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.
New Mexico launched a pilot program in 2024 to divert people with mental health needs and misdemeanor charges…
Read More
As the Stepping Up initiative marks its 10th year, America’s justice and behavioral health systems are facing a…
Read More
On June 26, the CSG Justice Center convened state leaders in workforce development, education, and corrections from 7…
Read More
From Courtroom to Care: 5 Key Strategies Behind New Mexico’s Competency Diversion Pilot
New Mexico launched a pilot program in 2024 to divert people with…
Read More
The 10-Year Impact—and Future—of Stepping Up: Facing the Behavioral Health Crisis in Jails and Communities with Real Solutions
As the Stepping Up initiative marks its 10th year, America’s justice and…
Read More
Breaking Down Barriers: Reentry 2030 States Meet to Tackle Employment-Related Collateral Consequences
On June 26, the CSG Justice Center convened state leaders in workforce…
Read More
A “Once in a Generation Opportunity” to Improve Reentry for Nearly 2 Million People
19 states were recently granted permission by CMS to reimburse critical reentry…
Read More
First-of-its-Kind Plan for States to Support Children and Families with Incarcerated Parents
Our plan—developed with the National Resource Center on Children & Families of…
Read More