Development of the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment

1
Development of the Washington State Juvenile
Court Assessment
Robert Barnoski, Ph.D. Washington State
Institute for Public Policy (360)
586-2744 barney_at_wsipp.wa.gov www.wsipp.wa.gov
2
1997 Washington State Legislation Community
Juvenile Accountability Act

• Use a risk assessment to determine which
  programs are most likely to be effective with
  particular juvenile offenders
• Youths eligibility for program is based on risk
  assessment
• Level of risk for re-offending.
• Profile of risk factors.

3
Todays Talk

• Background
• Assessment Structure 
• Assessment Infrastructure
• Uses of Assessment
• Assessment Implementation

4
Purposes of the Assessment

• Estimate level of risk for re-offending.
• Target more intensive efforts at higher-risk
  youth, and little effort at low-risk youth.
• Guide the probation effort case management
• To create a common language that increases
  awareness of factors related to recidivism.
• Engage and motivate youth through interview
• Leverage protective factors to reduce risk
  factors
• Target intervention by assessment profile
• Monitor assessment changes.
• Changing probation practices in 34 juvenile
  courts
• To know what interventions are effective.
• Have information to guide court efforts.

5
1999 Assessment Development

• Literature Review
• First Draft Reviewed by Court Staff
• First Draft Reviewed by International Experts
• Pilot First Draft
• Revise First Draft Based on Pilot
• Develop and Validate a Subset of Items for
  Pre-Screening
• Computer Automation
• Implement Assessment
• Validate Full Assessment
• Revise Assessment every three years

6
Keeping the End in Mind

• To institutionalize the assessment and risk
  reduction process.
• Can best be achieved when the assessment and risk
  reduction process help staff to do their job.

7
Purpose of Assessment Has Evolved

• Becoming a way to systematically collect and
  organize the youths social file, supervision
  progress, and rehabilitative efforts.
• As time goes on and needs change, can add domains
  and items within domains.
• Gather each piece of information once, but use
  the information multiple times.

8
Uses of a Systematic Collection of Information

• Pre Adjudication Hold (Risk for violence,
  suicide)
• Pre-Sentence report
• Custody placement (Risk and problem profile)
• Supervision level (1001, 501, 251).
• Assignment of community intervention.
• Monitoring progress.
• Case management focused on relevant issues.
• Reporting - reduce paperwork.
• Monitoring effectiveness of service delivery.

9
Case ManagementSequence to Self Reliance

• If family has problems
• Engage motivate family
• gt Specific Problems
• gt Generalization
• If not family problems
• Engage motivate youth
• gt Attitudes Skills
• gt Specific Problems
• gt Generalization

10
Mapping Problem to Intervention for Moderate to
High-risk Youth
11
A Multi-Stage Process is Used

• (Pre-adjudication detention hold)
• Information feeds into the . . .
• Pre-Screen
• Information feeds into the . . .
• Initial Assessment.
• Information feeds into the
• Re-Assessments
• Information feeds into the
• Final Assessment

12
Types of Domains

• History Any time in the past.
• Current Within last six months (initial) or the
  last four weeks (re-assessment).

13
Types of Items

• Risk Negative factors that increase likelihood
  of re-offending.
• Protective Positive factors targeted for
  change, absence is not a risk.
• Static Historic factors, not targeted for
  change.
• Dynamic Factors targeted for change.
• Check most appropriate/Check all that apply.
• Pivot items Indicate need to complete next part
  of domain.
• Barriers Factors making it difficult to work
  with the youth or family responsivity.

14
Scoring

• Level of risk for re-offending (Low, moderate and
  high).
• This could be expanded to include risk for
  property and/or violent re-offending
• Program eligibility score and criteria.
• Domain risk and protective factor scores and
  percentiles.
• Risk and protective factors are scored to
  emphasize change same item can have one
  response that is a risk factor, and another
  response that is a protective factor.

15
Pre-Screen Domains

• Demographics Age, Gender, etc.
• Court history (criminal)
• Social History school, family, relationships,
  drug/alcohol, and mental health

16
Full Assessment Domains

• School
• Free-Time
• Employment
• Family
• Relationships
• Drug/Alcohol
• Mental Health
• Anti-social attitudes
• Aggression
• Skills

17
Additional Future Domains

• Sexual Attitudes/Behaviors
• Physical Health/Vulnerabilities
• Institutional Performance
• Performance on Supervision
• Program/Treatment Performance
• Community Factors

18
Additional Future Items Within a Domain

• For example, add DSM Axis I Diagnosis to mental
  health domain
• Add whether aggression is instrumental or
  impulsive to aggression domain.
• Add degree of physical harm inflicted and use of
  weapons.

19
Infrastructure to support quality and utility
20
Staff Training and Support

• Oversight Committee
• Statewide Coordinator/Expert
• Regional Trainers
• Regional Consultants
• Court Experts
• Implementation training
• Manuals, Videos, and Sessions
• On-going education and training in techniques
  and findings.

21
Staff Skills
Motivation to understand youth and help
youth/family solve their own problems. Structured
interview skills. Understand motivation and
change theory. On-going education in techniques
and findings.
22
Assessment Proliferation

• Must be something to it, since it is being used
  in at least a dozen states and multiple courts,
  and possibly in Amsterdam.
• Service providers particularly like it.