DOI: 10.3886/icpsr38762
title: Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Medium- and High-Risk Juvenile Offenders: A Statewide Randomized Controlled Trial in Virginia, 2003-2018
title: Archival Version

description: The Urban Institute developed and fostered a research partnership with the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to conduct empirical research to inform DJJ's current practice in the management of aggression issues among at-risk youth and enhance DJJ's analytic capacity. Specifically, through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and quasi-experimental evaluations, the project team assessed the effectiveness of two types of cognitive-behavioral aggression management treatment, Aggression Replacement Training (ART) and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) for youth in secure juvenile justice facilities. The three-part evaluation consisted of a process evaluation, an impact evaluation, and cost-effectiveness analysis. The impact evaluation was based on RCT data and matched case-control data through propensity score techniques.
description: The partnership between Urban and the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) had six broad objectives: 1) to assess the implementation fidelity of ART and DBT; 2) to evaluate the impact of ART and DBT; 3) to determine the optimal treatment dosage and cost-effectiveness; 4) to help DJJ build long-term analytic capacity; 5) to assess racial disproportionality in DJJ decision-making; and 6) to formulate recommendations for policy and practice in the management and treatment of aggression in justice-involved youth.
description: The data file contains one record per person for each youth committed to a DJJ facility between July 2003 and March 2018. If a youth was committed more than once during the period, the first commitment was selected. Data for the RCT came from two sources: extensive administrative data from DJJ's data management system and a survey measuring aggressive attitudes and behaviors. The administrative data included information about each youth's current commitment (including commitment offense and sentence length); offense history; risk level; treatment needs and services received; educational, social, and substance abuse history; and a psychological and medical assessment. The project team also received data on the institutional offenses committed while in the facility, as well as rearrest and reconviction information from after release. During randomization, the project team also asked DJJ to have each youth complete a survey measuring aggressive attitudes and behaviors once at the beginning of treatment and once at treatment completion. We combined two assessments to create the survey: the Adolescent Aggression Rating Scale (AARS) and the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI) (see Appendix A). Surveys were administered on paper in a group setting, with DJJ staff available to read the instructions and answer questions. Survey data collection lasted over 18 months, starting from mid-2015. A total of 427 surveys from 266 youth were collected, but a large number of the survey responses were not suitable for analysis along with the RCT data. This data attrition was largely caused by issues related to incomplete/invalid data and unintended crossover between ART and DBT. After cleaning up the survey data, there were 116 unique individuals with a pre- and post-survey from the same program, whether ART or DBT. To conduct the quasi-experimental evaluations, the project team relied on DJJ's administrative data. The treatment and comparison groups were defined using administrative records indicating which treatment programs youth participated in. Individual and case characteristics used for matching were drawn from the youth's criminal and social history data, and outcome variables were constructed using the institutional offenses and rearrest data.
description: Not applicable
description: Response Rates: Not applicable
description: Presence of Common Scales: Adolescent Anger Rating Scale (AARS) Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (WAI)
description: Sampling was not required as the project relied considerably on existing administrative data.
description: Datasets: DS1: Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Medium- and High-Risk Juvenile Offenders: A Statewide Randomized Controlled Trial in Virginia, 2003-2018
description: Youth admitted to the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice between July 2013 and June 2015. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: mixed mode; on-site questionnaireDates of admission to and release from Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice facilities were sanitized by reporting only the month and year. Time to recidivism is measured as number of days from release to recidivism (e.g., rearrest, reconviction, or reincarceration). Time to institutional offense is measured as number of days from admission. All other dates were removed.There are two ethnicity variables in the data. <b>ETHNICITY</b> contains the ethnicity information maintained by DJJ. <b>ETHNICITY_NEW</b> builds off of the DJJ ethnicity variable but also includes ethnicity information imputed using a surname matching method that employs a surname list released by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007. The method correctly classified 97% of the individuals who had reported ethnicities, with a sensitivity of 0.91, a specificity of 0.99, and an AUC of 0.95.