10.3886/ICPSR03965.v1 Travis, Lawrence Latessa, Edward Flores, Anthony Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 2004 case management juvenile offenders juvenile recidivists recidivism prediction risk assessment treatment 2004-10-18 2006-03-30 Part 1: administrative records data. Part 2: survey data 3965 1 This study assessed the effectiveness of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI or Y-LSI). The Y-LSI is an instrument for classifying juvenile offender risk of recidivism and for identifying areas of treatment need that, if addressed, will result in a reduced risk of recidivism. Three juvenile correction agencies in Ohio that used the Y-LSI for case classification were the settings for this study. Data in Part 1 were collected on 1,679 youths received in the three correctional settings between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999. Youths' files were reviewed to complete the data collection instruments. These files contained demographic and background information, Y-LSI assessments, and information relating to treatment and service referrals, completion of programming, and supervision outcome. One year after the initial Y-LSI assessments, reassessment data were collected on youths. Reassessments were completed on youth at the time of program completion or one year after the initial assessment. Supervision outcome data were collected two years after the initial data collection. Data in Part 2 were collected in 2001 through a survey of 196 agency staff members on their reactions to the use of the Y-LSI as a classification instrument. This study assessed the effectiveness of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI or Y-LSI). The Y-LSI is an instrument for classifying juvenile offender risk of recidivism and for identifying areas of treatment need that, if addressed, will result in a reduced risk of recidivism. Three juvenile correction agencies in Ohio that used the Y-LSI for case classification were the settings for this study. These were the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS), the Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department, and the Butler County Juvenile Rehabilitation Center. The ODYS operates juvenile institutions and aftercare for approximately 2,000 delinquent youth each year. ODYS operates a Release Authority that is authorized to grant release to youth under its custody. The department and its Release Authority have adopted the Y-LSI as a central component of case classification. All youth received by ODYS are administered the Y-LSI. The Butler County Juvenile Rehabilitation Center is a residential program for males and females with a program capacity of 46. The average length of stay is about seven months, and the program is almost always at capacity. The Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department receives about 1,500 youths each year who were ordered to probation by the Clermont County Juvenile Court. The department uses the Y-LSI to classify approximately two-thirds of these youths. This study was designed to answer three separate but related questions: (1) Is the Y-LSI a valid predictor of case outcome for juvenile delinquents under correctional supervision? (2) How do juvenile correctional agencies use the Y-LSI for the allocation of correctional supervision and resources? and (3) Are changes in the areas of risk measured by the Y-LSI through correctional treatment associated with reductions in re-offending rates by youth? Data for Part 1, Y-LSI and Follow-up Data, were collected on 1,679 youths received in the three correctional settings between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999. The sample included 960 individuals from ODYS, 626 from Clermont County Juvenile Probation, and 93 from the Butler County Rehabilitation Center. Youth files were made available to research staff and were reviewed to complete the data collection instruments. These files contained a wide variety of demographic and background information about each youth, including Y-LSI assessments (which were completed by agency staff at each site). As a measure of quality control, reliability checks were conducted on the sites. Y-LSI trained researchers conducted separate Y-LSI interviews and compared their assessments with those completed by agency staff. In these checks, a very small random sample of individuals was selected from each site and interviewed by researchers. In these comparisons no significant differences were revealed in terms of the overall Y-LSI risk or in terms of the individual subcomponent scores. The Y-LSI gathered information relevant to the youths' offending behavior, assessing the following eight domains: prior and current offenses/adjudications, family circumstances/parenting, education/employment, peer relations, substance abuse, leisure/recreation, personality/behavior, and attitudes and orientations. Demographic characteristics, as well as information relating to treatment and service referrals, completion of programming, and supervision outcome, were also collected from case files and recoded on the data collection tool. One year after the initial Y-LSI assessments, reassessment data were collected on youths. Reassessments were completed on youth at the time of program completion or one year after the initial assessment. Approximately two years after the initial data collection, supervision outcome data were gathered including checks for program completion, violations, new arrests, seriousness of new arrest, adjudications, and institutional commitments. These data were collected from each agency in a different fashion. ODYS and Clermont County Probation provided outcome data while researchers visited the Butler Residential Treatment Facility and examined youth files to obtain relevant outcome data. Data in Part 2, Practitioner Survey Data, were collected in 2001 through a survey of 196 staff at the three agencies. Packets of surveys and return envelopes were mailed to each research site. One individual from each site (usually an administrator) was responsible for staff completion of these surveys. Responses were kept anonymous to assure confidentiality. Upon completion surveys were mailed back to the researchers where the responses were coded and entered into a database. The survey inquired about agency administrators' and staff's reactions to the use of the Y-LSI as a classification instrument. It asked respondents to rate the utility of the instrument and report their perceptions of ease of use and strengths and weaknesses of the process. The survey also asked the respondents how the classification information was used in the management of cases. Variables for Part 1, Y-LSI and Follow-up Data, include date of birth, age, date of first two Y-LSI administrations, answers for each Y-LSI item, Y-LSI subcomponent composite scores, and total score for both Y-LSI administrations, gender, race, scores on other instruments administered by the correctional agencies, including IQ, parents' criminal history, history of involvement with child services, presence of siblings, siblings' criminal history, mental health history, abuse history, school attendance and performance, gang affiliation, family structure, current offenses and sentences, date supervision began, level of supervision, violations while under supervision, violation dates, disciplinary action, type of treatment undertaken, dates of treatment, whether treatment was successfully completed, institutional transfers, dates of transfers, prior offenses for up to 11 offenses, prior offense dates, prior offense dispositions, date of release, recidivism at three, six, and twelve months after release, and several derived variables. Variables for Part 2, Practitioner Survey Data, include date, gender, date of birth, years at agency and in current position, education completed, experience with the Y-LSI, assessment of how appropriately placed youths in agency were, the most critical needs of youths in the agency, most important types of treatment youths should receive, time spent assessing youths at intake, rating of how objective Y-LSI was, amount of paperwork involved in using the Y-LSI, how difficult it was to administer the Y-LSI, how helpful the Y-LSI was for youth placement, identifying treatment needs, case planning, helping the youths, and decision justification, extent of use of Y-LSI by agency, strengths of the Y-LSI, weaknesses of the Y-LSI, and ways to improve the Y-LSI.