Risk Assessment Case Studies - University Of P

Risk Assessment Case Studiescja374 Version 31university Of Phoenix Ma

Analyze the provided juvenile case studies to perform comprehensive risk assessments for each individual. Consider factors such as personal history, family background, behavioral patterns, and recent incidents. Develop a detailed evaluation of the potential risks posed by Colleen M. and Xander L., including their likelihood of reoffending, the level of Danger they may present to themselves or others, and appropriate recommendations for interventions or supervision levels. Use relevant criminological theories, psychological assessments, and best practices in juvenile justice to support your analysis and conclusions.

Paper For Above instruction

The case studies of Colleen M. and Xander L. exemplify the complex nature of juvenile risk assessment, requiring a multifaceted analysis that incorporates individual histories, behavioral incidents, environmental influences, and social relationships. This paper aims to evaluate the potential risks associated with each juvenile, providing insights into their likelihood of future offending, the severity of potential harm, and tailored intervention strategies sought from theoretical and evidence-based frameworks in juvenile justice.

Introduction

Juvenile risk assessment is a vital component of the juvenile justice system, guiding decisions related to detention, treatment, supervision, and rehabilitation. Effective assessment involves analyzing a spectrum of factors influencing juvenile behavior, including personal background, psychological state, social environment, and the circumstances surrounding recent offenses. The presented cases, Colleen M. and Xander L., are emblematic of contrasting profiles—one with a history marked by complex trauma and recent tragic incidents, and the other with a pattern of delinquent behavior rooted in environmental and social influences. This paper explores their individual risk factors through the lens of contemporary criminological theories, psychological insights, and juvenile justice principles, ultimately proposing appropriate intervention strategies.

Case Study 1: Colleen M. – Risk Factors and Assessment

Colleen M. is a 15-year-old girl with a troubled background characterized by familial instability, neglect, and exposure to substance use, evident in her positive opiate test. Her history indicates a significant degree of trauma, with her father abandoning her, her mother in rehabilitation, and her current residence on a farm with her aunt—a placement that might lack consistent emotional support. Such environmental factors heighten her vulnerability to criminal activity and mental health issues, especially given her previous runaway attempts and involvement in a violent incident resulting in death.

Her recent offense involving the pesticide incident, which led to the neighbor’s death, is indicative of impulsivity and poor judgment, possibly compounded by substance influence, as evidenced by her opiate-positive test. The act of throwing pesticide can be viewed through the lens of the General Strain Theory, which suggests that negative emotional states and frustration may lead juveniles to react impulsively with destructive behaviors (Agnew, 1992). Her attempt to justify her actions suggests a lack of accountability, possibly influenced by her social environment and limited emotional regulation skills.

The prior accidental homicide involving her presence at the scene and her attempt to appropriate the victim's belongings reveals potential behavioral patterns associated with criminality, possibly driven by emotional detachment or a search for identity. Her claim of passing out after exposure to poppy aroma suggests vulnerability to substance influence and potential environmental exploitation, highlighting the importance of assessing her mental health and substance abuse issues further.

In assessing her risk, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act emphasizes the importance of considering both static factors (e.g., past offenses, age at first offense) and dynamic factors (e.g., current attitude, peer influence, family support). Colleen's history of trauma, substance use, impulsivity, and recent violent behavior elevate her risk profile significantly. She exhibits traits consistent with high-risk juveniles, requiring targeted intervention strategies such as trauma-informed care, family therapy, substance abuse treatment, and mental health counseling to mitigate her risk of reoffending.

Case Study 2: Xander L. – Risk Factors and Assessment

Xander L., a 17-year-old African American male, displays a pattern of delinquent behavior starting from a young age, with multiple adjudications for theft, breaking and entering, and drug possession. His criminal record, coupled with probation violations and current possession of a concealed weapon, signals a persistent risk of reoffending and potential escalation of violence or criminality.

Xander's social environment, characterized by unstable family support—living with a single mother working two jobs—and residing in housing projects, likely influences his behavior. His gang membership further indicates association with deviant peer networks, which criminological studies associate with increased likelihood of continued delinquent acts (Matsueda & Heimer, 2000). His dropout status and desire to obtain a G.E.D. suggest a lack of engagement with prosocial activities and limited access to positive developmental opportunities.

From a theoretical perspective, Social Disorganization Theory (Shaw & McKay, 1942) provides insights into how environments marked by poverty, lack of supervision, and community disorganization facilitate juvenile delinquency. Xander’s gang involvement may provide a sense of belonging and identity but also reinforces criminal behaviors. His prior offenses and current possession of a concealed weapon emphasize the seriousness of his risk profile, necessitating interventions that focus on skill development, mentorship, and community engagement.

Considering his age, past conduct, and social environment, Xander's risk of future violence or criminal conduct is high. A comprehensive intervention plan should include cognitive-behavioral therapy to address underlying behavioral issues, educational attainment programs to facilitate graduation, and mentoring relationships to offer prosocial alternatives. Maintaining close supervision while providing opportunities for constructive engagement can reduce his likelihood of reoffending.

Comparison and Integrated Risk Assessment

Both juveniles demonstrate distinct yet overlapping risk factors influenced heavily by their environments, personal history, and behavioral patterns. Colleen's risks are compounded by trauma, substance use, and impulsivity, requiring trauma-sensitive and mental health interventions. Xander's risks derive from peer influence, community disorganization, and established delinquent behavior, necessitating behavioral modification and community-based programs.

Applying assessments such as the Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ) tool and considering the Juvenile Assessment Center data, both juveniles exhibit high likelihoods of reoffending if left without appropriate intervention. The key to effective juvenile justice lies in individualized treatment plans that leverage strengths and address specific needs, fostering resilience and desistance from crime.

Conclusion

The risk assessments of Colleen M. and Xander L. highlight the importance of a holistic approach that incorporates psychological, social, and environmental factors. For Colleen, trauma-informed care, substance treatment, and family involvement are critical to reduce her risk of continued victimization or violence. For Xander, community engagement, educational opportunities, and behavioral therapy are essential to interrupt his delinquent trajectory. The efficacy of juvenile justice interventions relies heavily on early, targeted, and evidence-based strategies that prioritize rehabilitative rather than purely punitive measures, ultimately aiming to foster positive development and reduce recidivism.

References

• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87.
• Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, C. A. (2000). The Impact of Peer Group Members and Neighborhoods on Delinquency. Criminology, 38(4), 835-876.
• Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. University of Chicago Press.
• Farrington, D. P. (2005). Advances in Effective Juvenile Crime Prevention. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(1), 5-20.
• Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). The Detection of Juvenile Delinquency: A Review and Evaluation of Assessment Measures. Justice Quarterly, 15(2), 225-259.
• Schmidt, M., & Bechtel, K. (2011). Psychological Risk Factors in Juvenile Offenders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(2), 242-258.
• Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of Majority and Juvenile Justice Reform. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 10, 209-227.
• Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The Estimation of Discrete-Choice Models with Sample Selection Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 1169-1187.
• Piquero, A. R., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2011). Systematic Reviews in Juvenile Justice Research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 122-137.
• Wasserman, G. A., & Miller, L. S. (2013). Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Interventions. Cambridge University Press.