Assessing Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory Implementation Outcomes: Lessons from Five Diverse Pennsylvania Counties

Abstract

We examined implementation outcomes several years after rollout of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) risk/need assessment (RNA) tool in five diverse Pennsylvania county juvenile probation offices. Offices had policies to direct the use of the YLS/CMI, and officers tended to view the tool favorably, complete it, and apply it in their work. However, there were also variations in the extent of implementation. These seemed related to differences in office leadership and climate, implementation and quality assurance strategies, probation officers’ support for reforms, and the broader stakeholder environment. Results are largely consistent with implementation science principles.

Domains of the YLS: Do Some Matter More than Others?

“…McGrath at el. (2018) found four of the Central Eight subgroup were significant predictors of recidivism (family and living, substance abuse, leisure and recreation, and personality and behavior), and Miller et al (2021) found that juvenile probation officers "routinely emphasized family and education…while leisure/ recreation, personality/behavior, and attitude/ orientation" were not (p. 223). Perhaps this indicates that some of the YLS domains are more important to juvenile justice professionals than others.…”

“…While the state government strongly encouraged use of the YLS/CMI across Pennsylvania, the implementation was left up to individual county juvenile probation offices. Using a mixed method approach that utilized both interviews (n=86) and surveys (n=117), Miller et al (2021) examined the implementation process in five counties in Pennsylvania. They found that officer attitudes were "more positive than negative" towards the YLS/CMI specifically, and risk/needs assessment instruments generally (Miller et al, 2021, p. 219).…”

“…However, there were officers who were skeptical and said that the YLS/CMI is not as effective in determining risk or treatment needs as the experiences and judgement of individual officers. Others shared concerns about the extra work that completing the YLS/CMI entailed (Miller et al, 2021). However, while most officers completed the YLS/CMI, it appears that fewer used it to inform their decisions about client care (Miller et al, 2021), which would suggest a disconnect between completion of the YLC/CMI and its actual use.…”

“…Others shared concerns about the extra work that completing the YLS/CMI entailed (Miller et al, 2021). However, while most officers completed the YLS/CMI, it appears that fewer used it to inform their decisions about client care (Miller et al, 2021), which would suggest a disconnect between completion of the YLC/CMI and its actual use.…”

“…The YLS/CMI uses a face-toface interview with the juvenile offender and any relevant family members, as well as a review of any pertinent documents to make an assessment (Cuervo & Villaneuva, 2018;Flores et al, 2004). There are 67 counties in Pennsylvania and all of them use the YLS, which was implemented in four phases between 2009 and 2012 across the Commonwealth (Miller et al, 2021). Pennsylvania is a county based juvenile justice system which means that it is administered at the local level and not from the state capitol (Witherup & Verrecchia, 2022).…”