Dynamic Risk and Differential Impacts of Probation: Examining Age, Race, and Gender as Responsivity Factors

Objective: Juvenile courts that apply the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model should periodically reassess youths and observe reductions in risk. There is a gap in knowledge concerning the reliable implementation of the specific responsivity principle of the RNR model, which emphasizes considering youths’ unique characteristics to support rehabilitation success. In the present study, we aimed to identify whether specific responsivity factors (i.e., age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and supervision experiences (i.e., time under supervision and participation in judicial programs) effect changes in risk scores. Hypotheses: We anticipated that (a) time under supervision would be negatively associated with dynamic risk, (b) participation in judicial programs would be positively associated with dynamic risk, and (c) race/ethnicity (not age or gender) would moderate the relationship between supervision experiences and dynamic risk. Method: The sample consisted of 360 youths who served probation in a midwestern court. We tested multilevel models to determine differential impacts of supervision experiences on dynamic risk across responsivity factors, controlling for initial risk scores and offense seriousness. Results: Partially confirming our hypotheses, results showed that spending longer periods on probation and being referred to judicial programs were both associated with negative changes in risk scores (i.e., risk scores increased over time). There was no effect of age or gender; however, race/ethnicity predicted dynamic risk. The average change in risk score was 1.81 units lower for historically marginalized youths (b = −1.82, SE = 0.68, p =.01), and the magnitude of the effect was significantly driven by multiracial youths. As expected, race/ethnicity moderated the relationship between time on probation and changes in risk scores. Conclusions: Findings indicate that improper application of the specific responsivity principle of the RNR model may diminish desired rehabilitation outcomes. Closing this theory-to-practice gap would improve court supervision experiences for all youths. In future studies, researchers should continue investigating specific responsivity factors and the dynamic validity of risk assessment.