• Cook County (Illinois) Juvenile Probation Department Detention Screening Instrument*

• Juvenile Detention Screening and Assessment Guide (Colorado SB 94)*

• Multnomah County (Oregon) Department of Juvenile Justice Services Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) III*

• Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT)* National Institute on Drug Abuse National Institutes of Health

• Kansas Juvenile Intake and Assessment Questionnaire (JAIQ)* Kansas Juvenile Intake and Assessment System Mark Gleeson, Office of Judicial Administration

Additional Screening and Assessment Instruments
A number of tools have been developed to assist in the screening and assessment of youth. A program may utilize one or two of these basic tools in its routine intake screening process. However, many other tools are available that can provide a more in-depth assessment or used as follow-up assessments of areas of concern identified during initial screening activities. These instruments may be reasonably simple to administer and often scoring is not a complex task. There is often time available while a youth is in placement to administer one or more of these assessment tools. The result is a significant increase in the information available to those working with the youth. This infor-mation can assist them to identify the most critical needs and most appropriate type of intervention to implement.

There are many assessment tools available. The information that follows is not meant to be exhaustive or totally inclusive. There is no intent to endorse any particular instrument. It is incumbent upon each jurisdiction considering such enhancements to conduct its own literature search and product review. The choice of any particular tool must be made based upon the information yielded and the relationship of that information to the purpose and objectives for undertaking this enhanced level of assessment. The tool must be appropriate for the target population and those who will receive the results. Any instrument must ultimately be normed on the population to whom it is being administered. Until there has been sufficient use of the tool and time to collect outcome information to confirm its validity, the results must be used cautiously.

As part of a planning document the Institute on Criminal Justice at the University of Minnesota Law School has developed a partial list of screening instruments and assessment tools that are being used in juvenile assessment center programs across the country. This list does not include the POSIT, which has already been discussed and is provided in the appendix C.

General Comprehensive Assessment Instruments

• Comprehensive Assessment Battery (CAB). This instrument is often used as a follow-up for youth who score below the cut-off point in any of the POSIT’s 10 areas. The CAB is a compilation of existing tests that probes a youngster’s specific problems in more depth. It includes:
  • Personal Experience Inventory (PEI) which is a 40 item, self-administered questionnaire that measures problem severity, substance use, and mental and behavioral problems.
  • Adolescent Diagnostic Interview (ADI) which measures symptoms and sociodemographic information, drug use history, and psychological functioning.
  • Symptom Checklist-90-R.
  • Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI).

 

• Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) which is a brief, self-report personality inventory.

• Jessnes Inventory (JI) which is a personality test, geared to delinquent youth, which measures social immaturity, knowledge of social rules, presence of asocial values, levels of authority conflict, and potential motivations behind offending behavior.

• Various Risk/Needs Instruments including the
  • Youth Level of Service Inventory – Revised (YLSI-R) which collects other information on the juvenile’s criminal history, substance abuse, education/employment issues, family and peer issues,
  • National Youth Survey Delinquent Scale which collects information on a juvenile’s general theft crimes, crimes against persons, drug sales, sexual victimization, physical abuse and medical history,
  • Search Institute Asset Inventory which is designed to identify a youth’s personal and environmental strengths, and
  • San Diego County (CA) Risk and Resiliency Tool which is a work in progress that combines elements of traditional risk/need scales with items from asset and strength inventories.

Suicide Risk Screening

• Inventory of Suicide Orientation-30 (ISO-30) which measures the subject’s orientation toward suicide and their level of distress.

Substance Abuse Screening and Assessment

• Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) which is an objective screening tool designed to differentiate substance abusers from non-abusers.

• Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI) which is a self-report inventory designed to help identify distinct patterns of behavior, attitudes, and symptoms associated with alcohol use and abuse

• Customary Drinking and Drug Use Record (CDDR) which is an instrument that measures both recent and lifetime alcohol and drug use and related symptoms.

Screening Instruments for Youth Who Have Experienced

• Abuse and Other Trauma
  • Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC) which is a self-report measure of post-traumatic distress and related psycho- logical symptoms that is used to evaluate children and adolescent youth who have experienced physical or sexual abuse, victimization by peers, major losses, the witnessing of violence against others, and natural disasters.
  • Child Abuse Potential Inventory which is a 160-item questionnaire designed to screen for physical child abuse.

If a program is considering adding an enhanced level of screening through the use of these or similar instruments and tools, there are several issues that must be considered.

• Assistance should be sought from local youth psychologists and clinical professionals in selecting tools appropriate for the purpose intended.

• It must be clear that individuals using the results of these tools have the knowledge and competency to use that information appropriately.

• Specialized training may be required to administer these instruments to insure validity and reliability. Some publishers of these instruments require formal certification for those administering their tools.

• Scoring may have to be done off-site which means some delay in the availability of the outcomes. There may be some cost for the scoring service.

• There may be some cost to purchase and use instruments that have a copyright.

• Instruments must be validated over time for the selected assessed population.

A Useful Resource
For those seriously considering adding a comprehensive assessment function to the design of a juvenile holdover program or who may be considering a holdover as an adjunct part of an assessment center program, a potentially helpful resource is available. Robert D. Hoge and D. A. Andrews (1996) have put together an overview of the most frequently used assessment tools and processes in the United States and Canada. The title is Assessing the Youthful Offender: Issues and Techniques.

---