Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Crime & Delinquency
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Miller, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lin, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Applying a Generic Juvenile Risk Assessment Instrument to a Local Context

Some Practical and Theoretical Lessons

Joel Miller

University of Málaga, Spain

Jeffrey Lin

University of California, Irvine

This article examines issues raised by the application of a generic actuarial juvenile risk instrument (the Model Risk Assessment Instrument) to New York City, a context different from the one in which it was developed. It describes practical challenges arising from the constraints of locally available data and local sensibilities and highlights important differences between locally relevant recidivism predictors and generic tool predictors. The analysis shows that the generic tool is less predictive than a locally developed risk-assessment tool and also performs less well than unassisted clinical judgment. This is true even after the generic tool has been validated and optimized on local data. This is because the tool does not include key demographic variables relevant to the New York City context.

Key Words: risk assessment • actuarial • clinical judgment • juvenile recidivism • family court

Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 53, No. 4, 552-580 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0011128706293689
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeHome page
T. Q. Emeka and J. R. Sorensen
Female Juvenile Risk: Is There a Need for Gendered Assessment Instruments?
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, October 1, 2009; 7(4): 313 - 330.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal Justice and BehaviorHome page
C. S. Schwalbe
A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments: Predictive Validity by Gender
Criminal Justice and Behavior, November 1, 2008; 35(11): 1367 - 1381.
[Abstract] [PDF]