Structured decision making in juvenile justice: Judges' and probation officers' perceptions and use

Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335 – 1351 www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Structured decision making in juvenile justice: Judges' and probation officers' perceptions and use Jeffrey J. Shook a,⁎, Rosemary C. Sarri b a

University of Pittsburgh, 2117 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, United States b University of Michigan, United States Received 27 March 2007; received in revised form 2 May 2007; accepted 9 May 2007 Available online 22 June 2007

Abstract Legal actors in juvenile courts are required to make numerous decisions about the intake, processing, and disposition of juvenile offenders within limited time frames and with limited information. Structured decision making (SDM), a formal and standardized procedure for guiding decision makers that defines the criteria they must use in their deliberations and decisions, has the potential to make decision making more fair and effective. However, this study of 12 courts in four states reveals that SDM is not systematically implemented in juvenile justice case processing and its use is inhibited by a lack of training, appropriate instruments, and service options. Judges and probation officers reported overriding SDM recommendations in a significant portion of their caseloads due to their own disagreement with the recommendations or due to external constraints. Although judges and probation officers agreed with general goals for the implementation of SDM, they generally did not believe that SDM was achieving these goals in their courts. While the extent to which judges and probation officers valued different SDM components (risk assessment, needs assessment, and security classification) and found them useful at different decisionmaking points varied, the results of this study indicate a positive relationship between perceptions of value and frequency of use. These results indicate a need for attention not only to the development of appropriate instruments to aid in decision making but also to the implementation of these instruments in case processing. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Juvenile; Structured decision making; Juvenile court; Juvenile justice

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 412 648 9365. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.J. Shook). 0190-7409/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.008

1336

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1. Introduction Judicial officials and probation officers in the juvenile court are required to make numerous decisions about the intake, processing, and disposition of juvenile offenders within limited time frames and with limited information. Their decisions require consideration of numerous factors, including the youth's risk to public safety, degree of criminal culpability, competence to participate effectively in a trial, and amenability to rehabilitation, as well as the availability of alternative dispositions. In addition, policy makers and the public demand accountability from these decision makers based on perceptions that juvenile crime is increasing and that, as a result, they need to take a more hard-line approach with youth.1 At the same time, critics have charged the juvenile justice system with racial and gender bias which, they argue, has resulted in the vast overrepresentation of youth of color. As a result, mechanisms have been developed to aid the structuring of decision making utilizing explicit criteria, in order to assist decision makers in making decisions more rapidly, accountably, and fairly. Structured decision making (SDM) is generally defined as a formal and standardized procedure for guiding decision makers by defining the criteria they must use in their deliberations and decisions. SDM usually includes risk and needs assessments as a basis for decision making. The instruments for these procedures may be based on actuarial or clinical predictions with respect to individual risks and outcomes. In some instances, the procedures include an assessment of individual, family or community protective factors that may operate to mitigate risks (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Hawkins et al., 2005; Loeber & Farrington, 1998). While there has been extensive research on the development and testing of a wide variety of instruments for the assessment of risk, needs, responsivity, and protective factors (Andrews et al., 2006; Gottfredson & Snyder, 2005; Lowenkamp, LaTessa, & Holsinger, 2006), we know little about the extent of use of these tools in juvenile court and justice system decision making. This article addresses this gap through an empirical examination of the perceptions of court professionals about the use of structured decision making in juvenile justice administration. It begins by identifying the key issues that have led to the development of SDM in juvenile justice administration, discussing SDM in the context of juvenile courts, and summarizing key literature on SDM use in juvenile justice. We then use survey data from court professionals working in 12 juvenile courts in four states – Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio – to address a number of important issues regarding SDM use in juvenile justice administration, including: the extent and frequency of SDM use, factors that influence the use of SDM, court professionals' agreement with the implementation of SDM to meet specific goals and perceptions about whether SDM is meeting these goals, and perceptions of the value and usefulness of different SDM components at different decision-making points. Specific components of SDM addressed in the survey include risk assessment, needs assessment, and security classification. The survey data are interpreted in the context of semistructured in-depth interviews with key officials in each of these courts, as well as in the state systems.

1 This perception does not match reality, however. Although juvenile crime rose in the late l980s and mid-1990s, since 1994 there has been a steady decline in arrests. Nevertheless, the number of youth processed by the courts continues to increase, primarily for drug, misdemeanor, and status offenses (Snyder, 2006).

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1337

1.1. Origins of SDM in juvenile justice Youth-serving professionals have long had an interest in identifying risk characteristics in delinquent youth so that appropriate interventions could be implemented (Glueck & Glueck, 1956). Procedures for formal assessment and classification of juvenile offenders were used in correctional institutions prior to the establishment of the juvenile court; in fact, an important distinction between twentieth-century reform schools and their antecedents was that “they used rudimentary behavioral science methods to diagnose and classify inmates” (Schlossman, 1995, p. 374). In 1913, the Ohio Bureau of Juvenile Research began to screen juvenile inmates with psychological and psychiatric instruments, but the training school superintendents largely ignored the findings as they could not provide the specialized interventions recommended by the elaborate assessments. Ultimately, the system failed as youth were assigned to programs on the basis of traditional factors such as age, race, bed space, religion, and offense (Schlossman, 1995). With the advent of the juvenile court and its focus on rehabilitation, assessment of needs and risks was formally recognized as necessary. Child study clinics developed and focused primarily on clinical assessment, although knowledge is limited about the extent to which clinical findings were utilized by judges in decision making (Tanenhaus, 2002). During the l940s and 1950s, new efforts to develop scientifically-based SDM procedures were implemented in several states that developed State Youth Authorities (Jesness, 1998; Jesness, Bohnstedt, & Molof, 1973; Warren, l970). Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 1960s and early 1970s interrupted the juvenile court's focus on SDM and directed its attention to issues of human rights, due process, and civil liberties rather than to formalized decision-making protocols.2 In the mid-1970s, the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Crime and the passage of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 93–415) influenced courts toward greater focus on the development of community-based programs. Thus, criteria for placement concentrated more on where a juvenile lived and what could be accomplished in placement, rather than on risk or the security classification of juveniles (Miller, 1991; Miller & Ohlin, 1985). In a national survey of 300 juvenile courts in the mid-1970s, neither SDM nor risk assessment were mentioned as serious concerns by court officials, and assessment procedures usually were utilized only after disposition decisions had been reached (Sarri & Hasenfeld, 1976). This changed with greater emphasis on strict law enforcement in the 1980s, the rise in serious juvenile crime, and the pressure on the courts from more restrictive and punitive legislation. As a result, SDM procedures were focused on risk and needs assessment to assure punishment and accountability (Feld, 1999; Zimring, 2000). This movement culminated in federal legislation in 1998 (Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, P.L. 105–109) that provided funding to the states to implement compliance with accountability-based sanctions. This legislation has contributed to the development and use of more standardized instruments, especially in large metropolitan courts. Other factors that led to the increased development and use of formal SDM procedures in the 1990s include high volume caseloads with time limits for processing decisions; a resulting need to delegate and specialize decision making to highly-trained staff; a demand for more precise decision making at intake; increased options for decisions related to detention, probation, placement and transfer to adult court; calls for the individual accountability of juveniles; and attention to the necessity of accounting for additional challenges faced by youth, such as mental health problems, developmental disabilities, victimization, and substance abuse. 2

See in re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966); Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975); and in re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970).

1338

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1.2. SDM use in the child welfare system Parallel to the development of SDM in juvenile courts is the development of risk assessment in child welfare, used to determine whether a child should be removed from or returned to his/her home because of abuse and/or neglect (Gambrill & Shlonsky, 2000). Because the juvenile court has been responsible for decision making regarding abuse and neglect as well as delinquency, it could be expected that decision-making procedures regarding the former might influence the latter or vice versa. Moreover, there is a substantial drift of youth from the child welfare to the juvenile justice system (Keller, 2002). However, the crossover influence seems to have been minimal, probably because few judges actually use information from formalized assessment instruments in their decision making. In most courts, the actual application of SDM is conducted by probation officers in the processing of delinquents and by child welfare workers for youth suspected of being abused or neglected. These staff groups have little contact with each other except regarding juveniles who drift from child welfare to juvenile justice or in courts in small communities where some of the same persons may be serving both delinquent youth and child welfare clients (Keller, 2002). The lack of crossover influence between child welfare and juvenile justice may also be related to the fact that the use of risk assessment in these systems presents different sets of challenges — risk assessment in child welfare focuses primarily on the family and the environment, whereas in the juvenile court, the individual offender and his/her behavior is the primary focus of the assessment. In addition, decision making in the juvenile court is influenced by statutory requirements as well as characteristics of the decision maker and his or her role in decision making. For example, the role, beliefs and responsibility of the judge vary significantly from those of the prosecutor and can result in different decision-making behaviors (Sarri et al., 2001). Further, environmental characteristics such as community attitudes about crime, the availability of alternative dispositions, racial and cultural perspectives, neighborhood crime and disorganization all influence decision outcomes (Hawkins et al., 2005). Consequently, there is a need for research that distinctly focuses on the use of SDM in the juvenile justice system. 1.3. Research on SDM use in juvenile justice administration The feasibility of the use of risk and needs assessment instruments in practice situations has been documented through a research base focused on states or courts that employ these instruments extensively (e.g., Andrews et al., 2006; Gottfredson & Moriarity, 2006; Gottfredson & Snyder, 2005; Lowenkamp et al., 2006). The primary goal of this research has been the development of instruments for the prediction of risk of future criminal behavior and gathering of information on needs, both of which aid in the classification of offenders relative to their needs and security requirements. Prediction of risk has received the greatest attention and is primarily based on consideration of historical attributes such as age of first offense, criminal history, nature of offenses, substance abuse, school/employment record, and prior court and program experience. Most scholars agree that risk assessments should have predictive validity, be based on actuarial measures, be systematic measures of needs and responsivity, and be based on relevant theory (Bonta, 2002). Further, recent research has found that organizational characteristics of service agencies influence the application of risk assessments independent of individual behavioral change following program experience (Dixon, 1995; Taxman & Thanner, 2006). The richness of research on risk, needs, and responsivity assessment suggests that the use of these tools in juvenile justice administration presents a number of opportunities to improve

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1339

decision making. As discussed previously, the shift toward accountability-based sanctions has led several researchers to propose that in so far as formal assessments can help determine appropriate treatment, punishment, or levels of social control, they should be a key component of this model (Champion, 1994; Gottfredson & Snyder, 2005). Others emphasize that the use of SDM could alleviate racial disparities and reduce the use of detention (Krisberg, Onek, Jones, & Schwartz, 1993). While there is no evidence that this result has occurred, increasing fairness and equality in decision making remains an important goal of SDM use in juvenile justice administration. SDM use can also be useful in a more efficient allocation of the limited resources available in the juvenile justice system by improving the match between needs and services. Despite these assertions and possibilities, there is a relatively little research on the use of SDM in juvenile justice administration, thereby limiting understandings of the extent to which these technologies are being used and of issues/problems pertaining to their implementation in decision-making processes. Exceptions are two national surveys about the use of structured decision making in juvenile courts. Barton and Gorsuch (1989) completed a survey of courts in thirty-seven states and found that 47% used formal risk assessment tools to classify offenders and to inform post-dispositional decisions, 30% used risk assessment for some other formal classification, and 22% said that they did not use any formal assessment classification. Towberman (1992) surveyed 50 states and found that some type of SDM was utilized in most states, but not on a consistent and regular basis, and only a minority of states used formal empirically-derived assessment procedures. While providing an indication of the inconsistent and varied use of SDM in juvenile courts, these studies were conducted prior to the push for accountability-based sanctions of the early-to-mid 1990s and focused on court/state, as opposed to individual-level behavior. Consequently, there is a need for additional research on the use of SDM in juvenile court decision making. There are a number other factors indicating a need for further research on the application of SDM technologies in juvenile courts, including the following: 1. SDM instruments are numerous and vary widely in their scientific base, reliability and validity. 2. Previous research has revealed wide variations in the training about and support of SDM policies and procedures by court staff. 3. While effective use of SDM for decision making requires a broad range of alternative placement resources to meet risk and security requirements as well as treatment needs, sanction and treatment resource environments vary among courts using SDM. 4. Decision making for detention varies significantly from that for disposition, case management, or prediction of recidivism risk. As a result, clarity is needed about the purposes for which SDM instruments are used. 5. Unanticipated and undesired consequences occur in the handling of cases using SDM. False positives and false negatives occur in prediction, resulting in collateral damage. 6. Recent neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric research on adolescent brain development has revealed the importance of considering age-related development in juvenile court decision making. This article contributes to the literature on the implementation of SDM by focusing on court professionals' perceptions toward and use of SDM in delinquency case processing in twelve juvenile courts. Assessing court professionals' use of SDM is important because most existing studies of SDM have focused on the development and testing of assessment instruments for state or court use, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding the degree to which court professionals actually use SDM in juvenile justice administration (Barton & Creekmore, 1994; Barton & Gorsuch, 1989;

1340

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

Erth & Healy, 2000). Focusing on use is critical because it can highlight the effects of various individual and contextual constraints on SDM use, thereby improving understandings of obstacles to SDM implementation. Further, an examination of use can identify whether relationships exist between specific variables (e.g., professional position and court size) and the extent to which court professionals use SDM in case processing. Examining court professionals' perceptions of SDM is also an important research direction because court professionals are in a unique position to provide valuable feedback concerning SDM technologies. This research can aid in the development of appropriate SDM instruments and the improvement of existing technologies by identifying factors that affect the application of SDM in juvenile justice administration. 2. Data and methods The data for this article are from a four-state study (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio) funded by the National Institute of Justice that examined the use of structured decision making in achieving accountability-based sanctions. In each state, three courts were selected to reflect diversity of court size, resources, poverty rates, racial/ethnic diversity, and geography.3 From each of these twelve courts, we collected case processing information from administrative records, utilized existing reports and relevant data sets when available, conducted in-depth interviews with key officials, and surveyed judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and probation officers. In addition, we interviewed key officials at the state level and obtained relevant state-level data concerning their attitudes toward and support of structured decision making in case processing. We also analyzed the juvenile codes in each state because of the role that these provisions play in structuring the processing of juveniles into and through the court. For the purposes of examining SDM use and perceptions toward SDM, we rely primarily on data from a survey given to probation officers, judges, defense attorneys, and prosecutors (N = 665). The survey was self-administered and involved a population sample of probation officers, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys directly involved in delinquency case processing.4 The sample was obtained through the cooperation of key officials in each court who provided lists of and access to court professionals in each department. The overall response rate was 66%. Sample characteristics are described in Table 1. The survey asked respondents a variety of questions concerning their use and opinion of structured decision making, as well as their perspectives on general and specific issues of juvenile justice administration. With regard to SDM, court professionals were asked to rate the value of different SDM components (risk assessment, needs assessment, and security classification) and the usefulness of these components at different decision making points (pretrial detention, post adjudication placement, post commitment placement, release). Court professionals were also asked questions indicating their agreement with specific goals related to the implementation of SDM and whether SDM was achieving those goals in their courts. We also asked questions regarding specific reasons for overriding SDM recommendations. We focus on the responses of judges and probation officers in this article because they are the actors primarily involved in using SDM and because pre-tests revealed that prosecutors and 3

See Sarri et al. (2001) for a discussion of sample selection. The full survey is included in Sarri et al., (2001) available online from the National Criminal Justice Referral Service (NCJRS). The survey was an adaptation of instruments available in Champion, (1994). Measuring offender risk: A criminal justice sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press and Barton, W., & Creekmore, M. (1994). New Hampshire Dispositional Guidelines. State of New Hampshire: Division for Children, Youth & Families (available from authors). 4

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1341

Table 1 Sample characteristics Variable

Statistics

Mean age Female respondents Respondents of color Mean job experience Judges Prosecutors Defense attorneys Probation officers Michigan Ohio Indiana Illinois Small/medium courts a

38.8 years 49% 34% 8.47 years 12% 5% 9% 74% 22% 27% 17% 34% 25%

a

Small and medium courts were defined as those in counties with populations of less than 500,000 residents. Five courts in the study were considered to be large and 7 courts were considered to be small/medium according to the definition. The small sample size prohibited a more refined definition of court size.

defense attorneys were not very familiar with SDM.5 In the survey, SDM was broadly defined as “any procedures intended to guide decision makers or ‘standardize’ decisions according to predetermined criteria.” For the purposes of the article, we focus on the use of specific SDM components — risk assessment, needs assessment, and security classification. Our analyses in this article focus on the following questions: 1. What are the patterns of SDM use and how do these patterns differ by professional position, state, and court size? 2. To what extent do the opinions of court professionals or external constraints lead to overrides of SDM recommendations? 3. Do decision makers support the implementation of SDM to meet specific goals, do they think that SDM is meeting these goals, and how do these opinions differ by professional position, court size, and level of SDM use? 4. What levels of value do court professionals attach to the different forms of SDM and how useful do they find SDM at different stages of case processing? 5. Is there a relationship between attributions of value and usefulness and the actual frequency of SDM use? In order to address these questions, we use descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and analysis of variance. Differences in the use of SDM are examined by the position of the court professional (judge vs. probation officer), whether the court professional works in a large urban court or a court in a medium or small county, and state (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan). Differences in goal agreement, value, and usefulness are examined by position and court size. 5

We were hesitant not to ask prosecutors about their use of SDM because they have increasingly assumed a more significant role in case processing decisions in the juvenile court and because they differ from other actors in their orientations toward punishment and treatment. The results of the pre-tests, however, indicated a lack of familiarity with SDM and prompted us to remove these questions from the surveys administered to prosecutors and defense attorneys.

1342

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

Table 2 Percent of court professionals using specific SDM components SDM component

Position

County size

Judge

Probation officer

Large

Small/medium

Risk assessment Needs assessment Security classification

35% a 29% 28%

68% 52% 40%

65% 59% 41%

59% 48% 33%

SDM component

State Michigan 73% 56% 58%

Ohio 63% 49% 28%

Indiana 45% 43% 35%

Illinois 67% 47% 38%

Risk assessment Needs assessment Security classification a

Percentages in bold are significantly different (p b .05) from others in their rows.

ANOVA is used to examine the relationship between frequency of use and goal agreement, value, and usefulness. Examining differences across states and courts allows us to examine the effects of context on SDM use. Our interpretation of the results is aided by the use of data from in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with key officials at the county and state levels. 3. Results 3.1. Court professionals' use of SDM in juvenile justice case processing Although initial field interviews indicated that each state and court was using some type of SDM in juvenile court case processing, they failed to provide more precise information about the degree to which SDM was used by individual court professionals and the degree to which a variety of factors influence its use. Using survey data, we are able to examine the extent to which different components of SDM – risk assessment, needs assessment, and security classification – were actually used by judges and probation officers. Overall, 64% of respondents reported using at least one of these components in case processing and 35% of respondents reported using all three forms. Among these three types of SDM, risk assessment was most widely used, with 63% percent of judges and probation officers reporting using risk assessment, compared to 49% using needs assessment, and 39% using security classification. In fact, it was extremely rare that a court professional used one of these latter two forms of SDM without also reporting that they used risk assessment. Table 2 presents the use of these different components of SDM by professional position, state, and court size. Probation officers were more likely than judges to use at least one component of SDM (p b .001), and, specifically, were more likely to use risk assessment and needs assessment. Overall, court professionals in Indiana were less likely to use any form of SDM than court professionals in other states (p b .001).6 Specifically, court professionals in Indiana were less likely to use risk assessment and court professionals in Michigan were more likely to use 6

State level results with regard to Indiana need to be interpreted with caution because one county in Indiana reported very low levels of SDM use. Consequently, these findings might be the result of sampling issues. Field research in Indiana, however, did uncover significant problems in the implementation of a risk assessment instrument for use in probation case management in Indiana, providing some corroboration for these findings.

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1343

Table 3 Frequency of use of SDM components in reaching a disposition Position SDM component Risk assessment More than half the time Needs assessment More than half the time Security classification More than half the time a

County size

Judge

Probation officer

Large

Small/medium

48% a

72%

68%

76%

45%

64%

56%

81%

50%

58%

53%

72%

Percentages in bold are significantly different (p b .05) from others in their rows.

security classification than court professionals in other states. Examining state differences by position, we found that judges in Michigan were significantly (p b .05) more likely to report using SDM than judges in other states and that probation officers in Indiana were significantly (p b .001) less likely to report using SDM than similar professionals in the other states. Differences in the overall use of SDM between professionals in small/medium and large counties were marginally significant (p b .10), indicating that SDM use was more likely in larger courts. Specifically, court professionals in small/medium courts were marginally less likely to use security classification than court professionals in large courts (p b .10). When examining position and court size, we found that probation officers in large courts were significantly more likely to use SDM (p b .05) than their counterparts in small/medium courts, but there was no difference between judges in the two types of courts. Table 3 expands on these findings by looking more specifically at how frequently these court professionals used SDM.7 Respondents were asked to report the frequency with which they used one of these three forms of SDM on a six-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (76% of the time and above). Regular use is defined as using a particular form of SDM in over 50% of a respondent's cases. Probation officers who reported using risk assessment were more likely to use it regularly than judges, although there were no significant differences between these types of court professionals with regard to the frequency of use of needs assessment or security classification. Court professionals in small and medium counties were more likely to regularly use needs assessment and security classification than those in large counties. Examining position and county size together, we found that among probation officers utilizing SDM, those in small or medium counties were more likely to regularly use risk assessment (p b .001), needs assessment (p b .001), and security classification (p b .05) than those in large counties. 3.2. Constraints on SDM use Identifying possible reasons for overriding SDM recommendations provides information regarding constraints on the application of SDM in juvenile courts. The survey asked questions concerning reasons for overriding the SDM recommendation across two different dimensions: (1) views of the decision maker concerning the SDM recommendation and (2) external constraints on following SDM recommendations.

7

These results are based on those who reported using SDM. Frequent use among the overall sample is lower than reported in Table 3.

1344

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

Table 4 Constraints on SDM use: reason and % of time court professionals override SDM recommendations Guidelines recommended

Never

25% or less

N25%

Judges Community placement but I felt youth should be removed from home Out-of-home placement but I didn't feel youth should be removed Community placement but none available Community placement but parents wanted youth removed Mandatory override was required because of offense

10% 20% 20% 20% 29%

67% 73% 60% 50% 53%

23% 7% 20% 30% 18%

Probation officers Community placement but I felt youth should be removed from home Out-of-home placement but I didn't feel youth should be removed Community placement but none available Community placement but parents wanted youth removed Mandatory override was required because of offense

21% 25% 23% 29% 22%

55% 63% 50% 54% 54%

24% 13% 27% 17% 24%

Table 4 shows the percentages of both judges and probation officers who reported that they never overrode SDM recommendations for one of the listed reasons, those who reported overriding SDM in 25% or less of their cases, and those who reported overrides in more than 25% of their cases. As the table indicates, the vast majority of respondents reported overriding SDM recommendations for each of these reasons and a significant percentage of respondents reported overriding SDM recommendations over 25% of the time. Reasons for overrides ranged from legal mandates, to disagreement with SDM recommendations, to a lack of appropriate placements, but primarily were in the direction of secure or residential placement over community placement. In some courts in the study, the override level was as high as 50% for a residential placement when the recommendation was for community placement, largely due to a lack of suitable placements in the community. Overriding recommendations for community placements was frequent for females because community placements were often unavailable. 3.3. SDM implementation: perceptions of goals and their achievement We also asked a series of questions concerning the motives for SDM implementation that tap into two different dimensions of court professionals' perceptions of SDM: (1) their opinions of specific reasons for the implementation of SDM, and (2) their perceptions of whether SDM was meeting these goals. As indicated in Table 5, court professionals generally felt that SDM is a technology that can potentially serve specific decision-making goals, but did not believe that SDM implementation had been successful in meeting these goals in their courts. However, it is plausible that SDM was not implemented in these courts for the purpose of achieving some or all of these specific goals, and, therefore, any progress toward meeting them was a byproduct of its implementation for other reasons. At the very least, then, these findings suggest that there is a gap between what many court professionals see as good reasons for SDM implementation and its actual purpose. More likely, they show that SDM is not achieving its intended goals. A number of differences emerged when examining these items by position and court size. Significant differences were found more often with regard to whether these items reflected “good reasons” for SDM implementation as opposed to whether it had achieved these goals. Judges were marginally more likely than probation officers to feel that ensuring appropriate placement (p b .10) and reserving commitment for the most serious offenders were good reasons for SDM implementation. Probation officers were marginally more likely than judges to feel that holding

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1345

Table 5 Reason for SDM implementation and goal attainment by position and county size Reasons for SDM implementation

Is this a good reason? Judges

Probation officers

Judges

Probation officers

Ensure appropriate placement Reserve commitment for most serious offenders Make placement decisions consistent Place fewer youths in secure placements Prevent minority overrepresentation Hold decision makers accountable Create more paperwork

93% 83% 74% 71% 59% 56% 8%

81% 70% 61% 65% 46% 71% 17%

36% 39% 33% 43% 20% 22% 52%

41% 42% 29% 45% 20% 36% 48%

Reasons for SDM Implementation

Ensure appropriate placement Reserve commitment for most serious offenders Make placement decisions consistent Place fewer youths in secure placements Prevent minority overrepresentation Hold decision makers accountable Create more paperwork a

Has SDM helped to meet this goal?

Is this a good reason?

Has SDM helped to meet this goal?

Large

Small/medium

Large

Small/medium

79% a 69% 61% 61% 45% 68% 24%

95% 81% 69% 83% 56% 73% 14%

35% 37% 28% 41% 19% 34% 50%

56% 55% 36% 61% 23% 39% 41%

Percentages in bold are significantly different (p b .05) from others in their rows.

decision makers accountable was a good reason (p b .10). There were no significant differences between these court professionals with regard to whether SDM was achieving these goals. Probation officers and judges in small and medium courts were more likely than those in large courts to feel that these items presented good reasons for SDM implementation, and, in some cases, to feel that SDM was meeting these goals. In particular, court professionals in small and medium courts were more likely to feel that a good reason to implement SDM was to place fewer youth in secure placements, ensure appropriate placements, and reserve commitments for the most serious offenders. They were also marginally more likely to feel that preventing minority overrepresentation (p b .10) was a good reason to implement SDM. At the same time, court professionals in small and medium courts were more likely to feel that SDM had achieved the goals of placing fewer youth in secure placements, ensuring appropriate placement, and reserving commitment for the most serious offenders. 3.4. Perceptions of SDM: value and usefulness The final aspect of SDM use we consider is the opinion of court professionals regarding the value and usefulness of SDM. One series of questions asked judges and probation officers about Table 6 Perceptions of value of SDM components by position and county size SDM component

Risk assessment Needs assessment Security classification a

Position

County size

Judge

Probation officer

Large

Small/medium

1.83 a 2.09 1.59

1.46 1.67 1.56

1.43 1.55 1.48

2.06 2.28 1.89

Percentages in bold are significantly different (p b .05) from others in their rows.

1346

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

the value of each of the three types of SDM – risk assessment, needs assessment, and security classification – independently on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not valuable) to 3 (very valuable). Overall, court professionals attributed the lowest level of value to security classification followed by risk assessment (see Table 6). Judges and probation officers both placed more value on needs assessment, an indication that the goal of rehabilitation might be more valued than accountability or security. These findings suggest that while professionals in large courts attach some value to each of these SDM components, they do not place as high a level of value on them as do professionals in smaller courts (p b .05). We found an interesting relationship between frequency of use and value attributed to SDM use, in that court professionals who used risk assessment more frequently were more likely to place a higher level of value on risk assessment (p b .001). The same relationship existed with regard to needs assessment (p b .001) and security classification (p b .001), indicating that attributions of value were related to frequency of use for each type of SDM component. A second set of items asked about the usefulness of SDM at specific points in the decisionmaking process — pretrial detention, post-adjudication placement, post-commitment placement, and release decisions. Judges and probation officers were asked to indicate how useful they felt SDM was at these points on a 5-point scale ranging from not useful (1) to extremely useful (5). Overall, court professionals reported that SDM was at least somewhat useful at each of these decision-making points. There was also relatively little difference in the reported usefulness of SDM at these different points — court professionals indicated that SDM was most useful at postadjudication placement, followed by release decisions, post-commitment placement, and pretrial detention. Table 7 presents the results of analyses of usefulness by position and court size. Judges were more likely to report that the use of SDM at post-adjudication placement was useful than were probation officers (p b .05). Small and medium court professionals were significantly more likely to feel that SDM was useful in post-adjudication placement, postcommitment placement, and release decisions than were those in large courts. Attributions of usefulness were related to the frequency of use of these different SDM components at each decision-making point except pretrial detention, as court professionals who used at least one SDM component frequently were more likely to find them to be useful. 4. Discussion The use of SDM in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems is an important issue, particularly because of its potential to increase fairness and effectiveness in case processing decisions, as well as to reduce bias. SDM use remains a complex issue, however, because of the challenge of developing good instruments and the difficulties in achieving successful application of these instruments in case processing decisions. While substantial attention has been placed on the Table 7 Perceptions of usefulness of SDM at specific decision-making points Decision-making point

Pretrial detention Post adjudication placement Post commitment placement Release decisions a

Position

County size

Judge

Probation officer

Large

Small/medium

3.24 3.71 a 3.29 3.36

3.06 3.25 3.25 3.25

3.05 3.16 3.16 3.14

3.17 3.85 3.61 3.73

Percentages in bold are significantly different (p b .05) from others in their rows.

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1347

former challenge, relatively little research has examined the latter. Understanding the application of SDM is essential, though, because even when good instruments are developed there remains a need to insure that they are implemented consistently and effectively. In addition, court actors need to be trained in the use of SDM instruments and provided with feedback about the results of decisions when instruments were utilized compared to instances when they were not employed. This article focused on a number of aspects of the implementation of SDM in juvenile justice decision making, specifically the use of SDM in case processing and the perceptions of court professionals about the value and usefulness of SDM. Our findings indicate that approximately two-thirds of court professionals use at least one component of SDM. Although more than twothirds of court professionals who use SDM report using it regularly, less than half of the court professionals in the overall sample report using SDM regularly. The findings of this study are consistent with older research (e.g., Barton & Gorsuch, 1989; Towberman, 1992) that shows that SDM is not used extensively or consistently in case processing in juvenile courts. However, this study extends previous findings by showing that even when SDM is used, there are specific constraints that affect its application, such as disagreement with SDM recommendations or a limited range of programs and services. The results also indicate that many court professionals do not place a high level of value on different SDM components and do not find it particularly useful at various decision-making points. Further, while a majority of court professionals feel that there are good reasons for implementing SDM, thereby suggesting some support for SDM implementation, they do not believe that SDM has been successful in achieving these goals. Interestingly, the results showed that there was a positive relationship between frequency of use and perceptions of value. While we cannot determine the causal direction of this relationship, our interpretation based on field interviews is that court professionals who place higher values on SDM are more likely to use SDM regularly, suggesting an importance in increasing the perceived value and utility placed on SDM use by court professionals. One of the limitations of the survey was that it did not include a measure that indicates the percentage of cases in which SDM use was available, appropriate, or required, thereby not providing a specific indication of the degree to which SDM is intended to be used in case processing in juvenile courts. Our field interviews, however, revealed that SDM was increasingly being used across the vast majority of jurisdictions in the sample. Key officials at both the court and state levels had positive views of SDM and felt that SDM use had the potential to make case processing more fair and effective. Many of these officials were actively involved in implementing different forms of SDM in juvenile court case processing. Each court in the sample had implemented some form of SDM, or at the very least SDM use had been intended in each court, and many had implemented several different forms at various decision-making points. In fact, three of the four states in our study were or had been involved in implementing SDM in probation case management or disposition decision making. A number of the respondents also mentioned wanting to increase the use of SDM in their states and courts, suggesting a continued emphasis on promoting SDM in juvenile justice administration. Overall, these findings reveal both desire among key officials to implement SDM in juvenile justice case processing and active efforts to do so. The results of the survey data, however, indicate that a majority of respondents do not use SDM regularly and that these same court professionals do not find SDM to be very valuable, useful, or to have met specific goals. The field interviews corroborated the finding that SDM was not being used regularly in these courts. There are a number of explanations for the gap in these findings. One key explanation is the existence of external constraints that hinder ability to consistently use SDM, including limitations with regard to funding, the range of available programs and services, training, and oversight, as well as laws

1348

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

that conflict with SDM recommendations. For example, despite the fact that a standardized instrument had been developed and implemented for probation officers in Indiana, probation officers in Indiana were less likely to use SDM than probation officers in other states. This can be explained largely by poor implementation efforts in Indiana, particularly with regard to training, funding, and oversight. Another example of the influence of external constraints on SDM use is reflected in efforts in Michigan to implement a standardized instrument for statewide use in disposition decision making. These efforts explain, at least in part, why judges in Michigan were more likely than judges in other states to use SDM. Despite this finding, however, it was clear that SDM was not being consistently used, as a 1998 report from the Michigan agency in charge of child welfare and juvenile justice revealed that it was being used in only 52% of jurisdictions statewide and that a large majority of court administrators reported that it was being used in less than 25% of cases. In addition, the implementation of this instrument in the courts that adopted it was hindered by judicial overrides. One reason given for these overrides was a lack of alternative communitybased placements in most of the counties and the state's preference for residential placements, particularly in the 1990s after an increase in juvenile crime in the state. This highlights an important finding from both the field and survey — the use of SDM requires a sufficient range of programs and services to be used effectively and consistently. In this vein, courts in this sample that maintained a broader range of programs and services were more likely to employ a greater variety of SDM instruments in case processing. Similarly, a majority of court professionals reported not being able to follow SDM recommendations because of other constraints such as legal requirements and the desires of parents for more secure placements. The need for a range of placements and services that meet the various SDM recommendations is further demonstrated by the finding that a majority of court professionals did not follow SDM recommendations in favor of community-based placement because they disagreed with these recommendations. While this finding captures court professionals' individual views of SDM recommendations, it is important to note that these views are not necessarily distinct from external conditions because a court professional's opinions are likely to be influenced by their specific working context. If community-based programs are lacking, or perceived to be lacking, court professionals will develop negative views of these options, increasing the likelihood that they will override recommendations when considering specific categories of cases. The resistance of court professionals to using SDM, or to following SDM recommendations, is another key explanation for these findings. While the survey data do not provide a clear measure of resistance, it was evident from the field interviews that many key officials felt that court professionals were resisting the use of SDM in case processing even when required. For example, Illinois developed an instrument to be used statewide in probation case management. Despite the fact that state officials felt that they had developed the instrument from the “ground up” with the input of probation officers, both these officials and respondents at the court level felt that probation officers often did not use the instrument. There were many reasons for resistance to SDM use or to following SDM recommendations. One official in Illinois noted that probation officers objected to having their discretion “replaced by an instrument.” In other words, this respondent felt that many probation officers did not feel that an instrument should replace their professional judgment. Another reason for resistance involves the wide variety of SDM tools being used in these courts. Our research uncovered a variety of types of SDM, including actuarially-based instruments, standardized instruments for the assessment of behavioral and demographic characteristics, forms that set out the basic criteria for entry into specific programs and services, and clinical instruments to assess a youth's background and behavior. Variation also existed to the

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1349

extent that instruments were validated and with regard to the primary focus of instruments. Given this variation, there was considerable skepticism among respondents about the ability of these instruments to adequately predict behavior. The instruments themselves also contributed to resistance because some were seen as cumbersome, time consuming, and difficult to use, thereby leading to inconsistent use by court professionals based upon caseload pressures. The disparity between perceptions of whether specific reasons for implementing SDM were “good” and the degree to which SDM was meeting these goals is instructive for several reasons. First, it suggests that there is support among court professionals to implement SDM. Second, it provides some guidance with regard to specific goals of SDM that court professionals might support. Finally, it shows that existing SDM technologies are falling far short of achieving these goals. In many ways, these findings point to a need to reassess the rationale guiding existing SDM technologies and to improve these technologies so that they fit these rationales. The relationship between frequency of use and value provides further context for understanding these results. As discussed previously, we interpret this relationship as meaning that court professionals who place higher value on SDM and who see it as more useful are more likely to use it. Increasing perceptions of value and usefulness, then, might lead to more support for its implementation and more regular use. When training, funding, and oversight are limited and programs and services that accord with SDM recommendations are unavailable or perceived to be insufficient, it is not surprising that recommendations are not followed or that SDM is not used. The passage of punitive laws with explicit placement requirements over the last several decades has resulted in failure to use SDM, especially with regard to decisions to transfer youth to the adult court. Differences in the use of SDM between judges and probation officers are not surprising given the fact that probation officers are most often involved in conducting assessments, managing cases, and providing services. In addition, use is more likely to be mandated for probation officers whereas judges generally have more discretion in decision making. The finding that court professionals in large compared to small/medium courts were more likely to use some component of SDM is consistent with other research on juvenile justice administration that suggests that caseload pressures in large juvenile courts require a focus on more objective factors (Lowenkamp, LaTessa, & Holsinger, 2006). It is interesting, however, that court professionals in large courts who used SDM used it less frequently, were more likely to disagree with specific goals for implementing SDM, valued it less, and found it less useful at various decision-making points than those in small and medium courts. This finding might be a reflection of the fact that court professionals, particularly probation officers, in small or medium counties are generalists involved in all aspects of case processing, and, therefore, are more open to SDM. On the other hand, probation officers in large courts are more likely to specialize and only be focused on specific aspects of case processing, leading to the finding that they are less receptive to having their judgment supplanted by an instrument. It might also be a reflection of the fact that despite the bureaucracies of large courts, there might be less centralized control over probation officers compared to small or medium sized courts, allowing individual probation officers more control over how they assess or manage cases. A limitation of this research is that we were unable to determine the extent of SDM use at detention. This is an important area for future research because of the increasing tendency to detain youth with mental health problems, youth in the child welfare system, and status offenders. Grisso (2005) estimates that 60–70% of youth in juvenile facilities have a diagnosable mental health problem. Detention decisions are also important because they are associated with an increased likelihood of adjudication and placement. Consequently, the development and implementation of

1350

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

instruments for detention screening, such as the MAISI assessment instrument developed by Grisso, is an important area for future research. Finally, given the fluidity in many areas of the juvenile justice system today, the need is increasingly apparent for SDM instruments that take into consideration family and environmental factors as well as the biological knowledge of developing maturation and its impact on delinquent behavior (Grisso, 2005). In addition, the findings from the Seattle Social Development study about differential patterns of early and late onset of delinquency must be given consideration (Hawkins et al., 2005). They emphasize that since there are multiple trajectories to criminal and non-criminal careers, multiple types of intervention are required to achieve successful outcomes. The lack of sufficient attention to protective factors of youth, their families, and the neighborhood also hampers decision making. The next decade may well see the development of many new SDM instruments. Hopefully, court professionals will be consulted in that process so that they can be utilized successfully in decision making. 5. Conclusion The findings from this article focus attention on the considerable challenges facing the implementation of structured decision making in juvenile justice decision making. In many respects, the use of SDM in the juvenile justice system seeks to focus case processing decisions on objective indicators that have been shown to be associated with specific outcomes, thereby improving both the effectiveness and fairness of decision making. This effort is consistent with the broader evidence-based practice movement in social work and related fields which advocates for practice to be informed by the best available evidence at the point of contact with the individual client. As discussed previously, efforts to implement SDM in the juvenile justice system have been aided by extensive research on the reliability and appropriateness of specific types of instruments for use in juvenile courts. Although the courts we studied used a variety of instruments and forms of assessment, there was an effort among key officials to develop and/or implement empirically-derived actuarial instruments in decision-making processes. Thus, these results provide some evidence that state and court officials are supportive of efforts to incorporate the best available evidence into decision-making processes. Despite the focus on the use of SDM and the development of SDM technologies for juvenile justice decision making, there has been relatively little research that has examined the implementation of these instruments in juvenile justice. This article both corroborates and extends the results of previous research by highlighting the varied and inconsistent use of SDM in juvenile courts and identifying some of the constraints on using SDM in the decision-making process. In effect, we found a disjuncture between the desire of court and state officials to use SDM and the actual use of these instruments among court professionals. These findings are important for understanding the tremendous challenges concerning the implementation of SDM and the recognition of the limits of SDM use in settings such as the juvenile court. In particular, they suggest that training, oversight, resources, and a range of program and service options are important for the consistent and frequent use of SDM. At the same time, they reveal that juvenile courts are distinct political, organizational, cultural, and contextual institutions and that decisionmaking practices are often shaped by these institutional factors. As efforts to implement SDM in juvenile justice systems continue, it is essential that policy makers, practitioners and researchers incorporate understandings of these factors into both the development of SDM technologies and the implementation of these technologies. This challenge also applies to the broader evidencebased practice movement.

J.J. Shook, R.C. Sarri / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1335–1351

1351

References Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2006). The recent past and near future of risk and/or needs assessment. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 7−27. Barton, W., & Creekmore, M. (1994). New Hampshire dispositional guidelines. State of New Hampshire: Division for Children, Youth & Families. Barton, W., & Gorsuch, K. (1989). Risk assessment and classification in juvenile justice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Bonta, J. (2002). Offender risk assessment: Guidelines for selection and use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19(4), 335−379. Champion, D. J. (1994). Measuring offender risk: A criminal justice sourcebook Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Dixon, J. (1995). The organizational context of sentencing. American Journal of Sociology, 10(5), 1157−1198. Erth, J., & Healy, T. (2000). Cook county juvenile female offenders risk assessment Chicago: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Feld, B. C. (1999). Badkids: Race and the transformation of the juvenile court New York: Oxford University Press. Gambrill, E., & Shlonsky, A. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11/12), 813−839. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1956). Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gottfredson, D., & Moriarity, L. (2006). Statistical risk assessment: Old problems and new applications. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 178−199. Gottfredson, D., & Snyder, H. (2005). The mathematics of risk classification: Changing data into valid instruments for juvenile courts Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Grisso, T. (2005). Why we need mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice programs. In T. Grisso, G. Vincent, & D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 3−21). New York: The Guilford Press. Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., Hill, K. G., et al. (2005). Understanding and preventing crime and violence: Findings from the Seattle Social Development Project. In T. P. Thornberry, & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency (pp. 255−312). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Jesness, C. F. (1998). The Jesness Inventory Classification System. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15(1), 78−91. Jesness, C. F., Bohnstedt, M., & Molof, M. (1973). Sequential I-Level Classification Sacramento, CA: American Justice Institute. Keller, K. (2002). Abuse/neglect and delinquency: Dually involved minors in the juvenile court. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL. Krisberg, B., Onek, D., Jones, M., & Schwartz, I. (1993). Juveniles in state custody: prospects for community-based care for troubled adolescents. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lowenkamp, C., LaTessa, E., & Holsinger, A. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77−93. Miller, A., & Ohlin, L. (1985). Delinquency and community: Creating opportunities and controls Beverly Hills: Sage. Miller, J. (1991). Last one over the wall: The Massachusetts experiment in closing reform schools Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Sarri, R., & Hasenfeld, Y. (1976). Brought to justice? Juveniles, the courts, and the law Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Sarri, R., Shook, J., Ward, G., et al. (2001). Decision making in the juvenile justice system Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Schlossman, S. (1995). Delinquent children: The juvenile reform school. In N. Morris & D. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford history of the prison (pp. 363−390). New York: Oxford University Press. Snyder, H. N. (2006). Juvenile arrests 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Taxman, F., & Thanner, M. (2006). Risk, need and responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 28−51. Tanenhaus, D. (2002). The evolution of juvenile courts in the twentieth century: Beyond the myth of immaculate construction. In M. Rosenheim, F. Zimring, D. Tanenhaus, & B. Dohrn (Eds.), A century of juvenile justice (pp. 42−73). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Towberman, D. B. (1992). A national survey of juvenile risk assessment. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 43(1), 61−67. Warren, M. (1970). The case for differential treatment of delinquents. In H. L. Voss (Ed.), Society, delinquency and delinquent behavior (pp. 419−428). Boston: Little Brown Co. Zimring, F. (2000). Penal proportionality for the young offender: Notes on immaturity, capacity and diminished responsibility. In T. Grisso, & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 271−290). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.