\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.

txt

unknown

Seq: 1

13-MAR-06

15:50

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT USING THE YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE/ CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY
ALEXANDER M. HOLSINGER, Ph.D.
University of Missouri at Kansas City

CHRISTOPHER T. LOWENKAMP, Ph.D.

University of Cincinnati

EDWARD J. LATESSA, Ph.D.

University of Cincinnati
ABSTRACT: Offender assessment in corrections has advanced considerably over the last several decades. Currently, it is not uncommon to find correctional professionals using any number of objective standardized assessment instruments. While many of these instruments possess face validity as well as statistical predictive validity, more work is needed to test classification protocol on new populations, and in various correctional environments. The current paper investigates the predictive validity of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) within an institutional setting. Specifically, the composite score rendered from the YLS/CMI is used to predict institutional misconduct. The YLS/ CMI was found to effectively differentiate between two levels of offender risk/ need, and was significantly related to outcome using several different statistical techniques.

INTRODUCTION
Offender classification has emerged nearly unequivocally as part of the best practices within correctional intervention (National Institute of Corrections, 2000). The importance of general offender classification makes intuitive sense, but has been demonstrated in the correctional literature base as well. Offender classification can take on many forms, and may utilize any number of procedures. For example, the importance of merely grouping juvenile offenders with similar problems together has been demonstrated, as has the validity of somewhat complex
Direct all correspondence to: Alexander M. Holsinger, University of Missouri, Kansas City, Department Sociology/Criminal Justice and Crimingology, 208 Haag Hall, Kansas City, MO 64110. Email: holsingera@umkc.edu. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Vol. 30 No. 2, 2006 2006 Southern Criminal Justice Association

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 2

13-MAR-06

15:50

268

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

and comprehensive actuarial assessments (Dembo & Schmeidler, 2003; Hoge, 2002). Specifically dynamic offender assessment and classification has emerged as one of the most important initial functions of any correctional agency. Various forms of actuarial offender classification have been employed over the last several decades, with differing levels of effectiveness. The development of offender classification has been characterized as falling into three generations with unstructured clinical interviews comprising the first of these generations (Bonta, Law, & Hanson, 1998), whereby the correctional practitioner relies heavily on qualitative impressions and correctional experience to make decisions about a supervision and treatment strategy . The second generation is typically characterized by the development and use of actuarial tools, inventories, or checklists to help inform correctional decision making. While the use of assessment tools developed from quantitative research represents a marked improvement in the predictive validity of various classifications systems, second-generation tools rely heavily on static, or unchangeable variables typically gleaned from the offenders criminal history (Bonta et al., 1998; Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz & Nelson, 1995; Hanson & Bussiere, 1998). The third generation of offender assessment methods employs actuarial tools as well, but these tools may include dynamic as well as static predictors, in an effort to better meet several goals of classification. These goals include improved predictive validity, and the ability to implement case planning that utilizes rehabilitative programming. When done well, dynamic offender assessment not only builds the initial practitioners knowledge base about the offender, but may ultimately inform other agencies (such as treatment programs) that work with the offender after the intake process. There is a growing body of literature demonstrating the utility of comprehensive actuarial assessment for juvenile offenders. In one comparative analysis three well-known actuarial assessments (generally covering different criminogenic needs with some overlap) were shown to possess good predictive validity, and to facilitate decision-making as well as treatment recommendations (Hoge, 2002). Other studies have demonstrated the benefits of intensively examining one particular domain and its predictive validity (e.g., personality characteristics using the MMPI, or assessing likelihood of violence using neuropsychological measures) (Caggiano, 2000; Calhoun, Glaser, & Petrocelli, 2002). Overall, what may be of most use to correctional agencies serving youthful offenders with multiple risk and need factors is an actuarial assessment that incorporates both static and dynamic factors. While meta-analyses have revealed the validity of both types of predictors in a

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 3

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

269

global sense (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996), there have also been several validation studies of specific instruments that cover both static and dynamic predictors (Ayers et al., 1999; Barnoski, 1998; Flores, Travis & Latessa, 2003; Hoge, 2002; Jones & Harris, 1999).

DEVELOPING AND USING ACTUARIAL ASSESSMENTS

Most actuarial assessment processes result in the assignment of a number, or score, that then gets translated into a level (e.g., a risk/ need level). The offenders assigned level then in turn may impact the level of supervision they receive as well as motivate the use of other restrictive options such as house arrest, or curfews. The number or score is gleaned from the investigation and weighting of various criminogenic items. The literature base investigating the most salient criminogenic risk/need factors has greatly informed the development of several offender assessment tools. Most notably, meta-analysis has been used to synthesize large volumes of correctional literature, and to a substantial degree has identified several criminogenic domains that tend to be included in many current risk/need assessment tools (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996; Simourd, 1997; Simourd & Andrews, 1994). These criminogenic domains typically include (but are not necessarily limited to) criminal history, educational and/or employment experiences, the significant relationships in the offenders life, substance use/abuse, mental health issues, and antisocial cognitions. Some combination of these criminogenic domains is typically measured in some form, on most third-generation assessment instruments. The use of dynamic actuarial assessments does contain some pitfalls. For example, the process typically involves and relies heavily on a structured interview between the offender and a trained correctional professional, necessitating the consideration of the reliability of measurement (Lowenkamp, Holsinger, Brusman-Lovins, & Latessa, 2004). In addition, agencies wishing to utilize any new assessment process may have to confront issues surrounding the applicability of the tool to offenders from differing ethnicities or genders (Holsinger, Lowenkamp, & Latessa, 2003; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2001). Conducting research on any new assessment process is necessary to investigate the predictive validity of any actuarial assessment tool particularly when a process is utilized on new offender populations (Andrews & Bonta, 1998).

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 4

13-MAR-06

15:50

270

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

IMPLEMENTING THE RISK PRINCIPLE

Ultimately, effective offender assessment and classification makes the incorporation of the risk principle possible (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990). In very broad terms, the risk principle states that offenders who need the most services (or supervision, as the case may be) should receive the most attention and services. Almost without question, those offenders who need the most will be those that posses the greatest number or amount of criminogenic risk/need factors. At the same time, offenders who indeed may have committed some criminal act that brought them to the attention of the criminal justice system, but who by-and-large do not possess many criminogenic risk/need factors should not receive much correctional intervention. In fact, research has demonstrated that when low-risk offenders are placed in an environment that was designed for high-risk offenders, their risk levels actually increase (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005). This may represent what Clear refers to as penal harm, or incorporating correctional strategies that are too harsh given the extenuating circumstances. This in effect may actually make low-risk offenders worse off (Clear, 1994). The risk principle of classification applies to both community correctional agencies as well as institutional facilities. Correctional agencies of any type are virtually unable to incorporate the risk principle of correctional intervention without the utilization of a validated assessment process that identifies relevant criminogenic risk factors. This is not to say that risk/need assessment is the only form of assessment necessary for successful interventionfar from it, in factbut effective risk/need assessment is an extremely important and substantial step toward building a successful intervention protocol.

THE YOUTH LEVEL OF SERVICE/CASE MANAGEMENT INVENTORY

The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/ CMI) is one example of a third-generation offender assessment tool that is gaining widespread use in the United States (Hoge & Andrews, 1996). As the title suggests, the YLS/CMI was designed for use with the juvenile offender population (those typically between the ages of 12 and 16). The instrument measures 42 items that cover eight criminogenic domains including criminal history, education, family circumstances/parenting, peer relationships, substance use, leisure/recreation, personality characteristics, and attitudes/orientations (the 42 items are not spread evenly across all eight domains, however). Criminal history includes historical/static items pertaining to the youths prior adjudica-

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 5

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

271

tions; education examines the youths current experiences in school (disciplinary infractions, achievement level); family circumstances/ parenting assesses the parenting received by the youth (e.g., consistency, appropriateness of discipline); peer relationships measures the youths social network and whether or not they are involved in antisocial behavior; substance abuse assesses the youths current substance use (if any); leisure and recreation measures how involved the youth is in pro-social activity; personality characteristics measures constructs such as impulsivity and the expression of anger; finally, attitudes and orientations assesses some measures of antisocial cognitions. The YLS/CMI is currently used in a variety of different correctional settings including various community correctional options as well as residential and treatment facilities. The assessment process is also utilized at various points throughout the correctional system (e.g. at intake and/or discharge, as well as at various points throughout a youths supervision). Due to the dynamic nature of several of the items on the YLS/CMI, the instrument has the potential for measuring offender change over time, within the domains that are assessed. This in turn may assist agencies with the option of recommending early discharge from programming and/or supervision provided the youth has demonstrated pro-social change. Utilizing the YLS/CMI requires a structured interview between a trained correctional practitioner and the offender that typically lasts between 35 and 45 minutes. It is also generally recommended that the professional conducting the assessment contact the parent(s) or guardian(s) of the youth in order to gather additional information and/or verify what was learned from the initial interview. Collateral information such as previous case files, or interviews with other professionals who have had recent contact with the youth are also beneficial. After gathering adequate information the professional then scores each item, and renders a total composite score (potentially ranging between 0 and 42) that will place the youth into a specific category of criminogenic risk/ need. Higher scores on the assessment in theory indicate a higher risk for recidivism and a greater presence of criminogenic factors in need of intervention. To date, the research specifically investigating the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI is limited (particularly regarding explicit tests of predictive validity). As a whole, many of the studies testing the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI find that the composite score does possess moderate predictive validity with correlations of .15 to .35, depending on sub-population and correctional setting (Catchpole & Gretton, 2003; Flores, Travis, & Latessa, 2003; Jung & Rawana, 1999; Marczyk, Heilbrun, Lander, & DeMatteo, 2005; Schmidt, Hoge, & Gomes, 2005;

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 6

13-MAR-06

15:50

272

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

Shields & Simourd, 1991). In addition, other research has examined the concurrent validity that the YLS/CMI may have with other assessments. For example, the YLS/CMI was found to have concurrent validity with the J-SOAP (a sex-offender risk assessment) and correlated highly with the summary score gleaned from that instrument (Righthand et al., 2005). In addition, the YLS/CMI has been found to perform as well or better than other commonly used risk/need assessments such as the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version, and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (Catchpole & Gretton, 2003). More research is needed where the predictive validity of the YLS/CMI is tested, using new offender populations, and, utilizing additional measures of outcome. The current study utilizes institutional misconduct as the primary measure of outcome, a measure of recidivism that is currently lacking in the literature that examines the YLS/CMI.

CURRENT STUDY
The purpose of the current study is to investigate the YLS/CMI using a sample of incarcerated young offenders, and as such utilizes the composite score to predict institutional misconduct. Utilizing the YLS/ CMI in this manner may illuminate the potential use for this type of classification system in a residential setting, and may hold implications for the administration of such facilities and the services contained therein. It is common for residential agencies serving youth to utilize a classification methodology of some sort, in order to facilitate placement within the facility and assess overall risk for misconduct. Interviewbased actuarial assessment (that typically utilize dynamic factors) have been shown to offer the best predictive validity (Gendreau, Goggin, & Law, 1997; Hoge, 2002). In addition, dynamic factors in and of themselves have been demonstrated to possess better predictive validity than static, unchanging variables (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Barnoski, 1998; Motiuk, 1995). While instruments utilizing static predictors do possess good predictive validity in a variety of correctional environments (Jones, Harris, Fader, Burrell, & Fadeyi, 1999), they are limited in scope and utility. A residential facility utilizing a comprehensive dynamic risk/need assessment protocol at the beginning of a youthful offenders stay will be in a much better position to make a variety of decisions (security classification; roommate assignment; programming recommendations), and perhaps more importantly, measure progress of the youth over time through re-assessment, using the same tool. The current study is restricted in scope to the prediction of institutional misconduct as an outcome; however, if an agency via better placement and case management decisions is able to anticipate and circumvent miscon-

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 7

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

273

duct, this has potential implications for virtually all other parts of a youths journey through the justice system.

METHODS Participants
The participants in this study are youthful offenders sentenced to a correctional facility for youth, in an unnamed state (the agency that provided the data for this research requested that the state not be named explicitly in this manuscript). The facility is secure, and offers some treatment services (but not a comprehensive battery of services, nor are the services implemented explicitly according to need). While correctional officers may have had access to the assessment data, at the time there was no classification strategy in place that would have readily identified any particular youth as high or moderate risk to the correctional staff working with them. Similarly, the youth themselves were not privy to their assessment data, nor were they aware of their score and/or their overall risk/need assessment. As such, it is unlikely that at any point the youth would be responding to a label of being high risk for example. The youth in this study were randomly selected by correctional staff for inclusion in the study. It should be noted, however, that this random selection was not scientific and no representations are made about the generalizability of this sample to the rest of the incarcerated youthful population. A total of 80 youth were assessed from August 2001 through March 2002. The age range of the participants is from 14.6 to 18.9 years with an average age of 17.0 years.

Procedures
The youth in this study were assessed with the YLS/CMI by agency staff that had previously been trained in the administration of the YLS/ CMI. Staff underwent three days of initial training and a follow-up training that included a review of a video taped assessment submitted by each staff member. The YLS/CMI was scored based on interviews with the youth and a review of collateral information regarding criminal history, family, and education. Misconducts committed by youth while incarcerated were gathered from the records of the correctional institution.

Measures
The measures for the independent variables in this study included the age of the youth, the subcomponents of the YLS/CMI, the total YLS/CMI score, and days spent in the institution. Age was utilized as a

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 8

13-MAR-06

15:50

274

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

control variable due to the potential impact it has on rates and prevalence of antisocial behavior. While the intention of the current research does not include the specific effects of the individual subcomponent scores, correlations between subcomponent scores and measures of outcome are presented in order to display the disaggregated parts of the instrument. Future research may warrant an investigation of the predictive validity of the individual subcomponents, although the developers of the instrument maintain that the predictive validity of the total composite score is the most appropriate test. In addition, the YLS/CMI score is dichotomized for some of the analyses in order to compare the two risk groups that are represented in the sample (moderate and high) across the outcome measures. When used as a continuous measure, the YLS/CMI score possesses a slightly irregular distribution, due to a limited number of cases, coupled with the potential variation in the scores themselves. Days spent in the institution is included as a predictor variable due to the effect that time under correctional control can have on the accrual of misconducts. Globally the dependent variable included several measures of institutional misconduct. A youth was considered to have received a misconduct if the staff filed a misconduct report with the facility detailing an incident. In other words, it is unknown whether or not the misconduct resulted in any disciplinary action, nor is it known what the ultimate outcome of the misconduct hearing was. Misconducts are classified according to severity (low, moderate, high, and greatest). As such, conceptualizations of the dependent variable include percentage of the sample that received any type of misconduct (any of the four levels), as well as percent that received low, percent that received moderate, percent that received high, and the percent that received greatest. In addition, the total number of misconducts received was calculated, which allowed for difference of means testing between the two risk classification levels present in the sample. Finally, each measure of institutional misconduct was dichotomized (e.g., if the offender received any misconducts yes/no; if the offender received any low-level misconducts yes/no, and so on) in order to allow logistic regression analyses predicting a dichotomous dependent variable.

RESULTS
Table 1 presents descriptive information (mean, standard deviation, and range) for each of the eight YLS/CMI subcomponents as well as the total YLS/CMI composite score. Also presented are descriptive statistics for each of the four measures of institutional misconduct, the total number of misconducts committed by the sample, and the amount

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 9

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

275

of time the youth spent in an institution. While the eight domains have been disaggregated for the purpose of this table (and subsequent analyses), it should be noted that none of the individual subcomponents were designed to serve as a comprehensive assessment on their own.

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics of Continuous Measures

Measure Mean Min Max SD Prior and current offenses and dispositions 3.04 0.00 5.00 1.12 Family circumstances/parenting 2.76 0.00 6.00 1.62 Education/employment 3.34 0.00 6.00 1.97 Peer relations 3.11 0.00 4.00 0.98 Substance abuse 2.88 0.00 5.00 1.21 Leisure/recreation 1.93 0.00 3.00 0.90 Personality/behavior 3.20 0.00 7.00 1.77 Attitudes/orientation 1.59 0.00 5.00 1.59 Total YLSI 21.84 3.00 34.00 7.02 Greatest Misconducts 1.10 0.00 8.00 1.69 High Misconducts 2.28 0.00 15.00 2.86 Moderate Misconducts 3.99 0.00 21.00 4.94 Low Misconducts 1.65 0.00 16.00 2.58 Total misconducts 9.01 0.00 56.00 10.76 Time in institution 209.36 2.00 816.00 143.36 The mean YLS/CMI score for the sample was 21.84, a score which falls in the moderate risk category according to the classification guidelines issued by the assessments publishers (Multi-Health Systems). The YLS/CMI composite scores for the sample range from a low of 3 to a high of 34 (although the range of possible scores is from 0 to 42). Summary statistics for each of the four types of institutional misconduct are presented in Table 1 as well. On average the sample generated 1.10 misconduct classified as Type A (hereafter greatest misconduct), 2.28 misconduct classified as Type B (hereafter high misconduct), 3.99 misconduct classified as Type C (hereafter moderate misconduct), and 1.65 misconduct classified as Type D (hereafter low misconduct. Greatest misconducts include behaviors such as sexual assault, killing, use of force or threats against a correctional worker, escape from a locked institution, possession of weapons or firearms, and rioting. High misconducts include fighting, extortion, assault without a weapon, escape from an open institution, tampering with a lock, giving or offering

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 10

13-MAR-06

15:50

276

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

a bribe, use of drugs or paraphernalia, and threatening another person other than a correctional officer with bodily harm. Moderate misconducts include sexual acts, indecent exposure, wearing a disguise, theft, misuse of medication, and refusing to obey an order. Low misconducts include possessing property belonging to someone else, using abusive or obscene language to staff, smoking, tattooing, unauthorized use of mail or telephone, or feigning an illness. On average the sample generated a mean of 9.01 institutional misconduct. The mean amount of time spent in the institutional setting was just over 209 days, with a range of 2 to 816 days. All but one of the offenders in the sample fell into one of two risk classifications (moderate, or high). Table 2 presents the results when examining the differences between these two offender groupings, regarding rates of misconduct (the one offender that fell into the low risk classification level was eliminated for these analyses). The recommended cut-off scores from Multihealth systems (the proprietors of the YLS/CMI) are (a) low risk: 0 to 8, (b) moderate risk: 9 to 22, (c) high risk: 23 to 34, and (d) very high risk: 35 to 42. Of those offenders who were classified as being of moderate risk, 62% had at least one misconduct of some kind, while 95% of the high risk offenders received at least one misconduct, representing a substantial and statistically significant difference (p<.01). The high risk offenders received greatest misconduct at twice the rate of moderate risk offenders (67% and 31% respectively), which was also a statistically significant difference. While there was a substantial difference between high and moderate risk offenders regarding rates of high misconduct (87% and 52% respectively), the two groups were not significantly different from one another. For moderate misconduct, analyses revealed a significant difference between moderate risk offenders (50% receiving a misconduct) and high risk offenders (87% receiving a misconduct of this type). Similar results were also found when comparing moderate to high risk offenders regarding low misconduct, with 41% of moderate offenders receiving at least one misconduct for this behavior, and 81% of the high risk offenders. Overall, the moderate risk offenders received a mean of 6.11 misconduct, while the high risk offenders received a mean of 12.54 misconduct, which also generated a statistically significant difference between the groups. With only one exception, the moderate and high risk offenders differed significantly from one another across each measure outcome. Table 3 presents the zero-order correlations between each measure of institutional misconduct, and each subcomponent of the YLS/CMI, the composite YLS/CMI score, and days incarcerated. Each correlation coefficient measuring the relationship between the composite YLS/CMI

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 11

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

277

TABLE 2 Misconduct Rates and Average Number of Misconducts by Risk Level

Measure Percent with Any Misconduct*** Percent with Greatest Misconducts*** Percent with High Misconducts Percent with Moderate Misconducts*** Percent with Low Misconducts*** Average Number of Total Misconducts**
** p=.01, *** p=.001

Moderate Risk 62% 31% 52% 50% 41% 6.11

High Risk 95% 67% 87% 87% 81% 12.54

c2 11.948 10.564 2.640 11.860 13.458

score and institutional misconduct was statistically significant (p < .05). In addition, each of the correlation coefficients between YLS/CMI total score and each measure of misconduct was positive (in the anticipated direction), and of low/moderate to moderate strength, ranging from a low of .267 (total YLS/CMI x high misconduct), to a high of .434 (total YLS/CMI x low misconduct). The total YLS/CMI score was correlated with total misconduct at r=.397. Table 3 also reveals the fact that the number of days incarcerated was significantly related to receiving a misconduct for each measure of institutional misconduct, except for greatest misconduct. These findings indicated the need to statistically control for the amount of time a youth spent in the institution, while determining the predictive ability of the YLS/CMI composite score. Table 4 presents several logistic regression models, each utilizing three variables (days spent in the institution, age of the offender at intake, and total YLS/CMI score) to predict outcome (the four types of institutional misconduct were dichotomized so 0=did not receive a misconduct, and 1=received a misconduct), as well as receiving any institutional misconduct (where 0=no, 1=yes). For each model, days spent in the institution as well as total YLS/CMI score were revealed as significant predictors. For each model, the coefficient representing YLS/CMI score was in the anticipated direction (positive) indicating that as the YLS/CMI score increased, so did the likelihood of receiving a misconduct. These results were gleaned while statistically controlling for time spent in the institution which was also revealed as a significant predictor in each model.

278

TABLE 3 Correlations between YLS/CMI and Misconducts

Greatest Misconduct r (Sig.) High Misconduct r (Sig.) Moderate Misconduct r (Sig.) Low Misconduct r (Sig.) Total Misconducts r (Sig.)

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

Score

unknown

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

Seq: 12

Criminal History Family Education Peers Substance Abuse Leisure and Recreation Personality Attitudes and Orientation Total Days Incarcerated

.320 .064 .275 .138 .118 .155 .466 .332 .396 .217

(.004) (.572) (.014) (.221) (.296) (.168) (.000) (.003) (.000) (.054)

.103 .059 .192 .043 .105 .176 .432 .242 .267 .326

(.361) (.602) (.089) (.705) (.352) (.119) (.000) (.030) (.016) (.003)

.174 .075 .305 .005 .081 .214 .503 .212 .347 .369

(.122) (.507) (.006) (.965) (.478) (.057) (.000) (.059) (.002) (.001)

.250 .170 .287 .226 .132 .191 .494 .313 .434 .357

(.025) (.131) (.010) (.044) (.242) (.090) (.000) (.005) (.000) (.001)

.218 .070 .303 .085 .115 .215 .538 .289 .397 .376

(.052) (.539) (.006) (.453) (.308) (.055) (.000) (.009) (.000) (.001)

13-MAR-06 15:50

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 13

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

279

TABLE 4 Logistic Regression Analyses Predicting Institutional Misconducts

Variable Any Greatest High Moderate Low Days In Institution 0.011** 0.006** 0.005* 0.009** 0.010*** Age 0.185 0.209 0.100 0.293 0.279 Total YLS/CMI 0.193** 0.139** 0.086* 0.135** 0.187** Constant 7.572 8.030 0.659 8.623 10.305 c2 32.635 24.778 13.682 26.805 38.577 Nagelkerke R2 .503 .355 .213 .395 .515
*p=05, **p=.01, ***p=.001

DISCUSSION
The analyses presented above reveal support for the YLS/CMI composite score as a predictor of institutional misconduct. These results are similar from previous validity studies using the YLS/CMI, but differ regarding the use of institutional misconduct as the primary measures of outcome. The offenders included in the sample were classified into one of two categories for most of the analyses (moderate or high risk) based on the composite YLS/CMI score they were assigned. For each measure of outcome, the high risk offenders committed a misconduct at substantially higher rates than the offenders who were classified as moderate risk. Similarly, zero-order correlation analyses revealed several significant relationships of moderate strength between the YLS/ CMI and outcome. Not surprisingly, correlation analyses also revealed days spent in the institution as being significantly related to institutional misconduct as well. As a result, both these variables (in addition to age of the offender at the time of intake) were entered into a series of logistic regression models. The multivariate analyses ultimately reinforced what was revealed previously in the bivariate analyses by displaying the composite YLS/CMI score as a significant predictor of outcome, along with time spent in the institution. Residential facilities designed to house and serve youthful offenders stand to benefit from the implementation of a valid risk/need classification system. Several decision points can be informed using a sound assessment model. While the facilities from which these data were gathered do not pick and choose which offenders they receive, it would be feasible to use the YLS/CMI composite score (as well as other as-

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 14

13-MAR-06

15:50

280

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

sessment protocol) to decide who is most appropriate for the residential correctional environment. As such, an initial recommendation for the facilities from which these data were gathered would be to determine first and foremost who is (and who is not) most appropriate for the environment and services the institution offers (although the ability to implement this recommendation is admittedly limited). For those offenders who are admitted into the facilities, it is recommended that the composite score be used to make security-level designations (e.g., a high-risk pod or dorm, versus a moderate-risk pod, and so on). Overall, regarding intake classification, implementation of the YLS/ CMI and the appropriate use of the information gleaned from it could assist with the identification of youth who are most likely to target other youth within a facility, as well as staff. Basing tracking and housing decisions on valid criteria would assist this (or any) facility by determining appropriate staffing and programming levels and thereby avert potential victimization and other behavioral problems within the institution. Regarding treatment, due to the domains that are assessed via the YLS/CMI, a treatment-oriented case plan could be initiated that would place the offender into needed treatment services. As such, yet another recommendation for the agencies involved in the current study would be to insure that a comprehensive case plan is built directly from the YLS/CMI one that targets the criminogenic domains that are prevalent in the offenders life. Similarly, the overall progress that an offender may make while participating in residential treatment services could be gauged via reassessment using the same dynamic measures. As such, it is recommended that of the YLS/CMI be conducted at intake, and that re-assessment using the YLS/CMI become a priority upon successful participation in treatment services. More often than not, youthful offenders are assigned to various correctional environments by the juvenile court system, with the ultimate decision typically wresting with a juvenile judge or magistrate. Ideally, the decision to place a youth in an institutional setting would be informed at least in part by validated risk/need protocol in order to insure that those youth who pose the greatest risk for reoffending receive the level of correctional intervention that they need. Doing this would initiate the risk principle and serve to reduce the over-incarceration of low and moderate-risk offenders avoiding the damage exacerbated by punishment that is too great (Clear, 1994). Despite the fact that residential facilities do not pick and choose offenders, a valid assessment protocol would still be beneficial in order to place offenders on various tracks and avoid mixing populations of offenders of different risk levels.

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 15

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

281

Irregardless of the placement or tracking issues referred to above, treatment recommendations can also be informed greatly via an assessment protocol. Insuring offenders who need specific services do indeed receive them (and in turn insuring that offenders who do not need certain services do not receive them) further reinforces the risk principle by avoiding the over-programming of certain (lower risk) offenders. This in turn may streamline services potentially making rehabilitative efforts more efficient and effective. While the issue of measuring offender progress and change is beyond the scope of the current article, these are important issues that relate directly to the efficacy of rehabilitative programming and can be informed via the assessment of objective dynamic criteria. There are several methodological and statistical limitations to the current study. The limited size of the current sample provides some limitations to the power of the analyses presented above. Although the analyses conducted were not inappropriate in light of the low sample size, more definitive conclusions may have been reached if a higher number of cases had been available. As noted above, the selection of youth for inclusion in the current study was ultimately conducted by the agency from which the data were gleaned. Efforts were undertaken to implement a completely randomized selection protocol, however, due to due process constraints and limited logistic flexibility, truly random selection could not be achieved. As such, the generalizability of the sample to even the state from which the data came may be limited, not to mention generalizability to the population of youthful offenders as a whole. Another limitation involves the length of stay of the offenders in the facilities. As a variable, length of stay was a significant predictor of institutional misconduct across all models. Unfortunately the data were not available in order to further investigate the extent to which length of stay was a driving force in the youths commission of institutional misconducts. Similarly, it remains possible that the results were even further driven by a tandem effect of length of stay combined with risk level. For example, it is feasible that a higher risk youth spent more time in the institution, thereby making it possible for them to accumulate more institutional misconducts. Even if complete randomization were achieved, the results would not necessarily be generalizable to the population of youthful offenders. These data came from a far western state of the United States that is arguably very different demographically from the rest of the United States. As such, even a totally randomized sample would have limited generalizability to the United States as a whole.

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 16

13-MAR-06

15:50

282

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

While the YLS/CMI covers eight conceptually important criminogenic domains, the analyses presented above were limited to these eight domains, in addition to days spent in the institution, and age of the offender at intake. Arguably, other factors that were left unmeasured could be conceptually and statistically related to institutional misconduct. For example, any number of responsivity factors such as motivation or intelligence could be related to the various types of institutional misconduct that were used as outcome variables in these analyses. While the YLS/CMI does measure some factors that may be indicative of antisocial personality in the domain labeled personality, a more in-depth analysis of the offenders personality could have potentially informed the results. Some clues to this possibility may be revealed in Table 3 where the personality sub-component of the YLS/ CMI showed the strongest zero-order correlations with the various measures of outcome. This is indeed merely a clue as the individual sub-domains should not be treated as full assessments in and of themselves. In sum, even if additional measures and variables that could impact institutional misconduct had been available, the limited number of cases would still have inhibited the incorporation of further statistical control. Future research utilizing the YLS/CMI and/or other assessment protocol will ideally include additional cases (larger sample sizes) and will statistically control for potentially extraneous influences on institutional misconduct. Finally, the results presented above are limited regarding the outcome measures that were predicted. While the current research may contribute to an under-researched area (utilizing a dynamic risk/need protocol to predict institutional misconduct) future research will ideally incorporate other outcome measures that may be considered more important to long-term correctional goals. Because institutional misconduct is by definition specific to the institutional environment, conclusions about behavior in the community cannot be made. Recidivism while in the community is perhaps of most interest to policy makers and the public, as opposed to what occurs behind closed doors within an institutional setting.

REFERENCES
Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 17(1), 19-52.

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 17

13-MAR-06

15:50

HOLSINGER, LOWENKAMP, AND LATESSA

283

Ayers, C.D., Williams, J.H., Hawkins, J.D., Peterson, P.L., Catalano, R.F., & Abbott, R.D. (1999). Assessing correlates of onset, escalation, de-escalation, and desistance of delinquent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(3), 277-306. Barnoski, R. (1998). Juvenile rehabilitation administration assessments: Validity review and recommendations. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Olympia, WA: U.S. Government Printing Office. Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, R.K. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychology Bulletin, 39, 127-144. Caggiano, A. D. (2000). Identifying violent-toward staff juvenile delinquents via the millon adolescent clinical inventory and neuropsychological measures. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32(1/2), 147-165. Calhoun, G.B., Glaser, B.A., & Petrocelli, J.V. (2002). Personality characteristics of male juvenile offenders by adjudicated offenses as indicated by the MMPI-A. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(2), 183-201. Catchpole, R.E., & Gretton, H.M. (2003). Predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: A 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(6), 688-708. Clear, T. (1994). Harm in American penology: Offenders, victims, and their communities. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Cottle, C.C., Lee, R.J., & Heilbrun, K. (2001). Prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(3), 367-394. Dembo, R., & Schmeidler, J. (2003). Classification of high-risk youths. Crime and Delinquency, 49(2), 201-230. Flores, A.W., Travis, L.F., & Latessa, E.L. (2003). Case classification for juvenile corrections: An assessment of the youth level of service/case management inventory (YLS/ CMI). National Institute of Justice. Rockville, MD: U.S. Government Printing Office. Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Law, M. (1997). Predicting prison misconducts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 414-431. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34, 575-607. Grove, W.M., Zald, D.H., Lebow, B.S., Snitz, B.E., & Nelson, C. (1995). Clinical vs. mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Hanson, R.K., & Bussiere, M.T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 348362. Hoge, R. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 380-396. Hoge, R., & Andrews, D.A. (1996). The youth level of service/case management Inventory: description and evaluation. Manuscript presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada. Holsinger, A.M., Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2003). Ethnicity, gender, and the level of service inventoryRevised. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(4), 309-320. Jones, P. R., & Harris, P. W. (1999). Developing an empirically based typology of delinquent youths. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(3), 251-276. Jones, P.R, Harris, P.W., Fader, J., Burrell, J., & Fadeyi, A. (1999). Identifying chronic juvenile offenders. Corrections Compendium, 24(8), 1-23.

\\server05\productn\J\JCJ\30-2\JCJ207.txt

unknown

Seq: 18

13-MAR-06

15:50

284

PREDICTING INSTITUTIONAL MISCONDUCT

Jung, S., & Rawana, E.P. (1999). Risk and need assessment of juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 26(1), 69-89. Lowenakmp, C.T., Holsinger, A.M., Brusman-Lovins, L., & Latessa, E.J. (2004). Assessing the inter-rater agreement of the level of service inventoryRevised. Federal Probation, 68(3), 34-38. Lowenkamp, C.T., & Latessa, E.J. (2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 263-290. Lowenkamp, C.T., Holsinger, A.M. & Latessa, E.J. (2001). Risk/need assessment, offender classification, and the role of childhood abuse. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 28(5), 543-563. Marczyk, G.R., Heilbrun, K., Lander, T., & DeMatteo, D. (2005). Juvenile decertification: Developing a model for classification and prediction. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 32(3), 278-301. Motiuk, L. L. (1995). Using familial factors to assess offender risk and need. Forum on Corrections Research, 7(2), 19-22. National Institute of Corrections (2000). Promoting public safety using effective interventions with offenders. Washington, DC. Righthand, S., Prentky, R., Knight, R., Carpenter, E., Kecker, J.E., & Nangle, D. (2005). Factor structure and validation of the juvenile sex offender assessment protocol (JSOAP). Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 17(1), 13-30. Schmidt, F., Hoge, R., & Gomes, L. (2005). Reliability and validity analyses of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 32(3), 329-344. Shields, I.W, & Simourd, D.J. (1991). Predicting predatory behavior in a population of incarcerated young offenders. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 18(2), 180-194. Simourd, D.J. (1997). The criminal sentiments scale-modified and pride in delinquency scale. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 52-70. Simourd, D.J., & Andrews, D.A. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at genderdifferences. Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 26-31.