Assessing juvenile delinquency risk: Washington and Missouri comparison

Juvenile Justice

A comparison of the results obtained for each individual from the two different assessments.

Colleen M.: Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment

Criminal and Social History

Colleen M's criminal history began soon before her recent arrest. The individual is 15 years of age. Her criminal history, however, is relatively severe. The first charge on which Colleen was charged was involuntary manslaughter. Colleen doused her neighbor with a tub of pesticides, which severely burned the neighbor's skin and subsequently caused an allergic reaction that led to the death of the neighbor. The death was ruled an involuntary manslaughter and Colleen was adjudicated as a delinquent. Colleen continues to claim self-defense, as the neighbor had set fire to a scarecrow on her family house lawn.

However, a few weeks prior, Colleen was involved in another death that was ruled an accidental homicide. She was just a passenger in a motor home that caused the death of the driver. Immediately after the accident occurred, Colleen put on the dead driver's shoes. She claims an observer told her to do so. Although this act is not deemed a crime, the behavior warrants attention.

Colleen has also tested positive for opiates but denies having a drug problem.

According to the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment, Colleen M's criminal history yields only a moderate score of 6 in spite of the severity of her crimes. Because there is insufficient information about Colleen's school history, there is no way of knowing how to score on school-related assessment indicators.

The Washington State Juvenile Court Pre-Assessment also takes into account the individual's relationship with family and community. Although little information is offered about Colleen's relationships, it is apparent the individual has experienced neglect if not outright abuse. The individual has no known pro-social ties, and there is no indication that she has any friends. The individual socializes with people she is not close with including random homeless people. Colleen M's social history is even more problematic than her criminal history. Criminal history score is a 7 and social history risk score is a 17.

Level of Risk

Colleen's level of risk, computed as a combination of criminal and social history factors, is 9. She demonstrates a high risk factor because she has been arrested for violent crimes and because she demonstrates no pro-social ties. She has also indicated willingness to lie. The level of risk as a measure of criminal and social history is high.

Missouri Juvenile Court Assessment

Colleen M. has a risk score of 8, which is high. The evaluation takes into account the subject's peer relationships, history of abuse and neglect, substance abuse, and parental management style. The Missouri Juvenile Court Assessment takes into account similar factors as the Washington State Juvenile Pre-Assessment and the overall risk factor for this individual is moderate only because of a lack of information.

2. What additional information could have been used

The case study reports yield insufficient information about both individuals. For example, no information is offered about Colleen's current school status or her relationship with peers. Neither individual's case study shows any prior assessment by psychologists or diagnoses of learning or physical disabilities. Interview data with either client is also missing; it would be helpful to have some more qualitative information that would present the courts with a fuller picture of the two individuals in question. For example, how do they feel about their crimes? How do they perceive their future and their role in society? How involved have they been in the past with school and other social activities?

Xander's school history is tacitly mentioned, because he did drop out and intends to obtain his G.E.D. However, no prior school history is offered, such as how Xander did in school prior to his legal problems, what his teachers thought of him, whether he was involved in extracurricular activities, and how he got along with peers.

Little detail is offered about the individuals' legal histories as well such as possible warrants or the presence of misdemeanor crimes on their records. No information is given about the two individuals' prior employment history. Therefore, scoring for both these juvenile offenders will not be completely accurate.

3. What potential correctional strategy is recommended for the individuals

The key to helping Colleen M. And Xander L. is the development of comprehensive interventions. Both individuals should be eligible for prevention, education, and intervention services as outlined in the Missouri Juvenile Pre-Assessment survey instrument. Because Xander has expressed interest in the G.E.D. this will certainly be a core area of interest for him. Colleen M. must undergo further evaluation by qualified professionals because it is unclear about her academic history and her academic ambitions.

Both individuals also need to be evaluated further by psychologists to determine whether or not mental illness will be a factor in their correctional strategies. It is recommended that both individuals undergo a thorough psychiatric evaluation. Colleen M. might especially be eligible for foster care services, as her mother is in a drug treatment facility. Colleen M. has only been convicted of one violent offense, although the presence of opiates in the drug test and the individual's predilection for lying are causes for concern.