Considering Race and Gender in the Validity of Juvenile Justice Risk

• Published date: 01 August 2018
• Author: Michael Baglivio
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12385
• Date: 01 August 2018

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

RISK ASSESSMENT AND JUVENILE

JUSTICE

Considering Race and Gender in the Validity

of Juvenile Justice Risk

Assessment Research

Michael Baglivio

TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, LLC

We have witnessed the proliferation of the use of actuarial risk assessments by

juvenile justice agencies during the last few decades. The dominant paradigm

guiding the use of such instruments has been the risk–need–responsivity

(RNR) model, dictating the synthesis of validated risk assessment (risk), targeting dynamic

risk factors predictive of offending (criminogenic needs), and using interventions and

strategies proven effective but individualized in their delivery (responsivity; Andrews and

Bonta, 2010). The purpose of the tools, from a juvenile justice policy perspective, is

to use the risk classification (i.e., lower or higher risk to reoffend) to guide disposition

and placement decisions (diversion, probation, residential placement, etc.), while services

within those restrictiveness levels (such as anger management, substance abuse treatment,

etc.) should be based on the individual juvenile’s top-ranked criminogenic needs (Baglivio,

Greenwald, and Russell, 2014). As such, it becomes critical to understand whether the

predictive ability of a given risk assessment is equal across all subpopulations on which

the tool is employed. There would be dramatic inequalities if, for example, tools worked

significantly better for White youth than for Black or Hispanic youth, or situated females

in higher risk classifications, and therefore more restrictive placements such as residential

facilities, despite lower actual reoffending rates. It this interaction between risk classification,

race, and gender on recidivism that is examined by Christina Campbell, Jordan Papp,Ashlee

Barnes, Eyitayo Onifade, and Valerie Anderson (2018, this issue).

Specifically,by employing a sample of 670 juvenile probationers, Campbell et al. (2018)

examine this risk, race, and gender interaction, using the overall risk score from the Youth

Direct correspondence to Michael Baglivio, TrueCore Behavioral Solutions, 6302 Benjamin Road, Suite 400,

Tampa, FL 33634 (e-mail: michael.baglivio@truecorebehavioral.com).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12385 C2018 American Society of Criminology 519

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 3