Exceptions to the Rule? Exploring the Use of Overrides in Detention Risk Assessment

• Author: Allison T. Chappell,Scott R. Maggard,Jennifer L. Higgins
• Published date: 01 October 2013
• Date: 01 October 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012470849
• Published By: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
11(4) 332-348
Exceptions to the Rule?
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Exploring the Use of
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204012470849
yvj.sagepub.com
Overrides in Detention Risk
Assessment
Allison T. Chappell1, Scott R. Maggard1, and
Jennifer L. Higgins1
Abstract
The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) aims to reduce the use of predispositional
detention for juveniles. One core strategy of JDAI is the use of risk assessment instruments to
ensure that detention decisions are made objectively. These instruments allow for mandatory and
discretionary overrides based on statutory guidelines, aggravating factors, or mitigating factors. This
study investigates the use of overrides in a jurisdiction that utilizes the JDAI model. Offense ser-
iousness, prior record, history of escape/runaway, and age were consistent predictors of overrides.
African Americans were less likely to receive mitigating overrides, and females were less likely to
receive mandatory overrides.
Keywords
juvenile justice, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, inequality, overrides
Introduction
Risk assessment has long been used in criminal justice to predict future behavior, increase objectiv-
ity, equity, and consistency in decision making, and facilitate the efficient use of resources (Gott-
fredson & Moriarty, 2006). Risk assessment has been used in the juvenile justice system to guide
dispositional decisions, determine supervision levels, and inform treatment regimens (Hoge,
2002; Schwalbe, 2008). Most jurisdictions also use risk assessment in predispositional detention
decision making. Predispositional detention, the incarceration of a juvenile prior to an adjudicatory
hearing, has been the subject of much scholarly debate. Research suggests that detention has a neg-
ative impact on youth development, is plagued by disproportionate minority contact and race/gender
1 Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Allison T. Chappell, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA.
Email: achappel@odu.edu

---

Chappell et al.
333
inequities (Bishop, 2005; Leiber & Fox, 2005), and is exorbitantly expensive (Mendel, 2011). Thus,
risk assessment helps to ensure that detention is reserved for only the most serious offenders.
In over 100 jurisdictions, risk assessment in the detention decision is implemented as a core com-
ponent of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (Mendel, 2011). JDAI is a widely recognized
juvenile justice reform effort developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation focused on reducing the
reliance on secure confinement, reducing racial disparities, improving public safety, and saving tax-
payer dollars (Mendel, 2011). Under JDAI, risk assessment instruments are developed and validated
at the local level and vary by site (Steinhart, 2006). Instruments used within JDAI sites are point-
scale instruments; that is, points are accumulated based on factors known to be associated with
an increased risk of failure to appear and threat to public safety (e.g., offense seriousness, prior
record), generating a total risk score which indicates whether the youth should be released, moni-
tored, or detained (Steinhart, 2006). Importantly, such instruments allow staff to make exceptions
to the decision indicated by the instrument when aggravating or mitigating factors are present; these
are known as overrides.
While one of the goals of risk assessment is to increase objectivity and equity in decision making,
overrides are avenues through which discretion, subjectivity, and bias may be reincorporated into the
detention decision process. A large body of research has found racial disparities in the detention
decision (Leiber, 2003; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Leiber & Johnson, 2008; Leiber & Mack, 2003; Pope
& Feyerherm, 1992; Rodriguez, 2010), and because those who are detained are more likely to be
formally processed, disparities at the detention decision create a state of cumulative disadvantage
as juveniles progress through the system (Bortner & Reed, 1985; Frazier & Bishop, 1985;
Kempf-Leonard, 2007; Leiber, 2012; Leiber & Fox, 2005; Pope & Feyerherm, 1992). Indeed, Stein-
hart (2006) warns that high override rates may unintentionally increase disproportionate minority
contact; thus override criteria must be race neutral.
There is a gap in the literature concerning the use of overrides in risk assessment generally and in
JDAI sites specifically. The purpose of the current study was to address this void in the literature by
examining the use of overrides in the predispositional detention decision in one juvenile court that
has been implementing JDAI for over 5 years. Based on data collected on delinquency offenses post-
implementation of JDAI from 2005 to 2009, this study addressed two specific research questions:
(1) how often are overrides used? and (2) how are legal and extralegal (i.e., age, race, gender) factors
related to the use of overrides?
Literature Review
Risk Assessment and Overrides
Risk assessment instruments have been increasingly used in predispositional detention decisions as
well as in the dispositional phase of the juvenile justice decision-making continuum, in order to
increase objectivity and consistency of decision making (Hoge, 2002). According to Hoge
(2002), screening instruments have the potential to dramatically reduce the influence of personal
prejudices and biases in decision making, which are often reflections of the overutilization of deci-
sion maker discretion. The potential to reduce bias has obvious implications for the effective man-
agement of disproportionate minority contact.
Despite the intended objectivity of risk assessment instruments, overrides create avenues through
which discretion, subjectivity, and bias, may be reincorporated into the detention decision. Accord-
ing to Steinhart (2006), ‘‘an override is a decision to detain or release a child in contravention of the
risk score and outcome recommended by the risk assessment instrument’’ (p. 22). Jurisdictions with
high override rates are problematic in that the integrity of the risk assessment process may be com-
promised (Steinhart, 1994; Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, 2004). Though no stated limit

---

334
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11(4)
has been imposed on release overrides (i.e., instances where the risk assessment instrument recom-
mended detention but instead the youth was released), the National Council on Crime and Delin-
quency has proposed that detain overrides (i.e., instances where the risk assessment instrument
recommended release but detention was administered) should be at or less than 15% of youth whose
risk assessment instrument score indicated release (Steinhart, 2006). During initial implementation
of an risk assessment instrument, however, it is common to find rates that are in excess of 50% of
youth who qualify for release (Steinhart, 2006).
Although there is a paucity of literature specifically examining overrides, some states have
addressed the practice of overrides in their risk assessment instrument evaluations. A few studies
have found that risk assessment instruments work as intended when they are followed. For exam-
ple, a study of San Francisco’s risk assessment instrument, developed by the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency, showed that when the risk assessment instrument indicated and actual
decisions matched, positive outcomes were generally reported. For example, only 3 of the 227
youth referred to the Juvenile Probation Department during the study period whose indicated and
actual decision was release were rearrested during the follow-up period (indicating a 94% success
rate). Additionally, there was no incidence of failure to appear at a court hearing for those juve-
niles who were released based on their risk assessment instrument score (Steinhart, 1994). Simi-
larly, in a 2007 assessment of public safety outcomes associated with the Virginia Detention
Assessment Instrument, Reiner, Miller, and Gangal (2007) found that compliance with the Deten-
tion Assessment Instrument generally conferred positive outcomes. For instance, the new offense
rate was only 6.5% when the indicated decision matched the actual decision. However, there was
an 11.1% new offense rate when a mitigating override was used. The new offense rate associated
with aggravating overrides was 4.9%. The study ultimately found ‘sound validation of the public
safety outcomes of the Detention Assessment Instrument’ (Reiner, Miller, & Gangal, 2007, p. 37).
These two studies suggest that the risk assessment instruments were operating as intended with
regard to identifying those youth who are a threat to public safety, and that overrides should be
used sparingly.
Although overrides should be used in a limited fashion, there are specific instances when the use
of an override may be warranted. For example, an override may be necessary in cases when a parent
or guardian is unwilling or unable to care for the youth, when the youth is a danger to himself or
herself or others, or when the youth is involved with a gang (Steinhart, 2006). Additionally, over-
rides may be justified when a youth has had marginal involvement in an offense or when there are
significant substance abuse or mental health issues. Steinhart (2006) notes, however, that aggravat-
ing and mitigating override criteria may be particularly problematic as...