Profile Analysis and Risk Assessment: Identifying Distinct Patterns of Risks and Needs

• Date: 01 October 2021
• Author: William Miller,Jordan Papp,Christina A. Campbell,Christopher D’Amato
• DOI: 10.1177/15412040211012467
• Published date: 01 October 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Profile Analysis and Risk

Assessment: Identifying

Distinct Patterns of Risks

and Needs

Christopher D’Amato

1

, Christina A. Campbell

1

, Jordan Papp

2

,

and William Miller

1

Abstract

The goal of this study was to identify distinct and meaningful profiles of the seven criminogenic risk

and need domains included on the Ohio Youth Assessment System—Disposition Tool (OYAS-DIS).

This goal was accomplished by conducting a latent profile analysis (LPA) on a sample of 4,383

formally processed justice-involved youth assessed by the OYAS-DIS. The LPA determined there

were six distinct profiles: (1) Low risk and need,(2)Low/moderate risk and need,(3)Low risk/need with

high juvenile justice history,(4)Academic, mental health, and substance use needs,(5)Prosocial skills and

decision making, and (6) High risk and need. Results may help juvenile justice practitioners to identify

and address specific intervention needs of adjudicated youth.

Keywords

Ohio youth assessment system, juvenile risk assessment, latent profile analysis, risk assessment

Juvenile justice actors must make adjudication and disposition decisions in a limited timeframe.

These decisions may have a drastic impact on a youth’s life. For example, at the disposition stage, a

judge must determine the intensity of interventions and the type of custody most suitable for the

youth. More specifically, judges must determine if probation, diversion, residential treatment,

community-oriented programs, or other services are necessary for reducing recidivism. When mak-

ing this decision, judges rely on various information, including written and oral recommendations

from probation officers, defense attorneys, and prosecutors (National Juvenile Defender Center,

n.d.). More recently, the emergence of structured risk assessment tools has played a critical role in

helping practitioners gather information about a youth’s risks and needs (Baglivio et al., 2015;

Latessa & Lovins, 2010). To date, many court jurisdictions rely on juvenile risk assessment tools

to inform court decisions (Baird et al., 2013).

1

School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

2

Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Christopher D’Amato, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 560 Dyer Hall, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.

Email: damatocj@ucmail.uc.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2021, Vol. 19(4) 423-444

ªThe Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/15412040211012467

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model informs most modern-day risks and needs assessment

tools used in courts and corrections. The RNR model helps agencies identify whom to target with

services, which needs to target, and how to target these needs (Bonta & Andrews, 2016). The RNR

model has aided juvenile justice agencies by improving their decision-making processes by drawing

their attention to key predictors of delinquency (Singh et al., 2014; Vincent, Guy et al., 2012).

Through the RNR model implementation, juvenile justice actors tailor treatment, case planning, and

disposition decisions to youths’ unique needs (Latessa & Lovins, 2010; Schwalbe, 2007).

Although risk assessments have become standard practice in the juvenile justice system, translat-

ing their results into practice remains inconsistent (Peterson-Baldi et al., 2015; Singh et al., 2014;

Sullivan et al., 2019). This issue may arise for many reasons, including confusion about how to use

the results of risk assessment (Sullivan et al., 2019; Vincent et al., 2018) and the complexity of trying

to determine how to prioritize eight criminogenic risks and needs areas (Haqanee et al., 2015;

Taxman & Caudy, 2015). Since court practitioners have little information on how risks and needs

work together, one solution is to provide courts with more information on groupings of juveniles

based on patterns of criminogenic risks and needs (Campbell, Miller et al., 2019; Vincent, Guy et al.,

2012). This study aimed to determine whether or not a population of adjudicated youth have specific

risk and need profiles, as identified by the Ohio Youth Assessment System—Di sposition Tool

(OYAS-DIS; Lovins & Latessa, 2013). This goal was accomplished by conducting a person-

centered analytic technique, known as a latent profile analysis (LPA).

Implication of the RNR Model

Much of the research on the RNR model has focused on the measure of risks and needs. Court

practitioners measure youth’s risks and needs by focusing on eight criminogenic static (i.e., stable)

and dynamic (i.e., malleable) areas. These areas are: (1) criminal history, (2) antisocial peers, (3)

antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs, (4) antisocial personality, (5) employment/education, (6)

family, (7) substance use, and (8) leisure activities (Bonta & Andrews, 2016), with criminal history

functioning as they only static factor (Andrews et al., 2006). Although the measurement of risks and

needs is a critical step in informing treatment, practitioners have limited information about the RNR

model’s final R, which represents the Responsivity principle.

The third—and least-researched component of the RNR model—is responsivity (Bonta &

Andrews, 2016). Responsivity identifies “how” to provide services to youth. There are two types

of responsivity: general and specific. The general responsivity principle states that c ognitive-

behavioral interventions and prosocial skill building are the most effective intervention strategies

to promote behavior change in offending populations (Bonta & Andrew, 2016; Greenwood, 2008;

Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa et al., 2020). Specific responsivity directs services to con-

sider factors (e.g., race, sex, mental health, and transportation needs) that may hinder or promote

treatment success (Bonta & Andrews, 2016; Latessa et al., 2020). Through accurate assessments and

interpretations of risks and needs, court practitioners can understand some of the factors critical to

measuring responsivity.

Juvenile Risk Assessment and Their Use

The RNR model’s lynchpin is the ability of agencies to effectively evaluate the risks and needs of

each justice-involved individual (Andrews et al., 2006). The RNR model recommends that agencies

use validated risk assessment tools to evaluate the eight criminogenic risk and need factors. Many

juvenile risk assessments have demonstrated significant predictive validity (Andrews et al., 2006;

Lovins & Latessa, 2013; Schmidt et al., 2005; Schwalbe, 2007). Additionally, these tools have been

validated to predict recidivism for males and females (Pusch & Holtfreter, 2018; Schwalbe, 2008)

424 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 19(4)