component of the juvenile justice

system is the notion that children are malleable and interventions should be motivated by

an overall desire to address the issues that are driving the delinquent behavior. Therefore,

matching youth with the appropriate intervention is critical to provide the best opportunity

to abate future delinquent activity.

Although the use of actuarial risk-assessment instruments is becoming more com-

monplace in juvenile justice settings, less has been done to provide practitioners with an

empirically tested set of guidelines to direct the courts’ decision-making process. In many

cases, the court may follow a set of generic sentencing guidelines to match the offense with

the sanction. In some areas, staff in the juvenile justice system will provide a report to the

court that outlines key risk and protective factors and will provide a formal sentencing

recommendation to the court. However,we are not aware of research that has systematically

evaluated the effectiveness of juvenile sentencing guidelines or structured decision practices

that feeds the aforementioned recommendation process.

We address this gap in the literature through a systemic review of the structured

decision-making process used by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Specifically,

we assess the extent to which adherence to a set of recommendation guidelines that matches

youth to the right services within the continuum provides the best outcomes in terms of

subsequent reoffending. To that end, the article is structured as follows. First, we describe

the principles of the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile

Offenders, as well as the theoretical foundations for a series of progressively graduated

sanctions. Second, we outline the structured decision-making process that has been deployed

in several jurisdictions in Florida. Third, the current study is discussed including a review

of subsequent recidivism outcomes. We close with a discussion of implications for theory,

research, and practice.

6Criminology & Public Policy

Baglivio, Greenwald, and Russell

Comprehensive Strategy and GraduatedS anctions

The Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders is a

major initiative promoted to assist with juvenile justice system resource allocation efforts

and matching youth to appropriate services (Howell, 2003, 2009, 2012; Wilsonand Howell,

1993). The Comprehensive Strategy can be considered a two-tiered approach. The first tier

calls for delinquency prevention to keep at-risk youth from entering the juvenile justice

system and stem criminal career development. The second tier requires proactive graduated

intervention with youth who have not responded to initial efforts and have penetrated into

the system, with emphasis on those at risk of becoming serious, violent, and chronic (SVC)

offenders (Howell, 2009). The Comprehensive Strategy might be summarized with the

following critical elements:

rContinuum of services from universal prevention through residential placement and

aftercare

rAppropriate resources allocated to each level of services along the continuum

rYouth matched to level of services based on assessed risk and needs

rPrevention by targeting programming to at-risk youth

rIntervention and graduated sanctions including improving the juvenile justice system

response to delinquent offenders within a continuum of treatment and service options

and systems of graduated sanctions

Graduated sanctions refer to the continuum of disposition options that juvenile court

judges have at their disposal (Juvenile Sanctions Center, 2003). “Graduated sanctions” is

a term also applied to the official responses to noncompliant behavior of offenders who

violate the conditions of their community supervision (Taxman, Soule, and Gelb, 1999).

Graduated sanctions in that context provide increasingly severe responses as rule-violating

behaviors continue (Guastaferro and Daigle, 2012; Petersilia, 1998). The receipt of federal

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant funding is contingent on states adopting

graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders (Cooley, 2011; Twenty-first Century Justice

Appropriations Act of 2002). However, as noted by Howell and Lipsey (2004), the term

“sanctions” in the instance of disposition options for judges refers only to the context of the

service delivery (e.g., community supervision and residential placement). The programs,

interventions, and services within those contexts and structures address the underlying risk

and protective factors of the youth served.

Four types of structured decision-making (SDM) tools are necessary to optimize

attempts at achieving a comprehensive strategy and improving the juvenile justice system

response in a graduated sanctions framework: (a) a valid risk assessment, (b) a needs/strength

assessment, (c) a disposition matrix, and (d) a program evaluation protocol (Howell and

Lipsey,2004). The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ) implemented statewide in

2006 the Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT), a fourth-generation

risk/needs assessment. Of note, the C-PACT is synonymous with the “PACT” risk

Volume 14 rIssue 1 7