Text

theses

Today, the push for evidence-based practice has permeated arguably all human services agencies, government and the private sector alike. One such method of applying evidence-based practice into the human service arena is that of structured decision-making (SDM) tools. One form of SDM that has seen recent growth, and is the focus of the current study, is juvenile detention risk screening tools (RST’s). These instruments are promoted as a means to standardize detention decision-making by providing more objective and concrete measures of both risk of flight, and public safety risk, thereby limiting or even eliminating the influence of extra-legal factors such as race/ethnicity, gender and age in the decision-making process. While there is an abundance of research focused on determining the predictive validity of various juvenile risk assessment instruments, few studies have sought to consider and empirically examine how decision-making in the courtroom context is affected by the introduction of an RST. The current study sought help fill this existing gap in research by examining the actual effect of a juvenile detention screening instrument on court actor decision-making. Utilizing a pretest-posttest design, the nature of detention decision-making in five New Jersey Counties was examined before and after the introduction of a consensus-based detention RST. Using logistic regression techniques, data detailing detention decision before and after the introduction of the tool was analyzed to determine what factors influence the decision to detain for both time periods. An additional dataset that includes qualitative data in the form intake worker responses to a structured questionnaire designed to assess the factors most affecting their detention decisions was also used to provide additional context for these decisions. Results of the current study indicate that, for the current study sites, the ‘rational’ detention decision-making criteria prevailed both before and after the implementation of the instrument, with little evidence to support the influence of extra-legal factors even prior to the RST. Where some evidence surfaced regarding the possible influence of some ‘non-rational’ criteria, specifically age and county of residence, the study did find some circumstantial evidence suggesting the RST may have had a moderating effect on these variables. Furthermore, the RST seems to have had the effect of formalizing decision-making, in that the association between the ‘rational’ criteria and detention either increased post-RST, or in some instances where perhaps there may have been an over-reliance pre-RST, was moderated. Overall, the analyses presented here do point to the potential utility of this RST in achieving the desired outcomes of interest: increasing reliance on more ‘rational’ agreed-upon criteria, while reducing the use of extra-legal factors in detention decision-making.

ETD_4445

Ph.D.

Includes bibliographical references

Includes vita

by Carrie L. Maloney

http://hdl.rutgers.edu/1782.1/rucore10002600001.ETD.000067596

doi:10.7282/T3RJ4H6V

ETD doctoral

The author owns the copyright to this work.