Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:19 pm
Time: 8:19 pm
Results for risk assessment, juveniles
2 results foundAuthor: Latessa, Edward Title: The Ohio Youth Assessment System: Final Report Summary: In 2004 the Ohio Department of Youth Services approached the University of Cincinnati Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR) to evaluate the RECLAIM funded programs. In doing so, Lowenkamp and Latessa (2005) found evidence that the effectiveness of the RECLAIM funded programs was mitigated by the risk level of the youth being served in the program. Overall the study found that lower risk youth were best served in the community while higher risk youth did as well if not better in more intensive programs (i.e., in Community Corrections Facilities and ODYS facilities). Although the risk principle has been well established in the literature, this study was one of the first to test the principle on a wide range of youth across multiple settings. With results in hand, ODYS surveyed the courts to better understand the “state” of risk assessment across Ohio’s 88 counties. Although ODYS adopted the Youthful Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) for youth entering a CCF or ODYS facility, local courts had the ability to adopt any types of assessments (or none at all) to assist in making decisions regarding youth. Based on the results of the ODYS Assessment Survey, it was determined that there were 77 different instruments used to assess risk across the 88 counties. The large number of different assessment instruments made it apparent that there was a need for a common assessment instrument. Director Thomas Stickrath seized the opportunity and initiated the development of a statewide risk assessment that would be available to all 88 counties, CCF’s, and ODYS facilities. Thus, DYS commissioned the University of Cincinnati (UC) to research and develop an assessment process, and sought and received a grant from OJJDP to assist in funding the project. In order to develop the tools, UC worked collaboratively with DYS, juvenile courts, community corrections facilities, and community programs through the development of a pilot team that supplied insight and support to the project. For the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) to have a major impact on the Ohio juvenile justice system it is important to encourage as many counties as possible to adopt it. Since Ohio is a home-rule state, local courts have the autonomy to choose local procedures including whether or not to use a validated risk/need instrument. For this reason courts were brought into the development of the OYAS early. Several kick-off meetings were held to discuss the implications of the OYAS and the benefits of using the system statewide. Beyond the pilot committee, courts were solicited regarding the potential for using the instrument. Initial interest of the assessment system was high with a majority of courts interested in potentially using the tools and another 24 courts willing to participate in the pilot committee. The pilot committee was charged with several tasks. First, the committee was to assist ODYS and UC with arranging local interviews of youth. The OYAS was developed using a prospective research design which placed a strong emphasis on recruitment of youth into the study (See the Methods section for more details). Second, the committee supplied UC with information regarding the utility of the assessment tools. One of the original goals of the OYAS was to develop a system that was easily utilized by staff. Third, the courts were responsible for collecting outcomes on all the youth that originated from their county whether they were served locally, at a CCF, or a DYS facility. Fourth, the Pilot Committee courts (with additional counties/programs added) field tested the instruments and provided feedback to UC regarding the instruments, interview guides, and scoring procedures. Details: Cincinnati, OH: Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, 2009. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2011 at: http://www.uc.edu/ccjr/Reports/ProjectReports/OYAS_final_report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.uc.edu/ccjr/Reports/ProjectReports/OYAS_final_report.pdf Shelf Number: 120740 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice (Ohio)Risk Assessment, Juveniles |
Author: Fratello, Jennifer Title: Juvenile Detention Reform in New York City: Measuring Risk through Research Summary: The January 2006 closure of New York City’s only alternative to juvenile detention brought the city close to a crisis: family court lost its only alternative pretrial supervision option and the population in local detention facilities was at its highest in three years. This situation also presented an opportunity for the city’s juvenile justice system to take stock of how and when it was using detention — equivalent to jail in the adult context — for youth facing delinquency charges. The Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator in conjunction with a variety of agencies and entities involved with the juvenile justice system seized this occasion to explore new methods for responding to young people awaiting sentencing that would be more effective at producing positive outcomes for youth and enhancing public safety. They embarked upon a two-phase reform process, with assistance from the Vera Institute of Justice. First, they conducted a research study and designed an empirically based risk-assessment instrument (RAI) measuring the likelihood that a youth would fail to appear in court or be rearrested during the pendency of his/her case. The tool would be used to help inform family court judges’ decisions about pretrial detention for juveniles. Second, the group planned a variety of community-based alternatives to detention (ATDs) for young people who did not require secure confinement and could be supervised and better served in their own communities. This report examines the development of both the RAI and the alternatives to detention and presents preliminary outcomes of the reforms. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Youth Justice, 2011. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2011 at: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Docs/Documents/RAI%20Report%20Vera.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/Docs/Documents/RAI%20Report%20Vera.pdf Shelf Number: 122116 Keywords: Alternative to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsJuvenile Detention (New York City)Juvenile Justice ReformJuvenile OffendersRisk Assessment, Juveniles |