DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03965
title: Case Classification for Juvenile Corrections: Evaluation of the Youth Level of Service Inventory in Ohio, 1998-2001
title: Archival Version

description: 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.
description: 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. These were the Ohio
 Department of Youth Services (ODYS), the Clermont County Juvenile
 Probation Department, and the Butler County Juvenile Rehabilitation
 Center. The ODYS operates juvenile institutions and aftercare for
 approximately 2,000 delinquent youth each year. ODYS operates a
 Release Authority that is authorized to grant release to youth under
 its custody. The department and its Release Authority have adopted the
 Y-LSI as a central component of case classification. All youth
 received by ODYS are administered the Y-LSI. The Butler County
 Juvenile Rehabilitation Center is a residential program for males and
 females with a program capacity of 46. The average length of stay is
 about seven months, and the program is almost always at capacity. The
 Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department receives about 1,500
 youths each year who were ordered to probation by the Clermont County
 Juvenile Court. The department uses the Y-LSI to classify
 approximately two-thirds of these youths. This study was designed to
 answer three separate but related questions: (1) Is the Y-LSI a valid
 predictor of case outcome for juvenile delinquents under correctional
 supervision? (2) How do juvenile correctional agencies use the Y-LSI
 for the allocation of correctional supervision and resources? and (3)
 Are changes in the areas of risk measured by the Y-LSI through
 correctional treatment associated with reductions in re-offending
rates by youth?
description: Data for Part 1, Y-LSI and Follow-up Data, were
 collected on 1,679 youths received in the three correctional settings
 between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999. The sample included 960
 individuals from ODYS, 626 from Clermont County Juvenile Probation,
 and 93 from the Butler County Rehabilitation Center. Youth files were
 made available to research staff and were reviewed to complete the
 data collection instruments. These files contained a wide variety of
 demographic and background information about each youth, including
 Y-LSI assessments (which were completed by agency staff at each site).
 As a measure of quality control, reliability checks were conducted on
 the sites. Y-LSI trained researchers conducted separate Y-LSI
 interviews and compared their assessments with those completed by
 agency staff. In these checks, a very small random sample of
 individuals was selected from each site and interviewed by
 researchers. In these comparisons no significant differences were
 revealed in terms of the overall Y-LSI risk or in terms of the
 individual subcomponent scores. The Y-LSI gathered information
 relevant to the youths' offending behavior, assessing the following
 eight domains: prior and current offenses/adjudications, family
 circumstances/parenting, education/employment, peer relations,
 substance abuse, leisure/recreation, personality/behavior, and
 attitudes and orientations. Demographic characteristics, as well as
 information relating to treatment and service referrals, completion of
 programming, and supervision outcome, were also collected from case
 files and recoded on the data collection tool. 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. Approximately two
 years after the initial data collection, supervision outcome data were
 gathered including checks for program completion, violations, new
 arrests, seriousness of new arrest, adjudications, and institutional
 commitments. These data were collected from each agency in a different
 fashion. ODYS and Clermont County Probation provided outcome data
 while researchers visited the Butler Residential Treatment Facility
 and examined youth files to obtain relevant outcome data. Data in
 Part 2, Practitioner Survey Data, were collected in 2001 through a
 survey of 196 staff at the three agencies. Packets of surveys and
 return envelopes were mailed to each research site. One individual
 from each site (usually an administrator) was responsible for staff
 completion of these surveys. Responses were kept anonymous to assure
 confidentiality. Upon completion surveys were mailed back to the
 researchers where the responses were coded and entered into a
 database. The survey inquired about agency administrators' and staff's
 reactions to the use of the Y-LSI as a classification instrument. It
 asked respondents to rate the utility of the instrument and report
 their perceptions of ease of use and strengths and weaknesses of the
 process. The survey also asked the respondents how the classification
information was used in the management of cases.
description: Variables for Part 1, Y-LSI and Follow-up Data,
 include date of birth, age, date of first two Y-LSI administrations,
 answers for each Y-LSI item, Y-LSI subcomponent composite scores, and
 total score for both Y-LSI administrations, gender, race, scores on
 other instruments administered by the correctional agencies, including
 IQ, parents' criminal history, history of involvement with child
 services, presence of siblings, siblings' criminal history, mental
 health history, abuse history, school attendance and performance, gang
 affiliation, family structure, current offenses and sentences, date
 supervision began, level of supervision, violations while under
 supervision, violation dates, disciplinary action, type of treatment
 undertaken, dates of treatment, whether treatment was successfully
 completed, institutional transfers, dates of transfers, prior offenses
 for up to 11 offenses, prior offense dates, prior offense
 dispositions, date of release, recidivism at three, six, and twelve
 months after release, and several derived variables. Variables for
 Part 2, Practitioner Survey Data, include date, gender, date of birth,
 years at agency and in current position, education completed,
 experience with the Y-LSI, assessment of how appropriately placed
 youths in agency were, the most critical needs of youths in the agency,
 most important types of treatment youths should receive, time spent
 assessing youths at intake, rating of how objective Y-LSI was, amount
 of paperwork involved in using the Y-LSI, how difficult it was to
 administer the Y-LSI, how helpful the Y-LSI was for youth placement,
 identifying treatment needs, case planning, helping the youths, and
 decision justification, extent of use of Y-LSI by agency, strengths of
the Y-LSI, weaknesses of the Y-LSI, and ways to improve the Y-LSI.
description: Response Rates: Part 1: Not available. Part 2: The individuals
 responsible for ensuring the completion of surveys by staff
 administering the Y-LSI provided assurances that surveys were
completed by all appropriate staff.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Part 1: Scales include the Youth Level of Service/Case
 Management Inventory, the Juvenile Automated Substance Abuse
 Evaluation, Test Taking Attitude, Intelligence Quotient, and the Sex
 Offender Assessment Tool. Part 2: Several Likert-type scales were
used.
description: The sampling ratio was 50 percent for the ODYS and
 Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department and 100 percent for the
Butler County Rehabilitation Center.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Y-LSI and Follow-up Data
DS2: Practitioner Survey Data
description: Part 1: Individuals who entered the Ohio Department of
Youth Services, the Butler County Juvenile Rehabilitation Center, or
the Clermont County Juvenile Probation Department in Ohio between July
1998 and December 1999. Part 2: Staff at these agencies in 2001. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: The user guide and codebook are provided by ICPSR in
separate Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web
site.