Search

There is emerging recognition that positive or pro-social characteristics may lessen criminal propensity. There are now several adult and youth forensic instruments that include protective or strength components. Yet evidence supporting the protective capacities of these instruments with youth offending populations is still developing. This study aimed to identity the prevalence of strength items on the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory tool, and their relationships with risk and re-offending for a cohort of 212 multi-cultural Australian juveniles in custody. The prevalence of strengths in the sample was low, and differed by cultural group. Young people who possessed a strength yielded lower instrument total and domain scores and were more likely to be afforded a lower level of risk compared to youth without a strength. Moreover, youth who possessed a strength were significantly more likely to desist from re-offending. This association remained after controlling for level of risk. Findings point to the importance of strengths when assessing a young person’s risk for re-offending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have explored the cross-cultural utility of youth violence risk instruments. Moreover both the discrimination and calibration performance indicators of such instruments are rarely investigated. This study aimed to address both gaps in the literature by exploring the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI instrument for an Australian multi-ethnic cohort of young offenders in custody. The YLS/CMI total score was able to discriminate between re-offenders and non-reoffenders for the overall sample; however, a breakdown across ethnicity showed only strong effects for Australian English Speaking Background youth. Despite an inability to distinguish re-offenders from non-reoffenders for both Culturally and Linguistically Diverse and Indigenous youth, the instrument was able to accurately predict recidivism for high-risk youth for all ethnic groups. Findings highlight the importance of adopting both calibration and discrimination indicators when assessing predictive validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]