Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law logoLink to Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law
. 2019 Sep 24;26(5):740–752. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2019.1618752

Evolution of recidivism risk using the YLS/CMI in Spanish serious reoffenders

Natalia Palanques 1,✉, Keren Cuervo 1, Lidón Villanueva 1
PMCID: PMC6896502  PMID: 31984108

Abstract

Juvenile recidivism risk assessment can be used to explore the specific risk factors that lead minors to commit crimes. The majority of minors have a limited relationship with the judicial system, but a few reoffend into adulthood. The aims of this study are to examine serious reoffenders’ criminal trajectories and explore youth and adult recidivism. The participants comprise 260 juveniles aged from 14 to 18 years (M = 16.5, SD = 1.0) with a disciplinary record in the juvenile court of a Spanish province, who were sentenced to educational measures involving probation and confinement to a juvenile detention centre. Youth and adult recidivism was recorded over a follow-up period lasting from 1.5 to 6 years.

The results show a profile of serious reoffenders with a moderate level of recidivism risk that increases during the follow-up period. Crimes against property were the most frequently committed, and juveniles who begin their criminal trajectories with this type of crime tend to reoffend into adulthood.

Key words: recidivism risk level, risk areas, serious reoffender, YLS/CMI inventory, crimes against people, crimes against property, juvenile offender

1. Introduction

Juvenile recidivism risk assessment can be used to explore the specific factors that lead minors to commit crimes – that is, the factors that make juveniles vulnerable to delinquency. A range of personal and environmental aspects contribute to creating minors’ experiences, and as most are dynamic they can potentially be modified. The evidence suggests that dynamic risk factors reduce with age, which highlights the importance of early intervention (Van der Put et al., 2011). An instrument that accurately assesses these factors and establishes them as intervention objectives with the aim of avoiding adult criminal behaviour is therefore required.

Risk assessment tools have evolved significantly over the last century, from simply summing up the historical predictors of offenders to assessing changes in dynamic predictors over time and with treatment (Flores, Holsinger, Lowenkamp, & Cohen, 2017; Yang, Guo, Olver, Polaschek, & Wong, 2017). Many studies have explored methods for assessing recidivism risk in juvenile offenders, along with their risk factors and predisposition to violence (Schmidt, Campbell, & Houlding, 2011; Schwalbe, 2007). However, to the authors’ knowledge no study has examined the evolution of minors’ risk using the same instrument over different periods of time while comparing assessment scores.

In the United Kingdom (UK), the United States (US) and Australia there is a tendency to use assessment instruments in juvenile justice. Hoge and Andrews (2006) created the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), which is based on the General Personality and Social–Psychological Model of Criminal Conduct (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). The model highlights the importance of explaining antisocial behaviour by studying an individual and his or her dynamic context. The instrument gives a score for recidivism risk based on eight factors that have been found to be major predictors, known as the Central Eight: Prior and current offences/adjudications, Family circumstances/parenting, Education/employment, Peer relations, Substance abuse, Leisure/recreation, Personality/behaviour and Attitudes/orientation. The first four (the Big Four) have the highest predictive value (Andrews & Bonta, 2006). The YLS/CMI classifies juveniles into four risk levels – low, moderate, high and very high – and various studies have found adequate indicators of reliability and validity for each level, as well as significant differences in the recidivism percentages (Cuervo, Villanueva, & Prado-Gascó, 2017; Flores, Travis, & Latessa, 2004; Jung & Rawana, 1999; Onifade et al., 2008; Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005).

In Spain there is a lack of empirical instruments for evaluating juvenile offenders, despite the European Juvenile Justice Recommendations (Generalitat de Cataluña, 2010). The YLS/CMI has recently been used to determine the effectiveness of an objective scale that allows the management of juvenile offenders’ measures. Some studies argue that the inventory successfully discriminates between reoffending and non-reoffending minors, and can thus be considered a valid predictor of criminal recidivism (Garrido, López, Silva, López, & Molina, 2006; Graña, Garrido, & González, 2006). Spanish studies have used this inventory with general samples of youth offenders and obtained the following results: between 9.2% and 16.65% showed a low risk of recidivism, between 53.25% and 66.6% showed a moderate risk, between 21.6% and 37.6% showed a high risk and between 0 and 2.3% showed a very high risk. (Garrido, 2009; Graña, Garrido, & González, 2007; Pintado, 2012). The areas of highest risk in the inventory are Leisure/recreation, Education/employment and Substance abuse (Cuervo & Villanueva, 2015; Garrido, 2009; Graña et al., 2007).

In the case of serious juvenile offenders, 11% showed a low risk, 26% showed a moderate risk and 39% showed a high risk (Onifade et al., 2008). Olver, Stockdale, and Wong (2012) suggest that the high-risk areas for these juveniles are Personality/behaviour, Education/employment, Substance abuse and Family circumstances/parenting.

Identifying the criminogenic factors linked to the origin and maintenance of antisocial behaviour among juvenile offenders is essential for preventing or reducing such conduct in adulthood (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Borum, 2000; Hoge, 2002; Loeber & Le Blanc, 1990).

According to Moffitt’s (1993) dual taxonomy theory, there are two different criminal typologies: an adolescent criminal trajectory and a life-course-persistent criminal trajectory. Various studies show that most offenders engage in some criminal activity during adolescence, but that only a small group reoffend in adulthood (Rechea & Fernández, 2001). In fact, antisocial behaviour usually starts by the age of 13 years, increases until 17 and finally decreases (Loeber, Farrington, & Redondo, 2011; Moffitt, 1993, 2007; Olver et al., 2012; Piquero, Hawkins, Kazemian, Petechuk, & Redondo, 2013; Verbruggen, Van der Geest, & Blokland, 2016).

The transition into adulthood can be problematic for juveniles – especially in the case of this group of reoffenders (Moffitt, 1993, 2007). This transition is very important in terms of continuing with or desisting from criminal activity. Some researchers have followed youth offenders into adulthood and found that juvenile crimes are related to adult crimes, as well as to negative outcomes in adulthood (Glueck & Glueck, 1950). Moreover, Barnes and Boutwell (2012) suggest that there is a moderate degree of stability in criminal behaviour from one period to the other. Likewise, Benda, Corwyn, and Toombs (2001) argue that the most important predictors of adult recidivism are previous criminal episodes and an early start in criminal activity.

Focusing on general samples of youth offenders’ recidivism, some studies show a juvenile recidivism rate of around 23%, with 45% of that value accounted for by crimes against people, 25% by crimes against property and the remaining 30% is referred to “other crimes” (Capdevila, Ferrer, & Luque, 2005). Recidivism rates tend to increase in adulthood; many studies indicate a 30% recidivism rate, with around 80% being crimes against property and 20% crimes against people (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002; Chui & Chan, 2012; Farrington & Wikström, 1994; McCoy & Miller, 2013; Tracy & Kempf-Leonard, 1996; Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2005). It therefore appears that the youngest reoffenders commit more crimes against people, and as these minors mature this type of crime decreases and crimes against property increase (Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & White, 2008; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2007).

When analysing serious juvenile offenders (like the ones participating in the present study), Olver et al. (2012) found that 74% go on to reoffend. In specific terms, between 40% and 70% receive a conviction for a crime against property and between 20% and 40% for a crime against people. The average time to first conviction ranges between six months and one year (Olver et al., 2012; Onifade et al., 2008). Rearrest levels of serious youth offenders in adulthood range between 48% and 65% (Benda et al., 2001; Núñez, 2012).

Many studies have assessed the risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders, their risk factors and their predisposition to subsequent reoffending (Schmidt et al., 2011; Schwalbe, 2007), but none have analysed the development of risk using the same instrument over different periods of time, comparing assessment scores and youth and adult recidivism levels.

The main aims of this study therefore are first to examine serious reoffenders’ criminal trajectories and second to study youth and adult recidivism. The YLS/CMI’s recidivism risk evolution and risk areas are therefore examined, as well as the type of crime committed.

It was hypothesised that there would be a high risk of recidivism according to the YLS/CMI (Onifade et al., 2008). In specific terms, the highest risk areas were predicted to be Personality/behaviour, Education/employment, Substance abuse and Family circumstances/parenting (Olver et al., 2012). Moreover, the serious reoffenders’ risk levels were expected to fall during subsequent evaluations, and the youths’ risk scores were expected to predict adult recidivism.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The participants comprise 260 juveniles with a disciplinary record in the juvenile court of a Spanish province who were sentenced to educational measures of probation and confinement in a juvenile detention centre between 2009 and 2015. They can therefore be regarded as serious offenders, according to the maximum level of freedom restriction in the educational measures assigned. Their ages ranged from 14 to 18 years (M = 16.5, SD = 1.0); 214 (82.3%) were male and 46 (17.7%) were female and 148 (57%) were Spanish, 63 (24.2%) were non-Spanish and 49 (18.8%) were of unknown nationality

2.2. Instrument

The YLS/CMI (Garrido et al., 2006; Hoge & Andrews, 2006) is a recidivism risk hetero-assessment inventory which consists of 42 items grouped into 8 risk factors: 1) Prior and current offences/adjudications; 2) Family circumstances/parenting; 3) Education/employment; 4) Peer relations; 5) Substance abuse; 6) Leisure/recreation; 7) Personality/behaviour; and 8) Attitudes/orientation. Each item can be marked as present (1 point) or absent (0 point). The total score for the 8 factors provides an overall recidivism risk level for each minor which is classified as follows: low (0–8), moderate (9 –22), high (23–32) or very high (33–42). The recidivism risk on each subscale can also be assessed. The information was obtained from different sources by a member of the technical team in the juvenile court, including interviews with the adolescent and his or her family, prior court records and data from other social centres with which the young offender is or has been associated.

Various studies have analysed the YLS/CMI’s internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, yielding values ranging from .56 to .91 (Catchpole & Gretton, 2003; Cuervo et al., 2017; Rodgers & Rowe, 2002; Schmidt, Hoge, & Robertson, 2002; Thompson & Putnins, 2003). In this study, the alpha score of the inventory was found to be .81.

2.3. Procedure

The data for this study were obtained from an analysis of the records of youth offenders in the juvenile court of a Spanish province. Only minors who were sentenced to probation and confinement in closed centres are included. The criterion for classifying a juvenile as a reoffender is as follows: any minor subject to other proceedings during the follow-up period after being sentenced to probation or confinement to a juvenile detention centre. However, for the subsequent crimes only serious sentences leading to probation and confinement to closed centres are included; other minor sentences, such as community service or reprimands, are therefore not taken into account for recidivism.

All the offences committed during the criminal trajectories of the minors were analysed chronologically from 2009 to 2015. Demographic characteristics and different evaluations using the YLS/CMI were also examined. The technical team used the YLS/CMI to evaluate each juvenile for each offence committed. At least three months had to pass between each evaluation, according to the instructions for using the inventory. The number of days between each offence was also counted, and the types of crime committed were analysed.

The adult criminal proceedings were compiled in the coordinator of administrative justice offices in a Spanish province, from the age of 18 years (the age of majority in Spain) until November 2016. The follow-up period ranged between 1.5 and 6 years, depending on the youth’s age at the beginning of the study.

2.4. Data analysis

The descriptive and predictive results for the serious reoffenders were analysed. For the descriptive results, the different YLS/CMI recidivism risk level scores and risk areas were examined during a specific period of time and the types of crime committed were studied. A Wilcoxon test was used to compare the different averages in the inventory assessments, registered during the serious reoffenders’ criminal trajectories. A logistic regression was used for the predictive results, as a strategy that provides sufficient information about recidivism and its prediction (Flores et al., 2017).

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive analyses

An analysis of all the participants, based on their estimated risk level according to the YLS/CMI, gives the following distribution: 17.3% of the juveniles present a low risk of recidivism, 69.6% present a moderate risk, 12.1% present a high risk and 1% present a very high risk. The total score obtained ranges from 1 to 34 (M = 15.34, SD = 6.95). Figure 1 shows the distribution of the risk level (low, moderate and high) for each area of the inventory for the entire sample. The area in which these minors present the highest risk is Leisure/recreation (88.3%). The moderate risk areas are Personality/behaviour (65.7%), Education/employment (59.6%), Attitudes/orientation (51.2%) and Peer relations (42.9%). The rest of the areas present a low risk level for recidivism.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Distribution of risk in each YLS/CMI area for the entire sample (n = 260).

A total of 68 of these juveniles became reoffenders (26.2%), of which 60 were male (88.2%) and 8 were female (11.8%). They were aged 14 to 17 years (M = 16), and 41 (60.3%) were Spanish, 19 (27.9%) were non-Spanish and 8 (11.8%) were of unknown nationality. The juveniles had between 2 and 6 total convictions (M = 2.5), and as such a maximum of 6 different evaluations were performed with individual reoffenders using the YLS/CMI. These minors were followed up into adulthood to measure their adult recidivism, during which time the offenders’ ages ranged from 18 to 23 years. It was found that 44 of the 68 juveniles (64.7%) and 11 (25%) from that 44 adults, reoffended in adulthood.

According to the risk level identified by the YLS/CMI, 2.0% of the reoffenders show a low recidivism risk level, 78.0% show a moderate risk level and 20.0% show a high risk level. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the risk level (low, moderate and high) of each area of the inventory for the 68 reoffenders. The highest risk areas are Leisure/recreation (100.0%) and Peer relations (45.8%). The other areas mostly indicate a moderate recidivism risk level.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Distribution of risk in each YLS/CMI area for the reoffenders (n = 68).

The results in Figure 3 show the chronological YLS/CMI evaluations of the minors. It can be seen that the total average score increases as the juveniles accumulate more convictions (from 18.8 to 24.0, peaking at 26.0).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Evolution of the average Inventory scores for the reoffenders (n = 51).

Table 1 presents the results of an analysis of whether the reoffenders’ total inventory scores increase or decrease from one assessment to the next. The majority of the risk scores increase between the first evaluation and the second, between the second evaluation and the third, and between the first evaluation and the third. There are significant differences between the first evaluation and the second, and between the first evaluation and the third.

Table 1.

Wilcoxon test comparing the YLS/CMI total scores between evaluations in reoffenders.

  Z p
YLS/CMI 1–2 (n = 33) −2.55 .01*
YLS/CMI 2–3 (n = 11) −1.16 .25
YLS/CMI 1–3 (n = 12) −2.36 .02*
Open in a new tab

Note. *p < .05

In addition to the total YLS/CMI scores, the scores for each area were also analysed. The differences between the first evaluation and the second were calculated, and the significant areas were found to be Prior and current offences/adjudications and Education/employment (Table 2).

Table 2.

Wilcoxon test comparing the average scores between the first and second YLS/CMI areas in reoffenders (n = 33).

YLS/CMI 1–2 (n = 33) Z p
1. Prior and current offences/adjudications −3.28 .00*
2. Family circumstances/parenting −1.01 .31
3. Education/employment −2.06 .04*
4. Peer relations −1.16 .24
5. Substance abuse −1.57 .12
6. Leisure/recreation −0.82 .41
7. Personality/behaviour −1.16 .24
8. Attitudes/orientation −0.33 .74
Open in a new tab

Note. *p < .05.

Figure 4 shows the average number of days between the date of the first offence committed and the next one. As can be seen, crimes are committed with more frequency as the juveniles accumulate more records.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Average number of days between crimes among the reoffenders (n = 68).

With regard to the types of crimes and offenses in the juveniles’ criminal trajectories, Table 3 shows that as they accumulated more convictions, the crimes/offences against property increased and the crimes/offences against people decreased.

Table 3.

Evolution of the typology of crimes for reoffenders.

  1 2 3 4 5 6
n 68 68 24 6 2 1
Crimes/offences against people 46.9% 43.1% 41.7% 33.3% 50.0% 0.0%
Crimes/offences against property 53.1% 56.9% 58.3% 66.7% 50.0% 100.0%
Open in a new tab

When the YLS/CMI’s total risk score was analysed for both groups, the juveniles who began their criminal trajectories with a crime against people were found to have a lower score than those who began with a crime against property (14.68 and 16.19, respectively).

3.2. Predictive analyses

As can be seen from Table 4, the YLS/CMI predicts juvenile recidivism when the first crime committed as a youth is against people.

Table 4.

Binary logistic regression for juvenile criminal proceedings.

Steps B SE X2 Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Crimes against people            
 Boy 0.01 0.66 0.00 1 .99 1.01
 Age −1.03 0.31 11.22 1 .00* 0.36
 Total risk score 0.16 0.05 10.08 1 .00* 1.17
 Constant 12.52 4.76 6.92 1 .01 274069.39
n = 107; Log likelihood = 77.17; R2 Cox & Snell = .21; Nagelkerke R2 = .35.
Crimes against property            
 Boy 0.59 0.87 0.47 1 .49 1.81
 Age −0.99 0.28 12.32 1 .00* 0.37
 Total risk score 0.08 0.04 3.66 1 .06 1.08
 Constant 13.36 4.49 8.86 1 .00 633744.33
n = 93; Log likelihood = 93.63; R2 Cox & Snell = .18; Nagelkerke R2 = .26.
Open in a new tab

Note. *p < .05.

By comparison, the YLS/CMI predicts adult recidivism when the first crime committed as a youth is against property (Table 5).

Table 5.

Binary logistic regression for adult criminal proceedings.

Steps B SE X2 Wald df Sig. Exp(B)
Crimes against people            
 Boy −0.36 0.61 0.34 1 .56 0.70
 Age 0.59 0.32 3.52 1 .06 1.81
 Total risk score 0.06 0.04 3.23 1 .07 1.07
 Constant −12.16 5.34 5.19 1 .02 0.00
n = 105; Log likelihood = 95.00; R2 Cox & Snell = .07; Nagelkerke R2 = .11
Crimes against property            
 Boy 1.02 0.85 1.45 1 .23 2.77
 Age 0.31 0.25 1.51 1 .22 1.37
 Total risk score 0.13 0.04 9.25 1 .00* 1.14
 Constant −9.16 4.41 4.31 1 .04 0.00
n = 92; Log likelihood = 96.52; R2 Cox & Snell = .16; Nagelkerke R2 = .23
Open in a new tab

Note. *p < .05.

4. Conclusions

The main aims of this study were to examine serious reoffenders’ criminal trajectories and youth and adult recidivism. The YLS/CMI’s recidivism risk evolution and risk areas were therefore examined, as well as the types of crimes committed.

The recidivism rate among juvenile offenders was found to be 26.2%, which is similar to the rate in adulthood (25%). These results are not consistent with those of similar studies which analysed serious offenders and showed higher recidivism rates (Benda et al., 2001; Núñez, 2012; Olver et al., 2012). However, they agree with studies that used general samples of offenders (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002; Capdevila et al., 2005; Chui & Chan, 2012; Farrington & Wikström, 1994; McCoy & Miller, 2013; Tracy & Kempf-Leonard, 1996; Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2005).

A high risk of recidivism was expected among the serious reoffenders (Onifade et al., 2008). The general percentage of the recidivism risk level classified using the YLS/CMI in the first evaluation was moderate (69.6%), which was also the for the reoffenders (78.0%). Accordingly, the reoffenders were found to have a moderate risk of recidivism, which does not support the hypothesis formulated. These results are consistent with other Spanish studies that have used this inventory with general samples of youth offenders (Garrido, 2009; Graña et al., 2007; Pintado, 2012).

When the general sample was analysed, the highest risk area was found to be Leisure/recreation (88.3%), and the reoffenders’ highest risk areas are Leisure/recreation (100.0%) and Peer relations (45.8%). Similar results were obtained with general samples of Spanish young offenders in which the area of Leisure/recreation showed the highest risk level (Cuervo & Villanueva, 2015; Garrido, 2009; Graña et al., 2007).

A decline in risk level for serious reoffenders was expected during subsequent evaluations. Contrary to expectations, the total average score of the YLS/CMI increased as the juveniles accumulated more convictions (from 18.78 to 24.00). In specific terms, significant differences were found between the first evaluation and the second, and between the first and the third. The areas between the first evaluation and the second which contain significant differences are Prior and current offences/adjudications and Education/employment. Additionally, crimes were committed more often as the juveniles accumulated more convictions. However, as a number of studies including the present one show, as the number of crimes increases, the percentage of minors in the sample decreases (Capdevila et al., 2005; Cuervo et al., 2017; Garrido, 2009; Moffit, 1993).

The reoffenders’ YLS/CMI risk scores increased in subsequent assessments. One possible explanation for this increase could be the delay of six to twelve months between the date the crime was committed and the administration of the inventory (Uceda i Maza & Pérez, 2010). As a result, during this period the juveniles continued to have the risk factors that led them to reoffend. For this reason, identifying these factors and focusing intervention on them is very important.

The risk scores for the youth were expected to predict adult recidivism. Crimes against property were the most frequently committed, with figures ranging from 53.1% (n = 68) at the first offence to 100% (n = 1) at the sixth offence. Serious offenders who begin their criminal trajectories with a crime against property are more likely to reoffend than those who begin with a crime against people (Olver et al., 2012). The results show that the YLS/CMI predicts juvenile recidivism risk when the first crime committed in a person’s life is against people, whereas the same instrument predicts adult recidivism risk when the first crime committed in a person’s life is against property. In other words, those juveniles who begin their criminal trajectory with a crime against people have a shorter criminal trajectory, as they are more likely to only commit crimes during adolescence. However, juveniles who begin their criminal trajectory with a crime against property potentially have a longer criminal trajectory that may continue into adulthood.

The fact that minors who begin their criminal trajectories with a crime against people have a shorter criminal trajectory may be related to the YLS/CMI’s total risk score when that is taken into account. The juveniles who began their criminal trajectories with a crime against people were found to have a lower score than those who began with a crime against property (14.68 and 16.19, respectively). Moreover, according to White, Bates, & Buyske (2001) our results could be explained because of the fact that persistent delinquents score significantly higher than adolescence-limited delinquents on disinhibition.

All the findings above may have practical implications for professionals who work with juvenile offenders, as identifying the criminogenic factors linked to the origin and maintenance of antisocial behaviour among youth offenders is essential for preventing or reducing these conducts in adulthood (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Borum, 2000; Hoge, 2002; Loeber & Le Blanc, 1990). First, knowledge of serious reoffenders’ risk areas could be used as objectives for intervention. In this case, Leisure/recreation and Peer relations are the areas on which intervention should be focused. Second, the results point to the need to consider the inventory’s risk level, because it has a predictive effect on youth and even adult recidivism. An intervention focusing on reducing that risk might therefore reduce criminal trajectories, as well as both juvenile and adult reoffending.

Finally, this study has some limitations. First, only records of probation and confinement in closed centres were included when measuring youth recidivism, and this criterion restricted the investigation of recidivism to only the most severe cases. Second, the data come from a specific Spanish province, so the results cannot be generalised to other Spanish provinces, to other countries or to the youth offender population in general. Furthermore, some YLS/CMI scores are missing, as some of the juveniles studied were subject to urgent measures and as a result were not usually assessed with the Inventory.

Despite these limitations, the results of this study present the evolution of recidivism risk in Spanish serious reoffenders. They exhibit a moderate level of recidivism risk, with the highest risk associated with Leisure/recreation and Peer relations, and this risk increases as their interactions with the legal system increase. At the same time, they commit crimes with increasing frequency, and accumulation can lead to a further increase in the rate of recidivism. Moreover, crimes against property are the most frequently committed, and juveniles who begin their criminal trajectories with this type of crime tend to reoffend into adulthood.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Natalia Palanques Alegre has declared no conflicts of interest.

Keren Cuervo Gómez has declared no conflicts of interest.

Lidón Villanueva Badenes has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Andrews D. A., & Bonta J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes J. C., & Boutwell B. B. (2012). On the relationship of past to future involvement in crime and delinquency: A behaviour genetic analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 94–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.12.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Benda B. B., Corwyn R. F., & Toombs N. J. (2001). Recidivism among adolescent serious offenders prediction of entry into the correctional system for adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(5), 588–613. doi: 10.1177/009385480102800503 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Borum R. (2000). Assessing violence risk among youth. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(10), 1263–1288. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. [Google Scholar]
  6. Capdevila M., Ferrer M., & Luque E. (2005). La reincidencia en el delito en la justicia de menores. Centre d’estudis jurídics i formació especialitzada. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya. [Google Scholar]
  7. Catchpole R. E., & Gretton H. M. (2003). The predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(6), 688–708. doi: 10.1177/0093854803256455 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chui W. H., & Chan H. C. (2012). Criminal recidivism among Hong Kong male juvenile probationers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21, 857–868. doi: 10.1007/s10826-011-9546-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuervo K., & Villanueva L. (2015). Analysis of risk and protective factors for recidivism in Spanish youth offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(11), 1149–1165. doi: 10.1177/0306624X14557917 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cuervo K., Villanueva L., & Prado-Gascó V. (2017). Predicción de la reincidencia juvenil mediante el Inventario YLS/CMI y baremos para su valoración. Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 34(1), 24–36. [Google Scholar]
  11. Farrington D. P., & Wikström P. O. H. (1994). Criminal careers in London and Stockholm: A cross-national comparative study In Weitekamp E. G. M. & Kerner H-J. (Eds.), Cross-national longitudinal research on human development and criminal behaviour (pp. 65–89). Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Google Scholar]
  12. Flores A. W., Holsinger A. M., Lowenkamp C. T., & Cohen T. H. (2017). Time-free effects in predicting recidivism using both fixed and variable follow-up periods. Do different methods produce different results? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44, 121–137. doi: 10.1177/0093854816678649 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Flores A. W., Travis L. F., & Latessa E. J. (2004). Case classification for juvenile corrections: An assessment of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. [Google Scholar]
  14. Garrido V. (2009). La predicción y la intervención con los menores infractores: Un estudio en Cantabria. (Estadísticas, instrumentos, protocolos y evaluación). Cantabria: Dirección General de Políticas Sociales. [Google Scholar]
  15. Garrido V., López E., Silva T., López M. J., & Molina P. (2006). Elmodelo de lacompetencia social de la ley de menores. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanc. [Google Scholar]
  16. Generalitat de Cataluña. (2010). Consejo de Europa. Reglas europeas para infractores menores de edad sometidos a sanciones o medidas. Barcelona: Departamento de Justicia. [Google Scholar]
  17. Glueck S., & Glueck E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Graña J. L., Garrido V., & González L. (2006). Reincidencia delictiva en menores infractores de la Comunidad de Madrid: Evaluación, características y propuestas de intervención. Madrid: Agencia para la Reeducación y Reinserción del Menor Infractor (ARRMI; ). [Google Scholar]
  19. Graña J. L., Garrido V., & González L. (2007). Evaluación de las características delictivas de menores infractores de la Comunidad de Madrid y su influencia en la planificación del tratamiento. Psicopatología Clínica Legal y Forense, 7, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoge R. D. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 308–396. doi: 10.1177/0093854802029004003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoge R. D., & Andrews D. A. (2006). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. [Google Scholar]
  22. Jung S., & Rawana E. P. (1999). Risk and need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(1), 69−89. doi: 10.1177/0093854899026001004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Loeber R., Farrington D., & Redondo S. (2011). La transición desde la delincuencia juvenil a la delincuencia adulta. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica, 1(9), 1–41. [Google Scholar]
  24. Loeber R., Farrington D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber M., & White H. R. (2008). Violence and serious theft: Development and prediction from childhood to adulthood. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  25. Loeber R., & Le Blanc M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 12, 375–473. doi: 10.1086/449169 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. McCoy L. A., & Miller H. A. (2013). Comparing gender across risk and recidivism in nonviolent offenders. Women and Criminal Justice, 23, 143–162. doi: 10.1080/08974454.2012.759054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Moffitt T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Moffitt T. E. (2007). A review of research on the taxonomy of life-course persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behaviour In Flannery D. J., Vazdonyi A. T. & Waldman I. D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behaviour and aggression (pp. 49–74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Núñez F. (2012). Tasa de reincidencia de la delincuencia juvenil de Extremadura. Medidas privativas de libertad. Revista sobre la Infancia y la Adolescencia, 2, 37–67. doi: 10.4995/reinad.2012.1071 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Olver M. E., Stockdale K. C., & Wong S. C. P. (2012). Short and long-term prediction of recidivism using the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory in a sample of serious young offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 331–344. doi: 10.1037/h0093927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Onifade E., Davidson W., Campbell C., Turke G., Malinowski J., & Turner K. (2008). Predicting recidivism in probationers with the youth level of service case management inventory (YLS/CMI).Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 474–483. doi: 10.1177/0093854807313427 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Pintado V. (2012). Intervención educativa en un centro de responsabilidad penal de menores (Ph.D. dissertation). Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo. Retrieved from http://digibuo.uniovi.es/dspace/.
  33. Piquero A. R., Farrington D. P., & Blumstein A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research: New analyses of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Piquero A. R., Hawkins J. D., Kazemian L., Petechuk D., & Redondo S. (2013). Transición desde la delincuencia juvenil a la delincuencia adulta. Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica, 1(11), 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rechea C., & Fernández E. (2001). Panorama actual de la delincuencia juvenil In Giménez-Salinas E. (Ed.), Justicia de menores: Una justicia mayor (pp. 345–374). Madrid: Consejo General del Poder Judicial. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rodgers J. L., & Rowe D. C. (2002). Theory development should begin (but not end) with good empirical fits: A comment on Roberts and Pashler (2000). Psychological Review, 109(3), 599–604. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.599 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schmidt F., Campbell M. A., & Houlding C. (2011). Comparative analyses of the YLS/CMI, SAVRY and PCL: YV in adolescent offenders: A 10-year follow-up into adulthood. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 23–42. doi: 10.1177/1541204010371793 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmidt F., Hoge R. D., & Gomes L. (2005). Reliability and validity analyses of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(3), 329–334. doi: 10.1177/0093854804274373 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schmidt F., Hoge R. D., & Robertson L. (2002). Assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Psychological Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  40. Schwalbe C. S. (2007). Risk assessment for juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 449–462. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9071-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Smit P. R., & Bijleveld C. C. (2015). Juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice trends in Europe In Krohn M. D., & Lane J. (Eds.), The handbook of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice (pp. 15–26). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  42. Thompson A. P., & Putnins A. L. (2003). Risk-need assessment inventories for juvenile offenders in Australia. Psychiatry Psychology and Law, 10(2), 324–333. doi: 10.1375/132187103322742158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tracy P. E., & Kempf-Leonard K. (1996). Continuity and discontinuity in criminal careers. New York, NY: Plenum. [Google Scholar]
  44. Uceda i Maza F. X., & Pérez J. V. (2010). ¿Es operativa la intervención pública con los adolescentes en conflicto con la ley?: Un análisis desde las trayectorias y los escenarios. Anduli: Revista andaluza de ciencias sociales, 9, 53–69. [Google Scholar]
  45. Van der Put C. E., Dekovic M., Stams G. J. J. M., van der Laan P. H., Hoeve M., & Van Amelsfort L. (2011). Changes in risk factors during adolescence: Implications for risk assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(3), 248–262. doi: 10.1177/0093854810391757 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Verbruggen J., Van der Geest V. R., & Blokland A. A. (2016). Adult life adjustment of vulnerable youths: The relationship between criminal history, employment history and adult life outcomes. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2(4), 466–493. doi: 10.1007/s40865-016-0040-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission (2005). Recidivism of adult felons. Olympia, WA: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission [Google Scholar]
  48. White H. R., Bates M. E., & Buyske S. (2001). Adolescence-limited versus persistent delinquency: Extending Moffitt’s hypothesis into adulthood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(4), 600–609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yang M., Guo B., Olver M. E., Polaschek D. L. & Wong S. C. (2017). Assessing associations between changes in risk and subsequent reoffending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 59–84. doi: 10.1177/0093854816678648 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES