JCP Risk Assessment 2006.1
AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING, ASSESSMENT
AND REFERRAL
Accurate screening and assessment of youth with co-occurring disorders in the juvenile justice system requires the use of specialized assessments. The following pages provide guidelines for identifying areas that require additional screening or referral, and then lists assessment resources.
ALCOHOL /OTHER DRUG: If at least one item is checked in the Substance Use domain, a referral for an Alcohol/Other Drug Assessment is
v Recommended resource: Best Practices Resources: Substance Abuse Screening and Assessment Instruments for Adolescents.
This resource is a compilation of screening and assessment tools for alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems for adolescents. It includes a section on instruments for screening and a section on instruments for assessment. This resource involved collaboration with experts in the field of AOD assessment. Along with each tool is a summary of the name and contact information of the developer, information about scoring and interpretation, and explanations of validity and reliability testing done on the instrument.
To obtain a copy of this resource, contact:
Mary Anne Hellerud, MA, LPC
Center for Addictions Resources and Training
(503) 373-1322 x224
v A list of alcohol and drug treatment providers may be obtained by contacting the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs (OADAP) at (503) 945-5763. Ask for a copy of the Oregon Community Services Directory.
______________________________________________________________________________
CULTURAL ASSESSMENTS: Cultural differences are important to keep in mind when conducting risk and needs assessments of youths and their families. If you are working with a youth from a cultural group different from the mainstream (e.g., racial, ethnic, religious, or other minorities), you may want to consider referring the youth to a screener or program that is culturally sensitive or using a tool that is demonstrated to be useful with youth from that group.
Identifying Need for an Interpreter: The first step in conducting a culturally competent interview is to make sure that the youth can literally understand what is being said. Ask the youth and his/her family questions which will help you determine whether you need an interpreter:
§ Where is your family from?
§ Where were you born?
§
How long have you been in the
§ How long have you attended school here?
Using an Interpreter:
§ Use interpreter of same racial/ethnic background
§ Interpreters should be trained
§ Translation should be done sequentially
§ Avoid concurrent translation
§ Allow time for the interpreter and the youth to become acquainted
§ Ensure that the interpreter understands the tool
§ Emphasize sentence-by-sentence translation
§ Schedule extended sessions when using interpreters
§ Consider the effect that translation can have on the interpretation of data
§ Ensure that the interpreter understands the tool
§ Emphasize sentence-by-sentence translation
§ Schedule extended sessions when using interpreters
§ Consider the effect that translation can have on the interpretation of data
Interview issues when using an interpreter:
§ Use the interpreter properly
§ Avoid cultural stereotypes
§ Demonstrate respect for family roles
§ Consider role of extended family and kinship as protective factor
Cultural Assessment
Tools
v While there isn’t an officially recommended cultural assessment instrument, several examples of cultural assessment tools are available on the OJDDA web site (www.ojjda.org) or from Barbara Seljan at yjplanning@uswest.net. They are:
· Cultural Conflict Awareness Exercise
· Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanic Youth (SASH-Y)
Created by Andres Barona and
Jeffrey Miller,
· Cultural Identification Evaluation Form
Cultural Assessment, created by Alfredo Aragon. This assessment was developed as a
follow up to a CEOJJC/OYA Minority Services Conference for the benefit of
participants.
Cultural Competency Assessment Standards
and Practices
v The organization should ensure that youth receive effective, understandable, and respectful assessment services that are provided in a manner compatible with their cultural beliefs and practices, preferred language, physical ability, and gender.
§ Use qualified interpreters and translators when necessary.
§ Use assessment instruments that are strength-based, contemporary, gender-specific, without cultural bias, and appropriate to the population being served.
§ Assessments should be used and implemented by qualified and culturally competent professionals.
§ The case plan/treatment plan should be culturally and gender appropriate and include cultural beliefs and needs as well as strengths and resources found within specific racial/ ethnic and special groups when planning service to youth and families.
§ The organization should have the capacity to serve clients from all ethnic/cultural and special demographics in the community with a staff composition that is reflective of the diversity within the community.
§ Analyze the multilingual and multicultural needs within the organization and develop strategies to address specific gaps in service. Where specific linguistic or cultural skills are necessary for successful completion of culturally competent assessments, require those skills for the position (for example, designate position as “bilingual required”).
§ All assessment staff members should receive at least eight hours of cultural competency training annually, including gender-specific services.
______________________________________________________________________________
EDUCATIONAL: If at least one item in the School Issues domain is checked, an educational assessment is suggested.
v Contact the school counselor at the youth’s school, or the local school the youth would be attending, for an educational assessment.
v Visual, hearing, health problems can also seriously affect school performance, and should be ruled out.
FAMILY FUNCTIONING: If at least one item in the Family Functioning domain is checked, a family assessment is recommended.
References:
v
Family
Assessment: Effective Uses of Personality Tests with Couples and Families
www.wileycanada.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471153974.html
A. Rodney Nurse
I SBN: 0-471-15397-4
Hardcover
324 pages
v
NCFAS
ssw.unc.edu/jif/publications/reports/Ncfas_20.pdf
__________________________________________________________________________
FIRESETTER: If item M.5 is checked in the Mental Health Indicators list, you may want to consider conducting a fire setter screen (please see contact information later in the Users’ Guide).
v
Recommended
screen: Juvenile with Fire Screening Tool
This resource guides the screener through an interview and includes forms, interview questions for the youth, a parent checklist and interview, and scoring and referral procedures. The booklet also includes release of information forms; educational material for caregivers, young children, and older children; and a list of additional resources including videos and educational curricula.
v Examples of other resources:
o “Parents’ legal responsibility…when your child sets a fire” booklet (in English or Spanish).
o “Adolescent Fire setters – an intervention. A restitution model with fire education emphasis.”
o “Hot Issues” newsletter of the Oregon Juvenile Firesetter Task Force, and “Hot Issues. A collection of Hot Issues Newsletters 1990-1999. Youth Firesetting. Issues and Resources” (a bound set of newsletters).
o “A Survey Study of Incarcerated Male Juveniles with a History of Fire Misuse.”
o “Destructive Device Curriculum” for youths ages 11-17 who have issues misusing or abusing fireworks or explosives.
To obtain a copy or copies of any of these resources, for more information, or for scheduling a training on use of the screen, contact:
Judy Okulitch
Department of State Police
Juvenile Firesetter Intervention Unit
(503) 373-1540 x230
GANGS: It is important that we have consistent ways of gathering information about youth gang membership. In order to make a determination about gang membership for the youth or a friend or family member, the information must come from one of the following sources: 1) youth self-report, 2) law enforcement identification, 3) record documenting associating or co-offending with a known gang member, or 4) identified by school-based gang identification criteria.
___________________________________________________________________________
GENDER
SPECIFIC: The JCP Assessment is gender neutral (that is,
the results are equally valid for both males and females. However, it does not assess gender specific
issues that are important for designing and delivering services to young women.
Most assessment instruments related to
antisocial behavior/juvenile justice involvement have been written for and
tested on boys or young men. If you are screening a girl or young woman, it is
important to remember that gender can impact risks and needs. In addition, you may want to consider the
gender-appropriateness of the services that are available to girls and young
women when you are making referrals in your local area.
v See “How to Implement Oregon’s Guidelines for Effective Gender-Responsive Programming for Girls” at www.ocjc.state.or.us/JCP/JCPGenderSpecific.htm
This guidebook was written by Pam Patton and Marcia Morgan for the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission and Oregon Commission on Children and Families to serve as a resource for organizations and agencies that work with girls ages 10-19.
______________________________________________________________________________
MENTAL
HEALTH:
Screening: Additional screening is indicated if at least
one of the Mental Health Indicators is checked. Screening is a brief procedure
designed to determine the presence of a problem, substantiate that there is
reason for concern, and identify the need for further assessment.
Assessment: Assessment in mental health is a more
comprehensive diagnostic and treatment planning process conducted by a trained
mental health professional after screening has indicated the presence of a
mental health issue.
v Recommended screening tools:
The
The information below is from the
National Youth Screening Assistance Project web site
The MAYSI-2 is
designed to assist juvenile justice facilities in identifying youths 12 to 17
years of age who may have special mental health needs. It is intended
for use at any point in the juvenile justice system.
The MAYSI-2 is
a paper-and-pencil self-report inventory of 52 questions. Youths circle “yes”
or “no” concerning whether each item has been true for them “within the past
few months.” The MAYSI-2 requires a fifth grade reading level and takes
approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Scoring of MAYSI scales
requires about 3 minutes.
MAYSI-2
Scales
|
Alcohol/Drug Use |
Frequent
use of alcohol/drugs |
|
vbg vbnbvn |
Risk of substance abuse |
|
Angry-Irritable |
Experiences frustration, lasting anger, moodiness |
|
|
Risk
of angry reaction, fighting, aggressive behavior |
|
Depressed-Anxious |
Experiences depressed
and anxious feelings |
|
bvnvnbnv |
Risk
of depression or anxiety disorders |
|
Somatic Complaints |
Experiences
bodily aches/pains associated with distress |
|
|
Risk
of psychological distress not otherwise evident |
|
Suicide Ideation |
Thoughts and intentions to harm
oneself
|
|
bbbbbbbv |
Risk
of suicide attempts or gestures |
|
Thought Disturbance |
(Boys only) unusual beliefs and
perceptions |
|
|
Risk
of thought disorder |
|
Traumatic Experiences |
Questions refer youths to “ever in the
past,” not “in the past few months” |
|
nbvnbvnb |
Lifetime exposure to traumatic
experiences (e.g., abuse, rape, observed murder) |
For further information, contact the
The
The OMHRC.2000 is a 32-item
screening checklist that identifies juvenile justice youth who should be
referred for a mental health assessment or psychological evaluation. It takes
3-4 minutes to complete. It has youth, parent, and staff versions. The parent
and youth versions are also available in Spanish. This instrument has been
tested for reliability, validity, and utility on youth in
To obtain a copy of the OMHRC.2000, contact Barbara Seljan (bseljan@comcast.net)
______________________________________________________________________________
SEX OFFENDER: The JCP risk assessment
is not designed to assess the probability that a sex offender will
re-offend. Sex offender youth can score
low on the JCP risk assessment, and still be at a high risk of committing a new
offense. A sex offender assessment that
is being used in
_____________________________________________________________________________
SUICIDE: If an item in the list of Mental Health Indicators is checked, particularly items M.1, M.2, or M.3, you may want to consider following up with a Suicide Screen. Probing more in this area is also useful, to see if the youth is already receiving services for concerns related to suicide risk.
______________________________________________________________________________
YOUTH COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT (YCA): This type of assessment represents a philosophical approach to assessment that focuses on strengths and restorative justice. This type of assessment looks for areas of success and capacity with the goal of moving the person toward recognition of the harm he/she has done and positive reconnection with the community.
v
For copies of the Youth Competency Assessment,
go to the NPC Research web site http://www.npcresearch.com/Materials%20-%20YCA%20Tools.html,
or go to www.npcresearch.com and
select “Materials”, then look for Youth Competency Assessment.
v
For additional information on a Strength-Based and Restorative Justice
Assessment protocol , contact Juliette Mackin at NPC Research (503) 243-3436; mackin@npcresearch.com.
v
Resource: Nissan, L. (1999). Developing a
strengths-based and restorative justice friendly model of assessment and
diagnostics in the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections (DYC). Report to the
Strengths Subcommittee and Executive Management Team at DYC.
____________________________________________________________________________
VIOLENCE: Additional screening for serious or violent risk is indicated if at least one of six violence indicators (in the appropriate age grouping for the youth) on the JCP 2006.1 are checked.
Violence indicators are marked with a black triangle on the hard copy of the JCP 2006.1. JJIS automatically marks item 13.1 “Yes” if one of the six items is checked. The research shows that different characteristics are predictive at different ages. The JCP 2006.1 violence indicators are:
Ages 6-11:
•
Early substance abuse (5.2)
All ages
•
Involvement with antisocial peers (3.2)
•
Criminal offense at age 13 or younger (4.4)
•
Behavior hurts others ever (4.8)
•
Behavior hurts others past month (4.9)
•
Social isolation (8.5)
It is important to keep in mind that a relatively small number of youth will end up engaging in serious or violent behavior, which makes the behavior more difficult to predict. These items, therefore, are likely to draw our attention to many youths who will never end up as serious or violent offenders. However, this screen starts to narrow the pool, by helping us determine which youths need further assessment, closer supervision, and services.
Violence Assessment
Resources
v
Measuring Violence-Related Attitudes, Beliefs,
and Behaviors Among Youths: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Edited by Linda
L. Dahlberg, Susan B. Toal, & Christopher B. Behrens. Produced by the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention,
v
v Also see: Johnson , Eric M. (1999) Assessment of violent and potentially violent youth, used for Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association regional training.
GLOSSARY
Alcohol and Drug Assessment: A clinical assessment of alcohol and drug abuse problems by a certified alcohol and drug treatment counselor.
Criminogenic need
factors: Dynamic risk factors that represent promising intermediate targets
for change when there is evidence that change will be followed by reduced
recidivism (Andrews 1989; Andrews & Bonta 1994).
Evaluation Measures: Methods designed to measure individual, program, or system change. Self-report surveys conducted at entry and at exit that measure changes in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as interviews, tests, observations, official records, etc. can all be used.
Mental Health Assessment: An evaluation of mental health status by a licensed [certified] counselor, social worker, or psychologist
Needs Identification: An instrument to identify criminogenic need factors that have precipitated problem behaviors. The Identification of criminogenic needs becomes a foundation for developing and monitoring case plans.
Psychological Evaluation: A clinical diagnosis by a licensed psychiatrist.
Psychosocial and Cognitive Assessment: Measures psychosocial and cognitive factors
Program Evaluation Assessment Tools: Tools designed to measure program performance. These can include diagnostic tools.
Risk-to-Offend Assessment: An instrument to aid in making decisions about the appropriate level of supervision to mitigate risk, promote public safety, and target resources effectively. Information for the assessment is gathered from interviews with youth, parents, and collateral contacts, as well as from official records. This empirically based assessment contains some of the same factors as the risk factor screen, but may include site specific factors that influence recidivism or its measurement.
Risk Reassessment: An instrument to re-assess dynamic risk factors, or those conditions or events that change over time. A reassessment also looks at additional factors such as response to supervision or placement.
Risk Screen: An
instrument used at the time of initial referral to determine eligibility for
programs established by the Juvenile Crime Prevention Partnership. The tool
identifies (but does not attempt to fully assess) the presence of factors that
contribute to the risk of offending, using a simple decision-tree check list.
Specialized Screens: Instruments to identify the need for more specialized assessments. Below are three examples. Other screens include, but are not limited to: mental health, sex offender, fire setter, suicide, and health screens.
A. Oregon Mental Health Referral Checklist: A checklist that identifies youth who should be referred for a mental health assessment or psychological evaluation.
B. Alcohol
and Drug Screen: An instrument to determine the need for a full alcohol and
drug treatment assessment.
C. Detention Screen: A checklist of legal and other criteria to determine eligibility and appropriateness of detaining a youth referred to a juvenile department.
References
Andrews. D.A.
(1995 ). Recidivism is Predictable and Can be Influenced: Using Risk Assessment
to Reduce Recidivism. Feature Article: Laboratory for Research on Assessment
and Evaluation in Human Services, Department of Psychology,
Andrews, D.A. (1997). Using
risk assessment to reduce recidivism (Presentation Overheads) Oregon Juvenile Department Directors
Association, Fall Conference,
Ashford, J.B. and LeCroy, C.W. (1990). Juvenile recidivism: A comparison of three prediction instruments. Adolescence 25(98), 441-450.
Benard, Bonnie (1991). Fostering
resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school and community.
Browning, K., Thornberry, T.P.,
and Porter, P.K. (1999). Highlights of findings from the Rochester Youth
Development Study. OJJDP Fact
Browning, K., and Huizinga, D.
(1999). Highlights of findings from the Denver Youth Survey. OJJDP Fact
Browning, K., and Loeber, R.
(1999). Highlights of findings from the Pittsburgh Youth Survey. OJJDP Fact
Hawkins, J.D. (1996) Delinquency
and crime: Current theories.
Johnson , Eric M. (1999) Assessment of violent and potentially violent youth. Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association.
Nissan, Laura (1999). Developing a strengths-based and restorative justice friendly model of assessment and diagnostics in the Colorado Division of Youth Corrections. Report to the Strengths Subcommittee and Executive Management Team at DYC.
Salts, C.J., Lindholm, B.H., Goddard, H.W. & Duncan, S. (1995). Predictive variables of violent behavior in adolescent males. Youth and Society 26(3), 377-399
Sheldon, Randall G.,(1998) Gender
bias in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile
and Family Court Journal pp11-25.
Orange County
Probation Department (1998). The "8% Problem": Chronic Juvenile
Offender Recidivism: Executive Summary.
Ure, Nick (1999) Understanding warning signs: Guidelines for Interpreting Violence. (Presentation at 5th Annual Violence Prevention Summer Institute. Full copy of text available at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/earlywrn.html or http://www.naspweb.org/center.html.
Werner, E.E. (1997). Vulnerable but invincible: High risk children from birth to adulthood. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, (5) pp.47-51.
Wiebush, R., Baird, C., Krisberg, B., and Onek, D. (1995) Risk assessment and classification for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders (In The Sourcebook On Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, P171-212, James C. Howell, Barry Krisberg, et.al. eds.)