Community Solutions Toolkit
Risk and Needs Assessments
to Drive Case Planning
The goal of a good case plan is to match the right service with the right youth. Effective case planning begins with a comprehensive assessment of a youth’s risks, needs, and strengths.
There are eight distinguishable risk factors that contribute to the likelihood that someone will commit a crime. Each factor is identified with specific indicators and is also considered changeable or dynamic depending upon the appropriate interventions or services provided. [See Appendix A for a description of risk indicators and dynamic needs.]
The first “Big Four” risk factors are most predictive of future criminal behavior. Services targeted toward the Big Four risk factors are proven to have the greatest impact in reducing reoffending.
Youth involved in the justice system can have a wide range of needs but not all are directly associated with criminal behavior
Big Four Risk Factors
The final “Moderate Four” factors represent these needs, as they are associated with criminal risk but not necessarily predictive of reoffending.
Other factors, such as psychosocial needs, health and mental health, and education, should also be assessed and addressed in treatment concurrently with criminogenic needs since they may represent a barrier to effective participation in treatment
Moderate Four Risk Factors
Evidence-Based Practice and What Research Says...
Risk assessment instruments are used to assist in decision-making and classify youth into groups based on their likelihood of repeat offending (low, moderate, high). If implemented correctly, risk assessment tools can result in an improved effective use of resources, outcomes for youth, and enhanced data collection for evaluation.
Risk assessment instruments have evolved over the years, beginning with professional judgment (first generation) to far more systematic and evidence-based tools (fourth generation). To date, fourth generation risk assessment tools provide the most comprehensive assessment by integrating systematic interventions and monitoring a broader range of offender risk factors as well as personal factors important to treatment. Practitioners should use a validated, actuarial risk and needs assessment tools to prevent unstructured clinical judgments that can lead to a misinformed or biased assessment.
Know the Terms
Risk principle: Understanding the likelihood of reoffending and how it can be reduced.
Need principle: Interventions should target criminogenic needs (factors that are predictive of offending) over non-criminogenic needs (attributes that have little to do with the offending behavior).
Responsivity principle: Deliver services in a manner that is consistent with each youth's individual learning style, developmental stage, and abilities.
Actuarial tools: Tools that make a mathematical prediction using measurable and predictive factors like age or gender to formulate the likelihood of risk.
Protective factors or strengths: Attributes that can decrease the potentially harmful effects of risk factors. Examples include good parental supervision, strong family ties, positive role models, strong community ties, school engagement, and career goals.
Michigan Risk Assessment Instruments
A 2013 survey of Michigan Circuit Courts found that there are over a dozen types of assessment tools in use across the state. The following are five of the most commonly used risk assessment instruments:
Michigan Juvenile Justice Assessment System (MJASS)
The MJJAS is a research-based, validated assessment instrument developed by the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute. The MJJAS assessment system is based on research involving 2,457 youth in Ohio across all counties, courts, and rehabilitative programs of the juvenile justice system. The MJJAS was incorporated into Michigan’s state training schools as part of the treatment planning process by MDHHS in 2010. In 2013 MJJAS was designated as the risk assessment tool to be used by MDHHS public and contracted juvenile justice residential facilities to assess juvenile justice youth.
Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI)
The Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI™) is an innovative model that assesses risk, needs and protective factors in youth populations.
Youth Level of Service - Case Management Inventory (YLC/CMI II)
The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory 2.0 (YLS/CMI 2.0™) is a gender-informed, culturally-informed, strengths-focused risk/needs tool that reliably and accurately classifies and predicts re-offending within male and female juvenile populations.
Juvenile Inventory for Functioning (JIFF)
The Juvenile Inventory for Functioning (JIFF) identifies behaviors and symptoms that affect how a youth functions in everyday life. The JIFF was designed for youth referred to juvenile justice, child welfare and school counseling. This computerized interview shows what is happening in the child’s life in 10 different areas of functioning.
Youth COMPAS
Designed for delinquent youth ages 12 to 17, COMPAS Youth takes advantage of recent research on the predictors and needs factors most strongly linked to juvenile delinquent behavior.
Choosing a Risk Assessment Model
Many Michigan courts already use one or more risk and needs assessment tool. However, for those jurisdictions still searching for the right model or those seeking to update their existing tools, the following steps can point you in the right direction.
Step 1: Define
What is the purpose of having a risk assessment for your jurisdiction’s population and needs?
There is no one-size-fits-all assessment tool. Each tool is designed to help with particular populations of youth in various settings. These assessments can assist with multiple tasks, including estimating delinquent behavior, guiding intervention planning, and streamlining interagency data collection and language.
-
What do you want the instrument to do and how will the information be used?
-
Do you hope to differentiate probation caseloads based on risk?
-
Will the instrument be used to divert youth who are considered to be low-risk for re-offending away from formal court involvement?
-
Do you want to guide decision-making by judges and treatment staff?
-
Are you attempting to predict risk to the community?
-
Based on your existing array of assessment instruments, what types of additional tools might you need?
-
Risk assessment?
-
Mental health?
-
Substance use?
-
Sexual offending behaviors?
-
Violent behaviors?
-
Step 2: Choose
What tool that is proven to work fits your jurisdictional needs?
Only choose tools that are research-proven or evidence-based so you can trust the information it provides. Tools should have an instructional manual that makes the administration standardized and structured so it is used with every youth in the same way. There should also be independent research evidence of the tool’s reliability and validity specifically with the population of interest.
It is important that each community selects the right tool or tools to fit the unique needs of their community. Counties should determine whether the outcomes measured, training required, cost, and usefulness of the tool are right for their jurisdiction.
-
Is there research to support the effectiveness of this tool?
-
Preferably, the instrument will have at least one peer-reviewed study by an independent party who has no stake in the sale of the instrument.
-
-
Does this instrument assess “risk” for re-offending?
-
Preference should go to instruments that permit reassessment if it is being used for case planning.
-
-
Does this instrument demonstrate reliability (i.e. would two independent raters reach similar conclusions)?
-
Was this instrument developed for or validated on a juvenile justice population with characteristics similar to yours (i.e. age, gender, race, etc.)?
Step 3: Develop
What is your plan to implement the assessment tool?
It is important to not only choose the right tool but to incorporate it into existing practices in your community.
-
Who will administer the tool?
-
What are the training requirements for users?
-
Are there requirements for supervision and ongoing certifications?
-
How will the information be managed?
-
To what extent should assessment findings be incorporated into case management?
-
How will the information be shared or used with the courts and treatment providers?
-
How will you ensure quality use?
-
What policy changes will be enacted to ensure consistent implementation of the tool?
1. Andrews, D.A,. & Bonta, J. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation (2007-2006). Retrieved from http://www.pbpp.pa.gov/Information/Documents/Research/EBP7.pdf
2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
3. Vincent, G., Guy, L., Grisso, T. [MacArthur Foundation Models for Change]. (2012, November). Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation. Retrieved from National Juvenile Justice website: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Risk_Assessment_in_Juvenile_Justice_A_Guidebook_for_Implementation.pdf
4. Andrews, D.A., and Dowden, C. (2006). The Risk-Need-Responsivity Model of Assessment in Human Service and Prevention and Corrections: Crime Prevention Jurisprudence. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49(4): 439-464.
5. Perrault, R. T., Paiva‐Salisbury, M., & Vincent, G. M. (2012, June 28). Probation officers' perceptions of youths' risk of reoffending and use of risk assessment in case management. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(4), 487-505. doi 10.1002/bsl.2015
6. Vincent, G., Guy, L., Grisso, T. [MacArthur Foundation Models for Change]. (2012, November). Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation. Retrieved from National Juvenile Justice website: http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-library/Risk_Assessment_in_Juvenile_Justice_A_Guidebook_for_Implementation.pdf