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 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 sought to develop a risk assessment instrument to be used in the placement of adjudicated juveniles and determination of outcomes for juvenile probationers. The following research questions served as a guide in developing the risk assessment instrument: (1) Does the instrument measure what it purports to measure? (2) Do similar cases receive similar recommendations for placement services? (3) Is the instrument fair to dissimilar groups? (4) Is the instrument useful to practitioners? and (5) Will the instrument be simple to implement? The goal of the new risk assessment instrument was to address the relative risk of recidivism without taking into account the severity of the current offense. In order to develop a new risk assessment instrument, researchers adapted a pre-existing instrument that had been used and validated with juvenile probationers in California. The new instrument was used to evaluate youths for three measures of recidivism: intake actions, petitions filed, and petitions sustained through one year after the placement decisions were made. The sample of youths was comprised of those who in 1996 had received either a field supervision or a placement order as a disposition. The instrument measured age at first finding, prior criminal behavior, institutional commitments or placement of 30 consecutive days or more, drug/chemical use, alcohol use, parental skills, school disciplinary problems, and peer relationships.

This data collection was designed to replicate the Rand Selective Incapacitation Survey and the Iowa Risk Assessment Scale using a group of Colorado offenders. The Iowa model provides two assessments of offender risk: (1) a measure of general risk to society and (2) a measure of the risk of new violence. The Iowa dataset includes crime information from defendants' self-reports and from official crime records. Both files contain important self-report items such as perceived probability of being caught, weapon used in the offense committed, months free on the street during the reference period, and detailed activity description during the free period. Other items covered include employment history, plans, reasons for committing the crime, and attitudes toward life, law, prisons, and police.

These data were collected in an attempt to cross-validate the 1984 and 1985 versions of the Iowa model for assessing risk of offending while on parole by applying the model to a Michigan sample of male parolees over a follow-up period of two and one-half years. Different measures of predictors such as prior criminal history, current offense, substance abuse history, age, and recidivism on parole are available. The first file contains information on parolees such as demographic characteristics, drug use history, prior criminal history, risk scores, and parole history. The second file includes parolees' detailed criminal histories including the total number of violent and nonviolent felony arrests and dates, and charges and dispositions of each arrest with a maximum of eight arrests.

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

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 was an evaluation of changes initiated by the State of Utah to reduce youth crime: a program of early intervention comprised of Juvenile Sentencing Guidelines and a new intermediate sanction called State Supervision. Together, the Sentencing Guidelines and State Supervision sanction were designed to bring about a reduction in juvenile recidivism rates and subsequently reduce the number of offenders placed out of the home in the custody of the Division of Youth Corrections by 5 percent. Researchers combined quantitative measures of sentencing guidelines compliance and recidivism rates with qualitative interviews of juvenile justice system personnel and youth offenders. Data were gathered on all offenders receiving a sentence to probation for the first time from January to June during 1996 and 1999, enabling a comparison of offenders before and after program implementation (Part 1, Juvenile Information System Data). Part 1 data include demographic data, prior charges, age at start of probation, detention use, reoffense, and commitment to Youth Corrections. Interviews with 168 court and corrections personnel were conducted in two interview rounds, from June to December 1999, and again from July to September 2000, soliciting their views of the sentencing guidelines, state supervision, and probation (Parts 2-3, Juvenile Justice System Personnel Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). Interviews with 229 youth offenders obtained information on their involvement with and views of the sentencing guidelines, state supervision, and probation during a single interview in either the first or second round (Parts 4-5, Youth Offender Interviews, Rounds 1 and 2). A random sample of paper case files for pre- and post-guideline offenders was selected to analyze changes in contact and interventions provided (Part 6, Youth Offender Case File Analysis). These files were examined for documentation of contact frequency and type with offenders and their families and the number and types of programs used.

This study was conducted to explore the usefulness of the instruments used in the California Youth Authority's (CYA) Treatment Needs Assessment (TNA) battery. A total of 836 wards who completed screening questionnaires were followed to determine whether they were subsequently placed in mental health programs, were prescribed medications used to treat serious mental health problems, and/or were identified by staff as requiring these services. Data for this study were collected from hard-copy files maintained in CYA ward institutions and the CYA central office. Specific variables include the scale scores of the four instruments used in the TNA, demographic variables of the ward, treatment received by the ward, and ward behavior.

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.