Forensic Psychology And Peace And Justice: Evidence-Based Approaches To Juvenile Offender Rehabilitation, Risk Assessment, And Reintegration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69980/ajpr.v29i1.825Keywords:
Forensic psychology; Juvenile justice; Sustainable Development Goal 16; Risk-Need-Responsivity model; Risk assessment; Juvenile rehabilitation; Recidivism prevention; Reintegration.Abstract
Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16) underlines peace, justice, and strong institutions and with focus on fair, effective, and rehabilitative justice systems. Juvenile justice is one of the areas of major concern in this objective since offending among the children is directly associated with developmental, psychological, and social factors. The paper examines how forensic psychology can help attaining SDG 16 by assessing juvenile offenders using evidence-based methods, rehabilitating and reintegrating them. Based on the international literature, the review integrates the results of structured risk assessment tools like ‘SAVRY, YLS/CMI, PREVI-A, and PCL:YV’, with specific focus on the ‘Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR)’ framework. It has been shown that despite moderate predictive validity, structured assessment tools have consistent predictive validity and are better predictive compared to unstructured clinical judgment in pinpointing criminogenic needs and guiding intervention strategies. The paper also discusses successful rehabilitation and reintegration programs; highlighting intervention programs should focus on dynamic risk factors; it should include protective factors and take a developmentally informed, culturally responsive, gender-sensitive approach. Key challenges like implementation fidelity, cultural adaptation and continuity of care, are also addressed. The review finds that forensic psychology can provide viable, evidence-based avenues to minimize recidivism, safeguard vulnerable youth, and enhance institutional efficacy, which in turn can impact positively on the realization of SDG 16 in juvenile justice systems.
References
1. Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: A new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current International Perspectives (pp. 131-158). The Hague: Elsevier.
2. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362
3. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). LexisNexis.
4. Andrews, D., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The risk-need-Responsivity (RNR) model. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 735-755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811406356
5. Blomberg, T. G., Bales, W. D., Mann, K., Piquero, A. R., & Berk, R. A. (2011). Incarceration, education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 355-365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.04.003
6. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. Public Safety Canada. ISBN No.: 978-0-662-05049-0
7. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
8. Bonta, J., Bourgon, G., Rugge, T., Scott, T., Yessine, A. K., Gutierrez, L., & Li, J. (2011). An experimental demonstration of training probation officers in evidence-based community supervision. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1127-1148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811420678
9. Burghart, M., De Ruiter, C., Hynes, S. E., Krishnan, N., Levtova, Y., & Uyar, A. (2022). The structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity. Psychol Assess, 35(1), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001184
10. Christiansen, A., Viljoen, J. L., & Fuller, E. K. (2021). Examination of the structured assessment of protective factors for violence risk - Youth version (SAPROF-YV) in Canadian adolescents. International Journal of Risk and Recovery, 4(2), 4-17. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijrr.v4i2.4269
11. Cottle, C. C., Lee, R. J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(3), 367-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854801028003005
12. De Somma, E., Rizeq, J., & Skilling, T. A. (2021). Criminogenic need profiles among substance-using justice-involved youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(12), 1694-1713. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211014234
13. Dellar, K., Roberts, L., Bullen, J., Downe, K., & Kane, R. (2022). Validation of the YLS/CMI on an Australian juvenile offending population. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 67(8), 861-883. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x221086556
14. Dembo, R., Gardner, S. K., Robertson, A. A., Wareham, J., & Schmeidler, J. (2024). Longitudinal cohort study: Predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth individual/Clinical risk factor on recidivism among Mississippi justice-involved youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 22(3), 167-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/15412040241231964
15. Egisdottir, S., White, M. J., Spengler, P. M., Maugherman, A. S., Anderson, L. A., Cook, R. S., Nichols, C. N., Lampropoulos, G. K., Walker, B. S., Cohen, G., & Rush, J. D. (2006). The meta-analysis of clinical judgment project: Fifty-six years of accumulated research on clinical versus statistical prediction. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(3), 341-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000005285875
16. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature | Frank porter Graham child development institute (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. https://fpg.unc.edu/publications/implementation-research-synthesis-literature
17. Graña Gómez, J. L., Ronzón-Tirado, R., Andreu Rodríguez, J. M., & De la Peña Fernández, M. E. (2022). Risk prediction and assessment of intervention, re-education and reintegration of juvenile offenders: Development and psychometric properties of the PREVI-A. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.896573
18. Henggeler, S. W., & Schaeffer, C. M. (2016). Multisystemic Therapy: Clinical overview, outcomes, and implementation research. Family Process, 55(3), 514-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12232
19. Kleeven, A. T., De Vries Robbé, M., Mulder, E. A., & Popma, A. (2020). Risk assessment in juvenile and young adult offenders: Predictive validity of the SAVRY and SAPROF-YV. Assessment, 29(2), 181-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120959740
20. Kleeven, A. T., Hilterman, E. L., Mulder, E. A., Popma, A., & De Vries Robbé, M. (2025). Trajectories of justice involved youth: Changing risk and protective factors for violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 23(2-4), 160-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/15412040241313372
21. Lad, B. B., & Mansukhani, S. (2024). Applying the risk-need-responsivity model in juvenile offender treatment: A conceptual framework. The Scientifc Temper, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.58414/SCIENTIFICTEMPER.2024.15.spl-2.04
22. Leenarts, L. E., Dölitzsch, C., Pérez, T., Schmeck, K., Fegert, J. M., & Schmid, M. (2017). The relationships between gender, psychopathic traits and self-reported delinquency: A comparison between a general population sample and a high-risk sample for juvenile delinquency. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-017-0202-3
23. León, C. M., & Bartolomé, R. (2024). Valoración del riesgo de reincidencia en jóvenes infractoras: ¿Es el SAVRY UN instrumento realmente neutro? Boletín Criminológico, (30). https://doi.org/10.24310/bc.30.2024.20683
24. Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573
25. Muir, N. M., Viljoen, J. L., Jonnson, M. R., Cochrane, D. M., & Rogers, B. J. (2020). Predictive validity of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY) with Indigenous and Caucasian female and male adolescents on probation. Psychological Assessment, 32(6), 594-607. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000816
26. Pechorro, P., Da Silva, D. R., Rijo, D., Gonçalves, R. A., & Andershed, H. (2016). The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory: Measurement Invariance and Psychometric Properties among Portuguese Youths. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13090852
27. Petrosino, A., Turpin‐Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2010). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 1-88. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2010.1
28. Ramiao, E., Figueiredo, P., Moreira, D., Azeredo, A., Barroso, R., & Barbosa, F. (2023). Reference values regarding youth psychopathic traits inventory in young population. Personality and Individual Differences, 203, 112001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.112001
29. Reef, J., Jeltes, M., Van den Brink, Y., & Brand, E. (2023). Young offenders in forensic institutions in The Netherlands after committing serious crimes: Contribution of mandatory treatment and reduction of reincarceration. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 33(1), 33-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2272
30. SAPROF - Youth Version. (n.d.). https://saprof.com/saprof-youth-version/.
31. Schmidt, F., Campbell, M. A., & Houlding, C. (2010). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010371793
32. Steinberg, L. (2013). The influence of neuroscience on US Supreme Court decisions about adolescents' criminal culpability. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7), 513-518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3509
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License permitting all use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
This work is licensed under a 
