1. Screening For High Risk Juvenile Offenders
Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals
Annual Conference
March 11, 2014
Screening For High Risk Juvenile Offenders

2. AGENDA Juvenile Justice Vision 20/20 Introduction to Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment / Classification
Purpose and Benefits of Risk Assessment
Selection / Implementation Issues
Current Use in Michigan Courts

3. AGENDA Assessing Youth and Family Treatment Needs
Developing a Treatment Plan for Adolescent Offenders
Questions and Answers

4. Michigan Juvenile Justice Vision 2020
Juvenile Justice Vision 20/20 is a grassroots organization formed in 2011, the purpose if which is to:
Establish a collective voice
Develop a consistent identity
Preserve the original concept of the juvenile court
Treat juveniles as juveniles - not mini adults
Provide individualized treatment to address the increasingly numbers of serious disorders and delinquent behaviors
Develop new and protect existing funding streams
Establish a juvenile justice agenda in Michigan

5. Criminogenic Risk Assessment: Definition
A comprehensive examination and evaluation of both dynamic (changeable) and static (historical and / or demographic) factors that predict risk of recidivism and provides guidance on services; placement; supervision; and, in some cases, disposition.
National Reentry Resource Center (The Counsel of State Governments Justice Center)
mbell 9/30/2013
then, we can move into this is what we are concentrating on

6. Criminogenic Risk Assessment
There is a large body of research that has indicated a strong correlation between being able to identify criminogenic risk and a reduction in recidivism
Criminogenic Risk Assessment:
Based on research
Predicts group behavior (Actuarial assessment)
Combination of dynamic and static factors
Predicts future criminal behavior based on actual past behavior and indicators

7. What is a Risk Assessment Tool?
A risk for reoffending or violence assessment tool helps to answer the question: “Is this youth at relatively low or relatively high risk for reoffending or engaging in violent behavior?”
Some, also address “What is possibly causing the youth to be at low or relatively high risk for reoffending?”
First I should explain what is a risk assessment tool? I would put slide 5 here first, then, 6, then this but lots of information so remove the strikethroughs to and add to separate page mb

8. Risk Assessment Domains
Aggression
Alcohol and Drug Use
Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs
Education
Employment
Family / Living Environment
Juvenile Justice History
Mental Health
Peers and Social Supports
Pro-Social Skills
Use of Leisure Time

9. What are not criminogenic risk factors
Self esteem
Mental health issues
Victimization issues
Learning disabilities
Redundant further on. What about what are not Criminogenic Risk factors as the title and include bulleted list: self esteem, anxiety etc Leading into what are after the Risk Assessment Domains?mb

10. What risk assessments cannot do
Predict risk for youth with significant mental health issues
Predict risk for youth with sexual offending issues (ERASOR, JSOAP)
Predict the outcome of any particular youth

11. THE TOP FOUR CRIMINOGENIC RISK FACTORS (Carey, 2011; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004)
Criminogenic Need
Response
Accommodations/Anti-Social History
Build non- criminal alternatives to risky situations, structure 40-60% of day
Anti-social cognitions
Reduce anti-social cognition, recognize risky thinking and feelings, adopt an alternative identity
Anti-social companions
Reduce association with criminals, enhance contact with pro-social peers
Anti-social personality or temperament
Build problem solving, self management, anger management, and coping skills

12. THE LESSER FOUR (Carey, 2011; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004)
Criminogenic Need
Response
Family and /or marital
Reduce conflict, build positive relationships and communication, enhance monitoring/supervision
Substance abuse
Reduce usage, reduce the supports for abusive behavior, enhance alternatives to abuse
Employment/School
Provide employment seeking and keeping skills and enhance performance rewards and incentives
Leisure and/or recreation
Enhance involvement and satisfaction in pro-social activities

13. Figure 1. Percentage of respondents whose court conducts any assessment of juveniles entering the juvenile justice system (n=54)

14. Figure 2. Percentage of users for each type of survey-listed assessment tool (n=38)

15. Table 6. Tools identified in survey
“Other” Tools Respondent Identified
Global Assessment of Individual Needs (GAIN) and Global Assessment of Individualized Needs – Short Screener (GAIN-SS)
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument, Version 2 (MAYSI-2)
Voice – Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (V-DISC)
Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism (ERASOR)
Juvenile Automated Substance Abuse Evaluation (JASAE)
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Instrument (Adolescent SASSI)
Risk Resiliency Check Up (RRC)
Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS)
Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS)
Survey-Identified Tools
Juvenile Classification Assessment Report (DHS form in JJOLT information system) (CAR)
BJJ Residential Risk Assessment (RRA)
Youth Level of Service, Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI)
Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI)
Michigan Juvenile Justice Assessment System (MJJAS)
Northpointe COMPAS Youth Assessment
Juvenile Inventory for Functioning (JIFF)

16. Risk Assessment Tools in Use in Michigan
YLS-Youth Level of Service, Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI)
YASI-Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI)
MJJAS-Michigan Juvenile Justice Assessment System (MJJAS)

17. Risk Assessment Tools in Use in Michigan (continued)
Juvenile Classification Assessment Report (DHS-CAR)
SAVRY- Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth
JIFF-Juvenile Inventory for Functioning

18. Principals of Effective Classification
“People involved in the justice system have many needs deserving treatment, not all of these needs are associated with criminal behavior.”
- Andrews & Bonta (2006)
Add slide 7 with this – otherwise this audience may miss what this means

19. Principals of Effective Classification
Risk
Need
Responsivity
Professional Discretion
Need to define Responsivity mb

20. Principals of Effective Classification
The Risk Principle
The risk principle proposes that the intensity of service be matched to the risk level of the offender. In practice, the risk principle calls for focusing resources on the most serious cases, with high risk offenders benefiting most from intensive services/interventions.
Match level of services to level of risk
Prioritize supervision and treatment resources for higher risk clients
Higher risk clients need more intensive services
Low risk clients require little to no intervention
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”

21. Principals of Effective Classification
The Need Principle
The need principle focuses on targeting appropriate criminogenic factors. Dynamic risk factors (also called criminogenic needs) are those factors that, when changed, have been shown to result in a reduction in criminal conduct.
Although this may make sense, many correctional interventions are developed that seek to change factors that are unrelated related to recidivism.

22. Principals of Effective Classification
The Need Principal
Criminogenic risk is reduced by effectively addressing criminogenic needs.
Some of the most promising criminogenic targets include criminogenic thoughts and attitudes (also called anti-social cognitions), antisocial peer associations, poor parental monitoring and supervision, identification with antisocial role models, poor social skills, and substance abuse.
Dynamic or “changeable” risk factors that contribute to the likelihood that someone will commit a crime.
Changes in these needs / risk factors are associated with changes in recidivism.
Or insert what is not are not criminogenic risk factors after this slide

23. Principals of Effective Classification
The Responsivity Principle
The Responsivity Principle involves matching dosages, treatment styles, and modalities to clientele. The treatment must be delivered in a manner in which the offender can learn.
This is especially important working with individuals in the criminal justice system because they learn different than the general population.

24. Principals of Effective Classification
The Responsivity Principle
General responsivity: using treatment modalities that have been shown to work with the offender population
Specific responsivity: tailoring programs to meet individual needs

25. Principals of Effective Classification
Override & Professional Discretion
It is important that the professional judgment not be eliminated completely
Identify a specific list of overrides that reflect local priorities/concerns (such as level of violence, sex offenses, or substance use disorder) and procedure that is to take place if one needed
Too much info: concentrate on professional discretion/community needs

26. Principals of Effective Classification
Use of weapons in offense
History of escape
Severe medical problems
Sexual offending adjudications or issues
Pending adult criminal charges; and,
Youth committed a violent/sex offense at the same time as the committing offense, but was not charged or plead to a lesser offense
Others as deemed necessary
Factors which may bear further investigation for an override:
Offense history indicates violent behavior
History of arson
Mental health issues (i.e., suicidal/homicidal ideation, history of psychiatric placements, psychotropic medicines requiring strict monitoring, etc.)
Previous unsuccessful interventions
Commitment is re-commit for an offense committed under supervision
OMIT

27. Principals of Effective Classification
Identify offender strengths as they can be considered “protective” factors that may be built upon in treatment planning:
Strong family relationships
High educational level
History of stable employment
Strong ties to community
Just concentrate on strengths.

28. Three components of effective rehabilitation (RNR Model)
Risk – level of risk determines intensity of service
Need – appropriate to target criminogenic needs [dynamic risk factors] and enhance protective factors with programmed interventions
Responsivity – services should be individualized for particular youth, family, and context
(Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2011)
Responsivity needs defined somewhere (unless I missed it)

29. Other assessment tools used in Michigan
CANS -Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths
CAFAS-Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale
MAYSI-2-Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument Version 2

30. Guiding Principles: Research Evidence
There is emerging consensus on characteristics of effective programming for young offenders:
Punitive sanctions without effective services do not have a significant effect on re-offending (Gatti et al., 2009).
Most low-risk youth are unlikely to re-offend even if there is no intervention (Lipsey, 2009), but mixing them with high risk youth can make them worse.
When services are matched to youth’s “crime- producing” (criminogenic) needs, the lower the chance of repeat offending.
The goal is to have the right services for the right youth.
Punitive sanctions without services has no impact on re-offending and actually costs more $$ than diversion. The 20-year study tracked youth from age 10 to age 17, then tracked their arrest records in adulthood. Those who entered the juvenile- justice system even briefly - for example, being sentenced to community service or other penance, with limited exposure to other troubled kids - were twice as likely to be arrested as adults, compared with kids with the same behavior problems who remained outside the system. Being put on probation, which involves more contact with misbehaving peers, in counseling groups or even in waiting rooms at probation offices, raised teens' odds of adult arrest by a factor of 14. Study: Gatti, U., Tremblay, R. E., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 50, doi: /j
The large meta-analysis by Lipsey showed that services that focused on high risk youth were more effective in reducing recidivism and had little to no effect for low risk youth. Study: Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4, doi: /
When services are matched to youth’s crime producing needs – greater chance of reducing reoffending. Better than merely piling on services.
Also note that merely piling services onto youth unlikely to have a positive impact – could be detrimental – definitely not cost effective. Instead we want the right services for the right youth.
Research suggests justice agencies will have more success if they apply the Risk-Needs-Responsivity Principle to case management. This means formal processing and case management should be commensurate with ones level of risk for reoffending and should address the youth’s specific criminogenic risk factors. WE want the right interventions and the right services for the right youth.

31. Matching Services to Criminogenic Needs Can Have a Large Impact (Vieira et al., 2009)
% Re-offended
This slide illustrates the potential impact of matching services to youths’ needs on reoffending. These are results of an archival study of 122 young offenders who received the YLS/CMI by a clinician/social worker and then were tracked to see if the probation officers gave the youths services that were in response to the clinician-identified criminogenic need factors.
Good match = 75% or more of the youths needs were addressed by a service
Med match = 26% - 74% of needs addressed by a service
Poor match 25% or less needs addressed by a service
This slide shows how the service-to-needs match can work. There was a substantially lower recidivism rate among youths who had a good match between the services they received and their needs than for the other youths.
The study also looked at the pure number of services youths received and there was an association with recidivism but not nearly as strong as what this chart shows.
Study: Vieira, T. A., Skilling, T. A., & Peterson-Badali, M. (2009). Matching court-ordered services with treatment needs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), doi: /
Match based on # of Services Given in Response to a
Youth’s Criminogenic Needs

32. Treatment planning Effective Behavioral Interventions
Structured social learning where new skills and behaviors are taught, practiced and modeled
Family based approaches that help families learn and use new skills and techniques
Cognitive behavioral approaches that target criminogenic risk factors

33. Effective programs characteristics for high risk youth
Longer supervision for higher risk youth
More treatment referrals for high risk youth
75% of offenders are high risk
At least five services available targeting criminogenic needs
Separate groups by risk
20 hours or more of treatment per week
Program ranged 3 to 9 months
Provided quality aftercare
Had a manual
Adhered to manual
Staff hired for skills and values
Pre/post testing of offenders

34. Example of Intervention Guidelines (42nd Circuit Court - Midland County)
Criminogenic Need
Program/Intervention Examples
Anti-social history
Electronic Monitoring, Curfew, Community Service Work, Restitution, Victim Impact (VIG)
Anti-social Thinking
Thinking for a Change (CBT), Moral Reconation Training (MRT), VIG, Aggression Replacement Training (ART), SITCAP/trauma groups
Anti-social Peers
Thinking for a Change (CBT ), MRT, Prosocial Activities , ART, Peer Directory, ART Booster Sessions, CBT/individual, Safe Dates
Anti-social Personality or Temperament
Thinking for a Change (CBT), MRT, VIG, CBT
Family Stressors
Common Sense Parenting, Wraparound, MST, MST-PSB, Intensive Counseling, In Home Services, BSFT, ART interactive Sessions for Parents, Family Meetings
Substance Abuse
Counseling, MST, CBT
Employment
Staff driven
Education
E2020 Credit Recovery, Tutors, Check and Connect
Leisure
Community Centers, Music and other lessons/classes

35. Results of Cost/Benefit Research: Benefits Per Dollar Invested
For every $1.00 spent on the following services, you save:
Functional Family Therapy: $28.34
Multisystemic Family Therapy: $28.81
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: $43.70
Adolescent Diversion Project: $24.92
Juvenile Boot Camps: $0.81
Scared Straight: -$ (NET LOSS)
Suggested citation: Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and
Elizabeth Drake. (2006). Evidence-Based Public Policy
Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal
Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. Olympia: Washington
State Institute for Public Policy.
Link to full text of that report available at:

36. Summary: Benefits of Risk Assessment
Helps jurisdictions to conserve resources
Can help improve outcomes for young offenders…..
Improved chance of reducing risk = reduction in re-offending
Better use of placement and monitoring = improved functioning and cost-savings
Provides a means for data tracking to evaluate….
Changes in youths’ risk (if using a dynamic assessment)
Services and decisions pertaining to out-of- home placement
Caveat: The benefits are unlikely to be attained without appropriate implementation
Note that when a tool isn’t implemented well it is unlikely to lead to any change in practice. It is essential that there be a policy and staff training about how the tool will be used in decisions. It is also essential to have buy-in from key stakeholders (judge, attorneys, etc) in order for this to work.

37. Potential Points in the Process for Using Risk Assessment
Pre-Adjudication Detention
Diversion v. Formal Processing
Disposition (Level of Supervision and Programming)
Probation Violation or New Charge – Sanctions/Detention / Increase Supervision
Throughout/Release from Placement
During/End of Probation – Evaluation of Impact = Any Change in Risk?

38. Eight Steps of Implementation
Getting ready
Establishing stakeholder and staff buy-in
Select the tool and prepare to use it
Developing policies and other essential documents
Training
Pilot test implementation
Full implementation
Tasks to promote sustainability
Note #2 – convening a stakeholder group is key – discuss who should be part of that group

39. Assessment using MJJAS
Review background materials
Review Self assessment
Complete assessment interview
Confirm or Corroborate any unclear information
Complete assessment scoring
Identify domains with high scores

40. Utilizing Risk Assessment information
Identify level of structure or security needed
Identify domains with high risk score
Identify types and dosages of treatment services

41. Needs assessment Administer Needs assessment tool
Identify domains of strength and weakness
Review and prioritize the combined list of identified domains as the foundation for your treatment plan

42. Goals; Objectives; Strategies
From case knowledge and identified treatment domains, formulate positive goals that will reduce risk and meet needs
Identify treatment interventions within the necessary program structure and security that will lead to goal accomplishment
Set timeframes
Monitor progress

43. Step Back
Review your work, assumptions, scores, and outcomes through the filter of your knowledge and experience
Seek to identify any sections that may be overlooked or overemphasized
Holistically evaluate the likelihood of success of the treatment plan
Include others in this evaluative process

44. Your Presenters dhitchcock@highfields.org MBell@co.midland.mi.us
For any questions, issues or follow-up information, feel free to contact:
Derek Hitchcock Highfields Inc.
Michele Bell nd Circuit Ct. (Midland)
Joseph Hall Oakland Co. Children’s Village