| How to Obtain
Documents |
| |
|
|
NCJ Number:
|
NCJ 189241
|
|
Title:
|
Alameda County Placement Risk Assessment Validation, Executive Summary
|
|
Series:
|
NIJ Research Report
|
|
Corporate Author:
|
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
United States
|
|
Date Published:
|
06/2001 |
|
Page Count:
|
8 |
|
Sponsoring Agency:
|
|
|
Grant Number:
|
1998-JB-VX-0109 |
|
Sale Source:
|
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
1970 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
United States
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States |
|
Document:
|
PDF |
|
Agency Summary:
|
Agency Summary |
|
Dataset:
|
http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03254 |
|
Type:
|
Studies/research reports |
|
Language:
|
English |
|
Country:
|
United States |
|
Annotation:
|
This is the executive summary of the final report for a National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant project intended to validate a
risk assessment instrument for juvenile probation placement cases
in Alameda County, CA. |
|
Abstract:
|
The project adapted a risk assessment instrument based on an
existing instrument that had been used and validated on juvenile
probationers in California. Construction and validation samples
were used to develop the scale. The instrument measured age at
first finding, prior criminal behavior, institutional commitments
or placement of 30 consecutive days or more, drug/chemical use,
alcohol use, parental skills, school disciplinary problems, and
peer relationships. For the validation study, Alameda County
adopted the cut-off scores that were then used in other
California counties. Previous studies had found that these scores
were accurate in distinguishing between groups of offenders that
had significantly different rates of recidivism. In essence,
youths classified as medium-risk were twice as likely to reoffend
as youths classified as low risk. Similarly, high-risk youth were
twice as likely to reoffend as medium-risk youth. The validation
study found that 525 of the 1,334 youth in Alameda County who
were placed on field supervision in 1996 fell into the lowest
risk category and could therefore have possibly been handled with
less restrictive sanctions than being placed on formal
supervision. In addition, 202 youths scored high enough on the
scale to warrant more restrictive sanctions, such as out-of-home
placement or intensive probation supervision. The report
concludes that the placement risk assessment instrument developed
was valid and equitable for the targeted juvenile justice
population; therefore, the instrument can be useful for staff who
are making informed placement decisions. |
|
Main Term(s):
|
Juvenile probation |
|
Index Term(s):
|
Probation or parole decisionmaking ; Probation outcome prediction ; Juvenile probationers ; Juvenile probation services ; Probation management ; NIJ final report ; NIJ grant-related documents ; California |
|
Note:
|
For the full report, see NCJ-189240. |
| |
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=189241
|
* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents
not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.
|
|
Help | Contact Us | Home
