This research uses in-depth cases studies in five counties, combining interviews and observations, interviews with state reform leaders, and a statewide survey, to examine juvenile probation officers' use of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in local practice. In particular, the study assessed the form YLS/CMI policies take in local Pennsylvania counties and their consistency with the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model, the extent to which officers' routine practices align with policies and RNR principles, and how state and county factors have shaped local policies and practices. In doing so, it sought to highlight promising strategies for effective RNA implementation. Study findings describe an example of an apparently well-planned statewide effort to implement and support the YLS/CMI in local counties, involving a sustained attention to attention to training, quality assurance, and problem-solving. Local county policies, while showing some variation, focused on strategies for conducting the YLS/CMI assessment and applying its results to a variety of decisions and activities--supporting, in particular, risk and need principles. Study results further suggest a substantial statewide level of practitioner adherence to a general policy model, though this pattern was stronger for some activities than others, and varied substantially by local county. Variation in implementation across counties seemed to relate, in particular, to the extent of local quality assurance processes, leadership enthusiasm for the YLS/CMI, staff enthusiasm for evidence-based practices (with implications for training and recruitment), and organizational climate.

Much of the analysis of juvenile justice reform to date has focused on assessing particular programs and their impacts on subgroups of cases at a particular point in time. While this is instructive as to the effects of those initiatives, it is essential to evaluate the impact of policy across multiple levels and with multiple stakeholders in mind. Ohio has implemented a series of initiatives in its juvenile justice system designed to reduce reliance on state custody of youth in favor of local alternatives. In doing so, they have focused on multiple segments of the population of justice involved-youths throughout the state. The main vehicle for these shifts has been the state's Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) legislation and a series of initiatives that have followed from its inception. Other steps were followed and programming modifications were made during the study period as well. This research project focused on these initiatives as a case study of juvenile justice reform initiatives in order to provide insights about the impact of those recent reforms across multiple dimensions that were viewed as relevant to the discussion of juvenile justice reform. The data set analyzed at the individual level included the records of more than 5,000 youths sampled from cases processed from 2008 to 2015. First, presumed reductions in the number of youth committed to state residential correctional facilities in favor of community-based alternatives were analyzed. The relative effectiveness of residential facilities and community-based alternatives in terms of youth recidivism were then assessed with a subsample of 2,855 case records from randomly-selected counties. A third research objective focused on county-level trends and variation. Specifically, the longitudinal trends in key juvenile justice inputs and official juvenile crime rates across Ohio's 88 counties were formally modeled using data from public reports, data collection with counties, and official juvenile arrest data archived by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Elements of the previous analyses (especially comparative recidivism rates) and cost data collected from existing sources and public reports were used in a preliminary fashion to quantify the potential return on investment that accrued from Ohio's investment in these juvenile justice initiatives. This deposit contains two datasets: Individual Level Data and County Level Data. The Individual Level Data contains the following demographic data: age at admission, sex, and race (White, Black, Asian, Native American, and other).

This collection includes data collected from a subsample of participants interviewed near the end of the thirteenth follow-up of the Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP). NJP is a longitudinal assessment of alcohol, drug, and mental health service needs and outcomes of juvenile detainees. The thirteenth follow-up occurred approximately 16 years after the baseline interview. The subsample of participants received two additional modules that were added to the interview. These interview modules, the Juvenile Justice Experiences module and the Weapons-Related Injury module, retrospectively assessed behaviors and experiences during adolescence. The original NJP sample included 1,829 randomly selected youth recruited at intake to the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (CCJTDC) in Chicago, Illinois from 1995 to 1998. The sample was stratified by gender, race/ethnicity, age, and legal status (for a total of 13 strata) to obtain enough participants to examine key subgroups. Both additional modules were administered at follow-up thirteen to a subsample 389 participants. The Juvenile Justice Experiences module assessed experiences with corrections in the juvenile justice system. Items were drawn from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) which ask a series of questions covering an individual's emotion and mental states among youth who are in custody. NJP utilized a modified SYRP to assess juvenile justice experiences retrospectively among the sample. The Weapons-Related Injury module was created for the NJP, and assesses gunshot-related and stabbing-related victimization during adolescence.

In nearly every state and in the vast majority of juvenile justice agencies, risk assessments are incorporated into diversion, case management, supervision, and placement practices. Despite two decades of use within the juvenile justice system, little research regarding the methods of risk assessment development is discussed or translated to the field and practitioners. Many of the contemporary tools used today are implemented off-the-shelf, meaning that tools were developed with a specific set of methods, selecting and weighting items used in the prediction of a specified sample of youth. What is not known is how the various designs, methods, and circumstances of tool development impact the predictive performance when adopted by a jurisdiction. This study seeks to provide input into this dilemma. Demographic information in this study includes age, race, and sex.

This study was conducted to address the dropping rates in residential placements of adjudicated youth after the 1990s. Policymakers, advocates, and reseraches began to attirbute the decline to reform measures and proposed that this was the cause of the drop seen in historic national crime. In response, researchers set out to use state-level data on economic factors, crime rates, political ideology scores, and youth justice policies and practices to test the association between the youth justice policy environment and recent reductions in out-of-home placements for adjudicated youth. This data collection contains two files, a multivariate and bivariate analyses. In the multivariate file the aim was to assess the impact of the progressive policy characteristics on the dependent variable which is known as youth confinement. In the bivariate analyses file Wave 1-Wave 10 the aim was to assess the states as they are divided into 2 groups across all 16 dichotomized variables that comprised the progressive policy scale: those with more progressive youth justice environments and those with less progressive or punitive environments. Some examples of these dichotomized variables include purpose clause, courtroom shackling, and competency standard.

Investigator(s): National Center for Juvenile Justice These data collections describe in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1926 to furnish an index of the problems brought before the juvenile courts, this series is the oldest continuous source of information on the processing of delinquent and dependent youth by juvenile courts. It is the most detailed information available on youth who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and on the activities of the nation's juvenile courts. Information is provided on state, county, number of delinquency cases, number of status offense cases, number of dependency cases, and total number of cases. The data distinguish cases with and without the filing of a petition.Years Produced: Annually.

This study involved a survey of juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, prosecutors, and public defenders to measure their impressions of recent policy changes and the critical needs facing today's juvenile justice system. In addition the study garnered recommendations for improving the administration and effectiveness of this system. The study's primary objective was to provide policymakers, administrators, and practitioners with actionable information about how to improve the operations and effectiveness of the juvenile justice system, and to examine the role practitioners could play in constructing sound juvenile justice policy. A total of 534 juvenile court judges, chief probation officers, court administrators, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in 44 states and the District of Columbia participated in the Assessing the Policy Options (APO) national practitioner survey. The survey consisted of four major sections: demographics, critical needs, policies and practices, and practitioner recommendations. Critical needs facing the juvenile justice system were measured by asking respondents about the policy priority of 13 issues in their respective jurisdictions; topics ranged from staff training and development to effective juvenile defense counsel to information technology. Respondents were also asked to assess the effectiveness of 17 different policies and practices -- ranging from parental accountability laws to transfer and treatment -- in achieving 6 vital juvenile justice outcomes.

To better understand the factors that may help or hinder effective implementation of risk and needs assessments, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in 2015 launched a study led by the University of Cincinnati to examine the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) in three states-Arizona, Indiana, and Ohio. The OYAS tools measure risk and needs to inform court decisions as well as the delivery of services and treatment. Researchers collected data through a variety of methods, including in-person interviews with personnel at juvenile justice agencies; web-based surveys; comprehensive case record data for youths assessed by the OYAS; and phone interviews of youth following their case disposition and/or facility release. One of the study's key objectives was to understand how staff perceived the implementation of the OYAS. To assess the impact of the OYAS on youth outcomes--including reduced recidivism and other prosocial behavior and attitudes--the research team analyzed juvenile justice case records and conducted followup interviews with youth. Demographic variables included in this study include the race, gender, age, ethnicity, and level of education of participants.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study compared the adult criminal justice and child welfare system outcomes of four pathways through the juvenile justice system - Traditional Probation, Intensive Probation, Specialty Court Docket (Crossroads Program), and commitment to state youth correction services (Department of Youth Services). The study compared the effectiveness of a continuum of services and supervision in improving public safety, including re-arrest and re-incarceration, and in improving outcomes in engagement with child welfare as parents, including child welfare complaints and dispositions. The core research question is: "what is the relative effectiveness of four different juvenile justice interventions on improving public safety and child welfare outcomes?" The study population is all youths (n=2581) who entered the juvenile court from 2004-2008. It then included 7-10 years of follow-up in the adult justice and child welfare systems for all youths. The four interventions are on a continuum of intensity of services and supervision with Traditional Probation having the fewest services followed by Intensive Probation, Crossroads, and Division of Youth Services commitment. The study's deposits include 14 SPSS data files: arrest_final.sav CW_Custody_Adult_final.sav CW_Custody_child_final.sav CW_Intakes_Adult_final.sav CW_Intakes_child_final.sav CW_Placements_adult_final.sav CW_Placements_child_final.sav General_final.sav Jail_final.sav JC_charges_final.sav JC_detention_final.sav JC_disposition_final.sav JC_Gal_final.sav prison_final.sav

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The goals of the study were to estimate the effect of juvenile versus criminal jurisdiction on recidivism and educational outcomes in Connecticut, and describe the relationships among education and juvenile justice outcomes from early to late adolescence. The study sample included all court-referred juveniles and adults in Connecticut between the years 2006 to 2012. The individual-level juvenile case records and educational variables for each year were acquired from the Connecticut Court Support Services Division (CSSD) and the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE). Data on court-involvement (CSSD) include juvenile referral history, detention data, service data, adult criminal history, and data on multiple risk assessments. Educational data (CSDE) include demographic information, student enrollment (i.e., number of days in attendance, graduation, dropout), statewide, standardized academic achievement test scores, disciplinary offense data, and special education data.