This study was designed to assess the needs and characteristics of the female juvenile offender population in California and to evaluate the existing program structure. The main focus was to conduct a pilot study to test an instrument the researchers had designed for profiling the needs of youthful female offenders in developing a protocol for use by other jurisdictions and agencies working with delinquent female youths. To study the needs and program demands of young female offenders, the researchers conducted a profile survey of 162 randomly-selected women at the Ventura School in the California Youth Authority (CYA) in the summer of 1996. The data are the result of personal interviews using a modified version of the instrument used for a 1995 study of adult female offenders in the California Department of Corrections by the principal investigators. Information was collected on demographics, social and economic background, criminal history, and correctional experiences. Demographic variables include age, race and ethnicity, marital status, and parents' marital status. Variables on social and economic background include religious preference, living situation, education, work history, family relationships, pregnancy history while incarcerated, and family and juvenile history. Criminal history variables cover gang involvement, arrest and sentence information, offense profile, reasons for committing the offense, weapon use, substance abuse history, and personal abuse. Variables on correctional experiences include abuse counseling, HIV testing, correctional programming participation, work experience during incarceration, and California Youth Authority housing assignment.

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.

This short report uses 2010 to 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to assess any mental illness/serious mental illness and treatment among those ages 18 to 25 and major depressive episodes and treatment among those aged 16 to 17. Results are shown by residential stability, employment, education, and health insurance coverage.

The purpose of the study was to examine the aftercare services juvenile parolees with mental disorders receive as they transition from correctional facilities to the community. The study assessed rates of recidivism for juvenile parolees with mental disorders, the type and frequency of mental health care received in the community by youth on parole, and the relationship between parolees' recidivism and functional outcomes with their utilization of mental health care. The sample came from the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS), which covers youths aged 10 to 21 sentenced to correctional care for the 88 Ohio counties in 2005 and 2006. The actual cohort was composed of 175 youths aged 12 to 19 years who had a presumptive release date within the next 60 days and were placed on the mental health caseload. Data were collected in 2005 and 2006 at four time points: one month pre-release, one month post-release, three months post-release, and six months post-release. Variables were gathered from the Ohio DYS and through the administration of a variety of standardized surveys and interview protocols. The main categories of variables include variables relating to arrest history and recidivism, variables relating to the mental health of subjects, variables relating to the administration of mental health treatment and health insurance coverage post-release, and demographic variables.

In 1996, the Los Angeles County Probation Department developed a set of six instruments to better assess offender risks and needs. Each instrument was intended to serve a specific purpose, with separate instruments used for adult and juvenile populations and release and placement decisions. The instruments were to be completed by probation staff. These instruments were tested in a pilot project by probation field staff in 1997. The probation department then asked RAND to re-examine the six instruments for instrument integrity, use of overrides, and relationship to long-term recidivism outcomes. The probation department's research staff had completed the instruments between April and December 1997 using available reports and case file information. RAND's involvement in the study began after all samples had been selected and instruments completed. The probation department gave RAND the data on instrument scores. Recidivism data were gathered at 6, 12, and 18 months after the instruments' administration. For juveniles data on the nature and date of arrest were available from the Juvenile Automated Information files. Data on adult re-arrests were unavailable, but the Adult Probation System provided the date, nature, and disposition of offenses referred to probation.

The goal of this study was to test specific hypotheses illustrating the relationships among serious victimization experiences, the mental health effects of victimization, substance abuse/use, and delinquent behavior in adolescents. The study assessed familial and nonfamilial types of violence. It was designed as a telephone survey of American youth aged 12-17 living in United States households and residing with a parent or guardian. One parent or guardian in each household was interviewed briefly to establish rapport, secure permission to interview the targeted adolescent, and to ensure the collection of comparative data to examine potential nonresponse bias from households without adolescent participation. All interviews with both parents and adolescents were conducted using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technology. From the surveys of parents and adolescents, the principal investigators created one data file by attaching the data from the parents to the records of their respective adolescents. Adolescents were asked whether violence and drug abuse were problems in their schools and communities and what types of violence they had personally witnessed. They were also asked about other stressful events in their lives, such as the loss of a family member, divorce, unemployment, moving to a new home or school, serious illness or injury, and natural disaster. Questions regarding history of sexual assault, physical assault, and harsh physical discipline elicited a description of the event and perpetrator, extent of injuries, age at abuse, whether alcohol or drugs were involved, and who was informed of the incident. Information was also gathered on the delinquent behavior of respondents and their friends, including destruction of property, assault, theft, sexual assault, and gang activity. Other questions covered history of personal and family substance use and mental health indicators, such as major depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, weight changes, sleeping disorders, and problems concentrating. Demographic information was gathered from the adolescents on age, race, gender, number of people living in household, and grade in school. Parents were asked whether they were concerned about violent crime, affordable child care, drug abuse, educational quality, gangs, and the safety of their children at school. In addition, they were questioned about their own victimization experiences and whether they discussed personal safety issues with their children. Parents also supplied demographic information on gender, marital status, number of children, employment status, education, race, and income.

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.

This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the structured substance abuse treatment program at Barrett Juvenile Correction Center in Virginia by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but who differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment, focused on modifying negative attitudes and behaviors, they completed. Barrett differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered some treatment programs but only on an "as needed" basis. The sample for this study consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on youths' treatment progress at the time of discharge. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youths. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police supplied additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Parole officers also provided data on recidivism and on progress toward meeting the conditions of parole. Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.

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 research project has tested a possible explanation for the Great American Crime Decline of the 1990s and especially 2000s: the increasing rates at which psychotropic drugs are prescribed, especially to children and adolescents. Psychotropic drugs are often prescribed to youth for mental health conditions that involve disruptive and impulsive behaviors and learning difficulties. The effects of these drugs are thus expected to lead to the decrease in the juveniles' involvement in delinquency and violence. The effects of two legislative changes are hypothesized to have contributed to the increased prescribing of psychotropic drugs to children growing up in families in poverty: 1) changes in eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) that made it possible for poor children to qualify for additional financial assistance due to mental health conditions (1990 and 1996), and 2) changes in school accountability rules following the passage of No Child Left Behind Act (2002) that put pressure on schools in some low-income areas to qualify academically challenged students as having ADHD or other learning disabilities. The objectives of the project are: 1) to assemble a data set, using state-level data from various publicly available sources, containing information about trends in juvenile delinquency and violence, trends in psychotropic drug prescribing to children and adolescents, and various control variables associated with these two sets of trends; 2) to test the proposed hypotheses about the effect of increasing psychotropic medication prescribing to children and adolescents on juvenile delinquency and violence, using the assembled data set; and 3) to disseminate the scientific knowledge gained through this study among criminal justice researchers, psychiatric and public health scientists, as well as among a wider audience of practitioners and the general public. This collection includes one SPSS file (Dataset_NIJ_GRANT_2014-R2-CX-0003_DV-IV_3-29-17.sav; n=1,275, 113 variables) and one Word syntax file (doc36775-0001_syntax.docx).

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.