Cited by 12Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisEducation Discipline and InequalityCrime Patterns and Interventions

Risk assessment as a mechanism for reducing differential treatment of minorities by a juvenile justice system

Onifade, Eyitayo, Barnes, Ashlee, Campbell, Christina, Mandalari, Amber·2019·Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice

Abstract

Disparities in treatment of African American juvenile offenders persist in juvenile justice systems across the United States. This study examined adjudication trends over a ten-year span within a Mid-Western County’s juvenile court for African American young offenders subsequent of the system’s implementation of the Risk Need Responsivity Model (RNR-Model). Special attention was given to changes in disproportionate minority contact with intensive interventions within the Delinquency Division versus informal probation, which is considered a low intensity and less punitive adjudication path. The findings indicated African Americans were more likely to be referred to low intensity interventions at Intake (Informal Probation) after the RNR Model was implemented, suggesting disparities in contact were partially mitigated by the risk assessment approach. Implications for policy are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15377938.2019.1619647

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent studies have revealed that risk assessment instruments can reduce racial and ethnic disparities.

    “Moreover, recent studies have revealed that risk assessment instruments can reduce racial and ethnic disparities (Onifade et al., 2019), and several studies have found greater racial and ethnic disparities when risk assessment tools are not used than when they are (Lehmann et al., 2020; Marlowe et al., 2020; Milgram et al., 2015; Viljoen et al., 2019).”

    From A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems. (2022) · cites this paper as Onifade et al., 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Onifade, E., Barnes, A., Campbell, C., & Mandalari, A.
Affiliations
  • Clark Atlanta University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Corresponding author
Onifade, Eyitayo
Venue
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice
Published
2019-06-04
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
203-227
ISSN
  • 1537-7938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-7946
OpenAlex
W2945378908
Cited by
12
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
risk assessment, juvenile justice, racial disparities, Risk-Need-Responsivity model, juvenile adjudication, intensive intervention, juvenile delinquency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review