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.

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.

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 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 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.

Connecticut's Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee (JJPOC) has developed this dataset and this dashboard to monitor and examine juvenile justice system involvement across the state for youth of different races, ethnicities, and genders. The following metrics were chosen to understand key points in the juvenile justice system: 1. Delinquent referrals 2. Non-judicial handling 3. Disposition of a first time felony 4. Detention Note: this dataset and the dashboard are being developed in phases, and as of 1/27/2023 they include data on Metric 1: Delinquent referrals and Metric 2: First Time Felony Dispositions. Additional metrics will be added over the course of 2023 and 2024.

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 data collection focuses on status offenders--those juveniles who commit acts (such as running away, habitual truancy, and possession of alcohol) that are forbidden to minors but not to adults. The purpose of this study was to connect legislative intent, service delivery systems, and youth responses in order to provide guidelines for future status offender legislation and practice. In the selection of sampling sites, three categories of intervention philosophy were represented: (1) deterrence, which recommends sanctions and control through the juvenile justice system, (2) treatment, which recommends emotional adjustment strategies through the community mental health system, and (3) normalization, which recommends little or no professional response. Respondents from youth service agencies in seven cities in the United States were asked about service delivery system characteristics (such as types of referral sources, how often they were used, and length of client service period), organizational characteristics (such as public versus private auspices, sources of funding, and educational level of staff), and youth characteristics (such as family situation, school status, and educational attainment of principal adults in the home). Demographic variables for status offenders included gender, race, age, and type of residence. Interviews with youths were also conducted and included a self-concept scale, by which youths could categorize themselves as delinquent, disturbed, and/or conforming. The units of analysis for this study are the individual and the youth service agency.

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.

A different model of justice is assumed to be reflected in the prosecution of adolescents in juvenile jurisdictions compared to criminal jurisdictions, with a juvenile justice model in the juvenile jurisdiction and a criminal justice model in the criminal jurisdiction. These two models of justice are believed to be very different from one another across three dimensions: formality of case processing, evaluation of defendants, and punishment. This research project compared the prosecution and punishment of adolescent felony offenders in the New Jersey juvenile jurisdiction and the New York criminal jurisdiction to determine whether these two models of justice varied across the two jurisdiction types. Data from this collection were used by the researcher only to examine the dimension of punishment severity across jurisdiction types and across courts within each jurisdiction type. Data were collected on comparable cases of adolescent felony offenders from counties in New Jersey and New York. Due to the very different boundaries between juvenile and criminal jurisdictions in these adjacent states, the data include cases (matched by offense and offender age) in New Jersey's juvenile jurisdiction and New York's criminal jurisdiction. Cases of 15- and 16-year-old defendants who had been charged with aggravated assault, robbery, or burglary in three counties of New Jersey and three counties of New York City in 1992 and 1993 were sampled. Variables include offender characteristics, such as age at offense, sex, race, and ethnicity, offense characteristics, court action and sentencing information, state, and county.