Criminogenic Risk Score Trajectories of Justice-Involved Youth: An Investigation Across Race/Ethnicity

• Author: Mary K. Kitzmiller,Jennifer K. Paruk,Caitlin Cavanagh
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221098985
• Published date: 01 September 2022
• Date: 01 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 9, September 2022, 1342 –1358.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221098985

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1342

CRIMINOGENIC RISK SCORE TRAJECTORIES

OF JUSTICE-INVOLVED YOUTH

An Investigation Across Race/Ethnicity

MARY K. KITZMILLER

JENNIFER K. PARUK

CAITLIN CAVANAGH

Michigan State University

Juvenile risk assessments are standardized rating tools used by court practitioners to measure criminogenic risk in justice-

involved youth. To capture individual fluctuation in risk level over time, juvenile risk assessments are often readministered

throughout court supervision. The purpose of this study is to clarify the average criminogenic risk score trajectory among

justice-involved youth, both in aggregate and by race/ethnicity. Analyses draw upon a sample of 611 justice-involved youths

who received two or more risk assessment scores and were under court supervision for at least 1 year. Using multilevel

modeling, findings indicate that risk scores decrease over the first 19 months of court supervision before rebounding in

increasingly larger increments. Furthermore, risk scores of White youth appear to be most amenable to reduction over time,

while scores of Black youth remain stagnant. Results have implications toward understanding the gains and losses in risk

score reduction observed in youth under prolonged court supervision.

Keywords: juvenile delinquency; risk assessment; dynamic risk; race; juvenile offenders

Juvenile risk assessments have become an increasingly common method of risk evalua-

tion in courts across the United States. Juvenile risk assessments are standardized rating

tools, which measure criminogenic risk in minors based upon empirical risk factors. Juvenile

risk assessments display evidence-based advantages over the unstructured judgment of jus-

tice officials: (a) They are more accurate in distinguishing youth who will reoffend from

their peers (Bonta & Andrews, 2007; Oleson et al., 2011); (b) they ensure that justice-

involved youth are evaluated consistently (St. John et al., 2020); and (c) they facilitate

effective case planning by identifying individual areas of need (Vincent et al., 2012). Courts

utilizing juvenile risk assessments witness lower rates of recidivism and higher rates of

treatment compliance compared with those that rely upon unstructured decision-making

(Schwalbe, 2007; Vincent et al., 2012).

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mary K. Kitzmiller,

Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Road, East Lansing, MI 48824; e-mail:

kitzmil1@msu.edu.

1098985CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221098985Criminal Justice and BehaviorKitzmiller et al. /

research-article2022

Kitzmiller et al. / YOUTH RISK SCORE TRAJECTORIES 1343

Despite these successes, premising judicial decisions throughout the entire period of

court supervision on a single estimate of criminogenic risk is ill-advised (Olver et al.,

2007). Thus, experts recommend re-administering risk assessments to justice-involved

youth regularly and adjusting sanctions in accordance with their dynamic risk profiles

(Olver et al., 2007). Although changes in juvenile risk assessment scores are expected, few

studies have assessed whether and how risk level changes over time. Furthermore, to our

knowledge, no studies have examined whether criminogenic risk score trajectories vary

over time by race/ethnicity. Juvenile risk assessments are a purportedly race-neutral means

of estimating criminogenic risk (Brown, 2007). However, assessment items tied to educa-

tion, family, and environmental risk may indirectly measure experiences of structural rac-

ism (Brown, 2007; Moore & Padavic, 2011). If juvenile risk assessments measure the

effects of structural racism, it is unlikely that the risk scores of racially marginalized youth

will decrease over time.

The purpose of this study was to clarify the criminogenic risk score trajectory of justice-

involved youth, both in aggregate and across racial/ethnic subgroups. Using multilevel

modeling of repeated measures, analyses drew upon a sample of 611 justice-involved youths

who received a total of 3,744 juvenile risk assessments over a minimum of 1 year under the

supervision of a juvenile court. The results have practical and theoretical implications for

understanding the gains and losses in risk reduction observed in youth under prolonged

juvenile court supervision.

LITERATURE REVIEW

USE OF RISK ASSESSMENTS IN JUVENILE COURTS

Risk assessment use is increasingly common in juvenile courts: As of 2020, 42 states’

laws or probation agency policies support their use (Juvenile Justice Geography, Policy,

Practice & Statistics [JJGPPS], 2020). Juvenile risk assessments provide evidence-based

estimates of criminogenic risk (hereinafter “risk scores”), which are used by justice officials

to inform discretionary decision points throughout court processing. Although uses vary by

court, risk scores are often used to determine eligibility for diversion, develop individual-

ized case plans, and make service referrals (Vincent et al., 2012).

Juvenile risk assessments provide a standardized method for juvenile courts to measure

changes in criminogenic risk over time. Many components of criminogenic risk measured

in risk assessments (i.e., substance use, educational achievement, peer associations) may

fluctuate over time in response to intervention, environmental influence, or normative ado-

lescent development. Accordingly, experts recommend readministering juvenile risk assess-

ments to recalibrate case planning in response to changes in risk level. If a youth has

completed the recommended services and their risk level has decreased, consideration for

early dismissal from court supervision is advised (Vincent et al., 2012).

Little is known regarding how youth risk scores change over time. Using the Pathways

to Desistance survey to approximate juvenile risk assessment criteria, Mulvey and col-

leagues (2016) found that, among a sample of youth who had been adjudicated for serious

crimes, risk scores were highest at disposition and decreased over the following 3 years.

However, these changes varied by domain, such that some risk factors decreased signifi-

cantly over time, while others remained static. Baglivio and Jackowski (2015) examined

whether youth who were part of a victim impact intervention experienced significant change