| NCJ Number: |
252158  |
| |
|
| Title: |
Risk Assessment and Behavioral Health Screening Project |
| |
|
| Author(s): |
Gina M. Vincent; Rachael Perrault |
| |
|
| Corporate Author: |
University of Massachusetts Medical School
United States of America |
| |
|
| Date Published: |
2018 |
| |
|
| Page Count: |
2 |
| |
|
| Sponsoring Agency: |
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
Washington, DC 20531
University of Massachusetts Medical School
|
| |
|
| Grant Number: |
2014-JF-FX-0001 |
| |
|
| Sale Source: |
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
US Dept of Justice
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
United States of America |
| |
|
| Document: |
PDF (Research In Brief)|PDF (Final Technical Report) |
| |
|
| Type: |
Factsheet; Program/Project Description; Program/Project Evaluation; Report (Grant Sponsored); Report (Study/Research); Research (Applied/Empirical) |
| |
|
| Format: |
Document (Online); Factsheet |
| |
|
| Language: |
English |
| |
|
| Country: |
United States of America |
| |
|
| Annotation: |
This brief presents the methodology and findings of the Risk Assessment and Behavioral Health Screening Project, which examined whether comprehensive implementation of a risk-needs assessment (SAVRY) in juvenile probation offices - coupled with a behavioral health screening protocol [the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2 (MAYSI-2) for mental health and CRAFFT for substance use] - would improve case management of juvenile probationers.
|
| |
|
| Abstract: |
Overall, the following factors were associated with more positive findings: 1) the risk-needs assessment is paired with training and policies consistent with risk-need-responsivity; 2) the assessment is conducted pre-disposition; 3) there is strong supervisory oversight and judicial oversight; and 4) there is an array of service options that address essential risk factors. The study found that implementing the SAVRY led to higher rates of youth being managed informally (e.g., unsupervised probation) rather than having formal juvenile records in two sites. Recidivism rates were significantly reduced in two sites and did not increase in any site. The findings on links between mental health and substances use screening, services, and outcomes were mixed. All but one probation office did not apparently match youths’ dynamic risk factors to services that addressed these needs. Similarly, youth with potential mental health issues were no more likely to receive mental health-related services than their peers. Instead, probation offices tended to rely on mental health services as the primary treatment option; the only exception was the office with the most diverse service resources. Whether youth received mental health services did not apparently influence whether youth recidivated. There was some evidence that substance-use treatment reduced recidivism, but only for youth whose screening indicated they had substance-use problems. The research design and study limitations are described. Resource listings
|
| |
|
| Main Term(s): |
Juvenile probation effectiveness |
| |
|
| Index Term(s): |
Evidence-Based Practices; Informal probation; Juvenile drug treatment; Juvenile mental health services; Needs assessment; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP); OJJDP grant-related documents; Probation effectiveness; Screening Instruments |
| |
|
| Note: |
See NCJ 251912 for associated report. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=274381 |
| |
|
