Proven Risk Youth Vs At-Risk & High-Risk Youth

In the fields of juvenile justice policy anddesigned interventions.
programming, there are certain terms that are usedWhat I propose is that another category be created
to describe target populations. In terms of youththat better sorts the youth who are classified as
who are prone to illegal and illicit acts, the two termshigh-risk. The term proven risk encompasses the
that are most commonly used are at-risk youth andmost violent youth who have been placed in the
high-risk youth. The former term is generallyhigh-risk category. There are specific criteria that
associated with youth who come from lower-income,define proven-risk youth. They share the same
urban, single-mother backgrounds. High-risk youth is acharacteristics as youth who are in the at-risk and
label used to categorize and describe youth whohigh-risk categories. What distinguishes proven-risk
share the following characteristics:youth from these other two types is that: they are
* are from poor families and communities;gang-involved; frequently use drugs; have an
* are (usually) high school dropouts, homeless orincarcerated sibling and/or parent; and have been
young parents;incarcerated before. Moreover, they have been
* are unemployed or underemployed; andconvicted in court for having committed the following
* are involved with or transitioning from the childcrimes:
welfare or juvenile justice systems.* gun possession;
Youth from minority groups are disproportionately* armed robbery;
represented in these categories.1* aggravated rape;
The problem with this definition is that it tends not to* murder;
disaggregate the range of crimes that lead the youth* attempted murder;
into the juvenile justice system. There are insufficient* armed home invasion;
distinctions made with respect to the types of youth* serious assault against staff and/or another inmate
that fall within them. The category high-risk youthwhile incarcerated; and/or
includes the young person who has engaged in* escape or attempted escape involving a serious
serious criminal and violent behavior as well as thoseassault on staff.
who have engaged in lower-level offenses that mayBy better defining the types of youth who require
not necessarily include violence.intervention, policymakers, foundations, and
What is at stake with such categorizations? Incorrectyouth-oriented non-profit organizations can better
sorting of these populations has implications for policydeploy their resources in ways that will be more likely
and programming. Those interventions that work wellto make a positive difference in the lives of youth
for certain types of youth who have been labeled aswho fall into the proven-risk youth category.
at-risk or high-risk are not as effective for the more"Serving High-Risk Youth: Lessons from Research and
violent youth who are incorrectly placed in these twoProgramming," Public/Private Ventures, September
categories. Poor sorting has a direct affect on these2002, p. 2.
youth who are in desperate need of properly