Screening & Risk Tools

At the very first step of the juvenile process—when a youth is referred or detained—screening tools help decide what happens next. They can open a door to services, or, if misused, close one. Understanding how these tools work is critical to ensuring fair, data-driven decisions.

Introduction: The Gatekeepers of the System

Risk and screening tools were designed to make decisions more objective. Instead of relying on instinct, staff use structured checklists and scoring systems to assess things like reoffense risk, behavioral health needs, and safety concerns. When applied correctly, these instruments help reduce unnecessary detention and match youth with the right level of care.

But tools are only as fair as the data behind them. An algorithm trained on biased arrest histories will reflect those same inequities. That’s why many states now require validation and annual audits of their risk assessments.

Key Findings

• Validated tools improve accuracy: Youth assessed with standardized instruments are more likely to receive services that match their needs.
• Risk ≠ need: Risk screens estimate likelihood of reoffending; need assessments identify supports like counseling or family therapy.
• Overrides are common: Many officers manually adjust scores. Oversight helps prevent subjective bias.
• Equity audits matter: Regular data reviews reveal if certain groups are being over-scored or under-referred.

State Comparisons

Arkansas uses a structured risk instrument aligned with the OJJDP Detention Screening Tool, alongside the MAYSI-2 for behavioral health. Texas counties use locally calibrated tools but follow the same logic—objective scoring and clear override documentation. Mississippi and Louisiana are expanding use of validated tools to reduce detention rates among low-risk youth. Meanwhile, Oklahoma and Missouri pair screening with early family conferencing, ensuring needs are met before a youth reoffends.

What Works

• Training and fidelity checks: Staff should be certified in tool use and re-tested regularly.
• Separate risk from need: Keeping risk tools (like the RAI) distinct from needs tools (like the CANS) prevents confusion in planning.
• Audit overrides: Require justification for any score changes, logged in the data system.
• Monitor outcomes: Compare predicted vs. actual outcomes to ensure fairness and accuracy.

Future Outlook

The next generation of screening tools will likely integrate behavioral data, school attendance, and service engagement to create fuller pictures of risk and resilience. The challenge will be transparency: ensuring youth, families, and advocates can see how these scores are used and appeal decisions when necessary.

With open validation studies and shared dashboards, states can build trust while improving public safety—a balance every youth justice system strives for.

Sources

• OJJDP Model Detention Screening Tool (2018 update)
• Arkansas Division of Youth Services: Screening & Assessment Guide
• Texas Juvenile Justice Department: Risk and Needs Standards Manual
• National Youth Screening & Assessment Partners (NYSAP)
• Missouri DYS & University of Missouri Evaluation Reports

Related reading: Statutes & Policy — the laws that shape when and how these tools are used.