1. OYAS OHIO YOUTH ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
Development and Implementation

2. WELCOME

3. Objectives
To understand what the OYAS is and how it benefits the Juvenile Justice System
To have an understanding of the research and development of the OYAS instruments

4. Background 2005 – RECLAIM Ohio Evaluation:
Some low risk youth placed in residential centers showed an increase in risk level
Moderate risk youth had lower recidivism when served in the community (22% versus 55%)
High risk youth recidivated at similar rates
Very high risk youth had better recidivism rates when served in DYS
University of Cincinnati recommended in the report that Ohio needed to develop a risk/needs assessment
88 courts using 77 different risk assessments

5. Background
2006 – DYS contracted with the University of Cincinnati to develop a system-wide risk/needs assessment
2006 – Applied for and received a grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
2006 – Pilot steering committee of 23 courts plus facilities (37+ courts involved in research and pilot); committee has continued since
Prospective Study
Preferred to a retroactive study
Takes more time

6. Steering Committee
Created a Steering Committee comprised of county and agencies across Ohio

7. Special Thanks to the Following Juvenile Courts
Belmont
Geauga
Medina
Seneca
Brown
Hamilton
Miami
Summit
Butler
Hardin
Montgomery
Trumbull
Clark
Huron
Muskingum
Union
Clermont
Knox
Ottawa
Warren
Coshocton
Licking
Pickaway
Williams
Crawford
Lorain
Richland
Wood
Cuyahoga
Lucas
Ross
COYC
Delaware
Mahoning
Sandusky
Franklin
Marion
Scioto

8. Data Collection
Interviewed youth at all stages of the juvenile justice system
Detention/Diversion interviews were conducted by court staff
Disposition, Residential, and Reentry interviews were conducted by University of Cincinnati Staff

9. Interviews Face-to-face interviews were conducted
Follow-up interviews were conducted with a sub- sample of the population
Questions across multiple domains
Self-report questionnaire was collected
File review

10. Tracking and Follow-up
Youth were tracked for a minimum of 12 months
Counties provided follow-up data
Additional follow-up data were captured through the Department, Community Corrections Facilities, and ODRC

11. Sample Sizes Total Project N = 2,457 Diversion/Detention N = 790
Disposition N = 594
Residential N = 823
Reentry N = 250

12. What is Risk? When we refer to risk Risk of recidivism
High risk likely to recidivate
Low risk not as likely

13. Risk and Need
Static and dynamic factors that are associate with new criminal/delinquent behavior
Higher risk = more intensive services
Lower risk = lessser intensive services

14. Responsivity Specific responsivity Barriers to service
Non-Criminogenic needs
Motivation
Childcare
Support for change
Race/ethnicity

15. Predicts group behavior Combination of dynamic and static factors
Actuarial Assessment
Based on research
Predicts group behavior
Combination of dynamic and static factors

16. The Instruments The Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) Diversion
Detention
Disposition
Residential
Reentry

17. OYAS Flow Chart

18. OYAS: Diversion (DIV)
Identify youth who can be diverted from formal processing
Six items
File review or interview
10 minutes

19. OYAS: Detention (DET) Divert lower-risk youth from detention Six items
Brief face-to-face interview
10 minutes

20. OYAS: Disposition (DIS)
Youth adjudicated by the court
Comprehensive tool that assesses risk, criminogenic needs and barriers to treatment
Provides case planning
Face-to-face interview and collateral information

21. OYAS: Residential (RES)
Use for long-term residential programs (3+ months)
Youth committed to DYS
Builds off the OYAS: Disposition
Face-to-face interview and collateral information

22. OYAS: Reentry (RET)
Reassess youth while in a residential program (i.e. DYS)
Assess youth as they transfer to the community
Face-to-face interview and collateral information

23. Domains (DIS, RES, RET) Criminal history Family Education / employment
Mental health / personality / substance abuse
Pro-social skill sets
Peers
Anti-social attitudes

24. OYAS Benefits Based on Ohio youth
Expand as needed depending on setting
Include major risk and criminogenic need domains, as well as major responsivity factors
Includes indicators of change in a residential or institutional setting
Designed to measure change in youth over time
Provides a common definition of risk across settings
Long-term cost savings
Public domain
Fully automated
Dramatically improves our research and evaluation capabilities
Provided by DYS at no cost to juvenile courts and facilities

25. County/DYS Partnership
Through the steering committee and other research activities, juvenile courts and facilities became invested in the development and success of the OYAS
Pilot counties became the first certified users (on the pen-and-paper tools)
County representatives have been trained as trainers and serve on the Training Advisory Committee

26. Implementation Challenges
Promoting use by all counties
Assuring qualified users
Training
In-person versus online
Three days versus two days
Costs
Sustaining statewide
Information sharing / confidentiality
Lack of authority to mandate use
Integrating into DYS

27. Roll-Out September 2009 – OYAS roll-out event
September 2009 – Web-based system live
December 2009 – Implemented at DYS Reception
February 2010 – Implemented throughout DYS facilities
April 2010 – Implemented in DYS parole regions

28. OYAS Training Two-day training Covers all five tools
Written and video tests for certification
Classes held at DYS Training Academy
Pilot trainings held, summer 2009
41 trainings were conducted by UC in FY
6 trainings scheduled for FY 2012
Must be trained and certified to use the OYAS Disposition, Residential and Reentry tools
1,500 + certified users
78 courts and 12 CCFs trained to date

29. OYAS Training Process Sessions are posted on DYS website
Participants register online for any session with available slots
DYS confirms each participant via
Following the class, trainers notify DYS of attendance and test results
If a participant does not pass the test, he/she is contacted for a re-test (if the re-test is not passed, then the class has to be re-taken)
DYS produces a certificate for each participant that is a certified user of the OYAS
Training completion and certification are recorded by DYS in the training registration database (three-year re-certification)

30. OYAS Case Planning Training
Half day Training
Training in a computer lab for hands on practice
Core components of building an individualized case plan are covered
No certification
Four Trainings in FY 2011
Four Trainings scheduled for FY 2012

31. Training of Trainers Necessary to sustain users
A total of seventeen county and DYS staff were trained in August 2009 and May 2010, along with UC trainers
Two-day course for 12 prospective trainers
Two levels of Trainer Certification

32. Trainer Qualifications
Attend two-day user session
Certified as a user
Two-day OYAS trainer class
Present the course under UC observation (two-day)
Willing and available to train others
Assessment experience
Experience as a trainer

33. Training Advisory Committee
Committee formed to plan for sustaining statewide training
Regional training scheduling
Train the Trainers
Members from juvenile courts, juvenile facilities and DYS
Six meetings since 2010

34. OYAS Web-Based System Developed by UC through a subcontractor
Housed on server at UC
Fully automated
No software to install
Different user levels
Repeated questions automatically populate throughout different tools
User reports
Online tutorial
Forum (questions and answers)
communication to all users
Case plan is in process of being Title IV E approved and parts of it automatically populate from the OYAS tools

35. OYAS User Levels Court/Program Detention/Diversion
Court/Program/DYS Inquiry
Court/Program/DYS End User
Court/Program/DYS Supervisor
Court/Program/DYS Admin
Super User

36. OYAS User Levels Defined
Detention/Diversion – Administers only the detention and diversion tools
Inquiry – Views data and reports; can not edit
End User – Enters assessment data
Supervisor – Reviews and can enter assessments; receives notices when assessments are due
Admin – Create and manage accounts at the site
Super User – Complete control; only at UC and DYS for monitoring, trouble-shooting and creating admin accounts

37. Managing OYAS Accounts
Each county or program designates an admin user
DYS creates the admin user account
The admin user then sets up all supervisor, user or inquiry accounts for the county or program
DYS only has to manage one account and password for each site; limits the amount of trouble-shooting to be done by DYS
Inside DYS
DYS Super User assigns 1-2 admin accounts for each DYS site

38. OYAS Permissions To protect youth data, permissions are in place
Users can only view or edit data from their site
However, users can share assessment data by giving online permission (i.e. when transferring a case between counties or committing a youth to DYS)
Courts are to send the OYAS Residential on all youth committed to DYS

39. DYS Information Technology
DYS staff complete OYAS assessments in the web- based system
JJCMS draws data from the OYAS system
OYAS data is being used to populate DYS system, reports, case plans, etc.

40. Implications for Research
OYAS data can be used to study risk level distributions in five different arenas of juvenile justice
Consistent risk level data on diverted youth and youth in community programs, as well as youth committed to DYS
RECLAIM tracking database was integrated into the OYAS database in June 2010
Measure success rate of youth based on risk level and intervention
Risk level history for youth arriving at DYS

41. Quality Assurance Measures
Testing and certification conducted to assure qualified users
Web system creates notifications to supervisors when re- assessments are due
UC and DYS can monitor whether certified users are completing the Disposition, Residential and Reentry assessments online
UC monitors assessment scores, over-rides and risk level distributions
Screening youth at DYS reception based on OYAS risk level
Contracted for an Inter-rater Reliability Study in FY2011

42. Questions