There is a wealth of research that shows juvenile justice systems that utilize structured and validated assessment tools, such as the YLS/CMI, are far more effective at reducing rates of recidivism than those who do not. In line with this research, the Department of Justice (DoJ) in Western Australia adopted the YLS/CMI as the standard risk assessment tool for evaluating the criminogenic risk and needs of youth entering the justice system. While there is evidence supporting the utility of the YLS/CMI in predicting recidivism, there is little research demonstrating its effectiveness in Australian juvenile populations and no such research in a West Australian population. There is also a lack of research on the utility of the tool with young Indigenous offenders, which is particularly concerning given the significant overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the Australian criminal justice system. Our study was the first to examine the reliability and predictive validity of the YLS/CMI on a sample of West Australian juvenile offenders. In this paper, we present the results of two analyses. The first examines the properties of the YLS/CMI in a cohort of 4,653 juvenile offenders in Western Australia, including factor structure, internal consistency, and differences between male and female youth and between Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth. Consistent with our hypotheses, the tool demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = .91) and cross-validation analyses identified significant differences between groups on total YLS scores and risk domains. The second analysis examines the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI in a subsample of 921 youth with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. The overall recidivism rate was 74.8% and there were differences in scores and recidivism rates for Indigenous compared to non-Indigenous youth, although the predictive accuracies in terms of AUC were similar ( c. = 0.65 and 0.66, respectively).

Indigenous youth are overrepresented in the Australian criminal justice system, yet little is known about how they differ from non-Indigenous youth in terms of criminogenic risk and need profiles in relation to reoffending. The aim of the study was to examine the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth in terms of criminogenic risk and need profiles. This paper expands on findings of our previous study. and present the results of two analyses. The first is a comparative analysis of the differences in criminogenic risk and need factors in a sample of 4,653 youth. Results raise questions about how Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth differ on type of criminogenic needs and how risk/needs are defined in an Indigenous context. The second analysis examines the predictive validity of a shortened version of the YLS/CMI in a subsample of 921 youth. Results show that a specific combination of five items for Indigenous youth corresponds to an improvement in AUC scores from c. = 0.65 for the full version to c. = 0.73. For non-Indigenous youth, the selected set of five items corresponds to an improvement in AUC scores from c. = 0.66 for the full version of the YLS/CMI to c. = 0.73. Implications of these findings for research, policy, and reducing Indigenous overrepresentation are discussed.