Sharing risk assessment implementation practices with Lithuanian colleagues.
By Tamara de Beuf
On February 14, 2020, a symposium titled ‘Predicting behavior of delinquent adolescents based on risk and protective factors’ took place in Vilnius, Lithuania. I was invited to talk about the subject of my doctoral research, which is the implementation of the Short-term Assessment of Risk and Treatability: Adolescent Version (START:AV; Viljoen et al., 2014), a risk assessment instrument for adolescents. I gratefully accepted the invitation and traveled to an unfamiliar city and country.
The symposium was hosted in one of the oldest universities of Central and Eastern Europe: Vilniaus Universitetas (1579). The historical building, home to three faculties (History, Philology, and Philosophy), has endless medieval corridors and up to 13 court yards. Exploring its arcades felt like participating in an escape game. At the Faculty of Philosophy, a charming U-shaped auditorium was reserved for the event. The auditorium was packed with practitioners, managers, directors, policy workers, and academics from the Lithuanian field of juvenile justice and welfare. Several influential delegates were present, such as the head of Lithuanian probation, executives of the prison system, the director of a residential youth care center, the head of child welfare units, etc.
This ‘scientist-practitioner’ symposium was devoted to a research project on the START:AV and other assessment measures among Lithuanian delinquent youth residing in prison or placed on probation. The project (2017 - 2020) was conducted under the supervision of Associate Professor dr. Alfredas Laurinavicius, and was a scientific response to the lack of evidence-based measures in the Lithuanian juvenile justice system. The aim of the event was to present the promising research results to practitioners, and to promote the debate on the use of evidence-based (risk) assessment among key stakeholders. Similar to the Netherlands, many of the juvenile justice and welfare agencies work separately from each other, although they largely serve the same youth population.
The symposium kicked off with a historical overview of the project, followed by findings on the psychometric properties of the evaluated assessment instruments. Results of several comparison studies were described, highlighting the differences between youth probation and youth prison samples on the strengths and vulnerabilities of the START:AV and the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) scales. Following the Lithuanian studies, I shared my experiences as the coordinator of a risk assessment implementation project. After describing the setting (i.e., a secure residential youth care facility in the Netherlands), I discussed its reasons for adopting evidence-based risk assessment, and more specifically, for choosing the START:AV.
The key objective of the presentation was to underscore the importance of investing in a solid implementation trajectory, including continuous evaluation and monitoring. One may decide on using the most scientifically sound risk assessment instrument available, it will fail to inform risk management and reduce recidivism, when it is not implemented well and not supported by staff (see also commentary by Sarah Desmarais, 2017). Still, in practice, risk assessment implementation is oftentimes boiled down to providing training. Since a carefully considered implementation process is crucial to successfully apply risk assessment, the importance of using evidence-based implementation models and strategies cannot be stressed enough.
Since the Lithuanian audience seemed to be more reserved than the typical Dutch audience, few questions followed the presentation. Nevertheless, during the final discussion, attendees regularly mentioned ‘Nyderlanduose’ (‘in the Netherlands’) and were apparently impressed by the risk assessment practice within the Dutch youth care facility and its substantial investment in implementation. Afterwards, several attendees expressed a desire to connect and exchange knowledge and experiences. This was encouraging feedback for the Dutch colleagues and a recognition of their continuing efforts to deliver a good risk assessment practice.
The symposium’s organizing committee looked back on a successful event: they succeeded in bringing together key stakeholders of the juvenile justice system to discuss the issue and importance of evidence-based (risk) assessment and evaluation. Hopefully, this meeting marked the beginning of a collaboration between agencies on improving the care for this group of vulnerable adolescents.