Risk assessment as a mechanism for reducing differential treatment of minorities by a juvenile justice system
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010) · Psychology, Public Policy, and Law · doi:10.1037/a0018362 · Cited by 1,223 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Among these solutions, the risk-need-responsivity model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) has emerged as a recommended practice in reducing differential treatment at the probation stage of the adjudication process (Hoge, 2002; Vincent, Paiva-Salisbury, Cook, Guy, & Perrault, 2012).”
MethodThe impact of incarceration on juvenile offenders
Lambie, I., & Randell, I. (2013) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.007 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A call to dismantle systemic racism in criminal legal systems.
Najdowski, C. J., & Stevenson, M. C. (2022) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1037/lhb0000510 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
“Moreover, recent studies reveal that risk assessment instruments can reduce racial and ethnic disparities (Onifade et al., 2019) and several studies reveal greater racial and ethnic disparities when risk assessment tools are not used than when they are (Lehmann et”
Background
- 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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