Risk Assessment - Report Example

Risk Assessment Introduction Juvenile detention reforms and risk assessment has been a major issue for many nations since the 1990s.One major step in risk assessment is assessing risk with a prescreen instrument which shows whether the youth has low, moderate or high risk (Schwalbe 450). This is done by assigning points to each risk factor so that a total risk score is obtained (Steinhart 13). There are two major risk assessment prescreen scales one developed by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy in collaboration with the Washington State Juvenile Court in 1998(Washington State Institute for Public Policy 1) and the other by the Missouri Juvenile Court in 2001(Missouri Supreme Court1). The main aim of these two scales are to identify appropriate classifications for the level of risk by the juvenile offenders and to determine whether they need to be released from arrest or not .This report assesses the risk for two juveniles, Colline and Xander based on these two risk assessment scales. Further, it indicates the additional information needed and recommends a potentional correctional strategy for these two individuals. 2. Risk Assessment based on Washington Scale This scale includes both criminal history, social history and prescreen attitude/behavior indicators. The scores for criminal history and social history sections are given separately. These together determine the level of risk in the risk level definition table at the end of the pre-screen instrument. Based on the pre screen assessment, the decision on whether to do a full assessment or not is made based on the pre-screen attitude/behaviour indicators (Barnoski 2). For Collin, based on this scale, the points for criminal history obtained is 8 and social history is 5.Hence the total risk level based on these two can be considered to be moderate(Washington State Institute for Public Policy,1998). The review of pre screen attitude /behaviour indicators show that the youth does not seem to have a higher level of risk than obtained from the risk scoring. For Xander, based on this scale, the points for criminal history obtained are six and social history is nine. Hence, the total risk level based on these two can be considered moderate for Xander (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 1998). The scores for criminal history obtained is less for Xander than Colline since the charge is against him is for misbehaviour and not for felonies. However, the social history score is greater than Colline since he is a school dropped out and has been kept under rehabilitation facility twice earlier unlike Colline. The main problem is that no information about Colline’s educational history is given. Hence it is not possible t score the questions about her educational background. For him also the review of pre screen attitude /behaviours indicate that he does not have a higher risk than obtained from the risk scoring. 3. Risk Assessment based on Missouri Scale This scale consists of a risk assessment scale that is empirically validated for estimating a juvenile offenders relative likelihood of future delinquency, a classification matrix that associates the risk level with offense severity to recommended correctional strategies and a needs assessment scale for identifying the social and psychological needs of the juvenile(Missouri Supreme Court1). Based on the risk assessment scale, Colline has 7 points and has moderate risk. The classification matrix shows the recommended sanctions to her as Restitution, Community Service, Court Fees & Assessments, Supervision and Day Treatment, Intensive Supervision Court Residential Placement and Commitment to DYS. Her needs scale score is 8. For Xander, the risk score is six and hence has moderate risk. The score is less than that of Colline since he is charged for misbehaviour and not for felony unlike Colline. The classification matrix suggests the recommended sanctions for him as Warn & Counsel, Restitution, Community Service, Court Fees & Assessment, Supervision and Day Treatment. His need scale score is 12.The needs scale score is greater than Colline since he is a member of an antisocial gang and is a school dropout. 4. Comparison of the two scales’ scores and desired additional information Based on the two risk assessment scales for the two juveniles, both can be classified under those having moderate risk level. The Washington based risk scale does not have any question regarding the offender’s interpersonal skills and it does not give any classification regarding the recommended strategies unlike the Missouri scale. However, it has a review of the pre screen attitude behaviours, which is often a good crosscheck for the risk scale reported. For Colline, more details about her education and interpersonal skills are needed, which will help to provide more useful risk classification. No information about her education is provided in the case study. Whether she is enrolled in a school or not needs to be added. For Xander, the reasons for his dropout from the school are needed to get a more appropriate risk classification. This information is needed to understand his behaviour with teachers, classmates etc. Thus, more details regarding the education and the disciplinary behaviour in school are needed for getting more appropriate classification in the case of both the individuals discussed here. 5. Recommended Correctional Strategy for the two Individuals A potential strategy that can be recommended for the two individuals discussed here is to concentrate more on the problem and give less emphasize to very strong and decisive approaches. Both the juveniles here can put emphasis on analysis and prevention. Analysis and remedy both focus on the cases of criminal behaviour. Hence, there should be one focus for their strategies, analysis or prevention. The prevention strategies focus on stopping the youth from becoming criminals. The analysis programs help to reduce the juveniles to become criminals. These programs need to concentrate on families. This is because the influence of families is important in shaping the behaviour of a juvenile. Strong support from the family is needed for a juvenile to prevent from becoming a criminal. The behaviour of parents has a great role in shaping the character of a child. Hence these programs for the juveniles discussed here need to focus on the families concerned. References Barnoski R: Validation of the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment: Interim Report. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 1998. Johnson, K., D. Wager, and T. Mathews: “Missouri Juvenile Risk Assessment Re-Validation Report”. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2002. Missouri Supreme Court: “The Missouri Juvenile offender Classification Components”. October 10 2001. Schwalbe C S: “Risk Assessment for Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis” . Law and Human Behaviour. Volume 31. Number 5.pp449-462, 2007. Steinhart D : “Juvenile Detention Risk Assessment, A Practice Guide to Juvenile Detention Reforms”, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, A Project if the Annie E Casey Foundation,2006. Washington State Institute for Public Policy: “Washington State Juvenile Court Pre Screen Assessment” November 10 1998. Read More