Criminology & Public Policy 14(1)

Criminology & Public Policy, February 2015: Volume 14, Issue 1

DISPOSITION MATRIX FOR COURT RECOMENDATIONS

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Disposition Matrix Effectiveness
Kelly Dedel

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Assessing the Implications of a Structured Decision-Making Tool for Recidivism in a Statewide Analysis
Michael T. Baglivio, Mark A. Greenwald and Mark Russell

Research Summary: The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice has implemented a disposition matrix to guide recommendations made by juvenile probation officers to the court. This study examines whether recidivism rates for dispositions/placements made within the suggested range of this matrix differ from those outside of the suggested range. Using a sample of 38,117 juvenile offenders, we found that the dispositions/placements within the suggested range had an average recidivism rate of 19.4%, whereas those whose dispositions were outside the range had an average recidivism rate twice as high (38.7%). Furthermore, dispositions/placements that were the least restrictive option within the suggested range performed best. Dispositions above the suggested range (more restrictive) performed poorly, although those below the suggested range (less restrictive than suggested) performed the worst. These results held for males and females, across race/ethnicity, and across risk to reoffend levels. 

Policy Implications: Implementation of structured decision-making tools leads to questions from stakeholders and front-line staff charged with using those tools regarding their effectiveness. Research and theory-based justifications do not hold the weight actual data from the implementation population provide. These tools help control costs, facilitate planning, and can improve outcomes. Monthly monitoring of adherence rates, development of override and management oversight protocols, and regular feedback to front-line staff are critical components of success.

POLICY ESSAYS

Using a Decision Matrix to Guide Juvenile Dispositions
Gina M. Vincent and Brian Lovins

Structured Dispositional Matrix for Court Recommendations Made by Juvenile Probation Officers
Felicia Cotton and Jennifer Owen

CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS AND CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Taking Risk Assessment to the Next Step
Edward J. Latessa

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Risk Tells Us Who, But Not What or How
Faye S. Taxman and Michael S. Caudy

Research Summary: The current study used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify profiles of criminogenic needs in a sample of 17,252 community-supervised individuals from one state's probation system. The purpose of this research was to illustrate the complexity of offender need profiles to inform the development and implementation of correctional interventions. The LCA analyses revealed four classes of dynamic needs. Conditional item probabilities were examined to label the four classes based on their likelihood of presenting with static risk, criminogenic needs, and destabilizing factors (i.e., factors that indirectly relate to recidivism). The four classes were characterized by the following: a low probability of both risks and destabilizers (LN-LD), a moderate probability of risk and criminogenic needs with a high probability of multiple destabilizers (MN-HD), a high probability of risk and needs with moderate probabilities of destabilizers (HN-MD), and a high probability of static and criminogenic needs and destabilizers (HN-HD). Finally, the relationship between latent class membership and three separate recidivism outcomes was assessed. Consistent with study hypotheses, individuals in latent classes characterized by a greater probability of criminogenic needs and lifestyle destabilizers were more likely to experience subsequent criminal justice involvement, regardless of risk level. 

Policy Implications: Simplifying the complexity of offender risk and need profiles through empirical classification has direct implications for policy and practice. First, it clarifies whether dynamic needs and/or risk should drive decision making. Second, the integration of dynamic risk factors into the case management process can inform strategies to mitigate static risk and inform the development of new and improved interventions. The current study findings provide insight into the clustering of dynamic risk factors within individuals. This classification structure has the potential to increase the precision of case management decisions by identifying targets for programming that are likely to co-occur for many offenders. Specifically, programs can be developed to tailor components to specific static risk and need profiles.

POLICY ESSAYS

Detection of Dynamic Risk Factors and Correctional Practice (pages 105–111)
Tony Ward

Needle in a Haystack
Kelly Hannah-Moffat

MATERNAL INCARCERATION AND CHILD WELLBEING

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION
Promoting Child Wellbeing Among Children Who Experience Maternal Incarceration
Michael E. Roettger

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Detrimental for Some? Heterogeneous Effects of Maternal Incarceration on Child Wellbeing
Kristin Turney and Christopher Wildeman

Research Summary: We use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 3,197) to consider the heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on 9-year-old children. We find that maternal incarceration has no average effects on child wellbeing (measured by caregiver-reported internalizing problem behaviors, caregiver-reported externalizing problem behaviors, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition scores, and child-reported early juvenile delinquency) but that the effects vary by mothers’ propensities for experiencing incarceration. Maternal incarceration is deleterious for children of mothers least likely to experience incarceration but mostly inconsequential for children of mothers more likely to experience incarceration.

Policy Implications: It is important that public policies take into account the fact that not all children experience similar effects of maternal incarceration. For children of mothers who are unlikely to experience incarceration, the negative consequences of maternal incarceration could be driven by at least three factors, all of which may operate simultaneously and all of which potentially call for different policy interventions: (a) jail incarceration as opposed to prison incarceration, (b) incarceration for a crime that did minimal—or no—harm to their children, and (c) inadequate family supports for coping with maternal incarceration. We discuss these policy implications.

POLICY ESSAYS

“Packages” of Risk
Peggy C. Giordano and Jennifer E. Copp

Family Process Perspective on the Heterogeneous Effects of Maternal Incarceration on Child Wellbeing
Joyce A. Arditti