Disposition Matrix Effectiveness

• Author: Kelly Dedel
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12113
• Date: 01 February 2015
• Published date: 01 February 2015

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

DISPOSITION MATRIX FOR COURT

RECOMMENDATIONS

Disposition Matrix Effectiveness

Kelly Dedel

One in 37 Research, Inc.

Context for the Current Research

Although the phrase “evidence-based practice” has become commonplace in the field of

juvenile justice, research on strategies to ensurethat decision makers rely on the growing body

of research about what works to change youth’sbehavior are far more uncommon. Objective

risk-assessment instruments are perhaps the most well-known tools for adhering to the risk–

needs–responsivity approach (Andrews and Bonta, 2010; Dowden and Andrews, 2000), but

additional strategies are needed to complete the picture. Baglivio, Greenwald, and Russell

(2015, this issue) use the Community Positive Achievement Change Tool (C-PACT),

a validated risk-assessment instrument that measures a youth’s likelihood of reoffending

and rank orders the youth’s most significant criminogenic needs. Many jurisdictions have

adopted objective risk-assessment instruments, but once the risk level is computed, often

they do not know how to use the information to improve youth outcomes. The real

challenge lies in how to manage that risk—in what setting (e.g., field supervision, residential

placement, etc.) should services that address the underlying causes of the youth’s behavior

be delivered?

The first step in managing offenders’ risk is to identify the appropriate level of re-

strictiveness within which services and supervision will be delivered. Baglivio et al. (2015)

present a structured decision-making tool—the disposition matrix—designed to guide deci-

sions about the appropriate level of restrictiveness for service delivery based on the C-PACT

risk level and the severity of the youth’scurrent offense. The matrix embraces the concept of

graduated sanctions: Low-risk youth remain in the community with minimal supervision,

moderate-risk youth are placed in more structured community programs with more inten-

sive supervision and service enhancements for higher risk youth, and residential placements

(both secure and nonsecure) are reserved for the highest risk offenders and used only after

less restrictive alternatives have been exhausted. Each cell of the matrix offers a range of

Direct correspondence to Kelly Dedel, One in 37 Research, Inc. 16 Rock Street Cody, WY 82414 (e-mail:

kelly.dedel@gmail.com).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12113 C2015 American Society of Criminology 1

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 1