Assessing Intervention Needs of Juvenile Probationers: An Application of Latent Profile Analysis to a Risk–Need–Responsivity Assessment Model

Abstract

The assessment of criminogenic risk is critical in the prediction of future delinquency and the ability to provide appropriate services and interventions for youth offenders. The goal of this study was to determine whether using latent profile analysis (LPA) produced better risk classification profiles than traditional linear methods. Archival data were used to examine 1,263 male and female youth probationers. Criminogenic profiles were developed using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory, a widely used juvenile risk assessment. LPA determined that there were three distinct profiles: Minimal Intervention Needs, Social Behavior and Social Bonding Needs, and Maximum Intervention Needs. The profiles that youth fit into differed across demographic variables such as gender, age, recidivism, and history of child maltreatment, but not minority status and offense type. This research may aid in addressing specific intervention needs of offenders.

Understanding Changes in Youth Offenders’ Risk Profiles: A Latent Transition Analysis

“…Comparing these findings with the profiling study by Campbell and Colleagues (2018) who also identified three classes among youth probationers from the United States of America, the size and the composition of the classes were quite different between the two studies. For example, 16.9% of the U.S. sample was found to be in the “Maximum Intervention Needs” group, as compared to about 51.9% of Singapore youth offenders being in the Overall High Risk group at the start of order in the present study.…”

“…In another study with 1,362 youth probationers in the United States, Campbell and colleagues (2018) found three distinct profiles based on eight domains from the YLS/CMI: (1) Minimal Intervention Needs with low scores on all domains, (2) Social Behavior and Social Bonding Needs with high scores on the education/employment, family and parents, and personality and behavior domain, and (3) Maximum Intervention Needs with high total risk score. The results also showed that the Maximum Intervention Needs group had a much higher recidivism rate and thus required more comprehensive interventions to simultaneously address multiple risk factors.…”

“…In addition to the literature on test validity using traditional linear methods, recent research has started to use a person-centered approach to examine the profiles of youth offenders (Campbell et al, 2018). Such approach has been used to classify youth offenders into latent subgroups based on their characteristics of risk and needs in multiple domains and therefore improve the planning of interventions and the accuracy of risk assessments (Chng, Chu, Zeng, Li, & Ting, 2016).…”

Complex Trauma and Criminogenic Needs in a Youth Justice Sample: A Gender-Informed Latent Profile Analysis

“…To date, this small, but burgeoning literature has collectively identified between three and five classes (or profiles) of seemingly homogeneous groups of justice-involved adolescents, irrespective of gender. One class is typically always a low-risk/low-need group characterized by low-offending patterns and/or low needs, and another class is typically a serious and chronic offending group characterized by a broad spectrum of needs (adolescent female studies: Lanctôt, 2018;Odgers et al, 2007; mixed sex adolescent studies: Campbell et al, 2019;whitney et al, 2010). The remaining classes tend to be more heterogenous ranging from subtypes of individuals characterized by a victimized pathway with co-occurring addictions and mental health needs (adolescent female study: Cusworth-walker et al, 2016) or a peer and/or addictions group with none, or only low levels of mental health and victimization histories (adolescent female study: Cusworth-walker et al, 2016; mixed sex adolescent study: Schwalbe et al, 2008).…”

Prediction of Youth and Adult Recidivism Among Spanish Juveniles Involved in Serious Offenses

“…In addition, the YLS/CMI measures the eight dimensions of risk factors, which remain useful to understand, predict, and prevent recidivism (Bonta & Andrews, 2017; Campbell et al, 2019; Flores et al, 2004; Rennie & Dolan, 2010). These eight dimensions are as follows: Antisocial Attitudes, Antisocial Friendships, an Antisocial Personality Pattern, a History of Previous Offenses, Deficient Family Circumstances, Education and Employment, Substance Abuse, and free time for Leisure and Recreation.…”