ABSTRACT
For the most part issues surrounding equity, fairness, and the consequences of assigning a label derived from the JRNA process (i.e., high risk) to youths have not been prioritized in discussion and research. JRNA is, on balance, a positive development in juvenile justice, but researchers, policymakers, and practitioners should nevertheless pay attention to a wider array of questions and points of view to ensure that these practices do not bring unintended consequences. Among these issues is the potential for differential scoring and impact across race, gender, and age subgroups; the degree to which reassessment procedures capture change in risk and needs; and labeling and reductionism in the assessment process that may lead to distorted views of how to best respond to specific cases and juvenile delinquency more generally. The chapter reviews these topics and identifies why they are concerning in JRNA usage. We conclude that it is important to carefully consider the value-based elements of applying JRNA to ensure that these methods are used effectively, fairly, and equitably with youths to meet the underlying mission of juvenile justice.
