Global Risk Assessment Device

1
Global Risk Assessment Device

• Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
• Follow-Up Training

2
Follow-Up Training Agenda

• Part 1 The Data
• Part 2 Current Usage and Upgrades

3
Follow-Up Training Agenda

• Part 1 The Data
• Overall Sample Characteristics
• Overall GRAD Scores and Trends
• Overall Referral Patterns
• Breakdown by Point of Entry into the Court
• Subsample by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, SES
• Subsample by GRAD scores
• Referral Patterns

4
Follow-Up Training Agenda

• Part 2 Current Usage and Upgrades
• Special Recognitions
• New Cut-off Scores
• Automatic GRAD ID numbering system
• New Interpretation and Recommendation Pages
• New Parent Pages
• Case Note Functions
• Multiple Referrals

5
Overall Sample Characteristics

• Who is in your data deck?
• N 506 cases as of 5/15/03
• N 392 youth perspectives
• N 114 adult perspectives

6
The Numbers by Point of Entry

• Detention 159 overall
• 157 youth/2 adult
• Probation 106 overall
• 73 youth/32 adult
• Intake 95 overall
• 27 youth/68 adult
• Respite Care 54 overall
• 54 youth
• Pro-Kids 93 overall
• 81 youth/12 adult

7
Data from the Youth

• Who are the 394 youth in your data deck?
• N 94 White, non-minority youth
• N 300 Minority youth
• Overall sample
• 70 African American
• 24 White
• 5 Hispanic
• 1 Biracial, Asian, or other

8
Data from the Youth

• Average age 14.8 years
• Approximately one-half of the sample is 14 or 15
  years old
• Range 10-19 years
• Females are 47 of the sample
• Males are 53 of the sample

9
Data on the Families

• What do the families of these youth look like?
• Median family income 15,000-24,999
• 42 of the sample is below the poverty line
• Note HHS Poverty Guidelines for a family of 3 is
  about 15,000

10
Data on the Families

• What do the families of these youth look like?
• Household composition
• 59 single-parent mother-headed
• 16 married biological parents
• 7 stepfamily arrangement
• 6 grandparent-headed
• 4 single-parent father-headed
• 8 other

11
Data on the Families

• Where does these families live?
• Over 60 come from 11 zip codes
• 44102 44106 44110
• 44103 44107 44111
• 44104 44108 44112
• 44105 44109

12
Mental Health Issues

• 34 of youth had prior experience with some form
  of mental health counseling
• 21 of youth had family members with prior mental
  health counseling experience

13
Analysis of Youth Family Characteristics by
Point of Entry

• Detention
• Probation
• Intake
• Respite Care Project
• Pro-Kids

14
Detention Youth Compared to Overall Sample

• Similar ethnicity 74 minority 26 White
• Slightly older average age was 15.1 years
• More females (53) than males (47)
• More poverty 61 below poverty line
• Slightly less married biological parents (11)
  and slightly more stepfamilies (10)

15
Probation Youth Compared to Overall Sample

• Similar ethnicity 74 minority 26 White
• Older by about a year mean age was 15.5 years
• Many more males (70) than females (30)
• Much less poverty 21 below poverty line
• More married biological parents (21)
• Slightly less of all other family forms

16
Intake Youth Compared to Overall Sample (using
Adult report)

• Slightly more White youth (30)
• Younger by about ½ a year mean age 14.5 years
• Same male (53) to female (47) ratio
• Less poverty 41 below poverty line
• Slightly more grandparent-headed (10) and
  slightly more stepfamilies (12)
• Slightly less of all other family forms

17
Respite Youth Compared to Overall Sample

• Most minority youth (84)
• Younger by about ½ a year mean age 14.6 years
• Highest female (66) to male (34) ratio
• Less poverty 41 below poverty line
• Slightly less married biological (10) and no
  stepfamilies (0)

18
Pro-Kids Compared to Overall Sample

• Similar ethnic breakdown
• Youngest group mean age 14.1 years
• Same male (53) to female (47) ratio
• Least poverty 27 below poverty line
• Most married biological parents (28)

19
GRAD scores

• Overall court sample scores are higher than the
  Franklin County scores used to set your original
  cut-offs.
• In the second half of this presentation, we will
  be talking about what your new cut-off scores
  will mean to you.
• However, there is a great deal of variation by
  point of court entry.

20
Analysis of GRAD Scores byPoint of Entry

• Detention
• Probation
• Intake
• Respite Care Project
• Pro-Kids

21
Prior Offenses
22
Family/Parenting
23
Education/Vocation
24
Peers
25
Substance Abuse
26
Leisure
27
Personality/Behavior
28
Accountability
29
Sociability
30
Traumatic Events
31
Health Risks
32
GRAD scores

• Variation by demographic characteristics
• Ethnicity differences
• Effects of age
• Gender differences
• Socioeconomic differences
• Effects of household composition

33
Ethnicity Differences

• White youth are scoring significantly higher than
  minority youth on
• Prior offenses
• Education/vocation
• Substance abuse
• All other GRAD domains show similar mean scores
  by ethnicity

34
Effects of Age

• Older youth are significantly more likely to
  display higher scores on
• Prior offenses Traumatic events
• Substance abuse Health risks
• Younger youth are significantly more likely to
  display higher scores on
• Accountability
• All other GRAD domains show similar mean scores

35
Differences by Gender, SES, and Household
Composition

• Because of the ethnicity differences noted above,
  White and Minority youth data was analyzed
  separately for the following
• Gender
• SES
• Household composition

36
Gender Differences

• For the White youth, females scored significantly
  higher than males on
• Personality/behavior
• Health risks
• All other GRAD domains show similar mean scores
  by gender

37
Gender Differences

• For the Minority youth, females scored
  significantly higher than males on
• Family/parenting
• Peers
• Personality/behavior
• Traumatic events
• All other GRAD domains show similar mean scores
  by gender

38
Socioeconomic Differences

• White females
• No effect of SES on any GRAD domains
• White males
• Family/Parenting
• Minority females
• Prior offenses
• Minority males
• Sociability

39
White Males and SESwith Family/Parenting
40
Minority Females and SESwith Prior Offenses
41
Minority Males and SESwith Sociability
42
Differences by Household Composition

• For Minority and White females, no effect of
  two-parent versus single-parent-headed households
• For Minority males, significant effect on
  Peer domain
• Higher risk in single-parent-headed households
• For White males, significant effect on Traumatic
  events domain
• Higher risk in single-parent-headed households

43
Last but not least..

• Where are these youth going?

44
Top 10 Most Utilized Services

• Individual Counseling (28)
• Family Therapy (22)
• Anger Management (20)
• Family Strengthening Programs (19)
• Group Counseling (13)

• Alcohol and Drug Education (12)
• Diversion (12)
• Urinalysis (12)
• MST (10)
• Educational testing (7)

45
Who Is Being Referred toIndividual Counseling?

• Higher scores on
• Personality/Behavior
• This is the factor concerned with mental health
  symptoms and acting out behaviors
• Traumatic Events
• Obviously another mental health related area
• Also higher scores on
• Prior offenses Education
• Peers Accountability

46
Who Is Being Referred toGroup Counseling?

• Also had higher Personality/Behavior scores and
  showed significantly higher scores on many of the
  other domains connected to individual counseling
  referrals except notably Prior Offenses!
• Interpretation Individual counseling referral
  when higher risk includes mental health issues
  and Prior Offenses, and a group counseling
  referral otherwise

47
Who Is Being Referred toFamily Therapy?

• Higher scores on
• Family/Parenting
• Remember that this was not significantly higher
  in those youth being referred to individual or
  group counseling!
• Also higher scores on ALL other domains except
  Substance Use and Leisure

48
Who Is Being Referred toFamily Strengthening?

• Also significantly higher scores on
  Family/Parenting
• And also have higher scores on many of the other
  domains that were connected to family therapy
  referrals, except notably Prior Offenses!
• Interpretation Family therapy referral when
  higher risk in Family/Parenting and Prior
  Offenses, and Family strengthening referral
  otherwise

49
Who Is Being Referred toAlcohol Drug Education?

• Higher scores on Substance Use
• Remember that this was not significantly higher
  in those youth
• being referred to individual counseling!
• Also higher scores on
• Prior Offenses Personality/Behavior Peers
• Health Risks Traumatic Events
• Same is true of urinalysis, but also
  significantly higher on
• Education Accountability
• Sociability
• Interpretation Higher risk substance abusing
  youth are getting appropriate referrals at proper
  risk levels

50
Who Is Being Referred toDiversion?

• Significantly higher GRAD scores on many domains,
  including
• Family/parenting Education/vocation
• Accountability Personality/behavior
• Health risks Traumatic events
• But significantly lower scores on Prior Offenses
• And no significant elevation in Substance Abuse
  and Peer domains!
• Interpretation You are diverting the right
  youth!

51
Who Is Being Referred toEducational Testing?

• Significantly higher scores on Education/Vocation
• No other significant differences on any other
  GRAD domain
• Interestingly, the same holds true for referrals
  to Alternative Education except that Prior
  Offenses also are significantly higher!
• Interpretations
• 1. Youth who are at higher risk educationally are
  getting appropriate referrals for testing
• 2. The data on alternative education youth is
  consistent with the idea that these programs
  serve youth with behavior problems

52
Two Puzzles

• Who is being referred to Anger Management?
• No differences on any of the GRAD domains!
• Who is being referred to MST?
• No differences on any of the GRAD domains!
• So how are decisions to use these services being
  made?

53
Where We Are Going with the Data

• There are many more issues to be addressed in
  upcoming analyses, including the role of
• Family arrest history (60 of the sample report
  at least one arrest of a family member)
• At least one arrest significantly related to
  higher risk scores in 7 out of 11 GRAD domains
• Transitional risk scores
• More transitions (home, school, etc.)
  significantly correlated with higher risk in all
  11 GRAD domains

54
Stay Tuned!
55
Follow-Up Training Agenda

• Part 2 Current Usage and Upgrades
• Special Recognitions
• New Cut-off Scores
• Automatic GRAD ID numbering system
• New Interpretation and Recommendation Pages
• New Parent Pages
• Case Note Functions
• Multiple Referrals

56
Special Recognitions

• Special! Special! Special! thanks to
• Craig Bruehler
• Felicia Hawkins
• For their tireless work in service to norming the
  GRAD and to the Respite Care Projects data
  collection effort
• 46 and 41 GRADs respectively!!!
• All time highs!!!

57
Special Recognitions

• Top 3 GRAD Users from Detention
• Taronda Lloyd
• Kimberly Berry
• Joyce Williams

58
Special Recognitions

• Top 3 GRAD Users from Probation
• Carl Schiller
• Leon Pitts
• Handy Wright

59
Special Recognitions

• Top 3 GRAD Users from Intake
• Judith Headland
• David Ungham
• Genenne McDougle

60
New Cut-Off Scores

• Your cut-off scores are uniformly going to rise.
  This means that
• It will take more identified concerns to have a
  youth score moderate risk and high risk in
  all of the domains
• These cut-off scores will be generalized across
  all points of entry for now
• The next round of changes will occur as all
  points hit the N 100 mark

61
Automatic GRAD ID Numbering System
62
New Interpretation Pages
63
This youth has scored HIGH RISK on the
Family/Parenting domain.
What does this mean?
64
What does this mean?

• This means that this youth has scored higher than
  2/3 of the youth who have been assessed with the
  GRAD instrument on questions pertaining to
• Various forms of conflict within the home
• Evidence of verbal and physical aggression in the
  home
• Lack of appropriate supervision of the youth
• Use of inconsistent and/or inappropriate
  discipline methods
• Problematic family interaction and relationships
• Stressors related to basic family needs being met

65
What does this mean?
66
New Recommendation Pages
67
This youth has scored HIGH RISK on the
Family/Parenting domain.
What do I do?
68
What do I do?

• The evidence that the family plays a major role
  in delinquency has prompted interest in treatment
  programs that include the family of the offender.
  The different types of family-based intervention
  that the juvenile justice professional should
  consider include the following
• Family therapy
• Home-based family-preservation
• This includes such efforts as Multisystemic
  Therapy (MST)
• In the event that it is not possible for the
  youth to remain in her or his home while
  treatment is taking place, a foster care option
  may need to be exercised.

69
What do I do?
70
New Parent Pages
71
Case Note Functions
72
Multiple Referrals
73
High Moderate Or Low Risk In All Domains
GRAD ITEMS
Printable Report
74
Aggregate Reports
High Moderate Or Low Risk In All Domains
GRAD ITEMS
Printable Report
75
Recommendations For Referral To Services
Referral
Printable Report
Interpretation of Level of Risk in Each Domain