Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Criminal Justice and Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwalbe, C. S.
Right arrow Articles by Cooley, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Classifying Juvenile Offenders According to Risk of Recidivism

Predictive Validity, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender

Craig S. Schwalbe

Columbia University

Mark W. Fraser

Steven H. Day

Valerie Cooley

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Structured risk assessment instruments are increasingly used in juvenile justice systems to support judicial decision making. They help juvenile justice authorities identify youths with a higher likelihood of repeat delinquency and reduce discretion associated with disposition decision making. To be effective, these instruments should be accurate across diverse populations. This study describes the predictive validity of the North Carolina Assessment of Risk (NCAR) in a sample of 9,534 adjudicated juveniles in North Carolina. Results show the predictive validity of the NCAR to differ by gender and race/ethnicity. Closer inspection reveals that risk factors for recidivism differed according to demographic group and that brief risk assessment instruments such as the NCAR leave other risk factors unmeasured. The results support the utility of risk assessment for juvenile justice decision making and suggest strategies to improve the validity of risk assessment for all offender groups.

Key Words: risk assessment • juvenile justice • juvenile court • delinquency • structured decision making

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 3, 305-324 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0093854806286451


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Research on Social Work PracticeHome page
C. S. Schwalbe
Risk Assessment Stability: A Revalidation Study of the Arizona Risk/Needs Assessment Instrument
Research on Social Work Practice, March 1, 2009; 19(2): 205 - 213.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
M. T. Swogger, Z. Walsh, and D. S. Kosson
Psychopathy Subtypes Among African American County Jail Inmates
Criminal Justice and Behavior, December 1, 2008; 35(12): 1484 - 1499.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
C. S. Schwalbe
A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments: Predictive Validity by Gender
Criminal Justice and Behavior, November 1, 2008; 35(11): 1367 - 1381.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
S. M. Gavazzi, C. M. Yarcheck, J. M. Sullivan, S. C. Jones, and A. Khurana
Global Risk Factors and the Prediction of Recidivism Rates in a Sample of First-Time Misdemeanant Offenders
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, June 1, 2008; 52(3): 330 - 345.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
C. S. Schwalbe, M. W. Fraser, and S. H. Day
Predictive Validity of the Joint Risk Matrix With Juvenile Offenders: A Focus on Gender and Race/Ethnicity
Criminal Justice and Behavior, March 1, 2007; 34(3): 348 - 361.
[Abstract] [PDF]