This study had two objectives: (1) to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the AZYAS-Reentry tool and (2) to test whether predictive accuracy levels were consistent across sex and race/ethnicity. Data from 249 Arizona adolescents released from secure care on parole supervision between June 2020 and July 2023 were examined. The mean AZYAS-Reentry score classifies much of the sample as moderate risk. Bivariate analyses show a medium effect size for AZYAS-Reentry on parole revocation for the full sample (r = .344). Predictive accuracy is the highest for African American youth (r = .534), followed by Hispanic (r = .398) and white youth (r = .191). Higher predictive accuracy for African Americans is driven by specific domains (e.g., values, beliefs, and attitudes). The one sex-based difference is the stronger effect of juvenile justice history for females. Findings support using AZYAS-Reentry and highlight the utility of targeting domains to plan interventions across sex and race/ethnicity.
BaglivioM.JackowskiK. (2013). Examining the validity of a juvenile offending risk assessment instrument across gender and race/ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204012440107
4.
BairdC. (2009). A question of evidence: A critique of risk assessment models used in the justice system. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
5.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
6.
CabanissE.FrabuttJ.KendrickM.ArbuckleM. (2007). Reducing disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system: Promising practices. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(4), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.09.004
7.
CampbellC.PappJ.BarnesA.OnifadeE.AndersonV. (2018). Risk assessment and juvenile justice: An interaction between risk, race, and gender. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(3), 525–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12377
8.
ChapmanJ.DesaiR.FalzerP.BorumR. (2006). Violence risk and race in a sample of youth in juvenile detention: The potential to reduce disproportionate minority confinement. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286316
9.
Chesney-LindM.SheldenR. (2014). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice (4th ed.). Wiley.
10.
ChildsK.PeckJ.BradyC. (2024). Predictive bias in juvenile risk assessment: Considering race/ethnicity and sex. Crime and Delinquency, 70(3), 1034–1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221143936
FloresA.BechtelK.LowenkampC. (2016). False positives, false negatives, and false analyses: A rejoinder to “Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks.”Federal Probation, 80(2), 38–46.
13.
FraenkelJ.WallenN.HyunH. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
14.
GroveW. (2005). Clinical versus statistical prediction: The contribution of Paul E. Meehl. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(10), 1233–1243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20179
HamiltonZ.KowalskiM.CampagnaM.KobieA.KigerlA. (2024). Comparing meters to yards: A nationally representative evaluation of gender bias in risk assessment. Justice Quarterly, 41(6), 845–869. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2023.2286238
17.
HamiltonZ.KowalskiM.KigerlA.RouthD. (2019). Optimizing youth risk assessment performance: Development of the modified positive achievement change tool in Washington State. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(8), 1106–1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819857108
18.
Hannah-MoffatK. (2016). Purpose and context matters: Creating a space for meaningful dialogues about risk and need. In TaxmanF. (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment (pp. 447–462). Routledge.
19.
HansonR.BourgonG.HelmusL.HodgsonS. (2009). The principles of effective correctional treatment also apply to sexual offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(9), 865–891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809338545
20.
HarrisP.LockwoodB.MengersL.StoodleyB. (2011). Measuring recidivism in juvenile corrections. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 1(1), 1–16.
21.
HiltonN.HarrisG.RiceM. (2006). Sixty-six years of research on clinical versus actuarial prediction of violence. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005285877
22.
HockenberryS. (2022). Juveniles in residential placement, 2019. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
23.
HubbardD.MatthewsB. (2008). Reconciling the differences between the “gender-responsive” and the “what works” literatures to improve services for girls. Crime and Delinquency, 54(2), 225–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706296733
24.
KanestrømH.StallvikM.LydersenS.SkokauskasN.HoftunS.NilsenC.KaasbøllJ. (2024). Criminogenic risk assessment beyond juvenile justice: Exploring the predictive ability of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in Norway. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(7), 975–993. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241237181
LovinsB.LatessaE. (2013). Creation and validation of the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) and strategies for successful implementation. Justice Research & Policy, 15(1), 67–93. https://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.15.1.2013.67
29.
LowderE.MorrisonM.KronerD.DesmaraisS. (2019). Racial bias and LSI-R assessments in probation sentencing and outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(2), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818789977
30.
LowenkampC.LatessaE.HolsingerA. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281747
31.
McCaffertyJ. (2018). Unjust disparities? The impact of race on juvenile risk assessment outcomes. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 29(5), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416634163
32.
McCaffertyJ.NewsomeJ.SullivanC. (2017). Report: Study of AZYAS-residential. University of Cincinnati, The Corrections Institute.
MillerH.TomanE.PedersonK. (2024). Examining the utility of the Texas Risk Assessment System to predict community supervision compliance and recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(8), 1257–1274. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241240991
35.
MuirN.ViljoenJ.JonnsonM.CochraneD.RogersB. (2020). Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with Indigenous and Caucasian female and male adolescents on probation. Psychological Assessment, 32(6), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000816
36.
NahmF. (2022). Receiver operating characteristic curve: Overview and practical use for clinicians. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 75(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.21209
37.
National Institute of Justice. (2024). 2023 review and revalidation of the First Step Act risk assessment tool. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
38.
ObuchowskiN.LieberM.WiansF. (2004). ROC curves in clinical chemistry: Uses, misuses, and possible solutions. Clinical Chemistry, 50(7), 1118–1125. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2004.031823
39.
OdgersC.MorettiM. (2002). Aggressive and antisocial girls: Research update and future challenges. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1(2), 103–119. https://doi.org/1080/14999013.2002.10471166
40.
OlverM.StockdaleK.HelmusL.WoodsP.TermeerJ.PrinceJ. (2024). Too risky to use, or too risky not to? Lessons learned from over 30 years of research on forensic risk assessment with Indigenous persons. Psychological Bulletin, 150(5), 487–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000414
41.
PeduzziP.ConcatoJ.KemperE.HolfordT.FeinsteinA. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49(12), 1373–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00236-3
42.
PerraultR.VincentG.GuyL. (2017). Are risk assessments racially biased? Field study of the SAVRy and yLS/CMI in probation. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000445
43.
PrendergastM.PearsonF.PodusD.HamiltonZ.GreenwellL. (2013). The Andrews’ principles of risk, needs, and responsivity as applied in drug treatment programs: Meta-analysis of crime and drug use outcomes. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9178-z
44.
PuschN.HoltfreterK. (2018). Gender and risk assessment in juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817721720
ReisigM.HoltfreterK.MorashM. (2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820600869152
47.
RiceM.HarrisG. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
SchwalbeC.FraserM.DayS.ArnoldE. (2004). North Carolina Assessment of Risk (NCAR): Reliability and predictive validity with juvenile offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40(1-2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v40n01_01
50.
ScottT.BrownS. (2018). Risks, strengths, gender, and recidivism among justice-involved youth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86(11), 931–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000343
51.
ScottT.BrownS.SkillingT. (2019). Predictive and convergent validity of the youth assessment and screening instrument in a sample of male and female justice-involved youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(6), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819842585
SkeemJ.LowenkampC. (2016). Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology, 54(4), 680–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12123
54.
SmithP.CullenF.LatessaE. (2009). Can 14,737 women be wrong? A meta-analysis of the LSI-R and recidivism for female offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00551.x
55.
SullivanC.McCaffertyJ.NewsomeJ.MandalariA. (2022). Predictive validity and measurement invariance in juvenile risk assessment: Implications for racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice. Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(4), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2021.1997788
56.
TaxmanF.SmithL. (2021). Risk-need-responsivity (RNR) classification models: Still evolving. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 59, 101459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101459
57.
VincentG.ViljoenJ. (2020). Racist algorithms or systemic problems? Risk assessments and racial disparities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(12), 1576–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820954501
58.
WachterA. (2015). Statewide risk assessment in juvenile probation. National Center for Juvenile Justice.
