Premium
Assessing the Implications of a Structured Decision‐Making Tool for Recidivism in a Statewide Analysis
Author(s) -
Baglivio Michael T.,
Greenwald Mark A.,
Russell Mark
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
criminology and public policy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.6
H-Index - 33
eISSN - 1745-9133
pISSN - 1538-6473
DOI - 10.1111/1745-9133.12108
Subject(s) - recidivism , psychology , population , economic justice , range (aeronautics) , juvenile delinquency , criminal justice , actuarial science , criminology , applied psychology , engineering , demography , political science , sociology , law , business , aerospace engineering
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.