Judicial Decision-Making for High-Risk Youth
A Bench Card for Judges
Judges play a key role in improving public safety by making research-based decisions about supervision and services for high-risk youth. This bench card provides research-based guidance and quick reference points along a delinquency case continuum to reduce recidivism and promote positive outcomes for young people at high risk for reoffending or committing serious offenses.
Determination of High Risk DOs
- Use validated risk assessment tools administered by trained professionals, including a separate sex offender risk assessment for youth charged with sex offenses.
- Focus on dynamic (changeable) rather than static (unchangeable) risk factors and prioritize those that are most predictive of risk.
- Consider protective factors as having potential to mitigate risk (especially self-control and self-efficacy).
Determination of High Risk DON’Ts
- Don’t rely on offense type or severity, demographics, or subjective factors.
- Don’t confuse mental health needs with risk, as youth’s mental health is not predictive of their risk to reoffend.
Detention Decisions for High-Risk Youth DOs
- Use validated detention screening tools to measure public safety and flight risk.
- Solely consider public safety and flight risk as reasons (but not a requirement) to detain.
- Eliminate or severely limit screening overrides and allow only with clear public safety criteria and judicial discretion with safeguards.
- Encourage and support the establishment of a continuum of detention alternatives (e.g., shelters, mentoring, reporting centers) that are equipped to work with high-risk youth.
Detention Decisions for High-Risk Youth DON’Ts
- Don’t detain solely based on offense seriousness.
- Don’t use detention for family, service, self-protection, or “accountability” reasons or “to teach the youth a lesson.”
- Don’t presume youth identified as high risk must automatically be detained.
Dispositional Decisions for High-Risk Youth DOs
- Prioritize community-based interventions over placement if youth are not an imminent risk to themselves or the community.
- Align probation conditions with areas of greatest public safety risk as identified by a validated risk assessment.
- Engage youth directly in victim mediation and restorative practices to repair any harm caused and improve outcomes for both responsible and harmed parties.
- Ensure any specific programming or services included in dispositions directly address risk factors identified in predisposition risk assessments.
Dispositional Decisions for High-Risk Youth DON’Ts
- Don’t assume all high-risk youth need placement, including nonsecure placements.
- Don’t arbitrarily increase conditions, lengths of probation over 12 months, or require intensive surveillance.
- Don’t expect sanctions-based approaches to change behavior without appropriate and effective risk-reduction services.
- Don’t expect the adult court system to meet the needs of or hold high-risk youth accountable more effectively than the juvenile system.
Promoting Effective Supervision and Services for High-Risk Youth DOs
- Hold probation and facilities accountable for case plans that address youth’s priority risk factors and behavioral health needs.
- Focus court reviews on risk factor reduction and treatment progress, not compliance.
- Use developmentally appropriate incentives and graduated responses.
- Ensure youth receive evidence-based risk reduction services such as cognitive behavioral and family therapy.
- Ensure that high-risk youth are prioritized for services, and that youth and families are engaged in treatment and receive an appropriate “dosage” of services.
- Support the use of evidence-based practices such as credible messengers, peer supports, and violence interrupters.
- Support reduction of barriers to service participation such as transportation.
- Use data to measure program effectiveness and exert collaborative leadership to expand services and supports for high-risk youth.
Promoting Effective Supervision and Services for High-Risk Youth DON’Ts
- Don’t emphasize probation condition compliance or frequent court reviews.
- Don’t require services, drug testing, or other conditions that are unrelated to youth’s individual risk factors for reoffending.
- Don’t penalize youth (or families) or impose technical violations for slow or uneven progress—expect challenges to meeting case goals.
- Don’t rely on punishment to drive change, such as detaining youth for noncompliance.
Want more information or support?
Read the “DOs” and DON’Ts” for challenging juvenile cases—and other resources for judges.
Contact Christina Gilbert (cgilbert@csg.org) at The Council of State Governments Justice Center and Hunter Hurst (hhurst@ncjfcj.org) at the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
This bench card is supported by State Justice Institute Award #24P034. Opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the funder’s views.
Corrections leaders balance the complex priorities of maintaining public safety, operating secure facilities, providing needed care and services…
Read More
The CSG Justice Center Advisory Board establishes the policy and project priorities of the organization. The board features…
Read More
The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center has launched the Collaborating for Youth and Public Safety Initiative…
Read More
Apply Now for Resident Analyst Program to Increase Data Analysis Capacity at Departments of Corrections
Corrections leaders balance the complex priorities of maintaining public safety, operating secure…
Read More
Transforming Lives with Access to Needed Mental Health Care: Q&A with New CSG Justice Center Advisory Board Member Dr. Courtney Harvey
The CSG Justice Center Advisory Board establishes the policy and project priorities…
Read More
Six States Commit to Improving Statewide Strategies to Address Youth Crime, Violence and Behavioral Health
The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center has launched the Collaborating…
Read More
Statement by The Council of State Governments Justice Center on Termination of Public Safety Grants
Washington, DC – Termination of bipartisan Department of Justice grants appropriated by…
Read More
Amid Federal Funding Cuts, Here’s How the CSG Justice Center Can Help You Advance Safety and Justice
Read More
Explainer: How a New Law in Arkansas Tackles Crime, Recidivism, and Community Supervision Challenges
In April 2025, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a package of…
Read More