Global Risk Assessment Device

1
Global Risk Assessment Device

• Franklin 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
• Breakdown by Demographics
• Age, Gender, and Household Composition
• Overall Referral Patterns

4
Follow-Up Training Agenda

• Part 2 Current Usage and Upgrades
• Special Recognitions
• New Cut-off Scores
• New Web site!
• Important new customized features

5
The Overall Sample

• Who is in your data deck?
• 120 cases as of 11/1/03!

6
Who is in the Numbers?

• For todays report
• 50 youth reports
• 70 adult reports

7
The Numbers by Point of Entry

• Intake 110 overall
• 44 youth/66 adult
• Probation 10 overall
• 6 youth/4 adult

8
Data from the Youth

• What do these youth and families look like?
• N 63 White, non-minority youth
• N 57 Minority youth
• Overall sample
• 53 White
• 43 African American
• 4 Other (Hispanic, Asian, Biracial)

9
Data from the Youth

• Average age 14.8 years
• Approximately two-thirds of the sample is 14, 15,
  or 16 years of age (Range 11-18 years)
• Females are 42 of the sample
• Average age 15 years
• Males are 58 of the sample
• Average age 14.7 years
• This age difference between males and females is
  not statistically significant however

10
Data on the Families

• What do the families of these youth look like?
• Household composition
• 47 single-parent mother-headed
• 27 married biological parents
• 17 stepfamily arrangement
• 6 single-parent father-headed
• 2 grandparent-headed
• 1 other

11
Mental Health Issues

• 28 of youth had prior experience with some form
  of mental health counseling
• These youth were at significantly higher risk on
  all GRAD domains except prior offenses!

12
Mental Health Issues

• The idea of the juvenile court becoming the
  mental health emergency room of the county
  continues to be validated by this data!

13
Probation vs. Intake/Diversion

• Youth assessed thru probation were significantly
  higher risk on 2 domains
• Mental health
• Exposure to trauma
• Youth assessed thru intake/diversion were
  significantly higher risk on 1 domain
• Accountability

14
GRAD scores(Youth Report)

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

15
Age and GRAD scores(Youth Report)

• Youth divided into 3 groups
• 13 years and under
• 14 and 15 years of age
• 16 and older
• 2 significant differences
• Health risks
• Substance use

16
Take Note (Part 1)!

• Generally, age is a factor for involvement in
  greater risk taking behaviors
• For your clientele, this seems to be especially
  true for substance use and behaviors related to
  health related risks (which includes many items
  concerning sexual activity)

17
Gender and Grad Scores

• Two significant gender differences
• Females displaying significantly higher risk in
  the health risks domain
• Males displaying significantly higher risk in the
  mental health domain

18
Take Note (Part 2)!

• The general trend for the other two counties
  using the GRAD (Cuyahoga and Licking) is that
  females on average are presenting with greater
  risk levels than males
• The fact that your males are scoring higher on
  the mental health risk domain bears watching!

19
Household Data

• Household composition divided into 3 groups as
  follows
• married
• stepfamily
• single-parent and all other forms

20
Household Composition

• Seven out of the 11 domains displayed significant
  differences among the three household
  composition categories
• Education - Substance use - Leisure
• Family - Mental health
• Peers - Accountability
• In every instance, youth coming from married
  households were least at risk, those coming from
  single parent households the most at risk, and
  those from stepfamilies are in the middle risk
  area

21
Last but not least in Part 1.. where are these
youth going?

• Analysis of data regarding where the youth and
  family were referred for services

22
Top 5 Most Utilized Services

• Teen Court (28)
• Child Protective Services (27)
• Individual Counseling (8)
• Psychological testing/screen (6)
• Family Counseling (5)

23
Who Is Being Referred toTeen Court?

• Significantly lower GRAD scores on 7 out of the
  11 risk domains
• Education - Substance use
• Family - Prior Offenses
• Mental health
• Leisure activities
• Accountability

24
Who is being referred toChild Protective
Services?

• Significantly higher GRAD scores on 7 out of the
  11 risk domains
• Education - Health risks
• Family - Prior Offenses
• Mental health
• Leisure activities
• Accountability

25
Who Is Being Referred toIndividual Counseling?

• Significantly higher scores on
• Education/vocation
• Traumatic events
• Mental health
• Peers

26
More on mental health

• Having reported previous mental health counseling
  experience was significantly related to whether
  or not the youth was referred to individual
  counseling after being assessed
• 80 of those referred to individual counseling
  had previous counseling experience

27
Still more on mental health

• In addition, those youth with previous counseling
  experience also reported significantly higher
  risk in ALL domains except prior offenses
• More and more evidence regarding the emerging
  mental health emergency room nature of the
  juvenile court

28
Who Is Being Referred forPsychological Testing?

• Same exact profile as the referrals to individual
  counseling
• Significantly higher scores on
• Education/vocation
• Traumatic events
• Mental health
• Peers

29
Who Is Being Referred forFamily counseling?

• Similar to the individual counseling and
  psychological testing i.e. significantly higher
  scores from youth reports on
• Traumatic events - Peers
• Mental health
• AND significantly higher scores on the family
  domain!

30
Where We Are Going with the Data

• There are many more issues to be addressed in
  upcoming analyses, most importantly including the
  role that transitional risks (moving, school
  disruption, family member entrances and exits,
  etc.) play in the threats to youth and family
  well-being

31
Stay Tuned!
32
Follow-Up Training Agenda

• Part 2 Current Usage and Upgrades
• Special Recognitions
• New Cut-off Scores
• New Interpretation and Recommendation Pages
• New Parent Pages
• Multiple Referrals
• New custom features

33
Special Recognitions

• Special! Special! Special! thanks to
• Dave Vozzella
• Tara Lifland
• For their tireless work in service to norming the
  GRAD
• 51 and43 paired GRADs respectively!!!

34
Special Recognitions

• Other contributors to the GRAD database included
• Nikki Debo
• Deb DePaso
• Shannon Horton

35
New Upgrades to the GRAD Site

• Thank You for your patience and support during
  the initial pilot phase of this project!

36
New Features and Upgradesto the GRAD site

• We are in the process of upgrading and opening
  some basic non-customized features that had been
  suppressed to ensure a complete and timely data
  collection.
• New Cut-Off Scores
• Interpretations of Risk
• Treatment Recommendations
• Parent Pages
• Multiple Referral Feature

37
New Cut-Off Scores

• Your cut-off scores are uniformly going to drop.
  This means that
• It will take more identified concerns to have a
  youth score moderate risk and high risk in
  all of the domains

38
New Interpretation Pages

• 2 components
• 1. What does this domain actually measure?
• 2. Where is this youths risk score in
  comparison to all other youth?

39
This youth has scored HIGH RISK on the
Family/Parenting domain.
What does this mean?
40
Example High Risk Family/Parenting Page

• 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

41
You also have access to interpretations
of Moderate and Low Risk Levels
42
New Recommendation Pages

• What considerations do you make in determining
  referral/disposition?

43
This youth has scored HIGH RISK on the
Family/Parenting domain.
What do I do?
44
Example High Risk Family/Parenting

• 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
• 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.

45
You also have access to recommendations
for Moderate and Low Risk Levels
46
Parent Pages

• In addition to the interpretations and
  recommendations sections created for the worker
  we have also included three pages for parents
• 1. Talking to parents about their high risk youth
• 2. Talking to parents about moderate risk youth
• 3. Talking to parents about low risk youth

47
Parent Pages

• Includes Bell curve interpretation
• Provides tips on talking to parents
• Monitoring and supervision
• Communication
• Peers
• Leisure
• Seeking professional help
• Further assessment
• Open fields for the worker to mark areas they
  have discussed with the parent

48
Multiple Referrals Function

• Referral Page currently requires one referral to
  be made between GRADs
• Problems with this system of completing
  referrals
• The user conducting the assessment is not always
  the person who is making the referral
• Initial referrals are made to programs where the
  true recommendations will be made
• Result The loss of valuable referral
  information and/or the cluttering of the database
  with false GRADs

49
Multiple Referrals Function

• The new referral function will allow the user to
  enter multiple referrals between GRADs
• Where is this function located?
• User enters a youth ID number on the GRAD
  homepage
• User is asked to verify the information is
  correct
• The user is sent to the GRAD score page that asks
  the user
• Run another assessment
• Complete a referral

50
What do you see?
51
New Custom Features

• Aggregate reports
• Demographics
• Referral disposition

52
When will you see these features?

• Users will see these new features implemented
  over the next few weeks
• Directions will be provided on the website