Juvenile Justice Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This is a multi site experiment to evaluate the impact of various strategies for increasing the use of evidence based screening, assessment and linkage to substance use treatment. All sites collect baseline data and receive a core intervention. Half are then randomly assigned to get an additional year of coaching to facilitate implementation.

Detailed Description
-----------------
Background: The Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS) study is a cooperative implementation science initiative involving the National Institute on Drug Abuse, six Research Centers, a Coordinating Center, and Juvenile Justice Partners representing seven U.S. states. The pooling of resources across Centers enables a robust implementation study design involving 36 juvenile justice agencies and their behavioral health partner agencies, coproducing a study protocol that has potential to advance implementation science, meets the needs of all constituencies (funding agency, researchers, partners, study sites), and can be implemented with fidelity across the cooperative can be challenging. Methods/design: The JJ-TRIALS primary study uses a head-to-head cluster randomized trial with a phased rollout to evaluate the differential effectiveness of two conditions (Core and Enhanced) in 36 sites located in 7 states. Core strategies for promoting change are compared to an Enhanced strategy that incorporate all core strategies plus active facilitation. Target outcomes include improvements in evidence-based screening, assessment, and linkage to substance use treatment. Primary Research Questions: Does the Core and/or Enhanced Intervention reduce unmet need by increasing Cascade retention related to screening, assessment, treatment initiation, engagement and continuing care? Does the addition of the Enhanced Intervention components further increase the percentage of youth retained in the Cascade relative to the Core components? Does the addition of the Enhanced Intervention components improve service quality relative to Core sites? Do staff perceptions of the value of best practices increase over time, and are increases more pronounced in Enhanced sites?

Official Title
-----------------
Juvenile Justice Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System: Multi-site Implementation Study

Conditions
-----------------
Substance Use Disorders

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Behavioral: Core
* Behavioral: Enhanced


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Specific site inclusion criteria include: (a) ability to provide youth service records, (b) service to youth under community supervision, (c) access to treatment provider(s) if treatment is not provided directly by the JJ agency, (d) participation in requisite intervention training/activities,(e) minimum average case flow of 10 youth per month, (f) minimum of 10 staff per site, and (g) a senior JJ staff member who agrees to serve as site leader/liaison during the study. Study sites are geographically dispersed and were identified by state JJ agencies (and not selected for particular substance use or related BH service needs). Youth inclusion criteria include: all youth entering the juvenile justice system during the period within the exception of those who are already in treatment at the time that they are referred to the juvenile justice agency. Staff inclusion criteria include: all staff actively working with the youth under community supervision in the site with exclusion only of higher level administrative or regional staff over multiple units..
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Interventional Model Description: Staff from 34 juvenile community supervision agencies were observed for a 6 month baseline period than trained over 4 months on using a behavioral health service cascade model to screen, identify, and refer youth to substance use treatment. Half the sites were randomized to 12 additional months of facilitation. Sites were then monitored for an additional 4 month maintenance phase.
Masking: Triple


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| No Intervention: Control<br>During the Baseline Control data is collected in all 36 sites at the agency, staff, and youth level on the 6 months prior to the interventions in Arms 2 & 3 to document what practice was before the study. | |
| Active Comparator: Core<br>In the second phase (after baseline) all 36 sites receive a Core condition that includes five interventions: (1) JJ-TRIALS Orientation Meetings, (2) Needs Assessment, (3) Behavioral Health Training, (4) Site Feedback Report, (5) Goal Achievement Training, (6) Monthly Site Check-ins, and (7) Quarterly Reports. As part of Goal Achievement Training, sites receive assistance in using their Site Feedback Reports to select goals to meet their local needs. Sites are trained on using Data-Driven Decision Making (DDDM) to inform decisions (e.g., selecting a goal, monitoring progress) and enlisting DDDM templates and tools (developed as part of the project) to plan and implement proposed changes. these principles to their improvement efforts during the implementation phase. | Behavioral: Core<br> <br> * Other names: GAT, DDDM;|
| Experimental: Enhanced<br>While the core intervention and DDDM are expected to facilitate change, organizations may need additional support to apply these principles to their improvement efforts during the implementation phase. In the third phase (after Core), 1/2 of the sites are randomly assigned to an Enhanced condition that provides continuing support for the use of DDDM tools by adding research staff facilitation of DDDM over a 12-month period and formalized Local Change Teams (LCTs) featuring representation from the JJ agency and a local BH provider, with meetings facilitated by research staff). | Behavioral: Core<br> <br> * Other names: GAT, DDDM;Behavioral: Enhanced<br> <br> * Other names: DDDM, Facilitation;|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Service Cascade: % Referred to Substance Use Treatment | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the number of youth referred to substance use treatment divided by the number of youth identified as need of substance use treatment. | 120 weeks | 
| Staff Perception: Value of Evidenced Based Substance Use Treatment | Calculated from staff surveys at juvenile justice and substance use treatment agencies as the average staff ranking of the perceived value of using of evidence-based substance use treatment services. | 120 weeks | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Service Cascade: % Screened for Substance Use Problems | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the number of youth Screened for substance use problems divided by the number of youth entering the juvenile justice system. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Cascade: % Clinically Assessed for Substance Use Problems | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the number of youth Clinically Assessed for substance use problems divided by the number of youth entering the juvenile justice system. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Cascade: % In Need of Substance Use Treatment | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the number of youth identified (via screening, clinical assessment or other sources) as In Need of Substance Use Treatment divided by the number of youth entering the juvenile justice system. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Cascade: % Initiating Substance Use Treatment | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the number of youth Initiating Substance Use Treatment within 90 days of referral divided by the number referred to treatment from the juvenile justice system. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Cascade: % Engaged in Substance Use Treatment | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the number of youth Engaged in Substance Use Treatment for 6 weeks or more weeks divided by the number initiating treatment. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Cascade: % With Substance Use Treatment Continuing Care | number of youth Continuing to receive substance use treatment services forCalculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the 90 days or more divided by the number initiating treatment. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Quality: Timing of Screening or Clinical Assessment | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the mean days from entry into the justice system to the first of screening or clinical assessment for substance use problems. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Quality: Timing of Substance Use Treatment Initiation | Calculated from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agency records as the mean days from referral to and initiation of substance use treatment. | 120 weeks | 
| Service Quality: Number of Evidence Based Practices | Based on agency surveys and youth records from juvenile justice and substance use treatment agencies, the number of steps using 1 or more evidenced based practices in each of the following steps along the service cascade: screening, clinical assessment, referral, substance use treatment. | 120 Weeks | 
| Staff Perception: Value of Evidenced Based Screening | Calculated from staff surveys at juvenile justice and substance use treatment agencies as the average staff ranking of the perceived value of using of evidence-based screening. | 120 weeks | 
| Staff Perception: Value of Evidenced Based Clinical Assessment | Calculated from staff surveys at juvenile justice and substance use treatment agencies as the average staff ranking of the perceived value of using of evidence-based clinical assessment. | 120 weeks | 
| Staff Perception: Value of Evidenced Based Substance Use Prevention | Calculated from staff surveys at juvenile justice and substance use treatment agencies as the average staff ranking of the perceived value of using of evidence-based substance use prevention. | 120 weeks | 
| Staff Perception: Value of Evidenced Based HIV Risk Prevention | Calculated from staff surveys at juvenile justice and substance use treatment agencies as the average staff ranking of the perceived value of using of evidence-based HIV Risk prevention. | 120 weeks | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
evidence-based practice implementation, system change, interagency collaboration, substance use, treatment services, data-driven decision making, juvenile justice, adolescents, justice-involved youth, cluster randomized trial