Objective

This hypothetical vignette-based experiment was designed to better understand judges' and probation officers' interpretations and use of juvenile risk assessment tools in their decision-making around restrictive sanctions and confinement of youths on the basis of the youths' risk level and race.

Hypotheses

We expected that estimates of the probability of juvenile recidivism would significantly mediate the relationship between a categorical risk descriptor and decisions regarding the ordering confinement of youths. We also hypothesized that youths' race would serve as a significant moderator in the model.

Method

Judicial and probation staff (N = 309) read a two-part vignette about a youth who was arrested for the first time; in this vignette, race (Black, White) and risk level (low, moderate, high, very high) of the youth were varied. Participants were asked to estimate the likelihood that the youth would recidivate in the following year and their likelihood of ordering or recommending residential placement.

Results

Although we found no simple, significant relationship between risk level and confinement decisions, judicial and probation staff estimated higher likelihoods of recidivism as risk-level categories increased and ordered out-of-home placements at increased rates as their estimations of the youth's likelihood of recidivation increased. The youth's race did not moderate the model.

Conclusion

The greater the probability of recidivism, the more likely each judge or probation officer was to order or recommend out-of-home placement. However, importantly, legal decisionmakers appeared to apply categorical risk assessment data to their confinement decisions using their own interpretations of risk category rather than being guided empirically on the basis of risk-level categories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The mass incarceration of Black people in the United States is gaining attention as a public-health crisis with extreme mental-health implications. Although it is well documented that historical efforts to oppress and control Black people in the United States helped shape definitions of mental illness and crime, many psychologists are unaware of the ways the field has contributed to the conception and perpetuation of anti-Blackness and, consequently, the mass incarceration of Black people. In this article, we draw from existing theory and empirical evidence to demonstrate historical and contemporary examples of psychology's oppression of Black people through research and clinical practices and consider how this history directly contradicts the American Psychological Association's ethics code. First, we outline how anti-Blackness informed the history of psychological diagnoses and research. Next, we discuss how contemporary systems of forensic practice and police involvement in mental-health-crisis response maintain historical harm. Specific recommendations highlight strategies for interrupting the criminalization of Blackness and offer example steps psychologists can take to redefine psychology's relationship with justice. We conclude by calling on psychologists to recognize their unique power and responsibility to interrupt the criminalization and pathologizing of Blackness as researchers and mental-health providers.

Separating children from families has deleterious effects on childrens mental health and well-being, which is highly relevant for youth in juvenile detention and other out-of-home residential placements. Despite growth in the evidence of family-based interventions in mitigating adverse behavioral health outcomes for justice involved adolescents (JIA), gaps remain in intervention dissemination for JIA; this particularly true for those leveraging digital health technologies, a need that has intensified with the COVID-19 pandemic. Use of digital health technologies for JIAs is pressing to address structural barriers in maintaining JIA-family connections, but also to improve treatment access for detained JIAs. Court systems capacity to support use of digital health tools, such as telehealth, appear promising. Data on the use of tele-conferencing in U.S. juvenile and family courts were collected from 456 juvenile justice professionals as part of a larger study on judicial decision making. Results suggest overwhelming adoption of video-conferencing for court hearings with only 40% of respondents reporting family court use prior to the onset of COVID-19, but majority (91%) now reporting its routine use. Youth participate from a range of settings, including detention, other residential placement, community-based behavioral health and in-home settings. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a shift in the uptake of video-conferencing platforms that could hold promise for future larger scale use across the juvenile justice system. Findings underscore feasibility and acceptability of technology requirements in key settings that should be leveraged for broad scale implementation of empirically supported family-based interventions to advance behavioral health equity for JIA.

Introduction

"Recidivism" is used ubiquitously in juvenile justice research and typically describes repeat legal contact; however, researchers, policymakers, and clinicians operationalize it in various ways. Despite assuming each measure is a proxy for continued delinquent behavior leading to further legal contact, few have examined the association between youth delinquent behavior and self-reported and official records of legal contact. Furthermore, systemic bias against ethnoracial and gender minoritized youth often results in more harsh treatment by the legal system, which could influence recidivism measurement. Latent variable modeling of legal contact is understudied; thus, it is important to examine the feasibility of measuring this construct as a latent variable, including measurement invariance by gender.

Methods

Among 401 youth ages 12-18 years at first ever court contact, we examined three metrics of legal contact over a 2-year follow-up period: youth-report of arrest, caregiver-report of their adolescent's arrest, and official records of the number of new court charges. We examined between-group differences on each metric based on gender and ethnoracial identity. We then measured: (1) the association between youths' self-reported delinquency and each metric, (2) gender-specific associations between self-reported delinquency and each metric, and (3) gender-based measurement invariance for a latent recidivism variable using confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

Youth were consistent reporters of their own delinquent behavior and prospective legal contact measured by arrests. There were no between-group differences based on gender or ethnoracial identity for any legal contact measures. Delinquency and all legal contact variables were positively intercorrelated for the overall sample and the male subsample. For females, delinquency was not associated with caregiver-reported youth arrest or number of new charges. The latent legal contact variable had unique factor structures for male and female subsamples, suggesting no measurement invariance.

Discussion

Youth-reported delinquency at first ever legal contact was most strongly associated with youth-reported arrest during a 2-year follow-up period, followed by caregiver-reported arrest, and the number of new charges. Unique latent variable factor structures for male and female subsamples suggests the inter-relation between legal contact variables is gender-specific. Stakeholders should consider prioritizing youth-reported delinquency since it is most strongly related to prospective youth-reported arrest.