This study was an evaluation of the Los Angeles County Drug Treatment Boot Camp (DTBC). This site was selected because it was one of the earliest boot camps in the nation designed specifically for juvenile offenders. The program enrolled only male offenders between the ages of 16 and 18, who were either documented or alleged drug users with sustained petitions by the juvenile courts for non-violent and non-sex offenses. The main goal of the study was to use a combination of official and self-report measures to assess the effectiveness of the DTBC as a correctional model for juvenile offenders with a focus on their substance-abusing behavior. The study consisted of three independent data collection components: (1) a comparison of official recidivism rates between matched boot camp graduates and non-boot camp graduates over a five-year observation period (Part 1, Official Records Data for Matched Samples), (2) a cross-sectional comparison of self-reports between boot camp and non-boot camp graduates over a 12-month observation period (Part 2, Twelve-Month Self-Report Data), and (3) a pre- and post-test of a boot camp cohort over a six-month observation period (Part 3, Pre- and Post-Test Self-Report Data). Part 1 variables include camp entry and exit dates, sustained petition for camp entry, prior arrests, age at first arrest, most serious charge at first arrest, number of post-camp arrests, most serious charge for post-camp arrests, and number of probation violations post-camp. For Parts 2 and 3, the study utilized the well-established International Self-Report Delinquency questionnaire to assess the youths' post-camp delinquent activities. The instrument contained measures on (1) the types of crimes committed during a specified time frame, (2) the frequency of these delinquent acts, (3) the onset of each admitted offense, (4) the circumstances of the incidents, and (5) a set of sociodemographic variables including attitudes toward school and work, living arrangement, and circle of friends. Demographic variables include age, ethnicity, and country of birth.

This study was conducted for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to (1) collect and analyze data on conditions of confinement in public and private juvenile facilities, (2) determine the extent to which conditions were consistent with those required by nationally recognized standards for juvenile confinement facilities, (3) suggest explanations for variations in conformance to standards among facilities, and (4) assist OJJDP in formulating recommendations for improving conditions of confinement. In challenging the premise that high levels of conformance to nationally recognized standards result in improved conditions of confinement, this study examined client outcomes. Areas of concern for juvenile facilities usually center on living space, health care, security, and control of suicidal behavior. Key incident measures provided in this data collection include injuries, escapes, acts of suicidal behavior, incidents requiring emergency health care, and isolation incidents. Part 1, Mail Survey Data, collected information from facility administrators. Part 2, Site Visit Data, consists of questions answered by the juvenile inmates as well as by the independent observers who administered the on-site surveys. Additional variables in Part 2 that are not present in Part 1 include subjective measures such as the quality of the food, medical care, and recreation facilities, and whether various facility programs were effective. The study covered all 984 public and private juvenile detention centers, reception centers, training schools, and ranches, camps, and farms in the United States. Three types of facilities were excluded: (1) youth halfway houses, shelters, and group homes, (2) police lockups, adult jails, and prisons that held juveniles tried and convicted as adults, and (3) psychiatric and drug treatment programs.

This study addressed the question of whether alternative correctional programs were more effective than traditional training schools in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders. Alternative programs were defined as halfway homes, group homes, foster homes, ranches, camping programs, and specialized vocational programs, while training schools were defined as secure, restrictive custody programs in institutional settings. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of alternative program placements versus training school for a 12-year period on 266 juvenile delinquents remanded to youth facilities in a southwestern state in 1983. Subjects chosen for the study were 298 youth who had been committed by a county court to a statewide juvenile corrections program between January 1, 1983, and July 1, 1983. The sample was representative of the youth commission's population of juvenile offenders in terms of age, race, and sex. All were first time commitments, and the original commitment offense for a majority of the youth was a nonviolent property crime, such as burglary or theft. From this original sample, 32 juveniles were eliminated from the study because they were not adequately exposed to either an institutional or alternative program. The final sample consisted of 266 juvenile offenders, of which 164 were placed in institutions and 102 were placed in alternative programs. Youth were not randomly assigned to programs. Juveniles with particular characteristics were automatically assigned to certain types of programs. All violent offenders were placed in institutions. The study was designed to include a lengthy follow-up period, a focus on subject by program interaction effects, and the use of survival analysis to examine the timing of recidivism as well as its incidence. Recidivism was defined as the first arrest or parole revocation that took place within the follow-up period. The follow-up period was approximately 12 years, from the parole assignment until September 1, 1995. Data were collected primarily from the administrative records of the state youth commission. The commission also obtained additional follow-up data from the state Department of Public Safety and the state Department of Corrections. Additionally, family background data were collected from each youth's parole officer in response to a survey conducted specifically for this study in September 1994. Demographic variables include commitment age, race, and sex. Psychosocial variables include family environment and IQ. Other independent variables include program placement status, delinquency risk scales, and program adjustment measures. The dependent variable is recidivism, measured as both a discrete variable indicating whether an arrest occurred and time until first arrest offense after parole.

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.

In 1986, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded a demonstration project of intensive supervision programs (ISPs), alternatives to control sanctions that involve community sanctions and emphasize stringent conditions and close monitoring of convicted offenders. The primary intent of the demonstration project was to determine the effects of participation in an ISP program on the subsequent behavior of offenders and to test the feasibility of the ISP's stated objectives: (1) to reduce recidivism by providing a seemingly cost-effective alternative to imprisonment, and (2) to provide an intermediate punishment between incarceration and regular probation that allows the punishment to fit the crime. Fourteen sites in nine states participated in the project and each of the selected sites was funded for 18 to 24 months. Individual agencies in each site tailored their ISP programs to their local needs, resources, and contexts, developed their own eligibility criteria, and determined whether probationers met those criteria. While the individual ISP projects differed, each site was required to follow identical procedures regarding random assignment, data collection, and overall program evaluation. Data collection instruments that differed in the amount of drug-related questions asked were used for the six- and twelve-month reviews. The "non-drug" data collection instrument, used in Contra Costa, Ventura, and Los Angeles counties, CA, Marion County, OR, and Milwaukee, WI, gathered drug data only on the number of monthly drug and alcohol tests given to offenders. The "drug" data collection instrument was distributed in Atlanta, Macon, and Waycross, GA, Seattle, WA, Santa Fe, NM, Des Moines, IA, and Winchester, VA. Variables regarding drug use included the number of drug tests ordered, the number of drug tests taken, and the number of positives for alcohol, cocaine, heroin, uppers, downers, quaaludes, LSD/hallucinogens, PCP, marijuana/hashish, and "other". The drug questions on the instrument used in Dallas and Houston, TX, were the same as those asked at the drug sites. Once a site determined that an offender was eligible for inclusion, RAND staff randomly assigned the offender to either the experimental ISP program (prison diversion, enhanced probation, or enhanced parole) or to a control sanction (prison, routine probation, or parole). Assignment periods began in January 1987 and some sites continued to accept cases through January 1990. Each offender was followed for a period of one year, beginning on the day of assignment to the experimental or control program. The six-month and twelve-month review data contain identical variables: the current status of the offender (prison, ISP, or terminated), record of each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction. Information was also recorded for each month during the follow-up regarding face-to-face contacts, phone and collateral contacts, monitoring and record checks, community service hours, days on electronic surveillance (if applicable), contacts between client and community sponsor, number and type of counseling sessions and training, days in paid employment and earnings, number of drug and alcohol tests taken, and amount of restitution, fines, court costs, and probation fees paid. Background variables include sex, race, age at assignment, prior criminal history, drug use and treatment history, type of current offense, sentence characteristics, conditions imposed, and various items relating to risk of recidivism and need for treatment. For the two Texas sites, information on each arrest and/or technical violation, its disposition, and sentence or sanction was recorded in separate recidivism files (Parts 10 and 17). Dates were converted by RAND to time-lapse variables for the public release files that comprise this data collection.

This data collection was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a vocational training program on post-release vocational skills, employment, and recidivism of youthful male inmates 18 to 21 years old. The study used an experimental design to examine the differences in post-release activities among three inmate groups. A comprehensive inmate data base was created to describe inmates' confinement history, employment history, and their criminal records. The contextual data files provide additional information relevant to inmates' post-release activities.

Investigator(s): Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention The Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) was administered for the first time in 1997 by the United States Bureau of the Census for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The CJRP provides a detailed picture of juveniles in custody and asks juvenile residential custody facilities in the United States to describe each youth assigned a bed in the facility on the specified reference date. The CJRP reference date was generally the fourth Wednesday in October. Characteristics of the facility, treatment services, and facility population are also collected. Some state and regional agencies provide CJRP data for more than one facility under their jurisdiction. The CJRP facility inclusion criteria are: (1) residential facilities in operation on the census reference date, (2) public or private (or tribal since 1999) operation, and (3) intended for juvenile offenders (although some hold adults as well). Specifically excluded are: nonresidential facilities; detention centers operated as part of adult jails; facilities exclusively for drug or mental health treatment or for abused or neglected children; foster homes; and federal correctional facilities (e.g., Immigration and Naturalization Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Marshalls, or Bureau of Prisons). Inclusion criteria for individual-level data are: (1) youth under age 21, (2) assigned a bed in a residential facility at the end of the day on the census reference day, (3) charged with an offense or court-adjudicated for an offense, (4) and in residential placement because of that offense.Years Produced: Biennially since 1997, in odd-numbered years. (Note: The 2005 data collection was conducted in February 2006.) National Juvenile Corrections Data Summary The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention sponsored three series of national juvenile corrections data collections:Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities Series,Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP) Series, and theJuvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) Series.The CJRP was administered for the first time in 1997. The CJRP replaced the Census of Public and Private Juvenile Detention, Correctional, and Shelter Facilities (formerly called the Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facility Census series and also known as the Children in Custody (CIC) census), which had been conducted since the early 1970s. The CJRP differs fundamentally from CIC in that the CIC collected aggregate data on juveniles held in each facility (e.g., number of juveniles in the facility) and the CJRP collects an individual record on each juvenile held in the residential facility to provide a detailed picture of juveniles in custody. The companion data collection to CJRP, the JRFC, is designed to collect information about the facilities in which juvenile offenders are held.ICPSR merged data from the CJRP series with data from the JRFC series. These studies are included in the Matched Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP)/Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) Series.

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.

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.