Data Availability, Prevalence, and Site variation in the JJS Youth Records
| % Available | % Prevalence | % Site Min Prev. | % Site Max Prev. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Record Information | ||||
| Episode Close Flag | 77% | 70% | 7% | 100% |
| Episode Close Date | 53% | 70% | 7% | 100% |
| Adjudication Flag | 97% | 35% | 4% | 100% |
| Adjudication Date | 58% | 62% | 0% | 100% |
| Record Update Date | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Biological Testing | ||||
| Biological Testing Flag | 83% | 45% | 0% | 86% |
| Alcohol Results | 77% | 0.2% | 0% | 5% |
| Amphetamine Results | 83% | 3% | 0% | 15% |
| Cannabis Results | 83% | 19% | 0% | 49% |
| Cocaine Results | 83% | 1% | 0% | 4% |
| Opioid Results | 83% | 1% | 0% | 3% |
| Other Drug Results | 83% | 3% | 0% | 13% |
| Substance Use Screening | ||||
| Substance Use Screen Flag | 85% | 81% | 24% | 100% |
| SU Screen First Date | 84% | 81% | 22% | 100% |
| SU Screen Last Date | 84% | 80% | 22% | 100% |
| SU Screen Type | 86% | — | — | — |
| Local measure | — | 2% | 0% | 76% |
| CRAFFT | — | 2% | 0% | 35% |
| GAIN-SS | — | 1% | 0% | 51% |
| MAYSI-2 | — | 19% | 0% | 97% |
| SASSI | — | 3% | 0% | 38% |
| YASI (from notes) | — | 12% | 0% | 100% |
| PACT (from notes) | — | 9% | 0% | 100% |
| Other instruments | — | 31% | 0% | 98% |
| SU Screen Positive | 83% | 28% | 2% | 87% |
| Clinical Assessment | ||||
| Clinical Assessment Flag | 53% | 45% | 0% | 100% |
| CA First Date | 38% | 23% | 0% | 100% |
| CA Last Date | 32% | 9% | 0% | 100% |
| CA Type | 44% | — | — | — |
| Local measure | — | 0.3% | 0% | 100% |
| ADI | — | 0.01% | 0% | 0.1% |
| Child and Adol. Funct. Assess. Scale | — | 0.1% | 0% | 95% |
| CRAFFT | — | 0.1% | 0% | 0.7% |
| DISC - Other scales | — | 0.02% | 0% | 0.2% |
| GAIN-Q3 | — | 0.3% | 0% | 27% |
| MAYSI-2 | — | 2% | 0% | 7% |
| SCID | — | 12% | 0% | 70% |
| SASSI | — | 1% | 0% | 13% |
| Other instruments or combinations | — | 32% | 0% | 71% |
| CA Independent Flag | 47% | 20% | 0% | 100% |
| CA SU Positive | 49% | 5% | 0% | 99% |
| Other Source of Information on Needs | ||||
| Other SU Positive | 66% | — | — | — |
| No details given | — | 64% | 0% | 100% |
| Judicial Mandate | — | 0.2% | 0% | 6% |
| Other staff recommendations | — | 12% | 0% | 55% |
| Undocumented need | — | 0.2% | 0% | 3% |
| Other (describe in notes) | — | 3% | 0% | 100% |
| Need from All Sources | ||||
| Need Tx or CA Flag | 88% | 54% | 13% | 99% |
| Need Tx Flag | 58% | 11% | 0% | 40% |
| Referral to Substance Use Treatment | ||||
| Referral To Tx or CA Flag | 62% | 24% | 3% | 100% |
| Referral to Tx Flag | 54% | 6% | 0% | 100% |
| Referral to Treatment Date | 59% | 20% | 0% | 100% |
| Substance Use Treatment | ||||
| Treatment Flag | 53% | 16% | 0% | 100% |
| Treatment Intake Date | 53% | 15% | 0% | 100% |
| Treatment Discharge Date | 51% | 11% | 0% | 100% |
| Tx Level of Care | 51% | — | — | — |
| Outpatient | — | 10% | 0% | 58% |
| Intensive outpatient/day program | — | 0.1% | 0% | 0.6% |
| Group home | — | 0.0% | 0% | 0.2% |
| Residential/inpatient | — | 0.8% | 0% | 15% |
| Other | — | 0.1% | 0% | 2% |
| Treatment Type | 50% | — | — | — |
| Local treatment program(s) | — | 0.1% | 0% | 3% |
| MET/CBT | — | 1.3% | 0% | 10% |
| MI | — | 0.01% | 0% | 0.1% |
| Other SU Tx | — | 9.0% | 0% | 51% |
| Demographics | ||||
| Age | 100% | — | — | — |
| 0–10 | — | 1% | 0% | 4% |
| 11–14 | — | 36% | 18% | 58% |
| 15–17 | — | 63% | 40% | 81% |
| 18+ | — | 1% | 0% | 8% |
| Date of Birth | 90% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Gender | 100% | — | — | — |
| Female | — | 27% | 8% | 39% |
| Male | — | 73% | 61% | 92% |
| Hispanic | 85% | 21% | 0% | 100% |
| Race | 98% | — | — | — |
| Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | — | 1% | 0% | 6% |
| Black/African-American | — | 47% | 5% | 96% |
| White/Caucasian | — | 49% | 4% | 91% |
| Native American/Alaskan Native | — | 0.2% | 0% | 2% |
| Other Race | — | 2% | 0% | 15% |
| Mixed or Multiple Races | — | 1% | 0% | 13% |
| Clinical Problems | ||||
| Any SU Problem | 56% | 56% | 14% | 100% |
| Alcohol Problem | 56% | 9% | 0% | 45% |
| Cannabis Problem | 47% | 28% | 0% | 59% |
| Rx Drug Misuse Problem | 47% | 1% | 0% | 7% |
| Other Drug Problems | 47% | 7% | 0% | 25% |
| Tobacco Problems | 35% | 1% | 0% | 5% |
| Risky Sexual Activity | 0.2% | 2% | 0% | 100% |
| Risky Needle Activity | 0.2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Victimization | 40% | 13% | 0% | 100% |
| Violence | 32% | 39% | 0% | 100% |
| Externalizing MH Problems | 47% | 19% | 1% | 86% |
| Internalizing MH Problems | 51% | 17% | 1% | 100% |
| Suicide Risk | 49% | 11% | 1% | 74% |
| Physical Health Problems | 45% | 2% | 0% | 14% |
| Serious Family Problems | 38% | 43% | 0% | 100% |
| Learning or Develop Disabilities | 35% | 9% | 0% | 48% |
| Charges | ||||
| Violent Charge | 99% | 25% | 2% | 39% |
| Property Charge | 99% | 30% | 6% | 65% |
| AOD Related Charge | 99% | 14% | 0% | 31% |
| Probation/ Parole Violation | 67% | 12% | 0% | 31% |
| Weapons Offense | 99% | 7% | 0.2% | 23% |
| Other Status Offense | 99% | 11% | 0% | 51% |
| Other Charges | 99% | 32% | 1% | 64% |
| Charge Severity | 93% | — | — | — |
| Felony | — | 33% | 12% | 86% |
| Misdemeanor | — | 56% | 14% | 87% |
| 3 Summary/citation | — | 3% | 0% | 22% |
| Status | — | 3% | 0% | 44% |
| Other | — | 5% | 0% | 60% |
| Risk of Recidivism | ||||
| Recidivism Assessment Type | 74% | — | — | — |
| Staff rating | — | 0.1% | 0% | 2% |
| Local measure | — | 8% | 0% | 100% |
| PACT | — | 26% | 0% | 100% |
| YASI | — | 15% | 0% | 100% |
| YLS/CMI | — | 13% | 0% | 100% |
| Other measure | — | 10% | 0% | 100% |
| Recidivism Risk Level | 75% | — | — | — |
| Low | — | 31% | 0% | 57% |
| Medium | — | 32% | 0% | 60% |
| High | — | 16% | 0% | 55% |
| Very high | — | 3% | 0% | 29% |
| Justice System Status | ||||
| Child In need of Supervision | 78% | 11% | 0% | 63% |
| Diversion | 85% | 5% | 0% | 37% |
| Probation | 100% | 49% | 13% | 100% |
| Parole | 88% | 0.2% | 0% | 1% |
| Juvenile Drug Court | 80% | 1% | 0% | 9% |
| Other Community Supervision | 100% | 67% | 0.1% | 95% |
| Detention | 85% | 30% | 0% | 83% |
| Other justice status | 83% | 7% | 0% | 62% |
\a “Not Applicable/Skip” coding is treated as “available,” but not broken out as a % in prevalence.