What's risk got to do with it: Judges' and probation officers' understanding and use of juvenile risk assessments in making residential placement decisions.
Jeanne McPhee, Kirk Heilbrun, Denise Navarre Cubbon, Mark Soler, Naomi E Goldstein
{"title":"What's risk got to do with it: Judges' and probation officers' understanding and use of juvenile risk assessments in making residential placement decisions.","authors":"Jeanne McPhee, Kirk Heilbrun, Denise Navarre Cubbon, Mark Soler, Naomi E Goldstein","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This hypothetical vignette-based experiment was designed to better understand judges' and probation officers' interpretations and use of juvenile risk assessment tools in their decision-making around restrictive sanctions and confinement of youths on the basis of the youths' risk level and race.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We expected that estimates of the probability of juvenile recidivism would significantly mediate the relationship between a categorical risk descriptor and decisions regarding the ordering confinement of youths. We also hypothesized that youths' race would serve as a significant moderator in the model.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Judicial and probation staff (N = 309) read a two-part vignette about a youth who was arrested for the first time; in this vignette, race (Black, White) and risk level (low, moderate, high, very high) of the youth were varied. Participants were asked to estimate the likelihood that the youth would recidivate in the following year and their likelihood of ordering or recommending residential placement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although we found no simple, significant relationship between risk level and confinement decisions, judicial and probation staff estimated higher likelihoods of recidivism as risk-level categories increased and ordered out-of-home placements at increased rates as their estimations of the youth's likelihood of recidivation increased. The youth's race did not moderate the model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The greater the probability of recidivism, the more likely each judge or probation officer was to order or recommend out-of-home placement. However, importantly, legal decisionmakers appeared to apply categorical risk assessment data to their confinement decisions using their own interpretations of risk category rather than being guided empirically on the basis of risk-level categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 2","pages":"320-332"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10102975/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000528","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This hypothetical vignette-based experiment was designed to better understand judges' and probation officers' interpretations and use of juvenile risk assessment tools in their decision-making around restrictive sanctions and confinement of youths on the basis of the youths' risk level and race.
Hypotheses: We expected that estimates of the probability of juvenile recidivism would significantly mediate the relationship between a categorical risk descriptor and decisions regarding the ordering confinement of youths. We also hypothesized that youths' race would serve as a significant moderator in the model.
Method: Judicial and probation staff (N = 309) read a two-part vignette about a youth who was arrested for the first time; in this vignette, race (Black, White) and risk level (low, moderate, high, very high) of the youth were varied. Participants were asked to estimate the likelihood that the youth would recidivate in the following year and their likelihood of ordering or recommending residential placement.
Results: Although we found no simple, significant relationship between risk level and confinement decisions, judicial and probation staff estimated higher likelihoods of recidivism as risk-level categories increased and ordered out-of-home placements at increased rates as their estimations of the youth's likelihood of recidivation increased. The youth's race did not moderate the model.
Conclusion: The greater the probability of recidivism, the more likely each judge or probation officer was to order or recommend out-of-home placement. However, importantly, legal decisionmakers appeared to apply categorical risk assessment data to their confinement decisions using their own interpretations of risk category rather than being guided empirically on the basis of risk-level categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
目的：这项基于小故事的假设实验旨在更好地了解法官和缓刑监督官在根据青少年的风险水平和种族做出限制性制裁和监禁青少年的决策时，对青少年风险评估工具的解释和使用情况：我们预计，对青少年累犯概率的估计将在很大程度上调节分类风险描述与有关对青少年进行有序监禁的决策之间的关系。我们还假设，青少年的种族在模型中将起到重要的调节作用：司法人员和缓刑监督人员（N = 309）阅读了一个由两部分组成的小故事，故事讲述的是一名首次被捕的青少年；在这个小故事中，青少年的种族（黑人、白人）和风险水平（低、中、高、极高）各不相同。参与者被要求估计该青少年在下一年重新犯罪的可能性，以及他们下令或建议寄宿安置的可能性：尽管我们没有发现风险等级与监禁决定之间存在简单而显著的关系，但随着风险等级类别的增加，司法人员和缓刑监督人员估计的再犯可能性也随之增加，并且随着他们对青少年再犯可能性估计的增加，下令进行家庭外安置的比例也随之增加。青少年的种族并不影响模型：再次犯罪的可能性越大，法官或缓刑监督官就越有可能下令或建议对青少年进行家庭外安置。然而，重要的是，法律决策者似乎是根据自己对风险类别的理解，而不是根据风险级别类别的经验指导，将分类风险评估数据应用到他们的监禁决定中。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved）。
期刊介绍：
Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
