DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37310.v1
title: Evaluation of the Linking Systems of Care for Children and Youth Demonstration Project, Illinois, Montana, Ohio, and Virginia, 2015-2019
title: Version 1

description: The victimization of children and youth remains a nationwide concern with between 44 percent and 60 percent of children reporting experiences of victimization in national studies. The impacts of victimization, if left unaddressed, can have serious long-term effects on the physical and mental health of children, which vary based on the children's developmental stage and frequency of exposure. The high rates of victimization, coupled with the serious negative consequences of the victimization, underscore the importance of ensuring effective service delivery to meet the needs of this population. Building on decades of work in social change in organizations and communities, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), under the United States Department of Justice Strategic Initiative, sought to address the needs of victims of crime. As part of the Strategic Initiative, OVC created the Linking Systems of Care (LSC) for Children and Youth State Demonstration Project, a project intended to directly impact the field of child victimization by bringing together all of the relevant systems and professionals to provide early identification, intervention, and treatment for child and youth victims and their families and caregivers.
description: The goal of the study was to improve responses to child and youth victims and their families by providing consistent, coordinated responses that address the presenting issues and full range of victim needs.
description: Data file 1 (<strong>Network Partner Survey (Montana)</strong>, n=26 ; 822 variables): This dataset documents the partners involved in the project, explores various network dynamics, and measures service integration in the Montana site's stakeholder group network. The data was collected using an online survey administered to project staff and stakeholders annually during the project. The survey was intended to explore how the project operated in practice and how the partnerships among organizations in the stakeholder groups operated over time. The survey was emailed to project staff and partners in the Montana demonstration site based on a sampling frame constructed from a list of partners provided by the grantee organization. Email and phone follow-up was conducted, as needed, to encourage response. Data file 2 (<strong>Network Partner Survey (Virginia)</strong>, n=14 ; 705 variables): This dataset documents the partners involved in the project, explores various network dynamics, and measures service integration in the Virginia site's stakeholder group network. The data was collected using an online survey administered to project staff and stakeholders annually during the project. The survey was intended to explore how the project operated in practice and how the partnerships among organizations in the stakeholder groups operated over time. The survey was emailed to project staff and partners in the Virginia demonstration site based on a sampling frame constructed from a list of partners provided by the grantee organization. Email and phone follow-up was conducted, as needed, to encourage response. Data file 3 (<strong>Service Provider Survey</strong>, n=320 ; 86 variables): This dataset documents the coordination and collaboration among service providers in the first cohort of demonstration sites' pilot areas. The survey was originally intended to be administered pre- and post-implementation. The survey was disseminated as planned pre-implementation; however, the post-implementation survey was not disseminated due to the discontinuation of the original outcome evaluation design. The data was collected using an online survey administered to eligible service providers in the pilot areas. The sampling frame was developed by compiling a list of providers who offer direct services to youth victims and their families in the pilot areas. A point of contact (POC) at each organization was identified, and the electronic survey was sent to the POC's email address at all identified organizations. The initial launch email asked the POC to forward the email and survey link to all direct service providers in their organization. Reminder emails were sent periodically to gather information on the number of direct service providers who received the email and to remind the organizations about completing the survey. An organization-level incentive was provided to organizations with at least one completed survey. Data file 4 (<strong>Youth Victim Survey</strong>, n=244 ; 110 variables): This dataset documents the experiences of child and youth victims and their caregivers in the first cohort of demonstration sites' pilot areas. The survey was originally intended to be administered pre- and post-implementation. The survey was disseminated as planned pre-implementation; however, the post-implementation survey was not disseminated due to the discontinuation of the original outcome evaluation design. The data was collected primarly through hard-copy surveys which were administered to participants by local service provider organizations who partnered with the company which collected the data (ICF Incorporated, LLC (ICF)). These organizations were selected as they also partnered with the grantees in their pilot implementation activities. The survey was often in the field for six to nine months, prior to the participating organizations pilot testing the screening tool. This timing was intended to ensure a clean baseline assessment of youth and caregiver experiences. The purpose of the survey was to measure youth and caregiver experiences with service delivery and the referral process in pilot areas. Any youth who is a direct victim of a crime (i.e., did not observe a crime or hear about someone else's crime experience, but personally experienced victimization) was eligible to participate. However, only youth age 15 or older responded to the survey personally; youth age 14 or younger were asked to have a parent or guardian respond on their behalf. ICF held kickoff calls with participating organizations to learn about their intake processes and determine a tailored administration plan for distributing the survey at their organization. Organizations had the option to decline distributing the survey if their intake processes were not conducive to survey administration (e.g., lack of staff to support survey administration, lack of a safe space for youth to respond to the survey). Staff at participating organizations distributed the eligibility screening form, survey, return envelope, and resource guide. The survey was to be completed individually in a waiting room or private space. An incentive was provided to participants who completed the survey and organizations who supported the survey effort. Data file 5 (<strong>Training and Technical Assistance Feedback Survey</strong>, n=106 ; 64 variables): This dataset documents the content and scope of the Training and Technical Assistance (TTA) provided by the project's national TTA provider, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). The online survey was administered quarterly to all project staff who received TTA during the previous quarter. NCJFCJ provided a list of all TTA and associated recipients, and invitation emails with survey links were sent to all eligible participants. Information from the list of TTA recipients was also used to inform the number of TTA instances and the hours of TTA received. Reminder emails were sent out periodically to encourage completion. The survey questions encompassed various aspects of TTA, including dosage and type of TTA, ratings of the quality and helpfulness of the TTA, and activities that resulted from the TTA. The feedback from the survey was used to identify and document the role that resources provided by NCJFCJ played in the planning and implementation processes. Data file 6 (<strong>Evaluability Assessment Questionnaire</strong>, n=18 ; 43 variables): This dataset documents the demonstration sites' capacity to participate in an outcome evaluation. The data was collected through an online survey administered to project staff in all four demonstration sites. The questionnaire was administered to all staff at each demonstration site in January of 2019. Participants had four weeks to complete the survey. Reminder emails were sent out periodically to encourage completion.
description: Response Rates: Data file 1 (<strong>Network Partner Survey (Montana)</strong>): For 2015, a 100 percent response rate was achieved. For 2016, an 86 percent response rate was achieved and a total of 24 project partners completed the survey. For 2017, a 75 percent response rate was achieved and a total of 24 project partners completed the survey. Data file 2 (<strong>Network Partner Survey (Virginia)</strong>): For 2015, a 100 percent response rate was achieved. For 2016, an 86 percent response rate was achieved and a total of 12 project partners completed the survey. For 2017, a 100 percent response rate was achieved and a total of 14 project partners completed the survey. Data file 3 (<strong>Service Provider Survey</strong>): A total of 309 participants completed surveys across all six pilot areas. Data file 4 (<strong>Youth Victim Survey</strong>): A total of 245 participants completed surveys across five of the six pilot areas. Data file 5 (<strong>Training and Technical Assistance Feedback Survey</strong>): A total of 90 surveys were completed over the course of the project. Data file 6 (<strong>Evaluability Assessment Questionnaire</strong>): A total of 17 (89.5 percent) staff across all of the four demonstration sites completed the survey. Due to differences in the size of the site teams, the number of participants who completed the survey in each site ranged from two to five.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used.
description: All samples were convenience samples due to the nature of the demonstration project.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Network Partner Survey (Montana) DS2: Network Partner Survey (Virginia) DS3: Service Provider Survey DS4: Youth Victim Survey DS5: Training and Technical Assistance Feedback Survey DS6: Evaluability Assessment Questionnaire
description: Project staff, stakeholders, service providers, and youth victims and caregivers who participated in the Linking Systems of Care State Demonstration Project. Smallest Geographic Unit: State
description: face-to-face interview; on-site questionnaire; telephone interview; web-based surveyUsers should note that the numbers provided for response rates are taken from a report provided by the P.I. and may not accurately reflect the number of cases in the respective data files. No additional information was provided to ICPSR regarding this issue.Researchers collected qualitative data for this study which are not currently available. The qualitative data will be made available at a later date.