Bindover/Waiver To Adult Court

2013 Mental Health and

Addiction Conference

Ohio Association of County Behavioral Health
Authorities

Erin Davies, JD
Public Policy Attorney
Childrens Law Center, Inc.

Daniel L. Davis, Ph.D., ABPP (Forensic)
Netcare Corporation
Columbus, OH
drdandavis@gmail.com


The Importance of Early
Intervention


Slides Not Discussed Will Have An
Asterisk in the Bottom Right
Corner
*
NEUROSCIENCE IN THE
COURTS
U.S. Supreme Court: Cases
Importance of juvenile court proceedings [Kent,
v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 560, 86 S.Ct. 1045,
16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966)]:
Transferring youth to adult court can result
in harsh consequences, including adult
criminal sanctions and the label felon.
Bindover hearing are a critically important
stage in juvenile proceedings and must
measure up to the essentials of due process
and fair treatment.
U.S. Supreme Court: Cases
Youth under the age of 18 cannot receive:
The death penalty [Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551
(2005)]
Life without parole (LWOP) for non-homicide offenses
[Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010)]
Mandatory LWOP [Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____
(2012)]
Related case:
As long as the childs age was known or should have
been known at time of questioning, police must take a
childs age into account when determining if a youth
can knowingly waive Miranda rights. [J.D.B. v. North
Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394 (2011)]
U.S. Supreme Court: Reasoning
Roper:
National and international consensus against death
penalty for youth
Youth have diminished culpability due to:
- Lack of maturity, underdeveloped sense of
responsibility, impetuous and ill-considered
actions and decisions
- More vulnerable to negative influence and
outside pressure, including peer pressure
- Character not as well formed as that of an adult;
personality traits are more transitory and less
fixed
- Less likely to engage in cost-benefit analysis and
be deterred

U.S. Supreme Court: Reasoning
Miller:
Mandatory penalty schemes prevent
sentencer from taking into account youth
development, including:
- Chronological age
- Background
- Mental and emotional development, and
- Circumstances of offense (was youth
accomplice or main actor)
LWOP as particularly damaging for youth
(see also Graham)

U.S. Supreme Court: Conclusion
Conclusion: Youth are fundamentally
different from adults and therefore cannot
be held as culpable as or to the same
standard as adults.
Basis: Reliance on neuroscience,
adolescent development research, and
common sense.
Ohio Supreme Court: Cases

Youth in adult court:
In re D.W., 133 Ohio St. 3d 434 (2012) Youth can
only waive an amenability hearing if the waiver is 1)
expressly stated by the youth and 2) after the judge
talks to the youth and the waiver was made
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (2001) The prosecutor
must disclose material evidence favorable to youth.
Other settings:
In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513 (2012) Automatic,
lifetime registration penalty leaves court no
discretion and youth no opportunity to avoid the
penalty and is cruel and unusual punishment because
of childrens limited culpability and the severity of
lifetime registration.


OHIOS PATHS FOR
YOUTH TO ADULT
COURT SYSTEM
Juvenile Court 101:
Purpose of Juvenile Court
To provide rehabilitation and
treatment to youth to hold them
accountable and maintain public
safety, while recognizing
fundamental differences between
youth and adults.
Juvenile Court 101:
Goal of Juvenile Justice Reforms
Moving toward a right sized
system that ensures an individually
tailored, evidence-based
appropriate response for each
youth.
Juvenile Justice Reform:
Benefits
More cost-effective
Proven to work effectively to reduce
recidivism, increase rehabilitation, and
improve public safety
Community-based
More appropriate given youths
unique developmental needs

National Trends: For Policy-Makers
and Stakeholders

Moving Away From: Moving Towards:
Prosecuting youth in adult
court
Retaining youth in juvenile court,
including through blended
sentencing
Placing youth in adult jails
and prisons
Placing youth in juvenile detention
and correctional facilities
Potential for mandatory
transfer and extreme
sentences, including death
and life without parole
Individualized transfer
assessments, sentencing, and
meaningful release review
Same court rules and
standards for youth and
adults
Accounting for developmental
differences between youth and
adults in courts and facilities
National Trends: State Law Changes
Nearly half of states across the country,
including Ohio, have considered or passed
laws addressing youth in the adult system.
Laws focus on:
- Removing youth from or improving jails and
prisons (OH);
- Raising the age of majority;
- Reducing pathways into adult court (OH); and
- Reducing sentences for youth.





Ohio: Tracks to the Adult System
for Juvenile Court-Involved Youth
Age
Where
Tried
Where Sentence
Served
Basis for Adult
Court Involvement
Bindover 14+
Adult
Court
Adult System
Age, offense, and
other factors
Serious
Youthful
Offender
(SYO)
10+
Juvenile
Court
Juvenile System and
Potentially Adult
System (after age
14)
Age, offense, and
other factors
Youth Over
18 in Juvenile
Court
18-
21
Juvenile
Court
Juvenile System and
Adult System
Age
279
307
264
234
292
297
315
319
362
303
283
205
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

Y
o
u
t
h

B
o
u
n
d

O
v
e
r

Fiscal Year
Ohio: Bindover
Ohio: Mandatory Bindover
Applies to:
16 and 17 years old charged with:
- Category One Offenses - Aggravated Murder/Attempt
or Murder/Attempt
- Category Two Offenses committed with a firearm
(Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter
(F1), Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Burglary, Rape,
or Aggravated Arson)
14 and 15 year olds 1) with a prior Category 1 or 2
offense and DYS disposition time and 2) who are
currently charged with either a Category 1 or 2 offense.
Once an adult, always an adult.
Youth is from another state where offense would be
transferred.
Ohio: Mandatory Bindover
Process: Court must find that:
The youth falls into one of the categories
on the previous slide; and
Probable cause the youth committed the
offense burden on prosecution to prove
each element of the offense.
Ohio: Reverse Waiver
Applies to the following categories of mandatory
bindover youth:
16 and 17 years old charged with:
- Category One Offenses - Aggravated Murder/Attempt
or Murder/Attempt
- Category Two Offenses committed with a firearm
(Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter
(F1), Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Burglary, Rape,
or Aggravated Arson)
14 and 15 year olds 1) with a prior Category 1 or 2
offense and DYS disposition time and 2) who are
currently charged with either a Category 1 or 2 offense.
Once an adult, always an adult.
Youth is from another state where offense would be
transferred.
Ohio: Reverse Waiver
Goals:
Give youth who are convicted of a lesser
offense in adult court a re-do in juvenile
court.
Prevent prosecutors from overcharging in
order to initiate mandatory bindover.
Ohio: Reverse Waiver
Youth Convicted In
Adult Court Of:
Result :
Non-Bindover Offense Youth returned to Juvenile Court
Mandatory Bindover
Offense
Youth remains in Adult Court
Discretionary Bindover
Offense
Youth returned to Juvenile Court BUT
can return to Adult Court (after
prosecutor objection and judicial
amenability hearing)
Ohio: Reverse Waiver
After youth reverse waived to juvenile court:
If Not Amenable
Youth sent back to adult court and receives adult
court sentence.
If Amenable
Youth gets an SYO Disposition accompanied by
traditional juvenile disposition.
No Retrial Needed
If kept in juvenile court, conviction becomes a
delinquency adjudication and adult record
expunged
If Case Is Returned-Not Mandatory But Still
Discretionary
Start SYO Disposition along with
traditional juvenile court disposition
Stop the process of disposition if the
prosecutor files an objection to SYO and
traditional juvenile disposition and
request court to return juvenile to adult
court.
If prosecutor objects, then Juvenile Court
must hold an amenability hearing. All the
usual amenability factors apply
*
If prosecutor does not file a motion
requesting to send back the case to the
adult court system again, or if the juvenile
court finds the youth to be amenable
The Juvenile Court must impose a SYO
Disposition/Sentence.
The juvenile Court must also impose a
traditional juvenile disposition
SYO dispositions are only invoked if juvenile
disposition not successful

*
Issues

Law is convoluted and hard to follow
Youth cannot waive reverse Bindover
which can affect plea agreements.
Sometimes Juvenile Court is less
advantageous
No process or deadlines for prosecutors
to file appeals.
Expungement procedures are vague and
there are no parallels in the adult system
*
Ohio: Discretionary Bindover
Applies to:
Any youth ages 14+ charged with a felony
level offense
Ohio: Discretionary Bindover
Process: Court must find that:
The youth meets the criteria on the
previous slide;
Probable cause the youth committed the
offense; and
After an investigation into the youths social
history, education, family situation and any
other factor and a mental health
examination, and a hearing that the youth is
not amenable to rehabilitation in juvenile
court.
Note: Reverse waiver does NOT apply.

Ohio: Discretionary Bindover
Amenability factors:
In favor of transfer: victim harm, childs
relationship to victim, offense was for hire or
for gang/organized crime, firearm, currently
under juvenile court supervision, prior bad
experience with juvenile court/programs,
maturity, time/age.
Against transfer: victim induced/facilitated,
child provoked, child not principal actor or
under negative influence/coercion, no harm
caused or believed it wouldnt be, no prior
adjudications, not mature or mental illness,
time/age.

Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data
Bindover disproportionately affects
Black youth.


Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data
(FY12)
The majority of bound over youth receive a
sentence of 5 years or less.


More Than
5 Years
45%
Community
Control
Prison 3.1-4 yrs
Prison/Jail up to1 yr
Prison 2.1-3 yrs
Prison 1.1-2yrs

Prison 4.1-5 yrs
5 Years or Less
55%
17%
12%
8%
5%
8%
5%
Ohio: Bound Over Youth Data
(FY10)

More Than
5 Years
33%
Prison:
3.1-4 Yrs
Community
Control
Prison: 4.1-5 Yrs
Prison/Jail up to 1 Yr
Prison: 1.1- 2 Yrs
Prison: 2.1-3 Yrs
5 Years or Less
67%
20%
14%
10%
9%
7%
7%
Ohio: SYO
Developed in 2000 to:
Serve an alternative to putting youth
directly in the adult court system
Give youth a last chance in the juvenile
justice system.
Ohio: SYO
Applies to:
Youth ages 10+ charged with felony level
offenses
Can be mandatory or discretionary,
depending on the youths age, charge, and
any enhancements (i.e. offense of violence,
firearm, or certain prior DYS
commitments)

Ohio: SYO
Process:
Prosecutor files SYO indictment either at
first or after 20 days after court
determines not to transfer case;
Heightened due process - right to grand
jury for probable cause, access to trial by
jury, speedy trial, right to bail, unwaivable
right to counsel.
Youth given 1) traditional juvenile
disposition and 2) stayed adult sentence.
Ohio: SYO
Invoking stayed adult sentence:
For youth 14+, can either be 1) request by
DYS for prosecutor to invoke for youth if
in DYS custody or 2) by juvenile court if
on community release;
Reasonable cause that the youth either 1)
committed a violation that is either a
felony or 1
st
degree misdemeanor or 2)
engaged in conduct creating a substantial
risk to the safety or security of the
institution, community, or victim.

279
307
264
234
292
297
315
319
362
303
283
205
46
37
30
40
30
28
34
25
23 23
0
100
200
300
400
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

Y
o
u
t
h

Fiscal Year
Bound
Over
Youth
SYO
Youth
Ohio: SYO
Ohio: Housing of Youth
Bindover Youth:
- Pre-Bindover Hearing: Juvenile Detention
- Post-Bindover Hearing: Juvenile Detention or Adult Jail
(see SB 337)
- Post-Adult Court Conviction: Adult facilities/programs
(CCF, Jail, Prison Madison or general population)
SYO Youth:
- If no adult sentence invoked: Juvenile facilities/programs
- If adult sentence invoked: Adult facilities/programs
18-21 JJ Youth:
- If in DYS facility: Held until 21
- If not in DYS facility: Can be sent to adult jail after turn 18
(see SB 337)

Ohio: SB 337
Goals:
To recognize that youth are different than
adults.
To remove youth from harms of adult jails,
where they are:
- At a significantly increased risk of suicide
- At great risk of physical and sexual
assault
- Often unable to access appropriate
education services
- Often placed in isolation


Ohio: SB 337
Prior law: Courts were permitted
to keep two types of youth in
juvenile detention instead of adult
jails:
Youth ages 18-21 under juvenile
court jurisdiction
Youth bound over to adult
court


Ohio: SB 337
SB 337: Creates a presumption that
these youth would remain in a juvenile
detention center unless the juvenile
court holds a hearing and determines:
The youth is a threat to the safety and
security of juvenile detention
The jail is a better placement option
for the youth

Ohio: SB 337
Standard: Threat to the safety and security of the
facility (may include, but is not limited to) if the youth:
Injured or created an imminent danger to life
or health self or others through violent behavior;
Escaped from the facility on more than one
occasion; or
Established a pattern of disruptive behavior as
verified by a written record that the youth's
behavior is not conducive to the established
policies and procedures of the facility or program
in which the youth is being held.
Ohio: SB 337
Factors: Appropriate place of confinement:
Age
Deprived of contact with other people or lack of access to
recreational facilities or age-appropriate education due to
separation
Emotional state, intelligence, and developmental maturity,
including trauma, and the risk to the person in an adult jail
Whether juvenile detention would provide community
protection
Relative ability of the available adult and juvenile detention
facilities to meet the needs of the person, including mental
health and education
Presents an imminent risk of self-inflicted harm or an
imminent risk of harm to others within a juvenile facility;
Any other relevant factors.

Ohio: SB 337
Petition process: A youth can petition to be
moved back to detention as follows:
Non-emergency: Can be filed every 30 days
and the youth must allege facts or
circumstances that, if true, would warrant
reconsideration of the youths placement.
Emergency: Can be filed anytime if the
youth is facing (an imminent danger from
others or the youth's self.
RESEARCH ON ADULT
COURT OUTCOMES
FOR YOUTH
National Trends: Research Shows
that Youth in the Adult System:
Are 34% more likely to recidivate than youth
who commit similar offenses, but retained in the
juvenile justice system;
Face a great risk of physical and sexual assault
by other inmates and corrections officers;
Have significantly increased suicide risks in adult
prisons and jails;
Are less able to access age-appropriate
services, including education; and
Are at an increased risk for isolation; and
Confront many collateral consequences,
including barriers to employment and housing.




Research Concerning Bindovers
In 1970s through 1990s the laws
concerning Bindovers were substantially
changed
With little research support
Driven by response to record high levels of
juvenile crime
On any given day, about 7000 youth are
held in adult facilities
About 1 in 10 incarcerated youth are
committed to an adult facility
Most research indicates that transfer has a
negative effect
Bishop and Frazier (2000)
No evidence of any general deterrence effect
Transferred youth more likely to
Reoffend
Reoffend more quickly
Reoffend more often

Bishop D and Frazier C (2000) Consequences of
transfer. In J. Fagen and F Zimring (Eds) The
changing borders of juvenile justice; Transfer of
adolescents to the criminal court. (pp 13-43)
Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Redding (2008)
Does not prevent future crimes
May be harmful to youth
May actually promote Life Course Criminality

Redding RE (2008) Juvenile transfer laws: An
effective deterrent to delinquency? Washington:
USDOJ, OJJDP
Criticisms of Research
Did not attend to heterogeneousness of
the transferred population
Not all transferred youth are similar
Differences between offense types
Schubert et al (2010)
Followed 193 youth in Maricopa County Arizona
transferred to adult court
Serious offenses
Between ages 14 and 18
Males and Females

Schubert CA et al (2010) Predicting
outcomes for youth transferred to adult
court. Law and Human Behavior 34: 460-475


Youth charged with more serious offenses
were incarcerated longer
74 percent of all of sample were
incarcerated-others placed on probation
or had charge dismissed.
77% resumed some sort of antisocial activity
and 2/3 were either rearrested or back in
institutional setting.
Only 18 broke free from criminal activities
Findings
History strongly related to outcomes
Youth who were older upon first transfer had
better outcomes
Level of prior offending related to adjustment
in community
Youth who associate with negative peers have
higher recidivism as well as youth involved
with property crimes and felonies
Implications
Being transferred does not necessarily lead
to severe and long term confinement
Recidivism is disturbingly high
Individuals transferred on their first offense
do better relative to other transferred youth
Court procedures based on risk factors and
legal history were more predictive of later
involvement than demographic and
psychological variables (this may be
methodological)
Loughran et al (2010)
Differential effects of transfer
Transferred youth charged with person
crimes show lower recidivism rates
Transfer had a null effect on re-arrest in total
sample (same as Schuberts research)

Loughran, TA (2010) Differential effects of adult
court transfer on juvenile offender recidivism.
Law and Human Behavior 34:476-488
Clinical assessment
Developmental Considerations
A Reminder from Neuroscience

Violence Risk Assessment of Juveniles


With Acknowledgement To: Terry Kukor,
Ph.D., ABPP
Is This Guy Dangerous Doc?
63
Necessary Skills for Violence Risk
Assessment with Juveniles
1. Youth-appropriate clinical interviewing and testing
skills

2. Understanding how developmental capacities can
impact key abilities (e.g., juveniles ability to
accurately appraise risk, resist negative peer
influences, control impulses, etc.)

3. Appreciation for the multiple domains that may
have risk-relevant data: school, family, peer
relations


Borum, R. & Verhaagen, D. (2006) and Grisso, T. (1998)

64
Approaches to Risk Assessment
1. Clinical Assessment
2. Anamnestic Assessment
from the Greek word anmnesis, to recall
or remember.
3. Guided or Structured Clinical
Assessment
4. Actuarial Assessment
5. Adjusted Actuarial Assessment
6. Combined Hybrid Methods



65
Clinical Assessment
Method historically favored and used by mental
health professionals

Clinical information, history, and test data are
gathered, interpreted, and combined

Shortcomings:
Unstructured
Idiosyncratic: each clinician chooses the variables
that he/she considers most pertinent
Low reliability, which sets a ceiling on the validity
66
Anamnestic Assessment
Attempt to identify violence risk factors through a
detailed examination of the individuals history of
violent and threatening behavior.

Through clinical interview, review of third party
information and psychological testing, the examiner
tries to identify themes or commonalities across
violence episodes that can be used to articulate risk
or protective factors specific to the individual.

Shortcomings:
Same weaknesses as standard clinical assessment
Assumes there is a history of violence
67
Guided or Structured Clinical
Assessment
In contrast to traditional clinical assessment, the data
sought, considered, and processed by the clinician is
specified up front and is empirically informed,
i.e., demonstrated to be related to violence risk.

Although clinical judgment is still involved, the data
on which the judgments are based have some
predictive value and should be uniform across
examiners using this structured approach.

Guided judgments based on structured assessments
tend to be more accurate than those based on general
clinical assessment
68
*
Actuarial Assessment
Empirically derived data are gathered and entered
into a pre-defined equation
Strengths:
high reliability
known error rates
numerous studies indicate that actuarial assessments
outperforms clinical judgment across a number of decisional
tasks for adults
Limitations:
questionable generalizability: jurisdiction, gender, ethnic
bias
limited availability: there is no current actuarial risk of
juvenile violence measure validated across settings to be
considered widely generalizable Conroy and Murrie (2007)

69
*
Adjusted Actuarial Assessment
Allows for clinical adjustment , based
upon idiosyncratic factors, of the risk
level that is determined by pure actuarial
methods
70
*
Empirical Foundations

71
*
From First to Second
Generation Research Otto (1992)
Second generation research incorporated many of
Monahans (1984, 1988) recommendations

Violent behavior is not necessarily a low base rate
event, particularly among individuals with certain
symptom clusters.

The issue of prediction is moot as the literature
moves away from predicting violence and moves
towards comprehensive evaluation of risk.

72
*
From First to Second Generation
Research
Dangerousness & Violence Prediction Risk Assessment
What is the likelihood that this individual
will become violent in the foreseeable
future?
Focuses on individual as well as
environmental factors.
Assumes that dangerousness is a
construct that resides within the
individual, and that this construct can be
reliably assessed.
Risk is not a static construct, but can
change over time and under different
circumstances.
Assessments typically focused on
individual, person-centered factors.
Identification of risk factors has
implications for clinical management, i.e.,
interventions designed to minimize risk.
Classified individuals as dangerous or not
dangerous.
Under what circumstances is this
individual at greatest risk?
73
*
Prediction
It's tough to make predictions,
especially about the future.
Not Really Yogi Berra



74
Sometimes
Attributed to Niels
Bohr



An expert is a person
who has found out by
his own painful
experience all the
mistakes that one can
make in a very
narrow field



Base Rates
Base Rate = known prevalence of violent
behavior within a given population over a
given period of time

What do we know about individuals like
this?

Establishes an anchor point for risk
assessment

76
Base Rates: Juvenile Violence
Center for Disease Control:
1. 37% report having been in one or more fights in
the last 12 months (boys = 46%, girls = 26%)
2. Rate highest among 9
th
grade (45%), declined
each successive year to 29% for 12
th
grade
3. Official crime rate peaks at age 17, with sharp
drop off into young adulthood
4. Highest age risk for initiation of serious violence
is 15-16 years old (peak for girls is 14, boys 16)
5. 80% of those who are violent during adolescence
cease violence by age 21


77
Base Rates: The Twin Axioms
1. Some degree of delinquent behavior,
including some form of violence, is
statistically normative in adolescence.

2. The vast majority of youth who engage in
delinquent or violent behavior cease doing
so by the time they reach adulthood.

One requires substantial case-specific data to
deviate from the base-rate informed assumption
that a youth will not remain violent on a long-
term basis. Grisso (1998)
78
Why Base Rates are not Enough
1. There is a dynamic interplay between the person and
the environment that changes over time

2. With a history of violence, some idiographic (i.e.,
case-specific) risk factors may not appear in the
general population

3. Need to account for precursors and patterns that are
unique to the individual
a. circumstances, targets
b. factors that helped the youth delay, inhibit, or
diminish violent behaviors
79
Literature Review: What We Know
"Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but not simpler."
Albert Einstein


The Macdonald Triad:
1. Enuresis
2. Firesetting
3. Torturing small animals


80
The MacDonald Triad
A red flag among those who threaten or
commit homicide (MacDonald,1963)

84 violent inmates, 75% demonstrated the triad,
compared to 28% of non-violent inmates (Hellman &
Blackmun ,1966)

46 adult offenders, 13% demonstrated the triad
(Wax & Haddox, 1974)

Few children who demonstrate the triad remain
or become violent as adults (Nelson,2001)
81
The Dark Triad
Narcissism
Machiavellianism
Psychopathy,
Animal Abuse and Interpersonal
Violence
Case histories of serial killers suggest many
exhibited animal cruelty as juveniles
There is some empirical support for an
association between animal abuse in a
family and domestic violence, child abuse,
and elder abuse
Peterson & Farrington (2007): much of the
literature on cruelty to animals and
interpersonal violence is based upon small &
unrepresentative samples, retrospective
information, and poor or no control groups
83
Risk Factors
A factor that has been empirically or
scientifically shown to be associated with
an increased risk for violence.

The more risk factors that are present,
the greater the risk.

Risk factors can interact with each other.
84
Types of Risk Factors
v STATIC

Unchanging or
enduring
Typically historical
Relatively easy to
measure
Establishes a
baseline
vDYNAMIC

Changeable
Typically current
Can vary in terms of
frequency and
intensity
The focus for risk
management

85
*
Examples of Static Risk Factors
History of Violence

Early Onset of Violence

Victim of Abuse/Neglect

History of Substance Abuse

Traits of Psychopathy

86
*
Static Risk Factors
1. The scientific literature indicates that each of
the static factors is associated with an
increased risk of violence.

2. Since these factors are typically fixed, they do
not point towards interventions that might
lower the risk.

3. Dynamic risk factors, on the other hand, can
help focus intervention efforts because they
are thought to be modifiable.

87
*
Dynamic Risk Factors
1. This group of risk factors can be further
divided into stable dynamic (changeable, but
relatively enduring) and acute dynamic
(changeable, and highly dependent upon
situational influences).
Hanson & Harris (1998)

2. Dividing dynamic factors into these two
subgroups is useful because they point to
different strategies for managing risk.
88
*
Examples of
Dynamic Risk Factors
v STABLE
Pattern of
Substance
Abuse
Personality
Traits and
Attitudes
Negative Social
Influences
Negative Living
Situation



v ACUTE
Alcohol or Drug
Intoxication
Anger and Threats
Access to Weapon
and/or Victim
Violent Fantasies
89
*
Caveats about Risk Factors
1. Risk factors can interact with each
other

2. Empirically-supported risk factors are
more important cumulatively than
individually

3. Risk factors can vary by age and level of
development (e.g., substance abuse).
90
*
Overview of Static Risk Factors for
Juvenile Violence
1. History of Violence and Delinquency

2. Early Initiation of Violence

3. School Problems

4. History of Maltreatment and Abuse

5. Home/Family Maladjustment and
Dysfunction
91
History of Violence and Delinquency
1. Single best predictor of violence

2. Risk increases incrementally with number
of prior episodes

3. Antisocial behaviors before the age of 14
a. Stealing
b. Vandalism
c. Drug trafficking
92
Early Initiation of Violence
1. Violence prior to age 14 associated with
more chronic and serious violence

2. Relationship may be
stronger for boys than girls
93
Early Initiation of Violence
No 1:1 correspondence between past
violence and future crime in terms of
offense type or severity Conroy & Murrie (2007)
A substantial portion of juveniles who
commit homicide have no known prior
violence

Since severity is not necessarily predictive of
future violence, it is important to examine
chronicity and recency of prior violence
Grisso (1998)


94
Early Initiation of Violence
Multiple studies have demonstrated that
onset of violence before the age of 10
was strongly associated with subsequent
violence.
50% of youth who were violent between the
ages of 10 and 16 were violent as adults

Only 8% of youth who were not violent
between the ages of 10 and 16 were violent
as adults

95
School Problems
1. Low levels of educational achievement
Academic failure beginning in elementary grades

2. Low level of interest in education

3. Dropout prior to age 15

4. Truancy

5. May be a stronger factor for girls than boys

96
Victim of Maltreatment/Abuse
1. Predisposing experiences:
a. Modeling violence
b. Reinforce or reward violence

2. Risk continuum:
a. Sexually abused (lowest)
b. No abuse history
c. Physically abused
d. Neglected (highest)

3. Stronger risk factor for girls than boys




97
Home/Family Dysfuction
1. Parental criminality (mostly studied in males)

2. Parental approval (tacit or explicit) of
violence

3. Family conflict
a. Interpersonal conflict
b. Overt violence

4. Marital conflict/domestic violence

98
Overview of Dynamic Risk Factors for
Juvenile Violence
1. Substance Use Problems
2. Mental Disorder
3. Psychopathy
4. Risk Taking & Impulsivity
5. Violence-Conducive Social Information Processing
6. Anger Control Problems
7. Negative Peer Relations
8. Poor Parental/Family Management
9. Stress & Loss
10. Lack of Interpersonal Support
11. Community Crime & Violence

99
Substance Use Problems
1. Alcohol as much of a risk factor as
are other substances of abuse

2. Rates of violence among juveniles
who abuse substances higher than
those who do not
Holds for both males and females

3. One of the strongest predictors for youth
age 6 to 11, but one of the weakest
predictors for youth 12 to 14.


100
Mental Disorder and Violence
1. Ample research indicating strong relationship
between Conduct Disorder (CD),
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) and
violence
Tautological: aggression in diagnostic criteria

2. Combination of CD and ADHD associated
with increased violence risk through
adolescence and into adulthood.
Hyperactive youth show high rate of antisocial
behavior and conduct problems in adolescence



101
Mental Disorder and Violence
3. Chronic depression (if manifest as anger) and
chronic anxiety (if associated with CD) may
be associated with violence.

4. PTSD in combination with CD

5. Psychotic Disorders
a. Schizophrenia is rare in adolescents
b. 10% of juvenile homicide perpetrators
manifested psychotic symptoms
c. Juveniles who commit murder more likely to
have psychotic symptoms, particularly paranoia
102
Mental Disorder and Violence
5. Psychopathic personality features/traits
a. A subgroup of those juveniles who qualify for
CD
b. Validated measures
Psychopathy Checklist :Youth Version Forth et al. (2003)
Antisocial Process Screening Device Frick and Hare (2001)
b. Thrill-seeking
c. Fearless
d. Less empathic
e. Less prone to emotional distress
103
Juvenile Psychopathy: Caveats
1. Dont confuse transient developmental
characteristics (e.g., impulsivity, narcissism,
irresponsibility) with stable adult traits
Egocentricity lack of empathy

2. The extent to which adolescents who manifest
these traits will continue to do so into
adulthood is unclear

3. Limited data about juvenile psychopathy in
girls and non-Caucasians
104

Psychopathic Personality
Traits and Violence

1. Higher rates of violence and criminal
recidivism

2. Higher rates of institutional violence

3. Higher rates of instrumental violence

4. Higher rates of self-reported violence
105
Risk Taking & Impulsivity
Risk Taking

1. Risk-taking and responding to dares:
a. Stronger relationship to violence than
impulsivity
b. Doubles or triples the risk for violent behavior

2. Sensation-seeking during middle
adolescence multiplies violence risk x3

106
Risk Taking & Impulsivity
Impulsivity

1. The extent to which the individual considers the
consequences before acting

2. Behavioral and affective instability

3. Marked fluctuations in mood and demeanor

4. Early impulsivity predicts violent behavior during
adulthood.



107
Adolescent Impulsivity
108
Violence-Conducive Social
Information Processing
Youth who are violent tend to:
1. Underuse pertinent social cues
2. Misattribute malevolent intent in
ambiguous interpersonal situations
3. Generate fewer nonviolent/assertive
solutions to interpersonal problems
4. Expect that violent responses will be
rewarded
5. Indulge violent fantasies
6. Engage in aggressive self-talk
109
Anger Control Problems
1. Failure to inhibit or modulate an
angry reaction can lead to violence.
a. increases with AOD
b. decreases with empathy, guilt
2. Questions to ask
a. how often individuals lose their temper
b. what typically makes them angry
c. what actions they take when angry
d. the most violent thing they have ever
done while angry
e. If others complain about their temper


110
Negative Peer Relations
1. Rejection by peers

2. Delinquent peer affiliation

3. Gang affiliation

4. Isolation and interpersonal withdrawal

111
Poor Parental/Family Management
1. Experiencing violence as a child

2. Witnessing family violence

3. Excessive and inconsistent discipline
& poor supervision by parents

4. Parental ASPD associated with conduct problems

5. Low levels of communication
a. Stronger for males than females
112
Stress & Loss
1. This association is particularly strong
for youth who have been victims of
violence

2. Types of losses: areas of inquiry
a. Material: valued objects
b. Relational: death or separation
c. Status
d. Anticipatory
113
Lack of Interpersonal Support
Peer rejection liked by few, disliked by most

Diminishes likelihood of a successful safety plan, and
increases exposure to destabilizing risk conditions

Hostile and/or conflictual relationships increases risk
of violence

Youth who feel hopeless may think that family and
peers offer little support and are more prone to
express anger behaviorally
114
Community Crime & Violence
1. Criminogenic and disorganized (e.g.,
gangs, drug sales) neighborhoods
a. Expose youth to crime and
violence at earlier age

b. Establishes a culture in which
instrumental violence is valued
Guns are like computers, doc
115
Idiographic Risk Factors
We know from experience that each individual may
have different triggers or sensitivities to
particular stressors that might lead to violence.

Can be learned after working with people for long
periods

Can provide early warning signals of
decompensation and increase in risk

Broken Leg Countervailings
Specific and credible threats
116
Protective Factors
1. More empirical work done with youth than adults
2. It can be very useful to articulate protective
factors specific to the individual:
a. Use clinical interview, review of third party
information (e.g., arrest reports, hospital
accounts, reports of significant others), and
psychological or other types of testing
b. identify themes or commonalities across
situations in which the individual delayed or
avoided expression of violence

117
Protective Factors
3. Protective factors may reduce the
likelihood of violence either by lessening
the negative impact of a risk factor (e.g.,
substance abuse) or by reducing
violence risk directly.

4. Absence of risk factors may even be
considered protective. (Borum, 2000)

118
Protective Factors Youth
Borum and Verhaagen (2006)
1. Pro-social involvement
2. Strong social support
a. Facilitates implementation of a risk
management plan
b. Reduces exposure to destabilizers
3. Positive attitude towards intervention
and authority
4. Strong commitment to school
5. Resilient personality

119
Juvenile Violence Risk
Assessment Tools
1. Youth Level of Services Inventory (YLSI)

2. The Child and Adolescent Risk for Violence
(CARV)

3. Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version
(PCL:YV)


120
Juvenile Violence Risk
Assessment Tools
4. Early Assessment Risk List for Boys (EARL-20B)
a. Boys under the age of 12
b. 3 domains of items: Child , Family, Amenability
c. Minimal research

5. Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in
Youth (SAVRY)
a. Modeled on adult risk assessment: Historical,
Clinical, and Contextual risk factors
b. Protective factors
c. Empirical foundation increasing

121
SAVRY
1. Structured, empirically guided clinical
judgment

2. The SAVRY manual
articulates the research supporting each of its risk
factors (and acknowledges when such research
support is not present), making testifying easier

3. The SAVRY is divided into 24 risk factors
(rated low, moderate, or high) and six
protective factors (rated present or absent).


122
SAVRY: Risk Factor Groupings
1. Historical risk factors: (e.g., history of violent and non-
violent offending, early initiation of violence, past
supervision/intervention failures, and poor school
achievement)
2. Social/Contextual risk factors: (e.g., peer delinquency,
peer rejection, and poor parental management)
3. Individual risk factors: (e.g., negative attitudes, risk-
taking/impulsivity, substance use difficulties,
psychopathic traits, and low interest/commitment to
school).
4. Protective factors: (e.g., prosocial involvement, strong
social support, strong attachments and bonds to
positive figures, and a strong commitment to school)

123
Putting it all Together
1. Static risk factors: baseline and longer term
violence risk

2. Dynamic risk factors: shorter term violence
risk and a basis for risk reduction strategies

3. Imminence: more related to recent overt
behavioral actions than it is to history
a. Has there been any recent overt violence?
b. Have there been any recent overt threats of
violence?






124
Putting it all Together
4. Fine tune the assessment of dynamic factors:
a. current stressors: family, school, interpersonal
b. available support and willingness to use such
support
c. coping resiliency is it stable, improving, or
deteriorating?
d. drug or alcohol use as current disinhibitors
e. weapon availability/preoccupation with
violence
f. ability and intent to carry out threats
g. victim availability

125
Putting it all Together
4. Fine tune assessment of current
psychopathology
a. Anger control problems
b. Paranoia (leading to vengeance or self
protection)
c. Grandiosity and/or entitlement
d. Hopelessness (e.g., leading to a willingness
to live with the consequences of hurting
someone)
e. Impulsivity: evaluate state and trait


126
Communicating the Results of Risk
Assessment
Categorical formats:
low risk - few risk factors present, or,
protective factors currently outweigh risk
factors

medium risk - several risk factors present

high risk - numerous risk factors present, or,
risk factors currently significantly outweigh
protective factors
127
Screening Questions
R. Otto (2000)
1. What kinds of things make you mad?
2. What is your temper like? What do you usually do
when you lose your temper?
3. What is the most violent thing you have ever done
and how did it happen?
Have you been accused or blamed
4. What is the closest you have come to being violent?
5. Have you ever used a weapon in a fight or to hurt
someone?
6. What would have to happen for you to get so mad or
angry that you would hurt someone?
7. Do you own weapons like guns or knives? Where are
they now?
Do you have any training in weapons?


128
*
Follow-up Interview Questions Related to
Past Violence
R. Otto (2000)

Examinee (and 3
rd
party) questions
1. What kinds of harm occurred?

2. Who were the victims or targets?
3. In what setting or environment did the
altercation take place?


129
*


1. What do you think caused the violence?

2. What were you thinking/feeling before,
during, and after the altercation?

3. Were you using alcohol or drugs at or
around the time of the altercation?



*
Follow-up Interview Questions Related to
Past Violence
R. Otto (2000)

Clinician questions/considerations

1. Were there psychotic symptoms
present?

2. Was the youth taking psychotropic
medication at the time of the incident?

3. Are there any behavioral patterns or
commonalities across episodes of
violence?



131
*
Recommendations for
Summarizing Risk
1. It is useful to consider risk of violence as a construct
that is:
contextual (i.e., highly dependent upon situational factors)
perishable (i.e., subject to change)
continuous (i.e., varying along a continuum of probability)

2. Consider risk factors that are present or absent;
determine if any absent risk factors mitigate the
overall risk.

3. Determine which dynamic (changeable) risk factors
are most likely to be influenced by the environment.
e.g., drug and alcohol use

4. Gather data from multiple sources
132
Recommendations for
Summarizing Risk
5. Use a consistent and standardized format

6. Minimize clinician bias

7. Maintain current knowledge through
continuing education

8. Be thorough

9. Consider Duty to Protect issues


133
Iterative Classification Tree: Juveniles
Borum & Verhaagen (2006)


134
Early Serious Violence
Callous or unemot ional
t rait s or Behavior Disorder
Serious Violence in
Adolescence (age 14+) Delinquent Peers
Ant isocial
At t it udes
Family or School
Problems
Relat ive
Risk
Yes Yes Higher
Yes No
No Yes
Bef ore 11 No
Yes Yes
No No
No Yes
No
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
Age 11-14 No
Yes Yes
No No
No Yes
No
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
Age 14 or lat er or none No
Yes Yes
No No Lower
Risk Assessment in Females
Odgers, Moretti and Reppucci (2005)
Unique Challenges
Low base rate
Only population with increasing rate, however
In adults, clinicians tend to underestimate risk of
violence in women
Gender Differences in Target and Type of
Violence
Females more likely to engage in relational violence
Odgers CL, Moretti MM and Reppucci ND (2005) Examining the science and
practice of violence risk assessment with female adolescents. Law and Human
Behavior 29 (1) 7-27.
Females
Adult Female Aggression escalates
Remains less likely to cause injuries requiring medical
attention
Less likely to be reported
Gender Differences in Developmental Course
Longitudinal studies do not show female early onset
aggression and violence as risk as is the case in males.
(Some studies show decrease)
Females
Lack of Gender Specific Empirical
Instruments
Majority of research is limited and findings are
unclear
Complicated by inherent dynamism of
adolescence
Present research does not support assessment
of risk of violence in females

Females
Implications
Research Instruments must address relationship,
contextual and developmental course
differences
Current risk assessment instruments have value
for research and as Adjunct in other assessment
procedures
Attention should be directed toward co-
morbidity issues typically seen in females (PTSD,
etc.)
Structured Bindover Assessment
Risk-Sophistication Treatment Inventory
(Salekin, 2004)
Semi Structured Interview
Three Scales composed of 3 Clusters


Salekin RT et al. (2005) Risk Sophistication
Treatment Inventory. In Grisso T, Vincent G
and Segrave D (2005) Mental Health
Screening and Assessment in Juvenile Justice (pp
341-356). New York: Guilford Press
Risk For Dangerousness
Violent and Aggressive Tendencies
Planned and Extensive Criminality
Psychopathic Features

Sophistication Maturity
Autonomy
Cognitive Capacities
Emotional Maturity
Treatment Amenability
Psychopathy-Degree and Type
Responsibility and Motivation for Change
Consideration and Tolerance for Others

Other Helpful Measures

How I Think Questionnaire
Measures Cognitive Distortions
Self Centered
Blaming Others
Minimizing/Mislabeling
Assuming The Worst
Behavioral Referent Subscales
Opposition Defiance
Physical Aggression
Lying
Stealing

Barriga et al (2001) How I Think Questionnaire
Champaign Illinois: Research Press
MMPI A
Most widely used and researched objective
paper and pencil instrument
Optimally administered on line and scored
via computer
Utilize both standard code types and
Megargee Typology
Archer RP (2005) MMPI A: Assessing Adolescent
Pathology: Mahwah New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates
Ben Porath Y Davis, D (1996) Case Studies for
Interpreting the MMPI A(1996) Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press


Juvenile Courts and Insanity Defense
The published case law and state codes of
the majority of states have not addressed
the status of the insanity defense in their
juvenile or family courts. A handful of states
have established a juvenile insanity defense
as a matter of statutory law. (E.g., N. J. Stat.
Ann. . 2A:4A 40 (West 1995); Tex. Fam.
Code Ann. .55.05 (West 1996).)
*
Other jurisdictions seem to assume a
juvenile insanity defense in other parts of
their code. (E.g., Calif. Penal Code . 25(b)
(Deering 1995); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., 123 ..
15 (a), (f) (West 1995); Neb. Rev. Stat. . 43
258 (1995); N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act .. 335.1, 344.3
(McKinney 1995).)

*

A number of states refer to the existence
of a juvenile insanity defense in their case
law, including Louisiana and Wisconsin
which have found an insanity defense to be
a fundamental right for a juvenile defendant.
(Interest of Causey, 363 So.2d 472, 474 (La.
1978); Winburn v. State, 145 N.W.2d 178
(Wisc. 1966).)

*
Only the District of Columbia has explicitly
held that the insanity defense is not
permissible in juvenile proceedings. (In the
Matter of C.W.M., 407 A.2d 617 (D.C.App.
1979); D.C. Code Ann. . 16 2315(d) (1995).)

*
Even in those states that recognize a
juvenile insanity defense, the precise effect
of a juvenile's mental disorder on the
disposition of a delinquency case is often
unclear. Given the historical flexibility of
juvenile proceedings, many courts may
consider mental disorders that do not rise
to the level of legal insanity in disposing of
delinquency cases.

*
In states that recognize a formal insanity
defense in juvenile court, many use the
flexible dispositional options of the juvenile
system rather than sending juveniles found
not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) into
a formal system for the treatment and
management of NGRIs similar to the adult
system.

*
Bindover Sample Case
17-3 Male
Felonious Assault
Theft

Priors: Unruly; Criminal Trespass,
Misdemeanor Assault
NO DYS

Psychosocial
Non Involvement of Father
Inconsistent Mother
Raised by Maternal Grandmother
Chronic Behavioral Problem
Gang Involvement
Cannabis Abuse

Medical: Status Post GSW to Chest
Shot while attempting a robbery (Instant
Offense)
Offense: Observed in front of business,
officer searched, found gun. Youth grabbed
it and pointed at officer. Officer fired and
wounded youth


KBIT: V-91; M-85; CIQ 83

MMPI A: 617893+52/0: F+-L:K#

HIT: Self-serving cognitive
distortions associated with delinquency
and externalizing behavioral disorders. All
but two of the scales were either in the
clinical or borderline clinical range with a
similarity to youth who exhibit both
covert and overt delinquent behaviors

RSTI: Risk for Dangerousness
Scale his raw score of 19 resulted in a T
Score of 52. His T Score for this scale was
in the middle range at the 56th percentile.

Middle range for Violent and aggressive
tendencies and as well as in the middle
range of Planned and Extensive Criminality
(having a prior court contacts as well as
early onset of delinquent behaviors)
Middle range of Psychopathic Features (he
shows limited empathy, limited remorse
and is somewhat egocentric).
Sophistication Maturity Scale, his raw
score of 17 resulted in a T score of 64
was in the 91st percentile and in the high
range.
Overall, he is seen as a youth, who has
developed Cognitive Capacities (that is he
knows right from wrong)

Somewhat Autonomous (and vulnerable to
negative peer influences) and who has a
still emerging self-concept.
He has good interpersonal skills for his
age and can identify non-delinquent, non-
violent problem solving alternatives
Has engaged in behavior that could be
considered antisocial and delinquent
despite this knowledge).
On the Treatment Amenability Scale,
his raw score of 14 resulted in a T Score
of 53 at the 63
rd
percentile (low Range).
He has a high degree of Psychopathology
(Disruptive Behavior Disorders, probable
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder).

Treatment for these disorders is often
difficult and he clearly requires intensive,
long-term mental health treatment.
He does acknowledge responsibility and
is somewhat open to change.
Factors Against Amenability
He has been non-compliant at home and
in school for a considerable period of
time.
He has a history of acknowledged gang
involvement.

He has already been involved with the
juvenile justice system and has continued
in acting out behavior, including one of the
alleged instant offenses (albeit alleged
misdemeanors) that took place while on
house arrest and also acknowledges
acting out aggressively within the
detention center.

He shows a somewhat early onset of
disruptive behavior (since the age of 12).
Research has shown that youth who
evidence an early onset of delinquent and
aggressive behavior have a much poorer
prognosis.

He is 17 years old and there is limited
time remaining for treatment of his
considerable psychological and behavioral
problems.

He has a history of substance abuse.
Substance abuse has been shown in the
literature to a risk factor for antisocial
and aggressive behavior as evidenced on
the HIT test.

He evidences numerous cognitive
distortions of the type frequently
associated with delinquent behavior.

He has a history of aggressive behavior
and has used aggression and threats in the
past.

Factors Supporting Amenability
He has serious psychological problems
that appear to have appeared before his
involvement in the instant offense and
apparently has not received any
substantial treatment for these issues.
He does acknowledge personal
responsibility for his behavior.

He has sufficient verbal intelligence to
understand typical treatment
interventions and apply them.

He appears to require intensive
residential treatment and has not yet
received that treatment. Thus, how he
would respond to long-term secure
intensive residential interventions has not
yet been fully seen.

He has shown the ability to form
attachments and relationships.

Since his identity and self-image is still
developing, he is as likely amenable to
positive role models as he is to negative
role models.

Placement in the adult system would
most certainly expose him to very
negative influences and role models in a
critical period in his development.
Psychological test and interview data finds
that he does not have a negative attitude
towards treatment, which can be an
important strength to build upon in
treatment.